Quality Lakes Improvement Poll

[Bigtoad]

Ok, so I've been thinking about the "Quality" stocked lakes in the province for a while and overall, have been very discouraged by the initiative that ASRD has put into this. They say "quality" but yet seem to be stuck in the "quantity" era. I'm tired of complaining about it and would like to do something about it and I've been thinking about creating a petition about this and sending it to ASRD to at least get the attention of the regional biologists and managers in the division.

 

But before I were to do such craziness, I wanted some feedback on these suggestions and see how many people would actually see this as positive change. No sense going further if no one else sees this as worthwhile. Sooo..

 

What I am suggesting would be:

1) that the lakes currently designated as "quality" lakes would move to either 1) total C&R or a limit of 1 under 45cm, unless already designated as such. This is the system that they've used in Manitoba with great results. It keeps the big ones in the lake and you don't have the issue like the 1 under 40cm/50cm where the fish get to a certain size and then suddenly there aren't any bigger ones because they get bonked. Yet it still allows some harvest for those that enjoy it. Good compromise to me.

 

These are the lakes currently designated as "quality":

Bullshead, Police (Outpost), Kerbe’s, Muir, Champion, Muskiki, Beaver, Fiesta, Ironside, Silkstone, Lovett, Pit 24, Pit 35, Pit 45, Lower Pierre Grey’s, Figure 8, Sulphur

 

2) that some/most of the currently aerated lakes not designated as "quality" should be moved to that designation. If they are worth aerating, aren't they worth a little regulation change to improve the quality as well? If not, the aeration is a bit useless, is it not? And a costly bit of uselessness at that! Here is the list of aerated but not currently quality designated lakes. I've bolded the one's I think are worth switching over to "quality". I don't know some of the other ones on this list so can not comment on those:

 

Cummings Lake, Swan Lake, East Dollar Lake, Spring Lake, Cecil Thompson Pond, Boehlke’s Pond, Hansen’s Reservoir, Mitchell Lake, Millers Lake, Birch Lake, Coleman Fish & Game Pond, Spring Lake (Stony Plain)

 

3) that any "quality" designated lake should be stocked at a rate of between 75-100 fish/ hectare or lower. (For instance, Beaver Lake is around 31 hectares and is currently stocked with around 3200 fish/year so it would be at the top of the stocking range). Guidelines of course, but reduce stocking is necessary in conjunction with reduced harvest to grow larger fish. Can't have one without the other.

 

4) that wherever possible and feasible, greater angling opportunity be provided by stocking quality fisheries with not only rainbow trout but brown trout as well. And in the case of lakes such as Birch Lake with brook trout, that browns would be added to that also. The opportunity to catch more than one species of fish at a lake, especially when those fish often inhabit different areas of the lake and exhibit different behavior, would offer a diverse challenge and go a long way to improving angler experience at these quality fisheries.

 

That's it folks...

 

Again, any constructive feedback or suggestions welcome.

 

Cheers.

[Guest tallieho]

You have taken the time to put these concerns down,i applaud you for this.I would like to add this ,to your list of persons to recieve your petition.That being your m.l.a & who ever it is that is the minister rsponsible for fisheries.Imo you have to get past the old boys club[srd].I really thought that we were going in the right direction when[travis ripley]took the reins.But he is not much better imo.Just fyi at the rnd tbl.mtg. in red deer in oct 2011.It was suggested to change the reg's at Beaver,to a retention of 1 over 20".Vote took place,unaimous ,let's get it done.We have time to make the change with the printer's etc.These were the quotes,from senior fisheries staff.So what happened within 2 wks,that decesion was reversed at the upper management level.

Just a note at the april rnd.tbl.mtg.there were only 5 trout fisherman there 2 from the Hook & Hackle club & 3 fom the edmonton clubs.We were ltd. to a scant 20 min discussion on the qlf items.Imo it was because of a lack of participation on the trout fishermen.We had to endure 51/2 hrs. of discussion around tournament type fishing......So i hope to see more at the regional mtgs./rnd.tbl.mtg's.....My mentor once said that you have no right to complain if you don't particpate.... So Big toad bring on your petition i'll sign it...brian

[fishpro]

I think those are some great ideas and I would sign the petition for sure. However, I wonder if maybe we should keep some quality lakes with the regs they currently have, and try new regulations on others to see if it makes a difference, rather than changing the regs on all of them.

[jusfloatin]

Quality in who's eye yours, mine or a small collection of those that only interest in catch and release.

