Harps

Before Bearspaw, flows in the Bow dropped to under 20 cms quite regularly. It also wasn't a great brown and bow fishery. Bearspaw was built in '54 (where the gap in data is found). The Bio's are doing what they feel necessary to protect the fishery. Yes, there are other opinion on what to do, yes this will affect other fisheries, and yes there are other factors - but it is an action. My only grief is with the closures is the suddenness and that Montana Style Hoot Owl Fishing Restrictions were not applied to all Alberta flowing waters in July when it was clear that temperatures would become a significant risk to releasing fish without mortality. But then again, I'm not sure if the regulation allows for that and we don't have the strong self-regulating fishing community that they have in Montana (despite action taken by many on here). Montana has the tax base and political will to prioritize fisheries and tourism, unlike here. We took some really stupid and destructive action in the past, but the fishery survived. Action like this demonstrates that we are learning from mistakes and would rather not deal with the risk of increased mortality in a Calgary treasure. ... For people's own interest - historic and current flow data is readily available: http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/graph_images/ag.05BH004...0.0.0.0.0.0.e.png1439415980 No temp data with this... but Minimum flows in the Bow have been recorded for decades. How the minimum quartiles are calculated is a question that I couldn't answer (i.e date ranges) (You might have to search the Water Survey data for this gauge: Annual Maximum and Minimum Daily Discharge Graph for BOW RIVER AT CALGARY (05BH004)) - http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/report_e.html?mode=Graph&type=h2oArc&stn=05BH004&dataType=Annual+Extremes&parameterType=Flow&year=2014&scale=log Current flows (http://www.environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/DisplayData.aspx?Type=Figure&BasinID=8&DataType=1&StationID=RBOWCALG)

I know this thread is a little old, but waterfalls are considered obstacles (ie you can not fish below Castle falls). It doesn't mean just man-made obstacles, but means any place that "backs fish up", such as waterfalls, big drop structures, etc. Has to be a significant obstruction, but I'm sure that is a point that could be argued in court. This is a federal regulation that originally is intended to stop over-exploitation of Atlantic salmon that congregate in a pool below falls, waiting for rain to bump the flows so they can pass. It isn't necessarily sporting to fish for migratory salmonids when they are crowded, and often results in snagging during large runs. A F&W officer or CO can issue tickets if they believe that you are fishing below a barrier. You'd have to check with them on current Sol-Gen policy and opinion.

Download Google's Picasa. It allows you to Geo-tag images in Google Earth and displays them on a geo-referenced map. It's also the best free image library / management software. You might be able to edit some of them on Picasa-web, which is the online image management tool for google. If you deal with bigger or RAW images, Adobe Lightroom has geo-tagging capabilities, but the cost is much higher than free.

I apologize if I misunderstood. Like I said, I've been having one of those weeks and I'm being short with everybody, which isn't really acceptable. What did you mean?

That's just a red herring. Yes everything has an impact, I'm so tired of that argument... seems to be something they teach in the oilpatch here in Alberta. Mrmagnan posted the AK article about boat erosion in support of Gil's original assertion. Then everybody jumped on them for suggesting that wakes could cause an impact. Well, they do. You originally asked about the legality of using a jet in the city. Not allowed at this current time, due to municipal by-laws that trump the Fed Nav Act. I suggested some solutions to real issues that could be brought up against jet boat use, and you continue to assert that it's your right. It's not up to an individual to decide what's an acceptable limit, it's up to society. And on this issue, society/gov't has deemed fast moving boats to be unsafe in the city. If you don't agree go to you councilor and complain. But you can sure as hell bet that if you go to them with that "holier than thou" attitude about everything having impacts, you'll get nowhere. But if you go with a plan to minimize your impact and set some rules and guidlines, you'll be seen as somebody that they could work with. As it stands, your entitled attitude that "everybody wreaks *hit, so why shouldn't you", will give all of us anglers a bad name. And forget the city thinking that there are reasonable jet-boaters out there to work with. We all can make efforts to reduce our impacts, and it will result in positive change, whether it is less need for hydropower or just better fishing. And still nowhere am I telling you to stop driving or not to use your jet. I'm just saying you shouldn't work so hard to be ignorant of your own footprint.

You know what... F it, Here are some peer reviewed reports on boat wakes. http://www.hydrologynz.org.nz/downloads/20070417-030209-JoHNZ_2003_v42_2_McConchie.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrr.3450090102/abstract http://roundthelake.com/PIER%20WI%20DNR/lakes.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304392483900254 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02471995#page-1 http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA122370 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1988)114%3A3(363) This last one is a god one: Hydrodynamic impacts of commercial jet-boating on the Chilkat River, Alaska http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183.3481&rep=rep1&type=pdf You can also educate yourself with scholar.google.ca but many of the articles are restricted to those that have licenses. There's a good old article from Alaska that talks about the increase in turbidity in a river from fishing boats drifting with anchors as well as wakes from motorized use. I'm not sure where I have it stored though and I can't remember the name of the river.

