DonAndersen Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Guys/Gals, The Provincial Fisheries Roundtable is has circulated a "draft" position paper on Quality fisheries that the participants attending the Roundtable were asked for their comments. I circulated the draft to about 40 others for their comments and I'm attempting to encapsulate their responses and get the comments "right". The question is: What is quality? What does it mean to you in terms of fish size. I realize that a lot of you fish waters where your day is enhanced by the lack of people you meet, wildlife seen, mountains viewed or other nebulous things. BUT - in terms of fish size, what is a quality fish. Do recall that the provincial record for rainbows is 20+ lbs. and browns 15+ lbs. So is a quality fish one that is a 5% or 1 lb rainbow, a 25% or 5 lb. rainbow a 50% or 10 lb. rainbow? How big is a quality fish to you and if given the choice what would you manage for in terms of size. For me - it is the maximum size that the fish can attain given the quality of the water it lives within. [assume adequate recruitment/stock rates, diligent enforcement etc.]. Need help here with a definition or better yet the WORD that describes what we all mean. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 For me I would say a quality fish is considerably larger than a stocked lake normally provides. For example, I would say any rainbow over 18 inches is above value for time spent. Any rainbow over 20 inches is great value for time spent and any rainbow over 22 inches is exceptional value for time spent. I am also referring to catch and release fisheries where fish size and numbers are both important. For fish numbers I would say (>30 in a day). I find weight is misleading as a 19 inch rainbow stocked at 5 inches can fight way better than a 10 lb hatchery released spawner. A hard fighting 10 lb rainbow in Alberta would be so rare as it would be hard to imagine. Also when looking at trout and comparing equal sized fish for fighting ability, Rainbows would be first, browns would be second, cutthroats would be third and bulls would be fourth. When looking for scenery, lack of people etc., I would pick a small stream in which the average fish size is probably about 10 inches. A monster would be 16 inches + and anything between 12 - 14 inches is a great day. I would also see a good number of fish (>50 in 8 hours). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 In terms of lake fishing for me, a quality fish would be 5lbs + (20 inches or better). Almost every one of Alberta's lakes could support that if managed properly. The better lakes should be able to produce 8-10lb fish easily.... and a shot at 5-10 of those on the line per day, would be excellent quality fishing in my eyes. Much more excellent than even 100 fish days where every fish is 8-10 inches. For stream fishing, each stream is different. A quality fish on Lee's Creek here in Cardston would be about 12 inches, whereas the same fish on the Bow would be one you'd hide behind your back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyGopher Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Carrying capacity is your weapon in defining what you seek. Say to legislate a minimum of 70% of carrying capacity, with a healthy representation of age classes, with limited angler entry on sensitive waters. Think that through and you'll find all of what's needed, right down to the science to establish the numbers and the enforcement to ensure they remain that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 In terms of lake fishing for me, a quality fish would be 5lbs + (20 inches or better). Almost every one of Alberta's lakes could support that if managed properly. The better lakes should be able to produce 8-10lb fish easily.... and a shot at 5-10 of those on the line per day, would be excellent quality fishing in my eyes. Much more excellent than even 100 fish days where every fish is 8-10 inches. For stream fishing, each stream is different. A quality fish on Lee's Creek here in Cardston would be about 12 inches, whereas the same fish on the Bow would be one you'd hide behind your back. I would find it hard to imagine that very many lakes could support 10lb rainbows. Our growing season is too short. Many things would have to happen for that to occur. Only the most eutrophic lakes would work and only with aeration and the proper strain of rainbows and most likely triploids. It would be nice to see. Hector Lake is about the only one I can imagine working down south here and the stocking numbers would not be super high either. I heard a rumor that TU was thinking about managing that lake. Not feasible given that the natives can kill fish whenever they wish. Hard to manage with a big hole in the fish population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sundancefisher, Lakes like Beavius, Lees, Crawling Valley, Cow, Struble, Swan, Carson all had fish in them exceeding 10 lbs. Only Crawling Valley & Cow do not contain trout now. Cow, Struble, Swan, Carson all had fish in them that exceeded 15 lbs. Not now!!! Weather is not the issue. Best lake in BC with rainbows exceeding 25 lbs. is in northern BC. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Reserviors like Crawling Valley would intially grow trout of large size due to the nutrient flush after initial fill. Those growth rates die off and then they revert to pike fisheries. Cow is a very shallow eutrophic lake so should fit the bill but there are perch there now so it probably would not work. Do you remember if the other lakes had sustained fish that size or if they reached that size right after the initial stocking? I can not recall the data for the other water bodies. Sustaining fish of a large size is difficult in today's management climate but impossible in past years. Hopefully the tide is turning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Sundance. I hope your wrong. This spring I landed a 28 inch approx 9-10lb rainbow from Police - even without the proper management in place. I can't wait to see what good regs will do here I think most lakes if managed correctly (not overstocked) can produce VERY large fish. Look at Elliot's Pond (I know some of you elliot's pond guys can back me up here) but didn't they stock that just a few years back with a conservative number of fish and now it's regularily producing fish 20-22 inches right? I'd like to see that in a year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Hawgstoppah, I would wonder if that was one of the occasional trout that don't spawn and live 8>10 years. Sterile fish do happen. Or it could have been related to Herman Munster. A one-off fish doesn't really tell us a lot. Even @ 10 lbs. it is still only a 50% fish. Sundancefisher, I really don't know when Lees & Beavius were stocked. I know that the fish were that size when I fished it 48 years ago and later only 40 years ago. From that, I'd expect that it wasn't the initial stocking that raised them to that size. regards, Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMoreLastCast Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 For me, it would be nice to have 20 lakes that provided Anglers to opportunity to consistantly catch Trout in the 18" to 24" range, with decent numbers of bigger fish available thru a little time and effort rather than 3 or 4 lakes. Most of us here can name the waters in Alberta where this situation exists, therefore they recieve too much pressure. I believe with proper management this could easily be accomplished. The Provincial records were mentioned and that would be a good starting point for picking a percentage for size and numbers to go on. What should alarm us with the Provincial Records is the date that they were set. Alberta Angling & Fishing Records Arctic Grayling 2.938 Zanny McRee Unknown 1966 Brook Trout 14.875 D. Jenkins Wood Buffalo Park 1967 Brown Trout 17.563 Wesley Benson Swan Lake 1991 Bull Trout 17.938 B. Willis Lower Kananaskis Lake 1985 Burbot 17.731 Todd Cheal Marie Lake 1998 Cutthroat Trout 9.563 Ernest Brazzoni Castle River 1988 Golden Trout 4.406 G. Campbell Barnaby Ridge Lakes 1965 Goldeye 4.125 R. Weber Battle River Dam 1974 Lake Trout 52.500 Mrs. Erickson Cold Lake 1929 Lake Whitefish 11.631 Larry Johnson South Buck Lake 1998 Mooneye 1.156 R. Bourque North Sask. River 1992 Yellow Perch 2.969 Ron Hancheruk Island Lake 1982 Northern Pike 38.000 David Anderson Keho Lake 1983 Rainbow Trout 20.250 Ron Solomon Maligne Lake 1980 Rocky Mountain Whitefish 5.656 P. Zebroff Gap Lake 1991 Sauger 6.163 Dale Bosch Milk River 1992 Sturgeon 105.000 H. Muskovilch South Sask. River 1981 Walleye 15.500 Joe Smith Pembina River 2000 Yes people will say that a fish has to be killed to qualify, so these records might not be accurate, but trust me, if someone caught a Rainbow Trout that broke the 20.25 lb record, we'd all know about it whether it was released or not. So I'd say that if the fisheries had been managed properly over the last couple decades, the records for the Trout caught in this province wouldn't be 20 years old, or older. Although I love fishing Alberta's waters, it's a shame that I have to drive to BC where I can choose one lake out of a selection of 30 or 40 that contain bigger, healthier fish than any Public still water in Alberta holds. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonefisher Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 well I kinda wonder what they were doing right 20 years ago that we are doing wrong now..... I wasn't around when some of those records were caught but I would hazard a guess that increased stocking numbers and reduced harvest have maybe increased numbers but decreased size. My gut instinct sorta tells that with reduced stocking and maybe a short term higher harvest on overpopulated waters followed by continued lower stocking levels and C&R or delayed harvest regs would perhaps see better fisheries..... But I'm not positive that some of those records were caught according to regulations in place today........any of those caught on bait in places that no longer allow it? Fish education as a result of higher pressure might play a factor as well. But like MTB it would be nice to have a wider selection of lakes producing those big 18-24 fish. In a perfect world I would have to say that any quality fishery would produce some caught fish every year that would come close too or break the previous record and regular fish that would make 50-75% of the record.... In a perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Don. "I really don't know when Lees & Beavius were stocked. I know that the fish were that size when I fished it 48 years ago and later