http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm75http://www.the-fisheries.net/images/rss_news.jpg.jpg75http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfmThe Fisheries dot NetAlong The Way Blog/News http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm/item/12/Will this work 2011-08-29T14:29:43-07:00 Will this work Greg Felt is a partner in Ark Anglers in Salida, Colorado.  The following comments are in regard to the Cristo project which proposes to place cloth panels over the Arkansas River.  Frankly we think the project is at best silly and at worst, harmful to the River.  The following are Greg's comments.   I want to provide a significant update on the Over the River art project. As many of you will recall, the artist Christo is attempting to gain permission from the BLM to suspend fabric panels above 5.9 miles of the Arkansas River. The areas to be draped are spread over 50 miles of river but include our cherished County Line reach, the red cliffs near Rincon, and the Red Rocks Canyon between Howard and Vallie Bridge. While the exhibition would only run for 2-4 weeks, presumably in August of 2014, the construction of this project would take two years and the dismantling a third. If that seems like a long time, consider that he plans to drill over 9000 anchor holes in the walls and boulders of the canyon, from which to suspend 1100 cables across the river at heights of 8-20 feet. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement, released for comment a year ago, identified hundreds of serious impacts, including potential of up to 50% herd mortality for the Bighorn Sheep, threats to fishery health, significant loss of angler access, and potentially devastating economic impacts to the "fishing industry".   While the Final EIS and Record of Decision continue to be delayed, the Colorado Wildlife Commission sent the BLM a letter condemning the project from the wildlife perspective and demanding mitigation for the many wildlife-related impacts. Subsequent to that, and in the last meeting of the Colorado State Parks Board prior to the recent merger of Colorado State Parks and Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Parks Board entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Over the River corporation, accepting $550,000 in "recreation impact fees" in exchange for turning over management and control of Bighorn Sheep Canyon to Christo and his employees for the duration of the project. Rod and I attended that Parks Board meeting and suggested that it was premature to enter into such an arrangement without the benefit of the Final EIS, that it was a deviation from the State Parks mission statement to permit activities that conflicted with the existing wildlife and recreation values, and that as long-time "partners" with State Parks, we opposed the approval of an activity in Bighorn Sheep Canyon that was so clearly going to be detrimental to our business. Sadly, our comments fell on deaf ears.   After several weeks of soul-searching and consideration of options, last Friday we joined ROAR, a membership-funded group opposing the project, in a lawsuit against Colorado Department of Natural Resources and Colorado State Parks. Our objective is to seek an injunction against the Memorandum of Agreement and force Over the River Corp. to apply to Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife for a Special Use Agreement. This is the same process that an outfitter goes through to conduct operations within the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area and one that cannot result in approval if the proposed activity is in conflict with recreation and wildlife management objectives or existing permitted uses. Toward this end, Rod and I have retained two of the preeminent natural resource attorneys in the state, Keith Tooley and Rebecca Watson, and have committed significant resources to the fight.   Over the years, many of our guests and customers have asked how they can help to prevent this project from going forward. There will be opportunity soon to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement and we will provide contact information at that time. At this point though, one of the best ways to help the fight is by taking a guided trip with ArkAnglers. We are paying for this legal battle out of pocket, have just come through a prolonged high water season, and, frankly, need to bolster our war chest. We aren't looking for handouts. We just want to keep earning our living the way we always have, by providing top quality fly-fishing information, retail merchandise and guided trips for people who want to find success on the Arkansas. If you've been contemplating a float or wade trip, or maybe the purchase of a new rod or waders, we hope you'll support our cause by supporting our business.   We'll keep you posted.   Greg Felt ArkAnglers 719-539-4223 greg@arkanglers.com www.arkanglers.com http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm/item/6/Over The River, the Cristo Project 2011-06-16T18:36:03-07:00 Over The River, the Cristo Project by Amy J. Quick & Rene HugeThis is a reprint from Cody & Beyond Magazine 2010.  We are indebted to them for their good work. Their Website is CodyandBeyond.com. They are the subject of fairy tales, myths and legends. Over the decades, wolves have been both idolized and vilified, especially in the West where their tale is a long and adversarial one. Since their reintroduction in the mid 1990s, controversy has surrounded them, much of it borne out in the courts, and in heated debates and discussions among local residents around the West. As the wolves'  numbers increase, more people are affected - from biologists who manage this wild species to ranchers and outfitters who struggle to manage life and livelihoods in coexistence. This is a collection of their stories.the keeper of the wolves Doug Smith, 49, is the senior wildlife biologist in Yellowstone National Park. His title reflects the responsibility of his position where he manages wildlife within the park boundaries ranging from predator to prey, on the ground and in the sky. Doug first came to the park as wolf project manager at the inception of the gray wolf reintroduction: "I've been here since the beginning . . . which gets me both accolades and criticism." Since the age of 18, Doug has worked with wolves. His first job entailed noting captive wolf behavior at Purdue University. Following that experience he made a "very important career move" by studying wolf and moose interactions at Isle Royale on Lake Superior starting in 1979.In 1994 he moved to Yellowstone National Park where his current job has him researching and managing wolves in the park, although he started off in charge of wolves in the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, "but that got to be too much work." The federal government has since hired wildlife biologists in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho to manage the wolves outside federally protected lands. "Today my job is more about research than management," he explains. "When you study wolves outside a national park setting it's going to be more management than research because the problems are going to be greater than you know. In