Thursday, July 31, 2025

LLMs, Energy, & Fly Fishing's Soul

 I can't figure out how to turn off Google's AI Overview, and that is driving me batty. Ironically, the answers to "how do I turn off google ai overview?" from Google's AI Overview don't actually work, and the answers in the community help questions don't either. Some even appear to be AI generated themselves.... I'd really, really like to turn it off, and as it stands it doesn't seem to be possible. Why have I devoted close to an hour of my life just trying to disable something meant to make searching the web easier? For me, it seriously fails to actually live up to that goal. But more so, I want no part of large language models or generative artificial intelligence.

Large language models are the most advanced current form of language models; learning systems for processing language. Language models currently exist in two forms, statistical and neural, and most LLMs are the latter, more advanced form. Modern statistical models have been around a while, with pioneering working going back to the 50's and Noam Chomsky's "Three models for the description of language", (which I'm sure would mostly go right over my head if I wanted to pay $15 to access the PDF). Statistical language models use probability to determine the next words in a sequence, analyzing large quantities of text and deriving probabilities based on sequence frequencies. Neural models, by contrast, aim to mimic aspects of human brain function through a computational model based on the neural pathways utilized in creating language. LLMs are given input in the form of immense volumes of existing information- internet text, digitized books, so on -and from that are trained through machine learning; putting those inputs through the neural process. Inputs; namely language of some sort, but represented as numbers; travel from nodes (artificial neurons) down edges (artificial synapsis) to more nodes, often arranged in layers called hidden layers. After passing through the hidden layers the output layer (more nodes) are reached, and the network outputs number that are reconverted into language, images, audio... whatever. If what the network puts out is given back to it again, it will add to it. As the LLM is trained, it can be given feedback on it's outputs to further hone either accuracy or a desired outcome. The material used to train the LLM can be incredibly broad and of course can dictate the outputs, and that's one of the reasons I've tried turning off Google's. I've found it frequently provides faulty, partial, or untrue answers based on the information it's pulling from, which can come from all manor of articles, blogs, forums, and web pages that seek to answer the search prompt. Without seeing the source directly it's a bit harder to suss out its validity and I just end up searching the same way I would have anyway before the Ai Overview existed. The other thing that peeves me is that even if the answer is concise and accurate, it deprives the sources of readership, possible ad revenue, and potential future engagement if the users don't decide to follow through and see where the answer came from by following through links. That's a bit gross, I think, and I do wonder how many answers Ai has provided that have been trained through the many hundreds of things I've written over the years. To learn much of the above, I leaned on Wikipedia (I know, I know, it is fairly trustworthy though, especially with nerdy tech crap like this) and this video by Henrik Kniberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IK3DFHRFfw. Kniberg highlights the utilities of Generative Ai too, and though none of that is lost on me and I can see some of it's value, exposure has done nothing but scare me further away from it. 

Ai generated text, images, videos, and music do nothing but improve with time, at least for the goals of the companies creating them- that's how machine learning is meant to work. I'm not letting the failures of LLMs alone dissuade me from them... the hilarious extra fingers, the ease of gaslighting chat bots, and X's Grok starting to call itself "Mechahitler" are absurd, certainly, but there are bigger problems in my opinion. Even as they get more accurate and closer to "human", they just aren't, and the products generated by Ai lack soul. That's cliché and almost meaningless, I know, but the reason writing, art, music, speech, even answers to many simple questions are often meaningful is simply the human experience. When we generate text or an image with our hands, pens, paint brushes, so on, they ring loudly of our life experience, morality, values, bias, and creativity. The way Ai generates it basically just takes from people's voice or style, or even their opinion, modifying it a little but not really creating. This is where fly fishing first comes into play in the conversation. Things have now progressed to the point that I've heard of fly anglers asking Ai what to do on the while water. 

I'm sorry if you've done this... but please get up right now, go to your closest mirror, give yourself a good hard look, then- and not too hard, I'm not trying to injure you here -slap yourself. Are you kidding me? Really? You need a robot to tell you what fly to tie on? This is getting so far from everything that is actually special about fly fishing as a pastime and as a social activity that it frankly disgusts me. There's nothing wrong with asking what you should do in a given situation of an actual human, or learning through reading or videos. You may not even get a perfect answer, or even an answer to your specific question at all, but you're always likely to glean something of worth. Say you ask Joe Humphreys what fly to use on Spring Creek when there's no hatch going on in the middle of an April day. He's liable to tell you to use his Hump's Cress Bug, or some other scud or cressbug imitation, and explain how it'll be best fished rolling on the bottom. He'll tell you how to pick the right number of shot to get down, and to space them a bit to better roll along the bottom. He might even show you how to make a good tuck cast, perhaps tell a story of some good fishing he had recently with that methodology. You'll get the implicit voice of Joe Humphreys and his experiences; his time, his successes and failures. Even if he somehow gives you the wrong answer, that has value. Now look up that same question online, and though there'll be degrees of separation you could sort through information for days, from people of all experience levels. Magazine articles, blogs, forums, images of flies, videos galore... all made by different anglers with different experiences and knowledge, varying approaches and points of view, from all over the world. That, too... incredibly valuable. It isn't immediate, it takes some work on your part, but it shouldn't be immediate. Finally, let's say you're out there on the water alone and don't have anyone there to ask or time to read through loads of information from different sources. Is it not more rewarding, enforcing, and true to the sport to experiment, observe, and try to come to your own conclusion, than it is to ask a machine? If you do ask Ai, it may give you a perfectly good, useful answer, but it will be one lacking in complete context. It'll tell you to tie on a scud because someone, somewhere, likely multiple sources in fact, said it was a good idea. You don't get to learn who all of those someones are, what their history and experience is, and why precisely they think a scud is a good idea unless you put in the extra effort, and at that point you're negating the work the Ai did for you. 

We've already left behind so many of the things that gave this sport soul as technology has continued to progress, are we really going to just ask the machines what we should do now? That sickens me. This is a sport that many of us claims "gets us closer to nature", and yet we seem to try harder and harder to remove as many natural elements from it as possible while shortening the learning curve and ascribing more value to just catching fish at all costs than to the process of exploration. Those aspects are so valuable to the sport, and initially in many respects technology seemed to provide avenues to deepen that. Now, it's skipping multiple important steps. 


