# Holy Water Hatchery?



## MichiganStreamside

Robert Holmes said:


> How much waste does this operation produce? Is it possible that it does more good to the river than it does harm? I am sure that the fly guys would not have an issue if the DNR planted 5000 large trout into the river and the same amount of fish poop is there.


They dont stock trout there. Permit would allow 8.64 million gallon of waste water per day to be discharged in the Au Sable and farm producing 300,000 pounds of trout per year. If you like all that then go huddle up with owner and tell your story in court!


----------



## toto

Someone brought up the issue at the Platte and that was basically the same thing. The problem there though was the people arguing to close the hatchery tried to use the words of one expert against the hatchery, but at the same time discounting the words from the same expert against the water front owners. There are a couple of things here, first of all, there is a certain amount of "effluent" that would good for the trout, what that number is, I don't know, but that was proven years ago when these groups were against sewage systems discharging into the river. What was discovered later was the water became basically dead as the nutrients the trout needed were no longer there. The second thing, why is it these groups are so against this, when they don't do anything about the walleye ponds? In case you didn't know, when the walleye fry are being brought up these ponds they feed them sheep do do. Does that sound like a good idea? Is it a good idea because it's walleye, but not a good idea cuz it's trout? Is it okay to have this effluent emptying into say Saginaw Bay, but it's not okay to have it go into the AuSable? In my mind these guys are only about one thing, they want their own little nirvana protected at all costs, but they could care less about the same thing happening elsewhere.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Much bigger than I thought. Like any business operation the guy probably started small and expanded. No problem with that but if it is harmful to the river and other businesses in the area I can see lots of red flags. It also opens the door to other similar operations in the state which nobody wants.


----------



## brushbuster

If people really want to improve the river they would do away with all the guiding. LOL like that's gonna happen. ?I can only imagine how much nicer it would be with out all them damn guides and their clients and all them damn drift boats.


----------



## RobW

brushbuster said:


> Yeah, what about all the sewers that drain into the river already. give me a break dude. You do know that the stretch along town still have sewers running in it right? How about all that lawn run off from those rich folk.


Storm drains and sewers are two different things. Let's not try to confuse folks. Stick to the facts. Toilet bowls from that stretch along town are not flushing into the river.


----------



## toto

Whether or not septic systems are draining into the river I truly don't know, but...what does it matter? During the Platte Lake fiasco it was proven that fertilizers from lawns created as big a problem as effluent from the hatchery. The simple fact is, and I"ve said it before, these guys are showing their hypocritical selves. They only care about one watershed, period. If it hurts their little playground, or even if they surmise it will, they will spend thousands of dollars fighting it. The problem is, I don't see them fighting at all for the little guy, ever.


----------



## skamina

Maybe they do care about one watershed but at least they are taking a stand. Rich poor or indifferent theyre taking a stand for what they beleive. Big guys lil guys can fight for what they believe.


----------



## DXT Deer Slayer

toto said:


> Whether or not septic systems are draining into the river I truly don't know, but...what does it matter? During the Platte Lake fiasco it was proven that fertilizers from lawns created as big a problem as effluent from the hatchery. The simple fact is, and I"ve said it before, these guys are showing their hypocritical selves. They only care about one watershed, period. If it hurts their little playground, or even if they surmise it will, they will spend thousands of dollars fighting it. The problem is, I don't see them fighting at all for the little guy, ever.


It would be a pretty tall task for one private entity to remain vigilant over every watershed in the state of Michigan. Guess that's why there is an organization called the 'Anglers of the Ausable', whose purpose is to protect the Ausable watershed, maybe?

Can't wrap my head around the fact that some would not oppose or even support the right to dispose of privately created waste into the headwaters of the Ausable.

Toto, comparing the Saginaw river watershed and walleye, to the upper Ausable and trout species, is just nonsense. Sure, a certain amount of effluent could actually help bug life and ultimately trout health. Trout are pretty healthy right now though. This a river ecosystem, that should be managed with an attitude of absolute preservation, not a forest, where intensive management and experimentation is an option.

Screw up badly one time, and it will be in a world of hurt.


----------



## toto

Why would it be a tall order, doesn't TU try to do that? Why is it nonsense to compare one watershed vs another? Shouldn't all water be protected? The problem here is very simple, these guys only care about their little nirvana. The other part of the equation is this: Do they have studies showing how much, or how little effluent can be discharged without damage? I haven't seen it, have you? As I said before, I'm not for this, at least as it stands, but I'm also pointed out some double talk on these guys parts.


----------



## brushbuster

Robert Holmes said:


> Much bigger than I thought. Like any business operation the guy probably started small and expanded. No problem with that but if it is harmful to the river and other businesses in the area I can see lots of red flags. It also opens the door to other similar operations in the state which nobody wants.





DXT Deer Slayer said:


> It would be a pretty tall task for one private entity to remain vigilant over every watershed in the state of Michigan. Guess that's why there is an organization called the 'Anglers of the Ausable', whose purpose is to protect the Ausable watershed, maybe?
> 
> Can't wrap my head around the fact that some would not oppose or even support the right to dispose of privately created waste into the headwaters of the Ausable.
> 
> Toto, comparing the Saginaw river watershed and walleye, to the upper Ausable and trout species, is just nonsense. Sure, a certain amount of effluent could actually help bug life and ultimately trout health. Trout are pretty healthy right now though. This a river ecosystem, that should be managed with an attitude of absolute preservation, not a forest, where intensive management and experimentation is an option.
> 
> Screw up badly one time, and it will be in a world of hurt.


