jpinkster

It sounds as though firefighters have some better conditions today, but the fire moved quickly last night. A few accounts online suggest the townsite avoided a major hit, but the information centre burnt down. The Premier is going to give an update shortly - we should know more soon.

I'll point to Taco's statement above. Cutties were able to pull through during more serious droughts than this since the last ice age. The biggest change has not been increased angling pressure, it's land use impacts on habitat. Saying that the only solution is to stop angling over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Addressing habitat issues is the most important thing that will result in meaningful outcomes now and into the future.

Fragmenting pure cutty populations might be the only thing that has kept them pure...but it'll probably also be responsible for their localized extinction.

I had a good laugh at some of the replies on the ACA FB post. Apparently the ACA are entirely responsible for destroying the Raven. The more you know!

Things are getting bad in the small streams right now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-trout-drought-federal-action-plan-needed-1.4270434?cmp=rss Personally, I've been sticking to the bigger systems over the last few months. Without any precipitation on the horizon, things could get really dicey out there. Anglers should be really frustrating with the level of inaction from the Feds so far. Putting westslope cutties on the gazette was a good first step, but it looks as though it was only lip service. The recovery plan is now two years overdue. Given the current conditions, we might need some immediately action to make sure some of these isolated populations aren't wiped off the map. Write your MP!

Quick, to the time machine!

I remember talking to someone about tagged bulls on the Oldman system. They've seen the same fish in the upper Castle and the upper Oldman within a few years of each other.

He sure did! We went through a few runs where the guide marked 15-20 sturgeon.

I'd rather see one on the Oldman. There are some monster bulls below the dam that are cut off permanently from spawning habitat upstream. Be nice to get those fish back into the rotation.

Couldn't agree more. Sturgeon can live to be 150 years or more, so it's really hard to get a good sense of how effective conservation efforts are going. The fish that are being targeted by sportsmen are almost all 80 years + - well before many conservation efforts started. An abundance of smaller fish would suggest that we are doing something right!

Okay, full disclosure...this trip had nothing to do with fly fishing. Went out with a great group of friends for two days on the Fraser River. Great guide, great conditions and great fish. It sounds as though we were a bit early for when the bite really goes off, but we got into some great fish regardless. The best fish of the trip was an 8 foot monster that weighed in at around 290lbs. I had one shake me lose that was likely around the same range. Fishing for white sturgeon is an experience - I will absolutely be back!

Bow River Chapter of TU has been working on this for a little while now. We were told to sit tight until the updated regs came out for the Bow. Now that those regs are in place, we should have an easier time getting some signage sponsored and major access points along the river.

There is still a strong possibility that there are isolated systems along this stretch that are not infected. There are also numerous other invasives that are spread because of the same levels of complacency that allowed WD to get here. But yeah, let's not worry too much about it or anything.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun. Make sure you participate: http://www.letstalkfishhabitat.ca/

My head is average in size, sir. I've never seen either of you in person at the same time. My explanation is the only thing that makes sense.

I'm still convinced that bcube and Bron are the same person. It's the most amazing self-troll I've ever seen.

Great to see this sent out by TFO Canada in their latest newsletter:

