Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Lakers

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    KP
    Posts
    115

    Default Lakers

    Just wanted to get the word out and see how much interest can be generated. Lakers in Alaska take a back seat to just about everything else in the state but those of you who do fish for them regularly know how special these game fish can be.

    https://www.change.org/p/alaska-boar...out-management?

  2. #2
    Member gutleap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    308

    Default

    I signed the petition and included my comments. An excellent first step to take before the board of fish and get the ball rolling. I also encourage everyone that has an interest in lake trout in Alaska to participate.

  3. #3
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Not to rain on your parade... I think lakers need to be managed conservatively for the future... But this is not the process.
    You need specific goals set out in proposed regulation and submitted in cycle to be included in the statewide BOF proposal book. Look on fish and games website, follow links to BOF, and write a proposal outlining what you think needs to be done. If you need assistance someone on your local AC or F&G office should be able to assist you.
    Change.org is not part of the state regulatory process.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  4. #4
    Member Hunt&FishAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Valley trash
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    So are they trying make it catch and release only? That's fine. But I'm not signing till I can find more info. This article doesn't say much.



    Release Lake Trout

  5. #5
    Member gutleap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    Not to rain on your parade... I think lakers need to be managed conservatively for the future... But this is not the process.
    You need specific goals set out in proposed regulation and submitted in cycle to be included in the statewide BOF proposal book. Look on fish and games website, follow links to BOF, and write a proposal outlining what you think needs to be done. If you need assistance someone on your local AC or F&G office should be able to assist you.
    Change.org is not part of the state regulatory process.

    Appreciate your input. Looks like we have until April 10th to draft and submit a proposal so it is included in the proposal book.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    KP
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt&FishAK View Post
    So are they trying make it catch and release only? That's fine. But I'm not signing till I can find more info. This article doesn't say much.
    Hunt&FishAK, What questions can I answer for you. At this point just trying to generate as much interest in the overall management of lake trout. Trying to see if there is enough support to actually warrant a sustained change in Lake Trout management.

    To answer your question it is not specific to anything as of yet. Yes this started as a rant on Lake Louise. Every body of water is different and has different variables. For instance a C&R proposal for the tangle lakes (Denali Hwy) would not make very much sense. Those lakes do not have the biological capability to produce trophy lake trout. But for a lake that has the ability to produce say 30# lake trout, with a current no size limit on retention makes it hard for the lake to sustain a trophy lake trout status or sustainable yield.

    As I had told Dave, the idea behind the change.org is to generate interest and get people involved. This allows for updates, and collaboration. The more people that sing up the more momentum we gain, plus the more input we have. I have seen way to many people submit stuff to the BOF just to see it shot down for lack of support or interest.

    I hope this helps, hopefully we can keep some of these Lake Trout around for a few more generations

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    KP
    Posts
    115

    Default Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by gutleap View Post
    I signed the petition and included my comments. An excellent first step to take before the board of fish and get the ball rolling. I also encourage everyone that has an interest in lake trout in Alaska to participate.
    Gutleap, thanks for the Submission info, that is helpful. and thank you for the encouragement hopefully we can get other involved as well

  8. #8
    Member Hunt&FishAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Valley trash
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akwchil View Post
    Hunt&FishAK, What questions can I answer for you. At this point just trying to generate as much interest in the overall management of lake trout. Trying to see if there is enough support to actually warrant a sustained change in Lake Trout management.

    To answer your question it is not specific to anything as of yet. Yes this started as a rant on Lake Louise. Every body of water is different and has different variables. For instance a C&R proposal for the tangle lakes (Denali Hwy) would not make very much sense. Those lakes do not have the biological capability to produce trophy lake trout. But for a lake that has the ability to produce say 30# lake trout, with a current no size limit on retention makes it hard for the lake to sustain a trophy lake trout status or sustainable yield.

    As I had told Dave, the idea behind the change.org is to generate interest and get people involved. This allows for updates, and collaboration. The more people that sing up the more momentum we gain, plus the more input we have. I have seen way to many people submit stuff to the BOF just to see it shot down for lack of support or interest.

