Showing posts with label Conservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservation. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

The Fight for Conservation

 That's the title of one of Gifford Pinchot's publications. I'd call it a booklet- it's a very short and easy read -and I recommend it not just to any outdoorsman but to any American, because it lays bricks for the foundation of how resource and land management is meant to work in this country. The understanding of that is paramount to being an informed citizen. Gifford Pinchot was a pivotal figure of the conservation movement, one of the forefathers of the US Forest Service, a Pennsylvania Governor, as well as a Connecticut Yankee and Yale graduate. Down low on the Farmington River, in Simsbury where Pinchot was born, a big old Sycamore takes his name. 

The conservation movement evokes certain images for many individuals... perhaps you picture vegan hippies tying themselves to trees in a haze of cannabis smoke. That might make reading The Fight for Conservation a confusing experience for you. The writings from one of the key individuals who started the conservation movement focus more on economics, national security, and prosperity than on the sort of fru-fru peace love and harmony ideas often ascribed to that movement today. That isn't because Pinchot didn't care for or appreciate nature in a spiritual sense, far from it. He just understood that a country's prosperity is directly tied to how it preserves, conserves, and develops its resources. The Forest Service's roll goes miles beyond a sort of park ranger perspective, to that of fireman, mine geologist, farmer, and more, and the role of federal land isn't just to provide a place to recreate- see Land of Many Uses -but to safeguard resources for development. "The first principle of conservation is development, the use of the natural resources now existing on this continent for the benefit of the people who live here now."¹

How, then, would Gifford Pinchot feel about the possibility of a Chilean-owned mine in the watershed of the famed Boundary Waters in Minnesota, the countries most visited wilderness area. I'd make the case that Pinchot wouldn't support the development of this particular resource at this particular time in this particular way. Mining was changing in Pinchot's day, with the "mom and pop shop" mining claims on federal lands beginning to cede to larger companies. A lot of federal land mining that fell under Pinchot's supervision was quite small scale, and that does still exist. Small scale gem, mineral specimen, and precious metal mining still exists and some individuals do make their livelihood off of that. That didn't really describe Minnesota's iron mining. In 1910, when The Fight for Conservation was published, development of the Mesabi Range iron deposits was in its early stages. They were never really small operations. Many started as underground workings but have all transitioned into open pit mines by the present day, leaving a broken scar visible from space as a red-brown blemishes stretching northeastward from Grand Rapids to Babbit. These mines are or were operated by a variety of companies, some US based in Cincinnati and Pittsburg, others foreign owned. Foreign ownership leads to big questions for "the benefit of people who live here now". Mining has been a fundamentally key part of the prosperity of Minnesotans, but how much of the prosperity will the area feel with another foreign owned mine and ever progressing automation? I don't actually know the answer to that, but I have a hunch... 

Furthermore, will this mine poison the boundary waters? 

Maybe. It certainly could. It isn't the first mine in the watershed, either. Dunka River, just to the south and flowing into the same lake the proposed mine would abut, skirts between the open pits of two other mines. Perhaps it's less egregious than the immediate abutment of the proposed mining underground project to Birch Lake. And perhaps the byproducts of this copper, nickel, cobalt focused mining are worse than those of the taconite mines .The company that would run this mine has a history of failing to comply with water management regulations, and the Forest Service under the Biden administration put out an environmental assessment stating both environmental and economic concerns for the region. A 20 year mining ban was placed, what we're seeing now is the attempt to undue that. It stands to reason that Pinchot might fall in favor of the continued ban, as the boundary waters themselves represent a resource already developed and an existing driver of economic benefit to the region. This mine certainly could threaten that. In many regions, outdoor recreation is now an outstanding source of employment and economic growth. In 2024, both Ag, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting and Arts, Recreation, Accommodation & Food Service contributed more to Minnesota's GDP than mining.³ That suggests the resource more worth developing and in turn preserving is the Boundary Waters, rather than this individual, depletable ore deposit. 

 I'd think Gifford Pinchot's head would spin if he saw what resource management were like today, with massive percentages of US mining falling under foreign corporations, fire management fundamentally flawed, water power and canal infrastructure falling out if favor, and scientists understanding of land and resource management completely repaved and resurfaced from his time. It would probably be a confusing world to him. Perhaps disappointing, even. 

That's just speculative. I have no idea what he would thing. If you don't want to see this new mine in watershed of the Boundary Waters, though- and yes, I know I'm extremely late and the senate vote could happen any moment - here's an avenue for comment: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/get-involved/take-action


1. Pinchot, Gifford. The Fight for Conservation. New York, Doubleday, Page & company, 1910. pp. 18-19

2. Staff. (2022, November 8). Agencies announce critical next step for the Boundary Waters. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. https://www.trcp.org/2022/06/24/agencies-announce-next-critical-step-banning-sulfide-ore-copper-mining-near-boundary-waters/

3. What is the gross domestic product (GDP) in Minnesota?. USAFacts. (n.d.). https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-gross-domestic-product-gdp/state/minnesota/

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

The Shaky Future of American Beech

 There was a smallish American beech in the woods not far from the second home my family lived at in Connecticut. It was not a loner, as in many places in the Southern New England Forest, beech were a fairly prominent tree there. This one, though, stood atop a rise that marked sort of a second, smaller peak of the hill we lived on. Their were two houses up there mostly surrounded by woods, making it a pretty good place for an outdoor-inclined child to do a hefty chunk of their growing up. That little beech on the second peak was big enough and just branched well enough to be a great climbing tree, and I hasten to make a guess at how many hours I spent off the ground in that tree. When the canopy was off it made an even better viewing position from the top of that already prominent rise, looking down a fairly significant and steep hill. I watched deer, foxes, coyotes, and even- only once -a fisher from that tree. I haven't seen it in a long while though, and I wonder how it's doing. I wonder because American beech in Connecticut are, on the whole, not doing so hot. 

