Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-05-2013, 11:10 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Nait...

This creek rarely gets very high. There are 2' banks and if the water gets higher than that, it spreads out over the adjoining land. The velocity is also quite low as the gradient is low. Damaging floods are just not seen here.
This is by far one of the most benign trout environments in Alberta.
What must be considered, if the trout are decreasing here in one of the best trout streams in Alberta, what is going on elsewhere?

Don
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-05-2013, 02:42 PM
Bhflyfisher Bhflyfisher is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Prince George, BC
Posts: 1,190
Default

Seems like you make stauffer out to be a pretty isolated system. Other places dont have much to worry about.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-07-2013, 06:40 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Don:

What sort of monitoring is going on of this little water course.

Is there any consistent limnological data that has been recently performsed?

Are there any private indiviuals with limnological kits, cheap or expensive, that monitor the water course?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:21 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Grey lynx,

SRD had Dept of Enironment do some water test and as far as I am aware, there are no other monitoring done. I have a digital copy of the report if you are interested.

As far as pH,hardness,TDS ets. I did comparison tests a number of years ago in an attempt to understand whether Clear Creek, Clearwater River & Stauffer creek all were the same water source. They are. This was part of a successful effort to keep Petro-Canada from using Stauffer Creek aquifer as a water source for oil field water flooding.

Clearly, it will take more work to determine the root cause(s) of what is causing the brown trout decline.

Regards,



Don
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:27 AM
McLeod McLeod is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
Default

It's more than one thing quite clearily....
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-08-2013, 07:01 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

This little jewel of a creek might need something like a PhD candidate. I smell a nice multiple regression analysis after tons of data and critiique from peers. OK how we fund this guy or gal.....I remember Ellie Prepas.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-08-2013, 07:44 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Grey lynx,

I'm thinking the same thing except we are on nearly the last dregs. Do we really have time for a multi-year study? In hindsight, if SRD had motivated ACA to do another population study in 2010 as requested, there wouldn't have been 2 years flushed down the crapped.
Mind you, the population has been dropping since 1985 why get in a hurry. After all, what is thirty years of doing ........

Don
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-08-2013, 08:13 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Don:

I say shut her down, fishing included, That will be one of the base lines of comparison, with a nice data review from before.

Make the creek into a study site like the Tri-Creeks.

Then there is the politics.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-09-2013, 06:41 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Grey lynx,

Not at all sure that shutting it down is the "cure". Certainly, if I didn't fish the creek and have for over 40 years, the findings and this discussion wouldn't have happened.
If people don't go there and express interest, you can bet you bottom buck that the Govt will allow this creek to just fall off the radar.
Remember the promises made during the Three Rivers Damn ( which effectively damed up the Oldman, Castle & Crowsnest) by the Minister! No net loss of the fishery.
Yup! Govt can be trusted to do the right thing.
By the way, few people are aware of the Tri-creeks program and further govt normal reaction to most anything is ban things. Grey... Did you work for Govt?

Regards,


Don
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-09-2013, 09:34 AM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Grey lynx,

Not at all sure that shutting it down is the "cure". Certainly, if I didn't fish the creek and have for over 40 years, the findings and this discussion wouldn't have happened.
If people don't go there and express interest, you can bet you bottom buck that the Govt will allow this creek to just fall off the radar.
Remember the promises made during the Three Rivers Damn ( which effectively damed up the Oldman, Castle & Crowsnest) by the Minister! No net loss of the fishery.
Yup! Govt can be trusted to do the right thing.
By the way, few people are aware of the Tri-creeks program and further govt normal reaction to most anything is ban things. Grey... Did you work for Govt?

Regards,


Don
Hi Don:

You are bang on there.

I worked for fisheries a long time ago.

