Bow River Fisheries Education Session (very important)

[CardiacCowboy]

There is an important webinar on Oct 3 on the bow river fishery. From my understanding of the data there is a concern that the angling pressure (they call effort) and fish caught is unsustainable. They want to reduce the people fishing (effort) or amount of fish caught. The data shows that during the summer every fish (total amount of fish in river) is caught and released 4 times.

Info and registration here: https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/fisheries-management/default.aspx

Results of 2018 survey in above link

Recent video on bow from fisheries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dxwRCQvpiQ

Short article that outlines the bases of the meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dxwRCQvpiQ

So what do you guys think? Assuming that something has to be done, what would you suggest?

I suggested posting more of those signs you see at some fisheries with regs and report a poacher info with in the city. I see too many city people fishing the bow with no license and no idea of regs. Commonly these are younger or older anglers that don't need license so don't know the regs. Also informing the general public of regs would also increase the tips to stop intentional poachers.

It has been suggested before to make parts of the bow fly fish only. I am opposed to this. It would be effective but restrict access to many.

I would support the introduction of barbless and single hook requirement. This would make only a slight difference. There won't be less fish caught but might help mortality. I caught over 100 trout in bow this summer and knowly killed 4. Maybe 1 would have been saved by the requirements. However I mostly fish barbless (unless I forget to pinch) and am experienced so releasing a fish safely so easy. 3 were smaller fish were hook pierced brain and other was larger fish that took hook in gill and too much damage done in landing the fish.

Thoughts?

[Bow flyman]

I also caught over 100 trout out of the Bow this past season. Even though most were caught and released on small flies, I killed at least 2 from hooks that got in the gills. One was a nice 15 inch rainbow that took a stonefly very deep in the throat, and couldn't be saved. This one bothered me a lot, because a fish this size in the Nw stretch is at least 3 years old or more. As a result, I support any consultation that reduces angling pressure on this fishery. Far too many people fish the river during the season. Our best pools in the Nw stretch are fished every single day of the summer. I will personally be reducing my angling effort next season by at least 50%. I feel that voluntarily limiting time on the river, as an experienced and effective fly fisherman, can make a difference if that is what it takes to help recover the fishery.

[CardiacCowboy]

I have read about places in the states where there are closures of fisheries on certain days of the week or times. This might be an option.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I wonder if the increase in pressure coincides with COVID. Might be worth not overreacting unless it becomes a trend over the next few years. The outdoors in general was pressured more because inside activities are restricted. Should be less of an issue next year.

[flyrodfisher]

A few thoughts/comments;
1) I'm not sure why AE wants everyone to REGISTER for every survey, webinar, etc that they put on....and as such, I will not be doing it

2) With regard to not "knowing the regs"...And I know there is no excuse for an angler not taking the time to read the regs...but...the AE online licensing system has supported that because folks are no longer handed a hard copy of the regs at time of purchase. Many don't take the time to download...or read....those that do, are generally not the anglers we need to worry about...

3) Yes, there IS mortality with catch and release, with barbless and with flyfishing only...to think otherwise is foolish. The mortality rate is however much lower than with other angling methods

4)If a resource is under significant pressure..ie if in a fishery, the angling pressure/fish caught is unsustainable...the first thing that needs to be eliminated or restricted is any activity that "profits" off of that resource.
I know this comment will make the blood of all the guides boil...but, when an individual or corporation undertakes an activity for profit that pays no compensation to "use" that resource and furthermore when that resource becomes depleted at the expense of the recreational user...something has to give...
Not knocking guides here...I have been one and know many personally.
Guides and recreational fishers have cohabited in relative harmony on the Bow for decades but, now the fishery, due to various reasons/factors, has changed.

Bowflyman has stated he will voluntarily reduce his angling effort on the Bow by 50% next year...do you think many guides will be doing the same?

In saying that, there are numerous other options available that may be used in conjunction with the above...total closure, river use/stamp fees, rod day allocations, time closures, angling/method restrictions, etc


I will personally be reducing my angling effort next season by at least 50%. I feel that voluntarily limiting time on the river, as an experienced and effective fly fisherman, can make a difference if that is what it takes to help recover the fishery.

I commend you for your conviction.

