StructureSpot

Savannah’s Thurmond Lake accepts Christmas trees for recycling

Corps' Thurmond Lake Office accepts Christmas trees for recyclingPhoto by Tracy Robillard

Park Ranger David Quebedeaux places used Christmas trees in Thurmond Lake to enhance fish habitat.

SAVANNAH, Ga. – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Thurmond Project Office will accept natural Christmas trees (no artificial trees) for recycling Dec. 16 through Jan. 6.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader in science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The recycled trees will be used as fish attractors in Thurmond Lake. Corps rangers and volunteers will submerge trees around fishing piers to improve fishing habitat. Additional trees will be staged at select ramps around the lake to be used by the public. Anyone wishing to obtain a list of locations where the trees will be available should contact the Corps’ Thurmond Lake Office after Jan. 10.

The Christmas trees can be dropped off at Riverside Middle School, located in Evans, Ga. All decorations, such as tinsel, lights and garland must be removed from the trees before dropping them off. Dumping of household trash at the site is strictly prohibited.

“Small trees and brush provide cover for fish, particularly as nursery areas for juvenile fish,” said Kenneth Boyd, Thurmond Lake conservation biologist. “In addition, they provide habitat for aquatic insects – essential food during the early stages of most fish species.”

For more information or to volunteer, contact the Thurmond Lake Project Office toll free 1-800-533-3478, or visit
http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/lakes/thurmond/index.html.

How to Survive a Winter Lake Drawdown and benefit the fish

One of the best things about living in Tennessee is the year round fishing opportunities that are available to anglers. And one of my favorite spots to fish is from our dock. However as part of the lakes management is a controlled winter drawdown. As you can see this does give homeowners time to do maintenance on their docks and their sea walls as the water recedes. A drawdown will also control some of the unwanted shallow water vegetation that can become a nuisance around docks. What about the fish during this time? How does a draw down affect the fishing? In this post I will share some tips for surviving a winter drawdown.


In the winter as the water temperature drops, only a small percentage of bass are active through out the day. However once the water levels are drawn down, the bass are concentrated even more as they seek the comfort of deeper structure and cover. This gives anglers a cold-water advantage for catching bass.  Another advantage to anglers is that during a drawdown period the lake will get much less fishing pressure. With most ramps closed many anglers will not launch in the soft sedimentary mud of the newly exposed shoreline. This will give a great advantage to canoe and kayak anglers willing to face the cold and get out on the water.

Winter bass relate to structure, and nothing is more suitable for them that steep banks. The structure of a steep bank gives the bass quick access to feed in remaining shallow flats. Keying in on depth ranges from ten to twenty feet for winter bass during a drawdown can be a productive approach. Much of the wooden cover that the bass relate too normally is now above the water, this makes fishing any remaining wood cover a must for the winter trophy hunter.

Jerkbaits produce cold water bass very well, and perhaps jigs are the best all around bait for winter bass fishing in a drawdown period. Jigs with trailers pitched to stumps and any remaining cover work well for many anglers. Large Texas rigged worms have also produced many cold-water bites in a drawn down lake.

Time spend on the lake in the periods of low water can make you a better angler all year. Even better than structure scan and side imaging this is the time to study the topography of the lake. Look for bedding areas and cover, make notes of potential hot spots. Look at the water line and imagine if the level was up to vision the places that a bass would make his home. Isolated cover with quick access to deep water is always a good place to start. Return to those spots in the spring and you will be a local fishing legend.

Winter drawdowns have both good and bad points for anglers, but it is not the end of fishing. The controlled lowering of the water level helps lakes to be more fertile and protects the shoreline from winter erosion, and aquatic weed control. Drawdowns also limit ice damage to docks and loading ramps. One of the best things about a drawdown in the chance to greatly improve the habitat for fish. Spawning benches are a relatively new type of fish attractor for smallmouth bass.

