New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
In 1970, I came to Montana to attend the University of Montana. I was going to be a fish biologist, and loving to fly fish more than just about anything else in life, I could not think of a better place to go to school than Montana with its fabled trout streams.
One of the other attractions of Montana to me was the occurrence of wild populations of Arctic Grayling. Once found throughout the upper Missouri River drainage in the state, by the 1970s the fish were already greatly reduced in numbers and distribution. Wild populations were largely restricted to the Big Hole River, the last major stronghold for the fish.
During my college years I used to go down to the Big Hole a couple of times a summer to cast flies for the grayling and often caught a dozen or more of the fish in a typical day. Today you would be lucky to find a single grayling at all, much less catch one in the Big Hole.
Indeed last year a survey by the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks could only find 40 adult fish in an 80-mile section of the river. The grayling may already be functionally extinct in the Big Hole River.
So given the documented decline of the grayling in Montana, it was extremely disappointing to learn that this past week the Fish and Wildlife Service, rejected a petition for emergency listing for the Montana populations of the Arctic grayling from Western Watersheds Project and Center for Biological Diversity. The latest delay in listing the fish is nothing new. Ever since the fish was first documented to be in danger by the FWS in 1982, the agency has done just about everything it could to avoid listing.
Unfortunately the sordid tale of the grayling is typical of the response of the agency to any listing petition, particularly during the Bush administration. The history of the fish’s legal travails is worth recounting here.
The grayling is a beautiful trout-like fish with a large sail-like dorsal fin and purple metallic coloration. The fish is found throughout the Arctic regions of the globe, including Alaska, Canada and much of Europe and Asia. But in the lower 48 states, the fish, an Ice Age relict, is now only found in Montana’s upper Missouri River drainage. It was once found in Michigan as well, but went extinct there about a hundred years ago due to water quality decline resulting from extensive logging. In Montana the fish has declined significantly, and is now only found in about an 80-mile stretch of the upper Big Hole River, plus a few other locations including Red Rock Lakes, near Ennis Reservoir on the Madison River, and in a small stretch of the Sun River.
By 1991, it was apparent to other biologists that if nothing were done to save the grayling, it would likely disappear from Montana. Around this time I was approached by several Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks fish biologists who were concerned about the future of the fish. Unable to generate support within their agency to do anything about the plight of the fish because the agency feared repercussions from ranchers and the Montana legislature, they asked me if I would petition to have the fish listed under the ESA. So with their quiet assistance, I put together a listing petition, which was submitted that fall to the FWS by Biological Diversity Legal Foundation and me.
The FWS took several years to respond, but eventually concluded that the fish was indeed headed for extinction and listing was warranted. However, using a technique that the agency frequently resorts to when it wants to avoid listing a controversial species, it also concluded that while the fish was indeed going extinct, there were other species that were closer to extinction, so it would not list the fish. Such stalling tactics are common with the service.
There were many reasons for grayling decline in Montana. One factor appears to be dams, which blocked long distance migrations that appear to be part of the fish’s evolutionary strategy.
However, the most important factor was the loss in habitat due to livestock production. Trampling of riparian habitat throughout the grayling’s range has led to a decline in habitat quality, higher water temperatures, and a decline in deep pools, which are the preferred resting and feeding sites for the fish.
In addition, dewatering of streams for irrigation of hay fields has severely impacted the fish. In the heat of the summer, the Big Hole and other rivers becomes too warm to support grayling and the fish retreat to smaller and cooler tributaries. But in drought years, many of these tributaries are completely dewatered, making it impossible for grayling to access the colder headwaters. In drought years, the main stem of the Big Hole River actually goes completely dry in some segments. The other effect of dewatering was to crowd grayling together in the deeper pools of the main river where competition with exotic fish was intensified.
In my opinion, the obvious impact of the ranching industry upon the fish was the major factor prompting the FWS to stall listing. If listed, conservationists like myself would be able to legally require minimum flows in rivers, and changes to grazing management on federal allotments throughout the grayling’s remaining range. It was also the reason the state of Montana opposed listing—because it did not want to irritate the ranchers who might be affected by such remedies. Though restrictions on sport fishing are rare when fish are listed, the department probably also feared that listing might potentially lead to restrictions on fishing on the Big Hole River.
