Well, took the survey, answered yes to general questions about protecting fish, answered no to all of the specific reg changes.
Then I started typing on the feedback, last part after part or question #16.
I just kept typing, and typing....lol. Here's the repsonse:
"The AEP is trending in an extremely troubling direction. This department has been on the decline for a while, and this latest survey is exhibit A. (
https://talkaep.alberta.ca/north-cen...gling-closures)
I have many objections:
1. I challenge the data and the methodology of determining the FSI's.
2. I demand public hearings and no more online surveys where biologists and department officials will actually ENGAGE with the angling public and listen to their concerns. Give us the numbers and provide evidentiary proof of diminishing populations, and then provide proof of correlation between angling pressure, the ineffectiveness of catch and release, and justify the closures on a cause and effect basis.
3. The AEP needs to be completely over-hauled in terms of its engagement policies with the angling public. They need to adopt a broad strategy of enlisting assistance from anglers while reminding themselves that they serve both the fish AND anglers’ needs. Currently, the Fisheries Round Tables, online surveys, etc., amount to nothing more than tokenism.
4. My strongest objection is the complete abdication of any sense of responsibility this department has in terms of serving what's best for fish. It is my belief that the biologists and officials have pre-determined outcomes and policies they are just going to implement without seriously looking at ALL the factors and variables that go into habitat degradation and diminishing fish populations. Why are anglers being punished for circumstances beyond their control? Why doesn’t the AEP issue directives, studies, policies, protocols, recommendations and reports detailing the incredible challenges facing all fish and fauna in the province with regards to industrial intrusion? Where is the AEP’s policy recommendations on aggressive logging practices, road densification, hanging culverts, improper allowances and setbacks, and habitat fragmentation? Is the AEP claiming that catch and release regulations are an ineffective management tool; and then using that as an excuse to close watersheds? Does the AEP anticipate fish population recovery will happen on the basis of removing anglers from the picture all while ignoring the aforementioned industrial impacts? Has the AEP anticipated the resulting increase in angling pressure during the next season, as more anglers are forced to fish fewer watersheds?
My recommendations, instead of using (and the pretending to act upon this ludicrous survey) is to do the following:
1) Before changing any regulations – especially related to reducing angling opportunities and closing watersheds - how about dramatically increasing the enforcement, not only on recreational users, but industry too? Increased enforcement can be partially funded by the fines imposed. I see gross violations of industry frequently when I fish.
2) Identify the TRUE root causes of pressured or diminished fish populations, and then PRIOTIZE the needs to get them addressed. Most of the skepticism and outrage that I have heard from fellow anglers is that angling has been identified as a primary cause. I – and others – highly doubt this. I have fished many watersheds that have been catch and release since the last regulations were over-hauled, and the fishing has improved over the past 20 years. I’d venture to say based on my anecdotal observations that fishing is more impacted by industry, improper trail penetration, and erosion right now along watersheds that are already catch and release.
3) The AEP and other suitable government agencies should put pressure on industry groups to comply with policies outlined by the AB government as it currently reviews BOTH industrial and recreational usage along the Eastern Slopes. Issues related to fish populations recovery are far beyond the scope of just one single variable (angling pressure).
4) The Alberta Government overall should, plainly and simply, get their act together and develop an over-arching plan to ensure that riparian areas, fish and animal habitats, and water quality are going to be preserved for future generations. There is far too much fragmentation, segregations, and a stunning lack of coordination between various gov’t departments.
Anglers have become the easy, knee jerk targets for the AEP to take the simplest way out in attempting to manage fish populations. It’s both bad science and bad policy. And the AEP needs a serious look in the mirror: something needs to happen to shake this department out of its bureaucratic entrenchment and self-internalized feedback loop.
Otherwise, I fear all we are left with is nowhere left to fish, and no fish left."
This IS a slippery slope folks. Only the Bow river is protected because of it's economic value to the city's economy and the fly shops. Otherwise, it could be "open season" for angling closures.
Please, I encourage you to speak up:
John Tchir:
John.Tchir@gov.ab.ca
And, consider cc'ing the following people:
Dave Park:
dave.park@gov.ab.ca,
Shannon Phliips:
AEP.Minister@gov.ab.ca,
Premier Notley:
edmonton.strathcona@assembly.ab.ca ,
premier@gov.ab.ca,