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

[Wenger]

I understand that Canyon Ferry has a trouble producing forage fish due to extreme fluctuations in water levels, so FW&P seems to be managing the reservoir based on reducing predator populations rather than increasing forage species.  They solved that very problem in Peck by introducing ciscos and developing a world class fishery by doing so.  They keep stocking rainbows (finless wonders) in all three reservoirs which end up in the MO at Craig afterall and they are more worried about managing another "invasive species" the brown trout in marginal habitat between Toston and Townsend. 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) so if they were to go over a dam so what?  Imagine the benefit to Canyon Ferry and the fishing public if we could actually feed those walleyes, get salmon  established in the underutilized deep water. Sadly I feel modern day biologists are too wrapped up in the PC natives only culture, and tend to ignore the wants of the folks who pay their way.

Anyone else agree or disagree?  Have any of the sportsmen groups brought this up with Dan Vermillion and FW&P?

[Crestliner 1]

I've fished in 11 states plus Ontario and Manitoba, I agree FWP here is a joke. Never have I seen a lake so mismanaged. Even if they changed some regs ,doesn't matter they don't enforce anything been here 12 years never have I got checked , ridiculous. That's just my opinion

[missoulafish]

The common thread I hear from older biologists and retired biologists is that many of the freshly hired biologists ARENT fishermen and a they are only concerned about is restoring native species. One of the job requirements  should be that they are fishermen so that they have a more comprehensive understanding of their landscape.

[RuralMT]

How much leeway does the FWP actually have though? If the federal government lists the bull trout or any other native species as threatened, could the FWP even pursue a management plan based on angler-preference? I'm not trying to turn this political, but regardless if you think this is a proper power of the national government or not, given the history of power in the country over the last century, I'd say that national policy is more than likely going to steer state policy...hence a focus on restoring native species.

[fritz2324]

I’ve never caught a native fish in canyon ferry.  I’ve only been fishing it for 9 years though.  Was there once a strong cutthroat trout population there. 

[missoulafish]

The thing is that (using Cutthroats as an example as they aren't endangered) is that the non fishermen biologists will advocate for putting cutthroats everywhere including water that isn't cutthroat habitat just because they are native. The other issue the doesn't make sense to me is that not as many people spend money to pursue bulltrout but they will to pursue walleye.  The talks I've had lead me to believe the the regional biologists can decided what to put where...

[RuralMT]

other issue the doesn't make sense to me is that not as many people spend money to pursue bulltrout but they will to pursue walleye.

It doesn't make sense to me either.  I'm not saying we should or shouldn't push to restore the bull trout, but they taste great (I'm friends with avid Koocanusa anglers who fill their bull trout tag every year and know how to cook them).  What's more, they were a migratory fish like salmon...I think it'd be a lot of fun to follow a seasonal run of bull trout out of Flathead Lake up to Polebridge.

The talks I've had lead me to believe the the regional biologists can decided what to put where...

Do you mean like the biologist(s) working for Region 1, 2, etc.?

[missoulafish]

I should of said the region fishery managers ( have flexibility they way I understand it) They supercede individual biologists I believe.

[monk38]

To be honest I think FWP is across the board not too bad. lots of good hunting habitat programs in my opinion.  Now I do agree I don't like canyon ferry's management either, but that is because  I love warm water fish.

    I think getting involved and writing letters, and especially getting involved during the public comment times is about as good as we can do.  I know trout unlimited has a large voice... Do we?
   write the fisheries managers an email let em know what you think in a clear concise way, maybe if enough of us raise our concerns things will change. I have always thought FWP listens way better than the Feds.  They don't seem to care at all.  agree disagree just my opinion. can't wait to fish CF either way.

[Born Late]

Stock your bathtub with walleye, perch and rainbows, and get back to us in five years. Like your tub, MT reservoirs are relatively sterile features and achieving a consistently balanced and flourishing fish population is darned near impossible.

[Wenger]

  The Mo as a system is very a fertile waterway.  That is what causes the prolific hatches and great trout habitat below the dams.  It is why we have massive algae blooms in the reservoirs, especially Canyon Ferry.  The problem in Canyon Ferry is the lack of a sustainable forage base due to water level fluctuations.  I am convinced that ciscos are the answer. 

[missoulafish]

Would be cool to see something that actually enhanced a warm water fish species....

[Born Late]

  The Mo as a system is very a fertile waterway.

Fair enough. However, I meant relative to where yellow perch and walleye are native. And, it depends upon your definition of “fertile.”

[Wenger]

Well perch do thrive in eutrophic lakes, but also in rivers like the Mississippi.  But walleyes do indeed thrive in rocky (granite) rather "sterile" waters of the Canadian Shield, because they have ciscos as their forage base.  The Mo is fed by limestone based streams and absorbs lots of silty runoff that are both full of nutrients.  The MO at Craig is one of the richest rivers in MT in terms of biomass, with only the Bighorn being more nutrient laden. This is due to the reservoirs being nutrient collectors. 