Unlike tree attractors or stakebeds, spawning benches have the potential to enhance smallmouth populations by providing more spawning habitat.


The Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency  biologists construct different types of fish attractors that can be placed in reservoirs. These devices do not normally enhance sport fish populations, but do provide structure around which fish can aggregate. Bass, crappie, and sunfish utilize these attractors and anglers may key on these sites to increase their fishing success. The most common type of fish attractors used are sunken trees which can be weighted down to the bottom of a lake.


TWRA’s Christmas tree habitat project in east Tennessee is a great example of how the Agency partners with anglers to build fish attractors. Stake beds for crappie are also used in lakes with dense crappie populations and the right combination of bottom slope and composition. Like, tree attractors, stake beds are marked by TWRA so that anglers know where they are located.

A drawdown can be a great way to gain an education about a specific body of water for a fisherman. Take advantage of the change to better your understanding of the lake structure, it will pay off. This is also the time to cash in as you find stray lures lost by others underneath docks, on stumps and laydown trees.

Happy Fishing! See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader in science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

For more information on habitat enhancement for fish, visit the TWRA website at:
http://www.tn.gov/twra/fish/fishmain.html

And now I will share some of the pictures of our drawdown improvement projects of dock repair and sea wall maintenance.

Mineral exploration is exploding, is the government assessing the environmental impact?

Critics claim mineral exploration in B.C. needs more accountability

Campaigning for the B.C. Liberal Party leadership, Christy Clark promised to put the controversial Prosperity Mine project back into play.

Mineral exploration is exploding in B.C., but critics claim the provincial government isn’t assessing the environmental impact.

Soaring global demand for metal has caused a surge in mining and exploration in British Columbia, and Premier Christy Clark has promised to open eight new mines by 2015. However, recent reports from B.C.’s auditor general and the UVic Environmental Law Centre suggest the provincial environmental-assessment office is not up to the task.

Mines, typically subject to both federal and provincial reviews, are extremely complex. They often require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital and promise high-paying jobs and a windfall in tax revenue, but their environmental footprint is equally dizzying, with potential long-term impacts on fish-and-wildlife habitat. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader in science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Currently, the 50-person staff at the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) is weighing the socioeconomic benefits and environmental impacts of 60 projects, half of them for new mines, mine expansions, or old mines being resurrected, thanks to recent high mineral prices. Among them are projects like the Ajax Mine, a proposal by Abacus Mining and Exploration Corporation (in partnership with Polish mining giant KGHM Polska Miedz S. A.) for a massive 500-million-tonne (over 23 years) low-grade-copper property that was operated by Teck Cominco in the 1980s and 1990s but abandoned when copper prices were low.

This open-pit project on the doorstep of Kamloops is worth $550 million in capital investment, and is expected to have a 400-person full-time work force. It is undergoing both federal and provincial environmental assessments and has dominated public debate in this city of almost 90,000, just as the divisive Prosperity Mine, approved by the province but rejected by the feds, did and continues to do in the community of Williams Lake.

Vancouver-based environmental lawyer Mark Haddock, author of a report titled Environmental Assessment in British Columbia, published by the UVic Environmental Law Centre in November 2010, believes citizens have good reason to be wary of the process.

“I don’t think the B.C. assessment process is equipped to deal with these proposals,” Haddock says.

In his critique, Haddock called B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act “weak and discretionary”, and wrote that decisions by the environment minister are often arbitrary and sometimes run counter to advice from government biologists and technical experts. Furthermore, the fact that the BCEAO hasn’t rejected a single proposal since 1995 further undermines public confidence in the process, according to Haddock.

For many, the Prosperity copper-gold mine, being proposed by Taseko Mines Limited for a site 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake on the Chilcotin Plateau, is the poster child for what’s wrong with B.C.’s environmental-assessment process.

