Jack Stanford, Elizabeth Arnold
Conservation discussion. Includes comments by "Nick."
Fly fishing sounds
Casting and reeling in.
NPR/NGS Radio Expeditions
29 Sep 2002
- Kamchatka Peninsula
- 56.47139 159.42993
Decoded MS stereo
Log of DAT #: 3
Engineer: Michael Schweppe
Date: Sept. 29 & 30, 2002
Tape number three it's MS continuing. The interview Jack on the left, and Elizabeth in the center and Nick on the right. Talking in the background
Would you invest in something that got less that 1/10th of 1 percent return on your investment? That's what hatcheries do. They can't find more than about, on the average, some are better some are worse, but about 1/10th of 1 percent of the fish they produce are ever seen again. So that means that fish that coming back are worth more than gold bouillon would be. It's amazing to me.
Isn't it a societal thing that we want to believe that we can just replace the things that we destroyed. It's sort of like, we were talking about reintroduction this morning.
We got trapped by the dogma that habitat could be replaced by hatcheries by zoos and so on, and that dogma has persisted for a long time to Nick ____ said it best: We're trying to have salmon without rivers.
One of the odd turns that needs to be noted about that is that the agencies that are most defensive and supportive of their hatcheries although they're transforming them now to serve a more conservation purpose which is another topic about which much skepticism is could legitimately be offered. They defend their history and their current activity with hatcheries on the grounds that they had no control over the habitat, that of course if we had habitat we might have fish and we wouldn't need hatcheries, yet most of those state fish and wildlife agencies certainly Washington and Oregon had statutory power for habitat control that they never exercised because they believed exactly what got them into this bind is that they could substitute. And that's the choice that they actively pursued.
The other funny twist on that is that hatchery fish are easy to kill. The ones that come back, you can sacrifice them Anglers can take them home and eat them and so on. Yet, these fish, adapted and radiated through the Pleistocene through the ice age. And so it doesn't surprise us to understand their life history plasticity, their flexibility and keen ability to adapt to see them doing well in some pretty awful places. They spawn for example in one of the major agricultural drainages in the Yakima. So, the point is this, it does take very much to get the habitat back together for salmonids. In fact, you might not want to drink the water, but the fish are probably going to do pretty good in it. If you give them what we call normative conditions, the conditions in which they can sustain a population and grow it, and it doesn't take pristine or historic or natural conditions to do that. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to raise them in a hatchery. The point is that we can have a lot more fish in the river, but the first thing to do is to not kill the ones that are reproducing to start with. Let some escapement occur. A lot of escapement. You can't kill them until the river is full of fish really if you want to sustain them.
What's your hope for this project, your long term hope for this project?
Well, my long term hope is that it will do as Guido and Pete envisioned, that it will, that these, my kids' kids will come here and see basically what we are seeing today and that the local folks here are still prosperous enough to take care of the resource and that it's not cramped them to the point that they've had to over exploit it, or by the same time become overly greedy to the point that they've brought in so many people that that's overexploited. Well, that's my hope for it number one. Number two is to take the information and use it to help underscore whole watershed restoration around the Pacific Rim, but particularly in the Western United States. The same principles apply whether you're managing Atlantic salmon or paddle fish or chinook or something like that down in the Southeast. If they use fresh water they require as much complexity as possible to coexist with all the other species.
How do you feel when you fly over this place? I mean, you guys look like little kids up there with your cameras, obviously it's pretty neat looking down on it all.
Yeah, you just can't get enough of it. I see more when I look up now. I see more ATV tracks that I didn't see the first time over. I see more human footprint than I saw the first time. I know this though. When Bonnie and I landed the first time in Sadaka, it's a river north of here, and the scenery and the way in which that river fit in what we saw in the helicopter window made both of us cry. I never had that happen before, ever. It was just mind bogglingly beautiful and for someone who appreciates how a river fits in the landscape that's been understood it was that powerful. I didn't sit there bawling but a few tears went down my cheek and it doesn't happen to an ecologist very often. Bonnie and I have been trekking in New Guinea, we've been in the slums of Soweto, we've been in Kruger national park. We've seen really the wonders of the world, but there are some things in Kamchatka that are better than any place else we've been. Just for the pure impact of the pristine quality of the place.
Wow, that's really saying something. No wonder you look like a little kid up there in the helicopter (Chuckling) Specifically what are you hoping to do in the next couple of days on the Sopochnaya?
