North Central Trout rivers being closed

[yetiseeker]

Blair, since you were also at the meeting, I have sent an email directly to Jessica, Mike and other bio's as follows:

"Hello,

I attended the Edmonton Trout Club meeting on the evening of Jan 16, 2018 and would like to request clarification on the modeling tool explained in regards to the FSI or Fish Sustainability Index that was presented.

In the presentation, the initial explanation regarding how the FSI index was used to determine potential threats to our Native fish stocks – specifically regarding the North Central Trout Recovery Program.

In the explanation of how this model worked, the example given was as follows:

The first variable used in the initial example was water temperature. I believe the temperature noted in the example was 13 degrees which correlated to a score of 4.2 out of 5.
The second variable that was given was a mortality rate of 1 out of 5 fish – or 20% mortality rate.
The FSI score that was derived from this simple example was shown as 0.8 – or 4.2 multiplied by 20% equally 0.8 as your scorecard for the FSI.

If this is truly the way the model is working, I would like to request further clarification as I believe the example meant to derive the sustainability or mathematical probability of the fish surviving under said conditions.

The model should have calculated out a FSI as follows: (4.2 x (1-0.2)) which would give the probability of survival or in this example a score of 3.36 (or3.4 with rounding). I understood that the FSI index was trying to determine the survival rate.

If the model is using the probability of mortality in error to calculate the survival rate, then the model is wrong. The modeling tool should instead use the probability of surviving, not mortality. The modeling tool would be fundamentally incorrect and would need to be re-configured to extract useable or reliable data. If the example given is how the model calculates, then you are placing a significantly higher weighting on the catch and release mortality rate which would explain why you think catch & release is not sustainable. In this example, four times the weighting.

I am requesting clarification please. I have grave concerns that this management technique places far too much emphasis on what you refer to as Overfishing and will only serve to put more pressure on the remaining fisheries left open.

Before you enact such a large change, please ensure your modeling technique isn’t fundamentally flawed as shown in the presentation. The entire basis of the assumptions used would be incorrect.

A VERY concerned Albertan and fisherman……."

I am waiting for a reply.

[Bigbadblair]

[QUOTE=yetiseeker;3711770]I am ABSOULTELY in support of recovery. I am very concerned that closing a system here and there will put more and more pressure on the remaining systems.[QUOTE]

I don't disagree that some anglers will travel to new systems, and others will stay home. I assume its a hard thing to predict..

I believe it was 5 out of the 90+ systems that they were proposing changes to. I guess it comes down to a choice of 90 collapsing systems, or 5 sustainable ones in 5 years, and a path to fixing the other 85+.

Its a poor analogy, but if this was a failing business and I had 90 failing products or a tough choice to that will generate 5 new and improved products and a model to adapt my remaining catalogue- this would be a no brainer. We have to look past the short term pain.

As for who I would suggest sending emails to - I would take a different approach to the content of the above and support the intent of the initiative (I know that might be obvious by this point). I would let AEP know that your are supportive of recovery. Additionally I would target Ministers of the organizations that have the habitat authority (AG/Forestry, Transportation and CC AEP).

Going negative isn't an effective tool and will put people on the defensive - especially the people who are trying to fix the issue.. (IE our biologists). The overall intent is recovery, I wouldn't try to derail the initiative because of the minutia.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by Bigbadblair

I agree that's where we differ. I suspect we would have recovered things if it was that simplistic by now. What I got from the presentation was that C&R worked when there was a lot of fish, or when there aren't many fishermen. I suspect Alberta is no different in that regard.

After a quick Google search on Bulltrout all of our neighboring jurisdictions (Montana, Idaho, BC) are having the same issues. All are listing angling pressure as a key threat.


https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/sp...le?spcode=E065

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-esp...e-sbc-eng.html

Would you consider any fisheries with bull trout in them healthy in central/southern Alberta? If you say no you can kiss fishing goodbye in every river/lake with bull trout

[GraylingGuy]

Oil and Gas exploration and Forestry are at the root of habitat loss, yet I'm not allowed to even walk into a back-country river to fish any more because my few days a year has too large of an impact on the fisheries?
Industry is allowed to harvest forests to the rivers edge and build roads across nearly every creek and river in the province, but I can't go wade in the river with a fly-rod in my hand because my impact is too great?