If it was unsafe I would be against it. But its not.The permit issued by the DNR meets the stringest requirements in the state. Sure things can fail , but that could happen anytime anywhere on the river. Fuel trucks could spill fuel along the hwy and seep into the drains, yet we have thousands of them that drive past the river every year. These guys are making mountains out of mole hills and using fear to persuade. If you guys have concerns you should check with the DNR before you listen to these self serving self righteous Aholes.


----------



## toto

maybe this will help, not sure myself actually. One thing that stands out is the reasoning of helping the local economy, not sure how, but it's said:

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.ne...8202776&_ga=1.107106498.1373185639.1452800606


----------



## skamina

N the fishing doesnt help the econmy


----------



## toto

skamina said:


> N the fishing doesnt help the econmy


Huh??? I never said the fishing doesn't help the economy, did I? Now having said that, since it's flies only, and has been forever, do we know if the economy of the area would be better or worse if it WASN'T flies only? No we don't, why don't we try that for a while if you are worried about the economy?


----------



## o_mykiss

brushbuster said:


> If it was unsafe I would be against it. But its not.The permit issued by the DNR meets the stringest requirements in the state.


I have yet to read anything about a DNR permit... wasn't it DEQ? 


I'll admit I am not fully familiar with the situation, but from reading articles, it seems there ARE legitimate questions about the permit and potential for ecological issues from the hatchery

This caught my eye in particular - 
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/o...-hatchery-au-sable-michigan-fishing/30015687/

_"Two DNR biologists, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: "We are frankly surprised that the (Department of Environmental Quality) permit doesn't require more modern methods of monitoring. They are available."_


----------



## RobW

While most of us have a recreational horse in this race, it seems that some have a financial one. That spells bad news to a resource that is part of the commons...


----------



## Robert Holmes

The flies only guys have been pushing their muscle where it does not belong by trying to get other designated flies only waters. Now they want the other guys to back them on this issue. I don't see it happening.


----------



## toto

Robert Holmes said:


> The flies only guys have been pushing their muscle where it does not belong by trying to get other designated flies only waters. Now they want the other guys to back them on this issue. I don't see it happening.


And that's a big part of their problem. They keep trying to ram more and more flies only water down our throats then want us to back them up on issues like this, why would we? They want to have their nirvana? Let them pay for it, I frankly don't see it as a big problem myself.


----------



## Jackster1

brushbuster said:


> If people really want to improve the river they would do away with all the guiding. LOL like that's gonna happen. ?I can only imagine how much nicer it would be with out all them damn guides and their clients and all them damn drift boats.


Do away with the guiding? Where in the world did you get this idea and what in the world does guiding do to degrade the river? You wouldn't want guides removed to rid the river of people who make a living, a clean living, off of that river and who will team together to protect the river from people like your pal now would you? Those same guides also show people the splendor of that river and probably create others who learn to love that stream.
Toto, you are always there to preach downgrading the value of having at least one pristine river that touches the heart and souls of most anyone who knows it. In your mind it's best to spread thin or even eliminate special regulations for very special places. Higher standards seem to bother you. You would much rather eliminate special places and replace them with mundane, middle-of-the-road wet places where anything goes. As we've said to you before, many times, that river is not for an exclusive club, being a truly special place it, like every other body of water in Michigan has regulations, some just a bit more stringent. Get a trout stamp and a fly rod and enjoy it as it is meant to be enjoyed. Fishing that river is not impossible and is available to anyone who really wants to enjoy. Simple.
No one answered my question on why one guy who wants to make a few bucks trumps everyone who works and plays downstream. Why is it he should hold the value of that river in his hands over everyone else's? Well?
Someone else brought up approval by a Michigan GovCo agency. Would this be anything like the government group who okayed making Flint residents inadvertently poison themselves and their families by drinking that government approved Flint water?
Sure there might be contaminants already flowing into that river. I imagine there would be a lot more had people like the Anglers of the Au Sable not been around to defend it. Whose to say that the fish crap combined with all of the other junk flowing in that river might just be what it takes to drag that river down to just another piece of moving water.
I don't know, I just think brush's pal is a greedy SOB who wants to earn a few bucks despite the repercussions (is he from Canada by any chance, like the other Canucks who like to mine, drill and lay pipelines all over our land since they know we're for sale cheap?) What others might gain by cheerleading him on is beyond me but then who knows what is in the water they're drinking?


----------



## brushbuster

From what what I know of the owner, he's just a working stiff trying to make a living, who doesn't want to back down from a bunch of stiff necks who will bully him out of his dream. You go ahead and bad mouth him, most likely those idiots will win and you all can continue to exploit our river and give out those 400 dollar boat rides to those saps that don't know how to fish and feel good about showing them the splendor of the river while you mock em when they leave. Lol. Like I said before it is not as big a deal as the fear mongers want everyone to believe.


