Alberta Fisheries..where Are We Going ?

[McLeod]

But BC is stocking varieties of Rainbows in areas where they don't naturally occur aren't they ?

Salmon in the great lakes , mistake ? BC dumps Kokanees were they never naturally occured so guess it's okay right ?

Exotics are just fine if they are sterile. But I would like to see Athabee rainbows reared and used to stock

Alberta lakes, Bulls and Cutties to. Whatever will help improve the quality of fishing.

By the way PGK I think Brian and the BC'S freshwater fisheries society does a great job and a similar society in Alberta would be a big step forward.

[PGK]

.

[canadagrey]

But BC is stocking varieties of Rainbows in areas where they don't naturally occur aren't they ?

Salmon in the great lakes , mistake ? BC dumps Kokanees were they never naturally occured so guess it's okay right ?

Exotics are just fine if they are sterile. But I would like to see Athabee rainbows reared and used to stock

Alberta lakes, Bulls and Cutties to. Whatever will help improve the quality of fishing.

By the way PGK I think Brian and the BC'S freshwater fisheries society does a great job and a similar society in Alberta would be a big step forward.

Athabasca Rainbows have been stocked in one lake that isn't open yet. They apparently don't follow the small reputation of Athabasca's, and are growing huge with the food supply.

[Heimdallr]

Athabasca Rainbows have been stocked in one lake that isn't open yet. They apparently don't follow the small reputation of Athabasca's, and are growing huge with the food supply.

 

Interested...tell me more.

[McLeod]

Kokanee are pretty much widespread throughout the majority of the province. Little is known about how or why some kokanee populations got to where they are, reflecting our lack of knowledge about how exactly river systems were connected and have since changed from the last ice age. Kokanee are voracious eaters, you will notice ecosystem effects if they are introduced into functioning systems and not closed system lakes. Example: Williston Reservoir, although it is not totally clear if kokanee were once native to that area...certainly their abundance now is higher in proportion to the past, and they are having significant deleterious effecs on critically imperiled grayling populations.

 

 

Again they have been stocked in areas where they never naturally occured. So you can't on one hand say stocking is good and on the other hand it's not. /Guess whatever suits you.

 

You want to ruffle my feathers about stocking differing rainbow strains and then suggest we inbreed Athabows into domestication so we can stock them in more places? Give your damn head a shake! Adequate protection and adaptive management is what keeps us on top of managing native species, not hatcheries!

 

Really who needs to give their head a shake. You don't think it's a good idea to rear native trout and plant them in closed to system waters ?

 

If we followed your ideas and thought processes there would be not angling at all..

Really why are you here ? You do not present any quality suggestions to improve freshwater angling

in fact all you really want to do is eliminate angling ..remove all exotics , stop stocking of all forms .

You clearily have an agenda and it's to stop all angling so again I ask why are you on this board ?

 

 

 

 

[PGK]

.

[Smitty]

I don't agree with you, and you have no intelligent responses to my arguments, so you flap off about how I have an agenda? Classic. I don't have a damn agenda. If you've got something better than rhetoric and BS for a reply, I suggest you use it now.

 

NO, I don't think we should be taking a threatened species from the wild and killing it so we can raise their offspring in the hatchery, scew up their genetics and plant them in barren lakes so fat joe from edmonton can bonk them in the face. Where the HELL are your priorities? On one han you tell us that you want to help native species, on the other, you want to domesticate them and stock them. You can't have it both ways!? Pretty straight forward!

 

I guaran-damn-tee that if we stocked a barren lake full of whatever inbred strain of rainbow AB uses now, and athabows, in the same density, there is no way in hell you would be able to tell which fish was which, they'll all be 3lb rockets in a year, so why the hell does it matter!? Fat joe is gonna have the same dumb smile on his face and he doesn't care what strain he's catching.

 

YES, I can say stocking kokanee in open systems is a bad idea, if you were actually half educated on the subject you'd understand why competitive interaction and evolutionary traits have nearly extirpated arctic grayling from the Williston area. In areas where kokanee are native, there is a distinct fish compostion structure that repeats itself over and over. If you had any experience with BC fisheries, you would know that. When you dump kokanee into a system where they can naturalize, they're going to screw something up, and that's a promise.

