StructureSpot

Fish Take Advantage Of High Waters

Fish Take Advantage Of High Waters
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Fish & Wildlife

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Montanans, though battered by weeks of high water and flooding, haven’t forgotten to wonder how the state’s fish are faring judging by the questions Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is receiving.

FWP officials say the answer is generally good—in fact some fish species are already taking advantage of the high water.

“Fish are well adapted to survive flooding, though they can sometimes be stranded when high water recedes, depending on where they took refuge,” said Bruce Rich, FWP fisheries bureau chief.

Remember, natural streams and rivers of the not too distant past were a substantially wilder, more transformative force on the landscape than they are today. They carried soil, nutrients, and heavy debris for miles, cut new channels during spring runoff, reseeded cottonwood trees along their river banks and scoured stream bottom gravels providing high-quality spawning and rearing habitat for fish. Some springs it is hard to imagine all this stream activity, but not this year.

“In high water like we’re seeing this year, fish generally move to the margins of the river for refuge—to backwater areas, or warmer, less turbid side channels or tributaries,” said Mark Lere, FWP’s Future Fisheries Improvement Program coordinator. “Fish might even move out onto the floodplain when it is inundated, then back into the backwaters and side channels as the water recedes.”

Lere said as water spreads out over the floodplain it tends to warm and pick up nutrients, providing great growing conditions for everything in the aquatic system–algae, insects, fish and other aquatic creatures.

Even when water is running muddy and fast, fish are able to orient themselves to the main channel and find food. Their body shapes and musculature help, but so does a sophisticated set of organic navigation tools.

“Fish have a sensory mechanism called the lateral line system that they use to navigate,” said Amber Steed, FWP fisheries biologist in Kalispell. “It is made up of external pores running from front to back through the fish’s midsection that allows the fish to sense movement and vibration, and changes in flow and water pressure.”

This system is a sense organ somewhat analogous to a human’s senses. Most amphibian larvae and some adult amphibians have a type of lateral organ too.

Fish reproduction also benefits as a result of high spring runoff. Fish deposit eggs in river gravels in what are called “redds.” Heavy runoff flushes mud and debris out of these gravels so fresh, clean water flows through increasing the oxygen available to the embryonic fish that will develop.

As Montanans everywhere cope with high water and its after effects, it may be some comfort to anglers and others to know that there will be some future benefits.

High FLows On Prairie River Systems And Warm Water Fish
By Diane Tipton, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Statewide Information Officer

Montana’s prairie stream systems generally have low annual flows. This spring will go on record as an exception. High water in eastern Montana is making life difficult in area communities at the same time that it may be enhancing conditions for some of the state’s warm water fish, including the endangered pallid sturgeon.

At least five radio-tagged adult pallid sturgeon are using the Milk River, say Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists tracking the pallids. Biologists have determined that at least one adult male pallid sturgeon has traveled 36 river miles up the Milk from its mouth this spring, the furthest a pallid has ever been documented upstream in this river.

Another of the pallids in the Milk is a female that is expected to spawn this year. Female pallid sturgeon spawn for the first time at about 20 years of age, and then every two to three years after.

“A naturally spawning pallid sturgeon in the Milk or Missouri River would be very big news,” said Tyler Haddix, FWP fisheries biologist at Fort Peck on the pallid sturgeon team. Although FWP documented natural spawning in the Yellowstone River in 2009, it has not been documented in either the Missouri or Milk Rivers.

Pallid sturgeon have been on the federal list of threatened and endangered species since 1990. FWP believes that only about 150 wild produced adult pallid sturgeon survive in the Yellowstone and lower Missouri River complex. FWP and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been producing hatchery-reared pallid sturgeon and stocking them into the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers since 1998.

“Of all the adult pallid sturgeon that have radio tags—about 45 fish—we’re seeing a significant proportion using the Missouri River this year compared to any previous year we’ve studied these fish,” Haddix said. “That is a direct result of high, muddy water.”

Other benefits of high water and flooding on the flatlands of eastern Montana include increased production of aquatic insects and other fish food sources.

“Nutrients increase and water temperature goes up—resulting in increased fish growth and improved winter survival,” Haddix said.

Increased production and good survival could mean anglers will see more paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, sauger, and channel catfish in a few years, he said.

“In 2010 on the Milk, another high-water year, FWP documented the best production of paddlefish in the Milk River and shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River in the 11 years that we have been intensively looking at larval fish production,” Haddix said. “This year could be another high production year for these two species.”

Spring 2011 may go down in the record books for a variety of reasons—some of them tragic. It is good to know the record-breaking events we’ve observed this spring may have some positive effects—for Montana’s fish populations.

-fwp-

SIDEBAR:
Q. How do fish navigate?

A. Fish have adapted to the need to navigate high water in spring and to flooding rivers. Many fish species have a sensory mechanism to orient themselves and to detect what is going on in their environment called the “lateral line.” This system allows fish, when water recedes from an area, to sense changes in flow and water pressure.