the park, we're trying to study the situation to better provide information to those working on the management side of things outside the park setting." Doug  supervises an average of 12 employees who maintain radio collars on wolves so they can track their movements and monitor each pack. "In addition to that, I try to keep people away from wolves because people can 'love them to death.' We try to protect the wolf denning areas. Wolves in the park are not as wary of people as they are outside of the park so I have to try to keep people from approaching them." Doug and his crew had to kill a wolf last spring because visitors had fed it and the wolf was approaching people and cars - a definite human/wildlife safety threat. He emphasizes that having to euthanize the wolf was "a really big deal." Doug also spends a lot of time communicating with other agencies, researching and writing papers on the species, and doing community outreach to make sure people get accurate information. "A big part of what I do is try to tell the facts about the story because wolves are such a controversial animal and an emotional animal so everybody has their own view about them and people tend to ignore the facts. I think there's no other animal that is so prone to misinformation as wolves." Obviously, wolves are a major part of Doug's daily life: "Most guys think daily about women. I think daily about wolves! "I'm happily married. That doesn't mean I don't think daily about my wife, but a constant theme in my life for the last 30 years has been wolves. It's not a typical job. Most jobs you leave work and that's it - that's not the case with wolves. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get a call at home about wolves. Wolves are a lifestyle! You never get a break." Over the years, Doug has had some pretty remarkable encounters with wolves. His most memorable experience occurred during a canoe trip on his own time in Canada with a buddy where wolves are heavily hunted and generally very skittish of humans. "We were paddling along a very steep river bank. At the bottom of the bank was a wolf and it saw us. That wolf knew that if it didn't get up the bank we might shoot it, kill it. When it saw us, it started trotting to the next section of the bank it could climb up. We decided to turn the canoe toward the wolf because we wanted to see it. We were on a really big river struggling against the current. The wolf beat us and got up the bank. We decided to beach the canoe on the shore. While we were sitting there trying to catch our breath I thought that was it, we won't see that wolf again. But then the wolf walked out on the bank and looked down on us. If I had a pistol in the canoe I could have shot it, it was so close. It stood there and looked at us in the canoe. I had a camera sitting on my pack in the canoe but I didn't move in fear of scaring it away. That was one of the most memorable moments I've had with an animal in the wild because it was so close and why did it come back? Most people would have killed him. I never ever forgot that moment." That experience, as well as those he's had with wolves within Yellowstone's boundaries, has helped develop his own sense of character. "I've collected wolves that have had healed-over abscessed teeth or broken legs, I've even caught one that only had three legs; I've followed a wolf in the air hunting a pack of elk that had one of its legs just flopping to the side. That collection of stories tells me that they never give up or feel sorry for themselves. They don't think 'how am I going to do this?' They just go and do it and keep going. That has been a good reminder in my life to not give up and keep on going. "The curiosity of wolves astounds me. Wolves do a lot of things because they're curious. They don't always respond to people the same way. Almost categorically across Canada and Alaska wolves are shot at rather than looked at. This wolf coming back to look at the river was unexplainable. I've seen wolves do things that are unexplainable (because) they're trying to learn how to live better. If it works, they live; if it doesn't, they don't." Despite heavy opposition in some parts of the West and heightened emotions throughout the country about the wolf reintroduction, Doug believes strongly that it was the right thing to do. "The West isn't the true West without the wolves. That's how it was when we first got here. It couldn't be the true West without the animals that originally were here. I think the West has changed in a more authentic way in the last 15 years since the wolves were reintroduced." However, he is quick to add that he doesn't think that means we need to have wolves everywhere. Instead he supports managing wolves in order to maintain numbers and a balanced ecosystem. "Wolves need to be managed. They cannot be everywhere like they used to be, but they also can't not be here. I'm not saying you can't shoot a wolf under a regulated hunt; what I'm saying is total eradication in the West again is not a good way to go. A West of just plazas and gardens and facsimiles of wild areas is not the real West to me." Looking forward to the next 15 years, Doug is hopeful that the divergent sides in the wolf debate can find a common ground. "I hope the opposing forces of 'you can't shoot any wolf,' versus 'I want to shoot every one' meets somewhere in the middle. There's no question that the reintroduction has been successful. But the two sides are still bickering at each other in an insolvable way." He explains that a managed wolf population requires three things: Places where wolves are left completely alone - like in Yellowstone National Park or central Idaho; Places where wolves are not allowed, period - where there are too many people, ranches and civilization to warrant their existence; And, the area in between - where human density is low, wild lands are still mostly intact, and problems still can occur. In these areas we can have wolves but we may have to hunt and manage them. "That's a major middle ground I hope we have reached in the next 15 years." stewards of the landCraig and Virginia Griffith know a different side of the wolf reintroduction saga. The couple raises cattle on private land with irrigated meadows and forest grasslands along the Wood River, southwest of Meeteetse. Their livelihood has changed dramatically since wolves were released back into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem."My life and work prior to the wolf reintroduction was primarily centered in the outdoors, just as it is now," explains Virginia. "Work in the outfitting business and then transitioning into cattle ranching held the usual challenges, but it was up to us to control our own destiny by the amount of money we invested and the time we were willing to put in - just  like most businesses."Since the reintroduction of wolves and their subsequent federal protection, ranching has changed for the couple. Now their challenges include factors beyond weather and market fluctuations. For many years, Craig and Virginia enjoyed raising cow/calf pairs, a 365-day-a-year job. However, after wolves released into Yellowstone National Park started spreading beyond federal lands, they were forced to transform