# Boardman, Dams, and Kayaks



## parker16 (Oct 21, 2008)

Although I had wanted the Brown Pond Dam left in to protect the Upper River, I have been kind of a passive supporter of dam removal. I figured that if there was a chance to have a "world class" fishery for steelhead why not do it. But now comes word that river kayakers are salivating at the idea of using the whole stream. They will certainly be active during steelhead season and other times of the year. If this world class fishery gets messed up because there are hordes of yahoos zipping down through the fast water in plastic boats while others are trying to fish, I am going to be righteously irritated. And now the kakakers want us to spend all kinds of additional money altering the Union Street Dam so they can shoot down through that.

I am beginning to think I was a little foggy-headed in supporting this. Maybe the status quo wasn't so bad after all.


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

Removal of the three dams is not going to make the boardman a world class steelhead fishery.

The river is there for all users anyway, like it or not.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Don't jump the gun on there being a steelhead fishery once the dams are removed. Alot of people here are against it and hopefully won't let the DNR jam it down our thoats.

As for kayakers whats the difference between the crowds right now. There are stretches I never fish on the weekends other than first AM, and even on some hot weekday evenings i expect to run in to the yahoos. If I run into yahoos i blame myself for not fishing somewhere else.

At least whitewater river kayakers won't be a bunch of loud drunks. In my opinion only, the people who come down the river in carbon racing canoes are courteous and the least annoying. I imagine whitewater river kayakers would be similar


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

parker16 said:


> Although I had wanted the Brown Pond Dam left in to protect the Upper River, I have been kind of a passive supporter of dam removal. I figured that if there was a chance to have a "world class" fishery for steelhead why not do it. But now comes word that river kayakers are salivating at the idea of using the whole stream. They will certainly be active during steelhead season and other times of the year. If this world class fishery gets messed up because there are hordes of yahoos zipping down through the fast water in plastic boats while others are trying to fish, I am going to be righteously irritated. And now the kakakers want us to spend all kinds of additional money altering the Union Street Dam so they can shoot down through that.
> 
> I am beginning to think I was a little foggy-headed in supporting this. Maybe the status quo wasn't so bad after all.


 
You must be a member of Michigan Bowhunters also, wanting to keep
the resource for yourself like they do.

I fish the Boardman and kayak it also and a have seen "yahoos"
among both groups. I can kayak the Boardman and be respectuful to 
fisherman and fish it and be respectful to kayakers. Seems easy enough
to do to me.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

The Union Street dam is not going anywhere. As for the steelhead, they can get up the ladder there and with the removal of Sabin dam, would have a free run to get up as far as they want. I think that a modification would need to be done to prevent this at the ladder at Union St. As for the kayaks, they have just as much of a right to the river as anglers.


----------



## Fishslayer5789 (Mar 1, 2007)

I went up and fished steelhead yesterday at Sabin Dam and 3 kayakers passed by in racing kayaks. It was only annoying for about ten seconds but they were polite and stayed out of the way the best they could so I could keep my drift. On the Platte River, the kayaks and canoes are always coming through the downstream sections but the fishing is usually really good for the coho the first weekend in October when I get there. Sometimes, it seems that the fish start to hit when they reposition after the canoes come through and stir them up a bit. I think if the dams were removed, there would not be a good steelhead fishery for several years at least because the same numbers of fish would enter the river for at least a few more years and would be very spread out over so many miles of river that it would be impossible to find any fishable numbers whatsoever. I would think it would be as difficult as the Platte to fish for steelhead which in my opinion is very difficult to fish because the fish are so spread out and usually hard to find.


----------



## parker16 (Oct 21, 2008)

I wasn't the one who claimed dam removal would lead to a world class fishery--the DNR did.

And I should also add that I am a) a kayaker myself and b) a Boardman property owner and c) have never bowhunted in my life. I too like to think I can co-exist with an occasional kayaker while fishing and an occasional fisherman while kayaking, but in my experience courteous behavior all around is not as common as it could be or as it is claimed to be here. And I have seen nothing to make me think whitewater kayakers are a superior breed. For what it is worth there is a fairly serious proposal afloat to alter the Union Street Dam to allow a kayak run through there. Supposedly this can be done without dropping the water level behind the dam.

