Barbless Regs Question?

[Guest Grinr]

Just curious as to what,if any implications this "mistake" at the Federal level might have pertaining to barbless regs in other provinces?

 

From pg.4 Alberta fishing regs

"In 2012,during an amendment of the Alberta Fishery Regulations,1998,the federal government inadvertently removed the provision prohibiting the use of barbed hooks.This rendered the barbless-only requirement when angling in Alberta unenforceable."

 

So my question is....does this only apply to Alberta,or is this due to some error in the Federal Fisheries Act that applies nationwide and supersedes any and all provincial regs??

Orrrrr....if it's only Alberta that is affected,why is that?For instance,why or how would the Feds have the authority to "inadvertently remove" provisions from Alberta's provincial sportfishing regs?Is it that Alberta(and all provinces?)are required to have their provincial fishing regs approved or ratified at the Federal level,and somehow a mistake was made during the process?Or again,was this barbless reg in AB simply contradictory to some Federal regulation that supersedes provincial laws coast to coast??

[Hawgstoppah]

I don't understand how it all happened but I imagine the Alberta Fisheries Regulations... is a statute or act of the Province of Alberta and therefore only pertains to Alberta.

[Guest Grinr]

I don't understand how it all happened but I imagine the Alberta Fisheries Regulations... is a statute or act of the Province of Alberta and therefore only pertains to Alberta.

Well exactly,that's what I'm thinking,but that's where my question stems from.

Generally speaking,each individual province is responsible for regulating sportfishing/hunting etc. thru their provincial F&W Acts.So with that said,why would there be any Federal involvement at all in Alberta's 2012 amendment?Why would a provincial Act go beyond Edmonton?

Again,unless it's a matter of the AB F&W Act contradicting some Federal law wherein the province does not have the authority to implement such a provision?

For example,if AB decides we are going to have an open season on bald eagles with a 3/day bag limit,the Feds could say "like hell you are",lol.

But if AB decides that a 50/day bag limit on gophers is appropriate and sustainable without endangering the species,what bizness is that of the Feds?I guess the question is,do any and all amendments to the AB F&W Act need to be ratified at the federal level?

[DonAndersen]

Grinr,

 

This is what I understand. Presently Alberta, unlike some other provinces, is not yet in full control of the fisheries resources. Any. Changes to acts/regulations have to be vetted by the Feds.

Good thing or bad thing depends on the beliefs of the respective Govts. Do remember though why the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans were in Alberta. A Federal judge found that Alberta had demonstrated that they could not obey not only Provincial but Federal statutes and ordered the Feds. In to clean up the place. Of course, over the past few years, the Dept. has been gutted c/w a complete gutting to Fed. Environmental & Fishery Acts. Seems like the Provnce & Feds. Are now aligned.

And no - this is not a late April Fools Joke!

 

 

Don

[Guest Grinr]

OK thanks Don.

I guess my main question was if it was contravening some part of the Fed Fish Act,and does that mean that barbless regs have no teeth from coast to coast until it's amended?So apparently not then,it only applies to Alberta.

Thanks.

[troutfriend]

Grinr,

From personal conversations with the government officials on both ends it appears that there was a procedural issue that was overlooked in the process to bring the barbless hooks regulation into place initially. Apparently these regulations were put in place by government without proper public consultation. Therefore the proper process was not followed and so the changes were reversed in Alberta. This is now in the hands of the lawyers as they try to work reinstate the barbless regulations, but this as you can expect will take time.

If other provinces have gone through the proper procedures and completed their public consultation process, then this change will not be challenged.

[DaveJensen]

Grinr,

From personal conversations with the government officials on both ends it appears that there was a procedural issue that was overlooked in the process to bring the barbless hooks regulation into place initially. Apparently these regulations were put in place by government without proper public consultation. Therefore the proper process was not followed and so the changes were reversed in Alberta. This is now in the hands of the lawyers as they try to work reinstate the barbless regulations, but this as you can expect will take time.

If other provinces have gone through the proper procedures and completed their public consultation process, then this change will not be challenged.