 

 

I am happy this works great in Manitoba and if we had as many water bodies as Manitoba I would be more receptive to this.

But it isn't and I have no interest in seeing any more Alberta water bodies being changed to suit a small portion of people.

This action would only force more to fish water bodies that are already highly used as it is.

[Smitty]

Good sentiment, but some good points (see analysis by Dave Jensen and Dryfly) can be found here:

 

http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?...c=17596&hl=

 

I'm tempted to vote yes, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a wasted effort.

 

Justfloatin makes good points. The majority of anglers like their 5/day, put-and-take meat fisheries. Very difficult to change mentalities and get those existing fisheries changed. Look at all the controversy with Bullshead and Police Outpost.

 

Much better to create new ones, but Alberta does have a water vs angler problem to work through.

 

We really have to think this through - take Spring lake for example, near Edmonton. Totally overrun with perch. Absolutely a useless gesture to make it into a trophy lake, in my opinion.

 

I'd stay focused on "newly-created" fisheries and leave the existing ones as they are.

 

Smitty

 

[gentlemang]

Just a question. If the quality stocks lae limits are reduced, are there going to be more poachers on other bodies of water, as result of them not beng able to take the fish home from these stocked waters?

I am not opposed, but I question what will happen to the other fisheries a a result. As others have pointed out, we don't have the water that Manitoba has and a larger population.

Increasing the amount of fishable waters makes sense to me, it would also increase the quality of the ones that we have now, by spreading out the angling pressure.

Thanks

Greg

[Bigtoad]

The majority of anglers like their 5/day, put-and-take meat fisheries. Very difficult to change mentalities and get those existing fisheries changed. Look at all the controversy with Bullshead and Police Outpost.

 

Sure, there might be some controversy but that's to be expected and isn't necessarily a reason to not do it if there is enough of a demand for it.

 

Here are a couple interesting trends reported in the SPORT FISHING IN ALBERTA 2010

Summary Report that show some signs of hope.

 

The perception that everyone takes what they catch home no longer seems accurate. The trend is less and less harvest and the days of the 5/day put-and-take meat fishermen are by no means finished, but the mentality is changing.

 

This one is also really interesting, showing 53% of fishermen would rather catch less bigger fish than more smaller ones. Compared to 30% of those who want more small fish. Just looking at this statistic alone, it seems like there should be more quality fisheries than there currently are?

 

Just thought I'd add some more food for thought.

 

Oh, and Tallieho, can someone please post on here when fishery roundtables are happening? I've only heard of a couple in the Central Alberta area; I couldn't make the one, and didn't find out about the other until the day after it was done. Why aren't these advertised?

 

Cheers.

[jusfloatin]

Nice graphs but before I take it as gospel can you tell me how many people were asked or where there were asked?

Was this outside a Safeways on a saturday afternoon or out at a walkin stream half way up a mountain.

 

Where this was asked and who was asked would make a big difference and would change the graph significantly.

 

 

[Guest JBear]

Good sentiment, but some good points (see analysis by Dave Jensen and Dryfly) can be found here:

 

http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?...c=17596&hl=

 

I'm tempted to vote yes, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a wasted effort.

 

Justfloatin makes good points. The majority of anglers like their 5/day, put-and-take meat fisheries. Very difficult to change mentalities and get those existing fisheries changed. Look at all the controversy with Bullshead and Police Outpost.

 

Much better to create new ones, but Alberta does have a water vs angler problem to work through.

 

We really have to think this through - take Spring lake for example, near Edmonton. Totally overrun with perch. Absolutely a useless gesture to make it into a trophy lake, in my opinion.

 

I'd stay focused on "newly-created" fisheries and leave the existing ones as they are.

 

Smitty

 

Last i heard from a regular who fishes the lake (spring) quite a bit, the perch are practically gone. The last two winters have been harsh and completely killed them off in the lake. While maybe this isn't true, he says he hasn't caught/touched/seen a perch in the past 2 years.

 

I would support the petition for sure. But for it to not become a waste of time+effort, you would need a lot of signatures, and definitely more bodies at every single rnd table meeting. I don't know if that is doable or not. As regards to only a small population wanting to have fisheries like manitoba, there is quite a few ponds/lakes that allow the 5 fish limit, why cant a couple, few, dozen, be turned into trophy/real quality lakes. In my mind (again i am probably part of the small percent), its not quality coming out of the "quality" lakes, its more so of a small chance at quality, once you weed through all the stockers, which again, turns back into quantity over quality mindset, because the proper thought and study isn't put into the equation. Not to say there isn't any effort being put in right now, it just seems that it isn't directed in the right path.

