StructureSpot

“The Refuge” artificial fish habitat

Price: $350.00
SKU: oas-6
Weight: 142.00 LBS
Rating: ( 1 product review )
Shipping: Free Shipping
Quantity:                                             

Product Description
Here is what you have been asking for! A substanial addition to any habitat plans, this deeper water structure group, has room for all ages and sizes of fish.

With three each of the Keeper and Safehouse, this resting area provides a total of 318 square feet of surface area.

The right amount of cover to create room for fish to rest and feed in the same location.

These six units will cover an area between 20×10 feet, or a line over 30 feet long.

Experiment with different layouts with each additional refuge you install.

Keeper

Maximum shade and protection is abundant throughout this eco. friendly product made with reclaimed pvc material. With limbs all standing a full 48″, these 2-1/2″-3-1/2″ wide surfaces grow algae and aquatic life quickly.

Each keeper weighs approx. 32 pounds, and is recommended for depths over 10 feet. This large and somewhat coarse cover, provides habitat for all sizes of fish.

Bass,crappie,panfish alike utilize the shading effects of this new type of artificial fish attractor. Go-green and promote fish habitat restoration! Made in the USA with all American made materials.

Reclaimed pvc limbs provide an eco.-friendly solution to fish habitat loss and degradation.

Safehouse

These safehouse fish habitat units stand 46″ tall and weigh 16 pounds each. This fish attractor has all the needed shade and coverage to hold all sizes of fish.

Consisting of limbs ranging in width from 2.5″-3.5″ wide and 18″-46″ tall, they open to a full 72″ wide. With a minimum of 44 square feet of surface area, it provides plenty of room for algae and shade to attract fish.

Recommended for depths of 6′-12′. Reclaimed pvc limbs provide an eco.-friendly solution to fish habitat loss and degradation.

Bend to shape by hand to any desired shape and toss in water. Sinks itself. Made in the USA with all American made materials.

Over 44 square feet surface area each.

Find Similar Products by Category
Artificial Fish Structures

Product Reviews
perfect price and size
Posted by Unknown on 27th Apr 2011

thanks for adding this group of structure. i alraedy bought two keepers and they work good.Will be ordering more of these groups sonn.

Customers Who Viewed This Product Also Viewed

“Cradle” Artificial Fish Habitat
$60.00

Add To Cart

“Safehouse” Artificial Fish Habitat
$55.00

Add To Cart

Artificial fish habitat “Starter Pack”
$675.00

Add To Cart

“Keeper Four Pack” Artificial Fish Habitat
$260.00

Add To Cart
Our Newsletter
Your First Name:Your Email Address:

Add to Wish List
Click the button below to add the “The Refuge” 6-pack artificial fish habitat structures and attractors to your wish list.

Related Products
“Bassinet” Artificial Fish Habitat
$30.00

“Keeper” Artificial Fish Habitat
$70.00

“Nursery” Artificial Fish Habitat
$30.00

“Playground”Artificial Fish Habitat
$30.00

“Safehouse” Artificial Fish Habitat
$55.00

You Recently Viewed…
“Keeper” Artificial Fish Habitat
$70.00

Add To Cart
“New 8″ Cradle” Four Pack fry fish habitat
$210.00

Add To Cart
“The Refuge” 6-pack artificial fish habitat structures and attractors
$350.00

Add To Cart
“Keeper Four Pack” Artificial Fish Habitat
$260.00

Add To Cart
“Triplet” Artificial Fish Habitat-3 pack
$75.00

Add To Cart

Install artificial fish attractors and fish habitat easy!

Click on the link below to see how easy fishiding is to install. Self contained units which require no tools or additional parts/materials. Units come in either 8″ or 10″ tall boxes, ready to be bent to shape. The pliable pvc material bends easily by hand to unlimited shapes and angles. Maximum shade is cast by the wide limbs which grow algae fast. Bass, Crappie, Panfish are just a few of the species that love this new reclaimed, environmentaly friendly fish habitat. Numerous sizes are available form aquariums to the oceans. Various textures provide cover for newly hatched fry to full grown predators.

 

fishiding installation of artificial fish habitat/fish attractors

fishiding.com

Fishing structure works….

Structure Fishing 101

written by Tim Allard

Structures are a big factor in fish habitat and certain types will concentrate fish.

Structures are areas where there is a variance in the depth or contours of the lake bottom.

If you’re new to fishing, knowing how to find structure and understanding how fish relate to it will dramatically improve your ability to find and catch fish. As a term, structure gets used a lot in fishing articles, television shows and presentations by professional anglers. In this guide I’ll define structure, discuss various types and share some tips for fishing them.

