Trout Unlimited Unveils Position On Warming

[Phil Lilley]

Trout Unlimited unveils position on warming Sunday, December 09, 2007 By Deborah Weisberg Trout Unlimited's focus is on cold water, but this week the group released its first position statement on global warming.

Using its own studies and new data from the U.S. Forest Service, the Washington, D.C., based cold water fisheries lobbying group predicts climate change will cause the widespread loss of trout and salmon -- as much as 90 percent in Appalachia and other regions -- over the next 50 years unless the public and private sectors partner to protect habitat now.

"Even a 4 1/2-degree increase in the mean July air temperature can have a dramatic impact on trout fisheries," said TU fisheries scientist Nathaniel Gillespie, who warned of an expanding list of endangered trout species and a huge decline in more common varieties. "Climate change will add additional stress to areas already heavily impacted by humans in terms of landscape and water quality."

The challenge is to help fisheries build resilience now, Gillespie said, through riparian tree planting, erosion and sedimentation control, dam removal and the restoration of flood plains. "We need to protect areas where fish are still in good shape," he said. "We have to look at whole watersheds, get rid of barriers and reconnect streams so fish have cooler water to move to, provide shade, keep livestock out of sensitive areas ... these kinds of things."

TU's public stance on global warming coincides with the introduction of the Climate Security Act, Senate Bill 2191, which would enable Congress to provide $175 billion over 30 years for projects aimed at helping fisheries cope with reduced snowpack, earlier spring runoff and other effects of rising mercury.

Although the measure has yet to wend its way through the legislative process, Gillespie said it is bringing new awareness to one of the planet's most dire dilemmas, "one that will be a driving factor in everything we do from now on."

Tom Shetterley, resource management chairman of the Chestnut Ridge chapter of Trout Unlimited and a southwestern Pennsylvania representative to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, called TU's statement "long overdue," and said the bottom line is that "we have to pull the reins in on fossil fuels, which cause global warming."

He said state agencies, not volunteers, should be expected to take the lead in protecting streams, because they hold the purse strings and have the expertise. "A lot of physical things have to be done," he said, "and physical things cost money."

Ken Undercoffer, president of the Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited, which oversees the commonwealth's 53 TU chapters, hopes TU's call to action will expand conservation efforts.

"The chapters have always been involved in stream work," he said.

"This just gives them special impetus to do more of the same. It helps get the issue of global warming and the whole concept of protecting streams more into the public consciousness."

TU's position statement, "Healing Troubled Waters," is posted on the group's Web site at http://tu.org.

[Al Agnew]

There's obviously a lot less debate in the scientific community (though SOME debate) about global warming than in the general public. But assuming it's real and the scientists are basically right about the extent of it, what would it mean for the Ozarks?

Trout--Ozark springs are right around the temperature of the region averaged over years. So a 4 degree rise in air temps would eventually raise the temps of the springs 4 degrees as well (Florida springs are in the high 70s, for instance). Springs coming out at 60 degrees instead of 56 would NOT be good for trout in the spring branches, and probably not real good for the hatcheries, either. Probably the same thing would happen with the tailwaters, although I'm not familiar with how tailwater temps work. The smaller trout streams like Capps and Blue Springs Creek would really suffer with 4 more degrees in the summer, especially since they would warm up even quicker as you go downstream due to hotter summer temps. And that's not considering that the climate change might make drought more and more common and/or more severe.

Stream bass--drought would probably be the greates threat to bass and other warm water gamefish, although hot temps could become a problem on the less springfed streams. The Buffalo River already gets up in the very high 80s in the summer in some sections...if it gets over 90 degrees that could become a real problem for gamefish. And we don't even know how warmer temps would affect the food base. Low water, warm water, could mean a lot greater algae growth and aquatic plant growth, which is already worse now than it was 30 years ago on some streams.

Reservoirs--low water and little flow-through due to drought would be a big problem, with algae growth and probably lower levels of dissolved oxygen at depths the fish need in the summer. Who knows what other effects hotter water would have.

Learn to love carp!

[Project Healing Waters]

Yeah, but if all those trout streams turned warm, that would be more habitat for smallies!

I think climate change is very real. I think the extent to which it is man-made carbon emmissions related is highly debated in the scientific community. I also think climate change is NOT NEW. Think about it a second...

Pretty arrogant of us to think it's our fault or that we can stop it if it's not entirely our fault in the face of the scientific record.

We will do what ALL species do in the face of changing ecology: ADAPT or perish.

The only constant in the cosmos is CHANGE. Some people, regions, and ecosystems would undoubtedly BENEFIT from a long-term 4 degree increase in mean global air temperature. With all that said, we ALL know that fossil fuel consumption is bad and should be reduced as much as feasible on a constantly evolving basis.

[jdmidwest]

Spring water coming out of the ground from the depths will be the same temperature unless some geothermal activity under the surface warms the water. It is cooled from the ground and is at air temperature when it enters the ground in a sinkhole or some other crack in the earth. The 4 degree increase in temperature of the air in Missouri will result in the water being warmer closer to the spring than it is now and the trout habitat may change due to that.

