Fish kill on Garvin?

The latest conservation news, issues, or concerns in our backyard, city, state, or country.
S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

If one was to take all the wasted money spent on poorly designed "in stream habitat" projects and used it to purchase land surrounding trout streams and then actually manage that land for runoff retention a much greater impact on stream health would be realized.
“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

High Stick
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by High Stick »

I don't disagree with that premise; however, getting farmers to sell said land would be a tough sell. Does that land then become eased? Who has access to it and for what activities?

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

It would become state owned property. It would be a hard sell to some and easy to others. You cant plant corn in the woods. You could however put in retention ponds in the uplands as well as several more (in some instances) between the upland and where the drainage reaches the stream. I believe that with the recent past and present ag markets it would be an easy sell to some.
“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

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

How much money has been spent on failed projects? at 3-3.5K per acre of wooded property the land mass starts to accumulate pretty quickly. Thinking to the future, What will the legacy money be used for once the streams have all been "improved"?
“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

High Stick
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by High Stick »

LSOHC money goes all over the place, other than trout stream restoration. I personally think the LSOHC should suspend all funding requests from TU until they get their stream restoration methodology straightened out. Plainly put, they've wasted so much of it already, why would you give them any more?

On a sidenote abut woody debris, I talked to a friend who lives/fishes Wisconsin for many decades. Sounds like Rosgen/woody debris is starting to become more common there, too.

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

High Stick wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:26 am
LSOHC money goes all over the place, other than trout stream restoration. I personally think the LSOHC should suspend all funding requests from TU until they get their stream restoration methodology straightened out. Plainly put, they've wasted so much of it already, why would you give them any more?

On a sidenote abut woody debris, I talked to a friend who lives/fishes Wisconsin for many decades. Sounds like Rosgen/woody debris is starting to become more common there, too.
YUCK
“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: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by brntrout »

S.T.Fanatic wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:15 am
If one was to take all the wasted money spent on poorly designed "in stream habitat" projects and used it to purchase land surrounding trout streams and then actually manage that land for runoff retention a much greater impact on stream health would be realized.


That is under the premise landowners are willing to sell. Keep in mind LSOHC funding will only "pay fair market value" for land and will not over pay. I'm guessing that would be a problem when trying to purchase land. Another problem is attempting to buy enough land surrounding any particular stream to provide "meaningful watershed protection"is highly unlikely to happen.

Again, I doubt enough land could be bought for that to happen. However, for analogy sake. if enough land was bought surrounding a particular stream I could see where it would improve overall "stream health"! Still that does nothing for improving trout stream habitat if the stream is left in its degraded stated (which they all are). And, if your reply is if the stream watershed is protected the stream will heel itself and habitat will improve in a meaningful way, I say I have yet to see that happen anywhere in SE MN.
High Stick wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:26 am
LSOHC money goes all over the place, other than trout stream restoration. I personally think the LSOHC should suspend all funding requests from TU until they get their stream restoration methodology straightened out. Plainly put, they've wasted so much of it already, why would you give them any more?

On a sidenote abut woody debris, I talked to a friend who lives/fishes Wisconsin for many decades. Sounds like Rosgen/woody debris is starting to become more common there, too.
I agree LSOHC funding should not be used for "STREAM RESTORATION"! The words in caps tell the story as it applies to the current state of MNTU/MN DNR Eco Services stream work. STREAM RESTORATION improves stream function, IT USUALLY DOES LITTLE TO IMPROVE TROUT HABITAT! The point being, LSOHC funds should be used to do TROUT STREAM HABITAT IMPROVEMENT, NOT STREAM RESTORATION WORK! BTW even Lanesboro DNR Fisheries agrees with that last statement!

Regarding WI DNR switching to Rosgen Woody Debris type stream work, I believe that is partly true, I know they still use rock as there primary bank stabilization material and the use of wood is being used more often instead of other bank hide structures. IMO its a move to cut costs and its easier to repair flood damaged projects if there are less bank hide structures to work around. It should be recognized the severity of NASTY flooding is going to be a given it the future and projects will need to be designed more heavy duty to withstand this continued onslaught of severe flooding!

