Travers Closure

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

Yuppers

Here ya go justin c , im staying out of this one , what some people are saying!


Kelly Lyle give your figen head a shake , and go back to the whole u came from!

Plus im way to busy chasing WT up north to read threw this crap , i might make time once hunting season is over!! Oh theres another 160 hmmm looks like hes going to walk thats number 2 up here so far hopefully a big deer will walk out , 2 more days till im sask bound

Later girls have fun whining , cause the men are out hunting in the cold !

Ive already addressed Dan Foss's post but to review
Im saddened that sawt members would put a small cash prize over the fish.
The president of the sawt stood before the WU members at the last WU meeting and claimed he stepped down becasue of Conflicts of Interests
The suggestion that the people who So CALLED ARE IN THE KNOW wont answer here and will do so at the meetings they announce is completely ridiculous.....i went to that meeting......did you 2?

good luck hunting

[Drop_Tine]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Ive already addressed Dan Foss's post but to review
Im saddened that sawt members would put a small cash prize over the fish.
The president of the sawt stood before the WU members at the last WU meeting and claimed he stepped down becasue of Conflicts of Interests
The suggestion that the people who So CALLED ARE IN THE KNOW wont answer here and will do so at the meetings they announce is completely ridiculous.....i went to that meeting......did you 2?

good luck hunting

No i did not go, i have been hunting,

Also i only skimmed over some posts !

I fish that tournament which has been held around the same time every year , there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk, this is why i dont wanna get involved on this thread , the sawt president should not be evan brought up in this thread , it is legal to fish the river for everyone , so why shpuld the tourment suffer , if for one second u think every tournament fisher man doent care about the fish, for one stop the poachers at the spill way they are hurting the fishery way more than the sawt ever will!!!!
Chub, why dont u become the president of the sawt, you dont fish tournaments, u love walleye fishing , we could use a guy like u around the trail, ( im serious) , plus u also could actually see how many fish die , i would bet it is 1000 times less than the fish being poached!! Seriously think about !

Jason

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

No i did not go, i have been hunting,

Also i only skimmed over some posts !

I fish that tournament which has been held around the same time every year , there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk, this is why i dont wanna get involved on this thread , the sawt president should not be evan brought up in this thread , it is legal to fish the river for everyone , so why shpuld the tourment suffer , if for one second u think every tournament fisher man doent care about the fish, for one stop the poachers at the spill way they are hurting the fishery way more than the sawt ever will!!!!
Chub, why dont u become the president of the sawt, you dont fish tournaments, u love walleye fishing , we could use a guy like u around the trail, ( im serious) , plus u also could actually see how many fish die , i would bet it is 1000 times less than the fish being poached!! Seriously think about !

Jason

I apologise ....i thought you were agreeing to Dan Foss's post. You quoted it and posted ' Yuppers '
Ive never been against SAWT and believe most sawt members care about the fish first. Please note i said that post saddens me.

[Justin.C]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

Yuppers

Here ya go justin c , im staying out of this one , what some people are saying!


Kelly Lyle give your figen head a shake , and go back to the whole u came from!

Plus im way to busy chasing WT up north to read threw this crap , i might make time once hunting season is over!! Oh theres another 160 hmmm looks like hes going to walk thats number 2 up here so far hopefully a big deer will walk out , 2 more days till im sask bound

Later girls have fun whining , cause the men are out hunting in the cold !

Thanks for the great reply.. I hope you are mot hunting as you are posting this one...Who said I was not out hunting?????

Either way Hope you get a big one bud....

[Drop_Tine]

Originally Posted by Justin.C

Thanks for the great reply.. I hope you are mot hunting as you are posting this one...Who said I was not out hunting?????

Either way Hope you get a big one bud....

Nope not hunting while was posting , just trying to be funny ( somewhat) , passed up 3 really nice deer 150-160's looking for a
giant! Good luck to u as well!! I just wanna stay out of this thread!

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

No i did not go, i have been hunting,

Also i only skimmed over some posts !

I fish that tournament which has been held around the same time every year , there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk, this is why i dont wanna get involved on this thread , the sawt president should not be evan brought up in this thread , it is legal to fish the river for everyone , so why shpuld the tourment suffer , if for one second u think every tournament fisher man doent care about the fish, for one stop the poachers at the spill way they are hurting the fishery way more than the sawt ever will!!!!
Chub, why dont u become the president of the sawt, you dont fish tournaments, u love walleye fishing , we could use a guy like u around the trail, ( im serious) , plus u also could actually see how many fish die , i would bet it is 1000 times less than the fish being poached!! Seriously think about !

