# 6th St Dam Removal



## wintrrun

diztortion said:


> I couldn't imagine the stench is they removed the dams.


 
Compared to what???? The stench that already lingers @ the dam?:lol:
Sorry Al, could not help myself.


----------



## diztortion

wintrrun said:


> Compared to what???? The stench that already lingers @ the dam?:lol:
> Sorry Al, could not help myself.


You're right...


----------



## anon12162011

I think this article dispells much of the speculation and notions people have about this project.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/07/grand_rapids_whitewater_picks.html


----------



## lostontheice

the grand is just one more river the canoe and yakers are looking to screw up..they already got the little man messed up,been screwing with the big man,and many other rivers..dont say the DNR wont do it because it wouldnt be smart..When have they done the smart choice instead of the dumbest idea that hit the table??


----------



## raisinrat

I want to chime in here just to point out some other dam work that is start late summer early fall of this year on the east side of the state. I have a sticky in the SE michigan river on it here is a link. This might be a much better option. It keeps just about everyone happy and addresses the huge cost of sediment removal.

here is the sticky I will be happy and answer questions if you have any.

 River Raisin Dam Projects!


----------



## diztortion

Even if they remove the dam(s) there will be plenty of structure.

All those road cones, street signs, shopping carts, bicycles, and other objects are great for holding fish.

I wouldn't wanna go under out there with all the fishing line flowing in the river.


----------



## earl

diztortion said:


> I wouldn't wanna go under out there with all the fishing line flowing in the river.


That's cold Al, I had heard the summer engineering crews cleaned that stuff out during the summer...(along with the rocks that created the better holding spots)....


----------



## smiley1544

lostontheice said:


> the grand is just one more river the canoe and yakers are looking to screw up..they already got the little man messed up,been screwing with the big man,and many other rivers..dont say the DNR wont do it because it wouldnt be smart..When have they done the smart choice instead of the dumbest idea that hit the table??


How did the little man get messed up by kayakers? 


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## wintrrun

smiley1544 said:


> How did the little man get messed up by kayakers?


 
I was wondering the same thing...........

I put more than a few hours in this summer and have yet to see any signs of a hatch.


----------



## diztortion

earl said:


> That's cold Al, I had heard the summer engineering crews cleaned that stuff out during the summer...(along with the rocks that created the better holding spots)....


You're right. I've been wanting to get down there and reap the benefits of low water.


----------



## johnny5alive

Oldgrandman said:


> It is mainly a man made fishery that is at stake or would change as a result. There is a fish ladder, anadromous fish can make passage through it. Not much of an issue there... The sediment thing is also a concern and would probably be _*very*_ costly to undertake. I do not think this is the kind of dam removal that is "overall" beneficial.


Sturgeon dont use the ladder and are threatened. 6th street serves no purpose anymore. I say rip out as many as possible. Also, everytime a boater drowns from getting to close to the apron thats one more step towards ripping it out, that alone is probably the thing that will be 6th street's biggest downfall.


----------



## riverbob

johnny5alive said:


> Sturgeon dont use the ladder and are threatened. 6th street serves no purpose anymore. I say rip out as many as possible. Also, everytime a boater drowns from getting to close to the apron thats one more step towards ripping it out, that alone is probably the thing that will be 6th street's biggest downfall.


j5 what are u thinking I remember swimming in the west side canal so ,,,, lost my train of through if, if the big dam is taken out thats maybe a 6 to 8 foot drop in water level up from the dam up stream no more motor boating, no more riverside park, no more tieing my boats to the dock, and that's just in the summer. I also watched sturgeon's work a spawing bed, at the mouth of the canal. (just below bridge st.)


----------



## johnny5alive

riverbob said:


> j5 what are u thinking I remember swimming in the west side canal so ,,,, lost my train of through if, if the big dam is taken out thats maybe a 6 to 8 foot drop in water level up from the dam up stream no more motor boating, no more riverside park, no more tieing my boats to the dock, and that's just in the summer. I also watched sturgeon's work a spawing bed, at the mouth of the canal. (just below bridge st.)


Dam removal often creates narrower but deeper channels from the dam removal videos Im seen. How would the park go away?


----------



## tannhd

While I don't have an educated opinion one way or the other I was at Founders last night and saw that they are working with the group pushing the dam removal to raise money for the project. See below. I think there is more steam behind this than "some people talking" as stated above.


----------



## anon12162011

And I know there are several in the Founders Company that are steelhead fisherman too...I believe at KBS release day, I saw the president was wearing a fishing shirt of some sort.

They've been raising funds for it for a LONG time now.

And oh yea, they make the best beers on planet earth....not to hijack this thread, but did you try Cashew Mountain Brown?


----------



## tannhd

I didnt as I am not a big brown ale fan, but I sort of regret it now. It was like 10%.


----------



## anon12162011

I was in there a couple months ago and was leery to try it, but did because I love Cashews and it was absolutely unreal, very rich taste, and pretty "boozy" which I personally like in some beers. I liked it so much I went back a couple weeks later when passing through just to have a glass and then they pulled it from the taps and now its back. I need to get over there and try the 10K IPA, the new double IPA.


----------



## tannhd

BigR said:


> I was in there a couple months ago and was leery to try it, but did because I love Cashews and it was absolutely unreal, very rich taste, and pretty "boozy" which I personally like in some beers. I liked it so much I went back a couple weeks later when passing through just to have a glass and then they pulled it from the taps and now its back. I need to get over there and try the 10K IPA, the new double IPA.


 
I had "a few" 10ks last night. Tasty for sure.


----------



## anon12162011

Nice!


----------



## Oldgrandman

johnny5alive said:


> Sturgeon dont use the ladder and are threatened. 6th street serves no purpose anymore. I say rip out as many as possible. Also, everytime a boater drowns from getting to close to the apron thats one more step towards ripping it out, that alone is probably the thing that will be 6th street's biggest downfall.


You are probably right about the sturgeon not getting past the "big" dam. I am not qualified to state this as fact, but I would bet that the Grand is not the best sturgeon rearing river like it was a century or more ago for many other reasons.
As for drowning people drown in all kinds of water usually due to their own mistakes, nothing else. The # 1 reason probably being lack of a life vest.


----------



## no lead

i would agree lack of safety precautions, aka not so bright, is the leading cause of injury at 6th st. having fished it a million billion times i have seen so many mistakes made by good anglers it still surprises me. 

it is no place to fool around that is for sure. it comes down to learning the river and giving it the respect it deserves.

as far as founders brew goes i love the centennial IPA the best. i used to put a few bottles into big 22oz cans of lesser brew and drink it in the river. people said how can you drink that cheap ***** beer? i said like this. i won't take glass into any river so that is how i did it.

mmmm. founders.


----------



## anon12162011

no lead said:


> as far as founders brew goes i love the centennial IPA the best. i used to put a few bottles into big 22oz cans of lesser brew and drink it in the river. people said how can you drink that cheap ***** beer? i said like this. i won't take glass into any river so that is how i did it.
> 
> mmmm. founders.


