Mdc's Trout Habitat Project

[Outside Bend]

Part I. Part II to follow...

  On 11/3/2011 at 1:52 AM, drew03cmc said:

I will tell you where an unnatural spring creek trout fishery should take precedence. That point is when the trout in the spring creek can sustain themselves without the assistance of big brother and the hatcheries. Crane could benefit from A big boulder in the bridge hole, mic says that Blue Spring Creek could benefit from some rocks in the creek, any of the wild trout creeks around Rolla could use some work done to add fish holding habitat.

Hell, even a fishery such as Capps Creek could benefit from a few boulders placed in runs, not to mention Hickory Creek which the boulders will add valuable fish holding habitat.

Taneycomo is a fishery for trout which may as well be sterile. These rocks will be rolled around and into a hole somewhere during our next high water event. I hope THAT goes into their little butt-kissing report as to how "well" they spent the money.

If we were talking about creating spawning habitat I'd agree, but these boulders are just current breaks and subsurface features. Fish need places to feed and hide regardless of whether they were born in a stream or born in a hatchery.

I'm all for trout habitat improvements, and I'm sure boulders in the small wild trout streams would really benefit holdover fish. But from a budgetary and logistics perspective, I can understand why MDC wouldn't want to hire a contractor and quarry for Taney, a contractor and quarry for Crane, a contractor and quarry for Capps and Hickory, a contractor and quarry for Mill and Spring Creek, and a contractor and quarry for Blue Springs. More anglers probably hit Taney in a weekend than those fisheries get in a month, and I totally understand why MDC would this much effort there. You guys have to remember the folks fishing Taney regularly are paying for the resource just the same as you.

Has anyone bothered to think about the potential damage? Sure rocks are great, but we should all know running heavy equipment in riparian zones isn't. Does having a track hoe perched on the banks of Crane or BSC really strike you guys as a good idea? I suppose you could place rocks near parking areas to minimize damage, but doesn't that just concentrate the fish in the places they're easiest to poach? Having rocks in a stream is great, but if it takes destabilizing stream banks to do it, what's the point?

[OldTackleCollector]

  On 11/2/2011 at 9:55 PM, drew03cmc said:

Dumb question from the peanut gallery...

What happens when they are running 8 units again? Aren't those small rocks going to get washed away? They can't weigh any more than 500 pounds max.

We only have 4 units.

There are much smaller rocks in the stream bed that have not moved, even through this spring's flow.

From what I gathered from the Internet, the average weight of a Limestone boulder is around 170 pounds per cubic foot. The new Taney boulders are different sizes and shapes of course, but a boulder that is 2 foot square, or 8 cubic feet, would equal 1360 pounds. A 3 foot square boulder, or 27 cubic feet, would equal 4590 pounds. I would hazard a guess that the average new Taney boulder weighs between around 1500 - 2000 pounds. Regardless of their weight, I too believe that the next great flood will displace the clusters mainly because of their location and large surface area, and probably push them into the shallow depressions that will soon develop behind each of them.

- David

[eric1978]

  On 11/3/2011 at 2:46 AM, lilley said:

Money was a grant, Bass Pro and a federal entity.

Not trying to make it look natural. Never said that.

As I've said many times... trying to create pockets to hold trout where before it was flat with no holes or pockets. Can't dig a hole- it would just get filled in.

In that case I'm all for it. You can understand the confusion since MDC is doing the work. Should be a nice change.

[Phil Lilley]

I don't think what MDC is doing is perfect... we talked about using wood like cedar bins, root wades and other habitat objects but the easiest and cheapest was rocks. We could talk about doing more with wood at a later date, after we see how this works. But we'll have to find another way to fund it. This is the last of this grant, I believe.

I also don't agree with the placement of some of the clusters so far, mainly the fact they've been placed in boating lanes. Yes they left the middle open but when there are boats drifting down, running up by drifting boats will be very tricky, to use Bill's words, at some lake levels. Our first plan was to place rocks on only one side. We have rocks on both side and not on the sides only. Good for waders and bank fishers but bad for boaters.

[Smalliebigs]

I know I won't take my boat up to the cable until I here from buddy on how bad it is up there.That means no funds from this money whore and I spend a ton when we are there....thats too bad for Taney and it's business owners.

I agree with Bill.......... if the MDC doesn't want boaters on the upper end have the balls and be honest about it, and address the issue you have in a more direct manner. I wade fish and fish from a boat but, prefer to do both when I'm at Taney if we a re lucky with the generation. Those rocks will keep my boat away from there uless I can rent one from Phil and be allowed to go to the cable.

