Letter from a Retired Fisheries Biologist

[Don Andersen]

This letter writer was the Biologist for the Hinton/Edson region.

Don

Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson,

Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Oct 27, 2020



Dear Minister,



In 1964 as a newly recruited Alberta fish biologist, I stood with two senior biologists on the eroded, trampled, over-grazed banks of the North Raven and looked at muddy watering holes for cattle in the headwater springs. Back then most anglers wanted us to poison the suckers with Rotenone & plant more hatchery trout! Fortunately a few knowledgeable farmers like Elmer Kerr, Henry Lembicz & lawyers like Bob Scammel, police chief George Mitchell & a handful more avid anglers, bought the biologists pitch about the need for habitat reclamation and supported Buck for Wildlife (to reclaim habitat). Today the Raven has been restored by anglers, Alberta Fish & Game Association and Trout Unlimited & now gravel operators want to mine the water source springs and will destroy the fishery. The provincial govt defers to the public to protest the threats to a self-sustainable $million dollar fishery. More examples include unregulated industry roads for logging, petroleum, pipelines and coal mines. Myths blame over-fishing, poaching & Catch & Release mortality. Meanwhile the UCP are opening East Slopes for more metallurgical coal (selenium) and de-listing Parks (campsites) and ignoring OHV 'recreational' damage.



Coal mines always promise clean coal with 'Industry leading world class' reclamation. The short term impacts like sediment & coal fines occur sporadically during construction, when it's too late to stop the mine. Civil servants get left to deal with industry and placate the public without irritating politicians. The big impacts show up after 20 or 50 years when the foreign owned mines are folding like Grande Cache & 3 near Cadomin. They quietly disappear leaving long term environmental liability with permanently buried trout streams and mine waste pits leaching calcium that cements stream bottoms, destroying invertebrate (fish food) habitat. Trout spawning gravels are poisoned with selenium that kills fish shortly after they hatch. The foreign owned mines leave bankrupt communities and workers without jobs, plus the damaged publicly owned landscape and water shortage.



Nobody seems to look at old mines at Grande Cache, Cadomin & Mountain Park in the Northern East Slopes that had scenery, wildlife & fisheries with economic potential that would have competed with Banff & Jasper. The recent Obed Mine spill, Nov 1st 2013, of 670,000 cubic meters of mine waste water, silt & coal fines, made the news for a few weeks and 3 years later the company quietly pleaded guilty and shareholders paid a fine. To put the penalty in perspective, the Alberta Wilderness Association estimated, "this fine was equivalent to paying roughly a $1.40 tax on every tonne of coal produced in one year at Obed Mountain Mine." The receiving waters included about 20 km of trout stream that had Athabasca rainbow trout, listed by SARA as ' Endangered' and bull trout, that are 'Threatened' in Alberta (for 25 years).



The 'new initiative' of expanding coal mines in Alberta was rejected in 1976 and is a sad description of government's failure to protect renewable resources, like water. It also demonstrates a willingness to exploit non-renewable resources in favour of a quick profits benefiting the rich 1% and ends up in Tax Havens or pockets of foreign shareholders. Most Albertans never get to see the inside of a strip mine (using public safety excuses) and the few that do, get a 'guided tour', to see the big machines and the small reclaimed areas and have no concept of unseen cumulative impacts of silt, calcification & selenium or long term damage to our water supply. Communities in the northern East Slopes have long term residents that work in petroleum, wood & coal and many are conflicted because they greatly value the renewable resources. We also have transient workers for a few months or a couple of years, that only stay for the money (example is building pipelines like Trans Mountain).



Politicians have reorganized (shuffled) the 'Environment Department' so many times that it's almost impossible to understand the process of enviro protection. Forestry long ago managed 'forests & watersheds' but it was easier to get budgets for firefighting & tree farming, so land use management was a loser. Fisheries is all about stocking and angler harvest regulations. Habitat protection is seldom mentioned in public, while some biologists blame catch & release angling mortality for the loss of native salmonids. Industry follows an Enviro Code of Practice that allows companies to hire 'experts' to decide on best practices for stream crossings etc. AER reviews industry applications and I don't think local biologists even get to comment on these projects and if they do, the public has no access to the information. I suspect the numerous govt reorgs are quietly manipulated by recommendations from big business to ensure the dysfunction of environmental protection.