I think things have become much worse with the government since that time.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-09-2013, 10:59 AM
WillyOneStyle's Avatar
WillyOneStyle WillyOneStyle is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 673
Default

Stauffer has always been a favorite of mine. I've been there dozens of times and landed maybe half a dozen small fish, an experience echoed by many of my friends. I also saw an otter in the creek in early 2012 (and reported it), but I would imagine big trout are harder for them to catch too.
I don't have any answers but I do have a pair of hands, If volunteers are needed, I'll sign up. I'm only 45 minutes away.

Will
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-09-2013, 11:04 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool X2

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillyOneStyle View Post
Stauffer has always been a favorite of mine.
I don't have any answers but I do have a pair of hands, If volunteers are needed, I'll sign up. I'm only 45 minutes away.

Will
I'm with this guy.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:33 PM
DaveJensen DaveJensen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

Don, with full respect to the time you’ve spent on, in, and thinking of the creek, I say the following (and I am typing this from New Zealand with not a lot of time to proof this reply and re-read it to ensure that my thoughts are positive, clear, concise, and that I’m saying not only all that I hope to but not leading your mind the wrong direction... and that much of what I type you know and isn't at you rather, to add to the bigger picture)

I’ll get to this later in this post, but can you tell me what numbers are missing from the following data set?
236; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 85; ?; ?;? ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 300; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 150; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?
I do NOT want to argue the semantics because we are largely on the same page, but until you can prove that there is a problem, there is no problem, scientifically speaking. Gov types simply will not do anything lest there is a need displayed. I would strongly suggest that the data set above, or something very eerily similar, is the actual data set that the gov has for population and population dynamics through the years on Stauffer. AND, any bio worth any salt wouldn’t touch a guess on the true value of the missing numbers in the data set because so many factors, cycles, environmental conditions, etc could see the #s go either to 1000 or 2. The trouble with truly inconsistent data sampling in relation to natural processes is that unless you have consistency, you have NOTHING. I do not see things as dire as you do, but that’s ok. The point is that gov has ultimately done the statistical equivelant of NOTHING when it comes to population observation. That’s where we need to focus, regardless if you & I agree on the here and now. To take a snapshot sampling at random, irrelevant intervals is terrible and actually can be detrimental –> the 1000 trout/km survey could easily have come at a peak recruitment phase of the creek when the population was rebounding thanks to habitat restoration, thus giving false positives and false hope of what the creek actually can carry. Hence, for 27 years after such a # was achieved, statistically, the population has been going downhill. False positives are a horrible thing, made worse when the gov wants to ride the PR horse to show how good a job it’s doing when in fact the stream was simply responding to the band aids, rest, and ice given the chronic injuries it had suffered since homesteading came to central Alberta.

Next - and this is NOTHING personal, not at all about your knowledge or ability, but much of your data has holes so big that you can drive a Mac truck through it. I suspect that you know and can see this. The insect sampling size and anecdotal evidence of fish numbers declining for the ‘past 27 years’ means nothing scientifically (and I think to my own experience and tracking and say the same thing –> we’re anglers who care and our own circumstance can only hold so much water, clout, and pull in the larger picture of things). I know that you know this and addressed it in the desire to have professionals do what you are doing to a level that needs be done in order to determine what is going on, so hair on you for that. And yes, it sucks when we know there is something going on and we only have our own incomplete, lone fencepost on a grassy hill data set to reply upon.

I have to say the title of this thread –> IMHO is untrue and irrational in the bigger picture of things (I know what you mean and your intent to draw attention, so fair enough). Ecosystems are evolutionary, be it a forest or your front lawn, or a stream. Right now it appears that Stauffer has simply had a long, prolonged, repetitive hair cut. So much so that maybe we don’t know what she looks like with long hair anymore. All the facets and factors discussed here have impact, and cumulatively compounded over time take their toll. I relate it strongly to several estuarian river mouths here in NZ. The onslaught of dairy farm conversions here has seen an incredible toxic build up in the estuaries – to the point that the build up of toxic sludge is feet deep in many cases and nearly impossible to get rid of. You can clean up all you want upstream, but it will still take 1000 years for the force of water to wash out the 3 – 5 feet of sludge that has built up and is leeching out, either killing or mutating what life there is. Even at that, where does that sludge go once flushed but to another watershed (ocean). In the case of Stauffer, it is likely in the same predicament. The stream, however, is not dying. It may be enduring a responsive successionary stage that we don’t like because Alberta has become the sacrificial lamb to feed N American energy. Do we know if suckers and pike #s have changed at all? I digress because we know the answer is “I don’t know” from everyone because of the spaggetti to the wall mgt we’ve had in Ab for so long. But, we do need to accept that Alberta, as an engine to N America, is going to suffer environmentally. It is real and all we can do in our generation is attempt to keep a few pieces together until the oil/natural resource lusting ceases.

