McLeod

Thanks for sharing this story and the great pictures. Sorry you guys had to go through that. That country has gone to *hit in terms of safety. Obviously though you guys did the best you could and still went fishing ! You will have some great a stories for the grandkids LOL

OMG

Why such an interest in Alberta ? You state that "none of you have the motivation to do anything good for fish " But what is your defination of good ? All one has to do is read all your past posts such as banning angling in the National Parks to see that your vision of what is good for fish is bordering radical. You have little in the way of tact and diplomacy when speaking with people and you do not respect other people opinions who are differant than yours. It hard to understand because you do make valid suggestions on fisheries management at times. Now I assume you know Derek Kingston very well..Maybe get his defination of what is good for fish and contrast it with yours. Nothing wrong with protecting wild fish , but you need to look at the BIG picture and all other stakeholders who fish and pay the bills.

Such diplomatic skills...Maybe I have an agenda..Keeping an eye on guys like you.. As long as Brian Chan is around then anglers where you are " managing fisheries" shouldn't have to worry to much because the society is really what has improved the fishery in BC.

Read the studies..Most work to reduce non natives is more about restoring Zooplankton. Not Rhetoric. Never have I said introduce Non Natives where natives exsist. I live in the world of reality , budgets , manpower ,practical ideas that will be excepted by the public. There are always lots of ideas by people about the ways thing should be such as regulation reform ..that's an individuals right to have an opinion but to actually do the work have the that regulation accepted and implemented is a whole other ball game. No agenda ..just reality... Spending Hundreds of thousands of dollars to have brook trout removed from some isolated lakes to protect Zooplankton when that money could be have used for enforcement to protect native cuts and Bulls ..That kinda stuff does piss me off... Thankfully that tap has been closed....

I did surveys on Tri Creeks Brookies were not and issue but Mercoal was full of them. Yes kill them and eat them ..give them to the neighbor..Don't throw them in the bush.. I can support that and it's a good idea. What are cons..Hopefully no bull trout get wacked.. The way to get this accomplished in pich a stream or streams in an area. Contact the regional Biologist. Discuss the idea with him or her..and ask what it will take to get the this done. There are a lot of guys here not big fans of the AFGA..however the have alot of influence..especially at roundtables..Maybe push Trout unlimited harder into your plan in action..Come up with a specific plan and push it through the right channels. A letter to the minster won't do alot..

Again some very valid poiints..But what streams are you talking about ?..Lets Identify them. Come up with some specifics and then you can target that stream with your biologist.

You make some valid points..In terms of Athabasca Rainbow and Bull trout in The Athabasca Sysyem it was over harvest poaching ect that cause the problems long before the Brook trout showed up.That being said I can agree with your point about that they don't belong with bull trout and are effecting their recovery along with poaching. My question what do we do about ?

Some excellant points by Clive and Smitty. I personally think in thIs whole NON NATIVE is discussion is way OVER BLOWN .There is alot of fear mongering by some academics and special interest groups , much of it self serving. The way the glaciers are melting and changes to the ozone who knows if trout will even be able to survive in our mountain regions in a hundred years or so. Protect those creeks that have pure strain West slopes cutties, even close them to angling ..there aren't many. Raise revenues and push for more signage and enforcement in those waters in particular . That should be the focus, do that well instead of trying to do 20 things half assed. While I get the Non native argument it is not practical and will never be cost effect. In the big picture it is not a priority.

Good point about ALL NON NATIVES...

While there are a lot of good ideas being generated here , I for one would NEVER support a bounty on fish. A special harvest license yes...

Don , went to Piprell last year and caught lost of Browns , Splake and Rainbows. Narrow hill has lots of trout lakes..The gems in narrow hills are nice but never got a chance to fish them Based on what I have read you may be better off just to head to Sheddy's lakes in Manitoba as the regs on those special lakes produce some awesome fish.

