Big Darby Creek State and National Scenic River

12987 Views 60 Replies 16 Participants Last post by Links r Us, Mar 16, 2005

Erie

Discussion Starter · Jan 10, 2003

2

~ http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/test/sr/bdarby.htm

Eighty-two miles of the Big Darby
Creek and its major tributary, Little
Darby Creek, were designated as state
scenic rivers in 1984.

The Darby Creek System constitutes
some of the most important natural
resources in central Ohio.

Flowing through rich agricultural
bottomland of Union, Madison,
Franklin and Pickaway counties, the
creek's valley is characterized by
gently rolling topography in the upper
reaches to relatively steep,
heavily-wooded topography in lower
portions. Both streams were included
in the national scenic rivers program
in 1994.

Big and Little Darby Creeks are noted
nationally for their tremendous
diversity and abundance of both
aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals.

They are home to 86 species of fish, five of which are endangered in Ohio including the federally
endangered Scioto Madtom, which is endemic to the area.

Forty-one species of freshwater mollusks live in these waters, eight of which are on the Ohio
endangered list. The Darby Creek watershed covers an area of 556.6 square miles.

The creeks banks are flanked with native vegetation varying considerably in width; from only a narrow
line of trees to deep and extensive forests. Floodplain trees such as buckeye, sycamore, silver maple
and box elder tolerate periods of inundation. Species more adapted to drier soils such as oak and sugar
maple line the valley walls.

Remnant prairie species such as purple coneflower, the threatened prairie false indigo and Indian
paintbrush inhabit the slopes and bluffs along the streams. Numerous species of birds and mammals
depend upon this linear strip of undisturbed habitat for their existence.

Page last updated 11/26/02

See less See more

21 - 40 of 61 Posts

Flatheadmaniac

· #21 · Feb 4, 2003

hey Erie

Instead of spreading the "word" about the Darbys..why dont you spead the "word" about YOUR fishing lake ..
"let each man find his OWN way" is always my moto!!!!!!!

BottomBouncer

· #22 · Feb 4, 2003

Well.........dam...........so much for that idea. Guess I'll have to get the map out and find another section of creek(s).

Flatheadmaniac

· #23 · Feb 4, 2003

All i can say is this..

Better get there before the crowds this year if you expect to catch anything of quality...my biggest smallie from little D. is 19.75"..with of course a few 100 17-18" fish.
My son Tyler on his first season of wading EVER landed his two biggest from little D. a 17" & 18.5"(pics on my sight).
Those kind of fish from that area is a great catch..just ask the Smallmouth Alliance guys who wade that same stretch...lol

I liked little D. for my boys as its clean, clear , mostly all gravel/chuck rock(no MUCK) and is shallow enough for them to comfortably wade...awsome place to teach kids as this stream holds all kinds of species.

Im sad at the things that are happening with the sale of this land..but its ok..i still have private access to Little D. farther north and there are some hefty smallies untouched in that stretch still!

Thank God my Big D. spots are in no danger of being opened to the public!!!
Yea your thinking it..and your right..SELFISH [email protected] aint i...well yes i am..and proud of it too!
If all anglers treated smallies with the respect they deserve..i'd tell you all the knowlege, spots i have collected over 16 yrs of smallie fishing local streams..but lots of anglers DONT treat them like a true gamefish and too many end up on some dinner table....

I think all of the creeks that are "State and National Scenic Rivers" should be protected better to preserve the great fishing they contain....there should be "catch & release" areas just like them dang TROUT steams have like Mad River ..along with "artifical lure" areas only!!
Bet if these were "prized" EYE streams, there'd be some heavy restrictions, count on that!!

See less See more

BottomBouncer

· #24 · Feb 4, 2003

The people that meathunt these areas could give two shi ts about restrictions. I'll never forget fishing below griggs and watching this group of "minorities" keeping everything they caught, which include a wide size range of smallies.
What these places need is someone to enforce the laws.

Flatheadmaniac

· #25 · Feb 4, 2003

BB

Years ago i used to hit Griggs dam and catch channel cats, whitebass, crappie and a bunch of good smallies(good for that area)..NOW..heck its not worth getting in that nasty water for!

