Tiger Trout Stocking - Page 4

italk2u · #91 11-09-2015, 03:33 PM

I'm having a tough time understanding what all the fuss is About here.
Many of you say there's a pretty damn good chance the tigers will winter kill anyway. That being the case, other than the ethics issue, why not take home as many as you can carry.
Atleast that way they get to be somebody's food source for a meal or two, instead of ending up on the lake shore stinking to high heavens or in some seagull's stomach in the spring.
Besides, those same takers will probably discover the hard way that they taste like ****, hatchery raised fish usually do.

TroutSlam · #92 11-09-2015, 04:18 PM

They were put into lakes that don't usually/ very seldom winter kill, so that thinking just doesn't cut it. Let them grow and show so we can continue to have this fishing opportunity for years to come. If we fish them out in the first 2 yrs, why would the powers that be continue to waste money on something that we are just going to deplete as soon as we get the chance. Makes me sick some people...

RavYak · #93 11-09-2015, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZM

A couple comments .....

1) Federal jurisdiction, as far as I understand it, has nothing to do with catch/keep limits within a province pertaining to tidal or maritime waters. Alberta has neither, so I thought the feds had zero jurisdiction over provincial keep limits with the exception of federally listed (protected) species. That doesn't apply in this case either. I would think the "feds" have no say in any argument/policy/law let alone jurisdiction related to this thread.

2) I would think "logically" that a 5 trout possession limit out of stocked watersheds would apply to Tigers as they are, indeed, trout. Contrary to that, I think the regs. do state that if a fish is nor specifically listed it is classified as a non-game species and no limits apply. Prosecution of someone taking more than 5 Tigers could be problematic in our courts and likely wouldn't stand up. It's likely an oversight. Someone screwed up here. It's clear as mud.

3) The recent issue surrounding liability for winter aeration, and the fact that these watersheds will likely not be aerated leads me to believe all of the Tigers will likely die if the lake winter kills anyways.

1) The regulations are federal. If you google Alberta Fishery Regulations you will find them. The possession limits in them do not make sense though(lists all species as having limit of 1) but there is the law that I posted before which gives the province the ability to control limits and post them in the fishing guide which is for the most part not a legal document(other then I believe the limits and season closures).

This is also where one finds the list of Alberta Game fish(schedule 1) which specifically lists the trout species of which Tiger trout is not included.

Furthermore if you look in their definitions you will find the following.

Quote:

“game fish” means a fish of a species set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1.

and

Quote:

“trout” means a fish of a species set out in item 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 1.

That aside it is my understanding that it would be the province that is responsible for proposing changes for the feds to incorporate. What is holding up this federal process(Feds not making changes or Province not proposing them early enough) is unknown to me.

2) As above Tiger trout legally are not considered a trout in AB. Other then that you are correct.

3) That would be true but my understanding is that the reasons these lakes were considered and eventually chosen is because they do overwinter.

brown trout · #94 11-09-2015, 04:31 PM

Here's what I don't get... Tigers aren't a "species" to be classified, but are rather the result of two existing, separate species. For example and comparison, so are walleye and sauger, rainbows and cutthroat, bull/brook crosses which are so common on the foothills rivers, or whitetail and mule deer too. All of those exmples have verified hybridization cases (saugeye, cuttbows, bull/brook with no name, and a who-knows-what deer).

Good luck explaining in court that your saugeye or cuttbow was a sucker and has an unlimited limit. Same for the bull/brook. Ditto for the deer. You should be OK in the latter, provided you had a tag for one of the aforementioned species. As far as saugeye Or trout go, you will be OK provided you can justify the correct ID of the fish (I.e. no black on the dorsal fin, even if it has vermiculations on the back).

Why is the same logic not pertaining to "tigers" which are really not a different species, but the mule of browns and brookies. I'll say first hand, that there would be no way to ID nearly 50% of them as NOT browns (I.e. more than 50%would or could be IDed as browns if you didn't know tigers had been stocked) from a pure phenotypical view. Besides, they are the direct offspring of two verified game species.

If walleye and saugeye are 3 combined, and brown/brook are 5 combined (as far as still waters go), then why would saugeye and "tigers" be any different.

If the stocking reports showed BKBR instead of TgTr or whatever, would make a lot more sense.

And, if this is what it has come down to, best get used to not using common names in the regs.

"I sure don't get no 'brook trout' in this here Crick, but there are a lot of those ol' squaretails...".

Seems ripe for ignorant excuses to me.

