Future of fishing

Anyone else bothered by this? web page

Yeah, it’s disturbing. I know President Bush didn’t get re-elected on the strength of his environmental policies.

The way that article was written is very misleading. The Bush administration simply said no to tearing down a bunch of dams that have been in place for 30 or more years.

It’s not like any habitat is being taken away. Rather it is not being restored. They skewed the story!

I told all the sportsman that Bush wasn’t for them when they were voting for him. It’s all politics they do what they need to to get re-elected and then look what happens. Get ready for the gun ban to go back on too…..

Quote:

---

Get ready for the gun ban to go back on too…..

---

Huh??

I don’t think the story is skewed at all. You know you can argue that any endeavor is too expensive. i could argue that treating sewerage in the twin cities it too expensive and we could just go back to dumping it into the Mississippi. Personally, I am afraid to read the paper each day.

This change in policy is not about dams, but is in response to a lawsuit by the home builders association and development associations.

Water flows downhill. While on the surface this may appear to only negatively effect further restoration of fish stocks (to some that alone is a major hit, to others it is not) to currently seldom or unused stretches of water, it could also have a serious effect on fish populations that haven’t been sufficiently studied to determine how critical the habitat in those areas of the watershed is to their survival. The burden of proof has been shifted.

Even where water with fish has been determined to be critical to those fish, in some areas around Puget Sound the economic impact was determined to outweigh the benefits of the salmon (according to the NMFS), so the areas lost protection. At the same time, the NMFS acknowledged that not all benefits of the salmon were accounted for. According to the NMFS officials, they are required to conserve, and “conserving” means keeping the fish from going extinct, not increasing or even keeping current levels.

The next thing that they will find to be too expensive is the asian carp issue. This administration has no shame. If there is a public resource available that can be harvested for the good of the wealthy cut it down, and burn it.

I agree with Jon that this article is very misleading. We do have our own situation here on the Mississippi that we should all be very concerned about. It involves the Corps of Engineers and the barge companies pushing to double the sizes of the locks on the upper Mississippi. I don’t know if there has been much on this up in the Minnesota/Wisconsin area but it has been discussed down here in Iowa for a few years. The barge traffic on the river has increased many times over since the 1960’s and with larger locks the traffic can only get heavier. According to John Pitlo of the Iowa DNR, barge traffic on the river is what kills most of the walleye fry now. I believe the mortality rate for walleye on the river in the first year is 80%? Most of these fish are killed when in the fry stage before they have developed fins to swim. The fry just simply float down the channel for several days after they hatch. There is nothing to stop them from going through the screws on the tow boats. With the proposed larger locks we will see a much greater number of barges which in turn will kill even more of the walleye fry. It seems that the Corps and the large shipping companies such as Cargill do not care about the mortality of the fish on the river. Conservation is not high on their list by any means. All they care about is moving more tonage on the river which means more $$$. I know the lock expansions have been pushed by farmer organizations as well. There could be compromises for the expanded locks like closing the river to barge traffic for a couple weeks during the fry stage to lower the mortality rate. If you read or hear of a public hearing on this subject, please attend it to voice your opinion. I know there were a couple down this way (Dubuque) and several members of the Mississippi Walleye Club did attend to push for some sort of conservation measures to protect the fishery.

Eyehunter

Eyehunter;

I do hear what you are saying.

I have good news and bad news!!!

The good news first!!!!
With the current increase in Ethynol plants, the vast majority of the corn in the 5 state area (MN, IA, ND, SD, WI) is getting railed to the plants. This meaning the barge traffic is slowing down. Currently, at all the St. Paul/Minnepolis grain terminals on the river, there is no corn being barged out. This, along with other economic reasons with other raw goods and grains, you will see rail traffic pick up and barge traffic reduce drastically over the next 5 years. Rail traffic is going to pick up because of railing the grain to these plants. I have many immediate family members who are very active in the grain industry/markets, so this is fact.

The bad news………
Food is a popular industry. Especially when it comes to the dept of Ag and the dept of Trans. Fish are not going to stop the activities of either/or departments…..Not a little walleye.

Gary,

I sure hope you are right about more rail traffic and less barge traffic over the next 5 years. I had not heard that. I attended a meeting with a couple of the DNR people a year or so ago and they were still stressing increased barge traffic. John Pitlo had a great deal of data on fish mortality. I know that at least a few of the lock expansions were close to becoming a reality back then but I haven’t heard much on it since. I believe the funding was held up for the project at the time. It sounded as if closing the river to barge traffic for a two week period would be about the only way we could counter the increased barge traffic. It didn’t sound like closing the river would fly because it would cost the farmers and barge companies too-much time & money. I have nothing against farmers or barge companies. Some of my best friends are farmers. I just think there has to be a compromise that would satisfy both sides. All of this started a good 10 years ago and, to my knowlege, none of the existing locks have been expanded. If you are right about less barge traffic then we need to support the alternative fuel issue and burn more gasahol. I know that ethanol is a huge success here in Iowa. At most gas stations is is less-expensive than unleaded regular. I pump it into my tank every time I fill up. I don’t burn much of it in my boat because the alcohol in it can damage the rubber and plastic hoses and fittings. Maybe the outboard manufacturers can come up with motors that will stand up to the blended fuels. It is a cleaner burning fuel which is better for the enviroment than regular gasoline.

