GILLNETTING IN FLATHEAD LAKE: A “REEL” ISSUE
6
under the Endangered Species Act (Mark Deleray, personal communication, June 29, 2015). FWS, unlike Montana FWP, has been pushing for gillnetting because FWS is only concerned with increasing bull trout numbers and not the negative impacts gillnetting might have. The addition of gillnetting by CSKT as a method of lake trout suppression has many factors arguing against it. The Three-Legged Stool Test For FWP, any action being considered must pass the “three-legged stool test”; that is, it must have three legs of support before it can be taken. An action must be biologically sound, economically responsible, and have public support. While this is an FWP process, these criteria are an excellent way of judging whether or not a conservation action should be taken.
Biologically sound.
One of the biggest arguments against gillnetting is the likelihood of bycatch, or
inadvertently catching bull trout while netting for lake trout. Unlike conventional fishing, nets are nondiscriminatory, catching any fish in the targeted size without consideration of species. While CSKT promotes the fact that netting efforts in 2014 resulted in only one bull trout mortality, such a low number can be misleading. CSKT reeled in just 7,700 lake trout last year, far below its desired number of 30,000 (Wilson, 2015, A1). In an environmental study released by CSKT in 2014, a plan to reduce lake trout numbers by 75% over the next 50 years was introduced. At the time of the environmental study, the estimated population of lake trout age 1 and older was 1,480,000. In comparison, the estimated population of bull trout age 1 and older was 297,000 (CSKT, 2014, “Comments from Agencies,” p. 12). That great a difference in populations should suggest that any course of action that has the potential of killing the native species should not be pursued.
332
To date, angling has been far more successful in reducing lake trout numbers. Angling,