 

By the way, just to connect to the dryfly thread, if anyone was looking to define elitist, I submit to you the above.

 

Anyways, for someone who's supposedly heavily educated into fisheries management, you sure decided to ignore a significant part of the equation Kris.

 

Take Edmonton for example; lots of trout fishermen needing to get their fix using the pothole stillwater lakes. Its very simple; no artificial trout fisheries, means more pressure on the trout fishing - including a lot of the eastern slopes waters where native fisheries exist - elsewhere. Any way you want to slice it, having these fisheries is good for us and native trout. Win-win. In some cases, the trout have replaced a pike-perch fishery after winterkill; are we going to lament the fact that we created a trout fishery instead of having native pike perch fishery come back in a closed system? Its not as if people can't fill their boots elsewhere for pike and perch fishery.

 

The only one here that needs some head shaking is you Kris; I could rewrite the whole Beach Boys song about "Wouldn't it be nice".

 

As in wouldn't it be nice if less people fished, if we could go back in a time machine and undo all the damage the early stockings. Wouldn't it be nice if people could not fish in National Parks, and there was zero harvest on all native fisheries. Wouldn't it be nice if barren pothole lakes were left for the shorebirds, and if we could just take the cream out of the coffee.

 

What's laughable is that you do have an agenda Kris, there's simply no reason to deny it. I'll let you in on a little secret; everyone has an agenda. To say otherwise, is to say "I'm packing up and gonna live on a riverboat on d'Nile." lol

 

Your opinions reveal your agenda, and frankly, that's perfectly fine by me. Its not like anyone here is any different, except we may disagree, and, of course, may choose to post our opinions with a little more tact and dignity, and less hysteria.

 

But keep posting; your tone -for the most part - here has been light years ahead of previous threads. Can we make it to page 3 before it turns into a real train wreck?

 

Creating fisheries were none previously existed doesn't necessarily have to automatically translate into an environmental holocaust as you seem to suggest. However, to err on the side of caution is prudent. You're completely right in identifying the litany of previous mistakes.

 

Smitty

[McLeod]

I don't agree with you, and you have no intelligent responses to my arguments, so you flap off about how I have an agenda? Classic. I don't have a damn agenda. If you've got something better than rhetoric and BS for a reply, I suggest you use it now.

 

NO, I don't think we should be taking a threatened species from the wild and killing it so we can raise their offspring in the hatchery, scew up their genetics and plant them in barren lakes so fat joe from edmonton can bonk them in the face. Where the HELL are your priorities? On one han you tell us that you want to help native species, on the other, you want to domesticate them and stock them. You can't have it both ways!? Pretty straight forward!

 

I guaran-damn-tee that if we stocked a barren lake full of whatever inbred strain of rainbow AB uses now, and athabows, in the same density, there is no way in hell you would be able to tell which fish was which, they'll all be 3lb rockets in a year, so why the hell does it matter!? Fat joe is gonna have the same dumb smile on his face and he doesn't care what strain he's catching.

 

YES, I can say stocking kokanee in open systems is a bad idea, if you were actually half educated on the subject you'd understand why competitive interaction and evolutionary traits have nearly extirpated arctic grayling from the Williston area. In areas where kokanee are native, there is a distinct fish compostion structure that repeats itself over and over. If you had any experience with BC fisheries, you would know that. When you dump kokanee into a system where they can naturalize, they're going to screw something up, and that's a promise.

 

So move from your personal attacks and why don't you tell us the way it should be.

Explain how fisheries should managed , what you would do and how you are going to pay for all.

Because again from everything I have heard from you there would be little or no waters left to fish.

You be the boss and explain how it should be and again remember who is paying your wages !

[PGK]

.

[Smitty]

Kris:

 

I sincerely think that part of the problem is that you fail to keep an open mind, and you don't actually read what you're writing. Seriously, go back and re-read what you have written; even from the past year; you'll see people's impressions and interpretations are more than justified about you, your opinions, and your agenda.