their business to a yearling operation, working with cattle only six months out of the year."We lost so many baby calves due to (wolf) predation in the fall season that it was not economically feasible to continue a cow/calf operation," Craig shares.The Griffiths pride themselves on raising "all natural" beef but this also has become increasingly difficult in wolf country. Their cattle graze freely on natural grassland, just as cattle were meant to live, Virginia explains.Yet, if there is an attack on the cattle by wolves and they survive, the livestock must be given a strong antibiotic to ward off infection. Once they receive medications other than vaccinations, the cattle no longer meet "all natural" status requirements and must be sold at reduced prices."The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has been declared a complete success. And maybe it is, inside the boundaries of Yellowstone Park," Virginia says. "Outside the park there are people who are respectfully and responsibly working with all that nature has to offer to provide a product the world has said it wants - beef."Since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995, ranching as a family endeavor has become increasingly difficult economically," she asserts. "Land is often sold for development by these families rather than continuing the struggle against poor odds."The stark reality of coexisting with wolves hit home on Christmas Day 2008 when the Griffith family spent the better part of the day tending to four yearlings that were attacked by a pack of at least six wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wyoming Game and Fish Department were notified to verify that the livestock deaths were due to wolves so the couple could be reimbursed for their loss. Craig and Virginia estimate they lost $830 per animal on that one fateful day.Virginia remembers the day vividly: "Helping to skin out dead yearling calves and follow the bloody tracks of wolves is not a good use of my time on any day but especially not on Christmas Day."I have seen wolves, but only at a great distance. They are elusive and nocturnal," she continues. "But I have seen the ravages of wolves. They have left cows half-alive with their entrails trailing."Craig and Virginia continue to lose livestock due to wolf predation on their private land and fear they cannot continue in the cattle business without a better way of managing the situation. Their livelihood and time in the cattle business is controlled by monitoring wolves. "We don't enjoy raising livestock like we used to," Craig laments. "My memories used to include watching and caring for our baby calves and that is no longer possible with wolves in the picture."Both Craig and Virginia have a somewhat austere outlook on the future of cattle ranching considering the situations they have faced with wolves."In the future, I see the Cody area going the route that has taken over the front range in Colorado and has made its mark on Jackson Hole," Virginia says. "The open grasslands where cattle range will become extinct."She continues: "I believe that there are many sides to the wolf issue and that it has become, like most other issues of controversy, a mostly political issue. What a shame . . . for the wolves as well as the rancher."Craig believes wolves have taken away the couple's freedom to operate as individuals in business and in recreation in the West. He forecasts that "Wyoming people will stand together and realize that wolves have their place in Wyoming. That place is not on private land nor is it to the demise of individual freedom."preserving the wildNic Patrick, 61, is a local contractor and sits on the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) board of directors. He became interested in GYC 25 years ago because he believed the group's mission to preserve this unique area made sense.Nic grew up on a cattle ranch along the South Fork of the Shoshone River and has made his living building and restoring log structures in the region. He enjoys observing the natural world through horse packing, hiking and hunting, and has his finger on the pulse of life and its many cycles.Although he has only seen two wolves at separate times in the wild outside Yellowstone, it is theirtracks and songs that remind him they are there. He vividly reminisces about a family outing last summer in Crandall."My wife, daughter, son-in-law and I spent my daughter's birthday at our cabin in Crandall. That night the resident pack put on a concert in our meadow and fortunately another neighbor recorded it."He first took notice of the wolf issue when the Cody area was hit with a far-ranging drought. In 1987, when the dry spell started in earnest, Nic observed more and more elk calving in his fields and river bottom. Then followed the grizzly bear who knew easy pickings when they saw them."About seven years ago two wolves spent a few days reminding the elk they belonged in the sagebrush. The elk visit now but don't stay nor do the bears and rarely wolves," he shares. "The benefit the wolves have added to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is teaching the elk and deer and moose what their position is and ensuring that the vegetation is not over stressed."Nic emphasizes that the wolves' constant, "24-7" vigilance provides a balance to the ecosystem by culling the weaker of the prey species and relieving pressure on aspen and willow communities that have been overgrazed by ungulates. He also believes wolves are necessary to the ecosystem because their leftovers provide food for smaller predators and scavengers. "All species benefit - from magpies to insects - because of the food provided by a wolf kill," he explains."The (wolves are) not devils and they're not deities. They're just wild dogs and they're trying to make a living the best way they can. That doesn't always fit into other people's ideas. They're always going to be in the way as far as somebody is concerned but they're a very valid part of a healthy, complete ecosystem . . . a necessary part."Although Nic was raised on a cattle ranch, he admits his family did not have to contend with large predators like grizzly bears or wolves. This upbringing definitely has affected his current outlook."My opinion today might be different if my livelihood was ranching. (When my family was ranching) we also didn't have subdivisions and energy development in prime wildlife habitat. I believe large ranches are one of the best ways to preserve private habitat and they should be able to have help controlling and mitigating their losses."Nic adamantly believes the stresses of land and energy development are more damaging than those of the four-legged variety."Since (the wolves) have been here there has been a lot more pressure from mineral and residential development which has really impacted wildlife habitat and ecosystem integrity. That has caused a lot of fragmentation and on-the-ground effects on water and air (quality), from sage grouse to snow melt. It's affecting everything."With the recent economic slowdown, the rush to harness these resources and develop rural communities may have abated some but Nic is concerned these stresses have a much farther reach on residents and wildlife. He notes these impacts are ones the ecosystem does not recover from easily. "You can't shoot a drought or a subdivision. It's real easy to hang all the problems of the world on this dog - to say that's why the elk aren't here, that's why that happened. But in reality there's a much bigger picture playing out, not just the wolf."The wolf is not a big issue. It belongs here; it's doing its job. There are big issues we probably won't do anything about, like climate; and there are big issues we should do something about like zoning and development."He adds: "Wolves will continue to be vilified and blamed for every ill. Hopefully society will increasingly cherish those wild lands and keep the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem healthy and unfragmented."Nic is a proponent of the wolf reintroduction although he explains the animals were making their own way back to the states."