 
Now thats a dedicated Founders Fan right there! All of this Founders talk makes me want one...sad thing is, I have a full drawer full of it in the fridge, but am on a weightloss program for several months now and have to limit my intake...I picked up a limited release bottle of Blushing Monk that I am saving when I hit a milestone of 65 lbs (I'm at 59 now and can already taste it). 

I did enjoy a couple Founders over the weekend...Double Troublemmmm, mmmm!


----------



## Spin to Win

Oldgrandman said:


> You are probably right about the sturgeon not getting past the "big" dam. I am not qualified to state this as fact, but I would bet that the Grand is not the best sturgeon rearing river like it was a century or more ago for many other reasons...


I was watching a show on PBS a really long time ago about the Grand. There's a documentary about it out there somewhere. Anyways, one of the things that sticks out in my mind, was in regards to the sturgeon in the Grand. I remember them saying that there was documentation of sturgeon making it all the way to Jackson before the dams were put in. I think they said something about the Indians fishing for them waaay upstream prior to all of the "improvements" that the settlers made on the river.


----------



## Oldgrandman

Spin to Win said:


> I was watching a show on PBS a really long time ago about the Grand. There's a documentary about it out there somewhere. Anyways, one of the things that sticks out in my mind, was in regards to the sturgeon in the Grand. I remember them saying that there was documentation of sturgeon making it all the way to Jackson before the dams were put in. I think they said something about the Indians fishing for them waaay upstream prior to all of the "improvements" that the settlers made on the river.


Absolutely true. That was then, this is now. What are the chances or better yet where is the data that they could reproduce in this river now with or without the dam. That is what I would be curious to know.
Seems like they are having a tough time in the "cleaner" rivers in the North getting these fish re-established. I haven't researched it but that is what I remember about it. The Grand would probably not be high on the list for this species.

Founders eh? Not much of a beer guy but I do want to go check out the restaurant and try their beer someday.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Lake sturgeon are still running the lower Grand River. Although their numbers are down, they are reproducing. How does it rank with other southern Michigan rivers in terms of adults and spawning success?

1. Muskegon (fairly good return of adults and good reproduction)
2. Grand (fair return of adults and evidence of reproduction)
3. Kalamazoo (few adults so supplementing population with streamside rearing hatchery)
4. St. Joe (very few adults left - none documented in recent assessments for them)


----------



## Oldgrandman

Thanks for the info Jay. You are a good resource for the site. I knew they came in, but wondered if they were reproducing here.


----------



## homerdog

lostontheice said:


> the grand is just one more river the canoe and yakers are looking to screw up..they already got the little man messed up,been screwing with the big man,and many other rivers..dont say the DNR wont do it because it wouldnt be smart..When have they done the smart choice instead of the dumbest idea that hit the table??


Or you could look at it from a couple other points of view: That the dams screwed up the natural flow of the river and should never have been put there in the first place, or that they have outlived their usefulness and need to be removed.
I'd also rather believe that the dams have screwed up the rivers way more than anything the kayakers and canoers could ever possibly do.


----------



## diztortion

Wouldn't removing the dams causing serious issues with tributaries?

Curious on the effects of the sediment built up at confluences of other streams and rivers.


----------



## earl

Jay Wesley said:


> Lake sturgeon are still running the lower Grand River. Although their numbers are down, they are reproducing. How does it rank with other southern Michigan rivers in terms of adults and spawning success?
> 
> 1. Muskegon (fairly good return of adults and good reproduction)
> 2. Grand (fair return of adults and evidence of reproduction)
> 3. Kalamazoo (few adults so supplementing population with streamside rearing hatchery)
> 4. St. Joe (very few adults left - none documented in recent assessments for them)


For me, the odd thing here is that I've seen about as many sturgeon at St Joe, as I have at all other piers combined.


----------



## Speyday

Jay,

If you are checking this thread; could you give an accurate position of this project as seen through the eyes of DNR? I did a cursory scan of your posts and didn't find anything.

Rumor mill is starting to grind on the topic here and on another fishing site:

_"Will the 6th street dam be removed"_

and opinions and hearsay are starting to take off.

Can you set the record straight and give us a status?

Thanks!


----------



## Boozer

earl said:


> For me, the odd thing here is that I've seen about as many sturgeon at St Joe, as I have at all other piers combined.


I see a lot of Sturgeon in the Joe itself every May. Know of about 4 different spawning locations where you can see 2-6 fish hanging out at each one...

Surprised their assessments didn't find any recently, they are in the same places every year...


----------



## RAD FISH

:: The 6th street dam will not be removed mark my words, end of story. The kayakers should put the bong down and put there money towards something else. Not gonna happen for sure in our life time. This has been hashed out many time before so im not going into the reasons to why, that has been stated many times before.


----------



## bassdisaster

RAD FISH said:


> :: The 6th street dam will not be removed mark my words, end of story. The kayakers should put the bong down and put there money towards something else. Not gonna happen for sure in our life time. This has been hashed out many time before so im not going into the reasons to why, that has been stated many times before.


Would be wise for many to investigate the history of the Grand river, the placement of the 6th street dam was intentional, the river was MOVED, there are Quarry holes under it that are now silted full, this is NOT natural in the 1st place so why would we destroy a fishery to make it natural, it can never be natural again, not to re-mention all that toxic sediment that has built up behind the dam and coffers, what cost would it be? Not just $ out of the states pockets but the devistation to the fishery below, killing off or making every fish toxic to eat is not a good way to improve a fishery, Its comparable to Special regs waters that we have in michigan, restrict the many so the few can have it their way!


BD


----------



## no lead

RAD FISH said:


> :: The 6th street dam will not be removed mark my words, end of story. The kayakers should put the bong down and put there money towards something else. Not gonna happen for sure in our life time. This has been hashed out many time before so im not going into the reasons to why, that has been stated many times before.


i concur again. the dam will never-ever-be removed. the state doesn't have the funds to mommy coddle a few pampered wanna be socialites with a utopian dream of kayaking the grand. ever.

can you believe i spelled all of those big words correctly?


----------



## no lead

incoming by the way.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/uv?04119000


----------



## johnny5alive

bassdisaster said:


> Would be wise for many to investigate the history of the Grand river, the placement of the 6th street dam was intentional, the river was MOVED, there are Quarry holes under it that are now silted full, this is NOT natural in the 1st place so why would we destroy a fishery to make it natural, it can never be natural again, not to re-mention all that toxic sediment that has built up behind the dam and coffers, what cost would it be? Not just $ out of the states pockets but the devistation to the fishery below, killing off or making every fish toxic to eat is not a good way to improve a fishery, Its comparable to Special regs waters that we have in michigan, restrict the many so the few can have it their way!
> 
> 
> BD


, please refer to speydays link for some real facts on dam removal. The fishery would not be "destroyed". Special regs thrown in there again.:lol:


----------



## Oldgrandman

no lead said:


> incoming by the way.
> 
> http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/uv?04119000


YES! Been watching this happen the last couple days as I crossed the river on the way home from work...


