Winterkill predictions

[Drewski Canuck]

Ice is too thick this year, and late snow cover is not helping.

Expect we will hear of winterkills again this year. Simply too much ice too late.

Any predictions on which lakes? Figure the non aerated small trout lakes will take it bad, and expect a lot of shallow perch lakes will follow suit as well.

Drewski

[RavYak]

Yup should be a bad winter. Lakes froze up beginning of November and looks like they aren't going to thaw until some time in May. 6 months of ice and lots of snow coverage as well.

[CNP]

These: https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/sum...bertaLakes.pdf

[RavYak]

There was already a picture on facebook showing severe winterkill at Bruce Lake as one example.

[Scott N]

It's been a long, cold winter, that's for sure.

[Drewski Canuck]

I have been saying this for years. No one listens. If they did, things would be different.

If we know a lake has a HISTORY of Winterkill, why not use the resource before it is lost to a natural cycle???

For example, we log, because the forest is mature, and we know that the forest will eventually be lost to a forest fire. Therefore, no damage done.

So Lake Isle, and a host of others that are perpetually closed because they are "recovering" never recover, because of the inevitable partial Winterkill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow Fishermen ( I'm going to commit a sin in this next sentence, so PLEASE FORGIVE ME) ......


To keep the fish and eat the fish? (I hear you screaming "heretic!!!", its OK, I'm used to it.)

There is no reason not to allow reasonable, even generous, limits on these lakes, when all the buildup of fish just will become seagull food anyway. If there is, I would LOVE TO HEAR IT!!!

For the put and take Trout Lakes, we accept this reality.

Why not other lakes like Isle and Utikima?

Drewski

Drewski

[Drewski Canuck]

We are governed by fools. Trouble is, that the Fisheries Biologists are just as ignorant, and they are the ones who advise the University Kids who now are running the show.

There is an ideology in the Fisheries Biologists of our Province that killing fish is SIN!!!

I know a couple of them, and I am not impressed.

Now look at all those beautiful Pike that could have provided food and enjoyment to so many people.

Fishermen who would have focused their efforts on Bruce Lake would have been happy, would have taken some fish home to eat, and there would have been less fishing pressure on other lakes which are of concern.

Now these Pike are just rotting on the lake bottom.

Good Job guys.

Drewski

[Lowrance Fishburn]

The lakes should all just be aerated and be done with it. But of course that wont happen since we're too busy paying terrorists 10 million dollars each.

[taz1977]

Originally Posted by Lowrance Fishburn

The lakes should all just be aerated and be done with it. But of course that wont happen since we're too busy paying terrorists 10 million dollars each.

I agree 100%

[jackalope]

Heard police lake is 100percent winter killed people are saying they can see fish laying all on bottom of lake

[Scott N]

Originally Posted by jackalope

Heard police lake is 100percent winter killed people are saying they can see fish laying all on bottom of lake

Man, I hope this isn't true. Was there a problem with the aeration system this winter?

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

I have been saying this for years. No one listens. If they did, things would be different.

If we know a lake has a HISTORY of Winterkill, why not use the resource before it is lost to a natural cycle???

For example, we log, because the forest is mature, and we know that the forest will eventually be lost to a forest fire. Therefore, no damage done.

So Lake Isle, and a host of others that are perpetually closed because they are "recovering" never recover, because of the inevitable partial Winterkill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow Fishermen ( I'm going to commit a sin in this next sentence, so PLEASE FORGIVE ME) ......


To keep the fish and eat the fish? (I hear you screaming "heretic!!!", its OK, I'm used to it.)

There is no reason not to allow reasonable, even generous, limits on these lakes, when all the buildup of fish just will become seagull food anyway. If there is, I would LOVE TO HEAR IT!!!

For the put and take Trout Lakes, we accept this reality.

Why not other lakes like Isle and Utikima?

