Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: What type of stillwater trout fishery would you prefer at your favourite lake?
C&R with the chance of catching trout up to 25" 112 42.75%
Limit of 1 under 18" with a good chance of fish over 22" 47 17.94%
Limit of 1 over 18" with a good chance of fish over 20" 38 14.50%
Limit of 3 any size with a good chance of fish over 16" 49 18.70%
Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12" 16 6.11%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:57 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
Go to Strubel and fish as long as you want, with whatever you want and you're not going to catch one over 20". Apparently it used to have fish to 10lbs so the issue isn't carrying capacity. When the opportunity for a range of sizes isn't there, neither is some of the excitement. Disagree?

And don't hold your breath that a lake 2 hours away won't change. I drive 5hrs to get to a lake with some lunkers but even it has deteriorated over the past couple of years because of the 5 fish limit and more fishing pressure. I could drive 14hrs to Manitoba where they actually know how to manage a fishery but at some point, I do need to draw the line.
I generally don't fish lakes like Strubel. There's one like that here in Morinville 3 kms and a few others within 10 kms away that I might go to occasionally after supper but if I'm going for the day, I have other options. I still enjoy it when I go but aren't my first choice.

Your efforts to go fishing is out of the norm IMO. My experience is that allot of fellas won't make that kind of effort. Most anglers that I have met want convenience and as little effort as possible, thus the whole purpose of this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:43 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Just because SRD has tagged a bunch of lakes "quality" lakes, doesn't mean they are. SRD's definition of quality has to be looked at first and foremost. Trout over what, 2 pounds is quality? Not in my books. My definition of quality is 5lbs and up. So a quality lake to me would a good chance at a 5 pounder on any given day with the odd chance of hooking into a 10+ pounder. These lakes are available in BC, Sask and Manitoba so why not here (and the lakes in the parkland region of Manitoba are NOT pay to play BTW). I'm glad that SRD has taken the first step of introducing quality lakes to our province but they need to grow a pair and convert a few of the lakes that get stocked with 40,000+ dinks every spring around major centers to also include the quality regulations. For those that ask why. The same reason you want your put and take lakes, because that's what we are asking for. When Don and the boys started Beaver and then when we did Muir, people got a taste of what could be. Then Bullshead, Police and well now you see the list. Why so many? Because SRD put up a poll and that's what Alberta's anglers wanted to see. Ain't nothing wrong with the Chickakoo's of Alberta but when you see how much pressure is on Muir compared to it, well there's a reason why Muir looks like a bowl of cheerios and Chickakoo sees very little pressure. The problem as I see it now is not enough quality fisheries around major centers, SRD's definition of quality just plain sucks and to have a quality fishery, they actually have to manage it as a quality fishery and not just put some special regs on it and stock the hell out it. They need to actually do some work on them and study the fisheries to see how they can improve them to be optimum fisheries from year to year. How many quality lakes should we have in Alberta? I'd like around 30% but it doesn't really matter until they start managing them properly. Until then, it's all just eye candy.

Here's a video of the Muir Lake Project for those that are interested.
The Muir Lake Project
SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.

I am aware of the poll that you are referring to. SRD put up an unadvertised poll on their website for a short period of time. Who do you think knew about the poll let alone answer it? Was it average Joe angler or a bunch of guys belonging to elitist fishing organizations. Even then the support was divided if I recall correctly. SRD recognized this and that is why their documents all read something like: some anglers would like to see "quality" fisheries while the general angler wants harvest opportunities and higher catch rates.

30%! I see that you are from Edmonton. Is there not a "quality" fishery called Muir Lake right outside of town? Why is there a requirement for 30 more lakes (assuming that there are 100 lakes) just like that one within a 200 mile radius of Edmonton when you can already go to Muir for your photo op? Maybe the plan isn't working as expected there, I don't know, but I certainly don't understand why turning 30% of the lakes into "quality" fisheries is required.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:48 PM
Heron Heron is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I generally don't fish lakes like Strubel. There's one like that here in Morinville 3 kms and a few others within 10 kms away that I might go to occasionally after supper but if I'm going for the day, I have other options. I still enjoy it when I go but aren't my first choice.

