bigalcal Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Recently steps have been made to reduce damage to our cutty rivers. Quadders are being educated and ticketed, loggers have restrictions etc etc. All this is to restrict potential damage to the endangered cutthroat and bull trout habitat, Awesome start... The other day I was fishing a spot on the Oldman River near the Forest Fire Station on the Forestry Trunk Road. There were a lot of cattle mooing in an area behind me. They soon approached me and approximately 1400 head of cattle crossed the pool I was fishing. Despite the lack of etiquette, I was quite entertained as I watched the cattle cross and scramble up the bank and continue down the Trunk Rd. I went back to fishing UPSTREAM from where they crossed and the river was muddy, I couldn't imagine what it was like downstream not to mention the damage to the river bank etc. I was wondering if Sustainable Resources look into the damage done from these huge river crossings or somehow regulate them or if they just let it happen. A quad crossing a river seems quite minute in comparison to what I saw the other day. The silt in the river and the bank damage was huge. I'm hoping they will look into it. Who can I contact about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdangler Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 cowsandfish.org 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Al Did you take any photos or video footage, by chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgib01 Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Saw something on the Crow this year related (though on a much smaller scale). There was a spot that, for several weeks mid-summer, had several section of 5-6' tall movable steel tube fencing extending into the river probably 15 feet or better perpendicular to the bank. The cattle were able to come down to the river, and (although I never actually saw them) the footprints and cow dung left behind showed them coming well into the river to drink. It left me wondering about 2 things... the possible impact on the water and it's creatures, and whether it is kosher to put fencing into the water at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted October 6, 2016 Author Share Posted October 6, 2016 Peter...for the first time EVER I had my phone with me and have lots of video, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningChrome Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Who can I contact about it? Since it's public land I'd start with AEP. If you email them tell them you have video but don't attach it to the email since their mail server might reject it. http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/contact-us/fish-and-wildlife-area-office-contacts.aspx Blairmore would probably be the office to contact if you phone. Edit: Just had another thought. Maybe try contacting TU Oldman chapter or Oldman Watershed Council. One of those groups more than likely has some direct contacts they could put you in touch with or contact on your behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Al, While I have sympathy for both your concern and the river, Alberta ranchers have been driving their cows through water courses for 150 years. Nothing will stop them. It is ingrained in the culture. They can do no wrong. Don 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted October 7, 2016 Author Share Posted October 7, 2016 I just found it odd that the cattle were corralled on the other side of the river. So the herd actually had to cross the OMR to get to the area and then cross it again to get back to the road. Pity that there isn't an area on the same side of the river for them to herd up. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Al, Gotta be a reason. Cost is generally the driver. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcubed Posted October 7, 2016 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Al, Gotta be a reason. Cost is generally the driver. Don But really, they're using a public resource for minimal (to pretty well nil) cost... Should be forced to fence off the entire riverbank except in designated crossing locations. but that's just me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted October 9, 2016 Author Share Posted October 9, 2016 Here's some video....I thought it was pretty cool to be in the middle of it, then the thought of the river damage occurred to me much later. I apologize for the quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 Al I didn't realize that there were Cowboys wrangling the cattle as well!! I presumed they were free range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted October 10, 2016 Author Share Posted October 10, 2016 It was all planned... I met a couple from Quebec that were perched up high waiting for it to happen and warned me...they said "Soon there will be 1000+ cattle coming through where you are fishing"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Al I didn't realize that there were Cowboys wrangling the cattle as well!! I presumed they were free range. Uber, This is typically called " recreational cow herding" and is practiced by Cowboys from coast to coast. Comes right up there with "recreational cultivation". Experienced it in the south years ago on Racehorse when 1\2 dozen riders pushed 10 cows down the ACME logging road and across the creek. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishteck Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Ranchers lease the forest reserve for grazing that is close to their own private land. The Provincial Lands Branch manages the permits and designates the number of "Cow Units" that can be released onto the permitted land. It is not "open range" or a free for all. The management of the available grass will change from year to year, but generally the southern foothill gets sufficient rainfall to sustain the number of cattle released on land each year. What was being seen here is the movement of cattle out of the high country in anticipation of snow or the round up of cattle to return them to their owners. The cattle will be fed on private land for the remainder of the year and released back on the grazing reserve in June of the following year. Ranchers will loose the grazing permits if the land is overgrazed. Therefore the cattle are moved around the forest reserve during the grazing season, generally going higher in the summer and returning to the low land in the fall. Anglers need to share the public resource that we have been given access to and quit complaining about other users. The Province has protected the public access rights to crown land. Lease holders have petitioned the Province to restrict public access to crown land in the past, but the Province has not wavered in it commitment to public access. Across North America there has been considerable pressure exerted by the lobby groups, predominantly ranchers, to restrict access to public land. Montana has faced this challenge lately, but it was rejected. Wyoming, with a large and powerful lobby group imposed restricted access legislation some time back. We don't want the same restriction in Alberta. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Across North America there has been considerable pressure exerted by the lobby groups, predominantly ranchers, to restrict access to public land. Montana has faced this challenge lately, but it was rejected. Wyoming, with a large and powerful lobby group imposed restricted access legislation some time back. We don't want the same restriction in Alberta. I disagree entirely. I'm all for extensive public access for all user groups...as long as those user groups show a commitment to respecting the land and minimizing the impacts they leave behind. There are a long list of users that are contributing to the degradation of sensitive habitat throughout the east slopes. A whole pile of this damage is happening on public land. If the government wants to continue with their delusional "access when you want, how you want, where you want" approach, our native trout species will pay the price. Access restrictions are already happening in a number of areas, and it may need to happen more. What I'd like to see is a government inventory of the highest volume spawning areas for bull and cutthroat trout. We should be introducing access restrictions in these areas to protect spawning and rearing habitat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adams Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Agree with jpinkster 100%. Cattle are not a native species to the mountains and create a lot of damage. Their waste material alone flushing into the rivers can't be good let alone the bank deterioration. You can witness the effect on our once trophy prairie streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishteck Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Although the survival of West Slope Cutthroat is important and some protection is needed, there is no way a recreational resource will be protected in this province at a cost to the ranching or oil and gas industry. The emphasis for protection of the west slopes fishery needs to be education. The agriculture industry has support programs in place to aid in the protection of river banks from livestock erosion. Every year more river bank is protected with these programs. The oil and gas industry is mandated to recovery programs post exploration. Enforcement of legislation is needed. The thing I find difficult to understand is why there is so much objection to cattle crossing a river. There is equally as much damage done and possibly a lot more to fish habitat by fishermen trampling all over the river bed, driving and walking along trails and RV abuse. Tolerance is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinkster Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 The oil and gas industry is mandated to recovery programs post exploration. Enforcement of legislation is needed. The thing I find difficult to understand is why there is so much objection to cattle crossing a river. There is equally as much damage done and possibly a lot more to fish habitat by fishermen trampling all over the river bed, driving and walking along trails and RV abuse. Tolerance is needed. Reclamation is required, but I'm not convinced the standard is high enough. Take for instance many of the access roads for O&G forestry through the east slopes. These are now OHV "trails" that are directly adjacent to much of the sensitive habitat that needs protection. If reclamation was that big of a deal we wouldn't be seeing so many of the erosion issues we are seeing. I'm struggling big time with your suggestion regarding cattle. It's an issue of scale. Does one cow crossing a stream ruin anything? Probably not. How about 10? How about 100? I have yet to see scientific evidence that would lead me to believe recreational users on foot cause anywhere near amount the damage that cattle/OHVs/RVs cause. There is a maximum threshold on how much abuse these areas can take. Once those thresholds are broken, there's no coming back, specially when it comes to native trout species. Tolerance is NOT needed. If we continue to make excuses for the poor behaviour that is going on in the back country, it's going to be lost to us forever. What's best for the habitat and best for industry are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of industry players that find ways to make very positive contributions to the resource. I want to see a significant crack down on the recreational yahoos that don't "need" to be up there tearing our critical habitat to smithereens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishteck Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 There isn't a rancher I know of who is not concerned with the environment, habitat protection and increasingly sustainability of the back country. What concerns me is the direction this page was taking to criticize the annual movement of cattle from the high country across a river in mass once a year to their winter range close to the home ranch. This practice has taken place ever since cattle were first run across the western slopes. Sure there is some damage, but I would suggest it represents such a small amount of the overall damage to the back country that there is little concern. Tolerance of an age old custom is needed. The focus on protection of the fishery and its habitat should be modification and possibly restrictions to modern day recreational use and industrial development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted October 13, 2016 Author Share Posted October 13, 2016 I agree it is an age old custom and honestly ...it was amazing to watch. I am just wondering why the cattle need to cross the river twice. Once to gather at a holding area and then back again to the road. There must be enough room for all the cattle in the area across from the fire station. That way there would be no crossings. I'm sure there is a good reason and next season I'm going to find out, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishteck Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Mr. Botangles: I have been very fortunate to ride along with fall roundups in the Nicola Valley back in the '80 - shows my age. I have also worked with cattle on the Waldron Ranch in the same time span. Considering the number of cattle you are referring to it could have been cattle from the Waldron. The ranch is a cooperative with upwards of 20 ranchers having shares with well over 2,000 cattle grazed each year. I am not sure of any other ranch operations in the area who would move the number of cattle at one time you are referring to. But the Forestry Trunk Rd. is quite a way west for the Waldron Ranch. I'll see what I can find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Fish tech is right on. The ranchers in Alberta control 5,000,000 acres of public land in grazing leases where access is near impossible. By the way, they pay the Govt a princely $ 0.70/acre for the lease. About 1/25 of what it should cost them. Welfare at it's best. And of course, they get the oil revenue as well. We are getting robbed. Don 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.