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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:50 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default North Central Trout rivers being closed

All,

I attended the Edmonton Trout Club monthly meeting last night - Jan 16, 2018 where they had guest speakers from Alberta Fisheries talking about the proposed closures for the North Central Trout Recovery program.

I am not a member of the Edmonton Trout Club and would like to thank them for allowing me to sit in on the meeting.

The speakers discussed the plan for the potential river closured and the factors impacting the reduced numbers of fish they say they are seeing. The river systems they are closing - no longer proposing - and confirmed last night they are moving forward with a five year closure on include 7 watersheds; the Upper Ram system, the Upper Clearwater system, the Berland, the Kakwa, the Upper North Saskatchewan, the Upper Red Deer and the Pinto systems. This ISN'T just the main stems of the rivers, but the entire watersheds including the tributaries to these systems.

During their presentation, they provided a number of factors as part of their ongoing study. The main factors impacting of watersheds being: 1) Fragmentation of the watersheds - this is where culverts, roadways and other changes to the landscape cut off traditional migratory routes or oaths that allow fish to travel up and down systems to access cooler waters, spawning grounds etc, 2) Overfishing and Poaching - they gave the example that if you have a mortality rate of 10% on each catch and released fish, the compounding impact of catching that same fish would translate to a mortality rate of 90% x 90% x 90% - or 73% survival rate, 3) Erosion due to OHV and other back country activities, 4) Agricultural impacts such as livestock access further impacting sedimentation of our systems.

They then spoke of the studies they have undertaken to determine fish densities. If I recall properly, they employed 4 people and undertook 175 tests on the seven watersheds in question.

They spoke of the on-line survey that was filled out. They said approximately 2,000 respondents took the survey, and they received a 60% positive feedback that people would support the seven river closures being proposed. So, they are taking 1,200 Albertans (2,000 x 60%) to solidify or support their claim they have engaged the public and Albertans support this initiative or management technique. Out of 300,000 registered fisherman in Alberta.

They then spoke of potential other management techniques they are contemplating - such as restricting access to our river systems like they do in the Maritimes where only a certain umber of anglers are granted access on a given body of water for any given day, week, season. Issuing special licenses to control his access.

They spoke of their modeling technique to access the FSI - or Fish Sustainability Index which I wont go into a lot of detail, but it's their modeling technique to assess the health of a watershed with 20 different factors all multiplied out to determine a score. This score is then going to drive the assessment of our rivers moving forward and which watersheds can sustain retention, catch or release or closures moving forward.

They opened it up for questions. They were willing to answer questions, and did so for more than an hour. Then session ended sometime around ten. So, good on them for allowing discussion.

Questions were asked regarding engaging industry to repair culverts, etc. They said they have no jurisdiction over industry and talked about the federal fisheries act and department of the DFO. They said they are unable to make industry repair our damaged rivers. They can only "request" companies to do what is right. However, dependent of cost and the willingness of these companies to act, they would continue to work with industry in the coming YEARS to correct damages.

Questions were asked about rolling out catch and release techniques - single barbless regulations. They again said due to the fisheries act they couldn't legislate this. When asked why or how the BC government was able to legislate this, again they couldn't answer. When asked if they studied fish mortality rates when using bait, when using treble hooks, fly fishing only regulations - again they couldn't answer. They have lumped all mortality in with fishing hours - no differentiation between methods.

I also asked as to why they are deploying this strategy of closing our watersheds when retention of fish is or was still in place such as the Ram system. Catch and Release works - look at the North Ram - one of the most pressured or fished systems in Alberta and yet with a bait ban and catch and release put in place many years ago - continues to thrive.

When asked about their testing techniques to ascertain the fish densities in our systems, they couldn't provide and detail or clarity regarding the number of test, methods or sites in which they undertook for each watershed. They couldn't answer dispersement, time of year, etc. They seem to have gotten their answers they wanted and now the closures are moving forward. They said they "think" implementing the fishing moratoriums or closures should have a positive impact on these systems.

