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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 01-19-2018, 09:17 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

We have to learn from the Indigenous People and stand up when our rights are being trampled. Protests and media coverage are the only methods that seem to get any results. Emails are simple to ignore. I bet there is literally thousands of people that have no idea what these clowns are up to and how it is going to affect them, even if these are not waters they fish on a regular basis.

The lower Red Deer and tributaries are just starting to recover from the last flooding event but will now be subject to over fishing. All the smaller streams from Sundre to Dickson and south will be devastated by over angling.

Not to worry, when this becomes apparent they will close these waters as well and central Alberta anglers can all move south and repeat the process.

In the USA there is hundreds of water sheds with a hundred more times the pressure that are flourishing under proper management. This management plan is an absolute joke.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-19-2018, 01:41 PM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Dean,

Thank you for sending the link to the letter submitted by BHA. Has a response been received back?

It sounds as though you have been involved in our fisheries for some time now. This is the catalyst for me personally to get more involved.

I will PM you for contact information as you offered. Other members of this forum would also benefit from some of your insights on groups that can and will work towards the long needed changes.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-20-2018, 08:29 AM
dbaayens dbaayens is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Red Deer via Rocky
Posts: 28
Default

Hi Randy,

I sent you some info by email... I'm being repetitive, but I don't like to leave the question hanging here.

I haven't seen a response to BHA's letter. If people want to get involved both BHA and AFGA are against the closures. I'm really disappointed that TUC is on board with the closures as I don't think the majority of their membership supports it and I suspect that it will hurt the organization in the long run.

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-20-2018, 08:50 AM
MooseRiverTrapper MooseRiverTrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,902
Default

Horrific management and knee jerk reactions in Alberta. Mind boggling they can go from retention on the upper ram to a 5 year ban over night.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-20-2018, 10:01 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...y/default.aspx

Link to the maps for the proposed closures.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:08 PM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default Position statement letter from Trout Unlimited Canada

Here’s the link to the letter.
https://tucanada.org/wp-content/uplo...T-Jan-2018.pdf

As a consensus of the Alberta affiliate clubs, a lot of discussion & thought went into this.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-20-2018, 02:44 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbadblair View Post
Eek... Come to the center Don! Its a lot less jaded here.

Been open minded for 50+ years and see where that got me. Closures.

I quit drinking tbe Koolaid.

I looked around and I ally figured out it wasn't me at fault as an angler. As a voter, now that is a much different story.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-21-2018, 09:30 AM
Off in the Bushes's Avatar
Off in the Bushes Off in the Bushes is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 1,821
Default

I am not in favor of closures but I think there is a lot more at play here. for instance you think of the CO resources that are not going to be tied in the water shed that is closed. Freeing them to do other things. It backwards thinking but I am sure that is one of many reasons behind it. It gives the appearance for increased enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-21-2018, 10:30 AM
dbaayens dbaayens is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Red Deer via Rocky
Posts: 28
Default Not Funny

Don,
I have to say this closure business has been creepy. When I read TUC's position I see "best available science," and a bunch of caveats. This means the science is weak - we know that. The whole thing is rushed and I'm not at all interested in being excluded from angling areas where I'm certain I have a minimal impact or even a positive impact. I agree with most of TUC's caveats, but they aren't enforceable. TUC is selling anglers short as stewards of the resource. Got to think about that a bit. What can I do for native species. I can educate the public, participate in research, report poachers, report habitat violations, pressure government, improve habitat, deflect angling pressure (stocked lakes) and remove exotics species. When you decrease angling opportunities you decrease anglers and/or angler interest. Both you and I have done nearly all these things under the TUC banner and I expect that you have likely done more than anyone else in the province to protect/enhance fisheries resources. Do I feel betrayed, you bet... they should represent the people who got them there a lot better than that. There are many options that are not being put on the table. Agreeing to the closures as they are laid out is weak. Very disappointing.

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:37 PM
alberta_bha alberta_bha is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaayens View Post
Hi Randy,

I sent you some info by email... I'm being repetitive, but I don't like to leave the question hanging here.