Jason

Sigh.... Maybe you should have actually read all of the posts, and not just 'skimmed' some of the posts.

No one, as far as I know, is debating the fact that the anglers fishing the SAWT care about the fish. There was one post that made the anglers sound bad (made by Dan Foss), which was commented on about how it sounded bad, and was clarified. So non issue in my mind. Next....

The reason the President of SAWT was brought up in this thread, was because of the conflict of interests created with the same guy being the President of WU. The conflict of interest being that while WU and their President was pushing for this closure (apparently 2-3 years) to protect spawning walleye (pre/during/post), SAWT with the same guy being the President of their organization, was allowing anglers in the tournament to fish the area subjected to the proposed closure. It has nothing to do with legalities.

Sure, it is/was legal for SAWT anglers to fish the west arm, but they could have taken a pro-active approach and joined WU's push for the closure, and voluntarily chosen to close the west arm. In the mind of some on here, this may have actually accelerated the process to get a longer closure on the lake (may being the key word, as there is no possible way to confirm this), as it may have gotten the attention of the SRD by the SAWT saying 'because we believe in this closure, we're choosing not to allow tournament anglers to fish the area being looked at for the closure.' This approach would have completely wiped the conflict of interests debacle clean, as it could be shown the President of both organizations is pushing the same agenda for both, and not one agenda for one organization (WU) while completely ignoring that with another agenda (SAWT).

I'm not sure how the tournament would "suffer" as you put it, because you even say it yourself, and i quote- "there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk,". Others on here have also mentioned that not many fish have been caught in the west arm during the tournament. So why not close the west arm so as to align and maybe even help with WU's push for the closure, and at the same time, not harass walleye that are still in their spawning phase.

I mean, it's all moot anyways, but I'm done re-hashing this now... It's been gone over with previously.

[fish farmer]

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

Yuppers

Here ya go justin c , im staying out of this one , what some people are saying!


Kelly Lyle give your figen head a shake , and go back to the whole u came from!

Plus im way to busy chasing WT up north to read threw this crap , i might make time once hunting season is over!! Oh theres another 160 hmmm looks like hes going to walk thats number 2 up here so far hopefully a big deer will walk out , 2 more days till im sask bound

Later girls have fun whining , cause the men are out hunting in the cold !

Jason Villemaire, give your head a shake and climb back into the hole you came from! Take your brother to. Thanks for providing good input in this thread though

[Dan Foss]

Never once did I say all anglers in the sawt would say that. I was only ever trying to exemplify some scenarios that may have arose when action been taken to close the leg for the sawt. I never have given an exact statement of what I thought, or what others who may or may not be fishing the trail have said, but only ever suggest what may be another side to look at it. I wasn't ever trying to portray an argument to sway people to one side, and I had stated before that there may have been things to consider and not been so simple as saying "its closed". So don't implicate me as valuing money over fishes lives. Because I don't. I am just a rational thinker who likes to consider other aspects to a scenario other than the easy plain sighted views. Rather than just saying "why was it not closed" and grabbing a pitch fork I go "good question, maybe this was a reason, or a concern....... Since I am not on the board, nor am I tight with the pres, I dont have all the information". My posts were only ever intended to share these thoughts of "think this through before we burn someone at the stake"

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Never once did I say all anglers in the sawt would say that. I was only ever trying to exemplify some scenarios that may have arose when action been taken to close the leg for the sawt. I never have given an exact statement of what I thought, or what others who may or may not be fishing the trail have said, but only ever suggest what may be another side to look at it. I wasn't ever trying to portray an argument to sway people to one side, and I had stated before that there may have been things to consider and not been so simple as saying "its closed". So don't implicate me as valuing money over fishes lives. Because I don't. I am just a rational thinker who likes to consider other aspects to a scenario other than the easy plain sighted views. Rather than just saying "why was it not closed" and grabbing a pitch fork I go "good question, maybe this was a reason, or a concern....... Since I am not on the board, nor am I tight with the pres, I dont have all the information". My posts were only ever intended to share these thoughts of "think this through before we burn someone at the stake"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Foss
Because people are childish. As it has already been established, the boundaries and dates for the SAWT are set by the licenses they are given to hold the tournament. SAWT could have chosen to apply additional boundaries to not include that section but lets face it(and this forum is an example), Anglers are a bunch of whiny babies. Half of the SAWT anglers would complain and whine that "but if half-wit angler-Joe is allowed to fish that section why cannot the tournament anglers who likely have superior fish handling skills". IF you dont think this would happen, then you need to wake up. It's like anything in the world, if the saw says you should be allowed to do something then there will be a group of people who think it is their legal right to do so and if a third party says no then that group will resist. If people were allowed to carry guns, they would.