We need to stop thinking in terms of 20” trout. I’ve caught many 20+” trout in Stauffer through the years and some 24” trout from Stauffer in recent years would be outweighed by an 18” Ram cutthroat. Some streams in central Ab have simply seen their quality of fish dwindle since the flood. We need to start looking at the health of our fish like the QSF program looks at its fish –> snakey Fiesta fish vs MB Parkland trout. How do/can we get there with what we have? Better, given the insults, heavy use, etc, etc –> can we get healthy again? I was shocked at the Red Deer R last spring –> the males all had big heads and skinny tails; the females nothing more than snakey tubes. I’ve caught some skinny 25” browns on Stauffer the past few years that simply would have been more fiesty if they’d been willow branches. Where is the biomass going? Have we reached carrying capacity? Has carrying capacity gone downhill or have other species taken over? We’re asking the same questions, albeit it slightly differently.

Fisheries Mgt in Alberta has been a ‘thrown it against the wall until something sticks’ program since its inception. This is nothing to do with the people in the system as the system itself. There is no consistent stream specific biology occurring, even on the province’s showpiece (Bow). If that isn’t being managed with true biology thanks to budgets (and while the fishing is good the biology is truly suspect with spot/snapshot data sampling and little public involvement, etc), how do we go from there to stream specific biology? We’re still in the Wild West, but I strongly suspect we’re coming to the end of that era. You might not see it, I might/not, but the day is coming where river specific plans with true biology, enforcement, etc are to be done to ensure long term viability of our waters. This is where the merit of European waters management is positive. It will still be a long struggle, however, as the reckless ‘I’ll use whatever I want whenever I want’ attitude prevails along our eastern slopes. The slope to the bottom and the pinching of good trout waters is noticeable. The new wave will likely initially follow the template StreamWatch had –> private anglers and lobby groups coming together to do the gov’s job. Eventually such an entity will brow-beat the gov into either doing its job with proper funding or that entity will become an arm of gov that manages things. The time is likely right for a pilot project whereby private individuals, orgs, groups, etc come together on a (relatively) controlled environment such as Stauffer. Funds to be raised privately and works contracted out; in stream works co-ordinated by a central entity. And consistent, true biology carried out. Most importantly, if I can inject, that if you had an unlimited budget, time, etc, the term I suspect that is needed for what you/I etc would do for the stream is a Watershed Mgt Plan with a subordinate Fisheries Management Plan that carried out this true biology. And subsequently, annual surveys would be performed, enforcement carried out throughout the year, watershed concerns would be addressed and funnelled through the proper channels, etc. Stauffer would be a perfect scenario for this.

Before you come back and say it’s too late or that will take too much time, or how do we set up to do the above... recall that grass, trees, and yes, fish all grow. While we might not like where it’s at now, the only answer that the present gov fisheries mgt system will listen to is to show proof, to study things. So, I say, let’s get an arm reach entity set up and start doing some real biology on a stream in Alberta that combines some of the facets of Streamwatch (enforcement); some of the facets of SW that I wanted but never materialized (public inclusion and angler participation encouraged); annual sampling (angler use by reach, population dynamics, water quality, etc); determination of carrying capacity and biomass calculation; among the other things listed in this thread. To start something like this on Stauffer would be the ultimate legacy to your & Barry’s works through the decades and ensure that – while you aren’t happy with where it is presently – we can get the ecosystem stable in everyone’s mind. And, if we can get such a pilot project off the ground on Stauffer, it could then easily be duplicated to other waters or tighter regional fisheries (south, central, and north cutthroat stream management rather than managing the Torrens with the same brush as Daisy Cr, for example).