So would this extra money that the ACA gets or whoever go to enforcement to protect the mountain streams ? Not likely and there is the problem. By the way increasing fishing license fees for non residents will be up for discussion at next weekends roundtable. AFGA is pushing for it... Keep you posted if that goes anywhere.

You have some very good ideas ..the problem as exsists already in Alberta is making sure the extra money from licenses and fee increases goes directly into the resource instead general revenues.

I would have to check the regs again but ares there any flowing waters where you can keep cutties other than part of the Ram were they are not native ? If there are streams with the regs that allow harvest of Cutties then that needs to end. As for a liberal harvest of non natives that has to be handled carefully and best done only those who are qualifed with a special license. If you opened it up to everyone I could see alot of bulls getting bonked on the head. And yes you can bet in the next 2 years a number of the creeks that still have pure natives Cutties will be closed to angling.

Unlike hunting, fishing has always been an acceptable activity in the National Parks so the example of Buffalo is out in left field. But again I respect your right to your opinion. Make sure you spend some time and money in the parks this summer as they need visitors and the cash !

Ok but if a native fish is introduced into a previous fishless lake should the fish be removed ? And should we close the road as cars are killing deer and elk and the trains are killing bears and the paved roads are kill caribou as they are allowing the wolves easier access to certain locations.. I get your thinking but it's not practical as we have to have a limit somewhere and Parks has a good grasp of thinks right now. Those limits allow catch and release of native fish. yes some may fish may die.. very few I suspect... But the revenue used from those fishing licenses can be used for more wardens who can catch poachers so in effect we are helping to protect species.. And on it goes..

Are you talking Native species or Native waters ? Simple fact is most of the still waters in Banff that have native fish only have native cutts because they were stocked there. So how far do you want to go with this. Also when we walk through trails we can kill plants and grass. We use the water for Banff and lake Louise..How far does one go ?

Yes we have discussed and debated fishing in the Parks. But again whenever someone suggests implies that fishing should not be allowed in the parks or even questions the current allowed practice then I am going to respond. First of it should be common knowledge to most by now that financially our parks are broke. Revenues raised from fees such as park passes and yes fishing licenses do not cover the expenses and deficients are covered by taxpayers. But with the global economic crisis and spending priorites the feds are not handing over dollars to the parks as they have in the past. That is why you are seeing Parks mandates slowly change towards bring more visitors by way of new activites which will in more revenue from various means. In otherwords the parks need people to so as to generate revenues so Parks Canada can maintain to the best degree the protection of natural environments that representative of Canada's natural heritage. These special places are gateways to nature, to adventure, to discovery, to solitude. In terms of Fishing , its an activity that is part of the our heritage and the history of the parks..right up there with other activites such as mountain climbing. Does it need to be consumptive ? I think parks has a pretty good handle on that being that Native Fishes are protected.

Thanks for sharing these..You made my day !

OMG ..those pictures are killing me... Did you see any fish ?

Thanks for sharing these pics.They are awesome..Especially the Brookies.... How can you not love that fish !

By the way... Just in case you did not know.. Trout Unlimited's new mascot is a Brook Trout !

Invasive species are and should be a very very low priority. That message was clearily sent by the Federal Government. Generating dollars and bringing people to the parks is the priority. Grizzly's and Bringing back the Cariboo seems just a little more important of a priority at this time with the limited budgets...

It's a little more complicated that that. Brookies are a fabulous fish. Many would say the BEST of all the trout. No they should not have been planted in our waters that had Native fish. One of many mistakes made in the past. Of note.. all Brookies planted are triploids. As for our natives waters now ..yes the Brookies should be removed..The problem is we can't just have a general.. kill all brookies regulation ..because many people can't tell the differance between a Brook Trout and a Bull Trout. If we had a special license to kill Brookies in flowing waters , a special ID test would be required ..That could be an effective management tool I would support. I am not keen on dumping poisions in creeks...