Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: What type of stillwater trout fishery would you prefer at your favourite lake?
C&R with the chance of catching trout up to 25" 112 42.75%
Limit of 1 under 18" with a good chance of fish over 22" 47 17.94%
Limit of 1 over 18" with a good chance of fish over 20" 38 14.50%
Limit of 3 any size with a good chance of fish over 16" 49 18.70%
Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12" 16 6.11%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:21 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntin'fool View Post
As a side note...as much as I disagree with the national park's fishing regs and management....they have some really good quality trout fishing....so maybe there is something to say for a 2 fish any size limit.
A lot of that has to do with distance from major cities and therefore a lack of angler effort. In the last 30 years...the National Parks have done a great job of discouraging fishing.

Any proposal to make a lake 5 fish under 16 inches would never work...if there is any significant fishing pressure...plus to keep the masses happy and catching their 5 fish you need heavy stocking rates. That alone would keep the size well below 16 inches...and fishing pressure would certainly remove the majority. The rare one over 16 inches would not make in itself a side fishery option as to catch one would be like winning the lottery. Chain Lakes is an example of an over stocked fishery designed for the masses to catch their 5 fish a day. Very few get large enough for anglers to catch with any regularity. Making it 1 under 16 inches may work or even 2 a day...but that would be dictated by fishing pressure and study.

Lakes like Maclean Pond, Allen Bill and Mount Lorette Ponds are all simple examples of a 5 fish limit where ALL fish get removed within weeks of stocking. Not sure how a 5 fish limit could improve fishing or allow for any larger fish to survive. What would work would be to stock in the Spring...then again in the Summer. Make the limit 1 a day under 16 inches...then in Sept or Oct change the limit to 5 a day. Fish get removed...but at least more remain during the peak fishing time.

Still...nothing stops HunterDave from proposing an outside the box regulation and giving it a try. It is just that 5 a day has already proven not to work...so a new and fresh idea is required for consideration.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:26 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Yeah, agreed, but isn't the proposal for more lakes being classed as "quality" fisheries and not ALL lakes becoming "quality" fisheries? It doesn't have to work in allot of lakes, just a few more to satisfy the "quality" fishery anglers. So what's the problem? Are the lakes where it's feasible for such a plan too far from the city or is it that it wouldn't be easy enough to catch bigger fish?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.

If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.
Agreed...so it all goes back to sharing and compromise. Is there a problem with creating a variety of fisheries for everyone and not just picking one group to follow? Why not some 5 fish a day lakes, some quality lakes, some 1 under 16 lakes, some 1 over 16 lakes, some 5 a day lakes in Sept/Oct but only 1 during Nov to Aug, etc. We know the old way does not work. We know people want something better. We know from experience what new ideas are working.

Let's just agree to learn and improve and not ignore each other and our desire for what a great fishery means to each of us.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:34 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.

If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.
You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:38 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?
I think the confusion lies in your definition of "trophy".

Your sense of ownership of the stocked trout or native fish seems a little odd. The fish belong to all Albertans equally I would think. How to spread them around fairly would seem to make sense. Self entitlement is a form of greed that is deep seated and misguided IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-26-2011, 09:44 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
I think the confusion lies in your definition of "trophy".

Your sense of ownership of the stocked trout or native fish seems a little odd. The fish belong to all Albertans equally I would think. How to spread them around fairly would seem to make sense. Self entitlement is a form of greed that is deep seated and misguided IMHO.
It's only greed if you have enough but want more than you already have.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:03 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?
Yes, but is the resistance justified? We want a few lakes changed for our sake, people like you want EVERYTHING kept the same for your sake. Maybe you haven't said this word for word, but it has been clearly implied in your past posts.

Furthermore, have the presented arguments against your idea even registered to you? If your idea was implemented it would not be as successful as possible.

