Poll: Is It Time Yet For Classified Waters In Alberta

[Taco]

Smitty, the "native species, native waters" fishery needs to be protected differently than a "wild" fishery. When the native salmondae in a stream are gone it can almost never be put back the way it was because native species are genetically distinct from stream to stream or drainage to drainage. In reality a "wild" fishery can be restored the same way it got to be a "wild" fishery in the first place........from the hatchery truck.

[Mykiss]

BC doesn't bother classifying streams w/effed up genetics like the bow and the crow, waste of time, money and effort.

 

 

 

Kinda my point as the Blue ribbon waters such as the Bow river and the Crow are what bring people from out of province and country to fish. You cannot classify a system with introduced species and with Alberta's 2 flag ship rivers being as Taco says it all e'ffed up genetically.... what systems do you classify?????

 

 

 

[Taco]

BC doesn't bother classifying streams w/effed up genetics like the bow and the crow, waste of time, money and effort.

 

 

 

Kinda my point as the Blue ribbon waters such as the Bow river and the Crow are what bring people from out of province and country to fish. You cannot classify a system with introduced species and with Alberta's 2 flag ship rivers being as Taco says it all e'ffed up genetically.... what systems do you classify?????

 

all native fish waters, anyone who wants to fish them pays extra, all extra money raised goes directly back to that resource. The Bow, Crow, Stauffer, Bullshead and the like are all special regulation waters and really don't need much else than more enforcement.

[rehsifylf]

Voted 1. Purely for reciprocity.

 

Very few BC anglers fish in Alberta anyway, but for the Sparwood/Fernie/Kimberly crew that rammed in the Class II regs - it would make me feel better that the Crow was going to be a much of a hassle for them to fish as they've made the Elk and St Marys for me.

[zed]

Voted 1. Purely for reciprocity.

 

Very few BC anglers fish in Alberta anyway, but for the Sparwood/Fernie/Kimberly crew that rammed in the Class II regs - it would make me feel better that the Crow was going to be a much of a hassle for them to fish as they've made the Elk and St Marys for me.

 

haha-eye for an eye-that's always the answer. problem solved.

[Mykiss]

all native fish waters, anyone who wants to fish them pays extra, all extra money raised goes directly back to that resource. The Bow, Crow, Stauffer, Bullshead and the like are all special regulation waters and really don't need much else than more enforcement.

 

 

I'll go along with that... However this will not be a cash cow regulatory system like BC has put into place...it is not a system that was introduced due to angling pressure it is strictly in place to protect the native fisheries that we have in place..... Alberta residents will be the ones footing the bill for this program to get up and running and Alberta residents will be the ones paying the premium to fish classified waters as eluded to earlier much of the waters that will be classfied are not the sytems that bring in out of province or country anglers.

[Meeks]

Not sure it's the answer. If I really want to fish somewhere specific, $20 isn't going to deter me, nor many others I know. Remember when gas was $1.40 a litre. Everybody griped, but still headed out every weekend. Same thing here.

 

In the last two years I've noticed waaaay more people at spots I never used to see them before.

Naturally I fumed a bit at first, but now just head out with a back-up plan or two.

Typically I'd choose solitude over big trout. So now I just make a loose plan, and hopefully I get my spot. If not, go bushwacking or just drive another 20 minutes. There's miles of creeks and rivers that won't have a soul on them. And the fishing is often surprising.

At worst I'm picking 4" Brookies off my flies. Still better than eating burgers in the camper and stewing about the crowds.

 

[rusty]

Classification, in the same way that it's implemented out west, will NOT work in Alberta. Why? Our pressure is local - it's Albertan anglers that are pounding the rivers.

