<iframe width=”560″ height=”349″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/Te4PTSHdx5Y” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
Salmon Habitat Restoration In Coos Bay
Salmon Habitat Restoration In Coos Bay
Author: david
Fish Habitat Forum looks to future
Fish Habitat Forum looks to future
30 May 2011
LAST week’s Fishers for Fish Habitat Forum held in Tamworth saw more than 60 recreational fishos join forces with landholders, scientists and natural resource managers to discuss ways to improve fish habitat.
“The Forum provided an unparalleled opportunity for fishers from across NSW to learn
more about the latest research into fish habitat and to share their stories about efforts to
rehabilitate habitat and make more fish,” said Craig Copeland, Conservation Action Unit
Manager with NSW Department of Primary Industries, organisers of the Forum.
“Recreational fishers assessed the Forum as a major success and plans are now
underway by many fishers to fix some fish habitat in their local area over the coming year.”
President of the NSW Recreational Fishing Alliance, Malcolm Poole said recreational
fishers at all levels were inspired by speakers at the Forum who explained what fishers
could and should be doing to create more fish naturally for the future.
Ecofishers President, Ken Thurlow said the Forum was “a superb opportunity to network
with recreational fishers from around NSW and discuss the key role of fish habitat in
supporting our fisheries.”
President of the NSW Council of Freshwater Anglers, Rodney Tonkin said a highlight was
Dr Martin O’Grady’s presentations on issues affecting fish habitat in Ireland and how these
were being addressed.
As well as being a mad keen fisher himself, Dr O’Grady challenged fishers to seriously
look at habitat repair as a cost-effective way of improving fish numbers.
Forum participants were taken on several site visits and received presentations from scientists and managers on the importance of fish habitat. They also saw a demonstration of long-stem tree planting and heard about fish habitat work being done by local landholders and school children.
Malcolm Poole said the Recreational Fishing Alliance thoroughly recommends all anglers
get involved and take time out to attend next year’s Forum.
More information: http://www.fishhabitatnetwork.com.au/
Hook, line and sinker
Hook, line and sinker
Salmon fishermen take issue with a lawsuit to halt the 2011 fishing season
By Alastair Bland
More stories by this author…
This article was published on 05.26.11.
More stories by this author…
This article was published on 05.26.11.
 Bill Divens caught this beauty, a chinook (king) salmon, on the Rogue River in Gold Beach, Ore., this past September. The Red Bluff-based fishing guide is looking forward to hitting the Sacramento River this year. PHOTO COURTESY OF BILL DIVENS |
Bait it up: A commercial ocean salmon season opened May 1 and a recreational river season for chinook salmon is scheduled to begin on July 16. For more info, visitwww.dfg.ca.gov/marine/oceansalmon.asp. |
Mike Bogue saw most of his income vanish in 2008. That was the year that officials closed California’s ocean and river salmon seasons in response to a dramatic decline in fish populations, and Bogue—a sport-fishing guide in Redding—lost his main livelihood.
To make ends meet, he has been taking clients catch-and-release fishing for wild rainbow trout on the Sacramento River.
But the Sacramento’s chinook salmon seem to be staging a comeback. A successful return of spawners showed last fall, and biologists believe large numbers of fish are now holding in coastal waters and will move upstream to spawn in the fall. Based on such estimates, on May 1 federal officials opened the first full-length commercial ocean salmon season since 2007.
Five days later, a group of water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley sued to stop it.
The lawsuit, filed on May 5 against the federal government by a group of 22 water and irrigation districts called the San Joaquin River Group Authority, makes the case that resumed ocean fishing could have an adverse effect on salmon numbers, especially the federally threatened spring-run chinook. If fishing does dent their numbers, the plaintiffs say, officials might impose new restrictions on the pumping of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the salmon. Many farmers who gain their livelihoods from water removed from the delta via two large pumps near Tracy would suffer.
Ken Petruzzelli, a Chico attorney representing the plaintiffs, sent an e-mail on April 20 to the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, both defendants in the case, that spells out the concerns of the plaintiffs.
“The [San Joaquin River Group Authority’s] member agencies have no wish to give up water … to mitigate for ocean fishing,” Petruzzelli wrote.
