Sport fishing regulation changes

[Don Andersen]

See: https://www.alberta.ca/2022-23-sport...d38HHGhG_FIm8k

To comment.

Don

[Smoky buck]

Waiting to see what proposals are

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

See: https://www.alberta.ca/2022-23-sport...d38HHGhG_FIm8k

To comment.

Don

Please note that the webinars include "notifications of regulation changes proposed"...and that " Consultation items we are seeking feedback on through the Sportfishing Regulation survey will also be discussed, including....."

In other words AE will TELL you what the changes are and they are only seeking consultation on the specific items that they mention...ones that have nothing to do with the planned 2022 reg changes.

I stand to be corrected...but it is my understanding that the proposed 2022 reg changes are already cast in stone as they would have had to have been gazetted before February 7th.

Comments, AE folks?

[Drewski Canuck]

If there is one thing a Bureaucrat hates is political oversight.

These dog and pony shows are really to say that there was "consultation" with the public. Consultation only means a one way dialogue, and not from the Public.

Prime example was 20 years of no walleye retention in the St. Paul Bonnyville area lakes, until an Opposition MLA hosted a number of town hall meetings to force the issues on the Biologists.

So if you want to go to these exposes, and you want to have an impact that will be heard, tell the Bios and Managers that you will be writing to all the MLAs about the changes you do not support and hold the Bios to their science. Then follow through and do up the letters and send them, NOT E Mails which just get junked, and state your case.

Change comes from the top.

Drewski

[pikeman06]

Exactly Drewski. There needs to be change, and BIG change at the senior biologist level province wide. The new regs are probably already printed and will remain the same with the exception of a few more waters in first nation territory to appease the gods. I remember the gentleman you refer too that finally got some kind of harvest albeit tags on over walleyed lakes up there. As you say 20 years later it's still the same old zero pike zero walleye 15 perch but there are none and 10 wormy whitefish. How about some site specific half lake closures for a change or a zero perch and a small walleye or pike for the frying pan? How about they just try one friggin lake for releasing all pike over 63 cm for a year or two and see what happens? What are they gonna do with cold lake? Why not protect a large mass of the trout that are just under the legal length and let them spawn and die of old age while they have the numbers? I could go on for days but its BACKWARDS. if they are stocking its different but we aren't so protect the breeding fish or we have nothing. For 20.more years.

[Smoky buck]

Well I didn’t see anything that made me think that we will see any big positive changes. Hopefully there is some positive changes coming that are not in the survey

[Poppa]

some interesting stuff in there, for sure. My overall take, which I made clear within the survey, was that I want to see the creation of as many trophy walleye lakes as possible. I think *most* people are CnR fishers these days (increasingly the case, anyhow) that just want to hunt/catch trophy fish, get a quick picture, and back down they go to grow even bigger. I understand that not all of Alberta's water bodies are conducive to a trophy fishery, but they should aim for as many as possible. Hoping that becomes the case!

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Poppa

some interesting stuff in there, for sure. My overall take, which I made clear within the survey, was that I want to see the creation of as many trophy walleye lakes as possible. I think *most* people are CnR fishers these days (increasingly the case, anyhow) that just want to hunt/catch trophy fish, get a quick picture, and back down they go to grow even bigger. I understand that not all of Alberta's water bodies are conducive to a trophy fishery, but they should aim for as many as possible. Hoping that becomes the case!

Myself and many others are pretty sick of the decline in pike fisheries in exchange for stunted walleye programs

I made my view very clear too

[Seli]

I know slot sizes are not the answer for every lake but when angling shows chat with their local guides on lakes with slot limits, every guide praises how the fishery has improved with slot limits. Most of these have to deal with walleye and pike but a slot on trout should keep the big girls in the lakes as well.

I know lots of people do not like the tag system, but I would rather see more tag lakes than zero limits. Burnstick was 0 limit then 1 over 50, now back to zero. The 2020 netting survey, which is far from perfect, shows how the over 50 cm has really negatively affected that lake. Each lake is different but maybe a slot size or just B tags might be better once/if the population recovers.