Of course, there's a much more pressing concern, not only for fisheries but for whole communities. Currently and probably for perpetuity, Ai EATS energy. So much so, in fact, that it has the potential to impact the health of fisheries. Ai relies on data centers, basically huge warehouses full of computer servers. These servers need electricity to run. Some sources indicate that these data centers, which are popping up all over the US as Ai booms, are set to account for close to half of the energy growth in the country by 2030¹. Ai data centers may use close to a million MWh annually... the average household sits at about .01 MWh. There are 3,912 data centers in the US². Aside from just electricity, data centers need to cool their servers and this can be highly abusive of water resources. Not all of the water is recycled in the process, which typically uses evaporative cooling, and the amount used per day is astounding, well into the millions of gallons. That's millions of gallons per day less than would otherwise be going into people's wells and into groundwater output to spring fed coldwater streams. What water may be discharged would also be far warmer than natural groundwater, and this could have significant impacts on coldwater resource, which trout anglers rely on. Some Trout Unlimited state organizations are already concerned about this reality (mntu.org). The current administration has been pushing through legislation to deregulate data centers and Ai, and even encourage building them on federal land. At a time when water and energy use are already very problematic, and impacting communities and fisheries in a very real way, this is incredibly reckless. Communities around the country are already feeling the impacts, with some residents suddenly feeling pressed to leave places they've spent their whole lives as data centers fundamentally change- in their eyes ruin -their home. They feel no recourse as the largest corporations in the world rush to build these facilities and municipalities jump on potential tax revenue. Right now, as far as the federal government is concerned, it's full speed ahead. It's up to the the states to regulate data centers in such a way that protects towns and sensitive habitat, and there are many indications that they're failing. Though the battle may seem unwinnable, this is one every community really needs to fight.


So, this is something I simply refuse to take part in as much as I can avoid doing so. I won't knowingly interact with Ai generated content, I won't use Ai chat generators to help with my writing or my business even if that means those that do jump ahead initially, and I'll keep skipping past that damn Google overview that's inaccurate half the time anyway. Stupid as it is, it's also scary, well past what I've already discussed above. "While the Level 3 ranking is largely about the model's capability to enable renegade production of nuclear and biological weapons, the Opus also exhibited other troubling behaviors during testing." ³

What the ever living f*** are we doing? 

¹ "AI is set to drive surging electricity demand from data centres while offering the potential to transform how the energy sector works" https://www.iea.org/news/ai-is-set-to-drive-surging-electricity-demand-from-data-centres-while-offering-the-potential-to-transform-how-the-energy-sector-works

² https://www.datacentermap.com/usa/

³ Ina Fried, Axios. May 23 2025 "Anthropic's new AI model shows ability to deceive and blackmail" https://www.axios.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-deception-risk

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan and Dar for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version. 

Thursday, July 24, 2025

17 Years

"What's up dog, want some coffee?" Levi whispered as I entered the kitchen, a little groggy but full of anticipation none-the less. "Morning, sure, thanks," I whispered back. "Hell yeah," he replied, "How stoked are you?"

"Pretty stoked."

When the cicadas last came to Central Pennsylvania, I was 11 years old. I'll be 45 when the come back next. That's a lot of time elapsed, and a lot changes. I hadn't yet picked up a fly rod in 2008, in 2042 who knows what life will be like. This year the bugs came again on their cycle and my silly addicted ass trucked it westward thrice, chasing a sickness so good it can't be beat. I've raved about the periodical cicadas before; in 2021 when I intercepted the periodicity in Maryland, and last year when a dual emergence took me to Illinois, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa. When magicicadas come out of the ground, I want to be there. They make up one of the last great biomass events of the sort here in the US, and while many were constant, like the buffalo, and some were annual migrations, like the passenger pigeon, there's something extra special and enchanting about an event that occurs more than a decade apart each time. It is miraculous that we still have these bugs at all, the landscape they live under is different every time the nymphs come up. That they still come up from one of the best regions for wild trout fishing East of the Mississippi... How lucky is that? Though, I suppose the same factors that have allowed the cicadas to persist have not been insignificant in providing habitat advantages for the wild trout either. 

Levi and I stepped out into the humid, warm morning air about ten minutes later with a little bit of our gear and a lot of hope for the day. "Hold on, before we go we gotta move the bugs", I said. We were staying at Levi's good friend's, Paul and Kathryn, and they were going to take down a tree in their backyard that day. It was time for a quick rescue mission. We walked over with our phone flashlights on to see dozens of pale, ghostly looking imagos and instars on the tree trunk and low branches. We collected as many as we could and moved them to nearby bushes. When periodical cicadas first emerge they come out of the ground through simple little holes, or sometimes, through turrets of soil that poke up above the ground, small towers of their own design that are made pre-emergence in wet areas in what is presumed to be a bid to keep mud and water from getting into their holes before the emerge. Those final instar nymphs climb out and go for the closest tree or bush, shed their nymphal shuck into imagos- the last, adult stage of their life cycle -and like many emerging insects, take a little while to harden up and get ready to go about their business. They'll go from pale and soft to firm, glistening, black and orange bugs, maintaining deep red eyes through the process. We shuttled as many as we could to safety before hopping in the car to head to the river. 


Central Pennsylvania holds fond memories for both Levi and I, though mine are more limited in number and a tad more recent. Levi fished trout in the limestone region the last time the cicadas came out in 2008, I first fished the area with my good friend Michael Carl in 2018. I've since returned a handful of times to poke into places I'd fished that first time, and a few new ones. Much of Pennsylvania is still Bucolic and beautiful, with sparse populations and varied terrain. Here, the Appalachians  form a series of arching, near parallel ridges. These start near Meyersdale, and you cross or cut through about a dozen spines headed East towards Chambersburg which sits in a wide lowland with rolling hills and the classic carts topography associated with limestone. East of Chambersburg is a less defined but similarly arching range of hills, encompassing Michaux State Forest and extending, broken by the Susquehanna, almost all the way to Reading. Throughout the main crux of the ridges to the west and north are smaller versions of the same sort of lowlands that Chambersburg and Carlisle sit in, each pocked with farmland and hugged on either side by tall ridges. In many of those low areas between the ridges is where the limestoners or limestone influenced creeks live, though each audaciously cuts through the ridges at some point on their journeys toward the Susquehanna, some more defiantly than others. The Little Juniata scrapes starkly through the ridge above Barree, Fishing Creek winds tightly under the steep topography on her way toward Lamar. And then Spring Creek, toward the apex of the curve of the ridges, gently wanders through a less strip of rock between Bellefonte and Milesburg. The millennia that allowed these streams to eat through these seemingly immovable stone ridges is too substantial for our simple human minds to fully grasp. It inspires aww though, when you stop and look at the landscape for a moment. 