Bogue, who has lost 80 percent of his income since sport fishing for salmon was largely closed in 2008, notes the insincerity of the lawsuit. “They don’t want to see the salmon go on the endangered species list, but not because they care about the fish,” he said. “They want to keep their water, because water is money.”
Fishermen statewide have lashed back in response to the lawsuit, alleging it was water diversions at the delta’s two large pumping facilities that damaged fish habitat and caused the Sacramento River’s fall-run chinook salmon to collapse in the first place.
Another local fishing guide, Bill Divens in Red Bluff, thinks the lawsuit is an elaborate public-relations maneuver to divert attention from the effects that water pumping has had on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers’ ecosystems.
“It’s meant to distract people from the real problems affecting the rivers,” said Divens, who still takes customers trout fishing on Shasta Lake but has otherwise moved his guide service to Oregon’s Rogue River. “The water agencies are just saying it’s not their fault that the salmon almost disappeared. First they said it was striped bass. Now they’re blaming commercial fishermen. Next they’ll say it’s the yellow-legged frog’s fault.”
Allen Short, the coordinator of the San Joaquin River Group Authority, believes that salmon runs crashed several years ago due in part to overfishing. Fish numbers, according to biologists, now seem to be on the upswing, and Short believes this is a direct result of three consecutive years without substantial fishing seasons. Short has suggested delaying fishing for another year to further help the runs.
But Michael O’Farrell, a research scientist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, says overfishing has not been a problem for California’s salmon populations. He recently helped produce a report in which a team of biologists determined that overfishing in 2007 did not play a role in the decline of salmon numbers, which hit their lowest recorded levels in 2009.
O’Farrell added that salmon-season limits and regulations are rewritten every year, and he says the salmon fishery is among the most carefully regulated fisheries on the West Coast. Measures like minimum size limits and the season schedule, he says, are designed to minimize angler contact with the Sacramento’s imperiled salmon runs.
Officials entirely banned fishing after spawning returns of the fall-run chinook took a nosedive about four years ago. Many fishermen even welcomed the closures while demanding restrictions on water pumping in the delta to improve spawning and smolt-rearing habitat.
But a fourth year of unemployment could sink many commercial fishermen into bankruptcy, says Mike Hudson, a commercial salmon fisherman in Berkeley.
“We’ve been fishing for other things, and a few pounds of rockfish or black cod might keep the boat running and food on the table, but it’s nothing to make real money off of,” Hudson said. “If I was forced to quit fishing now after getting my boat all ready, I’d be totally busted.”
Peter Moyle, a UC Davis fisheries biologist, says that salmon populations—especially small ones—can be affected by overfishing. But the Sacramento’s fall run, he says, is produced largely by the work of hatcheries. Such runs, Moyle says, are very resilient.
“You can catch 75 or 80 percent of a hatchery population as long as just a few fish are allowed to get back to the hatcheries,” he said.
Moyle is one of many experts who believe that problems in the rivers where salmon spawn and where the juveniles must spend the first months of their lives caused the near-disappearance of salmon. Indeed, the delta’s two large pumps removed record-high levels of water between 2003 and 2006. In the years that followed, the fall-run chinook salmon population plunged; nearly 800,000 adult fish returned to spawn in 2002; just 39,000 did so in 2009.
Now, the fish may be rebounding. Last fall, 163,000 salmon returned to the Sacramento to spawn. Officials had incorrectly predicted a much higher return, however, and many people have grown skeptical of biologists’ abundance estimates. Still, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s estimate that approximately a million salmon, mostly from the Sacramento’s fall run, are now holding in coastal waters has fishermen hopeful that the runs may be returning.
The plaintiffs in the San Joaquin River Group Authority’s lawsuit, which is now pending in a U.S. District Court in Fresno, say that salmon fishing violates the federal laws that protect imperiled fish populations and will hamper the task of rebuilding the runs.
In the very midst of such accusations, the Center for Biological Diversity reported last month that the delta’s two major pumps—which provide for farmland and urban development to the south—have killed more than 10,000 juvenile spring-run chinook this year, though a federal official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told this reporter that many of the dead salmon may have been fall-run fish.