It's not so simple as the SAWT saying "we are closing this section". especially when competition, money, and men are involved. There was no conflict of interest with the President of WU and SAWT being the same guy. If anything it worked to the best interests of both groups by incorporating them together. Providing both groups with invaluable information about the sport and the fish that we all enjoy.

PS. The people who know the answers are smart enough to not get involved in this kind of thing. I mean come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the clashing mentalities and superegos floating around here creates the grounds for a legitimate discussion about as stable as boiling water. That is why those who have the answers have pretty much said no more than tell people where to go for meetings that will provide some information.




You should not back peddle so fast your bound to fall off your bike.

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Foss
Because people are childish. As it has already been established, the boundaries and dates for the SAWT are set by the licenses they are given to hold the tournament. SAWT could have chosen to apply additional boundaries to not include that section but lets face it(and this forum is an example), Anglers are a bunch of whiny babies. Half of the SAWT anglers would complain and whine that "but if half-wit angler-Joe is allowed to fish that section why cannot the tournament anglers who likely have superior fish handling skills". IF you dont think this would happen, then you need to wake up. It's like anything in the world, if the saw says you should be allowed to do something then there will be a group of people who think it is their legal right to do so and if a third party says no then that group will resist. If people were allowed to carry guns, they would.

It's not so simple as the SAWT saying "we are closing this section". especially when competition, money, and men are involved. There was no conflict of interest with the President of WU and SAWT being the same guy. If anything it worked to the best interests of both groups by incorporating them together. Providing both groups with invaluable information about the sport and the fish that we all enjoy.

PS. The people who know the answers are smart enough to not get involved in this kind of thing. I mean come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the clashing mentalities and superegos floating around here creates the grounds for a legitimate discussion about as stable as boiling water. That is why those who have the answers have pretty much said no more than tell people where to go for meetings that will provide some information.




You should not back peddle so fast your bound to fall off your bike.

Shooooo Troll. at the end of that paragraph I stated that the point of what I had just said was to exemplify that if someone makes a rule there will always be people who oppose it. And your bolded statements in the second paragraph do not support you trying to call me out. actually support mine as my stance has always been " it isnt so simple for someone to say its closed" there are other factors, hurdles, arguments, decisions, and commitments that have to be considered. What exactly those things are, i do not know and neither do any of us. as like i said I am not a board member of sawt so I wouldnt know. but I tried to exemplify what some of these things may be. maybe the example i gave wasnt an issue. but maybe there was some other issue that I havent thought of yet.

seriously horse, throughout the course of this thread you have displayed some issues comprehending tone and tense of a discussion or statement. This is a common problem of discussions made via a keyboard as opposed to the old fashion person to person. Next time you are in town drop me a line and I will take you for a pint and we will take care of some of these comprehension issues regarding my posts. as for the other individuals who you may or may not have missed the tone or tense, well thats on them to address and not me.

[Dan Foss]

additionally if you take one post out of a discussion you can twist anything any way you want. if you look through the following posts and discussions it can be shown what my intent of that post was. journalists make a very good living out of picking and choosing quotes and leaving out the rest of the conversation.

[freeones]

@Dan Foss.

Don't worry Dan, anyone actually reading the thread objectively, and thinking about the issue regarding the SAWT and the closure objectively, understands you loud and clear. Your point is a very valid one, whether certain people choose to accept it or not, and regardless of how they attempt to twist it to their favor or into meaning something it clearly wasnt meant to.

Unfortunately, as the line goes "Some men, you just can't reach..."

[chubbdarter]

My apologizes for biting on a quoted old post.
The SAWT issue was handled straight up and up front at the last WU meeting and in my eyes is dust in the wind.

