A local Wisconsin newspaper has a story on stream improvement being conducted by the U.S. Forest Service, Trout Unlimited, and Wisconsin DNR.  The Deerskin River, a class 1 trout stream, was used to transport logs to mills in the early 1900’s, and had a number of dams constructed on it, in addition to other habitat changes making it less suitable for trout.  Periodic habitat enhancement has been ongoing since the 1960’s.

See the story here

One of the stream improvement activities that puzzles me is the removal of alders.  Apparently, it is believed that alder branches are redirecting stream flow, which is widening the banks, so workers are removing these alders and instead placing brush piles in strategic locations.  I can’t speak from too much experience, but as far as I know, alders are almost always good for a stream.  They provide shade to the stream, which keeps the water cool and protects fish from predators from above.  I’ve always considered alders as important to maintaining a diverse stream flow regime.  If anything, they keep the banks stable, and redirect flow in a way that causes sinuosity in a stream, which almost always means more and better stream habitat, including pools and undercut banks.  Maybe the nature of this specific stream requires alder removal to accomplish restoration goals, but I would have to see alder removal work first hand before believing it actually does a stream any good. 

If you have experience with such activities as part of stream restoration, please contact me or post in the comments section.  I’d definitely like to hear more.

See the details of two fish ladder improvements at dams on Oregon’s Schooner Creek.  The projects should help more trout and salmon access stream habitat above the dams.

Recent flooding in the Midwest hasn’t just impacted homes and businesses.  At a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources fish hatchery near Altura, MN, flood waters washed away and killed thousands of juvenile lake trout, which were destined to be stocked in Lake Superior this year.  The trout would have accounted for an estimated 30% of this year’s juvenile lake trout production in the portion of Lake Superior where they were supposed to be stocked.  About 40% of the hatchery’s splake, (a cross between brook trout and lake trout) were lost as well.  No juvenile brook trout were lost, as they had already been stocked earlier this year.

Full story here 

Remember the story about a road closure in a Washington wilderness area due to bull trout presence? 

Well a similar story has shown up in the news recently with some controversy over whether or not the National Park Service should re-build a severely flooded section of the Carbon Road, which usually sees about 100,000 visitors each year.

See the story here

Check out this recent article by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies about Colorado cutthroat trout restoration activities.

A registered Maine Guide experienced an incredible fishing trip to Labrador, Canada this summer, where he reportedly caught and released two world record brook trout. 

See the local story here

Some results from a study investigating the performance of rainbow trout in southern Maine are posted below, courtesy of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Sebago Region Assistant Regional Fisheries Biologist Jim Pellerin.  These results were also posted in another network blog, Daily Bag Limit.

In the fall of 1997, the Fishery Division established a committee comprised of biologists and hatchery staff to revisit the prospect of a rainbow trout stocking program. After deliberation of the pros and cons, the committee concluded to move forward with a limited, experimental program to evaluate the relative performance of rainbow trout, brown trout, and brook trout. While some people contend rainbows would provide angling diversity, our intentions were to determine if rainbows could provide fishery managers with an additional tool to improve fishing opportunities for Maine anglers. The study was conducted over a 5-6 year period in a variety of Maine waters and included three parts: (1) hatchery performance comparisons among all three species, (2) field performance comparisons of browns and rainbows, and (3) field performance comparisons of brookies and rainbows. A federal hatchery in Tennessee provided Eagle Lake Strain rainbow eggs used during the study.

The study is finally winding down, a draft report for part one and two has been completed. The results of the brown trout/rainbow trout field comparison were highlighted in last winter in a similar article. A draft report for the brook trout/rainbow trout comparisons is currently being reviewed, and a final report is expected to be out by this summer. Highlights from the 3rd and final report are presented in the remainder of this article.

This portion of the study evaluated the relative field performance of Eagle Lake strain rainbow trout and Maine Hatchery strain brook trout in four small, trout ponds including: Jaybird Pond (Hiram), Lily Pond (New Gloucester), Long Pond (Denmark), and Overset Pond (Greenwood). Study objectives were: (1) to compare angler catch/harvest rates and examine whether the two trout species differ in their seasonal availability to the angler; (2) to evaluate relative size and growth, (3) to assess survival and carry-over potential; (4) to compare their utilization of the food chain, and (5) to examine trout performance in waters with marginal summer water quality under different levels of competitions/predation.

