Sweetwater Fishing Forums
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: rayke1938 on August 31, 2011, 12:53:06 PM
-
Does anyone know anything about the operation of bthe fish lifts at Hinze and Wyaralong dams?
When I did a tour ofb the Hinze last byear thye person conduction the tour knew nothing about the operation of the lift except that they culled out the " bad" species.
As the lift is only a one way device would it be considered as a operational fish ladder for SIP application criteria.
Does the operating authority have an obligation to keep the lift in operation for ever?
How often is the entrapment chamber checked and is there any data published on what fish are transported or culled?
Cheers
Ray
-
This is what was proposed but cant find anything on the final result.Quite a bit of it seems to be suck it and see approach.But they certainly have done a lot to minimize fish damage during overflow events.
http://www.hinzedamstage3.com/PDF/eisSupplementary/hinze_dam_supp_appendix_e.pdf. (http://www.hinzedamstage3.com/PDF/eisSupplementary/hinze_dam_supp_appendix_e.pdf.)
Cheers
Ray
-
The lift at Wyaralong is bi directional according to this. Could not find anything about the spillway design to minimize fish damage during overflow events or to minimize entrapment in ponds below wall.
Fishway
Fish passage was required to be provided as part of the design of the Wyaralong Dam project. The design criteria, options and evaluation of options were developed through a series of workshops, which included all the relevant stakeholders. Due to the extensive operation range for both upstream and downstream fish movement, and due to the fact that the fish density is relatively low in the river, the preferred option adopted was a bi-directional fish lift. With this design a single fish lift is used to provide fish movement in both the upstream and downstream directions. This design has significant operational flexibility. It is envisaged that the fish hopper will be in the upstream attracting position most of the time, attracting fish for downstream fish movement. However, the same attraction flow used for attracting fish in this upstream position will also be attracting fish into the trapped area for moving fish upstream. Extensive hydraulic modelling was undertaken to ensure appropriate attraction flows during all of the design conditions.
-
As the lift is only a one way device would it be considered as a operational fish ladder for SIP application criteria.
I think you're confusing Fitzy's recommendation with an official ruling.
A Stocked Impoundment should be just that. Every precaution should be taken to stop the stocked fish from exiting the Impoundment and getting into natural waterways. Releasing Murray Darling species into the Albert Logan system would be against the translocation policies. River stocking groups operate seperately to Impoundment Stocking Groups and this is how it should remain. Rivers should have a lot of different regulations regarding which fish can be stocked in an attempt to vary the gene pool of breeding fish. It would also be unfair to force the SIP holders to pay for fish with the intention of having them exit the Impoundment.
-
At that stage I was not aware that the fish lift was a 2 way device. I think that the LASG only propose to stock mary river cod and bass . With the preponderance of the fish being marys and no mention of yellas. It would be great if the Marys do take but it will be an expensive exercise considering the current cost of Mary fingerlings.
Cheers
Ray
-
Without trying to rubbish anyone or ignore the policies there are already yellowbelly in the logan river system and do not doubt they are in the albert too.
Maroon dam has been stocked with yellowbelly so i figure it was inevitable.
Murry darling species are east of the devide already and it cant be taken back as we all know. Tilapia in the albert is a bigger worry.
I think the effectiveness and amount of usage these 2 way fish lifts get should be studies and come to a conclusion if they are effective enough to call the impoundment a wild or natural system. I think it could go either way.
Steve
-
Ray,
David Roberts is doing a presentation on another subject at the next PRFMA meeting, as it is he in conjunction with Fisheries that have been doing the trials with the fish lift I am sure he would be happy to answer any questions you have.
The Mary fingerlings are dear but if you were to do a fair dincum cost analysis on producing them they would be sold at a loss. Lucky to have someone producing them IMO.
cheers
Steve
-
Being blessed with 20/20 hindsight, I would have to suggest that the Mary River Cod program could well have caused a lot of damage. If Mary River Cod didn't exist in the Pine, Brisbane and Logan catchments, why should DEEDI want to put them in there now. Not enough research has gone into finding out what was there. MRC stockings, and Murray Cod releases in the Brisbane/Stanley systems could well have killed off the Brisbane River Cod. DEEDI approving the release of these into rivers where they never existed surely goes against their own translocation policy. I'd hate to see us get to the point of the Trout Cod overpopulation in Victorian waters, where anglers are throwing them on the bank like carp because that is all they can catch now. The stunted cod populations along the border rivers should also give cause to more thought going into overstocking the apex predator.
-
Yep hindsight is 20/20, plenty of mistakes made.
