New surveys available on fisheries engagement page

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Bemoredog

I wouldn't get your hopes up about a trophy trout fishery. I'd expect a Chain Lakes clone. Simple put and take fishery of 20 to 30cm bows. Easiest thing to implement.

Exactly.

Another put and take trout fishery for 6-10" trout...

[portwein]

- allow to keep 3-5 walleyes for one season
- stock with yellow perch, will be good meal base for walleye, pike and burbot and in few years we will have good perch lake relatively close to Calgary
- no trout, there is Chain Lakes Res for trout fishing lovers

[goldscud]

What if you actually let the trout go until they were 20+" long....I know it seems crazy....but then there would be lots of big trout around. I'm surprised more people don't want to catch a trout that would put up a great fight. Three years of patience might just give amazing results.

The walleye are not reproducing and stunted, the population is doomed

[Dewey Cox]

I think a seasonal limit would be a great thing for a lot of different fish species.
I hate the idea of buying tags, but I think if your license entitled you to "x" number of each fish species a year, that would help the fish populations.
I think most people who like to keep and eat fish would be ok with a certain number a year. It's a sport fishing license, and I would argue if you are eating your daily limit everyday, that isn't what the regulators had in mind when they made the limits.
I have no idea how that would work in the real world, maybe you'd get a punchcard, or have to keep a log? But I think it could save some of the more heavily fished water bodies.

[Habfan]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Exactly.

Another put and take trout fishery for 6-10" trout...

I don't think it would be a chain lakes clone at all ! Besides it would be good to take some pressure off of chain. This is not going to end up with 6-10 inch trout as deeper lakes produce bigger trout. If you would rather see these little walleyes just die of old age and have a totally dead fishery then you do what you have too. We do have a lot of little stocked ponds that get fished out in a weekend, I agree that sucks, but we don't have very many bigger lakes with trout in them that are easily accessible ! If you would have seen the days when Crawling Valley was stocked with rainbows you would change your mind in a flash. The walleye fishery at PC is a dud, get over it.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Habfan

I don't think it would be a chain lakes clone at all ! Besides it would be good to take some pressure off of chain. This is not going to end up with 6-10 inch trout as deeper lakes produce bigger trout. If you would rather see these little walleyes just die of old age and have a totally dead fishery then you do what you have too. We do have a lot of little stocked ponds that get fished out in a weekend, I agree that sucks, but we don't have very many bigger lakes with trout in them that are easily accessible ! If you would have seen the days when Crawling Valley was stocked with rainbows you would change your mind in a flash. The walleye fishery at PC is a dud, get over it.

You're welcome to your opinion Habfan. Like mine, it's exactly that and nothing more.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on history or other fishing opportunities in southern AB though.

[338Bluff]

Not going to make everyone happy. I hate walleye and want to see our perch and whitefish restored to what they were pre 1980. Too many walleye stocked and protected where they had no business being in the first place.

[Habfan]

Sorry ! It just seemed like you were lacking in those areas ! Walleyedude.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by goldscud

What if you actually let the trout go until they were 20+" long....I know it seems crazy....but then there would be lots of big trout around. I'm surprised more people don't want to catch a trout that would put up a great fight. Three years of patience might just give amazing results.

The walleye are not reproducing and stunted, the population is doomed

Stocked in proper numbers it only takes trout 3-4 years to reach 20+ inches. Biggest reason most trout lakes are mediocre is because they are little sloughs or they are overstocked for the catch and keep folks.

PCR could be an awesome trout fishery if handled properly.

[tallieho]

I am for converting over to trout.C &R for a couple years,to get the fish past the 6-10 range.There are various strains,available.For instance when BC ,has a winterkilled lake.They stock it with Fraser Valley AF3N Tripoloids.They have been stocked in Summit Lk after a w/kill with 8-10 in may & by oct they are 16 -18".How about a multiple species of trout,with very strict reg's.Let's say Tiger's & Brown's or Brook trout.Hatcheries put out all sterile fish now.If it were say Tigers,you won't have to go damn near to the 60 paralle in the nw,or east of Edmonton.They would be 1-11/2 hrs.away ......

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Habfan

Sorry ! It just seemed like you were lacking in those areas ! Walleyedude.

You can add that to the list of things you've been wrong about in this thread.

Besides, you're a self professed Habs fan...pretty good indication you're lacking in just about every meaningful area!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by tallieho

Maybe they could do a stocking of Tigers.Provided they implement some very strict regulations before they stock.Brook trout also get along very well with Tigers.
Considering that lakes like Tyrell are being reconsidered for stocking trout.Which they dumped millions into,only to be eaten by pike.I wonder if they would consider a swap[Pine Trout QSF],Tyrell [walleye].Trout for me in Pine Coulee & make it a QSF.....