Eric

[Poppa]

Originally Posted by Seli

I know slot sizes are not the answer for every lake but when angling shows chat with their local guides on lakes with slot limits, every guide praises how the fishery has improved with slot limits. Most of these have to deal with walleye and pike but a slot on trout should keep the big girls in the lakes as well.

I know lots of people do not like the tag system, but I would rather see more tag lakes than zero limits. Burnstick was 0 limit then 1 over 50, now back to zero. The 2020 netting survey, which is far from perfect, shows how the over 50 cm has really negatively affected that lake. Each lake is different but maybe a slot size or just B tags might be better once/if the population recovers.

Eric

I'm a big fan of "slot sizes", as a method of increasing average size of fish. Encourage selective harvest of "eaters", and put the prime breeders back to create more large fish. That's what it's all about.

[Poppa]

Anybody sit in on the Zoom meetings last night regarding proposed changes? I got busy and wasn't able to. Curious if there was any useful info.

[flyrodfisher]

Originally Posted by Poppa

Anybody sit in on the Zoom meetings last night regarding proposed changes?

Did any of the Alberta Environment folk confirm that the changes are already cast in stone?

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by Poppa

some interesting stuff in there, for sure. My overall take, which I made clear within the survey, was that I want to see the creation of as many trophy walleye lakes as possible. I think *most* people are CnR fishers these days (increasingly the case, anyhow) that just want to hunt/catch trophy fish, get a quick picture, and back down they go to grow even bigger. I understand that not all of Alberta's water bodies are conducive to a trophy fishery, but they should aim for as many as possible. Hoping that becomes the case!

I know a lake, let’s just call it Frank lake. That was opened up for retention of walleye. I (and others) expected it to be cleaned out likety split. You know what, it’s not. In fact, some of the best fishing days I’ve had are there. Incredible actually. I’m primarily C&R, but at the same time, I want to have the right to take one home if I have a craving. This little test case has convinced me that lakes won’t be cleaned out simply if opened up. Shocking to say, but some will know exactly what I’m talking about. The key to unlocking potential was opening up the food web with a prey species/minnows of sorts. If we want good fisheries, the existing populations need food. Whitefish helps in lakes that have a population.

Anyway, complicated topic, but I don’t think closures and more regulations are the answer. It’s a lazy approach.

[CardiacCowboy]

Originally Posted by Poppa

Anybody sit in on the Zoom meetings last night regarding proposed changes? I got busy and wasn't able to. Curious if there was any useful info.

South meeting on you tube now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5I6nv-NR9k

If you dig through some of the info before the webinar proposed july-august restrictions of bow 3pm-12am. Making Pine Collee a trophy trout lake proposal. Crawling valley changes. Those are the ones I recall in my zone.

[swampy45]

Originally Posted by smoky buck

myself and many others are pretty sick of the decline in pike fisheries in exchange for stunted walleye programs

i made my view very clear too

more big pike!!!

[Poppa]

Originally Posted by I’d rather be outdoors

I know a lake, let’s just call it Frank lake. That was opened up for retention of walleye. I (and others) expected it to be cleaned out likety split. You know what, it’s not. In fact, some of the best fishing days I’ve had are there. Incredible actually. I’m primarily C&R, but at the same time, I want to have the right to take one home if I have a craving. This little test case has convinced me that lakes won’t be cleaned out simply if opened up. Shocking to say, but some will know exactly what I’m talking about. The key to unlocking potential was opening up the food web with a prey species/minnows of sorts. If we want good fisheries, the existing populations need food. Whitefish helps in lakes that have a population.

Anyway, complicated topic, but I don’t think closures and more regulations are the answer. It’s a lazy approach.

Fair enough...I'm a fan of slot sizes, especially for walleye. Keep the 16-18's, and everything else goes back. The key is keeping the good genetic breeders in there. But a slot size with limited retention is important to reduce stunting.

[rmatei]

My 2 bits worth.....NO TAGS. If the lake will not sustain even a one fish limit under a general license close it down period.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by rmatei

My 2 bits worth.....NO TAGS. If the lake will not sustain even a one fish limit under a general license close it down period.

