New Regulations Proposals

[Danoinark]

From today's Baxter Bulletin Newspaper

AGFC eyes preliminary trout plan, seeks input

JOANNE BRATTON

Bulletin Staff Writer

Proposed angling regulations were released Friday that could increase the minimum length limit of rainbow and brown trout caught in Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission released three different options for each tailwaters to increase the size of trophy fish.

AGFC officials now are asking for public input on the proposed rules for each tailwater so they can draft a management plan based on the feedback they receive. At the trout summit, most people recommended better water quality, larger and healthier fish, bigger rainbow trout and cooperation between different government agencies.

"We want to know what folks are thinking about which option they would prefer and why they like one versus another," said Jeff Williams, AGFC trout biologist supervisor.

Three options

The first option for both tailwaters is to wait until a University of Arkansas study about the rate of trout growth and population density is completed. The study should be finished by September 2008, Williams said. He said preliminary study results indicate rainbow trout are growing poorly in both tailwaters. In the Norfork tailwater area, 16-inch rainbow trout grow about 1.9 inches a year, compared to small, brown trout which grow between 6-7 inches per year, Williams said.

"It will focus the harvest on smaller fish and thin their numbers out and reduce density to improve their growth rates," Williams said.

Bull Shoals tailwater

A second option for the Bull Shoals tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch protected slot limit on rainbow trout from the bottom end of Armstrong Hole downstream of Cotter to the mouth of Crooked Creek. A slot limit would allow people to keep rainbow trout smaller than 14 inches or larger than 20 inches.

A third option would be to have the slot limit for rainbow trout in place from the Bull Shoals catch-and-release area to the mouth of Crooked Creek, about 26 miles.

Both the second and third options on the Bull Shoals tailwater propose increasing the minimum length limit of brown trout from 16 inches to 24 inches and from two fish to one fish per day.

Norfork tailwater

A second option for the Norfork tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch slot limit for rainbow trout from the bottom of Long Hole to the bottom of the last island above the confluence with the White River.

A third option for the Norfork tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch slot limit for rainbow trout from 100 yards below Norfork Dam to the bottom of the last island above the confluence with the White River.

Both second and third options include increasing the minimum length of brown trout to 24 inches.

Local fishing guide John Berry of Cotter, who was on the AGFC advisory committee for the regulations, said he would be in favor of the most restrictive option on the Norfork tailwater so more trophy trout would be available.

"The problem is the trophy areas are too small," he said, adding that people who come to Arkansas to fish do not want to catch small trout.

Williams said people can pick and choose what they like about each option and do not have to take each proposed rule as "all or nothing."

"Every effort was made to keep the regulations as simple as possible," Williams said. "We manage four different trout species that perform differently and survive differently. A single regulation that would do any good is very difficult."

jobratton@baxterbulletin.com

[brownieman]

From today's Baxter Bulletin Newspaper

AGFC eyes preliminary trout plan, seeks input

JOANNE BRATTON

Bulletin Staff Writer

In the Norfork tailwater area, 16-inch rainbow trout grow about 1.9 inches a year, compared to small, brown trout which grow between 6-7 inches per year, Williams said.

jobratton@baxterbulletin.com

Dano,

Reading this I have to question the above statement. I know in warmwater species the model being LMB in the first months from fry stage a lmb can reach 10 to 12 inches in the first summer given a good food supply. The first few days after birth a lmb doubles in size daily...a 3 day old fish can eat a 2 day old fish and so on. Come fall and winter with cooling water temps their growth rate slows tremendously till the following spring and then they will take off again but not achieve near the growth rate as the first year.

This does not apply to coldwater hatcheries due to the constant water temps year round. Their metabolism does not slow to the degree as warmwater species.

Both small bows and browns grow at a much faster rate when they are small. IMO I have to question what they are saying there. Small trout do grow at that rate but but from my experience a 15 inch bow or brown does not grow at near that rate...the larger fishes growth rate slows considerably.

