bhurt Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 I voted for absoultly not only because I have not see any data from BOW in the areas that are mentioned to say anything diffrent. If the data was there to prove that harm is beeing done on those streches then I would make a diffrent opion but till then I would have to say no. On a side note with all the guide boats and people that own their own boats that float everyday all spring and summer would this not also cause damage to the trout? The pressuser on the trout during our hottest days have to effect them, so how come this point isn't brought up also. If concern about mortality of the trout all times during the whole year needs to be looked at, I would guess that there are more dead trout during the hottest days of the year when the traffic is much higher then it is during oct to dec.
Guest 420FLYFISHIN Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 I would change my mind if there were more bulls/cutts spawning in those water but they do not and we put the browns and bows there for our enjoyment and nothing else. 1
maxwell Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 I think it's pretty hard to deny that closing the river would help increase populations this toe of attitude don't fix it until its f**ked is the really why lots of populations can collapse I think anyone in the right mind can't argue that the fishing wouldn't get better if this type of closure was to happen. it would definitely increase the odds of egg survival resulting in more fry so more browns and fatter rainbows... how is that a bad thing. fishing pressure over the last 10 years is way higher than what it was so its safe to assume that the odds of damaged eggs and pestered browns are on the up and up and from my experience the brown trout fishing in some ways seems to be dropping stable if I where optimistic so why not try to make it better? there's tons of water to fish 22x-carseland in October and in November and December how many possible fishing days are there actually weather and slush depending maybe a few maybe a few dozen all depends on how our winter shapes up. I think this is a great idea. yes I would sacrifice my favourite fall rainbow runs and halfto drive a walk a little but rather than stumble to my "classic" "childhood" spots that I enjoy fishing while the guide season winds down but that's totally fine. I've already lost the city section and hammering fish below the weirs and I don't really miss it because I know it was for the better of the fishery I don't think any science was done then just observation the fishing key spawning areas and places where pre spawn era stack (weir, fish ladder) are places that need to be protected... 2
bcubed Posted November 23, 2012 Author Posted November 23, 2012 I think it's pretty hard to deny that closing the river would help increase populations this toe of attitude don't fix it until its f**ked is the really why lots of populations can collapse I think anyone in the right mind can't argue that the fishing wouldn't get better if this type of closure was to happen. Bingo. The attitude of show the science that something is being negatively effected, rather then looking for ways to mitigate before anything does happen is getting tiring. Look how well that worked out for west coast salmon/steelhead runs 1
DaveJensen Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 The TROUBLE with having the attitude of let's close it to make it better or to to improve it because it's common sense or my opinion is right vs waiting for the science to show what is happening, when, why, where in a case where the population is shown & known to be healthy and the management objectives are being met, is that if you close it without due cause, without satisfying a clause in the FMP, etc, then you are leaving yourself wiiiiide open to... well, really, there are about 5 weeks of the year on the Bow that the fish are in enough of a variable free state to actually fish for them without harming them. And even at that, PETA would likely eat up that 5 weeks pretty quick. You need to have a standard, which is what the gov has in its varying guiding principles and procedures and allocations, regs, Fisheries Management Advisory Committees (I'm involved int he one of the Red Deer R right now), Round Tables, etc. Fisheries Mgt Plans (local or regional, or water specific like the RDR, Pigeon L, etc) come of these things and reflect things like spawning, rearing, etc, etc and do the best mgt to satisfy the management goals & objectives. If the mgt goals & objectives are met - again - is there a problem? Then re-open the FMP and address it. But, when things are good, relatively healthy, etc, you don't just close everything because it is "common sense and reasonable". You do the process of science and allow the river to speak to you. If the population was showing a rapid decrease (ie - whirling disease) that's one thing that would have to be addressed. But when you have a relatively healthy population that has its cycles and responses to its environment, you have to listen to what it's saying and not simply imposing artificial, superfluous management without considering the ramifications of doing so. You have to understand the line of thinking that goes into this kind of management before you jump. And you have to consider the ramifications of the action. There are always spin-off consequences. Just consider this: what is the ramification of closing the water to 22X? Do you want to see the line up of anglers below 22X if you close 1/2 the available water all winter? What do you think the C&R mortality #s would be of the trout from 22X to Policemans? Based on a consistent mortality rate but double the angler use in a smaller area... a few more of your fish die in a concentrated reach. You have to consider the spin-off impacts. And that would definintely be one. All those people fishing the city to 22x would be crammed into the section from just below Policemans to 22X. Think you've had run-ins before? Now you're also talking angler satisfaction of their angling experience, which is also part of the FMP. That's real. And, if people hate the mgrs for the closure, how much do you want to be the bio heading up the public mtgs? These guys take enough BS from the public as it is. I can't keep going over the same ground here and I encourage Max & BCube to re-read what I typed because process is very important. <edit - had to come back to add that while it appears I'm belaboring a point re: a specific item, my point is discussion about process based on protocol, policy, and procedure as it applies to a specific item, in hopes that a bigger picture view of some of this stuff can be appreciated as our fisheries folks have to deal with this every day in what they do - which is why we could show a little more appreciation on these forums and at mtgs when held> 2
