Swan Lake

[RobG]

Indicator species can only be used if the eco system is in an original state.  The indicator species must be adjusted to the modifications made to the eco system.  What everyone has failed to disclose is that, if correct by the study of Bull Trout, the Bull travel up river to spawn.  Stay up river for up to 3 years. Now that being said, it is understandable why the Bull Trout population at Flathead Lake has declined and other species have flourished.  Bull Trout in Kocanusa travel all the way back up to Canada for example.

The Swan had a hydro dam, Hungry Horse has a dam which I think has never been added or evaluated to the total equation.  The numbers are sure to have dropped for the Bull Trout almost immediately because of the obstacles.  They can no longer have the historical migratory route.  Also the report uses figures not of true historical fact but of presumptions numbers of Bull Trout that would have or could have been in the Swan.

So this talk about trying to stabilize the Bull Trout population to historical numbers will not work unless the complete drainage system is refitted to historical ecology which will not happen.... I hope.  I know that the Lake Trout and other species of fish were introduced into the drainage system.  Where will the line for the eradication man made mistakes be drawn, how much of the license fee and tax dollars need to be spent to rectify the blunder and can it really be rectified?

P.S.  I read the entire report tonight

Quant - the ancient Swan hydro dam is downstream of the lake. The river system upstream of the lake is pretty much intact, which is a rarity. The Swan upstream of the lake is the system that the bull trout use - they don't migrate downstream to spawn so the hydro dam isn't a factor (plus that dam must be close to 100 years old).

I don't understand your claims of not having historical numbers - according to the report they have great data going back to the 80s which was well before Lake Trout. The historical numbers they would be shooting for would be before the lake trout (late 90s) so they have a good idea of what is a reasonable goal. They aren't trying to bring it back to the numbers before white man.

[Quantoson]

RobG
Quant - the ancient Swan hydro dam is downstream of the lake. The river system upstream of the lake is pretty much intact, which is a rarity. The Swan upstream of the lake is the system that the bull trout use - they don't migrate downstream to spawn so the hydro dam isn't a factor (plus that dam must be close to 100 years old).

My point is that the lower part of the river also had(assumption) Bulls run up the Swan from Flathead Lake.  They migrate down from the Swan tributary's then back up to spawn.

14 comments were submitted! 11 in favor of gillnetting. There have been more people chiming in here than commented during the official period...

But PerchAssault is right, there must have been a comments period that we all missed to hear about unfortunately, not that we all would have been in agreement among ourselves but we could have had an opinion impact then.  Wish I would have know.  I am sure they discussed the importance of the project which I still fail to miss. 
I am also with PerchAssault on the limit restrictions on Lakers.  I know I would not meet or break that daily limit because I am not that good a fisherman nor do I very often target Macs specifically.  Those that do will not have the trophy opportunity which has a domino effect impact on the economy.  When you remove an angling opportunity such as Macs/Lakers, there is a vacuum created which will be filled in with restrictions on catch on the remaining species.  It's only logical.  Then we will target/eradicate the next non-native species.

I'm still don't understand the dangers of the Brook Trout and why they wanted to eliminate that pretty little fish.  Eliminate one species at a time and eventually your angling opportunity is over.  Just what the naturalist ordered.  Oh I just read about Save the White Pine Group to feed the Grizzles.  To save it properly we may all lose access to high elevations for hiking, fishing, hunting, etc.

[mtjim66]

OK, since I started this discussion, I would like to add a couple things.

First, this is an excellent discussion and one that would have been great to have with FWP when they were starting the netting program. 

Secondly, I have to say, no matter what the bye catch reports say, fishing in Swan has significantly declined since the netting started.  I have fished that lake for over 20 years and the best it ever was was right before the netting started and now it is as bad as I can remember.  Even though the pike aren’t reported in the FWP reports as taking a hit, they are just plain hard to find now.  And it’s not like I fell on my head and forgot how to fish the lake recently.

