State Park Closings?

[Fishidiot]

Well thought out posts. I'm actually going to take the cop-out position and claim to be in agreement with both JackM and JayL as well as pcray and afishinado.

 

[JackM]

Dave, if you pulled that off, you should get to work immediately on the Grand Unified Theory of The Cosmos.

 

[Maurice]

If 90% of the wild trout streams need no help from conserbvationists....and thats enough for all folks and the conservationists went away. Would the number of coldwater fisheries go up or down?

It is the 10% that need help and receive it that creates a cushion for the 90% that do not. that cushion is in the form of organized groups who can act and campaign against threats to the 90%.

Without those "feet on the ground" conservationists who can react quickly to threats, our resources would be devistated by "progress".

All you have to do is run the last 100 years conservation curve in reverse to see the result. The cold water conservation strides over the last 100 years have provided us the wealth of opportunities we enjoy today. A reverse of this trend would be devistating in a far shorter time frame than it took to improve.

I can understand how people who are new or novices at a particular activity can be naive about the factors relating to their enjoyment. Typically those with an interest and appreciation of the resources they enjoy begin to feel a sence of reciprocity toward the activity they enjoy. What baffles me is how folks who have been "at it a while" can ignore the benefits of those trying to help the very entertainment they enjoy. It would be one thing to keep quiet and let us fools waste our time. It is quite another to incite inuendo that we are self centered greed mongers with no regard for others who are wasting our time.

Assuming these opportunities are provided solely by Mother Nature is absurd and insulting. Where was Ma Nat in the 20's when they were floating barrels of oil down Oil Creek and Logs down the Susky and every moving water was dammed by progress and the fishing sucked. Where was she then????? Huh?????

 

[Fishidiot]

Jack,
My manuscript of GUTTC is still in chapter one... and not going anywhere. The publisher said they wanted someone more decisive.

:-D

 

[JackM]

Maurice, where were you when the oil was floating down the creeks? If it helps you feel better about your sacrifices to look down your nose at others who don't make the same sacrifice, I won't take that away from you, but I also don't want you to kid yourself into thinking that you can guilt-trip me into believing that self-interest isn't at work in many folks who advocate for cold-water resources against the interest of other recreational uses.

I have never contended that the folks that do this are "self centered greed mongers with no regard for others who are wasting [y]our time." I do think that the self-interest that motivates a good many clouds their ability to objectively and fairly consider competing interests and that at times, activities are conducted and battles waged that are wrong-headed and/or futile. In the situation we are discussing-- the rebuilding of Poe Lake-- I think this is exactly what is at work.

 

[Maurice]

I think the issue is if there is no money to rebuild the dam, should they rebuild the dam...thats all anyone here is saying. It would be a good thing if they didn't seems to be the mantra of CWConservationists.....Not good for the people who enjoyed the lake but for the people who like cold water fishies.

I don't recall any campaign to "Stop the lake" Just a notion that if it were not redammed, the trout anglers, of which you were one would benefit.

I don't look down my nose at others who do not view things as I do....Except for you who seem to take enjoyment in bringing these discussions up so you can drag them through the mud in your ever so talented argumentative style.

Its just practice for you Jack to argue while it improves your occupational skills the argument typically eats away at the time other folks spend on improving the things you enjoy but will not admit to....for the sake of argument.

 

[JackM]

If it helps, then, I agree that not rebuilding the lake will be a nice bonus for coldwater anglers even though it will be a huge detriment for all of the other citizens who swam, boated enjoyed picnics, relaxed and fished the lake.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:

troutbert wrote:

JackM wrote:
90% of the thousands of quality wild trout stream miles Pennsylvania has need no help from anyone other than to be respected.

Maybe you could explain that statement.

Sure, if you are having trouble understanding. It was a response to this:

"Bottom line is you have nothing invested in wild trout except the gas to get there so it is not surprising how you feel about the resource you exploit with no return. "

As if trying to prevent other citizens from having recreational resources they can enjoy is a prerequisite to be "allowed" the privilege of enjoying streams and trout provided by Mother Nature.

"90% of the thousands of quality wild trout stream miles Pennsylvania has need no help from anyone other than to be respected."

What exactly does is that intended to mean in regard to conservation of streams? And what evidence or logical arguments do you have to support your position?

It seems to be saying that trout streams don't need conservation efforts 90% of the time. Is that what you meant, or something different. Are you saying that most conservation efforts regarding trout streams are just wasted effort because the streams actually need no help?

Could you clarify your position? And what is the scientific evidence, logic etc. that supports your idea?

 

[troutbert]

jayL wrote:

troutbert wrote:

jayL wrote:
I do feel that the recreation benefits of such an impoundment will not get adequate representation on this site. I didn't really expect it to.

I do think that the majority probably prefers to have the lake. If the funding for the park were to be available, this would have to be considered.

Am I for more cold water fisheries? Yes. I don't think it's in our (FFermen) best interest to move forward with a blind eye to the needs/wants of the populous. Many trout fishermen are guilty of just that.