Though not as diverse as the southern end of Appalachia, which boast the highest diversity of salamanders in the world and the largest of freshwater fish in the country, these Pennsylvania ridges aren't lacking in life. It's no surprise given that large swaths of this land are still very wild. Though logging has occurred for decades, as well as that farming down low and a slow hum of building in some towns, much of this place is still rugged. The terrain is gnarly and thick, and one can get lost if the try. This is the one of the last places in the country that still allows hunting of timber rattlesnakes, albeit in very limited and regulated form. Indeed they're quite stable here... still, I'd love to see this archaic hunt done away with. Why mess with one of the last best places this species has as a stronghold? Up on those high ridges though, we weren't hearing many cicadas. It was early though, as evidenced by the nymphs crawling out of the ground en masse that morning. We'd need to find an area where the bugs had already been out and flying for a while. Soil temperature has everything to do with emergence timing, and some places warm faster than others. We were committed though, and with windows open and ears trained to a familiar buzz, it didn't take long to find what we were looking for. 


"Mark says the shops the guys at the shop basically told him the fish aren't on them yet and not to waste his time fishing cicadas" Levi reported as we drove between spots. "Oh yeah, it's not worth it at all yet" I retorted snidely and we both laughed. We'd just had exactly the sort of fishing we'd driven over five hours for. Not size, albeit, but numbers? Whoa did we ever have that. And we'd had it to ourselves too, leap frogging up a piece of water neither of us had fished in years with not a soul in sight. Just brown trout sucking down big bugs without consequence... until our hooks pierced their lips. It was... absurd? Deranged? What dreams are made of? All of the above. When I fished Brood X in 2021, I got a modest taste of what trout fishing the periodicals could be, with a couple absurdly fat and happy wild brown trout. This was a more complete picture, as good as you hear it is. We traded remarks and shook our heads in disbelief each time we leap frogged, both reveling in the success of timing things well enough not only to have good fishing, but beat the masses. And, so long as the shops were still downplaying things, it felt like we had good chances to find pockets of stellar fishing throughout the trip. 



Where we were for that first pound-down wasn't a big fish location, but that didn't matter. Having trout come out of every riffle and pocket to hammer our big foam dry flies was thrilling. You can certainly work through similar water with similar flies- especially early in the morning and at times when some golden stoneflies or hoppers are present, or even if there's a modest number of annual cicadas -and pick up a few fish. This wasn't that. This was interacting with possibly as much as a quarter of the trout biomass of the stretch we fished and catching a disproportionate chunk of it. The fish were giddy. I had more than one nice fish (for this place that was 13-14") charge straight upstream a foot or more in fast shallow riffles to eat my fly. This was the dream. 

We were on our way to another spot on the same creek when we received that report from Mark, a stretch I'd fished before and done well with wild rainbows and some browns. The sound out the window as we closed in on our destination and the empty pull off when we got there said we were going to step in it again. 


The storied history of trout fishing in the area of State College is an interesting one, and though many eastern trout anglers may know bits and pieces of the story I think a lot of it has been glossed over. Spring Creek has one of the more distinct histories of course. Many may be aware that Spring Creek was a brook trout dominated fishery into the end of the 1800's, when introduced brown trout began to supplant the native char. By 1950 a native trout in Spring Creek's main stem was a rare occurrence. The origins of some of the rainbow trout that exist in the now mostly un-stocked stream remain a bit controversial, though I'd argue on behalf of some being stream born given the alkalinity, relative temperature stability, and shear perfectness of both par and adults of some specimens. of course, hatchery escapees from Benner Springs and Fisherman's Paradise, and stocked fish moving up from Bald Eagle creek contribute. Anyone who wants to can see the results of this in a tiny stretch right in Bellefonte, where you can pay a quarter or two for some pellets from a dispenser and toss them into a short, closed-to-fishing stretch where trout bigger than some of the carp present in the same spot will greedily take whatever you give them. Levi, Paul and I stood on the wall in Bellefonte one day, tossing leftover french fries and watching giant trout eat them. Those fish aren't Spring Creek's calling card though. If you've heard of the place but never been, your familiarity may start and end with the existence of the famed Fisherman's Paradise section. This piece of water was bought by the state Fish Commission in 1930 for construction of a hatchery and to demonstrate and test new stream improvement methods¹. A hatchery was built four years later. With heavy stocking and stream improvement that are now known in some cases to improve fishing more so that fishery health, the place soon boomed in popularity with anglers. The regulations then imposed ended up being quite unprecedented, and even in today's ecosystem might be though of as incredibly strict. Fishing was restricted to May through July, barbless flies were enforced, wading was prohibited, and there was a small and finite number of visits you could make. Even though some of the stricter regulations haven't carried over to present day, the popularity rivals the present day. More than 44,000 angler trips were registered in 1952. Photos from that era reflect this, with a parking lot jam full and anglers standing shoulder to shoulder on the banks of a Spring Creek that looks so different today it may as well be a different river entirely. 

