bcubed Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 With the increasing number of anglers in our city, as well as this last fall being one of the warmer ones (well, till now), I am curious about everyones response to this simple question. This has been talked about at previous Fisheries Round Tables, however before I go looking to knock on any doors regarding it, i'd like to see what the general fly fishing public would think Rather than 'taint' this topic title, I will put my take on it below. If you vote, Please advise what you picked and why!
bcubed Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 This year in particular it sure seemed that there were more anglers than ever fishing well into October, and knowingly or otherwise affecting brown trout that were getting ready to, on spawning beds or during a spawning event. Yes, there are spawning brown trout within the open portion, quite a lot. I also believe that the browns within the city deserve a break for at least a few months of the year, especially after the hardships that occur during spawning. And really, do you really want to go fish for the skinny post-spawn slugs? With closing the river at 22x upstream, this would leave a very large portion of the river open to access, and still allowing plenty of access for anglers who want to pursue fish well into the winter
Gil Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I'd be fine having it closed during the spawn however I'd like it opened in Dec. I enjoy winter fishing a lot.....Id also be willing to sit out the rainbow spawn.
jasonvilly Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Why only protect brown trout? Would it not be better to protect all species? I'm sure the bows and whites could equally use the rest from all the anglers. If a new change were going to happen, I think SRD would probably look to create continuity, ie: they would most likely adopt the NW regulations. Closed Oct 1 - Nov 30 AND Apr 1 - may 31 2
bcubed Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 Why only protect brown trout? Would it not be better to protect all species? I'm sure the bows and whites could equally use the rest from all the anglers. If a new change were going to happen, I think SRD would probably look to create continuity, ie: they would most likely adopt the NW regulations. Closed Oct 1 - Nov 30 AND Apr 1 - may 31 The number of rainbows that spawn within the section that is open year round is almost nil according to a few of the biologists that have worked on the Bow. Most go up the highwood/fish creek and a few up the elbow 1
hydroman Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I am on aboard with BiggyJ's suggestion of extending the NW regulations to 22x.
maxwell Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I would be into it for sure I love to fish the rainbows hard inner city in October November but get frustrated talking and arguing with people wading the wrong water I know most people don't fish the brown but do u knowingly walk through reddy that get covered once the fish move off em and can't ID them once they start toget growth on them again
agbff Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I'm down with BiggyJ's idea... although, I think a lot of the problem could be fixed through education while obtaining a license.
reevesr1 Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I would support it, with the caveat being I'd like to see some study on whether the increase in angler population is actually impacting brown mortality. Just because there is an increase in brown mortality this year from whatever that fungus is called does not mean angler activity has anything to do with it. Angler activity has been on the increase for years , and from circumstantial evidence, this year is a step change in number of fish affected by fungus. The two are not necessarily related. The brown trout fishing has been excellent for the past several years even with the increase in number of anglers. (And as an aside, I biked the river from downtown to Chaparral several times a week into mid-october. Most days, I would not see an angler in the evenings until I got to Southland). All that said, I have no trouble with the idea of a closure for the spawn in a general sense, but I would like something more concrete than "I think the anglers are affecting the browns...." 1
DonA Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 Folks, This article points out very clearly that brown trout eggs cannot be disturbed for <>48 houses after fertilization. The article also says hatching happens in two weeks. That is very quick and would be a lot slower in Alberta's water temps. Don http://www.ustfa.org/Trout%20production/Trout%20Egg%20Development%20-%20Mo%20Dept%20of%20Cons.pdf
bcubed Posted November 19, 2012 Author Posted November 19, 2012 Rick, this post wasn't a reaction to the increase in fungus, I've been advocating closing the city for years, as I got sick of watching anglers fishing for paired up trout on redds, as well as wading through. The fungus issue this year just seems to be another notch on why we should close it.