Yeah. They're getting a good start on it right there. We want to have all of the life history stages, all the different classes of the rainbow steelhead group and we want to process them for samples to get the life history types and the information that will tell us if the parent was freshwater marine or what and then couple that with all of the samples of food webs and riparian vegetation (motorboat sound in background) and getting our thermographs reinstalled and so on and so forth so a full blown scientific agenda will be accomplished within the next two weeks. And then hopefully I can come back with Kirill in the spring and go find the spawning area for the fish in this river that will be the last thing to do.
So you're looking at all the pieces.
Hmmhmm, we sure are, and I'll show you later on tonight on the computer some of the satellite images that we'll use to assist us in actually documenting how complex this river is versus how many others.
But this is the ground trooping element of that.
Yeah we'll be running up and down the river and we'll be running down the forest with the GPS and we'll say these are, this is a, you can see the aldersand right down their, well it's a very different green than the willows behind it and we'll say yeah this was alder, this is a certain age and this is willows of a certain age, and here's the only cottonwoods on the whole floodplain on the whole river corridor within this reach. And so on and so forth and that's a big long run we'll record that and right over there's a tail out, there's an eddy. We can do all those things because we think we can classify the entire river system that way.
That's a pretty amazing thing to me that you can look at all the pieces from the very tiny to the, that's that's huge.
Well it is, and you've come to the realization right there why the National Science Foundation decided last year to reinvest a huge amount of money into competitions that were designed to look at whole ecosystems, how ecosystems function and they basically made the decision to make ecology big science. Before that it was physics and engineering that was big science. Going to the moon, building the fastest computer, so on, and those were worthy objectives but investing big science money into the business of understanding how natural goods and services help us get through life is just as worthy and I really appreciate the fact that Rita Colewell championed that and was successful in doing it and I'm also proud of the fact that our lab won one of the first competitions for that (big bucks) and that was for floodplain research in Montana, that links directly to what we're doing here so we're able to leverage that NSF money to do good things over here and bring other monies to bear over here that we couldn't get for that kind of work in Montana or in the United States.
So, slowly but surely, slowly we're starting to get that we need to look at the big picture.
Yeah, I think so. I'll give you a little factoid though, Nick knows what this is, every year in the Columbia Basin, they uh pay anglers to catch and kill and turn in for a bounty the little pike minnows. Not little some of them are pretty big because they eat the salmon smalts and anything else that moves. Well, that's a native fish. That's a native fish to the Columbia river. For the last decade they've been spending about 10-15 million dollars a year doing that, paying people to kills these fish. There's very little evidence to show that it's done much good, but the factoid is that that amount of money is equivalent to the entire budget for the ecology program up until this new program came in, before the entire country via the National Science Foundation. So they were paying about par to kill squaw fish for all of the money that was invested in investigator initiated research through the National Science Foundation in the area of basic ecology. Mind boggling.
Wow how does that make you feel?
It makes us feel mad and cynical, but we realize to some extent it's our own fault. If that's all the value society places in our work then we haven't been getting or message out have we. If paying a bounty for squaw fish has a greater impact on the political process than investing in basic research to the NSF, it must mean that people don't know what is done with an NSF dollar. And many of us have set out to fix that problem.
Now's your chance. (chuckles) That's what this big furry mic's for. (Jack: It's like some kind of animal). It's the newest endangered species in Kamchatka. ¿. Well you're in by no means off the hook but I'm going to ask you some¿you're not going anywhere, and this doesn't mean I'm not going to ask you guys questions over the next couple of days every chance I get.
Talking about next interview, trying to get comfortable
Quick question. Stellar eagles, they have white wings?
Good question they have white on the wing.
My mouth was like, I couldn't believe the size of this bird that took off.
MS and EA, and other talk about a huge bird they saw.
What is your, what do you, these are big questions and I apologize but we have to ask them. What's the value to you of all this. I mean, there's a lot of things going on here, there's a lot of science there's a lot of stuff that the guy in Poughkeepsie's never going to understand, but what's the value to you?
