Watching a Creek Die!

[brown trout]

Quote: "They are not Wild Browns in the true sense.."

That just isn't true. They are wild, born in the stream, not stocked in the better part of a century. They are not native to Alberta, or North America at all. There is a difference between how trout are categorized, ie native (westslope cutts in some U. Oldman system creeks or Athabows by Hinton), introduced-wild (like every brookie and brown in the West), transplanted natives (like westslope cutts in the lakes and streams by Nordegg), hatchery (born in a tank, stocked fish like all the pond/lake stockings in AB), etc.

Quote "... however it will help bring back the population even though it maybe short term."

Also wrong. Every major study, starting in the '50s with Albertan biologists and also by numerous State bio's in the US has shown that stocking trout into streams that are already holding a wild population of fish will actually have a negative impact on the wild fish population by pushing them to the fringes of their normal habitats and over competing.

And as per my comment regarding the budget. Okay, I'll bite. I do know that they budget is theoretically "large". But then when everyone gets their hands on the $$, as you've said, services get the axe. So in the end, the money isn't there to spend on F&W, SRD, or whatever other label you wish to tack onto our overall fisheries groups. Hence, a small realistic budget, and no money for rearing "expensive species" like brown trout (something I've been told by bio, managers, and fisheries techs) for stockings that are already categorically proven not to help... If we only have 40000 browns to stock in the whole province each year, don't waste them while helping destroy wild populations in the first place. Put them in delayed-harvest stillwaters where they provide high quality fisheries.

[McLeod]

The money I was referring to is in the hands of the ACA..But they may give someone a grant to work on this stream if some one applies.

George wants the Browns out of Ruby and they are just as wild as the browns in Stauffer.

And I don't buy the arguement that adding a small number of browns in areas of the creek where there is little or no population will hurt. Those Browns have not been there for that long..

By the way.. the first step should be shutdown the harvest of Browns in the
creek..

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by McLeod

They are not Wild Browns in the true sense.. And no it doesn't solve the issues howver it will help bring back the population even though it maybe short term.

And with all due respect.. son't get me started on your comment "A poor waste of an already tight fisheries budget, sort of like stocking trout then have them whacked on the head the next day."

That is not an issue... There is money ... lots of it...Your just not looking at who has there hands on it and what they are doing with it !

Mcleod


I sit here sputtering - - - didn't I make it clear enough the ACA was asked by SRD to do another pop. Run on 2010 and the ACA was not capable of doing it
Now what gives you the idea that something may motivate them.
Have you an insight in how to kick start them. Self motivation is not evident.

Don

[McLeod]

Not capable ? They have the staff and the money !

[Don Andersen]

McLeod,

Any activity requires 3 components: the tools, the people & the motivation.

If any of the 3 are missing, they are NOT capable of doing the work!

Don

[McLeod]

So is the motivation ..or lack there of because they are exotics..
What about TU..Would they not be interested ?

[brown trout]

The real issue is why the folks in questions, and I mean Big Government, refuse to act. I know that on a personal level the guys and gals at the ACA, SRD, F&W etc must want to protect the environment (why else study environmental biology, etc for years if you hate the topic?).

The problem is as Don said, There is no action. There just shouldn't be the beaurocracy that there obviously is. If there is a problem, fix it. Why talk? it will just get worse and more expensive to accomplish. But then why have them (ACA, F&W, SRD, etc...) if every time there are new issues with fisheries we just pile on more to TU.

I'm sure they'd (ACA, SRD, or whoever) be interested in fixing fisheries, and I'm sure they'd at least want to help. But when Alberta's fisheries as a whole are already the government's responsibility (as per the creation of the province of Alberta, so don't start talking about Big Government please), and they have people employed to perform the jobs, they should by God do them. Otherwise we end up paying twice --once for government to do what they do best; talk, blame someone else, then procrastinate. Then we get the joy of paying another time for a private sector vulture to do the bare-minimum effort to collect the paycheck, at a higher cost than the government could have done itself.

Then the government gets to sit around again, taking twenty years to adjust the regs based on the new information for fear of being seen as "too restrictive" by the general public. And I'm not making it up. That's about the timeline it took to change the bull trout regs when the bio's started noticing that they were heading into collapse, and for walleye, too.

Anyway, my blood pressure is rising. I'm going to tie a fly.

