Native fish restoration- Westslopes and Grayling

[Acristickid]

This is how it is done. Seems like a beautiful stream , perhaps one day I will be able to fish there.

Restoration

 

[silverfox]

Excellent. I have tremendous respect for MTFW&P.

I brought up the concept of a fish barrier on a restoration project here and it was crickets from the folks who could make it happen.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Excellent stuff!

 

[Fish Sticks]

awesome project and video!!!
Always love seeing whats happening on the outside

 

[tomgamber]

You could always move there.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You could always move there.

I could always abandon native fish advocacy in PA. And you could always just not click and comment on native fish conservation topics. But neither of us do for obvious reasons 😀

 

[sixfootfenwick]

This is how it is done. Seems like a beautiful stream , perhaps one day I will be able to fish there.

Restoration

I'm curious to your comment.
When you say this is how it is done, what do you mean?

What is a good list of accomplishments they did to get the approval from you?

 

[Acristickid]

Far from an expert, but In my experiences in talking with fish and game biologists , stream project stakeholders , reports, videos….

Seems common themes were-

Suitable habitat for best long term success.

Mostly public lands , although some have been private but open to public.

Eradication of nonnative species.

Barriers (natural or manmade) to prevent migration of nonnative species to enter remediated waters.

To my knowledge most projects are smaller singular headwater type streams.

I would also say projects still get non natives even when many measures have been taken. Either failed barriers from
high water events, poor design or through people introducing fish after measures were taken. CA Golden Trout in the South Fork of the Kern tribs comes to mind. Another would be Paiute Cutthroat in Silver King Creek drainage.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Far from an expert, but In my experiences in talking with fish and game biologists , stream project stakeholders , reports, videos….

Seems common themes were-

Suitable habitat for best long term success.

Mostly public lands , although some have been private but open to public.

Eradication of nonnative species.

Barriers (natural or manmade) to prevent migration of nonnative species to enter remediated waters.

To my knowledge most projects are smaller singular headwater type streams.

I would also say projects still get non natives even when many measures have been taken. Either failed barriers from
high water events, poor design or through people introducing fish after measures were taken. CA Golden Trout in the South Fork of the Kern tribs comes to mind. Another would be Paiute Cutthroat in Silver King Creek drainage.

Well thought out response.
I totally agree with you, unfortunately many in this state do not, regardless of what out of state biologist and successful restorations take place.

 

[troutbert]

I would also say projects still get non natives even when many measures have been taken. Either failed barriers from
high water events, poor design or through people introducing fish after measures were taken. CA Golden Trout in the South Fork of the Kern tribs comes to mind. Another would be Paiute Cutthroat in Silver King Creek drainage.

Yes, it's an ongoing process, not a once and done thing. They've had the same issues with cutthroat restoration in Rocky Mountain National Park.

For the reasons already mentioned. And another reason is that is very difficult to eliminate 100% of the invasive species in the first place. Trout can exist in truly miniscule tributaries. And imagine a trout living under a deep cut bank, with strong flow of groundwater coming in from the floodplain. That fish will be living in water that does not contain the piscicide. And sometimes there are relic channels and oxbows that are not connected directly to the main channel, but that are fed by groundwater. Trout live in such places.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea thank god you don’t always have to get every last one. Lynn camp prong in smokies was sabotaged by anglers with rainbows and its still all brook trout many years later. Alot of these removals allow the native species to come back then even if non natives come back they have to displace the native trout without another round of logging mining and decades of stocking.

 

[salmo]

Years ago I caught several grayling in Yellowstone. It was on the Gibbon River. I believe though that they were not native in the stretch of the river that I fished. Glad to have had the chance to see one in my hand. Wish I had a picture.

 

[troutbert]

Years ago I caught several grayling in Yellowstone. It was on the Gibbon River. I believe though that they were not native in the stretch of the river that I fished. Glad to have had the chance to see one in my hand. Wish I had a picture.

I also caught grayling in the Gibbon River, around 1975. The Park's website indicates that they are no longer there.

 

[salmo]

I caught mine in 82-3. It was incredible, grayling, brook trout, rainbow and cutthroat. I don’t remember if I caught a brown. All taken on a dry fly.

 

[Acristickid]

I caught mine in 82-3. It was incredible, grayling, brook trout, rainbow and cutthroat. I don’t remember if I caught a brown. All taken on a dry fly.

Info on YNP site.

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus montanus) were indigenous to the park in the headwaters of the Madison and Gallatin rivers and to the Gibbon and Firehole rivers below their first falls. Fluvial grayling were eliminated from their entire native range within the park by the introduction of competing nonnative fishes such as brown trout and brook trout, and the fragmentation of migration pathways by the construction of the Hebgen Dam outside the park. Grayling within the upper Gallatin River drainage disappeared around 1900, while grayling in the upper Madison River drainage disappeared by 1935. The only known populations left in the park are adfluvial (primarily lake-dwelling) descendants of fish that were stocked in Cascade and Grebe lakes.
When Grebe and Wolf lakes were treated with Rotenone in 2017 to remove rainbow trout, all Arctic Grayling in the system were lost as well. The NPS is now working to restore these Arctic grayling populations along with WCT.

Restoration​

One of the goals of the park’s 2010 Native Fish Conservation Plan is to restore fluvial grayling to approximately 20% of their historical distribution. The upper reaches of Grayling Creek are considered the best site for immediate fluvial grayling restoration. Near the park boundary, a small waterfall exists in the creek (which flowed directly into the Madison River prior to the construction of Hebgen Dam in 1914).

The Grayling Creek restoration project aims to establish Arctic grayling and westslope cutthroat trout to 95 kilometers (59 miles) of connected stream habitat in one of the most remote drainages in the species historic range within Yellowstone.

During summer 2013, the waterfall was modified to prevent upstream movement of fish into the system. During August 2013, a crew of 27 biologists from Yellowstone National Park, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Gallatin National Forest, Turner Enterprises, and US Fish and Wildlife Service treated the stream segment with piscicide to remove all fish. A second treatment took place in 2014. Restocking the Grayling Creek watershed with native fluvial Arctic grayling and WCT began in 2015 and continued through 2017. The effort included moving approximately 950 juvenile and adult WCT to the lower reaches of Grayling Creek, above the project barrier. In addition, 54,200 WCT eggs and 210,000 fluvial grayling eggs were placed in remote-site incubators throughout the upper watershed. In 2018, park biologists and Montana State University researchers began to evaluate the success of reintroduction efforts on upper Grayling Creek. Preliminary results suggest that WCT are slowly repopulating the system, but grayling are struggling to establish a self-sustaining population.To maintain the natural biodiversity of the Yellowstone ecosystem, sometimes you have to start small. Fish biologist Todd Koel discusses efforts to restore native fish in Grayling Creek, a cup of eggs at a time.

 

[silverfox]

Yes, it's an ongoing process, not a once and done thing. They've had the same issues with cutthroat restoration in Rocky Mountain National Park.

For the reasons already mentioned. And another reason is that is very difficult to eliminate 100% of the invasive species in the first place. Trout can exist in truly miniscule tributaries. And imagine a trout living under a deep cut bank, with strong flow of groundwater coming in from the floodplain. That fish will be living in water that does not contain the piscicide. And sometimes there are relic channels and oxbows that are not connected directly to the main channel, but that are fed by groundwater. Trout live in such places.

I agree. In the project I mentioned above, there are currently NO nonnative trout anywhere near the project area, which is a fairly significant portion of a 275 sq. mile watershed. There are some in a tributary below the project area. I simply proposed a barrier as part of the design of another mitigation system to prevent those fish from moving into the project area once the pollution is mitigated.

At this point, I truly believe that nobody in any position of authority in PA actually wants to maintain species separation or protect brook trout despite what the state's conservation plans/trout plans say. I'm convinced their goal is the deliberate mixing of species.

 

[Mike]

I caught mine in 82-3. It was incredible, grayling, brook trout, rainbow and cutthroat. I don’t remember if I caught a brown. All taken on a dry fly.

Yes, it's an ongoing process, not a once and done thing. They've had the same issues with cutthroat restoration in Rocky Mountain National Park.

For the reasons already mentioned. And another reason is that is very difficult to eliminate 100% of the invasive species in the first place. Trout can exist in truly miniscule tributaries. And imagine a trout living under a deep cut bank, with strong flow of groundwater coming in from the floodplain. That fish will be living in water that does not contain the piscicide. And sometimes there are relic channels and oxbows that are not connected directly to the main channel, but that are fed by groundwater. Trout live in such places.

Troutbert,
We see that with apparently “total fish kills” associated with pollution events. I recall a manure spill in Lancaster Co of that type. We electrofished soon thereafter and found a few BT yoy and/or yearlings at the site. There were one or two spring seeps trickling out at the base of the site’s embankments where I suspect the fish survived the slug of manure as it passed by. We found the fish at or near those seeps,

 

[Fish Sticks]

I agree. In the project I mentioned above, there are currently NO nonnative trout anywhere near the project area, which is a fairly significant portion of a 275 sq. mile watershed. There are some in a tributary below the project area. I simply proposed a barrier as part of the design of another mitigation system to prevent those fish from moving into the project area once the pollution is mitigated.

At this point, I truly believe that nobody in any position of authority in PA actually wants to maintain species separation or protect brook trout despite what the state's conservation plans/trout plans say. I'm convinced their goal is the deliberate mixing of species.

Oh yea it’s definitely deliberate, they are lazy when it comes to conservation and mixing just allows them to throw their hands up and say we can’t do anything(even though there is a-lot you can do for brook trout in mixed populations). Their going to make a documentary about PA fish and boat one day and not the feel good kind. The ED and those commissioners are immortalizing themselves as the skid mark the underpants of American conservation.

 

[silverfox]

Oh yea it’s definitely deliberate, they are lazy when it comes to conservation and mixing just allows them to throw their hands up and say we can’t do anything(even though there is a-lot you can do for brook trout in mixed populations). Their going to make a documentary about PA fish and boat one day and not the feel good kind. The ED and those commissioners are immortalizing themselves as the skid mark the underpants of American conservation.

All things considered, it has to be a deliberate decision by someone to avoid doing what most of the other states and every state that borders PA have done.

If it was because our populations are more secure than every one of our neighbors & 90% of the other states in the range (which isn't true), then why would Maine do what they've done? Couple that with the obvious marketing of nonnative species and extreme focus on stocking, and the near complete avoidance of even showing wild brook trout on social media, what else could it be?

It's what they want because they put angler preferences, license sales, and maintaining the aquaculture/stocking machine status quo above all else. Because they're not a natural resources management agency. They're a fish hatchery system with license, permit, and law enforcement authority.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I still don't understand why they can't just let the truck chasers fish the hatchery. It just seems like a much better option for those that want easy ugly fish and meat. Why someone would want to eat a trout is beyond me, probably one of, if not thee, most bland tasting fish one could eat. When I think of trout eaters I think of Ketchup on a steak that's well-done, ice cubes in cheap liquor, coffee WITH additives, and a thinking process that thinks cigarettes have flavor.