What is structure?

Structures are the physical features of a lake or a river bottom. From a fishing perspective, structures are areas where there is a variance in the depth or the contours of the bottom, and these changes can range from subtle to dramatic. Structures can be natural as well as human-made features of the underwater landscape. Structures are a big factor in fish habitat and certain types will concentrate fish.

Before I get any further, let me explain what structure is not. Sometimes cover is incorrectly used interchangeably with structure. Cover refers to objects in or on the water that provide shelter for fish, such as vegetation or a dock. Of course, finding structure and cover together can make great fishing spots (e.g., a hump with a dense weed bed), so it’s no surprise that the two terms get used interchangeably.

Some Basic Structures

Here are some common fishing-structures. A ledge is the beginning of a distinct change in depth. It marks the top of a drop, which is simply the sloping of the bottom towards deeper water. Ledges and drops are main structures that hold many freshwater species, such as walleye and muskie. Add a weedline in close proximity to a ledge or a drop and they can be prime spots.

A hump is a shallow area surrounded by deeper water and often a preferred piece of structure for bass. Humps are sometimes called underwater islands. A hole is the inverse of a hump – a deep pocket in the bottom surrounded by shallow water. Holes are favorite hiding spots of bottom-dwelling hunters, like catfish.

More Advanced Structures

The above items are some basic structures, but they also form the building blocks for more elaborate pieces of structures. What follows are some of the more common fishing structures, but this listing is by no means exhaustive.

One example is a spine. To imagine a spine, first picture an underwater hump as an elastic band. Take that band, stretch it slightly and you’ve got a spine. One of the most common places to find spines is as a continuation or off of a point from a shoreline, but others exist off the end of humps as well.

The contour of spines will vary, some even have fingers running off the sides of them, and their gradient, or slope, will also vary from steep to subtle. Like a hump, spines are surrounded by deeper water, with drops and edges on each of their sides. Long spines can be travel routes for fish as they move towards shore, transitioning from deep to shallow water.

The inverse of a spine is a cut, or trough, which can be described as elongated holes. Most common in flooded areas or reservoirs, many of these structures were streambeds in their former lives before water levels rose above their banks, submerging them. Of course, drops can sometimes contain cuts in their sides that are simply grooves that were not previously riverbeds. Again, these irregularities can attract fish and are worthy of fishing and their ledges can be particularly effective at holding fish or acting as route ways.

Still got that elastic? Holding both ends, bring them together slightly until the band bows. You’ve just created a saddle between two islands or underwater humps (your finger tips). Saddles can be great structures to fish with both deep and shallow water structures as well as being corridors for fish to follow as they move from one structure to the next. Depending on their disposition, fish may be anywhere on the saddle complex. They may be tight to the islands and feeding or positioned slightly off the saddle and inactive. In this case, it pays to know the behaviors of your target species and fish these areas accordingly, but when in doubt, pick the structure apart with different lures to work a variety of depths.

Another piece of structure is the breakline (sometimes shortened to break). A breakline is really just the edge of a drop that runs perpendicular to the shoreline. If you’ve ever trolled along the shore in an S-pattern, running between shallow and deep water, you’ve been fishing the breakline. Sometimes anglers will describe the different breaks as primary and secondary. The primary breakline is the first sharp drop in depth traveling from shore outward; the secondary following thereafter and another major drop in depth. Whether you think of breaks as walls or underwater stairs, they can be good structures to fish. Yet the entire breakline does not always hold fish. What makes them great fish-holding structures is when other elements (like a cut or a bend) or cover (such as a weed edge) are added to a stretch of the break.

Why is Structure Important?

Structure often concentrates fish. Structures provide different advantages to various species (such as corralling baitfish, providing an ambush area, or being close to deep water for comfort). For reasons like the three listed above, many species seldom stray far from structure. Learning how the fish you’re targeting relates to structure and being able to find structure on the water will increase your ability to catch fish. Structures can move you away from shorelines to intimidating expanses of water that may seem void on the surface, but what lies underneath can be fishing hotspots.

Putting Structure in Context

It’s important to keep in mind that structure is but one factor in the finding-fish equation. Finding structure can put you on fish, but it’s not an absolute that you’ll catch them. Structures are often feeding areas, but if there’s no food they’ll likely not hold fish. Weather conditions and seasonal patterns are also important to keep in mind and, again, are part of a larger equation to finding fish.