In order to head off listing by the FWS, the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks did begin to take the grayling’s plight seriously just as the department biologists who contacted had hoped. The department assigned a full time fish biologist to monitor grayling populations. In addition, new research was initiated to review the genetic status of the fish, as well as attempts to reestablish viable populations in a few other rivers like the Ruby and Gallatin where grayling were once native. These stocking efforts all appear to have failed.
In addition to the invigorated interest in the grayling’s fate by the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, a working group of ranchers, the state of Montana, and others were organized to implement measures to “save” the grayling. Among its strategies was an effort to increase water flows in the Big Hole River. However, like all voluntary efforts, this working group did not garner sufficient buy in from ranchers to significantly improve water levels, particularly during drought years.
So to further stall listing of the fish, the FWS has now determined that even though the Montana populations of the grayling are genetically district and isolated from other grayling further north, these fish are not critical to the survival of the species as a whole. In other words the department suggests that since grayling are abundant in Alaska, there is no need to protect the Montana population.
Such a ruling from the FWS under the Bush administration is not a surprise since it has an abysmal record of protecting species or any thing else that might affect industry. Nevertheless, if this same logic were applied to all the endangered salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest, the lynx, wolf and grizzly in the northern Rockies would no longer have any ESA protection either since all of these species are abundant in Alaska. Not only is such a position ethically wrong, it is counter to the best conservation science that suggests that isolated and district populations are important to the overall conservation of a species.
Of course, the FWS is correct when it asserts that there are plenty of grayling in Alaska, but as renowned conservationist Aldo Leopold noted years ago when discussing the indifference to the disappearance of the grizzly from the West, “relegating grizzlies to Alaska is like relegating happiness to heaven—one may never get there.” The same thing could be said of the Montana grayling. It will be a sad day if the grayling disappears from Montana—especially when it future could so easily be secured simply by keeping more water in the Big Hole River.
George, I personally know of healthy grayling populations on westside drainages that you haven’t mentioned. Fun to catch but not much in the taste department. Better smoked. Real suckers for dry flies. Check out some of the Hungry Horse drainages and ponds away from the reservoir.
George, I appreciate your article on this topic, despite the ever enthusiastic flogging of ranchers (ouch); but, I would sure like a bit more information on one item, from you or anybody else with an accurate understanding who can please explain the situation to me.
In your article you indicate that “attempts to reestablish viable populations in a few other rivers like the Ruby and Gallatin where grayling were once native… all appear to have failed.” Do you or anybody else know whether these efforts actually took place and whether they took place on a viable scale? Planting one bucket full of a couple of dozen genetically identical fingerlings won’t do it.
Grayling are essentially immune to whirling disease; this species/subspecies/strain/race of grayling was/is also native to the Madison and to the waters you mention; and the Madison, from the Park all the way down through the Beartrap, actually represents nearly a hundred miles of close to perfect habitat for them, with fewer deep pools than the Big Hole but still more than enough. Eyed eggs can relatively easily be made available for Whitlock-Vibert plantings or ice cooler incubators that would be expected to offer excellent results and there was a strong push, about six to ten years ago, to plant them in the Madison. What happened? If it occurred, what was the result and why? I know that grayling are susceptible to easy harvest; but, the Madison is primarily catch-and-release. I also know that some character from Three Forks was raising a stink about both the planting of grayling in the Madison and the Cherry Creek renovation; but, was that enough to derail it?
I’m not questioning your analysis of the situation on the Big Hole or your irritation with the Administration’s misuse of the ESA; but, I like grayling and would like to see everything done to bring them back. It always seemed that, with a proper and intensive enough reintroduction program into the other waters of the upper Missouri drainage, their recovery should have been a no-brainer.
George and I have long disagreed over one key issue regarding the grayling: That the ESA would do anything to preserve them. We also disagree on another thing, that voluntary efforts have done nothing to improve flows.
