Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

PM River- RML Questions

8K views 31 replies 23 participants last post by  TroutSniffa 
#1 ·
RML posted this the other day on a different thread:
Mark..How would one request stocking for the middle river of the Pere Marquette River. Would like to see 22,000 Steelhead and 22,000 Browns just like Tippy Dam. Brown Trout fishing Rainbow Rapids to Walhalla is greatly diminished and therefore needs stocking badly. My Opinion, is the wild reproduction can't keep up with the Steelhead creel limits from Gleason's Landing downstream. The Only shocking data for the Pere Marquette is collected from special regulation water ( funny). No shocking data has ever been collected Middle River where it is a wackfest.

I finally have a few minutes to respond so here goes. We already do stock the middle part of the PM with Brown Trout, at the tune of approximately 24,500 annually spread out from Bowman's downstream to Indian Bridge. We don't stock any steelhead in the mainstem PM, due to it's outstanding natural reproduction potential (including the tribs). However we do stock approximately 10,000 steelhead annually into the Big South Branch.

We actually did quite a bit of shocking all over the PM in 2014. The problem is that once you get much below the mouth of the Baldwin, the PM becomes too big and deep to shock effectively with the tow barge. But it isn't quite big enough to put the big boomshocking boats in either. So in 2014 we tried with a 14' boomshocking boat, but our results were less than satisfactory. We caught fish, but not at the rate that we can with the tow barge with three probes running. We weren't able to do mark/recapture population estimates so we can't compare the data with that from our index station up at the mouth of the Baldwin.

Hope that helps.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
RML posted this the other day on a different thread:
Mark..How would one request stocking for the middle river of the Pere Marquette River. Would like to see 22,000 Steelhead and 22,000 Browns just like Tippy Dam. Brown Trout fishing Rainbow Rapids to Walhalla is greatly diminished and therefore needs stocking badly. My Opinion, is the wild reproduction can't keep up with the Steelhead creel limits from Gleason's Landing downstream. The Only shocking data for the Pere Marquette is collected from special regulation water ( funny). No shocking data has ever been collected Middle River where it is a wackfest.

I finally have a few minutes to respond so here goes. We already do stock the middle part of the PM with Brown Trout, at the tune of approximately 24,500 annually spread out from Bowman's downstream to Indian Bridge. We don't stock any steelhead in the mainstem PM, due to it's outstanding natural reproduction potential (including the tribs). However we do stock approximately 10,000 steelhead annually into the Big South Branch.

We actually did quite a bit of shocking all over the PM in 2014. The problem is that once you get much below the mouth of the Baldwin, the PM becomes too big and deep to shock effectively with the tow barge. But it isn't quite big enough to put the big boomshocking boats in either. So in 2014 we tried with a 14' boomshocking boat, but our results were less than satisfactory. We caught fish, but not at the rate that we can with the tow barge with three probes running. We weren't able to do mark/recapture population estimates so we can't compare the data with that from our index station up at the mouth of the Baldwin.

Hope that helps.
RML -

Please check the DNR stocking database. Provided that you're a guide (of which the PM already has WAY too many, IMO) I would have figured you are familiar with this excellent information resource. In 2016 the PM was stocked with over 22,000 wild rose browns. I find it pretty selfish of anyone to request more stocking for browns in a system that theoretically should not receive any stocking support, but of course the PM has a long history of special interest management (Not Mark's decision I am sure). For the last 15 years or so, perhaps a bit longer, the DNR has tried to institute a policy of not stocking coldwater (or warmwater) fisheries with species that already can support their populations through natural reproduction. This is both an economically and ecologically appropriate decision. Mark's point about superb natural reproduction potential for the PM system is spot-on. I personally conducted dozens of fisheries and habitat evaluations on the entire PM system (including Big South Branch and tribs) back in grad school and also worked for a fews seasons for a firm hired by PM Wtrshd Council. There is not a biological rationale for the current moderate stocking levels it already receives and those fish could be much more helpful in other systems that are lacking the spawning and rearing habitat found through out the PM. Given that, asking for more is pretty selfish, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that and assume you're somehow unaware of the significant public resources (fish stocking) is currently going on for that system. And before all the anti-gear restriction dudes start beating their public trust drum, please note that those fish are NOT stocked in the flies only, so you can get your tax dollar's worth and catch 'em how you want and eat 'em too, if that's your game. Personally, I release 99% of all my stream browns - I want them to get bigger and they surely do in the PM.

