How Many "keepers" Did You Catch At Bullshead?

[PGK]

.

[bloom]

Max has it. A max size limit crops the size of the fish to 50cm. As soon as you put a max size limit into place, you are sentencing the fish in the lake to max out at that legal size. Most of the fish larger than 50cm (95% or greater) WILL be harvested.

 

If you want big fish, you need to let them get big. You can keep the stocking rate as it is, and increase harvest EG: one or two fish fish under 40cm (two I think would be great). That way they will be able to reach the larger sizes, as they won't be getting killed, and they will have to compete less as the year goes on (fall feeding!) because a good number of smaller fish will be removed.

 

And you keep people happy as they can now kill two 40cm (16") or smaller fish, instead of getting frustrated at not catching currently legal fish (50cm) and potentially increasing the rate of poaching as you start losing your 'squeeker' fish at 19, 9.5 etc.

 

 

As mentioned earlier, it would be tough to set stocking rates as you wouldn't know how many fish would survive.

 

The reason this lake was developed was to create a fishery where you would always have a chance to catch a quality fish. Before BH, there were times when you couldn't catch a fish over 18'' (or even 14'' in some lakes) because people would never let them get there. We might be right back in the same boat if the regs get changed to keeping the smaller fish...they were never given a chance to get big before, so don't see why it would happen now. There's just so many people on these lakes in Ab and it doesn't take much to clean a lake out. In the 90's it went through a pattern here in Southern Ab where the lakes would systematically get cleaned out. Once a lake started to produce fish around 14+", everyone would congregate there and meat it out. Then they would move to the next lake the next year...sort of went in a cycle when a lake was only really good every 2 or 3 years, and some years, no lakes were producing. Right now, BH gives us a chance to catch numerous fish between 14'' and 20'' every year. I guess the problem now is how to go from good to great!

[maxwell]

how about no kill then make it all c& r if yall figure lettingthe the 1 or 2 under rule wouldnt work and spending the same budget on bigger fish when stocking.. how many got put in 30 000 in and around 10 inches.. why not make is 3000 at 20 inches? still i think this would be more of a waste of tiem only because at teh first turnout for the reg changes us c7r types were insainley outnumbered.... i still think my first option is the way too go.. keep the stocking the same i dotn think that many more fish would be kept and killed.. doubled if any and that wouldnt make anywere near the total population... even if a few hundred made it each eyar there would be in a few years a couple thousand if not more mega sized trout in teh lake...... good enough for me....

[Hawgstoppah]

All I know is... in 2004/2005 me and several friends were at bullshead a lot and Many, many, MANY fished taped at 24-26 inches, and some better. we stopped coutning the 21-22 inch fish. We were not overestimating fish sizes... as many got taped. After taping the first 3 21 inchers you know what your looking at when you have one. and there were LOTS that size and bigger, as a matter of fact I'd say over half the fish caught each day were above 20 inches easily. And the pictures of bullshead fish now--- guys they look THIN compared to the footballs of /04 and /05.

 

And now after a bunch of years of a LOT of fish getting put in, the widespread observations are that no one is catching truly large fish anymore (22-23-24-25+)

 

and yes, people were bonking everything in sight back then too... I'd see 15 fish / day leave the lake.... on a slow day. That's fine, the lake was created for two kinds of fisherman, we gotta accept that. But... fish the next year should have been able to get to the 22-25 inch range easily, but they are not?

 

What happened? There's SOOOO many fish in there.....

 

You don't have to be head cashier at Walmart to figure this one out

 

 

 

[Riverview]

We fished this lake hard in the eighties and again for a short time in the nineties, unless you have you probably would not understand that the fish you are catching now are not what this lake is capable of. What Brian is describing about 22-26" fish is what the lake always was like and kick in the odd 26 to 30" in the fall when they were keying on boatman. In the eighties you could bonk 10 and we still had big fish, in the nineties you could bonk 5 and we still had big fish, they are not there anymore. I do not blame the bonkers, the fish that had enough food to get that big have died of old age. I believe it now takes 5 years for them to get close to the magic 20" and then their done. The dead fish in the pond died from winterkill, back in the 80's and 90's if winter was like last years we always had floaters in the spring.

 

The shrimp were the key, they are not there like they were, remember in 2004/2005 you would have to scrape your waders and empty your boots at the end of the day. I remember sweeping out the back of the vehicle after most trips. I believe it was the spring of 2005 i emailed Terry Clayton with my concerns that the shrimp were disapearing, i think we got another 50,000 that year. The fish now are starting to look like every other overstocked lake i have fished (Reesor, Beaver Mines, Beauvis ) where it is hard to catch a rainbow over 10". I fear that if the current stocking continues Bullshead will be like all the rest.