Your efforts to go fishing is out of the norm IMO. My experience is that allot of fellas won't make that kind of effort. Most anglers that I have met want convenience and as little effort as possible, thus the whole purpose of this thread.
Like some I will travel ridiculous distances for good fishing but why should I put my 8 and 11 year old through that? I want good fishing close to home for my children and myself. I guess that is crazy.

It's almost like a hunter who, as part of his signature is asking for access to a place like say... Strathcona County where he knows there are plenty of deer. Why can"t that hunter just settle for the occasional big deer in his own area?
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-01-2011, 03:52 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Just to clarify about the lakes that I fish. I don't catch a 20" trout everytime I catch a fish, like in a "quality" lake. I might catch only eatin sized ones one day, a dozen 16" sized the next, a mix the next and nothing, yet the next. Every once in awhile I might catch a 20" trout which is something special to me.

Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, catching allot of 20" fish all of the time gets real old real fast.
LOL

We all know what you catch cause people are fishing the same waters. No one thought you caught big ones regularly anywheres.

How about instead of catching lots of 9-12 inchers and a special moment of a 20 incher...you catch lots of 17-20 inchers with a special moment of a 25 incher.

What is wrong with that?

I know...they are not small better eating trout and it is probably too easy catching the bigger fish so it is boring and you miss the small ones.

I just don't get the trolling. It is getting old...but still...facinating you keep on given er with the same logic. The important thing is when reading throught the logic...it is hard not to gravitate to the quality fishery side. 5% follow your logic...but 95% want something different. Still it is a close race based upon your zest for typing. I just sincerely hope you keep it up as it helps keep this topic in the front and center. That is what we need in Alberta...discussion followed by change.

IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-01-2011, 04:00 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.
I got confused by the posts...about how many quality fisheries there are.

By this definition...is there just not 4 in Alberta then? Over 50 cm limit?

So you are seriously arguing that the 95% voting for better fishing on this poll should be happy with 4 quality lakes in Alberta? That F&W should do nothing to increase the size of trout for anglers?

Dave...there is a reason you did not answer certain questions before...but in almost every post you answer is all the same.

In the end...you don't like changes, you want more trout for yourself at the expense of others and you definitely don't want to improve fishing at your local haunts and risk increasing fishing traffic. Dave...are you really that selfish? Wait...it is a question. You don't like pointed questions...so just respond that you like eating small fish.

Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-01-2011, 04:18 PM
Outcast 1100 Outcast 1100 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 61
Default

i was out at strubel lake a few weeks ago, i seen two nice size fish 3-4lbs, but other than that it many small fish buzzin around. i didnt think it was to bad being i was there for 4 or so hours. been out to dickson trout pond and seen some nice ones too this year, but the water is very murky. there are some nice sized fish around if you can zone in an get there attention.

as far as beaver lake goes it is an excellent lake to fish. my best day last summer is 18 fish, one 20in, six 16in, the rest were 12 and 14in. but i have also been totally skunked there.

Fiesta lake is small, hence the low stocking rates, spotted some decent size trout, caught some small guys. access is walk in only, nice small dock to get into your pontoon boat or whatever you use.

Everybody says the same thing, this lake use to be better. i have talked to old old timers about fishing the ram river 60yrs ago. they use to chase the small ones away with a stick to get after the larger ones. how nice would that be to have such a dilema to deal with.

But anyways back to the topic, its seems to be run more like a business than natural resourse. more fish = more fisherman. more fisherman = more fees, more fees = more money, more money = more fish, and the cycle continues and thats not to mention the other spin offs that there are. its all about the dollar it seems.