I may not know a lot, but I know I sure as hell am not the one fragmenting our river systems by angling.
When I sit by a fire in the back-country I'm picking up dead-fall to burn, not harvesting the forest.
My impact as an angler on the landscape is seasonal at worst. Industry impacts on the landscape are pretty much permanent.

Yeah I can see why they need to keep anglers out of our rivers. We sure are bad for the landscape...

Perhaps they are thinking they can use it as ammo to fire towards industry. "Hey, look at the recreational users. They completely surrendered (read: we removed) their ability to use the resource. Maybe you guys could find it in your hearts to change the way you do things?" Not likely...

I fully support and practice catch and release fisheries (my own opinion, please don't blast me if you like to harvest). I think that should have been a first step to the issue. Not just yank the stairs out altogether. I think we have seen some success in its implementation on the South Ram. There is something about having the opportunity to go back to a river a year or 2 down the road and potentially catching that same fish. Maybe it was a personal best, and you caught it again and it was your new personal best. I remember a video I saw a few years ago of a guy recounting his trips (with photographic evidence) to the same hole year after year and catching that same special fish. Those are special memories and they last a lifetime. Now I may get to tell my kids of that one time I got to fish that one special hole on the one special stream a few years ago, but you may never get to have that opportunity, because politics.

Maybe this is just me, but I find it interesting that they are pushing many lakes to catch and release because they can't sustain a harvest (that's what all these recent meetings are about), yet it sounds like the message at this meeting the other night (I wasn't there, just based on the info in the original post) indicated that catch and release is bad? Is that not conflicting messaging?

[Bigbadblair]

Originally Posted by slough shark

Would you consider any fisheries with bull trout in them healthy in central/southern Alberta? If you say no you can kiss fishing goodbye in every river/lake with bull trout

This may be super simplistic but what has a higher priority - Conservation of a species or Recreation?

I think this is an ethical decision for you to make. As I stated before - I don't want to be complicit. If we're told what the science is pointing to and what things we can do to fix them.. I go with the science and the rational phasing in of changes.

Yeti - do you mind sharing any response you get? Curious how they will respond

[Don Andersen]

Ever thought that the closure is an excercise to:

1) **** off enough Angler's so that they pressure the Govt to deal with the real issues.

Or.

2) again blame Angler's so that nothing gets accomplished for the next 10 years. Would wanta slow development. Quadders would just love this.

3) throw red herring like culverts and the like w/o any ability to do anything about the problem. ( nothing happened with culverts for 50 years and to expect change now - ya right!)

Do recall both the Pembina and Falls were closed with no backlash.
And your limit has been cut but all other activists are increasing. You all don't see an issue with that?

We are getting played yet again.
Let's not drink the Koolaid and demand better for our natural resources.

Don

[NUK SOO KOW]

For those Of you that think this has nothing to do with the Y to Y agenda. think again. The Y2Y infiltrated our government. Several meetings between Harvey Locke And our environment minister Phillips have been seen. Look at the way Phillips is creating parks throughout the province. First castle, now nordegg, the old man Livingston and porkies to be proposed this year. As well as the ghost and wiprous areas. They are following the Y to Y agenda to a T. First they started with OHV, doing the exact same tactic as they’re doing to the fisherman now. Pointing the finger at them and not including any of the other factors. Biased surveys, consultations where they make you think they’re listening but they aren’t.
The old man drainage is on the consideration list for this year, and will most likely be closed as well. Because cutthroat and Bulltrout are considered an at risk species, Y2y will use this as an excuse to Close rivers, and use the fisherman as the scapegoat same as they did with OHV an open camping.