Totally agree. A multi species lake would be awesome. Tigers, brooks, browns, variety y of rainbow strains.

[enduro155]

I may not post a lot but I am on this site daily.
These surveys prove how clueless our leaders are.
They want to take every lake and form a one fish monoculture.
I do not know much about the south, but why would Moose Lake, which is quite a large lake, be created into a perch fishery. I don't know a single angler who wants to limit or eradicate species other than perch in that lake to the point where that is the only trophy.

My solution would be is every lake have tags, and a person can buy multiple tags. But not for the over 50 walleye and 63 pike.
Slot limit and take out the over abundant fish. Allow for all species to co exist.
Tag the limits for control, Don't care If I have to pay the fee.
This also spreads out the pressure. Does this not make sense. At least in the central and Lakeland areas?
I may be out to lunch, but I don't think so. The tags limit the take, so despite the abundance of anglers, it would equalize to a point similar to the numbers in Manitoba where slots work.

[idaman]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Stocked in proper numbers it only takes trout 3-4 years to reach 20+ inches. Biggest reason most trout lakes are mediocre is because they are little sloughs or they are overstocked for the catch and keep folks.

PCR could be an awesome trout fishery if handled properly.

You may be right... But any lake in AB, COULD BE a awesome trout fishery if stocked and handled properly, unfortunately we live in Alberta and the term proper management if a completely foreign concept to the powers that be.

[idaman]

Why not stock PCR yearly as catch and keep for walleye like they do on a bunch of lakes in Sask.

[North66]

A disclaimer before I get into this post: I’m not an expert, but I am a skeptic and a data junkie. I’m also unwilling to believe that if there were truly a magically simple solution to fisheries in Alberta that it wouldn’t have already been tried.

I’ve been to the meetings and I’ve seen the data they hand us on lakes in Alberta. I wanted to check for myself.

From various sources, it looks like:

Saskatchewan has about 50,000 fish-bearing bodies of water (source: http://www.southsaskriverstewards.ca...mplete%201.pdf)

Manitoba has 110,000 (interesting read: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...bfish_1999.pdf)

BC has over 20,000 lakes, 750,000 kms of streams, and an ocean (yeah we get it, quit bragging BC: http://www.gofishbc.com/Where-to-Fish.aspx)

Ontario has 1/5 of the world’s freshwater (https://www.ontario.ca/page/about-ontario)

Alberta has something like 800 fish-bearing lakes, and 200 of those are stocked trout fisheries.

Of Canada’s regulations, there are a lot of slot sizes and maximum size limits in the province near to us, but you get east to New Brunswick and PEI (By the way NB STILL has more fishable freshwater lakes than AB with 2500 lakes), and you see that infamous minimum size limit again. The thing about our AB regs is I feel that it’s for managing people and our fishing habits more than it is for managing actual fish.

Another interesting read, is the Canada-wide sportfishing survey. I checked and a new one is coming out this year (Available here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm) but the 2010 one still has some interesting figures in it. Mainly the one that says next to Ontario and Quebec, we are tied with BC for Harvest, and we actually harvest more total fish than Saskatchewan and Manitoba (although, barely), but all this considering we don’t have the lakes.

So say what you will, and espouse your opinions, but I don’t really see this as a “If I were king for a day” type of issue. That being said, I want to charge our seniors for licenses (even at a buck a piece) and I feel like that would make a mild difference, if only to track more data about who the heavy users are of the fisheries.

*BONUS* All of the countries fishing regs:

BC: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/reg...is_2009-11.pdf

AB: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/

SK: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx...d-ea08eafb1f89

YK: http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/hunting-fis...hRegs16-17.pdf

NWT: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/defau..._2015-2016.pdf

NUN?: http://nunavuttourism.com/things-to-...ishing-licence

MB: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...guide_2016.pdf

ON: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net...ry-english.pdf

QC: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/english/publ...ions/index.asp

Nfld: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/folios/...016-17-eng.pdf

NS: https://novascotia.ca/fish/documents...dbook_2016.pdf

NB: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/D.../Fish/Fish.pdf

PEI: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/si...ummary_web.pdf

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by North66

The thing about our AB regs is I feel that it’s for managing people and our fishing habits more than it is for managing actual fish.

