kungfool Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I have wondered why ponds stocked by government bodies are usually not aerated. It seems to me with our cold winters, it would be a good idea to have at least a windmill style aerators at each location. Wouldnt this help produce larger, healthier fish and generate more interest from the public? What are you guy's thought on aeration? Should it be something that every public stocked body of water should have? I for one would pay much much more for an annual angling license to see this happen. I think the current price is much to cheap. Personally, I would like to see resident licenses cost between 50 and 100 dollars for a year and perhaps 25 for 3 months or something as long as we see an increase in fish size/life-span, population, and availability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bigbadbrent Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 We need to make more money off the ppl who come from anywhere else..all canadians pay the same we do, its unacceptable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesG Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Just because a lake is aerated doesnt mean that it will produce bigger fish. Generally lakes that are aerated are the ones that are prone to winder kill. This happens when summer weed growth dies and the decaying matter uses up the oxygen in the water. Not every body of water is prone to winter kill, usually the more shallow weedy ones. I believe the length of the winter as well as how much snow cover is on the ice can effect this as well. Someone else can likely shed more light on this though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monger Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Don't those fish eat air bubbles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 We need to make more money off the ppl who come from anywhere else..all canadians pay the same we do, its unacceptable Brent, One of the things that has happened over time in the US is the tendency to try to get tvisitors to pay extra taxes on whatever the city or state can think of. Rental cars, hotels, etc. in an effort to delay increasing taxes on the residents. A pretty distasteful move in my opinion. It is the responsibility of the residents to fund standard services, not visitors. To defer the cost to visitors is nothing more than political expedience. When tourists come in to fish or whatever, they spend lots of money on things other than fishing licenses, particularly those who stay for extended periods of time. I think the only reason you should charge a visitor more for a license is if it legitimately costs more to process the visitors license. They shouldn't be expected to contribute more to the resource than a resident. Nor should they contribute less. And just because BC does it stupid doesn't mean Alberta needs to follow suit. Back to the original post-- If it were shown that installing aeration would increase size/lifespan in stocked lakes, I would have no issue paying more on my license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bigbadbrent Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 they need to do studys on the affect of that, and they need to stop overstocking lakes..really need to find the right balance to get trophy fish. You're going to end up with the same biomass in the end, wether it be 1000 fish that weigh a lb, or 100 10lb fish.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreLastCast Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I'm all for Aeration in any lake that has the potential to winter kill. Plus, even if a lake doesn't have the potential, they can still get stagnant and plant/aquatic life is limited, so those lakes could use it as well. Believe it or not, I know of some lakes that are aerated and the local government often turns it off to save money. When I was discussing why a certain body of water keeps dying off, I was amazed when I found out that they only run the aerators for a short period thru-out the year. When I told them what the purpose of the aeration was, he argued that it had nothing to do with keeping fish from dying, but was installed to help move water around which would help attract birds to the water When there was no increase in the number of birds on the water, they decided to save money by turning the aeration off. He did how ever call me back awhile later to tell me I was correct, but they didn't change anything. That's when I asked if I could get a deal on their aeration system. As for licensing.... I agree partly with Rick. People from elsewhere spend a lot of money on things other than fishing that contribute to our economy. I will add that they should pay more though, but I also think that anyone from areas that neighbor our Province should pay the most because they are the ones that do day trips that don't involve much spending outside of fishing. If someone comes to Alberta from Overseas, they are going to spend a lot outside of fishing, so I don't think they should necessarily pay all that much more than us. People will say that they are already spending a couple thousand dollars, so what's it going to hurt to throw an extra $50 onto their license. My opinion is that if someone is coming from somewhere far away to fish our waters, it is most likely planned as a once in a lifetime trip, so why not give them a break so they might want to return. That way we get their contribution to our local economy twice instead of just the one time. As far as BC....I think anyone that lives in an area that has "Classified Waters" should pay at least what we pay for an 8 day license in BC. Even better, $50/day but if they by a 5 day license they get a deal of $300 for the 5 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Kungfool, Lakes only need aeration when the levels fall >3ppm 02. Stocking rates, food availability/production, management and enforcement + genetics all add or subtract from the size of fish available. Aeration only keeps them alive in low 02 situations. There are 2 types of aeration - one style for winter and another for summer. It is possible to have kills both summer & winter. