Food for thought or food for fishes thought...an outside the box look at improving stream fishing

[Sundancefisher]

I would like to here some comments on this thought.

As everyone knows, when a farmer grows a crop they have to rotate, add nutrients, fertilizers, fallow...whatever it takes to maximize crop yield. Soil does not have a finite growing potential for just any old crop a farmer wants to grow.

I feel the same is for a mountain or foothills stream. Take for instance the premise that over 50 - 100 years people have been harvesting and in the past over harvesting streams for food and entertainment. There are lots of historical pictures for instance of massive stringers of monster bull trout mixed with big cutties.

Our mountain streams like our mountain lakes have short open water seasons and relatively infertile ground in which to replentish itself. Mother nature designed salmon to absorb nutrients from the oceans and then deposit them in streams and in turn those nutrients not only feed the new crop of salmon fry but also all the other fish in the streams as well as bears, birds and believe it or not trees! Yes trees. For those of you that has never looked into this or read about it, trees along salmon streams have growth rings that scientists track to show the success or failure of historical salmon runs.

Now let's take a step back and look at Alberta. Our mountain streams and foothills streams have the same issue. Over time we have removed tens of thousands of pounds or more from each stream of critical biomass...fuel for future generations of fish.

People ask...where did all the monster bull trout go? My thoughts are the streams are no longer productive enough to grow and sustain them.

So where does this thinking lead me one would ask? Well the far end of the spectrum would be the release of nutrients like the Crowsnest River and Bow River experienced. Granted the fishing below the sewage inflow is awesome, there is a public outcry to releasing fertilizer into any natural water body. The other end of the spectrum would be a wholesale ban on killing any fish out of a low productive system.

I believe a middle of the road approach with well studied release of a moderate amount of fertilizer and/or nutrients and the resultant impacts to determine if this would help in a number of places.

The Elbow River upstream of Calgary would be one to try. Close to Calgary for monitoring and study. Fairly well documented. Fish populations are severely depressed. Capable of being a significant fishery close to a highly populated area. I am not saying Elbow would be the only one but for sake of discussion it makes a good example. There are some problems which will always need to be addressed. In this instance the protection of Bull Trout. I would say a study mitigation would be the release of fertilizer well below spawning areas or well above should suffice. In turn the Bull Trout should do way better due to a more productive and "healthy" stream with recovered nutrient levels with a larger quantity of invertebrates to feed not only young bull trout but also mountain whitefish which feed even bigger bull trout.

Healthy refers to bringing the system back to a pre-public fishery era insofar as nutrients, productivity and fish population is concerned. Also I am not saying dumping tons and tons of urban liquid waste into the rivers but as a trial a slow trickle, a few pulses and a low enough rate that only the invertebrates and some algae and macrophytes would ever notice.

Any thoughts?

Cheers

Sun

[MountainTi]

Reading your comment on farmers rotating crops got me to thinking back when I was a kid and they had stream closures every second year. For example one year Clearwater drainage was open, while the Ram was closed. Next year vise versa. Wonder if that actually wasn't such a bad idea?

[Sundancefisher]

Reading your comment on farmers rotating crops got me to thinking back when I was a kid and they had stream closures every second year. For example one year Clearwater drainage was open, while the Ram was closed. Next year vise versa. Wonder if that actually wasn't such a bad idea?

That management techique was used in a heavily fished stream in order to allow more recruitment. Now they can make it low limit or catch and release to accomplish that. I think however it would not have a net benefit on replacing or returning nutrients to the stream as harvest assumably would still be occuring.

Sun

[goldscud]

I believe I read a report where "Green Drop" fertilizer was added to a trib of the North Ram river. There was a marked increase in plants and later on bugs from this experiment. I can't recall what happened to the fish numbers/size, but I imagine things grew better if they were not bonked on the head.

Is there a point when we should stop adding stuff to watersheds and just let them be?
After the big flood of '96 when the tribs of the Elk in BC got hammered, the government there decided to implement some catch and release sections to give the river a chance to rebound. The fishing a few years later was awesome. Perhaps closing a few streams and letting them come back on their own might be the best thing to do (hopefully there is some fish left to re-populate the system).

