Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

What proposal are you talking about? Who are you asking?

To create these quality fisheries

[Pudelpointer]

As far as I know, there is no great conspiracy to change fisheries management in AB. I believe the OP brought this up as a point of discussion. I know there have been a number of proposals brought forward to SRD over the years to try and get specific lake managed differently, the most recent one I am aware of is Police Outpost, which is in its 3rd year of 1>50cm restriction.

This is not about turning AB's most productive lakes into trophy fisheries, it is about providing some alternatives to the 'trout pond'. As I stated, almost every single body of water in AB is capable of producing "big" fish, no matter the species, if specific things are taken into consideration (see my post about ABs waters).

Perch do a wonderful job of exemplifying what I described earlier, when put into a lake with no / few natural predators. Year one, dump in 10 4" perch; year two there are 5 perch 8" long that spawn; year 3 there are 3 perch 11" long and 15,000 tiny perch; year 4 there are 2 12" long perch, 3000 4" perch and 10,000 tiny perch; year 5 there are 1000 8" perch, 2500 4" perch and 150,000 tiny perch; year 6 there are 500 11" perch, 1500 8" perch and 600,000 tiny perch, year 7 there are 100 skinny 11" perch, 1000 9" perch, 15,000 4" perch and more tiny perch then you can count. Every year there are greater numbers of perch, but the maximum size keeps getting smaller.

The point to remember here is that in stocked trout lakes we can easily manage the number of fish in the lake, (except for illegally introduced perch) through managing the inputs (fewer fingerlings) and outputs (controlled limits on killing) to match the productivity of the lake. You do not need to "introduce nutrients" as one poster stated earlier, you just need to manage the number of fish in the system.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

hahahaha Sun ive always respected your vigor to discuss and respect your a well schooled man. You fling and take cheap shots well..i respect that.
I just want facts.....i dont want a herd of starving elephants in Alberta

I may not come across saying it out right...but I will now. I would rather someone take a honest opinion on what they see as sincerely helping make our fisheries better and then fight for it rather than be an apathetic slob lying on a couch while things deteriorate. Now I say that from both points of view here and I am serious. Until we all start thinking about it as a large group...we will never have a say to keep things the same or change it. Stuff currently happens without input and that is not good for anyone. Recent quality fisheries lobbying has created a desire for F&W to consult more with Alberta Fishermen. That is a good thing going forward.

This discussion...however emotional...may turn out showing we are all not that far off the same thinking... Subtle tweaking here and there may be good to try...may yield good results...may not...but in the long run...having a few ideas under the collective fisheries management belt is better than never trying to make things better. But clearly...any changes should be for the benefit of the majority and not for any small fringe group of perch lovers

As for cheap shots... I can take em...and I am not afraid to slug it out with someone deserving

Chubby...you are a common sense kinda guy...I strongly respect it!

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

if you think that this poll is what you need to get the changes you are requesting then all i can say is

No what I am saying is this poll should start the conversation at F&W to see what the next steps are required to see what the Albertan fishing population wants to see and where.

F&W currently don't have access to readily available information on what types of fishing we all want...compiled...summarized and articulated. A thread and poll is a place to start...and you would probably have to agree...the only place where large groups of Alberta fishermen gather and confab about such issues.

If they determine there is a need due to a desire of a significant number of fishermen...on a regional by regional basis...then the next step would be to do the studies to see what lakes make the most sense to change the regulations on, change the stocking regulations on and what lake should remain the same.

Then probably check back with fishermen...then implement where desired.

Hopefully doing this within a 1-2 year period of time.

IMHO.

Sun

P.S.

Other things I would love to personally see...would be some lakes with brookies, rainbows, brown and cutts in them. A smorgasbord of species so to speak. I would also love to see them try putting Splake and tiger trout on a catch and release basis into trout lakes with illegal perch in them to see if they can help control perch.

I would also like a few tiger trout only lakes...cause man they look really cool. I like options.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

...fringe group of perch lovers

Whoa, whoa, whoooooa there Sun. I don't think we need that kind of language being thrown around. This is a family site after all.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Whoa, whoa, whoooooa there Sun. I don't think we need that kind of language being thrown around. This is a family site after all.

LOL... I was poking fun at myself... just so no one gets a wrong impression

[Pudelpointer]

One thing to consider (which I do not think it always is) is the access at a specific lake. Again, Bullshead and Police are good examples. One can easily walk completely around Bullshead. Police, not so much. There are no trees at Bullshead (not really anyway) so you can fish from shore quite effectively, at least early in the season. At Police, a boat of some sort is a significant advantage, always. Is there a big difference in attitude or expectations between boat fisherman and shore fisherman (I know, further division)?

