Do We Need Nutrient Replacement In Some Foothills Streams?

[trailhead]

If from what I have read and gathered is correct the Elbow, downstream of Bragg Creek, has plenty of "fertilizer" in it. The debate over the removal of the septic fields is still raging. To get the fish numbers back you need to close them to fishing period. Too many people keep what they catch, I read a story in the Herald a few years ago about the Bull Trout study in the Elbow. They radio tagged some fish, and found one in a freezer in Canyon Meadows. A twelve year old caught it and nobody in the family knew the diffence between a bull or a whitefish. As a species our physical presence creates a greater impact than any other factor, ie walking, eating, crapping etc.

[monger]

Years ago a study was done on Lynx Cr (Ram trib). I believe Green Drop fertilizer was used to boost the productivity. More bugs, better condition factor for the fish.

BC creeks that drain to the Elk are definitely more productive than most of our creeks. Nitrogen from explosives is a unique way of enhancing fisheries.

Both Sundancefisher and the naysayers raise good points. True, lots of biomass has been removed by anglers, but there are always concerns when men monkey with the natural system. Perhaps habitat enhancement and stricter regulations could help things out in a slower/more controlled manner. In the past, the creeks were only open every other year. The year off would decrease the stress and mortality on creeks. Maybe the poachers would stand out more when they were snagging bull trout on closed tributaries ( I guess someone would still have to see them).

After we did a bunch of enhancement on Dogpound Cr ( to increase cover and exclude range maggots, decrease water temps and clean up some spawning habitat) the fish numbers climbed significantly. The biggest problem happens when too many people show up later and bonk the fish. Us humans are getting way too efficient at removing critters from the environment.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Years ago a study was done on Lynx Cr (Ram trib). I believe Green Drop fertilizer was used to boost the productivity. More bugs, better condition factor for the fish.

BC creeks that drain to the Elk are definitely more productive than most of our creeks. Nitrogen from explosives is a unique way of enhancing fisheries.

Both Sundancefisher and the naysayers raise good points. True, lots of biomass has been removed by anglers, but there are always concerns when men monkey with the natural system. Perhaps habitat enhancement and stricter regulations could help things out in a slower/more controlled manner. In the past, the creeks were only open every other year. The year off would decrease the stress and mortality on creeks. Maybe the poachers would stand out more when they were snagging bull trout on closed tributaries ( I guess someone would still have to see them).

After we did a bunch of enhancement on Dogpound Cr ( to increase cover and exclude range maggots, decrease water temps and clean up some spawning habitat) the fish numbers climbed significantly. The biggest problem happens when too many people show up later and bonk the fish. Us humans are getting way too efficient at removing critters from the environment.

 

All good points monger. Dogpound Creek though would not be a comparative example. It is already nutrient loaded from the cows. The only reason the habitat improvement worked so well was because there was plenty of food available. Nutrients are not limited there. Still I am definitely not opposed to combining habitat improvement with nutrient replenishment.

 

So the million dollar question...can we ever get back to the past historic populations of fish including larger sizes or do we remain satisfied with having 5% of what the streams or rivers could sustain and grow?

 

In this day of increased fishing population...we have such a lack of water to begin with...even with the massive stocking we do, the demand to not only catch fish but kill fish remains a top priority of Fish & Wildlife. Decreasing the fishable flowing water in half does not seem like a doable plan. Unfortunately we are a way different fishery than BC...but that does not mean what they do can not be used in some way here also. Nutrient loss in streams is proven. What effects are felt in Alberta streams has never been documented...but rarely does a good fishing stream ever bounce back...unless nutrients were artificially added.

[monger]

The Highwood rebounded quite nicely once it got changed to catch and release. It was awesome in the '60s and '70s, but crashed in the 80's due to years of angler abuse. Today the numbers of fish are getting respectable again. Hopefully Didymo doesn't cover up too much bug habitat.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The Highwood rebounded quite nicely once it got changed to catch and release. It was awesome in the '60s and '70s, but crashed in the 80's due to years of angler abuse. Today the numbers of fish are getting respectable again. Hopefully Didymo doesn't cover up too much bug habitat.

 

Unfortunately we can't really compare fish populations from 100 years ago to 30 years ago to today but it would be interesting to see. Depending where you are on the Highwood there could be additional nutrients coming in from tributary streams coming off of cattle operations.

 

Stricter fishing regulation and yearly stream closers can help increase fish populations to a degree...but you are also impacting on fishing options and decreasing fishable water which in turn only doubles pressure elsewhere. It is not an end all be all for fixing our fishing woes in many places.