----------



## Fishndude

If fish poop is a concern, maybe keeping Trout should be allowed in the Ausable mainstream, below Grayling? There are LOTS of Trout that poop in that river, every single day. It used to be said that there was, on average, an 18" Trout for every linear 18" of water in the Holy Water section of river. That's a lot of big Trout, and there are many times more smaller fish. Mucho Trout poop. 

Maybe the State should allow bait, and lures, and catch-and-keep to reduce the Trout numbers, and make sure the Trout poop doesn't destroy the ecosystem. Let's see a show of thumbs - who's with me on this?


----------



## MichiganStreamside

Fishndude said:


> I grew up fishing the Holy Water, (South Spite Rd, where it dead-ends on the north side of the river, just down the rd from Mrs. Stephan's old place), and I am shocked at how many more homes/cabins have been built there since I was young. If someone is serious about keeping the river pristine, then they need to focus on halting all development along it. No more homes. No more cabins. If/when a riverside home/cabin is lost to age, or fire, another shouldn't be built. (too bad for property values) How much sewage do you suppose all the residences along the river produce? Granted, it flows through a septic system (some of the time) first; but it eventually trickles through the ground, and some of it ends up in the river. Also, lot of the homeowners have lawns, flowers, etc, and fertilize them. That should be illegal - no lawns, no flowers, no mowing, no fertilizing. And what about docks hanging in the river? Get rid of them! They harm the pristine riverbed, and inhibit the river flow. Take out all the docks, and put in natural wood that will provide good habitat for Trout. And what about guides dragging anchors down the river to slow their travel, so their clients can fish the water thoroughly without having to wade? That totally disrupts the pristine riverbed, dredges up critical plants, and kills insect larvae. How much human waste do fishermen, and canoers contribute to the river? Anyone who craps, or pees along its banks (or directly into the river) is polluting the watershed. Maybe all fishing, and canoeing should be banned? And what about all the wild animals that pee, poop, and sometimes die in the river? What needs to be done about that?
> 
> Before the Ausable River was logged off, and developed, was it as wide, shallow, and warm as it is now? Or was it narrower, obstructed by fallen trees, more shaded and cooler, with a gravel substrate bottom? Why is it that Grayling (the fish) haven't been successfully re-introduced, despite several significant attempts?
> 
> All of the arguments for shutting down the fish farm should similarly be applied to all homes and cabins on the river, using exactly the same logic. How much of a buffer zone is really needed to preserve the pristine-ness of the Ausable? 100 feet? 100 yards? 1000 yards? 1000 yards seems safe. How about no cutting down any trees within 1000 yards of the river? Someone has a too-large tree in their riverside yard, that is in danger of falling on a building? Gotta leave it, as it stabilizes the ground alongside the river, until it falls.
> 
> Choosing to target the fish farm owner, but allowing all the other sources of pollution to the river to exist is ridiculous. Whose special interest is being protected, and why?


When a orangations like the Anglers of the Au Sable steps up to try and stop someone from pumping sewage into river a much better reply would be to smiply say THANK YOU! Its a awesome river with 100 miles of trout water that that has touched the soul of so people that love to fishing and floating it!


----------



## swampbuck

Fishin dude, the 300' setback has been in place for over a decade. Houses built before that are grandfathered.


----------



## toto

You know streamside, the thought occurred to me, since you mentioned touching your soul; is it fly fishing that touches the soul, or is it being in nature in such a way as it makes one get in touch with his/her soul? My take, for what it's worth, the incidence of taking or catching a trout is incidental to finding your soul. Maybe just being "out there" is enough for most, it's a chance to get away from lifes everyday pressures and just take a deep breath. Speaking of deep breaths, maybe with some, living in the asphalt jungle, getting out on a trout stream is just so foreign to everyday that it is soul searching they have been looking. Fly fishing is only one method of doing so, and to make any more than that is over reaching. Do you think it's possible to get that same soul searching ideal by using bait? I submit to you, it is.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

toto said:


> You know streamside, the thought occurred to me, since you mentioned touching your soul; is it fly fishing that touches the soul, or is it being in nature in such a way as it makes one get in touch with his/her soul? My take, for what it's worth, the incidence of taking or catching a trout is incidental to finding your soul. Maybe just being "out there" is enough for most, it's a chance to get away from lifes everyday pressures and just take a deep breath. Speaking of deep breaths, maybe with some, living in the asphalt jungle, getting out on a trout stream is just so foreign to everyday that it is soul searching they have been looking. Fly fishing is only one method of doing so, and to make any more than that is over reaching. Do you think it's possible to get that same soul searching ideal by using bait? I submit to you, it is.


Method of fishing has nothing to with how people enjoy the outdoors. Some that love the Au Sable dont even focus on catching big trout. The fly fishing only waters is such a small section of the river and Au Sable has miles apon miles of awesome trout for any method of fishing. The issue is protecting a river that so many love so much and to keep it that special place. Fish farming and a sewar line into dont ever belong there!!! So thankful that so many others feel the same way.