Drewski

Drewski

Your idea sounds appealing in theory, but most likely fails in practice. The problem is predicting a significant fish kill. If a lake winterkills on average 1 in 5 years, how do you know when to pull the trigger on the “have at ‘er” plan? By the time winterkill conditions can be reliably predicted by oxygen measurement, the fish are usually too lethargic to be caught in numbers, either by hook or net.

The best way to deal with winterkill is to aerate (impractical on all but small lakes and ponds) and to reduce phosphorous inputs. That’s life in the Western Sedimentary Basin.

[linemanpete]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Your idea sounds appealing in theory, but most likely fails in practice. The problem is predicting a significant fish kill. If a lake winterkills on average 1 in 5 years, how do you know when to pull the trigger on the “have at ‘er” plan? By the time winterkill conditions can be reliably predicted by oxygen measurement, the fish are usually too lethargic to be caught in numbers, either by hook or net.

The best way to deal with winterkill is to aerate (impractical on all but small lakes and ponds) and to reduce phosphorous inputs. That’s life in the Western Sedimentary Basin.

I believe Drewski means open up the frequently winterkilled lakes permanently like the trout ponds.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

I have been saying this for years. No one listens. If they did, things would be different.

If we know a lake has a HISTORY of Winterkill, why not use the resource before it is lost to a natural cycle???

For example, we log, because the forest is mature, and we know that the forest will eventually be lost to a forest fire. Therefore, no damage done.

So Lake Isle, and a host of others that are perpetually closed because they are "recovering" never recover, because of the inevitable partial Winterkill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to allow Fishermen ( I'm going to commit a sin in this next sentence, so PLEASE FORGIVE ME) ......


To keep the fish and eat the fish? (I hear you screaming "heretic!!!", its OK, I'm used to it.)

There is no reason not to allow reasonable, even generous, limits on these lakes, when all the buildup of fish just will become seagull food anyway. If there is, I would LOVE TO HEAR IT!!!

For the put and take Trout Lakes, we accept this reality.

Why not other lakes like Isle and Utikima?

Drewski

Drewski

Originally Posted by linemanpete

I believe Drewski means open up the frequently winterkilled lakes permanently like the trout ponds.

Perhaps, but that’s not how I read it. At any rate, that works for stocked trout lakes because they are restocked every spring. There’s no pike hatchery and moving pike from a donor lake in sufficient numbers likely wouldn’t go over well with folks. There are already winterkill pike lakes with no size limits, just a bag limit, and the perch limits are already liberal.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Your idea sounds appealing in theory, but most likely fails in practice. The problem is predicting a significant fish kill. If a lake winterkills on average 1 in 5 years, how do you know when to pull the trigger on the “have at ‘er” plan? By the time winterkill conditions can be reliably predicted by oxygen measurement, the fish are usually too lethargic to be caught in numbers, either by hook or net.

The best way to deal with winterkill is to aerate (impractical on all but small lakes and ponds) and to reduce phosphorous inputs. That’s life in the Western Sedimentary Basin.

Originally Posted by wind drift

Perhaps, but that’s not how I read it. At any rate, that works for stocked trout lakes because they are restocked every spring. There’s no pike hatchery and moving pike from a donor lake in sufficient numbers likely wouldn’t go over well with folks. There are already winterkill pike lakes with no size limits, just a bag limit, and the perch limits are already liberal.

Pretty much nailed it.

[Penner]

No question that the kill is likely to be quite bad this year on those water bodies prone to winter kills.

[Drewski Canuck]

The point was not to flip a switch and have at er.

The point was to leave it open, and be generous with all the species in the lake, knowing that winterkill kills all the fish species.

What would be wrong with allowing liberal perch, walleye and pike limits on Lake Isle and Utikima for instance?

Closing walleye or even limiting walleye for instance, is pointless. The fish need 20 + years to recover to allow no tag fishing, but in that time, the fish are wiped out again.

Either dredge the lake to make it deep enough to survive (impossible to say the least) or accept that the dream of 5 age classes of spawning size will rarely happen, and not for long.

Drewski

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

The point was not to flip a switch and have at er.

