Proposed Regulation Changes For The Upper And Lower Kananaskis Lakes

[darrinhurst]

I've never fished there. Have thought about it numerous times, but never had the time.

 

I signed.

 

Only takes a few seconds. Minutes at the MOST.

[EveretteD]

this is my favourite fishery.. What is better then spending the day in the mountains catching beautiful fish!

 

Signed!!

[fishpro]

I think that everyone on here should sign this petition regardless of whether they fish these lakes or not. Having this go through would be beneficial to Alberta's fisheries as it would show the support for creating quality lakes. Think about the benefits later on province wide.

[dekkard2019]

Having a quality fishery like these lakes is great...especially in the mountains. This place is in my top 3 places to fish easily. I believe if we get the right management these lakes will be awesome in the years to come.

[Gaffer]

Signed. In for a penny, in for a 10 pounder.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Another point highlight.

 

In 2010, the catch rate in Upper Kananaskis Lake was 1.0 fish/hour -- over 7 times higher than it was in 1983 -- despite the fact that anglers are supposedly now hampered in catching fish by no longer being permitted to use bait. Furthermore, the average size of the fish caught in 1983 was much smaller than in 2010.

 

This is clearly evident by looking at the size distribution of the catches in the gillnetting poster in Post 40, which shows the size distribution of the rainbow trout gillnetted in 1983. Most of the rainbows caught in 1983 were very small, recently stocked fish measuring <20 cm (<8 inches). A couple of the main reasons for the low catch rate and small size of fish in 1983 were the liberal bag limit and absence of any size limit. Furthermore, although relatively few fish were released in 1983, those that were would have had a much lower survival rate than in 2010, owing to the fact that the hooking mortality rate for bait-caught fish is about 10 times higher than for fish caught on artificial lures.

 

The increase in the catch rate in 2010 likely reflects the combined effects of the 30-cm minimum size limit, reduced bag limit and higher catchability of cutthroat trout. Add to this the huge (20-fold) increase in the proportion of sport fish in the catch and the greatly reduced density of suckers in UKL, largely due to predation of suckers by bull trout, and one has to wonder how it is possible for some anglers to continue to claim that we "destroyed" the fishery in UKL when we stocked bull trout and implemented the bait ban, 30-cm minimum size limit and reduced bag limit. If they think that a higher catch rate for larger fish amounts to a "destroyed" fishery, then I guess that the proposed regulations will "devastate" it with even more fish to be caught and those that are keep are of an even greater size than ever before.

 

Essentially...look at the past data as an experiment proving what the future holds.

 

In the past...with liberal limits and not size restrictions...catch rates were low and sizes were tiny.

 

Then limits were reduced to 3 and size restrictions was 12 inches. Catch rates went up dramatically and the average retained size also increased.

 

Now look forward in time to a 1 fish limit but 20 inches. Now even more fish to catch and an even larger fish to retain. One twenty inch fish blows three 12 inch fish out of the water.

 

We are moving towards great fishing in UKL and LKL. I can hardly wait.

 

Sun

[FraserN]

I have fished the Upper Kananaskis lake extensively in the past years. I have noticed the decline in the Rainbow trout population, but they have not completely disappeared. I have observed rainbow trout spawning redds in May, in the shallow areas of the back bays at the NW end of the lake, near where tiny rills of flowing water enter the lake. If we get the 1 over 50cm. limit in place, the fishery can only improve. Just look at how quickly a decent Bull trout fishery developed in this lake where beforehand there was none, and a huge population of suckers. So many, that literally hundreds were seen in schools swimming by while I fished in vain for even a single fish. Things can only improve with stricter harvest regs.

[jusfloatin]

Sundancefisher I truly believe that your intended stewardship in this matter is true blue and I applaud you for that.

I also understand that by these regulation changes it would undoubtedly entice more to fish the upper K. simply for the reasons you posted.

 

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.

Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.

Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.

The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

 

I was fortunate to fish the upper K at least 2 dozen times this past summer, in those times I hate to admit it but I was skunked a couple times, other days it was just smallies and then there were a couple of days you only dream of. To me that is fishing, the chance of a big one when buddy next to me hooks a smallie.

If all of those days were to be just big fish days I believe I would grow somewhat tired of that. The chase is a big part of the fun.