Why not try to find a province-wide plan that can provide different lakes that cater to everyone, rather than just the whack and stack crowd and have everyone else just put up with what they can get?
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:20 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

I don't think anyone is asking for too much, or even so much to justify strong opposition if they were to request that 10% of our trout fisheries are managed for large fish (either 1 allowed over a certain size or completely catch and release), while leaving the other 90% of the fisheries with a limit of 5 per person. I think this is more than a reasonable request. Can you please tell me why you think this is such a bad idea?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:22 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
It's only greed if you have enough but want more than you already have.
You don't consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

Last edited by Sundancefisher; 02-26-2011 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:59 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Let's face the facts here...........you guys want to make it easier for you to catch bigger fish. Well, it'd be great (or not) to be able to throw a line in every puddle on the road and pull out a +30 lb trout but after you do it 100 times or so, what's it going to take to get you off? Fish only grow so big! Go out and wet a line! If you catch something good. If not, enjoy your day of FISHING, as opposed to CATCHING! I'm sure that if you had your way you'd be able to walk across the backs of the trout to get to the other side of the lake. Where's the challenge for goodness sakes? Leave the rod at home and just dip a net in the water and pull up a couple of 30+ lbers.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-26-2011, 11:25 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Let's face the facts here...........you guys want to make it easier for you to catch bigger fish. Well, it'd be great (or not) to be able to throw a line in every puddle on the road and pull out a +30 lb trout but after you do it 100 times or so, what's it going to take to get you off? Fish only grow so big! Go out and wet a line! If you catch something good. If not, enjoy your day of FISHING, as opposed to CATCHING! I'm sure that if you had your way you'd be able to walk across the backs of the trout to get to the other side of the lake. Where's the challenge for goodness sakes? Leave the rod at home and just dip a net in the water and pull up a couple of 30+ lbers.
Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

No one but you is assuming we want a mono-regulation. Most people are just simply asking for options.

Please answer the questions HunterDave... It will determine whether or not I can debate with you and provides some important insights into your point of view.

Thanks

Sun

P.S. Two last questions... Is it a challenge to catch a fish if none are left to catch? Or is it just a wasted effort?
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-27-2011, 12:19 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

No one but you is assuming we want a mono-regulation. Most people are just simply asking for options.

Please answer the questions HunterDave... It will determine whether or not I can debate with you and provides some important insights into your point of view.

Thanks

Sun

P.S. Two last questions... Is it a challenge to catch a fish if none are left to catch? Or is it just a wasted effort?
First of all let me say this..............

Secondly, you ask away too many questions all at once.........sheeesh. Slow down and take a breath man. Do you think that firing all these questions at me all at once is going to make me crack or sumthin'?

Taking 5 fish to eat is not disproportionate IMO. Unless of course, you're eating fish for breakfast, lunch and supper. In which case you are catching fish just to eat and I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that greed, I'd consider that survival.

I can't remember the rest of the questions so they probably aren't worthy of comment.

You city boys really crack me up. Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-27-2011, 08:55 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

You need to change your name to FishingDave if you want us to take you seriously

Dave, not seeing that anyone here is saying that 5 is too much. Simply that have a 5 take lake but also offer a choice of quality fisheries that are managed differently (low or no limits, low stocking, aeration, etc.). So put simply back, would you like a choice of both kinds of fisheries in Alberta?

P.S. I can tell you that Muir lake up near Deadmonton has made a huge difference to a lot of anglers that were looking for another choice of quality.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-27-2011, 08:57 AM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves.
As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-27-2011, 09:36 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
First of all let me say this..............

Secondly, you ask away too many questions all at once.........sheeesh. Slow down and take a breath man. Do you think that firing all these questions at me all at once is going to make me crack or sumthin'?

Taking 5 fish to eat is not disproportionate IMO. Unless of course, you're eating fish for breakfast, lunch and supper. In which case you are catching fish just to eat and I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that greed, I'd consider that survival.

I can't remember the rest of the questions so they probably aren't worthy of comment.

You city boys really crack me up. Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves.
Let me make it easier for you...

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share because there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day?

Sun

P.S. You are not answering any questions anymore for a reason?
You are a great guy on here HunterDave. Stirring the pot and having fun. Problem is the lack of your answers shows your believes track mine cause you can't answer truthfully or else your gig is up. If you answer opposite you are so off popular opinion no one will take you seriously anymore. Being the negative ninny may be fun once in a while...but you don't really add to the collective thought process or debate except occasionally making people think a bit more on a topic...which is not a bad thing to remind people including me once in a while. After a while however...it does get old.

