Category Archives: Conservation

Hatchery Fish Often Fail in the Wild. Now We Might Know Why

Epigenetics explained, with help from ’80s pop.

by Amorina Kingdon, Hakai Magazine 

from The Fishing Wire

Wild salmon are struggling to get their groove back. Along North America’s Pacific coast, salmon populations—already hit by overfishing—have been forced to dodge the Blob and hungry seals. For years, Canada has tried to help bolster the salmon population by releasing hatchery-raised juvenile fish, or smolts, into the wild.

Scientists know these hatchery smolts don’t do well in the wild—the fish tend to die younger than their wild brethren and reproduce less, but it’s unclear why.

In a recent study, however, researchers think they’ve hit upon a possible explanation. In two British Columbia streams, researchers caught coho salmon smolts that were making their way out to sea for the first time. Some of the fish had been born in hatcheries, while others were wild. Comparing the genetics of the hatchery- and wild-born smolts, the scientists found a huge difference between the two populations. But the changes weren’t so much in their genetics as in how their genes were regulated and expressed—their epigenetics.

Epigenetics is the physical and molecular processes that control how the instructions contained within DNA get expressed or turned into the proteins that affect day-to-day life. Often, epigenetics causes a gene to be expressed more or less frequently than it otherwise would. Everything from stress to chemicals to natural processes like puberty can cause epigenetic changes. Some of the changes are temporary or reversible, while others last forever.

Suppose, for instance, that rather than a jumble of folded proteins, your DNA is a cassette tape of Phil Collins’s 1985 smash album No Jacket Required. When you were born, your DNA was a factory-made tape—you had the same physical spool of tape, more or less, as 13 million other fans.

But say a section of your tape was kinked or twisted after unspooling in the stereo of your Trans Am, garbling the classic riffs of “Sussudio.” Meanwhile, your brother can rock out to “Sussudio” just fine, but he accidentally erased the sultry chorus of “Inside Out” while making a mixtape for his girlfriend. Much like these changes will affect which of Collins’s epic rhythms you and your brother respectively blast, epigenetics can permanently or semipermanently affect how genes get expressed.

In the case of the salmon, Louis Bernatchez, a population biologist at Laval University who worked on the new research, found that while hatchery- and wild-born coho smolts have similar genetic profiles—which makes sense since the two are closely related—some parts of their DNA have wildly different epigenetics. But more than this, Bernatchez found that all the hatchery-raised fish had similar epigenetic changes, even for fish reared at different hatcheries.

Just as two different cassettes chewed up in the same spot of “One More Night” suggest an issue with the tape deck, Bernatchez suspected there’s something about hatchery life that triggers epigenetic changes. He points to two features as possible suspects: atypical food and overcrowding.

“Some of those genes are important in appetite, important in osmoregulation,” Bernatchez says. He stresses that these epigenetic effects don’t necessarily explain hatchery fish’s shortcomings as adults. In part, that’s because it’s still not completely clear which traits they affect, or how long the changes last. But it does open new avenues to explore.Hatchery-born coho salmon smolts have epigenetic changes as a result of hatchery living, which may affect them for life. Photo by Stock Connection Blue/Alamy Stock Photo

In Washington State, hatchery-spawned steelhead also do poorly in the wild. But Penny Swanson, division director of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, says that while epigenetics may play a part, there are other factors that could account for hatchery fish’s struggles.

For example, fish that do well in hatcheries often have voracious appetites and grow quickly, she says. This serves them well in captivity, but not in the wild, where searching for food and enduring hunger are more important. But it’s not clear if hatchery conditions lead to a form of artificial selection, where the quickest gobblers survive, or if the food, temperature, or relatively sedentary lifestyle are modifying the fish’s genes through epigenetic effects.

Swanson thinks Bernatchez’s research lays important groundwork for untangling the different factors, but there’s still a lot to study, such as epigenetics in fish at different ages. This is tricky to do with wild populations, she says, in comparison to the captive or domestic animals on which most epigenetics research is done, because the natural genetic variation is much wider and less understood.

Mackenzie Gavery, a post-doctorate researcher working with Swanson, agrees that it’s a leap to suggest the epigenetic changes seen in smolts are affecting their success as adults. There’s a big gap in time between when smolts head out to sea and when they return to breed as adults, she says. Gavery also notes that many epigenetic changes are natural, transient, and even reversible. Like straightening a twisted cassette ribbon by rewinding it with a pencil, epigenetic changes in the smolts may be gone by the time they return to spawn.

Bernatchez hopes that further study will untangle how persistent the epigenetic changes are, as well as make it clearer how they’re manifesting in the fish. But it’s a new field, and the researchers still have a long long way to go.

Read more like this in Hakai Magazine here:

What Is Fishing for the Future through Sport Fish Restoration?

By Melissa Crouch, Florida FWC

The Sport Fish Restoration program helps preserve fishing opportunities for the future.

I grew up fishing in Florida’s coastal waters. My dad would often take me on his pre-fishing shopping trips to stock up on tackle and fishing equipment. There was such a huge variety to choose from, I always wondered how he knew just what to purchase. The day before our fishing adventure we would gas up the boat and make final preparations. I was too excited to fall asleep on those nights, and in the morning I readied myself before the sun came up for what was sure to be a memorable day. I became hooked on the sport.

Today, I engage my children in the same perpetual cycle of strolling through tackle shops, fueling-up the boat, fishing, cleaning, rinsing and repeating. While this cycle helps re-energize my soul and introduces my children to the water, it is also part of an even bigger cycle known as the Sport Fish Restoration Program. By purchasing fishing gear, motorboat fuel and a fishing license, I’m participating in a cycle of success that not only leaves me feeling good, but provides fishing opportunities to all who enjoy and appreciate the sport.

