Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:18 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
I am not sure your idea would fail but if you are talking about walleye and pike I believe the 1000 anglers would not go to 100 lakes. In the case of Edmonton they would probably go to maybe 5, the 5 closest to Edmonton, how long do you think those 5 lakes would survive, maybe 1 year?
This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cant believe you dont see this Kurt. Then what? Those 5 Collapse then the next 5 closest and so on.

I would like to see limits dropped to one from 3 and have said that before. But that just delays the inevitable. Pressure already is expanding from the large centers.

But your idea is not a good one. You said so yourself you are not a Biologist.

I believe they will get even better at it.

Good posts by Walleyedude and Snap too.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
  #92  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:51 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
No, we don't really want the same thing.

I'm not interested in a sacrificial lamb as part of a solution, I'm not interested in a province full of stunted walleye, I want a healthy total fishery. Like having a healthy ungulate herd, predators play an important role. It's easy to shut down a fishery and cross your fingers, I want a more in depth solution, one that addresses a fishery not just a fish.

My suggestion of a one slot size fish for lakes across the province isn't far off what an increased tag system would be for average fishermen. Not all anglers go out every weekend, with the majority of anglers only getting out a handful of times in a season.

The only reason I choose not to buy include rivers and streams in this conversation is because it's specifically lake retention regulations we are talking about here. My thoughts on rivers and streams are polar opposites. Destruction of habitat starts to play a key roll in that fishery and is a way more in depth topic.
You are all over the place...
In one post you want "balanced" fisheries and in this post you say its too in depth. Sorry but it doesn't take a genius to understand water quality is linked. Whether it is feeder creek, river, spring, ground water or lake shore use / development, etc, etc. Maybe take the word "balanced" out of your discussion and say you are just interested in more harvest opportunities. That is what it seems like to me.
  #93  
Old 07-21-2017, 12:55 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
I believe they will get even better at it.
^^
Something I wanted to post as well so thanks. They are working at it. Yep, started off zero but they are getting there now. However, there are those bodies of water that are likely not to change from zero due to other factors. I think the are doing the best they can and will continue.
  #94  
Old 07-21-2017, 01:02 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
You are all over the place...
In one post you want "balanced" fisheries and in this post you say its too in depth. Sorry but it doesn't take a genius to understand water quality is linked. Whether it is feeder creek, river, spring, ground water or lake shore use / development, etc, etc. Maybe take the word "balanced" out of your discussion and say you are just interested in more harvest opportunities. That is what it seems like to me.
I'm in the same place I started, you're the one all over the place. And fwiw in no post did I say anything about water quality, I said habitat destruction.

You have addressed nothing pertaining to my opinion other than expressing your personal feelings towards me.

Tell me what your plan is for overpopulated lakes with stunted fish? What is your plans for the lakes that are headed there as we speak?

I see you jump on the bandwagon as a roadie, let's here some solutions from you.
  #95  
Old 07-21-2017, 02:32 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I'm in the same place I started, you're the one all over the place. And fwiw in no post did I say anything about water quality, I said habitat destruction.

You have addressed nothing pertaining to my opinion other than expressing your personal feelings towards me.

Tell me what your plan is for overpopulated lakes with stunted fish? What is your plans for the lakes that are headed there as we speak?

I see you jump on the bandwagon as a roadie, let's here some solutions from you.

So water quality and habitat destruction can't be discussed at the same time? Too much for you??

So without addressing the bigger issue and focus just on increasing fish limits, which is all you have, slot or otherwise, my stance is that it is not going to work to add yet another general regulation of a retention of 1 across Alberta. You even admitted that a few posts back but have apparently changed your mind again??

My thinking is, you have to manage each water body for limits, tags for more populated lakes, slot as in the case of Calling but tags if that fails to sustain there too...
In summary, let them continue making progress
  #96  
Old 07-21-2017, 03:42 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post

So water quality and habitat destruction can't be discussed at the same time? Too much for you??

So without addressing the bigger issue and focus just on increasing fish limits, which is all you have, slot or otherwise, my stance is that it is not going to work to add yet another general regulation of a retention of 1 across Alberta. You even admitted that a few posts back but have apparently changed your mind again??