The lateral line provides information to help a fish orient itself to its environment similar to how a human’s sensory systems enables a person to know they are changing elevation, or that someone is standing right behind them.

Q. What are the main benefits to fish of the spring runoff and occasional flooding?

A. Fish benefit from high water and flooding in multiple ways.

1. High water redistributes gravel otherwise unavailable to fish in other parts of the system and scours away silt covering the gravel fish need to spawn. Many fish species in Montana need clean, silt-free gravels to spawn.

2. Runoff typically introduces nutrients to the river system that feed algae, plants, and insects which in turn feed the fish that live there.

3. Other fish habitat-enhancers, such as root wads, rocks, whole trees, and more may be brought into the river system and distributed during high runoff. These habitat-enhancers are important to fish as refuges from the heavy flows, to avoid predators, feed, over winter and rear young.

4. Runoff in also a cue that it is spring spawning time for fish species such as cutthroat trout, large-scale suckers, rainbow trout and other species.

Paw Paw River Restoration Watervliet Dams Removal Project

Project OverviewThis project will restore the Paw Paw River by  removing both the spillway and diversion dams.   After removal, the river channel and banks will be  restored. With over 40 fish species, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division and The  Nature Conservancy consider the Paw Paw River one of the highest quality freshwater systems in the Great Lakes Basin.

Currently, the spillway dam is the only obstruction on the Paw Paw River from Lake  Michigan to the Maple Lake dam in Paw Paw Village.   The dams removal project is listed as high priority in several plans including the Berrien County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Paw Paw River Watershed  Management Plan and the St. Joseph River  Watershed Assessment. Expected Project Benefits?? Improved Safety The dams have known structural deficiencies.  The dams are a safety hazard for  recreational users, including those fishing, canoeing and kayaking.  ?? Improved Fish Habitat and Water Quality The dams prevent the migration and movement of many aquatic animals (native fish,  mussels, etc.) and their removal will restore connectivity to over 100 miles of river habitat.  Following removal and restoration work, gravel and cobble will be exposed in the historic channel providing new fish habitat.  ?? Improved Economic Opportunities Short term this project will provide jobs.

In the long term, this project will enhance the  economic opportunities associated with the river.  The communities along the Paw Paw River will benefit from the improved fish habitat and water quality as it will create more  fishing and recreational opportunities.   Project FundersMajor implementation and monitoring funding has been provided by the  Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA) with additional funding from:   Berrien County Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Other Project Team Members Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT)Southwest Michigan Planning Commission (SWMPC) The Nature Conservancy (TNC)  Two Rivers Coalition (TRC)Paw Paw River Restoration Watervliet Dams Removal Project For more  information visit:   www.swmpc.org/watervlietdam.asp

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Pebble again on the ballot – for now……..

Pebble again on the ballot – for now – in Lake & Pen Borough

By Andrew Jensen
Alaska Journal of Commerce

Another ballot battle over Pebble mine is brewing.

The “Save Our Salmon” initiative was certified May 30 to be placed on the Lake and Peninsula Borough ballot this October after initiative backers turned in a petition claiming more than 300 signatures, well above the required amount and comparable to the 384 total votes counted in the October 2010 borough elections.

Unlike the statewide Prop 4 aimed at large metallic mines bigger than 640 acres that failed to pass in 2008 after the most expensive initiative campaign in Alaska history, the setting this time around is in the borough where the Pebble deposit lies just west of Iliamna.

Pebble Limited Partnership, which unsuccessfully sued to keep Prop 4 off the ballot in 2007 before ultimately losing its case before the Alaska Supreme Court in 2009, is again challenging the validity of an initiative it believes is solely targeted at stopping its mine project.

While it makes some changes to the appeals process for permitting decisions, the main thrust of the Save Our Salmon initiative adds language to the Lake and Pen permitting code that states: “Where a resource extraction activity could result in excavation, placement of fill, grading, removal and disturbance of the topsoil of more than 640 acres of land and will have a significant adverse impact on existing anadromous waters, a development permit shall not be issued by the (planning) commission.”

The initiative also changes the preferred order in which permits are applied for. Current code requires that an applicant seeking a borough permit must have already secured all state and federal permits.

The initiative strikes that language and states that, “the applicant should obtain its development permit from the borough prior to obtaining state and federal permits.”

Lake and Pen Borough Clerk Kate Conley approved the language of the initiative April 7, and Pebble filed its challenge May 13 to her decision. George Jacko and Jackie Hobson Sr., the lead sponsors of the initiative, were granted intervenor status to join the defense of the initiative and filed a motion June 1 requesting summary judgment to keep the measure on the October ballot.