[CardiacCowboy]

I wonder if the increase in pressure coincides with COVID. Might be worth not overreacting unless it becomes a trend over the next few years. The outdoors in general was pressured more because inside activities are restricted. Should be less of an issue next year.

Actually data sets are pre Covid.

[CardiacCowboy]

Good points....I am going to play devils advocate on some just for discussions sake

2.Never thought of that. I get license online, download regs, then get a couple paper regs at ct that I give way as needed. Like you say I am not the one you need to worry about. I have run into multiple people on the river who legit admitted to breaking bait and retention rules because they didn't know. I know that is not an excuse. They thanked me and believe they will follow rules now. Having general public informed would help as well, there are thousands of eyes and phones on the paths and might discourage rule breakers.

3. Agreed this might not make much difference. The Bow in the city is a unique situation with many casual angler fishing close to home that would never fish otherwise. Single and barbless might not make much of a difference on mortality with us seasoned anglers but might be huge to those that have never or rarely handled or released a fish. Although I am opposed to such a move fly fish only rules would eliminate most of these casual anglers. Less people fishing, less fish being caught, less mortality.

4. This one is tricky. What has greater economic impact 1) General public that buy license and gear 2)Guides who buy license, pay income tax on income from fishing, mantain/buy boats gear 3)combined with 2) destination fishers that come to only fish the bow. Hotels, meals, guides, gear, travel

1) Probably has the greater overall impact 2and3) Has much greater impact if you look at money spent per fish caught or hour fished

Never thought of the guides before. Do they need a special license? Maybe they need to be limited. I fish bow very often but limited to shore fishing. I rarely get skunked but usually get only 1 trout from a few hours on the bow. I have only hit 5 trout in a day a handful of times. With the sheer amount of water the guildes cover in boats they catch more fish in one day then I do in a month or more.

If you watched the video it is interesting they make the point they can only take actions that 1) Limit the fish being caught 2)limit the people fishing (pressure)






A few thoughts/comments;
1) I'm not sure why AE wants everyone to REGISTER for every survey, webinar, etc that they put on....and as such, I will not be doing it

2) With regard to not "knowing the regs"...And I know there is no excuse for an angler not taking the time to read the regs...but...the AE online licensing system has supported that because folks are no longer handed a hard copy of the regs at time of purchase. Many don't take the time to download...or read....those that do, are generally not the anglers we need to worry about...

3) Yes, there IS mortality with catch and release, with barbless and with flyfishing only...to think otherwise is foolish. The mortality rate is however much lower than with other angling methods

4)If a resource is under significant pressure..ie if in a fishery, the angling pressure/fish caught is unsustainable...the first thing that needs to be eliminated or restricted is any activity that "profits" off of that resource.
I know this comment will make the blood of all the guides boil...but, when an individual or corporation undertakes an activity for profit that pays no compensation to "use" that resource and furthermore when that resource becomes depleted at the expense of the recreational user...something has to give...
Not knocking guides here...I have been one and know many personally.
Guides and recreational fishers have cohabited in relative harmony on the Bow for decades but, now the fishery, due to various reasons/factors, has changed.

Bowflyman has stated he will voluntarily reduce his angling effort on the Bow by 50% next year...do you think many guides will be doing the same?

In saying that, there are numerous other options available that may be used in conjunction with the above...total closure, river use/stamp fees, rod day allocations, time closures, angling/method restrictions, etc




I commend you for your conviction.

[Jayhad]

4)If a resource is under significant pressure..ie if in a fishery, the angling pressure/fish caught is unsustainable...the first thing that needs to be eliminated or restricted is any activity that "profits" off of that resource.
I know this comment will make the blood of all the guides boil...but, when an individual or corporation undertakes an activity for profit that pays no compensation to "use" that resource and furthermore when that resource becomes depleted at the expense of the recreational user...something has to give...
Not knocking guides here...I have been one and know many personally.
Guides and recreational fishers have cohabited in relative harmony on the Bow for decades but, now the fishery, due to various reasons/factors, has changed.

Bowflyman has stated he will voluntarily reduce his angling effort on the Bow by 50% next year...do you think many guides will be doing the same?



I agree with your thoughts on this, however there hasn't been a jurisdiction in North America that has chosen the resource over the guides. I as well have guided, and I saw this happen in BC in the late 80s to early 90.