As for steelhead - first off - there is not biological need, so thankfully we are not wasting our scare (and very expensive) steelie smolts on this river. Places like Tippy or the Betsie, where there is are documented problems with natural repro of steelies, are locations to stock heavily - infact - heavier than we do now, IMO. I personally feel Tippy should get 100K minimum of winter run (like the lower AuSable!) and the Betsie should be +50k, but we all have opinions. Regardless of that however, stocking steelies in the middle PM would not help much even if we didn't care about sharing the resources with other rivers that can not sustain themselves. Steelies are tributary spawners (like coho) and they seek smaller streams, or very upper reaches of river systems, for the majority of their spawning effort. Those upper portions of the PM are already utilized to their maximum potential by the annual spring runs. Stocking such as system would only create spawning site competition between natural and stocked fish, which is never a good thing. Obviously, we want natural fish to produce as much of our brood stock as possible since those smolts survive and return in much greater numbers than the pellet-fed, biologically inferior stocked fish. Study after study has found this to be true and this is at the heart of the DNR's policy of not stocking waters that can sustain themselves naturally. But again, unfortunately, somehow the PM already has an exception to this 'rule'. Please don't encourage it to be bent any further in the PM's favor. Thank you for listening.
 
#5 ·
Good post br, and for the record i already knew they didn't or dont stock in the flies only section. I wish there were a way for me to convey the message clear enough that you, and others could understand our position on flies only. I will say this you say the op is selfish, which is exactly our stance on flies only. But of course you will say WE are bring selfish, can yoy say standoff?
 
#6 · (Edited)
Well..first off thanks for the info Mark, I don't claim to know everything. I don't read a gob of stuff but I do fish A Lot and I see what's out there real time. I have fished and guided the river for a long long time and have noticed a big drop off in the usage of the spawning gravel by Steelhead and Salmon in the Mid Sections mentioned. The first sections of the PM I learned to fish were mid river. Areas that use to fish well and have lots of polishing and dug out reds are weirdly unused/ vacant and to the best of my knowledge don't these migratory fish go back and reproduce close to the area they were born ??? In the last 5-10 years there is noticeably less wild reproduction in these sections and I don't know why..I'm assuming it's just because there is less fish as a whole in the Great Lakes.

If A wild Salmon/ Steelhead fish/ fishery is the desired effect why allow the same creel as a put and take fishery, less the stocking and sense shocking survey dose not produce the data were looking for, maybe float and study gravel usage and map that.

I did know that the truck comes by and turns the valve on for few seconds at each access site for the Browns and I have heard about the 10K planted in the Big South. Really don't see a difference for the better at the end of the rod but maybe it helps?? Who knows can't study it.

FYI I have more bait and tackle, plugging, big lake, ice fishing and walleye gear than fly gear so not sure how I fell into that pigeon hole. Nor have I once mentioned the flies only water so blow it out your pie hole. On the contrary I'm trying to pump up the mid river where there are no or very little special regs, cold water (not warm killing temp water) and want it to be better or at least as good as it once was. Believe it or not it has slid, I notice it and that's my opinion period. I still catch fish resident and migratory in the mid sections that's not the issue.

Maybe I'd have a more warm fuzzy feeling if there was a bottom draw on all our dams and they ran cool cold water that never killed Trout / Salmon in the summer and made the power company's pay huge fines for turning down the flow and killing fish. Till that happens only a small percentage survive and reproduce. That is a fact..
 
#7 ·
Areas that use to fish well and have lots of polishing and dug out reds are weirdly unused/ vacant and to the best of my knowledge don't these migratory fish go back and reproduce close to the area they were born ??? In the last 5-10 years there is noticeably less wild reproduction in these sections and I don't know why..I'm assuming it's just because there is less fish as a whole in the Great Lakes.
My observations over the years is that steelhead are nomadic and will go just about anywhere in search of gravel. I think salmon are the ones that like to spawn in their "home" sections or waters. 5 years ago there were so many salmon in the mid section that I told my buddy I could walk across the river on their backs. Guys in the big lake were slaying them too. 2013 was not quite as good. 2014 was a little worse....and here we are today. Very little bait in the lake...and very few fish in the mid section.
 