Again, while you & I won’t agree on the exact present condition of the creek (I’m moderately concerned, I see you as gravely concerned both for now and the future) that is immaterial in the bigger picture of where things are headed. If we could all come together and do something like the above over the long term, it would honor not only yourself, but every angler in this resource heavy province into the future. I think that the time for something like this is coming soon, if not now. This is essentially how Streamwatch started and something like this might be the next new wave.

Respectfully,

Dave

PS - Amelia just had a good idea that there are uni/college programs that could easily do a lot of this work as a curriculum addition. Given the proximity of Stauffer, it's a perfect hands on stream for the U of A; U of C; NAIT; RDC. And go from there...

Last edited by DaveJensen; 02-11-2013 at 03:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-11-2013, 05:39 PM
WillyOneStyle's Avatar
WillyOneStyle WillyOneStyle is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 673
Default

I'll help. I have friends, too.
Excellent post, Dave, I really enjoyed reading that.
Will
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:24 PM
mattpreat mattpreat is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Rocky mountain house
Posts: 121
Default

If volunteers are needed I can help to, I've been looking for volunteer opportunity's for school and this would work good if there's any need for it.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-14-2013, 06:46 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Dave,

The report "Death of a Trout Stream - Observations of an Angler" was just that a report. It only reported the facts. You can argue that there is not enough data there but what is there is telling a truly ugly story. You can suggest that anecdotal evidence is not admissible in a biological sense and truly it should not be however, there is no anecdotal evidence presented. The report draws no conclusion but reports only the evidence.
We can wish and hope that there was more data but it does not exist.

Perhaps we should draw an analogy here. If this was your bank savings account and you tuned your life around in 1980 resulting in a large increase in savings and no matter what you saved or how hard you worked the amount dwindled over the years to nearly zero. At what point in time would you realize that this can't continue and you has better figure out who has been stealing from you.

Several things the report did not highlight were:

1] At the same time as habitat was being improved the fish populations were dropping.
2] The SRD staff have been kept fully informed of what I was doing and why - their activities speak volumes.
3] SRD asked ACA to rerun the population study in 2010 rather than waiting till 2015 which was the typical cycle rate. Clearly that wasn't done.
4] Both the ACA and AF&G are aware of the issue.
5] The insect study was an attempt to figure out where the effect started. Clearly it doesn't start near the headsprings.
6] What must be apparent is that the population height was reached in 1985 according to the population runs but the largest population may have happened after 1973. It may have occurred in 1974 and the numbers from 1985 were already in decline.
7] The population numbers have shrank from 750 in '85>450 in '95 to 250 in '05. I started counting redd numbers in 2007 and the trout spawning has shrank by a further 80+% from 2007 to 2012. This is not anecdotal evidence - them is the facts. More study needed - hardly.
8] While the report touches on predation, it does not mention the recent addition of Otters to the effects on the stream. While I haven't seen them, according to other posters, they have. Govt stocking Otters in Central Alberta certainly didn't help the trout populations. So not only does Stauffer now have to contend with something causing decreased trout populations, now it got Otters!

So the larger question is should I have waited for Govt/ACA/other anglers to do something?

And for those Govt guys who wander by now and then.

I'm 67 and I AM TIRED OF WAITING! THIS HAS BEEN ONLY GOING ON FOR 27 YEARS. FIX IT OR GET OUTTA THE WAY!

