albertatrout

Should be in the works already, as it takes them forever to review/ release these things when done. I know of some very positive news coming out on the bully front so hopefully we are starting to see more widespread improvement. These plans are supposed to be updated every 5 years until the species is recoverad, doesn't usually work out that way though.

More people in Alberta, especially those from other parts of Canada/ other countries where poaching does not have much of a negative connotation to it coupled with the existing poachers, and lack of new enforcement has been bad news brewing for years. An uptick in RAP calls does not achieve much when there's nobody around to go investigate. My last rap call was taken by an answering machine and they called for follow up weeks later, not much good. Need bigger fines and more feet on the ground. Also, fish need to be taken serious in all regions. There are areas where the officers are so busy checking grizzly traps and hunters they don't really know the stream closures/ rules. First hand experience there when reporting poachers on permanently closed streams. As for uptick in the grizzly poaching in particular, there's a reason the government is not releasing the promised data/ plans scheduled to be made public last fall. More people and more bears aren't always going to work out in all areas. We are often recreating in bear saturated habitat, poaching will continue to spike as long as bear aware education is still uncommon and people are too scared to report even legit self defense kills to the crown. Lot's of bone heads out there with no respect for wildlife shooting just for the heck of it as well but I think that species issues have a bit more to it than just a few more poachers.

Now don't get me wrong, I love grayling and would like to see them recover in that area but this is not going to help at all! The area managers in that region love closing everything down instead of thinking about it first. Even though grayling are extirpated from almost the entire drainage aside from a few certain stretches they are still closing it down. Unless they are actually starting to re-introduce this species in the majority of those tribs this change will have absolutely no impact aside from preventing guys from going fishing for whitefish and brookies. I used to fish many of the creeks which are now closed, I have never caught a grayling and will definitely miss the chance to go catch 50-60 nice size fish a day. The government has had chances to help the grayling in that area over the past few years and have made no effort. And no public consultations whatsoever, fisherman in other areas should be concerned drastic changes like this can be made in such an underhanded way.

I don't quad, and a full out ban would greatly benefit me in terms of recreation and employment. However, I do think they need somewhere to go, and I would be happy if they are kept out of the water and kept away from sensitive areas such as class A and B habitat units. When I see what they have done in certain reaches my attitude shifts to outright ban, when I think critically about it/ cool off I realize certain properly constructed trails can probably be operated without causing more damage/ any further sedimentation. I really like Wildland Park's and enjoy them regularly, not sure how AEP is going to allow OHV's and maintain that status so still waiting on the actual plan just like everyone else.

Unless you fence off the protected area (which would be ecologically disastrous) this does not work out so well. Friend's of mine farm along the elk migration route out of the Castle, as is there is probably $5000 worth of fence damage per year. If you double the herd, is that fair to the people who have been farming there for a long time? Apparently there were far less elk moving out onto the flats even 15-20 years ago, and it's hard to deny (unless you're AEP who are playing politics by delaying the grizzly report) the predator population is doing very very well in the region and seem to have a hankering for Alberta beef. If hunting is stopped, pretty hard to justify any form of angling or road access whatsoever. Elk, sheep, and deer are not endangered/ threatened, cutties and bullies are, I recommend people think this through before they get what they ask for.

I'd say the shooting big bull part may be bogus but hunters and their conservation dollars have protected a pile of key habitats and contribute to range management by targeting surplus animals/ pressuring elk off of certain areas they are not wanted/ tolerated. Just like fish, it's mostly about the habitat and a very small segment of the population has done the majority of the "lifting" in this respect over the past 100 years. The reason I feel the bull part is bogus is there has been discussion about changing the management of elk to protect more mature bulls with the justification being that may promote a more natural herd dynamic. I have discussed this with researchers from state side a few times and my personal feeling is Alberta probably could adapt a bit in terms of overall herd management but, not to distract from the original discussion. Also, protecting many of the mentioned habitats has had some positive impacts on fish and fish habitat. I know of one excellent spring creek which has some amazing trout and the dollars which payed to protect/ enhance it came mostly from levies of hunting and fishing licenses. Be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you. I am less positive than the OP regarding the work our honorable minister will accomplish, I sure as hope you're right but then again, from what I've seen so far In terms of fake consultation/ ignoring the science I wouldn't be getting my hopes up.

