Trout Limit

[Morph1]

Hey Guys,

 

I was just wondering why is there such a poor reg set on the trout limit,

I understand that there are many pothole lakes in Alberta that all stocked annually,

Wouldn't that be wise to enforce some better regulations, like for example limit only to 3 keepers and limit a size as well,

I seen many people at the lakes leaving with 8 -12 rainbows and at very small size, and hardly ever I seen wild life officials inspecting anglers, I had gone fishing in past 7 years I would say 20 to 30 times a seazon and I seen wild life officers only on 3 occasions.

That is a piss off I seen some peple at spring lake taking 8" trout and 5" perch, at large quantity nothing close what regulations permits.

I do keep an odd fish here and there but for me it has to stand out with size, I would never take trout that's smaller than 16",

I think if the regs were a bit more strict and more wild life officials were actually at the lakes we all would benefit in better fishing.

Hope things will change in the future.

 

Cheers!

[RangerBob]

Brian B. (Our Club El Presidente ... a.k.a. CanadaGray) mentioned he and Emmerson (our FESA Rep) attended a Fisheries Round Table Discussion in Red Deer last week. There are many HOT topics on the table on how to best manage our put and take fisheries with an eye towards the future.

 

I think the biggest problem encountered is changing regulations that have already been set. A real up-hill battle -- which is being faced with Outpost Lake right now.

 

Outpost Lake Discussions

 

We all see the same things as you noted above... it's the doing something about it to make a better quality fishery is what we'd like to all see changed for the better. I don't think many could argue about taking fish.. bait chucker vs non... that's not the point. But.. like you stated... wouldn't it be nice to take home a bigger fish? Or... fight a bigger fish to release it for someone else to enjoy. Think of the cost savings on the hatchery, lower CO2 eco-footprint... where things are going these days.

 

There will be much more posted on this very soon I am sure.

 

Oh yeah, check out DT's post here too (a whole other can of worms) -- I still don't know how to reply to it it boggles the mind:

 

http://forum.nlft.org/index.php?showtopic=2200&hl=Dragon

[Scratch]

I seen many people at the lakes leaving with 8 -12 rainbows and at very small size, and hardly ever I seen wild life officials inspecting anglers, I had gone fishing in past 7 years I would say 20 to 30 times a seazon and I seen wild life officers only on 3 occasions.

That is a piss off I seen some peple at spring lake taking 8" trout and 5" perch, at large quantity nothing close what regulations permits.

I do keep an odd fish here and there but for me it has to stand out with size, I would never take trout that's smaller than 16",

I think if the regs were a bit more strict and more wild life officials were actually at the lakes we all would benefit in better fishing.

Couple of thoughts:

 

1. How many times have you questioned the angler that you witnessed at over-limit?

2. How many times have you called Report-A-Poacher?

3. What good are strict regs? The poachers you speak of don't adhere to the loose regs - why would stricter regs have any impact?

 

The only thing that makes regulations work, is enforcement. Enforcement by peers (you and I) or by Fish and Wildlife. If we don't call and report poaching - we aren't doing our part for enforcement either.

[RangerBob]

I was just wondering why is there such a poor reg set on the trout limit,

 

I seen many people at the lakes leaving with 8 -12 rainbows and at very small size

 

That is a piss off I seen some peple at spring lake taking 8" trout and 5" perch,

I was discussing primarily, of course, the size issue of people keeping small trout. Yeah, what's the point. Of course, as regulation allows for the water body... 5 of "any size" is the usual limit. As you did not mention specifically that it was a sole person taking more then limit (I just assumed -- 'The Family Scenario' -- get as many as you can at that size)... yeah... as Scratch said... RAP them out if you see a poacher... poaching!

 

What the number is for:

 

 

And... I have it on speed dial on my cell phone... and my license plate.

