removing the dams off elkhorn

I think that you missed my point etcfishin. This effort has nothing to do with improving a resource that has proven to be on of the finest smallmouth stream fisheries in the south. The people who would like to remove these dams are using this action as a payback to excuse the fact that their clients have destroyed wetland habitat in other places. A ridiculous loophole created by developement loving congressmen allows these people to ustify the destruction of irreplacable wetland habit by saying that they have restored some somewhere else. Apparently the cheapest way they have found to do that within the regs is to tear out a dam somewhere. You can imagine how quick a Cat D-9 doser could knock down a 100 foot long five foot high dam. I would guess it would take longer to get it off the trailer. As to the silt deal there isn't any siltation behind these dams if you dont believe me come and wade up the solid rock bottom.

Yeah, I would never want something like this to happen by some loophole being used by some out of state group. Agree with your point.

[quote=Tim_T;347473]Has anybody talked to a fishery biologist to see how this would affect the smallmouth fishery?[/quote]

I think if you check with Fish and Wildlife folks they will tell you -- off the record -- that removing those dams would be one of the best things you could do for smallmouth on the Elkhorn. The Elkhorn is a great smallmouth stream. Remove the dams and it would be an AMAZING smallmouth stream. F&W folks haven't "waded" into this one, I'm betting, because they don't want to get into the politics of it. But when Scott County Judge Executive George Lusby was pushing for the rebuilding of a dam, he did so for political purposes and I guarantee you F&W folks were trying quietly behind the scenes to keep it from happening. Smallmouth love moving water over rocky bottom. That's the definition of the Elkhorn -- except where there are dams. If you like catfish, carp and undersized largemouth, you should be for keeping those dams. If you love great smallmouth fishing, you ought to do some research. If you did, you'd learn that bringing the old Elkhorn back -- by removing some useless dams -- would make for some of the best smallmouth fishing in the world.

I think if you check with Fish and Wildlife folks they will tell you -- off the record -- that removing those dams would be one of the best things you could do for smallmouth on the Elkhorn. The Elkhorn is a great smallmouth stream. Remove the dams and it would be an AMAZING smallmouth stream. F&W folks haven't "waded" into this one, I'm betting, because they don't want to get into the politics of it. But when Scott County Judge Executive George Lusby was pushing for the rebuilding of a dam, he did so for political purposes and I guarantee you F&W folks were trying quietly behind the scenes to keep it from happening. Smallmouth love moving water over rocky bottom. That's the definition of the Elkhorn -- except where there are dams. If you like catfish, carp and undersized largemouth, you should be for keeping those dams. If you love great smallmouth fishing, you ought to do some research. If you did, you'd learn that bringing the old Elkhorn back -- by removing some useless dams -- would make for some of the best smallmouth fishing in the world.

[url]http://www.wisconsinrivers.org/images/dams/factsheet.dams.pdf[/url]

Here's an article about dam removal in Wisconsin. It even mentions improving smallmouth fishing. I wish that Kentucky would begin to consider this. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent repairing dams on the Kentucky River over the years. I understand the need for drinking water. Don't get me wrong. I want to take my showers just like the rest of you, but could you imagine the recreation opportunities and habitat restoration if some of the dams (non-drinking water pools) were removed. It would definitely be condusive to smallmouth fishing.

The article also mentions that initiatives to do this are first met with resistence until people understand the effects better. This has been KY's problem.

well, I can guarantee that the dams on the KY will never be taken out, Fayette, Jessamine, and Madison counties I know for sure have plans to raise several of the dams by at least 3' which will provide even more available water for Lexington, Richmond, and Nicholasville. so the dams on the KY are there to stay.

I'm familiar with those efforts and it is definitely needed given the water demands of these areas. Just trying to provide a different perspective for a change. There's a good book out called "The Kentucky River" by William E Ellis. Check out chapter 4 and 8 and you'll be amazed at how long the dams on the KY river have been an issue. Every administration that comes in faces some issue with the dams and it's usually a funding issue (taxpayer dollars).

It's a difficult balance between water supply demands, recreation, water quality, and wildlife habitat. If your for restoration of habitat for native species including smallmouth then you're for dam removal. If you like having running water in the house then you're for the dams. Too bad I can't have both. :-)

I've seen something a while back on "Dirty Jobs" about that group. At that time they were removing dams for trout and salmon. Personally, I don't know the reasons or the effects, they seem to be kind of like tree huggers to me and doing it for the wrong reasons. Is the Corp of Engineers involved with them, or are they just buying the dams and doing it blindly?

I believe that if you all knew any thing about elkhorn creek you would realize the dams on the upper reaches of this stream hold water that would otherwise flow on down to the KY river and on extremely dry years such as the last two they keep some water in the upper pools that allow you to catch some fish out of the riffles that are only one mile above these 5 foot tall dams. To quote the guys on ESPN, "Come on Man",this isn't Hoover friggin Dam we are talking about here. I can site you numerous other small creeks around here that dry up in the summer because the don't have the small dams that Elkhorn does. They also don't have the fishery that Elkhorn enjoys. I have spent forty five years on the creek and my family has been here since 1782 on the same land. There have been grist mill dams on the elkhorn since the early 1800s and the only real theat to this resource in developers and growth. Please respect the resource and understand that it is irreplacable in its current state. Please leave it alone and maybe your grand children will be able to enjoy it as you have. And as to the undersized largemouth man are uninformed.

I've been fair on the argument but implying that you are some kind of Elkhorn expert because you live on the creek combined with the points you made regarding drought shows your true lack of knowledge regarding the entire watershed.

For all of the years you've lived on the creek there's been various years of drought. If the dams were saving all of your fish then explain why the lower section and other undammed parts fish as good if not better than the dammed section. The fact is that the Elkhorn has natural pools that the fish have survived in for years despite all of the droughts. I'm sure there have been fish kills during various sections over the years and it makes it difficult to fish during low water; no doubt about it, but your argument is short sided. Are you just fishing the section next to your land? If so, you are missing out.

I could make other points regarding various sections and stream gradiant, but this creek gets too much publicity as it is. I'm not for having some outside group come in and change things, and I agree with your point regarding Elkhorn's true threat. . . development, but there is research on dam removal and it's improvement to smallmouth bass habitat. You can ignore this research if you choose.

"-- by removing some useless dams -- would make for some of the best smallmouth fishing in the world."

The Mexicans would clean it out.....It don't make a spit of difference to me. We dont use the creek to irrigate the farm.....

Until Georgetown has an alternate water supply, this will not happen.


ETC... Having lived on the creek I will say this...The North Fork offers has no water treatment plant discharge above the Rockhouse dam. the South Fork and Hickman Creek have these. It doesn't pump a lot of water, but does keep some fluxuation of water flow through the dry months.
So the area from Lexington to Gtown would run pretty thin. During dry summer irrigation months. There's a whole lot more dams on The North Fork that what folks realize.

9 of them that I can think of.

I think the only habitat that would improve enough to justify removal would be the areas directly above these dams. In most cases there are riffle areas not even a mile up. The rest has already proven to be good to excellent habitat based on how the thing fishes. So you're talking about significantly improving only a small amount of water. To me it doesn't sound worth it - I'm sure there are many more flows in Kentucky that are in dire need of habitat restoration.