The larger question, of course, is who is the chief beneficiary of this very large expenditure of public money? Fisherman? Kayakers? The public in some ill defined way? And I am sorry but I think one group will be highly disappointed in how this all turns out--and I expect it will be fisherman. As I said earlier, I have previously supported dam removal but now the status quo doesn't sound too bad. I am glad if there is some realistic possibility of preventing the dams from being removed.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

The Boardman is currently an average trout stream above sabin and a below-average-poor steelhead river below. I have been a steelheader/trout fisherman in NW lower michigan as long as I could walk. I grew up fishing on the Platte next to Dick Swan and his compadres. I know what actual 'good' fishing is and the Boardman does not have it and honestly, the status quo sucks. There are not many big browns above sabin (compared to other fisheries) and the age class structure is all screwed up. The steelhead have a super low rate of return (cause they are stocked in a river segment less than 1/2mile long before they go out in the lake and never have a chance to imprint) and also have no chance of reproduction below sabin because of summer temps. Kids creek does kick out a few wild smolts, but last I looked, that stream is on the DEQs Total Maximum Daily Load (303d TMDL list) list of impaired waters because the water quality fluctuates so much that the macroinvertebrates are even impaired, not to mention how jacked up the trout population gets in that stream... there are fish kills about every 3-4 years as it is... anyway, long way of saying that Kids creek is in really bad shape trout stream/steelie reproduction wise. The fish data does not lie. Look at it and then compare it with the Platte river, or Lil M or PM. There is NO evidence that steelhead will hurt the brown trout population, infact, ALL the circumstantial evidence indicates that potadromous (fish running up fresh water river from fresh water lake) steelhead and salmon runs improve resident brown trout populations. Both in number of fish and size/quality of fish. Additionally, a serious amount of work has been done to see if steelies superimpose/excavate brown trout redds by Andy Nuhfer on Hunt Creek and he has also done some follow up work on the west side of the state. AFter years of looking into this he has positively concluded that there is no net negative effect, even in small systems like Hunt Creek, and that in larger systems, like the PM, Lil M, Platte and yes, the Boardman, there is almost certainly a positive correlation between better brown trout populations and the presence of steelhead and salmon runs. The evidence is there and it is very solid, please read it before spouting off myths and superstitions that the trout-only purists seem to perpetuate even though they are absolutely just some dudes opinion with NO other credibility. 

This was the biggest issue fracturing the fishing community during the entire BRDC process and apparently there are still that, for whatever personal belief they have, will not accept the facts or even admit to the reality that exists on the other FAR better rivers that support great resident trout populations and good steelhead runs. Additionally, for all the opinions that are generated on this and other forums, where were all you dudes when we needed you!?!? Why were none of you present at the BRDC meetings???? Do you really think it is constructive to Monday morning quarterback a process that you for the most part totally ignored? I say this as a member of the scoping team and someone that put in a lot of my personal time that I would of much rather put in on a river than sitting at the civic center trying to make a case for the fish. 

Basically, from what I can tell the main issue surrounding steelhead passage up the Boardman is not biological what-so-ever. It is completely a societal issue and that is the main thing that seems to really get people fired up and there is a very, very easy solution. Most of the complaints about steelhead have to do with the fisherman and nothing to do with the fish. Whether your issue is litter, snagging, trespassing, bank erosion, trails, camp fires, beer cans, etc....... these are ALL societal management issues and there is already a great mechanism to deal with them that is used all over the state where they want to keep dudes out from chasing steelhead over private property, they close it to fishing. Here is the very simple solution that I propose to hopefully bring the fishing community back together and back behind the fish. Keep the river above Bietner Road/rapids open only during trout season as it is now, below open all year. 

It is really that simple. Yes, there would be some poaching, just as there is on the upper PM, Lil M and all other rivers in the entire state, but the vast majority of the issues would be instantly solved. 

As for the potential of the Boardman to be a world-class steelhead river... that is a no-brainer and anyone saying otherwise is, again, just not wanting to accept the reality that already exists on the PM, Lil M, Platte etc... With the dams finally gone the Boardman has the gradient, flow, plenty of good gravel and will soon have the perfect water temp. required for world-class steelhead reproduction. 

As for canoes and kayakers... obviously the weather/water temps during steelhead season will take care of the issue from Oct-April. The rest of the year it will be like all other rivers in the state where we have to share with the other users, but other than a few hatches in the early spring, all the quality fishing is dusk and dawn anyway, whether your out for trout or steel, and again, if there is an issue with competing usage, then it need to be addressed through management of the people, not by continuing to severely compromise the natural resource. 

Ok, I am off my soap box.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

parker16 said:


> If this world class fishery gets messed up because there are hordes of yahoos zipping down through the fast water in plastic boats while others are trying to fish, I am going to be righteously irritated.


I guess this part of your earlier post threw me off. Sounded a little confrontational to me and a slam to the hordes of yahoo kayakers. 

Dam removal will benefit fishermen and some kayakers, but what about all the homeowners that own property on Boardman Pond? They have been
hung out to dry in this deal to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. Another screwing to those people by local officials, the DEQ and the do-gooders of the world.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

If anyone thinks the introduction of stealhead doesn't effect the resident trout fishery please follow this link http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/federal%20aid%20annual%20reports/F-80-R-8/230654.pdf



> Yearling-and-older (YAO) brown trout year classes that interacted with YOY steelhead in Hunt
> Creek during the year they hatched were consistently less abundant than year classes produced
> before steelhead introductions (Table 1). Mean density of all year classes of YAO brown trout
> that did not compete with steelhead trout as YOY was approximately twice as high as that of the
> ...




