Beating a dead horse perhaps...but why are FW&P managing Canyon Ferry

[lspower]

Local opinion has never had an impact on their decisions.Making appear that it goes into the process is important to them though.

[jigjigbam]

Canyon Ferry was initially created in 1896 (Lake Sewell). "Native" fish would apply to a river system which was subsequently changed with the introduction of the reservoir and the others downstream. Trying to use a spoon in a fork application is somewhat ridiculous.

[Wenger]

Said to hear that Adam dismissed deep/open water forage out of hand saying they were all in on perch as walleye food.  They could have at least explained what risks ciscos could possibly have in CF.

Not surprised as that is the company line under Mr Vermillion et al. 

[MTkarp]

I want to comment on Wenger's original post where he states " Cicos are not a river fish, they are a plankton feeding species (which would also help clean up Canyon Ferry's algae problem by utilizing the excess nutrients which feed the algae)" 

I didn't think this was correct so I Googled it and found this: ...large populations of zooplankton-eating (zooplanktivorous) fish will reduce zooplankton populations, which will result in less predation pressure on algae (phytoplankton). As a result, water clarity may decrease or more algal blooms may occur.  The link is http://www.lcbp.org/water-environment/ecosystem-healt/phytoplankton/  and is a report from a Lake Champlain Basin program.

That said cisco may or may not be a good addition to Canyon Ferry as walleye prey.

[Born Late]

Suggested reading:

Solving Tiber’s Predator-Prey Puzzle
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/backporch/2012/JA12Tiber.htm

An assessment of biological effects of potential introduction of cisco (Coregonus artedii) into Tiber Reservoir, Montana.
https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=19204

[Wenger]

I want to comment on Wenger's original post where he states " Cicos are not a river fish, they are a plankton feeding species (which would also help clean up Canyon Ferry's algae problem by utilizing the excess nutrients which feed the algae)" 

I didn't think this was correct so I Googled it and found this: ...large populations of zooplankton-eating (zooplanktivorous) fish will reduce zooplankton populations, which will result in less predation pressure on algae (phytoplankton). As a result, water clarity may decrease or more algal blooms may occur.  The link is http://www.lcbp.org/water-environment/ecosystem-healt/phytoplankton/  and is a report from a Lake Champlain Basin.
That said cisco may or may not be a good addition to Canyon Ferry as walleye prey.

The reason I made that claim is because while studying for my degree at Bemidji State back in the 70s in MN I was lucky enough to help net and transplant ciscos from their native lakes such as Kabekona to other more eutrophic lakes which also had suitable depth and spawning flats (further south and west ) in a very successful effort to help clean up excess nutrients from farm runoff and improve clarity mostly for cabin owners. The secondary benefit was that those nutrients became fish rather than algae.   

Let's not forget that Cisco are not simply a zooplankton feeder but rather a generalized plankton feeder, this is a key point which was overlooked.

[IceAce]

Will their be a public comment meeting ever on the upper Missouri managment plan?

[Fortpeck1]

THIS HORSE MUST HAVE CAME BACK TO LIFE, Must be part cat

[Born Late]

Will their be a public comment meeting ever on the upper Missouri managment plan?

The latest round was held a couple of weeks ago.

[gramps2321]

I was in Helena when the first proposed UMRMP draft was voted down by the Commissioners.  I also went to one of the public comment meetings a few weeks back.  I think the meetings a few weeks ago was a directive by the Commissioners to "listen" to the fisherman of the state and see what they really want.  Most of the discussion talked about their graphs, goals and netting results with some public commentary.  I kind got the feeling they weren't looking for solutions but more on what the fisherman of the state wanted overall.  They allowed us to leave comments on sticky notes for them to read later.  They said at that time they had about 1000 returned surveys and wouldn't start reading them until after all three meetings were over.  I believe they are revising a second Draft of the plan and will be available for public comment once it is presented to the public later. 

