|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 15, 2013 9:36:04 GMT -5
i guess i should not have said "can't" control them. just that it would be extremely difficult to be effective on every little trib and NYS budgets have a tendency to leave out these programs after a few lean years. i just would not want chemical treatments to be the only way to keep the lampreys out of the headwaters. btw you should consider being involved in the local TU and FFF. I wouldn't mind working with both. I have always been active in TU, but never really have done much with FFF. Love to get more info on both.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Damude on Feb 15, 2013 20:36:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind working with both. I have always been active in TU, but never really have done much with FFF. Love to get more info on both. yeah well our TU chapter is a real beauty. You dont work with them no matter how hard you try. The catt is awfully far away from the wiscoy which means they will have no part in helping out. We would be better off forming our own organization and doing it ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Feb 16, 2013 0:00:48 GMT -5
Here are a few of the works regarding protecting naturally reproducing fish from a variety of species: easternbrooktrout.org/reports/eastern-brook-trout-status-and-threats/viewClick on the pdf link, open it and see pgs 3 (table) 5, and 22 Report on Gobies in streams. www.seagrant.wisc.edu/home/default.aspx?tabid=575&videoid=63Also had a study where brookies were pushed out by Browns in a WI stream but can't find it. The Native Fish Society also has some studies. Mostly on the affects of stockers on wild / naturally reproducing fish. No chance yet to read the other articles posted. But I will get to it. Much of what I have read on the benefits on removing barriers for an exiting population of fish focuses on removing the barrier allows the existing fish access to good water they previously could not access. This certainly is the case is some areas. That is not the case with the Catt. The best Trout water and reproduction water is up top where the naturally reproducing Trout are now. Removing the dam is not going to give them access to any better water. And those upstream fish are special. The upper Catt Rainbows were last stocked in the late 1800s or very early 1900s (depends whose records you use). So in the last say 110 years or so a self sustaining population of naturally reproducing Rainbow Trout has developed and thrived up there. They use the entire upper area. Those who catch these little bows may not realize the jems they hold. Now a Steelhead smolt may look the same, but we are talking about stocked fish (Steelhead) verses an existing self sustaining population. There is also a fine population of naturally reproducing Browns. Why they still stock browns up there is crazy - other than it makes it easier to catch a Trout and sells licenses. Then there are the Brookies, true natives, which from what I read stand to to suffer the most from other fish as well as the other invasive species. While overall I usually support and have actively supported opening up waters and removing barriers, every dam and every area is different. In this case I don't think the benefits outweigh the concerns. I don't see it improving upstream conditions for those existing populations and I do see real potential problems. Then there is this issue of the declining runs of Steelhead. I have not heard much science about it - just the year after year comments that the numbers are dropping and an "issue"in the Lake. Some speculate on the collapse of the artificial fishery? Overall, the risks outweigh the benefits.
|
|
|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 16, 2013 8:29:11 GMT -5
That article is on brook trout vs other species of trout. Not how migratory fish interact with other species. It's been well documented that brook trout have trouble competing with other species. But both of the species mentioned are already the overriding population of the upper river (rainbows, browns). So, and this is with all due respect, I am not sure how this article is relevant to how the specific species of the upper Catt would do with introduction of migratory rainbows and salmon. Furthermore, the article's main focus is that for brook trout to be sustainable, they need better water conditions. Removing the dam would decrease the temperature, increase flow and spread out the concentration of trout through the system. Offering any brook trout in the system more water to spawn. But again... and I am not trying to be confrontational, I don't understand what your article on the state of eastern brook trout has to do with dam removal or how resident fish react specifically with trout/salmon. Please correct me if it is addressed there, but I certainly didn't read it in there. My feelings on gobies are the same as lamprey. The rest of the great lakes have been dealing with them this entire time too. Hasn't stopped them from removing dams and improving ecosystems. There are preventative measures available. The reality is that there will always be some type of invasive in the Great Lakes, their existence alone shouldn't completely halt any action to improve water quality. Again, not sure how this relates to migratory fish pushing out native fish. There is a ton of scientific evidence regarding the damage of stocking programs. That's why people like me want to see more dam removal. To increase WILD fish. Steelhead have been part of this system for over a century and they have wild reproduction. Let's remember, those trout in the upper Catt were originally stocked as well. There are wild steelhead in the system and, as I mentioned above, they have been around just as long as the "native" trout in the upper reaches. I disagree strongly that there aren't any spawning benefits to removing the dam as well. Fish need cold, swift, clean water to sustain life. Removing the dam creates that. By lowering water temperatures, it would also greatly improve smolt survival rates. The most invasive species to brook trout around are brown trout. They already have to compete primarily with them currently. Adding steelhead and Kings would only create more food for them all. This has been shown in Michigan, Wisconson, Oregon and Washington ad nasuem. I humbly disagree that the risks outweigh the benefits. I will post more research soon, but I believe that the research that I have already provided specifically addresses each of your concerns. Finally, while the article you provided is certainly a great piece, it's on a completely different subject than what we are discussing. Again, not trying to argue. Just pointing out the fallacies in the argument.