They have a slogan for this campaign - "Make Change Now" or something to that affect. They are closing our fisheries down because they can't or aren't doing anything except asking industry to repair the damages to our rivers that they have caused, but can't actually enforce it - or aren't willing to lower our GDP. So they are closing our rivers to fishing because that's all they can enforce.

When asked about the increased pressure that closing these seven watersheds will have on the remaining open watersheds, they say they are willing to accept the risk.

I asked about the respondents of the survey. If they gathered data regarding whether the respondents actually had fished ANY of the seven rivers they are closing - they said no. They didn't ask, so they didn't track. It was open to anyone who wanted to respond. So in the end, they are taking the responses of 1,200 Alberta Anglers out of the 300,000 registered in our province, and they are moving forward saying they engaged the public, and the public supports this initiative - regardless of the respondents knowledge or usage of the watersheds.

So - for all of those respondents who said they are in support of closing these fisheries, get ready for more and more pressure on your beloved rivers. As an Edmontonian, I'm going to be forced to head farther south to fish flowing water. It' going to translate to more fishing pressure in the remaining open watersheds. This pressure is only going to further intensify as more and more systems are being closed. They started with the Pembina last year, now seven more systems are being closed. Get ready for this to continue and more and more rivers get closed as they can only legislate the fisherman. To hell with industry - their untouchable.

So - what CAN we do?? Seeing as they the say "majority" of respondents agree with their plan - they're moving forward with it. A whole 1,200 people. We NEED to act and let them know this isn't acceptable. Changes need to be made - for f-sake - their the government. If they can't make this change, then we're all screwed.

They did say that these closures ARE moving forward UNLESS they get inundated with public pressure. If enough people act and express their disapproval then the closures could get rolled back or cancelled.

They provided a number of emails to QAB fisheries personnel which I'll include at the end of this. On a regular basis, the Alberta Outdoorsmen forum will show tens of thousands of people reading a thread on a good perch lake, or viewing pictures of a hike in trip to a high alpine lake. We need to action and let Alberta Fisheries know these closures aren't going to be accepted by us Albertans!! We NEED to surpass the 1,200 respondents that support this closure.

The emails provided are as follows:
Adrian Meinke@gov.ab.ca
Mike.Blackburn@gov.ab.ca
Jessica.Reilly@gov.ab.ca
Craig.Johnson@gov.ab.ca
Paul.Christensen@gov.ab.ca
John.Tchir@gov.ab.ca
Kayedon.Wilcox@gov.ab.ca

I plea with everyone who reads this thread to send an email expressing their concerns with this plan. Send one email and include all seven of the recipients - we need to let them know this isn't acceptable. My fear is closing these seven watersheds is only the beginning. Once this program takes hold, other watersheds will face increased pressure, and lead to more and more closures until everything gets shut down. That seems to be the only real plan they have right now.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2018, 12:45 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Can't ge but agree.

Would you add the ministers email as well.

And this is the way of the future.

Falls Creek was closed to angling. Nothing happened.

Pembina closed to angling - nothing happened.

Now this. Making Angler's the only ones suffering. Govt been doing it for near 50 years. Worked every time.
Looks like we are getting screwed again.


Don
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2018, 01:19 PM
StiksnStrings StiksnStrings is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 373
Default E-mail sent

E-mail sent to all BUT, Adrian Meinke. E-mail kept coming back as undeliverable due to Adrian Meinkes address.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:10 PM
Cal R. Cal R. is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 26
Default

Don, a point of clarification; Fall Cr. is only closed down stream of the falls. Upstream allows 2 trout, Cutty over 35cm June 16- Aug 31.
I've seen the big ones caught there upstream of the falls along with various other age classes.
Cal
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:23 PM
SamSteele's Avatar
SamSteele SamSteele is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StiksnStrings View Post
E-mail sent to all BUT, Adrian Meinke. E-mail kept coming back as undeliverable due to Adrian Meinkes address.
I believe it is Adrian.meinke@gov.ab.ca I just sent my letter to and it has not bounced back.

