removing the dams off elkhorn

[Dakota Kid]

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?

[agreynolds]

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.

[etcfishin]

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.

[redneckshadrap]

"-- 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.

[psprowler]

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.

[etcfishin]

Billy and psprowler,
Good points. Dam removal may not be what's best for the Elkhorn. There's just a lot of attention nationwide on this subject and the preliminary evidence is that it's good for improving native habitat. I've never heard it brought up in Ky that much so I thought it would be a good time to at least present the other side. Water demands will always take precedence and I can't blame anyone for that. Thanks for the input.

[Tim_T]

My question would be this: Just because it has worked in a few areas, does that guarantee that it will work on the Elkhorn?

Another question is why would KDFWR say "Off the record" that it is a good idea, but wouldn't say it on the record? What would be in it for them either way?

[UpaCrick]

Good discussion with several valid points. I use to talk to a F&W buddy about the dams, but on KY River. He told me about how it would have been one of the "premier" smallie streams in the South/US if it had been able to be left untouched. And it makes sense considering the climate, number of feeding tribs, gradient, etc. But, community needs supercede, period, as it should be. Can only wish..........

TimT-It would most likely work on the Elkhorn, but you are correct that nothing is guaranteed.

KDFWR is a government job, you can't get any state employee to go "official" about the Sun setting in the West, let alone anything else. CYA at its finest!

Better ecologically means less work and finances to improve the fishery.

UpaCrick