Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   Fly-Fishing Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=101)
-   -   Castle Management Plan (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=319284)

SNAPFisher 04-08-2017 06:07 PM

Castle Management Plan
 
I'm not sure if this was posted here yet but I just read it today and then went through the survey:

Blog:
http://oldmanwatershed.ca/blog-posts...ot-potato-ohvs

Survey:
https://talkaep.alberta.ca/CastleMan...FQ5EfgodnPQNFA

There are some really good things here. I thought the survey was very comprehensive and well done.

I encourage others to read it and then take the survey if so inclined.

lead chucker 04-09-2017 07:27 PM

Fees to ride and increase in licensing., and increase fishing lic costs? I don't think I agree with that.these left wing tree huggers don't care about what ohv uses or fisherman or hunters think.the question period has fallen on Def ears and will continue to. They will continue to come up with (scientific research ) that suits their agenda. This is the way these people work.

SNAPFisher 04-10-2017 10:28 PM

So that's one "no" :)

jgib01 04-11-2017 12:16 PM

Whether you are a "yes" or a "no", sacrifice a bit of your time and fill out the survey. I suspect there are a fair number of folks on the various sub-forums here in both camps. There may be parts of the plan you agree with, or parts you wholeheartedly oppose... bottom line is you have 8 days left to put your opinion in. tic-tock, tick-tock.

For the record, I'm firmly on the "yes" side, and supportive of increasing license fees & OHV registration, particularly if that equals support for upping enforcement activities in the Castle and across AB.

FlyTheory 04-11-2017 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lead chucker (Post 3513616)
Fees to ride and increase in licensing., and increase fishing lic costs? I don't think I agree with that.these left wing tree huggers don't care about what ohv uses or fisherman or hunters think.the question period has fallen on Def ears and will continue to. They will continue to come up with (scientific research ) that suits their agenda. This is the way these people work.

No man they're actually improving the area significantly by reducing anthropogenic activity. Thanks OP!

millsboy79 04-11-2017 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyTheory (Post 3514923)
No man they're actually improving the area significantly by reducing anthropogenic activity. Thanks OP!

If there were actually "reducing" the off-road activities rather than banning them completely I am sure most of the people currently opposed would change their tune.

Not sure how you would do that though, I have tried to go offroading at McLean Creek as well and that place is full of the same "illegal" trails.

It turns into the ole "this is why we cannot have nice things" situation.

People ripping and tearing up the areas they are not suppose to means I am no longer able to explore the area in my cruiser.

smitty9 04-11-2017 06:34 PM

This about nails it.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts:

http://lethbridgeherald.com/commenta...in-ohv-debate/

Well said, Mr. Fitch.

SNAPFisher 04-11-2017 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smitty9 (Post 3515096)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts:

http://lethbridgeherald.com/commenta...in-ohv-debate/

Well said, Mr. Fitch.

X2 :)

I've seen first hand how a once fish spawning creek attached to the NSR is now a mess with no fish in it. It is choked off. OHV destruction, out of control. Once permanent water bodies were designated "public", the hords of OHV users use this as their tag line "It's crown land and I have the right...". Even when it was clear to them it was a fish bearing creek the only thought that occurred to most of them was how they could still do it and not get caught by F&W. That's the mentality you would hope that science could change. Too bad one side of the equation isn't listening.

bartman 04-12-2017 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smitty9 (Post 3515096)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts:

http://lethbridgeherald.com/commenta...in-ohv-debate/

Well said, Mr. Fitch.

X3. Very well written article.

SNAPFisher 04-12-2017 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by millsboy79 (Post 3514934)
If there were actually "reducing" the off-road activities rather than banning them completely I am sure most of the people currently opposed would change their tune.

Not sure how you would do that though, I have tried to go offroading at McLean Creek as well and that place is full of the same "illegal" trails.

It turns into the ole "this is why we cannot have nice things" situation.

People ripping and tearing up the areas they are not suppose to means I am no longer able to explore the area in my cruiser.

You would need the enforcement to be upped and you would need the others that do it the right. like it sounds you do, to help enforce - like report a poacher but report an illegal OHV use.

My experience has shown that your attitude is not in the majority but the minority. I hear from OHV groups that it is the other way around but there is a lot of monkey see monkey do in these situations where once one does it, and leaves the scar / evidence, others just follow the same track since someone did it before them.