Better hope hunting is allowed to continue, that's the group that actually gives back to wildlife management financially in this province. The province has promised no changes to this low impact land use thus far during consultations and in planning documents. If hunting is not permitted, I sure as hope fly fishing isn't as well. I mean, why should one means of low impact harvest based recreation (fishing was traditionally a harvesting method) be allowed to continue while another is removed? Heck, how about nobody leaves their houses anymore, that would probably benefit the resource right???

Just trying to give you more to think about. If my tone seems harsh I apologize, just the nature of key board discussions. I highly recommend reading up on some of the historical information/ what has been attempted in other jurisdictions. Part of the follies of social media campaigns is they produce very cool videos/ ideas but often without much thought/ research behind them. The public (not saying you, just speaking in general terms) often take it hook line and sinker and the politicians follow the masses meaning we do not always get optimal outcomes.

Your videos over simplify the issue immensely. Willows/ a few riparian plantings can have localized impacts in terms of preventing sedimentation/ improving fish cover values but will have no impact on a watershed level. Also, what was the natural forest extent prior to human development and fire suppression? We may actually be living in a time period where the land has more natural flood mitigation traits than it did 200-300 years ago. If a massive fire rips through the headwaters, then what? Remember we have only been here a little over 100 years, I know of relatively un-impacted drainage's that are considered to have had 1 in 50 year floods 3 times in the past 6 years. How confident are we these events will not occur again soon, or may occur more frequently from time to time over the long term record? We really don't know. The overall forest age/ structure would have far more impact on lower drainage flood potential than any of the factors we can address with simple changes/ adding a wetland or two. We are due for a big fire, there's a lot of fuel up there, the trigger could become much more sensitive. You can justify the sort of projects you mention as fish and wildlife habitat enhancements, but I really don't feel you can call it flood mitigation with any appreciable level of confidence. Also, adding more wetlands/ fens can increase water temperatures which, often favors invasive species such as Brook Trout. Brookies love backwaters and can take over beaver dominated systems rapidly. I have seen groups calling for releasing beavers all over the place lately, as a flood mitigation measure. Even this could have negative impacts on the remaining cutts and bullies, especially considering in terms of flood mitigation it would have negligible impact further down in the system where the infrastructure is. We need to be careful we don't do more harm than good, even changes with the best of intentions can have very negative long term consequences. Not meaning to be a downer, just saying its worth your time taking a more in depth look at this issue than many of our decision makers even get around too. I have seen man made habitat projects turn creeks from native fish to brookie habitat in the past decade, it does happen.

http://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=4022531D0F703-D20D-AA10-37D84C478D5006F3 "Open house events to focus on backcountry trail flood repairsOutdoor enthusiasts are encouraged to attend upcoming information sessions on backcountry trail restoration. The Alberta government will host information sessions in three communities to share progress on repairs to backcountry trails damaged in the 2013 floods and set rehabilitation priorities for the 2016 season. Nearly 350 kilometres of backcountry trails have been restored through the Backcountry Trail Flood Rehabilitation Program since the program was launched in 2014. These results have largely been driven by the efforts of volunteers, with more than 2,400 person hours volunteered in 2015 alone. Event details:Wednesday, February 24 Cochrane Ranche House 101 Ranche House Road Cochrane 7 – 9 p.m. Thursday, February 25 Elks Hall 2025 – 129 street Blairmore 7 – 9 p.m Tuesday, March 1 Canalta Hotel 4406 – 41 Avenue Rocky Mountain House 7 – 9 p.m Staff from the government’s Backcountry Trails Flood Rehabilitation Program will present information on completed and upcoming projects. There will be time for questions and review of project maps for the 2016 field season."

Yup, agree fully. I think the suitable sites are very limited due to those factors. I agree it is not simple.

Not everywhere but there are streams that historically supported cutts that could, theoretically, be renovated (especially in headwater areas). This along with habitat enhancements, has been successfully completed in some other parts of Alberta with other native salmonid species. It's not cheap or going to work everywhere, but there are some options aside from ignoring the issue altogether. I know there are future projects sitting there waiting to move forward, only time will tell if anyone decides to act or just let nature take it's course (this is where the government will/cooperation bit is key).

