Sign In | Sign Up to Shop/Forum

Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Tenkara USA has pledged to donate at least 1% of its sales to support environmental conservation, particularly small-stream conservation. And, we'll give as much energy as we can in supporting the environment.
This is a forum to discuss where we can have the biggest impact and to discuss what is going on so that we can participate and help out.

Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby LynnFDR » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:46 am

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_57d0ed50-ac5a-574f-ab8e-10cc3dc2bead.html#ixzz1WR7ejE9x

An excerpt:

Researcher Seth Wenger, the paper’s lead author, said cutthroat could see a 58 percent decline in suitable habitat due to warming rivers, altered streamflows and competition from nonnative species.

The study, published in the science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also predicts a decline in introduced brook trout populations by as much as 77 percent, while rainbow and brown trout populations could also decline by an estimated 35 percent and 48 percent, respectively.

The decline of cutthroat trout is of particular significance, Wenger said, because it is the only trout native to much of the West, and is a keystone species in the Rocky Mountain ecosystem. The westslope cutthroat trout — a subspecies included in the study— is Montana’s state fish and the focus of numerous conservation efforts.

The 11 researchers who contributed to the study are from Trout Unlimited, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado State University, and the University of Washington.

Wenger said the paper was based on data collected from nearly 10,000 fish surveys conducted in the western half of Montana, as well as the western parts of Colorado and Wyoming, eastern and northern Idaho, and Utah. The data was used to build statistical models that forecast the decline in total suitable habitat.

The range of cutthroat habitat has already shrunk by more than 85 percent due to competition from introduced species like rainbow trout and brook trout, and two subspecies have already gone extinct.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... z2LRlSZ5xY
User avatar
LynnFDR
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby dwalker » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:12 pm

LynnFDR wrote:..
An excerpt:

[i]Researcher Seth Wenger, the paper’s lead author, said cutthroat could see a 58 percent decline in suitable habitat due to warming rivers, altered streamflows and competition from nonnative species.
...
The 11 researchers who contributed to the study are from Trout Unlimited, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado State University, and the University of Washington.
..


I really wouldn't worry to much about the nonsense in this report. Perhaps there is some valid risk from competition from non native species. But no risk from climate change, warming, particularly claimed to be caused by man's activities, which is complete nonsense. A great hoax perpetuated by hustlers and con men. Of the 5 contributors to the study 4 are government institutions that deliver the kinds of studies the politicians who vote to fund them want to hear. People who are out to hustle you out of your money and your freedom. :( Numerous universities and other institutions have recently be caught falsifying their research numbers to get the results they want, proof of global warming. Completely discredited, yet politicians persist in the big lie. :x Even the phrase Global Warming has fallen out of fashion because non of studies prove it, after getting caught falsifying collected data, the GW term has been dropped in favor of Climate Change. They're trying to cover all bases no matter which way climate goes. Maybe it will return to warnings about the coming ice age which was pushed big time in the mid 1970s.

For an interesting warning about how a generation can widely believe something to be true , that isn't, just go to Amazon and look up State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. Click on look inside and read Appendix 1 , Why Politicized Science is Dangerous. You'll find a great example of another idea wildly believed and supported a century ago.

Or read about the Societe Zoologique d'Acclimatation, founded in 1854, in Paris, or the American Acclimation Society, founded in 1871, in NYC. In the late 19th century world wide it was thought to be a good idea to introduce species of animals and plants from one part of the world into another part of the world. This activity was supported by the scientific knowledge and beliefs of that time and it was fashionable with the public to support these activities. Eugene Schieffelin introduced the House Sparrow to the USA in 1860s. 30 years later he viewed them as a pest and released Starlings in NYC in an attempt to control the Sparrows. Look what that has turned into. ( a pest that sometimes supplies feathers for tying flies ;) ) And competition from the introduction of non native fish species is part of the warning in the study cited. Another example of a bad idea during two generations in the 19th century. Today some people would have us all be terrified of dihydrogenmonoxide and want warning labels where ever it appears. Many jump on the band wagon demanding something be done about its dangers. It does deserve to be feared sometimes, respected at other times, but otherwise is quite useful to all of us for a wide variety of activities. Its best to educate yourself about science fundamentals and statistical studies, the "old lies, d--n lies and statistics thing", and be really suspicious of studies mixing politics and science and even suspicious of stuff our own generation can become convinced is true, which may not be true. Later generations will often look back in wonder at how so many could believe what they did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Go fish. Have fun. Fish were here before us and they'll likely be here after we are gone. imho.

D
Tenkara is fundamental fishing fun
dwalker
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:23 pm
Location: W.b.g.V.