The story of Prosperity is convoluted. Given the mine’s considerable potential impacts on the Tsilhqot’in aboriginal people and on Fish Lake—home to more than 80,000 rainbow trout—which Taseko proposed to use for waste-rock impoundment, the mine met the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s requirements for a joint review panel that would unite federal and provincial authorities in a single entity.

However, in 2008 Taseko Mines wrote a letter to federal and provincial officials criticizing the joint-review-panel process for putting “the future of a billion-dollar project in the hands of three unelected, unaccountable individuals” and placing an “excessive emphasis on established or asserted Aboriginal rights and title”.

Soon after receiving this letter, the province opted out of the joint review and decided to conduct its own independent assessment. Consequently, Tsilhqot’in leaders and environmental groups such as the Friends of the Nemiah Valley (FONV) boycotted the provincial process, claiming that Victoria was biased in favour of the proponent. In January 2010, acting on recommendations from the executive director of the BCEAO—and despite concerns raised by provincial biologists about impacts on grizzly-bear and fish habitat—the province approved Prosperity.

Meanwhile, the federal review was still under way, participants poring over a raft of First Nations cultural and environmental concerns. Almost a year after the province rendered its green light for Prosperity, the feds rejected the mine and Taseko’s plans to replace Fish Lake with an artificial fish habitat, among other concerns. In a strongly worded decision, Jim Prentice, federal environment minister at the time, called the mine’s impacts on fish of “high magnitude and irreversible”, and wrote that the project would destroy “an important cultural and spiritual area for the Tsilhqot’in people”. The company went back to the proposal stage.

Two processes, two dramatically different results, Haddock says.

“The feds and the province were using the same data but with a different set of criteria,” he says. “It’s important that these assessments appear credible, and when you have two very different decisions, as in the case of Prosperity, it raises some very serious doubts in the minds of the public and participants.”

David Williams, FONV president, agrees, and he says it’s the reason his group didn’t participate in the provincial process.

“We didn’t take part in the provincial review because we didn’t think there was any point,” Williams says.

Wayne McCrory, a bear biologist and cofounder of the Valhalla Wilderness Society, also boycotted the provincial process but, like FONV, made submissions to federal reviewers. He says the contempt for unbiased scientific opinion that he believes underpinned the B.C. approval of Prosperity is something he has seen before: when, in 2004, the province approved the contentious Jumbo Glacier Resort project in the Purcell Mountains east of Kootenay Lake after a lengthy process that started when the proponent first filed an application in 1996.

“In the case of Jumbo, 11 biologists on the former grizzly-bear scientific advisory committee wrote a letter to the minister, opposing Jumbo. I was one of those members,” McCrory tells the Georgia Straight over the phone from his home in the Slocan Valley. “Valhalla [Wilderness Society] hired independent biologist Dr. Brian Horejsi to do an impact study on grizzly bears related to Jumbo. He did an extensive job, including a CEA [cumulative effects assessment]. A number of Ministry of Environment biologists were also opposed.”

McCrory says he believes the province’s biggest weakness is in assessing cumulative effects, which, by the federal government’s definition, are “changes to the biophysical, social, economic and cultural environments caused by the combination of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions”. McCrory believes that if the BCEAO conducted thorough CEAs, it would never have authorized the Prosperity Mine and the destruction of a culturally and environmentally significant water body like Fish Lake.

Although the BCEAO is finding few friends in the environmental and conservation community, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is considered more robust than its provincial counterpart, the last line of defence for the environment. It was the CEAA that ultimately rejected the proposed Kemess North copper-gold mine in 2007 as well as Prosperity, in both cases citing impacts on fish-and-wildlife habitat and significant conflicts with aboriginal rights and titles.

However, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the CEAA is under attack, according to Josh Paterson, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. He says the Conservatives buried profound changes to environmental-assessment legislation deep within the 900-page March 2010 budget bill, giving the federal environment minister far more discretionary power to exempt projects from full environmental reviews. Then, last summer, the feds took the scalpel to the CEAA’s budget.

