 I'd like to welcome you to the Montana State University Library's trout and salmoned lecture series. My name is Kenny Arlich and I am the Dean of the MSU Library. Thank you for coming tonight and thank you to our host, the Museum of the Rockies. The trout and salmoned collection holding the library's special collections has grown into one of the largest and most valuable sources for research on fish and fishing. And we have Bud Lilly and former Dean of the Library, Bruce Morton, to thank for their vision and efforts in creating this world-class collection. Bud Lilly is a legend in fishing circles and he's here with us tonight. Bud, will you give us a wave? That has been world-renowned fly fishing. It also documents what fish mean to our culture and it expresses appreciation for our natural environment. In the spirit of that appreciation, the MSU Library launched the acoustic atlas in October and as you might guess, there's overlap between this project and the trout and salmoned collection. The acoustic atlas is an effort to collect and make accessible to the world some of the sounds of our natural environment. Birds, animals, wind in trees, water tumbling over rocks, ice thawing, and yes, even the sounds of fly fishing will be a part of the acoustic atlas. But there's even more. We plan to record the voices of Bud Lilly and other guides as they tell the stories of the fishing trips they took, the people they guided, the places they went, and how those places have changed over half a century. The acoustic atlas is live but still small at acousticatlas.org. But stay tuned, we're growing and there's much more to come. I invite you to go visit our display table out front and Molly Anderson is out there with headphones and you can actually listen to some of the sounds that we've collected already. Tonight we are honored to house our guest, Dan Wink, Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. We normally pay our speakers an honorarium but Dan has asked that we donate that honorarium to the Yellowstone Park Foundation. So we will be making that donation in his name after this lecture. I introduce Dan Wink, that's not my job tonight. That I will leave to Paul Schilleri. Paul is an accomplished author having written dozens of books on fishing, bears, wolves, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and we are often collaborating with his wife, the artist, Marsha Carly. We're proud to call Paul our scholar in residence at the MSU Library. Please welcome Paul Schilleri. Thank you, Kenny. And thanks to your terrific team for putting on this event. The Trout and Salmon collection sponsors something very special with this lecture series. It's brought some of the most distinguished and thoughtful voices from the world of trout to our community. You know, those was a great trout town and we're more blessed than most other trout towns because of this collection and all the things it can do for us. And we're blessed because we have Yellowstone nearby. For more than 140 years Yellowstone has been bringing millions of people great joys and satisfactions. Wilderness lovers, wildlife watchers, anglers and a host of other nature enthusiasts have found enrichment and fulfillment in the park's beautiful landscapes. Simultaneously, Yellowstone has been at the center of many important conversations, debates and controversies. Not merely about how Yellowstone itself should be managed, but about our greater relationship with nature. We are constantly in a state of coming to terms with Yellowstone and what it means. And that's what makes it so exciting to have Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wake here. His office, if you can imagine this, his office is where all of America's passions and hopes, separate realities and other strong feelings about Yellowstone collide and where they must be faced. It's also where more than a century's accumulation of park policy and law must be honored. Whatever I've learned in 40 years of researching, discussing and writing about Yellowstone would feel hollow and insufficient had it not been illuminated by my exposure to the perspectives of several Yellowstone superintendents. No one else has or can have their take on things. They have to get close enough to Yellowstone to understand its most subtle nuances and yet they have to stand far enough back to comprehend its complex role in the modern world. Dan Wake brings to this assignment the seasoning of a remarkable career in the parks which is described in the programs you've all received. Among the things he accomplished before he arrived in Yellowstone, I want to elaborate on only one and that happened during his years as superintendent of Mel Rushmore. And I will just say that we are all indebted to Dan for his brilliant transformation of the visitor experience at that great National Shrine. Dan also brings other credentials that are essential in a Yellowstone superintendent. These include his own passion for the parks, a durable sense of humor, and judging from the boxes of drive flies that I've seen scattered around this house a pretty serious enthusiasm for Yellowstone's trout, about which he will now speak. Please welcome Yellowstone superintendent Dan Wake. It is a pleasure to be here with you tonight and I'd like to thank the MSU Library Trout and Salmonid lecture series and Mr. Jane Thule for the invitation to speak with you tonight. It's been my pleasure to be the superintendent of Yellowstone for the past three years. During my time in Backend Park, I've been reminded that everything you do in Yellowstone National Park is controversial. There was about a week in my very first year back that I thought the only thing that wasn't controversial was native fish conservation. I was wrong. I have learned that every fish species, native or non-native, has advocates. Advocating for fish or for squirt fishing is not necessarily advocating for national parks or protection of these great places. But none of those advocates for non-native species are required to manage a park under the same requirements of the staff at Yellowstone. The management policies are very straightforward. They state that all exotic plant and animal species that are not maintained to meet specific park purposes will be managed up to and including eradication. Yet, first of all, control is prudent and feasible. And second, the exotic species interferes with natural processes and the perpetuation of natural features. Native species or natural habitat are disrupts the genetic integrity of the native species. Furthermore, the management policies provide a decision framework for initiating exotic species management. For species determined to be exotic or where management appears to be feasible and effective, superintendents should evaluate the