Don
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-15-2013, 07:23 AM
WillyOneStyle's Avatar
WillyOneStyle WillyOneStyle is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 673
Default

This has been the best discussion I have read on this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-17-2013, 06:28 PM
DaveJensen DaveJensen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

Again, not so at you but in keeping with what I'm conveying bigger picture.

Don, at the core of your concerns is what I discussed in my reply. Biology.
There is very little actual, active biology occurring. Within biology, the active study, you measure and account for variables within the complete ecosystem and their interaction. By so doing, you establish what is occurring. Because there is little to no biology occurring, we don't know what is causing the alleged state or even if the alleged state is true.

Scientifically speaking, your studies and data sets are not valid. Sorry to burst your bubble but they aren't. They might be the anecdotal evidence that induces a study, which would then spin-off data or show a need for more study, but your data is incomplete, to say the least. Any angler's data's would be, but it can be used to kick start some action.

Hence, and this is where I'm afraid I'll lose you, you shouting to Alberta Gov "DO SOMETHING", means almost nothing. You / we / they haven't:
A) Determined if there is a problem (if fish biomass is being re-distrbuted or if overall fish biomass has dropped and do note fish boimass and not just trout).
B) Determined what the problem is if an issue is found.

Your report "only reports the facts" - no, your report only reports the facts of a study that is biassed to its variables and incomplete in its methodology. Apologies for being so up front but you do come across quite adamant that your data is complete. It is not and the methods are suspect, to say the least.

To answer your second paragraph you have to establish whether you have a biomass, ecology, or _____ problem. If fish biomass is stable, but not encompassed by trout as high as it was 30 - 40 years ago, you have a habitat issue that is shifting in response to the habitat change. And if, say, fish biomass is stable but is shifting to suckers and pike, then who are we to say that the exotic species should take higher priority than the natives when we have a series of Gov policies and procedures in place that favors the natives? At that point, how can that be a problem? Alternatively, if the overall fish biomass is down, is it habitat or is it over use, over harvest, etc? Both angles here lead to quite a flow chart of variables, and those aren't the only possibilities, just two obvious first starting points.

But you haven't even identified what the problem is yet, and have no subtantiated data to support there to be any problem, much less offer any direction on solution. You may indicate that the entire gov is aware of the issue... but what is the issue? Again, the gov simply looks at cyclical, periodic sampling intervals which aren't worth the $. You want to truly find out if there is a problem, you need to invest time and $ and do some complete, all encompassing biology.

Sorry, at this point shouting "FIX IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!" when you have nothing to substantiate there is a problem is psychologically funny. Really? Fix what???

I'm 40 and love the process of study, in a manner that allows us to establish a foundation for the future, that references the past best it can encompass... to ensure that we have benchmarks that take us into the future, based on fully appreciating the full set of variables represented in biology and not just doing yet another knee-jerk reaction to appease an in the moment, alleged crisis. That has been the Alberta way, the way we've bought into, and look where that has led us: Don Andersen yelling at the sky to fix something he himself doesn't even know if there is something to be fixed or how to fix it.

And I'm not sure if you get how on your side I really am. There simply needs to be some foundation and structure built into this, or you'll go to your grave shouting for something to be done about something you can't quite put your finger on.

Again, just a different perspective.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-17-2013, 07:16 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveJensen View Post
Again, not so at you but in keeping with what I'm conveying bigger picture.

Don, at the core of your concerns is what I discussed in my reply. Biology.
There is very little actual, active biology occurring. Within biology, the active study, you measure and account for variables within the complete ecosystem and their interaction. By so doing, you establish what is occurring. Because there is little to no biology occurring, we don't know what is causing the alleged state or even if the alleged state is true.

Scientifically speaking, your studies and data sets are not valid. Sorry to burst your bubble but they aren't. They might be the anecdotal evidence that induces a study, which would then spin-off data or show a need for more study, but your data is incomplete, to say the least. Any angler's data's would be, but it can be used to kick start some action.