Hows that for facts. So much for it not being a biological issue. Spare us the its all a myth and superstition BS

Don't play the why didn't people come to the BRDC card. What did the BRDC accomplish? Sent a useless nonbinding recomendation to the elected officials, either keep the dams or remove them. Wow. As far as introducing another invasive species to the boardman what role is the BRDC going to play. None.


----------



## Talkeetna (Apr 11, 2009)

The middle waters of the Boardman between Labor Day and closing day of trout season are spectacular trout fishing. Everybody else is on the Betsie, Platte, Manistee, PM chasing salmon.

Keep steelhead out of the Boardman. There are plenty of other steelhead rivers. Let the old guys who want to fish dries in the golden last weeks of summer have a few weeks of beautiful solitude to do so.


----------



## flagguy83 (Feb 14, 2009)

Talkeetna said:


> The middle waters of the Boardman between Labor Day and closing day of trout season are spectacular trout fishing. Everybody else is on the Betsie, Platte, Manistee, PM chasing salmon.
> 
> Keep steelhead out of the Boardman. There are plenty of other steelhead rivers. Let the old guys who want to fish dries in the golden last weeks of summer have a few weeks of beautiful solitude to do so.


 Your a joker. :rant::rant:


----------



## Talkeetna (Apr 11, 2009)

flagguy83 said:


> Your a joker. :rant::rant:


Actually, it would be "you're a joker" if you wish to say it properly.

However, I do not understand your position.



Fellow sportsman, please explain yourself. Why do you say that I am a joker?

Do you not enjoy the beauty of dry fly fishing on sylvan afternoons when the birches and aspens are starting to turn to gold?

Do you not enjoy days whe the sun no longer feels like an oppressor but a dear friend whose warmth surrounds you like a goodbye embrace before a long departure?

Have you never stood midstream with a finely hand crafted American fly rod made in Montana or Washington State, casting weightless flies amidst an idyllic, sporadic hatch of blue wing olives where instead of the smorgasbord of an early summer blanket hatch where there are almost too many bugs to draw the attention of a trout to your fly, each emerging insect is greedily devoured by large brook and brown trout gorging on the last of summer's bounty?

Have you never pulled alongside the river into a parking spot which has seen no other cars for days and looked down upon the river doing its timeless dance as it sparkles in the brilliant sun?

Have you never felt your heart swell with excitement and anticipation as you finish tying on a size 14 Adams on gossamer like leader and strip out line with the song of your Hardy reel's outgoing click amongst the most beautiful of any sound you've ever heard...pulling line out to make your backcast and feel that moment of perfection when backcast has met its endpoint sweetspot to allow you to fling your offering to that hole below the riffle where circles from rising fish begin as dimples and melt back into the flatness of the pool where your offering will silently and perfectly fall?

Have you never felt the elation of watching that fly disappear below the water in the deliberate, effortless sip of a large trout instead of the loud, crude manner in which lesser fish throw themselves at the fly?

Have you never felt the initial feeling of immovability when you lift your 3 ounce fly rod to feel a three pound brown trout awaken and explode in a rage downstream after feeling the prick of your fly, bendig your nearly weightless rod in half as your Hardy reel shouts its unmistakable cry of jubilation?

Have you never witnessed the beauty of a pre-spawn brown trout or brook trout resplendant with the most distinct and unfogettable hues of green, red, yellow and gold and the swell of pride of seeing for a moment a bit of the truest beauty which one could ever behold - only to release the fish in hopes that it will fare well over the long winter and will perhaps be a pound heavier next year when you again ply that magical spot. 

If these notions to you are a "joke" and to you fishing is only the flinging of lead or spoon or plug or bobber at steelhead or salmon - that is your loss. 

Dry fly fishing to some is Nirvana itself. I am one of those people.


----------



## flagguy83 (Feb 14, 2009)

Talkeetna said:


> Actually, it would be "you're a joker" if you wish to say it properly.
> 
> However, I do not understand your position.
> 
> ...


 Sounds like you need to right a book. I would love for the steelhead fishing to be better in the boardman. Its not gonna hurt the fishery it will help it. Thats great that you like to fish those stream trout. Heck I like it to. But I also love a screaming steelie tearing thru the water.


