jpinkster

Here's a bit of a chicken/egg situation. Why are we seeing so many more fish (anecdotally) in the river? Is it because there is suddenly more food supply in the river or we had a few bumper stock years? Or is it because there are less smaller fish to compete for food? Or is it that there are lots of little fish dying, so bigger fish have an easy meal? From what I've read quantity/size can be really cyclical in a river. Years where there are more fish, there are generally fewer very large fish. Years where there are more big fish, there are fewer fish all together. Don Anderson made a comment a few months ago that I hope won't ring true for the Bow. He said that just prior to the outbreak of WD in Montana a lot of anglers were really excited about how many really big fish they were finding in the river. A year or two after that, the bottom completely fell out. We have certainly had a year or two of more than average large fish being caught (anecdotally). Is the drop coming? I sure hope not.

Bow River Chapter just made this post on Facebook with regards to this article: http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/Whirling-disease-an-ongoing-issue-20161215 Some very interesting comments from the fisheries biologists that are working directly on the outbreak of whirling disease (WD) in Alberta. - Fish originally detected in Johnson Lake were seen to have the black tails that is an indicator of WD. The symptom has not been spotted elsewhere in the park, even among fishes that have tested positive for WD. - Only fish with high levels of infection show all symptoms of WD together (blackened tails, "whirling" swim patterns"). - There could be potential closures in areas where we have pure native populations of trout species, especially species that are considered species at risk (westslope cutthroat as one). - Brown trout were found in Johnson Lake in 2011 which suggests people are illegally introducing fish into bodies of water. - It is unknown how high mortality rates will be here in Alberta. Biologists suggest WD has been in the province for a number of years now. - In the past WD was taken very seriously in Alberta. Assessments in the late 1990s and 2000 declared the province WD free. The monitoring was discontinued which biologists are suggesting may have been a bad move. - Since the initial confirmation of WD in Johnson Lake more than 200 sites in six watersheds have been tested as of October. This includes the eastern slopes, aquaculture facilities and fish farms. Results are still pending on many of these. - Restricting the spread of WD can be as simple as limiting the use of felt-soled waders and boots by anglers. Spores can remain in damp felt for an extended period of time and could pose a risk for introduction into other systems. It is important that WD is taken very seriously by all parties. We look forward to further comment and guidance from biologists that are working diligently on this file. Want to know what should drive most responsible river users nuts? Our government historically bred complacency when it came to our fisheries. We proudly proclaimed to the world in the late 1990s/early 2000s that "ALBERTA IS WD FREE, OMG!". Shortly after that, we stopped testing for WD. 15 years later, WD is now present in some of our major fisheries. We should be asking some serious questions about this, because that attitude is entirely unacceptable.

When we start making suggestions without proof that the ecosystem have already adapted to deal with WD, we open the door for complacency.

What I'm talking about is the generally complacent attitude we have had when it comes to invasives in this province. The proliferation of invasives is tied directly to a dismissive attitude towards proper gear cleaning by a lot of water users. The fact that we failed to be more diligent 20 years ago doesn't excuse us from being more diligent now or in the future. Would it be better if WD has already been here for 20 years? Sure. But I fail to see what value debating that point adds to the conversation. Whether it has been here for 20 years or 2 months might matter to biologists, but it shouldn't matter to the average user. The only point that matters for the average Joe is clean your junk.

That's a pretty complacent attitude to have. Regardless of how long it has been here, we can't let our guard down. Negligence is likely how it got here in the first place. Breathing a sigh of relief suggests to some that we don't need to take this seriously. Whether it has been 20 years or 2 months, our response can't be any different.

The when and the how doesn't change our reaction to it. The only course of action is making sure we aren't transporting WD to other systems. In that sense, the when and the how is irrelevant.

The debate on how and when it got here is an unproductive one. It won't change the fact that WD is here and we are going to have to deal with it. The best way forward at this point is doing everything we can to mitigate the impacts and stop further spread. This should be a pretty sobering moment for anyone interested in our fisheries.

Yesterday the MLA for Banff-Cochrane tabled a motion in the Legislature that instructs the provincial government to make water security a priority. While the motion itself is vague, it gives Cabinet a focal point for future policy. There are plenty of things we can criticize this government for, but I believe they are getting this one right. Our proximity to the headwaters for a large percentage of our North America's fresh water comes with a lot of responsibility. By prioritizing water security in the east slopes we not only protect at risk species like east slope cutthroat, we also set the tone for a responsible relationship with our fresh water throughout our major basins. I'm very interested to see what comes next!

My biggest hope? The WD scare forces government to start taking matters they can control more seriously. Once WD gets in, it's almost impossible to contain or manage. That is something we can't control. Things like smarter fishing regulations and habitat protection are things government can absolutely control. Hopefully a closer eye on our fisheries creates more awareness on some of the big issues that have otherwise been ignored by the provincial government.

Today is the last day for input on proposed changes to the Fishery Act. Don't miss out on your chance to be a part of the conversation!

Also some suggestions that he may have had a cardiac emergency. Not sure if that happened before he hit the water or after. Either way, very sad.