jasonvilly Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 I'm down with BiggyJ's idea... although, I think a lot of the problem could be fixed through education while obtaining a license. A change in regulation would definitely prevent redds from being disturbed but I think Flyon hit the true nail on the head. Education is far superior to a general closure, and would help all waterbodies. I would like to see something similiar to the online hunter safety program. You must complete the online Angling education program before you are able to purchase a license. It would be good for 5-10 years (allowing for updates), and could potentially stop a lot of the things that we complain about on this board. Could cover tons of topics: identification, handling, etiquette, spawning habits, regulations, water safety, invasives, RAP just to name a few. This could also be an extra revenue stream for SRD for our already cash strapped conservation officers and biologists. 2
reevesr1 Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 My concern with this is that is sounds we would be advocating a closure based on moral grounds as opposed to fisheries management grounds. From what I've experienced (and I could be wrong), there has been no evidence of declining brown trout populations in the past several years has there? If not, then we are advocating closure based on moral grounds. That's perfectly fine, but opens up a big can in my eyes. There are lots of folks who want fishing closed period, based exclusively on moral grounds. This could be perceived as us helping drive the nails in..... 3
Jayhad Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 A change in regulation would definitely prevent redds from being disturbed but I think Flyon hit the true nail on the head. Education is far superior to a general closure, and would help all waterbodies. I would like to see something similiar to the online hunter safety program. You must complete the online Angling education program before you are able to purchase a license. It would be good for 5-10 years (allowing for updates), and could potentially stop a lot of the things that we complain about on this board. Could cover tons of topics: identification, handling, etiquette, spawning habits, regulations, water safety, invasives, RAP just to name a few. This could also be an extra revenue stream for SRD for our already cash strapped conservation officers and biologists. Am education system should never happen it is too exclusive of the resource, too costly for the average user and once again is an example of trying to legislate against idiots. Where is the extra revenue stream going to come from? It won't be coming from the cost of running the program..... have you ever witnessed a government run program that stays under let alone with in budget? This suggestion also doesn't address the fact that we have a world class fishery in Calgary that allows bait and fishing during spawning. A closure is the most efficent, cost effective way to stop people from fishing the Bow during the spawn. 1
ironfly Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 ... an example of trying to legislate against idiots. That's pretty much what laws are for. It's a proud tradition that goes back thousands of years. 2
DaveJensen Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 In this I not coming at anyone or putting down the idea, just laying out the hard questions that would have to be answered: Where's the science? I'm talking hard proof that redds are being disturbed; that the population of browns is deteriorating, dwindling, or population dynamics are shifting as a DIRECT result of WHAT determined, provable activity? The KEY here is - what are the management objectives for the river? Are they being met? If so, then either the mgt objectives need be changed to _____ or - is there a problem? Does science support the notion that having the river open must be bad for the fish population? Common sense is one thing, heresay another, but opinion is absolute? If we are to have the decent fisheries that we do have in this province, science must prevade. In order to see regulations change you need biological data to support it (science); political will (means the regs make it through all levels of gov review); and public support through a complete cross section of the users. And after all that you have to look at the ramifications: if you close that reach for _____ reasons, be careful of someone else 10 years from now using that as a benchmark to close the river for a different, yet tangibly associable reason that might not be thought of in today's world. It could bite you the wrong way from an unseen source. Base it on science and not "a good idea" or an opinion, and those issues don't creep in. All the above why I was such a mouthpiece in the mtg re: guide licensing several years back. If it takes 3 components to change regulations, in that case, there was a light smattering of public support both pro & against, zero biological data to support it, and luke warm political support. Not saying I'm proud to have been a mouthpiece in that mtg and likely didn't make too many friends, but process is process for a reason. It needs to be respected otherwise our fisheries will degenerate into good ideas, heresay, and opinions. Cheers 6
FraserN Posted November 19, 2012 Posted November 19, 2012 The Browns use several sections of the river in these stretches for spawning purposes. I have noticed many redds in the Fish creek area in October over the years, and I have probably accidentally walked on some of them a few times, when tired from wading or distracted daydreaming after a long days fishing. This cannot happen on some key spawning redds (about a dozen or so) I observe and keep track of the Browns activity every year on an ideal spawning stretch in Bowness, precisely because the river is closed in October and November here. Also, the trout above 22X receive just this unbelievable amount of fishing pressure and both the browns and Rainbows need a good, long break to recover and replenish their bodily energy reserves in preparation for the upcoming winter.
bitemyfly Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 I am against it, and although im not out as often in the fall , I live a few blocks off the river in fish creek and it would suck not to be able to fish it
Guest 420FLYFISHIN Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 I think keeping this section of the river open keeps a good chunck of the would be poachers here in Calgary. People get board and if they are too ignorant to know what waters are open anf what is closed having a year round recreation source is better than non. Not to mention this is not a native species and to my koledge is still doing very well as far as population # are concerned. If anything i would rather see it all go C&R full year. and what about the guides who are concirned about their yearly income (laugh)? will this take out of their pockets making then able to claim EI duing this time?
gentlemang Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 I voted other. As many have mentioned, if there was scientific evidence that it would help the population, I am all for it. If there would not be effect on fish population either way then I would say leave it open.