----------



## anon12162011

Went to Founders and enjoyed Devil Dancer, 10K IPA, Mister E Froot, and Cashew Mountain Brown tonight and brought home a growler of Reds Rye...and oh yea, donated $5 to the restore the Rapids project...eat it dumb arses


----------



## RAD FISH

BigR said:


> Went to Founders and enjoyed Devil Dancer, 10K IPA, Mister E Froot, and Cashew Mountain Brown tonight and brought home a growler of Reds Rye...and oh yea, donated $5 to the restore the Rapids project...eat it dumb arses



:: You would have been better off wiping your ass with that $5 after drinking that Grand River water beer my friend.


----------



## thousandcasts

no lead said:


> i concur again. the dam will never-ever-be removed. the state doesn't have the funds to mommy coddle a few pampered wanna be socialites with a utopian dream of kayaking the grand. ever.





> The kayakers should put the bong down and put there money towards something else.


----------



## anon12162011

RAD FISH said:


> :: You would have been better off wiping your ass with that $5 after drinking that Grand River water beer my friend.


 
Sorry let me tailor it to 6th street.

F those people who actually band together and put their minds and money where the mouths are and get off their lazy **** and actually work towards a goal they want to acheive.
I saved my money and bought 3 22ozers of steel reserve that I am going to leave the empties in the rocks along the edge and that 5 bucks is halfway to my next hit of meth.


----------



## RAD FISH

BigR said:


> Sorry let me tailor it to 6th street.
> 
> F those people who actually band together and put their minds and money where the mouths are and get off their lazy **** and actually work towards a goal they want to acheive.
> I saved my money and bought 3 22ozers of steel reserve that I am going to leave the empties in the rocks along the edge and that 5 bucks is halfway to my next hit of meth.




:: Those 3 empties would last at the most 15 min. before being picked up, but hay you'd be putting your money towards a goal for that person to find 7 more to get there own can of steel reserve and will actually be achieved.


----------



## Steel-er

As a fisherman of 6th street, i would LOVE to see the coffers removed. It would give the fish much more natural holding water, and allow more fish to get further upstream to actually have a 'chance' of spawning successfully before meeting walls of 6ft leaders/ 'egg flies'. 

It would present an actual challenge in catching a fish and would actually require knowing how to read water/ etc. However, for those of you that like chumming in a fish bowl to catch fish, or your so called business depends on you chumming in a fish bowl to catch fish, I can see why you'd be upset. It's disappointing how everyone, and especially some guides in the area are all about numbers, if you think that's what fishing is- "you're doing it wrong"


----------



## Benz

Way to add your voice a year later lol


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Roger That

Fishing is about numbers bro!!


----------



## riverbob

Steel-er, y u open that can of bean ?:idea: read the whole thread frist. then see how many people you repeat.


----------



## Trout King

either way 6th st isnt going anywhere until mother nature does it in. if they figured out a plan to do it right it might be a good thing, but you have to consider the effects of upstream, including the power generating dams...mankind has always put itslef into prediciments with nature, but not always figured a way out
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catfish keats

diztortion said:


> I was looking at their website and what not. Wouldn't it be easier to move to a place that has white water instead of transforming a whole river system in an attempt to satisfy your "needs" and a few others "wants"? If I was that passionate about white water kayaking I would probably move to a new location.
> 
> I'd like to fish sharks, but I'm not transporting them and trying to place them in the Grand.
> 
> I'd like to hunt Gorillas but I'm not trying to bring them here and organize an attempt to help make that happen.
> 
> It seems unpractical to me.


Haha these yaks must be lazy because there are many areas throughout the state with much cleaner water and systems with daster flowing water with more rapids. Why wouldnt they just portage around the impoundments. It seems like if anyone was going to remove a dam it would be for environmental issues not for recreation. These fisheries attract people from all walks of life that enjoy fishing.


----------



## johnny5alive

Trout King said:


> either way 6th st isnt going anywhere until mother nature does it in. if they figured out a plan to do it right it might be a good thing, but you have to consider the effects of upstream, including the power generating dams...mankind has always put itslef into prediciments with nature, but not always figured a way out
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



so you dont read the political sections in the newspapers??? The Governor is in love with the restore the rapids plan. Devos has the money to fund it.


----------



## Steel-er

johnny5alive said:


> so you dont read the political sections in the newspapers??? The Governor is in love with the restore the rapids plan. Devos has the money to fund it.


This is why i 'open that can of beans' lol:evilsmile:evilsmile:evilsmile


----------



## wintrrun

Roger That said:


> Fishing is about numbers bro!!


 
Yep and thats why i prefer to fish Ohio this time of year!
click, click, click....click


----------



## itchn2fish

....by 2016. 
GRAND RAPIDS, MI  The co-founders of Grand Rapids Whitewater say theyre on track in their long-term mission to restore the rapids to the Grand River by 2016. 
Its a quest that is going to require a lot of money  an estimated $27.5 million -- and a lot of buy-in from government agencies and individuals who have a stake in Michigan's largest river and its future.
The group's timeline calls for construction of new rapids and removal or lowering of the dams to begin in 2014, coinciding with a Michigan Department of Transportation project to expand the Ford Freeway (I-196) bridge over the river by one lane. 
On the fundraising front, co-founder Chris Muller said they are forming the relationships they will need to receive federal and state grants and the private money that will be required to match those grants.
Their consultants have estimated up to 35 percent of the $27.5 million will have to come from private funds. 
Although they have some seed money from local foundations and fundraising help from Founders Brewery, Muller said the larger fundraising effort will depend on how much grant money is available.
Nobody has really been asked and nobody has answered, said Muller of the group's fundraising efforts to date.
Mike Van Gessel, president of Rockford Construction Co. and head of a group called West Michigan Environmental Leadership Network, says his group is supportive of the river restoration and Grand Rapids Whitewater's efforts to raise money for the project.
River restoration is a project that is great for West Michigan, Van Gessel said. Were generally in a position to support them.
We do not have all of these donors lined up, but those are things we are going to support Whitewater on as they move forward, he added.
A funding source they will not approach is city taxpayers, said Whitewater co-founder Chip Richards. 
Richards defends their plan to seek funding from the federal government. That money already has been collected. Would you rather see it goes somewhere else?
On the regulatory and legal front, Richards said they are proceeding carefully as they prepare to work through a thicket of regulatory agencies that govern the river on the local, state and federal level.
We still have a lot of work to do, and there will be no shortcuts, said Richards. We understand we have a lot of eyes on us and theyre not just local.
But before they apply for permits, they need to have plans in place. The group recently received $125,000 in grants from the Downtown Development Authority to conduct further studies of the river and design a barrier to keep sea lamprey from swimming upstream to spawn.
Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell, an early supporter of the restoration project, said he believes the group is well on track. 
The thing that is exciting to me is to watch the energy around their project, Heartwell said. It started with the two founders, but its being owned by a whole community of philanthropy, recreation and tourism, business as well as governmental units.
Having said that, theres still a lot of work to be done, he added. Its not simply a matter of raising the money.
Theyre a long way from dynamiting the Sixth Street Dam, but they are moving steadily in that direction.