[Andrew324]

  On 11/3/2011 at 2:51 AM, siusaluki said:

At least they are doing some habitat work. Most of the smaller trout streams get input from woody debris, taney doesn't have that luxury. Most of the wild trout creeks need habitat protection rather than habitat improvement. Fix erosion problems and such, rather than run a backhoe in to drop some rocks. The rocks will move during floods, but they will probably end up in more natural locations and still provide fish habitat.

Yep, small creeks like Crane need protection more than habitat improvement. When the city placed all the rocks in the Crane city park, I remember being worried about what was going to happen. Those rocks probably saved that stream from those torrential rains we had in April. A downed tree is more of a habitat for a stream bred trout than is a giant chunk of limestone. Blue ribbon water ought to be approached more conservatively than white ribbons, trout parks, and Taney.

[Outside Bend]

I love wild trout, and the bulk of angling I do in this state is on the wild trout waters. But I have no sympathy for the idea MDC isn’t doing enough for our wild trout streams.

They’ve protected 800 acres and 3.2 miles of trout stream in the Crane watershed.

They‘ve protected nearly 860 acres and 3.7 miles of BSC.

They’ve purchased and conserved 400+ acres and 1.2 miles of publicly accessible wild trout water on Mill Creek. Not to mention the willow plantings and log structures they've put in that stream.

How would these places fare without MDC‘s efforts? If they were in private ownership, inaccessible to the public, grazed to the bank, widened and shallowed due to livestock, choked with gravel and cow turds? You think there’d be more trout habitat? Better fish populations? More quality fish? The reality is MDC has done a ton to benefit these streams, and if the fisheries are suffering it’s not due to a lack of investment on MDC’s part.

I’ve worked a few trout habitat projects out west ,and they don’t happen because the state fish and game agency was loaded. They happen when anglers invest themselves in their fisheries. FFF and TU chapters nationwide have been doing EXACTLY the sort of habitat work you guys are clamoring for. It takes two to tango.

So where’s the initiative on the angler’s part?

-How much money are the state FF clubs putting into the Coldwater fund?

-Are they knocking on individual and corporate doors asking for donations?

-Has anyone gone to MDC with money in hand and the people necessary to do these projects?

-I know some clubs are heavily sponsoring the urban trout program- could those monies be better spent on wild trout?

-Are clubs actively soliciting MDC, Forest Service, etc with funds and manpower to do these sorts of projects?

-Are clubs doing fundraisers with proceeds to benefit stream habitat improvements?

-Are clubs engaging MDC, the public, the Conservation Commission, and making sure they know how much anglers value these fisheries?

As anglers, we have to own this. And from my perspective it seems like a lot of anglers want to talk about how important these wild fisheries are, want to talk about what a poor job MDC does of managing them, but doesn’t want to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty, or sacrifice a weekend they could be fishing improving those fisheries. You guys think MDCs habitat management is disappointing? I’m sure it’s disappointing for an MDC biologist to spend weeks or months coordinating with an angling group, creating a work plan, rounding up all the equipment and materials, and then having only having a fraction of the needed help showing up on a work day.

Talk is cheap. If we want to improve our wild trout fisheries, let’s act on it.

[eric1978]

  On 11/3/2011 at 4:51 PM, Outside Bend said:

But I have no sympathy for the idea MDC isn't doing enough for our wild trout streams.

What about the rest of the streams without trout that are roundly neglected? Every time I float a smallmouth stream I see plenty of work MDC could be doing, but it seems the bulk of the money goes to other projects, more often than not to a stream that has trout in it. MDC seems to prioritize according to what potentially brings in more revenue or what's easier to "justify" to the powers that be, instead of making decisions based purely upon ecological need. Is a river visited by only a dozen anglers a year less important to conserve than a river visited by a million? Not in my book, and since they are the department of conservation, and not the department of recreational revenue, they should pay more attention to the needs of the rivers instead of the desires of the anglers and the opinions of the bureaucrats.

Of course this conversation is now in the wrong thread since the Taney project was privately funded, but I still think it's a good one to have.

[Outside Bend]

  On 11/3/2011 at 5:30 PM, eric1978 said:

What about the rest of the streams without trout that are roundly neglected? Every time I float a smallmouth stream I see plenty of work MDC could be doing, but it seems the bulk of the money goes to other projects, more often than not to a stream that has trout in it.

