At the request of agencies in Oregon and Washington hoping to protect endangered salmon, NOAA recently approved the removal of up to 60 sea lions near Bonneville Dam to reduce unnatural predation on salmon stocks as they pass through the dam’s fishway.  You can read more about the issue in a blog post I wrote a short while ago regarding this issue.   You can also read the full news story here.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just announced that it is considering placing the coaster brook trout on the Endangered Species List.  The coaster is a unique life-history form of brook trout that spawns in the tributaries of Lake Superior and moves out into the lake to grow to an exceptionally large size.

I wrote a blog entry on coaster brook trout a while back, with links to more information on coasters.  In addition, you can learn more about coaster research from Northern Michigan University’s Fish Biology Lab.

One complication that may arise with the potential listing of coasters is the fact that they are essentially genetically identical to their smaller brook trout counterparts, which exist at healthy population levels.  However, unique subpopulations and life-history forms can be listed separately under the ESA, and have been in the past.

Stay tuned for more info on the status of coaster brook trout.

A new Utah law that would allow sporting and environmental groups to purchase instream flows from irrigators in order to protect fish habitat has again seen the light of day.  The Instream Flow to Protect Trout Habitat bill passed in the state Senate last year but failed in the House.  New provisions which address concerns about hydropower generation and Endangered Species Act restrictions have garnered more support for the bill, and it’s expected to pass this year.  The bill is modeled after a successful existing program in Montana. 

With the passing of this law, fishing organizations could purchase water rights from irrigators, meaning that water would be left in the stream instead of being used to water crops, providing more and better habitat for trout during critical low-flow periods.  The bill is being praised by a wide audience and has the support of many conservationists, recreationists and farmers. 

Read the Salt Lake Tribune article here

All indicators seem to point to a banner season for ice fishing in the state of Maine this winter.  In fact, with the exception of some waters, ice fishing in the state seems to have been improving steadily over the past few years.  Improvements like this certainly didn’t happen by accident. 

I’m confident that the quality fishing we’re seeing today is the result of a smart investment made by people in the state of Maine, and further investment in our fishery resources could result in far better fisheries than we see today.

In 2002, the people of the state of Maine voted by a hefty margin to pass a $7 million bond issue to improve and revamp the aging infrastructure of the state’s fish hatcheries.  As a result, many more fish are stocked, and are stocked at a larger size in Maine waters today than any time in the recent past. 

I was working as a creel census clerk for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife during the years that the bond issue results began to take effect, and fall yearling brook trout were stocked for the first time on a local lake that supports a popular fishery for salmon and lake trout.  The new fall yearling experiment proved extremely successful, and the number of people we documented fishing for trout on the lake increased astronomically.  Such increases weren’t limited to local lakes, however, and new stocking practices have resulted in much better fishing conditions statewide.  

Investment in our fishery resources should not be limited only to fish production and stocking.  Much of Maine’s fisheries are driven by wild and native fish populations, which are very difficult to manage with the limited staff within the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s Fishery Division.  Maine employs somewhere around 30 fisheries biologists statewide, less than 10% of the fisheries staff in states like Minnesota.  Investing in the hiring of more fisheries biologists and field sampling equipment would allow Maine’s fisheries resources to be managed such that they provide a much better return to the angler, increase fishing opportunities, and drive more tourism and fishing activity in the state. 

I’ve never been a fan of big government spending.  However, I think there’s a big difference between dumping money into government programs that provide few public benefits, and investing in proper management of our resources that should provide a positive return to the public and bolster the economy.  I may be wrong, but I believe that investing more money in fishery resources would be a wise decision for any state interested in promoting its outdoor resources.       

Michigan’s famed trout stream, the Au Sable River, is the topic of recent controversy over a proposed state Senate bill that could allow water users to withdraw large amounts of water for irrigation and other uses.

Angling and environmental groups are concerned about the potential ramifications of the bill, which they say could reduce the flows of the Au Sable and surrounding trout streams by over 20%, which might be expected to have a negative effect on trout populations.

Patty Birkholz, R-Saugatuck, states that such numbers are grossly overestimated, and the effects would be far less.

So who’s right?  Hard to know, but I’d think someone would have thought this one out and come up with some reliable estimates, considering the immense value of the Au Sable trout fishery.  While I don’t know much about the issue, I think a bill that included the recommendation of fishery managers when considering water withdrawal might be a wiser choice.