only 40 years ago. From that, I'd expect that it wasn't the initial stocking that raised them to that size. " I suspect that the fish were big right after stocking for about 5-10 years. Natural food would of been high along with the productivity. Stocking rates were probably lower given the smaller population of fishermen and probably less efficient hatchery systems. I doubt with fishing pressure and stocking rates today that that could ever happen. Hawgstoppah "Look at Elliot's Pond (I know some of you elliot's pond guys can back me up here) but didn't they stock that just a few years back with a conservative number of fish and now it's regularily producing fish 20-22 inches right? I'd like to see that in a year!" The trout at Elliot's have peaked and I sincerely doubt that they will ever go over 22 let alone 24 inches (age is definitely a factor along with current growth rates) except for a limited few for whatever natural reasons. Stocking rates are a bit high and the lake is not that big. I also suspect some stress given the size and ice conditions even with the aeration. That being said they fight just fine for 20 inchers. That monster was definitely a lucky strike... It could of been a hatchery spawner for a lake like that. I would need to see a picture to get an idea of condition, fin shape, body shape etc. MissinTheBow It would be very difficult to find 10 fishermen that would say you are crazy asking for big fish. I feel many fishermen evolve from meat fishermen, to sport fishermen looking for numbers caught and then morph into sport fishermen looking for size. A portion then spin off looking to fish ultra light leaders thinking it is more sporting but often kills the fish instead. Ahhhh...to dream of catching 24 inchers regularly would be awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Don A My log from this spring date May 5th Police Lake water temp 48F air temp +15C wind calm bugs: very few... I fished a black size 20 midge pupae, and a size 18 scud. 90% of fish on the pupae. Fished 5-8 feet under a small indy. Fish were somewhere near or over 200. Fished east side of lake in about 10 feet of water or less. Sizes where about 90% 6-8 inches 5% 12-14 inches 5% 18 inches or larger 3 fish at 24" 1 at 26" 1 at 28" Unless they dumped some brood stock in.... I do hope this is a good indication of the lake's potential to grow some hawgs.. The day was pretty unreal though... I've never seen it that calm out there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Hawgstoppah, How many years ago did that happen? I had much the same experience about 6>7 years ago after 2 years of winterkill followed by several years of no winter kill. The fish were large!!! And lots of them. Landed over 50 one afternoon in September. Was about 1/2 over 2 lbs. Several over 5 lbs. Police gets about 130000 fish/yr. You have to remove 360 fish/day 365 days per year to break even. That's about 70 limits of 5/day. If you don't remove the the same # you stock every year, the bug life goes into the crapper with a result of smaller fish sizes. Any fish "held" over increases the demand on the food resources. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Don, that was 2007. But 90% of the fish were 6-8 inches. or so.... .. small... Only about 20 fish were even over 10 inches. I did get some tanks, yes... but keeping small fish off the hook was almost annoying... Basically if I remember right I got about 10 in the 12-14 inch class, and then about 5 at 18-19 inches, and then 5 pigs. 3 at 24", one at 26", and a 28" The bigguns were pretty thick and healthy looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Don, that was 2007. But 90% of the fish were 6-8 inches. or so.... .. small... Only about 20 fish were even over 10 inches. I did get some tanks, yes... but keeping small fish off the hook was almost annoying... Basically if I remember right I got about 10 in the 12-14 inch class, and then about 5 at 18-19 inches, and then 5 pigs. 3 at 24", one at 26", and a 28" The bigguns were pretty thick and healthy looking. Probably having a great time chowing down on all the little dinks.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Don, I personally define a quality fishery as anything like the Bow River. Having a chance at catching 20"+ trout EVERY time out is down right amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishpro Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I believe that most lakes in Alberta could be and should be managed to produce numerous trout in the 20-30 inch range. Look at Bullshead for example. Sure it's in southern Alberta and there were no fish in it prior, resulting in a high food source, but this food source could be kept high in many lakes if stocking was kept low enough that the trout couldn't deplete it. After this we just need strict regulations such as catch and release and more enforcement of the regs. Some private lakes regulary produce 15lb+ fish, along with numerous public lakes in BC. There's no reason that Alberta can't manage its lakes to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 There's no reason that Alberta can't manage its lakes to do the same. No backbone in gov't.... they give in to the majority... and sadly, the majority right now want to smack and whack and bonk, and bait. 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.