|
|
|
Post by MartyKostek on Feb 16, 2013 18:50:35 GMT -5
"If they do allow for fish migration the DEC needs to CLOSE those upper reaches of the Catt and its tribs for the entire steelhead / spawning season"
I have mixed feelings about this I love the upper catt fishing as it is now, it's my go to stream when I need to get some thinking time in... BUT if they do take it down or do a ladder that's what I want too see..
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Feb 18, 2013 23:39:35 GMT -5
I finally got to read the articles you provided Mike. Thanks for posting them.
As far as the articles I posted, they address the effects on existing fish by other introduced species that previously weren’t there. Like I said in the first post – I’ve seen it reported both ways. The Eastern Brookie article showed the negative effects on Brookies from introduced Browns. With the removal of the dam there would be more Browns (now Lake run) in the Brookie water – which is the last thing they need. That was also my point about the stocking of Browns up there. I feel all of that should stop and that more Browns from the lake would make it worse.
Seems a lot of the focus in the reports is on Salmon and Trout coexisting – which I don’t think we have to consider for the Catt, since it is a trib to Lake Erie. Still a few Salmon in the lake, but not too many as I understand.
I appreciate your comments on the Gobies and other invasives. This is much more of a concern to me than the other Trout. With the invasives we have, and the Asian carp on the way, I want to do everything possible to protect a self- sustaining fishery. My thinking is that since humans have fucked up the Great Lakes so bad we really must be careful what we do. Overall, this planet won’t be safe until the human race is extinct.
I also appreciate very much your desire to improve water quality and habitat – which is ultimately what it is all about (yeah, I know, somewhat contradicting my position here). But again I just don’t see removing this dam improving what is up top. While in general the benefits that occur with the removal of a barrier are fine, in this case I can’t see it benefiting the current upstream population. The water up there is 20 to 30 miles away. It is some real high quality stuff. I’d be very surprised that pulling the dam 20 to 30 miles away would lower temps - that would really surprise me.
Thanks again for the discussion, for the reports and for making me really think about this.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Feb 20, 2013 18:40:44 GMT -5
from the Buffalo News online. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will conduct a public information meeting on the Springville dam fish passage study from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. March 5 at Concord Town Hall, 86 Franklin St., Springville. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the study, proposed alternatives and study schedule. A National Environmental Policy Act scoping document has been prepared and is currently available for review and comment at: www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/PublicReviewDocuments.aspx. The comment period has been extended to March 15. Comments may be submitted via email to Springville.dam@usace.army.mil or to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Environmental Analysis Team, 1776 Niagara St., Buffalo, NY 14207-3199.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Mar 5, 2013 6:46:57 GMT -5
the meeting is tonight! anyone else going? car pool?
|
|
|
Post by juliuspmccann on Mar 5, 2013 10:23:23 GMT -5
I'm in if you want to ride together but I don't have much patients for recondite verbiage. If and when the BS starts I leave. Call me and Ill pick you up
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Mar 5, 2013 13:53:13 GMT -5
I'll be there. I could pickup anyone between Aurora and Springville. However, I will brainwash you on the trip there and or ply you with strong drink. And worse you'll have to grocery shopping with me afterwards. Came across a report I had completely forgot about. DECs 2006 review of the issue. Pretty interesting discussion on what Mike and I were debating - again mixed study results. www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fishpasscattck.pdf
|
|