Dam removal

I have recently had the privilage to speak out against the removal of a dam across the Straightt river. It seems that the DNR and several other factions believe that dams are barriers to fish and that removeing dams will create a free flowing waterway that will return the rivers and streams back to the way they were before modernization.

My feelings and experience has found that dams are not so much a barrier as they are a fish atractant and provide a major sorce of oxigen and habitat for game fish. That there is no proof that any game fish were in these rivers before the dams. Eliminating dams may make it easier for fish to travel the rivers, but would they want too?

I would be interested in other anglers input and experiences in this matter.

Thanks, JOHN EGGERS

Hi John,
It’s a tough call. However I can share personal experience and opinion(like when won’t I eh?)
A branch of the Root River had a dam several miles upstream from a favorite smallmouth stretch of mine.
What I have seen since it’s removal. This branch takes considerably longer to clear out after hard rains, considerably
longer!! Also, the average water temperature has declined, thus affecting the smallmouth popluation. SInce most know, smallmouth inhabit much warmer waters than trout(on average).
I haven’t solid proof of the latter, but the last couple seasons have been “horse pucky” compared to previous years!

I have taken water temps at times of year when it should be more “bassy”. The river resembles trout water more than smallmouth. To me this
is a crying shame!! Untouched premier river smallmouth fishing taking a hit. I can go to any trout stream in SE and catch trout quite easily. Now it might become
a struggle to find any decent smallmouth fishing in the upper branches of the Root River!! Daunting, but acceptable none the less. To me it simply
will add to the challenge of wading for smallmouth.

Granted there are streams/rivers in SE MN that house both trout and smallmouth, few and far between. WHere was I going with this???? A dam’s removal can pose negative change, but to keep
things in balance there should be some positives to balance things out!

Keep the rods bendin’!!

Jim W

Thanks for the come back Jim, With the great fishing that we have on the Straight now, I don’t believe that we should take a chance on messing it up. In the years that I have fished I have not seen a time that removing a dam has inproved fishing, but I know of several cases where the fishing has become worse.
Anyway, Have a great Thanksgiving, Maybe we can get together and kick up some mud sometime.
JAE.

Case in point of a positive dam removal would be Bucksnort Dam. Removing this dam would certainly increase the potential for forage fish to migrate back up into Trout Run where they are virtually non-existent at this time. Besides, what purpose does Bucksnort actually serve other than a camping area for many on the catch and kill opener?

hey D.A.,
what exactly are forage fish ??? are they the big ones or the little ones ???

i would have to disagree with the statement about there being no fish above bucksnort dam. in fact i fished there several times this summer and caught a good number of fish both above and below the dam. all the bigger ones came from above the dam though. i didn’t even see very many big ones below the dam. maybe it was because they just stalked it though

that strech of stream upstream from bucksnort looks wonderfull to me. i don’t no what taking the dam out would do but a can’t imagine it would help the fishing in anyway. it would just mess what’s already there.

Forage fish are all of the small fish such as suckers, dace, chubs, etc. that supply a general food base for trout. I never said there weren’t any fish, specifically trout, above Bucksnort. I said that removing Bucksnort Dam would increase the flow of forage fish back up into a majority of the stream. Increasing the number of forage fish would definitely allow for a potential increase in overall fish size within the stream. If you ate salad all of your life and suddenly someone put you on a beef diet, you’d fatten up too.

“Stalk” – does that mean that they “stocked” the stream?? Many large fish migrate from the Root up and across the dam (yes, you can actually watch them in the fall trying to jump the dam). Maybe that’s why you feel there are many large fish above the dam and not below it.

The reality is, does that dam serve any real purpose???

I started to write a big disortation about my experience. I cancelled it as it just went on too long. The DNR convinced the Village of Nelsonville to have a dam removed from the Tomorrow River. The stream health improved. The water cooled. There probabally is quite a bit more natural reproduction. The river is smaller. It is more grown over. The DNR did not keep up its end of the bargain with stream improvement. A true trophy Brown and Brook Trout fishery disipeared. (The DNR denied that any such fishery every existed.)

Guess my opinion is that I don’t have one. Stream health vs. screwing up stuff that is working now. I will never take the DNR word for anything. I would cross reference everything that they tell you. I mean if you are involved with the decision making process.
I wish that they would have never taken my Nelsonvill Mill Pond.