----------



## DXT Deer Slayer

toto said:


> You know streamside, the thought occurred to me, since you mentioned touching your soul; is it fly fishing that touches the soul, or is it being in nature in such a way as it makes one get in touch with his/her soul? My take, for what it's worth, the incidence of taking or catching a trout is incidental to finding your soul. Maybe just being "out there" is enough for most, it's a chance to get away from lifes everyday pressures and just take a deep breath. Speaking of deep breaths, maybe with some, living in the asphalt jungle, getting out on a trout stream is just so foreign to everyday that it is soul searching they have been looking. Fly fishing is only one method of doing so, and to make any more than that is over reaching. Do you think it's possible to get that same soul searching ideal by using bait? I submit to you, it is.


Your little attempt at a romantic fishing paragraph wasn't as breathtaking as you probably thought it was in your head.

You have countless undeveloped public land acres to go find your soul in within the state of Michigan.

If attaching live bait to your hook, or killing the fish you catch are in your definition of soul searching, you have bass, walleye, pike, panfish, or something in most every body of water you can find. You're free to have your way with them.

All we ask for is for a little more stringent protection of one river, the best river (the Manistee is pretty awesome too). If you can't understand the whole fly-fishing thing, and how it belongs in certain places as the only fishing option, then you just might not have the IQ to participate.


----------



## toto

Oh I have the IQ, but I'm not going to sit here and have a battle of wits with an un armed person. For the record I do fly fish occasional so I'm not opposed to fly fishing. I wasn't trying to be a romantisist I was trying to get across that those that fish bait, have the same feelings about outdoor pursuits as those the fly fish only, hopefully you have the where withal to understand that.


----------



## 357Maximum

DXT Deer Slayer said:


> If you can't understand the whole fly-fishing thing, and how it belongs in certain places as the only fishing option, then you just might not have the IQ to participate.



Well there ya go proving the point many here have tried to.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

DXT Deer Slayer said:


> Your little attempt at a romantic fishing paragraph wasn't as breathtaking as you probably thought it was in your head.
> 
> You have countless undeveloped public land acres to go find your soul in within the state of Michigan.
> 
> If attaching live bait to your hook, or killing the fish you catch are in your definition of soul searching, you have bass, walleye, pike, panfish, or something in most every body of water you can find. You're free to have your way with them.
> 
> All we ask for is for a little more stringent protection of one river, the best river (the Manistee is pretty awesome too). If you can't understand the whole fly-fishing thing, and how it belongs in certain places as the only fishing option, then you just might not have the IQ to participate.


Get a grip Eric, good Lord. No idea what's gotten into you, but you're not as cool as you think you are. Get off Kelly's nuts for a few minutes, and form your own thoughts. There are good points on both sides, and being a dick doesn't help anyone; regardless of what they feel or believe.


----------



## DXT Deer Slayer

toto said:


> For the record I do fly fish occasional so I'm not opposed to fly fishing.


Awesome! I'm glad that you're not opposed to understanding the natural bug-life of a river ecosystem, their life stages, and imitating them with hair, fur, and feathers tied together to catch trout, or even a beautiful articulated streamer meant to imitate a wounded baitfish! I'm certainly not opposed to your bait either, as I spent a great deal of time last week flinging spawn bags and waxworms for my beloved steelhead. Love my crawlers in the spring and summer, and hope to be putting a treble hook through a shiner's back under the ice here pretty soon. There's a time and place for everything. I've had great times with great friends in all of these endeavors, and wish you nothing but the same.

I really don't think anyone intends for these threads to take such a hard turn into negativity. I remember the first post in this thread, and thought it would be a bunch of somewhat like-minded sportsmen voicing their agreement on how terrible of an idea it is to dump fish farm waste into the headwaters of the Ausable. Sometimes things are said though, that appear so ridiculous to some of us, that we just have to chime in or we would lose sleep at night. Sometimes, the ridiculousness starts with the first post.

It is what it is, it's gonna be what it's gonna be, and it'll be ok until it's not.


----------



## toto

I got cha, just to repeat myself, there is one part of the equation on the hatchery that I don't quite get. What determines the amount of effluent that is permissible per the DEQ (in this case)? Do they go by standards set by the EPA, and what is the standard and how is it derived? I don't see how anyone can get behind this thing without knowing that equation. Unless, and until I can find a viable answer to that, I CANNOT condone this aquaculture thing. To me it isn't about the trout fishing, it is about water quality, no only for that particular stretch of stream, but the overall watershed. I've been through this argument before with the Platte Lake thing, so I do have a little bit of understanding, but those two questions above need answered.


----------



## Jackster1

Pristine rivers and flowing waters have quite the effect on some people. Working with veterans suffering from PTSD I have seen some remarkable transformations. From a group of TN bikers who all looked as if their dog died the day we met to having them laugh and giggle like school girls when they started catching dinky trout on top. Two veterans I know never smiled or showed any expression when we started a series of fly fishing classes. They never spoke to anyone and stayed in the very back of the room at each class. By about the third class one of them came up and asked me a question which in itself was astounding. Those two are now stewards of fly fishing and can be found at fly fishing shows dragging people out of the passersby and promoting Project Healing Waters to anyone who will listen. One of the wives thanked us for saving their lives. That, my friend, is the power and healing clean water can bring. It most definitely touched the souls of these folks as well as me.

I said it before on this thread...how much is too much? Sure there are contaminants in the river but who is to say that the addition of the poop from farmed fish might tip the scales to end the qualities that make that river special to so many. Let's play the cautious side for river protection and find out the benefits to all who are affected by the fish farm. I know but one person so far who stands to gain and thousands who stand to lose.


