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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-31-2017, 01:12 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,424
Default Ram River Public Survey

Some of you may have already seen this but I got the email yesterday about a survey targeted for just the Ram river system.

The link:

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/north-cen...-public-survey

If you haven't already, I encourage for anyone to take the survey.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-31-2017, 06:29 PM
ecsuplander ecsuplander is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 64
Default

Looks like the proposed changes may be on hold and are being reevaluated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-31-2017, 07:12 PM
dangerranger5143 dangerranger5143 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 239
Default

Did my survey yesterday. Glad to see they may be reevaluating the proposed changes. Had some very good days this summer on the Ram. Would hate to see it be closed for the next 5 years.

DR
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-31-2017, 09:36 PM
bobcatguy bobcatguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 240
Default

Just did the survey & I hope they don't change anything. It's one of the few rivers in Alberta with really good fishing
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2017, 07:15 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,165
Default

Be very careful with this one,

Read it over - Tis a slimy one.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2017, 07:56 AM
bobcatguy bobcatguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 240
Default

Please let us know what you are seeing that is slimy cause I think I missed it And so will others. Help us understand.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2017, 08:49 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,165
Default

Below are copied some comments made by myself and Carl Hunt - retired biologist for the Hinton-Edson area.

I would like so see those comments added to the web site.

Carl says in response to the Survey on the N. Sask.

"

Alberta Fish Mgmt is still dinking around blaming angling pressure (even C/R) for decline of all native salmonids. None of the preamble to the questionnaire explains the impacts of extensive 5 year closures on the few streams/rivers left open. The five year closures are just another delay (and an old idea that didn't work in the 1960s or 1970s) to avoid the habitat issues caused by industry and greatly complicate angling regulations that few anglers can understand or follow.

E/S should simply be C/R - NO Bait, with current seasons.

Fish staff should take serious action to stop the cumulative impacts of sediment from road/stream crossings on fish bearing and all tribs. Hanging culverts were condemned by scientific fish studies in 1980s and are still permitted, with poor engineering standards and allowed to exist.

WHERE IS THE HABITAT RECOVERY 'ACTION' PLAN to protect floodplain, stop sediment sources, control forest harvest to reduce frequency & severity of flood events and a 'road plan' to limit road stream crossings, remove hanging culverts and reclaim temporary roads that continue to be destroyed by OHV.

WHERE IS THE COMPULSORY ANGLER EDUCATION PROGRAM? - So anglers understand the need for regulations and the cumulative impacts of industry, logging, petroleum, coal, gravel, agriculture & OHVs.

Fish managers are going in circles to ignore dealing with habitat issues caused by other resource users and blame angling pressure (lower today than 1980s) or 'invasive' brook trout (mostly introduced in the 1950s) or struggling to protect genetic purity of remnant threatened species.

The proposed angling regulations are a distraction from habitat protection.



Carl Hunt

Don says
"

Carl,



Your message summarizes exactly what I've thought for years.

The only ones paying are anglers.

With your permission, can your message below be copied to other web sites/forums?

A senior Govt Official and I were talking about the culvert situation and I related conversations I had with Cruikshank who was the Director of Fisheries and Fisheries and Oceans Prairie Regional Director about the 700 of 900 illegal culvert installations in the Swan Hills IDed by a ACA grant recipient near 20 years ago at an ACA conference. When I asked both, who were at the same conference, what they were going to do with the evidence, neither of them would do anything. It is 50 years past time when the situation needs fixed. My uncle installed those for Home Oil about 55 years ago. Nobody knew what effect they were having. I recall him telling me that every ditch and swamp was full of grayling.





regards,



Don

Carl says

"

Hi Don,

My comments were sent to AWA Fish & forest forum when the first survey came out, so are public and please use. I don't spend much time with word-smithing these days but hope I can get the message across. Sometimes, I'm a bit more vulgar so appreciate you asking before spreading my manure.

I think David Parks did a MSc thesis about 10 or 15 years ago and found 7 to 10 thou culverts in NE grayling streams and estimated 50 or 75% would block fish passage. (see ARGR status report it has lots of examples reported as far back as 1973 but nothing changes - fish just disappear).

I think the 5 year closures will be like walleye and followed up with more closures, unless anglers get stirred up and realize they are not the problem.

Any feedback you hear about my comments (including blow back) would be appreciated.