 

All the individuals who worked to get the regs changed did their part to make this lake a quality fishery. The stocking rates have made it a quantity fishery. What i see is that we become blind by the quantity that we catch to realize that it is no longer a quality fishery. The size that we catch here in relation to all the other lakes we catch 10" rainbows also makes us think that this is such a great fishery.

 

It is a good quantiy fishery and not a great quality fishery like it once was.

[beedhead]

I still think-"everything cycles"....To a point.....I have faith we will see biggens in B.H. once again....

 

I'm not saying thats the case, the cycle thing might have a little to do with it... just my 2 bits...

 

Cheers...Jeff..

[dryfly]

Riverview makes some great points and has historical info. Thanks.

 

Based on Riverview's comments, how does everyone feel about taking a chance and NOT stocking fish for (say) one year and then maybe adding 10K the following year? Couldn't hurt. The risk? Numbers could (could) drop off and the fish not get bigger. If they don't get bigger then we might (might) know that the big ones are being whacked. If they do get bigger then we'd know it was the food and stocking rates.

 

BTW... I am not sure I can accept the "aquarium" analogy. I did some rough calculations (while driving the other day) on water volumes and fish tonnage. If I recall my math, the mass of fish is about 20 ppm. i.e. 20 kg of fish per 1,000,000 kg (1,000 cubes) of water. In an aquarium the goldfish are more like 500 ppm. Is 20 ppm too much viz. food and space? I dunno.

 

I still think there are too may folks going there with one thing in mind...whack a 50+cm trout. And then they finally get one...smacko.

 

So what is it? Leave well enough alone or play with the stocking rates? I sure don't know.

 

Cheers!

 

Clive

[bloom]

Stocking rates have dropped a lot over the past few years...only problem is that it takes time to see the difference. The number right now is ~28,000. If you look at the history, there was a year when there was an 'accident' and 2x the number got put in. I don't have the data in front of me but it was like 70,000 and it was ~3 or 4 years ago. It will take some time for that stocking class to dissapear.

 

It would be interesting to see what the stocking rates were like in the early 90's late 80's?

 

Others may have different memories than I, but I always remember BH in the 90's to be a lake that no one really went to. Whenever I was there, the parking lot was basically dead except for a few guys in boats who went down to the dam. I also remember a 'big fish' to be around 18-20'' out of there.

 

A 28-30'' rainbow trout is a HUGE trout.

[birchy]

Clive,

 

Would not stocking for one year be enough time to really notice a difference in size? How fast do the trout in Bullshead grow on average?

[DonAndersen]

Clive,

 

Stopping stocking works well. I recall when the Province had no fish to stock for a couple of years due to Federal Govt regulation telling the Province that they must stock disease free fish.

The fishing to larger trout for a year>2 after the no-stocking was great.

 

Do recall that Police Outpost lake winter killed every now and then - a couple of years after - guess what 5 lb. fish.

 

Dixon Trout Pond drained very now and then to remove the pike. Three years after draining - 4lb+. fish.

 

Mitchell Lake winterkilled like Police Outpost and the same thing happened.

 

There is a long and extensive history in Alberta of reduced stocking/fish removal which increased fish size for several years afterward. Then of course, the bios. increased stocking numbers and ruined a good thing.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[DonAndersen]

Stocking rates have dropped a lot over the past few years...only problem is that it takes time to see the difference. The number right now is ~28,000. If you look at the history, there was a year when there was an 'accident' and 2x the number got put in. I don't have the data in front of me but it was like 70,000 and it was ~3 or 4 years ago. It will take some time for that stocking class to dissapear.

 

It would be interesting to see what the stocking rates were like in the early 90's late 80's?

 

Others may have different memories than I, but I always remember BH in the 90's to be a lake that no one really went to. Whenever I was there, the parking lot was basically dead except for a few guys in boats who went down to the dam. I also remember a 'big fish' to be around 18-20'' out of there.

 

A 28-30'' rainbow trout is a HUGE trout.

 

 

 

Bloom,

 

A 28>30" rainbow is a larger trout - may weigh 50% of the Alberta record. It's only huge if compared to the minuscule trout available today.

