Compiled by Ken Kristian
  With the use of jet boats on our waterways growing daily, area residents’
fears for the Pitt River watershed, its wildlife, its wild salmon stocks and
their vitally important habitat are likely to be echoed throughout the
province in the not-too-distant future. To varying degrees, every river
system in British Columbia is subject to similar environmental impacts and
stresses as human populations increase, tourism grows and BC's residents
seek new economic opportunities.
By beginning now to identify the key issues that are vitally important to
those who live, work and play in the upper Pitt River drainage, watershed
users can begin the process of forging agreements with government agencies to protect those interests for future generations to come.
In my opinion as an original founding member of the Pitt River & Area
Watershed Network (PRAWN), former professional fishing guide and director of the Save Our Fish Foundation (SOFF), the upper Pitt River is not only a tiny piece of an ever-shrinking paradise that must be preserved, it's the crown jewel of salmon-producing rivers in southern British Columbia. I have no doubt whatsoever that with a proper community-based stewardship and
management program, the upper Pitt River can set an example for the rest of British Columbia to follow.
  As stewards of the resource, each and every British Columbian must take
responsibility for his or her actions. We must all put the resource ahead of
our own interests, and above all else, let good judgment and common sense be our guides in leaving a legacy we can all be proud of.
In closing I would like to remind the government agencies responsible for
the well-being of our rapidly vanishing salmon, trout and steelhead stocks
that British Columbians don’t want empty, dead, dying and fishless rivers.
The fact is, all British Columbians desire, are entitled to and deserve
Living Rivers."
  Below I have compiled some of the relevant information gained from the past studies on various rivers to help evaluate potential stressors and negative impacts on salmonids, wildlife and their habitat. This includes field notes, memoranda, and reports available to the public from biologists that have worked throughout North America.
Ken Kristian
Working hard to ensure a better future for the world's fish, their habitat,
and generations of British Columbians yet to come.
In the upper Pitt River country you can hear your true name
==========================================
DESCRIPTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS ON PACIFIC SALMON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND ACTIONS TO ENCOURAGE THE CONSERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
  In 1991, the NPS funded a study of the effects of jet-driven boat turbulence on sockeye and other salmonid reproduction in Alaska streams. Much of the field work planned for the study occurred on American Creek in Katmai. The study was conducted by the Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study, completed in 1994, found that jet driven boats can indeed kill salmonid embryos in redds. Water pressure was not found to be the culprit; instead, mortality occurs when river substrate (gravel) is moved by the direct discharge from a jet unit.
  The authors found that limiting jet boat activity may be warranted in small
streams where the potential for substrate disturbance is high. Any such
restrictions, however, should be made on a case-by-case basis. [106]
Today, jet-driven boats are becoming more popular because of their shallow draft. Shallow headwaters are preferred by Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) as sites of egg deposition for reproduction.
  Based on a 1992-1993 study by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, jet
boat operation can lead to significant salmonid embryo mortality through
mechanical shock, intrusion of fine sediments into the gravel affecting eggs
that remain in redds, and the removal of gravel covering eggs in redds with
subsequent washing away of eggs (Horton, 1994).
http://www.psmfc.org/efh/Jan99-sec3-1.html
  Studies in Alaska and New Zealand (Horton 1994, Sutherland and Ogle 1975) have found that in shallow water where boat use is high, and especially where channels are constricted, developing salmon eggs and alevins in the gravel can suffer high mortalities as a result of pressure changes caused by boat operations, which can result in removal of gravel or mechanical shock generated in the area under the mid-line of the boat.
106 G. E. Horton and J. Reynolds, "Effects of Jet Boats on Salmonid
Reproduction in Alaskan Streams," unpub. M.S. thesis (by Horton, with an
executive summary by Reynolds), University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1994.
http://www.nps.gov/akso/katmwrmp/issues.htm
American Creek Streambed Disturbance
  American Creek is the headwaters of the Naknek drainage in KATM. This creek is an important spawning stream for sockeye salmon. Prior to 1978, only the lower one-mile of American Creek was within the boundary of KATM. During this time, motorboats were prohibited within the monument except on Naknek Lake. The creek was incorporated into KATM’s boundary in 1978 when the monument was expanded. At the same time when ANILCA re-designated the monument as a park and preserve in 1980, it opened the park unit to motorized access by float planes and motorboats. Now, most recreational uses in American Creek are concentrated within the lower 6 miles of the river (Jope and Welp, 1987).
A study by NPS staff was carried out during the summers of 1986 and 1987 to evaluate resource condition under the current permit system. The most
serious consequence of human activity along American Creek identified during the study was the increased rate of erosion and alteration of streambed morphology that results from jet boat use. Permanent photo points were established in 1989 to monitor riparian vegetation cover and erosion along the creek every 2 to 4 years (U.S. National Park Service, 1994).
Alagnak Wild River Bank Erosion by Boat Traffic
  The Alagnak River was designated as a Wild River in 1980 under ANILCA and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The NPS and the State of Alaska co-manage the upper 56 miles of this navigable river. In 1983, a management plan was developed that presents the management objectives and the issues pertinent to the Alagnak. Visitation on the river is monitored at only one location, the Nonvianuk Lake outlet. No other activities have been initiated by KATM to monitor use levels, user impacts, or resolve visitor conflicts (U S. National Park Service, 1994). Since 1983, recreational use on the river has increased, and so have the water resource impacts. Although the river’s riparian areas are generally undeveloped and heavily vegetated, the banks are actively eroding in several areas as a result of boat wake impacts. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey initiated an erosion monitoring effort on the Alagnak (Dorava, 1998a). After monitoring 14 sites from July to September 1998, bank erosion measurements ranged from 0 to > 28 inches, where erosion exceeded the length of the erosion pin (Dorava, 1998b). Along with the 1998 erosion data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey, a plan will be prepared for subsequent erosion monitoring along the river. This erosion monitoring effort by the U.S. Geological Survey is part of a 3-year NPS/USGS water quality and monitoring partnership program, "Human Impacts on Water Quality and Riparian Habitats along the Alagnak Wild and Scenic River, Katmai National Park and Preserve", that will also include collection of the following information: human use data, fishery data, and water quality data.
========================
http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/districts/yakutat/situkdec.html#4
 Issue: Complaints are often heard about the "obtrusive" nature of jet boats and other motorized boats between the 9-Mile Bridge and the Fish and Game weir. Conflicts and safety issues increase as the number of boats and anglers increase.