#8 ·
Well..first off thanks for the info Mark, I don't claim to know everything. I don't read a gob of stuff but I do fish A Lot and I see what's out there real time. I have fished and guided the river for a long long time and have noticed a big drop off in the usage of the spawning gravel by Steelhead and Salmon in the Mid Sections mentioned. The first sections of the PM I learned to fish were mid river. Areas that use to fish well and have lots of polishing and dug out reds are weirdly unused/ vacant and to the best of my knowledge don't these migratory fish go back and reproduce close to the area they were born ??? In the last 5-10 years there is noticeably less wild reproduction in these sections and I don't know why..I'm assuming it's just because there is less fish as a whole in the Great Lakes.

If A wild Salmon/ Steelhead fish/ fishery is the desired effect why allow the same creel as a put and take fishery, less the stocking and sense shocking survey dose not produce the data were looking for, maybe float and study gravel usage and map that.

I did know that the truck comes by and turns the valve on for few seconds at each access site for the Browns and I have heard about the 10K planted in the Big South. Really don't see a difference for the better at the end of the rod but maybe it helps?? Who knows can't study it.

FYI I have more bait and tackle, plugging, big lake, ice fishing and walleye gear than fly gear so not sure how I fell into that pigeon hole. Nor have I once mentioned the flies only water so blow it out your pie hole. On the contrary I'm trying to pump up the mid river where there are no or very little special regs, cold water (not warm killing temp water) and want it to be better or at least as good as it once was. Believe it or not it has slid, I notice it and that's my opinion period. I still catch fish resident and migratory in the mid sections that's not the issue.

Maybe I'd have a more warm fuzzy feeling if there was a bottom draw on all our dams and they ran cool cold water that never killed Trout / Salmon in the summer and made the power company's pay huge fines for turning down the flow and killing fish. Till that happens only a small percentage survive and reproduce. That is a fact..
Well then ask the state of michigan if you can pay to stock fish for your business. If your truly worried about the fishery. Then stop guiding on the river. Why the hell should we pay for you to make more money?
 
#10 ·
I really wish the state would bring back the $10-$15 Trout Stamp so they had more money for stocking and rearing Trout and Salmon.The license hike a few years ago was great when they combined both the Trout Stamp and General Fishing lic. to the All Species license we have now. But it was long overdue and the DNR was broke, CO Enforcement was almost non existent. So they crawled out a big hole and have been hiring CO and it really helps..Sorry if my living offends you. I catch plenty,have happy clients and I'm not going to stop guiding or fishing..When I'm ready to retire you can buy me out...Start saving, buy a business work your ass off and then listen to people grip because your trying to live the dream..Not a lot of work in Baldwin so this is it..I retired from construction and this beats screwing in windows for Wallside Windows running a crew..Left the rat race...
 
#11 ·
RML posted this the other day on a different thread:
Mark..How would one request stocking for the middle river of the Pere Marquette River. Would like to see 22,000 Steelhead and 22,000 Browns just like Tippy Dam. Brown Trout fishing Rainbow Rapids to Walhalla is greatly diminished and therefore needs stocking badly. My Opinion, is the wild reproduction can't keep up with the Steelhead creel limits from Gleason's Landing downstream. The Only shocking data for the Pere Marquette is collected from special regulation water ( funny). No shocking data has ever been collected Middle River where it is a wackfest.

I finally have a few minutes to respond so here goes. We already do stock the middle part of the PM with Brown Trout, at the tune of approximately 24,500 annually spread out from Bowman's downstream to Indian Bridge. We don't stock any steelhead in the mainstem PM, due to it's outstanding natural reproduction potential (including the tribs). However we do stock approximately 10,000 steelhead annually into the Big South Branch.

We actually did quite a bit of shocking all over the PM in 2014. The problem is that once you get much below the mouth of the Baldwin, the PM becomes too big and deep to shock effectively with the tow barge. But it isn't quite big enough to put the big boomshocking boats in either. So in 2014 we tried with a 14' boomshocking boat, but our results were less than satisfactory. We caught fish, but not at the rate that we can with the tow barge with three probes running. We weren't able to do mark/recapture population estimates so we can't compare the data with that from our index station up at the mouth of the Baldwin.

Hope that helps.
Thanks Mark I had no idea of the efforts made in 2014. but there is no way you can use the data from the one area you shock with consistant good results and apply that to the whole river.
 
#12 ·
Also, the possession limit on Steelhead is already limited to 1 fish from Gleason's to Rainbow...