And most importantly, my biggest problem is that FWP will freely admit that after the netting is completed, the lakers will likely come back.  Let me say that I am certainly no biologist.  However I am an engineer which is as much a personality flaw as it is a profession.  And since I am an older engineer, I really have issues with folks who continue to do something over and over again but expect different results.  The fact is that there has never been a gill netting program anywhere on the planet that has been able to eradicate an invasive species in a fisheries system like Swan.  Lots of groups have tried and tried and the result is the same.  One biologist I talked to from FWP (not Leo) told me that they didn't expect the lakers to be completely removed from the system and the only way to really do it would be to poison the lake and a good portion of the upstream river, then reintroduce the bull trout and other native species. Obviously this isn't going to happen.

I really like the idea presented earlier of a bounty on lakers.  To me that makes the most sense for a relatively small lake like Swan.  However, right now, I think they need to consider suspending the gill netting until they fully understand why the fishing for all the other species in Swan is being affected so dramatically.

[RobG]

OK, since I started this discussion, I would like to add a couple things.

First, this is an excellent discussion and one that would have been great to have with FWP when they were starting the netting program. 

While I wasn't a part of it, I'm sure the discussion was had given the people that I know on both sides that have been involved.

Secondly, I have to say, no matter what the bye catch reports say, fishing in Swan has significantly declined since the netting started.  I have fished that lake for over 20 years and the best it ever was was right before the netting started and now it is as bad as I can remember.  Even though the pike aren’t reported in the FWP reports as taking a hit, they are just plain hard to find now.  And it’s not like I fell on my head and forgot how to fish the lake recently.

And most importantly, my biggest problem is that FWP will freely admit that after the netting is completed, the lakers will likely come back.  Let me say that I am certainly no biologist.  However I am an engineer which is as much a personality flaw as it is a profession.  And since I am an older engineer, I really have issues with folks who continue to do something over and over again but expect different results.  The fact is that there has never been a gill netting program anywhere on the planet that has been able to eradicate an invasive species in a fisheries system like Swan.  Lots of groups have tried and tried and the result is the same.  One biologist I talked to from FWP (not Leo) told me that they didn't expect the lakers to be completely removed from the system and the only way to really do it would be to poison the lake and a good portion of the upstream river, then reintroduce the bull trout and other native species. Obviously this isn't going to happen.

I'm not sure why the pike fishing is down, perhaps they were feasting on the lakers?

I'm sure Leo would readily admit that the lakers will come back when the netting stops (as will the pike if netting is what is reducing fishing quality btw). Everyone involved understands the netting and other methods will be a long term commitment although there is research into other methods like electrifying the spawning beds to kill the eggs so it might be more cost effective. This is where I have trouble - does it make sense to keep grandma (i.e. Swan Lake) on life support? or should we just pull the plug? With the upper Swan in such good shape it would be a shame to lose this one so I think we should really make sure we can't save it before giving up. A few more years isn't going to hurt and they'll find ways to reduce bycatch of pike.

I really like the idea presented earlier of a bounty on lakers.  To me that makes the most sense for a relatively small lake like Swan.  However, right now, I think they need to consider suspending the gill netting until they fully understand why the fishing for all the other species in Swan is being affected so dramatically.

I bet you'd wind up having bucketfuls of lakers that came from Flathead. You'd have to look at the cost of the bounty system vs just paying the netters too.

Sent you a PM too...

[PerchAssault]

This is as much the USFWS driving this as it is FWP...even more so as the Bulls are federally listed.

Don't look for the netting to stop in Swan anytime soon, look at Yellowstone lake...18 years and running, and they have not reduced lakers nor increased cutties...but that doesn't seem to matter. Foot in the door...

On the OTHER hand, a laker netting project in Pend 'Orielle has been semi successful in reducing lake trout, with increasing kokanee and kamloops a result, but the bull trout numbers don't seem to be showing much of a change.  So maybe it's NOT too late to have a positive impact on Swan...FWIW

A Great resource to keep up on fisheries projects and their results is here...  http://www.cbbulletin.com/ you can subscribe and get the weekly update.

Mike

[GOOSE_EGG]

Could it also be that bulls are just a weak fish and they can cross breed or "hybrid" with brook trout ?

[RobG]

Could it also be that bulls are just a weak fish and they can cross breed or "hybrid" with brook trout ?

I forgot this was brought up... yes, the book trout hybridize with the bulls so they are considered a threat.