species' current or potential impact on park resources, develop and implement exotic species planets, according to established planning procedures, and consult as appropriate with federal, tribal, local, state agencies, as well as other interest groups. And for public review and comment, where appropriate. I mention all of this because I wanted to set the framework for what we're doing with the conservation in Yellowstone. I think you'll find that the actions that we have taken are consistent with the policies of the National Park Service. If we only had to manage national parks for one set of values, either preservation of natural systems or alternatively for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, life would be easy, but we get to do both. Values and conflict is the arena that most issues play out in Yellowstone and the National Park Service. I see many former and some current employees of Yellowstone in the room tonight. And I believe they join me in placing the preservation and protection of Yellowstone as the highest priority so that they may be enjoyed unfair for future generations. When I was asked to speak, I commented to Mr. Thule and Mr. Shilary that you really need an expert in the fisheries of Yellowstone. I'm just the superintendent. I suggest a few names. Dr. Todd Kuhl, or our fisheries biologist, or Dave Hallan, the head of the Yellowstone Center for Resources. And he's also an incredibly avid fisherman. But they assured me they wanted an understanding of the superintendent's perspective on conservation in the park, so that's what you're going to get. My association with Yellowstone was back to 1979 when I arrived as a very naive landscape architect. But my education came quickly. Through Superintendent John Townsley, who recruited me to Superintendent Bob Barbary, who inherited me. For a time I shared offices with the Park Research Branch and I got introduced to the practice of resource management and the protection and preservation of natural systems. Probably the greatest learning experience of my life. And then I got to come back in 2011 and fix some of the mistakes I made in the early 80s. So let's talk about native fisheries and native fish conservation from my perspective. Despite the years of occupation of Yellowstone for thousands of years by Native Americans, there is really no written documentation of what the park and the waters were like. This documentation came with some of the early Euro-American explorers in the 1800s. Mountain men of the time often visited the park and saw its unique features, including Yellowstone land. Reports by these wanderers led to formal surveys. John Coulter of the Lewis and Clark Expedition visited Yellowstone in the winter of 1806 and 1807. From notes and journals of these formal surveys you see reference to the richness of wildlife, including reference to its fishes. These accounts of traveling Yellowstone give us a glimpse of the park's condition just prior to its formal establishment in 1872. A member of the Hayden Survey, William Jackson, was a photographer and provided us with the first images of Yellowstone. This may not be one of his best portraits, but do show members of that survey on the lake in a boat they came to meet Anna in 1871. In 1883 we see a very clear message by the managers of Yellowstone in regard to the difference of the treatment of fish and wildlife. The hunting mammals and birds, except predators, was prohibited, but fishing was not. This was a significant turning point for national parks, as fishing was considered to be an acceptable practice at parks throughout the country. Poaching of the game of fish was so bad in Yellowstone that the U.S. Army was sent in in 1886 to curtail poaching and maintain order in the park. The captains of the Army at the time also served as acting superintendents for the park. In 1889, Captain Newtel was an avid fisherman and requested that the newly formed U.S. Fish Commission investigate Yellowstone waters for possible improvements. Quite quickly, David Starr Jordan visited Yellowstone in September and October of 1889 and developed the first distribution map of Yellowstone fishes. With amazing detail, Jordan was able to map the original fishless area, which was about 40% of the park, represented here by the highlighted line by red arrows, primarily on the western side of the park. Early managers thought the fishless condition of the park waters was due to toxic effects of the chemicals in the warm waters produced by the hot springs. Later it was realized that fish were absent because stream channeled barriers posed by waterfalls. Even though the fishing at the dawn of Yellowstone was outstanding, early managers saw a need to make it better. At the time, these fishless waters were not acceptable and the newly formed Fish Commission jumped at the chance to stock fishes and develop a sport fishery throughout the park. The goal of the park managers was to have the best possible sport fishing in as many waters as could be reasonably bestowed. In 1889 marked the beginning of a long history of non-native fish introductions to Yellowstone. As brook trout were planted in the fishless upper waters of the firehole and the garden rivers, rainbow trout were planted in the upper Gibbon River and within a few years lake trout and ground trout were introduced to the Lewis and Shoshone lakes. This couldn't take mentality became a way of doing business in Yellowstone. This eventually, this mentality existed for over 50 years. And so it was done. Hatchery operations were established in Yellowstone and fisheries operations began to a grand expansion to improve nature. Beginning in 1901, the operations of the Yellowstone were supervised by Mr. D. C. Move of the Spearfish South Dakota National Fish Hatchery. This images one of the expeditions to lake Yellowstone from Spearfish. Looking closely, you can see the vote on a wagon to be used to access remote streams on Yellowstone Lake. The fisheries resources of Yellowstone existed for the good of the people. In his report in 1895, Superintendent Anderson stated that the enormous number of lake trout taken here by all parties who take the time to cast the line surpasses all belief. Regardless, fishes were created throughout the park. By 1902, Yellowstone had received all the species of swordfish that exist today. At the turn of the century and the establishment of seasonal hatchery operations in Yellowstone, the park also began to see increases in visitation and improved visitor services. The abundance of Yellowstone cutthroat trout was quickly known nationwide through constant publication. This polisly led to increased pressure by visitors. Ironically, it's the abundance of cutthroat trout here that eventually caused their decline. As more and more parks and national