Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 4 »


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2012/5/4 9:12
From Parkesburg
Posts: 548
Offline
.






Posted on: 2012/10/22 22:33

Edited by NickR on 2012/10/22 22:56:23
_________________





Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
The water quality coming from the spring source is very well oxygenated. In fact, during the hatchery days the headwaters (ditch) was classified as exceptional value cold water (maybe not the exact name, but it had the highest cold water quality designation that can be given to a stream in PA), yet the water just below the ditch outlet was classified as significantly impaired water so simultaneously the stream was on the PADEP list of EV water and significantly impaired water. And the reason for the lack of oxygen below the ditch was solely due to the heavy oxygen demanding nutrient load that was being discharged from the hatchery not the absence of plunge pools or other artificial oxygenators. Essentially this nutrient load stripped the water of all its dissolved oxygen by the time it discharged from the ditch and that was one of the contributing factors as to why the stream was biologically dead below the ditch (along with the discharge of diquat and formaldehyde).

Once the nutrient load was removed (i.e., the hatchery shut down), you still had the EV highly oxygenated water coming from the spring source and this water flowed the length of the stream and over time, the stream cleansed itself and rebounded back stronger than anyone could have imagined – much to the dismay of the PFBC administrators and CVTU who wanted to turn it into a stocked fishing park when the hatchery was shut down. And those same people also said the brooks would not come back as the citizens predicted but guess what, they did.

So the reality is a group of concerned citizens and scientists proved the “experts” wrong by demonstrating that the hatchery was the cause of the problem (not habitat problems as promoted by the PFBC administrators) and after the hatchery was shutdown, the stream came back just as they predicted it would if left on its own. In fact it recovered better than ever expected and now the same people who (1) screwed it up in the first place, (2) lied about it and covered it up, (3) operated a hatchery that was illegally discharging poisons and herbicides into the stream, (4) denied the hatchery was the cause of the problem and stated the cause was loss of habitat for unknown reasons, (5) claimed if the hatchery was shut down the stream wouldn’t recover and (5) wished to turn it into a stocked fishing park because it wouldn’t recover if left on its own, are now the ones in charge of restoring the stream after the model of “leave it alone” worked so well for 9 years? The PFBC own electroshocking data from 2001 – 2007 clearly demonstrates the trout were coming back in strong numbers throughout the FFO section and you know what, they never even surveyed the better sections of the stream.

Come on, doesn’t anyone see a problem with that. Kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house.

And people keep saying only GreenWeenie knows what’s best and you know what, I know what the citizens and scientists said was best for the stream (leave it alone) and guess what, they were 100% right because I watched the stream recover in real time from 2006 through August 2010 going from a marginal stream in 2006 to a world class brook and bow factory by August 2010 so yes, I believe these non-experts more than the idiot experts now in charge of this stream who screwed it up in the first place and whose predictions and theories were proved wrong time and time again. And yes, they are idiots. The proof is in the pudding and it isn’t what I think is best, the stream followed a model that the so called experts said wouldn’t work and it did so what the so called experts have done is fooled everyone into believing that the stream had problems, never recovered, and they are now going to save it. And people now go there and see large amounts of fish and believe it is because of the restoration efforts – IT’S NOT – what is there now has nothing to do with the restoration work it was there before the work and in fact, it was substantially better before the work was done.

I wish you and others could have seen what was there post restoration.

As for oxygen levels way down in the stream, well, by August 2010 there were massive numbers of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects including stoneflies and sulfurs because I saw them, I fished these hatches. And they weren’t limited to the upper reaches, as some of the heaviest hatches occurred well below the 1.1 mile FFO section, which is the first 1.1 miles of the stream. In addition the stream also had extremely good populations of olives, caddis, tricos (in isolated areas), and more midges than you can imagine – again, I fished them, I saw them. So given the fact that the stream held lots of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects from the headwaters down to probably 3.5 miles below, call me stupid but it certainly appears to me that oxygen levels weren’t a problem in the lower sections. And there were also healthy populations of wild bows and brooks well below the cement arch bridge, which is probably 3.5 miles below the spring source and 2.5 miles into the ATW section. In fact, in many places within the ATW section there were sections that held healthy pods of wild bows and even wild brooks – mostly bows but there were wild brooks as well. Sounds to me the stream was in pretty excellent shape throughout. So as for creating plunge pools to increase oxygen levels, there was no need because the water coming from the spring source is exceptional value highly oxygenated water, the source of the oxygen demanding nutrient load that caused the problem is no longer there, and the stream had healthy populations of pollution intolerant and oxygen demanding insects and also healthy populations of wild trout over 3.5 miles below the headwaters. Doesn’t sound to me like the stream had problems. The only problems it had was it didn’t “look nice,” and the trout weren’t easy to catch. And limestone spring creeks are not freestone streams, they are low gradient, slow moving bodies of water and that’s what makes a spring creek a spring creek and a freestone stream a freestone stream.