Beauvais is another lake that has crappy shore fishing. Without a boat I can't see it being a great lake for kids. Just thinking out loud.

[Speckle55]

If the Gov put in 12 inch Rainbow into put and take lake then in the first year they would have a higher growh rate.. now if they put in 20 inches only 50 but when you look mortality thats all that make it anyhow..... now if you put in 24 inch fish and there was a 100 and it was a C&R lake and it was areated that was not taking away from any current put and take lake .. wow u would have what you are asking.. and in the end if you put in 25 lakes around Alberta those same amount of 24inch trout you would have a bigger draw to retain and recrute more anglers .. and if some of trout were triplods in some lakes (not Promoting) .. and then every year you rotated the 25 lakes even some Put and Take lake's you would have all of Alberta talking what a excllent use of our tax payers money.. now that is if you used my win money and liencing money with Casino money... WOW .. then you take the few addicted gamblers and teach to fish .. its a win win stiuation

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

As far as I know, there is no great conspiracy to change fisheries management in AB. I believe the OP brought this up as a point of discussion. I know there have been a number of proposals brought forward to SRD over the years to try and get specific lake managed differently, the most recent one I am aware of is Police Outpost, which is in its 3rd year of 1>50cm restriction.

This is not about turning AB's most productive lakes into trophy fisheries, it is about providing some alternatives to the 'trout pond'. As I stated, almost every single body of water in AB is capable of producing "big" fish, no matter the species, if specific things are taken into consideration (see my post about ABs waters).

Perch do a wonderful job of exemplifying what I described earlier, when put into a lake with no / few natural predators. Year one, dump in 10 4" perch; year two there are 5 perch 8" long that spawn; year 3 there are 3 perch 11" long and 15,000 tiny perch; year 4 there are 2 12" long perch, 3000 4" perch and 10,000 tiny perch; year 5 there are 1000 8" perch, 2500 4" perch and 150,000 tiny perch; year 6 there are 500 11" perch, 1500 8" perch and 600,000 tiny perch, year 7 there are 100 skinny 11" perch, 1000 9" perch, 15,000 4" perch and more tiny perch then you can count. Every year there are greater numbers of perch, but the maximum size keeps getting smaller.

The point to remember here is that in stocked trout lakes we can easily manage the number of fish in the lake, (except for illegally introduced perch) through managing the inputs (fewer fingerlings) and outputs (controlled limits on killing) to match the productivity of the lake. You do not need to "introduce nutrients" as one poster stated earlier, you just need to manage the number of fish in the system.

X2...extremely well articulated post. The best so far.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

One thing to consider (which I do not think it always is) is the access at a specific lake. Again, Bullshead and Police are good examples. One can easily walk completely around Bullshead. Police, not so much. There are no trees at Bullshead (not really anyway) so you can fish from shore quite effectively, at least early in the season. At Police, a boat of some sort is a significant advantage, always. Is there a big difference in attitude or expectations between boat fisherman and shore fisherman (I know, further division)?

Beauvais is another lake that has crappy shore fishing. Without a boat I can't see it being a great lake for kids. Just thinking out loud.

It should be a consideration if picking between a selection of lakes in a region. Bait fishermen tend to prefer shore fishing...at least I know I do when fishing with bait without boat access...if such lakes are limited...it is probably not best to chose that lean shore fishing lake.

Down in Police Lake region...I know there are other lakes you can shore fish from besides Beauvais as an option.

But still a valid point over all that I am sure F&W contemplates or should contemplate when deciding if that decision is ever required.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

If the Gov put in 12 inch Rainbow into put and take lake then in the first year they would have a higher growh rate.. now if they put in 20 inches only 50 but when you look mortality thats all that make it anyhow..... yadayad

The economics of raising fish beyond a few inches in length is prohibitive, otherwise it just a fish farm. If you want to catch farmed fish, then be my guest. SRD releases brood stock into a variety of lakes every year or two. These fish have never had to escape predation or chase down their next meal; they have lived in a concrete pond or run and eaten pellets for food every day of their life. Survival of these fish is poor, with very few being able to catch enough food to make it beyond the first winter. Their fins are often worn and they are very skinny.

Sounds like quality fishing to me.

Raising trout for a few months to a year is the most efficient method of stocking lakes. You suggest that 12" fish raised eating pellets thrown like clockwork are going to have higher growth rates? Higher growth rates then what? Then a 12" fish that has been foraging for 2 years to get that size? I think not.

What is your point? If you have one, I am missing it.