“The federal government is now cutting funding to the environmental-assessment agency,” Paterson says, referring to a more than 40-percent cut announced in the June 3, 2011, speech from the throne.

Paterson shares McCrory’s concern about the province’s incomplete approach to assessing the cumulative effects of major projects. However, in fairness to the BCEAO, he says he believes that this type of analysis is complex and may be beyond the current capacity of the office, especially with metal mines that may face technically challenging and costly cleanup of toxic mine waste for years after they cease operation.

Though many critics are lamenting the weakening of environmental-assessment capacity at both federal and provincial levels, mineral exploration and mine development continue to explode. Developing economies like China have an insatiable appetite for metal, and we need it for the cars we drive, our electronic gadgets, and the appliances in our homes. According to Lyn Anglin, president and CEO of Geoscience B.C., the province has plenty of untapped mineral wealth. Geoscience B.C. is an industry-led organization created in 2005 to undertake geological-data-gathering projects with the hope of attracting more mining investment to the province.

Currently, the organization is spearheading surveys of the Quesnellia Terrane, a chunk of central B.C. rich in copper-gold porphyry and extending from the Gibraltar and Mount Polley mines near Williams Lake to the Mount Milligan copper-gold property northwest of Prince George. According to Anglin, the 2007 announcement of the project, which Geoscience B.C. dubbed QUEST, resulted in a frenzy of online claim-staking.

Zoë Younger, vice president of corporate affairs for the Mining Association of B.C., says the province hasn’t seen this much excitement around mining since the 1860s Cariboo gold rush. Regarding environmental assessments, Younger says she believes in a robust regulatory framework, but she is primarily concerned about wasteful duplication of efforts, which she says was the case with Prosperity. That’s why the association is cheering September’s B.C. Jobs Plan, which included a commitment of $24 million in funding to natural-resources ministries with the goal of reducing the time it takes to get decisions on permits and approvals.

Younger says industry opponents often overstate the environmental impact of mining and understate its economic importance. According to 2008 government figures, metal mining alone contributed $2.6 billion to the provincial economy, and that excludes what was generated from coal mining and other fossil-fuel extraction.

“The [environmental] footprint of a mine relative to its economic contribution to GDP is much lower than other resource industries,” Younger says, referring to industrial logging and commercial fishing.

Industry boosters like Geoscience B.C. and the mining association can rest assured they have the support of the provincial government. Christy Clark promised to put the Prosperity Mine back in play when she was campaigning for the B.C. Liberal Party leadership, and she has made mining one of the pillars of her jobs plan.

The province estimates that projects worth a potential $30 billion in capital investment are piled up in the BCEAO system. Of the 222 projects that the environmental-assessment office has handled since 1995, only one was rejected, while 115 were approved and the remainder either are still under review, have been withdrawn, or have been determined to be exempt from environmental assessments. Yet the annual budget of the BCEAO is telling: at only $8,754,000, it’s one-third less than what the province gave to Geoscience B.C. last May.

The provincial government may be able to dismiss criticism of its environmental-assessment record from NGOs and environmental lawyers, but it’s harder to ignore the words of its own auditor general. Last July, John Doyle, then auditor general of B.C., released a critical report on the BCEAO, saying that “adequate monitoring and enforcement of certified projects is not occurring, and follow-up evaluations are not being conducted.” He also said that information being supplied to the public is insufficient “to ensure accountability”. But what’s even more troubling is what Doyle referred to as the government’s “hostility” toward environmental assessments, as revealed in the February 2010 throne speech, during which the Speaker called the CEAA a “Byzantine bureaucratic process” that holds “jobs and investment hostage”.