As for the FFO zone, the place was loaded with fish – there were thousands of them all over – and big ones too. Seriously, the bows in the stream were bigger and more abundant than the mighty Delaware bows, but nobody knew that and those who did hid the data because that wasn’t supposed to happen. There was no reason to do what they did to the upper half in the fall 2010 and that’s not just me saying it, that’s the PFBC own biologists, folks from the US Wish and Wildlife Department, other independent scientists but CVTU goes out and hires their own consultant (the expert) and this company comes to the conclusion work needs to be done (that they get PAID TO DO) so they are now the undisputed expert and everyone else who disagrees with what they say should be done is wrong.


Posted on: 2012/10/23 12:56


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 911
Offline
^^^^^^ so to paraphrase....

There are still lots of fish in the stream, still lots of BIG fish in the stream. The water quality is just as good as ever and the populations of both brookies and bows continues to expand.

But, GW doesn't like the fact that the fishing experience he grew to love has changed because other folks had a different vision than his, and they are all, apparently, IDIOTS!!, grrrrr. Oh, and there's also money involved and a cover up going on, or something.

Posted on: 2012/10/23 14:22


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
Tomi,

Once again, missed the point. Read it and digest it instead of just assuming it's all a rant and all my point of view.

Did you happen to read when I said my view isn't my view - I happen to agree with many people in the scientific community who have strongly different opinions of what the stream should be like compared to those who have somehow managed to get control of this stream over the last 2 years and who were the ones responsbile for screwing it up in the first place. If you happened to be involved in the watershed group, got to know the scientists involved, and actually watched the stream recover you would know.

Why don't you link here and read. Certainly seems like the PADEP wasn't on board with the initial plan in 2000, which is essentially the same plan that got railroaded through in 2010.

NJDEP Letter to PFBC 2000

Or how about this one where the PADEP discusses the non-permitted and toxic levels of formaldehyde discharge

Formaldehyde

Lastly, how about this one, especially pages 11 and 12.

Environmental Group Letter

As stated, I know the history, know what was proposed, know what worked and the sad part which you won't admit is yes, the stream is still very good, but it was unbelievable in August 2010.

How would you feel if the Letort was ripped up and the result was it became half as good as it once was and people who never fished it are saying it's great? It has nothing to do with ruining my stream it has to do with ruining a natural resource. If they did it once they will do it again elsewhere.


Posted on: 2012/10/23 15:00


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 911
Offline
So, your view isn't your view, but is the view of others and you happen to agree with that view, but somehow it isn't your view??? That's logical.


The EGL you link is a great history lesson, I especially find this passage from Page 12 interesting, considering the many various signatories to that letter (emphasis added):

Quote:
We would like to see nature, with the help of substantial habitat restoration, get another chance.




Posted on: 2012/10/23 15:40


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
Tomi…..WHOA you got me!!! I can’t believe it!!!!!

Not.

Immediately you try and assume that, “with the help of substantial habitat restoration” means ripping the stream apart. How about we take a closer look at exactly what this means.

“Substantial” means ‘a considerable amount.’

“Habitat” means, ‘the area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs.’

“Restoration” means, ‘the act or restoring or the condition of being restored as a bringing back to a former position or condition.

So when you quote “with the help of substantial habitat restoration,” and attempt to suggest that it means rip the place apart so you are right and I am wrong, that’s not what it says. What is says is that the environment sucks and in order for the fish and insects to return to their former glory, the environment where they live needs to substantially improve and return to the former state when they thrived, which at a minimum means NO HATCHERY POLLUTION. I don’t see any mention of the installation of wing walls, plunge pools, V deflectors, narrowing of the channel, etc., and in fact the PADEP letter of 2000 cautions against the installation of more tradition habitat structures, which are plunge pools, V deflectors, wing walls, etc. Below is that link.