Other factors affecting if structures hold fish are temperature, oxygen supply, or water quality/light penetration. Since different species have different dispositions, some structures may appeal to certain fish and not others. For example, a 12-foot hump on a gin-clear, rock bottom lake may be a smallmouth bass hotspot, but too bright an area for walleye during the day. Yet at dusk and dawn it might concentrate light-sensitive walleye that move in to feed and ambush prey. Sometimes how well structures produce fish is all about timing and putting environmental and forage factors in your favor.

Using hydrographic maps and fish finders together can make finding structure a relative easy task.

How Fish Relate To Structure

As mentioned, food and environmental factors impact the mood of fish and thus, impact how they relate to structure. A common misnomer is that if fish are not directly on top of structure, they are not there or are not relating to it. Speaking in general terms, fish “on” structure are usually aggressive (add cover to the mix and things could change), while fish suspended “off” of structure are less aggressive or in a neutral mood, resting between feeding binges (unless baitfish are also suspended off the structure). Fish distanced from structure are still relating to it and catchable, so novice anglers should learn to fish both the actual structure as well as its surroundings. It pays to ask, “How do the fish travel to this spot? Is there an obvious route on my hydrographic map?” and “If fish are not directly on the structure, where might they be off of it?”

The Tools of the Trade & Finding Structure

As mentioned earlier, the easiest structures to find are those that extend from land, such as a point. The reason is obvious; one sees the gradual slope on land and knows this piece of structure likely continues into the water. What’s difficult is finding structure when there are not hints from land. This is where a fishing finder and hydrographic maps are critical.

Hydrographic maps illustrate the bottom contours and depths, showing where the structures are on a body of water. Of course the scale of the map will impact the detail of the features it shows. Depth finders are your underwater eyes. They provide a continual reading of the depth below your boat, and help you pinpoint depth changes and find structure. Using hydrographic maps and fish finders together can make finding structure a relative easy task, even on a new lake.

A recent addition to an angler’s arsenal are GPS units, which can hold hydrographic maps as well as store waypoints, allowing you to mark structure once you find it. Of course, carrying some buoys is also handy to help you stay on structure as you fish the entire area.

Tips for Fishing Structure

I won’t try and cover how-to fish the various types of structure in one article, but I will suggest a few tips. First off, working jigs along the bottom and around the edges of structure can catch several species of fish, anglers should not just concentrate on the bottom (whether using jigs or not). Consider trying lures to work other depths around the structures. Also, try and fish “off” of structure as mentioned earlier. By this I mean if trolling the breakline, weave out into deeper water to look for suspended fish. The same concept applies when casting areas, like humps, islands and saddles.

Here’s a tip: fish sometimes suspend off of structure around the same depth as the structure itself. So, a hump that’s 12-feet deep might have a pike several feet away from the edge of the structure, suspended at 12-feet over water with a depth of 25-feet. Another important tip, which I’ve touched on already, is learning to isolate prime structure by considering other factors influencing fish behavior (such as food, cover, environmental elements, and so on).

Once you’ve done your homework and found structure you think will hold fish – take the time and fish it thoroughly. Many anglers work large structures too quickly, and if a big trophy is relating to a certain, special area on the structure (often called “the spot on the spot”) you might pass over her.

Learning about structure is just another way of thinking to solve the “Where are the fish today?” puzzle. Use maps and read up on your favorite species and how they relate to structure and you’ll find yourself catching more fish. Large pieces of structure can be intimidating to fish, so take the time to look for the best areas (considering other fish-factors) and fish them thoroughly.
Share this article with your fellow outdoorsmen:

Increasing Fish Production

Ohio Pond Management
Increasing Fish Production
Methods of Increasing Fish Production
Fertilization
Artificial Feeding
Adding Fish Habitat Structures

Pond owners should view their ponds as selfsustaining bodies of water that are capable of providing all of the ingredients necessary for good fish production. The amount of fishes that can be harvested depends upon a pond’s ability to produce them, and this amount varies from pond to pond. Ohio ponds can often support up to 250 pounds of fish per acre, although this amount is generally less for ponds that are smaller than one acre. If a pond’s normal fish production is less than what the pond owner deems acceptable, it may be possible to enhance production.

The most effective methods to artificially increase fish production are pond fertilization and fish feeding (pellet feeding pictured). However, each of these methods can also cause pond problems, so pond owners should consider them only after carefully weighing the trade offs associated with trying to increase fish production.

