Slot Size V Length Minimums

[jpinkster]

I'm going to preface this entire debate by outlining that I am solely a catch and release fisherman since I'm a man child that doesn't eat fish for some strange reason.

 

I've always thought Alberta did a poor job of keeping our fisheries sustainable. I'm not going to pretend to be a biologist for even a second here, but I think there is a better way to handle catch limits:

 

Currently we run on length minimums which I have always found bizarre.

 

I'll cite the regulations for Clear Lake near Stavely:

1 Northern Pike over 100cm

 

I've talked to plenty of fisherman that suggest that the meat from fish this large is often poor in quality and there are far fewer of those fish available. Most fisherman would way rather keep a pike in the 40-65cm range since the meat is generally better and there are more fish in that size bracket. Keeping those larger spawning fish in the population is so critically important, yet our regulations encourage fisherman to take the brute stock out of our favorite fishing holes.

 

There are other provinces that run a length maximum or even explore slot sizes for keeping fish. This seems like a way more intelligent option as it keeps large spawning fish in the water and thins the herd of those cookie cutter fish we all catch on such a regular basis.

 

Is there a way to get the best of both worlds here? I appreciate folks that are out to harvest, but I feel the pain of fisherman that are out to catch and release trophy sized fish of any species. I'll defer to some of you folks that know more about this kind of thing than I do, please enlighten me!

[BrianR]

Best of both worlds.Doubtful.Saying that though,education is key.As are regulation/enforcement.The most troubling issue for me is bait.Trying to get bait hook out of a pike,with out damageing the fish,slim imo.So NO BAIT.Next issue,is Pa takes the family fishing.Let say 5 fish limit,for him.3 kids under age 16,now we are at 20 fish.If you want to use the resource,you gotto have a lic.You have to make people accountable for there actions.

[troutlover]

Tallieho fish caught by kids under 16 count against the limit of the supervising permit holder. so if I fish with 4 kids under 16 and the limit is 5 we only get to take 5. but my kids hate fish so the limit in my family is 0.

[albertatrout]

In Alberta, you do not need a license to fish (or keep fish) if you are under 16 or over 65. Though you may have a self imposed family limit that is not the law. I have seen many families taking advantage of these laws down in the south, it means they are often taking 20+ trout a day. I have also witnessed families retain over 10 pike in an afternoon on a local lake. Heres some info fyi.

http://mywildalberta.com/Fishing/Regulations/FishingFAQs.aspx

[troutlover]

OOPS! You are right, I was thinking National parks. sorry for the mix up.

[Heimdallr]

Slot size limits, or a medium size range, seems to make the most sense to me intuitively. I've felt that way for a long time, but I can't say with certainty that it makes biological sense. I know some people here have some real science backgrounds and I hope they chime in.

[albertatrout]

 

Slot size limits, or a medium size range, seems to make the most sense to me intuitively. I've felt that way for a long time, but I can't say with certainty that it makes biological sense. I know some people here have some real science backgrounds and I hope they chime in.

Biologicaly it will vary from system to system. Most of the current regs (minimum size) are based on a fish spawning at least once. I think blanket management is a poor idea in general, and optimally some lakes would have a slot, others a minimum, and others yet a maximum (release everything over a certain size). Catch and release would obviously be nice in some systems as well. The problem with the other options in many Albertan lakes is simply too many fisherman, hence the slowly expanding tag system.

[troutfriend]

Every waterbody is different, and has unique characteristics that sustain that fishery. This would lend them to ideally having unique regulations governing each fishery. During the provincial fishery roundtable meetings there is always conversation and a desire for simplified regulations by some anglers. Therefore the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

Check out the presentation on the roundtable meeting from last April. Hope that helps. There is likely a presentation on there discussing the science of slot limits vs. Length mins. From a few years ago.

[Heimdallr]

I know I've seen regs before (possibly in Ontario) that had something like Pike limit 2, but only one may be under 63cm and one may be over 63cm. If blanket regulations are going to be how we end up managing things, would something like that be effective in general? I understand that every lake is different (an unfortunately individual lakes don't get studied regularly enough), but what do the sciency folks think about something like that? That way, theoretically, you spread out the harvest while keeping things fairly straight forward.

