Cutty Crisis

[danhunt]

I would generally agree that the streams in ES1 should have been closed to fishing earlier this summer due to the drought conditions we've seen this summer. The last time I was down that way was the first week in July and I decided then that I wouldn't be going back until there was a significant change in the weather. That said, I don't see the logic of wanting to further restrict the angling season in a non-drought year. Even on a stream like the Livingston that sees a ton of fishing pressure (and the fish have the scars to prove it) in an average year the fish always seem to be right around the same size and in the same numbers that they were the year before. It's not been specifically stated (or if it has I've missed it) what streams are at risk of loosing their cuttie populations, but if they are the streams listed in the report posted by Burningchrome then I would have to question how much on an impact fishing pressure is really going to have. Maybe I'm missing some hidden gems, but from the information I've seen in other reports the mean fork length for most of the fish in those streams is likely to be in the 6" - 8" range. I'm not dismissing them, I know their genetics are important and they are capable of more given the right circumstances, I'm just saying I don't really know anyone that would make a point of targeting those streams on a regular basis.

[bcubed]

I'd highly agree dan, and not only that, most of them are fairly unsuitable to fishing as they are heavily overgrown and rarely more then a couple meters (if that) wide.

[BurningChrome]

I would generally agree that the streams in ES1 should have been closed to fishing earlier this summer due to the drought conditions we've seen this summer. The last time I was down that way was the first week in July and I decided then that I wouldn't be going back until there was a significant change in the weather. That said, I don't see the logic of wanting to further restrict the angling season in a non-drought year. Even on a stream like the Livingston that sees a ton of fishing pressure (and the fish have the scars to prove it) in an average year the fish always seem to be right around the same size and in the same numbers that they were the year before. It's not been specifically stated (or if it has I've missed it) what streams are at risk of loosing their cuttie populations, but if they are the streams listed in the report posted by Burningchrome then I would have to question how much on an impact fishing pressure is really going to have. Maybe I'm missing some hidden gems, but from the information I've seen in other reports the mean fork length for most of the fish in those streams is likely to be in the 6" - 8" range. I'm not dismissing them, I know their genetics are important and they are capable of more given the right circumstances, I'm just saying I don't really know anyone that would make a point of targeting those streams on a regular basis.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. Most of those small streams in the report don't get heavily fished because of access and they aren't the big name streams, but I can tell you that the fish in Silvester Creek are >99% pure strain according to surveys so their loss would be tragic. I did a reclamation project on Silvester with Elbow River Watershed Partnership and it was apparent that a lot of the stream braiding and other issues were caused by OHVs. That's the sort of problem the report raises and the amount of angling pressure isn't going to make a lick of difference if the fish have no water.

 

I'm also all for closing streams to angling when the situation warrants. My problem is the knee-jerk reactions from some without being clear on the facts.

[TheBrownWhisperer]

I think most will agree with that statement. However, the cumulative effect of man compounds stresses that the environment experiences.

 

Just an aside FYI; Never forget the our westslope cutthroat evolved since the last ice event to periods of drought that lasted many decades. The real problem nowadays is the fragmented populations.

[fishteck]

If the assumptions are that a PURE strain of Westslope Cutthroat and not a hybrid is all that is important to the conservationists, than those streams need to be identified and protected from any man made intrusion.

 

The next step would be to recognize that the balance of ES1 is a managed fishery resulting from introduced species. Cutthroats caught in many of these streams would needs to considered hybrids and of no significant contribution to an endangered trout population. The eastern slopes streams would be managed in the same way as the Bow River. That is, being given less priority with allocation of AEP staff commitment and financial resources.

 

Is the fishing community prepared for this? From what has been commented on in this post, I believe the ability to catch hybrid trout in the foothills is fundamental to recreational fishing activity. This does not change the belief that a fishery should be closed for low flows and high temperatures to ensure sufficient number of fish survive to meet fishery sustainability.

[BurningChrome]

If the assumptions are that a PURE strain of Westslope Cutthroat and not a hybrid is all that is important to the conservationists, than those streams need to be identified and protected from any man made intrusion.

 

The next step would be to recognize that the balance of ES1 is a managed fishery resulting from introduced species. Cutthroats caught in many of these streams would needs to considered hybrids and of no significant contribution to an endangered trout population. The eastern slopes streams would be managed in the same way as the Bow River. That is, being given less priority with allocation of AEP staff commitment and financial resources.

 

Is the fishing community prepared for this? From what has been commented on in this post, I believe the ability to catch hybrid trout in the foothills is fundamental to recreational fishing activity. This does not change the belief that a fishery should be closed for low flows and high temperatures to ensure sufficient number of fish survive to meet fishery sustainability.

Unfortunately >99% pure cutthroat are all that's covered by the SARA critical habitat order. If you're really interested in WSCT conservation issues you should try attending the workshop put on by Cows and Fish every spring. It's attended by a lot of stakeholders including GWAS, ERWP, BRBC, OWC, TU Oldman, TU Bow River, AEP and DFO biologists, ranchers and other landowners, and even Crowsnest Pass Quad Squad.

 

From a DFO presentation given at the WSCT workshop a couple years ago:

All currently known areas occupied by non‐stocked pure‐strain populations (≥ 99% purity) within the original Westslope Cutthroat Trout distribution are considered critical habitat.

Redds created and used by Westslope Cutthroat Trout, are considered the Residence for this fish. Residence for WSCT is restricted to areas identified as critical habitat.

[Flyfisher]

Yes, they need to be identified and protected. However I think it is questionable that in all cases they should be closed to angling if a localized population can support a well managed C&R fishery. Of course fundamental to this would be defining and implementing "well managed".

