Otter Creek Stream Restoration?

[Alnitak]

No one ever said they couldn't be there, myself included. Its the dam building that's an issue. These might not be masons, but the dams that I last tore down were also not your average rock-stacked dams. They were very tightly laid together, with small rocks chinking the gaps between the bigger ones, and large flat overlapping rocks facing upstream. I'm sure some of the smaller fish could get through, but that stream has natives in it as big as any stocker that wouldn't fit through.

Again: Building dams is not allowed on the properties I've referred to, regardless of how well or shoddily they are constructed.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

If anyone here knows Trout Run it is a very small stream. The constant wading and fishing that it has more recently seen is far worse than a small dam ( or pile of stones). Alnitak and a few others on here seem to think that promoting this tiny stream is a good idea while railing against harmless tiny dam builders who VERY likely do more good than harm. Kick over the dams if you wish and move on. The self righteous tone of self made stream/nature proprietor is getting old.

As for the Lanc Conservancy....I think they have preserved some great areas BUT they more recently seem to be getting into the business of promoting rather than preserving....Not sure the motive. Building LARGE parking areas, clearing land and "building" trails isn't exactly conservation or preservation. Creating easy access isn't always a great idea either if you want to see wild things. The hideous fenced trail that was BUILT along the Susquehanna is another project that I believe the Conservancy was at least partly involved with. many of these areas were open to the public for MANY years and needed NO "improvement". Grooming them and spraying herbicide didn't do much for the native wildflowers, mushrooms or butterflies etc. The Conservancy in general allows hunting but again has closed hunting on a number of properties that were formerly open. I have mixed feelings about their organization.

 

[FarmerDave]

Alnitak wrote:

I'll change my vote to either aliens or stream trolls. Although aliens has a certain appeal.

Could be stream trolls, but the stone shrines are supposed to keep them from doing that..

 

[geebee]

i would not call those dams small by any definition.

as the OP said, some of those stones are 200lbs and there are hundreds of them.

i think we can differentiate can't we, between kids piling up a few stones on a day out which will get likely washed away or fall down in a day or two, and what looks to be some major masonry work that will be pretty permanent and or will cause problems within the stream.

everything else is just semantics. the structure in the picture needs to be removed or at least properly breached to restore flow.

unless that table is part of a childs tea set, i'd say that dam is at least 3/4 foot high and 3ft wide.

thats not just a few stones kicked up by kids.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

geebee- This is the one on Otter. It is on private property to my knowledge and likely made by the property owner. I would tread carefully. Going in there with a bunch of people and tearing it down will VERY LIKELY result in the property being posted. I think Maurice is correct on letting nature take its course.

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:
i would not call those dams small by any definition.

as the OP said, some of those stones are 200lbs and there are hundreds of them.

i think we can differentiate can't we, between kids piling up a few stones on a day out which will get likely washed away or fall down in a day or two, and what looks to be some major masonry work that will be pretty permanent and or will cause problems within the stream.

IMO the deflector is some pretty nice work as far as masonry goes. No way kids did that. But the downstream one, no so much.


The upstream dam looks like it started out as some nice work on the ends, but apparently they got tired towards the middle.

I'll bet the landowner did it, in which case you should leave it alone. As I said above. It is not open to the public for fishing because it is stocked, It is stocked because it is open to the public for fishing.

 

[geebee]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
geebee- This is the one on Otter. It is on private property to my knowledge and likely made by the property owner. I would tread carefully. Going in there with a bunch of people and tearing it down will VERY LIKELY result in the property being posted. I think Maurice is correct on letting nature take its course.

you are probably right, the property owners downstream should be advised though, if that is where it looks, when that breaks the homeowners below are very likely going to get a wave of water through their yard, maybe worse.

 

[geebee]

FarmerDave wrote:

The upstream dam looks like it started out as some nice work on the ends, but apparently they got tired towards the middle.

i noticed that too. i also noticed that the colour of the stone on the ends is darker and larger.

my hunch is that the landowner built the deflector and the upper dam was actually also two deflectors built by them, and that later on some kids joined them up in the middle. the lower one likely too.

i don't think it would do any harm to politely ask the landowner if he's aware of the dams - he may not be. or he may just say , yeah my kids did the middle bit.

he might want them taken down too

 

[Alnitak]

Look, the petty personal disparagements are what gets tiresome Fox.