[adc]

Oh, and Tallieho, can someone please post on here when fishery roundtables are happening? I've only heard of a couple in the Central Alberta area; I couldn't make the one, and didn't find out about the other until the day after it was done. Why aren't these advertised?

 

Cheers.

 

I think the Roudtables are by invitation........Usually to fish clubs/groups/organizations with one or two reps per........The whole Rountable thing was implemented so the gov't could say they were "listening" to the grassroots..........May be time for a change there as well............

 

Back to the Quality thing.........Good ideas you have and I would support.........However, you can see that before you're out of the gate you have serious opposition/concerns by some...........It is a very difficult issue in a province with a shortage of water...........No harm trying though---that's how Muir, Bullshead, Police came into being...........Perfect, no, but a small step for the growing number of anglers who would like a chance to catch larger fish and feel they should have a more proportionate share of stocked lakes regulated to achieve that end..........

[ironfly]

I think a major factor is being overlooked here. Stocked lakes are primarily meant to benefit the locale they're in, so just because you are willing to drive a few hours to catch a bigger fish, doesn't give you the right to force changes upon another user group. Besides, those charts are bunk; if you think c&r fishers in Alberta outnumber meat fishers 5 to 1, you're dreaming. Easy fisheries are family friendly. That's why so much opposition is encountered anytime you try to alter the regs on an existing p&t fishery.

 

On a brighter note, there are a few stocked ponds near Edmonton that have always been 5/day, yet regularly grow trout to 8lbs or more. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but I hear hot-spotting is poor form.

 

Accept, even embrace Alberta fishing for what it is, I say. I think we've got it pretty good. Once in a while, go spend a few bucks up in the Russell, Manitoba area. Some experts consider that to be the best stillwater fishing in North America. We're lucky to have relatively easy, affordable access to multiple world-class fisheries, whether they're a whole day's drive away, or right in our own backyards. Let's hope it stays that way.

[shredneck]

I think a major factor is being overlooked here. Stocked lakes are primarily meant to benefit the locale they're in, so just because you are willing to drive a few hours to catch a bigger fish, doesn't give you the right to force changes upon another user group. Besides, those charts are bunk; if you think c&r fishers in Alberta outnumber meat fishers 5 to 1, you're dreaming. Easy fisheries are family friendly. That's why so much opposition is encountered anytime you try to alter the regs on an existing p&t fishery.

 

On a brighter note, there are a few stocked ponds near Edmonton that have always been 5/day, yet regularly grow trout to 8lbs or more. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but I hear hot-spotting is poor form.

 

Accept, even embrace Alberta fishing for what it is, I say. I think we've got it pretty good. Once in a while, go spend a few bucks up in the Russell, Manitoba area. Some experts consider that to be the best stillwater fishing in North America. We're lucky to have relatively easy, affordable access to multiple world-class fisheries, whether they're a whole day's drive away, or right in our own backyards. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

 

Don't bother trying to improve our fisheries?

Instead, drive all the way to Manitoba?

This makes no sense.

[Guest JBear]

I think a major factor is being overlooked here. Stocked lakes are primarily meant to benefit the locale they're in, so just because you are willing to drive a few hours to catch a bigger fish, doesn't give you the right to force changes upon another user group. Besides, those charts are bunk; if you think c&r fishers in Alberta outnumber meat fishers 5 to 1, you're dreaming. Easy fisheries are family friendly. That's why so much opposition is encountered anytime you try to alter the regs on an existing p&t fishery.

 

On a brighter note, there are a few stocked ponds near Edmonton that have always been 5/day, yet regularly grow trout to 8lbs or more. I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but I hear hot-spotting is poor form.

 

Accept, even embrace Alberta fishing for what it is, I say. I think we've got it pretty good. Once in a while, go spend a few bucks up in the Russell, Manitoba area. Some experts consider that to be the best stillwater fishing in North America. We're lucky to have relatively easy, affordable access to multiple world-class fisheries, whether they're a whole day's drive away, or right in our own backyards. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

Your definition of 8lbs is definitely not 8lbs. I fish the area and surrounding lakes regularly. There is no such thing as the lakes you are talking about. Unless you have pics to prove otherwise, I am calling you out on this one.

 

 

[Bigtoad]

Nice graphs but before I take it as gospel can you tell me how many people were asked or where there were asked?