IF and WHEN FW&Ps wakes up to the fact that the folks who pay their way are not all interested in trout and trout only perhaps they will start managing CF for forage rather than reduction of predators. The basic issue is that CF has a link missing, that is a forage fish that utilizes the plankton that is the base component in any ecosystem. As long as perch can't reproduce at sustainable rates and walleyes do,  the only real solution is to introduce forage that can reproduce and sustain the predator population.  By filling that void everyone would be happy, except MT TU.  If the native only folks are really serious then lets start a war on Brown Trout, carp and even perch. We all know that FW&P have been at war against walleyes in CF, Noxon and even in the MO river over the years yet the angling public wants them.   

[Griztrax Jr.]

For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ

Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.

[flatgo]

Would be really cool to have an active plan to bring kokanee back to the river system.  kokanee would serve as a good forage base for the walleye.  this won't actually happen if fwp keeps dumping fish in blindly without trying to get proper spawning habitat.  i think you would have a good potential to get them to come back if you made a spawning channel, but actually improving habitat would be too logical....

[Cold toes]

Kokanee tend not to do well in systems where they're the middle of the food chain. The state would have to stock them and then they would just be expensive walleye feed.

[Crestliner 1]

Not sure, but pretty sure walleye fisherman make up at least 90 % of the fisherman at canyon. There are trout everywhere you go in Montana, why not focus on the walleye pop

[GottaBeThick]

For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ

Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.


👍Total agree Griztrax Jr. Thanks for posting this link. Everyone should fill out this survey. They may not listen but I dont think they would put this out there if they didn’t actually want our opinions.

[PerchPounderMT]

The MT F&G is stocked full of "river runs through it" fly fisherman who moved here thinking the states fishery needed saving from the evil walleye.They didnt even do a spring net survey on a year they know they are going to make changes to the fishery plan,what does that tell you?Nothing will change until they are replaced,if you think your public comment meetings are going to have any effect on what they have planned or change their outlook on the economic impact of destroying a walleye fishery you are wasting your time.

[fridayfish]

to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout.                      

[MatCat]

to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout.                    

I don't think anyone is crying about too many trout.  Just that the warm water fisherman seem to get left out of a lot of conversations when 60% of the state is actually a warm water fishery.  Montana F&G do treat our fisheries unevenly.  Nobody is saying to get rid of trout or do anything different with them, just that warm water species need a little better treatment.  Walleyes, perch and pike aren't going to invade any pristine trout streams or high mountain lakes, it's not suitable for them.  But a slow moving river like the Missouri, which has historically had warm water species living in it, should be managed as such.

[fridayfish]

I see your point but I just need to put it in that perspective. we have a lot to be grateful for here. those pike and perch are extremely abundant on a national level and trout are the ones in the most danger and should be highest priority.

[Wenger]

"to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. "

Seriously?  Let me guess, you moved here. Within the past say ten years right? I do not think you do see his point at all.

Trout are not in danger. Certain populations of native trout are being threatened by nonnative trout.  That has nothing to do with Canyon Ferry. Afterall it is two invasive species of trout that won't reproduce because the habitat is not conducive that  FW&P is pushing and even stocking in favor of managing the habitat for species that will thrive and provide far more summer and winter recreation opportunities than the current debacle.

But that said, you actually are telling MT natives who do appreciate our state FAR more than the immigrants do in truth to move away?  Look dude, I made a living rowing out of state fishermen around after trout for decades, from the Horn to the MO and everyplace between. I love fly fishing, I loved guiding. But I also love warm water fishing. Canyon Ferry is an artificial trout pond, They don't reproduce, the river above the lake to Toston is not trout habitat and never has been in truth. The tailwaters are also artificial trout habitat. In my years rowing folks below Holter at least 50% of the rainbows come over the dam to stock that section. We have many thousands of of miles of actual trout streams and rivers that are managed for wild fish as they should. Canyon Ferry is not one of those places. It was and could again be a world class walleye and perch fishery, which BTW a large % of MT sportsmen want it to be.

And please avoid trying to split us up as trout or walleye guys. We are all fishermen and need to respect the fact that everyone is not exactly the same. All many of us are asking is that FW&Ps wakes up and quits wasting such a potentially great resource through their biases while ignoring those who pay their way.

The first change I would want to see is accountability.  Make the Commissioner an elected official rather than a political appointment and all the backroom dealing that involves. Currently TU, at a national level has more say about how we manage our fisheries than MT citizens do. Same for the extremist enviro groups who convinced  the Commision NOT to have our tiny grizz hunt. 

[PablitoPescador]

"to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. "

Seriously?  Let me guess, you moved here. Within the past say ten years right? I do not think you do see his point at all.

Trout are not in danger. Certain populations of native trout are being threatened by nonnative trout.  That has nothing to do with Canyon Ferry. Afterall it is two invasive species of trout that won't reproduce because the habitat is not conducive that  FW&P is pushing and even stocking in favor of managing the habitat for species that will thrive and provide far more summer and winter recreation opportunities than the current debacle.