My thinking is, you have to manage each water body for limits, tags for more populated lakes, slot as in the case of Calling but tags if that fails to sustain there too...
In summary, let them continue making progress
You have a hard time keeping respectful hey? I'll bring it on if you insist, but I'd rather keep things respectful.

Tell me how having a one slot size walleye limit will effect the grayling populations on the peace river watershed? Or how commercial netting in the early 1900's on lac la biche has effected the size of the walleye on buck lake? Or how having a zero walleye retention limit on beaver lake affected the goldeye in Manitoba?

I'll help you better understand the basis of my suggestion so you can get past how smart you are and focus your hate to the topic at hand.

There are a bunch of lakes in central Alberta with high walleye to pike to perch ratios that still have zero or extremely low retention numbers, and the ratio is getting worse every year. How is placing further restrictions going to help? I was suggesting opening these lakes up to retention, or even allotting 10 tags rather than three on these lakes to take some of the angling pressure off of the lakes that currently allow retention before those lakes get closed down.

If you can get past the self righteousness attitude and address my position with arguments that are RELATIVE to what I'm suggesting while leaving out the insults I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion, if not then we're done here.
  #97  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:15 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
You have a hard time keeping respectful hey? I'll bring it on if you insist, but I'd rather keep things respectful.

Tell me how having a one slot size walleye limit will effect the grayling populations on the peace river watershed? Or how commercial netting in the early 1900's on lac la biche has effected the size of the walleye on buck lake? Or how having a zero walleye retention limit on beaver lake affected the goldeye in Manitoba?

I'll help you better understand the basis of my suggestion so you can get past how smart you are and focus your hate to the topic at hand.

There are a bunch of lakes in central Alberta with high walleye to pike to perch ratios that still have zero or extremely low retention numbers, and the ratio is getting worse every year. How is placing further restrictions going to help? I was suggesting opening these lakes up to retention, or even allotting 10 tags rather than three on these lakes to take some of the angling pressure off of the lakes that currently allow retention before those lakes get closed down.

If you can get past the self righteousness attitude and address my position with arguments that are RELATIVE to what I'm suggesting while leaving out the insults I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion, if not then we're done here.
So now you just want to focus on walleye? Wasn't it you that said to think about "balance" and all species? Correct? I found a good research article about fisheries decline...thought that would help you out. I got me thinking for sure about the bigger picture. That is not a bad thing. If you can't take the time to read and understand it, I guess that is off the table for this discussion which is fine. Just don't bring up "balance" again and sit there and expect balance to be defined by you and your terms only.

And, now the 1 fish slot size limit is off the table too? Just trying to get back to some kind of understanding of what it is you are proposed because it changes from post to post. This is not an insult, I'm finding this genuinely hard to follow. If you still believe in a general 1 fish limit reg, then you are wrong and that will never / unlikely to happen.

If there are certain lakes where the walleye are abundant, sure. Some retention is good. Bring on the tags there too if there are none today. Or, some other retention that works for that particular lake, good too. That is not putting additional restrictions is it? Seems like we agree don't we?

BTW, there is no hate here. Maybe you are inventing something? Relax, okay.
  #98  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:31 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
So now you just want to focus on walleye? Wasn't it you that said to think about "balance" and all species? Correct? I found a good research article about fisheries decline...thought that would help you out. I got me thinking for sure about the bigger picture. That is not a bad thing. If you can't take the time to read and understand it, I guess that is off the table for this discussion which is fine. Just don't bring up "balance" again and sit there and expect balance to be defined by you and your terms only.

And, now the 1 fish slot size limit is off the table too? Just trying to get back to some kind of understanding of what it is you are proposed because it changes from post to post. This is not an insult, I'm finding this genuinely hard to follow. If you still believe in a general 1 fish limit reg, then you are wrong and that will never / unlikely to happen.

If there are certain lakes where the walleye are abundant, sure. Some retention is good. Bring on the tags there too if there are none today. Or, some other retention that works for that particular lake, good too. That is not putting additional restrictions is it? Seems like we agree don't we?

BTW, there is no hate here. Maybe you are inventing something? Relax, okay.
Your response is getting better but your comprehension isn't.