Was this outside a Safeways on a saturday afternoon or out at a walkin stream half way up a mountain.

 

Where this was asked and who was asked would make a big difference and would change the graph significantly.

 

Justfloatin, went back to the document and there was a lot of info on methods of how they attained the data but basically, they randomly sent 5000 questionnaires to people in Alberta who held a current fishing license fill out the questionnaire. They had 1392 people return the questionnaire with which they got the data.

 

Does that answer your question? Doesn't sound like any Safeway parking lots were hurt in the making of this data...

 

Google the report and you should be able to find it yourself if you'd like.

 

Cheers.

[Mikey]

We have more than enough lakes were little Timmy can run up to Mommy and say look at what I caught! Than mom throws the prize in the nearest garbage can. This is a waste and more the norm for a meat fishery. Why is asking for a few QUALITY lakes infringing on the rights of others, I say not having them is infringing on mine.

[Smitty]

Last i heard from a regular who fishes the lake (spring) quite a bit, the perch are practically gone. The last two winters have been harsh and completely killed them off in the lake. While maybe this isn't true, he says he hasn't caught/touched/seen a perch in the past 2 years.

 

Well that would be good news for sure. I don't fish Spring, so I'll happily take your info over mine. I know Dolberg at one time had perch, and now even the regs say that Dolberg is perch-free. I was stunned when I read that. Always thought once perch are in, they're in. I stand corrected (very hopefully) on Spring lake. That is one lake that can produce trout past 8lbs (if you believe my dad's generation).

 

I was very lucky to be young enough that I took a fly-tying course from Reg Denny; he had pictures of trout that surpassed 8lbs from places like Star and Hasse. But do those lakes produce 8lb trout now "regularly"? Don't think Hasse does anymore; not with the perch and pike.

 

Anyways, I digress. I don't like when I become cynical; its doesn't befit someone who teaches. Just saying that I should recognize the truth of "just because something isn't difficult doesn't mean it should be attempted." So I'll support the petition for sure. Who doesn't want to catch bigger fish?

 

I would suggest to Bigtoad that selecting so many lakes (maybe was just using them as an example) could be very problematic. Government simply won't make wholesale, blanket changes to a bunch of lakes. I think its better to talk to the biologists and select 1 to 2 -at most - additional lakes per region (ES1, ES2, PP1, etc).

 

I think more action will result from targeted, specifically selected lakes, as opposed to trying enact systemic change.

 

Smitty

 

[adc]

I would suggest to Bigtoad that selecting so many lakes (maybe was just using them as an example) could be very problematic. Government simply won't make wholesale, blanket changes to a bunch of lakes. I think its better to talk to the biologists and select 1 to 2 -at most - additional lakes per region (ES1, ES2, PP1, etc).

 

 

 

Smitty

 

 

The biologists already have the mandate to find 2 more per region under the Quality Lakes proposal which occured from Roundtable discussions several years ago..........So far I'm not sure any new Quality Lakes have been identified......In our region, Lethbridge area, our bio. has a list of possibles but so far has been unable to get any agreement to implement Quality Regs on any of them..........

Anyway, Smitty, I agree with you that making and wholesale changes will NOT happen......

[Jayhad]

Perhaps if you want to replicate Manitoba's success here you should follow thier system, developing a society like FLIPPR would be the first step.

 

http://www.flippr.ca/about_flippr/aboutflippr.htm

[Bigtoad]

The biologists already have the mandate to find 2 more per region under the Quality Lakes proposal which occured from Roundtable discussions several years ago..........So far I'm not sure any new Quality Lakes have been identified......In our region, Lethbridge area, our bio. has a list of possibles but so far has been unable to get any agreement to implement Quality Regs on any of them..........

Anyway, Smitty, I agree with you that making and wholesale changes will NOT happen......

 

Thanks for the input, and I'm guessing blanket changes would be very difficult and there might be more success just picking a couple of lakes to focus on.

 

However, what I'm suggesting isn't a massive undertaking really.

1. take what are already designated as "quality" and if they aren't already C&R, change to that, or one under 45cm. Even if they didn't do a blanket change but added a couple more as "experiments" then that would still be great.

2. as for the aerated lakes, I'm not suggesting that all of them turn quality. But some of them should be. For example, East Dollar Lake by Valleyview is aerated but is so tiny, it's probably better just left as is. However, Swan Lake, in the same area, would be an absolutely amazing fishery if the regs and stocking numbers were to change.

