Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DonAndersen

Rewarding illegal stocking

Recommended Posts

Stupid arrives again.

Illegal stocking of perch now rewards the ***hole doing the stocking by the Province establishing a limit rather than not allowing retention.

After 1/2 the lakes in the Rocky Area getting illegal perch stocking, the idiots running fisheries still reward law breakers.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is to also say that not allowing retention of perch hasn't done anything to improve those trout lakes as well. Furthermore, I don't believe the zero retention was working as a deterrent. You're dialed into the bios and conversations Don, can you cite some evidence of any upside to that policy? It was, what, in place the past 5 - 7 - 10 years?

So if leaving the perch alone didn't help trout, and it's not preventing the bucket biologists from acting selfishly, maybe it is time to reverse the policy. Maybe they should allow unlimited retention and a must kill policy for perch. What could it hurt at this point?

If the lakes aren't going to be properly re-habbed with rotenone and/or the aerators shut down in the winter,  I am the "might as well try this now" stage.

Clearly, you see it differently. Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any Chance of gill netting the perch? Generally smaller than most stockers aren’t they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smitty said:

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is to also say that not allowing retention of perch hasn't done anything to improve those trout lakes as well. Furthermore, I don't believe the zero retention was working as a deterrent. You're dialed into the bios and conversations Don, can you cite some evidence of any upside to that policy? It was, what, in place the past 5 - 7 - 10 years?

So if leaving the perch alone didn't help trout, and it's not preventing the bucket biologists from acting selfishly, maybe it is time to reverse the policy. Maybe they should allow unlimited retention and a must kill policy for perch. What could it hurt at this point?

If the lakes aren't going to be properly re-habbed with rotenone and/or the aerators shut down in the winter,  I am the "might as well try this now" stage.

Clearly, you see it differently. Fair enough.

We've been at the "might as well try this now" stage for quite some time in a few lakes here. I understand Don's frustration and agree with him wholeheartedly. Above and beyond rewarding these idiots, it leaves more places for them to get perch to transplant to more lakes. Enough is enough, might as well poison all the lakes. The sooner we can start rectifying this problem the sooner we can get our trout lakes back.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 40 years  nothing has been done about illegal perch except reward illegal stocking.

Remember Cow Lake which was raising trout to 15 lbs.. Illegal finally stocking with perch resulted in rewarding that insult with stocking of pike, 

i was at Cow Lake last spring opening day. Me an one other guy. When trout were in there, the place was packed with people from across Alberta, 

Anglers vote with their feet. Get rid of the perch/pike.

Don

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Smitty said:

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is to also say that not allowing retention of perch hasn't done anything to improve those trout lakes as well. Furthermore, I don't believe the zero retention was working as a deterrent. You're dialed into the bios and conversations Don, can you cite some evidence of any upside to that policy? It was, what, in place the past 5 - 7 - 10 years?

So if leaving the perch alone didn't help trout, and it's not preventing the bucket biologists from acting selfishly, maybe it is time to reverse the policy. Maybe they should allow unlimited retention and a must kill policy for perch. What could it hurt at this point?

If the lakes aren't going to be properly re-habbed with rotenone and/or the aerators shut down in the winter,  I am the "might as well try this now" stage.

Clearly, you see it differently. Fair enough.

Smithy,

we keep loosing Lakes to perch. The Anglers and govt sit on their asses. 

We need some cattle prods installed wired for 220v.

If I could fix this idiocy, I would. This level of contempt for fisheries would get you skidded. 

 

Don

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, northfork said:

We've been at the "might as well try this now" stage for quite some time in a few lakes here. I understand Don's frustration and agree with him wholeheartedly. Above and beyond rewarding these idiots, it leaves more places for them to get perch to transplant to more lakes. Enough is enough, might as well poison all the lakes. The sooner we can start rectifying this problem the sooner we can get our trout lakes back.

Right. Exactly my point. We've tried different policies, none seem to work. So you try something different. I'm all for the poison, except (a) that the government won't ante up the funds and (b) they don't have the political stomach.