[Speckle55]

They were quoting Quality fishing for 24 inch trout and using 3 lakes as a example and they were stocked with bigger fish and mortality was listed and less fish were stocked because there is only so much food in a lake..then you take that putting in 3500 fingerling is a cost and the survial rate is x .. plus the rate of growth for rainbow in wild ..amount of feed per lake // only few rainbows make 24" in normal lakes and if you look at how many anglers go to these lakes when you release hens in for that year .. and how much money was spent on buying cute hooks/gear etc .. and you have Dumb fish biting anything.. Point is that this is Alberta(lakes) and not everyone is that 10% of Anglers catching 90% of fish and they do not have the time to reduce the learning curve.. I personaly have a list of Alberta Lakes that i will go to because of History and Potencial.. when looking for a big Rainbow and I use science as a tool .. and if i want a big Rainbow i will go to place's in the world where they are.. good luck on Changing Mother Nature with out consequence

[Pudelpointer]

I read that three times and I truly have no idea what you are trying to say.

To (maybe) address some of what you are suggesting, you are right in the fact that some lakes are much more productive then others. Will every lake in AB produce 20" trout? No, but almost all will produce bigger fish then current management allows. Many lakes are too warm and are better suited to other species, or have too much competition from other species. Some lakes are too cold or have the wrong assemblage of fish. It is definitely not a straight forward as my examples, however, in many cases it pretty much is.

What is this "science" you are using as a tool? Read my post on lake productivity again. Ask if there is something you do not understand or would like clarification on. I will be happy to try and explain it clearer.

ETA, What are we changing in "mother nature"? I suggesting we follow natural examples of what creates large fish. As I have said numerous times now, natural productivity of our waters is not the problem.

[Speckle55]

Pudelpointer u have to look at some earlier posts ... is there some areas that have the genitics or growth rates to get big Rainbows .. example scientiftic study like David Donald's study on lakes in Jasper National Park there are lots of science on potential of lake's in Alberta and other areas ..u may have to go back a few years and if u are a Biologist as u sound this is not news to you if you are a scienctific Angler then this is one of your tools.. check my profile pic,s .. in talking to Sean (48lb rainbow ) Fishingeek he is a young me and use's science and thinks hard on where he will go looking for big fish and they him and bro get the results (Tobin) .. good luck Sean and Adam on your next quest.. History/Potencial/ then Patience .. David .. ps Defienbaker lake does have big fish(big lake big fish).. Rainbow is just one(accident)

[goldscud]

Defienbacker ecscaped triploids grew very fast with lots of food around.
Lakes like Police outpost and Bullshead with tons of scuds and other invertebrates around would grow 10+lb rainbows if the stocking numbers were drastically reduced (they have in the past). Neighboring private lakes in Cypress Hills area show the potential of low stocking rates.
There is some other lakes in Alberta with rainbows over 10lb and the fish are just ordinary rainbow stock from the hatchery...no special genetics...just put in productive lakes at a low density (Crawling Valley grew 20lb fish in 4 years). We don't need to alter the chemistry in the lake (except maybe add oxygen). With lots of food around and allowing the fish to reach 4-6 years old they can get really big. Not a lot of science there to worry about. Shallow, productive lake like Cow lake near Rocky used to grow monster rainbows until the perch invasion hammered the invertebrates.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

well sun this little plan is starting to look better with even a little bit of facts but what are you taking away from others? now some guy enjoying lake x cant, so he goes to lake y, then the people at lake y are mad because pressure went up on lake y by 30 percent. do you think this is fair? people already complain they dont have enough fish and this will make the problem worse. why not like dave said from the beggining re claim old lakes? it would take nothing from anybody and you would have everything to gain. so to ask if i would support this plan? i would still need specific facts. what resources you take away from the public in my opinion should be very, very small.

The argument that because regulations were once one way it must remain that way forever. Someone else suggested it may be morally correct for that person that did not want changes to inflict damage on our public fishery. That is flawed so obviously...but so is it flawed that everything must remain for ever. Variables and factors change...population...public desire for changes to fisheries etc. all are examples of variability. This same argument would state that we should immediately go back to a 10 trout a day limit.

Demographics and usage is a prime motivator for making regulations for a particular lake. If 100 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake A in the country and farmer Z has lived next door for 100 years and fished it religiously and harvested 5 fish a day for 100 years...if the 100 people from Edmonton want changes to the regs...F&W should darn well make the changes. If 10 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake B in the country and 20 farmers a day fish the lake and want to keep the lake 5 trout a day...then the lake should remain 5 trout a day...but if F&W does a survey and 15 farmers want fish bigger than 16 inches...F&W should darn well adjust the regs accordingly. Think common sense folks...this is not rocket science. There is no conspiracy... One person on either side will not dictate or threaten the other. It is stupid to assume that is fair...to either side of this strange debate and question.

