Stocked trout lakes

[Dragon Troller]

Lets have discussion on Alberta's stocked trout lakes.

 

First let me state that these are my views and everyone won't agree with them, I do not mean to bash anyone either but I think Alberta's stocked trout lake fisheries are in real trouble. I welcome anyones comments good or bad.

 

I think that most of our stocked waters are poor fisheries right now, There are exceptions, Star, Muir, Swan, Figure Eight, Sulpur, Shemeluk, Beaver, Bullshead are some examples of decent fisheries. There are others that look good but I have not fished them.

 

I think our stocking rates in this province are way too high, I think that the rates are kept high to because of the put and take mentality and increase in fisherman over the last 20 years. I think the government is dead wrong with this strategy.

 

Lets look at some examples;

 

Spring lake: In the past 8 years it has gone down hill and now its dead due to winterkill, Some would say this is due to a couple factors, too many fish (perch don't help) and not enough food for the fish that are there. Before they started to pump the bubbles in there the lake grew some monsters, unfortunately it would also winterkill frequently. The kill did a few things, it allows the food base to rebound and it reduces the number of fish in the lake. Remember trout do not live forever, in order for them to grow big they have to do it quickly.

 

Cow Lake: I fished it in its hay day, Wow there were some hawgs in there, Shallow lake with lots of food, the trout grew very fast, then it winterkilled a few times, and rather that put trout back in and let them grow huge again in a few years they stopped stocking it?

 

Carson lake, What a shame, its now full of 14" fish, they are all the same size! There used to be 10 pounders in that lake! but 15 years of 300,000 trout a year and look what happend. Everybody and there pet dog goes there because the catch rates are excellent, it has a great campground. I think the fish would be much bigger if the campground sucked and they only put 20,000 trout a year in, The catch rates would be slower but the fish would be bigger.

 

Lower Chain Lake, Used to fish it with my Dad when I was 10, Used to catch a few 5-6 pounders on every outing! we would maybe get our limit each of smaller ones, we would keep a few. Now there is still a few big ones there but you can catch 40+ fish day if you can tell that they ate your hook?

 

Swan Lake, Is doing very well, Its got bubbles so winterkill is not an issue, They do put quite a few fish in but it also gets a lot of pressure and a lot of fish get taken home. It also gets a lot of management attention which I think helps.

 

Sulphur Lake, Its doing good due to aerators, but they still put to many fish in, They now no longer grow at the rates they used to. I have actually had the fish management officer tell me to take more tout home because there ar too many fish in it. This lake get very little pressure as well.

 

Shemeluk, Used to be some big ones there, then it killed, Now they are big again, It gets low stock rates and its a small lake.

 

Goldeye Lake, Is now full of 8 inch trout.

 

 

Now I have seen this happen to too many lakes in Alberta. I've been fishing for stocked trout for 35 years. All the places I used to go when I was a kid are now full of 8-14inch trout. I personally would rather go to a lake and catch 5 big fish in a day than 40-50 little ones. Lower Chain, Peanut, Goldeye, are some examples.

 

Question is what do we do about it?

 

I think the government should put far fewer fish in, they would grow bigger faster, eat less food and use less oxygen. They would be harder to catch because there are less of them. The put and take crowd could still catch a few and take them home but they may not get there limit everytime. Some places would be less popular because the catch rates would be lower.

 

BUT the fish would be Big!

 

Comments Please

[Johann]

I think the government should put far fewer fish in, they would grow bigger faster, eat less food and use less oxygen.

Two things : How does their using less oxygen from the lake have anything to do with survival ? Surely the largest de-oxygenator is marine decomposition, not fish breathing.

 

Second : Your "putting fewer fish in" only works if fewer people keep. I don't know about you, but I see stocking as addictive. That is, we stock because the fish (which mostly taste like poo up here....) are being taken home for food by Newfies and the like. Okay, but how do we get the fish numbers back up in a put and take fishery ? Stock heavier. The lakes around here have not come close to their potential for supporting fish yet, but that's because the FW guys put enough in that everyone can catch 'em, and you can keep them if you want to eat dirt.