The value to me personally is probably several fold. I don't know if I can be as articulate as Jack. Certainly it's the opportunity to understand something that is extremely pristine in terms of basic ecosystem function and the role of fish and the particular fascination with the steelhead rainbow complex, but the entire interaction so just the opportunity and the opportunity to work with people like Jack and Kirill. At the same time there is just, I do have two quasi-grandchildren, grandchildren of my significant other that are 7 and 11 that mean a great deal to me and really bring home a palpable the statements that you really want something like this right here in Kamchatka to be available there and exist for they and their children and grandchildren. And also you don't want this just to be a zoo that people might be able to come and somehow departmentalize the lessons here that we really can learn and that I can be apart of helping to learn that can contribute to changing an ethos for how we manage and try to recover aquatic resources and landscape in our environment back home. So since my particular line of employment is with an NGO conservation biology organization which I spend a great deal of my time analyzing fisheries management and hatchery issues and trying the understand the primary science of modeling harvests of genetic relations and issues that hatchery fish the way hatchery fish can affect negatively generally or positively if that ever is documented. Wild fish, to make sure that-- First to understand the extent to which is appears management agencies back in the states state, federal, local are using the best available science to manage the resource as well as enforcing the laws that are actually on the books that if consistently fairly enforced would benefit the resource quite apart from the need for perhaps better laws. The shocking thing in my experience and the experience of Washington trout the organization that I work for is that there are a lot of good books on the law right now that if they were actually enforced would do the resource a lot of good so as an advocate for the environment spending a lot of time in a critical position with management agencies, it's real important for me to be on a firm scientific footing and to be able to translate that into the policy arena. So, this is an opportunity at large to get your hands directly in the resource.
MS interrupts so they can move to a quieter place
Do you remember what you were saying? I do. or he could play it back for you.
No better not, just keep going. So being able to do first hand research and to meet the standard personally that's important to me to be sure that I'm meeting that sort of high standard that working with someone like Jack and Kirill means and be able to take that understanding. Both the raw science and the manner of working which is wonderfully complemented between an American and a Russian scientist like Kirill and bring that back and integrate that into how you do conservation biology in the Unites States.
Now, that sounds really good but it's gotta be a really big task. That's a damn big task right? How does something that you're doing over here and something. How do you translate that how do you affect change back there.
The very simple, well, here's a small example but just before I left, a week or two before I was scheduled to come over here, and acquaintance contacted me for my advice. He had just purchased property a home for future retirement on the banks of the Skikomish near Salton. It's one of the houses that is perched right above the floodplain and that his neighbors have extensively riff-raffed and armored their banks to protect it against flooding, and his property was the only bank that was essentially unarmored and he said I would like you to come and look at it because I don't wanna just jump to do what everybody's asked me I want to make sure it's good for the river. Well, here you are really put up or shut up, come in as a conservation biologist who spends a lot of time looking
The very simple, I mean well, here's a small example but just before I left a week or two before I was scheduled to come over here, I had an acquaintance contact me for my advice. He had just purchased property, a home for future retirement on the banks of the Skikomish near Salton. It's one of the houses that was perched right above the floodplain and that is, his neighbors said, extensively most of them riff raffed and armored their banks to protect it against flooding. His property is the only bank that was essentially unarmored. He said I would like you to come look at it. I don't want to just jump to do what everybody's asking I want to make sure it's good for the river. Well here you are really put up or shut up to come in as a conservation biologist who spends a lot of time looking at how the recovery of Chinook in Puget Sound is managed or should be managed and here's a land owner with his new neighbors and I was able to look and see that the neighbor 4 or 5 houses upstream who did a extremely aggressive bank armoring which wasn't permitted, um, how that simply robbed Peter to pay Paul passed the problem down to the next neighbor, so this individual I was able to convince, we got in touch with ______ county we're looking at a cooperative bank stabilization program that would involve talking to his other neighbors to do a more current kind of bank protection that's ecologically sensitive that also made them appreciate what's done on the other side of the river in terms of raising a dike which another property owner may want to protect his or her property actually prevents flood relief would raise the level of the river that would flood. So it's hopefully something like that is getting people who otherwise wouldn't think about river ecology because this one land owner at least wanted to hear about it to possibly begin getting some people who otherwise are only interested in ¿is my property going to flood? Am I going to loose bank from my house?¿ to maybe think we can accomplish that hopefully. But perhaps get them to understand that the way they've been doing it is not the way to do it but that's in part because I understood some of the river processes better for having been over here. I wouldn't obviously, I don't need to come to Kamchatka to apply some of those basic principles. (EA interrupts)
Sure but being able to step back in time and look at these rivers makes you that much more confident when that landowner says ¿Am I doing the right thing here?¿
Yes, yeah it does and certainly beyond, obviously beyond that how do we recover and sustain aquatic resources and secure clean water and all the amenities that provides. A big part of that is integrating cutting edge science, good science, our best understanding of how things work with administration with politics with management and being able to communicate that to resource managers is certainly important but the other big issue is how do you get it so that it can become a properly functioning component of the way natural resources are managed or the landscape is managed for example road building policy in some place like Puget Sound, or zoning protecting greenlands, greenways. How is it that this kind of science or this sort of knowledge can be more a functioning part, it certainly doesn't drive all of politics nor should it but to understand what the limits are as Jack uses the term normative ecology what are the basic requirements not necessarily the minimal what's the basic range of environmental features that a particular species or community that we're interested in needs to make its living and what do we need to be able to provide them and how do we manage everything else that might get in the way. So communicating that, it's one thing to understand it and that's a big part pf what the punchline would be from here. Of course the other challenge is how do you then be able to translate that into the people that actually have to make the decisions.