If your concerns are leaning more to the fight of the fish go to a lighter rod. Everyone has caught a small fish that made you think you have a whopper on the line only to see you just have a little one that is not about to give up for anything.

 

These few things will be the immediately affect by those changes.

1 line up to off load and load the boat.

2 parking issues

3 the litter

4 traffic

5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors )

I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

 

I am sorry but I have no interest in seeing those changes, I fish the upper K for more reasons than the just the fish.

The drive up, the scenery while I fish, the color of the water, the fresh smell of clean air, the low amount of people, the anticipation of a big catch amongst the small unwanted catches by some.

 

Some have said it is paradise up there and I agree, would you be able to say after these changes.

At this moment I know what I have and I am not prepared to risk it.

 

For those that have not signed this petition as of yet all I ask of you is that you ask yourself to consider all plus and minus's associated with these proposed changes.

 

Yes I am being selfish for wanting to keep it as it is.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sundancefisher I truly believe that your intended stewardship in this matter is true blue and I applaud you for that.

I also understand that by these regulation changes it would undoubtedly entice more to fish the upper K. simply for the reasons you posted.

 

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.

Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.

Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.

The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

 

I was fortunate to fish the upper K at least 2 dozen times this past summer, in those times I hate to admit it but I was skunked a couple times, other days it was just smallies and then there were a couple of days you only dream of. To me that is fishing, the chance of a big one when buddy next to me hooks a smallie.

If all of those days were to be just big fish days I believe I would grow somewhat tired of that. The chase is a big part of the fun.

If your concerns are leaning more to the fight of the fish go to a lighter rod. Everyone has caught a small fish that made you think you have a whopper on the line only to see you just have a little one that is not about to give up for anything.

 

These few things will be the immediately affect by those changes.

1 line up to off load and load the boat.

2 parking issues

3 the litter

4 traffic

5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors )

I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

 

I am sorry but I have no interest in seeing those changes, I fish the upper K for more reasons than the just the fish.

The drive up, the scenery while I fish, the color of the water, the fresh smell of clean air, the low amount of people, the anticipation of a big catch amongst the small unwanted catches by some.

 

Some have said it is paradise up there and I agree, would you be able to say after these changes.

At this moment I know what I have and I am not prepared to risk it.

 

For those that have not signed this petition as of yet all I ask of you is that you ask yourself to consider all plus and minus's associated with these proposed changes.

 

Yes I am being selfish for wanting to keep it as it is.

 

I said it in a post earlier that I can not disagree with the only negative to these changes and that is with better fishing you will bring an increasing number of visitors.

 

That being said...these visitors will be additional fishing visitors...and likely will not affect hiking etc. Litter problems will not increase significantly as seen at Bullshead (every time I went there it was clean as fishermen respect the land and water extremely high). With more anglers you have more stewardship and more respect and appreciation for the resource. Actually I pick up more garbage along hiking trails than fishing places. The only significant issue will be for you seeing more happy anglers on the lake where once you saw few if any fishing. That is the only price to pay with success.

 

You comment about affecting the lake upon reflection is incorrect IMHO. Understanding these lakes are already stocked...have been stocked in the past...once had native cutthroat and bulltrout in them...are extensively impacted by the dams to me puts this concern of yours as non existent. In fact additional fishing activity will likely be the additional pressure needed to pursuade the powers that be to mitigate the water fluctuations more and actually improve the lakes biota.

 

As for fish sizes...I love catching anything verusus nothing and just love fishing. That being said if I fished once or twice a year...catching 8 inch stocked rainbows may of sufficed. BUT...if there were 20 inch rainbows to be caught along with plenty of 12-19 inch ones to catch...then...WOW...I would of fished more than twice. Downsizing your gear is all fine but still...small trout are no challenge compared to 20 inchers. I saw this principle on our perch problem in Lake Sundance. When the perch maxed out at 6 inches...few people wanted to fish for them more than once or twice a year if that. Now that we are seeing plenty of perch in the 8-10 inch category...the numbers of anglers is increasing. If they were 12-14 inches long...you bet interest would be even greater.

 

While I understand you are happy with 8-12 inch rainbows...I believe the majority of the population wants better fishing. So being fair to all users...you will still get your fish and smaller ones to catch for your enjoyment...larger ones for the rest of us...and nice reasonably sized 20 inchers for people to harvest if they so chose.