If you think stream conservationists should feel guilty, then you should feel very guilty every time you fish Spring Creek. That stream would be a polluted sucker stream if it had not been for stream conservationists.

I do not appreciate your putting words in my mouth. Incorrect ones, at that.

We're discussing stream conservation and you posted "I don't think it's in our (FFermen) best interest to move forward with a blind eye to the needs/wants of the populous. Many trout fishermen are guilty of just that."

People conserving streams, and associated riparian areas and floodplains are conserving the environment. If other people want to add more wreckage to the already huge wreckage of the environment that has taken place, they of course have the right to advocate for their position. But stream conservationists also have the right to work for conserving the environment against further destruction. There is no reason whatever to feel guilty for that.

 

[Maurice]

TB,

I don't think Jay is suggesting trout fishermen should "feel" guilty but rather that they are "prone" to follow the needs/wants of the populous. Whatever that means. I am not sure if he means that of the Conservation community or the majority of outdoor recreation users.

I think the word "feel" is the one you put in his mouth.....as he suggested.

 

[JackM]

Troutbert, my 90% figure is an estimate and based upon opinion and limited experience. Nothing I am saying is against legitimate coldwater advocacy when streams are threaten with real or significant harm. As I stated with my initial post, what bugs me is when coldwater advocates, typically fly anglers, disregard all other competing interests, whether they be other recreational interests or development of roads or lands.

Each situation deserves to be evaluated on its own merits. The coldwater advocate ought to consider the competing interests and ask whether the harm to their particular pet interests is significant enough in light of the benefit to the other interests to justify a position against those other interests. Part of this equation may very well be considering whether the recreational interests of the coldwater angler are adequately served by other resources in the area and whether other reasonable alternatives to serve the competing interests that do not impact the coldwater interest are available.

Going back and reading your comments about Poe Lake, I must acknowledge that I jumped the gun in inferring that you were actually suggesting the lake not be rebuilt. Giving fair read to your comments I see that you were not doing so. Rather, you suggested that IF it wasn't rebuilt, some effort should be made to restore the stream to a coldwater resource.

This brings up the other portion of my "90% comments." While it would be admirable for some group to attempt to assist the stream to recovering it's prior natural state, such action is probably not needed. These elements of the environment have a way of restoring themselves once the unnatural hinderence is removed. Just as with the 90% of wild trout streams I postulated in my example, doing nothing to hinder recovery is probably all that is required.

 

[jayL]

Mo/TB,

Trout fishermen tend to overlook the opinions and viewpoints of the general populous, with respect to conservation and creation of cold water resources. I made no comments about conservationists, or any other particular group/subset. In my experience, MOST trout fishermen are "guilty", in that they are known to commit what I see as an offense, or action detrimental to their (our) cause.

Mo's on the right track. We are prone to NOT follow the needs/wants of everyone else, and I think it costs us a few wins here and there on the conservation front.

Tb,
If I qualified it with "myself included", would you continue to squawk? I have taken the same stance, and regret it, as I feel that it's not in our best interest as trout fishermen. We are a polarizing (occasionally viewed as extremist, with regards to our needs and wants) group already, so staunchly supporting the creation and enhancement of ALL cold water resources, often at the detriment of the existing recreational capabilities, does not help our cause. I am saying that we need to make concessions, and this MAY BE a situation where that is necessary.

I hope you do not make a habit of creating strawmen, and changing the arguments of others to fit your needs. It's bad practice. It seems to me that you are just trying to create enemies. I have yet to think that anyone involved in conservation work should feel guilty. I do feel that some efforts are misguided. I also agree with jack, and have claimed before, that many conservationists are such due in part to self interest. I'm cool with that, and it is my reason for any conservation efforts I've made. I know that self interest is what makes the world go 'round. I don't see why that claim is seen as so offensive.

 

[pcray1231]

I think that most successful conservation efforts are done with self-interest in mind. Hunters are on the forefront of protecting large amounts of land. Fishermen are likewise on the forefront of protecting water. And of course it even breaks down further, with DU protecting wetlands, TU protecting cold-water fisheries, and the like.

This is not something to be apologetic for. But we're all, ultimately, on the same team. The issue we're discussing here isn't between destruction vs. conservation. Its between different forms of conservation (I'd argue making a public lake IS conservation, as the entire purpose of conservation is to create better lives for humans). It's like DU arguing with TU on how a waterway should be managed.

So yes, the local opportunities come into play. In the above example, if there were plenty of wetlands but few cold water streams, I'd argue in favor of TU. If vice versa, then DU wins. Ultimately, the land stays as a recreational resource for citizens.

And, quite frankly, most of the conservation efforts that are not done with self-interest in mind are by groups that don't understand the ecosystems they're actually trying to preserve, and end up doing more harm than good. You'll see so-called environmentalists opposed to logging in all forms, yet under some circumstances and methods logging is good for nearly every species in the forest. You'll see environmentalists unilaterally oppose drilling for oil and gas as well as oppose all things nuclear, yet all this does is tip the scales in favor of the much more damaging (from mining to acid rain to climate change) coal industry.