Each time you purchase fishing gear, motorboat fuel or a fishing license, you help support SFR.

A quick history lesson on this important program – back in 1950, Congress enacted the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (also known as the Dingell-Johnson Act) to collect a 10-percent fee on the purchase of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies and artificial baits for projects to improve recreational fishing opportunities. In 1984, funds from the sale of motorboat fuels and additional fishing equipment, as well as import duties on boats and fishing tackle, were included as part of the Wallop-Breaux amendment. These revenues are transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which then distributes funds to the states for recreational sport fishing enhancement projects.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) receives about $13 million annually from SFR, of which $3 to $4 million supports saltwater sport fish projects and 15 percent funds the creation and maintenance of boating-access points. Over the years, SFR has provided nearly $500 million to the states for thousands of individual projects. All because you bought tackle, fueled-up your boat and purchased a fishing license.

Projects supported by SFR in Florida include:

Each state’s share of SFR funding is based 60 percent on its number of paid licensed anglers and 40 percent on its land and water area.
To fund SFR projects, 75 percent of the total cost is provided by SFR and the remaining 25 percent comes from state funds, which are derived through recreational fishing license fees.
  • Marine and freshwater fisheries research.
  • Stock enhancement.
  • Angler and boater outreach.
  • Aquatic resource education.
  • Artificial reefs.
  • Boating-access improvements.

Using SFR funding, the FWC Division of Marine Fisheries Management, Outreach and Education subsection travels throughout Florida to offer a variety of engaging programs for recreational anglers and participates in numerous public events. Through their efforts, the public has opportunities to learn more about some of Florida’s most important marine fisheries resources. Just a few of these activities include Women’s Fishing Clinics, Kids’ Fishing Clinics, displays at fishing expos and boat shows, presentations to fishing clubs, and Saltwater Angler Recognition Programs. Staff also disseminates a variety of SFR-funded publications including a “Boating and Angling Guide” series for coastal areas, saltwater fish identification posters, “Fishing Lines: An Angler’s Guide to Florida’s Marine Resources,” “Fishing Florida” youth activity books, saltwater habitat brochures, catch-and-release brochures, “Sea Stats” for saltwater species, and brochures explaining the importance of SFR.

So next time you go fishing, buy tackle, fuel-up your boat, or purchase your fishing license, remember that you contributed to this important program with far-reaching impacts. When you see the SFR logo at a boat launch, know that you made it happen. Fishing for the future – that’s something to be excited about! To learn more about Florida’s Sport Fish Restoration Program, visit MyFWC.com/Fishing and click on “Sport Fish Restoration” or visit the USFWS page.

Should Muskie Fishermen Stop Fishing When the Water Is Warm?


MUSKY WARM-WATER MORTALITY STUDY IN JAMES RIVER

from The Fishing Wire

Musky Warm-Water Mortality Study in James River

Warm water angling is a contentious topic among devout muskie anglers, with many anglers deciding to stop fishing when water temperatures exceed 80°F because catching fish in elevated temperatures is believed to lead to high mortality. Until this point, there has been no formal evaluation to validate this belief. Over the past two years, graduate students from Coastal Carolina University, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR), the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR), and West Virginia University (WVU) conducted a two-year warm-water catch-and-release mortality study for muskellunge in the upper James River.

Researchers surgically implanted muskellunge between 26 and 46 inches in length with individually coded radio tags in February-March of 2020 (N = 45) and 2021 (N = 50) so we could track and monitor the fates of all tagged fish. We also attached external loop tags to the radio tagged fish so anyone who caught a radio tagged fish could report it and receive a $50 reward.

With the help of local anglers, researchers attempted to catch half of the radio tagged fish during the warm-water period, which we defined as July through August because that is when water temperatures tended to exceed 80°F. After a tagged fish was caught and released, researchers tracked the fish for several days to verify whether it survived or died.

We were able to locate 39 of 45 fish in 2020 and 46 of 50 fish in 2021 prior to the beginning of July each year. The missing fish may have moved into areas we could not track, had their tags fail, or were unreported harvests. Five of the located fish in 2020 had died prior to the warm-water period and six died prior to the warm-water period in 2021, one of which was harvested.

Of the surviving fish we were able to locate, seven fish were caught in 2020 and five were caught in 2021. Three of the seven fish caught in 2020 died and one of the five fish caught in 2021 died, leading to a mortality estimate of 33.3% for fish released in warm water. Additionally, we had one natural mortality in 2020 and three natural mortalities in 2021, resulting in a natural mortality estimate of 6.9% for the warm-water period.

Fishing action (i.e., follows, strikes, and catches) during the warm-water period was extremely low, even with known locations of tagged fish and experienced anglers using a variety of tactics (e.g., live bait, night fishing). Fish also visually exhibited signs of stress (e.g., no movement or interest in baits presented to them) and would aggregate near thermal refugia (e.g., creek mouths).

We used our mortality estimates, as well as James River muskellunge growth data and angler catch data from previous summers, to simulate how a season closure during the warm-water season would affect the size distribution of the James River muskellunge population. Based on our simulations, the changes in the estimated probability of muskellunge achieving >40” and >45” did not significantly increase in the upriver (+2.0% and +0.5% respectively) or the downriver (+2.5% and +0.1% respectively) based on expected exploitation rates.

Take home points:

  • Mortality is higher for muskellunge caught in warm water.
  • Catchability of muskellunge during the warm water period is low.
  • Because few muskellunge are angled in the summer, the effects of summer angling mortality on size structure of muskellunge in the James River is minimal despite the high probability of mortality for fish that are angled during this period.