  1999 Action: River users were requested not to use motorized boats above the 9-Mile bridge. Below the 9-Mile bridge, we requested users to motor under no wake" speed and in a downstream only direction between April 15 and July
31. The Forest Service adopted the following guide permit conditions as
recommended by the Outfitter and Guide Association in April 1999:
1. no motorized use was permitted above the 9-Mile bridge;
2. the two jet boat operators were permitted only one upstream trip per day. Their downstream travel between April 15 and July 31 was required to be at speeds that did not generate wake;
3. one other guide was allowed one upstream trip per day between 9-Mile
bridge and the mouth of the Situk. His downstream travel was required to be no-wake;
4. all other guides were restricted to one upstream trip per day up to 3
miles above the weir from April 15-July 31. Their downstream travel was
required to be no-wake.
  The Forest Service placed a buoy on the bank 3 miles upstream of the weir.
 The Forest Service continues to restrict guides and outfitters to boats with
motors of 15 HP or less. Motorized use by the general public is not
restricted. Motorized boat use, especially jet boats, continues to be an
issue. Boating in a downstream direction only alleviated some of the
conflict in 1999. However, we may see more boat rentals on the River which will increase the conflicts. We may eventually need to control use on the Situk through a permit system.
Additional Action: The Department of Natural Resources will evaluate a
Special Use Designation and Tina will recommend to the Inter-agency
Navigability Team that they elevate the priority of the Situk River. In the
meantime, the Forest Service will continue to exercise their authority
through the permitting process and the State can coordinate with them to
have their concern incorporated into the permit. YTT, CBY, and the Forest
Service will link their web sites to promote sportfishing etiquette, the
Situk river resource, and appropriate handling and care of fish. We will
continue to ask users of the River to follow motorized boat use protocol and etiquette.
======================================
Impacts of Recreational Boating on the Aquatic Environment
http://www.nalms.org/bclss/impactsrecreationboat.htm
Introduction.
  There are a number of compartments within the marine and freshwater aquatic environments in which the effects of recreational boating may be felt; there are also a number of different kinds of effects. These effects and compartments are not always present or of universal concern. One needs to determine on a site-, time- and use-specific basis whether or not the boats, the motors or the occupants are causing a problem. One simple
all-encompassing statement will not be valid under all conditions. Direct
effects of the boats and how they are operated are addressed in this report; secondary effects such as sewage pollution, littering and vandalism by the occupants of the boats or the effects of pollution by the engines are not covered.
  In the aquatic environment there are bottom sediment, bulk water column, surface microlayer and shoreline habitat compartments. In each of these there may be plant or animal tissue, non-living particulate matter and water sub-compartments. The effects on organisms can be categorized as physical disturbance and behavioral effects which also include reproductive failure.
Habitat Erosion Concerns
   With regard to erosion problems on shorelines, boat speeds need to be
reduced to ‘no wake’ speeds, rather than specific speeds, in shallow waters
or narrow channels; this will result in quite different absolute speeds for
different boat designs and loading. This is necessary to prevent bank
erosion, sediment re-suspension and destruction of marginal vegetation and
floating nests. Motorized boats should be restricted to water depths where
the propeller, or jet drive, remains at least 2 meters above the bottom
sediments.
Conclusions and Observations.
  Rooted vegetation does not develop in the pathways of outboard engines where the propeller comes within 30 cm of the substrate.
  Disturbance of nesting waterfowl by boaters and anglers results in a
significant increase in predation and brood loss and causes a serious
long-term decline in waterfowl.
  Birds driven from prime overwintering habitat by boats, and forced to use
less suitable habitat, are often unable to maintain the needed caloric
intake. Compounding the problem is the fact they use up what little energy
they do have flying away from the boats. The net effect is significantly
lower survival rates over the subsequent winter season.
Wave action by high-speed boats destroys nests and erodes the shoreline.
In shallow water or narrow channels boats cause sediment suspension and bank erosion.
  Water ski boats travelling perpendicular to the shore, or in designated
areas, do not need speed or wake limits.
  All water craft, including sail boats, sail boards, row boats and as well as
other water surface activities, cause a significant disturbance to breeding
and over-wintering waterfowl.
  Dense planting of floating and emergent vegetation will help to protect the shoreline from wave-caused erosion.
Recommendations.
  To minimize bottom erosion, sediment suspension and vegetation loss,
motorized boats should be restricted to water depths where the propeller or jet drive is at least 2 m above the sediment surface, except at carefully
selected boat launch sites.
  To prevent bank erosion, sediment re-suspension and destruction of marginal vegetation, boats with a cross sectional area greater than 5% of a channel, confined boats, should not be permitted to use the channel at any speed.
  There needs to be a wider use of refuges and temporal restrictions on
recreational boating activities during the critical breeding and over-wintering seasons of fish and waterfowl.
  To preserve viable waterfowl and fish populations, all boating, fishing and
other human activities need to be excluded from breeding and overwintering habitats during the critical seasons.
To minimize shoreline and bottom erosion, re-suspension of sediments and
loss of marginal or shallow water vegetation in shallow waters (up to 4 m
deep) and in narrow channels (up to 3 boat lengths wide) boat speeds should be restricted to no wake.
  The US EPA recommends restricting boating activities in breeding and
overwintering habitats and during critical seasons, in order to protect fish
waterfowl and wildlife.
Propeller and Jet
Organisms
Sediments
Organisms
  Invertebrates Lagler reported substantial reductions in invertebrate
abundance in the path of an outboard boat operated over a prolonged period in shallow water (Lagler et al., 1950). Parallel effects would likely be
observed in any restricted areas used by boats such as landings and confined channels.
  Aquatic Macrophytes Aquatic plants may form extensive beds which are both direct food sources for wildlife and habitats for invertebrates and small fish. These are, in turn, food sources for fish. The plants also serve to anchor sediments and reduce turbidity and re-suspension problems. However propeller driven boats, electric or gasoline powered, venturing into the shallows chop off the plants and scour the bottom destroying existing weed beds and their habitat. These areas are then found to have less fine
sediment, a reduced pH and a reduced sediment redox potential. Aquatic
vegetation and benthic organisms are absent or greatly reduced in shallow
areas where boats are common, especially when propellers were within a foot of the bottom (Chmura and Ross, 1978); Ogilvie, 1981). Lagler found that prolonged use of an outboard in 75 cm deep water with the propeller 35 cm from the bottom, removed all plants and silt from a swath 1.5 m wide, leaving only sand and gravel (Lagler et al., 1950).