monuments were added across the country, there came a need for a central office to administer them and provide support. In 1916, after 30 years of management by the U.S. Army, Yellowstone management was within the National Park Service. The Act of 1960 called for the conservation of the scenery and the natural and historic objects in the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as to leave them unimpaired for future generations. This Act, for the first time, put natural resources in wildlife on equal ground with enjoyment in public use. We began to see direction for Yellowstone, but also a major dilemma in that we were mandated to conserve and to use. Throughout all of this, it's clear what prevails is the near agricultural philosophy of stewardship that is continuously put forward by the managers of Yellowstone. In 1922, fish were planted, elk were harvested, vices were arranged, bears were fed, and predators were killed. And through it all, Yellowstone became the largest single source of wild cutthroat trout eggs in the United States. And of course, unfortunately, it wasn't realized that these fish, despite their great abundance in Yellowstone Lake in many streams, were not well suited for most areas that they were stopped. They were not adapted and cannot survive while in competition and under predation pressure by other fishes. So much of this effort was in vain. This image is of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries truck leaping Yellowstone for Homer, Minnesota, station in 1925. It's now clear that the management actions initially of the U.S. Army and later the National Park Service had and are having profound ecological consequences. The indiscriminate stocking of non-natives has resulted in the displacement of intolerant natives such as Westlope Cutthroat Trout in Grayland, hybridization of Yellowstone and Westlope Cutthroat Trout with non-native gray boat trout, competition and predation of the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout by non-native lake trout. And there is evidence suggests that the stocked fishes in historically fishless waters has led to localized extinction of sensitive amphibians in other species. Despite the fact that the magnitude of manpower in facilities and wholesale export of amines and fish was huge, the effort was small compared to what it will take to reverse these actions. To me the period of 1889 when the first brown rainbow and lake trout arrived to 1957 when stocking stopped is a period of ecological destruction for the fisheries of Yellowstone. Although it was really by this time too late for Yellowstone the National Park Service developed the first stocking policy in 1936 which stated that non-native fish shall not be stocked in the waters containing native fish. Propagation and stocking of native species shall not be encouraged. Distribution of non-native species shall not be expanded. No artificial lake or stream improvements shall be made and subject waters shall be left barren of fish. At the time in 1936 fisheries professionals for the most part considered this to be radical thinking. To fish learn these must have seemed weird. More fish is always better than any specific kind of fish, right? These ideas are somewhat revolutionary. Not only will no non-natives be stocked but hatch repropagation of any fish was discouraged and many visit waters were to be left fishless. The National Park Service fish stocking policies were formally published in the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society in 1937 by David Metz, the supervisor of fish resources for the National Park Service. However, for Yellowstone National Park much of the damage had already been done by 1937. We can demonstrate this here. More than 400 kilometers of Yellowstone's larger streams and rivers originally supported native fish. However, stocking of park waters with non-native rainbow brook and brown trout has impacted most of these streams. Subsequent evasion by headwater streams by non-natives resulted in additional significant loss. Currently less than 50 kilometers of Yellowstone's large streams and rivers remain native fish owned. Non-native fish were stocked in streams and rivers containing native cutthroat trout. In many places the native cutthroat trout was completely exterminated. An example of where this has happened is the Madison River where non-native brown and rainbow trout had completely displaced native west slope cutthroat trout and fluvial Arctic grail. Non-native fish were also stocked in waters that were originally naturally fishless. Because of this today there are a greater number of streams supported by non-native rainbow brook and their brown trout than there were historically supporting natives. It was by the early mid 1960s the realization occurred that only a large healthy fish population in particular the cutthroat trout population of Yellowstone Lake could play an important ecological role as a food source for dozens of other species of animals. Fish were slowly rising to the park to management's esteem. At the same time fish populations were embarrassingly and alarmingly low from years of abuse. The Leopold Report in 1963 redefined park resource management. The report called for the biotic associations within each park to be maintained and where necessary be created as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by white. Currently native fish in Yellowstone are conserved to reduce the risk of extinction, restore and maintain their important ecological role and to create sustainable angling and viewing opportunities. Native fish conservation efforts are focused on Yellowstone Lake and this received much attention. However a significant amount of work is being done to preserve and restore native fish in several other areas of the park including the Gallatin and Madison Drainages along the park's west side and the Lamar River Drainage in the northern range. The Yellowstone Lake drainage above the upper falls of Canyon represents the largest remaining undisturbed habitat for genetically per-pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout in existence. Cutthroat trout in this area are highly valued ecologically, economically and socially. They are a valuable food source for several species of birds and animals including grizzly bears, otters, eagles, white pelicans, osprey. Cutthroat trout are the basis for an extensive sport fishing economy in communities surrounding Yellowstone with anglers coming from all over the world to fish for these wild native fish. Lake trout were discovered in the Yellowstone Lake in 1994. They are highly predatory in other lakes in the west of the United States where they've been introduced cutthroat trout have been virtually eliminated. In 1995 a panel of fisheries