Clear Lake Pike Regulation Change

[Guest Wrecker]

Does anyone have any insight on why the regulation change at Clear lake - 1 fish over 100cm?

 

How is endorsing the killing of females once they are getting to the cusp of trophy potential increase the trophy potential of a lake?

 

Why not a slot size? We fished Clear on the weekend and it was full of small fish, maybe too many? Let the meat hunters keep a couple of those, they taste better anyways. Allow to retain 2 fish 23-27", or something similar. IMO this is now worse than the old reg, now you are forcing the meat fisherman to hold out and kill a big female.

 

Was surprised to see this regulation, it makes no sense to me. Does someone with a fisheries background have an explanation? I must be missing something?

[ericlin0122]

Does anyone have any insight on why the regulation change at Clear lake - 1 fish over 100cm?

 

How is endorsing the killing of females once they are getting to the cusp of trophy potential increase the trophy potential of a lake?

 

Why not a slot size? We fished Clear on the weekend and it was full of small fish, maybe too many? Let the meat hunters keep a couple of those, they taste better anyways. Allow to retain 2 fish 23-27", or something similar. IMO this is now worse than the old reg, now you are forcing the meat fisherman to hold out and kill a big female.

 

Was surprised to see this regulation, it makes no sense to me. Does someone with a fisheries background have an explanation? I must be missing something?

 

you are lucky you can keep one. It should have been catch and release only.

 

[bigbowtrout]

Some good reading for ya.

MEETING NOTES

ALBERTA FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ROUND TABLE

April 14, 2012

Kerry Wood Nature Centre, Red Deer, Alberta

1. Welcome and Introductions

 Welcome and Introductions from Derry Armstrong and Travis Ripley

 The format of the Round Table meeting has changed to reflect the participants desire to have

more open discussion and fewer presentations.

 Results from the 2010 Survey on Recreational Fishing in Alberta were presented in poster

format during the meeting

 List of attendees appended

2. Notes and Agenda Approval

 October 15, 2011 meeting notes accepted as final

 Current meeting agenda approved

3. Past Meeting Action Items Review and Updates (with Questions posed by Participants):

 Items identified in Action Items Summary Table as completed, or pending completion during

the course of the meeting, were accepted as completed.

 Action items summary table reviewed.

o Agreement that Outstanding action items #1 (trout stocking costs), #2 (licensing CFEs

and estimated delayed mortality), #5 (Report on revision of species management plans),

and #12 (notification of web-based consultation) can be removed as they have been

completed or are considered routine business.

o Agreement that Apr-11 action item # 6 (coming events page) can be removed as it has

been completed.

o Agreement that Oct 11 action items # 8 (review of youth fishing report), #9 (past

education committee material review) and #10 (discuss youth participation) can be

included under Outstanding # 11 (youth fishing) as each action item relates to youth

fishing.

o Agreement that Apr-12 action items #1 (revise April 2011 meeting notes) #2 (update

Action Items Summary Table and post on the website), #3 (bring forward concerns

regarding proposed regulations) #8 (compare open discussion concerns with current

Parking Lot Item list) and #9 (provide CFE documents) can be removed as they have

been completed or are considered routine business.

 Q. During the October 2011 Round Table Meeting there was a discussion regarding the Fish

Conservation and Management Strategy: 2011-2015. Has there been any progress made on

the document and what can be expected to happen to the document should there be a

change in government? A. Key points of the Fish Conservation and Management Strategy

were discussed during the October 2011 meeting, as well as information was sent out to

participants. Comments were compiled and incorporated into a revised strategy. The

document is currently with the ADM for approval. FMB is unsure what may take place if there

is a change in government.

Action (1): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to provide trout and walleye stocking

costs annually on the Round Table web-site.

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 2 of 11

Action (2): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to include notification of web-based

consultation on the agenda for the October 2012 meeting and to look into the possibility of

making the revised draft of the Fish Conservation and Management Strategy available to the

Round Table Participants. Participants are encouraged to contact Travis Ripley directly for

information on the strategy.

