Time To Protect Our Mountain Streams

[McLeod]

Charging more money IS the answer. Are you trying to tell me that a $24 base license increase and a $20 yearly resident cutthroat license would financially prohibit you (or anyone!?) from going fishing?? That's unreasonable. Calgary to the Livingstone costs $50-$100 in fuel round trip depending on what you drive. Spending $44 more on a license is cost prohibitive? No way. You won't get me to swallow that in a million years.

 

We will never end up with UK-style fisheries in Canada. It's just not possible. The country is too big, the water is constitutionally protected to be a public resource. In a small number of cases, land owners have restricted access to water bodies. But that still has nothing to do with the financial issue. There is merit to the argument that charging more for something makes it exclusive. But not when we're talking about fees that are less than $150 a year. If you seriously can't afford to spend $100 on fishing licenses per year, you have bigger financial problems.

 

You're talking about having people like streamkeepers. UK-style streamkeepers. A small group of people who manage a waterbody for the benefit of anglers (usually themselves). For those people to exist, they must feel very closely tied to that specific waterbody. If that water is public access to be enjoyed by everyone, the probability of one person or one small group caring enough to manage that waterbody for the benefit of all anglers is extremely low. You have to have virtually private water for streamkeepers to work. Which is why our waterbodies and fisheries are managed by government or conservation organizations. No such thing as a free lunch! The people who give a damn about the fish and their habitats are working for groups like ASRD, ACA & TU. Believe me! Those people exist!

 

You have some very good ideas ..the problem as exsists already in Alberta is making sure the extra money from licenses and fee increases goes directly into the resource instead general revenues.

[kphebert]

We should have regs like BC.Nonalbertans should be paying more for a licence than i do.We should have additional fees on all the great rivers for nonresidents.Stiffer penaltys for poachers.including forfiture of trucks and boats and equipment to be auctioned off and the money put towards more fish and games officers in the field.When your at risk of losing everything you own you learn to put the fish back or quit fishing altogether.That last part is for all the people i see down at carsland fishing with bait.

[PGK]

.

[McLeod]

 

And you can't enforce a regulation change if you don't have money to buy gas for CO trucks! Increase the license fees!

 

So would this extra money that the ACA gets or whoever go to enforcement to protect the mountain streams ?

Not likely and there is the problem.

 

By the way increasing fishing license fees for non residents will be up for discussion at next weekends roundtable. AFGA is pushing for it... Keep you posted if that goes anywhere.

[PGK]

.

[Smitty]

Charging more money is not the answer, all that does is too make it harder and harder for those who don't earn as much, to enjoy the magnificent sport of fishing wether it be fly fishing or spin fishing!!! When I was a child we moved to the UK for five years where everything is private and only the wealthy can enjoy the pleasures of fishing.....It wasn't until we returned home to Canada that my dad could afford to take me fishing.....Lets not have that happen here.....Which is what I was trying to share with the enhancement societies on Vancouver Island, in the classified waters thread.....What it really takes is people who actually give a damn about the fish and their habitat!! And who are willing to donate their time and effort to the enhancement of the fishery. That is definitely not to say that some moneys are not needed, but there are other ways of achieving that without putting it out of reach of the lower income group.

 

Just wanted to chip in here with a teacher comment. I completely disagree with this argument; I reject it utterly.

 

I'm not trying to dismiss the reality of poverty; for a rich country, we have far too much poverty, especially child poverty. Funny thing is, even at some of our neediest schools, kids still manage to come to class with cell phones, and whatever flavor of the day Apple product they have in their hoody pockets.

 

It is absolutely unquestionable that we grossly undervalue our fisheries. $30 for an annual license is laughable. Thousands - literally thousands of people blow that money once or twice a month just going to the movies. $30 for an annual license is a steal. Need I trot out the comparisons to other activities; skiing, golf, putting your kids through hockey etc etc.

 

No person - ok, very very very very few - people could rightfully and credibly claim that doubling the license to $60 per year would be far too much of a financial burden.

 

And I won't needlessly repeat PGK's points about privatization; he nailed it.

 

Smitty

[FraserN]

I agree with PGK. In Alberta, we seriously under value the stream trout resources we have. We have the best trout river in Canada, and it costs next to nothing to fish it on any given day, unless you are guided. Our cutthroat trout fisheries have improved so much since Catch and release was implemented, that a trophy fee for non-residents is not unreasonable. Last summer, I met people from Ontario and California the one day I fished the Oldman river. Obviously, good cutthroat streams attract fly anglers from far and wide. Why not take advantage of this?

[PGK]

.

