jusfloatin Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 X2 jusfloatin... If you truly think that these regulations will so drastically increase crowding and litter than clearly by your own admission you feel these regulations will be a huge success and welcomed by all those that will be fishing there. I applaud you for this endorsement. I challenge you then Sir to step up your game like I do and lead by example in keeping not just this park but all parks clean. Don't be afraid to pack other peoples garbage out. People keep places clean that are clean. I also challenge you to take advantage of our many AOF friendships and participate in car poolings whenever possible to alleviate any traffic congestion concerns. Also I hope that maybe the small businesses out there will see some benefits. I like helping small businesses especially if providing a service that benefits fishermen! As for waiting for awesome fishing...if that was the complete truth...you betcha I will do that. If you feel that these regulations are not warranted...then that means by your logic there are tons of trout remaining to be caught versus our premise for these regulations stating many trout get vacuumed out before having a change to grow to a more challenging and larger table eating size. Or as you mentioned before...you just love catching 12 inch trout. There are plenty of places to still do that...but super limited locations to improve a fishery so dramatically as this simple regulation change will do. Anyways...if you are correct and there are still lots of trout left...then in fact 20 inchers will be available in 1 or 2 years versus 4. Still I suppose if 4 is the right number...then I will just have to suffer through years of excellent fishing putting 12, 14, 16, 18 inch cutthroats back to grow until they reach harvestable size. Delaying harvest is a smart use of natures resources and our taxes. Cheers Sun P.S. Stay warm this weekend.. Brrrrrrrr. "I challenge you then Sir to step up your game like I do and lead by example in keeping not just this park but all parks clean" Listen here bud you know nothing of who I am or what I do in my community and to insinuate I should step up my game as if I use and abuse my surroundings is a out right LIE and a personal attack. I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it. You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case. For these reason I done with you and this thread. I posted on this thread only because of my concern for what I truly consider a bit of paradise. Nothing more nothing less. Quote
dekkard2019 Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 It is good to hear your concerns jusfloatin. Let's simmer down here guys...LOL. Calm down. Go for a beer and chill. Quote
Bigtoad Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I posted on this thread only because of my concern for what I truly consider a bit of paradise. Nothing more nothing less. I think Sundance, Beadhead, and others (including myself) also see it as a bit of paradise. We just want to see it at it's full potential and don't think it is there yet (at least from a fisheries stand point). I think we are under the "it's better to have loved and lost than never loved at all," philosophy. We don't know all of the positive or negative outcomes of such a regulation proposal but it makes a lot of sense, it should really improve the fishery, and the negatives outcomes like overcrowding, increased garbage, etc, seem more speculation than they do an inevitability. There's a quote from a book on business that says something to the effect: "Good" is what stops us from being great." If things are bad, we have no problem trying to fix them. But when things are good, we're worried we're going to screw it up and make things worse if we try to improve them any further. I think people in favor of this change think the K lakes are good but not great. You think they're good but don't want to mess with it in case it goes bad. So I guess you have to ask yourself if you're happy with good or if you want to try for great? There is some risk, but there is also potentially great reward. Cheers. Quote
steelhead Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I disagree strongly with these regulations as..... .....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending. You all want quality fisheries??? How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no. If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them! Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. All other provinces actually, but here. I guess no one here ever looks at what other provinces do, except BC. they have what they have from big spending and enforcement. your focus is wrong for everything STEELHEAD Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 "I challenge you then Sir to step up your game like I do and lead by example in keeping not just this park but all parks clean" Listen here bud you know nothing of who I am or what I do in my community and to insinuate I should step up my game as if I use and abuse my surroundings is a out right LIE and a personal attack. I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it. You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case. For these reason I done with you and this thread. I posted on this thread only because of my concern for what I truly consider a bit of paradise. Nothing more nothing less. Yes we should all stay calm. A debate is just a debate and nothing more and nothing less. I was far from insulting you...but if that is how you took it I apologize. I was just saying we all have our job to do to protect the environment. Stating fishermen are big polluters is probably insulting to many as I myself am a big fishermen and I do not see the same concern as you and I did not insinuate that your were personally insulting me but applying a generality as I was doing. In any debate...we sometimes read into things when facts are not applied such as your posts and therefore when corrected I note it accordingly. Your concerns are so far only based upon personal feelings and assumptions so it is hard to debate against. We should try to debate the facts and not feelings. The ONLY question that should be debated is will the proposed regulations improve or not improve the overall fishery for the average fishermen being as fair as