Nick

[Justbyfaith]

In my opinion a group of volunteers, a backhoe, a dump truck, a bit of funding and some common sense could have some excellent new trout habitat built in three weeks. A project of this scope would be low impact to land and wildlife if preformed in the winter...

What's that old adage again? Oh, Yes- It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

Not that I would be interested in something of the sort... *cough*

[Justbyfaith]

Originally Posted by Justbyfaith

In my opinion a group of volunteers, a backhoe, a dump truck, a bit of funding and some common sense could have some excellent new trout habitat built in three weeks. A project of this scope would be low impact to land and wildlife if preformed in the winter...

What's that old adage again? Oh, Yes- It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

Not that I would be interested in something of the sort... *cough*

*performed

[brown trout]

Yes, and groups have been doing volunteer works on that creek seemingly for ever. The thing is we need to isolate the problem before anything can be done.

As Don has said, the habitat has improved, while numbers have been decreasing anyway.

[Don Andersen]

Just by...

I was the largest user by far of money secured through the ACA during the late '90's doing much as you describe however I had permissions from two Federal agencies, three Provincial agencies, the County, adjoining landowners and on and on. I finally realized that the problem wasn't habitat and driving more T posts, planting trees was not fixing the problem. Since then, I only do habitat work on the creek to defray the pathetic arguments that the "habitat" is the issue.

And Brown Trout,

You hit the nail on the head. Govt is responsible and is not doing it's job. So the question is who is going to step up to fill the void?

Don

[Rancid Beat]

Reading this thread in surprise. Never knew stauffer was doing bad! Is it still good to fish?

[Don Andersen]

Ran...

Some fish are still there, just not a lot.

Don

[Nait Hadya]

it would seem that great efforts were undertaken to improve habitat ALONG the creek nothing has been done to protect or improve the habitat IN the creek.

[Don Andersen]

Nait....

Sorry but you are quite incorrect. Starting with Fish & Wildlife's in the early 1970's to the mid 1980's when Central Alberta Chapter of Trout Unlimited took over many of the habitat tasks whose efforts have been mostly in stream with the installation of various structures, removal of beaver dams, silt stabilization efforts and the like. The in stream efforts have been complemented by grass and tree planting.
I would estimate that 80% of the habitat efforts have been in the water. How do I know that, I was there for most of them.

Regards,

Don

[Sedativ3]

Last time I fished upstream of the Buck for Wildlife lot this year I caught 10 fish in a few short hours. Mainly browns, Ranging in size. One very nice coloured brown and one deformed brown which are shown in these photos http://outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthrea...h+brown+hybrid , Do you have an input as to why that little brown was deformed Don? I havent seen a fish quite like that in my short career but.

Originally Posted by Sedativ3

Last time I fished upstream of the Buck for Wildlife lot this year I caught 10 fish in a few short hours. Mainly browns, Ranging in size. One very nice coloured brown and one deformed brown which are shown in these photos http://outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthrea...h+brown+hybrid , Do you have an input as to why that little brown was deformed Don? I havent seen a fish quite like that in my short career but.

I would say its most likely an electrofishing injury. I call them pumpkin fish. Very common in streams that are frequently sampled, occurs occasionally in streams that are sampled occasionally. Basically, the fish heals after skeletal damage and can look funny.

[Sedativ3]

From my understanding the creek hasnt been electrofished in quite awhile. And that little feller hasnt been with us for too long haha. I watched him rise for quite awhile before I layed my fly on him so it doesnt seem to be bothering him at all but.

Originally Posted by Sedativ3

From my understanding the creek hasnt been electrofished in quite awhile. And that little feller hasnt been with us for too long haha. I watched him rise for quite awhile before I layed my fly on him so it doesnt seem to be bothering him at all but.

It has been sampled, just not extensively. Guarantee there's been some kind of bridge work, repairs, assessments etc that would have required at least limited sampling over the past couple years. Fish can be injured as fry and grow to be large adults too, it happens. I caught a 14'' bow a few years ago with the same look, it was tagged actually. I looked into it and that fish had been captured a few years earlier, as a healthy normal looking yearling. Alternatively it could also be a spinal deformity, it does occur in nature; Its just more likely it was electrofishing.

[Sedativ3]

Cool man, good to know! Id like to see him again in a few years and see how large them shoulders have gotten, probably add to the fight!

