How do you view the idea of closing streams to try and save them

[rfb700]

As climate change and pollution become more and more of a factor in our sport, I’m wondering how people view the idea that at some point, we may have to lose a part our sport in order to save it.

In Alberta last year, they were proposing a 5 year closure for some of the more popular trout streams. A 2015 study found that all southern Alberta streams that spawn native trout were threatened by industrial development or overuse. As a result cutthroat were down to 5 percent of their historic range, Bull trout had lost 70% of their original range, and Grayling were down to 10% of historic levels.

Lorne Fitch who is a Fisheries biologist and Professor at the University of Calgary(Go Dinos!!) said that even catch and release fishing would have an impact on the ability of those populations to recover considering the state of the current fish population.

As always it seems that economic concerns are trumping what’s good for the fishery. They aren’t going to further regulate the logging industry and because of tourism concerns, they will continue to allow angling.

Now I get that people make their living as guides and that they would take a hit with the closure, but if there are no more fish at the end of the day what have you gained, a few more years of making some coin in a dying industry? We closed the cod fishery in Canada and while it did cause hardships, there is at least a faint chance the Northern Cod fishery may some day recover.

When other industries go belly up there doesn’t seem to be quite the uproar. We’ve lost a ton of manufacturing jobs in North America but we’ve adapted. Not perfectly, but jobs have been found in other sectors.

Yet propose a ban on someone’s right to harvest wild animals and people lose their minds. Our natural resources seem to be the most poorly managed resource on the face of the planet.

I for one wouldn’t mind closures if it meant the difference between a stream remaining viable for trout for future generations, and a stream empty of them after a few more years. My own personal choice, but I have given up fishing certain streams that I used to love simply because they seem to be under major stress.

Even if I can’t fish them, I still feel better knowing that the stream I’m walking along has a reproducing population of trout in them.

 

[Bigfly]

Like I always say......there are consumers and connoisseurs.....
A consumer will raise holy hell, because they want what they want......a connoisseur will appreciate the gesture......

Jim

 

[Monello]

I doubt that anglers contributed to the bulk of the decline. Best address the issues that will have a larger impact. Hit a home run instead of bunting for a single.

 

[osseous]

Close it for 5 years- and there will be a stampede in the year it opens that will undo the good that's been done.

Education over the care that's required by each user is the answer. Create a legion of passionate defenders who Keep em Wet.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rfb700]

No, anglers didn't contribute to the majority of the decline, but they had their part to play. And at this stage any further angling pressure just might be the final nail in the coffin.

And as far as education being the key, I think it's nice in theory but I've never really seen it work in practice. For public resources, the percentage that actually care enough to make a difference pales in the face of the numbers who simply don't care and will use a resource until it's gone. I think the only way to make a substantial lasting change is to legislate it. If it was me, I'd close the fishery until healthy however long it takes and institute a tag system that would limit the numbers who could use it and when they could use it after it reopened.

 

[Unknownflyman]

Ive seen what catch and release artificial flies and lures only can do for a fishery, its not overnight, it takes time, and its good. On our trout rivers and streams we close during the fall spawn and open later for the catch and release only winter season. Catch and Kill starts again mid April. Outside of increased angler education, I think in Minnesota and Wisconsin does it right.

I believe in seasons and its nice to fish year round. Best of both worlds.

Rivers in decline from environmental factors are a whole other story and I'm sure outside of no kill regulations, not much could be done on the angler end except joining a fly fishing or river organization and go after the environmental reasons the river is in decline. Work together to restore spawning habitat and manage run off, keep livestock out of the river, ask landowner's to create buffer zones in agricultural areas.

Working with the DNR and having a good relationship is crucial for habitat improvement. Much like Trout Unlimited has done nationwide since its inception.

 

[osseous]

You've never seen a fishery improve through management? Seriously? That's a shame. I've not only seen it, I've been engaged in it. And I have to believe that the angling pressure in Canada is nothing compared to what we see in the States (and nowhere close to collapse). I will say that the conservation ethos, and the idea that each angler owes more than the mere purchase of a license could use a boost among the newer members of the fly fishing community.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[darkshadow]

I think there are so many factors that contribute to a body of water's decline, that simply closing it would not swing the pendulum.

In fact, there's a famous creek here in California, that according to our DFW, has taken quite a hit as far as trout population and regular reproduction of the wild residents.

Now, instead of actually analyzing the reasons WHY that occurred, their idea was to stock some non-triploid fish into the creek.

If a pot of water is boiling, and you notice that the fish that were in there are now belly up, is it a good idea to toss some more fish in there to see if they'll survive?

In any case, I can see how closures may help if the reason why declines in fish is directly related to angler pressure, such as damage that can be done during the spawn. But if it's other factors, such as water conditions, deteriorating stream beds, the loss of habitat and spawning grounds, etc. then a closure may slow down the decline, but unless the main culprits are analyzed and eradicated, I don't think closures will turn fisheries around.