SS
__________________
Princecraft, Humminbird, MinnKota, Cannon, Mack's Lure, & Railblaza Pro Staff

YouTube: Harder Outdoors
Instagram: @harderoutdoors
FB: HarderOutdoors
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:26 PM
SamSteele's Avatar
SamSteele SamSteele is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yetiseeker

The river systems they are closing - no longer proposing - and confirmed last night they are moving forward with a five year closure on include 7 watersheds; the Upper Ram system, the Upper Clearwater system, the Berland, the Kakwa, the Upper North Saskatchewan, the Upper Red Deer and the Pinto systems. This ISN'T just the main stems of the rivers, but the entire watersheds including the tributaries to these systems.
Does this mean that the Wildhay would be shutdown as it eventually feeds into the Berland?

Also, does the Upper Ram refer to all fishing upstream of Ram Falls?


SS
__________________
Princecraft, Humminbird, MinnKota, Cannon, Mack's Lure, & Railblaza Pro Staff

YouTube: Harder Outdoors
Instagram: @harderoutdoors
FB: HarderOutdoors
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2018, 02:31 PM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

I would like to know how they plan to enforce this. The only time I have been approached in the last 30 years was at Dickson Dam, the local trout pond and the Sylvan marina.

What do they have, like 4 officers for a few hundred square miles? Random campers will continue to pan fry like before and toss garbage. The poachers will continue to poach only with less restriction. Industry and the extreme OHV users will have less eyes on them as well and will continue their rampage. This is as laughable as registering long guns to end street violence.

I am actually beginning to appreciate getting old.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2018, 03:53 PM
timsesink timsesink is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,747
Default

Sent!

"Hello Everyone
As a long time fly fisherman of north central rivers I was greatly troubled to hear of the impending closure of many of the river systems I have come to know and enjoy. This closure seems incredibly short sighted to me for several reasons.
1. No improvement of habitat by industry is being mandated. To deny the the angler access while allowing the industry to continue as before is a slap in the face to many conservation minded anglers.
2. No distinction has been made in the research between different methods of angling and their effect on mortality. This is a massive oversight.
3. There absolutely no proof that an entire system closure is the best route. There are many southern C&R or restricted harvest rivers which are thriving under management.
4. Enforcement of ATV restrictions needs to be increased as well as new restrictions to protect our rivers & streams. Foot based anglers are very low impact.

In my opinion this shift is an over reaction that focuses on the easiest target rather then dealing with the much harder issue of habitat loss and destruction by various users.

I've already lost my favorite river, the upper Pembina. Please don't take away others without just cause.

Thank you for your time.
Tim"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2018, 06:19 PM
Sylvan2019 Sylvan2019 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 10
Default

I will be emailing as well. Thanks for updating us on this. Let's keep it a hot topic.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:00 PM
slough shark slough shark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 2,371
Default

I’ll be sending an email but on an aside has anyone noticed that their new FSI model has only ever resulted in closed fisheries and catch and release on many lakes as well? Ones with very healthy fish populations and little pressure from all my time fishing them. And it seems f&w is moving ahead on these closures and further restrictions in spite of many of the fishermen who fish these areas suggesting alternatives or voicing alternative opinions on the health of a fishery. Based on what I’ve seen from all the changes the last bit I fear if they continue to use this model we will be at best C&R throughout southern ab and many closed fisheries 😡
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:03 PM
snareman snareman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 54
Default

I'll email too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:33 PM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSteele View Post
Does this mean that the Wildhay would be shutdown as it eventually feeds into the Berland?

Also, does the Upper Ram refer to all fishing upstream of Ram Falls?


SS
I can't confirm with any authority - but that's my understanding.

I tried to pass along the information I heard as unbiased as I could, even though I was burning up inside. Close 'er down. We the government can't legislate over industry or even such simple fishing related methods as to legislate a single barbless hook regulation. But we the government can stop you from enjoying recreational pursuits without fully seeing the big picture.

I'm sad to see the "let's try it and see" approach. I agree with their slogan of "Make Change Now", or whatever the slogan was. I'm sad to hear they are willing to risk the health of other river systems without implementing simple techniques like single barbless, no bait, catch and release. Again I was burning up inside.