I haven't seen a response to BHA's letter. If people want to get involved both BHA and AFGA are against the closures. I'm really disappointed that TUC is on board with the closures as I don't think the majority of their membership supports it and I suspect that it will hurt the organization in the long run.

Dean
To date, there has been no response to our letter. We are gearing up for the next step, as it's been made abundantly clear that AEP knows they are on shaky ground, and are counting on anglers to sit back, and not say anything.
This may work perfectly well for those anglers that aren't directly impacted, but it is setting a precedent for the department, regardless of what political party is sitting at the top.

Anglers need to support groups that are actively fighting the closures (BHA and AFGA), as well as sending individual messages to the AEP ministers office, outlining specific concerns with the plan, many of which we have covered in our letter.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/a..._recovery_plan

If you aren't concerned about these closures, you should be. The next ones could target your favorite watershed, using the exact same rationale.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:48 PM
NUK SOO KOW NUK SOO KOW is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lethbridge Alberta
Posts: 572
Default

A survey Was just released for ES one. And I’ve heard rumours that the old man drainage is on a consideration for closure. Yes everybody must come together and voice their opinion’s. That’s all areas of the province will be targeted At some point.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-21-2018, 01:43 PM
Caustic Caustic is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Off in the Bushes View Post
I am not in favor of closures but I think there is a lot more at play here. for instance you think of the CO resources that are not going to be tied in the water shed that is closed. Freeing them to do other things. It backwards thinking but I am sure that is one of many reasons behind it. It gives the appearance for increased enforcement.
But there will still need to be enforcement on the closed rivers. Without any legitimate anglers around there won't be anyone to report poachers and others abusing the watershed.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:14 PM
cranky cranky is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,457
Default

Sent emails to as many as i can think of including my local politician for all the good it will do. Not to optimistic unless everyone gets at her and sends emails.


Also think ill join one of or both BHA and AFGA. More members the more voice i hope. Health wont let me get physically involved anymore so best i can do. Heres to encouraging every one to speak up.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-21-2018, 07:31 PM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

It seems reasonable for anyone who has issues with TU’s position, especially members, to contact the organization and have a discussion to learn more. Contact info is here:
https://tucanada.org/contact-us/
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:14 PM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Since my last update, I have learned a lot.

I have received a number of replies, documents, phone calls, and of course challenges. bigbadblair -

I have and continue to learn a lot. I admit, I wasn't involved as much as I should have been - I was too busy with work and enjoying our beautiful Alberta.

We need to do better.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:27 PM
Engels Engels is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 193
Default

Classic AEP, knee jerk reactions and implementing band aid solutions that do not fix the real issues at hand....

But hey, closures are free.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-05-2018, 02:57 PM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Hello all,
I’m still on a quest to try and make sense of this all.

Bigbadblair – I did receive a response to my email to the bio’s regarding the presentation on the proposed closures. Specifically, I asked about the mortality rate of 20% equating to a FSI score of 0.8 when water temperature was 13 degrees or 4.2. 4.2 x 20% was shown as 0.8.

The reply I received stated “The example I used during the presentation was conceptual – my goal was for folks to understand how cumulative effects of threats can mean we have to address certain elements (habitat and angling, or habitat and non-native species) simultaneously.” The response further went on to further discuss the mortality rate of a species.

However, I have also received a copy of “A Generic Rule Set for Applying the Alberta Fish Sustainability Index, Second Edition”. Within the index, there are actually 17 metrics that are fed scores to determine the overall FSI score. The response I received did talk about “Dose response curves” which are the expected relationships between varying metrics upon one another. Most of the response was, in my opinion, conceptual again.

For those of you interested, I am attaching below, the actual 17 metrics used to calculate the FSI score. What you’ll see is each metric listed and the associated data used in the model as to whether it was classified as quantitative or qualitative data. The table lists 5 of 17 metrics used based on quantitative data. That means 10 of 17 metrics are qualitative – or 59%.

The gov’t also posted a secondary document entitled “Limitations and Caveats of Alberta’s Fish Sustainability Index (FSI). Within this document, one of the caveats states “FSI ranks are relatively straightforward to assign and biologists conducting FSI assessments strive to be as quantitative as possible. However, when there is a lack of information, metrics were often ranked qualitatively and should therefore be considered largely subjective.”

