# Is the Boardman dead?



## steelton (Jan 29, 2012)

My friends and I did an opener camping trip to the Boardman fished hard most of saturday above the last dam, only had a few small bumps. The strange part was any where we walked the river was gin clear and there didn't seem to be any small fish anywhere. Anyone else find this out over the weekend,


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

The Boardman is fine I got a limit there today


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

It was tough fishing an the river got hammered pretty hard this weekend. However I was able to get into some fish well off the beaten path.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Fished it Sat. Had no problem catching fish. But I was now where near the crowds. I have never fished it opening weekend. I have never seen so many people. Maybe that is normal but I knew where some nice brookies were and had a blast.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

The Boardman is a very fickle river. It can fish great for those with private access to good water. For walk-in fishing, it can be tough to learn. Best to beat the brush in the state land way up high for smaller brookies/browns. Otherwise, the key for learning this river is cover water and lots of it. I know a lot of folks that fish the Shumsky's stretch and they have reported minimal to no success in the last few years as compared to the past for this section. Seems like this section is dying for a good dose of those fiesty Sturgeon River brownies, but alas, dnr won't even consider a Boardman plant right now, despite how much traffic it gets. We are talking about a river that runs through TC and has freaking state campgrounds right on the bank, yet they simply refuse to give it a boost to help offset to instense usage. Yes, it is in the name of good science so we have a true baseline of a natural trout population recovery after dam removal, but I would still argue for some sections to be stocked right now. How much will that really be studied and quantified anyway.... and yet, we continue dumping 1000's upon 1000's of brown trout into the Betsie, which gets about 15 trout fisherman all summer long and gets up to 78 degress 

Anyway, Boardman has amazing potential, and with the dams coming out, the future looks great, but in like 15 years since.... For the next decade or so, you'll have to put in your time and look around. There are some great fish in there, and they are all wild, so that is great, but it is NOT the place to take a kid, which is a shame given how close to town it is and how many people try and use it. Just seems like some of it could offer more catching opportunity to the angling public, none the less, what you do catch in there is very rewarding.


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

Yup, it's dead. Don't go there anymore.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

steelton said:


> My friends and I did an opener camping trip to the Boardman fished hard most of saturday above the last dam, only had a few small bumps. The strange part was any where we walked the river was gin clear and there didn't seem to be any small fish anywhere. Anyone else find this out over the weekend,


I had a tough opener in the UP fishing in spots that I am certain are full of brook trout and I ran into only one fisherman all weekend and it happened to be my cousin.  

It was VERY COLD (10 degrees, yes 10) Saturday morning, and I'm sure that slowed down the bite dramatically - not to metion all the time I wasted de-icing my guides!  I finally managed a few in the afternoon, but I worked hard for them. 

I bet if you fished the same water mid-late week this week or this weekend after this extended warm up that you'd do better. 

Don


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

Nice post Benize, I plan on sending you a PM later tonight when I have more time.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

I hate to say it but in my opinion the DNRs credibility when it comes to the Boardman is absolutley ZERO.

For those familar with the feasibilty study done for the dam removal per DNR estimates there were 21,000 to 33,000 fishing days per season. With every section rated between moderate to heavy pressure with the exception of the ponds. 

http://www.theboardman.org/userfiles/filemanager/61/

when the last round of gear restriction were discussed that turned into 



> A creel census study
> conducted in 2005 showed that both fishing effort and angler harvest of trout were low in
> this reach, and that most anglers here practiced voluntary catch and release





> A 2005 creel census study showed that fishing pressure on this
> reach is relatively low.


http://www.glfsa.org/science/Review-Michigan-Trout-Streams-for-Gear-Regulations_322301_7.pdf page 50

In addition everyone can remember how wonderful the habitat in the section above Brown Bridge was described and how if Brown Bridge Dam was removed the water below would be equally as great. When discussing gear regs that section all of a sudden turned into marginal water with below average growth rates.

The DNR's intention is to turn the Boardman into a steelhead stream. Plain and simple. That's their goal and they are going to nothing to improve the stream for resident trout. 

The DNR biologists are full of s h i t when they open their mouths to talk about the Boardman.


----------



## Roger That (Nov 18, 2010)

tannhd said:


> Yup, it's dead. Don't go there anymore.


What he is referring to I believe is that on rivers like the PM you will see minnows all over, small fish in the slack and actually get some chasers.

We fished well off the beaten path at some spots and I even marched off by myself a few miles upstream and found water that in any other stream would hold fish. I fished it all thoroughly and carefully and didn't even have any lookers. We were fishing spinners and it was very cold at night and cold in the morning, probably would have done better with bait and just plunked worms and drank PBR.

That river below the Union St. Dam though is a different story. About a million suckers, a bunch of spooky steel, and we caught well over 100 baby chinook ( i think that is what they were). I couldn't drift bait for more than 3 seconds without getting hit.

Sunday was warmer, we fished a better river, we caught fish.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!! (Jun 18, 2009)

TC-fisherman said:


> I hate to say it but in my opinion the DNRs credibility when it comes to the Boardman is absolutley ZERO.
> 
> For those familar with the feasibilty study done for the dam removal per DNR estimates there were 21,000 to 33,000 fishing days per season. With every section rated between moderate to heavy pressure with the exception of the ponds.
> 
> ...


I can;t imagine that the purpose of the dam removals would eb anything other than to introduce steelhead into the entire length of the Boardman.

I used to fish it often. There were days I would get zero rises and days that would be banner.