In 2012, a biologist named John Pogacnik working for Lake Metroparks discovered sick beech trees in a grove overlooking the Grand River in Lake County, Ohio. At the time, there wasn't a clear cut answer as to what was damaging these trees, but they were beginning to get sickly ,striated leaves, and it was evident that something was quite wrong. The disease would become known simply as beech leaf disease, and in time was tied to a nematode worm species: Litylenchus crenatae mccannii. Whether the nematode alone is responsible or if some bacteria is a nasty collaborator is yet unknown, but what is known is that the disease is more than just an inconvenience. BLD is proving to be especially deadly to younger beeches, which when infected seem destined to die in about five years time. BLD has since spread to 13 US states and Ontario, with detection in Connecticut occurring in 2019. It has since spread to every county, and it is rare now- in my experience, at least -to see a beech not affected by the disease. 


Fagus grandifolia is a fixture of the eastern forests; "large-leafed beech" in Latin. You've probably seen one that someone scratched their name into. I don't at all condone this, it's a rude thing to do to a tree. This is done to a lot with beech because they do make a notably good canvas for such things, with their smooth, even, grey bark. American beech have lovely, dark green, almond shaped leaves with parallel side veins that each end in a slight point. Beeches are also notable for marcescence, or keeping some or all of their leaves through winter until they bud out. These dry, dull yellow leaves add color to an otherwise grey and white winter landscape in the northeast. They also whisper and shake in a breeze, and to me, a New England forest would feel very different were it not for that sound as a winter storm closes in and the wind kicks up. It would be really hard, as a whole, to picture these woods without beech. We've been through the loss of iconic trees in the East before, though... perhaps none more iconic than the American chestnut. 

I walked a scrubby low area between hilltops in the Taconics not long ago with my friend Bruce, and we passed hundreds of little saplings with long, dark green, spike-edged leaves. Most of these were less than an inch in diameter and surrounded decrepit looking, dead small trees. These are what's left of a species now widely considered to be functionally extinct, stump sprouts from a still living root system trying desperately to regain a hold. It can't though, not yet at least. And that's a shame, because these were once a dominant and massive tree of the Eastern forests. Many old houses in New England have American chestnut in their construction, as it was a highly favored lumber for it's rot resistance and strength. Old film photographs depicting whole families standing in front of massive Castanea dentata harken to modern day photos of the redwoods or sequoia, and few trees standing today East of the Mississippi come close to the magnitude of those monsters, especially deciduous trees. At the moment the idea of seeing a truly giant American chestnut is a dream, and that's all because of a fungus imported by accident and rapidly spread through a population of trees that lacked immunity to it. There are folks trying to realize that dream, even though for many the understanding that this won't occur in time for them to actually see it is abundantly clear.

 Jack Swatt and Dr. David Bingham explained to me how I could microwave-roast a chestnut as we stood at the base of 10-29, the tallest, fullest, best looking tree on Dr. Bingham's property in central CT. "Take a very sharp knife, put it on the flat side so it doesn't roll, punch it in so it makes a little x. As it's cooking the steam bursts the rest", Dr. Bingham suggested. In my hand was a nut produced by tree 10-29. It was a beautiful, lustrous thing with that stereotypical deep color. This tree and the others in Bingham's orchard are part of the American Chestnut Foundation's backcrossing program. The idea is to produce a tree that is as close to American chestnut as possible, but carries blight resistance from genetic crossing with Chinese chestnut. The chestnut in my hand wasn't quite as small as that of a pure American, and the leaves on the tree weren't as large or as toothed as as pure American. But it sure wasn't like a pure Chinese chestnut either, and though the cankers from blight were visible in various spots on the tree's trunk it was still a beauty. Bingham referred to and gestured at traits of the tree I was yet unfamiliar with. "It certainly has the very typical American bark, and it's branching like an American tree".  Backcrossing, unlike pure hybridization, is intended to isolate one desired trait from a donor parent while crossing the offspring with a recurrent parent whose whole genetic background is preferable. In this case, preferred background is that of the American chestnut- traits like nut size, leaf size and shape, bark, branching, and growth -nd the preferred trait from the donor parent is the blight resistance of the Chinese chestnut. The end result won't exactly be the same as what was lost to blight, but the goal is to get the closest tree possible. That's a common theme in species conservation.... something as close as possible, genetically and physiologically, is a lot better than nothing. 

The first nuts David Bingham planted in his orchard came from one Connecticut tree. "The mother tree" was an American chestnut he found while clearing a hilltop on a family property. It was just a sprout then, but Bingham cared for that tree by packing mud onto blighted spots and wrapping it with plastic. The native fungi and viruses in the mud help the tree fight the Cryphonectria parasitica, the blight fungus. If not taken care of, or if the tree shows no resistance, the fungus essentially girdles the trunk of the tree, killing it. The root system, unaffected by the fungus, can survive long after the main trunk dies It will keep putting up stump sprouts for decades. It was these that I saw on that hike in the Taconics. Under David's care, though, this sprout made it much longer than most. "It got big enough and started flowering," he told me. When it first produced nuts they were all flat, they were infertile nuts." If there are no other flowering chestnuts around to pollinate with, such is the result. The next year, with help from American Chestnut Foundation, the tree was pollinated. "We got about a hundred nuts off of it". So started the orchard; and that mother tree is still standing today too under Bingham's watchful eye. Rows of chestnut trees from the Mother Tree and various hybrid parents were planted in rows. They were then "inoculated", using bores to place a core with a virulent strain of blight in each tree. The trees that handled it best were kept, those that didn't were culled. It was those that made the grade that stood this day, here and there in what otherwise looked like a meadow. Bingham kept things to what the untrained I may think is a unruly state, but a naturalist sees as vital habitat for birds and pollinators. 