 

Rather than put fewer fish in, I think a personal limit (for the amount of baitchuckers we get on Spring alone...) of 5 is ignorant. If we have 30 fishermen every weekend during the summer taking 5 each and hooking another 2 badly enough they die, the new stocking is quickly reduced to irrelevance inside a season.

 

 

Maybe the solution here is to stop stocking rainbows. Stock a few more with browns, brookies. Something that will generally not get caught by baitchuckers. They can stick to the rainbow lakes, and the fly fishermen (who are now overwhelmingly c & r) can have our monsters.

 

There are lochs in Scotland (and not big ones, either) currently receiving quartlerly stocks of 40,000+ throughout the year. You pay 30 quid a day for just catch and release, and you are able to get some decent sized fish. I'd rather we just gave the bait-fisherpeople their day at some lakes and stock a few just for us.

 

andy.

[Terry H]

Dragon Troller, your points are well taken. I think it all comes down to something quite simple: the government has to recognize that people fish for different reasons and stocking programs and regulations should be tailored to provide different fishing experiences. Right now things are heavily, if not almost exclusively, weighted in favour of the catch and bonk crowd. The solution will come in part through group efforts to develop special regulation lakes like Muir and Bullshead. However, as we've all seen, that is a long slow process. One way we can try to speed it up, is to start putting pressure on our provincial politicians -- let's start writing our MLA's and let them know changes in fisheries management are sorely needed. They might look across the Alberta BC border for enlightenment. Terry

[Dragon Troller]

Two things : How does their using less oxygen from the lake have anything to do with survival ? Surely the largest de-oxygenator is marine decomposition, not fish breathing.

 

Second : Your "putting fewer fish in" only works if fewer people keep. I don't know about you, but I see stocking as addictive. That is, we stock because the fish (which mostly taste like poo up here....) are being taken home for food by Newfies and the like. Okay, but how do we get the fish numbers back up in a put and take fishery ? Stock heavier. The lakes around here have not come close to their potential for supporting fish yet, but that's because the FW guys put enough in that everyone can catch 'em, and you can keep them if you want to eat dirt.

I would think that fish breathing does have at least some effect on oxygen content, especially when you have large numbers of fish in a water body. I do not know the actual specifics however.

 

Putting fewer fish in will result in fewer fish taken out, they will be harder to catch simply because there are less of them and they would be less hungry. Some will still get taken. In alot of lakes the numbers of fish are not the problem there are tonnes of fish in some of these lakes, problem is they are all small, this may be because they are taken out before they get big or it may be because they cannot grow fast due to over population or a combination of both.

 

Your comments are appreciated.

[Scratch]

Dragon -

 

I've not commented so far for a few reasons - neither of which are political!

 

1. I've not yet had time to fully read, and digest your comments... I want to ensure that I do that before I weigh in on ANY such discussion...

2. Once I've had a chance - I want to ensure that what I say makes sense....

 

 

You've posed a great set of questions / observations and I look forward to making a contribution to the discussion that is as well put together. Now... where is that burp cloth....

[dave robinson]

Hmmm... Where to start.

Not being a fisheries biologist, I don't feel competent to comment with certainty on how stocking rates affect fish size. I suspect it's not a simple equation and we all know how things often get reduced to the simpest ideas when politicians are involved.

Certainly more fish will put a larger load on food resources in a given ecosystem. But at what point does fish predation result in declining food resources to where fish size is impacted? I bet it varies quite a bit from lake to lake.

Angler pressure and catch limits also will have a large impct on fish size. If pressure is high enough, almost all the fish get caught in the season in which they are stocked. So they don't get bigger than one or 2 year's growth.

Since SRD has little money for basic research and enforcement, it's hard for them to know the catch (note I said "catch" as opposed to the polically correct "harvest") rate with certainty. Add to that animal predation (herons, loons, pelicans, ospreys etc) and the loss from a lake may be hard to assess. What SRD needs is more money and resources to gather data so that they can more effectively predict what mangemant practices will do to a given lake.

Of course there's political pressure from certain quarters to "maximize harvest opportunities" which is an oblique way of saying "let us kill as many fish a possible". That philosophy may have worked back when there were only 500 thousand or so people in Alberta. but with a population approaching 4 million, angling licenses approaching 400 thousand, and fishable lakes actually dwindling in number, that philosophy is going to have to be relegated to the relm of "remember when" or we will have no fish left at all.