 

For these lakes, the aerator is already installed and running so there must have been some support for larger fish or the aerator wouldn't have gotten there in the first place. So just take it another step further and change the regs from 5 of any size to 1 under 45cm. And reduce stocking numbers.

 

I don't think there needs to be a lot of other lakes identified to be quality lakes; just do a better job with the ones that are already designated and take a few of the better aerated ones not currently designated and take them to the next level instead of wasting resources aerating a lake that gets pounded by stocking #'s and then by anglers.

 

Cheers.

[ironfly]

Don't bother trying to improve our fisheries?

Instead, drive all the way to Manitoba?

This makes no sense.

By all means, improve our fisheries. I work actively towards that end. But from what I've seen, trying to make our trout ponds equal to Manitoba's is a waste of precious resources. The drive to Manitoba isn't that bad, but my perspective is a little different, being from Edmonton. We have to drive a minimum of a couple hours to catch a trout in a stream, and regularly drive all day for great fishing.

 

Your definition of 8lbs is definitely not 8lbs. I fish the area and surrounding lakes regularly. There is no such thing as the lakes you are talking about. Unless you have pics to prove otherwise, I am calling you out on this one.

Calling me out? I have nothing to prove to you, or anyone. Would you agree that Muir lake produces 5 lbs trout? Trust me, I know 8 lbs when I see it. PM me and I'll tell you the top three. Fish the lakes enough and you'll see one, even if you don't catch one. I should temper my words though; by regularly, I didn't mean you should expect to get one on any given outing. More like one per year, if you're good, and lucky. Kind of the same as how you might catch a 15 lbs-er in Manitoba.

[ironfly]

Bigtoad, now you're making sense. As an experiment, right? I, for one, promise to bring this up at the next round table I attend. Show me your petition.

[Swede]

We have more than enough lakes were little Timmy can run up to Mommy and say look at what I caught! Than mom throws the prize in the nearest garbage can. This is a waste and more the norm for a meat fishery. Why is asking for a few QUALITY lakes infringing on the rights of others, I say not having them is infringing on mine.

Agree 100%.

[Smitty]

These are the guys you have to convince, or, forget convincing, just out-number, out-vocalize:

 

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=139744

 

Mods: I hope its ok I linked to the "Other" board. Just wanted to add that dimension to the conversation, and see what us "organized" bunch of "elitists" are up against, lol. If I've broken a rule, I won't be offended if I have to delete the link. Just thought this would show Bigtoad to see "what we're up against".

 

Smitty

 

[Neil Waugh]

Before you guys get to far down the road redesigning government - and something that no longer exists called ASRD - you may want to check out this alarming press release:

 

 

No mention made of Fish & Wildlife in ESRD re-structuring!

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - (Edmonton July 4, 2012)... Alberta's largest conservation group, the Alberta Fish & Game Association (AFGA), is concerned that the newly formed Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development department has created seven internal divisions none of which directly include any reference to fish or wildlife. In an internal document received by AFGA, Deputy Minister Dana Woodworth outlined the divisions as follows:

 

Strategy Division

Policy Division

Operations Division

Corporate Division

Integrated Resource Management Planning Division

Forestry Division

Transformation and Integration Division

The document continues stating"...this move has an impact on people, all of us. Old relationships will change or be redefined, and new ones will be built". This undoubtedly a euphemism for career-ending lay-offs which can potentially further damage wildlife management as experts in their fields may be let out to pasture.

 

This re-structuring creates many unanswered questions such as who looks after fish and wildlife, who enforces the Wildlife Act, how and who will monitor populations, will each of the divisions have a small part of fish and wildlife management and if so how well will they communicate with each other? The list goes on.

 

"We, as the Alberta Fish and Game Association, hope with all sincerity that these changes will keep fish and wildlife in the forefront and that it will be a better way of doing business, however at this point in time the fact that no mention is made of these two important resources provides us reason for grave concern", said AFGA President Conrad Fennema.

 

The Alberta Fish and Game Association is a not-for-profit volunteer organization proud to serve Albertans in the promotion of the wise use of our fish and wildlife resources and the conservation of their habitats. The AFGA has been active since 1908 in working towards these goals and has a province-wide membership of more than 21,500 individuals spread among 90+ Clubs.

 

 

-30-

 

 

CONTACT:

Conrad Fennema, President, (780) 986-5845

Martin Sharren, Executive Vice President, (780) 437-2342

 

More bad news apparently coming Friday from Team REDford.