# Interesting news about the Mahoning River



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

It was reported in the Youngstown Vindicator the other day about a project in place to remove all the low head dams in the Mahoning River. An event was held the other day that hosted Craig Butler, Ohio EPA director, and Jim Zehringer, ODNR director. The project is being spearheaded by the Eastgate Council of Governments. They are coordinating efforts among local governments to apply for grants from the OEPA to remove the dams, and restore the Mahoning River to a free flowing stream. 

The entire project envisions removing all low head dams from Lowellville to Leavittsburg, which is the entire stretch from Lake Milton to the Beaver River in PA! A dam in Lowellville is scheduled to be removed this Fall, and dam projects in Struthers, just upriver, are fully funded. A couple more projects, in Youngstown, are now partially funded. 

This is something I've hoped for, for years! The Mahoning can be a fantastic fishery, and an incredible recreational asset. It has already recovered quite a bit from the old days. This will only enhance it.


----------



## Morrow (Jul 29, 2018)

It's a good trend. Eagerly looking forward to when the Brecksville dam goes down this year and the Gorge Metropark dam goes next year. Cuyahoga has improved so much and I think a lot of people aren't even aware.


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

I agree entirely, these waterways have been constipated long enough. *Let 'er rip! *
I can't believe the EPA in Ohio is backing this move. Will wonders never cease.--Tim


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I disagree... summit street bridge dam in warren is a hot spot now (shhh).. not sure what this will do to it.


----------



## creekcrawler (Oct 5, 2004)

Yeah, but sometimes ya gotta give up a good spot for the overall health of the river, eh? 
Dams are bad.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## John Boat (Sep 23, 2014)

creekcrawler said:


> Yeah, but sometimes ya gotta give up a good spot for the overall health of the river, eh?
> Dams are bad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## John Boat (Sep 23, 2014)

Should have said: any plans for the kneedam in Newton Falls by the old Rockwell plant


----------



## stormfront (Feb 18, 2016)

I drive by what is left of the dam (?) in lowellville at least once a week and it sure does look ''fishy''. I've been half tempted to take a steelhead rod or a bass rod and fish that stretch. It sure is closer than Pymatuning. I guess having grown up in the valley in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I still have the notion that the water is toxic. Not that I would keep any fish but old biases are hard to let go of.

A couple of buddies fished near a dam in Warren and caught really nice walleyes and an occasional muskie. They were doing this over ten years ago during the winter.


----------



## coachfozz (Mar 19, 2006)

I like to know where the Cuyahoga is doing so much better. All my spots where I use to go or tried to find have been a foot deep at most. And it is just so crappy. Oh it is great for the wanna be Kayakers but not the fisherman


----------



## mosquito walleye (Aug 3, 2012)

stormfront said:


> I drive by what is left of the dam (?) in lowellville at least once a week and it sure does look ''fishy''. I've been half tempted to take a steelhead rod or a bass rod and fish that stretch. It sure is closer than Pymatuning. I guess having grown up in the valley in the 50s, 60s and 70s, I still have the notion that the water is toxic. Not that I would keep any fish but old biases are hard to let go of.
> 
> A couple of buddies fished near a dam in Warren and caught really nice walleyes and an occasional muskie. They were doing this over ten years ago during the winter.


I used to fish the dam in Lowellville all the time when I lived in Poland. I would catch walleye there all the time casting crank baits and swister tails. I would just lose a lot of bait doing it, but always caught plenty of walleye right around areas where the water wasn't moving as quick.


----------



## Morrow (Jul 29, 2018)

coachfozz said:


> I like to know where the Cuyahoga is doing so much better. All my spots where I use to go or tried to find have been a foot deep at most. And it is just so crappy. Oh it is great for the wanna be Kayakers but not the fisherman


In terms of water quality and fish, the river is honestly doing great everywhere now up until the Flats. The water color still throws a lot of people off but a muddy river is going to be a muddy river. I exclusively do bank fishing in the downstream sections. One of my favorite spots is the area around CanalWay Center. My personal opinion on best sections:

Downstream between Cuyahoga Heights and the CVNP up to the Brecksville Dam.
Upstream between Munroe Falls and Kent. 

