Proposed Sportfishing Regulation Change For Kananaskis Countray Area In 2013

[jstelfox]

A few sportfishing regulation changes are being proposed for implementation in the Kananaskis Country area in 2013. The proposed changes are primarily designed to provide more protection for pure-strain, non-stocked populations of native westslope cutthroat trout. The attached provides background and rationale for the proposed changes.

 

Jim

Proposed changes to the 2013 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations.pdf

[bigalcal]

Great!!

[DaveJensen]

Jim, out of curiosity, what other forums have you shared this with? Curious to track the different responses in varying circles.

[RedBeard]

Interesting... we may start seeing some more big fat cutties!

[jstelfox]

Jim, out of curiosity, what other forums have you shared this with? Curious to track the different responses in varying circles.

I also posted it on the Alberta Outdoorsmen.

[BBBrownie]

This looks excellent Jim. I am surprised retention was ever allowed on Gorge? Rare, but not unheard of to find a fish that would have been considered legal in the Gorge system.

[WesG]

I have heard similar stories regarding the castle/crowsnest areas as well.

 

 

 

http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=18666

[pipercub17]

with the way things are going wouldnt it just make more sense to make all cutty fishing in alberta catch and release just like the bulls ..

just a thought

[FraserN]

As I said on the other forum, this is indeed welcome news. They should protect all the streams they find genetically pure strain Cutts in.

[DonAndersen]

A few sportfishing regulation changes are being proposed for implementation in the Kananaskis Country area in 2013. The proposed changes are primarily designed to provide more protection for pure-strain, non-stocked populations of native westslope cutthroat trout. The attached provides background and rationale for the proposed changes.

 

Jim

Proposed changes to the 2013 Alberta Sportfishing Regulations.pdf

 

Jim,

 

A number of questions arise from the proposal:

 

1] If the Mininster supports a listing in 2009, obviously the cuts were in trouble years earlier. What does it take to motivate SRD? Seems like 5 % is firmly shoving the door closed after 95% of the damage is done.

 

2] The Govt is the custdodian of the land - land use practices are thier responsiblilty. Why were they not dischared to maintian cut populations?

 

And now we have a Recovery Plan. I see a recovery plan a little different that you guys. Look @ it this way. A management plan means you put on a parachute BEFORE your jump outta the plane. A recovery plan is required only if you couldn't get the parachute on when falling.

 

And what you guys should really do is look @ the number of Recovery Plans created by SRD and ponder if pro-active management would have reduced or eliminated them.

 

And laslly, any chance a person could see the recovery plan? I wonder if other causes of the cuts demise are addressed and just how it will be done.

 

 

regards,

 

 

 

Don

[Guest Stillcreek]

Looks like a good step in the right direction. Some light reading here :http://www.fwresearch.ca/Library_files/Mayhood%202009a.pdf

[McLeod]

What is the plan to remove the Rainbows ?

[jstelfox]

 

A number of questions arise from the proposal:

 

1] If the Mininster supports a listing in 2009, obviously the cuts were in trouble years earlier. What does it take to motivate SRD? Seems like 5 % is firmly shoving the door closed after 95% of the damage is done.

 

Yes, westslope cutthroat trout have likely been in decline since the early 1900s, initially due to overharvest by anglers, then due to introduction of non-native trout species, hydroelectric development, road construction, logging, cattle grazing, OHVs, etc..

 

What does it take to motivate SRD? Seems like 5 % is firmly shoving the door closed after 95% of the damage is done.

 

It’s not like nothing was done. In the last 40 years, bag limits have been reduced from 10 to 5 to 2 trout in the Eastern Slopes Region; minimum size limits of 25 cm then 30 or 35 cm were implemented for cutthroat and rainbow trout; and several waters were made catch-and-release. While these regulation changes reduced the impact of angler harvest on westslope cutthroat trout, they did little to address the problems created when non-native rainbow and brook trout were stocked in the early 1900s. It was not until the results of genetic studies, initiated five years ago (and still ongoing), became available, that it became apparent how few genetically pure non-stocked westslope cutthroat trout populations remained.

 

The Govt is the custdodian of the land - land use practices are thier responsiblilty. Why were they not dischared to maintian cut populations?

 

As you know, fisheries biologists only make recommendations. They don’t have the final say regarding land-use practices (e.g., logging, dam construction, OHV use, etc.).

 

And what you guys should really do is look @ the number of Recovery Plans created by SRD and ponder if pro-active management would have reduced or eliminated them.

 

If, by proactive management, you mean being able to turn the hands of time back to prevent the stocking of non-native rainbow and brook trout from occurring in the Eastern Slopes Region and dams from being constructed on Lower Kananaskis Lake and Spray Lakes, then I couldn’t agree with you more. However, the reality is that the genie was let out of the bottle when those things happened, and even if catch-and-release regulations had been implemented throughout the Eastern Slopes Region in the 1950s (when Fish and Wildlife first came into existence), we would still essentially be in the same position today regarding westslope cutthroat trout.

 

And laslly, any chance a person could see the recovery plan? I wonder if other causes of the cuts demise are addressed and just how it will be done.

 

Once the recovery plan — which was completed in October 2012 — has been reviewed and approved by the Minister of ESRD, it will be available for the public to see. And yes, other causes of the “cuts demise” are addressed in the recovery plan.

 

Jim

[jstelfox]

What is the plan to remove the Rainbows ?

 

It is possible that anglers, who have passed a fish ID test, will be permitted to harvest an unlimited number of rainbow trout from a few select waters, much as they are currently permitted to harvest brook trout from certain select waters via the Stewardship Licence (after they have passed a fish ID test).

Jim

[troutlover]

ALL great steps in the right direction it's nice to see things moving forward instead of back. The one thing i will lend concern to is....... the fact that the government is actually good at listening to biologists and implementing programs HOWEVER when it comes to forking out the cash to fund the programs to implement them PROPERLY they are sucking it big time. They receive praise and wonderful press for the programs they implement and then nothing is said when the programs they have implemented fall apart because of insufficient funding. I don't expect any of this to work because there are no officers to enforce it and the money to run such a program properly will NEVER come . Create programs and laws and never support them that is the agenda of this government and it makes me sick.

[troutfriend]

I think I have a solution to bring attention to the enforcement issue...opening weekend grab a camera, a pad of paper and a nice lawn chair. Sit up at the pay phone at the upper lake beside the boat launch and start calling the RAP line every time you see an infraction (it is free if you dial 310-0000). Flooding the RAP line with calls from up there should increase enforcement, but we will see if the Parks Enforcement (not AESRD Enforcement, ooops I mean Solicitor General Enforcement) do their job.

 

Or walk around with a clip board, that appears to do the trick.

[Melitta]

Mr. J. Stelfox,

 

Your work over the past decades wrt Alberta fisheries is greatly appreciated.

 

We are lucky to have your committment and passion.

 

You do as good a job as can be done.

 

Thank-you.