Tribes to begin netting lake trout in spring
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
FLATHEAD LAKE – After the conclusion of a years-long process of environmental assessment, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes will begin netting efforts this spring to reduce the number of invasive lake trout in Flathead Lake, in hopes of promoting a rebound of the native and threatened bull trout species.
At a Feb. 26 meeting with the Flathead Reservation Fish and Wildlife Board it was apparent tension still lingers over exactly how the Flathead Lake fishery should be managed by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, which is in charge of the northern half of the lake, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes that manage the southern half. The Tribes plan to implement netting, but the state argues the impacts of that action is uncertain and does not support it.
“I think our differences here … really boil down to different interpretations of what the Secure Levels Document intended to do,” Tribal Fisheries Manager Les Everts said.
In 2000, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes signed a co-management plan that states a “secure level” of bull trout is 300 redds, or spawning nests, in the fishery. The Tribes view this as more of a minimum level that wildlife managers should try to bolster by additional lake trout suppression, but the state argues that 300 redds is more of a maximum acceptable limit that indicates the species is stable, Everts said.
A 2013 Fish Wildlife and Parks survey recorded 500 bull trout redds in the North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River, which is 66 percent higher than the “secure level.” The most recent numbers are less than those of the 1980s, but higher than they were in the 1990s, which plummeted so low the fish was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. As a “threatened species” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommened the number of redds be returned to around 900 redds across the drainage basin — levels that had not been seen since the 1980s when Mysis shrimp were introduced and allowed the non-native lake trout population to explode, collapse the Kokanee fishery, and out-compete bull and cutthroat trout.
In 2002, the Tribes began hosting Mack Days, a twice-yearly fishing derby with large cash prizes meant to pull thousands of lake trout from Flathead Lake. The contest pulls about 50,000 fish from the waters, but that’s not enough to make a dent in the lake trout population, even when combined with the regular harvest of 25,000 fish. The contests are also expensive, Everts said, which lead the Tribes to explore more aggressive methods of reducing lake trout to compliment Mack Days.
In 2006, the Tribes proposed netting as an option for suppression.
“That caused some concern, not only with Fish Wildlife and Parks, but certainly the public,” Everts said.
The Tribes delayed its proposal for gillnetting until 2009, when the Flathead Reservation Fish and Wildlife Board and governor’s office became involved in the process and the Tribes were required to do an environmental impact study of their suppression goals.
As the environmental impact was assessed, the December 31, 2010 date listed on the front of the co-management plan between the Tribes and state expired. Everts said the Tribes believe they did as the management plan instructed when they conducted an environmental impact statement that will be used to adopt new methods to reduce lake trout. The Tribes also feel it wasn’t necessary to immediately re-sign a new co-management agreement, according to Everts.
The lack of a formal signed document is a sticking point for Flathead Reservation Fish and Wildlife Board Chairman Joe Brenneman.
“We now move into the Flathead Lake Co-Management ‘Non-Existent’ Plan, and that’s our real challenge that we’re facing,” Brenneman said. “I have expressed before and continue to feel very strongly that this board’s relevance becomes increasingly insignificant each day it goes beyond … the last day in 2010. We’re now well into three years with no signed document; and if either party is not interested in getting a signed document that would give this board some credence, I think we need to know that sooner rather than later.”
Brenneman said both sides say they are working to come to some sort of agreement, but the squabbling is getting old.
“My personal patience with that whole thing is pretty much worn out and I don’t have much desire to be involved in a pretend board that doesn’t have a real reason to exist,” Brenneman said. “I think we as a board have done all we can to make that process happen.”
Everts and Brenneman agreed to disagree on whether or not the co-management plan still stands.
With or without the co-management plan, netting is expected to happen beginning this April. A public comment period on the final Environmental Impact Statement closes March 23. Those final comments will allow the Tribes to make any necessary last minute adjustments to a plan of action that Everts said he hopes will be drafted by April 1.
Netting will likely take place on weekdays during spring and fall Mack Days, according to Everts. Approximately 10,000 lake trout in the spring and 19,000 lake trout in the fall is the target number to be taken, although that’s an uncertain estimate.
“It’s experimental,” Everts said.
Hickey Brother’s Research of Wisconsin will conduct the netting. The company has netted Lake Yellowstone, Swan Lake, and other Montana water bodies in the past.
“We’re lucky to be late getting into this game of netting lake trout,” Everts said. “They won’t be learning on our bill.”
All nets used in 2014 will be gillnets that have spaces large enough to avoid capture of most bull trout, Everts said. In 2015 there will be some trap netting, and the Tribes might elect to switch totally to trap netting in 2016 if it is a better method. Trap nets are funnel shaped devices that trap fish, gillnets are vertical panels of nets that fish are caught in by being wedged or tangled.
The Tribes might also start offering a bounty on lake trout at a later date, Everts said. Criteria for how to measure success of suppression efforts are still being developed.
Jim Satterfield, regional supervisor for Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, said the state would like to see the results of a smaller pilot project to remove lake trout from Swan Lake before it makes a decision in favor or against netting on Flathead Lake.
“This is a lake that is 1/30th the size of Flathead Lake,” Satterfield said. “I’ve always felt, frankly, from the state’s perspective, that this is our pilot project at Swan Lake. My goodness, if we can’t affect the numbers on Swan Lake, how are we ever going to do Flathead Lake?”
The Swan Lake suppression effort is in its fifth year. During 18 days in August 2013, the nets pulled 6,988 lake trout from the waters. There was an unintended bycatch of 200 bull trout, of which 72 died. Another netting period in October 2013 removed approximately 7,200 lake trout, with a bycatch of 135 bull trout. The bycatch has been consistent throughout the five years of the project, according to a Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks press release.
“We’re certainly killing a lot of lake trout, but we are having lots of problems with bycatch with bull trout,” Satterfield said. “We’re hoping to determine at the end of this five-year project if we are winning the game or not.”
In comments to the environmental impact statement that will guide the Tribes’ plans, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks claimed the amount of bull trout bycatch estimated in the draft statement was underestimated. For the most extreme suppression effort, the impact statement estimated a bull trout bycatch of 467 fish. The state contends that number should be 720 bull trout.
Everts expects backlash from the public when the nets are cast.
“When the first net goes out there’s going to be a lot of press on it,” Everts said.
The netted fish are taken to local food banks by both the state and the Tribes.
