StructureSpot

StructureSpot

Tag: artificial PVC fishing attractors

The Science Behind Fishiding Artificial Fish Habitat (Part 10 of 10):

Posted on by david

The Science behind Fishiding Artificial Fish Habitat (part 10 of 10): By David Ewald and Eric Engbretson

Part Ten: Putting it all together-Top takeaways from our ten part series:

• Protection is the key: If the habitat structures are designed and installed in a way that don’t reduce the attack to capture ratio, they provide no benefit for forage species and consequently won’t hold any fish at all. Effective fish habitat must be constructed with a labyrinth of pockets and retreats that are completely inaccessible to larger predators.

• Fish are much more discriminating than we would ever have imagined. Because of that, every aspect of Fishiding habitat structures has a purpose or utility that the fish have shown us they prefer.

• Our research shows that fish prefer complex designs that resemble natural elements like macrophytes or coarse woody habitat-They shy away from assemblages that look foreign and out of place.

• There’s a real distinction between form and function. For artificial fish habitat to have any legitimate purpose at all, it needs to be genuinely functional and cannot just occupy space on the lake floor. Does your artificial habitat provide fish with shade, cover, safety, refuge, and food as well as natural habitat does?

• It’s important to have a good understanding of the target lake’s topography, recruitment history and bio-chemical character. This will ensure that the habitat is placed in a location where it will be best used and where the employment of additional habitat would serve a purpose beneficial to the fish.

• Artificial habitat units located in very close proximity to each other, always outperform single units standing alone. Fish will treat the combined individual units as one large, meandering reef.

• Because we can never really get into a fishes head and our own intuition about what should work is unreliable, testing is imperative to physically see what the fish prefer. There’s no substitute for being in the water with the habitat and seeing it with your own eyes. It gives you the most complete picture of what’s happening within the habitat and how fish are relating to it.

• We have all been thinking much too small. The challenge is not to make something that may function as well as a new Christmas tree, but to have higher aspirations, daring ourselves to design and deploy the kinds of habitat that Mother Nature herself will approve.

• Fish Habitat Mats. Simply put, they’re immovable, modular, habitat platforms that an array of habitat components can be secured upon/inside in limitless configurations. They can be carried, rolled or slid around quite easily during assembly, but become virtually immobile once on the lake floor. Hundreds of pounds of safe, dense cover can be secured in one secure cluster. The Mats will create extremely large complexes of cover, breaking a size barrier that has been previously limiting. Now, the dimensions and proportions of the habitat complexes can be measured in yards not feet. They can be as large as you want them, creating the kind of genuine fish-holding habitat that up until now has been unimaginable. We finally have a way to create credible artificial rivals to large pieces of coarse woody habitat, sunken timber, dense beds of vegetation and other kinds of habitat that nature ordinarily provides.

• To improve effectiveness and cost, the habitat needed to be larger, taller and heavier than anything previously considered or produced. These are the factors that shaped the decisions that lead to the design of the new Modular Habitat Mats by Fishiding.com.

Designing and building effective fish habitat is a genuine science. It’s still in its infancy, but we’re learning a great deal every day about the nuances of design and deployment. With today’s deep interest in artificial fish habitat, we’re eager to share our findings with fisheries professionals who want to learn more.

If you’ve missed any part of this series you can catch up at https://structurespot.com/
For more information contact David Ewald at (815) 693-0894
Email: sales@fishiding.com

Insufficient fish habitat protection threatens Alaska’s valuable fisheries

Posted on by david

The overreach of executive power

Klas Stolpe | Juneau Empire

Posted: January 9, 2014 – 12:07am
By LISA WEISSLER
FOR THE JUNEAU EMPIRE

The public interest is no longer being served by Alaska’s natural resources permitting system. When it comes to state resource development decisions, too little voice is given to Alaskans, project reviews are fragmented, local and tribal governments are sidelined, and too much power is concentrated in the executive branch, particularly the Department of Natural Resources.