The initiative sponsors are represented by Scott Kendall and Timothy McKeever of Holmes Weddle & Barcott of Anchorage. Art Hackney, who was campaign coordinator for the failed Prop 4 initiative, is leading the public relations efforts on the new effort. Pebble opponent Bob Gillam is supplying financing to the tune of $250,000 so far this year, according disclosures filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

Pebble is represented by Matt Singer and Howard Trickey of Jermain Dunnagan and Owens of Anchorage. The borough is represented by Aisha Tinker Bray and Jim DeWitt of Guess and Wood of Fairbanks.

In a new twist, law firm Trustees for Alaska filed a friend of the court brief June 1 on behalf of Nunamta Aulukestai (a coalition of Native village corporations opposed to Pebble mine) alleging that striking the initiative from the ballot would violate the Voting Rights Act.

The brief asserts that Pebble “would have this court disenfranchise hundreds of votes of Alaska Natives protected by the Voting Rights Act by denying them the ability to cast a vote on an initiative that has been lawfully certified by the borough clerk.”

Although the legal challenges have been filed with the 3rd District Court in King Salmon, oral arguments will take place June 23 in Anchorage.

The initiative sponsors have requested summary judgment in their favor without pre-election review of the measure’s validity. While stating the borough acted properly in certifying the initiative in its response to Pebble’s suit, Lake and Pen does not object to pre-election review.

“In the event the borough erred … the significant resources of the borough and its residents, both for and against the initiative, can be saved by pre-election review,” the Lake and Pen response states, “… if the borough acted properly, as it believes, little is wasted by pre-election review …”

Pebble asserts in its challenge to the initiative that the change in order of permits makes the proposal unenforceable as a matter of law because the borough has neither the expertise nor resources to properly consider a project application that figures to be altered multiple times as it goes through state and federal permit processes.

Sponsors of the initiative counter in their motion for summary judgment that applying for the borough permit first is simply a recommendation, and is designed for the benefit of the applicant “to spare an applicant the delay, cost and annoyance from obtaining all other necessary permits — a time-consuming process — only to be required to change their project to meet the borough’s standards.”

An initiative being enforceable as a matter of law is one of four standards a municipal ballot initiative must meet under state statute. The others are: it relates to a single subject; it is legislative and not administrative in nature; and it is not special legislation.

With the Alaska Supreme Court having already rejected Pebble’s nearly identical arguments about special legislation in the Prop 4 case — although Pebble’s attorneys counter that case is different because it is a local, not statewide, issue and even more specifically targeted at Pebble than was Prop 4 — the battle over the Save Our Salmon initiative could turn on enforceability and the legislative vs. administrative question.

The standard for deciding the legislative vs. administrative question was established in 2009 by the Alaska Supreme Court in the Swetzof vs. Philemonoff case, which revolved around an initiative in St. Paul that would have required the city to quit its electric utility business.

In adopting a test used by courts in Kansas, Montana and New Mexico, the Alaska Supreme Court relied on three guidelines for determining whether an initiative is administrative or legislative.

“An ordinance that makes new law is legislative; while an ordinance that executes an existing law is administrative,” states the first guideline. “Permanency and generality are key features of a legislative ordinance.”

The second guideline states: “Acts that declare public purpose and provide ways and means to accomplish that purpose generally may be classified as legislative. Acts that deal with a small segment of an overall policy question generally are administrative.”

The third guideline states: “Decisions which require specialized training and experience in municipal government and intimate knowledge of the fiscal and other affairs of a city in order to make a rational choice may properly be considered as administrative, even though they may also be said to involve the establishment of policy.”

In deciding Swetzof and allowing the initiative to appear on the St. Paul ballot, the Alaska Supreme Court stated that the third guideline (which would appear relevant in the current issue considering the SOS initiative amends language governing the borough planning commission) should not supersede the first two guidelines.

The Supreme Court found that the initiative to require the city to stop selling electricity was indeed a new policy and therefore legislative, and provisions to give the city time to apply to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to quit the utility gave the tools that made it enforceable as a matter of law.

The sponsors of Save Our Salmon assert the initiative is new policy for the borough and therefore legislative in nature, but that is unclear both from a reading of the Lake and Pen planning code and the sponsors’ own motion for summary judgment.

On page 20 of the sponsors’ motion, it states the initiative seeks to prevent destruction of salmon abundance — “the very goal to which the borough’s development code is already dedicated.” (emphasis theirs)

But on Page 25, the sponsors state, “Prohibiting certain large scale resource extraction activities that will have a significant adverse impact on anadromous waters is new law taking the borough in a new policy direction.” (emphasis theirs)

The purpose section of the SOS initiative states, “The Act is necessary because salmon is a renewable resource which supports both the economy and subsistence lifestyle of the residents of the Borough.”

According to the current planning code for the borough, one of the purpose and balance objectives is, “ensuring that short-term economic gains are not made at the expense of long-term stability and continued productivity of coastal habitats and resources.”

Under administrative policies, the borough code states that, “Maintenance and enhancement of fish habitat will be given the highest priority when evaluating projects which may impact fish spawning, migration, rearing, and overwintering areas.”