John Mazure, the BCEAO’s executive director, says that although he would have preferred a “glowing report” from the auditor general, his office is taking it seriously. However, he takes issue with critics who continually point to the office’s green-light track record as a sign of fallibility. He admits that most applications that make it to the minister’s desk get approved, but he says that what’s missing from this statistic is the number of projects that are altered and improved in consultation with government specialists as they work through the assessment. Mazure calls it an “iterative process”, which is described on the BCEAO website as being intended “to address all issues satisfactorily such that there are no residual adverse impacts that would prevent an EA certificate from being issued”.

“I’ve heard everything, that we rubber-stamp projects without looking at them, but that’s simply not the case. What people don’t realize is that once a project reaches the minister, we’ve had a pretty good kick at it,” Mazure says. “Our specialists work with the proponents throughout the process on mitigative measures.”

The Prosperity Mine proposal, positioned as an economic lifeboat for the struggling Cariboo region, is like a festering wound for the province. The federal government’s rejection of Prosperity was a huge embarrassment for then-premier Gordon Campbell, who had been a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of Taseko’s bid. This fiasco also nags the BCEAO. Mazure refuses to second-guess his predecessor at the BCEAO, who recommended approval of Prosperity in spite of what appeared to be glaring environmental concerns.

He also says observers forget that the federal and provincial environmental-assessment agencies have different mandates: the former is focused primarily on environmental impacts and aboriginal rights and title, while the latter weighs economic, social, health, heritage, and environmental factors. However, Mazure admits that the mining boom has the potential to stretch the BCEAO’s resources.

“Fifty percent of our projects right now are mines,” he says. “It’s one thing assessing a mine that’s not near a water body, but when it’s metres from a water body, the environmental impacts are complex. They are very complicated and they take more of our resources. We’re very dependent on specialists from other ministries. And in these processes, not everybody will be pleased with the outcome. One side will be complaining, the other side will be celebrating.”

David Williams, of the Friends of the Nemiah Valley, belonged to one of those sides. He was heavily involved in fighting the Prosperity Mine and is now preparing for a renewed battle, as Taseko Mines has submitted a retooled proposal that could spare Fish Lake.

“Honestly, I think the Environment Ministry has been so watered down that they lack the capacity to handle these issues,” Williams says.By Andrew Findlay

Log Jams Left Behind By Irene for fish habitat?

rock_river.jpg

VPR/ Nancy Eve Cohen
Debris along the floodplain next to the Rock River in South Newfane. The Agency of Natural Resources is working to determine which log jams will cause problems during spring flooding.

(Host) Tropical Storm Irene washed trees and other debris into rivers and streams.

With winter coming on and the spring floods that follow, the state has launched an initiative to assess the location of debris that could dam up water flow.

But as VPR’s Nancy Cohen, reports there’s no state money to remove the logjams.

(Cohen) The Agency of Natural Resources is asking regional planning commissions to work with towns to identify what clean up work on which rivers and streams should be a priority. Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz says there’s a concern about log jams

(Markowitz) “The trees around streams and brooks were lifted out of the grounds and now are in the rivers and streams. The towns are concerned that if they don’t act, it’s going to  cause problems during the seasonal flood in the spring.”

(Cohen) The six regional planning commissions in the areas most affected by Irene are surveying towns, including the Windham County commission.

Chris Campany, its executive director, is in South Newfane, where the Rock River jumped across Dover Road during the flood.

He says the survey is trying to pinpoint where there are areas that are still vulnerable to flooding  during winter thaws or spring flooding. Campany says the survey asks about debris jams in streams that may act like a dam during a thaw.

(Campany) “As ice breaks up or as water flows you basically wind up with a lake forming up behind that debris jam.  And then it either finds its own course or it breaks through and suddenly you have that surge of water.”

(Cohen) Campany says big pieces of debris could cause big problems

(Campany ) “Some of the logs are going to be the battering rams that you have during the next flood event.”

(Cohen) The Agency of Natural Resources will send engineers and hydrologists to assess the debris jams that pose the highest risks. The agency can help decide how much debris should be left in a stream to protect fish habitat and how much should be removed.