 

[flytie09]

I accept closures are part of the healing process and I accept it for future generations. I agree with Monello that recreational fishing isn't the primary issue. Angling pressure is but a small part of it. However, for legislators it's an easy lever to pull.

I would expect any recovery plan to consider all of the factors and be challenged to address all of the variables. This would be habitat preservation and protection, mining influences, forestry effects and water quality, etc.

For anadromous species the challenges are more complex. We would need to take a hard look at hatcheries, fish farming, commercial fishing, Natives harvest among others as well.

These are very sensitive areas as there are jobs, livelihoods and a lot of money at play from these industries to maintain their directives.

 

[rfb700]

You've never seen a fishery improve through management? Seriously? That's a shame. I've not only seen it, I've been engaged in it. And I have to believe that the angling pressure in Canada is nothing compared to what we see in the States (and nowhere close to collapse). I will say that the conservation ethos, and the idea that each angler owes more than the mere purchase of a license could use a boost among the newer members of the fly fishing community.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I did not say management, which to my mind would involve enforcing regulations to maintain the fisheries health, I said education which would be trying to bring about voluntary restraint in dealing with the use of a fishery.

And I have to admit, I have not seen many fisheries improve over the last decade or so in North America. I am familiar with the fisheries in Ontario, Quebec and the Eastern provinces and while some may be holding their own, I can't think of any that are really booming.

 

[Ard]

The idea that angling pressure has no serious impact on fisheries is just wrong to put it into a single word.

Our king fisheries are closed until further notice and all bets are off on the sockeye fishing this year. Last year saw closures on the Mighty Copper & Kenai Rivers and their drainages. With all that is in decline around me I expect there to be more closed waters this year. Those looking to plunder the waters of the few remaining fish will have to either change venues or become poachers. What has happened here is no matter to be taken lightly. For year old details I would refer you to an opinion essay located here ; An Inconvenient Possibility

I'll be working up an updated accounting of this years developments as data becomes available.

 

[osseous]

When you ban people from a resource, do you create fewer of more advocates for that resource's future? Bans are a questionable answer- Rivers need advocates. Creating public/private partnerships is a creative way to enhance the resource and affect change in rapid fashion.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[marty mcfly]

I think "closing" a stream entirely to recreational fishing for 5 years would be counterproductive, especially when, as you describe, it has problems that are not related to recreational fishing. I think that strategy would just remove the people who care about it most, and I fear what would happen to it a few years down the road once it is no longer part of the daily thoughts and concerns of the people who most want to see it restored and protected.

If a stream is overfished, why not have seasonal closures to protect the spawn, or convert it to just catch and release (at least for a period of time), etc.? Just the other day I was wondering to myself if fishing pressure will get to the point where we have to start selling limited numbers of fishing licenses, perhaps on a lottery system, like they do with hunting tags for certain game animals out west. I think they do something like that under the concept of "rod days," at least for guides, in some areas of Canada. But in the waters I fish anyone can buy an annual license and use it to fish as much or as little as he/she wants, anywhere in the state.

As sad as it would be, I can envision a day when there are too many anglers for the resource to bear. But, I still think a system that appropriately restricts, but does not eliminate, recreational fishing would be best. We need the people who care about the health of the streams to be interacting with them so that they are not forgotten and abandoned to the people who either don't think about, or don't care about, healthy rivers.

 

[rfb700]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that anglers are a principal cause of these fisheries decline. But they are a factor. And if a stream is so far gone that any pressure, even catch and release fishing as Professor Fitch suggests, can be the final nail in the coffin why wouldn't you remove what pressures you can while you try and save it.

Laws to remove environmental threats caused by major industries like logging take a lot longer to put in place. But, at least where I live, closures are fairly easy to implement. It's not a solution but it may give you the breathing room to find one.

And lets not forget that once a resource is gone it's not that easy to restore. They've been trying to reintroduce Atlantic Salmon into Lake Ontario for decades with little success. Fishes unique to a water body have adapted for thousands of years to local conditions and they may not be able to be replaced with another strain of the same species. Stocking of Lakes in Algonquin Park have not taken for the most part because of that and they are now concentrating on preserving the unique strains that still remain.

 

[Unknownflyman]

I can only speak to which waters I'm familiar and some of the things that are done here at home. There are complex and difficult challenges across North America and truly one size does not fit all.

Reading Ard`s post and the decline of salmon on the west coast and thinking of the insatiable desire of the public palate to have salmon 24/7/365 at every grocery store in North America is truly sad and unsustainable.

The challenges of commercial fishing and regulating that which brings income off natural resources is the most difficult, Who would like their living taken away? and who wants to see the last of the salmon disappear?

