The "experts" told us for a century that stomach ulcers were caused by all kinds of stuff...caffeine, stress, etc. Now we find out that almost all of them are caused by a certain bacteria.

The "experts" have told us for years that global warming is going to destroy the Earth. The polar ice caps are melting, polar bears are stranded on tiny floating rafts of melting ice, temperatures are rising exponentially, and before long New York City will be under water. Now we find out that most of the "research" done by the "experts" was a hoax. Temperatures are actually getting cooler, not warming. And while the northern polar ice cap has shrunk in the last 30 years, the southern (Antarctic) cap has actually EXPANDED.

Hmmm...I guess the "experts" don't always get it right, do they?

As far as "managing" hydrilla in Texas lakes being the reason fish haven't been slaughtered and our waters taken over by enormous blobs of matted grass, what treatments have the TP&WD or other "experts" on "invasive species" conducted on Rayburn, Fork, or Nacogdoches to keep those lakes from being decimated by hydrilla?

BTW...Florida bass aren't native to Texas waters, either. Do we want to eradicate them, too, and go back to only "native Texas" species?

No doubt that moderate hydrilla growth benefits our fisheries. It can create oxygen, give fry a place to hide, and best of all it is a gathering place for bass to feed and hide out during the summer heat. And I agree that our larger lakes could handle hydrilla growth since they are deep enough to keep it from becoming detrimental. However, I'm sure TPWD is concerned since these larger lakes feed into many other smaller lakes, ponds, creeks, and channels that could be hurt from the presence of hydrilla. It may even cause drainage/flooding issues if some of these waterways became obstructed by hydrilla. I can also see where some major flooding problems could occur if pumps became clogged/inoperable during heavy rains.

I have to put my trust in the TPWD to do what is best for our waterways. I am fairly certain they would not spend money to control it unless they believed it was necessary.

I am also wondering what the TPWD is doing to manage the Hydrilla on the lakes that have had them for a while? I mean are they really doing anything?

I have read that they have wiped it out on some lakes by lowering the water level and other such activities but as far as the lakes that have it now and have had it for a while, what exactly are they doing to "manage" it? It seems as if it would manage itself on a large resevoir.

I would agree that on a lake/pond that is tiny and averages 2-3' in depth for the entire body, hydrilla would take it over, but a lake with that profile would probably suck in the first place, unless your talking about Okeechobee.

It seems to me that Hydrilla is not aesthetically pleasing to the eye of the HOA's and Recreational users so thats mainly why it gets a bad wrap.

Legalize Hydrilla

The main drawback to Hydrilla is, it makes great cover for Giant Sylvania in its early stages. The Giant Sylvania will manifest very quickly, and take over the Hydrilla, and then bam you got a problem.

You are very right RayBob! However, if you have hydrilla growin in say 6ft of water, only the top foot of the plant at the surface recieves enough sunlight to use photosynthesis. The other bottom 5ft of the plant doesnt recieve enough sunlight and there for cannot use photosynthesis so it has to rely on pulling oxygen out of the water to produce energy. This is only done by quatic plants that i know of. Also, during the night time or in low light days, the entire plant relies on pulling oxygen out of the water when photosynthesis can not be utilized. AND, on top of all that oxygen depletion, when the plant dies when cooler weather comes along, and floats to the bottom. Decomposers start to break down the plant to eat. In doing this they pull more oxygen out of the water than would normally happen with native decomposing.
So since this is a rapid growing invasive plant that highly chokes oxygen levels in the water, it cant be good for the bass if its choking them from good oxygen levels as it takes over bigger areas of our lakes. It might be good and fun for now but if it continues to grow it will harm our fisheries that are not acustom to it.

You are very right RayBob! However, if you have hydrilla growin in say 6ft of water, only the top foot of the plant at the surface recieves enough sunlight to use photosynthesis. The other bottom 5ft of the plant doesnt recieve enough sunlight and there for cannot use photosynthesis so it has to rely on pulling oxygen out of the water to produce energy. This is only done by quatic plants that i know of. Also, during the night time or in low light days, the entire plant relies on pulling oxygen out of the water when photosynthesis can not be utilized. AND, on top of all that oxygen depletion, when the plant dies when cooler weather comes along, and floats to the bottom. Decomposers start to break down the plant to eat. In doing this they pull more oxygen out of the water than would normally happen with native decomposing.
So since this is a rapid growing invasive plant that highly chokes oxygen levels in the water, it cant be good for the bass if its choking them from good oxygen levels as it takes over bigger areas of our lakes. It might be good and fun for now but if it continues to grow it will harm our fisheries that are not acustom to it. [/quote]

This might be adumb question but during the winter when the hydrilla is in the decomposing stage, wont most fish be located in the thermocline that should be deeper than any of the decomposing hydrilla may be?

