McLeod
-
Posts
308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by McLeod
-
-
But BC is stocking varieties of Rainbows in areas where they don't naturally occur aren't they ?
Salmon in the great lakes , mistake ? BC dumps Kokanees were they never naturally occured so guess it's okay right ?
Exotics are just fine if they are sterile. But I would like to see Athabee rainbows reared and used to stock
Alberta lakes, Bulls and Cutties to. Whatever will help improve the quality of fishing.
By the way PGK I think Brian and the BC'S freshwater fisheries society does a great job and a similar society in Alberta would be a big step forward.
-
Your opinion may be that AB needs more exotic species, but in the eyes of the vast majority of competent fisheries scientists, it is a poor idea and does nothing to address long term issues regarding sport fishery participation and financial management. Do you know how much it costs to produce triploid fish? They're only stocked in a handful of alberta lakes right now for a reason, they are damn expensive. I think the majority of alberta's fisheries managers are well aware of the problems (and some successes, mind you) their predecessors created by introducing so many non native trout species. I always find it a mix of frustrating and amusing when someone suggests more non native species introductions. When are we going to learn? And, if you don't like the native species, move.
Raise license fees!
Just when I think you show some reasonable ideas you come up with.. "if you don't like the native species, move. "
That's like me saying if you don't like exotics then move ..
And actually there were dozens of Alberta lakes that were stocked with triploids last year
The point behind that is that there thousands of dollars are being spent by anglers going to Saskatchewan and Manitoba even BC to fish for multiple species or exotics. Why not have those opportunites here.Licenses should reflect the cost of stocking or the operation of a quality fishery.
If we went your way then there would be no Browns or Brookies in the province and no Rainbows
except in Athabasca drainage.. Means the Bow would be empty.. lets go a step further remove natives from where they have never been such as the Ram cutties..Don't forget the effect they are having
invertebrates. I suggest your thought process is of a very very small minority.
if we did what you would like to see there would be a great loss in fishing opportunity and revenues would certainly be decreased ..but hey we could all move to another province...
I want to improve recreational fishing and enhance fish habitat and protect native species..It all works hand in hand.That is what the goal should be.
-
Like others I have the same reservations about fee increases without the direct obligation that the increased revenue leads to noticeable improvement of our fisheries. One of the big things I would like to see, in terms of stocking, is just more variety--not exotics. I would like to see more lakes stocked with browns and cutthroats specifically. But again, this probably isn't going to solve any of the province's real problems. There's is a huge deficiency in enforcement funding that I think we all have noticed. F&W is greatly aided by the report a poacher line and citizen involvement because of the massive area each office is forced to enforce. There are tons of issues facing this province and I fear that, as usual, costs will go up and service to the industry and the people involved will go down.
Browns and stocked Rainbows including those in the bow are exotics ..
-
I would suggest, having worked in most regions of AB, that the vast majority of ASRD fisheries managers know exactly what they're doing. They just don't have the resources...usually the ACA crews are the feet on the ground for ASRD. Nowhere else have I seen such a good cooperative effort between research and management, although they have their differences on occasion, usually brought about by old timey guys who worry about union issues and office space.
Where is money misdirected? Please expound...
Hatcheries are great for meat fishermen, and they help focus harvest where it should be - away from wild fish. Managing fisheries in AB is a lot more complex than most other places. AB has significant issues around non native species and angling priority. Do you put money where anglers want you to? (Which is usually a stocked fishery) Or do you put money to where the ecosystem tells you it's needed? (Usually lower priority angling opportunity like bulltrout). The FFSBC is great....buuuuut they're solely focused on increasing the number of anglers out there through stocked fisheries. Great, but there's some fallout around that I personally don't like.
In the end, I think AB is doing very well, but more funding is needed in light of lacking gov't support. Increase your license fees! I would gladly pay $50 a year and $10/day to fish stauffer, the bow, castle...etc. That's fast cash in the ACA coffers.....you'll just have to get it past the AFGA...good luck!
Lots on the go....could be lots more.
http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/...rams/fisheries/
You make some valid points...but you need to look at the BIG picture and be inclusive of all anglers in the province not exclusive because they are meat fisherman. At the end of the day they pay for licenses just like you and I do. I see it as 2 parts...
1. Promote Sport fishing..Increase the number anglers and fishing opportunites ..More anglers more money for other priorites..in part 2... This does include stocking fish , looking at other species such as Tiger Trout ect..No reason for concern over stocking exotics anymore as they should all be triploids or as in the case of Tigers non reporducing. Make more quality lakes , place good regulations ,
promote angling and make Alberta a world destination for freshwater fishing..More money
to use for part 2.
