Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Cochrane, Alberta 2013
Prepared by Jim D. Stelfox and Jennifer E. Earle Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Cochrane, Alberta April 2013 ii
For information about this report, please contact: Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Fisheries Management Branch Box 1420, #228, 213-1 st Street West Cochrane, Alberta T4C 1B4, Canada Telephone: (403) 932-2388 Cover photos: Brook trout (top) Dean Baayens Bull trout (bottom) Jim Stelfox Suggested Citation: Stelfox, J. D., and J. E. Earle. 2013. Salmonid misidentification by anglers. Unpublished report, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Branch, Cochrane, Alberta. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 1 2.0 METHODS... 3 3.0 RESULTS... 5 3.1 Correct identification... 5 3.2 Species-specific misidentification... 6 3.3 Identification rates relative to angler experience and harvest... 8 4.0 DISCUSSION... 10 4.1 Management Implications... 15 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...16 6.0 LITERATURE CITED... 17 APPENDIX 1. ALBERTA S SALMONID IDENTIFICATION TEST AND DICHOTOMOUS KEY.... 19 APPENDIX 2. SALMONID IDENTIFICATION TEST SURVEY TEMPLATE... 27 APPENDIX 3. ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE 82 ANGLERS TESTED IN 2005 AND 2006 WHEN THEY DID NOT CORRECTLY IDENTIFY A PICTURED FISH IN ALBERTA S SALMONID IDENTIFICATION COURSE ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT... 30 iv
LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME THAT A FISH SPECIES WAS CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT BY THE 82 ALBERTA ANGLERS TESTED IN 2005 AND 2006...6 TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME THAT A FISH SPECIES WAS MISIDENTIFIED AS ANOTHER SPECIES, WHEN IT WAS NOT CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT BY THE 82 ALBERTA ANGLERS TESTED IN 2005 AND 2006...7 TABLE 3. MEAN FIRST-ATTEMPT SCORES FOR ANGLERS RELATIVE TO WHETHER THEY FISH IN EASTERN SLOPES (ES) WATERS, PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT FISHING IN FLOWING ES WATERS AND WHETHER THEY HARVEST TROUT FROM FLOWING ES WATERS.....8 v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Jumpingpound Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC) provided funding for the 2005 2006 portion of this study, which involved Lee Murray and Dean Baayens administering Alberta s Salmonid Identification test to anglers. However, without the cooperation of the anglers, who voluntarily agreed to take time out of their fishing (or other activities that they were engaged in) to take the test in front of a complete stranger, it would not have been possible to gather this data. Brian Meagher (TUC) assisted with developing the design of this study and administered the funds to pay Lee Murray. Bill Robertson, manager of The Fishin Hole store in Calgary, generously covered Dean s wages to administer the test to customers. Members of the Edmonton Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada, the Hook and Hackle Club in Calgary, and the Sarcee Fish and Game Association in Calgary, took time out of their meetings to take the test. Don Hildebrandt, Kenton Neufeld, David Park and Will Warnock reviewed this report and provided constructive comments. vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 a salmonid identification test during 2005 2006 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%. Alberta s provincial fish bull trout Salvelinus confluentus which has been protected by a zero limit since 1995, was the species correctly identified the least often (only 46% of the time). However, when anglers used a dichotomous key, their second-attempt scores increased by at least 25%. In order to reduce the potential for trout harvest due to misidentification, and to increase recreational harvest opportunities for anglers who know how to identify salmonids, it is recommended that consideration be given to making it a requirement for anglers to demonstrate that they are proficient in identifying the common salmonids found in the Eastern Slopes, before they are permitted to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes. vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 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 Salvelinus confluentus, the implementation in 1987 of minimum size limits for cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii, rainbow trout O. mykiss 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 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 Salvelinus fontinalis, which are not native to Alberta, are capable of sustaining relatively high levels of harvest (Earle et al. 2010) 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. 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 (other than the obvious, which is that it only reduces, but does not stop, the illegal harvest of bull trout due to misidentification), is that it is unnecessarily restrictive to anglers who know how to identify the salmonids they catch. Furthermore, since brook trout can out-compete bull and cutthroat trout (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. In 1998, a three-species fish identification test was developed and administered to anglers as a 1
