# Bring white water to Grand River



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

While not fishing, it could have an impact !!!!!

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/01/local_kayakers_canoers_seek_wa.html


----------



## TDI (Dec 29, 2008)

As long as they do not open their mouths in any way shape or form on the way down, they should be OK. What about full skin contact?


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

it would be neat to see the grand rapids restored to whatever extent possible and dam removal is the first step in doing that. additionally, removing those dams downtown would benefit our native aquatic organisms greatly.


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

I'll vote to leave it alone. The aquatic creatures are doing fine as it stands. No shortage of life in the waters downtown, I would consider it abundant actually.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

I read that in the paper last night and thought, "this has to be one of the gayest things I've ever read."

Yeah, let's tear out the coffers and the dam that far more anglers utilize so that a handful of kayak 'tards can have a pleasure course. Next up, they can tear all the pavement out of the Whitepine trail and turn it into an atv course, huh? 

Not only is the notion of what was suggested retarded, it borders on insanely ridiculous.


----------



## no lead (Jul 28, 2005)

having kayaked the grand through downtown, let me say LAME.

spend my money on the roads that cross the river.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Being a GR native and having spent a great part of my youth on and/or near the river in the area of the West Side and Sixth St. Dam.........actually it's the Fourth St. Dam.........I have to chuckle at some of the suggestions.

The purpose of the smaller cofferdams below Sixth St. Dam was to deepen the water in order to remove the summer stench.

As for removing the big dam that would release the silt built up over the years. Although that may not sound like a serious threat to some keep in mind that in _said silt _(don't ya just love the phrase Hutch? :lol is to be found heavy metals that have been deposited over the years. That would not be good for water quality all the way to Grand Haven and beyond.

Have I ever mentioned to you guys about sliding down the face of Sixth St. Dam, feet first on hot summer days years ago? 'Twas a ton of fun as long as you didn't come up next to a "baby ruth", ala Caddyshack.......:lol:


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Yeah, let's tear out the coffers and the dam


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Personally, if I had a suggestion for improvement, it's back a cement truck right up to the fish ladder and fill it in completely.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> Being a GR native and having spent a great part of my youth on and/or near the river in the area of the West Side and Sixth St. Dam.........actually it's the Fourth St. Dam.........I have to chuckle at some of the suggestions.
> 
> The purpose of the smaller cofferdams below Sixth St. Dam was to deepen the water in order to remove the summer stench.
> 
> ...


If said silt, Milt, were allowed to be spilt, then the bank flowers shall wilt and the tree huggers might be pissed to the hilt? Better to keep it filt than do what thou wilt, eh?


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

dam removal and subsequent restoration/remediation of the streambed to rapids would benefit kayakers, fisherman and the ecosystem.


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

thousandcasts said:


> I read that in the paper last night and thought, "this has to be one of the gayest things I've ever read."
> 
> Yeah, let's tear out the coffers and the dam that far more anglers utilize so that a handful of kayak 'tards can have a pleasure course. Next up, they can tear all the pavement out of the Whitepine trail and turn it into an atv course, huh?
> 
> Not only is the notion of what was suggested retarded, it borders on insanely ridiculous.


kayaking is a sport on the rise in popularity, last i heard angling participation and licenses are on the way down.


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

Whit1 said:


> Being a GR native and having spent a great part of my youth on and/or near the river in the area of the West Side and Sixth St. Dam.........actually it's the Fourth St. Dam.........I have to chuckle at some of the suggestions.
> 
> The purpose of the smaller cofferdams below Sixth St. Dam was to deepen the water in order to remove the summer stench.
> 
> ...


all of that can be remediated, and has been in other dam removals.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

the rapids said:


> kayaking is a sport on the rise in popularity, last i heard angling participation and licenses are on the way down.


Well, if the name of this forum ever gets changed to Southwest Michigan Kayaking, then I still won't give a *&^% what the kayakers want. As it stands now, what they want would mess up the fishing around there. Now, if Jesus himself had a kayak...I'd still think the whole idea is ridiculous. If they want something seperate, off the main channel, built like in Southbend or what not, where they can zip through, have a cappacino, zip through again, maybe skip over to Founders and have a blackberry/cinnamon almond ale before finishing the evening with some dancing at Diversions, then whatever--but to tear out the dams and what not? Hell no. It's the FREAKIN' GRAND RIVER. If helping the ecosystem is the order of the day, then there's probably two dozen others upstream and in some of the tribs that would help a heck of a lot more than yanking sixth st or any of the coffers.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> If said silt, Milt, were allowed to be spilt, then the bank flowers shall wilt and the tree huggers might be pissed to the hilt? Better to keep it filt than do what thou wilt, eh?