PADEP 2000 Letter To PFBC

I highly suggest you read it and notice as the PADEP biologist completely rips apart the study, data and restoration plan that the PFBC and others initially proposed, which was since jammed through 9 years later. There are outright lies in that report - lies that are contradicted by the PFBC’s own data (read the part about trout mass densities – complete lies). My first question to you and others (that nobody will answer) is you don’t see anything wrong with the entity that is supposed to protect the streams that you fish to be (1) incompetent and (2) lying to cover up their own incompetence? This isn’t my view, this is what your beloved PFBC did and then attempted to cover-up. It’s their own data, their own reports, and the PADEP calling them out – not GW calling them out.

I apologize in advance if this is too complicated for you to understand and not what you wanted to hear. Just resort to you usual GW is right and the entire world is wrong reply and this is all about my fishing experience being ruined. Continue to add no substance, use quotes out of context, keep your head in the silt.

Second question that you won’t answer, I would assume that you would be all in favor of performing these same improvements to the Letort? I hope you are because according to the PADEP letter, the Letort and Big Spring have very similar habitat and since you believe the restoration work substantially improved Big Spring’s habitat and made it a better fishery, I would expect that you and others who support the restoration work would be fully supportive of the same design being installed at the Letort because imagine how great that stream would then become. Seriously, I look forward to you answer on this question. I guarantee you won’t answer it because you don’t want these improvement on the Letort or your reply will be some sort of childish answer that says nothing other than I am the expert so I should know.

How about when the fish kill occurred on the Letort way back when and the PFBC immediately wanted to replenish the stream with stocked fish yet those two bozos Fox and Marinaro (not scientists so they obviously couldn’t be experts like the PFBC) said ‘No, the trout will return leave it be,” and what happened, the trout returned. Took time but they return by how – leaving the stream alone to recover on its own.



Posted on: 2012/10/23 20:19


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 911
Offline
GW, my bottom line on Big Spring:

It's an amazing stream that has long been abused by man. Whether it was the artificial brookie mill ponds back in the day that built it's reputation, the private hatcheries, the antique stone wing walls or the PFBC hatchery that all but killed it, she's been thru a lot. The most recent hatchery got shut down which then resulted in a lot of back n forth and CYA politicing wrt 'what do we do next?' Lots of intelligent folks with varying opinions and differing amounts of pull were involved in the decision making. Some were listened to more than others and a path forward was agreed to. What's done is done.

You claim that this most recent path has ruined the stream, I don't share your view. The water is still just as clean and cool, the bugs are just as happy and the population of trouts continues to rebound to this day. I'm sorry that others didn't share your vision for the stream you fell in love with, that your side 'lost' or whatever. But the fishing there is still fantastic and by all measures other than your personal preference, your fishing anecdotes and your survey cover up conspiracies, the stream is nowhere near 'ruined.' You can continue to spout your bitterness and provide documentation for your reasoning, but bottom line, it's still a fantastic fishery that continues to heal and will continue to heal.


Now regarding the Letort. Would I be upset if the same thing that's been done to BigSpring happened on the Letort? Although they are similar in certain stretches, these two streams are different animals, as I'm sure you're aware. Nowhere that I'm familiar with on the Letort shares similar characteristics to the stretch of Big Spring that's been altered. Nowhere is it a structureless, ankle deep expanse of gravel bottomed stream. So, yes, it would bother me to see those same tactics employed to 'improve' the stream, they're just not applicable due to their differences. I love the Letort, it's my home water and I learn something everytime I'm out there. If there were a project in the works though, you can bet that I'd get involved, listen to all sides, add my voice to the conversation for what it's worth and then see where the cards lay. If the fishes & bugs were still happy afterwards, if the water quality remained intact and the bottom line was that the fishing experience had changed, then I'm pretty sure I'd accept the changes and still fish it. And I'm also pretty sure that I wouldn't climb up onto a soapbox and rant my displeasure at seemingly every opportunity.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 9:45


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2011/6/29 9:38
From Philadelphia
Posts: 2137
Offline
Tomi, well said.