I am still left wondering what the cumulative effect is on using 10 out of 17 subjective inputs has on the output, or FSI score assigned to each watershed.

I’m still scratching my head……
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-05-2018, 02:59 PM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Qual Table.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-05-2018, 08:51 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Folks,

Received emails from two retired Govt. bios. Neither supported the Central Alberta Program as presented and indicated that the real issues lie how trout habitat is dealt with in Alberta.
They a pointed out many issues with the Program

So far I have permission to publish one of the emails for those interested. I warn you, it is long. ( I suspect the length is s product of extensive Govt training)

One thing I've never seen addressed is the effect of WD on any recovery. From the Montana experience, our fisheries are in for a very rough ride. Keep booting the can down the road w/o any real commitment to stop the habitat destruction will delay or negate any efforts. Montana, unlike Alberta, has low levels of mining, oil/gas, cows, OHV's in thier watersheds which translates into any WD recovery or any recovery for that matter in Alberta taking a lot longer.


Regards,

Don

Last edited by Don Andersen; 02-05-2018 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-05-2018, 10:40 PM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

[QUOTE=Don Andersen;3725452]Folks,

Received emails from two retired Govt. bios. Neither supported the Central Alberta Program as presented and indicated that the real issues lie how trout habitat is dealt with in Alberta.
They a pointed out many issues with the Program =QUOTE]

I don’t understand how the opinions of retired bios, who were responsible for protecting fish and habitat for two or three decades while our native trout declined on their watch, should carry much weight. The bottom line is that they didn’t have any answers or solutions then and they’ve not likely come up with any sine they left. I’m sure they were sincere and noble in their efforts, but good intentions don’t bring fish back. It probably feels better to criticize now than to admit many years were spent watching things get worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if those bios stocked non-natives in streams and considered bull trout and little Athabasca rainbows less desirable.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 02-06-2018, 07:46 AM
yetiseeker yetiseeker is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 254
Default

So we have retired bio's expressing concerns, and I for one certainly don't think throwing them under the bus is warranted, nor will it benefit anyone.

We have a new model being looked at stating the need for a more scientific process. When I look at the inputs into this model, they show 5 quantitative inputs and will likely have decent data on others (sorry - re-read my post last night and I was giving them a few more when I quoted 10 of 17 were qualitative). Based on the table, 12 are actually qualitative.

However, they disclaim it right in their own literature that the model used has many subjective inputs. So, we have a model they are stating uses scientific inputs, but more than half of the data going into is subjective. In the end, they can make the FSI calculate whatever score they want.

I can fully support trying to apply science to a problem. I just don't think they have enough data yet to implement the model as every one of the biologists inputting information will have a different view. If this view point differs on the 10, 11 or 12 metrics they have qualitative (subjective) data on, the outcome will NEVER be the same. The proportion of subjective inputs is just too great to provide reliable, scientific data.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-06-2018, 03:36 PM
-carson- -carson- is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15
Default

BigBadBlair and Wind Drift conveniently ignoring all the fish that are doing just fine thanks to Catch and Release. They're not magic.

Look at a satellite view of the areas you like to fish. Habitat is shrinking, the intact forests you see beside the roads are not they same as the clear cut ones behind the hills.

The decrease in fish populations is not going to be solved by an angling closure. It's complete bonkers to think that is going to **** all.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-06-2018, 05:03 PM
bobcatguy bobcatguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 275
Default

Absolutely closing these streams to angling will aid in any recovery. However I am against these closures because I believe the fishery will recover almost as fast with catch and release regulations. With C&R in place we can all still enjoy our pastime and the fish will recover. It's a win win
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-07-2018, 12:17 AM
dbaayens dbaayens is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Red Deer via Rocky
Posts: 28
Default Nice work Yeti

Yeti - Thanks for doing the work to convince yourself that the information used to close our streams is primarily based on a best guess… which is what can be concluded from review of “A Generic Rule Set for Applying the Alberta Fish Sustainability Index, Second Edition.” And for sharing that with everyone here. I think that the FSI is a good start to help determine where to direct further investigation, but it falls short of being convincing enough to determine drastic management options. We are not convinced that closures are necessary and are not at all pleased at the overall lack of consultation.

