HELLO...Hello...hello...

[grasspikerel]

Well you gotta give steve his due, he casts a big shadow over how USFWS and Vt Fish and Wildlife seem to be looking at things. Okay, most folks who really care are tuned into Steve's work. He 's certainly big influence on the Battenkill plans. Folks like us simply repeat what he has to say.  It's like one big last hope for those who've watched so much habitat down the tubes.  The thing is religion, belief, it brings hope, will it save us?  Will it save the Battenkill?  Lots of pressure!  Lol.  This is getting ridiculous. 

Well way back when, when the surrounding area was all forest, the White may not have gone up and down as it has.  I bet it's wider and don't forget the gravel mining impacts. It probably would have been far more stable.  Also, how big do you suppose the trees were that would fall into those streams?  Very old trees can be very thick and tall. It takes a while for them to grow that big.  What is the composition of our trees species compared to pre white man days.  So hard imagine how it was.  When folks clear a bank, that's a big deal, it takes a really long time to heal, to get that stable bank, overhead cover, stable cut bank .   

As for culverts, you mean if they clog up, would they present migration barriers?  I don't know many that are being removed.  I think there is more emphasis bridges instead of pipes and suppose that would help. I know many are being evaluated and some have been retrofitted.  I believe there have been benefits in the White River system already through retroffiting.

So with this Battenkill stuff, if it works will we be seeing big dead trees dropped all around the state?  Big dead trees behind your house?

[Fish Farmer]

Culverts are probably going to impact migration of fish upstream like on the White for example. The State had just started to do culvert surveys a few years ago.

Steve Roy is probably the most valuable trout biologist in the state. I would drink a beer with him any time....wait I have, lol.

I would like to see what does finally happen when the Kill gets fixed, as for it having a domino effect on other streams through the state.........doubtful. The Forest Service has been doing lots of habitat work for years and they have quite a bit of stream miles under their control. When I was working for them, there were three fish crews, two in the north half, one in the south. We were surveying habitat, counting fish and then following through with adding wood on big rivers and tiny trickles. There is a X amount of wood that is formulated to be needed in X miles of stream. We just followed Steve's direction. Sure some of it has blown out, but I bet most of the wood on some of the smaller brookie tribs is still there.

I think the big issue is finding large enough trees to do the job, if you are going to be cost effective and not haul from great distances. If access isn't an issue then that shouldn't be a problem. It seemed to be an issue when we were doing jobs on the Forest 12 years ago, getting the large diameter trees.

[Little Brown Dog]

Hey guys,

Finally some talk on this board, even though you hijacked my thread!  I just want to weigh in on the woody debris topic.  I am currently working in Goshen on a project, placing woody debris in small brooks.  I'd be happy to show you how well it is working.  The rule of thumb that is being used is that the wood placed in the stream should be 1 1/2 to 2 times the stream width.  That way it is not likely to move around.  When you start talking about lower reaches of rivers, then I think that you would have to anchor things in place, because there are a lack of riparian buffers to hold things.  The Forest Service has done a lot of the culvert surveys and is now trying to find the money to replace the ones on the forest that are a block to fish passage.  The block to fish is usually to much of a jump from the plunge pool or to long of a culvert for the fish to make it up through.

Anyhow, you should see some of the pools that have formed by placing some wood in the channel.  You bet there are trout in them!

[Little Brown Dog]

Here are a couple pictures.





Works great in this type of stream.

[Fish Farmer]

LBD,

What stream in Goshen? I did work on Gonya, Goshen West, did a habitat survery of Goshen East, plus some others in the area about ten years ago with the Forest Service. I've been meaning to check them out since they are just up the road from me.

[grasspikerel]

I used to do stream shocking, habitat transects, gill netting for USWFS, USGS and MA Fish and Wildlife.   I never did work on a habitat project, but Steve did offer to show me some of his work and I was impressed with his work and what he has to say.  Similar to the sites pictures his looked like they definitely would hold fish.  I like the idea that more and more people are catching on to this topic.  I'm kind of saddened that we seem to veering towards hatchery management of places we've managed wild like the Poultney and maybe the Battenkill.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a big supporter of hatcheries, but let's pick our spots. I was hoping that the state would try to maintain a committment to wild trout management and do some patch work where habitat went a little wrong.  Maybe stick with it through thick or thin.  That hasn't proven to be the case.  Can anyone shed light on what happened to the Poultney?

As for culverts, sometimes it's hard to figure out.  There is a long pipe culvert in a small stream in southeast Vermont and yet the wild rainbows use this stream more than any I know of below White River Junction and they have for many years.  I speculated that the low water spring may have cut them off this year.  I believe simply altering the lip of one of the White River tribs had a very positive effect on the rainbow and brook trout population, the stream is between Sharon and Hartford, I can't quite remember the town.

[Fish Farmer]

From what I've heard the biologist who oversees the Poultney had been getting pressure from locals to stock it again. You have to remember there is alot of pressure from others to stock, but I can think of many streams in the same district that have been taken off the stocking list.

At the same time there has been the creation of Trophy Trout waters and there may be another one in the works down on lower East Creek in Rutland.

In fact, depending on how you look at it, there has been a reduction in stocking trout for about 10 years, and that is mostly stream stocking. But you have to remember things were different 10 to 15 years ago, I think the numbers of trout stocked was high but the poundage was lower. We are working with better strains and different techniques. There has been a huge reduction of brook trout yearling stocking in the Northeast Kingdom. But at the same time there was local pressure to stock a self sustaining steelhead run (Willougby River). So the Willoughby/Black River get around 10,000 smolts a year from a "petigree" mating program.

[grasspikerel]

The key word on the Kingdom is stopped stocking "yearlings." I think the volunteers at the Morgan Hatchery are stocking fingerling brookies.  That sort of program was not worthwhile based on the history I've read about.  They are stocking them in a couple of places where they really shoudln't be stocking period, and I'm sure the state must talk about this with them.  I'm not sure if it will continue.  Anyway, I figure a lot stocking was discontinued in the kingdom because not too many folks fish alot of the those streams.  A lot of the streams out there have very little habitat due to removal of riparian vegetation over much of the stream length. 

I was talking with the town clerk where I live recently and we talked about fishing.  In the town I live in there are a lot of wild brook trout in all the streams and of course some wild browns.  We sort of agreed there were trout all over but the clerk lamented, "The state doesn't do as good a job stocking as it used to." This seems a common sentiment.  So what if there are trout all over, let's stock, more fish. Right?

I figure the average person not overly obsessed with trout and their habitat hears, fish stocking and thinks, "Yea that sounds good, more trout."  So wild trout management in my view is an uphill battle.  So I figure what's needed is for the state to step up and make the case for wild trout management.  That's not happening.  Now the state is proposing stocking for the Battenkill.  Now this doesn't sound like the VT Fish and Wildlife I'm accustomed to. So like you said, there is either a new internal source of pressure, or an external source.  But where does the department draw the line between following it's plans and pleasing the masses.  I mean if I wrote articles every month demanding the state stocks Lake Carmi or Silver Lake with trout because ithey're 32 feet deep and in a state park would they do it?  If I bitched endlessly that we need to keep our small dams that don't generate electricity will I get what I want?  You mentioned the Kingdom folks forced the state into their pain in the ass fish trapping program on the Wiloughby.  Well if the "gaurdians of the Willoughby" can force the state into a stocking program, can Southwest TU and the Battenkill Conservancy block the state's stocking program?   

 

[Fish Farmer]

Hard telling not knowing, but usually the most organized and vocal have more say or more complaints depending on how you look at it.

[Little Brown Dog]

Fish Farmer, the photo was from Gonya.  The FS went back in and added more wood.  Things look great in there.

[Fish Farmer]

I thought it was Gonya! Maybe I'll check it out tomorrow.