When they state "compared to small, brown trout which grow between 6-7 inches per year" IMO that statement should just state small trout, not just brown trout. I don't understand their reasoning on that statement.

JMO...hope nobody jumps on me for it.

bm

[Danoinark]

Brownie, you got me there. I hope some of the scientists on OAF might clear this up for us.

Dano

[Gavin]

I think the slow growth rate on the rainbows is due to the fact that they stock em at 10" and that most get harvested before they have a chance to grow.

Fishing on the White & Norfork has really declined in the past twenty years. Glad they are finally condsidering some alternatives. Thanks for posting the update.

[Crippled Caddis]

<Small trout do grow at that rate but but from my experience a 15 inch bow or brown does not grow at near that rate...the larger fishes growth rate slows considerably.>

You have a good point! I highly suspect that the writer, being a journalist rather than a biologist, mixed apples and oranges from the biologist's statement. As you pointed out fingerlings grow at an absolutely astonishing rate once past the egg-yolk dependent stage and up to their first anniversary. This is far more prevelent in warmwater species like Bass than in trout but the principle does still apply.

I suspect that the statement was a thinly veiled acknowledgement that the Norfork tailwaters are so impaired at this point that growth rates of hatchery bred Rainbows are not possible as they were historically. The smaller Brown trout, stocked as 6-7" fish, still possess the ability to more efficiently convert food intake to growth than do the larger 'Bows. The other factor is the impaired water quality of the Norfork tailwaters which are no longer able to provide the nutrients historically available.

I have addressed these issues as well as a plethora of others related to new specie specific regulation proposals for the White river system tailwaters in a reply to various agencies, officials and individuals that awaits vetting by a (semi) impartial editor. (Dano---;o)) You are among the addressees. If I can remember it long enough I will post it in it's entirety on this thread. CC

[Crippled Caddis]

<AGFC eyes preliminary trout plan, seeks input JOANNE BRATTON Bulletin Staff Writer>

<The first option for both tailwaters is to wait until a University of Arkansas study about the rate of trout growth and population density is completed. The study should be finished by September 2008, Williams said. He said preliminary study results indicate rainbow trout are growing poorly in both tailwaters. In the Norfork tailwater area, 16-inch rainbow trout grow about 1.9 inches a year, compared to small, brown trout which grow between 6-7 inches per year, Williams said.>

Awaiting definitive data is superfluous, verging on negligence, when we already know that the growth rate of Rainbows has plummeted abysmally from historic rates. Delaying the implementation of reasonable protective regulations will only exacerbate a situation that has already reached critical mass. Time enough to fine-tune protective measures when the last definitive data has been entered into the record, but if we neglect to take the sort of measures that we know are beneficial now then we may find in the future that managing a resource that is no longer viable is an exercise in futility.

It is axiomatic, in country Ozark parlance, to "dance with the one who brung you", but at this stage it is obvious to even the least astute that the one "who brung you", the Rainbow, has retired from the dance floor. To continue to dance requires switching partners with unseemly but necessary haste. It is recognized by all and sundry who are conversant to any extent with Salmonid population trends that Salmo Trutta occupies the peak of the survival pyramid alone and unchallenged. Long after that lovely char, the Brook Trout, has perished, surviving conditions that vanquish the Western ballet artist the Rainbow and leaving the art deco Cutt far in his wake the Brown Trout continues to thrive and prosper under aquatic survival conditions that place a heavy burden of adaptability on any specie that would continue to pass on it's genes to succeeding generations. So it would seem that the trout have made the decision concerning which specie will repay the greatest dividends in the management of the Norfork system.

<Bull Shoals tailwater A second option for the Bull Shoals tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch protected slot limit on rainbow trout from the bottom end of Armstrong Hole downstream of Cotter to the mouth of Crooked Creek. A slot limit would allow people to keep rainbow trout smaller than 14 inches or larger than 20 inches.

A third option would be to have the slot limit for rainbow trout in place from the Bull Shoals catch-and-release area to the mouth of Crooked Creek, about 26 miles.

