Jump to content
Fly Fusion Forums

Fishing In National Parks


PGK
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest 420FLYFISHIN

if your comparing hunting to fishing then i think the reason it is ok is because when you miss your target with a fly you dont kill a tourist or backpacker. But if you just fish for the pan then why bother driving 2 hours for lunch and dinner?

 

my opinion might not be right but neither might yours its just my 2c

 

i like fishing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sundancefisher
Should fishing be allowed in National Parks? Given the fact that all other extractive activities are not allowed in parks, why is fishing? We as anglers cannot make the argument for C&R only fisheries in Parks because as we are all aware, C&R fishing is inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling.

 

There is strong support for the argument that Parks should serve as genetic (and physiological) refuges for native species.

 

There is not strong support for maintaining fisheries in parks, especially when they have been shown to attract few people for the express purpose of fishing, and the fact that fishing does not, on the grand scale, bring in any significant amount of dollars to the Park.

 

Yes?

 

No?

 

Only for non-native species?

 

Be careful of your answers...

 

such a lovely day for a troll...I mean stroll.

 

Catch and release angling should be allowed. If the parks start up a new put and take fishery then that would be different. You comment on ...we all know blah blah blah...is great PETA propaganda. Why start something on this site unless you want to be banned. This site is about fishing...not PETA philosophizing...unless you want Pamela to come to a fishing outing...I for one am not interested.

 

To have the maximum respect and protection...anglers comprise the only true custodians of protecting fish

 

If by some change PGK you somehow believe that everything should be protected 100% then move to Antarctica. Your very presence in the Park disturbs wildlife, fish, birds, plants, rocks etc. With the butterfly effect...just driving through the park could startle a butterfly which freaks out a bear...which causes the bear to fall off a cliff then tumbles into the water killing a native fish. Hiking disturbs animals natural instincts and behavior which could negatively affect survival. Do you EVER visit the Parks PGK? Do you wish to see absolutely ZERO human footprint in 100% of the Park? Populations of native fish in the Parks migrate in and out of the Park. Integrated regulations work fine. If you are a fit individual that refuses to go to the Parks period...then at least I can respect your opinion as not being two faced and sticking to your convictions is admirable. Otherwise...you are just another person saying what you believe is correct and the rest of us are going to H E double toothpicks... That would just make you a nut case...the funny kind...not the serious kind.

 

Society has proven time and time again that things people see and respect get the ultimate in long term protection. Things that are invisible and get ignored are doomed to no protection and risk of loss of habitat, poaching, disease etc.

 

Fishing has been consistently made worse and worse in the park to the point where there is little funding or support to repair habitat, bring native fish stocks back to pre-settler days etc. Bleeding hearts have done a fine job and soon there will be no hiking allowed at this rate.

 

To ignore fish is crazy. While you can enjoy see birds, plants, animals...you can only realistically see fish when fishing. Try fishing and communing with nature and you may see what you are missing by not fishing. Otherwise...all you have is an opinion which is you prerogative. Just try not to shove it down peoples throats or threaten them with...

 

Be very, very, very careful of your response PGK...for your true intention will no longer be invisible.

 

IMHO

 

Cheers and happy catch and release fishing!

 

Sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We as anglers cannot make the argument for C&R only fisheries in Parks because as we are all aware, C&R fishing is inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling.

 

:masterbaiter:

 

Inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling?

 

How do you live with yourself PGK? Being a human you are displacing flora and fauna, yes even if you are a vegan living in a straw bale house.

 

Since when is nourishing myself and family cruel? But within your definition not "as cruel" if I catch and release a fish?

 

It is certainly of your opinion about angling or not in the park, and that I could have respected even though not in agreement. In the remainder of your post you have come across as a nut job.

 

You are on a slippery slope you have no chance of climbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

such a lovely day for a troll...I mean stroll.

 

Catch and release angling should be allowed. If the parks start up a new put and take fishery then that would be different. You comment on ...we all know blah blah blah...is great PETA propaganda. Why start something on this site unless you want to be banned. This site is about fishing...not PETA philosophizing...unless you want Pamela to come to a fishing outing...I for one am not interested.

 

To have the maximum respect and protection...anglers comprise the only true custodians of protecting fish

 

If by some change PGK you somehow believe that everything should be protected 100% then move to Antarctica. Your very presence in the Park disturbs wildlife, fish, birds, plants, rocks etc. With the butterfly effect...just driving through the park could startle a butterfly which freaks out a bear...which causes the bear to fall off a cliff then tumbles into the water killing a native fish. Hiking disturbs animals natural instincts and behavior which could negatively affect survival. Do you EVER visit the Parks PGK? Do you wish to see absolutely ZERO human footprint in 100% of the Park? Populations of native fish in the Parks migrate in and out of the Park. Integrated regulations work fine. If you are a fit individual that refuses to go to the Parks period...then at least I can respect your opinion as not being two faced and sticking to your convictions is admirable. Otherwise...you are just another person saying what you believe is correct and the rest of us are going to H E double toothpicks... That would just make you a nut case...the funny kind...not the serious kind.