[Sundancefisher]

It all comes down to can we speed the process by adding lost nutrients (caused by years and years of fish removal) or just let it go back on its own. Can it do that? How long does it take to get the level of biomass up to where it once was. All those monster bull trout for instance are long gone...along with the biomass that fed the bugs and future fish upon it's natural demise.

I think that there is probably a happy medium in which we can help increase the fish populations. Is it much different to mitigating habitat loss? Let's think about mitigating biomass loss.

I am not advocating streams that are choked with algae from tons of sewage...but I am sure there are simple solutions more easy to accept than say a fishing ban. Maybe in conjunction with increasing productivity there should be a catch and release regulation implemented to help speed recovery of the population and let larger year cl***** come into the system through improved recruitment.

Just a thought...

[jesse34567]

What you said in your original post (I agree)

Also couldn't water fluctuations have a play in some of the big trout in mountain streams disappearing.

[jrs]

This issue was researched extensively for mountain lakes in Alberta in the 1970's 0r 1980's. It works, but there are risks and other factors that always come into play (Eutrophication in more productive downstream waterbodies comes to mind). I would have to say (from experience) absence of deep holes and good quality cover in many streams can really limit the number of larger trout even more so than nutrient availability. Another thing to consider is seasonality. A lot of the classic bull trout stringer photos would have been taken in the fall during the spawning run. Big bull trout (lets say anything over 6-7 lbs) very rarely occupy small creeks on a year round basis. Migrations into smaller streams may begin in mid July, in some systems the big ones only run for a few weeks before spawning then immediately return to bigger water. I know of one stream in particular where 40-50 pairs run in late August (all would be approximately 2lbs and up, mature fish). They were all gone before Sept 14th this year when i tried to go watch the spawn, only redds remained. Anyway, i have seen pictures from the 1950's of this stream and well, i'd say the fisherman knew when to fish it.

Temperature is another big issue in headwater streams. I know of some recent work that found warming a creek up 2 or 3 degrees led to a 8 or 9 fold increase in rainbow trout numbers. Risky as a similar increase can wipe out bull trout but it does demonstrate the importance of temperature to trout.

Interesting subject anyways, sometimes a fisherman has to wonder why opportunities to increase fish numbers in natural streams (and lakes) are not even considered when it would be far more cost effective than stocking yet another put and take.

[Sundancefisher]

This issue was researched extensively for mountain lakes in Alberta in the 1970's 0r 1980's. It works, but there are risks and other factors that always come into play (Eutrophication in more productive downstream waterbodies comes to mind). I would have to say (from experience) absence of deep holes and good quality cover in many streams can really limit the number of larger trout even more so than nutrient availability. Another thing to consider is seasonality. A lot of the classic bull trout stringer photos would have been taken in the fall during the spawning run. Big bull trout (lets say anything over 6-7 lbs) very rarely occupy small creeks on a year round basis. Migrations into smaller streams may begin in mid July, in some systems the big ones only run for a few weeks before spawning then immediately return to bigger water. I know of one stream in particular where 40-50 pairs run in late August (all would be approximately 2lbs and up, mature fish). They were all gone before Sept 14th this year when i tried to go watch the spawn, only redds remained. Anyway, i have seen pictures from the 1950's of this stream and well, i'd say the fisherman knew when to fish it.

Temperature is another big issue in headwater streams. I know of some recent work that found warming a creek up 2 or 3 degrees led to a 8 or 9 fold increase in rainbow trout numbers. Risky as a similar increase can wipe out bull trout but it does demonstrate the importance of temperature to trout.

Interesting subject anyways, sometimes a fisherman has to wonder why opportunities to increase fish numbers in natural streams (and lakes) are not even considered when it would be far more cost effective than stocking yet another put and take.

Back when I studied bull trout I remember comments regarding large resident bull trout that were present. While there is a population dynamic involving resident, fluvial, adfluvial etc... I believe in the large pools there was always a brut present. Those fish would of gone first as stands to reason. We can never be certain as those days are long gone.

