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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



(1) 2 »


Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6028
Offline
The recent Trout magazine has an article titled Relief From Rhododenddron on pages 48 and 49. It describes removal of rhododendon in a stream in the National Forest in TE as a form of stream improvement.

What do you think? If removing rhododendron really improves streams, there would be a lot of potential projects in PA.

I've seen many stream sections in PA that are nearly inpenetratable because rhododendron has grown the whole way across them.

But is removing the rhododendron a great idea? Would there be possible negative side-effects?

Isn't rhododendron the normal vegetation on those streams? Hasn't it always been there, and the brook trout somehow managed?

Or did some past alteration to the landcape cause all that pesky rhodendron to grow so thick?

Posted on: 2007/2/2 13:56


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/9 21:13
From Apollo
Posts: 294
Offline
Haven't seen the article. So what is the purpose of removing the rhododendron as stream improvement?

Posted on: 2007/2/2 19:41
_________________
A fish is a fish, except THE FISH


Re: Relief From Rhododendron
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 6982
Offline
Troutbert,

My view is that typically rhododendren is a partial shade plant growing in an understory so the effects of removing the "canopy" of rhodos would have minimal impact. I would however not recomend removal of the plants root system because of bank stabilization encroachment. But rather to prune them back to allow for improved fishing lanes while maintaining the stabilizing features of the root systems.

Of course they would grow back requiring more pruning later on.

On the other hand, these choked lanes provide terrific predaory obstructions and allow for year class protection and probably improve the dynamic of the biomass. Remove them adn you will probably allow for reductions in biomass.

Maurice

Posted on: 2007/2/2 19:51
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/9 22:43
From Delaware Co.
Posts: 3431
Online
Do you have a pick i'm not familiar with the name , and can you find a way to posty the article ?

Posted on: 2007/2/3 0:43


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6028
Offline
I don't think the article is available online. I Googled and couldn't find it. Trout magazine is published by Trout Unlimited and is sent out to members.

Posted on: 2007/2/3 10:29


Re: Relief From Rhododendron
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22138
Offline
Beneath this lies the largest trout in the stream:

Click to see original Image in a new window

Happy casting!

Posted on: 2007/2/3 11:33
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
I went backand re-read the article and the problem that was emphasized was that the bushes had overgrown the the point that they were "damming" the creek creating a build up of silt that was choking the creek. They surveyed the stream before cutting the bushes back and found 7 fish. A year after cutting them back they found 30 or something like that. The more recent picks still show bushes on the banks, just cut back considerably. The only thing I found troubling was that it was a 1.3 MILE stretch they did this to and my personal feeling was that perhaps some of the Rhodo. maybe should have been left to provide cover and shade. Of course as Mo mentioned...It'll grow back.

Posted on: 2007/2/3 13:03


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7534
Offline
There are plenty of streams in PA that could be listed to remove Rhodadendrons, the problem is where does it stop. Do you then go back and remove the plants that grow in their place? And then go back again a few years later when more plants grow back.
My thinking is that when ever vegation is removed from stream banks it's because anglers are 1) lazy and don't want to learn to cast properly and 2) they want to warm streams up to make them more suitable for alien species like brown trout because of some perverted sense that browns are more suitable prey. I think that in part is the reason for removing vegetation in Wisconson streams, the anglers prefer alien trout above natives. Maybe I'm wrong.

Posted on: 2007/3/5 12:31


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/11/15 10:49
Posts: 71
Offline
Instead of removing vegetation from stream banks, why don't we replace understory growth with saplings? Our forests have been disrupted for so long that proper succession isn't even occurring where they are growing back. Why can't we line our streams with native secondary growth trees that will grow and provide the appropriate environment for the rebirth of our old growth forests? Then allow whatever fish enjoy those dark cool forest environs to thrive there, be it brookie or brown.

