Should streams be managed for the angler or the fish? I haven't fished Clarks in years, so I don't know how "bad" these logjams really are. I am sure they make it more difficult to fish or stock. But, are they adversely affecting the fish population? Or no one knows because it's so hard to fish now, right? ;-)
Using a metric of "the stream isn't what it was ten years ago" probably is not using the right measuring stick. Ten years ago, the PFBC stocked more fish. And fluvial systems change. If nothing is done, ten years from now, Clarks may be much better than it was twenty years prior. Or it may be much worse, but the logjams might have nothing to do with that. My last impressions of Clarks in the FFO area was sand, sand, sand and that followed logging adjacent to and above the reservoir.
I've seen some real brain-dead treatment of logs in streams, I assume under the guise of "management". In several streams I've fished, some really nice logjams developed and created some really nice habitat. Both streams fished well in those areas. Then, someone with a chainsaw came along and cut up the log. The jam dispersed. So did the fish.
On Kinzua Creek, years ago we enjoyed some phenomenal fishing in logjams. The logjams were brookie magnets and were located well above or below stocking points. A single cast or two that most anglers might allocate to this habitat might not reveal much. But they held dozens of fish and usually a breeder or two. Rather than curse them, we fished them and enjoyed them. While they seemed pretty sturdy (big four-foot diameter trees anchoring them), nature took them away and now there is just mostly open, unproductive water where they were previously located.