This one line in your post nailed it. It's sad but true, and a necessary evil.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by idaman

You may be right... But any lake in AB, COULD BE a awesome trout fishery if stocked and handled properly, unfortunately we live in Alberta and the term proper management if a completely foreign concept to the powers that be.

Most of our trout lakes could only be good trout lakes if they were aerated, stocked in low numbers and were catch and release only. Most of them are little potholes/sloughs that only have trout because they aren't good enough lakes to have maintained a natural populations of pike, walleye and perch.

There are a few good quality lakes for trout in the mountains that were naturally trout lakes as well as a few man made lakes that are decent too and almost all these lakes have good quality fish in them. The odd one like Carson is wrecked by management decisions to provide a catch and keep fishery vs quality fishery but lakes like Carson are few and far between here.

It is a tough and interesting situation at PCR. I see the argument both ways, I support the walleye fishery if they are just going to turn PCR into another Carson though(overstocked to appease catch and keep fishermen). If they were going to turn it into a quality trout fishery allowing them to have less reliance on aerated lakes like say Beaver and Police Outpost then it would be good change though imo. It would place a lot more pressure on a few of the other close walleye lakes to Calgary though so that has to be taken into account as well.

[enduro155]

Originally Posted by North66

A disclaimer before I get into this post: I’m not an expert, but I am a skeptic and a data junkie. I’m also unwilling to believe that if there were truly a magically simple solution to fisheries in Alberta that it wouldn’t have already been tried.

I’ve been to the meetings and I’ve seen the data they hand us on lakes in Alberta. I wanted to check for myself.

From various sources, it looks like:

Saskatchewan has about 50,000 fish-bearing bodies of water (source: http://www.southsaskriverstewards.ca...mplete%201.pdf)

Manitoba has 110,000 (interesting read: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...bfish_1999.pdf)

BC has over 20,000 lakes, 750,000 kms of streams, and an ocean (yeah we get it, quit bragging BC: http://www.gofishbc.com/Where-to-Fish.aspx)

Ontario has 1/5 of the world’s freshwater (https://www.ontario.ca/page/about-ontario)

Alberta has something like 800 fish-bearing lakes, and 200 of those are stocked trout fisheries.

Of Canada’s regulations, there are a lot of slot sizes and maximum size limits in the province near to us, but you get east to New Brunswick and PEI (By the way NB STILL has more fishable freshwater lakes than AB with 2500 lakes), and you see that infamous minimum size limit again. The thing about our AB regs is I feel that it’s for managing people and our fishing habits more than it is for managing actual fish.

Another interesting read, is the Canada-wide sportfishing survey. I checked and a new one is coming out this year (Available here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm) but the 2010 one still has some interesting figures in it. Mainly the one that says next to Ontario and Quebec, we are tied with BC for Harvest, and we actually harvest more total fish than Saskatchewan and Manitoba (although, barely), but all this considering we don’t have the lakes.

So say what you will, and espouse your opinions, but I don’t really see this as a “If I were king for a day” type of issue. That being said, I want to charge our seniors for licenses (even at a buck a piece) and I feel like that would make a mild difference, if only to track more data about who the heavy users are of the fisheries.

*BONUS* All of the countries fishing regs:

BC: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/reg...is_2009-11.pdf

AB: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/

SK: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx...d-ea08eafb1f89

YK: http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/hunting-fis...hRegs16-17.pdf

NWT: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/defau..._2015-2016.pdf

NUN?: http://nunavuttourism.com/things-to-...ishing-licence

MB: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...guide_2016.pdf

ON: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net...ry-english.pdf

QC: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/english/publ...ions/index.asp

Nfld: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/folios/...016-17-eng.pdf

NS: https://novascotia.ca/fish/documents...dbook_2016.pdf

NB: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/D.../Fish/Fish.pdf

PEI: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/si...ummary_web.pdf

I agree with you.
My question is of the lakes in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. how many of these are so remote that they ever get fished? i would say almost 99%. Whereas Alberta has 800 fishable lakes. Most of which are accessible from some sort of vehicle. So realistically, drive to fishable lakes in Southern Saskatchewan? No more than alberta. Sure once you get up north to laronge and such it increases immensely. Manitoba is much more remote. So cant really compare the three just from number of lakes.