Lots of the trout projects are very visible and very promoted by MDC. That doesn't mean the agency isn't spending millions working with private landowners to stabilize streambanks, create viable riparian corridors, and stabilize shifting gravel beds. They spend a lot of federal money protecting sensitive fish, mussels, and other critters- efforts that also benefit smallmouth and other native sport fish. Anglers don't see all this work because it's often happening on private ground, and in the headwaters. I'd love to see more work on the mainstem streams, but installing a revetment does no good if it blows out the next spring. We need to address the headwaters and basic hydrology issues of the streams in order to make subsequent habitat restoration on the mainstems worthwhile.

And again, I don't think we should leave anglers out of the equation. There's way more anglers out their than biologists, and if we want to improve ANY fishery in this state, we ought to take some responsibility for it. If an MDC biologist can't round up enough folks to complete a hundred feet of revetment on Mill Creek,there's no chance they're going to tackle miles of revetment on the mainstem Meramec or Gasconade. MSA does some great education and outreach, but when was the last time they engaged landowners on protecting streams and riparian corridors from livestock, or petitioned county governments for responsible gravel mining, worked to stabilize streambanks on public or private lands, or pulled together funding for management or research? If you want MDC to care about smallmouth (or trout or pickeral or whatever else), anglers ought to DEMONSTRATE they give a darn, not simply wax eloquent about the value of streams and navel gaze about how to improve our fisheries.

  Quote

MDC seems to prioritize according to what potentially brings in more revenue or what's easier to "justify" to the powers that be, instead of making decisions based purely upon ecological need. Is a river visited by only a dozen anglers a year less important to conserve than a river visited by a million? Not in my book...

What?

Let's look at Crane Creek. 818 acres, 3.2 miles of trout stream. Average around 270 fish per mile, or roughly 1000 fish in the three plus miles under MDC management. Figuring the property is worth $2000 an acre, that means MDC shelled out more than $1600 per fish, to conserve and protect that system. For a fishery that maybe sees a couple thousand anglers a year.

To put that in perspective, the new renovations at Bennett cost the Department $2,375,000, and will produce 360,000 fish a year. That's less than seven bucks a fish. And that park gets 180,000 anglers a year. I know it's just meatball math, but the point is MDC spends a ton of money protecting our small wild trout streams. The idea they're sacrificing those fisheries for the big draws like Taney and Bennett just doesn't hold water. If anything, they're putting a lot of money into fisheries which will provide a pretty small return.

  Quote

and since they are the department of conservation, and not the department of recreational revenue, they should pay more attention to the needs of the rivers instead of the desires of the anglers and the opinions of the bureaucrats.

True, but a big part of it is strategy. I doubt MDC could justify spending a thousand bucks per fish on Crane or BSC if they didn't have a million guys pounding Taney and the trout parks every year, spending money on gas, Powerbait, marabou jigs and jointed Rapalas. If a minor investment in rock and labor (really no investment if it was all donated), keeps those crowds happy and buying licenses and tackle, it provides MDC the funds to continue conserving those little wild trout streams.

As far as smallmouth go, a lot of it is apples to oranges. There are more external funding sources for trout than smallmouth, so if MDC has to fund 20% or 50% of a trout project vs. 80% or 100% of a smallie project, of course they'll prefer the cheaper project. And if the non-trout streams of the Ozarks are in such dire straights, it shouldn't be just on MDC to sort it out. MSA, FF organizations, whoever has an interest in those watersheds should put some stake in the game.

As far as

[Justin Spencer]

  Quote

Talk is cheap. If we want to improve our wild trout fisheries, let’s act on it.

Well said!

We all want govt. to stay out of our business until it is something we care about then they need to pay to improve it. We get mad when they spend money in ways we don't like thinking it could be better spent other ways.

If there are areas that you care deeply about, trout water, smallmouth water or others then it is up to you to get a group together, formulate a plan and act on it. Most of these improvements don't cost much money they just take a little elbow grease. If we all quit bitching and moaning and instead put that effort into actually doing something productive we might actually see improvements in areas where they are needed. Discussions like these are good places to start, if Crane needs a big boulder in the bridge hole, get it done shouldn't be that hard. If some other small waters need some boulders look at where they need them, see if you can get a dumptruck and a backhoe in there and get it done! On streams, access is going to be the biggest obstacle, can't very well put a 2000 pound rock in a canoe.