Will scientific arguments to reject new coal mines, like Grassy Mountain, be ignored, as per previous mines including Cheviot, Cardinal & Gregg River, and Grande Cache, that are now closing and leaving an environmental liability? These examples are ignored and politicians repeat the same mistakes, based on the old propaganda from industry. As a fish biologist that worked in the E/S for 30+ years, I have investigated numerous 'mine accidents' that harmed our fisheries and we even took a few to court. In 1997 I was a member of the government panel at Public Hearings for the first Cheviot Coal Mine application. I was there to protect the fisheries resource and made the usual arguments based on science. A mining engineer hired by the Review Panel summarized the impacts on fish & wildlife as 'insignificant' and his opinion was quoted in the report that approved the mine. Since 2000, metallurgical coal mining has added selenium to the list of known harmful impacts. In 2011, Teck Coal Hinton, conducted a review of selenium using an independent panel of experts that made several recommendations to reduce the leaching of selenium into headwater streams. None of the methods worked! Now the Alberta government is supporting new mines and using the old arguments that dismiss environmental impacts.



The message from scientists has not been effective in protecting renewable resources, so I plead that you will review the past evidence of coal mine impacts and think about the future instead of making the same mistakes that will severely impact valuable renewable resources and make future generations pay for our mistakes that are based on short-term greed. Please reject the current mining application and set a precedence to stop a scourge of coal mines that will destroy our Eastern Slopes and jeopardize the future water supply for dry prairie landscapes across three provinces. Burning this coal offshore will still cause climate change & contribute to melting glaciers & loss of polar ice cap.



Alberta politicians in 1940s had experienced the prairie drought of the 'dirty thirty's and protected the East Slopes Forest Reserve to conserve & supply water. "A Policy for Resource Management of the East Slopes, 1977" stated, "The highest priority in the overall management of the Eastern Slopes is placed on watershed management". Forty years later Albertans have forgotten these values and already lost most of our native sport fish in East Slope streams and much of our wildlife. Please reject all coal mines in the East Slopes and start a process of reclamation that will provide biodiversity and productive habitats to support renewable resources and benefit all Albertans.



Do it for our Grandchildren.



Carl Hunt

Edson Alberta





Bcc. ENGOs and general public

[huntsfurfish]

Thanks for posting that Don.

[saskbooknut]

We need a "Like" button.
Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it.

[osprey]

This is a great summary of why business as usual in the eastern slopes will result in wrecking them for this and future generations. Please consider writing or phoning your MLA and phoning Jonathan Wilkinson at 1(603)995-1225 to protest this mine and the general degradation of the eastern slopes to industrial interests.

[pgavey]

Oh jees and I thought it was the quads that destroyed our rivers and creeks.

[tallieho]

Really good read Thanks for sharing Don.

[ehrgeiz]

I don't celebrate the recent cancellation of the Coal Policy and I am very anxious about the prospect of new or expanded coal mines, particularly the potential impact on the quality and quantity of fish in the eastern slopes. With that said, it's not lost on me that the Forestry Trunk Road which provides much of the access to the eastern slopes we cherish only really exists because of resource extraction industries.

It's funny, the NPD as puppet to Y2Y and CPAWS want a park that will ultimately limit human activity in the eastern slopes to quiet observation and the UCP want to open the door to growing and encouraging resource extraction. Reminds me of song...clowns to the left, jokers to the right!

I think there must be a way to balance the impact of some mining and mitigate the worst of the risk. I'd like to say keep out of the eastern slopes, but it's ignorant of those people and communities that benefit from such development. Our children and grandchildren need economic opportunity and prosperity as much as they need sustainable fish, wildlife and wild places.

[artie]

funny thing they had strip mines in the crowsnest pass in the forties and fifties and the fish did just fine. It was not so long ago that the tent mountain strip closed and we never heard much about selenium. The Grassy Strip mine is a long ways from the old man river plenty of space to build settlement ponds that work.

