Time To Protect Our Mountain Streams

[McLeod]

According to your stance about non-natives, if you're gonna put a large limit on brookies, you're gonna have to do the same for rainbows and browns. Are you good with destroying all rainbow and brown fisheries in order to get rid of brookies? All I am saying is that the stance against ALL NON-NATIVE fish is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for.

 

On a side note, the war on brookies is eerily similar to fishermen's attitudes towards the bull trout in the 70's and 80's don't you think? Scary what negative attitudes can do for a species and fisheries. Just food for thought.

 

Good point about ALL NON NATIVES...

 

[mtbkr]

I think we need a more emphasized route than a dozen guys copy pasting a letter. Build a recommended plan, use the message boards and like to collect signatures poll results a big list of support. People may support it but they'll be too passive to write letters or do much on their own. More later on the BB can't type!

 

Good Point PGK. I think this is a good idea in addition to sending letters.

I want to start working on this as soon as I'm done Uni final exams.

 

As far as a recommeded plan goes, here are some of the things I would like to see:

 

An increase in licencing costs say ~$40/year, with the additional revenue going towards badly needed regulation enforcement, fish stocking in areas where required and additional conservation means...

 

A conservation licence (catch and release only, except for maybe brook trout) at a reduced price. The idea of allowing liberal limits on brook trout is a sensitive issue. So maybe allow everyone to take brook trout but only if they first pass some kind of fish identification test so they aren't bonking bulls by mistake?

 

Catch and release of Cutthroats and Cutthroat-Rainbow hybrids in all moving water in ES1 and ES2.

 

It sounds bad but I'm not particularily well-versed in the current laws regarding logging and developement in close proximity to flowing waters. From the sounds of the proposed logging in the Castle drainage this summer, it certainly sounds like this needs to be addressed...

 

Tighter restrictions on off-highway vehicles. Though I'm not opposed to having a few areas like Mclean creek and Waiparous where guys can drive though creeks and mudholes and whatnot-- I know it's not environmentally friendly, but they do need somewhere to roar around and having a few designated areas I think helps keeps them happy and away from other sensitive areas.

 

A conservation stamp at say ~$20/season for moving water in ES1 and ES2. The revenue from which should go towards conservation and enforcement. Along with this stamp, I think there should be a short fishing ethics test which includes proper fish handling techniques

 

 

 

 

 

According to your stance about non-natives, if you're gonna put a large limit on brookies, you're gonna have to do the same for rainbows and browns. Are you good with destroying all rainbow and brown fisheries in order to get rid of brookies? All I am saying is that the stance against ALL NON-NATIVE fish is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for.

 

On a side note, the war on brookies is eerily similar to fishermen's attitudes towards the bull trout in the 70's and 80's don't you think? Scary what negative attitudes can do for a species and fisheries. Just food for thought.

 

 

I agree. And if there is to be a liberal retention or no retention limit on brook trout, I think anglers must first pass a fish identification test otherwise there will be some collateral damage on the bulls.

[Taco]

ID tests to be able to fish for a species are flatout bullshit, poachin' tickets ain't. Do some research and see how many id tests are required down south where the bulls are in a more fragile state than here and the F&G departments are just as underfunded. All that's bein' said is that native species should be given a priority over the introduced where they interact. The emphasis has to change.

 

 

 

[Smitty]

According to your stance about non-natives, if you're gonna put a large limit on brookies, you're gonna have to do the same for rainbows and browns. Are you good with destroying all rainbow and brown fisheries in order to get rid of brookies? All I am saying is that the stance against ALL NON-NATIVE fish is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for.

 

On a side note, the war on brookies is eerily similar to fishermen's attitudes towards the bull trout in the 70's and 80's don't you think? Scary what negative attitudes can do for a species and fisheries. Just food for thought.

 

Respectfully, there is a lot of false logic here. Just because you target one non-native species doesn't mean you need to target all non-native species. Brook trout breed like rabbits, extirpate cutthroat and bull trout in streams - an example, Quirk - and generally, their stream populations are prolific and stunted. If there is a so-called slippery slope here, there is one easily mitigated by thoughtful management, regulation, and cooperation from anglers.

