Fishing In National Parks

[Smitty]

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.

 

Monger...yes...this is the heart of the issue. Take Jasper for instance; golfing, skiing, fishing (swap in Banff if you like, I picked Jasper because I'm from Edmonchuk).

 

What do you think the % is, by the way? Anyone? The % I'm referring to is the amount of tourists who venture beyond the Athabasca and Maligne Valleys. I'll bet 90% - I really don't know - but I'll bet its around 90% of people never get beyond those 2 watersheds. Add a little bit for Marmot Basin, Edith Cavell, and Sunwapta as you near the icefields.

 

But basically the park is empty. How many people see the northern boundary and explore the trails. Not a heck of a lot.

 

What I'm saying is that right now, I don't see what the federal, compelling case is here...is our parks system broke? If it isn't, does it need "fixing"? Aren't there vast swaths of pretty, relatively pristine areas people can choose to interact with (or not)?

 

Again, I'm for preservation, conservation, refuges, all to a degree. But as said earlier, without the human interaction, you risk losing much, in my opinion. Many families go to Banff, Jasper, (and Kananskis, yes, not a Nat'l Park), and many kids first positive experiences include fishing in those areas.

 

PGK, nice thing about a forum is that you can check a person's history of posts. I wouldn't be so quick to judge the tone of the forum if I were you...anyways, I've tried to keep my reply on topic here.

 

Smitty

[nebc]

PINE BEETLE is invasive, but brook trout aren't!? Pine beetle is native to all over western canada!? What crack are you guys ON!? I'm not 'gathering data' I've posting a freaking POLL. My mind is officially blown at the ignorance, assumptions and throat-jumping that this forum has become. Disgusting.

Your narrow green view has to simply be better focused as you are going down the wrong path whethe you think so or otherwise.

 

Best wishes with that but I am afraid in context this will lead you nowhere fast. If you are a student then it would be more productive to try to think through these issues from the perspective of what it is the public wants rather than what a Park Planner would want. Those two ideas are hardly the same in most cases as they are both based on subjectivity whether planning people care to debate that or not.

 

[flyfishfairwx]

PINE BEETLE is invasive, but brook trout aren't!? Pine beetle is native to all over western canada!? What crack are you guys ON!? I'm not 'gathering data' I've posting a freaking POLL. My mind is officially blown at the ignorance, assumptions and throat-jumping that this forum has become. Disgusting.

 

 

The mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae, is a species of bark beetle native to the forests of western North America from Mexico to central British Columbia.

 

And last time I checked the Brook trout was one of the first Trout/Char discovered in NA, and very native, to a much larger part of NA then the local trouts, and not conclusively, to only semi eastern NA

 

We are talking about Alberta parks..

 

I do not rate the Brook trout, as invasive, lets look at real invasive species - Didgimo, Zebra mussels, Whirling, sea lice..

 

and you have still not told me and truthfully you don't have to what is your area of study?

 

or answered the question is this just a way for Boilinjests to carry on a larger experiment.

 

BTW I have some Biologist friends that I respect very much, but not always agree with!!

[nebc]

Then what is the purpose of a park? Careful...200years? How far back do we go? Pre-hominid habituation? Pre-euro contact?

This comment is reflective of the mistaken green view characteristic of students and planning people rather than the biologically sound view of those other than 'wannabe biologists'

 

Give your head a shake guy.

[PGK]

.

[PGK]

.

[Smitty]

Where *is* the tradeoff my friend? Use deteriorates, but without use, there can be no appreciattion, and with no appreciation, comes no support, and no funding, and even more deterioration than with use? It's hard to tell. Can you appreciate the value of parks without using them? It appears most cannot.

 

The answer is yes and no. I'm human. Yes, I can appreciate them remotely, like I can many of the wonderful parks in northern Canada, but, I'd probably be a stronger advocate for them if I ever saw/used them. So , no, I can't appreciate them in many ways until I use them. This is why its so important to get kids outdoors and why I use to enjoy running a flyfishing club so much. It was deeply gratifying to see kids in areas where they might not ever see again.

 

but here's the crux; fishing was my method of madness. That's my - and virtually everyone else's - method of appreciating the outdoors. We all know the endless debate about C&R cruelty, fish harassment, PETA nonsense, etc etc. But in the end, without being a little subserviant to that human/hunter bloodlust instinct, my interaction for the outdoors lessens. For me, its about the experience of fishing and what it does to my soul. I think everyone knows this when they're fishing with their buddies, their children, or even those necessary moments of solitude.

