StructureSpot

StructureSpot

Category: Fish Habitat News

If you have questions about natural fish habitat, fish structure, fish attractors, artificial fish habitat or Growing big fish, this is the Structurespot.
Here you will find information about fishiding artificial fish habitat, as well as all the others. From stories about sinking train cars and planes, to planting natural plants, we can talk about it here. Show us your own contraptions and how they are working out. Send us your pics of your structure and get advice on all aspects of this growing industry.

Fish Habitat Forum looks to future

Posted on by david

Fish Habitat Forum looks to future

30 May 2011

 

LAST week’s Fishers for Fish Habitat Forum held in Tamworth saw more than 60 recreational fishos join forces with landholders, scientists and natural resource managers to discuss ways to improve fish habitat.

“The Forum provided an unparalleled opportunity for fishers from across NSW to learn
more about the latest research into fish habitat and to share their stories about efforts to
rehabilitate habitat and make more fish,” said Craig Copeland, Conservation Action Unit
Manager with NSW Department of Primary Industries, organisers of the Forum.

“Recreational fishers assessed the Forum as a major success and plans are now
underway by many fishers to fix some fish habitat in their local area over the coming year.”

President of the NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance, Malcolm Poole said recreational
fishers at all levels were inspired by speakers at the Forum who explained what fishers
could and should be doing to create more fish naturally for the future.

Ecofishers President, Ken Thurlow said the Forum was “a superb opportunity to network
with recreational fishers from around NSW and discuss the key role of fish habitat in
supporting our fisheries.”

President of the NSW Council of Freshwater Anglers, Rodney Tonkin said a highlight was
Dr Martin O’Grady’s presentations on issues affecting fish habitat in Ireland and how these
were being addressed.
As well as being a mad keen fisher himself, Dr O’Grady challenged fishers to seriously
look at habitat repair as a cost-effective way of improving fish numbers.

Forum participants were taken on several site visits and received presentations from scientists and managers on the importance of fish habitat. They also saw a demonstration of long-stem tree planting and heard about fish habitat work being done by local landholders and school children.

Malcolm Poole said the Recreational Fishing Alliance thoroughly recommends all anglers
get involved and take time out to attend next year’s Forum.

Fish habitat forum
More information: http://www.fishhabitatnetwork.com.au/

 

Hook, line and sinker

Posted on by david

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.”

 

Enviro groups, NID optimistic about higher stream flows

Posted on by david

By Trina Kleist

Staff Writer

Fish would benefit from an effort by water district officials and environmentalists to increase the amount of water flowing in some waterways. 

And both sides appeared optimistic about their prospects during a public hearing before the Nevada Irrigation District board on Wednesday.

The negotiations come as NID applies for state licenses on 10 water right permits it holds for the district’s distribution system. Directors voted unanimously to continue those talks for up to three months, while also approving a report that concludes the licensing would have no environmental impact.

Groups working with NID on the issue and represented by Foothills Water Network include American Rivers, based in Nevada City, the Sierra Club and California Department of Fish and Game.

They are asking for more water in Deer Creek below Lower Scotts Flat Reservoir; in Bear River downstream from Combie Reservoir, where it crosses Highway 49; and in Coon Creek, the next watershed south of Bear River, in northwestern Placer County.

All three host or could host trout. Coon Creek has excellent fish habitat and flows through Spears Ranch Regional Park, said Northern California/Nevada Conservation Chairman Allan Eberhart of the Sierra Club, with an office in Grass Valley.

Group members also are asking for more water in Auburn Ravine, the next watershed south of Coon Creek. That waterway has seen steelhead and salmon, and environmentalists are looking for ways to help fish get around barriers in the waterway.

More studies are needed to determine how much water in each waterway is needed, environmentalists said.

An agreement on the matter would allow most of the groups that have protested the district’s water licensing application to drop their protests, said Chris Shutes of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.