[anthony5]

Yea what he said!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it fellas.
Well said freeones

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Shooooo Troll. at the end of that paragraph I stated that the point of what I had just said was to exemplify that if someone makes a rule there will always be people who oppose it. And your bolded statements in the second paragraph do not support you trying to call me out. actually support mine as my stance has always been " it isnt so simple for someone to say its closed" there are other factors, hurdles, arguments, decisions, and commitments that have to be considered. What exactly those things are, i do not know and neither do any of us. as like i said I am not a board member of sawt so I wouldnt know. but I tried to exemplify what some of these things may be. maybe the example i gave wasnt an issue. but maybe there was some other issue that I havent thought of yet.

seriously horse, throughout the course of this thread you have displayed some issues comprehending tone and tense of a discussion or statement. This is a common problem of discussions made via a keyboard as opposed to the old fashion person to person. Next time you are in town drop me a line and I will take you for a pint and we will take care of some of these comprehension issues regarding my posts. as for the other individuals who you may or may not have missed the tone or tense, well thats on them to address and not me.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

additionally if you take one post out of a discussion you can twist anything any way you want. if you look through the following posts and discussions it can be shown what my intent of that post was. journalists make a very good living out of picking and choosing quotes and leaving out the rest of the conversation.

I had a whole message written out but thought what the heck i already said it once.So I will just reply to the last post. I have no problem comprehending the written word and I'm sure you don't either I'm sure you did a lot of reading in school engineering is a hard go I'm sure you read a lot about the danfoss group your reason for using the name. As far as going for a pint we know you don't drink.You were doing ok till you talked about taking Gus fishing that boat screwed you up again pack it in B - - - -........

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by freeones

@Dan Foss.

Don't worry Dan, anyone actually reading the thread objectively, and thinking about the issue regarding the SAWT and the closure objectively, understands you loud and clear. Your point is a very valid one, whether certain people choose to accept it or not, and regardless of how they attempt to twist it to their favor or into meaning something it clearly wasnt meant to.

Unfortunately, as the line goes "Some men, you just can't reach..."

I was surprised to see it was 2 weeks since you posted on this thread then I reread your posts and I knew why.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by anthony5

Yea what he said!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it fellas.
Well said freeones

Wow another one time poster great addition to the thread

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Never once did I say all anglers in the sawt would say that. I was only ever trying to exemplify some scenarios that may have arose when action been taken to close the leg for the sawt. I never have given an exact statement of what I thought, or what others who may or may not be fishing the trail have said, but only ever suggest what may be another side to look at it. I wasn't ever trying to portray an argument to sway people to one side, and I had stated before that there may have been things to consider and not been so simple as saying "its closed". So don't implicate me as valuing money over fishes lives. Because I don't. I am just a rational thinker who likes to consider other aspects to a scenario other than the easy plain sighted views. Rather than just saying "why was it not closed" and grabbing a pitch fork I go "good question, maybe this was a reason, or a concern....... Since I am not on the board, nor am I tight with the pres, I dont have all the information". My posts were only ever intended to share these thoughts of "think this through before we burn someone at the stake"

Because I'm sure this post is partially (if not wholly) directed at me, I should explain. See below...

Originally Posted by Drop_Tine

... I fish that tournament which has been held around the same time every year , there has been quit a few times the tournament has been won outside of the river , there has been quit a few times the river is unfishable because it looks like chocolate milk, this is why i dont wanna get involved on this thread , the sawt president should not be evan brought up in this thread , it is legal to fish the river for everyone , so why shpuld the tourment suffer , if for one second u think every tournament fisher man doent care about the fish, for one stop the poachers at the spill way they are hurting the fishery way more than the sawt ever will!!!! ...

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

... No one, as far as I know, is debating the fact that the anglers fishing the SAWT care about the fish. There was one post that made the anglers sound bad (made by Dan Foss), which was commented on about how it sounded bad, and was clarified. So non issue in my mind. Next.... ...

I was replying to Drop Tine's post, who is implying that some of us are saying that tournament fisherman don't care about the fish. And I was simply pointing you your post Dan as an example, I was not saying that you think that. If you read the blue part of my post above, I said it "made the anglers SOUND bad...", which it did, and then I go on to say that it "was commented on about how it sounded bad, and was clarified"- commented on by Chub, myself and maybe others, about how it sounded about, and it was clarified by Dan that that was not what he meant or intended to imply. Case closed.

I DO NOT think that the anglers fishing on the SAWT don't care about the fish. I don't know for sure one way or the other, but I would like to think without a doubt the tournament anglers take care of the fisheries they on.

