DonAndersen Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Folks, I was asked to pass this along to all the folks who might be interested. The first section is the orginal email. The "highlighted" section is the Govt's take on the issue. Bear in mind that in some states, removal of the introduced species has occurred to protect the cuts. The cuts are in the Oldman & Bow drainages. Excerpt from Cdn. Fisheries and Oceans web site: What does it mean when a species or population is added to the SARA List? The amount of protection the SARA provides depends on the assessed category. It is an offence to kill, harm, harass, possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of an Extirpated, Endangered and Threatened species. It is also illegal under the Act to damage or destroy the residences of Endangered and Threatened species, or for Extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the introduction of the species into the wild in Canada. I recognise that fishing in a "species @ risk" area could be seen as harassment. Certainly would curtail high elevation mining, oil/gas exploration, cattle grazing, wading, quad operation etc. regards, Don Happy 2008! This message is sent to you as an invitation to participate in a Canada-wide fish conservation consultation process, launched by Canada Fisheries and Oceans. The purpose of this consultation is to obtain public input to the proposed inclusion of the following species in the listing of species under the Canada Species at Risk Act (SARA), Schedule 1: * redside dace * lake sturgeon * westslope cutthroat trout * Eastern pondmussel * Northern brook lamprey The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has posted 5 consultation workbooks on the SARA Public Registry for these species. These workbooks provide background information along with a questionnaire and comments form that can be completed and returned to DFO via postal service or email. As valued members of Alberta’s fisheries management and conservation community, all members of the Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table are encouraged to share their views with Fisheries and Oceans. Please take advantage of this opportunity. You are also encouraged to share this message within the organizations you represent. Consultations on these proposed SARA listings will take place until April 25, 2008. The consultation workbooks and related information can be found at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm Regards, David Park, M. Sc. Fisheries Biologist Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Edmonton phone:1.780.427-8347 fax: 1.780.422-9559 http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/pdf/WCTR.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Don, http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=2795 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakeman Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 So if cutt's are added to the SARA list, they will become protected like the bull trout? I am all for that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesG Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 A little somthing to add to this, you will all enjoy this read http://www.eclips.gov.ab.ca:80/fpweb/fp.dl...1ZcwwOkQZQ43obN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 A little somthing to add to this, you will all enjoy this read http://www.eclips.gov.ab.ca:80/fpweb/fp.dl...1ZcwwOkQZQ43obN You can read my response on the Lethbridge board... http://goneflyfishin.ca/forum/index.php?topic=34.0 In short, only pure populations will be protected, won't affect fishing in the Castle, the Bow, the Lower Oldman, those populations are polluted with rainbow genetics. Recent work in the States on protecting their cutthroat populations (yes they are becoming endangered all over), has determined its pointless to protect populations with hybrids, because once they are in... you can never get the rainbow genes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yup Mr Neil Waugh and his sky is fallin' scenario.... I would hardly think that the GOA would shut down CTT fishing in the entire Milk, Waterton, Carbondale, Castle, Crow, Oldman, Highwood and Bow systems to protect the estimated 7000 purestock fish that live in 60-70 tiny headwater streams, roughly 100 fish per trib and it would be the Government of Alberta that would have to shut down the fishery because the Fed doesn't have the power. About the only person it would affect is me because I'm seem to be the only guy regularly fishes headwaters.........maybe Paul. Edit; It seems I have stepped full on into the quagmire of Canadian politics.... apparently the Fed does have the power to shut the WSCT fishery where ever they deem necessary to protect the fish but the Province is responsible for administration,.................................. whatever the hell that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher26 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I think it's ridiculous to not support this legislation just because of more C&R, some tiny streams closed and potential to limit ATV use. I whole-heartedly support this action. It's time we do something before the remaining fish, and habitat disappears. After all I rather be able to still fish for healthy cut populations 20 years down the line than not support progressive action and lose Cutthroats and their habitat completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvelinus Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I've only read a few of Mr. Waugh's articles, and most were