2. Protect Native Species and Fish habitat.
We are not doing a very good job on part 1.
As for part 2 ..You tell me.. Are the ACA projects addressing this area ?
Don't agree that AB has significant issues around non native species and angling priority.
althought there may be a few specifics that could be addressed under the above categores that I have outlined.
-
Some good points by PGK on the license fees.
There should however already be enough money.
Some Biologists, and I will use Jim Stelfox for example ,are really in tune with there region and have made some good changes to enhance fishing opportunites within their region.
However as a Province government and the ACA have come up very short in increasing recreational fishing opportunites and the quality of angling in the Province. Can I again suggest a model like BC's
Freshwater fisheries Society. Secondly have we done enough to protect and enhance native fisheries ?
The money to do that is already there but is misdirected..I am being kind..
We need hatcheries and should not be closing them down.
-
I read this on a website
"
The Alberta Fisheries Branch has lost eight positions over the 2009/2010 fiscal year due to government cutbacks. All of these positions were abolished when they were vacated and will not be replaced. This attrition wipes out modest gains made under former Minister Mike Cardinal’s fisheries revitalization program which took almost a decade to orchestrate and implement. The impact of all this downsizing is speculative at this time but there are rumors that one of the provincial fish hatcheries may close because four of the eight positions abolished were in the Fish Culture Section. On another sad note, the Fisheries Round Table was axed in 2009 due to budget cuts by the Department of Sustainable Resources Development. It was not know at press time if this forum will be re-activated in 2010 but don’t hold your breath. Other cost-cutting news from Ken Crutchfield, Fisheries Branch Director is: “At the April 2009 Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table meeting it was announced that Sustainable Resource Development was preparing regulations for a two-year period starting in April 2010 "
So why does this happen if we the anglers are spnding thousand of dollars on licenses and much of that goes to the ACA ?
Should these positions not be a priority ?
Something needs to change ....
-
You can send something..non payment of a bill or overpayment to collections without having it effect his credit. They can't report to a bureau without a sin number.If they have a sin number they could report it and they probabley do if he worked for them.
-
Of course I dont have time to read through this whole thread, all I can say is -
I FREAKING LOVE THE PARKS. They are my favorite places in the world. I feel blessed every day that I live so close to them and get to visit them so often. I can't imagine ever complaining about them they truly are like heaven to me, not even just heaven on earth. If I could design a heaven for myself it would be something very very similar to all the places Ive been in the parks. My vote would be to keep the parks exactly how they are Ive never once gone to do what I do in the parks and ever had a negative thought about them.
Come to my side you overthoughtful intelligentsia, ignorance is sooooo blissful. I'm so very glad Im oblivious to the whole world's problems (including any the parks might have) when I'm sitting there in front of a huge mountain with a little lake in front and no one around me.... I cant express it enough.... It's Canada, the mountains, my home. Im the luckiest person alive.
Bang on !
But we need to proactive to maintain your heaven. So it is important to stay on top of issues
to prevent those with an alternative agenda from taking away the things that make the parks our heaven.
-
A few year ago I was driving north of Camrose about 10.30 in the morning in the middle of no where when I saw sonmething move in the ditch , took a double take as it was a big male "OSTRICH".. It ran along the road for a 100 feet ,stopped looked at me and did kind of a beep , beep and headed out into a field.
There were no farms around for at least 5 km.. and no I had not been drinking.
-
The term invasive species has a definition, I suggest looking it up. It's not open for interpretation, it has a single, defined meaning. It differs from introduced / alien species. Brook trout are both invasive and alien species (in the west). Whitetail deer by their very nature of reproduction and adaptibility to virtually any habitat are invasive, while in many areas are not alien. The same could apply to elk, or even cutthroat trout under the right circumstances.
Hatchery strain defeats the purpose of native strain. What good would it do to stock a bunch of (inbred, genetically inferior) catchables (which will increase fishing pressure when people find out) which will fail at recruitment anyway because the stinking brookies will eat their offspring (not to mention they are genetically inferior so they will be less ecologically successful because their parents were hatchery slugs).
Liberal harvest rates on BKTR will put them into compensatory reproduction, which means they will reproduce at age two, instead of age four, eg: they stunt.
Education is king, experience is queen, all the rest is angels dancing on the heads of pins.
There you go again ..You just don't get ..You communication skills and you reading skills obviously need some work.And that is an understatement..