Action (3): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to update Action Items Summary Table

and re-post on the Round Table website.

4. Competitive Fishing Events

 Discussion questions were prepared in advance to aid in the discussion itself. The questions

do not exclude any other concerns or questions participants wish to be addressed.

 “Resource” individuals have been identified and are: Gaetan Richard, Virgil Huculak, Dave

Walty, and Michael Sullivan.

 Chronology of the history of CFEs was presented by Dave Walty

 Overall, CFE regulation and implementation is becoming more stable as a result of

consultation.

 Discussion Questions (and comments from participants):

Does the Round Table support the current approach to managing competitive fishing

events (CFEs)?

o Achieved consensus that CFEs should be managed by the Fisheries Management

Branch and the current approach and application process works well.

o Q. Are CFEs non-profit, what assurances are there, and is there any paid professional

staffs involved in a derby? A. In some cases there have been profits but these are then

returned to the community, usually in the form of a charitable contribution. The pay

schedule and costs are available online and most clubs do have a financial report

available as well. All individuals involved in running an event are volunteers (not paid)

except for the individuals who weigh the fish.

o Comment: It is in the best interest of CFE organizers to have the non-profit financial

information about their event available to the public.

General conclusions from discussion

 RoundTable participants support the current processes in place to manage CFE’s.

 CFE organizers at each large event should make the public aware of their non profit

strategy.

After 5 years of CFE management, SRD feels the primary resource management issue

is with large and medium sized CFEs.

o Q. Is there a penalty for an individual who breaks event rules? A. The individual would

be disqualified from the tournament and the issue would be brought to the attention of the

board to determine if the individual will be allowed future involvement with the event. If a

sportfishing regulation is violated it would be handled by SRD.

o Q. What is the impact on a lake in terms of fish mortality? A. If mortality was 1% and it

equated to a CFE mortality of approximately 50-100 fish on average, those 50-100 fish

would need to be removed from the allocation. Mortality discussion to continue later on.

To clarify the question; SRD is spending the majority of their time on larger events as a

primary resource management concern. Do the Round Table Participants agree? Are

small events an issue? There are currently few small events, should SRD continue to

regulate them?

o Comment: There is still good reason to have small events registered. It would be difficult

to manage allocation as it is unclear what is happening at a lake.

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 3 of 11

o Comment: Small events should continue to be regulated. Small events also provide

great opportunities for education and for bringing in youth.

o Q. What makes a CFE? A. If money is exchanged and prizes are available it is a CFE.

o Comment: Large CFEs bring in the public attention and concerns. Small CFEs may not

be of a concern to the general public. Concerns that it may be difficult to regulate 10-15

people going out on a lake and each putting 5 dollars into a pot.

o Comment: there are advantages to registering a CFE. If anglers are not registered they

are required to follow the regulations and have 1 fish in possession, for example. If

registered anglers may be able to have 2 fish in possession.

o Consensus that overall CFE management is working well and there is no need to

change. There is no immediate need to focus on smaller tournaments but they so still

need to be registered. CFE’s over 25 anglers need to be monitored, fewer than 25 is not

a large concern. Whether or not a group of anglers, fewer than 25, constitute an informal

tournament they are still required to follow the regulations.

General conclusions from discussion

 FMB should continue to licence and regulate all events large and small.

Is there support for the standardized mortality rates?

o The standardized mortality values that are currently being applied were presented to the

Round Table participants. Expert opinion and literature reviews were incorporated into

determining the values. The values themselves are applied to tournaments and any catch

and release angling. There is a need to recognize that there is not a thorough

understanding of what factors result in changes in catch and release mortality and this

does need to be considered in management. Not all conditions are known and therefore

averages and predictions are used. In determining the average, eight biologists around

the province collected and discussed relevant literature. Fifteen to twenty studies were on

North American or Alberta lakes. There was a focus on the temperature profile, wind

profile, and depth which Walleye were caught in.

o Consensus was reach on the six presented categories.