At what point can people understand that everything available all the time for simple monetary cost is not worth it.

Will harmonious action take place? Can some group take the reins and spearhead the recovery? I believe it can happen and it must but hopefully before its too late.

Many of our local fisheries collapsed because of over harvest, private and commercial, environmental factors due to the industrialization of the north came second but continue to decline in many areas by a number of factors.

Unfortunately many will not come to the table until it's gone.

 

[osseous]

I'm curious to know if the folks commenting have first hand experience with fisheries regulation and/or habitat restoration? Habitat and catch limits are pretty effective tools- when you roll commercial harvest into the mix you encounter serious political opposition. This is a FAR greater hill to climb than environmental factors in my experience. Without that element, you can turn a fishery around in rapid fashion. When it is a factor- it's a boom/bust cycle for the most part.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rfb700]

I'm curious to know if the folks commenting have first hand experience with fisheries regulation and/or habitat restoration? Habitat and catch limits are pretty effective tools- when you roll commercial harvest into the mix you encounter serious political opposition. This is a FAR greater hill to climb than environmental factors in my experience. Without that element, you can turn a fishery around in rapid fashion. When it is a factor- it's a boom/bust cycle for the most part.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Well, at least in Ontario they hold consultations with the general public on proposed changes at various open houses. There's one this February for Fisheries Management zone 11. They don't necessarily take your input but they do lay out policy. And you are free to lobby to make changes. I've corresponded with a number of employees of the various administrative groups that oversee our fisheries as well. I have written my local member of parliament enough times that I no longer get a form letter back in return but I can't say anything I've written has ever made a difference.

As far as stream restoration, I've helped out a bit in my local area, although not for trout as there aren't any(any more). I also belong to a club that has a stretch of river and every year we plant to stabilize banks and provide shade, clean up the stream bed, try and improve spawning areas etc. It's been going on for a good number of years now. I'd say it's a better fishery but it took a while to turn it around. And there are still many challenges facing it.

And unless there are changes in the current pattern of development and use on the public sections I'd say all we did was buy ourselves a few years.

 

[flytie09]

Each fishery is different. And must be handled in a case by case basis. The bigger the problem...the bigger the scope needs to be is what I'm saying. I don't have a Fish Biology or Resource Management background....but on the same token I don't need to be an M.D. to know that something bad for you is doing harm to ones body. I can say we're all fisherman on here and have seen the declines first hand.

For the PNW fisheries for example (which is one of the most complex) simply instituting moratoriums on recreational fishing will and has not brought these fisheries around rapidly. They've tried it and it ain't working. It's simply a ridiculous mad scramble each and every year by State/Federal law makers with new regulations and new restrictions when return numbers continue their decline.

Resource Management is acting very much in a reactive manner to the problem. Why? Because of the severity of the situation. Their power, influence, and budgets are limited and if we're totally honest with each other.....the majority of Americans could care less if you, I or future generations catch another fish or not.

That's why we can't argue as an angling community, we need to have a central voice to emphasize what we're doing isn't working and we want the right changes to be made now for there to be a tomorrow.

I'm willing to not fish for them again, ever. If it would truly rectify the situation and bring things back to numbers seen even 30 years ago. Easy for me to say when I live across the other side of the country. But I'm highly skeptical.

Will tribes cease gill netting? Can we take a down a few dams? Can we start closing down some hatcheries? Can we set aside additional tracts of land on certain rivers/tribs to be Federally protected areas? Can we cut commercial harvest even more? Can we at least entertain a hard decision and a mixed compromise for the sustainability and future of these resources?

It sounds crazy that we must be able to be able to fish to care for them and the best interest of the resource....but it's just a reality. We must maintain visibility to the situation at hand and remain advocates.

 

[Ard]

I failed to mention earlier that I am an advocate of 'proper' catch & release fisheries. I think many of us know what I mean by proper. The fish out of water practice is harmful. Arguing against that is ridiculous.

Education of the anglers is a huge task. In the lower 48 and Canada where there are wild fisheries just having C&R or fly fish only regulations isn't the whole cure. Keeping people off the streams during spawning periods and educating the anglers so they recognize spawning beds post spawn is another big issue. I could go on and on but...….

Here where I am it is a Kill them all and let God sort them out mentality. Based on that and I am not exaggerating one bit, I have zero doubt that when streams and rivers are closed to 'harvest' the pressure falls away dramatically.

Last year the king salmon was closed to harvest, during the season I was in fact the only boat on either river I visited. Empty boat launch parking lots, empty rivers, zero pressure.

 

[flytie09]

Ard,

If they shut everything down up there for the next decade....I just ask for first dibs on some of that fine tackle of yours.:eyebrows:

On a serious note.... the fact that even things in Alaska have turned sour is highly concerning. What will there be when we’re all gone? Carp fishing?