GW, my advice to you would be to think about how your message is perceived. I think you are intelligent and think things through very well. You are a facts and figures guy (much like myself) but your message often gets lost in your vitriol. You sent me a PM a few months back about color which was as helpful as any PM I've ever received. You obviously know your stuff and while I certainly have no right to tell you how to post, I think your message would be much better received if you used the same informative style you used in your PM to me. I personally enjoy your message but hate to have to wade through the crap you sometimes type to translate it. Your passion for Big Spring is commendable and maybe your knowledge would be better served to get involved with the upcoming project (I won't make the mistake of saying "improvement") than to doubt it's value before any plans are ever even finalized.

My two cents, which leaves me now quite short.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 10:04


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2006/12/29 10:00
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2013
Offline
Thats a great message to this particular poster who I happen to agree with on this upcoming project. If they make the whole stream accessible to absolutely everyone with ease, the quality will certainly fall. I believe they are now over-promoting the stream and I can think of a crapload of other streams that could use the money more.
The fish are doing great.
To me, this isnt a habitat improvement project, this is an angling improvement project with aim at licenses and not the trout at all.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 10:36
_________________
Resized Image


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22304
Online
I think the "leave the stream alone" argument has general applicability in many cases where man intervenes to "improve" the water. If you look at the universe of volunteers and naysayers, you will find an inordinate amount of anglers involved. So certainly the motivation is the fishing and recreational appeal of the stream. Even those that prefer things Au Naturel are pursuing things to suit their prefered angling experience.

Just like Young Woman's Creek, there are losers and winners and those in the minority ought to seek small victories, rather than just demonizing, and thus alienating, their opposition.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 10:54
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2006/12/29 10:00
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2013
Offline
True enough. I enjoy fishing the project water they did far more than the other areas. They're a true pain to fish and wade.
However, I am glad they have a place or two to get away from me.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 11:38
_________________
Resized Image


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
Thank you Squaretail.

I do not have issue helping streams that need help but this was by far and away THE BEST wild trout stream in PA (and quite possibly in the top 10 anywhere in the U.S.) as of August 2010 – by far the best in PA. Could it have used some help in certain areas of the upper section of the fly zone – yes, a little help maybe tightening up a few things up here and there - but I, and many others, fail to find the logic of completely ripping it apart.

Why would you rip up natural weed beds that are 3-4 feet deep and hold pods of 50+ bows with 5-7 in the 20”+ range and replace the natural weed beds with wooden boxes anchored into the stream bottom that are filled with new weeds to create “lunker structure?”

Why would you fill in undercut banks where many of the big ones held and then build wooden platforms over the stream for cover?

I also fail to see the logic of let’s improve the brook trout habitat and then the design backfills the very habitat that was used very successfully by the brook trout for cover and spawning and tries to artificially recreate it elsewhere?

That is what I fail to see. Fine, take the existing natural habitat and give it a tweak to improve it but to rip up the natural habitat and try to artificially rebuild it elsewhere - that’s where I am lost? You’re not improving the habitat you’re only relocating it and I’m sorry, I can’t see how artificial habitat will be better than the natural habitat that clearly demonstrated that it was working.

The thing about this board and many of the posters is everyone wants to help streams and everyone seems to love when someone is going to do something to a stream. The thought seems to be every stream can benefit from doing something to it and doing something is clearly better than doing nothing and this is a perfect case where that is not true. It was by far the best trout stream in PA, maybe even in the U.S., and I’m sorry most of you didn’t know that or never fished it. Why do you think I was driving 168 miles one way to fish it 60-70 times a year, year round, getting up a 3am to be on the water by sunrise and leaving well after dark? Because it was phenomenal that’s why and that is the tough part, nobody out there can really fully appreciate and understand how incredibly phenomenal it was.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 13:38


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
Tomi, as for the Letort, I agree with you 100% and you provided the answer I was hoping for. I agree the streams’ characteristics are totally different - except for the number of fish. (I haven’t fished the Letort as extensively as you but based on my experience I would feel comfortable saying that Big Spring, pre August 2010, held far more trout and substantially more big ones than the Letort but I could be wrong, that’s just based on what I saw, but I do believe the hatches on the Letort are probably better than Big Spring).

The major difference, however, was Big Spring didn’t look like what a spring creek was supposed to look like. The Letort and Falling Spring look like spring creeks but not Big Spring, Big Spring was “shallow and coverless” in the upper reaches and didn’t look like it should or could even hold trout but nonetheless it managed to hold massive quantities of trout and massive quantities of bugs and baitfish. That is maybe the difference between both sides on this argument.