No one has a claim over another person to fish in Alberta. We are all equal as tax payers and fishing license holders. Just because I live closer to a lake than you does not make you a lesser person to comment on the value of changes or keeping things the same.

F&W can handle fishing pressure questions as there are 300 lakes and Dave has said there is plenty of fish and big ones to boot. Therefore there should be no worries. If this imaginary dooms day scenario hits...F&W can adjust by redoing stocking strategy...changing the regs back etc. We are talking about freezer fishermen wanting their 5 trout at 9 inches...well that is the size they are stocked at so we are not talking a 5 year delay to change things back...we are talking about a truck pulling up and dumping more trout.

[gl2]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The argument that because regulations were once one way it must remain that way forever. Someone else suggested it may be morally correct for that person that did not want changes to inflict damage on our public fishery. That is flawed so obviously...but so is it flawed that everything must remain for ever. Variables and factors change...population...public desire for changes to fisheries etc. all are examples of variability. This same argument would state that we should immediately go back to a 10 trout a day limit.

Demographics and usage is a prime motivator for making regulations for a particular lake. If 100 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake A in the country and farmer Z has lived next door for 100 years and fished it religiously and harvested 5 fish a day for 100 years...if the 100 people from Edmonton want changes to the regs...F&W should darn well make the changes. If 10 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake B in the country and 20 farmers a day fish the lake and want to keep the lake 5 trout a day...then the lake should remain 5 trout a day...but if F&W does a survey and 15 farmers want fish bigger than 16 inches...F&W should darn well adjust the regs accordingly. Think common sense folks...this is not rocket science. There is no conspiracy... One person on either side will not dictate or threaten the other. It is stupid to assume that is fair...to either side of this strange debate and question.

No one has a claim over another person to fish in Alberta. We are all equal as tax payers and fishing license holders. Just because I live closer to a lake than you does not make you a lesser person to comment on the value of changes or keeping things the same.

F&W can handle fishing pressure questions as there are 300 lakes and Dave has said there is plenty of fish and big ones to boot. Therefore there should be no worries. If this imaginary dooms day scenario hits...F&W can adjust by redoing stocking strategy...changing the regs back etc. We are talking about freezer fishermen wanting their 5 trout at 9 inches...well that is the size they are stocked at so we are not talking a 5 year delay to change things back...we are talking about a truck pulling up and dumping more trout.

sun,

good luck on your quest. if this is what people really want then great people will be protesting the cause, letters and phone calls will soon be un ignorable and these changes will come.

and the dooms day thing is a little far fetched dont ya think? after all i am not the one who needs changes....you are. i have no worries

one thing we agree on it everybody is equal, so everybody should be made aware of changes long before they happen with a place to voice there concerns.

these changes are oviously on there way from the way you are talking so with that i wish you good luck on your easier......i mean better "quality" program.

i cant wait to hear about the new and improved k lakes......when will that be completed?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

and the dooms day thing is a little far fetched dont ya think?

Actually I was referring to the doom and gloom of creating some quality fisheries that you and others are representing falsely.

While you are saying this is a horrible idea...common wisdom shows like with Bullshead Lake...usage goes up with higher average sized trout...complaining goes way down.

Your keep suggesting that there is some wicked conspiracy to increase average trout sizes in stocked lakes to the detriment of mankind.

Average sizes were increased in rivers to help fish spawn. That change did not bring with it fundamental despair I assume from the likes of yourself. Why you despair so much about increasing the average trout sizes in lakes is what has everyone but a few thinking like you scratching their heads.

But yes...we are in agreement that unless a large number wants changes...no changes need occur for a few individuals...and likewise if only a few individuals what to keep things in the dark ages...things will change to respect the desires of the many.

Cheers

Sun

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Holy smokes. Lots of defensiveness and name calling going on. Too bad. This is an important conversation to have, but it appears some people can not deal with the fact that others see the world in a different way.

This is not about urban vs. rural, bait/gear vs. fly, modernists vs. traditionalists, the elite vs. the great unwashed, or whatever imaginary groups you want believe are out there to ruin your life. It is about providing different options for different people (yes, people different then you, who pay their taxes, raise their kids, and hope to find happiness in the rare few days they manage to get away from work each year.... just like you).

Yikes.

Okay, I will bite. You ask "which lakes?". How about this: 10% of ALL WATERS in the province of AB are C&R ONLY; 25% of ALL WATERS in AB are managed for larger sized fish with good populations of breeding adults (see below) and 65% of ALL WATERS in AB are managed for maximum catch opportunity.