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2017, 08:53 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcatguy View Post
Please let us know what you are seeing that is slimy cause I think I missed it And so will others. Help us understand.
The language implies a cutthroat/bull trout conflict. Cuts and Bulls have lived together since the last ice age. What does Bulls in NOW are dams and land use practices. Anglers already have done their part some 20 years ago.
Recall - NO BLACK - PUT IT BACK

Don
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-01-2017, 09:28 AM
bobcatguy bobcatguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackfalds
Posts: 240
Default

OK I understand that bull
s & cutties can live together but does that not only apply to downstream of Fall Creek. My understanding is that the Ram above the falls just upstream of Fall Creek was barren until some west slope cuts were stocked there
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-01-2017, 11:33 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecsuplander View Post
Looks like the proposed changes may be on hold and are being reevaluated.
That is the take I had on it. Maybe there was enough out cry over the Ram system that they are reconsidering the approach. Hopefully the other areas as well...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-01-2017, 11:43 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcatguy View Post
Please let us know what you are seeing that is slimy cause I think I missed it And so will others. Help us understand.
I had the same reaction and then read Don's response. Slimey as in avoiding the bigger issues and only addressing anglers for now.

I suppose one could take it even further logically as throwing a bone out there – fast forward to say 3 years from now when they come back and say “Well we asked anglers for input, changed things but that didn’t fix it so now we are going with the 5 year closure…”. Speculation I know…

To Don’s post, it is a point well taken and reminder to us to continue to argue that they need to look at other land usage by industry and others around these systems. After all, with a name of Alberta Environment & Parks, you would think the focus on anglers would be a smaller part of the puzzle.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-2017, 11:23 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 400
Default

448 views when I clicked on this thread. Discounting the same people reading the thread multiple times, what does that mean; 150 - 250 unique views?

Think 150-250 filled out this survey based on this discussion?

The obvious answer is no...because most of the participants on the AO forum are leeches, including "elitist" fly-fishers. All take, no give.

Yeah, I am turning into a Don Anderson cynic.

You get the fisheries your apathy allows and government incompetence creates.

Smitty
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-10-2017, 06:42 PM
clamlinguine clamlinguine is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 34
Default

I'm trying to figure out what is going on here exactly. It sounds like the government was leaning towards removing the C&R regs in the mid Ram. That would have been fantastic.

My family doesn't support the unnatural C&R mentality. If that's your thing go fish at a fish farm. Ram fishing was fine before C&R was implemented.

Fishing in the Ram now has all the thrill of shooting a deer tied to a tree. (Man those cutts are hard to get off the hook....so tough and wiggly...and the rocks...smh)

Sad that I missed the survey.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-27-2017, 10:09 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clamlinguine View Post
I'm trying to figure out what is going on here exactly. It sounds like the government was leaning towards removing the C&R regs in the mid Ram. That would have been fantastic.

My family doesn't support the unnatural C&R mentality. If that's your thing go fish at a fish farm. Ram fishing was fine before C&R was implemented.

Fishing in the Ram now has all the thrill of shooting a deer tied to a tree. (Man those cutts are hard to get off the hook....so tough and wiggly...and the rocks...smh)

Sad that I missed the survey.
And people wonder why AB's fisheries are in a sad state of affairs. Exhibit A is ^this^ mentality above. Some people will never get it, unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-27-2017, 11:20 AM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,046
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
The language implies a cutthroat/bull trout conflict. Cuts and Bulls have lived together since the last ice age. What does Bulls in NOW are dams and land use practices. Anglers already have done their part some 20 years ago.
Recall - NO BLACK - PUT IT BACK

Don
Just a reminder, cutties above the bow river water shed are all introduced. Paradoxically native Albertan cutthroat in the NSR system are invasive and demote the vitality of the bulltrout and Rocky Mountain whitefish populations.
So bulls and cutts have cohabited since the last ice age, however not in systems higher than the Bow river drainage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-27-2017, 11:25 AM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
448 views when I clicked on this thread. Discounting the same people reading the thread multiple times, what does that mean; 150 - 250 unique views?

Think 150-250 filled out this survey based on this discussion?

The obvious answer is no...because most of the participants on the AO forum are leeches, including "elitist" fly-fishers. All take, no give.

Yeah, I am turning into a Don Anderson cynic.

You get the fisheries your apathy allows and government incompetence creates.

Smitty
Some of the people here are elitists but also help and contribute. There are many leeches, and the way to weed out these leeches is to see if they agree or disagree with this new policy.
Ones that agree for the most part are people who are ones that understand all the contributing factors to a fishery include angling. People who disagree are somewhat leech-y, unless someone misinterprets the message of this new policy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:53 PM
MooseRiverTrapper MooseRiverTrapper is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 381
Default

Why would AEP consider a 5 year ban while currently they still allow retention of fish? Do you need a biology degree to understand that?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-30-2017, 11:04 PM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
Some of the people here are elitists but also help and contribute. There are many leeches, and the way to weed out these leeches is to see if they agree or disagree with this new policy.
Ones that agree for the most part are people who are ones that understand all the contributing factors to a fishery include angling. People who disagree are somewhat leech-y, unless someone misinterprets the message of this new policy.
Well, obviously that is your simplistic take on it. Fair enough. I consider myself a contributor, not leechy, and I disagree with the policy. Square peg, round hole, I guess.