possible to all users. Through out all of your posts...you maintain a selfish desire to keep this park to yourself as much as possible. I think you would agree that is a fair statement. I understand that but unfortunately it does not provide any tangible reasons against will the regs help or hinder fishing success. You have instead confirmed that you believe that the regulation will work...will improve the fishery and will increase traffic. I also totally agree that this is a beautiful area. In fact I worked in the park for 3 years. I get the strong sense you work out there but I don't want to know as I would just be jealous. I have camped there many times. I have fished there many times...and I now spend more time hiking that fishing...and probably in the next few years some skiing...if they have easy runs :-) I don't think any posting in favor should be considered against keeping this a paradise. Still this is a public park, public land and all paid for by tax payers money. The park is already heavily used by hikers and campers. An increase in fishing usage will not destroy it. Actually a fishery that is not well used runs more in jeopardy of being ignored that being nurtured. I still want to know...how many more fishermen do you suspect will want to fish here on a daily, weekly, monthly basis? What is that number as it seems to be the crux of your concerns. Sun Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I disagree strongly with these regulations as..... .....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending. You all want quality fisheries??? How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no. If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them! Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. your focus is wrong for everything STEELHEAD Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest. I wholeheartedly agree that we need more money for enforcement but also regional and local fish population studies. I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery. We can not bandaid bad fisheries management through stocking. Stocking as a put and take trout resource has been applied for years and is an expected part of the system. Stocking to introduce stock for the first time (such as walleye in a lake or trout from the Bow into the Red Deer) is an applied management technique. Allowing over harvest of a natural walleye or pike lake population with the mindset to stock our way out of a problem... I am not so enamored with. Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick. Your comment that everything can be fixed...including bigger fish through enforcement...does not hold water IMHO. Catching a few poachers...while helpful is far from a critical piece of the problem. Still don't get me wrong...start a petition demanding more money spend on enforcement through an INCREASE to the budget to accommodate it and I am signing! Sun Quote
steelhead Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 sun wrote.... Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick. How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed? Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition. I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data. Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending. You also wrote.... I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery. Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go. Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement. Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it! Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll. STEELHEAD __________________ official leader of the internet forum opposition party. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 sun wrote.... Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick. How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed? Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition. I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data. Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending. You also wrote.... I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery. Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go. Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement. Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it! Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll. STEELHEAD __________________ official leader of the internet forum opposition party. I am sorry you agree with scientific data from Provincial biologists. Not much I can say. Gill netting is a very good technique to see what is available. Unfortunately it is not a method with high survivorship...therefore it is used sparingly. While the budget does looking annoying every year... Please provide data to show money is coming out of they system and where...is it expense accounts, studies, stocking, staffing etc. "Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest." You did not answer this. If you think this a conspiracy to save money...how so? The initiative are started by fishermen...not F&W. It was actually an uphill battle to make the first two...same as this one. If it was a conspiracy...why don't F&W just make it a rule across the whole Province? Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places. We can disagree on the stocking idea. I feel F&W needs to adjust the limits to account for an allowable harvest. Thereby the fishery is sustainable. Your generalized comment applies when the basic principles are not followed due to improper science, unexpected increase in harvest (not accounting for human population over time versus limits), natural disaster, spawning success etc. The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking. Let us know when you have that petition started to increase the enforcement budget as an ADDITIONAL expense item on the Provincial budget. Cheers Sun Quote
