Now the Gold is gone...

Ken, do you do pH sampling when doing invertebrate surveys? Any idea how the Campbell and Gold mainstem pH compares?
 
How does this data compare with your data?
index.php
Nice find GLG. I think evidence is mounting. It is one Thing to measure pH in a bowl on your deck. Another to have the real wq data from a stream. There is a strong buffering capacity, depending on local geology, that has a profound effect on real in river pH.

There may be some ligitamacy to invert populations being a piece of the puzzle, but I think they might be a result of a broad range of impacts. I also don't think waiting it out idea good approach. We need to act where we can asap

Thanks for the posts
 
  • Like
Reactions: GLG
Good find GLG!
Not sure how it fits yet but got me curious. Do you know if that data is from electronic continuous pH testing or an average of grab sampling?

It does look like the pH drops more frequently2004-2006. How does that measure up to the Quinsam stock stats?
When I was out sampling last week the Campbell and Gold mainstem had almost no invertebrates and the Quinsam was the best for diversity and abundance.
 
Increasd water flow and flashy events have been detrimental since the early nineties. Chemainus lost most of their winter run over the years. I think infilling with sediment, estuary, and temperatures changes killed it
 
Ken, do you do pH sampling when doing invertebrate surveys? Any idea how the Campbell and Gold mainstem pH compares?
I was sampling pH and alkalinity for a couple years while sampling inverts but haven't bothered as much lately. After two years of stream testing during many rainy days the pH and alkalinity only dropped slightly during flushing events. There was more noticeable change back a couple years but since then the rain ph has risen even more so there is even less to notice now. Alkalinity was steadily rising in all streams I tested in comparison to records back then. So now that the rain pH is even higher than it was before there no reason continuously check because there is no acidic input like there was in the past. Because I keep a bowl on my deck and check the rain consistently I will be the first person to know when acidic deposition happens again. Then I will increase my efforts to pH test again. Another reason I haven't bothered much lately is, who cares? Telling people that something wrong with chemistry is not getting much of a response. It's time to try a different tactic. Even if I was testing while sampling it is rather pointless unless you are there the day of an event where everything dies off.
 
Nice find GLG. I think evidence is mounting. It is one Thing to measure pH in a bowl on your deck. Another to have the real wq data from a stream. There is a strong buffering capacity, depending on local geology, that has a profound effect on real in river pH.

There may be some ligitamacy to invert populations being a piece of the puzzle, but I think they might be a result of a broad range of impacts. I also don't think waiting it out idea good approach. We need to act where we can asap

Thanks for the posts
After reading your friendly posts I got thinking. I took in all the verbal evidence you gave on how crucial salmon are for stream productivity! The DDT evidence! I have been thinking about all logging and the fact that there are so many people that think I just don't know anything! Then I thought about what you said about Cous creek and how soon China creek will be
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/Forest_History_Newsletter/11.pdf. that's just the first thing that popped up about ddt being used in the forests of bc including almost the entire island and the effects it had on fish population and possibly still could be. I figured if you were so into your cause of acid rain you would have at least come across its use its kind of common knowledge and historical fact. The Gold was depressed the first time after it was logged as well it just wasn't as noticeable because the baseline was so much larger now with a baseline of a couple hundred fish if lucky any little impact is enough to end it. Logging the first time may not have wiped out the gold but the fourth or fifth time did. Cous is the perfect example for what will happen to china creek ,there are many studies that have been done on short term boosts in insects for river with no benefit to the fish because water temps also rise and oxygen decreases and longer term more problems from erosion and silting, but you would have to believe the fake news scientists. In rivers like china creek the fish don't spend the time in the upper river as juveniles they are in the estuaries and lower stretches where salmon access and fertilize. They spawn in the upper reaches for them but don't live there as much as they do on other passable streams that should have rich nutrients from salmon carcasses. comparing two large rivers to a crick is not exactly apple to apples. The proof of my claims are much the same as yours, learned from years of experience and based on other facts ive learned I guess I should start finding sources and quoting them before I write about something I learned years ago. holding up a rock isn't proof of anything either. No one is saying you are wrong about acid rain your cause is valid and probably correct on some level but other peoples opinions are just as valid from many years of fishing and thinking about the fish as well. Problems usually come from the most obvious things down not the most obscure up, acid rain may be hurting steelhead but not having the food source of dead salmon is killing them the proof is reflected in the current state of affairs for steelhead caused by the lack of wild spawning salmon to feed them, I know this because I spend all my free time walking around in rivers fishing and I have for many years. Its the same for the remote rivers that you say are also in decline but were never logged theses smaller rivers runs can be wiped out by one commercial opening and heavy sports fishing removing the only nutrients from the river and thus reducing the steelhead numbers, even if its not from logging the removal of the spawning salmon has the same affect. juvenile steelhead need salmon at every stage to survive they feed on each of their life cycles.