Wooly bugger, I know your pain. In our neck of the woods we used to have a pond by the name of the Mt. Hope trout pond. It was a spring fed pond that then emptied into the Little Green river, a small trout stream. The DNR decided that this pond had to go because it supposedly raised the tempeature of the Little Green too much, even though it has been their for years. I called the fisheries person in charge of the project to express my displeasure and was told that their was nothing in the pond anyway. I then informed her that for the last two years I had been fishing the pond catching big rainbow trout which I always released. It’s frustrating that some of the people involved with these projects have no idea what they’re losing.

Great feedback guys!

This is exactly what I want to hear. I ask that you keep an open mind, and respect the opinions of others.

Years ago I once subscribed to the idea of stream improvement via dam removal. I read the same books and listened to many of the same lectures as anyone else. It’s been through years of personal experience, much observation, and the loss of some great fishing that has changed my mind.

So far the actual experiences and accounts of other anglers only reinforce my observations.

D.A. states that removing Bucksnort dam would be a positive action for Trout Run. To describe what he would hope to gain from this act he uses the words “certainly increase the potential”, great words but they could be easily replaced with ” it’s a definite maybe”;LOL. I find most of what D.A. writes is based on feelings and conjecture rather than personal tangible experience. I too fish Trout Run, and if you have read my report submitted 6/19/2002, you would have noted that all the trout caught above the dam were extremely fat and well fed. I would argue the statement that there are no forage fish above Bucksnort dam.

Jake, I did not catch any large fish in Trout Run this year, I probably don’t know the good spots, maybe we can get together sometime and you can show me. Whether you say that the stream was stocked, stalked, stawked or even if you write it in French. I’ll still get the meaning. This is about fishing, it is not composition 101, and we need to hear from all fishermen and greatly appreciate your feedback.

Wollybugger, your experience mirrors my own. Don’t give up on the DNR, there are a lot of good people in this organization, and they are the most powerful champions that we sportsmen have. As I see it, the problem here is that when one of these folks make a mistake they can easily obscure themselves back into the bureaucracy and let the whole organization take the blame. We need to put faces and names to these people and give them credit and responsibility for their actions. You can be sure that I intend to do with the dam on the Straight River.

If small dams like Bucksnort or the one crossing the Straight pose as barriers to the fish, than many of the great rivers of the Western Mountains would be void of life, for their waterfalls and rapids are much more insurmountable than these little humps. The best witnesses are the fish themselves, it could be great aeration, an ionization effect, or maybe the agitation supplies more food. Whatever the reason a strong ecology has evolved around these dams, and the fish do prefer them. I believe more study is needed, for once destroyed we will not get these dams back.

Keep the feed back comming!

JAE.

Have you ever been along on an electro-shocking expedition on Trout Run? If you have, then you would note the absence of stable and significant numbers of forage fish above the dam as compared to below the dam. If you don’t believe me and feel that I’m writing on emotion and have no factual basis, then I suggest you contact Region Five DNR headquarters in Rochester, MN and request a copy of their electro-shocking data for Trout Run as it pertains to populations of forage fish.

Just because you noted that the fish you observed above the dam seem pretty fat and healthy to you isn’t anything more than an observation. Considering the prolific insect activity and amounts of invertibrates on Trout Run, I know the fish are fat and healthy. The question is could they be larger if they had a food base that consisted of something other than insect life and the eating of other trout.

Since I do not choose to fish the Straight River area, I’m in no position to side one way or another on whether or not dam removal there would be a good thing or not. Since I frequent the southeast area roughly 50-75 times a year, I can only share what I observe there. Did you ever wonder why you didn’t catch any large fish in Trout Run – look at the significant populations of trout. Trout Run is a phenominal naturally producing stream, therefore there are going to be many fish, however, not many of them are overly large (over 12″). That’s one of the reasons TR has a 12-16 protective slot, in order to boost the populations of larger trout.

hey smtroutchaser,
most of the big fish i caught this year was on one particular trip. thats what led me to believe that it had just been STOCKED. i do have a secret spot though and it is above bucksnort dam, way above bucksnort dam. it always seems to me if your willing to walk along way you can usually find some bigger trout that are more willing to bite.

i also have never fished the straight river. in fact i don’t even have a clue where it is or whats in it for fish.

I apologize for my late reply; family matters have kept me away from the keyboard.

D.A. I thought that you were getting a little rough with the other folks that wrote in, so I threw a couple of barbs at you to see what you would do.

I did leave myself open in a couple of places to invite further feed back, and was somewhat disappointed that you took the road most traveled.