Late September on that river can be magic. It would be a much different river if it gets pounded like the Betise for the salmon that would take over the river if it was open to Great Lakes migrants.

Too bad.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> I hate to say it but in my opinion the DNRs credibility when it comes to the Boardman is absolutley ZERO.
> 
> For those familar with the feasibilty study done for the dam removal per DNR estimates there were 21,000 to 33,000 fishing days per season. With every section rated between moderate to heavy pressure with the exception of the ponds.
> 
> ...


Welcome to management of and by social science. Also called, politics. Its the newest crave don't you know. Oh, that is unless it doesn't fit ones ideology, than its s h i t.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Ranger Ray said:


> Welcome to management of and by social science. Also called, politics. Its the newest crave don't you know. Oh, that is unless it doesn't fit ones ideology, than its s h i t.


Nice try, but the dnr trying to save $$$$$k a year in andro hatchery cost is not social science.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

TC-fisherman said:


> Nice try, but the dnr trying to save $$$$$k a year in andro hatchery cost is not social science.


Nice try, but your post was about more than the DNR trying to save money from a hatchery.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Ranger Ray said:


> Nice try, but your post was about more than the DNR trying to save money from a hatchery.


Yes it was, but none of it was about social science or even the ptd. But don't let that stop you.... I know it wont


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

So whats the reason for the biologists being full of s h i t? Why would they manipulate their stories as you elude to?


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

I did not allude they manipulated their stories. I stated it. And one of the reasons they have mentioned in previous docs is to save hatchery costs.

When the esteemed dnr biologists are asked point blank what the effect of steelhead on resident trout is they only reply with anecdotes about how on other streams they coexist. Yet the dnr commisioned studies, found there was a negative affect, however those esteemed biologists won't even admit to the possibility of an effect during public discussions.

I don't know the full extent of the reasons why. What i do know is according to the dnr when wanting dam removal the boardman is a heavily fished and utilized river. The same dnr seems to think fishing pressure is minimal when considering gear restrictions. If that isn't the defintiin of full of it than i don't know what is


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

The Boardman is alive an well after today's rains! I am going to check a few place out tonight.


----------



## Fishslayer5789 (Mar 1, 2007)

steelton said:


> My friends and I did an opener camping trip to the Boardman fished hard most of saturday above the last dam, only had a few small bumps. The strange part was any where we walked the river was gin clear and there didn't seem to be any small fish anywhere. Anyone else find this out over the weekend,


I caught fish, and I have 2 buddies that got into them as well.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Boardman Brookies said:


> The Boardman is alive an well after today's rains! I am going to check a few place out tonight.


Me and mama was down there last night to check out BB Pond. Seen one vehicle parked at the bridge crossing the river. The water was high and fast. I noticed today at Auntie Pasta's the river was murky and Boardman Lake looked mucky. I haven't been out yet as I had to study for a final and I'm stuck on honey-do's. Maybe next week I'll hit some of the obscure creeks out past the Ranch.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

swampswede said:


> What does flies only have to do with it ?


Nothing


----------



## sb_troutsman (Dec 7, 2004)

So how 'bout we make the boardman a no flies river? Wouldn't that also limit the amount of activity on the river? Somebody explain how my fishing with a spinner is more obnoxious than a fly fisherman using a streamer. I fish it exactly like a streamer but have a different reell attached to my pole. 

Personally, I think canoes, kayaks, tubes, fly fisherman and anybody who doesn't go by the screen name 'sb_troutsman' should be banned from the boardman. What do you say? any supporters?


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

I fish the Boardman 3-4 times a week. There are always a lot of people on the opener but after that I rarely see a soul. Tonight was different. I just had an hour so I jumped in a popular place and encountered a son and father bait fishing. It reminded me of when my dad would take me. I wounder how they would feel if that spot was changed to flies only? BTW I was fly fishing. Here is what was concluded on the sections that the Adams Chapter of TU nominated under the last push for GRs:

Unit: CLMMU
County: Grand Traverse
Waterbody: Boardman River
Segment(s): Forks to Brown Bridge Dam (7.4 miles)
Entry No: 415
Requested by: Public
Recommendation: We recommend that Type 1 regulations be retained.
Rationale: High natural mortality and below average growth of resident trout species.
The reach of the Boardman River from the confluence of the North and South Branches
downstream to Brown Bridge Pond has been designated as a Type 1 stream since 2000.
Natural mortality rates for both brook trout and brown trout are believed to be high. Very
few brook trout survive beyond age-1 or reach the 8 inch minimum size limit, and very
few brown trout ever survive beyond age 3. Estimated harvest of brown trout from the
Boardman River in a 2005 angler census survey was only 81 brown trout over the entire
season. Therefore, we believe that fishing mortality here is very low. The mean length
of age-2 brown trout is slightly lower than average for Michigan trout streams. In the
1950s and 1960s, a study was conducted within a portion of this reach where flies-only
regulations were implemented. The results failed to show any increase in the abundance
of larger trout, and the gear restrictive regulations were removed. There is assured public
access and some public support for gear restrictions in this reach. However, this section
of river does not fulfill many of the biological criteria in FO-213 for trout streams that are
good candidates for gear restrictive regulations. We recommend that Type 1 regulations
be retained at this time. The Boardman River regulatory framework will be further
assessed through the public review process for the draft Boardman River Assessment to
address potential regulatory changes that may be prudent with the pending removal of
Sabin, Boardman, and Brown Bridge dam.


----------