No matter where you stand on any of these issues you all need to speak up and be part of the process in creating the new plan!  I did hear in the meeting that if a Fishing Regulation needs changing someone needs to present a proposal to the FWP Commission.  I along with many of you others do not want to take a way a fishing opportunity from someone else as long as they do not try and take away mine!  All I am asking for is a "Balanced" Quality fishery in Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter.  I did support parts of the Original UMRMP as written but objected to other parts.  Bottom line is when the FWP has a netting survey having an overwhelming number of the walleyes in their net 12" or less, thinking they're meeting the Management Goal/Publics Objective and then base a 10 year plan on those numbers I'd say try again. 

[Duke22]

I am impressed by the level of knowledge here about this topic.  Born Late, thank you for providing the links on Tiber.  Good information.  The latest information, based on your links, was from 2012. I have a few questions for those how are willing to answer. I am not new fishing, and have ice fished Tiber for years now, but I am guilty of being the guy that sent the line down the hole, and never thought twice about the habitat/ecology/general make up of the lake.  After reading the information on this forum about this exact topic, it has become enjoyable for me to learn about all of this.

1)Since 2012, is there any new (obtainable) information pertaining to what the FWP has done for Tiber?
2) Have they continued to attempt to provide spawning habitat for the perch?  (trees, etc)
3) Have any more cisco been added?
4) Has the FWP continued to net fish, and if so, what is the current condition of the walleye population/yellow perch population?
5) Has the original stocking of cisco in the late 1990's thrived?
6) What is the general consensus on the current Tiber fishery?  I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from someone with more expertise.

Thank you in advance!

[Wenger]

Sadly the comment made by Adam was that that state was committed keep banging away at perch as both the forage for walleye and anglers and they will not consider alternativive forage species.  We are back to ten years of backassward management of lowering walleye numbers rather than feeding them and taking the pressure off the perch.  Canyon ferry will never get right unless they stop being so afraid of Cisco’s .  It makes no sense to refuse to even consider a study of the possible negative impacts they might have in the upper MO.

[Quantoson]

I guess the discussion could go on and on for both sides.  I know my opinion does not matter at all, which is why I will give it anyway.

There is no doubt that there are great comments here but it all needs to be put in perspective, at least for me. A give and take type of perspective.  In my opinion this should be done for a period of 7 years.
1.  I do not want anymore species eradicated/taken out of any waters in Montana.
1.a. I am willing not to introduce any new species to any waters in Montana if point 1. is agreed upon.
2. If a species cannot maintain itself under normal conditions in the current waters, so be it.  This includes bull trout, cutthroat
2.a.  Exempt salmon.  Restock these as needed.
3.  Leave all access to lakes, rivers and streams as is, do not impose further restrictions on nor alter: type of boating, closures, angler pressure, environment enhancement (trees, rip rap, etc.), and do not change regulations anymore.

I have a long list which I won't bore you all with.  If we did this, to see what is really working instead of coming in with new ideas and changing rules every year, we would see after 7 years which waters support what species of fish.  Find out what worked for what species and where.  Then the group would have some substantial sure fire proof of direction to proceed into the future without altering the habitat environment and define and prevent adding a species that will struggle in certain environments.

I do not see the logic of adding a species to support another species that was added previously.  Seriously.  Where is the stopping point and what level of introduction of other species, enhancing habitat... where is this stop lose limit.  All this cost money, which in turn raises the cost of my fishing license, registrations, possible additional taxes on angling equipment, etc.

Just leave it be the way it is and our already altered nature will decide.

[Crestliner 1]

Leave it the way it is OMG, the fishery is the worst I've ever fished, all this talk about the trout, what a joke they are every where get a clue and at least manage the lake for what 95% of the fisherman want. Walleye and Perch

[Quantoson]

Leave it the way it is OMG, the fishery is the worst I've ever fished, all this talk about the trout, what a joke they are every where get a clue and at least manage the lake for what 95% of the fisherman want. Walleye and Perch

Where did I endorse trout? 
And at what cost to your comment?  What if the lake is not able to sustain walleye and perch as the habitat that it is now?  What if the species is too weak or to slow to evolve into the fish that can?  Who cares about trout, I don't want trout everywhere because they cannot survive all habitats.  That's a given in all species.  To keep changing and adding species is totally ridiculous.  I don't want to turn the clocks back to the Lewis and Clark days.  It cannot be done.  Still I don't want tax dollars and license dollars used to please just one crowd for something that isn't working right now.  Eternal life support because one group wants it?