Global warming is a scam, the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. If you want proof, visit the Mammoth Park at Imperial and look at the remains of the Ice Age animals that roamed here a few thousand years ago. Nobody cared that Global Warming was killing them and look at them now. What about the poor dinosaurs that were killed off by Global Cooling? We can only wait till a large volcano erupts or a meteor crashes and plunges us into the next Ice Age. But it did make a good story that made some nobody a Nobel Peace prize winner. Thank god he created the internet too so I can ramble on this website.

As far as pollution goes, we should all do our part to protect this beautiful land we have the chance to enjoy for the few shorts years we are around on it.

[Project Healing Waters]

Spring water coming out of the ground from the depths will be the same temperature unless some geothermal activity under the surface warms the water. It is cooled from the ground and is at air temperature when it enters the ground in a sinkhole or some other crack in the earth. The 4 degree increase in temperature of the air in Missouri will result in the water being warmer closer to the spring than it is now and the trout habitat may change due to that.

Global warming is a scam, the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. If you want proof, visit the Mammoth Park at Imperial and look at the remains of the Ice Age animals that roamed here a few thousand years ago. Nobody cared that Global Warming was killing them and look at them now. What about the poor dinosaurs that were killed off by Global Cooling? We can only wait till a large volcano erupts or a meteor crashes and plunges us into the next Ice Age. But it did make a good story that made some nobody a Nobel Peace prize winner. Thank god he created the internet too so I can ramble on this website.

As far as pollution goes, we should all do our part to protect this beautiful land we have the chance to enjoy for the few shorts years we are around on it.

This is my take on the reality behind the hysteria:

1. We're running out of oil sooner than later.

2. What's left has already unhinged the geopolitical balance in a nuclear armed world because of its concentrations/ownership vs. consumption. (US and Europe loses, Russia and OPEC win)

3. If we don't get off of the stuff, we will be enslaved to those who sit on the deposits...within 2 decades or so.

4. Americans refuse to believe that people are that power-hungry, mean, etc. We think if we're "nice," they'll be "nice."

5. So the "scientific community" is being manipulated to whip the public into a frenzy about saving the planet using "global warming."

In a way, it's all true. If the Muslims or the Russians get ANY more powerful than they already are, the world will be a horrible place. And the only two ways to prevent that are: TAKE the oil from them by force (not gonna happen) or end our total addiction to the stuff. And the case can be made as well as most that the global climate is warming (in part) due to carbon emissions.

As for Missouri's fish...again I say the fish and fishermen will adapt. MDC will adapt. Less trout and more warm water species. Think about THAT for a second...

In the 1950s, the USACE destroyed thousands of miles of the best smallmouth bass fishing free-flowing rivers in the WORLD. The tailwater trout fisheries were man-made to mitigate the loss created by the dams. Thus, most of the hatchery work of MDC and the USFWS was born. Would it really be so bad to restore a bunch of that prime smallmouth water? Hmmmm.....

And 4 degrees would eliminate most of these darned ice storms.

[Dave Cook]

A lot of words and a bit hard to digest. A hot July does not mean a hot annual (12 month) temperature increase. Spring temperatures tend to reflect the annual average temperature. If you want to see what a hot July can do to a spring feed stream, we've had several hot & dry summers here in Missouri over the last 10 - 15 years. Plenty of data and stories to sample from.

I get the impression that TU wants us to jump on some global warming bandwagon. I don't know enough about TU to know if that is the case but if it is, they can start their parade without me. One should be able to make a case for good conservation practices without waving their gloabl warming flag.

[zander]

As a conservation group, though, they would not be in line with their mission if they didn't look at variables which would have an effect on trout populations. Good conservation practices are of course very important but are not the total answer if abiotic factors are influencing the populations. By considering those variables BETTER (or more effective) conservation policies can be developed.

[Chief Grey Bear]

But it did make a good story that made some nobody a Nobel Peace prize winner. Thank god he created the internet too so I can ramble on this website.

As far as pollution goes, we should all do our part to protect this beautiful land we have the chance to enjoy for the few shorts years we are around on it.

[Brian Sloss]

I for one am glad that TU is acknowledging the potential impact of Global warming, it would be irresponsible for them not to, as the vast majority of scientists think it is important and only a handful think otherwise. A hatred for Al Gore should not shape an opinion on this matter and that is what I am hearing most.

[Project Healing Waters]

I for one am glad that TU is acknowledging the potential impact of Global warming, it would be irresponsible for them not to, as the vast majority of scientists think it is important and only a handful think otherwise. A hatred for Al Gore should not shape an opinion on this matter and that is what I am hearing most.

Yeah, the key to me is WHO those "handful" are. They happen to be well over HALF of the world's leading CLIMATOLOGISTS. These are the guys who have doctorates in the field of actually studying and predicting long-term global weather patterns. They are the guys who HEAD most of the top academic and government climatology programs and weather agencies. And they aren't convinced that there is an ecological "problem." And they are convinced that there is a LOT of bogus junk science hype floating around.