No wonder the approach is coming at this from a "ban" point of view. I agree and support a total ban approach because it didn't work in my situation unless it was a total ban.

Reinchampion 04-12-2017 05:12 PM

Castle parks versus OHV
 
X2

I've seen first hand how a once fish spawning creek attached to the NSR is now a mess with no fish in it. It is choked off. OHV destruction, out of control. Once permanent water bodies were designated "public", the hords of OHV users use this as their tag line "It's crown land and I have the right...". Even when it was clear to them it was a fish bearing creek the only thought that occurred to most of them was how they could still do it and not get caught by F&W. That's the mentality you would hope that science could change. Too bad one side of the equation isn't listening.

X4!!!

two_ker 04-12-2017 06:29 PM

Yup, all good points. Hopefully next they make it illegal for fly chuckers to wander up and down these creeks, causing sediment to be disturbed, spawning beds to be walked on. All in an effort to get to the next big pool and catch the endangered cutthroat. (Whats the survival rate on C&R? Yes better than catch and keep)
Maybe we should have a mandatory felt boot and wader inspection area so as to not introduce invasive species, at a minimal cost to enthusiasts.

Lets get the ban hammer swinging! :)

fishead 04-12-2017 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by two_ker (Post 3515853)
Yup, all good points. Hopefully next they make it illegal for fly chuckers to wander up and down these creeks, causing sediment to be disturbed, spawning beds to be walked on. All in an effort to get to the next big pool and catch the endangered cutthroat. (Whats the survival rate on C&R? Yes better than catch and keep)
Maybe we should have a mandatory felt boot and wader inspection area so as to not introduce invasive species, at a minimal cost to enthusiasts.

Lets get the ban hammer swinging! :)

Does fly fishing really have that big of an impact? Certainly not anywhere near ohv use. That being said a full ban seems a little extreme but that's how this government roles.

AlbertaCutthroat 04-12-2017 07:50 PM

Lots of whiny quaders, about time the hammer comes down. Bet they will be even happier once the atv safety legislation coming this week is implemented too. (Mentioned in the orders in council on gov news site today). Comparing fly fishers with atv damage, good luck with that ha ha.

Joe Black 04-12-2017 09:35 PM

So cattle have caused no damage to streams and river banks, anywhere? Please, all you expierinced river fishers, please tell me that you have never seen any damage done by cattle on streams and rivers. Somehow, mysteriously, this has not been noted or mentioned by all these scientists talking about sediments.
I would have respect for their opionions if they included all causes of sediments rather than speak solely on the one they wish to eliminate.


I'm a simple man. Explain this to me please. Anyone????

Chief16 04-12-2017 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black (Post 3516014)
So cattle have caused no damage to streams and river banks, anywhere? Please, all you expierinced river fishers, please tell me that you have never seen any damage done by cattle on streams and rivers. Somehow, mysteriously, this has not been noted or mentioned by all these scientists talking about sediments.
I would have respect for their opionions if they included all causes of sediments rather than speak solely on the one they wish to eliminate.


I'm a simple man. Explain this to me please. Anyone????

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...1e71000000.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...d3d5000000.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...Mitigation.pdf

This topic is actually being talked about by "scientists". Lots of research out there in the world if you care to look for it.
I am not weighing in one way or another on this topic but I do agree with the previous discussion about the facts. These are just a few papers I had done with a quick 5 minute search on google scholar so they are not the most specific for the discussion at hand but just using an example that if you want to mount an arguenent one way or another, there is information to back up your claims. The fact of the matter is, the information is out there for those who care to look.

Joe Black 04-12-2017 10:12 PM

So why is mr. Finch fixated on only one source? True science explores all possibilities does it not? I'm assuming mr finch knows how to use the google as well(or better) than you do, and could have found these studies before he wrote his article to ensure all factors were discussed. Or is ther another reason he wrote it,,,,,,,


My point being many are quick to applaud a closure for one user group if they do not participate in that activity, or if the closure is beneficial to themselves. Quite selfish really.

Chief16 04-12-2017 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black (Post 3516046)
So why is mr. Finch fixated on only one source? True science explores all possibilities does it not? I'm assuming mr finch knows how to use the google as well(or better) than you do, and could have found these studies before he wrote his article to ensure all factors were discussed. Or is ther another reason he wrote it,,,,,,,


My point being many are quick to applaud a closure for one user group if they do not participate in that activity, or if the closure is beneficial to themselves. Quite selfish really.