----------



## Robert Holmes

It was not a problem when it was a State of Michigan hatchery. I visited it back then and nobody had complaints about it.


----------



## swampbuck

Robert Holmes said:


> It was not a problem when it was a State of Michigan hatchery. I visited it back then and nobody had complaints about it.


Great point !


----------



## RobW

Robert Holmes said:


> One guy raises trout for a living and the trout poop in the river and it suddenly becomes a big issue. Yet the same people who want to put the trout farm out of business own restaurants that serve dairy products, beef,pork, and poultry that **** in another persons holy grail.


Beef, pork and poultry producers are responsible for the waste their operations produce. They aren't allowed to flush that waste into a blue ribbon trout stream. Farmers die dealing with that toxic stuff.


----------



## swampbuck

Good god, I get tired of this holy blue ribbon trout stream B.S. The only thing special about that stretch is the restrictions. There is lots of equally good rivers full of planted trout.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> Good god, I get tired of this holy blue ribbon trout stream B.S. The only thing special about that stretch is the restrictions. There is lots of equally good rivers full of planted trout.


Water flows down stream and so does waste - its not about one section of river


----------



## swampbuck

And waste provides nutrients for the river, even free range fish produce waste. 

What if the plan was to release those same fish into the river, would you guys fight that?


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> And waste provides nutrients for the river, even free range fish produce waste.
> 
> What if the plan was to release those same fish into the river, would you guys fight that?


300,000 pounds a year - yes i would. Go line up swampbuck with a private business that wants to dump its sewage waste in a river in Michigan! What happens when the next fish farm comes?


----------



## mharv64

DXT Deer Slayer said:


> Awesome! I'm glad that you're not opposed to understanding the natural bug-life of a river ecosystem, their life stages, and imitating them with hair, fur, and feathers tied together to catch trout, or even a beautiful articulated streamer meant to imitate a wounded baitfish! I'm certainly not opposed to your bait either, as I spent a great deal of time last week flinging spawn bags and waxworms for my beloved steelhead. Love my crawlers in the spring and summer, and hope to be putting a treble hook through a shiner's back under the ice here pretty soon. There's a time and place for everything. I've had great times with great friends in all of these endeavors, and wish you nothing but the same.
> 
> I really don't think anyone intends for these threads to take such a hard turn into negativity. I remember the first post in this thread, and thought it would be a bunch of somewhat like-minded sportsmen voicing their agreement on how terrible of an idea it is to dump fish farm waste into the headwaters of the Ausable. Sometimes things are said though, that appear so ridiculous to some of us, that we just have to chime in or we would lose sleep at night. Sometimes, the ridiculousness starts with the first post.
> 
> It is what it is, it's gonna be what it's gonna be, and it'll be ok until it's not.


Talk about little attempts at poetry. I don't know who you are DTX but you are swerving way out of your lane


----------



## Jackster1

Robert Holmes said:


> It was not a problem when it was a State of Michigan hatchery. I visited it back then and nobody had complaints about it.


Let's see... hatchery... fish farm... hatchery... fish farm... Anyone care to inform RH and friends of the difference?

Good God. I get tired of people making instant and permanent knee-jerk reactions to issues like this. It's like their robotic minds are binary and set with extreme right or left as their only input. There is usually a whole lot of stuff in between the extremists points of view but then if they dare take part in a civil discussion about anything or question the party line they're probably afraid they will be labeled not Red, White and Blue enough or not caring and generous enough. The best solutions are usually not the extremists solutions.
It seems like swamp knows places better and less restrictive than the Au Sable so why even butt in? You got yours, aint that enough?
I just checked the DNR website and searched the Au Sable River in Crawford Country for trout stocking last year. They stocked zero, nadda, zilch, none in that river. It, as it stands now anyhow, is self-supporting. That in itself makes it special, no? If you found 'equally good rivers full of planted trout' and that's your thing then why the griping?

Before posting this I did a search about the difference between hatcheries and fish farms. Here's an excerpt from Sooke News. In it they talk of salmon but most of it holds true to our fresh water fishery as well...

_The greatest difference between hatcheries and salmon farms is that hatchery fish are released when they are at either fingerling stage or smolt stage (large enough to survive in the ocean)._

_Salmon farms keep their fish in pens until they are market size. This is similar to a cattle feedlot operation where the confined space and the dependence on grain make it a necessity to use antibiotics in feed. Because it is not normal for salmon to be maintained in confined conditions they can be susceptible to bacterial infection or to the predation of parasites such as sea lice. To mitigate against this problem fish farms inoculate fish or use antibiotics in their feed - as well as using powerful pesticides to kill the sea lice. (This is not a problem for oyster farms or other bivalve aquaculture where it is normal for large populations to exist in close proximity.)_

_Fish farms pose a further problem in that, over time, the accumulation of large amounts of feed and excrement can develop dead zones in the ocean bottom below the nets. Currently there are intensive efforts to develop economical containment systems that do not have this problem._

_Hatcheries use neither drugs nor pesticides and release their fish to the wild before overcrowding leads to disease problems._


----------



## Robert Holmes

Jackster, I hate to burst you bubble but there are loads of rivers in this state that have very high quality trout fishing. I have caught 30 inch native brown trout out of 5 of them. If you want the "fish farm" closed it is your battle good luck with it. I can't give you a whole lot of support because it is forbidden waters for me to fish in. I do however respect the AuSable River for what it is and the history of the river.


