fishteck

BurningChrome: If Whirling Disease get into the Calgary reach of the Bow River it will more than likely spread across all water bodies in southern Alberta. There are just too many Calgary anglers who fish all over the place. All we can hope for is the impact will not be too great.

Impressive

Don: Everyone references the Madison River as an example of what Whirling Disease can do to a fishery and the economic loss to those that make a living from it. But why did the Missouri River not see the same devastation? No one has an explanation for the difference. In addition what measures were put in place on US rivers that did anything except slow the disease until (the speculation of) a resistance population was large enough to sustain itself. So now the Bow River fishery is faced with the potential for an expansion of Whirling Disease across the river basin if containment measures in the upper reaches are not successful. The fishing community will do its part by adhering to the government's recommendations for cleaning equipment and boats. But Calgary with a large active river recreational community will find it very difficult to contain the spread of the disease. Canoes, kayaks and float tubes will continue to use the river with little or no regard for cleaning procedures. If the provincial government is serious about WD containment, a ban is needed on all access the Bow River, regardless of the type of activity. This is impossible! Therefore what can the government do except attempt to slow the spread of the disease.

Burning Chrome: You, as many are, maybe overreacting to the impact of Whirling Disease. I believe the article is well researched and written. The impact of a relatively high incidence of Whirling Disease in tributaries of the Missouri has not negatively impacted the trout population in the main stem of the Missouri. Lots of speculations as to why this was the case, but no definitive answers. What the article does say is that more research is needed to completely understand the impact of the disease. The situation was different on the Madison where rainbow trout mortality was high and there was concern for the westslope and Yellowstone Cutthroat populations as there is here. But nevertheless, trout have survived with what is thought to be a WD resistance gene and populations of trout have returned to historical levels. I have fished Montana's rivers the majority on the Missouri a lot over the years, going back to the time when WD was first reported.in 1995 and have never seen an WD infected fish. And to be honest I did not hear much about the disease. Sure, I did wash my gear and boat at that time, as I do now, before fishing on my return to Alberta. We need to be vigilant with preventative measures, but Whirling Disease as a trout killer may not be as deadly as once feared, but it’s still a potential threat to the Alberta trout fishery. The fishery will survive!

Will the Bow River survive Whirling Disease? Experience in Montana would suggest YES! http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2007/whirlingdisease.htm

The proposal for Seton boat launch is somewhere downstream of of Policemen's. Probably in the general area of the outflow above the red roof house. No firm commitment from the city at this point in time, but new community developments are within the Calgary River Access Strategy. The Walton property refereed to in the old days as "The Pheasant Pens", south / east of Cottonwood Golf Course is up for development. Preliminary discussion with the developer for a boat ramp were received favorably. This site is outside the scope of Calgary River Access Strategy and the current mandate of Calgary River Users Alliance. CRUA has this site and others above and below Calgary on our radar for future development. Expect to see some movement on this file in the new year.

The logic for withholding data would suggest that academics and investigators have a better understanding social-economic implications of their work than do the pubic. To some degree this may be true, but is no justification for withholding the information. In the case of the TU-BRC redd count project, it was funded by BRC with money generously donated by the public for the betterment of the local fishery. Therefore the investigators had a responsibility to release the information to the public. I believe the data presented in the BRC report was well documented, but also cautioned the reader with forming conclusions until further investigations take place. What the release of the report has done is generated considerable debate on the subject of a sustainable fish population. This is good for the Bow River fishery.

Bron: There is data that would suggest that if good catch-and-release techniques are used (no net, limited handling and no photos) that mortality can still be as high as 10% if fish are stressed.If all precautionary measure are not taken mortality will increase. If we assume that on average 50 anglers are fishing within the city, each catching 5 fish per day with 10% mortality, 25 trout die each day. Multiply that by 200 days gives a seasonal mortality within the city of 5,000 trout. Keep in mind that big fish get photographed, therefore those large colorful spawning brown trout photographed each fall are subject to more mortality than smaller classes of fish. Although there are large concentration of brown trout redds in relative few locations, we need to recognize that there appears to be a sizable population of brown trout that do move up the Bow River and into the city reach to spawn. Therefore there is justification to close a wider area of the fishery to protect the movement of brown trout to where they wish to spawn.