[troutsteaks]

The only question I have in regards to this whole discussion is simply this: Is anyone from this discussion going to take the time, effort and initiative to spearhead all these idealistic values and take time out of their schedule to help enforce them? My guess is that, aside from this thread, nothing will happen. That's just my opinion; I'm not trying to start a war.

[PGK]

.

[reevesr1]

You could support the Streamwatch program. And as luck would have it, I'm kicking off the auction today!

 

 

[danhunt]

 

Problem 2: Brook & rainbow trout. Opening up harvest on those species helps but like someone said, you'll bycatch a few BLTR along the way. Anglers who can properly identify their catch are the exception not the rule. Options: Find funding to host an angler education course. Make it mandatory and a complement to a special waters license. If you want to buy a cutthroat license, you have to take this test. Create a non native species management incentive....you get $5 for every brook trout head you turn in, and you pay $20 for every bull trout you misidentify.

 

Interesting idea, but the downside is it would legalize the poaching of Bulls for those people who are inclined to do such a thing. If a person were to catch a huge Bull they they wanted for the table or the wall, they could keep the fish and then go and catch four brookies to subsidize their crime. Even if you adjust the amounts of the reward for a brookie and the penalty for a Bull it would be problimatic to enforce and administrate.

 

Problem 4: Guiding. When you make something important you risk making it exclusive. License guides and set fixed rod days per river. If you don't do that you'll end up like the east kootenays.

 

I don't understand the argument, as I read it you're saying the way to prevent it from being exclusive is to make it more so?

 

All of it comes back to funding. You won't get anywhere without money. You can make all the regulations you want but at the end of the day they aren't worth the paper they're written on if there isn't a fund set up to carry them off the ground. Increase your license fees. Want to fish Stauffer for browns? OK, but it's gonna cost you $20 a year and half that money is going straight into cutthroat management.

 

Agreed on the funding and the regulations, but why shouldn't all of the money go in to supporting the reasource, and why shouldn't the money go to where it was generated? That is, if it is going to cost $20 to fish Stauffer, why shouldn't that money go to the management and enhancement of Stauffer?

[Harps]

Problem 2: Brook & rainbow trout. Opening up harvest on those species helps but like someone said, you'll bycatch a few BLTR along the way. Anglers who can properly identify their catch are the exception not the rule. Options: Find funding to host an angler education course. Make it mandatory and a complement to a special waters license. If you want to buy a cutthroat license, you have to take this test. Create a non native species management incentive....you get $5 for every brook trout head you turn in, and you pay $20 for every bull trout you misidentify.

 

Interesting idea, but the downside is it would legalize the poaching of Bulls for those people who are inclined to do such a thing. If a person were to catch a huge Bull they they wanted for the table or the wall, they could keep the fish and then go and catch four brookies to subsidize their crime. Even if you adjust the amounts of the reward for a brookie and the penalty for a Bull it would be problimatic to enforce and administrate.

 

Problem 4: Guiding. When you make something important you risk making it exclusive. License guides and set fixed rod days per river. If you don't do that you'll end up like the east kootenays.

 

I don't understand the argument, as I read it you're saying the way to prevent it from being exclusive is to make it more so?

 

All of it comes back to funding. You won't get anywhere without money. You can make all the regulations you want but at the end of the day they aren't worth the paper they're written on if there isn't a fund set up to carry them off the ground. Increase your license fees. Want to fish Stauffer for browns? OK, but it's gonna cost you $20 a year and half that money is going straight into cutthroat management.

 

Agreed on the funding and the regulations, but why shouldn't all of the money go in to supporting the reasource, and why shouldn't the money go to where it was generated? That is, if it is going to cost $20 to fish Stauffer, why shouldn't that money go to the management and enhancement of Stauffer?

 

I think PGK was just offering "off the hip" suggestions that there are things that 'we' as a fishing community and flyfishing group could be pushing. They were just examples.

 

 

I have 10 quick suggestions:

 

1. I think we need an east slopes stamp to fish the east slopes and it should cost ~$20 a year and an identification test should be required.

 

2. Licence fees should go up (by at least $10-$20), but a "Conservation licence" could be implemented if you want to fish cheaper and don't want to use the very liberal keep limits in Alberta's dated management scheme (C&R on flowing trout waters and special reg lakes (wall, pike and trout), half the limit on all Lakes and warmer waters)

 

3. Guides should be licenced- After we know whos guiding who and where, the gov't could consider limiting rod days. This doesn't make water more "exclusive", but it does give locals a chance to fish there own home waters. Regulations on the Beaverhead in Montana are a perfect example.

