North Central Native Trout

[wasp]

Not my post but important info that was posted on the redneck forum.

All,

I attended the Edmonton Trout Club monthly meeting last night - Jan 16, 2018 where they had guest speakers from Alberta Fisheries talking about the proposed closures for the North Central Trout Recovery program.

I am not a member of the Edmonton Trout Club and would like to thank them for allowing me to sit in on the meeting.

The speakers discussed the plan for the potential river closured and the factors impacting the reduced numbers of fish they say they are seeing. The river systems they are closing - no longer proposing - and confirmed last night they are moving forward with a five year closure on include 7 watersheds; the Upper Ram system, the Upper Clearwater system, the Berland, the Kakwa, the Upper North Saskatchewan, the Upper Red Deer and the Pinto systems. This ISN'T just the main stems of the rivers, but the entire watersheds including the tributaries to these systems.

During their presentation, they provided a number of factors as part of their ongoing study. The main factors impacting of watersheds being: 1) Fragmentation of the watersheds - this is where culverts, roadways and other changes to the landscape cut off traditional migratory routes or oaths that allow fish to travel up and down systems to access cooler waters, spawning grounds etc, 2) Overfishing and Poaching - they gave the example that if you have a mortality rate of 10% on each catch and released fish, the compounding impact of catching that same fish would translate to a mortality rate of 90% x 90% x 90% - or 73% survival rate, 3) Erosion due to OHV and other back country activities, 4) Agricultural impacts such as livestock access further impacting sedimentation of our systems.

They then spoke of the studies they have undertaken to determine fish densities. If I recall properly, they employed 4 people and undertook 175 tests on the seven watersheds in question.

They spoke of the on-line survey that was filled out. They said approximately 2,000 respondents took the survey, and they received a 60% positive feedback that people would support the seven river closures being proposed. So, they are taking 1,200 Albertans (2,000 x 60%) to solidify or support their claim they have engaged the public and Albertans support this initiative or management technique. Out of 300,000 registered fisherman in Alberta.

They then spoke of potential other management techniques they are contemplating - such as restricting access to our river systems like they do in the Maritimes where only a certain umber of anglers are granted access on a given body of water for any given day, week, season. Issuing special licenses to control his access.

They spoke of their modeling technique to access the FSI - or Fish Sustainability Index which I wont go into a lot of detail, but it's their modeling technique to assess the health of a watershed with 20 different factors all multiplied out to determine a score. This score is then going to drive the assessment of our rivers moving forward and which watersheds can sustain retention, catch or release or closures moving forward.

They opened it up for questions. They were willing to answer questions, and did so for more than an hour. Then session ended sometime around ten. So, good on them for allowing discussion.

Questions were asked regarding engaging industry to repair culverts, etc. They said they have no jurisdiction over industry and talked about the federal fisheries act and department of the DFO. They said they are unable to make industry repair our damaged rivers. They can only "request" companies to do what is right. However, dependent of cost and the willingness of these companies to act, they would continue to work with industry in the coming YEARS to correct damages.

Questions were asked about rolling out catch and release techniques - single barbless regulations. They again said due to the fisheries act they couldn't legislate this. When asked why or how the BC government was able to legislate this, again they couldn't answer. When asked if they studied fish mortality rates when using bait, when using treble hooks, fly fishing only regulations - again they couldn't answer. They have lumped all mortality in with fishing hours - no differentiation between methods.

I also asked as to why they are deploying this strategy of closing our watersheds when retention of fish is or was still in place such as the Ram system. Catch and Release works - look at the North Ram - one of the most pressured or fished systems in Alberta and yet with a bait ban and catch and release put in place many years ago - continues to thrive.

When asked about their testing techniques to ascertain the fish densities in our systems, they couldn't provide and detail or clarity regarding the number of test, methods or sites in which they undertook for each watershed. They couldn't answer dispersement, time of year, etc. They seem to have gotten their answers they wanted and now the closures are moving forward. They said they "think" implementing the fishing moratoriums or closures should have a positive impact on these systems.

They have a slogan for this campaign - "Make Change Now" or something to that affect. They are closing our fisheries down because they can't or aren't doing anything except asking industry to repair the damages to our rivers that they have caused, but can't actually enforce it - or aren't willing to lower our GDP. So they are closing our rivers to fishing because that's all they can enforce.