I have more practical viewpoint on this (sorry, but it is more practical): since no one has cited any evidence that a zero perch retention has done anything, why not try the opposite? Forget the "philosphy" of it rewarding the idiots, isn't the bottom line that we want better trout fisheries? So, short of rotenone, isn't the best way to do that is to reduce perch numbers? Additionally, you could turn off aerators, hope for a complete and total winterkill? I'm saying we've stuck to the principle of "let's not reward the idiots". Great. Awesome. And it's got us a whole lotta nothing except perch infested lakes where (until the regs changed back this year), I wasn't allowed to kill the little buggers. So... do you draw your sword on a hill of principles and rant about it....or do something practical?

We're all frustrated. Again, if anyone has some actual evidence to support the policy of zero retention perch, great. I suspect it is non-existent. So...back to chasing our tails.

Maybe a new gov't will do something... (yeah right). So sure, let's go for the poison. That is the practical solution actually: if Alberta could even come close to replicating the Manitoba parkland experience, like Don says, anglers will vote with their feet. The increased angler related tourism revenue could help offset the costs of poison. 

Seriously, what else is there to do? You gotta kill the perch or kill the lake. Having a zero limit makes no sense in lakes already infested.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Smitty said:

Right. Exactly my point. We've tried different policies, none seem to work. So you try something different. I'm all for the poison, except (a) that the government won't ante up the funds and (b) they don't have the political stomach.

I have more practical viewpoint on this (sorry, but it is more practical): since no one has cited any evidence that a zero perch retention has done anything, why not try the opposite? Forget the "philosphy" of it rewarding the idiots, isn't the bottom line that we want better trout fisheries? So, short of rotenone, isn't the best way to do that is to reduce perch numbers? Additionally, you could turn off aerators, hope for a complete and total winterkill? I'm saying we've stuck to the principle of "let's not reward the idiots". Great. Awesome. And it's got us a whole lotta nothing except perch infested lakes where (until the regs changed back this year), I wasn't allowed to kill the little buggers. So... do you draw your sword on a hill of principles and rant about it....or do something practical?

We're all frustrated. Again, if anyone has some actual evidence to support the policy of zero retention perch, great. I suspect it is non-existent. So...back to chasing our tails.

Maybe a new gov't will do something... (yeah right). So sure, let's go for the poison. That is the practical solution actually: if Alberta could even come close to replicating the Manitoba parkland experience, like Don says, anglers will vote with their feet. The increased angler related tourism revenue could help offset the costs of poison. 

Seriously, what else is there to do? You gotta kill the perch or kill the lake. Having a zero limit makes no sense in lakes already infested.

Of course it makes sense to limit access To someone’s illegal stocking fishery. That’s the ONLY way to shift cost/benefit of them taking the risk to transplant perch in the first place.  They’re never going to get caught in the act. 

Angling is never going to knock down perch populations, especially with a limit.  Who’s the guy here always on perch patrol on sundance lake?  How’s that worked for them? As far as I last read, there’s still a *hit ton of them. 

Fisheries needs to take a hardline approach on this. That’s the only way to get through to people. As soon as foreign species identified, body is closed until it can be rectified.  Due to cost constraints, pick a handful of “protected” lakes and put the resources there.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bron said:

Of course it makes sense to limit access To someone’s illegal stocking fishery. That’s the ONLY way to shift cost/benefit of them taking the risk to transplant perch in the first place.  They’re never going to get caught in the act. 

I don't understand what you're saying here... there is no issues with "access". If a lake is publicly accessible, it's accessible. As for getting caught, no one - to my knowledge, someone else can chime in here and correct me - that no one has been charged, brought before a judge, and prosecuted for stocking perch illegally. Again, if we're talking about disincentives, a law should be effective and enforced. Anyways,...like I said...not sure what point you're making here...

As for angling, yes, sadly, you are mostly correct. Would take alot of angling effort to make a dent in the populations. So where does that leave us? Better to try, than to leave an infested lake to its own devices? Having a zero retention limit on perch has done nothing, has produced zero results, and a pure status quo policy. 

So, circling around on this carousel, we've come to the conclusion that rehab is the way to go?

Or, maybe it's easier to target and create "new" fisheries. Yay! More mine pit lakes!! :)

Just remember, many lakes - Hasse, Cow come to mind  - were originally pike / perch lakes. Only in severe winterkills did the bios decades and decades ago experiment with filling temporary niches with stocked, non-native species like rainbow trout. 