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby LynnFDR » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:45 pm

Whether via the human use of fossil fuels or not, global warming is occurring. The correlations in ion compositions between known climate change in interglacials in the past and what is seen in the atmosphere today is the evidence for it. It is what happens in interglacial periods (if we can expect another glacial period in the future).

It is not just the temperature which would contribute to the downturn in trout populations in the west. There would be lower snowfalls and likely lower warm-season rainfalls and thus a lessening of stream flows. Lower streamflows will mean warmer waters. All of which add up to problems for trout.

Do I worry about it much, no. I won't be here likely past 2040. But I'd sure like to see my descendants able to have the same enjoyment I had.
User avatar
LynnFDR
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:42 am

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby jrfitzgibbon » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Great topic, and your concern is much validated LynnFDR. While I truly respect you, dwalker (some of your other posts are quite accurate in regard to genetic research and phylogenetics of salmonid species), your assumptions about the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of the scientific research of government institutions like the USFWS and USGS, is grossly unfounded. As a professional wildlife biologist, I know firsthand, that these institutions practice science to its most rigorous standards; they must do so to avoid relentless lawsuits from private industry that commonly feels "held down" by environmental protective legislation. Additionally, they are responsible for funding and conducting much of the domestic research that has been conducted on the phylogenies, biology, ecology, population dynamics and distribution of our own native trout species.

Currently, the amount of qualified, practicing climatological scientists that support the idea that climate change (atmospheric CO2 concentration) has been exacerbated by anthropogenic causes, far outweighs those that do not believe it is the case, and I mean FAR outweighs. The isotopic evidence in glacial core samples from around the world, and from multiple institutions is undeniable... and I do believe those fellows know a little bit more about climate science than you, or even myself :). Anyhow, as tenkara enthusiasts, we should be taking a conservative approach to environmental protection, it's far better to err on the side of caution when uncertainty is involved, especially when it involves the livelihood of our fisheries. I know people in this forum respect you and your research abilities, and rightly so, but please try not to convince them of such conspiracy theory-laden nonsense.
jrfitzgibbon
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby dwalker » Wed May 08, 2013 11:19 pm

jrfitzgibbon wrote:... While I truly respect you, dwalker .., your assumptions ... is grossly unfounded. As a professional wildlife biologist, I know firsthand, ....

...the amount of qualified, practicing climatological scientists that support the idea that climate change (atmospheric CO2 concentration) has been exacerbated by anthropogenic causes, far outweighs those that do not believe it is the case, and I mean FAR outweighs. The isotopic evidence in glacial core samples from around the world, and from multiple institutions is undeniable... and I do believe those fellows know a little bit more about climate science than you, or even myself :). Anyhow, as tenkara enthusiasts, we should be taking a conservative approach to environmental protection, it's far better to err on the side of caution when uncertainty is involved, ... so, but please try not to convince them of such conspiracy theory-laden nonsense.


Thanks for the nice compliments. The rest not so much. Your stated reasons for bowing to the climate change consensus thinking was however a nice gift. It nicely summarizes why I think it is bogus science. I was unaware you had posted a response until another forum member pointed it out to me. I’ve pondered for a while whether to take the troll bait. However, your attempt at intimidation to stop the truth from getting out falls far, FAR short. You really need a new playbook. The old tactic of compliment first, next promote the idea that we mere average citizens ought not doubt the experts – because they are so much smarter that we are (a hearty load of road apples award on that idea), and follow up with a statement of conspiracy nonsense. Then end with a statement we need to err on the side of caution. The implication being – It’s settled science, sit down, shut up, and hand over your money to fight this imminent crisis. There’s you’re nonsense right there. I don’t care who you are. So-called experts really should not awe people into silence. People should have confidence in their ability to think for themselves.

None of the millions of dollars spent, err wasted, on solar cells, electric cars, wind mills (that kill thousand of birds), green house gas reductions (greatly exceeded by a single volcanic eruption) , and so on has done a thing to help a single fingerling trout. If you want to help the fish join TU or go out yourself and plant trees along the stream to keep the water cool or drop large stones in the water for them to shelter under. That at least would be useful and effective and low cost.

There is no doubt that the earth’s climate is the most dynamic, complex, chaotic heat engine on earth. It might be warming or cooling a little. No one knows with certainty. No climate research group knows yet just what the climate is doing or why it is doing what it is doing. Climate research in particular lacks integrity to a large extent because politics is involved. It is a great example of Cargo Cult Science. Richard Feynman made the link between the Caro Cult and Science in speech given in 1974.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

Or if you don’t like pdf format you can also read the text here:
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

It’s a fun read. I thought myself rather clever for linking the AGW crowd to CCS. Only to later be deflated when I discovered online essays that linked the two were posted online a few years ago. One complete with the same referenced summary paragraphs I had selected.

“Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science..”

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool.....

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. .... I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. ....."

The climate change consensus group has failed this principle of integrity. The experts are frequently wrong.

For an example of what goes wrong when expert consensus thinking and politics combine - Take a look at what happened in 1941/42. A group of national security experts got good ole FDR on the team, or maybe it was the other way round. These security experts and politicians decided it would be a swell idea to force Americans of Japanese decent into internment camps far in land from the coast. This group FAR out weighted the recommendation of the skeptic group that thought this was wrong and Un-American. Yet the deed was done. See, you can make a judgment that this group of experts were original members of the Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society and their recommendations were nonsense and a bad idea.

I know nothing about how to design and build an automobile. I leave that to the experts. But when a group of auto experts at Chevrolet designs a car they call the Volt, (I like to call it the Transformer, a name inspired from the movie) that has sudden unpredictable urge to transform itself from a car into a short, hot intense fire. Then I’m sure this group of experts just aren’t all that smart and are not worthy of my respect. There really is no need to give so-called experts the benefit of the doubt about knowing anything. Have some confidence about your own ability to think and apply common sense to what you see.

As a biologist you should know that nature does not act according the vote of a majority of scientists. Either nature is understood or it is not. Self-deceived research group thinking has been a problem from the beginning of science and recognized as being a problem.

In the 16th century Galileo said, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Richard Feynman, one of the brightest bulbs in theoretical physics research in the 20th century said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. There you have the problem represented by your weighty group. A swell group that knows so much that isn’t true.

My objection to the group you support is many fold. First I think it is the height of human arrogance to think man’s activities can have anything more than a minor effect upon weather. It has been said, seek and ye shall find. iow you find what you're looking for. Look for a glass half empty and that is what you will find. This group wants to find a crisis caused by mankind’s activities and that is what they find. In the past it was much warmer than now. Just ponder why snow covered Greenland got its name. And there has been a previous ice age. Hotter or colder than now will happen again with no help from mankind’s activities.

Image

Secondly, they started out crying alarm about Global Warming. But their computer model predictions were so reliably in error it was obvious their theories were wrong and they’d soon be found out for fools. Rather than look for a new theory they kept the old one and then tried to have it both ways by changing to the term Climate Change. Then whether it becomes hotter than normal or becomes colder than normal they’d say, “see - this hot weather or this heavy snow and freezing weather is caused by Climate Change. It’s a great crisis caused by us. We need to do something quick”. My common sense meter detects another load of road apples and the alarm goes off. Afaik the consensus group predicted this spring would be one of the warmest on record. Nature missed the memo and did not cooperate. It is already the 2nd coolest spring on record and if the trend continues till start of summer it will be the coolest spring on record.

Lastly, government regulations and spending following the recommendations of this bad science waste millions of our dollars, which hasn’t improved anything. indeed it has made many things worse. I lost count of the number of windmill blades I saw last spring and summer being transported on the highways near my home. They don’t look that big when you see the windmills high in the air but these blades are huge. Both in size and in wasted money. Our money.

If you’re not too intoxicated on Al Gore cool aid have a look at some cool web pages.
http://www.climatecooling.org/#Issues

Yeah. You’re right the name gives it away. Because the AGW propaganda is so widespread these guys collected information with the contrary view. However, the site makes a nice list of both sides thinking - what the AGW/Climate Change consensus group thinks and why they think the skeptic group is a bunch of kooks. Along with what the skeptic group thinks and why they think the AGW/Climate Change Consensus group is a bunch of kooks.

Common sense. Anyone?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/longest-winter-on-record-in-colorado/

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/longest-winter-on-record-in-west-virginia/
Uh oh. This could be bad news for me on the way to the 2013 Tenkara Summit. This mid May snow will likely fall on or near our family vacation home in Pocahontas County. About 2 hours from Harrisburg, Va.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/us-headed-for-the-coldest-spring-on-record/

I suppose snowfall in Ark. on May 5th is also caused by AGW.

This essay was also posted today, May 8, 2013. It is a long read. Interesting stuff, with more interesting links within the essay. Worth the time to read it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/is_roy_spencer_the_worlds_most_important_scientist.html

A little Inconvenient Truth listed in this essay:
“The pressure that is building on climate doctrine is the failure of the Earth to warm, a trend that has now continued for 16 years. The longer warming is stalled, in the face of constantly increasing CO2, the harder it becomes for the believers to continue believing. Compounding the failure of the Earth to warm is the failure of the oceans to warm for the last 10 years. Normally, failure of the Earth to warm would be explained by saying that the ocean is sucking up the energy flux that would cause the atmosphere to warm. But if the ocean is not warming either, that explanation won't work.”

