A beaver took down a cottonwood about an hour ago, 75 yards upstream of the boat launch at Teanaway Junction. It is a full sweeper. The river is pushing boats to river left, but there is just enough room to ferry hard to river right and portage. Be careful out there!!
New Sweeper Yakima River upstream of Teanaway Junction launch
- Thread starter Skeena88
- Start date
Drift down, drop anchor, chainsaw from the bow.... solution
It always amazes me when fisherfolk advocate cutting up or digging up fish habitat. That piece has much more value to the river system as an intact piece. Wait a little while, I think it is most likely that flows will come up soon and push that aside. In the meantime, just go around. Thanks for the heads-up to the OP so people can prepare and behave appropriately on the river.
Go woody debris! Go Beavers!
app.leg.wa.gov
Go woody debris! Go Beavers!
WAC 220-660-220:
I cross-posted a link in the Watercraft, River Flows & Safety/Washington River Flows/'Yakima River' thread... https://pnwflyfishing.com/forum/index.php?threads/yakima-river.9208/
Thanks!
If the hazard condition changes, feel free to post an update in the Yak River thread or notify me so I can add an update!
Thanks!
BDD
Steelhead
As someone who spends a third of his full-time work restoring freshwater habitat for salmon and steelhead, I appreciate this remark. Conversely, as someone who spends a lot of time talking about safety at work and who formerly frequently discussed the merits and capabilities of running rafts and pontoons in moving water, I can also appreciate the desire to move this object to make river recreation safer.It always amazes me when fisherfolk advocate cutting up or digging up fish habitat. That piece has much more value to the river system as an intact piece. Wait a little while, I think it is most likely that flows will come up soon and push that aside. In the meantime, just go around. Thanks for the heads-up to the OP so people can prepare and behave appropriately on the river.
Go woody debris! Go Beavers!
WAC 220-660-220:
In the boats I use, it would be easy to move around this obstacle. For guides and other larger boats, it's going to be a bigger inconvenience. Generally speaking, human safety might trump a single large woody material structure whereas that same habitat structure might trump fishing guide convenience. It is of my opinion that sometimes governments make decisions that don't incorporate a lot of common sense. In this case, I'd compromise by removing enough of the cottonwood to allow safe passage and leave the rest in place and let Mother Nature take it's course.
I’m sure this would be the intention of @Shawn Seeger. I would do the same and leave all of the tree in the river, but allow safe passage. As for beavers, send them our way so that we can see more of the river. The Corps of Engineers won’t even let the city clear weeds from the walking path along the river.
Yeah I get it. Sorry if I take the pessimistic view these days. Seems to be a pattern.
Of course people need to stay safe and stay alive, and that is more important than one tree spanning this low flow channel. (Even though it won’t be for long)
I’ll just say I’ve seen more than once where someone turned a potential key piece of habitat forming LWD into basically firewood and a stump, all of which floats away in one winter, after assuring a light touch and just enough to enable safe passage.
I guess people just like their rivers clean and their drainage quick. I don’t think that’s the historic state of rivers when they were much more productive, and I don’t think it’s the best for fish but
Of course people need to stay safe and stay alive, and that is more important than one tree spanning this low flow channel. (Even though it won’t be for long)
I’ll just say I’ve seen more than once where someone turned a potential key piece of habitat forming LWD into basically firewood and a stump, all of which floats away in one winter, after assuring a light touch and just enough to enable safe passage.
I guess people just like their rivers clean and their drainage quick. I don’t think that’s the historic state of rivers when they were much more productive, and I don’t think it’s the best for fish but
Hey Matt, just to be as clear as I can, I do NOT support habitat destruction.Yeah I get it. Sorry if I take the pessimistic view these days. Seems to be a pattern.
Of course people need to stay safe and stay alive, and that is more important than one tree spanning this low flow channel. (Even though it won’t be for long)
I’ll just say I’ve seen more than once where someone turned a potential key piece of habitat forming LWD into basically firewood and a stump, all of which floats away in one winter, after assuring a light touch and just enough to enable safe passage.