Here’s an interesting piece of information for you all. Please take a look at who is now in charge of all the planning.
Sarah Emeligi. Look at her profile on LinkedIn. For three years she was the conservation planner for cpaws. Before that, she was the conservation planner for the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation.
Take a look at all the other threads popping up on this forum. Road closures, area closures, it’s not hard to see what’s really happening.
The Y to Y mandate is to infiltrate government to help fulfil their plans for having one giant park from Yellowstone Yukon, off-limits to humans.
I know a lot of you think this is BS, and that those who believe this our way out to lunch, but please take it upon yourself and do your own research. This is no longer a camping, ohv, angling issue. Our public around lands are at risk, and they are succeeding by eliminating one user group at a time. It’s right before your eyes just need to look and read between the lines.
Please read the links from one of our own. Written few years back.
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...ts-may-08.html
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...s-june-08.html
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...s-july-08.html
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...ts-aug-08.html

[Bigbadblair]

Eek... Come to the center Don! Its a lot less jaded here.

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by Bigbadblair

This may be super simplistic but what has a higher priority - Conservation of a species or Recreation?

I think this is an ethical decision for you to make. As I stated before - I don't want to be complicit. If we're told what the science is pointing to and what things we can do to fix them.. I go with the science and the rational phasing in of changes.

Yeti - do you mind sharing any response you get? Curious how they will respond

That’s a stupid question, I strongly believe that both can coexist, I also think that the fisheries in question (at least the ones I’ve fished, Clearwater, red deer and perhaps another but I’d have to check) aren’t doing as poorly as they are stating. I also would bet that several southern ab rivers will be on that list within a few years in spite of some fantastic and improving fishing. This push for closing rivers has very little to do with science or consultation, I didn’t hear of any of this until just now after their minds are made up. As others have stated y2y and CPAWS are the ones calling the shots and they will find science that agrees with their goals.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Bigbadblair

Hmm -Yeti that's not what I took away from the public information session..

40 years of inaction have led us to this point where we have collapsed populations. Rainbow trout are going to be listed as endangered. ENDANGERED... that's the same listing as Black Rhinos and panda's.. We can do better.

The approach that they presented was based on science, not feelings. I don't want to be complicit in the loss of native trout because I wasn't willing to give up 5 years of fun in a couple places..

Habitat is an issue- no question, however I respectfully disagree with your opinion on fishing closures.

Maybe Athabasca rainbows... You can write a letter to fisheries reminding them that they were the ones that allowed the industry, habitat destruction and stocked invasive species like brook trout etc that is causing the real problems these fish are facing...

Temporary angling closures are not a recovery method. They have no long term beneficial impact unless a certain waterbody was just decimated due to some uncommon event(which none of these waterbodies have had btw, except maybe the Clearwater from flooding).

Fixing the habitat issues needs to be fisheries number one goal. Not inflating test results by temporary angling bans... With these bans fisheries now has no baseline to compare their results with. Their results from the work over the past couple years is void because there will have been too many changes made over the next 5 years to know what is actually improving these waterbodies. They will literally have no idea if these fisheries are able to again support fishing pressure and will be forced to open them up and then retest again years down the road...

I don't think anyone here disagrees with trying to improve these waterbodies. What people disagree with is the method in doing so. Especially when that method will create a number of other issues namely substantially increasing the fishing pressure on the few remaining rivers(especially bull trout rivers). For every fish these bios will save with these angling closures they just guaranteed the death of an extra fish in another river system... Not hard to see that these closures will lead to nothing but more closures, some of which will likely become permanent...

I am glad I am not a river fisherman otherwise this stuff would frustrate me even more then it does. If you are a river fisherman you need to realize what is likely going to come out of this situation because it almost guaranteed isn't going to be what you are expecting or hoping for.

It is no different then the walleye. Lets just recover the walleye lakes and then we can open the limits back up. Yeah ok, decades later still no open limits on most of these lakes... Good luck if you think the same thing isn't going to happen here...

[fishpro]

I have to ask, was the original idea not to close the Ram system below the lowest falls to protect the Bull Trout? From what I'm reading on this thread, it now sounds like they plan to close the section above these falls that don't have and never have had Bull Trout. Can someone please clarify?

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Bigbadblair

This may be super simplistic but what has a higher priority - Conservation of a species or Recreation?

I think this is an ethical decision for you to make. As I stated before - I don't want to be complicit. If we're told what the science is pointing to and what things we can do to fix them.. I go with the science and the rational phasing in of changes.