 

As for these specific concerns...

 

1 line up to off load and load the boat. Most people will either fish from shore or in pontoon/belly boats versus boat launching. There is tons of shore line to fish from...loads of room to give everyone space...I have only ever fished it from shore or in my belly boat and had a great scenic day...albiet with not a lot of fish. That will soon change! I don't think there will be a ton more boats (what have other people observed?). But there are huge lakes with almost no boats now. There is lots of room to share. You say the fishing is great now. How many boats use it? What is the standard current fishing method you see? Shore, boat...belly boat/pontoon? On a percentage basis it should stay that way. Out of 20 people I saw fishing there one weekend. three were sharing a boat...3 in tubes...all the rest were from shore. If it is a wonderful place to fish now...yet you say the fishing will improve greatly and attract a ton more people to create these problems..so we should not fix it is a cop out. I think we should address concerns like yours in the plan and mitigate it while improving the fishery. To me that is the smart approach rather than continue to let a fishery stagnate.

 

2 parking issues. There are lots of access points and lots of parking. Parking has never been a problem here. Chances are the available parking will finally get used. There is lots of parking that is rarely if ever all used up. I have not seen it any time I visited there. Yes...there may be times where it is busy...but hey...the tax payers built and paid for it...it would be nice to see it used for once.

 

3 the litter With more fishermen around...more hikers and picicker's litter will get picked up. More traffic will mean better servicing by parks and probably better patrolling! Fishermen are great at picking up litter. So I firmly believe there is no increase just from fishermen. While some people are slobs...so are some people great custodians. I hear time and time again about fishermen picking up after others. I take a bad with me hiking and fishing and generally garbage I pick up is from hikers and mountain bikers and quadders.

 

4 traffic Fishermen will drive in first thing and leave at dusk. Therefore not a lot of additional traffic. Plus we are not talking about thousands of people a day so you have to be careful not to exaggerate this a being a problem. Traffic will also be dispersed to the various access points. Increased fishermen will watch the water for pollution and also poaching. Various access points...there are multiple spots to access LKL. There is great shoreline access around UKL. Better than most lakes of similar size in the province. The easy access is what helps make this ideas make sense.

 

5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors ) Not sure what the motor law is. I don't know many guys that would urinate out on the water in a tube. They mostly go to shore. I would say the reems of hikers probably add more urine that the occasional fisherman. Understanding also that there are reservoirs that flush lot of water out each year...I would not be concerned about the very low potential of build up. And actually...a little more nitrogen would help the bugs you are worried about. :-)

 

In the end...the impression I get is that you are mainly worried about crowding. I think more people is expected but at Bullhead where tons more showed up...I still had tons of room to fish. Your fishing success will probably stay the same or improve as expected. You have not experienced a similar fishery to see what you are missing before you outright say no. Calgary and region has no quality fishery nearby and you don't want to vote to have one.

 

We can still use your signature! :-)

 

Link to the petition

http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

 

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Gaffer]

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.

Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.

Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.

The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

 

At the risk of jacking this thread further I'll throw in my biologist/entomologist $0.02.

 

The K lakes is not a natural system since humans have been monkeying with the biology of that area for decades through the introduction of stocked fish. I am pretty sure that rainbow trout are not native to that area, and even if they are, the genetic make up of the stocked fish is not what would have evolved in that area over milenia. We have been manipulating these systems for the goals of humans but I believe as time has progressed the goals of anglers has changed with the increase in C&R and the decline of angling as a whole. As such, perhaps it would be wise to change regulations and stocking to meet the changes and the desires of people who would rather catch sizable fish over little stockers. There are lots of places for people to go who wish to catch a b

 

In terms of the impact on the insect populations, predator populations will never be high enough to significatly impact insect populations to the point of being detrimental. If something like this were to happen, the fish would reach an equilibrium and the lake would be at it's carrying capacity. With the number of different insect spp. in that area there should be sufficient food to maintain increased numbers of fish and greater sized fish. It could also be argued that larger fish could benefit insect populations as larger fish seek out larger food items such as smaller fish which eat a greater proportion of insects.

 

Andrew

 

 

 

[Tungsten]

Sun,maybe its been said already but what kind of rainbows are currently stocked?