 

Don

[swagman]

I think I agree with Riverview. Bullshead has produced large fish consistently over the years. We have changed the regs, and by not significantly reducing the fish population are probably depleting the food source to a disastrous level. It is well worth not stocking for a year or two, allowing a harvest of smaller fish and getting the lake back to its former glory. There really is no challenge in catching fish in Bullshead as it exists, even if it is a blast!

[dryfly]

"Would not stocking for one year be enough time to really notice a difference in size? How fast do the trout in Bullshead grow on average?"

 

Birchy, I don't know about one year...might take a couple--I dunno. bloom and Riverview and others will know how fast they grow. My experience elsewhere is between 2 and 4 inches per year--with perhaps 3 inches being typical. 14 inches one spring = 17 inches the next. They certainly used to grow faster at the Brooks Aqueduct Pond ... 3 or 4 inches per year for a few years. New reservoirs generally have a few years of major fish growth due to nutrient spikes. Crawling Valley was a festering green algae swamp in the early years. Kid name Danny Webster from Bassano yanked out a 19-pound rainbow thru the ice in about 1987. I took a pix of my bro with a 13-pound rainbow--he didn't catch it. Oink.

 

swagman... "and by not significantly reducing the fish population are probably depleting the food source to a disastrous level." I have to strongly disagree. The fish are fat and healthy and they could not be so if we "are ... depleting the food source to a disastrous level." There is nothing to suggest there is not enough food...simply nothing. Basically it is closed system and very little is removed. Food types may be evolving (less shrimp..more something else) but you can't deplete food in a system like that where very little is removed. BH is a weed and bug factory powered by the sun and cow *hit. (Gotta love then range maggots, eh Don? )

 

Algae, insects, microscopic organisms, a tons of minnows all replenish every year. (No different than wheat in a field--and we ain't taking much out of BH like is taken out of a wheat field right?) New nutrients enter BH via BH creek and from the slopes draining into the reservoir. The drain water is "rich" (probably a stretch) in N, P, K and micros. Prairie plant material decomposes and carries nutrients into the reservoir. The shoreline weeds convert the sun's rays and nutrients into plant materials that becomes the basis for the lake's survival. Plant detritus becomes food for algae and insects. What happens in lakes is pretty damn neat.

 

So if there were ¼ as many fish in BH and they all weighed two to four times as much as the fish there now, how would that change the consumption of fish food? Wouldn't. Same fish mass to support. Same "depletion." (There may be differences in food conversion efficiency between smaller and larger trout.)

 

Let's say 1,000 fish are killed at BH every year and they weight an average of 1.5 kg each. So 1,500 kg of fish are removed. So what? Other than a few kilos of dead fish that are removed it is quite closed system. It is very capable of growing tonnes and tonnes of fish food. You don't just deplete food in a lake system where there is limited harvest. Say a 1-kg trout (spring) eats 5 kg of food (? ? ?) by the next spring and gained 0.5 kg. It has *hit out 4.5 kg of nutrient-rich food to feed weeds, algae and insects--and more trout.

 

However, maybe there are too many fish in BH. Maybe reduced stocking would help. IMHO as long as there is a 50 cm limit there are unlikely to be a large number of keepers there. Let's quit stocking it for two years and see what happens. Wonder how long those trophies are gonna last. Let's see.. three guys in a boat who live 45 minutes away can make three fish runs a day. 100 day at six, 3 kg trout. Gee three guys can take out as many as all anglers all year now. As long as there is an allowable kill it is going to be hard to keep many fihs over 20 inches..whether the lake contains 10,000 fish or 50,000 fish.

 

Oops ... I digressed ... what I was trying to say is that food sources don't deplete to disastrous levels and there is no evidence for that.

 

Cheers,

 

Clive

[DonAndersen]

Guys,

 

There is a measurement system that does determine the quality of the trout. They are described not longer as fat, footballs, toads or whatever the new word is for a decent fish. They are not measured only in inches which is a poor way to do it. A 22" fish can weight 2>8 lbs. depending on water/genetics/food resources.

I have the measurement system on my web site. I purloined it from Australia. The SRD uses the same measurement system in Alberta.

See: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dmanders...on%20factor.pdf

 

In any lake, the first food resources to disappear are the visible life forms. Scuds followed by damsels, dragons, mayflies, boatman/swimmers and finally chironomids.

 

The tale of "where did the big ones go" has been the tale of nearly every public lake in Alberta. How come private ponds can raise large fish and the Public water seems to be incapable?

