jpinkster

From the TU Bow River Chapter: "http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-storm-ponds-swimming-in-fish-that-should-not-be-there Many of these storm ponds drain into the Bow River and could provide big challenges for our fishery. City fines for releasing fish into a storm pond can be up to $3,000, and penalties under the Alberta Fisheries Act can climb up to $100,000. If you see anyone releasing fish into storm ponds in Calgary call 311 or Report a Poacher (1-800-642-3800) immediately."

I disagree entirely. I'm all for extensive public access for all user groups...as long as those user groups show a commitment to respecting the land and minimizing the impacts they leave behind. There are a long list of users that are contributing to the degradation of sensitive habitat throughout the east slopes. A whole pile of this damage is happening on public land. If the government wants to continue with their delusional "access when you want, how you want, where you want" approach, our native trout species will pay the price. Access restrictions are already happening in a number of areas, and it may need to happen more. What I'd like to see is a government inventory of the highest volume spawning areas for bull and cutthroat trout. We should be introducing access restrictions in these areas to protect spawning and rearing habitat.

It's unlikely that it would, actually. Typically only juvenile fish are impacted by WD. The fish we've all seen behaving erratically are probably dealing with something else.

Folks, Great opportunity to make a contribution to a wonderful fishery on October 22. More details here: http://bowriver.org/2016/10/05/legacy/

Keep in mind this entire plan is for within the Calgary city limits. Police will fall outside of that scope.

We don't actually have anything on the BRC site yet regarding redds, but I think it would be an interesting piece of work for us to consider. I was able to dig up this online fishing log that has some useful info on how to ID redds and what to keep in mind. Worth a look! http://onlinefishinglog.com/blog/23/Spawning-Trout-and-Redds

Latest post from the Bow River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada: "The finest gift you can give to any fishermen is to put a good fish back, and who knows if the fish that you caught isn't someone else's gift to you" - Lee Wulff This is a piece of work that our chapter is really proud of. The attached guide provides some key angling and fish handling techniques to reduce catch and release mortality. The Bow River is an amazing resource, and we can all do our part to keep it that way! Check out the brochure here: http://bowriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CR-Brochure_Final-2015-11-24-V.1-1.htm

He 100% does.

I'm Keating's Chief of Staff.

Can't ask for a lot more than having your passion and your work intersect. It's been a thrill to work on this project so far. Really excited to see where it goes next! http://www.shanekeating.ca/2016/09/16/river-access/

It isn't entirely dissimilar to what we see with dramatic flood events. There may initially be a significant kill event, but what hangs on are the strongest in a strain. As long as the survivors are able to spawn and pass along those good genes, we are in good shape. Where I think the big concern lays is with our threatened bulls and cutties. In many situations these fish populations can't handle a kill event of any significance.

The only thing people should be doing if they catch a fish that they suspect has WD is call AEP. If everyone starts coming out with "their solution" on what to do, we'll have a bigger disaster on our hands. It's kind of the same reason we made people do fish ID courses before taking part in the stewardship program. If we tell people to just kill fish they suspect have WD, we'll have a lot of otherwise healthy fish ending up dead.

I never had a sneaking suspicion that I assumed was a verifiable scientific fact.

It was definitely a trout with whirling disease? Did you see the results from a necropsy study that proved that? I'm leaving this one to the biologists instead of a bunch of fishermen that think they may have caught a fish a bunch of years ago that looked kind of funny. Dealing with whirling disease can't be about what we feel, it needs to be about what we know. Right now we don't know enough to make any definitive statements one way or the other.

We knew hey? Maybe take off the tin-foil hat for one thread. I won't argue that the province could have done a lot more to prevent this from happening, but suggesting we they kept us all deliberately in the dark for years is an absurd comment to make.

I should also point out that the southern boundary for Fish Creek is 194th Ave. Any launch there would have to pass through the park and would be subject to the same time restrictions as the 22X launch.