First, the FWS has been systematically stifled by budgetary cuts such that their administration of ESA has largely become a feeding trough for enviro lawyers who persistently sue on every decision and every species that has been petitioned. The grayling is a paradigm case. Since the original petition in October of 1991, I believe there have been 4 lawsuits, each settled with the petitioners on the order of $50,000- $80,000. (This is an estimate). Do the math and the FWS has doled out $200,000 to $320,000 to the enviros for missing deadlines they can’t meet. They can’t meet the legal deadlines because their budgets have been slashed and their staff has been reduced and stifled by Congress during the Clinton administration (remember Newt?) and the current Bush administration. In that same time, I recall that FWS soled out $5000 a year for 5 years to grayling recovery, raised some grayling at the Bozeman FWS hatchery (through the fisheries budget, not Environmental Services), and provided some money through the Partners program. The net effect is estimated around $60,000. ESA will not save the grayling, FWS can’t save itself right now.
The other issue is whether the voluntary efforts have been successful. To wit: in 1988 the Big Hole went dry at the Wisdom Bridge for 37 days. In 1994, a year of similar drought with voluntary efforts, the river fell to a low of 3cfs on 3 days. In our last sequence of severe drought years the river has rarely dipped below 20 cfs – which is all the result of the voluntary efforts and short of luxurious but certainly near adequate for grayling survival.
The reintroduction in the Ruby River has been ongoing since 1997 -and grayling are naturally reproducing and creating quite a local following among anglers (even guides).
Finally, the “fact” that surveys only found 40 fish is less a reflection of the population size, then the timing, location, and objectives of those surveys.
To make the quantum leap that Big Hole grayling will go extinct because the FWS refused to list them under ESA is an equal leap to the assumption that FWS can reasonably administer ESA under current budgets. Wolves and bears and cuddly salmon will get the funding, but never “precious few grayling”.
To patbob
I’m glad there’s some reproduction of grayling in the Ruby River. When I last checked, the reintroductions did not appear to be successful, but obviously that was premature.
Regards money for listing. Although I don’t deny lack of funds is a problem, the agency has no problem coming up with the money to pay the legal fees when it loses. Why? Because it would rather pay a legal fee than list controversial species. In the case of the grayling and many other species, the reason the species is not listed in a timely manner is due to political interference–as recently revealed with regards to the activities of Ass. sec. of Interior Julie McDonald who changed the biologist’s recommendations on a number of species. And that is part of the point of my piece–political considerations are the real reasons for absurd reasons and lies often given to reject a listing request.
Although I can not prove, I have it from good sources that both Senator Conrad Burns and former Montana Governor Mark Rasco (spelling?) used their political connections to keep the fish off the ESA.
While I do not want to diminish the efforts of those who worked with the Big Hole ranchers to try to increase flows in the river, I am very skeptical of “voluntary” efforts. I have seen this used over and over again to avoid more meaningful actions.
After all the plight of the grayling is not a recent thing. Ranchers have known since the 1980s that the fish was in trouble. And it does not take a rocket scientist or a lot of studies to know that fish need water. There has been more than 3 decades for volunteer action to work and increase water flows in the river.
Voluntary compliance is a nice idea, but when you are challenging decades old practices, and potentially affecting someone’s bottom line, volunteerism only goes so far. I have visited the Big Hole in recent years and still seen portions of the channel nearly dry–all the while flood irrigation is soaking hay fields away from the river. There may be improvements as you suggest, but it is too little too late.
I won’t get into it here, but all water in Montana is publicly owned. It does not belong to ranchers, or anyone else. Water “rights” is just about who gets to use the public’s water and how much–but only if the public wants it to be taken from the river. In reality, the State of Montana has failed its public trust by allowing rivers like the Big Hole to be dewatered. Some day there will be a legal case on this issue and we won’t have to beg ranchers for water. We, the public, will demand that OUR water remains in the river.
While ESA listing does not guarantee survival of a species, it gives you more legal hammers and teeth to cajole, threaten, and sometimes, though rarely, even force actions that will increase the survival of a listed species. In addition, it can provide funding for recovery efforts that would otherwise not be available.