[pipercub17]

ok so i have been following this since it started
i have been fishing this creek for about 15 years and have seen many changes !
last year was the first year i couldnt find any bigger browns .
this creek sure has seen a big increase in fishing pressure over the past few years
cant remember the last time i didnt bump into someone else fishing it
now one thing that i like to say is this is a creek that never supporded the life of brown trout in the first place -so i think we are lucky to have what is there .

regulation changes for this creek are a must if we wanna help the fish that are left survive !
removal of beaver dams may help them with the spawn
i think that the brookies may be part of the problem -they eat the brown trout fry !
stocking a few more browns in to the system may help
i also wonder if many of the browns have found there way into the other rivers that it is conected to -- like the clearwater -got afew big ones in that river this year

this is just some of my thoughts
i will continue to follow

[Don Andersen]

Seda...

No idea what cause the deformity. Have seen similar on both Elk Creek and the Bow. Never seen one on Stauffer and I've probably caught 5>10,000 fish on the creek. I have seen BROOKIES with gilllates missing. Nobody seemed to know why?

Piper...

The stream is C&R except for the 2 summer months when the stream is very weedy. I have only encountered one guy with a single dead fish and that was 10 + years ago. I really don't know if further restrictive limits are required. Stauffer was open to kill with a limit of 5 till the massive regulation changes about 15 years ago. As the decrease on population happened after 1985 nearly 25+ years ago, I expect that further limits may do little. However, any change has to be seen as positive. I know that sitting on one's ass will mean "another one bites the dust"!

Don

[pipercub17]

yes don
sitting on ones ass will not get anything done
what if they put a kill on the brookies ? could that help .

[Don Andersen]

Piper..

Would you please read the ACA report referenced on my site in the "Stauffer Story".

Lots of your questions are answered by looking @ the brook trout population #'s and where they are found in concentration.

Regards,


Don

[Fisher_man#1]

Don,
Im curious if you think catching those big browns over and over all summer long has an impact on their survival.
Just because they swim away doesn't mean the will live much longer. Just the act of fishing, even with flies, fish die, a lot more anglers doing it...well....


Sounds like a lot of anglers sticking the same fish over and over might be a factor...

[Don Andersen]

Fisher...


There is no question that poor handling will result in death. But there are few of the big ones caught each year. For me, if I caught a single fish over 20" each year, I would consider that a good year. Some years I do better than that, some worse. Most anglers rarely catch the large ones.
Digital cameras have resulted in the death of a lot of trout.
Certainly, the C&R of the larger ones could be a contributing factor.

Regards,


Don

[McLeod]

If you want better fishing..increasing catch rates over the short term..
next 3 to 10 years...
The solution would be to first make it C and Release fishing only.
Follow that with some stocking of Browns .

The better the fishing though the more anglers on the water.

Also were are dealing with exotics which are looking down on by many as evasive and are not considered a priority..I disagree with that but many in the positions of the ability to do something don't.

[Bigtoad]

I would agree with McLeod that I'd like to see the creek strictly C&R, or perhaps do as Manitoba and have a harvest of one under 16" or 18" to keep the larger breeding trout in the river.

It would be interesting to know how many bigguns get bonked out of there each year.

And until last year, I didn't notice a difference in fishing. However, last spring was by far my worst year of fishing it. Caught fish, but not the size there should have been. Stayed one evening and there were brown drakes hatching and skating across the top of the water across a long glide. Not a fish was rising to them. Seemed odd to me. Water should have been popping...

Might need to do some more exploring this year and see what other little gems are out there.

Cheers

[Nait Hadya]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Nait....

Sorry but you are quite incorrect. Starting with Fish & Wildlife's in the early 1970's to the mid 1980's when Central Alberta Chapter of Trout Unlimited took over many of the habitat tasks whose efforts have been mostly in stream with the installation of various structures, removal of beaver dams, silt stabilization efforts and the like. The in stream efforts have been complemented by grass and tree planting.
I would estimate that 80% of the habitat efforts have been in the water. How do I know that, I was there for most of them.

Regards,

Don

perhaps the floods washed out the log jams and midstream structure....

Originally Posted by Nait Hadya

perhaps the floods washed out the log jams and midstream structure....

There's a lot of cover in that stream, probably some of the nicest cover available in any Alberta stream. I don't think it's an instream cover issue.