In the C&R waters (<10%):
Do I really have to explain it? This should be limited to a few of the "blue ribbon" waters that we have, i.e. PORTIONS of the Bow, Crowsnest, Oldman, N.Raven, etc. and a handful of lakes.

In the "quality" waters (category 2 - 25%):

For Trout you could keep 2 fish per day under 16" in lakes (some may have to be adjusted to 18") and 1 per day under 14" in streams and rivers (variation for brook [5] bull [0] etc.).
For Walleye you could keep 1 under 50 cm per day.
For Pike you could keep 2 under 65 cm per day.
etc. for other species (maybe we could actually let the bios figure these out themselves)

In the maximum catch waters (65%):
3 Trout - any size
2 Walleye - any size
2 Pike - any size
etc.

There. 90% of all waters in the province would allow anglers to kill fish. The big changes would be to the sizes of fish that they could take. Happy? I doubt it.

Some of you want to know Specific Lakes; that shows the true nature of your NIMBY attitude. That attitude is why the only 2 "quality lakes" for trout in the south are an hour (or more) from the population centres they are supposed to serve.

There are already a large number of "quality fisheries" in AB, they are called walleye (>55cm) and pike (>65 cm) lakes, and there are lots of them. All the trout guys are asking for is a few more trout lakes to provide a different experience then fishing in the hatchery's trout pond.

We all want clean waters to fish in, healthy fish to (possibly) catch, and enough room to not be in each others space. That is the biggest reason for creating more "quality" opportunities as far as I am concerned; to spread out the pressure on our water resources.

First you state that it isn't about urban vs rural and then a little farther down in your post you complain that there are only 2 "quality" fisheries for trout in the south and they are an hour (or more ) from the population centres (URBAN!) they are supposed to serve? RREEEAAALLLLYYYY!

My name is Dave and I am PROUD to say that I...am...a NIMBY!!!

Well, even though the lakes that I fish are supposed to serve the angler population of Edmonton , I think that they are relatively safe from many "quality" anglers from Edmonton fishing them because they'd have to drive an hour (or more) to get to them. Regardless, here's my problem:

You would like for me to agree to change the regs for the lakes that I fish into "quality" regs so people that are too lazy to go and fish them now can start going there to catch big fish easier.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised when I say, "Get stuffed!"

By saying "all waters" there is no way of determining what percentage of stocked trout lakes you are talking about. You could be thinking 100% of the rivers in which case you wouldn't touch lakes or......I dunno.

Some people may perceive that any reduction in the keep limit is just another type of "quality" reg except different from the current definition. In which case, 90% of all waterway would be some form of "quality" fishery reg, <10% would be C&R and whatever is left over remains the same.

It is what it is and if that's how you'd like to see Alberta's fisheries then to each his own.

[gl2]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Actually I was referring to the doom and gloom of creating some quality fisheries that you and others are representing falsely.

While you are saying this is a horrible idea...common wisdom shows like with Bullshead Lake...usage goes up with higher average sized trout...complaining goes way down.

Your keep suggesting that there is some wicked conspiracy to increase average trout sizes in stocked lakes to the detriment of mankind.

Average sizes were increased in rivers to help fish spawn. That change did not bring with it fundamental despair I assume from the likes of yourself. Why you despair so much about increasing the average trout sizes in lakes is what has everyone but a few thinking like you scratching their heads.

But yes...we are in agreement that unless a large number wants changes...no changes need occur for a few individuals...and likewise if only a few individuals what to keep things in the dark ages...things will change to respect the desires of the many.

Cheers

Sun

well i guess you just see things from the other side of the table, the only doom and gloom i was getting was from guys supporting this that were talking as trout didnt exist in alberta and if we didnt do something soon all would be lost forever. guys who currently catch big fish are not worried, if you would have replied to all of my post and not just one sentence you would have noticed that (maybe you didnt read the whole thing).

and again i say, if this is what the majority wants then good luck, you should have no problems.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

well i guess you just see things from the other side of the table, the only doom and gloom i was getting was from guys supporting this that were talking as trout didnt exist in alberta and if we didnt do something soon all would be lost forever. guys who currently catch big fish are not worried, if you would have replied to all of my post and not just one sentence you would have noticed that (maybe you didnt read the whole thing).

and again i say, if this is what the majority wants then good luck, you should have no problems.

I see you were buying to much into the wrong side. If you go back...guys were saying they wanted options of better fishing with higher average sizes...which is only different insofar as currently most lakes are managed for 9 inch put and take fisheries.

