Jump to content

Lunker Structure Building


Recommended Posts

Despite the rumors that this event was going to be canceled, due to lack of volunteers, it went off without a hitch. In total, there were 13 people who made short work of assembling eight lunker structures. Groups that were represented were TU, DRIFT, the DNR and the ISA. The work started at 9am, which was an hour earlier than was expected, so I only got about five casts into the river beforehand. We were done in about four hours, which included a short lunch of brats, chips and cookies! :) Thanks to Karen for the grub!

 

Here are some shots of the different stages of construction, with a gratuitous "most of the group" shot tossed in.

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah.... I fished for a few hours afterward. Picked up 21 smallies, most in the 6"-10" range. My two best were 14 1/2" and 15 1/4" fatty. Here's the latter in my first attempt at a Jamie type pic. I know, I need to work on the factual expression! :P:lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to the volunteers who helped.

 

Jim,

Would you please take some time and write an article about this for the newsletter?

 

If so, please also e-mail these pics to Scott and if you have names of the people in the pics hat would be good. If not we can use "volunteers".

 

Thanks.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now that is one bunch of sportsmen, from many clubs working together to protect the creek. work alittle, eat alittle and fish little more. thanks jim k for getting some more photos rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'm glad to see this done on ANY stream in Illinois. And, the ISA had a hand in it. However, what would it take to get this done on another stream in the state? Would there be a possiblity of the ISA making it a goal to install one of these, per year, on an outside bend in some other smaller streams that are short on cover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rich mc

greg, do you have a creek bend in mind.? the project on clear creek ran about 40,000 with other grants, clubs pitching in and labor used as a price matching figure. it has to be appproved by the idnr and they can say if it is the right structure for that particular creek. contact your regions isa director and let him check on it. rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the structure that was built but which way is it put in and what is it for?

 

Erosion control or fish structure?

 

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greg, do you have a creek bend in mind.? the project on clear creek ran about 40,000 with other grants, clubs pitching in and labor used as a price matching figure. it has to be appproved by the idnr and they can say if it is the right structure for that particular creek. contact your regions isa director and let him check on it. rich

I guess I do, but I was more interested in trying to get more of these in place...anywhere. We are for conservation, AND improving habitat for them. Many streams are channelized, and could benefit from structure such as this. I have fished trout streams that have them, and they do a tremendous job of providing cover in a stream that has little or none. Of course, it still takes the permission of the land owner. So, there might be a lot involved in getting it done. But, I loved seeing them installed SOMEWHERE! I know that they work, and I would like to see more of them put in place in a few areas around the state.

Another problem. I read that the Blogovernator cut funding to the IDNR, by 40%. I would imagine that this will severely limit installations of this kind of stucture in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rich mc

one big factor was that the wood had to stay underwater or it would rot out. don labrose has built a few on klein creek farm on the west branch. he made them out of the plastic recycled wood type boards. after 4 -5 years he say they are still working. i will check with him . rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich, Illinois is full of channelized streams. All need structure. If there is any way to see more of this type of structure installed, I'm all for it! I have seen it installed on all maner of trout streams. I can't help, but think that any smallie stream woud benefit from it. One stream per year, would be a good motto. Installing fish holding strucure on a stream void of said structure would seem like a great idea to me.

 

BTW, at the Central meeting tonight, I mentioned the plight of the IDNR to Jonn G. The 40% reduction in budget seemed a handicap. However, it seems that it MIGHT be a benefit of sorts. How about offering the DNR a "bounty" for the apprehension & conviction of a poacher caught taking more than their legal limit of smallmouth?? If there is a conviction for the taking of smallmouth, the DNR would get $50 for each poacher caught & convicted of poaching smallmouth. If the DNR needs funding, lets let them earn it in a way that benefits us! Jonn had mentioned that they would be short of money to pay for gas. If the reward was that they would be getting money to apprehend smallmouth poachers, it might encourage them to follow up on leads to respond to calls about fishing infractions. They MIGHT ignore a call about someone illegally taking ginsing, or something, but they would benefit financially in responding to a call about smallies being taken illegally over other calls.

In addition, make the news available to the local papers. If the poachers hear about it, before they start, they might think twice before trying. Opprtunity knocks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rich mc

i dont like the bounty system, thats just myopinion. would we put a bounty on a drunk driver and give the police a bonus for catching him ... the idnr cpo's cant be everywhere . having them work with county and local police more would be my answer. rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, from talking with a local policeman that fishes, he said that as much as he might be for it, they claim that their resources are stretched too. And, that they don't have time to chase down guys catch two fish over their limit. As they have TOLD ME, they have more important things to do.

 

The idea of the "bounty" if we can call it that, is that the CPOs will have a financial incentive to give priority to a call of fish poachers. As I mentioned to Jonn, you would have to get the word out of what's going on to the papers, as the news of this plan would also give would-be poachers a reason to think twice.

 

As for, "Would we give a bounty to the police for catching a drunk driver"... The PROBLEM with that scenario is that the police already have an incentive. Ask anyone who's received a DUI, what it costs! The police get money for nabbing DUIs now (Well, the court system does.) It's really not a fair comparison. CPO's get little more than a pat on the back for nabbing a poacher. Police get a portion of seizures for drugs, and recovered stolen goods, vehicles used to transport illegal goods or commit crimes. I don't think CPOs get anything close to that volume, though they might seize a truck, atv, or boat now and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For poaching? Even one hundred and fifty dollars is to cheap.

Five hundred dollars and confiscate all the gear involved, plus the vehicle.

Not that I have an opinion. :)

 

heres a better idea. raise the cost of the fine from $75 to $150. it would help pay for more officers, and gas for their rigs. rich

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, the reason the state raised the fines for speeding through construction zones was because $75 was, apparently, not enough to make people slow down. Hit 'em in the wallet, and they seem to wake up! The following should say it all. The state has found that you have to keep hitting people, in the wallet, harder to get them to take notice and obey the laws.

 

"Key details for the program remain the same. Anyone photographed in the reduced-speed 45 MPH zone on a freeway will be mailed a $375 ticket for the first offense. The second ticket will cost $1000 and comes with a 90-day license suspension. Drivers will also face higher insurance premiums as points are assessed for each ticket. The first offense raises rates for 4-5 years, while the second offense remains on the record for a minimum of 7 years. Officials have not ruled out placing more than one van on the same freeway, so motorists find $1375 in tickets waiting in the mailbox two weeks after a single highway trip at 55 MPH."

 

It might seem harsh, but it appears that a single $75 ticket was all but ignored by people speeding through the construction zones. Make poaching WAY too expensive, and MAYBE they might re-think that idea. Also, they might start thinking about BUYING A LICENSE! I'm with Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...