Pere Marquette River

(Lake County) from M-37 to the Downstream Edge of the Boat Ramp/Slide at Gleason’s Landing (T17N, R14W, S13; 43° 52’ 14.521″ N/ 85° 55’ 21.752″ W): Fishing Season: open all year; Possession Season: closed all year; except for children under 12 the possession season is open all year; Tackle: artificial flies only; Daily Possession Limit: zero trout and salmon; except children under 12 may keep 1 trout or salmon; Size Limits: for children under 12 there is an 8-inch minimum size limit and a 12-inch maximum size limit for all trout and salmon. Mileage: 8.5 miles.

(Lake County) from the Downstream Edge of the Boat Ramp/Slide at Gleason’s Landing (T17N, R14W, S13; 43° 52’ 14.521″ N/ 85° 55’ 21.752″ W) to the Upstream Edge of the Boat Ramp at Rainbow Rapids (T18N, R14W, S27; 43° 55’ 5.321″ N/ 85° 58’ 30.719″ W):

  • From Sep. 1 – the Fri. before the last Sat. in Apr., this reach of stream shall be managed under Type 4 regulations, with the following exceptions: Fishing Season: Sep. 1– the Fri. before the last Sat. in Apr.; Possession Season: Sep. 1 – the Fri. before the last Sat. in Apr.; Daily Possession Limit: 1 rainbow trout; Size Limits: rainbow trout — 10″.
  • From the last Sat. in Apr. – Aug. 31, this reach of stream shall be managed under gear restricted regulations as follows: Fishing Season: last Sat. in Apr. – Aug. 31; Possession Season: last Sat. in Apr. –Aug. 31; Tackle: artificial lures only; Daily Possession Limit: 2 trout or salmon; with no more than 1 brown trout 18″ or greater, and no more than 1 rainbow trout; Size Limits: minimum size limit: all salmon — 10″; brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout – 8″; except that the harvest of fish greater than 14″ and less than 18″ shall be prohibited for brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout. Mileage: 10.5 miles.
 
#15 ·
It would simplify the rule book just making it 1 Rainbow Trout / Steelehead from Gleasons Landing all the way to PM Lake. Lots of good to great spawning gravel from Rainbow Rapids to Walhalla for wild reproduction. A hand full of spawning spots from Walhalla to Custer also..
RML -Thank you for your civil response and additional perspective. Much appreciated. Personally, as I've gotten older I've evolved to inland trout proponent and have become pretty much disillusioned with my previous addiction to chrome. When you're young or just starting out, steelhead seem like the end-all, be-all of fishing. Some dudes never shake that, and I applaud them for keeping the passion. For me, the steelhead scene has just gotten less and less enjoyable the more years (decades) I'm on the river. I now crave the end of migratory season and relish in quite rivers, insect life cycles and active trout. NO, I'm not a fly purist. I just get more joy from a fish on a fly I tied, on a rod I made, than most any other angler pursuit. That said, I was up until midnight two nights ago shuffling around my local golf course filling up crawler containers in preparation for a UP brookie trip this weekend. Few things taste better than campfire brookies - especially during a good white morel season like this year! Anyway, not to digress to much, but I personally feel the PM should be 3 steelhead on a rope if you want them, and a limit of 1 brown trout over 12"/angler/day for the entire river. Both are introduced and naturalized species. IMO - brown trout rule and they would do even better if we had less of those steelhead super-imposing (digging up) their redds in the spring before the brown trout fry hatch. Plus, the PM is THE original brown trout river for the entire US. Why is it not managed to protect and enhance brown trout more!?!? I'll never know.... Anyway, thanks again for the discussion. Fish on.
 
#16 ·
Good post br, and for the record i already knew they didn't or dont stock in the flies only section. I wish there were a way for me to convey the message clear enough that you, and others could understand our position on flies only. I will say this you say the op is selfish, which is exactly our stance on flies only. But of course you will say WE are bring selfish, can yoy say standoff?
Toto -As always, I enjoy your perspective. Perhaps I should clarify mine - I am 100% in favor of lures or flies and I am not a proponent of fly-only. I concur that fly-only is selfish to some degree and excludes some fisherman, which is never a good thing. I am totally, adamantly in favor of NO BAIT sections for current GR stream sections. Spinning or fly tackle makes no difference to me. Do I fish bait - heck yeah, but not everywhere I can by a long shot. For me, pretty much only when I am dunking small brookie streams looking for a meal. Do I enjoy catching fish on my fly rod more? You bet.
Fishing bait, IMO, does have a significant impact. I'm part of that impact on some streams. None the less, I would love to see more consideration for bait-free rivers with a reduction or elimination of fly-only waters. Cheers.
 