The point was to leave it open, and be generous with all the species in the lake, knowing that winterkill kills all the fish species.

What would be wrong with allowing liberal perch, walleye and pike limits on Lake Isle and Utikima for instance?

Closing walleye or even limiting walleye for instance, is pointless. The fish need 20 + years to recover to allow no tag fishing, but in that time, the fish are wiped out again.

Either dredge the lake to make it deep enough to survive (impossible to say the least) or accept that the dream of 5 age classes of spawning size will rarely happen, and not for long.

Drewski

Why would we want to kill the lake before it has a chance to winter kill? Is the fishing no good on these lakes anyways(at other times)? Is fishing success only measured on what you can keep?

Liberal limits will net you nothing, with maybe the exception of the first year implemented. No recovery = no fish. And I do not want to see put and take for walleye/pike perch(and likely will never see it). We have put and take for trout already.

You may need to accept the dream of 5 age classes will rarely happen. I would rather have good fishing for 3 or 4 years than just the first year of your proposed fishing.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Why would we want to kill the lake before it has a chance to winter kill? Is the fishing no good on these lakes anyways(at other times)? Is fishing success only measured on what you can keep?

Liberal limits will net you nothing, with maybe the exception of the first year implemented. No recovery = no fish. And I do not want to see put and take for walleye/pike perch(and likely will never see it). We have put and take for trout already.

You may need to accept the dream of 5 age classes will rarely happen. I would rather have good fishing for 3 or 4 years than just the first year of your proposed fishing.

There you go again... No one said to kill off the lake... With proper minimum or slot sizes these lakes can not and will not be killed off by fishing(except by native netting). His point is to have these lakes open to retention rather then having them C&R forever. These lakes are prone to partial winterkills every decade or two and leaving them C&R until the next kill happens is just a waste of resources. These lakes will never be "recovered" as they are not capable of sustaining what fisheries considers to be a healthy population due to their natural limitations.

Utikuma is far from horrible fishing and it is also more then capable of withstanding the minimal fishing pressure it sees. It is the 6th largest lake in the province and has next to no fishing pressure in the summer and minimal pressure in the winter(especially considering its size). It is also capable of regulating its own fishing pressure as many of the guys fishing up there are driving 3.5 hours from Edmonton to do so. They wouldn't be making that trip if the fishing was crap especially with closer options that have easier fishing and more generous limits.

From what I understand there are a number of pike in Lake Isle and the locals are frustrated that it is C&R. I have never fished it to confirm this though as I don't have any interest in fishing a eutrophic mess of a lake that has no trophy fish and that I can't keep anything from. Pretty sure the rest of the population feels the same way, want cheap lakefront property look no further then Lake Isle... Protect the lake all you want, all you are doing is increasing the bio mass which results in excessive nutrients which is what is killing that lake to begin with...

[FlyTheory]

The thing is that a lack of excessive nutrients present would prevent a lake from becoming a trophy fishery. Plus what is already in the system — such as dead fish — wouldn’t increase the biomass really at all. You can’t increase what is already there. What you want to mitigate is excess increase of foreign organic matter, which augments the development of more biomass. Just sayin

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

The thing is that a lack of excessive nutrients present would prevent a lake from becoming a trophy fishery. Plus what is already in the system — such as dead fish — wouldn’t increase the biomass really at all. You can’t increase what is already there. What you want to mitigate is excess increase of foreign organic matter, which augments the development of more biomass. Just sayin

It should be obvious that an angler decreases the biomass in a lake when he removes a fish. Choosing to leave the fish in the lake has the opposite effect, it may not be directly increasing the biomass but it does indirectly lead to an increased biomass because the fish then dies and decomposes in the lake giving back the nutrients that it used to survive.

These lakes are naturally eutrophic meaning they are naturally killing themselves by producing too many nutrients and fishing pressure helps slow this process down by removing nutrients. Fishing pressure also reduces the oxygen requirement by lowering the number of the fish in a lake. Eutrophic lakes cause fish kills by going hypoxic(running out of oxygen) and it is fairly obvious that if a lake has more fish its chance of having a winter kill increases as does the severity of said kill.