Fertilization
Fertilization can improve fish production by increasing the production of tiny plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain, the phytoplankton and zooplankton. This increase in production at the bottom of the food web may ultimately translate into improved growth and production of sport fish. However, negative impacts from fertilization can also result if the added nutrients stimulate growth of undesirable types of aquatic vegetation and algae. Whereas excess vegetation can be a problem to anglers and swimmers during warm weather months, it can also make the pond more susceptible to fish kills due to a build-up of dead and decaying plant material. The pond owner may find that the cost of fertilizer, effort to maintain a fertilization program, and risk of fish kills outweigh the benefits of the increase in fish harvested.

Most ponds in Ohio are adequately supplied with nutrients from the surrounding watershed and should not require artificial fertilization. In fact, many ponds receive so many nutrients from the watershed alone that problems develop with growth of excess vegetation and reductions in water quality. The following criteria should be met if a pond is to be considered for fertilization: 1) the watershed to pond ratio is less than 20 acres of watershed per surface acre of pond, 2) the watershed consists primarily of woodland acreage with soils that are low in fertility, and 3) the pond has a minimal amount of shallow water and most of the shoreline has the recommended 3:1 slope to discourage the growth of aquatic vegetation. Ponds without these characteristics should not be fertilized.

If fertilization is appropriate, then the pond owner needs to proceed with the proper treatment applied on a careful schedule. The recommended procedure is monthly applications of liquid fertilizers 10-34-0 (N-P-K) applied at the rate of two gallons per surface acre. Treatments should begin when water temperatures reach 60°F in the spring, and stop when water temperatures drop below 60°F in the fall. Fertilization should be temporarily halted when water temperatures exceed 80°F during the summer. Dilute each gallon of fertilizer with 10 gallons of water and spray the mixture evenly over the pond surface. Water clarity is a simple and convenient way to measure the progress of a fertilization program. The water clarity should be monitored twice each month throughout the fertilization season. This is easily accomplished by simply lowering a white object into the pond, such as a coffee mug on the end of a string. The white object should be visible to at least 18 inches below the water’s surface. If the object is not visible down to 18 inches, overfertilization may be a problem. In this case, postpone the next fertilizer treatment until the water has cleared somewhat and remeasure water clarity.

Artificial Feeding
Feeding is the most direct and reliable method to increase production of bluegills and channel catfish in ponds that are less than five acres. Proper artificial feeding will increase fish growth and provide larger fish for anglers. Unlike fertilization, with artificial feeding all of the nutrients go directly into fish production rather than the complex food chain. For ponds less than five acres, feeding is a feasible way to increase fish production. Bluegills and channel catfish will readily eat pelleted feeds that are available at agricultural feed stores. Pellet feed containing at least 25 to 32 percent protein will produce the best growth. Largemouth bass prefer live natural foods and will seldom eat pelleted feed.

Training fishes to accept artificial pellets may take a few days. When bluegills are feeding on the surface in the evening, tossing a few floating pellets into the areas where they are feeding will teach them to eat pelleted food. Begin an artificial feeding program by feeding fish about two pounds of pellets per acre per day. This amount may be increased to 15 pounds per acre per day after they have become accustomed to being fed. The feeding rate should be adjusted in the summer according to how much the fish are eating. Feeding may slow or even cease during the summer if water temperatures get above 85°F.

The best guide to feeding fishes is to give them no more than they can eat in 15 to 20 minutes. Using floating pellets in a feeding ring is a good way to monitor how much food they are eating. A feeding station approximately three feet in diameter can be constructed by sealing the ends of a piece of corrugated field tile. Connect the ends after sealing to form a three-foot circle and place the tile in an area of the pond that can easily be reached to fill with food (pictured right).

A pond owner should be willing to make a long-term commitment to continue feeding before a feeding program starts. Feeding should begin in the spring when water temperatures reach 60°F and should stop in the fall when water temperatures drop to 60°F. Fish should be fed daily at approximately the same time and in the same place. Missing a few days of feeding while on vacation will not cause problems if feeding is consistent during the remainder of the summer. Overfeeding fish can cause many of the same problems as overfertilization. Food that is not eaten by fish will decompose and use up the pond’s dissolved oxygen (see fish kills). Decomposing food can also release nutrients into the water that may promote the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae.

Adding Fish Habitat Structures to the Pond
Habitat structures –“fish shelters,” or “fish attractors”– are primarily designed to concentrate fish and increase an angler’s chances of success. Depending upon the size and type of materials used, structures can provide cover, resting areas, and feeding areas. Habitat structures can act as substitutes for natural cover in ponds where these types of areas are lacking.