Mortality Rates Cool Water Warm Water

Immediate catch and release 2% 6%

Held in live wells then released 4% 13%

Held in live wells and weighed-in 6% 32%

o Q. With Lesser Slave Lake depth restrictions, how much lower was mortality? Local

public believe that it is impossible to regulate depth. Why is it impossible to put a

restriction on depth profile (both public and CFE)? Is there a study available on mortality

reduction with depth restrictions? A. A study was not done but it is believe that mortality

was reduced on Lesser Slave Lake due to the depth restriction. CFE tournament

organizers do recognize the significance of depth restrictions.

o Comment: The general public does not see the mortality values. CFE anglers and

organizers do recognize and understand these values very well. The general public

should have access to these values as well, possibly within the Guide to Sportfishing

Regulations.

o Q. In tournaments, what method of fish retention is most used? (Immediate catch and

release or held in live wells and released). A. Held in live wells and then released is the

most used method.

o Comment: SAWT weigh in stations are on the water. The furthest an angler is from a

weigh station is 3km.

o Comment: There should be no culling in Alberta. Response: There is mention of no

culling of fish within the Guide to Sportfishing regulations.

o Q. Are there regulations concerning the weigh in process? A. There is mention of the

weigh in process within the CFE Best Management Practices.

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 4 of 11

o Q. Within the Fish and Wildlife Annual Report it states “supporting economy and

providing cultural opportunities and recreation” as a goal. CFEs follow this and there

appears to be a mandate to support CFEs in Alberta. Is FMB trying to find ways to

support CFEs or to not allow them? A. FMB supports the responsible management of

CFEs in Alberta. FMB is wary of making any argument strictly based on economics

contribution as there is a large social component to sustainable CFEs. FMB is currently

looking for strategic direction to deal with conservation and allocation concerns. There is

a need for suggestions on when FMB should say no or yes to these events.

o Concerns expressed regarding the 2% and 6% mortality rate assigned to fish for

immediate caught and released during spring/fall and summer, respectively. There are

concerns that studies done within Alberta do not support these values. The values need

to be from a variety of peer reviewed studies. Response: The standardized values are to

be reviewed and revised if necessary as new information and new studies are published.

o Overall there is support for the standardize values presented. FMB has committed to an

annual review as new information and studies become available.

General conclusions from discussion

 There is acceptance of the mortality rates presented by SRD.

 There was a commitment made by SRD that the rates will be routinely evaluate and

updated if new information becomes available.

 Some felt the immediate release rates seem to be high and it was stated our own

studies have lower values.

 Mortality rates are to be applied to all angling not just CFE’s, and FMB need to

educate anglers about these rates and how they are used.

SRD proposes that the allocation comes from the sport fishing allocation if a new CFE

is approved for a lake.

o Comment: There is a finite fish resource and there is currently a squeeze being put on

sportfishing as the population and angler numbers increase. Should CFEs be allowed in

these circumstances?

o CFEs are considered angling and therefore the allocation reduction should come out of

the general angling. It is a question of public versus competitive angling.

o Comment: Alberta’s population is growing and there is not a large number of

waterbodies. There needs to be a balance with allocation. If a lake is fully allocated there

should be no new CFE allowed. Why allow more pressure if we do not have to?

o Comment: CFE participant are anglers. SRD accepted CFEs as part of the process for

allocation and therefore CFEs should be allowed a piece of the allocation.

o Comment: CFEs are non-profit and generally local and should therefore have local

support. CFEs are sport fishermen and allocation should be taken from commercial and

sport fishing in order to have the necessary allocation available for a CFE.

o Suggestion made that a percentage of allocation of be used as moveable allocation. For

example, 5% of sportfishing allocation can be moved to CFEs.

o Q. Which lakes would be impacted by this? Which new lakes may have potential

tournaments? A. Pinehurst Lake fishing quality is decreasing and therefore Lac La

Biche is being considered if Pinehurst is closed to CFEs.

o Comment: Can these questions be consulted on more broadly as there seems to be a lot

of speculation concerning the public’s feelings. It is felt that the Round Table forum is not

the place to ask about taking allocation from the general public anglers. Response:

Suggestion made that a listing of potential lakes this would impact should be given to

SRD by tournament organizers, and the list would then be used for more focused local

consultation. There are concerns that the public may not understand the complexity of

the CFE issue and increased education and background information would need to be

given during consultation.

