Lake levels

[artcarney_agr]

DaveStewart, you have hit the nail right on the head! I couldn't agree more with your comments.

However, if lake levels were held up longer, how much additional time would it actually be? I'm thinking it would only be one additional month, two at the most.....would that really be enough to kill the buckbrush???

On another note, besides wave action, island erosion is being accelerated by the cormorants. Their feces kill the plant life on the islands, and with the loss of plants comes the loss of root systems that interlock the soil particles. I have been on some of these islands and the amount of feces on them is ridiculous! It looks like snow and smells strongly of ammonia! There should be a movement to erradicate these fish eating nuisances. With warmer weather patterns, more and more are showing up. I remember when seeing one was a rareity!

[buzzking]

scott, you are right on regarding the cormorants, I have witness the desolation of islands on g-ville over the past three years, one particular near goose pond is almost gone, all from bird-sh!t. As far as the lake levels, I would have to go with daves opinion on the buck-brush. While one more month of high water levels will not destroy all buck-brush, anytime you make changes in an ecosystem consequences stem down so yes I do believe that the buck brush would start to thin.

[artcarney_agr]

Let me ask this question...

What is buck brush really good for? Yes, it is good for flipping and makes good cover for bass. However, I would have to disagree that bass spawn in it. Not sure what the logic is on that idea, but any bass I've ever seen spawning was on a hard bottom and where sunlight can shine down on the nest. I've seen many that nest up around medium sized rocks.

Also, what evidence do we have that the buckbrush cannot sustain an extra month in water? Is it possible that new growth farther up the bank might result?

In regards to our existing grass that continues to flourish (finally), wouldn't an extra month of water on the flats promote more aquatic vegetation growth or not?

Not saying I'm right or wrong on these ideas, just wanting to see what everyone else thinks. I'd like to see some factual evidence that supports either side before making any decisions on this issue....

[Dave Stewart]

I would suggest you contact Paul Rister at KDFW...unless he has retired he is the fisheries biologist here in western Kentucky. He is the person I spoke with about this issue back when the money folks wanted the lake levels to be changed when the TVA was changing the River Operating System. He was very active in this issue along with his collegues. I think I will believe folks that make their living studying these things rather than anyone else that just has an opinion or has another agenda. There were a number of meetings held by the TVA back then about this issue...and the money folks were very vocal...luckily the KDFW and the TFWR were more vocal along with fishing advocates.

[2ozone]

Thanks Dave. That is what I was looking for. I'll send them (KDFW)a line to see what they thing we can do to help.

Thanks
Bob

[Dave Stewart]

I need to clarify my statement about bass spawning vs buck brush...no the bass don't spawn on the buck brush...they do spawn near it and around it. The major impact of loosing the buck brush is that is provides nutrients and cover for the newly hatched bass. Leaving the water levels up for the extended period would not allow for the buck brush seeds to germinate (grass either for that matter) and thus cause the loss of shoreline vegatation.

If you want to read about all this you can read the TVA's indepth final report from the ROS Study done when the current ROS was implemented at:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/repor..._eis/index.htm

[artcarney_agr]

Thanks Dave!