[Morph1]

Couple of thoughts:

 

1. How many times have you questioned the angler that you witnessed at over-limit?

2. How many times have you called Report-A-Poacher?

3. What good are strict regs? The poachers you speak of don't adhere to the loose regs - why would stricter regs have any impact?

 

The only thing that makes regulations work, is enforcement. Enforcement by peers (you and I) or by Fish and Wildlife. If we don't call and report poaching - we aren't doing our part for enforcement either.

 

Well I would suggest limit by size, seems to be working with jack fish, I mean there is no point of taking 10" trout,

another resolution would be why so very few wild life enforcers ??? this is the richest province in Canada, whats up with the roads and whats up with wild life officers ??

More wild life officers equals more penalties, and more people being cought and knocked on the forhead....

Now I will try to enforce it too this seazon I will add to my fly rod arsenal a baseball bat and explain things to poachers gently.

I mean yes I can let someone know hey you got too many fish, but I can not give him a fat penalty right, people that don't get burned don't learn, just imagine for speading instead of fines just tell people not to speed.

 

I just hope the regs will change, I want trout to grow and have a blast at catching them.

[Johann]

Okey, I'll try being nice-r this time. The troubling question here is the lack of distinction between stocked and native fisheries. We have mentioned stocked limits being outrageously high (5), and usually abused. As well, the pandemic of additional fish-people grows every year, with someone having mentioned 400,000+ fishing licenses sold.

 

If these 400k people were given maps to all of our favorite holes, rods to use and flies to fish them out with, the regulations' having been set too high would become a little clearer. That is, right now the vast majority of new fishermen and women stick to stocked lakes because they can catch fish there. They sling "nuclear-powered wobblers on transatlantic cable" and still catch fish. They usually bring their quads with them whilst fishing, all together too much alcohol ("buzz" being seemly and occasionally attractive, "pollution" being excessive), and four or five yappy dogs that rate around football-size. They bring their 40' 5th wheels outfitted, of course, with satellite dishes, hot tub and onboard casino. They usually drive pickups set high enough that one cannot see the drivers' faces without climbing up a 3' ladder.

 

When all identifiers of "Excessive Camper Syndrome" (ECS) are present in a majority of lake users in the province, we have a threshold approached and passed. I.e. when asking how many fish can a lake hold, we must also ask how many anglers can our lakes hold ? And, after having filled the lakes with campgrounds and campers every weekend, and having turned the latecomers away a few weeks in a row, how many anglers can our (native) rivers support ?

 

The regulations need to change, make no mistake. But until we can properly enforce our important streams and fish species, I would suggest that a baitchucker taking a little more than his limit of stocked rainbows is not the worst thing he could be doing. I'd rather see a full creel of rainbow coming from Spring Lake than a garbage bag of native grayling & bulls coming from the Kakwa basin. Keep the 400k away from my fishing holes and those of my friends, and I'll be happier than a pig in ... well, you know.

 

The key to saving a few lakes specifically for fly-fisherpeople would be to limit development. No dock, for starters. Next, no campground but a parking lot with a few firepits. Signs up like, " No Fish Here ! " and "Danger : Shark-Infested Water" would also help the deterrent. No paved roads in, no boat launch save for one at a 45 degree angle and impassable when wet. No toilets, no playgrounds. The key here ? ECS-ers always bring their wives.

 

The wives will keep our headwaters fisheries safe, the quads out of the river, and the drunken morons off the tiller. If we can encourage 'family camping' at stocked lakes with, of course, full hookups and valet parking, there will be less drunken revelry and home-made campsites at my bridge on the Narraway River, for example. You can't tell people they're not allowed to fish streams, you can only make it difficult for them. Give them lots of alternatives that will be easier.

 

For anyone who has taken offence at this, please find a list below of multiple 'family-friendly' lakes in the Grande Prairie area, at least, and enjoy our provincial parks.

