View Single Post
  #8  
Old 03-16-2011, 03:55 PM
Travis C. Travis C. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sevierville, TN
Posts: 4,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd- View Post
It's important to remember that the feds have built hydroelectric dams that alter tailwater environments so drastically that nothing can really thrive there in any great numbers but stocked trout (due to extremely cold water and constantly fluctuating depth and current). If they're going to do this, then they ought to be obligated to mitigate for the loss of smallmouth, muskie, walleye, sauger, crappie, white bass, bluegill, etc., by providing a substitute fishery.

bd
That is always what I have thought.

They charge us for the electricity the Dam creates then charge us for the fish they put in to replace the ones the Dam took away. It should be a balanced equation. Should be an obligation to replace that free of charge. The money generated by the Dams more than covers it.

Last edited by Travis C.; 03-16-2011 at 07:37 PM.
Reply With Quote