In 1982, triggered by kepone and mirex contamination, the commission stopped stocking trout in Spring Creek and enforced no-harvest regulations. In turn, the wild trout population, brown trout specifically, absolutely exploded. It has been said that there have been as many as 3,000 trout per mile in Spring Creek, making it very high on (if not at the top) of the list of most densely trout populated streams in the Eastern United States. That population density has changed with time, of course, having apparently increased until 2000 and being on a downward trend since. That downward trend is likely tied to development in the watershed, and PFBC notes as much:

"In other watersheds, impervious surface area has been used as a good surrogate of urban development; when imperviousness reached 7-11%, trout populations were lost. The Spring Creek watershed had 12% impervious cover in 1995, and in the upper one-half of the watershed, impervious cover was 19%. We suggest that the reason Spring Creek is still able to sustain wild trout with this degree of urbanization is the relatively large input of groundwater into the stream. Further development that increases impervious cover, reduces groundwater recharge, or both, will certainly increase the stress on Spring Creek and reduce its ability to support wild trout."²

As development continues in the area around State College, and as climate change continues, its hard to say what the future holds for Spring Creek. What remains abundantly clear to me is that it, and even some of the more marginal trout streams in Central Pennsylvania, make even the best places we have in Connecticut look like a joke. Part of that is the nature of limestone, but part of it is an indictment on what building can do. Connecticut and our rapidly dying coldwater fisheries should be a good example of what NOT to do if you want to keep strong wild trout fisheries around when it comes to development, road salt use, lack of riparian protection, over-stocking, on and on and on. 


One thing Connecticut doesn't fail with is common carp. Europe's most popular "course" fish is highly abundant in the state and isn't going anywhere. Recently, after a number of fish had been caught over the years that could have cracked the former record, someone finally clocked one over fifty pounds. Well over, in fact. At over 58 pounds, Norbert Samok's record fish is a significant achievement. Of course, Pennsylvania has carp too. The state record was caught in 1962 by an angler named George Brown. The fish weighed 52 pounds... ha! We've got you beat there, PA. I can't gloat too much though, because instead of getting the chance to fish periodical cicada eating carp, I can't really wait around in Connecticut. It turned out Pennsylvania was going to give me a challenge too, though. 

Levi and I met Mark Hoffman in Boalsburg on our second morning for our first serving of warm water cicada mania. Haze clung to the hills as the light came up, that sort of low morning humidity that suggested a very hot day was incoming. We hopped in with Mark and headed toward a place where carp, overhanging trees, deep lake shore, and periodical cicadas all overlapped. Surface disturbance was visible as we crossed a bridge over the lake on the way in. There was heavy calling as we pulled into the launch. Anticipation was high, especially for me. I know this game a little bit, I've caught some carp on cicadas. But something was going on at the ramp that put a more than slight kink in the plan. The back cove was all muddy, and in various spots on both the near and far side there was a ruckus going on. Splashing, crashing, tail slapping, jumping... these carp were busy humping, not eating cicadas. The thing with the carp spawn is that it can kind of happen any time the water gets warm. I've seen carp spawn as early as April 10th and as late as September 3rd. Sometimes that's just a few pods of fish and plenty are still happily and busily feeding away. This wasn't that, though. We motored all over the lake and for the most part found nothing but carp making more carp. It got hotter and hotter as the day went on, and though I picked up some largemouth on cicada patterns and Levi ran a little chartreuse bugger and put a smackdown on white crappie, this wasn't what we hoped for. 


As the heat became more and more oppressive, frustration boiled over. We bailed, sweaty and ready for lunch. It wouldn't be for a couple days, right as our trip came to an end in fact, that we got a shot at the carp again. We met Mark at the same launch, just hours to spare before we needed to hit the road. This time there was no thrashing and crashing on that far bank. The carp should be feeding now, of that I was fairly confident. The most confident, in fact, as the previous attempt had shaken Levi's. In fact it had taken a bit to convince him that this could be worthwhile. We motored out of the launch and rounded the corner, travelling down the shoreline where cicadas were calling their little tymbals off. It wasn't long before I saw it: a carp tipped the wrong way, with it's head up and its tail down, orange lips at the surface, sucking down one of the bugs that had so haplessly bumbled onto the lake surface. The were here....

They weren't easy though, and we weren't the only ones on the water. A few other boats were out with fly rods, all working the banks looking for targets. Any pressure can complicate things, especially with carp. These are sensitive, shy fish. Before we found a couple willing carps, Levi managed to catch one of the nicer largemouth bass I've seen in a while. Getting big bucketmouths on cicadas isn't a bummer at all. 


Largemouth bass are America's favorite gamefish. An estimated 16 billion dollars a year is spent on bass fishing. To put that in perspective, the estimated annual market for fly fishing in the US is 750 million dollars. The people love bass, enough so that they've been moved here and there and everywhere. Where we were, just one watershed divide separated us from the native range of the northern bass, but we were fishing to non-native fish where we were. Given their widespread introduction and infusion in the fishing culture, many anglers don't realize when bass aren't native where they fish. In Connecticut, neither smallmouth nor largemouth bass were present historically, and that information is relatively available to anyone who cares to look. That said, it isn't hard at all to find anglers who insist that they are a native fish. Aa great many angler believe a great many things to be true that just aren't though, that is a reality that no longer surprises me. I just roll my eyes with my lips pursed in a tight, straight line and repeat the same statements again-- "actually, the only larger native freshwater predator species in Connecticut were chain pickerel, brown bullhead, and brook trout...." It's remarkable how much of our fisheries are made up of introduced species. In much of the northeast, we're looking at as much as, even more half of the popular target species. Even somewhere like Maine, where landlocked salmon and lake trout did exist naturally, they've been scattered about in all sorts of places they never were before. We think of fishing as a way to be in nature, failing frequently to realize that what we fish isn't actually natural. 

Even the lake we were on wasn't natural. In fact, large natural lakes are essentially non-existent in Pennsylvania. The largest natural lake in the state is Conneaut, in Crawford County. At just 243 acres, it is a piddly body of water compared to the Pymatuning Reservoir just miles away, and even it wasn't immune to human alteration. In 1834 connection to the French Creek canal raised the lake by 11 feet. The geology in Pennsylvania just doesn't make big lakes, unless you count Erie, of course. I wonder how the fishing was in the river that made this reservoir we were fishing before the dam went up, and I wondered how many more cicadas there'd been before the land they lived under was flooded. What fish would I have caught here in 1685, just 20 emergence cycles ago. Would I have been catching 20 inch fallfish here? Giant brook trout? How many billions more cicadas must there have been?