Resource development projects often involve multiple activities, such as road and facility construction, water use, and material extraction. Each activity requires permits from different divisions within each resource agency. Since permitters act on their permitting authority separately, project reviews are piecemeal, and only public comments related to each individual activity are considered. There is no opportunity to analyze a project as a whole. DNR coordinates large project reviews such as large-scale mining, but this is done mostly as a service to applicants who pay for the privilege. More habitat articles at fishiding.com

Under the Alaska Coastal Management Program, local governments played a significant role in working with the state and federal government on the best way to resolve conflicts between competing resource uses and local values. But with the termination of the program in 2011, local governments are now accorded no more deference in development decisions than the general public.

Insufficient fish habitat protection threatens Alaska’s valuable fisheries. The Department of Fish and Game has just two laws specific to fish habitat, one that prevents obstructions in fish-bearing streams and one requiring Fish and Game approval prior to work in salmon streams. The defunct coastal program addressed other important fish habitat outside streambeds, including estuaries, offshore areas and tideflats. Now, fish habitat protection is mostly within DNR’s discretion as part of their land use permit.

Fish and Game is in the process of changing its special area management plans so that rather than prohibiting certain activities in special areas, the department will have discretion to permit activities without public notice. They also intend on putting multiple plans into a single review packet for public comment once a year, limiting the amount of public engagement on local issues.

Recently passed legislation allows DNR to hold a public notice and comment period only once every 10 years for oil and gas exploration or development in multi-million acre areas. People will be required to comment without knowing the when, where, how, or what kind of exploration or development might occur in or near their community.

The courts are the last check on overreaching executive power. But that’s under threat as well. Gov. Sean Parnell recently brought a lawsuit against respected statesman Vic Fischer and former First Lady Bella Hammond for their public interest challenge of Pebble mine activities.

And things could get worse. House Bill 77, currently pending before the Legislature, will concentrate even more power in the DNR commissioner and further fragment project reviews. It will also make it harder to appeal DNR decisions in court.

Then there’s Administrative Order 266, recently issued by the governor to establish regulatory “efficiency” guidelines. This may result in resource agencies loosening regulatory requirements, such as public notice, to reduce costs for developers.

We need our legislators to act as a check on this overreach of executive power. They should stop or substantially change HB 77, and pass legislation enforcing an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that DNR has a constitutional duty to analyze and give public notice on cumulative impacts of oil and gas projects. The Legislature should also conduct oversight hearings on resource agency regulation changes proposed under Administrative Order 266.

Other ideas to protect the public interest in permitting decisions include:

1. Providing for coordinated project reviews that give the public and local governments the opportunity to analyze projects as a whole.

2. Giving local governments deference on issues of local concern.

3. Increasing statutory fish habitat protection.

Residents can act as well. Tell your legislators you want this administration’s power grab stopped, and help elect a governor who values Alaskans and local and tribal governments as partners in the development of this great state. Contact your legislator, vote, and make your voice heard.

• Lisa Weissler is an attorney with expertise in natural resource law and over 20 years experience with the State of Alaska. She has worked thirteen sessions for the Alaska state legislature; served as an assistance attorney general specializing in oil, gas and mining law and coastal management; and as a special assistance for the Department of Natural Resources and a project analyst for the Alaska coastal management program. She was the policy director for the coastal management program initiative and is currently providing natural resource law and policy consulting services.

Lake Kegonsa Fish Cribs Locations

Posted on by david
2010 Fish Crib Locations Map >> Click Here
.pdf Adobe document will open in a new browser window.

Fisheries Committee

 

The goal of the Fisheries Committee is to preserve and improve the quality of fishing in Lake Kegonsa.  They meet with various agencies and concerned individuals to discuss ways to achieve this.  Topics of interest include: breeding habitats, fish cribs, fish stocking, invasive species (plant & fish) and harmful runoff.

 

 

Fish Crib Project
The FOLKS Fish Committee after years of planning built and placed 31 fish cribs into Lake Kegonsa in the spring of 2009.   This was a joint effort between FOLKS and the DNR.  FOLKS provided the funding for all materials, some equipment, and barge rental and got many volunteers to provide most of the labor.  The DNR obtained all permits, provided additional equipment and labor, including crib design and location.   Because of the limited amount of structure in Lake Kegonsa, we hope this can be an every 3 -5 year project.  Free lake maps distributed by Dane County Parks show the GPS crib locations.

