Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report

Transcription

1 Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Cochrane, Alberta 2014

2

3 Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report Prepared by Jim D. Stelfox 1, Lesley J. Peterson 2, Jennifer E. Earle 1, and Brian E. Meagher 2 Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Cochrane, Alberta April Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch, Box 1420, #228, Street West, Cochrane, Alberta T4C 1B4 2 Trout Unlimited Canada, Suite 160, 6712 Fisher St. S.E., Calgary, Alberta T2H 2A7 Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report ii

4 For information about this report, please contact: Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Box 1420, #228, st Street West Cochrane, Alberta T4C 1B4, Canada Telephone: (403) Cover photos: A good catch of brook trout (top) Stelfox Bull trout (middle) Stelfox Cutthroat trout (bottom) Stelfox Suggested Citation: Stelfox, J. D., L. J. Peterson, J. E. Earle, and B. E. Meagher Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 progress report. Unpublished report, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch, Cochrane, Alberta. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION METHODS Fish Identification Angling RESULTS Fish Identification Creel Data DISCUSSION Management Implications RECOMMENDATIONS LITERATURE CITED Appendix 1. Fish identification test pictures and test template used for the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project in Appendix 2. Dichotomous key used for identification of the salmonids featured in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project fish identification test in Appendix 3. Stewardship Licence issued to anglers in Appendix 4. Creel card used in 2013 by anglers participating in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project Appendix 5. Background information sheet used in 2013 for the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report iv

6 LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. NUMBER OF ANGLERS WHO TOOK, AND FAILURE RATES ON, THE STEWARDSHIP LICENCE FISH IDENTIFICATION TEST TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF ANGLER EFFORT AND CATCH FROM WATERBODIES FISHED UNDER THE STEWARDSHIP LICENCE PILOT PROJECT. ALL BROOK AND RAINBOW TROUT REPORTED CAUGHT WERE HARVESTED, BUT ANY RAINBOW TROUT CAUGHT PRIOR TO 2013 WERE RECORDED AS CUTTHROAT TROUT AND RELEASED TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF ANGLER EFFORT AND CATCH FROM QUIRK CREEK UNDER THE QUIRK CREEK BROOK TROUT SUPPRESSION PROJECT ( ) AND THE STEWARDSHIP LICENCE PILOT PROJECT ( ). ALL BROOK TROUT CAUGHT WERE HARVESTED Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report v

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Stewardship Licence Pilot Project is a collaborative effort involving the Fisheries Management Branch of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, and Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC). Ultimately, this project would not have been possible without the participation of the many volunteer anglers who were involved over the years. In particular, two dedicated volunteers Robert Boyce and Louise Stinson helped greatly by administering the fish identification test to prospective participants; Robert also conducted several supervised outings as a designated volunteer coordinator. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report vi

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss are not native to southern Alberta and have been implicated in the decline of populations of native westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. Over the years, angling regulations have become more species-specific, in part to afford more protection for declining populations of native trout. As a result, it has become increasingly important for anglers to be able to identify the species of fish they catch. However, because some anglers are unable to correctly identify their catches, it has not been possible to provide higher bag limits for nonnative trout species where higher levels of harvest are desired by fisheries managers. To address this situation, the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project was initiated in To participate, anglers had to pass a test to demonstrate their proficiency in fish identification. Those who passed the test were permitted to harvest unlimited numbers of nonnative trout from specified waters, so as to help facilitate a recovery of the native trout populations. Since 2009, angler participation in the project has increased rapidly; in 2013, over 200 anglers took the test and subsequently harvested over 2700 nonnative trout from the waters specified on the Stewardship Licence. To date, most of the waters specified on the licence have received too little fishing pressure and fish harvest, or have too few years of data, to be able to show any clear trends. However, Quirk Creek, which was added to the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project in 2012, shows clear signs that the cutthroat trout population is recovering. This recovery is largely due to the removal of over 9700 brook trout by angling and over 4000 by electrofishing via the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project, which was initiated in 1998 and was a precursor to the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. In order to reduce the potential for illegal harvest of native trout due to misidentification, and to increase recreational harvest opportunities for anglers who know how to identify the trout species, consideration should be given to requiring anglers to demonstrate that they are proficient in identifying the trout species found in the Eastern Slopes, before they are permitted to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report vii

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss are not native to southern Alberta, but are now present in many montane and foothills waters as a result of extensive stocking during the early and mid 1900s. In many of these waters, brook trout and/or rainbow trout populations have increased while native westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus populations have decreased. Both brook and rainbow trout are capable of out-competing bull and cutthroat trout, especially at higher water temperatures (DeStaso and Rahel 1994; Nakano et al. 1998; Gunckel et al. 2002). In the case of brook trout, their life-history attributes (early spawning age, shorter longevity and lower catchability) usually result in the replacement of high-quality fisheries for native bull and cutthroat trout with low-quality fisheries for smaller, less-catchable, nonnative brook trout. Quirk Creek provides a classic example of the decline that can occur in native trout populations when nonnative trout populations increase. Brook trout colonized Quirk Creek subsequent to their introduction to the Elbow River watershed in 1940, and Quirk Creek in Although native cutthroat trout and bull trout were the only fish captured in Quirk Creek in 1948, by 1978 brook trout had colonized the lower 3 km of the creek where they comprised 35% of the electrofishing catch but were absent from the upper portion of the creek (Tripp et al. 1979). By 1995, brook trout had spread throughout the entire creek and comprised 92% of the electrofishing catch (Paul and Post 1996). Electrofishing conducted in 1996 in Quirk Creek yielded similar results brook trout comprised greater than 90% of the total catch (Paul and Post 1997). These changes occurred despite the implementation of minimum-size limits and reduced bag limits designed to provide more protection for native trout (Stelfox et al. 2001a). Prior to 1974, little was required of anglers who fished in Alberta s Eastern Slopes, other than that they be able to accurately count the number of trout and/or mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni that they had harvested, and be familiar with the bag limits (10 trout and 15 mountain whitefish in 1973) and other fishing regulations. That began to change with the introduction in 1974 of a reduced (five fish) limit for bull trout, the implementation in 1987 of minimum-size limits for cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and bull trout, and the implementation in 1995 of a province-wide zero limit for bull trout. However, in order for species-specific bag limits or minimum-size limits to Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 1