  Aquatic vascular plants have been shown to respond to outboard engine use in two opposing ways: heavy use close to the bottom can prevent colonization and growth; or outboard use may act to increase weed bed productivity from the increased dissolved CO2. There is a quantitative relationship between plant community structure, submerged plant abundance and pleasure boat traffic. The causative factor is likely turbidity and its effect on light quantity and quality on submerged plants; emergent plants were not as strongly affected (Murphy and Eaton, 1983).
  Lagler found that rooted vegetation did not develop in the pathways of
outboard engines where the propeller came within 30 cm of the substrate. In some deeper areas, water weed (Elodea canadensis) eventually impeded boat movement as a result of growth or wind drift. It was also noticed that
turbidity caused by propeller wash was lower near beds of plants (Lagler et
al., 1950). Zieman reported physical damage to turtle grass beds (Thalassia
testudinium) in Florida as a result of outboard boat operation (Zieman 1976)
  Species composition did not vary from the expected successional patterns.
  The flora was dominated by bladderworts (Utricularia floridans), rushes
(Juncus repens) and water hyssops (Hydrotrida caroliniana). The implications of these findings to BC is questionable given that they originated in small, soft, acidic lakes of warm temperate Florida. Equivalent research has not been conducted in north temperate systems. However, given the importance of aquatic macrophyte beds to fish and invertebrate communities, it would be prudent to limit outboard motor caused damage to macrophyte beds.
  Propellers cut and fragment aquatic vegetation (Liddle and Scogie, 1980).
Turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum, beds in Biscayne Bay took up to 5 years to recover from the passage of a propeller through their shallow water beds.
  Under these conditions the propeller physically disturbed their roots
(Zieman, 1976).
The USEPA has noted that many shallow areas exhibit vegetation-free troughs due to the action of propellers and this leads to increased turbidity and loss of sediments which would otherwise be bound by the plant roots. Jet boats do not chop plants off but still scour the sediments. Propeller or jet driven boats should be banned from such shallow, and all vegetated, habitats
  Fish Outboard motor use has the potential to impact fish productivity
through physical disturbance which may adversely effect behavior,
reproduction or survival. Outboards also increases turbidity which affects
the gills of fish Table 3. and Table 4.
  The impacts of propeller action and boat movement have been studied for the centrarchids (sunfishes). Studies are lacking for other groups. The
experimental pond was subjected to 194 hours of engine use over a 10 week summer period. Engine use did not significantly affect production or
recruitment of the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). The choice of sunfish
nest locations did not appear affected by outboard use, although
nest-guarding males temporarily abandoned the nests upon disturbance (Lagler et al., 1950).
  Nests were permanently abandoned only if they were practically obliterated by the turbulence. Pumpkinseeds (Lepomis gibbosus) were particularly resistant to disturbance: guarding males would usually return to the nest within 30 seconds of the initial propeller blast at a distance of 1 m. Even with a high degree of nest disturbance by outboards, no increased mortality of eggs or fry was observed.
  There exists a wide variance of opinion concerning the effects of outboard boat activity on angling, ranging from belief that it stimulates fish to bite, to belief that it has no effect. Surprisingly, little objective
research has been done to resolve the debate.
  Lagler conducted an experiment on a 36 acre (14.6 ha) lake, comparing the fish catch during days of outboard activity to alternate days of no activity On engine-use days, the boats were run within 16 m of each fisherman every half hour. After 66 days of fishing, it was concluded that there was no statistical difference in angling success between outboard and non-outboard days. The data analyzed included: the frequency of strikes, sizes of fish caught and fish biting behavior as the boat passed. In three instances, fish were hooked in the boat wake (Lagler et al., 1950). This was a short-duration study.
  This study was conducted on a warm water fish population of sunfish, perch, gars, bowfins, pike, bullheads and ciscoes. It may not be applicable to cold water salmonid populations. No studies of salmonid responses to outboard activity were found.
============================================
http://www.npsc.nbs.gov/resource/literatr/disturb/biblio26.htm
Human Disturbances to Waterfowl
Annotated Bibliography
26. Braun, C. E., K. W. Harmon, J. A. Jackson, and C. D. Littlefield. 1978.
Management of National Wildlife Refuges in the United States: its impacts on birds. Wilson Bulletin 90:309-321.
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) are located in 49 of the 50 states and
encompass more than 13,678,860 ha. Refuges are vital for habitats and
overall conservation of many birds. In 1974, fishing was allowed on 171
refuges with fishing waters being stocked on at least 18 refuges. Excessive
use of shallow vegetated areas of lakes and streams by wading and boating fishermen can disturb feeding and nesting waterbirds. Various publics have demanded and received access to 42 NWRs for motor boating and water skiing.
  Obvious and documented impacts of high speed boating are shoreline
degradation, disruption of nesting and feeding with loss of production, and
displacement of birds. Sport hunting of wildlife was permitted on portions
of 184 national wildlife refuges in 1974, primarily for migratory waterfowl
but also for resident game birds and big game. Where endangered species are involved, such as whooping cranes (Grus americana) and Mexican ducks (Anasplatyrynchos), it is difficult to see the rationale for sport hunting of lookalike species. Some refuges have been used as practice areas for low flying military aircraft, others as convenient and inexpensive routes for highway and utility rights-of-way.
==========================================
GULKANA RIVER STUDIES
http://www.glennallen.ak.blm.gov/gulkana/riverstudies/news/v2n1w99/p2-1.html
Boating concerns include a dislike for float groups that remain for long
periods of time at put-ins and takeouts or rafts that are tied together to
float, blocking the river and potentially causing accidents with powerboats.
Some expressed concern about the increasing number of inexperienced floaters seen on the upper river each year. A dislike of all powerboats or for too many of them was expressed. Their noise is offensive, especially jet boats and airboats. Airboats in particular are disliked on the West Fork where the channel is narrow. Other comments include concerns about the
interrelationships of boat size, wake size, and their effects on boating
safety. People stated that some individuals do not know how to properly
operate jet boats, while others expressed a need for people to understand
jet boat operation and the necessity for jet boats to remain "on step".         
  Some expressed concerns that jet skis will be commonly used on the river in the future.
There were many comments that "...some people don’t know the basics of river etiquette or safety." Some people seem to have a lack of what respondents called "common courtesy" and "common sense," or lack of skills, poor attitudes and ignorance about the resources. There were also concerns that there is a growing effort to restrict the use of the river corridor and that unnecessary regulations may be implemented. Some expressed that too much advertising leads to increased problems, and that the river will be used as an "escape valve" for other areas that are over-promoted and overused, such as the Kenai and Susitna Rivers, and Denali Park. Concern was also expressed that rapidly expanding recreational use of the river will negatively impact traditional local uses, including commercial and subsistence uses.