Seems we will just have to disagree. You may continue to believe your bunch of kooks and I will continue to believe my own thinking and common sense and the bunch of kooks I choose to believe.

Best regards,

D
Tenkara is fundamental fishing fun
dwalker
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:23 pm
Location: W.b.g.V.

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby Kuhlow » Thu May 09, 2013 7:46 am

dwalker...you stated "I think it's the height of human arrogance to think man's activities can have anything more than a minor effect upon the weather." I think it is just the opposite. Were you aware that we, as well as all multi-cellular life that has ever existed on this planet owes it's very existence to humble little bacteria that lived billions of years ago? At one time Earth's atmosphere would have been extremely toxic to us but the work of countless numbers of bacteria pumped enough oxygen into the atmosphere to literally change the world (in most instances to their own detriment). It's naive to think we are not capable of doing the same thing. Over time many organisms can influence their local, regional, and global environments.

From your previous responses, I can clearly see you are passionate about this topic and have your own opinions and conclusions about them and that it is unlikely I or anyone else will persuade you otherwise. It is your right to believe what you will. I will state up front that my opinion on the matter lies 180 degrees to your own and that I come from a science background and am a published author in a number of scientifically peer reviewed journals. However, I was open to reading your responses with an open mind. In some small way, all may be able to learn something.

I agree and disagree with many of your points. I will not spend time citing this fact or that fact. The important thing is to distinguish what science is and is not. Ultimately, science is the pursuit of truth. It is a system of organizing knowledge based on testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An explanation is derived from the best possible data obtained. This explanation will become accepted by the majority over time but there will always be those who will wind up on the fringes. It's good to have people on the fringes sometimes because every once in a while they find the data that fits the observations better than what the majority accepts and in turn cause the old theory to be thrown out in favor of the new. However, most of the time this is not the case. Details may be changed but the basic story remains. Has science gone off in wrong directions in the past...sure... but the goal is to move forward to obtain the best understanding of how the world works.

A serious problem can arise when politics become involved. Political people often have motives and will twist information to suit their own agenda or discredit others. The best defense against people being swayed one way or the other is to encourage education and the ability for individuals to think for themselves and be skeptical. They should not just accept what is given to them. They should strip away the "garbage" and look at the facts. Just because a Dr. wears a white lab coat and has a fancy degree hanging on his wall does not mean his knowledge and diagnosis are unquestionable. Nor should you choose to ignore a diagnosis of cancer when 4 of 5 Dr.'s tell you you have lung cancer. Take the best data and information available to you and make an informed decision.

I personally find the evidence overwhelming for global warming caused in large part to human activity. So many scientists and reports from many diverse branches of science can point to there being evidence for global warming caused by people. Are the majority of scientists 100% correct about the details...absolutely not.....but until better facts can be demonstrated, global warming caused to some degree by humans is a reality. In the event that you are right then all that will have been wasted are some large amounts of money and a lot of "hot air". But if you are wrong the consequences will be far more dire for all of us and our children and most of the other inhabitants of this beautiful world.

I already lament the lost of things I was not able to enjoy the same way my ancestors did. As an example, I love fishing for wild brook trout and I live in NY. Sure I can still find them in places but they only exist in a fraction of the range that they used to. I usually have to look petty hard for places close by to find them. In colonial times they could be found in virtually every body of water in the northeast. This is no longer the case. Humans are largely responsible for this through habitat destruction, introduction of invasive species, pollution, and now global warming will take it's toll.
We have done so in the past and continue to alter the environment in dangerous and unpredictable ways. We as a species need to stop taking sides, setting agendas, influencing others and just look at the basic unaltered data and facts, think about and discuss them with an open mind and make an informed decision.

BTW...for those who may be frightened of dihydrogenmonoxide....don't worry it's just another name for water ("di" meaning two hydrogens "mono" meaning one oxygen....H2O). A little education can go a long way.
Kuhlow
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:21 am
Location: New York

Re: Climate change to halve trout habitat by 2080

Postby michaelcrandall » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:03 am

How about: "Climate Change to Halve ALL Habitat by 2080"

Seems a bit more right. If you are concerned about trout specifically though, and still want to eat them, I'd suggest never using lead again, ever.
If you like your rivers dead, tie your flies with lead.
michaelcrandall
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:29 am
Location: Portland, Oregon


Return to Environmental Conservation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron