My Facebook pages

Robert Montgomery

Why We Fish

Fish, Frogs, and Fireflies

Pippa's Canine Corner 

 

 

Loading..
Loading..
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Loading..
Loading..
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Loading..
Loading..
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Loading..
Loading..
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.

 

 

 

 

Entries in climate change (25)

Friday
Mar242017

Fisheries Are Changing Along With Climate

As climate warms, snook have joined bass in Florida's Crystal River.Out on the water, biologists observe the effects of climate change on fisheries. At conferences, they talk about its implications.  For example, at an annual meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society, concerns about its effects were discussed in at least seven presentations, several of them involving bass.

One abstract summarized this way: “Climate change is thought to be a leading driver in the erosion of biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability at all scales.”

Yet, some anglers deny the reality of climate change, and I speak from personal experience in saying that. I’ve met them.

So have the biologists. “When I explain what is happening (to fishermen), I have to tip toe all around the reasons for change,” says one.

Why is that?

Certainly a number of them do not believe.  But for most, I think that refusal to accept reality has more to do with blind rejection of what they view as the “party line” for environmentalists. And I can relate to that argument.

Much of the “green” agenda  is anti-fishing, as typified by attempts to ban lead fishing tackle, and campaigns to create “protected areas,” where recreational fishing would not be allowed. Let’s not forget, either, an adjunct of that, the animal rights movement, which now wants to use drones to stalk and harass hunters and fishermen.

But what anglers with tunnel vision fail to see is that enviros are beating the drum to end “manmade” climate change. Questioning the validity of that argument is where fishermen should make their case, not denying that the climate changes and, in so doing, affects fisheries.

Of course climate changes. It’s a dynamic force.

More than a century ago, Mark Twain reputedly said, “If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes.” The reality, though, is that’s the case, no matter where you live. As fronts move in and out, weather changes --- by the minute, by the hour, by the day. And just as it evolves over these short periods, it changes during longer stretches of time as well --- by the year, by the decade, by the century.

“When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather,” says the National Atmospheric and Space Administration.

Anglers who deny this fact of life damage our reputation as conservationists, and alienate some of our closest allies, the biologists. Instead of being supporters of enlightened management to sustain fisheries, they become barriers.

Most importantly, in rejecting climate change, they are disputing the idea that changes occur naturally in fisheries, changes for which there are no “solutions.”    

Still not convinced? Just look to the north and south, the front lines for fisheries altered by climate change.

In Florida, milder winters have allowed snook to move up the Gulf Coast. Eight years ago, the saltwater predator was an infrequent visitor to Crystal River. Now it seems to be a firmly established resident --- and a competitor with bass for forage and habitat. Long-time angler Matt Beck says that it’s not uncommon to catch more snook than bass when fishing for the latter. “Today, snook in the 20- to 35-pound range are caught on a regular basis,” he adds.

Florida biologist Allen Martin says the state has no data on the river’s bass population, but he doesn’t doubt Beck’s observation.

“With mild winters, snook have moved as far north as the Suwannee, about 100 miles to the north,” says the biologist, adding that degraded habitat and increased salinity because of lower flows of springs likely have contributed to changes as well.

“Peacock bass, armored catfish, and tilapia moved farther northern too,” he adds. “A couple of cold winters knocked them back, but they probably will start moving north again.”

Meanwhile, water temperatures have been warming for 47 years on New York’s Oneida Lake, a benefit for bass.

“It’s been particularly pronounced since the 1980s, when smallmouth bass really started to take off,” says Randy Jackson, a biologist with the Cornell Biological Field Station on the lake. “At Lake Erie, there’s a strong correlation too.”

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that largemouth bass, bowfin, longnose gar, and gizzard shad also are profiting from warmer weather, he adds. Concurrently, the cold-water burbot, on the southern end of its range, is declining.

“This is all consistent with what people are predicting,” he says. “No one can argue than we have warmer lakes than we did 40 years ago.”

I wish that were true, especially among anglers.