In the same section, under policy for anadromous fish waters, the code states, “no development activities, alteration of vegetation, excavation, placement of fill, or land clearing shall take place within a minimum distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of anadromous fish waters unless feasible and prudent alternatives are not available, and the protection of water quality and stream habitat can be assured.”

The code goes on to lay out additional standards for preserving fish habitat and water quality regarding solid discharges and mining waste known as tailings: “The Borough and appropriate state agencies shall not consider any reduction in water quality standards for industrial use in locations where coastal habitats, fish and wildlife resources, or public uses and activities are dependent on the maintenance of higher water quality standards.”

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Fish Habitat Action Plan-Great Lakes Basin

Partnerships Fish Habitat Partnerships Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership
Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership
The international Great Lakes Basin is a unique and young-of-year Lake Sturgeon (Photo Credit: USFWS)
biologically diverse region containing the largest surface freshwater system in the world, with sport and commercial fisheries valued at over $7 billion annually. The fishery and aquatic resources of the Great Lakes have suffered detrimental effects of invasive species, loss of biodiversity, poor water quality, contaminants, loss or degradation of coastal wetlands, land use changes, and other factors.

The Basin includes all of Michigan; portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the U.S. and Ontario and Quebec in Canada. It covers 295,710 square miles, including 94,250 square miles of surface
water and 201,460 square miles of land in the U.S. and Canada.
The Great Lakes and connecting waters have over 11,000 miles
of coastline.

Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership Website

Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership Project Update (FWS Fish Lines)

The Basin is home to 10% and 31% of the human population in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, with over 43 million people relying on the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water. More than 300 species of fish and other aquatic organisms inhabit the rivers, streams, coastal areas, and open waters.

The GLBFHP is built on a foundation of numerous bi-national restoration and protection efforts (i.e., Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1955; Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement 1972, 1978, 1987; A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries 1981, revised 1997). More recent efforts include the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2004), Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (reauthorized in 2006), Canada-Ontario Agreement (2007), and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2010). Even with all these efforts, no other initiative is in place to advance on-the-ground aquatic habitat protection and restoration Basin-wide. The GLBFHP will provide the leadership,
collaboration, and coordination necessary to bring a comprehensive, strategic approach to fish habitat conservation.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The GLBFHP overlaps two recognized Fish Habitat Partnerships, the Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership (MGLP), and to a much lesser extent, the Eastern Brook Trout Joint
Venture (EBTJV). The conservation goals of GLBFHP will complement those of the other FHPs. Improving the quality and quantity of water and overall health of glacial
lakes located within the Basin will have positive effects on the Basin’s ecosystem. The EBTJV has identified several priority watersheds that lie within the Basin’s watershed.
GLBFHP anticipates having areas of mutual priority in headwater streams of the eastern portion of the Basin.

Contact:

Mark Brouder
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Ashland NFWCO, Ashland WI
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>mark_brouder@fws.gov

Pam Dryer
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Ashland NFWCO, Ashland WI
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>pam_dryer@fws.gov

Jay Wesley
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>wesleyj@michigan.gov

Pork producer hit with fines

Pork producer hit with fines

Jun 12, 2011

Written by
SETH SLABAUGH

UNION CITY — A pork producer recently paid $12,693 to the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement to settle a complaint that his hogs’ manure killed nearly 47,000 fish in 2008.

Rick Kremer and State Line Agri, Ansonia, Ohio, paid the civil penalty on Friday, about two months after an IDEM inspection found that he had not completed three “supplemental environmental projects” required in an agreed order on July 24, 2009.

At that time, in lieu of paying the civil penalty, Kremer agreed to replace existing county drainage tile that is 112 years old, to install a grass and tree buffer along Price Ditch to help filter and reduce potential contaminants, reduce soil erosion and improve wildlife habitat and to install a tree buffer and windbreak around hog buildings to screen, filter and disperse potential air contaminants exhausted from the buildings.

The agreed order called for the projects to be completed by July 24, 2010.

“Part of the supplemental environmental project was prohibited by dry weather last fall, and they had difficulty getting the rest of it done, so they opted to pay the balance instead of completing the project,” said IDEM spokesman Barry Sneed.

Kremer already had reimbursed the Indiana Department of NaturalResources $13,696 for the value of damage to an estimated 46,962 bass, bluegill, carp, catfish, creek chub, darters, minnows, stonerollers, suckers and other fish killed in an eight-mile stretch of Little Mississinewa River.

“A plan is being developed to use the funds for a fish habitat project that will help native fishes recover and repopulate in or near the kill zone,” said Phil Bloom, a DNR spokesman. “The project has several partners: DNR, Randolph County Soil and Water Conservation District, Randolph County surveyor, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. The goal is to have the project installed later this year or in 2012.”

Kremer had land-applied manure when soil and weather conditions were unsuitable.

