Fishing In National Parks

[Taco]

Firstly brookies do not cause massive environmental degradation. Ask your teacher.

Isn't environmental degradation the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife? If that's the definition then brookies in western Canada have caused environmental degradation by causing the extinction of westslope cutthroat trout in more than several streams in their native range.

 

Taco:

 

Nice sentiment, and I have sympathy for what you are saying. Unfortunately, its very, very dangerous in my opinion. Dangerous in terms of opportunity and accessibility. I'm only talking about the feds.

 

Here's what I mean; suppose we all feel that way and give it up. Lets say we are also moderately to pretty damn successful. Then what? You think your great grandchildren will be able to fish the parks because of yours/our 'sacrifice'? I highly doubt it! Once the fishing is taken away, I can't see it coming back. The culture of Parks Canada is such they would be happy to see it go under whatever pretence, and your great grandchildren would stuck fishing the province. Now I grant you, that's still a lot of water, but to lose the heritage/tradition of fishing in the Nat'l parks is too much - without a benefit to future generations, in my opinion.

 

Smitty

 

I would be in favor of any management plan that would drastically enhance the status of any and all native species. Liberal harvest of invasives, poisoning where viable, barriers, closure of sensitive drainages while proper species re-establish and total c+r of natives where not under threat. One only has to look to what the Americans are doing to reestablish their native species and know what should be coming to a Park/Province near you. About time, I'm sick of watching the natives disappear from their streams. All trout are NOT equal.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Isn't environmental degradation the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil; the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife? If that's the definition then brookies in western Canada have caused environmental degradation by causing the extinction of westslope cutthroat trout in more than several streams in their native range.

 

 

 

I would be in favor of any management plan that would drastically enhance the status of any and all native species. Liberal harvest of invasives, poisoning where viable, barriers, closure of sensitive drainages while proper species re-establish and total c+r of natives where not under threat. One only has to look to what the Americans are doing to reestablish their native species and know what should be coming to a Park/Province near you. About time, I'm sick of watching the natives disappear from their streams. All trout are NOT equal.

 

"en masse environmental degradation" IMHO applies to a lot more factors than just one species impact over another. They have harmed native species but the limit of their effects on the "environment" as a whole IMHO does not warrant saying an all encompassing moniker. At the same time...it is tragic to negatively impact a population of native fish or negatively impact a managed fishery.

 

Perch in Lake Sundance did not cause environmental degradation but rather harmed our ability to grow trout.

 

Not all fish species are evolved to inhabit an area. Nature has been harmed in many instances...unknowingly at the time. Quirk Creek is an interesting case study on selective target of brookies. Poisoning is not an option. This is a Federal Park. Native invertebrates and amphibians would be potentially killed.

 

Still a plan is better than no plan. Some has merit IMHO.

[canadensis]

I voted for fishing in the Parks.

 

It is problem that I may not be able to fish in the Park, yet someone can stay in a $500/night hotel room that overlooks where I once fished...

 

Forget about the nonsense of ridding the waters of non-native species, just nonsense.

 

I fish a couple of creeks that have seen more bulltrout and less cutthroat trout over the past 10 years. I am sure the cutties consider the Bull Trout invasive..

[Smitty]

Taco:

 

Again, all fair points what you said, and I admire your ability to look at the whole picture.

 

But I am curious if you have a comment directly about what I said in terms of Park Policy and if fishing is eliminated the privilege won't be given back. If your position is that's a chance your willing to take (no great grandchildren fishing in the Park allowed), then I respect that. Just want to know how far you're willing to take it.

 

I always like Barry Mitchell's comment about trying to get cream out of the coffee. Unless there is a closed system, impassable falls, some sort of mitigation, aren't some of these approaches costly in a doomed effort to fail?

 

I like the Quirk creek project; and I like its approach. It seems like a workable compromise (won't eliminate the brookies, but you can curtail their numbers, and you actually preserve an opportunity to fish).