I agree George that the at the root of the plight of grayling lies the overappropriation of water and the archaic policies water law is based on (a lot like the 1872 Mining Act). My problem is that ESA is not the best tool to change water law. ESA is a conservation tool for species like the grayling, but probably less effective than community based conservation (voluntary) efforts. I wish the environmental community would expand it’s collective tool box to include less obstructive tactics and a broader focus. Lots of conservation happens on working landscapes, but this most critical area of conservation has been largely ignored by the environmental community in favor of litigation over a few federal laws. I am encouraged to see the theme for GYC’s upcoming meeting. Keep on litigating, but stop throwing the baby out with the bath water! Best Wishes.
Patbob
I do not see listing and voluntary efforts as mutually exclusive. In fact, I see one helping the other by providing the incentive for such actions.
George (and others), the Grayling Restoration Alliance is hosting a funeral ceremony for grayling early next week. Please let me know if you would like to join us. – Pat
Okay, patbob, so you “wish the environmental community would expand it’s collective tool box to include less obstructive tactics…” I believe you touched a nerve here. Have you been reading much of the commentary posted on NewWest? Have you not noted how Todd Wilkinson will post articles on climate change, only to have them consistently and maliciously gang-tackled and trashed, in what sure seems like organized and coordinated fashion, by the usual “certainly not the environmental community” suspects? Does that behavior or the reports that a major GOP-aligned PR company has made “to discourage and demoralize the liberal discussion” its company mission statement make you wonder whether implying “obstructive tactics” are the province of “the environmental community” might lack a bit of balance? Have you been reading any of Bill Schneider’s coverage of the Zumbo affair and have you noted the commentary? Again and in the context of the Zumbo coverage and response, do you think that tarring “the environmental community” with the “obstructive tactics” label might lack a bit of balance? Have you read any of the redmeat rhetoric on wolf or grizzly delisting? Do you know the history of the efforts to renovate Cherry Creek for the Westslope Cutthroat and the “obstructive tactics” that were used to badger that effort for so long? Have you been treated to the rantings, on these pages, of the sweet ranch lady who contends that, if her “certainly not the environmental community” side cannot win through the “ballot box,” they should reach for the “cartridge box?” Again, what were you saying about “obstructive tactics” and “the environmental community?” Are you urging us toward a gentler use of our “collective toolbox” while giving the other side a pass to reach into their “cartridge box?” Dr. Lund recently posted a little article about the total cost of a centralized power project and urged that other energy strategies be considered. She was immediately assaulted by a smalltown photographer with a theatre college education who demanded, without revealing his own educational background, to know her doctoral field, as if to leave the impression that he was in a better position to comment on the topic. What were you saying about tactics?
Did you not notice that “the environmental community” has indeed been working, for years, on collaborative and voluntary efforts to secure sufficient instream flow for the grayling in the Big Hole, but that the response to these efforts has been inadequate to preserve the species? Exactly which “obstructive tactics” were you objecting to here and what next step would you offer us? Were you not alerted, by my earlier posting and Pat Munday’s response, to the fact that efforts to reach into our “collective toolbox” and adopt “a broader focus” and work to get the species properly reintroduced into larger and more adequate habitats, in the Madison for example, were pointlessly and needlessly thwarted? The “broader focus” of these reintroduction efforts would have given the species a realistic chance; but, these efforts were stunted and undermined by the “obstructive tactics” of others. Your allegations need to be better aimed, especially on this of all topics. I have been working on Bison in Yellowstone and on Horse Butte, snowmobiles and the heavy-handed tactics of the Paul Hoffman crowd, Westslope Cutthroat, Grayling, and other issues for years; I have seen a lot of “obstructive tactics” used; but, tarring “the environmental community” with them on these particular topics is truly a poor choice of words and targets.
First of all, every species listing is additive, because the grizzly folks won’t allow griz to be delisted, the wolf people will not allow wolves to be delisted, the mouse people….,on and on, so there is the necessary funding to keep each and every one of the presently listed species on there, plus keep adding more and more species. Now it may be a radical suggestion, but instead of cussing the government for not giving out more money, why not take the money you’d spend on lawsuits to actively try to increase the grayling population.
Environmental groups take in million of dollars, that could do so much good if it was used for the species it represents, instead of lawyers. I sure would have thought of doing something within my group in 25 years if I was that concerned, not waiting around filing lawsuits for someone else to do it.