 

4. Funding for special stamps should go to the area they are funding.

 

5. Licence fee systems need to be transparent.

 

6. Non-resident fees should increase, but they should remain low enough to still allow folks to come.

 

7. Non-resident Kids should not be able to fish unless they are with an adult with a licence.

 

8. Seniors should have to get a licence (cheap, but we need to have the info about how many people fish in Alberta).

 

9. We need to diversify angling options (more delayed harvest lakes, more gear specific stretches of stream (no bait, not fly only), more C&R sections (to allow fish to get technically difficult to catch).

 

10. The gov't needs to dump more money in improving access and improving amenities (paid campsites, outhouses, garbage cans). This will improve the overall experience and the fishery (look at some of the great access and gov't management in Montana on the Missouri.

 

 

There are ~140 folks on the board with more than 200 posts each. There are over 3000 people registered as members of this site. That is a substantially sized group that could have a decent voice in the ears of the tourism and srd ministers.

Now who will step up to draft a letter with some suggestions that board members can send (and edit to personalize) to their local MP, MLA, and the SRD and Tourism minister?

 

 

 

We are a destination for anglers from around the world- Let's start acting like it.

[PGK]

.

[danhunt]

Like harps said, I'm just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

 

It's all good, and I don't mean to come across like I'm dumping on your ideas. I've had similar thoughts and to have someone else post them just gives me the chance to play devils advocate, so to speak.

 

I thought about the bounty idea a while back, because I know it has been done for other species like starlings in the past, but I don't know if it could be made to work for fish unless the goal was to completely irradicate the species from all waters. For example, if you wanted to elimate brookies, say, from drainage 1 but not from lakes 2 & 3, how could you prove that the bounty wasn't being paid on brookies from outside the target area?

[McLeod]

Like harps said, I'm just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

 

 

It's all good, and I don't mean to come across like I'm dumping on your ideas. I've had similar thoughts and to have someone else post them just gives me the chance to play devils advocate, so to speak.

 

I thought about the bounty idea a while back, because I know it has been done for other species like starlings in the past, but I don't know if it could be made to work for fish unless the goal was to completely irradicate the species from all waters. For example, if you wanted to elimate brookies, say, from drainage 1 but not from lakes 2 & 3, how could you prove that the bounty wasn't being paid on brookies from outside the target area?

 

While there are a lot of good ideas being generated here , I for one would NEVER support a bounty on fish. A special harvest license yes...

[Harps]

No takers, of course…

how about I start a letter?

 

Dear Mr. Knight and Mrs. Ady,

 

I have a couple of questions about the regulations around the fishing in Alberta. I am an avid angler fishing cold and cool rivers and lakes in southern Alberta.

 

Over the past few years, I have seen an increase in the number of individuals and guides on Alberta rivers. Many of these anglers and guides have British Columbia, Idaho, and Montana license plates on their vehicles. Many are from Alberta. A quick internet search finds many guides offering trips to Alberta's Rivers searching for the threatened bull trout, the threatened westslope cutthroat trout, and other wild trout in scenic places. I have noticed an increase of crowding and random camping along rivers and an increase in sediment inputs from the many off-highway vehicle trails in the east slopes. I have also noticed a lack of etiquette among people on the river and an increase in garbage.

 

From these past experiences, I have some questions:

 

1. What is the Alberta government planning on doing to protect the westslope cutthroat trout from off-highway vehicle use, hybridization, and habitat loss? In the east slopes who regulates watercourse crossing construction, trail-use and maintenance, logging buffer width, and random camping.

 

2. How many guides are operating in Alberta south of the Bow River, and how many clients do they take out each year? If the Alberta government doesn't know this, how can the government manage the fishery? Are there limits to the number of guides that can use an area or times that they can use an area?

 

3. Why are guides not required to be licensed in Alberta? Are there issues with business insurance and ethics (because they are a business operating on crown land, representing tourism in Alberta)?

 

4. Guides operate on crown land (forestry and parks) and make money on a public resource (Charging from $300-$600 per person per trip). Fishing is also a consumptive use of the resource. Do guides have to pay access fees, royalties, or anything of the sort? They make a lot of money from a public resource and should contribute to the maintenance of that resource.

 

5. Researchers have ethics to follow while handling animals, fish included. Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialists under Alberta's Water Act need a licence to collect fish, even if they are released. Why can a guide without a license (business or fishing) take an inexperienced client out to the river and handle fish? Is there some sort of fish handling course that can be made mandatory?

 

6. What is the Alberta government planning on doing to protect the quality fishing experience in Alberta? Was the tourism dollars a consideration in the decision to let the logging occur in the Castle River drainage?