You're not taking the time to read my post, or your just not comprehending it, like in this quote or when you quoted me on post #92

I don't want to focus on just walleye, hence why I commented on out of proportion walleye to PIKE to PERCH populations.

You found a good article (one that was posted by Don just a couple days ago but if you like I can give you credit for re-posting in this thread) on fisheries in genera, but nowhere in it does it directly address the issue of balancing out the ratios. Another good article Don posted was about Wabamun lake, did you happen to read that one? Buck, Lac Ste Anne, and pigeon to name a few, are all on their way to suffering the same type of fate.
  #99  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:45 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Kurt the best thing you could do for our fisheries, is lobby for more funding!

You bring up the 70-80s all I said was I didnt want to see a collapse again.
And I still dont.
What you have suggested and how you want it to work would very likely create what I and others dont want to see again.
If you think a lake/reservoir cant be fished out with a 1 fish limit? It would be just slower than 3 fish limit but still doable in waters close to large cities. On the other hand fishing would be great for a little while, with all the new lakes opened. My question is why would you want to chance it. Bear in mind that test netting is done on about a 5 year basis.
Good example was Milk River Ridge. Really really huge walleye in there and closed to fishing. Lobbying to get it opened worked. One fish over 55 from the start. People were catching and keeping 60-80cm fish like crazy. Was amazing fishing. Didnt take long to remove most of the fish over 55. Not collapsed but shows how much fish can be removed and how quickly.

But, I get it, its just so you can fill your plate.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 07-21-2017 at 04:53 PM.
  #100  
Old 07-21-2017, 04:53 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Kurt the best thing you could do for our fisheries, is lobby for more funding!

You bring up the 70-80s all I said was I didnt want to see a collapse again.
And I still dont.
What you have suggested and how you want it would very likely create what I and others dont want to see again.
If you think a lake/reservoir cant be fished out with a 1 fish limit? It would be just slower than 3 fish limit but still doable in waters close to large cities. On the other hand fishing would be great for a little while. My question is why would you want to chance it. Bear in mind that test netting is done on about a 5 year basis.
Good example was Milk River Ridge. Really really uge walleye in there and closed to fishing. Lobbying to get it openned worked. One fish over 55 from the start. People were catching and keeping 60-80cm fish like crazy. Was amazing fishing. Didnt take long to remove most of the fish over 55. Not collapsed but shows how much fish can be removed and how quickly.

But, I get it, its just so you can fill your plate.
Classic Alberta approach, keep the big ones and wonder what the hell went wrong.

If there was a one fish slot of say 45-55cm, do you think it would have had the same results?

Why would I want to chance it? Because it has been proven to work in other provinces, even on lakes with high fishing pressure.


I'm glad you get it, I'd hate to have to tell you how much I love a good fish fry.

PS, I agree 100% that more time and money should be spent on their conservation efforts.
  #101  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:06 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Classic Alberta approach, keep the big ones and wonder what the hell went wrong.

If there was a one fish slot of say 45-55cm, do you think it would have had the same results?

Why would I want to chance it? Because it has been proven to work in other provinces, even on lakes with high fishing pressure.


I'm glad you get it, I'd hate to have to tell you how much I love a good fish fry.
Nothing went wrong actually. What it really means though is, if they can keep it they will. Which also means any fish in your slot will be kept. Which also means few to make it to spawning size, which can cause a collapse. You can still catch large fish in there, just not one after another. I will say it again, if you keep fish on pressured lakes in Alberta(close to large cities) where there are slow growth rates and short growing seasons you run a risk of those fish never getting over the slot size. Which then collapses the fishery.

Alberta does not compare with other provinces that is also very clear. And without man made reservoirs down south and stocked ponds we would have even less fishing ops. Me thinks you be trolling, instead of fishing.

Are you from out of Province by chance?

Edited: added above-Which also means few to make it to spawning size, which can cause a collapse.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 07-21-2017 at 05:13 PM.
  #102  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:26 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Nothing went wrong actually. What it really means though is, if they can keep it they will. Which also means any fish in your slot will be kept. Which also means few to make it to spawning size, which can cause a collapse. You can still catch large fish in there, just not one after another. I will say it again, if you keep fish on pressured lakes in Alberta(close to large cities) where there are slow growth rates and short growing seasons you run a risk of those fish never getting over the slot size. Which then collapses the fishery.