The fungus that causes chestnut blight is Cryphonectria parasitica. Under a loop it isn't impressive... the fruiting bodies are tiny and dull orange. The impact of that fungus, though, was staggering. Most sources place arrival from Asia in the late 1800's. Ground zero was the Bronx Zoological Park. By the 1940's the blight spread to the entire population and in half a century a tree that made up about a quarter of the Eastern forests and a very high percentage of the mast crop (nuts) became a ghost of itself... still existing, sort of, but mostly as a reminder rather than a functioning species. Because of it's lumber value, salvage logging took place and may have worsened the odds for the iconic species. Now it's up to a handful of dedicated individuals to try to bring it back. Like many conservationists, Jack Swatt and David Bingham are driven by an appreciation for nature and for a species, using there time voluntarily to try to improve their world. Swatt learned about the American chestnut during his college years, joined the American Chestnut Foundation later on but wasn't very active right away. He'd been very active with the fire department, but after developing psoriatic arthritis needed to find another way to devote time. "So I was out hiking in Naugatuck State Forest and found an American chestnut that had burrs at the top of it," he told me as he donned gloves to protect his hands from the spikes. "I started doing more volunteer work and monitoring those trees because I had more time on my hands, and I became more and more involved". Many of use who find a species or habitat in peril quickly find ourselves entrained in the mission to restore, protect, or preserve them. Swatt described it as "infectious" and I couldn't agree more. 

"Burrs go right through every glove I try", he said, "so I wrap them with duct tape. They're really pretty bad!" I'd never seen chestnut burrs before, but Swatt told me there are more trees that produce them than even he had realized. In places where lots of cutting has been done- he described a spot where cutting was performed to manage for Ne England cottontail -the sprouts can grow better, and in a five to ten year period before succumbing to blight they get a chance to flower and produce nuts. They emphasized that finding a tree with a lot of burrs is often a sign it isn't doing well and may be close to the end. "When you're finding them with burrs it's often because they've been weakened and they know that they're on the way out" Bingham said, and Swatt added "If they're growing really healthy, they put their energy into growing." The interesting thing with trees, though, is that growing takes a while. 10 years is long as is, and that's a fraction of the time it will take to know if any of this is working. Neither of these men will be around long enough to see the fully realized result of their hours of labor. David Bingham is 85 years old, and already has plans for the orchard he knows will outlive him. The property will go to a land trust to continue its goals. "I'm glad I didn't know how long this would take when I started" he told me. "I certainly thought it was going to be solved in my lifetime." At one point, he gestured at me, "You're young enough to maybe find a solution." And maybe that's true, but it wouldn't be without standing on the backs of people that came earlier who were willing to try to solve a problem they couldn't be around long enough to see through. Restoring a forest takes more than a lifetime. There's something deeply admirable about people willing to work toward a goal that far out. 


 Alex Amendola's office could be described as eclectic, I suppose, but if you are paying enough attention you'd see an underlying theme runs through the scattered odds and ends: two Polyphemus moths pinned to a propped up log, a copperhead skin shed, various mineral specimens, old bottles lined on a shelf, and a few bonsai, along with maps, old signs, and posters pertaining to ecology and forestry. These were all evidences of a life spent tromping in the woodlands of southern New England. Amendola is a forester for CT DEEP, and he certainly loves trees... though his path to his current occupation was a bit circuitous. "I wanted to be a a marine biologist, but they gave us a test for what job would suit you best. My number one result was forest ecologist, and I was like 'I hate trees, why would I ever want to do that'". Amendola was going to The Sound School, a New Haven based maritime based high school. He went from conservation law to environmental law in college, then found his way to that test result and ended in forest ecology. Now much of his life revolves around trees and things that pertain to them. He's the president of the Bonsai Society of Greater New Haven. Managing the forests of south Central Connecticut provides his income. I ended up in his office because my brother worked with Alex as a seasonal, and learned through him that forestry is a lot more than just marking trees. Radio telemetry with spotted turtles, for example... "I was astonished by how many thousands of feet some of them would put on in one night or two nights. I did the calculations to someone of my body weight and it was like 75 miles in a day!" If I was looking to get a deeper perspective on what beech leaf disease would mean for the whole landscape and the wildlife it would seem I'd been directed to the right person. After he got his seasonal set up with some office work for the day, we hopped in his work truck which was really a relatably (to me at least) disheveled version of the inside of his office- scattered with the tools of the trade, random rocks, and other accoutrements -and headed towards a site he was managing for Eastern red cedar and bigtooth aspen. These species don't do well under the canopy of taller trees but are a valuable asset for a diverse forest, so this site had been cut to free up these trees and give them a real chance. A variety of species rely on Eastern red cedar, including Juniper hairstreak, a lovely little green butterfly. The female trees produce beautiful blue berries that attract cedar waxwings. 