Yes, t'would be sad is said silt was spilt!


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

thousandcasts said:


> Well, if the name of this forum ever gets changed to Southwest Michigan Kayaking, then I still won't give a *&^% what the kayakers want. As it stands now, what they want would mess up the fishing around there. Now, if Jesus himself had a kayak...I'd still think the whole idea is ridiculous. If they want something seperate, off the main channel, built like in Southbend or what not, where they can zip through, have a cappacino, zip through again, maybe skip over to Founders and have a blackberry/cinnamon almond ale before finishing the evening with some dancing at Diversions, then whatever--but to tear out the dams and what not? Hell no. It's the FREAKIN' GRAND RIVER. If helping the ecosystem is the order of the day, then there's probably two dozen others upstream and in some of the tribs that would help a heck of a lot more than yanking sixth st or any of the coffers.


that's fine, and in matters like these people have to look out for their own interests which is why there are likely to be many stakeholders involved if this project ever goes past just a feasability meeting. the thing is though, there are some who both kayak and fish, or fish from their kayaks who may disagree that restoring the river through the downtown stretch is a bad idea or would ruin fishing.

also, while i agree there are other areas of concern upstream (and as a side comment it probably is wiser to target restoration starting at the headwaters then go downstream) this project is of significance because it may have ramifications on sturgeon restoration and restoration of other imperiled fish/aquatic organisms in the great lakes that use high gradient stretches for spawning or historically spawned upstream of these barriers.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Fishing from a kayak in the area of 6th St dam, in Grand Rapids, is a silly idea. Kayaking might be fun, and fishing definitely is fun, there. But fishing from a kayak in the rapids just makes no sense.


----------



## Undertow (Apr 5, 2006)

I do a ton of kayak fishing. Actually its my favorite way to fish. But like others have said rapids and or any fast moving water is not good for kayak fishing...unless your trolling. I don't see this project getting past the meeting. It's just ridiculous, who wants to be splashing around in that water anyways. I kayak fish so much because I don't wanna wet wade in the grand. I'm highly doubting these snoody yakers are gonna rush to the grand when there is a no contact advisory. If I was looking at a kayaking magazine and seen the "beautiful" grand with its brown water I would not rush to be the first in the water. Not to mention the "beautiful" downtown area with all it's noise, traffic, bums and etc. I dont exactly know how long the run would be but what are you gonna get from it, maybe an hour at the most. I also highly doubt this is gonna help the downtown economy. Are they gonna open one of those extremely overpriced outdoor stores were a "special" kayaking jacket is 500 bucks. I'm sure everyone that is struggling right now in our economy is going to run and spend 5000 bucks on kayaking gear so they can run the grand. Also there's safety issues not only to kayakers but to fisherman. Kayakers around here are not use to drops or whitewater. I'm sure people will flip and not be able to make it back up. The funny thing is the kayaks those guys in the picture are not even whitewater kayaks, there sea kayaks. I'd love to see those two old idiots run whitewater in those things! This money needs to be spent on improving the entire river, not for kayakers or recreational use but for the overall health of the entire river.
Undertow


----------



## Philips (Nov 27, 2006)

Undertow said:


> This money needs to be spent on improving the entire river, not for kayakers or recreational use but for the overall health of the entire river.
> Undertow


Exactly!


----------



## BeWild (Mar 19, 2007)

If they want to have a drop of 18 feet, there are plenty of snow covered hills within 20 miles of 6th street to go down.

I love fishing, kayaking, and kayak fishing, but kayaking down the Grand does not appeal one bit to me. I can't see spending that amount of money for a project that really wouldn't bring that much tourism or economic development to Grand Rapids. There are other projects in the downtown area worth spending $3 million on.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Whit, I don't know how long ago you left the GR area, but do you remember several years ago the DNR technician that was swept off the dam while cleaning debri of the top of the dam? That technician was very lucky to be alive. Anyone fishing the area needs to have respect for the "Drowning Machine" below these low head dams. That also includes any kayakers.