First of all I am very familiar with what the hell an invasive species is.. READ WHAT I WROTE !
I am not going to star debating alien and invasive species with you and the history of them in Alberta.
A degree in Zoology , working at Fish and Wildlie and 35 year of running around this province fishing everywhere I pretty much know what is going on.
Did I say hatchery fish using inferior in breed strains ? Did I say that ? Did I ?
I would assume that because you are SOo smart that you would at least figure it out that you take fish from lake and use that gene pool and resupply the lake. But you are to busy attacking people then figure out on your own.
Compensatory reproduction..really ?
Now Brook trout in lakes can figure out their population numbers ?
I guess the Quirk Creek project is a waste of time because as the Brookies are removed the fish are
figuring that out and spawning at a younger age.. Oh but the surveys show Cuttie numbers are coming back and are up against the Brooke numbers since the removal project started..oh but wait
that is science and YOU would not understand that !
And finally you say Education is king, experience is queen, all the rest is angels dancing on the heads of pins. Does the P IN PGK stand for PIN ?
Oh sorry we just don't understand your point of view do we ? Maybe if you just has a little more education and experience !
-
I do not like the term invasive species being used. Man brought them there willingly.
But whatever that is my hangup.
If those are native cuts then then I agree they must look at ways at making sure that recruitment numbers of Cutties stay at a good level. I would suggest raising some of the Cuts in hatchery and stocking them when they are at a biggest size to avoid predation.
Maybe a campaign to increase angler awarness combine with a liberal harves for the Brookies would
help.
Interesting story.
-
Good to see these type of sessions. My hope would be that they are going to actually listen and not just talk and take the feedback they get for some analysis. The people who fish the area I am sure have some great ideas on how to improve angling in the region.The frustration for me is that when you look at what Brian Chan has done to improve fishing in British Columbia and you look at some of the fishing opportunites in Saskatchewan and Manitoba , I just can't understand why we can't look at doing some differant things to improve Trout fishing in this Province. This includes some regulation changes ,
mulitple species fish stocking , some other species of trout..Tigers for example.
Hopefully you have a good turnout and maybe Don we can send you some suggestions to take to the meeting ?
-
Another AWESONE video. They get better each time out. This 10 minutes beats most fishing shows !
Can you give me some information on your waterfloats. What are they and how much do they weight ?
Keep up the good work !
-
I have a Canon PowerShot D10 .. Works good..Nice underwater pics.. I will post a few shortly.
-
Ha, I was hoping someone would ask - Economic feasibility, it is as simple as that - same reason McDonalds failed in Jasper, and the Wendy's and Harvey's failed in Banff.
Of course if I just wanted to create a buzz on the internet, I would post that the residents of Jasper caught word of our "worst experience at McDonalds" thread, passed it around the community, and out of fear and loathing generated by that post, boycotted the restaurant, thus causing it to go out of business
Hmm story sounds logical, must be true, can't wait to post on other forums that FFC shut down McDonalds in Jasper - woohoo another "internet" truth is born !
Good to see your post .
. I am of course biased because I believe fishing belongs in the Rockies for various reasons and I get my peace and serenity with nature dipping a line 5 to 10 kilometers off a highway in one of the NP'S.. I am willing to pay for it as well.
By the way those who need Timmies always have Hinton and or Canmore.
-
NO!!!!!!!!!! :derby racer:
For the love of ***** **** ******* *** ******** no more non native stockings in parks or anywhere not completely contained!!!!!!!!!! No outlet lakes!!!!!
*twitch*
Really.. I don't think the Pirate said they had to be non natives..
What about planting Athabasca Rainbows or Bull Trout ?
Use the revenue from a special license for important parks projects like restablishing the Caribou !
-
My reply was based on his statement (logic) regarding historically appropriate activities, i.e. if a + b = c... That's all...
P
Yikes... Tradition of stewartship
For many people, angling is a way of slowing down and enjoying the peacefulness that protected areas provide us. For others, it's a way of learning about aquatic environments. Whatever your motivation, enjoy your time along the lakes and rivers of the mountain national parks and help us protect this important resource.
Mining was not an acceptable activity after the creation of the Parks..and was always to be phased out however wouldn't be surprised if someday..100 years or more from now it occurs again..nothing should surprise us..who knows what is in some those rocks.
-
Additionally, in light of what parks are supposed to be, should we allow those pressures (which created the problem in the first place) to continue to impact the integrity of parks, and further, why should we allow an (arguably) cruel blood sport to impact fish in places which are supposed to be inherently "wild" and "pristine."
