[DaveJensen]

Don, with full respect to the time you’ve spent on, in, and thinking of the creek, I say the following (and I am typing this from New Zealand with not a lot of time to proof this reply and re-read it to ensure that my thoughts are positive, clear, concise, and that I’m saying not only all that I hope to but not leading your mind the wrong direction... and that much of what I type you know and isn't at you rather, to add to the bigger picture)

I’ll get to this later in this post, but can you tell me what numbers are missing from the following data set?
236; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 85; ?; ?;? ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 300; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; 150; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?; ?
I do NOT want to argue the semantics because we are largely on the same page, but until you can prove that there is a problem, there is no problem, scientifically speaking. Gov types simply will not do anything lest there is a need displayed. I would strongly suggest that the data set above, or something very eerily similar, is the actual data set that the gov has for population and population dynamics through the years on Stauffer. AND, any bio worth any salt wouldn’t touch a guess on the true value of the missing numbers in the data set because so many factors, cycles, environmental conditions, etc could see the #s go either to 1000 or 2. The trouble with truly inconsistent data sampling in relation to natural processes is that unless you have consistency, you have NOTHING. I do not see things as dire as you do, but that’s ok. The point is that gov has ultimately done the statistical equivelant of NOTHING when it comes to population observation. That’s where we need to focus, regardless if you & I agree on the here and now. To take a snapshot sampling at random, irrelevant intervals is terrible and actually can be detrimental –> the 1000 trout/km survey could easily have come at a peak recruitment phase of the creek when the population was rebounding thanks to habitat restoration, thus giving false positives and false hope of what the creek actually can carry. Hence, for 27 years after such a # was achieved, statistically, the population has been going downhill. False positives are a horrible thing, made worse when the gov wants to ride the PR horse to show how good a job it’s doing when in fact the stream was simply responding to the band aids, rest, and ice given the chronic injuries it had suffered since homesteading came to central Alberta.

Next - and this is NOTHING personal, not at all about your knowledge or ability, but much of your data has holes so big that you can drive a Mac truck through it. I suspect that you know and can see this. The insect sampling size and anecdotal evidence of fish numbers declining for the ‘past 27 years’ means nothing scientifically (and I think to my own experience and tracking and say the same thing –> we’re anglers who care and our own circumstance can only hold so much water, clout, and pull in the larger picture of things). I know that you know this and addressed it in the desire to have professionals do what you are doing to a level that needs be done in order to determine what is going on, so hair on you for that. And yes, it sucks when we know there is something going on and we only have our own incomplete, lone fencepost on a grassy hill data set to reply upon.

I have to say the title of this thread –> IMHO is untrue and irrational in the bigger picture of things (I know what you mean and your intent to draw attention, so fair enough). Ecosystems are evolutionary, be it a forest or your front lawn, or a stream. Right now it appears that Stauffer has simply had a long, prolonged, repetitive hair cut. So much so that maybe we don’t know what she looks like with long hair anymore. All the facets and factors discussed here have impact, and cumulatively compounded over time take their toll. I relate it strongly to several estuarian river mouths here in NZ. The onslaught of dairy farm conversions here has seen an incredible toxic build up in the estuaries – to the point that the build up of toxic sludge is feet deep in many cases and nearly impossible to get rid of. You can clean up all you want upstream, but it will still take 1000 years for the force of water to wash out the 3 – 5 feet of sludge that has built up and is leeching out, either killing or mutating what life there is. Even at that, where does that sludge go once flushed but to another watershed (ocean). In the case of Stauffer, it is likely in the same predicament. The stream, however, is not dying. It may be enduring a responsive successionary stage that we don’t like because Alberta has become the sacrificial lamb to feed N American energy. Do we know if suckers and pike #s have changed at all? I digress because we know the answer is “I don’t know” from everyone because of the spaggetti to the wall mgt we’ve had in Ab for so long. But, we do need to accept that Alberta, as an engine to N America, is going to suffer environmentally. It is real and all we can do in our generation is attempt to keep a few pieces together until the oil/natural resource lusting ceases.