(The wolves) were on their way down from Canada naturally, the reintroduction sped up the time frame dramatically. Regardless of how you feel about it, this is what we have."Despite this reality, Nic readily supports managing the wolf populations which at times may require legalized hunting."They are canines. They breed prolifically and they get along well, but all canines need to hear the word 'No!' With wolves that 'No!' might need to come with a bullet. If they become a problem they do need to be controlled. But they definitely have a place in this ecosystem."a modern-day mountain manLee Livingston hates to use the word "reintroduced" when talking about the Canadian Gray Wolves that were brought to Yellowstone National Park in 1995. He prefers to say that the wolves were "introduced" because he says that that species wasn't the one originally eradicated from this area for predator control. That wolf was the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf.As owner and operator of Livingston Outfitting, based in the Wapiti Valley 30 miles west of Cody, Lee has been guiding hunters and pack trips for 25 years in some of the wildest country left in the lower 48 states. Lee figures he spends more than 100 days a year in the backcountry - "As much time as humanly possible," he says. The evidence of an increased concentration of wolves is apparent to the outfitter. Lee says that while the growing wolf population hasn't had a noticeable effect on his summer pack trip business, it has definitely left its mark on his hunting trips. One of the effects he attributes to the wolf's presence is that the elk aren't reproducing like they did before, and thus the number of calves born each year is decreasing, leading to a reduced elk population."The decline in elk herds has reduced the number of elk [hunting] clients and therefore a decline in the outfitting industry has resulted," Lee explains.At its pinnacle, Livingston Outfitting was taking out 60 elk hunters a year. This year, Lee has voluntarily reduced the number of elk hunters he will guide to 45, partly due to Wyoming Game and Fish issuing fewer licenses and mainly to ensure a quality hunt for his clients. Lee predicts that seven outfitters in the next two years will go out of business because he says wolves are making such an impact on game numbers.Lee is also keeping a close eye on his horses and mules because he has seen wolves near his home in the Wapiti Valley close enough to concern him about the safety of his animals, which are a huge part of his livelihood. It puts him on his guard. He adds, however, that wolves are not the only culprit in the decrease in elk numbers."Wolves have taken a hit for some of what can actually be attributed to grizzly bears," he explains. "What wolves have definitely done that grizzly bears have not is increase the stress factor (on prey such as elk)." When wolves were brought into the Yellowstone region in 1995, the grizzly bear population was just gaining strength again after having been on the endangered species list for several years. Wolves took the blame for the increase in elk calf deaths although, according to Lee, the reality was that the grizzly bears were also preying on the elk.Lee believes that the hunting methods of wolves versus those of grizzlies put more stress on elk herds, further reducing the elk's ability to reproduce. He explains that when a pack of wolves is hunting, they get the animals all worked up as the pack tries to separate the herd, whereas bears hunt alone.Lee is adamant that the negative effects on the outfitting industry and the relationship between the wolves and this ecosystem are "100 percent attributed to poor management." He believes that when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service first instituted the plan to reintroduce wolves to the Yellowstone area, they relied too heavily on single species management practices."When dealing with wolves, it doesn't work to consider only one animal," he says. "A sound management program needs to be implemented that recognizes all facets of this ecosystem. So many people think man is excluded from this, but that's not the case. Man is part of the ecosystem, too. Without a sound management plan we risk seeing our wildlife herds disappear."He continues: "When you hear a wolf howl, you don't have to ask 'Is that a wolf?' When you see a wolf track in the snow or mud, it sends a chill down your back. That to me means there has been a symbiotic relationship between man and wolf for thousands of years."I don't hate the animal. I hate the bureaucracy that put (the wolves) here. They wanted wolves here no matter what the cost."  The AuthorsAmy Quick first came to Cody more than a decade ago and enjoys discovering and sharing local lore and spending as much time playing outside as possible.  She is very active in community and environmental affairs.René Huge, mother of 3, enjoys playing in the great outdoors all year long. She has lived in Cody for 15 years.  She is a journalist for the local paper and a free lance writer. http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm/item/1/Call Of The Wild - A Wolf Story 2010-09-30T13:51:13-07:00 Call Of The Wild - A Wolf Story Interview by Trout Unlimited Alaska's Communications Director and Award Winning, Writer,  Paula DobbynIntroduction By Scott Hed, Director, Sportsman's Alliance for AlaskaMany sport anglers may have heard about the ongoing debate over a very controversial plan to allow massive mining development in the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska.  Bristol Bay plays host to the largest runs of wild salmon on the planet, including over 40 million sockeye salmon annually.  This incredible fishery supports a $300 million commercial fishery as well as a sport fishery valued at over $60 million per year.  Rivers like the Kvichak, Naknek, Nushagak, Talarik Creek, and many more fill the dreams of anglers worldwide who travel to this region to pursue some of the largest wild rainbow trout in the world, Dolly Varden, arctic char, arctic grayling, and of course, the five species of Pacific salmon.  In real estate, they say location is everything.  Well, in this battle, it's also all about location...the proposed Pebble Mine, a project backed by foreign mining interests, would be sited at the headwaters of two of the most productive river systems in Bristol Bay - the Kvichak and the Nushagak.  