Rock climbing doesn't do it for me, canoeing doesn't, nor biking.

 

Its about fishing, and some of my best memories, like many here, come from fishing the mountain parks. PGK, I have very little to no fear of over-use; why? Because, right now, the culture of Parks Canada seems to be very sensitive to this and have taken steps to ensure protection. Even over-protection (Shall I open the can of worms labelled "Harlequin Ducks? )

 

It ain't broke don't fix it. On a moral scale, many PETA types wonder at the exception (re:hyposcrisy) granted to fishing. I don't care about that. Fishing fosters that desire to protect what I love, including watersheds.

 

Many things in society work in compromisal basis, where exceptions are made. This is one of them. And I can't help but shrug my shoulders.

 

Smitty

 

 

 

 

 

[flyfishfairwx]

Smitty, your replies are always appreciated, in any form. I have been conducting most of my activity on the forum in PM's, will likely continue to do so, now that people have assumed I am some kind of greenie protectionist hippie loser. Amusing, isn't it?

 

Where *is* the tradeoff my friend? Use deteriorates, but without use, there can be no appreciattion, and with no appreciation, comes no support, and no funding, and even more deterioration than with use? It's hard to tell. Can you appreciate the value of parks without using them? It appears most cannot.

 

FFFWX, if you don't consider bktr as invasive, you should not even be participating in the discussion, you're that confused.

 

Because I do not agree with you, I am confused? and can't participate, are you posting from China, or some other non democratic country?

 

I hope you are not studying to be a teacher, or professor !

 

The original idea for the parks was to establish a place for TOURISTS to go and enjoy nature, have a place to fish, as the industrial age, had destroyed that opportunity for Canadians in the past.

 

That is why the large lodges and rail sys was put where it was and why the parks were put were they are.. and the prolific Brook trout and the iconic Browns were INTRODUCED....

 

Not to be some shrine to what some think things should be or were..

 

[PGK]

.

[ÜberFly]

That's becuase there is a lot of revenue generated by "user fees" (to compensate for the lessening tax $'s that are available for parks), less people = less revenue, less revenue = less $ they can put towards concervation initiatives, protection, etc.

 

P

 

Smitty, parks *was* going back toward protection, but in light of declining visitation, all kinds of stupid 'new use' activities are going ahead...zip lines!? Declining visitation has them scared out of their shorts!

[PGK]

.

[ÜberFly]

I know, I'm just restating it!!

 

P

 

That's what I said!

 

[Smitty]

Smitty, parks *was* going back toward protection, but in light of declining visitation, all kinds of stupid 'new use' activities are going ahead...zip lines!? Declining visitation has them scared out of their shorts!

 

Fair enough, but is the activity stupid because you don't like it, or is it stupid for another reason? Do you see what I am driving at? What's does a zip line area encompass? A couple of acres? Are Parks going to put in an ultra sensitive zone where a rare species has habitat? I'm ignorant here; is there some massive impact of zip lines we should be aware of? Like it or not, Parks policy is subject to public whims and response. That puts policy making on a bit of a pendulum. Its not reason to completely suspend common sense, but if the parks want more people, its completely unsurprising to me that they would devise and approve an activity; especially one that might appeal to younger types...

 

PGK, you work in this field (yes?). Is it a safe assumption on my part that would include assisting policy makers in implementing programs, even if you don't agree with them? Outside the park, would you have a province wide ban on atv's. Some support here on this board for that position, but does that policy make sense, and even more to the point, would you be able to shunt aside your personal, emotional bias to assist in the implementation and enforcement of the policies on issues you don't like?

 

I'm just asking the question...

 

Smitty

[PGK]

.

[flyfishfairwx]

That's becuase there is a lot of revenue generated by "user fees" (to compensate for the lessening tax $'s that are available for parks), less people = less revenue, less revenue = less $ they can put towards concervation initiatives, protection, etc.

 

P

 

At one time the Nat parks were focused on Fishing and harvesting of fish, then for what ever reason they stopped stocking, 70/80s maybe in response to greenpeice/PETA types that were emerging at that time..

 

well here we are now , "fishing brings in Little Revenue" well if there are no fish then No revenue!

 

the native species are not conducive to big catch rates that tourists want, so they turned their attention to other things and now we are at Zip lines for a thrill in a Nat park..

 

Weird right.. they are supposed to be a place of beauty and natural wonder!