Wednesday
Nov022016

Walleye Will Decline as Bass Expand With Climate Change 

Warming winters and waters will encourage largemouth bass to expand their range in northern states, while walleye populations will diminish and retreat, according the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers and fisheries scientists in the Upper Midwest.

In a recent study about the effects of climate change, USGS revealed that walleye numbers have been declining and bass numbers increasing in Wisconsin during the past 30 years. It added, "This downward trend in walleye populations is likely to continue as climate change will cause lakes to get warmer over time. Researchers identified characteristics of lakes where walleye or largemouth bass were most likely to thrive and found that both species were strongly influenced by water temperature.

"While walleye populations thrived in cooler, larger lakes, largemouth bass were more abundant in warmer lakes."

In other words, what's best for bass is not best for walleye, added Gretchen Hansen, an author of the study and research scientists for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources."Going forward, we predict that many Wisconsin lakes are going to become more suitable for largemouth bass, and less suitable for walleye."

The trend will be most notable, she added, in smaller inland lakes.

Larger fisheries are not immune, however, with Minnesota's Mille Lacs a notable example. Biologists believe that warming water is a primary reason for walleye decline in this 132,516-acre lake.

But it's not just that the walleye don't thrive in warmer water. Neither do forage, such as cisco, which they rely on to stay fat and healthy. Also known as tullibee, these baitfish seek refuge in the coldest parts of lakes during summer.

"I liken them to sticks of butter swimming around, a pretty fatty fish with high energetic content," said Paul Venturelli, an assistant professor in fisheries at the University of Minnesota.

In looking at 2,100 lakes in Wisconsin, USGS scientists considered not just water temperatures from 1979 to2014, but acreage, depth, water clarity, and historical weather. "Wisconsin's lakes are going to get warmer in the future, but how much warmer they will get varies among lakes," said Luke Winslow, a research hydrologist.

Scientists estimated that the percentage of lakes with conditions conductive to high largemouth bass abundance will increase  from 60 to 89 percent by mid century. In contrast, the percentage of lakes likely to support natural reproduction of walleye is predicted to decline from 10 to less than 4 percent.

On a positive note for walleye, the percentage of lake acreage likely to support natural reproduction should decline by a much smaller amount, from 46 to 36 percent. "Walleye populations in large lakes appear to be more tolerant of warming than walleye populations in small lakes," said Hansen, who added increasing stocking rates could help mitigate the decline.

Wednesday
Oct262016

Another Reason to Dislike Ethanol

A University of Michigan researcher reports that he's found yet another reason to dislike ethanol.

Despite their supposed advantages, biofuels created from corn and soybeans cause more emissions of climate change-causing carbon dioxide than gasoline, according to John DeCicco, research professor at the university's Energy Institute.

"When it comes to emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline," he explained.

The federal government's push for biofuels has been based on the assumption that they are inherently carbon-neutral. That means the amount of carbon released as emissions from an engine burning ethanol supposedly is offset by the amount of carbon the corn removed from the atmosphere as it grew.

Using U.S. Department of Agriculture cropland production data, DeCicco created a "harvest carbon" factor. During the past decade, as consumption of ethanol and biodiesel more than tripled,  he discovered, the increased carbon uptake by crops offset just 37 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.

Anglers and other boat owners already dislike ethanol because of the damage it has done to their engines. In addition, critics point out that it's less efficient than gasoline, and it has increased runoff pollution of our waters as farmers plow buffers to plant more corn.

Monday
Oct172016

Smallmouth Expansion With Climate Change Not All Positive

At a glance,  what's there not to like about milder winters and warmer waters for northern waters?

"Smallmouth bass, a popular recreational species, are expanding their range northward with climate change," said the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in reporting on findings that it compiled from reviewing 31 studies across the U.S. and Canada that document fish responses to climate change.

But, it cautioned, "one of the takeaway messages is that climate change effects on fish are rarely straightforward, and they affect warmwater and coldwater fish differently."