----------



## flagguy83 (Feb 14, 2009)

Benzie Rover said:


> The Boardman is currently an average trout stream above sabin and a below-average-poor steelhead river below. I have been a steelheader/trout fisherman in NW lower michigan as long as I could walk. I grew up fishing on the Platte next to Dick Swan and his compadres. I know what actual 'good' fishing is and the Boardman does not have it and honestly, the status quo sucks. There are not many big browns above sabin (compared to other fisheries) and the age class structure is all screwed up. The steelhead have a super low rate of return (cause they are stocked in a river segment less than 1/2mile long before they go out in the lake and never have a chance to imprint) and also have no chance of reproduction below sabin because of summer temps. Kids creek does kick out a few wild smolts, but last I looked, that stream is on the DEQs Total Maximum Daily Load (303d TMDL list) list of impaired waters because the water quality fluctuates so much that the macroinvertebrates are even impaired, not to mention how jacked up the trout population gets in that stream... there are fish kills about every 3-4 years as it is... anyway, long way of saying that Kids creek is in really bad shape trout stream/steelie reproduction wise. The fish data does not lie. Look at it and then compare it with the Platte river, or Lil M or PM. There is NO evidence that steelhead will hurt the brown trout population, infact, ALL the circumstantial evidence indicates that potadromous (fish running up fresh water river from fresh water lake) steelhead and salmon runs improve resident brown trout populations. Both in number of fish and size/quality of fish. Additionally, a serious amount of work has been done to see if steelies superimpose/excavate brown trout redds by Andy Nuhfer on Hunt Creek and he has also done some follow up work on the west side of the state. AFter years of looking into this he has positively concluded that there is no net negative effect, even in small systems like Hunt Creek, and that in larger systems, like the PM, Lil M, Platte and yes, the Boardman, there is almost certainly a positive correlation between better brown trout populations and the presence of steelhead and salmon runs. The evidence is there and it is very solid, please read it before spouting off myths and superstitions that the trout-only purists seem to perpetuate even though they are absolutely just some dudes opinion with NO other credibility.
> 
> This was the biggest issue fracturing the fishing community during the entire BRDC process and apparently there are still that, for whatever personal belief they have, will not accept the facts or even admit to the reality that exists on the other FAR better rivers that support great resident trout populations and good steelhead runs. Additionally, for all the opinions that are generated on this and other forums, where were all you dudes when we needed you!?!? Why were none of you present at the BRDC meetings???? Do you really think it is constructive to Monday morning quarterback a process that you for the most part totally ignored? I say this as a member of the scoping team and someone that put in a lot of my personal time that I would of much rather put in on a river than sitting at the civic center trying to make a case for the fish.
> 
> ...


 Very well said benzie.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Talkeetna said:


> Actually, it would be "you're a joker" if you wish to say it properly.
> 
> However, I do not understand your position.
> 
> ...


Best of luck to you on the opener!


----------



## wolfgang510 (Feb 15, 2001)

I agree with Benzie. I also value your position Talkeetna. There is plenty of non-steelhead water in this state however. Than again, if I could catch 3 pound browns on dries in the daytime in michigan I would really be pissed if some steelhead/salmon angler started showing up in my spots. I too love dry fly fishing but in Michigan I am elated with any brooktrout over 7" and any brown over 11."


----------



## Wardo (Sep 10, 2007)

Here are some more fun facts on the Boardman River. " There were a total of 13 tributaries, 3 culvert/storm drains, and the mouth of the river sampled for surface water... Results indicated that four tributaries and one culvert had levels of E. coli contamination higher than that allowed by the MDEQ... Results of total phosphorus indicate that eight culverts, six tributaries, and the water at the mouth of the river exceed U.S. EPA Nutrient Criteria for total phosphorous... Site 70, located about 200 yards downstream from the outfall of the wastewater treatment plant had copper, arsenic, iron, manganese, mercury, and several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons above U.S. EPA ecological screening levels. Site 71 saw concentrations of arsenic, copper, manganese, mercury, and several petroleum constituents exceed the U.S. EPA ecological screening levels." 
This comes from a review of the Boardman Lake watershed. 

It was also determined that the impervious surface cover in the Boardman Lake watershed is approximately 25%, which is more than 2 times the cover known to degrade water quality. The riparian zone in the downstream section sucks, which adds to the problem.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

TC-fisherman-

I applaud you for going and looking into the facts, but I urge you to follow up a little further and contact the author or talk with any number of people familiar with the Hunt Creek study. The author himself has relayed to me in both of the conversations I have had that he felt that the study conditions themselves did not reflect the situation of actual rivers where the fish spread out. The Hunt creek situation was not at all a real simulation of our river conditions because of the density of adult steelies they stuck into a short, fenced off section of an already very small stream. There was no choice for the steelies, the only gravel available was the small areas used by the Browns the fall before. In a natural stream condition, such as the upper Middle Branch of the PM for instance, you will find steelies spawning in deeper runs and over larger cobble/rocks than the browns will of spawned on the fall before. I have observed and map this as part of my graduate research on the PM as well as the Big South Branch of the PM and several of its larger tribs. Admittedly, in small tribs the fish are gravel limited in Michigan and that is where you would find some impact, IF, all our steelies were forced to spawn in them, but if they are allowed, Browns and steelies will select for different spawning areas the majority of the time. Sure, there may be some disturbance from fanning steelie hens, but I can guarantee it is NOTHING compared to the disturbance by fisherman tromping around gravel redds in the early spring. 