Let me clarify a few things:

Fishing in a tiny stream does not require wading in it. In fact, quite the contrary, when fishing a brook trout stream I specifically tend to avoid wading in it when at all possible. I suspect many small stream fishers do the same.

The dams are not small, and I've been abundantly clear that the ones on Trout Run are easily the size of this one in the photos of Otter. There are rocks in the dams that are large enough to require two people to pick them. They cannot be "kicked over."

I also strongly disagree about the potential for disruption to the stream/fish as well. As I pointed out, at least one good hole that used to harbor a number of brook trout is now barren as the water is too slow and the cover of large rocks from the bottom of the pool is gone.

Finally, mentioning a public stream that has mounds of information about it out there does not equal "promoting it." You accused me earlier in this thread of elitism; on the contrary, your repeated accusations of people "promoting" streams and therefore ruining the great fishing you knew years ago is the very essence of elitism, as is your negative remarks on the efforts to provide greater access to properties by organizations like the conservancy.

On the topic of the dam in the Otter, a good thing to do would be to check with the property owner. There's a reasonably good chance that they did not build the dam. I would guess that the majority of the dams I have run into on streams are not the work of the property owners--certainly not on the Conservancy lands, and also not on the land owned by PPL and made open to the public.

If the dams are built without the landowner's permission, then it's exactly these types of things that result in land being posted or access restricted. On the flip side, if the dam was not built by the owner and good stewards of the stream come and ask first and then offer to rectify it, that can only help. Yes, of course one shouldn't just knock it down, but I don't think anyone was condoning that approach.

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:

... when that breaks the homeowners below are very likely going to get a wave of water through their yard, maybe worse.

Disagree 100% They simply are not holding back enough water to be of ANY concern downstream.

 

[FarmerDave]

Alnitak wrote:

If the dams are built without the landowner's permission, then it's exactly these types of things that result in land being posted or access restricted. On the flip side, if the dam was not built by the owner and good stewards of the stream come and ask first and then offer to rectify it, that can only help. Yes, of course one shouldn't just knock it down, but I don't think anyone was condoning that approach.

Now that makes sense.

But if he did make it or wants it to stay, you (not you specifically) would need to not be critical about it. That may result in posting as well.

As far as the elitist thing, I thought he was talking about fly anglers in general.;-)

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Alnitak- You come on here as though you have some vast amount of experience with these streams and this area. How long have you even lived here or fished here? I have made several attempts to talk with you with PMs and never receive a response. I won't turn this into another spot burning rant...BUT if your concern is really about conserving I question your methods/ motives.

 

[FarmerDave]

BTW Alnitak. Foxtrapper's trout is bigger.

(in his avatar)

 

[Alnitak]

FarmerDave wrote:

Alnitak wrote:

If the dams are built without the landowner's permission, then it's exactly these types of things that result in land being posted or access restricted. On the flip side, if the dam was not built by the owner and good stewards of the stream come and ask first and then offer to rectify it, that can only help. Yes, of course one shouldn't just knock it down, but I don't think anyone was condoning that approach.

Now that makes sense.

But if he did make it or wants it to stay, you (not you specifically) would need to not be critical about it. That may result in posting as well.

As far as the elitist thing, I thought he was talking about fly anglers in general.;-)

I agree, although perhaps the land owner doesn't know about the fish in the stream, etc. so a nice open discussion--without judgment--could be enlightening. Its also a good time to thank the landowner for not posting and for allowing folks to fish on that section of stream.

Am I still a fly angler if sometimes I use bait? :-O OK, I don't for trout, but I did for years and I've got nothing against those who do. In fact, one of my fishing companions is a C&R bait fisher, although I must admit I view him as an evangelism project. 😀

 

[FarmerDave]

Alnitak wrote:


I agree, although perhaps the land owner doesn't know about the fish in the stream, etc. so a nice open discussion--without judgment--could be enlightening. Its also a good time to thank the landowner for not posting and for allowing folks to fish on that section of stream.

I agree with you on that, but all I am saying is one needs to be careful not to sound condescending when discussion it with him. My guess is that he knows it is stocked and this explains why he built the dams in the first place.

On the other hand, he might also realize that if he posts it, the white trucks might stop.

Anyway, I think you see what I was getting at.