But that said, you actually are telling MT natives who do appreciate our state FAR more than the immigrants do in truth to move away?  Look dude, I made a living rowing out of state fishermen around after trout for decades, from the Horn to the MO and everyplace between. I love fly fishing, I loved guiding. But I also love warm water fishing. Canyon Ferry is an artificial trout pond, They don't reproduce, the river above the lake to Toston is not trout habitat and never has been in truth. The tailwaters are also artificial trout habitat. In my years rowing folks below Holter at least 50% of the rainbows come over the dam to stock that section. We have many thousands of of miles of actual trout streams and rivers that are managed for wild fish as they should. Canyon Ferry is not one of those places. It was and could again be a world class walleye and perch fishery, which BTW a large % of MT sportsmen want it to be.

And please avoid trying to split us up as trout or walleye guys. We are all fishermen and need to respect the fact that everyone is not exactly the same. All many of us are asking is that FW&Ps wakes up and quits wasting such a potentially great resource through their biases while ignoring those who pay their way.

The first change I would want to see is accountability.  Make the Commissioner an elected official rather than a political appointment and all the backroom dealing that involves. Currently TU, at a national level has more say about how we manage our fisheries than MT citizens do. Same for the extremist enviro groups who convinced  the Commision NOT to have our tiny grizz hunt.

Very well said, Wenger!

[Wenger]

For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ

Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.

THANKS!  I answered in detail in each box.  IMO the biggest point is that we need proactive rather than reactive management. That to me means providing a sustainable forage base that will fill the current ecological void in CF, rather than simply trying to reduce the numbers of walleyes which has been the untenable "solution" of choice for decades now.

I also suggested that when they do have public meetings that FW&Ps not come preloaded with answers explaining why they can't do something but rather be open to the public input and seriously consider our input.

If everyone here who agree that CF is a mess answers then perhaps we can get something done.

[fridayfish]

you've missed the point in more ways than one. trout are in danger. there downstream threshold is moving closer all the time. obviously this is the wrong choir to be preaching to but I want some of you to see it. protecting trout is good. your warm species aren't priority and shouldn't be. we are all as non native as those fish in the bigger picture. i didn't say get rid of walleye from CF. just open your eyes a little.

[Wenger]

So when exactly did you move here? Or rather do you actually live here?   Young I bet too, based on the display of arrogance we all had at that age. Am I close? If not sorry....

When preaching it is wise to understand your own sermon.

I have been guiding and outfitting for over thirty years. I have been in touch with our rivers daily for over 140 days a year in that time. I also have a degree in fisheries biology from MSU which I earned in 1977.  If you want me to list all the ways that "trout" (assume you mean cutts because bows and browns are indeed thriving often at their expense) are threatened I will. But let me set you straight on the current topic. It is about the management of Canyon Ferry. If you are claiming that stocked rainbows are what Montana is about you are dead wrong. Canyon Ferry is a warm water fishery and should be managed as such, without harming our real trout waters in any way.  Protecting all of our recreational species is good. Using Canyon Ferry as a put and take trout fishery is fine, it has been forever. The problem is that is not what most of the public really wants, thus real solutions that maximize the walleye potential are required.

Now with that said, could you be explicit in which rivers (I assume you are on a GW roll here) trout are receding upstream? 

The Yellowstone has rainbows below Billings as always, browns all the way to ND.  Cutts are thriving as far down as Big Timber (not counting the put and take cutts they tried around Columbus).  I know GW is the topic du jour and all, but MT trout are all about having enough water in both their spawning/natal streams and in their "residential" habitat.  We had a long drought not that long ago that had a profound effect on cutthroat reproduction (many spawning streams were cut off from the Yellowstone for the entire year). Low water in the rivers combined with high temps allowed species such as goldeyes  and smallmouth to come upstream as they do each year, but even further up than normal.  We caught SM as far up as Pine Creek in decades past.  This was all 15 some years ago. Guess what, the same year we had a massive whitefish kill exactly as we had four years ago to which FW&P massively over reacted to, and would not even listen to their own retired biologists who tried to explain this was all deja vu as the same thing happened in the 80's and 70's.  Then the water returns and the upper limit for goldeye is below Big Timber and we see very few SM.  When the waters are low and warm trout find cooler water and warm water species fill the void. It goes back and forth with the seasons and year. That is a wild river working as it should, save the SM which FW&P put in the river decades ago.

The Big Horn is the reverse. When it flows high it is warmer and when low it is cooler.  During recent high water years we have seen everything from paddlefish, sturgeon and pike to small mouth and even a large mouth or two up near the afterbay dam. 

The Big Hole issues are all about water extraction. Same for the Musselshell, which BTW still has trout down well below Harlowtown.

It's not about warm water species vs trout. It is about managing all our fisheries in a sustainable way that fulfills the needs of Montana anglers.

[fridayfish]

i opened a can of worms. sorry if i got you fired up. should have said it different. i am ready to let this one go.

[RuralMT]

i opened a can of worms. sorry if i got you fired up. should have said it different.

Nonsense.  If folks can't air their opinions and debate in a civil fashion, than we have a far bigger problem on our hands than a mismanaged reservoir.  This is clearly a hot-button issue that needs to be addressed and frankly I've enjoyed this thread.  It's admittedly sad, however, how we allow ourselves to be divided into factions of sportsmen.