billie

Mac is definitely open. Jensen's is repaired Water clarity below the Highwood is about 12" on May 10. I see the Highwood has dropped so the water should get better.

WOW! That was incredibly mediocre Sounds like a dog-whistle to the "base" to me. But ironically , I can't hear anything

The Alberta Chapter is established. <email snip April 13> Thanks Ty! Hi billie, As Ty indicated, we just got confirmed as a chapter a few days ago. We've established our board a few weeks earlier, so you'll have to bear with us as we get our feet under us. We're just scheduling our next series of pint nights, so that would be the best time to meet the others in the Alberta association. Currently we are planning on pint nights in Lethbridge, Calgary, Edmonton, and tentatively Ft. McMurray, with a date yet to be determined. If you have immediate issues that you'd like to bring to the boards attention, then myself or Cody would be the folks to talk to, and we present them to the board pretty quickly. If you are on Facebook, then our page is at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AlbertaBackcountryHunters/ , but if you aren't on it, that's completely fine, email works just as well. Thanks, and talk to you soon. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Ty Stubblefield <Ty@backcountryhunters.org> wrote: Hey billie, Thanks for reaching out to us and for sharing your idea of a BHA forum. That is a major undertaking that would be hugely beneficial that I'll throw in our box of ideas for planning. Right now we don't have the resources to make that happen but I know some forum owners so I'll start picking their brain on process. The Alberta chapter is up and running and you can reach out to Neil Keown or Cody Spencer the chapter chairs. They'll be able to dial you in on things the chapter is working on. Thanks again, Neil Keown - nkeown@gmail.com Cody Spencer - cody@sweetgrassbison.ca Ty Stubblefield |Chapter Coordinator Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Phone: 541-643-5327 www.backcountryhunters.org <end snip> Another conversation suggests a balanced approach to OHV use, which I support. FYI billie

But that is really my point, WRT your comments and the others. Kicking OHV's out of the Castle is not really a solution, although it is a positive for that area, it only transfers the problem elsewhere. In truth, it is one-sided. We actually NEED a trail system for a successful future. Do anyone think you can eliminate quads from the province altogether? Even if you could, I wouldn't agree. I want sensitive areas protected but I don't feel I have the right to completely deny someone else's entertainment, whether its my cup-o-tea or not. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with playing in the mud, it just has to be the right mud. Contained areas, absent of fish bearing streams, dedicated to the sport would provide a place to play (like McLean, although I have never looked at the drainage considerations of the area) and a trail system where responsible operation is exercised and the users actually report the abuses, because they want to, or they lose it. Thus my suggestion that the OHV groups begin by proving proper stewardship, and with support, not complete condemnation. It works in other places and it is a cooperative approach to the problem that is much more likely to succeed. What would be wrong with a PROPER trail in the Castle? Seasonal may be appropriate in many places, no different than spawning restrictions or migration corridor limitations. We should be able to travel from Montana to NWT with stop offs along the way some day. The machines are not going to just go away. Complacency is acknowledged, but the government of the day is still the door to any solutions. The NDP has the drive right now but if a conservative/WR government gets in next, it all could be lost instantly, all surveys aside. But, if a viable trail system was initiated, even they may get behind it. The solution has to include everyone as much as possible so that compromising the progress is politically detrimental for every party. And why wouldn't the manufacturers get behind it? Granted they could use a few lessons in responsible advertising. GrnDrake has the most sentient comment above. The cost is actually a pretty big deal. Anyway, I'm not much of an activist, I'll just keep hiding in the woods as long as I can. And I will ask everyone I can to fill in the survey.

I have 2 18" bulls to dries. One absolutely rocketed up from the depths to a 1-1/2" bug, made me smile. The other was in pocket water. I think the battle for the Castle is over and the OHV community has lost. There will be the last gasps but I just don't see enough support from the public for their cause. I also think it is only the first area to go as the activities move elsewhere. It seems to me that they should look forward and pick another area and PROVE that their enforcement agenda will work. Suppose we take the porcupine hills (and I don't mean sacrifice it by any means) and the OHV community coordinate/cooperate with the government agencies and put effort into education/signage/bridges/trail maintenance/enforcement/etc, and model what they believe is a sustainable trail system. As I've stated before, I would appreciate a well maintained and sustainable, Alberta wide, trail system myself. Hell, maybe they could "earn" their way back into the Castle in the future.