I too agree that there should be a variety of angling experieneces designed to serve the variey of interests of anglers, who all pay the same taxes. So there should be some harvest lakes, some trophy lakes, some delayed harvest lakes, some catch and release lakes, some kids only lakes etc etc, But we seem to have a govenment that is stuck in the "harvest" mode.

Sure, it's nice to keep a fish once ia a while to eat. It helps keep us connected more intimately with our heritage and the real food cahin. But I don't understand why the taxpayer in general should support a food fishery, which is what a 5 trout a day (or as many as you can sneak away with) limit is for some people. Nobody helps me with my grocery bill.

I bet a one or two fish limit would satsify the vast majority of anglers for a heritage and lifestyle experience and the only ones to whine about not being able to catch masses of fish would be those wanting me and other taxpayers to subsidize their grocery budget.

It's time we put these ideas to the politicians. Those who would like large fish or catch and release should expect tax supported angling experiences that suit our ethic every bit as much as the bonk crowd. And the Government should adequately fund enforcemmt and research to support those needs.

Edited May 4, 2007 by dave robinson

[RangerBob]

Not being a fisheries biologist, I don't feel competent to comment with certainty on how stocking rates affect fish size. I suspect it's not a simple equation and we all know how things often get reduced to the simpest ideas when politicians are involved.

As a home aquarists, the only simple rule for 'carrying capacity' that I know of is:

"The most widely known rule for stocking a tank is one inch of fish per gallon of water."

 

Of course, one can tweak that with increased flow rates, better filtration, use of chemicals and such, and even though I suspect there are many millions of gallons of water at Muir --- that side of the equation has been changing pretty dramatically, and likely has to be a factor now.

 

This looks pretty interesting though:

 

"How many fish can a lake hold?"

 

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/...98/howmanyf.pdf

[Scratch]

Sure, it's nice to keep a fish once ia a while to eat. It helps keep us connected more intimately with our heritage and the real food cahin. But I don't understand why the taxpayer in general should support a food fishery, which is what a 5 trout a day (or as many as you can sneak away with) limit is for some people. Nobody helps me with my grocery bill.

I bet a one or two fish limit would satsify the vast majority of anglers for a heritage and lifestyle experience and the only ones to whine about not being able to catch masses of fish would be those wanting me and other taxpayers to subsidize their grocery budget.

Ahem... Let me gather my big spoon to stir the pot...

 

Dave, can you identify the amount that the taxpayer spends to subsidize stocking of groceries into Alberta Lakes, as well as the licence revenues used to offset that cost?

[dave robinson]

Lance:

The aquarium rule is related more to disolved oxygen and the effects of crowding

in a very restricted environment where food comes from outside.

I'm not sure crowding and oxygen related to numbers of fish is at that threshold in a lake.

Lake water volume and surface area for diffusing and wind mixing oxygen are far greater.

 

Scratch:

You might be able to get some of those numbers from SRD, but I doubt in the detail you ask for.

Remember too that only a portion of the license fee actually goes to the Government.

Even at $20 each for about 350,000 anglers, 7 million bucks isn't enough to pay

for the Capital upgrades currently going on at Sam Livingsone, Cold Lake and Caroline, (I've seen some of those numbers)

let alone the operating costs to keep those places warm, their water fresh and pay for staffing.

So all the rest comes out of general revenue, which even if from resource and gaming proceeds

still detracts from other programs the Govenment could spend that money on or possiby go to reduce my taxes.

That's why fish stocking and management will never be a viable "user pay" program.

 

So yes, those who primarily are catching fish to stock their freezer are doing so at my expense.

Edited May 5, 2007 by dave robinson

[Dragon Troller]

Cool very good discussion, I especially like that Document RB pulled outa his umm.. Library of Knowledge

 

All seem like reasonable points.

 

I still think my opinions hold some truth by alas I like Dave am not a biologist.

 

Still waiting for Scratches comments?

[RangerBob]

Cool very good discussion, I especially like that Document RB pulled outa his umm.. Library of Knowledge

 

Still waiting for Scratches comments?