Talking moose · #95 11-09-2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown trout

Here's what I don't get... Tigers aren't a "species" to be classified, but are rather the result of two existing, separate species. For example and comparison, so are walleye and sauger, rainbows and cutthroat, bull/brook crosses which are so common on the foothills rivers, or whitetail and mule deer too. All of those exmples have verified hybridization cases (saugeye, cuttbows, bull/brook with no name, and a who-knows-what deer).

Good luck explaining in court that your saugeye or cuttbow was a sucker and has an unlimited limit. Same for the bull/brook. Ditto for the deer. You should be OK in the latter, provided you had a tag for one of the aforementioned species. As far as saugeye Or trout go, you will be OK provided you can justify the correct ID of the fish (I.e. no black on the dorsal fin, even if it has vermiculations on the back).

Why is the same logic not pertaining to "tigers" which are really not a different species, but the mule of browns and brookies. I'll say first hand, that there would be no way to ID nearly 50% of them as NOT browns (I.e. more than 50%would or could be IDed as browns if you didn't know tigers had been stocked) from a pure phenotypical view. Besides, they are the direct offspring of two verified game species.

If walleye and saugeye are 3 combined, and brown/brook are 5 combined (as far as still waters go), then why would saugeye and "tigers" be any different.

If the stocking reports showed BKBR instead of TgTr or whatever, would make a lot more sense.

And, if this is what it has come down to, best get used to not using common names in the regs.

"I sure don't get no 'brook trout' in this here Crick, but there are a lot of those ol' squaretails...".

Seems ripe for ignorant excuses to me.

Because cut bows and saugeye and whitetail/Mule are breeding in the wild naturally. Tigers are "built" and raised in hatcheries.

brown trout · #96 11-09-2015, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Because cut bows and saugeye and whitetail/Mule are breeding in the wild naturally. Tigers are "built" and raised in hatcheries.

There have been natural tigers caught in Alberta. My inquiry is about how the federal regulatory wording can so severely limit the provincial government's ability to control its own resource. Seems that by default the offspring of game species should be species. Or else the very rigid wording of fish ID in Alberta will result in many, many poaching cases that can be untried.

Talking moose · #97 11-09-2015, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown trout

There have been natural tigers caught in Alberta. My inquiry is about how the federal regulatory wording can so severely limit the provincial government's ability to control its own resource. Seems that by default the offspring of game species should be species. Or else the very rigid wording of fish ID in Alberta will result in many, many poaching cases that can be untried.

I don't know, just a guess. Myself, I am not into any fish not native to Alberta. Browns and brooks and tigers, non native. I feel our financial resources should be put towards native fish in some way. My opinion.

wildman · #98 11-09-2015, 06:22 PM

This whole story is brutal.....
From fisheries doing a horrible job yet again and making a mess of a good opportunity to the anglers abusing resources yet again....brutal....

deerguy · #99 11-09-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by italk2u

I'm having a tough time understanding what all the fuss is About here.
Many of you say there's a pretty damn good chance the tigers will winter kill anyway. That being the case, other than the ethics issue, why not take home as many as you can carry.
Atleast that way they get to be somebody's food source for a meal or two, instead of ending up on the lake shore stinking to high heavens or in some seagull's stomach in the spring.
Besides, those same takers will probably discover the hard way that they taste like ****, hatchery raised fish usually do.

Some people care about the fisheries and want to see a future, others can't see past tomorrow and have a gimme gimme attitude. Soon enough the province will go C&R and we won't have this crap to worry about.

wind drift · #**100** 11-09-2015, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildman

This whole story is brutal.....
From fisheries doing a horrible job yet again and making a mess of a good opportunity to the anglers abusing resources yet again....brutal....

If you read the whole story, you read my post #54. What exactly is the horrible job yet again?

338Bluff · #**101** 11-09-2015, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deerguy

Some people care about the fisheries and want to see a future, others can't see past tomorrow and have a gimme gimme attitude. Soon enough the province will go C&R and we won't have this crap to worry about.

This Province isn't going catch and release any day soon. More trophy fisheries that offer that option are always welcome, but at the end of my day I don't play with my food. I catch enough to eat and then I quit. Catch and release can be just as or more abusive on our fish stocks than catch and kill.

Talking moose · #**102** 11-09-2015, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

This Province isn't going catch and release any day soon. More trophy fisheries that offer that option are always welcome, but at the end of my day I don't play with my food. I catch enough to eat and then I quit. Catch and release can be just as or more abusive on our fish stocks than catch and kill.