10 work, anglers must not only be aware of the regulations, but also be able to correctly identify the fish they catch. In 1998, major changes were implemented to the fishing regulations in the Eastern Slopes. Trout (except bull trout) limits in flowing waters were reduced to two fish and minimum-size limits were increased for cutthroat and rainbow trout. Although brook trout are capable of sustaining relatively high levels of harvest (Earle et al. 2010a) since they mature quickly and are less susceptible to angling than native trout populations (Paul et al. 2003), higher limits were not implemented for brook trout in flowing waters in The concern was that a higher limit would result in more illegal harvest of bull trout due to misidentification, because of the similarity in appearance between bull trout and brook trout. One of the problems with this approach is that it only reduces, but does not stop, the illegal harvest of bull trout due to misidentification. Furthermore, it is unnecessarily restrictive to anglers who know how to identify the salmonids they catch. Finally, since brook trout can out-compete bull and cutthroat trout for limited resources (DeStaso and Rahel 1994; Nakano et al. 1998; Gunckel et al. 2002) and hybridize with bull trout (Popowich et al. 2011), a reduced bag limit for brook trout could result in brook trout populations increasing at the expense of native bull and cutthroat trout populations. Several management options are available to reduce or eliminate nonnative fish populations when they threaten the survival of native fish populations. The most commonly employed options usually involve piscicides and/or electrofishing. Piscicides have been effectively employed in a number of situations, where total eradication of the nonnative fish species is desired. However, piscicides are only suitable in certain circumstances, and their use has become increasingly controversial (Clancey 2001; Finlayson et al. 2005). Electrofishing has also been successfully used to reduce, and occasionally eradicate, nonnative trout populations (Moore et al. 1983; Buktenika 1997; Kulp and Moore 2000; Shepard et al. 2002; Carmona-Catot et al. 2010). However, electrofishing is usually only effective on short streams with relatively simple habitat and can be expensive and labour intensive (Kulp and Moore 2000; Peterson et al. 2004; Shepard and Nelson 2004; Meyer et al. 2006; Carmona-Catot et al. 2010). Compared to piscicides and electrofishing, the option of selectively removing nonnative fish by angling has received surprisingly little attention. Moore et al. (1983) used anglers to selectively remove nonnative trout from a few streams in the Appalachians. Although their study only ran Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 2

11 nine weeks, it appeared that the nonnative trout population was reduced by about 10%, prompting Larson et al. (1986) to suggest that experimental angling programs might offer a cost-effective, alternative method for reducing densities of nonnative trout. In the case of Quirk Creek, the use of piscicides is not a realistic option, as there is no barrier to stop brook trout from reinvading the creek. Although barriers have been constructed on other streams to prevent upstream migration of nonnatives (Young et al. 1996; Thompson and Rahel 1998; Novinger and Rahel 2003; Shepard et al. 2002, 2004), constructed barriers can create problems for native fish populations due to fragmentation, reduced genetic variability and increased risk of extinction through catastrophic events (Allendorf and Leary 1988; Novinger and Rahel 2003). Furthermore, constructed barriers can fail, be breached by nonnatives, or be circumvented by deliberate reintroduction of nonnatives (Behnke 1992; Young et al. 1996; Thompson and Rahel 1998; Harig et al. 2000). Finally, it is unlikely that a piscicide could totally eradicate brook trout in Quirk Creek, due to the presence of numerous springs along the creek. Similarly, eradication of brook trout in Quirk Creek by electrofishing was deemed unlikely due to the length of the stream (>12 km), as well as an abundance of deeply undercut banks, which reduce capture efficiency. Although annual electrofishing has been demonstrated to be effective in rapidly reducing trout populations (Moore et al. 1983; Buktenika 1997; Kulp and Moore 2000; Shepard et al. 2002; Carmona-Catot et al. 2010), modelling suggests that, when this is not possible, a repeated sequence of at least three consecutive years of one-pass electrofishing removal of brook trout, followed by no more than two years without suppression, could be effective in slowing the decline of cutthroat trout in sympatry with brook trout (Peterson et al. 2008). However, resources were insufficient for us to employ this technique on a sustained basis on Quirk Creek, let alone on the other Eastern Slopes streams where nonnative trout threaten the survival of native trout populations. For this reason, the option of selectively removing nonnative trout by angling provided an appealing alternative. After all, anglers have demonstrated an ability to greatly reduce some sport fish populations (Stelfox 1997; Post et al. 2002; Sullivan 2003). Furthermore, sport fish in northern latitudes appear to be more vulnerable to overharvest due to higher catchability (Mogensen et al. 2014). If only this considerable resource could be channeled in a productive manner. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 3

12 To determine whether angling could be an effective method for reducing densities of nonnative trout and facilitating the recovery of native trout populations, the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project was initiated in 1998 as a joint project with Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC). To reduce the chances of participants mistakenly harvesting native trout, a fish identification test and key, featuring brook, bull and cutthroat trout, was developed and administered to anglers for the purposes of (1) assessing their ability to identify these trout species, (2) showing them how to identify these species by using a dichotomous key, and (3) qualifying anglers to participate in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project (Stelfox et al. 2001a). To further reduce the chances of anglers mistakenly harvesting native trout, harvest of all fish has been prohibited in Quirk Creek since 1998, except by anglers participating in this project. From 1998 to 2008, anglers harvested 9521 brook trout from Quirk Creek (Earle et al. 2010a). Additionally, 4166 brook trout were removed by electrofishing from 2004 to 2008 (Earle et al. 2010a) to help reduce the brook trout population more rapidly. By 2008, it appeared that the combined harvest of brook trout by angling and electrofishing was having the desired effect, as the percent composition of cutthroat trout in the fish population was four times higher than it was in 1998 (Earle et al. 2010b). However, after peaking in 2000 at 1473 angler hours and 2772 brook trout harvested, fishing pressure and angler harvest in Quirk Creek dropped rapidly (Earle et al. 2010a). Several factors likely contributed to the decline: (1) brook trout catch rates declined, especially in the upper reach; (2) fewer supervised outings were being conducted so as to reduce staff time and, starting in 2001, to encourage qualified anglers (those who had previously participated in a supervised outing and been issued a fish research licence) to do unsupervised outings; (3) unlike on supervised outings, anglers were not permitted to drive into Quirk Creek on unsupervised outings, thus requiring considerably more time and effort to access the stream; and (4) some anglers were becoming bored with fishing the same stream. In light of the apparent increase in cutthroat trout relative abundance in Quirk Creek, and to address some of the above issues, the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project was initiated in 2009 to provide qualified anglers with streams to fish that (1) were more accessible, (2) still had some native bull and/or cutthroat trout left, and (3) had higher densities of nonnative trout. The objectives of the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project, which were essentially the same as for the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 4