There are lakes in Alberta that see kills every few years because of increasing fish populations. I know one in particular that dies off every 4 years or so because of this. It is a stocked lake and the fish survive the first few winters because they are small and don't need much oxygen, then after a few years there are too many fish and too many bigger fish leading to a lack of oxygen and usually a severe winter kill.

That is a slightly different situation but it doesn't change the point. If you increase the populations of fish in these lakes that are already prone to winter kill you increase the chances of those lakes killing and having severe kills and never "recovering" or being decent fisheries. It is best to keep the fish populations lower so they survive easier which can lead to true trophy fisheries albeit with smaller populations then what some people like our fisheries would like.

[TROLLER]

Originally Posted by Lowrance Fishburn

The lakes should all just be aerated and be done with it. But of course that wont happen since we're too busy paying terrorists 10 million dollars each.

I agree but here is an example of aerating. I went out to Fyten 2 summers back and nothing but dead fish and the weeds had taken over shore to shore north so. east west. And there sat the 3 aerators looking good. Not turned on but they were there. Wonder how many other spots have the same aerators.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by RavYak

It should be obvious that an angler decreases the biomass in a lake when he removes a fish. Choosing to leave the fish in the lake has the opposite effect, it may not be directly increasing the biomass but it does indirectly lead to an increased biomass because the fish then dies and decomposes in the lake giving back the nutrients that it used to survive.

These lakes are naturally eutrophic meaning they are naturally killing themselves by producing too many nutrients and fishing pressure helps slow this process down by removing nutrients. Fishing pressure also reduces the oxygen requirement by lowering the number of the fish in a lake. Eutrophic lakes cause fish kills by going hypoxic(running out of oxygen) and it is fairly obvious that if a lake has more fish its chance of having a winter kill increases as does the severity of said kill.

There are lakes in Alberta that see kills every few years because of increasing fish populations. I know one in particular that dies off every 4 years or so because of this. It is a stocked lake and the fish survive the first few winters because they are small and don't need much oxygen, then after a few years there are too many fish and too many bigger fish leading to a lack of oxygen and usually a severe winter kill.

That is a slightly different situation but it doesn't change the point. If you increase the populations of fish in these lakes that are already prone to winter kill you increase the chances of those lakes killing and having severe kills and never "recovering" or being decent fisheries. It is best to keep the fish populations lower so they survive easier which can lead to true trophy fisheries albeit with smaller populations then what some people like our fisheries would like.

I’d say these assumptions made on the impact that fish have are probably disproportionate to the entire waterbody. You’re focusing on regional impact rather than mean impact. Even with 99% winter kill, eutrophication is only augmented by dying fish. The occurrence of dead fish will not significantly change the rate of eutrophication of an entire lake.

Actually, due to the process of lake maturation, most of these lakes were mesotrophic at the beginning of the 1900s and with anthro development there has been a shift due to runoff. Human influences have had a greater effect than bi-decade winter kill. The general mesotrophic steady state of a lake has changed due to human activity.

Actually, the lakes are not explicitly producing too many nutrients, these lakes are sequestering carbon in the form of plant and algal matter. This the decay of plant matter (via bacteria and Protists) causes hypoxia, not due to “plants producing too many nutrients”.

To reiterate, even if a fisherman were to remove her full limit everyday, the impact on eutrophication would not change. As a case study please review Astotin lake in Elk Island NP, where the rate of eutrophication has been increasing constantly (linear progression). This is not due to the dieoff of fish in the past (this lake contained pike and walleye), but the progression of carbon sequestration and decomposition aided by runoff and particulate matter via human activity.

If you need clarification let me know. Pm me if you want information to journal articles and references.

Cheers

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by TROLLER

I agree but here is an example of aerating. I went out to Fyten 2 summers back and nothing but dead fish and the weeds had taken over shore to shore north so. east west. And there sat the 3 aerators looking good. Not turned on but they were there. Wonder how many other spots have the same aerators.

