Fishing Forum

OK, so I'm no expert with this stuff, but I might have an idea. Even though its a little bit of a stretch, I think it could work if applied correctly.

I have a reef tank that has occasional algae blooms. One flared up recently and I found that my protein skimmer wasn't running all that well as it usually does when this happens, but a powerhead had also seized up, making this one especially nasty.

One big issue with the lake is the way it flows, more specifically how it doesn't have much of any flow. In my reef tank, powerheads are used to create an artificial current. Since we're not likely to get more water feeding into the lake, would it be possible to create an artificial current in one or two areas? Beyond the issue of initial cost, maintenance, and power consumption, I feel the lake could benefit from something like that if it were located in the right area and moved enough water. To cut costs, I imagine you could shut it down in the off season with minimal negative impact.

At the very least, its a crazy idea that can be built on a bit.
[signature]

[quote TubeDude]"is that really a valid argument against habitat improvement??"

[#0000ff]Hard core angler types are usually more concerned with convenience and harvest rather than habitat improvement. Short term vs long term every time.

A bird in the hand...makes blowing your nose difficult.
[/#0000ff][/quote]

"Hard Core" of course is a matter of opinion.

But, even on this site, we do see the short term verses long term a lot. We do see those that want to poison out a lake now and restock with 'Bows' so they have good fish next year, but will need to do it again in 10 years. The long term, fixing the problem so it does not happen again, but takes more time, is often less favored. IN FACT, they often bully those that don't agree with them.

PBH makes some strong "moral" arguments that habitat improvement is most important, and "morally" he is right. But, pragmatic approaches are often required in the world of politics. AND DON'T EVEN THINK THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THING. Often the only way to get things done is to get a majority behind you, even if it means you need to compromise on your "moral beliefs". Still, in principle, I think that the true "fisherman" agrees that habitat improvement, even if restoration is not possible, is the key to the future.

And I grew up as a "farmer" and we did a better job of protecting the environment then State we lived in did at the time. We knew that the future of our land was directly tied into the health of the land, the habitat we provided for wildlife, the renewability of the soil. I will not say that all farmers are that way, but most are dramatically more "conversation minded" then has been suggested.

I think that there is a consensus developing here, the question is "is there a pragmatic solution"? One hopes that if we can come to an agreement, perhaps the State will come to an agreement as well.


[signature]

[quote Dirty42]OK, so I'm no expert with this stuff, but I might have an idea. Even though its a little bit of a stretch, I think it could work if applied correctly.

I have a reef tank that has occasional algae blooms. One flared up recently and I found that my protein skimmer wasn't running all that well as it usually does when this happens, but a powerhead had also seized up, making this one especially nasty.

One big issue with the lake is the way it flows, more specifically how it doesn't have much of any flow. In my reef tank, powerheads are used to create an artificial current. Since we're not likely to get more water feeding into the lake, would it be possible to create an artificial current in one or two areas? Beyond the issue of initial cost, maintenance, and power consumption, I feel the lake could benefit from something like that if it were located in the right area and moved enough water. To cut costs, I imagine you could shut it down in the off season with minimal negative impact.

At the very least, its a crazy idea that can be built on a bit.[/quote]

Not crazy, just not practical. If every drop of water that flows in the rivers was allowed to pass the dams into the lake, it would raise the level, but not fill it on most years. Additionally, the only current would be at the inlets.

Creating a current on the lake would be impossible without a couple of nuclear power plants running pumps. LOL I am an Engineer, and I have to do flow calculations on occasion, and what you suggest would take some monster pumps with monster power. Probably costing more then the State of Utah's GDP.

But, often the best ideas come from brainstorming. Perhaps we could use the wind by creating direction barriers in the water that would utilize the prevailing wind to generate current. That happens already and once we get the wind it does stir up the lake and helps a lot. The calculations we be difficult, but it might be possible.

Perhaps your idea could lead to a solution, an expensive one, and potentially full of its own environmental issues, but ........ maybe.

[fishin]
[signature]

[#0000FF]While there is no great end-to-end current in Utah Lake, it is subject to a lot of water disturbance and movement. It is a shallow lake and when the wind blows it turns over the water layers and pushes water from one side of the lake to the other.

As a shallow lake, with several tributaries, Utah Lake takes in almost a whole lake full of new water in good water years. In short, it does get flushed about as much as a large impoundment with a constant flow from inlet to dam.

It would be much cheaper to harness all the carp together and get them to swim in one direction than to go to the expense and disruption of building a nuclear water flusher.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]