 

The AMP is about angling "experience", not about the fish themselves. There's little doubt in my mind that the fish haven't been affected - just the fishing. I just returned from fishing down there, and let me tell you, in no uncertain terms: I think the AMP, as implemented in the SE Koots, is a resounding success. If the Fernie economy is in shambles from all of the boycotters, you certainly wouldn't know it from the hour waits at restaurants, the constant stream of traffic, and the number of driftboats getting hauled around. Having said that, we fished good, popular water on a prime season weekend and saw very few other fishermen. The quality of the experience was way better than what it was 7 or 8 years ago before the regs changed. The yearly CW license that so many Albertans are pushing for defeats the purpose - you're trying to reduce angling pressure by making people limit their number of rod days.

 

Our group bought well north of $200 worth of CW stamps and licenses, and spent about the same on gas and nearly twice that on food and lodging. Given that our primary driver for the trip was fishing, I think that it's fitting that 25% of the trip's group cost is going directly into the fishery.

 

I think that most of the folks that are still "fighting" the CW regs, despite most of them being able to afford the stamps no problem, would like to see us do something "to reciprocate". That's just silly...we don't have the same problem (very high % out of province anglers), and as a result, we need different solutions. I laugh my head off every time someone tells me that they used to fish the Elk but don't go down there anymore. I want to shake their hand and thank them for contributing to the success of the CW program. As far as the stamps being a pain to get, I bought them using an iPhone in under 5 minutes.

 

I just spent my 24th day fishing in our western neighbors' backyards this year, and one thing is abundantly clear to me: they are light years ahead of us when it comes to managing their interior fisheries. Let's recap:

 

-They have a new system (SL-1,2,3,4) for managing quality lakes because they have so many; we are finally coming along, but still have to fight battles on a lake-by-lake basis (hopefully this is changing now)

-They stock lakes very lightly with smaller fish often transported in the back of a pickup - we have a government run food bank project

-They have quotas on guiding, managed by drainage, and have instituted policies to reduce angling pressure in areas where the experience is affected - we have a complete bloody free for all on guiding where tons of people with not even a few years under their belts and no real training are calling themselves "guides"

 

We can't even stop the squatting and environmental destruction that's constantly occurring on the trunk road. We have a government who thinks we need MORE people to fish! Classification of our waters is so far down the list of priorities for our province that it's ridiculous to debate it.

[DonAndersen]

Rusty,

 

Need your address - gotta hot shot you a box of beer in thanx for the last 3 paragraphs. About sums up what we need to do.

 

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[Taco]

Good post Rusty, Thanks

[Harps]

Bang on, Rusty!!

[Harps]

Presumably, the first farmers were free to farm wherever they wanted

to. However, when society – many thousands of years later - recognised

that unchecked agricultural practice and development could be harmful

for society as a whole, local rules were developed to govern how and

where agriculture could be carried out. In the same manner, our early

ancestors probably experienced no restrictions on where they could

dispose of their waste. When human numbers increased to a certain

level and the accumulation of waste was recognised as a health or

pollution problem, rules and technologies were established to manage

waste disposal. A contemporary example of globally enforced regulation

is the Montreal Protocol, where the international community in 1987

agreed to act on scientific evidence that certain industrial gases can lead

to dangerous depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer.

 

In all of these cases, control was only established when there was the

general acceptance in society that a continued state of non-regulation

would lead to unacceptable costs. Thus, the history of humanity’s

relationship with the environment shows that when society learns

that a certain practice may jeopardise the well-being of its members,

rules, regulations, and other strategies are established to control the

offending practice.

www.climatecongress.ku.dk

 

[Smitty]

Rusty:

Well, just to protect my fragile ego (as author of the poll), I'd say its rather useful to debate this issue, and therefore say its most definitely not ridiculous. Even for the simple reason that, through debate and discussion, some of us - like me, for instance - may learn that indeed the classified waters thing is not a top priority. I certainly don't regret posting the thread, I know I've learned a lot, particularly from your perspectives having recently fished that region.

----

Taco:

Don't mistake my earlier reply that wasn't that well written that I am lumping wild fisheries in with native fisheries; that wasn't my intention, nor am I trying to advocate that regulations for those fisheries should be identical.

