Guest Sundancefisher Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I think when it comes to stocked fish...while rainbows fight...sometimes what a guy wants is variety. Would it not be cool to drop a line and catch a rainbow, a brookie, a cutty, a brown trout and a tiger trout...all in one day at one lake! Why not stock tigers somewhere? What do you all think? Stock them or not. Cheers Sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironfly Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 The fisheries guys tell me they're too expensive for the provincial stocking program. I believe all the lakes stocked with Tigers are funded through FLIPPR. Private lakes might be able to do it. Variety is great, though. I think if I could catch a bow, brookie, brown and cuttie from the same place, I wouldn't miss the tigers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBBrownie Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Why not stock em in Sundance, private lake, raise the funds and you'll have tigers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danhunt Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I managed to get out to Twin Lakes north of Roblin MB to catch my first tigers last year and I thought they were a great fish! I'd gladly pay more for a license, or buy a special license in order to help fund the stocking if one were available. Being as how the cross is naturally sterile I think it's a good one stock as an "alien species". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorney Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Tigers are an aggressive and beautiful fish. I enjoy fishing for them. I would like to know if cost is the only reason they are not being stocked in Alberta. There are about 7 lakes in Saskatchewan that are stocked with Tigers. Seeing as how they are public lakes I would imagine that they are stocked through the fisheries stocking program. There yearly sask resident licence is about $5 more than we pay here in Alberta. Alberta has a population that is more than 3x that of Saskatchewan. I would think there is alot more money generated through Alberta fishing licences than Saskatchewan. So this makes me wonder how Sask can stock them in about 7 lakes across the province and Alberta can't do it in one. The only difference I see is that Alberta puts money into stocking Bulls and Cutties. Maybe this is where the money goes instead. I guess it is good that Alberta is putting money into restocking the native fish. I think there is probably more to it than the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish4trout Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 This is Alberta, we are still in the stone age fisheries wise. I'd love to see tigers, but would never expect it to happen. Too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilWeevil Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 i think sask is way ahead of us in the stocking area the even stock alot of their walleye and pike lakes ....i think its to do with the tourism dollars is my guess and i dont know bt i think sask would bring in probably close to what alta brings in in licences maybe even more and although i love fly fishing and i am mainly a catch and release fisherman I would way rather see alberta put a program in of stocking walleye in our established walleye lakes so we could keep some fish out of there everynow and then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironfly Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Apparently you haven't looked at a stocking report recently. Alberta stocks millions of walleye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeremie Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I think tigers would be awesome! Get some kicking around in some of teh lakes! They would help your perch problem in sundance! They sound like a blast on poppers too! I say stock em! Theres definitely some potential for other trout lakes in alberta, tons of water still untouched (at least from my perspective) I would even pay money for some classified waters too! They could stock tigers in a hike in lake and let em grow big! Sounds like fun to me! Edit: Too many exclamation marks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Guys, For a couple of reasons I voted NO. 1] As far as a game fish - they don't fight as well as rainbows + they bite when you go to release them. 2] Rather than spending money trying a cross - about the 3N going to 3NAF on existing stocks. 3] And lastly, we have an Alberta Rainbow - yup a died in the wool real Alberta Rainbow - the Athabasca rainbow that will grow to 7 lbs. + given proper conditions. How about we spend some money on a local home grown product. And lastly, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests trout will control perch. Been tried in Phillis Lake with "0" success. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Guys, For a couple of reasons I voted NO. 1] As far as a game fish - they don't fight as well as rainbows + they bite when you go to release them. 2] Rather than spending money trying a cross - about the 3N going to 3NAF on existing stocks. 