Smitty
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-01-2018, 07:12 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
Some of the people here are elitists but also help and contribute. There are many leeches, and the way to weed out these leeches is to see if they agree or disagree with this new policy.
Ones that agree for the most part are people who are ones that understand all the contributing factors to a fishery include angling. People who disagree are somewhat leech-y, unless someone misinterprets the message of this new policy.
The ones that disagree with this policy are the ones WHO UNDERSTAND THE CONTINUING FACTORS. Angling is but one of the factors but for the 60 years I've been fishing the Eastern Slopes, they have been the ONLY factor who had time after time been legislated.
It is long past time that the other factors be part of the equation and have thier activities adjusted. To be fair, many of the resource extraction companies are required to perform. Whether or not this happens depends on the company. Examples where this has not occurred exist. The settling pond blow out into the Athabaska is one example.
All other users are allowed a free for all.
This has to change.
Angler's have done their part. From 15>10>5>2>1>0 and now stream closures.
Drink the Koolaid again. You all gotta be kidding.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-01-2018, 08:44 AM
Cal R. Cal R. is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 10
Default

Hey Don, Happy New Year.
I have to agree with you here, there are a multitude of other factors at play and being ignored…as per usual.
Now you know how us quad guys feel. Welcome to our dumpster of bogus science.
Like your angling groups, the fish and gamers; we too have held up our end of the deal.
Closure remains the management tool of choice and now being applied to our fisheries.
But fear not, within this new closure plan is bunch of access restrictions to be implemented…
So we won’t be able to get to fishing holes anyway unless you have good set of knees…and I do not...and kind of afraid of the bears and cougars.
Cal
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-01-2018, 11:22 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal R. View Post
Hey Don, Happy New Year.
I have to agree with you here, there are a multitude of other factors at play and being ignored…as per usual.
Now you know how us quad guys feel. Welcome to our dumpster of bogus science.
Like your angling groups, the fish and gamers; we too have held up our end of the deal.
Closure remains the management tool of choice and now being applied to our fisheries.
But fear not, within this new closure plan is bunch of access restrictions to be implemented…
So we won’t be able to get to fishing holes anyway unless you have good set of knees…and I do not...and kind of afraid of the bears and cougars.
Cal
Except the difference is Cal, is that Don, myself, and many many others of the angling community - let's call it the vast majority - understand that anglers are one variable, and we do have an impact on fish populations. We simply feel the government is over-reacting and over-reaching in terms of assigning impacts unfairly attributed to angling, while other factors are being ignored, or, at least, diminished / minimized. In other words, we are able to hold a mirror up to ourselves.

Whereas and unlike many in the OHV community - and yes, I've seen the threads on Facebook et al - who adopt a circle-the-wagons, ostrich-head-in-the sand mentality and attitudes and refuse to accept hardly ANY responsibility for their impacts.

And there is a significant difference there. If that seems harsh, so be it. Despite the fact there are good citizens in the OHV community willing to hold said mirror, and understand that they have to be part of the solution, their viewpoints are being obliterated by selfish users who ignore science and couldn't care less about their impact. Unfortunately, even a handful of quadders can cause significant damage and undo alot of the solid work OHV groups have done in terms of trail building and education.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-01-2018, 04:57 PM
Cal R. Cal R. is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 10
Default

Smitty, thanks for helping make my point.
Perceptions and attitudes are also factors that need to be addressed.
Cheers
Cal
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-01-2018, 07:15 PM
Zakery 70 Zakery 70 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Default Diss COURT

Fly Theory ...... What is the "new policy" that separates us leeches from guys like you? ....that know everything? Or those that think our feeble fisheries can subsidize their grocery bill?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:41 AM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,046
Default

Zakery, I dont know everything, but I do know a lot on this subject because I am in environmental research as my actual career. I deal with climate modelling and biostatistics. And I am able to interpret them quite well. I’m sure others are too though haha.

Don,
I know there are other continuing factors. I realize that OHV, agriculture, and industry are the main contributors. However, adding another element of stress to a recovering system - like angling - augments the stress that these fish populations are feeling. That is what a lot of people don't understand.

Smitty,
And that is your perception as well. We all have opinions.