Edmonton City Council approves their own river access strategy with a $2 million commitment to 7 new river access sites. Will Calgary City Council do the same for the Bow and Elbow Rivers? http://globalnews.ca/news/3035969/7-docks-and-boat-launches-proposed-for-edmonton-river-valley/

BurningChrome: I tried to be careful with my words. A sustainable population of brown trout implies that fish spawn every year or two in sufficient numbers for the species to survive, not that there is an increase in the population. If the 2015 Bow River survey had reported only a half or quarter of the number of redds, the same statement would apply. Bron: The Bow River has a spring and fall closure above Harvie Passage. Should the same regulations apply down as far as 22X? There have been closures on the entire Bow River in the past. Seasonal closures would probably protect the fishery, A question for all: Should the Bow River have special status whereby outfitters have "rod days" and can only float specified stretches of the river on a limited number of days each week? Where these type of restrictions are in place a very large amount of the river traffic is by outfitters. The Bow is different in so far as there is a larger percentage of recreational users. Therefore seasonal closures would be more equatable. Any closure of the Bow for what ever reason would get an immediate response from those who make a living on the river. But ironically, fishery closure would probably increase the fishing experience and therefore generate more customers.

Lots of talk about "research" & "science" on this post. It is important to understand that biological based field studies and surveys by their nature are just a record of events at a point in time. The variables from year to year are beyond the control of the investigators. The best result one can expect to see is a trend over the course of a number of observations. In this case years. The greater the number of observation (years) the more reliable the data will become. Even if an increase in redds is seen from year to year, it may not necessarily correspond to and increase in trout populations. Habitat improvements, reduced river flows, changes in climate may all have an impact spawning success, both positive and negative! In addition, the increased pressure on the fishery and a corresponding increase in mortality, especially on large brown trout within the city could well negate any benefits derived from increase spawning activity. Closure of the Bow River city reach to fishing in October and November would give the greatest protection of our brown trout population. Will this ever happen? Very unlikely. But as I have stated previously, the surprisingly high numbers of redds observed in the 2015 surveys, especially the Bow River would support my statement that the Bow River has a sustainable population of healthy Brown Trout.

Calgary River Valleys has been coordinating redd counts on the Elbow River for 20+ years. The 2015 survey showed an encouraging increase in redds over previous years. http://calgaryrivervalleys.org/2015-redd-count-a-brown-trout-resurgence/ These data conbined with TUC - Bow River Chapter survey results speaks well for a sustainable Bow River brown trout population

The Calgary River Access Strategy (CRAS) has no jurisdiction over AEP facilities. This includes Fish Creek Provincial Park. Once CRAS has defined a strategy for the Calgary reach of the Bow River we can expected that AEP will consider doing the same for the Bow River Basin. Hopefully there will be a website that coordinates all fishing related issues.

An excellent project with very encouraging results. There is very sketchy data available on brown and rainbow trout spawning activity downstream of Policeman's Flats. There are many back channels all the way down to Carsland. It would be nice to see what spawning takes place. Keep up the good work BRC!

When complete the total cost for the Harvie Passage original development and the redevelopment post flood will be $30 million. The construction is the responsibility of Alberta Transportation. Once complete the management and maintenance will be turned over to AEP. One of the biggest issues facing both the Province and the City of Calgary is an agreement to integrate Harvie Passage into a city recreational facility. The Parks Department's Bend-in-the-Bow regional park development has not addressed this issue - see the most recent release on stakeholder consultation. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Documents/Locations/Bend-in-Bow-Grand-Vision.pdf Calgary River Users Alliance (CRUA) as a stakeholder in the Calgary River Access Strategy has been pushing for engagement by the City in the regional development of Harvie Passage and the adjacent City property into and integrated river recreational site.The low flow channel will only be usable when the Western Irrigation District to diverting water into the irrigation channel from April to October. Therefore for safety of river users, the challenge is to get trailered boat access above and below Harvie Passage. I believe this will take place before Harvie Passage opens in 2018.

The city's River Access Strategy web site has been updated with revised boat ramps and hand launch sites. The most important changes are the boat ramp proposals above and below Harvie Passage. The fishing community can expect to see Cushing Bridge (17 Ave SE) opened to the public with the completion of Harvie Passage in the later part of 2017. In addition new boat ramps are being proposed for Inglewood (12 St. SE) and Ogden Rd. SE. will open up the entire Calgary reach of the Bow River to drift boat use. Engage and support the River Access Strategy. Go to the following website for details: http://engage.calgary.ca/riveraccess

bcube: The out flow at Frenchman's is from the Sheppard settlement ponds (Ralph Kline Park). The property adjacent to the outflow is either owned or leased by the City of Calgary. One of the reasons this location was entered into the Calgary River Access Strategy.