What was is now gone, and there's little left to do but find a carp, put a piece of foam in front of it, and not set the hook too early. 





¹ Tom Burrell, The Express. Dec 14 2024 The Evolution of Fisherman's Paradise

² Carline, R. F., R. L. Dunlap, J. E. Detar, and B. A. Hollender. 2011. The fishery of Spring Creek – a watershed under siege. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Technical Report Number 1, Harrisburg, PA.

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan and Dar for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version. 

Sunday, July 6, 2025

Diquat Madness & The Proliferation of Fear-Based Rhetoric

 In April 2024, while pulling my canoe after a mostly unsuccessful day, I ran into a few environmental scientists that were curious about water levels and asked if I'd been out a lot recently. "We take it the river has fallen a lot over the last week," one posited. "Oh yeah," I replied, "quite a few feet". "Yeah, we're not always used to seeing the species we're surveying for six feet up in the trees." he said. These scientists were from a team working with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the species they were surveying for was a highly invasive aquatic plant called hydrilla. Hydrilla's presence in the Connecticut river is relatively new, with first confirmation coming in 2016 in Glastonbury. It is especially noxious, because any time a piece is broken off, it can sprout new roots and make a new plant. This makes it uniquely hard to control as manual removal is not longer an option once density reaches full blown infestation. Control is important, both ecologically and socially, because hydrilla is so prone to rapid spread that it has significant negative impacts on water quality, fish, native aquatic plants, and outdoor recreation like boating and swimming. So control in some form or function is paramount. And this crew was doing preliminary study for herbicide treatment. Work has been done for a number of years studying both the plant itself, monitoring it's spread, and testing possible methods of mitigation and control. This new project sought to determine the efficacy of herbicidal treatments, and the water body I was leaving was to be one of the first test sites on the first year. One of the herbicides in question is called Diquat, and though it's use and application at one site went without major public backlash in 2024, the same cannot be said for 2025. 

FOX61 interviewed protesters they described as "environmental activists" at the state capital as they voiced their concerns on the use of Diquat. One of those interviewed was Selina Rifkin, whose sentiment isn't an uncommon one currently "Spraying horrible chemicals that kill everything into our lakes and rivers. It isn't necessary." A Change.org petition headed by a photo of a handful of dead, floating fish, evidently European species- it looked like crucian and barbel to me -got the messengers point across. Diquat is going to kill everything, these folks firmly believe that. If this were true, there'd certainly be reason to protest it. How could the Army Corps so brazenly poison our waters, and why would CT DEEP sign off on it? 

Way back before I ever put pen to paper about fishing, or knew almost anything at all, my best friend and I dumped a bucket of Diquat is his farm pond. I kid you not, I have real world experience with this poison that kills everything. Young, dumb, and frustrated with summer weeds making it hard to fish the pond the way we wanted to, we sought weed control as a way to better our fishing. His dad got is a big ol' container of Diquat. We read the directions, didn't wear any safety gear of any sort, and did our best to distribute the whole jug's worth across the tiny bass pond. Memory serves me that it did kill off a fair bit of the heavy vegetation, and to our untrained young eyes, nothing else. There certainly was no fish kill, the pond still to this day is loaded with bass, sunfish, bullheads, and all of the wonderful creepy crawlies that those fish eat. We also didn't die, despite definitively doing it all wrong. Hearing and reading a lot of comments about this same herbicide "killing everything" seemed a tad strange. Of course, my experience is anecdotal at best, though perhaps of higher value than much of the commentary currently circulating because at least I have some actual first hand experience... but that isn't enough, not for me. So let's dig into everything we can, shall we? Let's start with the basics. How does this Diquat stuff work?

Diquat is short for diquat dibromide, or 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide. Now that sounds scary... but I'm not a chemist, and if it sounds scary so might this: β-D-galactopyranosyl-(1→4)-D-glucose. That's lactose, that's in natural milk... not scary at all, you just aren't a chemist, most likely. Chemicals always sound scary if you aren't hugely familiar with chemistry and reading chemical formulas. That's fine, neither am I, but we're going to have get a little cozy with chemistry here to understand what 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide does. Basically, it binds to photosynthesizing cells and inhibits that key processes of plant function- turning sunlight into energy. The chemical accepts electrons from Photosystem I, one of a plant cell's two photosynthetic systems. That electron is used to create a reactive oxygen species (ROS), which damages the cell and prevents NADPH and ATP production by that cell. NADPH helps make glucose, lipids, and nucleic acid, and ATP provides energy. It also destroys the cell membrane. Without these things, the cell dies. And when all of an aquatic plant's photosynthesizing cells die, it dies. That's how Diquat kills hydrilla and other plants. It than binds with particles of soil and sediment, usually leaving the water column free of detectable levels within a day or two, though it remains undegraded in sediment indefinitely.¹ Diquat is also used as a desiccant on potato crops and some seed crops used for feed. A desiccant, if you aren't familiar, is something used to dry things out or keep them dry. 

It is entirely reasonable to have concerns about how a chemical compound that completely kills a photosynthetic cell might effect other cells, including ours and the species we care about. This is especially true given that Diquat is banned by many countries and the European Union (many of the people I've seen bringing that point up are also the sort to suggest that the European Union is an overbearing, freedom less hell-scape, so that comes off as a little rich. Sorry, I call it like I see it... you can't have this both ways). Let's start with humans, since we tend to be a selfish lot....

