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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 10-14-2015, 10:12 AM
tallieho tallieho is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: calgary
Posts: 1,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdiegomcduff View Post
By banning winter activity and spending some money posting the liability and the danger involved accessing these areas you put the responsibility on the citizen who is entering the lake. If the signs are very visible and very descriptive in regards to outlining the hazards you put the onus on the person(s). I don't believe that changing an environment due to a fault in human behavior is the answer. We all have a responsibility every day out in the field, driving or even walking from point A to point B. There are rules that must be followed in order to preserve life. Not aerating lakes because Joe Blow decides to get half torqued and run his skidoo onto thin ice is the wrong answer. When does it stop? We cannot bubble wrap and soften corners in life every time someone has blatant disregard for the law. RESPONSIBILITY is the key! This is my opinion and is somewhat my field of work. Cold winters happen, lakes can be choked out by vegetation and algae bloom lets let mother nature decide the result.
Well said..At the very least ,they should have made ALL Aerated waters closed to angling when ice is present..Say nov.1st-april1st IMO
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-18-2015, 03:21 PM
fishingallday fishingallday is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 70
Default

In all honesty I know next to nothing about aeration so I may sound dumb. Don't farmers use wind turbines to keep their dugouts flowing? Not a cheap fix but a few dollars extra to our licenses and enforcing fines maybe that's a possibility? Like I said I have no clue but I'm still curious
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-18-2015, 10:44 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Hi,

The Provincial Roundtable Meeting is done. Todd Zemmerling CEO of the ACA laid out the options.
1) do nothing and plan on stocking larger fish in 2016 plus get all the lakes ready for aeration.
2) do about 4 to determine the best alternative.
3) do 8 with bubbler systems c/w a covering over the open hole plus an exclusion fence.

The meeting was divided. What is clear, the ACA aerates 16 lakes or ponds. At best only 1/2 will get done this winter.

Although there is some concern that bubblers won't do the job, I pointed out that a lot of the systems not run by the ACA use bubblers of some type. Some systems were just a CDN Tire compressor and a bubble stone.


The ACA board will call the shot on what is going to be done.

And here is the other issues! The Fish & Game clubs run a pile of systems, the Alberta Govt. also runs systems (Police Outpost for example), several NGO's plus some municipalities also run systems. What are they going to do?

The issue doesn't stop at aerated ponds. Hot water discharges into river, sewage outflows, dam outflows and even the Canadian Ice Breakers all create open water.

Looks like the only solution is to change the law or have society spend millions dealing with fences etc.

As soon as the ACA informs us or posts to their web site, we will all know what is next for them. The other aeration users may not know of the issue.


Regards,

Don
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-18-2015, 11:14 PM
Adwittoutdoors's Avatar
Adwittoutdoors Adwittoutdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 469
Default

Thanks for the update.
__________________
"All I care about is FISHING and maybe like three people and BEER"
"Sarcasm is one of the services I offer"
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-20-2015, 03:10 PM
PeterSL PeterSL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 89
Default

Following discussion at the Fisheries Management Roundtable on Saturday, the ACA released this statement today.

