Banff biologists fish kill off

[big river]

A few years ago there was some discussion about fish biologists wanting to kill of "invasive" species in Banff national park. At the time there was some discussion about whether that meant all lakes, or as the media reported only some specific lakes (some confusion about that) Ok long question, did this murder of sports fish ever got carried out and if so where exactly did that occur.?

[fishpro]

I have emailed a bit with one of the biologists, and there are a handful of lakes that have been done or are in progress. They don't plan to kill off all the lakes as time, and more importantly money, is required. Here's what has been done or is being done:

Devon Lakes, Helen Lake, Katherine Lake, Little Herbert - killed off and no plans to reintroduce fish as they were originally fishless.

Hidden Lake - brookies killed and cutthroat are being reintrocied.

Margaret Lake - in the process of being killed off, plans to reintroduce cutts.

Rainbow Lake - rainbows killed off, cutts reintroduced.

Badger Lake - in progress.

[58thecat]

What a crock....

Let us fish and eat the so called evasive species

Last year while out and about those mountains sure would have enjoyed a shore lunch or two plus the others that were coming and going.

No limit on evasive species would have been more beneficial for all critters in the lakes.

[McLeod]

Shelley is her own world and she is very much anti angler.

Same reason a number of lakes have been closed to angling and will likely NEVER be reopened.. Mystic ,Marvel ect

[vic1]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

What a crock....

Let us fish and eat the so called evasive species

Last year while out and about those mountains sure would have enjoyed a shore lunch or two plus the others that were coming and going.

No limit on evasive species would have been more beneficial for all critters in the lakes.

I agree 100%. This was a good agenda years ago where Alberta anglers population was low. At the present time where there are a lot of anglers they should be looking at stocking Alberta's streams and lakes with fish that can reproduce and grow quickly. Or at least don't keel any more fish.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

What a crock....

Let us fish and eat the so called evasive species

Last year while out and about those mountains sure would have enjoyed a shore lunch or two plus the others that were coming and going.

No limit on evasive species would have been more beneficial for all critters in the lakes.

Absolutely agree!

BW

[Kings]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

What a crock....

Let us fish and eat the so called evasive species

Last year while out and about those mountains sure would have enjoyed a shore lunch or two plus the others that were coming and going.

No limit on evasive species would have been more beneficial for all critters in the lakes.

Totally agree with this.

[wind drift]

Invasive. Not evasive. The parks are primarily mandated to achieve conservation outcomes, not recreational. Anglers can’t be expected to eliminate unwanted non-native species unless they can get them all using the methods at their disposal. I’m not familiar with an angling technique that can catch fry or fingerlings, so a toxicant is the prescribed treatment for elimination. This isn’t a recreational fishing issue, but conservation. As anglers, we should be first for conservation. We can love brook trout, but not everywhere.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Invasive. Not evasive. The parks are primarily mandated to achieve conservation outcomes, not recreational. Anglers can’t be expected to eliminate unwanted non-native species unless they can get them all using the methods at their disposal. I’m not familiar with an angling technique that can catch fry or fingerlings, so a toxicant is the prescribed treatment for elimination. This isn’t a recreational fishing issue, but conservation. As anglers, we should be first for conservation. We can love brook trout, but not everywhere.

If you target those fish without limits that you want removed eventually you will gain success over time....it’s a win win for the anglers and the so called mandated conservation.

Killing a lake from my perspective is far from conservation.

[goldscud]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-e...park-1.6054552

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by goldscud

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-e...park-1.6054552

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...ience/rotenone

[goldscud]

More info on Rotenone

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=rotenone.faq

[walking buffalo]

"Murder" of sport fishes.
The drama, the horror and the drama.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

If you target those fish without limits that you want removed eventually you will gain success over time....it’s a win win for the anglers and the so called mandated conservation.

Killing a lake from my perspective is far from conservation.

How well has that worked in Flathead lake and Yellowstone lakes down south? It’s Illegal to release a live lake trout in Yellowstone unless you puncture its air bladder and there’s no limit on them. They even have hired commercial fishing outfits to come try and reduce the numbers. Flathead lake on the reservation has a 100 fish per day limit. This springs Mack days winning angler caught and turned in 2056 fish during the tournament and yet the trout are still there….