Something that I note to all of you is to stop using anecdotal claims to support your opinion. Just because something was great once, 38 years ago, doesn't make your experience the "true view" of the location.

Edit: grammar correction
__________________

Last edited by FlyTheory; 01-02-2018 at 08:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-02-2018, 09:58 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
I know there are other continuing factors. I realize that OHV, agriculture, and industry are the main contributors. However, adding another element of stress to a recovering system - like angling - augments the stress that these fish populations are feeling. That is what a lot of people don't understand.
And my concern is then...what? Eliminate angling; will the gov't address the other MAJOR contributing factors? What is the long game here? Eliminate angling along the Eastern Slopes until stressed fish populations recover, even though, with industrial impacts, they may never recover sufficiently to be deemed strong enough to withstand angling? And what happens when more anglers are concentrated on fewer watersheds? It's reasonable to be concerned here about a slippery slope. Is it not rational to ask; how long before other watersheds are closed?

Because that is one possible outcome, given the long history of the previous government, and, given the short term history of the current government, the jury is definitely out on that one. The current gov't seems to be cherry picking its issues when it comes to the environment.

Wasn't able to attend the Dec. 14th meeting; so if my opinion is lacking info, by all means, provide the links / insight Fly Theory. What really is the long term game here?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:08 AM
Zakery 70 Zakery 70 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Default

FLY THEORY

You certainly don't know everything or do I, but having spent sixty years on rivers including the Clearwater and tributories I do know the proposal is beyond rediculous. If the additive impacts of catch and release fishing on the Clearwater system are the cause of it's collapse then it's beyond screwed now.

An example is the article in a recent AO magazine where the biologist uses Rocky Creek as an example of a "critical" bull trout spawning stream. This is total BS because it and many of the other tributaries are either dry or frozen to the bottom much of the year. Thats how much knowledge is behind this plan.

Few people realize fish numbers in the upper section of the Clearwater are little or no different now than they were years ago. Both size and numbers are down in the tributaries because there is no water left in them, especially overwintering habitat. No beaver equals no fish in these marginally productive streams.

The plan is so ridiculous It's hard to imagine people actually buy into it.

Shame on them for being so dumb!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:52 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
Something that I note to all of you is to stop using anecdotal claims to support your opinion. Just because something was great once, 38 years ago, doesn't make your experience the "true view" of the location.

Edit: grammar correction
I always cringe when I hear "scientists" discount "anecdotal observations"...

The scientific method relies on reliability of the data and repeatability of the methodology to get the same result over and over. In the natural world there are just way too many variables that cannot be controlled to ever allow "laboratory" predictabilty of results.

The fact is there is very little "hard data" that has ever been collected on a lot of these issues in the past, so anecdotal observations are the best you have if you must compare present to past.

Many avid sportsman have spent years observing the natural world,,,, and may I dare say,,, spend far more time afield than many of their laboratory trained colleagues. What is needed by the researcher is the ability to weed out anecdotal observations that have a unbiased rational basis, which are likely true or close enough to being factual as opposed to observations based on or clouded by emotion and bias.

Last edited by Pikebreath; 01-02-2018 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:59 AM
Yaha Tinda's Avatar
Yaha Tinda Yaha Tinda is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakery 70 View Post
FLY THEORY

You certainly don't know everything or do I, but having spent sixty years on rivers including the Clearwater and tributaries I do know the proposal is beyond ridicule. If the additive impacts of catch and release fishing on the Clearwater system are the cause of it's collapse then it's beyond screwed now.

An example is the article in a recent AO magazine where the biologist uses Rocky Creek as an example of a "critical" bull trout spawning stream. This is total BS because it and many of the other tributaries are either dry or frozen to the bottom much of the year. That's how much knowledge is behind this plan.

Few people realize fish numbers in the upper section of the Clearwater are little or no different now than they were years ago. Both size and numbers are down in the tributaries because there is no water left in them, especially overwintering habitat. No beaver equals no fish in these marginally productive streams.

The plan is so ridiculous It's hard to imagine people actually buy into it.

Shame on them for being so dumb!
You best go for another look, you are mistaken.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-02-2018, 12:08 PM
JDK71 JDK71 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 544
Default

once they start pulling cole out of the hills at ram there will be even less fish in the river
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-02-2018, 11:20 PM
clamlinguine clamlinguine is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
And people wonder why AB's fisheries are in a sad state of affairs. Exhibit A is ^this^ mentality above. Some people will never get it, unfortunately.
I sure hope we get to eat the fish out of the mid Ram again. They taste great, are good size, and there are so many of them. It's such beautiful water, it's a shame this area has been wasted on faux fishermen for so long.
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 -7. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.