----

I can see that the majority of angling pressure comes within Alberta; that's a given, undoubtedly. And although some feel this way, I also don't believe in the "silliness" of reciprocation in regulations, just to get back. Regs have to make sense, of course. Its also obvious that CW is designed as an angler management tool and something that is meant to provide a more satisfying angler experience, and not necessarily anything that does to promote the health of fish per se.

----

Its clear to me that there is a vast difference between a knee-jerk, gut reaction to a hot issue like CW regs versus what's really important. Anyways, I appreciate everyone's replies and votes.

 

Smitty

 

 

[Mykiss]

Rusty and all the rest that think that the AMP is DA BOMB......take a look at how MOE appreciates fellow Canadians surcharges and Classified I agree with the need for a AMP to be established there are no doubts regarding that... My frustrations are how non-residents are looked upon the same way as non-resident aliens... They need to re-look at how they regulate fellow Canadians as the anadromous fish that swim "BC" waters is a Federal resource not a Provincal resource. That being said every year I pay 300 bucks in CW stamps and 60 bucks in conservation surcharges and the non-resident licence to fish for steel...but it @#$%ING drives me wild that Matthius from Germany is paying the exact same amount as me...things that make you go hmmmmm

[Highlander]

Classification, in the same way that it's implemented out west, will NOT work in Alberta. Why? Our pressure is local - it's Albertan anglers that are pounding the rivers.

 

The AMP is about angling "experience", not about the fish themselves. There's little doubt in my mind that the fish haven't been affected - just the fishing. I just returned from fishing down there, and let me tell you, in no uncertain terms: I think the AMP, as implemented in the SE Koots, is a resounding success. If the Fernie economy is in shambles from all of the boycotters, you certainly wouldn't know it from the hour waits at restaurants, the constant stream of traffic, and the number of driftboats getting hauled around. Having said that, we fished good, popular water on a prime season weekend and saw very few other fishermen. The quality of the experience was way better than what it was 7 or 8 years ago before the regs changed. The yearly CW license that so many Albertans are pushing for defeats the purpose - you're trying to reduce angling pressure by making people limit their number of rod days.

 

Our group bought well north of $200 worth of CW stamps and licenses, and spent about the same on gas and nearly twice that on food and lodging. Given that our primary driver for the trip was fishing, I think that it's fitting that 25% of the trip's group cost is going directly into the fishery.

 

I think that most of the folks that are still "fighting" the CW regs, despite most of them being able to afford the stamps no problem, would like to see us do something "to reciprocate". That's just silly...we don't have the same problem (very high % out of province anglers), and as a result, we need different solutions. I laugh my head off every time someone tells me that they used to fish the Elk but don't go down there anymore. I want to shake their hand and thank them for contributing to the success of the CW program. As far as the stamps being a pain to get, I bought them using an iPhone in under 5 minutes.

 

I just spent my 24th day fishing in our western neighbors' backyards this year, and one thing is abundantly clear to me: they are light years ahead of us when it comes to managing their interior fisheries. Let's recap:

 

-They have a new system (SL-1,2,3,4) for managing quality lakes because they have so many; we are finally coming along, but still have to fight battles on a lake-by-lake basis (hopefully this is changing now)

-They stock lakes very lightly with smaller fish often transported in the back of a pickup - we have a government run food bank project

-They have quotas on guiding, managed by drainage, and have instituted policies to reduce angling pressure in areas where the experience is affected - we have a complete bloody free for all on guiding where tons of people with not even a few years under their belts and no real training are calling themselves "guides"

 

We can't even stop the squatting and environmental destruction that's constantly occurring on the trunk road. We have a government who thinks we need MORE people to fish! Classification of our waters is so far down the list of priorities for our province that it's ridiculous to debate it.

 

This might just be the most reasoned and intelligent post on this topic that I've read over the past few years. Thanks Rusty.