 

If the assumptions are that a PURE strain of Westslope Cutthroat and not a hybrid is all that is important to the conservationists, than those streams need to be identified and protected from any man made intrusion.

[bcubed]

Based on SARA, I still question the legality of fishing on any stream within critical habitat. Not sure why there seems to be a blind eye to that from AEP.

 

"The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) contains several prohibitions to protect species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. Under Sections 32 and 33 of SARA, it is an offence to:

 

kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a species listed under SARA as extirpated, endangered or threatened"

 

Harass and capture = C&R.

[Smitty]

Based on SARA, I still question the legality of fishing on any stream within critical habitat. Not sure why there seems to be a blind eye to that from AEP.

 

"The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) contains several prohibitions to protect species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. Under Sections 32 and 33 of SARA, it is an offence to:

 

kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a species listed under SARA as extirpated, endangered or threatened"

 

Harass and capture = C&R.

 

Careful what you wish for, don't you think Bcube?

 

Aren't we now treading into the dangerous territory of "ALL C&R fishing is deemed harrassing and capturing, therefore it is now banned?"

 

Ergo, total ban on all fisheries deemed to fragile for harvest?

 

Aren't we invoking the argument that C&R fisherman are the worst sportsmen on the planet? As in, let's join some of those in Europe and some indigenous groups that find C&R, at best, incredibly distasteful?

 

Do we see a slippery slope coming soon?

 

So, in the end, what's left in the province for trout fishing is harvesting stocked, non-native trout such as rainbow, browns, and brooks. Total ban on even targeting cutts,bulls (like in Montana), and grayling (Athabows too).

 

^Ok, so mostly devil's advocate there.

 

But let's not pretend we haven't heard those arguments.

 

Anyways, it's not unprecedented to close fishing permanently. Look at Wampus, Eunice, and Deerlick. The entire region of White Goat and Siffleur wilderness. Etc.

 

Having said all that, I am in favour of a delicate balancing act. You could convince me to close fishing for those fragmented populations that exist in streams you could jump across.

 

Always interesting to have debates about angling and sporting ethics. We know that some animal rights advocates like nothing more than us looking in a mirror and feeling like we need the confessional and priest on Sundays after mass.

 

[BurningChrome]

Based on SARA, I still question the legality of fishing on any stream within critical habitat. Not sure why there seems to be a blind eye to that from AEP.

 

"The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) contains several prohibitions to protect species listed on Schedule 1 of SARA. Under Sections 32 and 33 of SARA, it is an offence to:

 

kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a species listed under SARA as extirpated, endangered or threatened"

 

Harass and capture = C&R.

Oh man, someone asked the DFO biologist about that and he had a good explanation about it, but it was a couple years ago and I don't remember exactly what it was. IIRC part of it was that it's pretty much impossible to identify the "pureness" of a fish before you catch it and that having anglers on the water where these fish live are likely to report other SARA violations that are far more damaging to habitat and the species as a whole.

[fishteck]

CnR is at best an attempt to give those fish that are caught a better chance to survive. It has little to do with conservation of a fish population. As I have stated previously,an old guys like myself remembers the days when there was a closure on the Bow River downstream of Calgary from October 31 to June 1. I do not remember the terrible toll trout are taking to their mouths such as I have seem over the past two years. This is probably a result of a combinations of the shear pressure these fish are exposed to as well as the movement to more streamer fishing with larger hooks. When you combine this with low flows resulting in less oxygen and higher water temperatures we should expect more mortality.

 

My argument is that a closure by what ever it is defined will reduce the number and times that fish are caught in a year, reducing morbidity, potential reproductive success and mortality and at best increasing the chance of population gains or more realistically sustaining a fishery.

 

I personally have caught probably half the number of fish over the summer months this year as compared to my long term average. But I have also reduce the time on the river by half. A voluntary closure. Will I increase the fishing day when temperatures are lower and flows higher - yes. Others have said the same in this post. The provincial argument is that in principal a closure will reduce the fishing pressure on one population of fish, but evidence suggests that anglers move to other resources to get their fishing fix, therefore little net gain unless closures are regional in nature.

[bcubed]

 

Careful what you wish for, don't you think Bcube?

 

Aren't we now treading into the dangerous territory of "ALL C&R fishing is deemed harrassing and capturing, therefore it is now banned?"

 

Ergo, total ban on all fisheries deemed to fragile for harvest?

?

 

Do we see a slippery slope coming soon?

 

.

 

Having said all that, I am in favour of a delicate balancing act. You could convince me to close fishing for those fragmented populations that exist in streams you could jump across.

 

 

Not at all. Closing areas that are noted as critical habitat will almost have nil effect on 99.99% on the fishing that could be had in Alberta. I'm not advocating for closing it all, just critical habitat (most of which are small, fragmented and you could jump over).

 

 

 

Marc, I'll be very curious what happens when bull trout are listed, cause they won't be able to play off the genetics the same way..

[BurningChrome]

Marc, I'll be very curious what happens when bull trout are listed, cause they won't be able to play off the genetics the same way..

Could very easily go the same as the rivers in Montana where you aren't allowed to target them. Not familiar enough with their regs to know if that means you can't fish streamers or what.

[Dangus]

Selective fishing is a joke. You see that putz that posted about "selectively" catching bulls in a Lower mainland stream on a big pink streamer?

[BurningChrome]

Selective fishing is a joke. You see that putz that posted about "selectively" catching bulls in a Lower mainland stream on a big pink streamer?

No I haven't. Just make those rivers dry fly only and watch the AO guys lose their $#!+