When asked about the increased pressure that closing these seven watersheds will have on the remaining open watersheds, they say they are willing to accept the risk.

I asked about the respondents of the survey. If they gathered data regarding whether the respondents actually had fished ANY of the seven rivers they are closing - they said no. They didn't ask, so they didn't track. It was open to anyone who wanted to respond. So in the end, they are taking the responses of 1,200 Alberta Anglers out of the 300,000 registered in our province, and they are moving forward saying they engaged the public, and the public supports this initiative - regardless of the respondents knowledge or usage of the watersheds.

So - for all of those respondents who said they are in support of closing these fisheries, get ready for more and more pressure on your beloved rivers. As an Edmontonian, I'm going to be forced to head farther south to fish flowing water. It' going to translate to more fishing pressure in the remaining open watersheds. This pressure is only going to further intensify as more and more systems are being closed. They started with the Pembina last year, now seven more systems are being closed. Get ready for this to continue and more and more rivers get closed as they can only legislate the fisherman. To hell with industry - their untouchable.

So - what CAN we do?? Seeing as they the say "majority" of respondents agree with their plan - they're moving forward with it. A whole 1,200 people. We NEED to act and let them know this isn't acceptable. Changes need to be made - for f-sake - their the government. If they can't make this change, then we're all screwed.  

They did say that these closures ARE moving forward UNLESS they get inundated with public pressure. If enough people act and express their disapproval then the closures could get rolled back or cancelled.

They provided a number of emails to QAB fisheries personnel which I'll include at the end of this. On a regular basis, the Alberta Outdoorsmen forum will show tens of thousands of people reading a thread on a good perch lake, or viewing pictures of a hike in trip to a high alpine lake. We need to action and let Alberta Fisheries know these closures aren't going to be accepted by us Albertans!! We NEED to surpass the 1,200 respondents that support this closure.

The emails provided are as follows:
Adrian Meinke@gov.ab.ca
Mike.Blackburn@gov.ab.ca
Jessica.Reilly@gov.ab.ca
Craig.Johnson@gov.ab.ca
Paul.Christensen@gov.ab.ca
John.Tchir@gov.ab.ca
Kayedon.Wilcox@gov.ab.ca

I plea with everyone who reads this thread to send an email expressing their concerns with this plan. Send one email and include all seven of the recipients - we need to let them know this isn't acceptable. My fear is closing these seven watersheds is only the beginning. Once this program takes hold, other watersheds will face increased pressure, and lead to more and more closures until everything gets shut down. That seems to be the only real plan they have right now.

[BurningChrome]

The Alberta chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has already sent a letter to the AEP minister about this:

 

[DougC]

It's already been decided that they will be closing it down unless there is a massive public outcry.  Everybody who reads this needs to send the emails off asap if you don't agree with these closures.

[albertatrout]

It' a done deal, consultation always happens after the fact in this province. Ask for the statistically sigificant data trends they are basing these closures on, oh wait, not enough data so they didn' even get that far. I've about given up on even trying to be involved in the process, until there' a change in the guard (Not talking politically here, I mean regional management) anglers are basically out of luck. Simply a disgrace. The proposed changes to protect cutties further south is even more laughable as genetic introgression is the key threat. Frustration abounds... 

[Der]

I think its a matter of industry dollars trump the fish and the anglers. Look at what happened to the rivers on Vancouver Island and the Thompson river Steelhead to see how logging and development and fish populations co- exist. And that happened with out any petroleum interest or development,well except for the Coq run, its got a pipeline and a highway which pretty much did its run in. Industry will stall  and deny and keep right on rolling along and government will play along as need the jobs and the taxes and one day they will all be looking surprised and alarmed that all the fish are just gone. Fish need clean water and well forested drainage's to survive and neither seems to fit well with the economic model currently in place. We can,t continue with resource extraction and growth at present rate and expect wilderness to survive. The ecosystem is a lot more complex than leaving a strip of trees on either side of a stream for 50 meters or so and saying its still intact and ok.  I think most can understand this but  he who pays the piper calls the tune and that should be pretty obvious too. The wild back country  while it looks vast is really a finite amount and once its all tramped over and cut down well it makes a difference. Again look at Vancouver Island steelhead fishing say in the 50-60,s and today, look at the developement and logging and its pretty obvious that the fish lost there. Good luck with your eastern slopes fishery and hope it is more successful in surviving than has happened in BC, we are just rolling along out here, salmon are way down now too and still we look for a reason other than what we are doing to our land out here, maybe its the ocean? Couldn,t be anything we have done to cause it.Sincerely best of luck, we failed big time in BC.Closing rivers on Island has done nothing to bring back the fish ,common sense would lead you to believe since it didn,t work then maybe that wasn,t the problem.   