Last edited by Sundancefisher; 02-27-2011 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-27-2011, 10:33 AM
Freedom55 Freedom55 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perdue SK
Posts: 1,570
Default The Great Debate.

Let me apologize in the most sincere, heart-felt way to the participants of this interesting topic for evoking the name of the last proponent on this very subject. Now I have awakened the sleeping giant. This thread has definitely taken on a nasty overtone since that fellow has put forward his two cents on both myself and now the Dave from north of here, and on the topic.

I meant only to try to keep the nastiness out of it when I posted my words and I am sorry that my enemy has become your enemy.

Anyway, that was a lot of red ink.

Free (range)
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:16 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.
Okay, since they are terminating the trout stocking program for Peanut Lake I might as well tell you about that one. Three years ago a few of us went out there to catch some fish to bbq that night out at the trailer. We were trolling in 2 different boats using Little Cleo's (no bait) on our lines. Every 5 minutes or so we were catching a fish. We wanted to catch 12" to 14" fish because they, to us anyway, are the best size and tasting fish for eating. Mostly we were catching fish that were about 16" to 20". I would expect that due to the low water level in the lake this year it will winterkill anyway.

You see, that's just one lake that had/has bigger fish in it. Hasse was another lake that I've caught bigger fish in but we all know that there are no fish left in it. How about Kananaskis Lakes.......no bigger fish in there?

How you perceive the current fishing opportunities in Alberta is relative to the way that you think. Some might consider a 16" trout as a decent size, you do not. Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy. I believe that the anglers that want that type of fishery are in a very small minority and creating more quality fisheries does not benefit everyone as you stated, it only benefits the small minority that wants it. The average angler is happy to go out and be able to catch fish and not just big ones.

It's not a win win situation otherwise everyone would support it. It would be a win for the trophy anglers and a loss for the average angler that loses the opportunity to catch, keep and eat smaller "eatin" sized fish. Until you understand that you'll never understand why people oppose "quality" fisheries.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-27-2011, 11:59 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy.
I am not sure that is what people are saying...they are saying they want to make catching bigger fish "possible". Pure and simple.
Nobody is saying they believe they can change the regulations to make it possible to catch 100 - 24 inch rainbows a day. More likely hope it to catch a number of trout between 9 and 20 inches...rather than only 9 inches. Anyone disagree with that summation?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-27-2011, 12:02 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-27-2011, 12:21 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Let me make it easier for you...

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share because there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day?

Sun

P.S. You are not answering any questions anymore for a reason?
You are a great guy on here HunterDave. Stirring the pot and having fun. Problem is the lack of your answers shows your believes track mine cause you can't answer truthfully or else your gig is up. If you answer opposite you are so off popular opinion no one will take you seriously anymore. Being the negative ninny may be fun once in a while...but you don't really add to the collective thought process or debate except occasionally making people think a bit more on a topic...which is not a bad thing to remind people including me once in a while. After a while however...it does get old.
I don't know of any lakes like that and I certainly don't fish them. Where I go there are fish in the lake and everyone has an equal opportunity of catching them. Whether or not I, or anyone else, catches our limit, or even catches one fish, is entirely up to how effective/lucky we are on any given day. I guess that's why I call it fishing and not catching.

I don't feel the need to answer every question that is posted, particularly if I think that it is not pertinent or if it is rhetorical. I actually thought that I had added quite a bit to the discussion by explaining my perception of "quality" fisheries and offering alternative solutions to them.

It's unfortunate that you don't see any value in my posts but perhaps some readers/posters do. I doubt that anyone has a gun to your head forcing you to read them so if you find them particularly disturbing or not worth the effort to read, why torment yourself?

Bye.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-27-2011, 12:30 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.
It's no big secret around here if you talk to the people that know. Allot of anglers are too lazy to want to get to them anyway. I just don't see the need to post something like that on a public forum. I did offer up Peanut, Hasse and Kananaskis Lakes though.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:41 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:53 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?
No one that wants "quality" fisheries will ever come right out and say it, of course not. But if you unwrap the package what do you get.........easy to catch big fish. Calling a spade by a different name doesn't make it any different.