The "Drowning Machine " has been a separate topic brought up every couple years. I don't mean to side track this thread, so if desired another thread could pick up with DANGER! DAMS! http://www.boatingsidekicks.com/kidsknow/INWATER/lowhead.htm


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Fishndude - I seem to remember that along with a few other incidents. Most of the ones I saw were late summer several years ago... went over the dam but survived.

Steelie


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Hamilton Reef said:


> Whit, I don't know how long ago you left the GR area, but do you remember several years ago the DNR technician that was swept off the dam while cleaning debri of the top of the dam? That technician was very lucky to be alive. Anyone fishing the area needs to have respect for the "Drowning Machine" below these low head dams. That also includes any kayakers.
> 
> The "Drowning Machine " has been a separate topic brought up every couple years. I don't mean to side track this thread, so if desired another thread could pick up with DANGER! DAMS! http://www.boatingsidekicks.com/kidsknow/INWATER/lowhead.htm


Tom,
We moved north in '72. Until age 13 I was raised about 200 yds. from Sixth St. Dam and spent a lot of time, unbeknowingst by my father of course, down on the river.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

The DNR fishery technician involved with the accident and near drowning was a friend of mine from working many days and nights on the early Muskegon River walleye program. He recovered fine and finished out his career a few years later. I believe he was rescued by two steelheaders in a boat from the Grand Rapids chapter. An old timer from the GR chapter may be able to tell us if true.


----------



## Spey (Jul 27, 2004)

My first reaction is that I've heard talk for years about Croton Dam changes to make it compliant with regs. and about removing the Rockford Dam... and I haven't seen anything happen. Too much money and too many stakeholders to believe this is more than a fart in the breeze, especially with the economy looking like the spring sewage run in the Grand.


----------



## waterfoul (May 18, 2005)

Funny thing... Channel 13 called me at work last week looking for some comments on the kayak run idea. They wanted to interview me on camera! But after I told the young lady on the phone that I was NOT in favor of taking out the dam and the coffers she changed her mind!! LOL!!! Guess I gave up my 2 minutes of local fame over it eh??

I think it would be easy to make a run like they have in Southbend.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Spey said:


> My first reaction is that I've heard talk for years about Croton Dam changes to make it compliant with regs. and about removing the Rockford Dam... and I haven't seen anything happen. Too much money and too many stakeholders to believe this is more than a fart in the breeze, especially with the economy looking like the spring sewage run in the Grand.


I'll spend a little time fishing there in the spring, but the Rockford Dam is one that needs to go if anyone's serious about improving the river system. From a fisheries stand point, does anyone realize just how significant an impact it'd make if a mere dozen steelhead hens made it into cool waters like Cedar or Duke creeks? I mean, they only harvest 1200 or so at the wier and that supplies the entire state as well as other states. If a dozen got into those upper Rogue tribs, then we'd see some added numbers below 6th in a few years.


----------



## FlyFishingAttorney (Dec 26, 2007)

thousandcasts said:


> I'll spend a little time fishing there in the spring, but the Rockford Dam is one that needs to go if anyone's serious about improving the river system. From a fisheries stand point, does anyone realize just how significant an impact it'd make if a mere dozen steelhead hens made it into cool waters like Cedar or Duke creeks? I mean, they only harvest 1200 or so at the wier and that supplies the entire state as well as other states. If a dozen got into those upper Rogue tribs, then we'd see some added numbers below 6th in a few years.


The property owners up there are already ticked that people trout fish up there. Bring in salmon fishermen and see how quick that area turns into another Little Manistee River Association when the homeowners get ticked that people are setting up night snagging camps in their backyards.:lol:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> I'll spend a little time fishing there in the spring, but the Rockford Dam is one that needs to go if anyone's serious about improving the river system. From a fisheries stand point, does anyone realize just how significant an impact it'd make if a mere dozen steelhead hens made it into cool waters like *Cedar or Duke creeks?* I mean, they only harvest 1200 or so at the wier and that supplies the entire state as well as other states. If a dozen got into those upper Rogue tribs, then we'd see some added numbers below 6th in a few years.