Think of all of the money that was blown on the ivory billed woodpecker hoax. Environemental goups themselves should step up to the plate and put a stop to this sort of thing.
Mike:
In a word, yes I am well aware of the obstructive tactics used by the pro-development, anti-conservation movement. I find obstruction by definition counter-productive and negative in tenor and result. I just don’t want my communtity – the environmental community – to lose its identity by stooping, no squirming to the lows that our opponents have stooped. I am also keenly aware of the collaborative efforts that you have mentioned. By golly, I’ve been a part of a whole bunch of those myself. My earlier comments are directed at the goal of conserving endangered species, and the Arctic grayling in particular. As it stands, the ESA (one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation in history) has been systematically undermined administratively. To tie up conservation of a species in litigation for dubious outcomes is one thing, but when it comes down to trying to conserve imperiled species currently the ESA is has become a less effective tool. (Shudder to think about trying to list the Griz now, rather than in the 70′s).
Not only am I well aware of the plight of westslope, yellowstone cutthroat, grayling, and the Cherry Creek debacle, I lived and breathed those projects for nearly two decades. What I learned over those years was that most – and I mean 90% – of Montanans want to take good care of their landscapes and wildlife. But when folks on the fringes at either end took up the mantle, the average Montanan scatters. There is a whole lot of conservation going on, but not at the fringes.
P.S. Grayling didn’t go into the Madison for one reason, because the habitat is lousy for grayling. If you want to restore grayling to the Madison, there are two large dams that need to be removed.
This has been an interesting discussion.
In response to Patbob’s assertion that most landowners want to take good care of their landscapes and wildlife. I don’t doubt that assertion one bit. I do not think for a minute that most ranchers, or for that matter, loggers, developers, etc. want to or believe they are damaging the land or wildlife by their activities. And at least from interactions with many people in these industries over the years, I can sincerely say they do not believe they are doing any significant damage.
But whether malicious or not, damage is occurring. Do you think that most smokers “want” to pollute everyone else’s air. Of course not, but most smokers did not volunteer to give up smoking in public places–which is why we have had to pass laws banning smoking.. It took legal action to force smokers to stop polluting the public’s air.
Even proponents of volunteer efforts should thank the environmental lawyers and organizations that have repeatedly kept up the pressure for the grayling and other species listing. Without the club of the ESA looming in the future, I suspect you would find little incentive for voluntary efforts.
I doubt, also, that the money that was provided to the Big Hole ranchers would have been allocated were it not for this listing potential. And if this new decision by the FWS to deny listing for grayling stands, I suspect you will find a lot, but hopefully not all, of the “volunteer” conservation will vanish. In the end that would a shame.
So I actually hope, Patbob, you reconsider your opposition to the use of the ESA. ESA listing does not negate volunteer conservation efforts. Your apparent success with the ranchers and others are likely more effective, in part, because there is a law standing behind you–whether you personally use it or not.
You are right, George. The ESA is an important tool, but we need to reinvest in ESA and FWS’ ability to administer it to make it effective again. I do not oppose using the tool at all and agree that the threat has been an important incentive for voluntary efforts. My complaint is that the focus has been more on litigation over ESA rather than conservation through ESA. Voluntary, community-based conservation has been a much more effective tool, on a much broader scale, for many more species and ecosystems, for nearly 100 years. I just hope the enviro community reaches for community-based tools more often and the weather worn legal complaint less often.
Thanks for putting it out there.
patbob,
“Grayling didn’t go into the Madison for one reason, because the habitat is lousy for grayling. If you want to restore grayling to the Madison, there are two large dams that need to be removed.”
There are perhaps fifteen miles of free-flowing habitat in the Madison above the Hebgen impoundment, perhaps two miles between Hebgen and Quake, about fifty miles from Quake to Ennis, and some more down the Beartrap. All of these stretches were filled with grayling no more than 125 years ago; but, you dismiss them as “lousy for grayling” now? Fluvial grayling do not and do not need to migrate very far; any and all of the stretches between the impoundments are good grayling habitat. I got so annoyed and flabbergasted by your ridiculous denial that grayling habitat exists on the Madison that I just got off the phone discussing your disinformation with one of the world’s acknowledged top authorities on salmonids and, although he doesn’t want to personally wrestle on a blog site, he characterized your habitat comment as, to paraphrase, manure derived from an adult male bovine.