experts projected that without control of lake trout in Yellowstone Lake native cutthroat trout would be reduced to a mere fraction of historical levels were functionally eliminated. However with effective suppression cutthroat trout could be maintained as a population size which would sustain the ecological integrity of the system. Since lake trout dwell in deep waters they are not available as prey for most mammals and birds. Allowing lake trout to replace cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake would have severe consequences in the overall status of Yellowstone cutthroat trout subspecies the Yellowstone Lake ecosystem and the sport fishery. Although National Park Service began to remove lake trout soon after they were discovered in 1994 catches of lake trout and the overall effort to remove them have dramatically increased over time. Currently the Yellowstone cutthroat trout population has declined in the Yellowstone Lake. Estimates that I received when arriving up in the park indicated that the populations had dropped from almost 4 million cutthroat trout to under $500,000. We are working now to get better estimates but the order of magnitude was startled. Animals in the Yellowstone Lake ecosystem which have relied on the cutthroat trout as a food source have been displaced by the decline. Ecological implications of cutthroat trout decline include displacement of osprey. Ospreys, which are the obligatisomores meaning they eat fish almost exclusively have declined dramatically around Yellowstone Lake. A decade ago there were 50 or more nesting osprey pairs around the lake. Today there are only four or five nests per year. Success of these nests is limited and we are currently studying the raptors in Yellowstone to gain more knowledge and insight to what is happening. Grizzly bears once fed on cutthroat trout in the shallow tributaries around the Yellowstone Lake during the cutthroat trout spring spawning migration. Visual surveys of a dozen cutthroat spawning streams between lake and grant have been conducted annually. In the late 1980s it was not uncommon for 70 or more cutthroat trout to be seen each week in these spawning streams. In recent years the survey crew is lucky to find a spawning cutthroat trout. Grizzly bear use of these same spawning streams has also declined over the same period of the 80s to the present. The trend in grizzly bear bears that of cutthroat trout with one to two year lag suggest an learned behavior by the bears in among years. Recently Arthur Middleton, a Ph.D. graduate of the University of Wyoming has published a paper related to cutthroat trout decline. Middleton and others, including Yellowstone staff have brought out a hypothesis regarding ecological linkages between lake trout, cutthroat trout, grizzly bears, and migratory elk. You can see in this slide that the northern and cody herds migrate to areas near Yellowstone Lake. There is some evidence to suggest that grizzly bears switch their diets from cutthroat trout to elk calves in the Lake area. It is possible that lake trout may indirectly affect migratory elk in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. So what do we do? We began the environmental assessment process for native fish conservation in 2010. The native fish conservation plan has three objectives. Reduce the long term extension risk for native fish. Restore and maintain the important ecological role for native fish. Create and sustain native angering and fish viewing opportunities. This plan had received a great deal of public support and the 3,000 pieces of correspondence contained over 10,000 individual opponents. We approved the finding of no significant impact was signed in May of 2011 and the focus of the plan was on both restoring Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake, meeting through suppression bedding and focused on Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Westlope cutthroat trout and grailing restoration and their native ranges throughout the rest of the park. We've had several reviews by subject matter experts currently conducting annual science panel reviews to the ongoing lake trout suppression Yellowstone cutthroat trout restoration project on Yellowstone Lake, which is an outside check to assure that we're moving in the right direction. Panel members are nationally renowned scientists with specialties in either lake trout, cutthroat trout or population ecology, biology. This effort is led by Dr. Robert Breslow, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Service here in Mosby. The park has forged a productive partnership with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, National Park and Conservation Association, Travel Limited, Idaho, Travel Limited in Montana, Travel Limited in Wyoming, Yellowstone Park Foundation and Collaborating Scientists to implement components of the plan. Our efforts contribute to the collaborative work of the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout and Interstate Work Group, Montana Cutthroat Trout Steering Committee and the Fluvial Art and Grailing Work Group, all of which are composed of state, federal, and tribal fisheries professionals throughout the region. This requires a lot of money. We're spending over $2 million per year on these projects. The Yellowstone Park Foundation is trying to raise the bulk of the funds for the Main Suspression Contract on Yellowstone Lake. They have raised and are committed to raising $1 million per year to complement this effort. Non-governmental organizations are working hard to raise funds for an ongoing research. In fact, a piece of legislation is made its way through both houses of the Wyoming legislature and awaiting the governor's being signature that will approve over $600,000 to advance the methods of lake trough suppression. These funds will go to the Wyoming Council of Trout Unlimited. Yellowstone also contributes over $1 million a year through base funds and funds we generate through entrance fees. The largest lake trough caught in 2009 by fisheries crew was 26 pounds 4 ounces. This is it. The current record is over 33 pounds caught in 2012. Lake Trough lived a long time. The oldest unrecord is 62 years. This trough was not aged, so I can't tell you how old it was. Let's talk about what we're doing on the lake. Please understand with current technology that we don't believe we can eliminate lake trough from Yellowstone Lake, but we do believe that we can drive the population down to a manageable level. So therefore, we're not only looking at lake trough suppression, but also monitoring and adaptive management and applied research for the long-term efforts that will be required. We've been increasing suppression efforts over the last few years. We cobbled together a major effort