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 offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,276
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 offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 231
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
Posts: 235
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: 1,137
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
Posts: 235
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: 1,137
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: 1,137
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
Posts: 235
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 offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,276
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 offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,276
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: 395
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
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 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.