ironfly Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 let's close it to make it better or to to improve it because it's common sense or my opinion is right "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"- Albert Einstein
bowbonehead Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Perhaps we should look at closing the river a mile up and down stream of the Highwood in the spring for the staging Rainbows
DonA Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Without the effort to measure the ebb and flow of brown trout using this area ( something that has a ZERO chance of happening with today's SRD funding) caution should be excercised. Even if that means closing a small stretch of the Bow - so be it. The loss of brown trout within the system make take years to be seen.. Liklely nobody will take the effort to walk and record the number of brown trout redds and even if they do the work, then the real work comes of convincing your fellow anglers and the Govt. of the need for action. Regards, Don
DaveJensen Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Because nobody is willing to step up for something, we should close it? That's exactly the problem. It's a defacto answer. And we can't even grasp the ramifications on tomorrow by doing it that way. I've held off on this part, but, let's go with the idea of closing the Bow down to 22X for spawning protection. Let's look at the science of what is being asked and the ramifications of what's being asked. Where do you draw the line? Just because trout have spawned, is that enough? No. Not even close. Fry emergence can happen Feb - March, into April. Eggs can and do get trampled at any time. Just because they are most susceptible the first couple of days post spawn doesn't mean that they become a magical, bulletproof shell after that and are quite susceptible just pre-emergence. I can guarantee you that if you open this up, someone or many people (likely me if nobody else) will introduce the science that the entire reach down to 22X should be closed through fry emergence... April 1... just like it is all through central Alberta. If you are closing it for spawning, then complete the puzzle of reproduction. Further, spawning browns remain at their lowest energy reserves all winter with little energy gain - it's winter, and it's no stretch to suggest they are most susceptible to succumbing when at their lowest energy levels (to disease, infection, hooking mortality/exhaustion, etc) and even c&r shouldn't be practised until energy levels are back up. There is a very strong argument to close fishing to protect the post spawn adult fish until the ecosystem gains energy sometime in April or May. Ultimately, you're asking to close your winter and spring fishing without any scientific proof that there is a need, in a river that has a generally healthy brown trout population, where the FMP & closure regs account for the highest area of spawning already, forcing everyone to fish from 22x to where things freeze up many years just below Policemans. Careful what you ask for. You might get it. ( PS - aren't there rainbows known to spawn in-river just a little down from there? Why distinguish between species? And now your river is closed through June) 1
Jayhad Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Dave, you know much more about the processes involved in managing fisheries than i do, so I'm asking for knowledge not an arguement. When we first started this discussion i thought that the Bow could easily follow the regulations set forth on the Bear's Paw to WHD section. Why is that section only closed for two month blocks during the spawn?
SKIDBITCH Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 yes and Police to Mac from March 15 to June1. 1
DaveJensen Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 And this is where the Fisheries Mgt Plan comes into effect. Someone in gov, TU, or on that advisory committee will have that, and the reasoning for all will be in that document. There could be a whole host of reasons - I don't know them. And that's why I was pushing so hard for the past 10 yrs to get the FMP revisited on the RDR as it was last done in 1994 and many things have changed since. Even in the same river, 20 years will make a huge difference in populations - walleye have done very well while pike, whites, etc have not. Time to address that and our interaction with them. The whole point is to understand process and look at the ramifications and why something is <needed vs wanted vs necessity> as it comes to fish, fisheries, people management. I don't know it all and am likely wrong in a couple of points when compared to the specific Bow R FMP, but the point is that the regs are in place right now for a reason, and that reason has come out of process, and process comes from science/biology/land use/ecology with consideration to the fishery and our use of it. Again, without us, the fish would do very well on their own. Cheers 1
BBBrownie Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Is spawning/hardening/emergence even limiting to brown tout in the bow river? This is a question that would need to be addressed. As the primary spawning habitat is already protected, unless we are seeing low recruitment, further spawning/hardening/emergence period protection may not necessarily correlate with an increased population of adult fish. If building a management experiment out of the scenario and trying it out for say 10 years to see if a correlation can be made between actual increases in mature adult trout and increased protection during spawn/hardening then this may be the right move. It would be interesting to see the data, although very difficult to attribute directly to the protection (as there can be so many other factors influencing during the short timeline). The problem is that even if it made no difference at all in actual catchable fish numbers, it would be difficult to convince managers to re-open the section. It is also unlikely that a monitoring program with any sort of rigor would be funded so we would probably never know whether it was successful. A concern I would have (as an earlier poster mentioned), is that increased effort would be directed downstream of the closed section during a time when the post spawn fish are stressed. I have a feeling that capture mortality is more limiting on Bow browns than spawning/hardening/recruitment success are. 1