 

I do not find anything beautiful in a zip line..

 

I do find beauty in an intact ecosystem, even with the introduced species that we all love!

 

[PGK]

.

[Smitty]

I have a passing interest in park management as I believe Ottawa Parks Canada is selling out our headwaters to the highest bidder. Zip lines? Are we to turn national parks into amusement parks and charge five bucks a ride on the educational 'what happened to the bull trout' raft rides? They are subject to public whims, but when park managers are resistant to change, but fear doing anything other than toeing the party line, for fear of losing funding to do the little they can, what happens to the resource, are we to stand by? It's pretty messed up man.

 

Mandated: Ecological integity and use. The third loop is education....we might be getting there.....but maybe not.

 

Aren't we already there? Golfing, skiing, all the outdoors activities to fill yer boots, there is a playground/amusement park aspect to it. That's what I like about our parks.

 

As for internal politics and bureaucracy, well same old same old. You know what to do; write letters, raise awareness. People always fear of losing funding when they start supporting something that the hand that feeds you doesn't. Every level of government works this way. By the way, what does selling our headwaters, a legitimate - if somewhat rhetorically exaggerated concern - have to do with fishing being allowed? You're comparing "newly" approved amusement park stuff to an activity - fishing - that has been allowed for over a 100 years?

 

I do see where you are coming from, in the sense the public has to be on guard for the pendulum to swing far too much in terms of the "amusement" park model you suggest. I don't see that yet, but I am not exactly in the loop or up to date on what's going on. I think the vast majority of silent, apathetic Canadians/Albertans who rarely speak up, write letters, heck, even bother to vote, would stand for the "disneyfication" or "rampant commercialization" of our national parks.

 

At the risk of starting a whole new thread - - where do you get the "selling our headwaters" stuff?

 

Yeah, I guess I am just not as worried or as worked up yet. Like the guide licensing issue, the gov't (provincial or federal) only has so much time, $, and attention from health, education, and the rotten state of Denmark (aka "economy") to spend on these types of things. I just want to ensure that when I do get the gov't's attention, its with big enough fish to be bothered frying. Perhaps I'm a little cynical in this regard.

 

Still waiting to see what the big deal is, and I'm seriously not trying to be daft or difficult.

 

Smitty

P.S. Would like to see more environmental education for the public though...

 

[ÜberFly]

"Intact ecosystem"!! Really!! in and around Banff & Jasper! Take out the "towns & villages", road ways and rail lines within said "ecosystem" and I would still hesitate to call them "intact"!

 

P

 

I do find beauty in an intact ecosystem, even with the introduced species that we all love!

[PGK]

.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The answer is yes and no. I'm human. Yes, I can appreciate them remotely, like I can many of the wonderful parks in northern Canada, but, I'd probably be a stronger advocate for them if I ever saw/used them. So , no, I can't appreciate them in many ways until I use them. This is why its so important to get kids outdoors and why I use to enjoy running a flyfishing club so much. It was deeply gratifying to see kids in areas where they might not ever see again.

 

but here's the crux; fishing was my method of madness. That's my - and virtually everyone else's - method of appreciating the outdoors. We all know the endless debate about C&R cruelty, fish harassment, PETA nonsense, etc etc. But in the end, without being a little subserviant to that human/hunter bloodlust instinct, my interaction for the outdoors lessens. For me, its about the experience of fishing and what it does to my soul. I think everyone knows this when they're fishing with their buddies, their children, or even those necessary moments of solitude.

Rock climbing doesn't do it for me, canoeing doesn't, nor biking.

 

Its about fishing, and some of my best memories, like many here, come from fishing the mountain parks. PGK, I have very little to no fear of over-use; why? Because, right now, the culture of Parks Canada seems to be very sensitive to this and have taken steps to ensure protection. Even over-protection (Shall I open the can of worms labelled "Harlequin Ducks? )

 

It ain't broke don't fix it. On a moral scale, many PETA types wonder at the exception (re:hyposcrisy) granted to fishing. I don't care about that. Fishing fosters that desire to protect what I love, including watersheds.

 

Many things in society work in compromisal basis, where exceptions are made. This is one of them. And I can't help but shrug my shoulders.

 

Smitty

 

X1

 

When PETA folks stop taking up space and oxygen and plant resources that a shrew, mouse, gopher, deer, robin etc. can use which includes housing PETA folks (takes up valuable space and leave a permanent footprint) as well as being vegans...they intensively cultivate tons of plant matter to feed people in which such farms are not welcome to deer, elk, moose, mice, gophers, insects, native plants etc.