[Dangus]

“Why can B.C. implement a barbless rule and we can’t?” 

“Duhhh, I dunno?”

sure sounds similar the lake aeration issue to me.

 

 

[Dangus]

Has any of this *hit been on the news?

call them out on things that could be changed before jumping to a closure.

ffs you’re still allowed to keep fish in over half the streams being closed.  Im no mathematician, but if I Carry the 2 and round to the nearest tenth, that’s 100 percent mortality.

poachers poach. Not sure how this stops them. 

I wonder if there is any plan for reopening after 5 years.  I can’t imagine the mondo gongshow they’d be on opening day.  Even then, What guarantees do we have they open after 5 years?  

cant be that hard to change a barbless rule.  It’s a bunch of *hit written on paper that matters little to anyone but can make a change for the fisheries. It just takes effort to get the ball rolling.

pretty sure a guy fishing a size 18 dry and one fishing a triple triple barbed rattle rap, have different mortality rates.

sorry, rant over. Bad mood today.

[BurningChrome]

1 hour ago, Bron said:

Has any of this *hit been on the news?

Not yet...

Btw, TUC issued a letter of support for the NCNT. If you are a TUC member and disagree with this, I suggest you let them know - tuc@tucanada.org. 

 

[TroutPanther]

2 hours ago, BurningChrome said:

Not yet...

Btw, TUC issued a letter of support for the NCNT. If you are a TUC member and disagree with this, I suggest you let them know - tuc@tucanada.org. 

 

That is surprising - With TU’s mandate (and its supporters largely being in the FF community) I thought they would be critical of a plan that appears on the surface to prioritize closures over other habitat rehabilitation. Maybe TU should survey its members re: priorities and support for closures. If TU supports closures on the Oldman & the like - depending on the circumstances - I might reconsider my support.

[BurningChrome]

1 hour ago, TroutPanther said:

That is surprising - With TU’s mandate (and its supporters largely being in the FF community) I thought they would be critical of a plan that appears on the surface to prioritize closures over other habitat rehabilitation. Maybe TU should survey its members re: priorities and support for closures. If TU supports closures on the Oldman & the like - depending on the circumstances - I might reconsider my support.

I encourage you to read their position statement for yourself and make your own decision:

https://tucanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TUC-statement-on-NCNT-Jan-2018.pdf

I used to be a board member with a local chapter and stepped down because of policies like this and I will no longer donate my time/money. TUC is not an angler's group, they're a cold water conservancy org whose membership mostly happens to be anglers.

[reevesr1]

Coffin, meet nail.

[jgib01]

18 hours ago, BurningChrome said:

I encourage you to read their position statement for yourself and make your own decision:

https://tucanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TUC-statement-on-NCNT-Jan-2018.pdf

I used to be a board member with a local chapter and stepped down because of policies like this and I will no longer donate my time/money. TUC is not an angler's group, they're a cold water conservancy org whose membership mostly happens to be anglers.

I read the position last night, and wasn't entirely surprised by it.  I've never been under the impression that TUC is an angler's group (likewise Ducks Unlimited isn't a bird hunters group).  Their mission statement is pretty clear on that. I think TUC are resigned to the closure decision, and they don't intend to expend energy fighting against something that appears to be pretty clearly written in stone at this stage.  The statement is, at least, "conditional support" and does outline several of the very same concerns and confounding factors that those opposed to the closure have expressed.  I might not entirely agree with their stated support of the closure, but it is pretty hard to disagree with much of the land use/habitat, angling, and enforcement pieces they go on to describe.

[bcubed]

20 hours ago, TroutPanther said:

That is surprising - With TU’s mandate (and its supporters largely being in the FF community)

Think most people don't actually realize that TUCs mandate is the following: " To conserve, protect and restore Canada’s freshwater ecosystems and their coldwater resources for current and future generations." With that mandate, it pretty much has to be supportive of a closure that's goal is to "conserve, protect and restore".