When we arrived and walked out, we were walking through a landscape that might look a mess to the untrained eye. Most hikers and outdoorsman have a somewhat specific sanitized idea of what a healthy forest looks like and this probably wouldn't fit it... a scattering of tall trees with limited midstory and near breast high understory surrounding them. But this did have variety now, and was lacking it before. I'd been there before it was cut in fact, and remember seeing the grove of cedar Alex was seeking to save, trapped between taller mature trees. What now existed was and would for a while be different from what surrounded it. The seed bank that lives in the soil had gotten sun and all of this low growth came up, a whole host of different species than what had been represented before. Variety is key to ecological success, especially in a state with lots of developed land and an abundance of busy roads. The more different habitats available within an are, the more diverse and healthy it is. From birds to bugs to mammals, all benefit from varied habitats in close proximity. It still looked unnatural though, because it had to be logged to achieve the goals. I wanted to know what the progression would look like."It'll grow up, and you'll get to what we call the 'density dependent mortality'; you start to lose the losers for one reason or another- maybe its genetics, maybe its abiotic factors, biotic factors, whatever. Then you get the pole stand, small sapling stand and they'll start to reach up where they can." Pole is a timber classification; not yet sawtimber, no longer a sapling. "At that point the decision comes to burn, or do TSI or timber stand improvement, essentially selecting our favorites and trying to help them out. That'll happen in 20 years for these cedars. By that point their physiology should be strong enough to compete. Essentially the next step here won't be for another 15, 20 years?" This active management is so important to maintaining these species because it mimics what either would naturally have occurred in terms of disturbances- stand leveling storms or big fires -that shaped the diversity of plants and wildlife on the landscape, or mimics the land management carried out for centuries by the indigenous peoples. Because habitat is now fragmented, there's no guarantee that such events will occur in time naturally to keep some of these native species around. In order to keep some of them from disappearing from the landscape we have to come in and cut or burn things down selectively.  It may look messy, but it is oh so vital. In southern New England, old farmland and meadows are lost to forest progression, and with them will be species like the New England cottontail, smooth green snake, and indeed red cedar. "We want to have eight to ten percent of our forest in this early successional stage across all of Nehantic. Wind storms, fires... all of our forest is really predicated on that in Southern New England." 

Beech fits into all of this. "They provide that mid story that is very important to some birds," Alex told me. Not every tree branches in the same way. Some form a single trunk with branches coming off That same characteristic that made them fun to climb when I was a kid is key for species whose feeding or nesting habits evolved around the presence of that tree and others with heavy branching further down their trunks. Beech also make large groves of trunks from one root system. What looks like a bunch of different trees is really just one organism. The smaller sprouts in these groves produce both understory and midstory as they grow, and under the shade of the larger trunks they remain a lasting example of that habitat. At least they did, until a new nematode came along. We stood under a grove of beech that was looking quite sickly discussing how that nematode works. "The damage was done inside the bud, then when it leafs out it's all screwed up. If you see the microscope footage, the nematodes just cause physical damage tunneling all through the cell walls". This damage produces shriveled, misshapen, striped leaves that can't execute the processes they're meant to. It'd be like if something went to town and did a bunch of physical damage to your stomach and prevented you from being able to take in nutrients. Many beeches try to refoliate, but they aren't very good at it. "They don't even look like beech leaves." Sycamore, by contrast, refoliate every season in response to anthracnose, dropping their leaves and re-growing a new healthy batch. We don't know why beech can't do the same yet. That means trouble for a landscape scale problem, and it's unclear if there will be a good way to solve it. "There are plenty of beneficial nematodes," says Amendola. "Spreading some sort of nematicide would be comparable to something like DDT". DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, is a synthetic insecticide commonly used to control mosquitoes. It had severe environmental impacts, most notably thinning the eggshells of raptors. Though banned many decades ago, DDT still shows up in FDA food tests and in all nearly all CDC human blood tests. 

Beech leaf disease has spread very rapidly. The range of beech is over 800,000 square miles in the Eastern United States. Beech leaf disease has spread to about 160,000 square miles since 2012, so it's gotten to about  one fifth of the distribution of the species in the country already. That's not including Eastern Canada, either. The tricky thing is, it was novel from the start. Research to understand the disease, what caused it, where it came from, and how it might be controlled has to be performed while the disease proliferates. Science takes time, and all the while, the disease is killing trees, damaging habitat, and creating thousands of dangerous snags that could fall and injure folks outdoors. Though there are obvious differences between chestnut blight and beech leaf disease, both are landscape scale problems. We have to hope that we could learn from the past and come out of this better than the chestnut blight, but we already blew it: the disease is here. That's the most dangerous step, and once that door is open its really, really hard to close. Alex drove me through Chatfield Hollow State Park, pointing out stands of birch that were so beaten down by the disease that they were already becoming a potential danger, not to mention opening up the brook to full summer sun and warming the water dramatically. 

If you see a beech tree that seems to be resistant to the disease, note it's location and see if it holds out, because discovering just a few resistant trees could be vital to weathering this storm. Stay apprised of BLD and other tree diseases and invasive species through the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at https://portal.ct.gov/caes. Generations down the road, there may still be big, healthy beech standing in our forests, and maybe even American chestnut. If there are, it'll only be because people like David Bingham, Jack Swatt, and Alex Amendola cared enough to see something through to their own end despite the knowledge that the job wouldn't be over, and they'll never see the fruits of their labors. 

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, Dar, Eric, Truman, and Collin 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 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. 

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. 

