Raystown spillway....

[silverfox]

So we're at the point where fly anglers **** on the PAFBC for stocking over wild fish because it is financially motivated, but we can advocate potentially destroying an established high quality warm/cool water fishery in the Allegheny because.... ...money?

Lol.

That's rich.

The result of decades of pushing the idea that trout should be "unlimited". If these impoundments were impeding the movement of salmonids, the same people would be carrying out advocacy initiatives to get the dams removed. So instead of advocating for intact (or as close as possible to it) warmwater/coolwater ecosystems, we're advocating for further disruption/modification to a completely unnatural state beyond what it already is in the pursuit of expanding even more unnatural salmonid fisheries because? To h3LL with anything other than trout I guess.

 

[silverfox]

I wonder how people would respond if B.A.S.S. started advocating to convert the Delaware tailwaters into smallmouth waters by changing the flow regimen from coldwater discharge to warm/cool water? People would lose their minds. By the way, there are 9.6 million bass anglers compared to 7.8 million trout anglers.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf

 

[troutbert]

Does anyone know when was the last time the Army Corps of Engineers created a cold, bottom release tailwater?

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it was a long time ago.

The dam on the Youghiogheny releases cold water (until they run out). That dam was built in 1944.

Sayers Dam on Bald Eagle Creek was built in 1971, and manages for normal water temps.

 

[silverfox]

Does anyone know when was the last time the Army Corps of Engineers created a cold, bottom release tailwater?

I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing it was a long time ago.

The dam on the Youghiogheny releases cold water (until they run out). That dam was built in 1944.

Sayers Dam on Bald Eagle Creek was built in 1971, and manages for normal water temps.

Jennings Randolph (Maryland/WV) was completed in 1981 and was designed and built to be a coldwater release with a tower to pull water from different depths to achieve target temps and pH. If I recall, the river had a pH of around 4 prior to the construction of the dam. There may be others but that's one I'm very familiar with and know some history on.

 

[Acristickid]

This will never happen

 

[GANGGREEN]

This will never happen

Care to expound on that?

The truth is that I started this thread because I was of the belief that the cold-water discharges were already a thing and that they WERE trying to establish this as a 12-month tailwater trout stream. Given that I was wrong, I can definitely see both sides of the issue. I basically grew up along the Raystown Branch and recall wading and fishing there when I was VERY young, so I value the smallmouth, rock bass and occasional yellow perch, pickerel or walleye. On the other hand, the stream likely did change at least some when they built the new dam (I think it was 1974 maybe?), so it's not really the same stream that it was historically anyway, but obviously trout were probably never native to the main stem of the river, at least not that far downstream.

 

[Acristickid]

On account of the PAFB needing what I assume would be millions upon millions of dollars.

For example , Pittsburgh needs a number of bridges repaired right now, yesterday in fact. But they are not doing that either and people ride over them in peril.

I’m not against it but I see this as a low priority for them. I’d be happy if they just bought permanent stream access.

 

[GANGGREEN]

Stream access on that portion of the Raystown Branch isn't an issue since it's Army Corps land and open to public use. Not much in the way of boat launches until you get down to the point, but plenty of access for wading and there is a launch for kayaks, floating boats, etc. up at Corbin's Island.

 

[troutbert]

It wouldn't cost the

On account of the PAFB needing what I assume would be millions upon millions of dollars.

For example , Pittsburgh needs a number of bridges repaired right now, yesterday in fact. But they are not doing that either and people ride over them in peril.

I’m not against it but I see this as a low priority for them. I’d be happy if they just bought permanent stream access.

The only change would be the Army Corps mixing the water releases to change the temperatures to a cooler regime. That wouldn't cost the Corps or the PFBC money.

But, I also don't think it will happen, because I think the Corps is very reluctant to change a warmwater river to a coldwater river. And even if they decided to, it's not clear the DEP and EPA would approve it. The Corps would probably have to file an environmental impact statement. How would they justify it? "Some flyfishers would rather fish for trout rather than smallmouth bass and rock bass" may not be very convincing.

 

[Swattie87]

I’d like to see it restored in favor of native Fallfish.

 

[GANGGREEN]

I’d like to see it restored in favor of native Fallfish.

I couldn't say any more, but it used to be sensational for big fallfish. I'd fish there when in high school and college and caught lots of really big ones. They're ugly as sin, but they are sporting bastards for sure.