 

I wonder what the upper Sheep and Ghost were like 50 years ago.

[Flyfisher]

BC creeks that drain to the Elk are definitely more productive than most of our creeks. Nitrogen from explosives is a unique way of enhancing fisheries.

 

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, what you refer to above as "enhancing" fisheries is not something being done by design or intention by government or anyone else, not now or ever. It just so happens that industrial waste leaching into the water in this unique case has had a positive effect on some streams. Industrial impacts on fish bearing streams are seldom happy stories.

 

Sundancerfisher: wouldn't it be infinitely better to put resources into protecting the integrity of watersheds rather than into "fix" schemes such as nutrient replacement, especially in the Rockies where there are no salmon bearing streams?

 

The carrying capacity of a stream is a function of a host of complex mechanisms and interactions. Nutrient level is just one interaction and in of itself cannot be assumed to be a "fix".

 

I might wager that there are foothill and front range streams that have higher nutrient levels today due to human interaction (range land, agricultural uses, etc.) than prehistoric levels...

 

 

[DonAndersen]

Sun,

 

I was raised @ Turner Valley and fished the Sheep, Highwood et al from 1955>70. The Sheep is about as good now as it was then from what I saw when I fished it 2 summers ago for the best part of 6 weeks. There were more Bull Trout and a lot less opportunity for anglers to access the water. But the areas I did fish, were the same.

 

And Cow Crap is flushed through the system quickly. Human crap is a daily addition. Works a whole lot better except for the birth control pills and latex paints.

 

And with that note - get ride of all them damn cows and get some buffalo in the west country.

 

catch ya'

 

Don

 

 

[monger]

Flyfisher...you didn't like my "enhancement by leaching" statement. I think I can agree that blowing up mountains isn't the best way to improve fishing.

Why do you think the productivity is so high in Elk tributaries that haven't been affected by mining? There seems to be far greater numbers of bugs there compared to Alberta.

[echinopora]

I've had the pleasure of fishing the spine of the divide in Wilmore Wilderness. These rivers should be the posterchild for low productivity, high elevation, high latitude freestone rivers, however the fishing pressure is very low. They have the same size and character as the highwood/sheep, and the density and size of fish is a pleasant suprise for anyone willing to make the hike. You could definitely reproduce one of those old-timey 200 fish stringers up there.

 

You rarely see trout come blasting up from the bottom of a deep pool to grab a dry down south, but on these rivers they will literally race oneanother to the fly, often missing because they come so hard and fast. Now if I sit on a ledge above the highwood in the fall I can definitely see similar numbers (or more) fish than the northern rivers, but the fact that they literally fight oneanother to get on your hook make the northern river seem more productive. Same as comparing a high mountain cutty lake to say beaver/bullshead. Huge difference in productivity, but 50 fish later on the cutty lake you are still catching fish on a size 16 with a few wraps of tattered thread left on it.

 

The big question for me would be whether the difference is due to a difference in nutrients, fishing pressure/mortality, or unseasoned fish/agressive feeding habits of the natives. The upper smokey and tribs are hella cold, gin clear and really short season/heavy run off. Another similar river is the Torrens, the deep canyon section see's very low pressure, so despite the marginal conditions, you only really ever fish 5-6 runs in a day, but the rest of the river gets nailed hard by oilfield workers and is a tough go. I would suspect it's more the low fishing pressure that makes these rivers really pop as opposed to nutrients. Just like when you're sitting on a central Ab brown stream that usually only gives up a half a dozen fish, a hatch starts and you get half a dozen without moving your feet. The fish were there all along, its just rare to be able to stick every fish in a run. Hell give me a Hills brothers can full of worms and I'll decimate a trout river just like the old timers. 3 hooks per line, 3 lines per angler, no wonder they had full stringers.

 

This thing is a full blown river and you can see how close the the treeline I am. Low nutrient? Yup. Low Productivity? You bet. Sore wrist? Of course.

 

That said, the upper Sheep/Junction creek could use a little help, how about you make that your pilot?

 

Rob

 

 

[Flyfisher]

Flyfisher...you didn't like my "enhancement by leaching" statement. I think I can agree that blowing up mountains isn't the best way to improve fishing.

Why do you think the productivity is so high in Elk tributaries that haven't been affected by mining? There seems to be far greater numbers of bugs there compared to Alberta.