In this seismically active area, home to earthquakes and volcanoes, the Pebble Partnership proposes to build what would be the largest open-pit mine in North America (and one of the world's largest).  The project would include a massive open pit, an adjacent underground mine, and toxic tailings lakes for the mining waste to be stored FOREVER behind a series of earthen dams (including the largest dam in world).Visit the Sportsman's Alliance for Alaska web site to learn more about the Bristol Bay area and the fight being waged for its future.  You'll see that sporting conservation groups like Trout Unlimited, the Federation of Fly Fishers, and Dallas Safari Club have all come out saying this is the wrong idea in the wrong place.  Check out the SAA's Latest News page and view the ad featuring over 150 companies in the sport fishing gear industry all joining together to say "Protect Bristol Bay."In the meantime, we thought you'd enjoy this interview with an Alaska-based fisheries scientist who is doing a lot of field research to document important fish habitat in the Bristol Bay region, all in an effort to keep the region safe from the threats of massive mining development.INTERVIEW BY PAULA DOBBIN WITH DR. WOODYFisheries scientist, Dr. Carol Ann Woody, PhD, unveiled some groundbreaking research this year that greatly expands what's known about fish populations in the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages. These important rivers and their tributaries feed Bristol Bay, home of the world's largest wild sockeye salmon run and an environmentally sensitive area that's under threat from large-scale, industrial mining.Woody and a small group of scientists from the State of Alaska, non-governmental organizations and tribes surveyed for salmon, rainbow trout and subsistence fish in a variety of streams near the Pebble deposit, where a consortium of mining companies hopes to build North America's largest open-pit copper and gold mine. The consortium, known as the Pebble Limited Partnership, consists of the Northern Dynasty Partnership and Anglo American US (Pebble) LLC, which is wholly owned by Anglo American, a multinational mining company. For several years, the proposed developers have conducted an array of scientific, economic and cultural studies as part of their pre-feasibility planning before applying for permits. Despite several years of exploration and study at the Pebble deposit, the developers had not nominated any new streams to the Catalog since 2004 and results of their fisheries studies have not been released since 2005. Woody's goal was to truth check the mining companies' fisheries studies and to document salmon in reaches of stream that government scientists had yet to survey. Woody had a hunch that there were more fish in the region than the Pebble Limited Partnership had found. What Woody's crew found was some 28 new miles of salmon-producing habitat that Woody immediately nominated for addition to Alaska's Anadromous Waters Catalogue. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game reviewed the nominations and accepted them for inclusion in the Anadromous Waters Catalogue. The Catalogue provides most basic legal protection afforded in Alaska to a stream or lake containing salmon. Once included in the Anadromous Waters Catalogue, a body of water cannot be disturbed without the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's prior notice and permission.  Small streams are important because they often provide essential rearing habitat.  Large fish can't get into little streams so fry are able to move around and feed without the risk of predation.  Scientific research has shown a linear relationship between coho salmon production and stream length -- as many as 1,952 coho salmon may be produced per kilometer of stream.  As such, over 91,000 coho smolt could be produced from the 47 kilometers, or 28 miles, of salmon stream documented in Woody's study. That's a lot of fish.Trout Unlimited Alaska's Communications Director, Paula Dobbyn, spoke with Woody about her report and the scientific work she and others will be conducting this summer. What follows are interview excerpts: Q: What prompted you to do the study?A: I knew that many streams that are potentially capable of producing salmon were being ignored by the Pebble Partnership.  Small streams provide ideal rearing habitat for cohos, kings, dolly varden char, rainbow trout and other species.  In a Fisheries Technical Working Group meeting I asked Dr. Jim Buell, the Pebble Partnerhips's lead fish biologist, if they planned to survey any of the headwater tributaries.  He said no.  I then asked the Department of Fish and Game if they were planning to do such work and they indicated they did not have funding or direction to do it.  Under Alaska's Constitution, it is ADF&G's job to conduct anadromous fish surveys and maintain the database but the higher echelons have to support such work.  Since no one was going to do it I pursued it. Q: Who funded your research project?A: I had been trying to get money for years to highlight the fact that many small and as yet unsurveyed streams in the mineral claims area provide viable rearing habitat for salmon and other subsistence species.  Last spring, The Nature Conservancy stepped in and provided financial backing for the helicopter, electrofisher, all logistics and my time.  To accomplish the work and have it accepted in the science world, I needed reputable scientists to assist.  I recruited two Fish and Game employees, who volunteered, the Bristol Bay Native Association contributed Daniel Chythlook and Cook Inlet Keeper provided their water quality expert, Sue Mauger.  Dan Rinella of the University of Alaska's Environment and Natural Resources Institute also assisted on contract to TNC.  Rainbow King Lodge in Iliamna donated room and board and the University of Washington provided a vehicle. I pieced most of it together on a shoestring budget and we pulled it off.  I know science will play a huge role in reviewing the adequacy of Pebble's environmental baseline for permitting.  I felt I had to underscore what was being ignored.  It's odd how after so many years and millions of dollars invested in environmental studies that salmon fry rearing on top of Pebble West were overlooked.  Q: How did you carry out the stream surveys?A:  I selected 47 headwater tributaries in and around the Pebble prospect.  Marcus Geist of the Nature Conservancy used his GIS skills to peg GPS coordinates of each site I selected.  We flew out and each day two teams of three people would hopscotch from one selected stream to the next to conduct surveys.  At each site we measured basic water quality parameters, like pH, which tells you how acid or alkaline a stream is, and we characterized the habitat.  Then we went electrofishing walking upstream slowly and sampling all habitat types.  Stunned fish were put in a bucket of water until the end of the survey when they were measured and released.    Q: What's an electrofisher? A: An electrofisher is a tool to fish using electricity.  We used a battery powered backpack electrofisher.  You set the amount of current based on the stream conductivity to stun, not harm, fish.  