If history has taught us anything, changes will be made, the general public and resource will pay the bill and shops and outfitters will be better off. For example the classified waters system in BC was set up in the guise of protecting the resource, how does paying guides to fish help the resource?

I personally have been seeing the largest trout I've seen in 20 years, I have had slow fishing and I feel there are less but the trout caught are larger. I wonder if there is an observable change in biomass.

I also question the biologists, I don't put much faith in the government employed biologists. The last straw for me was when SRD changed regulations to open Burnt Timber on April 1st. The reason was due to 3 students on a 2 day electro-fishing float trip finding zero, zero cutthroat trout or bull trout. That's impossible.

Why is there no questioning of the destruction of the riparian environment bankside caused by the government canalising the Bow from bearspaw down, for flood mitigation? Anyone else notice the massive fall off of bugs since this?

I'm not saying the Bow cannot be made better, however anglers aren't the issue in this case, that said limiting our usage is always a positive.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

A few thoughts/comments;
1) I'm not sure why AE wants everyone to REGISTER for every survey, webinar, etc that they put on....and as such, I will not be doing it

2) With regard to not "knowing the regs"...And I know there is no excuse for an angler not taking the time to read the regs...but...the AE online licensing system has supported that because folks are no longer handed a hard copy of the regs at time of purchase. Many don't take the time to download...or read....those that do, are generally not the anglers we need to worry about...

3) Yes, there IS mortality with catch and release, with barbless and with flyfishing only...to think otherwise is foolish. The mortality rate is however much lower than with other angling methods

4)If a resource is under significant pressure..ie if in a fishery, the angling pressure/fish caught is unsustainable...the first thing that needs to be eliminated or restricted is any activity that "profits" off of that resource.
I know this comment will make the blood of all the guides boil...but, when an individual or corporation undertakes an activity for profit that pays no compensation to "use" that resource and furthermore when that resource becomes depleted at the expense of the recreational user...something has to give...
Not knocking guides here...I have been one and know many personally.
Guides and recreational fishers have cohabited in relative harmony on the Bow for decades but, now the fishery, due to various reasons/factors, has changed.

Bowflyman has stated he will voluntarily reduce his angling effort on the Bow by 50% next year...do you think many guides will be doing the same?

In saying that, there are numerous other options available that may be used in conjunction with the above...total closure, river use/stamp fees, rod day allocations, time closures, angling/method restrictions, etc




I commend you for your conviction.

Feels like if it’s a community problem, than a community solution is in order & that includes guides.

A more whoistic study is required to see contributing factors beyond Fishing pressure. It’s not right to just single this out in my view. The picture is incomplete. So, fishing pressure declines, fish pop continues to decline, then what?

[flyrodfisher]

I agree with your thoughts on this, however there hasn't been a jurisdiction in North America that has chosen the resource over the guides. I as well have guided, and I saw this happen in BC in the late 80s to early 90.

If history has taught us anything, changes will be made, the general public and resource will pay the bill and shops and outfitters will be better off. For example the classified waters system in BC was set up in the guise of protecting the resource, how does paying guides to fish help the resource?

I am in total agreement.

[flyrodfisher]

4. This one is tricky. What has greater economic impact 1) General public that buy license and gear 2)Guides who buy license, pay income tax on income from fishing, mantain/buy boats gear 3)combined with 2) destination fishers that come to only fish the bow. Hotels, meals, guides, gear, travel


If the fishery is heading for collapse, economic impact should not be a consideration.


If the fishery is in a state of decline, and limitation of users is considered, then the "recreational" users importance should be placed over "for profit"

[flyrodfisher]

Feels like if it’s a community problem, than a community solution is in order & that includes guides.

A more whoistic study is required to see contributing factors beyond Fishing pressure. It’s not right to just single this out in my view. The picture is incomplete. So, fishing pressure declines, fish pop continues to decline, then what?

I do agree with you...but this exact approach ( singling out)is the one that was used by AE for the Pembina watershed...

[lannie]

We need to limit the pressure on the Eastern slope fishery. It's time to sell daily regulated permits on all Eastern slope waters. Resident, non resident and non resident alien at different daily rates.

[flyrodfisher]

Another point to note...Rainbows and browns are not native to the Bow river.

[CardiacCowboy]

Another point to note...Rainbows and browns are not native to the Bow river.

