2015 regs

[WayneChristie]

Have to say Im very disappointed to see they didnt lower the limit on Badger to 1 fish or make it catch and release only, the pike fishery is going to die fast with all the other local closures, way to kill a lake

[MoFugger21]

And Keho and Little Bow Reservoir.... Was quite surprised about this as well. All signs after the latest info session in Vulcan pointed to all other reservoirs not being closed moving to 1 over 63cm. And then I had a conversation with the local CO down at Travers one day this winter, and he indicated that the others were moving to 1 over 63 as well... Wonder what happened there?

[WayneChristie]

I dont know, Im rather dissapointed. I want to go have a chat with Terry Claytons replacement one of these days I will have to ask him

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by WayneChristie

I dont know, Im rather dissapointed. I want to go have a chat with Terry Claytons replacement one of these days I will have to ask him

I agree Wayne, they seem to forget that if you close an area in close proximity to an open area....guess what happens and where the masses now flock to!

LC

[Gators]

I couldn't agree more with you guys. Such a shame to ruin another quality fishery. Unbelievable that SRD thinks the smallest lake in the area can handle a 3 fish possession limit. Typical government wait till it's too late change the regs. Might already be too late looks like some smaller fish won the derby this year. Hope this isn't a bad sign.

[anthony5]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I agree Wayne, they seem to forget that if you close an area in close proximity to an open area....guess what happens and where the masses now flock to!

LC

We pretty much made that statement to the Bio at the Vulcan meeting about the closure of 5 reservoirs this year and he pretty much shrugged it off as we knew not what we were talking about(Badger & Keho) and carried on with his speil on why the stats concluded that these lakes needed to be closed as old as the stats were. No consideration was given to these afore mentioned lakes(BADGER or KEHO). It seems as tho all lake closures to catch and keep are what is happening. I would think that catch and keep(lets say for instance, one pike or walleye) would be easier to regulate than poaching, because this is the environment that they may have created more so than it was before these REGS.

[The Reel Deal]

Just need to start a new thread: "badger and Keho - 0 pike limit!"

Half will believe and not even check the regs lol

[Logan]

I'm still in shock that our waters are so mismanaged that Alberta is implementing 0 keep limits for Pike of all things!

[Macdrizzle]

Slight derail: I've heard forum members getting cash rewards for reporting a poacher when F&W catches them. I've called report a poacher twice on the red deer river, 3 times in travers and once in gull. Not once were they enforced... At least I'm assuming this since I've never received a cheque. I don't get out fishing nearly as much as some forum members, but to witness 6 cases of poaching in probably 20-25 outings a year? Those are some scary stats!

Back on topic

[Habfan]

Originally Posted by Macdrizzle

Slight derail: I've heard forum members getting cash rewards for reporting a poacher when F&W catches them. I've called report a poacher twice on the red deer river, 3 times in travers and once in gull. Not once were they enforced... At least I'm assuming this since I've never received a cheque. I don't get out fishing nearly as much as some forum members, but to witness 6 cases of poaching in probably 20-25 outings a year? Those are some scary stats!

Back on topic

Reported a guy on crawling valley a couple years ago fishing a day before opening day and had a under sized pike in his possession. He was charged, and I received a $500 cheque in the mail. Didn't even have to go to court as a witness. Sorry back to topic !

[SCHOOCH]

Damn there goes Frank Lake again

[fish99]

Originally Posted by Habfan

Reported a guy on crawling valley a couple years ago fishing a day before opening day and had a under sized pike in his possession. He was charged, and I received a $500 cheque in the mail. Didn't even have to go to court as a witness. Sorry back to topic !

wow 500$ for one under size pike . I wonder what the fine was.

[schmedlap]

most of all, is that they are not closing down killing the really big girls. I have no problem, in some fisheries, with allowing a keep of 1 or 2 "over 63's", but I have a big problem with not restricting this to a "slot". It should not be allowed, anywhere, to keep one over 100 cm (perhaps even 80 or 90 cm?). And I agree that this will just inevitably ruin the fishery in the places where "keep" is allowed - the "meaters" will gravitate.
The only thing I can think of to do is to harass my MLA, and the Minister, ... again... but I don't think either one is a fisher or would survive 10 minutes "in the bush", or really cares about or understands the issues involved, at all. Instead of whining amongst ourselves, does anyone have any viable ideas about how to really "push" the issue in the public and media sphere? That is where such issues are actually "won". I have no expertise in such, but I am willing to follow a "bright" lead.

[Pike fisher]

Here's a copy of the letter that I wrote to the ESRD Minister Fawett and the Southern region senior fisheries biologist (Shane Petry). I think we need to bombard them with how we feel...let guys keep one pike over 63 cm but make the regs that same on as many lakes as possible to spread out the fishing pressure.