 

And quite frankly, you have long since given up, conceded any "right" to fall back on the "I'm just ribbing you" routine. Its like saying to someone "Hey! Your an a%%hole. Just kidding, what are you so upset about?" lol. There perhaps is no greater indicator of immaturity with comments like that, not to mention the "suck lemons" part. No one has any problems with free speech, but we remain fully within our rights to call you on your BS and your ad hominem attacks.

 

Anyways, goes in circles, as it always does with you. If that was your last post on this particular topic, well goody.

 

As for AB fisheries, with the SRD cutbacks, the long decline will continue. Lack of biologists, officers, collection of baseline data, public input, same old same old. We had a mini - very mini - golden age there amidst the darkness when Barry's letter and other catalysts prompted regulatory changes some 12 years ago. And the effects have been noticeable in certain fisheries that improved.

 

But it does come down to $, and I agree with Kris and others when we talk about more money. At some bottom line point, all departments need money to run properly, and there's no doubt in my mind that certain funds should be separated from general revenue.

 

Smitty

 

P.S. BTW, as you clearly have failed to understand Kris, elitism has nothing to do with dry-fly. Its purely about attitude.

[PGK]

.

[McLeod]

Stick to it then. I don't give up my opinions, you shouldn't either. But you're wrong about me, and I'm through defending myself to you. Your pessimism about continuing the decline is all I need to see. Classic albertan. It will continue unless you do something about it.

Out...

 

In the end you never offered any concrete solutions to improve fisheries in Alberta.

You don't get the financial end of things. In otherwords everything comes with price and my whole point behind this thread is the F and W is being gutted and we are losing top fisheries scientist positions. We need to keep these positions but monies from users such as anglers are being used to fund the ACA and its big budget bureaucracy. The problem with the ACA is they are not addressing the priorites and those on the ACA certainly aren't getting it. We could raise angling license fees

but as Smitty points out it doesn't help if the money goes to general revenue.

There are things that could be done to on increase revenue and fishing opportunites and that money could be direct back to the priorites. By the way protecting native species and fish habitat costs money,

it's a low priority compared to health care..doesn't matter who the government is .. You just don't get that !

Enjoy the Arctic when you get back let me know ...You and I can hook up and head into one of British Columbia's and one of Canada top flyfishing lakes ,Fortress and catch some BROOKIES .

Did I say that..sorry that was shot.. I am sure you would turned down the invite as you in light of your opinion on exotics but we can send you a picture to Tuktoyaktuk.

[PGK]

.

[trailhead]

I sure hope this post ends soon Trying to deliberate with Mr PGK (aka I know everything and you're all morons) is like wrestling with a pig, everyone gets covered in sh*t, no one wins, and only the pig ends up getting what it wants.

[McLeod]

WHAT!? You have no idea what you're talking about. The ACA is nonprofit! Do you have any idea whatsoever what the ACA is? You just lost all your credibility. Go back and READ (R-E-A-D) what I said about classified waters licencing and the habitat conservation trust fund. If you can't understand who does the work, and who does the management in your province, why did you even start this thread? F&W isn't being gutted, not nearly as bad as in BC at least, you're panicking over nothing. And once you figure out that an ACA job is just as good if not better than an ASRD job, you'll be a lot more sound mentally. Until that time, stop blathering about which you do not know! You're just a cheapskate who won't pay for fisheries management.

 

Last thing I will says about this to you because it is you who doesn't understand what was being said..

Recent budget for ACA just over 11 million dollars ..

Sources ...

Revenue By Source

 

Hunting $5,050,905

Fishing $3,361,104

Partner $1,769,275

Other $944,416

Total: $11,125,700

 

Non Profit ? Do you think the 8.3 million dollars was donated willingly by hunters and fisherman...

Those revenues were directed there NOT DONATED ...

16 per cent of funds admin budget.. ...

ACA better than ASRD ? Cheapskate ?

Im a done discussing this with someone who clearily demonstrates that they don't have a clue.

Enjoy the Arctic..

 

[PGK]

.

[PGK]

.