Shouldn't we allow some places to act as (here it comes) refugia? Why should caribou, sheep, grizzlies and elk be given so much more ethical consideration?
When you say "in light of what parks are suppose to be" keep in mind that this is always changing, what it was 50 years ago , what is is today is differant and what it will be 50 years from now is likely going to be differant based on Canadian and global dynamics such as human need and ecological changes.
Again as far as fisheries are concerned , if there are flowing waters that Brookies , Browns or Yellowstone Cuts can be removed then fine, indentify the waters and have a harvest..but that leads to other issues...
Cleaning out the few lakes that have Yellowstone Cutties , Brookies or Splake or non native Rainbows
is not practical , ethical ..i.e using poisons ... or economical .. So maybe instead use such lakes for educational purposes ...such as what the impacts of bring in non native species,.
Again to answer your orginal question..Should there be angling in the National Parks.
The answer is crystal clear ..Yes..This was an activity of tradition that was clear established as
an acceptable activity when the parks were established.
-
The oldies from the early 80"s and 70's are a great read.
I had some great talks with George , he loved those polar bear hair jigs.
-
And that's your own, slanted, biased, right wing nutjob opinion
There is so much wrong with your post I can't even comprehend it.
Really... Yes all of us who like to fish in the National Parks are rightwing nutjobs.
You obviously don't like to deal with facts.
How about you just don't fish in the Parks in that your against it and problem solved ?
-
Like I said in PM, I'm not advocating anything. Obviously, closing the park to fishing is not going to make brook trout disappear. That's kind of a side-bar to the discussion I guess. Closing the parks to angling is a first step in creating a refugia for aquatic ecosystems to function properly. Imagine the potential positive impact to the sport fishery if some of the headwater streams were restored to their previous functioning system...higher recruitment up top leads to displacement below...increased fishery recruitment.
My point stands - Parks is mandated to maintain and protect ecological integrity while allowing use. Is the use of the fishery resource justified, or sustainable, in light that it is the only extractive activity allowed in parks, and that it has directly contributed to the destruction of aquatic integrity. I don't think so. Let the rabid anglers fish for whatever their minds can dream up somewhere else.
You just don't get it. Closing the parks to fishing is not necessary and the suggestion to so is not based on any scientific data but only on ones own personal motives.
First of all while Parks has lost a huge source revenue over the past 2 decades with it's it approach to fisheries management in the parks ,Parks Canada is in no position to kill off the current source of revenue from angling in the parks so it would certianly be a bad choice economically.
2. There has been no harvest on Bulls and Cuts in the parks for many years now and populations are probabley at there carrying capacity. The cold mountain waters are not that productive. Stopping fishing will not increase populations because there is no harvest legally.. No fishing allowed does not stop poaching but may in fact increase it.
3. When you say Parks is mandated to maintain and protect ecological integrity while allowing use. Is the use of the fishery resource justified, or sustainable, in light that it is the only extractive activity allowed in parks, and that it has directly contributed to the destruction of aquatic integrity
... No one says it has to be extractive.. Catch and release is just fine..
and this crap about destruction of aquatic intergrity... Have you checked out Lake Louise ?
Any idea what happens with the Bow River , what impact do you think all these hotels and golf courses are having on water use and flows ect.
4.This parks mandate was dreamed up by left leaning liberals in the late 80's I.e. Sheila Copps.
It does not represent most Canadians and is quite radical in many areas. Yes there are some good points to it but as you can now see the pendulum is swing back towards the center.
-
And by the way PGK..please read the following and add this to your knowledge base.. it makes good sense to to not remove special populations of Brook trout at some of our mountain lakes...
Restoring Laurentian aquatic ecosystems
Lakes in La Mauricie National Park of Canada are once again supporting unique Brook trout and Arctic char populations
A vast ecological restoration program is underway to restore the health of aquatic ecosystems in La Mauricie National Park of Canada. The program includes the extensive removal of former dumps and dams and the restoration of aquatic bird nesting sites, as well as forest rehabilitation, anti-poaching surveillance and environmental evaluation. As part of this larger effort, park biologists have begun to implement a plan to restore a sub-species of the Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the park's lakes. This sub-species is unique to the park.