13 Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project, were to (1) educate anglers about fish identification, (2) increase angler awareness about native trout species, and (3) see if it is possible for anglers to reduce nonnative trout populations enough to facilitate recovery of native trout populations. Creel data from anglers participating in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project from 2009 to 2013 are summarized in this progress report, along with some data from the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 5

14 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Fish Identification To participate in the project, anglers had to annually pass a fish identification test, so as to demonstrate their ability to identify the fish species found in the waterbodies covered by the Stewardship Licence. The test consisted of 16 photographs of the fish species most likely to be encountered in the streams covered by the licence. Prior to 2013, brook, bull and cutthroat trout were the only species featured in the test. In 2013, rainbow trout were also featured in the test (Appendix 1), because this species was present in several of the waterbodies that were added to the project in 2013 and, for the first time, anglers were permitted to harvest rainbow trout under a Stewardship Licence from a limited number of waterbodies. With the exception of 2012, when a few anglers were permitted to take the test on-line for the sake of convenience, all anglers were tested in person. To pass the test, anglers had to score 100% by correctly identifying the fish species featured in each picture. If a person failed the test on their first attempt, they were given a dichotomous key (Appendix 2) with pictures of the key-identifying features and were permitted to take the test a second time, with the key in hand. After passing the test or completing the testing exercise, participants were given the results of their test(s). If they had misidentified any of the fish pictures, they were shown the key-identifying features on the fish in those pictures and the keyidentifying features were discussed, as was the importance of releasing fish if they were unsure of its identity. Anglers who passed their first attempt were also shown the key, to ensure that they knew which key-identifying features they should be using. In a few cases, anglers who failed their second attempt were permitted to make subsequent attempts, after being given the key and a few days to study it. To further reduce the chances of an angler harvesting bull or cutthroat trout due to misidentification, anglers were required to have previously participated in a supervised outing (not necessarily in that year), before they could receive their provincially issued fish research licence (hereafter referred to as the Stewardship Licence ). At the start of each supervised outing, the volunteer coordinator reviewed the key-identifying features with participants. At the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 6

15 end of each supervised outing, anglers were required to show their harvested fish to the volunteer coordinator, which provided an opportunity to determine whether some anglers might still be having difficulty with fish identification. Prior to 2012, all supervised outings were conducted on Quirk Creek, where anglers participating in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project were permitted to harvest unlimited numbers of brook trout from the creek (Earle et al. 2010a). Since then, most supervised outings have been conducted on Willow Creek, because it is more readily accessible than Quirk Creek and has higher densities of nonnative trout. 2.2 Angling Anglers who had passed the fish identification test and completed a supervised outing were issued a Stewardship Licence (Appendix 3), several creel cards (Appendix 4) and copies of background information sheets about the project (Appendix 5), and a self-addressed, stamped envelope to mail in their creel cards at the end of the season. To help anglers locate the streams specified under the Stewardship Licence, TUC posted maps of the streams on their website. Whenever harvesting, from the waters specified on the licence, unlimited numbers of nonnative trout brook and rainbow trout in 2013, but only brook trout prior to 2013 participating anglers were required to carry their Stewardship Licence with them, which lists the conditions that the participants are required to comply with. One of the conditions was to inform anglers they encountered, while fishing in the specified waters, that they had a fish research licence authorizinb them to harvest unlimited numbers of brook and/or rainbow trout, but only from the waters specified on the licence. If the angler had questions or expressed interest in the project, participants were asked to give them a background information sheet about the project. Participants were permitted to use barbed hooks, were not permitted to use bait, and were required to release all bull and cutthroat trout, and record their lengths, in 5-cm size categories, on their waterproof creel cards at the time of capture. Lengths of harvested brook and rainbow trout were to be recorded on the same creel card at the end of the fishing trip. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 7

16 Prior to 2013, there was no category for rainbow trout on the creel card, since very few of the waterbodies fished under the Stewardship Licence contained this species. A few anglers reported catching rainbow trout in the Highwood River and Willow Creek prior to 2013, but they were instructed to record them as being cutthroat trout on their creel cards. Since there is no field method to readily and accurately differentiate rainbow X cutthroat trout hybrids from pure cutthroat trout, anglers were instructed to release any fish that were suspected rainbow X cutthroat trout hybrids even those with a faint red/orange slash under the jaw and to record these fish as cutthroat trout. Although a field method exists to differentiate presumed brook X bull trout hybrids from bull trout (Popowich et al. 2011), anglers were asked to release any suspected hybrids and record them as being bull trout. The reasoning was that brook X bull trout hybrids were relatively scarce in the specified streams, and they pose less of a threat to bull trout than the threat that would likely be posed by relatively inexperienced participants harvesting presumed brook X bull trout hybrids. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 8

17 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Fish Identification From 2009 to 2011, relatively few anglers took the fish identification test (Table 1). First-attempt failure rates were relatively low during this period, because most of the anglers tested had taken the same test in a prior year, in order to participate in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project. Table 1. Number Table 1. of anglers Number who of took, anglers and who failure took, rates and on, failure the Stewardship rates on, Licence the Stewardship fish identification test. Licence Fish ID test. Year Number of anglers tested Failed first attempt (%) Number who took second attempt Failed second attempt (%) Number who took third attempt Failed third attempt (%) a Not applicable a a a Although there was a substantial increase in the number of anglers tested in 2012, many of whom had never taken the test before, only 23% failed on their first attempt. Part of the reason for the low failure rate was that, for the first time ever, some anglers (53) were permitted to take the test on-line for the sake of convenience. Subsequent analysis of the data revealed that only 5.7% of those who took the test on-line failed their first attempt, whereas 34.7% of the 75 anglers tested in person failed their first attempt. This six-fold difference in failure rate strongly suggests that many of the anglers who took the test on-line likely got their answers from someone who had already passed the test. To some extent, the relatively high first-attempt failure rate in 2013 (43.6%) reflects the fact that on-line testing was no longer permitted, for the above reason. It likely also reflects the fact that (1) the test was modified in 2013 by the addition of rainbow trout, and (2) a relatively large proportion of the anglers tested in 2013 had never before taken the fish identification test. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 9