This is why aerators have a positive impact, they oxygenate the water to counteract the draw of oxygen caused by plant decay (the bacteria respirates). Fish suffer due to this process and are independent to mass O2 depletion.

[RavYak]

Flytheory you keep talking about the effects of fish dying. I am talking about the effects of having more living fish. The extra oxygen required alone has a significant effect even if the effects on eutrophication rate are negligible.

Lakes like Utikuma have had winterkill issues before man ever had significant effects. Its because most of the lake is shallow and weedy... Its a giant slough that will never have true trophy potential(although it does grow some nice fish).

A number of other winterkill lakes I know of even to this day have had little to no effect by man. Remote lakes that dont have any farm land oil leases or roads within miles and see very few people all year long. Again examples of lakes suffering from natural eutrophication and winterkill because they are mediocre waterbodies to begin with.

Some lakes like Isle have definitely been affected by man but not all our lakes like you make it sound like.

Also I am pretty sure your quote "plants producing too many nutrients" is made up as I cant see myself saying that nor find where it was said... Plants animals and humans all contribute nutrients to these lakes. These nutrients promote plant and algae growth and then when those plants and algae die in the fall/winter the decomposition process uses up oxygen. This process in combination with oxygen being used by fish causes a lake to go hypoxic causing winter kills.

Less nutrient in a lake = less plants/algae = less oxygen used during the decomposition = less chance of winterkill.

Less fish = less oxygen required = less chance of winterkill.

Efforts to increase fish populations hurt these lakes in both ways as previously outlined. According to you the first way may be negligible but I guarantee the second is not.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Flytheory you keep talking about the effects of fish dying. I am talking about the effects of having more living fish. The extra oxygen required alone has a significant effect even if the effects on eutrophication rate are negligible.

Lakes like Utikuma have had winterkill issues before man ever had significant effects. Its because most of the lake is shallow and weedy... Its a giant slough that will never have true trophy potential(although it does grow some nice fish).

A number of other winterkill lakes I know of even to this day have had little to no effect by man. Remote lakes that dont have any farm land oil leases or roads within miles and see very few people all year long. Again examples of lakes suffering from natural eutrophication and winterkill because they are mediocre waterbodies to begin with.

Some lakes like Isle have definitely been affected by man but not all our lakes like you make it sound like.

Also I am pretty sure your quote "plants producing too many nutrients" is made up as I cant see myself saying that nor find where it was said... Plants animals and humans all contribute nutrients to these lakes. These nutrients promote plant and algae growth and then when those plants and algae die in the fall/winter the decomposition process uses up oxygen. This process in combination with oxygen being used by fish causes a lake to go hypoxic causing winter kills.

Less nutrient in a lake = less plants/algae = less oxygen used during the decomposition = less chance of winterkill.

Less fish = less oxygen required = less chance of winterkill.

Efforts to increase fish populations hurt these lakes in both ways as previously outlined. According to you the first way may be negligible but I guarantee the second is not.

Okay fair point. Sorry, I was deviating from the initial idea.

I’m sorry, I may have misread your quote of “these lakes are naturally eutrophic meaning they are naturally killing themselves by producing too many nutrients”, which I was assuming you were talking about primary producers (plants and algae). To active readers (not nessisarily to Rav), plants do not actually contribute to the relevant nutrients of the lake, they sequester any potential nutrients since things like nitrogen are so scarce. The only active exududation of nutrients may be in the realm of plant hormones, but that’s not something that would add to the nitrate, phosphorus or carbon cycles.

Lakes that aren’t directly connected to any anthro activity will most likely still experience effects of them. Land plots contain natural drainage centres that accumulate waste/nutrients. In Alberta most lakes that we are aware of are encompasses within these centres that don’t contain anthro activity.

The only point I strongly disagree with, that is relevant to the topic, is that of fish depleting O2 levels. Which definitely is a factor in small water bodies, but in large bodies of water, such as utikima, would not be as much of a drain as protist and bacteria respiration via plant decomposition.

