Bow River Boat Launch South Of 22X...

[CanadianFish]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I would like to see a boat launch on the side of 22X specifically on the west side bank. maybe something at the end of 194th ave.

 

Down here we get the short end of the stick. there is a boat launch on the west bank up near Sikome lake which everyone knows about.. The downside, is the only access to it is from the deer run side. That means you have to drive way up and around fish creek just to do a big loop back to where you started from. other than that, you have to float down to policeman's flats.

 

Right now 194th avenue, runs down towards the river then dead ends about 3/4 of a KM away from the river in a small makeshift parking lot. If this road and lot was extended to the river, it would make a perfect spot to have a boat launch or take out point, which would be accessible to the people who live in the communities who are south of fish creek park.

 

just a thought.. im curious if anyone else thinks another one is needed before policemans..

 

 

[SilverDoctor]

For the amount of revenue generated by Fly fishing we certainly need a few "real" launches for drift boats etc.

[bcubed]

we desperately need more launches downstream of policemens, between 22x and glenmore and upstream of glenmore. Not another one due to a bit of inconvenience caused by not being accessible on the east side of the river.. I agree we need more boat launches, but if we have a limited number that are going to get built, let's put them in spots that will spread traffic around and facilitate different sections being floated. I'm not sure if another 2 km of river for a launch at 194 is adding anything

 

Getting a boat launch in the vicinity of the cottonwood golf course down to the cambite cliffs would completely change the river. 22 to there would be an amazing float, could even do there to Jansens for the highly motivated

[Jayhad]

Down here we get the short end of the stick.

you have boat launches in the South, there are NONE, ZERO in the north... short end of the stick you say

[CanadianFish]

we desperately need more launches downstream of policemens, between 22x and glenmore and upstream of glenmore. Not another one due to a bit of inconvenience caused by not being accessible on the east side of the river.. I agree we need more boat launches, but if we have a limited number that are going to get built, let's put them in spots that will spread traffic around and facilitate different sections being floated. I'm not sure if another 2 km of river for a launch at 194 is adding anything

 

Getting a boat launch in the vicinity of the cottonwood golf course down to the cambite cliffs would completely change the river. 22 to there would be an amazing float, could even do there to Jansens for the highly motivated

 

On the west side of the river Bcube not east.

 

Placing more launches outside of the city limits would likely be a provincial issue Bcube. and has to deal with private land owners who likely dont want a road down to the river, traffic or a parking lot on their land. I am not mentioning this to make a great 2 hour float, I am talking from a purely an accessibility standpoint.

 

I am not sure about the small inconvenience you talk about... it is a fairly large one. Right now if you live pretty well anywhere south of fish creek park, you have no access to a boat launch or take out point except for driving way up around fish creek park through sikome. That would include a fairly large bit of population in Sundance, Chaparral, Walden, Legacy, Silverado, Shawnessy, evergreen and bridlewood. All of whom would be serviced by a new proper launch / take out at 194th. Not to mention, you can take all major roads to get to it, Ring road, Divided highway on Macleod tr south and 194th is twinned all the way to the hill down into the valley.

[CanadianFish]

you have boat launches in the South, there are NONE, ZERO in the north... short end of the stick you say

 

Perhaps my short of the stick comment was alittle to broad of a stroke for this conversation.. still miffed the north gets everything easily long before the south... *cough cough LRT*

 

but I wouldn't disagree that one could be put up there as well.... ( after 194th)

[bcubed]

On the west side of the river Bcube not east.

 

Placing more launches outside of the city limits would likely be a provincial issue Bcube. and has to deal with private land owners who likely dont want a road down to the river, traffic or a parking lot on their land. I am not mentioning this to make a great 2 hour float, I am talking from a purely an accessibility standpoint.