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Proposed Bill No. 6248 & The Housatonic Problem

 During the January session, CT's 33rd district representative Brandon Chafee introduced Proposed Bill No. 6248, referenced to the Committee on Environment. It is titled "and act establishing a moratorium on fishing for striped bass in the lower Housatonic River", and reads "That the general statutes be amended to establish a moratorium on fishing for striped bass in the lower Housatonic River until the populations of striped bass recovers". 

I commend Rep. Chafee for making an attempt at bringing this issue into legislation, because the Housatonic and especially it's holdover striped bass are a source of problem and controversy. Poaching is rife there, as a plethora of undersized male stripers make their way up the river in December and spend the winter, filtering back out in March and April. There are some large fish and some females that come in as well, but it is known mostly as a place to go in the winter and do what I often call "beating up toddlers". With a spinning rod and paddle tail on a jighead  you can, many days, catch as many 14-20" striped bass as you like, with people bragging about catching into the triple digits. I did it once too, and it left a sour taste in my mouth as soon as I really thought about it. It's gratuitous and unnecessary, and frankly isn't even all that fun after a while. But the real problem is the sort of poaching these easy targets encourage. Just this December CT EnCon officers and their K9, Luna, sniffed out a haul of 34 undersized bass. 

This isn't an isolated incident, as many anglers that have spent time on the Housatonic will tell you. It's enough of a problem that legislating a solution makes sense, but what of Bill 6248? Would that work? 

I'd argue that no, it will not. One problem is that "striped bass fishing" is not legally defined. This means that all one needs to do to be legal is simply not be in possession of a striped bass. Boats illegally targeting striped bass in the EEZ, where it is illegal to do so, routinely play that game. As long as they don't have a striper on board, they aren't likely to be prosecuted. To make that moratorium on striper fishing work effectively, legal definitions would need to be drawn up.  I'm not against that, necessarily, but it does leave wiggle room and wouldn't be any easier to enforce than the current situation. 

Arguably, a better strategy would be a full blown closure, and ideally a seasonal one. The problem time is typically from December to March, and the problem area is from the Derby Dam to Washington Bridge. A total closure of fishing, regardless of species, in that time frame and stretch of river. This has precedent. When we had trout seasons (and I personally really wish we still did) most rivers were closed for a month and a half or so. Under this case, anybody fishing for the vulnerable holdover bass, and that's really all that's worth fishing for down there that time of year, would be breaking the law, regardless of tackle choice. There isn't a way to sneak around the legal definitions and pretend you're targeting something else. 

Another strategy, and one that would have benefits outside of the Housatonic, would be hiring new EnCon Officers and increasing the fines for environmental infractions. As it stands, the fines and ramifications can often be equated to a slap on the wrist, and judges have tended not to take them seriously. This is a system failure, in my opinion. We should be placing higher value on our resources, and penalizing higher when people abuse them. These actions could take significant strides towards reducing the poaching problem and fishing mortality that occurs on the lower Housatonic. We can push for this, and we should. Find your representative here: Find Your Legislators- CGA, and email or call them to encourage a more enforceable, stronger version of Proposed Bill No. 6248, with emphasis on a closed winter season for fishing the lower Housatonic, and increasing fines for poaching infractions. 

Friday, January 31, 2025

Aliens in Our Waters & The War Against Them

Noah and I paddled our way over the milky waters of Lake Champlain's South Bay one warm summer day toward a shallow cove. We were on the hunt for bowfin and longnose gar, and in that grey stained water, a weed-bed was calling our name about a half mile away. In other clearer parts of the lake we'd had success finding bass and bowfin around aquatic vegetation, so reason suggested that weedy area was a good place to start. As we closed in, we could tell it wasn't the sort of weed-bed we were used to in other parts of Champlain: the bulrush, the pickerel weed and it's lovely purple flowers, the elodea that the bowfin love to gracefully slide through. These weeded areas are always full of life, harboring little schools of shiners and young of the year sunfish. Dragon and damsel flies hover and perch on the vegetation that perks above the water's surface, and birds skim around chasing them. This was very different. It was a thick, homogenous, deep green mat with a lone, straight-as-an-arrow path cut through it. This was a water chestnut mat, and the path through it had been cut by the boat equivalent of a combine harvester- in fact we could see a few of these vessels working not far away. The state of New York was operating these to put a damper on the rapid spread of the chestnuts, which just so happen to be one of the most virulent invasive aquatic plants in the northeast right now. Water chestnuts take hold hard and fast, outcompeting native vegetation and creating a thick, green mono-culture, a mat that is impenetrable by kayak and not suitable for the fish and invertebrates that evolved to live in our waterways without it. The only way Noah and I could get into the cove filled with the water chestnuts was through the path created by the harvester, and within the clearer water and visibility of that open pathway was the only place we could find fish anyway. Even the most weedless of hollow-bodied frogs wasn't pulling a bowfin up through the lawn-like chestnut mat. 


Water chestnuts, or, more accurately, water caltrop, are native to temperate portions of Eurasia and Africa. They emanate from a devilish looking seed, a dark, spiky thing an inch or two across that lodges in the muddy bottom... or your foot, if you step on one. A thin but fairly strong yellow stem protrudes  from the seed and rises to the surface, where it blooms out into a concentrated radiating cluster of angular, deep green leaves.  Water caltrop usually peak in July, when they form the thickest and most heinous of patches in the moderately shallow, slow water they prefer- around which time they produced the seeds that will be their next generation. From one year to the next, un-managed patches will grow rapidly. They're transplanted occasionally by boaters but also by large waterfowl. The species was introduced to the Northeast in 1877 in the Cambridge Botanical Garden. It took but a couple years for it to make it into the Charles River, and though the spread to the rest of the northeast was not direct or immediate, Trapa natans has since made its way around the Northeast and Mid Atlantic. The Hudson River and Lake Champlain in New York, Lake Nockamixon in Pennsylvania, Burke Lake in Virginia, and the Connecticut River through the heart of New England are just a tiny list of the places that have been invaded. The Connecticut River, though, is my home. I've watched the effects here first hand, and it has been astonishing... gut wrenching, even.