Yeti - do you mind sharing any response you get? Curious how they will respond

As an example it wouldn't bother me one bit if Athabasca rainbows went extinct and were replaced with other species of rainbows, brookies, browns etc.

If conservation of a species is the only goal then they should choose 1 or 2 rivers/areas and conserve them in those areas. They don't need to shut down half the freaking province trying to maintain a species that is not an ideal fit for most of the waterbodies it was originally found in.

The reason cutties, athabasca rainbows, bulls and grayling were our native species is because that is what was naturally in the area... There is no other reason then that. The fact that they are natural does not mean that they were or are well suited to these waterbodies. An easy example being bull trout which are a cold water species that used to inhabit far more of this province due to the lack of predators and high populations. Now that there is more stuff affecting them they have retracted to the waterbodies/areas that they are more suited to living to.

A similar example to consider would be the lake trout in Lake Athabasca. Lake trout are not a shallow water species nor a river species yet because of the huge populations of lake trout there are a number of these fish that travel to the far west end of the lake(which is all like 2-4 feet deep) and then up the river. We are talking 100s of kms of water that is not ideal for these lakers but they go there because they can and because they are searching for food. If the lake trout population was knocked back a bit you wouldn't see near as many fish in those areas because they would choose to stay in their more natural settings. This is something you can discuss with the natives up at Fort Chip if you want, they will tell you how the lake has become so overrun in recent years and how they didn't use to catch or see near as many lake trout on the west end of the lake(even though the west end of the lake is actually getting shallower and receding due to sediment inflow from the Athabasca river).

I guess what I am trying to say is no matter how hard fisheries work they will never get the bull trout back to the point they were before humans had any affect on them. We have destroyed some of their habitat, we have introduced other species of fish that compete with them(primarily browns in say Clearwater, Red Deer, NSR etc) and we also have fished for them. The fact that we have driven them back to a small area compared to historical figures does not necessarily mean that they are in trouble and that they will go extinct. They have an advantage in many of these areas and have done well in recovering in some of them just with the changes to C&R in past years.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by fishpro

I have to ask, was the original idea not to close the Ram system below the lowest falls to protect the Bull Trout? From what I'm reading on this thread, it now sounds like they plan to close the section above these falls that don't have and never have had Bull Trout. Can someone please clarify?

I don't think that has changed, just some people commenting that didn't realize that the closure was only supposed to be for the area below the falls.

If it did change that is a complete and utter joke because there are no species at risk in the waters upstream of the falls...

[SNAPFisher]

Yeti, thanks for sharing what you experienced and bringing this up. I appreciate it. Thank you!
Question for you, if I missed it, did they say why at this meeting they needed to close it down? To recover bull trout and other native species? I'm asking as I would like to make sure. Based on all the surveys and crap that would seem to be obvious.

Nothing has changed for me since those surveys came out. I voiced I was not in favor of closures on the comments and emailed the contact person as well. I will certainly email others listed on this thread. I do agree with BigBadBlair to keep it well worded and calm. Even though it is tough to do so....

[yetiseeker]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Yeti, thanks for sharing what you experienced and bringing this up. I appreciate it. Thank you!
Question for you, if I missed it, did they say why at this meeting they needed to close it down? To recover bull trout and other native species? I'm asking as I would like to make sure. Based on all the surveys and crap that would seem to be obvious.

Nothing has changed for me since those surveys came out. I voiced I was not in favor of closures on the comments and emailed the contact person as well. I will certainly email others listed on this thread. I do agree with BigBadBlair to keep it well worded and calm. Even though it is tough to do so....

Snap - it pains me to think of possibly losing 5 more systems for 5 years. Depends on the FSI calculated at that point in time. It may be 7yrs as Rav has indicated??? Maybe, maybe, maybe.

WTF????

It's only the beginning of band-aiding our fledgling rivers.

I think it's time to voice our opinions and grab the attention of our government.

Blair - I would personally apologize to the bio's when I see them. I would be open to how we should approach this going forward.

Maybe the timing on fighting the 5.5% (5 out of 90) isn't right. I'm a born-raised Albertan. I taught myself to fly fish over 27 years ago. Alberta runs through me. These ARE my home waters.

What can we do?? How do we get heard?

[wylecoyote]

Is there a map anywhere that outlines the proposed areas and the cut-offs?

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wylecoyote

Is there a map anywhere that outlines the proposed areas and the cut-offs?

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...y/default.aspx

[yetiseeker]

[QUOTE=RavYak;3712139]As an example it wouldn't bother me one bit if Athabasca rainbows went extinct and were replaced with other species of rainbows, brookies, browns etc.

If conservation of a species is the only goal then they should choose 1 or 2 rivers/areas and conserve them in those areas. They don't need to shut down half the freaking province trying to maintain a species that is not an ideal fit for most of the waterbodies it was originally found in.

Rav, as much as I LOVE catching fish, I don't agree with you on this one. It pains me to think my actions may delay, and even risk the 5 new systems our bio's say we NEED to protect. I - Blair - believe also in the science. Our native species means a great deal to me. I can't disagree closing these next 5 would be good for the

But the overarching question I have is - WTF????

Just like mining in our province now where reclamation fees are paid as our industry extracts our resources - our government needs to legislate that development and extraction of not only our resources are trucked out along with the profits - they are going to be held responsible for maintenance of our watersheds in areas they work in. We need to collect some our their profits along the way, make sure our government actually allocates the collections from, and maintain our watersheds. Pay it as a deposit to perform business in that area. These companies have deep pockets. Deeper as they gotten away with this for so long.

I have been privileged to know 3 of the 5 watersheds proposed to be closed.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Bigbadblair

This may be super simplistic but what has a higher priority - Conservation of a species or Recreation?

Our province’s policy states that conservation of fish is top priority, then treaty rights, then recreation. Too bad conservation hasn’t been job #1 to date. Note that industry or agriculture doesn’t show up on the list.

To be clear, I support pulling all the levers, not just the fishing control lever. It appears there is agreement on this. However, because previous governments were ineffective and let fish conservation slide to the bottom of the real-life priority list for making decisions, the basic problem now is that none of the levers have been pulled hard enough to keep our native trout from showing up on the lists of species at risk. So, now more levers have to be pulled, and harder. In order for that to happen, and for it all to work, we all have to get over blaming others and get on with it. We could argue about blame and proof until the last Athabasca rainbow dies. Do we really think that industry will get on board with a recovery program if anglers are still allowed to fish, even if the science shows that catch and release kills only 1or 2% of fish caught? If we anglers say we won’t support 5 year suspensions on fishing until we have proof that culverts will be fixed, or sediment controlled, etc., where does that leave us? Pretty much nothing will happen. Finally having to close a watershed to angling is a long needed wake up call for everyone.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by RavYak

As an example it wouldn't bother me one bit if Athabasca rainbows went extinct and were replaced with other species of rainbows, brookies, browns etc.

If conservation of a species is the only goal then they should choose 1 or 2 rivers/areas and conserve them in those areas. They don't need to shut down half the freaking province trying to maintain a species that is not an ideal fit for most of the waterbodies it was originally found in.

The reason cutties, athabasca rainbows, bulls and grayling were our native species is because that is what was naturally in the area... There is no other reason then that. The fact that they are natural does not mean that they were or are well suited to these waterbodies. An easy example being bull trout which are a cold water species that used to inhabit far more of this province due to the lack of predators and high populations. Now that there is more stuff affecting them they have retracted to the waterbodies/areas that they are more suited to living to.

You’re maybe not considering that the Species at Risk Act is federal. Canada can impose oversight on provinces and territories, and their criteria for definition of status is what counts. Occupied range is one important factor. Species don’t “retract” like it’s some kind of planned rearguard tactic. They are eliminated, first from the less suitable outer edges of their range, then the core. Range reduction is a bad thing. Alberta doesn’t have the autonomy to say that a species at risk will be sustained in one small area, so, Canada, don’t worry about all the other loss and leave us alone.

[dbaayens]

Here's a quote from an email I sent a couple days ago.