You have an anode and a cathode in the stream and a person with a net following.  You run current through the water from your anode to cathode and when fish encounter a high enough potential or current they swim toward it and get temporarily stunned.  You have to net them quickly as they recover as soon as you stop the current.  Q: How do you decide which streams to survey?A:  I selected streams based on gradient and whether they were in the Anadromous Waters Catalogue or not.  I want to go as high in the watershed as I can to find salmon because we want to define the upper limit of their distribution.Q: What kind of reaction did your findings provoke?A: We surprised the  Pebble Partnership   We showed  that they had overlooked lots of salmon habitat which brings into question the thoroughness of their baseline studies The fact that they've been out sampling about 5 years and  spent millions of dollars and overlooked so much salmon habitat raises lots of questions.  Q: To what extent has the Pebble Partnership released the results of the research it has sponsored?A: In 2005 Pebble released certain draft technical reports of what they were finding. Dave Chambers (a PhD geophysicist and head of the Center for Science in Public Participation, based in Bozeman, Montana) and Bob Moran (a PhD hydrogeochemist)  reviewed them and wrote up  critiques and raised valid questions about the data, results, techniques etc.  Since then, Pebble has stated they won't release any information for fear their critics will get it.  Now they claim they are releasing all their data but they are not. What they are doing is releasing bits and pieces of information so anyone who is a scientist or critic can never piece together the whole story. After Chambers critiqued the 2005 data release the Pebble folks said, "We're not going to release more as people are going to critique it." But that's the whole point of science: you need to pass the criticism of your peers. That's the way I approach it. When I release a study I say, "Here's my stuff boys. Go ahead and rip it apart."Q: Why are you focused the Pebble mine project?A: I focus on Pebble because the size and type of the mine poses a real threat to Bristol Bay and its fish. And I don't trust the Pebble Partnership. I don't think they've been honest or transparent with the public or regulators. Early on when I was still working for the federal government on this project, the Pebble people gave me reason not to trust them. They went to villages where I had worked for years and told people they were going to use organic soap to wash the gold and other metal out of the pulverized rock. They made it seem as if the processing chemicals used in mining were innocuous, like something you would wash your clothes with. They were talking to subsistence people whose lives revolve around these fish and they had the gall to tell them they would use organic soap as if it were somehow safe for fish. Cyanide is organic and highly toxic.  So are many of the processing chemicals used in mining.  They deliberately tried to mislead people and still are.Q: Are you finished with your fish survey or are you doing more research this field season?A: We're doing more. Starting on August 11 we begin fish and habitat surveys and plan to go until about September 5. We are collaborating with representatives from ADF&G, USFWS, Cook Inlet Keeper, Trout Unlimited, Bristol Bay Native Association, Nondalton Tribal Council, National Parks and Conservation Association and The Wild Salmon Center.  We've even invited the Pebble Partnership to come.  We want to be open and transparent and so we invited them along.Q: Why did you invite the Pebble Partnership to participate?A: We want to be open and transparent, and we want Pebble to be open and transparent.   They want to know what we're doing, where we're doing it and how we're doing it.  It's a way of keeping them honest. And we want them to release all of their data. It's a chess game. We can never duplicate what Pebble has done as far as research. They've spent millions and millions and we just don't have that kind of money. What we can do is trust and verify their data and get them to be transparent.  They will only have to deal with us later if they put us off now since we're not going away.  We have some very smart people scrutinizing their data releases as they occur.  Really the most important thing is to get them to release their data because if we see their data, we can determine if their results are scientifically valid, or not.  Q: Are there other studies going on this summer besides yours and the work that the Pebble Partnership is doing?A: Kendra Zamzo, PhD, is an environmental geochemist with the Center for Science in Public Participation, is doing a water quality study. She's gone to the same sites Pebble sampled and is also doing her own sampling. We're calling this a trust and verify study: we trust Pebble and the results they've given us but we want to check for ourselves, just in case. We're also getting data from sites outside where Pebble has sampled, such as the Chulitna watershed which drains to Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. We suspect this area is all interconnected by groundwater as soils are highly conductive or porous. Then we'll actually have a full suite of water quality data which we have not been able to get from Pebble. Kendra will sample twice. Once when there's run-off when you get the highest levels of metals and other constituents which at high levels could be considered contaminants or toxics. She'll also go this summer at low-flow as you'll have different levels then. Q: Any other studies?A: Dan Bogan with the University of Alaska's Environment and Natural Resources Institute will be sampling in June. He'll be looking at the benthic community - the diatoms, the micro-invertebrates, the small critters fish love in the bottom of streams and creeks -- which is most sensitive to changes in water chemistry. He'll be basically doing a "what's out there" study. At certain sites we'll have a snapshot of the whole living community in that creek and that's a good thing to use as an index of health in the future. We can go in and look at it this year and say, okay, that's what the community looks like now. And same thing next year, and maybe next year we see that it's different. That may be an indicator that something is wrong with the water quality. Fish surveys are important. But what Dan is doing is really crucial. You see, fish are important but if there's a problem with the mine, really it's the water quality that will go first and then the diatoms and then the invertebrates. The fish can move around. They're fairly hardy. But when it gets so bad that they're affected then you know there's a huge problem. The benthic creatures are those that will tell you first if there's a problem.Q: It sounds like non-governmental organizations are playing a big role in trying to keep Pebble honest. What about government regulators?A: The government hasn't played a big role. They can't even get the Pebble Partnership to provide technical summaries. No reports are required until they apply for permits and trigger the federal National Environmental Policy Act.  