I state to just stop screwing with the "I wants".  B.A.S.S. request bigger and more bass, Walleye Unlimited want more walleye and better habitat, Trout Unlimited want all native trout only.  The perch fisherman want more perch.  I just want to bait dunk and don't give a rats ash.  I don't change my underwear as much as they change the regs.  Where and when will it stop?

Now if some group of wants to take it upon their own financially responsibility to enhance a fishery and maintain it without a burden to the rest of the public and without restricting access, let that group spend their funds as they wish if it doesn't require modification of regs and environment.  Let them carry the burden of the cost for eternal life support of that species.

If we continue down this "I want" path, where it requires more public funds, it becomes even more Government controlled, you know, like Socialist Marxism.  The Government can say, look you asked for it and we did it so we say what it is and how and when you can use it.

[Crestliner 1]

Didn't say that YOU endorsed trout but looks,like to me , just,my opinion that people in charge dont want walleye and perch, kinda,funny 10 yrs ago you could,catch all kinds,of good fish all different classes of fish so what happened, total mismanagement, 20 fish,limits who has ever heard,of such a thing

[Quantoson]

Mismanagement is the keyword here.  Let's just not manage it and let the altered nature take its course is what I am trying to convey.  Stop spending and requesting conditions for species.  Just let it evolve to what it will be.  I think this is simple logic.  The natural environment is going to change upon itself.  Lakes, streams, rivers are not lawn to be continually mowed and manicured.  Surely we don't want to damage these waters but let's stop altering the waters to accept a species that requires another species that requires additional introduction of plankton or some other life form for the chain to survive.  If we don't it will be a perpetual financial burden to all fishermen.

[Born Late]

1) Since 2012, is there any new (obtainable) information pertaining to what the FWP has done for Tiber?
2) Have they continued to attempt to provide spawning habitat for the perch?  (trees, etc)
3) Have any more cisco been added?
4) Has the FWP continued to net fish, and if so, what is the current condition of the walleye population/yellow perch population?
5) Has the original stocking of cisco in the late 1990's thrived?
6) What is the general consensus on the current Tiber fishery?  I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from someone with more expertise.

In response to 1-5, the info can be found here:
https://myfwp.mt.gov/fishMT/reports/surveyreport
Enter Tiber Reservoir in the waterbody search.
Click on Species Summary by Survey below the map.
Stocking info is available at the same location.

It appears that no ciscoes have been added since the original stocking of nearly 6.5 million in 1997.

[Wenger]

Where did I endorse trout? 
And at what cost to your comment?  What if the lake is not able to sustain walleye and perch as the habitat that it is now?  What if the species is too weak or to slow to evolve into the fish that can?  Who cares about trout, I don't want trout everywhere because they cannot survive all habitats.  That's a given in all species.  To keep changing and adding species is totally ridiculous.  I don't want to turn the clocks back to the Lewis and Clark days.  It cannot be done.  Still I don't want tax dollars and license dollars used to please just one crowd for something that isn't working right now.  Eternal life support because one group wants it?

I state to just stop screwing with the "I wants".  B.A.S.S. request bigger and more bass, Walleye Unlimited want more walleye and better habitat, Trout Unlimited want all native trout only.  The perch fisherman want more perch.  I just want to bait dunk and don't give a rats ash.  I don't change my underwear as much as they change the regs.  Where and when will it stop?

Now if some group of wants to take it upon their own financially responsibility to enhance a fishery and maintain it without a burden to the rest of the public and without restricting access, let that group spend their funds as they wish if it doesn't require modification of regs and environment.  Let them carry the burden of the cost for eternal life support of that species.

If we continue down this "I want" path, where it requires more public funds, it becomes even more Government controlled, you know, like Socialist Marxism.  The Government can say, look you asked for it and we did it so we say what it is and how and when you can use it.

