First Post From Aqua Services, Inc., The Aquatic Herbicide Application Company

[BulletTJ]

Soggy
My 250 hp Merc hanging on the back of my Bullet gets about 8 miles to the gallon at 3/4 throttle and it is a Opti. engine. One the lowest emission engines on the market. There are a lot of small horse power motors that are a lot harder on the the enviroment than the Opti. engines. I do agree the lake needs to be fishable for everyone. I simply feel that, due to the decline in old cover like stumps and brushpiles the grass at its current level is a benifit. If you know where there is a slough that is choked with weeds to the point you cant ski or swim in it PLEASE let me know where it is. I would love to fish it.

 

[troy goldsby]

Soggysod,

Thanks a million for the great points. I made some of those same points, about the lure sprays, bearing grease, etc., on the phone the other day talking to someone from the forum. You make some really good points and thanks for the encouragement. Flag me down on the water some day and we can talk. Good fishin' and recreation to you and your family. I'll look for posts from you in the future.

Thanks,

Troy

 

[salecreekaviator]

Is this like the most viewed post ever???

 

[Pointer 78]

By far. The fishermen that know this lake do not want it to return to the way it was up until 4 years ago. Can't blame them really. Neither do I. It seems that some weed eradication won't affect the fish. Still, I don't like herbicides in my drinking water.

 

[gobigorange]

There were signs posted on docks in the waconda bay area that the area had been treated with herbicides. The warnings warned against swimming and drinking the water and it was like the dead sea fishng in there Saturday night.

 

[troy goldsby]

Gobigorange,

You need to read the signs more closely, there are NO swimming restrictions. Once again, a rumor is being posted by someone just spouting off and not stating the facts.

Troy

 

[FishingBen]

Wow. This took a long time to read but I for sure understand why. This is a hot spot issue and I'll tell you why. I Like others, I have lived here my entire life and have seen the ups and downs. I remember the death of Chickamuage and have been recently revelling in its rebirth. Now... fear! Is a new death around the corner? I remember Roseberry Creek. Used to be able to go in there with a Mann's -1 and have the time of your life. I remember the horror and disgust I felt when I returned to find it barren and fishless. Sure you could retrieve a cast with ease due to lack of vegitation but, there was also the ease of retrieval aided by the lack of a fish on the end of your line. My question is this... posts stating that they went somewhere that they used to catch and see fish and caught and saw no fish is what is called experiential discovery and experiental knowledge. (as in; Based on experience) In a controlled and duplicated experiment if the results remain the same then that experiential knowledge/discovery is then interpreted as fact. How is this not fact that these anglers of reputed experience had these repeatable results? At what point in the long history of repeated experience by all of these fisherman over many years of experience with these same progressions of experience with vegitation kills would this repeated experiental observation be interpreted as fact? I can run an analysis of variance between pre and post catch rates based on angler experience at and interpretation level to show significance. But, would it be accepted as fact based on the preported variables?

 

[FishingBen]

Oh BTW, My name is Dr. Ben Biller and I have water front houses in my family on Chickamauga and Watts Bar. I don't want to be considered a hider. Oh yeah, and, last I checked, I know how to find and catch fish. I typically look for underwater vegitation as part of the key to finding and catching good fish as I know some ways to effectively "fish the grasses". PM me if you want my phone number.

 

[Carl Guffey]

<font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Another thought. If we return to a spot that one or more variables have changed and continue to do the things that we used to do to catch fish and we don't. Does that mean that the fish aren't there? Or should we have changed our presentation and adapted to the new circumstances?</font></p>

<font face="Georgia" size="2">Do fish move? Given that there is another feeding station nearby, would the fish possibly move and set up on a place that would offer an easier task of feeding?</font></p>

<font face="Georgia" size="2">I was in Rosenberry two months after it was sprayed and whacked the fish on a buzzbait. We had three over six and a bunch of good fish to go with them. There aregood fish being caught now in the back of the creek behind the marina and quality fish coming out of the deeper water . Rosenberry is not dead.</font></p>

 

[Dropshot]

gobigorange - 7/11/2011 6:43 AM There were signs posted on docks in the waconda bay area that the area had been treated with herbicides. The warnings warned against swimming and drinking the water and it was like the dead sea fishng in there Saturday night.

We need someone out to get a picture of those signs. I was on the water last night, but went far up-river.

 

[SpurHunter]

Dropshot - 7/12/2011 3:31 PM

gobigorange - 7/11/2011 6:43 AM There were signs posted on docks in the waconda bay area that the area had been treated with herbicides. The warnings warned against swimming and drinking the water and it was like the dead sea fishng in there Saturday night.

</p>

We need someone out to get a picture of those signs. I was on the water last night, but went far up-river.

</p>

</p>

I took these at HBSP two weeks ago. </p>

</p>

</p>

 

[troy goldsby]

FishingBen,

You say you read the posts, but you must have missed the point. I have not said that eliminating all aquatic vegetation is good. I have actually said the some vegetation is beneficial for a fishery. However, too much aquatic vegetation, especially exotics, is extremely detrimental.

I disagree with your point about Roseberry. As Carl pointed out, many fishermen are pleased with Roseberry and have been for a while. The vegetation is still plentiful in Roseberry, just not exotics. Give 10 fisherman that complain about Roseberry and I will give you many more that love it.