But Justin Johnson, the deputy commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, says there’s no state money to help towns or private property owners remove the debris.

(Johnson) “If there’s a log jam or  some kind of a debris jam that’s imminently  threatening a public assets  then we can usually get FEMA money to help remove that. But if it’s just something on private, sending water onto private land somewhere, it’s not going to affect a public asset we don’t have access to money to do anything with that .”

(Cohen) Private property owners might be able to get funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove debris that could cause a flood.

For VPR News I’m Nancy Cohen

(Host) Reporting about Vermont’s recovery from the floods of Tropical Storm Irene is supported by the VPR Journalism Fund.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

TVA fish hatchery fight headed to Capitol Hill regarding fish habitat

Efforts to persuade TVA to fund fish hatcheries that produce rainbow trout now depend on legislative lobbying. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Earlier this year the federal budget cut funding to U.S. Fish and Wildlife hatcheries by around $6 million.  Rather than getting funds directly from the general budget, under law the hatcheries now receive money from specific federal agencies that operate dams and rivers.

“This mitigation was created because the dams and reservoirs disrupted the river flow and the natural reproduction of fish,” said George Lane with the Tennessee Council of Trout Unlimited.  “These hatcheries are incredibly important to an enormous recreational resource.  It gives one of the best returns on investment because the eggs produced help generate a 300 million dollar industry in our area.  Everything from fishing shops, bait shops, boats, and tourism is boosted by these trophy fish.”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was required to help fund the mitigation in 2012.  However, TVA does not fall under the same requirements because it does not receive federal tax dollars.  Therefore, TVA has said it will not contribute any money to the hatcheries.

“TVA is self-funded through the sale of power. We have to be very careful about the burden we put on our power customers,” said Travis Brickey, TVA spokesman.  “TVA already spends $8 million annually on improving the fish habitat downstream and upstream from our dams.”

Lane said TVA’s stance means no rainbow trout will be stocked in TVA waters such as the Clinch River and the Holston River.

“The Clinch River is one of the great fly-fishing streams in the eastern United States.  People come in from all of the county to fish the South Holston and the Clinch.  “Any of the lakes or tail waters that are part of the TVA system will no longer receive the trout for stocking,” said Lane.

Lane said the financial contribution asked of TVA would amount to around $800,000 annually.

“TVA customers would pay less than a dime a year to fund hatcheries.  A dime is a dime and I know it is difficult to increase any charges on customers, but TVA spends money on all kinds of other projects that do not generate the kind of return on investment for the country that these hatcheries do,” said Lane.  “Hatcheries like the one in Erwin are also the ones that fertilize eggs that go to other hatcheries around the country.  If it shuts down, the impact is felt everywhere.”

Lane acknowledged that TVA has contributed greatly to trout fishing by creating weirs, releasing cold water, and improving oxygen levels in its waters.

“But this would be a major hit to all of those efforts if the fish are not stocked from these hatcheries.  We’ve had lawyers examine the issue and TVA is not required to do anything under the current law.  We think there is a moral requirement, but there’s no legal requirement because this will cost hundreds of jobs,” said Lane.  “Part of the original TVA mission was economic development and this definitely qualifies as that type of effort.”

In the absence of any current legal obligations to fund the hatcheries, it may truly require an act of congress to influence TVA.

“Our chapters are planning a trip to Washington in the spring to lobby our legislators to take up this cause.  TVA is up for reauthorization next year, so we believe legislators have some leverage to ask the utility to help fund the hatcheries,” said Lane.