Comments on low water or fluctuating water would say to me that I agree. Fluctuating water levels certainly impact populations just like temperature but I suspect would be impacting all fish regardless of size.

Careful release of nutrients should be beneficial when done in the right circumstances. I can not see how it would harm say the Elbow below Canyon Creek for instance assuming you apply enough to impact the river but not Glenmore Reservoir significantly.

I fully agree. Why not try and improve what we have. Can anyone say that the present Crowsnest and Bow are bad things? That was extreme fertilization and nutrient loading. How about more control over the process in selected areas?

[jesse34567]

Back when I studied bull trout I remember comments regarding large resident bull trout that were present. While there is a population dynamic involving resident, fluvial, adfluvial etc... I believe in the large pools there was always a brut present. Those fish would of gone first as stands to reason. We can never be certain as those days are long gone.

Comments on low water or fluctuating water would say to me that I agree. Fluctuating water levels certainly impact populations just like temperature but I suspect would be impacting all fish regardless of size.

Careful release of nutrients should be beneficial when done in the right circumstances. I can not see how it would harm say the Elbow below Canyon Creek for instance assuming you apply enough to impact the river but not Glenmore Reservoir significantly.

I fully agree. Why not try and improve what we have. Can anyone say that the present Crowsnest and Bow are bad things? That was extreme fertilization and nutrient loading. How about more control over the process in selected areas?

water fluctuations such as a drought occurring would have more of and impact on mountain streams because there would be less water to evaporate.

[Sundancefisher]

water fluctuations such as a drought occurring would have more of and impact on mountain streams because there would be less water to evaporate.

not sure exactly your point. As near as I can tell we are in agreement. My point is that lack of water hurts all fish...not specifically the large ones.

If actually looking at any specific stream, a drought may not be the correct term. Snow pack thickness should be the key for many mountain streams whereas some foothhills streams fed by artesian wells or springs would be affected by drought to a greater degree but depending upon the hydrology principles in the acquifer, you may not see drought effects for a year or more after a true drought.

Still, lowering the water levels and adding nutrients, increasing the algae build up may in some areas increase water temperatures. Water temperature changes could be a problem for some trout streams.

While these problems occur in the Crowsnest over the years...the fish have enjoyed the increased food supplies.

What is actually really, really cool is when I electrofished long stretches of the Crowsnest there is a huge increase in fish population below the spot where the nutrients were added from the sewage plant. You could actually see the line in the river. Upstream the rocks were totally clean...downstream a light coating of algae covering the rocks. Bug life in abundance below...lesser by a significant degree above.

[PoorTurtle]

the use of phosphates in Kootenay lake was a great sucess in bringing back the lake from death.
"1992
BC Environment and BC Hydro began a five–year experimental fertilization project in North Arm of Kootenay Lake. The incentive for this was the steady decline in the number of spawning kokanee in the Lake (particularly the North Arm). The problem has been traced to declining nutrient levels resulting from sediment settling in the still waters behind dams. As those nutrients were no longer transported into the Lake, an experimental programme was launched to compensate for it by fertilizing the water."

[chili]

Ive fished Southern Alberta mountain and foothill rivers all my life and there has been no lack of big bulls. We have had drought, floods, and everything in between. The only difference I can tell from other Alberta rivers is the fishing pressure on these rivers. I have to hike to most of the hot spots where I would say the odd pontoon might go by. This year again, there is plenty of 5-6 lb. pound bulls, and the odd bigger ones. Temperature, water and nutrient levels obviously have an impact, but in my opinion, fishing pressure is number one for population decline.

[Sundancefisher]

Ive fished Southern Alberta mountain and foothill rivers all my life and there has been no lack of big bulls. We have had drought, floods, and everything in between. The only difference I can tell from other Alberta rivers is the fishing pressure on these rivers. I have to hike to most of the hot spots where I would say the odd pontoon might go by. This year again, there is plenty of 5-6 lb. pound bulls, and the odd bigger ones. Temperature, water and nutrient levels obviously have an impact, but in my opinion, fishing pressure is number one for population decline.