I asked them about the North Ram. Why? if mortality of fishing factors into their equation so prominently, then why after seeing catch and release put in place 15 - 20 years ago, and why with so much pressure and angler hours on the system, why does it continue to thrive? Why wouldn't you try the many other methods or techniques that should be legislated (but can't due to our wonderful legal system) before closing them down - i.e single barbless.

I agree with them when they said it would recover that system quicker. I can't argue that point.

But it comes at the cost of all the other systems. We as anglers already know, for the most part, which systems are hurting. It shows in our catch rate. I typically will go to the healthier system already. Kind of a natural selection type process. But at the risk of our other rivers by the increased pressure placed on whatever river systems they leave open? It's a slippery slope and the "let's try and see" approach is scary.

I think change has to happen. But I don't think fisherman are the largest contributing factor. Yes - we are a factor, but I know being a respectful outdoorsman, my impact is low.

Do we sit by and let them close the rivers while they don't action real things that would have an equally, if not, a more significant impact on our diminishing few river systems they leave open?

Please send in your emails. Load them with thousands of emails letting them know they need to try other methods before they take our rivers away from us.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-17-2018, 08:17 PM
damaltor damaltor is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Beaumont, Ab
Posts: 118
Default

All in our household have sent emails to those listed.
I hope everyone takes the time to do like wise, we can't just sit back and watch this happen, without trying to force a more logical approach to the situation.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-17-2018, 08:22 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Folks,

You are not alone in your concern of how this is being implemented.
The Alberta Fish and Game Assoc doesn't like it, the Back Country Hinters don't like it, retired provincial biologists don't like it, even past biologists with Trout Unlimited don't like the closures.
Without exception, they believe that curtailing angling is not the answer. Dealing with the habitat destruction/enforcement is.

Regards,

Don

Last edited by Don Andersen; 01-17-2018 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-17-2018, 08:34 PM
wylecoyote wylecoyote is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 199
Default

so this closure will include the north ram? Or just the above the falls? Or where is the line for these closures? My friends wife booked us all a helicopter fly in, hike out fishing trip on the south ram. If this is happening this year then we are completely and utterly screwed!!!! I fished the north ram all year last year and have never seen more fish in a river! Where are these people getting all their numbers?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-17-2018, 09:50 PM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Folks,

You are not alone in your concern of how this is being implemented.
The Alberta Fish and Game Assoc doesn't like it, the Back Country Hinters don't like it, retired provincial biologists don't like it, even past biologists with Trout Unlimited don't like the closures.
Without exception, they believe that curtailing angling is not the answer. Dealing with the habitat destruction/enforcement is.

Regards,

Don
Then it’s ironic that it would be those past, retired biologists that watched this all happen over their careers and did nothing substantive to resolve it. Try to get them to own up to that reality. That would be admitting that they failed. So, here we are, trying to fix the bundle of problems they left to us all, while they criticize from their armchairs and collect pensions. Isn't the whole point of this program to deal with more than just angling? That’s what I get when I read the plans for the watersheds. The current bios are trying. They meet and communicate, and they get characterized as naive propagandists on a mission to destroy angling. How is it that they have less credibilty and support than the old bios that dropped the ball?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-17-2018, 09:56 PM
Bigbadblair Bigbadblair is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 19
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:37 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
Default

Email sent. Have my doubts about the effect it will have, but at least we can try.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-17-2018, 11:27 PM
slough shark slough shark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 2,371
Default

