TU asks for Help on Dawt Mill Dam

[fishinwrench]

I say leave it be and let nature reclaim it like they have done with the old lock & dam on the Osage.  Everybody knows it's a dangerous spot so if they value their existence they'll respect it.  

It should be nobodys responsibility to eliminate every potential hazard on every watershed.  If it's the trout being eaten by stripers that you're concerned about....then blame the biologists who decided it was a good idea to stock the stripers.  If the dam MUST be fixed for that reason alone then hold the striper stockers responsible for fixing it, since apparently they failed to take into consideration that someday that rickety old dam might collapse. 

[ness]

Looks like they had a meeting last night. Hope somebody here can fill us in on the discussion.

It's certainly a big unknown. I'm generally in favor of removing old, obsolete dams too. But we're not talking about impeding a salmon run here. And I agree they can't or shouldn't try to remove every single danger from the water. Except maybe that root wad/sweeper just below the the put in at Kelly.

We've got two man made ecosystems that have a great deal of appeal as they are. Upsetting the balance could conceivably spoil one or both.

Haven't been down as far as Dawt in probably 15 years. It was ugly then. I always thought it served to separate the rough fish fishermen below from the more refined trout fishermen above. Kinda like Trump Wall will do at our southern border.

 

[BilletHead]

           Hey I caught my first fly rod striper right below Dawt, I could see the dam and the bridge right below it. Wadda you trying to tell me Ness? I have no taste? Unrefined? Guess I should go back West and snub my fellow flat landers?

BilletHead

[ness]

Just now, BilletHead said:

           Hey I caught my first fly rod striper right below Dawt, I could see the dam and the bridge right below it. Wadda you trying to tell me Ness? I have no taste? Unrefined? Guess I should go back West and snub my fellow flat landers?

BilletHead

I think the fly rod brings you up a notch or two. Exception to the rule granted

 

[BilletHead]

     # TLM and # SLM     Trout lives matter and Striper lives matter. Can't we all get along? A dam like the Trump wall should not be the separation between fishes .

BilletHead

[Lancer09]

I don't think it should be anyone's responsibility to remove all risks from a river. However when something that was man made, neglected by man, and cost the life of someone because of what could be argued negligence you've got to either fix the thing or remove it. There is hardly any water storage done by Dawt's dam, so that's a moot point to me at this stage. Just get the thing out of there and move on. If for some reason the stripers ruin the trout fishing, stop stocking the stripers and in 20 years the stripers will be long and dead and the trout will come back, frankly neither of them really belong here, but are big economic drivers for the area. 

[Riverwhy]

I would love to see the dam removed and I would love to see the river returned to sportsmen and not limited to catering to the 1%.  The North Fork once supported much greater number of smallmouth and goggle-eye before the stream was turned into a huge man made aquarium for trout. 

I do believe the Dawt owners should be held to account for the dam.  They sure had no problem cutting off access to folks wanting to enter or exit the river so now they need to fix their issue.

 

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, Lancer09 said:

I don't think it should be anyone's responsibility to remove all risks from a river. However when something that was man made, neglected by man, and cost the life of someone because of what could be argued negligence you've got to either fix the thing or remove it. 

I had that exact thought at first, and then it occurred to me that the dam didn't reach out, grab someone randomly and gobble them up.  

When people run out into traffic and get run over we don't alter the highway.  We might put up a sign if it happens at the same place more than once just to remind the idiots among us that jumping into moving traffic can be a bad idea.

It always intrigued me how people made it through life long enough to have a driver's license....and then get hit by a train at a RR Xing.   

[Lancer09]

46 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

I had that exact thought at first, and then it occurred to me that the dam didn't reach out, grab someone randomly and gobble them up.  

When people run out into traffic and get run over we don't alter the highway.  We might put up a sign if it happens at the same place more than once just to remind the idiots among us that jumping into moving traffic can be a bad idea.

It always intrigued me how people made it through life long enough to have a driver's license....and then get hit by a train at a RR Xing.   

Difference being this latest drowning wasn't a drunk floater, it was a young girl. I don't think that it is every outfitters duty to remove all dangers, teach everyone how to swim, and hold someone's hand through the whole float, but if they do have a clearly dangerous hazard on their property that is their doing or has gone into disrepair due to neglect then the thing should at least be removed. 

[MOPanfisher]

I pretty well agree Lancer09, what may be an issue is that the current owner didn't build the dam, do they still maintain liability/responsibility for its repair and/or removal?  As for cutting off the access, that sucks but if they own the access they can close it.  Maybe the state could make a deal with the owners, state removes the dam, in exchange the access becomes public forever.  Would be an expensive access for sure.