"There Will Be No Trout East of the Mississippi in 90 years"

[streamerguy]

Came across this today

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk/epa-study-there-will-be-no-trout-east-of-the-mississippi-in-90-years?src=SOC&dom=fb

"Well... almost no trout. By 2100 there will only be one tiny population of trout found east of the Mississippi River, according to the EPA (the last remaining population is expected to survive along the northeast border of Vermont).

The EPA study concludes that without any serious action on the climate change front, everyone east of the Big Muddy better like catching bass, carp, and catfish. Not that there’s anything wrong with those fish mind you, but reading this the other day put me in a pretty depressed mood. I mean, if this plays out as the science says, in just a few short generations the only place left to catch wild trout in the U.S. will be high, high up in the rockies and even those trout numbers will be greatly diminished.

Of course the study presents both sides and shows ranges for the fish with no action on our part and concludes: "Overall, unmitigated climate change is projected to result in a 62% decline in coldwater fish habitat by 2100, which includes approximately 440,000 acres of lost stream habitat.”

It also shows what we can save if we get off our butts and do something about it.

As my friend Todd Tanner of Conservation Hawks said the other day, "This isn’t the kind of legacy we want to leave to our kids and grandkids …”




Have at it.......

 

[ryanh]

I find it hard to believe that climate change will alter the water temp in true lime stone streams.

 

[MVHagey]

A government agency making ridiculous, incalculable, alarming predictions for the future? It's almost like they need money!

 

[Fishidiot]

While the environmental future of trout fishing is certainly an acceptable topic for our General forum. . .should this thread evolve into a partisan political debate, it will be pulled over to OT where hot button political topics are discussed.

If you're looking for this thread and it appears to have disappeared, check the OT Forum as that's where it likely was moved to.
Thanks,
DaveW

 

[sarce]

I hope we can keep this thread here.

I'm skeptical of that claim, even for the "unmitigated" scenario. Average temps rising will cause groundwater temps to rise too...don't know if the groundwater would rise as fast as air temps, but groundwater is currently in the 50s. To eliminate trout it would have to rise 10-15 degrees or so...I have not seen a warming prediction that extreme from any source. Yes a significant number of trout populations will be lost, but not even close to ALL east of the Mississippi. And the current range shown as cold water habitat misses a significant number of wild trout streams...such as SE PA and NC MD. Not sure how much difference that makes though as these two areas will be first to lose their trout anyway.

 

[moon1284]

I don't think that will be the case at all.

Are tailwaters (which are artificial, but wild trout fisheries) going to be affected by "global warming" or "climate change" or the whatever the next buzzword term for inclement weather is?

 

[lineman]

"Chicken Little Syndrome" ......again and again.

 

[MKern]

Did you know that air only absorbs 1% of carbon dioxide, while in comparison the land absorbs 6% and the ocean 93%.

So while that air might raise a degree or two, the land and the oceans raise several. This is why droughts and storms are more intense.

Some of you can't see the forest through the trees....well you might not be able to see either soon.

I suggest you check out MinuteEarth on Youtube.

 

[greenghost]

Yellow journalism at its finest... errrr... or worst...

 

[OldLefty]

I could really get into this one since this is a hotly debated topic and each side feels that the other side ignores some serious science supporting their position.

I would strongly urge the mods to move this to a section where I don't have any desire to participate. This could get really ugly.

 

[pcray1231]

Umm, ok, lets say temps increase 2 degrees C, as projected. That's about 4 degrees F.

That would put PA's climate in a similar category to Virginia. Last I checked, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc. have plenty of trout.

I would agree that it's not a positive development, and some streams will be lost. While I'm sure it's much more complicated, as a first cut, take your summertime water temps today and add 4 degrees F.

(that's of course assuming precipitation stays the same. By many predictions, it will increase).

I find it hard to believe that climate change will alter the water temp in true lime stone streams.

If anything, limestoners will be the most obvious. While surface discharge temps do vary a little, as a basic concept, deep groundwater is at the yearly average temp for the area. If the average temp increases by 4 degrees, so does that groundwater.

 

[JackM]

Just move the Delayed Harvest up to May 15 and we can just move the Jamboree up a couple weeks, before Mother's Day. Much ado about nothing.

 

[greenghost]

Adding on to what pcray said, as carbon dioxide (CO2) builds up in the atmosphere, plants actually thrive, become larger, and are able to soak up more CO2. That means more cover, aggressively growing riparian zones -- providing they are there to begin with -- cooler temps to offset 2 degrees.

 

[JackM]

I thought plants excrete CO2.

What was I thinking?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I always find Pcray's responses to stuff like this reasonable and level-headed. Articles like this scream of fear mongering. It's akin to the social conservative overreaction of the legalization of homosexual marriage. It's the environmentalist alarmist version of, "You can't see the writing on the wall! The government is going to come for us, take away our tax-exemption status, and legally force ministers to perform homosexual marriages, or else you'll be thrown in jail!!!!!OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Sorry if that's the comment that gets it moved to OT haha! I'm not trying to make it political, just trying to point out that it's an alarmist overreaction. No need to discuss politically or otherwise the analogy.

 

[greenghost]

JackM wrote:
I thought plants excrete CO2.

What was I thinking?

They do both. They take it in during the day since it is part of the photosynthesis process. They excrete it at night. If I remember my grade school science right, I believe the nightly excretion is relatively minimal compared to the intake.

 

[BradFromPotter]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[huntfish]

greenghost wrote:

JackM wrote:
I thought plants excrete CO2.

What was I thinking?

They do both. They take it in during the day since it is part of the photosynthesis process. They excrete it at night. If I remember my grade school science right, I believe the nightly excretion is relatively minimal compared to the intake.

Plants turn CO2 into sugars in the calvin cycle (light independent) reactions of photosynthesis.

During respiration is when they excrete excess CO2 just like we do.

 

[pcray1231]

They do both. They take it in during the day since it is part of the photosynthesis process. They excrete it at night. If I remember my grade school science right, I believe the nightly excretion is relatively minimal compared to the intake.

Of course, this is correct (as is huntfish's comment).

But, in the end, plants are net CO2 consumers, oxygen producers. We learn this in what, 3rd grade science? More plants = less CO2 and more oxygen.

So, of course, Jack is VERY wrong.

But to suggest plants will thrive due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is probably misplaced. All else being equal, it does help a little bit. But note that CO2 increases, on a % basis, are absolutely tiny, and probably pretty meaningless when you talk about better shading for streams. Moisture, temperature, etc. play a FAR larger role.

As for the possibility of counteracting global warming by having increased plant life? On a global scale, yeah, it matters, especially in regards to algae in the ocean. Even a small increase can have big effects.

It's a feedback loop that resists the warming. But of course, there are other feedback loops which accelerate the effects. Such as loss of ice cover (ice reflects sunlight back into space, while ground absorbs it). There are a million positive and negative feedbacks to climate, and when you sum em all up, well, no one knows really. But we can say the % of CO2 is increasing, so plants aren't keeping up.

(always wondered how much of CO2 increases have to do with deforestation rather than CO2 emissions?)

 

[JackM]

pcray1231 wrote:
So, of course, Jack is VERY wrong.

And this makes your post all the more pleasurable.