My view, and others, is if the stream looks like a complete cesspool but has massive trout populations ranging from YOY to incredibly huge, while the stream may look ugly, the proof is in the pudding and that ugly habitat is obviously very suitable to support a healthy population of fish so leave it alone and focus restoration efforts on streams that are not performing up to potential. I just don’t feel like every stream is supposed to be made to look like the perfect model trout stream. If the stream holds massive numbers of fish of all sizes, that’s all that matters to me and obviously the habitat ‘as is’ is pretty damn good.

On the other side, some seem to feel that every stream needs to look like the prototypical model trout stream in order to be good and seem to believe that while the cesspool stream may fish great, imagine how incredibly great it will become when it gets redesigned into the picture perfect model trout stream – it will have perfect habitat. And that was one of the first things that everyone said about Big Spring – WOW IT LOOKS GREAT!! Looks don’t make a trout stream great so I’m sorry, I don’t agree with that view (not saying it’s your) and I don’t feel a stream needs to look good or be perfect to be great. If you look at the stream design implemented on Big Spring it’s not some unique design specifically prepared for Big Spring – it’s the same freaking design that the consultant has utilized on many streams all over the place irrespective of the natural condition or requirements of the stream. It’s a canned ‘one design fits all’ approach to stream management and that doesn’t work everywhere. What is basically does is homogenizes streams and while it may improve some streams, it certainly will adversely affect some streams.

As for changes in fishing experience, while maybe you would except a different fishing experience if the quality of fishing didn’t change (i.e., still the same numbers of fish, still the same insect population, etc.) but what changed was the stream’s design, I don’t think you would accept it if the quality of fishing declined because of the work. Honestly, based on the condition of the Letort right now, there is absolutely no reason to do anything to it – it’s an awesome stream as is - and if someone was proposing to do wholesale redesigns, I would be calling them idiots too. My issue is if a typical trout stream in PA has 10 trout per 100 feet, the Letort has 100, and then the Letort was redesigned in the name of improvement and the result was now 70, sure it’s still 7 times better than the average PA stream but its 30% worst than it was and I’m sure you would be upset if people who never fished the stream were now running around telling everyone how great IT LOOKS and how great it fishes compared to PA average stream and telling you that you’re nuts because you are saying it’s not as good as it was. If that happened, I would certainly hope that you wouldn’t be quiet and accepting of what was done but would be up on a soapbox telling everyone what happened so others might be more skeptical about improvement projects proposed by the experts on other streams.

You’ve got a lot of experience on the Letort and probably know it better than most. While we obviously have had a lot of strong disagreements, I would seriously respect your opinion on any work that was done on the Letort and I would hope that you wouldn’t be a corporate TU guy and tell the world the work was great, the stream was great, when deep down you know it’s not what it used to be like.

Posted on: 2012/10/24 13:54


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30

Joined:
2011/5/26 10:12
From Dauphin PA
Posts: 2766
Offline
GW, thumbs up on your passion for BS. I may not fully agree with the presentation but you are trying to raise awareness and issues with the stream and that's more than most would do. I fished it 4-5 days a week from the mid 80's until after the hatchery closed. Way down the fishing might have been decent but I quit going because things had gotten so bad in the upper section. Then...all the hype with the redo of the stream. Haven't been back in years. Was in the area one day and saw the cluster-F of anglers and kept driving. I wish I could have fished it back in the 50's when it had really good hatches. Mother Nature has a way of repairing things. Look at how the Letort recovered and the way Spring has taken a beating but keeps coming back. With that said, I do agree that there wasn't a bunch of holding water in the upper 1.5 - 2 mi. Not saying that fish weren't there but it could have been much more. I'll have to actually get over there some time soon and really look around. Work will almost guarantee I won't be at the BS meeting. Please post a summary of what was discussed. Keep the passion, present your data but easing up on your approach a whisker may get more on your side to help fight for the stream. Just my 2 cents.:..... and now I have no sense. :)

Posted on: 2012/10/24 17:16
_________________
"Excelling at making people angry since 1967"


Re: Big Spring Habitat & Management Meeting, Oct. 30
Webmaster
Joined:
2006/9/8 9:35
Posts: 4473
Offline
Just in from the PFBC!

NOTE - This meeting has been cancelled because of the storm. It will be rescheduled at a later date.



Posted on: 2012/10/29 11:19



« 1 (2) 3 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
2 Comments





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com