18 However, when anglers who failed their first attempt in 2013 used the key on their second attempt, only 6.5% failed their second attempt. None of the fish harvested by anglers participating in the supervised outings over the five years of the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project were bull or cutthroat trout. However, in 2013, a Conservation Officer reported checking (and charging) an angler who had harvested four cutthroat trout from Jumpingpound Creek, while fishing under the Stewardship Licence on an unsupervised outing. All four cutthroat trout were small (10 15 cm) fish. 3.2 Creel Data Since inception of the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project in 2009, angler effort has increased substantially (Table 2), especially in the last two years due to increased publicity about the project and the addition of more eligible waterbodies. In 2009, anglers with a Stewardship Licence were permitted to harvest unlimited numbers of nonnative trout from only five waterbodies; in 2013, there were 15 waterbodies listed on the licence (Appendix 3). A few waterbodies (e.g., Highwood River, Prairie Creek) were dropped from the Stewardship Licence, because low catches of brook trout suggested that they comprised too small a percentage of the fish population to warrant targeting them. Jumpingpound Creek was also dropped after 2009, since very few brook trout were caught on the two trips conducted well upstream of the Kananaskis Country boundary. However, Jumpingpound Creek was reinstated in 2013, after anglers reported catching relatively large numbers of brook trout and some rainbow trout further downstream. Most of the waterbodies in Table 2 have insufficient data (years and fishing effort) to discern a possible trend. However, on Meadow Creek, where anglers have harvested 1053 brook trout since 2009, the brook trout catch rate has declined substantially (from 6.4 brook trout/h in 2009 to 1.7 brook trout/h in 2013) and the proportion of brook trout in the catch has declined slightly (from 83% of the catch in 2009 to 55% in 2013) (Table 2). Although Willow Creek has only been part of the project since 2011, participating anglers have harvested 2983 brook trout and 239 rainbow trout since then. Most of this harvest occurred because of a substantial increase in angler effort, primarily due to Willow Creek being used for Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 10

19 Table 2. Comparison of angler effort and catch from waterbodies fished under the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. All brook and rainbow trout Table 2. reported Comparison caught of angler were effort harvested, and catch but from any rainbow waterbodies trout fished caught under prior the to Stewardship 2013 were recorded Licence Pilot as cutthroat Project. All trout brook and and released. rainbow trout reported caught were harvested, but any rainbow trout caught prior to 2013 were recorded as cutthroat trout and released. Total Catch rate Number of trout caught number (all (brook Percentage of catch Angler Bull Cutthroat Brook Rainbow of trout Hours trout/ trout/ Bull Cutthroat Brook Rainbow Waterbody Year days trout trout trout trout caught fished hour) hour) trout trout trout trout Carbondale R Drywood Cr Elbow R Elbow R Elbow R Elbow R Elbow R Gold Cr Highwood R Highwood R Johnson Cr. (Waiparous trib.) Johnson Cr. (Waiparous trib.) Jumpingpound Cr Jumpingpound Cr Margaret Cr Margaret Cr Margaret Cr Meadow Cr Meadow Cr Meadow Cr Meadow Cr Meadow Cr continued Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 11

20 Table 2. Concluded. Total Catch rate Number of trout caught number (brook Percentage of catch Angler Bull Cutthroat Brook Rainbow of trout Hours (trout/ trout/ Bull Cutthroat Brook Rainbow Waterbody Year days trout trout trout trout caught fished hour) hour) trout trout trout trout Oldman R Prairie Cr Quirk Cr Quirk Cr Racehorse Cr Sibbald Cr Waiparous Cr Waiparous Cr Waiparous Cr Waiparous Cr Willow Cr Willow Cr Willow Cr Yarrow Cr Totals for all waterbodies in: Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 12

21 supervised outings in 2012 and Possibly due to the harvest of 2983 brook trout, catch rates for brook trout have declined substantially in Willow Creek. The proportion of brook trout in the catch also declined slightly in 2013, largely due to an apparent increase in rainbow trout in the catch. However, the increase in rainbow trout is an artifact, due more to a change in the methods and study area than any real increase in rainbow trout numbers. Prior to 2013, a few rainbow trout were caught by anglers, but were recorded as being cutthroat trout, since there was no category for rainbow trout on the creel cards prior to The second reason for the increase in rainbow trout is that, starting in 2013, participating anglers were also permitted to fish and harvest unlimited numbers of nonnative trout from the section of Willow Creek downstream of S.R. 532 to Timber Creek, where rainbow trout appear to be more abundant. These factors are also likely responsible for the apparent decline in the proportion of cutthroat trout in the catch in Although it was anticipated that the flood of 2013, which greatly altered much of the stream channel, might have also greatly reduced the fish population in Willow Creek, the data suggests otherwise. Excluding catch rates for brook trout, which were likely reduced due to participants harvesting 2983 brook trout during the 2011 to 2013 period, the catch rate for the other trout species actually increased slightly from 0.3 fish/h in 2012 to 0.5 fish/h in The limited data for Quirk Creek in Table 2 might suggest that brook trout are not much of a problem in that stream. However, this was not previously the case. Since 1998, many brook trout have been removed from Quirk Creek via the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project. Because that project was essentially a precursor to the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project, creel data from both projects were combined in Table 3, so as to better show what changes have occurred. In 1998, brook trout were very abundant in Quirk Creek, based on a catch rate of 2.5 brook trout/h (Table 3). Since then, brook trout catch rates have declined more than 10-fold, to a low of 0.2 brook trout/h in Similarly, there has been roughly a 7-fold reduction in the proportion of brook trout in the catch from 72% in 1998 to 10% in 2013 (Table 3). Meanwhile, the proportion of cutthroat trout in the catch has increased substantially from 23% in 1998 to 90% in Furthermore, the combined catch rate for cutthroat and bull trout, which was only 0.9 fish/h in 1998, has also increased substantially, ranging from 1.6 to 3.0 fish/h over the last four Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 13