Furthering the drama, San Joaquin Valley Republicans introduced congressional legislation on May 11 that proposes to exempt these very pumps from fish-protecting regulations. If such maneuvers win out, and if river management policies are not improved, the rebounding salmon population could easily crash again, warns Dick Pool, president of the Bay Area conservation group Water4Fish.
“Shutting down the season is not the way to bring these fish back,” said Pool, who considers the lawsuit a waste of time, resources and taxpayer money. “It’s the health of the river that matters. If the river conditions don’t change, these salmon could still head to extinction.”
Enviro groups, NID optimistic about higher stream flows
By Trina Kleist
Staff Writer
Fish would benefit from an effort by water district officials and environmentalists to increase the amount of water flowing in some waterways.
And both sides appeared optimistic about their prospects during a public hearing before the Nevada Irrigation District board on Wednesday.
The negotiations come as NID applies for state licenses on 10 water right permits it holds for the district’s distribution system. Directors voted unanimously to continue those talks for up to three months, while also approving a report that concludes the licensing would have no environmental impact.
Groups working with NID on the issue and represented by Foothills Water Network include American Rivers, based in Nevada City, the Sierra Club and California Department of Fish and Game.
They are asking for more water in Deer Creek below Lower Scotts Flat Reservoir; in Bear River downstream from Combie Reservoir, where it crosses Highway 49; and in Coon Creek, the next watershed south of Bear River, in northwestern Placer County.
All three host or could host trout. Coon Creek has excellent fish habitat and flows through Spears Ranch Regional Park, said Northern California/Nevada Conservation Chairman Allan Eberhart of the Sierra Club, with an office in Grass Valley.
Group members also are asking for more water in Auburn Ravine, the next watershed south of Coon Creek. That waterway has seen steelhead and salmon, and environmentalists are looking for ways to help fish get around barriers in the waterway.
More studies are needed to determine how much water in each waterway is needed, environmentalists said.
An agreement on the matter would allow most of the groups that have protested the district’s water licensing application to drop their protests, said Chris Shutes of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
“There are costs associated with what we’re asking NID to do,” Eberhart said. NID potentially could recover those costs by selling that water downstream or “banking” the water for environmental improvement to the Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta, Eberhart said.
Foothills Water Network coordinator Julie Leimbach praised district officials for working with environmental groups “in good faith.” She promised no surprises would pop up during the coming discussions.
She also will provide a briefing paper on the groups’ interests. Negotiations would lead to “a plan in place for targeted studies to answer any data needs, and a plan for implementation,” Leimbach vowed.
The Department of Fish and Game also supports the strategy, said environmental scientist and Water Rights Coordinator Lauren Dailey.
By approving the environmental document while negotiations continue, the district is protecting itself from other groups that could file a new protest, NID lawyer Jeffrey Meith said.
The strategy can help NID avoid the financial and time costs of court challenges to the environmental documents, Division 5 Director Nick Wilcox said.
Staff from the state’s licensing agency, the Water Resources Control Board, also support this route, Eberhart added.
A $76 billion economic force.Hunters andAnglers: chapt #1
Chapter #1
A force as big as all outdoors:
Meals: $165 Fishing license: $30 New boat and trailer: $52,000 ATV: $6,000
Motel: $69.95 x 5 nights Boat registration: $60 Hunting license: $50 Gas: $75
Two weeks’ groceries: $300 GPS and walkie-talkies: $295 Gas $115
Polarized sunglasses: $90 Fish finder: $360 Boat winterization: $300
New rod and reel: $295 Flowers for my wife for letting me go fishing: $45
New rifle: $785 Cabin: $25,000 Property tax: $4,200 Hunting land : $115,000
Chain saw: $189 Trolling motor: $280 New boots and coat: $325
Taxidermy (with any luck): $450
A dollar here . A hundred dollars there . It adds up to more than you might think.
America’s 34 million hunters and anglers are an economic powerhouse , driving the economy. They’re passionate about their pastimes and they spend passionately too.
Multiply individual spending by those many millions of people , and you’re talking a major force in our economy, through booms as well as recessions . They directly support 1.6 million jobs . They spend more than a billion dollars just on licenses, stamps , tags and permits, and they generate $25 bi l l ion a year in federal , state and local taxes .