 
I have a LOT of fond trout fishing memories centered on those two creeks as well as Stegman Cr.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

> I'll spend a little time fishing there in the spring, but the Rockford Dam is one that needs to go if anyone's serious about improving the river system. From a fisheries stand point, does anyone realize just how significant an impact it'd make if a mere dozen steelhead hens made it into cool waters like Cedar or Duke creeks? I mean, they only harvest 1200 or so at the wier and that supplies the entire state as well as other states. If a dozen got into those upper Rogue tribs, then we'd see some added numbers below 6th in a few years.


Amen... I too think the removal of the Rockford dam would help the runs in the Grand system. Those creeks are cool enough to support steelie reproduction. THis is evident that they are capable because of the resident trout populations in those streams, as well as the available gravel. Those trout would also benefit by adding eggs to their diets, which will plump them up for my frying pan! IMO you wouldn't even have to tear the dam out necessarily....build a fish ladder, and they would still get upstream. Look at some of the other natural reproduction in the tribs of the Grand! I fish most of them and one of them I have only caught about 5 clipped fish, back when they were still clipping. Dam removal would greatly help many rivers and streams in the Grand system. Heck, tear out the dam or build a ladder in Rockford and production would go up vastly. Tear out the dam in Hubbardston and that would add even more fish...including Salmon. Some of Fish Creek's upper stretches would be excellent for producing migrating salmonids. Even letting fish pass Lowell I think would help the production of fish. Many people think that the Flat is too warm, but I disagree. Browns used to be able to survive a couple years, and some of the tribs hold populations of brookies and browns, as well as the necessary gravel for spawning steelies and salmon. As far as tearing out 6th St....why? Who would bring more money to the area? The hundreds of fisherman which come seasonally every year, or a few dozen Kayakers that would actually take the time to go through downtown GR? There are plenty of places to Kayak fast water in MI. Head north! There are swift streams in this state...and even more above the bridge. Heck I even see Kayakers enjoying one of the Grand Tribs that I fish often. They were out a couple weeks ago and actually floated by as I was fighting a feisty winter steelie. They even pulled up and watched me land him and had a nice conversation about fishing and kayaking (which I also do on the Grand near Portland pretty often).


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

FlyFishingAttorney said:


> The property owners up there are already ticked that people trout fish up there. Bring in salmon fishermen and see how quick that area turns into another Little Manistee River Association when the homeowners get ticked that people are setting up night snagging camps in their backyards.:lol:


 They will also get more upset at their local violators that already know the area better and how to take advantage of their neighbors.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Not only is the notion of what was suggested retarded, it borders on insanely ridiculous.


Let's get rid of the Jupiter boat house also. I hate having to slow the boat down for them:lol:


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Don't mean to be a crumudgeon, but the Rockford dam needs to stay. And there are several reasons why. I will touch on a few. 

First and most importantly is the high level of toxins and heavy metals in the silt behind the dam due to the many, many years that the tannery existed above the dam, among other things. If the dam is removed and these toxins, which are currently inert as they are buried, would have dire consequences on the river below the dam and very likely wipe it out creating a true dead zone possibly all the way to the Grand. To not remove the dam for that reason alone is good enough for me. 

The fishery above the dam - Currently the fishery above the dam is predominatly a nice quiet trout fishery by comparison to the water below the dam. Having such a fishery so near to a metropolitan area like GR is near priceless. To allow for salmon and steelhead to enter into these waters could very likely degrade said fishery to a point where it is no longer a nice place to go on a summer evening. Or how about the brook trout that cling to a meger subsistance in the feeder creeks? Their populations could very likely be decimated/collapse by the introduction of anadromous species due to dam removal.

As was suggested earlier, the nightmare of property owners battling clumsy fishermen chasing salmon and steelhead would come to fore. It is bad enough below the dam, do we really need to bring these slobs above the dam too? (Noting most are polite, just the darn Clydes...). I would hate to see the circus that is salmon/steelhead season desecrate the waters above the dam.

Steelie


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

steelie said:


> To allow for salmon and steelhead to enter into these waters could very likely degrade said fishery to a point where it is no longer a nice place to go on a summer evening. Or how about the brook trout that cling to a meger subsistance in the feeder creeks? Their populations could very likely be decimated/collapse by the introduction of anadromous species due to dam removal.
> 
> As was suggested earlier, the nightmare of property owners battling clumsy fishermen chasing salmon and steelhead would come to fore. It is bad enough below the dam, do we really need to bring these slobs above the dam too?


