|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Feb 12, 2013 9:56:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantucker on Feb 12, 2013 12:10:25 GMT -5
Nick,
Taking the dam out would be an extraordinary thing for wild reproduction of steelhead and normally I'm all for taking down dams, but I have mixed emotions. My main concern is what kind of an effect would this have on the wild fish populations already present in the inland tributaries of the Catt if this were to happen? Maybe I'm worrying for no reason, but I'd have to imagine they would be affected (positively or negatively) in some way if steelhead started showing up in those tribs. I'm just curious to see what you think or how others feel about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Feb 12, 2013 13:35:20 GMT -5
Ryan, I share your exact concerns. The report that Nick has provided focuses primarily on the options for a passage. It does not address my concerns, nor do I think it intended to do so.
As it stands right now for me there are two major concerns:
1. What effect will the Steelhead, Brown and other species from the lake have on the current population of naturally producing (some may say wild) Rainbow, Brown and Brookies? Depending on the option chosen they may be able to stop Lamprey Eels, but what about when the Asian jumping carp come to town? Or some other yet to be found invasive species?
2. What effect will all of the humans that seek the lake run fish have on these little upper Catt watersheds? We know what a massive group of fisherman can do to the environment. Sorry folks, but it isn’t pretty.
For #1 there are studies that show conflicting results. Some studies show the lake run fish may push out / over compete for food and habitat with the inland fish. Other studies I have seen show little effect. So I think that is a big debatable issue. And the invasive species concern is hard to get your head around.
For # 2 I fear that many of the smaller existing fish will die as a result of poor C&R attempts, no C&R at all, or degrading of their habitat.
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. Yes, I love those waters year round. But I’d give it all up if it meant providing those fish and their habitat protection from the hordes of steel hunters. See Ontario Canada regs for example. They call them fish sanctuaries.
The reason we want fish up there is to spawn, right? If we leave those tribs open those fish will get ripped right off their redds. Plus every ass hat will wade right through the redds.
Note the DEC has allowed the section on another Erie trib (where a dam was just notched) to remain open. Even though a C&R area exists right below it. Thus, those fish may suffer the effects I describe above. I fear same thing on the Catt.
And yes I know that the Catt did not always have that dam. And that dam won’t last forever. So maybe a ladder / barrier is better than a dam that may bust. But when I weigh the value of what exists today verse the potential effects it is hard to support removal.
Honestly, I value a 6 inch naturally reproducing Bow or Brown, or a truly wild brookie, more than a 30 inch stocked Steelbow. And I’ve caught both. Would I value a naturally reproduce Steelhead more than a natural inland Brown? Nope, not if I have to give up on the existing natural Browns and Bow and wild Brookies that are there now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike faracca on Feb 12, 2013 14:23:57 GMT -5
Somebody's thinking it through more than I am, very thought provoking stuff guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by K_Bruce aka Phisherman on Feb 12, 2013 14:31:24 GMT -5
I understand why people debate the impact of the steelhead above the barrier and the unknown factors that might show their ugly heads, but I can stop thinking about the chance of dropbacks in early June still making their way out. Sipping dries on their way back to the lake. I wonder how well the dries would work on the switch rod??
Was not Patagonia willing to fund some of the project if it was ok'd? Might be easier for the state to swallow if the funds were not all put up from a state that has major cash issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantucker on Feb 12, 2013 15:19:58 GMT -5
Byron,
I agree 100%. I can't get past the notion of benefiting one fishery at the expense of the other.
Up until about a year ago I'd consider myself primarily a steelhead guy, but within the past year I have really grown to love and appreciate inland fishing. For me, nothing beats the solitude and serenity that the inland streams provide. I'm a little worried that with the recent publicity dam removal has received in national publications, that a short sighted decision will be made. I don't know of the specifics of the projects out west, but I have to think this one is somewhat different where this is quite literally where the inland and lake run fisheries meet. Just because we hear of the success of dam removals in the Pacific NW, doesn't necessarily they will have the same result/impact here. I would just want a thorough examination of of the possible scenarios/unintended consequences that could happen if it were to be removed. That's all.
K_Bruce....
Taking steelhead on a dry does sound pretty awesome! It would certainly be new and something unique to the incredible fishery we have there, but I just can't get past the notion of benefiting at the expense of the other.
This is good discussion and some great points both ways! I'm looking forward to what others have to say as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by NickConwall on Feb 12, 2013 15:32:45 GMT -5
 ...if I had my way I would: 1st.) clean up all of the accumulated silt/garbage that lies behind the dam so every pebble/aggragate bed that lays down stream would not be inundated with silt & god knows what else. 2nd.) I would install a fish ladder or two (of course you would have to ban fishing near them or else, well you all know what would happen around them. 3rd.) Do a 5-8 year study to determine return rates ( that would basically allow 1-2 new generations of trout) and the upstream ecological balance. 4th.) would be determined on the study results... if all's well and inter/intraspecific competition doesn't wreak havoc on the upper reaches fish/food chain I would then proceed with a controlled blast/demolition of the entire dam leaving the large debris to act as a natural fish ladder, holding/staging area for the fish, new habitat for other aquatics as well as provide a sort of permeable levee to slow water/silt/etc. in the event of a major flood. If the study should find that the new runs are decimating existing species then you have the option to close &/or regulate the ladders to control how many new fish pass so that the upper reaches remain sustainable. I realize this would be cost prohibitive given the current state of our Country/county & state but if I were in charge that is how I think I would go about doing it. As to "byronfishpaw's" worry about people fishing the hell out of the smaller trib's that is an issue I mostly agree with him upon but for the sake of time I'll leave that can of beans for another time. In the mean time I guess we can all just pray for the best that those in charge do the right thing for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by byronfishpaw on Feb 12, 2013 15:33:11 GMT -5
You can get a steelbow to eat a dry in the water that is currently available
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveKowalski on Feb 12, 2013 16:49:57 GMT -5
"blast/demolition of the entire dam leaving the large debris to act as a natural fish ladder"
Nope - still need an eel proof ascent and way to weed out any other undesirables
Competition for food by natural yoy little guys vs. lake fish little guys would be my only concern.
BUT the bigger inland fish would have a ton of new food in the form of steel eggs and fry. and those 6 in. fish may turn out to be 10, 12 in. or more. extra dinner could be a benefit, maybe
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Damude on Feb 12, 2013 18:23:30 GMT -5
You can get a steelbow to eat a dry in the water that is currently available yeah Its hard too though when you never fish there.  |
|
...if I had my way I would: 1st.) clean up all of the accumulated silt/garbage that lies behind the dam so every pebble/aggragate bed that lays down stream would not be inundated with silt & god knows what else. 2nd.) I would install a fish ladder or two (of course you would have to ban fishing near them or else, well you all know what would happen around them. 3rd.) Do a 5-8 year study to determine return rates ( that would basically allow 1-2 new generations of trout) and the upstream ecological balance. 4th.) would be determined on the study results... if all's well and inter/intraspecific competition doesn't wreak havoc on the upper reaches fish/food chain I would then proceed with a controlled blast/demolition of the entire dam leaving the large debris to act as a natural fish ladder, holding/staging area for the fish, new habitat for other aquatics as well as provide a sort of permeable levee to slow water/silt/etc. in the event of a major flood. If the study should find that the new runs are decimating existing species then you have the option to close &/or regulate the ladders to control how many new fish pass so that the upper reaches remain sustainable. I realize this would be cost prohibitive given the current state of our Country/county & state but if I were in charge that is how I think I would go about doing it. As to "byronfishpaw's" worry about people fishing the hell out of the smaller trib's that is an issue I mostly agree with him upon but for the sake of time I'll leave that can of beans for another time. In the mean time I guess we can all just pray for the best that those in charge do the right thing for the right reasons.