 

I am worried that the fishing experience in Alberta is going to suffer a major drop of quality due largely to the lack of proper people management (tourist and resident). With 1 million people living in the Calgary area, and the ease of access to most of southern Alberta Rivers, something has to be done to preserve the quality of our fishing. It is already difficult to fish in peace with the rampant random camping and off-highway vehicle use on the east slopes (the provincial campgrounds are empty though).

 

I would like an answer to each of the above questions from a Tourism and Fish and Wildlife perspective and I also have suggestions as to ways the Alberta government could improve the quality of fishing in Alberta. Please review the suggestions (below) and respond as to why or why not they are valid.

 

1. I think we need an east slopes stamp to fish the east slopes and it should cost ~$20 a year and an identification test should be required.

 

2. Licence fees should go up (by at least $10-$20), but a "Conservation licence" could be implemented for anglers not wanting to pay more to utilize the very liberal keep limits in Alberta's dated management scheme (plus catch and release on flowing trout waters and special regulation lakes (wall, pike and trout), half the limit on all Lakes and warmer waters).

 

3. Guides should be licensed- After we know who’s guiding who and where, the government could consider limiting rod days. This doesn't make water more "exclusive", but it does give locals a chance to fish there own home waters. Regulations on the Beaverhead River in Montana are a perfect example.

 

4. Revenue from the special area fishing stamps (east slope local licences) should go to habitat and fisheries improvements in the management zone that those stamps are issued for.

 

5. Licence fee systems need to be transparent and where the money is used should be reported to the public each year.

 

6. Non-resident licence fees should increase, but they should not be cost prohibitive to tourists wanting to experience Alberta’s great fishing.

 

7. Non-resident minors should not be able to fish unless they are with an adult with a licence.

 

8. Seniors in Alberta should have to get a licence (a cheap licence because we need to have the info about how many people fish in Alberta).

 

9. We need to diversify angling options (more delayed harvest lakes, more gear specific stretches of stream (i.e. no bait, single hooks only, etc), more C&R sections of busy rivers, and more areas where off-highway vehicles can not access.

 

10. The government needs to budget more money into improving access and improving amenities (paid campsites, outhouses, garbage cans). This will improve the overall experience and the fishery (look at some of the great access and government management in Montana on the Missouri (camps and access along recreation road adjacent to the I-15).

 

Fisheries management and habitat management are reactive, but have (in spite of their budgets) maintained a quality fishing experience that is talked about around the world. I hope that Alberta is committed to maintaining and enhancing this experience for generations to come.

 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to a response.

 

Sincerely,

 

What’s my Name

 

Cc: local MLA, Trout Unlimited, etc, etc

 

Contact for Minister of Tourism, Cindy Ady

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p...&rnumber=22

 

Contact for Minister of SRD, Mel Knight

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p...&rnumber=56

 

How many of you will actually read the letter, edit it to your liking and send it to some ministers and local MLAs?

 

Or… I hear there is a federal election on right now? You could always ask you local potential MPs what their parties stance is on Alberta Fisheries.

 

3000 members on the site...

 

[mtbkr]

Thank you very much for the letter outline Harps,

 

As of Today there is one more letter edited and sent on my behalf.

 

 

I also will be forwarding this latest letter To Rob Renner and Ed Stelmach.

 

Mr. Rob Renner Minister of Environment

 

Legislature Office

#425 Legislature Building

10800 - 97 Avenue

Edmonton, AB

Canada T5K 2B6

Phone: (780) 427-2391

Fax: (780) 422-6259

 

 

 

Mr. Ed Stelmach Premier

 

Office of the Premier

Room 307, Legislature Building

10800 - 97th Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta

T5K 2B7

 

Phone: (780) 427 2251

 

Fax: (780) 427 1349

[PGK]

.

[robert]

Sorry guys, I have to shake my head whenever someone starts barking for more rules and regulations - we're already ruled and regulated to death. I don't mind paying more for a fishing license, but classified waters? Paying for trophies? C'mon, that's not management, that's setting up for an elitist fishery.

 

Throw some ideas out there on how to fix stupid and i'm all in. We all know that no matter what rules and regs are brought in, they will get broken. Some people just don't read the regs, some don't care, some want to keep what they catch - and fishing shouldn't be for an elite group of individuals.

 

Ok, so we pay more for licensing, I have no problem with that - but can you guarantee that the extra cash in the coffers are going to support the fishery and not end up in some politicians ass pocket for personal use? No, you can't.

 

Someone said that stiffer penalties should be brought in - yep, i'm all for that. Do like they do back in Newfoundland to protect the atlantic salmon, start reposessing all gear and vehicles, heavy fines and all of THAT should go to prop up the fisheries. Adds up in a hurry and can pay some yearly salaries for fisheries personell.

