PFBC Commissioners and Tailwater Wild Trout-Article

[RLeeP]

I woke up this morning and felt I should attempt to edit the intemperate, hair-on-fire tone of my previous post. But I see now that the edit function evidently disappears after the post has been up for a while.

That being the case, the best I can do is to disavow the 2nd paragraph. I'm too old to get that excited about much of anything...

I'm still agin' the notion of turning the Allegheny into a tailwater though...

 

[JackM]

We have to tolerate impoundments because a larger segment of the populace enjoys boating more than a pristine free-flowing trout stream or river. We have plenty of places to flyfish-- can't we sacrifice a few streams to lake anglers and, more importantly, on the large reservoirs, to recreational boaters?

 

[SBecker]

JackM wrote:
We have to tolerate impoundments because a larger segment of the populace enjoys boating more than a pristine free-flowing trout stream or river. We have plenty of places to flyfish-- can't we sacrifice a few streams to lake anglers and, more importantly, on the large reservoirs, to recreational boaters?

Just wondering, but where is anyone calling for getting rid of reservoirs or dams that create lakes and reservoirs? Or am I just not following what you are asking?

 

[pcray1231]

^Was wondering the same thing.

The discussion was over working with authorities to have some say in the outflow cycles from dam, hence enhancing or in some cases, creating, tailwater fisheries. Higher and more consistent summertime bottom release flows for the purpose of benefitting a trout fishery.

The trade off is generally the degree of flood control capability of the dam. In any dam, total water in = total water out over the course of a year, you can't violate that, obviously. The question is timing.

To get healthier, steadier summer flows, then you have to have lower spring flows. And that means keeping a fuller pool during the flood season, lowering the dam's flood control capability.

 

[LehighRegular]

We have to tolerate impoundments because a larger segment of the populace enjoys boating more than a pristine free-flowing trout stream or river. We have plenty of places to flyfish-- can't we sacrifice a few streams to lake anglers and, more importantly, on the large reservoirs, to recreational boaters?

Jack

Its not about sacrificing lakes for lake anglers/boaters. Nobody said that was going to be done. Its about using what "we have" and provide a better resource.

Yes, we have plenty of places to fish in PA. But how many great tailwater fisheries do we have in PA? A fishery that is considered "blue ribbon" quality? Ones that harbor high populations of trout (ie - Bighorn in MT = 7,000 fish / mile Green River = 10,000 fish /mile) and a good portion of which grow to be considered "large trout? A fishery that is attractive to many trout enthusiasts from all over the counrty? Maybe the Upper D....but that is it. Pa's fisheries are mediocre at best when considering the numbers of trout per mile and the numbers of large, wild trout that most anglers enjoy catching.

A lot of our impoundments already have the infrastructure to create such a fishery, its just a matter of better management of the water.

Jack.....have you ever fished over 7000 fish per mile? Try it, if you haven't.

 

[JackM]

simmadahnow,

Someone [RLeeP] suggested removing the dam at Kinzua. Is all I'm sayin'.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
simmadahnow,

Someone [RLeeP] suggested removing the dam at Kinzua. Is all I'm sayin'.

He was opposing the proposal to make the releases from Kinzua cold, to favor trout over warmwater species. The bit about removal wasn't serious, I'm guessing.

 

[JackM]

I agree, troutbert, but he said it and I use it as an opportunity to make the small point I was aiming at: generally, fly anglers think they are more important than other recreational users of our waterways.

 

[pcray1231]

Kinzua serves a far bigger purpose than recreation.

 

[JackM]

And that refutes or suggests what?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I agree, troutbert, but he said it and I use it as an opportunity to make the small point I was aiming at: generally, fly anglers think they are more important than other recreational users of our waterways.

But we are! ;-)

 

[pcray1231]

And that refutes or suggests what?

That it's not trout fishermen vs. recreational boaters.

1. Our serious proposals don't affect boaters.
2. Boaters also don't come into the equation of RLee's joking proposal of removing the dam. It ain't happening, and you don't even have to consider the boaters to find out why. Fishermen could launch a campaign and be taken seriously if it were only boaters on the other side. But flood control is the primary purpose of the dam, and that purpose still exists.