The way this initiative has been rolled out has caused a lot of undue stress for anglers, biologists and former biologists. These people are generally the strongest supporters of fisheries initiatives. It has gotten to a point where it is disrespectful. When this all started I immediately made a big stink and I seriously thought that those concerns would be addressed at the open houses, but instead the FSI and the closures were defended and attention deflected to habitat – obviously it’s not you anglers, it’s them. But, no it’s all of us and we need to work together to fix the problems. I haven’t got a problem at all with stopping angling in a place where I think I have a significant negative affect. Seriously, no problem, but I need to deal in a world of facts. Fisheries management needs to cut the crap and stop trying to defend the FSI. Mostly qualitative… too much potential for BS. We want the plan for baseline assessments (prior to closing any fishery) and the focus for habitat restoration, so we can help where we can… lots of us are in industry and can make plays… but not when we are being played.

Here’s some food for thought. The first thing I said, was if bull trout are in trouble, why don’t we transplant them over the chutes of the Ram. It’s colder with great habitat, no brook trout and a massive amount of water (probably more than 100 km) which could support a big population that could provide a great deal of recruitment to the North Saskatchewan population. If you did it right you could also ensure genetic variability that has been lost by using source stocks from Rocky Creek (Clearwater River), Colt Creek (Nordegg River), Brown Creek (Blackstone River) and Falls Creek (Ram River). This idea ensures long term sustainability… why is this being ignored? Doesn’t this sound like native fish conservation? Hold the phone, I’m a former fisheries technician so my ideas really don’t count. I’m not doing this because I’m making a point, making a comeback in fisheries, I’m doing it because I try to tell people the truth as I see it and what is going on does not appear to be legit… and it is bad for angling in this province.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-07-2018, 07:10 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

[QUOTE=wind drift;3725530]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Folks,

Received emails from two retired Govt. bios. Neither supported the Central Alberta Program as presented and indicated that the real issues lie how trout habitat is dealt with in Alberta.
They a pointed out many issues with the Program =QUOTE]

I don’t understand how the opinions of retired bios, who were responsible for protecting fish and habitat for two or three decades while our native trout declined on their watch, should carry much weight. The bottom line is that they didn’t have any answers or solutions then and they’ve not likely come up with any sine they left. I’m sure they were sincere and noble in their efforts, but good intentions don’t bring fish back. It probably feels better to criticize now than to admit many years were spent watching things get worse. I wouldn’t be surprised if those bios stocked non-natives in streams and considered bull trout and little Athabasca rainbows less desirable.


Wind....
What you must remember. There must be political will to support our fisheries. About 20 years ago I recall asking a former Director of Fisheries when they were going to do something about the illegal stream crossings in Swan Gills. His response " Don, you know how business is done in Alberta"!
Many biologists generated and proposed changes that fell on ears who would rather "develop".
As one Minister of the Govt told me, we can't have those guys (meaning bios.) stop this.
Guess the new Govt is a more interested in dealing with the issue.
We got what was voted for.
One time I agreed with Jim Prentice when he said " it is our fault".

Don

Last edited by Don Andersen; 02-07-2018 at 07:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-07-2018, 11:42 AM
SamSteele's Avatar
SamSteele SamSteele is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,781
Default

I just received a response to the letter I sent to the contacts provided here.

Here is my letter:
"Good afternoon,

I am writing to you regarding the North Central Native Trout Recovery program outlined on the Alberta Environment & Parks website. I have completed the survey that was provided, however I felt that this issue was important enough to reach out to you directly regarding my concerns.

I will start with a bit of background about myself. I am an avid fisherman, likely fishing over 100 days per year, who recently began fly fishing in the flowing water trout streams of Alberta. I also have a bachelors degree in Biology with Chemistry and Math minors. Like many in Alberta, I find myself working in the oil and gas industry.