 

Spring Lake

Moonshine Lake

Kakut Lake

Musreau Lake

Sexsmith & Grovedale fish ponds

Bear Lake (for perch)

Sturgeon Lake (for walleye)

[Doc]

The answer to your problem is not changing size limits or daily catch limits for stocked trout but rather changing the the management for a select number of stocked lakes. Beaver, Muir, Bullshead, Ironside and now hopefully Police Outpost are special regulation lakes. These are the lakes you want to fish. You are after a quality fishery with larger then average size fish for a stocked trout lake. We need more of these throughout the province for guys like you and me. But we must leave the Hasse lakes out there for the weekend shore fishermen as that is what he wants (although if he had the choice he would prob choose Walleye over trout). They get to take five trout per day, hell I say raise it to 8 (but only if we have enough special regulation fisheries for those of us after quality and not quantity). As far a size limits, you can't eat anything over 14 inches in most of Alberta's stocked trout lakes as they taste like the lake bottom and the smaller the fish, the better they taste. Now think about it for a minute, would you rather have all of our stocked lakes with regs like "3 trout per day, minimum 13 inches" or keep the current regs but make 1/3 of Alberta's stocked trout lakes with regs like "one fish per day over 20 inches / No Bait"?

 

Cheers,

Doc

[dave robinson]

Doc, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Since most of the cost of stocking and managing fisheries in Alberta is borne by the taxpayer.

Why shouldn't the angling opportunities, limits and methods represent all types of taxpaying anglers.

At this time I believe those who want quality fisheries, rather than harvest fisheries are underrepresented.

So let's keep pushing the politician to increase C&R, FF only, and delayed harvest opportunities

using the argument that we pay taxes (and vote) too.

If we're successful in increasing those opportunities, then maybe a few bonkers

will try out the new opportunities and in doing so find a better angling experience.

That's the best way to make converts.

[flycaster]

Ok...first a few points of clarification;

1)Total # of licensed anglers in Alberta has declined from a peak of just over 340,000 in the mid 80's to 212,000 in 2005.

Another point to note here is that in that same time frame the population of Alberta increased by 1 Million people ( almost a 50% increase). In 1985, 14.3% of the population had a license....today that number is 6%.

 

2)As for increased enforcement...we have been fighting to get additional funds put towards this for years. If I recall, there are some monies allocated in that area this year.

 

3)Morph...if you see infractions...please use the RAP line....if they get enough complaints about specific lakes, they will make a point of patrolling more frequently.

 

4)Daves' post

"Why shouldn't the angling opportunities, limits and methods represent all types of taxpaying anglers.

At this time I believe those who want quality fisheries, rather than harvest fisheries are underrepresented."

 

Regarding the first sentence...well in fact they are...and that is one of the balls F&W has to continually juggle.

Regarding the second sentence....totally agree...but who is to blame?.....ALL OF YOU!. For your information, the make up of the last Round table consisted of about 70% AFGA members...and they are the ones who for the most part want harvest opportunities ( implementation of walleye tags is a direct result of that). So, who do you think the gov't listens to?

 

5)Regarding special regs lakes....I refer you to #4 above....the AFGA made it clear they are NOT in favour of special regs lakes. Furthermore F&W have said they would not support another C&R Ironside style lake.

 

 

There are no easy answers to these situations....but I can say the following;

A declining fishery user base does not bode well for the resource...as less and less licences are sold...the dept becomes less and less important for the gov't...that means less and less $ will flow into it.

Folks here need to speak up and be heard...attend the meetings...show the gov't that you care...tell them how you want things to change.

Think outside the box....don't just think trout...don't just think C&R...understand that there are many different types of resource users....think how changes affect them.

Gov't moves at a glacial pace......we need to chip away slowly.....change takes time.

Hopefully some of us will live long enough to see some of that change......

[Scratch]

Regarding the first sentence...well in fact they are...and that is one of the balls F&W has to continually juggle.

Regarding the second sentence....totally agree...but who is to blame?.....ALL OF YOU!. For your information, the make up of the last Round table consisted of about 70% AFGA members...and they are the ones who for the most part want harvest opportunities ( implementation of walleye tags is a direct result of that). So, who do you think the gov't listens to?

