fishpro Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Just saw the new regulations for 2012 and the regulations have been changed to now allow only one fish over 50cm to be kept. Great work to all those on the forum who got behind this initiative and played a role in making it happen, and thanks in particular to Dekkard and Beedhead for running the petition and all the work they did. These lakes already produce some great fish, it'll be exciting to see what these lakes can turn into in the coming years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JBear Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Excellent, looking forward to getting down there this spring! Good job boys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ArtVandelay Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Just saw the new regulations for 2012 and the regulations have been changed to now allow only one fish over 50cm to be kept. What was it last year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
browntrout57 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 While I do release 99% of my fish, upper k was one of the few lakes I liked to keep a couple trout a year. This lake has sure had some huge changes over the years, rainbows with bait allowed, rainbows/bulls/cutties no bait allowed, and now cutties/bulls no bait allowed and basically no retention. I understand for a rainbow trout fishery having a minimum size of 20" because that is not really a huge fish. However I don't really understand the 20" size for cutties, 20" is a huge cutthroat and I wouldn't want to keep one that big. I guess they are more or less turning this into a C & R lake??? Would it not of made more sense to make minimum size smaller (16"?) for cutthroat since they do not grow as a big as rainbows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishpro Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 What was it last year? Up until now it's been a limit of 3 fish over 30cm. While I do release 99% of my fish, upper k was one of the few lakes I liked to keep a couple trout a year. This lake has sure had some huge changes over the years, rainbows with bait allowed, rainbows/bulls/cutties no bait allowed, and now cutties/bulls no bait allowed and basically no retention. I understand for a rainbow trout fishery having a minimum size of 20" because that is not really a huge fish. However I don't really understand the 20" size for cutties, 20" is a huge cutthroat and I wouldn't want to keep one that big. I guess they are more or less turning this into a C & R lake??? Would it not of made more sense to make minimum size smaller (16"?) for cutthroat since they do not grow as a big as rainbows? In the right conditions cutthroats can easily reach 20 inches, maybe not a lot over but they will regularly hit that 20-21 inch range. I fished a large mountain lake this summer that produced many large cutthroats, including probably 1 in 7 fish being 20 inches or larger. It'll all be in how the lake is stocked relative to the food source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EveretteD Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 This is excellent news as I frequent the lake in the summer. Maybe if the fish have the chance to grow larger I will have to bust out the 5 wt instead of the standard issue 4wt. Thanks for all who made this possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigtoad Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Would it not of made more sense to make minimum size smaller (16"?) for cutthroat since they do not grow as a big as rainbows? Yeah, I'm not sure why Albertan's and SRD specifically are so reluctant to go for a retention of one under 18" (or 20") like they do in Manitoba. Able to keep a pan-fry and yet still grows big fish. Seems win-win to me, but maybe that just makes too much sense for people to agree with. With that being said, I'm all for any change that helps to reduce the retention rate at this, and most other trout lakes in the province. Well done guys. Now let's do this for half a dozen other trout lakes and we're off to the races! Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekkard2019 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Just saw the new regulations for 2012 and the regulations have been changed to now allow only one fish over 50cm to be kept. Great work to all those on the forum who got behind this initiative and played a role in making it happen, and thanks in particular to Dekkard and Beedhead for running the petition and all the work they did. These lakes already produce some great fish, it'll be exciting to see what these lakes can turn into in the coming years! Thanks! It has taken a lot of time to get this accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGK Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericlin0122 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I think the new reg will bring that lake to a true trophy cuttie lake in Alberta in the nearly future. Thanks for good work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
browntrout57 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Depends on the mgmt goal. Personally, I favour "one under" and not "one over" regulations but if the pop'n can handle the potential loss, doesn't really matter. I signed the dam petition anyway so I guess I can't bitch haha. If you want fish meat, go to a pothole or smack some walleye on the head, you're paying for em. I never saw the petition, but I probably would have signed it anyways as I'd rather have a trophy fishery than keep a couple fish a year. You can't really compare a 8" pothole trout that tastes like mud compared to a high mountain cutthroat. Also I'm not sure if you are familiar with the regulations for keeping walleye near Calgary but most spots are C & R. I'm just curious as to why they chose 20" for both rainbow trout and cutthroat trout when a 20" rainbow is not in the same league as a 20" cutthroat. I like Bigtoads idea of 1 under 18" or 16" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLeod Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Depends on the mgmt goal. Personally, I favour "one under" and not "one over" regulations but if the pop'n can handle the potential loss, doesn't really matter. I signed the dam petition anyway so I guess I can't bitch haha. If you want fish meat, go to a pothole or smack some walleye on the head, you're paying for em. The public is paying for this lake to be stocked as well so there has to be some sort of happy medium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGK Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monger Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 There isn't any (or anything significant) spawning in Upper Kan. It will be interesting to see if the Cutts can get over 20" there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npauls Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Fair nuff comment about walleye. My point is the vast majority of angling $$$ in AB goes to rearing and stocking walleye....I'd be trying to get my money's worth if I was a fish eater. There is far more money spent on stocking trout around Alberta then there is Walleye. The southern half of Alberta doesn't have any stocking of walleye at all. They are all self sustaining populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgyguy Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Congratulations to all who worked so hard to get this in place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Congratulations to all who worked so hard to get this in place! X2...let's hope they get the stocking rates correct to encourage proper growth. It is a win/win if lots regularly reach 20 inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveJensen Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Great job. Good on the folks spearheading it. But, and this might make me old school - great for Kyle McNeilly who made the suggestion to go that route for years, and now some folks followed through on the concept. Wonderful. It's great to see that what Kyle had purported is now in place, the 1 over regulation. As Kyle was bang on right about - the only way to keep fish in the water to see what the true potential is, is to have either C&R or a large min size (with no under size allowance) at that specific location. Hopefully the gov will give the fishery at least 15 years to sort through a couple of generations before re-opening discussion on regs. It's the only way to come as close to potential aside from closing it entirely. Once we establish what that potential is over those 15 years we can re-examine what its use and productivity capabilities can be assigned to, if at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeler Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Great to see something closer to home! Jim Stelfox was showing off the data collected during their written and oral surveys at the Hook and Hackle open house - the more information the better so please take the time to fill out the creel survey cards and note your opinion on the new regulations, because like Police Outpost, there is going to be some opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanbritt Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Great job everyone! Great example of how concerned anglers can make a difference! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halcyonsancta Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Good news!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beedhead Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 A huge thanx to everyone involved, and to the people that signed the online/in stores petitions... Cheers... Jeff.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tallieho Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 good to see you back on the board beedhead see you at bullshead,ice is off early this year.. yes & thanks to all that helped get k-lakes some new reg's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDoctor Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 This will be excellent for the fishery. Thanks to all who participated in making this happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adc Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 With that being said, I'm all for any change that helps to reduce the retention rate at this, and most other trout lakes in the province. Well done guys. Now let's do this for half a dozen other trout lakes and we're off to the races! Cheers. Good job Guys........I think the gov't folks are pretty onside with creating more Quality Fisheries........Now is a good time to continue the fight for more, for sure............As BT says, let's get another half dozen trout lakes in the QF regs while the momentum is there............... 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.