The supplemental environmental projects would have cost Kremer much more than the civil penalty. He previously paid $2,800 of the original civil penalty of $14,000. He had agreed to complete the environmental projects in lieu of paying the remainder of the civil penalty.

The penalty he paid Friday included the remaining $11,200, plus $1,493 in interest.

Damages to the fish population were determined using American Fisheries Society guidelines that calculate the average cost for a hatchery to raise a fish of the same species to the same size.

“All fish have a value,” Bloom said in 2009. “The larger the fish, the more it’s worth.”

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Bass Capitol of the World…….Florida!!

Vision: The worldwide angling public recognizes Florida as the “Bass Fishing Capital of the World,” based on great resources and responsible management. Florida’s bass fisheries provide outstanding ecological, social and economic benefits to the state of Florida.

Introduction: This Black Bass Management Plan for Florida incorporates wide spread public input from surveys, public events and meetings, a citizen’s Technical Assistance Group (TAG),and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff from multiple divisions and offices. We collectively created the plan to ensure Florida is the undisputed “Bass Fishing Capital of the World.” The FWC will use the plan as a road map and for impetus in dedicating and acquiring resources to ensure we fulfill the goal and realize the vision. Although the management plan time frame is 2010-2030, this “living” document will allow adaptive management, public input and new scientific breakthroughs to continually help us improve our results. Our purposes are:  Create a scientifically justified document to guide FWC efforts. Ensure the public has open input into the objectives and priorities to create ownership and provide support for conservation efforts. Be proactive and open to new ideas. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Background: Florida is recognized as the “Fishing Capital of the World” based on the number of freshwater and saltwater anglers, amount of time spent fishing, economic impact, diversity of recreational species, international fishing records set here and tourists who use our resources. Bass anglers spend more than 14 million days fishing in Florida each year, which generates $1.25 billion for the state’s economy. With 3 million acres of freshwater lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and 12,000 miles of rivers, streams, and canals, Florida is a premier destination for bass anglers. The Florida largemouth bass(Micropterus salmoides floridanus)is genetically unique and has been stocked worldwide because of its potential for rapid growth to trophy size (10 pounds or heavier). Every year, a few Florida anglers catch 13- to 15-pound trophy largemouthbass. Moreover, Florida has shoal (M. cataractae), spotted (M. punctulatus)and Suwannee bass (M. notius), each one of which exists only in discrete areas and requires specific habitat andprey to maintain its population.

The fishing public perceives Florida to be among the top bass fishing states, but the fishery and trophy fish availability are depletedfrom historic levels in many localities, as documented in big-fishtournament records over the past several decades. Numerous pressures challenge fish management, including human population growth and development, declining water qualityand current water management and fish management policies. Climate change, including precipitation and sea level changes, may create additional impacts. Preliminary surveys of stake holders indicate overall satisfaction with the fishery but some concerns about negative impacts on bass populations and fishing opportunities, and the need foran enhanced management strategy.

The Black Bass Management Plan: This plan is action-based and will help FWC staff develop solutions for management issues such as habitat enhancement, aquatic plant management, fisheries regulations and appropriate stocking plans, while improving communications about angling ethics and opportunities, ensuring access, and reaching out to youth to keep them engaged in recreational fishing and conservation. The plan must be integrated with other local, state and federal programs. Effective implementation of the plan should also benefit fishing-dependent private businesses and create jobs, including those that indirectly profit(gas stations, local grocers, motels, and restaurants), and riparian land owners whose waterfront property values are affected by aesthetics and fishing quality. Highlighted below are some of the most innovative and key action items contained in the plan. New opportunities Identify new or special opportunities to create or substantially enhance black bass fisheries, and ensure FWC is proactive about opening new fisheries for the public. Successfully implementing new opportunities will require an aggressive, proactive, science-based approach that also involves local citizenry. Pursue public access to reservoirs during their planning phase, andVision: The worldwide angling public recognizes Florida as the “Bass Fishing Capital of the World,” based on great resources and responsible management.

Florida’s bass fisheries provide outstanding ecological, social and economic benefits to the state of Florida.FISHINGALLOWED New opportunities (continued)develop management plans andc ooperative agreements to produce appropriate trophy black bass fisheries. Make it easy for the public to find places to fish and freshwater public access (ramps, piers, shoreline access)using electronic and print media.? Formalize partnerships with watermanagement districts; federal, local andstate government agencies; and privatelandowners to enhance public access. Help local communities attract major bass tournaments by enhancing ramps and associated facilities that will benefit local economies and anglers. Implement complete de-water renovations on aging reservoirs and lakes with water control structures to stimulate trophy largemouth bass fisheries.