for the first time in 2011 enlisting the assistance of the Yellowstone Park Foundation for funding, and now we've been able to meet the targets established by the Science Panel. Last year, the contract crews ran three large boats and the National Park Service ran a boat. In 2012, we had over 62,200 units of netting effort was achieved well over the Science Panel's recognition. Large trap nets with traps that are 40 by 30 by 20 was leads up to 900 feet have been used in recent years. Fish caught in these traps remain alive and healthy with little stress. Yellowstone cutthroat trout caught can be released on hard. Traps can be fished in shallow water where there are large numbers of Yellowstone cutthroat trout mixed in with a lake trout. Lake trout captured via traps makes excellent research candidates for stress and low stress, and they're very healthy. Over 1.4 million lake trout have been removed since the start of the program. Over 825,000 lake trout in just the last three years. Increased numbers are due in part to increased effort. However, lake trout are becoming harder to catch which is a great sign. We have two main monitoring programs random site selection lake-wide and multitude of mesh sizes. We're beginning to see an increase in the numbers of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Here you can see what the population looked like in the distribution netting we did in 2011. The first year of the large effort on the lake. You can see a strong increase in the number of juvenile just Yellowstone cutthroat trout in 2012. And with the same effort we caught more fish. Beginning to see some juveniles move up into larger class sizes indications of more recruitment of juvenile fish and once again more fish. Hopefully we'll see more of these fish moving to spawning tributaries in the next one to two years. All are positive signs that our efforts on the lake are paying dividends. As I said, we understand the current methods are time consuming, costly and therefore we need to find other methods that can contribute to the control of lake trout. We hope to develop methods which can target eggs and embryos before they move from the spawning sites. We're looking for what we can do for a low reduction in suppression netting. A low reduction of the lake trout population by reducing the recruitment of juveniles to the population and by reducing the reproductive potential. In other words, removing the adults from the population. We have a lake trout telemetry study. We've invented five devices, I believe, over 200 lake trout to detect their movements throughout the lake to pinpoint where the trout are spawning in order to apply alternative methods in developing eggs, methods to developing eggs and embryos. Also, the lake trout detect movement corridors and conduct patients to more effectively target adults in the netting. That's Carrington Island, obviously, a very heavily used spawning site within the park. Alternative methods currently being explored are suction. Oops, I'm sorry. Each female trout can have up to thousands of eggs. I've been told that lake trout can have up to a thousand eggs for each pound of adult weight. I understand that not all eggs will become fertilized and not all fertilized eggs will become fry, but this does demonstrate the magnitude of the problem showing just the eggs from one adult fish. Alternative methods currently being explored are suction or dredging to remove eggs from the substrate as a technique will be experimented with this site. Electricity has proved to be effective at killing developing embryos, but we need to develop a method to get the electricity down into the substrate where they reside. MSU researchers have had encouraging results along the path which we will try this fall. Little fish. Let's move from Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Yellowstone Lake to some river and stream restoration, like Arctic Grail and the Grail and Creek. This map shows the current status of both Yellowstone and Westlope cutthroat trout across Yellowstone National Park. In the yellow areas, we have found hybridized Yellowstone cutthroat and Westlope cutthroat trout. Areas of blue remain genetically pure, or have we not yet detected any hybridized fish? Red are areas where these fish are gone and the gray represents originally fishless areas of the park. In here, historic distribution of genetically pure Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Lamar River. In the 1930s, early stages of brainwave trout expansion into the Lamar River drainage. The first official stocking of brainwave trout in the Lamar River drainage occurred at Sowbeam Creek in 1937. Over 105,000 fish weighed 1.5, each weighing about 1.5 pounds. The first and only stocking of the Lamar River occurred in 1938 with 70,000 advanced state dry. In 2002, rainbow trout confirmed in the first meadow of Slough Creek. Historically, it was believed that a small cascade downstream of the first meadow of Slough Creek was a barrier to upstream fish migration, protecting the stream from rainbow trout invasion. In 2006, rainbow trout genetics detected a fish testing above Icebox Canyon in Sowbeam Creek. Brook trout are also located in Sowbeam Creek above the Faultmouth and Icebox Canyon, which was originally believed to be a barrier to upstream fish migration. 2007, rainbow trout in the Yellowstone cutthroat trout, rainbow trout hybrids confirmed in the second meadow of Slough Creek. 2008, rainbow trout in the Yellowstone cutthroat trout, rainbow trout hybrids confirmed in the third meadow of Slough Creek upstream to a barrier falls located north of the Yellowstone National Park boundary. Currently, there are not natural barriers in place to prevent rainbow trout and hook trout. Currently, the upper Sowbeam Creek from invading the upper Lamar River drainage. The upper Lamar River represents one of the last strontemoles for fluvial and fluvial ad fluvial Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone National Park. Genetic surveys in 2013 indicate that rainbow trout genetics being detected further upstream than ever before. So what are we doing on the streams and the rivers? Native fish restoration sites focus on watersheds within the Madison Gallagin River drainage for West Slough Cutthroat Trout and Arctic Braille conservation in the Yellowstone River drainage for Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout conservation. Well, West Slough Cutthroat Trout conservation in the Madison Gallagin River drainage includes areas in the specimen and river creek drainages in the Goose Lake complex. Specimen Creek is located in the northwestern portion of the park to the Trubiterre in the Gallagin River. Fish were removed from Highlake in 2006 using an approved USDA Peace-Aside Rope No. In 2008, a