Author Topic: BULL TROUT! AFGA? (Read 2602 times)

JIMMY 808 · « **on:** November 09, 2013, 08:54:40 AM »

Just got the western sportsmen rag the other night and there was mention of having a few rivers open for a limited harvest of Bull Trout put forward by fish and game. If my memory is correct there has been bull trout bans since around 1995 or so.

I look at specakle55s and remember JustinC old pics of monster bulls I would much rather catch a 10 pound bull then have a shore lunch of a greasy Bull Trout.

My displeasure for fish and game knows no bounds I would rather ball cuff em then join them. Having said that I will be making a donation to the Rocky Club for keeping up the kids fish pond but you will never see me as a member.

deerman · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2013, 10:15:13 AM »

I have not seen the magazine. What was it a resolution that will go to conference about bull trout? If so you have to realize that when it comes to resolutions, some guy in some club has an idea he wants to keep a bull trout. If he convinces some others in his club they send a resolution to the Zone. If he can sell it there it goes on to the exec meeting where it is reviewed for clarification, legality and how it jives with AF&GA policy. Then it goes out to all the clubs to be voted on and to the Conference where the voting delegates eventually vote to see if it will be sent to F&W for consideration.

Sometimes the Provincial fish chair comes up with ideas he would like to see done but he cannot go to F&W with more that a suggestion unless he has a resolution from the club to support him.

I certainly do not agree with everything that the AG&GA says or does. But for the most part I believe they do good stuff for wildlife, fish, habitat, and Alberta's sportsmen

Sonny · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2013, 09:24:09 PM »

Bull trout taste good..

If you like the taste of wet sawdust..

My vote would be to keep them catch and release.

JIMMY 808 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2013, 09:33:07 PM »

I agree sonny if it took the fishery close to 20 years to get back where some think a harvest can take place. Just a bad idea all around IMO.

guido · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2013, 10:09:43 PM »

Bull trout eat other trout.
In my opinion it's good to keep their numbers in check.

Sonny · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2013, 10:31:53 PM »

Bull trout also eat Rocky mountain whitefish..

That's what makes them grow to 12 plus pounds..

weeman · « **Reply #6 on:** November 12, 2013, 07:51:23 AM »

Quote from: Sonny on November 11, 2013, 09:24:09 PM

Bull trout taste good..

If you like the taste of wet sawdust.. that's funny.......

My vote would be to keep them catch and release.

deerman · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2013, 08:16:37 AM »

I haven't eaten bull trout in a lot of years but as I remember they didn't taste particularly bad. I never killed a really big one but I remember one creek where I would catch rainbows and the odd bull and I don't think I could tell the difference eating them.

I remember a few years ago camping with my wife and we fished a small creek and caught some pan sized bulls. It would have been nice if we could have kept two and had a fish lunch.

The big problem with managing harvest of fish in Alberta is there are so many anglers that if you make even a one fish daily limit on a creek you could have 4 or 5 hundred anglers each killing a fish there in a season. And maybe the stream could not take that many being harvested.

On the other hand with catch and release 4 hundred anglers a year could still accidentally kill a couple hundred fish that did not survive the release.

JIMMY 808 · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2013, 08:49:51 AM »

Why a fishing license can be obtained without training is beyond me it may seem silly to us veterans but maybe it is time to introduce a course.

walleyes · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2013, 04:57:20 PM »

Damn wolf of the water.. Good way to wreck a stream by letting these things get out of control..

Doug N · « **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2013, 09:02:17 PM »

Quote from: JIMMY 808 on November 12, 2013, 08:49:51 AM

Why a fishing license can be obtained without training is beyond me it may seem silly to us veterans but maybe it is time to introduce a course.

I agree 100%. Alberta has a fishing education program, but it never really got off the ground.

I shudder to think about the damage that happens to our lakes and streams on the free fishing weekends- no license, no experience, no education, no enforcement......

JIMMY 808 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2013, 09:04:15 AM »

Quote from: walleyes on November 13, 2013, 04:57:20 PM

Damn wolf of the water.. Good way to wreck a stream by letting these things get out of control..

I will agree to disagree.
Not sure I could say they are any more aggressive then Pike or Walleye maybe the big bulls are more of a predatory fish but I have caught lots of bulls on dry fly’s but nothing much over a couple pounds if that.
Do Pike or Walleye even eat bugs on the surface?

Tuc · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2013, 02:29:01 PM »

They definitely need to be kept in check, they're a predator fish.

deerman · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2013, 06:27:39 PM »

Bull trout are a naturally occurring species in Alberta. They are usually the top fish predator in the streams and rivers they live in. Thats ok by me.

If they are eating brook trout that is great as brook trout were introduced to Alberta.

walleyes · « **Reply #14 on:** November 14, 2013, 06:49:11 PM »

That's understandable deerman and I agree with you some what, what's the point of having them there if you can't eat it at times. It's no point in having a river full of a fish that you can't keep and for the most part you may not want to if they are poor eaters. Brook trout on the other hand are fine table fair,, to me this is much more important. I am not saying by any means to eradicate the bull trout most definitely not but a healthy balance in the species I believe is the answer.

deerman · « **Reply #15 on:** November 14, 2013, 09:25:43 PM »

It depends on weather one thinks it is best to have natural systems with natural species in them. Then a balance in a stream might be bull trout and mountain white fish (and some minnows) in a stream and a limited harvest allowed on both.

If you want to have exotic species in an non-natural stream you may want brook and brown trout and few if any native fish.

Sonny · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2013, 10:19:48 AM »

Quote from: Sonny on November 11, 2013, 09:24:09 PM

Bull trout taste good..

If you like the taste of wet sawdust..

My vote would be to keep them catch and release.

I know it's dumb to quote yourself but I've been thinking about this and a teenie weenie limited harvest might not be a bad thing.
I'm not a fan of the walleye draws/tags but it's the law of the land and I will apply for them.So maybe a 3 tag per year deal for Bull trout would work.I'm talking about catching a huge wall hanger and having to let him go verses tags which would allow you to mount that puppy..

Just a thought.

guido · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2013, 09:28:37 PM »

Quote from: deerman on November 14, 2013, 06:27:39 PM

Bull trout are a naturally occurring species in Alberta. They are usually the top fish predator in the streams and rivers they live in. Thats ok by me.

If they are eating brook trout that is great as brook trout were introduced to Alberta.

By this statement, you would agree that it would be alright if the bull trout took over all their native streams and eradicated ALL the brooks, rainbows and browns.

Notorious B.i.G. · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2013, 03:21:14 AM »

That would never happen, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

deerman · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2013, 12:42:02 PM »

There is a situation I know of where there has been an attempt to "remove" as many brook trout as possible from a bull trout stream.

The first step was to be sure that the anglers involved could positively tell the difference between a bull and brook. Then they angled it hard and removed all brook trout caught. I do not know haow successful it was in reducing brook trout numbers and competition with the bulls.

There are areas where there are native rainbows in Alberta. Those populations should definitely be preserved.

Often browns are in waters that are not very suitable for other species so they may as well remain there. At least they do not hybridize with bulls like brook trout do.

Author Topic: BULL TROUT! AFGA? (Read 2602 times)

Sonny

Sonny

walleyes

Tuc

walleyes

Sonny