|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 13, 2013 13:40:16 GMT -5
Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not challenging you to "prove it" Mike, but I'd really appreciate anything you have on the subject. Like I said, I've seen it reported both ways. No worries, I said that I would provide some info, so here are some examples. I have a great research peice on the biological effect of the Edwards Dam removal on the Kennebec River (not the link listed below) too, but its in a pdf, so let me know if you want me to email it to you.
Personally, I cant think of any studies that detailed actual long term fishery damage from a dam removal. All dam removals have short term risk pertaining to the silt that will be released, but I cant think of any that I have read that showed specifically that the introduction of migratory fish caused damage to native trout populations. I have read opinion articles that claimed it, but I have never seen it proven post removal. So if you have one available, I would love to read it (again, as you said, not a "prove it' comment. I would be genuinly interested in reading it).
Here are a few good peices showing the after effects of dam removal and migratory fish introduction: Michigan Dam Removal Study through the MDNRwww.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/fishing/dams/EcologyofDamRemoval.pdf"Researchers believe that dam removal benefits non-migrating fish and other organisms as well. One study on the removal of the Woolen Mills Dam determined that darter populations likely increased due to improved habitat quality and access to new river regions created by dam removal. In addition, smallmouth bass gained access to optimum spawning conditions following the removal of the Woolen Mills Dam" "Bednarek’s survey indicates that dam removal can have significant ecological benefits, including the return of a more naturalized flow, temperature regime, and sediment transport to the river system. Studies have also shown that dam removals promote the rehabilitation of native species following dam removal, while providing for the migration or movement of species within a river. In addition, dam removal does not require a constant input of money and technology to maintain a functioning, healthy ecosystem, unlike alternatives such as fish passages and barges." Ten Years After Dam Removal (Kennebec River)www.nrcm.org/news_detail.asp?news=3122"Water quality was upgraded on the river within a year. But other changes were visible even to the untrained eye. Dave Courtemanch of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection says flies that fish feed on started returning to the Kennebec almost immediately. "We had, like, a 30-fold increase in the number of organisms that we were catching in sampling devices: caddisflies, stone flies, mayflies. They were there within two months. It was quite remarkable," he says." Dowagiac River Keepersdowagiacriverkeepers.blogspot.com/"TRUE OR FALSE ? "Trout and salmon cant live together. Salmon invade, and compete for habitat and the salmon cannibalize the trout. The population will get ruined." Answer: FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. Contrary to popular angler belief, which to date is unsupported by any data--trout and salmon can and do co-exist successfully. There are hundreds of rivers in the Midwest, Pacific Northwest, and Mid-Atlantic regions that point to this; which thrive and have inter-mingling salmonid species. Right in our own area, there are numerous destination fisheries in Michigan that receive thousands of visiting anglers who pursue them with flyrods, bait, plugs, spoons, and spinners.One well known river that contains trophy populations of all species is the Pere Marquette. We should also recall that brown trout, a specie of concern for many supporting this argument, are an artificially planted species (just like salmon) that were dumped put into Michigan waters after being shipped over from Germany. In fact, a club you may have heard of, Trout Unlimited, is one of the largest, best organized proponents of dam removal to improve trout habitat and water quality in general. (The below 2 pp. added on 2/19) Hear us out: You may not "want" the trout and salmon to mix. Thats OK. That is a preference of seeing species separated. But it is UNTRUE to say they can't live together and that salmon or steelhead are invaders that ruin populations. For roughly 10 weeks out of the year, salmon show up, drop eggs, and die. People who make these contentions have either not observed the other flourishing fisheries in Michigan, or have ignored obvious, visual evidence. By the way: the hundreds of thousands of salmon eggs and thousands of parr provide a new and extremely valuabe and easy-to-catch food source for trout. Trout in some river systems put on 50% of their weight gain from gorging on these new sources. The rotting carcasses of salmon are excellent sources of material eaten by various nymphs and crustaceans like crayfish; another vital food source for trout. This, as you may be concluding is something known as the "food chain". And it works pretty well, we think. Show us the studies that conflict with documented fisheries management practices by expert in biology--and we will publish them. Don't believe it? GOOD! Click here to verify that TU loves dam removal to improve trout ecosystems." The above information is also verified by fiesheries people at the MDNR. Feel free to reach out to them to verify for yourself. Jay K. Wesley Southern Lake Michigan Unit Manager DNRE 621 N. 10th Street Plainwell, MI 49080 269-685-6851 Ext. 117 I'll try to post more when i'm back at home (im in VT on business right now and don't have access to my personal cpu). I hope these are helpful, but I will post more next week.