Read the story here

This just in.  A lawsuit from special interest groups has caused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider the listing of Bonneville cutthroat trout under the Federal Endangered Species Act.  The Center for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, and Pacific Rivers Council introduced the suit, citing that the trout are headed for extinction.  This comes after a 2001 decision by the USFWS that the status of the subspecies did not warrant listing.

Bonneville cutthroat trout are native to the Bonneville Basin, which encompasses most of the state of Utah, and parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Nevada.  The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources estimates that the species has been reduced to about a third of their historic range.

State agencies have been working hard to preserve and restore cutthroats and their habitat to avoid federal listing, which would bring in added restrictions that would potentially hinder many activities in the state.

I work in the Logan River in northern Utah, which supports one of the few remaining healthy meta-populations of native Bonneville cutthroat trout.  My research is focused on brown trout, which compete with Bonneville cutthroats in parts of the Logan, and I’m interested in understanding the environmental factors that give cutthroat trout an edge over the brown trout in the river, and allow cutthroats to persist in the higer elevation areas of the Logan.  This research is funded primarily by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, which is certainly motivated to protect cutthroat trout to prevent ESA listing.  

I’m not sure exactly what the specifics of the potential listing would entail.  The real question to ask, in my opinion, is how the subspecies would benefit from federal listing.  Additional federal funds would certainly be helpful, but would the benefits of additional money be offset by the potential hindrances caused by further federal control over private property? 

Tom Remington consistently addresses such issues related to the Endangered Species Act at his Black Bear Blog. 

Whether or not listing is deemed necessary, hopefully we can continue to find solutions that benefit both trout and people in the long run, and restore the Bonneville cutthroat trout in an acceptable manner. 

A recent story in USA Today describes a controversy between recreational gold miners and fisheries conservationists in the state of California.  The debate has been sparked by a bill in the California state Assembly that would allow wildife managers to ban gold dredging in sensitive rivers and streams, in order to protect salmon.  I felt the story was fairly well written, and explains the views from both sides of the issue.

See the story here

Coming from an area with no gold mining history, I’ve often pondered what it might be like to get out in search for gold.  I got my chance when I moved out West, and decided I would try the recreational mining myself.

At first, when I heard about gold dredging, bad images instantly came to mind.  I thought about entire stream bottoms being sucked away, banks being eroded, and fish habitat being destroyed in the process.  These were all things that bothered me, because while I had a strong desire to search for gold, I was a fish geek…….and didn’t want to see fish populations being affected in pursuit of this intriguing yet obscure sport.

You might be surprised to find that over time, this fish geek changed his mind about recreational gold dredging.

I should provide a little background on recreational gold dredging.  This type of dredging is most often performed by an individual clad in wetsuit and diving gear, who kneels at the river bottom and holds a suction hose, which pulls gravel and sand from the riverbed up through the hose and across a sluice box setting on top of pontoons at the water surface.  As gravel and water flows over the sluice box, heavier materials such as gold are caught in the riffles of the sluice, and later sorted out by the miner.  The suction through the hose is powered by a small generator which sits on the pontoons, and the sand and gravel flowing through the sluice box usually settle back to the river bottom between a few feet and a few hundred feet downstream of their origin. 

I spoke to a number of recreational dredgers in my search for gold in central Idaho, partially because of my concern for the fish.  One of the most surprising responses to my questions about the effects on fish was that these guys routinely have fish swimming all around them while they dredge!  Dredging stirs up bottom materials, which contain aquatic insects, so the fish gather around the dredge hole to feed, and the fish don’t have any problem avoiding entrainment into the suction hose either.  Oftentimes these dredge holes (which are around throughout the summer, until being filled back in the spring during high water flows) provide habitat for fish during the warm summer months as well. 

Another one of my surprises was the relatively small area that can be dredged by a single person over time, and the incredible resiliency of the river to return to its former state.  The vast majority of dredge holes are filled up after spring flows, and gravel in the river redistributes itself so that most of the time, a year later, you can’t even tell an area was dredged. 

While the word dredging often conjures up disturbing images in people’s minds, if you take a look at the research, surprisingly little effects on fish populations can be found.  This came as a huge surprise for me, since I figured that dredging must be harmful to fish.  Take a look at the literature on the following web page: Suction Dredging and the Environment.  Granted, this page is run by a mining supply company, so any paper stating that suction dredging is harmful might be left out, but I would challenge you to look up all available literature on suction dredging.  I’m confident that an overwhelming majority of the studies fail to show an effect. 