 

I am not sure about the small inconvenience you talk about... it is a fairly large one. Right now if you live pretty well anywhere south of fish creek park, you have no access to a boat launch or take out point except for driving way up around fish creek park through sikome. That would include a fairly large bit of population in Sundance, Chaparral, Walden, Legacy, Silverado, Shawnessy, evergreen and bridlewood. All of whom would be serviced by a new proper launch / take out at 194th. Not to mention, you can take all major roads to get to it, Ring road, Divided highway on Macleod tr south and 194th is twinned all the way to the hill down into the valley.

 

At worst its 20 minutes to drive all the way around. If 20 minutes is an inconvenience, you must really hate deerfoot

 

There is no way we'd get support from the City with installing a launch at 194 (plus, the end of that road is still within Fish Creek PP) with the proximity to Fish Creek's launch. Convenient or otherwise, one planner will mention that it is 2 km or a 20 minute drive and the idea is dead. Pick your battles...

 

I'd support a launch within the City upstream of deerfoot, in the case that Policemens get's nuked or shutdown due to safety in the future. plus with the development going in there, the city should be making the developers pay for that infrastructure

[bigfry]

plus apprently fish creek closes at locks its gate at 10 pm if your going for a late float and dock later than 10 you are hooped. that is unless you have a lock cutter

[CanadianFish]

Getting city approval would likely be easier than buying land at a massive premium off of a land owner who wouldn't want to sell it anyways for extra traffic and such for another rural boat launch.

 

Agree with Bigfry... in the summer if you do a late float and they lock the gates.. that would suck. no way out or off the river until policemans.

[fishteck]

The 194 Ave access is a part of the CRUA stakeholder discussions with Calgary Parks. A total of 30 river access points have been identified from Stony Trail in the north west to Mahogany in the south east. A short list of feasible trailered river access ramps will be developed as part of the Calgary River Access Strategy.

 

Go to the City of Calgary River Access Strategy to engage in the development of this project

 

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/River-Access.aspx?redirect=/riveraccess

[MikeL]

Would it not be a lot easier if they opened up access to the 22X boat launch from Sundance? I think it has been blocked off for a very long time. Not sure why?

[CanadianFish]

Would it not be a lot easier if they opened up access to the 22X boat launch from Sundance? I think it has been blocked off for a very long time. Not sure why?

 

 

The access is blocked off so that people dont short cut through Sikome from the Sundance entrance.. which would be a huge short cut shaving off alot of time from a drive all the way up Macloed trail to bow bottom

[CanadianFish]

The 194 Ave access is a part of the CRUA stakeholder discussions with Calgary Parks. A total of 30 river access points have been identified from Stony Trail in the north west to Mahogany in the south east. A short list of feasible trailered river access ramps will be developed as part of the Calgary River Access Strategy.

 

Go to the City of Calgary River Access Strategy to engage in the development of this project

 

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Parks/Pages/River-Access.aspx?redirect=/riveraccess

 

 

this is exactly what i am interested in.. Thanks Fishtech

[fishteck]

When I read through the comments on this discussion it is obvious that a few facts need to be pointed out.

 

A survey conducted by AEP In 2010 documented that there were 56,519 active anglers in Eastern Slopes Zone 1 (the southern foothills region) each spending on average $1967 / year on their fishing activity for a total of $111 million. What is probably more important is just how many drift boats and inflatables owners use the Bow River each year. No hard data, but probably 150 of each, spending twice the Alberta average at $3934 / per boat owner / year for a total of $1.20 million annually. Therefore as boat owners using the Bow River we need to face facts that our contribution to the local community could be limited.

 

We are very fortunate that the City of Calgary, with the Calgary River Access Strategy is taking trailered boat ramps very seriously and we should be very thankful for that. For more details go to the following link that documents the economic importance of recreational river use to the local economy..

 

https://bowrivertrout.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/crua-economic-position-statement-to-city-of-calgary-revise-19-may-2016-1.pdf

 

 

Expect to see some movement on river access outside of the City of Calgary. I have thought for some time that there is a need for a "Bow River Basin River Access Strategy" covering river access from Cochrane down to Carsland and on the reserve.