By any measure , hunters and anglers are among the most prominent and influential of all demographic groups. Hunters and anglers support twice as many jobs as the combined civillian payrolls of the Army, Marine Corps , Navy and Ai r Force .
$208 million a day. $1.5 billion per week. Annually hunters and anglers spend $9 billion to lease and purchase land for their sports . That’s enough to purchase 27,000 new homes or rural acreage larger than the states of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
No mortgage crunch here. Without hunters and anglers, our economy would be a lot smaller. $76 billion smaller, in fact. That’s how much they spend each year on their pass ion for the outdoors. If a single corporation grossed as much as hunters and anglers spend, it would be among America’s 20 largest , ahead of Target , Costco and AT&T. Buthunters’ and anglers ’ influence goes even further. They create an economic “ r ipple effect “. They keep people working: not just in typical hunting and fishing jobs , but also in ga s stations, retail , restaurants and hotels throughout every state and congressional district of the USA.
There are other numbers , too. For instance , Americans spend more time hunting and fishing each year than days spent running the Federal government (737 mi l l ion days vs . 486 mi l l ion) . Together, hunters and anglers are a significant voting bloc. In fact, their voting potential was 31% of all votes cast in the 2004 presidential election. Eighty percent of sportsmen are “likely voters,” far more than the national average. They can change the tide of elections. And, as you might guess, they tend to favor pro-sporting candidates.
$8.6 million an hour. Spending by hunters and anglers is more than the revenues of Microsoft , Google, eBay and Yahoo—combined (76 billion vs . 73.6 billion)
Higher earnings than high-tech. (34 MILLION VS . 27 MILLION ) More people hunt and fish than watch the nightly newscasts of the three major networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC. Breaking news. Hunting and fishing Americans out number motor- sport fans by more than 2 to 1. In fact , they could fill every NASCAR track 13 t imes over.
Racing ahead. If the $76 billion that sportsmen spend on hunting and fishing were the Gross Domestic Product of a country, sportsmen as a nation would rank 57 out of 181 countries .
On lodging alone, hunters spend more than the annual revenues of Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality Inn, EconoLodge, Rodeway Inn and Sleep Inn combined. Sleep on it.
Concerns still abound regarding Izard County sand mining
By Susan Varno
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Photo by Susan Varno / Contributing Writer
Mill Creek is shown after George Bartmess stripped vegetation from the bank in 2008. His property ends where the trees and vegetation begin.
THREE RIVERS AREA — The roar of a bulldozer on the banks of Mill Creek alerted residents in Izard County that their lives were about to change dramatically.
In February 2008, landowner George Bartmess stripped most of the vegetation from the creek bank on his property. He even plowed up some of the creek bed. Heavy rains washed sand and silt into the creek and downstream into Piney Creek. Piney’s gravel creek bed filled with sand and mud, threatening the smallmouth-bass habitat.
Barbara Carlson, who lives nearby, said Bartmess’ actions got the attention of his neighbors.
“Local people didn’t know Bartmess was planning to do sand mining,” Carlson said. “We came together and asked Friends of the North Fork and White River to help us understand the laws and environmental problems.”
The Friends helped residents form a chapter, Friends of Mill and Piney Creeks. Members of the new organization spent months studying frac sand mining, state and federal laws, and the permitting process.
They learned that B&H Resources LLC of Shreveport, La., had applied to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality for a quarry sand-mining permit. Beneath southern Izard County are thousands of tons of high-grade silica sand. Today, it is in demand as “frac sand,” used to help release natural gas from gas shale.
“We realized what Bartmess was doing was illegal,” Carlson said. “He was allowed to do nothing until his permit was approved.”
The group informed the ADEQ of Bartmess’ activity, and the department issued an emergency “cease and desist” order on June 19, 2008. Responding to the Mill and Piney Creeks group’s complaints, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission ordered B&H to repair damages along Mill Creek.
“A small group became active,” Carlson said. “We tried to educate the public and publicize what was happening. Word was spreading. People were alarmed.”
Company owner Mike Hardy was the “H” in B&H. Bartmess was the “B.”
“After the cease-and-desist order, we had issues with Bartmess,” Hardy said. “We bought him out and reorganized as Evergreen Processing LLC. We had to start the permit process all over. We have voluntarily held public meetings since we began the permitting process.”