Hate to use the term but Wyaralong has a vacant niche, despite Mary's being stocked in the catchment they are not that common, it also will experience a population explosion of carp on a massive scale. Would be pretty surprised if a management plan including reasonably large initial stockings of Mary's was not allowed.
Bottom line is the hybridisation of any of the remnant populations of M. peeli subspecies (if they still exist) in SEQ exept mariensis is irreversible.
-
This is a very good point you make Dale why where the MRC stocked in waters they didnt naturally come from. I think the only species that is more less of a bad thing than others is australian bass, Not all creeks and rivers that have them now had them before but seem to be a more naturally wide spread fish that doesnt have a profound impact on species living with them.
Has any dam simply been stocked with just bass?
Steve
-
Why were the MRC stocked in waters they didn't naturaly come from ?
Because it was presumed that the endemic M. peeli subspecies that occured in those catchments were extinct.
As there would be very little difference geneticly (though this is debatable in the case of the Coomera and Nerang due to a different geologial time frame for the stream capture) it was considered a viable option to restore the extinct M. peeli subspecies with MRC.
The impoundment stocking program was intended to give people an opportunity to fish for them and thus reduce pressure on the remnant population.
-
There is just as much evidence that Barramundi existed in these waterways as well, yet they are not permitted to be stocked. Unfortunately, in the past, and now, DEEDI have based a lot of things on assumption and personal preference. Surely 2011 is a good time to stop the double dealing.
-
I think for rivers and streams to be restored to their former glory stocking of non naturally occurring fish should stop, it would not be an overnight affair but could have benefits years in the future.
Nothing is ever cut and dry tho.
-
The biodiversity nazis would agree Steve, but with habitat/stream degradation, barriers etc. even with a massive long term effort not likely to see anything resembling former glory. Personally I dont think yellas and silvers should be stocked east of the divide but they are allowed and people want them stocked. What about Toga or Lungfish neither are endemic to the SEQ streams that now have viable breeding populations ?. You said previously that Bass do little harm outside of their natural range what about the in the streams which hold remnant populations of MRC which had no bass at all prior to stocking ? The questions and permutations are endless, one thing that is certain is there is no such thing as the oft quoted "balance of nature" nature is in a constant and violent state of flux and change which has now been accelerated by man. Cant see that stocking a new impoundment with an apex predator that replaces an extinct one so closely is going to have any effect in the greater scheme of things myself. Good on the guys putting in the work to do it, should get help and support to do it not get bagged IMHO
-
One thing that i would like to see make a comeback over any bass cod or west devide species is the Jungle perch. But im getting a bit off topic now.
Yes it would be near impossible to take back whats done now.
Steve
-
Not really off topic, barriers being a contributor to the near extinction of Southern Jungle Perch.
Crying shame that this project is in limbo when so much funding is wasted on other things.
-
So it wouldnt be crazy to say that stocking jungle perch if available would be futile with barriers and weirs in place. I would and THAT is a crying shame. We as people have been more worried about stocking for our own benifits than a species survivals sake.
There are so many grey areas when it comes to fish stocking, permits, rules and classifications.
-
I wonder how many bass,yellas,silvers, barcoo grunter,sootys and murray cod escape from the fishing park into the river?
They have previously been named as the source of the occasional barra being caught in the logan.
Cheers
Ray
-
So it wouldnt be crazy to say that stocking jungle perch if available would be futile with barriers and weirs in place.
There are so many grey areas when it comes to fish stocking, permits, rules and classifications.
With the current mindset, without those barriers etc in place, we wont be allowed to stock them. The permits to stock are only given for waters above man made barriers, be it weirs or dams. No Weirs or Dams, no permit to stock.
-
Your joking not even for a recovery plan ? !
Eco park has lost fish down into the albert before and should not have been made so close the the albert river i think. i have heard of barra being caught near oxenford i think the name of the place was.
-
The biodiversity nazis would agree Steve, but with habitat/stream degradation, barriers etc. even with a massive long term effort not likely to see anything resembling former glory. Personally I dont think yellas and silvers should be stocked east of the divide but they are allowed and people want them stocked. What about Toga or Lungfish neither are endemic to the SEQ streams that now have viable breeding populations ?. You said previously that Bass do little harm outside of their natural range what about the in the streams which hold remnant populations of MRC which had no bass at all prior to stocking ? The questions and permutations are endless, one thing that is certain is there is no such thing as the oft quoted "balance of nature" nature is in a constant and violent state of flux and change which has now been accelerated by man. Cant see that stocking a new impoundment with an apex predator that replaces an extinct one so closely is going to have any effect in the greater scheme of things myself. Good on the guys putting in the work to do it, should get help and support to do it not get bagged IMHO
Not sure if it me you're having a shot at, but I haven't bagged the Stocking Group. I've suggested that DEEDI's regulations are weak and they are not followed universally when it comes to different groups, different locations and different species. DEEDI has the say in what goes where not a Stocking Group, and yet DEEDI seems to sway with the breeze when it comes to enforcement.
