wtforward Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Neil... You can't possibly list all the organizations and keep a straight face. That is exactly the point. It is a gross ecological failure of leadership at the government level full stop. What do you think it is going to take to get something done and which generation might benefit ? There is no perfect solution and some specific user groups are going to have to take a hit. It would be innteresting to know how many people would continue to camp if they could not bike/quad. Unfortunately until the powers to be figure which group(s) are politically insignificant the snail pace progress will continue. So do people really think given the economic climate we are currently in that the government is going to add to the deficit and suit up an enforcement department c/w guns/trucks/overtime when the price of gas/oil is in the tank. A little late in the economic cycle for my money. Where is all that royalty money when you need it ? People in this province continue to vote the Cons in then bitch when they don't do what the electorate asks..go figure. Until you get a true accountable democracy functioning in the legislature things are not likely to change; why should they ? Keep it in mind at the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttbow Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Neil... You can't possibly list all the organizations and keep a straight face. That is exactly the point. It is a gross ecological failure of leadership at the government level full stop. What do you think it is going to take to get something done and which generation might benefit ? There is no perfect solution and some specific user groups are going to have to take a hit. It would be innteresting to know how many people would continue to camp if they could not bike/quad. Unfortunately until the powers to be figure which group(s) are politically insignificant the snail pace progress will continue. So do people really think given the economic climate we are currently in that the government is going to add to the deficit and suit up an enforcement department c/w guns/trucks/overtime when the price of gas/oil is in the tank. A little late in the economic cycle for my money. Where is all that royalty money when you need it ? People in this province continue to vote the Cons in then bitch when they don't do what the electorate asks..go figure. Until you get a true accountable democracy functioning in the legislature things are not likely to change; why should they ? Keep it in mind at the next election. Exactly what i was refering too. Look at the price of big 5th wheels. Trucks to pull them.Quads and Atvs. The money the govt collects from these way overpowers the revenue from fishing. Its a cash grab. How many FF spend $40000 on a trailer and $60000 on a truck plus $1000s from quads and and other gear.Figure out the taxes and fuel income the govt receives from this. Are we going to see increased monies for enforcement next year NOT.What did it take for the boaters registration to take place.Years!Gun registration years and on going maybe scrapped due to politics maybe scrapped due to high over head costs. Catch the fish while you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigtoad Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I agree that when it comes to gov't decisions; money talks. So lets just talk #'s. How many RV's did I see random camping in a 20 km stretch along Prairie Creek on the long weekend when several, beautiful campgrounds within 10km were open? I would conservatively guess close to 200. Down one gas-pipeline alone, I saw nearly 50 in 3 big groups. So 200 x $20/day x 2 days weekend x 10 weekends = (drum roll please) $80,000 in lost revenue along ONE piece of highway over the summer. Start estimating how much the government is potentially losing any given weekend in the summer due to random camping and it begins to become a bit comical. We all get that the government is not going to stop RV's camping; you're missing the point (or I am) about the whole thing. The POINT is that it is completely unregulated and if it isn't out of complete control, it will be in many areas within several summers. The government should be able to find a solution without losing money. In fact, if they did it correctly (oxymoron, I know), it is potentially a very lucrative scheme. I mean, look at New Zealand, they're 2nd industry behind sheep is Tourism. THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE HERE WHILE STILL REGULATING THE CAMPING/ATVING/FISHING/ETC/ETC/ETC/ AND MAYBE JUST SAVING THESE AREAS AT THE SAME TIME!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Funny how Flyfishermen want to take the crown land from everyone else but only one is willing to sacrifice his fishing to better the resource. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Funny how Flyfishermen want to take the crown land from everyone else but only one is willing to sacrifice his fishing to better the resource. Gotta give Brian his props on this point. He is willing to sacrifice 5 yrs of fishing of the water in his back yard. While I personally don't think it is the right path, ya gotta respect his sacrifice. It does show immense commitment. And who knows, maybe it is the correct path. s But overall, I totally agree with your sentiment Jeffro. But it isn't just fly fishermen. Everyone is the same (including me I might add). We are always looking for the problems caused by other people while conveniently ignoring any problems caused by ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It wasn't fair to group all flyfishermen collectively as everyone has there own individual opinions and objectives. I've been doing my best to bite my tongue in this thread as I have some weird fetish where I like to argue and sometimes shoot fromt he hip. So I'm trying to keep from dragging my personality through the mud as well as everyone elses with it. I had some involvement with the C5 forest management plan and all i can say is this is a complex issue with many stakeholders, all who have some entitlement to what they do. Oversimplifying and pointing fingers just keeps the merry-go-round spinning in an endless spiral downwards. If everyone would be willing to give a little instead of only take then one day they might find a legitimate solution to this ongoing issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Waugh Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The PCs just got their @sses kicked in the Glenmore byelection (third place with a star candidate) and the premier now says he "get's it" without saying what "it" is. If this means being more in tune with an urban/Calgary agenda then the rural quad lobby may be in for a little distress. But if in means cuts, cuts. more cuts and lotsa oil patch giveaways to keep the Wildrosers happy, then kiss goodbye to the Eastern Slopes. Because then nothing will happen. How's that for sitting firmly on the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtforward Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It wasn't fair to group all flyfishermen collectively as everyone has there own individual opinions and objectives. I've been doing my best to bite my tongue in this thread as I have some weird fetish where I like to argue and sometimes shoot fromt he hip. So I'm trying to keep from dragging my personality through the mud as well as everyone elses with it. I had some involvement with the C5 forest management plan and all i can say is this is a complex issue with many stakeholders, all who have some entitlement to what they do. Oversimplifying and pointing fingers just keeps the merry-go-round spinning in an endless spiral downwards. If everyone would be willing to give a little instead of only take then one day they might find a legitimate solution to this ongoing issue. Jeffro...Entitlement ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipestoneflyguy Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ya know what's fun - go to an Alberta ATV site and search forum discussions on land use planning and regulation, then do the same for a 4x4 site, then go to a hiking site, toss in a hunters site and why not throw in Horseback riding site too -You'll find that basically the arguments are much the same as the debate here, equally ranging in both views and proposed solutions (as a matter of fact, with some creative use of a search and replace function utilized on a few key nouns and verbs you would find the discussions almost identical) - all of these groups recognize both the fragile nature, and importance of environmental issues and the potential impact that failing to manage these issues may have on their particular activity. These groups all recognize that all groups, including their own have "bad apples" and that some external enforcement is likely required, even within their own ranks. so why all the stick poken and poop chucking...I think it is simple as a childish fear that we have all have something to lose and the best defence is a strong offence.... Idealistically, I think developing a basic respect for differing views and a willingness to compromise in so far as accomodating "other" user groups would go miles towards some kind of productive solution. Sad to say though, but typically this presents a conflict that can only be resolved by a "willing" governing authority and given that most governments are, by nature lazy and most likely to move toward the easiest and most popular solution I would think the idea of a happy smurf village in which flyfisher-smurf and ATV-smurf get along while enjoying their respective hobbies is pretty well a utopian fantasy. Reality is that Papa-smurf is gonna call a big meeting to sort it all out - he's gonna walk into a room full of smurfs chuckin blue poop at each other, get frustrated, storm out, and in the end Hogstoppah-smurf will be the only one who gets what he wanted and every one else will just be covered in blue poop. I guess my point is - Yes IMHO sending letters is a positive step towards solution - but ask yourself should you send a letter that points out that everyone (but you) is abusing the resource into oblivion, or should your letter be worded so that you are demanding the government work towards a solution that meets everyones needs, and sees all users preserving their access to these special areas - just my 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 Looks like now we're starting to see the bigger picture. The area needs complete rehabilitation... including from fisherman, for a few years. Yes it's hard to say "let's give it up for a while" but ya know what? I'd like to take my kids there someday, and have fish to catch. There's gotta be some sort of balance. They close streams (emergency closures) in extreme heat for the sake of the fish. Maybe, just maybe, the fish need to be protected from overfishing too... plus quads, random camping, and ALL activity that is proving (at least in my eyes) detrimental to the well being of the fish populations in those (and I am sure other) alberta streams. good discussion on this thread so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Jeffro...Entitlement ?? Sorry didn't have my thesaurus at my side when I wrote that post. Last time I checked crown land was owned by the government and the public was allowed to use that resource provided there were no other provisions stating otherwise (ie. special areas and the like). I do believe that all Canadians.......not just Albertans are entitled to use that resource, also referred to as crown land, provided they do so in a legal manner. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not afraid to learn something new if I've missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Why don't a bunch of us head down the beginning of next summer and picket the highway. We can invite the media, MLA, MP, etc. and most likely (and unintentionally) get into some fights as I'm sure it would definitely stir up some *hit!! Hey it works across the pond and for Greenpeace!! P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtforward Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Jeffro I help you along a bit but then leave the rest of the education for you to do on your own. The govt owns the land on behalf of all Albertans. Just how does the govt come into being anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadensis Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Lots of vaild points here, but some that make no sense. Why ban fishing for 5 years? The bow as an example, or any of the rivers in Montana get fished 100x more than these streams. No problems with the health of these rivers, at least not from fishing. Sure I can see restricting ohv's from ripping through the streams, but calling for a fishing ban is unsubstantiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Canadensis You can't compare the Bow and some of the higher montan streams. You also can't compare Montana Rivers with the same streams. Southern Alberta's rivers in crown land have much less flow, less nutrient, and lower temps, resulting in smaller fish, slower growth, and possibly smaller populations. Impacts to these systems take longer to recover from. (Most of Alberta is north of the great trout habitats. The Bow has tailwater dams which means better summer and winter temps, nutrient imputs from urban centers, and a low gradient with good trout temps. Montana has great flows, good nutrients and excellent temps all round. Both have excellent bugs and foarge fish.) The area is too busy AND unregulated to be provide a quality experience that is not dependant on speed and noise. It needs less people or better regulations, or both. Fish sizes are likely similar to what they've been and who knows about populations... its not like the Alberta government is forward thinking in terms of resource management... Montana and BC have us beat hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted September 17, 2009 Author Share Posted September 17, 2009 hey argue for your own right to fish if you want... but in reality, all you have to do is actually spend time fishing the entire system and compare it to 5 years ago, or 10, or 15, or 20 years ago. There's literally maybe about 10% of the fish left. So yes.... having a 5 year ban on fishing to let them recover from US, isn't so far fetched. Comparing montana's rainbow and brown streams (which can handle high pressure) to the oldman/castle/ram systems, is completely unrealistic. The bow will always have fish unless calgary has a bad chemical spill, same with the crow. Those are like montana's rivers, and can handle the pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadensis Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 The whole tail-water thing makes sense, thanks for clearing that up. I have fished the area for the past 25 years and no doubt it is busier and something has to be done to control atvs and camping, but only 10% of the fish left is far fetched. Do you have any data to back this statement up? I have caught bigger fish in the past couple of years than ever. No real difference in numbers just bigger fish. The ammount of users is annoying, but we are all to blame for this. How about all of the logging, O&G development, this is the big problem. Sure is easier to shut out the recreational users than it is to deaal with the crux of the problem. hey argue for your own right to fish if you want... but in reality, all you have to do is actually spend time fishing the entire system and compare it to 5 years ago, or 10, or 15, or 20 years ago. There's literally maybe about 10% of the fish left. So yes.... having a 5 year ban on fishing to let them recover from US, isn't so far fetched. Very confused when you say I argue for my right to fish yet in your sig line you advertise you guide in these very waters?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's easier to shut down industry, plus I think rec-users are as big of a problem. I think it's easier to control industry... they have strict rules they are suposed to follow... Yes there are impacts, but they minimize them, often will do habitat restoration work, and the systems recover quick. O&G has some stream crossings and permanent infrastructure, but relatively minor footprint (in terms of fisheries... much bigger problem with cutlines and roads). Loging impacts can change the whole hydrology of a watershed, but modern techniques (not scarifying) can reduce overland flows. the biggest impacts are from poor roads that have been constructed in the past 70 years. Now, even if those roads are set for reclimation, users and OHV groups are pushing to keep them open, and contribute significantly more traffic than the industrial users. It is the poor road maintenance that is the cause of a large percentage of fish habitat woes... The only real solution is to shut down all non-essential raods and