===================================================
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:6PULSCgoJ7sC:ak.water.usgs
gov/publications/pdf.reps/wrir97-4105v3
pdf+effects+of+jet+boats+on+the+Kenai+River&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
================================================
STUDY: LIGHT, EMISSIONS HURT TAHOE -- Research conducted on Lake Tahoe water
  Samples suggests that a combination of sunlight and exhaust from boats and jet skis is damaging fish larvae and zooplankton. James Oris, a scientist at Miami University in Ohio, said that one test indicated a 46-percent decrease in fish growth and a significant amount of zooplankton was killed during several experiments. Fish larvae and zooplankton are critical links in the food chain. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, working toward banning two-stroke engines from Lake Tahoe, said that the study is "important information that needs to be expanded." The National Marine Manufacturers Association, financer of the study, is fighting the proposed ban. Members of the association believe the research results are "inconclusive" and say the scope of Oris' work is too limited. The study will be released next week during an environmental toxicology conference in France. Associated Press in
Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA) 04/10/98 (FS)
====================================================
Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society Semi-aquatic Mammals – September
1999
ABSTRACT
  Semi-aquatic mammals (beaver, muskrat, river otter, and mink) inhabit
waterways and associated wetland and riparian habitats throughout Montana. Because these species require aquatic and adjacent shoreline
habitats, they may be impacted by both water-based and shoreline
recreational activities. The impacts of motorized boating are of particular
concern. The number of boats registered in Montana increased 34%
from 1990 to 1998. Personal watercraft registration increased 700% from 560 to 4,470 in the same period.
  Impacts of recreation on semi-aquatic mammals include disturbance effects to the animals themselves and habitat effects related to water quality, bank integrity, and vegetation. Disturbance may cause stressful physiological reactions, interrupt activities, and displace semi-aquatic mammals from preferred habitats, with resultant energetic consequences. Displacement can vary from a short-term flight and return or longterm abandonment of the area Disturbance during spring and early summer (breeding, dispersal, parturition, and post-natal periods) may be most detrimental to productivity although disturbance at any time of the year may lower fitness, reproductive success, and survival. Cover availability and the type, frequency, predictability, location, and duration of the activity may all influence semi-aquatic mammal responses to recreational disturbance.
  Semi-aquatic mammals concentrate their activities along the shore.
The closer the recreational activity is to the shoreline, the greater the
disturbance potential. Semi-aquatic mammals may habituate to non-threatening recreational activities if they occur in predictable areas at
predictable times. The type, frequency, duration, and location of the
activities also May influence recreation effects on semi-aquatic mammal
habitats. Substantiated impacts of motorized recreation on
aquatic and shoreline habitats include shoreline erosion, pollution from
boat engines, contaminant resuspension and increased turbidity, increased
turbulence, and laceration of aquatic vegetation by propellers. Bank
stability and shoreline vegetation are important habitat components for
semi-aquatic mammals. Motorized watercrafts generate wakes that may hit the shoreline and cause bank and substrate erosion, which impacts shoreline vegetation. Loss of shoreline vegetation makes the bank even more susceptible to continued erosion by natural and boat-induced waves. Wakes may also swamp den sites, erode den entrances, erode muskrat canals, swamp river otter latrine sites, and compromise the structural
integrity of bank dens, beaver lodges, beaver caches, muskrat houses, and
muskrat feeding platforms.
  Reduced boat speeds and increased operating distances from shore can lower bank erosion rates.
  Motorized boats, personal watercraft, and snowmobiles operating on frozen surfaces introduce oil residue and various derivatives from the combustion process into the water. These pollutants may directly impact
fish, thereby affecting the forage base of mink and river otters, and
bioaccumulate in the food chain.
  Uptake of petroleum hydrocarbons by aquatic animals has been documented.
  Motor boat activity also increases sediment resuspension and turbidity,
which may decrease water clarity and increase nutrient loading. The removal of riparian habitat to develop public recreational
facilities, private docks, and homesites in conjunction with the
proliferation of artificial bank stabilization measures pose serious threats
to semi-aquatic mammals and their habitats. The cumulative effects of
habitat loss and recreational activities (including trapping) on
semi-aquatic mammal populations need to be considered to determine the
overall impacts of recreation. Responsible management of boating and
shoreline recreation is essential to the conservation of semi-aquatic
mammals in Montana.
Physiological Responses - Disturbance by recreationists may cause stressful physiological responses in semi-aquatic mammals. Gabrielsen and Smith (1995) reviewed physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance and explained the “active defense response,” better known as the flight or fight response, and the “passive defense response” such as hiding or playing dead. When river otters, mink, muskrats, and beavers encounter recreationists and flee in response, they are exhibiting the active defense response.
  Increased heart rate and blood flow are associated with this response.
Semi-aquatic mammals that remain hidden in the den and do not flee may be exhibiting the passive defense response, which is also associated
with physiological changes including decreased heart rate. Recreational
activities that take place while semi-aquatic mammals are in their dens may
be mistakenly interpreted as having little effect.
  Boating activity may also cause disturbance and possible abandonment of an area by fish and/or consequent reduced hatching success. This may impact the prey base for river otters and mink. Todd (1987) concluded that of the different types of human activities, canoeing during the spawning season probably had the most effect on small-mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) behavior. Nest disturbance by boaters was less in deeper water than in shallow water. Boats traveling at slow speeds near nests usually drove male nest-guarding long-ear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) from their nests, increasing the likelihood of egg predation (Mueller 1980).
  Overall, if animals are denied access to areas that are essential for
reproduction and survival, the population will decline. Likewise, if animals
are disturbed while performing essential behaviors, such as foraging or
breeding, the population will also likely decline (Knight and Cole 1995).
Therefore, it is essential that both short-term and long-term effects of
recreational disturbance throughout the year be evaluated for each species
of semi-aquatic mammal.
  Obviously, not all types of recreational activities will be equally
disturbing to semi-aquatic mammals. For instance, there are many types of
watercraft, both motorized and non-motorized, and not all are equally
disruptive. Non-motorized boats as well as PWCs, jet boats, and airboats can penetrate shallow water areas that are inaccessible to outboard motorboats and, thus, may cause greater disturbance. Tuite et al. (1983) generalized that “motorboats have the greatest disturbance potential because they involve both movement and noise, whereas sailing and canoeing are less disruptive as they involve only movement.” However, the engine noise from motorized watercraft may alert animals to the pending approach of recreationists, whereas silent canoeists or kayakers may startle unsuspecting animals.
