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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2018, 03:16 PM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 695
Default Powerful Google Timelapse; Why the angling bans were so misguided...

Check out Google's powerful timelapse tool; beginning in 1984, you can clearly see the impact of the forestry and energy industry. The sheer amount of cutblocks and road densification with new wells being drilled is staggering.

The habitat fragmentation alone...the increased sediment loads alone...

This is the Little Smokey / Berland waterbasins:

https://earthengine.google.com/timel...,latLng&t=2.75

The Ram River watershed:

https://earthengine.google.com/timel...,latLng&t=1.37

Kwaka / Smokey:

https://earthengine.google.com/timel...,latLng&t=1.90

Upper Oldman:

https://earthengine.google.com/timel...,latLng&t=1.17

An on and on.

Of course, should it be necessary, anglers should be prepared to make sacrifices. But you have to ask, when it comes to river and riparian health, when it comes to stream habitat, what are the MAJOR factors in diminishing fish populations? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

So I am glad the government woke up and backed off on the plan to close some rivers to angling. Let's hope Minister Phillips continues on the long, hard road in making informed and correct decisions about recreational and industry use of our public lands.

Smitty
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2018, 04:02 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

This post reminds me of when I was playing around on this timelapse website before.

Want to see the effects of sedimentation over 30 years look no further then Lake Athabasca. It is insane how much things have changed up there over this time period and it is only a matter of a few more decades until Fort Chipewyan isn't waterfront property anymore.

https://earthengine.google.com/timel...,latLng&t=0.36

The biologists know and understand that our lakes and rivers are naturally dying from sedimentation and eutrophication. The only way these rivers will ever hold as many fish as they did in decades/centuries past is if steps are taken to not only combat mankinds effects but also to offset natural degradation of these rivers.

Simply put it is too easy to just blame mankind for our declining fish populations but many of these rivers have seen very significant change and damage from natural events(such as the Clearwater flooding in 2013 just to name one very relevant event related to this NCNT program). These events although natural can still have significant and negative effects on fish populations and if steps are not taken to recover these water bodies after such events then one has to expect changes to fish populations.

I could be wrong but I believe fisheries has largely gotten away from trying to fix/improve habitat like this. There are numerous old reports that talk about how back in the 60's etc they used to go out and try to create and improve spawning areas, removing natural fish barricades etc but I haven't read about much work like this being done in recent years(except for trying to fix some of the man made issues such as hanging culverts etc).

This is something they will have to start doing more of again if they expect these water bodies to thrive.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:50 AM
McLeod McLeod is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 929
Default

Great stuff ! Hopefully those who need to know are aware of this. They should be
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:29 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Guys,
No question, the selling of resources costs the environment AND makes money.
Fish don't vote, make no money and are invisible.
There is no question that the folks who work for fisheries within AEP care and recognize the effects of the decisions of other agencies.
They have no power to change the process other than play with regulations.
Only you and I will give them and others the power to effect change.
To look at photos and totally blame the visible doesn't recognize those seen as actually doing a lot to mitigate their actions. Their employees and contractors operate by a tough set of rules.
Rules that should be applied to other forest users.


Don
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2018, 10:42 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 695
Default

Don:

Not totally blaming the visible. Don't read more into what I said, which you've clearly done here.

I recognize the mitigation. Could be alot worse. My post stated clearly my recognition of their limited powers.

However, the visible is powerful, and the visuals play a role in providing perspective. Is all I am saying. A perspective, by the way, that you have making too on other forums and media. We basically agree in that anglers have been targeted - what was the length of time you quoted...60 years?

To counter Rav's point, no one here - including me - is denying inevitable changes wrought by mother nature. Tis' the probem with the internet; people tend to lump issues into false dichotomies.

Two things can be true at the same time guys. Our environment, landscape goes through natural cycles, and change over time. Inevitable. But the timelapse clearly demonstrates man's power to effect change on the enviroment too.

Often, dramatically.

-Smitty

[Edit to add; this is also not intended anti-industry crusade Fed-NDP-manifesto. We extract resources, every country on this planet does that. But in the 40+ years I've been in this province, we have dramatically increased extraction, without always attending properly to the environmental consequence side of the equation. I am making a basic point that is still eluding some in the discussion, and reinforcing the idea the government did well to back off from addressing the "leaves for the forest."]

Last edited by smitty9; 03-01-2018 at 10:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2018, 11:53 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

For the record I just brought up the natural affects because they are often overlooked but are substantial. Logging on nearby areas and creation of wellsites etc does have an effect on these rivers but if done correctly the effect is minimal and in some cases it can actually be beneficial.

Clearly there are issues from both natural causes and mankind that affect these rivers. Which is the main problem depends on the river. Our biologists know the issues, the key now is figuring out how to fix them.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2018, 08:08 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

A decent discussion of linear features effecting all wildlife/fishery.

http://oldmanwatershed.ca/blog-posts...and-everywhere
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 07:50 AM.


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