 

http://www.spawn1.ca/2010Convictions.html

 

 

 

Be careful you're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

[ironfly]

Last year at the Fisheries Round Table I saw a pie-chart which illustrated where your fishing license money goes. The general revenue thing is a myth. All the goverrnment gets is a tiny admin fee and the GST. The vast majority of your $$ goes directly into the resource.

[troutsteaks]

Sorry guys, I have to shake my head whenever someone starts barking for more rules and regulations - we're already ruled and regulated to death. I don't mind paying more for a fishing license, but classified waters? Paying for trophies? C'mon, that's not management, that's setting up for an elitist fishery.

 

Throw some ideas out there on how to fix stupid and i'm all in. We all know that no matter what rules and regs are brought in, they will get broken. Some people just don't read the regs, some don't care, some want to keep what they catch - and fishing shouldn't be for an elite group of individuals.

 

Ok, so we pay more for licensing, I have no problem with that - but can you guarantee that the extra cash in the coffers are going to support the fishery and not end up in some politicians ass pocket for personal use? No, you can't.

 

Someone said that stiffer penalties should be brought in - yep, i'm all for that. Do like they do back in Newfoundland to protect the atlantic salmon, start reposessing all gear and vehicles, heavy fines and all of THAT should go to prop up the fisheries. Adds up in a hurry and can pay some yearly salaries for fisheries personell.

 

http://www.spawn1.ca/2010Convictions.html

 

 

 

Be careful you're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

 

I totally agree with you. Everything you said there holds merit.

 

Last year at the Fisheries Round Table I saw a pie-chart which illustrated where your fishing license money goes. The general revenue thing is a myth. All the goverrnment gets is a tiny admin fee and the GST. The vast majority of your $$ goes directly into the resource.

 

And 82% of all statistics are made up.

[DonAndersen]

Comparison of License Fees by Govt is located here.

 

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms...rta-Feb2010.pdf

 

Don

[Taco]

Re: The need for special licenses and ID tests,

 

A quick look to the south,

 

Montana; 20 brookies daily and in possession in most of the state 10 the rest, all wild stream caught cutthroat and bull trout must be released immediately and are identified by throat slashes and no black.

 

Idaho; 25 brook trout/day. Same ID and release criteria on natives.

 

Wyoming; 16 brook trout/day

 

Oregon; no limit or size restrictions on brook trout in certain waters

 

Colorado; 14 brook trout/day, several lakes have must kill regs in place.

 

California; 10 brook trout per day where competing with native trout

 

Utah; bonus limit on brook trout in certain waters

 

All states have more liberal harvest limits on introduced species over native species and several states also have must kill regulations on certain invasive fish species, you catch it you must dispatch it immediately. Plus bull trout cannot be even targeted in the good old US of A

 

I'm sure their F&G departments are just as short staffed and underfunded as ours is and I'm reasonably certain there's not a sudden IQ drop in the average fisherman north of the 49th Parallel. All it is an enforcement issue.

[troutsteaks]

Re: The need for special licenses and ID tests,

 

A quick look to the south,

 

Montana; 20 brookies daily and in possession in most of the state 10 the rest, all wild stream caught cutthroat and bull trout must be released immediately and are identified by throat slashes and no black.

 

Idaho; 25 brook trout/day. Same ID and release criteria on natives.

 

Wyoming; 16 brook trout/day

 

Oregon; no limit or size restrictions on brook trout in certain waters

 

Colorado; 14 brook trout/day, several lakes have must kill regs in place.

 

California; 10 brook trout per day where competing with native trout

 

Utah; bonus limit on brook trout in certain waters

 

All states have more liberal harvest limits on introduced species over native species and several states also have must kill regulations on certain invasive fish species, you catch it you must dispatch it immediately. Plus bull trout cannot be even targeted in the good old US of A

 

I'm sure their F&G departments are just as short staffed and underfunded as ours is and I'm reasonably certain there's not a sudden IQ drop in the average fisherman north of the 49th Parallel. All it is an enforcement issue.

 

According to your stance about non-natives, if you're gonna put a large limit on brookies, you're gonna have to do the same for rainbows and browns. Are you good with destroying all rainbow and brown fisheries in order to get rid of brookies? All I am saying is that the stance against ALL NON-NATIVE fish is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for.

 

On a side note, the war on brookies is eerily similar to fishermen's attitudes towards the bull trout in the 70's and 80's don't you think? Scary what negative attitudes can do for a species and fisheries. Just food for thought.