prerequisite to participate in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project (Stelfox et al. 2001a), which is a joint project with Trout Unlimited Canada (TUC). Since only 48% of the anglers passed (scored 100%) on their first attempt, those who failed their first attempt were given a second chance to pass the test, while using a dichotomous key for the three trout species (brook, bull and cutthroat trout) present in the creek. The effectiveness of this key was evident when 76% of those who failed their first attempt passed their second attempt (Stelfox et al. 2001b). Subsequent development and testing of a nine-species test and dichotomous key further demonstrated the usefulness of the dichotomous key in teaching people how to identify fish species. People who scored less than 26% on their first attempt had a mean first-attempt score of 15%, but scored 80% on their second attempt, while using the key (Stelfox et al. 2001b). However, because evaluation of the nine-species test, which was in the development phase, was primarily conducted on biologists, technicians, officers and administrative staff of Alberta Environment, and since there was a wide range in fishing experience of the people tested (from avid anglers to non-anglers), the results could not be considered indicative of the fish identification skills of the average Alberta angler. Therefore, to determine whether concerns about angler misidentification of salmonids were justified, a survey was conducted during the 2005 2007 period by contacting Alberta anglers and asking them to take Alberta s Salmonid Identification test (Stelfox et al. 2000a). The three primary objectives of this survey were to: 1. determine the frequency of accurate identification of salmonid species by Alberta anglers; 2. determine how readily anglers can be educated to identify salmonid species by using the dichotomous key from Alberta's Salmonid Identification Course; and 3. educate anglers in salmonid identification. This report presents the results of that survey. 2
2.0 METHODS Data were gathered by administering to anglers the test that was developed for Alberta's Salmonid Identification Course (Stelfox et al. 2000a). This test consists of 40 pictures (Appendix 1) featuring the nine salmonid species (trout, charr, whitefish and grayling) that anglers would most commonly catch in Alberta s Eastern Slopes. Prior to doing the test, anglers were asked to indicate their level of fishing experience, whether they fished in the Eastern Slopes (ES) and whether they harvested trout from flowing waters in the ES (Appendix 2). In 2005 and 2006, the test was administered to: (1) anglers fishing in stocked ponds and flowing waters in Kananaskis Country; (2) customers in a Calgary fishing store (The Fishin Hole); (3) people attending the Calgary Boat and Sportsmen s Show; and (4) people attending a function at Bow Habitat Station. Since relatively few people in the above situations were willing to take time from their fishing, shopping or perusing activities to do the test, additional data were gathered in 2007 by exploiting the captive audiences at three sporting clubs the Edmonton Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada, the Hook and Hackle Club, and the Sarcee Fish and Game Association in Calgary and Edmonton, by administering the test to their members prior to the authors giving presentations to the clubs. (Note: Although all members of the Sarcee Fish and Game Association that were in attendance at the meeting took the test, the test results for the non-anglers were excluded from the data summary and analysis.) Prior to taking the test, participants were informed that they could ask the person administering the test whether a fish had a particular identifying feature, if they were having difficulty seeing a feature on a pictured fish. After anglers had done the test once, they were asked if they would do it a second time, while using the dichotomous key from Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Appendix 1). Those taking the test a second time were not informed whether they had misidentified any of the pictures on their first attempt, until after they had completed their second attempt of the same test. After completing the 3
test(s), participants were given the results of their test(s) and shown the key identifying features on the fish pictures that they had misidentified. 4
3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Correct identification Of the 82 anglers tested in 2005 and 2006, almost half (39) were tested at a Calgary fishing store (The Fishin Hole) or at the Calgary Boat and Sportsmen s Show, 29 were tested while fishing in ES waters in Kananaskis Country (21 at stocked ponds and eight at a stream or river), and the remaining 14 were tested at Bow Habitat Station or various other locations. Although most (71%) of those tested in 2005 2006 indicated that they were experienced anglers who had fished for more than 10 years and 82% indicated that they fished in the ES, the average first-attempt score was only 57%. Only 23 anglers took the test twice. Mean second-attempt scores (86%) for those 23 anglers were much higher than their first-attempt scores (61%). In 2007, the 67 anglers tested were mostly (76%) experienced anglers who had fished for more than 10 years and most (81%) indicated that they fished in the ES. Although