 

5)Regarding special regs lakes....I refer you to #4 above....the AFGA made it clear they are NOT in favour of special regs lakes. Furthermore F&W have said they would not support another C&R Ironside style lake.

Since I am an AFGA Member at this time, where can you show me that the AFGA took that stance publicly? I will happily campaign against that organization if they used my membership dollars to promote that view without asking me, or requesting my vote....

[agrombacher]

Hey Lanny,

 

Put me down for 1 XL and 1 L. Spanky, I mean Scratch, get the ball rolling for these Dolberg 4/0 shindig shirts!

 

Back on the not so fun topic:

In today's environment, you aren't going to see an increase in fish cops checking misguided fishermen that are over limit. The honest ones will be honest, and the bad ones given the opportunity won't be. Give the RAP line a workout - they do check into the calls.

 

Doc is right about the leetle fellas tasting better, and they also taste better before turnover. Some folks will always take fish. It has never made sense to me why people like to eat mud fish, but a lot of things haven't made sense to me over the years. But as for perch eaters - let them eat all of them.

 

Now when is Scratch taking orders for those shirts?

 

Cheers and I'm off to Lethbridge,

 

Alan

[SnoWolf]

Since I am an AFGA Member at this time, where can you show me that the AFGA took that stance publicly? I will happily campaign against that organization if they used my membership dollars to promote that view without asking me, or requesting my vote....

 

when I signed up for AFGA I did not know that this was there view. I'm with Scratch on this one!!!!!!

[Pauline]

1)Total # of licensed anglers in Alberta has declined from a peak of just over 340,000 in the mid 80's to 212,000 in 2005.

Another point to note here is that in that same time frame the population of Alberta increased by 1 Million people ( almost a 50% increase). In 1985, 14.3% of the population had a license....today that number is 6%.

 

Regarding point one - %% are incorrect when you factor in Seniors and children as we in reality do not know how many REALLY are out there fishing?

 

***********************

 

You are right Dave

I guess we won't be heading out to Dolberg this year!!!

Lance just so put a damper on that thought!!

P

[RangerBob]

Back on the not so fun topic...

Mod Note: Erm yeah, am moving the other interesting "HE-MAN WOMAN HATERS CLUB" thread started over to Dolberg 4/0 Klave Thread *HERE* now.

 

Please, carry on with the rest of the fishy discussions here.

[flycaster]

@Scratch and snowolf....you guys really should attend the round table sessions. You will get a good view of thoughts by the individuals that represent these groups. As for the subject in question....speak with Brian or Emmerson...they were both there when this matter was discussed.

 

@Pauline;

The numbers I quoted are for LICENSED anglers. Yes, there is no way to tell how many seniors, children, criminals (un-licensed anglers) or pelicans are fishing.

Those "unkowns" were also fishing in the mid 80's as they are today.

Regardless, my point was to illustrate that the user base is declining despite a doubling of our population.

 

I assume your point was to show proponency towards licensing of seniors/children. If so, fine...but the current WIN card licensing system does NOTHING to manage the fisheries in this province.

 

It does NOT tell us where the person fishes.

It does NOT tell us what species the person targets.

It does NOT tell us how often that person fishes.

It does NOT tell us how successful that person is.

It does NOT tell us how many fish that person kills.

 

What it does tell us is the persons age, his address....and MOST important, his/her weight!!!! Obviously critical fisheries management tools!!!!!

 

Although licensing of senior/children will perhaps more accurately reflect the total number of legitimate users....the current WIN information system gathers none of the info I have spelled out above.....which are far more important as a management tools.

 

A final point regarding seniors/children....what folks should be pushing is for inclusion of child limits with that of the licensed adult.....ie NO more if I take 5 kids out, I can take 6 limits!!!!

Oh, and by the way Scratch, snowolf....see what the AGFA thinks about that one......