steelhead Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Sun wrote... Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places. So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad. The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me. sun also wrote.... The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking. They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess. You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples? And maybee when they did the test netting, all those big fish were up a stream somewhere? possible? STEELHEAD __________________ official leader of the internet forum opposition party. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Sun wrote... Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places. So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad. The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me. sun also wrote.... The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking. They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess. You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples? And maybee when they did the test netting, all those big fish were up a stream somewhere? possible? STEELHEAD __________________ official leader of the internet forum opposition party. Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest. I am glad you helped make my point. Better regulations here will dramatically improve this lake in a region where there are very few lakes that can qualify for a quality fishery whereas still leaving tons of other lakes for put and take, quick harvest. In this area alone...if someone wanted lots of small easy to catch great tasting fish in an awesome scenic location...you can go no further that Elbow Lake. Those brookies are awesome tasting...and while small are extremely plentiful since they reproduce like crazy. Therefore...this is also an example of a fishery that while small...is self sustaining and not in need of stocking :-) You say the issue is clear on less money for enforcement because of "new regulations" but seriously...please just provide some justification insofar as the proof your theory is correct. Otherwise...again...just a nice theory to talk about...but fishing in Alberta has not suffered any noticeable loss after Bullshead became such a famous fishery. Now your argument about invasive stocking is off topic and quite frankly proves nothing as both Bow and LKL and UKL have been stocked with Rainbows...but by your argument against invasives...at least the new stocking program for UKL and LKL looks to more native cutthroats and protecting native bull trout. I am happy you agree to this positive. As for stocking of lakes with cutthroats and why we don't have many quality lakes...thanks for the segway...we don't have tons of lakes down south and very few lakes with large populations of cutts that can grow big with all the beneficial attributes meeting the quality fishery requirements. Most lakes down south are designated for the put and take fishery. The best thing about UKL and LKL is these lakes hold the potential for a great fishery that benefits everyone. You make an obvious point however that lakes and rivers are different in management style, fishing technique and locations. Many people prefer fishing lakes over rivers. You need specialized boats or plans to put in and take out. Lake fishing in many ways is simpler for equipment. People that like fishing lakes should have the same opportunity to catch quality fish that regulations have endowed us with on some rivers. We can't continue to ignore lakes. Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery. Quote
steelhead Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Further discussion is being held over on the "other" forum My replies to sun can be found there. I still dont agree with this and no one has come up with anything to convince me otherwise. The bullshead example doesnt apply to K lakes. Bullshead - One specie of fish. Never had a self sustaining specie of fish to begin with, didnt already have 3 or more species in it before regs were made. Closed system prairie pothole. In an area where there is a need for enhanced trout fishing opps. K lakes - more than 3 species of self sustaining fish. Natural waterflows into and waterflow out into another system. Spawning species. Many quality fish already and before proposed regs. In an area abundant with quality trout fishing already from lakes and many rivers. Possibility of upsetting an established balance providing big fish already, and into an uncertain future. Bullshead isnt in the same class as Klakes and what works there has a great possibility to wreck an already quality fishery. STEELHEAD Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Further discussion is being held over on the "other" forum My replies to sun can be found there. I still dont agree with this and no one has come up with anything to convince me otherwise. The bullshead example doesnt apply to K lakes. Bullshead - One specie of fish. Never had a self sustaining specie of fish to begin with, didnt already have 3 or more species in it before regs were made. Closed system prairie pothole. In an area where there is a need for enhanced trout fishing opps. K lakes - more than 3 species of self sustaining fish. Natural waterflows into and waterflow out into another system. Spawning species. Many quality fish already and before proposed regs. In an area abundant with quality trout fishing already from lakes and many rivers. Possibility of upsetting an established balance providing big fish already, and into an uncertain future. Bullshead isnt in the same class as Klakes and what works there has a great possibility to wreck an already quality fishery. STEELHEAD Rainbows have shown minor spawning success in LKL. Water is probably too cold for them and the season too short as well as lack of quality spawning habitat. I have seen rainbows trying to spawn in August. Nothing that will happen will improve their numbers...but rather just keep them hanging in. If it was a problem...F&W could easily crash what little spawning success there is. As this area does not have pure cutthroat genetics...any rainbow/cutt hybrids will not be a negative as the damage happened long ago. Cutts and bulls evolved together and coexisted naturally in this basin. They have a different niche in the ecosystem. Overall I don't see any species interaction issues that should be called a negative to this proposal. Please explain your logic as to how these lakes already qualify as a quality fishery under the definition of cutts over 20 inches. They are not common now by any stretch... The only reason there are big bulls is because of a zero limit. Without that change...large bull would be extinct in the system. Many posters expressed a need for more quality fishing...also expressed on the