General conclusions from discussion

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 5 of 11

 CFE’s are considered angling and therefore the RoundTable supports the allocation

reduction that will come from the recreational anglers component (allocation provided

to sport anglers).

 This question may need a broader public review. There was some reluctance on the

part of Round Table to speak on behalf of the general public about giving up general

sportfish allocations for competitive fishing.

If SRD is faced with another user group in the future, what is the expectation to

provide allocation and where in the priority do they fit? CFEs are currently at a priority

of 5.

o SRD presented a typical allocation process to RT (available on website). In a lake

where each fishing group (currently prioritized as follows: 1 – conservation; 2 – domestic

food fishing; 3 – recreational sportfishing; 4 – commercial fishing; and 5 – competitive

fishing events) has received a portion of the allocation available and a fish conservation

issue arises, FMB will first try to reduce allocation to the group that deviated form their

allocation (typically anglers). If restrictions could not be altered enough to compensate

then increased restrictions for the other users will be assess and lastly, if needed for

conservation, the lowest priority group would need to be dropped. CFE’s were suggested

as priority 5.

o Q. If CFE’s are considered Sportfishing why would they not sit under priority 3 with

Sportfishing?

o Comment: There has been some confusion on allocation and therefore the priority listing

is needed. CFE’s need to be placed within the priority listing with consideration to already

established user groups as they are relatively new. Response: CFE’s have been in

Alberta since 1992 and yet SRD had refused to regulate them until a later date. Would

like to emphasize that CFE’s are not a new as they appear to be.

o Comment: Commercial netting and tournaments are the same as they both required

special licences and therefore their priority should be the same. Response: A Walleye

fishery can be considered collapsed but it can still be a healthy commercial fishery.

Walleye are not targeted during commercial netting. Commercial netting also helps to

reduce the dominant species which could create more room for Walleye to re-establish

themselves. Tournaments and Commercial netting do need differing priorities as they are

different user groups.

o Consensus that overall the current priority listing with CFE’s at priority #5 is acceptable.

General conclusions from discussion

 RT supports that CFE’s be assigned priority 5, after commercial fishing.

SRD recommends that CFEs not be allowed on Special Harvest Tag Lakes, Quality

Stocked Fisheries and lakes with trophy fish size limits as these lakes have more

vulnerable populations.

o Q. When is the next lake to be taken off of the tag system? It seems that more and more

lakes are going to tags as a long-term solution. A. Once pressure drops the tag system

may be replaced with differing regulations. The tag system was not a recovery regulation;

it was intended as a fair share regulation to allow for limited harvest.

o Comment: CFEs should not be allowed on tag lakes.

o Concerns were raised that FWIN is not a reliable method of sampling. Response: FWIN

is an international technique that does work in most cases but there are always

exceptions. Going to a tag system would have been recommended on the results of more

than one FWIN.

o Comment: According to delegates at AFGA they are accepting of sharing the harvest

with CFEs. A decrease in tags available may be acceptable in order to keep CFEs.

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 6 of 11

o Comment: The general public may oppose this as they may view CFEs as removing

tags. There needs to be more education on what the tag system is and how it could fit

with CFEs.

o Majority of Round Table participants are comfortable with having CFEs on tag lakes but

there is a minority of strong opposition.

o There was discussion on the maximum percentage of tags on a special harvest walleye

lake that would be acceptable to allocate to a CFE (e.g. 5% or 10%).

o Additional questions concerning CFEs are still unanswered. The questions will be sent

out to Round Table participants as a survey for their comments.

o The suggestion was made that the questions be sent out for broader consultation.

o Q. Will responses to the survey be brought back to the Round Table? A. There are

immediate decisions that need to be made in regards to CFEs this year. After responses

are returned and compiled the need for broader consultation may be identified.