Hence, and this is where I'm afraid I'll lose you, you shouting to Alberta Gov "DO SOMETHING", means almost nothing. You / we / they haven't:
A) Determined if there is a problem (if fish biomass is being re-distrbuted or if overall fish biomass has dropped and do note fish boimass and not just trout).
B) Determined what the problem is if an issue is found.

Your report "only reports the facts" - no, your report only reports the facts of a study that is biassed to its variables and incomplete in its methodology. Apologies for being so up front but you do come across quite adamant that your data is complete. It is not and the methods are suspect, to say the least.

To answer your second paragraph you have to establish whether you have a biomass, ecology, or _____ problem. If fish biomass is stable, but not encompassed by trout as high as it was 30 - 40 years ago, you have a habitat issue that is shifting in response to the habitat change. And if, say, fish biomass is stable but is shifting to suckers and pike, then who are we to say that the exotic species should take higher priority than the natives when we have a series of Gov policies and procedures in place that favors the natives? At that point, how can that be a problem? Alternatively, if the overall fish biomass is down, is it habitat or is it over use, over harvest, etc? Both angles here lead to quite a flow chart of variables, and those aren't the only possibilities, just two obvious first starting points.

But you haven't even identified what the problem is yet, and have no subtantiated data to support there to be any problem, much less offer any direction on solution. You may indicate that the entire gov is aware of the issue... but what is the issue? Again, the gov simply looks at cyclical, periodic sampling intervals which aren't worth the $. You want to truly find out if there is a problem, you need to invest time and $ and do some complete, all encompassing biology.

Sorry, at this point shouting "FIX IT OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!" when you have nothing to substantiate there is a problem is psychologically funny. Really? Fix what???

I'm 40 and love the process of study, in a manner that allows us to establish a foundation for the future, that references the past best it can encompass... to ensure that we have benchmarks that take us into the future, based on fully appreciating the full set of variables represented in biology and not just doing yet another knee-jerk reaction to appease an in the moment, alleged crisis. That has been the Alberta way, the way we've bought into, and look where that has led us: Don Andersen yelling at the sky to fix something he himself doesn't even know if there is something to be fixed or how to fix it.

And I'm not sure if you get how on your side I really am. There simply needs to be some foundation and structure built into this, or you'll go to your grave shouting for something to be done about something you can't quite put your finger on.

Again, just a different perspective.

Cheers
I'm guessing you are well educated, I guess that because you tend to speak down to people. Modern science is almost paralyzed, because scientists are desperately afraid of being proven wrong. They study each others studies and accomplish nothing, afraid to step out and ostracizing those that do. I'll take Don's anecdotal evidence that something is wrong, I don't remember him ever pointing to "it" and saying that's it. As Don guessed this will probably add up to nothing, because science keeps saying you've got nothing instead of actually looking at it. People instinctively know, especially those that spend time observing when something is wrong. We'd be wise to lend an ear to our elders instead of blindly following science.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-17-2013, 07:56 PM
DaveJensen DaveJensen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

I'm the least educated, honestly, though I have tried my best to learn how gov works and how to go about something in the manner in which gov works.

I approached the original reply simply pointing out a different perspective. I ran the risk, in my reply, of sounding condescending, true. My intent was not that at all. There is humor if we step outside of ourselves, myself included, when we wind up yelling at the sky.

Don and myself are on the same page, I can't make that clear enough. BUT, we would approach this very differently.

How the heck can you fix something when you can't identify if there is a problem, based on the entire gammut of how our system of fisheries mgt works? For example, and one of many, many possibilities... if the introduced browns are down but the native pike are up, and the gov mandates support natives, then is there a problem? Until you know what is truly is, you can't possibly adjust. Bill Clinton was perfectly right to ask what the definition of is is. Until you know what it is, how do you define the problem, or if is truly is a problem.
Then, you have to play by gov's rules if you want to play with the gov folks.