“There are costs associated with what we’re asking NID to do,” Eberhart said. NID potentially could recover those costs by selling that water downstream or “banking” the water for environmental improvement to the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta, Eberhart said.

Foothills Water Network coordinator Julie Leimbach praised district officials for working with environmental groups “in good faith.” She promised no surprises would pop up during the coming discussions.

She also will provide a briefing paper on the groups’ interests. Negotiations would lead to “a plan in place for targeted studies to answer any data needs, and a plan for implementation,” Leimbach vowed.

The Department of Fish and Game also supports the strategy, said environmental scientist and Water Rights Coordinator Lauren Dailey.

By approving the environmental document while negotiations continue, the district is protecting itself from other groups that could file a new protest, NID lawyer Jeffrey Meith said.

The strategy can help NID avoid the financial and time costs of court challenges to the environmental documents, Division 5 Director Nick Wilcox said.

Staff from the state’s licensing agency, the Water Resources Control Board, also support this route, Eberhart added.

 

Concerns still abound regarding Izard County sand mining

Posted on by david

By Susan Varno

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Mill Creek is shown after George Bartmess stripped vegetation from the bank in 2008. His property ends where the trees and vegetation begin.

Photo by Susan Varno / Contributing Writer

Mill Creek is shown after George Bartmess stripped vegetation from the bank in 2008. His property ends where the trees and vegetation begin.

THREE RIVERS AREA — The roar of a bulldozer on the banks of Mill Creek alerted residents in Izard County that their lives were about to change dramatically.

In February 2008, landowner George Bartmess stripped most of the vegetation from the creek bank on his property. He even plowed up some of the creek bed. Heavy rains washed sand and silt into the creek and downstream into Piney Creek. Piney’s gravel creek bed filled with sand and mud, threatening the smallmouth-bass habitat.

Barbara Carlson, who lives nearby, said Bartmess’ actions got the attention of his neighbors.

“Local people didn’t know Bartmess was planning to do sand mining,” Carlson said. “We came together and asked Friends of the North Fork and White River to help us understand the laws and environmental problems.”

The Friends helped residents form a chapter, Friends of Mill and Piney Creeks. Members of the new organization spent months studying frac sand mining, state and federal laws, and the permitting process.

They learned that B&H Resources LLC of Shreveport, La., had applied to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for a quarry sand-mining permit. Beneath southern Izard County are thousands of tons of high-grade silica sand. Today, it is in demand as “frac sand,” used to help release natural gas from gas shale.

“We realized what Bartmess was doing was illegal,” Carlson said. “He was allowed to do nothing until his permit was approved.”

The group informed the ADEQ of Bartmess’ activity, and the department issued an emergency “cease and desist” order on June 19, 2008. Responding to the Mill and Piney Creeks group’s complaints, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission ordered B&H to repair damages along Mill Creek.

“A small group became active,” Carlson said. “We tried to educate the public and publicize what was happening. Word was spreading. People were alarmed.”

Company owner Mike Hardy was the “H” in B&H. Bartmess was the “B.”

“After the cease-and-desist order, we had issues with Bartmess,” Hardy said. “We bought him out and reorganized as Evergreen Processing LLC. We had to start the permit process all over. We have voluntarily held public meetings since we began the permitting process.”

About 130 local residents attended a meeting on Oct. 5, 2009, at the Calico Rock Music Hall. Evergreen sent its consultants to outline plans for the 1,300-acre mining site. Engineer Dan Drinkwater said the quarry would cover about 300 acres. To wash the sand, the plant would use about 390,000 gallons of water a day, drawn from 2,000-foot-deep wells.

Concerned that using so much water would dry up homeowners’ wells, Friends of Mill and Piney Creeks invited John Czarnecki of the U.S. Geological Survey to a public meeting on Feb. 18, 2010, in Calico Rock. Czarnecki said the volume of the Ozark Aquifer, which flows beneath northern Arkansas, has never been measured for Izard County, so it is not known if there is enough water to support sand-mining operations.