Anyways, I'm all for trying something different. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Access as in non-retention. I probably could have chosen better wording.

As for not getting caught, that’s what I’m saying.  You’re never going to get caught illegally stocking something.  So the only way to disincentivize the act is to make it pointless.  “As soon as my illegally stocked perch are established and fishable, they will make it non-retention/close the lake/kill the lake, so what’s the point of bothering to do so?”

IMO non-retention does nothing because if these guys are willing to illegally stock perch, they are also pretty likely to “poach” perch.  They are making rules for themselves.

closing a lake makes it much more observable someone is breaking the rules. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bron said:

Access as in non-retention. I probably could have chosen better wording.

As for not getting caught, that’s what I’m saying.  You’re never going to get caught illegally stocking something.  So the only way to disincentivize the act is to make it pointless.  “As soon as my illegally stocked perch are established and fishable, they will make it non-retention/close the lake/kill the lake, so what’s the point of bothering to do so?”

IMO non-retention does nothing because if these guys are willing to illegally stock perch, they are also pretty likely to “poach” perch.  They are making rules for themselves.

closing a lake makes it much more observable someone is breaking the rules. 

 

Ah! Now I see. Yes, 100%. I could closing a lake as a viable alternative, but that also punishes the anglers targeting trout. 

And, the biggest downside to closing lakes is that makes alot of lakes right now eligible for closure. Can you imagine closing, what ten to 2 dozen lakes? I don't even know how many infestations there are, province wide. 

Yeah, I totally agree; these guys already are doing something illegal, we're not going to prevent them from poaching. 

Seems like the best course would be (1) close the lake (2) rehab the lake rotenone, turn off aerators (3) signage and educational campaign blitz (4) toughen the laws for the live transport of fish, dumping goldfish, koi, perch etc where-ever. Education is a big component here. 

Too bad there aren't reverse aerators where they "suck" the oxygen out of the lakes...though I am sure PETA would have something to say about that..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don: May remember this.Anyways was at a mtg.in either Edmonton or Red Deer,when the chair told us of the illegal stocking of Bullhead fish,in a pond in FT.Mac[2015].F&W had to bring in a tech person from the US.Because none of our F&W staff knew how to handle Roetone.They killed of that pond off & trained appropriate{F &W] staff on the handling of Roetone.To this day the only other place that i have heard Roetoned ,were in the town of Okotoks.That town killed of a pond infested with goldfish,because they didn't want them getting into the Bow/Highwood/Sheep drainage.They did this at the towns cost..So F&W staff are trained & still no action.Why. Is it costs.Then have a habitat regeneration fund ,dedicated specifially to iradicating invasive fish species.If they are not to be in a said lake.Then action should be taken...FT.MAC eg.happened in 2 days........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Smitty - get your facts right,

Cow Lake never contained perch and pike until stocked in there. 

I shspect Hassee was the same.

The Alberta record rainbow at one time came outta Hassee,  Perch create tiny trout.

and here we sit - doing nothin. 

I was part of the group getting fines up to reconditioning mode, modern Fisheries made illegal stocking worthwhile.

Talk we, do lots of that - doing one thing - nope.

Don

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smitty said:

Ah! Now I see. Yes, 100%. I could closing a lake as a viable alternative, but that also punishes the anglers targeting trout. 

And, the biggest downside to closing lakes is that makes alot of lakes right now eligible for closure. Can you imagine closing, what ten to 2 dozen lakes? I don't even know how many infestations there are, province wide. 

Yeah, I totally agree; these guys already are doing something illegal, we're not going to prevent them from poaching. 

Seems like the best course would be (1) close the lake (2) rehab the lake rotenone, turn off aerators (3) signage and educational campaign blitz (4) toughen the laws for the live transport of fish, dumping goldfish, koi, perch etc where-ever. Education is a big component here. 

Too bad there aren't reverse aerators where they "suck" the oxygen out of the lakes...though I am sure PETA would have something to say about that..

 

It would be no skin off my ass, or most other hardcore stillwater anglers I know, to not be able to fish a perch-infested lake for small unhealthy trout. None of us bother to fish them now anyways as it stands.

