Leaderboard

Good story... In the previous 3 years (but not this year) there was a single male pelican that would fly up to around the 22X bridge and float down to around Christmas Tree Island, before flying back up to 22X area to float again. He would come by 5 or 6 times in a single evening. He was impressive---big and 'clean' (if that makes any sense, looking more like a bird and less like their dinosaur lineage) I watched him float by one evening. Chasing the pelican, a wildlife photographer scrambled by me. He wanted a picture of this bird. I told him to just wait. The bird floats within a couple metres of shore usually through a couple of key runs and that he was only on his first float---he will be back. The photog did not take my advice and hauled his tripod and spotting scope hurriedly down the riverbank. Sure enough, the pelican did his follow up drift about 40 minutes later, stopping in the run in front of me, less than 2m away, to scoop up a big brown trout, and a couple little unidentified fish and then immediately flew away. The photog came back upstream. I told him that the pelican came back and drifted very close to shore. The photog said that he knew and that he saw the pelican stop in front of me and catch a couple fish, and that he also said that he saw my 'i told you so' grin. On Friday, I saw a flock/herd/gang/murder of pelicans try to bully a group of Canada geese, clearly trying to eat the goslings. While the pelicans are bigger, few birds are bigger potential a$$holes than Canada geese but when protecting their young, they go super saiyan. The pelicans eventually gave up. I have seen them eat ducklings before though.

Troutlover's comments are correct in so far as scientific research should guide the direction of any substantial shift in fishery management policy. But unfortunately the commitment to undertake longer-term population dynamic research under the many variables that exist in the field is costly, time consuming and has little glitter from the researcher or fundraising perspective. Government funding was historically available for this type of research in the past. But little is available nowadays. BRT has looked at supporting this type of research through grant applications and donations, but usually there is a fixed term application for the funding to be used. The end result is that most often a review of historical research is followed by a relatively short-term study or survey to support a preconceived outcome. For example, there is a belief within the fishing community that the current Bow River Water Management Model of highly variable releases of water from the dams upstream of Calgary is responsible for depletion in invertebrate population downstream of Calgary. This coupled with less phosphate release from water treatment plants has reduced the fish feed in the middle to lower Bow River. A review of survey data from 2005 and data collected in 2011 that has not been fully analysed, suggests that there are differences in invertebrate populations across the basin but the variables of water flow did not allow any conclusions to be found that there was a significant shift in invertebrate populations. So what should we do? Support more research to possibly have a scientifically validated answer to our concerns in 10 to 12 years. Or move forward with pressing for changes in water management policy on the basis of perceived logic. My belief is that there are no definitive answers to this question when there is a need to show improvements in the fish population with 3 to 5 years. Nevertheless Bow River Trout Foundation will attempt to bridge to gap and get the most recent information out to the public to allow for a more informed understanding of "The State of the Bow River Fishery".

I have been around a LOT of pelicans in my life. Caught one on a topwater once, they fight pretty good. They were everywhere where I'm from . I cannot speak at all about what they do on the Bow, but in the gulf we used them as fish finders-not because they ate the fish we wanted because they were reliable bait finders. I have never seen one eat a game fish, though I'm sure they do. Here however, since there are not huge schools of baitfish around, I can only imagine they would eat game fish if they can get them. And they sure do seem to hang out in tasty runs.

We are way behind on the studies and the scientific research so we will skip that and go forward with theory and observation....... The intent has merit but the approach is flawed. When you take this approach you can very often waste time and resources chasing a theory validated by good intentions while the real problem unseen and misunderstood continues on. We see this approach and failure far to often in the management of the environment. It gives Government and Business the opportunity to say they are doing their part while at the same time they are doing nothing. Facts and science is what will focus the resource management in the direction they need to go. Though properly conducted scientific studies are the slower approach in the long term it is what will bring the best results. I think foundations that are raising funds to make real change should focus more of their money towards research that will help us understand how to spend funds on action that will make the largest impact. Its about finding the best balance between long term results and short therm solutions. If the government wont spend the money for the studies that will hold them accountable, then i think it is up to the foundations that petition for donations and public funding to take up the responsibility. I'm not saying the Bow River Foundation is going the wrong direction by any means. I am grateful for their time, effort and stewardship. They have made already drastic improvements to the Bow river and i know they will continue to do so and for that reason i will continue to send $$ their way, My thoughts are just something i share so that they can be considered. I think there needs to be more balance brought to the process that will bring longer term results. We need the government to shift their way of thinking by providing consistent scientific observation and facts. It is the only thing that can keep them accountable, the only way we can know if our efforts are having an impact and the only way we can have consistent results that don't change with every 4 year election.

So I seem to be on a bit of a writing jag, but keeping them short and sweet. Trying something new with an eye toward a possible project. Anyway, this is from my bike trip, but the sentiment can be extended to a lot of scenarios-jet boat roars past your fish feeding on caddis, finding that super remote, hike in stream only to be interrupted by the sound of a dirt bike, etc. In this case, it's a truck in the rain passing a bike race. Don't Let This Be You

. The Bow has over 800 man made tributaries? Yes, it does and they have names like B51.... Of course I am referring to the 800+ Storm drain Outfalls, that spew untreated storm drain water directly into the Bow, from rainfall that is collected by 60,000 storm drain catch basins, across the City of Calgary. Tubifex worms. Ever heard of them? They are the host for Whirling disease parasites. Tubifex worms are also called "sewage worms" or "sludge worms" They can be found at Storm drain Outfall pools through the city. Fun facts eh.

A very well thought out theory Rick.

Pretty..pretty...pretty...sure I can’t LOL