Responses may be bought back to the Round Table in the fall.

General conclusions from discussion

 RT supports that CFE’s be allowed on tag lakes.

 There is support for a RT survey of individual members on this topic and

consideration for a broader consultation of public.

 There was support for identifying at what level (e.g. 5% or 10%) of sport fishing

allocation could go to CFE’s based on survey results.

Action (4): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to include the need for transparent and

readily accessible financial reports with the CFE Best Management Practices.

Action (5): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) to provide information on the internet

indicating the amount of incidental mortality that is applied to sport fishing in Alberta.

Action (6): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to develop a survey that allows for broad

level public consultation allocation of fish between CFE’s and sport anglers. Include in this survey

the

Action (7): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to send out the questions concerning

CFEs to the Round Table participants in a survey format. This survey will be provided to a broad

level of stakeholders so as to provide information to FMB.

5. Angling Regulation Updates

 Welcome to Jim Wagner, as he has taken over many responsibilities as Ken Bodden has

retired.

 Jim Wagner presented general information on the regulation process, including new steps

within the process itself; Scientific and Peer Review and a Director’s Approval Deadline.

 Proposed changes for 2013 were presented. Specific regulations being considered were not

presented as proposed changes for 2013 are currently under review to either restrict or open

up harvest. Specific regulations and/or regulation options will become available during the

Scientific Review process and public consultation.

 List of proposed changes to be brought back to the Round Table at the October 2012

meeting.

 Question and comments from participants:

o Q. If a regulation is not supported at the local level, in what conditions can the regulation

still be implemented? A. If there is a conservation concern the regulation can be

implemented.

o Comment: There is a consensus that individuals are not being properly notified of

scheduled consultation.

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 7 of 11

o Comment: Milk Ridge Reservoir was not mentioned for a proposed regulation change in

2013, yet when individuals had spoken with Area biologists the reservoir was mentioned

as having a potential change for 2013.

Action (8): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to check with Areas to confirm all

waterbodies that may have a regulation change for 2013 have been submitted.

6. Protecting Large Fish

 During the October 2011 Round Table meeting, handouts for background information were

provided on protecting large fish for discussion during the spring meeting.

 Harvest slots are being used for Walleye and Northern Pike. The intent of discussion is to

determine why we are protecting larger fish and how participants believe this can be

accomplished.

 Question and comments from participants:

o Comment: Protecting larger fish is essential as larger fish have demonstrated superior

genetics.

o Comment: Why are we going to a trophy lake on Clear Lake? And why can you keep

larger fish when you should not be eating them? There should be protection of larger fish

but also allow anglers to harvest smaller fish as well.

o Comment: The use of a protection slot centered on prime breeders appears to be a good

solution to protect larger fish. Response: Harvest slots may be more effective on high

pressure lakes in order to protect larger fish. Or potentially a tag system or combination

of tag and slot systems.

o Comment: There needs to be lake-specific regulations on lakes where the ability to grow

larger fish has been demonstrated. There does appear to be room for a tag system to

allow some harvest of larger fish but there needs to be public support.

o Q. What are the negatives associated with using harvest slots? A. At lower catch rates

it was shown that illegal harvest can be quite high. This may be different at lakes with

higher catch rates. Harvest slots work unless angling pressure is too high and not enough

fish survive until they reach the slot limit protected size range.

o Q. How do you selectively remove “Hockey Stick” Walleye? A. Tags and harvest slots

can be used in conjunction to remove some “hockey stick” fish.

o Comment: North-eastern Alberta lakes have larger Walleye (e.g. Moose Lake). This may

be a good place to have harvest slot regulations as the lake has demonstrated the ability

to grow larger Walleye.