3] And lastly, we have an Alberta Rainbow - yup a died in the wool real Alberta Rainbow - the Athabasca rainbow that will grow to 7 lbs. + given proper conditions. How about we spend some money on a local home grown product. And lastly, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests trout will control perch. Been tried in Phillis Lake with "0" success. catch ya' Don Don. No one is saying replace all rainbows with tiger trout. I think a quality tiger trout fishery would compliment what we have. We are not talking about excluding any other fish species. As for Athabasca rainbows...sure...why not try some strains in Alberta for something different also. Same concept. As for fight quality...same can be said for Cutts. Should we not stock Cutts because they don't fight as well as rainbows? As for biting you...be more careful :-). As for perch...this is not about perch...but some reports out East say they could be more aggressive at taking smaller perch than a rainbow ever would. All tiger trout could do is add another variable in the fight against illegal perch. You would still need other management strategies. Still I am not saying stock them where there are perch...I want them stocked in a few places where there are no perch. Yahoo... Sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Sundancefisher, I never suggested displacing rainbows and you didn't. Now how about you/others find another lake/body of water that could be turned into a new fishery, solicit the help to make it happen, raise the funds and do the work. I know that there are at least some fishermen who would like to fish for an Alberta Trout. I'd rather the $'s were spent on them. Wouldn't it be neat to catch a real Alberta Trout. Sure we have bulls [which is at least a part Alberta Trout] and they fight like tigers. Whoopee!! The tigers I fished for weren't all that aggressive. Took a #16 chironomid and hours to catch the ones I did. Landed 13 of the things between 3>5 lbs. They fight like walleye. You know walleye. Like towing a gunny sack around. Of course the larger ones fight better. Like towing a gunny sack with a rock in it. And ya', I tried the typical lake fishing thing of sinking lines and various buggers. The bugger fishermen were catching 2>4/day - mind you, they were trolling. From their demonstrated lack of success, I went to a chironomid. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeremie Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 so what your saying is.. they fight like all other trout besides a rainbow? Brookies, cutties, bull... browns sometimes... makes sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tallieho Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Well for my .02 worth .I'd sooner see them use species that we have now.There are viable trout fisheries that sit void of fish.Why?.We/they need to stock fish in trout lakes that eat the perch ie.[bull trout].I'd like o see the bucket brigade deal with that ,a native protected fish.That they can't harvest & surely would kick- ss with the perch. A few years back there was avote to make a Quality fishery out off Dipping Vat lake.Well it now has not been stocked with fish for 2/3 yrs now.Why?.Water quality issues & a land ownership issue.Why did they go thru the surveys & q & a sessions only to leave the final say up to the community.We as fishers need to get together & resolve things that are attacking our favorite pastime.Which i believe is fishing for trout. I read an article reasonally that said once a trout fishery has been illegally stocked with perch it will no longer be stocked with trout. my apologises for my rant.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishfairwx Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Guys, For a couple of reasons I voted NO. 1] As far as a game fish - they don't fight as well as rainbows + they bite when you go to release them. 2] Rather than spending money trying a cross - about the 3N going to 3NAF on existing stocks. 3] And lastly, we have an Alberta Rainbow - yup a died in the wool real Alberta Rainbow - the Athabasca rainbow that will grow to 7 lbs. + given proper conditions. How about we spend some money on a local home grown product. And lastly, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests trout will control perch. Been tried in Phillis Lake with "0" success. catch ya' Don X1 And I am not trying to get on Don or TACO's good side, cause they ain't got one! Just think native species is the better way to go, clean up our neighborhood before we bring a new type of trout!!! we now may have splake in the Old man dam res.. That will be great, we will see them in the rivers.. Think laker and Brooky but fricking big and mean... look out all you whussy Cutties, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 X1 And I am not trying to get on Don or TACO's good side, cause they ain't got one! Just think native species is the better way to go, clean up our neighborhood before we bring a new type of trout!!! we now may have splake in the Old man dam res.. That will be great, we will see them in the rivers.. Think laker and Brooky but fricking big and mean... look out all you whussy Cutties, Ahhh... But even putting Athabasca strain rainbows is technically stocking non native fish to a particular drainage. Unless you are only putting them in lakes with tributaries to the Athabasca River. To be fair to the argument that only natives should be stocked in the proper sense would mean only stocking those strains from one drainage into the same drainage. That would make it very difficult to do successfully...and expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gustuphson Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I don't think that a good enough job is being done with what we already have so I voted no. Once Alberta lakes overall are a stronger fishery I would support investigating other species. Right now we seem to be headed in a better direction then in the past but that needs to be followed through on and fine tuned a little more before new initiatives are considered by fish and wildlife. It is amazing to me how much they are already asked to do with so few resources. Maybe Tigers would be a good private pursuit for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I don't think that a good enough job is being done