Brickey said there is another reason TVA is unwilling to fund federal rainbow trout hatcheries.  In addition to costing customers money, the rainbow trout is not a native species in Tennessee.  Rainbow trout were introduced to Tennessee in the 1880s from the western United States.Jim Matheny

Wonder Lake Sportsman’s Club adds over 50 more Fishiding artificial fish habitat

 
Published 17th Nov 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15veu8Onlg&feature=player_embedded
Members of the Sportsman’s club are at it again, enhancing their lake with more long term habitat, teamed up with Fishiding, 56 units of all varieties were dropped in a key area adjacent to spawning grounds. About 10 shallow Cradle models were sunk in 3-5 feet of water, with a line of Safehouse structures leading out to deeper water. The Cradle model consists of hundreds of fine strands of reclaimed PVC designed to give fry and baitfish areas to grow and hide from predators. When the fry have adequate habitat, they are given time to grow to the preferred size of 4-6 inches before venturing out into deeper water to become forage for predators.See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The key is to make sure there is a continuous line or “tree row” of habitat from shallow spawning grounds out to deep water.

If the fish have to swim from shallow areas out to deeper cover without cover to hide in, they get eaten prematurely, or before growing large enough to best benefit the larger predators like bass, walleye, crappie and musky.

The club members clipped structurespot markers to each unit as it was dropped, to see where each one lands to ensure the continuous coverage.

When all units are installed, they took some pictures to refer to the shape and design they created.

After the pics, they simply pull the clip free on the structurespot markers and wind them  up to re-use.

The Safehouse models were installed from about 5 feet deep out to 8 feet and deeper where a huge cluster of the largest Keeper models were dropped.

Algae begins to grow immediately in this dark, fertile water and the club will be fishing over them this winter through the ice.

To date, over 125 fishiding fish habitatunits have been installed, with more being put together by members, donated by fishiding.

Wonder Lake, at 830 acres, is the largest private lake in Illinois and Wisconsin.

Through many different fund raising events, the club stocks fish twice a year as well as building and installing over 100 Wood duck houses, maintaining them and even video recording the hatching of chicks too.

Annual lake cleanups, fish shocking surveys, carp derbys and kids fishing events are just a few of the things the club does for the lake and the community.

Big Musky caught on Fishiding artificial habitat in Minnesota

Customer Comments

IMG_2082.JPG

Hey David,

Attached is a fish I caught right off the deep edge of the structure
you sent me…52 inch mama in September.  Caught a few more casting
the deep side of the structure layout…needless to say I am sold on
your products and I will be getting more in the spring.  I didn’t get
to fish much in October and that is usually my favorite month (too
many work and kid things going on)  I am thinking your structures will
have the greatest benefit in early spring and late fall fishing
applications.  These are the times when weed growth is low and your
artificial products will offer bait fish a shelter…and attract our
bass, pike, and muskies!

What benefits if any have folks seen placing them for ice fishing?
Maybe even in deeper water for walleyes or crappies in the winter?  My
brain will be processing good spots to place structure…right now 25
yards off the end of my dock comes to mind so we can hammer sunfish
and bass with the kids.  Would that be cheating? Hahaha

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Take care,
Paul

Legends Guide Service
Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Adventures
legendsguide@gmail.com
www.legendsguideservice.com

National Fish Habitat Board Expands its Focus on “Partnership”

During its October 2011 Meeting, the National Fish Habitat Board endorsed an enhancement to its communications and messaging to reflect the importance it places on the partnerships that drive its efforts.  From now on messaging and communications will focus on the National Fish Habitat Partnership, increasing emphasis on the coalition of groups working to reverse declines in fish habitat across the United States.  In the past, messaging and communications were focused on the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, which is the primary tool that the coalition uses to guide its activities.See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

“This subtle change will increase awareness of the bottom-up nature of the coalition that has been built over the past seven years to support our efforts,” said Kelly Hepler, National Fish Habitat Board Chair.  “This effort is designed to emphasize the role of the regional partnerships that implement fish habitat projects, increase the numbers of other organizations that participate in our coalition, and highlight the strong partnership between state governments, tribal governments, the federal government, businesses, and NGOs that make this effort successful.”