Hardy said after the meeting that he asked his consultant geologist, David Williamson, to meet with Czarnecki to investigate the dynamics of the aquifer.

“We have 18 springs on the Evergreen property,” Hardy said. “The second-largest spring runs well and has about the same flow in wet and dry years. We asked the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission to look at the spring, and they felt it was a better fit. It will cost us more to build a five-mile-long pipeline with four pumps to move the water from the spring to the plant, plus yearly maintenance. We made the change because it just made sense.”

At the October 2009 meeting, Evergreen consultant Kevin Ware said that after the sand is washed, the water will be pumped into retention ponds. Polyacrylamide would be added to bind with the sediment and make it sink. Some of the “clean water” would be reused. However, an ADEQ permit allows the release of “clean water” into creeks that eventually flow into the White River.

Jeff Williams, trout biologist for Arkansas Game and Fish, spoke next. He said trout become stressed when temperature, turbidity, chemicals and/or sediment levels of river water change. The fish don’t feed or spawn well and are more likely to die.

Responding to these concerns, Evergreen redrew its plans over the next year.

Hardy said the new plan does not use sediment-binding chemicals.

“We will bring water into a slurry, which presses the sediment into clay bricks,” he said. “The used water will go into two ponds, 4 acres each, with a berm around them.”

The bricks will be used to refill the quarry.

Evergreen will also use much less water.

“We will draw water from the ponds back into the plant, only adding water for condensation and evaporation,” Hardy said. “When we start this plant, we will become part of this community. Questions and concerns from meetings quickened our decision to make some changes. We felt the changes would have less impact and be more sustainable.”

On Jan. 25, ADEQ held a public hearing at Calico Rock City Hall on Evergreen’s discharge and pond-construction permit. The company’s revised plan includes using spring water and storm water and only cutting trees and vegetation for roads, the quarry and the plant.

More than 60 people attended the hearing. In response to questions from the audience, Mo Shafii, ADEQ Water Division assistant chief, said the department, which is responsible for 6,000 permits and has only 15 inspectors, is only required to inspect a permit site once every five years.

“Permits are a self-policing system,” Shafii said.

However, the agency usually responds to complaints from the public within three days, Shafii.

According to media reports, in March, Evergreen completed planting 15,000 river birch, silver maple, sycamore and red oak seedlings and a variety of shrubs as part of the rehabilitation plan that Game and Fish ordered along Mill Creek.

Carlson said local residents will have to monitor what the plant discharges into the streams near the quarry.

“We have been effective because we approached all that was happening with calmness and rationality, asking how we could minimize the impact of sand mining,” Carlson said. “My feeling is, let’s try to protect the environment on the front end, so we won’t have to fix it on the back end.”

Kenneth Ballman, justice of the peace from Horseshoe Bend, also has concerns about Evergreen and the other two frac sand-mining operations in Izard County.

“Sand mining will contribute to the local economy,” Ballman said. “At Guion, 30 to 35 jobs; Evergreen, 30 to 35 jobs. Short-term, this will be good for our economy, but the long-term impact could be worse. I would like to see a study of the aquifer.”

 

TABLE ROCK LAKE FISH ATTRACTOR LOCATIONS

Posted on by david

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

 

Largemounth bass study underway at Table Rock

Posted on by david

Largemouth Bass

 

Please Credit “Courtesy Missouri Department of Conservation”

News from the Southwest region

Published on: May. 19, 2011

Posted by Francis Skalicky

SPRINGFIELD MO — The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the University of Missouri are working together on a radio-telemetry study that will provide information about behavior and habitat use of largemouth bass.

Tracking of the tagged fish will begin this month (May) and will continue through 2012. Each fish will be located once per month during daylight hours. Once every three months, a smaller number of the tagged fish will be tracked for a full 24-hour period to monitor daytime and night-time movements. Once each fish is located information will be recorded such as GPS location, distance travelled from last location, depth and habitat use.