Posted on: 2007/3/28 15:21


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 850
Offline
> I think that in part is the reason for removing vegetation in Wisconson streams, the anglers prefer alien trout above natives. Maybe I'm wrong.>

Well, you're right about being wrong...:)

They do it to discourage beavers. They also do it (in a process I don't fully understand) to open the water to more sunlight to allow certain processes to occur that enhance the forage base. Many Wisconsin streams have a low diversity of invertebrates despite usually having stong pops. of the ones that are there. And, on occasion, they also do it to allow better angler access.

As I understand it, the reason they can do this (and mind you, it isn't done much at all. Out of about 100 streams I've fished there, I've seen brushing take place on maybe 6 or 8) and get away with it is that by and large, by virtue of their smaller size and larger number of spring inputs compared to PA limestones, the thermal effects of this brushing are pretty minimal.

In any event, none of this is done to blaspheme brook trout. Actually, there is a big push on right now to restore brook trout in a lot of the streams of the Driftless Region.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 20:42


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/9 20:09
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2181
Offline
Dear RLeeP,

The real reason they remove the trees from the streams in the Wisconsin Driftless area is because they are invasive species. Box elder and willows are not supposed to be there. The land never was historically wooded, it was covered in prairie grasses and that is what they want growing on their streams.

The native grasses are deeply rooted and do a much better job of stabilizing a stream bank. Even in a flood the grass offers no impediment to water flow, the creek merely rises out of it's banks and returns to them once the water subsides.

As it stands now wood and woody debris builds up along trees during high water events and it scours and gouges the soil out of the opposite banks collapsing the banks and dumping more topsoil into the stream. Those streams are not supposed to be flowing through 6 to 6 feet of deposited topsoil. The trees are the problem in The Driftless.

I'm not making this up, this is directly from a friend of mine who is an active TU Chapter President in Wisconsin.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Posted on: 2007/4/5 14:38


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 850
Offline
Well, I'll certainly defer to your friend, Tim...

That's one I had not heard, but it certainly makes sense. The other reasons I cited were all told to me by a retired WI-DNR supervisor I met on the creek up there. But based on what you've said, these other things could be additional or side benefits and perhaps that was what he was saying.

On a side issue, I hope they don't go too crazy with this brook trout restoration thing, at least in the SW limestones. In terms of potential for growth and for the agricultural conflicts so many of the streams have, they are in practical terms, IMO at least, markedly inferior to the resident browns as the best candidate to provide the backbone of the fishery.

Posted on: 2007/4/5 15:15


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/9 20:09
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2181
Offline
Dear RLeeP,

Believe it or not, there is also considerable debate as to whether the Driftless area streams ever contained a native brook trout population to begin with.

Some people, and not just wingnuts, hold to the theory that the brook trout in the Driftless were introduced from NE Iowa or SE Minnesota. There is an active debate about poisoning the streams to remove the browns, and many people seem to have evidence that the brook trout were also introduced to the region.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Posted on: 2007/4/5 17:30


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 850
Offline
>>There is an active debate about poisoning the streams to remove the browns, and many people seem to have evidence that the brook trout were also introduced to the region.>>

Thanks, Tim. I've seen the differing maps regarding original brook trout distribution and a lot of them do exclude most of the driftless region.

I would hope that the debate you speak of is mostly among anglers and not within WI-DNR to any measurable extent. And to date, nothing I've seen from the agency indicates they are considering doing this on a widespread basis (I'm aware they have done it in a limited number of places).

I just think it would be one of the stupidest things I could imagine, regardless of whether brook trout were the indigenous resident of record in the region or not.

Posted on: 2007/4/5 17:52


Re: Relief From Rhododendron

Joined:
2006/9/9 20:09
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2181
Offline
Quote:

RLeeP wrote:


I just think it would be one of the stupidest things I could imagine, regardless of whether brook trout were the indigenous resident of record in the region or not.


Dear RLeeP,

I agree wholeheartedly. It would be just as stupid to that here in PA as well.

Right now in Wisconsin the debate about brown trout removal is pretty much limited to a few passionate defenders of the brook trout and the State has no inclination to do it according to my buddy. Those beautiful browns are safe for now!

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Posted on: 2007/4/5 18:47



(1) 2 »



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





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