wooden barrier that you see here was constructed of the lower portion of the East Fork Specimen Creek to prevent the upstream movement of non-native fish into isolated headwater populations. In 2008 and 2009, fish were removed from the East Fork Specimen Creek using two separate Peace-Aside Treatments. Use of remote site incubators West Slough Cutthroat Trout were restocked in the Highlake in 2007 and 2009 in East Fork Specimen Creek in 10 and 12. Grail and creek is located in the northwest portion of the park. It is the tributary to the Hevkin Lake. Conservation actions include modifying an existing waterfall, removing non-native fish and reintroducing native species, the West Slough and the Arctic Grail Lake. Conservation actions included this modification of natural waterfall to completely prevent upstream movement of non-native fish, primarily brown trout and rainbow trout. This barrier was completed in 2013. Conservation actions include reintroducing West Slough Cutthroat Trout and Arctic Grail Lake. During August of 2013, the upper portion of the Grand Creek was peace-aside to remove all fish species. Multiple agencies participating in this project included Turner Enterprises, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The second treatment is anticipated for this year. The Goose Lake complex consists of three lakes on the west side of the Firehole River. Non-native rainbow trout were removed from these lakes in 2011. The lakes will be stocked with West Slough and used as a root source for future restoration efforts. We're currently working with Sun Ranch, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and U.S. Forest Service to develop a root source for West Slough. So let's move over to the Lamar River Range. In 2013, the falls of Icebox Canyon was altered to make it a complete barrier to upstream fish migration to protect the area from further rainbow trout invasion. The barrier design for Slough Creek was completed in 2014. Initial barrier designs for Upper Lamar River were completed in 2014. Alterations to the falls of Icebox Canyon were completed in 2013 by the National Parks Service and the Forest Service. Rainbow trout will no longer be able to migrate into Southern New Creek from the Lamar River. Final barrier design for Lower Slough Creek, the design will create a small waterfall to prevent rainbow trout and Yellowstone cutthroat rainbow trout hybrids from entering Upper Slough Creek. We estimate and believe we'll construct this in 2015. Flint Creek can't speed on Lamar River. This is one possible location for construction of the barrier to prevent rainbow trout and hybrids from entering the Upper Lamar Range. Some barrier types should be considered. Yellowstone National Park Fisheries crews are doing electrophishing on the Lamar River using a John Vote mounted electrophishing equipment. Fisheries are stunned by the electric current and crews can selectively remove rainbow trout and hybrids. While releasing, Yellowstone cutthroat trout aren't hard. Crews also monitor the river for brown trout. This technique along with retrofishing is being used in Slough Creek to remove rainbow trout and hybrids. Yellowstone National Park Fisheries crews on the Lamar River using the John Vote mounted electrophishing equipment. Health loss in the Anse Creek make up the Elk Creek complex. Historically, officials lost creek stock with work trout in 1942. Source of work trout on the Yellowstone River and closest downstream source for work trout on the Lamar River. Natural barrier to upstream movement exists. We treated this area with fish, toxicant rotonone in 2012 and 2013 to remove the brook trout. The green temp that you see in this picture is used to determine the proper amount of rotonone to be used. Final treatment is scheduled for 2014, stocking with Yellowstone cutthroat trout planned for late 14 or 15. Aiming regulation changes in recent years have moved to protect native fish while allowing more liberal harvest and native fish. Current regulations on the Lamar River range call for catching release of all Yellowstone cutthroat trout. It has a red or orange slash put it back. And removal of all rainbow trout and brook trout is required. We will continue through this program with adaptive management, seeing how we're doing it, where we're having successes, where we're not as successful within Yellowstone and lakes within Yellowstone to its native condition. Thank you for your attention and I will be happy to take questions. I also have with me tonight Tad Poole, who's a fisherman's biologist in Yellowstone. So, you can skump the chum. And Tad can help answer questions. So, if we have questions, we'd be happy to take some time to answer those. I can see the hands. Yes. The lake trout are, basically, we put them back into the lake. We puncture their bladders and we go to a deeper part of the lake and we put them back in, we turn the nutrients to the lake. Yes. Have you thought about taking this lake trout and selling it and making money out of it? You know, actually, I'll give you two answers to that. Have you thought about it? Yes. But the commercial use of animals that would come out of a national park is prohibited against the policies of the National Park Service. But when we did think about it, we looked at it long enough at least to know that it's really not economically feasible or viable to take them out because of the length of transportation, the requirements that we would have in terms of trying to keep the fish cool, etc. It was economically possible. But even if it was, we probably would not because it is against the policies in terms of commercial exploitation of a natural resource within a park even though it's not made available. Yes. You still have all the same problems in terms of how do you process the fish and move the fish out? It's not economically feasible. Yes. We had a Mark capture study this year and Todd, help me out with the number that we take. This year we've taken 2,400 and released them back into the lake. We actually recaptured over half those by our netting program which kind of points to the effectiveness of the netting this past year especially. We hammered this fish pretty well. Basically we're doing that to try to determine the populations of fish in the lake. Next, a lot of hands. Yes. So far, stopping at the park boundary, we believe that if we can deal with the barriers and remove fish, we have a chance of success. I don't think we're opposed to where it would be, we get help from Fish and Wildlife Service with Forest Service and certainly with Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks and if there were places that we could cooperate with them outside the park I'm sure we would look at doing that. Yes. As far as the annual permanent fees, that's