canadagrey

I think your community is generous with a 3 strike rule. I would agree with the first being a 1 year suspension but the second time LIFE. Great for the community to create a local fishery especially for the youth of the area. Great Job.

I knew that this question would raise some contraversy. I know a lot of people can tell you how many, how big, on what fly, what the water temps are, what the barometric pressure is and so on. Sorry I don't. I just enjoy the experience and the place. These are the true memories to me. I just want to ensure through my efforts that my children and grandchildren have the same or better opportunities that I have come to enjoy through this wonderful sport.

Yes, 10-15 years ago and quite honestly it got boring and I stopped after a couple of hours. All on a single dry fly. That was out of ignorance and lack of awareness, I thought that fish were a never ending resource. I have since learned they are not and deserve not to be pressured more. If fishing is that good on a particular day now, (I am always single hook only never hopper/dropper and 99% Dry Fly) I try to be more selective by doing some of the following: Cast to only rising fish, not fishing the best locations, try to get that perfect drift in multiple currents, practice casting, try new flies that may not be appropriate for that location or species, watch my fishing partner, spend more time looking for bugs, taking pictures etc. All of which will teach me more about this precious resource and enhance my experiences. Trout don't live in ugly places. I believe they deserve that respect.

Now comes the Bullet! :derby racer: Most of these are C&R waters. I know we all take the utmost care in reviving and releasing and that they all swim away. Studies show on average we KILL between 3 to 5%, are we then any better than someone taking 3 to 5 fish out of that same water? Shouldn't we be more responsible and limit the amount we try to catch?

Have you had a 100 fish day?

Shoe Goo, Plumbers Goop, Household Goop etc. are all the identical product use either.

Why lock the thread? Lock some of those making off topics and smart a** comments. Neil: I know there isn't a hope in Hades that this govt. would put it through, that doesn't make it right.

When was the last time you saw a CO? Oh, it doesn't matter because almost 60% of the time if you were caught fishing illegally you won't get a ticket. No wonder our fisheries are in trouble. Why are our CO's so lenient?

Don: Your drivers license should be revoked if: 1) You are over 65 & 2) Are going fishin' & 3) Have a wooden pole & 4) Do not have an ALBERTA SPORTFISHING LICENSE & 5) It cannot be 1972.

FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS 2007 PROSECUTIONS 1397 43% TIME TO PRODUCE 59 2% VERBAL NOTICE 59 2% WARNINGS 1755 54% This looks like the focus of CO's is EDUCATION rather than ENFORCEMENT. :derby racer:

Hot topic or what? 33 post in less than 12 hours. A portion of Alberta already has a license system I really like. National Parks. If you are 16 or older you require a license PERIOD. NO cut rate. If you are under 16, your catch is included in your parent or guardian limit OR you may purchase your own license to harvest. I believe this gives us the opportunity to encourage youth to not only fish, but to practice Catch & Release. I got 5 more years before I will be eligible to receive the FREE license. I just hope that this province care enough about our resources that by then I WILL BE PRIVILEDGED ENOUGH TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A LICENSE.

Should Seniors in Alberta be required to BUY a fishing License?

fishpro: If you win, who are you going to take with you?

I just completed a conservation with Fisheries Dept of SRD, the following is some suggestions: 1. The Minister & Cabinet have the authority to add levies to licenses. 2. The ACA also has the right to add levies to licenses for specific objectives. There are another couple of avenues to increase enforcement or revenue: 1. The revenue of the Special Fish Harvest Tags was originally requested to be used on specific programs and currently is not. This Tag System also requires more time commitment from COs,so therefore these funds could be allocated there. 2. CO's first priority is problem wildlife. There used to be Problem Wildlife Officers to do this as they generally know the high frequency areas. If these were allocated separately then it would have more available for enforcement. Sportfishing in Alberta generates some $450 Million to the Alberta Economy. ADC has it right. Write your MLA, write Minister Morton, write the Premier, make motions at your club, AFGA, Trout Unlimited or any other Outdoor Group you may belong or attend. As well SUPPORT STREAM WATCH. NOT ON THIS TOPIC

CO's have responsibility for hunting and hard water fishing as well, we need them all year. The real issue is we don't have enough of them.

We are already paying a fee similiar. The old Buck for Wildlife now the ACA already gets their money from us. Would I pay more? Sure but like you it has to go directly to the resource not to General Revenue.

We already have over 200 County Police in Alberta, they however have no enforcement in any F&W infractions. These being in place already would not cost additional funds and at least offer some sort of presence. Could this be another avenue for enforcement?

There isn't a meeting of any organization that is either Hunting or Fishing related you go to regardless of the topic that the Next Question Is WHERE IS ENFORCEMENT? Barry, Dave & Don and all that spearheaded Streamwatch are all to be commended for their efforts in establishing this program to fill the void in enforcement created from our govt. Maybe now is the is the time to restart a major push for an increase in CO's with the appearance of the vunerablility right now of the govt of the past 30 plus years. Votes talk.

Awesome film guys, It' definately on my bucket list. Now I see what they mean about canyons and falls. Thanks for sharing.

First off, I fully SUPPORT THE STREAMWATCH PROGRAM. :derby racer: My question is WHY shoud WE PAY or solicit for Partners to in some way fill the void of the Conservation Officers in the province? Should not the Alberta Government be responsible for enforcement? I think so. The Streamwatch Funds could be better spent on Conservation and Rehabilitation. Your Thoughts????

Dutchie: I agree with a lot that you say however I feel you have to stay on topic. CO's and Streamwatch are not part of this topic. But it does open a new contraversial topic. Why is the public paying for or solicting partners for Streamwatch? Why isn't enforcement covered by SRD or the Attorney General or whatever department by the govt? Don't get me wrong I support Streamwatch, I want to know why we should pay for law enforcement, wouldn't our money be better spent on conservation and rehabilitation? I will now start a new thread for this topic in order to keep topics in line.

I told Kevin Lowe for the Oilers to take Edmonton Water, Do not drink the water in Calgary. Comrie, Stone and Brule out. When you are already missing Staois and Souray. It's a long season.

Results of the Guide Licensing Meeting: To establish any sort of licensing will require a need for public demand, politcal will and guide desire. At present the only part of these requirements is the belief by some of the guides that a minimum standard should be required if any licensing is to be initiated. The guides and outfitters in attendance agreed to further converse with the balance of the Guiding Fraternity to 1)develop reasons for licensing 2) establish a minimum standard. That group will have approximately 1 year to prepare a proposal for the Round Table. SORRY STILL

Terry: and we still have Cogliano and Smid too.

Well said headscan: I'm going to get a first hand look as I now will be attending the meeting, with an open mind. Because I'm Still