Earlier this year, 60 legal-size (greater than 15 inches) largemouth bass were collected from the Kings River arm of Table Rock and surgically implanted with radio tags. After the fish recovered from their surgeries, they were released back into the lake.

A tagged fish can be identified by a radio-tag antenna coming out of the body cavity and sutures near the fish’s abdomen. Besides a radio tag, each bass in the study was also tagged with an orange tag near the dorsal fin. This tag has a five-digit number unique to each fish. Anglers who catch tagged fish should contact the MDC at 417-334-4859 or e-mail MDC Fisheries Management Biologist Shane Bush at shane.bush@mdc.mo.gov.

When reporting a tagged fish, individuals should provide:

  • Number from the orange tag.
  • Length and weight of the fish.
  • Location the fish was caught (GPS coordinates if possible).
  • Overall condition of the fish.
  • Approximate depth the fish was caught at and if it was near a habitat structure (if known.)
  • If the fish was released or harvested.

This study is part of the Table Rock Lake National Fish Habitat Initiative, a project designed to maintain and improve fish habitat in Table Rock.

Since 2007, the MDC has placed more than 1,500 fish habitat structures in the lake. These structures were marked using GPS. Locations of these structures can be found athttp://newmdcgis.mdc.mo.gov/tablerock.

The NFHI project is a joint effort of the MDC, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bass Pro Shops, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other organizations. It is a pilot project for a broader national program focused on habitat protection and restoration in reservoirs throughout the country.

 

Dark side of the Driftless

Posted on by david
May 20, 2011 Our Stories No Comments E-mail This Post E-mail This Post
By Matt Hrodey

A new study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the potential for damage to fish habitats in the Driftless area of Wisconsin, a hilly region in the state’s southwestern reaches, is great, and the damage may have already been done. The findings come from a national survey of fish habitats released earlier this month.

DRIFTLESS FARM (PHOTO BY UW-STEVENS POINT) 

The Driftless area spans about 24,000 square miles and includes portions of southwestern Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, northeastern Iowa and northwestern Illinois, according to the agency. Because the region wasn’t raked flat by the last continental glacier, it’s full of rolling hills and spring-fed streams.

“Just minutes northwest of the state capital, the roads curve gently and the hills begin to rise invitingly,” said a recent story in Milwaukee Magazine. “Before long, there are Holsteins and horse farms, an occasional orchard, a flock of sheep as pale and fluffy as an earthbound cloud.”

The region’s agriculture, however, may be a detriment to its native fish habitats.

Using a variety of factors – including the presence of urban development and the density of farming, livestock, industrial pollution sources and habitat “fragmenters” such as dams and road crossings – the study calculates the risk for “fish habitat degradation” in watersheds.

DRIFTLESS AREA (BY NATIONALATLAS.GOV) 

Most of the state’s southern half is said to be at “high” risk of degradation, but the largest swath of “very high” risk lies in the Driftless.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, “Poor land and water management practices including intensive row crops, fertilizer use, channelization, water withdrawals, loss of perennial vegetation and invasive species have caused excessive stream bank erosion, sedimentation and poor water quality.”

The affected area includes the Mississippi River. The Driftless pollution impacts its waters “all the way to the Gulf of Mexico,” according to the study, contributing to low oxygen levels downstream.

The federal agency isn’t saying the region’s waterways are damaged or not, only that there’s a “very high” probability that they already are.

As reported in NewsBuzz, the state Department of Natural Resources recently caught a grass carp, a plant-devouring invasive species, in the Lower Wisconsin River within the Driftless area. Officials believe it had migrated from the Mississippi River during a period of spring flooding.

Trout Unlimited, a national nonprofit funded by sport fishermen to support conservation, has organized the Driftless Area Restoration Effort to “protect, restore, and enhance rivers and streams for fish and other aquatic life throughout the Driftless.”