In 2016, Noah and I came across a small, round patch of water chestnuts in a shallow, muddy backwater. We knew that they would be a potential problem, but weren't fully knowledgeable yet. Eight years later, nearly to the day, I stood at the edge of the very same cove looking at the most visually striking example of an aquatic invasive mono culture I'd ever seen. One species of plant had taken over just about every inch of the cove, acres upon acres. Anyone who wanted to paddle to where we found that one little ten foot diameter patch eight years prior would have been in for a monumental effort, and a worthless one too. Where we'd caught bass in milfoil beds, had run ins with big pike on channel edges, and sight fished to tailing carp on open flats was now all just a lawn of water chestnuts, devoid of the diversity that had been there. Yes, some of that diversity had been detrimental non-natives too, but as bad as common carp can be for an ecosystem they don't belong in, the water caltrop are a bit worse, or at least more visibly impactful. 

Not far away, my brother and I crept the Otter through a different cove, looking for a pair of sandhill cranes that I'd heard calling and then spotted a couple days prior. We were having no luck finding the birds, but had less trouble finding problematic plants. 


Water chestnuts can be combatted with manual removal, something that isn't always productive on all aquatic invasive plants. By carefully pulling at the main stem of each plant, the whole thing- seed included -can be removed. The seed, that devilish looking little spikey thing, is the key: leave the seed in the muck and a new plant will just pop up. We carefully pulled as many plants as we could, rinsed the muck and living critters off of them as well as we could, and piled them into the boat. When there are hundreds of thousands of plants, this can be a very intimidating task. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.





Though Malachi and I put just a little dent in between the two of use, it was satisfying. The canoe sat a little lower in the water on the way back to the launch, and we had to haul the heavy masses as far from the water as we could in my Ranger net to get them somewhere they'd dry out and die without being washed back into the water by rain. This wasn't my first go, though it was my first year devoting time to the effort. But there are groups that have been attempting to hold back the invasion for a number of years now, brave volunteers at the front lines combatting invasives with hardened resolve. 

One of those organizations is Connecticut River Conservancy. I talked with Rhea Drozdenko, who has been with the organization for two and a half years and coordinates water chestnut pulls and other aquatic invasive species efforts, about it. She worked at Wesleyan University before coming to CRC, and wanted to do something that combined her experience in advocacy and outreach with her love and passion for the Connecticut River. "Once something gets out of control its really hard to bring it back" Drozdenko said of the water caltrop situation. "The plant grows exponentially. One seed can produce ten or so rosettes and those rosettes can produce another ten seeds." Each summer, when the growing season occurs and those thick green mats of rosettes form on infested bodies of water throughout the state, Drozdenko and CRC set out with volunteers in two to combat the invasion and try to slow it down. On weekends they gather 20 to 30 volunteers at any of a number of sites to do manual removals. They generally start around 9:00a.m., paddle out, carefully pull as many plants as they can, then return to the launch to dispose of the water caltrop. "It's a pretty labor intensive process, but also a fun one, too," Drozdenko says, "you don't have to have any experience with it, we'll take anyone and show them the ropes of it. You don't even need your own boat, we'll have all the equipment that you need." And they're making some progress too! "There's one site we have which used to be a major infestation. The past two years we've seen 50 plants tops, so its not a site we bring volunteers anymore." Plenty of sites have a lot to pull though, and CRC disposes of the plants they remove in a couple of ways. For one site they have a contract with Blue Earth Compost, a company that specializes in turning food products and other organic waste into soil products. At other locations they just haul the plants high away from the water line to where they can decompose naturally without washing back into the river or pond. Manual pulling isn't the only focus, though. "Pulling is great, but prevention is much more important." says Drozdenko. It take much less effort and money to keep water caltrop from spreading from one watershed to the next than it does to get it out once it does establish. Now, some sites are to infested for manual pulls to be all that useful. "We're hoping to move into herbicidal management," she tells me, "the Army Corps of Engineers is doing a several year filed demonstration on hydrilla there, and anecdotally we could see that the herbicide for the hydrilla had an effect on the water chestnuts as well." All of this manual pulling, herbicide, and prevention does have cost though, and it is very important that the funding is available to organizations and agencies focused on combating aquatic invasive plants—enter the AIS Stamp. 

A dragonfly rests on native marsh grass. Native vegetation plays a key roll for the ecosystem at large.