 

Alberta needs to put some level of protection in place on some of it's "high value" waters or see them "loved to death" through overuse/misuse. I'm from BC and I would happily pay more to fish in Alberta. If you are looking at getting more money to protect certain streams/waters then you have to look at charging more. In BC, as a resident angler, I pay several times more in license fees to fish my home province than I do to fish Alberta waters. But I also know that in BC, my license dollars are going back into the resource. When the changes to the BC licensing system were made, I had some reservations, but for the most part they are now gone. I'm hoping more BC waters become classified, including the Skagit, which may become overrun by guides in the near future (I've nothing against guides, only guides on this river).

[fishnbugdude]

I vote 1 as I think people from other places/ provinces should pay a premium to fish waters in other areas, especially when a little higher license fee will probably not change the choice of a much larger cost for the vacation to get them here. Those funds can then be put towards enforcement and stocking programs to further enhance the fisheries....the thing that I would assume would be that these people making the trip to fish in Alberta from elsewhere would be the least of our worries for enforcement as they may be the most educated and respectful with regards to our passtime. At least with the fly fishing community.

 

I currently hold three licenses and paid way more for the ones that I'll only use for a handful of days vs. the Alberta license. Change the mindset a little....I couldn't play 3 rounds of golf for what I paid to fish for the entire year in three regions......hhhhhmmmmmmmmm.............. I don' t think people will mind if it will improve the area for their next visit and in turn will benefit the locals who benefit the most.

 

I think you were going in the right direction - just on the wrong road.

 

What makes the most sense with this logic would be to raise the Albertan license fees - almost like a user system. They use it the most therefore should pay the most. As they would hold a larger number of licenses this would also generate the most revenue. This would allow more money for enforcement and management. The better enforcement and management would result in making the fishery better. This would than attract more tourism generating more money. As you pointed out the money generated from the hotel, bed and breakfast, guides, food ... is a much larger expense than the licenses. I agree with your statement that "...these people making the trip to fish in Alberta from elsewhere would be the least of our worries for enforcement as they may be the most educated and respectful with regards to our pastime". The increased fee would likely keep some weekend type party fisherman off the rivers - leaving the rivers a little less traveled and cleaner. This could only improve the fishery.

 

Just think - with this little change you could have an improved fishery and increased revenue - this would have the largest benefit to the locals.

 

So in short raise the local license fee and lower the out of province license fee. I think that is the direction you were going.

 

[hydropsyche]

If decisions about fisheries management are being made based solely on the fishing experience and not the fish, doesn't that make us a bunch of selfish greedy snobs? The higher the price, the less people on the water and the better it will be for *me*.

 

I think we're forgetting that a lot of people don't eat and breathe fishing. They may be camping in the area and may have a rod in the trunk and may want do a bit of fishing to kill time only to discover the cost of that two hour excursion. Natural resources belong to everyone, not just us. What is their perception of fanatical anglers forming committees and sitting in a room trying to come up with ways to make their fishing experience more enjoyable? They may not agree with those of us with our Z-axis' with 2500 reels and Simms waders.

 

I, for one, don't want to see what's happen in the UK and elsewhere. Where the common folk are relegated to fishing for trash fish because they can't afford a membership on an absconded exclusive river running through their backyard. The attitude I see emerging around me is just the first step down this slippery slope.

 

Remember, I’m only talking about AMP’s based solely on the fishing experience. I don’t know what the solution should be for truly troubled waters. Total ban? Only residents? Only residents and rich aliens? Lotteries?

 

Rusty may want to shake the hands of those who stay away on principle even though they can afford it but I’m wonder if those who can’t would want to shake back (no offence intended, Rusty. Just a different point of view).

 

(ps. Jack Laydon would be proud of me, eh?)