o Q. What success has Saskatchewan had with protecting larger fish? A. Protected slot

regulations used in Saskatchewan work well at protecting larger fish but this is due to the

larger number of lakes and therefore less angler pressure experienced at each lake. This

would not work as well in Alberta as angling pressure is usually much higher.

o Comment: QSF regulations do not protect large fish.

o Comment: In regards to Beaver Lake, during the October 2011 meeting it was

determined that the lake was not meeting QSF objectives of 15% of the population over

50cm. It is felt that the regulation options being considered for 2013 will not be in place

until 2014. Currently, fish are being harvested below 50cm.

General conclusions from discussion

 There was a general support that the presence of large fish in lakes is a desired

value and should be part of our general management objectives.

 It was also concluded that greater emphasis should be placed on lakes with the

capability to grow large fish. (Note: There was no discussion on the implications of

this recommendation)

 

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 8 of 11

Action (9): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to discuss Beaver Lake regulations with

Area Biologists and will follow up with concerned participants.

7. Current Fines

 Question and comments from participants:

o The current fines are considered too low by Round Table participants.

o Q. Is removing equipment from the possession of an individual by an officer permitted?

A. Yes and the individual can apply to have his/her equipment returned.

o Comment: Enforcement continues to be the larger issue in regards to fines. There needs

to be an increased presence in order to be effective.

o Q. Fish and Wildlife Officers are now apart of the Solicitor General Ministry. What is the

connectivity between ministries? A. There is an MOU in place between Sustainable

Resource Development (SRD) and the Solicitor General (SG). The current MOU retains

all duties and capabilities the officers had before the move, as well as the dedicated

manpower component. The challenge is to maintain communication between ministries.

The expectation is to forward information in the form of Enforcement Field Advisories to

the Solicitor Generals office and hold SG accountable to these advisories. If targets are

not met by SG, SRD would like to be notified with an explanation as to why targets were

not met.

o Q. Would soliciting the Solicitor Generals office to petition courts to increase fines and

have money go back into increasing enforcement be effective? A. It is believed the

courts would not be in support of the funds from fines going back into increasing

enforcement.

o Comment: There appears to be an aging population within Fish and Wildlife. There

needs to be younger enforcement officers hired in order to have the mentorship.

Response: Succession is an issue throughout the division and the current political climate

does play a role.

o Q. Would is be possible for the Fisheries Management Branch to provide a listing of all

fines and penalties for review for the October 2012 meeting? Could an analysis of what

the possibilities for fines increases are as well? For example; what is considered a

reasonable increase for fishing without a licence?

o Comment: In regards to fines; is it possible to have a “conservation surcharge” or

something similar to the “victim surcharge” already in place for other provincial fines.

Action (10): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to provide a listing of all fines and

penalties for review and evaluation by the Round Table. The Round Table will then compile a

listing of recommendations to the Solicitor Generals Office either directly or through SRD. FMB to

post the listing as well as additional background information on when was the last time fines were

increased, the current use of and possibility of expanding creative sentencing, e.g. “Conservation

Surcharge”, and the process for increasing fines and penalties to the Round Table Website.

8. Open Discussion Period

 Round Table participants raised topics of concerns and sought answers to questions.

o Q. What is the status of the Licence fee review? A. Fisheries Management Branch

(FMB) is hoping for more support of the review after the election. There is a draft

document that contains a few proposals. The Licensing Review Committee needs to

meet again to confirm all members are in agreement and also bring the document

forward to the Round Table for broader consultation. The committee can more forward

with compiling recommendations to bring back to the Round Table in the fall. These

recommendations will also require broader consultation.

o Comment: Fisheries Management Branch and Round Table participants also need to

look into how licences will be issued. The contract with IBM is coming due. Fisheries

Management Branch is currently pricing out alternatives to issuing licences. FMB is