 

"Mostly, however, fish populations tend to be slightly below a lake’s carrying capacity. That’s because a lake is never biologically full of fish unless no fishing occurs or all caught fish are released."

 

Hence the term... 'put and take fishery'.... erm... Wildlife Management. Two fish enter.. one fish leave kinda thing. If all fish get put back... yeah... it's full. If all taken... it's empty. IMHO, Muir will not improve until some are actually harvested.... but then... that's just my opinion. Will they get to harvest size... and when... that is the question.

 

I am sure Scratch is still searching for words.

[Johann]

So.

 

Its been pointed out to me by a helpful fellow user here that in the past (and not only here) my postings have come off a little bit ... erm, well, pushy. I don't mean to be tactless, its just that usually when I do get here, I have a hard enough time organizing my thoughts let alone allowing them to be polite.

 

Apologies all around, but not just for this thread. I'm afraid it will happen again, no matter what I do. Especially if I've been hitting the crack. Crack just makes me mean.

[Don Andersen]

Guys,

Growing larger fish is a simple concept. Got decent grub = larger fish. Don't kill 'em makes them even larger.

 

1] At the Provincial Fisheries Roundtable on -April 28/07, trout over stocking came in for some hard hits from a number of folks around the room. All told the biologists that they were over stocking trout.

2] You don't have to do extensive studies or need some degree to find out if the fish are in good shape. There is a formula. Length vs weight. You will need some spring scales rated @ 0>500gm, 500>1000gm. & 1000>4000gm. [ 3 are required as most spring scales are only dead accurate in the mid-range] + a tape measure, a pencil and a pad. Total cost about $ 30.00

Plus the following formula found @

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/...EC002986A4?open

 

or plug trout condition factor into your browser.

 

This is not exotic stuff - don't make it more complicated that it is. Every farmer knows it. You can't grow cows w/o grass. Same with fish - ya' can't grow larger fish w/o food.

 

A bunch of us are going to Struble lake on Saturday with murder in our hearts, a bunch of plastic bags, some ice and a fisheries permits that allow us to kill a sack full of trout for the "K" factor info described above. The last K factor on Struble was in 1968 - no, that is not a typing error - 1968 is correct.

 

You don't have to kill them but the biologists want the fish and don't have the time or resources to net them.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[Dragon Troller]

Thanks for the info Don, the K factor seems fairly easy to measure, do you think that our Fisheries Managers use this measure on our stocked lakes to see how the population is doing? I know personally last year I have caught fish at Muir that fit both the poor appearance and the good appearance in that document.

 

I still feel that we are overstocking the majority of our trout lakes, I will use this measure in the future if only for my information.

[Scratch]

I am still searching for words - it makes no sense to use the ones that were already used here. Thankfully - my position has been well stated here.

 

In short:

 

I think the holding capacity of lakes is a 'fuzzy' number any way you cut it.

I think stocking is an inexact science any way you cut it.

I think that Alberta fisheries have to stop stocking for food, and stock for fun.

I think we need to stop justifying the food fishery based on what grandpa did.

I think we need to stop evaluating our fishing success based on what we did as children.

 

Our lakes are seeing more pressure, and are (generally) shrinking. As these lakes age, their ability to successfully hold large fish is changing. Perhaps the trout we seek aren't meant for these warm, stinky, muddy holes.

 

Rainbow trout are a non-native lake species in this province. In those lakes where invasive natural species displace a non-native, the Alberta government has made it fairly clear that the native fish win... If we are about the preservation of natural habitat - then the promotion of native species is something we should be supportive of - isn't it? Or does that only apply when we 'like' the species that lives in that portion of our ecosystem?

 

I have a fence. I'll sit on it and watch.

 

[Dragon Troller]

OK lets stock Bull trout instead of Rainbows, You can't keep them and thier native and in some lakes they may actually reproduce. :lol:

[Scratch]

OK lets stock Bull trout instead of Rainbows, You can't keep them and thier native and in some lakes they may actually reproduce. :lol:

Done.

 

Bet you thought that was a tough decision.... jeeebus.