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Fishing licenses for non-resident/yr. Alberta - $69.50 includes Win card [ =$71.75USD] Montana - $70.00 Idaho - $82.00 Maine - $72.00 California - $100.00 Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I used to fish an aerated lake near Oliver B.C. called Sawmill Lake.(it actually had two names but the other escapes me) It was a lake prone to winter kill. After a number of successful years of growing trophy size fish the government decided it would no longer aerate it due to complaints from snowmobilers that the ice surface wasn't thick enough and indeed dangerous. There was even a law on the books about the lake needing to be fenced off for reasons of safety. I never visited it in the dead of winter but I can well imagine it probably had open water most of the time. Aeration causes this. So from a human perspective aeration is a very dangerous thing. I got so angry I actually wrote the B.C. minister responsible and voiced my displeasure. I got a reply six months later saying they had reviewed the decision and decided to leave the aeration running. The long of it is if one snowmobiler was to lose their life over this I would feel terrible. I wouldn't want to see many lakes aerated but would still be in favour of doing a few. I believe they would need to be well posted for sure. I haven't been back there for the past six years but at that time they were getting reports of 32 inch rainbows being caught. I've never had the privilege of catching a 32 inch rainbow on a fly but it's sure fun to dream. Anyway, I'm going to stay away from the increased licence fees cause that's a topic that gets me too aggravated. Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdB Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 50-100 for a licence Kunfool...........Yikes...i might not even have a job tommorow...LoL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rusty Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Rick - Sawmill has had real water supply problems and those fish are not what they were 6 or 7 years ago. Was something else back then - I saw fish over 10 pounds there. Aeration is a good concept, but IMO lakes that don't require it should be given priority. Paying for aeration so guys can kill 5 fish is just plain dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Generally lakes that are aerated are the ones that are prone to winder kill. This happens when summer weed growth dies and the decaying matter uses up the oxygen in the water. Not so much. I'm no biologist, but heavy snow cover causes darkness, and plants (weeds) consume oxygen when there is no light. The fish suffocate. An aerator causes ice to not form in portions of the lake, or produces enough oxygen to offset the depletion of oxygen. I'm not sure if the presence of an aerator induces plant grow or not, places like sibbald lake sure have alot of weeds without an aerator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesG Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Police has Airators that were installed I believe 5 or 6 years ago now to help reduce winterkil. I have not noticed any change in the size of fish from before they were installed till now. I think a better way to improve the quality of a fishery is to decrease stocking rates, decrease limits and create more delayed harvest fisheries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 WesG. You've nailed it. This forum should give prizes for the clarity you've brought to this discussion. Until then....congratulations will have to do. Rick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 WesG, In the Police Outpost Lake, Mitchell Lake & Alford Lake - installing aeration made an ugly problem of lousy fish growth even worse. Rather than a winterkill every now and then to reduce the fish numbers and let the bug numbers rebound, the fish always stay alive thereby reducing the bugs numbers even further and ultimately resulting in ever smaller fish. The winter kill did what the Govt guys seem incapable of doing, reducing the fish stockings to maintain growth rates. And I agree with Rusty, spending money creating another 5 fish/day any method aerated lakes is just plain stupid. regards, Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesG Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 WesG, spending money creating another 5 fish/day any method aerated lakes is just plain stupid. regards, Don Isnt that what I was saying? the airators have done nothing to improve the size of fish in Police. So would changing the stocking as well as the regs not be more effective to creating better fishing opertunities in Alberta? That seems to be what your saying as well, if it isnt then please go more in depth with your post. 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.