Alberta does not compare with other provinces that is also very clear. And without man made reservoirs down south and stocked ponds we would have even less fishing ops. Me thinks you be trolling, instead of fishing.

Are you from out of Province by chance?

Edited: added above-Which also means few to make it to spawning size, which can cause a collapse.
So you're complaining about something that never went wrong? Well that makes sense.

If they can keep a legal sized fish they will Isn't that the idea behind retention?

By few fish you mean what? A level that has been deemed sustainable with numbers backed by a study?

I'm not against having a tag system for lakes close to large cities, but I'd like to see enough tags to keep the populations balanced.

I realize that Alberta, especially southern Alberta does not compare to other provinces, but there are northern and central lakes that compare to some of the higher pressured lakes in Saskatchewan.

I troll, I jig, I bottom bounce, slip bob,and I still fish too.

Born and raised in Alberta.
  #103  
Old 07-21-2017, 05:43 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
So you're complaining about something that never went wrong? Well that makes sense.

If they can keep a legal sized fish they will Isn't that the idea behind retention?

By few fish you mean what? A level that has been deemed sustainable with numbers backed by a study?

I'm not against having a tag system for lakes close to large cities, but I'd like to see enough tags to keep the populations balanced.

I realize that Alberta, especially southern Alberta does not compare to other provinces, but there are northern and central lakes that compare to some of the higher pressured lakes in Saskatchewan.

I troll, I jig, I bottom bounce, slip bob,and I still fish too.

Born and raised in Alberta.
Paragraph 1: Was I complaining or making a point? You seem to decide for me.

Para 2: Yes it is, but without collapsing fisheries.

Para 3: Many complaints about where are all the fish over 50cm. or 55 or 43

Para 4: Thats their job, not yours. Not to mention balance takes time and not an overnight thing.

Para 5: 10 times the water and 1/4 the population. Not even close.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
  #104  
Old 07-21-2017, 06:09 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Paragraph 1: Was I complaining or making a point? You seem to decide for me.

Para 2: Yes it is, but without collapsing fisheries.

Para 3: Many complaints about where are all the fish over 50cm. or 55 or 43

Para 4: Thats their job, not yours. Not to mention balance takes time and not an overnight thing.

Para 5: 10 times the water and 1/4 the population. Not even close.
1. I asked what went wrong? Your answer was nothing, so....

2. Yes, without collapsing fisheries.

3. Maybe they're stunted? Maybe the slot should be 42-48?

4. Well they're lucky I'm not running the show because from the look of things I'd be cutting a lot of dead weight.

5. There are lakes in Saskatchewan, such as lac des isle that experience similar pressure to a lot of our lakes.
  #105  
Old 07-21-2017, 07:44 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Your response is getting better but your comprehension isn't.

You're not taking the time to read my post, or your just not comprehending it, like in this quote or when you quoted me on post #92

I don't want to focus on just walleye, hence why I commented on out of proportion walleye to PIKE to PERCH populations.

You found a good article (one that was posted by Don just a couple days ago but if you like I can give you credit for re-posting in this thread) on fisheries in genera, but nowhere in it does it directly address the issue of balancing out the ratios. Another good article Don posted was about Wabamun lake, did you happen to read that one? Buck, Lac Ste Anne, and pigeon to name a few, are all on their way to suffering the same type of fate.
Oh I comprehend your "ideas" and told you what I think of it. There is no substance to it and it is all over the place. And now you are back to your balance stuff again. Sad. And yet you laugh at the article earlier and now call it "good". And then you think I want credit? Talk about insulting. I just found it today and thought I would share it. Apparently wasted on an a narrow minded person like yourself. If you really did read it, if you really did understand, you would realize how silly your position is...but you not going to.
  #106  
Old 07-21-2017, 07:48 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
4. Well they're lucky I'm not running the show because from the look of things I'd be cutting a lot of dead weight.