[CanadianFish]

The thing is, adding most Ramps should be a very minimal cost. To bad there has to be a forest of red tape to cut through.

 

 

At the end of the day, there are so many things both the municipal and provincial governments could be doing for outdoor public recreation creation, for very little cost.

 

By extending the road at 194th and creating a new parking lot, that area would likely be used by even more people for biking, off leash dog walking etc...

[BurningChrome]

By extending the road at 194th and creating a new parking lot, that area would likely be used by even more people for biking, off leash dog walking etc...

There already are a lot of people who use that area for cycling and walking their dogs. I think they'd actually be opposed to putting a road leading to a parking lot and boat launch there. 194th also ends at the boundary to Fish Creek Park, so putting anything in there would be a provincial thing and not the city, unless they cut through part of the gravel pit. I wonder how the people who live in Chaparral would feel about the extra traffic as well.

[jpinkster]

The thing is, adding most Ramps should be a very minimal cost. To bad there has to be a forest of red tape to cut through.

 

 

At the end of the day, there are so many things both the municipal and provincial governments could be doing for outdoor public recreation creation, for very little cost.

 

By extending the road at 194th and creating a new parking lot, that area would likely be used by even more people for biking, off leash dog walking etc...

It's more expensive and comprehensive than you would think. After the floods in 2013 most of the data on spawning habitat and sensitive areas became significantly outdated. There is currently a lot of work being done to update that data. Creating new access is a comprehensive process that requires involvement from the Feds, the Province and The City. There are a lot of other factors that also need to be considered for access points within The City. There would need to be ample availability of parking and a Traffic Impact Assessment of any new "development" would likely need to be conducted.

 

The River Access Strategy that fishteck referenced is a fantastic starting point for river users in Calgary. The City has taken a real leadership position on this issue and hopefully that encourages similar movement from the Province.

[CanadianFish]

It's more expensive and comprehensive than you would think. After the floods in 2013 most of the data on spawning habitat and sensitive areas became significantly outdated. There is currently a lot of work being done to update that data. Creating new access is a comprehensive process that requires involvement from the Feds, the Province and The City. There are a lot of other factors that also need to be considered for access points within The City. There would need to be ample availability of parking and a Traffic Impact Assessment of any new "development" would likely need to be conducted.

 

The River Access Strategy that fishteck referenced is a fantastic starting point for river users in Calgary. The City has taken a real leadership position on this issue and hopefully that encourages similar movement from the Province.

 

 

Thats what I mean by red tape.. it sounds like this has to go through 3 levels of government, multiple agencies etc just to put in a small ramp. We are not talking an overpass here or major diversion of the bow river. Ill be 10 years older by the time anything gets done, and once something does happen another flood will happen and change things again... I am not saying the environmental ground work shouldnt be done for fish habitat and spawning... but these ramps should be something the municipal government can stamp and put in place within a few months or a year max.

[jpinkster]

Thats what I mean by red tape.. it sounds like this has to go through 3 levels of government, multiple agencies etc just to put in a small ramp. We are not talking an overpass here or major diversion of the bow river. Ill be 10 years older by the time anything gets done, and once something does happen another flood will happen and change things again... I am not saying the environmental ground work shouldnt be done for fish habitat and spawning... but these ramps should be something the municipal government can stamp and put in place within a few months or a year max.

You interpret the oversight as being a bad thing, I interpret it as being a good thing. We shouldn't be allowing people to put launches wherever they want. Improving access is a good thing, but it shouldn't have to be at the expense of sensitive habitat. Having a regulatory framework in place makes sure we approach this with balance. I'm not interested in putting a slab of concrete over top of an area that could be yielding redds.

River access is a policy area that covers three orders of government and there is absolutely no way to get around that. The City has jurisdiction on the bank, the Province and the Feds are in charge of the waterway. That dynamic isn't changing anytime soon, so we will need to find a way to work within it.

 

I'll also point out that I'd much rather see access addressed where there are significant gaps. I would find it hard to justify spending public funds on an access point that is within 3-5km of another access point. We'd be much better served by addressing some of the areas where there are massive distances between access. Inglewood and the NW city section of the river immediately come to mind.

