Fishing In National Parks

[PGK]

.

[Taco]

Are you two going to have a weiner contest too?

 

Na, them two like pissin' against the wind

 

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

yah, but mine went further into the wind before it hit my feet

[Taco]

better ur feet than a facefull of blowback

[dube]

Are you two going to have a weiner contest too?

 

 

Funny I was thinking the same thing, grab a ruler and drop 'em boys.

[Smitty]

All I know is that someone's mom wears combat boots.

 

 

[Taco]

Funny I was thinking the same thing, grab a ruler and drop 'em boys.

 

@ -25 or +25 ?

[flyfishfairwx]

@ -25 or +25 ?

 

Does not matter PGK will claim his is bigger, have the edumacation and studies to prove it!!

 

Also the other guys is invasive and should be removed from the province..

 

I was going to stay out of this but neaaa ..

 

I can remember standing on the running boards of old duce 1/2's and MLVW's and taking a piss because we were on a night move, and in a convoy and you could not stop, the wind was in your favour but if the driver was an ***hole he would hit the brakes and your boots would get wet.. :$*%&:

 

but you just paid him back by pissing in his sleeping bag!!!!

[Harps]

I like reading these debates, despite what people may think about value. I think our opinions are influenced by what we read from all media, including internet forums. I also believe there is alot of valuable info available that can educate policy makers and regulators that may occasionally visit these forums. At the very least an intelligent person will look for peer reviewed science to support an opinion or debate it, based on what they've read here... In that regard, I'm still curious about peoples opinions of managing fishing in parks, and opinions for and against. If you have nothing of value to add, don't post; if somthing pisses you off here, leave or post a 'value-added' response (I hate policy wonk terms).

 

So getting back on track... if we can quit the pissing match and stick to debate, I'd like to continue learning.

 

**

I'm of the opinion that the fisheries in BNP and JNP are minor compared to the fisheries available in the surrounding area just outside of the parks (largely due to resource access). Limiting fisheries in the parks and impementing a policy to encourage native fish propogation would be fine by me, as I doubt it would impact many people's fishing.

 

Am I wrong?

Or should I go back to the rock I've been hiding under for the past few months...

 

 

You had best not embarrass yourself buddy. i contracted the work, supervised it and it is in the parks library. Dumb sucks may not have access as they often have an ulterior motive

 

NEBC,

I'm curious about this report (assumming it's relevent to jetboats and salmonids)... for those of us that aren't worthy, but may have access, how would I go about finding it?

 

for those of you not familliar with the MK: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p027/rmrs_p027_104_109.pdf

 

This is all I have on jetboat (or any boat) access concerns in BC: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/b...sReport(v6).pdf

Habitat

Motorboats are associated with a number of impacts on aquatic habitats, including:

shoreline erosion, water pollution, sediment resuspension, increased turbulence and

turbidity, and damage to aquatic plants (Waller et al. 1999). Non-motorized boating can

also be associated with high levels of aquatic pollution, mostly from related human

activities (King and Mace 1974). Boating and angling are significant vectors of exotic

weed distribution (Johnstone et al. 1985).

 

Fisheries

The most obvious effect of water access on fish is an increase in mortality associated

with increased fishing pressure. In addition, boats or wading anglers may cause areas to

be abandoned by fish or may reduce the breeding success of fish populations by driving

guarding males off nests (Waller et al. 1999). Effects in shallow water are more severe

than in deeper water (Mueller 1980). Garrad and Hey (1988) demonstrated a relationship

between boat traffic, increased turbidity, decreased macrophyte abundance, and

decreased fish abundance and species diversity.

Up to 30% of fuel used in two-stroke marine engines is discharged unburned into water

(Douglass et al. 1999). The effect of these discharges on aquatic organisms is poorly

understood (Cole and Landres 1995); however, there is compelling evidence that fish

populations are affected by pollution associated with two-stroke engines (Bury 1978,

Waller 1999).

[Smitty]

I like reading these debates, despite what people may think about value. I think our opinions are influenced by what we read from all media, including internet forums. I also believe there is alot of valuable info available that can educate policy makers and regulators that may occasionally visit these forums. At the very least an intelligent person will look for peer reviewed science to support an opinion or debate it, based on what they've read here... In that regard, I'm still curious about peoples opinions of managing fishing in parks, and opinions for and against. If you have nothing of value to add, don't post; if somthing pisses you off here, leave or post a 'value-added' response (I hate policy wonk terms).

So getting back on track... if we can quit the pissing match and stick to debate, I'd like to continue learning.

 

**

 

Totally agreed. (Despite my giving into temptation on posting the combat boots comment; I was trying to lighten things a bit...)

 

Haven't read anything that changes my basic position though; very little fishing takes place in the parks when you take into account all the available water, most of the parks consist of vast empty spaces seen by few people since they are concentrated into one or two valleys, and there's no reason why the Parks couldn't implement a Quirk creek type approach for 'invasive' species and use angling as a management tool, as opposed to dynamite or rotenone (sp?), if the invasives pose that much of a threat.