5. There are lakes in Saskatchewan, such as lac des isle that experience similar pressure to a lot of our lakes.
Well, get at er then cause your not accomplishing anything in this post.
  #107  
Old 07-21-2017, 08:25 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Oh I comprehend your "ideas" and told you what I think of it. There is no substance to it and it is all over the place. And now you are back to your balance stuff again. Sad. And yet you laugh at the article earlier and now call it "good". And then you think I want credit? Talk about insulting. I just found it today and thought I would share it. Apparently wasted on an a narrow minded person like yourself. If you really did read it, if you really did understand, you would realize how silly your position is...but you not going to.
I didn't laugh at the article, I laughed you, the fact you're trying to get in on this argument but you keep missing the bus. You think I'm all over the place, that's because of your comprehension skills.

Give you credit for the article??? LOL, You brought up the fact that YOU posted it on a couple of occasions. Not only are you confusing what I wrote, you don't even know what you wrote! It's no wonder you think I'm all over the place.

Obviously I'm wasting my time conversing with you, if you can't comprehend what I write, or apparently what you write, there's no hope of making headway. So I'm done wasting my responses with you.

Take care.
  #108  
Old 07-21-2017, 09:21 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I didn't laugh at the article, I laughed you, the fact you're trying to get in on this argument but you keep missing the bus. You think I'm all over the place, that's because of your comprehension skills.

Give you credit for the article??? LOL, You brought up the fact that YOU posted it on a couple of occasions. Not only are you confusing what I wrote, you don't even know what you wrote! It's no wonder you think I'm all over the place.

Obviously I'm wasting my time conversing with you, if you can't comprehend what I write, or apparently what you write, there's no hope of making headway. So I'm done wasting my responses with you.

Take care.
That is because you can't keep your own ideas straight
Make sure you get your seat at the fisheries round table.
  #109  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:58 AM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
1. I asked what went wrong? Your answer was nothing, so....

2. Yes, without collapsing fisheries.

3. Maybe they're stunted? Maybe the slot should be 42-48?

4. Well they're lucky I'm not running the show because from the look of things I'd be cutting a lot of dead weight.

5. There are lakes in Saskatchewan, such as lac des isle that experience similar pressure to a lot of our lakes.
Now I know you are trolling.

3. Trouble catching fish over a certain size and the solution is to lower the size limit? Wow. When you have trouble catching 42-48 guess the next stage is to go to 36 to 41. Lol. Your management of fish would lead to 0 fish eventually.

5. Lac de isles is quite a large lake and is quite a distance from any large city. So no!


What you have been suggesting was not well thought out Kurt.


Not all will agree with the direction headed or with our Bios.
And so far you have not shown or suggested anything to be better than what is in place, what more needs to be said?
One thing you could do that would have an impact and maybe allow for some change would be to lobby for more money to monitor the fisheries.
I get that you are angry for not being able to fill your plate. But unless you adapt to other species to eat, you will not be able to fill your plate. Trout are put and take, carp are an all you can eat buffet to name a couple.
There are only so many fish to go around. Water bodies only support so much fish. You cant change that.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 07-22-2017 at 12:08 PM.
  #110  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:04 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Now I know you are trolling.

3. Trouble catching fish over a certain size and the solution is to lower the size limit? Wow. When you have trouble catching 42-48 guess the next stage is to go to 36 to 41. Lol. Your management of fish would lead to 0 fish eventually.

5. Lac de isles is quite a large lake and is quite a distance from any large city. So no!


What you have been suggesting was not well thought out Kurt.


Not all will agree with the direction headed or with our Bios.
And so far you have not shown or suggested anything to be better than what is in place, what more needs to be said?
One thing you could do that would have an impact and maybe allow for some change would be to lobby for more money to monitor the fisheries.
I get that you are angry for not being able to fill your plate. But unless you adapt to other species to eat, you will not be able to fill your plate. Trout are put and take, carp are an all you can eat buffet to name a couple.
There are only so many fish to go around. Water bodies only support so much fish.

Do you have any experience what so ever fishing north or red deer?

Any at all? Because you don't seem to have a clue as to what it's like. I'll admit I have very limited experience fishing south or red deer, and that is most likely evident in my posts.

If you think lac des isle doesn't have a similar amount of fishing pressure as a lot of our lakes here I can only think a) you've never fished north of red deer, more specifically north of Edmonton, b) you've never been to lac des isle, or c) both a and b.

