# Grand Rapids Dam Removal Poll



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

Option 1 is a vote supporting the dam's removal under the condition that the MDNR and USFWS supported the project. 100% fish passage would be the end result. Rapids and a kayak course could be implemented downtown as part of the dam removal project. 

Option 2 is to maintain the status quo. The dam and coffers would remain in place, essentially nothing changes.

Option 3 is to leave the main dam in place but alter the coffers to make some sort of kayak run. I would doubt this option would get many votes as it does not provide any added ecological benefits in terms of fish passage and the possibility for fisherman/kayak conflict would be elevated. It has however been proposed as an option by some of the project planners so I included it in the poll.

I am interested to see the results of this poll. At the urging of several like minded anglers I am considering getting more involved in this project. I have become increasingly frustrated by the methods and message being utilized by many of the people who claim to be speaking on behalf of anglers and are opposing the projects being proposed by Grand River White Water. Their primary motive seems to be squashing the project and achieving something that looks more like option 2. I'd like to provide an alternative voice that is more supportive of dam removal and the ecological benefits that could be achieved. I would like to know where the Michigan-Sportsman membership stands on the issue to see if I'm just spinning my wheels or not.


----------



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

As a resident of downtown Grand Haven who dreads walking the boardwalk after 2 days of rain like we have just had, why can't they spend some of the $30,000,000 to make a modern waste containment system? 

I offer option 4 - do nothing until Grand Rapids fixes its poop spillover issues.


----------



## quackerstacker1985 (Aug 2, 2012)

I support dam removal as long as the area will still be able to be fished by everyone and their is a Good lamprey barrier. The current plan that grww has is a joke at best. I feel that the dda is wasting our tax payer dollars.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TDI (Dec 29, 2008)

At best, the Kayak course is one expensive pipe dream. It's never going to happen, so it makes no sense voting in a virtual poll.


----------



## r.smith18880 (Dec 26, 2011)

I only see fish/kayak problems for the short time the runs happen. For the most part its never been that crowded. Especially by the first coffer. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

TDI said:


> At best, the Kayak course is one expensive pipe dream. It's never going to happen, so it makes no sense voting in a virtual poll.


Lets set aside the kayak course then. If the dam were on the verge of failing and in need of repair/replacement would you rather it be removed or replaced? Both would cost tax-payer money that is not presently allotted. This situation is almost certain to arise in my generation's lifetime and needs to be considered.


----------



## Steve_D (Mar 8, 2011)

It would be wise to remove the dam, as well as any other operating dam in Michigan. Yeah, laugh it up, but if you study how river systems work, and the negative impacts of dams, you'd understand. However, there are things that must be taken into consideration, such as lamprey barriers, city construction, and even money (which is a huge shame - money is evidently more valuable than ecology, who cares if it cost taxpayers? Thank your fathers and the fathers before them for plugging our river systems and virtually closing hundreds upon hundreds of up-river spawning grounds). That being said, my vote is to remove the dam entirely, maybe even build a more natural terrace dam, etc etc. I trust fully our DNR and USFWS to save our river systems from more cruel punishment!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> As a resident of downtown Grand Haven who dreads walking the boardwalk after 2 days of rain like we have just had, why can't they spend some of the $30,000,000 to make a modern waste containment system?
> 
> I offer option 4 - do nothing until Grand Rapids fixes its poop spillover issues.


Just so you are aware it rarely ever happens any more and when it does its not poop. 

When we get a really heavy rain the storm drains overflow into the river. So it's basically regular old runoff. 

The grand is in better and better shape every year. For gods sake they are talking about building kayak course.


----------



## jerrob (Aug 6, 2011)

If those are the only options, I'd choose option #2. At least as it stands now, paddlers and anglers can both utilize the entire area, fish can pass the dam and at least there's SOMETHING in place as a lamprey barrier.

IMO the most important issue is stopping the proposed whitewater course. I would be just as opposed to anglers wanting to "develop" the river to exclude paddlers. So yes, I'd rather see the dam (spillway) and coffers stay if it stops this kayaker's playground.


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

jerrob said:


> If those are the only options, I'd choose option #2. At least as it stands now, paddlers and anglers can both utilize the entire area, fish can pass the dam and at least there's SOMETHING in place as a lamprey barrier..


Only salmon and steelhead readily use the fish ladder and pass the dam, most fish species cannot move freely up the river. The MDNR and USFWS will not support the dam removal if they believe sea lamprey control efforts are not satisfactory. Also I'm confused as to how kayakers can use that area as it is now? If a kayaker goes over the first coffer they have a strong chance of capsizing and drowning if they become trapped in the boils, in fact this has happened before.