22 years. Overall, these data suggest that there has been a substantial decrease in the brook trout population in Quirk Creek, and this appears to have facilitated a substantial increase in the cutthroat trout population. Table 3. Comparison of angler effort and catch from Quirk Creek under the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Table 3. Comparison of angler effort and catch from Quirk Creek under the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project ( ) and the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project ( ). All brook Suppression trout caught Project were ( ) harvested. and the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project ( ). All brook trout caught were harvested. Total Catch rate Number of trout caught number (brook Percentage of catch Angler Bull Cutthroat Brook of trout Hours (fish/ trout/ Bull Cutthroat Brook Year days trout trout trout caught fished hour) hour) trout trout trout Total Considering that angler harvest of almost 8000 brook trout from Quirk Creek during the first six years of the project appeared to have relatively little effect on the fish population, it is surprising that the brook trout population has remained as low as it has and not rebounded in recent years, given that anglers have harvested fewer than 200 brook trout from Quirk Creek during the past five years. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 14

23 4.0 DISCUSSION Increased harvest of nonnative trout from specified waters, by anglers who have been shown how to identify fish species and passed a fish identification test, is not a new concept to Alberta. The Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project, implemented in 1998, enabled anglers who annually pass a fish identification test to harvest unlimited numbers of brook trout from Quirk Creek (Earle et al. 2010a). Use of the fish identification test and dichotomous key was very effective in teaching anglers how to identify the three species of fish found in Quirk Creek, given that only 15 (0.2%) of the fish harvested by anglers participating in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project were not brook trout (Earle et al. 2010a). In all cases, the misidentified fish were cutthroat trout and most were small (<15 cm long) with relatively faint black spots on their sides. Angler harvest of 9521 brook trout from Quirk Creek from 1998 to 2008 was likely a major factor in the substantial decline in the brook trout population in Quirk Creek as well as the substantial increase in the cutthroat trout population, although removal of brook trout by electrofishing was a contributing factor. From 2004 to 2008, 4166 brook trout were removed from a portion of Quirk Creek by electrofishing (Earle et al. 2010b) to help reduce the brook trout population more rapidly. During that same time period, anglers removed 1581 brook trout (Earle et al. 2010a). By 2008, it appeared that the combined harvest of brook trout by angling and electrofishing was having the desired effect, as the percent composition of cutthroat trout in the fish population in 2008 was four times higher than in Based on the encouraging results from the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project, and to provide keen anglers with some more accessible and suitable streams to harvest nonnative trout from, the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project was launched in Initially it was kept low key, so as to assess the appropriateness of candidate streams. However, the number of anglers participating in the project has increased substantially since then, due to increased publicity and the addition of more waterbodies to the Stewardship Licence. In 2013, qualified anglers spent over 1800 hours fishing the 15 streams covered under the licence and harvested over 2700 nonnative trout from the streams. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 15

24 For most of the streams, the amount of fishing pressure and fish harvest was too little to expect the fish population to be affected, but the initial results for Meadow and Willow creeks are encouraging brook trout catch rates as well as the proportion of brook trout in the catch have decreased. However, considering the number of brook trout that had to be removed from Quirk Creek before changes in the fish population became apparent, it is anticipated that there will need to be a substantial increase in fishing effort on these streams in order to help facilitate recovery of the native trout populations. While it is still too early to say that the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project, and the anglers participating in it, have been successful in achieving the objective of reducing nonnative trout populations enough to facilitate recovery of native trout populations, the project is showing some success in achieving the other objectives educating anglers about fish identification and increasing their awareness about native trout populations. In 2013, many of the 218 anglers who took the fish identification test had never before taken it. Even though 44% of the anglers tested in 2013 failed their first attempt, the fact that only 6% failed their second attempt indicates that there will be fewer anglers fishing Eastern Slopes streams who do not know how to identify the featured species. As a result, these anglers, as well as those who fish with them, are less likely to mistakenly harvest native trout species than are anglers who have never taken the test or been shown the key-identifying features. Permitting anglers who had never taken the fish identification test to do the test on-line in 2012 revealed a serious flaw in this approach. The first-time failure rate for anglers who took the test on-line was one-sixth that of the anglers who were tested in person, strongly suggesting that many of the anglers who took the test on-line likely got their answers from someone who had already passed the test. Therefore, it is likely that some of the anglers who passed the test online did not know, or learn, how to identify the featured trout species, thus increasing the risk of cutthroat and/or bull trout being illegally harvested by them due to misidentification. The effectiveness of the fish identification test and key was apparent in the early stages of the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project. Of 376 people who had never before taken the test, 52% failed their first attempt (Stelfox et al. 2001b). However, of those who failed their first attempt, only 24% failed their second attempt, after being shown the key-identifying features for each species. Long-term retention of the key-identifying features by anglers who had taken the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 16

25 test in a previous year was excellent only 9% failed the test on their first attempt in the subsequent year and none failed their second attempt, even though 33% had failed their first attempt when tested in the initial year. As angling regulations become more species-specific, it becomes increasingly important for anglers to be able to identify the species of fish they catch. Test results from anglers who voluntarily took the nine-species salmonid identification test during suggest that angler misidentification of the salmonids most common to the Eastern Slopes is a significant problem. Although most (71%) of those tested indicated that they were experienced anglers who had fished for more than 10 years and 82% indicated that they fished in the Eastern Slopes, the average first-attempt score was only 57% (Stelfox and Earle 2013). Furthermore, Alberta s provincial fish the bull trout which has been protected by a zero limit since 1995 and has received considerable publicity regarding how to identify it, was the species correctly identified the least often (only 46% of the time). The salmonid identification skills of the average Alberta angler are probably considerably lower than this, since anglers participating in that study were not compelled to take the test. As a result, it is likely that anglers who felt their fish identification skills were lacking would have been underrepresented in the study, as opposed to if it were possible to test a random sampling of anglers. In order to reduce the potential for illegal trout harvest due to misidentification, and to increase recreational harvest opportunities for anglers who know how to identify the trout species, consideration should be given to requiring anglers to demonstrate that they are proficient in identifying the trout species found in the Eastern Slopes, before they are permitted to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes. In that regard, the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project is a step in the right direction. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 17