This from Trout Unlimited Canada: "Check out the growth of the willows at Mallard Point, in Fish Creek Provincial Park, Alberta. It is amazing how fast these tenacious plants can grow. These plants are working hard to stabilize the soils and reduce stream bank erosion along this important side channel, an important spawning habitat for Bow River Brown Trout. https://www.instagram.com/p/BJdUTBfhtR8/ " It is really amazing to see what a little bit of funding and a lot of hard work can do. The Bow River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada conducted a redd count at Mallard Point last year and we plan on getting back out to collect more data this spawning season. We are really looking forward to sharing our data with the public! From a personal experience, it has been a really good brown trout season on the Bow. More prime spawning habitat like Mallard Point should help this trend continue. Very exciting!

Take a look at the news, we need to accept the fact that we have a finite amount of public resources that will go towards these kinds of things. It sure would be nice if our government to be all things to all people, but that isn't going to happen. We need to prioritize where the right places for access are. If that means some people need to drive 20 minutes (God forbid) and we bridge a few glaring gaps in our network, I think that is a reasonable trade off.

This speaks to some of the bigger traffic impact studies that need to be considered from a City of Calgary standpoint. Opening up access on the Sikome side may be great for river users, but it opens up our road networks to a whole lot of cut thru traffic on roadways that are not designed for that kind of volume. This is why a thoughtful approach is absolutely necessary when we plan access. I'd much rather see money spent on a better launch on the north side of the river from Police than consider a new launch at 194th. Access stacked closely like that isn't an efficient use of space or funds. Most of us might love the idea of having a boat launch in our backyards, but that isn't likely to happen. It would be pretty cringe worthy if everyone who had to drive 20 minutes to get to a launch made the case they needed a launch closer and got their way.

Are you talking the Quarry Park launch? There are other issues with that one than just the Fire Department. Users would need to cross private land in order to access the launch. There are also no parking considerations in that area. I don't think we can half-ass access points, especially within the City limits.

You interpret the oversight as being a bad thing, I interpret it as being a good thing. We shouldn't be allowing people to put launches wherever they want. Improving access is a good thing, but it shouldn't have to be at the expense of sensitive habitat. Having a regulatory framework in place makes sure we approach this with balance. I'm not interested in putting a slab of concrete over top of an area that could be yielding redds. River access is a policy area that covers three orders of government and there is absolutely no way to get around that. The City has jurisdiction on the bank, the Province and the Feds are in charge of the waterway. That dynamic isn't changing anytime soon, so we will need to find a way to work within it. I'll also point out that I'd much rather see access addressed where there are significant gaps. I would find it hard to justify spending public funds on an access point that is within 3-5km of another access point. We'd be much better served by addressing some of the areas where there are massive distances between access. Inglewood and the NW city section of the river immediately come to mind.

I have a buddy that used to be a CO in Sask. There was a group of American hunters that used to come across the border every year and poach ducks. They would get caught every once in awhile, but wouldn't pay their fines and just head back home (not sure how that didn't get picked up at the border). My buddy decided the best way to deal with these guys was by seizing their dogs and taking them back to the station. His tactic proved effective as the Americans turned up the next day and paid all of their fines.

I asked this on the FW Facebook page yesterday: Jordan Pinkster Yesterday at 2:59pm Do fines scale for individuals who get caught poaching multiple times? I've heard a few unconfirmed stories about poachers who are not dissuaded at all by pay a few fines a year. At some point there should be a very serious penalty considered for repeat offenders. If we don't currently have scaling fines/penalties for repeat offenders, we really should.

It's more expensive and comprehensive than you would think. After the floods in 2013 most of the data on spawning habitat and sensitive areas became significantly outdated. There is currently a lot of work being done to update that data. Creating new access is a comprehensive process that requires involvement from the Feds, the Province and The City. There are a lot of other factors that also need to be considered for access points within The City. There would need to be ample availability of parking and a Traffic Impact Assessment of any new "development" would likely need to be conducted. The River Access Strategy that fishteck referenced is a fantastic starting point for river users in Calgary. The City has taken a real leadership position on this issue and hopefully that encourages similar movement from the Province.

4 trucks on the bar when I drove past today so I dialed it up to RAP. Officer called me back from site and was trying to get everyone off. He said there were a lot of folks really reluctant to move. The more this gets abused the faster it gets locked. Hopefully they get the hint at some point.