 

Society has proven time and time again that things people see and respect get the ultimate in long term protection. Things that are invisible and get ignored are doomed to no protection and risk of loss of habitat, poaching, disease etc.

 

Fishing has been consistently made worse and worse in the park to the point where there is little funding or support to repair habitat, bring native fish stocks back to pre-settler days etc. Bleeding hearts have done a fine job and soon there will be no hiking allowed at this rate.

 

To ignore fish is crazy. While you can enjoy see birds, plants, animals...you can only realistically see fish when fishing. Try fishing and communing with nature and you may see what you are missing by not fishing. Otherwise...all you have is an opinion which is you prerogative. Just try not to shove it down peoples throats or threaten them with...

 

Be very, very, very careful of your response PGK...for your true intention will no longer be invisible.

 

IMHO

 

Cheers and happy catch and release fishing!

 

Sun

 

X 1

 

Amen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned native species somewhere ... So tell me then...what are the native species in our closest parks? And what species do we find there? Hmmm...would we not be doing them a favour by catching and keeping the non-native species so the native species could re-establish a population? I fished for many years in Banff and Yoho Parks and caught primarily non-native species...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't part of this question about balance? Tradition? The public interacting with nature?

 

Yes, skiing, camping, golfing, hiking, biking, canoeing, rock-climbing doesn't "harass" fish or consume wildlife directly, like fishing activity.

But each of those activities and consumptive on some level, and involve people.

 

And seeming "contradiction" is ok; the national parks were intended as places where conservation and preservation occur, with human activity. For the reasons stated by the other replies, fishing is an activity that I think is a net gain for the park, because it fosters an appreciation (even 'love') for what the park stands for. Its been that way in Jasper and Banff since they were founded, and they're already regulated, in terms of development.

 

But more to the crux of my argument; this province already tries to (varying degrees of success, depending on where you stand) at protecting areas that address different users and scenarios. Don't want ski hills, golf courses, no fishing, no hunting? Guess what! Been there, done that! They're collectively called, White Goat wilderness, Siffleur wilderness, Ghost wilderness. Basically all you can do is hike and shoot photos. I'm ok with some part of the province like that. What about an area with little human development (golfing, skiing) but consumptive hunting and fishing allowed? We've got that too; Willmore. And then, our national parks, a tradition stretching back more than a century. I say leave it alone.

 

So you see, the province has provided the public with wilderness areas that would satisfy a variety of users with varying philosophies. Using biological and genetic integrity is just a cloak in my opinion, that covers an agenda; designed for less and less people to use the parks as they were intended. Its a gross violation, in my opinion.

 

You're really interested in ecological and genetic integrity? Then C&R on the natives, and allow harvest license for non-native species. Heck, you could even employ anglers ala Quirk Creek type projects to help you out.

 

Try not to single out fishing as a contradiction when many contradictions abound already in Park policy.

 

Smitty

 

P.S. A little disturbed/perturbed by your wording/warning "be careful with your reply". Why? Are park staff monitoring this thread? Is Sheila Copps (early proponent of eliminating fishing...). What exactly do I have to be careful about? Were you actually intending it as some sort of cautionary warning, like there is a wrong answer I should be afraid of? Honestly, it makes your post look a little silly, in my opinion.

P.P.S. Be careful how you reply, I may pay Taco to be sicc'd on you... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sundancefisher
Be careful of your answers...

 

Hi Kris...

 

I was also wondering as a fisheries tech working in Alberta...were you asked by your management in fish and wildlife to ask this question? Is this part of an informal survey? Is this quote above as a result of work you are currently doing? Do you have an agenda in leading this topic somewheres as an employee of the Alberta government and paid for with our taxes?

 

Your statement above can be seen as an implied threat and therefore understanding further the context of your query is beneficial to understanding the direction you hope this thread goes. Understanding F&W salary is paid for by tax payers...while we all strive to hope that the best quality people with the best intention to manage the fish and wildlife resources to the benefit of anglers and hunters and with an emphasis on sustainability...I do not pay tax dollars for agendas that contradict standard thinking in Alberta.

 

Thanks

 

Sun

 

P.S. Some friendly advice. When working in the field and on tax payers dollars it is important that you apply less confrontational approaches to topics that interest you. You have to be extra professional as you have a vested interest in the topic as well as potential influence with your management as well as insider information as to the direction you wish to see fisheries management take in this Province... Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, let's relocate every resident living inside the park, close the park gates, remove all structures and infrastructure to it's pristine environment prior to Anthony Henday's day. Reroute all east/west traffic through either the Crowsnest in the south and Grande Prairie in the north. Then we would be able to really have a beautiful set of parks, save all the wildlife in a true natural setting without the chance that the human race may enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We as anglers cannot make the argument for C&R only fisheries in Parks because as we are all aware, C&R fishing is inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling.

 

Whatever gave you that idea? C&R is a widely accepted management tool used by fisheries managers.

 

Please don't speak for other anglers when you don't know if all here share your view, especially in what purports to be some kind of poll.