-
No not having a go at you Dale, comment was general, there seems to be an overwhelming Bass centric view towards stocking. Believe stocking should be more mixed species to an a ecological framework myself. Agree entirely that the personal preferences of a few public servants should not determine that perfectly justifiable naturally occuring species cant be stocked, or be put on a management plan to give someone the incentive to produce them. Jacks being a prime example, pure BS that they cant be on SEQ management plans.
-
In a perfect world we wouldn't need to restock any fish.... but we need water so we go & destroy a really good river by dumping a gazillion tons of rock & concrete across it, forever dooming migratory patterns for native fish. So for recreational fishing we restock.
The problem is the inconsistency in the application of the Precautionary Principle & it's sister the Translocation Policy. These twins should be the pick of the litter, but because they only let out of the kennel occasionally they're more like mongrels when they show up in your back yard.
No matter which way the coin falls, a consistent application of the aforementioned principles would see many folks accept decision more readily & not allow unachievable expectaions to form (and leading to disappointment).
Currently the following species are selectively allowed (under permit) to be translocated in Qld:
Bass
Golden Perch (Murray Darling & Fitzroy strains)
Silver Perch
Sooty Grunter
Barramundi
Mary River Cod
Saratoga (both leichardti & jardini)
............ I've probably missed something......
At some stage we need to be doing things better & smarter. That means leaving the Murray Darling species west of the great divide, pull bass out of all waters north of the Noosa etc etc but what about those species affected by all that rock n concrete mentioned above? Mullet, Jungle Perch, occasionally Mangrove Jacks, Big Eye Trevally etc etc? Nothing is yet being done....
-
In a perfect world we wouldn't need to restock any fish.... but we need water so we go & destroy a really good river by dumping a gazillion tons of rock & concrete across it, forever dooming migratory patterns for native fish. So for recreational fishing we restock.
The problem is the inconsistency in the application of the Precautionary Principle & it's sister the Translocation Policy. These twins should be the pick of the litter, but because they only let out of the kennel occasionally they're more like mongrels when they show up in your back yard.
No matter which way the coin falls, a consistent application of the aforementioned principles would see many folks accept decision more readily & not allow unachievable expectaions to form (and leading to disappointment).
Currently the following species are selectively allowed (under permit) to be translocated in Qld:
Bass
Golden Perch (Murray Darling & Fitzroy strains)
Silver Perch
Sooty Grunter
Barramundi
Mary River Cod
Saratoga (both leichardti & jardini)
............ I've probably missed something......
At some stage we need to be doing things better & smarter. That means leaving the Murray Darling species west of the great divide, pull bass out of all waters north of the Noosa etc etc but what about those species affected by all that rock n concrete mentioned above? Mullet, Jungle Perch, occasionally Mangrove Jacks, Big Eye Trevally etc etc? Nothing is yet being done....
So for example , a dam like Borumba that is on a tributary of the Mary River , what species would be stocked if Bass , Silvers and Goldens were taken out of the equation?
Cheers,
Dave.
-
So for example , a dam like Borumba that is on a tributary of the Mary River , what species would be stocked if Bass , Silvers and Goldens were taken out of the equation?
Cheers,
Dave.
So for example , a dam like Borumba that is on a tributary of the Mary River , what species would be stocked if Bass , Silvers and Goldens were taken out of the equation?
Cheers,
Dave.
In Borumba I'd say only Mary River cod & probably some bum breathing turtle, but both are protected species.....
If we were to start again there & apply the translocation & precautionary principles, Borumba would be a great spangled perch fishery now.
There's another recommendation on the books for future species about a 100/100 rule for catadromous species (bass, barra, mullet, trevally, JPs, Mangrove Jacks, Bream etc); that being no further than 100km from the sea & no higher than 100m in elevation. Only a recommendation mind you, but that would then rule out even more lakes, so even if Bass were permitted north of the Noosa River, Borumba is too far upstream on that system, same for Baroon Pocket Dam, Somerset, Moogerah, Maroon, Boondooma, Baramba, Cania, Wuruma, Callide, Paradise (I think), Dyer, Cressbrook etc
Then the same for barra in Eungella, Maraboon, Tinaroo....
Can you see what recreational fishing is facing in the future? Imagine if they applied the precautionary principle to making the dams....
-
You forgot the Mason Dixon principle Fitz :'(
-
Why wouldn't Bass get a gurnsey north of the Noosa? As far as I'm aware they historically ranged as far north as the Elliot including Mary, Burrum, Isis and Gregory ?
-
Why wouldn't Bass get a gurnsey north of the Noosa? As far as I'm aware they historically ranged as far north as the Elliot including Mary, Burrum, Isis and Gregory ?
Agree with the Mary & have caught them in an apparently unstocked Isis R.
They might get a run 'cept for the Mason / Dixon line mentioned by elops drawn on the map around the Mary R.... recent applications made on the Mary R for bass stocking have been declined. No barra south, no bass north if we were kicking off from scratch. If bass get stretched north of Fraser Is, then barra would get stretched south to Straddie Is.
I'm ok with a rule book, so long as its consistently applied, if only for public / peer perception / transparacy; the ship needs shaping up. :youbeauty
What are your thoughts on the whole scheme of restocking & a good future direction to take Jim?
-
I think if its not broke (stocking) then don't fix it (or bugger with it) - but that we probably need to do more science to prove that its not broke (issues being genetics, overloading top order predators, impacts on rare and threatened species). Bureurocrats tend to be conservative species and in the absence of committments to science funding and the knowledge that flows from it will take the 'precautionary approach' and stop doing things (like stocking) in case it is bad on the principle that it may be 'too risky'.
I think if we want to have a viable stocking based put and take fishery future we need to lobby for funds for the science to be done and be grown up enough that when it shows us there are real risks - we need to be responsible and manage/ avoid them but otherwise, I think (gut feel) that the science will prove to be positive in terms of supporting well managed stocking based put and take fisheries primarily in impounded waters.
I also think we need a quantum increase in funding for win wins in conservation / rec fishing with regard to stocking threatened species like our Mary/ Brissie/Eastern cod in the sub tropics, possible also Jungle Perch and others like Maccas down south - with the intention for rec support for the recovery o fthese species being new catch relase fisheries.
Having said that I support the need for ongoing stocking I also think there is swags more fishing dividend potential to be reaped from habitat rehabilitation than is currently achieved - fish passage, channel physical form and structure, riparian vegetation, aquatic weeds and water quality and targeted nursery habitat rehab - some strategic investment in these areas could deliver good rec fishing outcomes, I reckon :youbeauty
-
I also think we need a quantum increase in funding for win wins in conservation / rec fishing with regard to stocking threatened species like our Mary/ Brissie/Eastern cod in the sub tropics, possible also Jungle Perch and others like Maccas down south - with the intention for rec support for the recovery o fthese species being new catch relase fisheries.
Having said that I support the need for ongoing stocking I also think there is swags more fishing dividend potential to be reaped from habitat rehabilitation than is currently achieved - fish passage, channel physical form and structure, riparian vegetation, aquatic weeds and water quality and targeted nursery habitat rehab - some strategic investment in these areas could deliver good rec fishing outcomes, I reckon :youbeauty
Unfortunatley, here in Queensland we have the SIP Scheme which is being miscontrued by many as the be all and end all of stocking. We have Stocking Groups who do not understand the scheme, and we have DEEDI who allow groups to join who shouldn't. Members of SIP controlled Stocking Groups have to know that they are assisting to provide anglers with a put and take fishery from an un-natural environment and that is all. The money raised for this, from anglers who fish those impoundments covered by the scheme should not, and really must not, be re-routed by our State Government employees to fix an issue the State Government is morally obliged to fix. There should be absolutely zero SIP Scheme dollars used to restock dwindling or extinct fish in rivers. Simply put, that is taxing a minority to support the environment. There should be zero SIP dollars allocated to stocking a protected species, any species with a take limit of zero or any species subjected to a closed season in an impoundment. When a state elects to go to a user pays system, they must be prepared to let the payer use.
-
This topic started on fish lift, one thing we should be more concern about are the old fashion weirs that still exist around the State with poor to none fish latter that a excluding the stock/naturual fish to travel up and down the river system. I've seen so many that are causing problem and feel if they where fixed or removed the natural fish could do there thing. When in NSW in the Hunter they removed there old fashion weirs and replaced them with more fish friendly system.
Wish I could print some photo of them there one in the Patterson River if any one living reading they might be able to put photo up.
Ray.