 

Regarding the side note, no, I do not think the attitudes are eerily similar. in fact, quite the opposite. (1) Bull trout are native, that is the major difference. Can't you see that? (2) Liberal limits, poaching, whatever factors you want to include in the pie chart of reasons for their decline, was largely done out of biased attitudes and/or ignorance. Times have changed and we've learned lots - by we've I mean the angling public in general - in terms of fish biology, the concerns of native vs non-native fish, the wider-spread adoption of C&R and other management practices. Far more anglers are aware of how important management practices are, I think. So I reject your thesis outright. Not scary or eerie, I am not going to succumb to an argument based on fear mongering.

 

My bottom line is that brook trout - particularly in streams - are here to stay. Going to be pretty difficult to get them out of the province. By the way, I like it like that! I love brook trout; in fact, after 25 years of reading regulations, just last week I have found some creeks available in the early season. Can't wait to try some new water for spring fishing! The point is that we can do a lot in terms of management to assist native populations like cutts and bulls and that includes some harvest of brook trout. Fish aren't created equal, obviously. There's a reason you are allowed more perch than either pike and walleye: spawning, recruitment, survival and overall populations dynamics aren't the same. Similarly, you can harvest far more brook trout than most other trout/char species in the province. You guys tell me (there more than a few of you with degrees in this area and just plain, knowledgeable people); in terms of flowing waters management, would we not say that brook trout are the #1 trout/char species most able to withstand liberal harvest limits? I participated in the Quirk creek project for a few years, it would seem we hardly made a dent. Year after year, people catch dozens and dozens of brookies out of Cataract creek, etc.

 

There's no reason at all to continue experimenting like we have with Quirk creek. I think SRD has done a poor job overall in enlisting the help of anglers in formulating fisheries management practices that do give some priority to native fish.

 

Smitty

[Taco]

A bit of an aside;

 

Anyone catch a cutthroat in Cataract recently? Used to quite regularly 15 yrs ago but haven't caught a single one in the last 5yrs and I've fished @ least 6-7 km upstream of the trunk rd 10 times in the 5 yrs. I think the cutts are done in Cataract

[troutsteaks]

ID tests to be able to fish for a species are flatout bullshit, poachin' tickets ain't. Do some research and see how many id tests are required down south where the bulls are in a more fragile state than here and the F&G departments are just as underfunded. All that's bein' said is that native species should be given a priority over the introduced where they interact. The emphasis has to change.

 

Why must you use profanity on a public board?

 

Regarding the side note, no, I do not think the attitudes are eerily similar. in fact, quite the opposite. (1) Bull trout are native, that is the major difference. Can't you see that? (2) Liberal limits, poaching, whatever factors you want to include in the pie chart of reasons for their decline, was largely done out of biased attitudes and/or ignorance. Times have changed and we've learned lots - by we've I mean the angling public in general - in terms of fish biology, the concerns of native vs non-native fish, the wider-spread adoption of C&R and other management practices. Far more anglers are aware of how important management practices are, I think. So I reject your thesis outright. Not scary or eerie, I am not going to succumb to an argument based on fear mongering.

 

 

Smitty

 

What I meant to convey is the old adage that bull trout should be tossed into the bushes to make way for other more sporting species. This attitude almost extinguished the bull trout in Alberta. Now this Taco guy is wanting to extinguish all brook trout along the same lines using his own opinions as a basis for slaughter. I don't want to see the brook trout go the way of the dodo in our province just because of one or two disconcerting opinion voicers on a bulletin board. I apologize if this offends anyone but that's the way I see this being portrayed on this thread.

 

[Smitty]

Why must you use profanity on a public board?