"AERATION AND ISSUES ARISING FROM SECTION 263 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. OCTOBER 20, 2015 PROPOSED ACTIONS
Background:
Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) aerates 16 lakes across Alberta using surface aerators. These surface aeration systems discharge water into the air, like a fountain, and create open water (a polynia) in a lake. In July 2015, ACA became aware of potential liability issues under Section 263 of the Criminal Code associated with making a hole in ice. Section 263 reads:
“Every one who makes or causes to be made an opening in ice that is open to or frequented by the public is under legal duty to guard in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident and is adequate to warn them that the opening exists.”
In August 2015, ACA received an initial opinion from Dentons Canada LLP regarding the impacts of Section 263 with respect to ACA aeration operations. In part, their opinion read “While it would make sense that a fence could work to prevent liability under s.263, we cannot be certain; it is difficult to say exactly what type of fence ‘would be adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident’ and ‘adequate to warn them that the opening exists.’ “ The Criminal Code provides that “everyone who fails to perform a duty imposed by Section 263 is guilty of manslaughter, if the death of a person results.”
Based on the issues raised by Dentons Canada LLP, ACA sought a second opinion from McLennan Ross which was received on September 25, 2015. In reviewing case law associated with excavations on land (a subsection of 263) the McLennan Ross opinion notes: “…The Court’s reasoning suggests that the fact of the boys falling in the excavation was in and of itself proof that guarding was in adequate (although the Court says the warning was adequate).” The Court used the same reasoning in a second case referenced by McLennan Ross. In layman’s terms “guarding” has been considered inadequate because someone has fallen in, regardless of what type of guarding has been put in place. As a result a “due diligence” defence is not be possible under this section of the Criminal Code. McLennan Ross goes on to state: “Accordingly, it does not appear that there can be any assurance that any additional mitigative steps, including fencing, would prevent charges from being laid (if someone is hurt or killed – this would go towards a due diligence defence to any charge in the absence of harm). Arguably, should an individual climb the fence, and then accidentally fall in a hole in the ice and be injured or die, the warning and guarding could still be considered inadequate. Although this seems unfair, the reality is that it is the way the provision is currently worded.” And: “Accordingly, from a legal perspective, we do not believe that it is possible to eliminate the risk of criminal charges. Obviously, effective fencing or other steps such as those recommend by the cottage owners associations or followed under the B.C. policy would significantly reduce the practical likelihood of anyone being injured or dying, and may give rise to an argument that the duty to warn and guard never arose in the first place because the opening was not open to the public. However, if the duty is established, there appears to be no legal defence, other than the possible constitutional challenge, in the event that an incident actually happens, assuming the victim fell in ‘accidentally.’”

Based on two legal opinions, ACA has determined that the risk of criminal charges arising from someone being injured or dying in a hole created by aeration is low; however, the consequences of charges being laid is severe (manslaughter in the case of death) and would fall upon ACA’s staff, management and Directors. As such, ACA has decided that for the winter of 2015/16 surface aeration will be suspended while issues related to Section 263 are resolved. It is our intent to ensure our aeration program is running again at full capacity by the winter of 2016/17 at the latest.

Proposal for dealing with Section 263 of the Criminal Code:
The following is ACA’s proposed eight point plan which has been reviewed by the ACA Board of Directors, Alberta Environment and Parks and the Fisheries Round Table.
1) Starting immediately, attempt to super-saturate all lakes prior to ice-on then shut surface aerators off. Historical records show that a portion of the lakes ACA aerates did not winterkill every winter and we believe some lakes can survive successfully (the type of winter we have will play a major role).
2) Aerate eight lakes using bubble diffusers with enclosed polynia. Bubble diffusers are relatively simple to install and operate; however, they will create a hole in the ice. We believe we can contain the polynia within a 40 ft x 40 ft square created by floating dock material and then covered with chain link fencing material. Creating a floating, enclosed square should eliminate any possibility of people from falling in the open hole. A person would have to cut the chain link to access the hole in the ice. Pros: If the polynia becomes too large the aerator can be temporarily shut-down. Aeration can occur during thin ice periods with no risk of people falling in the hole. The floating docks can be reconfigured in the spring and used as casting platforms. Cons: The lakes we are aerating are relatively shallow (< 8 m) and as a result there is limited data on the rate of oxygen diffusion that will take place using the bubble diffusers or the size of the polynia that will be created. Based on the information we have, we believe the diffusers should provide sufficient aeration and the polynia can be contained within a 40 ft x 40 ft square, but both of these assumption need to be tested.
The eight lakes chosen for aeration are: Beaver Lake, Fiesta Lake, Ironside Pond, Muir Lake, Mitchell Lake, Millers Lake, Figure Eight Lake, East Dollar Lake
3) Increase the fish stocking program in the spring of 2016. Work towards having larger fish to stock, to replace the growth that an over wintering fish would be expected to have. Finding larger fish on short notice may be an issue.
4) Immediately inform stakeholders of the aeration plan.
5) Engage a lawyer to draft a proposed amendment to Section 263 that allows for a due diligence defence. Based on initial conversations there is a relatively minor wording change required.
6) Engage stakeholders, Provincial Government and other jurisdictions to help in persuading the Federal Government to amend Section 263 as proposed. We will need stakeholders to contact their local MP’s and ask for their support in making a change to a law that will benefit anglers across the country.
7) Continue to test new aeration techniques to implement for the winter of 2016/17.
8) Ensure the aeration program is fully operational by the winter of 2016/17 (all 16 lakes).

Our lawyers are working on the wording for a proposed amendment to Sec 263. As soon as I have that I will pass it along so that everyone can begin the process of talking to their new MP to try and get this law changed so that we don’t have issues in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-21-2015, 03:38 PM
Exploits Exploits is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 62
Default due diligence

Wouldn't a court case come back to this ? If they have warning signs and barriers up and some jack***** goes through, I would think everyone's rear would be covered ?
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-21-2015, 11:41 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSL View Post
“While it would make sense that a fence could work to prevent liability under s.263, we cannot be certain; it is difficult to say exactly what type of fence ‘would be adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident’ and ‘adequate to warn them that the opening exists.’

...

Based on the issues raised by Dentons Canada LLP, ACA sought a second opinion from McLennan Ross which was received on September 25, 2015. In reviewing case law associated with excavations on land (a subsection of 263) the McLennan Ross opinion notes: “…The Court’s reasoning suggests that the fact of the boys falling in the excavation was in and of itself proof that guarding was in adequate (although the Court says the warning was adequate).” The Court used the same reasoning in a second case referenced by McLennan Ross. In layman’s terms “guarding” has been considered inadequate because someone has fallen in, regardless of what type of guarding has been put in place.

...

“Accordingly, from a legal perspective, we do not believe that it is possible to eliminate the risk of criminal charges. Obviously, effective fencing or other steps such as those recommend by the cottage owners associations or followed under the B.C. policy would significantly reduce the practical likelihood of anyone being injured or dying, and may give rise to an argument that the duty to warn and guard never arose in the first place because the opening was not open to the public.
Mclennan Ross states "The Court’s reasoning suggests that the fact of the boys falling in the excavation was in and of itself proof that guarding was in adequate", that doesn't in any way shape or form imply that all forms of guarding are inadequate as the ACA implies with their "layman's terms". For all we know there might not of been any guard/barrier which of course the above statement would be true. Unfortunately the case details weren't provided though to fully interpret the meaning of that statement.

Imo what is more important then knowing of incidents where the excavation creator was found guilty is knowing if there are incidents where they were found not guilty due to having provided adequate guarding/warning. Imo there must be cases that fall under this category as well and if so this would prove my claim an incident occurring is simply not enough proof of inadequate guarding. It would also give the ACA an idea as to what guarding they may require(if there is a case law that states the same type of guarding was deemed adequate for a excavation it should be satisfactory for an aerator as well).

Similar to my thoughts above Mclennan Ross states "the Court says the warning was adequate". If a person were to just assume an incident happening means you are guilty then there is no way the warning should have been found adequate if it did not convey the danger to the boys clearly enough for them to avoid them. Imo you can't infer one way for guarding and the other way for warning, if an incident is proof of improper guarding it must also be proof of improper warning.

Based on the above it seems there is no case law regarding aerators yet. The ACA will have to make a decision as to what they believe should be adequate warning and guarding and hoping the judge/jury agrees with them if an incident arises. There is no way for the ACA to completely eliminate the risk unless they stop aeration all together(which is all both Dentons Canada LLP and Mclennan Ross were stating).
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-21-2015, 11:56 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Something else to think about from a random side story I saw today.

You can kill a person with your bare hands and not get charged with manslaughter... Don't try and tell me you would always be found guilty if you provided something that seems halfways reasonable to warn about and guard an aerator...

http://edmontonjournal.com/storyline...ury-of-bouncer
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-25-2015, 10:40 PM
xtreme hunter10 xtreme hunter10 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Folks.

Due to a court case, open water holes left by anyone may result on manslaughter charges.
For that reason. the ACA is attempting to find a solution to aeration that will not create an open water pool.
The companies they are talking to either have expensive or untried solutions.

I reviewed the lakes that will be lost in the Rocky area alone.

To understand the problem, here is what is left

Birch - winterkill probable
Beaver - winter kill probable
Fiesta - winter kill complete
Ironside Pond - winter kill complete
Alford Lake - winter kill complete
Mitchell - winter kill very possible

Struble Lake - perched
Phylsis Lake - perched
Twin Lake - perched
Cow Lake - perched
Tay Lake - perched

Perched means the lake has been illegally stocked with perch thereby decreasing trout growth to near 0.


Leaving us with

Peppers Lake - tiny trout
Goldeye Lake - tiny trout
Fish Lake - tiny trout

Loss of the aerated lakes will hit hard.

I contacted Todd Zimmerling CEO of the ACA to find out what they intended to do. They are working with some companies in an effort to get some type of aeration systems installed. The ones Todd mentioned are costly and untried in Alberta.

So - put on your thinking caps - how would you aerate a lake w/o creating an open water pool?


regards,


Don

Im a little confused...what retards decide to go onto a lake that has open water? Do we really need a law? Why not post a simple sign..." you fall in a drown, your an idiot...we take no responsibility"
__________________
Hey Vegans/Vegitarians my food craps on your food!

Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-26-2015, 07:16 AM
tallieho tallieho is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: calgary
Posts: 1,216
Wink

Believe it or not. ACA reported of 1 particular dip s--t falling thru an aerated lake on 3 separate occasions.My vote would've been,leave him in there leeches need food too..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-26-2015, 05:03 PM
Riverbc's Avatar
Riverbc Riverbc is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Abbotsford BC
Posts: 647
Default

I'm curious as to why this is such an issue in Alberta? There are aerators on lakes in other provinces, and in the states.
On Irish Lake in BC, the locals go out onto the ice in pairs, dragging a boat between them, in case they fall through the ice. Personally...I don't need to ice fish that bad.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 11-01-2015, 07:13 PM
michaelmicallef michaelmicallef is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,474
Default

Our country has lost all common sence and I'm sick of this BS. This is got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard to date. I writing my MLA and giving them my opinion on the whole mater. For what that's worth.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 11-01-2015, 07:56 PM
kevin1949 kevin1949 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelmicallef View Post
Our country has lost all common sence and I'm sick of this BS. This is got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard to date. I writing my MLA and giving them my opinion on the whole mater. For what that's worth.
I've done so and hope others have as well.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 11-01-2015, 09:06 PM
michaelmicallef michaelmicallef is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,474
Default

Just make people sigh a bloody waiver when buying a fishing license and be done with this garbage. If they are really worried about liability it shouldn't be that difficult to come up with solution. Oh ya I forgot we are talking about the government. There are no simple solutions.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 11-02-2015, 02:46 AM
Dak1138's Avatar
Dak1138 Dak1138 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelmicallef View Post
Just make people sigh a bloody waiver when buying a fishing license and be done with this garbage. If they are really worried about liability it shouldn't be that difficult to come up with solution. Oh ya I forgot we are talking about the government. There are no simple solutions.
Not everyone on the lake at anglers and therefore have a license and therefore would not have had a chance to sign your waiver.
I believe if you read the whole thread they came up with a temporary solution involving floating platforms and fences.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 11-09-2015, 10:20 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

The Albeta Govt has a new release that explains and details what is to be done on aerated lakes.
See: http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=38...484F6D0FD67400

Two questions remain:
1) why is Police Outpost Lake not on the list?
2) what will the ACA do now?

Regards,

Don
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 11-11-2015, 01:37 PM
italk2u's Avatar
italk2u italk2u is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 521
Default

This just in from ACA:
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...m_medium=email
__________________
God grant me the Focus to Visualize myself catching fish, the Faith to believe that I will, and the Wisdom to keep the freezer stocked with hamburgers and hot dogs
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 11-12-2015, 06:17 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

LOL @ "Winter fishing events on aerated lakes require the posting of a guard(s) at fences."

Will they be armed guards given orders to stop all intruders at all costs???

Gotta love the retarded world we live in...
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-03-2016, 05:02 PM
zerofish zerofish is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 18
Default a little slow

I may be a little slow, this is new law that is yet to be passed? Have the lakes that have winterkill complete next to them already died out?
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-03-2016, 10:02 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerofish View Post
I may be a little slow, this is new law that is yet to be passed? Have the lakes that have winterkill complete next to them already died out?
Zero..

ESRD did a policy that helps. ACA still working on legislation changes regarding Sec 263.

Not sure what the second sentence means.

Don
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 06:38 PM.


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