So if its harder to catch a 20 inch fish than it is to catch a 12in fish, than a youngster wouldn't stand much of a chance at having fun fishing and getting "hooked" on fishing because it just is to boring to them, they just dont have the attention span yet. so fill the lakes with easy to catch fish, get them addicted to the sport and get the next generation of fisherman off and running and so on and so on.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-01-2011, 05:18 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
LOL

We all know what you catch cause people are fishing the same waters. No one thought you caught big ones regularly anywheres.

How about instead of catching lots of 9-12 inchers and a special moment of a 20 incher...you catch lots of 17-20 inchers with a special moment of a 25 incher.

What is wrong with that?

I know...they are not small better eating trout and it is probably too easy catching the bigger fish so it is boring and you miss the small ones.

I just don't get the trolling. It is getting old...but still...facinating you keep on given er with the same logic. The important thing is when reading throught the logic...it is hard not to gravitate to the quality fishery side. 5% follow your logic...but 95% want something different. Still it is a close race based upon your zest for typing. I just sincerely hope you keep it up as it helps keep this topic in the front and center. That is what we need in Alberta...discussion followed by change.

IMHO.
You guys have no idea where I'm fishing if you can't believe what I'm telling you I'm catching. I've already given up Peanut Lake because they are stopping the stocking program for it and I figure that it'll winter kill anyways. Maybe someone that has fished there will post their experience there but IMO there's no point in hiding it anymore. Besides, do you really think that I, or anyone else, is going to tell you where to fish?

I have no problem with keeping a 12" trout to eat and I don't think that anyone should be ashamed of it. It's fellas like you that look down on guys that only keep the eatin sized fish that are the real problem. If you only want to eat bigger ones that's entirely up to you. But you see, that's the attitude that I've been saying all along that is the real problem with why it's harder to catch bigger fish. ATTITUDE AND EDUCATION!!!

Like I said earlier, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read what I post. If you don't like it then.......... As far as trying to influence the poll , I couldn't care less about it. For one thing, given that it's on a fishing forum the likelihood of having a large number of fishing fanatics is much greater and not IMO representative of the opinion of the average angler.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-01-2011, 05:27 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
I got confused by the posts...about how many quality fisheries there are.

By this definition...is there just not 4 in Alberta then? Over 50 cm limit?

So you are seriously arguing that the 95% voting for better fishing on this poll should be happy with 4 quality lakes in Alberta? That F&W should do nothing to increase the size of trout for anglers?

Dave...there is a reason you did not answer certain questions before...but in almost every post you answer is all the same.

In the end...you don't like changes, you want more trout for yourself at the expense of others and you definitely don't want to improve fishing at your local haunts and risk increasing fishing traffic. Dave...are you really that selfish? Wait...it is a question. You don't like pointed questions...so just respond that you like eating small fish.

Yes, I do like eating the smaller fish and leaving the bigger ones in the lake. If you don't then you are the problem. The most unfortunate part about that is that you will pass those beliefs on and thus continue the cycle.

If you don't understand the "quality" fisheries in Alberta why are you asking me? Ask SRD.

As for the rest of your post.................
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-01-2011, 06:04 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Yes, I do like eating the smaller fish and leaving the bigger ones in the lake.
Ha Ha ha

You just don't get it. In most lakes...there are not the big fish to release. If that was to ever occur...most people on this thread would probably release the bigger ones...especially if it is a lake they fish regularly. That is why votes are predominantly cast to reflect their desire for larger fish. One 16 to 20 inch trout out of every 10,000 9 - 12 inchers caught...is not what constitutes good odds.

You just keep circling without listening. Either on purpose for trolling reasons...or you don't really read what folks are posting.



but keep up the entertaining posts.

Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-01-2011, 06:11 PM
DuckBrat's Avatar
DuckBrat DuckBrat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,349
Default

River fishing vs Stocked Pond Locally vs Stocked lakes in the foothills.


Apples, oranges, pears
__________________
Respecting the land, water, fish, and wildlife is what makes true hunters and fishermen.