Everyone should take note of what you ( D.A.) have written about the population of forage fish in Trout Run. In my past reports, readers will have noticed that one of the ways in which I judge a stream is by the amount of forage fish that I see in that particular body of water. I have always referred to these as bait fish, but from now on will call them forage fish, in order to be on the same page as most reference, and this is probably a more correct description.

To back up what D.A. has stated, the larger fish that I have caught in the last few years have mostly come form streams teaming with forage fish.

The question is, will removing a dam rectify or make better this situation, or will such a removal only destroy the fishing that we now have? So far from the writings of others as well as personal experience, there has been no proof that dam removal has done much more than have an adverse effect on fishing.

We are all after the same thing, Better Fishing.

If I and those like me are wrong about dam removal, than all we have done is maintain present conditions and postponed things for a few years. At that time I will admit to my wrong judgement and become one of the most positive promoters for dam removal. But D.A. if you and others of your opinion are wrong and you ruin the fishing, than where will you be and what will you do to correct the damage and bring the stream back?

Your instincts and observations are lessons that life has taught you, and it is these that help make you unique, do not dismiss them because of the beliefs and data offered by others. Sometimes what seems fact can be misleading. Use these together to form the best personal judgement possible. You won’t always be right, but you will always be you.

I was once on the other side of this fence, I will never jump back over it until I am given a personal word, their hand and a guarantee with a contingency plan for recovery in case of failure.

Until than my feelings are, don’t mess with the dams and chance destroying the fishing that has taken us generations to obtain.

Thank you,

John Eggers

OK, Robert Frost, which road should I have traveled? I’m not sure how I was coming down hard on some people, which in an essence is what you have done by directing your responses at myself. Is that the price to pay bey being the only one brave enough to respond? Are you that hard up for Internet contact that you pose a question so you can belittle the opinions of those who respond?

Frankly, I could care less if they take the damn dam out on the Straight. If you feel good about yourself because you got to speak out against its removal, kudos to you. Public forums are a beautiful thing. They allow anyone to be an expert, an authority, or anything they want to be.

I’m not sure why readers would take note of what I said about forage fish. Any angler with some common sense knows that the larger trout (and I’m speaking on southeat Minnesota) are caught in areas with the greatest supply of forage fish. There’s a reason that the largest trout are routinely caught out of the Root River system, whether is is the river itself or small tributaries with access to the main river itself. How many dams are on the Root – that is, dams that actually would impead the progress of all fish species? Not many.

I highly doubt that removal of Bucksnort Dam on Trout Run, or the removal of the dam in the city of Lanesboro on the South Branch of the Root would have much adverse effect upon the fish populations of those two watersheds.

Since I am indifferent to Straight River dam situation, and was merely making a point before about how a dam in the area of the state that I angle could be removed without damaging the stream populations, the burden of whether or not dam removal will destroy your precious fishery does not fall onto my shoulders, therefore, I doubt it will effect my conscience very much. Adieu, I have flies to tie.

cranky, cranky, cranky.
wine, wine, wine.

didn’t you just do to him what he said that he did to you because you did it to me

don’t be offended so easily. or am i offending you right now? if i am i’m sure you’ll let me know.

If questioning what the wording, “maybe it was because they just stalked it though,” is offensive, I apologize. I was just trying to understand better what it is you were actually talking about: stock as in the stocked fish, or stalked as in you or someone else was stalking trout.

You’re not offensive at all, in fact, I thoroughly enjoy your posts.

I’m sure if John Eggers is unhappy with my post, he’ll let me know.

Everyone, have a nice day .

it can be so hard to detect sarcasm sometimes. espicial through a computer.

Well well, this has turned interesting. First off, I would like to say that stream fisherman are some of the
most knowledgeable and darn right best fisherman around. NOt to mention most passionate!LOL

I think we have a case of “jonesing” here. I myself need to get my waders back on. By the sounds of it, we might
experience a mild enough winter, making it comfortable enough to fish the winter catch and release season.

Good luck people, keep your enthusiasm for the sport and spread the word about conservation and Catch and Release!

Keep the rods bendin’!!!

