River Don Trust Habitat Improvement

[Wildfisher]

I think we probably all realise this was not the best or the most lasting  solution, but a few things must be borne in mind. For a start the estate might not have allowed the more lasting "boulder solution"  as this would not have improved  vehicle access in fact it may well have barred it altogether. The upper Don in that area is little more than a burn and the serious salmon fishing is all well downstream, thus  fishing may not count for much of the income.  This construction at least allows, for the time being, sightly improved fish access (fish HAVE for the first time been seen above it in  LOW  water) and much  improved vehicle access to the grouse moors.

The Don trust is run by volunteers and people like Iain (machar) and diverdave (Dave) give their time freely and generously. I have nothing but respect and admiration for these guys. Raising money for such projects is always going to be difficult and  while we as a forum  have supported  them by auctions etc this is by no means typical behaviour.  As a local I have always believed that in spite of  issues like  poor access, giant hogweed, high permit prices for trout fishing etc that seem to plague the Don it is better to try to focus on the bigger picture and that  locals should do more to support their local river. I have tried to support the trust through my fly line sales and have thus  put my hand in my pocket on more than one occasion, but sadly this also is not typical.  There is only so much one fishing forum and one individual can do! I am now no longer a local and my own duties will now move on  with me as they rightly should.

If local anglers and angling businesses  were more prepared to support the trust  perhaps a proper bridge and a better fish pass could have been built here. Perhaps some locals who are critical of the Don trust  should take a long hard look in the mirror  and ask  themselves what they have actually done?

[Traditionalist]

That's a problem in a lot of places Fred.  We don't have problems like that here as virtually all clubs allow part of the club fees to be "worked off" in the form of a minimum two days work on a club water so you can usually get quite a few bodies at least, but they still need planning and supervision. As the vast majority of waters are run and controlled by clubs here things tend to work out fairly well. It may however sometimes be difficult obtaining permission for various things in some places.  Things that directly affect landowners, ( although they have no say in the running of a water ), have to be discussed and planned well in advance of any work.

There are always people clamouring to come on electro-fishing work parties, but not so many for heaving boulders or litter clean-ups etc.

[Bobfly]

The idea of setting in a boulder cascade in that location would be to build entirely below the existing ford track crossing which also then supports the cross log and its existing ford formed by the deposition above. The ford is not affected and the stream below is brought up a little through the use of the boulders. The Canadians and western US Forest Services have done a lot of this sort of work related to culvert outfall scouring leaving a waterfall spouting out of a pipe and correcting this; also by installing zigzag baffle ridges inside larger Armco invert D pipe crossings if these have a paved smooth insert. In this particular upland moorland setting you are not going to be having woody debris coming down but any Irish Bridge is always very susceptible to silting up at the pipe entries as the moving bedload in these streams is quite considerable in spates and material will build across above the topside. In the longer term a new "ford" may very well be created upstream from the new installation.

[Wildfisher]

That's great information  Vaughan. The high levels and diversity of expertise in our community  never ceases to amaze me.