Alberta “Tackles” Fish Recovery in North-Central Eastern Slopes

Alberta “Tackles” Fish Recovery in North-Central Eastern Slopes By Joanna Skrajny, AWA Conservation Specialist new provincial effort – the to hundreds of thousands in SK, MB, and lation growth, habitat degradation, habitat North-Central Native Trout Re- ON. We also have the dubious honour of fragmentation, and poaching. All of these A covery program – aims to recov- living in a province with the highest amount factors complicate any effort at restoring na- er threatened bull trout and other native fish of industrial disturbance and road networks tive fish populations. such as Arctic grayling, mountain whitefish, outside of the Maritimes. This disturbance Take bull trout, for example. The Commit- and endangered Athabasca rainbow trout in causes widespread habitat destruction and tee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in the central-northern east slopes of Alberta. degradation. With a growing population, Canada (COSEWIC) lists three main factors It’s no secret that Alberta has needed to see this vast road network has meant that vir- as responsible for the decline of bull trout: this action for decades. Alberta’s coldwater tually no lake or stream is safe from human loss of habitat through degradation and frag- fish have been in a lake of trouble for a long access by car or OHV. On top of all of this, mentation, hybridization and competition time: major declines began in the late 1800s the cold streams and lakes in Alberta are rel- with introduced species, and overexploita- to the early 1900s, when the first boom atively unproductive, which means it takes a tion (overfishing). However, they cautioned of settlers overfished streams and lakes long time for our fish to grow and reproduce. that the degree to which each of these factors throughout the province. Many species Recovery is slow. is contributing to decline should not be gen- were overfished intentionally so that settlers As you may imagine, it is incredibly chal- eralized and likely varies from watershed to could introduce fish species that they were lenging to recover trout in a resource-ex- watershed. familiar with such as rainbow trout, brook traction obsessed province which also Provincial biologists have taken an im- trout, and brown trout. Bull trout were con- happens to have one of the highest con- portant step towards understanding the re- sidered to be trash fish because as predators centration of anglers in the country. As a lationship between these factors by creating they were thought to reduce the populations result, fisheries managers did one of the a modeling tool. The model identifies the of other more ‘desirable’ species. As a result, few things that were within their realm of main threats facing bull trout in any given many introduced species pushed out native control: changing fishing regulations. Some watershed and predicts how much bull trout fish or hybridized (bred) with them: rain- readers may remember that fishing regula- will recover if these threats are addressed. bow trout hybridized with Athabasca rain- tions in the Eastern Slopes from the 1950s to The threats identified by the model are con- bow trout, lake and brook trout aggressively the 1980s had alternating stream closures, firmed by field data. overtook areas previously occupied by bull so that 50 percent of streams were closed The North-Central Native Trout Recovery trout. For example, in 1973 the Abraham to fishing in any given year. However, these Program will use this tool to triage recov- Reservoir contained only bull trout; by 2007 one-year rest periods were not enough to ery efforts from the central to the northern it was almost entirely (96.5%) populated by allow fish populations to recover. Fisheries parts of the Eastern Slopes, beginning with lake trout (Source: Government of Alberta management then shifted from alternating a handful of watersheds. They picked wa- Bull Trout Conservation Management Plan). closures to widespread catch-and-release tersheds which are at high risk, have a rea- On top of all of this, as Alberta’s popula- regulations for native fish, teaching a gener- sonable chance of recovery, and where res- tion grew, the wild character of our Eastern ally-receptive angling community to release toration work (by government or industry) Slopes suffered. Degrading and damaging the fish that belong and keep the ones that will be happening in the near future. After these lands increased pressures on and ac- don’t. These zero-bag limits prevented the five years the government will assess the ef- celerated the declines in populations. Al- complete collapse of native fish populations. fectiveness of their recovery efforts. If suc- berta has a unique set of challenges when it But they did not lead to widespread recov- cessful, the government expects to expand comes to fish conservation: Alberta has sub- ery as they were not coupled with efforts to the program to more watersheds. stantially fewer lakes – hundreds compared address other issues such as human popu- The following areas have been chosen for 4 WLA | December 2017 | Vol. 25, No. 4 | FEATURES from using their full range of habitat. Over Watershed Kakwa Berland Pembina Lower Clearwater Upper Pinto River River River Ram/ River Red Deer Lake the next five years, work to remove inappro- North (Burnt priate barriers would be undertaken in the Threats to be Sask. Timber) North Saskatchewan & Lower Ram, Clear- addressed River water, Berland, Pembina and the Upper Red Fish Mortality Deer watersheds. Water quality: Mitigation of point sources Poaching of sediment and phosphorous runoff such as roads, road crossings, areas of OHV distur- Habitat bance and impacted shorelines. Fragmentation Competition with other species: Sup- Water Quality pression of non-native fish populations will (sediment,OHVs, occur in the upper Red Deer and Pinto Lake. phosphorus) The public have expressed concern with aspects of the proposed North-Central Na- Competition tive Trout Recovery Program. What follows w/ introduced species is my understanding of the program and the concerns that have been raised. Table: Watersheds included in the North-Central Native Trout Recovery Program, major threats to be addressed “Trout are fairly adaptable recovery work: Kakwa River and all its trib- lowing actions: creatures, but they simply can’t utaries, the upper Berland River and trib- Fish mortality and poaching would be live in streams that flash flood utaries, Lower Ram River and the section addressed by increasing enforcement and in May, dry up in August, freeze of the North Saskatchewan River between implementing fishing closures. These clo- solid in winter, or are polluted Rough Creek and Prentice Creek, the up- sures would prohibit Indigenous or Non-In- by storm-sewer runoff. And they per Clearwater River and tributaries, the digenous fishing at any time of year. Catch most certainly can’t reproduce if Pembina River, the upper Red Deer River, and release fishing also would be prohibited spawning gravels are clogged and Pinto Lake. during these closures. with silt – provided they can The government also proposes to ad- Habitat fragmentation: Hanging culverts even get there.” dress threats to fish recovery with the fol- can act as barriers to fish and prevent them - Barry Mitchell, Trout Unlimited Canada, 1998. There has been a general lack of transpar- ency in this initiative. For example, why have these specific watersheds been chosen, and not others? Have these watersheds been selected because they are in most need of restoration work or because they will be the easiest to recover? Taking a cursory look at the state of bull trout in the watersheds selected, it’s possi- ble that the truth may be a little bit of both. Most watersheds selected have either low or very low current adult density of bull trout (translate: have a high or very high risk of being extirpated in those watersheds). There is also a strong case to be made for putting some pro-active recovery work in areas where the situation is not as dire. Greater clarity regarding how these watersheds were Hanging culverts fragment fish habitat and deny fish access to the full range of their habitat. PHOTO: © J. SKRAJNY selected is needed. WLA | December 2017 | Vol. 25, No. 4 | FEATURES A5 The proposed fishing closures in these it was found that illegal harvesting of fish restore fish populations by implementing watersheds have been contentious. The occurred on some level, but engaging com- catch-and-release fishing regulations and government has not been proactive in pro- munity support and increasing enforcement other management actions have mostly viding information about how they made played a large role in solving the poaching failed.” We have tasted these failures before. their choices. There are valid concerns that issue. In general, results could be seen in as In December 2003, right here in the Advo- need thoughtful answers. Will these closures little as three years, but the more depleted cate, Dr. Michael Sullivan described a sce- increase pressures on surrounding water- a fishery was, the longer it took to recover nario where mandatory catch and release sheds? Will the loss of eyes on the landscape populations. would contribute significantly to mortality increase poaching? Now clearly, there are some marked differ- in the walleye fishery: “For example, recov- While not directly related, the proposed ences here – the most obvious being we are ering walleye fisheries like Bapiste Lake may closures bring to mind the growing body of dealing with streams and lakes, not seas and attract 10,000 anglers in a summer. The sus- research about no-fishing zones and marine oceans – but it does provide evidence that tainable harvest is likely no more than 1,000 protected areas (MPAs). In general, MPAs fishing closures in some ecosystems are suc- fish. How do you divide 1,000 fish amongst result in rapid increases in fish populations cessful in recovering fish.

Load more