  The frequency and persistence of the activity and whether or not it occurs in isolation or in conjunction with other recreational activities will also influence the response. For example, the simultaneous occurrence of hikers on shore and boaters in the water may be much more stressful and disturbing than if just one or the other was occurring. The frequency of the recreational activity will, in large part, determine if the response is short-term or long-term desertion of the area.
  The predictability of the recreational activity, if non-threatening, will
determine if semi-aquatic mammals become habituated and show little overt response. Directing shoreline activities to designated areas will
enable semi-aquatic mammals to predict locations of human activity and avoid encounters. Unrestrained dogs are not predictable and will increase the radius of unexpected human activity considerably. Semiaquatic
mammals may habituate to motorized and non-motorized watercraft if the
watercraft use is restricted to predictable areas or distances from shore.
Secure den sites and escape cover are essential habitat components
regardless of habituation.
   Motorized boats, particularly those using two-cycle outboard motors, have the potential to greatly impair waters inhabited by semi-aquatic mammals.
  National Park Service (NPS 1999) reviewed water quality concerns related to PWC usage and concluded that the use of PWCs has resulted in measurable water quality degradation in the nation’s lakes and reservoirs. Almost all PWCs utilize two-stroke engines (NPS 1999), which introduce pollutants into the water during operation. Compounds emitted from two-cycle outboard motors originate from unburned fuel that is discharged into the receiving water and the combustion process that discharges additional toxic compounds into the water. Estimates of the amount of unburned fuel discharged into the water vary. Wall and Wright (1977) estimate as much as 10% of gasoline from outboard motors may be discharged into the water. National Park Service (1999) states that a conventional two-stroke outboard PWC will expel as much as 30% of the incoming fuel mixture,
unburned, via the exhaust (California Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Resources Board 1999).
  Jackivicz and Kuzminiski (1973) claim that more than half the original fuel
mixture for outboard motors may be emitted, unburned, into receiving waters.
  Contaminants introduced into the water from outboard motors include oil
residue and various derivatives from the fuel and the combustion process.
Specific compounds discharged into the water during outboard
motor operation include: benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene
(collectively called BTEX); methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE); and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (National Park Service 1999).
The BTEX compounds readily transfer from the water to air, whereas MTBE and PAHs do not. The following information about MTBE, an oxygenate added to gasoline, and PAH contaminants is summarized from NPS (1999). The recreational use of two-stroke engines has been identified as a primary
cause of MTBE contamination of lakes and reservoirs. For example, Donner
Lake in California contained 45-65 pounds of MTBE prior to peak boating
activity; 2 months after increased boating activity MTBE had increased to
250 pounds (NPS 1999). In a newly constructed lake, MTBE levels ranged from 50-60 micrograms per liter after a three-day PWC event. This level is 10-12 times the level the state of California adopted as its standard for
secondary drinking water (based on taste and odor) and 3.8-4.6 times the
MTBE level California adopted as its public health goal (does not pose any
significant risk to health). Little is known about the ecological risks to
aquatic organisms from MTBE, although one study indicated that
adverse effects on rainbow trout were not expected until concentrations of
MTBE in the water column reached 4600-4700 micrograms per liter (Johnson 1998). This study identified research needs that included
investigation into the ecological risk to benthic invertebrate communities
from MTBE. At least 5 water management districts in California have banned or restricted the use of motorboats on reservoirs because of
water contamination concerns.
  The combustion process of a two-stroke engine creates several PAH compounds that have been detected in the water, at least 3 of which are probably human carcinogens (NPS 1999). It is known that PAHs
accumulate in the tissue of aquatic organisms, raising concerns about their
effects on fish and their possible biomagnification in mink and river otters
One study found that levels of PAHs in two-stroke motorboat
emissions had significant negative impacts on fish growth and zooplankton
survival and reproduction in Lake Tahoe (Oris et al. 1998). Tjarnlund et al.
(1996) found several different morphological anomalies in fathead minnows
(Pimephales promelas) and elevated levels of DNA-adducts in the blood, liver and kidneys of perch (Perca flavescens) exposed to two-stroke motor exhaust levels that would be found in or near the wake of such a boat. In rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), DNA, enzyme activity, and carbohydrate metabolism functions were disrupted by exposure to exhaust components (Tjarnlund et al. 1995).
  National Park Service (1999) concluded, “the use of two-stroke engines,
including PWCs, has resulted in the contamination of lakes and reservoirs.
MTBE and PAHs are commonly observed two-stroke contaminants and pose the most serious threats to human and ecological health…. Aquatic ecological communities do not appear to be threatened by
observed concentrations of MTBE; however, more research is needed to
reinforce this conclusion. PAH concentrations in lakes and reservoirs with
high motorboat activity have been found at levels dangerous to aquatic
organisms. The concentrations causing adverse effects can be extremely low due to PAH phototoxicity, especially in oligotrophic waters where sunlight penetration is high. Some are concerned about possible adverse effects from PAHs bound to sediment, especially in waters higher is suspended solids; this phenomenon is currently poorly understood….
  Management strategies adopted by other agencies include outright bans on PWC and restricted use of twostroke motors.” The impact of PAHs, MTBE, and other contaminants from motorboats and PWC on semiaquatic
mammals needs to be investigated. Factors affecting the quantity of
compounds exhausted from two-stroke outboard motors include
horsepower rating, crankcase size, composition of fuel mixture, tuning of
the engine, and speed of operation (Jackivicz and Kuzminiski 1973).
Direct-injection two-stroke or four-stroke engines are not
nearly as polluting as the conventional two-stroke engine (NPS 1999).
Direct-injection two-stroke engines (the first model debuted in 1998) reduce smog-forming pollution in a typical 90-horsepower engine by
four-fold when compared to a conventional two-stroke engine. Four-stroke
engines (used in automobiles) with the same horsepower reduce smog-forming pollution another four-fold as compared to direct-injection
two-stroke engines.
=========================================
===================
Loving a river to death
Kenai River, Alaska
http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/KenaiRiverCenter/RiverCenter/LovRiv.htm
User Impact on Fish Habitat
Private and commercial developments eliminate riparian vegetation. This
weakens the streambank and reduces cover and food for juvenile salmon.
Land clearing increases subsurface drainage rates streambank erosion.
Structures along the shoreline alter water velocity and decrease useable
habitat from juvenile salmon.
  Draining wetlands reduces subsurface flow and nutrients for juvenile salmon.