26 4.1 Management Implications The efficacy of species-specific fishing regulations (e.g., zero limits on bull, cutthroat and rainbow trout, or minimum-size limits on cutthroat and rainbow trout) relies on anglers to not only know and understand the fishing regulations, but also to be able to correctly identify the fish species they catch. Testing the fish identification skills of anglers prior to their participation in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project, as well as tests conducted in other studies (Stelfox et al. 2000a, 2000b; Stelfox et al. 2001b; Stelfox and Earle 2013), indicates that angler misidentification of salmonids is a problem in Alberta, as well as in other parts of North America (Schmetterling and Long 1999; Schill et al. 2001; Schmetterling et al. 2001) a problem that has implications for fisheries management, by reducing the potential for species-specific regulations to work. One solution to this problem is to teach anglers how to identify the most common salmonids. The results of our study indicate that misidentification rates can be substantially reduced once anglers have been educated (shown what the key-identifying features are for these salmonids). If all anglers were required to demonstrate proficiency in salmonid identification in order to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes, this would provide more protection for threatened native trout species by reducing the illegal harvest of protected fish due to misidentification. It would also greatly increase recreational harvest opportunities, by making it possible for educated anglers to harvest more nonnative trout species from specified waters in the Eastern Slopes, as has been the case for anglers participating in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project (Earle et al. 2010a) and the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. If enough anglers were to become educated and enough nonnative trout were harvested from certain specified streams, then it may be possible to prevent the extirpation of some native trout populations that might otherwise be lost. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 18

27 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS To reduce the chances of anglers misidentifying juvenile cutthroat trout as brook trout, some of the cutthroat trout photos in the fish identification test should be replaced with photos of small cutthroat trout that have faint black spots on their sides. Anglers who have never before taken the fish identification test should not be permitted to take the test on-line. However, anglers who have previously taken and passed the test in-person could be permitted to take the test on-line. At the end of each year, the creel data summary should be critically reviewed to determine whether, for each waterbody, the data being gathered and the number of nonnative trout being harvested is of sufficient value to justify that waterbody remaining in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. Consideration should be given to requiring anglers to demonstrate that they are proficient in identifying the trout species found in the Eastern Slopes, before they are permitted to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes. Such an approach would be consistent with the recommendations made by Quinn (2005), Stelfox and Earle (2013) and the recovery plan for Alberta s populations of westslope cutthroat trout (Alberta WSCT Recovery Team 2013). Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 19

28 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Team Alberta Westslope Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 28. Edmonton, Alberta. Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary Conservation and distribution of genetic variation in a polytypic species, cutthroat trout. Conservation Biology 2: Behnke, R. J Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 6, Bethesda, Maryland. Buktenika, M. K Bull trout restoration and brook trout eradication at Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Pages in Brewin, M.K., A.J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull trout II conference proceedings, c/o Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. Carmona-Catot, G., P. B. Moyle, E. Aparicio, P. K. Crain, L. C. Thompson, and E. Garcia- Berthou Brook trout removal as a conservation tool to restore Eagle Lake rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 30: Clancey, P The proposed use of fish toxicants to remove nonnative trout in Cherry Creek followed by introduction of westslope cutthroat trout: The impacts of fish toxicants on Turner-phobes. Pages in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. DeStaso, J., and F. J. Rahel Influence of water temperature on interactions between juvenile Colorado River cutthroat trout and brook trout in a laboratory stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: Earle, J. E., J. D. Stelfox, and B. E. Meagher. 2010a. Quirk Creek brook trout suppression project Unpublished report, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Cochrane, Alberta. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 20

29 Earle, J. E., A. J. Paul, and J. D. Stelfox. 2010b. Quirk Creek population estimates and onepass electrofishing removal of brook trout Unpublished report, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Cochrane, Alberta. Finlayson, B. J., W. Somer, D. Duffield, D. Propst, C. Mellison, T. Patengill, H, Sexauer, T. Nesler, S. Gurtin, J. Elliot, F. Partridge, and D. Skaar Native inland trout restoration on national forests in the western United States time for improvement? Fisheries 30(5): Gunckel, S. L., A. R. Hemmingsen, and J. L. Li Effect of bull trout and brook trout interactions on foraging habitat, feeding behaviour, and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131(6): Harig, A. L., K. D. Fausch, and M. K. Young Factors influencing success of greenback cutthroat trout translocations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: Kulp, M. A., and S. E. Moore Multiple electrofishing removals for eliminating rainbow trout in a small southern Appalachian stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: Larson, G. L., S. E. Moore, and D. C. Lee Angling and electrofishing for removing nonnative rainbow trout from a stream in a national park. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: Meyer, K. A., J. A. Lamansky Jr., and D. J. Schill An unsuccessful brook trout electrofishing removal project in a small Rocky Mountain stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: Mogensen, S., J. R. Post, and M. G. Sullivan Vulnerability to harvest by anglers differs across climate, productivity and diversity climes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 71: Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 21

30 Moore, S. E., B. L. Ridley, and G. L. Larson Standing crops of brook trout concurrent with removal of rainbow trout from selected streams in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: Nakano, S., S. Kitano, K. Nakai, and K. D. Fausch Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitat among introduced brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and native bull charr, S. confluentus, and westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, in a Montana stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 52: Novinger, D. C., and F. J. Rahel Isolation management with artificial barriers as a conservation strategy for cutthroat trout in headwater streams. Conservation Biology 17: Paul, A.J. and J.R. Post A quantitative assessment of the recovery of bull trout populations in Alberta and development of models of sustainable yield: the first year of investigation (1995). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Paul, A.J. and J.R. Post A quantitative assessment of the recovery of bull trout populations in Alberta and development of models of sustainable yield: the second year of investigation (1996). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Paul, A. J., J. R. Post, and J. D. Stelfox Can anglers influence the abundance of native and nonnative salmonids in a stream from the Canadian Rocky Mountains? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: Peterson, D. P., K. D. Fausch, and G. C. White Population ecology of an invasion: effects of brook trout on native cutthroat trout. Ecological Applications 14(3): Peterson, D. P., K. D. Fausch, J. Watmough, and R. A. Cunjak When eradication is not an option: modeling strategies for electrofishing suppression of nonnative brook trout to Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 22