[Pioneer2]

Originally Posted by pgavey

Oh jees and I thought it was the quads that destroyed our rivers and creeks.

That too.

[Sundancefisher]

I need more than an opinion letter. Carl’s a great guy. Went to school with his kid. Still...he has an opinion and while it may apply in certain circumstances it doesn’t apply to all.

I am neither for or against any given development until we see the exact plan and the mitigation.

I would also say that I know the thinking back in Carl’s day. It was the spend $50 in gas and bring $50 in fish home. Mountain whitefish where garbage fish to eliminate. Limits were very high.

The streams I have fished for 30 years that have declined massively in catch rate has seen no development. I see the only plausible cause of the decline is fishing pressure with some impact by flooding events.

I would also point out a very telling story about “back in the day” and “experienced and educated opinion”.

There was a creek in northern Alberta that was slotted for an initial site visit.

Biologists helicoptered in with fishing rods and in the report, remarked about the high quality habitat and abundant fish population. They requested a phase 1 study.

The next report was a phase one survey. They came out and electrifshed the creek and found lots of fish. Remarked on amazing habitat and requested a phase 2 study.

Phase 2 came and the recorded habitat variables and set up a net downstream and released rotenone. Unfortunately they did not get the potassium permanganate into the river in time to neutralize the rotenone and they recorded a huge fish kill.

Years later biologists came back to review the creek. They angled, elecrofished, rotenoned and found no fish. They recorded the habitat was poor and unable to support any significant fish population.

I read all studies and was shocked.

The message from this is two fold.

Firstly, just because Carl worked as a biologist doesn’t make him any expert on this project to say yes or no. He provided an experienced opinion however his position may be biased. He will have valuable points that should be addressed by the project and mitigated if possible. If major and unable to mitigate then that makes a good case to say no to the project.

Secondly...this crap about over fishing not being a sole or significant contributing cause of low fish numbers in many situations is both unscientific and destructive to the conversation.

We don’t have research to prove it either way so we need to take a step back and consider fishing pressure and harvest over time as having been very impactful. 100 years of removing fish from a mountain river or creek must have an impact on genetics, biomass and reproductive success.

Additional contributing factors may be primary or secondary or compounding such as habitat destruction, logging, roads, fertilizers, pesticides, natural flooding events, siltation etc.

I don’t think low fish populations is necessarily for the same reasons each time...but we don’t know.

I certainly do strongly believe in NOT crying and begging the Federal government to step in and dictate Albertan resource and development strategy.

[saskbooknut]

Never heard of Selenium, so that can't be a problem. Brilliant.
The letter pretty much nails the issues.
Profits to the Province from coal development are short term, and leave lingering long term liabilities, environmental and social.
Apparently, no protected area is safe from this new Government.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

Never heard of Selenium, so that can't be a problem. Brilliant.
The letter pretty much nails the issues.
Profits to the Province from coal development are short term, and leave lingering long term liabilities, environmental and social.
Apparently, no protected area is safe from this new Government.

So when is Saskatchewan closing all their mines, and doing the remediation and reclamation.

Do tell.

[hunterngather]

I hope the powers to be take the word of a professionals to that of anecdotal humans.

Good thing the world is on that path.

Adapt or die.

[hunterngather]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I need more than an opinion letter. Carl’s a great guy. Went to school with his kid. Still...he has an opinion and while it may apply in certain circumstances it doesn’t apply to all.

I am neither for or against any given development until we see the exact plan and the mitigation.

I would also say that I know the thinking back in Carl’s day. It was the spend $50 in gas and bring $50 in fish home. Mountain whitefish where garbage fish to eliminate. Limits were very high.

The streams I have fished for 30 years that have declined massively in catch rate has seen no development. I see the only plausible cause of the decline is fishing pressure with some impact by flooding events.

I would also point out a very telling story about “back in the day” and “experienced and educated opinion”.

There was a creek in northern Alberta that was slotted for an initial site visit.

Biologists helicoptered in with fishing rods and in the report, remarked about the high quality habitat and abundant fish population. They requested a phase 1 study.