Habitat management: Habitat management is the most important component of maintaining good fisheries. Prevent habitat degradation in areas of existing healthy habitat in collaboration with other agencies as needed.  Manage native plants to create and maintain a symbiotic relationship between plants, fish, and people that will improve and sustain black bass fisheries. Implement FWC’s new hydrilla management position on specificwater bodies to improve largemouthbass fishing. Partner with WMDs and the Corps of Engineers to develop new water regulation schedules and to monitor and recommend minimum flows and levels to help maintain healthy black bass populations. Improve bass habitat conditions by manipulating water levels for fisheries enhancement purposes. Fish management Black bass management generally involves actions that affect rates of recruitment, growth, natural mortality, and fishing mortality for bass. Establish customized harvest regulations to manage black bass populations at selected water bodies. Determine the potential effects of bedfishing on black bass populations. Ensure genetic diversity, fitness, and conservation of Florida largemouth bass. Ensure the genetic integrity, fitness,and conservation of endemic black basswithin Florida Panhandle river systems. Stock fingerling (Phase-I, about 1inch long) largemouth bass into new reservoirs and into lakes following major fish kills or droughts. Stock advanced-sized (Phase-II, 4-6inches) largemouth bass fingerlings into water bodies where recruitment is limited.People management Human dimensions are critical to effective implementation of a black bass management plan, including communication, education, ethics, outreach, marketing, partnerships, tournament management, user conflicts, trophy bass documentation, data monitoring, imperiled species, and law enforcement. Implement a trophy fish documentation and release program. Involve stakeholders early in the process of major, resource-specificmanagement actions such as new regulations and major habitat renovations. Design and implement a completemarketing plan for the BBMP andFlorida’s bass fishing.? Build partnerships with bass anglers,other stakeholders, government agencies, institutions, and private industry to complete fishing and lake improvement projects. Cooperate with the bass tournament industry and citizens to effectively manage bass tournaments to minimize negative perceptions. Thank you to Glen Lau for use of the images.Supported by Federal Aid in Sport Fish RestorationFor more information, visitwww.MyFWC.com/FishingA

Montana…Proposal to Temporarily Waive Fishing Limits

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is seeking public comment on a proposal to temporarily waive fishing limits on 12 lakes as part of its ongoing native cutthroat trout restoration program.

The fishing limit wavier would run July 15, 2011 through October 1, 2011 on 10 lakes in the South Fork Flathead drainage (George, Woodward, Pyramid, Pilgrim, and the Upper and Lower Three Eagles lakes and four lakes in the Necklace chain of lakes). Anglers would be encouraged to keep all the hybrid trout they can catch.

An additional waiver would be in effect July 15, 2011 through September 1, 2011 on Cherry and Granite lakes in the Cherry Creek drainage, a tributary to the Big Hole River. Anglers would be encouraged to catch and keep hybrid trout and brook trout.

Similar fishing, limit waivers allowed anglers to participate successfully in several native fish restoration projects in recent years. The limit waiver encourages anglers to remove as many nonnative trout as possible to hasten native cutthroat trout restoration objectives. Six of the South Fork of the Flathead lakes would be “swamped” with an abundant stocking of pure westslope cutthroat fingerlings too small to be caught by anglers to eventually dilute the nonnative genes in the remaining population. In late August and September, the Cherry Creek lakes and the Necklace chain of lakes would be treated with rotenone, a fish toxicant commonly used by fishery managers to remove unwanted fish from streams and lakes and then restocked with native cutthroat trout.

The westslope cutthroat trout is Montana’s state fish. FWP’s restoration effort is aimed at averting a federal endangered species listing by increasing the range of cutthroat trout in the state.

Available Maps of Lakes to which Limit Waivers Apply

Comment Deadline

Calendar iconComment deadline is 5 PM on June 20, 2011.See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Opportunity for Public Comment

Hook, line and sinker

Hook, line and sinker

Salmon fishermen take issue with a lawsuit to halt the 2011 fishing season
By Alastair Bland
More stories by this author…
This article was published on 05.26.11.

 

Bill Divens caught this beauty, a chinook (king) salmon, on the Rogue River in Gold Beach, Ore., this past September. The Red Bluff-based fishing guide is looking forward to hitting the Sacramento River this year. 

PHOTO COURTESY OF BILL DIVENS
Bait it up: A commercial ocean salmon season opened May 1 and a recreational river season for chinook salmon is scheduled to begin on July 16. For more info, visitwww.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp.

Mike Bogue saw most of his income vanish in 2008. That was the year that officials closed California’s ocean and river salmon seasons in response to a dramatic decline in fish populations, and Bogue—a sport-fishing guide in Redding—lost his main livelihood.

To make ends meet, he has been taking clients catch-and-release fishing for wild rainbow trout on the Sacramento River.

But the Sacramento’s chinook salmon seem to be staging a comeback. A successful return of spawners showed last fall, and biologists believe large numbers of fish are now holding in coastal waters and will move upstream to spawn in the fall. Based on such estimates, on May 1 federal officials opened the first full-length commercial ocean salmon season since 2007.

Five days later, a group of water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley sued to stop it.