enjoyable, though they dealt with fishing, not conservation. There are so many errors in that article I don't even know where to begin. I have found the outdoorsmen media quite variable in the accuracy of relating science and conservation politics to the general public. Sadly, it appears Mr. Waugh has provided a hot-headed opinion here without conducting sufficient research into the subject, either on the science or politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Read a clipping about this the other day. The federal biologist writing the article refered to cutties as a "trout like fish"? Makes ya wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher26 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Were can I voice my opinion to SARA on this matter? Is there a petition or what? I think this could be one of the better things to happen to fishing in Alberta if passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Edit to my post above; It seems I have stepped full on into the quagmire of Canadian politics.... apparently the Fed does have the power to shut the WSCT fishery where ever they deem necessary to protect the fish but the Province is responsible for administration,.................................. whatever the hell that means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 apparently the Fed does have the power to shut the WSCT fishery where ever they deem necessary to protect the fish but the Province is responsible for administration Could be a problem then. We might find ourselves unable to fish any of the eastern slopes streams at all. Or it could be a good thing...there will be shloads of cutties for our grandkids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Why??? There's nothing to gain closing down an entire fishery, we're still only talking about the last 100 fish in 60-70 tributaries so small it's virtually impossible to fish. Remember, downstream of the point where 1 CT shows up with 1% RB genetics has become hopelessly polluted in terms of preserving pure WSCT. There is absolutely no point of shutting down the entire Highwood because the very upper reaches of Cataract may have 30-40 pure WSCT left... to me at least, the listing of WSCT is more about protecting the source of the few wild natives we have left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Taco has it. The feds can stop the harm of cutthroats... but like you said Taco, 1% bow is all it takes to turn a population into a genetic mess of hybridization. Fisher26, On the other thread indicated above is a link to the SARA workbook, where you can send in your comments, concerns, and questions. One thing it states in there... Remaining, genetically pure, individuals persist as mainly severely fragmented, remnant headwater populations. It should be noted that this assessment includes only genetically pure, native populations of the species occurring within their historical range. Any populations known either to be hybridized significantly (i.e. >1%) with other trout species, or to have been introduced into a system previously free of native populations, were not assessed. Like I said before, the fish most of you angle for are NOT cuttthroats... Esleech, ya have to read all of it, and the info posted here... you'll have tons of fishing, and there is still years of review still anyways. And trout like fish is a good description for people around the world that know what brown trout are, or sea trout, or rainbow trout, or brook trout, but have never heard of a westslope cutthroat trout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Esleech, ya have to read all of it, and the info posted here... you'll have tons of fishing, and there is still years of review still anyways. And trout like fish is a good description for people around the world that know what brown trout are, or sea trout, or rainbow trout, or brook trout, but have never heard of a westslope cutthroat trout. Yeah, I've read it. I just don't put alot of stock in the feds. Look at the future of fishing in Natl parks for example. Next thing they'll be doing is poisoning the streams and stocking pure strain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher26 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Seriously we need protection from development, rampant OHV use, and clear cutting. Over the last few years I have seen cutthroat trout waters decline quickly. Compare the state of the Livingstone area (environmentally) to 10 years ago and you notice a huge problem. We MUST take action even if a few ultra-small headwaters are closed. This would be another tool to help try and preserve fishing in Alberta. In relevance the sacrifice the fisherman makes would be so small (or non-existent), we have to look at the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Yeah, I've read it. I just don't put alot of stock in the feds. Look at the future of fishing in Natl parks for example. Next thing they'll be doing is poisoning the streams and stocking pure strain. I'm not familiar with what you mean?? Good fishing for cheap... Nat'l mountain Parks right now... no bait, no lead, No keeping cutts or Bulls in Banff?? Parks Canada is a whole different department than Fisheries and Oceans and the province is in charge of fishing regulations outside of the Nat'l Parks. You'll have to explain that one more and provide some info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I'm not familiar with what you mean?? Good fishing for cheap... Nat'l mountain Parks right now... no bait, no lead, No keeping cutts or Bulls in Banff?? Parks Canada is a whole