I never really looked at a map of southern Alberta, no wonder you southern guys are all trippin over my suggestion lol!

After looking at that I admit that regional regulations similar to BC and Saskatchewan would be better with tags for southern and south central regions, and my one fish idea for the northern zones.

Last edited by Kurt505; 07-22-2017 at 12:21 PM.
  #111  
Old 07-23-2017, 07:01 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Do you have any experience what so ever fishing north or red deer?

Any at all? Because you don't seem to have a clue as to what it's like. I'll admit I have very limited experience fishing south or red deer, and that is most likely evident in my posts.

If you think lac des isle doesn't have a similar amount of fishing pressure as a lot of our lakes here I can only think a) you've never fished north of red deer, more specifically north of Edmonton, b) you've never been to lac des isle, or c) both a and b.

I never really looked at a map of southern Alberta, no wonder you southern guys are all trippin over my suggestion lol!

After looking at that I admit that regional regulations similar to BC and Saskatchewan would be better with tags for southern and south central regions, and my one fish idea for the northern zones.
Whether you are intentionally trolling to not, you are. It is funny how you get your little feathers ruffled when I say something and then you come up with gems like this:

Quote:
Do you have any experience what so ever fishing north or red deer?
Any at all? Because you don't seem to have a clue as to what it's like.
Each of your responses are laced with comments like this. If you want any respect, you will have to earn it and this is not the way. I'm pretty sure this is a big reason this thread has dragged on too long and spiraled it and out of useful discussion. People in glass houses.... And I ain't no saint

Back to this post, you just dug another hole. So based on your own admitted and very limited experience, fishing North only / rarely. You are going to pretend you know what is best for the entire province? Based on what, 3 species??? Walleye, pike perch?? Wow, what a bio you would make!

Sorry but the world is much bigger than the small one you live in. Fisheries management takes real people, real knowledge and a full understanding of the entire eco system to succeed. Not some limited experience, wise remarking, 3 species poster on some forum.

And before you do what you do and turn this back on me, remember, I did not start this, I did not admit I could change and run our fisheries for the better, you did.
  #112  
Old 07-23-2017, 10:56 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Whether you are intentionally trolling to not, you are. It is funny how you get your little feathers ruffled when I say something and then you come up with gems like this:



Each of your responses are laced with comments like this. If you want any respect, you will have to earn it and this is not the way. I'm pretty sure this is a big reason this thread has dragged on too long and spiraled it and out of useful discussion. People in glass houses.... And I ain't no saint

Back to this post, you just dug another hole. So based on your own admitted and very limited experience, fishing North only / rarely. You are going to pretend you know what is best for the entire province? Based on what, 3 species??? Walleye, pike perch?? Wow, what a bio you would make!

Sorry but the world is much bigger than the small one you live in. Fisheries management takes real people, real knowledge and a full understanding of the entire eco system to succeed. Not some limited experience, wise remarking, 3 species poster on some forum.

And before you do what you do and turn this back on me, remember, I did not start this, I did not admit I could change and run our fisheries for the better, you did.

Lol! Hurt feelings?

Remember this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post

Your not going to get this or agree so we can just agree to disagree. In the meantime, do something about if you are unhappy.
Then remember this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post

Kurt, there is nothing you have said that bothers me, moves me, makes me think, and even gives me pause for thought. It is okay to disagree. Really.
Then remember when I wrote this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
IMO, I think it's selfish to destroy a pike and perch fishery so you can play fisherman.

I'm not posting to bother, move you, or make you think, but I've obviously done 2 of the three because you keep wanting me to stop posting.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you, and stopping the conversation with you right now, there are others here I can converse with.

Take care.

Then you wrote this,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Actually one of three, bother. It bothers me that someone can hold onto something and ignore science
Or do you remember writing this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post

I'm still pointing to the article as a great bigger picture on fisheries decline - streams, creeks, rivers, lakes...all linked. It certainly got me thinking about bigger problems and not just lake limits. Glad I found it.
I'm glad you found it too.


Or when I wrote this,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
No, we don't really want the same thing.