The lawsuit, filed on May 5 against the federal government by a group of 22 water and irrigation districts called the San Joaquin River Group Authority, makes the case that resumed ocean fishing could have an adverse effect on salmon numbers, especially the federally threatened spring-run chinook. If fishing does dent their numbers, the plaintiffs say, officials might impose new restrictions on the pumping of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the salmon. Many farmers who gain their livelihoods from water removed from the delta via two large pumps near Tracy would suffer.

Ken Petruzzelli, a Chico attorney representing the plaintiffs, sent an e-mail on April 20 to the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, both defendants in the case, that spells out the concerns of the plaintiffs.

“The [San Joaquin River Group Authority’s] member agencies have no wish to give up water … to mitigate for ocean fishing,” Petruzzelli wrote.

Bogue, who has lost 80 percent of his income since sport fishing for salmon was largely closed in 2008, notes the insincerity of the lawsuit. “They don’t want to see the salmon go on the endangered species list, but not because they care about the fish,” he said. “They want to keep their water, because water is money.”

Fishermen statewide have lashed back in response to the lawsuit, alleging it was water diversions at the delta’s two large pumping facilities that damaged fish habitat and caused the Sacramento River’s fall-run chinook salmon to collapse in the first place.

Another local fishing guide, Bill Divens in Red Bluff, thinks the lawsuit is an elaborate public-relations maneuver to divert attention from the effects that water pumping has had on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers’ ecosystems.

“It’s meant to distract people from the real problems affecting the rivers,” said Divens, who still takes customers trout fishing on Shasta Lake but has otherwise moved his guide service to Oregon’s Rogue River. “The water agencies are just saying it’s not their fault that the salmon almost disappeared. First they said it was striped bass. Now they’re blaming commercial fishermen. Next they’ll say it’s the yellow-legged frog’s fault.”

Allen Short, the coordinator of the San Joaquin River Group Authority, believes that salmon runs crashed several years ago due in part to overfishing. Fish numbers, according to biologists, now seem to be on the upswing, and Short believes this is a direct result of three consecutive years without substantial fishing seasons. Short has suggested delaying fishing for another year to further help the runs.

But Michael O’Farrell, a research scientist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, says overfishing has not been a problem for California’s salmon populations. He recently helped produce a report in which a team of biologists determined that overfishing in 2007 did not play a role in the decline of salmon numbers, which hit their lowest recorded levels in 2009.

O’Farrell added that salmon-season limits and regulations are rewritten every year, and he says the salmon fishery is among the most carefully regulated fisheries on the West Coast. Measures like minimum size limits and the season schedule, he says, are designed to minimize angler contact with the Sacramento’s imperiled salmon runs.

Officials entirely banned fishing after spawning returns of the fall-run chinook took a nosedive about four years ago. Many fishermen even welcomed the closures while demanding restrictions on water pumping in the delta to improve spawning and smolt-rearing habitat.

But a fourth year of unemployment could sink many commercial fishermen into bankruptcy, says Mike Hudson, a commercial salmon fisherman in Berkeley.

“We’ve been fishing for other things, and a few pounds of rockfish or black cod might keep the boat running and food on the table, but it’s nothing to make real money off of,” Hudson said. “If I was forced to quit fishing now after getting my boat all ready, I’d be totally busted.”

Peter Moyle, a UC Davis fisheries biologist, says that salmon populations—especially small ones—can be affected by overfishing. But the Sacramento’s fall run, he says, is produced largely by the work of hatcheries. Such runs, Moyle says, are very resilient.

“You can catch 75 or 80 percent of a hatchery population as long as just a few fish are allowed to get back to the hatcheries,” he said.

Moyle is one of many experts who believe that problems in the rivers where salmon spawn and where the juveniles must spend the first months of their lives caused the near-disappearance of salmon. Indeed, the delta’s two large pumps removed record-high levels of water between 2003 and 2006. In the years that followed, the fall-run chinook salmon population plunged; nearly 800,000 adult fish returned to spawn in 2002; just 39,000 did so in 2009.

Now, the fish may be rebounding. Last fall, 163,000 salmon returned to the Sacramento to spawn. Officials had incorrectly predicted a much higher return, however, and many people have grown skeptical of biologists’ abundance estimates. Still, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s estimate that approximately a million salmon, mostly from the Sacramento’s fall run, are now holding in coastal waters has fishermen hopeful that the runs may be returning.

The plaintiffs in the San Joaquin River Group Authority’s lawsuit, which is now pending in a U.S. District Court in Fresno, say that salmon fishing violates the federal laws that protect imperiled fish populations and will hamper the task of rebuilding the runs.

In the very midst of such accusations, the Center for Biological Diversity reported last month that the delta’s two major pumps—which provide for farmland and urban development to the south—have killed more than 10,000 juvenile spring-run chinook this year, though a federal official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told this reporter that many of the dead salmon may have been fall-run fish.

