Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

General trout, fishing, conservation, or anything outdoors related discussion. Trip reports and stream conditions welcome, but please do not name streams.
POLITICAL FREE ZONE
High Stick
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by High Stick »

I didn't realize there were 2000 TCTU members. That's a much bigger number than I would have guessed, and they all overwhelmingly reject the use of skyhooks? Ok, if you say so.

So to summarize:

1. The photos weren't a fair representation and deck stacking (i/e fake news)
2. Rock is too expensive...when it does blow out
3. Skyhooks don't work at all
4. Other chapters should go ahead and use rock if they want

Ironically, there is a tour going on right now examining EIC, Rush, Pine, and Garvin and the massive project failures those were. They should also stop by the Middle Branch of the Whitewater and take a gander at that twice failed project as well.

High Stick
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by High Stick »

Did TCTU do the Trout Brook Project in Miesville? The above the water root wad placement was an interesting approach.
Attachments
trout_brook.jpg

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

habitat wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:55 am
I have a number of issues in how you are presenting your photos. First off, I agree with the use of rock in the appropriate places. Though the "curb & gutter" w/lots of rock design I have seen done of some SE MN streams is way too expensive & when they blow out and they will, it leaves the stream with no protection at all. The photos of Rush Creek were interesting but taken right after snow melt when the banks are all ugly. It takes away from the issue of collapsed banks, but I suppose when you are trying to build a case, then you stack the deck. The other problem is the examples of good sections still had snow on them to give a cleaner look. The other issue is those clean stretches appear to be extremely wide and shallow & show no habitat at all. so what's the point. By the way the 2000 members of the TC chapter overwhelmingly reject the use of skyhooks in our projects. I have never seen one that wasn't silted in or collapsed or nearly collapsed and again when they go, they go big. If other chapters wish to have them, go for it, I don't object myself. As to getting Eco-waters to agree to bring back a judicious use of rock is on-going project for MNTU and as has been noted in some of the posts, with the extreme flood events we get, repairs and new projects will demand more rock in the right places. For those chapters that choose to use more rock than others, that's ok. For the rest, we will, especially in sandy soils like Rush Creek will have to budget for an occasional blowout and repair cuz when you rely heavily on prairie to maintain the banks, that can take years to establish but With proper planning, those can be minimized.
The 2000 members of TCTU is meaningless in comparison to the non TU members that trout fish from Minnesota, across the country, and far off distant lands. I hate how TU thinks their the voice of trout fisherman. I and many of my trout fishing peers disagree with almost anything TU related.

IF the rock washes away like you say it will (only it wont) it would leave the banks in the same condition that the pre project design that you love so much.

READ THIS: I HATE STREAMS WITH HABITAT WORK ON THEM

If I have to chose the lesser of two IMO evils I would choose the proven rock and lunker design every time.
“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: 3147
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by brntrout »

I just got back from the tour that was held today. Every stream project we toured as a group, in crucial areas (outside banks)where in-stream habitat should have been installed that did not utilize rock was washed away, sometimes severely. Even non crucial areas (straight reaches) where rock was not used had numerous erosion problems.

On other projects we visited that utilized rock in the same type of areas, we saw very few if any major erosion problems, In fact all projects completed by many different designers from 1960's up to present time that utilized rock and had decent bank sloping where 90% intact and some were even better.

The bottom line, go check out all the bad designed (no rock) projects for yourself, you will soon see the truth has been told again. SEEING IS BELIEVING!

BTW, the tour was a great success, positive changes are on the way. During the tour everyone was very respectful of each other and lots of great dialog took place. Exact details are still being ironed out, but eventually it will lead to getting back on track with good H.I. work that is not only durable but provides significant in- stream habitat for trout.

In particular the LSOHC people took charge, and did a super job on the tour, I was very impressed with them all!

ADDED: Besides, the great job LSOHC did, the MN DNR Staff folks did a super job as well, as it takes all of us working together to make positive changes happen. What might have been a tough day, ended up being a very enjoyable day shared with many willing to make a real difference, it could have went the other way, but it did not! :D :D :D :D

SPECIAL THANKS, to all who sent emails, pictures, or letters to the LSOHC and MN DNR asking for positive changes in the trout habitat program to get it back on track so we can make our trout resource the best it can be! YOU HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE!!!

Having said that, no more letters, emails or pictures are required! 8-) AGAIN GREAT JOB GUYS!


















have not
Last edited by brntrout on Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by Cutthroat »

That's fantastic, Tom! Thanks for the update.

User avatar
TFO5wt
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by TFO5wt »

Great news Tom. Thanks for taking the lead.
Simply put, people fish because it's fun

habitat
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by habitat »

Ok, so Mr. Stick doesnt like commentary from his peers. Is TU the voice of trout world in general? No, but we do most of the work to improve trout fishing in MN. I have for 35 years, but we welcome non-members to join us. When we do our buckthorn clearing, many times we have more non-members than members helping. I am glad you guys had a good day with the DNR and others and maybe that is the push we needed to get proper proven methods back in our restorations. The floods we had this spring was historic. The levels of water and the duration was beyond anything I have seen on my 35 years on Hay Creek. luckily most all of the improved sections were fine and the fishing was great. I saw areas along a road that had been rip-rapped by the highway dept years ago with huge rock that was mostly blown out and our stretch just downstream the rock on the bank was still there but some of the sandy soil behind it had been scoured. The culvert at 320th was over-topped for nearly 2 weeks. By the way, some of the worst repairs we have had to do was from lost large rock & collapsed skyhooks on the oldest 3000 feet of the restored sections on Hay. With todays tours, let us come together to restore streams that are enjoyable and long lasting. Also, the picture of the toe wood section on Trout Brook in Miesville was done by the county not TU.

High Stick
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by High Stick »

Actually, I enjoy commentary from my peers. I just don't necessarily view TCTU as my peer at this point. When you talk about all of your members not wanting skyhooks, then our conversation has some large brush strokes. Interesting that your last rant was about the oldest 3000 feet of a project.

I find the use of historic flooding comical and overused. You're bright enough to realize that these historic levels happen often in the Driftless, especially since the '07 Rushford flood?

The reality is that MNTU and even the DNR in general doesn't like comments from anyone critical of their work. The sad reality that they do need to be called on the carpet for the pathetic, embarrassing, and wasteful Rosgen based projects. OR are we still talking skyhooks?

brntrout
Posts: 3147
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by brntrout »

At this point, we are moving forward to resolve the problems of the past poorly designed projects. Dwelling on past mistakes over and over doesn't resolve anything. Instead, its time to develop new stream design plans so we do not make the same mistakes again!

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

Re: Resolving the Current Trout Habitat Problem

Post by Cutthroat »

brntrout wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:40 pm
At this point, we are moving forward to resolve the problems of the past poorly designed projects. Dwelling on past mistakes over and over doesn't resolve anything. Instead, its time to develop new stream design plans so we do not make the same mistakes again!
I agree. You can't change the past. Learn from your mistakes and do better going forward. No one wants, shitty, blown-out trout streams or wantonly wastes millions of dollars on ineffective HI. People just need to be open to changing their opinions (and tossing out their pride) when facts/solutions are presented.

Post Reply