On a side note regarding the oxygen deprivation while the vegitation is decomposing. A few people may be familiar with Oak Creek Lake, and for those not fimiliar Ill give you a quick story.
Up until about 5 yrs ago the area was in a 15yr drought. During that time the lake was down to a very small body of water and during that time the remaining 50-75% of the total lake grew up VERY thick with Salt cedar, large timber, and grass. The big specualtion was that if the lake were to fill up too quickly there would be a major fish kill to to the low amout of oxygen due to the decomposition of the vegetation. The lake filled in about a 2 day stretch to full capacity, and then was the wait. There was absolutely no negative impact on the fishing and in fact the fishing and quality of fish is better than ever. This is why with the exception of very small bodies of water it doesnt seem to make and impact on the fish while the vegetation is decomposing. I am no expert and I'm not arguing with anyone. This is just what Ive observed. Can anyone give and example (in Texas) of a normal size lake where the bass have been negatively affected by the decomposition of hydrilla?

It increases the evaporation rate of water during photsynthesis, that's why water agencies don't want it. Home owners either. It's pretty much a no brainer from an ecosytem standpoint, habitat at all levels. Just look at the lakes that have it and how productive they are.

One other point to consider when comparing hydrilla growth in Texas to other places like Florida is climate. Give the hydrilla a year round growing season and it tends to be much more aggressive. Fortunately for Texas, most of the state is too cold for hydrilla growth during the winter months and it dies back. That limits the growth to a more beneficial level.

Fire Ranger,
I totally understand and im sure there are lakes where bass have not been effected by the hydrilla and maybe even made better habitats for them but what works on one lake doesnt always work on all lakes. You cant have hydrilla only in those lakes that it shows benifit too because it will ultimately spread to other lakes (smaller shallow lakes) transported by boaters that dont take proper procedures in cleaning their boat before running to that other lake. Soon it could spead to many lakes and effect those small lakes where the fish cant handle the sudden change in habitat and oxygen levels being changed.
The info posted about what hydrilla can do to a fishery is based off of biological data recorded by biologists that i have read including articles from the TPWD magazine. I tend to be leary of the stuff being good for all lakes if experts in that field have questionable ideas of detrimental side effects to the fish we love to catch. I just tend to believe scientific evidence over short term fishing results. But thats just my opinion. The resulting side effects of this alien species in habitats that arent used to it could slowly over time change things that we may not benefit from or that the habitiat my not benefit from. Any new invasive alien species effects a habitat in some bad way and some good ways. I just hope the hydrilla doesnt effect the fishing in a bad way over time.

True, unless you travel down to areas in South Texas. South of San Antonio where there are many Texas lakes that dont suffer colder weather like the ones in the DFW area such as Choke Canyon, Falcon and Amistad are a few that dont get to cool of weather like norh texas does and they are good bass lakes.

We will just have to disagree. Hydrilla won't stay where some people would like to plant it. (which is how this thread started)And it will spread down the entire watershed to lakes that don't have it and cannot handle it. Whether that be public or private waters, dominated by fishermen or HOAs. TPWD has the responsibilty to represent all of these users (tax payers) and not just fishermen. It may add cover to the lake where ya'll want to put it and be just fine but ya'll are not thinking of those people downstream from you who may not want it. So we'll just disagree on this one. And I'll eat the tax comment I made earier. I thought that may be lost on those on the other side of this issue. Its just that topics like this make me want to get a conservative view out there. So you can have your thoughts about putting Hydrilla in every lake but think about this; if we can't look past our own noses and see the other guys point of view and how this "can" affect others and even the future then we have no business calling ourselves conservationists. Now lets end this thread soon so we can talk about what they are hitting on around the Hydrilla. Lol

Why can't coontail be used as a replacement as hydrilla? Or is it the same grass with a different name?

Different plant. Hydrilla is much more tolerant and will grow in a wider range of conditions.

Hydrilla

Coontail

The Wildlife Dept here in Oklahoma have tried implementing coontail on some of the lakes here and it just wont grow very well. Its not near as resilient as Hydrilla. There are a number of factors that can wipe it out, including varying water levels, a strong cold winter, and muddy conditions. Hydrilla can usually make it through these adversities. Coontail is great but not real resilient through the adversities of what a reservoir sometimes has.