Montana fisheries biologists are trying to determine the effects of nonnative lake trout in Swan Lake, located in the northwestern part of the state.  The lake is home to native bull trout, which usually suffer declines in the presence of lake trout.  In fact, the lake supports one of the only remaining sport fisheries for bull trout.  Lake trout were discovered in the lake in 1998, and they are expected to have a significant negative effect on bull trout, likely through both competition for food and space, and predation on bull trout by lake trout. 

Biologists will use trap nets and gill nets to capture lake trout.  After collecting data, they will place a mark on each fish and release it, which will allow them to estimate the population when they return and sample the lake again.  They also plan to place radio tags in a subsample of lake trout so that they can track their locations during the upcoming spawning season.  Identifying lake trout spawning areas can be very crucial in designing capture methods to control the lake trout population. 

Read more here

A number of lakes in the West have been affected by nonnative lake trout, including Yellowstone Lake in Wyoming, and Lake Pend O’reille in northern Idaho.  In Yellowstone, an intensive gill netting regiment on lake trout spawning grounds in the fall is allowing biologists to keep populations at a level where native Yellowstone cutthroat trout can persist.  In Lake Pend O’reille, recent research is showing that the combination of an incentive program (anglers are paid $15 for every lake trout they kill) and a commercial trap netting operation for lake trout have the potential to drastically reduce lake trout populations to the point where they have little effect on kokanee and bull trout.  Hopefully Montana biologists will  be able to use the scientific data provided in recent research projects on these lakes and others throughout the West to implement strategies to protect their native trout.

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. 

The Apache trout, native to the southwestern U.S., may soon become the first fish species ever to be removed from the Endangered Species List as a result of successful recovery.  Conservation efforts have raised the number of pure, self sustaining populations of Apache trout to 26, four short of the 30 required to begin the delisting process and officially declare the species recovered. 

The story of the Apache trout’s peril is similar to that of most other trout in the West.  Early development in the way of farming and ranching changed the habitat in low elevation areas, causing many streams to be unsuitable for trout.  As the trout continued to be forced out of low areas affected by humans, government officials began stocking nonnative fish such as brown trout, brook trout and rainbow trout in mountain streams, where they competed with the native fish.

Recovery for Apache trout began in the 1960’s and ’70’s, when it was first listed as endangered and later downlisted to threatened status, where it currently presides.  Efforts to bring the fish back to some resemblence of their former status have included fishing closures, habitat improvement, and nonnative species removal.

Of these efforts, I tend to believe that the removal of nonnative species has been the most effective strategy for recovering these fish.  These removal efforts are often called ‘reclamation projects’, where all fish are killed via chemicals that remove oxygen from the stream.  After effective barriers are put in place to keep nonnative fish from moving back into sections of streams, these areas are stocked with native trout.  Four such projects are ongoing in Arizona to help recover the Apache, and all are expected to be stocked with the natives early next year.

See the Apache trout success story here   

Lots of trout recovery stories have been in the news in the past few months, including the opening of fishing seasons for Gila trout in the southwest, and brook trout in the Smoky Mountains.  Hopefully this trend continues, since healthier fish populations mean good things for anglers and conservationists alike.

Well I’m finally back at it after a week at the annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society in San Francisco, and a weekend of trying to catch up on things I missed last week.  The meeting went great, and was bigger than I had even imagined.  I got the chance to meet a lot of new people, and also ran into a number of people I had worked with or gone to school with in the past. 

The meeting was literally an overload of fisheries information.  At times, there were 20 concurrent sessions (separate rooms with speakers scheduled for the entire morning or afternoon) and it always seemed like the presentations I wanted to see the most were going on at the same time. 

Still, I came away from the meeting with a lot more knowledge of fisheries research going on around the country, and even more confidence in the quality of research we’re conducting here at Utah State University.  Our presentations went extremely well, and people seemed to be quite interested in the research I’m working on. 

Aside from the business aspect of the meeting, there were a lot of social events, and plenty of time to get out and explore the city.  I spent time at Fisherman’s Wharf, Aquarium at the Bay, and even walked over to the baseball stadium where the Giants play. 

Overall, it was a great meeting and a great experience, and I’m glad I got the chance to do it.  Now it’s time to get back in gear and start putting together some blog posts.  Enjoy!

Well, it looks like the fish geek won’t be around to post much for the next week.  I’ll be at the 137th annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society in San Francisco.  Ship out early tomorrow morning. 

The meeting promises to be a big one.  Over 1,800 presentations are slated, which promises a constant flow of information throughout the week.  It also offers a great opportunity to socialize and network with other fisheries people from throughout the continent. 

I’ll be giving a presentation on environmental factors potentially limiting the distribution of brown trout in our study stream and throughout the West, and how this might affect native cutthroat trout.  This means trying to summarize a year’s worth of field work in a 15-20 minute block, but hopefully it’ll go smoothly.

Anyway, I hope to soak up plenty of info and report back next weekend.  Until then, feast your eyes on this pig, courtesy of Kirk Dahle, Logan, UT.

The Missouri Department of Conservation is funding a 3 year research project investigating the spawning habits and movement patterns of catfish in the Missouri River and its tributaries.  While adequate data exists for other game species, little is known about catfish spawning ecology.  This research could provide fisheries managers with essential information needed to make recommendations about season, length and bag limits, which would likely result in more and bigger catfish for Missouri anglers.  The DOC is considering a number of regulation options to provide a better fishery, but plans to wait on research results before making regulation decisions.

Read more about the catfish research going on, and the options the DOC is pursuing here. 

I just received an email from Doug Megargle, fisheries biologist with Idaho Fish and Game, regarding the proposed Silver Creek regulation changes.

An open house is scheduled for Sept. 11th in Hailey, ID to gather comment on the Silver Creek and other proposed regulation changes.  See the information below.

Also check out my interview with Doug regarding the reg. changes.

PLEASE NOTE:  Idaho Fish and Game has scheduled an open house from 6 to 8 p.m. September 11, in rooms 301-302 at the Community Campus, 1050 Fox Acres Road in Hailey, to gather public comment on proposed statewide and

Magic Valley regional changes in fishing rules for 2008-2009. 

Directions:  Heading north on Highway 75 proceed through

Bellevue. Drive past the

Friedman Memorial Airport runway, which will be on the left. At the first traffic light in Hailey, turn right onto Fox Acres Road. Proceed down Fox Acres and go straight through the stop sign. Proceed around the curve to

Wood River High School. The Community Campus will be next door on the right. Pull into the driveway on the right, stay to the right and park in the lot.

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. 

A couple of days ago, I linked to a Minnesota story about the destruction to a state fish hatchery caused by area flooding.  Apparently, human infrastructure wasn’t the only thing affected by the flooding.  Reports are showing that the flooding severely affected many trout streams, washing fish downstream, and widening stream banks and filling of holes that were once used by fish.  Wide, shallow streams are almost never good trout producers.  Let’s hope, for the anglers’ sake, that the damage wasn’t as bad as it appears.

See the story here

In a related story, storms in Summit County, Colorado appear to have killed a large number of fish in the Snake River.  Officials are unsure whether or not the fish died as a result of toxic inputs to the stream resulting from mining, or an incredibly high sediment load.

Story here