|
|
|
Post by RileyVacinek on Feb 13, 2013 13:54:03 GMT -5
While public opinion is obviously very important on the topic of dam removal, the absolute key to it ever having a chance at being a successful fishery is the dec (as was said). Dealing with money issues, it seems like the dec would be very interested in the idea of less steelhead stocking. I am no biologist but it seems like 40+ miles of the Catt and its much colder tribs would be able to support steelhead smolt because most already support "wild" trout. If the dec put in enough regulations and enforcement they would see serious savings on stocking in the next 15 years. I'm sure there is a serious flaw in this logic but in conclusion It seems like steelhead would have a positive net impact only if the dec was 100% on board. If we are going to potentially put my home trout fishery at risk it better be for a damn good steelhead fishery at the very least.
p.s. As for whoever said more bugs could be an outcome because of an increase in biomass I would never fish anywhere else. Imagine consistent hatches of all our favorite insects along with egg eating brown trout pigs on the upper Catt system. It seems like we would need water quality improvements before that happened though. For now, I'll keep dreaming.
EDIT: I was typing while Michael responded but apparently there is more evidence to the bug thing than I had thought.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Dickson on Feb 13, 2013 14:42:41 GMT -5
only if the dec was 100% on board. This is my biggest concern with this idea. The New York State DEC has a history of making decisions based on politics and not good fisheries management. I don’t see any reason that this would change. I don’t think they can be trusted to make the correct decisions. All those fat, McDonalds eating, fish-at-the-dam, douch bags that can’t fish at the dam anymore because it is gone or the fish no longer stack up behind it are going to put on the pressure to fish the upstream spawning beds. Like some of you have said, this can have a very detrimental impact on the ecosystem of the upper river. This entire discussion may be moot. If you look at the report at the bottom of page #3 it says that the planning period is from 2014 – 2064. Some of you younger guys may be around for it but I’m thinking you will be pissing on my grave at that point. At the very least, I won’t be able to make it down to the creek in my motorized wheel chair. You can get a steelbow to eat a dry in the water that is currently available yeah Its hard too though when you never fish there. And Justin, He does. He just doesn’t with you.
|
|
|
Post by RileyVacinek on Feb 13, 2013 15:18:03 GMT -5
I dont have much faith in the dec doing things for anything but political/fininancial reasons but I'm just saying there must be a few ways having steelhead above the dam could save them money as apposed to it just sucking it out of them (stocking). One thing I completely over looked is the fact that some of the major spawning tribs below the dam are seasonal (e.g. Spooners) and mostly private. (e.g. Spooners/Connoisarauley). Spooners has even closed almost completely in recent years thanks to the "mcDonalds eating, fish-at-the-dam" type leaving their big mac wrappers and busch light cans everywhere. This is absolutely NOT the case above the damn. Most tribs have exceptional access and cold un protected water. I wouldn't doubt for a second you could kiss a good majority of that good bye when the dbags made their way up in those reaches. It's not that those type of people don't fish for trout but we all know fishing to spawning fish in 1ft of clear water is all too tempting. Point being, maybe we wouldnt have to rely on the dec completely. This is a mixed blessing that definitely leans towards the negative side for me because most of my trout fishing time is spent in these areas and it would be a shame to see them posted up even if most of their bank rights are owned by the state.