I know that a fish like the walleye and sauger is not going to slow down expanding river traffic. You are correct when you mentioned the departments of transportation and agriculture not caring about a few fish. Food is a huge industry but so is recreation, fishing in particular and if we make enough noise maybe there can be some sort of compromise. This really has nothing to do with politics. All of this started during the Clinton administration and the change to the Bush administration had no bearing on it. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations support alternative fuels. We just have to make certain that we have a say in the matter.

Anything that we can do as sportsmen to increase or maintain fish and game populations is a good thing. I know that here in Iowa we have closed areas below 3 of the Mississippi dams from 12-1 to 3-15 each year. We have a protected slot from lock & dam 12 down to the Missouri border and the aggregate limit for walleye/saugers dropped from 10 to 6. All of these changes took several years and many meetings to get accomplished and they can only help the walleye/sauger fishery. I can’t wait to see how things will change in a few years. I caught and released many walleye in the protected slot of 20″ to 27″ this year. I only caught one fish over 27″ which was also released. We should have some numbers of real trophy fish down here in a few years.

Eyehunter

Quote:

---

Protection would focus instead on rivers where the fish now thrive.

The critical habitat designation originally included rivers accessible to salmon, even if no fish occupied them,

---

This is horrible. Terrible. I’m practically beside myself.

Improvements designated to improve fishless waters are instead being diverted by the eeeeevil Bush administration to focus on areas where fish currently thrive.

I’m sure he’s sitting in the oval office right now pounding the desk and saying, “All I wanted was the sharks with the friggin’ laser beams on their heads… was that so hard?”

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your message? It looks like out eeevil leader will just have to settle for mutated sea bass.

Eyehunter

G,

Kind of slippery slope isn’t it. You obviously don’t need to protect a thriving resource. So really they propose to do nothing. Organizations like trout unlimited have had tremendous success returning dead streams to great fisheries. In Southwest Wisconsin we have the lower Wisconsin Riverway which is scenic an no develpment is allowed within sight of the river. This is obviously an unnecessary burden on land owners and is probably too expensive and should be abolished.

Quote:

---

You obviously don’t need to protect a thriving resource.

---

This is not obvious to me at all.

I have two children. They are thriving. My intention is to protect them with every resource I can muster.

Please explain.

Quote:

---

All I wanted was a friggin rotating chair, was that so hard?

---

I heard about an article just befor the election that bush wanted to open up again the explorational drilling in the arctic protected areas plus alot of other arctic areas too. I seen the documentary on bushs previous past on oil development in the state of texas when he was young and not in politics and you can’t convince me that him and his past buddies aren’t really trying to push the oil drilling exploration in the artic, i just won’t belive it. Another buck and more laws on thier side to swing any further developement thier way is what it looks like to me. I used to live in texas and believe me its one polluted state. Its a very heavy republican state and they do anything they want when moneys involved. Look at whats happened in florida at lake okeechobee, its a fraction of what it used to be because of the buck and politics. If its in thier way or they can’t make a buck from it just get rid of it. I think if people like them had it thier way youd see alot more damamge to the enviourment. This administration is just too money hungry and everybody knows it.

Okeechobee was polluted with…. water.

Link

Quote:

---

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE MANAGED RECESSION DECISION
The issue of high water level waxed and waned through much of the 1990s. Lake levels had remained higher than average from 1990 through May 2000 (Fig. 2), rarely falling below a lake stage of 3.97 m (13 feet). High lake stage was due primarily to heavy rainfall in the watershed and over the lake, but this probably was exacerbated by a prior regulation schedule that tended to hold water in the lake even when levels were above 4.5 m (14.76 feet; SFWMD 1997). In the summer of 2000, scientists from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission presented unpublished fish survey data indicating that juvenile bass (Micropterus salmoides) were being found at all-time low levels in Lake Okeechobee, and attributed the decline to the loss of submerged plant habitat. The recreational users and commercial interests associated with Lake Okeechobee raised the issue of high water levels at monthly meetings of the SFWMD Governing Board through the fall and winter of 1999–2000, as well as to elected officials and representatives from the print media. Indeed, the Palm Beach Post printed a three-part series in the fall of 2000, which culminated in a lead editorial entitled “Keeping Lake Okeechobee out of Nature’s Morgue.”

The rhetoric was rising through 1999 and 2000, and some stakeholders began to proclaim that Lake Okeechobee was dying. Data collected by scientists at the SFWMD documented that high lake stages had the following impacts on the ecology of Lake Okeechobee:

1) Less light reached the bottom of the lake, resulting in loss of submerged vegetation (Chara, Potamogeton, Vallisneria; Steinman et al. 1997, 2002, Havens et al. 2001).

2) Increased turbidity resulted in light limitation of bulrush (Scirpus sp.), which may have weakened the plants, making them more susceptible to uprooting by wind-driven waves (C. Hanlon and M. Brady, unpublished data).

3) Increased phosphorus concentrations in the nearshore regions, as phosphorus-rich sediments were transported from the central mud zone toward the littoral zone (Havens and James 1999).

4) Internal waves within the lake’s water column spread the loose sediments from the center of the lake to shoreline areas, resulting in more turbid, nutrient-rich water reaching this sensitive area (Havens and James 1999), where much of the lake’s submerged plants and fish/wildlife habitat occur (Aumen and Wetzel 1995).

5) There may have been a reduced rate of spread of invasive species in the lake’s marsh zone, such as Panicum repens (torpedograss) and Melaleuca quinquenervia, based on extrapolation of results from small-scale, experimental manipulations (unpublished data). Both of these species can tolerate flooded conditions, but appear to increase in coverage following dry conditions (David 1999, Hanlon and Langeland 2000).

Nevertheless, releases of water to the estuaries (the main outlets from the lake) were kept relatively low during this period of time, reflecting the prevailing desires to keep water stored in the lake and minimize salinity imbalances in the estuaries if at all possible.

Seven of the nine years between 1991 and 1999 exhibited above-average rainfall over Lake Okeechobee and its tributary drainage basin. Observations from monthly monitoring cruises suggested that the lake’s submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) community had severely declined. As a consequence, a 42-station sampling program was initiated in April 1999. Samples were taken along 14 fixed transects (three sites per transect) that extended from the lakeshore outward around the south, west, and north lake perimeter (Fig. 3), as described in Havens et al. (2001).

The loss of SAV threatened the survival of a multi-million dollar sport fishery, which previously had been documented to rely on this habitat (Furse and Fox 1994). Scientists, resource managers, and concerned members of the public reached a consensus that unless a sustained period of more moderate (i.e., at or below 4 m) lake level was to occur, many of the ecological and societal values of the resource might be lost. Based on prior studies in Lake Okeechobee (Steinman et al. 1997, Havens and James 1999), consultation with outside experts, and the best professional judgment of scientists at the SFWMD, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the USACE’s Waterways Experiment Station, it was concluded that if the lake level could be lowered to 13 feet (approximately 4 m) for at least 8 weeks, conditions would be favorable for reestablishing a healthy SAV community in Lake Okeechobee. An 8-week period was considered the minimum time necessary to allow plants to germinate and grow to a size that could tolerate deeper flooding. However, keeping the lake at about 4 m from 1 June through 1 August was viewed as potentially difficult because it coincided with the wet season in South Florida, when increased inflows to Lake Okeechobee normally cause water levels to increase rapidly.

The lowering of lake level was a controversial decision that included scientific, economic, social, and political uncertainties. In addition to the ecology of the lake, any decision regarding the lowering of lake levels needed to consider the following potential impacts:

1) altered salinity regimes due to lake discharges to the downstream estuaries;

2) increased phosphorus loading from lake discharges to the Everglades; and

3) risk of reduced water supply for agricultural, utilities, and the natural environment if conditions following the recession became drier than expected.

By the spring of 2000, the combination of documented environmental problems, stakeholder and media concerns, and political pressures made some level of action inevitable. Given the potential socioeconomic risks associated with a managed recession of Lake Okeechobee, a series of public meetings throughout South Florida was held in spring 2000 in the cities of: (1) Fort Myers, with stakeholders in southwest Florida concerned about the Caloosahatchee Estuary, (2) Okeechobee, with stakeholders concerned about Lake Okeechobee, and (3) West Palm Beach, with stakeholders throughout the region and state. This final meeting, held on 19 April 2000, included presentations from SFWMD scientific staff on hydrologic modeling results, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) climate forecasts, and performance measures that could be used to evaluate ecosystem responses to a managed recession. It was followed by break-out groups who dealt with water supply, Everglades, estuaries, and Lake Okeechobee, and then reconvened for a general discussion of the available options. In addition, phone conversations and meetings were held with representatives of state, federal, and tribal agencies, in order to explain the nature of the problem and solicit ideas. Based on the list of available options, and with input from upper management at the South Florida Water Management District, staff sorted the public input recommendations into the following categories: not feasible (due either to logistical constraints of the water control structures or to legal considerations); feasible with minimal logistical and political implications (i.e., could be implemented under authority of the SFWMD); and feasible, but with considerable logistical and political implications (i.e., possibly could be implemented but not without further discussions with other agencies and political entities). Using these categories as guidelines, and again with input from upper management at the SFWMD and members of the Governing Board, staff from the SFWMD developed three alternative plans to be presented to the Governing Board for their consideration:

Base Plan: take no action; let nature take its course.

Public Input Plan: carry out low-volume discharges of water from the lake, at a level that would not impact the salinity of estuaries or present a significant risk to future water supply (based on model runs).

Shared Adversity Plan: carry out large-volume discharges from the lake in order to lower the stage to about 4 m in a short period of time, and hold the stage low for at least 8 weeks.

---

James, I’m still having formatting problems – multiple carriage returns seem to be ignored.

I agree that opening ANWR is likely to benefit the oil industry. While I think the threat of opening ANWR is a worthwhile tool, and strenghthens our negotiating position, I would just as soon they didn’t do it, especially during the presidency of someone born of the oil industry.