 

I'll tell you something else; the kids in my flyfishing club loved the outings at Quirk creek, and were very educational. They enjoyed the ID test. And I've got more than a few young flyfishing addicts because of that project. Makes sense.

 

My arm is generally rubber when it comes to protecting native species. I'm all for it, as long as there is some tangible goal that really provides the basis for permanent progress/solution. Blowing up lakes with dynamite or poisoning them in a system where the invasives could come back is not productive.

 

Smitty

[flyfishfairwx]

 

 

 

[Weedy1]

Shouldn't you girls be in bed?

 

Good-night, Mary Ellen

[PGK]

.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hey rick, don't forget the auger on your way out the door. Taeke's got the bait, I think. I'll grab the beer.

 

So, I am the artist formerly known as....etc. I've never tried to hide or be deceitful....what's the malfunction? I don't conform and I speak my mind? Less so, now, because as I grow older I find less and less utility in arguing with avatars on the interwebs...just chill out Alberta....I'm not the bad guy.

 

Hey PGK.

 

Sorry if I seem to come down too hard on you. Your initital post seemed to arrogant in your assumptions. As mentioned before if you review your post prior to submitting and critique it like you would think before speaking in a conversation with a room full of friends, potential employers, family etc... you could come across better.

 

I note that name calling is starting to occur which is inappropriate. While there is nothing wrong with asking questions...if the responses are not meeting your expectations you just need to chill. You can re-evaluate your position or just plain enjoy a "friendly" debate on the subject.

 

Overall the topic is not a bad one... It has been discussed before though if I recall. Let's try and keep the name calling to a zero minimum. I am still curious. Did you start this thread as part of a project for class or just out of personal interest?

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Taco]

Sorry Smitty, I'll take a shot @ answering later on today

[flyfishfairwx]

Here is a little light reading for all those people who think brook trout are A-OK for the health of native aquatic ecosystems. Enjoy.

 

 

Donald, D.B., Anderson, R.S. and Mayhood, D.W. 1980. Correlations between brook trout growth and environmental variables for mountain lakes in Alberta. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 109: 603-610.

 

Donald, D.B. 1987. Assessment of the outcome of eight decades of trout stocking in the mountain national parks, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 7: 545-553.

 

Donald, D.B., Vinebrook, R.D., Anderson, R.S. Syrgiannis, J. and Graham, M.D. 2001. recovery of zooplankton assemblages in mountain lakes from the effects of introduced sport fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 58: 1822-1830.

 

Delong, D.C. 1996. Defining Biodiversity. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24(4): 738-794.

 

Dunham, J.B., Adams, S.B., Schroeter, R.E. and Novinger, D.C. 2002. Alien invasions in aquatic ecosystems: Toward an understanding of brook trout invasions and potential impacts on inland cutthroat trout in western north america. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 12: 373-391.

 

Frissell, C.A. and Bayles, D. 1996. Ecosystem Management and the conservation of aquatic biodiversity and ecological integrity. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2): 229-240.

 

Hamilton, B.T., Moore, S.E., Williams, T.B., Darby, N. and Vinson, M.R. 2009. Comparative effects of rotenone and antimycin on macroinvertebrate diversity in two streams in great basin national park, Nevada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29: 1620-1635.

 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/154...MO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/154...TA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/154...BB%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://www.fitzhugh.ca/archive/82-above-an...ow-the-surface- Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-14.01/page...nchorbo-ga:s_32 Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/prof/i.../eco/eco1_e.asp Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStew...ut-July2009.pdf Accessed Nov 22 2009

 

Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan. (2000). Government Services Canada. Cat No. R64-105/28-2000E

 

Leary, R.F., Allendorf, F.W. and Knudsen, K.L. 1983. Consistently high merisitic counts in natural hybrids between brook trout and bull trout. Systematic Zoology. 32(4): 369-376.

