Fish kill on Garvin?

The latest conservation news, issues, or concerns in our backyard, city, state, or country.
User avatar
Randy
Site Admin
Posts: 782
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Rochester, MN

Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by Randy »


S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

I dropped my kid off for open gym and went down the hill to check things out. The kill seemed to be entirely up in farmers park. I did see some dead trout below where Peterson Cr. joins Garvin but thought more than likely those fish had washed down because I saw several live trout swimming around in the same pool. The kill up from Peterson in the park appeared to be a 100% kill as I did not see any living fish. As always It was more than likely to late to get any samples by the time the fish kill was realized. I talked with an older gentleman that spends quite a bit of time on upper Garvin and he made it sound like fungicide applications in the area in August were suspected to be the culprit.

As always it makes me wonder when TU Is going to start doing anything about the uplands instead of concentrating their entire efforts on in stream work. Sad.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold

brntrout
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by brntrout »

Not sure what caused this fish kill, but it isn't the first fish kill on Garvin Brook. Back in the late 90's or around 2000 there were 2 different fish kills detected in the Farmers Park area of Garvin Brook. At the time it was suspected someone had used bleach to poach fish.

It would be a great if watershed management could be dramatically improved but realistically i don't see how that is possible? After all MN DNR and others have spent millions in SE MN trying to improve watershed conditions/land use practices and results are not very impressive IMO!

So far SE MN streams now flood worse than ever before and most of our invertebrate populations are slowly being wiped out. Not good signs if one wants to correlate those things with improved watershed management? :(
Last edited by brntrout on Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cutthroat
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:42 pm
Location: Two Harbors, Minnesota

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by Cutthroat »

The sheer amount of rain that has been falling on Driftless Area watersheds in recent years (an on-going trend that shows no signs of letting up) should force local officials and farmers to wake-up and make adaptive changes to how they manage the landscape. Marginal farmland should be restored to forest or grassland/savanna, large feedlots and sewage lagoons should be illegal where they threaten surface and groundwater (ie most of the Driftless Area), and the application of manure or fertilizer on saturated or frozen soils should be prohibited.

Reasonably healthy watersheds CAN co-exist with common sense land-use practices.

brntrout
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by brntrout »

Cutthroat wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:48 am
The sheer amount of rain that has been falling on Driftless Area watersheds in recent years (an on-going trend that shows no signs of letting up) should force local officials and farmers to wake-up and make adaptive changes to how they manage the landscape. Marginal farmland should be restored to forest or grassland/savanna, large feedlots and sewage lagoons should be illegal where they threaten surface and groundwater (ie most of the Driftless Area), and the application of manure or fertilizer on saturated or frozen soils should be prohibited.

Reasonably healthy watersheds CAN co-exist with common sense land-use practices.
Cutthroat,

Most of what you mention has been pushed for decades by conservationists/government agencies, there is no doubt those are great ideas for improving watershed conditions. Unfortunately nobody is taking those types of changes seriously.

Maybe its because the last time row crops prices went through the roof, many farmers went out and spent a lot money on new equipment, more tiling, and removed land use conservation measures so they could plant extra acres of row crops to cash in on the high crop prices at the time. Of course, crop prices then fell like a rock only after a few years of being record highs. Now, its likely they can't afford to spent more money fixing the conservation measures they tore out and still have money left to pay for all that new high priced farm equipment?

Another thing that is highly likely, many of the wet land areas that were tiled out during the high crop price years are never going to pay off as ever increasing precipitation keeps those areas to wet to plant even when tiled. It adds up to more wasted money they will never recover.

I'm afraid many farmers have got themselves in non conservation rut they can't afford to get out of?

High Stick
Posts: 172
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by High Stick »

Maybe its because the last time row crops prices went through the roof, many farmers went out and spent a lot money on new equipment, more tiling, and removed land use conservation measures so they could plant extra acres of row crops to cash in on the high crop prices at the time. Of course, crop prices then fell like a rock only after a few years of being record highs. Now, its likely they can't afford to spent more money fixing the conservation measures they tore out and still have money left to pay for all that new high priced farm equipment?
Ahhh. Socialism.

Cutthroat
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:42 pm
Location: Two Harbors, Minnesota

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by Cutthroat »

High Stick wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:15 am
Maybe its because the last time row crops prices went through the roof, many farmers went out and spent a lot money on new equipment, more tiling, and removed land use conservation measures so they could plant extra acres of row crops to cash in on the high crop prices at the time. Of course, crop prices then fell like a rock only after a few years of being record highs. Now, its likely they can't afford to spent more money fixing the conservation measures they tore out and still have money left to pay for all that new high priced farm equipment?
Ahhh. Socialism.
LOL! Socialism has been a primary driver of the American farm economy since the 1930s.

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

Cutthroat wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 11:32 am
High Stick wrote:
Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:15 am
Maybe its because the last time row crops prices went through the roof, many farmers went out and spent a lot money on new equipment, more tiling, and removed land use conservation measures so they could plant extra acres of row crops to cash in on the high crop prices at the time. Of course, crop prices then fell like a rock only after a few years of being record highs. Now, its likely they can't afford to spent more money fixing the conservation measures they tore out and still have money left to pay for all that new high priced farm equipment?
Ahhh. Socialism.
LOL! Socialism has been a primary driver of the American farm economy since the 1930s.
I'd still rather see it buying farm equipment than Newports and 40's
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold

Cutthroat
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:42 pm
Location: Two Harbors, Minnesota

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by Cutthroat »

True enough. Me too.

WhiteGlovedHowdy
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:48 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by WhiteGlovedHowdy »

how about we keep the subject fly fishing.

Post Reply