Road hunting is not hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 03-01-2011, 07:42 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
One 16 to 20 inch trout out of every 10,000 9 - 12 inchers caught...is not what constitutes good odds.
Another "quality" fishery fella admits that it's all about making it easy to catch bigger fish!
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 03-01-2011, 07:50 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckBrat View Post
River fishing vs Stocked Pond Locally vs Stocked lakes in the foothills.


Apples, oranges, pears
So what's a "quality" fishery?
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 03-01-2011, 07:56 PM
Doc's Avatar
Doc Doc is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.
Just to clear things up a bit on Muir. It was never designed as a quality fishery as SRD defines it. Muir was before the quality fisheries agenda the gov't came up with. Muir was designed to have high catch rates of larger than average trout than most put and take fisheries with the chance of catching a trophy. SRD seems to want the trout to grow up to 50cm but as long as they are bigger than 9 inches they appear to be content. I have fished Muir Lake from May to Oct since we've started the project and although the lake produces larger trout on average than most of the put and take lakes it's not near good enough as I know what it could possibly be producing with the right management and true trophy's are not being caught. If, after stocking, there is enough biomass in a quality lake to produce a majority of 50cm trout with the chance at a real trophy then I would be happy with that. If not, then studies are needed to determine how many trout should be stocked to achieve this goal. Not hearing or seeing many studies done and if there are, we're not seeing a lot of reactive measures being taken by those in charge to improve the quality and enhance the fisheries (at least not in the Edmonton area). So what we're left with is a lot of 2lb to 4lb trout but no 10lb trout like we want. Is that better than spending a day catching a zillion dinks? You betcha but why should we settle for mediocre when we can have great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
30%! I see that you are from Edmonton. Is there not a "quality" fishery called Muir Lake right outside of town? Why is there a requirement for 30 more lakes (assuming that there are 100 lakes) just like that one within a 200 mile radius of Edmonton when you can already go to Muir for your photo op? Maybe the plan isn't working as expected there, I don't know, but I certainly don't understand why turning 30% of the lakes into "quality" fisheries is required.
Why not 30%? How about 40%? Even at 40%, you still have 60% of your mediocre lakes. I want to see one quality lake with browns and one with cutties near Edmonton as well. While we're at it let's change Chickakoo to a quality lake and we'll have lunker brookies too. Still lots of the lakes around Edmonton that have dinks in it for those that want the little fish. Why should I have to drive three hours to find a decent fishery when I can have several in my backyard? Why just be content with Muir? Apparently you aren't just content with Morinville res. for catching the tiddlers. Why should my licensing fees go to stocking 40,000 trout in a fisheries that I have no interest in fishing? The lakes I purpose are cheaper to stock. And to answer your question, Muir does work by SRD's definition but not by mine (although it's still the best lake within two hours of Edmonton). You can see how well it works when you can't find a parking spot on a Sat morning. Guess we just have to build more (and better) so all the minority quality wanters can find a place to park.

*Note: A lot of tongue in cheek here mixed with honesty.
__________________
Visit my BLOG.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:32 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Just to clear things up a bit on Muir. It was never designed as a quality fishery as SRD defines it. Muir was before the quality fisheries agenda the gov't came up with. Muir was designed to have high catch rates of larger than average trout than most put and take fisheries with the chance of catching a trophy. SRD seems to want the trout to grow up to 50cm but as long as they are bigger than 9 inches they appear to be content. I have fished Muir Lake from May to Oct since we've started the project and although the lake produces larger trout on average than most of the put and take lakes it's not near good enough as I know what it could possibly be producing with the right management and true trophy's are not being caught. If, after stocking, there is enough biomass in a quality lake to produce a majority of 50cm trout with the chance at a real trophy then I would be happy with that. If not, then studies are needed to determine how many trout should be stocked to achieve this goal. Not hearing or seeing many studies done and if there are, we're not seeing a lot of reactive measures being taken by those in charge to improve the quality and enhance the fisheries (at least not in the Edmonton area). So what we're left with is a lot of 2lb to 4lb trout but no 10lb trout like we want. Is that better than spending a day catching a zillion dinks? You betcha but why should we settle for mediocre when we can have great.