That was quite the jump to Marxism having OUR government listen to us. Seems you have that backwards...

That said man made environments such as the MO river reservoirs from CF to SD are not natural and have had to be managed from day one. Without the gumption to introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator we would have waters containing sauger to carp and thus only what was there pre dam. Biologists from the 60s and 70 s did a great job in providing creating the fisheries we had twenty years ago in MT. The current crop at Fwp from the top down have not. They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman. Instead they tell us what is what while ignoring why we have places like peck in the first place.

[Quantoson]

That was quite the jump to Marxism having OUR government listen to us. Seems you have that backwards...

That said man made environments such as the MO river reservoirs from CF to SD are not natural and have had to be managed from day one. Without the gumption to introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator we would have waters containing sauger to carp and thus only what was there pre dam. Biologists from the 60s and 70 s did a great job in providing creating the fisheries we had twenty years ago in MT. The current crop at Fwp from the top down have not. They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman. Instead they tell us what is what while ignoring why we have places like peck in the first place.

Wenger, you say " introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator ".  So it has been attempted to introduced many times and yet the formula is not there.  A balanced ecosystem has to be made by itself.  You can try to establish a new type of ecosystem, which defeats the term ecosystem.  Let it balance itself out.  Let's just fish it.

You say "They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman".  How can they?  There are so many different groups of tax paying sportsmen that want it their way, they don't want my way or yours.  So which group of tax paying sportsman do you want them to respond too first? Tax paying is all of the people in general, which also contribute unknowingly.  The expenditures for recreation are not just sportsman generated.  State Parks, State Funds.  So to be fair, the general public has a say as well.  Again, we are not ever going to get all groups and tax payers on the same line of thought. 

This has evolved into planting tomato's in the Sahara dessert.  It won't work unless you completely change the environment and find water.  Then what is the cost of tomatoes per pound?  Astronomical!   We, I am guilty of this, it's about what I want, what suits me and my group.  Same with you and the fly fisherman, the Bass guys, the Perch guys, on and on.  We need to discover what the fisheries will naturally sustain, after being altered as they have been, let it evolve on it own and work progressively from there. 

Trying to make it something it can't be and keep loading it with species of choice is never ending.  As I said before, if your group comes up with some gold to throw at it and is OK by the rest of the public, by all means get the bullion out.

[Wenger]

No, the whole mo system from peck down was balanced by introducing either smelt or Cisco as plankton based forage feeders to the top predators such as pike, salmon, Lakers and walleye with panfish and bass inbetween. The river sections were stocked and still are by over the dam and down the spillway with rainbows and browns. The only reason we have salmon which you approve of is because Cisco’s were stocked. This was a comprehensive approach that worked well. If you have actual evidence to the contrary please provide it rather that simply saying the approach did not work. Millions of anglers who spend millions of days on these waters will disagree with you.

Let’s be clear that this thread is about CF and down the line, not about Willy nilly bucket biology.



What we have from cf down to holter is boom and bust cycle caused by a missing forage link. Given reservoirs are in effect closed ecosystems nature cannot be expected to rectify the situation through evolution. Deep water plankton feeders are not going to evolve before we as a species disappears or the dams silt in or crumble.

We have the evidence that it works,
What we do not have is proper management of the resource. The failures are clear, boom and bust cycles are the evidence of mismanagement. FWP is simply going to keep trying to pound a square peg into a round hole until leadership and mentality in Helena is changed or they actually listen.

So your point is that those who want make that demand that our resources that are best suited for a proven ecosystem are being selfish when all the evidence is there? This is canyon ferry we are talking about and those that actually have fished it for decades have seen the disaster unfold and want it fixed. (As for your claim anyone wants to introduce plankton to CF i would suggest taking a gander at it any time from July on.)

This is concern for our resources not being selfish.

[Quantoson]

I do not have evidence to the contrary.  Just that every year, it is a different lake, one is being netted to rid a species that thrives without effort, the next year they want to kill out a lake, the next year they want to exterminate walleye to bring back native species and keeps going.  Reservoirs were, as I understand it, made for flood prevention and irrigation.  These two factors, especially irrigation, won't allow for a stable ecosystem.  We may have an exceptional snowmelt but yet have an extreme drought growing season that requires the lowering of the reservoirs to meet irrigation demands. 