[DonAndersen]

Guys,

 

The ACA was handed a program of exclusion fencing in Alberta on a number of major stream to protect the habitat. What did they do, shut down about 1/2 of the program and barely look after the rest.

And as far as where fishermen/hunters money goes - check out the ACA studies of pine trees, moths, dicky birds & slugs. All of which are really important to F&W.

The ACA was flawed from the beginning. They do research that no pays attention to. Do recall as decent project that was done in the Swan Hills are when about 3/4's of the creeks had bridges/Culverts that did not confrom to DFO or Dept. of En. regs. What's been do so far - NOTHING.

The ACA looks @ things but provides or does nothing about the questions after they have been asked & answered.

 

Don

 

 

[PGK]

.

[Heimdallr]

As per usual the problem lies in the action part of things.

[DonAndersen]

Undertanding lower tier parts of an ecosystem gives a broader understanding of the whole ecosystem.

 

Are you drunk? Proofread, dammit. Yeah, I vaguely remember doing some stream crossing checks. Checked em, reported em, moved on to the next project because there was no money left for mitigation and monitoring because hunters and anglers are cheapskates. Also because, well, that's not the ACA's job....that's industry's job to maintain, and the government's job to enforce. Ignorant!

 

The ACA are the feet on the ground in this province. You're of the old guard of AFGA pissypants who hated the idea from the start. Ignorance reigns supreme!

 

 

Gee PGK,

 

Are you looking for a job with the ACA that bad?

 

Look up the large grant monies and see where they go. Your ACA education would be complete. For the years I looked over I found that they had spent $2800 on habitat of the millions allocated.

 

Not drunk and certainly not AFG ASSoc. just disgusted with the ACA's direction.

 

And your are right - Fishermen and hunters are cheap. That is the reason that many of us support programs like Streamwatch.

 

Don

[McLeod]

WHERE THE HELL DID THE 11 MILLION GO, GENIUS!? They didn't make any money off it! They SPENT IT on research and management. That's called NON-PROFIT. Holy piss.

 

Again you can't read ..never said they weren't Non Profit although 16 per cent for adminstration WOW , what I said was the 8.3 million dollars or nearly 75 per cent of there budget is from hunters and fisherman who have NO say in where that money should go..In otherwords it was not donated by them willingly. And if they were given the choice the majority of the funds it would not go the ACA.

Why are we spending this money and not using some of that money to keep officers on the ground to protect what we have ?

The REAL management is being eroded in cuts to government biologists and hatchery staff, more and more Alberta anglers are spending their money in other provinces. Management had improved in the last few years and it had NOTHING to do with the ACA. We are trying to protect what we have and make it better..that was the whole point of the thread but again you would rather continue with your personal attacks and tell us all that we know nothing. When you take shots at Don ,who has done more for fisheries in the Province than the ACA it truly shows you what you are.. Done.....

[bigbowtrout]

[Smitty]

Yeah Kris, you're not hysterical at all. Nopers. Your tone is measured, and not overly emotional. Yeah, you're a true Vulcan.

 

See how much it sucks when you're always right?

 

The only person who could be possibly be intoxicated is you Kris, drunk on your own self-righteousness. Keep the positive tone coming though, I for one am very glad you chose study something in the field of fisheries mgm't, as opposed to say, teaching.

 

Page 3 and darn near a train wreck. Its like slow motion or something. But that's nothing special; predicting that a controversial topic involving you could turn into sh*t show is like predicting the sun's gonna rise in the east; too easy. I thought you were done posting on this on page 2?

 

Sorry, was that a hi-jack? Something more on topic needed? Ok, how about Don's essentially right in his assessment of ACA's performance and you're not.

 

Way back we were talking about pessimism. When the SRD's budget has been hacked like it has, there is cause for justified pessimism. It's not in my nature to be thus, but numbers are numbers. And that doesn't have to translate mere shrugging of the shoulders and throwing of the hands in the air. Believe it or not, one can be pissed off, pessimistic, AND choose to take action. But that complexity seems to elude your black and white vision of things. C'est la vie Kris, c'est la vie.

 

Smitty

 

 

[PGK]

.