Catch and Harvest Rates… Across all waters, legal-sized rainbow trout were caught and harvested at rates 2.5 and 3.8 times greater than brook trout, respectively. These results are not at all that surprising, rainbows were slightly larger than the brookies, and a higher proportion of rainbows were of legal-size rainbows at the time of stocking. A comparison of the combined catch of all legal and sublegal fish (all trout/hour) allows for a more standardized comparison, and addresses the size differential issue. Catch rates (all trout/hr) for individual study waters were higher for rainbow trout on three out of the four waters; however, the overall difference across all four waters was relatively small (1.2 times higher). The data suggest that full season catch rates are fairly similar between the two species.

On the other hand, a review of catch rates by early, mid and late season shows that brook trout typically provided slightly better early season angling opportunities, whereas rainbow trout yielded about 2 ½ times higher catch rates during mid and late season period.

Size Quality and Growth… Brook trout produced fisheries of lower size quality than rainbow trout. Brook trout averaged 11.2 inches long and weighed 0.62 pounds, where as rainbows averaged 14.6 inches long and weighed 1.1 pounds across all study waters. This data demonstrates that rainbow trout typically provided better fisheries in terms of size quality. However, the above data does not clarify whether or not the longer lengths and higher weights for rainbow trout are due to better growth, because the mean size differences may simply be a function of the rainbows being stocked at slightly larger sizes and demonstrating better survival.

To answer this question, the increase in growth since stocking (incremental growth) was examined, eliminating the initial size advantage at time of stocking. In addition, incremental growth data was further broken down by month to develop a monthly grow rate. The use of monthly growth rates allows fish that were sampled at different times during the study to be compared. Rainbow trout exhibited better monthly growth rates than brook trout, both in terms of length and weight. Monthly growth for rainbows was approximately 50% greater than for brook trout for both length and weight.

Holdover and Survival….Rainbow trout survival (holdover potential) exceeded brook trout on three out of the four study ponds. The annual survival estimate for rainbow trout was 2.7 times greater that brook trout (14 and 38%). Across all waters, brook trout older than 1+ comprised only 10.0% of our sample compared to 55.1% for rainbow trout. These results indicate rainbow trout are more likely to provide quality and trophy sized trout fishing opportunities than brook trout.

Diets….Fall diets of brook trout and rainbow trout were very similar, and surprisingly Eagle Lake strain rainbow trout did not appear to utilize larger, non-insect type food items (i.e. fish, mollusks, crayfish) anymore than brook trout. On the other hand, rainbow trout exhibited fewer empty stomachs and a higher volume of food/kilogram of trout. This may suggest that rainbow trout are more aggressive feeders, which could account for the higher growth rate observations.

Water Quality and Competition….Although our sample size was limited to only four ponds, collected survival and growth information suggests rainbow trout were more tolerant of competition and/or predation pressures than brook trout. For example, Lily Pond produced good numbers of holdover rainbow trout in the 14-18 inch range, despite heavy competition from largemouth bass, chain pickerel, black crappie, pumpkinseed sunfish, and several other fish species. On the other hand, we observed only a total of three brook trout during the four sampling events conducted between 2001 and 2006. Interestingly, rainbows demonstrated poorer survival to older ages in two ponds with limited water quality (Long and Jaybird Ponds), despite lower level levels of competition than Lily P. This suggests poor to marginal summer water quality conditions may be more limiting to rainbow trout performance than heavy competition.

In conclusion, our initial and most important reason for investigating rainbow trout performance was to explore their potential for improving angling opportunities for coldwater fish, particularly in marginal trout ponds and “put-and-take” stocking programs. Performance results from this study indicate rainbow trout have the potential to produce longer season fishing opportunities, better size quality fisheries, and a limited number of trophy-sized (≥ 18 inches) trout without sacrificing overall catch rates. However, as a trout, they still have their limitations and will only produce longer season “put-and-take” fisheries of slightly larger size quality in waters with extremely marginal water quality. In such cases, a brook trout stocking program may yield the same returns, except over a shorter period of time. On certain marginal waters currently managed for brook trout, the replacement of “put-and-take” brook trout stocking programs with rainbow trout could improve angling opportunities for coldwater sportfish in Maine.

Before the Department adopts a rainbow trout stocking program, all of the associated hatchery and management implications of such a program need to be considered. For example, if a brood stock were developed, additional equipment would be required to manipulate rainbow trout spawning times if a fall spawning strain is preferred. Fishery managers may need to protect spring spawning rainbow trout due to their vulnerability to anglers and poachers. If rainbow trout do not replace existing program, then the largest obstacle to overcome will probably be associated with space constraints in our existing hatchery system.