#17 ·
Your point has some validity, however, in reading studies on mortality rates, the rates are within 1% of fly fishing, IF using an active method. We could go on and on about it, but sometimes I just don't have it in me. What I must try to make clear is that this isn't about fishing with bait necessarily for me, this is about fairness more than anything else. Yes I know one can buy a cheap fly rod outfit, but why should they have to? I also know that trout aren't planted in GR waters, but I contend that fish shouldn't be stocked in any river, that has any stretch of GR water, period. The use of public funds brings in a whole set of issues that again, I don't have it in me to go on about today. All I can say is, I guess, I'm sick and tired of the us vs them mentality, and that same mentality that comes through as we have the power, money, and influence to get what we want, so we'll just take it of the fly guys. I believe you know it to be true as well. This can be proven by some of the recent decisions by the NRC.
 
#18 ·
I
RML posted this the other day on a different thread:
Mark..How would one request stocking for the middle river of the Pere Marquette River. Would like to see 22,000 Steelhead and 22,000 Browns just like Tippy Dam. Brown Trout fishing Rainbow Rapids to Walhalla is greatly diminished and therefore needs stocking badly. My Opinion, is the wild reproduction can't keep up with the Steelhead creel limits from Gleason's Landing downstream. The Only shocking data for the Pere Marquette is collected from special regulation water ( funny). No shocking data has ever been collected Middle River where it is a wackfest.

I finally have a few minutes to respond so here goes. We already do stock the middle part of the PM with Brown Trout, at the tune of approximately 24,500 annually spread out from Bowman's downstream to Indian Bridge. We don't stock any steelhead in the mainstem PM, due to it's outstanding natural reproduction potential (including the tribs). However we do stock approximately 10,000 steelhead annually into the Big South Branch.

We actually did quite a bit of shocking all over the PM in 2014. The problem is that once you get much below the mouth of the Baldwin, the PM becomes too big and deep to shock effectively with the tow barge. But it isn't quite big enough to put the big boomshocking boats in either. So in 2014 we tried with a 14' boomshocking boat, but our results were less than satisfactory. We caught fish, but not at the rate that we can with the tow barge with three probes running. We weren't able to do mark/recapture population estimates so we can't compare the data with that from our index station up at the mouth of the Baldwin.

Hope that helps.
If you haven’t read all of Tonello’s detailed reports on the PM river system and tribs, do yourself a favor and spend a few hours (I’ve read and reread all the ones I could find) to reap a lifetime of compiled knowledge. Thanks for working so hard to make quality information available from all of us Michigan Sportsman who live for the water and use those reports as a primary resource! And, I think you did a 2003 trib report on the Big South that I can’t seem to find online...any ideas?
 
#32 ·
I

If you haven’t read all of Tonello’s detailed reports on the PM river system and tribs, do yourself a favor and spend a few hours (I’ve read and reread all the ones I could find) to reap a lifetime of compiled knowledge. Thanks for working so hard to make quality information available from all of us Michigan Sportsman who live for the water and use those reports as a primary resource! And, I think you did a 2003 trib report on the Big South that I can’t seem to find online...any ideas?
Attached is a copy of Mr. Tonellos report on the BSB you were looking for. I bought a property on the river this spring and am still not very fimiliar with the area... can anyone tell me if the referenced "washington bridge" is the little bridge on washington right near ruby creek? thank you.
 

Attachments

#20 ·
Actually as a land owner in the lower river Clint is spot on in his assessment made last year. Since no data has ever been collected because of the reason Mark said the opinion of those that fish it a lot and have for many years should not be discarded as selfish wants. Yes their are still nice fish to catch but nothing like twenty years ago. If I was to say the reason the widening of the river from some big high water events and the sand load might be playing a role in the diminished number of browns
 
#21 ·
Sand load on our rivers is suffocating them IMO. I can’t understand the biologist reasoning in not wanting more silt traps. I believe the Big south could use some habitat improvement, and possibly it could become better at natural reproduction.

On the main branch, when the electric weir was in use, it held back a lot of fish for multiple years until the water warmed up. If I observed correctly, don’t fish tend to spawn lower in rivers and as the season progressed they would generally move further upstream.