So the ecosystem, I agree, is 2nd in line after agriculture and may not be sustained as we want it.  I want the farmers and ranchers to have the water needed for agriculture as intended, even if it lowers the levels that exceed normal outfall.  The fisheries at these reservoirs are the by product of original intent.  Agriculture, maybe community water and flood prevention.

So the radical fluctuations in water levels require radical fluctuations in the ecosystem that I feel doesn't have a sweet spot.

[Wenger]

No sweet spot, but plenty of success stories within the system to be learned from. The major one we learned in the 60s to overcome these fluctuations was to introduce plankton feeding forage fish. It works.

[esox_xtm]

Interesting discussion guys. I'm not MT but we have similar conversations in WI concerning regulated water levels in reservoirs/flowages.

Here, and I expect there too, level regulation has zero to do with fisheries management, lakefront owners or tourism. Army Corp/WI Power manages our levels for hydro dams and runoff control. Fisheries gets the trunk on the deal at best. They do what they can but it's complicated. One body has seen multiple drawdowns for dam repair. Did the repair, didn't get it right and had to take another swing. Another may drop up to 15 feet based on hydro needs and it's max depth is listed as 28'. Basically it turns into a riverbed surrounded by moonscape. The rest are in a constant state of fluctuation within ACE/WPS parameters. Trouble is sometimes Mother Nature throws a knuckle ball, we don't get snow and it takes until late July for lakes to refill to usable levels, if at all until there's a proper snow season.

Based on the last two replies, it sounds like these two have the problem identified. The problem with the problem is that it's a moving target...

Sorry to butt in.  And good luck.

[Cornbread]

I wish they would put a couple hundred thousand cisco in Noxon for the bass, walleye and pike. At least they finally listened to us about not killing the walleye in Noxon. That's a step in the right direction although I would bet it has more to do with budget shortages than actual will to do what fisherman want. I've never fished Canyon Ferry but I do hope for the sake of you guys that do fish it, that they get it squared away.

[Wenger]

Interesting discussion guys. I'm not MT but we have similar conversations in WI concerning regulated water levels in reservoirs/flowages.

Here, and I expect there too, level regulation has zero to do with fisheries management, lakefront owners or tourism. Army Corp/WI Power manages our levels for hydro dams and runoff control. Fisheries gets the trunk on the deal at best. They do what they can but it's complicated. One body has seen multiple drawdowns for dam repair. Did the repair, didn't get it right and had to take another swing. Another may drop up to 15 feet based on hydro needs and it's max depth is listed as 28'. Basically it turns into a riverbed surrounded by moonscape. The rest are in a constant state of fluctuation within ACE/WPS parameters. Trouble is sometimes Mother Nature throws a knuckle ball, we don't get snow and it takes until late July for lakes to refill to usable levels, if at all until there's a proper snow season.

Based on the last two replies, it sounds like these two have the problem identified. The problem with the problem is that it's a moving target...

Sorry to butt in.  And good luck.

Thanks for the input.

Our issue with Canyon Ferry is that it is the first reservoir of three and is used for seasonal regulation so it is filled over the summer and  dawn over the winter by 20 feet or more rather than daily for generation.  Thus the perch have a very hard time spawning and our management only recognizes perch as the feed for walleyes. The reservoir used to crank out  trophy perch in numbers and world class walleyes. Now we have very few perch and tons of tiny walleyes. Their idea of management is to simply keep increasing the walleye limit, which hardly anyone fills anyway. The reservoir is over 100 feet deep and a soup of algae each summer now, not even recommended for dogs to swim in. We have a very similar situation in Ft Peck, and by adding plankton feeder forage the issue was resolved and we have a world class laker, walleye and pike fishery.

It's really nutts to be honest, they simply refuse to consider any other strategy.       