----------



## kzoofisher

Nice post Jackster. 

Below are some links to stories about this issue for those of you who don't know the facts. Despite a few people who are willing to harm fishing statewide so they can score internet points in an argument unrelated to this issue, the threat here is real. This particular farm is not a couple extra runs for the season, it is an increase from 20,000 pounds per year to 300,000 pounds per year. That is not a typo but it is a 15 fold increase. 25# of phosphorous flushed out per day instead of 1.66#. 432# per day of excrement and fish food instead of 29#. This farm is almost twice the size of the Platte River hatchery that caused so much trouble and now filters its effluent. The issue is so real that leading flies-only, elitist groups like the Steelheaders and Charter Boat Assn. have come out against open system aquaculture. Those who are obsessed with a particular issue and are ready to sacrifice our all water to get their way want everyone to believe that this is a "fly guy" problem but it isn't. It isn't even happening on gear restricted water or on a stream that has any gear restrictions. Ontario is putting pressure on its open system aquaculture as disease and pollution increase in Georgian Bay, and those businesses are looking for new water to locate in because containing their waste is too expensive. Mr. Vogler's business is not economically viable without the increase in production and pass through operation. Heck, even with those things he can't afford to monitor the water more than once a week and won't be required to test for disease at all. A panel of scientists from the DNR, DEQ and MDARD released their findings a couple months ago stating that these operations are wrong for Michigan waters and the result was the introduction of the bills you see below. Set aside your partisan feelings and do what is right for the State and the future of our waters by opposing this. The future of Michigan's aquaculture lies in closed system production not open sewers.

_ATTENTION MICHIGAN FISHERMEN:
We have a HUGE statewide political battle and we need your HELP. I received an email on a call to action and I will paste below. 
Our state has a coalition made up of the (MSSFA, TU, MUCC, MEC, MCBA, Anglers of the Au Sable). Luckily for us they have began efforts to provide Senator Jones with sub language to his SB 526 that bans aquaculture on the Great Lakes and connecting waterways, which would have preserved existing aquaculture operations with stricter regulations on treating waste and flow through water. 
This would have increased the chances of SB526 passing. Then, in planned confederacy, the Senate Republicans, Booher, Robertson, Shirkey and Casperson and House Republicans introduced bills (SB’s 681, 682 & 683) that virtually rewrite the “Michigan aquaculture development act” passed in 1996. Reps. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) and Triston Cole (R-Mancelona) put forward an identical package to Booher's in the House with HB 5166, HB 5167 and HB 5168.

These bills are devastating to our lakes, streams and rivers and threaten wild fish and our sport fishery’s ability to co-exist. If you read the bills (and you should) there are numerous changes that remove regulations and oversight of these operations. 
The most egregious are: Shifts rulemaking power to the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Development and away from DNR and DEQ; circumvents the Public Trust Doctrine, interposes a Right to Farm piece; allows up to ten net pens on the Great Lakes; removes the ability of townships to impose authority over the operations (Right to Farm); riparian rights are impaired, tribal rights via treaty are trampled on; bottom land use at no charge; and sport fishing license statue being amended so they can collect wild fish and put them in their aquaculture facilities (Taking of Fish). 

Read the paragraph ABOVE one more time. You should be alarmed and must do your part to make your voice heard. All fishermen need to ban together and fight this. Stay tuned to this blog and I will keep you posted on any developments. I urge you to contact your representatives to make your objections known and YOU MUST ask them to do their part in defeating these bills._

https://www.ausableanglers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Fly-Fisherman-Feb.Mar_.2016-2.pdf

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/o...-hatchery-au-sable-michigan-fishing/30015687/

http://michiganradio.org/post/propo...le-river-would-be-michigan-s-biggest#stream/0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/group-challenges-grayling-fish-hatchery-expansion/


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Robert Holmes said:


> I can't give you a whole lot of support because it is forbidden waters for me to fish in.


I know it's been stated before but bares repeating. The hatchery is on the East Branch and flow miles before it reaches the holy waters. All water that is not forbidden for you to fish.


----------



## toto

Personally it isn't about the trout in my mind, it's water quality, period. Mentioning the Platte River hatchery the way you did however is a bit erroneous without telling the rest of the story. I will use numbers that may not be EXACTLY correct, but you'll get the point, and my numbers won't be very far off. When the Platte Lake Improvement Association sued the state for the phosphorous (P) levels from the hatchery, this group hired a firm to do a study on where, and how much P was coming into Platte Lake. It was discovered that there were roughly 2400# of P coming into Platte Lake, won't say daily as I don't remember the time frame, but you get my point. During this study it was also discovered that 416# of P was coming from the hatchery. The obvious question became, where is the other 2100# coming from? Again, during this study, paid for by the association, it was discovered that every household that used fertilizer etc on their lawns was contributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50#. According to Dr. Spencer, head of the PLIA, the numbers against the fish hatchery were accurate, however the numbers against the property owners were erroneous, weird huh? Anyways, that simple statement by him is what finally ended that debacle. 