Both the second and third options on the Bull Shoals tailwater propose increasing the minimum length limit of brown trout from 16 inches to 24 inches and from two fish to one fish per day.>

The 2nd option is far too modest to address the scope of the problems attenuating the fishery. It is little more than putting a porous patch on the hole in the dike. To effect a viable repair requires addressing the problem as a whole. One cannot in practicality separate a living stream into discrete sections, aquatic life neither reads nor cares and attempting to impose bureaucratic solutions on natural ecosystems is sophistry at best.

The 3rd option comes closer to the mark yet even so it is an attempt to divide the rivers ecosystem into human terms, an endeavor doomed by the very nature of living streams. Better, in the case of attempting to manage a cold-water fishery in an un-natural setting, to manage the entire portion of the stream that is viable for the existence of cold-water species as a whole rather than a series of parts. This truth is so obvious as to brook no reasonable argument.

Imposing a workable slot limit on the cold-water portion of the river as a whole has much to recommend it. In practical terms it simplifies regulations and enforcement of them both in terms of the public's ability to grasp and retain the specifics of the regulation and the duties of the agencies charged with enforcement.

In order to place greater emphasis on the value of a trophy fish as well as reduce impact at the top levels of the specie specific ladder I would further propose a tag system much as used in the harvest of the Whitetail deer of two (2) Rainbow or Brown Trout over 24" annually.

Such slot limit regulations complimented by a trophy tag system will be readily understandable by the public reducing harvest irregularities while simultaneously instilling a greater respect for the value of the resource in general and management for trophies specifically. In so doing it compliments and extends both public recognition of the value of the resource and the worth of it for the local economy.

As an aside please allow me to point out that it is recognized by the studious shareholder that slot-limit regulations impose little or no impairment of sport for the 'average' tourist angler who does so much for our economy. Nor does it threaten in any degree the 'put & take' hatchery bureaucracy that is such an integral part of AGFC management practices. Indeed it puts a premium on stocking of fish outside of the slot-limit for those who want to indulge in keeping and consuming their catch, whether indigent shareholders or tourist anglers. As such I can but see it as a 'win/win' situation for all.

< Norfork tailwater A second option for the Norfork tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch slot limit for rainbow trout from the bottom of Long Hole to the bottom of the last island above the confluence with the White River.

A third option for the Norfork tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch slot limit for rainbow trout from 100 yards below Norfork Dam to the bottom of the last island above the confluence with the White River.

Both second and third options include increasing the minimum length of brown trout to 24 inches.>

Comments relative to the White River in the paragraphs above apply to the Norfork as well, but in spades. It is common public knowledge that the short -5 mile course of the Norfork is more critically impaired than is the main stem of the White River proper. With that in mind I think there would be far greater shareholder support for more restrictive regulatory care for the Norfork than might be the case with the White. Indeed the necessity for more extreme measures in order to protect and enhance the historical trophy nature of the Norfork fishery demands greater care, protection and enforcement. The ever increasing fragility of the aquatic environment of the Norfork begs that it be the featured plaintiff in legal efforts to enforce all state and federally mandated water quality standards. AGFC as well as ADEQ have moral obligations to the shareholders and the people of the State of Arkansas in toto as well as the in-house legal representation needed to pursue enforcement of all applicable water quality standards. At this point it is obvious that what is lacking is the will to do so.

Insofar as special regulations geared to the specific needs of the fishery I do not presume to advise the biologists charged with husbanding the resource. They, better than anyone else, know the critical measures needed to enhance the ecosystem and the fishery. As a shareholder and caring user of the resource I ask only that they do what is best for the ecosystem, fishery and the local economy.