[Wenger]

I wish they would put a couple hundred thousand cisco in Noxon for the bass, walleye and pike. At least they finally listened to us about not killing the walleye in Noxon. That's a step in the right direction although I would bet it has more to do with budget shortages than actual will to do what fisherman want. I've never fished Canyon Ferry but I do hope for the sake of you guys that do fish it, that they get it squared away.

of

The thing with Noxon is that it is not really cisco habitat and that the river runs right into Idaho.  At least in the MO system the whole river is a series of very deep reservoirs with stretches of river between. We really don't need to worry much about downstream infiltration of exotic bait fish because all of the reservoirs downstream already have been stocked with them and by the time the MO reaches Omaha it is pretty much the old muddy MO with catfish and white bass.

Really happy they stopped the nonsense of trying to kill off the walleye on Noxon. I wrote a few letters to them about it when that was their plan. My guess is that there was no way to get them out anyway.

[monk38]

Wenger,

   I have fished walleye in CF since the late 90's.  It is so sad what has happened. I will say fishing pressure has changed greatly since then as well. You seem pretty well versed in this so here is a couple questions
1.  would cisco clean up CF considerably?  It is downright nasty come august anymore...

2.  I do not know Tiber well, but I do fish peck quite a bit... is the walleye fishing on par with Fort peck? are people consistently catching multi year class walleyes? or is it a bunch on small until a few get big enough to eat the cisco?

unreasonable limits and fishing pressure just put the hammer down on any walleye over 15" quickly in the year in my observations. seems like a millions of 10-13" with a few monsters every year.  Not very many 15-24" that everyone loves to keep.






 

[Quantoson]

Thanks for the input.

Our issue with Canyon Ferry is that it is the first reservoir of three and is used for seasonal regulation so it is filled over the summer and  dawn over the winter by 20 feet or more rather than daily for generation.  Thus the perch have a very hard time spawning and our management only recognizes perch as the feed for walleyes. The reservoir used to crank out  trophy perch in numbers and world class walleyes. Now we have very few perch and tons of tiny walleyes. Their idea of management is to simply keep increasing the walleye limit, which hardly anyone fills anyway. The reservoir is over 100 feet deep and a soup of algae each summer now, not even recommended for dogs to swim in. We have a very similar situation in Ft Peck, and by adding plankton feeder forage the issue was resolved and we have a world class laker, walleye and pike fishery.

It's really nutts to be honest, they simply refuse to consider any other strategy.     

Wenger, OK.  You and I have our opinions, so let's find out why the FWP has taken the path on management as is.  I will seek out on Monday the correct person to answer the inquires.  I would appreciate that if there are questions and comments to submit, that the questions and comments we present to FWP contain no speculation, contain data, references or examples for or against a certain issue, FWP should have a chance to explain the States position on the management, additionally giving FWP the option on clarification on current and future plans for Canyon Ferry.

If you wish to elaborate on issues to be covered, pertaining only to Canyon Ferry, then please jot them down.  Let's address this discussion with the powers that be, give them a chance to answer.

Additionally, I will contact all the Gov. players involved.  This is not purely a FWP issue, they are also strained by the Corp of engineers, and who knows what other Government offices are involved.

[esox_xtm]

Additionally, I will contact all the Gov. players involved.  This is not purely a FWP issue, they are also strained by the Corp of engineers, and who knows what other Government offices are involved.

OK, I'll butt in (just a little bit). The above statement is likely the most important. As I noted, levels are regulated for reasons other than fisheries and that comes dead last.

When we lived in S.Dak in the early 60's, Oahe had just reached full pool and it was an incredible (no, really incredible) pike factory with average weights running in the teens. Now, it's leveled off. Still a great fishery but not nearly what it was in the 60's.

So there's two things in play for you guys: #1 - a maturing reservoir system and #2 - conflicting management priorities. I'd think if you continue to work through your Fish & Wildlife group you'll find the most support. I'd also bet they may be as frustrated as you, maybe even more... Make 'em your friends instead of making 'em the bad guys (because it's really the ACE or whomever) and you'll get farther. Find the management folks that share your goals and make 'em your friends. Goes a long way.