"There’s little or no science behind the closures on the systems I’m familiar with (Clearwater and Ram) and no plan in place that will have a lasting positive effect on native fish in these systems. Straight up garbage. BHA’s position is my position. As for the habitat, government needs to hold other stakeholders accountable... for once. And seriously, the problem in the Clearwater is primarily competition with introduced species and they need to find a way to deal with that; closing it just allows nature to take its course, which could go bad for bulls. And the Ram, there is no big problem... they closed the road into falls creek, now enforce it. That’s it, everything else is in pretty good shape, unless you want to increase the population, then you need an afterbay dam below the Bighorn Dam to reduce hydro-peaking on the North Saskatchewan or put bulls above the chutes of the Ram (no-brainer, if native species conservation is your real goal)."

Winddrift and bigbadblair post under your real names instead of hiding behind an alias... its pretty obvious your working in government or buddies with the folks who've proposed the closures. There's a real obvious problem with this whole discussion... where's the data that suggests a river, like the Ram, is in a crisis? Because it isn't... how do you find that out. I know how, you ask. It's stable... and if these folks phone the Rocky office and get a different answer then they are being lied to.

I dedicated a large portion of my life to native fish conservation (Bull Trout Task Force, Fish Identification Education, Fish Rescue, Quirk Creek Project, etc...) and this isn't about native fish conservation. I don't mind being told to help out with habitat issues, but don't tell us the closures are science based, because they aren't. There are numerous alternatives to closures. Cut the crap and start working with us.

Dean Baayens

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

You’re maybe not considering that the Species at Risk Act is federal. Canada can impose oversight on provinces and territories, and their criteria for definition of status is what counts. Occupied range is one important factor. Species don’t “retract” like it’s some kind of planned rearguard tactic. They are eliminated, first from the less suitable outer edges of their range, then the core. Range reduction is a bad thing. Alberta doesn’t have the autonomy to say that a species at risk will be sustained in one small area, so, Canada, don’t worry about all the other loss and leave us alone.

What makes you think these species are being eliminated?

Have you read the reports that state that many of these populations are stable or even improving?

Here I will make it easy for you.

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

The very best part is the summary.

In general, bull trout populations have responded to the zero harvest (catch-and-release) regulation with mixed results - a few populations have experienced substantial recovery, while the majority have fluctuated in size, with a few showing a very weak trend toward recovery. Some populations have shown limited or no evidence of recovery under the zero harvest regulation, and are suspected to continue to suffer from high levels of habitat degradation and fragmentation, competition from introduced species, and accidental as well as illegal harvest.

So the first step wasn't these closures. It was changing angling to C&R which only affected some of these rivers. That right there was a far more significant change to angling mortality then these closures will be and the fact that they didn't have obvious results on a number of these waterbodies just goes to prove that the other issues(habitat destruction, introduced species, poaching etc) are the main ones.

Fisheries knows what is wrong with these waterbodies, they have repeatedly told us this a number of times in these reports. The frustrating thing is that the issues being reported are the same ones that were known decades ago. Lets stop researching the problems we have already diagnosed and go out and actually fix them. If our biologists traded their pen and paper for a shovel many of these waterbodies would have likely already been fixed by now...

As I keep saying lets address these issues first before we take the drastic step in closing these fisheries. Closures create multiple issues and as these reports hint will likely have little effect on these rivers.

[yetiseeker]

Originally Posted by dbaayens

Here's a quote from an email I sent a couple days ago.

Cut the crap and start working with us.

Dean Baayens

Isn't that what we really need to bring forward???

Who's a lawyer on this forum? I'm a bean counter.

Enough!!

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by RavYak

What makes you think these species are being eliminated?

Have you read the reports that state that many of these populations are stable or even improving?

Here I will make it easy for you.

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

The very best part is the summary.



So the first step wasn't these closures. It was changing angling to C&R which only affected some of these rivers. That right there was a far more significant change to angling mortality then these closures will be and the fact that they didn't have obvious results on a number of these waterbodies just goes to prove that the other issues(habitat destruction, introduced species, poaching etc) are the main ones.