I wonder if in 100 years everybody will be up in arms to protect the carp. Personally I don't care if Rainbows and browns are non native.

One universal truth "people hate change"

[LUNKDAWGEH]

I agree with your thoughts on this, however there hasn't been a jurisdiction in North America that has chosen the resource over the guides. I as well have guided, and I saw this happen in BC in the late 80s to early 90.



If history has taught us anything, changes will be made, the general public and resource will pay the bill and shops and outfitters will be better off. For example the classified waters system in BC was set up in the guise of protecting the resource, how does paying guides to fish help the resource?



I personally have been seeing the largest trout I've seen in 20 years, I have had slow fishing and I feel there are less but the trout caught are larger. I wonder if there is an observable change in biomass.



I also question the biologists, I don't put much faith in the government employed biologists. The last straw for me was when SRD changed regulations to open Burnt Timber on April 1st. The reason was due to 3 students on a 2 day electro-fishing float trip finding zero, zero cutthroat trout or bull trout. That's impossible.



Why is there no questioning of the destruction of the riparian environment bankside caused by the government canalising the Bow from bearspaw down, for flood mitigation? Anyone else notice the massive fall off of bugs since this?



I'm not saying the Bow cannot be made better, however anglers aren't the issue in this case, that said limiting our usage is always a positive.This is an excellent point.

The reality of the situation is that the primary causes of ecological decline of the natural river system, are due to earthworks projects that reduce biodiversity.

IMO it's much like our Salmon populations.

Their decline is directly tied to reduced spawning grounds available in rivers and creeks, which is largely due to siltation, caused by increased erosion, due to logging near watersheds.

Not to mention the fact that every single river system has been dammed up. Duh.

The Bow is similar imo, it has had much of its wetlands areas that used to line the banks removed in favour of various developments.

Not only does that reduce insect biomass, but also water quality.

The real kicker is that these wetlands used to mitigate flooding. Now our man-made storm systems designed to pick up the slack of the missing wetlands, are regularly filled by siltation during flooding, and need to be regularly cleaned out.

This means more tax dollars, a worse flood mitigation system, and reduced biodiversity.

Sent from my motorola one hyper using Tapatalk

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I do agree with you...but this exact approach ( singling out)is the one that was used by AE for the Pembina watershed...

Sounds like recruitment still wasn’t great after the closure and that there were/are other factors at play. I still think it’s very unfair to place this problem squarely at the feet of recreational fishermen. Could end up with the same result as the Pembina. Feels like more water quality testing could be in order with point sources of problem areas identified combined with ... god forbid I say it, but at the risk of getting tomatoed here it goes, a stocking program.

[crazy_davey]

We need to limit the pressure on the Eastern slope fishery. It's time to sell daily regulated permits on all Eastern slope waters. Resident, non resident and non resident alien at different daily rates.

Or put it on some sort of draw system. I have been saying this for quite sometime.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I’ll just explain my resistance a bit more. Our bio’s have a history of pulling the “easy solution” lever far too often in our province. I’m speaking broadly wether it’s a lake, river, reservoir, or tributary. There’s no time bound or measurable goals to reopening a fishery when they do (this is a big part of the issue I have). This session is just meant to placate the public on a foregone decision already made, don’t fool yourself. Yes, they’re human and they’re also put in a position of authority over public resources so they need to be able to thoroughly explain how deeply they’ve looked into alternative strategies, mitigations, goals, etc. Simply stating that this is the only lever to pull is the definition of disingenuous.

Basically stated, I want to see their detailed (time bound) plan for the “road to recovery” as opposed to a “managing the decline” one constantly proposed.

Wonder if the regs for next year are already printed...

[Slamaha]

Count me as one who also suggests that before action is taken a far more in depth study of the Bow River fish population needs to occur.

It has been suggested that angling is the primary factor in population reduction/harm.

However, many of us have observed that over the past 20 or more years the increasing large populations of fish eating predatory birds (some that weren't seen here prior, such as the pelicans) that have moved into the region and hunt the bow every day, 365 days a year. Pelicans and Cormorants eat alot of fish and there are alot of Pelicans and Cormorants to sustain these days.

Efforts to reduce angling pressure could have little effect without addressing the Pelican, Cormorant, Eagle, and other bird pressure along the river.