Cold Day,

Salmon and steelhead don't seem to hurt the PM? 

The "slobs" won't have anywhere to go anymore, because they won't have anywhere to snag trapped fish (by the dam).

Feeder streams are usually closed during peak salmon and steelhead runs.

And, can you provide/cite a source as to the levels of heavy metals and toxins in the silt as a result of tannery operations? If they can be traced to Wolverine World Wide, perhaps the EPA/DEQ should hold them repsonsible for the cleanup?

Flyfisher


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Flyfisher - with all due respect, I must disagree. (Really not trying to be arguementative.) 

The PM - It may seem not to be that big of a deal, but one word - grayling. Along with logging/overfishing the introduction of steelhead and brown trout in the 19th century was a death warrant for the grayling. (And frankly, I know this will bug a few, the P.M. is over rated. There, I said it...) Frankly, if the salmon, for example, were blocked from entering the P.M. - it would certainly be a better trout fishery. And possibly more pristene with out all the trash the Clydes leave behind. If allowed above the dam in Rockford the very same could happen to the brookies in the feeder streams. They simply cannot compete. It has nothing to do with whether or not the creeks are open to fishing, but competition from other species.

Pollutants, sorry I can't remember where I read it, but will continue to look with regard to Rockford. A great many dams in Michigan have this risk burried in the sediments behind them. Not only from industry like the tannery in Rockford, but also from farming opperations several miles upstream. Accidents can and do happen. Although not a dam, need I remind people of what happened on Tyler Creek? Or how about a few years ago when the Dam in Hesperia was damaged? Salmon were found spawning several miles above the breach. And it had people worried.

Clydes - they don't care where they are. Find a red, snagging time! At either the 6th St. or Rockford dam - RIP! Or how about Tippy? Where ever they are, ripping and snagging will live on. Either right out in the open, or looking over thier shoulder. Clydes are Clydes...

While I support "inteligent" and well thought out removal of dams, not all dams are really "bad". There are those that still serve a purpose either as producers of electricity, or, as I have mentioned, protectors of the species above them. Would you have the 6th (really 4th) St. dam removed and risk the possibility of the sea lampreys forging their way upstream? Probably not. The bottom line is that we have to think before we act. All to often have we made rash descisions only to later find the folly of our err in judgement.

Steelie


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Cold Day (again),



steelie said:


> The PM - It may seem not to be that big of a deal, but one word - grayling. Along with logging/overfishing the introduction of steelhead and brown trout in the 19th century was a death warrant for the grayling.


Grayling, as a result of logging/overfishing, were gone long before the introduction of non-native species. Brook trout were initially stocked to replace them, follwed by brown trout and "rainbows" (although it turned out they were actually steelhead).


steelie said:


> Pollutants, sorry I can't remember where I read it, but will continue to look with regard to Rockford. A great many dams in Michigan have this risk burried in the sediments behind them. Not only from industry like the tannery in Rockford, but also from farming opperations several miles upstream. Accidents can and do happen. Although not a dam, need I remind people of what happened on Tyler Creek?


I anxiously await the results of your research. And the Tyler Creek incident was an agricultural waste dumping incident(accident), not the result of a dam removal.


steelie said:


> not all dams are really "bad".


Please enlighten me on the "good" ones here in Michigan? I can't think of one that doesn't create "thermal pollution".


steelie said:


> Clydes are Clydes...


So we shouldn't try an improve our fisheries because we are afraid of people utilizing the improvements? The "clyde" factor is such a small portion of the user base in "river hours", as they usually only hit the river 20 days or so out of 365 days a year.


steelie said:


> The bottom line is that we have to think before we act.


I agree that dam removal should be carefully thought out and planned, but what you failed to recognize is the tremendous potential for natural reproduction in the many miles of ice cold feeder creeks that feed the upper Rogue, not to mention that they are all closed to fishing during peak spawning periods.

Flyfisher


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Flyfisher- hmmm...