all of the anglers tested in 2007 belonged to fishing clubs, the average first-attempt score (65%) was only slightly higher than that of the anglers tested in 2005 and 2006. Mean second-attempt scores (89%) were much higher than first-attempt scores (62%) for the 44 anglers who took the test twice in 2007. Correct species identification on the first attempt by the 82 anglers tested in 2005 and 2006 ranged from a low of 46% for bull trout to a high of 78% for Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus (Table 1). Overall, anglers had less difficulty identifying the large-scaled salmonids (Arctic grayling, lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis and mountain whitefish) than the trout species. Of the trout species, rainbow trout were correctly identified the most frequently (68% of the time). Of the nine salmonid species in the test, four of the native species Arctic grayling, bull trout, cutthroat trout and rainbow trout are of greatest concern regarding misidentification, since they either have zero 5
bag limits or large minimum size limits. Of those four species, the two with the lowest scores bull trout and cutthroat trout are species that COSEWIC has recommended be listed as Threatened in Alberta. Table 1. Percentage of the time that a fish species was correctly identified on the first attempt by the 82 Alberta anglers tested 1 in 2005 and 2006. Fish species Arctic grayling Lake whitefish Mountain whitefish Brown trout Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout Bull trout Lake trout Brook trout 78% 61% 61% 48% 57% 68% 46% 49% 54% 1 Test used was from Alberta's Salmonid Identification Course (Stelfox et al. 2000a). 3.2 Species-specific misidentification When Arctic grayling were misidentified on the first attempt by the anglers tested in 2005 and 2006, they were usually (63% of the time) misidentified as one of the other two large-scaled fish in the test mountain whitefish or lake whitefish (Table 2). When lake whitefish and mountain whitefish were misidentified, they were most frequently misidentified as each other. When brown trout Salmo trutta and brook trout were misidentified, they were most frequently misidentified as each other. When cutthroat trout were misidentified, they were most frequently misidentified as brown trout (39% of the time), brook trout (18% of the time) or rainbow trout (17% of the time). When rainbow trout were misidentified, they were most frequently (44% of the time) misidentified as lake trout or brook trout. When bull trout were misidentified, they were most frequently (45% of the time) misidentified as one of the other two charr species in the test brook trout or lake trout. When lake trout were misidentified, they were most frequently (51% of the time) misidentified as brown trout or bull trout. Pictures of small or juvenile bull, brown, cutthroat and rainbow trout tended to be more frequently misidentified as brook trout than were the pictures of large adult fish of these species (Appendix 3). 6
Table 2. Percentage of the time that a fish species was misidentified as another species, when it was not correctly identified on the first attempt by the 82 Alberta anglers tested 1 in 2005 and 2006. Pictured fish species Misidentified as: Arctic grayling Lake whitefish Mountain whitefish Brown trout Cutthroat trout Rainbow trout Bull trout Lake trout Brook trout Arctic grayling 23% 19% 6% 3% 6% 9% 6% 6% Lake whitefish 26% 55% 3% 2% 8% 6% 8% 6% Mountain whitefish 37% 57% 3% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4% Brown trout 7% 5% 7% 39% 13% 12% 28% 23% Cutthroat trout 6% 3% 5% 18% 11% 9% 9% 12% Rainbow trout 2% 0% 4% 12% 17% 5% 5% 14% Bull trout 9% 4% 3% 13% 8% 6% 23% 15% Lake trout 7% 3% 4% 15% 6% 25% 22% 17% Brook trout 4% 3% 1% 26% 18% 19% 23% 10% No attempt to identify 2% 1% 2% 5% 3% 7% 8% 6% 3% 1 Test used was from Alberta's Salmonid Identification Course (Stelfox et al. 2000a). 7
3.3 Identification rates relative to angler experience and harvest As expected, anglers who did not fish in ES waters correctly identified fewer fish in the test than did anglers who fished in ES waters (Table 3). Similarly, anglers who spent less than half of their ES fishing time fishing in flowing waters had lower scores than did anglers who spent 50% of their ES fishing time fishing in flowing waters. However, ES anglers who indicated that they harvest trout from flowing ES waters correctly identified fewer trout than did ES anglers who did not harvest trout from flowing ES waters. Table 3. Mean first-attempt scores for anglers relative to whether they fish in Eastern Slopes (ES) waters, percentage of time spent fishing in flowing ES waters and whether they harvest trout from flowing ES waters. Sample sizes are shown in parenthesis. Percentage of fish in the test 1 that were correctly identified in a particular year 2005 and Category 2006 2007 Anglers who do not fish in ES waters 25 (15) 40 (11) Anglers who fish in ES waters 64 (67) 69 (48) Anglers who spend <50% of their ES fishing time fishing in flowing ES waters 53 (22) 57 (15) Anglers who spend 50% of their ES fishing time fishing in flowing ES waters 70 (45) 74 (33) ES anglers who do not harvest trout from flowing ES waters 72 (34) 71 (29) ES anglers who harvest trout from flowing ES waters 56 (33) 66 (19) 1 Test used was from Alberta's Salmonid Identification Course (Stelfox et al. 2000a). First-attempt scores generally increased as the number of years of fishing experience increased. Mean scores in 2005 2006 were 33% (n=6), 49% (n=18) and 61% (n=58) for those who indicated that they had fished for <1, 1 10 or >10 years, respectively. However, within these categories, scores ranged widely from 25% to 50% for those who had fished for <1 year, from 10% to 95% for those who had fished for 1 10 years, and from 7.5% to 100% for those who had fished for >10 years. 8