On top of that, I am in no way trying to crucify SAWT and start a mud slinging brawl, nor am I trying to "burn someone at the stake". If it comes off that way, then I apologize! That is not my intent. In all reality, I have zero knowledge about the SAWT organization as whole, the President, nor the members.

But at the same time, if questions are not asked about certain intricacies or scenarios about organizations in general, not just WU and SAWT, then any organization not questioned could get away with just about anything they wanted, and would not be held accountable. And that is all I'm trying to do, is ask questions. Most of the time I'm mostly "thinking out loud" via this thread about the "whys" of things that have occurred.

I completely understand that there is another side to story, and for some things there is probably a completely rational explanation about why certain things have happened. But until those explanations are offered, those questions are still going to come up. And again, I completely understand that the answers to those questions may not be provided in this setting.

I will admit, there are some things about this all that make me scratch my head, but if I am ever shown that some of the questions I have posed are completely off-base, I will not hesitate to set the record straight and admit I was/am wrong.

So to that end, again, I apologize if it comes off as me trying to drag someones name through the mud. I am only trying to ask some hard questions about "why". But I will not apologize for simply asking questions.

[anthony5]

This is getting a little deep! Lets get some real answers from the people in the know and form some questions and maybe get some answers from that. Until then all we are doing is bashing each other about our interpretations without knowing just what the hell is going on!

[freeones]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

I was surprised to see it was 2 weeks since you posted on this thread then I reread your posts and I knew why.

Did you really? I highly doubt it after reading your last few posts.

[Kokanee9]

I was just wondering if maybe it was time to lock this one up.

It seems like posts are getting further and further away from the topic and have started moving toward clarifying and rehashing older posts in this thread.

That's too bad because I thought that this was one of the better and more informative threads that had shown up in a while.

[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by Kokanee9

I was just wondering if maybe it was time to lock this one up.

It seems like posts are getting further and further away from the topic and have started moving toward clarifying and rehashing older posts in this thread.

That's too bad because I thought that this was one of the better and more informative threads that had shown up in a while.

I don't always agree with you Kok but this time I do so I won't waste anyone time replying to the last post and probaly should not have made my last ones. This thread did what it was supose to do so why beat it to death.
Good idea Kokanee

[Kokanee9]

Originally Posted by horsetrader

I don't always agree with you Kok.........

You don't always agree with me? I certainly hope not.

I can only imagine how boring things would be if everyone agreed with everyone else on here.

[Don Andersen]

Folks, I posted this elsewhere and was asked to post it here. No idea why -

Don

Been reviewing the Fish Conservation and Management Strategy 2011-2015 as requested by SRD. This review was requested by participants of the Provincial Roundtable on Fisheries.

I found this statement within the DRAFT document.

As a million + live in Calgary + another million in Edmonton + 1/3 of a million straight east and I live @ the apex of the triangle, it would appear that I get to speak on your behalf or if I want, only on my behalf and screw you. Good thing or bad?

The relevant statement is below. How would you modify it to have people who recreate in the Rocky area thoughts represented?

9.
There should be public involvement and education in the conservation and management of Alberta’s fish populations.
What Does This Mean?
Greater public awareness and the involvement of a knowledgeable public in fisheries management are essential to increasing public support to recover and sustain aquatic habitats and fish populations. Public involvement will be incorporated into fisheries management using consistent and clearly understood
processes. Major initiatives will be announced in the Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations one year before implementation. Public review will primarily occur at the local level, with additional input from the Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table. The final step is to seek Ministerial approval of proposed management changes.



regards,


Don

[Freedom55]

I have never participated in a SAWT tournament, but I did make the mistake (?) one Friday of choosing Travers as a fishing destination. Unbeknownst to me, the campground was crowded with campers and the boat launch was nuts. About a million dollars worth of boats coming and going, all very respectable and organized.

I did observe however, a single angler on the disputed dock, chucking a wacky rigged plastic grub into the water between the boats that were coming and going. I saw no angling by the tournament guys, and in fairness this was a pre-fishing day, in this portion of the inlet stream but this fellow with his dime store gear and goofy presentation had the only keeper I saw all day, pros or joes.

The thing is, no one that we saw there was harassing this lonely angler nor disputing his right to fish where he was. And that fellow was completely unfazed by all the boat action around him. Fact is we only stopped there mid-day because my wife enjoys a bathroom break from time to time.