The next report was a phase one survey. They came out and electrifshed the creek and found lots of fish. Remarked on amazing habitat and requested a phase 2 study.

Phase 2 came and the recorded habitat variables and set up a net downstream and released rotenone. Unfortunately they did not get the potassium permanganate into the river in time to neutralize the rotenone and they recorded a huge fish kill.

Years later biologists came back to review the creek. They angled, elecrofished, rotenoned and found no fish. They recorded the habitat was poor and unable to support any significant fish population.

I read all studies and was shocked.

The message from this is two fold.

Firstly, just because Carl worked as a biologist doesn’t make him any expert on this project to say yes or no. He provided an experienced opinion however his position may be biased. He will have valuable points that should be addressed by the project and mitigated if possible. If major and unable to mitigate then that makes a good case to say no to the project.

Secondly...this crap about over fishing not being a sole or significant contributing cause of low fish numbers in many situations is both unscientific and destructive to the conversation.

We don’t have research to prove it either way so we need to take a step back and consider fishing pressure and harvest over time as having been very impactful. 100 years of removing fish from a mountain river or creek must have an impact on genetics, biomass and reproductive success.

Additional contributing factors may be primary or secondary or compounding such as habitat destruction, logging, roads, fertilizers, pesticides, natural flooding events, siltation etc.

I don’t think low fish populations is necessarily for the same reasons each time...but we don’t know.

I certainly do strongly believe in NOT crying and begging the Federal government to step in and dictate Albertan resource and development strategy.

Great post.

What should we do?

[KegRiver]

I know nothing about the eastern slopes but I did see what happened to our river.

The Peace is essentially a dead river now. When I was growing up next to it, it was a vibrant productive river. We fished that river a lot and always caught fish.

And even though fishing pressure on the river has increased only slightly, the fish are pretty much gone now.

Not being a biologist I can't say why, I only know it's not the river I used to know.

I do see field staff doing their best to protect wildlife as they should.
And I see them getting blamed for decisions made further up the food chain.

What happened to this river is only one small part of the story.
There is also the wildlife farming issue, the eastern slopes issue and the commercial fishery issue to name a few.
All that cost the rest of us opportunity to utilize what is supposedly ours.

I know nothing about Carl Hunt but I have no problem believing he knows more then the people who decide who gets to gain from out wildlife.

[saskbooknut]

With regard to Saskatchewan, I do not advocate shutting down all mines, and never have. I do advocate for responsible development.

We have a perfect example of the legacy of rape and pillage mining.
Uranium City - a huge environmental liability, hundreds of millions of dollars.
The remediation has barely begun. The buck has been passed down to the Province (mostly), though it was a Federal Crown Corporation that left the mine site in the state it is. Neither Government has a real commitment to solving the problems.

Saskatchewan and Alberta both have serious problems with abandoned wells, leaving most of the cost of clean-up to the Provinces, with recent Federal promises of help.

Why does the Company get the profits, bail out in varying circumstances, and the Province get the liabilities?

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by artie

funny thing they had strip mines in the crowsnest pass in the forties and fifties and the fish did just fine. It was not so long ago that the tent mountain strip closed and we never heard much about selenium. The Grassy Strip mine is a long ways from the old man river plenty of space to build settlement ponds that work.

The Grassy mine is only the first one of potentially 5 (I think) proposals which could extend the mining much further north.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

The Grassy mine is only the first one of potentially 5 (I think) proposals which could extend the mining much further north.

Does that include Iron Stone Resources?

They have a huge open pit mine out by Hines Creek they are trying to get going.

They have a pit open and have taken out a reported 100 tons for testing, but no more activity since that I have heard of.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Does that include Iron Stone Resources?

They have a huge open pit mine out by Hines Creek they are trying to get going.

They have a pit open and have taken out a reported 100 tons for testing, but no more activity since that I have heard of.