 

Logan, M.N. 2003. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) movement and habitat use in a headwater stream of the central appalachian mountains of west Virginia. MSc Thesis, West Virginia University.

 

Meyer, K.A., Lamansky, J.A. and Schill, D.J. 2006. Evaluation of an unsuccessful brook trout electrofishing removal project in a small rocky mountain stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 26: 849-860.

 

Paul, A.J. and Post, J.R. 2001. Spatial distribution of native and non-native salmonids in streams of the eastern slopes of the Canadian rocky mountains. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 130: 417-430.

 

Petersen, D.P., Fausch, K.D. and White, G.C. 2004. Population ecology of an invasion: Effects of brook trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications. 14(3): 754-772.

 

Petersen, D.P., Fausch, K.D., Watmough, J. and Cunjak, R.A. 2008. When eradication is not an option: Modeling strategies for electrofishing supporession of nonnative brook trout to foster persistence of sympatric native cutthroat trout in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 28: 1847-1867.

 

Rawson, D.S. 1941. The eastern brook trout in the maligne river system, jasper national park. American Fisheries Society. 221-235.

 

Rieman, B.E., Peterson, J.T. and Myers, D.L. 2005. Have brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) displaced bull trout (Sallvelinus confluentus) along longitudinal gradients in central Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 63: 63-78.

 

Rinne, J.N., Minckley, W.L. and Hanson, J.N. 1981. Chemical treatment of ord creek, apache county, Arizona, to re-establish Arizona trout. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 16: 74-78.

 

Shepard, B.B., Spoon, R., Nelson, L. 2003. A native westslope cutthroat trout population responds positively after brook trout removal and habitat restoration. Intermountain Journal of Science. 8(3): 193-214.

 

Stelfox, J.D., Baayens, D.M., Eisler, G.R., Paul, A.J. and Shumaker, G.E. 2004. Quirk creek brook trout suppression project. Wild Trout VIII Symposium – Contributed Paper.

 

Wilkinson, C.E. 2009. Sportfish population dynamics in an intensively managed river system. Msc Thesis, University of British Columbia.

 

 

search google

 

A lot of good reading there, read most of what I could until 0130am this morning, a lot of it, supports that the Brookies do take over when cutts are co-mingled but they the brookies tend to live in the lower and slower geography of the streams with the bows.. one article stated that the majority of the lakes stocked were barren to begin with, and that they were stocked for the tourists..the bulls and the brookies do hybrid, but not often and the hybrids are fertile, i would think that the smaller brookies for the most part would be a good substitute for the cutts the bulls usually feed on. so maybe we should move bulls it the over populated areas.. oh oh back down a slippery slope.. for the most part brookies will stay small and over populate a section of a river system, this I would think would allow larger bows,bulls and browns and to an extent Cutts to feed on them and actually thrive, so maybe they are a blessing in disguise, a lot of the rivers here in the west are not as nutrient rich as in the east, and even then brookies do not get large unless they have a large rich food source, and the genitics to get large, Minipi comes to mind mice, and prolific caddis, but only a small (relatively) number of the brookies get really large..

 

As to what the Nat parks and the province is to do about the Brookie "problem" I am not sure, but and there is always a but the wholesale slaughter of an introduced species does not ring right to me..

 

Through Pm's I know what this thing was about, and for my part in the shitstorm , well it is what it is.. and PGK I of course will keep my eyes open for you buddy..

[Ricinus]

What if whirling disease, rock snot, NZ mud snails or something new shows up and starts gaining a foothold in the National Parks? Should the waters be closed to Fishing as we are the cause of the spread.

 

Regards Mike

[McLeod]

Brook trout are an invasive species. They procreate and proliferate like bad weeds. They are non-native and cause en masse environmental degradation where not kept in check. They are more agressive and more fecund than our native species. Inbreeding with bulls, outcompetition of Athabows, en masse takeoverof juvenile rearing habitat.