If you really look at how many stocked lakes are full of small trout (majority) compared to large trout (vast minority)... there is a segment of the fishing population (let's not argue numbers) that want better especially near large urban areas. To provide a few...while there is much tooth and nail fighting to scream we can not possibly do it to even a small percentage (say for arguments sake 10%) just has more people scratching their heads on this thread than the few that are doing all the screaming.

Based upon the poll...only 15 out of 234 agree with you that there are big fish everywhere to catch and that somehow this is just a conspiracy to fix the fishing challenged.

I gotta laugh at that cause a number of people I know that voted for better fishing...can beat the socks off the average persons skill any day.

Go fishing to Mount Lorette ponds 2 weeks after stocking. Go to Allen Bill 3 weeks after stocking. Go to McLean Pond 3 weeks after stocking. Take a kid...take yourself. I double dare you. Good luck getting your kid to even get a bite...good luck catching a fish yourself...seeing a fish caught...seeing a trout rise. I hope you can guess why.

If such a major stink on this thread from your side is to protect kids right to catch a fish...what are your thoughts about how to fix the problem that all the fish have been fished out?

Hmmmmm?

[gl2]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I see you were buying to much into the wrong side. If you go back...guys were saying they wanted options of better fishing with higher average sizes...which is only different insofar as currently most lakes are managed for 9 inch put and take fisheries.

If you really look at how many stocked lakes are full of small trout (majority) compared to large trout (vast minority)... there is a segment of the fishing population (let's not argue numbers) that want better especially near large urban areas. To provide a few...while there is much tooth and nail fighting to scream we can not possibly do it to even a small percentage (say for arguments sake 10%) just has more people scratching their heads on this thread than the few that are doing all the screaming.

Based upon the poll...only 15 out of 234 agree with you that there are big fish everywhere to catch and that somehow this is just a conspiracy to fix the fishing challenged.

I gotta laugh at that cause a number of people I know that voted for better fishing...can beat the socks off the average persons skill any day.

Go fishing to Mount Lorette ponds 2 weeks after stocking. Go to Allen Bill 3 weeks after stocking. Go to McLean Pond 3 weeks after stocking. Take a kid...take yourself. I double dare you. Good luck getting your kid to even get a bite...good luck catching a fish yourself...seeing a fish caught...seeing a trout rise. I hope you can guess why.

If such a major stink on this thread from your side is to protect kids right to catch a fish...what are your thoughts about how to fix the problem that all the fish have been fished out?

Hmmmmm?

ohhh boy,

all of these small lakes near urban areas get fished out to fast for ya? do you think that telling people that they can take less without proper enforcement is gonna be the cure then do it!!! the people who fish these lakes out in two weeks are gonna support ypour cause? i dont have to go to allen bill or Mc Lean but i am starting to see why you dont catch any fish if these are the places you rely on. these places were made to be fished out, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. one more thing we agree on is good fishermen are a minority.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

ohhh boy,

all of these small lakes near urban areas get fished out to fast for ya? do you think that telling people that they can take less without proper enforcement is gonna be the cure then do it!!! the people who fish these lakes out in two weeks are gonna support ypour cause? i dont have to go to allen bill or Mc Lean but i am starting to see why you dont catch any fish if these are the places you rely on. these places were made to be fished out, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. one more thing we agree on is good fishermen are a minority.

LOL...you see whatcha wanna obviously.

I was making a point about kids. You are so all high and mighty about protecting the kids right to catch fish...yet you completely miss the boat on this one.

Think about it. Where is the best put and take lakes to take kids to? Allen Bill, Mount Lorette, Sibbald, McLean etc.

Yet how long did it take to fix the regs? I fought to have the limits reduced from 5 to 2 so that more kids have a chance to catch one. Delayed harvet to protect against the meat fishermen where the lake is highly vulnerable to quick over harvest. Are you against that? 2 fish a day still means fairly fast removal being so close to Calgary...but what else can be done? I believe kids should be able to take fish home to eat. Should a few of these lakes be catch and release for adults but 2 a day for kids so the little folks have something to catch? What are your suggestions to specifically help the kids that can not speak for themselves on this topic? These are examples of other ideas we need to address...not just the quality lakes idea. Don't get tunnel vision.

These lakes are not candidates for quality fishing but rather examples of where we can make it easier for kids to catch trout? Is there a problem with making it easier for kids to catch trout...or do you only fear a conspiracy for everyone trying to make it easier for me to catch trout? Do you want easier tiddler fishing only for adults and only for a short time?

You are very short sighted if you agree that kids should be SOL when it comes to fishing and having a chance to catch a fish. Saying that you are fine with meat fisheries everywhere is short sighted.

Quality fisheries are also just a part of a great pie. You gotta keep the pie whole and keep all the parts intact IMHO.
There are many aspects to fisheries management. It is not as simple as you appear to hope it is.