A 63 year old landscaper in Florida admitted himself to the hospital about 90 minutes after drinking a gulp of herbicide from a Gatorade bottle. He would die soon after from multi organ failure. The medical professionals involved in his case did a brief case study highlighting it, as well as the need for further study on diquat poisoning. It doesn't read pleasantly. Upon admission, he was having uncontrollable urination, diarrhea and gastric emesis. By his fourth and final day is the hospital, effects had reached his brain. "On day four of hospitalization, the patient was noted to have new onset dilated pupils and was taken to receive a CT scan of his brain, which showed diffuse cerebral edema and toxic encephalopathy with cerebellar tonsillar herniation and mild hydrocephalus." ² Basically, in the body, the ROS previously mentioned makes hydrogen peroxide. Normally the body detoxifies hydrogen peroxide, but this reaction from the Diquat cycles over and over, overwhelming any chance of that. The case study notes that Diquat poisoning is quite rare, hence the need for further study it sites only 30 cases from 1969 to 1999 with a 43% mortality rate. It also sites that nearly all similar cases in which more than 12 grams of Diquat were consumed result in death within a few days. The same ROS that causes a photosynthetic cell to die leads to multi organ failure. Scared now? It's important to consider concentration. Of course, drinking a full gulp an herbicide that makes a reactive oxygen species and spurs cellular havoc is a potentially deadly proposition. So far no study I can find indicates health risks from exposure to a water body treated with diquat within just a few days of treatment, and that comes down to Diquat's affinity for organic molecules. After dispersion in a water body, it binds with with plant cells it kills, but also with tons of organic particles in the water column and in the sediment on the bottom. It becomes a more or less inert there, no longer present in the water column and allowing aquatic plants (hopefully the native ones, replacing the invasives killed by the diquat) to grow unabated. This is what I watched happen in that pond all those years ago. There was no noticeable evidence of a herbicide in the water just a short time after treatment. Sunlight also degrades diquat based on numerous studies, one citing a photodecomposition half-life of 1.6 weeks.³ So, without too much time passing, the science says there shouldn't be much to worry about so far as swimming, contact with the water, or consuming fish goes. Diquat is dispersed at low concentrations compared to the fatal dose and is largely undetectable in just days. It isn't recommended to drink water treated with diquat within three days, but, speaking as someone on and around it all the time, you don't want to drink from these Connecticut River backwaters anyway. It might kill you on a good day, Diquat or not. 

Onto other species... that Wisconsin DNR fact sheet makes mention of study on fish, all very Wisconsin. Walleye showed signs of poisoning when contained in diquat treated water, other game and panfish did not. Some fish kills have been recorded in diquat treated waters, especially small ponds. This is most likely a result of oxygenation, as rapid vegetation death and decomposition can use a lot of dissolved oxygen. This shouldn't be a significant problem in the Connecticut, where tides cause a significant amount of water exchange day in and day out. The bigger problem comes with macroinvertebrates, which are indeed vitally important. The same fact sheet states "...certain species of important aquatic food chain organisms such as amphipods and Daphnia (water fleas) can be adversely affected at label application rates." The Army Corps project isn't dismissive of the potential impacts on wildlife, as anyone who cares to sit and read available drafts and proposals for this project can find. Pretty plainly though, labeling Diquat a "poison that kills everything" is more than misleading... its just plain wrong. There is validity for concern with both human and environmental impacts, but most of the posts making the rounds on social media lack rigorous research, citations, or anything that would make them trustworthy. And that's just where the problems start. 

That same environmental activist interview by FOX61 than I mentioned earlier, Selina Rifkin, later on said "There could have been an educational campaign about what this is. There could have been a call for volunteers to pull it out by hand. There could have been some kind of examination of the other possibilities for getting rid of it is, this is, this is a financial option, and it's the easy solution." This is the point where I must admit, I get a little bit pissed off and say... are you kidding me? Every single thing she lists there has been done already, it takes just seconds to find that it has been done, and if anyone actually cares one iota about this issue these words wouldn't leave their mouth. There's a sign at just aviation every launch and put in on the lower Connecticut that tells me what Hydrilla is, how to prevent the spread, and has a nice little picture of what it looks like. The education is there. The Connecticut River Conservancy regularly holds manual water chestnuts pulls funded in part by grant money from the state's AIS program... I've already written about that. The volunteer effort is available. Information on why manual removal can in fact worsen hydrilla is immediately readily available with a Google search. Manual removal alone will not work. And this entire Army Corps hydrilla project has been about finding the best option to control the hydrilla through multiple means (read here). CT DEEP has also been exploring management options since at least 2021. In hours of research prior to and while working on this cursed blog post that I shouldn't have to write, I found source after source after source that partially or wholly refutes every argument being made by the Jonny-come-lately diquat protestors. We are a lazy, triggerable, reactive society that absolutely fails to find the forest through the trees time and time again. I'm not even here to say there isn't some merit to suggesting diquat shouldn't be used, I'm not convinced that it will be an effective treatment on its own. But it also doesn't take much research to make sense of this Army Corps project, why it's underway, and why they're using Diquat on a limited number of waters. Unfortunately, if you've made it this far, I doubt you're the sort that is causing this outrage. If you are though, thank you for sticking around. Please, go to your next argument, make your next comment, attend your next protest, or donate to your next cause armed with legitimate arguments instead of reactionary social media posts. Spend some time researching the topic with actual doctors, scientific papers, and as many different sources as possible. 

Media (both social and mainstream news) failed us on this one, as it has in the past and will continue to in the future. Facebook and Instagram made it easy for people to pass along inaccurate posts. FOX61 and others did a poor job of pointing out inaccuracies in the demonstrator's statements. A petition circled with a blatantly fear-mongering header image, with thousands of signatures and counting. I'm sick and tired of this; if all of these people could have put this energy and effort into being informed and taking action on invasive species, there'd be no need at all to apply herbicide on the Connecticut River. But here we are, fighting a government that's desperately trying to undue the problems we cause, then complain about, then complain about the potential solutions to, then complain about the cost of. It's all very tiring. I have very little hope anymore, but if so many as one person walks away from reading this less inclined to hop on the disinformation train, I guess I've done my part. Read as is spoken through clenched teeth while smashing my mouse to smithereens against my desk: Now its time for me to go clean, drain, and dry the canoe after another day of pulling water chestnuts on the big river, trying to beat a problem that could one day hit me right in the wallet the same way hydrilla has been.


Currently, the Diquat treatment has been postponed till 2026, reportedly for funding issues. 



¹ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2012. Diquat Chemical Fact Sheet

² Daniel M Aloise, Adam Memon, Ana Zaldiver. 2022.  Diquat Herbicide Organophosphate Poisoning and Multi-Organ Failure: A Case Report

³ Smith, A.E. and Grove, J. 1969. Photochemical degradation of diquat in dilute aqueous solution and on silica gel. J. Agric Food Chem. 17:609-613.

