I think because Rayburn is so big and catches a lot of water, there’s good flowing water most of the time and it dilutes the herbicide to a point where it doesn’t wipe everything out.

The herbicide used is sprayed directly on the salvinia. Not much collateral damage

I have alway thought TPW should use Rayburn as an example of how to treat lakes for vegetation. I also wonder how the fact that there are no home owners with docks etc plays into the mix.

[quote=tmcdet]I have alway thought TPW should use Rayburn as an example of how to treat lakes for vegetation. I also wonder how the fact that there are no home owners with docks etc plays into the mix.[/quote

Shouldn't be something you have to wonder about..... Tyler, Cypress, Conroe are just a few lakes where land owner pressure was related to spraying.

Over the years It's been amazing to watch the growth of hydrilla at Amistad. The rate of growth and it's ability to reseed with the ever changing water levels was phenomenal.. Until 2012-2013 when they dropped the lake over 60ft in a few months to a record low. They pulled the water so fast the hydrilla was unable to keep pace and it all but disappeared for several years. IMO a lot of forage especially the crawfish stayed in the huge piles of hydrilla that was soon dried out and yards away from the water.
If Rayburn ever looses ALL or a majority of the vegetation like Amistad, it will suffer the same struggles, maybe worse because of it's location.

Neither Rayburn nor Toledo fit this description. Power generation, flood control probably best fits their purpose description but no major municipalities draw from either. Indirectly one could say that Rayburn can affect LNVA water acquisition but it's not the end-all of that entity.

Having said that it seems that vegetation on Rayburn falls victim to HIGHLY fluctuating water levels. It'll be 6-8' low one summer then 8' high the next spring. Those 15' fluctuations prevent the massive hydrilla fields of the 1990's and thusly affects overall fish populations. I'd think this could be in concert with COE who have direct control, with TP&W blessings. It's pretty damn cost effective. Sure there's still bass and in those springs with high water levels recruitment is good for that year class but what about the massive numbers of invertebrates that thrive in the hydrilla fields? It's been said that fish populations need water quality, cover, and prey to thrive and the hydrilla gives it all in abundance.

And one other thing, don't give me that bull about "invasive" species. Let's amend it to say " destructive invasive species". Invasives are everywhere. In the air starlings and English sparrows. Then what about bahia grass that makes up over 50% of the pastureland in East Texas? I don't see the state spraying pastures. In fact I see the state planting non-native plants along roadways (pampas grasses). Hydrilla is not destructive to habitat. It almost seems like a war on good fishing.

As my GP used to say: "Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining". It pisses me off all the TP&W apologists.

agree.....describing hydrilla as invasive and spraying it is nothing more than an flimsy excuse to repay chemical companies for their campaign contgributions and scholarships/grants they use to influence biologists/legislators....

Is there a way to get hydrilla off the invasive species list?