I tell ya what..the areas where the Darbys run will not ever have a close eye watching it..too much land, too little amount of Rangers to cover it...i have went in on PARK property fished half the day..and left with out seeing anyone or any park rangers..if i was a meathunter..i'd have been eating great for a few WEEKS!!!!

Yet they say we dont have the funds to hire more Rangers..but yet they are buying up land like its going for a $1 an acre?????
Makes no sence..but stock some eyes in there and watch the Rangers pop up everywhere....sick isnt it!
Thats been my biggest grip with the ODNR..use my money to stock fish i dont fish for...use my money to hire rangers to watch the lakes..but mean while 1000's of whitebass , hybrids and smallies are being takin from the Ohio r...when we call them..they show up two days from the day we called!!

If the meathunters really want some tips..here ya go..stay away from the lakes..the rivers are open for you all to rape and pilage..all you got to do is catch the fish by whatever means you want..heck no one will bust you trust me..i get asked for my license maybe once every two years IF THAT...so you dont even need to buy a license if you dont want!!

See less See more

BottomBouncer

· #26 · Feb 4, 2003

Did you hear this one.............Taft is raising a bunch of costs.......including outdoors licenses(fishing, hunting, etc.)
Wonder if the ODNR will see that money or if we'll see some changes. I'd volunteer FOR FREE if they gave me some tickets to issue to these low lifes. I've said it before, they could afford all the officers they want if they take a month to patrol all the bridge crossings, tailwaters/dams and pull-off areas.

Flatheadmaniac

· #27 · Feb 4, 2003

i got a better idea

(of course just a selfish one that would benifit ME)

I say make many different licenses..like

$20 LAKE permit(allows you to fish all the PUBLIC lakes in Ohio except Erie).

$30 Erie Permit(allows you to fish all legal waters on Erie for Ohio)

$25 Stream permit(allows you to fish all streams classified as creek, run, ect.)

$30 River Permit(allows you fish the streams classified as RIVERS including the Ohio r.)

That way the money for each permit will benifit the one it was bought for..Erie permit goes to Erie funds, River Permit goes to River funds, ect.

Heck i'd even go as far as to say..lets just make fishing license $50 this year and be done with it!!!
I'd pay $150 for a license if they put tighter restrictions like slot limits, catch & release areas, ect on ALL waters..not just the one THEY think are important..or generating money in thier pockets!

See less See more

MISFIT

· #28 · Feb 4, 2003

good info ray

while looking at all the regs(which i do often)i noticed the 1 fish/15 inch min. on the "protected" section of the darby and a few other streams.

i also noted there are 12 ich min. in some places and slot limits at others,and even an 18 inch limit at a few other places.most,however have a 5 fish daily limit.

i also happened to notice that the mad river trout are even less protected than some of the bass,with a 2 fish/12 inch min.
also most other trout in the state have a 5 fish limit w/no min. size.

another thing i noticed is that most eye limits throughout the state are 6 w/no min. length,with a couple rare exceptions,and even 10 fish in some areas.

guess sometimes one can't see the forest for the trees

i hope they don't implement a permit per type of water fished

it would be ok for those who only fish one type of water,but for those of us who like to fish all the above mentioned plces,it cut cut into my budget a little

See less See more

BottomBouncer

· #29 · Feb 4, 2003

I was telling FM about a guy I saw up on Alum last summer. He had at least four rods out. Fishing just off a point in the NO-WAKE area. Had this guy been about 20 yards back into that cove he would have been over the best crappie hole in that area. I'd gaurantee he'd cleaned out that cove in one day and came back for more. But.....he didn't catch any and I waited until he left to go back in there.

I often wonder why the officers are? Some of these more popular areas are the places you hardly see them.