I was incorrect - seems there are over a dozen

https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/08/12/A...d-Coal-Mining/

[Keeleclimber]

The government is currently poisoning incredible lakes full of trout in Banff park because "Rainbow Trout aren't Native"

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Keeleclimber

The government is currently poisoning incredible lakes full of trout in Banff park because "Rainbow Trout aren't Native"

So stupid.

Neither are browns,but they are revered in Alberta's lakes and streams.

Most of us are just happy to catch a fish these days. Many streams would be trout less if it wasn't for the Brook trout.

Will they kill the rainbows in Maligne lake as well, fact is non native fish do well in Alberta streams and provide most of the sport.

The Bow river fishery is renowned for its Browns and Rainbows.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by hunterngather

Great post.

What should we do?

What is the approval process and what problems and mitigation’s are planned? What is missed?

There are experts looking at this I’m sure to help reduce NIMBY.

Lots of emotion however we are not getting the science. I want to know the risk and reward pluses and minuses for Albertans.

Anyone just outright stating we shouldn’t do this ... do you understand 100% of the plans? Are you also against the oil sands development?

I may be against it..not sure. I also know that some regulatory processes just get by or need a rubber stamped environmental report. So much info is needed to say one way or another.

Are going to make development in Alberta... death by committee? It appears that is exactly what the Federal liberal Government is hoping. Squash any mega project or significant resource project in Alberta.

In the scope of understanding the project...I say let’s understand it and stop making assumptions.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

What is the approval process and what problems and mitigation’s are planned? What is missed?

There are experts looking at this I’m sure to help reduce NIMBY.

Lots of emotion however we are not getting the science. I want to know the risk and reward pluses and minuses for Albertans.

Anyone just outright stating we shouldn’t do this ... do you understand 100% of the plans? Are you also against the oil sands development?

I may be against it..not sure. I also know that some regulatory processes just get by or need a rubber stamped environmental report. So much info is needed to say one way or another.

Are going to make development in Alberta... death by committee? It appears that is exactly what the Federal liberal Government is hoping. Squash any mega project or significant resource project in Alberta.

In the scope of understanding the project...I say let’s understand it and stop making assumptions.

I don't know anyone who is against resource development. What we are against is irresponsible development.

No one opposed Diashowa when they built the pulp mill on the Peace.
We were told they wouldn't pollute the river and we believed them.
But they did pollute the river and continue to do so.

Problem is the government covered for them and denied there was any pollution even while advising us to not eat fish caught in the river.

So when a nuclear power plant was proposed on one of the key migratory stops for waterfowl people protested long and loud.

Before they dropped the plan they had already built a power line to take power that plant would produce, to market in the USA. Then we knew the plan had been approved before it was even announced.

Protests doubled and the plan quietly went away.

The government never admitted to anything. They claimed the new power line was in anticipation of future growth, what growth they would not say.

How are we to trust that this government will do due diligence on future projects when past governments have not done so and in light of this governments obvious intent to maintain past governments way of doing things.

[ehrgeiz]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

Saskatchewan and Alberta both have serious problems with abandoned wells, leaving most of the cost of clean-up to the Provinces, with recent Federal promises of help.

Why does the Company get the profits, bail out in varying circumstances, and the Province get the liabilities?

^I have direct experience in this arena, at least for Alberta. This is made out to be a larger issue than it really is. Inactive does not mean abandoned, abandoned and not reclaimed does not necessarily mean the operator is negligent or insolvent. Inactive or abandoned does not mean it's going to be partially on the taxpayer. We need to look at the OWA annual inventory, which was 3,000.00 in 2019. I'm sure that number has and will continue to grow, but let's say it's 10,000 now. Say the average cost to abandoned and reclaim a well is $60,000.00. That's $600,000,000, no paltry sum I agree. Now, juxtapose that with whatever massive number represents oil and gas development's contribution to Alberta's GDP for over 8 decades and I think it's clear that the scale of the problem is small in the context of the benefits to Alberta. Keep in mind that often you have a small teardrop or even fence around an inactive wellhead with the remainder of the land being cultivated or available for grazing.

Don't get me wrong, I want and expect for profit private companies, foreign and domestic to address their Alberta liabilities and I think the GOA and AER can do a better job of front-end funding during the good times to ensure we see less OWA inventory in future depression cycles.