So I suspect, and hunch probably isn't the right word. But I suspect that the science that you do, and what you've been able to see you know, leads you to some conclusions that you feel pretty good about but you come over here and you again sort of step back in time and see this place, because I've heard it from everyone. Aha! We knew this. We knew this. But now you're much more confident in this, some of the things that you suspected.
Sure Indeed, At the same time you know that this is not a prefect template for what we might need to do back there, but there are so many basic similarities and basic ecology of how rivers function this just confirms the understandings that we work toward, understanding analyzing rivers over there. The species ecology is the big lesson that we really can learn from Kamchatka in terms of managing recovery of salmonid species over there. So it confirms the need to manage integrated systems and complexes of species, not just manage single species of interest.
So to say fish, we can't just look at one kind of fish we have to ¿(Nick: The fish of interest, the fish of the day). I have to translate. You're such a scientist. (Nick laughs). But that's what you're saying. I don't want to put words in your mouth but isn't that what you're saying? To save fish, and to do right by fish we can't just look at fish by fish we have to look at the¿
Right, you have to look at the community of fish not just in case of salmon, not just in case of Chinook and Koho. But you certainly have to look at Chinook and koho and sakai and resident trout, not just at Chinook. We're interested in Chinook, or not just in steelhead. We have to appeal, if you're looking for public support as a politician or as a manager, the appeal is not, it has to also be to those that are interested in consuming the resource in hopefully some sustainable way, whether its anglers, sport anglers who want to angle for steelhead or resident trout or Chinook, you do have to appeal to them but you really have to appeal to the public and the citizenry as a whole that and communicate this understanding that its important for your life and your quality of life and the quality of life for your children that these fishes are here in healthy numbers even if you or your children have no interest and never will go out and fish for them and catch them and that's to me that's a critical resource of support for most management agencies or recovery efforts. But they tend to loose sight of OK, I'm concerned about a steelhead that's listed, but my base of support are the steelhead angling community or the Chinook fishing community whether its commercial or sport and that's a part but I think we have particularly state management agencies, they think that is their clientele instead of their clientele is the resource as a whole and the public in the big sense and I think there's a lot more of the general public, the Patty Murray's mom in tennis shoes that are really interested and are willing to make some effort to understand the issues that could support politically more sound, scientifically sound conservation purposes that often restrict users who want a short term, have a short term interest in the resource, and its, that's not done as much because I think it's part of the general problem with the kind of , what happens to the kind of scientists that are hired to go into these agencies that we were talking about earlier. The flip side is because they think that their basic support are consumptive users of the resource.
So you can't get people to see the forest for the trees because the folks in the policy making decisions and the scientists in the field are told to pay attention to the trees.
To the trees, and the people who want to maybe cut some down.
But you know what I mean. You know the bigger picture. (Nick: Yes) So what's exciting to you. What goes through your head when you're in the helicopter and you're looking out the window?
Jeez, certainly just seeing the landscape and seeing the complexity of river forms. And each river actually¿fortunately I'm to that point where I can begin to really see qualitative as well as quantitative differences in the kinds of rivers and so each river that we fly over is an, even though their incredibly complex, I can see the uniqueness of them, and just the interaction of the river with its floodplain landscape is incredibly exciting, and of course, that's what you can see from the helicopter but having an understanding of the way in which that dynamic complexity underlies the biological complexity that's out here in the water and living on the floodplain and certainly in the uplands is exciting too and to see so much that its nearly all intact.
So, you're excited looking down from the helicopter but you're just as excited when you're looking in your net at all the little tiny critters. (Nick interrupts)
Absolutely at the bugs yes looking at the insects and wondering what is it that their eating and but to know that they're a part of the this whole complex. So its certainly a little more having developed an understanding of some of the interactions from that small scale and what you get in a kick net sample or what you might step on as you wade out into the river and cast a fly to the larger river as a whole and the rivers relationship to the floodplain and its valley wall, begin to see that we can understand broadly how those are interrelated and as a scientist there are certainly particular details that each individual scientist finds passionately beautiful, but its taken in at a broad scale its pretty much the same thing that excites anyone that sees beauty or sees a beautiful landscape and knows that it has a minimal human footprint on it. There's just something exciting about that here compared with the kinds of human footprints that we're used to seeing back home. And that's another thing that is extremely rich about being in Kamchatka is really having a much better understanding about what pristine is, particularly in terms of river and floodplain function and there are lots of places that I completely agree with Jack. We have tremendous opportunities and potentials for restoring abundant salmon populations. I think we know how to do it, we certainly have some tough choices to make politically but they're easily supportable. But we certainly know how to scientifically sustain along with other human uses of landscape of abundant salmon but what we don't recognize is how the subtle ways and not so subtle ways that we simply don't recognize that human footprint shows up on river landscapes and stream landscapes and until I came here I really wasn't aware what a regulated river how you tell 30 miles downstream from any dam that that river is a river that's got a dam on it or that this river the way the bank is shaped and the vegetation, the secession of the vegetation on the bank tell you that it doesn't have a normal, say, spring run off that indicated that you're probably not seeing even though there may be more human footprint on the bank or no invasive species in the riparian zone and it certainly can be an enjoyable spring river to be on, but you don't recognize, but you're not seeing the way it would naturally be if we weren't there. And that's an important thing to recognize so we don't get too comfortable in what we take for being natural.
So this has given you context, (Nick: Yes) the context to be able to look at what's going on back home more realistically. I guess.
Yeah the context that this gives you is really in a way unimaginable again just because you don't see, certainly on this scale and by scale I mean from the grand scale of a big valley wall with some of these big complex rivers to small side channels and even small tributary streams here across a range of those scales you get a much clearer sense of what natural is and how they would behave and function and behave if we didn't get in their way and of course that helps provide a better frame of reference in context of what kinds of, if we want to recover some species or secure a goof functioning watershed for posterity what things do we need to be concerned about not doing or changing or correcting.
Now, you've been involved in a lot of these battles and so the fight and the tensions is usually between competing versions of what a place should be like so you come here and go ok here's how it should be. Isn't it to the guy in the bar wherever, you can say we don't know what these places used to look like and you come here and you do. Maybe that's a broad brush but isn't that.
Yeah you do.
Yeah that's a broad brush but isn't that¿
Nick: Although I don't like to say that what I see here
EA: should be there
Nick: Would be there.
EA: but it gives you context
Nick: Sure, yes. I understand what you mean by giving it context which it does.
EA: which you wouldn't have
Nick: Which otherwise you certainly wouldn't have and that's a problem and that's been a big problem for recovery river restoration and species recovery back home is what is the context. What really is normative? Jack talks about normative conditions. He developed some hypotheses and seen normative conditions in places like the middle fork of the Flathead. As he said that's not a salmon river so you come to a salmon river or a an impacted trout stream in the Pacific northwest. What's normative there when you still don't have the template but here you have some context of how the river interacts with its landscape, and how that affects which is what we're learning the complexity of species and even within a single species like steelhead, rainbow, how that effects the way they make their living what their ecology is like, how their life history might evolve, how flexible it is and that gives you context for some pretty good hypotheses about what you might need to change on the landscape back home on a particular case.
Got it. And you just also like to fish right?
Let's get to the nut of this. You like to fish right?
Yeah, I do, and I've been a fishing guide. I grew up fishing on the Madison rivers a matter of fact in Montana as a small child with my father but truly I hear Bill Bocke 20 years ago coming to a talk at steelhead fly fishing club that I was in and I read some of Bill's wonderful articles on fishing techniques of steelhead. But here was Bill talking to us about conservation needs of steelhead and salmon and I remember talking to him afterwards and about gee do you fish anymore, and he said no not much, not nearly as much because I come to believe that if I don't spend the time fighting to conserve them instead of fishing which I could do more of, there won't be any around, and as maybe as stereotype as that sounds at least 20 years ago I couldn't come to that same realization but in the last ten years, I certainly fish a great deal less. I rarely fish for steelhead until the last two years coming here. So I do fish, I enjoy fishing. It really is a great pleasure. It's quite rewarding, challenging, relaxing and I share it with my extended grandchildren and others but I do an awful lot less of it.