----------



## wintrrun

johnny5alive said:


> so you dont read the political sections in the newspapers??? The Governor is in love with the restore the rapids plan. Devos has the money to fund it.


Yep Snyder will find a way to use the peoples money to fund the majority of the project and Devos will pony up to get the park named after him.
Win/Win!:evilsmile


----------



## Oldgrandman

Steel-er said:


> As a fisherman of 6th street, i would LOVE to see the coffers removed. *It would give the fish much more natural holding water,* and allow more fish to get further upstream to actually have a 'chance' of spawning successfully before meeting walls of 6ft leaders/ 'egg flies'.
> 
> It would present an actual challenge in catching a fish and would actually require knowing how to read water/ etc. However, for those of you that like chumming in a fish bowl to catch fish, or your so called business depends on you chumming in a fish bowl to catch fish, I can see why you'd be upset. It's disappointing how everyone, and especially some guides in the area are all about numbers, if you think that's what fishing is- "you're doing it wrong"


 
*If this is the case*, then wouldn't it put more fish in the bowl in your opinion (not mine), which seems to be one of your complaints? 

I do not see the government spending the money on this and they shouldn't in our current financial state.


----------



## DeerSlayer36

For comparison do a Google Search on the Boardman river Dam removal it's been a "GONG SHOW". Being Born and raised in TC, I know the Boardman river well and the TU chapter.

The Boardman is 1/10 the size of the Grand, it's been nothing but a trial and error Clown Convention.

This last fall they tried to just lower the water level on the first of three dams and they had awful flooding and a real mess on their hands.

My prediction is those in charge will screw this up badly and it will take a decade or more to restore the Blue Ribbon Boardman River Trout Fishery.


----------



## tannhd

Not this again. 

Removing the dam=great

Modifying the river for the purpose of a single sport (kayaking)=crap


----------



## Steel-er

Oldgrandman said:


> *If this is the case*, then wouldn't it put more fish in the bowl in your opinion (not mine), which seems to be one of your complaints?
> 
> I do not see the government spending the money on this and they shouldn't in our current financial state.


No! W/o the coffers there would be less fish in gr but on their way up stream they would hold in more natural lies like tailouts, behind rocks, etc instead of huddling up close to the coffers (bowls as i referred)


----------



## limpinglogan

Last year I posted I didn't care if this thing happened and as fishermen we would adapt and life would go on...

This year and as I learn more about the project I find myself thinking I am going to be super pissed if this thing goes through. 

The more I learn about this project the more I get pissed. Spending our tax dollars on it?!?!


----------



## Oldgrandman

DeerSlayer36 said:


> For comparison do a Google Search on the Boardman river Dam removal it's been a "GONG SHOW". Being Born and raised in TC, I know the Boardman river well and the TU chapter.
> 
> The Boardman is 1/10 the size of the Grand, it's been nothing but a trial and error Clown Convention.
> 
> This last fall they tried to just lower the water level on the first of three dams and they had awful flooding and a real mess on their hands.
> 
> My prediction is those in charge will screw this up badly and it will take a decade or more to restore the Blue Ribbon Boardman River Trout Fishery.


 
Not surprised. A few of the proposed drawings show rock piles that will likely be decimated during flood and/or ice jam events. Then there will be maintaing the thing, probably cost ton's more rethan the original project!


----------



## Steel-er

DeerSlayer36 said:


> For comparison do a Google Search on the Boardman river Dam removal it's been a "GONG SHOW". Being Born and raised in TC, I know the Boardman river well and the TU chapter.
> 
> The Boardman is 1/10 the size of the Grand, it's been nothing but a trial and error Clown Convention.
> 
> This last fall they tried to just lower the water level on the first of three dams and they had awful flooding and a real mess on their hands.
> 
> My prediction is those in charge will screw this up badly and it will take a decade or more to restore the Blue Ribbon Boardman River Trout Fishery.


That sure is a **** show, and a shame. However I think that instance gives a bad name for dam removals. Anyone fish the Paw Paw river in Watervliet? They did an AMAZING job with that dam removal, but nobody knows about it because it didn't ruin a fishery to get the press... So many dam removals end up going as planned, but the few that didn't (especially the B) have been giving it a bad rap lately. That is equivalent to not letting your kid go to school because there was a shooting at 1 out of 100,000 schools in the U.S. this year..


----------



## no lead

glad i moved away when i did.


----------



## riverdawg54

How much longer will it be before they tear the dam apart?


----------



## wintrrun

riverdawg54 said:


> How much longer will it be before they tear the dam apart?


 
Not long now.


----------



## itchn2fish

It even got a mention from the Gov during the "State of the State" address. I was kinda bummed-out that he didn't use the words fish or fishing or fishermen/women, at least not that I noticed.......


----------



## riverdawg54

I seen on the news where he mentioned something about the dam removal.Our gov is loved by all


----------



## Boozer

I guess in my opinion, I would rather see tax dollars go to something like this than 70% of the crap our tax dollars currently go to...


----------



## troutguy26

Boozer said:


> I guess in my opinion, I would rather see tax dollars go to something like this than 70% of the crap our tax dollars currently go to...


Yuuup


----------



## Oldgrandman

Boozer said:


> I guess in my opinion, I would rather see tax dollars go to something like this than 70% of the crap our tax dollars currently go to...


I completely get what you are saying. But this too is crap to be spending tax $$ on if our city/state/country is in as bad shape as we are told. 
It will not be some cash cow or even pay for it's self somehow. It will be a cash vacuum I am afraid as after being constructed, it will likely need maintaining after high water and ice floe events that jam up. Look what happened to that huge rock that was in the river between the blue train bridge converted into a walk bridge and Pearl st. bridge. It has been shattered into pieces. Those rock pile structures they intend to build will be pushed around like boulders by a glaicer.....


----------



## tsr770

Boozer said:


> I guess in my opinion, I would rather see tax dollars go to something like this than 70% of the crap our tax dollars currently go to...


I am hoping to see the river over in my corner of the state freeze up good and send some ice down to see what happens to the dam project over here on the Raisin... We have 6 low level dams in Monroe, just like the coffers in GR. They have removed the 2 that they can and are now building "rock ramps" up the others to allow fish passage, lots of limestone going into the river from 8 foot boulders to gravel. While I like the idea, I wonder what the ice is going to do to them.... Hopefully it works out good and they can implement something like this if they are going to do it over there. Guys I work with bitch about the tax money being spent on it and dredging the contaminated silt out of the mouth, but like I explain to them... If the government is going to waste money, I would rather see this than the "National Battlefield Historic Site" that we also have that is just a open field that they like to pump money into. Hopefully this project will restore the walleye, musky, and sturgeon runs that used to be a part of SE Michigan.