 

[reevesr1]

The last few posts have made me think about this quite a bit. I shook my head knowingly when I read Rusty's post. I happily pay my $20, and now my oldest son's, to fish in BC. Beautiful country, no problem finding your own stretch of heaven (though I must say again that I haven't really had a problem in Alberta either). But just because I can afford it doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

Hydro really has a point as well. I completely agree that we have to be careful about thinking of these rivers as our own private domain and assume that we, as fishermen, have their best interest at heart. We may think we do, but I can guarantee that there are those out there that think we only want them for our own selfish reasons. And they are probably correct in too many cases.

 

 

[jayjjones11]

This might just be the most reasoned and intelligent post on this topic that I've read over the past few years. Thanks Rusty.

 

Alberta needs to put some level of protection in place on some of it's "high value" waters or see them "loved to death" through overuse/misuse.

I agree completely. There needs to be guiding regulations and licence increases on rivers that are already being beat up (and can't handle the pressure, unlike the bow)

[rusty]

You'll have to do some real convincing to show me that you can afford gas for your vehicle, your yearly BC license, your food, your time off work, etc but you can't swing the CW stamp cost. Maybe it's going to mean that instead of fishing for 9 days you fish for 3 - but that's the whole point now, isn't it? I don't know too many folks who can afford to be in the EKs but can't afford $20/day.

 

And yes, you're exactly right. It IS about the experience. That's why some of us shell out a fair amount of coin to fish private waters right here in Alberta, whether that be on Palmer, Lake A, Elliot's, or otherwise. That's why there are quite a few very successful private lakes right here in Calgary. You fish Elliot, right Hydro? What do you think it would look like there if they opened it up to the public? How would the experience change?

 

The AMP isn't about privatization - it's about giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy the fisheries without a million other guys there. The guides got cut back the same as the public did, by way of rod day quotas. With the very high pressure that was there before, guides and people with real money are more inclined to seek out private paid access to the rivers. In a way, one could argue that by charging $20/day we're keeping more of the rivers accessible to everyone.

 

They've done different things elsewhere. In Montana, some rivers have no nonresident float fishing on certain days of the week on stretches that rotate. For example, no NR float fishing from Glenmore to 22X on Mondays and Tuesdays, 22X to Mac on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and Mac to Carseland on Fridays and Saturdays. Again, this works because a very high percentage of rods are not in hands of MT residents.

 

And we haven't even touched on the benefit that all those dollars flowing into the fisheries is going to do. I've seen more enforcement in BC in a year than I've seen here my whole life, and there's a lot more water to enforce on in BC.

 

Finally, if you grab a map and see how they've assigned classification, you'll also see that there are huge expanses of creeky rivery wilderness where you can fish to your heart's content without a stamp.

[Mykiss]

The AMP isn't about privatization - it's about giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy the fisheries without a million other guys there. The guides got cut back the same as the public did, by way of rod day quotas. With the very high pressure that was there before, guides and people with real money are more inclined to seek out private paid access to the rivers. In a way, one could argue that by charging $20/day we're keeping more of the rivers accessible to everyone.

 

 

The primary purpose of an AMP is to establish a water specific regulatory regime utilizing the least restrictive means possible to regulate angler use to levels that maintain the the quality of the angling experience......

 

I have to ask the question to you Rusty and MOE if you are giving "everyone" the opportunity and using the least restrictive means possible to control this why are the CW licence's so skewed to the residents favour???????? If you need reminding here...... I support the aim of an AMP...I also understand we are not residents of BC and there should be a cost involved with NR's to fish in BC that residents are not subjected too however where do you draw the line........ It gets bad enough to propose this gong show Skeena AMP proposal......so enlighten me please

[hydropsyche]

Maybe it's going to mean that instead of fishing for 9 days you fish for 3 - but that's the whole point now, isn't it? I don't know too many folks who can afford to be in the EKs but can't afford $20/day.

 

So everyone is staying away on principle? I can guarantee you there are people who can't afford it. Maybe the people who used to fish 9 and now only 3 are staying away 6 days on principle?