I did not realize, then or now, that there was an issue with this section. Nor did it ever occur to me to fish that muddy soup. We did okay, always do at that place, but nothing like the lunch buddy harvested that afternoon. And seemingly, the SAWT guys could not care less.

I am not convinced that this is such a hot button topic that demands all this agony and hard feelings, for two lousy days per year of angling pressure. And as far as sportfishing goes, it is a bet that unless I am competing, I have no intention of getting in the way of the tournament fellas for these few days. Too many people.

I will tell you this. Any tournaments that I have fished does not allow angling within a certain pre-set distance from the weigh scale/release point. It occurs to me that this dock would be the spot for the judges to set up so fishing in "the river" becomes a moot point during the event.

Free

[npauls]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I will tell you this. Any tournaments that I have fished does not allow angling within a certain pre-set distance from the weigh scale/release point. It occurs to me that this dock would be the spot for the judges to set up so fishing in "the river" becomes a moot point during the event.

Free

Hey Free,

Just wanted to let you know that SAWT does on the water measuring. This means we have a weigh boat that patrols around and the tournament anglers have to go dock up to the boat and one of the judges boards the boat to take measurements with his/hers official board. The fish is then released back into the lake right away.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I have never participated in a SAWT tournament, but I did make the mistake (?) one Friday of choosing Travers as a fishing destination. Unbeknownst to me, the campground was crowded with campers and the boat launch was nuts. About a million dollars worth of boats coming and going, all very respectable and organized.

I did observe however, a single angler on the disputed dock, chucking a wacky rigged plastic grub into the water between the boats that were coming and going. I saw no angling by the tournament guys, and in fairness this was a pre-fishing day, in this portion of the inlet stream but this fellow with his dime store gear and goofy presentation had the only keeper I saw all day, pros or joes.

The thing is, no one that we saw there was harassing this lonely angler nor disputing his right to fish where he was. And that fellow was completely unfazed by all the boat action around him. Fact is we only stopped there mid-day because my wife enjoys a bathroom break from time to time.

I did not realize, then or now, that there was an issue with this section. Nor did it ever occur to me to fish that muddy soup. We did okay, always do at that place, but nothing like the lunch buddy harvested that afternoon. And seemingly, the SAWT guys could not care less.

I am not convinced that this is such a hot button topic that demands all this agony and hard feelings, for two lousy days per year of angling pressure. And as far as sportfishing goes, it is a bet that unless I am competing, I have no intention of getting in the way of the tournament fellas for these few days. Too many people.

I will tell you this. Any tournaments that I have fished does not allow angling within a certain pre-set distance from the weigh scale/release point. It occurs to me that this dock would be the spot for the judges to set up so fishing in "the river" becomes a moot point during the event.

Free

Free, I always respect your posts and i hope im addressing your post as i understand it.
SAWT rules do not allow fishing in the Provincially set NO WAKE ZONE, therefore i doubt you will observe boats in the Dock/launch area.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Folks, I posted this elsewhere and was asked to post it here. No idea why -

Don

Been reviewing the Fish Conservation and Management Strategy 2011-2015 as requested by SRD. This review was requested by participants of the Provincial Roundtable on Fisheries.

I found this statement within the DRAFT document.

As a million + live in Calgary + another million in Edmonton + 1/3 of a million straight east and I live @ the apex of the triangle, it would appear that I get to speak on your behalf or if I want, only on my behalf and screw you. Good thing or bad?

The relevant statement is below. How would you modify it to have people who recreate in the Rocky area thoughts represented?

9.
There should be public involvement and education in the conservation and management of Alberta’s fish populations.
What Does This Mean?
Greater public awareness and the involvement of a knowledgeable public in fisheries management are essential to increasing public support to recover and sustain aquatic habitats and fish populations. Public involvement will be incorporated into fisheries management using consistent and clearly understood
processes. Major initiatives will be announced in the Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations one year before implementation. Public review will primarily occur at the local level, with additional input from the Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table. The final step is to seek Ministerial approval of proposed management changes.



regards,


Don

Now we are on to the....heart of the topic
Is this a general discussion/purposal for the entire province or just the area youve stated.
thanks

[chubbdarter]

So.......beating around the bush is a waste of time

How does a group of fisherman, get a person on the Round Table to represent their concerns?
thanks

[WayneChristie]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

So.......beating around the bush is a waste of time

How does a group of fisherman, get a person on the Round Table to represent their concerns?
thanks

Bribery, take them out fishing a few times and get them addicted also.