Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:34 PM
BlackHeart's Avatar
BlackHeart BlackHeart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski
And like all rights, limits and conditions can be imposed for theirs and all of societies longer term benefit.
N
We have the right of freedom of association.....unless that association is with a criminal gang.
We have freedom of religion....unless that religion violates the law....ie killing all non-believers.

The point is there are LIMITS on rights.

No where, when these rights were agreed to, was the concept of how effective or efficient future tech was going to be. Power boats, sonar, siene nets, poly ropes, trucks to hauls all this.

We (who don’t have theses historical rights) also have limits on the gear we can use....barbless hooks, no netting, no bait on some lakes, etc

So it makes no sense why the current approach is to not stick to the intent of the agreement as it was envisioned back when agreed to. Only birchbark canoes, hand made nets, and carry or drag your gear from your home and the same goes for what you catch. Sure would limit the 3/4 ton box filled with hauled away by each one.

Also, I like a $10,000 per fish fine for anyone caught buying a fish from these rights holders. If we can’t regulate the rights holders, we sure can regulate those that help propagate/ exasperate the problem.

At least kill the financial incentives.....and make some program funding.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-16-2018, 06:47 PM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default Winddrift, why do you believe there is a netting closure????

Winddrift,

You seem to believe there is a closure on netting in the critical spawning season that the Sport Anglers have to abide by.

Why do you believe that? I seem non stop netting right in front of my Cabin at Calling Lake, April 1 forward. It does go on by so called non regulated parties.

The Banking analogy is letting the "term deposit" mature. You see, if the eggs are laid and fertilized first, and then the fish is caught, there would be another batch of fingerlings to replace the fish that is later taken. NOT SO IF IT DIES BEFOREHAND.

The Poster Ghosts from Fisheries threw up a test balloon. I took the opportunity to say as a Walleye regulation, which includes Treaty fishers, that we should close the spawning period for netting.

TOTAL CRICKETS FROM THEM!!!!

Yet they know they can do a conservation closure. That is what they did at Lac La Biche already around the river!!

So now do you get it?

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-17-2018, 12:20 AM
Red Bullets's Avatar
Red Bullets Red Bullets is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: central Alberta
Posts: 12,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchthefisher View Post
3 walleye between 15-20" in the north sask.. it is ridiculous how many are in that river, literally have days where a guy goes through 6-10 tubs of minnows on dinky 15" walleye makes no sense that a guy cannot keep even one.
you just have to go fishing a little further up the river...From the regs....

Under ES2 regs you can keep 3 walleye over 50cm and 3 pike no size limit from the NSR between the bighorn dam and the Drayton Valley hwy 39 bridge. Season closes Oct. 31.

Read about the PP2 regs about the NSR tributaries too. You may realize some potential catch and keep fishing closer than you think.
__________________
___________________________________________
This country was started by voyagers whose young lives were swept away by the currents of the rivers for ten cents a day... just for the vanity of the European's beaver hats. ~ Red Bullets
___________________________________________
It is when you walk alone in nature that you discover your strengths and weaknesses. ~ Red Bullets
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:24 PM
Keelere984 Keelere984 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 5
Default

It would all depend on the lake. It would definitely help to have a 1 per day over 18-24 inch limit for a couple years at pigeon lake, because it would reduce stunting and give the remaining walleye some more food. After the 0 limit is reinstated, we could actually have better odds of catching some really heavy walleye.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-14-2018, 11:19 AM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

And still no reply from wind drift, and still NO REPLY from the Policy Makers at SRD or whatever you call yourself these days!

You will brush this off and ignore the public opinion on the future walleye conservation regulations that can be imposed on non regulated users, while failing to do something that would even benefit the first nations and metis netters.

This is what I hate about the leadership of this department. You are a bunch of sheep who refuse to do the hard thing, that even you know is needed to be done.

You know that every spawning female replaces herself at least 5 - 20 times when she spawns. Yes some years the hatch is poor, and some years its incredible. Not so when the fish is killed before spawning in some non regulated net!


No non regulated group ever challenged the conservation closure on Lac La Biche for what is expected to be the major spawning river. Why do you think they would do any different for an April 1 May 15 netting closure?

Do your consultation and publish the responses. Do Town Hall meetings on a Friday evening at 6 PM like you have done in the past in Lac La Biche! See what the non regulated consultation response is. Maybe they will even support this!


Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-14-2018, 10:39 PM
Isopod Isopod is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 464
Default

If I could make the walleye regs I'd have a few lakes, including a few of the big lakes, with zero retention limits so the walleye population is protected in these lakes. On most lakes, including most of the big lakes, I'd raise the walleye limits to one or two walleye per day. I realize this would crash the walleye numbers, but that's okay. On a lake like Sylvan, there used to be a good perch fishery until about 10 years ago. Now the perch have crashed and the lake is full of stunted walleye. I think the pike can keep the perch population under control on their own, but add in walleye and there's too many predators (pike and walleye) after too few perch. Need to get one group of predators reduced, and I vote to reduce the walleye.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:25 AM
JohninAB's Avatar
JohninAB JohninAB is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Central Alberta
Posts: 6,668
Default

.....
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-15-2018, 08:13 AM
Dragless Dragless is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 360
Default

I've heard the populations are on the rebound for the most part due to the tag system. I'm sure it differs from fishery to fishery, but fishing is really picking up on some lakes from what I hear. Trust me I like to complain just as much as the next guy but I know these things take time to pan out if they are going to succeed. I'm sure not every lake will benefit equally, if at all but some will and some already have. I vote let this play out, the future of these fisheries are vastly more important than anyones desire to retain fish that goes for all fisheries in the world actually 😉
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:05 PM
AK47's Avatar
AK47 AK47 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isopod View Post
If I could make the walleye regs I'd have a few lakes, including a few of the big lakes, with zero retention limits so the walleye population is protected in these lakes. On most lakes, including most of the big lakes, I'd raise the walleye limits to one or two walleye per day. I realize this would crash the walleye numbers, but that's okay. On a lake like Sylvan, there used to be a good perch fishery until about 10 years ago. Now the perch have crashed and the lake is full of stunted walleye. I think the pike can keep the perch population under control on their own, but add in walleye and there's too many predators (pike and walleye) after too few perch. Need to get one group of predators reduced, and I vote to reduce the walleye.
I agree. Leave few most popular lakes ( for example Pigeon, Gull, Sylvan, Crawling Valley and McGregor at zero for catch and release fans to enjoy catching 40-50 walleye a day and make others with 3 over 50 cm like in the rivers.
__________________
I intend to live forever. So far so good
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.