 

Small Fisheries Revitalization Using Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) as an Indicator Species

Posted on by david

Eldon Peters

Environmental Biology and Mathematical Modeling

Instructor: Shannon Leissner   Assistant: Shana Funderburk

Largemouth bass are a good indicator of pond health and will specify the health of the tested pond after the treatment of any adversary conditions.  The study follows the set guidelines obtained by Brady (1981) to determine the procedure needed to correct any problems concerning the pond.  The study involved treating any flaws related to the pond and monitoring its effect on the bass caught.  The bass were then compared to the pre-treatment bass to determine the effect of the revitalization.

Ponds offer an excellent setting in which to study aquatic ecosystems simply for the reason that you can control many of the variables. Because largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are the top predator in a pond, they are affected by everything that lies beneath them on the food chain. This makes largemouth bass one of the best indicators of problems within a pond.  The data gathered in this experiment will specify the elements that need to be added or changed to create healthy pond, which will be indicated as it becomes a good fishing resource for largemouth bass.

There are many factors that contribute to the health of a pond.  Fish attractors such as brush should be placed at different depths throughout the pond.  These attractors will allow a place of ambush for large fish and a refuge for smaller fish.  The shallowest part of the pond should only be two feet deep; this depth will prevent the growth of foreign aquatic weeds.  The temperature should range between 64 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit in order to promote maximum fish growth.  Fish will tolerate a pH range of 4.6 to 11, but will thrive in water with a pH of 6.5 to 9.0.  One side of the pond should be shaded and the other should be open to the wind to churn the water and produce oxygen.  There should be enough phytoplankton to cloud the water, which will indicate that there is a sufficient amount of oxygen to sustain aquatic life (Oster, 1983).

In order to manage a productive pond one must understand the delicate balance of the ecosystem in the pond.  Located at the bottom of the food chain are plants called phytoplankton which use chlorophyll to produce food.  Zooplankton feed exclusively on phytoplankton.  Smaller baitfish feed on zooplankton.  Bream feed on small baitfish, insects, and worms.  Largemouth bass feed on anything from four-inch bream to large snakes (Oster, 1983).

Once a pond is considered unhealthy, a number of tests are run to determine the procedure needed to revitalize the pond.  The pH of the water must be tested.    If the pH is too low, limestone can be added at a ratio of one ton per acre to raise the pH by one unit.  Unfortunately nothing can be done to remedy a high pH (Brady, 1981).

An additional test is needed to determine the quantity and type of phytoplankton present in the pond.  Phytoplankton play a key role in producing oxygen.  If the population of the phytoplankton is too low, the oxygen level will decrease causing fish kills.  Therefore fertilizer must be periodically added to promote the growth of the phytoplankton, but can only be added when the temperature reaches 65 degrees Fahrenheit.  Pond fertilizer is composed of four parts phosphorus, four parts nitrogen, and two parts potassium.  The fertilizer may be applied anywhere between six and sixteen times a year, depending on the natural fertility of the pond (Brady, 1981).

If there is an overgrowth of phytoplankton, it will block the sunlight that other aquatic plants need for photosynthesis.  When the plants die, bacterial decomposition drains the pond of oxygen.  This oxygen depletion will have a devastating effect on fish.  To counteract the increase of phytoplankton, lime is added to slow the population growth (Pond Management Guidebook, 1989).

Oxygen deficiency is deadly to a pond, but it is easy to fix.  A test kit is used to find the oxygen level of the pond.  If the level is too low, an aerator puts fresh water back into the pond.  The added water should be sprayed through the air so that it causes a splash as it hits the water to intensify the oxygen content.  Another way to increase the oxygen level is to pump water from the bottom of the pond into the aerator.  The oxygenated water, located at the surface, will then shift to the bottom at a faster rate.  The water at the base of the pond will pass through the aerator and back to the surface creating a cycle (Pond Management Guidebook, 1989).