The Department of Natural Resources, which handles mine permits, hasn't taken water quality samples to check on Pebble or asked to split samples with Pebble.  The most the state does is go out and visit exploration drill sites take pictures and write down what their observations are but they don't measure anything. They're not measuring the water quality to compare against what Pebble collects and presents.  The state trusts the mining company to conduct the most rigorous, statistically defensible studies to characterize baseline conditions and to monitor environmental change.  They say the water looks good. But you know, a lot of things that can hurt fish are invisible in water. You can't see dissolved copper, but it can kill fish. I think the regulatory system is biased in favor of the mining industry. The current regulations and laws are insufficient to protect an area with sensitive aquatic resources from the effects of a massive sulfide mine in highly porous soils smack dab on top of salmon habitat. Q: Do you think that science could end up stopping the Pebble mine from being developed?A: Frankly science usually does not play a huge role in the final decision of whether these projects go or don't' go. We can highlight how high-risk this project is to the salmon and clean water. That's what we're trying to do - to educate people to the fact that this is a high-risk project and here's why, a, b, c. d, e, f g.  But ultimately it falls into the politicians' hands, regulators' hands, and lawyers' hands.  The science plays a critical role in providing real defensible facts in the final debates and decision.    That's where the public has to get involved. My concern is that a lot of the work we're doing is preaching to the choir instead of educating the pale greens.Q: Who are the pale greens?A:   People who are pretty conservative, generally pro-development, Republicans  who like to hunt and fish and who, if they could really understand  the facts  would think, maybe this isn't such a good idea. I think if we could get them to understand the science we could change their minds. They're not going to change by seeing a bumper sticker. They don't like that kind of greenie reactionary stuff. But some of them are smart enough if they have defensible information in their hands. They know that salmon have been almost wiped out in the lower 48. They know there's really no fishing there and this is the last place where salmon are healthy and abundant.  Dr. Carol Ann Woody has designed, supervised and published results of original research focused on salmonid behavior, genetics, life history, evolution, and management in the Kvichak and Tustumena watersheds of Alaska since 1991.  Dr. Woody has over 25 years of experience including: 13 years as a fisheries research scientist with the US Geological Survey at the Alaska Science Center; four years with the Fisheries Research Institute at the University of Washington; two years at the National Fishery Research Laboratory in La Crosse, Wisconsin; four years as a fish and wildlife biologist for the Forest Service on the Tongass; two years as a fisheries and wildlife consultant; and 2 years as an aquaculturist in South America. http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm/item/2/Bristol Bay: An Interview with Dr. Carol Ann Woody (C) 2010-06-17T17:18:31-07:00 Bristol Bay: An Interview with Dr. Carol Ann Woody (C) Author:  Deb BerkenbileLocation: Geneva, OhioAbout The Author:Deb Berkebile is a member of the North Coast Fly Fishers Club in Kirtland, Ohio where she serves as Director of Communications. She is also a member of Flygirls of MI. Well, I just have to say that if you have not attended a Federation of Fly Fishers fishing conclave, you are in for a treat when you do! I highly recommend to book all your workshops foron the water topics.Due to flight delays, my adventure launched with a rocky start, so much so that I missed my first workshop on Thursday morning! By the time I made it to Denver, got my rental car, drove through Denver traffic at no other time than infamous rush hour, I was yearning to hit the streams for some fishing and retire for a while from the hustle and bustle of the city.I headed up the canyon, for it had been 18 years since I had been to Colorado and I was going to an area where I had grown up. As a youngster, we had moved to Coal Creek Canyon Deb is second from right in the photoand my father built an A-frame house nestled in the mountainside. Driving through the canyon was like reminiscing; everything was so familiar I could remember it like yesterday. Time must move at a slower pace when in higher altitudes closer to nature.I passed the road I lived on and decided on the trip back I was going to go see the old homestead. As I neared the location where we were suppose to fish I kept saying the name of the road where I was suppose to end up at Pactolus Rd it just kept slipping off my tongue like an old familiar friends name. Finally it came to me that this is where we used to ice skate, for further down the road was Pactolus Lake!!!What a site to behold as I pulled up to the old location things really had changed here. The old icehouse was taken down and a lodge erected from where it set. The lake almost looked the same, but we only went there when the lake was frozen over to skate on its cold, windy ice, so seeing it years later in summertime was a breathtaking event.Soon the fishing commenced. The first workshop was called Instructor Fish Along - Fish With and Learn from the Best. We fished the South Boulder Creek, one of the largest tributaries of the South Platte River, located in Pinecliffe. Being four o-clock in the afternoon, the mist had settled a bit, not rainy, just misting every now and then, so the conditions were just right. I met our guides Ethan Emery & Scott McCaslin and they showed us several different techniques for rigging, reading the water, and picking the flies necessary for these waters. They bragged how big the trout were!!! I soon knew they were not just telling us a fish story.                                                                                                                                                                              