I don’t know who you are or what your game might be; but, lots of people read these blogs and many of them don’t have the time to research the facts and sift the truth from the disinformation. Every time you make another comment, you seem to throw out something else that I can’t just let lay there as if it were fact when it is not.
I’ve developed an uneasy feeling about you. You play good cop for a while and then, when everyone starts to relax and sing along, you seem to lay in a toxic little dose of bad cop disinformation to see if it will slide by. I’ll tell you one thing, if the “enviro community” starts reaching for “community-based tools” more often, then I sure don’t want those “community-based tools” to be the stuff you seem to be trying to peddle.
Mike:
We can measure experts all day long. Your personal attack is exactly the kind of male bovine excrement I am sick and tired of from the rampant rape and pillagers as well as the in-your-face buffalo field campaign kick your windows out so called saviors of all that is good and pure. There are a bunch of dedicated people, public and private, busting their gluteals to preserve, protect and restore the wild treasures we have in the west. As one of them, I’m disgusted that the term “environmentalist” has become anathema to the cause. Your little diatribe about grayling is case in point why the movement has lost so much credibility.
Madison is not suitable for grayling, aside from the channels of the Madison. Historically, grayling did migrate throughout the Madison and Missouri system. If your expert doesn’t believe me, he or she should pick up R.E. Vincent’s doctoral dissertion, in the library at MSU. While he’s there, he should peruse the fisheries literature regarding grayling and he or she will find some wonderful work from Alaska, Canada, and Europe (Thymallus thymallus) that shows grayling to be highly migratory.
You might look up some of the work done here in MT, too. Specifically in the Big Hole, where grayling were documented to move up to 86 miles between winter, spawning, and summer feeding habitats. Your expert will also find reference to the fact that grayling in the Madison piled up below Ennis dam as it was closed in 1901 and settlers filled their wagons with grayling that were trying to migrate to decent spawning grounds. Your expert will also find that when Horsethief springs (the key spawning habitat for grayling in the upper Madison) was inundated by Hebgen Reservoir, grayling all but disappeared in 6 years time.
I will attest to the accuracy of my information. I will not accuse you of disinformation, just getting some bad information. Do some research on the Madison and you’ll find that as it stands, grayling are doing as good there as can be expected with competition from exotics, lack of spawning habitat, and dams blocking migration corridors. The few that remain are sadly, at carrying capacity.
Lose the ad hominem attacks and you’ll be more likely to win some allies for grayling, which is what they need.
to all:
Patbob is correct about grayling and their basis ecology with regards to long distance migrations. As I mentioned originally in my editorial, there are a number of factors suspected of contributing to grayling demise.
One of the suspected reasons for their decline in many tributaries of the Missouri where they were previously present is the loss of long distance migration opportunities due to dams.
Apparently one of its survivial stratagies is to move between wintering areas in deep pools (often by springs) to headwater reaches for spawning and perhaps for colder water and to reduce competition that might exist in the main stems of the larger rivers. The Madison has a number of dams including by Ennis and by West Yellowstone. Whether these dams prevented migration to critical habitat, we don’t know, but it is one factor that may be responsible for the decline of the fish.
I once witnessed a massive grayling migration on the Kobuk River in Alaska. It was astounding. I was stuck for four days waiting for a plane pick up. The river was starting to ice up, with chucks of ice floating down the river. But beneath the ice for as far as I could see off of shore, there were streams of grayling–all moving downstream. I saw this go on for all four days that I was stuck there, as if all the grayling in the entire Kobuk drainage were migrating to the sea. How critical to survival of populations these long distance migrations are, no one knows, but it is part of the puzzle that is being examined.
Nobody has mentioned water temperature. As stream flows diminish during drought temperature rises. Grayling don’t like hot tubs.