In recent weeks I watched anglers and boaters getting rather angry about an additional fee they felt was suddenly being thrust upon them, with cries about a "new tax" ringing around the Facebook groups. It reminded me of times not long ago when CT added the trout stamp to counteract the fact that virtually every dollar of license sales was going to keeping the hatcheries going, despite the fact that plenty of license holders don't trout fish. I wanted the scoop, and Gwendolynn Flynn from CT DEEP's boating division provided it. "In 2019, our legislature added a five dollar fee to the vessel registration. Some people noticed, some people didn't notice." There's always a bit of a disconnect between the constituency and the legislature, because most people just flat out don't pay attention and think they don't have time to. Unfortunately that can lead to a bit of chaos. When some modifications were made to take the fee off the vessel registration, people noticed and they didn't like it. But it's vitally important to fund the fight against invasive plants as they stand to inhibit fisherman, boaters, and other recreators alike. "Prior to the AIS stamp in 2019, there was nothing, there was no state funding," says Wendy Flynn. But the new fees now fund groups that combat the problem both directly and indirectly. "That money is turned around into a competitive grant program, and non-profits and municipalities can apply for this money for control, research and education of aquatic invasive plants and cyanobacteria." Our dollars as resource users go directly back to benefitting the river that we love and use. In fact, the operations performed by Connecticut River Conservancy benefit from the AIS stamp and fees: "We're recipients of the AIS grant, that money goes to organizations like ourselves that do removal, management, and prevention work" Rhea Drozdenko told me. 

I, for one, am glad that this problem is being taken seriously. I've watched these plants progress, not only with water caltrop but with hydrilla as well. Aquatic invasive plants pose a very real threat to native plants, fish, and insects. They fill in water that would otherwise be open, making recreating harder. And they take away the wild, native soul that our waterways have. We need to covet and protect the native plants that evolved in our ecosystems. They're invaluable, no dollar amount could be placed on their beauty and their ecological rolls. But these plants are snuffing them out. It takes a lot of work to put the bear back in its cage once it gets out. Thankfully, it seems to me the right people are on the job. And I'll be out there too, in my little canoe, pulling up wads of water chestnuts, getting muddy, doing my part... would you care to join me? 

Helpful link:




Thanks to Rhea Drozdenko and Wendy Flynn for their help on this one. 

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, Courtney, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor and Eric 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.

Tuesday, December 10, 2024

My Own Letter to the ASMFC Re: December 2024 Striped Bass Board Meeting

Dear Ms. Franke and Striped Bass Board Members,

As a fly fishing guide, angler, and conservationist whose livelihood is tethered to the success of the Atlantic striped bass, I'd like the opportunity to comment on potential management options.

For the most part, I stand in agreement with the ASGA (American Saltwater Guides Association) on their stances as expressed in their letter on this topic: That no targeting closures would be inequitable, hard to enforce, and are based on faulty assumptions; That no harvest closures are also inequitable, disproportionately affect those operating in states with shorter seasons, and can allow states to cherry-pick closure periods that minimize their impact; that adjusting a slot limit to preserve what is left of 2018 year class; and that commercial and recreational reductions should be as close to equal as possible.

However, I'd like to go a step further as well. If we stand to lose a viable striped bass stock, and withstanding six years of extremely poor recruitment that doesn't seem unlikely, every business that relies on striped bass as a robust, healthy fishery is going to suffer. Losing sight of that fact in a quest for equity among sectors from recreational anglers, catch & kill charters, catch & release charters, and commercial fisherman means we will all eventually lose. There will come a point, and I firmly believe we are already at this point given the data at hand, that management action will need to be taken that negatively impacts some if not all businesses that rely on Atlantic striped bass; something like a moratorium on targeting striped bass or a moratorium on harvesting striped bass. Temporarily encumbering businesses in the recreational and commercial sectors that are responsible for driving the Atlantic striped bass stock into the ground will eventually be unavoidable. Though I'm an angler, writer, fly tyer and guide whose business benefits from being able to target striped bass, I'd rather be legally obliged to stop doing so for a short time than watch the fishery continue to decline to the point of collapse. No target and no harvest closures aren't the solution to rebuilding the stock, but perhaps a temporary coastwide moratorium, or coastwide gear restrictions (for example: single, barbless hooks, artificial lures only) that equitably affects every angler, guide, and business is. Either we lose business now and rebuild the stock, or we fail and see the stock collapse and lose our businesses for good anyway. I'd rather take the temporary hit than a permanent one.


Rowan M. Lytle

Guide, Connecticut Fly Angler

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Vernalis

 It took a fair bit of effort to get to the cleared, grassy hilltop my partner in field herping, Bruce, and I walked on warm, sunny late summer eve. Admittedly, Bruce had done most of the research, pouring over research papers, range maps, and even birding forums for what clues they might contain. It that was careful online sleuthing, more than a few highway hours, a night in a junky motel, then a variety of other chaotic transport that had led us to this place. Bruce and I were probably a few hundred feet apart at the time, just walking slowly in the grass and looking at the ground in front of us. To any passer by, we probably looked like we were looking for a lost wallet or phone. That wasn't our task though. We were looking for one of the most striking native animals in the northeast, and I was about to see one in the weirdest way. 

I zigzagged along, slowly, looking carefully for something pretty much the same color as the grass. I happened to look up though, in the general direction of a utility building. It was a fairly plain, windowless structure with reddish lap siding. There was about a foot and a half gap between the siding and the ground below it, and I watched as a roughly ten inch long bright green snake dropped out from the gap under the siding to the ground and slithered quickly into the vegetation. Watching this from a distance of a couple hundred feet, I cracked a smile and chuckled lightly. I wouldn't have believed it if someone told me I would see such a thing, but this place was so loaded with smooth green snakes that it wasn't as shocking as it might otherwise be. 