Elements of the brand enhancement effort include a new logo and new website format.  The website upgrade will be unveiled in November and will have a more user friendly content management system.  The new website will also give the regional Fish Habitat Partnerships an enhanced web presence.  Keep an eye onwww.fishhabitat.org for the new website.  For logo and brand usage guidance, please contact Ryan Roberts, NFHP Communications Coordinator, atrroberts@fishwildlife.org.

Move the creek to bring back fish?

Rehabilitation of an area near Kama Point and Kama Bay (20 kilometres east of Nipigon) will reinstate Kama Creek and its floodplain to a condition resembling its original pre-1960s configuration.Rehabilitation of an area near Kama Point and Kama Bay (20 kilometres east of Nipigon) will reinstate Kama Creek and its floodplain to a condition resembling its original pre-1960s configuration. ((Lakehead University))

Kama Bay, ontarioA Lakehead University researcher believes returning a creek to its original course will help to restore a once-thriving fish population in Nipigon Bay.

Decades ago, Kama Creek was realigned to protect a railway crossing from erosion. But the move destroyed brook trout spawning grounds and created a barrier to migration up the creek.

Now, the creek is being redirected to its original course.

“You could actually walk down the old channel if you sort of took your time and crawled through the bush a little bit,” said Robert Stewart, who teaches in the Lakehead University geography department.

Before the creek realignment, brook trout populations were estimated as above average for the North Shore of Lake Superior. But after the creek was moved, brook trout populations in Kama Creek and within Nipigon Bay dramatically declined.

By redirecting Kama Creek to its original formation, it is hoped fish like Brook Trout will repopulate the area.By redirecting Kama Creek to its original formation, it is hoped fish like Brook Trout will repopulate the area. (Lakehead University)After studying the area extensively, Stewart said researchers were confident the creek could be restored to a condition resembling its original pre-1960s configuration.

The restoration project will create four acres of fish habitat and two acres of wetland — and provide a wealth of experience for students.

“By co-ordinating this work through Lakehead University, we are able to provide hands-on, meaningful experiences for our graduate students,” Stewart said.

Graduate students are expected to take part in the ongoing monitoring of Kama Creek.Graduate students are expected to take part in the ongoing monitoring of Kama Creek. (Lakehead University)He said he expects that future graduate students will carry out post-monitoring for the Kama restoration.

Throughout the rest of November, R&M Construction will reposition the current delta and channel in Kama Creek. The project is expected to be completed by late fall.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Project to improve fish habitats begins in Missouri


The Missouri Department of Conservation began a project last week to increase fishing opportunities on Lake Taneycomo.

    On Friday, the department began placing fish habitats in the upper mile of the lake.

A press release said periods of heavy hydropower generation below the dam leaves “trout vulnerable to swift currents and (limits) fishing access for wade and bank fishermen.”

Newly installed structures in the lake will include boulder clusters, which should provide trout areas to rest and feed and provide anglers with more accessible fish habitats during periods of generation.

The project will be in conjuction with a drawdown of Lake Taneycomo requested by Empire District Electric Co., which will enable improvements to be constructed on Powersite Dam.

The department “plans to utilize this drawdown period to use large equipment near the lake to place the boulder clusters,” the release said.

Conservation officials will be at the project site to monitor the work and answer any questions from the public.

The department will use machinery to move the boulders into place, however, fishing will still be permitted in areas near where the work is being done.

The project is expected to conclude by the following Friday, Nov. 4.

The project is part of the Table Rock Lake National Fish Habitat Initiative, which is designed to maintain and improve fish habitats in Table Rock Lake and Lake Taneycomo.

This project is a joint effort of the Missouri Department of Conservation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bass Pro Shops, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other organizations.

It is designed to be a pilot project for a broader national program focused on habitat protection and restoration in reservoirs throughout the country.Tyler Francke

Visit mdc.mo.gov for more information on Missouri fishing.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Scroll to Top