La Mauricie National Park, in the heart of Quebec, is a landscape of rounded hills, deep valleys and extensive waterways characteristic of the lower Laurentian Mountains. The park has over 150 lakes, all interconnected by a network of brooks and small, cascading rivers that ultimately flow into the Matawin and Saint-Maurice rivers. These waterways support diverse fish species, including Brook trout, Speckled trout, Lake trout, Northern pike, Small-mouth bass, Yellow perch and Walleye. Français Lake supports the only Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) population in the region, which is the southern-most end of its range.
Park staff found that habitat destruction caused by earlier logging activities, poaching and non-native fish introductions by human beings has seriously threatened the existence of many species of indigenous fish. For 120 years, logging and log driving occurred on the majority of what are now park waters. These activities have left a legacy of old dams, logging roads, accumulations of logs on lake bottoms, eroded sediments, and dragged streams. The impact of these activities greatly compromised fish habitat.
In response, Parks Canada has removed a number of dams and stream blockages. At Lac Édouard, park staff replaced the old dam structures with three sills created from rock fill, giving the site a natural flow and appearance. Spawning areas were also created upstream from the dam and between the sills. The drop in the average water level to within natural fluctuation levels for this lake made it possible to enlarge the nearby beach and to recreate many shoreline areas at the northern end of the lake.
The other challenge to the park's aquatic ecosystem is invasive fish species. Today, there are roughly 19 new species of fish that have been voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by people. These species have become a threat to the Brook trout.
Park staff have built a vast inventory of scientific knowledge about the natural wealth of the park's aquatic ecosystems and have directed that knowledge toward efforts to reintroduce and stabilize Brook trout populations. This past year, biologists collected fertilized eggs from this sub-species for over-wintering in an aquaculture facility. This spring, these eggs will be re-introduced into the lakes that their ancestors once inhabited in great numbers.
Results
Improvements to the ecological integrity of 8% of surface waters (487 hectares) of La Mauricie National Park.
The 83% increase in the number of lakes with restored fish ecosystems illustrates the significant reduction in the negative impacts caused by logging debris and other human activities.
The Brook trout has been re-introduced in four lakes. Its genetic integrity has received enhanced protection.
The removal of six dams and blockages to eight lakes has restored habitat for the Brook trout and Arctic char.
Further to that..
La Mauricie National Park of Canada
The Speckled Trout Gets a Boost!
The mandate of La Mauricie National Park involves protecting the ecological integrity of a representative sample of Laurentian lakes and forests. In the past, human activity such as log driving, dam construction, and the introduction of new fish species all altered the integrity of many aquatic ecosystems. The most noticeable effects have been on the speckled trout (brook trout). Originally, the trout was the only species naturally present in a little over 120 lakes. Today, it lives in only 55 lakes, and almost always among introduced species. Loss of productivity among the brook trout is estimated at about 50% over a 50-year period. That’s why the From Log to Canoe project is rescuing some of the park’s indigenous fish communities. The brook trout, the species that best represents the park, will be reintroduced into some of the park’s lakes.
The Tessier Lake Nursery
Tessier Lake was the first lake used for reintroduction. In fall 2004, a team of biologists captured male and female spawners in Waber Lake. They removed milt (also known as soft roe) and eggs to make an artificial spawn. The eggs were then brought to a fish farm where they could develop under the watchful eye of biologists. On May 15, 2005, no less than 14 000 fry were carefully introduced into Tessier Lake. The experiment was repeated the following spring. Ever since, the nursery has been closely monitored by Michel Plante, a park biologist, and by distinguished researchers like Louis Bernatchez, from Université Laval, and Pierre Magnan, from Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières.
Artificial spawn
©Parks Canada - Marie-Claude Trudel
Old Fish, New Fish
A story by Michel Plante:
In May 2007, I travelled to Tessier Lake with Dr. Pierre Magnan. Upon arriving, our attention was immediately caught by some movement in the shallow water. Imagine our excitement when, upon closer inspection, we realized it was fry. Thus, only two years after stocking, the fish were not only surviving, but also reproducing ‑ and one year earlier than anticipated! Nature sometimes offers us some wonderful surprises. Encouraged by this discovery, we thoroughly examined the perimeter of the lake and observed thousands of young fish.
Speckled trout fry
©Parks Canada - Jacques Pleau
If the trout are reproducing, this means there must be spawning grounds. But where? Part of the answer came to me later during the fall. On a calm and starry yet slightly chilly night, François Auger (the restoration project technician) and I searched the lake, examining its surroundings with the help of an underwater lamp. Here and there we saw a few four- to six-inch juveniles, but no sign of a spawning ground. Suddenly, when we had all but given up hope, we saw movement in the light: trout in action in a large shallow spawning ground. At least fifty large spawners were busy cleaning the bottom or frolicking about. It’s likely thousands of small trout will colonize the shores of the lake next year. Upon returning from this expedition, we shared a huge sense of satisfaction. Now there is another magnificent population of trout in the park, and the reintroduction effort had worked. Tessier Lake, which hadn’t contained a single fish species for over 50 years, is coming back to life.