I just had to mention that as in reading your post Kzoo, you appeared to want to use only the fish hatchery as the problem in this case, and it wasn't, not really even close. Yes they do have scrubbers at the Platte River Hatchery now, as they should, but someone needs to explain where the P is coming from now. I would highly recommend that someone do a study on the Ausable in the area in question to determine the amount of P in they system now, without that knowledge you will have no basis for argument later. Furhtermore, since the DEQ has given him the go ahead with this hatchery, would it more prudent to invest dollars with Mr. Vogler in putting in scrubbers vs spending thousands on legal fees? I would think that in combination with TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, and the Huron Pines Club, you guys could make that happen pretty easily.

Oh, and one more thing about the Platte, what is the water flow at the Platte vs Ausable in the area of the hatchery. I'm not familiar with that particular area on the Ausable, but my hunch is it has a larger water flow and therefore more water flowing than the Platte and therefore the allowable limit would be higher on the Ausable, if my hunch is correct.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

toto said:


> Personally it isn't about the trout in my mind, it's water quality, period. Mentioning the Platte River hatchery the way you did however is a bit erroneous without telling the rest of the story. I will use numbers that may not be EXACTLY correct, but you'll get the point, and my numbers won't be very far off. When the Platte Lake Improvement Association sued the state for the phosphorous (P) levels from the hatchery, this group hired a firm to do a study on where, and how much P was coming into Platte Lake. It was discovered that there were roughly 2400# of P coming into Platte Lake, won't say daily as I don't remember the time frame, but you get my point. During this study it was also discovered that 416# of P was coming from the hatchery. The obvious question became, where is the other 2100# coming from? Again, during this study, paid for by the association, it was discovered that every household that used fertilizer etc on their lawns was contributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 50#. According to Dr. Spencer, head of the PLIA, the numbers against the fish hatchery were accurate, however the numbers against the property owners were erroneous, weird huh? Anyways, that simple statement by him is what finally ended that debacle.
> 
> I just had to mention that as in reading your post Kzoo, you appeared to want to use only the fish hatchery as the problem in this case, and it wasn't, not really even close. Yes they do have scrubbers at the Platte River Hatchery now, as they should, but someone needs to explain where the P is coming from now. I would highly recommend that someone do a study on the Ausable in the area in question to determine the amount of P in they system now, without that knowledge you will have no basis for argument later. Furhtermore, since the DEQ has given him the go ahead with this hatchery, would it more prudent to invest dollars with Mr. Vogler in putting in scrubbers vs spending thousands on legal fees? I would think that in combination with TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, and the Huron Pines Club, you guys could make that happen pretty easily.
> 
> Oh, and one more thing about the Platte, what is the water flow at the Platte vs Ausable in the area of the hatchery. I'm not familiar with that particular area on the Ausable, but my hunch is it has a larger water flow and therefore more water flowing than the Platte and therefore the allowable limit would be higher on the Ausable, if my hunch is correct.


Since the state said its ok your good with that? I wonder if those that live in Flint would agree with that kind of statement? Need to get numbers of what will be coming into the Au Sable from fish farms waste - not numbers from the Platte River hatchery.


----------



## toto

I never said numbers from the Platte, I only used that example as others were using it erroneously. What you don't seem to get is the DEQ said it was okay for some reason, what is that reason? Is it due to the fact there is enough water flow that it won't create as big of a problem as you protend, or is it something else? I would imagine the DEQ would use some formula to determine this, perhaps that formula is given to them by the EPA. I have to think that with the connections between Anglers and other groups they would some clout and reasoning to stop this before it even goes to court. Wouldn't you agree that TU and Anglers are in bed with each other? IF that is true, TU gets plenty of money from environmental groups, why aren't they fighting harder, or perhaps they are and don't have a leg to stand on. I think perhaps you need to re-read my last post, what I was saying is there is some formula to decide what is or is not an allowable limit of P in any system. I used the 2400# as that was the number Dr. Spencer was using, and if that is too much for that system, what is water flow there? If you extrapolate numbers, or put another way, contrast and expand your numbers, you can figure out what is an allowable number yourself on the Ausable. Get it??


----------



## MichiganStreamside

toto said:


> I never said numbers from the Platte, I only used that example as others were using it erroneously. What you don't seem to get is the DEQ said it was okay for some reason, what is that reason? Is it due to the fact there is enough water flow that it won't create as big of a problem as you protend, or is it something else? I would imagine the DEQ would use some formula to determine this, perhaps that formula is given to them by the EPA. I have to think that with the connections between Anglers and other groups they would some clout and reasoning to stop this before it even goes to court. Wouldn't you agree that TU and Anglers are in bed with each other? IF that is true, TU gets plenty of money from environmental groups, why aren't they fighting harder, or perhaps they are and don't have a leg to stand on. I think perhaps you need to re-read my last post, what I was saying is there is some formula to decide what is or is not an allowable limit of P in any system. I used the 2400# as that was the number Dr. Spencer was using, and if that is too much for that system, what is water flow there? If you extrapolate numbers, or put another way, contrast and expand your numbers, you can figure out what is an allowable number yourself on the Ausable. Get it??