----------



## slowpaya (Oct 23, 2011)

take the dam out,let the sturgeon and greasy candlesticks run,the kayak course isnt going to hurt fishing,most importantly take care of the dam and eel barrrier,let the stupid kayakers pay for their share.number one,make getting the dam out the priority.let the tules come


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

slowpaya said:


> take the dam out,let the sturgeon and greasy candlesticks run,the kayak course isnt going to hurt fishing,most importantly take care of the dam and eel barrrier,let the stupid kayakers pay for their share.number one,make getting the dam out the priority.let the tules come


Im goin with what he said. Option one. 

Although the city has spent a TON of money stopping the waste issues oh yeah is talking about they still need to continue working on some city run off problems.


----------



## jerrob (Aug 6, 2011)

pikedevil said:


> Only salmon and steelhead readily use the fish ladder and pass the dam, most fish species cannot move freely up the river. The MDNR and USFWS will not support the dam removal if they believe sea lamprey control efforts are not satisfactory. Also I'm confused as to how kayakers can use that area as it is now? If a kayaker goes over the first coffer they have a strong chance of capsizing and drowning if they become trapped in the boils, in fact this has happened before.


I agree with DNR, the dam needs to stay until a working lamprey barrier is in place, even if these other species can't pass. Are you OK with taking out the dam without a proper barrier just to let other species up-river and kayakers play?
I'm not against dam removal at all, just has to be done correctly.
As far as kayaking the coffers, do you think a person without the skill set to navigate the coffers is gonna fair any better in class 3, boulder strewn rapids? When bad decisions are made, unfortunate results sometimes occur.
Pikedevil, I'm certainly not trying to get into a pissing match with you, but ya say you're trying to be objective in this matter, but it sounds like your decision is already made as much as mine and many other on here. 
I just don't think any one group(s) owns the river and should be allowed to do with it what they please, no exceptions.


----------



## slowpaya (Oct 23, 2011)

im saying if you take the dams out they will come,the kayaks will love it ,maybe leave a few coffers pieces for them to play with,theres a lot can be done with whats already there,theres no need to make(TRY To)changes that are costly additions,just strategically remove whats there.let the kayaks and tules come


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

Take the dam out. Only good things come from dam removals.


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

jerrob said:


> I agree with DNR, the dam needs to stay until a working lamprey barrier is in place, even if these other species can't pass. Are you OK with taking out the dam without a proper barrier just to let other species up-river and kayakers play?
> I'm not against dam removal at all, just has to be done correctly.
> As far as kayaking the coffers, do you think a person without the skill set to navigate the coffers is gonna fair any better in class 3, boulder strewn rapids? When bad decisions are made, unfortunate results sometimes occur.
> Pikedevil, I'm certainly not trying to get into a pissing match with you, but ya say you're trying to be objective in this matter, but it sounds like your decision is already made as much as mine and many other on here.
> I just don't think any one group(s) owns the river and should be allowed to do with it what they please, no exceptions.


Well since you said your not against dam removal it actually sounds like your position is the same as mine, I want the dam removed provided the biologist are satisfied with the sea lamprey controls. No pissing match required. 

And yes I do think kayaking rapids is different than falling over a dam into a hydraulic boil. The current flow dynamics are far different, I highly doubt a kayaking course that is dangerous would be implemented.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

Lumberman said:


> Just so you are aware it rarely ever happens any more and when it does its not poop.
> 
> When we get a really heavy rain the storm drains overflow into the river. So it's basically regular old runoff.
> 
> The grand is in better and better shape every year. For gods sake they are talking about building kayak course.


Right, much better but not 100% fixed yet. And this rain of 2-3 inches likely didn't release any untreated poop into the river. As a matter of fact, Lowell and Lansing contribute to this as do countless other municiple watewater treatment plants on other rivers all around the Great lakes. Some folks might be surprised at the rivers with this same problem.

I voted #1 for the poll. Leaving it be would be OK but that is my vote. I think the kayak park is silly and if restoration to the river is done properly without planning a park, it would likely be useable for the yak-ers anyways. It useable is now, I have seen them there many times.....

But I fear that the reasons for the coffers will be evident if they are removed, hopefully that will be part of the plan should it happen. I would actually find it interesting to have a new spot to fish and learn all over again.


----------



## headbanger421 (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm all for dam removal. I wish they'd remove all the dams in the system. I'd love to catch a sturgeon or flathead in Lansing someday


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

GVDocHoliday said:


> Take the dam out. Only good things come from dam removals.


 I second that.......


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

In the end this will be a not what but who situation. If big money wants a Kayak course, it will happen. The DNR has little say when the power players are speaking. When it comes down to it G.R. would rather the Kayaker look than the Fisherman look. How many Kayakers do you see hangin out on the bridges covered in spawn and fish slime?

It's all about the money, that's why Children are allowed to hunt now, the money, regardless of the consequences!


----------