It's been widely recognized from Ontario to Lac La Biche in Walleye repopulation efforst that preditory bird population control, particularly Cormorants, is a critical part of sustaining healthy sport fish populations.

The Bow River fishery is no different.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Count me as one who also suggests that before action is taken a far more in depth study of the Bow River fish population needs to occur.

It has been suggested that angling is the primary factor in population reduction/harm.

However, many of us have observed that over the past 20 or more years the increasing large populations of fish eating predatory birds (some that weren't seen here prior, such as the pelicans) that have moved into the region and hunt the bow every day, 365 days a year. Pelicans and Cormorants eat alot of fish and there are alot of Pelicans and Cormorants to sustain these days.

Efforts to reduce angling pressure could have little effect without addressing the Pelican, Cormorant, Eagle, and other bird pressure along the river.

It's been widely recognized from Ontario to Lac La Biche in Walleye repopulation efforst that preditory bird population control, particularly Cormorants, is a critical part of sustaining healthy sport fish populations.

The Bow River fishery is no different.

There’s soo many factors at play here, again, to have fishermen take the blame is disingenuous.

What about invasive species competition, ex carp? Did they study that? What about the impact of the 2013 floods?

The issue is that they’ll shut it down and never re-open/ or re-open on a extremely limited basis (again, history repeating itself). It’s a matter of time before the NSR, or SSR is next.

Why not stock and see what happens over 5 years? I’m not supportive of a full shutdown (for any river or waterbody in ab) unless every stone is turned and examined in detail with a timeline/plan & criteria to rerun to “normal”.

The timing of this “discussion” seemed a bit too convenient in my view. Once it’s shut down, kiss it goodbye. Not coming back in the same form. Every shutdown needs to come with a “path to recovery” strategy for it to be a transparent process.

[CardiacCowboy]

There’s soo many factors at play here, again, to have fishermen take the blame is disingenuous.

What about invasive species competition, ex carp? Did they study that? What about the impact of the 2013 floods?

The issue is that they’ll shut it down and never re-open/ or re-open on a extremely limited basis (again, history repeating itself). It’s a matter of time before the NSR, or SSR is next.

Why not stock and see what happens over 5 years? I’m not supportive of a full shutdown (for any river or waterbody in ab) unless every stone is turned and examined in detail with a timeline/plan & criteria to rerun to “normal”.

The timing of this “discussion” seemed a bit too convenient in my view. Once it’s shut down, kiss it goodbye. Not coming back in the same form. Every shutdown needs to come with a “path to recovery” strategy for it to be a transparent process.

I agree a really deep dive into the total river eco system is needed to determine what is "Normal". Whitefish stocks have also been declining and those have much less angling pressure. Post floods bow is a different water body compared to prior. Not just the floods but mitigation, New bridges, development.

[Anomaly85]

I have read about places in the states where there are closures of fisheries on certain days of the week or times. This might be an option.

I would be worried the closure would shift pressure to the other nearby rivers. Instead of fishing the bow, everyone would hit the Sheep, highwood, and Oldman hard.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I agree a really deep dive into the total river eco system is needed to determine what is "Normal". Whitefish stocks have also been declining and those have much less angling pressure. Post floods bow is a different water body compared to prior. Not just the floods but mitigation, New bridges, development.

They really need to do their homework. Just showing a decline curve of 40-50% or so population and a 15% increase in fishing pressure is a pretty poor correlation... Go back, do your homework before taking drastic steps that damage credibility. If suggesting changes, be prepared to defend them with wholistic data and time bound/measurable recovery plans. This cr&p just doesn’t cut it and erodes public trust. Is there a problem? Seems like it. All they can conclude at this moment is the #’s are down and pressure is up slightly. Ok and...the solution is to shut it down...it doesn’t take highly paid individuals to think of this tactic, a child could do it. The bio’s live here too and should be ashamed. We deserve better as a province otherwise just gut the department, shut everything down, and save us our tax dollars.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

They really need to do their homework. Just showing a decline curve of 40-50% or so population and a 15% increase in fishing pressure is a pretty poor correlation... Go back, do your homework before taking drastic steps that damage credibility. If suggesting changes, be prepared to defend them with wholistic data and time bound/measurable recovery plans. This cr&p just doesn’t cut it and erodes public trust. Is there a problem? Seems like it. All they can conclude at this moment is the #’s are down and pressure is up slightly. Ok and...the solution is to shut it down...it doesn’t take highly paid individuals to think of this tactic, a child could do it. The bio’s live here too and should be ashamed. We deserve better as a province otherwise just gut the department, shut everything down, and save us our tax dollars.