Deb & Charles JardineThey were extremely big fish! Have you ever experienced hooking a 21 and 25 inch trout! I caught six from just this one hole! WOW!!! What a rush; a rite of passage to any mountain fisher! I was fishing a rig with two - bead head nymphs and a Thingamabob for an indicator. I hooked a total of ten fish that evening. These were the best waters I fished on while on this trip and to top it all off, later on I found out that I had been fishing with the famous Ally Gowans and Dennis Grant that evening.Unbeknownst to me at the time, the two are highly professional international fly fishermen. I even had breakfast with Ally, at which time he courteously signed my book for me after a modest display and much teasing on my part! I wanted the cereal bowl he ate out of so I could frame it What a laugh that brought out of him. Us silly Americans!I did venture down the canyon again and go look at the old homestead. Not exactly how I remembered it, but it was still there. I thought I would not take pictures so I would not ruin the memories that I have of that home built by my own familys hands.The next day brought another workshop. A Stranger in a Strange Land: River Workshop. Here I got to meet another professional fly fisher, an Englishman, Charles Jardine. What a treat his class was. It was a blast and a highly educational experience.Charles writes it best from this excerpt of his blog:- Colorado Trout Gods Partially AppeasedAugust 1, 2009 by charlesjardine -After suffering the slings and arrows of the vagaries of fly fishing the sun shone delineating the Rocky Mountains to the Western distance, the group was joyous eager and fun (they mostly are but today doubly so), I had finally got some sleep and a corner of sorts had clearly been turned. The On-Stream Class was to be a Stranger in a Strange World and how I dealt with situations on an unknown river. Given the lack of success earlier in the week just about everything is unknown! Still, we decided to start the proceedings in the hotel amidst a welter of muffins, notes, coffee cups, fly boxes spreading like a pervasive garden weed and a huge sense of fun. Then it was on to the river. Oddly it was as though we could catch fish for fun today and what bright litte trout they were: feisty little (and not so little) browns and rainbows sprang from the turbulence of the Big Thompson in a fountain of spangled spray from the foam and the careening currents. It was just wonderful. I even managed to bring a devoted dry fly fisher into the dark-side of nymphing. All is well today. The only thing Charles forgot to mention was that we also fished with his very own designer fly, the Zippy, complete with trailing nymphs. We used Zippy as an indicator because he would zip up and down on a leader line so you could change the depth of your nymphs. Very clever and successful! We became so very fond of the fly we dubbed him Mr. Zippy! I hooked a couple fish and learned a lot about rigging and fishing pocket waters from a very fast moving river.Saturday brought even more exciting activity to a wearied body. I now had fished almost 2 days straight. Getting back into my hotel room at 10 pm and starting all over at 7 am!My first workshop Saturday morning was Small Creeks, BIG Fun! with Matt Wilhelm. We headed up the canyon from Loveland to some private waters at Sylvan Dale Ranch.Topics for this workshop included specialty casts, reading water, aquatic insects, fly selection, and stealth activity.Here I caught my first fish on a dry fly! To my amazement: a 12' brown trout! He put up quite a fight and then was suddenly gone. I caught him with a very small yellow dun with a yellow humpy as my rig. This brown just happened to be up stream above a large rock, but still hooked him! This was a beautiful part of the Big Thompson that I had fished on, very clear so I could locate the fish from the bank in prime locations.I also used some hoppers & Copper Johns successfully. There was a large field of grasshoppers, but the hatch of dun took the prize! Too soon was my morning spent. The afternoon brought me to the other side of Sylvan Dales 3200-acres to their numerous ponds. This workshop was called Sight Fishing Lakes and Ponds with Chuck Prather.Sylvan Dale has an abundant amount of small bass & trout ponds. We fished on Mother Lake first, one of the many trout ponds. Initially, I fished with a large beetle pattern & a nymph trailing below. Since you could see the trout from the edges of the pond this was were the stealth came into play. The objective was to sneak up to the edge so that the fish could not see you, Bear Grills style!Unfortunately, the beetle pattern fished to no avail. I finally put on a damsel adult because the pond was loaded with dragonflies. Once I started with this pattern the trout went wild. I had a good size rainbow pop out of the lake to bite at my damsel but I never could hook anything the entire day.I eventually made my way to Big Lake, which was one of the bass ponds. Chuck explained to me how bass fishing was related to telling your life history. He said that you cast your line out and as you jig your line in you tell stories about your life as your waiting for the bass to strike. Then as you cast again, the second part of your life story can be told. Thus fly-fishing is a great way to get to know ones fishing partner. After a few minutes of this, Chuck took me to a sweet spot on the nearby river. I actually casted quite a few times, but only got a couple of strikes for bass. It was late in the day and it was time to pack it in. I found that a lake is not my favorite setting for fishing, for I would rather be on a fast moving stream, working the water as I go. I have found there are just more escapades and exploits with stream fishing! Maybe after I use my float tube (that I won in the auction) I will change my mind. But for now I have truly enjoyed stream fishing the best.Saturday night bought quite a nice dinner and the cowboy BBQ food hit the spot. One of the fly fishermen used to be an opera singer, and once he got out his guitar, we truly were entertained with an array of music the rest of the evening. Sunday was my free day, the conclave had ended and before I left Ohio I had bought The National Geographic map for Rocky National Park and the book written by Todd Hosman Fly Fishing Rocky Mountain National Park. I was determined that I was going to fly-fish in the park.I had mapped out sections of the park that would be very accessible for great fishing. Todds book is a worthwhile read, especially if you want to hit the hot spots of a large park area. He details it all for you. I started out sightseeing around the park. The breathtaking scenery made the enjoyment of fishing ever more acute and poignant. I was taken aback by the view, even though I had lived here years ago, for sometimes life makes one forget what a masterpiece of Gods craftsmanship the Continental Divide really is. Due to a massive flood a few years back there was now a waterfall and a great alluvial fan area, which the fish have taken a liking to. Every bend in Fall River you could see a variety of trout, all different sizes and colors. This is where I tried several different fly patterns, beetles, nymphs, and a yellow humpy dry fly.However, all these where to no avail. Even after using my newly acquired stealth mode, I could not hook a single trout. Sometimes the will of nature cannot be reckoned with! I stood there on the sandy banks of the alluvial fan watching the trout swim as though I did not even exist. In a way it was like they were mocking me, or just trying to convey the lesson of patience and humility.As I stood by the waterfall, I could see the trout being thrust amongst the running water against the rocks. If they made it to the bottom through all the cascading rocks and water they would surely survive. Such a harsh path for such a small species imparts another of natures mysteries.My day ended by casting a few more dry flies and watching the sunset in the greatest place on earth to be at that moment. http://www.the-fisheries.net/along-the-way.cfm/item/3/The Big Adventure: My First FFF Fishing Conclave 2009-09-09T17:18:10-07:00 The Big Adventure: My First FFF Fishing Conclave