and they can raise the license rates all they want, I have a lifetime ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffraz on Feb 13, 2013 20:36:13 GMT -5
Great discussion guys. I know that some other Great Lakes tributaries sustain wild inland trout and steelhead, Michigan streams primarily. I know that the watersheds may differ, but clean, cold water should be the universal ingredient to support both scenarios. As far as pressure is concerned, the DEC should adopt the mindset of Ontario's fish management if the dam would become passable. PFR above the dam would need to be attained to beneficial to all as well. There's a lot of water between the dam and the upper tribs that needs to be freed up. The last thing we need is more water for migratory species but no PFR to fish to them. The Asian Carp invasion is a serious thought that never crossed my mind. Great thread!
|
|
|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 13, 2013 22:45:08 GMT -5
Great discussion guys. I know that some other Great Lakes tributaries sustain wild inland trout and steelhead, Michigan streams primarily. I know that the watersheds may differ, but clean, cold water should be the universal ingredient to support both scenarios. As far as pressure is concerned, the DEC should adopt the mindset of Ontario's fish management if the dam would become passable. PFR above the dam would need to be attained to beneficial to all as well. There's a lot of water between the dam and the upper tribs that needs to be freed up. The last thing we need is more water for migratory species but no PFR to fish to them. The Asian Carp invasion is a serious thought that never crossed my mind. Great thread! A couple notes on this: 1) PFR's in their own right should not be an overriding goal of a dam removal. Improving the quality of the fishery should be. The current land rights are an entirely separate issue all together. Sure, it's always great to get more access to public fishing, but improving the ecosystem and creating better habitat for the reproduction of wild fish far exceeds it. By getting more quality spawning water, improved water quality and increased biomass we would greatly improve the fishing in the current water available. Cutting off out noses despite our faces is what halting improving water quality without new PFR water would be. 2) I understand the concept of trying to block invasive species from accessing the upper reaches of the river, but species like Asian carp need to be addressed at a different level. If not, all of the fisheries not protected by man made barriers will be destroyed anyway. What type of pressure do you think the upper river will get if its the only water around with life in it? It's far more important that they don't have sustainable populations in the first place. Otherwise we are screwed either way. Other species like lampreys are sometimes better managed through lampricides. In fact, even rivers with lamprey barriers are usually paired with the larvae killing lampricides. While lamprey barriers are effective to an extent, if fish can get through so can fish with lampreys attached and periodic lampreys themselves. Every undammed river or section of river unbarriared to the lake have this risk currently. Not trying to point out your comments in particular, they have been brought up by others as well. I just think decisions like this should be based in science an forward thinking revolved around what will make the most biological impact and foster increased wild fish. On another note, I see that in the document linked, they propose several options for fish ladders and options specifically geared towards simply allowing fish to get to the upper stretches. I believe that these are all short sighted proposals. I think we should all consider a "remove completely or bust" option. If a ladder is simply placed, then we are missing the boat completely. First of all, a ladder will do absolutely nothing in regards to lowering water temps, increasing flow (and providing better movement of silt) and creating a better ecosystem for wild trout and bug life. Furthermore, if you look at other fish ladders in the Midwest and Northeast, you will see that a great deal of the fish get mortally wounded entering/exiting the ladders. This could decrease the amount of suitable numbers of fish healthy enough to actually spawn. Ladder also freeze in winter and trap fish above them, sealing their fate. My ideal proposal would be a complete removal paired with a lampricide action plan. The final key addition would be closures of all spawning Tribs and prime gravel sections of the upper river for all spawning seasons. If people want to fish during those seasons, they can fish the same sections of the lower river that they currently do today. These measures are not mutually exclusive and I would be opposed to any plan that excluded any one of them in particular. Just my opinion, but I feel that there is a great deal of science that supports these thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Feb 14, 2013 5:56:33 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, that all seems about right on to me. well all but the lamprey issue. lampricide is simply not effective enough to stop them. once they get into headwaters they cannot use the chemicals and they thrive. the system right now is absolutely loaded with them. if they are allowed to reach the headwaters of the upper system we will never get rid of them, never. way too may little tribs and no way to treat them all. there really needs to be substantial lamprey deflection. a pile of broken rock will never stop them, not even slow them down. here is where we see the difference between the ACE and the DEC. clearly the ACE has no idea how invasive lampreys are and how good they are at getting upstream. a serious lamprey barrier needs to be part of this project from day one or it's doomed.