 

Also, what I don't get is how the heck we got sidetracked into the jet boat thing. While its hard not to imagine jet boats not having an impact, what on God's green earth does this have to do with the poll? Has there been a sudden explosion of jet boat use on the Atha-B or the Bow river inside the parks? Aren't they prohibited (I actually don't know). huh???

 

Anyways, Kris sure is one thing to me; utterly confusing. One hand he says he has this position, on the other hand he says that. I am not dumping on you PGK, its not intended to be a flame or an effort on my part to lambast you; its just that if you sort through 8 pages of this thread (which would require not having much of a life right now, something I am familiar with), you'll see that you say things that contradict themselves. Not so much necessarily on the science, but your attitude. Anyways...

 

Mike

'Smitty'

[Harps]

Mike,

Do you think if parks implemented a broad angling based non-native removal program more people would fish?

 

I'd like to see more hiking trails, liberal keep rates of brookies (mandatory ID tests for park licences), and lots of 'cook your own fish on the campfire' type campspots...

That was one of the best things when growing up, camping near a creek with a fresh brookie on the fire... mmmm.

 

As it stands, I doubt there is enough angling in the parks to have any impact on non-natives (especially since most anglers don't want to carry brook trout out while hiking, or throw fish on the bank near a camping spot... its just bad bear policy).

 

I see great value in having vast spaces with little human access, but a selfish side of me wants to visit those places, just to test the fishing a little bit. It would give us a great benchmark in regards to managing other places... whether it is looking to create bigger fish or how to minimize impact, while providing excellent access.

I've spent some time on the tundra alone, out of radio contact the only sign of humans the planes way overhead... when you get over your fear of the big grizzly that passed by, you really understand how insignificant you are, but also how important your thoughts are, and further- how important an individual is when it comes to influencing the gears of society.

 

In that regard, I'm conflicted... parks with no trails, walking access only will get few visitors, but areas like that create the type of people that have huge impact to environmental polocy. On the other hand, easy access to "wilderness" will alow children (and families) to experience a small part of the awe associated with real wilderness. Although, in the past everybody experiencing a little bit of wilderness hasn't helped protect it.

[ÜberFly]

IMHO, I think you need to change the word "past" to present (or more accurately, presently after deleating "in the")... As this statement holds true to both the past and present!

 

P

 

Although, in the past everybody experiencing a little bit of wilderness hasn't helped protect it.

 

[reevesr1]

In that regard, I'm conflicted... parks with no trails, walking access only will get few visitors, but areas like that create the type of people that have huge impact to environmental polocy. On the other hand, easy access to "wilderness" will alow children (and families) to experience a small part of the awe associated with real wilderness. Although, in the past everybody experiencing a little bit of wilderness hasn't helped protect it.

 

Paul, I think you've just encapsulated the dilemma facing parks management folks. I watched a bit of Ken Burns documentary on the creation of the US National Parks system. They started off wanting everybody to come see the parks. Then they rapidly saw the problems associated with too easy access. But make access to difficult, and funding dries up. Difficult problem. Reading this thread would lead one to believe that if people just yell at each other, maybe that will help with the debate. Or maybe not. Sounds like you are trying to bring some reason to it. Good luck, I doubt we will play nice for long.

 

 

 

[Smitty]

Mike,

Do you think if parks implemented a broad angling based non-native removal program more people would fish?

 

I have no idea. But, in case my post was confusing, I wasn't intending to connect those dots. I have no particular idea or interest in creating some sort of marketing program that brings hordes of people to the parks to fish. I was just saying is there was some biologically sound basis for creating policy in managing natives vs non-native species, it would seem that having knowledgeable anglers might be an asset in non-native species removal, if that's deemed the direction we ought to go.

 

My approach in terms of popularity - or lack of - of fishing in the parks and parks policy in general is summed up by "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Nothing Kris has said has indicated to me its broke; we're not even close to the melodramatic "last" spawning pairs of Athabasca rainbows, bulls, or cutts situation. Indeed, as it was pointed out earlier, we already have C&R on the native species.

 

It just ain't broke!

 

Smitty

[Ricinus]

I think the area that "is broke " is outside the NP's along the Eastern Slopes. The Feds may not have it exactly right in the Parks but it's a helluva lot better than the Alta Govt. The policy appears to be- if you can't drill it, log it or mine it the land is useless. A greater danger to fishing rights is not restricted access in a NP, but destruction of habitat outside the parks. If anything I think we need more Prov/Nat Parks and the rules that go with them just to ensure our current fisheries will be here in the future.

 

Regards Mike

[Smitty]

I think the area that "is broke " is outside the NP's along the Eastern Slopes. The Feds may not have it exactly right in the Parks but it's a helluva lot better than the Alta Govt. The policy appears to be- if you can't drill it, log it or mine it the land is useless. A greater danger to fishing rights is not restricted access in a NP, but destruction of habitat outside the parks. If anything I think we need more Prov/Nat Parks and the rules that go with them just to ensure our current fisheries will be here in the future.