Very few pics by me (see sig ). Too much hassle taking them out of the net. The whole external "slime" thing is a big factor for me also. Always drop the net in the water ahead of scooping and try to minimize lifting them at all. Slip the hook out and away they go. (If you want to know what he/she looked like, just ask )

Let's give them a hand. And a local chapter sounds good. Joined. I'm not against OHVs but there are just too many of them. In my recent experiences, the "bad apples" seem to outnumber the respectful. Last summer a side x side "buzzed" unnecessarily close to me on the road, then as a WT doe and 2 fawns stepped out 100 ahead, he gunned it and chased them into the woods. The 2 guys with him just smiled as they went by. I gave mine up years ago when the pressure was getting to destructive (it gets used for fencing still, and it would be nice to see a managed trail system). I would use it up north for a moose hunt if the overall pressure is not excessive. And when there are too many horses out and about they'll stay home too. Hopefully I'll outlive the restrictions. Keeping the spaces intact outweigh my need to recreate detrimentally. I 'm still a good walker. My nickel.

I have had 2 good tests of my experiment. Rain jackets are usually bulky or heavy, or very expensive, or all three. I picked out my lightest wind breaker and carried that for a while, but it soaked through in short order. One can of Scotchguard. I used the whole can, about 4 coats with a full drying time between. Very successful result. We went through a torrential downpour with hail included and it was very effective. A second drenching seems to show that the treatment has some longevity. It folds up to a very small package, light and effective. Cost was $15 bucks. Very apropos this year .

Fair enough Don. The fees comments are mostly emotionally driven. The regs show what licensing revenue goes to: 64% goes to the ACA. 31% goes to licensing agencies and fish monitoring programs, And only 5% goes to general revenue. the 31% calculates to $8.68/license so a bit less I suppose after reconciling the monitoring. Sorting through the myriad of moneys relative to the overall picture would be a chore in itself. Back to the premise of the OP, licensing for all would be a positive step, IMO, regardless of the fee structure.

And thus my signature Have a look at the monster I got today

Not sure about $5 a day but any senior under a certain income threshold should get their fees returned on their provincial income tax. Hunting tags too if they're low income. Those who can afford it should contribute, but granted in my utopian world, all license fees go into conservation efforts, not general revenue.

I couldn't find anything about kids fish limit being part of an adult's. Am I missing something? Very good points BowLurker. You know, maybe the odd fish by young and old probably isn't a big deal. But I guess it is a "death by a thousand cuts". Where I fish, I rarely see either . I suppose every little bit helps, on both sides of the ledger. A few less kept is a few more released. The old guys can be stubborn (I gotta be careful here, ha!) but attrition is not on their side. The young are the ones that should be inducted properly.

I've never looked for that rule but where does it say the kid's limit is part of the adult? I'll take anther look. It hasn't been something I need to know I guess. Actually doesn't sound right. That would mean a 15 year old cannot fish alone?

Note that I asked if they should "get" not "buy". I have no issue whatsoever with the fee structure. I caught a cutty on a C&R stream and released it. I then crossed the river and ran into a young lad of 6-8 years old and his family on the other side of the pool. He asked if I kept the fish and I said "No, the fish in this river must be released to live another day, you are not allowed to keep them". He looked quite puzzled. I went and spoke to his parents and courteously discussed the regulations. They stated to me that "He didn't need a license and the rules don't apply to him". I corrected their assumptions. So even with all the signage in the area, they did not understand that the rules are applicable to the child. Is it not reasonable to have these excepted groups still procure a license. It should coincide with a checkbox disclaimer that they acknowledge their adherence to the regulations. For the seniors, they can also acknowledge the recent changes. This seems like a positive step in creating sustainable habits in new fisherpersons at the outset. To be honest, a first time fisherperson should have an on-line education program to access and learn from (maybe not for pre-school), and shared with the parent also. No, I won't be calling in a 6 year old anytime soon. My 2 bits.