After reading your friendly posts I got thinking. I took in all the verbal evidence you gave on how crucial salmon are for stream productivity! Thinking about the DDT contaminating evidence! I have been thinking about all logging and the fact that there are so many people that think I just don't know anything! Then I thought about what you said regarding Cous creek. You said, "Cous is the perfect example for what will happen to china creek ,there are many studies that have been done on short term boosts in insects for river with no benefit to the fish because water temps also rise and oxygen decreases and longer term more problems from erosion and silting". What if you are right and everything is doomed???

Well what I did was went out and looked for the most log raped valley I could find. I looked for a stream area that absolutely no salmon could have ever fertilized. I went knowingly that there has been two huge winter storms and flooding events effecting this stream this year. I went to a stream that I was told has probably been sprayed with DDT and has everything stacked against it. I went to the kind of creek you claim China creek is going to degrade into. Yes, I went to Cous creek. Check it out!!


Well if China creek is going to get ruined to have productivity like Couse creek then lets all hope the Gold, Muchalat, Thompson, Campbell and all the other sterile streams do too!
 
I find it interesting Fishmyster that so many are so eager to shrug off your evidence and info on steelhead population declines do it lack of food availability yet when it comes to the whales and salmon they are quick to jump on the no food band wagon in regards to the lack of herring for the salmon and lack of salmon for the whales. Cant live without food, pretty basic fact of life I would think.

Really enjoying your look at things and soaking up your posts, all good stuff, keep up the good work.
 
Like I said before not saying you don't know anything or that what you are studying has no impact, its good to see someone doing something and getting evidence to prove your theory. Also not saying that ddt is currently killing steelhead that was just a way of stating that there are a plethora of knives from the years past still sticking steelhead and to look at one without others is missing what could be happening. Sunscreen is killing insects on the cowichan so acid rain definetly could be killing aquatic life and leave less food for juvenile steelhead on all streams. But I believe ignoring the biggest factor which is habitat destruction and the lack of returning salmon is missing the point. How many steelhead did you see in cous because it used to be really easy to find them in there and its prime time for the run. No or very few fish with all the food in the world wont bring back runs when they are blown out constantly and their eggs are smothered or washed away. Salmon and steelhead survived for thousands of years because of their habitat and its perfect design for them, now that is gone and we are looking for ways to blame other things instead of what has done the most damage. The pulp mill in port alberni used to put out so much **** in the air people had to wash their cars twice a week, if acid rain were a factor as strong as logging it would have wiped them out then. Foresters and supporters like to paint a rosy picture of logging today as if it no longer has impacts and is so improved, anyone with a brain who goes off a paved road will find out otherwise. china creek fills with mud if someone turns on their windshield washer, and the far side of moneys is full of trees now because of this improved logging that is so much more considerate of the environment. There is more to the puzzle on the island then just invertebrates maybe they are healthy in numbers in your test streams because nothing is eating them. Without natural predation how do insect numbers grow might have to start studying that as well to prove they aren't strong just because nothing is eating them. Juvenile steelhead eat bugs but they also eat salmon young and salmon bodys and salmon eggs, which has more nutrients a stonefly or alevin or fry or smolt which is more important to their diet. What is happening right now is we are all analyzing the extinction of salmon and steelhead and trying to make conclusions on things that are unfortunately too late. With so few fish we would have to implement every protection possible just for a slight chance they will survive which we should but thanks to our societies dependence on status quo handful of jobs over protecting habitat we wont. Canadians like too think we are for some reason greener than the rest of the world meanwhile the last temperate rainforests in the world are being logged at 4 times the rate of tropical rainforests in poor corrupt developing countries and the logs are barely even being milled here, and fisherman who see this in front of their faces, some even make a living from it wont even acknowledge its impacts, they will defend it until it disappears completely just like the steelhead. Keep studying the rivers and bugs it all good and is important work, but doom and gloom is where we are at that's just the reality and if we don't acknowledge how bad it is nothing will ever change and my young sons will only be able to have seen me catch steelhead and not be able to one day show their sons.
 