The main food for the largemouth bass in a pond is small bream that spend much of the summer in the vegetation.  If the aquatic plants are too dense, the bream will escape from the bass that are waiting to ambush its prey.  If all the vegetation is removed, the pond becomes oxygen deprived, and the bass lose their places of ambush.  The vegetation must be controlled to provide the optimum conditions for the fish.  Herbicides or aquatic mowers can be used to trim the population, and fertilizer can be used to boost the plant population (Oster, 1981).

In a proper ecosystem, there is a delicate balance between the predator and the prey.  Within the pond, the bass must feed on bream, or the bream will eat the bass eggs and decimate the population.  If the bass population is too large, the bream population will decline and the struggle for food will increase (Fig. 1) (Pond Management Guidebook, 1989).

Study Question

The purpose of this study is to correct the problems within a pond that have contributed to the reduction in fish population over the past three years.  A drop in the number of fish caught indicates a decline in water quality.  Once the problems are fixed, the number of fish will increase along with water quality.

Study Site

This study involves a man-made pond that has a small population of underweight bass.  The pond spans four acres and ranges from 0 to 12 feet deep.  The only wooden structure of the pond is a massive brush pile is at deepest part and lines the entire bank. The edges of the pond present shade on one side and an open bank, where the wind churns the water, on the other.  Water opposite the levy is shallow and offers a place for the fishes to spawn and feed.  The pond is sufficiently fertilized because there is an ample amount of vegetation and phytoplankton growth.

Methods

The methods described in Brady (1981) will be implemented to increase the number of fish caught and ultimately improve the water quality.

Results

The number of largemouth bass caught after pond treatment compared to the number of largemouth bass caught before treatment will indicate the health of the pond.  Lime, aquatic mowers, and  modified topography will be used to correct different problems related to the pond if necessary.

Conclusion

When all of the problems within the pond are corrected, the amount of largemouth bass caught should increase along with a physical growth of all the species.  The number of fish caught will serve as an indicator of pond health, and therefore of water quality, which is a major concern of people today.

Works Cited

Brady, P. 1981.  Pond Management for Sport Fishing in Arkansas.  U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.  Pages 31-32, 34, 39, 43-47, 49-50.

Pond Management Guidebook. 1989.  NC Wildlife Resources Commission. 23 pages.

Oster, D.  1983.  Largemouth Bass.  Cy DeCrosse Incorporated.  Minnetonka, Minnesota. Page 8-16, 20, 36, 38, 89-126, 135-152.

 

 

Fish Caught

Population Condition

Only recently hatchedBass overcrowded
bream.
Mostly 3″-5″ breamBream overcrowded
Young bass, hatched
bream, few 3″-5″Balanced population
bream.

Fig.-1: Conditions of largemouth bass population based on number and type of

fish caught in a seine (Pond Management Guidebook, 1989).

 

 

A tale of 10 trout

Posted on by david
Published Saturday May 21st, 2011
A7
R. Allen Curry
Commentary

The fishing season is upon us and when the spring flood recedes this season, New Brunswick’s brook trout will face a new onslaught of apparently starving anglers.

Click to Enlarge
Photo: Images NB
Fishermen cast for trout on Lac Baker. The provincial government’s decision to double the catch limit for brook trout in northwestern New Brunswick has raised questions about whether cabinet is playing politics with conservation.

The Minister of Natural Resources, backed by the premier, has increased the number of trout that can be harvested by an angler each day from five to 10 in the streams and rivers of northwestern N.B. According to the minister, he has good data for the trout populations and he is 100-per-cent confident the data demonstrates that doubling the harvest is sustainable. He stated that not all his biologists agree his decision is in the best interest of the trout populations. In addition, his local MLAs asked their constituents if they believed this would be a good decision and some of them thought it was a good idea.

It appears the minister is unsure of the sustainability of the increased harvest, because he is also quoted as promising more stocking of hatchery raised trout to help sustain these populations if they become depleted by harvesting.