Habitat structures can be constructed from many different natural and man-made materials. Easily obtained materials such as discarded Christmas trees can be banded together, weighted and sunk, although trees such as oak, hickory, and cedar work best due to their resistance to decay (brush pile picture right) . Man-made materials such as PVC pipe, field tile, concrete block, and wooden pallets can also be fashioned into fish attracting devices. Habitat structures can be placed into the pond from the bank if the structures are not too large and there is relatively deep water near the shore. Larger structures can be placed from a boat to allow access to deeper water.

Winter ice cover provides an excellent opportunity to build and place structures too large to install from the shore or by boat. These structures can be built on the ice, or built on shore and dragged out onto the ice. In either case, the structure is placed on the ice and allowed to fall into the desired location when the ice melts (see brush piles on ice to the right).

Fishes & anglers alike will make the best use of habitat structures that are distributed carefully in the best locations. These structures are best placed in water that is within reasonable casting distance from shore & two to eight feet deep to allow consistent fish use. Habitat structures should not be placed in the deepest part of the pond where low dissolved oxygen levels (common during summer) make them inaccessible to fish.

Five Fish Cribs Placed on Long Lake



Five Fish Cribs Placed on Long Lake
by Scott Sandor
Five fish cribs have been constructed by volunteers of the Long Lake Fishing Club and have been put on the ice this winter.  This is a multi-year project where a total of twenty five fish cribs will be constructed and deployed on the lake (Ten are planned for the next two years). 

The LLFC board approved the project this past summer.  Discussions with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) began shortly thereafter which included the WDNR representatives taking a pontoon tour.  The tour included the proposed locations of the new cribs.  Measurements were taken by board members Charlie Benson, John Hrovat, Matt Kissinger, John Koerble and Brian Ebert.A big thank you goes out to Brian Ebert.  Brian was instrumental in the construction of the cribs.  He went out on his property, cut the wood, searched and gathered the necessary materials needed to build the first five fish cribs and collected the needed Christmas trees to fill the cribs.  Thank you Brian!  Kudos also goes out to Matt Kissinger for constructing the jig to drill the perfectly aligned holes for easy construction.

The first five fish cribs have been placed on the ice in March.  Again thanks to all the LLFC directors and volunteers who made this project happen:  Don Enders, Charlie Benson, John Hrovat, Brian Ebert, Matt Kissinger, Tom Flasch, Boyd Stoffel, Jason Sarauer, Doug Staege and Roger Kahut.

 

Fish Cribs 101

Fish Cribs 101 – Reprint from Ripples

JUNE 22, 2010
by crescentlakewi

Fish Cribs 101

By Bob Young – OCLRA Director

Attend some northern Wisconsin lake association meetings and you‘ll probably run into this before long: …let‘s put in some fish cribs so we can catch more fish?, or …the fishing has really gone downhill, let‘s put in some cribs to boost the fish population?.

If it‘s a clear water lake, you may get some folks who object to the prospect of seeing a man-made structure while they‘re out kayaking on a calm evening. But on most lakes there are some who are convinced it will turn the lake around, back to the great fishing spot it was when they fished it as a kid they‘ve already assembled a work crew, lined up materials, and have a funding proposal drafted for the group to vote on.

Row of fish cribs along a shoreline.

But just what is a fish crib, and what can it do for your lake? Before we can answer that question we need to step back a bit and also consider some other types of fish habitat structures, and the role they play in a lake‘s ecosystem.

All the commonly used fish habitat structures fish cribs, tree drops, brush bundles, half-logs, or even Christmas trees, involve replacing woody habitat to lakes that are often wood -starved. Ever visit a small backwoods lake with no development, and paddle around the shoreline? What strikes you immediately is the large number of downed trees, logs and branches you can see in the shallow waters. Larger, usually older logs are lying in deeper water that you can‘t see.

All of that wood provides food and cover for wood consuming organisms and fish of all sizes and species during some stage of their life. It‘s what lakes do – provide food and cover, aka habitat, for their natural residents.

Contrast that with your own lake. Do you see many downed trees, branches and logs lying in the shallow water? If not, it‘s like many other developed lakes here in northern Wisconsin. For a long time now, trees have either been removed from lake shorelines or pulled from shallow waters. They are wood-starved.

Which brings us back to fish cribs and the other man-made habitat structures. Fish cribs at- tract fish, no doubt about it. When the crib locations are well known, they increase fish harvest. Great for the knowledgeable angler, as long as the harvest is sustainable over time. It‘s still being debated by fisheries biologists whether cribs can actually increase overall fish numbers.