Agreed.
A guy might go out, catch 1 fish, go home and eat it.
Another guy may go out, catch and release 100 fish, and have several end up dying.
In reality, the guys out catching and releasing 100's of fish may be doing more damage than the old timer that catches a fish and goes home and eats it.
It's best not to point fingers.

wildman · #**103** 11-10-2015, 01:10 PM

quote - If you read the whole story, you read my post #54. What exactly is the horrible job yet again?

the fact that fisheries raised and fed these trout for how long and stocked them without regulations in place and didn't think of it until it was too late is just another sign of rampant incompetence. setting regs should have been one of the first things dealt with the moment they took this project on. waste of resources. extremely mickey mouse. typical for the alberta fisheries track record.

huntsfurfish · #**104** 11-10-2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildman

quote - If you read the whole story, you read my post #54. What exactly is the horrible job yet again?

the fact that fisheries raised and fed these trout for how long and stocked them without regulations in place and didn't think of it until it was too late is just another sign of rampant incompetence. setting regs should have been one of the first things dealt with the moment they took this project on. waste of resources. extremely mickey mouse. typical for the alberta fisheries track record.

Rampant incompetence?
How bout a minor oversite. Did you know it had to be mentioned? This may have been a first for them(probably was).

Careful how you whine, lots of people(fishermen) that would rather see this money spent on native fish!

The fish have been stocked, they are not wasted! Dumping them would have been wasted.

Sorry "Alberta Fisheries" do not live up to your expectations.

They tried to do something that some wanted to see happen(stock TGTR). Maybe they had it right before - no new species.

wildman · #**105** 11-13-2015, 09:57 AM

brutal.
the fact you're defending all this as a "good try" speaks volumes about just how bad a track record fisheries has.
the more people keep their heads in the sand the less things will change.
par for the course I guess.

huntsfurfish · #**106** 11-13-2015, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildman

brutal.
the fact you're defending all this as a "good try" speaks volumes about just how bad a track record fisheries has.
the more people keep their heads in the sand the less things will change.
par for the course I guess.

Guess we should hang em.

There was an ooops, a mistake.....

Get over it.

Pretty sure they will fix it just for you guys and raise and stock some more. Then all will be well.

wildman · #**107** 11-13-2015, 03:19 PM

very accepting of mediocre performance.....are you an oilers fan???

I will get over it. just a really lame waste of fisheries funds is all. and this province can't afford to waste what little funds is allocated....

EZM · #**108** 11-13-2015, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

1) The regulations are federal. If you google Alberta Fishery Regulations you will find them. The possession limits in them do not make sense though(lists all species as having limit of 1) but there is the law that I posted before which gives the province the ability to control limits and post them in the fishing guide which is for the most part not a legal document(other then I believe the limits and season closures).

This is also where one finds the list of Alberta Game fish(schedule 1) which specifically lists the trout species of which Tiger trout is not included.

Furthermore if you look in their definitions you will find the following.

and

That aside it is my understanding that it would be the province that is responsible for proposing changes for the feds to incorporate. What is holding up this federal process(Feds not making changes or Province not proposing them early enough) is unknown to me.

2) As above Tiger trout legally are not considered a trout in AB. Other then that you are correct.

3) That would be true but my understanding is that the reasons these lakes were considered and eventually chosen is because they do overwinter.

1) Like I said, as far as I know, the province legislates catch and keep limits. People who violate those limits are charged provincially (under the provincial statute and are tried in provincial court) are they not? (maybe I'm wrong). Either way - it was just a thought and comment on my part - I could be wrong (but I think you might be instead ..... wink ....). I'm going to do a little digging on this and see what we come up with ..... I am curious about this actually. I bet you a beer I'm right !!!

2) This one is weird and likely an oversight or bad timing in my opinion. Tigers are trout (or char actually). They are not listed in Alberta as a game species - so it's a catch 22. Either way I'm convinced this is a simple oversight OR, the timing didn't work as explained (theorized) in my original response to this topic.

As a side note - with a wink - To my previous point, why would the feds, who you feel govern and legislate the provincial fisheries act, need Alberta to "legally consider" or "recognize" a listed species? If they are in charge, and the Tigers are listed as a species in other jurisdictions why not Alberta? To me that makes no sense. It is my belief that the province regulates and legislates catch and keep limits for those species not federally listed as protected under the protection act.

3) Likely that was the case - I would agree - hopefully Joe meat fishermen won't catch all the fish and feel it's his right to catch and eat as many as he can. This attitude makes us all sick.

Interesting topic anyways. Let's see what I can dig up when a get a little free time.