[monger]

I don't think there is many options for different races of rainbows at the Sam Livingstone hatchery. The rainbows present in Lower Kan are from an old stocking. Alberta fish culture is not as diverse as things are in BC. Recent stockings have been with Cutts. I believe the Cutts usually come with Job Lake genetics.

 

Gaffer, there is also an established Mysis shrimp population in both U and L Kan lakes. This food source is highly desirable for both trout and char.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun,maybe its been said already but what kind of rainbows are currently stocked?

 

Actually...just to be clear as sometimes there is a slip...they are stocking Cutts and have been for some time. The rainbows were stocked a long time ago and a few are spawning naturally.

 

I am not sure of either strain...but I suspect the Cutts are westslopes...

[Gaffer]

Gaffer, there is also an established Mysis shrimp population in both U and L Kan lakes. This food source is highly desirable for both trout and char.

 

I am not too familiar with the invert population in K-lakes apart from what I would guess are the usual suspects, but the more the merrier for both fish & fishermen.

 

Gonna have to amend my 2011 goals to include more K-lakes fishing.

 

A

[dekkard2019]

The problem with the bug situation in both lakes is caused by the fluctuating water levels. This may change in the year 2013. I hope so. It is unreal the water level in the month of May compared to the end of November. The rainbows were last stocked in the lower lake in 1988. When we shocked Boulton we had 66 adult rainbows, so the the rainbow population is very low and we hope with the new regs on Boulton that this will change things around. Time will tell. It is pretty cool that these stocked fish have adapted and are reproducing. I have caught 14" rainbows in the lower. As far as I know, nothing is reproducing in the upper lake, except for suckers. They will both be in both lakes for a very long time. There was also talk at the roundtable meeting about modifying one of the creeks that flow into the upper to accomodate spawning cutthroat.

[dekkard2019]

I have mentioned this in another thread...but I also have petitions at Southbow, Fish Tales, and Wholesale if you want to sign at one of those locales too.

[FraserN]

I believe the rainbows that were stocked in both lakes are the "Red band" strain of Onchorynchus mykiss. You will notice if you catch one that they tend to have large, dark spots: a wide red or pink band along the side of the body, and a fairly "stocky" body-form. They persist in the fishery because some of the spawning age adults that survive have found adequate conditions in the lake or inlet stream environments to successfully reproduce.

[cgyguy]

Signed. Great work guys!

[jusfloatin]

This proposal will make this lake a great Catch and Release lake for the first 3 years and when there are big enough to keep the onslot will be on.

It will be just like the Bow, shoulder to shoulder with garbage floating by. It would probably smell different and less rock snot but it's like anything it is just a matter of time untill it gets screwed.

 

It is not a perfect lake but it is not far off.

 

I vote to leave it alone.

[Bigtoad]

This proposal will make this lake a great Catch and Release lake for the first 3 years and when there are big enough to keep the onslot will be on.

It will be just like the Bow, shoulder to shoulder with garbage floating by. It would probably smell different and less rock snot but it's like anything it is just a matter of time untill it gets screwed.

 

It is not a perfect lake but it is not far off.

 

I vote to leave it alone.

 

Great philosophy jusfloatin! Let's keep the fisheries in Alberta as crappy as possible so that we don't have as many users! Awesome! That's like getting a dog with no legs so that you don't have to take it for a walk. Freaking brilliant!

 

You know what else we should do? I don't like seeing other fishermen when I'm fishing the North Ram. It's just too good of a fishery. We should lobby the gov't to open it up to keeping 5 cutties of any size. Then, in 3 years when the fishery collapses, I'll be able to fish there in peace and quiet. I bet there won't even be any garbage; won't be any fish over 6" either but that's the price we have to pay for some solitude!

 

I don't remember EVER standing shoulder to shoulder on the Bow and I would think the garbage issue would be due more to the river flowing through a city of 1,000,000 than from the fishermen (I'm assuming the condoms people periodically find floating along aren't from the guide boats, but perhaps that's why a few companies are so expensive ).

 

The more quality fisheries we have in Alberta, the more spread out the fishermen will be. We have so few quality places to fish, that we tend to congregate where there are good fisheries. And good fisheries are where there are good, solid regulations that try to keep big fish in the lake/stream longer.

