Mdc Meeting On Trout Habitat

[laker67]

Back about 1975, I fished here in the fall. This what I remember.

Blue was the channel and it was deep. I remember I found a place to wade across and it was where the arrow is but I barely could get thru without water coming over my chest waders. Tippy-toe.

The Green spots were guys stood shoulder-to-shoulder fishing trout roe. They'd hook a big fish, yell and start heading downstream to rebar where 80% of the time they'd get broke off. They'd come back to their place in line with no fish.

So the gravel in this area is deep. The channel has the potential to be deep again, just have to figure how.

You and I must be the same height, I had to tip toe as well and was scared to death they would run water every time I crossed. Your map is right on. The rebar hole we know today was more of a back eddy then. Sorry to get off topic. I am glad you remember what the old water looked like since you are on this committee. The deep channels that ran from the dam to the guantlet is what we need again. There were only about 2 areas that you could wade across. This might not be good for a safety issue, but great for fish. If you want to fish the south side then park on that side. Thanks for investing your time in this Phil.

[Phil Lilley]

You and I must be the same height, I had to tip toe as well and was scared to death they would run water every time I crossed. Your map is right on. The rebar hole we know today was more of a back eddy then. Sorry to get off topic. I am glad you remember what the old water looked like since you are on this committee. The deep channels that ran from the dam to the guantlet is what we need again. There were only about 2 areas that you could wade across. This might not be good for a safety issue, but great for fish. If you want to fish the south side then park on that side. Thanks for investing your time in this Phil.

I never did go down to where the rebar is now so I don't know what it looked like.

Rick- did the channel just continue down straight or did it bend to the south alittle?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Phil, those are ALL great ideas. One thing I will mention from guiding at Bull Shoals Dam after the project was complete is, yes we have to get use to those boulders. But I can tell you from experience you will hit them with your prop that’s a fact. Everyone who guides on the White will tell you they have hit them. The only problem is when they are just under the water and you can’t see them. People who are not from here will have a rude awakening if they don’t know about it. I’ve seen boats get stuck and we have had to pull them off. With saying that, I think we need it and it is a matter of getting use to it. I personally didn’t like what they did to the White, but now I’m starting to like it. This year we noticed more warm water fish holding behind the structures so if there is any hold over fish from Table Rock they will certainly like it.

[Jeremy Hunt]

Oh, any big rock they do put in needs to be flat on the top. They also created the rock to be more in a pyramid shape. The trees should be along the banks. From what I notice the trees in the middle of the river are washing away, but along the banks they seem to be fine.

For the streamer guys out there, this would definitely help get more browns to come out of the wood work. Once they did this to the White, the streamer bite was a lot better up top. And that is something this tailwater system is lacking if you ask me. I would love to see big streamers work in the upper section, the only reason why they don’t for the most part is its just a big open body of water.

[Phil Lilley]

You're right... just like new trees lodged in the channel down here closer to our place. It's all part of being careful on any lake and especially rivers. Things change, whether it's man made or naturally created.

These "boulders" don't have to be huge. I'm just not sure. This is new to me. But I think we can do this with boaters in mind... with no guarantees though.

Great comments though!!!

[laker67]

I never did go down to where the rebar is now so I don't know what it looked like.

Rick- did the channel just continue down straight or did it bend to the south alittle?

Running east it made a "J" shaped bend to the south and dumped into a deep hole much like the old #2 outlet. This deep hole tailed out and ran down the existing south bank about where the tree stump is now. From the area that we tip toed across, it made a giant "S" bend. Like you said, it was a great fish holding area. The rainbows built spawning nests through out this entire area. At the end of what we call the guantlet, the big hole was actually a "big deep hole" north to south, bank to bank. That was where the bait fishermen fished all night with laterns. Back then taney continually produced lots of big rainbows. It seems like when we lost the deep water on the upper end, the numbers of big rainbows went on a downhill slide. Lots of good ideas out there and I personally think that deeper water is the key. Give those fish some holding areas like we had in the 70's.

[Bill Babler]

Laker67, I completely agree with you, and not just from a navigational standpoint. I brought up the subject, of really not removal but the creatiion of some deeper holes and also below outlet 3, perhaps cutting a ditch to the deeper water, say 4 to 6 ft. deep, allowing a current break. It was made pretty clear as Phil has stated that removal or rearangement was not going to happen.

They want to add the rocks, and structure.

If you have fished the upper zone from the cable to the ramp as much as I have during generation, you know the majority of fish are caught in the deeper runs. ie Big Hole and Rebar. It would in my humble opinion be much better to create more deep holes than it would to add structure. I really don't know how much they will use it anyway. During heavy flow the fish congreate in either deep areas, or move to the sides. I am sure a water break with some disruption in the current would for sure hold some fish, but how many?

Under zero generation, the location that they are wanting to put sturcture is going to be pretty shallow. Again for the most part the fish seem to congreate in water that has some movement. ie the channel.

Their formost idea on this project is to spread out the fishermen during minimal or zero flow. They would like to see the zone from the cable to the conservation ramp be used totally instead of from outlet 3 to the cable. They are trying to create more wadable fishable water to the ramp. The problem is from Big Hole to the ramp on that side is very hard to wade due to depth and the very hard footing that is created by the already large rocks in the area. It on the other hand is very wadable from the opposite bank, if we could get more entry on the KOA side, once you get below Big Hole.

They had this shallow flat marked for pretty heavy deposits of structure, and it seemed that River Run Outfitters,was really against this. They tend to fish this area a lot during both zero and high flow, and I believe they were aftaid of damage to their drift boats. I see their points. That area is not broke, so why try and fix it. It was pointed out that this particular area holds lots of grass that the trout are congreating in and maybe should be left as is. On constant heavy flow this is a fantastic area, as the trout tend to move to this side and hold in the slacker or softer current. I tend to agree with them.

I believe Kent Turner brought up a point about a new hiking trail, coming into that area.

From Big Hole to the KOA is some very nice wadable water, if the access was just better. Which brings up the point of distribution of the fishermen, if the access was better, would that tend to help with the over crowding problem?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Great points, which I think are all good for wadable opportunities. I think it will help with the crowding, but I also think it boils down to who wants to walk that far. I think that’s a lot of why people don’t go down lower sections, which is great water and less crowded. It’s well worth the walk.

[brownieman]

The boulders were used for this a few years back at Montauk towards the lower end of the park in marginal flat water to try to create some pockets.

I saw this effort with a trac hoe used, it appeared to be a pretty big trac hoe but I don't know much about trac hoe sizes, and it really wouldn't support a very large boulder without tipping the hoe when the arm got extended out...really surprised me, I thought it would have handled larger boulders.

Just guessing, half as big as a VW Bug?? somewhere in there. Far as I can tell they have stayed and created some small pockets behind, to the sides and filled gravel above...typical.

To create a nice pocket will take a much larger boulder than one would think...don't know how big, but big from what I've seen these do.

Getting huge boulders in there would be a challenge...maybe a monster chopper... sounds stupid but a chopper would do the least damage. Maybe one could be rented at one of these equipment rental places, lol.

later on

[Brian K. Shaffer]

message edited