With that, there is obviously some benefits for anglers, but they are not an angler group. Something like the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers group is a little more angler-driven with their mission.

[TroutPanther]

Thanks for pointing me to their letter, as well as their mission statement. Their letter makes sense and I like some of their recommendation, but their “qualifying” reasons they listed for supporting the closure, in my view, (like wanting to see more enforcement, habitat restoration, etc.) could just as easily be seen as logic for not mandate a closure yet - wanting to see some of these actions before taking the step of shutting C&R down. 

[BurningChrome]

12 minutes ago, TroutPanther said:

Thanks for pointing me to their letter, as well as their mission statement. Their letter makes sense and I like some of their recommendation, but their “qualifying” reasons they listed for supporting the closure, in my view, (like wanting to see more enforcement, habitat restoration, etc.) could just as easily be seen as logic for not mandate a closure yet - wanting to see some of these actions before taking the step of shutting C&R down. 

And that is pretty much the approach that BHA is taking as outlined in the letter I posted further up in this thread.

[TroutPanther]

Cool. I think I will throw my support behind them. 

[DonAndersen]

This may well be the last time TUC has disappointed me.

Tbe list of previous lack of effort on TUC's part is extensive.

The list includes:

1) encouraging the ACA to remove support for exclusion fencing on the Dogpound, South and North Raven which in many cases returned the streams to the agricultural abuse.

2) sitting on their hands knowing full right well WD was just over the border and them jump into life when most of the streams in southern Alberta are found effected.

3) for the idiocy of the "Fish Rescue" on the Bow w/o any effort to fix the situation.

4) for the complete lack of effort while Asian Carp take over waters all over Alberta

5) for ignoring my continued requests for a statement on the use/abuse of fresh water in Alberta

6) for thier lack of support in finding the cause of the population decline of trout to 1970 levels in Stauffer Creek

7) fit many years I have attended Provincial Roundtable meetings along with representatives  from one end of the province to another but only twice have I seen TUC in attendance,

It is one thing to be useless., but It quite another to allow the Govt to yet again kick the can down the road for another 5 years.

Regards,

Don

 

[angler]

Don, I gave up on TUC many years ago. Just after the infamous attempt to 'take over' the board, when the board was asked about finances and salaries and the answer was 'None of you ****ing business' to quote the board chair (don't recall his name).

That was all I needed to hear..........

[BurningChrome]

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers has issued a press release and created a call to action. Sign the letter here : https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/34

 

 

[gottalovecutts]

Can’t believe this is going to be pushed through this easily, I barely even heard about it as I don’t “social media” alot. Read Dave Jensens piece about this, seems like alot of unsubstantiated claims of problems with no given solution. Amazed the general public isn’t getting alot of clearcut and highly publicized information on this. 

[BurningChrome]

Starting to get some coverage.

http://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/alberta-anglers-fear-stream-closures-coming-blame-industry-recreation/wcm/d959eeb5-8c42-411b-943c-b9bd9cea7a27

Funny how the AEP spokesman is quoted saying “No decisions regarding potential closures have been made at this time.” but this page:

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fisheries-management/north-central-native-trout-recovery/default.aspx

clearly says for 2018 "Fishing closures begin, habitat restoration activities continue, fish and fish habitat assessments". Seems they may be starting to backpedal so keep the pressure on and keep sending in those letters. This isn't just about keeping the rivers open to angling, it's about making sure the real problems like habitat fragmentation and sedimentation get addressed.

[BurningChrome]

So that didn't take long after we started getting in the media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-trout-fishing-recovery-plan-1.4546810

http://edmontonjournal.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/alberta-government-backs-off-plans-to-close-popular-fishing-rivers/wcm/ecd291b2-3ea5-4b7f-a163-4c0dbedb501e

And folks, make sure to thank Don Anderson as he helped us (Backcountry Hunters and Anglers) out a lot with this.

[gottalovecutts]

Don Andersen, fishing legend and the reason I even heard about the possible closure! Hope to see ya at Dutch Creek for a beer again!

[SilverDoctor]

Looks like the Government. may be backing off on Bans but I hope they will now focus on habitat destruction.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-trout-fishing-recovery-plan-1.4546810

[FinnDawg]

Who does a guy sign up with to help out and make sure these closures don’t happen in the future? Looks like there will be a lot of work ahead.