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 9 of 11

looking to align with other provinces and states and move towards a “shopping cart”

approach. The new contract may or may not be with IBM. A new solution could possible

be in place within 18 months. Changing RELM is expensive and does take a

considerable amount of time; between now and the next 18 months we need to have a

clear understanding of what direction we are wanting to go.

o Comment: Would like to have Senior Licences at a reduce rate to cover administrative

costs added to the list for licence review.

o Q. As an alternative to waiting for recruitment on a collapsed fishery is it possible to

stock it? For example, it has been approximately 14 years since Pine Coulee was

stocked with Walleye. Could anglers be allowed to harvest the Walleye and re-stock the

lake with another species? A. There is a cost to stocking and FMB would like to have a

self-sustained productive fishery. In general, stocking is completed in relation to public

demand.

o Q. Are Hatchery staff collecting eggs from Lac Ste Anne this year? A. Yes, with the

intention of moving them into Wabamun.

o Round Table participants have shown interest in being able to review and provide

comments on the Walleye and Trout Stocking Strategies. The Walleye Stocking Strategy

is currently incomplete and is on the Action Items list.

o Concerns were raised over turning smaller ponds into QSF, the Rod and Gun Club for

example, when they are meant to provide opportunities for families and kids. Response:

A discussion on QSFs is currently listed on the Action Items list.

o Q. In regards to winterkill lakes, what is the plan for when they do winterkill? Can we restock

them or just wait and see? A. The issue the majority of the time has to do with

land use changes which is a multi-jurisdictional issue (Land-use Framework) and

discussions are on-going as how best to deal with it.

o Comment: Summerkill lakes should be posted along with winterkill lakes. Also, concern

that historical data is not be considered to its full extent when dealing with winterkill lakes.

For example, Lake Isle is a chronic winterkill lake historically with periodic summerkills.

There needs to be appropriate management that includes the historical data and

frequency of kills. Response: Many studies do take into account historical winter and

summerkills.

o Q. What is the implication of the DFO budget cut? A. Seventy seven million was cut

from the department budget. It is uncertain what that means for the division specifically

because how the budget cut will be distributed is yet unknown.

o Q. Is the DFO only focusing on larger projects and on partnering with other organizations

and academic partners? A. DFO has had great success working with other areas within

government and non-government partners. There do exist issues that would not

otherwise be handled if not for partnership. DFO will most likely not get to a point where

they are solely responsible for handling all issues.

Action (11): Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to work with the Licensing Review

Committee to update the initial draft licensing review document and will update the Round Table

participants during the October 2012 meeting.

Action (12) Fisheries Management Branch (FMB) HQ to provide the Round Table participants

with the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Walleye and Trout Stocking

Strategies.

9. Review of Parking Lot Items

 Items for discussion for Fall Round Table Meeting: Access Management, Triploid Stocking,

Definition of Fish Possession, and Licensing Review.

 Q. The format of the Round Table Meeting has changed, according to participant input, from

a presentation to a discussion format. Are participants content to continue with the new

format? A. Consensus from participants that they would like to continue with the new format

April 2012

Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table Meeting Page 10 of 11

with the understanding that presentations may be necessary to bring information to the

attention of the group.

 Q. What was the reasoning behind the move of Enforcement Field Services to the Solicitor

Generals Office? A. The reasoning was to combine all of enforcement throughout

Government; Tourism, sheriffs, Transport, SRD etc.

10. Wrap-Up and Adjournment

Next Meeting – proposed Saturday, October 20th. Suggested location is Edmonton.

Thanks and appreciation to all participants and presenters!

Thanks again to Derry Armstrong for facilitating the meeting and Tanya Rushcall for taking the

notes.