First-attempt scores also increased as the number of days fished per year increased. Mean first-attempt scores in 2005 2006 were 34% (n=18), 44% (n=29) and 79% (n=35) for those who indicated that they usually fished <5, 5 20 or >20 days/year, respectively. However, within these categories, scores also ranged widely from 15% to 90% for those who fished <5 days/year, from 7.5% to 100% for those who fished 5 20 days/year, and from 12.5% to 100% for those who fished >20days/year. Surprisingly, the average first-attempt score was only 72% (n=11; range from 32.5% to 100%) for the group of ES anglers expected to be the most proficient at salmonid identification anglers who had fished for >10 years, spent >50% of their ES fishing time fishing in flowing ES waters, and harvested trout from flowing ES waters. 9
4.0 DISCUSSION The results of our study suggest that angler misidentification of salmonids in general, and trout in particular, is likely a significant problem, with the problem being most severe for bull trout. Furthermore, the salmonid identification skill level of the average Alberta angler is probably considerably lower than is suggested by our 2005 2006 study results. This is because our study does not represent a random sample of the angling population, since anglers were not compelled to take the test. Voluntary submission to testing likely biases the sampling design by selecting for anglers who were more confident in their fish identification skills. This was evident to Lee Murray, who noted that when he asked anglers to take the test, those who were not fluent in English, or who felt that they would do poorly, typically declined to take the test. The extent to which this was an issue is evident from the following excerpts from Lee Murray s Salmonid ID and Angler Survey Log for 2005. July 21, McLean Pond -3 people did the test. There were 14 people fishing of which 4 were fluent enough in English to do the test. Some could converse a small bit but had no written English skills. -when shown the test many cringe and say no. July 28, Sibbald Meadows Pond -13 people fishing and 2 did the test. Most claimed that they knew little about identification of the fish and, when shown the test, backed off immediately. -fish (that anglers were catching) were being misidentified as rainbows when they were actually cutthroats and one brook trout was caught and was identified as different, but they didn t really know what it was; just a trout and part of the 5 fish bag limit. August 18, Allen Bill Pond -encountered 19 anglers of which 15 were fishing illegally (using bait of various forms like worms, cheese, etc.) -one individual said the test was not worth doing as he would do miserably and one individual did the test twice. While the above demonstrates why scores would likely have been substantially lower if all anglers had been compelled to take the test when asked, the observation at Allen Bill Pond that 15 of the 19 anglers were fishing illegally (using bait) demonstrates that knowledge of and compliance with the fishing regulations is also a problem. In June 2005, the outlet berm of Allen Bill Pond washed out, making 10
the former pond part of the Elbow River, and hence subject to the Elbow River fishing regulations. Despite the fact that posters were put up to inform anglers that the Elbow River regulations now applied to the former Allen Bill Pond, most anglers continued to fish with bait, as if this were still a stocked put-andtake fishery, and not part of the Elbow River. In light of this, it is likely that many of the anglers fishing at Allen Bill Pond would have also kept bull trout or undersized cutthroat trout they caught, either because they would have been unaware of the regulations that applied to these species, or they would not have been able to identify them. This concern is supported by the observation that anglers who indicated that they harvested trout from flowing ES waters correctly identified the salmonids in the test less often than did ES anglers who did not harvest trout from flowing ES waters. Another surprising observation was that the anglers tested in 2007, all of whom belonged to fishing clubs, and might therefore be expected to have above-average fishing and fish identification skills, scored only slightly better than the anglers tested in 2005 and 2006. One possible explanation for this is that the testing bias that was evident with the anglers tested in 2005 and 2006 was not a factor with the testing conducted in 2007, since all of the club members took the test. (Note: The test results for the nonanglers in the Sarcee Fish and Game Association were excluded from the data summary and analysis.) If only those club members who felt confident in their fish identification skills had taken