I applaud the efforts of AEP to ensure that the native Bull Trout, Arctic Grayling, and Mountain Whitefish populations are sustainable. The loss of suitable habitat and change in water temperatures and pH have certainly caused the current populations to be in a difficult position. Where I strongly disagree with the program outlined by AEP is in the area of closing the proposed watersheds to all fishing for a period of 5 years. As you are no doubt aware, there are zero retention limits on both Bull Trout and Arctic Grayling throughout the province, making the contribution that angling pressure plays on the fish populations minute at best. An excellent example of this is in the trophy cutthroat fishery of the Upper Ram River system, as well as the grayling in the Little Smoky River system.

The far larger issue at hand is the over development of these headwater regions and logging of areas surrounding them. There has been extensive development in all of the proposed watersheds, leading to increased sedimentation of rivers through dust from roads and increased runoff from forested areas. This sediment has a significant effect on the viability of spawned eggs by the very species that AEP is purporting to advocate for. Logging of the areas around these rivers also contributes to increased water temperatures and increased runoff which leads to increased flood potential. The effect of livestock on the riparian zones of Alberta’s trout streams is severe and detrimental to all wildlife within these ecosystems. All of these effects are extremely detrimental to the native trout populations and none of them are a result of recreational fishing.

I implore you and the AEP to consider placing restrictions on the activities that are causing the most significant damage to these watersheds (overdevelopment of roads, logging, and access) instead of those activities whose effects on the watershed are minute and are already controlled. While this is no doubt more difficult and costly than simply shutting down fishing, it will actually contribute something towards the positive recovery of the native trout populations in these watersheds. Fishermen are the only stakeholders that actually have a vested interest in the protection of fishery habitat and fish conservation, yet they are the ONLY stakeholder that is being punished for the misuse by other stakeholders.

Other actions beyond limiting development that could be considered are as follows:

- Institute dry fly fishing only for these watersheds.
- Bull trout and mountain whitefish rarely take a dry fly, further limiting the possibility of catch and release mortality.
- Institute single hook regulations for these watersheds.
- Current regulations allow the use of treble hooks, as well as nymphing setups with more than one fly on the line.
- Shorten the seasons, further than they already are.
- Institute a “Trout Stamp” required to fish these waters, where the revenue generated goes directly to habitat reclamation for these watersheds.
- Similar to what British Columbia has in place for salmon.

Please also consider that shutting down these river systems will place increased pressure on other rivers in the area. If recreational fishing is truly having the impact that this program seems to think it is, this will only move the problem to another river system. Cascading the issue to another water body will not solve the basic issue, which is overdevelopment.

In summary, I am wholeheartedly against the complete closure of these fisheries, advocating for changes to the overdevelopment of the watersheds and other moderate limitations on fishing. Thank you for taking the time to read my perspective and thoughts. I would love to hear any comments of questions you might have for me.

Sincerely, "

Here is the response from Mike Blackburn:

"Thank you for your email on native trout recovery in Alberta. All three species of native stream trout in Alberta are now classified as species-at-risk. Causes for the decline vary by watershed, but the key factors are common; incidental catch and release mortality, poaching, habitat, and competition/hybridization with stocked species. You are correct that only dealing with a single factor, incidental catch and release mortality, will not restore all populations. Nor will ignoring a factor.

The North Central Native Trout Recovery Program (NCNT) focuses on addressing current habitat and angling-related threats as soon as possible, working within current Government of Alberta (GOA) policies. This includes working with regulators and road crossing owners to address problems with erosion and fragmentation at roadway stream crossings, and rehabilitating damaged riparian habitat resulting from extensive off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. In terms of roadway stream crossings, the GOA and Foothills Stream Crossing partnership have inspected over 8400 crossings and remediated 210. Additionally, extensive remediation is planned in the Berland River watershed as well as targeted remediation at key sites in the Clearwater River and Red Deer River watersheds in the coming years. An example of the GOA commitment to riparian restoration is the Rocky Creek OHV Trail Remediation Project, which included the reclamation of 20km of linear disturbance and 31 problem crossings affecting an important bull trout spawning stream. Similar projects in the focal watersheds are planned for 2018 and beyond. In addition to the NCNT recovery program, AEP Fisheries Management is working closely with AEP Approvals, AEP Compliance, AEP Recreation Management, Agriculture and Forestry and the Alberta Energy Regulator to incorporate native trout values into water withdrawal allocations, long-term Forest Harvest Plans, the Roadway Stream Crossing program and OHV trail assessment and remediation activities.