Why not 30%? How about 40%? Even at 40%, you still have 60% of your mediocre lakes. I want to see one quality lake with browns and one with cutties near Edmonton as well. While we're at it let's change Chickakoo to a quality lake and we'll have lunker brookies too. Still lots of the lakes around Edmonton that have dinks in it for those that want the little fish. Why should I have to drive three hours to find a decent fishery when I can have several in my backyard? Why just be content with Muir? Apparently you aren't just content with Morinville res. for catching the tiddlers. Why should my licensing fees go to stocking 40,000 trout in a fisheries that I have no interest in fishing? The lakes I purpose are cheaper to stock. And to answer your question, Muir does work by SRD's definition but not by mine (although it's still the best lake within two hours of Edmonton). You can see how well it works when you can't find a parking spot on a Sat morning. Guess we just have to build more (and better) so all the minority quality wanters can find a place to park.

*Note: A lot of tongue in cheek here mixed with honesty.
So, in summary, the "Quality" fishery at Muir hasn't worked.

Your post swayed me more towards having more "quality" fisheries in and immediately around the city of Edmonton though. The way that I figure it is if a few more "quality" fisheries were created then all of the lazy azzed anglers from the city wanting to catch big, easy to catch trout would stay in Edmonton. Then, there'd be fewer anglers at all of the harder to get to lakes. In turn the quality of fishing will improve because we wouldn't have to worry about the city guys coming out and keeping all of the big fish instead of the smaller eatin sized ones!

Okay......what if SRD could be talked into digging several dugouts in and around Edmonton and filling them with fish? Would that work for you?

To answer your question about having 30% or 40% of our lakes turned into "quality" fisheries............SRD wouldn't do that for such a small percentage of anglers that want them. If you believe that support for "quality" fisheries is that high then you need to get out more and talk with Joe the average angler.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:54 PM
Doc's Avatar
Doc Doc is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
So, in summary, the "Quality" fishery at Muir hasn't worked.

Your post swayed me more towards having more "quality" fisheries in and immediately around the city of Edmonton though. The way that I figure it is if a few more "quality" fisheries were created then all of the lazy azzed anglers from the city wanting to catch big, easy to catch trout would stay in Edmonton. Then, there'd be fewer anglers at all of the harder to get to lakes. In turn the quality of fishing will improve because we wouldn't have to worry about the city guys coming out and keeping all of the big fish instead of the smaller eatin sized ones!

Okay......what if SRD could be talked into digging several dugouts in and around Edmonton and filling them with fish? Would that work for you?

To answer your question about having 30% or 40% of our lakes turned into "quality" fisheries............SRD wouldn't do that for such a small percentage of anglers that want them. If you believe that support for "quality" fisheries is that high then you need to get out more and talk with Joe the average angler.
Explain how it doesn't work?
It's not up to my standards but if it's the busiest stocked lake within two hours of Edmonton, it's definitely working.

I swayed you? Good now go talk to all the average Joes and convince them we need these lakes too and we'll all be happy. Oh, wait but you don't want quality fishing you want easy to catch tiddlers. If we all stayed around Edmonton then you'd be catching to many easy to catch bigger fish! That doesn't work for you remember?

No, I want bigger lakes that are currently 5 trout per day. There are to many of those now. We need to change that.

Oh they'll do it. With the pressure put on them for big fish in the past, they came up with the quality lakes initiative (that was the reason they put the poll out there in the first place). Once the lakes and regs are in place, we will not be happy with just that and we'll put pressure on them for better management. Once the Alberta Angler gets a true taste of what can be, more pressure will be applied for more of these lakes. It'll take a while as SRD is very slow to react (regarding pretty much anything) but it will happen. And you're right, if we get enough quality lakes near major centers, the long to drive to lakes will see less pressure and will be become quality lakes once again themselves. If SRD can manage the stocking numbers accordingly that is.
__________________
Visit my BLOG.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 03-01-2011, 09:30 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Explain how it doesn't work?
It's not up to my standards but if it's the busiest stocked lake within two hours of Edmonton, it's definitely working.