Face it, if you do not want steelhead in Boardman it has everything to do with your feelings about people that fish for steelhead and nothing to do with the fish themselves. 

The BRDC accomplished a lot actually. The facts were supplied and those ultimately in-charge making the decision. Is it so bad that those people who we actually elected to make decisions actually made one!?!? or... I guess we should just hire consultants to spoon feed them finalized decisions so they have no responsibility to think for themselves or decipher facts and all the decisions are made for them and there is no public accountability? Is that what you are saying should of happened? I personally feel we have way too much of that in our local governments already and the unwillingness to make an independent decision as a democratic governing body is disturbingly common. 

Anyway, the decision on the dams was made. If you want a better Boardman fishery then help do whatever you can to make sure that we get better in-stream habitat restored when the colder temps return after the dams come down. Whether the steelies are allowed up or not (no one has proposed salmon upstream by the way), the Brown trout fishery now has a chance to get much, much better. If we all work towards better habitat then no matter what they decide with the steelies, we will have a world-class coldwater fishery and that is something I would hope we can all agree on.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

First it is this




Benzie Rover said:


> AFter years of looking into this he has positively concluded that there *is no net negative effect, even in small systems like Hunt Creek,* and that in larger systems, like the PM, Lil M, Platte and yes, the Boardman, there is almost certainly a positive correlation between better brown trout populations and the presence of steelhead and salmon runs. The evidence is there and it is very solid,


Then I actually post the study done in Hunt Creek that was set up by the DNR for the sole purpose of studying the affect of introducing steelhead on resident trout populations. The study clearly shows steelhead have a large detrimental affect on resident trout. 
So now it becomes



Benzie Rover said:


> *The Hunt creek situation was not at all a real simulation *of our river conditions because of the density of adult steelies they stuck into a short, fenced off section of an already very small stream.


According to the study it wasn't steelhead effecting the spawning of trout that caused the decline


> The primary cause of reduced abundance of older brown trout that interacted with steelhead trout as YOY was a reduction in mean survival of brown trout YOY from 37% to 23% (Table 3). This change is a 38% decline in survival rates for YOY.


As for the myth that steelhead will make for bigger browns


> Few significant changes in growth rates of Hunt Creek brown trout or brook trout were detected following steelhead introductions.







When you post something like this 



Benzie Rover said:


> *There is NO evidence *that steelhead will hurt the brown trout population, infact, ALL the circumstantial evidence indicates that potadromous (fish running up fresh water river from fresh water lake) steelhead and salmon runs improve resident brown trout populations. Both in number of fish and size/quality of fish.


Yet the author of the DNR study writes this: 



> There is both hard data and anecdotal information which suggests thatcompetition between these species has resulted in reductions in abundance and growth of resident brown trout in Michigan rivers.


whom am I to believe?

Of course none of this matters. You want to introduce another non native species to the Boardman because you want to fish for them. Simple as that. Studies that show they will harm native brook trout, and resident brown trout Who cares! You want to fish for steelhead.



Benzie Rover said:


> The evidence is there and it is very solid, please read it before spouting off myths and superstitions that the *trout-only purists *seem to perpetuate even though they are absolutely just some dudes opinion with NO other credibility.


substitute trout only purist for steelhead fisherman and you basically describe your posts. Back up what you post. Show some studies that prove steelhead don't effect native brook trout. Show some studies that contradict the DNR studies.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

1. I'll say it again, talk to the author or any other MDNR fisheries biologist and ask them about the Hunt Creek study. Then ask them why the PM and Lil M both have one of the best brown trout populations in the state. 

2. Brook trout are NOT native to the Boardman. 

3. Steelhead have been running the Boardman since they were introduced into the great lakes in the late 1800s, which is about when Brook trout were also introduced to the lower peninsula. The rainbows have just as much right to be 'restored' to the upper river as the brookies or browns.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Benzie Rover said:


> 2. Brook trout are NOT native to the Boardman.
> 
> 3. Steelhead have been running the Boardman since they were introduced into the great lakes in the late 1800s, which is about when Brook trout were also introduced to the lower peninsula. The rainbows have just as much right to be 'restored' to the upper river as the brookies or browns.


how about this



> It is very well established that native trout had worked down as far south as the Boardman River.


http://books.google.com/books?id=mmUKEUbEttAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=BROOK+TROUT+NATIVE+TO+BOARDMAN&source=bl&ots=mwZCw_Zry2&sig=705MMas0cLYUWnwE2u8M7iPyKFg&hl=en&ei=3u7sSZKhIZjcMaKtoNUF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
page 3


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Thanks for the link TC. There is some great info in there.


----------



## SE-R (Oct 10, 2008)

Benzie Rover said:


> 1. I'll say it again, talk to the author or any other MDNR fisheries biologist and ask them about the Hunt Creek study. Then ask them why the PM and Lil M both have one of the best brown trout populations in the state.


The DNR biologists make it no secret that they want to remove the dams, open the river to fish passage and make it a steelhead river. One study is not sufficient to answer the question concerning steelhead affects on resident trout populations. This is especially the case when you tell us that the only study anyone is discussing is unreliable. Please produce the data and reports that you rely upon to come to such a certain conclusion.

I don't own property on the Boardman. I am not concerned about steelheaders vs property owners. But, I see the value in a naturally reproducing trout population, especially when the dams are removed. I'd like to see what the Boardman could become if left alone.

What I do see is that there are a lot of people that REALLY want to see the Boardman become a steelhead river. They also appear to be wholly unconcerned with the possibility of other invasives moving up the river. The only thing ever discussed are lamprey, but there are others out there and more coming every day. Why risk a river that has never been subject to those problems. I say, open the river and stop everything at Sabin where they are stopped today.


----------



## parker16 (Oct 21, 2008)

I little thought when I started this thread that it would get so much response. I have learned a lot--which is, I suppose, the point of a forum. Thanks to all who responded. As a result I am even more skeptical now of dam removal. 

However, I would like to return again to one of my original concerns: the potential for increased future conflicts between kayakers and fishermen. Don't get me wrong. I am a canoer and kayaker too and certainly don't hate these people and concede they have rights too. But before we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on dam removal we should be very clear about who benefits.

Everyone here should know that there is a serious movement afoot to make the Boardman an urban "waterpark" from the upstream areas where the dams are removed down through an altered Union Street Dam. A lot of this increased activity will primarily take place in the summer months but I believe it will also lead to a big increase in whitewater kayaking during the spring steelhead season when river flows are highest.

If anyone is interested in knowing more about what is being proposed I will be glad to provide you with a pdf of a letter written by the head of an engineering firm who is interested in creating said waterpark. Just send me a PM with an email address.

There was recently a presentation on precisely this issue in Traverse City--maybe some of you attended.

Parker


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> Then I actually post *the study* done in Hunt Creek that was set up by the DNR for the sole purpose of studying the affect of introducing steelhead on resident trout populations. *The study* clearly shows steelhead have a large detrimental affect on resident trout.
> So now it becomes
> 
> According to *the study* it wasn't steelhead effecting the spawning of trout that caused the decline
> ...


I'm straddling the fence on everything other than GET RID OF THE DAMS for the health of the river if nothing more. There are _infinite_ options that can [and will] be implemented after the fact.

Seems like everyone is quoting the same study? Which reads more like something that took place in a bathtub with the attendance of a free Jonas Bros concert in times square. There may not be 'studies' abundant but there is no lack of examples.. which I _personally_ have more faith in.

I think your kinda harsh towards Benzie Rover when you accuse him of such a shallow maneuver as _"You want to introduce another non native species to the Boardman because you want to fish for them. Simple as that"_ Do you really think that? Pretty looong way around the block just to go fishing.

I applaud all for standing up for what they feel is right and attempting to define direction. Complicated process for certain.. but were getting ahead of the game here.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

shotgunner said:


> I'm straddling the fence on everything other than GET RID OF THE DAMS for the health of the river if nothing more. There are _infinite_ options that can [and will] be implemented after the fact.
> 
> Seems like everyone is quoting the same study? Which reads more like something that took place in a bathtub with the attendance of a free Jonas Bros concert in times square. There may not be 'studies' abundant but there is no lack of examples.. which I _personally_ have more faith in.
> 
> ...


regarding studies plural. Just repeating what is referenced in the DNR Studies

"Examples" that browns and steelhead coexist in some rivers does nothing to illustrate what populations would be without steelhead. Any examples of outstanding brook trout fishing in a river with steelhead?

regarding Hunt Creek study "that took place in a bathtub".



> Hunt Creek, a tributary to the Thunder Bay River, has been selected as a study site due to its relatively abundant brown trout population and because a man-made barrier will block upstream steelhead movement from the treatment section into a reference zone.


The fence blocked only the movement upstream. 

The study was planned and implemented by the DNR to test how steelhead affect brown trout. Research at Hunt Creek has been going on since the 50's. If the DNR can't properly conduct a scientific study in a well documented controlled enviroment such as Hunt Creek then you might as well dismiss any fisheries study.


My being harsh?



Benzie Rover said:


> Face it, if you do not want steelhead in Boardman it has everything to do with your feelings about people that fish for steelhead and nothing to do with the fish themselves.


I don't think so


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

I am clearly confused if you have any goal other than wanting to engage in an argument. You have worked tirelessly here quoting me and others simply to prove you are right, yet, what is it you actually want to have accomplished?? Are you for the dams then? If so, fine, make your stand known. Are you really happy with the status quo of the Boardman? Or are you one to complain about the situation if the stay or go? Why not use at try and improve things rather argue in spite endlessly?