[BBBrownie]

The management cost of a simple fairly generic reg is a lot lower than a specific or or unique regulation for each or a class of waterbody. If you want to initiate a major change in a popular fishery you had better have some science and data (fish sampling, creel survey, angler counts, etc) to back it up because there is always a strong contingent that supports status quo. You then have to commit to some level of followup monitoring to determine the effect of the management change - is it a positive for the fishery (stakeholder values- i.e. bigger fish, more fish, different fish, native fish/sport fish or whatever else the stakeholders may value for the particular fishery…). While we can obviously see some huge benefit to the fisheries that have this level of support and management, often it is in support of a recreational value where we also need dollars for conservation and protection of fish habitat, enforcement of the new regulations (changes to and increases in complexity of regulations likely lead to increases in noncompliance), enforcement on other water bodies - including more remote or less popular because they are important as well, administration, not even getting into all the management aspects relating to industry, development…Everything costs money, we need to decide how much money we want allocated to ESRD. I think we get what we pay for and I also think the politics of the unscrupulous and intransigent often infiltrate positive movement in Alberta.

[BBBrownie]

I know I've seen regs before (possibly in Ontario) that had something like Pike limit 2, but only one may be under 63cm and one may be over 63cm. If blanket regulations are going to be how we end up managing things, would something like that be effective in general? I understand that every lake is different (an unfortunately individual lakes don't get studied regularly enough), but what do the sciency folks think about something like that? That way, theoretically, you spread out the harvest while keeping things fairly straight forward.

Alberta has dabbled in that sort of split limit. Im not sure if there are currently any fisheries with a split size limit, but in the past Lesser Slave Lake was I think 2 under 43 cm and 1 over 43 per day. It looks like they went back to 1 over 43 cm since.

[DonAndersen]

Not a big believer of kill by length regs. Have watched anglers take minutes to measure a fish. The fish by that time is dead. Kill one and go home. Don't keep killing till you get a "legal" one.

Watched one stunned knot head at Bullshead screw around for minutes looking for his tape while a 8" fish flopped all over the grass.

 

Don

[Villageidiot]

I've always thought taking the bigger fish out of the population makes zero sense. Unless you're looking at harvesting 1 meal for your family, or looking to hang a trophy (which thanks to management all these years, we have no trophy fish, except for catch and release waters. Huh interesting). We live in wackem stackem alberta. Unfortunately things will not change until our demographics change, I've heard too many times "We keep everything we catch because its a put and take lake!". Our province is a total gongshow as far as fishing regulations go outside of sensitive populations.

That being said, we have to have some sort of equality in our fisheries. Both catch and keep and catch and release. I'm a firm believer in the One under a certain size as that has proven itself many times in fisheries around canada. But at the same time, i know there is the pull to supply food for yourself or stuff a big fish and hang it on your wall. That being said, I think something along the lines of 1 under a certain size limit. Or perhaps on our overstocked waters that are put in place to specifically alleviate pressure around the area, reduced stocking rates are needed and 3 of whatever size. Because its been told many times our SRD and F&W is are the most underfunded departments in all of canada. Why stocking 10000 fish into a tiny lake just to get wacked makes sense to anyone here.... i dont understand. It costs more $ to stock more fish. Plain and simple. 5 limit/person is a lot of fish, and 5 6" stockers is not a meal, which is then what urges people to take more, or bring family members out to increase limits... this all kind of spins in circles.

When all said and done, i believe that if a person should want to kill that 40"+ pike, or 12lb walleye, or 10lb rainbow or whatever to hang on a wall. He/she should have to pay a special fee/tag to be able to keep a fish like that. Though not an unlimited amount of tags, that would be useless. That way, money can be raised to better control regulations, perhaps hire another CO officer for the area, or studies, or even back into the stocking program.

Another cool idea i would like to see which i've heard of a few times, is two types of licenses, Not classified waters tags necessarily, but Quality License and a Put and take license and perhaps even a Rocky mountain license. Put and take being the more expensive of the 2/3. Create some quality stocked fisheries throughout the province in locations accessible to many, studies done to indeed make these lakes quality. Places that are patrolled on a regular basis for people breaking rules. While put and take fisheries being more expensive (perhaps MUCH MORE expensive) to fund the stocking of 250000 trout into a lake for everyone to keep 5 of should they please.

Regardless. This guy happily pays the BC freshwater 80 dollar license, and the saskatchewan 60 dollar license for the year. Alberta's fishing license is pretty much a jar of pennies. I spend the extra money in gas to drive 45 minutes over the border. Just to have quality fishing. I try my best not to spend money on fishing in Alberta at least in our stocked fisheries because to me its just not worth it.

[Heimdallr]

Everything costs money, we need to decide how much money we want allocated to ESRD. I think we get what we pay for and I also think the politics of the unscrupulous and intransigent often infiltrate positive movement in Alberta.

Ain't that the truth. True words. I think we grossly underfund ESRD in Alberta.