A real Bow River monster -

An interesting read on the history of the Upper K Lakes from the 2010-2011 Creel Survey: Upper Kananaskis Lake was barren of sport fish prior to the stocking of Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in 1935 (Rawson 1937). Based on the initial success of this stocking, Rainbow Trout were stocked intermittently until 1968, and then annually until 1986, usually with fish no larger than 15 cm (Table 1). However, despite the frequent stocking of relatively large numbers of fish, a 1983 creel survey revealed that Upper Kananaskis Lake provided a very poor fishery (mean catch rate of 0.1 trout/h, including fish released) at a very high cost ($116/kg of trout harvested) (Stelfox 1985). To try to provide a better and more cost-effective fishery, several fisheries management changes were subsequently implemented. From 1984 to 1986, Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi, a species native to nearby Lower Kananaskis Lake, were stocked in the hopes that they might survive better than the stocked Rainbow Trout, which are not native to this watershed. However, subsequent gillnetting in 1986 (Stelfox 1987) and 1987 (file data) failed to provide any evidence that the small (4 cm) stocked Cutthroat Trout survived better than the substantially larger (primarily 10–15 cm) Rainbow Trout stocked during the same time period. Based on studies which showed that stocking large trout provided much better returns than stocking small trout in reservoirs with widely fluctuating water levels (Rogers 1980; Sealing and Bennett 1980), a recommendation was made to stock larger (>20 cm) Rainbow Trout in Upper Kananaskis Lake (Stelfox 1987). Subsequently, from 1992 to 2002, Upper Kananaskis Lake was primarily stocked with large (≥20 cm) Rainbow Trout (Tables 1 and 2). Anecdotal reports from anglers suggested that this improved the fishery, but no creel data were gathered to corroborate these claims. In the early 2000s, several changes in fisheries management occurred at Upper Kananaskis Lake, with the major change being a shift towards providing a fishery for native trout species. Beginning in 2001, Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus, originating from the native population in Lower Kananaskis Lake, were stocked in Upper Kananaskis Lake and have been intermittently stocked since then (Table 2). The Upper Kananaskis Lake creel survey: 2010 and 2011 2 rationale behind this change was that Bull Trout should have better growth and survival than Rainbow Trout in Upper Kananaskis Lake, since they are more likely to occupy the part of the water column where Opossum Shrimp Mysis relicta occur and, being highly piscivorous, could also exploit the abundant forage base of minnows (Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus and Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae) and introduced suckers (Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus and White Sucker C. commersonii) (Stelfox 1987). In 2002, a minimum size limit of 30 cm was implemented for Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout in Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes and the bag limit for Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout was reduced to three (from the previous limit of five). A bait ban was also implemented on Upper Kananaskis Lake in 2002, so as to improve survival of released Bull Trout — protected since 1995 by a province-wide, 0-bag limit — and undersized Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout. Finally, the stocking of Rainbow Trout in Upper Kananaskis Lake ceased after 2002 and was subsequently replaced by alternate-year stocking of primarily large (≥20 cm) Westslope Cutthroat Trout, beginning in 2003. Subsequent gillnetting, conducted in 2006 and 2007 (Earle and Stelfox 2012), revealed that Bull Trout survival and growth was very good, with most Bull Trout exceeding 40 cm. In contrast, Cutthroat Trout survival appeared to be relatively poor, since they comprised a relatively small proportion of the gill net catch and most were smaller than 40 cm. This raised the question as to whether the relatively small numbers and sizes of Cutthroat Trout was due to predation by Bull Trout, harvest by anglers, or both. To address this question, and determine what size of Cutthroat Trout should be stocked to provide a more cost-effective fishery, Upper Kananaskis Lake was stocked with different sizes of Cutthroat Trout — unmarked 19-cm and 20-cm Cutthroat Trout in 2009 and 2011, respectively, and marked (fin-clipped) 30- cm Cutthroat Trout in 2010 (Table 2). In 2010, a number of anglers expressed concern that the 30-cm minimum size limit provided inadequate protection for recently stocked Cutthroat Trout, thereby preventing the Kananaskis Lakes from realizing their potential to provide high quality fisheries. To rectify the situation, they proposed that the Cutthroat Upper Kananaskis Lake creel survey: 2010 and 2011 3 and Rainbow Trout minimum size limit should be increased to 50 cm and the bag limit should be reduced to one fish. To evaluate, from the anglers’ perspective, the effectiveness of stocking Cutthroat Trout of different sizes, a creel survey was conducted during the summers of 2010 and 2011. The creel survey also gathered information on the size distribution of harvested Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout relative to the proposed 50- cm minimum size limit. This report presents the results of that survey.

I had a long talk with some former AB Gov fish biologists. It sounds like some of the big problems are stocking cutties that are too small and bulls that are too big. The main food source in Upper K is some kind of scud that typically sits in 20+ feet of water. That's just too far down for smaller stocked fish to do well in. The bulls have a pretty easy time picking off those little guys that are starving to death in the shallower water. I was out there a couple of years ago after they stocked it with the wee cutties. Didn't catch a single cutty but got into plenty of chubby bulls that were clearly enjoying the recent stockees.

At the very least I'm pleased that there is an appetite to do access right. Doing it right doesn't always mean doing it more. Access points need to have the right supporting infrastructure in place. I wouldn't want to see more access if it meant we were going to get more McKinnon Flats.

Don makes a fascinating political statement that is true in Alberta and is currently happening in the US right now. I think most people would generally assume hunters/anglers are a bunch of rednecks that only ever vote Conservative/Republican. But what have those political entities done for the things we hold so dear?

It's safe to say that the majority of the cutties we all catch are far from 99% pure. The pure populations are very isolated. Basically anywhere that rainbows could get up into = cutbows. Things like hanging culverts and natural barriers have been buffers to keep some pure strain cutty populations intact.

Brown trout are one of the most resilient species to whirling disease. I'd suggest water quality and habitat issues are playing a bigger role.

Our AGM is right around the corner. We've been really busy for the last few years - it's a great time to get involved! http://bowriver.org/2017/05/19/2017-annual-general-meeting/