I swayed you? Good now go talk to all the average Joes and convince them we need these lakes too and we'll all be happy. Oh, wait but you don't want quality fishing you want easy to catch tiddlers. If we all stayed around Edmonton then you'd be catching to many easy to catch bigger fish! That doesn't work for you remember?

No, I want bigger lakes that are currently 5 trout per day. There are to many of those now. We need to change that.

Oh they'll do it. With the pressure put on them for big fish in the past, they came up with the quality lakes initiative (that was the reason they put the poll out there in the first place). Once the lakes and regs are in place, we will not be happy with just that and we'll put pressure on them for better management. Once the Alberta Angler gets a true taste of what can be, more pressure will be applied for more of these lakes. It'll take a while as SRD is very slow to react (regarding pretty much anything) but it will happen. And you're right, if we get enough quality lakes near major centers, the long to drive to lakes will see less pressure and will be become quality lakes once again themselves. If SRD can manage the stocking numbers accordingly that is.
Average Joe angler won't go for changing their favorite lake into a "quality" fishery. Local anglers know what's in the lake already and if a city fella goes there one time and doesn't catch any big fish they are fine with that. They have the ability to go there every day and if they don't catch a big one one day then they'll catch one the next. Why would they want to give that up?

Even if I convinced them that there'd be fewer anglers because they are going to stay at the fish farms created in Edmonton they'd tell me that they didn't care because the city guys don't think that there are big fish in their lake anyway. Just look at the disbelief in this thread when I stated that I was already catching big fish in lakes that arn't "quality" fisheries. I know these guys because I'm one of them.

I doubt that SRD will change their current position of not changing anymore stocked lakes to "quality" fisheries......anything is possible, but I highly doubt it. Creating new "quality" fisheries in new bodies of water they will do. It seems to me that they have learned from their mistakes. Case in point Police Lake. Look what they are going through now with the fight to get it back to a regular stocked catch and keep 5 trout lake. I would like to hear from a local down that way when he heard about the "quality" lake resolution sneaking through. You see, Joe angler likely didn't even know anything about the resolution until it was too late.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 03-02-2011, 07:55 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Another "quality" fishery fella admits that it's all about making it easy to catch bigger fish!
HELP...you found me out



LOL...You admit it is all about catching super easy to catch small fish for you.

LOL...I admit I'd much rather catch bigger fish.

Duhhh....

Your revelation means....

Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 03-02-2011, 07:57 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

HunterDave:

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 03-02-2011, 07:58 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

HunterDave

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 03-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

HunterDave:

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 03-02-2011, 08:00 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

Chubdarter...I would be sincerely interested in your responses to these questions since Dave will likely refuse to answer again. At least it can give insight into your point of view on this whole topic. Helps us all to see some common ground.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:48 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

Chubdarter...I would be sincerely interested in your responses to these questions since Dave will likely refuse to answer again. At least it can give insight into your point of view on this whole topic. Helps us all to see some common ground.
geebuss Sun
1- i agreed to your program....you stock less in the 17 lakes you already have and dump the extra into regular folk's lakes
2- i had 1 reasonable request...you dont get any more lakes above the 17 till you prove the 17 have been tweaked to a success.

isnt that fair....i kinda thought it was and left the discussion.....i popped in to collect bigtoads name calling posts.

SUN'S ?=Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

CHUBB'S answer=yes its a challenge
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:05 AM
pikester's Avatar
pikester pikester is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 536
Default

A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:16 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
HunterDave:

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?
If by "disproportionate" you mean that if I catch more fish than the guy beside me and I keep my limit and he catches none then, no, I don't think that it is greedy at all. I don't consider myself a super ninja angler over the next guy and he has the same chance of catching fish as me. If I catch fish and he doesn't, that's a part of fishing. The next time out maybe the shoe will be on the other foot.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:26 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
HunterDave

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?
I call it common sense.