The NCNT program will be proposed as one strategy of many under the bull trout recovery plan (in draft). Other strategies in species’ recovery plans and regional plans will provide additional recommendations and implementation of actions relating to the long-term protection and restoration of fish habitat across Alberta’s East Slopes, with opportunity for stakeholder feedback outside of the NCNT program.

Our modelling indicates that catch and release incidental mortality can prevent the recovery of Alberta’s depressed stream fishes. When fish populations are collapsed, fishing effort can keep them collapsed even if hooking mortality is low. It is reasonable that this is a potential threat to trout, so we are acting to test that hypothesis. Empirical evidence and our knowledge of fishing pressure in Alberta strongly suggests that bait bans, barbless hooks, and single hook regulations are not expected to recover fish populations at risk within our lifetimes because high fishing pressure swamps out the effectiveness of these regulation changes. Therefore, recovery actions focus on addressing fishing effort (i.e., fishing closures) and not regulation changes (hooking mortality). If the proposed closures, in combination with habitat remediation, fail to result in population-level responses, we will have acted and learned valuable information that we will incorporate in future decisions.

The empirical evidence to date suggests that trout populations at high abundance can easily sustain angling pressure. Ram River cutthroat is a good example. The evidence also shows that catch-and-release angling can keep depressed populations from recovering. Antler and Mary Gregg creeks (open to fishing) have not recovered, while the adjacent Wampus and Deerlick creeks (closed to fishing) are at high abundance, in spite of heavy forestry at the closed streams. The proposed actions in the NCNT program will add more information.

A substantial portion of rivers and lakes in Alberta’s East Slopes will remain open to angling, should the proposed short-term angling closures be implemented. Currently, 96% of rivers are open to angling across the East Slopes. If the proposed angling closures are implemented, 92% of rivers will remain open for recreational fishing. No further angling closures are planned. In addition, Albertans can enjoy a network of 79 stocked ponds and 52 northern pike, walleye, lake whitefish and/or perch lakes in Fish Management Zones ES2, ES3, and ES4 in addition to the many other opportunities across Alberta. Fisheries Management is also eager to develop partnerships to diversify and develop additional stocked ponds.

The watersheds included as part of the North Central Native Trout Recovery program were selected because fish populations in these areas have a high probability of recovering and they have been previously surveyed by Alberta Environment and Parks, Alberta Conservation Association or other agencies, such as the Foothills Research Institute therefore providing a good understanding of the current population status. As examples, fish populations in the Berland River were surveyed in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2017 and fish populations in the Clearwater River were surveyed in 1993, 2004, 2013, and 2017.

The fisheries management strategies of the past decades did not prevent the loss of Alberta’s fishes. Our new actions, techniques, and strategies are designed to answer “Why?” and test hypotheses to recover these trout. To that end, we are monitoring fish populations in the NCNT focal watersheds to detect change over time - in 2017, AEP and ACA conducted standardized backpack and boat electrofishing surveys in the following focal watersheds: Upper Red Deer River, Clearwater River, Lower Ram/North Saskatchewan River, Berland River, Kakwa River and Pinto Lake. The Pembina River fish population was sampled in 2014 and 2016. Our intention is to survey these watersheds multiple times throughout the life of the NCNT program.

If you would like to know more about the North Central Native Trout Recovery Program please visit http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...y/default.aspx

If you would like to help us recover native trout, please consider joining Trout Unlimited Canada’s mailing list at https://tucanada.org/ to receive updates on how you can participate in upcoming fish habitat reclamation projects.