 

 

 

What I meant to convey is the old adage that bull trout should be tossed into the bushes to make way for other more sporting species. This attitude almost extinguished the bull trout in Alberta. Now this Taco guy is wanting to extinguish all brook trout along the same lines using his own opinions as a basis for slaughter. I don't want to see the brook trout go the way of the dodo in our province just because of one or two disconcerting opinion voicers on a bulletin board. I apologize if this offends anyone but that's the way I see this being portrayed on this thread.

 

Well, Taco can certainly correct me here:

 

1. Clearly you don't know Taco; he doesn't want to eliminate ALL brook trout in AB. He is particularly passionate about protecting the sliver of watersheds we have left that contain native cutthroat and bull trout, especially in flowing water.

 

2. As I've clearly explained, there is no chance - mathematically the probability is zero percent - of brook trout going "way of the dodo". Accept this as fact or not, but it needs no further clarification.

 

3. There is more than "one or two disconcerting opinion voicers". I, and more than a few others in this province, would like to see brook trout numbers at the least controlled or better, reduced (please read that also to imply "not eliminated necessarily") again, especially in habitat that historically had bountiful populations of cutt-bull-whitefish classic flowing water fisheries.

 

Smitty

P.S. And I've been fishing since the early 80's in my mid-teens. Its literally been decades since I've heard any of that "bull-trout-is-less-sporting-so-lets-kill-them" nonsense. No sense in re-visiting past attitudes that the majority of anglers have left to the confines of history...

[Taco]

and the profanity comes with the redneck *hit disturbin' attitude, ain't changin any time soon...

 

 

Thanks for that Smitty

[troutsteaks]

Wow. I find these last two comments quite brash. I guess I'll just keep my opinions and comments to myself then. Sorry to bother you gentlemen.

[Smitty]

Wasn't intending my comments to be brash or harsh. Was meaning to clarify, that's all. No need to say your sorry...you're not disturbing me either.

 

Have a good week.

 

Smitty

 

P.S. Taco, I caught a cutt near the confluence with the highwood. Nothing upstream of where the campground is.

[Taco]

The ones from confluence to the falls are probably Highwood fish, I haven't seen or heard of a cutt being caught anywhere above the Cataract falls in 5 or more years.

 

troutsteaks, don't worry about it. I'm an old flyfishin' cowboy, 'bout as subtle as train wreck at times but if I lived near the Appalachians or Nova Scotia I'd be just as passionate about preserving and restoring the native eastern brook trout.

[dryfly]

Good luck with whatever it is everyone plans to do.

 

One day, in 20 or 30 years, when whatever is left of SRD and "the department" has no "hunters and anglers bios" on staff, but just radical eco warrior bios, things could get a bit ugly. Just think about what will happen when they impose no end of radical anti fishing and anti invasives legislation. Might happen. Might not. (Just musing.)

 

See below. When the folks at National Geographic (in 2005) refer to rainbow trout and brown trout is "the worst invasives" it makes us think that maybe this is where we might be headed. Wait a few more years.

 

So let's say some sort of concerted action is taken regarding cleaning up genetics in the ES streams. Well then, should the same apply to all streams where cutts and bull trout once were king? (I am just asking, not saying.) Where would the rules stop? A universal cleanup would put a bit of a damper on the Bow River fishery if some fanatical eco bureaucrat decided the Bow needed to be purged of "the worst" invasives like rainbows and browns. Now THAT would be a bit of a dust up. Pretty unlikely, eh? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

Don't get me wrong, it is too bad we can't do more to preserve some pockets of pure cutts. And we all know that in hindsight, adding brookies (for sure) and rainbows in some places was probably not a swell idea. A strong argument could be made that rainbows and browns have a place in some waters in Alberta. We can think about what might have been of the Europeans had not brought browns and they had not brought Oncorhynchus across the rocks. But they are here.

 

One might wonder if cleaning the genetics in streams is like taking the cream out of coffee. One might wonder where limited resources should best be used for the benefit of our streams, our fisheries and the people of Alberta. (People are part of the equation. We are not alien invasives as some radicals charge.)

 

The efforts to maintain cutt purity are admirable.