[Doc]

I have to assume that flycaster is Don so I'll direct this post at him.

Don I don't believe anglers are down, just purchased licenses. Baby boomer's are turning into seniors faster then Mike Tyson can choke down an earlobe. IMO, they're still out there fishing just not paying for it. The system should have all anglers require a license no matter of the age (or lets say 5 yrs and up) with seniors (65+) and children under 16 getting their license for free. And yes, kids under 16 should be on their parents limits. At least then we can get an accurate count how many anglers we have in this province.

We've had reactive fisheries management for so long in this province and we all know if any province needs a pro-active management, it's Alberta. But even if we had pro-active management, how can they manage our fisheries if they don't even know how many anglers there are? This to me is Mickey Mouse stuff but if we can't even get something so obvious into the minds of our "leaders" how can we convince them that we need them to spend revenue on trout that will mostly parish before being harvested when their mentality (much thanks to AFGA) is "stocked trout are for harvesting".

 

What we need is a plan. Any ideas?

 

Cheers

Doc

[flycaster]

@Doc....you should never assume...LOL I think Don is still out at Whiteswan.

 

Although I don't disagree with you that seniors/littluns' should be required to be licensed...I do think everyone is making more out of the importance of this user segment than we need to.

Yes, if you look at the demographics...you are correct the average age of a LICENSED angler is increasing.

But the fact remains....we have added 1 million people to this province since 1985...and in that same time frame we have lost 130,000 yearly licensees.

 

Surely you don't expect me to believe that ALL those 1 million that came here now fall into the seniors/children category....if anything seniors typically LEAVE our province to head to the "wet" coast.

Actually, I will try and find current demographics, but I suspect the average age in the province did not go up.

 

BTW, senior licensing was approved to be further investigated at the previous RT...so...we are slowly getting there.

 

My point is ; we need to focus on the bigger picture...

For example...you can have a total user count....but if you read my previous post...that information (although important) in isolation, tells you NOTHING!

Additionally....you can have all the info to your hearts content regarding the user side...but it doesn't do squat for you if you don't have any scientific/biological information on the status of the fishery. Getting user info is simple and relatively inexpensive...getting the government to throw dollars into scientifically analyzing the health and capabilities of each specific fishery in order to make any sort of realistic "management" decision will be the hardest part...especially in light of a declining user base.

 

Regarding your last paragraph...I agree fully...

 

Regarding the plan...I have two thoughts.

1) Keep slugging away on all fronts

2) But focus on the bigger picture...don't put all your energies into whether there should be things like 2 fish limit here and not there, whether seniors/children should pay for a license, or whether licenses should cost $3 more per year...etc,etc.

I dare say there are much more critical issues affecting the viability of our fisheries resource in many areas other than recreational user impact. The deforestation of our east slopes, continual resource development and environmental factors (amongst many others) all have a larger impact on the quality of some fisheries than quibbling over the walleye tag costs...

For example, just speak to Neil W about what's about to happen to the Muskeg R....how many people know about it and does anyone care...apparently not.

 

 

 

One final thought on "management" and focus of energies;

What I see happening is that we are treating the symptoms...NOT the cause. Symptoms are readily visible and relatively easy to treat...BUT, the problem NEVER goes away.

It's like finding out you have to fill your gas tank up a lot more often lately...it just keeps emptying faster than normal. Treating the symptom is easy...just keep adding gas....BUT the root problem remains. Treating the cause is more difficult and in the short term more costly...you analyze the problem to find out you have a leak in your gas tank...then you need to repair the tank. The problem goes away.

 

You need to look deeper folks...that's not to say give up on the little things...but, Hell, don't forget about the bigger issues.

 

 

 

Great discussion....

[Morph1]

What it does tell us is the persons age, his address....and MOST important, his/her weight!!!! Obviously critical fisheries management tools!!!!!

