Commercial Netting

[Wild&Free]

Are you for or against Commercial netting of Alberta Lake.

This is not about sustenance netting done by aboriginals, but commercial netting for export.

[Wild&Free]

I see a lot of negative comments on here about netting fish and would like to understand why a viable, sustainable and managed economic activity attracts more disgust then the exploitation of the tar sands on this board.

[huntsfurfish]

Guess I am the first one for.

Can be a useful tool at helping control the biomass! That is if done properly and gamefish(walleye/pike/trout) are not targetted.
but thats an enforcement issue. Have been to a few roundtable/commercial fisheries meetings. No I am not a commercial fisherman.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

I see a lot of negative comments on here about netting fish and would like to understand why a viable, sustainable and managed economic activity attracts more disgust then the exploitation of the tar sands on this board.

Instead of a lot of rhetoric, look at the facts. The remaining commercial netting is just not "viable" or "sustainable" in the actual context. It is just not necessary to the food supply of anyone, produces very little in net economic benefits, and is potentially destructive of the sport fisheries, which are actually not just viable and sustainable, but of an economic value that dwarfs this activity. I'll leave aside the question of whether "sustenance" fisheries of native peoples are really that at all any more. I suspect that the truckload of fish (including some of the biggest walleye, pike, and burbot I have ever seen) leaving Pinehurst Lake a few years ago was going to be eaten by the families of the netters in question (Right!!).
The oil sands ("tar" is the term used by opponents as a tactical means of spreading misinformation) are (even when royalties to government are down, as currently), basically what is paying for all those entitlements and services that nanny government supplies to the plebes, not only in Alberta, but across the country. While the environmental record of these developments has some "spotiness" for anyone who is honest about assessing it, it is continuing to improve, with new technologies. Until and unless we have a practical lack of actual need for oil in the global context, this is what is paying for our lifestyle (?), here and elsewhere. If it was not "viable", such activities would not exist - do you think capital investment in the billions is just for fun? Do you think that the jobs that depend on this, right across the country, are of no comparative value? Or maybe you just prefer that we get our energy generation supplied by people who would like to cut your throat as an "apostate" to their corruption or narrow-minded fascism (?).
I presume that you choose not to own or drive a motor vehicle, heat your shack "off the grid", don't own a TV, and eat only the wild vegetables you can harvest in your woodland environment (?). Oh, wait, you clearly have a computer/smart phone - so there must be cable/wi-fi in your neck of the woods - powered by your composting biofuel generator, I presume (?).
Sorry if the sarcasm is a little over the top. I have been an "environmentalist", and have actively promoted such causes for 40 years, and I will continue to do so. But it has to be tempered by contextual reality (?). Commercial netting in Alberta waters is well outside that box, in contemporary terms.

[straightedge]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

Instead of a lot of rhetoric, look at the facts. The remaining commercial netting is just not "viable" or "sustainable" in the actual context. It is just not necessary to the food supply of anyone, produces very little in net economic benefits, and is potentially destructive of the sport fisheries, which are actually not just viable and sustainable, but of an economic value that dwarfs this activity. I'll leave aside the question of whether "sustenance" fisheries of native peoples are really that at all any more. I suspect that the truckload of fish (including some of the biggest walleye, pike, and burbot I have ever seen) leaving Pinehurst Lake a few years ago was going to be eaten by the families of the netters in question (Right!!).
The oil sands ("tar" is the term used by opponents as a tactical means of spreading misinformation) are (even when royalties to government are down, as currently), basically what is paying for all those entitlements and services that nanny government supplies to the plebes, not only in Alberta, but across the country. While the environmental record of these developments has some "spotiness" for anyone who is honest about assessing it, it is continuing to improve, with new technologies. Until and unless we have a practical lack of actual need for oil in the global context, this is what is paying for our lifestyle (?), here and elsewhere. If it was not "viable", such activities would not exist - do you think capital investment in the billions is just for fun? Do you think that the jobs that depend on this, right across the country, are of no comparative value? Or maybe you just prefer that we get our energy generation supplied by people who would like to cut your throat as an "apostate" to their corruption or narrow-minded fascism (?).
I presume that you choose not to own or drive a motor vehicle, heat your shack "off the grid", don't own a TV, and eat only the wild vegetables you can harvest in your woodland environment (?). Oh, wait, you clearly have a computer/smart phone - so there must be cable/wi-fi in your neck of the woods - powered by your composting biofuel generator, I presume (?).
Sorry if the sarcasm is a little over the top. I have been an "environmentalist", and have actively promoted such causes for 40 years, and I will continue to do so. But it has to be tempered by contextual reality (?). Commercial netting in Alberta waters is well outside that box, in contemporary terms.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo no way! yo mama! snap.
you speak das truth!