Here is a couple pics of one of the dams, used to be a 2 foot drop off of it. If anything it looks better...


----------



## jastharp

You should also look at some of the work of River Restoration the company that is doing the design work in Grand Rapids.

In Ogden Utah they did a project that helped turn that river into a blue ribbon trout fishery.

Video


----------



## Oldgrandman

jastharp said:


> You should also look at some of the work of River Restoration the company that is doing the design work in Grand Rapids.
> 
> In Ogden Utah they did a project that helped turn that river into a blue ribbon trout fishery.


That is good work there in Utah. But downtown GR will never be a BR trout fishery. One thing is for sure it would be hard to improve on the anadromous fishery it already has complete with spawning habitat and wadeable/fishable water-and not just in the the boils of the dam.

I admit the sturgeon "might" benefit but as for the salmonoids and walleye, they'll still need to be planting them in the river (walleye) by the millions and the salmonoids likely won't see much change in reproductivity. And the bass, well it is already touted as one of the best SM rivers in the state.


----------



## johnny5alive

Oldgrandman said:


> That is good work there in Utah. But downtown GR will never be a BR trout fishery. One thing is for sure it would be hard to improve on the anadromous fishery it already has complete with spawning habitat and wadeable/fishable water-and not just in the the boils of the dam.
> 
> I admit the sturgeon "might" benefit but as for the salmonoids and walleye, they'll still need to be planting them in the river (walleye) by the millions and the salmonoids likely won't see much change in reproductivity. And the bass, well it is already touted as one of the best SM rivers in the state.



What exactly is your concern over this?? , especially since most ice dams are created by 6th dam slowing the water down and widen the river well past comstock.


----------



## Oldgrandman

johnny5alive said:


> What exactly is your concern over this?? , especially since most ice dams are created by 6th dam slowing the water down and widen the river well past comstock.


You are either unaware of how these ice jams form or just plain uninformed. 

When it is well below freezing for a lenght of time and the river level is low, the water will form and start catching floating chunks in low water shelf areas downstream of GR. This starts a continual effect of the ice forming in the water and catching on shelves and objects in the river, downstream of GR, ever increasing in size and eventually forming a stopping point for this floating ice. *An ice dam is formed. This is important to remember. Not the 4th st. dam.*

In these well below freezing conditions the river is already iced over from the dam on upstream for quite some lenght. Often miles and the river never rises cause the dam allows water to pass. Another event causes the flooding.

Now when the jams form that start flooding happen, it is because the ice has been building up from far downstream of the city in prolonged cold water periods, the backing up continues and is relentless. Soon the entire downtown area is covered with ice until only the dam is sticking out of the water. It wouldn't mater if the water above the dam was iced over or not, the build up would continue and eventually overtake the dam as they do anyway. Soon you have the likings of a glacier. I may even have pictures of this event in progress.

There has never in my time as a resident of GR been a jam at the 4th st. dam cause flooding in Comstock park, they originate well downstream of Grand Rapids. *You always hear about them wanting to blow up some ice dam downstream of Grand Rapids to open the flow of the river back up. *Not at the 4th street dam or anywhere near it because that is not where the ice dam started.

I only state this because in the 25 plus years as a resident, frequent fisherman, and observer of the last few major jam events we have had, this is how they started. Before that I cannot say.


----------



## riverbob

Oldgrandman said:


> You are either unaware of how these ice jams form or just plain uninformed.I only state this because in the 25 plus years as a resident, frequent fisherman, and observer of the last few major jam events we have had, this is how they started. Before that I cannot say.


 well 25 years is quit a long time, but. no way a ice jam below 6th st.(really 4th st dam is going to effect the water level in comstock park...in my life time on the g river, i have only seen water backed up to the the big dam 2 times the frist jam started at the civic bridge the 2nd time it jamed just below wealty st. up here were I've lived for close to 50 years, it jams, above n below north park bridge.


----------



## Oldgrandman

riverbob said:


> well 25 years is quit a long time, but. no way a ice jam below 6th st.(really 4th st dam is going to effect the water level in comstock park...in my life time on the g river, i have only seen water backed up to the the big dam 2 times the frist jam started at the civic bridge the 2nd time it jamed just below wealty st. up here were I've lived for close to 50 years, it jams, above n below north park bridge.


Well you may or may not be correct about any of the ice jams from downstream of GR being responsible for the Comstock Park flooding. I won't even attempt to argue that. Certainly jams form all along the river. That isn't the point I am making. It is about the dam causing it.

If you check out this thread I started, you will see that this ice jam started well downstream of GR and backed up way beyond the 4th st. dam and even references another one that did. 

Every year ice forms above that dam and it does not cause any flooding. The big jams at the dam start downstream of it. This would be the point I am making.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219545


----------



## riverbob

Oldgrandman said:


> Well you may or may not be correct about any of the ice jams from downstream of GR being responsible for the Comstock Park flooding. I won't even attempt to argue that. Certainly jams form all along the river. That isn't the point I am making. It is about the dam causing it.........their has never,n i mean never ever been a ice jam below the big dam that efected comstock park.
> 
> If you check out this thread I started, you will see that this ice jam started well downstream of GR and backed up way beyond the 4th st. dam and even references another one that did..........to back up, beyond the dam, the dam would disapear (witch it has,(only once) their was only a ripple on the surface to show that the dam was there) I remember my uncle(jokingly say) y don't u put your boat in,n u can be the only guy to drive back n forth over the dam:lol::lol: n away the ice jam broke, when the water receded,( in 5 min.) their were big blocks of ice all along the west bank, ice was stacked on the east wall n all the railing were busted up allthe way to the post ofice. some of u older fishermen might remember that.
> 
> Every year ice forms above that dam and it does not cause any flooding. The big jams at the dam start downstream of it. This would be the point I am making......... bs, just 2 years ago i was talking (on this forum) about the ice jam forming down stream of my house. On that day i noticed that the river was riseing quite fast, so i called my neighbor, who lives 300 yard down stream of me. he said there was a 5 foot high ridge of ice going across the river, just above his house, n nothing but open water below north park bridge. their was a 18 inch difference in water level between his house n mine.