The coaster strain is a stocked strain from nipigon. Why should we have a refuge for them in the rockies? (Put down the rope Dave). Nobody really knows exactly what was stocked in 305 mountain parks lakes between the turn of the century and the early 80s. Rainbows, brookies, cutts, lakers, browns, bulls, splake, they tried it all. The excuse of maintaining a refugia for a non native strain of brook trout (which is doing quite well in its native habitat I understand) is a poor, poor rationale for inaction considering the status (or lack of knowledge thereof) of many native populations.

 

En masse acceptance of 'the regulations' is no longer good enough. Question the status quo if things aren't right.

 

Seriously..Brook Trout an invasive species...Who brought them here ?

I understand your deal with native fish , almost everyone is on the same page with protecting natives. No one has an issue with that but how far do we go ?

Do we remove all rainbows and browns from the Bow river because they are non native ?

Why not remove all the cuts from the ram river and every other native fish that is living in waters where they never where ? Hey those fish are invasive to the natural inverbrate population that lives there.

 

As far as Parks are concerned we need to draw a line in the stand and keep what we have now.

Any ideas of reducing fish populations or angling opportunites must be resisted.

 

[McLeod]

And by the way PGK..please read the following and add this to your knowledge base.. it makes good sense to to not remove special populations of Brook trout at some of our mountain lakes...

 

Restoring Laurentian aquatic ecosystems

Lakes in La Mauricie National Park of Canada are once again supporting unique Brook trout and Arctic char populations

 

A vast ecological restoration program is underway to restore the health of aquatic ecosystems in La Mauricie National Park of Canada. The program includes the extensive removal of former dumps and dams and the restoration of aquatic bird nesting sites, as well as forest rehabilitation, anti-poaching surveillance and environmental evaluation. As part of this larger effort, park biologists have begun to implement a plan to restore a sub-species of the Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the park's lakes. This sub-species is unique to the park.

 

La Mauricie National Park, in the heart of Quebec, is a landscape of rounded hills, deep valleys and extensive waterways characteristic of the lower Laurentian Mountains. The park has over 150 lakes, all interconnected by a network of brooks and small, cascading rivers that ultimately flow into the Matawin and Saint-Maurice rivers. These waterways support diverse fish species, including Brook trout, Speckled trout, Lake trout, Northern pike, Small-mouth bass, Yellow perch and Walleye. Français Lake supports the only Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) population in the region, which is the southern-most end of its range.

 

 

Park staff found that habitat destruction caused by earlier logging activities, poaching and non-native fish introductions by human beings has seriously threatened the existence of many species of indigenous fish. For 120 years, logging and log driving occurred on the majority of what are now park waters. These activities have left a legacy of old dams, logging roads, accumulations of logs on lake bottoms, eroded sediments, and dragged streams. The impact of these activities greatly compromised fish habitat.

 

In response, Parks Canada has removed a number of dams and stream blockages. At Lac Édouard, park staff replaced the old dam structures with three sills created from rock fill, giving the site a natural flow and appearance. Spawning areas were also created upstream from the dam and between the sills. The drop in the average water level to within natural fluctuation levels for this lake made it possible to enlarge the nearby beach and to recreate many shoreline areas at the northern end of the lake.

 

The other challenge to the park's aquatic ecosystem is invasive fish species. Today, there are roughly 19 new species of fish that have been voluntarily or involuntarily introduced by people. These species have become a threat to the Brook trout.

 

Park staff have built a vast inventory of scientific knowledge about the natural wealth of the park's aquatic ecosystems and have directed that knowledge toward efforts to reintroduce and stabilize Brook trout populations. This past year, biologists collected fertilized eggs from this sub-species for over-wintering in an aquaculture facility. This spring, these eggs will be re-introduced into the lakes that their ancestors once inhabited in great numbers.

 

Results

 

 

 

Improvements to the ecological integrity of 8% of surface waters (487 hectares) of La Mauricie National Park.