 

Regards,

 

Clive

You can go to the library and get a copy of the page below. It is what some folks think about your beloved Bow River rainbow and brown trout fishery.

 

[zed]

Yeah he did, in the Canadian Flyfisher about 5 yrs ago I believe. "Further Thoughts on Catch and Release - Do some of us take it a bit too seriously?" I can't seem to find a copy online.

 

 

it's in his book "water marks"

 

[Taco]

zed,

 

Thanks for that, I knew I'd read it somewhere in the past couple of yrs.

 

 

Clive,

 

Will it go too far? Probably, it seems to part of human nature, if some is good then more will hafta be far better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[McLeod]

 

Some excellant points by Clive and Smitty. I personally think in thIs whole NON NATIVE is discussion is way OVER BLOWN .There is alot of fear mongering by some academics and special interest groups , much of it self serving. The way the glaciers are melting

and changes to the ozone who knows if trout will even be able to survive in our mountain regions in a hundred years or so. Protect those creeks that have pure strain West slopes cutties, even close them to angling ..there aren't many. Raise revenues and push for more signage and enforcement in those waters in particular . That should be the focus, do that well instead of trying to do 20 things half assed. While I get the Non native argument it is not practical and will never be cost effect.

In the big picture it is not a priority.

[PGK]

.

[PGK]

.

[PGK]

.

[Harps]

Robert,

You mistake this gov’t as on that cares about the fish. There will be no increased enforcement unless the people of Alberta demonstrate that they care about the fishery. A directed campaign in that regard will get that point across.

Fishing should not be for the elite, but it should be sustainable so that our none elite kids can fish in the future.

 

And if people don’t care about the regs and just want to catch fish then they can pay more to support the resource that they are likely abusing… and stick to those put and take lakes. The few waters in Alberta CAN NOT support that type of attitude anymore, especially with the massive increase in population (and no reflectant change in regulations).

 

 

Troutsteaks,

As to the brookies, most populations in our foothill streams are stunted from overcrowding. Not enough people keep and kill and too many miss guided people push for killing their predators (found 3 ospreys shot last year on one brookie stream that could have used them plus I’m tired of al the BS talk about otters). There needs to be a liberal limit imposed, especially on eastslope streams where their fecundity is impacting the native cutthroat and bull trout populations (yes brookies hybridize with bulls and weaken the population).

The bull trout were decimated by angling, but what nearly “extinguished them” was the inability of them to rebound due to the destruction of their habitats by logging, culverts, dams, and agriculture.

And the fact that you find Smitty’s comments “brash” confuses the heck out of me. I though it was well written and respectful, despite being the opposite opinion of yours.

 

As to Non-natives being wiped out… they won’t be. Ever. But there is no reason to let the course of extinction carry on. Westslope cutthroat trout are at risk of becoming extinct in their native range in Alberta. If people want to catch and keep fish, why not get 2 birds with one stone… keep and eat brookies and save cutties from the over populating specks.

 

Rainbows and browns won’t be targeted as they are a fishery being protected. Clive, you know that no Eco hippy biologists will ever take the province down the route of getting rid of fishing. Brookies can handle the fishing pressure, and it serves 2 purposes. In cases where rainbows and cutties exist, the genetics are mixed and you can’t get the cream outa the coffee as they say. There will be no mass killings.

 

 

And PGK, a letter is not nearly enough… but it is a start to get folks thinking.

I hope mtbrk can continue in the direction he is going!

 

[McLeod]

Got to address this.

 

Brook trout are a highly invasive non native species capabale of surviving in nearly any waterbody. Throughtout their Albertan range, they have been shown to drastically reduce the spawning effectiveness and juvenile survival of Bull Trout. They impact other species but not nearly as badly as brook trout. This isn't one or two malcontents hating on Brook Trout. I love them and think they're an amazingly adaptable fish. But they don't belong in conjunction with Bull Trout. Whether or not you think they should be is irrelevent (sorry, but it is). It is in the best interest of the native fish of Alberta to remove as many Brook Trout populations as possible. Arctic Grayling have been virtually extirpated from the Pembina & Lovett Rivers as a result of Brook Trout invasion, Athabasca Rainbow populations have been driven out of many of their small freestone streams, Bull Trout populations from Hinton to the American border have suffered and declined as a result. These aren't small impacts nor are they made up. This has been happening since the 60s. I can tell you what a naturally functioning bull trout ecosystem looks like and I can tell you for certain that 30-50 adult bull trout per pool in many of these rivers was the norm before brook trout came along.