Fisheries knows what is wrong with these waterbodies, they have repeatedly told us this a number of times in these reports. The frustrating thing is that the issues being reported are the same ones that were known decades ago. Lets stop researching the problems we have already diagnosed and go out and actually fix them. If our biologists traded their pen and paper for a shovel many of these waterbodies would have likely already been fixed by now...

As I keep saying lets address these issues first before we take the drastic step in closing these fisheries. Closures create multiple issues and as these reports hint will likely have little effect on these rivers.

I think you missed my point that you can’t just keep a species in a small portion of its former range and call it good. Thanks for the link. That paper appears to reinforce the finding that what has been done so far hasn’t been enough, even despite going to catch and release. And again, when I read the plans, the program calls for a cumulative effects approach to a cumulative effects problem. It seems reasonable to me that industry will be more inclined to work to address their issues if they see they see that they aren’t the only ones being asked to take the hit.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by dbaayens

Here's a quote from an email I sent a couple days ago.

"There’s little or no science behind the closures on the systems I’m familiar with (Clearwater and Ram) and no plan in place that will have a lasting positive effect on native fish in these systems. Straight up garbage. BHA’s position is my position. As for the habitat, government needs to hold other stakeholders accountable... for once. And seriously, the problem in the Clearwater is primarily competition with introduced species and they need to find a way to deal with that; closing it just allows nature to take its course, which could go bad for bulls. And the Ram, there is no big problem... they closed the road into falls creek, now enforce it. That’s it, everything else is in pretty good shape, unless you want to increase the population, then you need an afterbay dam below the Bighorn Dam to reduce hydro-peaking on the North Saskatchewan or put bulls above the chutes of the Ram (no-brainer, if native species conservation is your real goal)."

Winddrift and bigbadblair post under your real names instead of hiding behind an alias... its pretty obvious your working in government or buddies with the folks who've proposed the closures. There's a real obvious problem with this whole discussion... where's the data that suggests a river, like the Ram, is in a crisis? Because it isn't... how do you find that out. I know how, you ask. It's stable... and if these folks phone the Rocky office and get a different answer then they are being lied to.

I dedicated a large portion of my life to native fish conservation (Bull Trout Task Force, Fish Identification Education, Fish Rescue, Quirk Creek Project, etc...) and this isn't about native fish conservation. I don't mind being told to help out with habitat issues, but don't tell us the closures are science based, because they aren't. There are numerous alternatives to closures. Cut the crap and start working with us.

Dean Baayens

Mr. Baayens, I don’t know who you are, but from the sounds of it, you are a friend of native trout and anglers. We clearly don’t agree on everything, but I thank you for your work.

[yetiseeker]

I propose a meeting of all who share in this TSN/FSI (bio term) fishing point - fulcrum in our generation, allow the .
insanity to go on.

I CAN"T sit by and watch my BEAUTIFUL Alberta fade.

What's next fella's?

My name is Randy

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Our province’s policy states that conservation of fish is top priority, then treaty rights, then recreation. Too bad conservation hasn’t been job #1 to date. Note that industry or agriculture doesn’t show up on the list.

To be clear, I support pulling all the levers, not just the fishing control lever. It appears there is agreement on this. However, because previous governments were ineffective and let fish conservation slide to the bottom of the real-life priority list for making decisions, the basic problem now is that none of the levers have been pulled hard enough to keep our native trout from showing up on the lists of species at risk. So, now more levers have to be pulled, and harder. In order for that to happen, and for it all to work, we all have to get over blaming others and get on with it. We could argue about blame and proof until the last Athabasca rainbow dies. Do we really think that industry will get on board with a recovery program if anglers are still allowed to fish, even if the science shows that catch and release kills only 1or 2% of fish caught? If we anglers say we won’t support 5 year suspensions on fishing until we have proof that culverts will be fixed, or sediment controlled, etc., where does that leave us? Pretty much nothing will happen. Finally having to close a watershed to angling is a long needed wake up call for everyone.

