Guys I think your making valid arguements, and I agree 1000% ecologically and as a sportsman, but your overlooking the PRIMARY goal of 99.9999999999% of all lake organizations: The use of the lake. Examples: Candlewood, Highland, Congamond, etc. What the lake associations want ase 3 things: SWIM AREAS FREE OF WEEDS, CLEAR WATER, OPEN WATER FOR NAVIGATION.
Lakefront property values are highly proportional to those issues. Property value has NOTHING to do with littoral habitat quality, largemouth bass population density, or ANY other ecological characteristics. Sad but true.
You can fight all you want, but the lake association doesnt give one hooot about the issues at stake.
They WILL care after the fish are GONE but by then its too late...
and the STATE will care if they get word that the state launch is unuseable due to improper water level regulation. I'll see if I can get a phone call off tomorrow to the DEP
Team Daiwaimano Team too many broken rods to count Team bluefish lawn ornament Team "oh shiit we are out of gas"
Unfortunately, I was not the one who reported the low launch. I am sure it was down that low but I was not there at the time. The rain has brought it up now, but I will be sure to take pictures if they let it all out again (which I think they might). What you said in your above post is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The Assn. guys don't care about the fisheries in the lake or the habitat. I don't even think most of them would mind a fishless lake as long as the bottom was as bare as a swimming pool and the water was deep. Most of the guys in positions of power probably don't even fish and I think there is a reason for that: the Assn. knows that if people who cared about the health of the lake got in charge/on the board it would screw their agenda.
**2-Time Defending State of Connecticut Freshwater Angler of the Year**
This is the E-mail responce I got from the association:
"The drawdown to help alleviate weed growth and simultaneously let needed repairs of seawalls and waterfronts take place results in lowered lake level for only a brief period after the ice is out; water level is over the top of the dam again after this weekend. (Had the lake level been at maximum the heavy rain might well have flooded basements and caused other collateral damage.) The 1983 flood activity filled in a substantial area from sediment running from the boat launch out. It is the lake authority's position at the moment that if dredging is needed to deepen that area the DEP may have to budget it since town coffers are suffering. Thanks for your response - sorry for the problem, but were the lake level higher last week there might have been other damage; for example, the dam needs repair to preclude leakage, and the torrents from this weekend would have predictably caused other possible damage". Sincerely Fred Holth Rogers Lake Authority Chairman
This is the E-mail responce I got from the DEP: "In response to your emails, I spoke to the Rogers Lake Authority Chairman. He reported to me that the drawdown began at the end of October, the lake went down 18inches. The lake is now refilled and once high water flows subside they will shut the gate. Ice out was only two weeks ago. Launching at the state boat launch is difficult even when the lake is at the normal level due to built up sediment from stormwater runoff. Please call me if you have any additional questions or concerns. (860) 424-3716."
Chuck Lee CT,DEP
Edited by Mud Man (03/18/1011:06 PM)
I would rather cast the wrong lure in the right spot, than the right lure in the wrong spot!!!!
Sounds like you go a good response, Mud Man. More than I have gotten. However, it lets you know what their real priorities are. They have never drawn down in the spring before for seawall repair. That has only been in the fall. Also, the basement flooding thing is true in this case, but there is one home near the dam that apparently has regular flooding problems and a couple of years ago, they have the owner of that home the keys to the dam gate so he could raise and lower the whole lake at his will just to solve the problem of his one house. This really lets you know where their minds are.
**2-Time Defending State of Connecticut Freshwater Angler of the Year**
#1195557 - 03/25/1004:11 PM
Re: Low water at Rogers Lake???
[Re: AvalonAngler]
Jighead
I love re-re-opening day
Registered: 04/05/02
Posts: 11226
Originally Posted By: Valinn Ranelli
The Assn. guys don't care about the fisheries in the lake or the habitat.
True - unless you can show them that their plans have negative fisheries impacts.....once they are informed, It's a whole lot harder for them to use the "we didn't know" defense. Is it difficult to make your points with the lake association...yes. It is impossible....no.
Not to change the subject, but in the same vain and a bigger issue..... is the weed control issues that so many of these lake associations take on with no experience in these matters what-so-ever. They take the word of chemical treatment companies as gospel, not knowing the true implications. The state issues them permits (because they can hardly stop them anyway) so it all sounds OK on paper. It might be true, that adult fish will not directly die from these chemicals applications.... but this is the far lesser of the evils of chemical use. The true negative impact to the fishery comes later, as weed loss impacts the food chain, which then impacts all species and throws the natural balance of the lake into caios....repeatedly, when applied repeatedly (I can go on).....
but the point is.... it is easy for them to "care less" when they are not made aware that there are negative consequences. Taking a position that lake authority decisions they make are beyond our (fishermens) control....is what they are counting on....or are used to.
Mud Man had an email dialogue with the lake association. The state even got involved in a follow up. WTG That's how you do it.
So don't be discouraged...or think there is nothing that can be done. Change comes in small doses.
but by then its too late...
Previous Topic
Index