 

Monger, I quite liked your statement and I like the one above even better. Just wanted to clarify things a bit, wouldn't want anyone thinking that mining activity is a stream management enhancement tool in south eastern BC. As an aside, mining near the town of Kimberley in BC significantly elevated nutrient levels in Kootenay Lake in the 50's and 60's. Mark CK and the lower St Mary R were toxic but by the time that water reached Kootenay Lake it was diluted enough to be a major benefit to the fishery.

 

Why do you think the productivity is so high in Elk tributaries that haven't been affected by mining? There seems to be far greater numbers of bugs there compared to Alberta.

 

Generally productivity is highest in the tribs that have been affected by mining.

 

I'm not familiar with enough east slope streams to make the supposition that there are more bugs in the Elk tribs... tho I'm working on it. That said and assuming your observation is correct, I'll hazard a guess by saying that I suspect differences in geology, temperature and rainfall might be factors.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

 

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, what you refer to above as "enhancing" fisheries is not something being done by design or intention by government or anyone else, not now or ever. It just so happens that industrial waste leaching into the water in this unique case has had a positive effect on some streams. Industrial impacts on fish bearing streams are seldom happy stories.

 

Sundancerfisher: wouldn't it be infinitely better to put resources into protecting the integrity of watersheds rather than into "fix" schemes such as nutrient replacement, especially in the Rockies where there are no salmon bearing streams?

 

The carrying capacity of a stream is a function of a host of complex mechanisms and interactions. Nutrient level is just one interaction and in of itself cannot be assumed to be a "fix".

 

I might wager that there are foothill and front range streams that have higher nutrient levels today due to human interaction (range land, agricultural uses, etc.) than prehistoric levels...

 

The premise of the discussion does not require salmon to be in Alberta...the main point is have we damaged or altered the natural state of our high mountain and/or cold water foothill streams in Alberta through the 100 years of fish removal. I believe we must have...but it is a hard thing to show with a lack of data.

 

I think protecting habitat is a vital component of maintaining a recreational fishery. Just fixing habitat is not a fix in itself either. I would be interesting to see what impact grazing has on the nutrient loading in K Country. Spread out over a large grazing area, who knows.

[CTownTBoyz]

Is nutrient replacement really about 'fixing' the stream(s), or about creating fisheries that produce large® fish so that recreational anglers can catch (and release) more quality fish?

 

Restoring riparian areas and eliminating our impact is really the solution. Nutrient replacement is just creating an artificial fishery (and one has to wonder...is the intention of replacing nutrients to 'fix' the fishery for us, or the fish). Monger, you mentioned Dogpound Creek; great example of 'restoration.' And the idea of closing fisheries every second year of so; that would help immensely, and it is only a matter of time before that is exactly what will happen- out of necessity.

 

So how would you restore the upper Bow (in the park; above Bow falls)? It has been a protected area for over 100 years; except for angling. If anything, we have increased the nutrients in that section of the river, in particular from sewage runoff from Lake Louise. There are pictures of the first visitors to the Banff area with stringers of dozens of very large bull trout. What would happen to the fishery if it was permanently closed (it probably should be; it is in a National Park).

 

When it comes down to it people are the problem, and habitat restoration/ protection is really the way to counter act the problem (if any exist). Sundance, something you would know about, the idea of nutrient replacement sounds a lot like dumping iron into the ocean to counteract C02, which you and I both know is a hare-brained scheme to continue to do the same thing, create the same problems, and use Band-Aids instead of stitches to close a massive wound that we ourselves created.

[Smitty]

There are pictures of the first visitors to the Banff area with stringers of dozens of very large bull trout. What would happen to the fishery if it was permanently closed (it probably should be; it is in a National Park).

 

First, a small digression or hijack if you will. I stand firmly opposed to closing down the Parks to fishing. Close the fishing, ok, then make sure no other other consumptive activity, golfing, skiing, hiking, canoeing, and activity that may interfere with the natural expression of animals' lives. That would be great in accomplishing a laudable goal; empty parks with no people. Course, you'll have to turn back over 100 years of policy that clearly state the Parks were meant to be enjoyed. By people. With - yes, wait for it - activities that may be consumptive in nature or have some impact. I just hate that attitude of "lets-ban-it-cause-we're-in-a-federally-mandated-area"...(and its not like the Parks are a free for all or aren't already heavily regulated...)

 

Ok, back to topic. Ctown and others do make a good point about whether this is for us or for the fish, and the band-aid analogy. We must be careful about letting the government/others delude ourselves by ignoring the larger problem of riparian damage and loss, and mitigating it with something that doesn't address the real issue.