The only thing is that this is a provincial park so I am assuming there are no cattle there where the ban is? I could be wrong.
Other than that, I agree with you there are many other factors out there but at the same OHVs are indeed one of those contributing factors. I am a supporter of the ban but everyone is entitled to an open opinion on this forum, whether that be for or against it.

Myles 04-13-2017 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black (Post 3516046)
So why is mr. Finch fixated on only one source? True science explores all possibilities does it not? I'm assuming mr finch knows how to use the google as well(or better) than you do, and could have found these studies before he wrote his article to ensure all factors were discussed. Or is ther another reason he wrote it,,,,,,,


My point being many are quick to applaud a closure for one user group if they do not participate in that activity, or if the closure is beneficial to themselves. Quite selfish really.

Beneficial to themselves? No, beneficial to the threatened species of cutthroat and bull trout that have existed in the Castle for thousands of years. We made bull trout our provincial fish in the 90's to raise awareness and they still aren't recovering. Sedimentation caused by ATVs is a contributing factor whether you agree with that fact or not. Here's a copy of the bull trout recovery plan written in 2012 that talks about it (Section 5.3).

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...gementPlan.pdf

Dr.Shortington 04-13-2017 08:16 AM

Thanks for the info Snap. I guess since this weather wont cooperate we all have time to fill out surveys :angry3:

Joe Black 04-13-2017 08:53 AM

"Beneficial to themselves? No, beneficial to the threatened species of cutthroat and bull trout that have existed in the Castle for thousands of years. "

so when Mr. Fintch (or whatever his name is), or others in his camp, decide these at risk species need to be protected from stress and mortality due to sport fishing, and close that down, do not come crying here.

you really don't think that can happen? just asking. who really knows how far they will go in shutting down eastern slope activities? My concern is that they want to create a legacy that will never be forgotten. shut down an entire park to fishing, hunting, and quads. that will be remembered.

FlyTheory 04-13-2017 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by two_ker (Post 3515853)
Yup, all good points. Hopefully next they make it illegal for fly chuckers to wander up and down these creeks, causing sediment to be disturbed, spawning beds to be walked on. All in an effort to get to the next big pool and catch the endangered cutthroat. (Whats the survival rate on C&R? Yes better than catch and keep)
Maybe we should have a mandatory felt boot and wader inspection area so as to not introduce invasive species, at a minimal cost to enthusiasts.

Lets get the ban hammer swinging! :)

There are tons of creeks that are closed permanently to angling for this exact reason. And people adapt. Just like they OHV riders will for the castle region. I know your comment was dripping with sarcasm and malace, but that's a good point.

two_ker 04-13-2017 09:04 AM

[QUOTE=AlbertaCutthroat;3515906. Comparing fly fishers with atv damage, good luck with that ha ha.[/QUOTE]

Point I was trying to make is that every activity will have some bearing of disturbance on the enviroment if you look hard enough. Iam not sure why we can not all enjoy our activities if done responsibly. The division between user groups confuses me, should we all not be allowed to use public land responsibly? And actually, I do not want to see any user groups shut out.

BTW, I see more fishermen traipsing up and down creeks, then ohv's.:)

FlyTheory 04-13-2017 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by two_ker (Post 3516267)
Point I was trying to make is that every activity will have some bearing of disturbance on the enviroment if you look hard enough. Iam not sure why we can not all enjoy our activities if done responsibly. The division between user groups confuses me, should we all not be allowed to use public land responsibly? And actually, I do not want to see any user groups shut out.

BTW, I see more fishermen traipsing up and down creeks, then ohv's.:)

Quantifying traffic damage is hard, but one rip down a creek in a quad is SO much more damaging than 5 anglers traipsing up a creek in a day. For example Stauffer creek gets 20 people on a busy day walking up one section of creek. If even one quad ran a section, it'd be blown and heavily affected. Both are bad, but one is worse. People should be able to quad as much as they want, but not in creeks, marshes, or sensitive habitats. Maybe banning snorkel kits would also help demote this aquatic behaviour. But one thing for sure is that any traffic in the riperian area causes damage. Killdeers to jeeps.