Yes, rainfall does have an impact. But on most banks the run off is absorbed into soil and intercepted by vegetation before it gets to the steep portion. In areas where the banks are bare, there is often significant rainfall erosion, often in the form of rills and gullies. Rainfall and surface runoff is a significant cause of sedimentation in our local watercourses. Much of it comes in at places of linear development (man-made river crossings, ditches at crossings, pipelines, etc), from agricultural fields (especially those with no buffers), and because of the "hardening" of our landscape (removal of wetlands which filter water, loss of floodplains, loss of tributaries that used to gather filed water in nice meanders, paving of areas, etc). It even is caused by all of the bank armouring and channel straightening that we have done to our rivers and creeks. Bare construction sites "have to" install sediment and erosion control measures to protect against that very thing. Wakes can push more (resulting in deeper) water up the bank slope, which in turn can cause erosion- different/more than flooding and often more than rainfall. You said floods are worse than wakes, I refuted. Rainfall is a different topic- similar erosion on bare banks, not as bad in areas with vegetation preventing direct runoff. Wake erosion would be one more human impact, another pile on the cumulative harm that we are causing, and something that could possibly be prevented/regulated. And Jayhad, I would post peer reviewed work, but there is no point in this type of forum. I have been dealing with river erosion for over the past decade and I currently work every day to protect our fishery from the impacts of erosion. If you are interested in the effects of sediment and turbidity look up some of the work of C. Newcombe, E. Shaw, P. Anderson, or D. Harper. You will see what even short pulses of increased turbidity can cause, especially when it is above background levels or in an abnormal season. Eitherway, I clearly stated that there could be rule put in place to protect the sensitive areas if heavy jetboat use is to be expected/desired/controlled. I have been on a jet on many of the rivers in Alberta, I'm not for or against them. I just want folks here to be completely clear with potential impacts of use (and I am having a really pissy week). The RCMP have contacted me in the past about jetboats on certain small rivers, and I have passed on similar complaints to them. Safety is the biggest concern about any fast motorized boats on crowded rivers.

Flood erosion is very different from that caused by wakes. Splashes up the bank that run down have a completely different impact than rising flood waters. In a flood situation, there is much more that is impacting the whole channel, areas of constriction where the water moves faster, backwater areas where water moves slower, steep sections, flat sections, etc, etc. Deep areas, steep areas, and flow constrictions will have the most force, and in those areas the banks may be eroded. In other areas the flood water will deposit material... shallow areas, flat areas, areas with hight friction zones and flow disturbance- like vegetated banks, floodplains, etc. These areas will have fine materials piled on them that will vegetate if undisturbed. From wakes (waves, splashing), water running down a bank is running down at a higher slope than water running adjacent to the bank. Splashed water running down a steep slope will cause more erosion than deep water in a flooding stream. Material could be removed from the bank based on the type of material and the potential of the flowing water to overcome the tractive force that holds that material in place. That is solely based on the slope of the bank, how high the water gets splashed, the amount of water, and the size of the material. Tractive force (how much force something will take before it starts to move) in water is based on the slope and the depth of flow. Water flowing down a bank is much steeper than down the streambed and that steepness often makes up for the lack of depth of the water flowing down the bank. On top of that, you have the initial impact (drop) erosion of water hitting the surface under pressure. Like raindrops this initial impact can dislodge bank materials and initiate the movement of those materials into the stream (collisions of particles can overcome that initial force required to get that material moving). So yes, erosion caused by wakes can be worse than that caused by flooding, even in a river system. But... it comes down to amounts. Lots of wave action will mean no vegetation growing on materials deposited by floods along the banks. It will mean it is harder for vegetation to establish on steeper banks that have suffered mass wasting or slumped. A single wave, no issue. A few a day, maybe sustainable..., a wave an hour??? Ignoring all the issues around user safety (low visibility drunks can get run over on the water...), crowding, noise disturbance to people and wildlife, and the introduction of hydrocarbons... the wake disturbance issue could be controlled by enforcing no wake zones, adding higher sensitivity avoidance or no motor areas, or controlling motorized "upstream lanes" through certain areas of the Bow.

There have been changes to habitat and access in the upper reaches of the Crow, including the installation to many crossings, and the intensive addition of roads and trails in the headwaters. MNWH are very sensitive to sediment in streams, especially since they spawn in the autumn after a summer of instream activity has deposited fine materials on areas that they spawn on. Because they don't clean the substrate like trout do, their eggs will suffer higher mortality than any other species spawning at that time in those conditions. On occasion you find an area where they are schooled up, especially in the fall and winter. At those times you can catch 100's, but that doesn't say anything about the entire population- they might be the only MNWH left in the river! Recent surveys (E-fishing and Snorkel) indicate a low population. Without MNWH, we loose a critical part of the aquatic ecology... it's like taking away deer and forcing wolves to look elsewhere for prey. Their diminished populations will be reflected in cutthroat, rainbow, bull trout and other fish species populations.