petition comments. The fact water flows in and out affects the proposal specifically how? UKL has minor tribs flowing in like Rawson Creek...I think they are going to try and construct a spawning channel for cutts. LKL has inflow from upper as well as Kent Creek and Smith Dorrien. Stocking has been ongoing for a long time in this system. The Kananaskis River is a barren wasteland for fish due to the water fluctuations. Barrier Lake downstream has always been seen as a fairly poor fishery. The Bow below it already has trout with the best fishing downstream of Calgary. So what is the concern exactly? UKL and LKL have never had a self sustaining population of Rainbows or Cutts since human influence really kicked in. The plan is to try and establish Cutts but stock cutties to provide for a put and take fishery. Essentially the proposal we are arguing about is increasing the current 12 inch limit to 20 inch. Are you arguing about stocking Cutts? Maybe we are thinking along different lines of thought. Quote
fishpro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Is there any way we could get this petition available for signing at the Fly Fishing Expo? I'd imagine a few of the shops would have it, but what about at the main information booth? Quote
echinopora Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I don't see how the arguement that changing the regs will upset the system holds any water at all. The lakes survived with no/little harvest for thousands of years prior to us whities getting here. If anything reducing harvest would return the lakes back to a more natural state with a more natural trout age distribution. I think anyone who has fished any of the larger hike in lakes nearby like Owl and Marvel, or even the more pot hole lakes like SE or Lehman would agree that the area has the potential to produce some great fishing. It would be nice to let people enjoy some great fishing without the half day walk. What the K lakes area does lack is an easily accessable quality stillwater fishery. There would be no better way to get a kid hooked on fishing than 20" cutties. I remember when I was a kid at Peppers lake and a huge school of brookies swam by, I nearly wet myself with excitement. K lakes also have great accessability. Access has become a problem with my Grandfather, and increasingly so with my own Dad. They can't walk too far, and wading is iffy for the one and outright dangerous for the other. Still I'd like somewhere near town that I could wet a line with them. Rob Quote
Bigtoad Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Hey beedhead, have you tried to contact the Alberta outdoorsman magazine and see if they'll run an article or at the very least put an information box giving the website and a quick bit of info in their next issue? You have almost 2,000 his on this thread and 2,400 his on the Outdoorsman forum, so there is at least a lot of "interest" in the proposal. Just a thought. Canadian flyfisher might be a good bet too. Oh, not to mention local fly tiers clubs that have websites as well as guys like Jensen and Rowley that have blogs with regular readers. They might be willing to put a link on their sites. Cheers. Quote
Jayhad Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Just a thought. Canadian flyfisher might be a good bet too. Cheers. not to hijack, but that publication is no longer in the business of printing mags...... insert tears here. http://www.canflyfish.com/ Quote
Bigtoad Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 not to hijack, but that publication is no longer in the business of printing mags...... insert tears here. http://www.canflyfish.com/ Did they just change their name to "The Ontario and-sometimes-other-places-in-Canada-too Flyfisher Magazine" ? Cheers. Quote
dekkard2019 Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Is there any way we could get this petition available for signing at the Fly Fishing Expo? I'd imagine a few of the shops would have it, but what about at the main information booth? I think it might be more realistic to have one of the fly shops to have it. They have booths set up at the expo. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 I think it might be more realistic to have one of the fly shops to have it. They have booths set up at the expo. Any chance of finding out if the petitions at the fishing places are getting any airplay and how many signatures. You may also consider putting one up at the fishing place in Canmore. Quote
dekkard2019 Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Any chance of finding out if the petitions at the fishing places are getting any airplay and how many signatures. You may also consider putting one up at the fishing place in Canmore. I don't have exact numbers yet...the one at Wholesale is doing well...I hope to get more at Southbow...and I will be stopping by Fish Tales soon. I think I have close to an extra 100 sigs. Good idea to get one out at Wapiti. Quote
dekkard2019 Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Well, almost a year has passed and I think things are looking good. I just got home from the Prairies Area/Southern Rockies Fisheries Roundtable Meeting at the Bow Valley Habitat Station aka Sam Livingstone Fish Hatchery. I believe the proposed regs changes will go through. I will be happier when I open up the new regualtion booklet in the spring and actually see it in black and white. I want to give a big thankyou to all the people who signed the petition. You are awesome!!!Also, a big thanks to Jeff Wilson, Jim Stelfox from ASRD, Fish Tales, Southbow, and Wholesale sports. It took a lot of work and help from many people. If you knew me, you would know how special the K Lakes are to me. I love it. There is talk about putting in a spawning channel for the cutts in the UKL where Rawson Creek flows in. Studies have shown that egg bound females have higher mortality rates if they don't have a place to release their eggs. It would be a bigger bonus if reproduction would occur. Time will tell. Quote
Buck Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Nice work Jake, hopefully the changes go through! Quote
dekkard2019 Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 It looks good. I am happy that SRD was on my side on this one too. That made a HUGE difference. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.