 

As for angling in Parks I think the main issue would be commercial interest and what it might imply IE: guided angling.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should fishing be allowed in National Parks? Given the fact that all other extractive activities are not allowed in parks, why is fishing? We as anglers cannot make the argument for C&R only fisheries in Parks because as we are all aware, C&R fishing is inherently more cruel than hunting or extraction angling.

 

There is strong support for the argument that Parks should serve as genetic (and physiological) refuges for native species.

 

There is not strong support for maintaining fisheries in parks, especially when they have been shown to attract few people for the express purpose of fishing, and the fact that fishing does not, on the grand scale, bring in any significant amount of dollars to the Park.

 

Yes?

 

No?

 

Only for non-native species?

 

Be careful of your answers...

 

I strongly support fishing in National Parks, and would comment that a lot of subtle pressure to deter fishing in some has potentially reduced the support for fish there to the planning level where there is no cost. That is ridiculous as we all know a fishery with no user support gets no monitoring or research support either. The park planner approach is to reduce public exposure to issues, not to improve it. These are indeed national treasures and for many of us feel government intervention as with our taxation system is totally out of control

 

In BC in recent years, the green groups grabbed huge land areas and the first thing they tried to get approved was to have much of these wilderness areas set aside for nonconsumptive use. This was driven by our BC Parks Planners and was not supported by Fish and Wildlife staff at all, and was only pushed aside by properly informed public users who would have never thought to be involved unless these issues had been pointed out to them.

 

An unused fshery resource over time becomes an unknown one with a slow increase in complacency and often results in loss not protection. Sometimes users are a good idea.

 

Another issue I had with all this is they chose to ignore any specie except those that had rare and endangered labels and have since been aggressively managing for example, bull trout. In many of these wilderness areas there never has been a significant harvest and never will have particularly with their intervention of over-restrictive regulations. Those regs have since been seen to be not in the best public interests, and have given rise to support of closed seasons as well as catch and release regulations with some slackening here and there. One such area is the Muskwa-Kechika which is larger than any of the National Parks and has so little access and public pressure it is only reflective of Parks Planning Green leave it be than appropriate publi use perspective.

 

Be careful what you wish for and do not agree to anything without understanding both sides, since we as Canadians have been giving too many of our rights away to glib tongue public planning processes thinking we are being empowered by a planning process to help make good decisions. This is not always the case.

 

Mitigation=Compromise and where it is not really needed we lose our rights a little at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 420FLYFISHIN

WTF is going on in your head? That would mean relocating the train system and hydroelectric...if the gov was going to piss that much of my money away i would move out. but btw this thread is ridicules.

 

what about areas like crown land where no roads go or the other side of that mountain over there (just pick one) I think we have use a relatively small amount of area compared to how many people go into the bush (tourist and locals)

 

and why do i have to "be careful of my answer"? what the heck are you going to do about it, this is the faceless internet...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 420FLYFISHIN

in that case, remove the brookies limits! lets clear'em out so they few that remain can get big! (cuz you can nver get rid of them all) lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real question is.... Do we really need/want to the spend the time and money to try and return ecosystems to the state they were in 200 years ago? Is that important enough to warrant the huge expense? Fishing is only a small part of the equation...what about the invertebrates and plants?

Personally I don't think it is worth the effort

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not in any way currently affiliated with ASRD or any other Albertan fisheries organization. I am a student.

 

a student of what?

 

What course of study are you in?

 

just curious what course would allow you to use this type of "very scientific" data gathering ?

 

 

Here's a question, what was the thought process that motivated the Parks managers to stock the Browns and Brookies in the first place?

 

Was the thought process that the waters were barren, unproductive, not conducive to holding the local native species?

 

I for one do not see them Brown and Brookies as invasive, I see them as planted. introduced. The pine beetle, now that is invasive, it was not introduced by the Parks sys or Boilinjests, (yes I spelled Biologists, wrong and that is on purpose). So were do we draw the line and say well lets take them away they are no good or not worthy.. return the waters to the native trouts - which may not really do well there, so is this just a science experiment for Boilinjests and Student Boilinjests...

 

Answer honestly!

 

As I have answered honestly, but of course I am biased, of course I am!!!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a good question...What are the parks for?

Should they be pristine, untouched living museums? Do we need to get them back to the state they were 500 (pick a number) years ago? If so, we need to spend billions to try and reclaim them. I think there is more important places to spend our tax money. It is probably a good idea to try and limit importing new invasive species to the park, but the effort to return things to somewhere near a baseline shouldn't be that high a priority when you consider the state of how many people exist in our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not limit the impact of the most "invasive" species!! Humans! Yeah, like that's gonna happen! (Insert gay pokey thing) <--poke--<

 

P

 

There is a good question...What are the parks for?

Should they be pristine, untouched living museums? Do we need to get them back to the state they were 500 (pick a number) years ago? If so, we need to spend billions to try and reclaim them. I think there is more important places to spend our tax money. It is probably a good idea to try and limit importing new invasive species to the park, but the effort to return things to somewhere near a baseline shouldn't be that high a priority when you consider the state of how many people exist in our country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...