About 130 local residents attended a meeting on Oct. 5, 2009, at the Calico Rock Music Hall. Evergreen sent its consultants to outline plans for the 1,300-acre mining site. Engineer Dan Drinkwater said the quarry would cover about 300 acres. To wash the sand, the plant would use about 390,000 gallons of water a day, drawn from 2,000-foot-deep wells.
Concerned that using so much water would dry up homeowners’ wells, Friends of Mill and Piney Creeks invited John Czarnecki of the U.S. Geological Survey to a public meeting on Feb. 18, 2010, in Calico Rock. Czarnecki said the volume of the Ozark Aquifer, which flows beneath northern Arkansas, has never been measured for Izard County, so it is not known if there is enough water to support sand-mining operations.
Hardy said after the meeting that he asked his consultant geologist, David Williamson, to meet with Czarnecki to investigate the dynamics of the aquifer.
“We have 18 springs on the Evergreen property,” Hardy said. “The second-largest spring runs well and has about the same flow in wet and dry years. We asked the Arkansas Natural Resource Commission to look at the spring, and they felt it was a better fit. It will cost us more to build a five-mile-long pipeline with four pumps to move the water from the spring to the plant, plus yearly maintenance. We made the change because it just made sense.”
At the October 2009 meeting, Evergreen consultant Kevin Ware said that after the sand is washed, the water will be pumped into retention ponds. Polyacrylamide would be added to bind with the sediment and make it sink. Some of the “clean water” would be reused. However, an ADEQ permit allows the release of “clean water” into creeks that eventually flow into the White River.
Jeff Williams, trout biologist for Arkansas Game and Fish, spoke next. He said trout become stressed when temperature, turbidity, chemicals and/or sediment levels of river water change. The fish don’t feed or spawn well and are more likely to die.
Responding to these concerns, Evergreen redrew its plans over the next year.
Hardy said the new plan does not use sediment-binding chemicals.
“We will bring water into a slurry, which presses the sediment into clay bricks,” he said. “The used water will go into two ponds, 4 acres each, with a berm around them.”
The bricks will be used to refill the quarry.
Evergreen will also use much less water.
“We will draw water from the ponds back into the plant, only adding water for condensation and evaporation,” Hardy said. “When we start this plant, we will become part of this community. Questions and concerns from meetings quickened our decision to make some changes. We felt the changes would have less impact and be more sustainable.”
On Jan. 25, ADEQ held a public hearing at Calico Rock City Hall on Evergreen’s discharge and pond-construction permit. The company’s revised plan includes using spring water and storm water and only cutting trees and vegetation for roads, the quarry and the plant.
More than 60 people attended the hearing. In response to questions from the audience, Mo Shafii, ADEQ Water Division assistant chief, said the department, which is responsible for 6,000 permits and has only 15 inspectors, is only required to inspect a permit site once every five years.
“Permits are a self-policing system,” Shafii said.
However, the agency usually responds to complaints from the public within three days, Shafii.
According to media reports, in March, Evergreen completed planting 15,000 river birch, silver maple, sycamore and red oak seedlings and a variety of shrubs as part of the rehabilitation plan that Game and Fish ordered along Mill Creek.
Carlson said local residents will have to monitor what the plant discharges into the streams near the quarry.
“We have been effective because we approached all that was happening with calmness and rationality, asking how we could minimize the impact of sand mining,” Carlson said. “My feeling is, let’s try to protect the environment on the front end, so we won’t have to fix it on the back end.”
Kenneth Ballman, justice of the peace from Horseshoe Bend, also has concerns about Evergreen and the other two frac sand-mining operations in Izard County.
“Sand mining will contribute to the local economy,” Ballman said. “At Guion, 30 to 35 jobs; Evergreen, 30 to 35 jobs. Short-term, this will be good for our economy, but the long-term impact could be worse. I would like to see a study of the aquifer.”
Viewpoint – Water council supports RAR bylaw
By Contributed Opinion – Gulf Islands Driftwood
Published: May 25, 2011 10:00 AM
Recent criticisms about the proposed Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) bylaw and the process for its implementation seem to have lost sight of its primary purpose. That is, to regulate activities on land that could result in contamination of critically important streams, lakes, wetlands and other water courses. Surely public health, in the form of safe, healthy water sources on our island, must be a clear priority.