Every new government has new ideas and approaches to managing our society’s assets, things like our health care, education, economy, and our environment. This particular tale of 10 trout shows our newest government in action and sends a clear message about Premier Alward’s approach to managing our assets.

 

Five trout, or 10?

The tale begins with a decision based on the proclaimed accurate data. How many fish can we harvest is a question asked by all fisheries managers, and indeed provincial staff are working hard and doing what they can, with very limited people and finances, to set harvest levels across the province. I have published a few scientific papers on N.B.’s brook trout populations, completed some population estimates on these northern and other populations, and have visited many brook trout streams here and across their range, so I asked to see the data the minister used to make his decision.

It won’t surprise you to know that with the continuing reductions in DNR staffing and their operational finances for fish and wildlife monitoring, the actual data is quite limited. It has many gaps, it is highly variable, and the methods for data collection are inconsistent. That doesn’t mean tables and diagrams for reports and presentations can’t be generated, but the results are impossible to interpret and therefore the data are unreliable.

There is data not discussed by the minister, which is staff surveys of how many anglers are out there and how many trout they are taking (angler effort and harvest rates). The existing data have the same quality control issues mentioned, but they tell a consistent story the biologists all agree is real.

In the northwest, anglers on average harvest seven trout per day, and elsewhere the harvest is less than three trout per day. In other words, that region’s trout populations are already under more harvesting pressure than populations elsewhere in N.B.

The statements made by anglers when they are surveyed and documented in reports bear this out: “I will catch 10, bring them back to the camp and then go back to get more.” Critical to decision making, but missing in reports and the minister’s comments, are analyses to show how many trout in total will now be harvested, how that will be monitored, and if increasing the harvest by 100 per cent (five to 10 trout) is sustainable, especially given the known pressure on these populations.

The minister indicated that more stocking of trout in the northwestern streams could occur next year to “help sustain the trout population(s).” If you read the minister’s policy for stocking fish it states, “DNR’s fish management strategies focus on responsible management of fish habitat and fish populations to promote natural reproduction of wild fish populations.”

The policy goes on to state, “it is important that the department consider all other management options prior to stocking.” The easiest option is controlling the harvest by anglers. And, implicit in the policy is that stocking streams is not a preferred option unless the stream supports a sea-run population of trout, which don’t occur upstream of the Mactaquac Dam near Fredericton.

If the northwestern brook trout populations can sustain a 100-per-cent increase in harvesting, why would DNR have to stock non-wild, hatchery trout and additionally, take this action against their policy?

The minister has stated that not all of his biologists agree with an increased trout harvest. He didn’t tell us if that was the majority opinion.

The last of the minister’s statements, and one that the Premier and other ministers are using for other issues, is their consultation with MLAs and their constituents. For the people they talked with, the “reaction was overwhelmingly positive” in favour of increasing the trout harvest.

I’m certain the majority of NBers would overwhelmingly support a reduction in taxes, but that doesn’t make it a wise choice for a sustainable province.

I know many people not in favour of increasing the trout harvest, but they may not have been the loudest voices heard by the minister and Premier. Consultation is an important element for any government initiative, but selective questioning or listening is not the best method to consult, report and act.

 

Act with caution

I’m obviously concerned about the brook trout, because I have no confidence that we understand the consequences of increasing the harvest in this region. If we can’t predict the outcome, then most of us would recommend erring on the side caution until we learned more to improve our likelihood of making the correct decision.

Take, for example, another fish issue, the cod fishery of eastern Canada. Scientists and many fishers stated their concern about continuing to increase harvests, and the decision makers chose to go against this advice. The result was the collapse of those populations and the fisheries they supported, which became both an ecological and economic disaster.

That doesn’t have to be the case in this situation. If the minister wants to change the harvest, an investment in accurate assessments and monitoring for a few years would produce the actual information needed to make a decision that sustains our fish populations and the fisheries they support.