the test in 2007, it is likely that the average score would have been substantially higher. Use of the dichotomous key helped anglers to substantially improve their scores on their second attempt. However, it is likely that second-attempt scores would have improved even more had the testing been conducted under more controlled circumstances, or if anglers were motivated to get 100% (e.g., as a prerequisite to harvest unlimited numbers of non-native trout from specified waters via the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project). For example, many anglers were distracted by a desire to resume fishing or their other activities, and hence were not inclined to properly and consistently use the key to identify the pictured fish. This was amply demonstrated by one of the club members who took the test in 2007. After scoring 37.5% on their first attempt, they correctly identified 100% of the first 22 pictures, but only 44% of the remaining 18 pictures, on their second attempt. When asked what happened, they said that they 11
hurried to finish the last part of the test on their second attempt, so as to attend a flyfishing demonstration that was just starting outside. The extent to which proper use of the key can improve fish identification skills was evident during development of Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course. Participants who had fished <1 year scored only 38% on their first attempt, but 84% on their second attempt, while using the key (Stelfox et al. 2000b). Even anglers who had fished >10 years showed improvement, scoring 95% on their second attempt compared to 81% on their first attempt. Of all of the trout species in the test, bull trout should have been most readily identifiable by anglers, because of the extensive public education and awareness campaign conducted in the mid 1990s to increase the profile of this species and to aid anglers in identifying it. Specifically: (1) it was declared Alberta s provincial fish; (2) the No Black Put it Back slogan was launched to draw attention to the key identifying feature of bull trout; (3) numerous signs and posters, featuring this slogan and pictures of bull trout, were put up at licence vendors and along many of the rivers and streams inhabited by bull trout; and (4) several newspaper and magazine articles and television infomercials, featuring bull trout, were published or aired. Despite all this exposure, our study revealed that anglers tested a decade later correctly identified bull trout only 46% of the time, which was lower than for any of the other salmonid species in the test. Low identification rates for bull trout have been documented by other researchers. Schmetterling and Long (1999) found that only 44% of the Montana anglers they tested were able to correctly identify bull trout from a variety of replicas, including photographs, drawings, mounts, live fish in aquariums, or fish in the creel. More signage has improved trout identification rates in some cases. When Idaho implemented a highintensity education program (which primarily involved signage) on the Middle Fork Boise River to reduce the potential for harvest of bull trout due to misidentification, they found that this approach nearly doubled 12
the ability of anglers to identify bull trout (Schill et al. 2001). However, although bull trout went from being the least correctly identified fish in 1998 to the second-most commonly identified species in 1999 (following the education effort), only 57% of the anglers surveyed on the Middle Fork Boise River were able to identify bull trout in 1999, which is only slightly better than the 46% we observed in our study. In contrast, Schmetterling et al. (2001) found no significant improvement in anglers ability to identify fish following the increased use of signage, fish identification display boards and distribution of pocket-sized handouts in western Montana. Subsequent to the enhanced education efforts, anglers in their study correctly identified only 60% of the salmonids in 1999 (down from 63% in 1996) and bull trout were correctly identified by only 44% of the anglers in 1999 identical to the 1996 rate. Based on the above, it appears unlikely that the use of signs and brochures alone will do much to improve anglers salmonid identification skills in Alberta. However, implementation of something like a Stewardship Licence, discussed by Quinn (2005), may be a more effective approach. To obtain a Stewardship Licence, which would be a prerequisite to harvest trout from flowing waters in the ES, anglers would be required to pass a fish identification test. Anglers who did not have a Stewardship Licence could still be permitted to fish in flowing waters in the ES, but only as catch-and-release anglers for trout. Such an approach would afford greater protection for native bull and cutthroat trout than the current regulations. Furthermore, it would be possible to revise some of the current regulations (e.g., the two-trout limit) that are unnecessarily restrictive to anglers who are proficient in fish identification, so as to allow anglers holding a Stewardship Licence to harvest considerably more, or an unlimited number of, non-native brook and rainbow trout from specified waters in the ES. Increased harvest of non-native trout from specified waters, by anglers who have been shown how to identify fish and passed a fish identification test, is not a new concept to Alberta. For example, 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. 2010). Use of the fish identification test and dichotomous key have proven to be very effective in teaching anglers how to 13