31 foster persistence of sympatric native cutthroat trout in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: Popowich, R. C., P. A. Venturelli, J. D. Stelfox, and E. B. Taylor Identification of bull trout x brook trout hybrids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31: Post, J. R., M. Sullivan, S. Cox, N. P. Lester, C. J. Walters, E. A. Parkinson, A. J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B. J. Shuter Canada s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries, 27: Quinn, M A stewardship licence for Alberta anglers: increasing the effectiveness of special regulations through angler education. Prepared for Alberta Conservation Association by the Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Alberta. Schill, D. J., J. A. Lamansky, and E. R. J. M. Mamer The effect of three education strategies on angler ability to identify bull trout and other salmonids. Unpublished report, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Report Number Boise, Idaho. Schmetterling, D. A., and M. H. Long Montana anglers inability to identify bull trout and other salmonids. Fisheries 24(7): Schmetterling, D. A., M. H. Long, and B. J. Cummings Educational strategies to improve Montana anglers ability to identify salmonids. Pages in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. Shepard, B. B., R. Spoon, and L. Nelson A native westslope cutthroat trout population responds positively after brook trout removal and habitat restoration. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 8(3): Shepard, B. B., and L. Nelson Conservation of westslope cutthroat trout by removal of brook trout using electrofishing: Unpublished report, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 23

32 Stelfox, J. D Seasonal movements, growth, survival and population status of the adfluvial bull trout population in Lower Kananaskis Lake, Alberta. Pages in Mackay, W. C., M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary. Stelfox, J. D., D. M. Baayens, and D. K. Berry. 2000a. Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course. Alberta Environment. Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division. Stelfox, J. D., G. E. Shumaker, D. M. Baayens, and D. K. Berry. 2000b. The development of an identification key and test for a salmonid identification course in Alberta. Alberta Environment. Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division. Stelfox, J. D., D. M. Baayens, A. J. Paul, and G. E. Shumaker. 2001a. Quirk Creek brook trout suppression project. Pages in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. Stelfox, J. D., G. E. Shumaker, and D. M. Baayens. 2001b. Fish identification education. Pages in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. Stelfox, J. D., and J. E. Earle Salmonid misidentification by anglers. Unpublished report, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch, Cochrane, Alberta. Sullivan, M. G Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: dilemmas of managing recovering fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23: Thompson, P. D., and F. J. Rahel Evaluation of depletion-removal electrofishing of brook trout in small Rocky Mountain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 24

33 Tripp, D.B., P.T.P. Tsui, and P.J. McCart Baseline fisheries investigations in the McLean Creek ATV and Sibbald Flat snowmobile areas. Volume 1. A report to the Government of Alberta, Department of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife, prepared by Aquatic Environments Limited. Young, M. K., R. N. Schmal, T. W. Kohley, and V. G. Leonard Conservation status of Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-282. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 25

34 7.0 Appendix 1. Fish identification test pictures and test template used for the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project in Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 26

35 1 2 Kerry Brewin Jim Stelfox 3 4 Jim Stelfox Jim Stelfox 5 6 Rocky Hornung Jim Stelfox 7 8 (Revised 2013) Jim Stelfox Jenny Earle

36 9 10 Jim Stelfox Dean Baayens Dean Baayens Robert Boyce Robert Boyce Robert Boyce (Revised 2013) Jenny Earle Kevin Egan

37 Name Date Phone # WIN # address I have fished for: <1 year; 1-10 years; >10 years. (Circle one) Each year I fish an average of: <5 days; 5-20 days; >20 days. (Circle one) Each year I usually harvest: 0; 1-10; 11-20; >20 trout. (Circle one) Note: There are only four species of fish to choose from (i.e., brook, bull, cutthroat and rainbow trout). Do not be fooled by the considerable differences in coloration that can occur between male, female and juvenile fish. Focus on the key identifying features. If a feature is not readily apparent in the photo (e.g., black markings on a fin), ask the person administering the test for clarification. To pass the test, the fish in all 16 photos must be correctly identified. Place a check ( ) mark in the appropriate column. Trout species Photo Brook Bull Cutthroat Rainbow Test administered by: First attempt Second attempt Correctly identified all: Brook trout yes no Bull trout yes no Cutthroat trout yes no Rainbow trout yes no Thank you for your participation.

38 8.0 Appendix 2. Dichotomous key used for identification of the salmonids featured in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project fish identification test in Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 30

39 Partial key for trout and char Black spots on sides (Trout) No black spots on sides (Char) Red-orange slash under jaw (Cutthroat trout) No red-orange slash under jaw (Rainbow trout) Distinct black markings on dorsal fin (Brook trout) No black markings or spots on dorsal fin (Bull trout) Jenny Earle Robert Boyce Jim Stelfox Jim Stelfox (Revised 2013)

40 9.0 Appendix 3. Stewardship Licence issued to anglers in Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 32

41 Fish Research Licence: FR (Stewardship Licence Pilot Project) This Licence authorizes (print name here): Licencee s Address: To harvest an unlimited number of brook trout only from Waiparous Creek, Johnson Creek, a tributary to Waiparous Creek, Meadow Creek, a tributary to Waiparous Creek, Margaret Creek (SW W5), an unnamed tributary to Waiparous Creek, Quirk Creek (lower reach only) downstream of the bridge near Mac Creek, Elbow River (river only) upstream of Elbow Falls, Gold Creek upstream of the old water supply dam (see map), and an unlimited number of brook trout and rainbow trout only from Jumpingpound Creek upstream of the Kananaskis Country boundary, Sibbald Creek downstream of Powderface Trail, Willow Creek and its tributaries upstream of Timber Creek (see map), Drywood Creek and its tributaries, upstream from the Gulf Dam (see map), located approximately 7 km upstream from Waterton Reservoir, Yarrow Creek and its tributaries, and an unlimited number of rainbow trout only from Carbondale River (river only), By means of angling Oldman River (river only) between Gap Falls, which are located within the Bob Creek Wildland Area, and the Forestry Trunk Road / Hwy 40 bridge over the Oldman River (see map), and Racehorse Creek downstream of Vicary Creek. For the purpose of reducing the number of non-native trout in these waters, so as to help facilitate recovery of the native cutthroat and bull trout populations. Signature of Licencee Jim Stelfox, for Chief Fishery Officer This licence ( FR) is valid between June 16, 2013 and October 31, 2013, and is subject to the following condition(s). Stewardship Licence Pilot Project