Made a trip through Livingstone and the upper Oldman yesterday (Friday) and although there were many campers, I didn't see any that appeared unattended. I suppose they could still be over the 14 day limit. Hopefully the recent efforts are working. Seemed like more trailer traffic going out on the way home, but that would be expected if people have to pull out regularily. A triple axle over Livingstone pass was a surprise! There's a 4-5km stretch that will rattle your fillings out, let alone an RV. Maybe for another thread but fishing was pretty good with rain showers all day.

Chrome.......resistance is futile! Tks. I'll have to make a change I guess.

What am I doing wrong? I click the "QUOTE" bar. It goes to the "reply" window. No quoted text? I have to agree with scel, I'm not sure how I reached adulthood either

Me too, that's where the bigger ones are. Classic BC!!

On the river and/or in person, wide open in discussions. On the internet, not so much , Lornce's comments notwithstanding. When I first took to the web for information, I found quite quickly that the information I sought detracted from my pursuit. (This is a personal comment, not advice.) My enjoyment is derived by the journey, not the destination. I'm completely self taught and wouldn't have it any other way. I understand why people want specifics. It takes a lot of time and energy to get to a fishing spot, let alone search for one. And when you find one, it is easy to feel protective of it. But many people do not have the time, and only get weekends where competition is higher. I guess "catching" is paramount to enjoyment for some. Not to be misunderstood, I love to "catch" fish, but if I don't, it is not a lost day for me. Generic information about techniques have a place on the net, specifics, no. JMHO.

Norwesco will have what you need in stock (white) unless you want a color. That would be a special order www.norwesco.ab.ca 4x8 sheet is about $35 per 1/4" of thickness. (1/4"-$35, 1/2"-$70) They are on 6th St SE, just west of Costco south, up on the hill. 1st bldg. on the right, close to the end when travelling north.

If your symptoms are hands and fingers tingling and going to sleep (the usual CT list), my chiropractor fixed mine. It was all in my back, not CT. Just one more option to consider.

Sorry about that. APOS is a sad situation. I do wonder what the penalty will be in BC. AB tends to be weak but maybe getting better of late.

Excuse my sardonic wit.

It's a good thing we have APOS in AB so that can't happen here . Stiff penalty, wonder where it will land.

Maybe a bit excessive, but emotionally accurate . The down side is the 6 months, that penalizes the innocent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a discussion should help build, and not just tear down. Maybe this is just a "ridiculous" idea. I believe there is value in a user pay system (the focus of this suggestion is not intended to be monetary, but I recognize that "time" IS money). For example, (although maybe not a very good one), I don't want my taxes going to pet urban initiatives, and I don't expect urban people to pay for back country improvements if they don't use them. I see it like the mandatory head submission for CWD. I don't hunt those areas but I expect that if you do not submit (as being mandatory) you would be fined. Also, I expect this has a high compliance rate since it is good for the resource. Giving back is GOOD for the resource. So many things could be accomplished concurrent with your activities in the back country. They could be a great reason for people and families to get out of the house, rather than restrict their use of the outdoors. A researcher could have a team of participants counting redds with him. A logging operation could be monitored (by quad if you like) for compliance and a formal official could investigate suspect infractions observed by the public. A maintained trail system that the users proudly protect and enforce their use. Excessive random camping could be monitored more effectively. More eyes and ears working toward enforcement, which is commonly cited as anemic Monetary donations would be channeled directly to the resource. The "Stewardship" brook trout harvest is a good example of what can be accomplished. Thousands of possibilities. Everyone can help. I was collecting and submitting water samples to the government when I was 9 years old (with Mom's helping to mail the samples, but it was my job). The educational opportunities are immense, for all ages. The single Mom could send her kids to help (age appropriate) even if she had to work. There might even be transportation provided. Hopefully the involvement and "ownership" would be contagious, resulting in a much more positive attitude to the resource. There could be pride and bragging-rights about the personal contributions. A high credit score would be something to be proud of. Extra credits could be donated to charities or similar groups. I think the key is a notification system for the "job" postings. And a "free" labour pool to the people that need it, to maintain our natural gifts. A self supporting industry for the good of the land. But, as where I started, likely just a pipe dream. Tks for indulging my thoughts.