Sorry, this looks like I was ranting at CC In the 1st bit. For clarity AE needs to go back & do their homework. I can’t edit the post and was just extremely frustrated (as we all should be), while writing it. Too many good waters restricted because of easy lever pulling.

[badger]

This is absolute nonsense. There's a saying "when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails." AE has no ability to change habitat destruction due to floods or flood mitigation structures, chemical additives from the city, power generation flow fluctuations, sewage treatment facilities, and any other number of major factors which are causing the decline in fish populations. The only and easiest tool they have is to restrict angler effort (hours). Changing the sport fishing regulations to be more restrictive is a trivial process requiring no effort or forethought by AE. So that's what they do, analyzing and changing the other major factors is just too hard.

I used to fish the CIL hole pre 2013, that stretch of water must have held hundreds if not a thousand fish. I caught lots there. Now that prime habitat is gone, and the fish density with it. My catch rate dropped off dramatically. Changing the regulations for fishing that hole will not increase catch rates, but if AE were to study that section they would decide that the reason fish populations are down at that locale is because of too high a catch rate, and therefore the regulations need to be changed. Knee jerk reaction when your easiest tool can be applied like a hammer.

[fish99]

what about whirling disease has on the new spawned fish

[CardiacCowboy]

The sessions can now be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFl9ZWKj6c for those that missed it.

Very interesting stuff

[I’d rather be outdoors]

The sessions can now be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFl9ZWKj6c for those that missed it.

Very interesting stuff

Interesting in a sad sort of way. They omitted pre-2003 Catch per Unit rates because it didn’t paint the story well for the agenda they’re attempting to sell. I.e shutdown/lottery system. Said it in my previous posts, they need to go back, do their homework and come up with a wholistic (more convincing) picture. Too many holes in their hypothesis.

Again, this is concerning of from the perspective of them using this half arsed tactic to shutdown/use a lottery on other systems. I’m don’t buy it, and encourage others to be very critical of the data.

[CardiacCowboy]

The thing that bothered me the most is that they are hanging hat on the theory that each fish is being caught 5 times in summer and want to reduce that to 1. They are basing this on study done another river on the effects of recycling fish. The bow is fairly unique in many ways. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be the "blue ribbon" fishery they want it to be.

Very little attention given increasing mortality. Only repeating that if you catch 5 trout now that number needs to be 1. They want less people fish or catching less fish. How about increasing number of fish (habitat factors)? More fish the recycle rate goes down.

By there own admission they are limited what they can control. Mostly regs changes. Well bring the other departments in work together. Industry, irrigation, flood midigation.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

The thing that bothered me the most is that they are hanging hat on the theory that each fish is being caught 5 times in summer and want to reduce that to 1. They are basing this on study done another river on the effects of recycling fish. The bow is fairly unique in many ways. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be the "blue ribbon" fishery they want it to be.

Very little attention given increasing mortality. Only repeating that if you catch 5 trout now that number needs to be 1. They want less people fish or catching less fish. How about increasing number of fish (habitat factors)? More fish the recycle rate goes down.

By there own admission they are limited what they can control. Mostly regs changes. Well bring the other departments in work together. Industry, irrigation, flood midigation.

I’m still not sure how they actually got the data that each fish is being caught 5 times. Feels like that’s difficult to prove. Regardless, I seem to recall one of the lecturers stating that mortality was low on the highwood because of low temp water, would the bow not be the same?

Feels like an echo chamber full of bureaucratic nonsense who’s aim is to shut everything down. If that’s the goal, shut the department down and save us all money. Agree that they need to start thinking broader & in cooperation with industry instead of just trying to justify their own existence. They’re just slagging fishermen because they can instead of tackling potentially larger issues (if issues at all). Would be interesting to see if the pop levels are somewhat erratic by nature by gathering a few more years of data before making any rash decisions. If it happens to the bow, again what stops them from running with it on the NSR or SSR.

why not just STOCK? smh

[SNAPFisher]

The sessions can now be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFl9ZWKj6c for those that missed it.