identify the three species of fish found in Quirk Creek only 15 (0.2%) of the 9,585 fish harvested by anglers participating in the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project were not brook trout. Similarly, starting in 2009, anglers who annually pass a fish identification test have also been permitted to harvest an unlimited number of brook trout from several other specified ES streams via the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. Since then, participating anglers have harvested almost 3,000 brook trout from the specified streams, with over 2,000 being harvested in 2012. 14
4.1 Management Implications The efficacy of species-specific fishing regulations (e.g., 0-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. Based on the results of our study, angler misidentification of salmonids in the Eastern Slopes appears to be a problem that has implications for fisheries management, by reducing the potential for species-specific regulations to work. One possible solution to this problem is to educate anglers to identify the most common salmonids in the Eastern Slopes. 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 salmonid species by reducing the harvest of protected fish due to misidentification. It would also make it possible to permit educated anglers to harvest more non-native trout species from specified waters in the Eastern Slopes, such as has been done since 1998 via the Quirk Creek Brook Trout Suppression Project (Earle et al. 2010) and since 2009 via the Stewardship Licence Pilot Project. 15
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Consideration should be given to making it a requirement for anglers to demonstrate that they are proficient in identifying the common salmonids found in the Eastern Slopes, before they are permitted to harvest trout from flowing waters in the Eastern Slopes. It is also recommended that Fisheries Management Branch restore the fish ID website and on-line salmonid ID quiz, so as to assist anglers in learning how to identify salmonid species. 16
6.0 LITERATURE CITED DeStaso, J., and F. J. Rahel. 1994. 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 123:289 297. Earle, J. E., J. D. Stelfox, and B. E. Meagher. 2010. Quirk Creek brook trout suppression project 2009. Unpublished report, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Cochrane, Alberta. Gunckel, S. L., A. R. Hemmingsen, and J. L. Li. 2002. Effect of bull trout and brook trout interactions on foraging habitat, feeding behaviour, and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131(6): 1119 1130. Nakano, S., S. Kitano, K. Nakai, and K. D. Fausch. 1998. 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 52:345-355. Paul, A. J., J. R. Post, and J. D. Stelfox. 2003. Can anglers influence the abundance of native and nonnative salmonids in a stream from the Canadian Rocky Mountains? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:109 119. Popowich, R. C., P. A. Venturelli, J. D. Stelfox, and E. B. Taylor. 2011. Identification of bull trout x brook trout hybrids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:548 553. Quinn, M. 2005. 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. 2001. 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 01-06. Boise, Idaho. Schmetterling, D. A., and M. H. Long. 1999. Montana anglers inability to identify bull trout and other salmonids. Fisheries 24(7):24 27. Schmetterling, D. A., M. H. Long, and B. J. Cummings. 2001. Educational strategies to improve Montana anglers ability to identify salmonids. Pages 67 69 in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 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 37 46 in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 17
Stelfox, J. D., G. E. Shumaker, and D. M. Baayens. 2001b. Fish identification education. Pages 63 66 in Brewin, M. K., A. J. Paul, and M. Monita, editors. Bull Trout II conference proceedings. Trout Unlimited Canada, Calgary, Alberta. 18
APPENDIX 1. ALBERTA S SALMONID IDENTIFICATION TEST AND DICHOTOMOUS KEY. 19
1 2 Dean Baayens Dean Baayens 3 4 Dean Baayens Gary Louie 5 6 Dean Baayens Barry Mitchell 7 8 Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Kyle McNeilly Jim Stelfox
9 10 11 Jim Stelfox 12 Dean Baayens 13 Barry Mitchell 14 Dean Baayens 15 Barry Mitchell 16 Jim Stelfox Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Michael Boisclair Dean Baayens
17 18 19 Christopher Martinsen 20 Dean Baayens Kelsey Kure Jim Stelfox 21 22 Dean Baayens Jim Stelfox 23 24 Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Kerry Brewin Dean Baayens
25 26 Dean Baayens Kelsey Kure 27 28 Dean Baayens Jim Stelfox 29 30 Rocky Hornung Dean Baayens 31 32 Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Jim Stelfox Kyle McNeilly
33 34 Jim Stelfox Egidio Benacchio 35 36 Bruce Masterman Jim Stelfox 37 38 Dean Baayens Wayne Roberts 39 40 Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Jim Stelfox Brad Fenson