For example, an expanding smallmouth population  will result in new species interactions and altered predator-prey dynamics. That will  complicate life even more for coldwater fish species already stressed by milder conditions. Thus, managers will be tasked with both accommodating the desires of anglers who want to catch bass and  maintaining native species.

That means managing not only the fish but "the expectations of the stakeholders for fisheries changing with climate change," said USGS.

Fish most at risk are those living in arid environments and coldwater species, including walleye and trout, as well as prey species that these larger fish depend on for food. "Climate change can cause suboptimal habitat for some fish," the agency said. "Warmer water, for example, can stress coldwater fish. When stressed, fish tend to eat less and grow less."

Other climate change consequences:

  • Increased frequency and severity of droughts, especially in arid areas, will exacerbate the impacts of regulations on water flow and use for fish and aquatic systems, as well as people.
  • Altered migration times for some coldwater species will allow species that never spawned together before to hybridize. Native westslope cutthroat trout in the Rocky Mountains already are hybridizing with rainbow trout, a non-native species.
  • Abundance and growth of some coldwater species will be reduced. Changes in range, abundance, migration, growth, and reproduction already are occurring for sockeye salmon.

“Even though climate change can seem overwhelming, fisheries managers have the tools to develop adaptation strategies to conserve and maintain fish populations,” said Craig Paukert, a lead author and fisheries scientist at the USGS Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Missouri.

“Thanks to this synthesis, we can see the effects of climate change on inland fish are no longer just future speculation, but today’s facts, with real economic, social, and ecological impacts,” added Doug Austen, Executive Director of the American Fisheries Society.

 “Now that trends are being revealed, we can start to tease apart the various stressors on inland fish and invest in conservation and research where these programs will really make a difference in both the short and long term.”

Sunday
Oct182015

Banning Fishing Won't Save Coral in Biscayne National Park

Too many in this country, especially anglers, fail to recognize that the anti-fishing movement is strong and going stronger, not only in private organizations such as PETA, but in federal government. Right now, anti-fishing elements in both groups are strategizing together about how to establish National Marine Monuments that would prohibit recreational fishing off the New England coast

The National Park Service (NPS)  already has closed portions of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, and now it's going after a recreational fishing ban on part of Florida's Biscayne National Park, under the pretense of protecting coral.

 But because its decisions affect just one part of the country at a time, outrage regarding its actions usually is limited to those personally affected by the loss of access and the fishing industry in general, which tries its best to awaken anglers to this threat.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen exposed how anti-fishing proponents have corrupted NPS management in her recent critique of its proposal.

"Putting a no-fishing zone at the forefront of Biscayne’s coral-protection strategy would seem to suggest that NPS believes fishing is the primary threat to our reefs," she said.

"But scientists have determined that poor water quality and periodic extreme water temperatures are responsible for most coral losses in Biscayne over the last two decades. Furthermore, overfishing is just one of five major threats to Biscayne’s coral reefs that NPS has identified, including reduced freshwater flows into Biscayne Bay, invasive species, water quality/pollution and climate change.

"Knowing this, how can NPS propose that eliminating fishing in 7 percent of park waters will vastly improve the state of park reefs?"

She also correctly contrasts that political move to impose an preservationist ideology with how NPS managers at Everglades National Park properly developed a management.

" Everglades’ GMP (general management plan) has gone through the same tortured process that Biscayne’s has, yet when the final plan was recently released, it was rightly praised by fishermen and environmental groups alike because it was grounded in a consensus-based plan that balanced ecological protection and public access. The plan vastly expands pole/troll zones across Florida Bay to protect vital seagrass beds from boat motors while allowing folks to enjoy fishing and boating in their public waters via dozens of new, marked access routes."

That plan, she correctly pointed out, supports both fish habitat and fishing.

"In Biscayne, the plan lays out a false choice between fish habitat or fishing," she said. "It’s not too late for the Park Service to develop a GMP for Biscayne that can actually deliver the conservation benefits it’s designed to provide, and do so with the support of all stakeholders in our community — the type of GMP that neighboring Everglades National Park recently proposed."