Yet many biologists believe that if installed properly, fish cribs can provide some benefit to lakes. First, consider the real need for cribs in your lake — they are best placed in lakes that don‘t have much natural woody habitat or vegetation. On the other end of the spectrum, lakes with an overabundance of vegetation often have a stunted panfish population — in this case adding cribs adds to the problem by providing even more places for overabundant panfish to hide from predators.

Some other guidelines to keep in mind if you‘re planning a crib project:

Plan to eventually install large numbers of cribs to spread out angling pressure. If you don‘t, your fish crib project may actually work against your goal of improving fishing.

Create effective habitat by weaving the maximum amount of brush into each structure.

Follow WDNR guidelines and rules for installing fish cribs found athttp://dnr.wi.gov/ waterways/checklists/checklist_fishcrib.pdf. Primary among them is the requirement to use natural materials (wood). No plastic or metal here, except for fasteners.

Now, what about tree drops, brush bundles and half-logs, or even Christmas trees? They are all forms of woody habitat structures, like fish cribs. Brush bundles and Christmas trees are not often used anymore, primarily because they rot away quickly, and they‘re difficult to anchor. When they break loose they can become a boating hazard or general nuisance.

That leaves the gold standards of fish habitat structures, tree drops and half-logs. Half-logs are thick planks supported on each end by a concrete block. Easy to build and relatively easy to place in shallow water, at least compared to a fish crib. And they work. In bass lakes without much natural woody cover, they are heavily used by spawning bass, especially small- mouths. Again, you must follow WDNR regulations, found at http://dnr.wi.gov/waterways/ checklists checklist_halflogs_old.pdf.

Consider tree drops. The term itself, tree drop, is self explanatory. Trees have been dropping naturally into our lakes since the glaciers receded. And until about a hundred years ago, they stayed where they dropped, providing excellent critter habitat. A man-made? tree drop is just that you cut or place a tree so that its butt end is on shore, with the rest extending out into the lake. It‘s secured with a cable to keep it in place.

It quickly becomes colonized with invertebrate life, which in turn attracts all sorts of fish and water lov- ing animals. Each year after the ice leaves, you‘ll see a procession of different fish species use the same tree for spawning and cover, but at different intervals. By the time summer gets here, the results of their spawning efforts – lots of little fish – are seeking shelter in the branches. Imagine that, just like Ma Nature, and it was man-made?. Once again, follow the rules you find at http:// dnr.wi.gov/waterways/checklists/checklist_treedrop.pdf.

One other bit of advice for the habitat minded – before you even start to plan your project, talk with your local fisheries biologist. They can help you decide what, if any, habitat projects are appropriate for your lake, and give advice along the way.

 

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

By: GILLIAN FLACCUS 04/12/11 1:51 PM
Associated Press

Twelve Southern California water agencies have notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that they plan to sue to block expanded sucker fish habitat that could crimp water supplies for people, the agencies said Tuesday.

The action was prompted by a ruling, which went into effect in January and added 1,026 acres to the fish’s habitat, bringing the total protected area to more than 10,000 acres. The federal agency expanded the habitat for the small brown-and-black mottled fish after an environmental organization sued in 2005, alleging the fish was not protected in its namesake river, the Santa Ana River.

The legal notice, filed Monday, gives the federal agency 60 days to respond before a lawsuit is filed.

Jane Hendron, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Carlsbad office, did not immediately return a call or e-mail seeking comment.

The habitat designation does not mean any human water supplies will be shut off or altered, but it does mean that local water districts and cities must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before doing work on any new or existing water projects with any federal involvement and could face stricter limits on what they can do.

The expanded habitat includes upstream areas that have no sucker fish living in them now — and that sometimes dry up entirely because those areas hold the gravel that is critical for the fish’s survival, said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with Center for Biological Diversity, the group that sued in 2005. That gravel needs to be washed downstream to help the fish, she said.

“The whole reason is to identify areas that may not have any animals in them anymore, but historically did. The critical habitat looks at recovery opportunities as well, rather than just keeping them on life support,” Anderson said of the fish.

The water agencies that filed the notice said Tuesday they were most concerned that they would be required to use water that currently goes to residents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties to push gravel downstream to areas where the creatures reproduce.

That could mean diverting water that could supply more than 500,000 people and impact the water supply for about 3 million residents who live downstream, said Douglas Headrick, general manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s sucker fish task force.

“The only way to move the gravel is with water. What we’re concerned about is that someone will require us to use the water that we’ve been diverting to move gravel. We don’t know any other way,” he said.

The Santa Ana sucker fish is listed as a federally threatened species with known populations in areas of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange counties.