  Boat wakes increase erosion along banks where the vegetation has been
damaged.
  Foot trails damage vegetation and root systems increasing the risk of
erosion.
  Removing log jams and woody debris eliminates important rearing habitat for young salmon.
  Parking riverboats along the shoreline often results in damaged vegetation
and increased erosion.
  Steep banks and water-saturated soils are subject to erosion and are easily damaged by foot traffic.
  Unfiltered runoff from city and state highways and parking lots is
discharged directly into the Kenai River--lowering water quality.
============================================
Kenai River, Alaska
  Researchers with Fish and Game and the U.S. Geological Survey studied the impacts of high use on the river and produced a series of eye-opening
reports. They linked anglers and boat wakes with bank erosion, and riverbank construction projects with lost rearing habitat for salmon fry. Another study found worrisome trends in water quality.
  Recently, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game completed a study to
evaluate what effect impacts to the riparian zone might be having on fish
habitat. The Kenai River Cumulative Impacts Assessment of Development
Impacts on Fish Habitat (Liepitz, 1994) was designed to identify and
evaluate the cumulative impacts of development including public and private land use impacts on Kenai River fish habitat. Using chinook salmon as an indicator species and juvenile rearing habitat as a study variable, the
study documented that: 11.1 percent to 12.4 percent (18.4 to 20.6 miles) of the river's 134 miles of upland and 32 miles of island shoreline and
nearshore habitats have been impacted by bank trampling, vegetation denuding and structural development along the river's banks. This amounts to a loss of approximately 2.2 percent of chinook rearing habitat. The amount of habitat loss for other fish species is unknown. Although 2.2 percent may not seem like a large loss, numerous research studies have documented significant declines in fish productivity long before most available habitat is lost. In the case of chinook salmon on the Kenai River, available rearing habitat (generally a 6.0 foot-wide corridor along the riverbanks) constitutes only 121 acres over 67 miles.
The diverse habitat types occurring along the river's 67 mile length
(approximately 166 miles of water frontage) provide a varying degree of
habitat value to juvenile salmon. The nearshore waters of the Kenai River
provide critical early life stage rearing habitat for juvenile chinook
salmon during that period of the year when these fish are using this
important part or the river (this includeds the late spring, summer and
early fall period). Mainstem rearing habitat within the Kenai River, which
occurs primarily in a very narrow (6.0 foot wide) corridor adjacent to the
river's banks, has been described in previous studies by the ADF&G and FWS.
  ADF&G surveys of fish rearing habitat indicates that over 80 percent of all
rearing juvenile chinook are found within this corridor. The total area
within this narrow corridor including both the river's upland and island
shorelines amounts to a mere 121 acres. It should be noted, however, that
much of this 121 acres does not constitute preferred juvenile chinook salmon rearing habitat because: a) it is a tidally influenced reach with brackish water conditions and no cover habitat or lacks an adequate food source; b) it is naturally unsuitable to rearing juvenile salmon due to high water velocities and/or a lack of cover habitat; c) alteration of natural
conditions by man associated with river access have led to vegetation loss
and/or bank erosion; or d) the nearshore fish habitat has been degraded as a result of bank stabilization and property protection efforts.
 The field inventory and fish habitat classification analysis completed in
this study has documented that 11.1 percent to 12.4 percent (18.4 to 20.6 miles) of the river's 134 miles of upland and 32 miles of island shoreline
and nearshore habitats have been impacted by bank trampling, vegetation
denuding, and structural development along the river's banks. The two
different lengths or percentages cited above relate to the habitat impacts
measured at either the OHW line or at the top of the bank. Optimum fish
rearing conditions (i.e., water velocities less than 1.0 foot per second,
undercut banks with overhanging vegetation, and gravel/cobble substrates) occur on only 80,440 feet (15.2 miles or 9.2 percent) of this important fish rearing corridor along the entire river length. Study results indicate that 63,299.0 feet (12.0 miles) of this corridor is currently in the
developed/impacted category, amounting to approximately 8.7 acres of the
total 121 acres of available juvenile rearing habitat. The sum of the
impacted or altered habitats (8.7 acres) plus the lower quality habitat for
rearing fish (which includes all of the Kenai River 309 Study's Reach I or
lower 10 miles of river nearshore habitat)(15.7 acres) and the heavily
trampled/denuded areas documented on the river (5.1 acres) equals 29.5 acres or 24.4 percent of the river's total nearshore habitat. This leaves a total of 91.5 acres (75.6 percent) of mainstem nearshore rearing habitat for juvenile fish of which only 11.0 acres (9.2 percent) provide their ideal
rearing conditions.
==================================================
Changing Tides
Kenai River, Alaska
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/072001/cha_0720010006.shtml
====================================================
MY LETTERS TO GOVERNMENT
=================
Hi Devona,

This is the letter you requested:
------------------------------------------------------------

TO: The Honourable Gordon Campbell
Premier of British Columbia

  I and other members of PRAWN (Dan Gerak in particular) have long had grave concerns about the impact that jet boats may have on the delicate eggs of trout, Dolly Varden char, salmon and steelhead – as well as tiny fry and parr in the upper Pitt River.
  According to reports that I have heard of, it may possible for the outer
membrane on salmon and steelhead eggs to actually be ruptured from the
intense force or shock created by water exiting a jet boat’s propulsion
system.
  Being the owner of jet boat, I have often wondered how many hundreds of small fish suspended near the surface of the water get sucked into the
intakes of the jets propelled by powerful V-8 engines. Truth be known, I
would never consider taking my jet boat onto the shallow upper Pitt River at any time, but especially during the spring when the small salmon fry are
migrating towards the deeper water and shelter of Pitt Lake.
  Although in my opinion as a former professional angling guide licensed for
this area, I believe that the wash created by jet-boats would probably have minimal impact on some stretches of the upper Pitt River lined with larger rocks. Nevertheless, the wake and turbulence would certainly cause some major problems with sensitive salmon habitat containing gravel of suitable size for spawning and susceptible to the impacts of accretion.
  Considering the shape many of British Columbia's salmon runs are in these
days, I don't think we can afford to lose a single fish to any man-made
impact. And if we can do anything to help out Mother Nature by "not
disturbing" precious salmon spawning habitat in any way, perhaps it would be a wise choice to do it.
  Being a founding member of PRAWN, you have my personal blessings to ban "all motorized boating activity on the upper Pitt River for the entire
year. In my personal opinion, I firmly believe this river should be
designated non-motorized boats only.