That's the understatement of the decade. Klein went on a guided trip on the Bow and asked the guide what would make fishing in Alberta better. Guess what the answer was? And guess who circumvented all process in telling the lackies 'make it so'. Still recall and shake my head at the email that was written by gov bio at the time, upon being told to 'make it so'. Under the assumption a % of the rivers/streams would go barbless rather than carte-blanche province wide, his email went out saying,"Given the complete lack of science behind this new regulation, I propose that streams begining with the letters _, _, _, _, and _ now have barbless regulation." And so it was. And here we now are once again about to spend a ton of time and $ on an issue that has so little impact on our fisheries as compared to so many larger scale issues.

There are so many positive things of how our fisheries are managed, given the severity of land use, resource extraction, and intensity of recreation in this province, but the barbed hook issue is not a shining point. Fisheries needs to find a way to focus on things that can make a difference, and somehow find a vehicle to ensure their recommendations have to be adhered to in the env review processes rather than simply a 'recommendation'. But given the direction of the gov, with the next election likely to be Conservative vs Conservative, do we expect process to allow the good fisheries staff to have their say with clout to get better?

[bigbowtrout]

A guide on the Bow told him hahaha thats a new one. Salmon fishing on the coast without barbs was another story going around. Fishing up north with some buds for pike was another story. And on and on and on.

Truth is I told him it was a great idea. I got the idea from the owner of some long gone fishing forum. I said Dave says its a good idea. Ralph said who is this Dave? I said its the guy that saved the North Raven and the Red Deer river. Also the guy who is starting Streamwatch. Ralph said he loved Daves forward thinking and pushed barbless for all of us to enjoy.

 

So now when I lose a fish before the net I call it a Jensen

[Hawgstoppah]

A guide on the Bow told him hahaha thats a new one. Salmon fishing on the coast without barbs was another story going around. Fishing up north with some buds for pike was another story. And on and on and on. Truth is I told him it was a great idea. I got the idea from the owner of some long gone fishing forum. I said Dave says its a good idea. Ralph said who is this Dave? I said its the guy that saved the North Raven and the Red Deer river. Also the guy who is starting Streamwatch. Ralph said he loved Daves forward thinking and pushed barbless for all of us to enjoy. So now when I lose a fish before the net I call it a Jensen

 

LOLOL post of the year award goes to.........................!!!!!! LOLOL

[dutchie]

A guide on the Bow told him hahaha thats a new one. Salmon fishing on the coast without barbs was another story going around. Fishing up north with some buds for pike was another story. And on and on and on. Truth is I told him it was a great idea. I got the idea from the owner of some long gone fishing forum. I said Dave says its a good idea. Ralph said who is this Dave? I said its the guy that saved the North Raven and the Red Deer river. Also the guy who is starting Streamwatch. Ralph said he loved Daves forward thinking and pushed barbless for all of us to enjoy. So now when I lose a fish before the net I call it a Jensen

way to funny

[DaveJensen]

The barbless on the coast thing was due to the fact he was a shareholder at a coastal BC lodge. After his Bow float, within 2 months, using the guide impetus to substantiate his agenda, as follow up he simply referenced that other adjoining jurisdictions used barbless, referencing adjoining ones. He knew that much to substantiate his agenda. When you actually see the emails from gov bios / techs around at the time, it is as is. Some have memories for this stuff. Call me the TMZ, lowland Alberta style. And how dare anyone here question the Queen of Alberta Trout? (you'd have to have been around our old forum a long time to get any of that one - it was a great thread)

[Taco]

Some of the Bios are still irritated over that deal. We really do have a lot more important issues than worrying about a few extra mandibles being torn loose

 

I remember that thread and some of the discussion. I was all for it at the time being born again believer of The Church of C&R. I think my justification boiled down to, if it made the hook easier to get outta me then it had to be good for the fish.

 

And since I have trouble recalling a good portion of last week let alone 10 yrs ago, QAT?

[DaveJensen]

Taco - QAT - just a long ago thread where someone was coming at me for their interpretation of me being a little self-righteous (imagine?) and asked who made me the Queen of Alberta Trout?

To assist the individuals mis-interpretation of me, I simply posted a photo of QE2 carrying a sceptor and imposed my face on it and asked what his problem was.

 

I was reminded of that with BBT's post. It made me tear up for the old days of running a forum.

I'm a little obtuse tho, my personality still doesn't jive with forums but I still keep coming back for more.

That QAT thread was 15 yrs ago - but again, I tend to remember things.

[Taco]

You weren't the only one on the obtuse side of the equation Stonefly

[PeteZahut]

QAT and calling it a Jensen...awesome! Terms now in my vocabulary.