 

Five fish cribs were placed in the lake in 2008 in the following locations.

 

Degrees Degrees, Minutes Degrees, Min, Sec

1. 42.96754° x -89.23289°            42° 58.0524’ X -89° 13.9734’            42° 58’ 3.1” X -89° 13’ 57.6”

2. 42.96765° x -89.23277°            42° 58.0590’ X -89° 13.9662’            42° 58’ 3.5” X -89° 13’ 57.9”

3. 42.96760° x -89.23247°            42° 58.0560’ X -89° 13.3942’            42° 58’ 3.4” X -89° 13’ 24.7”

4. 42.96746° x -89.23231°            42° 58.0476’ X -89° 13.9386’            42° 58’ 2.9” X -89° 13’ 56.3”

5. 42.96741° x -89.23260°            42° 58.0446’ X -89° 13.9560’            42° 58’ 2.7” X -89° 13’ 57.4”

 

 

Aquatic Plant Management Committee

The committee is concerned with reducing invasive and harmful aquatic plants.  This is a major concern for almost everyone who enjoys spending time on the lake.  The committee has been in close contact with Dane County and DNR officials regarding future plans for weed control in Lake Kegonsa.

Aquatic Plant Survey

On Thursday June 10th, Peter Foy, Ray Potempa, and Tom McGinnis conducted a survey of the lake to assess the aquatic plant growth situation.  We began the survey from Peter’s dock using his boat.  We proceeded clockwise around the lake, following the shoreline.  We encountered fairly thick growth almost immediately out from shore at a depth of approximately 4 to 5 feet.  As we moved out to 6.5 to 7 feet it cleared up.  This pattern continued around Lunds Point and well into Barbers Bay.  We encountered a couple of clear areas; however the growth was pretty consistent in all of Barbers Bay all the way to Colladay Point.  From that point on we encountered very minor growth in the rest of the lake.  Most of the vegetation we encountered was Eurasian watermilfoil.

 

 

Rules and Regulation Committee

 

Of universal concern to most riparian owners, are the proposed regulations regarding piers and boatlifts.  The Rules and Regulation Committee have very diligently been tracking the progress of these regulations over the past year.

A special meeting was held on 6/12/10 to assist FOLKS members to fill out the forms to document piers existing before 2/6/04.  Piers not conforming to the new regulations can be grandfathered to maintain them as is.

 

 

Strategic Planning Committee

The goal of the Strategic Planning Committee is to stay aware of the interests and concerns of our members.  We conduct an annual survey and after careful analysis of the responses we modify our strategic direction if necessary.  We also use the survey responses to  monitor the level of satisfaction our members have with the various FOLKS activities, such as our Newsletter, Lake Alerts, Educational Sessions, Committee work, etc.

A survey was sent to all members with e-mail addresses on file to gauge the interest in FOLKS activities.  A form that could be mailed was included in the September newsletter.

 

 

FOLKS Lake Level and Flow Rate Subcommittee

 

The water flow in the Yahara River between Lake Waubesa and Lake Kegonsa was monitored to determine if there are one or more natural or manmade features in the Yahara River flow path between the two lakes that are seriously restricting the flow of water from Lake Waubesa into Lake Kegonsa.

The study was completed and the results presented at the annual meeting.  A summary of those results is as follows:

 

 

Water Quality Committee

 

The mission of the Water Quality Committee of FOLKS is to engage in activities that directly improve the water quality of Lake Kegonsa and to support quality projects for the Yahara Chain of Lakes.

 

Stoughton Sanitary District, Dane County Soil Conservation, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), WDNR and the USDA developed a solution to prevent run-off from agricultural land from entering Lake Kegonsa.  A prairie restoration was placed along HWY B (parallel with the highway) which will flow into a 6.3 acre piece of land that will be taken out of production and replaced with native plants.

 

The Prairie Restoration project was funded by FOLKS, Town of Dunn, and the USDA.

 

A similar project several years ago created a retention pond near Barber Drive.  The reduction of sediment into the lake is an important water quality issue.

 

 

 

Scroll to Top