,

sorry but that cracks me up, well my win card carries my tattoos ,birth mark, blood type, dna code and scan of retina, just in case they need to find and indentify me for some reason

I come from europe, out there to get a license you actualy have to write a test, there are size limits on every fish, there are restriction periods depending on a type of fish, spawning times etc., you ither learn and pass, or fail, yes you can fail the test and lose your money and attempt again.

Well out there I found you have to have an idea and some knowledge about fishery to obtain your license, when I got my license in Ca for the first time I was thinking about a some kind of test,

I was quite surprised that all they asked was just money.

 

I am not here complaining about anything, I just explain how some other countries treat their local fisheries abit differently.

I personally think that all fish should carry a size limit and of course fish count.

 

[flycaster]

@Morph1...yes, you are correct! In many places in Europe you do infact need to take and pass a test to show competency!

Also, in most European countries you must PAY to fish a stretch of river or a lake!!! Not like here where you can drive to a bridge, park, gear up and start fishing.....In Germany for example, you need a license, then need to contact the local club that is responsible for the particular stretch of river that you wish to fish....if you are LUCKY, they will allow you to fish once you pay them for the right to do so. Many reaches of water are ONLY there for club members to fish...in some places they only let you fish if accompanied by a club member. Almost every body of water is controlled by clubs or districts that grant/control the ability to fish them...in many rivers, clubs may have the right to 1 or 2 km of river...the next 2 km may be controlled by a different club/district!

Fishing in Britain is similar in concept...

 

I was at a stocked lake in Germany 2 years ago...it was more like a dugout...about 30 yards wide and 250 yards long. I didn't fish it, but was shown the area (and others) by a club member who fishes it regularly. In order to fish it...you need to be a member of the club...it costs $20 Euros for the day, plus another 5 Euros for parking...so that's about $38 Canadian in total for the day. You are allowed to keep 5 fish ( if you can catch them)...most of the rainbows I saw were about 14 inches in length.

What amazed me the most though was the marker pegs in the ground on the shore...when I asked what they were for...the member told me that you are assigned that spot for the day....and can't move to any other spots. The pegs were spaced about every 5 yards or so!!!!

 

The other issue that seems to be gaining some momentum in Europe (Germany in particular) is the ANTI catch and release mentality...there is a growing segment of the population that claims that catching a fish for "fun" and then releasing that fish constitutes "cruelty" and should not be allowed. I would not be surprised, in the near future, to see a ban on C&R...with fishing allowed for subsistence only.

 

Yes. things are very different there...but we only need to look to Europe to see where things here may go in the future.....

[Doc]

@Doc....you should never assume...LOL I think Don is still out at Whiteswan.

 

Yes I just made an bum out of u and me. So who is it that I'm corresponding with then? You're quite knowledgable about our resourses and writing style is similar to that of Don's.

 

though I don't disagree with you that seniors/littluns' should be required to be licensed...I do think everyone is making more out of the importance of this user segment than we need to.

 

The first question to be asked, should be: How many anglers do we have in Alberta? The only way to get this answer is to have all anglers hold a valid anglers license. No need to guess anymore, the information would be right there. Seriously, how can our province manage our fisheries (even with reactive management) if we don't even know how many anglers we have?

 

Yes, if you look at the demographics...you are correct the average age of a LICENSED angler is increasing.

But the fact remains....we have added 1 million people to this province since 1985...and in that same time frame we have lost 130,000 yearly licensees.

 

Surely you don't expect me to believe that ALL those 1 million that came here now fall into the seniors/children category....if anything seniors typically LEAVE our province to head to the "wet" coast.

Actually, I will try and find current demographics, but I suspect the average age in the province did not go up.

 

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit on that statement. But I exaggerated to make the point that we just don't know. And I agree with you, many of our older anglers do make their way to BC but many stay right here. When I owned the night club, most of my fishing took place early mornings during the week days. In my estimate 80% of the folks I saw fishing from shore while I packed up, were seniors. Depending on where I fished there could be as few as one or two anglers or as many as 15 on any given day.