You will still find shallow water in some spots but you don't have to venture far to find deeper areas, just look for bends in the river. The areas that are easily accessible are usually with shallow water, and people go for easy access then go home disappointed. If you put in a little effort to finding the deep water you will not regret it when you see the kinds of things you can pull out. I love the Cuyahoga for the challenge it provides alone.


----------



## coachfozz (Mar 19, 2006)

I have gone up in kent. lot of properties so it is hard getting to some places, but I cut through the graveyard and and work my way down that way. I will have to try again. But Munroe Falls down through Cuyahoga Falls is just horrible.


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

The dynamics of dam removal will allow the river to re-create itself naturally, this process takes years. The dams sometimes created "fish in a barrel" scenarios, but the spawning was stunted. As the moving water works it's magic, depositing silt and gravel, creating shoals and sandbars, fish will migrate and spawn further upriver. Spawning and fishing opportunities will improve further inland. It will take time, You'll be able to scout likely holes as with any wild water. Most importantly. numbers and quality of fish will rise. Of course you'll have to discover the new honey holes. --Tim


----------



## Morrow (Jul 29, 2018)

coachfozz said:


> I have gone up in kent. lot of properties so it is hard getting to some places, but I cut through the graveyard and and work my way down that way. I will have to try again. But Munroe Falls down through Cuyahoga Falls is just horrible.


Try Fred Fuller Park and Riveredge Park. FFP is popular with the pike anglers.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

coachfozz said:


> I have gone up in kent. lot of properties so it is hard getting to some places, but I cut through the graveyard and and work my way down that way. I will have to try again. But Munroe Falls down through Cuyahoga Falls is just horrible.


Every stretch of river is not created equal. I can't remember how long ago I heard the "10% of the water holds 90% of the fish" saying, but it's been awhile. That saying was made about lakes, but I suspect much the same is true for rivers and creeks although I don't think the percentages are quite that skewed. 

Wow had a great point. Dams are obvious stopping points for fish migrating upstream. One spring turkey season my BIL took me to his cabin just north of Marietta. We'd hunt turkey in the morning, have lunch, and then hit the river for some fishing. We'd fish below Devols dam, which is the last dam before the Muskingum flows into the Ohio.

Let me say that Devols dam is the longest, highest, "low" head dam I have ever seen! But, this is the Muskingum at it's biggest. I stood below that dam and caught walleye hand over fist! They were trying to make their way upstream to spawn. Fishing in a barrel, indeed!


----------



## coachfozz (Mar 19, 2006)

I hit near Kent for a few hours at sunrise. Had one pike on, but I didn't listen to myself to change over to wire leader. Well you all know what happened next. toothy creature 1 me 0. Couldn't get another bite after that, but it was fun to say the least.


----------



## caseyroo (Jun 26, 2006)

ezbite said:


> I disagree... summit street bridge dam in warren is a hot spot now (shhh).. not sure what this will do to it.


Tom thought about fishing before. I'm assuming eyes in Spring? What about Summer?


----------



## coachfozz (Mar 19, 2006)

buckeyebowman said:


> Every stretch of river is not created equal. I can't remember how long ago I heard the "10% of the water holds 90% of the fish" saying, but it's been awhile. That saying was made about lakes, but I suspect much the same is true for rivers and creeks although I don't think the percentages are quite that skewed.


I wasn't saying that about where the fish were. I am just saying, you can't just walk down the river because people have No Trespassing signs up everywhere. I know if I am in the water, it's not their property, but I don't have waders to do that plus I really don't want to hit a deep pocket and not see it LOL.


----------



## Chuck T Mechling (May 27, 2017)

Unfortunately if you’re in the water it means nothing in most places. Most property lines run under the water. So if you’re walking in the water it’s still their property. Makes no sense but I’ve had many arguments about this and lost every time. Technically you would have to be in a kayak or float tube to be off their property at least on the Rocky that’s the case.


