>From: Christopher Scharpf <ichthos_at_charm.net>
>Reply-To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
>To: NANFA Mailing List <nanfa_at_aquaria.net>
>Subject: Re: NANFA-- Natives should get TV exposure
>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:39:01 -0400
>
>Luke said:
>
> >is the Kansas River right here in my home state. 500 years ago it would
> >have generally been a brown, muddy mess containing specific species
> >groups. Now, thanks to Federal resevoirs controlling the flow, it is
> >generally a "reasonably" clear stream, with a totally different group of
> >species inhabiting it.
>
>So you're saying that the Kansas River is better off ecologically because
>its
>natural turbidity has been reduced by dams (which trap sediments and hold
>them
>in the reservoir) and because "a totally different group of species" (which
>I
>presume includes introduced gamefishes) inhabit it?
>
>By that logic, the Colorado River is better off today than when it was a
>raging,
>turbid "mess" filled with "trash" fish such as humpback chub and razorback
>sucker!
>
> > But, my point is that not every stream in N.A. was at one
> >point "clean and clear" running.
>
>Streams may not have been clear, but they were clean (i.e., free from
>contaminants which harm wildlife and humans).
>
> >Many streams where always dirty in some
> >way and the water not fit for drinking. It's a myth that they were...
>
>Natural turbidity doesn't mean the water isn't potable. Simply let the
>sediments
>settle for a few hours and then drink up!
>
>The myth, as you describe it here, is simply the common misconception that
>clear
>water is axiomatically better water. Healthy water is often clouded with
>life
>(algae, diatoms, etc.). The "more natural looking" water of clear mountain
>streams (so common in beer commericals) is virtually lifeless.
>
>According to FISHES IN KANSAS, the clarity of streams just below
>impoundments is
>usually offset a few miles downstream due to the erosion of streambanks.
>Flood-protected streams discharge all of their annual flow through the
>channel,
>which causes even more streambank erosion. Eroding streambanks also
>stabilize
>the flow bottom, reducing the number of pools and reducing fish habitat.
>The
>diversity of the fish fauna is thereby reduced.
>
>Of course, dams have produced many lakes in virtually lakeless Kansas,
>which is
>good for the fish that can live in them, and too bad for the ones that
>cannot.
>
>
>Chris Scharpf
>
>
>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
>/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
>/ Association"
>/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
>Association
>/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
>/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
>/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
>/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
>/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
>http://www.nanfa.org
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org