Furthering the drama, San Joaquin Valley Republicans introduced congressional legislation on May 11 that proposes to exempt these very pumps from fish-protecting regulations. If such maneuvers win out, and if river management policies are not improved, the rebounding salmon population could easily crash again, warns Dick Pool, president of the Bay Area conservation group Water4Fish.

“Shutting down the season is not the way to bring these fish back,” said Pool, who considers the lawsuit a waste of time, resources and taxpayer money. “It’s the health of the river that matters. If the river conditions don’t change, these salmon could still head to extinction.”

 

A $76 billion economic force.Hunters andAnglers: chapt #1

Chapter #1

A force as big as all outdoors:

Meals: $165  Fishing license: $30   New boat and trailer:  $52,000   ATV: $6,000

Motel: $69.95 x 5 nights   Boat registration: $60   Hunting license: $50   Gas: $75

Two weeks’ groceries: $300  GPS and walkie-talkies: $295    Gas $115

Polarized sunglasses: $90  Fish finder: $360   Boat winterization: $300

New rod and reel: $295   Flowers for my wife for letting me go fishing: $45

New rifle: $785   Cabin: $25,000  Property tax: $4,200  Hunting land : $115,000

Chain saw: $189     Trolling motor: $280    New boots and coat: $325

Taxidermy (with any luck): $450

A  dollar here .  A hundred dollars there .   It adds up to more than you might think.

America’s  34 million hunters and anglers are an  economic  powerhouse , driving  the  economy.  They’re  passionate about their pastimes and  they  spend passionately too.

Multiply individual  spending by those many millions of  people , and  you’re  talking  a major  force in our economy, through  booms as well as  recessions .  They directly  support 1.6 million jobs .  They  spend more than a billion dollars  just  on  licenses,  stamps ,  tags   and  permits, and  they generate  $25 bi l l ion a year in  federal , state and local  taxes .

By  any  measure , hunters and  anglers are among  the most  prominent  and  influential of all demographic groups. Hunters and  anglers  support  twice as  many  jobs  as  the combined  civillian  payrolls of  the Army, Marine Corps , Navy and  Ai r Force .

$208 million a day. $1.5 billion per week.  Annually hunters and anglers  spend  $9 billion to  lease and purchase land for their sports . That’s  enough  to purchase  27,000  new homes or rural  acreage larger  than  the states of  Rhode Island  and Delaware  combined.

No mortgage crunch here. Without  hunters and anglers, our economy would be a lot   smaller. $76 billion smaller, in fact. That’s how much they spend  each  year on their pass ion for the outdoors.  If a single corporation grossed as much as hunters and anglers   spend,  it would be among America’s  20  largest ,  ahead of  Target , Costco and AT&T.  Buthunters’  and  anglers ’  influence  goes   even  further.  They  create an economic “ r ipple effect “.  They keep people working: not  just   in  typical  hunting and  fishing  jobs ,  but also in ga s stations,  retail , restaurants  and hotels  throughout  every  state and  congressional  district of  the  USA.

There  are  other  numbers ,  too.  For   instance ,  Americans  spend more   time  hunting and  fishing  each  year  than days  spent running  the Federal  government   (737 mi l l ion days vs . 486 mi l l ion) . Together, hunters and anglers are a significant voting bloc. In fact, their voting potential was 31% of all votes cast in the 2004 presidential election. Eighty percent of sportsmen are “likely voters,” far more than the national average. They can change the tide of elections. And, as you might guess, they tend to favor pro-sporting candidates.

$8.6 million an hour. Spending by hunters  and anglers  is  more than the revenues of  Microsoft , Google, eBay and Yahoo—combined                                 (76 billion vs . 73.6 billion)

Higher earnings than high-tech. (34  MILLION VS . 27  MILLION ) More  people  hunt and fish  than watch the  nightly newscasts of  the three major  networks—ABC,  CBS, and  NBC.  Breaking news.  Hunting  and fishing  Americans  out  number motor- sport  fans  by more  than 2 to 1.   In  fact ,  they could  fill  every NASCAR  track 13  t imes over.

Racing ahead. If  the $76 billion that  sportsmen  spend on hunting and  fishing were the Gross Domestic Product of  a country,  sportsmen as a nation would rank 57 out of  181 countries .

On  lodging  alone,  hunters spend more than the annual  revenues of  Comfort  Inn, Comfort  Suites, Quality Inn,  EconoLodge,  Rodeway  Inn and Sleep  Inn  combined. Sleep on it.

 

TABLE ROCK LAKE FISH ATTRACTOR LOCATIONS

TABLE ROCK LAKE FISH ATTRACTOR LOCATIONS UPDATED WITH 2011 FISH ATTRACTORS

The following link directs you to a web site that displays Table Rock Lake fish attractor locations. This site is a partnership between the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Missouri Department of Conservation. Using the Map Identify tool you can see the latitude and longitude of the fish attractor. Use this link, Table Rock Lake Fish Attractor Locations

 

Scroll to Top