The Salt Spring Island Water Council, comprising over 50 organizations, agencies and individuals involved with providing, protecting, conserving and managing drinking water on the island, strongly supports the overall intent of the proposed bylaw. We recognize that protection of fish habitat through the implementation of the RAR will also have the effect of enhancing the protection of our drinking water.
Water Council also agrees with the creative efforts of the Local Trust Committee to implement the bylaw in a way that would reduce the costs to applicants and expedite the approval process, provided it does not compromise public health concerns in the protection of vital drinking water supplies.
I’d like to address some of the criticisms being raised about the proposed bylaw.
The suggestion that this bylaw is being rushed through the process is emphatically wrong. The requirement to comply with the provincial RAR was made in March 2006 and, perhaps, should have been addressed in my term as a local trustee for the Islands Trust (2005-2008). However, a review of the development permit areas was planned but not undertaken over this period due to considerable work on other revisions to the OCP. Another two and a half years have passed. With extensive public input, a revised Development Permit Area 4 bylaw, incorporating RAR, has been proposed and is long overdue.
Concerns have been expressed about the scale of mapping that is needed. Since RAR applies to all defined “streams,” whether mapped or not, detailed mapping is not necessary to implement RAR. However, the Trust has proposed a reasonable compromise by identifying RAR designated watersheds on the island, within which the RAR would apply to a 30 m setback from any “streams.” In practice, according to staff estimates given in last week’s Driftwood, less than 10 per cent of the island land base could be affected.
Critics have proposed more certainty for landowners through detailed mapping of all possible “streams” that would be subject to RAR including ground-truthing and private landowner consultation. The costs are unknown, but likely high for the taxpayer and would further delay the bylaw. Even with such mapping, a site-specific assessment by a Qualified Environmental Professional could still be required for each application, at the applicant’s expense, at the time the application is made. Given the relatively few development permit applications that are filed and the proposal to have Trust staff provide an initial screening of applications, the proposed watershed mapping appears to be the most cost-effective approach.
I was pleased to read in last week’s Driftwood that the Trust is exploring a way to address the sensitive issue of roadside ditches, perhaps through a clear definition of ditches that would be subject to RAR with reduced setbacks and those that would be exempt. This would reduce the area of land affected even more.
In view of the above, and the urgency of protecting our increasingly threatened drinking water sources, Water Council urges the Local Trust Committee to proceed diligently with a final bylaw at the earliest opportunity accompanied by the proposed community information program to assist landowners and the development community.
Peter Lamb is coordinator of SSI Water Council and a former Islands Trustee.
Fishiding teams up with crappie and bass fisherman nationwide!
Not only has fishiding artificial fish habitat been used in private lakes and ponds for aquatic balance, but the pro’s in bass and crappie fishing on getting on-board fast. Since hitting the market just over two years ago, fishiding artificial fish attractors are taking fish habitat to a whole new level. For years fisherman and pond owners have been putting an array of products in their waters to provide much needed habitat for fish and aquatic life. Natural wood products continue to be used with success, only for a limited time. The industry has turned it’s direction towards artificial pvc products that won’t rot and stay forever in place.
The west Virginia Bass Federation has begun a pilot program with the fishiding fish habitat products to see if they can resolve a problem they have in many of their waters. Seems that they have trouble getting algae to grow quickly if at all on fish structure they have used in the past. These guys and gals put in countless hours of their own time to build, install and maintain hundreds of fish structures throughout the state.
What we know about fishiding is that it grows algae fast everywhere it has been installed, now in over 40 states. High water and flooding has kept the units from being installed but soon will be in the water holding fish. Much better than buried in a landfill.
The Bass Federation is hoping to install fishiding artificial fish habitat products throughout the state waters as well as all the states but two in the nation. Only Hawaii and Alaska do not have a Bass Federation chapter , with all the others eagerly involved. Stay tuned for results and information as to where the units have been installed.