If you are on this page, chances are you care a whole lot about fish habitat. Healthy fish populations are important. Healthy aquatic habitat is critical for nearly every aspect of fish life. The Government of Canada wants to hear from you on how modern safeguards can be provide real protection for our fisheries. We a part of the conversation at letstalkfishhabitat.ca

We have added an extra day to our redd survey to explore some channels down by Legacy Island. Only a few more days left to sign up, we hope to see you there! http://bowriver.org/2016/10/29/bow-river-brown-trout-redd-survey-november-13-2016/

I actually raised this question when we first got the report. Do we potentially do harm by sharing the information? Will be attract poachers or hero-shotters who want to drag big browns off redds? Ultimate we thought the pros greatly outweighed the cons and that having the data in the public was important. But do rest assured that we are considering those kinds of things.

^ smart guy up here Redds say more about habitat than they do fish population. High concentrations of redds is a great thing because it speaks to quality spawning habitat. Of course there is a correlation between the two, but it isn't a seamless indicator.

Especially with shooting over water, there could be some issues with picture quality. Without the proper lens, you'd have a lot of shots that would be totally washed out from the glare.

We have had a few conversations about using drones. It is important that we recognize that while this study gives some great information...but it is not exact science. Drones would likely give us a more accurate redd count. A big part of this is really about getting people active in conservation efforts on our river. This redd survey is a lot of fun and it is fantastic to see regular folks getting involved. I would worry that if we did drones and not rafts, we may not see the same "team building" level of participation.

The access strategy is a City of Calgary initiative and therefore focuses on the areas of the river within the city limits. Mac would not be within that scope.

In November 2015, the Bow River Chapter (BRC) of Trout Unlimited Canada conducted its first annual Brown Trout Redd Survey of the Bow River. The project was initiated to acquire baseline and trend through time data, as well as to supplement data from similar surveys completed on the Elbow and Bow Rivers by other organizations including Calgary River Valleys. On November 7th and 8th of 2015 a group of three Crew Leads and up to five volunteers per crew surveyed 21.2 km of the Bow River, between Graves Bridge on Glenmore Trail to Policeman’s Flats. Survey methods included physical observations for redds either from three rafts, floating along river left, mid and right in tandem, or by foot with travel limited to on top of the banks. You can see the full report on our website: http://bowriver.org/2016/11/01/2015-bow-river-brown-trout-redd-report/ Having this baseline data is important. With better information we can make better observations on brown trout spawning trends in the Bow River. Our team will be out again in a few weeks to carry out the 2016 Brown Trout Redd Survey. Please visit our website if you are interested in participating: http://bowriver.org/2016/10/29/bow-river-brown-trout-redd-survey-november-13-2016/

Legacy Island is located along a beautiful section of the Bow River upstream of the Carseland Weir. The Government of Alberta leased this land to the Bow River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada in 2003. Part of our lease agreement is annual maintenance and protection of the habitat. On October 22, 2016 24 volunteers from the Bow River Chapter and the Nature Conservancy of Canada gathered for the 2016 Legacy Island riparian restoration project. Here is a quick summary of what we were able to accomplish: planted roughly 200 cottonwood seedlings and stakes plus another 100 willow stakes. All rootstock plants are marked by painted survey stakes so the team can come back later for future watering and grass control activities. filled about 8 garbage bags of burdock and henbane, invasive weeds that can cause problems in riparian areas. We were not quite able to get to the entire island, but we removed weeds from a sizable portion. installed a large gate and signage in hopes to deter prohibited motorized vehicle use on the island. A special thank you to all of our volunteers, Friends of Fish Creek and the Nature Conservancy for providing equipment, and especially to the Alberta Conservation Association for providing the funding to make this project possible. We have some awesome photos from the event that you can find on our website: http://bowriver.org/2016/10/25/2016-legacy-island-riparian-restoration-project/

Making Alberta great again?

We've also heard this at The City. There are other jurisdictions that have created space to allow for this to happen. Sometimes creating a controlled environment stops the problem from ever getting into places that might eventually drain into our waterways.

Reclamation is required, but I'm not convinced the standard is high enough. Take for instance many of the access roads for O&G forestry through the east slopes. These are now OHV "trails" that are directly adjacent to much of the sensitive habitat that needs protection. If reclamation was that big of a deal we wouldn't be seeing so many of the erosion issues we are seeing. I'm struggling big time with your suggestion regarding cattle. It's an issue of scale. Does one cow crossing a stream ruin anything? Probably not. How about 10? How about 100? I have yet to see scientific evidence that would lead me to believe recreational users on foot cause anywhere near amount the damage that cattle/OHVs/RVs cause. There is a maximum threshold on how much abuse these areas can take. Once those thresholds are broken, there's no coming back, specially when it comes to native trout species. Tolerance is NOT needed. If we continue to make excuses for the poor behaviour that is going on in the back country, it's going to be lost to us forever. What's best for the habitat and best for industry are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of industry players that find ways to make very positive contributions to the resource. I want to see a significant crack down on the recreational yahoos that don't "need" to be up there tearing our critical habitat to smithereens.

The only thing us ordinary folks can do is continue being diligent with cleaning our gear every time we go out. Once WD gets in, it's hard if not impossible to get it out. The bright spot may be that once fish build up an immunity to it...the dramatic impacts don't become as devastating. I'm shocked the hatchery came forward. Sure hope those folks have some other form of income, because their business is going to be shut down for the foreseeable future.

There are a few storm ponds that run aerators to control smells. When the ice traps decaying organic materials in a storm pond it can lead to some REALLY nasty smells once the thaw starts. Pike aren't the answer. I'm not sure we should be introducing something else to deal with an introduced problem. Time to start fining the hell out of people.