got to be pretty substantial. How much of that would go into say the high priority of the lake for our education program? Do you use a lot more of those fees for that program? I believe we actually generate, I believe, somewhere around $800,000 in fish fees in terms of fishing permits and I would tell you without adult the majority of that goes back. We have to pay for the program, we have to pay for printing, we have to pay for a lot of things out of it, but the vast majority goes back to the conservation program. Yes. We don't know and what I said is there are signs that that may be happening. I actually have a bumper sticker in my office that says lake trout kill elk. What are the three of them? What else? But the studies that were done show you're indicating that they may be shifting the food source from trout to elk. What the total impact of that is, I don't think we know yet. You said that every species has its applicants. Do you have visitors who come to the park specifically to fish for lake trout? Yes. We have people who think it's a tremendous sport fishing opportunity. It's a wonderful game fish and they are opposed to us to our removal of lake trout from lake trout. I can't, my glasses aren't going to help us a lot. So, up here. Do you open your rivers to the public? Sure. You know, I had a I had actually a conversation today with some congressional staff and the question I asked them is how opening the Waters of Yellowstone to paddling benefits Yellowstone National Park to provide for the protection of Yellowstone National Park. And there was a long pause on the other end of the phone. My comments are is I understand that forbidden waters are waters that many paddlers would like to have the opportunity to be on. However, what I don't think the paddling community initially advocated for this understood that we just can't open that discussion to kayakers or to pack rafters. If we open that discussion you have as much chance of looking at multi-colored inner tubes of families or a group of fraternity brothers or whatever, floating down the Fire Bowl River as you have as a kayaker going down the Black Canyon and you have drift boats in the Monterey River. You can have drift boats on the Fire Bowl River. It's a much bigger question than kayaking or pack-rapping on rivers in Yellowstone. I believe there are some places that need to be protected. I think it's a bill that's been designed for a very small minority of users and it excludes the wishes of the majority. The bill gives us three years to put a new rule in place. If we don't have it in place we cannot enforce any rule and all waters in Yellowstone will be open to paddling. I think it's a bad rule. We're doing everything we can do to fight it and any help you would like to give us we're welcome to take. I'm going to say a few words about that very issue raising all of our concerns and Senator Passer is going to be here next week. I don't know if I'll be a chance to ask him any questions but I mean also considering the idea of who and I have a friend who's testing for them rangers, who's going to rescue the people and how are we going to protect the banks and rivers and I can see a hotel of them coming along and there's a barrier open and you know Senator's opening is back on the side of that so he's going to take care of it. Excellent point. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it would cost over $3 million to complete the study and it would cost over $500,000 a year for us to manage the use if it were allowed. Both money that I know we don't have. Other questions? Yes. Is there any prospect that you know I don't I think the answer is no with what we know right now I believe that no one believes that we can eliminate late trauma with current technology and what we know now but we do think we can drive them down to a level that will not have the kind of impact on the reproduction recruitment and the Yellowstone Cup trauma population. I think we're in this for a long time. Yes. I think it's a I would best say that's an ongoing effort we are certainly looking at the effects of climate change just sort of anecdotally you know it's not that Yellowstone's a lot hotter in terms of warm temperatures so far based on climate change but we have 70 less days in the last 30 years where the temperature goes below freezing. So the colder it's not as cold in Yellowstone more than it's heating up but we do have a branch of physical sciences and climate change is one of their highest priorities in terms of what we're trying to look at and we have in some cases well over 100 years of data that we can look at. The interesting thing about climate change is when you look at a 30 year average 30 year average starts to change over time so what we're looking at today this winter might be a normal winter or a little above normal for snowfall and water content but if you compare it to a 30 year period 30 years ago it may not. So it's a the whole process is getting our attention we believe it's one of the major issues that has the potential to affect the whole ecosystem is there a question up there? Yes. Any new long term direct policies or net net or going the age to provide and respond to this? I understand that's been used I think it's one way to apply it with the previous discussion and is the part Yellowstone taking about a 20 minute time to choose actually the answer is yes Yellowstone I think at MSU they developed and I'll call it let's just say if you have this section there's a call it a mat they originally was tried with sort of a simple mat that the electricity went through to try to kill the embryos but what we've done now or what they've done is I understand they've actually attached tentacles to this that actually get down into the substrate and the success with that so far is very promising to basically wipe out the embryos in those areas that we've identified for spawning areas so we intend to try and I believe this fall to see No, I would just say that the project you're describing is actually a collaborative study between where we're on Swan Lake and on Yellowstone Lake the government shutdown had a little bit of an effect of our ability to work on Yellowstone Lake last fall but all that equipment now is coming out to Yellowstone Lake this coming year in the future but yeah it's really easy you know we hope that's one of the ways that we can reduce the recruitment substantially so we can reduce the amount of suppression that we have to do Other questions here if I may as a former whiteboard guy we never went out but they flipped and there's some much bigger rabbits down there than what came to be much more cost than dealing with that the captioning is such big whether this my only person has some connection that is still in this but I will