Jim W

D.A.
You and Jim are absolutely right, I have been getting off track here. What I have been looking for is folks who can give accounts of dam removal working or not.
I apreciate your response and very much like your post on winter trout fishing.
Thank you.
John Eggers

what do you guys consider BIG TROUT? 12-15″ 17-20″ 20-25″

what are you trying to do med, get us off track again? just kidding

a big trout all depends on where you’re fishing and what you’re fishing with. to me a 12-15″er is a big trout if you’re fishing on a itty bitty little stream. if you’re fishing on something a little bigger, say a branch of whitewater, a 15-17″ trout would be a big fish. if you’re fishing on something pretty big like the root i’d have to go with a 17″+ as being a big fish. anything over 20″ in S.E. MN is a true trophy fish.

to me it depends on what you catch them on too. a 12-15″ fish that’s caught using a home tied fly and fly rod would be bigger than a 17″ fish caught underneath some bridge using a worm and a bobber. but thats just me. i’m sure to some people a big fish is a big fish no matter how you catch it.

I agree with jake – it’s all in the eye of the beholder. I mounted my first large brookie (16.5 inches) and my first 20 inch brown. I haven’t caught a bigger brook trout, but I have caught considerably larger browns and would have to tie into a true trophy brown (26 inch plus) with a fly rod to mount another brown….with that said, it does depend upon the stream. Larger bodies as Jake stated hold larger trout. If you’ve ever seen the DNR’s electroshocking data put onto a grid, the number of fish over 13 inches falls through the floor in terms of overall population. 12-14 are real nice fish, 15-17 are super, that 18-22 is a hog, and anything over 22 would be extra special.

PS – I apologize to you Eggers; I wasn’t trying to make a fight over dam removal perspectives. I hope you gain what you seek.

No apoligie needed! D.A., you were just writing in good factual information to show both sides and a possible good reason for dam removal. I went way off track! Foot in mouth desease is a terrible thing. I am glad that you have not given up on FTR because of this. All input is extremely valuable and should be considered not argued.
As for what I consider to be a large trout, I think this also depends on the size of the angler. I have photos of youngsters holding their first trout. Often the fish isn’t as big as the smile, but I know that it will be long remembered. After this I define large as over 14″.
John Eggers

Off subject yes, but I had to jump in. I consider all trout 16 and above real nice. When I first started
Trout fishing, many years ago, I took quite a while to catch my first 16 incher. That number has alwyas stuck!

Granted, I won’t balk at the opportunity to sit and stare at a beautiful 10 or 12 incher neither!

I consider 18 inches on up as trophy size in SE MN.

Keep the rods bendin’!!

Jim W

If the fish havent migrated before who cares why change, If you do take the dam out the water will be shallower and maby some fish are taller that the water depth

Actually, the one problem with dam removal is bank stabilization after a dam is removed, that is the banks behind a dam. Case in point would be the North Branch of the Zumbro after that dam was removed. Every time a heavy rain came, it blew out that area and removed silt and debris with it. It would not make the water shallower in general, however, those holding pools that develop behind the dams would be gone.

I’m not sure what fish being taller than the water depth means. If you took out the dam, the reality is that more forage fish would be able to migrate upstream (I’m using Bucksnort as the example), thus creating a BETTER fishery as the trout already in the stream would have a food base that would promote growth.

The fish were able to migrate freely at one time until man put up a barrier to impede the progress…..

Interestingly enough,

I read in one of the local Fillmore County “rags” last night while on the thrown. Ironically, there is a proposal
to remove the Bucksnort dam, but it has to be approved by the Fillmore COunty Board.
WHere it is currently at, not sure. They are more worried about the renovations to their new offices than the
Natural resources. However, for those of you who float the Root. The old Dam has finally been removed in it’s entirety(sp?)

Later

Jim

Great points to consider. Does anyone know of any studies made on this subject. Documentation and personal accounts of what river conditions became after dam removal?
John Eggers

Hey John,

In reading the report on the final removal of the old bridge on the NOrth Branch of the Root, the
DNR made mention to their concern that the specific location will most likely lose some of the deeper
holes and runs,flattening out etc, becoming much shallower.

The river has been flowing through this area for quite some time, but they had to remove the remaining
structure on the SOuth shore and the cement etc.

PS. Interested in helping out with Trout Day again?!!!!

Jim W

I found this with a little searching.

http://www.aspeninst.org/eee/pdfs/damremovaloption.pdf

My 2 cents: Dam removal on most trout streams is a good thing. Not only does it bring the waterway back to it’s original state, but you also have the larger impact of water quality, less siltation in the long run and much cooler temps. The removed 2 dams on the Willow River in hudson in the 90’s and I think the general concensus was that it benefitted the fishery, the trout fishery that is, although the river haas also become an excellent smallie fishery.

Mike T

Jim; Thanks for the info on the bridge, yes I would like to help!
John