 

Apparently just down the road there was a private pond that raised large fish all the time. It was managed by a cow guy. Maybe this is where the management system of lakes is going wrong. Leave it to the cow guys to figure out how to maintain growth rates.

 

 

catch ya'

 

Don

[beedhead]

Just about forgot about the problem that the fish in B.H. had with G.B.D.This Spring..(Gas Bubble Deisese)....Caught 30-40 fish this Spring withe the Symptoms...Can be fatal if the fish get it to bad, or keep hanging out in the super saturated water....May or may not of lost many fish due to this problem....It seemed to effect all sizes of fish, I even caught on with the tail fin missing due to G.B.D.

 

 

 

 

[dryfly]

Don,

 

Thanks for that. However, it is a "scientific" formula used to describe something very subjective. We'd all agree that the "extremely poor" fish in the pictures on page 3 is indeed in poor health. Beyond that it is a matter of personal preference. The K factor description also states that the factor will crash after spawning. Yet using the numbers only to describe a lake would be misleading: one moment it is "excellent" and the next moment merely good.

 

Did the chap who developed this K factor say that fish that are consistently "fair" or "good" live shorter lives than fish that are "exceptional"? Over 90 percent of the fish in our high-country streams would be rated as between poor and good. Most bull trout (not spawners) would probably be rated as poor to fair yet they have been here for millions of years and seem to be doing at least somewhat well.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. We'd all like to catch "excellent" fish in the pictures but I am not sure the "exceptional" fish makes my bum hum.

 

BTW... the "cowboy" ponds were more or less manged by an angler. Stocking was extremely low. There was no harvest and rod days were restricted. They charged $250 per day to fish there. I fished one of the two ponds with 20 other anglers in May 2006..included were Brian Chan and Phil Rowley. I think less than 15 fish were landed in six hours--about 120 angler hours. (It was practically blizzarding at the time, but still...) (Funny story there regrading chironomids, streamers, Brian, Phil and Denny Ricards. Too funny.)

 

Kyle McNealy has an interesting measure.--and it is not for bragging rights--just a standard. According to Kyle a good trophy fishery will get you 100 pounds of fish in a day. Interesting.

 

We'd all be MOST happy with BH if we caught half as many fish that were twice the size.

 

But can they get bigger when there is a a one-fish over 50 cm limit?

 

Based on the K factor, the chick on the left is in "exceptional" condition .... I guess.

 

[dryfly]

RE: Gas Bubble Disease

 

Thanks beed...

 

Funny how angler's views are different. GBD is apparently caused by excessive oxygen. Yet some anglers claim the oxygen in BH is too low and causing harm. Go figure.

 

Clive

 

 

[DonAndersen]

Clive,

 

The picture of the biggun is likely one that found a cache of good grits + probably a 3N - not sure of the AF part.

 

The K factor cannot be applied to a fish or 2 - to see the whole discussion on K Factors,

see: http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dmanders...ty%20Trout.html

 

Clearly what is demonstrated by the note on my site is the vitality of youth. The mid-sized teenagers grew better. The old over-mature oldies tended to be shorter and broader. [ just checked the mirror - yup - shorter and broader]

 

And there is no way that any stream would produce the large fish consistently like a lake unless there are nutrient additions to the water. eg Bow & Crow. BC has used fertilizer additions to increase zoo-plankton for Kokanee. SRD has used the same idea here on Obstruction Lakes + I ran a 3 year project to increase nutrient loads in three small ponds using milled oats. [ [this lake produced a 6 lb. rainbow within 3 years.]

 

What you see in the stuff from Australia is all I got. No discussion was held with the folks who generated the tables. I'd suspect that they have never seen a bull trout. I've heard of Bulls that tend to resemble you're posted picture when placed in a high quality feeding area.

 

Size is about grits - lots of them. Athabasca rainbows are noted for being less <15" in their native enviromnoment but when George Sterling, Regional Bio. from Edson placed them into a lake - they grew to 5 lbs. +.

 

And looks like the Cow folks in consulation with the anglers got it right - low kill or no kill>light stocking gets you larger fish. Damn but if that ain't rocket science.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

 

[dryfly]

Thanks Don.

 

"low kill or no kill>light stocking gets you larger fish. Damn but if that ain't rocket science." The unknown is what is "low kill" since there is a legal limit at BH. Maybe the guys from the Hat area can comment:

 

1) Will an acceptable number of BH rainbows grow well over 20 inches as long as there is a legal kill limit of one over 50 cm?

2) What percent of BH anglers go there with the intent on whacking a keeper?