Salmonid family Small scales (Trout and char) see key on next page Large scales (Whitefish and Arctic grayling) Jim Stelfox Lorne Fitch Top of dorsal fin rounded (Arctic grayling) Top of dorsal fin pointed Top of dorsal fin extends beyond back of fin when fin is flattened (Lake whitefish) Top of dorsal fin does not extend beyond back of fin when fin is flattened (Mountain whitefish) Brad Fenson Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00) Dean Baayens Dean Baayens
Partial key for trout and char Black spots on sides (Trout) No black spots on sides (Char) Pale haloes around black spots (Brown trout) No pale haloes around black spots No spots or markings on dorsal fin (Bull trout) Spots or markings on dorsal fin Kyle McNeilly Kevin Egan Red-orange slash under jaw (Cutthroat trout) No red-orange slash under jaw (Rainbow trout) Pale spots on dorsal fin; tail deeply forked (Lake trout) Black markings on dorsal fin; tail not deeply forked (Brook trout) Jim Stelfox Egidio Benacchio Duane Harding Jim Stelfox Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 11/00)
APPENDIX 2. SALMONID IDENTIFICATION TEST SURVEY TEMPLATE. 27
Name Date Phone number ( ) Postal code Please circle the appropriate response to the following questions in Section A. First attempt Second attempt (A) 1) Do you fish? Yes; No If so, how many years have you been fishing? <1; 1-10; >10 years 2) On average, how many days per year do you fish? <5; 5-20; >20 days 3) Do you fish in the Eastern Slopes? Yes; No 4) What percentage of your fishing time in the Eastern Slopes is spent on streams/rivers? % 5) On average, how many trout per year do you harvest from Eastern Slopes streams/rivers? 0; 1-5; 6-10; 11-20; >20 trout (B) Please place a check ( ) mark in the appropriate column. Do not be fooled by the considerable differences in colouration that can occur between male, female, adult and juvenile fish. Focus on the key identifying features. Photo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Arctic grayling WHITEFISH TROUT CHAR Lake Mountain Brown Cutthroat Rainbow Bull Lake whitefish whitefish trout trout trout trout trout Brook trout Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 5/07)
Photo 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Number wrong Arctic grayling WHITEFISH TROUT CHAR Lake Mountain Brown Cutthroat Rainbow Bull Lake whitefish whitefish trout trout trout trout trout Brook trout Thank you for your participation. Total number wrong: Test administered by: Score: % right Test administered at: (e.g., give name of stream/river, stocked pond, campground, fishing store) Alberta s Salmonid Identification Course (Rev. 5/07)
APPENDIX 3. ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE 82 ANGLERS TESTED IN 2005 AND 2006 WHEN THEY DID NOT CORRECTLY IDENTIFY A PICTURED FISH IN ALBERTA S SALMONID IDENTIFICATION COURSE ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT. 30
54 Number of times that Arctic grayling were not correctly identified 3 Number of Arctic grayling in test 22% Percentage of time that Arctic grayling were not correctly identified 78% Percentage of time that Arctic grayling were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 15 22 33 Total when not correctly identified 0 0 1 1 2% No attempt to identify 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 4 4 6 14 26% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 7 7 6 20 37% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 1 1 2 4 7% Misidentified as a brown trout 1 1 1 3 6% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 0 1 0 1 2% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 0 3 2 5 9% Misidentified as a bull trout 1 2 1 4 7% Misidentified as a lake trout 0 1 1 2 4% Misidentified as a brook trout 14 20 20 54 Total 96 Number of times that lake whitefish were not correctly identified 3 Number of lake whitefish in test 39% Percentage of time that lake whitefish were not correctly identified 61% Percentage of time that lake whitefish were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 5 24 40 Total when not correctly identified 1 0 0 1 1% No attempt to identify 6 8 8 22 23% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 18 14 23 55 57% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 1 3 1 5 5% Misidentified as a brown trout 1 2 0 3 3% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 2 1 1 4 4% Misidentified as a bull trout 1 1 1 3 3% Misidentified as a lake trout 1 1 1 3 3% Misidentified as a brook trout 31 30 35 96 Total 97 Number of times that mountain whitefish were not correctly identified 3 Number of mountain whitefish in test 39% Percentage of time that mountain whitefish were not correctly identified 61% Percentage of time that mountain whitefish were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 16 21 34 Total when not correctly identified 0 2 0 2 2% No attempt to identify 6 7 5 18 19% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 18 21 14 53 55% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 0 3 4 7 7% Misidentified as a brown trout 0 2 3 5 5% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 2 2 0 4 4% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 0 1 2 3 3% Misidentified as a bull trout 3 1 0 4 4% Misidentified as a lake trout 0 0 1 1 1% Misidentified as a brook trout 29 39 29 97 Total 31