Guest 420FLYFISHIN Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 yep, if it isnt broken dont fix it. With out scientific backing on populations its sort of pointless.
grannyknot Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Absolutely not! I generally only fish the bow in the winter, once the crowds have dwindled. I could support a closure during the spawn if the science backed it up, but I love those chinook days when I can bust out the fly rod and leave the auger at home.
bcubed Posted November 22, 2012 Author Posted November 22, 2012 The science is proven. "–The effects of angler wading on trout eggs and pre-emergent fry in artificial redds depended on wading frequency and stage of egg or fry development and was similar for brown trout Salmo trutta, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, and cutthroat trout O. clarki. Twice-daily wading throughout development killed up to 96% of eggs and pre-emergent fry. A single wading just before hatching killed up to 43%. Wading killed fewest eggs between fertilization and the start of chorion softening (except for a short period during blastopore closure when mortality increased slightly). It killed the most eggs or fry from the time of chorion softening to the start of emergence from the gravel. Restriction of wading could be an effective management tool if trout spawning habitat is limiting and angler use is high during egg development." Effects of Angler Wading on Survival of Trout Eggs and Pre-emergent Fry Bruce C. Roberts, Robert G. White. North American Journal of Fisheries Management Vol. 12, Iss. 3, 1992 Why is that the Lower Bow is currently exempt from the typical rules that are being followed for pretty well all other fisheries (aka, no fishing during spawning time). The vast majority of other fisheries are protected in areas and times of spawning, why shouldn't the Bow be? 2
DaveJensen Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 No question that the science is there re: a whole host of factors. The science has to be proven for that water and proven to be having a negative impact on that fishery that contradicts the Mgt Plan. IE - Just because science shows growth potential of brown trout is amazing, it doesn't mean that the same strain of browns in Alberta are going to grow the same as the same strain of browns planted in New Zealand, for example. There are differing variables and managed differently - Management in varies areas is different and has to take into account local factors and look at the whole, bigger picture. That bigger picture is the present Bow R Fisheries Mgt Plan. If the mgt plan's objectives are being met - then is there a problem? If there is a problem that the mgt plan's objectives aren't addressing, then it needs to be updated and action taken. But, before all that, you have to have data that shows the population status today, compared to yesterday and every year for the past 20 years. Sampling every 5 years means nothing because a population can go anywhere on a chart in between data sets of 5 year intervals - any good bio will tell you that. And even at that, just because some eggs get trampled where the redds are reachable by waders (not all are by any means - not even close) if the population is dwindling, is it because of that or is there another reason? What if you get so hepped up on one factor you are convinced is the culprit when a chemical leak was to blame and you simply missed the boat for the focus on one variable? Worse would be if the population was expanding despite the egg trampling, those who want a closure - what would that do? After considering all the above - you have to look at the local redd trampling issue on its own and determine- what % of the redds & the immediate area downstream likely to be trampled? Are they spawning along riprap and deeper gravel that is likely unwadeable? What %? And if even 20% (likely nowhere near that high) of the redds get trampled, what % of the eggs are destroyed - how often are the redds getting trampled? Who did theat survey? How many years in a row? And what is an acceptable # of undisturbed redds to sustain the population that is deemed acceptable by the Fisheries Mgt Plan for the Bow? There is a variance of population that is acceptable under the Plan, I'm sure (say 3-600 browns over 20cm /km - I'm just picking a #). But even at that we (fly fisher types) all have to acknowledge that we want as much size as numbers. But if at the end of the day you want lots of browns you might be disapointed at the result of the Mgt Plan that says it is based on an acceptable range of bigger fish (read - fewer but larger). And I'm just getting started on the inter-connectedness of questions, variables, seasonal/annual/cyclical variances of poulation, environmental influences, etc that go into this. ***Remember that the highest area of spawning has been identified and that reach is closed. Yes, there are other areas of spawning, but the prime area is 'protected'. The current FMP likely relies on that protected area to satisfy the FMP objectives. Through this, I'm quietly saying to myself, nothing would be better for the Bow and several other waters to have true science occur - annual sampling for the past 20 years and into the future with an annual report of what happened in the watershed each year that could (in hindsight review) point to future species population dynamics. Anyone holding their breath that'll happen on any river anytime soon? There's a lot of bios that would line up for that kind of $ commitment on their waters. Back to my main point, while it would be common sense to close a reach for spawning, and I'm not arguing against it, the process has to be followed, the science has to be there, and process must be followed - and all applied to the local water in question. And at the end of the day, you have to ask if the parameters by which the change happens (should that come to pass), can that benchmark become an unforeseen future action items justification for, say, banning fishing through the entire river in the city, or closing the river to fishing for all but 2 months of the year? Cheers 1
Guest 420FLYFISHIN Posted November 22, 2012 Posted November 22, 2012 Bcude- i think it is the education that needs the change, not the fishing season. fishing from shore and choosing the right place to cross will do more than just closing down the waters. Besides if non of us are out there fishing who will call in the poachers? j/k During the closed parts of the year im sure i could go in and hit the highwood with out getting pinched as there is way fewer eyes open. and i feel that you need a sacraficial water shed, just like sibbald pond is a meat market and Mclain is a trash pile. It is mush easier to allow a playground year round than to police it during the clossed parts.
Recommended Posts