 

Cheers.

[dekkard2019]

You are entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't think it will ever be shoulder to shoulder out there. It can be a tough place to fish sometimes, especially for guys fishing from boats and trolling. I have seen a lot of guys get snuffed out there and they never come back. The 2 lakes are so big there are TONS of places to fish. I can bounce between both lakes all day long. There are great places to hike too...cripes you can fish up at Rawson come back down and fish the K lakes. You can actually fish 3 lakes in a day if you wanted to. Don't get so down on overcrowding...we should be encouraging people to get out and enjoy the mountains. Learn to relax.

[jusfloatin]

Great philosophy jusfloatin! Let's keep the fisheries in Alberta as crappy as possible so that we don't have as many users! Awesome! That's like getting a dog with no legs so that you don't have to take it for a walk. Freaking brilliant!

 

You know what else we should do? I don't like seeing other fishermen when I'm fishing the North Ram. It's just too good of a fishery. We should lobby the gov't to open it up to keeping 5 cutties of any size. Then, in 3 years when the fishery collapses, I'll be able to fish there in peace and quiet. I bet there won't even be any garbage; won't be any fish over 6" either but that's the price we have to pay for some solitude!

 

I don't remember EVER standing shoulder to shoulder on the Bow and I would think the garbage issue would be due more to the river flowing through a city of 1,000,000 than from the fishermen (I'm assuming the condoms people periodically find floating along aren't from the guide boats, but perhaps that's why a few companies are so expensive ).

 

The more quality fisheries we have in Alberta, the more spread out the fishermen will be. We have so few quality places to fish, that we tend to congregate where there are good fisheries. And good fisheries are where there are good, solid regulations that try to keep big fish in the lake/stream longer.

 

Cheers.

 

 

First off I am not talking about Alberta fisheries on the whole only the upper K and it is by no means a crappy fishery.

 

I am certainly not expressing any interst in as you infer to keep this place to myself. Would I enjoy see less people out there when I fish who would not. Do you go out hoping there are lots.

Nor will I feel guilty about it.

 

I am expressing my opinion of what some of the concerns, I have if these proposals come into effect.

 

To think that if these rules come into place that there would not be any bad side effects is wrong.

 

 

I am sure you would agree that the Upper K is almost paradise but does have some things that could be improved.

My worry is when or if these proposals come into effect that the first three years my chances of bring home one from the upper K is zip to none. Have you ever cooked a cutty out of there? To compare that to a Costco fish is sacrilegious.

My second most worry is after the third year there will be lots of new people coming to fish there and why not?

You have a beautiful lake set in the background of paradise where the norm is 50cm +.

 

You don't think there will be fisherman coming out of the wood work to fish the Upper K not to mention how many "guides" bringing clients in.

Then you think all of these fisherman will not litter but will pick up after someone else.

 

If they do come into affect I hope you right.

 

[Smitty]

First off I am not talking about Alberta fisheries on the whole only the upper K and it is by no means a crappy fishery.

 

I am certainly not expressing any interst in as you infer to keep this place to myself. Would I enjoy see less people out there when I fish who would not. Do you go out hoping there are lots.

Nor will I feel guilty about it.

 

I am expressing my opinion of what some of the concerns, I have if these proposals come into effect.

 

To think that if these rules come into place that there would not be any bad side effects is wrong.

 

 

I am sure you would agree that the Upper K is almost paradise but does have some things that could be improved.

My worry is when or if these proposals come into effect that the first three years my chances of bring home one from the upper K is zip to none. Have you ever cooked a cutty out of there? To compare that to a Costco fish is sacrilegious.

My second most worry is after the third year there will be lots of new people coming to fish there and why not?

You have a beautiful lake set in the background of paradise where the norm is 50cm +.

 

You don't think there will be fisherman coming out of the wood work to fish the Upper K not to mention how many "guides" bringing clients in.

Then you think all of these fisherman will not litter but will pick up after someone else.

 

If they do come into affect I hope you right.

 

Actually, you are making all the arguments for the proposed regulation changes.

 

Kananaskis Country was always designed as an "outdoor playgorund". Hence the 2 lovely golf courses, just to cite one example.

 

I hope the fisheries are used more; they are underutilized and untapped in terms of the potential.