Addendum to last comment. I realize George did mention temperature in passing. What I’m getting it is that grayling prefer chilly water and we haven’t discussed what the temperature limit is and how will that be restored. There has been quite an admirable effort to devote action and focus to the Big Hole. This may benefit many species, but how does that restore the river to a temperature that will support grayling? Is grayling merely a stocking horse for other issues that can’t be addressed in other ways? Montana snowpack is somewhere around 60% of normal. Without the water, grayling are in trouble. Species replacement occurs when the environment changes
Yes, water temperature is a huge limiting factor for grayling. A good thermal tolerance model was done by Lohr et al. published in Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. They found that grayling could not acclimate above 76 degrees F and would die upon exposure to temperatures over 80 degrees. Incidentally, FWP has measured water temperatures over 80 in a reach of the Big Hole 8 miles below Wisdom. Similarly, water temps in the Madison below Ennis Dam (and all the way to Canyon Ferry) reach well into the upper 70′s and low 80′s annually during July and Aug. These temps are especially critical when viewed in the context of their migratory tendencies. It has been shown in the upper Big Hole that decent flows can buffer the high temperatures around the first of Aug, so it is not too late to take action up there.
The water temperature issue again brings up the issue of livestock production which affects water temperture and grayling in multiple ways.
First there is the dewatering of the tributary streams, often to the point where grayling and other fish can no longer swim up there to reach colder water in headwater areas. Dewatering probably also affects recruitment since at least some grayling spawn in streams that dry up before the young fry move out of the tributary streams.
Secondly, many fry wind up in irrigation ditches and spread out with the water on hay fields where they die.
Third, flood irrigation as practiced extensively in the Big Hole Valley spreads water out over vast areas where it heats up in the sun. Much of this water is evaporated either directly or transpired by hay crops–in either case, less water is in the river, and what does get returned if often a much higher temperature.
Fourth, less water in the main stem of the river, also means it is shallower–which again allows it to heat up more than perhaps was the case prior to significant hay production activities in the valley.
Fifth, trampling of streamside vegetation by livestock, particularly on tributary streams, widens the stream channel and exposes it to heating by the sun.
These are all impacts related to livestock production which is why I feel ranching is the elephant in the closet that no one wants to address, not only with grayling but for a lot of other species as well. It’s not just about better grazing techniques or simply buying more water from irrigators (though these will help). Put all these cumulative impacts together and you have an altered system that has lethal effects on grayling as well as other aquatic life.
Getting more water in the river is probably a good first step–and to the degree that it can be done either through community conservation, legal means, or whatever, it is something that can be accomplished relatively quickly. Other livestock production impacts are more difficult to deal with–i.e. you’re not likely to get Big Hole Ranchers to stop using flood irrigation techniques any time soon. In any event, the point I’m making is that ranching has mutiple impacts on water quanity and quality and just increasing flows, while likely to improve grayling surivial, is only part of the solution.
Every time these folks file a lawsuit against the American taxpayers, it takes away funding for what they claim to want to accomplish. That makes me think it is more about control than species themselves.
I see it differently. I see it as holding the government accountable. If they are able to ignore the law, make abitrary decisions because of economic conflicts or political influence, than we have lost the value of the ESA, and we will see this done more and more–which is exactly what is happening. One reason environmentalists win so many law suits is that people in the Bush administration are unwilling to follow the law. and they try to effect policy changes not through the legislative process but by cutting funding or having political hacks like Julie McDonald, change the recommendations of the agency biologists. The bigger problem is that the Bush administration continously flaunts the law.
George, again who is financing your lawsuit? How will this lawsuit make it rain in the summer and snow in the winter? How will you lower water temperature on a sustaining basis to make it arctic grayling friendly? Where is your proof that this is both possible and realistic?
No matter how you try to spin it George, the taxpayers are getting it in the shorts again as usual, and it will accomplish nothing. As Craig said, can you make the water colder, can the most liberal judge? And I’ll bet your attornies have one lined up that will award all of your expenses +.
I’m not sure hwo this became George bush’s fault, but I guess every thing libs hate is his fault. Since lawsuits have been filed since ’91, he must have been really busy to cause a lack of cold water.
In response to Marion: I see it as the government wasting peoples time money through the subversion of science. Did the Bush administration really think that no one would care that the Fluvial Grayling were denied a place on the ESA list? Did they think that this issue would die (with the grayling) and no one would protest or challenge this political finding?
In response to Craig Moore: I, for one, as a supporter on the CBD am financing this lawsuit.