Sundancer has the right position. Nothing should be a NIMBY no in Alberta without understanding the benefit, it's impact and the risks. That said nothing should be an automatic yes, development at any cost is unacceptable as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I don't know anyone who is against resource development. What we are against is irresponsible development.

No one opposed Diashowa when they built the pulp mill on the Peace.
We were told they wouldn't pollute the river and we believed them.
But they did pollute the river and continue to do so.

Problem is the government covered for them and denied there was any pollution even while advising us to not eat fish caught in the river.

So when a nuclear power plant was proposed on one of the key migratory stops for waterfowl people protested long and loud.

Before they dropped the plan they had already built a power line to take power that plant would produce, to market in the USA. Then we knew the plan had been approved before it was even announced.

Protests doubled and the plan quietly went away.

The government never admitted to anything. They claimed the new power line was in anticipation of future growth, what growth they would not say.

How are we to trust that this government will do due diligence on future projects when past governments have not done so and in light of this governments obvious intent to maintain past governments way of doing things.

I don’t disagree.

I want to learn more about the mine.

I have seen pulp mill pollution first hand. Horrible. Dioxin mat oozing downstream in the Athabasca is disgusting. Effluent rules based upon dilution rate versus toxicity is irresponsible.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by ehrgeiz

I think there must be a way to balance the impact of some mining and mitigate the worst of the risk. I'd like to say keep out of the eastern slopes, but it's ignorant of those people and communities that benefit from such development. Our children and grandchildren need economic opportunity and prosperity as much as they need sustainable fish, wildlife and wild places.

Nice to see a common sense response.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by saskbooknut

With regard to Saskatchewan, I do not advocate shutting down all mines, and never have. I do advocate for responsible development.

We have a perfect example of the legacy of rape and pillage mining.
Uranium City - a huge environmental liability, hundreds of millions of dollars.
The remediation has barely begun. The buck has been passed down to the Province (mostly), though it was a Federal Crown Corporation that left the mine site in the state it is. Neither Government has a real commitment to solving the problems.

Saskatchewan and Alberta both have serious problems with abandoned wells, leaving most of the cost of clean-up to the Provinces, with recent Federal promises of help.

Why does the Company get the profits, bail out in varying circumstances, and the Province get the liabilities?

Let’s look at the data.

162,500 active wells in Alberta.

http://www.orphanwell.ca/about/orphan-inventory/

As of October 1, 2020, orphan inventory counts are as follows:

2538 Orphan Wells for Abandonment PDF EXCEL
270 Orphan Facilities for Decommissioning PDF EXCEL
3447 Orphan Pipeline Segments for Abandonment PDF EXCEL
3566 Orphan Sites for Reclamation PDF EXCEL
973 Orphan Reclaimed Sites PDF EXCEL
100 Orphan Sites for Reclamation Requiring Surface Equip Removal

Yes...there are some unclaimed wells and there has been an offer by government to aid in abandonment of wells caused by bankruptcy in a horrible oil and gas market made worse by the NDP in BC and Bloc preventing pipelines and the Feds driving investment away as well as crashing commodity prices over time.

To note...the industry pays a levy towards abandonments and had been increasing their contributions.

Some of the misinformation needs to be addressed. We are in unique times. Plus the Liberals needed to give SNC another freebie.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I need more than an opinion letter. Carl’s a great guy. Went to school with his kid. Still...he has an opinion and while it may apply in certain circumstances it doesn’t apply to all.

I am neither for or against any given development until we see the exact plan and the mitigation.

I would also say that I know the thinking back in Carl’s day. It was the spend $50 in gas and bring $50 in fish home. Mountain whitefish where garbage fish to eliminate. Limits were very high.

The streams I have fished for 30 years that have declined massively in catch rate has seen no development. I see the only plausible cause of the decline is fishing pressure with some impact by flooding events.

I would also point out a very telling story about “back in the day” and “experienced and educated opinion”.

There was a creek in northern Alberta that was slotted for an initial site visit.