I'm not interested in a sacrificial lamb as part of a solution, I'm not interested in a province full of stunted walleye, I want a healthy total fishery. Like having a healthy ungulate herd, predators play an important role. It's easy to shut down a fishery and cross your fingers, I want a more in depth solution, one that addresses a fishery not just a fish.
So you responded with this,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
You are all over the place...
In one post you want "balanced" fisheries and in this post you say its too in depth.

And getting back to your article,

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Oh I comprehend your "ideas" and told you what I think of it. There is no substance to it and it is all over the place. And now you are back to your balance stuff again. Sad. And yet you laugh at the article earlier and now call it "good". And then you think I want credit? Talk about insulting. I just found it today and thought I would share it. Apparently wasted on an a narrow minded person like yourself. If you really did read it, if you really did understand, you would realize how silly your position is...but you not going to.
So..... are you still glad you found it?


See, the problem with trying to converse with you is you think I'm all over the place, but I've always stayed on topic and I do have an open mind so when someone like walleyedude or huntsfurfish posts something I wasn't aware of, I'm not afraid to alter my position, it's what happens from comprehending what is written, not being all over the place. Talking about goldeye in Manitoba or grayling in the peace river watershed while discussing walleye populations in buck lake is what can be referred to as being all over the place. when you look back on this thread, I'm not all over the place, it's always been about walleye and how their numbers effect the populations of other fish LIVING IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT, specifically lakes.

The article you posted is a good article, but please point out the parts that directly pertain to this conversation.

I obviously got your feathers all ruffled up because you can't stop posting on this thread, so I guess you lied when you said I haven't said anything that bothers you, moves you, makes you think, or gives you pause for thought because you already admitted to being bothered and you've obviously stopped to think about it, and it's caused you to be moved enough to post again, and again, and again, after I thought we had an agreement to agree that we disagree and move on.

I admitted that the south, only having about 5 lakes is best with tags, I admitted that lakes near large urban centers is best with tags and also stated I think they need more tags for those lakes, and I said that I still think northern lakes could go on a one walleye limit type system. And MAYBE that change is on the way the next time the 5 year test cycle comes by, who knows. You see, I do have an open mind, I have learned something from this thread, and maybe there are some others reading this with an open mind can see the need for more lakes to open up for more retention.

You say this is just a forum and nothing will change by posting on here, so i know you understand the premise of a forum. I hope you understand I'm just saying what's on my mind and posting my ideas right?

You're too bent on attacking my character to understand what I'm writing, or you're just choosing to ignore what I wrote, because it seems no matter what I write you just make something up and go with it.

I've been trying really hard to keep respectful with you the whole time, even where you quoted me on what I wrote to huntsfurfish (I'm not sure why that would hurt your feelings) it was an honest question, one he hasn't answered for whatever reason, maybe he hasn't read it yet, I was being respectful. You're the one who got ignorant, mixed up posts, and lied, so I hope you understand why I don't want to continue the conversation with you.

Can we now go back to agreeing to disagree and move on?
  #113  
Old 07-23-2017, 11:28 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I admitted that the south, only having about 5 lakes is best with tags, I admitted that lakes near large urban centers is best with tags and also stated I think they need more tags for those lakes, and I said that I still think northern lakes could go on a one walleye limit type system. And MAYBE that change is on the way the next time the 5 year test cycle comes by, who knows. You see, I do have an open mind, I have learned something from this thread, and maybe there are some others reading this with an open mind can see the need for more lakes to open up for more retention.
Looks like you learning something. You did not act that way when you started, e.g. 1 fish limit in general, so it seems this is having some impact on you for the better, which is good.

Looks like we agree then, Specific management by water body and area. Did I not say this much earlier? You finally came around to it.

I'm not going to explain the article to you. I like it. I thought it was very on topic when referring to balance. Maybe that is best left for another post like the this one:
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325450
The scope of this discussion has been narrowed to a few or so species and lakes only, so be it.

Looks like we agree to agree then instead. Unless you have another agenda you have not shared yet...
  #114  
Old 07-23-2017, 11:43 AM
sns2's Avatar
sns2 sns2 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 13,442
Default

Since you've come to agreement, get out on Calling Lake and catch some eyes. Go together and save on gas. Tight lines fellas.
Closed Thread

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 05:56 AM.


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