Bcube: Thanks for the correction. To my knowledge the Navigation Protection Act is administered by the local protective services. And to that end the City or the Province must have consulted with the Feds to get a power boat ban on city waters. In this case the City Police and the Province would appear to have jurisdiction. The City bylaw relates to wearing life vests on Calgary rivers and lakes. A Bylaw office or City Police jurisdiction. There was a petition put together by members of the guiding community a few years back to advocate for closing the bow river to jet boat use above Carsland. It went nowhere. Now a very large number of guides have jet boats. Therefore any extension of the "no jet boat ban" will receive considerable resistance. Anyone have the time and conviction to try for a jet boat ban down as far as Frenchman's? You may get support from the City of Calgary!

Everything reported on this post confirms what many anglers feel : The CFD has no interest in policing the river because they have no jurisdiction to enforce the law! Bylaw has no interest because they don't want to get their hands wet! Police has no interest because they believe they have better things to do! Fish an Wildlife (div. AEP) has little interest - its not conservation! Conservation Officers (Solicitor General Office) are understaffed and to my knowledge do not have boats! During the summer stone fly hatch, many power boat users put in at Policeman's early in the morning and go as far up as they feel comfortable. Remember Deerfoot Bridge is considered Calgary's boundary, but it could be argued that the north bank of the river down to Frenchman's is city property. Take photos with license number and post it on this chat site. Put a name to the owner if possible.

Mr. Botangles: I have been very fortunate to ride along with fall roundups in the Nicola Valley back in the '80 - shows my age. I have also worked with cattle on the Waldron Ranch in the same time span. Considering the number of cattle you are referring to it could have been cattle from the Waldron. The ranch is a cooperative with upwards of 20 ranchers having shares with well over 2,000 cattle grazed each year. I am not sure of any other ranch operations in the area who would move the number of cattle at one time you are referring to. But the Forestry Trunk Rd. is quite a way west for the Waldron Ranch. I'll see what I can find out.

There isn't a rancher I know of who is not concerned with the environment, habitat protection and increasingly sustainability of the back country. What concerns me is the direction this page was taking to criticize the annual movement of cattle from the high country across a river in mass once a year to their winter range close to the home ranch. This practice has taken place ever since cattle were first run across the western slopes. Sure there is some damage, but I would suggest it represents such a small amount of the overall damage to the back country that there is little concern. Tolerance of an age old custom is needed. The focus on protection of the fishery and its habitat should be modification and possibly restrictions to modern day recreational use and industrial development.

Although the survival of West Slope Cutthroat is important and some protection is needed, there is no way a recreational resource will be protected in this province at a cost to the ranching or oil and gas industry. The emphasis for protection of the west slopes fishery needs to be education. The agriculture industry has support programs in place to aid in the protection of river banks from livestock erosion. Every year more river bank is protected with these programs. The oil and gas industry is mandated to recovery programs post exploration. Enforcement of legislation is needed. The thing I find difficult to understand is why there is so much objection to cattle crossing a river. There is equally as much damage done and possibly a lot more to fish habitat by fishermen trampling all over the river bed, driving and walking along trails and RV abuse. Tolerance is needed.

Ranchers lease the forest reserve for grazing that is close to their own private land. The Provincial Lands Branch manages the permits and designates the number of "Cow Units" that can be released onto the permitted land. It is not "open range" or a free for all. The management of the available grass will change from year to year, but generally the southern foothill gets sufficient rainfall to sustain the number of cattle released on land each year. What was being seen here is the movement of cattle out of the high country in anticipation of snow or the round up of cattle to return them to their owners. The cattle will be fed on private land for the remainder of the year and released back on the grazing reserve in June of the following year. Ranchers will loose the grazing permits if the land is overgrazed. Therefore the cattle are moved around the forest reserve during the grazing season, generally going higher in the summer and returning to the low land in the fall. Anglers need to share the public resource that we have been given access to and quit complaining about other users. The Province has protected the public access rights to crown land. Lease holders have petitioned the Province to restrict public access to crown land in the past, but the Province has not wavered in it commitment to public access. Across North America there has been considerable pressure exerted by the lobby groups, predominantly ranchers, to restrict access to public land. Montana has faced this challenge lately, but it was rejected. Wyoming, with a large and powerful lobby group imposed restricted access legislation some time back. We don't want the same restriction in Alberta.

Was down there last week 6th and 7th of Oct. Dry fly fishing excellent below Pelican Point. BWO all afternoon. Did not use a nymph or streamer rod either day.

I am saying that every recreational group (including anglers and birdwatchers) are self indulgent in their own activity and more often than not have no understanding or wish to understand other activities. This is intolerance.