Appendix

List of Attendees – April 2012 Fisheries Management Round Table

Travis Ripley

Dave Walty

Michael Sullivan

Paul MacMahon

Jim Wagner

Matt Besko

Tanya Rushcall

Derry Armstrong

Brian Makowecki

Kim Ogilvie

Virgil Hukulak

Terry Hukulak

Peter Aku

Shane Hansen

Stacy Linnington

Vern McIntosh

Heinz Plontke

Gordon Poirier

Duane Radford

Keith Rae

Gaetan Richard

Brian Rousch

Ron Sohnle

Emmerson Dober

Neil Waugh

Graham Goodwin

Jim Martin

Ron Fibke

Terry Reinhardt

Colton Swan

Brian Meagher

Geoff Sanders

Brian Eberts

April 2012

Alberta

[bcubed]

I've been thinking of this recently, as I've been on a bit of a pike fix for the last 2 weeks, including at Clear.

 

It's not really logical in my mind why they allow 1 over 100cm (however, this does protect fish getting up to that point), as they're removing the true trophys. Furthermore, why would they advise keeping the big old females, who by all accounts from the other lakes in the area will be completely unfit for consumption with the amount of mercury within them...

 

Would be cool to allow a couple of the lakes to either be C&R only, or of a slot limit that keeps fish in the 24" range... these lakes can grow some serious toads given the time, and making the regulation such that only fish over 100 cm can be kept will promote poaching of the fish that are just under that range.

 

 

[ham]

Ive fished clear a few times this year and had pretty good success in numbers but nothing of any substantial size, but what I have noticed in the last few trips has been the poachers...Fishing at the north end around evening time twice now I've seen two different trucks pull up off the road, fish for 20 minutes catch a pike (that sure look less then 100cm from a distance off the shore in the boat), fillet it on the shore get in their truck and drive away. Both times I've called it in but I haven't been able to catch the license plates on the trucks from a distance only the make and model which proves to be somewhat futile. How badly does this lake get slaughtered throughout the year is my other question...Regulations are one thing, enforcement is another.

[DiabeticKripple]

It was discussed at a SRD meeting in the fall.

 

Because Clear lake is a small reservoir, it is vulnerable to over harvest, so by taking the limit from 3 over 63cm to 1 over 100, they are protecting the amount of fish in there.

 

give it 5 years, and there will be alot more big hens in there. Its not about now, its about the future.

 

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=106779

[lorney]

I guess it is better than seeing someone with two 40"+ fish laying beside them on the ground while they try to catch there third. It is tough to see that, especially in a year with a late spring when they haven't even had a chance to spawn yet. I don't know why someone would want to eat a big old spawning hen either but I see them being kept all the time.

[Guest Wrecker]

BBT,

 

Thanks for posting that info. Still does not really explain any rationale with the Clear lake regulation. They talk of high angling pressure, I agree. However with high angling pressure and only allowing 40"+ to be bonked you will effectively be killing all fish once they are "legal".

 

I hope it works, but have my doubts. Slot sizes work for other fish species and jurisdictions, why not in Alberta for pike?

 

If you want big fish, you have to protect big fish. Seems too simple...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Fecundity may also play a factor. There is a "sweet spot" for spawners in terms of quality and quantity of eggs. At a certain size/age they go down hill. That being said...selectively culling fish growing large will select for fish that don't grow large. In effect I suspect what they did was to protect the best of both worlds. Allow for harvest yet let big breeders grow to a larger size to pass on their genetics.

[browntrout57]

I don't understand this 40" size. They are too big to eat (25-30" is perfect). But a 40" fish is not really a major trophy in southern AB. IMO, they should set the size limit to 1 over 44" for people who want a skin mount done. Even though a replica is the better option.

[Guest Wrecker]

I don't understand this 40" size. They are too big to eat (25-30" is perfect). But a 40" fish is not really a major trophy in southern AB. IMO, they should set the size limit to 1 over 44" for people who want a skin mount done. Even though a replica is the better option.

 

OR how about SRD to grow some kahoonas and actualyy designate a few "trophy" lakes in the south? No kill on the biig hens?!

 

Pike are a native species that need protection from the bonk brigade, at least on a few southern reservoirs that have the potential!

 

We have enough resource to appease all users!