Marion: The Bush administration said there will be no more species listed under the ESA and has twisted the science through political means to deny this and many other species need protection. Research “Julie Macdonald” to see the travesty the adminisration has made of this useful law.
Isn’t the CBD a 501 (3) (c)? Chris how will the CBD rebuild winter snowpacks to sustain cold water levels between 60-70 degrees during the summer? Grayling don’t live in hot tubs. Aren’t current Montana snowpacks at something like 60% of normal again? Without winter snows the waters won’t cool. The climate is changing.
Craig Moore: You may not realize how trashed the upper rivers habitat is and how much restoration will benefit the whole river by providing shade, lowering water temperatures, keeping more water in the river and from the fields, etc.
Looking at photos from the 40′s one can hardly recognize the river in its current state, the cannel is much wider with few willows to shade and provide cover for trout and grayling. The entire stream morpholgy has changed through degredation of the ripairian area.
Conversely where is your proof that this won’t work and shouldn’t be tried to save Montana’s rarest and most beautiful native fish?
Chris Brozell
Dillon, MT
Chris, I think the onus of proof is upon those that claim a certain approach will work given the economic hardships and costs involved with denying water to current users. Long-term forecasts from reputable sources see continued drought and high temperatures for years to come. Without adquate winter snowfall arctic grayling don’t have a chance. Do you disagree?
Craig: Yes I do. Without water in the river the grayling don’t have a chance. There is enough water in the valley the problem is most of it is on fields and not the river. Tributaries have been severed from the river for decades, look into the restoration and re-connection of Rock Creek for an example.
Chris Brozell
Dillon, MT
My question was ambiguous at best. What part do you disagree?
–Grayling need cold water from adequate winter snowfall to sustain tehm over the summer months
–The climate is changing
–Long-term forecasts predict continued drought and high temperatures
Craig: There are proposals to deal with the changing climate. Putting reserviors in the hills to capture runoff to release during the summer to benefit the river is one. Improving and monitoring the valley wide irrigation system is one that needs to be implemented ASAP in my opinion.
I am not ready to give up on this fish, but I am saddened that you are.
Where have I said anything of the sort? I have merely questioned the basis for those who say that the grayling can be saved given the direction of climate change. Restoring the Big Hole is a whole other matter and worthy of discussion in it’s own right.
Craig: I see the two as inseparable. A restored river is a great buffer to all kinds of change.
Sorry, Chris, but no recovered species has yet met the criteria of enviros, they keep moving the target. So I agree 100% that no more species should be listed until we get some of the present species off the list. There has to be some money left for other things.
I have to wonder where environmentalists got so much hate. Mice, fish, snails, you name it are more important to them than real humans. People are starving to death in this world, yet you want to be able to catch a certain fish, or protect a mouse, no matter how much food production is stopped.
All of the lawsuits in the world will not make it snow, will not make it rain, will not make one more drop of water. What they do accomplish is the only thing enviros really care about…..gain control over other folks lives. How much money are you willing to spend on paying for the farm land that will have to lie idle instead of producing food.
By the way if you think water is not owned try taking water when you do not have a water right. That is illegal.
Want to bet that a positive step toward doing what can be done is going to deter a lawsuit? Want to bet that George et al is going to work with Montana Water Trust, maybe even contribute to the 10% match?
I’ve seen some grayling caught on the Big Hole in the mid 1990′s. Awesome fish; tragic loss. One more thing needs to be addressed that flyfisherman don’t want to talk about: brown trout. They are of course an invasive species, very aggressive and heavy feeders on smaller trout not adapted to competing with them. Cutthroat trout, grayling, small bull trout are all diminished in population because of them. I once sat on the Big Hole and watched a 32 inch brown trout nail juvenile trout at the rate of one every 5 minutes! Unfortunately, brown trout need to be controlled by liftin encouraging fisherman to kill ALL brown trout caught in senstive cutthroat, grayling, and bull trout areas. This would control their population. The loss of brown trout for flyfisherman might be a sacrifice, but increasing chances for native species ethical. They can still be preserved in some lakes and waterways for brown trout lovers. Question is, are we flyfishermen willing to sacrifice as well for complete restoration of fish populations?