    I hope this helps, hopefully we can keep some of these Lake Trout around for a few more generations

    Thanks for the reply: I have since spoken with AKhardwater over the phone and have already signed. I also mentioned I would like to see hidden lake on the KP added to the catch and release only list. It has been gettin hit hard for far too long



    Release Lake Trout

  9. #9
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Unless you can get the department to back up a zero-retention management plan I doubt you could get mandatory C&R. I haven't thought much on it, but the first things that come to mind are a seasonal limit, slot limits, and to address Hidden lake you could propose that only a certain number of your seasonal limit could come from the KP.
    If you craft your proposal on the framework of existing regulations, for instance trout over 20" on the KP, it will be easier to write and easier for the BOF to understand.
    but no matter what your proposal ends up being , the MOST IMPORTANT thing is that supporters of the regulation submit comments and attend the BOF meeting to argue their case.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,367

    Default

    As long as subsistence fishermen can indiscriminately catch all fish under the guise of gillnetting whitefish, sportfish conservation measures that restrict any retention by sportfishermen will not benefit the lake trout population, but only serve to disenfranchise those who still fish so they can eat fish.

  11. #11
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Without a more detailed proposal I cannot support this.
    Not all Lake trout fisheries are trophy fisheries and not all of them are in jeopardy of overharvest.
    So to put a C&R regulation on all Lake trout waters is to me not a fitting proposal or one that I can support.
    Maybe a slot limit or retention of below a certain size. As of now you do not have enough details for me to sign your petition.
    I don't like signing for things when I am not certain exaclty what I am agreeing to.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  12. #12
    Member Hunt&FishAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Valley trash
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasilofchrisn View Post
    Without a more detailed proposal I cannot support this.
    Not all Lake trout fisheries are trophy fisheries and not all of them are in jeopardy of overharvest.
    So to put a C&R regulation on all Lake trout waters is to me not a fitting proposal or one that I can support.
    Maybe a slot limit or retention of below a certain size. As of now you do not have enough details for me to sign your petition.
    I don't like signing for things when I am not certain exaclty what I am agreeing to.
    So far what they have drawn up is to make some of the more popular roadside fisheries catch and release only. such as Harding lake, lake Louise drainage lakes ( not crosswind), and hidden lake on the KP. Make it closed to all fishing during lake trout spawning times ( it's icing up anyways so no harm). These are the only waters that the writers are concerned about at this time.



    Release Lake Trout

  13. #13
    Premium Member kasilofchrisn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    4,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt&FishAK View Post
    So far what they have drawn up is to make some of the more popular roadside fisheries catch and release only. such as Harding lake, lake Louise drainage lakes ( not crosswind), and hidden lake on the KP. Make it closed to all fishing during lake trout spawning times ( it's icing up anyways so no harm). These are the only waters that the writers are concerned about at this time.
    I understand that is what their after.
    But,until I see the proposal they write stating exactly that I'm not supporting it.
    Btw I don't sign paperwork at anytime or anywhere that doesn't fully state what it is I'm signing.
    Sorry but that's just my nature.
    So write a complete proposal for the fish board to consider and I'll consider supporting it as written.
    "The closer I get to nature the farther I am from idiots"

    "Fishing and Hunting are only an addiction if you're trying to quit"

  14. #14
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,367

    Default

    In my opinion, making any fishery completely catch and release must be a response to a clear conservation concern. Because in doing so, you completely disenfranchise a very large group of anglers; many of them the younger generation, those who will carry on the fishing tradition after we pass.

    People fall into 4 basic groups; Those who fish and eat their fish, those who catch and release their fish, those who do some of each, and those who do not fish at all. Of these 4 groups, the smallest is the exclusive catch and release group. Making a regulation that allows only the smallest group of participants to continue their participation is a very serious step and must be taken very carefully.