Did Au Sable Trout Disappear?

Where have the Au Sable River trout gone?
from The Fishing Wire

Spring ushered into northern Michigan an unwelcomed guest in 2018…an extended winter with an unprecedented snowfall in April. When winter finally relented, and anglers were able to get out and enjoy fishing their favorite spots, the DNR Fisheries Division’s Northern Lake Huron Management Unit started getting phone calls from concerned anglers about their lack of success on the North Branch of the Au Sable River.

The unit receives “there are no fish in my lake” calls on a regular basis, and usually they are based on an angler’s couple of days of poor fishing. This year on the North Branch, however, staff were getting calls from professional trout fishing guides who had never complained about the fishing before. They told local staff they were experiencing extremely low catch rates and weren’t seeing the feeding activity they normally would during insect hatches.The North Branch was scheduled for Fisheries Division to conduct population estimates in the late summer at three different sites. However, with the number of anglers reporting startlingly low catch rates of trout, the division decided to conduct electrofishing spot checks on May 30.

To build on the strong partnership in the Au Sable River, Fisheries Division invited several of the guides who informed the department to come and help conduct the electrofishing efforts. The first round of electrofishing spot checks were at places that are surveyed regularly. Shortly after the survey started, it was readily apparent the trout population was down from levels normally seen in late summer.

“Most anglers understand that trout can move fairly large distances, usually seasonally, so making direct comparisons of the survey results occurring at different times of the year should be avoided,” said the Northern Lake Huron Management Unit manager, Dave Borgeson. “Regardless, the decline in the number of fish surveyed at the sites corroborated the angler reports so we decided to conduct four more spot checks at other locations on June 7, and got similar results.

“For some unknown reason, it became clear the trout population in the North Branch had declined from the previous year. There was a lot of head-scratching and hypothesis-sharing regarding the cause of the apparent decline, and some of the angler’s ideas centered on the possibility of mortality due to toxic substances introduced into the stream.

While trout populations can vary widely from year to year for a variety of reasons, Fisheries Division decided to notify the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality of the angler’s observations and the electrofishing results. A working group of concerned anglers, DEQ staff, and Fisheries Division employees Neal Godby and Borgeson teamed up to discuss the status of the stream and plan a strategy for additional information gathering in 2018.The DEQ planned to do some water chemistry work and conduct aquatic invertebrate sampling in the North Branch, Fisheries Division would conduct trout population estimates at three stations on the river, and the angling groups planned to do their annual quantitative aquatic invertebrate sampling as well as cooperate with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a contaminant survey using lipid-based collection gear deployed in the stream.

The DEQ’s Water Resource Division conducted three P51 Habitat and Macroinvertebrate surveys in mid-June and found “All three sites surveyed in June 2018 scored excellent for both habitat and macroinvertebrates. All sites had excellent macroinvertebrate diversity with 37 taxa found at Dam Four, 32 at Twin Bridge Rd., and 31 at the Ford. Of these, 20 taxa at Dam Four, 18 taxa at Twin Bridges, and 15 taxa at the Ford were ephemeroptera, plecoptera, or tricoptera (EPT) taxa indicating excellent water quality.

“The USGS organic chemical sampling results are pending. Fisheries Division electrofishing surveys revealed:
At Twin Bridges the brook trout density and biomass were at the lowest recorded level in the past 30 years, and brown trout density and biomass levels were on par with the past two years.

At Eamon’s Landing the brook trout density was around the long-term average and biomass was on par with the past two years (but low compared with the long-term average).

At Dam 4 the brook trout density was well below average and biomass was at its lowest recorded level in the last 30 years. Brown trout density was about average, but the biomass was well below its average.

“So, what does all this mean?” asked Borgeson. “Do we know why the trout abundance in the North Branch declined substantially? It appears the aquatic invertebrate populations appear to be in good shape, and that non-trout species are in decent numbers. Because of that, contamination or an acute toxin event is not likely the cause. Additionally, trout species are still present albeit in relatively low numbers. So, what else could it be?

“Sometimes trout populations can be impacted by extreme water temperatures. Since the decline occurred after the DNR’s fall survey, and before this summer, warm temperatures do not appear to be the culprit. Last winter, while long, did not have too many of the extremely low temperatures that can greatly affect trout. So, temperature may not have been the primary force impacting the population in this case.

Also, the area of the North Branch was the recipient of some tremendous amounts of precipitation in the fall of 2017, and in the spring of 2018. Many long-time river residents and users reported they have never seen the North Branch so high, even out of its banks. It is known that high flows can impact trout populations, especially those occurring in the spring. Fisheries Division also surveyed some other streams that had markedly lower trout abundances. For example, division crews surveyed the West Branch of the Sturgeon River and they said it was very clear the trout population had declined since 2017. The department also had reports of another small, shallow tributary to the Sturgeon River that had a much lower trout population. A tributary to the Muskegon was surveyed and the population was down noticeably.

Maybe there was a regional phenomenon that affected certain types of streams disproportionately more than others? Could the high flows have been the primary culprit? We probably won’t know with an ironclad degree of certainty, but we can make some conclusions from this situation: It occurred between early fall 2017 and May 2018. It doesn’t appear to be a toxic event. The relatively large one-year reduction in trout abundance coincided with two extremely high flow events (last fall and this spring). Also, there appears to be enough numbers of young trout in the system that with decent overwinter survival the numbers of catchable fish should improve in the coming years.

“Overall, productivity in the North Branch has declined from the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the trout population reflects that decline,” explained Borgeson. “Perhaps this has to do with the long-term effects of the Clean Water Act. Those of us old timers remember the good ‘ol days when there were more brook trout in the stream. Maybe the rooted vegetation that used to be more abundant in the North Branch provided those young trout enough cover to survive better to older ages. When a trout population begins with more 1 and 2-year-old fish, then it usually ends up with more 2 and 3-year-old trout. In the past 30 years the stream’s trout population has varied around a new lower average biomass.

“This year on the North Branch of the Au Sable highlights the importance of having a suite of streams where status and trends surveys are conducted. They help put the trout population variability of one stream in a greater context. That is, are there regional trends in all sampled streams, in certain types of streams, or is there a stream that had a unique event occur?It also points to the importance of strong working relationships with local Fisheries Division staff, concerned anglers, and other agencies or groups that can bring resources to the table to solve complex problems. Maybe we won’t always have all the simple answers, but collectively we can learn together and that is better for making informed decisions on the resource. With that collective knowledge base, the DNR and its partners will be much better informed in the future, with a greater ability to parcel out those factors that combine to shape the trout populations in Michigan streams.

REPORT WINTER MONARCH SIGHTINGS

PUBLIC’S HELP NEEDED IN REPORTING WINTER MONARCH SIGHTINGS

SOCIAL CIRCLE, Ga. (Nov. 18, 2021) – We asked and, thankfully, you delivered.

Now we need your help again.

Last winter, volunteers from across the Southeast and Gulf states provided more than 5,800 observations of monarch butterflies. This winter, the partnership of universities, agencies and other organizations called Monarchs Overwintering in Southeastern States is requesting the public’s continued involvement in reporting sightings.

Sonia Altizer, a University of Georgia ecology professor and director of Project Monarch Health, said the information can help scientists determine if these iconic but declining butterflies “can overwinter as non-breeding adults in the southern U.S. and how this might affect future population numbers.” The monitoring will also help document how winter-breeding activity might be affecting the annual migration to Mexico.

Understanding migration and overwintering behavior is crucial to conserving monarchs, a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Thousands of monarchs stream across the South each fall on their way to wintering grounds in central Mexico. In the spring, this eastern population of the butterfly returns to the U.S. and Canada to breed.

But not all monarchs migrate to Mexico. Volunteer observations over the past two decades have helped scientists better understand how and why some monarchs breed throughout the winter in the southern U.S. Scattered reports also suggest that some monarchs can overwinter in coastal regions in a non-breeding state, similar to their wintering behavior in Mexico.

The goal this winter is to collect more data for a growing partnership that has expanded to include organizations such as Florida Natural Areas Inventory and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.

Gabriela Garrison of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission said the monarch is a species of greatest conservation need in North Carolina’s Wildlife Action Plan, as in the action plans of many other states. “So monitoring overwintering populations and learning more about their behavior is critical.”

The public is encouraged to report monarch sightings from Dec. 1-March 1 in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

Observations are entered in Journey North’s online data portal, where they are transformed into real-time mapping visualizations of monarch migration and breeding. Journey North is an organization designed to engage people across North America in tracking wildlife migration and seasonal change.

Program coordinator Nancy Sheehan said the public has a long history of being a part of scientific discoveries. “Journey North is excited to provide a platform for engaging citizen scientists in this targeted monitoring effort.”

Susan Meyers, cochair of Monarchs Across Georgia agreed. “Volunteers are vital to this effort. If you enjoy being outdoors and exploring your local ecosystem, this is an easy activity that can be done alone or with your family.”

Wildlife biologist Anna Yellin of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources said project partners are grateful to all who reported sightings last winter. “When we come together as a community as we have with this effort, we stand a better chance of protecting the monarch butterfly for future generations.”

HOW TO TAKE PART

  • Step 1: Create a free account at journeynorth.org/reg.
  • Step 2: Learn how to report monarch sightings at journeynorth.org/monarchs.
  • Step 3: From Dec. 1-March 1, submit monarch observations at journeynorth.org/sightings.

Lake Restoration Efforts In Arkansas

Classic Lake Restoration Efforts In Arkansas
A $3.2 million restoration promises great results for anglers a few years from now as fish take advantage of new habitat.

HARRISBURG — As trucks unload large gray riprap and spray improved shorelines with grass seeds and fertilizer around Lake Poinsett in Poinsett County, Brett Timmons and his natural resources program technician, Tristan Bulice from Arkansas State University, continue to drag artificial habitat structures to the bed of the lake, nearing the end of a three-year marathon. The 471-acre lake has been dry since 2017 to complete a massive renovation involving many moving parts.

Originally constructed in 1961, Poinsett has held a healthy reputation in Northeast Arkansas as a great destination for crappie, redear and catfish. But managing a fishery is a constant battle against the elements to prevent erosion and deterioration of the lake’s infrastructure while maintaining the habitat under the surface. Timmons, regional fisheries supervisor for the AGFC in Jonesboro, has been hard at work in that battle since he joined the AGFC in 2012.

“I’ve heard Commissioners comment in the past about the challenge we have in fisheries management,” Timmons said. “Most of the work and the outcome is hidden from the naked eye under water, so it’s a difficult thing to measure against results of work that’s more easily seen.”flexamat reinforcements combine with riprap to prevent future erosion

That under-the-surface nature of lake management was illustrated in 2017, when after nearly 60 years, the infrastructure of Poinsett began to fail.

“Materials and construction techniques used at the time of Poinsett’s construction typically have a 50-year lifespan,” said Ben Batten, chief of the AGFC’s Fisheries Division. “At nearly 60 years old, the infrastructure of Poinsett had reached a point that repairs would be needed for the lake to continue providing the quality of fishing anglers had enjoyed for the last six decades.”

Work of this magnitude is much more than pushing some dirt with a bulldozer. Construction was complicated with the primary soil type surrounding the lake being loess soil and the area along Crowley’s Ridge in Arkansas being in an earthquake zone. Engineering, construction and ultimately the success of the project hinges on many factors like soil type, topography of the entire watershed that flows into and out of the system, and current condition. The repair work done at Lake Poinsett is one of the most expensive lake renovations undertaken by the AGFC to date. Including the extensive shoreline stabilization project, complete removal and replacement of the water-control tower and retrofitting of the outflow pipe and renovation of the auxiliary spillway, the cost of the completed renovation will exceed $3.2 million.

“Last year, only four major construction projects were underway by the agency, and Poinsett was one of them,” Batten said. “We currently have 15 other dams that are in need of some repair work, and we anticipate more work like this in the future simply because of the age of most of the infrastructure. But the benefits after these renovations make them worthwhile”

Slow Drain
Problems with the lake began to surface when shoreline erosion was documented a little over 10 years ago. This erosion became larger over the years and a plan to stabilize the shore was developed by the AGFC’s Arkansas Stream Teams program. But in 2016, a significant failure to the water-control structure rendered it inoperable. The following spring, officials at Lake Poinsett State Park noted that the lake level was dropping significantly. Contractors with the AGFC determined that the housing where the outflow pipe attached to the water-control structure had given way, allowing water to escape the lake with no control.

“The water-control structure needed to be replaced, and to do that you have to drain the lake completely,” Batten said.

Timmons said the work to complete the water-control structure was impressive.

“They drove steel beams 50 feet into the ground to provide a solid footing, then built up from there,” Timmons said. “Luckily, the dam was sound and the outflow pipe was still in good enough shape that they were able to repair and reinforce the pipe through an injection process instead of having to dig or auger a channel for a new pipe entirely. The finished product will likely last at least as long as the previous materials.”

Construction companies have also been hard at work placing riprap and erosion-control materials called “Flexamat” to replace eroded shorelines and prevent further damage.

“The riprap will block erosion, and the Flexamat will allow grass and other vegetation to grow within it to help stabilize slopes,” Timmons said. “Thousands of feet of shoreline have been repaired during the renovation.”

Angling Improvements
The renovation should be an exciting time for anglers, as Timmons expects good things from the dry period between the time the lake was drained and its expected refilling at the end of this year.

“Any time you draw down a lake and allow that lakebed soil to dry out and crack, you’re releasing nutrients back into that system when it refills,” Timmons said. “And the brush and grasses that have been allowed to grow during the construction time will add instant habitat for baitfish when we begin to restock. The breakdown of that vegetation also will add nutrients to the lake, promoting a boom of growth similar to what you see when a lake is first constructed.”

Timmons says anglers should see excellent rewards for their patience in the project, with good fishing only a few years after the lake is filled.

“We’ll stock catchable-size channel catfish as soon as we think the lake can support them for some instant gratification, and we’ll stock forage species in 2021 to let them get a good head start on the game fish to give the lake a good foundation,” Timmons said. “In 2022, we plan to stock bass and crappie. If all goes as planned, anglers should see some excellent fishing within four years or so.” Pallets, concrete and PVC pipes combine for beneficial habitat

Pallet Palace
Timmons isn’t leaving the habitat solely up to Mother Nature. He and many other AGFC staff have been hard at work adding extra bits of cover to increase the habitat throughout the lake.

“We added more than 4,000 pallets to the lakebed in July alone as fish habitat,” Timmons said. “I’d say we have somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 pallets in fish attractors throughout the lake at this point, and we get more on a weekly basis.”

The pallets have been placed in different stacks and shapes in areas that were historically good for fishing and in new areas biologists determined would be likely hot spots when the lake refilled. Instead of weighing them down with concrete blocks, like they would do if the lake were full, Timmons and his team are able to strap the pallets down to the lakebed with steel cable and anchors driven into the ground.

“I’ve sunk a lot of cover for fish in my lifetime, and this is one of the most efficient ways to make sure it stays in place,” Timmons said. “But you have to have a renovation like this where the lakebed is dried out to do it.”Timmons with hundreds of spider buckets destined for the lakebed.

Along Came a Spider
In addition to the thousands of wooden pallet structures, AGFC staff have been building PVC fish attractors called “spider buckets” since the project began and is placing those in key areas of the lake. Fishing piers and areas near banks where anglers can access them easily will be crawling with spider buckets when the lake is allowed to fill.

“I’ve had extra help and interns building these using 5-gallon buckets, some concrete and PVC pipe that was given to us by Crittco Cable and Fiber, NEA Construction and Craighead Electric,” Timmons said. “They use the pipe to shield underground cables, but they always have some odd lengths at the end of the spool that can’t be used. They have given us miles of this odd-sized pipe that would have otherwise been headed to a landfill. Now it’s going to be great attractors for baitfish and sunfish.”

concrete culverts offer excellent cover for catfish and bass Lunker Bunkers
Pallets and spider buckets aren’t the only pieces of cover being added to the lake while it’s dry. Concrete culverts weighing more than 2,000 pounds apiece also have been placed along portions of the lake. These concrete tubes not only offer hard surfaces that attract fish, they make ideal ambush cover for larger fish.

“Catfish and bass really like these sorts of features on the bottom,” Timmons said. “It offers a different, larger space that they prefer, and we have tried to place them in groups to increase the attractiveness of the site for some of these bigger fish.”

Partnerships Provide
Timmons credits much of the success with the habitat work done so far to amazing partnerships from local construction companies and a nearby steel mill.

“We have had some great support throughout the entire project,” Timmons said. “From the local school who worked with us on habitat projects through their EAST program, to companies providing the thousands of wooden pallets and other materials we’ve used, I can’t say enough about the help we’ve received. This lake truly is a part of this community, and we really saw the community step up to help out wherever they could.”

Timmons says the contractors also have been exceptional throughout the project.

“There are plenty of habitat components the contractor did while he was working that were just above and beyond his quoted job,” Timmons said. “He would drag concrete tiles out and set up extra habitat sites while he was on his way back and forth to do other work in the lake, and just was always happy to help even without us asking.”

WORKSHOP FOCUSES ON WOMEN AND THE OUTDOORS

Women and the Outdoors

MANSFIELD, Ga. (Sept. 17, 2021) – Ladies, have you ever wanted to head out to go backpacking or fishing or shooting, but not sure where to start? The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division can help! The Becoming an Outdoors-Woman (BOW) Workshop, scheduled for Nov. 5-7 at the Charlie Elliott Wildlife Center, provides a practical introduction to a wide variety of outdoor recreational skills and activities.

“BOW workshops focus on learning outdoor skills in a safe and structured environment, giving women from all backgrounds the chance to learn outdoor skills in a positive, non-competitive atmosphere where they can feel confident and have fun,” said Melissa Paduani, BOW coordinator. “Available class activities will include shooting, fishing, camping, photography, wilderness survival and more!”

BOW is an educational program offering hands-on workshops to women (18 or older) of all physical ability levels and aims to break down barriers to female participation in outdoor activities by providing a safe and supportive learning environment.

Weekend workshops begin on Friday morning and end on Sunday. Between meals and special presentations and events, participants can choose from about 20 professionally-led classes, ranging from such topics as firearms, outdoor preparedness, fishing, preparing and cooking game, foraging, geocaching, nature photography, medicinal plants and hunting. Sessions range in intensity from leisurely to rugged (strenuous).

“Although classes are designed with beginners and those with little to no experience in mind, more seasoned participants will benefit from the opportunity to hone their existing skills and try out new activities,” says Paduani. “All participants will receive enough instruction to pursue their outdoor interests further when the workshop is complete.”

Registration for BOW is now open. Participants can choose to bring their own tents and gear, stay off-site or stay at the lodge at Charlie Elliott, (part of a popular complex including a wildlife management and public fishing area). Cost per person, which includes food and programming, ranges from $245-290 (dependent on lodging choice).

For more information, including registration details, online registration and a complete listing of classes, visit www.georgiawildlife.com/BOW or call (770) 784-3059.

Steelhead Survival of Catch and Release Angling Tips

Steelhead Survival of Catch and Release Angling
Written by Will Lubenau, University of Idaho
from The Fishing Wire

Safely release steelhead


The second field season for the steelhead tagging study being conducted in Idaho has officially started. Tagging at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River began on July 2, 2020. As of July 19th, 205 steelhead have already been tagged and released as part of this research to evaluate how many wild and hatchery steelhead are caught by anglers, and how often each year.

For the second field season, the goal is to tag a total of 2,000 steelhead; 1,000 adipose-intact fish and 1,000 adipose-clipped fish so obviously we are just getting started with our second season. Anglers will be asked to examine all fish caught for a tag that is located near the dorsal fin. To report a tagged fish, please go to https://idfg.idaho.gov/fish/tag/add. Those who return a tag to Idaho DFG get a reward.

Researchers at the University of Idaho have been taking our first look at the data from the first season of the steelhead study and are learning some interesting things. For additional information on preliminary study results, you can read an article recently published in the Lewiston Tribune.

There are two primary objectives to this study., 1) estimate how many wild steelhead are caught in Idaho’s steelhead fisheries and 2) take a closer look at how well steelhead survive being caught and released. These are important to understand for Idaho’s steelhead fisheries since we manage for both hatchery fish harvest opportunity and wild fish recovery as part of the fishery structure.

Currently, IDFG uses hatchery fish to estimate how many wild fish are caught in the state. IDFG assumes hatchery and wild fish are encountered by anglers at an equal rate. For example, if based on IDFG surveys it is estimated that 40% of hatchery fish were encountered by anglers, then it is assumed that 40% of our wild fish were also encountered by anglers. This study was set up to test if that assumption was accurate.

We tagged 878 wild steelhead at Lower Granite Dam last year. Of the 878 fish, 200 were caught and reported by anglers. However, we recognize that some tags are caught and not reported so it is important to account for non-reporting in our estimates. Since some of the tags had rewards associated with them, we can use that to estimate how many tags were caught and not reported. By combining the tag reports with an estimate of how many tags were caught and not reported, we get an idea of how many wild fish were encountered.

The main findings so far.

In the first year of the study, the encounter rate for Idaho’s wild fish was about 35% while the hatchery fish encounter rate was about 40% to 45%. With wild steelhead conservation being a primary concern for IDFG, this is good news because it means the wild steelhead encounter rate estimated in the past may have been conservative.

To estimate survival of caught-and-released wild fish, we used detections from PIT tag arrays (click here to learn more), fish weirs (click here to learn more), and hatcheries to document survival of our study fish. About 65% of the wild fish reported as caught were detected after capture and known to have survived while about 62% of fish not reported as caught were detected and known to have survived. Preliminarily, the nearly equal rates of detection for fish reported as caught and fish not reported as caught suggest that catch-and-release angling has little influence on steelhead survival.

For more information on Wild salmon and steelhead click here.

Is There A Strategy and Science Behind Fish Stocking

The Strategy and Science Behind Fish Stocking
Why fisheries experts stock certain species and sizes of fish in public water.

Stocking Trout


By Chris Penne, Utah DWR
from The Fishing Wire

“Why did you stock that species of fish in that water?” is one of the most common questions I get as a fisheries professional. That question is usually followed by “And, why did you stock the fish at that size?”

While the answer to each of these questions can be tied to specific situations, there are some general reasons why biologists choose to stock certain species and sizes of fish.

Providing fish and fun

Rainbow trout are a favorite catch for many anglers. We stock them in Utah’s community ponds in the spring and fall.

The most common reason to stock a fish in a river, lake or reservoir is to provide anglers with a recreational fishing opportunity.

Stocking rainbow trout in waters across Utah is a good example of recreational fish stocking. Rainbow trout are stocked solely to provide a great fishing experience for anglers.

Rainbow trout are very adaptable. They can be stocked everywhere from high-mountain lakes and streams to valley reservoirs — and even into the fisheries in our towns and cities. Other fish stocked for recreational reasons include brook trout, Arctic grayling, walleye and channel catfish.

Munching other fish

Our biologists are always happy to find chunky wipers during survey work — it means they’ve been eating the prey fish we’re trying to control.
In addition to providing a recreational opportunity, some fish are stocked for more scientific reasons — to serve as management tools. This means the stocked fish have a job to do. Often, that job is to consume (and thereby manage) overabundant forage fish, such as Utah chub or golden shiner.

Bear Lake cutthroat trout are a great example of a predator fish. We’ve stocked them in Strawberry, Scofield and Lost Creek reservoirs to feast on populations of Utah chub, a fish species that would get out of control without a predator to keep them in check.

Wipers — a hybrid cross between a striped bass and a white bass — are another predator we often use to control prey fish. Wipers prevent the overpopulation of prey species in Minersville, Newcastle and Scofield reservoirs.

In each case, these fish have a job to do first, but there’s a major upside to having them in these waters: they reach large sizes, providing anglers with a chance to catch a trophy fish.

Helping fish in need

There are other species of fish in Utah, particularly fish that are native to the state (i.e., in Utah when European settlers arrived), which need stocking to boost or maintain their populations until conditions improve.

In most cases, populations of these fish have decreased as a result of changes humans have made to the fish’s environment. Stocking them helps maintain or enhance populations while biologists work with partners to find and address the factors leading to the population decline.

This can be a slow process, but there are recent indications it’s working. For example, in recent years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended that two fish — June sucker in Utah Lake and razorback sucker in the Colorado River — be downlisted from endangered to threatened on the federal Endangered Species list.

This move to downlist is only possible because populations of both species are improving. More work still needs to be done, but raising and stocking these fish is one of the key factors in the progress they’re making toward recovery.

Stocking fish at the right size

The fish that fisheries managers stock typically fall into one of three categories: fry, fingerlings or catchables.

Supplemental stocking has helped Utah’s razorback sucker population.
Fry are newly hatched fish that are just a few days old. Fingerlings are months older than fry, and — just like the name implies — are about the size of your finger, typically 3 to 6 inches long.

Catchables are even bigger. They get their name because they’ve already reached a size anglers want to catch.

Choosing which size to stock often comes down to giving anglers the most bang for their buck.

It takes personnel time and money to raise fish. In fact, because fish put on more weight for every inch they grow, every additional inch a fish grows makes it more expensive to raise.

Stocking fish at the smallest size necessary to achieve management goals saves a lot of money. With that in mind, fisheries managers frequently conduct comparisons of different sizes of fish to see which size provides anglers with the greatest return.

These tiger muskie fingerlings were stocked in Scofield Reservoir in 2017. Today, any surviving adult fish could be more than 3 feet long!
Being cost conscious allows us to stretch our funding farther and maximize the number and variety of fish we can stock for anglers.

Using research to improve efficiency

Most of the rainbow trout stocked in Utah enter the water as either large fingerlings or catchables. If we stocked rainbows at a smaller size, we could put even more into Utah’s waters, but the vast majority of these smaller rainbows wouldn’t survive.

We’ve learned through studies that for every dollar spent to raise them in a hatchery, anglers catch larger rainbow trout, at a higher rate, than they would if we stocked the fish at a smaller size. Therefore, it’s more cost effective to raise rainbow trout to a larger size before stocking them.

In contrast, other species — such as kokanee salmon, splake, tiger trout, wiper and tiger muskie — perform well when stocked as small fingerlings. Stocking them at a smaller size saves money that would otherwise be spent feeding and maintaining hatchery space for the fish as they continued growing.

Some fish, such as walleye, are stocked as fry. We stock these fish by the thousands — and even the millions. Despite being about the length of your fingernail and the width of a pinhead, walleye stocked as fry are a major contributor to some of Utah’s fisheries. Willard Bay Reservoir is a good example.

A study conducted at Willard Bay found stocking only 500,000 walleye fry each year created measurable increases in the already existing walleye population in the reservoir. In fact, during two years of the three-year study, walleye stocked in the reservoir as fry made up a larger portion of each new year class of fish than those produced by natural reproduction.

Stocking walleye fry may not be successful in every water, but you can bet fisheries managers will try stocking fry first before considering stocking larger walleye, simply because anglers are receiving more for their money by stocking smaller fish.

Understanding the strategy

So, there you have it. The next time you’re looking at fish stocking reports or reading a news story about a fish that’s been stocked somewhere in Utah — or reeling in a stocked fish — you’ll have a better idea why that fish was stocked in a particular location, at a particular size.

Chris Penne

Chris Penne is the regional aquatic manager in the DWR’s Ogden office. As a self-described fish-head, he loves managing fish on the job and then catching them in his spare time.

TIPS ON AVOIDING BAROTRAUMA IN RELEASED FISH

Tips on Avoiding Barotrauma
from The Fishing Wire

Device taking fish to bottom


NOAA’s Deepwater Horizon restoration partners at the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission selected three new partners to conduct studies on reef fish restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. They were chosen through a competitive process, and the awards total approximately $690,000.

These studies are contributing to a $30 million project to encourage anglers to use fish descending devices. These devices increase survival of reef fish experiencing barotrauma in the Gulf’s recreational fisheries approved by the Deepwater Horizon Open Ocean Trustees.

Barotrauma is damage caused by the rapid expansion of gases in fish that are caught in deeper water and quickly brought up to the surface. As the gases expand, they can damage the eyes, stomach, and other parts of the fish. This makes it difficult for them to swim back down and survive once released. Descending devices help fish by quickly releasing them at their normal depth, reducing the number of reef fish that die from catch and release fishing.

Coming to a Charter Boat (or Inbox) Near You

Decender Device on Charter Boat


An angler holds a red fish with a fish descender device, about to release it back into the water.
Fish descender devices come in multiple forms, this one is pressure activated, releasing the fish at a specific depth automatically. Credit: NOAA Fisheries, Florida Sea Grant
All three studies will focus on the use of descending devices to help fish return to their underwater habitats, away from predators. Anglers can help restore fish populations impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by using these devices.

The first two studies will be conducted offshore, working with close to 40 recreational charter boat captains. Captains will:

Recapture fish previously tagged and released using descending devices, to increase understanding of survival rates
Deploy underwater cameras to shed light on whether predators, like sharks, are targeting fish when they are released with descender devices
Receive training on best practices while using descending devices
Gulf reef fish anglers should also be on the lookout for mail and email surveys from partners at Southwick Associates. These surveys will help the project team understand barriers to using descending devices. By participating in the studies, anglers will help inform future angler outreach and education methods.

Study Descriptions

Results from the three studies will contribute to restoration efforts that increase the health of reef fisheries impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, while improving angler experiences. The work will be carried out through 2025.

Determination of Predation Mortality, Barotrauma Survival, and Emigration Patterns for Catch-and-Released Red Snapper
Partner: Dr. Stephen Szedlmayer, Auburn University School of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences
Award: $250,750
Timeline: 20-month project, ends December 2022
A team from Auburn University will collaborate with eight charter vessel operators to better understand the survival rates of red snapper released with descending devices. The team will tag and release red snapper across a range of locations and depths off the coast of Alabama and Mississippi. Participating captains will return to the tagging sites within 2 to 4 weeks to recapture as many tagged fish as possible. A combination of different tagging methods will provide a robust evaluation of descending methods and their effect on red snapper survival.

Barotrama make fish easy meals

A shark opens its mouth for a struggling fish underwater.

This fish was an easy lunch for a bull shark after being released without help from a descending device. Credit: NOAA Fisheries, Florida Sea Grant
Do Descender Devices Increase Opportunities for Depredation? A Gulf-wide Examination of Descender Device Depredation Rates and Depredating Species
Partner: Dr. Marcus Drymon, Mississippi State University Coastal Research and Extension Center
Award: $238,981
Timeline: 32-month project, ends December 2023
Working with 30 charter boat captains, this study will document whether hooked reef fish are eaten by predators and which species are responsible. This team from Mississippi State University will train and incentivize captains across the Gulf of Mexico to use descending devices and film fish releases with cameras. The team will then analyze the video footage, and results will be used to inform best release practices and address depredation concerns with descended fish. The project team will make short videos to train captains on data collection processes and share project results with stakeholders.

Measuring Changes in Angler Awareness and Use of Fish Descending Devices
Partner: Southwick Associates
Award: $200,000
Timeline: Baseline study in 2021, follow-up study in 2025.
Southwick Associates will assess recreational reef fish anglers’ current knowledge of fish descending devices. The goal is to establish an understanding of anglers’ perceptions about releasing reef fish and identify barriers to using descending gear. Understanding barriers will inform future education and outreach, and help anglers learn the advantages of best release practices. In 2025, the team will measure the change in anglers’ awareness and adoption of descending gear over time.

Improving Recreational Fish Survival is One Project Among Many Restoring Marine Resources After Deepwater Horizon

Fish showing barotrama damage


An angler holds a fish, its mouth open and air bladder inflated from barotrauma.

Barotrauma expands gasses in a fish causing the air bladder and other organs to expand as well, making it difficult for fish to swim after release. Credit: NOAA Fisheries, Florida Sea Grant
These studies are one part of a comprehensive $30 million project reducing barotrauma injuries and deaths in reef fish. The project also aims to increase successful use of fish descender devices by distributing them to recreational anglers and providing information on their use. Supplying fishermen with the tools and knowledge to minimize barotrauma-related fish death and injury will result in increased survival of species released during recreational fishing activities.

This barotrauma project was one of four fish restoration projects funded by the Deepwater Horizon Open Ocean Trustees’ 2019 $226 million restoration plan. The remaining 14 projects in the plan are restoring sea turtles, marine mammals, and deep-sea coral habitats.

Hundreds of fish species were exposed to oil during and after the Deepwater Horizon spill. The exposure killed fish larvae that would have grown and contributed to the food web and fisheries. It also impaired fish growth and reproduction and caused changes in reef fish communities. Recognizing these and other impacts, the settlement with BP included $380 million to help restore injuries to fish and water column invertebrates.