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

I am for and against it . It helps with stabilization of a lake , but in a province whe we have less than a 1000 fish bearing lakes , which some you need to have a tag to keep , and some whe you can catch them and let them in , however if you look around you can get to some places that you can keep a decent amount . Myself I ould careless . I keep fish maybe 5 or so trips out of a 100+ days . Ill keep the odd walleyes when I can , or a few burbot , or sauger or 3 . The rest go back . I'm a firm advocate of catch and release fishing , but not against guys who keep them .

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

Instead of a lot of rhetoric, look at the facts. The remaining commercial netting is just not "viable" or "sustainable" in the actual context. It is just not necessary to the food supply of anyone, produces very little in net economic benefits, and is potentially destructive of the sport fisheries, which are actually not just viable and sustainable, but of an economic value that dwarfs this activity. I'll leave aside the question of whether "sustenance" fisheries of native peoples are really that at all any more. I suspect that the truckload of fish (including some of the biggest walleye, pike, and burbot I have ever seen) leaving Pinehurst Lake a few years ago was going to be eaten by the families of the netters in question (Right!!).
The oil sands ("tar" is the term used by opponents as a tactical means of spreading misinformation) are (even when royalties to government are down, as currently), basically what is paying for all those entitlements and services that nanny government supplies to the plebes, not only in Alberta, but across the country. While the environmental record of these developments has some "spotiness" for anyone who is honest about assessing it, it is continuing to improve, with new technologies. Until and unless we have a practical lack of actual need for oil in the global context, this is what is paying for our lifestyle (?), here and elsewhere. If it was not "viable", such activities would not exist - do you think capital investment in the billions is just for fun? Do you think that the jobs that depend on this, right across the country, are of no comparative value? Or maybe you just prefer that we get our energy generation supplied by people who would like to cut your throat as an "apostate" to their corruption or narrow-minded fascism (?).
I presume that you choose not to own or drive a motor vehicle, heat your shack "off the grid", don't own a TV, and eat only the wild vegetables you can harvest in your woodland environment (?). Oh, wait, you clearly have a computer/smart phone - so there must be cable/wi-fi in your neck of the woods - powered by your composting biofuel generator, I presume (?).
Sorry if the sarcasm is a little over the top. I have been an "environmentalist", and have actively promoted such causes for 40 years, and I will continue to do so. But it has to be tempered by contextual reality (?). Commercial netting in Alberta waters is well outside that box, in contemporary terms.

Was this directed at me personally? Seems a bit over the top for asking a simple question. I see that more people think that nets are killing lakes when oil and gas development can have a far more damaging effect. Considering the amendments of the Navigable Waters Act in Bill c-45 that could let oil and gas development drain water from lakes and rivers to use in production.

[dodgeboy1979]

if you only understood that the provinces govern their own water bodies and water consumption out of them. Nav waters was another gorernment branch basically reviewing the provinces work, that's all.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by dodgeboy1979

if you only understood that the provinces govern their own water bodies and water consumption out of them. Nav waters was another gorernment branch basically reviewing the provinces work, that's all.

Thank you for educating me on this. A concern is that if the oversight of the provinces has it's 'teeth' removed, and this province, which to me is overly concerned with the expansion of the oil and gas sector, can then implement changes at this level that the oversight has no power to stop. Make sense, I think I rambled a little.

[foxracing_23]

Absolutely against it.
I say: look at all license holders-if their sole income for the year is commercial fishing they can keep it. If not than take it away. The ones who kept it can keep it for 2yrs and then pull theirs as well

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Was this directed at me personally? Seems a bit over the top for asking a simple question. I see that more people think that nets are killing lakes when oil and gas development can have a far more damaging effect. Considering the amendments of the Navigable Waters Act in Bill c-45 that could let oil and gas development drain water from lakes and rivers to use in production.

Think you should change the title on your thread, as you obviously have no clue about netting a lake and don't care, it's around about way to bash the oil sands and the oil co's.

[fish99]

in the north part of the province where no sport fishing is nets would be ok.

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by fish99

in the north part of the province where no sport fishing is nets would be ok.

X2

[357xp]

Originally Posted by fish99

in the north part of the province where no sport fishing is nets would be ok.

what makes u guys think there is no sport fshing up north?

[EZM]

Generally, against commercial netting, with some exceptions, for a few aforementioned reasons;

1) Impact on the very few lakes we have here in Alberta
2) Impact to sport fishing
3) Often indiscriminate `collateral`damage to other species
4) A couple commercial fishermen on this site are jerks .... lol .... just kidding

I think in some cases, maybe like way up North, where the pressure and watershed can sustain a harvest, it might be ok.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by 357xp

what makes u guys think there is no sport fshing up north?

I don`t think anyone meant exactly that - I think they might agree with my post explaining, up North with reduced fishing pressure there might be a reasonable amount of harvest that a lake can sustain.

I can`t really think of one example in Central or Southern Alberta where this might be possible.

[208prov]

What % do you think the sask commercial fishing on cold lake take out per year compared to angling?
Lake trout we are referring to.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by 208prov

What % do you think the sask commercial fishing on cold lake take out per year compared to angling?
Lake trout we are referring to.