 

The 83% increase in the number of lakes with restored fish ecosystems illustrates the significant reduction in the negative impacts caused by logging debris and other human activities.

 

The Brook trout has been re-introduced in four lakes. Its genetic integrity has received enhanced protection.

 

The removal of six dams and blockages to eight lakes has restored habitat for the Brook trout and Arctic char.

 

 

 

Further to that..

 

 

La Mauricie National Park of Canada

The Speckled Trout Gets a Boost!

The mandate of La Mauricie National Park involves protecting the ecological integrity of a representative sample of Laurentian lakes and forests. In the past, human activity such as log driving, dam construction, and the introduction of new fish species all altered the integrity of many aquatic ecosystems. The most noticeable effects have been on the speckled trout (brook trout). Originally, the trout was the only species naturally present in a little over 120 lakes. Today, it lives in only 55 lakes, and almost always among introduced species. Loss of productivity among the brook trout is estimated at about 50% over a 50-year period. That’s why the From Log to Canoe project is rescuing some of the park’s indigenous fish communities. The brook trout, the species that best represents the park, will be reintroduced into some of the park’s lakes.

 

The Tessier Lake Nursery

Tessier Lake was the first lake used for reintroduction. In fall 2004, a team of biologists captured male and female spawners in Waber Lake. They removed milt (also known as soft roe) and eggs to make an artificial spawn. The eggs were then brought to a fish farm where they could develop under the watchful eye of biologists. On May 15, 2005, no less than 14 000 fry were carefully introduced into Tessier Lake. The experiment was repeated the following spring. Ever since, the nursery has been closely monitored by Michel Plante, a park biologist, and by distinguished researchers like Louis Bernatchez, from Université Laval, and Pierre Magnan, from Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières.

 

 

Artificial spawn

©Parks Canada - Marie-Claude Trudel

 

Old Fish, New Fish

A story by Michel Plante:

In May 2007, I travelled to Tessier Lake with Dr. Pierre Magnan. Upon arriving, our attention was immediately caught by some movement in the shallow water. Imagine our excitement when, upon closer inspection, we realized it was fry. Thus, only two years after stocking, the fish were not only surviving, but also reproducing ‑ and one year earlier than anticipated! Nature sometimes offers us some wonderful surprises. Encouraged by this discovery, we thoroughly examined the perimeter of the lake and observed thousands of young fish.

 

 

Speckled trout fry

©Parks Canada - Jacques Pleau

 

If the trout are reproducing, this means there must be spawning grounds. But where? Part of the answer came to me later during the fall. On a calm and starry yet slightly chilly night, François Auger (the restoration project technician) and I searched the lake, examining its surroundings with the help of an underwater lamp. Here and there we saw a few four- to six-inch juveniles, but no sign of a spawning ground. Suddenly, when we had all but given up hope, we saw movement in the light: trout in action in a large shallow spawning ground. At least fifty large spawners were busy cleaning the bottom or frolicking about. It’s likely thousands of small trout will colonize the shores of the lake next year. Upon returning from this expedition, we shared a huge sense of satisfaction. Now there is another magnificent population of trout in the park, and the reintroduction effort had worked. Tessier Lake, which hadn’t contained a single fish species for over 50 years, is coming back to life.

 

A Doctorate-worthy Population

For the moment, the trout seem to be adapting very well to the waters of Tessier Lake. Biologists Nathalie Brodeur, a doctoral student at Université Laval, Louis Bernatchez, a researcher at Université Laval, and Pierre Magnan, a researcher at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, are conducting scientific studies to better understand how the new population is adjusting to its habitat.

 

Many fish were taken from Tessier Lake for their research. Upon removal, each fish had 18 of its morphological characteristics measured and its stomach content analyzed. By ecologically monitoring the fish population of Tessier Lake, Nathalie Brodeur will be able to verify the hypothesis that a fish’s habitat and prey indeed affects the shape of its body.

