jpinkster

And I guess therein is some of the issues with lobbying efforts by/for anglers on a number of these issues. Lobbying is about volume, and there doesn't seem to be a consolidated voice.

The Calgary River User Alliance (CRUA) has been identified by The City as the umbrella organization to cover many of the user groups impacted by river access. I can't see a situation where these conversations occur without their input from a public perspective.

Check out this article from CBC this morning: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sibbald-lake-dead-trout-kananaskis-1.3621478 This really needs to be a wake up call for all of us. Water temperatures are already higher than normal for this time of year. If you're going out in the heat keep those fish wet and play em quickly.

Yikes, even I can't read that! Here is the text version: Re: Calgary River Access Strategy Councillor Keating and Councillor Carra WHEREAS Imagine Calgary identified that the rivers are integral to Calgarians’ sense of community; AND WHEREAS a multitude of user groups enjoy recreation activities on Calgary’s rivers; AND WHEREAS recreational activities on the Bow and Elbow Rivers provide economic opportunities for Calgary’s tourism industry;AND WHEREAS the 2013 floods have resulted in a loss of trailer access points, specifically on the Bow River; AND WHEREAS the 2013 floods have contributed to a shift in river bottom channels and sensitive fish habitat; AND WHEREAS future opening of Harvie Passage will encourage more recreational river users; AND WHEREAS this is a multi-City department topic, additionally including both Provincial and Federal jurisdictions; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that administration prepare a policy report and implementation plan to address a Calgary river access strategy that include: · High level policy statements · The identification of stakeholders · Further public access points · Terms of public access · Continued public safety consideration · Delivery models · Capital and operational costs required · Potential bylaw amendments required AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that Administration (Water Resources, Calgary Fire Department, Calgary Recreation, Calgary Parks and Calgary Community Standards) engage with commercial river users for discussions on river access issues in the short term; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that this report be presented to the SPC on Community & Protective Services no later than Q1 of 2017.

A Notice of Motion will be coming before Council next week that asks for Council to direct The City to formally explore a comprehensive access plan for Calgary's rivers. If passed, this will be a much needed step forward for river users.

I don't think turning a blind idea to this is the right approach. Suggesting that this isn't making a big enough impact for us to care sets a very troubling precedent. If we just give up and let access privilege trump the well being of habitat (as minor as the damage may be) we all lose. There is a tremendous amount of work that all three orders of government need to do to better regulate more responsible public land use. We are decades behind where we should be on this. I get everyone is concerned about losing access at these spots, but that is kind of a selfish approach to take. Collectively we need to work together to raise the bar on public land use instead of just suggesting "that's the way it is always going to be". Access shouldn't be a right, it should be a responsibility.

I posted this on the thread about Graves, but I'll leave it here too. This is something the river access community needs to be really aware of: Since the floods of 2013 the Graves launch is not an approved launch. The original permissions applied to the pre-flood conditions where boats were able to launch directly off the cement pad into the river on the west side of the channel. Needless to say, the flood has changed everything. With today's conditions the only places in and around Graves that would be appropriate for a permanent launch would be at the south side of the parking lot into that back eddy or on the east side of the river. Everything else requires users to cross far too much of the river bed in order to get to the water. Water Resources with The City had comprehensive data about the river bed channel and sensitive fish habitat along the Bow. Since the flood this information is no longer up to date and they are working towards an update. Until that information is obtained, it will be very difficult for additional access to be considered. Building a new launch (or even updating an existing launch) requires approvals from the province as well as the federal government. That process alone can take between 4-8 months. From an official stand point anyone who has launched a boat at Graves since the floods has done so illegally. Enforcement against trailer access isn't happening right now, and I suspect that is somewhat intentional. We need to be aware of the power of an example. If Graves had remained quiet and vehicles hadn't made their way out onto the gravel bar on a routine basis, I doubt we'd be in the position we are in today. Unfortunately a lot more attention has been brought to this site, and instead of addressing the root of the problem, I suspect the approach will be to permanently shut that access down. That may be punishing the wrong stakeholder group, but wholesale shut downs seems to be the preferred government response to these types of issues (think about mass scale OHV trail closures). This should send a very strong message to river users that currently access at Police or McKinnon. Post flood those launches have many of the same issues that are currently being faced at Graves. If users keep a low profile and don't draw unnecessary attention to themselves, I suspect these access points will remain open. If users choose to do things like drive through sensitive habitat, cut the chained gate when McKinnon is closed and any number of other offense...we run the risk of losing these access points as well.

This put a huge smile on my face. There is no greater asset to our fisheries than showing the next generation to have a healthy and respectful relationship with habitat and with fish!

Last I spoke to Jim he was really concerned the program would be canned and not replaced with anything. I'm sure he isn't very pleased.

I'll ask a new question about this: I know there is a lot of sensitivity about stocking native trout into fluvial habitat...but what about fish relocation? If native trout aren't naturally coming back to these areas vacated by brook trout, could they be transported from a connected fishery?

Don't let the OHV guys hear you making that suggestion.

I'm a little disappointed to see G of A walk away from this program. It was TU and smaller angler groups doing most of the work on this from my understanding, G of A just gave approvals to allow for harvesting.

First off...I have a lot of respect for John Barlow. He has been a strong ally for the conservation community in southern Alberta, and he certainly knows his way around many of this issues. With that being said, I can't support his opposition of the Springbank flood-control reservoir if he is advocating for the McLean Creek dry dam as an alternative. Springbank is bad, but McLean is worse. The impact on critical habitat for bulls, cuttys (McLean Creek is one of the last streams in the entire area that has 95% pure cuttys) and grizzly bears would be significant. If we have to choose one or the other, I pick the Springbank project. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/tory-mp-wants-federal-scrutiny-of-planned-springbank-flood-control-reservoir

I'll jump in and add in a bit more clarity: Since the floods of 2013 the Graves launch is not an approved launch. The original permissions applied to the pre-flood conditions where boats were able to launch directly off the cement pad into the river on the west side of the channel. Needless to say, the flood has changed everything. With today's conditions the only places in and around Graves that would be appropriate for a permanent launch would be at the south side of the parking lot into that back eddy or on the east side of the river. Everything else requires users to cross far too much of the river bed in order to get to the water. Water Resources with The City had comprehensive data about the river bed channel and sensitive fish habitat along the Bow. Since the flood this information is no longer up to date and they are working towards an update. Until that information is obtained, it will be very difficult for additional access to be considered. Building a new launch (or even updating an existing launch) requires approvals from the province as well as the federal government. That process alone can take between 4-8 months. From an official stand point anyone who has launched a boat at Graves since the floods has done so illegally. Enforcement against trailer access isn't happening right now, and I suspect that is somewhat intentional. We need to be aware of the power of an example. If Graves had remained quiet and vehicles hadn't made their way out onto the gravel bar on a routine basis, I doubt we'd be in the position we are in today. Unfortunately a lot more attention has been brought to this site, and instead of addressing the root of the problem, I suspect the approach will be to permanently shut that access down. That may be punishing the wrong stakeholder group, but wholesale shut downs seems to be the preferred government response to these types of issues (think about mass scale OHV trail closures). This should send a very strong message to river users that currently access at Police or McKinnon. Post flood those launches have many of the same issues that are currently being faced at Graves. If users keep a low profile and don't draw unnecessary attention to themselves, I suspect these access points will remain open. If users choose to do things like drive through sensitive habitat, cut the chained gate when McKinnon is closed and any number of other offense...we run the risk of losing these access points as well.

Saw a truck parked on the downstream side of the gravel bar today when I was driving by. He was parked in a spot where he certainly would have had to drive through the water to get to. I called it in to RAP, and got a return call from the office within about 10 minutes. He was down on site and figuring out how to proceed. He mentioned that fisheries biologists had determined that the gravel has been compacted to a point where fish couldn't possibly spawn. As such, there really isn't much they can charge somebody with unless they are parked directly in the water. He mentioned he was taking some photos to send to his superiors to see if there was someway they could proceed. What we really need is prescribed fines on public land-use infractions. Right now enforcement can only issue a court summons and the judge needs to make the call. We need the government to determine an appropriate fine schedule for these infractions so that officers can write tickets on the spot. A land-use violation could be just like a speeding ticket and the officers could pass down enforcement on the spot.

So don't go full Fildebrandt?

I know the guy who operates the Crowsnest Journal page pretty well. His love for our headwaters is undeniable, and I applaud all of the hard work that he is doing. While we don't necessarily agree on everything (which is incredibly healthy btw), I believe the work that he is doing is very necessary. If the OHV community is this angry with him, that likely means he is being effective. Far too many of the advocates for responsible OHV use are a whole lot of talk without any real action. I look forward to the OHV community coming to terms with the fact that a compromise will need to be made in the best interests of the land.

You poor guy

Saw these photos circulating around last night from Graves Bridge in Calgary. Sounds like there are going to be some significant fines and an upcoming court date for this guy. This is proof that it never hurts to call this kind of stuff in. It's a small win for the good guys, and the reward $ could be significant. Time for our COs to take a no prisoner approach to this. No more warnings, just fines.

Perhaps a portion of OHV registration should fund enforcement as well.

Without enhanced enforcement this won't make a significant difference. It's time for an OHV task force to be created between F&W and RCMP.

Hopefully irresponsible OHV users will feel the changing of the tides this long weekend. It's time these folks be held accountable for their destructive behavior: “We encourage all Albertans to respect the land and comply with any bans or restrictions in place to avoid enforcement actions resulting in fines or other legal consequences. Albertans love their natural areas and have a right to enjoy them undamaged now and into the future.” Shannon Phillips, Minister of Environment and Parks If you see OHV abuse, call RAP immediately: 1-800-642-3800 http://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=41782E7B4529B-033B-BBBD-FFA408EB052F662F#.Vz4XBBv7EhE.facebook

Kevin Van Tighem said it best on social media: we need to find ways to work with the river, not against it.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/polls-suggests-calgarians-oppose-springbank-dry-dam-to-prevent-future-floods I don't think there is a "good" flood mitigation on the table here. Springbank is a bad option, but it isn't anywhere close to being as bad as the McLean Creek dry dam would be. The McLean Creek option would carve up critical habitat for grizzly bears and native trout species, the Springbank Dam would impact well maintained ranch/farm lands. This group raises some good points, but I'll never support them as long as they advocate for the McLean Creek option. If we absolutely must have one of these two projects, I'd rather it be Springbank.

I'm just not sure the solution is simple. Crows/magpies are going to go to safe spots with ample food supply. Big cities provide exactly that. It's not a government thing, it's just an Alberta getting bigger thing.