 

Regards Mike

 

 

I couldn't agree more Mike. I think the fisheries along the ES under provincial jurisdiction are facing issues more pressing then fisheries policy in Jasper or Banff. However, I recognize the significance of the inter-dependence that does exist, in the sense that many of our beloved, "provincial" flowing waters have their headwaters in the national parks.

 

Smitty

[PGK]

.

[Ricinus]

Actually PGK, I think any area can be "unparked" given the right set of circumstances and Govt- ANWR comes immediately to mind so nothing is truly safe. While NP's may provide some degree of protection, I think only a plan such a Y2Y protects a large enough area to be a true refugia if I am understanding that term correctly. I agree with you about stocking a pothole lake with non natives is different than stocking flowing waters, but what about introducing fish to flowing waters that had no resident fish( Stauffer, Ram etc)? Should we allow only natives or should we be more flexible-I'm kinda torn on this one

 

Regards Mike

[troutpirate]

 

speaking of pothole lakes without inlet or outlet creeks. it sure would be nice to see some fish stocked in the jasper pothole lakes that used to produce rainbows in the high teens regularly (edith, patricia, christine, and the first lake in the valley of the five).

[McLeod]

Additionally, in light of what parks are supposed to be, should we allow those pressures (which created the problem in the first place) to continue to impact the integrity of parks, and further, why should we allow an (arguably) cruel blood sport to impact fish in places which are supposed to be inherently "wild" and "pristine."

Shouldn't we allow some places to act as (here it comes) refugia? Why should caribou, sheep, grizzlies and elk be given so much more ethical consideration?

 

 

When you say "in light of what parks are suppose to be" keep in mind that this is always changing, what it was 50 years ago , what is is today is differant and what it will be 50 years from now is likely going to be differant based on Canadian and global dynamics such as human need and ecological changes.

 

Again as far as fisheries are concerned , if there are flowing waters that Brookies , Browns or Yellowstone Cuts can be removed then fine, indentify the waters and have a harvest..but that leads to other issues...

Cleaning out the few lakes that have Yellowstone Cutties , Brookies or Splake or non native Rainbows

is not practical , ethical ..i.e using poisons ... or economical .. So maybe instead use such lakes for educational purposes ...such as what the impacts of bring in non native species,.

 

Again to answer your orginal question..Should there be angling in the National Parks.

The answer is crystal clear ..Yes..This was an activity of tradition that was clear established as

an acceptable activity when the parks were established.

 

 

 

[ÜberFly]

Mining was an "activity of tradition" within the NP system... Based on your (this) statement should we then still allow mining within a (the) NP?!

 

P

 

When you say "in light of what parks are suppose to be" keep in mind that this is always changing, what it was 50 years ago , what is is today is differant and what it will be 50 years from now is likely going to be differant based on Canadian and global dynamics such as human need and ecological changes.

 

Again as far as fisheries are concerned , if there are flowing waters that Brookies , Browns or Yellowstone Cuts can be removed then fine, indentify the waters and have a harvest..but that leads to other issues...

Cleaning out the few lakes that have Yellowstone Cutties , Brookies or Splake or non native Rainbows

is not practical , ethical ..i.e using poisons ... or economical .. So maybe instead use such lakes for educational purposes ...such as what the impacts of bring in non native species,.

 

Again to answer your orginal question..Should there be angling in the National Parks.

The answer is crystal clear ..Yes..This was an activity of tradition that was clear established as

an acceptable activity when the parks were established.

 

[canadensis]

Mining was an "activity of tradition" within the NP system... Based on your (this) statement should we then still allow mining within a (the) NP?!

 

P

 

Comparing mining to angling is a bit much..

[ÜberFly]

My reply was based on his statement (logic) regarding historically appropriate (traditional) activities, i.e. if a + b = c... That's all...

 

P

 

Comparing mining to angling is a bit much..

[McLeod]

My reply was based on his statement (logic) regarding historically appropriate activities, i.e. if a + b = c... That's all...

 

P

 

Yikes... Tradition of stewartship

For many people, angling is a way of slowing down and enjoying the peacefulness that protected areas provide us. For others, it's a way of learning about aquatic environments. Whatever your motivation, enjoy your time along the lakes and rivers of the mountain national parks and help us protect this important resource.

 

 

Mining was not an acceptable activity after the creation of the Parks..and was always to be phased out however wouldn't be surprised if someday..100 years or more from now it occurs again..nothing should surprise us..who knows what is in some those rocks.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

speaking of pothole lakes without inlet or outlet creeks. it sure would be nice to see some fish stocked in the jasper pothole lakes that used to produce rainbows in the high teens regularly (edith, patricia, christine, and the first lake in the valley of the five).

 

I grew up as a child fishing some of these. Some of my fondest memories with the family. I even had fun catching little whites along Wapiti campground.