That being said, I failed to mention that I am speaking of suction dredging done under typical conditions during specific seasons (the current status quo in most areas).  I would be foolish to say that suction dredging doesn’t have an effect on spawning redds, or fish eggs that are incubating in the gravel, since dredging effectively removes the gravel, and would likely destroy eggs sucked up from redds.  In streams where fish spawn in the spring, dredging is usually limited to specific seasons (I believe it begins June 1st in many areas, for example), to allow for incubating eggs to hatch and for fry to swim out of the gravel and into the water column, where they can avoid disturbance.  If dredging only begins after fish hatch from the gravel, and ends before redds are constructed, I am not convinced that it has any significant effect on fish populations or habitat.  The incredible dynamics of stream systems involve the flushing of sediments downstream during high flows, which redistributes gravel, and in my opinion, likely masks the effects of dredging.   Furthermore, many areas lack the redisribution of gravel downstream due to the changing flow patterns resulting from dams.  In some cases, dredging can help loosen the gravel and make it easier for trout and salmon to dig spawning redds. 

If you’ve read this blog before, you know that I don’t like regulations that aren’t based on science.  I would encourage anyone who has an interest to read up on recreational suction gold dredging.  Go beyond the opinion pieces from special interest groups, and look at the primary, peer reviewed literature.  I think the facts will show that a common sense approach to recreational gold dredging, with seasonal protections for fish, promotes economic well being and recreation, and does not pose a threat to fish populations. 

Starting in January, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources imposed restrictive fishing regulations in the Upper Savage River system to protect brook trout populations.  The regulations included restricting the use of bait, and prohibiting the taking of brook trout.  While the regulations were probably well intentioned, they met a ton of opposition from local anglers and sporting groups, resulting in a petition with about 1,000 signatures handed over to the DNR. 

State senator George Edwards has voiced his opposition to the regulations quite clearly, but with little or no response from the DNR.  Edwards insists that some type of compromise could be made where some of the waters would be open to bait fishing, while local groups are further petitioning to completely overturn the regulations. 

Should local groups quit whining and conform to the regulations, or did the DNR bite off more than they could chew?  I think a compromise might be the best solution for both the DNR and anglers, but I can only hope…….

Read more here  

The concept of land ownership tends to vary widely from East to West in the United States.  In my personal experience, it appears that private land in the western United States is much more coveted by landowners, who often have serious problems with someone even stepping on their land.  Such a pattern is also evident when comparing urban to rural areas, with access more likely to be prohibited in urban locations.  Our great nation was built upon the successful concept of private property rights, and I believe that they should be respected whenever possible. 

However, property rights can often affect where and how we fish, and can therefore cause conflict between anglers and landowners.  In the northeastern U.S., particularly in states like Maine (although I’m not sure there’s another state quite like it!), a time honored tradition of public access to private land has been the norm for over a hundred years.  Hunters, fishermen and trappers alike have benefitted greatly from this partnership with private landowners, and we’ve often taken for granted the fact that such access has always been available.

But good things don’t always last, and the times are changing.  A recent article in a New York newspaper reports that Orleans County has purchased a 3 year lease agreement to open 4,000 feet of river along Oak Orchard Creek, a popular trout and salmon fishery.  The agreement will cost the County $22,500. 

In the short term, the deal sounds like a great one for anglers.  But in the big picture, might we be walking down a dangerous trail and setting a precedent for pay-to-access fishing across the Northeast?  

Only time will tell, but for now we should certainly enjoy the vast tracts of hunting and fishing land that we’re so lucky to have free roam upon. 

Silver Creek, located in south central Idaho, has long been known as a very popular sport fishery for rainbow and brown trout.  The creek provides anglers from all around the country with the opportunity to flyfish for large trout with fair success throughout the summer.  Recently, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game proposed regulation changes to allow for a daily harvest of 6 brown trout, with catch and release fishing required for rainbow trout, and to allow anglers to fish in the creek using boats.  

A number of anglers have voiced opposition to the regulation changes, many of which are flyfishing guides.  Because of the lack of readily available information on the regulation change proposal, I decided to contact Doug Megargle, Regional Fishery Manager, Idaho Department of Fish and Game.  The following is a brief interview with Mr. Megargle that summarizes the reasoning behind the proposed changes.

FishGeek: Hello Doug.  I have a few questions about the proposed regulation changes in Silver Creek.  First off, why is IDFG proposing these changes?