with what we already have so I voted no. Once Alberta lakes overall are a stronger fishery I would support investigating other species. Right now we seem to be headed in a better direction then in the past but that needs to be followed through on and fine tuned a little more before new initiatives are considered by fish and wildlife. It is amazing to me how much they are already asked to do with so few resources. Maybe Tigers would be a good private pursuit for now... Many people have enjoyed many a day fishing for Grayling down south here where there were none before. Fisheries like that add to the recreational value and should over time put more pressure on the system to improve things more. The added value that quality fisheries and unique fisheries bring to the native opportunities increases the depth of interested anglers which is where the lobbying for improvements shoudl come from. Increasing angling opportunities does not "harm" the current system. I can not agree with that argument. Still everyone does have their right to an opinion. To those however approaching this from a negative perspective...I trust you are doing something positive like contacting your MLA and demanding those improvements you see necessary and also communicating to others to do the same thing. Sitting back...never does anyone any good. Out of curiosity... what initiative do you see that are working and what further improvements do you see are necessary? Thanks Sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gustuphson Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Given limited resources I see taking any away from the current trophy lake initiative(s) as harming them. I really support having that type of angling opportunity in Alberta now and think there was a void before they existed. I'm sure tigers are great and have googled mapped the trip to MB but in Alberta I think this is something best started as a private initiative. If it's a success maybe then the government can role it out on a larger scale. I just can't support them trying to fulfill a niche request when much more can be done on the broader level. I think that for a new angler the thrill of catching a larger fish has a better chance of getting them excited about angling then a catching unique species. Sitting back never does anyone any good but you must know the story about the two bulls sitting on the hilltop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironfly Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Given limited resources I see taking any away from the current trophy lake initiative(s) as harming them. I really support having that type of angling opportunity in Alberta now and think there was a void before they existed. I'm sure tigers are great and have googled mapped the trip to MB but in Alberta I think this is something best started as a private initiative. If it's a success maybe then the government can role it out on a larger scale. I just can't support them trying to fulfill a niche request when much more can be done on the broader level. I think that for a new angler the thrill of catching a larger fish has a better chance of getting them excited about angling then a catching unique species. Sitting back never does anyone any good but you must know the story about the two bulls sitting on the hilltop... Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seby Posted July 17, 2010 Share Posted July 17, 2010 Im more a stream fisherman, so i say stocking them in secluded lakes like they did with the arctic grayling down here is worth a try, so long as they dont contaminate our streams. Not sure if id fish for them, and id rather they spend the money on cleaning up more rivers and streams, but the more diverse the angling oppertunites the better enjoyment for all! Also id rather they didnt rase taxes oops i mean license fees as im already a poor student with an overly addicting hobby. cheers my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 ANY hybrid species is expensive to produce and stock. Alberta should establish a properly funded lake stocking program with both "quality" and "trophy" management of selected waters, long before the stocking of any exotic species is even considered. Non-resident and alien licensing should be increased and the funding should be directed to stocking programs. How about "Guide Licensing" ? How about a "Stocking Surcharge" on resident licensing? All directed exclusively to stocking management? j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuffy Posted July 18, 2010 Share Posted July 18, 2010 I would sooner not, and instead direct such funds towards hiring more conservation officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikev Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 I think when it comes to stocked fish...while rainbows fight...sometimes what a guy wants is variety. Would it not be cool to drop a line and catch a rainbow, a brookie, a cutty, a brown trout and a tiger trout...all in one day at one lake! Why not stock tigers somewhere? What do you all think? Stock them or not. Cheers Sun they are a good sport fish.. if they are stocked in lakes with no way to get out , i think it would be good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLeod Posted July 19, 2010 Share Posted July 19, 2010 There are the resources and the money to do it all. We could have tigers in a few selected lakes. And yes we should be stocking native Rainbows to lakes especially in the Athabasca watershed lakes. To me you will only get this done by a strong lobby through Fish and Game .There are efw government people now and they are up to there eyeballs in work. but if you believe in something push hard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.