Perhaps, the most important consideration in initiating a rainbow trout stocking program is their potential to negatively impact native salmonids like brook trout and landlocked salmon. While I agree with Scott and Crossman’s statement in Fishes of Canada, “The rainbow has been one of the more successful, more appreciated, and less potential dangerous of the many attempts to introduce fish to areas beyond its natural range;” it would be irresponsible of the Department to not seriously consider the risks associated with the introduction of a non-native trout species into Maine waters. An important component of this risk assessment is the development of a sound rainbow trout stocking policy to provide assurances that important native fisheries will not be jeopardized by rainbow introductions. In addition, existing Department policies require all new stockings receive Division-wide peer review. This formal process ensures that new stocking proposals are justified. Additionally, existing policies also have an outreach component, which includes a requirement that public input be sought in response to proposed new stockings. Typical venues for this input include this newsletter, weekly fishing reports posted on the Department’s web site and in some local newspapers, sportsmen’s forums, and appearances at fish and game clubs and other groups.

-Jim Pellerin, Sebago Region Assistant Regional Fisheries Biologist, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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.

The conflict between Native American tribal rights, recreational fisheries, and fisheries conservation as a whole has been highlighted by recent events in Canada’s Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. 

Native Americans are protesting a ruling by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans that will prevent them from fishing for sockeye salmon in the Fraser River using traditional native fishing methods this season.

The ruling to close sockeye fishing came as officials got the news that only about 1.6 million salmon were estimated to return to the river, significantly down from the expected 6.3 million.  The Fraser is reported to be the largest salmon producing river in the world, and the reason for the sharp decline in numbers is believed to be a result of poor ocean survival in 2005.

Management of the Fraser River sockeye highlights a very complex set of rules, regulations, and priorities that often cause different user groups to be at arms.  In short, the top priority in sockeye management is to ensure that enough fish return to spawn in order to support a sustainable population.  Next in the line of priorities come the Native American tribes, which claim traditional rights to the fishery.  Finally, commercial and recreational anglers rank at the bottom of the list.

Natives have voiced strong opposition to the Fraser River recreational fishery and have demanded that it be shut down.  Even with the commercial fishery shut down and the recreational fishery closed to the taking of sockeye, they’ve accused recreational anglers of taking ‘their’ sockeye illegally.

 And so in lieu of the latest closure to the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River, natives vowed to protest and fish anyway.

Natives of three local bands took their boats out on the lower Fraser River and fished on Saturday and Sunday.  This was done with the knowledge that they would be able to fish legally if the time were taken to draft a sharing agreement with the government.

Federal officials charged 35 of the protesters for fishing in a closed season over the weekend.  The individuals were using gillnets to capture sockeye salmon.  Officials kept a close eye on recreational fishermen in the Lower Fraser, who were targeting chinook salmon over the weekend, and stated that no sockeye salmon were kept illegally.

So what do you think?  Were the native bands right in protesting for their rights to the fishery?  I don’t think so.  We’ll have to wait and see how the courts rule, but I don’t think anything positive was accomplished by the move.  While I don’t intend to deny respect for Native American tribal rights, I think this was a very poor decision by the group that protested.  If anything, it expanded the divide between native and recreational anglers, and these bands showed that they are more concerned about ensuring they have one up on the recreational guys, than about the well being of the salmon population. 

One would think that a group whose livelihood is based partially on the salmon resource would be concerned about preserving it for the future rather than making sure they got more than everyone else.  These folks could have fished legally for chinook, just like the recreational anglers. 

Read more about the issue in the following articles:

DFO Curtails Harvest of Fraser Sockeye

Natives Promise to Defy Ban on Sockeye Fishing

Natives Ignore Fishing Ban

35 Natives Charged With Breach of Sockeye Fishing Ban

A cooperative project aimed at restoring native brook trout in Wisconsin’s Trout Creek (Brown County) is slowly making progress, after being in the planning stages for some time.  Nearby, stream habitat has been improved, but the main obstacle for trout re-colonization after a 30 year hiatus, is a barrier dam at the 17th hole of a golf course that Trout Creek runs through. 

Officials have considered multiple options, including creating a fish ladder at the dam, or channeling water around the pond for fish passage to the stream above.  The golf course operator is willing to cooperate, but wants to preserve the aesthetics of the 17th hole.  Project completion is still quite a ways out, with potential for trout reintroduction as early as 2009. 

Local Story