The smooth green snake, Opheodrys vernalis is native to the Northeastern US, Canadian Maritimes, great Lakes Region, and Upper Midwest, as well as scattered, discrete populations in Northern Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. They are small, dainty snakes that typically max out at 20 inches long, most being quite a bit smaller than that. Their standout trait is their bright green coloration, which can vary from olive to almost chartreuse. There's a few examples of tan colored smooth green snakes from Wisconsin, affectionately called smooth tan snakes by some herpers. When a bright green vernalis dies, the yellow pigmentation in their scales breaks down and the snake turns blue. Both living and dead, a smooth green snake is a creature that looks out of place in the northeast. Finding one, particularly for someone like myself that absolutely adores wild animals and appreciates the aesthetics of a brightly colored scale and the way light plays on it, looking under a stone and seeing an almost absurdly bright green snake in a perfect coil underneath never fails to inspire awe. Smooth green snakes look like they should come from the rainforest. And yet Bruce and I had traveled substantially northward to try to see as many as we could. Even before that one dropped out of the side of the building, we'd had a phenomenal amount of success with a variety of snake species, and smooth greens were the most numerous. 


This was especially exciting for us because smooth green snakes are a much declined species across much of their range in southern New England, where Bruce and I spend most of our time looking for snakes. The species needs meadowy, low brush, grassland habitat to persist. This can come in the form of coastal habitat where salty, dry conditions, sandy soil, and wind keep vegetation relatively low, old farmland that is lightly maintained and kept grassy and lively, and mountain top balds where trees grow slowly and open low brush persists. Unfortunately for green snakes, the way southern New England has developed hasn't favored meadows. A lot of farmland has now been developed, and some areas that were allowed to remain early successional habitat have now become wooded. Without easy travel corridors that they once would have benefited from, isolated pockets of smooth green snakes must make do with diminishing habitat and can't move to re-populate areas that change to become more favorable. The species' diet has also given it problems. Vernalis favor grasshoppers, soft bodied caterpillars, and spiders. Pesticide and insecticide use has taken a significant toll on these wonderful little snakes. Mosquito spraying, pesticide use on crops, and other chemical use in their habitat mean that otherwise suitable land often no longer has green snakes.  To find the abundance we'd dreamed of, we had gone somewhere that never had pesticide use, was built on very minimally, and had plentiful open habitat. It was a shame we had to go so far, nor should we have had to. Not that long ago they were more numerous in Connecticut, on Long Island, along coastal Rhode Island, and into Massachusetts. It isn't uncommon to run into older folks that will tell you "Oh, those green grass snakes? We used to see lots when we were kids". 



The habitat we searched had an exceptional abundance of another species I see in Connecticut but generally have to put a lot of effort into: the Northern redbelly snake. Redbelly snakes are not the most popular among the recreational herping world, they're widespread and can be quite numerous and are a diminutive species. But they are variable, often vibrant, and in my opinion photogenic. They can also be quite secretive, often going undetected for years even in fairly populated areas with a significant number of eyes out looking. 



Overall, the abundance of wildlife and native flora was robust in this place. It was refreshing when compared to some of the habitat left in CT that still holds a few green snakes, much of which is loaded with invasive plants and suffers from a compromised food chain, with perhaps too many of some species and far too few of others. One of the sites I visit that has records of vernalis is progressively more and more packed with bittersweet and large stands of mugwort. Another is so surrounded by development that it's hard to imagine that it could last forever, though the species does manage too eek out an existence in narrow corridors of habitat even in natural circumstances. That said, those populations don't have to worry so much about being hit by a car, chopped up in a mower, or poisoned by chemicals. In Connecticut, this has led to the species being listed "Special Concern", a designation that doesn't give a species a ton of protections, but means that its habitat is limited and the species isn't stable because of it. 


The story of the smooth green snake in much of Southern New England is subsequently a sad one, one made of lists of places that had but no longer have the species. There was even a time when human activity wasn't harmful but helpful to the vibrant snakes. Widespread land clearing coupled with slow moving farm equipment, no pesticide use, no motor vehicles, and a lower human population density meant that the special likely thrived in the farmlands and grasslands not long after colonization. They were quickly overtaken by the industrial revolution, though, and then really took hits as insecticides like DDT became heavily used, suburban sprawl continued, and traffic increased. The decline of any species is a sad one, much less such an iconic and vibrant one. Many New Englanders may never get to see that shockingly green flash of scales as a skittish smooth green snakes vanishes into the grass. In Missouri, where there hasn't been a report in more than 50 years, there is little to no hope or the species. In some other midwestern states they are listed endangered or threatened. Hopefully, with awareness and care, we can stem the tide. 



If you see a smooth green snake, observe and appreciate it for what it is. Take steps to reduce your impact in their habitat, like avoiding moving rock (cairns suck!) and logs or trampling low brush. And fight against further development that could continue to extirpate these animals from more and more of their range. 

Walking through town on our last day in the promised land of green snakes, I noticed a little bit of plastic tarp overlapping a rock wall at the edge of a garden. I gently lifted the corner of it and spotted the largest individual we'd seen all trip, a robust female that was thick from her head to her cloaca and had incredible coloration and robust crocodile jaws. It was one of the most stunning snakes I'd ever laid my eyes on and it was just under some plastic tarp in a garden. If we encourage the right behaviors, there's no reason there can't be diversity right in our backyards, whether it be brightly colored little snakes, bobcats, or butterflies. A lively yard and diverse, healthy habitat is much better for the soul than plain, mowed lawns devoid of diversity outside a few Lyme carrying ticks and some ants. This place was rife with that, liveliness was abundant, and everyone that lived there was happier that most Southern New Englanders I'm used to running into on the day to day. It's hard not to draw some correlation. 

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, Courtney, Hunter, Gordon, Thomas, Trevor and Eric 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.