Like I said before not saying you don't know anything or that what you are studying has no impact, its good to see someone doing something and getting evidence to prove your theory. Also not saying that ddt is currently killing steelhead that was just a way of stating that there are a plethora of knives from the years past still sticking steelhead and to look at one without others is missing what could be happening. Sunscreen is killing insects on the cowichan so acid rain definetly could be killing aquatic life and leave less food for juvenile steelhead on all streams. But I believe ignoring the biggest factor which is habitat destruction and the lack of returning salmon is missing the point. How many steelhead did you see in cous because it used to be really easy to find them in there and its prime time for the run. No or very few fish with all the food in the world wont bring back runs when they are blown out constantly and their eggs are smothered or washed away. Salmon and steelhead survived for thousands of years because of their habitat and its perfect design for them, now that is gone and we are looking for ways to blame other things instead of what has done the most damage. The pulp mill in port alberni used to put out so much **** in the air people had to wash their cars twice a week, if acid rain were a factor as strong as logging it would have wiped them out then. Foresters and supporters like to paint a rosy picture of logging today as if it no longer has impacts and is so improved, anyone with a brain who goes off a paved road will find out otherwise. china creek fills with mud if someone turns on their windshield washer, and the far side of moneys is full of trees now because of this improved logging that is so much more considerate of the environment. There is more to the puzzle on the island then just invertebrates maybe they are healthy in numbers in your test streams because nothing is eating them. Without natural predation how do insect numbers grow might have to start studying that as well to prove they aren't strong just because nothing is eating them. Juvenile steelhead eat bugs but they also eat salmon young and salmon bodys and salmon eggs, which has more nutrients a stonefly or alevin or fry or smolt which is more important to their diet. What is happening right now is we are all analyzing the extinction of salmon and steelhead and trying to make conclusions on things that are unfortunately too late. With so few fish we would have to implement every protection possible just for a slight chance they will survive which we should but thanks to our societies dependence on status quo handful of jobs over protecting habitat we wont. Canadians like too think we are for some reason greener than the rest of the world meanwhile the last temperate rainforests in the world are being logged at 4 times the rate of tropical rainforests in poor corrupt developing countries and the logs are barely even being milled here, and fisherman who see this in front of their faces, some even make a living from it wont even acknowledge its impacts, they will defend it until it disappears completely just like the steelhead. Keep studying the rivers and bugs it all good and is important work, but doom and gloom is where we are at that's just the reality and if we don't acknowledge how bad it is nothing will ever change and my young sons will only be able to have seen me catch steelhead and not be able to one day show their sons.

So seem that we have different opinions! Well the evidence is quickly building against your opinions. There will be more to come!!
Nice to have a wide contrast of ideas and input. Welcome to the new posters.
 
I find it interesting Fishmyster that so many are so eager to shrug off your evidence and info on steelhead population declines do it lack of food availability yet when it comes to the whales and salmon they are quick to jump on the no food band wagon in regards to the lack of herring for the salmon and lack of salmon for the whales. Cant live without food, pretty basic fact of life I would think.

Really enjoying your look at things and soaking up your posts, all good stuff, keep up the good work.
Thank you walleyes. I sure liked you family fishing videos!! I you are ever out this way look me up. We could hook up for a bevy and laugh at how screwed up out country has become. Maybe do some ENGO bashing too! LOL
 
Increasd water flow and flashy events have been detrimental since the early nineties. Chemainus lost most of their winter run over the years. I think infilling with sediment, estuary, and temperatures changes killed it
Heavy acidic rain fell during the 1990's. It is not so now. It might be worth looking at the Chemainus now for supporting ecology. You might be pleasantly supprised!! I was led to believe that Cous creek was ruined from silt and logging damage but apparently it is looking really good now!
 
If the worst of the rain fell in the 1990s then why did we have reasonable albeit somewhat depressed returns through 2012 or so. Now, with your theory things are good and the stock is a horrible as ever.

Why are basically no stamp winter run st returing the last few years. With decent summer returns. They don't rely on the river at all as juveniles, literally grow side by side at rch. And are all released in one group. I believe they raise almost twice as many wr fish now.... and the summer runs are more suceptable to by catch in salmon fisheries and spend more time I the streams as adults!

It's because one return in the summer and the other in the winter. The sr stock has between. 0.5 and 1.5 million sockeye to distract the seals. And they bomb upriver where the seals aren't.

Also re: acid rain, Wouldn't you expect a similar effect all throughout the gold watershed, and not basically no effect on Heber and a catastrophic decline on the lower gold? Its the same rain/water no?

I'm on board with there being a relationship between stream productivity and steelhead production. Of course the fry and parr need to eat. And I am also not doubting that some streams have better or worse productivity times but Acid rain is not the culprit. We need to look at the whole picture here. Waiting for the Gold WR to come back on its own is a mistake. We need to act now.
 