Just because someone doesn't catch fish in an area that they typically does not mean it is because of the vegetation. Fishing is called just that because it isn't always catching. I would like to see the data sets for your analysis. Is it just gonna be based on catchability? That doesn't seem right. Your data set should consist of lure types, jig types, type of line, atmospheric conditions, color of the tackle, what was happening in the area just before fishing, expertise level of the fisherman, and the list goes on and on. I have seen many fishermen amazed at the fish they have missed in prefish events before electrofishing surveys have taken place. A better analysis is to run an electrofishing boat in the areas of interest before and after aquatic herbicide applications. You will be amazed at the fish the fishermen are missing.

BTW, my number is already posted publicly, on the first post, no need to pm, give me a call.

Troy

 

[FishingBen]

The hypothetical "Data Set" is just that, hypothetical. I was just saying: based on experience of angler's catch rates, would they overall say, Improved or Declined? Just that one variance was all I would have wanted to measure. And as to all the other variables... Hence the reason I said "would it be accepted as fact" given all the numerous purported variables (that could be factored in or listed as reasons for lower catch rates). You can give a million excuses as to why an area does not seem to hold fish the way it used to or why you don't "catch em there anymore like ya used to". Its open to conjecture and everyone can come up with their own theories. Fact remains (well, opinion remains) when the vegitation in an area gets killed so does that fishing spot in my limited experience. I'm sure its because I'm not holding my mouth right, the atmospheric conditions changed, they don't hit any of the colors of baits that I have anymore, My line is too heavy or too light, I had on the wrong color underwear, I don't have the right retrieve speed dialed in, I broke a mirror less than 7 years ago, my expertise has dwindled over time, etc. etc. you can only know what you have experienced. And I know what my long term experience has been with loss of vegitation on a fishery. Used to be I'd just put out brush piles. No use now. Structure Scans make it a waste of time. You work... someone else fishes it like its there own and looks at you funny if you drive towards "their hole" that they accidently found with their structure scan. I quit working for others to have a place to fish at the expense of my labor a while ago when everybody with a big screen set on my stuff like they owned taht too. Oh well. The lakes belong to everyone and anyone can do with it whatever they want. I'm just one experience based opinion.

 

[troy goldsby]

FishingBen,

A fishery WILL improve with aquatic plant control. Note, I did not say with aquatic plant elimination (something that is virtually impossible to achieve anyway). I have said many times, including in this post, that some vegetation is very good for a fishery for many different reasons. We even recommend some species for planting in private impoundments as long as the client realizes the increased management costs that will be associated with that vegetation.

Once again, we need to differentiate between exotic and native plants. Exotics, no matter which species, as a whole are detrimental to this countries aquatic environments. That is why it is a state and federal offense to distribute those species. These species will always, with time, become detrimental to a fishery. Native species, although they can become a nuisance and a detriment, provide better habitat for our fish species and a much better fishing experience. Well, that is until they become to thick or take up to much of the area of the lake, which is fairly common.

As for your experiences, if they are the same as your experience at Roseberry, they are once again based on perspective. Not everyone agrees with the experiences that you have had because they have had a different experience. As a whole, fishery included, Roseberry is a better environment than what it was 3 years ago. That is not based on experience, but fact. I'll look for your next post.

Troy

 

[Bprice]

Roseberry Creek is still full of bass, and grass is coming on strong.</p>

</p>

FishingBen - 7/12/2011 2:21 PM Wow. This took a long time to read but I for sure understand why. This is a hot spot issue and I'll tell you why. I Like others, I have lived here my entire life and have seen the ups and downs. I remember the death of Chickamuage and have been recently revelling in its rebirth. Now... fear! Is a new death around the corner? I remember Roseberry Creek. Used to be able to go in there with a Mann's -1 and have the time of your life. I remember the horror and disgust I felt when I returned to find it barren and fishless. Sure you could retrieve a cast with ease due to lack of vegitation but, there was also the ease of retrieval aided by the lack of a fish on the end of your line. My question is this... posts stating that they went somewhere that they used to catch and see fish and caught and saw no fish is what is called experiential discovery and experiental knowledge. (as in; Based on experience) In a controlled and duplicated experiment if the results remain the same then that experiential knowledge/discovery is then interpreted as fact. How is this not fact that these anglers of reputed experience had these repeatable results? At what point in the long history of repeated experience by all of these fisherman over many years of experience with these same progressions of experience with vegitation kills would this repeated experiental observation be interpreted as fact? I can run an analysis of variance between pre and post catch rates based on angler experience at and interpretation level to show significance. But, would it be accepted as fact based on the preported variables?

</p>

 

[Dropshot]

Thanks Spur for the pic!

 

[gobigorange]

SpurHunter - 7/12/2011 3:40 PM

Dropshot - 7/12/2011 3:31 PM

gobigorange - 7/11/2011 6:43 AM There were signs posted on docks in the waconda bay area that the area had been treated with herbicides. The warnings warned against swimming and drinking the water and it was like the dead sea fishng in there Saturday night.

</p>

We need someone out to get a picture of those signs. I was on the water last night, but went far up-river.

</p>

 </p>

I took these at HBSP two weeks ago. </p>

 </p>

 </p>

It was dark so the sign I saw may have read the same way. It was posted on the docks facing the water. Needless to say there were no fish to be caught in one of my usual holes that had grass two weeks ago. emoBadLanguage

 

[bigkuntry1282]

am i missing something. you have said in all your statements troy that you are only allowed to spray 100 foot from a fixed dwelling then why do all of your signs say 150 foot?

 

[troy goldsby]

bigkuntry1282,

Yep, you're missing something. The signs that Aqua Services, Inc. posts for private residence do not say 150'.

Troy

 

[bigkuntry1282]

your first post says 100 ft from a FIXED STRUCTURE. the boat ramp at soddy is a fixed structure and has signs up that say 150FT