Further, I do not believe that the problem is anything perfectly tangible. I see aspects of Alberta as sliding into being the energy waste pile of N America to some degree, and in so going that route, are sacrificing things like the introduced brown trout population in Stauffer for economic gain. Things like habitat shifts (and the gov types have many studies and reports that call for bios to shift management to accomodate for managing fisheries in a warming climate... that's what happens when you clearcut the foothills and build roads that fill critical 5th stage tributaries with sediment and allow every seismic line to remain to become ATV hwys) seldom come thanks to one, clearly defined variable shift. Hence, my point, you can't logically, rationally scream to the sky to "do something or get out of my way!" when you can't identify what the issue is, much less when dealing with a gov that has allowed pretty much every conceivable environmental insult to occur thanks to our main big industries, while simultaneously allowing virtually unchecked use and abuse by recreational users, be it atv, 4x4, fishing, etc. All the while collecting absolutely useless biological data (as I opened my first reply with).
This is why I made the comments in my first reply... this is a perfect location to start a shift in how we manage fisheries in Alberta... a perfect, relatively closed location to actually practise biology, which will provide benchmarks to take such fisheries into the future and establisha system that could be duplicated to other waters to ensure we have something to reference as we move forward in our continued, likely non-sustainable use of our natural resources.
Instead, I get the response to essentially stuff myself by someone who has no good data to rely upon, and no direction to take because there is no substantiated data to show __________ is indeed occurring.

And if you're still reading, some kind of system that accounts for people like Don and myself that have used our personal data sets to change fisheries in Alberta, combined with the system I'm talking about here is likely the best future outcome.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 02-17-2013, 08:47 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,286
Default

My head hurts. Don has identified an issue, a man his age and with his experience, with the time he put into the creek ought to worth more than a dismissive wave of the intellect. If I hear you correctly, without scientific proof, Don is SOOL. This should not be so, in my mind he has earn the right to be heard if not from the gov. then by his peers. We should be able to force the gov. to have a look. If we needed scientific proof to have every complaint looked at, we would still stuck in the dark ages. Almost every fact comes from proving or disproving anecdotal evidence, curiosity is what drove science years ago. I nor Don nor you have the resources to run test that are needed to get something going with the criteria you have suggested. Somethings wrong, aught to get peoples attention not dismissal. Funny thing, I contacted F&W about catching walleye in a trout lake. I was told they had thought that the walleye were gone, they changed the regulations for the lake mid year and test netted the lake on what I'm assuming was a phone call. For them a phone call is anecdotal evidence, why the different standards.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-17-2013, 08:59 PM
DaveJensen DaveJensen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7
Default

I'm not arguing anything against Don.
I agree with what you say.
I am simply trying to find a way to make sure that I'm not in the same situation when I'm his age.
Unless we find a new system to mange fisheries - a way to start and fund true biology in this province - I'll be in his shoes.

There has to be a way to mix what he's talking about now with finding a new system that gets true biology going to find a way to make sure it doesn't happen on other waters in the future. Without true biology and science, we have no way of defining what the issues are. It becomes pie in the sky - and knowing how this present gov works they will see his data as pie in the sky and lacking specifity, hence it is almost impossible to fix something in those terms. Which is why I'm pressing the so-called study -> gov wouldn't accept it as a true study and with no findings how can you fix something that has no parameters? It's easy when you have set data and parameters like walleye in a trout lake. It's completely another when discussing why fish are skinny, slowly dwindling in population/dynamics, why redd counts are down. Sure, it seems obvious, but unless you know what is actually happening, what are you going to do about it?
As I said before here, that's the kind of fisheries mgt we've had all along, and it leaves people like Don in the predicament he's in right now: something's wrong, can't prove it, it's obvious, but there is no system to correct something that isn't definable, much less ensure it won't happen elsewhere in the future.

But bullying tactics like 'fix it or get out of my way' do nothing to address the issue, much less seek a better future.