[dave robinson]

Scratch:

Let hope the fence you're sitting on isn't the picket or barbed wire kind.

In general I agree with your list.

The last one says a lot.

Many seem to think that just because we were once able to keep lots of fish for a fish fry,

that somehow a fishery under increased pressure will still sustain that behavior.

 

In reference to the other thread on this idea:

Yes, we need to be cognizant of the big picture which includes increased development,

and environmental degradation, both industrial and residential.

Those factors in the long haul will have more effect than catch limits and stocking rates.

However, in the think globally act locally vein,

You do what you can and work at what is realisticlly achievable.

 

It's unrealistic to expect the desires of fishermen to change the economic boom,

population growth and the politics that surround development.

But what we can do is help make the population aware of the consequences fo lousy regulations,

inadequate funding for environmental research and monitoring

and the impact of thougtless use of a resource.

One way to do that is to show them what a quality outdoor experience is like.

And stop the "business as usual" approach to fisheries management.

Eventually the conservaton ethic will broaden its appeal to where politicians take note.

Even Stephen Harper will eventually climb on the climate change bandwagon

if he reads enough negative polls.

Edited May 8, 2007 by dave robinson

[Terry H]

I hinted in my previous post on this thread that Alberta's Fish & Wildlife should look to BC for enlightenment. Let me elaborate a bit. Over the last week I have fished a lake in BC, whose regulations are typical of many in that province: no bait, no ice fishing, limit of two fish over 30cm. The lake has been stocked with two strains of triploid rainbows as well as cutts. The fishing is absolutely outstanding. In two hours on Sunday, I caught 20 cutts, all in the 16" - 18" range. The rainbows are a little tougher to catch, but in the past week I have caught six, ranging in size from 16" to 20" -- can't wait till next year, when the triploids will probably be in the 24" - 30" range. Most of the time, I have been casting from shore -- no need to drag out the pontoon or fishin boat, when you can have so much fun from shore. It seems to me that the fish management powers-that-be in BC (could it be Brian Chan's influence?) are not geared to providing fish for the frying pan, but rather are focussed on providing a quality fishing experience -- that means excellent catch rates and good size fish.

 

The result has been that most people have figured out that fly fishing is the most productive way to fish, and while I have seen some fish bonked, most people are C&R'ing. There seems to be a completely different attitude from what I have observed at typical catch and bonk lakes in Alberta, where the bait fishermen line the shores in their lawn chairs, eagerly waiting to catch a bunch of 10" rainbows.

 

So what's my point? I suggest that through proper fishery management, attitudes can be changed. At present, SRD seems to be encouraging catch & bonk fishing and the mindset that fishing is all about eating. In BC, they're focussed on the quality of the fishing experience.

 

Terry

[Don Andersen]

Scratch says,

 

 

"I think the holding capacity of lakes is a 'fuzzy' number any way you cut it.

I think stocking is an inexact science any way you cut it.

I think that Alberta fisheries have to stop stocking for food, and stock for fun.

I think we need to stop justifying the food fishery based on what grandpa did.

I think we need to stop evaluating our fishing success based on what we did as children."

 

Well, Scratch I'd like to address the quotes above:

 

1] Stocking is an inexact science. Each lake responds differently. K factors tell all. Just use the #'s to set stocking rates. Simple stuff.

2] Agree that any idiot that fishes for food hasn't looked @ gas prices.

3] Grampa released fish - my Dad released fish - I release fish [ I'm 61] - go Gramps!!!

4] I want to evaluate the lakes based on the success that I had as a child with 5 lb. fish quite common.

 

I'm not sitting on any fence. F&W has blasted the lakes in Alberta for too long with lousy regs. and over-stocking. And I'm yelling - a lot.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[Dragon Troller]

I think I will start yelling too!!!

 

I remember lots of 5 pounders when I was young, I'm 39 now, My Dad like yours always released fish too, he kept some as well. As a family we would eat trout quite regularily.

 

I release 99% of my fish, my Dad was likely more like 80%. But also remember 5 pounders were quite common at lakes like Star, Lower Chain, Goldeye, Pierre Greys, Spring, Cow and the list goes on. There were less fish then for sure but we had no trouble catching them. Seems we have new technology and the means to overwinter some of these declining lakes but the lakes still get too many fish.