We need to stop thinking in terms of 20” trout. I’ve caught many 20+” trout in Stauffer through the years and some 24” trout from Stauffer in recent years would be outweighed by an 18” Ram cutthroat. Some streams in central Ab have simply seen their quality of fish dwindle since the flood. We need to start looking at the health of our fish like the QSF program looks at its fish –> snakey Fiesta fish vs MB Parkland trout. How do/can we get there with what we have? Better, given the insults, heavy use, etc, etc –> can we get healthy again? I was shocked at the Red Deer R last spring –> the males all had big heads and skinny tails; the females nothing more than snakey tubes. I’ve caught some skinny 25” browns on Stauffer the past few years that simply would have been more fiesty if they’d been willow branches. Where is the biomass going? Have we reached carrying capacity? Has carrying capacity gone downhill or have other species taken over? We’re asking the same questions, albeit it slightly differently.

Fisheries Mgt in Alberta has been a ‘thrown it against the wall until something sticks’ program since its inception. This is nothing to do with the people in the system as the system itself. There is no consistent stream specific biology occurring, even on the province’s showpiece (Bow). If that isn’t being managed with true biology thanks to budgets (and while the fishing is good the biology is truly suspect with spot/snapshot data sampling and little public involvement, etc), how do we go from there to stream specific biology? We’re still in the Wild West, but I strongly suspect we’re coming to the end of that era. You might not see it, I might/not, but the day is coming where river specific plans with true biology, enforcement, etc are to be done to ensure long term viability of our waters. This is where the merit of European waters management is positive. It will still be a long struggle, however, as the reckless ‘I’ll use whatever I want whenever I want’ attitude prevails along our eastern slopes. The slope to the bottom and the pinching of good trout waters is noticeable. The new wave will likely initially follow the template StreamWatch had –> private anglers and lobby groups coming together to do the gov’s job. Eventually such an entity will brow-beat the gov into either doing its job with proper funding or that entity will become an arm of gov that manages things. The time is likely right for a pilot project whereby private individuals, orgs, groups, etc come together on a (relatively) controlled environment such as Stauffer. Funds to be raised privately and works contracted out; in stream works co-ordinated by a central entity. And consistent, true biology carried out. Most importantly, if I can inject, that if you had an unlimited budget, time, etc, the term I suspect that is needed for what you/I etc would do for the stream is a Watershed Mgt Plan with a subordinate Fisheries Management Plan that carried out this true biology. And subsequently, annual surveys would be performed, enforcement carried out throughout the year, watershed concerns would be addressed and funnelled through the proper channels, etc. Stauffer would be a perfect scenario for this.

Before you come back and say it’s too late or that will take too much time, or how do we set up to do the above... recall that grass, trees, and yes, fish all grow. While we might not like where it’s at now, the only answer that the present gov fisheries mgt system will listen to is to show proof, to study things. So, I say, let’s get an arm reach entity set up and start doing some real biology on a stream in Alberta that combines some of the facets of Streamwatch (enforcement); some of the facets of SW that I wanted but never materialized (public inclusion and angler participation encouraged); annual sampling (angler use by reach, population dynamics, water quality, etc); determination of carrying capacity and biomass calculation; among the other things listed in this thread. To start something like this on Stauffer would be the ultimate legacy to your & Barry’s works through the decades and ensure that – while you aren’t happy with where it is presently – we can get the ecosystem stable in everyone’s mind. And, if we can get such a pilot project off the ground on Stauffer, it could then easily be duplicated to other waters or tighter regional fisheries (south, central, and north cutthroat stream management rather than managing the Torrens with the same brush as Daisy Cr, for example).

Again, while you & I won’t agree on the exact present condition of the creek (I’m moderately concerned, I see you as gravely concerned both for now and the future) that is immaterial in the bigger picture of where things are headed. If we could all come together and do something like the above over the long term, it would honor not only yourself, but every angler in this resource heavy province into the future. I think that the time for something like this is coming soon, if not now. This is essentially how Streamwatch started and something like this might be the next new wave.

Respectfully,

Dave

PS - Amelia just had a good idea that there are uni/college programs that could easily do a lot of this work as a curriculum addition. Given the proximity of Stauffer, it's a perfect hands on stream for the U of A; U of C; NAIT; RDC. And go from there...