Kinda wonder who’s pushing for all these changes here, we as outdoorsmen are being attacked on many different fronts this last while. I would not be surprised if the driving force behind these changes is y2y,either that or political direction, force 1 group after another out of our mountains and foothills. Is this part of the changes as they have started looking into turning north of the bow up to the nsr west of the trunk road into another provincial park? If they remove the fishermen by closing fishing a domino effect will be pushing many of the associated activities (camping, off-road and hunting) into other areas removing opposition and causing issues everywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:37 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wylecoyote View Post
so this closure will include the north ram? Or just the above the falls? Or where is the line for these closures? My friends wife booked us all a helicopter fly in, hike out fishing trip on the south ram. If this is happening this year then we are completely and utterly screwed!!!! I fished the north ram all year last year and have never seen more fish in a river! Where are these people getting all their numbers?
I think the North Ram will remain open, but they will be closing the Upper Ram. I think from the confluence of the North up the main stem of the Ram.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:43 AM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slough shark View Post
Kinda wonder who’s pushing for all these changes here, we as outdoorsmen are being attacked on many different fronts this last while. I would not be surprised if the driving force behind these changes is y2y,either that or political direction, force 1 group after another out of our mountains and foothills. Is this part of the changes as they have started looking into turning north of the bow up to the nsr west of the trunk road into another provincial park? If they remove the fishermen by closing fishing a domino effect will be pushing many of the associated activities (camping, off-road and hunting) into other areas removing opposition and causing issues everywhere else.
If you’re looking for a conspiracy, you might want to contemplate the relationship between industry and previous government over the past 30-odd years.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:43 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbadblair View Post
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.
Blair - I agree that our fisheries are in a such a poor state that something needs to be done. I am so sad to see how poor decisions are now catching up with us and change needs to happen now or everything is at risk.

Don't you think it's time to get our government to act and drive solutions out to groups other than us anglers. They control the anglers because we don't have the funds to fight back.

Big companies have deep pockets. They spend millions of dollars fighting in court so legislation doesn't make them repair the damage they have caused. The millions spent in court is spare change to them when compared to the possible multi-millions they would need to spend, should the government legislate the maintenance on roads used for exploration and development of the resources. Make them repair and maintain the fragmentation our biologists speak of.

So, I am in agreement with may aspects of what they are trying to do - just not the groups they are targeting.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-18-2018, 07:48 AM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yetiseeker View Post
Blair - I agree that our fisheries are in a such a poor state that something needs to be done. I am so sad to see how poor decisions are now catching up with us and change needs to happen now or everything is at risk.

Don't you think it's time to get our government to act and drive solutions out to groups other than us anglers. They control the anglers because we don't have the funds to fight back.

Big companies have deep pockets. They spend millions of dollars fighting in court so legislation doesn't make them repair the damage they have caused. The millions spent in court is spare change to them when compared to the possible multi-millions they would need to spend, should the government legislate the maintenance on roads used for exploration and development of the resources. Make them repair and maintain the fragmentation our biologists speak of.

So, I am in agreement with may aspects of what they are trying to do - just not the groups they are targeting.
It doesn’t sound like you heard the same messages that I did. I heard and read that the program is focused on habitat as well...repairing or replacing culverts, fixing sediment inputs, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:26 AM
caddisfly7's Avatar
caddisfly7 caddisfly7 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Didsbury
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSteele View Post
Does this mean that the Wildhay would be shutdown as it eventually feeds into the Berland?

Also, does the Upper Ram refer to all fishing upstream of Ram Falls?


SS
I also thought about the Wildhay the other day, got frightened so I quickly went and checked. Seems like it is still going to be open to fishing, hopefully this information is still up to date and hasn't changed. I really enjoyed the Wildhay the few times I fished it last summer.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...Aug15-2017.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-18-2018, 08:39 AM
Bigbadblair Bigbadblair is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yetiseeker View Post
Blair - I agree that our fisheries are in a such a poor state that something needs to be done. I am so sad to see how poor decisions are now catching up with us and change needs to happen now or everything is at risk.

Don't you think it's time to get our government to act and drive solutions out to groups other than us anglers. They control the anglers because we don't have the funds to fight back.

Big companies have deep pockets. They spend millions of dollars fighting in court so legislation doesn't make them repair the damage they have caused. The millions spent in court is spare change to them when compared to the possible multi-millions they would need to spend, should the government legislate the maintenance on roads used for exploration and development of the resources. Make them repair and maintain the fragmentation our biologists speak of.

So, I am in agreement with may aspects of what they are trying to do - just not the groups they are targeting.
Yeti- Again I think we took away different messages... I heard that they are trying to fix past errors, use science instead of public opinion, and working with industry and other regulators. They actually had a great example of how they restored habitat this very year under this program when asked. All rational efforts that I appreciate. However I agree more work needs to be done, but they are aimed in the right direction.