[gl2]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

LOL...you see whatcha wanna obviously.

I was making a point about kids. You are so all high and mighty about protecting the kids right to catch fish...yet you completely miss the boat on this one.

Think about it. Where is the best put and take lakes to take kids to? Allen Bill, Mount Lorette, Sibbald, McLean etc.

Yet how long did it take to fix the regs? I fought to have the limits reduced from 5 to 2 so that more kids have a chance to catch one. Delayed harvet to protect against the meat fishermen where the lake is highly vulnerable to quick over harvest. Are you against that? 2 fish a day still means fairly fast removal being so close to Calgary...but what else can be done? I believe kids should be able to take fish home to eat. Should a few of these lakes be catch and release for adults but 2 a day for kids so the little folks have something to catch? What are your suggestions to specifically help the kids that can not speak for themselves on this topic? These are examples of other ideas we need to address...not just the quality lakes idea. Don't get tunnel vision.

These lakes are not candidates for quality fishing but rather examples of where we can make it easier for kids to catch trout? Is there a problem with making it easier for kids to catch trout...or do you only fear a conspiracy for everyone trying to make it easier for me to catch trout? Do you want easier tiddler fishing only for adults and only for a short time?

You are very short sighted if you agree that kids should be SOL when it comes to fishing and having a chance to catch a fish. Saying that you are fine with meat fisheries everywhere is short sighted.

Quality fisheries are also just a part of a great pie. You gotta keep the pie whole and keep all the parts intact IMHO.
There are many aspects to fisheries management. It is not as simple as you appear to hope it is.

you must be mistaken, i dont want anything from you or anybody else. and with refrence to the ponds you listed i guess they would be on my short list if i lived in calgary and wernt into fishing that much to find better places, and i have never fished these places so i cant comment to much. and i agree make these places better for kids but thats not what you are asking in this proposal, so you can call me short sighted just because i see right through the cloud of smoke you are blowing but it doesnt change facts. facts you are so lacking in your kool aid plan .

and your also right i know nothing on all the aspects of the management of fisheries but i am sure you can tell us in a condesending 12 page post that describes it in detail all while patting your self on the back and talking down to me.

p.s. have a great closing weekend sun

[Speckle55]

Thanks Goldscud.. you have just told the anglers here that there are lake,s all ready that are Quality lake's all ready with no changes needed.. thats what i have been saying do you homework and fish where the History/Potential and as alot of post say become a better angler by understanding your Quarry and how and why and where they feed in a lake then key your time to only those areas.. also if you need bigger fish go to known areas you have listed or others and do the same thing.. there are some areas in every lake that there are Quality fish that live up to that lakes Potential ... the lakes that have aerator.. have a man made advantage..and the size of rainbows has been enhanced..Millers(10lbs)..Swan(11.6) in my area..Jasper National park 20 lbs 18 17

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Thanks Goldscud.. you have just told the anglers here that there are lake,s all ready that are Quality lake's all ready with no changes needed.. thats what i have been saying do you homework and fish where the History/Potential and as alot of post say become a better angler by understanding your Quarry and how and why and where they feed in a lake then key your time to only those areas.. also if you need bigger fish go to known areas you have listed or others and do the same thing.. there are some areas in every lake that there are Quality fish that live up to that lakes Potential ... the lakes that have aerator.. have a man made advantage..and the size of rainbows has been enhanced..Millers(10lbs)..Swan(11.6) in my area..Jasper National park 20 lbs 18 17

Oh yeah, there are lakes like that in Alberta, but none of those lakes are only a 15 minute drive away so they wouldn't fit in to the "quality" lake criteria.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Demographics and usage is a prime motivator for making regulations for a particular lake. If 100 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake A in the country and farmer Z has lived next door for 100 years and fished it religiously and harvested 5 fish a day for 100 years...if the 100 people from Edmonton want changes to the regs...F&W should darn well make the changes. If 10 people a day from Edmonton visit public lake B in the country and 20 farmers a day fish the lake and want to keep the lake 5 trout a day...then the lake should remain 5 trout a day...but if F&W does a survey and 15 farmers want fish bigger than 16 inches...F&W should darn well adjust the regs accordingly. Think common sense folks...this is not rocket science. There is no conspiracy... One person on either side will not dictate or threaten the other. It is stupid to assume that is fair...to either side of this strange debate and question.

No one has a claim over another person to fish in Alberta. We are all equal as tax payers and fishing license holders. Just because I live closer to a lake than you does not make you a lesser person to comment on the value of changes or keeping things the same.