 

Having said that, I suggest a pilot program for an area that hasn't suffered significantly from industrial/human activity. In other words, make it an incentive for ourselves; make sure the habitat is protected/improved, see how that enhances the fisheries first, then perhaps consider a fertilization. One area that is relatively unscathed from industry/humans and is also nutrient poor is the Upper Ram system (above Hummingbird creek confluence). I am curious to see the impact of a fertilization program working there.

 

As for stream closures, there are pros and cons, but I can tell you one thing: can you imagine how much this forum would heat up in the summer due to all the b**ching and whining about how crowded streams are, if half of them are closed?? It would make the shack nasties from winter-time look like a gathering of bridge players, served with tea and cake.

 

Smitty

[CTownTBoyz]

First, a small digression or hijack if you will. I stand firmly opposed to closing down the Parks to fishing. Close the fishing, ok, then make sure no other other consumptive activity, golfing, skiing, hiking, canoeing, and activity that may interfere with the natural expression of animals' lives. That would be great in accomplishing a laudable goal; empty parks with no people. Course, you'll have to turn back over 100 years of policy that clearly state the Parks were meant to be enjoyed. By people. With - yes, wait for it - activities that may be consumptive in nature or have some impact. I just hate that attitude of "lets-ban-it-cause-we're-in-a-federally-mandated-area"...(and its not like the Parks are a free for all or aren't already heavily regulated...)

 

 

Smitty

 

 

Hijack cont.

 

The thing I can't understand about fishing in the national parks is it seems to contradict every 'comparable' activity that is illegal i.e. hunting, removing fauna, rocks etc. And it seems to go against established park rules.

 

Park Rules

*It is unlawful to collect or remove any natural objects or historical artifacts (this includes berries, wildflowers, mushrooms, antlers, wood, interesting rocks along the river, etc.).

 

*It is unlawful to feed, entice or harass wildlife (this includes feeding them ‘natural’ food; it also includes what may look like tame wildlife such as birds or squirrels).

 

*Pets must be leashed at all times. For their protection, never leave your pet unattended. Bears, coyotes, and even elk and deer may present a danger to your pet.

 

*All food (even food in coolers) must be stored inside vehicle trunks or in tear-proof containers.

You may camp only in designated areas

 

The parks were "meant to be enjoyed", but they were also established for conservation, animal and environmental protection and intended to be restricted from most development. Certainly this is the direction Banff NP is going with the current caps on building throughout the park, increased wildlife fencing throughout, etc.

 

The Golf Course at Banff Springs, the Hot Springs and the Chateau were really the products of CP Rail, and key factors in the development of the areas national park status, but do you think it would be possible to build another Golf Course, or Ski hill in the park?

 

In regards to fixing streams via nutrient replacement, the Banff Park section of the Bow is great example of human influence, and the potential to repair a fishery by 'closing it' - where is should be closed.

 

IMHO.

 

 

[Flytyer]

Hijack cont.

 

The thing I can't understand about fishing in the national parks is it seems to contradict every 'comparable' activity that is illegal i.e. hunting, removing fauna, rocks etc. And it seems to go against established park rules.

 

Park Rules

*It is unlawful to collect or remove any natural objects or historical artifacts (this includes berries, wildflowers, mushrooms, antlers, wood, interesting rocks along the river, etc.).

 

*It is unlawful to feed, entice or harass wildlife (this includes feeding them ‘natural’ food; it also includes what may look like tame wildlife such as birds or squirrels).

 

*Pets must be leashed at all times. For their protection, never leave your pet unattended. Bears, coyotes, and even elk and deer may present a danger to your pet.

 

*All food (even food in coolers) must be stored inside vehicle trunks or in tear-proof containers.

You may camp only in designated areas

 

The parks were "meant to be enjoyed", but they were also established for conservation, animal and environmental protection and intended to be restricted from most development. Certainly this is the direction Banff NP is going with the current caps on building throughout the park, increased wildlife fencing throughout, etc.

 

The Golf Course at Banff Springs, the Hot Springs and the Chateau were really the products of CP Rail, and key factors in the development of the areas national park status, but do you think it would be possible to build another Golf Course, or Ski hill in the park?

 

In regards to fixing streams via nutrient replacement, the Banff Park section of the Bow is great example of human influence, and the potential to repair a fishery by 'closing it' - where is should be closed.

 

IMHO.

 

Agree with you here on this.

 

I think everyone should read a recently released book by Peter Dettling from Canmore "The Will of the Land" ; it makes a strong case for what is wrong with how human intervention is deterimental to the natural order of things. This book focuses on the wolf and bear populations of the Bow Valley, Banff and Jasper NP but the content is also relevant to issues being discussed here.

 

[jasonvilly]

So the million dollar question...can we ever get back to the past historic populations of fish including larger sizes or do we remain satisfied with having 5% of what the streams or rivers could sustain and grow?

 

 

This question reminds me a lot of the film I saw at Back Cast on the weekend...Rivers of the Lost Coast.... A very sad situation where a resource was exhausted to the point of extinction coupled with many different environmental factors (damming and irrigation) The areas the movie covered have not recovered and there is significant speculation that they will never be the way they were in the 50-70's let alone reach a suitable standard to make them quality fisheries.

 

I am all for doing whatever it takes to help our rivers, but it needs to be done carefully and with some fore thought. Not, lets dump in some fertilizer in and see what happens. I would like to see a combination of the many ideas presented here with all the stakeholders involved (Biologist, SRD, users etc...)

 

-regeneration of habitat

-possible addition of fertilizer to increase diminishing biomass

- and if it comes to it, no fish zones for a time to enhance these rivers

 

 

[Smitty]

Well said JasonVilly.

 

Let me add, in defence of Sun's position, I think its credible to discuss a pilot program. Some folks get entrenched in their position to the point of near-hysteria, that they're somehow afraid that testing an idea out automatically translates into province-wide policy. Its simply not true.

 

An example: look at the study on Quirk creek. Back when I lived in Calgary, I took out a regular group of kids, who passed the ID test, and we'd help Dean Baeyens harvest some - sometimes hundreds - of brook trout.

 

That was ten years ago. I now live in Edmonton, and haven't participated in the project for years. Don't know the current status (last heard the angling was having mixed results. Anyone clarify?).

 

The bottom line is that when Quirk started, some notable fishing guru's started talking about a brook trout "holocaust" in this province and really got all excited and their britches in a knot about harvesting Brook trout. All for nothing. 10 years later and its still a pilot project (assuming its still going on...?)

 

The teacher in me is attracted to new ideas, testing them out under specific controlled conditions, and this is where this idea has the most merit and chance of succeeding.

 

I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of sweeping, new, blanket policy for fisheries management in the province that would favor widespread fertilization, yet I get the sense that some who are opposed to this are thinking that will happen, or that's the crux of Sun's argument. Not a chance. not a chance in h-e-double hockey sticks.

 

Smitty

[pokerfish]

... And the idea of closing fisheries every second year of so; that would help immensely, and it is only a matter of time before that is exactly what will happen- out of necessity."

 

I was around in the 60s and later when the misguided alternate year closures were in effect. BAD IDEA. Imagine the pressure on the Crow when the Oldman is closed for a year. In a year the fish do not recover from that kind of over fishing. The amount of poaching going on then was criminal, so I would speculate that there would be no saving in CO manpower. Picture the random camping issue on the Castle with the Gap closed.

 

BAD idea, BAD

 

CR is much better idea.

 

Not intending to hijack this thread, but wanted to make that idea a non starter.

Having said that, there is merit in Sun's ideas, and given informed debate and due consideration perhaps some testing ought to be considered.

[FraserN]

I think it is a reasonable idea. Especially for rivers like the upper sheep, which I have fished alot, and which could use a nutrient boost. But in the case of the Elbow river, here is where things get interesting. I have fished the Elbow river from the nutrient poor stretch near Elbow falls, to the weaselhead stretch, and many times in the nutrient rich stretch flowing below Glenmore dam. It is a relatively small, somewhat shallow stream throughout its length, by our standards. What I have found is that the majority of trout (90% or so) I catch are under 10 inches. This is true of all stretches of the river. One might reasonably assume that with all the insect hatches that occur on the river in Calgary, with all those extra nutrients, that the trout would on average be significantly larger. Not so. The Brown trout in this stretch are every bit the little fish I see as the Rainbows at Weaselhead, or the Brookies and Cutts up by canyon creek. Places with far less nutrient loads. It seems that the shallow, smallish Elbow River contains mostly 6 to 9 inch trout all along its length. Maybe, small river=small trout. I don't really know? Just athought.

[danhunt]

Two things - First, we don't have to make up for 100 years of fish harvest for the simple reason that the spring freshet basically wipes the slate clean. If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be fertilizing BC rivers because, despite some poor returns recently, they have gotten strong returns for millennia. Second, you can't restrict the effects of this proposed enhancement to one section of a stream. *hit flows down hill, literally, and this will all end up in the Bow, Highwood or the Oldman eventually. If you applied the nutrients to multiple streams you will get a magnifacation effect when all those tributaries reach larger rivers.