[brownieman]

<AGFC eyes preliminary trout plan, seeks input JOANNE BRATTON Bulletin Staff Writer>

>Awaiting definitive data is superfluous, verging on negligence, when we already know that the growth rate of Rainbows has plummeted abysmally from historic rates. Delaying the implementation of reasonable protective regulations will only exacerbate a situation that has already reached critical mass. Time enough to fine-tune protective measures when the last definitive data has been entered into the record, but if we neglect to take the sort of measures that we know are beneficial now then we may find in the future that managing a resource that is no longer viable is an exercise in futility.<

CC,

Excellent insight and reasoning...having written numerous suggestions on environmentally related issues my hope is for it not to fall on deaf ears which in most cases I suspect. The assurance of the people whom use the resource having valuable opinions and suggestions I fear is little more than a facade, "Your comments are appreciated and will be given consideration"...this being the only aknowledgement I have ever received.

It is apparant the decline of these fisheries yet little attention is given in a timely manner...if attention is given due to the tendancy of mans attempts to control and interveen most 'simple matters' are over studied to the point of ignorance. Agencies create special task forces to study and evaluate situations which ultimately weigh heavy in the decision making process.

The predominant mind set I have seen conserning endangered species is 'If it's endangered, we will study and analyze it till it becomes extinct'. So many interests must be appeased before a genuine attempt to enhance or save any given specie is often an exercise in futility...too little to late...the lack of action often resulting in the demise of the specie.

<Bull Shoals tailwater A second option for the Bull Shoals tailwater includes implementing a 14-20 inch protected slot limit on rainbow trout from the bottom end of Armstrong Hole downstream of Cotter to the mouth of Crooked Creek. A slot limit would allow people to keep rainbow trout smaller than 14 inches or larger than 20 inches.

A third option would be to have the slot limit for rainbow trout in place from the Bull Shoals catch-and-release area to the mouth of Crooked Creek, about 26 miles.

Both the second and third options on the Bull Shoals tailwater propose increasing the minimum length limit of brown trout from 16 inches to 24 inches and from two fish to one fish per day.>

>The 2nd option is far too modest to address the scope of the problems attenuating the fishery. It is little more than putting a porous patch on the hole in the dike. To effect a viable repair requires addressing the problem as a whole. One cannot in practicality separate a living stream into discrete sections, aquatic life neither reads nor cares and attempting to impose bureaucratic solutions on natural ecosystems is sophistry at best.

The 3rd option comes closer to the mark yet even so it is an attempt to divide the rivers ecosystem into human terms, an endeavor doomed by the very nature of living streams. Better, in the case of attempting to manage a cold-water fishery in an un-natural setting, to manage the entire portion of the stream that is viable for the existence of cold-water species as a whole rather than a series of parts. This truth is so obvious as to brook no reasonable argument.<

Not being natural coldwater fisheries the North Fork and White are at our mercy evolving from impounding these waters hence without proper management and viable solutions they will indeed suffer. Attempts to regulate and find balance in man made fisheries...to emulate 'Mother Nature' often falls short of the mark. The White has a better chance of sustaining itself as opposed to the North Fork due to the overall size of the stream and unlike the White the water and eco system of the NF is souly dependent on an impoundment with little help from other natural stream influx which applies to the White. For this reason I feel the NF will be impacted above the White.

> Indeed it puts a premium on stocking of fish outside of the slot-limit for those who want to indulge in keeping and consuming their catch, whether indigent shareholders or tourist anglers. As such I can but see it as a 'win/win' situation for all.<

A 'win/win' situation would be the desired results...achieving this task is in itself is challenging to say the least presuming the situation has worsened in recent years. No doubt...unless promt action is taken to attain these results little will change this being the only given.

>Insofar as special regulations geared to the specific needs of the fishery I do not presume to advise the biologists charged with husbanding the resource. They, better than anyone else, know the critical measures needed to enhance the ecosystem and the fishery. As a shareholder and caring user of the resource I ask only that they do what is best for the ecosystem, fishery and the local economy.<

The 'Powers that be' will have the resposibility of caretaking the resource...we as users can only give input and viewpoints that may possibly improve or shed some different light towards the decision making process...it is a concern for all but the decision is left to a few...I would hope reasonable solutions are given consideration, if not...well, at least we know we have the satisfaction of trying.

morning ramblings once again, lol

bm