[RavYak]

North66 one thing I always disagree with is the number of lakes argument here in AB. SK, MB and ON all have more lakes but they are almost all in remote areas that no one fishes. The only reason ON has any decent fishing near their main population is because of the great lakes, without them they would be screwed. MB similarly has Lake Winnipeg to take much of their pressure and such a small population to easily spread across their smaller lakes in the area. SK on the other hand barely gets away with it and many of the regularly fished lakes closer to the cities is not that great of fishing. Diefenbaker and Last Mountain are able to hold off most of the main population and still provide good fish but many of the other ones are nothing special and although you might be able to go home with a limit of walleye they will most likely be small and you won't have caught 50 in a day like you can on a number of AB lakes. I have also fished SK lakes that see as much if not more pressure(definitely more when you consider each person is keeping 3-4 walleye instead of throwing them all back).

AB's biggest problem isn't our number of lakes. It is that we previously destroyed almost all of them with high limits and commercial and native netting. Lakes have been recovering for decades now to come back from those times and most of them are recovering quite nicely.

I strongly believe that a balanced fishery including catching and keeping can be implemented on most AB lakes.

[North66]

Originally Posted by enduro155

I agree with you.
My question is of the lakes in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. how many of these are so remote that they ever get fished? i would say almost 99%. Whereas Alberta has 800 fishable lakes. Most of which are accessible from some sort of vehicle. So realistically, drive to fishable lakes in Southern Saskatchewan? No more than alberta. Sure once you get up north to laronge and such it increases immensely. Manitoba is much more remote. So cant really compare the three just from number of lakes.

Absolutely, it doesn't take much more than a few clicks on Google maps to see that our province missed out big time on the glacial scour that made all of those lakes in SK, MB and ON. In hindsight, we should have drawn our provincial lines a little differently. That being said, I think we still have a lot of inaccessible lakes included in that number considering that top-right corner of the map, and the bit that's blocked off by the air force. But also, by that logic, we have even more pressure on our remaining lakes. I used to feel like a pioneer to get to some of the lakes that I fished, and now I roll up on the paved oil lease road. I would still argue that from Saskatoon you can access around 1200 lakes with the same relative ease that someone from Edmonton drives to catch lakers or fly-fish near the mountains.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by North66

A disclaimer before I get into this post: I’m not an expert, but I am a skeptic and a data junkie. I’m also unwilling to believe that if there were truly a magically simple solution to fisheries in Alberta that it wouldn’t have already been tried.

I’ve been to the meetings and I’ve seen the data they hand us on lakes in Alberta. I wanted to check for myself.

From various sources, it looks like:

Saskatchewan has about 50,000 fish-bearing bodies of water (source: http://www.southsaskriverstewards.ca...mplete%201.pdf)

Manitoba has 110,000 (interesting read: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...bfish_1999.pdf)

BC has over 20,000 lakes, 750,000 kms of streams, and an ocean (yeah we get it, quit bragging BC: http://www.gofishbc.com/Where-to-Fish.aspx)

Ontario has 1/5 of the world’s freshwater (https://www.ontario.ca/page/about-ontario)

Alberta has something like 800 fish-bearing lakes, and 200 of those are stocked trout fisheries.

Of Canada’s regulations, there are a lot of slot sizes and maximum size limits in the province near to us, but you get east to New Brunswick and PEI (By the way NB STILL has more fishable freshwater lakes than AB with 2500 lakes), and you see that infamous minimum size limit again. The thing about our AB regs is I feel that it’s for managing people and our fishing habits more than it is for managing actual fish.

Another interesting read, is the Canada-wide sportfishing survey. I checked and a new one is coming out this year (Available here: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm) but the 2010 one still has some interesting figures in it. Mainly the one that says next to Ontario and Quebec, we are tied with BC for Harvest, and we actually harvest more total fish than Saskatchewan and Manitoba (although, barely), but all this considering we don’t have the lakes.

So say what you will, and espouse your opinions, but I don’t really see this as a “If I were king for a day” type of issue. That being said, I want to charge our seniors for licenses (even at a buck a piece) and I feel like that would make a mild difference, if only to track more data about who the heavy users are of the fisheries.

*BONUS* All of the countries fishing regs:

BC: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/reg...is_2009-11.pdf

AB: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/

SK: http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx...d-ea08eafb1f89

YK: http://www.env.gov.yk.ca/hunting-fis...hRegs16-17.pdf

NWT: http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/defau..._2015-2016.pdf

NUN?: http://nunavuttourism.com/things-to-...ishing-licence

MB: https://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardsh...guide_2016.pdf

ON: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net...ry-english.pdf

QC: https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/english/publ...ions/index.asp

Nfld: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/folios/...016-17-eng.pdf

NS: https://novascotia.ca/fish/documents...dbook_2016.pdf

NB: http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/D.../Fish/Fish.pdf

PEI: https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/si...ummary_web.pdf

Good post!