Dear Shane:

It was with sadness that I read the proposed changes to 2015 angling regulations. I noticed that the current trend of making more lakes a 'zero keep' on certain fish species has continued (specifically Travers, Macgregor, Sherburne, Rolling Hills and MRRR). What is shocking to me is how those bodies of water will go from 3 pike over 63 cm one year to no keep the next. While I understand the importance of protecting the fish stocks in our lakes, I see a huge long term problem that no one seems to be cluing in to...although my Grade 11 Biology class could see it when we talked about the proposed changes in class.

I showed my class the proposed changes and then asked them, "Does anyone see any potential problems with this idea". Within 30 seconds one of the students answered - "Won't all of the fishermen who want to keep a fish for supper just go to the same lake, and then deplete the fish stocks there?"

Precisely!!! While I am not a F&W biologist, I am a person of at least average intelligence (and have two University degrees). I have noticed a huge increase in fishing pressure on bodies of water where there is not a zero keep restriction on pike or walleye. Two weeks ago while fishing on Badger Lake, I stopped counting at 65 trucks. It never used to be that way when fishermen could keep pike and walleye at all of the surrounding lakes, and if it keeps up, there won't be any big pike left in Badger Lake either. Rather than make many lakes zero keep and others (like Badger) 3 pike over 63 cm, would it not make more sense to have all lakes '1 pike over 63 cm and 1 walleye over 50cm' in order to spread out the fishing pressure.

I know the reason for a zero keep is to allow a collapsed population to recover, but in the meantime, all we are doing is putting all of the fishing pressure on a select few lakes, which will inevitably lead to their collapse, leading us into a long cycle of over harvest, followed by no harvest, followed by over harvest, followed by.....you get the picture. Again, I'm not a biologist, but it seems common sense to me that we should spread the fishing pressure out on as many lakes as possible, and allowing the same keep restrictions on all lakes would meet that goal.

Sadly I notice that the same trend is happening with the hunting regulations for bow hunting...closing many southern WMU's to a general archery season for antlered mule deer....putting a lot of bow hunting pressure on the fewer WMU's that remain open...which can only lead to one thing

Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my ideas.

P.S. Good call on the closure of commercial fishing. It was about time.

[Secret coulee]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

most of all, is that they are not closing down killing the really big girls. I have no problem, in some fisheries, with allowing a keep of 1 or 2 "over 63's", but I have a big problem with not restricting this to a "slot". It should not be allowed, anywhere, to keep one over 100 cm (perhaps even 80 or 90 cm?). And I agree that this will just inevitably ruin the fishery in the places where "keep" is allowed - the "meaters" will gravitate.
The only thing I can think of to do is to harass my MLA, and the Minister, ... again... but I don't think either one is a fisher or would survive 10 minutes "in the bush", or really cares about or understands the issues involved, at all. Instead of whining amongst ourselves, does anyone have any viable ideas about how to really "push" the issue in the public and media sphere? That is where such issues are actually "won". I have no expertise in such, but I am willing to follow a "bright" lead.

Wow I could not have said it any better.im tired of all the talk with the big dogs on this forum behind there computers that blow smoke and mirrors and bully to jocky for position on the way they procieve there schedule operates or fishing endevoires superseid. Nice to here the basicks schmedlap with common sence with any fishery in southern AB that is terribly over fished by unrealistitic #'s of fisherman lmfao and our ASRD bios are finally figuring it out and now immediately dropping the ball,at the same time with many not so popular lakes about to take a slamming because of miss management or 2015 proposals.Dont get me wrong though there is a million varieables with every thing our managers are trying to acomplish here witch with bitch...ng and belliteling and commercial fishing,O budget as being the low man on the totem pol.lol you be the judge cause I'm not gunna get into it with anybody but wow we are in serious trouble here guys on many fronts,and it seems with ASRD it's always about reaction about 4yrs to lait.

[pikergolf]

You guys have to remember for every person trying to preserve fisheries, there is one crying he can't catch and kill enough to feed himself fish once a week. Life in Alberta.

[J D]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

You guys have to remember for every person trying to preserve fisheries, there is one crying he can't catch and kill enough to feed himself fish once a week. Life in Alberta.

So true and this is where you have to try and lobby for a balance between the 2 groups.

Because of this it is often better to push for restrictive limits rather than complete closures.

I understand those trying to conserver pushing for c&r only but this does not spread the pressure and takes eyes off the water that may report those poaching.

It's all about give and take often a balance between both parties will give the best results.

Personally I would hate being the bio making the call when having both groups nagging in your ear

[Pycnotic]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

You guys have to remember for every person trying to preserve fisheries, there is one crying he can't catch and kill enough to feed himself fish once a week. Life in Alberta.

It's sad that it is this way. If someone needs to eat fish this often, then go buy it in the store. In my 25 years of fishing I have kept around 15 fish (I don't eat fish, never liked the taste of it, but love the sport). They really need to step up the enforcement and go after the poachers and reduce limits but not close the lakes.