You think that if we as anglers support this bogus 5 year closure it will buy us “social license” to ask companies fix the habitat they have fragmented? I’m guessing you know that term well as I’m guessing who you work for uses that all the time (how’s that working getting all the pipelines built without constant opposition and court dates). We know what the main issues are and that they need to be addressed and if we are being honest some rivers will never return with the bull trout, they are simply being out competed by other species. Why don’t you go tell your boss that instead of closing the rivers implore anglers to pressure companies to do the right thing and fix some of the habitat issues. While you’re at it tell them to hire some more f&w officers to enforce the existing rules.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

I think you missed my point that you can’t just keep a species in a small portion of its former range and call it good. Thanks for the link. That paper appears to reinforce the finding that what has been done so far hasn’t been enough, even despite going to catch and release. And again, when I read the plans, the program calls for a cumulative effects approach to a cumulative effects problem. It seems reasonable to me that industry will be more inclined to work to address their issues if they see they see that they aren’t the only ones being asked to take the hit.

Where did I propose they just call it good?

I keep preaching the same thing.

Go out and fix the actual permanent issues affecting these fish.

If it is habitat related problems fix the habitat.

If it is poaching, improve enforcement. I have done more fishing in this province over the last few years then some people do in their lifetime and I am pretty sure I can still count the number of times I have been checked on my fingers...

If it is competition with introduced species closures are the last thing fisheries should be wanting. If those species are out competing bull trout giving them free reign is a very poor decision. Open limits with no size restrictions on those introduced species would not only help the bull trout but also appease a number of anglers that like to catch a feed of fish every once in a while.

There are a number of things to be done right now. Things with permanent results. That is what fisheries needs to focus on instead of temporary closures that create more issues then they solve.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Our province’s policy states that conservation of fish is top priority, then treaty rights, then recreation. Too bad conservation hasn’t been job #1 to date. Note that industry or agriculture doesn’t show up on the list.

To be clear, I support pulling all the levers, not just the fishing control lever. It appears there is agreement on this. However, because previous governments were ineffective and let fish conservation slide to the bottom of the real-life priority list for making decisions, the basic problem now is that none of the levers have been pulled hard enough to keep our native trout from showing up on the lists of species at risk. So, now more levers have to be pulled, and harder. In order for that to happen, and for it all to work, we all have to get over blaming others and get on with it. We could argue about blame and proof until the last Athabasca rainbow dies. Do we really think that industry will get on board with a recovery program if anglers are still allowed to fish, even if the science shows that catch and release kills only 1or 2% of fish caught? If we anglers say we won’t support 5 year suspensions on fishing until we have proof that culverts will be fixed, or sediment controlled, etc., where does that leave us? Pretty much nothing will happen. Finally having to close a watershed to angling is a long needed wake up call for everyone.

Whether industry does or doesn't get on board is up to no one but the government.

Angler participation is not going to change industries outlook, policies and action will.

If the government wants anglers to do their part then show us where to dig. I am sure a number of anglers would show up and dedicate their time to help fix these habitat issues etc.

Lots of anglers have already dedicated a lot of time to this program showing these biologists the issues on these rivers. All they got for their efforts was a slap to the face in the form of these closures...

[dbaayens]

Hi Randy,
This stuff isn't making a whole lot of sense to me either. There seems to be an agenda that is being pushed with no room for compromise. I support native species conservation and I support closures, where they are warranted... not when they are used as political leverage.

Trout Unlimited Canada supports the closures... apparently they believe the closures are science based; they aren't... they have virtually no data on the Ram/North Saskatchewan River populations and the data they have suggests the population is stable. In my experience, and the experience of many others, its increasing. I could see the Clearwater being at risk, but that's a feeling, not science, and it is a multi-species nightmare that would probably benefit from targeted angling - many tributaries are swarming with brook trout and they will be closed to angling! Doesn't make sense. Both the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and the Alberta Fish and Game Association oppose the closures and I expect you would find many like-minded people within these groups. Here's a link to the BHA's news release. https://www.backcountryhunters.org/a..._recovery_plan

I would like to see the closures stopped or at the very least, significantly modified before they are enacted. I suggest joining one of the groups opposing the closures and seeing how you can help.

Take care

Dean Baayens

P.S. If you want, feel free to pm me and I can give you some contacts.