Andy Gehle

· #30 · Feb 4, 2003

Well Scott,
I guess I hadn't thought about the land purchase in the terms that you speak of. I guess it could suck in some ways,but I'm hopeful that in the long run,that this is a good thing.
I totally see your point in regards to access and fishing pressure. I'm sometimes more concerned with things like farming practices,bank degredation, and pollution than fishing pressure. I feel like these things have a greater impact on the overall health of a stream than meathunters,though both are definately issues.
I'm with you,dude. I'll crap my pants when I start seeing guys flinging trash in areas that used to go untouched. I hope that this purchase is a step towards some tighter restrictions on creel limits and the like. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm hoping that the D's are receiving enough positive attention that they'll garner enough support to protect them for our boys and their boys.....
I'm going to try to follow up on this one and learn more about what the long term plans are for the D's. Maybe it's time to write the Congressional Sportsmans Caucus and see just what's going on?
I'll share what I find out.

See less See more

Andy Gehle

· #31 · Feb 4, 2003

BTW, The Ohio Smallmouth Alliance will have a booth this weekend at the Sports Show. I'll most likely be manning the booth for a while, not sure just when yet. Stop in and say Hi and we'll ask some of those guys their thoughts on this issue.

cwcarper

· #32 · Feb 5, 2003 (Edited by Moderator)

I can definitely understand why the few people who are currently able to fish this soon to be public stretch of water would be unhappy at seeing it become part of the parks system. Believe me, if I were in your position, I'd be unhappy too.

I guess I have more of a utilitarian view, though, when it comes to this subject. To me, it's better for the general public to be able to enjoy the stream, rather than preserve it for the benefit of the select few. Goes for anywhere, not just the Darbys.

BottomBouncer

· #33 · Feb 5, 2003

I don't think it is just for preserving it for a select few, but also for the wildlife to have a natural area that doesn't have people running all around it.
I hate seeing any sort of development that isn't really necessary.....always makes me wonder where all the animals go?

cwcarper

· #34 · Feb 5, 2003

That's a good point. I wasn't really looking at it from the environmental angle, rather from the outdoorsman angle(intentionally). I was actually just playing devil's advocate to what Scott had posted

. There's a fine line between necessary/useful development and protecting/preserving the environment. Go too far one way and you look like an environment hating, care more about yourself than the animals kind of person. Too far the other and you look like a member from PETA or Greenpeace, or pick your organization.

BottomBouncer

· #35 · Feb 5, 2003

I always liked going out on the boat, or walking a shoreline and having the racoons, and other animals running around........

I think I posted this before, but one time while fishing below Griggs dam.........nearly in the middle of Columbus a deer ran across the river........people were all over the shore and wading.

Kinda felt like I was on the Discovery channel or something

Andy Gehle

· #36 · Feb 6, 2003

You guys kind are kind of making this sound like a shopping mall is going in. It's a park,for cryin out loud. Take some time to check out the 3-4 links at the beginning of this post and look at all the efforts that are already being made to CONSERVE the entire stretch of the D. The way I read it,this land is now guarenteed to remain protected forever,even if the Metro Park were to sell the land. That sounds pretty good to me. It also protects this land from being sold into farm acreage and the inherent problems that come from farming and runoff.
Sure more people will have access to some areas that were previously private. It's not like you couldn't float hrough this stretch already,it will just be more accessable by foot.Personally,I'll take my chances with the Parks Dept over some kids who inherited the land from Dad.I'm not saying that the Galbreaths would have ever developed this property, but they did sell it didn't they? This way we KNOW that it won't be turned into condos or a pig farm.
I guess everyone sees this differently. But i think the pros outweigh the cons.

See less See more

flathunter

· #37 · Feb 7, 2003

I totally understand the way Scott feels on this issue!

Erie

Discussion Starter · #38 · Feb 11, 2003

The Fishes of Trautman's Riffle ...

http://bigdarby.com/Trautman.pdf

Erie

Discussion Starter · #39 · Feb 12, 2003

Darby Dan History ...

http://www.darbyhouse.com/history.shtml

Erie

Discussion Starter · #40 · Feb 12, 2003

Failed Darby refuge plan could help Metro Parks ...

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/failed_darby_refuge_plan_could_h.htm

21 - 40 of 61 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.