 

[osprey]

Iv'e never been to Poe Valley or Poe Paddy but worked with friends in Steelton who went up there all the time , they were wild trout folks and they always told me about the great native brookie fishing there. I honestly don't remember them mentioning a dam , but like i said they liked to fish for native brookies. I think a good example of what to do would be to rebuild with a bottom release , that way you got the best of both worlds. I'd use Clarks creek in Dauphin county as a good example , in the dog days of summer you can see the cold water coming downstream by the fog/mist it creates. I'm a serious fly fisher but i don't think it does any good to alienate anyone.

 

[JackM]

I don't think Poe Lake is deep enough for bottom release to be of much help, but that is a good idea if it is.

 

[troutbert]

Maurice wrote:
TB,

I don't think Jay is suggesting trout fishermen should "feel" guilty but rather that they are "prone" to follow the needs/wants of the populous. Whatever that means. I am not sure if he means that of the Conservation community or the majority of outdoor recreation users.

I think the word "feel" is the one you put in his mouth.....as he suggested.

I don't FEEL guilty. And I don't think that I AM guilty.

Now how about the people who favor rebuilding the dam? How guilty do they FEEL? And how guilty ARE they?

Will get this straightened out yet.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
I don't think Poe Lake is deep enough for bottom release to be of much help, but that is a good idea if it is.

Probably not. Too small of a lake, so not enough storage, and not deep enough. The water coming over the spillway reached 84 degrees in the past. If they rebuild it, that will very likely be the situation again.

There are many warmwater streams where you could build a lake for swimming, where the water temp coming in would be essentially the same as the water temp coming out. So, little to no thermal impact.

Many of these dams were built a long time ago, when few people knew or cared about their impacts on coldwater stream enviroments.

If swimming lakes are important they could build them on warmwater streams. As well as improve wild trout streams by decommissioning the ones on trout streams. So the lake swimming opportunities would remain the same. And the restoration of conservation of the coldwater streams would maintain and restore trout fishing opportunities.

A win/win solution, as they say.

I hope I don't make too many enemies by saying this.

And I'm not feeling very guilty for holding this position. I'm trying, really hard, to feel the guilt, but it's not working.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:


Going back and reading your comments about Poe Lake, I must acknowledge that I jumped the gun in inferring that you were actually suggesting the lake not be rebuilt. Giving fair read to your comments I see that you were not doing so. Rather, you suggested that IF it wasn't rebuilt, some effort should be made to restore the stream to a coldwater resource.

This brings up the other portion of my "90% comments." While it would be admirable for some group to attempt to assist the stream to recovering it's prior natural state, such action is probably not needed. These elements of the environment have a way of restoring themselves once the unnatural hinderence is removed. Just as with the 90% of wild trout streams I postulated in my example, doing nothing to hinder recovery is probably all that is required.

Just to clarify, I am opposed to the rebuilding of the dam.

The 90% comments are interesting. Allowing natural restorative processes to occur is known in the conservation field as "passive restoration." As you say, in many cases removing unnatural hindrances is required to allow those processes to occur. And at other locations, what is required is the prevention of new unnatural hindrances.

This is all a big part of what conservation is all about. So, it's not DIFFERENT than conservation, it IS conservation, and always has been.

If you hope to achieve these goals, it requires active conservationists to win the political battles necessary to: 1) remove unnatural hindrances 2) prevent new ones. (Case in point, the dam on Poe Creek.)

So, the idea that 90% of streams don't need help is just not so.

Also, passive restoration works in many cases, but there are a great many cases where it does not work. The most obvious example in PA is with acid mine drainage. If you just leave it alone, the streams will in most case stay dead. There are places where mining took place at the time of Roman Empire that are still draining toxic materials into streams today. You either take active steps to fix it, or society will just suffer with polluted streams indefinitely.

In many cases streams that have suffered from severe physical alterations will not self-restore, at least not within what most people would consider a reasonable time frame. In the forested regions of the state, many streams were highly altered, essentially channelized, during the early logging days. Many of these streams have been just out there in the woods in state forests and gamelands for over 100 years. They are not even close to self-restoring themselves and their is little indication that they would do so in another 100 years. There are ways to get more normal habitat-forming processes working again. It would require some effort and some money to get the streams out of their extremely altered structure and into a more normal stream/floodplain configuration, where natural processes could then begin to unfold, and the self-restoration processes could then take place with little to no further intervention or cost.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:
Just to clarify, I am opposed to the rebuilding of the dam.

Well, then, I renew my previous comments.

 

[PennsCreek]

Just to clarify, all the necessary improvements have been made to the dam. And the lake is nowhere near deep enough or large enough for a bottom release. The sewer system they built for the campground failed inspection and the entire job was shut down. The year before they drained the lake (3 summers ago), they built a new, huge, and really nice bath house/snack bar area at the beach. It really would be a shame if they did not reopen it, the lake was scheduled to begin refilling by the end of the year. I will load some pics I took last weekend when I get home.