I would be wary of holding all your beliefs to authors of angling guides and other non-pier reviewed literature, but the statement does sound interesting. I do find it pretty amazing that DNR staff have no record of coasters or inland brookies. 

I also worked with Gaylord Alexander back in 1998 on the South Branch of the PM and he is quoted in your book a fair bit as well and is a well known brook trout fanatic and researcher and he also feels trout are impacted by steelhead and salmon, but he was also not convinced there were ever brook trout down in the LP. I personally just always went by what he said. But whatever, you are obviously going to argue for the sake of doing so and spend a tremendous amount of energy all while doing nothing actually for the fish, browns, brookies or otherwise. 

Try and do something positive with that tenacity and you would be amazed and how much better the fishing would actually get. 

Anyway have at er' this forum is all yours, those terrible, awful steelhead are hitting pretty good today so Ill leave you to this senseless online banter and attend to far more important things.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Benzie Rover said:


> what is it you actually want to have accomplished?


I want to enhance the existing fishery and protect the native brook trout. I do not want the DNR to introduce steelhead above the existing location of Sabin dam.

If the DNR can prove that introducing steelhead will not affect the existing trout I'll be all for it. Since there is plenty of information that shows they do negatively effect trout I will "argue in spite" with anyone who posts false information


----------



## cane crazed (Jul 22, 2008)

you express all the reasons i go trout fishing. you also appear to be a bamboo enthusiast like me. if so pm me sometime and we can share some views on the lovely reed. sincerely, cane crazed


----------



## TA Bunker (Jan 29, 2004)

What if we removed the dams and passed steelhead? We would improve the brown trout population due to decreasing the water temps. the amount of habitat for steelhead reproduction would surely produce a great fishery as well. If nothing else, we need to remove brown bridge dam. It is killing the river below it.


----------



## Talkeetna (Apr 11, 2009)

cane crazed said:


> you express all the reasons i go trout fishing. you also appear to be a bamboo enthusiast like me. if so pm me sometime and we can share some views on the lovely reed. sincerely, cane crazed


Cane Crazed,

Thanks! I have not yet graduated to split cane, though. Someday, I hope - when my finances might allow.

By hand crafted, I meant hand assembled rods like some of my favorites, a Sage SP 6 weight that can handle everything from bass poppers to size 22 midges, a Winston IM6 4 weight that is my favorite dry fly rod on tight streams. It throws big, open loops that don't need a lot of backcast. My favorite dry fly rod is a 2 piece T & T Paradigm 8'6" 4 weight. It's a little quicker than the Winston but not as fast as the Sage. I know there is a big debate about whether 2 piece rods are as efficient/cast as well as 3 or 4 piece rods. To me, with my very inelegant casting style, 2 pieces always seem to throw a line better for me though they are a pain to lug around.:lol:

I am guessing you're already getting into some decent hatches down in TN. Best wishes to you and everyone on a great season. God, I love summer and early Fall.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> regarding studies plural. Just repeating what is referenced in the DNR Studies
> 
> "Examples" that browns and steelhead coexist in some rivers does nothing to illustrate what populations would be without steelhead. Any examples of outstanding brook trout fishing in a river with steelhead?


TC, I guess I'm missing something here but I've only seen one study referenced?

You make a valid point.. heres one in return. It would be a feat to find any river with 'outstanding Brook Trout fishing' anywhere near here.. Steelhead or not.. Habitat & water temps have degraded visibly within my own lifetime observations. I know the upper watershed well along with it's pre-dominate Browns.

Only advocating that the dams must go.. _then_ move on to next order of business.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

As a property owner on the Boardman and as an avid river user, I have absolutely no interest in seeing steelhead above Sabin dam. Is it because of the social issue? Yes. Show me a steelhead stream that looks better after the season than it does before. 

I was at an initial meeting of the dam removal group and it was obvious from the start that the DNR was mounting a serious campaign to introduce steelhead above where they are now. My guess is that what will happen will take a long time....litigation over land ownership on the backwaters hasn't really started, and from what I can tell, it's a surveyor's nightmare.

The Boardman river seriously needs some fishing regulations, including flies only, and no-kill. And what I'd truly like to see is an honest effort at law enforcement on the river, including ticketing those too inebriated to guide their inner tubes around bends.

Further, should all the dams be removed, you can bet there will be an active canoe livery on the river perhaps leading to more evidence of human inability to see rivers as little more than water parks.


I'm not an elitist, nor am I selfish. I simply want to see the river respected and used with a modicum of grace.


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

mike delp said:


> I'm not an elitist, nor am I selfish. I simply want to see the river respected and used with a modicum of grace.