 

You are correct in that nothing has been done to deter the idiots, it is pretty miniscule in the regulations about transporting live fish, the people who did it know they were doing something illegal and obviously took steps to ensure they wouldn't be caught. Education is a big part - but the principle still stands that these ass hats shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts. I think the next logical step is to close the lake, so everyone knows it shouldn't be done. From there it would sure be nice if a rotenone application was pursued.

Then if only they could prioritize trophy trout lakes over put and takes. Stock less fish in most of the lakes and tighten up the regulations, better management, and all the extra fish can be dumped into the sacrificial put and take lakes for each area. Some very simple fixes from where we sit to create manitoba or bc-like fishing opportunities here and boost tourism, but I don't believe things will ever get to that point due to all the bureacratic BS. It's guys like Brian and Don that keep fighting and holding our management personnel accountable, that have gotten us where we are so far. We need more people to do the same. I have no problems putting my money where my mouth is, I feel bad spending so much in BC and SK and MB to fish each year, knowing I could spend that locally and help our economy...We got it bass ackwards in Alberta.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a large group of people that are purely catch and keep anglers who would rather have a bucket full of small perch than the pleasure of catching a trophy trout. I have run into them all over the province and most noticeably in Central Alberta, caught some very nice browns on Stauffer one day and when I ran into a group at the access point, they asked how I had done. When I replied about the fish I caught they asked where the fish were, I said I let them go. The response was "Yeah right, good one". Your not a successful angler unless you keep what you catch.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Didnt like my reply. Deleted it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, trailhead said:

There is a large group of people that are purely catch and keep anglers who would rather have a bucket full of small perch than the pleasure of catching a trophy trout. I have run into them all over the province and most noticeably in Central Alberta, caught some very nice browns on Stauffer one day and when I ran into a group at the access point, they asked how I had done. When I replied about the fish I caught they asked where the fish were, I said I let them go. The response was "Yeah right, good one". Your not a successful angler unless you keep what you catch.

Or you post it on instagram....

 

16 hours ago, Smitty said:

... Didnt like my reply. Deleted it.

 

I don't mean to come across as attacking you - this is a good debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, northfork said:

I don't mean to come across as attacking you - this is a good debate.

No no...no worries. It's a good debate. I wrote a reply to someone else, it was too defensive in tone. I invited people to set me straight on facts, someone did (though they were half right). There ya go. Whatever. Doesn't change my mind one bit about how I feel about a particular policy (the nonsensical zero perch limit). However, I have had ample forum time and space to repeat my point several times, so I'll say no more on it. 

Bottom line from my point of view is that the government should be all in, and we, as anglers, should spend more time trying to convince the government (bios, etc) the tourism and economic merits of having a trout mecca like the Parklands. Or just manage our fisheries better!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2019 at 9:25 PM, trailhead said:

There is a large group of people that are purely catch and keep anglers who would rather have a bucket full of small perch than the pleasure of catching a trophy trout. I have run into them all over the province and most noticeably in Central Alberta, caught some very nice browns on Stauffer one day and when I ran into a group at the access point, they asked how I had done. When I replied about the fish I caught they asked where the fish were, I said I let them go. The response was "Yeah right, good one". Your not a successful angler unless you keep what you catch.

 

I think Trailhead hit it on the, er, head here with this comment - the catch-and-keep group (of whatever - trout, perch) is (very?) large.  Thus I wonder, might our quality trout fisheries objectives be better served by concentrating only on a small number of lakes (at least at first), as showcase projects, and leave the rest for the catch and keep crowd, if they so love their stunted perch or heavily stocked trout?

Essentially, supply and demand - keep up the supply of the put-and-take fisheries (as hard as it is to write that), while working to transition some waters to QF trout status.

Others on this forum know better than I do (and will I'm sure correct me, if what I'm about to write is wrong), but our experience to date with lakes such as Muir, Beaver, etc. that have seen more effort towards the development of QF's there have not been subject to illegal perch stocking (yet).  So maybe QF trout waters will continue to be respected, if there is still a supply of put-and-take fisheries (including some with perch).

Perhaps the only blanket regulation change should be a significant increase in penalty for being caught/convicted of transporting live fish.