254 Number of times that brown trout were not correctly identified 6 Number of brown trout in test 52% Percentage of time that brown trout were not correctly identified 48% Percentage of time that brown trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 2 6 13 17 32 37 Total when not correctly identified 2 0 2 3 2 3 12 5% No attempt to identify 3 1 2 6 2 1 15 6% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 2 1 0 2 1 1 7 3% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 1 1 0 1 4 1 8 3% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a brown trout 4 9 10 9 6 7 45 18% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 9 4 5 1 3 8 30 12% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 7 8 5 9 2 3 34 13% Misidentified as a bull trout 7 4 6 9 2 9 37 15% Misidentified as a lake trout 18 7 27 3 8 3 66 26% Misidentified as a brook trout 53 35 57 43 30 36 254 Total juvenile juvenile 141 Number of times that cutthroat trout were not correctly identified 4 Number of cutthroat trout in test 43% Percentage of time that cutthroat trout were not correctly identified 57% Percentage of time that cutthroat trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 8 14 31 39 Total when not correctly identified 1 2 1 0 4 3% No attempt to identify 3 0 0 1 4 3% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 2 0 0 1 3 2% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 2 1 1 2 6 4% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 8 23 9 15 55 39% Misidentified as a brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 0 2 20 2 24 17% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 2 4 5 0 11 8% Misidentified as a bull trout 2 1 3 3 9 6% Misidentified as a lake trout 10 6 3 6 25 18% Misidentified as a brook trout 30 39 42 30 141 Total juvenile juvenile 159 Number of times that rainbow trout were not correctly identified 6 Number of rainbow trout in test 32% Percentage of time that rainbow trout were not correctly identified 68% Percentage of time that rainbow trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 1 12 19 23 30 35 Total when not correctly identified 2 4 0 2 2 1 11 7% No attempt to identify 2 3 0 1 2 1 9 6% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 0 7 1 1 1 2 12 8% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 2 1 3 0 1 2 9 6% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 2 4 3 10 0 1 20 13% Misidentified as a brown trout 1 6 2 1 4 4 18 11% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 0 2 2 4 0 2 10 6% Misidentified as a bull trout 5 8 5 9 4 8 39 25% Misidentified as a lake trout 0 10 5 14 2 0 31 19% Misidentified as a brook trout 14 45 21 42 16 21 159 Total juvenile juvenile 32
265 Number of times that bull trout were not correctly identified 6 Number of bull trout in test 54% Percentage of time that bull trout were not correctly identified 46% Percentage of time that bull trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 4 9 20 26 29 36 Total when not correctly identified 2 7 3 3 4 1 20 8% No attempt to identify 4 8 8 3 0 0 23 9% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 3 6 3 1 1 2 16 6% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 4 1 8 1 0 3 17 6% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 3 4 2 4 5 15 33 12% Misidentified as a brown trout 3 3 0 3 14 2 25 9% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 1 2 3 2 3 2 13 5% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a bull trout 14 2 7 15 17 3 58 22% Misidentified as a lake trout 4 16 10 4 8 18 60 23% Misidentified as a brook trout 38 49 44 36 52 46 265 Total juvenile juvenile juvenile 125 Number of times that lake trout were not correctly identified 3 Number of lake trout in test 51% Percentage of time that lake trout were not correctly identified 49% Percentage of time that lake trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 3 18 25 Total when not correctly identified 2 3 2 7 6% No attempt to identify 5 0 2 7 6% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 5 3 2 10 8% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 5 3 0 8 6% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 12 8 15 35 28% Misidentified as a brown trout 4 4 3 11 9% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 0 3 3 6 5% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 7 9 13 29 23% Misidentified as a bull trout 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a lake trout 8 2 2 12 10% Misidentified as a brook trout 48 35 42 125 Total 228 Number of times that brook trout were not correctly identified 6 Number of brook trout in test 46% Percentage of time that brook trout were not correctly identified 54% Percentage of time that brook trout were correctly identified Photo # Percentage of the time misidentified as another species 7 10 11 27 28 38 Total when not correctly identified 0 0 1 1 3 1 6 3% No attempt to identify 7 2 1 1 2 0 13 6% Misidentified as an Arctic grayling 1 4 0 2 3 4 14 6% Misidentified as a lake whitefish 1 3 0 1 3 1 9 4% Misidentified as a mountain whitefish 5 5 18 15 5 5 53 23% Misidentified as a brown trout 4 4 9 5 2 4 28 12% Misidentified as a cutthroat trout 5 9 2 5 7 5 33 14% Misidentified as a rainbow trout 8 2 7 6 4 7 34 15% Misidentified as a bull trout 9 5 5 9 5 5 38 17% Misidentified as a lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Misidentified as a brook trout 40 34 43 45 34 32 228 Total 33