say that I've talked to some of my friends a little while ago but none of that seems very important or colorful packages that are going back in the experience so how can we organize people who are interested in participating if you have a contact website or something that we could do to help you with this problem? I think the best way to help with the problem is to contact your representatives whether they be members of the House of Representatives if you have your frustration concern for what this bill might do if an act of duty else don't I'm sorry I just forgot I was going to make another point if I remember I'll come back to it I think the best thing you can do is contact your congressional representatives the question I have to actually do is we're leaving a hybrid as well now many of us feel reasonably comfortable with that now you're going to finish showing us the hybrid that you're supposed to return to see what's going on behind it well some of you probably do have that and I don't think we would be opposed to the fact if you knew it was a hybrid if you took that fish out of circulation but many people misidentify fish all the time in the Yellowstone they'll show us a great looking at a brown or whatever and so the knowledge you have is not universally shared but if you have certainty that you're dealing with a hybrid I don't think you'd get any problems with us if you took that fish out fishing is there a risk is there any future problems like the lake trout problem if we allow fishing to continue fishing is a cause of a lake trout problem the answer is the answer is a definite maybe I think I think that it's sort of I think I tried to find out on the presentation that's a little bit of anomaly that fishing has been allowed within national parks and that's the only answer I mean you don't throw a lasso around an elk and drag it in and have a look at it and let it go and so the answer to your question is I don't know what we do in some of the waters about the non-native species that have taken them over coming up out of Heppken Lake there is no way that we can stop the non-natives that are in Heppken Lake who come in from Madison you know portion of the fire hole and up to the Gibbon Falls that is going to be happening whether we fish or not one of the things I'm looking for is fishing to actually help us remove some of the non-natives in streams that are very difficult to control in any other way I think the question you pose is a good one but I think the culture of our society today I don't think you're just going to see fishing not being allowed within the nation and what I was going to say is that two major groups up here American Whitewater has withdrawn support for the paddling legislation and American Rivers is now opposing the legislation paddling the rivers yes do you know or do our knowledge have to make a dent in the juvenile lake trout or do they to our knowledge that Todd helped me but to our knowledge cutthroat don't prey on juvenile lake trout but yes lake trout is one introduced species aren't there many other species not necessarily the fish that can cause disease and changing all of the inputs that we make a fish cannot survive if we keep fishing or introducing stuff that people are not aware of we need boats and fishing here and all of that could have a significant impact on the quality of the lake aquatic invasives are of incredible concern to us we do require that anyone who puts a boat into the lake have that boat inspected and we do require in many cases after inspection for that boat to be cleaned but it is something we are very involved in is what might come into this park from other places and you can extend that to cattle you can extend that to where's that kayak been where's that pack wrap been whatever and bring it into the park so it's something that we work on diligently we've been helped by the Yellowstone Park Foundation by funding our aquatic invasive species work that we do to keep those out without a doubt yes I think a lot of success I think we see it as a very effective tool it's used not only by us but it's used by most states that surround us I think we're going to all be able to slay them and we're going to work very well here in Green what is it? let me have my fisheries biologist give me a better example than I just gave you Todd yeah the examples that you're talking about they're it's not quite correct I guess I would say we've actually worked very, very well in Cherry Creek Westlote Cutthroat Tribe we've introduced that giant watershed right in your body here in Montana and it's a huge success story and in Yellowstone we're working very closely with Montana WP biologists and Yellowstone Forest Wells and so on we worked hand in hand in doing this kind of work in part with these biologists who are all very good, very experts in this field and so but just to maybe go back to what you asked road gum is a chemical that's used to remove none of the exotic fish from streams or smaller streams and it's been used for a long, long time by fish biologists and what's nice about it now is that the formulation that we use in Yellowstone now for all the work is much different than the original work when I was used decades ago that you maybe look back to Mr. U.C. three or four certified Google things up and see bad things written about it it's not the same so we're not a great success with it we've already restored less than a couple of charges especially in the creek but we're working on a gradient creek now it's beautiful with no watershed I've made the species back into the year in the last few years and it's really the only way that you can restore a native to a watershed like that there's no other way to remove all the non-native fish that have the fish completely and you actually have that too I would just add go back to the first part of what I talked about everything in Yellowstone is controversial and the use of broken-on pysomes is very controversial but we see it as the most effective tool other questions and if I can't see you just yes there are other species that could be a concern that are aquatic amphibians things like that are there other species that have a very abundant amphibians the sort of species that are there are there efforts to actually increase those aquatic species not the artificial ones but they are reduced you know my answer would be those species are being the same policies that we're dealing with the native fish if we know of areas that have species of animals that are no longer there that we'd have the ability to put back and to recreate that system we will look at doing that I can't tell you that there's any on the the boards right now but the policy doesn't change in terms of the direction we have in terms of trying to recreate those systems