 

Whether or not you're willing to listen and change your opinion is another matter.

 

You make some valid points..In terms of Athabasca Rainbow and Bull trout in The Athabasca Sysyem it was over harvest poaching ect that cause the problems long before the Brook trout showed up.That being said I can agree with your point about that they don't belong with bull trout and are effecting their recovery along with poaching. My question what do we do about ?

 

 

[McLeod]

Robert,

You mistake this gov’t as on that cares about the fish. There will be no increased enforcement unless the people of Alberta demonstrate that they care about the fishery. A directed campaign in that regard will get that point across.

Fishing should not be for the elite, but it should be sustainable so that our none elite kids can fish in the future.

 

And if people don’t care about the regs and just want to catch fish then they can pay more to support the resource that they are likely abusing… and stick to those put and take lakes. The few waters in Alberta CAN NOT support that type of attitude anymore, especially with the massive increase in population (and no reflectant change in regulations).

 

 

Troutsteaks,

As to the brookies, most populations in our foothill streams are stunted from overcrowding. Not enough people keep and kill and too many miss guided people push for killing their predators (found 3 ospreys shot last year on one brookie stream that could have used them plus I’m tired of al the BS talk about otters). There needs to be a liberal limit imposed, especially on eastslope streams where their fecundity is impacting the native cutthroat and bull trout populations (yes brookies hybridize with bulls and weaken the population).

The bull trout were decimated by angling, but what nearly “extinguished them” was the inability of them to rebound due to the destruction of their habitats by logging, culverts, dams, and agriculture.

And the fact that you find Smitty’s comments “brash” confuses the heck out of me. I though it was well written and respectful, despite being the opposite opinion of yours.

 

As to Non-natives being wiped out… they won’t be. Ever. But there is no reason to let the course of extinction carry on. Westslope cutthroat trout are at risk of becoming extinct in their native range in Alberta. If people want to catch and keep fish, why not get 2 birds with one stone… keep and eat brookies and save cutties from the over populating specks.

 

Rainbows and browns won’t be targeted as they are a fishery being protected. Clive, you know that no Eco hippy biologists will ever take the province down the route of getting rid of fishing. Brookies can handle the fishing pressure, and it serves 2 purposes. In cases where rainbows and cutties exist, the genetics are mixed and you can’t get the cream outa the coffee as they say. There will be no mass killings.

 

 

And PGK, a letter is not nearly enough… but it is a start to get folks thinking.

I hope mtbrk can continue in the direction he is going!

 

Again some very valid poiints..But what streams are you talking about ?..Lets Identify them.

Come up with some specifics and then you can target that stream with your biologist.

[PGK]

.

[McLeod]

Alright, let's talk about Tri-creeks. Considering you said you were involved with fish mgmt in the past, the name must mean something to you. Certainly wasn't poaching and overharvest in that area. It was Brook Trout and coal mining.

 

Or let's talk about the Muskeg. Lower end is infested with Brook Trout and the upper isn't. Guess which end supports a fantastic population of Bull Trout (probably the healthiest in the province)?

 

Or let's talk about the dozen small creeks I've sampled in the AthaB watershed where harvest pressure has never been an impact but all you can sample there is sexually mature, 150mm, 2 year old, stunted brook trout, no Athabows and no BLTR?

 

The point is that there's nothing we can do about those systems. They are permanently impacted. There is no full recovery option for those species. The least we can do as anglers is kill as many Brook Trout as possible.

 

I did surveys on Tri Creeks Brookies were not and issue but Mercoal was full of them.

Yes kill them and eat them ..give them to the neighbor..Don't throw them in the bush.. I can support that and it's a good idea. What are cons..Hopefully no bull trout get wacked..

The way to get this accomplished in pich a stream or streams in an area. Contact the regional Biologist. Discuss the idea with him or her..and ask what it will take to get the this done.

 

There are a lot of guys here not big fans of the AFGA..however the have alot of influence..especially at roundtables..Maybe push Trout unlimited harder into your plan in action..Come up with a specific plan and push it through the right channels. A letter to the minster won't do alot..

 

 

[troutsteaks]

Got to address this.

 

Brook trout are a highly invasive non native species capabale of surviving in nearly any waterbody. Throughtout their Albertan range, they have been shown to drastically reduce the spawning effectiveness and juvenile survival of Bull Trout. They impact other species but not nearly as badly as brook trout. This isn't one or two malcontents hating on Brook Trout. I love them and think they're an amazingly adaptable fish. But they don't belong in conjunction with Bull Trout. Whether or not you think they should be is irrelevent (sorry, but it is). It is in the best interest of the native fish of Alberta to remove as many Brook Trout populations as possible. Arctic Grayling have been virtually extirpated from the Pembina & Lovett Rivers as a result of Brook Trout invasion, Athabasca Rainbow populations have been driven out of many of their small freestone streams, Bull Trout populations from Hinton to the American border have suffered and declined as a result. These aren't small impacts nor are they made up. This has been happening since the 60s. I can tell you what a naturally functioning bull trout ecosystem looks like and I can tell you for certain that 30-50 adult bull trout per pool in many of these rivers was the norm before brook trout came along.

 

Whether or not you're willing to listen and change your opinion is another matter.

 

I understand this. What it is that I am trying to convey is that rainbow trout are destroying the genetics far worse in our streams compared to the so-called evil fish, the brook trout. Why is it that no one is putting out the recommendation of massive bag limits for rainbows in our mountain streams as opposed to ONLY brook trout? Here' s a quick test to see which species has had more of an impact: in the last 5 years, how many "cuttbows" has everyone caught as opposed to the "brookbulls"? Just curious; and Taco, maybe you should change your signature to include rainbows if you feel that passionately about your headwater streams.

 

To harps; I found Smitty's comments brash as he "rejected my thesis outright" on the basis that I was pandering "fear-mongering". Read back and you will see that that was the exact opposite that I was trying to convey. All I was trying to get across is that any opinion, whether in favor of natives, non-natives, environmentalist, etc., has to take in all perspectives and not just lay their convictions on a one-way street. If one is adamant about ridding brook trout because they cause overcrowding and genetic dilution, then they best be prepared to go the same route with the rainbow. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[McLeod]

I hate to start this BS again, but exactly how is it self serving to want to protect native species by removing harmful ones? What academics and 'special interest groups' are you afraid of exactly? Or is this just rhetoric you're throwing out there again? What's your agenda? You are repeatedly on record as being in favour of non native species introductions, a management technique which has consistently throughout time been proven to have drastic negative effects on the environment. What's your agenda? Nevermind, I don't want to know. It'll probably give me a stroke. PM me if you have a legitimate reply, I don't want to derail this any further. This is the farthest I've seen any discussion about regulation reform go in AB in a long time.

Read the studies..Most work to reduce non natives is more about restoring Zooplankton. Not Rhetoric. Never have I said introduce Non Natives where natives exsist. I live in the world of reality , budgets , manpower ,practical ideas that will be excepted by the public. There are always lots of ideas by people about the ways thing should be such as regulation reform ..that's an individuals right to have an opinion but to actually do the work have the that regulation accepted and implemented is a whole other ball game. No agenda ..just reality... Spending Hundreds of thousands of dollars to have brook trout removed from some isolated lakes to protect Zooplankton when that money could be have used for enforcement to protect native cuts and Bulls ..That kinda stuff does piss me off...

Thankfully that tap has been closed....