Very interesting stuff

Thanks for the link. I agree, very interesting stuff. I thought they actually did a good job of presenting the issue(s). My biggest complaint is that the format is not open enough. They need to have a future session with 2-way and live dialogue. I would rather they do hold one like they just did and then follow-up with the live one. I.e. arm people with info, give them time to think, and then have the real discussion.

There is a lot to how many anglers fish the bow. From my own experience, when I lived in Calgary for a year in 2015 I fished the bow only on weekdays. The number of others out fishing was a lot lower then say a weekend. No surprise right. I stuck with the plan and did extremely well in all the areas I fished. ...miss those evenings. I've been back several times driving down from Edmonton, on weekends, and it has been discouraging from just the sheer number of angers. It forces me to find new areas and spots. Which was one positive. But on return trips even those spots were taken. There are a literal _hit ton of anglers on any given weekend...maybe too many from my experiences. Just my opinion of course.

I'm curious of those that fish the bow and live in and around Calgary largely do the same. When are your most productive times and preferred times to fish it?

[SNAPFisher]

I’m still not sure how they actually got the data that each fish is being caught 5 times. Feels like that’s difficult to prove. Regardless, I seem to recall one of the lecturers stating that mortality was low on the highwood because of low temp water, would the bow not be the same?

Feels like an echo chamber full of bureaucratic nonsense who’s aim is to shut everything down. If that’s the goal, shut the department down and save us all money. Agree that they need to start thinking broader & in cooperation with industry instead of just trying to justify their own existence. They’re just slagging fishermen because they can instead of tackling potentially larger issues (if issues at all). Would be interesting to see if the pop levels are somewhat erratic by nature by gathering a few more years of data before making any rash decisions. If it happens to the bow, again what stops them from running with it on the NSR or SSR.

why not just STOCK? smh

There is a lot I don't agree with on your post. It feels like it is coming from a place of fear. I do agree with you though that I think the idea to continue to gather more data before making decisions has merit - at least in a reasonable amount of time. Especially since 2021 numbers are up a bit. So it would be nice to see if that is short-term trend or not. I also did not hear anything that they would not do this anyways.

The take away I got was not a shut it down approach but to look at ways of returning to a better fishery. The fact they encouraged to look at and share more data now is a good thing. It sounds like they are thinking more of cumulative smaller changes to improve things rather than the big bang approach. Michael S. spoke well to that I thought. Of course there are no specifics yet but I suspect that will come in a survey to follow.

Sara B. spoke to the stocking question. If you didn't listen to that then set the index to 50:14 and give it a listen.

I can't speak to your comment on the SSR, never fished it. But the NSR I'm not worried about. You want to talk about an underutilized fishery then look no further than the NSR. I'm not sure why you would jump to this. Doesn't fit for me and not something I would be concerned with... at least any time soon.

[CardiacCowboy]

I'm curious of those that fish the bow and live in and around Calgary largely do the same. When are your most productive times and preferred times to fish it?

I am fortunate to live within 5min drive to many access points. I fish when I want to and don't really pay attention to most productive times. On summer weekends if you go 10-15 walk up or down stream from the parking lots you usually can find a spot for yourself.

[CardiacCowboy]

I’m still not sure how they actually got the data that each fish is being caught 5 times. Feels like that’s difficult to prove. Regardless, I seem to recall one of the lecturers stating that mortality was low on the highwood because of low temp water, would the bow not be the same?

why not just STOCK? smh

Bow is hotter in summer. Actually most easter slopes rivers are getting hotter. Remember reading reports on bow temp increases but can't find it right now. Rainbows have almost completely disappeared below bassano and higher temps caused by floods blamed.

Many reasons for water temps increasing in upper bow. Climate change, road construction, deforestation.

Here is a short video talking about esastern slopes water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=***tGgOCapo

[Bushrat]

Anyone else notice the massive fall off of bugs since this?


And when the bugs die off the fish still need to feed, they turn far more cannibalistic than normal, eating the small ones, lots of them. That doesn't help recruitment of stocks one bit.

[Smoky buck]

My dumb redneck brain says there is way more to the decline in fish numbers than C&R mortality on the Bow

The only way you’re going to see improvement is if changes are made beyond fishing regs. A good starting point is habitat improvement