No, never been to Muir although it's only about 30 kms from here. Chickakoo is just a little farther down the road from there and there's a health supply of pan sized brookies that taste pretty good though.

Oh yeah, my wife says that size doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:56 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

in a perfect world all the fisherman who are catching quality fish would post up their opinions and even pictures.
just like the southern alberta walleye situation.....successful walleye anglers are just not willing to give up that kind of info.
in fact that goes for every species of fish.
In no way take my statements as saying anyone in this thread is a good or not good fisherman.
Because this is trout thread...i really would like to hear peoples definitions
1- is a quality fishery a body of water that someone like Brian Chan can go out every trip and catch a 20 inch trout....or is it a quality fishery when every one can do that because of the abundance of fish?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-27-2011, 01:59 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Oh yeah, my wife says that size doesn't matter.
LOL!

Haven't been to Chickakoo but it does sound like a nice place to go.

In my experience bigger fish are not easier to catch. That makes them a challenge to target and that much more sweet when you can catch one. I guess we have to live with that you will go to the 5 limit lake and some of us will choose to go to the trophy lake on the odd day. Hope we get more choices for trophies in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:04 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Because this is trout thread...i really would like to hear peoples definitions
1- is a quality fishery a body of water that someone like Brian Chan can go out every trip and catch a 20 inch trout....or is it a quality fishery when every one can do that because of the abundance of fish?
Definitely the second one. People are already fishing bodies of water that have 20" trout in them but they are calling it a "quality" fishery because there aren't enough 20" trout in there for their liking IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:13 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
LOL!

Haven't been to Chickakoo but it does sound like a nice place to go.

In my experience bigger fish are not easier to catch. That makes them a challenge to target and that much more sweet when you can catch one. I guess we have to live with that you will go to the 5 limit lake and some of us will choose to go to the trophy lake on the odd day. Hope we get more choices for trophies in the future.
EXACTLY! Right now they aren't easier to catch! But the idea of a "quality" fishery is to make them easier to catch and take the challenge out of catching a big one. Wouldn't it be allot less sweet catching a 20" trout out of a "quality" fishery lake?
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:18 PM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.


I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:49 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Definitely the second one. People are already fishing bodies of water that have 20" trout in them but they are calling it a "quality" fishery because there aren't enough 20" trout in there for their liking IMO.
if thats the case....a huge remote lake must be chosen then..because i fear a lake like that will be shoulder to shoulder.....and boat to boat.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:56 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.
Interesting read Bigtoad and it obviously took you a bit of time to think it out and write it. You can certainly spin a good yarn.

Here's the downside to your story as I see it.

That scenario only applies to trophy "Quality" hunters that only want big bucks and not the average hunter. The average hunter, myself included, are meat hunters. If I want a deer to eat then I'll shoot a doe and I don't care about the antlers. It's like keeping the smaller eatin' sized fish.

It's nice to be able to shoot a big buck, don't get me wrong, and if the opportunity arises then I'm sure that every meat hunter would instantly become a trophy hunter. However, I'll bet that there are not too many of either type of hunter that would want to go out and shoot a penned deer that was grown to a big size. Ethics aside, the challenge just wouldn't exist nor would the feeling of accomplishing something truly noteworthy.

Now if you go out fishing in Lake X and catch a 20" trout and tell your buddies they'd be impressed. However, if you go to Lake Y, a "Quality" fishery, and catch a 20" trout so what? The lake is full of them and people catch bigger ones than that everyday. I'm not suggesting that you only go out and catch big fish to impress your buddies, just pointing out the attitudes would change dependent on the level of difficulty.

I know that you keep saying that there are no lakes in Alberta, other than the "quality" fisheries, that hold +20" trout but I know that isn't true. They are there, they're just harder to catch than the smaller ones.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-27-2011, 02:58 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.


I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.
pardon my ignorance or what ever other things you may call me....but if thats true and the majority dont want a 5 fish limit....then i must assume the majority are helping the cause by taking fewer or no fish at all....which then brings me to the point....will any proposed changes - change things?
simply put if the majority dont want a 5 fish limit...they must be self regulating themselfs and the minority are still keeping 5 fish.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.