different department than Fisheries and Oceans and the province is in charge of fishing regulations outside of the Nat'l Parks. You'll have to explain that one more and provide some info. Meh. In my opinion, you won't be able to fish the parks in 20 yrs...just some inside info from biologists I know. I have no problem with the current parks regs. Too be honest, I'm probably to misinformed to make a valid argument. As for the protection of the headwaters i.e. the non hybridized fish, it just burns my ass that the feds have to be involved and our own province has let the main stretches of these streams go to *hit. See the livingstone thread. I'm all for protection of any natural area, even if I can't fish it. The whole thing just seems a little misderected and seems like a band aid on the knee when the foots been cut off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher26 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Good point esleech. The way I look at it is it's another tool to help against the ongoing loss of trout habitat. Yes maybe it’s just headwaters BUT maybe logging would be harder with the new protection. Maybe harmful oil and gas explorations would be a little more limited. OHV's driving through headwaters affects the lower sections of the stream too. My worst fear is that people say NO, and then the government gets the wrong idea about the protection of the resource. It's very, very rare, that the government on it's own suggests an environmental policy, usually tons of people have to be on their case before even considering one. Yes it may be a band-aid for the knee but it may give them ideas were the help is really needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 esleech, our province has always been a part of Canada, and the Feds have always been involved. The RCMP (NWMP) used to enforce (or fail to enforce) the Fisheries Act. DFO has always been the agency to deal with large habitat losses. Navigable Waters has always protected your right to use the water. The Feds did the first stockings, the province finished them... it's how things are and were. Everything goes alot smoother if everybody works together... and I'll tell you, the listing of cutthroats isn't just a Federal gov't thing. The province is Heavily involved. So are Universities across Canada. The provice have listed the species at risk, but Federal legislation offers better protection. http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/pdf/WCTR.pdf This is the provincial document on Cutts... look at the list of acknowledgements and look at the cooperation. Here is Alberta's listing process. If anybody or agency deserves credit, its SRD. This isn't the bandaid. This is the first treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esleech Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 esleech, our province has always been a part of Canada, and the Feds have always been involved. The RCMP (NWMP) used to enforce (or fail to enforce) the Fisheries Act. DFO has always been the agency to deal with large habitat losses. Navigable Waters has always protected your right to use the water. The Feds did the first stockings, the province finished them... it's how things are and were. Everything goes alot smoother if everybody works together... and I'll tell you, the listing of cutthroats isn't just a Federal gov't thing. The province is Heavily involved. So are Universities across Canada. The provice have listed the species at risk, but Federal legislation offers better protection. http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fishwildlife/status/pdf/WCTR.pdf This is the provincial document on Cutts... look at the list of acknowledgements and look at the cooperation. Here is Alberta's listing process. If anybody or agency deserves credit, its SRD. This isn't the bandaid. This is the first treatment. Good point man. I'm just a bitter mofo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Guys, I've had a hard time resolving in my own mind what should be done. Protection could mean that I can't fish. No protection perhaps means no west slopes. What to do? Finally considered my grandkids. Then it became really clear. If we managed this province for our grandkids instead of the next 1/4 earnings, perhaps a lot of really stupid decisions wouldn't have been taken. I'm for protection perhaps @ the loss of my own fishing opportunities. catch ya' Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannyknot Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm sure that even if they close some streams, there will still be enough flowing water left for us to fish. It would be a tease driving over Dutch and not being able to stop and fish it, but what the hell, it's a tease hiking up Smith-Dorien. Some things are more important than where I'm throwing a line in on the weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teck71 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well put Don, and the government has to stop looking a envoirmental issue in 4 year stints and focus on the long term as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher26 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The key principal of Democracy is thinking in 4 years. The way politicians look at it is, please the people for four years. Then another four year etc. The major problem with the government in Canada is they refuse to look at the long term and big picture. I really hope this goes through; this would be an essential tool to help preserve fishing in Alberta. 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.