The fish in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, in the Santa Clara River, have interbred with other types of sucker fish, however, and are not included in the critical habitat listing because they are not considered genetically pure, Anderson said.

The critical habitat now includes portions of the Santa Ana river in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties and the San Gabriel River and Big Tujunga Creek in Los Angeles County.

The 12 agencies who are objecting to the final ruling on the habitat have planned or current projects or activities that will be affected by the inclusion of the Santa Ana River in the protected area, according to the 60-day notice paperwork. Included are water districts in Big Bear, San Bernardino, Riverside, Yucaipa and others, as well as the city of Redlands.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/04/calif-agencies-sue-over-sucker-fish-habitat#ixzz1KBj6L3I7

 

Volunteer workers improve fish habitat in Lake Hamilton

Columnist | Joe Mosby
Volunteer workers improve fish habitat in Lake Hamilton
Posted on 05 March 2011
By Joe Mosby
The old lament of “why don’t they do something about the fishing in this lake?” is getting an answer in several Arkansas bodies of water.
The “they” is a combination of federal agencies, state agencies and — the key ingredient — private citizens who volunteer their money and labor.
One strong example is Lake Hamilton, the heavily used impoundment on the Ouachita River at the doorstep of Hot Springs. Fish habitat structures are being fabricated and sunk in appropriate places in the lake.
“Build it, and they will come” has been proven any number of times in Arkansas waters. The Lake Hamilton project, which will go on for several years, is moving ahead under guidance of fishing veterans Ricky Green and Darryl Morris. They have a contingent of other volunteers working with them and with the help of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
Brett Hobbs, a fisheries biologist with the Game and Fish Commission, said volunteers are also doing much of the habitat work on DeGray Lake and Lake Greeson.
Green, formerly of nearby Arkadelphia, was one of the top professional bass tournament competitors in the 1970s and 1980s. Morris operates Family Fishing Trips, a guide service focusing on crappie fishing, on Lake Hamilton.
Morris said, “We are making two types of cover with bamboo. One is 10 to 12 feet tall that we call a ‘condo,’ and one is 5 to 6 feet tall that we call a ‘casa.’ There are other types available upon request by donors.”
The components are a plastic drain pipe with holes drilled in it, cane or bamboo and a 5-gallon bucket that is filled with concrete to hold the rig in place underwater.
Lake Hamilton is an old lake, built in the early 1930s by Arkansas Power & Light Co. for power generation. All of its natural cover is gone, Morris said, and the structures being installed will partly restore cover.
Morris said, “The fish structures benefit bass, crappie, bream and baitfish. They will support the entire life cycle of the fish. The density of these habitats provides ample protection for fish fry and bait fish. Algae growing on (the structures) provide food for fry and baitfish. This reduces the mortality rate and increases recruitment of the fry and baitfish which in term increases the number of catchable bass, crappie and bream.”
The structures are not marked, Morris said, “but are put in strategic locations like coves and points where they will be easy to find with a sonar unit” (depth finder).
The bamboo-and-bucket structure has been used for several years with success on Lake Greeson, where Morris worked with fellow crappie guide Jerry Blake in putting numerous structures into that lake. The encouraging crappie catches on Greeson have become known around Arkansas fishing circles.
Morris said about the Lake Hamilton project, “This will be an ongoing project. We hope to do 200 or more per year. After about five years it will become a maintenance program to keep the cover in the lake.
Help is needed.
Materials for the fish structures cost money even if the bamboo or cane is free except for the labor in cutting and transporting it. Green and Morris have several volunteer workers to assemble the structures and move them by boat to the desired locations. But they can use more willing hands.
Money donated by cash, check or credit card goes into a 3-to-1 match of federal and state funds for sport-fisheries restoration.
Morris can be contacted by e-mail at captdarryl@familyfishingtrips.com. A website, www.lakehamiltonhabitat.org, has more information.

Fish Sticks

The following story was posted in a Northern Wisconsin newspaper. Although not all situations allow trees to be used, pay special attention to the need for shallow water cover to hold fry. Fishiding products are just the answer to this dilema. Take a look and see why the only American made artificial fish habitat, made from reclaimed PVC is the answer to a green approach to fish habitat management. http:// www.fishiding.com

 

Vilas County may include structures in cost share program

By Ratchel White Of the Lakeland Times

Fish sticks aren’t just frozen food anymore. In areas where the technique is implemented, “Fish Sticks” refers to fallen trees arranged and utilized for fish habitat. The idea has gained local attention, especially because the structures are suspected to also reduce shoreline erosion.