 

Problem is some people all feel that everyone else should live exactly as them as their way is the best. Rather than leading through example they feel they have to shout it in your ear. That never works.

 

As for can we appreciate something we don't use...how about the little park out east that needs major influx of capital to fix it...does anyone in BC or Alberta care? Do you know which one it is? Would you vote to spend money there or on Banff and Jasper and Elk Island. Do you think more about Banff and Jasper and forget or ignore Wood Buffalo? Does anyone not using a park and simply spend all their time in a city care? Point of fact is the answer is no. Only people that use it appreciate it.

 

Kris...look at your the tone of your post and do some serious soul searching to see if you can present topics easier and friendlier. Simple phrase is you get what you ask for.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

[flyfishfairwx]

Maybe they stopped stocking because they realized the massive amount of environmental degradation it was causing. What is a meat fisherman doing on a fly forum? Introduced species and intact ecosystem can not be one and the same.

 

Not now nor have I ever been a meat fisherman, just stating the historical facts..

 

The Brooks and Browns did not cause environmental damage, just species displacement.. these are not the rats of Australia, or the Cane Toads..those were introduced and invasive..

 

I strongly challenge you to find me a true intact ecosystem, were at no time did a species show up after the start point! it does not exist, ecosystems are not static, they change all the time, for good and bad.. but what is the time frame for them to return to what we would call stable, There always is a winner and loser in nature..

 

Note: at one time when I left home as a kid in NB, I did serve on Brook trout and rabbits and blue berries for a very short time, but that was the extent of it.

 

I do hunt, and I have taught my sons to hunt and fish with the highest regard for the rules and regulations and for the resource.

 

but and there is always a but - this petty "we have to return the world to "what it was, or what we think it was in the good old days" is wrong, these are the good old days..

 

It can't be done don't waste my tax dollars on it..

[PGK]

.

[flyfishfairwx]

I do find beauty in an intact ecosystem, even with the introduced species that we all love!

 

 

"Intact ecosystem"!! Really!! in and around Banff & Jasper! Take out the "towns & villages", road ways and rail lines within said "ecosystem" and I would still hesitate to call them "intact"!

 

P

 

 

Agreed ! there is more to the post then that one line!

 

You have to be a fair bit away from the hubs of the parks as we know them today..

[flyfishfairwx]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. None what so ever.

 

 

Well that has not stopped you!

 

Gay pokey thing here ->

 

Mods - I did not start it!!!!!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

When was the last time you read, or heard anything about, aquatic ecology in a NP? Sure, they fixed some culverts in Jasper, but does it go far enough?

 

Interest in aquatic ecology often starts with the lobbying from fishing groups like Trout Unlimited and reports from fishermen seeing problems. Studies are usually only done to either inventory and/or mitigate problems or management strategies such as seen in fisheries management. Those studies often can look to other aquatic issues and not just fish. Right now few people are fishing to care what is happening to the rivers or lakes. If there was a toxic spill it may go unnoticed for a while.

 

As for use versus no use...some people have tunnel vision and see just the major corridors and the ski hills and the towns and roads and the railroads and the campgrounds. Fly over the mountains...look at the topo maps and there is a vast tract of land that sees very, very few people.

 

Kris...just write down "exactly" how you would manage the Parks rather than fishing for someone that seems to agree with you or calling out everyone else for being wrong and against your point of view.

 

As a student...do this.

 

don't worry about your executive summary as you have kinda gotten off track.

write out a hypothesis regarding the state of Park's and just to make it easy to understand pick either Banff or Jasper as an example

write out a short methodology for how you would fix it

write out a utopian result from your methodology

Then we can all discuss your "conceptual" plans for "fixing" the Parks.

 

Please ensure you keep it simple as we all know you can not fix it all and not just one aspect such as fish. You can't kick everyone out of the Park. Please make sure however that you don't arbitrarily punish one user group as in you should include plants, animals, fish, pollution etc. in forming your hypothesis.

 

some ideas...

 

Do you think that native fish in the Park will help repopulate the rest of Alberta? Do you think their genetics are at risk to catch and release angling? etc.

 

I agree that stocking non native species have had serious consequences in some instances. I would also say now that where the damage has been done...using that as an excuse to shut down that recreational opportunity is a shame.

 

Cheers

 

Sun