----------



## Oldgrandman

You see, some people you just caint reach.....:yikes:



riverbob said:


> Oldgrandman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you may or may not be correct about any of the ice jams from downstream of GR being responsible for the Comstock Park flooding. I won't even attempt to argue that. Certainly jams form all along the river. That isn't the point I am making. It is about the dam causing it.........their has never,n i mean never ever been a ice jam below the big dam that efected comstock park.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, apparently you do not understand me as is clear by your response, you may be correct. *I will not argue this point as I stated in my last post, it isn't relevant.* This was all started cause johnny5alive believes the ice at the 4th st. dam is responsible for flooding in Comstock Park, and you have confirmed that (although you are quite the unreliable source it would seem) because jams that start at Plaster creek or somewhere else downstream back up to the dam and upstream beyond it. *They do not start at the dam.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> riverbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldgrandman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you check out this thread I started, you will see that this ice jam started well downstream of GR and backed up way beyond the 4th st. dam and even references another one that did..........to back up, beyond the dam, the dam would disapear (witch it has,(only once) their was only a ripple on the surface to show that the dam was there) I remember my uncle(jokingly say) y don't u put your boat in,n u can be the only guy to drive back n forth over the dam:lol::lol: n away the ice jam broke, when the water receded,( in 5 min.) their were big blocks of ice all along the west bank, ice was stacked on the east wall n all the railing were busted up allthe way to the post ofice. some of u older fishermen might remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, there are photos in that thread I posted, back in 2005 & 2008 the dam was as good as gone as you can get. *Check post # 10 & 11 for photos of 2005 and post # 32 & 55 about* *2008 and they show the area of the dam,* now get ready* UNDER THE ICE!!!* Use your eyes there and see what happened. Obviously you have memory problems.
> 
> 
> 
> riverbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Every year ice forms above that dam and it does not cause any flooding. The big jams at the dam start downstream of it. This would be the point I am making......... bs, just 2 years ago i was talking (on this forum) about the ice jam forming down stream of my house. On that day i noticed that the river was riseing quite fast, so i called my neighbor, who lives 300 yard down stream of me. he said there was a 5 foot high ridge of ice going across the river, just above his house, n nothing but open water below north park bridge. their was a 18 inch difference in water level between his house n mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot even understand what I am saying here. Ice forms at the top of the dam and covers the river on upstream almost every year it is cold enough to and that event does not causing *any* flooding. But I fear again you will not understand this point.
> 
> *Look, I could produce articles that state a jam or ice dam at North Park bridge is causing a flood in Comstock park, I get that. I understand, it happens!* But there is no evidence that I found stating the ice at the 4th street dam caused a flood up there all by it's self.
> *This is the main point I am making in responding to johnny5alive.*
> 
> Some stuff in bold to help point out important stuff to you, riverbob.......incredible!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## riverbob

Oldgrandman said:


> Well you may or may not be correct about any of the ice jams from downstream of GR being responsible for the Comstock Park flooding. I won't even attempt to argue that. Certainly jams form all along the river. That isn't the point I am making. It is about the dam causing it.
> 
> If you check out this thread I started, you will see that this ice jam started well downstream of GR and backed up way beyond the 4th st. dam and even references another one that did.
> 
> Every year ice forms above that dam and it does not cause any flooding. The big jams at the dam start downstream of it. This would be the point I am making.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219545


 Oldrandman, my bad  I don't know what i read the frist time,but now that i reread it,your right,


----------



## jastharp

All this talk of ice got me doing some research. I have included links to information at the bottom. Some of this research comes from the Army Corps of Engineers who are the experts in dams and flood protection. They also have a cold regions research and engineering laboratory that deals with ice. 

We should start with the lamprey barrier. I know the idea of an inflatable barrier sounded like a bad idea. Ice or debris will just damage it or will it. What do the experts at the Army Corps say. Ice adhesion, seal leakage and freezing, as well as ice and debris passage, have not been problems. As a test to a dam in Minnesota on the Mississippi River in the dead of winter with 4 feet thick ice that dam was opened with no problems. You could use it to prevent ice jams. A high-powered rifle round will penetrate an inflatable dam, but at the relatively low internal pressures the resulting air loss is slow enough that the blowers can compensate until the bag is repaired.

Than there is the subject of the water level upstream. Having an adjustable structure would enable the water level to stay controlled. Right now you have 3500 cubic feet per second of water in the river. Dam or no dam that will not change. Having an adjustable feature can hold the water above it at a controlled state.

Last but the important part stopping lamprey. I got this from a Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fact Sheet. Adjustable-crest barriers draw upon the best aspects of the low-head barrier design and add improvements that make the barrier less intrusive, enhance passage of fish, and still prevent sea lamprey passage. These barriers have air bladders that inflate an adjustable barrier crest. This crest is raised only during the sea lamprey spawning runs; it remains lowered on the river bottom during all other times of the year, permitting free passage of all species of fish. The air bladder is controlled by a computer which automatically adjusts the barrier height based on specific water levels, thus minimizing the alteration of the rivers natural flow. Adjustable crest barriers operate with pools to pass jumping salmonids or with fish passage devices. 

An adjustable barrier could stop lamprey, maintain the river level above it, and possibly help prevent ice jams. The new inflatable dams are using steel to protect them. They are being used in ways that you would not think of.

Links 

Army Corps Performance Survey of Inflatable Dams in Ice-Affected Waters
http://icejams.crrel.usace.army.mil/tectran/IERD30.pdf

Army Corps Breakup Ice Control Structures Performance Review
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalnotes/TN05-5.pdf

Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fact Sheet 5
http://www.glfc.org/pubs/FACT_5.pdf

Article about a inflatable dam in Ohio with pictures that show the newer technologies.
http://www.cenews.com/magazine-arti...le_dam_upgrades_city_s_water_system-7666.html


----------



## johnny5alive

Oldgrandman said:


> You see, some people you just caint reach.....:yikes:
> 
> 
> 
> riverbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is the main point I am making in responding to johnny5alive.*
> 
> Some stuff in bold to help point out important stuff to you, riverbob.......incredible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about ice at the dam causing ice jams upstream or downstream. You  didnt understand the statement I was trying to make is that the dams keep the river upstream wider and slower than the river should be and that causes flooding problems. I wasnt talking about downstream at all. Plus if there are already Jam problems with the dam , they should just leave it alone cause that will solve what?
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldgrandman

johnny5alive said:


> Plus if there are already Jam problems with the dam , they should just leave it alone cause that will solve what?






> *especially since most ice dams* *are created by 6th dam slowing the water down and widen* the river well past comstock.


Yeah I thought you meant the ice dams slowed the river. Put differently it would have been clearer.

Either way, you must be looking at another river, there is plenty of current upstream of Ann st. now. 
Ice dams are created all along the river with no effect from dams, it is comditions like today that cause them. When the water is cold enough to create them it is slowed down by the fact it is so cold anyways. Stays this cold much longer, we'll probably be hearing about another one down by

I am just tired of hearing all the the silly reasons to build a kayak park with our tax dollars......carry on.


----------



## riverbob

I was just curious,what would happen when n if the dam was removed ( as related to ice jams down town) remember that the dam breaks the ice flow into smaller chunks. any ideas?


----------



## jastharp

We all can benefit from the rapids returning to Grand Rapids. Take a look at this video from the Salmon river in NY. Great fishing in rapids.


----------



## Benz

That video doesn't look very legit in terms of fishing methods...


----------



## quest32a

Benz said:


> That video doesn't look very legit in terms of fishing methods...


Haha, but look at what happens with all the guys fishing facing the dam. Not overly legit there either....


----------



## Roger That

If that video is any indication of things to come, PLEASE keep the dam. **** sakes.


----------



## Oldgrandman

You are never going to return the rapids to GR. You are only going to make them different, no where near the way they were hundreds of years ago. This is what is irritating, a promise that cannot be kept...


----------



## tannhd

jastharp said:


> We all can benefit from the rapids returning to Grand Rapids. Take a look at this video from the Salmon river in NY. Great fishing in rapids.
> 
> Salmon River, NY Salmon Season 2011 (Altmar Outfitters Chronicles X) - YouTube


 
What a fantastic video! What a benefit to us all!

I sure hope I can fish like that one day. 

Throw in a dozen kayakers navigating their way through all those lines, getting in fights with those drunk ******** and you have a GREAT TIME!


----------



## TSS Caddis

Why can't the rapids be restored without the addition of a water park?

Let's not paint this as some altruistic effort, it is not. It is the restoration of the rapids not for the rivers sake but for the sole purpose of turning it into a water park. With that, the name shouldn't really have Restore the Rapids in it, it should be Grand River Water Park Committee. If the effort is worthy, there should be no need to sell it to the public as something else.


----------



## jerrob

TSS Caddis said:


> Why can't the rapids be restored without the addition of a water park?
> 
> Let's not paint this as some altruistic effort, it is not. It is the restoration of the rapids not for the rivers sake but for the sole purpose of turning it into a water park. With that, the name shouldn't really have Restore the Rapids in it, it should be Grand River Water Park Committee. If the effort is worthy, there should be no need to sell it to the public as something else.


X2
Well said TSS.
The waterpark portion of this project is the underlying agenda. It would be interesting to see how much financial, corperate support for this would remain if the final decision is "yes" on restoring the rapids, and "no" to the water park.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## diztortion

Nicely said TSS..


----------



## jastharp

This is to reply to the last few post about liking the idea of returning the rapids but not the kayaking part. As a whitewater paddler I think you have a misunderstanding of what type of people we are. I believe we have much more in common when it comes to our rivers. We are both groups that do care about our rivers. I have used examples of great rivers with rapids to fish because these are also great rivers to paddle. The question always comes up about how will paddlers and fishermen get along. The answer is there are rivers that are already shared by our groups. The Salmon river in NY has great runs of salmon. Paddlers understand this and have put a warning on the description of this river that states trying to paddle this river during the fishing seasons will be like trying to threading a needle. The Maumee river in OH has a great walleye run. The paddlers description of this run warns that at times in the spring there are so many fishermen that it is impossible to paddle. I see the same type of warning for Grand Rapids. There will be times that this river may be too busy with fishermen to paddle. And there is nothing wrong with this fact. There are also times of the year that there is room to share the river. Yes you fish and I paddle but we both enjoy being on the water. We just choose different ways to enjoy it. That doesnt make either one wrong. The major national organization for whitewater paddlers is American Whitewater. Please take a look at their website to get a better understanding of what we find important and what type of people we are.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/


----------



## tannhd

Well Im glad that ALL kayakers fit so nicely into a category filled with honor, vigilance and respect.


----------



## Oldgrandman

You know what is weird? I checked the kayak forum on M-S.com. There are ZERO threads or posts about this kayak park proposal thing..... 

I guess I might have a theory or two about that, but it still strikes me as odd.


----------



## diztortion

http://fox17online.com/2013/01/28/zip-line-planned-for-downtown-gr/#axzz2JJY1qH9v

JFC


----------



## Chromedoggy

jastharp said:


> We all can benefit from the rapids returning to Grand Rapids. Take a look at this video from the Salmon river in NY. Great fishing in rapids.
> 
> Salmon River, NY Salmon Season 2011 (Altmar Outfitters Chronicles X) - YouTube



If they build the kayak park, the yakkers should pay for access like the folks in the video. Also no lead anchors and an encyclopedia of gear restrictions.


----------



## wintrrun

jastharp said:


> We all can benefit from the rapids returning to Grand Rapids. Take a look at this video from the Salmon river in NY. Great fishing in rapids.
> 
> Salmon River, NY Salmon Season 2011 (Altmar Outfitters Chronicles X) - YouTube


 
Yeah like Grand Rapids will ever start looking like up state new york!
Try again


----------



## diztortion

jastharp said:


> We all can benefit from the rapids returning to Grand Rapids. Take a look at this video from the Salmon river in NY. Great fishing in rapids.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oOgsfqjJlzk


----------



## Chromedoggy

wintrrun said:


> Yeah like Grand Rapids will ever start looking like up state new york!
> Try again


Pulaski is six hours from a third of the nation's population.
GR is six hours from a third of the nation's unemployment.


----------



## slowpaya

the dam must go as we know it,first ,the five coffers will come out,plans call for removing 3 foot off the top of the main dam and im guessing a main breach.this will facilitate fish passage.no more smashing thier faces against the concrete.let those winter run kings(and fall run balloons) have easy access to upriver.then quit stocking them in the grand,see what happens.let those lakers run to weber,.let the stray wisconson sturgeon come,get lyons out and all fish can easily party at weber.rest assured no dam in michigan will come out for kayakers allthough they will reap the benefits(could care less).there are concerns...ice,i believe will be less of a problem,with faster ,somewhat shallower velocity,but will always pose probs. lamprey control will rest with the dnr,i trust them. the change in water levels may affect people living directly on the river(sorry rb)up from the dam,maybe not. fishing will remain excellent(there will be no more beating the boils to a froth).areas above the dam(50%rapids flooded above dam) will make fish happy,increasing the overall fish attracting / holding areas.with the coffers out much more of this will be wadable also.let the grand river sturgeon come. maybe lansing will one day get its s%^E#$ together and the river quality will increase dramaticly.we wont see the algae blooms that haunted us this year..let the larger pike,wallys and denizens of the big lake come.take it out,all are welcome,let them come


----------



## riverbob

slowpaya said:


> the dam must go as we know it,first ,the five coffers will come out,plans call for removing 3 foot off the top of the main dam and im guessing a main breach.this will facilitate fish passage.no more smashing thier faces against the concrete.let those winter run kings(and fall run balloons) have easy access to upriver.then quit stocking them in the grand,see what happens.let those lakers run to weber,.let the stray wisconson sturgeon come,get lyons out and all fish can easily party at weber.rest assured no dam in michigan will come out for kayakers allthough they will reap the benefits(could care less).there are concerns...ice,i believe will be less of a problem,with faster ,somewhat shallower velocity,but will always pose probs. lamprey control will rest with the dnr,i trust them. the change in water levels may affect people living directly on the river(sorry rb)up from the dam,maybe not. fishing will remain excellent(there will be no more beating the boils to a froth).areas above the dam(50%rapids flooded above dam) will make fish happy,increasing the overall fish attracting / holding areas.with the coffers out much more of this will be wadable also.let the grand river sturgeon come. maybe lansing will one day get its s%^E#$ together and the river quality will increase dramaticly.we wont see the algae blooms that haunted us this year..let the larger pike,wallys and denizens of the big lake come.take it out,all are welcome,let them come


Where did this information come from?