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

How well has that worked in Flathead lake and Yellowstone lakes down south? It’s Illegal to release a live lake trout in Yellowstone unless you puncture its air bladder and there’s no limit on them. They even have hired commercial fishing outfits to come try and reduce the numbers. Flathead lake on the reservation has a 100 fish per day limit. This springs Mack days winning angler caught and turned in 2056 fish during the tournament and yet the trout are still there….

Well sounds kinda out to lunch conservation when you want to take out an evasive species yet you release the big ones...
Flathead Lake ---------north of Flathead Indian Reservation boundary • Catch-and-release for Cutthroat Trout. Lake Trout: 100 daily and in possession, only 1 over 36 inches, and all fish 30 to 36 inches must be released. Lake Whitefish: 100 daily and in possession. Northern Pike: 15 daily.
Aaaaand if they dip in the poison well there is more at stake then one or two species....
The fish species in the lake consist primarily of lake trout, pike, yellow perch and whitefish, with some rainbow trout, bass, kokanee salmon and bull trout also found. The lake trout in Flathead Lake can reach monstrous sizes, frequently exceeding twenty-pounds.
If you don want a species in a lake well ya dont place restrictions on it for a time being....oh well....guberment.

Going to be all over that area soon enough attempting to achieve the cut throat slam

[kidd]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

What a crock....

Let us fish and eat the so called evasive species

Last year while out and about those mountains sure would have enjoyed a shore lunch or two plus the others that were coming and going.

No limit on evasive species would have been more beneficial for all critters in the lakes.

Those evasive species. You just have such a hard time finding them. They are too evasive! Now those invasive species, those are different bunch. Much, much easier to deal with.
kidd

[Smoky buck]

Not that I agree with this management plan of poisoning these fisheries it is the effective option to remove a unwanted species of fish

Anglers can lower a population but they are not going to eliminate it

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by kidd

Those evasive species. You just have such a hard time finding them. They are too evasive! Now those invasive species, those are different bunch. Much, much easier to deal with.
kidd

Sorry on the wording you got or get it….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EZM]

I am in favor of protecting our native cutthroats. If that means killing of invasive species who over compete, or interbreed (cutbows) effectively destroying native stocks and genetics like they already have in many watersheds - that's the price I'm willing to pay.

This is issue isn't about "fishermen" or "our entitlement" - this is about preventing the extinction of one of our last remaining native trout species.

That's how I see it.

We could very easily stock tigers, brookies, etc... in catch and keep lakes - and likely should be doing more of that in my opinion. In closed watersheds, of course, that do not share potential to impact native watersheds.

Bottom line is ......... we can do both.

[McLeod]

While I agree with what you are saying in Banff Shelley killed off some lakes for the sole purpose of glorifying her own ego and Ideology. Those lakes had no native fish and never will but provided a fishery as well protected a stock that some jurisdictions where the fish are natives may need someday to their own problems. Example Yellowstone Cuts.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by McLeod

While I agree with what you are saying in Banff Shelley killed off some lakes for the sole purpose of glorifying her own ego and Ideology. Those lakes had no native fish and never will but provided a fishery as well protected a stock that some jurisdictions where the fish are natives may need someday to their own problems. Example Yellowstone Cuts.

Yellowstones are a invasive species, to me no different that rainbows - yeah they are cutthroats, but they also don't belong and are also killing (contaminating) our westslope cutthroat genetics.

I'd get rid of them too in the watersheds we deem protected for native species.

But my bigger point was this ........ we can do both ....... protect our natives in some watersheds (as extinction would be a cardinal sin in my mind) but ALSO create, stock and manage harvest of other species for us to enjoy catching, cooking and eating.

If I had to pay $200 for an annual license to be able to enjoy a high quality fishery where I could eat some fish ....and catch genetically pure natives (catch and release) also in a quality fishery ..... I would.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by EZM

Yellowstones are a invasive species, to me no different that rainbows - yeah they are cutthroats, but they also don't belong and are also killing (contaminating) our westslope cutthroat genetics.

I'd get rid of them too in the watersheds we deem protected for native species.