Yes you are. Your push for flies only and further restrictions proves it. Im generally fine with the pulling of dams, and the restricting the upstream movement of steelhead. But if you want to restrict the use of the upper portions of the rivers by adding flies only desiginations then you will lose a lot of support, from many user groups... including a lot of flyfisherman. It is a BS, social regulation that does little or nothing to protect or improve a fishery.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

I'm fairly certain most fly fishermen would favor some type of restrictions. I'd even grant you restrictions on using only worms or hardware in some sections. I'm not an evangelist for catch and release although I practice it. You're welcome to think what you wish, of course.


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

Leave the dams, Plenty of steelehead to be had already. I personally dont want the stupid rotten salmon all over the damn place like they are in every other river around here. Rivers without salmon runs produce better fly fishing in my experience.


----------



## parker16 (Oct 21, 2008)

Great post Mike. I still don't think folks in this thread grasp an essential point: there are proposals afoot to vastly increase the canoe and kayak traffic after the dams go out. This includes a proposal to alter the Union Street Dam eventually so one could race down a rapids and reach Lake Michigan. Once all the money is spent to remove the dams it seems almost inevitable that there will be an increase in conflicts between fisherman and kayakers.

I had an experience opening day weekend that gave me some insight into just what that conflict could look like.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

All I've seen in the past two days is way too much water going by. Whew!


----------



## UkiahDog (May 12, 2008)

There are people who seem to be well versed in this issue so I have some questions perhaps you can offer some insight on. Not really related to the health of the river, or kayakers-who already use it as do us fisherman. 

What about the decades of silt and pollution that has built up behind the dams? Does this go into the bay, which already has yearly E. Coli warnings to not go over your knees? Do you spend extra money in our economically depressed state to dredge that out? Who pays for that? How long do these things take to go away before steelhead return to the upper river? Perhaps, increased fishery operations? What about the coolwater fish as well as the various small creatures that make boardman Lake home? Are Steelhead in the upper river more important than said species?

If Union St. dam stays then why take any out? What happens to the property that used to be waterfront and what used to be lake is now what? How do you reclaim that land that is now unusable for years? How much money does it take to grade that land and make it something you can walk, or build on? Who gets it, the current preoperty owners, or create new lots? A new park? How would you feel if your home just lost half of it's value and now it borders an unusable swampland, rather than a lake? 

How many other things, wildlife and consrevation related can you think of that we could spend this millions of dollars on? Does this need to happen now, in our economical state? 

I kayak on ocassion and I fish a lot. Why would one group have more right to the lake than any other citizen of this state, this country for that matter? I'm sure these are questions that have been a source of concern and a reason for this creating so much debate, and many of these are rhetorical, but my point is this: Do you have a good time fishing on the river? Do canoers and kayakers have fun on the river? If you want to fish Steelhead can't you drive 30 minutes to the Betsie? That's what I do, and it's not a problem for me. Especially when I think that I may have to help pay for that, as a Michigan and Grand Traverse county resident. Is this something that needs to happen now, when our state is leading the recession, or can it wait another decade, or five years even? 

I think it's going to be funny when the kayaking groups, the fishing groups, and the environmentalists push for this to happen, and then it does. They will then be at each others throats, and before you know it you'll be able to fish on Sunday and Monday, kayak on Tuesday and Saturday, and view wildlife on Wednesday and Friday. And don't forget, no monofilament line because it's bad for the environment!!!

Now I may be playing devil's advocate, but everyone has equal right to the river. Also, everyone has equal right to Boardman Lake!!! No one group is more important than the other, so quit crying about the kayakers because I don't think the fish are afraid of them.... Now, if I ran my 14' Jon Boat up the river what would you think then? Be careful, cause I'll probably have a bow with me! I'm kidding about that part..... Well kind of.... By the way, I work in a field where I read, use, and quote studies all the time and there's a saying about studies. One study is NO study. How about comissioning a study from a group that has different goals than our DNR? I for one think the MDBR is a bunch of crooks. Hell, they ARE confirmed POACHERS!!!!! Therefore, they are liars, hypocrits, and abusers of power. Their study says what it has to to generate more money for them.

Guess what, the river now has dams so that's it's natural state in 2009 and since when, 1930?. If you're so freakin concerned about the natural state of the land bulldoze your damn house and live off the land. Live off your back. Boardman lake's natural state is the state it is in now. Leave the dams, go to a different river to salmon fish and kayak and shut up.... Or fish for salmon below Sabin pond and kayak above it.... Wait a minute... that's what happens now... And these people already have conflict. Don't volunteer to spend my tax money on this when I can spend it on a dozen other things that might help our state of affairs in these messed up times.

I think a waterpark for kayakers would be a great idea, if I suported dam removal. It consolidates that activity. We had one of those in the Trukee river that runs form Lake Tahoe to Reno when I lived out west. The kayakers were down there, the tubers left right from town to Rivers retaurant, and the rest was great fishing. You know what, it's amazing, but those damned fish swam right past them up to me.:fish2:


----------