Last edited by DaveJensen; 02-17-2013 at 09:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:01 PM
pope pope is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 335
Default

There is something to be said for years of observation. It's like recognizing when your child is sick. Thanks for your efforts Don!
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:49 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Guys,

While we could debate the failures of the Govt, I got better things to do with my time. Got to prepare a Power Point presentation for a speaking engagement. The presentation deals with Stauffer Creek.
Am attempting to drum up enough interest in NGO's to do what is necessary to determine what is causing the brown trout population decline.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-18-2013, 12:25 PM
bessiedog's Avatar
bessiedog bessiedog is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,372
Default So the existing apparatus won't function?

Good read.

Don,

Do you think your presentation would have any impact on AGFa or ACA?

Sorry, I've just read the last page of this thread .

Seems to me that ,like Dave said, these orgs would be the logical ones to lobby as a start.

Either way, thanks for doing what your doing. I only fished Stauffer for 2 years, I don't know it very well, though I do value it .
__________________
"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”
-HDT
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." T. Roosevelt
"I don't always troll, only on days that end in Y."
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-18-2013, 02:28 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,257
Default

I have stayed out of this one as I sure don't know what the problem is,,,, any of the obvious stuff does not seem to be the issue. A wild stab might some kind of invasive miro-organism, ie.... a parasite or disease, or maybe a plant species that inhibits reproduction food supply,,, purely conjecture but has this kind of thing ever been looked at?

Everyone is saying something needs to be done,,, the question is what? More study with a possible solution in the future,,,, or some kind of action now before it is too late ? Or perhaps a combination of both?

Regarding the discussion about the validity of anecdotal vs empirical (hard) data, we have to remember we are dealing with mother nature and she works within a broad set of variables over eons of time that likely we will never be able to completely identify or quantify. Collecting any kind of repeatable statistically valid data from a hard science point of view is next to impossible.
So the truth is anecdotal evidence from a credible source is probably going be as good as it gets,,, particularly when it comes from a dedicated and skilled angler who has likely put more footprints along Stauffer Creek than anyone else alive today (as say compared to 2nd or 3rd year biology student who may never have been to Stauffer Creek before)

And anecdotal evidence can work, too. It was an extremely scathing letter full of anecdotal evidence by Barry Mitchell that brought about sweeping positive changes to our coldwater fisheries management back in the mid 90's.

And Dave, was it not your anecdotal observations and lobbying that got the ball rolling on making the lower Ram C&R? (And thank you for that!!!)

So let's not discount anecdotal observations particularily when the source is the constant variable of the last 40 years that we have. These observations are spiced with a wisdom and perspective that comes with that experience. In my books, I'll take experience over measurable data any day!!!

Keep up the good fight Don,,, and thank you for the lifetime of work and effort you have put in for Alberta's trout and trout anglers!!!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-18-2013, 04:40 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Folks,

If there develops an action plan, further information or if I or others figure out what is causing the issue on Stauffer, I'll post a note, otherwise I outta here. Got rods to build and flies to tie.
Power Point presentation just needs my editor's (wife) approval & it's good to go.


My thanks for the questions and responses. Perhaps they will "shake loose" an answer.

Regards,


Don
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-17-2013, 06:53 PM
ironbutterfly ironbutterfly is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 61
Default

Me and a friend tried to fish North Raven a few years ago. It was in fall and I remember we spent something like 4 hours fishing and walking the stream. We saw one small fish that darted immediately while we were still far away. Otherwise there was nothing at all. We did end up on the raven where it connected with the North Raven and there were some brook trout hitting our flies.

To be honest I've found that whole red deer drainage pretty ****ty. We did little red deer a few times and came out with a sucker only for 2 two days of walking around. I went to prairie creek and although it's much better, there's just not as many fish per km as you'd expect and the sizes were not impressive. I found the elbow near calgary looks and feels similar but seems to hold the number and locations of fish you'd expect.

I kind of wonder if the 'you've gotta be good to fish there' mentality is pushing people to fish it when in reality what should be said is 'it's not good fishing there' and just let a stressed fishery have some pressure taken off of it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:46 PM.


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