Recently, fishiding.com was contacted by the West Alabama Crappie association and the Tenn Tom Crappie Club to sponsor their next two tournaments. These folks love to fish and install habitat, especially for crappie. Numerous sizes and models of fish habitat made from reclaimed pvc will be raffled off and awarded to winners at various events. Fishiding products are all made with an entirely green approach from the pvc material to the cardboard and newspaper used in shipping. All measures are taken to re-use and reclaim products to save the environment as well as the final cost.
Fishiding.com offers sizes of fish habitat from small Koi and garden pond fish made from fine strands of pvc, to large 84″ diameter fish attractors with wide flat limbs to cast maximum shade for the largest of predators.
Coming soon will be pre-packaged bundles of rigid sticks of pvc to be used as stakebeds. This stiff, long lasting material will hold crappie right where you want them and only you will know the spot.
Another often forgotten or looked over step in the process is actual fish habitat design. In the past only a few types of artificial fish habitat were available and manufacture’s seem to assume folks know what to do. We have learned that there is a great deal of thought that can and should go into habitat placement planning. With the various sizes, textures and shapes of fish attractors fishiding.com now offers, the blueprint for sucesss has never been so attainable. Depending on a clients goals, many choices are available. Shallow water cover to protect and grow fry and forage is now available exclusively with the fishiding cradle and garden pond sizes. Mid depth fish structure comes in the safehouse model, designed to give fish a route to follow as they move from 2-4 foot depths in to the 6-10 foot range. Once fish have grown to the optimal predator size, they will hide and hunt in the deeper water on the edge of the main lake basin. This is where the keeper model excels in holding large fish.
No matter what your goals are, or what shape your fishery is in, fishiding.com has fish habitat custom tailored to help your fish grow big and healthy. We will work with your budget to come up with a plan to keep your fish safe ,happy and full. After all, it’s about the fish.
TABLE ROCK LAKE FISH ATTRACTOR LOCATIONS
TABLE ROCK LAKE FISH ATTRACTOR LOCATIONS UPDATED WITH 2011 FISH ATTRACTORS
The following link directs you to a web site that displays Table Rock Lake fish attractor locations. This site is a partnership between the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Missouri Department of Conservation. Using the Map Identify tool you can see the latitude and longitude of the fish attractor. Use this link, Table Rock Lake Fish Attractor Locations
Largemounth bass study underway at Table Rock
Largemouth Bass
Download: large-mouth_bass.jpg
Please Credit “Courtesy Missouri Department of Conservation”
SPRINGFIELD MO — The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) and the University of Missouri are working together on a radio-telemetry study that will provide information about behavior and habitat use of largemouth bass.
Tracking of the tagged fish will begin this month (May) and will continue through 2012. Each fish will be located once per month during daylight hours. Once every three months, a smaller number of the tagged fish will be tracked for a full 24-hour period to monitor daytime and night-time movements. Once each fish is located information will be recorded such as GPS location, distance travelled from last location, depth and habitat use.
Earlier this year, 60 legal-size (greater than 15 inches) largemouth bass were collected from the Kings River arm of Table Rock and surgically implanted with radio tags. After the fish recovered from their surgeries, they were released back into the lake.
A tagged fish can be identified by a radio-tag antenna coming out of the body cavity and sutures near the fish’s abdomen. Besides a radio tag, each bass in the study was also tagged with an orange tag near the dorsal fin. This tag has a five-digit number unique to each fish. Anglers who catch tagged fish should contact the MDC at 417-334-4859 or e-mail MDC Fisheries Management Biologist Shane Bush at shane.bush@mdc.mo.gov.
When reporting a tagged fish, individuals should provide:
- Number from the orange tag.
- Length and weight of the fish.
- Location the fish was caught (GPS coordinates if possible).
- Overall condition of the fish.
- Approximate depth the fish was caught at and if it was near a habitat structure (if known.)
- If the fish was released or harvested.
This study is part of the Table Rock Lake National Fish Habitat Initiative, a project designed to maintain and improve fish habitat in Table Rock.
Since 2007, the MDC has placed more than 1,500 fish habitat structures in the lake. These structures were marked using GPS. Locations of these structures can be found athttp://newmdcgis.mdc.mo.gov/tablerock.
The NFHI project is a joint effort of the MDC, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bass Pro Shops, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other organizations. It is a pilot project for a broader national program focused on habitat protection and restoration in reservoirs throughout the country.