It has the potential to work but there are huge issues. 1. First is cost (it's huge to do it properly), 2. Fish id skills vary even among trained biologist, for many hybrids a dna test will be the only way to tell for sure. 3. Without barriers, compromised fish will return quickly (this has been seen in many areas across western NA where invasive species threaten bullies, cutts, or even warm water species). 4. There is no guarantee of success as environmental factors, climate, and even wildlife (like beavers) can undo years of work/ change the habitat to benefit the invasive species. 5. You need very broad public and government support, not as easy to get as one would think. 6. the list goes on and on and on... Establishing genetic refuge above falls (natural or in my opinion, maybe even artificial) is one of the only ways to maintain 100% pure fish in many areas. Cutties and rainbows in particular are so similar in many ways, the overlap keeps developing and it's not boding well for the few remaining cutt's. It's even worse in athabow country, where you're talking rainbows and slightly different rainbows. I don't mean to be negative, but there's only so many fisheries dollars to go around and even one such project can add up very very quickly. I do see water quality and atv access as the main threats in a few systems, but in the grande scheme of things we have some other issues that will be far more difficult to address. Genetic introgression is a very tough issue and I think the significance of it is understated due to the fact there's not much we can do to stop it in most creeks without increasing fragmentation for other species.

I think focusing on the habitat/ water quality alone for cutts and athabasca bows will not prevent further losses from occurring. If you look through the buckets of data it would appear as though genetic introgression is the fastest moving threat. The only way to manage that one is through installation of a barrier or finding a way to slow the advancement of hatchery rainbow genetics. It has been attempted in certain areas and is problematic for other species like bullies. Pretty tough spot we are in even if industry and ATV use were to be stopped tomorrow.

Where did you see it stated whitefish are threatened?

Coming from someone who has a very negative view of the ATV'ers as of late, it would be nice to hear of some in that community call for closures in a few very sensitive areas in order to show there is some level of respect. I'm thinking areas like along Racehorse Creek in the south of better yet the Mackenzie Creek valley in central Alberta (it is a disgusting mess of unsustainable trails in there). If the ATV community wants to be part of the solution, they should bring forward some sensitive areas to close down on their own. I don't see it happening, I expect to see a lot of total closures coming in the near future as the damage is present, it is extreme, and the ATV community still actively promotes use of these badly damaged areas. I respect where you are coming from BurningChrome, but after reading through the mud and snow forum and looking at the recent youtube videos from the Alberta atv groups Id say we are a long ways off from having support for treading lightly and using any level of respect.

There are some great pike fisheries that are not well known, that is key. There is something to be said for low pressure fisheries. I have looked at the Twin Valley situation a lot. The water quality issues would be a huge undertaking to correct but in my opinion not enough effort has been expended so far. Cows and Fish has had some involvement up there, but it's a big system and nothing will be achieved unless Frank Lake's water quality could be improved as well (if anyone else has been to the Littlebow downstream of that point they would know what I mean). If there was will in the form of full government support (and money) riparian easements, wetland monitoring, and fencing could achieve a lot of good. I know of some big fish taken by fly in the Littlebow system, the potential is there. Lake whites/ other forage could help upstream of Twin as well but it would be nice to see efforts on the habitat front first.

Came across this today, is this what happens when regulation changes are the only tool being used? Pigeon was a 1 pike over 100 cm lake, now going catch and release as there has not been an improvement. Rhetorical question, should we not be looking at water quality and habitat as well when a species is struggling? http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fisheries-management/prairies-area-fisheries-management/documents/PigeonLakeFisheriesRegulationChange-Jan-2016.pdf

Very interesting. Thanks for the read.

Yes, hence why I think there is a ton of opportunity for enhancement options. An area does not need to be flooded for very long before you have little pike running around. I have seen wheat fields full of little pike following short term flooding, thick stubble basically replicates optimal spawning habitat. I think small wetlands with simple fish ladders could be used on many of the lake's having a tough time. Canals often have enough spring runoff (at least every couple years) that efforts could be made to improve recruitment. Pike really don't need much. As for the 1 under 60 cm idea, I believe the official government response has been too many would be retained meaning no bigger size classes. I don't fully agree, but as it hasn't been tested in Alberta we also can't say it's not a correct assumption. There are much more intensively pressured lakes south of the border that support heavy harvest, I personally think it would be a great idea to at least try in some systems. At this point I think limits overall are too generous, who really needs to keep 3 big pike, 10 burbot, or even 5 stocked trout a day? And at what cost to the resource managers? The government needs to look at management costs as well as cost/ recreational hour (where quality fisheries would shine). If you keep a limit of rainbows from a stocked pond more than once a year your fishing license will not cover the cost of those fish (stocking cost alone, management costs aside). There's issue's across the board and I think you're hitting the nail right on the head asking why other options are rarely tried.