Unfortunately, there has been so much Rosgen's brainwashing going on that many people/agencies have drank the Rosgen's koolaide simply because others have bought into it without proof it even works. Actually, the only proof we have, is it doesn't work in the driftless area, nor does this kind of work provide any meaningful trout habitat either as there is zero data to support it. What's even more disturbing is those who have bought into this method of STREAM WORK refuse to believe it doesn't work even though there is plenty of actual proof that proves it doesn't!
Last edited by brntrout on Tue Oct 01, 2019 1:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

brntrout
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by brntrout »

Just for confirmation I called a friend of mine who is a WI DNR Fisheries Staff person on the Driftless Area Management Team to ask him about their trout stream habitat program. In his own words they are NOT doing any Rosgen's type stream work in the "Driftless Area". He did say, they are using more wood for cover but everything else they do for habitat work is the same as in the past. "He stated" we still use a ton of rock, use weirs, create deeper pool areas for brown trout and not create as much deep water pool areas for brook trout stream projects.

The bottom line, WI DNR "in the Driftless Area" has NOT switched to the Rosgen's methodology of trout habitat work!

However, He did say, there is some movement to try the Rosgen's method in other areas of WI that have far less gradient and little if any severe flooding!

S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1119
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

brntrout wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 11:07 am
S.T.Fanatic wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:15 am
If one was to take all the wasted money spent on poorly designed "in stream habitat" projects and used it to purchase land surrounding trout streams and then actually manage that land for runoff retention a much greater impact on stream health would be realized.


That is under the premise landowners are willing to sell. Keep in mind LSOHC funding will only "pay fair market value" for land and will not over pay. I'm guessing that would be a problem when trying to purchase land. Another problem is attempting to buy enough land surrounding any particular stream to provide "meaningful watershed protection"is highly unlikely to happen.

Again, I doubt enough land could be bought for that to happen. However, for analogy sake. if enough land was bought surrounding a particular stream I could see where it would improve overall "stream health"! Still that does nothing for improving trout stream habitat if the stream is left in its degraded stated (which they all are). And, if your reply is if the stream watershed is protected the stream will heel itself and habitat will improve in a meaningful way, I say I have yet to see that happen anywhere in SE MN.
Also keep in mind that this problem will out live us and our great grand children if not addressed. One property might get secured (for fair market value) and it might be another 10 years before another one is able to be secured. So be it. This problem is bigger than us and for a world that has been here for thousands of years and will possibly be here for thousands more we have to start somewhere. We need to start addressing the problem on the front as opposed to the back (which is what stream restoration is/does)

Why do any instream work when the ENTIRE watershed is out of whack?
“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: 3131
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Fish kill on Garvin?

Post by brntrout »

You're right, the problem is bigger "than us", its about 7+ billion more than us. Which why none of these Ecological problems can ever be addressed by thinking we will take out vast sums of land from crop production to improve Ecological conditions. It really boils down to producing goods and services for the masses ( 7+ billion and growing)which means "more utilization of our natural resources not less"!

You're also right in saying entire watersheds are out of whack, but in reality its the entire Eco system of the planet that is out of whack, not just a few watersheds!

That leaves us with what we can be done for our trout streams within our artificially managed watersheds/Eco systems, which is do in-stream 'Habitat Improvement' work. While that it is a very temporary solution, at least it is far better than leaving everything in a totally artificial degraded state.

There is no such thing as pure stream restoration unless the clock can be turned back and everything regarding our Eco systems is fully recovered/restored back to normal. That is impossible, because what once was for animal and plant species has been wiped out or replaced with invasive species further screwing up our Eco systems/watersheds!

Unless the human population is reduced by billions there is no restoring anything, even then its still impossible as tens of thousands of species have been wiped out by man in the name of progress!

Post Reply