Leaderboard

This is the radio I use here in BC for our logging roads, totally programmable for our roads here. And licensed or not the truck drivers appreciate knowing where you are, only use it to monitor traffic and call out KM's, always get a thumbs up from the logging trucks that pass me. Colin

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.

I was told yesterday that I always try to get the last word on a post I put together. But this one has generated a lot of valuable comment. Not everyone will agree with what others say and believe are the current reasons for the trout population declines. Bow River Trout Foundation has identified a number of issues that are felt to contribute to the decline and will attempt to get fishery management support to either take actions where they can to make improvements to the fishery, or support initiatives and research that will give a clearer understanding of what is going on. Although there is limited scientific evidence to support a number of our opinions, there is sufficient logic to move on a number of initiatives. Here are our current focal points: Improvement in the management of flow discharge from upstream water storage reservoirs. We are seeing far to much of an increase or decrease in flows over a very short period of time. Up to 120 cms in less than 12 hours in flow has been recorded on a routine basis this spring. Our concerns have been expressed to TransAlta and AEP who have said they will get back to me by the end of July. Do not expect a quick change on TransAlta's part, but some modification to the operational procedures are possible in the future. The reduction in phosphate load of the water treatment plants and the impact on invertebrate species and concentration is unclear. But what data has been collected suggests that the highly variable river flows will eliminate or reduce some species. There is some support to document the changes in more detail and hopefully make some water management changes. A public awareness plan has been started with a series of articles being released on the "State of the Bow river Fishery" the first being this article on the decline of the rainbow trout population. Others will follow as and when we compile the reference material. Government agencies do respond to this type of reporting procedure. Equally important are the comments that have come out of this post. Pelicans, cormorants, C&R, angler pressure, seasonal closures, disease threats all play their part as do self regulating your own activity and frequency of fishing on a vulnerable resource. If the trout population does continue to decline, predators, will leave, as will the anglers. This may be one change that will play a role in the survival of the trout population. Thanks for all the comments.