I think part of it is you don't need those spawner's over 100 cm if there are a pile of pike a bit smaller than that around. Therefore, some harvest is allowed to appease the catch and keep fisherman. Also, it's very simple for the managers and doesn't take a lot of thinking/research/effort to know it will prevent overharvest of the general population. I don't have the data in front of me, but pound for pound pike lay a ton of eggs, exponentially more than trout/ salmon. Pike age class success seems to have more to do with optimal conditions (lots of flooded grass, good flows, good temps) rather than how many fish spawn each year. Think, if you have high success due to perfect conditions and a 10 lb fish lays 200,000+ eggs that's a lot of recruitment. Ever notice how many young pike are around following big floods? Or right after a new reservoir is flooded? That's how their ecology works. Part of the reason reg change discussions worry me is there are very obvious habitat issues that could be dealt with. Changes in reservoir levels late in the fall followed by no increases until late spring is very bad for pike, they need flooded veg or good aquatic veg for high success, and they generally spawn before the mountain runoff comes off the slopes. As these fisheries are considered bonus and irrigation is #1, there are limited solutions. I think there could be success with creation of pike spawning areas adjacent to some reservoirs (utilizing small inlets) which may help a lot more than one time fishing regulation changes. It has been done before with good success in other areas. Just another perspective. I do find the pike fishing to still be very good in most lake's I fish but will admit we don't see 30lbers like we used to. A few catch and release pike lakes would be great but it will be tough to get support from locals across much of the south unless harvest opportunities are provided elsewhere.

You already have one out by Blackie, limit 1 pike over 100 cm. Unofficially, there will be many more very soon as catch and release regulations are apparently on the way. Many of the southern reservoirs are scheduled to go catch and release this year due to collapse. I think angling pressure is key, but there has also been big changes in water quality, habitat, and water management which have token tolls. Hopefully reg changes aren't the only "improvements" coming. For regulation input, I would recommend contacting the area manager for where you fish, state why you would like to see a trophy fishery, and see what they have to say. A TU club had some sway in having the Police Outpost regulations changed, but that club no longer considers itself a "fishing club" so a new angle may be needed in terms of finding some support to get behind the idea. I'm not sure if there's a fly-fishing club you could get on board with (if there is down south I'd love to hear about it, would be great to be involved with) but changes generally occur when numbers/supporters are behind them. Historically, big fish and wildlife reg changes have been brought forward by AFGA or TU clubs so that mode seems to work well. Also, try some lesser known/ less-pressured lakes. I have found the pike fishing to be way better than when I was a kid and the limit was 10. There are lots of lakes with next to no fishing pressure in Alberta, believe it or not. Online resources have really concentrated pressure and lakes that aren't mentioned are often still very very good. Good luck to you!

I have found a few pairs at Costco (Bolle) that fit great/ don't fall off easy. With prescription lenses worked out to $250-300/ pair. I have had 4 pairs made now (need them daily working/ recreating in the summer) and would recommend trying them. They hold up to my abuse pretty good. My favorite style was discontinued and that pair is sitting somewhere on a very remote ridge next to some sheep bones but the newer ones have been good too. I'm due for new ones this year but feeling cheap so have been putting it off. Best money I've ever spent in the past, that's for sure.

Well, up until now no effort has been made to clean up that mess. If you are part of the legal investigations then wouldn't your role with TU attacking the project be a conflict of interest/ inappropriate as well? Seems like a confusing way to get around discussing the fact no one was liable for that mess until very recently. Taco asks a legitimate question in this case. I don't see the project happening but it would be great to see that eyesore vegetated/ remediated in some way so maybe new development would be the best route.

It's worth reading up on what kind of fish mitigation has been required on other Alberta mines, especially over the past 5 years. Technology has come a long way, and enforcement has been tougher than most realize. A few high profile screw ups have changed that industry greatly. There has been some wicked fish habitat compensation projects completed, not just put and take holes in the ground anymore. The cost of business is way up, another reason this project seems odd economically. Maybe looking for a government buy out of leases as has occurred west of here? I think its a tad suspicious. That's another discussion though, I have read this EIA and a few things stand out as big expense to deal with issues. Pretty thorough for those that take the time to have a look. Time will tell what's going on here.