Sorry for straying from the topic!

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There you go again... No one said to kill off the lake... With proper minimum or slot sizes these lakes can not and will not be killed off by fishing(except by native netting). His point is to have these lakes open to retention rather then having them C&R forever. These lakes are prone to partial winterkills every decade or two and leaving them C&R until the next kill happens is just a waste of resources. These lakes will never be "recovered" as they are not capable of sustaining what fisheries considers to be a healthy population due to their natural limitations.

Utikuma is far from horrible fishing and it is also more then capable of withstanding the minimal fishing pressure it sees. It is the 6th largest lake in the province and has next to no fishing pressure in the summer and minimal pressure in the winter(especially considering its size). It is also capable of regulating its own fishing pressure as many of the guys fishing up there are driving 3.5 hours from Edmonton to do so. They wouldn't be making that trip if the fishing was crap especially with closer options that have easier fishing and more generous limits.

From what I understand there are a number of pike in Lake Isle and the locals are frustrated that it is C&R. I have never fished it to confirm this though as I don't have any interest in fishing a eutrophic mess of a lake that has no trophy fish and that I can't keep anything from. Pretty sure the rest of the population feels the same way, want cheap lakefront property look no further then Lake Isle... Protect the lake all you want, all you are doing is increasing the bio mass which results in excessive nutrients which is what is killing that lake to begin with...

Yes there I go.

Guess we have different views what liberal limits mean.

Stand by what was said. What you said and what he said was very different.

[Brandonkop]

Its going to be bad. I agree with leaving lakes open that winter kill. Putting a zero walleye limit on a lake with recurrent winterkill is just stupid biology in my opinion. Lakes have been doing well with current limits, why not leave it alone?

[Drewski Canuck]

"Why would we want to kill the lake before it has a chance to winter kill? Is the fishing no good on these lakes anyways(at other times)? Is fishing success only measured on what you can keep?"


The reason I want to use the resource before it winterkills, is exactly that.

Once it winterkills, you are looking at another Generation before there is a chance it could be open to catch and keep fishing. Then, and this will probably be the year for severe Winterkill, the resource is again lost with no utilization. But why should reason prevail in allowing a resource to be utilized? Fishermen who want to eat a fish are obviously the problem, and lets face it, all the other fishermen who create release mortality are part of the problem as well.

Think of it this way. You buy a lottery ticket, and before the draw, you decide to burn the ticket. You feel good about yourself though, because it was the Government Policy to be applied for Alberta.

On the draw date your usual numbers you play get drawn, and you cannot collect your prize, because you burned the ticket as per Government Policy.

Then, you go out and buy another ticket and play your usual numbers, and promptly burn that ticket also. That is, after all, the one size fits all Government Policy to be followed without question.

You probably work for the Biologists behind this idiotic plan, and you probably think that just maybe, these lakes will never winterkill again, and closing the lakes is the moral thing to do. After all, this one size fits all approach is the Gospel of Fisheries Recovery, to be applied in all cases, even known winterkill lakes.

Look up Procrustian Logic. That is what you, and the Fisheries Biologists of Alberta suffer from.

Long Lake by Edson tested at .02 oxygen a couple of weeks ago. All bets are that it is now dead.

Too bad that this lake, like so many others, could not have been given a generous limit for the utilization of the resource, thus shifting fishing pressure from lakes that stand a chance at sustained recovery without the prospect of winterkill.

Drewski

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Yes there I go.

Guess we have different views what liberal limits mean.

Stand by what was said. What you said and what he said was very different.

He literally cleared up his point in the post you quoted...

The point was not to flip a switch and have at er.

The point was to leave it open, and be generous with all the species in the lake, knowing that winterkill kills all the fish species.

Aka he isn't saying implement keep anything and everything type regs. He is just saying that C&R regs don't make sense to him on these lakes and that they would be better utilized with catch and keep regulations.

Knowing Drewski(not personally but having spent enough time on this forum) it was easy for me to come to understand his point and you should have been able to do the same...