Yeah, well I'll tell you what..........you lazy azzed URBAN fellas that want to join elitist clubs so you have the strength in numbers over the RURAL folk that aren't organized enough to fight you fellas off are all worthless pieces of...... The only reason that you'd come out into the country to try something like that is because the numbers are too high in the city to let you get away with it. But yeah, it's okay in the country cuz there aren't enough Dave's to B***h and complain about it so it's all good.

If you want to live in the city where the fishing is no good or you have to drive a bit to get to a lake with bigger fish in them then live with it. No one is forcing you to live there, are they? I'd love to have elk grazing in every field around but there aren't any here........so I have to drive to where they are, not somehow bring them to me!!!!

You figure yourself allot better than the fella that would contaminate a trout lake with perch but to railroad RURAL folk into "quality" lakes is okay. I TOTALLY understand why someone would dump a bunch of perch, pike or herbicide into a lake if that was done to a bunch of them and I sure wouldn't drop a dime on them if I found out who and why they did it. I'm not condoning it but I sure as hell understand it! And, if you want to take offence to that and go pout in the corner then do what you have to do!

If you want big fish within an hour of where you live and there aren't any then get your lazy butt where there are some or go to Safeway!

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I see you were buying to much into the wrong side.

Yeah Tosh! Don't ya see that you're buying into the wrong side? C'mon, everyone knows that. You'd think that all you guys where you're from would understand why that type of thinking is totally wrong!!!

[Speckle55]

Some 101 of fishing Quality Rainbows.. is there a time to fish big rainbows..
not that u can.t get lucky any time .. but is there a time in the year when they turn on !!! check the record books of your club/fishing store(sept/oct my opinion)

Is there a lake in your area that has the history of taking a stock rainbow and in 4 or 6 years making it a Quality rainbow..

Is there a ratio of numbers of hour of fishing to catch that fish most anglers(master) will tell you that certain lake's have that..

is there a lake that has certain advantages because of farming etc that add to the food chain like a field that has had Phosphorus added to help regenerate the field that leach back into the lake to add growth to the food chain.. it may be as simple as a farmer has a spot near a lake that he halls his manure!
has a lake expanded because of flooding at certain time u will see growth rates change in a lake .. Why simple more food was brought into food chain and your potential ratio has changed..

is there a Honey hole in every lake .. yes at certain time's shelf's/weed beds turn on because why simple the food is there..

example if you are fishing a river and the fish are dormant because the moon chart is wrong how do you turn them on u put the food in front of them .. so you go upstream of that hole and you walk in the riffles back and forth. .. what are you doing , you are chumming that hole.. the fish that were dormant are now turned on!!! hang on to your rod .. once 1` fish in that hole starts feeding the hole school will.. it was like lighting up a cigarettes
in the bar in the old days(bad example )but it show/s you what i mean everyone will want to smoke who smoke''

Nuff for now

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

i have never fished these places so i cant comment to much. and i agree make these places better for kids but thats not what you are asking in this proposal

Hey Tosh...sincerely apologize if I come across talking down to you...not my intent. As you can imagine I type very fast...in posts like emails...intent is often never intended but implied by the reader. Writing seems more stark...less how is the weather. My style may be bad but my intent is honourable and not intended to offend.

That being said...

I did not ask anything in this proposal.

I commented and supplied my opinion to someone else's proposal.

I have been very clear that I believe everyone's opinion should be respected even those that say things should stay the same regardless what the majority wants.

I have said that all ideas should be on the table from all points of view.

If you looked into my posting history you would find that to be true.

Now certain individuals post misleading things to hopefully convince guys like you that myself and others have ulterior motives...secret conspiracies...secret control of F&W or misguided beliefs that we control anyone...try and say that we can't catch fish...that big fish are everywhere...that kids only want to catch small fish...that flyfishermen can only catch fish in zero bait lakes...that spin and bait fishermen are doomed. That in turn makes you not read or listen honestly to the other side. That is a shame...but in principle if you see and agree with my basic tenant...that:

" as far as fisheries management is concerned...it should first be guided by sound biological principles...secondly it should be guided by what the average fisherman wants in a given region."

If you agree with that...then we are in 100% agreement on this entire thread. Miss-communication, misrepresentation and misunderstanding stems from many factors... but putting that all aside the ramblings of me who advocates for options and the ramblings of another that demands everything stays the same is dispelled by the majority including your own vote towards a final outcome.

The trick is to get F&W thinking how to make things better. They work for US all!

Cheers

Sun

P.S. You try to inflame certain people suggesting that wave of urbanites will spread across the country and change every lake. You make me laugh...that is so far from any hope to have a small percentage that it is clear you only hope to sway people to your side through zero logic sprinkled liberally with tons of paranoia.