Bull trout program hits unseen snag

Bull trout recovery in Pend Oreille County was steered off course this summer by a failure to communicate.

A plan to treat 5.8 miles of the Middle Branch of LeClerk Creek in August to remove Eastern brook trout has been tabled after some area residents were blindsided by the plan.

Bull trout were protected as a “threatened” species in 1998 under the Endangered Species Act,

In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 18,175 miles of streams and 498,782 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana as critical habitat for the bull trout of the Columbia River Basin.

Critical habitat is defined as areas that have specific qualities needed to protect an endangered or threatened species. Bull trout are most often found in the coldest streams with stable channels, clean spawning gravel and complex and diverse cover. The Middle Branch is one of those special areas.

Bull trout have been reduced to about 45 percent of their native range in the past 150 years because of human encroachment, mining, grazing, logging and overfishing. Idaho, for example, allowed anglers in the 1920s to harvest 25 pounds of bull trout in addition to their normal trout of 15 pounds plus one fish per day — just because bull trout were predators.

Nowadays, it’s illegal to kill a bull trout in Idaho or Washington and regulations help protect habitat. That leaves the introduction of non-native fish, such as brook trout, as one of the most significant obstacles to address.

Bull trout are likely to build stronger populations in the designated portion of the LeClerc watershed if brookies are eliminated, scientists say. Brook trout are prolific non-native species that compete with bull trout for space and food. Brookies also will interbreed with bull trout, resulting in offspring that usually are infertile.

Everybody would gain from this federally funded project if it succeeds. Bull trout recovery could head off federal restrictions affecting grazing leases, fishing seasons, forest management practices and more.

It’s a win-win proposal for anglers, too, since the plan calls for introducing cutthroat trout to the river after the brook trout are eliminated. Cutthroats are compatible with bull trout and don’t tend to proliferate and stunt into a bunch of nuisance runts.

A barrier would prevent brook trout from re-infiltrating the project stretch of the Middle Branch, but brook trout would still be available for fishing in hundreds of miles of Eastern Washington streams, Washington Fish and Wildlife Department biologists say.

All of this good news escaped most of the 50-some people who attended the June 16 meeting in Cusick partly because they wanted to make a statement that they were upset about the lack of information and notification about the project. They were not satisfied with information presented at the meeting.

While state and federal agencies managed to negotiate the daunting paperwork and permit process, the Forest Service, for example, apparently neglected to tell the livestock grazing lessee about the project. The ranchers and other residents were concerned about the use of the chemical Antimycin, which apparently wasn’t well explained in advance either.

John Whalen, state regional fisheries manager, seems to have done a good job of answering the questions raised at that meeting in an expanded fact sheet mailed to all who attended.

A sampling of his explanations:

“Antimycin, which has been used for more than 40 years, is an antibiotic derivative that kills fish by interfering with oxygen transfer in a fish’s vital organs. It primarily targets trout with little impact on other fish and no effects on amphibians, mammals and birds and only minimal impacts on some insects.

“The tiny amount of Antimycin required to kill trout can be neutralized at the lower end of the project so it will have little effect on downstream fish.

“At least a dozen states have used Antimycin to remove target fish populations, including Idaho, Montana and Oregon.

“Antimycin is classified as “no threat to human health” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has approved the chemical for use in maintaining aquaculture that produce fish for human consumption.

But despite all this assurance, the approval of a citizen advisory committee, and all the research, habitat restoration and fencing that’s already been completed, the project has been called off for this year.

“I think there is value in taking extra time to make sure everybody’s questions are answered,” Whalen said. “We want more than just this particular project. We want people working with us on bull trout recovery.”

Whether you see this as government being responsive or government mired in red tape, you have to admit that the public has a hand in either claim.

Know your fish: Meanwhile, anglers fishing in Washington or Idaho must be able to identify and release bull trout when they are caught.

Bull trout are not true trout as their name suggests, but are actually char, which can be distinguished by the light spots on their body’s relatively dark background, explained Danielle Schiff, Idaho Fish and Game Department research biologist.

Trout have dark spots on a light background, she pointed out.

Other distinguishing features include a bull trout’s dorsal fin, which has a solid color ranging from olive green to brown with no spotting pattern, she said. The spots on a bull trout’s back and sides come in shades of pale yellow, orange and red.

Brook trout, in comparison, have dark green worm-like markings on their backs and dorsal fins. In addition, brook trout have red spots with blue halos on their sides.

“The best rule of thumb,” she said: “If you have a trout-like fish with light spots on a dark background and no markings on the dorsal fin, it’s a bull trout. If you are unsure of what you have, play it safe and let it go.”