Re: I went to see Congressman Whitfield
Dave, you know as well as I do that those with deep pockets get their way..... and I have a feeling they will. I think our largest argument should be that if the bill passes, then whatever brush is destroyed or dies off, there should be that much put back and then some, just like with any wetlands mitigation program. Regardless of the bill, our islands are eroding away rather quickly as it is, and we need some sort of counter measure right now! I know the Corps. of Engineers placed quite a few cypress trees in target areas in bays (Sledd Creek for example) in the past, but I really want to see that continue, especially on our eroding islands. There are islands I've duck hunted on three or four years ago and are now not there anymore!
Also, as far as the duck hunting goes, it's deteriorated not due to the erosion of the islands, but rather the weather patterns. When we're having 50+ degree days every few weeks up north, there's no reason for the ducks to come down. Hunting on the lake has not been very good since 2001!
From a duck hunting stand point, there needs to be about an extra foot of water in the winter anyways. The majority of the areas hunted on the main lakes are way too shallow to hunt effectively. I kill more ducks when the lake is up about a foot or two above winter pool.
Anyhow, maybe as a compromise, they should go half and half- keep the spring schedule the same, but extend the summer pool a little longer in the fall.
This is one of those wishy washy topics that has arguments to support both sides. But in all honesty, I don't think this bill would have a MAJOR impact on our fishery. There's plenty of lakes with very little buckbrush/cover on its banks and yet the fish are still there! Take a look at Taylorsville, Nolin, Rough River Lake, (probably a few more I'm forgetting) and tell me that there aren't quality fish in those lakes.....I sure don't remember seeing much buckbrush on those banks, and their summer/winter pool drawdown is a heck of a lot more than Ky and Barkley Lake! Fish have been on this earth a long time and have withstood much larger catstrophic events than a simple few extra feet of water for a few weeks...........however, this is just my opinion and by no means to be taken to heart by anyone................
Re: I went to see Congressman Whitfield
You really need to read the report on the study that was done concerning both the fisheries and the waterfowl to understand why leaving the water up would have a detrimental effect on them and also on the islands that you want to protect...which by the way are nesting areas for a lot of the waterfowl. It is all in the report.
Ky/Barkley is not Taylorsville, Nolin or Rough River any more than they are Cumberland or Rough River. Every lake has its own ecosystem of checks and balances. We have one of the premier bass and crappie fisheries in the nation in Ky/Barkley. I surmise that when the folks such as wildlife and fisheries biologists stand up and tell us that such and such an action is going to be harmful to the fisheries and wildlife that we should listen to them. I am more than willing to listen to anyone that has some scientific proof that the experts are wrong. So far all I am hearing from the opposition is ..."I don't think it will be a problem"
All I am asking anyone is to read the studies....make your decision..one way or the other...but make an INFORMED decision then show your action or inaction as you see fit. I myself will do what little I can, that is why this post is up here.
I would also like to post here for the record...it will take a number years for the detrimental effects of this decision to show up. By then it is too late. I would also like to add that by the time the effects do show up I will in all probability not be guiding any longer...I am getting older and don't expect to be guiding that many more years...but I feel would feel remiss if I just sat back and said "It won't matter to me"
Dave