It's not a trick question I just wanted to¿
(Nick: No, yeah)
Its nice to be able to fish for science is I guess what I wanted to say.
Oh yeah it is and this is the case. You can, its essential here that we fish fly fish form to catch or fish with spinning gear or whatever to catch the fish for to get the data for the scientific purpose so in that regard its quite unique that we're having our cake as anglers and eating it too as scientists. So it's a great place to fish. Even though the river here is high and fishing is difficult at the moment it's a wonderful opportunity for people to be able to come to this kind of pristine place for fish that are still here in numbers that can be fished for with reasonable expectations and in a week that you will catch enough to please yourself and those encounters will be put to good use for conserving the resource.
You can feel good about taking steelhead.
You can feel good about taking steelhead. Most of them are caught and release. We do have, each river has permits for a finite number of lethal samples and those samples you can feel good about taking. They wouldn't be permitted, this is one case where we're pretty darn sure we're talking about a total take of 20-25 individuals a year. That you can be pretty darn sure is a sustainable harvest on these fish.
Especially since we haven't even gotten one yet. We've got a ways to go now Nick. (Laughing)
We still have all 25 to secure.
What's your hope for this?
My hope is that it continues as it has been going that we get more funding to do the science and that it builds the eco-tourism that helps these local communities really have a sustainable product, and that it is perhaps a model that will be created and applicable elsewhere. I certainly hope that the hope is that the lessons will really pay dividends for our conservation efforts at home but when you're here you really do fall in love with the people here their appreciation, their way of life and this is their land as Russians as Koryak and Eddelmen and its their resource that we're helping while, we're learning from it to preserve and protect it so the hope is that we find away to keep this sustainable and to find, develop ways that can be ecotourism, can provide sustainable, viable income and way of life or component way of life that will preserve the way of, provide a comfortable living, what they need and desire and that doesn't cause them to sell the farm for the short term which is actually for the people that govern them to sell the farm for the short term because the local people wouldn't, generally wouldn't sell the farm.
Do you think it's doable?
Yeah I think it's doable. It certainly is¿there are many reasons-it's easy to be pessimistic and there are reasons that one could be pessimistic but we certainly know what the outcome is if one doesn't make the effort to try to find an alternative and I think its doable. Its certainly up in the air but its certainly doable. There's a lot of talented people involved and a tremendous amount of will and desire on the part of the Russian people here that if we just get them the support that they need and want, I think we can certainly help them secure it.
Ok, you're off the hook. ¿.for now¿.i'm going to want to zoom in on what you're specifically doing as we go along.
Thanks for coaching me along.
Ambi: sound of motor boat
Ambi: sound of motor boar approaching
Ambi: sound of water, wind, maybe rain droplets
Ambi: Sounds of water and scraping
Ambi: Closer to water but wind sound is too heavy
Ambi: more water sounds but scraping sound interferes.
Monday morning, hoping to get sound of stellar eagle
Ambi: Light sounds of birds chirping
Ambi: sounds of feet splashing in water
Poonja! What's the deal, they wanted to take these? I think not. I think not right? Well that was within the first 30 seconds of casting.
So there's 3 up there now.
Ambi: EA casting rod
Ambi: EA casting rod
Ambi: EA taking in reel
Ambi: EA fishing
Ambi: Stellar eagles wings flapping
Ambi: casting rod
Ambi: Stellar eagles wings flapping
Ambi: Stellar eagles wings flapping
Ambi: wind and birds chirping
Ambi: Sounds of footsteps in the water
Ambi: More fishing sounds
Ambi: Casting rod
Loud sound of chunks of ice dropping in water¿MS says ¿Avalanche¿
Sounds of walking through water
Sounds of fishing and helicopter approaching
Someone yelling and clapping with helicopter overhead
Ambi: Swoosh sound of casting a line
Ok this is spaced omnis, riverbend 5 minutes upstream from camp.
Damn. Ok here we go.
Ambi: Rustling sounds, bird screeching in the background
Ambi: Sound of something falling (maybe another avalanche)
General ambience: The sandbar
MS putting things in his bag
General ambience: the sandbar
Ambi: Louder rustling sound, like a motorized vehicle approaching
Boat pass by take two
Ambi: Sound of boat in the distance
Ambi: Sound of boat increasing in volume as it approaches
All right. It's a drive by boat in an incident again.
Ambi: sound of boat in the distance
Ambi: boat approaching and stopping
Ambi: boat starting up and increasing in volume
Ambi: boat slows down and stops
END OF DAT