Last edited:
If the worst of the rain fell in the 1990s then why did we have reasonable albeit somewhat depressed returns through 2012 or so. Now, with your theory things are good and the stock is a horrible as ever.

Why are basically no stamp winter run st returing the last few years. With decent summer returns. They don't rely on the river at all as juveniles, literally grow side by side at rch. And are all released in one group. I believe they raise almost twice as many wr fish now.... and the summer runs are more suceptable to by catch in salmon fisheries and spend more time I the streams as adults!

It's because one return in the summer and the other in the winter. The sr stock has between. 0.5 and 1.5 million sockeye to distract the seals. And they bomb upriver where the seals aren't.

Also re: acid rain, Wouldn't you expect a similar effect all throughout the gold watershed, and not basically no effect on Heber and a catastrophic decline on the lower gold? Its the same rain/water no?

I'm on board with there being a relationship between stream productivity and steelhead production. Of course the fry and parr need to eat. And I am also not doubting that some streams have better or worse productivity times but Acid rain is not the culprit. We need to look at the whole picture here. Waiting for the Gold WR to come back on its own is a mistake. We need to act now.
Sounds like you have all the answers you willing to accept. If you feel it is time to act now to save Gold river winter runs then go and act!

If you want me to explain again something I have already explained in many past posts the come back with yet another alias. The alias of J-ROC has proven to be more against me than curious to understand the effects of acid deposition.
 
Sounds like you have all the answers you willing to accept. If you feel it is time to act now to save Gold river winter runs then go and act!

If you want me to explain again something I have already explained in many past posts the come back with yet another alias. The alias of J-ROC has proven to be more against me than curious to understand the effects of acid deposition.[/QUOTE

Another Alias? what are you implying, I do not need fake any of this or create alter aliases to support a broad perspective.
Also you get what you give.. It seems that Fishmyster main goal is to 1. Bash engo's and discourage real biologists/and scientists from doing real work, 2. advertise for over priced bio consultants 3. spread a false narrative re acid raid and promote doing nothing will fix all our fish problems. 4. disregard multiple peoples opinions that there may be more than just one problem.
I haven't seen a shred of evidence (verified or even non verified in-stream water quality data) that supports the acid rain hypothesis that in-stream pH was low enough to result in significant benthic invertebrate die off. The only in-stream WQ data presented so far (Quinsam) does not at all fit with your theory... not even close... and it just gets brushed off, acidity was seemingly fine - there are basically no steelhead left in the Quinsam from what I understand.
I can't argue that there is no issues with invertebrate populations or stream ecology, there most certainly is. But please follow some sort of generally accepted methods when looking at them, they can be found here

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/e...ity/kootenay-wq-docs/bi-sampling-06update.pdf
and here
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ec/En84-87-2012-eng.pdf
you may find that timing and site selection play an important role

Height of the acid rain 1985... and 2008 after a 2 decade long concerted effort so reduce industrial emissions. hint: green = good
38123_web.jpg

long-term-study-shows-acid-pollution-in-rain-decreases-with.jpg
 
Also you get what you give.. It seems that Fishmyster main goal is to 1. Bash engo's and discourage real biologists/and scientists from doing real work, 2. advertise for over priced bio consultants 3. spread a false narrative re acid raid and promote doing nothing will fix all our fish problems. 4. disregard multiple peoples opinions that there may be more than just one problem.

Well said. Sometimes if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
Another Alias? what are you implying, I do not need fake any of this or create alter aliases to support a broad perspective.
Also you get what you give.. It seems that Fishmyster main goal is to 1. Bash engo's and discourage real biologists/and scientists from doing real work, 2. advertise for over priced bio consultants 3. spread a false narrative re acid raid and promote doing nothing will fix all our fish problems. 4. disregard multiple peoples opinions that there may be more than just one problem.
I haven't seen a shred of evidence (verified or even non verified in-stream water quality data) that supports the acid rain hypothesis that in-stream pH was low enough to result in significant benthic invertebrate die off. The only in-stream WQ data presented so far (Quinsam) does not at all fit with your theory... not even close... and it just gets brushed off, acidity was seemingly fine - there are basically no steelhead left in the Quinsam from what I understand.
I can't argue that there is no issues with invertebrate populations or stream ecology, there most certainly is. But please follow some sort of generally accepted methods when looking at them, they can be found here

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/e...ity/kootenay-wq-docs/bi-sampling-06update.pdf
and here
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ec/En84-87-2012-eng.pdf
you may find that timing and site selection play an important role

Height of the acid rain 1985... and 2008 after a 2 decade long concerted effort so reduce industrial emissions. hint: green = good
38123_web.jpg

long-term-study-shows-acid-pollution-in-rain-decreases-with.jpg
The rust belt looks rusty....
 