But my bigger point was this ........ we can do both ....... protect our natives in some watersheds (as extinction would be a cardinal sin in my mind) but ALSO create, stock and manage harvest of other species for us to enjoy catching, cooking and eating.

If I had to pay $200 for an annual license to be able to enjoy a high quality fishery where I could eat some fish ....and catch genetically pure natives (catch and release) also in a quality fishery ..... I would.

2x. I feel like we all forget that rainbows (with the exception of Athabasca rainbows), brookies, and browns (gasp) are all invasive species. Sure - the AB government has them allocated as “non-native introduced” and integrated into the aquatic ecosystem, but they are invasive, folks. When I can, I legally harvest what I can of those species to lessen the pressure on our native fish.

We so under appreciate our native species, Rikkles fisher calls mountain whitefish as “premiers” as they are a premiere fish species in Alberta that is so undervalued. I feel like a lot of us, need to shift our mentality. Just my thoughts…..

[McLeod]

Originally Posted by EZM

Yellowstones are a invasive species, to me no different that rainbows - yeah they are cutthroats, but they also don't belong and are also killing (contaminating) our westslope cutthroat genetics.

I'd get rid of them too in the watersheds we deem protected for native species.

But my bigger point was this ........ we can do both ....... protect our natives in some watersheds (as extinction would be a cardinal sin in my mind) but ALSO create, stock and manage harvest of other species for us to enjoy catching, cooking and eating.

If I had to pay $200 for an annual license to be able to enjoy a high quality fishery where I could eat some fish ....and catch genetically pure natives (catch and release) also in a quality fishery ..... I would.

My point was if the some Yellowstones that were located in isolated areas and could never come into contact with Native Species should have been left alone.

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by McLeod

My point was if the some Yellowstones that were located in isolated areas and could never come into contact with Native Species should have been left alone.

Where were they isolated and of no threat to native species? When I, as well as others, emailed with Shelley about Katherine Lake, she said they were going over the waterfall and they were finding Yellowstone genetics in Helen Creek, which I believe is a place with native Westslopes.

[McLeod]

Originally Posted by fishpro

Where were they isolated and of no threat to native species? When I, as well as others, emailed with Shelley about Katherine Lake, she said they were going over the waterfall and they were finding Yellowstone genetics in Helen Creek, which I believe is a place with native Westslopes.

That could be and that is a good point. But I would like to see some data on that..Too late now anyways.

[thumper]

I'm surprised that Parks Canada still allows fishing at all. You're not permitted to pick a mushroom or berry, and you're not permitted to approach any other animal - why do they still permit catching fish?

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Originally Posted by thumper

I'm surprised that Parks Canada still allows fishing at all. You're not permitted to pick a mushroom or berry, and you're not permitted to approach any other animal - why do they still permit catching fish?

They’ve been trying to shut it all down for as long as I can remember and have been somewhat successful over the years. I think the only thing stopping them from a complete ban is outfitters. Don’t get me wrong, they’ll still try at some point in the future. Actually surprised it hasn’t happened already. TBH, we just don’t go to the woke national parks anymore unless passing through. The money is better spent provincially.

[58thecat]

I am not sure what all the hype is to keep things pure, native, etc
At one point and time wasn’t all species invasive?
I say let it be and let us enjoy a few shore lunches etc.
Sometimes messing too much with nature just leads to a bloody disaster

[slough shark]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

How well has that worked in Flathead lake and Yellowstone lakes down south? It’s Illegal to release a live lake trout in Yellowstone unless you puncture its air bladder and there’s no limit on them. They even have hired commercial fishing outfits to come try and reduce the numbers. Flathead lake on the reservation has a 100 fish per day limit. This springs Mack days winning angler caught and turned in 2056 fish during the tournament and yet the trout are still there….

Flathead is a different beast from a small alpine lake, it’s fairly easy to fish out a lake with a couple thousand fish in it, flathead an individual could catch that many lake trout in a season if he had the right equipment and knowledge and likely not have a massive impact on the population.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by McLeod

That could be and that is a good point. But I would like to see some data on that..Too late now anyways.

The data is in the DNA of the Westslope CTT downstream in the same watershed.

Pretty clear there was some interbreeding.