trails near watercourses. Allowing walk-in fishing would limit angler presence (improve the experience) while reducing road and trail runoff would improve habitat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadensis Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's easier to shut down industry, plus I think rec-users are as big of a problem. I think it's easier to control industry... they have strict rules they are suposed to follow... Yes there are impacts, but they minimize them, often will do habitat restoration work, and the systems recover quick. O&G has some stream crossings and permanent infrastructure, but relatively minor footprint (in terms of fisheries... much bigger problem with cutlines and roads). Loging impacts can change the whole hydrology of a watershed, but modern techniques (not scarifying) can reduce overland flows. the biggest impacts are from poor roads that have been constructed in the past 70 years. Now, even if those roads are set for reclimation, users and OHV groups are pushing to keep them open, and contribute significantly more traffic than the industrial users. It is the poor road maintenance that is the cause of a large percentage of fish habitat woes... The only real solution is to shut down all non-essential raods and trails near watercourses. Allowing walk-in fishing would limit angler presence (improve the experience) while reducing road and trail runoff would improve habitat. All great points Harps. I like your fact based approach to the impacts of this region. Sad thing is they will never give an area like this wildland Park designation because of the industrial use, this would give the area the protection it needs. Speaking of logging, they log the piss out of this area as well. I still say that a fishing moratorium is way overkill. The area is C&R for the most part and the vast majority of the anglers are responsible and follow the rules. Angling is on the bottom of the list of what is negatively impacting the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egocop Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Very confused when you say I argue for my right to fish yet in your sig line you advertise you guide in these very waters?? There are also some Trip reports - on the site in said signature - during the time of this summers stream advisory which was between July 31 - Aug 17th!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhurt Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Very confused when you say I argue for my right to fish yet in your sig line you advertise you guide in these very waters?? There are also some Trip reports - on the site in said signature - during the time of this summers stream advisory which was between July 31 - Aug 17th!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 Very confused when you say I argue for my right to fish yet in your sig line you advertise you guide in these very waters?? There are also some Trip reports - on the site in said signature - during the time of this summers stream advisory which was between July 31 - Aug 17th!! Point #1 If it's better for the fish EVEN though I do guide some of these waters... *I AM* willing to give them ma break - what about you? Point #2 Wasn't even me personally between Jul 31 and Aug 17th, but those closures were for waters DOWNSTREAM of HWY22. All the area in question is UPSTREAM of HWY22. So check YOUR facts. The last report I put up on the site was probably in June. I havent done much guiding these days. No one wants to walk and wade when sites like this tell all the secrets, ya know. Only people I guide now are my international guys from europe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackant Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Brian, I understand where you are coming from. What you need to think about is strategy in how to get things going. Everyone on here sees and reconizes the effects. We complain, some more active people send in scathing letter to their Gov't Rep, and nothing gets done. I say lets document things. most of us carry cameras in our packs, when you are out there, take some vids/pics of the areas, pre season, during and after season, to show the effects. We can all compile our media together to create such a documentary. Then to really put a dammper on quading, target kids, and accidents. Get stats on how many kids die, are injured, show kids ripping up and down the gravle roads without helmts on. You put forward a great documentary showing kids involded you will get a big public out cry on banning such activity, which will also help reduce random camping. Politicans will put forth various regualtions from the public pressure, maybe one could be no one can ride a quad unless they are 16 yrs plus. Oh yes there will be some out cry from the quading comunity, but no arugment can stand up to the saftey of children. Complaining and writing letters dose not do a single thing except keep a politican's admin's assistant assistant employed. You want change, document the accidents involving mostly kids and teens, even adults, then you will get someone who will listen. Just some thoughts. Black Ant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Educational thread... I never knew that 2 plus 2 take away 1 equals 7.75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proflytyer Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 i tottally agree with all this. we need to protect not only the fish but it must also affect other wildlife in the area. i think we gottta get this action put into place right now or else it will be to late. Kyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.