 

 

My point is ; we need to focus on the bigger picture...

For example...you can have a total user count....but if you read my previous post...that information (although important) in isolation, tells you NOTHING!

 

Other then the most important tool of 'how many anglers we have', you're dead on there.

Getting user info is simple and relatively inexpensive...

 

Then why hasn't the Gov't taken this obvious 1st step in managing our fisheries?

 

getting the government to throw dollars into scientifically analyzing the health and capabilities of each specific fishery in order to make any sort of realistic "management" decision will be the hardest part...especially in light of a declining user base.

 

Asking for this type of management before we can get the mickey mouse stuff covered is like getting a child to run before it can crawl.

 

 

 

Regarding the plan...I have two thoughts.

1) Keep slugging away on all fronts

2) But focus on the bigger picture...don't put all your energies into whether there should be things like 2 fish limit here and not there, whether seniors/children should pay for a license, or whether licenses should cost $3 more per year...etc,etc.

I dare say there are much more critical issues affecting the viability of our fisheries resource in many areas other than recreational user impact. The deforestation of our east slopes, continual resource development and environmental factors (amongst many others) all have a larger impact on the quality of some fisheries than quibbling over the walleye tag costs...

 

The 'keep slugging away' is a slow process but you're right, what else can we do?

I don't know that focusing on the bigger picture at this time is going to make much sense at this time. We need to get the province to be in the mindset that we need management change to pro-active and to start with the basics first. IMO, We need to all get on board with the mickey mouse stuff and get it out of the way. When that's taken care of, we push the harder issues and focus on the bigger picture.

 

 

 

 

One final thought on "management" and focus of energies;

What I see happening is that we are treating the symptoms...NOT the cause. Symptoms are readily visible and relatively easy to treat...BUT, the problem NEVER goes away.

It's like finding out you have to fill your gas tank up a lot more often lately...it just keeps emptying faster than normal. Treating the symptom is easy...just keep adding gas....BUT the root problem remains. Treating the cause is more difficult and in the short term more costly...you analyze the problem to find out you have a leak in your gas tank...then you need to repair the tank. The problem goes away.

 

You need to look deeper folks...that's not to say give up on the little things...but, Hell, don't forget about the bigger issues.

 

Agreed, but the bigger issues are being directed to a brick wall. Let's build a doorway first so we can present the bigger issues.

 

Maybe us trout guys need to make a bigger presence at the AFGA through membership and change the direction our fisheries are being presented to the higher powers. Just a thought (if you can't beat them, join them).

 

 

Great discussion....

 

No oposition there

[flycaster]

@Doc...sorry, I've been away for a bit.

 

I really only have two things to add to your reply;

 

1) Again, I think you are missing the focus..As I stated, I understand that identifying the total number of users is important. But that information alone tells you nothing! What is far more important from a fisheries management perspective is : What is the fish mortality as a result of user impact?

In other words....for example, Our total number of users this year (excluding seniors) may kill far more fish than the TOTAL number of users next year (INCLUDING seniors).

 

Again, I'm not opposed to licensing of seniors/kids...but the point I am trying to make is that the total number of people fishing is NOT directly proportional to the number of fish killed.

 

2) Regarding the "bigger picture"...perhaps I did not make myself clear here. What I was trying to say was that it is apparent that there are many other factors that have a much larger impact on the health of a particular fishery than recreational use. Some of those factors appear to be environmental...yet others are obviously industrial/resource development in nature. So, we count the number of seniors/kids that fish, we make them fish barbless, we limit the number and size of fish they can keep, we limit the times they can fish.....THEN we allow corporations to destroy the river by "mining" out the river itself...(upper Mcleod/tribs for coal, Muskeg for tar sand as examples)

Another example...what do you think has had more impact on grayling distribution in this province? Overfishing...or higher water temperatures?

 

That is why when we look for solutions...we need to fully understand the problems first.