Thank you for your interest in native trout recovery,

Mike


Mike Blackburn
Fisheries Biologist- Upper Athabasca Region
Alberta Environment and Parks
Suite 203, 111 - 54 St. Edson, AB CAN T7E 1T2
Tel 780/723-8208, FAX 780/723-7963


cc. Jessica Reilly
Adrian Meinke
John Tchir
KayeDon Wilcox
Dave Hugelschaffer
Craig Johnson
Paul Christensen"
__________________
Princecraft, Humminbird, MinnKota, Cannon, Mack's Lure, & Railblaza Pro Staff

YouTube: Harder Outdoors
Instagram: @harderoutdoors
FB: HarderOutdoors
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-07-2018, 03:21 PM
slough shark slough shark is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 2,371
Default

Joan very response tells us some of the main issues, only somewhere around 2 1/2% of ohv crossings have been remediated, this is identified as a significant threat. Also telling is they have identified several creeks with good fish numbers, they’re still closed to fishing, this lets us know the chances of them reopening if it goes through. They also talk of emperical data of c&r, barbless hooks, dry fly only etc, kinda doubting much of that. Perhaps the second most significant issue isn’t even addressed, lack of enforcement of existing rules. I could go on but most can see the holes in his response
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-07-2018, 04:26 PM
dbaayens dbaayens is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Red Deer via Rocky
Posts: 28
Default Interesting

I'm pretty certain Mike didn't want that posted here. I guess if this is the information being disseminated to the public, it is up for review, but that will take some time and require some specific questions. I like that the habitat is being addressed , but the closures are questionable and the biggest question I have after reading this is "our knowledge of fishing pressure in Alberta." Maybe pretty decent info for walleye, but East Slopes streams... Read the following abstract. I like the last line...

Decline in angler use despite increased catch rates: Anglers’ response to the
implementation of a total catch-and-release regulation
Fiona D. Johnstona,b,∗, Robert Arlinghaus b,c, Jim Stelfox d, John R. Post a

A mandatory total catch-and-release regulation and a bait ban were implemented on Lower Kananaskis
Lake, Canada, due to the drastic decline of the native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) population. In
the decade following harvest-regulation changes, the adult bull trout population experienced a 28-fold
increase in abundance. Two roving creel surveys of winter ice-anglers, the first conducted just prior to
the regulation changes (1992) and the second 10 years later (2002), were used to compare catch rates,
the size structure of fish caught, and angler effort before and after the bull trout population rebuilt. Supplementary
information from voluntary creel cards (1996–2003) was used to evaluate temporal trends
in summer catch-related fishery attributes as the fish population recovered. Winter catch rates were
three-fold and 12-fold higher in 2002 than in 1992, for all bull trout and large (>50 cm) bull trout, respectively.
The proportion of large fish in the catch also increased. Voluntary creel card information suggested
summer catch rates and the frequency of large fish in the catch both increased as the population rebuilt.
However, despite the increase in fishing “quality”, angler numbers were three- to 10-fold lower in 2002
than 1992, indicating reduced utilization of the fishery. We speculate that harvest-oriented anglers were
displaced from Lower Kananaskis Lake because of restrictive regulations. Our study shows anglers are not
necessarily attracted to high-catch-rate fisheries, suggesting angler behaviour is complex and not driven
by catch rates alone. Thus, to meet management objectives, understanding angler effort responses to
regulatory changes is fundamentally important.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-07-2018, 06:14 PM
SamSteele's Avatar
SamSteele SamSteele is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbaayens View Post
I'm pretty certain Mike didn't want that posted here. I guess if this is the information being disseminated to the public, it is up for review, but that will take some time and require some specific questions.

I debated not posting it up, but felt as though it showed that the biologists were willing to engage with us in discussion, as well as providing an insight into their reasoning and thoughts. It is a public resource and they asked for public input.

I was happy that he took the time to reply to my letter. There are some points that I would like to engage him with further but I feel as though I have more information now than I did previously.

SS
__________________
Princecraft, Humminbird, MinnKota, Cannon, Mack's Lure, & Railblaza Pro Staff

YouTube: Harder Outdoors
Instagram: @harderoutdoors
FB: HarderOutdoors
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-07-2018, 07:41 PM
cranky cranky is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,457
Default

I received the exact same letter this afternoon to. Yes and i also appreciate that Mike took the time to reply. No one else on my list that i sent to has replied so far.
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 01:37 PM.


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