The mountain whitefish population in the Crowsnest is really low and in trouble. They are hard to find now and I'll bet the regs are changed to protect them soon... at least I hope so.

Hi Nishikant, You should share this with www.sexyloops.com, which has a big international fishing community. Cheers,

The flooding behind the dam itself wouldn't be the biggest issue, although all the suspected flood area would need to be graded to allow positive drainage and minimize fish loses. Also the damned time might actually prevent floodplain growth- inundation of areas with dryer upland vegetation and possibly years of riparian forest vegetation that is far from the water. The type of bedload deposition, the inundation times, the hydraulic, none of it is similar. The Brocket area of the Oldman is not really comparable. "Softening" of the peaks will reduce bedload movement and "refreshing " of streambeds (including spawning areas). It could prevent the movement of gravel downstream, creating areas of massive degradation in the river exposing buried infrastructure and eliminating those critical areas where oxygenated water flows through loose substrate. It will change the dynamic that large woody debris plays on the system, which changes LWD related habitat use (trout spawn closer to LWD in any give stream, if it is available), as well as changes the hydraulic function of LWD, such as stabilizing point bars, banks, and islands and allowing a mobile alluvial channel to stabilize (promotes vegetation growth in a protected area that has had the deposition of finer materials). Reducing and removing peaks also impacts biodiversity by reducing flood related invert migration and recolonization, changing bedload compositions and all the other reasons I've pointed out above. The river system evolved to function in its current state in the conditions of it's current state. by changing those conditions we are limiting the capacity of the system to respond to change and to remain in it's preferred state (largely based on energy). Man made lake systems can promote more biomass, often just by the fact that there is more habitat available for aquatic things to live in. It isn't necessarily "better" habitat, in fact, often we will lose biodiversity because of it, or cause an imbalance that encourages "worse" conditions, such as Didymo blooms below dams. Plus, who needs those great migratory fisheries that we've already ****ed up beyond repair... Lake Sturgeon used to travel the whole length of the river from Diefenbaker to the confluence of the Castle and Oldman (S.Sask up the Oldman). We screwed that with a few good weirs and two massive dams. Bull trout used to move down to Lethbridge, then back upstream... has the Alberta gov't ever done a winter survey to see how far bulls move down in the winter now? I could go on, and on about all the negative aspects of this plan. Realistically after all the ****ing around that we do, the river will attempt to stabilize itself, either by destroying something we've constructed, or changing it's own characteristics. How that river changes, though, may not be better for the existing fishery, although we as angers may not see much of a difference except in ratios of fish, best times to fish, and what different flies we have to use.

These plans will decimate trout populations every time there is a flood, way worse than the flood itself. Fish will get trapped in the bypass structures, trapped in upland areas behind pools, won't be able to travel upstream through the structures and will generally have a much more difficult time, worse than the natural flooding they have evolved to endure. Areas upstream of the ""dry dam" will be destroyed in any event large enough to fill the culvert to capacity. Plus any constructed culverts will increase flows, increase scour and cause a massive erosion area and a equally massive deposition of gravel downstream which will change the rivers. Unless they create a concrete spill pool and energy dissipator... further destroying the aquatic environment and eliminating upstream fish passage. These are dumb plans, a quick, not thought out action that is in direct response to the emotional need of the folks that want this. How many rivers need to be modified to make the whole province flood proof? If we protect Calgary, we need to protect Edmonton and Red Deer and Medicine Hat and Sundre and Edson and Rocky, and Lethbridge and pincher creek, and coleman and claresholm, nanton, irvine, drumhellerFortmcMurryCanmorePeaceRiverGrandPrairie, etc, etc. What will the enduring maintenance costs be? How will we monitor and ensure that the aquatic environment isn't harmed? Who will rescue trapped fish? Who pays for damage when the "protection" fails? Whose land is destroyed for this? The costs are much higher to the environment and to Albertans then represented. I for one will not pay for such a ****ed up plan. Do what Lethbridge did in the 60's, buy out the residents move all vulnerable infrastructure out of the floodplains, and let the rivers run in a place where they have access to floodplains- When will we learn that we can't go against nature and physics.

Letter to their minister- those action are unacceptable- guide and officer. I'd also call the shop and let them know that you and those that know you will not be frequenting their establishment.

Really, nobody knows about it? The complaint was sent into DFO and SRD last fall by local fly anglers, some of which are on this board. it's likely those anglers weren't happy about the whole thing and the response, so I'm suprised others weren't told?