DonA Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Gotta agree with a lot of folks here. The real question is what to do? Wait it the place is nearly screwed ( 95% of cuts are gone and then something is proposed but nothing in on the ground yet ) or react. catch ya' Don
Jimbo Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 This was all discussed when the regulations were reviewed about 10 years ago. I was on the review committee, which was led by Trevor Rhodes, and he had some very good scientific data that led to the regulations we have today. If Trevor is around, maybe he could weigh in and provide us with some of that scientific information. I think regulation changes must be based on science, rather than on a fisherman's opinion (as well intended as it might be) that the fish "probably need a break from anglers." If that's the case, maybe we should close the river during the summer, when the angling pressure is at its highest and the fish are most vulnerable to anglers. I'm being facetious here, of course, but it is wise to be careful what you wish for. Don't mean to self-promote, but there's an essay on this kind of stuff in my Water Marks book. Jim McLennan 4
troutlover Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 Perhaps we should look at closing the river a mile up and down stream of the Highwood in the spring for the staging Rainbows This has actually been studied and the science proved that there was no need for a closure
Bowcane Posted December 4, 2012 Posted December 4, 2012 And the reason for doing this closing would be what? I assume people think that doing this will have the Bow brimming with Browns from bank to bank. Quite likely the limiting factor(s) in Brown trout numbers are 1) anchor and frazzle ice freezing eggs in the winter 2) low flows in the winter again freezing eggs in the redds 3)high flows during incubation scouring eggs out of the redds 4) run-off sweeping fry away from sheltered back waters and 5)fry predation. Theres likely more but point is spawning and nursery habit are the limiting factors in trout production on every stream, river, lake or pond on this planet. Now someone is going to say that if guys were not trampling redds there would be more more fish because there would be better egg survival. If that were so, take a river that has little wading on it, say the Red Deer...we all know how many browns are in the Red Deer, not exactly polluted with them is it. Why...poor egg and fry survival, because the trout there are limited to spawning in the main river. If the tribs were of any use there would be far more trout in it. So rather than waste time and effort on basically a plan that would limit peoples fishing oppertunities, focus on improving the spawning and fry conditions in the trib waters such as Fish creek, Nose creek and the Elbow. When I lived in Ontario we (TU, various Clubs, even the OMNR) wasted piles of time, effort and money trying to improve spawning for Browns and Steelhead with rather poor results. We then relized we were spending our efforts in the wrong area, then when we focused on trib spawning we had fantastic results (summer temps were an issue main stream but my point made). There is no scientific evidence to support this closure so I say...NO. 3
Guest 420FLYFISHIN Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 i would love to see most of nose creek get a bed of fine gravel poured up and down for better spawning as it is mostly a mud creek at the best of times, but i dont think it would be a good idea to change what has been made by time and weather into something so suit our wants. Out on the FTR they did some work on small creeks to improve the spawning grounds for brook trout, im wondering how this work out and if the # increased (not that they needed to for brookies lol). Can changes like this be made in FC or NC? 1
Hawgstoppah Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 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. At least we can agree on something. I've also been advocating this for years, and have personally restricted my fishing to 22X and down from Oct1 and on thru to january...
BillyGopher Posted December 8, 2012 Posted December 8, 2012 At least we can agree on something. I've also been advocating this for years, and have personally restricted my fishing to 22X and down from Oct1 and on thru to january... still missing the point. eggs can get trampled any time until fry emergence through april and post spawn adults are at lowest energy levels until early may. closure to jan makes no scientific sense. close until may 1 makes sense.
dutchie Posted December 9, 2012 Posted December 9, 2012 i think best to just leave it alone , i do think some fisherman target them browns when they move up into the city to spawn ,
BBBrownie Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 Theres likely more but point is spawning and nursery habit are the limiting factors in trout production on every stream, river, lake or pond on this planet. Not trying to discount your post BowCane, but frankly the above statement is not true at all. -BC is a good example- there are many streams in BC that have an abundance of spawning gravel avialable, but are limited in available nutrients for various reasons, including gradient, substrate, precipitation/climate, source, etc. In these systems you may have km's of underutilized spawning gravel, but you don't have enough food to support a population large enough to exploit the avaialble habitat. In coastal cases, native trout have adapted in a way that circumvents this nutrient issue by migrating to the salt (steelhead, sea run cutts). Where barriers to migration exist, migration is not possible. Unfortunately, in many of these systems we have gone in and modified this spawning rich, nutrient poor cycle by logging until we are spawning/rearing/nutrient poor and populations begin to crash. -Another example could be where you may have plenty of spawning habitat, but temperature spikes result in fish kills to adults. Another could be lack of overwintering... My point is that while spawning and rearing habitat are obviously essential to the life history of trout, there may be other more immediate factors that do not allow the mature spawning population to fully expoit all avialable spawning habitat. I suspect that in the case of the Bow river other limiting factors apply (as you've mentioned Bow Cane).
Recommended Posts