If it can handle tags it can handle a one fish limit you just may need to shorten the season

[OL_JR]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

If it can handle tags it can handle a one fish limit you just may need to shorten the season

Maybe, but on highly pressured lakes where a tag is used or proposed I think the season would have to be so short that tags wouldn't look so bad in the end. I like to eat fish and think tags have their place. There needs to be diversity in the regs though. I don't want tags to be the default reg whatsoever. Slots, c and r, tags are all valid tools to be used.

Wouldn't mind getting rid of the "1 over" regs for the most part. I think if a waterbody can support a 1 fish limit there is no reason not to protect the big fish. Basically every 1 over 50, 43, 63 etc. regulation should be replaced by a slot.

There is mention of electronic tags in the next info summary so curious what comes of that.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by OL_JR

Maybe, but on highly pressured lakes where a tag is used or proposed I think the season would have to be so short that tags wouldn't look so bad in the end. I like to eat fish and think tags have their place. There needs to be diversity in the regs though. I don't want tags to be the default reg whatsoever. Slots, c and r, tags are all valid tools to be used.

Wouldn't mind getting rid of the "1 over" regs for the most part. I think if a waterbody can support a 1 fish limit there is no reason not to protect the big fish. Basically every 1 over 50, 43, 63 etc. regulation should be replaced by a slot.

There is mention of electronic tags in the next info summary so curious what comes of that.

Personally I am 100% opposed to tags and would take a shorter season and slot limit combo. I will never support or purchase a tag and never want to see it become the common fall back

But I rarely keep fish for starters so when I do decide I want to keep one there is none tag options in my area

[I’d rather be outdoors]

If we want to save money, we should just lay off the seat polishers making these regs. Completely reactive and suggestions in the survey show they don’t really know what’s going on or feel like they need to fix things that aren’t broken. Total waste. Give control of regulations to F&G associations, and take the savings to heavily stock rivers/lakes. Why wasn’t stocking an option for the bow for instance? Sad when everything in their world requires a metaphorical hammer because that’s all that’s in the toolbox. A tradesmen is out of work pretty quickly if all they have is a hammer in the kit.

There’s wider lenses to look at things through, and I’m not just talking about the bow, and I’m just sick of their myopic view (Close down/restrict further). It should be an extremely difficult process (almost impossible) and used as a last resort to further reduce opportunities to Albertans. The bio’s are always way to quick to pull this card, and extremely slow (putting it lightly) to remove the additional restrictions. What a mess.

Wonder if the ink is already dry on the new regs?

[deschambault]

I am encouraged that they are at least talking about some walleye retention on Crawling Valley but again they want an "over__ " reg instead of a slot - 40-45cm or so. I cannot understand why Alberta hates slots so much when they work pretty much everywhere in the world. At any rate we will head to Tobin this June and Kootenay in Aug/Sep to eat a fish or two

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by deschambault

I am encouraged that they are at least talking about some walleye retention on Crawling Valley but again they want an "over__ " reg instead of a slot - 40-45cm or so. I cannot understand why Alberta hates slots so much when they work pretty much everywhere in the world. At any rate we will head to Tobin this June and Kootenay in Aug/Sep to eat a fish or two

Not sure why the hesitation on a slots...cheaper to just keep things closed perhaps? Not sure why STOCK is a four letter word in their world either. Yes, it costs more, but I believe we deserve quality fisheries in Ab and not waterbodies that are on rotating closures every 10 years... pathetic. We have the cheapest (or close to) fishing license in Cad. Would pay more if $ went DIRECTLY into more stocking efforts (both in predator/forage and variety of fish). Would love to see a lake like Spray (as an example) stocked with Kokes. Will never happen though.

[CardiacCowboy]

I would love to see more effort put into stocking of the furtile non native/native trout. I can't think of a lake with naturally reproducing rainbows. I know there are in BC. They are so afraid of affecting native fish they don't even try.

Without accidents we wouldn't even have rainbows or browns in the bow. They have flourished because they are well suited to the conditions. If they were removed I don't believe we would see a huge increase in native bulls and cutties and whitefish.