    When a conservation issue crops up often there are much less restrictive means to address it. Size restrictions, slot limits, seasonal limits are all conservation steps that are much less draconian and do not disenfranchise large user groups.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Well said!

  16. #16
    Member kwackkillncrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    chugiak, ak
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    In my opinion, making any fishery completely catch and release must be a response to a clear conservation concern. Because in doing so, you completely disenfranchise a very large group of anglers; many of them the younger generation, those who will carry on the fishing tradition after we pass.



    People fall into 4 basic groups; Those who fish and eat their fish, those who catch and release their fish, those who do some of each, and those who do not fish at all. Of these 4 groups, the smallest is the exclusive catch and release group. Making a regulation that allows only the smallest group of participants to continue their participation is a very serious step and must be taken very carefully.

    When a conservation issue crops up often there are much less restrictive means to address it. Size restrictions, slot limits, seasonal limits are all conservation steps that are much less draconian and do not disenfranchise large user groups.
    I highly doubt younger anglers are traveling all the way to Louise to harvest one trout and then leave. Thats not a very economical way to "Feed the family" I tell you what if a lake goes to only catch and release I won't stop fishing and if I want to keep fish I will fish some where else. There are rules. Instead of allowing retention of fish even if there is a slot limit people who are teaching other people how to fish or passing down the tradition should explain why we catch big fish out of Louise (conservation efforts) if it was a free for all there wouldn't be as many big fish. With that said I highly doubt the fishing pressure would change much. But what would change is more fish going back in to the lake



    Sent while partying

    Alaska swamp man pro staff
    I will never be a "Prostaffer" its not that I am not good enough
    but its because I refuse to pimp products for free.

  17. #17
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwackkillncrew View Post
    I highly doubt younger anglers are traveling all the way to Louise to harvest one trout and then leave. Thats not a very economical way to "Feed the family" I tell you what if a lake goes to only catch and release I won't stop fishing and if I want to keep fish I will fish some where else. There are rules. Instead of allowing retention of fish even if there is a slot limit people who are teaching other people how to fish or passing down the tradition should explain why we catch big fish out of Louise (conservation efforts) if it was a free for all there wouldn't be as many big fish. With that said I highly doubt the fishing pressure would change much. But what would change is more fish going back in to the lake
    Yes, willphish,we call this "teaching by example" or "doing the right thing". It's how conservation happens.
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Without a direct biological concern this is not a good idea. There are already plenty of regs regarding other species that relate to a specific lake, stretch of river, or a drainage. No reason the same can't be done for Lakers using max size or slot size or a limited bag or a mix of these things based on the characteristics of that body of water.

    It's been done down here for cutthroat (but actually rather aggressively) and retaining cutties is actually hard to do, which embitters folks who travel to a place and want one or two for shore lunch. I can't see this being supported, I certainly don't. Outside of dipnetting, gillnetting,and maybe a good flosser on the Russian or Kenai there are few to no freshwater fisheries that are worth it by the pound for what you spend for the protein. SO, to take away the option to put a nice 20 inch laker in tinfoil on a beachwood fire during a camping trip would to me be almost a travesty to what I think a majority of anglers consider a long standing tradition.

  19. #19
    Member kwackkillncrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    chugiak, ak
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    I would like to see a slot where anything over 24" has to go back. I understand people wanting to have fresh trout in tin foil and all and feel that would be a decent compromise where you would get both sides supporting the deal.


    Sent while partying

    Alaska swamp man pro staff
    I will never be a "Prostaffer" its not that I am not good enough
    but its because I refuse to pimp products for free.

  20. #20

    Default

    whats , important to all of you , eating a fish , or catching a big fish to remember. it takes a long time to make a big laker. go catch a stocker and eat it. there are alot more people fishing this lake now because of talk.give the fish a chance .DONT TAKE IT WONT BE THERE SOME DAY FOR THE FUTURE.GO TO THE STORE OR SOMEPLACE ELSE THAT HAS BEEN RUINED.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •