Swattie87 wrote:
Alnitak wrote:
its messing with a resource for a short-term selfish reason.
Kind of like FFing?
In the case of the Lanc. Co. Conservancy properties The Hippies (both new age and old school)/Good Ole Boys/Aliens/whoever are allowed to use the resource for their own enjoyment, provided they do so legally and within the rules set out by the landowner.
If you fish small streams a lot, which many on this site and participating in this thread do, you see these small (yes, I’d call the ones pictured in the OP on Otter Creek small) dams pop up all the time. Some actually make some nice habitat, some don’t do much either way, and some may ruin some otherwise pretty decent habitat. The next time you go back, half the time they’re gone thanks to a nice rain though. It is kind of annoying, and would we as conservation minded anglers do it…no…but let’s not blow it out of proportion. The fish are fine. If they can’t find suitable habitat where they formerly could they have tails and fins and can swim…they move. These dams are little micro habitats on these streams…they don’t affect the whole stream, and they don’t appreciably warm the water in most cases where there is proper canopy coverage…which both Trout Run and Tucquan have…I’m admittedly not familiar with Otter, but on the maps it’s a much larger watershed than Trout Run and Tucquan and would likely be on the border temperature wise anyway.
FWIW, my official vote in the “who done it” is also Aliens, or ghosts…”No human being would stack rocks like this.” – Dr. Peter Venkman.
I'd consider FF to a be a bit of stretch comparison to damming up the stream, especially at the scale these dams are, but whatever. I'll remind those that reply that I pointed out that don't just fish these locations, I love to hike and photograph them. Regardless, all of that's beside the point. As I've pointed out before:
The rules of use for the Conservancy properties DO NOT allow alteration of the stream, or any part of the habitat. It's quite clear.
As for the fish swimming to better habitat, some of the larger dams are significant upstream barriers, and thats the point. Significant enough that barring a large storm they will not be easily washed away. On a very small stream the spawning habitat/best summer lies may require movement that is not feasible with the dams in place under low water conditions.
We've trashed up the other routes these fish used to have to move around within and between watersheds. They can't easily leave the tiny streams they are now confined to. Relative to Otter Creek, Trout Run and Tucquan are very small. On a stream like Otter, that dam may not be that big, but Trout Run is substantially smaller, and dam that large--and the recent ones are that large--is a more significant barrier.
A 2-3' dam on one of those streams is not insignificant, and unlike the natural dams and barriers that form, they do not have water flowing over them or through larger gaps in them. The rocks are stacked and stuffed tight enough that a larger fish would likely have a tough time wiggling through them--again, on the recent dams I've found on Trout Run, Tucquan and Fishing Creek.
The point is that the dams are unnecessary and violate the rules of use for the Conservancy properties. I'll leave Otter and other "public" streams out of this, as that may or may not apply, although it still bothers me that people simply can't leave well enough alone and enjoy the natural streams for what they are--but that last part is a view I realize not everyone shares. On the other hand, I have friends and family that join me in hiking these locations, and like me they've all expressed dismay that a beautiful natural location has been altered.
I'll change my vote to either aliens or stream trolls. Although aliens has a certain appeal.