I hope the lakes and the K. river levels are water levels are stabilized; imagine what a productive littoral zone would do for the lakes and the river. We need more of these fisheries.

I hope the crowding increases with the attendent problems of parking and litter, etc etc.

 

I hope for all that, because generally speaking, stillwater fisheries are more productive - sometimes vastly so - than flowing water. By trout standards (not pike, perch, walleye, whitefish standards) K-lakes are massive. Big water, that, managed properly, can sustain a lot of pressure - or I hope so anyways - and can provide outstanding fishing close to a major center like Calgary.

 

Because I am looking at the big picture. This could be a win-win-win thing; more people at K-lakes hopefully may mean less people ripping lips in smaller, flowing water like the Livingstone, upper Oldman, and all of the 3-rivers watershed and especially the tiny, fragile tributaries. Maybe the Livingstone and the Gap won't look like the WEM parking lot on some weekends, because now, some guys might be fishing for 4-5lb trout in K country, with a reasonable shot at a 10 fish day. And yet, the catch and keep crowd get a chance to catch and eat a nice big fish. Plus, fingers crossed, if the K river could have decent fishing, it would spread more anglers out.

 

I want these regs because we simply need more productive stillwater fisheries. Flyfishing is popular and having an attraction like that may give some of our flowing waters a break. Perhaps I am dreaming here in terms of cause and effect, but its worth a shot in my opinion. I don't see a single downside to this. You can always change the regs back if the experiment turns into a "failure".

 

Smitty

[aynsley]

Great philosophy jusfloatin! Let's keep the fisheries in Alberta as crappy as possible so that we don't have as many users! Awesome! That's like getting a dog with no legs so that you don't have to take it for a walk. Freaking brilliant!

 

You know what else we should do? I don't like seeing other fishermen when I'm fishing the North Ram. It's just too good of a fishery. We should lobby the gov't to open it up to keeping 5 cutties of any size. Then, in 3 years when the fishery collapses, I'll be able to fish there in peace and quiet. I bet there won't even be any garbage; won't be any fish over 6" either but that's the price we have to pay for some solitude!

 

I don't remember EVER standing shoulder to shoulder on the Bow and I would think the garbage issue would be due more to the river flowing through a city of 1,000,000 than from the fishermen (I'm assuming the condoms people periodically find floating along aren't from the guide boats, but perhaps that's why a few companies are so expensive ).

 

The more quality fisheries we have in Alberta, the more spread out the fishermen will be. We have so few quality places to fish, that we tend to congregate where there are good fisheries. And good fisheries are where there are good, solid regulations that try to keep big fish in the lake/stream longer.

 

Cheers.

 

Well said Bigtoad!!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Well said Bigtoad!!

 

X2

 

jusfloatin...

 

If you truly think that these regulations will so drastically increase crowding and litter than clearly by your own admission you feel these regulations will be a huge success and welcomed by all those that will be fishing there. I applaud you for this endorsement.

 

I challenge you then Sir to step up your game like I do and lead by example in keeping not just this park but all parks clean. Don't be afraid to pack other peoples garbage out. People keep places clean that are clean. I also challenge you to take advantage of our many AOF friendships and participate in car poolings whenever possible to alleviate any traffic congestion concerns. Also I hope that maybe the small businesses out there will see some benefits. I like helping small businesses especially if providing a service that benefits fishermen!

 

As for waiting for awesome fishing...if that was the complete truth...you betcha I will do that. If you feel that these regulations are not warranted...then that means by your logic there are tons of trout remaining to be caught versus our premise for these regulations stating many trout get vacuumed out before having a change to grow to a more challenging and larger table eating size. Or as you mentioned before...you just love catching 12 inch trout. There are plenty of places to still do that...but super limited locations to improve a fishery so dramatically as this simple regulation change will do.

 

Anyways...if you are correct and there are still lots of trout left...then in fact 20 inchers will be available in 1 or 2 years versus 4. Still I suppose if 4 is the right number...then I will just have to suffer through years of excellent fishing putting 12, 14, 16, 18 inch cutthroats back to grow until they reach harvestable size. Delaying harvest is a smart use of natures resources and our taxes.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

P.S. Stay warm this weekend.. Brrrrrrrr.