The dam costed $108 million and has prevented $1 billion in flood damages since it was built. A fair bit of that from Hurricane Agnes alone, downtown Pittsburgh would have been under water without the dam.

 

[JeffK]

I was a small child in 1955 and most people today don't remember the emotional impact of Hurricane Diane which led to channelizing the Brodheads and putting up FEW dam and a host of other flood control dams. 200 people died in those floods - about 50 in Stroudsburg alone. The loss of life and the damage really hit people at a gut level, and demands for flood control were strong. Maybe we over-reacted and for 45 years or so the Delaware valley didn't have any record breaking floods. People have forgotten most of the pain. However, over the last decade we have been getting record flooding again and flood mitigation is increasing in priority.

One good thing is that better weather prediction and communications have prevented the huge loss of life of years past, even though property damage has been heavy.

That said, I think there is room for better tailwaters in PA.

 

[sandfly]

jeffk wrote;

I was a small child in 1955 and most people today don't remember the emotional impact of Hurricane Diane

wasn't that hazel ?? i was born right before hazel and there was alot of destruction and deaths..bridges gone along the delaware river..

 

[vcregular]

Connie and Diane in '55. They are the back to back storms that caused the dam building and Tocks Island dam talk.

 

[RLeeP]

>>downtown Pittsburgh would have been under water without the dam.>>

Poor planning on the part of people who decide where cities should be located does not constitute justification for the maiming of a free flowing section of river, IMO.

I realize the dam is here to stay, but I don't have to like it. In that sense, my suggestion that they take the dam out was farcical. All the same, if it were up to me, the dam would not be there. I consider it an insult to the river. I'm not the least bit interested in how all of this ties in to the supposed viewpoint of fly anglers that they are somehow more important then other users. It has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter and in my view, is an unrelated issue.

 

[Chaz]

Connie and Diane struck the North Carolina coast only five days apart, Hazel was '54. I happen to remember all 3, but I can't remember why I went to the hardware store without a note.
As for an arguement for a free flowing river, I'm with RleeP. There was a long fight to keep the Tocks Island Dam from being built on the mid Delaware, there are again rumblings to build a flood control dam on the Delaware.

 

[pcray1231]

As far as where cities were built, we have to keep in mind that these cities started when the water was the primary mode to transport goods, as well as the primary source of power. So that's where the factories/jobs went. And with poor transportation, people lived close to their jobs.

 

[krayfish]

Finally the PFC is addressing this. I have been hoping that something would be done with Raystown for 15+ years. As for the Lehigh, it's wishful thinking. The demand for rafting releases almost makes it impossible to maintain cool water release w/o depleting the cold water pool. The would need releases multiple depths. I hope they can figure some kind of plan out for the Lehigh.


As for the gripe of cold water releases ruining the existing fisheries...that's crap. I'll use the Delaware as an example because it's the most famous in our neck of the woods and it's the tailwater that I'm most familiar with. I have fished to rising trout on the WB while the guy across the river from me was yanking out 24" walleye. Anyone ever fish for smallies on that system? (beeber is very familiar with bass fishing on the river). I live less than a mile from the Susquehanna and haven't fished it in 7-8 years. I would bass fish on the Delaware because it holds a lot of fish and good sized fish. Is it helped by cold water releases? No clue but it surely doesn't seem to be hurting the fishery.

If the PFC does get a few of these fisheries up and running, I hope they stock fingerlings and allow the fish to reproduce on their own. Once the population can sustain, limit the number / size of fish that can be kept. Cease stocking. Close in to fishing from Nov 1 - April 1 to protect spawning areas. There will then be the issue of dydimo, zebra muscles and other unwanted problems that seem to plague tailwaters. I hope they are successful with this idea.

 

[LehighRegular]

Krayfish...

The time is now to strike while the irons are hot. Contact/write your local commissioner and tell them what you want with Raystown.

As for the Lehigh....there is no doubt any changes there to sustain the coldwater will need a new discharge tower in the Reservoir. This is going to take money and politics. If the PFBC can really get behind this effort, and I mean wholeheartedly, it might get done. It will also take a significant amount of angler support.