[BurningChrome]

and once something does happen another flood will happen and change things again...

Or if they take the time to do it right then it won't be as badly affected by another flood. Big difference in how the 22X boat launch fared vs Police.

[CanadianFish]

You interpret the oversight as being a bad thing, I interpret it as being a good thing. We shouldn't be allowing people to put launches wherever they want. Improving access is a good thing, but it shouldn't have to be at the expense of sensitive habitat. Having a regulatory framework in place makes sure we approach this with balance. I'm not interested in putting a slab of concrete over top of an area that could be yielding redds.

River access is a policy area that covers three orders of government and there is absolutely no way to get around that. The City has jurisdiction on the bank, the Province and the Feds are in charge of the waterway. That dynamic isn't changing anytime soon, so we will need to find a way to work within it.

 

I'll also point out that I'd much rather see access addressed where there are significant gaps. I would find it hard to justify spending public funds on an access point that is within 3-5km of another access point. We'd be much better served by addressing some of the areas where there are massive distances between access. Inglewood and the NW city section of the river immediately come to mind.

 

I do not argue the collection of data for fish habitat for spawning or sensitive areas as you say.. I am very PRO fisheries and river conservation. I do not want a slab of concrete over redds as much as you dont. My position comes form the idea that I would LOVE to have boat access to and from the river without having to drive across the city to do so.

 

My point isnt to disregard regulations in regards to this.. There are regulations, then there is acres of red tape.. taking 5-10 years to talk about things and have conversations at different levels of government is a farce. Here it is 3 years after the flood... nothing has been done to replace lost ramps in the same locations they were. If the area is checked by the proper methods (shouldn't take years), and it is found there is no such habitat there, rehabilitate the ramp and area immediately. I certainly would not argue your stance at replacing some in the north west as well. I believe we should ALL have access to this amazing piece of water.

[bcubed]

Here it is 3 years after the flood... nothing has been done to replace lost ramps in the same locations they were. If the area is checked by the proper methods (shouldn't take years), and it is found there is no such habitat there, rehabilitate the ramp and area immediately.

 

Which ramp are you specifically referring to.. Not a single public launch downstream of glenmore was lost.

 

Provided the city was on board and had the money ready to go, you'd still be at least 6-12 months to get the design correct and to meet various regulatory requirements (water act, public lands act, navigation protection act, fisheries act). I understand you're keen, but there is due process to follow. The fact that the city is even looking at boat launches is miles ahead of where we were following the 2005 and 2013 floods.

[Dangus]

There's already a launch in place just above Deerfoot at southland. Would just need to be given access. might be nice as I hate pretty much most of the water from glenmore to the foot bridge at sue Higgins.

[bcubed]

There's already a launch in place just above Deerfoot at southland. Would just need to be given access. might be nice as I hate pretty much most of the water from glenmore to the foot bridge at sue Higgins.

 

Issue is that it is a fire boat launch, and CFD seems to think that giving users access to the river is just asking for more problems. I find it a bit unacceptable that a sizeable bit of money was spent on putting in that boat launch, but adequate parking (and no stakeholder engagement with the fishing community) was not provided to turn it into a public access. Im sure this one will be brought up in the river access strategy thing. Probably the easiest launch to get operational to the public by providing more parking spots and ensuring the launch isn't blocked if CFD needs in (doesn't seem to be an issue at Fish Creek)

[CanadianFish]

Which ramp are you specifically referring to.. Not a single public launch downstream of glenmore was lost.

 

Provided the city was on board and had the money ready to go, you'd still be at least 6-12 months to get the design correct and to meet various regulatory requirements (water act, public lands act, navigation protection act, fisheries act). I understand you're keen, but there is due process to follow. The fact that the city is even looking at boat launches is miles ahead of where we were following the 2005 and 2013 floods.

 

I was referring to all boat launches lost. Including Glenmore.