Maybe look at some other fish farms around country and what they have done to the rivers they are attached to. Hey there is an idea! Well its already been done and its not pretty! Guess what group did that that? Blowing smoke toto and bunch of meaningless info? Like I said ask those in Flint if there good with the state's decision. Did not think there would be single fishermen that was good with a private business attaching a sewage line to any river in michigan but guess i was very wrong.


----------



## toto

Again, putting words in my mouth, I never said it was okay to dump P into a river, what I did say was the DEQ, or the EPA, take your pick, has determined there is an acceptable level. I have no idea how they arrive at that, that isn't my job. Furthermore, I never said I was for this hatchery, in fact what I said was, I'm opposed to it unless it can be proven to not harm water quality. As for sewage lines, I never said that was good either, now did I? Look, you are trying too hard to make your point, and it isn't working. You need to go back and see where I said I didn't agree with it, but at this point it's settled, and unless something changes, it is what it is. This ISN'T about gear restricted waters to me, and never has been, I am FOR good water quality, but unlike you apparently, I'm not an expert in water quality studies. Again, if you are so concerned, and are a member of one of the above groups, why not find a way to spend your money on helping with cleaning this up BEFORE it becomes a mess, rather than taking it to court. One thing you need to think about, if these groups were to take it to court, water flows and acceptable limits will be one piece of evidence that will be used, and the other part is, should you win, Mr. Vogler would most likely counter sue for loss of income and the money he has already spent, how do you win anything that way? Seems to me the easiest least expensive way is to work with Vogler now, rather than later.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

How do I turn this off from coming into my phone is all I want to know?


----------



## toto

Have no idea, I'm pretty dumb when it comes to that stuff. Not that I'm smart otherwise.


----------



## Robert Holmes

It will be interesting how this all turns out in the end.Let the lawsuits begin.


----------



## swampbuck

For those who have never dealt with the DEQ, you should try it sometime. If they issued a permit, I am inclined to believe all is good.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> For those who have never dealt with the DEQ, you should try it sometime. If they issued a permit, I am inclined to believe all is good.


DEQ was good with turning the Au Sable into a natural gas oil field in the past. But someone stopped that also!


----------



## Lamarsh

I just saw this today. I'm not fully aware what the technical consequences associated with dumping 300k farm raised trout waste into an otherwise well functioning trout stream; however, if there is any evidence that it could cause harm I propose they consider trapping the waste and reusing it for organic farming. This is being done on plenty of fish farms, where they are able to reuse the waste and waste water for fertilizer for crops, rather than dumping it places where it could cause problems. 

Not sure how high amounts of nitrogen effects a flowing river, but we all know what it does to ponds and lakes.


----------



## Lamarsh

MichiganStreamside said:


> DEQ was good with turning the Au Sable into a natural gas oil field in the past. But someone stopped that also!


Are you referring to the lease that some Canadian gas company tried to get near the Holy Waters? I followed that for some time but lost track. What ended up happening with that?


----------



## toto

Lamarsh said:


> Not sure how high amounts of nitrogen effects a flowing river, but we all know what it does to ponds and lakes


And that's exactly what I have been trying find out all along, but the answer must be out there somewhere.


----------



## Jackster1

toto said:


> And that's exactly what I have been trying find out all along, but the answer must be out there somewhere.


I gave a sort of an answer earlier. I hope it meets your criteria of an answer...

_The greatest difference between hatcheries and salmon farms is that hatchery fish are released when they are at either fingerling stage or smolt stage (large enough to survive in the ocean).

Salmon farms keep their fish in pens until they are market size. This is similar to a cattle feedlot operation where the confined space and the dependence on grain make it a necessity to use antibiotics in feed. Because it is not normal for salmon to be maintained in confined conditions they can be susceptible to bacterial infection or to the predation of parasites such as sea lice. To mitigate against this problem fish farms inoculate fish or use antibiotics in their feed - as well as using powerful pesticides to kill the sea lice. (This is not a problem for oyster farms or other bivalve aquaculture where it is normal for large populations to exist in close proximity.)_

_Fish farms pose a further problem in that, over time, the accumulation of large amounts of feed and excrement can develop dead zones in the ocean bottom below the nets. Currently there are intensive efforts to develop economical containment systems that do not have this problem._

_Hatcheries use neither drugs nor pesticides and release their fish to the wild before overcrowding leads to disease problems._


----------



## Ron Matthews

[QUOTE="Lamarsh, What ended up happening with that?

A.O.A- Shut that **** down! I'll say it if nobody else wants too, f'em
Kicked them square in the wallet!!


----------



## o_mykiss

MichiganStreamside said:


> DEQ was good with turning the Au Sable into a natural gas oil field in the past. But someone stopped that also!


Not to mention their massive shortcomings in Flint debacle...


----------



## toto

I get that and I understand what you are saying, what I'm getting at is how much effluent can a river system handle? By that I guess I mean, how much effluent per gallon water, if that's the right way of saying it. Hopefully the point in your last post about economical containment systems will come to fruition as that where the answer lies. I still wonder if it would be more cost effective for the fly guys to get involved in that part of the equation. Don't know the answer to either of those questions, but I would hope the DEQ took the effluent/water equation into the thought process, but who really knows. I'll state it again, IF it can't be proven to be a clean, if that's the right word, operation, I vote against it.


----------