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by North66

Absolutely, it doesn't take much more than a few clicks on Google maps to see that our province missed out big time on the glacial scour that made all of those lakes in SK, MB and ON. In hindsight, we should have drawn our provincial lines a little differently. That being said, I think we still have a lot of inaccessible lakes included in that number considering that top-right corner of the map, and the bit that's blocked off by the air force. But also, by that logic, we have even more pressure on our remaining lakes. I used to feel like a pioneer to get to some of the lakes that I fished, and now I roll up on the paved oil lease road. I would still argue that from Saskatoon you can access around 1200 lakes with the same relative ease that someone from Edmonton drives to catch lakers or fly-fish near the mountains.

Agree. And populations do not match up either.

[mclean]

Originally Posted by Bemoredog

I wonder how this will work with trout when there's Pike in the system... I'm kind of bummed, since most of what we have in the south is trout.

Honestly not sure what I support here, since it is a fun family fishery to just go out and C&R some small Walleye. Only difference with trout is that angler's will get to take home some fish. Meh.

I'd more interested in seeing this lake stocked with rainbows and managed for trophy size fish, like Police Lake, and possibly add other trout species besides Rainbow (unlikely as I don't think anything but Bows can be stocked in this area).

Edit: Does anyone know why the Walleye in PCR are stunted? If it's simply an overpopulation issue why not allow a limited harvest and see how that affects the population size? If it's a forage issue then there's not much you can do.

When they first stocked walleye in PCR the people in charge did not want to stock any type of bait fish which they thought may go upstream and compete with the trout populations, they stocked the reservoir with ling which are not really what the walleye prefer to feed on , White fish, perch, would have been better choices for a healthy walleye pop.

[kouleerunner]

Originally Posted by mclean

When they first stocked walleye in PCR the people in charge did not want to stock any type of bait fish which they thought may go upstream and compete with the trout populations, they stocked the reservoir with ling which are not really what the walleye prefer to feed on , White fish, perch, would have been better choices for a healthy walleye pop.

This is essentially the problem with PCR. Without larger forage (perch, whitefish, Cisco, ect.) walleye will not grow to sufficient size. The solution is simple, add a forage population (shiners is not sufficient) such as perch, (trout would work) , and the walleye population will begin to thrive!

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by idaman

You may be right... But any lake in AB, COULD BE a awesome trout fishery if stocked and handled properly, unfortunately we live in Alberta and the term proper management if a completely foreign concept to the powers that be.

I don't think it's the powers that be. Albertan's seem to want to kill fish even though it's not sustainable. I wish summer fishing for whites would catch on, it would ease a lot of pressure off of other species.

[DiabeticKripple]

If they opened up PCR to a limit of 2 walleye, any size for a year or two to thin the herd, I wonder if they would start to grow and reproduce. I just think there is too many fish and not enough forage.

[idaman]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I don't think it's the powers that be. Albertan's seem to want to kill fish even though it's not sustainable. I wish summer fishing for whites would catch on, it would ease a lot of pressure off of other species.

I'm in agreement with you about Albertans need to kill anything of legal size to eat, even though I can't wrap my head around it, especially since as you said our fisheries can't sustain it. However, I think a ton of the blame has to fall onto the people managing our fisheries and allowing us to keep 3 pike over 63cm( should be 1 any size in most lakes), 5 trout of any size(should be none under a certain size and/or 1 over 50cm) or walleye over 50cm( should be under 43cm).
As for the whites it's starting to catch on and soon we will have much lower limits and less fish just as we do now with Burbot as that has caught on. People will just keep switching target species to match what they can legally eat & when my kids grow up it will be a province of strictly C&R fishing. It's quite sad actually.

[tallieho]

At close to $ 50.00 a kilo for stocked raised hatchery trout.It imo would definitely be stupid to feed walleye trout.

[Habfan]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

If they opened up PCR to a limit of 2 walleye, any size for a year or two to thin the herd, I wonder if they would start to grow and reproduce. I just think there is too many fish and not enough forage.

That is a good line of thinking, but it should have been done 10 years ago. The walleye need more than bugs to grow into spawners ! Biologists should, and do, know this as a fact. After thinking more about this lake, and it's forage, I think the only way any fish will thrive in this lake is to stock some sort of baitfish, or it will end up as a 10 inch rainbow fishery. The raising and lowering of water levels also has negative results on fish habitat. The walleye in PCR are not going to live long enough to spawn. It's too bad, it should have been a put and take fishery from the start. We can always hope that a couple live to spawn though.