Yup without a doubt you hit the hammer on the nail. Fishing pressure is key. The hard question to answer is if you stopped fishing those lower sections would you have the "large" bull trout population recover? Would they recover just as quick as if you replenished some of the nutrients and biomass back into the river. After recovery and without extra nutrients what harvest if any could be sustained?

I don't have the answer but it seems possible that it would help. There is always a back lash when people on the board think there is an underlying attempt to make something C&R but unfortunately sometimes you have to stop harvesting to allow a recover. The general bull trout population in Lower kananaskis is an example. Problem there is any harvest allowed so close to Calgary would decimate the population quickly. Can't recall the exact number of large bulls but say 2000 to 5000 fish would not last long.

In my line of thinking I would try replacing some biomass and see if we can improve the population to maintain a harvest and/or sustainable fishery.

[Unregistered user]

They are experimenting in B.C. in rivers that have hatcheries, the milked carc***** are frozen and then blown in and around the spawning areas to put nutrients into the water and shore area. Wonder if F&W would like to try that with ground up Sundance Perch?

[craigmid]

You make a convincing argument but I would be very leery on messing with mother nature. PoorTurtle when I was in the kooteneys this summer I had a conversation with a CO and he indicated that they have since introduced shrimp into the ecosystem to try and combat the growth of vegetation. They are now finding that kokanee can't digest the shrimp and aren't eating them and are now upsetting the balance again.

So long story short I think we don't know what we are doing and maybe a less is more approach should be considered. Less rules but better enforced? The circle of life does include us but moderation is need. What do you think of annual limits? I think a lot of anglers would support say a 6 walleye a year harvest from the lakes of their choice.

...I know there are probably a bunch of holes in my theories but if I had all the answers if be a rich man.

[Sundancefisher]

You make a convincing argument but I would be very leery on messing with mother nature. PoorTurtle when I was in the kooteneys this summer I had a conversation with a CO and he indicated that they have since introduced shrimp into the ecosystem to try and combat the growth of vegetation. They are now finding that kokanee can't digest the shrimp and aren't eating them and are now upsetting the balance again.

So long story short I think we don't know what we are doing and maybe a less is more approach should be considered. Less rules but better enforced? The circle of life does include us but moderation is need. What do you think of annual limits? I think a lot of anglers would support say a 6 walleye a year harvest from the lakes of their choice.

...I know there are probably a bunch of holes in my theories but if I had all the answers if be a rich man.

Adding other animals or non native species to the issue would be bad I think. But the way I look at it we are messing with the rivers natural balance by removing fish after fish, year after year, and never adding anything back. Just like managing a crop...planting year after year a hard crop on the soil makes for very infertile land. Same may apply in part to a low productivity mountain stream. We don't need a lot to feed the fish since we are really only trying to feed the bugs that in turn feed the fish.

[craigmid]

After reading what I said again, I thought I better check some sources before I try and pretend that I know what I'm talking about. I looked online for the Kootenay Lake Nutrient Restoration Program (http://www.fwcp.ca/version2/projects/media/fwcp-fish-projects-2009-10.pdf) and found that they are continuing it for the 2009/2010 season. I must have misunderstood or been misinformed. From the little I read, it sounds like what you are suggesting we try. Time will tell how this will work but I look forward to hearing about the long term effects it has on the whole ecosystem.

I am concerned that if we do nothing we will decimate our lakes and streams in Alberta, however, if we start messing around with creation we could easily mess things up worse than we ever thought possible.

Bottom line is that we do not fully understand the full extent of our actions. I think we should put more effort into controling our actions as opposed to reacting to the effects of our actions. Nature will recover itself if we let it.

[Sundancefisher]

After reading what I said again, I thought I better check some sources before I try and pretend that I know what I'm talking about. I looked online for the Kootenay Lake Nutrient Restoration Program (http://www.fwcp.ca/version2/projects/media/fwcp-fish-projects-2009-10.pdf) and found that they are continuing it for the 2009/2010 season. I must have misunderstood or been misinformed. From the little I read, it sounds like what you are suggesting we try. Time will tell how this will work but I look forward to hearing about the long term effects it has on the whole ecosystem.

I am concerned that if we do nothing we will decimate our lakes and streams in Alberta, however, if we start messing around with creation we could easily mess things up worse than we ever thought possible.

