Looks like a hilarious positive feedback loop, more driving, more emissions, less trout, more driving…
From PENN STATE
When trying to explain the potential effects of climate change on plants, fish and wildlife, scientists usually resort to language that fails to convey the impact of warming. Now, a study by Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences fisheries researchers clearly explains the impact of projected warming waters on wild brook trout in the eastern U.S. for fishermen.
The eastern brook trout is a socially and economically important fish that occurs in small cold water streams and lakes, and self-sustaining populations support angling throughout the Appalachian Mountains, from Maine to Georgia. However, warming air temperatures are expected to reduce available cold-water habitat and result in a smaller brook trout distribution and fewer angling opportunities.
Building on recent research at Penn State, Tyler Wagner, adjunct professor of fisheries and Tyrell DeWeber, now a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University, used two models they previously developed, one predicting stream temperature and one predicting where brook trout might occur, to identify streams likely to support wild brook trout under current and future climate scenarios.
The researchers then calculated the distance required to drive from the centers of 23 cities spread throughout the eastern brook trout range to the 10 nearest stream segments likely to have wild brook trout under current and future conditions. They published their study in a recent issue of Fisheries.
“Climate change is expected to result in widespread changes in species distributions for freshwater fish species. Although anglers and other resource users could be greatly affected by these predicted changes, changes are rarely reported in ways that can be easily understood by the general public,” said Wagner, who is assistant unit leader of the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Penn State.
The effects of climate change on fish and wildlife are usually reported to the general public using summary metrics or maps designed to communicate concepts that are not normally encountered in everyday life, including changes in habitat suitability, range shifts, or increasing risks from disease or extreme events, according to Wagner. “Though these metrics are necessary, meaningful, and understood by scientists, many people lack the necessary training and background to readily understand them.”
“Further, scientists and nonscientists alike may struggle to convert these metrics into a currency that directly affects day-to-day life. Climate science is a complex issue, and when we communicate potential responses of vegetation, fish and wildlife to nonscientists, creative thinking with respect to the currency of communication will facilitate discussions between scientists, policy makers and the public.”
DeWeber, who was a doctoral student at Penn State when the research was conducted, noted that travel costs based on distance have been widely used to value ecosystem services such as angling under climate-change scenarios, but have not been used for communicating potential changes to the public, despite the intrinsic link to everyday life.
“Under current conditions, brook trout are predicted to occur in streams throughout the region, and average driving distances from cities to the nearest streams predicted to offer angling opportunities ranged from 4 to 87 miles. As a result of projected warming, driving distance to go fishing for wild brook trout was predicted to increase, on average, by almost 164 miles over the next 70 to 80 years.”
For example, the driving route from Philadelphia to the nearest brook trout stream was predicted to cover 249 miles in a warmer future, much longer than the current 48 miles.
The lengths of trips from many northern cities, such as Bangor, Maine, were predicted to increase but were still relatively short in the future because nearby streams were still predicted to support brook trout under warmer conditions.
In contrast, anglers in southern cities, such as Cleveland, Tennessee, would experience dramatic increases in the lengths of trips because brook trout are predicted to be lost in surrounding areas.
Although anglers tend to be very dedicated, DeWeber pointed out, it is unlikely that many would drive great distances to fish very often due to cost, especially if those last remaining streams become popular and crowded. He believes that losses of wild brook trout populations and increased trip lengths would likely result in reduced resource use in many areas.
But he suggested that people are unlikely to be concerned about the potential effects of warming if they do not understand what may be coming. “Communicating species responses to climate change in everyday language could greatly increase the ability of resource users and other members of the general public to understand and relate to predicted changes,” he said. “A clear understanding of potential changes might not lead to greater societal concern about species’ responses, but it may enable people to make informed decisions.”
###
The U.S. Geological Survey, National Climate Change and the Wildlife Science Center supported this research.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Vacation homeowners who live along the trout streams like to clear out trees between the house and the stream, to afford a better view. Direct sunlight coming in warms the stream and does more to stream temperatures than the worst global warming projections could ever do.
Scaremongering. Decades ago the brook trout were nearly extirpated from my little border stream in the mid-Appalachians — now they are healthy and prospering. The only problem they have now is competition w/the introduced bluegills (which are native to the area’s rivers, but originally not in the small streams).
What do the models predict if the climate cools instead of warms? Will fishermen invade cities to fish the gutters?
I grew up fishing trout streams in Oregon. As far back as the 60’s we were catching mostly hatchery fish. We would usually throw the natives back. Streams in the Cascades are pretty close to Portland. Can’t quite figure out how they’re going to get farther away with global warming.
Where is the oversight for this nonsense? Are taxpayers just helpless and supposed to watch and cry as their money is flushed down the toilette? Is there no other fallout besides derision on blogs?
Why are there zero repercussions?
What can be done to put and end to this?
As long as there are no ill consequences for taking taxpayer money and gifted it to idiots in exchange for nothing, these stories will go on without end. Pure tragedy.
Well, I’m writing a comment now instead of fishing because the water in my local stream is too warm in August. Higher temperatures mean less dissolved oxygen and played fish become exhausted. All of the flyfishermen I know practice catch-and-release so we have stopped fishing until the conditions improve. As for traveling, most of the guys occasionally travel 40 miles to a river less impacted by higher temperatures. A few make an annual trip out west. That’s not likely to change under any temperature scenario.
The only experience I had Muskie fishing taught me the only way to catch them was by accident.
Would you want it any other way? Did ya get a good look into their mouth and teeth?
Hooking some of those buggers gives one the willies about swimming in the water. That is, if the local snapping turtles haven’t already.
But you are absolutely correct. Even the folks fishing for muskies all of the time admit that catching them is usually accidental. Surprise! Big toothy and nasty decided to hit your lure, bait, or caught fish.
My Brother caught one once while fishing for American shad with four pound line and a one sixteenth ounce jig.
Since we had forgotten the net, I had laid down on the bank hanging over the water, planning to scoop the shad out onto the bank.
Whoops!
This monster of a fish, leisurely swims in, turns over and swim back out into the Delaware river easily cutting the line during the turn.
My Brother starts yelling that I should jump into the river and grab the fish.
Me? You want the fish, you jump in the 50F degree water and grab him. Me, I like my fingers and dry clothes.
He still complains about it occasionally, thirty some years on.
Go catch another one!
One thing for sure, …. the resulting claims of this “junk science” research will provide both Federal and State DNR agencies a “perfectly good reason” for increasing the public’s cost of purchasing Trout Stamps and Fishing Licenses.
More money, more money, more money,….. it’s for saving the trout, …. ya know.
ah shucks, his fly got snagged in the branches downstream and across – have to break off
Tell this to my freezer full of trout.
I suggest Professor Numpty read an excellent book called On the origin of species by a Mr Charles Darwin. It would be a better choice than the wank mags he has evidently been reading.