----------



## crestliner TS (Jun 8, 2012)

Chuck T Mechling said:


> Unfortunately if you’re in the water it means nothing in most places. Most property lines run under the water. So if you’re walking in the water it’s still their property. Makes no sense but I’ve had many arguments about this and lost every time. Technically you would have to be in a kayak or float tube to be off their property at least on the Rocky that’s the case.


yes


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Yep! At least here in Ohio, if a property owner holds title to land on both sides of a creek or river, they own the land the river flows through! They, however, do NOT own the water that flows through their property, so canoers and kayakers are safe. 

There was a western state, I don't remember if it was Minnesota or Montana, that had a big to do about this some years back. Their riparian law was changed so that as long as an angler hiked in and stayed below the high water mark, they were safe. In other words, the definition of a "public waterway" was changed from flowing water only to high water mark to high water mark on either side of the stream. 

FWIW, I can understand why some property owners would be upset by this. Just go look at some public fishing spots close to you. If you're honest, you'd have to conclude that a lot of fishermen are pigs! Litter everywhere!


----------



## Jakethefisherman (Aug 2, 2014)

buckeyebowman said:


> Yep! At least here in Ohio, if a property owner holds title to land on both sides of a creek or river, they own the land the river flows through! They, however, do NOT own the water that flows through their property, so canoers and kayakers are safe.
> 
> There was a western state, I don't remember if it was Minnesota or Montana, that had a big to do about this some years back. Their riparian law was changed so that as long as an angler hiked in and stayed below the high water mark, they were safe. In other words, the definition of a "public waterway" was changed from flowing water only to high water mark to high water mark on either side of the stream.
> 
> FWIW, I can understand why some property owners would be upset by this. Just go look at some public fishing spots close to you. If you're honest, you'd have to conclude that a lot of fishermen are pigs! Litter everywhere!


I believe Pennsylvania is the same way. As long as you're below the high water mark you're good.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Jakethefisherman said:


> I believe Pennsylvania is the same way. As long as you're below the high water mark you're good.


Uh, I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand me. In either Ohio or PA you CANNOT hike in below the high water mark and be considered to be NOT trespassing. If your feet touch the streambed, you are on their property and ARE trespassing. You can only float through in a canoe, kayak, belly boat, inner tube, or whatever. 

The hiking example I gave above, pertains to a western state, and thinking about it more, I believe it's Montana! There, you CAN hike in below the high water mark and not trespass. It is called the "public access" law, and I believe it mainly pertains to fly fishers. They don't litter much compared to bait dunkers, so that may be why the law was changed.


----------



## Jakethefisherman (Aug 2, 2014)

buckeyebowman said:


> Uh, I'm not sure, but I think you misunderstand me. In either Ohio or PA you CANNOT hike in below the high water mark and be considered to be NOT trespassing. If your feet touch the streambed, you are on their property and ARE trespassing. You can only float through in a canoe, kayak, belly boat, inner tube, or whatever.
> 
> The hiking example I gave above, pertains to a western state, and thinking about it more, I believe it's Montana! There, you CAN hike in below the high water mark and not trespass. It is called the "public access" law, and I believe it mainly pertains to fly fishers. They don't litter much compared to bait dunkers, so that may be why the law was changed.


My fault! It's a little more complex in Pennsylvania, but still better than Ohio's law for (respectful) fishermen!

From the PA state website:

"Public rights to and on the water is a very complex area of Pennsylvania law. In Pennsylvania, the public's rights to fish in a particular stream depends in large part on whether the stream is "navigable." In general, the public has the right to fish in a navigable waterway. The accepted test of navigability is whether the waters are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce. If the water met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway. There is no single published listing of all the navigable waters in Pennsylvania.

Although the public has the right to fish in a navigable stream flowing through private lands, this does not mean that the public has the right to cross posted private lands to get to the stream."


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Yeah! When you're dealing with politicians and/or lawyers, who are basically one and the same, it can get complicated!


----------

