Seriously
Here's a quote from an email I sent a couple days ago.
"There’s little or no science behind the closures on the systems I’m familiar with (Clearwater and Ram) and no plan in place that will have a lasting positive effect on native fish in these systems. Straight up garbage. BHA’s position is my position. As for the habitat, government needs to hold other stakeholders accountable... for once. And seriously, the problem in the Clearwater is primarily competition with introduced species and they need to find a way to deal with that; closing it just allows nature to take its course, which could go bad for bulls. And the Ram, there is no big problem... they closed the road into falls creek, now enforce it. That’s it, everything else is in pretty good shape, unless you want to increase the population, then you need an afterbay dam below the Bighorn Dam to reduce hydro-peaking on the North Saskatchewan or put bulls above the chutes of the Ram (no-brainer, if native species conservation is your real goal)."
Winddrift and bigbadblair post under your real names instead of hiding behind an alias... its pretty obvious your working in government or buddies with the folks who've proposed the closures. There's a real obvious problem with this whole discussion... where's the data that suggests a river, like the Ram, is in a crisis? Because it isn't... how do you find that out. I know how, you ask. It's stable... and if these folks phone the Rocky office and get a different answer then they are being lied to.
I dedicated a large portion of my life to native fish conservation (Bull Trout Task Force, Fish Identification Education, Fish Rescue, Quirk Creek Project, etc...) and this isn't about native fish conservation. I don't mind being told to help out with habitat issues, but don't tell us the closures are science based, because they aren't. There are numerous alternatives to closures. Cut the crap and start working with us.
Dean Baayens
|