In the 1990's, Fraser sockeye runs, if the runs came back in strong numbers the fish used to be on the smaller side and when the runs were week the average size of fish was big. Same would happen for pinks. The thought back then was that, the avg size was smaller for larger runs because they had to compete for food in the ocean and when the runs were smaller their was more food available for the ones that survived.

Now its small runs and small fish, I really hope the expedition to gulf of Alaska can shed some light on this. I don't discount freshwater productivity as not being important because clearly it is but this continuing decline in size is worry some as well.

Chum

upload_2019-2-20_12-51-52.png

Sockeye

upload_2019-2-20_12-55-15.png

Pinks

upload_2019-2-20_12-55-50.png
 
Another Alias? what are you implying, I do not need fake any of this or create alter aliases to support a broad perspective.
Also you get what you give.. It seems that Fishmyster main goal is to 1. Bash engo's and discourage real biologists/and scientists from doing real work, 2. advertise for over priced bio consultants 3. spread a false narrative re acid raid and promote doing nothing will fix all our fish problems. 4. disregard multiple peoples opinions that there may be more than just one problem.
I haven't seen a shred of evidence (verified or even non verified in-stream water quality data) that supports the acid rain hypothesis that in-stream pH was low enough to result in significant benthic invertebrate die off. The only in-stream WQ data presented so far (Quinsam) does not at all fit with your theory... not even close... and it just gets brushed off, acidity was seemingly fine - there are basically no steelhead left in the Quinsam from what I understand.
I can't argue that there is no issues with invertebrate populations or stream ecology, there most certainly is. But please follow some sort of generally accepted methods when looking at them, they can be found here

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/e...ity/kootenay-wq-docs/bi-sampling-06update.pdf
and here
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ec/En84-87-2012-eng.pdf
you may find that timing and site selection play an important role

Height of the acid rain 1985... and 2008 after a 2 decade long concerted effort so reduce industrial emissions. hint: green = good
38123_web.jpg

long-term-study-shows-acid-pollution-in-rain-decreases-with.jpg
Looks like you got me!!! The graphs tell all! lol!! Nice job whoever you may be?!

I could go back into the past threads and pull out the data from environment Canada I already posted which totally contradicts those cartoons you posted but then I would be playing into your game of "fresh water is fine look at the graphs".

I sure wish I could get what I give. I give real world video documentation of collapsed food webs. I stand by my reports with my name. All I get back is continuous graphs and studies from anonymous people. Is video documentation less credible than a graph? What about the real world behind the graphs, studies and computer screen? This is what I'm talking about. Do you or anyone care about the fish or the real situation??

So let's just take a moment to put all our differences to the side. Lets, for a moment, put all the graphs and past studies on the back bench. Let's forget about my big boat with its three world ruining engines or that I have forgotten about more steelhead most people see in a lifetime. Let's just clear our minds of all the distractions and look at the field facts documented on video. Is there anyone out there who can explain why China and Cous creeks have far more invertebrate biomass and diversity, [prey availability], then the Gold, Thompson, Campbell and Muchalat rivers? Cous and China have all the same logging damage, less stable stream bed, never any salmon nutrient input and structurally inferior condition. The larger streams in SH crisis have no silt, have beautiful cobble and have had many years of salmon enriched waters. How is that possible??? On paper it isn't possible but in the real world it is apparent. If it isn't pH then it sure the hell is something else in the water!!!

So is there someone credible out there who can help me find what has been killing the ecology in our waters? I am looking for someone who won't just bombard me with graphs and old studies lead me to believe the real world is wrong and the graph is right. Is there anyone who doesn't already have a bias against industry or can accept that sometimes nature isn't consistently productive. Is there anyone who will cares enough about fish to step out side into the real world to see what has been happening? Hello, if you are out there, please be someone who will sign off on their work rather than anonymously posting emotional discontent for my efforts and credibility.

Ken Myers
 
have you contacted ZoAnn morten with the pacific streamkeepers alliance with your findings she's a big supporter of citizen science.

https://business.facebook.com/pg/streamkeepersfederation/posts/

Maybe you can partner with some of these streamkeepers and you can put smolt traps into these streams where you have took observation and see if they have a effect in smolt size.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top