Biologists helicoptered in with fishing rods and in the report, remarked about the high quality habitat and abundant fish population. They requested a phase 1 study.

The next report was a phase one survey. They came out and electrifshed the creek and found lots of fish. Remarked on amazing habitat and requested a phase 2 study.

Phase 2 came and the recorded habitat variables and set up a net downstream and released rotenone. Unfortunately they did not get the potassium permanganate into the river in time to neutralize the rotenone and they recorded a huge fish kill.

Years later biologists came back to review the creek. They angled, elecrofished, rotenoned and found no fish. They recorded the habitat was poor and unable to support any significant fish population.

I read all studies and was shocked.

The message from this is two fold.

Firstly, just because Carl worked as a biologist doesn’t make him any expert on this project to say yes or no. He provided an experienced opinion however his position may be biased. He will have valuable points that should be addressed by the project and mitigated if possible. If major and unable to mitigate then that makes a good case to say no to the project.

Secondly...this crap about over fishing not being a sole or significant contributing cause of low fish numbers in many situations is both unscientific and destructive to the conversation.

We don’t have research to prove it either way so we need to take a step back and consider fishing pressure and harvest over time as having been very impactful. 100 years of removing fish from a mountain river or creek must have an impact on genetics, biomass and reproductive success.

Additional contributing factors may be primary or secondary or compounding such as habitat destruction, logging, roads, fertilizers, pesticides, natural flooding events, siltation etc.

I don’t think low fish populations is necessarily for the same reasons each time...but we don’t know.

I certainly do strongly believe in NOT crying and begging the Federal government to step in and dictate Albertan resource and development strategy.

Great post X 2.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by CNP

Great post X 2.

I forgot to mention the biologists primacorded...the stream also.

[roughneckin]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I need more than an opinion letter. Carl’s a great guy. Went to school with his kid. Still...he has an opinion and while it may apply in certain circumstances it doesn’t apply to all.

I am neither for or against any given development until we see the exact plan and the mitigation.

I would also say that I know the thinking back in Carl’s day. It was the spend $50 in gas and bring $50 in fish home. Mountain whitefish where garbage fish to eliminate. Limits were very high.

The streams I have fished for 30 years that have declined massively in catch rate has seen no development. I see the only plausible cause of the decline is fishing pressure with some impact by flooding events.

I would also point out a very telling story about “back in the day” and “experienced and educated opinion”.

There was a creek in northern Alberta that was slotted for an initial site visit.

Biologists helicoptered in with fishing rods and in the report, remarked about the high quality habitat and abundant fish population. They requested a phase 1 study.

The next report was a phase one survey. They came out and electrifshed the creek and found lots of fish. Remarked on amazing habitat and requested a phase 2 study.

Phase 2 came and the recorded habitat variables and set up a net downstream and released rotenone. Unfortunately they did not get the potassium permanganate into the river in time to neutralize the rotenone and they recorded a huge fish kill.

Years later biologists came back to review the creek. They angled, elecrofished, rotenoned and found no fish. They recorded the habitat was poor and unable to support any significant fish population.

I read all studies and was shocked.

The message from this is two fold.

Firstly, just because Carl worked as a biologist doesn’t make him any expert on this project to say yes or no. He provided an experienced opinion however his position may be biased. He will have valuable points that should be addressed by the project and mitigated if possible. If major and unable to mitigate then that makes a good case to say no to the project.

Secondly...this crap about over fishing not being a sole or significant contributing cause of low fish numbers in many situations is both unscientific and destructive to the conversation.

We don’t have research to prove it either way so we need to take a step back and consider fishing pressure and harvest over time as having been very impactful. 100 years of removing fish from a mountain river or creek must have an impact on genetics, biomass and reproductive success.

Additional contributing factors may be primary or secondary or compounding such as habitat destruction, logging, roads, fertilizers, pesticides, natural flooding events, siltation etc.

I don’t think low fish populations is necessarily for the same reasons each time...but we don’t know.

I certainly do strongly believe in NOT crying and begging the Federal government to step in and dictate Albertan resource and development strategy.

Do you still know where these reports can be found? Would be an interesting read.