On the topic of who they are targeting - they explained it pretty well that habitat or closures alone do not fix fisheries. Fish need a rest to recover.. That's where we need to do our part as anglers.

As for other regulators that have a hand in the game, sure they need to be aware of our concerns, however sending emails to AEP for transportation, agriculture & forestry related issues is just going to take the biologists trying to fix our fisheries off the file to respond to emails. Email the right people..

Reading the form letter above it actually sounds like you don't support recovery - is that the message you want to send? Its not the message I would send...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:20 AM
slough shark slough shark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 2,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift View Post
If you’re looking for a conspiracy, you might want to contemplate the relationship between industry and previous government over the past 30-odd years.
IM not going to defend the actions of our previous governments and how cozy they were with industry. I just find it interesting and convenient that this comes up closing half the rivers in the proposed park area. They’re talking about habitat improvements (like perhaps banning atv’s random camping and new industry in the area) you know like they did down in the castle 🤔
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:24 AM
slough shark slough shark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 2,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbadblair View Post
Yeti- Again I think we took away different messages... I heard that they are trying to fix past errors, use science instead of public opinion, and working with industry and other regulators. They actually had a great example of how they restored habitat this very year under this program when asked. All rational efforts that I appreciate. However I agree more work needs to be done, but they are aimed in the right direction.

On the topic of who they are targeting - they explained it pretty well that habitat or closures alone do not fix fisheries. Fish need a rest to recover.. That's where we need to do our part as anglers.

As for other regulators that have a hand in the game, sure they need to be aware of our concerns, however sending emails to AEP for transportation, agriculture & forestry related issues is just going to take the biologists trying to fix our fisheries off the file to respond to emails. Email the right people..

Reading the form letter above it actually sounds like you don't support recovery - is that the message you want to send? Its not the message I would send...
That’s where we beg to differ, it’s actually a very simple formula to make it better, improve the habitat and make it C&R, it’s literally worked everywhere else so why are these rivers different?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:41 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbadblair View Post
Yeti- Again I think we took away different messages... I heard that they are trying to fix past errors, use science instead of public opinion, and working with industry and other regulators. They actually had a great example of how they restored habitat this very year under this program when asked. All rational efforts that I appreciate. However I agree more work needs to be done, but they are aimed in the right direction.

On the topic of who they are targeting - they explained it pretty well that habitat or closures alone do not fix fisheries. Fish need a rest to recover.. That's where we need to do our part as anglers.

As for other regulators that have a hand in the game, sure they need to be aware of our concerns, however sending emails to AEP for transportation, agriculture & forestry related issues is just going to take the biologists trying to fix our fisheries off the file to respond to emails. Email the right people..

Reading the form letter above it actually sounds like you don't support recovery - is that the message you want to send? Its not the message I would send...
Blair,

I did hear what the bios stated when they said they were working with industry to get them to repair the damage. However, they stated that they are only able to ask them to do so. They can't actually make them do it.

The example they gave was CNRL has repaired a number of smaller culverts upon request. The other example was where the estimate to repair the crossing was $500,000.00. This example was sited with the company may undertake the repair the site, but it would take years as it's expensive.

Not sure how allowing industry to determine when or what they repair is going to fix the big issues causing larger scale fragmentation.

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. What would happen though if our government could mandate which repairs NEEDED to undertaken by industry not base don the companies willingness to do, but by legislation. Make it part of the requirement for exploration in the area.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-18-2018, 09:48 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

[QUOTE=Bigbadblair;3711717]

As for other regulators that have a hand in the game, sure they need to be aware of our concerns, however sending emails to AEP for transportation, agriculture & forestry related issues is just going to take the biologists trying to fix our fisheries off the file to respond to emails. Email the right people..

Who would you suggest we contact then to voice our concerns?

Perhaps I should have listed the MLA's?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-18-2018, 10:02 AM
Bigbadblair Bigbadblair is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slough shark View Post
That’s where we beg to differ, it’s actually a very simple formula to make it better, improve the habitat and make it C&R, it’s literally worked everywhere else so why are these rivers different?
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
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 11:50 PM.


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