More: https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Topics/CTRiver/Images/Fact%20Sheets%20-%20updated/FACTSHEET-CTRiverHydrilla-ExecutiveSummary-May2023.pdf

https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Projects-Topics/Connecticut-River-Hydrilla/

FOX61 Article: https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/hartford/protestors-voice-concerns-over-diquat-use-in-rivers-lakes-connecticut/520-e3bc1018-b506-4f04-9795-f1c8b9d91079

Video overview of Florida landscaper case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmu48JYFTBc

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, Ryan and Dar for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version. 

Thursday, July 3, 2025

Guiding Updates: The Dog Days are Here!

 Summertiiiiime, and the living is....

Muggy. The living is muggy. We've got one gnarly heatwave in the rearview and have settled into more typical summer weather, with most days in the 80's, high humidity, and lows in the high 60's. On trout streams across the state the fish are either posting up in their coldwater refuges, or just dying. It's time to give the freestone trout a rest, and I've got the fix! June was a predictably good month for the warm fishing, especially with bowfin, carp, and some fun topwater bass fishing. It featured a couple great carp days as well, including a second crazy pound-down for Dar (he had a killer day with me in May as well!) 




He got in on the bowfin bite as well with two really good fish. Then, the next day, Michael from Tennessee finally got his bowfin redemption. Last time he fished with me in 2022, we lost a nice bowfin boat side. Then there's Peter with a nice female, and Kathryn with one site fished on a chunk!







The catfish bite has been on the modest end so far, with a lot of smaller fish. I think this is owing to a later than normal spawn, and we're just now starting to get some scratched up post spawn fish. I anticipate July and August to be peak for catfish on the fly as per usual. 

John Kelly bending the rod on a channel catfish



Here's friend and DEEP CARE program instructor Noah Hart with a nice topwater bass and a channel cat from the Connecticut River with me last week: 



Summer can be a glorious time to be a flyrodder. Really, there's plenty more of the above to come. July will be our better month for bowfin as weed growth will eventually get thick enough to make some spots difficult. August has been a peak for channel catfish on the fly but July is good too, and the carp train just never stops. If you're going to book for carp I recommend an early morning half day. 
We're also entering prime time for bass floats, I offer both daytime smallmouth float trips on a number of rivers (including the Connecticut, lower Farmington, Quinebaug, and Shetucket) and evening/nighttime canoe trips for topwater bass. If you'd like to experience summer's best, give me a holler! brwntroutangler@gmail.com

Friday, June 27, 2025

Entitled Recreation

The puritan tiger beetle lives its larval stage in the sediments of a small number of sites along the banks of the Connecticut River. They live in vertically oriented burrows, which may at any time be submerged by flooding. That's fine, they can handle it. In fact flooding is a key to the maintenance of the sandy substrate these beetles need, and the disruption of the flood cycle be dams is one of the reasons there are only a small number of sites that hold these species left. The puritan tiger beetle is a federally threatened at the federal level and endangered in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. I've never seen a puritan tiger beetle, though I've long adored the tiger beetles in general. They're quick, alien looking, and often brilliantly colored insects that pique the "shiny thing" impulse in my brain. Ellipsoptera puritana has a wonderfully patterned back of tan and brown that may have a green sheen, and reflects almost white in the right sun. It fits the sandy habitat they hunt. And with long, slim legs, hunt they do. Tiger beetles are active and effective predators. I'd love to see one of these animals in the wild, but it's a bit hard given there may be fewer than 1,000 left in New England. And in Massachusetts, their plight isn't just being progressed by the dams and flood control that started the process, but by default of their habitat being appealing to people. Because clean sand isn't terribly common on the banks of the Connecticut, the very remaining places that are suitable for puritan tiger beetles make for a pleasant beach day for recreators that are likely blissfully unaware and careless of the imperiled species whose larval burrows they trample underfoot. 

All along the Connecticut River,  recreation has other negative impacts on insects. Odonata species (dragonflies and damselflies) are notably vulnerable. Many species emerge at the river edges on calm days, crawling to the edge and anchoring in place to shed their nymphal shuck and take their winged form. They're sensitive at this time, as it takes time for their wings to harden before they can take off. Sometimes, the wake of a passing boat full of anglers, partiers, or other recreators drowns them before they ever get the chance to take off. These wakes wash the shorelines of the river on a daily basis, even within the slow no wake zones, which were established to protect marinas, not dragonflies. The corpses of these insects and others wash into the silty water, floating lopsided and slightly mangled.  That muddy, silty wash has it's own repercussions. In Idaho, wake boats are being shown to be at fault for water quality issues in Payette Lake. Scientists testing for phosphorous, which stimulates plant and algae growth, found that levels were stirred up more on average by boat wakes than by natural wave action from.¹ My good friend David Gallipoli has been battling for legislation to regulate wake boat use on Payette. It's striking, to David and others, that recreation is as stubborn and detrimental and adversary as it is. "Out of all the extraction industries in the west- mining, logging, drilling -recreation is actually becoming the larger issue in some cases," says David. Living in McCall, he's had a front row seat to the impacts of over-use on the lake. And traveling and recreating all over the mountain west, he's seen other damage and change as well. "Part of it is just education", he says, alluding to the fact that most resource users simply aren't aware of how their activities can cause damage. And who can blame them? It isn't exactly widely available information. 