I guess people just like their rivers clean and their drainage quick. I don’t think that’s the historic state of rivers when they were much more productive, and I don’t think it’s the best for fish but
That being said sometimes I think some people have gotten to the point of cutting off our nose to spite our face. Fish restoration is such a multi-faucet issue that fixing or restoring a single piece will not fix the entire problem. Now, I also am a Strong proponent of doing what we can, even small steps. I also understand that sometimes in trying to fix one problem we create another, i.e. farmed salmon and sealice/chemical treatment, wind power and endangered birds being killed, etc. I have also seen first hand that if we stand back and do nothing we see more habitat destruction after planet earth/ mother nature does its thing i.e Mt Saint Helen, lightening strike fire, beaver dams breaking free, etc.
I think there are times (many of recent) that we might have lost our ability to see the forest because of the trees. Unless we as a species can understand that sometimes our actions do have consequences (sometimes negative) but for the greater good we of our species we have/need to make hard choices, we will decline. Also, we can't go hard over doing more destruction than good, so must have some balance of progress and planning.
I wasn't suggesting that all sweepers be removed from all streams and rivers, but I am also not suggesting that we spend billions on putting sweepers into rivers and streams, over feeding and educating children with said funds.
I am all for kicking over cairns and removing rock dams and sitting pools! Even though as a kid I built a lot of them.
I have pointed out to my wife in traveling across Northern Washington had to Spokane on back roads, the above ground water flume for both farming and log transportation and commented, we have some that stop this kind of activity today even if it meant curing cancer.
Peace
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with cancer and I don’t believe one piece of wood will restore the Mid Columbia basin’s fisheries. I also don’t think that piece really *needs* to be cut, and that there is a pervasive attitude that cutting wood out of a stream is no big deal. I’m here saying that on a systemic level, it is a big deal, and I wish we would stop (mostly). I also think many people don’t realize that our rivers today do not resemble the rivers of yesterday, in large part because they were cleaned of wood, straightened, deepened, banks armored, cleared and farmed. It’s nice for safe recreation to float down an open channel, but open unobstructed channels are mostly a new, manmade condition, compared to historic references.
This is mostly a pointless discussion anyway since the smart money says that thing’s already been chainsawed. But one more thing to ponder—folks who are gung ho about unpermitted wood cutting in streams—isn’t that basically being like Travers and his Main Amendment? Only follow the laws you care to and ignore the others you find inconvenient…
Thank you. I have not seen this before and look forward to reading it.
I don't fish the Yakima very often and I don't know if many anglers will float this reach between now and when the high flows occur. If this piece of LW is likely to cause injury or harm before it gets mobilized by high flow, then WDFW may allow intervention. Before cutting the tree, please call the WDFW area habitat biologist (Jennifer Nelson) and ask her if this is something she could permit either by oral approval or by an expedited HPA. If oral approval is given, document the conversation by summarizing it in an email to the biologist.
The following scope of work may be something that she could approve.
Removal of the top 10 to 12 feet of the trunk would be sufficient to allow a boat to be walked through without substantially reducing the habitat benefits of the rest of this deciduous tree. The top of the trunk is only about 12 inches in diameter. The cut should be made with hand tools and not a chain saw to keep bar oil out of the water. The top section should be left on the right bank gravel bar to allow recruitment at higher flow. Feel free to use my photographs in correspondence with WDFW.
The following scope of work may be something that she could approve.
Removal of the top 10 to 12 feet of the trunk would be sufficient to allow a boat to be walked through without substantially reducing the habitat benefits of the rest of this deciduous tree. The top of the trunk is only about 12 inches in diameter. The cut should be made with hand tools and not a chain saw to keep bar oil out of the water. The top section should be left on the right bank gravel bar to allow recruitment at higher flow. Feel free to use my photographs in correspondence with WDFW.
| Name | Jennifer Nelson |
| WDFW email | Jennifer.Nelson@dfw.wa.gov |
| WDFW Phone Number | (509) 961-6639 |
| Role | biologist |
I think both interests can be served here. Cut 15 feet off the top of that sweeper so boats can pass river right, but leave the rest to wash out when the water comes up and get planted where it can do some good (although judging from where it is, that thing might end up blocking the boat access, which would seem a bummer). The top portion will probably break off anyway when nature decides to move it.