I guess I am concerned more so with what is behind the dams and how that issue is addressed. In some cases yes there may be pollutants, but even "clean" silt can be a problem if it is not thoroughly removed from an impoundment. Imagine all that silt depositting downstream and choking off the insect life. No arguement on thermal polution, but I wonder what would happen if let us say that both Croton and Hardy Dams were removed? First from the aspect of silt, then perhaps fish migration upstream leaving the current "trout" water to smallies, walleye and suckers. Can you imagine the loud chants of the guides who depend on the water below the dams? But then again, those along the impoundments most likely will pitch a big fight against removal to continue boating their artificial "lakes". But Let's face it, even the Mo is marginal at best anyways... it's a warm water river that they plant salmonids into. So too with several other rivers... Just because it has moving water doesn't mean it is suitable. 

And yes, as I mentioned, Tyler Creek was not due to dam removal, but an agricultural accident. But pollutants are pollutants. 

From the DNR website re. grayling:

"Another factor which contributed to the grayling's demise was the introduction of non-native trout species to Michigan's waters. The non-aggressive grayling just couldn't compete with fish such as the European brown trout and rainbow trout. Serious over fishing also contributed to the grayling's fall. Civil War-era accounts tell of people harvesting grayling by the basketfuls and hauling them home by the wagonload. There were no established take limits and catch and release was practically unheard of."

Logging, fish takes and competition. 

And as I mentioned, there are rivers and sections of rivers that owe their good fishing to the very existance of dams. Unfortunately virtually all are on the unmentionables list. Then again, with this logic, are we going to start dynamiting water falls too? 

The Rogue is fine as it is. No need to change it. And frankly, the amount of spawning gravel upstream when comapared to below the dam is paultry at best. A river like the Rogue is probably best left the way it is with regard to dams. 

One last time - dams need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. To be sure there are dams for which their removal may have benefit to a given waterway, but not all. Woulkd you risk the "great" fishing at 6th St and have that dam removed? 

Steelie


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

steelie said:


> Would you risk the "great" fishing at 6th St and have that dam removed?


YES

Grayling were already gone from the Pere Marquette before the introduction of non-native fish. Your quote from the DNR is in regards to the entire State of Michigan and more than like the Au Sable River, one of the grayling's last stands in the lower peninsula.

Back to the original topic. What purpose does the Rockford Dam serve? Just because you like it the way it is, we should keep it? There are no native salmonoids in the Rogue to displace, 6th Street acts as a lamprey barrier, and all the dam does is warms up the lower Rogue in the summer.


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Flyfisher said:


> YES
> 
> Grayling were already gone from the Pere Marquette before the introduction of non-native fish. Your quote from the DNR is in regards to the entire State of Michigan and more than like the Au Sable River, one of the grayling's last stands in the lower peninsula.
> 
> Back to the original topic. What purpose does the Rockford Dam serve? Just because you like it the way it is, we should keep it? There are no native salmonoids in the Rogue to displace, 6th Street acts as a lamprey barrier, and all the dam does is warms up the lower Rogue in the summer.


Good Day,

Mostly no arguement there... 

6th St/lamprey barrier. Honestly, to me, that in and of itself seems reason enough not to mess with it. 

Rogue: You know, even if the dam were to be removed, I am not sure the water temps would be all that much better. Even the river above the impoundment gets a bit warm in the summer (depending on how far upstream you go.) As far as "natives" go, correct. One would really have to press hard into the feeder creeks to find brookies. Otherwise, in all honesty, the Rogue really is a warm water fishery that has been managed for cold water species. Below the dam really is just planter water. Oh sure a few fish hang on here and there, but eventually fall back. Frankly the DNR could give up on planting fingerlings (browns) in the lower river and re-focus their efforts toward smallmouth as far as I am concerned. But you know they will continue with steelhead and salmon. It is just one of those things. A true put and take fishery. 

Maybe lame with regard to the Rogue... but it is kind of one of those "why mess with a good thing" type of deals. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. At this point i just don't see an advantage in removing the Rockford Dam.. Plus... let's face it, the city will certainly fight it too... "historical and tourist landmark..." 

Steelie


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 10, 2008)

Flyfisher said:


> I agree that dam removal should be carefully thought out and planned, but what you failed to recognize is the tremendous potential for natural reproduction in the many miles of ice cold feeder creeks that feed the upper Rogue, not to mention that they are all closed to fishing during peak spawning periods.



Warm Day,

The only problem with the dam in Rockford is, if it were to be removed, the water flow would be as wide as a human foot trail by the summertime & fall months. It would be awfully hard for those rotting Chinook salmon to migrate upstream & naturally reproduce in the feeder creeks that feeds the upper Rogue.


----------