Fisheries Biologist Doug Megargle:  IDFG proposes regulations based on biological and social considerations.  In some cases regulations are either socially based, biological based or both.  The rules process first seeks interaction with anglers to identify specific rules, management goals, or issues related to overall fishing opportunities.  Public proposals are reviewed to assure they are feasible, not biologically detrimental, and socially desirable and then submitted to our commission for consideration.  The commission then orders the Department to seek comments on approved regulation changes and to provide them a summary of public comments and regional recommendations.  The commission then either adopts of rejects the proposals.  From the Department’s perspective, neither trout species is native to the drainage therefore there is not imperative to emphasize management of one species over the other.  The Department was responding to the perceived public demand to adjust the existing socially-based regulations.  Additionally, the commission charged the Department to evaluate existing special regulations to assure they are needed and functional AND to simplify regulations where possible.

First, it must be pointed out that the existing regulations on Silver Creek are socially based given that the existing trout population can certainly sustain increased harvest.  Socially, however, anglers prefer a traditional fly fishing experience.  Over the past 3-5 years we have heard from anglers who want IDFG to do something about the increased numbers of brown trout.  Concerns range from: 1) conversion of biomass from a mixed fishery to one dominated by large brown trout, 2) the concern that people don’t fly across the country to nymph or streamer fish for brown trout – it’s the spring creek dry fly opportunity, 3) brown trout are blamed for cyclic rainbow trout recruitment, 4) brown trout, although they provide trophy opportunities, provide only a crepuscular fishing opportunity. 

The other rule change is our attempt to fix an antiquated rule restricting boats but allowing float tubes.  Given the abundance of single occupancy craft options available, it becomes difficult to rationalize to anglers why they can use a float tube (defined in Idaho as a device that results in the angler’s body being submerged from the waist down) but not a pontoon boat propelled by fins.

The rules scoping process is designed to seek out and compile public sentiment regarding desired rule changes and responses to IDFG proposals.  That’s exactly what is happening. 

Fish Geek:  Is the only proposed change a move to a six fish bag limit on brown trout?

Doug:  Yes and no.  In its current form, the proposal seeks to set a standard bag limit of 6 brown trout and 0 rainbow trout.  All existing method of take and terminal tackle rules will still apply.  The other proposal is to eliminate the “no boats, float tubes allowed” exception.

Fish Geek:  How do you think the new regulation would change the fish community? (i.e. better brown trout growth, fewer brown trout, different catch rates, better rainbow trout fishing, fewer brown trout more rainbows, etc.) 

Doug:  Despite some misquotes and rumors, we do not believe the proposal will have any major affect upon the number of rainbow or brown trout; however, past experience leads us to believe there might be a slight decrease in average brown trout lengths.  Anglers often harvest the largest fish.  A reduction in large brown trout may decrease some predation upon forage (currently rainbow trout, sculpin, and some redside shiners).  The proposal seeks to provide anglers a new harvest opportunity that is biologically feasible – but social acceptance is still being evaluated. 

Fish Geek:  In general, has the department received support or opposition from the public regarding this issue and why?

Doug:  To date, most comments and feedback is opposed to any changes.  Rationale ranges from 1) concern that boats would destroy the existing experience by overcrowding, spooking fish, 2) a harvest fishery would result in trash and shoreline destruction, 3) overall appreciation for both brown trout and rainbow trout, 4) “if it aint broke don’t fix it”, 5) Any harvest is detrimental to the Silver Creek fishery, 6) Rules aren’t that complicated and don’t need to be simplified, 7) Fish identification would be problematic in a species specific harvest, 8.) many other personal feelings against change.

Support rationale includes: 1) Appreciation for the harvest opportunity given the increased trend toward no harvest, 2) belief that the fishery will ultimately be dominated by relatively few brown trout with the near elimination of rainbow trout, 3) want to be able to use other floatation devices than the traditional float tube.

Fish Geek:  What opportunity does the public have to get involved in this decision making process? 

Doug:  See above review of the rules scoping process. Also, public comment is sought via internet email, statewide mail survey, public meetings statewide and regional specific, telephone, and visiting the regional office.  Anglers can email comments to me directly at MVFishery@idfg.idaho.gov.  I would encourage folks to confirm rumors before responding since many comments I’ve received are in regards to misinformation.

Fish Geek:  Thanks a lot for taking time out of your busy schedule, Doug.  You have provided our readers with very valuable insight on the issue and I appreciate your help and concern for the fishery.   

Readers, what are your thoughts?  Feel free to post them in the comments section below.