Researchers studying shoreline restoration in Oneida and Vilas Counties are interested in possibly integrating the technique in their efforts. Vilas County Department of Land and Water Conservation has also eyeballed the technique as a potential candidate to include in their cost share program for landowners combating erosion.

Vilas County land conservation specialist Marquita Sheehan said that with so many lakes, people in this part of the state are likely to pick up on the technique.

Michael Meyer, lead research scientist on the above mentioned efforts, agrees. “Anything that increases people’s likelihood to catch fish is popular,” Meyer said.

And it does seem to be the case that the structures increase the amount of fish in lakes where they have been built. Thats according to Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist Scott Toshner.

“People who fish in lakes and people who scuba dive or snorkel really like these things because they attract fish. That’s just the bottom line,” Toshner said.

Toshner has been involved with more than 20 “Fish Sticks” projects over the past four years. He has watched the interest in this method of improving lake health and habitat spread to other counties and even out of state. The idea for fish sticks was resurrected from a DNR study in the 1950’s.

The technique arranges entire trees, with their branches, in a criss-cross shape that resembles the letter A.  Typical structures use five tress and take up 25-50 feet of shoreline.

Fish Sticks are assembled on the ice so they will fall into place once the lake surface thaws. The structures are anchored to trees on the shoreline. They require a DNR permit and specialized equipment to build. Toshner estimated the cost of a project as roughly $25.00 per tree.

One project near Bayfield was scaled back because the structures were too near a beach at a public campground. However, Toshner said it was the only instance of controversy surrounding the structures.

Projects to put in structures have mainly been on private property and with landowner’s cooperation.

In all cases except for the above, Toshner said that response to the structures on lakes where they are put in is overwhelmingly positive. They have gained a reputation as improving fish habitat, though he said that the structures also improve turtle and other wildlife habitat.

In comparing the structures to fish cribs, Toshner indicated that they may provide a missing link in terms of fish habitat. “With the fish cribs, the one thing you kind of miss with them is the link between the near shore area where a lot of theses fish spawn and spend their lives as juveniles…[with fish sticks] the wood in this near shore area may be a missing link in terms of habitat in some of these lakes,” Toshner said.

In addition to improving habitat for lake critters, there is furthewr evidence that these structures may reduce soil erosion. However, the evidence remains annecdotal.

A UW-Steven’s Point study is attempting to confirm observations that the structures help prevent wave action and can build up eroded shoreline. Right now, it’s the growing interest in these structures that is is the most encouraging side effect, according to Toshner.

Lakes in Eau Claire, Douglas and Bayfield Counties currently have fish sticks structures, and Toshner said the forest service in the Michigan  Upper Penninsula and groups out of Minnesota have also expressed interest.

More interest leads to more awareness of the benefits of fish sticks projects, according to Toshner. The educational component of current projects cannot be overlooked, he said, especially for people who live out on the lakes.

“If they see this and they see that it’s a good thing, which is what we’re seeing, then they’re more apt to leave that tree in that fell along the shoreline instead of removing it,” Toshner said. “If people can see that trees in the water are a valuable resource, they’re less likely to remove a tree that might fall inj along their own shoreline.”

 

The Largest Fish Habitat Restoration Project in America

The Largest Fish Habitat Restoration Project in America
In 1992 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Arizona entered into an ambitious fishery habitat restoration project on Lake Havasu in partnership with 6 state and federal agencies and Anglers United. Natural fish habitat in the lake had deteriorated to the point that sport and bait fish populations were in serious decline and fishing was marginal.

Shimano donated a specially designed pontoon boat adapted from the Shimano Live Release boat program to transport and strategically place thousands of fish habitat structures throughout the lake.

Press Coverage

Shimano Boat .jpg

BLM, Anglers United Agree on $27 Million Project at Havasu

Lake Havasu News Release.pdf

Lake Havasu Kids Fishing Day

Havasu Kids Day.pdf

Bureau of Land Management Thank You Letter

BLM Thank You Letter.pdf

In 2002 the Lake Havasu habitat improvement project was completed, thanks to the donation of thousands of hours of volunteer effort to construct and place fish structures and $40 million dollars of government funding. As one of the largest and most successful fish habitat improvement projects ever undertaken in the U.S. , the foresight of the BLM Arizona State Office under the leadership of Director Les Rosencranz and his capable staff stands as a shining example of what can be accomplished when government natural resource agencies, anglers and interested members of the public and private sector companies work together on behalf of the future of fishing.

Scroll to Top