Will the world end if brook trout populations in northwestern N.B. are lost? The answer is no, but by depleting these populations we increase the stress on their ecosystems and degrade the fishing quality and opportunities that were, after all, the original intent of the minister’s actions.

One final item that is disconcerting in this tale of 10 trout is the consistent, low priority placed on the environment by the current governing political party. In addition to the brook trout, this government (even if it didn’t start the process) has decreased the protected forest areas for deer and protecting water, undermined their protection of wetlands, allowed shale gas exploration despite unequivocal concerns for contaminating groundwater, and permitted direct pollution of waterways to allow mining opportunities to proceed. All of these actions are against the spirit of our provincial laws that protect the environment, but this government and prior governments repeatedly invoke discretionary, opt-out-of-the-law clauses provided to ministers. It would be interesting to know how many times this occurs, who benefits, and why.

In fairness to the politicians we elect, it is their job to make decisions regarding how society will operate. In fairness to the people who elect them, politicians should be completely transparent about how they made their decisions.

If a decision to increase brook trout harvests in northwestern N.B. is made because the cabinet believes the majority of voters want it to happen, then just say that despite the best advice of your staff and the majority of experts, your decision is political.

If you make a decision to develop and lose a wetland or pollute one of our waterways, just tell us publicly the reason why. Your honesty would allow people to debate and provide governments with informed opinions about how to manage our society. Indeed, it would be the best solution if the cabinet (and all cabinets) would tell us what political and dollar value it is placing on the loss of a wetland, a stream ecosystem, or a trout population. That knowledge and honesty would go a long way in educating the people whom you represent and garnering their support for your decisions.

Everything I have read and heard about Premier Alward leads me to believe he is an honest person with a desire to bring honesty and transparency to his role as leader of our province.

So far, Premier Alward’s government has yet to demonstrate a willingness to be honest and transparent about his decisions regarding our environment.

 

R. Allen Curry, Ph.D. is a Professor of Recreational Fisheries and Director of the Canadian Rivers Institute at UNB.

Please Log In or Register FREE

You are currently not logged into this site. Please log in or register for a FREE ONE Account.
Logged in visitors may comment on articles, enter contests, manage home delivery holds and much more online. Your ONE Account grants you access to features and content across the entire CanadaEast Network of sites.

 

Public Works Builds Fish Habitat in Upper St. Clair

Posted on by david

The stream in front of the post office will now be better for fish life.

By Becky Emmers | Email the author | May 20, 2011

The Upper St. Clair Public Works department teamed up with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission during National Public Works Weekto help improve the stream that runs in front of the post office along McLaughlin Run Road.

“We had a need for some bank stabilization,” said Dave Kutschbach, superintendent of projects for the public works department.

The organizations worked together to design a project that stabilizes the bank and creates a fish habitat.

“We created structures that directs the water down the center,” Kutschbach said.

Channelizing the stream will prevent bank erosion along with providing structures for the fish to live under.

“The structures create some overhead cover for the fish to stay away from predators like birds and raccoons,” said Jon Thomas, from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Thomas said the new structures give the possibility of creating more fish life in the stream.

“There isn’t much here right now, but they’ll start to congregate,” Thomas said.

The fish include basic minnows, daces and carp, he said.

“The structures will stop sediment from going into the streams and make the water better for the organisms,” said Keith Beamer, of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

The Allegheny County Conservation District was also involved with the project.

“It provides dual benefits. Better relationships develop between the township, nonprofits and state organizations,” said Amy Miller, of Allegheny County Conservation. “And it results in a cleaner stream. There’s going to be less sediment so that means less flooding. And it makes it prettier.”

“This project is an example of the township’s commitment to conservation and clean streams,” Kutschbach said.

The public works department also celebrated National Public Works Week with an open house for kids and the community. Click here to read the article.

 

Scroll to Top