42 The person named at the top of this fish research licence is allowed to harvest an unlimited number of brook and/or rainbow trout from the above-specified waters only, subject to the following conditions. Only the person named on this fish research licence is permitted to harvest an unlimited number of brook and/or rainbow trout from the above-specified waters. You are not allowed to use baited lures, but may use barbed hooks, while fishing in the above-specified waters under this licence. (Note: Barbless hooks do not significantly reduce hooking mortality, but do significantly reduce the percentage of hooked fish that are landed, so the use of barbless hooks would reduce the number of brook and rainbow trout harvested.) The number of trout caught of each species is to be recorded on the creel card in the appropriate size category. All brook and rainbow trout caught are to be killed, regardless of their size. Cutthroat and bull trout are to be handled in a manner that ensures maximum survival and be released to the waters from which they came. If suspected rainbow X cutthroat trout hybrids are caught, they must be released and recorded as cutthroat trout on the creel card. You must carry this fish research licence with you when harvesting trout from the above-specified waters in addition to your sportfishing licence, if you are required to have one and produce it, upon demand, by a Fish and Wildlife Officer or Conservation Officer. If you encounter another angler while fishing on one of these waters, please tell them that this fish research licence authorizes you to harvest an unlimited number of brook and/or rainbow trout, only from the waters specified on the licence. If they express interest in participating in this project, please give them a copy of the one-page STEWARDSHIP LICENCE PILOT PROJECT background information sheet, which will answer many of their questions and may result in some of them participating in the future. If they ask to see this fish research licence, please show it to them. If they still have questions/concerns, please ask them to contact Jim Stelfox ( ) or Jenny Earle ( ) at the Cochrane Fish and Wildlife office, Matthew Coombs ( ) at the Blairmore Fish and Wildlife office, or Brian Meagher of Trout Unlimited Canada ( ). If you encounter another angler harvesting more trout from these waters than is permitted by the sportfishing regulations, please ask them if they have a fish research licence. If they do not produce a fish research licence, or are using bait, or are harvesting illegal trout, then please record any pertinent information (e.g., description of the individual and, if possible, the licence plate number of their vehicle) and call Report A Poacher ( ). Any person who fails to comply with the above conditions will have their fish research licence revoked and may be charged. Completed creel cards should be kept in the self-addressed, stamped envelope that was provided along with your Stewardship Licence and then mailed, or passed on, to Jim Stelfox by November 15 at the latest. Before submitting cards, please check to ensure that they have been completely and accurately filled out, including the name of the waterbody and the date of the fishing trip. If you lose the envelope that was issued with your Stewardship Licence, then please mail the creel cards to: Jim Stelfox, Fish and Wildlife, Box 1420, Cochrane, T4C 1B4. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project

43 10.0 Appendix 4. Creel card used in 2013 by anglers participating in the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 35

44 '= I z Fi 9 t -l I I "l I a &, Fl it) I!) t x

45 11.0 Appendix 5. Background information sheet used in 2013 for the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. Stewardship Licence Pilot Project: 2013 Progress Report 37

46 STEWARDSHIP LICENCE PILOT PROJECT Background information sheet Project Objectives: 1) To remove, by angling, as many non-native brook and/or rainbow trout as possible from specified streams, so as to facilitate a recovery of the native cutthroat and bull trout populations in those streams. 2) To increase public awareness about the importance of fish identification, to emphasize the difference between native and non-native fish, and to educate the public about the problems that some of our native fish face as a result of the introduction of non-native fish. Requirements for Participation: 1) Anglers must annually pass a fish identification test, consisting of 16 pictures of the above four fish species (brook, bull, cutthroat and rainbow trout). 2) Anglers who pass the test and have completed one supervised outing will be issued a Stewardship Licence, which authorizes them to harvest an unlimited number of nonnative brook and/or rainbow trout from a few waters in the Bow and Oldman River watersheds, as specified on their Stewardship Licence. Project Background: Brook and rainbow trout are not native to the South Saskatchewan River watershed in Alberta. However, they are present in many of the headwater streams in this watershed as a result of extensive stocking of these species in the mid 1900s. Quirk Creek, a tributary of the Elbow River, exemplifies the problems that can occur following introduction of non-native trout. Prior to the stocking of brook trout in the Elbow River in 1940, Quirk Creek contained only cutthroat and bull trout. However, by 1978, brook trout were well established in Quirk Creek, comprising 23% of the fish population, and by 1995, they comprised 92% of the fish population. If nothing were done and the trend continued, it is likely that native trout would have been lost from Quirk Creek, as has occurred in Bragg Creek. Bragg Creek, another tributary to the Elbow River, had a trout population comprised of 7% brook trout in 1955, 96% brook trout in 1979 and 100% brook trout in This is not an isolated situation, but has occurred, or is occurring, in many streams and rivers along the Eastern Slopes in Alberta, and in the United States. Since the initiation of a program in 1998 to selectively remove brook trout from Quirk Creek, anglers have harvested over 9,500 brook trout from Quirk Creek. By 2008, brook trout in the lower reach of Quirk Creek had declined to 30% of the fish population and the biomass of cutthroat trout had increased to near record levels. If this approach can be successfully applied to selectively reduce non-native brook and/or rainbow trout numbers in other specified Alberta streams, then it might be possible to save more native trout populations that are at risk. If you would like to participate in this project, or have questions, please contact Jim Stelfox Jim.Stelfox@gov.ab.ca ( ), Jenny Earle Jennifer.Earle@gov.ab.ca ( ) or Matthew Coombs Matthew.Coombs@gov.ab.ca ( ) of the Fish and Wildlife Division, or Brian Meagher bmeagher@tucanada.org of Trout Unlimited Canada ( ).