that also brings up the point that has been questioned earlier- this document is from the Army Corps. not the DEC and is strictly about the structure and what's to be done with it. the biological stuff is all on the DEC.
|
|
|
Post by michaelrowland on Feb 14, 2013 10:49:45 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, that all seems about right on to me. well all but the lamprey issue. lampricide is simply not effective enough to stop them. once they get into headwaters they cannot use the chemicals and they thrive. the system right now is absolutely loaded with them. if they are allowed to reach the headwaters of the upper system we will never get rid of them, never. way too may little tribs and no way to treat them all. there really needs to be substantial lamprey deflection. a pile of broken rock will never stop them, not even slow them down. here is where we see the difference between the ACE and the DEC. clearly the ACE has no idea how invasive lampreys are and how good they are at getting upstream. a serious lamprey barrier needs to be part of this project from day one or it's doomed. that also brings up the point that has been questioned earlier- this document is from the Army Corps. not the DEC and is strictly about the structure and what's to be done with it. the biological stuff is all on the DEC. Hi Nick, we have talked about this offline, so I know that we share a lot of the thoughts on this issue. I appreciate the feedback. The question I have though is why cant lampricide be used in the headwaters? It is commonly used in Lake Michigan trib headwaters with very good results. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission claims to have decreased lamprey populations by 90% in the last 40 years of TFM (lampricide) use. I know that they aren't effective in lentic areas, but I have been under the impression that they are most effective in small streams. www.glfc.org/pubs/FACT_4.pdfI know that the USGS has actually been refining the techniques and balance of the TFM to make it safer and more effective. In its Strategic Vision Plan of 1991, the GLFC set a goal of reducing the reliance on lampricides by 50% by the year 2000 (achieved) through the use of improved treatment strategies and alternative control techniques such as barriers, trapping, and sterile male releases. www.umesc.usgs.gov/aquatic/aquatic_invasives8.htmlMy buddy in the MDNR told me last night that Michigan has had significant success with the sterile male releases as well. He told me polulations in Lake Michigan are at all time lows (obviously excluding the years that they weren't there at all). He also agreed with our shared belief that barriers (piles of rocks) are the least effective of the methods, unless they completely block all upstream migration (ie a dam). He said that the MDNR sees artificial barriers as a complementative method. I probably should have been more clear in my last post when I mentioned a "lamricide action plan". I should have referred to it as a "lamprey action plan". This would entail sterile male releases, lampricide and spawning ground targeting (like they do in the St Mary's River in MI). Maybe even smaller more spread out artificial barriers throughout the upper reaches. (give me a reason to break out my raft too, ha) It is my belief that if the dam is only made to be breachable, then the risk of lampreys still exist. Furthermore, the system gets none of the water quality benefits of removal. There are a great deal of rivers that have their headwaters exposed to lampreys in the Great Lakes System currently, so what are your thoughts on using the approaches of those waters on the Catt?
|
|
|
Post by Nick Pionessa on Feb 14, 2013 12:22:31 GMT -5
i guess i should not have said "can't" control them. just that it would be extremely difficult to be effective on every little trib and NYS budgets have a tendency to leave out these programs after a few lean years. i just would not want chemical treatments to be the only way to keep the lampreys out of the headwaters.
btw you should consider being involved in the local TU and FFF.
|
|
|
Post by christopher lee on Feb 14, 2013 21:02:46 GMT -5
Great info here.
Thanks, Mike, for the thought and work you've put into this thread.
|
|