 

Thanks.

 

 

[lozzamozza]

Stocking rates have dropped a lot over the past few years...only problem is that it takes time to see the difference. The number right now is ~28,000. If you look at the history, there was a year when there was an 'accident' and 2x the number got put in. I don't have the data in front of me but it was like 70,000 and it was ~3 or 4 years ago. It will take some time for that stocking class to dissapear.

 

It would be interesting to see what the stocking rates were like in the early 90's late 80's?

 

It was in 2005. I have saved the stocking reports from the srd since 2004.

[DonAndersen]

Clive,

 

The Quality Lake Policy says:

 

"Desired Characteristics of Prospective Quality Fisheries:

1. Water bodies preferred for quality fisheries will have the capability to produce 50

cm plus trout within a minimum of 4 years of stocking.

2. Management of the fishery can achieve maintaining 10 to15% of the stock in the

50 cm + size range"

 

 

And now it gets hairy:

 

If the stock used are 2N or 3N and NOT AF3N stock, you will lose about 50% of the males in thier second year due to spawning issues. So of the first stocking in year one, only 18.75% are left @ year 4 due to spawning issues. This discounts all other impacts on the fish. Gonna be tough to meet the Quality Lake Policy standards w/o no kill and AF3N's. This assumes that a four year old fish can get to 50 cms. In most lakes in Alberta, they can't - grits are gone.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[TimD]

Hi Don,

 

What is your take on how lakes like Dolberg and Swan, which consistently produce fish over 20" in an environment where stocking rates are like 20,000 fish per year, people are allowed to keep 5 fish and use bait. Muir had a stocking of 5000 fish this year, as opposed to 200 for the two previous years, and there was not a noticeable affect on growth rates but catch rates stabilized.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

 

[Conor]

I think the main question here is if BH is an actively managed trophy fishery. I'd say it is definitely. It was just drained, what, 5 years ago? Since then there have been delayed harvest regs implemented, reduced stocking, and tripliods have replaced diploids for socking. That seems pretty fast paced to me, considering the lake just lost the first generation of fish in the past couple years.

 

I say lets get a couple year classes of trips at the present stocking rates through the lake, see where we are at and then consider making changes, if needed. If you throw all the ingredients in the soup at once, it'll be hard to tell which ruined it, right.

 

So lets start up this thread again in about 8 years

 

 

[beedhead]

I think you hit the nail on the head Conor....B.H. just needs some time to stabilize and become established as there has been so many diff stocking rates and now new 3n's just introduced....It will get figured out in time....I think everyone just expects to much out of this fishery as we had a couple years of nice sized fish....It will happen again....the Big fish we had were of the 1st and 2nd year stocking.....I think there are allot of factors that contribute to B.H. right now, and soon enough it will get all figured out....Lets all just keep lookin out for B.H. as allot of us have....And things will get sorted out....

 

Cheers...Jeff..

[bloom]

I think the main question here is if BH is an actively managed trophy fishery. I'd say it is definitely. It was just drained, what, 5 years ago? Since then there have been delayed harvest regs implemented, reduced stocking, and tripliods have replaced diploids for socking. That seems pretty fast paced to me, considering the lake just lost the first generation of fish in the past couple years.

 

I say lets get a couple year classes of trips at the present stocking rates through the lake, see where we are at and then consider making changes, if needed. If you throw all the ingredients in the soup at once, it'll be hard to tell which ruined it, right.

 

So lets start up this thread again in about 8 years

 

 

Thank you Conor...someone gets what I'm saying (just not the 8 years part ). It's hard to keep going and asking for change when we're not even letting one idea play out.

 

-Lower stocking rates were asked for, we got them...it will take time for us to see the effect.

-Trips were asked for, we got them...it will take at least 2 more years to see the affect these have on the false spawning attempts.

 

Sometimes this reminds me of work where they keep coming in with a new policy every year and we really haven't given the other ones a chance. We keep joking what the new 'flavour of the month' will be.

 

I know what the stocking rates are on those "Cow guy" lakes and their VERY LOW. Those numbers on a public lake wouldn't work. The angler hours on BH and the private lakes are vastly different. Put that same number of fish in BH and they would be gone due to hooking mortality alone. (Don, send me a pm if you're interested in more info on these lakes)

 

 

I DO appreciate all the passion (from all sides) for these quality fisheries lakes though. I like where all this is going in Alberta but there is definitely a need from the passionate people (ie. DonA, Clive, ADC, TimD) to keep this moving.