OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, June S, 1971 -C- M Page 10 TROUT -- - Preserve Their Natural Habitat by David Mueller In last weeks article I outlined a few of the advantages of a wild trout fishery, and why we need more wild fish now that fishing is so popular and there are more fishermen every year. Unfortunately for many of our younger anglers, catching a native trout may be an experience they will never have the privilege to achieve. With more fishermen, less water, fewer fish and a great majority of people willing to settle for quantity rather than quality, the future of our wild trout fisheries looks dim, indeed. Three hatchery fish seem to be worth more than one wild fish. Our prime trout waters disappear with nary a quiver of public dissent. And as things get tighter, the human species once again proves its incredible adaptability, accepting fishing and in some cases actually qualifying this activity as fun. Where once ran eighty miles of meandering Weber River, now lies fifty miles of glorified drainage ditch, and two reservoirs for people to sink their featureless lures into the featureless depths for featureless, domesticated rainbow trout. elbow-to-elbo- w What it amounts to is simple: habitat. To have wild fish, fish thatll give you a good fight on the end of the line, fish thatll propagate themselves, fish thatll actually taste good if you should want to kill one for the pan, you need quality habitat. Clean water is not enough in itself, although it is a prime essential. A fish also needs food and protection and a place to spawn. Those elements are not present like they used to be along our major trout waters. Straightening the channel by indiscriminate dredging has taken away much of the excellent trout habitat. The Weber River is a tragic example of the destruction to a trout fishery channelization can bring. The problem with the Weber started a long time ago during the spring runoff, when some of its water spilled over its banks into a mans pastureland. The man resented losing this pasture for those several weeks in the spring. He decided that if the river through his land had no bends, then it would drain straight through and the pasture could be reclaimed. True, very true. What was also true was that when the first ranchers channel was complete, the ranchers downstream began experiencing more severe flooding of their pastures. The river course, shortened in one place, had to stretch out elsewhere right into the pastures of the ranchers downstream. A river can be altered, but the amount of flow which runs down it cannot be changed. Shorten it in one place, and plan on trouble in ) another. (Whats that I hear about the Salt Lake rising? I wonder Anyway, once flooding began to become severe downstream from the original channelization, then more ranchers decided they had better straighten the bed of the river running through their property. And then more and more. Until the entire length of the watershed, from Thousand Peaks Ranch downstream, had felt the impact of the bulldozer blade. Whats so bad about it, you ask. Well, nothing, except that fish-hidin- g snags, current protecting boulders, smooth gravel spawning beds, medium-size- d rocks, have all been heaped up on the sides of the river cottonwoods have been leveled. And the like dikes. The stream-sid- e boulders which bottom of the river is now composed of uniform-size- d afford little variety of cover, insect substrata, or spawning potential. And so the trout have gone. Where once twenty lived, now live three. Where once heavy mayfly hatches came off the water, now a few adult insects struggle into the air, hardly enough to draw your attention. Where once successful spawning took place, now a hatchery truck makes a biannual plant. Another doomsday prediction? Yes. I see very little hope to reclaim this water. Or even stop more of the channelizing activity that reams theeuts out of the watershed just a little more each year. uii8o-se- e some hope. It has to do with habitat. It has to do with politics. And it has to do with local priority to either settle for less, or work for more fishing . Politics: House Bill 79 was passed two years ago with the hopes of controlling channelization in Utah. But to pass, the bill had to make the exceptions of flood and erosion control. So goes House Bill 79. All effectiveness the bill might have had in controlling stream damage was written out. At least the rancher has to file for a permit now, says Dexter Pittman of the Ogden region of the Department of Wildlife Resources. That gives us some control. At least a man cant go out and do anything hed like. Hartt Wixom, outdoor writer, environmentalist, and longtime sportsman, sponsored the bill when it was passed in 1972. aquatic-insect-shelteri- ng the bill through the last time, says Wixom. The only way to get it passed was to make erosion and flood exceptions. The Provo and Weber Waterusers were just too powerful. Now is the time to start to work on an amendment to the bill which will We put in a lot of time in getting give us control we need. Wixom urges all concerned sportsmen to contact, their legislators and drum up local support for the amendment which will ensure aesthetic considerations for water as well as commercial ones. The Fish and Game seems ready to make a legitimate try to support the amendment also. Biologist Pittman tells me that a survey is presently being undertaken to graphically show the damage that channelization has brought to the Weber River fishery. The study will be publicity. complete this autumn, in time for some You But what about the rancher? you say. cant expect him to flooded. stand by while his pastures get No you cant. And Im the first one to admit that some form of flood control must be utilized, considering the tampered state of the watershed. pre-legislatu- re Mr. Pittman again had an answer for me. Channelization is really an obsolete method of flood control, he said. Not only will it make trouble downstream, but it is not a permanent solution. The sediments that are taken up out of the channel and piled on the side of the stream were brought there by the current, and the current can, and does, take them away. He states that in manv Diaces the channel cut must be cut again within five or ten years. Sometimes it takes only one year and the banks are washed out. Not only that, but when the dredging is being done, many of the streamside cottonwoods must be removed. In many cases, says Pitt- man, the trees are the only things holding the bank in place. The next attempt the rancher makes to try to stabilize the banks is to put old car bodies into the dikes. More trouble, says Dexter. After a period of time the current gets behind the car and deflects inward, eating away at the bank. Our method is to use large boulder rip-ra-p like you see along the highway in Weber canyon. Then tree or ground cover plantings are e made adjacent to the boulders to give stability. The end result is a stable bank, streamside shade, the natural deepening of the pool at the bend of the river, and the return of the trout. long-rang- Unfortunately, there has been a reluctance on the part of the Fish and Game to put any money in a stream improvement program of the type outlined above. The problem evidently lies in the fact that more and more of the river is private, with public access being denied. The Fish and Game is not willing to help any landowner if he does not allow public access. What if, I proposed, the money you saved by planting fingerlings instead of legal-size- d trout was put into a fund, and those monies would be used to help landowners in exchange for stream-improveme- nt public access? That might work, Pittman said. It might. The stream channel would be stabilized and wouldnt wash out within a decade. Trout habitat would be improved.Access rights would be acquired. The wild fishery would slowly and as the river was reclaimed. And the landowner would profit strengthen twice : he wouldnt have to dredge expensively every few years, and his land value would go up with the creation of prime trout water. It might work. It might not. Especially if the schism between the Waterusers and Division of Wildlife Resources doesnt heal. Especially if controls on not are demanded channelizing by the fishing public. Have you traded your fly rod for pop gear yet? Did you already exchange your waders for a small aluminum tub to bob around Deer Creek? Has the dust collected on that fly box while you supported the Wisconsin Cheese Growers Coop? You have a choice. Tell these guys what you think. Dave Freed, Vice President, Trout Unlimited, 339 Crestline Circle, Salt Lake City. Dexter Pittman, 166 E. 4600 S., Ogden, 84403. Dallin Jensen, Division of Water Rights, State Engineers, S.L.C. todon Harmston, Division of Wildlife Resources, S.L.C. Harold Hintze, Utah Wildlife Federation, 1102 Walker Bank Building, u.L.L. re-establi- sh |