I`m not sure but would definitely be interesting to know.

If we are speaking about Alberta, I would caution the danger of comparing Sask as province of 90,000 lakes and 3 million or so residents to Alberta with less than 9000 lakes and over 6 million people.

I realize you are talking about Cold Lake specifically.

[Walleyes]

It has its place,, there are a few remote lakes that actually benefit from netting in the winter.. Helps keep the balance between predator and prey..

[deanmc]

In our area the commercial fishermen are successfully targeting whitefish. I support that. If there are walleye targeted elsewhere I am against that.

[Black Stim]

I'm interested to know where the idea of commercial fishing offering a "service" to any ecosystem ever came from. This seems like an outdated notion that's worn out its welcome now that people understand ecosystems better and we're at the point where there are too many users competing for too few resources. Other than the commercial fisherman that promote this idea to justify their own interests, I can't recall any instances of scientists hitting the panic button and demanding nets be dropped to "save" the lake. I'd be more on board if they could keep to the quotas for target species, but the collateral damage with sport fish is really high on some very important sport fisheries.

[Hifui]

Originally Posted by 208prov

What % do you think the sask commercial fishing on cold lake take out per year compared to angling?
Lake trout we are referring to.

What % do you think they take?

[wellpastcold]

Commercial fishing needs to go the way of the dinosaur. It produces zero economic activity. The contribution it makes to Albert's economy is the equivalent of jumpstarting your truck with a nine volt battery. The same amount of harvested fish creates far more impact in sport fishing. There is no one raising a family on commercial fishing. Not in todays world. There is simply no way it generates enough income. This is the land of plenty. There is work opportunities for all. It is time to end an industry that does not pay for itself. Before anybody chimes in about whitefish taking over our lakes, be prepared to discuss " bycatch".

[208prov]

Originally Posted by Hifui

What % do you think they take?

There quota is 2000 lbs, Thats peanuts compared to angling, Do the math the other day anglers could take that in 1 day, Everyone beats up commercial fishing,

[davegrant]

I used to be under impression that commercial netting had alot of bycatch (walleye) and was destroying populations until I seen a net pull at Pigeon 3 years ago. catch for 1 pull 63 fish with 58 whites 3 walleye and 2 pike. That is a better target ratio than what us rod and reel guys catch. It is important that we get all the facts before we jump to conclusions.

[huntsfurfish]

yup

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Black Stim

I'm interested to know where the idea of commercial fishing offering a "service" to any ecosystem ever came from. This seems like an outdated notion that's worn out its welcome now that people understand ecosystems better and we're at the point where there are too many users competing for too few resources. Other than the commercial fisherman that promote this idea to justify their own interests, I can't recall any instances of scientists hitting the panic button and demanding nets be dropped to "save" the lake. I'd be more on board if they could keep to the quotas for target species, but the collateral damage with sport fish is really high on some very important sport fisheries.

That's an excellent analogy.

[Hifui]

Originally Posted by 208prov

There quota is 2000 lbs, Thats peanuts compared to angling, Do the math the other day anglers could take that in 1 day, Everyone beats up commercial fishing,

Absolutely, it might actually take couple weekends or so for anglers to match the annual commercial harvest of lake trout on Cold Lake (conservative guess: 100 trout per weekend x 7 lbs/trout, so maybe 3 weekends). Commercial fishermen are told to pull out after they reach their quota, but F&W doesn't limit how many anglers can fish on the lake.

[208prov]

Originally Posted by Hifui

Absolutely, it might actually take couple weekends or so for anglers to match the annual commercial harvest of lake trout on Cold Lake (conservative guess: 100 trout per weekend x 7 lbs/trout, so maybe 3 weekends). Commercial fishermen are told to pull out after they reach their quota, but F&W doesn't limit how many anglers can fish on the lake.

Well the other weekend there was about 200 trucks and probabally 2 people per truck, Not saying everyone keeps a trout though, Anglers do hurt lakes also i am just stating they blame commercial fisherman always, Not saying they dont hurt thr lake but atleast its managed, Theres no limit on anglers and how many come out angling

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by hal53

Think you should change the title on your thread, as you obviously have no clue about netting a lake and don't care, it's around about way to bash the oil sands and the oil co's.

You assume a few things about a person who you do not know. Thanks for your judgement upon my character stranger. Either way, I started what I was looking for, a discussion on the perceptions of commercial netting to educate myself in the opinions of others. Some good points have been made and some interesting thoughts as well.

To those who say commercial netting has no economic benefit and that there is no one supporting themselves from commercial fishing, just ask the people who include fishing as part of their income, and think about the fact that they get to earn a living by spending time on the water catching fish. It's not the same as rod and reel, I'll admit that but it is still fishing and I'd enjoy the opportunity to do something similar. Though I'm more inclined to guiding/lodge operations then netting.

I am of the opinion that slipper skippers are wrong. If you own a quota, or a license then you should be the one to use it, not lease/sell it out.