 

 

I for one would rather see a few big fish vs. many tiny ones. I think some bait fisherman would like that as well, I'm not so sure they would keep thier limit if they were all 5 pounds and tasted like mud!

 

I sure wish I was at that fisheries roundtable!

[agrombacher]

Hey Guys,

 

I agree with Don and company. Managing for better fisheries should be the way to go. Bass fishermen figured that out a while ago too. I like Don's comment about gas prices - right to the point. Reminds me of the guys with the $40,000 dollar boats that keep cigar walleyes - so they can show the wife that the boat was a good buy.

 

Terry, I disagree with your comment about flyfishing being the most effective method. Give me a 9 foot UL spin rod, slip bobber rigs, Sand Couny wigglers, leaches, and a minnow bucket full of live shiners - and I'll have Muir cleaned out in a week.............

 

 

Cheers,

 

Alberta Al

[dave robinson]

Al:

Give me a gill net and I'll clean Muir out in a day :lol:

Better yet, give me a couple of sticks of dynamite and I'll clean Muir out in an hour.

Hardly sporting, but then the methods you suggest are more effective then fly fishing

don't give the fish much of a chance either.

If all we want is fish for the table, why not just sell them off the back of the stocking truck?

I guess the point here is, should government supported fisheries be designed for fun or for food?

It seems to me that maximizing harvest opportunities, as AFGA wants,

will alwys take some of the sport and fun out of fishing,

and limits the number of people who can enjoy the recreational opportunity.

After all, if we allow families of five to keep 25 fish of whatever size, every day,

how many are left for the rest of us after a few weeks.

Fewer fish, delayed harvest or C&R, with adequate F&W research and data gathering,

will permit managing the resource for a Quality, Sporting and Fun Fishery.

We need to keep pounding this message at the Politicians.

We also need to get lots of photos of the lineups at the parking lots, the bowls of cheerios

and the smiling faces of successful but fishless anglers at delayed harvest lakes,

and deluge the Minister of SRD with them.

Is seems to me that TU, NLFT&F and FESA should all have small committees with just that mandate.

And here's another idea. Why don't we invite said Minister for a day of fishing at Muir?

Maybe if he experienced the results of delayed harvest first hand....

Edited May 9, 2007 by dave robinson

[agrombacher]

Hello Dave,

 

Terry mentioned that flyfishing was the most effective method, it isn't. I took Terry's opinion to mean that it is the best for the fun/grow them big fisheries - and I agree with him on that.

 

Sporting chance - not mentioned in the emails. You rear your elitist ( ) here. Deadly effective bait fishing takes a fair amount of skill and know-how. Most lawn chair fishermen do not fall into the category of deadly effective bait fishermen.

 

In the matter of getting waters switched over to fishing for fun/big fish has nothing to do a defintion of "sporting". The fishing techniques need to be effective and be user friendly to the fish (use of bait kills more fish) - that is why flyfishing rises to the top of the technique pile (and besides nobody wants to smell like bait in bear country).

 

A lot of those regulations in B.C. were shoved down the throats of many B.C. fisherman. Not all B.C. fisherman are C@R fellas (just go to the Skeena district and see for yourself). I agree with most if not all of their regulations.

 

The big thing is the changing the "catch eat 'em" mindset like Don and the others have mentioned. This is the bug hurdle. You should volunteer to lead the charge in Alberta.

 

I've used gill nets, but never used dynamite (have seen hand grenade fishing). They work pretty well, but aren't considered sportfishing methods. You forgot to mention meteors and CN derailments as effective methods.

 

Cheers,

 

A. A.

[Terry H]

Terry, I disagree with your comment about flyfishing being the most effective method. Give me a 9 foot UL spin rod, slip bobber rigs, Sand Couny wigglers, leaches, and a minnow bucket full of live shiners - and I'll have Muir cleaned out in a week.............

Alberta Al

Al, my comment was in the context of a lake that has a bait ban. Therefore, the comparison was fly fishing versus spin fishing with lures. I agree that bait will outfish all other methods -- confession of someone with a dark past, when I actually used bait. Terry