A Doctorate-worthy Population
For the moment, the trout seem to be adapting very well to the waters of Tessier Lake. Biologists Nathalie Brodeur, a doctoral student at Université Laval, Louis Bernatchez, a researcher at Université Laval, and Pierre Magnan, a researcher at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, are conducting scientific studies to better understand how the new population is adjusting to its habitat.
Many fish were taken from Tessier Lake for their research. Upon removal, each fish had 18 of its morphological characteristics measured and its stomach content analyzed. By ecologically monitoring the fish population of Tessier Lake, Nathalie Brodeur will be able to verify the hypothesis that a fish’s habitat and prey indeed affects the shape of its body.
Ecological monitoring of the speckled trout population
©Parks Canada - Véronique Nadeau
Genetic monitoring is also necessary to establish the number and ratio of each fish family in Tessier Lake. The young fish previously introduced have now become adults. They successfully spawned, leaving a large number of offspring. Nathalie Brodeur can now reconstruct families – that is, use the genetic fingerprints of each fish studied to identify its parents. She thus has a basis for measuring the reproductive success of the parents and estimating each family’s survival rate.
Speckled trout
©Parks Canada - Jacques Pleau
And so monitoring continues on at the 55th lake in La Mauricie National Park so as to provide a brook trout population with a home!
-
Brook trout are an invasive species. They procreate and proliferate like bad weeds. They are non-native and cause en masse environmental degradation where not kept in check. They are more agressive and more fecund than our native species. Inbreeding with bulls, outcompetition of Athabows, en masse takeoverof juvenile rearing habitat.
The coaster strain is a stocked strain from nipigon. Why should we have a refuge for them in the rockies? (Put down the rope Dave). Nobody really knows exactly what was stocked in 305 mountain parks lakes between the turn of the century and the early 80s. Rainbows, brookies, cutts, lakers, browns, bulls, splake, they tried it all. The excuse of maintaining a refugia for a non native strain of brook trout (which is doing quite well in its native habitat I understand) is a poor, poor rationale for inaction considering the status (or lack of knowledge thereof) of many native populations.
En masse acceptance of 'the regulations' is no longer good enough. Question the status quo if things aren't right.
Seriously..Brook Trout an invasive species...Who brought them here ?
I understand your deal with native fish , almost everyone is on the same page with protecting natives. No one has an issue with that but how far do we go ?
Do we remove all rainbows and browns from the Bow river because they are non native ?
Why not remove all the cuts from the ram river and every other native fish that is living in waters where they never where ? Hey those fish are invasive to the natural inverbrate population that lives there.
As far as Parks are concerned we need to draw a line in the stand and keep what we have now.
Any ideas of reducing fish populations or angling opportunites must be resisted.
-
So now that you have my attention...
Brook Trout are NOT an invasive species.. I could compare that on a human level but lets not go there.
Read what is going on in some of the other national parks and you will learn that our mountain parks
hold a precious strain of Coaster brookies that should be protected instead of erradicated as a supply source for those out east where this strain of brookies has been all but wiped out..
Parks because of the economy have BIG financial problems , so bean counters have been checking the history of activites including angling to see why revenues are down in some areas.
As has been stated on this thread fishing compared to what it was is very poor, less fisherman less money.And yes as a result other activities are being looked.
Fishing is not going to improve in the. The regulations are pretty much as restrictive as they can get
except for the consumption of some trout and that may end down the road as well.
PGK.. catch and release is a matter of choice , eating fish is amatetr of choice. As long as regulations are being followed anyone who preeches there own beliefs that conflict with others is bound to get
a push back.
Alberta Fisheries..where Are We Going ?
in General Chat - Fishing Related
Posted
Really who needs to give their head a shake. You don't think it's a good idea to rear native trout and plant them in closed to system waters ?
If we followed your ideas and thought processes there would be not angling at all..
Really why are you here ? You do not present any quality suggestions to improve freshwater angling
in fact all you really want to do is eliminate angling ..remove all exotics , stop stocking of all forms .
You clearily have an agenda and it's to stop all angling so again I ask why are you on this board ?