EZM · #**109** 11-13-2015, 04:03 PM

UPDATE !!!!!!!!!!

Rav Yak owes me a beer .... !!!!!

made a quick call on this and was directed to this link (as a summary ).

Looks like each province is set up differently, but Alberta manages (legislates) and licenses fisheries. I asked specifically about catch / keep limits and the was told .... yes .... Alberta makes the rules and there is no federal jurisdiction in Alberta outside of Federally listed (protected) species. In the case, specific to Tigers, this does not apply as the Tigers are not listed as protected.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/polic.../op-pc-eng.htm

mmmmm ......... cold beer

One side note - just reading some other stuff here - "Officially" the Federal government "can" overrule provincial regulations regarding fisheries - but that have never done so and have a reciprocal management philosophy of non interference with the provinces who choose to self manage non tidal regulations.

So maybe a light beer is in order.

huntsfurfish · #**110** 11-13-2015, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildman

very accepting of mediocre performance.....are you an oilers fan???

I will get over it. just a really lame waste of fisheries funds is all. and this province can't afford to waste what little funds is allocated....

So you think stocking tiger trout is a waste too?

RavYak · #**111** 11-13-2015, 07:07 PM

EZM read my post again... I clearly state the province controls the limits etc by posting them in the guide to fishing regulations...

I have looked over the actual regulations many times and I understand them. For those that haven't done so here are some links you may find of interest.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peche...c/regs-eng.htm

http://www.mywildalberta.com/Fishing/FisheriesAct.aspx

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../FullText.html

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...0&display=html

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?pa...1&display=html

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/

You have to read all of them and know which governs what parts. It is a little confusing for most that is why they created and produce the guide to fishing regulations which on page 9 states it is not a legal document(although in fact I believe it is in certain situations such as lake specific quotas).

Deep · #**112** 11-13-2015, 09:14 PM

I fished Black Nugget, and had a talk with a provincial Tech. that was part of the tiger trout -from their beginning. They started out in Calgary and were moved to Cold Lake to grow even larger. She sadly admitted there was not a limit on them. Her reason for being at Black Nugget was for "Creel surveys". There was an individual she expected to have hidden part of his catch.

singleshotom · #**113** 02-14-2017, 02:07 PM

Such a shame how the Tiger Trout were brutally decimated in Black Nugget. These words from a Fish Biologist at the lake yesterday.......... Some of the misinformed people writing on social media are one of the big problems he claimed. Them stating that the trout were put in to take.. and had no limits...
Absolutely misinformed an a lot of people read it an believe is the law.......
If you read this entire thread its not hard to see what happens.
Shame on the people that Rape an Pillage our lakes to a point where there is nothing left. The answer to Pigs is zero limits.......

Hope you ate good .....
sst

singleshotom · #**114** 02-14-2017, 02:43 PM

PS
I was told we have a new fish boss in Alberta.........
And hopefully things will be different......
Maybe
sst

Dr.Shortington · #**115** 02-14-2017, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Agreed.
A guy might go out, catch 1 fish, go home and eat it.
Another guy may go out, catch and release 100 fish, and have several end up dying.
In reality, the guys out catching and releasing 100's of fish may be doing more damage than the old timer that catches a fish and goes home and eats it.
It's best not to point fingers.

Sure it happens....but if you took a large sample size, catch and kill would have much higher mortality rates.

McLeod · #**116** 02-15-2017, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singleshotom

Such a shame how the Tiger Trout were brutally decimated in Black Nugget. These words from a Fish Biologist at the lake yesterday.......... Some of the misinformed people writing on social media are one of the big problems he claimed. Them stating that the trout were put in to take.. and had no limits...
Absolutely misinformed an a lot of people read it an believe is the law.......
If you read this entire thread its not hard to see what happens.
Shame on the people that Rape an Pillage our lakes to a point where there is nothing left. The answer to Pigs is zero limits.......

Hope you ate good .....
sst

Not sure who this Biologist your referring to is but Dave Park..now a section head with fisheries ...Yes Alberta Fish and Wildlife .. was in charge of this project and he clearly stated the objective of stocking Tiger Trout was to basically see what the public reaction would be .In other words would Anglers take to it and enjoy the experience of fishing for these trout. Yes they would like to have a had them listed so there was a limit but that is controlled by the Feds and the regulations could not be changed to reflect a Tiger trout limit before they had to get the fish out of the hatchery in Cold lake.
Will they be stocked again ? Yes when possible. Of course they knew they fish would not last long.