 

 

Ecological monitoring of the speckled trout population

©Parks Canada - Véronique Nadeau

 

Genetic monitoring is also necessary to establish the number and ratio of each fish family in Tessier Lake. The young fish previously introduced have now become adults. They successfully spawned, leaving a large number of offspring. Nathalie Brodeur can now reconstruct families – that is, use the genetic fingerprints of each fish studied to identify its parents. She thus has a basis for measuring the reproductive success of the parents and estimating each family’s survival rate.

 

 

Speckled trout

©Parks Canada - Jacques Pleau

 

And so monitoring continues on at the 55th lake in La Mauricie National Park so as to provide a brook trout population with a home!

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

What if whirling disease, rock snot, NZ mud snails or something new shows up and starts gaining a foothold in the National Parks? Should the waters be closed to Fishing as we are the cause of the spread.

 

Regards Mike

 

You would have to look at the specific what if and gauge the impacts. Whirling disease in the Upper Bow...would just spread downstream on it's own without anglers having much of an over all long term impact change. As for snails...not familiar with that problem.

 

Brookies and snails are black and white in my book. Brookies don't do well as they move downstream into warmer water. Browns (also an introduced species) and rainbows (also an introduced species) do much better.

 

I wonder if the Parks would consider a nutrient injections into various river systems to increase the bug and plant life and give native fish a little boost. In moderation...it may help after decades of harvest from relatively nutrient poor rivers and creeks.

 

[Ricinus]

Sun, I think that's the problem, brookies favor the same waters as native cutts and Bows( Rainbows are native to the Athabasca system). I guess the action required should be based on the scale of the problem. If the problem was severe enough closures and eradication should be on the table. That being said, I don't think this should happen just because.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun, I think that's the problem, brookies favor the same waters as native cutts and Bows( Rainbows are native to the Athabasca system). I guess the action required should be based on the scale of the problem. If the problem was severe enough closures and eradication should be on the table. That being said, I don't this should happen just because.

 

Regards Mike

 

These rainbows stocked in the Bow and elsewhere are not the athabasca strain. Brookies do not do well the further you go downstream. If they could and were better adapted they would have taken over the Bow a long time ago. Brookies like colder streams...like bulls and cutts do. I know they can out compete bulls and cutts. I was aware of that as a fisheries biologist and I have also helped out on and watched and read the Quirk Creek reports. Interesting work there. I would love to see a stream study like that that had easier access. The brookies have also gotten smarter there over the years.

 

Eradication would likely only involve rotenone. That is hard to use in an open system with springs, beaver dams, beaver runs, cutbanks, cold water etc. Plus damage to other organisms would probably dampen the Parks interest in such invasive techniques on removal. To be clear...I would like to see brookies removed from many places...not all places but many places. Just like I would like to see perch removed in some places but not all places. There are situations where they do work in the scheme of fisheries management and provide some variety of fishing.

 

Therefore...if I read what you said and I said correctly...we are agreeing... Cool.

[flyfishfairwx]

You would have to look at the specific what if and gauge the impacts. Whirling disease in the Upper Bow...would just spread downstream on it's own without anglers having much of an over all long term impact change. As for snails...not familiar with that problem.

 

Brookies and snails are black and white in my book. Brookies don't do well as they move downstream into warmer water. Browns (also an introduced species) and rainbows (also an introduced species) do much better.

 

I wonder if the Parks would consider a nutrient injections into various river systems to increase the bug and plant life and give native fish a little boost. In moderation...it may help after decades of harvest from relatively nutrient poor rivers and creeks.

 

Brookies will do ok in warmer water I have seen them in damn near stagnant swamp water, they get big there, but it has to be clean water...

 

If you do the nutrient injections then you will be boosting the introduced species, if they are in the sys, the browns and Brookies will be all over that like a (bad fat joke here) and it would be artificial any way, the bugs may surge but then the fish eat them, then back to starting point, if you put lime stone in the head waters of the stream that is supposed to do something , maybe the OP can shed some light on that, but I think again that the non-native fish would get the benefit of the Limestone.