Bottom line is that we do not fully understand the full extent of our actions. I think we should put more effort into controling our actions as opposed to reacting to the effects of our actions. Nature will recover itself if we let it.

Doing nothing is always an option. I guess from my perspective if the powers that be seriously look at the pros and cons and the best course of action is no action then so be it. I like it when ideas are considered rather than out right dismissed without careful thought regardless the outcome.

[craigmid]

I like it when ideas are considered rather than out right dismissed without careful thought regardless the outcome.

I agree. Like I said I look forward to seeing the long term effects of the Kooteny lake project.

[deanmc]

Interesting idea. I am afraid I cannot share your confidence in our ability to speculate on the long term effects.
Your parallel with farming is a good one considering many doctors and researches are beginning to think the use of chemicals and fertilizers have contributed significantly to the recent increases in cancers allergies and developmental disorders in our children. I love fishing and eating a portion of my catch but I would prefer to see a C&R only to any manipulation no matter how simple it seemed.

[Sundancefisher]

Interesting idea. I am afraid I cannot share your confidence in our ability to speculate on the long term effects.
Your parallel with farming is a good one considering many doctors and researches are beginning to think the use of chemicals and fertilizers have contributed significantly to the recent increases in cancers allergies and developmental disorders in our children. I love fishing and eating a portion of my catch but I would prefer to see a C&R only to any manipulation no matter how simple it seemed.

Can you provide more information on the fertilizers causing cancer?

[deanmc]

Can you provide more information on the fertilizers causing cancer?

If you are actually interested then google it. You will have days and days of reading. I am not asking you to believe it. I am not even saying that I do.

But it would only take a few seconds for you to have looked. Sooo ?????

[BGSH]

i would rather keep fish from a stocked pond then a nice wild beauty from a small stream in he foothills, it is more rewarding to just catch and release up in the foothills anyways. As for big bull trout, i think the geography is not the same as it was back in the 1900s, probably one of the reasons there are not many big bulls anymore.

Shawn

[Don Andersen]

How about we pump part of Calgary's sewage to Banff. That way the Bow get a continuing nutrient load and the city folks are damn careful what they chuck into the sewer.
A win win.

Don

[Dust1n]

its good up to a point...too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
theres rummers about the female brown trout population on the bow how they are getting replaced by males due to those chemicals in the river. im not sure if theres any truth to this but it looks like the same as the RDR how just about every brown caught there is males below the city.

[BeeGuy]

Just a quick comment from me about food webs.

You seem to suggest that the loss of biomass and nutrients that are available in a stream due to fish harvest is a significant factor in the overall stream productivity over time.

I would disagree with this statement because fish, mainly trout/charr are not the most significant source of nutrients in the stream.

As I pointed out in the PCR Dilemma thread, there is a reduction in biomass of 90% with every increase in trophic level.

Therefore, there is 10X or 1000% more nutrients that exist in the stream as invertebrates (primarily) than there are nutrients in the form of trout/charr.

I like your concept, and there are many points you bring up, and several examples, so I'll just throw that out there for now.

[BeeGuy]

How about we pump part of Calgary's sewage to Banff. That way the Bow get a continuing nutrient load and the city folks are damn careful what they chuck into the sewer.
A win win.

Don

Sarcasm?

[BeeGuy]

Just realized this is another zombie thread...

brains!..!...!

[Don Andersen]

BeeGee...

Calgary gets all excited about Banff, Canmore & Bragg creek dumping treated sewage to the Bow but I've never heard anyone from Calgary say anything about the water in Brooks that comes from the Bow.

Seem like the road goes only one way.

And just what is wrong with a little more males in Calgary. The oil business needs the workers.


Don

[BCSteel]

This is an old thread I know, but for about 6 years when I lived in BC (up to last Oct.) I was quite involved with stream fertilizing and habitat creation for increased production of salmonids. My volunteer efforts with the BCCF included things like physically adding the nutrients to the river to cabling in large woody debris to water and periphyton sampling. Very interesting stuff and quite informative working with the bios and techs on a weekly basis.