It all comes down to whether or not a fella can catch fish, or doesn't want to put the effort into catching them. If someone can go to a lake and catch 5 fish to eat and another fella can't then that's his problem. So we should put regulations in place to make life easier for the fella that can't catch fish to make it easier for him?
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:32 AM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikester View Post
A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries
You're probably right but:
1. I'm hoping that there will be more people that vote because generally, the larger the sample, the more accurate/valid the data. I'm not sure what I'll do with that data or how skewed it is being on an outdoor forum but it might be interesting to pass along to SRD or a regional biologist, just so that they are aware. More votes would help but I agree, I don't the % is going to change much.

2. I am also hoping that we are getting close to the end of anyone having anything left to say; including name calling, and perhaps there are a few folks that haven't been heard to give a few constructive things to say from different sides of the spectrum? I think I'm pretty much done any ranting and raving I have left and will probably sit most of the last bit out in respect to others who haven't shared.

If we continue as we have, with only a few sharing and going in circles, then yes, I'll ask to close the poll. Thanks for your input.

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:37 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
HunterDave:

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?
Absolutely not. I think that is what SRD has tried to do that. Some anglers would like to see "quality" fisheries while the general angler wants harvest opportunities and higher catch rates. An individual's perception of what is balanced is relative, or not. I don't think that changing 30% of existing stocked lakes into "quality" fisheries in order to please 10% (I think that I'm being generous with that figure) of the fishing community is balanced.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:48 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?
Well, given that scenario, I'd have to say that it'd be as much of a waste of effort trying to catch a big fish where there aren't any as trying to catch a small fish in a lake where there aren't any. I can't say that it would be a waste of time if you enjoy the outdoors though. If you want to start a "quality" fishery in a dead lake or a newly formed body of water (ie mine pits) then I say go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:03 PM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

If I could be so bold as to try and summarize what loose "facts" we have acquired so far from the poll as well as the discussion. (I'll try to keep my own bias out of it):

1. There are a wide variety of angler choices on the matter of quality vs. quantity.

2. Most agree that we need a variety of angling choices in Alberta.

3. On this poll, ~75% of anglers value catching larger fish more than taking more fish home.

4. On this poll, ~25% of anglers value taking more fish home than catching larger fish.

5. Most that value quality, want:
- more quality lakes in Alberta
- better management of the lakes that do exist (ie. stocking rates, harvest rates, a better definition of quality lakes, etc)
- several places that one could have the opportunity of catching a trophy fish that is relatively close to major centers (Too much variance in what "trophy" or "quality" mean to really nail that down for everyone. Somewhere between 4 and 10lbs+ I would imagine).
- SRD to get their heads out of their.... (Ooops.... couldn't resist.) Back to the facts:

6. Most that value quantity want:
- to make sure there are still lots of lakes that they can keep 3-5 fish of any size, ice fish, and use bait, that are also relatively close to major centers.
- That fish will be relatively easy to catch to appeal to a family fishing experience.

Did I miss anything? Seems reasonable to me.

Anyone else, beside the 4 or 5 of us regular whiners... I mean posters, with anything constructive to add?

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:05 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikester View Post
A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries
Hey pikester, what time is the book burning party?

I don't find anything particularly nasty being posted but I have a bit of a thicker skin than most, and I know it. If there's something on the thread that you find particularly derogatory or against the rules in any way then by all means, report it to the mods and it will be removed. I don't spend allot of time on the fishing threads so this thread might be particularly disturbing to some relative to the other threads that are on this forum.

I don't think that the mods would close down this thread due to content but that's just IMO. AO is not about censorship and I'm sure that one or more mods have already read or are following this thread. Any of you mods want to chime in here.

Based on the amount of reads of this thread I think that although allot of people are not posting they are still reading the thread and they might find some of what is being posted interesting or informative. You might disagree with that but why would you want to try to decide what's best for them to read?
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 08:34 AM.


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