 

[jifigz]

I think, all things considered, the fishing below the spillway to Point Access is pretty lackluster. I also don't really see anyone wanting to spend massive amounts of money to take on such a project to "fix something that ain't broke" just to satisfy some trout anglers. Really, aren't we already surrounded by enough good trout fishing? Let the Raystown branch as it is

 

[jifigz]

I’d like to see it restored in favor of native Fallfish.

Do we start catching and killing all non natives (basically everything but redbreast and fallfish) from the Juniata? I'm a big fan of fallfish.

 

[silverfox]

Do we start catching and killing all non natives (basically everything but redbreast and fallfish) from the Juniata? I'm a big fan of fallfish.

I think there's a difference between removal and addition. Suggesting the temperature at the outflow is maintained as close to the inflow temperature to support a more natural aquatic community (which includes more than fish) below the impoundment isn't the same as suggesting that we should remove all nonnative fish. It's suggesting we don't alter the system further than we already have.

It's a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Almost every water system in the state is heavily altered from its original state. There are probably less than 5 intact systems in the state with their native assemblage of species. Does that mean we should introduce even more nonnative species, or alter watersheds further to support even more nonnative species? Again, this is what happens when we justify and defend moving fish around (trout, musky, & black bass) on one hand and then chastize it on the other (round goby, snakeheads, tilapia, nonnative baitfish). If it's in the name of trout or other popular gamefish, then anything we do to the environment is justified I guess?

 

[jifigz]

I think there's a difference between removal and addition. Suggesting the temperature at the outflow is maintained as close to the inflow temperature to support a more natural aquatic community (which includes more than fish) below the impoundment isn't the same as suggesting that we should remove all nonnative fish. It's suggesting we don't alter the system further than we already have.

It's a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Almost every water system in the state is heavily altered from its original state. There are probably less than 5 intact systems in the state with their native assemblage of species. Does that mean we should introduce even more nonnative species, or alter watersheds further to support even more nonnative species? Again, this is what happens when we justify and defend moving fish around (trout, musky, & black bass) on one hand and then chastize it on the other (round goby, snakeheads, tilapia, nonnative baitfish). If it's in the name of trout or other popular gamefish, then anything we do to the environment is justified I guess?

Hey, I was joking. To be honest, I don't even care anymore. I have learned in my life to worry about the things I can control and not about the things that I can't. Yes, I can "do my part" and I already do that. But I cannot control who spreads what fish to where, I can't control what opinions people have about these topics and whether the opinions are ignorant or well-informed, and I definitely can't control where fish travel to once they are in a system. Human beings are the grand manipulators of the planet, whether it is good, bad, or whatever.

I will enjoy my time here and do the best I can to be the best I can and to promote change and positive opinions and attitudes when possible. I do enjoy catching fallfish, though. Non-Natives are here to stay. Also, I didn't promote changing anything to support more nonnatives. And no, nothing we do is justified because of trout or other gamefish and now we have this realization. When smallmouth bass were spread everywhere in the late 1800's and early 1900's we did not have the same value and appreciation of what belongs and what doesn't. So, we as a species have gained a valuable perspective on management and that is something to smile about.

 

[silverfox]

Hey, I was joking. To be honest, I don't even care anymore. I have learned in my life to worry about the things I can control and not about the things that I can't. Yes, I can "do my part" and I already do that. But I cannot control who spreads what fish to where, I can't control what opinions people have about these topics and whether the opinions are ignorant or well-informed, and I definitely can't control where fish travel to once they are in a system. Human beings are the grand manipulators of the planet, whether it is good, bad, or whatever.

I will enjoy my time here and do the best I can to be the best I can and to promote change and positive opinions and attitudes when possible. I do enjoy catching fallfish, though. Non-Natives are here to stay. Also, I didn't promote changing anything to support more nonnatives. And no, nothing we do is justified because of trout or other gamefish and now we have this realization. When smallmouth bass were spread everywhere in the late 1800's and early 1900's we did not have the same value and appreciation of what belongs and what doesn't. So, we as a species have gained a valuable perspective on management and that is something to smile about.

Well said. I think we've come a long way in a relatively short period of time. This is all a very interesting topic to me, so I enjoy these discussions.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting "you" were advocating for more nonnatives. Just pointing out the issues which happened to be in response to your post.