  On a final note, If someone that loves the great outdoors wants to enjoy the natural splendor, wildness and beauty of the upper Pitt River valley, what better to see it than from the safety and comfort of river raft or
kayak?
  In closing, being the responsible owner of a jet boat, I again believe that
there are big rivers in B.C.like the Fraser where these boats are at home
and cause no damage whatsoever, and then again, there are little rivers
(like the upper Pitt) where they can really raise hell if they are operated
by someone irresponsible or perhaps at the wrong time of year.
Good Fishin'
Ken Kristian
34337 Catchpole Ave
Mission, BC. V2V6P2
Phone: (604) 826-8007

==================================================

Subject: RE: Jet Boats on the upper Pitt River

Dear Mr. Kristian:
  Thank you for your email regarding the use of jet boats on the upper Pitt
River.
  I appreciate how frustrating this situation must be for you. As this matter
falls under federal jurisdiction, I have forwarded a copy of your
correspondence to the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
  Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Gordon Campbell
Premier
pc: Honourable Herb Dhaliwal

========================================================
Message:
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Ottawa, Canada Kl A OE6
MAR l2 2002
Dear Mr. Kristian:
This is in response to your e-mail of November 11, 2001, addressed to the
Honourable Gordon Campbell, and forwarded to my predecessor, the Honourable
Herb Dhaliwal, regarding your concerns about the use of jet boats on the
upper Pitt River.
  I appreciate the thought you have given to the potential harmful impacts
that jet boats could have on various species of fish at various ages and
reproductive stages. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has at its disposal the
means of placing speed restrictions on powerboats where necessary in
specific bodies of water through the Boating Restriction Regulations of the
Canada Shipping Act. However, there is a need to balance the ability to
restrict transportation with the need to ensure that the navigability of
water bodies is maintained, as written into the Navigable Waters Protection
Act.
  It is an offense under the Fisheries Act to destroy fish by means other than fishing, or to cause harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish
habitat, unless authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the
Governor in Council under the Fisheries Act. In view of this, Pacific Region
staff are investigating the extent of impacts caused by jet boats on the
Pitt River. Preliminary information indicates that impacts on fish vary with
the boating practices of individual boaters. With that in mind, staff will
be finding opportunities to educate people using the Pitt River on boating
practices that are respectful of fish and fish habitat.

Yours truly,
Robert G. Thibault
c.c.: The Honourable Gordon Campbell, M.L.A.
Canada
======================================================
B.C.’s smaller salmon-bearing rivers no place for jet boats

  B.C.’s smaller salmon-bearing rivers no place for jet boats
ALVIN, B.C.— Firstly, as an ardent angler of the upper Pitt River for
45-years, a former commercial halibut, shrimp, and salmon fisherman,
professionally licensed freshwater angling guide, former director of the
Save Our Fish Foundation (SOFF) and a founding member of the Pitt River & Area Watershed Network (PRAWN), I would like it to be known that I
personally own a 600 HP jet boat (and a gas-guzzling pickup truck to pull
it) and don’t hold anything against anyone who owns one of these boats … as long as it is used in a “respectable” manner.
  The name of the game for many British Columbians is to live life to the
fullest, have fun, and above all else, thoroughly enjoy the great outdoors
that this beautiful province has been blessed with. Far be it from me to
try telling anybody where or when they should or shouldn’t pilot or drive
their jet boat. Why I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone what particular river
that person should pilot their boat on anymore than I would tell a person
not to drive up and down the street our family lives on. However, on the
other side of coin, add excessive speed, a thoughtless jackass driver and
all the neighborhood kids playing on the street into this picture and it’s a
totally different story!
  Surprisingly, a considerable portion of today’s anglers and/or boaters in
British Columbia don’t seem to realize that some species of young salmon and trout remain in the rivers of their birth for quite some time. In other
words, lying just out of sight below the surface on any given salmon-bearing stream or river, there are potentially hundreds of thousands young salmon and certain species of trout living for extended periods of time before making their way to the Pacific Ocean.
The fact remains that potentially a very large number of these young salmon and trout fry and parr suspended just under the surface in shallow water would almost surely be sucked into and killed by impellers in a boat’s jet drive water pump coupled to a powerful engines delivering about 1400-1800 pounds of thrust while pumping 3000 to 4000 gallons of water every minute at a pressure of 60 to 180 pounds per square inch. Young fish, salmon or trout eggs in various stages of life, and their vitally important food source of aquatic insects and chironomids may also succumb to shock and concussion caused by the extreme crushing force of water exiting jet drives, or from the shear displacement of the boat’s hull in confined quarters of a shallow river. It would seem to suggest otherwise would only be wishful thinking, ignorance of the facts, or an obvious case of blatant stupidity on the part of the boat operator.
  The following information on Pacific salmonids found in the upper Pitt River
and its tributaries comes courtesy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada:
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) school at the mouths of rivers and move up when fall rains increase rives flow. Generally a coho will not travel
more than 150 miles up river from the sea or lake. Spawning takes place
anywhere between October and January. After the female prepares the redd she will lay 2100-2789 eggs guarding them until she dies a few days later.
  The fry emerge from early March to late July and although some will migrate almost immediately, most remain at least one year in fresh water lakes or streams.
  Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) migrate as much as 600-1200 miles upriver between July and November. The female digs the redd by lying on her side and thrashing the tail up and down forming a small hole where she lays her 4242-13 619 eggs. She dies within a few days to 2 weeks. This species utilizes about 260 streams in British Columbia, fewer than do other species.
  Unlike most other species of Pacific Salmon, Chinook young remain in
freshwater for varying lengths of time after hatching. Some remain in
freshwater for a few months to a year. In northern areas most spend at least one year in fresh water. The young in fresh water feed on terrestrial
insects, Crustacea and adults, mites, spiders and aphids. Young chinook in
fresh water are preyed on by rainbow and cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, coho salmon smolts, squawfish, sculpins, kingfisher and other diving birds.
Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) returning to spawn migrate to the rivers
anywhere from July (in northern British Columbia) to early January (in
southern B.C.) They rarely penetrate a river more than 100 miles and often
spawn in tidal areas showing a lesser ability to surmount obstacles than
other species. An average female will lay 2400- 3100 eggs before dying a few days later. Hatching usually occurs from late December to late February.
  They remain in the gravel until late April to early May when they migrate to the sea. Food intake includes diatoms, dipterous insects, fish larvae, fish
and squid.
  Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) females sockeye lays 2,000 - 5,000 eggs in a shallow redd. Fertilized by a single male, her eggs mature in the pebbley gravel, hatching in two months as yolk-heavy alevins. Alevins emerge from the river bed and migrate to lakes in early spring. Here they reside in fresh water for the longest duration of all the salmonids - for one to two years, and in rare strains, for as long as three years - before migrating to the ocean.
  Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) females lay 1200 - 1900 eggs - the fewest number of any species. As with other salmonids, eggs reside within a relatively thick (.45 millimeter), structurally complex membrane. Millions of sperm dash frantically for the only opening in the egg, the micropyle, which closes immediately upon fertilization. In three to five minutes, unsuccessful sperm swell with water and explode.
  Pink salmon spend their entire lives at sea, a characteristic shared only
with chum. After emerging from the gravel bed, pink migrate immediately to
the ocean, migrating north along the coast of British Columbia and the
Alaska panhandle at a rate of 3 - 16 miles per day.
   Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) just like salmon, the steelhead female digs a nest (redd) with her tail and the male fertilizes her eggs at the same instant she lays them. Temperature is the key factor which determines when the eggs hatch and when the yoke-bellied alevin break free to grow between the gravel. Once the young steelhead complete using their yoke food reserves they squirm up through the gravel and become free swimming fry. The life expectancy can be as low as 3-4 years but generally the steelhead lives 6-8 years. They first feed on plankton then insects and as they grow older, crustaceans and other fish. They live in their home stream for two, three, or even four years before they enter the smolt stage and migrate downstream to the ocean. Prior to reaching the ocean they 'silver-up' adapting to the osmotic change that will occur when their body moves from a fresh water environment to a salt water medium. Rainbow Trout prefer food items that are just becoming available during the season. Trout feeding throughout May, for example, will have already gorged themselves on Chironomid hatches.
  Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) adult anadromous forms return to
freshwater spawning streams in late autumn and early winter but spawning
takes place there in February to May. In both forms of cutthroat trout
spawning takes place in small, gravelly streams where the male courts the
female by nudging and quivering. The female prepares the redd where she lays 1100-1700 eggs. Hatching occurs 6-7 weeks later. Cutthroat remain near shore favouring brackish or estuarine waters. They usually remain in estuaries of rivers from which they entered the sea. Young cutthroat remain in fresh  water for periods of from one to as much as five years.
Dolly Varden & Bull Trout (Salvelinus malma) the Dolly Varden is a fall
spawner. The female digs the redd and is attended by 4-5 males. Generally
this species lives 10-12 years. The bull trout is known as the most serious
predator on young salmon and a bounty was long paid on them in Alaska.
Another important factor to consider is the impact of sedimentation and
siltation on salmonids caused by jet boats traveling in shallow reaches on
the upper Pitt River. While this serious problem is not readily seen by the
people traveling upriver in the boats themselves, it is clearly visible to
anyone who happens to be downstream along the banks. After any number of jet boats have traveled upriver through shallower sections of the river, the effects are dramatic and immediate directly down stream in the form of water completely clouded by silt.
  Years of road building and logging have caused major sedimentation problems in the upper Pitt River and its tributaries. Jet boats frequently traveling through shallow water on the upper Pitt River continually stir sediment deposits on the bottom substrate. Eventually, when sediment-laden water is stilled, that sediment settles to the bottom of the stream, river, lake, or estuary. When sediments settle out, they may cover or destroy important habitat such as salmon and trout spawning beds. Sediment still suspended in water increases infection and disease among fish by irritating their gills.
  When sediment settles, it can bury and smother bottom-dwelling insects and reduce the survival rate of fish eggs.
  All of this can add up to devastating impacts upon the upper Pitt River’s
salmon, steelhead and trout.
  It may be of great interest at this time to note an on-going study located
in the Southeast corner of Barkley Sound on the west coast of Vancouver
Island, it has been the site of Carnation Creek Experimental Watershed
Project since 1970. The small watershed has also been known for thousands of years by Huu-ay-aht First Nation peoples as C*ac^aasyas.
Preliminary results of the Carnation Creek project indicate we may be
seriously underestimating the effects that siltation and sedimentation play
in the role of determining healthy, sustainable salmon stocks in B.C. The
report states fine silt fills in the spaces between gravel in spawning beds,
making it difficult for eggs to hatch and young fish to survive by mainly
sight-feeding on very small chironomids and tiny aquatic insects which may
be difficult to see — or in the worst case scenario, cannot been seen at all
— by fish in turbid water conditions. All this can apparently add up to
salmon and trout appearing fully developed on the outside, but on the inside of the fish it’s a different story altogether.
  Like it or not, the current trends seem to be shifting to privatization and
a user-pay scenario in British Columbia’s sport fisheries. Government has
stated in no uncertain terms that sport fishery funding will be cut, some or
most hatcheries will close, and community-based river stewardship groups
raising funds to support our rivers and fish may be the way of the future.
  With the vast majority of our wild Pacific salmon stocks well below historic levels and some now teetering precariously on the brink of extinction, each and every British Columbian would be wise do everything in their power to ensure healthy, sustainable salmon runs for future generations of British Columbians to marvel over and enjoy. As responsible stewards of our rivers and the magnificent salmon and trout that call them home, it is up to each one of us to “respect the resource” and to leave a lasting legacy our children can be proud of.
  Sadly, I have heard it said time and again by concerned anglers and former commercial fishermen that British Columbia’s sports-fishermen have sentenced our rivers and fish to a death by a thousand cuts. On the other hand, the same saying holds true for both federal and provincial government bodies responsible for the well-being of our rapidly vanishing fish stocks and their all-important habitat.
  While it's hard for me to do, I’ll have to admit DFO might be right about a
growing body of so-called sport anglers with a total disregard for the
regulations, the resource, and fellow fishermen. The sport fishery today
does appear to be taking up right where the commercial fishery left off in
terms of destruction of an irreplaceable natural resource.
  In closing, I would like to remind all British Columbians of the words of
Robert G. Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada: It is an
offense under the Fisheries Act to destroy fish by means other than fishing, or to cause harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, unless authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in Council under the Fisheries Act. In view of this, Pacific Region staff are investigating the extent of impacts caused by jet boats on the Pitt River. Preliminary information indicates that impacts on fish vary with the boating practices of individual boaters. With that in mind, staff will be
finding opportunities to educate people using the Pitt River on boating
practices that are respectful of fish and fish habitat.
— Ken Kristian
YOU WOULDN'T RIDE YOUR MOTORCYCLE IN A HOSPITAL NURSERY WARD, WOULD YOU?