----------



## slowpaya

pm sent mssfa , dnr ,contract hydroligists


----------



## vanj85

Have you ever fishe the mo.in the spring? I have and have seen piles of lampreys spawning, yet the dnr does nothing there. Also, I agree with pulling the coffers out, but I think ice will ruin any plans of a bolder infested white water zip lining play area for the "hardcore extreme". the mo is un obstructed from croton down and has huge ice jams up and down the river, and nothing stops ice, not even the titanic beat ice. I am all for cleaning up the grand, but not for the benifit of one group. I have a feeling that even if they do build this skate park for yakkers that it will get a bad rep quickly with the stand up good guy yakkers because of the flying hooks and lead near their heads. Just my opinion and I'm sure it stinks to some, but I'd rather see my tax dollars go into someting else, but I feel the same way about wellfare and nothing changes there. Hopefully they get this violence thing fixed so you yakkers can feel safe while enjoying the scenery of tagged concrete and sagged pants.


----------



## wilsonm

vanj85 said:


> Have you ever fishe the mo.in the spring? I have and have seen piles of lampreys spawning, yet the dnr does nothing there. Also, I agree with pulling the coffers out, but I think ice will ruin any plans of a bolder infested white water zip lining play area for the "hardcore extreme". the mo is un obstructed from croton down and has huge ice jams up and down the river, and nothing stops ice, not even the titanic beat ice. I am all for cleaning up the grand, but not for the benifit of one group. I have a feeling that even if they do build this skate park for yakkers that it will get a bad rep quickly with the stand up good guy yakkers because of the flying hooks and lead near their heads. Just my opinion and I'm sure it stinks to some, but I'd rather see my tax dollars go into someting else, but I feel the same way about wellfare and nothing changes there. Hopefully they get this violence thing fixed so you yakkers can feel safe while enjoying the scenery of tagged concrete and sagged pants.


The USFWS is in charge with sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes, not the MDNR. Like hundreds of other rivers in the state, the Muskegon gets treated with a lampricide to kill the juveniles that reside in the river before they change and migrate out as parasitic adults.


----------



## dogfish17

multibeard said:


> If they remove any dam in the state that has the possibility of blocking the up stream passage of Asian carp the DNR is dumber than I think they are.
> 
> It would be no problem to block the fish ladder or build a holding area above it to sort out the trash coming through.


The dam is not a blocker of fish migration. That is why we have salmon and trout that make it to Lansing. Plus dams have a 50 yr life expectancy and the states are responsible to take action before the dam fails and then we have a lot more problems.


----------



## Jay Wesley

dogfish17 said:


> The dam is not a blocker of fish migration. That is why we have salmon and trout that make it to Lansing. Plus dams have a 50 yr life expectancy and the states are responsible to take action before the dam fails and then we have a lot more problems.


You bring up a great point. Asian carp are now part of the conversation for any dam removal in the Great Lakes. 

Sixth Street dam, however, would not block Asian carp effectively. During high water, the carp could jump over the dam. I saw coho jumping the dam last fall even with the low water. 

The design of the lampery barrier that could be constructed upstream could consider a barrier for Asian carp, but I am not sure if that would be feasible either because of flooding and it would not be practical to build and maintain a fence across the river and into the floodplain. 

All this being said, there is still a lot to be learned regarding how Asian carp move through and jump obstacles in a river.


----------



## phd265

I'm sorry but this is just the idea if the Grand Rapids 'suit' people pushing this proposal through once and for all for the dollar bill. It's all about money to bring in for GR. GR wasn't too happy National Canoe/Kayak Championships going to Newaygo last year, and they are returning again this year in August. Not many people use the grand river and the suits of GR are looking at ways to generate revenue off the river. I don't care what way you spin the proposal. Bottom Line Bottom Dollar.



Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## riverdawg54

How will they remove part of the dam?Blow it up with T&T?

Iwill get ahold of SHAGS<HE WILL KNOW>


----------



## Trout King

phd265 said:


> I'm sorry but this is just the idea if the Grand Rapids 'suit' people pushing this proposal through once and for all for the dollar bill. It's all about money to bring in for GR. GR wasn't too happy National Canoe/Kayak Championships going to Newaygo last year, and they are returning again this year in August. Not many people use the grand river and the suits of GR are looking at ways to generate revenue off the river. I don't care what way you spin the proposal. Bottom Line Bottom Dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


what generates more cash? a couple hundred kayakers or a few thousand fisherman?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## diztortion

Trout King said:


> what generates more cash? a couple hundred kayakers or a few thousand fisherman?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe if they were serious about money they could offer a fisherman's parking pass for a few of the city lots.

I wouldn't mind paying to find parking near the dam. Anytime there is an event downtown, I get dropped off if I wanna fish.

On a side note, the ice jam in Robinson township has nothing to do with the dam. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Lumberman

phd265 said:


> I'm sorry but this is just the idea if the Grand Rapids 'suit' people pushing this proposal through once and for all for the dollar bill. It's all about money to bring in for GR. GR wasn't too happy National Canoe/Kayak Championships going to Newaygo last year, and they are returning again this year in August. Not many people use the grand river and the suits of GR are looking at ways to generate revenue off the river. I don't care what way you spin the proposal. Bottom Line Bottom Dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Correct. 

Not to mention the river front property is becoming more and more valuable. The city slicker folks who choose to live in condos don't want to see a bunch of guys carrying dead fish around. 

More and more of the shoreline is becoming off limits to fishing. 

There seems to be a lot of people in denial about the whole situation.


----------



## jastharp

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=241841

Even the DNR likes the idea of returning the rapids to Grand Rapids. "DNR director, Keith Creagh says it would likely improve the fishery." This is not just for paddlers but will benefit all.


----------



## jTag5432

MERGANZER said:


> Taking out the dam does not destroy the fishery. There will still be structure and there will still be fish to be caught. Removing the dam will not destroy the Grand River.
> 
> Ganzer


It would be a shame if all the 6th Street "Anglers" had to learn to fish runs and seams rather than toss 2oz sinkers and six foot leaders into the white water!


----------



## Trout King

jTag5432 said:


> It would be a shame if all the 6th Street "Anglers" had to learn to fish runs and seams rather than toss 2oz sinkers and six foot leaders into the white water!


When I moved to college and started fishing 6th street it was a bit of a culture shock. After a while you just get used to it. When the dam comes out a lot of the boilers are going to be lost on how to hook fish.


----------



## TDI

jTag5432 said:


> It would be a shame if all the 6th Street "Anglers" had to learn to fish runs and seams rather than toss 2oz sinkers and six foot leaders into the white water!


The local pros down there years ago, used to run at least a minimum 9ft - 10ft leader. The longer the leader, the better chance of 'swirling' the leader line into the mouth of the fish.

It was a very effective method, especially when the water flow rates were low, but it reduced flossing the outside of the fish mouth area by about 90%.


Proper presentation is the key to success!!! :chillin:


----------