 

[Taco]

Smitty: Might be a slightly evasive answer but; Irregardless of what the Parks decide to do about the restoration of native species I would have no problem not being able to fish for any pure strain species if that what it takes to save or reestablish them.

 

Do I think that fishing should be banned in the NP system? No, that would be a waste of a very low cost management tool. I'm a believer in Quirk Ck too, the problem lies in the inability of the majority of anglers to get beyond 500 metres of their car doors.

[flyfishfairwx]

Smitty: Might be a slightly evasive answer but; Irregardless of what the Parks decide to do about the restoration of native species I would have no problem not being able to fish for any pure strain species if that what it takes to save or reestablish them.

 

Do I think that fishing should be banned in the NP system? No, that would be a waste of a very low cost management tool. I'm a believer in Quirk Ck too, the problem lies in the inability of the majority of anglers to get beyond 500 metres of their car doors.

 

 

Taco

 

Does that include the rest of the province or is that only in the parks?

 

and where do we draw the time line? 100 years ago most of those lakes in the park were barren of fish or with very small populations of natives..

 

Doe we wait until we have utopia, or do we nudge it here and there..

 

Do we tweak the streams to keep the native and introduced populations as separate as possible..

 

Taco

This is the type of exchange I wanted from all this, not just introduced Non-native species are bad and we got to kill them.. because if that were so you would be out of a job unless you can look at bison toes..

 

Where is the original poster in this now? what are his views on what has been brought up..

[Taco]

Anywhere Ray and nowhere did anyone say complete restoration. That would be complete stupidity, virtually impossible and a massive waste.

[ÜberFly]

Though not directly related, related nonetheless!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...t-visitors.html

 

P

[flyfishfairwx]

Anywhere Ray and nowhere did anyone say complete restoration. That would be complete stupidity, virtually impossible and a massive waste.

 

Agreed, selective restoration, would be beneficial to native species..

 

Just read in a mag that the USF&W plan to poison wild trout in Silver King creek and reintroduce native pure-strain Paiute cutthroat Trout..their native range is only 10 stream miles.. and the USF&W want to poison the whole river ???

 

Not sure this thinking is happening here in AB, I hope not..

[Pythagoras]

I voted no.

 

Why can't there be a place where fish are not a target of man?

 

PETA doesn't warrant the bashing it gets on this board. I've seen posts deleted for less.

 

[flyfishfairwx]

I voted no.

 

Why can't there be a place where fish are not a target of man?

 

PETA doesn't warrant the bashing it gets on this board. I've seen posts deleted for less.

 

you're right People Eating Tasty Animals should not get bashed they should get an extra portion of gravy and cake!!!

 

 

An organization that preaches what they preach and then gets caught killing 2500+ cats and dogs gets no respect from me.....same as the GTA SPCA..

 

Do not pet the sea kittens they scratch and bite!!!!!

 

beyond that

 

You have your rights to vote any way you want.

 

Seriously and respectfully

I do like to understand as to why, so why no, is it because of the aspect of a safe haven for the fish that being the park, or some other reason?

 

 

[Smitty]

I voted no.

 

Why can't there be a place where fish are not a target of man?

 

PETA doesn't warrant the bashing it gets on this board. I've seen posts deleted for less.

 

 

Well, I definitely addressed this, but I understand if you missed it, or didn't bother to read the 5 pages (Its alot to wade through).

 

The answer is simple; we have some sizable tracts of land where it is illegal to fish with permanent closures.

 

Its about balance and providing a variety of recreational opportunities to many different types of users with various opinions.

 

So still, no compelling reason to close the fishing in the parks. Parks were meant to be used. Yes, people are users.

 

Clearly, you may feel there are not enough places in Alberta with permanent closures. Fair enough, I disagree. Just saying those places do exist right now where fish aren't targets.

 

Smitty