In upland forests back home in Connecticut, other recreational vehicles are causing all sorts of trouble. ATVs, dirt bikes, and off-road vehicles aren't a rare sight in some larger state forests, and it seems to the riders on them have a taste for the disruptive. On a warm April day I was out to monitor endangered wildlife in some arid upland habitat. The area had a handful of trails frequented by off-roaders. Alongside the trail in one spot was a vernal pool, a spot where I'd observed spotted salamander eggs, wood frogs, marbled salamander larvae, and once even a spotted turtle. Not many years ago off-roaders had left the adjacent trail and taken to the pond, turning it into a muddy, worthless bowl drying in the late spring sun, killing many of the delicate critters that relied on it. I was happy to see that it hadn't been disturbed yet this year. While I was off the trail doing my round, I hear dirt bikes and ATVs pass a few time. On the hike out, I gave the pool a glance again. No disruption. But before I reached the end of my walk out, I came upon a pool in the existing trail. Deeply rutted off road trails create unnatural pooling, and because water is a premium resource in these arid uplands amphibians gravitate to these anthropogenic vernal pools. The riders had ripped through this pool, and sitting next to it was a spotted salamander egg mass, high and dry and left to die in the sun. It hadn't been long though and it was still wet, so carefully I picked it up, made the last strides to my vehicle, and drove that dirt road like a tree-hugging madman to the closest pool. A dozen or so unhatched salamander larvae may be a drop in the bucket, but we're fighting a war of attrition against amphibians and reptiles. So many die in the road year over year, and it's just a matter of time before they lose the battle. I wasn't going to let these ones go without a fight. Whether they actually hatched or not I don't know, but I tried. 

Off-roading directly kills fauna, but that's far from it's only impact. It causes erosion, facilitates the spread of invasive plants, crushed out native ones, and can contribute to pollution. I've seen off-roaders in Connecticut run right up the center of a beautiful spring creek containing brook trout, slimy sculpin, and tiger spike-tail dragonflies. I've watched them rip up gravel bars and cross riffles on rivers that were part of the Atlantic salmon restoration project. I've seen new, unauthorized paths pop up in just a weeks time, right through land that timber rattlesnakes still inhabit, often going just feet within vital geologic structures, or crossing frequent travel routes. Beyond anecdotal examples such as these, this is a well studied topic. Texas biologist Richard B. Taylor compiled a review of literature of the subject, and it's a short and concise indictment on unmitigated off road vehicle use. The studies cited are thorough, from plant impacts ( "Hall (1980) concluded that ORVs reduce perennial and annual plant cover and density, and the overall above ground biomass. The degree of loss is dependent on the intensity of use, although the terms moderate and heavy use are relative and may vary from site to site")², to direct pollution ("Oil has been observed on the gravel beds of the Nueces River and many vehicles frequently ford areas deep enough to dislodge or wash off engine fluids into the river."), to wildlife health and stress ("Havlick (2002), cites numerous investigations that indicate wildlife including birds, reptiles, and large ungulates respond to disturbance with accelerated heart rate and metabolic function, and suffer from increased levels of stress"). This isn't just a recreational vehicle problem though, even mountain bikers or on-foot hikers can have significant negative ecological impacts. How do we justify these negative impacts? Is it really worth threatening endangered species and sensitive habitat just to have fun? 

I'm not immune to this in my own recreation. Fisherman sometimes love the resources we use for recreation to death, and I myself am guilty. We often demand more of fisheries than they can easily give- numbers, diversity, time... fisheries have capacities, and we over fill them. Angler hours, or the time spent by fisherman on a given fishery, are increasing in many places, and it often shows in the quality of the fishing. We've long taken the approach of replacing or inflating fish populations artificially rather than accepting what natural reproduction will provide, to sometimes disastrous ends. Thinking we can bolster wild numbers by making fish in concrete raceways just doesn't meet the evolutionary standard, as generations of fish are made to survive better and better in the hatchery, while wild fish evolve to better and better survive in actual waterways. One of many studies on the efficacy of hatcheries on fish populations focused on the Cowichan River, and the survival of chinook salmon in general was studied, both wild and hatchery raised. The study was performed not to see if the hatchery was working, but because it wasn't. "The hatchery on the Cowichan River has not only been unable to increase the abundance, it has also not been able to sustain the abundances that existed at the time the program started."³ It was a post mortem, of sorts... they were looking to figure out what went wrong. This wasn't an isolated event, either. Time and time again, hatchery programs fail to do what nature could do on its own, or are simply an extremely expensive way to keep fisherman believing that fish will always be there. It saddened me deeply to see that in recent days, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the Chesapeake striped bass spawning stock is failing to produce enough fish to support a strong coastwide fishery, that many anglers have started to push for hatchery supplementation. We are failing the striped bass, and adding more of our own creation will not save the fishery. But people continue to beat up the species, hesitant to adopt less damaging tackle as treble hooks become a clearer contributor to mortality, and unwilling to give them a break when and where they're most sensitive. Are we that entitled? Do we need to fish everything to extirpation? Do we need to ride four wheelers every place we see? Do we need so badly to have fun on the lake that our boat wakes cause a toxic algae bloom? Are we really willing to trample endangered beetles just to enjoy a beach day? These seem to be a very easy list of things to simply avoid doing for the sake of healthy, bio diverse ecosystems. If we can't actually see that the value of those species and habitats exceeds the value of just having some fun... I'm not sure that's a society I want to take part in. I find that despicable. We need to be accountable in our interactions with the natural world, and aware of the fact that every action has and impact. We need to lessen that impact as much as we can, especially when that impact comes from something as expendable as activities like boating, fishing, hiking, skiing, rock climbing, or off-roading. Even as a guide and someone who makes their living off of outdoor recreation, I realize that this is expendable. My job should not exist if it is doing so much harm as to be unsustainable. I do everything in my power to keep it sustainable, and I think my viewpoint on how it is or isn't is a fairly realistic one. I won't leave with remorse if it becomes clear that it isn't possible without undue damage, either, at least not for my own financial situation. My remorse would be for the resources I selfishly damaged in the name of having fun. We aren't entitled to unmitigated recreation at the cost of species and habitats, we are privileged to have access to wild places at all in a world where they are increasingly rare and degraded.


¹ Wakes Worse Than Weather , Max Silverson, McCall Star News. July 18 2024

² The Effects of Off-Road Vehicles on Ecosystems,  Richard B. Taylor, Texas Parks and Wildlife

³Wild chinook salmon survive better than hatchery salmon in a period of poor production, Beamish, R.J., Sweeting, R.M., Neville, C.M. et al.  Environ Biol Fish 94, 135–148 (2012). 

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Franky, Geof, Luke, Noah, Justin, Sean, Tom, Mark, Jake, Chris, Oliver, oddity on Display, Sammy, and Cris & Jennifer, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor, Eric, Evan, Javier, and Ryan for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version.