Myles 04-13-2017 10:40 AM

Joe, you see something in the proposed management plan I don't. Angling and hunting are still being allowed and there are no plans to eliminate them. Don't try to change the subject in the ATV discussion by creating conspiracy theories that don't exist.

Quantifying the impact of sedimentation from trails is not hard. In the Castle there are roughly 1,823 km of trails which translates into 64 million kilograms of sediment annually. That's the equivalent of 4,000 tandem dump trucks going in to the Castle system each year and this is compacting gravel beds cutthroat and bull trout use to spawn. The relationship between linear disturbance, sedimentation, and their negative impact to fish has been researched and is well understood.

SNAPFisher 04-13-2017 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Shortington (Post 3516222)
Thanks for the info Snap. I guess since this weather wont cooperate we all have time to fill out surveys :angry3:

Lol! That same thing crossed my mind too. Stupid weather! <- #1 cause of instant sediment and ruined plans :lol:

SNAPFisher 04-13-2017 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyTheory (Post 3516322)
Quantifying traffic damage is hard, but one rip down a creek in a quad is SO much more damaging than 5 anglers traipsing up a creek in a day. For example Stauffer creek gets 20 people on a busy day walking up one section of creek. If even one quad ran a section, it'd be blown and heavily affected. Both are bad, but one is worse. People should be able to quad as much as they want, but not in creeks, marshes, or sensitive habitats. Maybe banning snorkel kits would also help demote this aquatic behaviour. But one thing for sure is that any traffic in the riperian area causes damage. Killdeers to jeeps.

Well said!

SNAPFisher 04-13-2017 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Black (Post 3516014)
So cattle have caused no damage to streams and river banks, anywhere? Please, all you expierinced river fishers, please tell me that you have never seen any damage done by cattle on streams and rivers. Somehow, mysteriously, this has not been noted or mentioned by all these scientists talking about sediments.
I would have respect for their opionions if they included all causes of sediments rather than speak solely on the one they wish to eliminate.


I'm a simple man. Explain this to me please. Anyone????

Joe, you raise good points but avoiding the OHV problem is not the answer. It is a starting point.

If you take the creek that I live on as an example. Cattle were there long, long before the ATV was around and even when it started. There was fish in the creek then and people enjoyed it. Ranchers were responsible and obviously the impact was minimal or at least the impact was such that fish could exist and people could enjoy the resource. Once the ATVers arrived that all changed. Total destruction is a good way to put it - no fish left and choked off stream.

I could also go into lots of incidents such as cattle being chased by ATVers...over / through fences, ranchers threatened, visitors threatened. And much worse. All on private property. I know I'm not talking about the Castle area but I'm trying to make the point that disgusting acts like this should lead to a ban of ATVs in sensitive areas. I see ATVs running through the headwaters, as in the case in the Castle area, pretty much the same "go where I want, destroy what I want" attitude transposed to yet another area.

FlyTheory 04-13-2017 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher (Post 3516489)
Joe, you raise good points but avoiding the OHV problem is not the answer. It is a starting point.

If you take the creek that I live on as an example. Cattle were there long, long before the ATV was around and even when it started. There was fish in the creek then and people enjoyed it. Ranchers were responsible and obviously the impact was minimal or at least the impact was such that fish could exist and people could enjoy the resource. Once the ATVers arrived that all changed. Total destruction is a good way to put it - no fish left and choked off stream.

I could also go into lots of incidents such as cattle being chased by ATVers...over / through fences, ranchers threatened, visitors threatened. And much worse. All on private property. I know I'm not talking about the Castle area but I'm trying to make the point that disgusting acts like this should lead to a ban of ATVs in sensitive areas. I see ATVs running through the headwaters, as in the case in the Castle area, pretty much the same "go where I want, destroy what I want" attitude transposed to yet another area.

Do I remember correctly you've had an issue with ATVers around your area and destroying creekland? Like you have first hand experience with this. Right?

SNAPFisher 04-13-2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyTheory (Post 3516547)
Do I remember correctly you've had an issue with ATVers around your area and destroying creekland? Like you have first hand experience with this. Right?

Yes, unbelievable amount of. 4 years dedicated to protecting my own land. Lot s of help though from all the neighbors in making this happen. Now with the ATVers generally gone. We are working at restoring the creek but it will take us and nature a long...long time. So worth it though...and so quiet now not having ATVers ripping through your property at all times of the day/night.

Yep, I'm biased for sure... but no wonder :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.