I’ve wondered what harm was done for all the spring runs when the poorly plan weir was installed.
 
#24 ·
Sand load on our rivers is suffocating them IMO. I can’t understand the biologist reasoning in not wanting more silt traps. I believe the Big south could use some habitat improvement, and possibly it could become better at natural reproduction.
For sure sedimentation is one of the largest impacts to our cold water streams next to invasive species. It isn't really a question of whether the biologists want silt traps or not, it comes down to funding for the consistent cleaning and maintenance of the traps to ensure that they are continually working effectively, vs. actually addressing the sources of the sediment.

In my work with multiple watershed groups in NW MI, the experts agree that sedimentation is an issue, but we have to remember that our State is predominantly a sand system for our cold water streams. Natural sedimentation occurs. Looking strictly from a cost standpoint one has to weigh where we can get our most bang for the buck. By and large the largest contributors of unnatural sedimentation occurs at road stream crossings. Yes there are many old roll-a-ways that have not been stabilized, but there are many more natural sand banks that are naturally eroding sand and sediment into the system.

Watershed groups are working hand in hand with the DNR, the USFS and non-profits like CRA and TU to evaluate and systematically fix many road stream crossings to drastically reduce the sediment loads that are entering at these crossings. This is not cheap.

One has to consider that the placement of sand traps in a steam will work, but only if they are emptied regularly (which requires equipment and man power). Regularly is much more often than one would think. Now make the consideration that likely half of the sediment that is captured in these traps is of a natural origin.

After weighing that information consider if it make more sense to spend what little money is actually available for infrastructure/resource work on repairing a source of the actual problem (eliminating or drastically reducing a source of sediment load), or to continually spend money to remove sand from a trap in a stream that will need to continue in perpetuity, while the unnatural sediment source continues to contribute sand/sediment to the system.
 
#27 ·
You're incorrect in your assessment and there is plenty of literature out there to gain a better understanding. One reason why the White Pine and Red Pine of this region thrived were due to the predominantly sandy soils.

BTW: Sable/Au Sable = Sand (These streams were named by French Fur Traders/Explorers well before the regions timber was decimated.)
 
#26 ·
At least the DNR on the west side seems to have a clue about the conditions of their cold water streams. Many of the east side streams that I have fished since I was weaned are going to hell in a hand basket. Sand is a major problem and I'm pretty sure that not much of it is "natural". The huge stands of pine have been gone since way before our time. Some tribs that used to have miles of gravel and were absolute fish factories, are now shallow and choked with sand. I think most of this has to do with land use, namely farming practices. When I was a kid almost none of the farm land in these basins was tiled, a large percentage was hay, and hardly anyone did much fall ground work. Now when we get a rain, the rivers instantly go right to the top with chocolate milk and within a few days they are back to low and clear. It used to be that these streams would maintain levels for much longer and flow way cleaner when they did blow.

When I've brought these things up they just look at me like I'm crazy. At least one of the streams in my area that is a shadow of it's former self is a blue ribbon and still gets no real help. If we could spend some time and money maintaining and improving our natural resources, it would pay off big time.
 
#28 · (Edited)
a weather event in the late 80s hurt one of my favorite streams.9-10+ inches of rain fell in a very short time.a hurricane festered over Michigan.many smaller dams failed, tippy and croton had water going over.on the news a consumers(?)spokesman said if the Croton dam failed ,a 20 foot wall of water would go thru Newaygo.:dizzy: anyway...multiple sand banks collapsed into the stream ,pretty much burying everything with the sand load.sediment(sand) traps were maintained for many years with little noticeable benefits(the first couple of years helped).eventually,the traps were abandoned, improvements were made to stabilize banks,creating cover and reducing sand load.still one of the best streams around.
 
#29 ·
I think you missed my point. When you had white & red pine in the surrounding area the root system trapped and held the sand. Take a walk through a barren plane where the pine once was, and again through a pine forest. Note the lack of sand under the pine forest.

Twenty five years ago the East branch of the Fox where 77 crosses and down stream, it was to deep and too fast to wade. Marl bottom like the spreads south of Seney. Now it’s 6” deep and the sand load reaches where cold creek joines and beyond. Perhaps when it’s sanded in from 77 to 28 they will wring their hands and think, damn, maybe we should have stabilized the banks and added sand traps.
With all the added sand the fishing isn’t a tenth what it once was.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top