Am I still a fly angler if sometimes I use bait? :-O OK, I don't for trout, but I did for years and I've got nothing against those who do. In fact, one of my fishing companions is a C&R bait fisher, although I must admit I view him as an evangelism project. 😀

I don't care what people use, but if foxtrapper or a few others on here decided to call me an elitist because I fish with bamboo, I'd just smile and assume it was a joke.

As far as expensive watches go, I did recently upgrade to a Citizen last Christmas. ;-)

 

[Alnitak]

As if it matters, I was born and raised here. After a stretch away for grad school and life in general, I came back to the area a little over a year ago. This year so far I have fished more than 50 streams in PA, the vast majority of them in York and Lancaster counties. Most of them more than once, some of them as many as once a month.

There are vastly more streams today holding wild trout then there were 10 or 20 years ago when I used to spend all of my free time fishing. This is a fact, supported by data easily available. There are also far fewer people fishing today than there were 20 years ago. This is also a fact and easily verified. Overuse of our streams by fishing is far from the worst concern or threat to them.

I have no idea why you question my conservation ethic. Catch and release fly fishing of streams does not constitute some form of destruction. Supporting organizations that have acquired large amounts of land and kept it from the development that has swallowed up vast swathes of the available land in the area would also generally be considered pretty good conservation.

Anyway...time to go wind up my fake watch and polish the fake arm for my next outing to rob and pillage streams across the region.

 

[geebee]

FarmerDave wrote:

geebee wrote:

... when that breaks the homeowners below are very likely going to get a wave of water through their yard, maybe worse.

Disagree 100% They simply are not holding back enough water to be of ANY concern downstream.

maybe, maybe not.

those dams are 3-4 feet high. i've seen a 2ft swell take a Hotel off its foundations.

we won't know until the water rises, but if that dam is 3ft high by 60ft wide and only backs up 100m or 300ft = 400,000 gallons of water with a gravitional force of 15 million kilogrammes.

history is littered with tales of deaths caused by the breach of 2-3ft crib dams.

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

geebee wrote:

... when that breaks the homeowners below are very likely going to get a wave of water through their yard, maybe worse.

Disagree 100% They simply are not holding back enough water to be of ANY concern downstream.

maybe, maybe not.

those dams are 3-4 feet high. i've seen a 2ft swell take a Hotel off its foundations.

we won't know until the water rises, but if that dam is 3ft high by 60ft wide and only backs up 100m or 300ft = 400,000 gallons of water with a gravitional force of 15 million kilogrammes.

history is littered with tales of deaths caused by the breach of 2-3ft crib dams.

Unless that table is 16 feet tall, the lower dam is holding back about 6 inches of water and that upper one is likely a similar amount. And where are you getting the 100 meters from?

Are we looking at the same thing?

If it was a beaver dam, the beaver would be ashamed.

 

[Swattie87]

I stand by my earlier post that the dams pictured on Otter are “small” dams. They aren’t really holding back any appreciable amount of water that wouldn’t be there anyway, and water is easily passing through them as seen in the foreground of the picture. From the look of the picture it looks like they took one long, slow pool and made three smaller pools out of it. They are not 3-4’ tall. A dam that tall would make a pool waist high or deeper.

If I came across this scene while fishing I would think…“Hmm, that’s kinda stupid. A lot of work for not much effect.” Then I would proceed to fish the pools/habitat created by the dams. Then I would proceed to keep fishing and probably not ever think of the dams again. I’m out there to relax and enjoy…not worry about “little stuff” like this…I get to do that at work every day. The dams pictured aren’t hurting anything. If fish were displaced by their creation they are now either upstream or downstream of the affected area…go catch them! Now if this sort of thing was taking place over miles and miles of stream, then yeah, let’s talk about it, and maybe contact the proper authorities to do something about it…but a couple small rock dams over 50 yards or less of stream, who cares?

In fairness to Alnitak and the dam on Trout Run, I’ll reserve final judgment on that one until I either see it, or someone posts some pictures of it. I don’t anticipate on getting there anytime soon, and my guess is it won’t it make through the first bank-full event the stream sees this Fall, so if someone’s gonna go take pictures, do it quick.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

This place never changes.....

Jeff sorry about the other month. You keep doing what ya do, I do admire your love of the sport, something I myself need to rekindle the second this damn job releases it's strangle hold.

October can't come soon enough...