 

And yes, you're exactly right. It IS about the experience.

 

Actually, it is ONLY about the experience. It had nothing to do with the fish.

 

That's why some of us shell out a fair amount of coin to fish private waters right here in Alberta, whether that be on Palmer, Lake A, Elliot's, or otherwise. That's why there are quite a few very successful private lakes right here in Calgary. You fish Elliot, right Hydro? What do you think it would look like there if they opened it up to the public? How would the experience change?

 

A person digging a hole in their backyard, stocking it with fish and charging admission is not comparable to a public natural resource (so I don't feel hypocritical and I didn't displace anyone because I had more money then them). No question people will pay more for a better experience and the crafters of the AMP knew it. Question is, was it just?

 

They've done different things elsewhere. In Montana, some rivers have no nonresident float fishing on certain days of the week on stretches that rotate. For example, no NR float fishing from Glenmore to 22X on Mondays and Tuesdays, 22X to Mac on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and Mac to Carseland on Fridays and Saturdays. Again, this works because a very high percentage of rods are not in hands of MT residents.?

 

That is the creative problem solving I'm talking about. Its not based on ability to pay. Bravo.

 

And we haven't even touched on the benefit that all those dollars flowing into the fisheries is going to do. I've seen more enforcement in BC in a year than I've seen here my whole life, and there's a lot more water to enforce on in BC.

 

No doubt more $ is a good thing but does the ends justify the means? Was there more equitable ways to raise funds? Jacking up the cost of something to limit access has its victims. Maybe they deserve it. They should work harder to go to school or whatever or should have been born to a richer family, but the fact remains their ability to access the river was diminished.

 

Finally, if you grab a map and see how they've assigned classification, you'll also see that there are huge expanses of creeky rivery wilderness where you can fish to your heart's content without a stamp.

 

Ah. "Trash" fish. I don't see why the people who wanted the Elk to themselves couldn't do the same thing. Maybe they didn't want that kind of experience?

 

The gist of my post was people sitting around a table......well, no need to retype it. Its right above.

 

 

[nebc]

Well alright guys, I am definitely curious.

 

Like Snapfisher said, we debate and beat dead horses, but the essential thread that binds us is that we are a passionate group that cares about our fishing.

 

So I was wondering, after our beating the dead horse debates, what the results of this poll might be. I left it multiple choice, so you could pick 5 and 6 too.

 

 

Smitty

 

The regulations and river classifications in BC have their roots within a long term greening of the Fishieries Managers in BC. Far too much emphasis has been placed on managing for rare species and on use of the regulations with far too little in the way of proactive management here...as if regulations accomplish what we users want or think we want anyway...and that is part of the BC concensus protocol approach to managing our fisheries here. Far too much fear on the part of managers over firing up green groups and politcal meddling.

 

I think if you can talk managers into not closing bull trout streams and not managing most of our northern streams just for them, implementing catch and release and fly fishing only where needed in place of the closed areas that plague us here you would be able to at least enjoy the fishery.

 

One thing I learned as a biologist of 33 years in BC is that when it comes to major land use decisions a resource that is not used carries less weight in the decision process over time. This in fact is one of the tactics our BC Hydro has used for years, sometimes with success, to get their way with some of our resource-rich waters.

 

This is not to say the classified waters as a concept are all bad. Just that you should be able to obtain your goals with government with far less meddling and taking your rights away via over-regulating.

 

 

[Gary]

Hmm, I voted no in this pole mailnly for reasons I have stated in the past. Seeing the response I am being swayed by the result. Maybe it is time we set up a similiar sytem here in Alberta.

I think it time we set up a some Classified Waters. I know for sure the waters here close to my home would deserve such consideration. I propose that all waters within a 60 kilometre radius of the Crowsnest Pass be considered special and would require a special license costing $20 per day for all those not living within that aforementioned boundary.

[TerryH]

Gary, I second the motion. Let's get er done. Terry