Both sides of the perch zero retention/liberal retention debate discussed here have merit.  But maybe a doable "win" for us is to at least get some increased focus on creating a few more higher quality trout fisheries first, with tighter regs, stepped-up enforcement, etc., rather than try to come up with a province-wide magic bullet change.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sparkplug said:

 

I think Trailhead hit it on the, er, head here with this comment - the catch-and-keep group (of whatever - trout, perch) is (very?) large.  Thus I wonder, might our quality trout fisheries objectives be better served by concentrating only on a small number of lakes (at least at first), as showcase projects, and leave the rest for the catch and keep crowd, if they so love their stunted perch or heavily stocked trout?

Essentially, supply and demand - keep up the supply of the put-and-take fisheries (as hard as it is to write that), while working to transition some waters to QF trout status.

Others on this forum know better than I do (and will I'm sure correct me, if what I'm about to write is wrong), but our experience to date with lakes such as Muir, Beaver, etc. that have seen more effort towards the development of QF's there have not been subject to illegal perch stocking (yet).  So maybe QF trout waters will continue to be respected, if there is still a supply of put-and-take fisheries (including some with perch).

Perhaps the only blanket regulation change should be a significant increase in penalty for being caught/convicted of transporting live fish.

Both sides of the perch zero retention/liberal retention debate discussed here have merit.  But maybe a doable "win" for us is to at least get some increased focus on creating a few more higher quality trout fisheries first, with tighter regs, stepped-up enforcement, etc., rather than try to come up with a province-wide magic bullet change.

 

I agree with much of what you say here Sparkplug; yet much of what you are advocating for; isn't that already happening? Aren't we already concentrating on a small # of lakes?

Based on my anecdotal observations of fishing Muir lake, and what many here have to say about Beaver (I'm relying on Don's comments alot) is that QSF fisheries are in heavy demand. And QSF's are relatively few compared to the total amount of put and take fisheries; so wouldn't that already qualify them as being a showcase fishery?

And yeah, you said the magic work - 'yet'. And let's hope many of the beloved QSF's stay uninfected with perch. Could be a matter of time, unfortunately. 

The bios / gov't are reluctant to "convert" long-existing, traditional keep 5 trout a day lakes over to QSF's. Lots of pushback from the keep and eat crowd. Very tough to "transition" them. Lots of QSF's are "new" lakes such as the cluster of Pit lakes south of Robb. Those are much easier, politically speaking. And, absolutely, there will always have to be put and take fisheries. The problem with including perch is the (relatively) incompatible species issue. We already have plenty of cool-water lakes that sustain pike-perch-walleye-whitefish. What needs to happen here is education. Anglers should not be associating our trout stillwater fisheries as a source of "good" perch fishing. It's that simple. You might as well capitulate then and stock the pike, and have a Cow lake situation. Culturally speaking, that's the transition I'd like Alberta to go to over succeeding generations; keep the damn perch out of our trout lakes and accept it! :) lol

Might take an existing QSF to get "ruined" by perch before the gov't takes drastic action and truly rehab lakes. So ya, step up enforcement, toughen fines, and concentrate on creating new fisheries into QSF's. 

Anyways, tough issue with gov't complacency and angler apathy (true for the vast majority of the 270,000+ licensed anglers).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this approach: In the regs. state - No fishing for said invasives except in designated lakes -  

A hefty fine for those caught angling for invasives in non-designated waters. No fishing for invasives equals no retention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the intent of the idea Flyfisher, but that would be a tough one to enforce.  The first illegally stocked perch I ever caught was in Gardom Lake on a snow cone chroni pattern. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to Perch, they are not truly invasive though. Obviously, native to the province. 

They just happen to be undesirable in our artificial, stocked lakes. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dan alludes, no way to enforce what your “target” species is unless you’ve retained something. Furthermore, in order for rule to be enforced, perpetrator needs to be caught red handed—making it even less likely to be busted. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fished in BC last year for Rainbows in a lake that had been illegally stocked with Largemouth Bass. For 2018, on that waterbody, the catch and retain limit for Bass was 8 per person. 

Those bloody Bass do not belong in that lake, and this year, 2019, for that same lake, there is no limit on Bass. The province is going to allow natural human predation clear that lake (in theory anyway). At least there is tacit recognition by the province of BC that those fish do not belong. 

I am purely a catch and release type in fresh waters. However, I did kill a Bass and fed it to a beautiful bald eagle perched nearby. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...