# Ausable fish farm meeting.



## swampbuck

The informational meeting is at 6 pm today. At the Ol'Barn in Grayling.

Just a reminder.


----------



## swampbuck

Well I went....I thoughtthat that the anglers of the Ausable presentation and answers to the questions were heavy on emotion but lacking data to back it up. I expected much more from them.

The hatchery operator was very well prepared and well spoken.

At this point, based on what I heard today. I believe the hatchery/farm guys heart is in the right place. I also believe that sufficient MDNR/MDEQ safeguards are in place.

I also believe that the Historic grayling facilities existence has significant value to the community.

Barring convincing evidence to the contrary. I support the development of the facility.


----------



## piscatorial warrior

Good to know Swampbuck. Thank you for going in our stead.


----------



## Molson

Wish I had known it was taking place. Guess I missed that notification. My understanding was it was now a court matter and there were no safeguards being put in place. Our DEQ has shown their inability to ensure safe water quality in other parts of the state. What makes you think they will here? i.e. what are the safeguards you reference?


----------



## swampbuck

There is testing required in the permit. And the owner is responsible if damage occurs. They are required to install traps when/if the permit to expand is finalized. Trapped material, including what they currently collect from the raceways is trucked away and used spread on farms as fertilizer.

Currently there are 8 raceways in operation. Historically when the DNR operated it there were 54 raceways in operation. Currently they are operating at a negative discharge, trapping more incoming sediment, than they are discharging.

He invited anyone concerned to contact him, wish I would have wrote down that info. His name is Dan and he can be reached at the Harrieta Mi trout farm. The guy stayed after the meeting until the place was nearly empty. Engaging anyone with a comment or question. Pretty impressed considering that most of the room was against him when it started.

Here another thing. There are currently 2 hatcheries in the state that exceed the state discharge standards (better than) and that includes DNR operations....those two are His Grayling and Harrieta operations. 

As I mentioned before, I was disappointed with the AofA presentation and answers. I like data, I went wanting to hear the whole story from both sides. They should have done MUCH better, they really had nothing of value to offer. If that's all they got, they should just skip the court hearing, and save their money.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> And the owner is responsible if damage occurs..


Shocked anyone would support this. List the benefits to the area and Au Sable River. You really think that if there is huge negative effect on the Au Sable the owner of the fish farm "will be responsible for the damages and put it back the way it was before he dumped all his waste in the river"?


----------



## swampbuck

I think he is not going to risk every thing he has.

Every hatchery/farm in the state is a flow through. (his are the best according to the data)....care to share how many catastrophes have occurred ?


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> I think he is not going to risk every thing he has.
> 
> Every hatchery/farm in the state is a flow through. (his are the best according to the data)....care to share how many catastrophes have occurred ?


You listed what he brings to the Au Sable and community - NOTHING! Private business dumping its waste in our rivers will never be supported.


----------



## -Axiom-

MichiganStreamside said:


> You listed what he brings to the Au Sable and community - NOTHING! Private business dumping its waste in our rivers will never be supported.



It's been accepted and supported for years.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

-Axiom- said:


> It's been accepted and supported for years.


Bummer is won't last any longer! Post the increase of waste from past to planned future.


----------



## feedinggrounds

Will fish raised at this hatchery be stocked in waters without gear restriction? If so I support it.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

feedinggrounds said:


> Will fish raised at this hatchery be stocked in waters without gear restriction? If so I support it.


No its not a hatchery. A fish farm is raising them to be sold and owner making all the money.


----------



## hillbillie

MichiganStreamside said:


> You listed what he brings to the Au Sable and community - NOTHING! Private business dumping its waste in our rivers will never be supported.


Brings employment,affordable tourist attraction and a tax base to a depressed area.
Safeguards and controls are in place. Permits have been issued.

I see no harm give it a chance.

Sent from my Torque using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## MichiganStreamside

hillbillie said:


> Brings employment,affordable tourist attraction and a tax base to a depressed area.
> Safeguards and controls are in place. Permits have been issued.
> 
> I see no harm give it a chance.
> 
> Sent from my Torque using Ohub Campfire mobile app


How many jobs? 3?


----------



## hillbillie

MichiganStreamside said:


> How many jobs? 3?


Not sure l didn't attend the meeting.
Did you?

Sent from my Torque using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## MichiganStreamside

hillbillie said:


> Not sure l didn't attend the meeting.
> Did you?
> 
> Sent from my Torque using Ohub Campfire mobile app


So your making a case for employment for the area when the fish farm shows it only will hire a couple people. Good one dude!


----------



## SJC

Don't you hate it when people try and make money off a natural resource? I don't know all the particulars of this issue, but the guy seems to have a good track record. If all permits are in order, what's the problem? Is the facility going to be inspected before they go into production? Is he going to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they are meeting requirements?


----------



## hillbillie

MichiganStreamside said:


> So your making a case for employment for the area when the fish farm shows it only will hire a couple people. Good one dude!


 A "couple " of jobs is still a +. Don't see it impacting any current employment in a negative way. I really don't think the drift guides have any worries.
Gates Lodge would be able to feature "Fresh Au Sable River Trout " on their menu


----------



## [email protected]

It is true the Anglers of the Au Sable gets emotional about this, but the reasons are the facts. The Anglers' has spent serious money researching, hiring experts, and litigating this issue. Let's make one point very clear...they are not trying to prevent the hatchery's expansion, they are insisting proper safeguards are in place. There are well documented permanent disasters to prime trout water by hatcheries. And if a "problem" occurs, it isn't a matter of just cleaning up and fixing, the fishery may well never be the same. It has taken near a century to bring the Au Sable river back from the times of logging where logs were floated downriver scouring the banks and the streambed to pieces. That was followed by the demise, apparently forever, of the grayling to these waters. The Au sable, especially from Grayling to Mio pond is a wild trout fishery. The section known as the "Holy Water" is literally world famous for its natural and productive trout fishery.Trout reproduce naturally, and insect activity (the prime food of native trout) is phenomenal. Is this to be risked for a few jobs? Look at the many jobs that would disappear if this great river was injured by a problem seeping downstream from the hatchery?

The hatchery's trout will be sold as food, not used for stocking.

I find it hard to believe that an outdoorsman site like this would support something that carries such a high risk.

BTW...I am a board member of the Anglers of the Au Sable. Does this make me biased? Damn right!!


----------



## -Axiom-

MichiganStreamside said:


> Bummer is won't last any longer! Post the increase of waste from past to planned future.





MichiganStreamside said:


> No its not a hatchery. A fish farm is raising them to be sold and owner making all the money.



Not unlike Outfitters.


----------



## -Axiom-

[email protected] said:


> It is true the Anglers of the Au Sable gets emotional about this, but the reasons are the facts. The Anglers' has spent serious money researching, hiring experts, and litigating this issue. Let's make one point very clear...they are not trying to prevent the hatchery's expansion, they are insisting proper safeguards are in place. There are well documented permanent disasters to prime trout water by hatcheries. And if a "problem" occurs, it isn't a matter of just cleaning up and fixing, the fishery may well never be the same. It has taken near a century to bring the Au Sable river back from the times of logging where logs were floated downriver scouring the banks and the streambed to pieces. That was followed by the demise, apparently forever, of the grayling to these waters. The Au sable, especially from Grayling to Mio pond is a wild trout fishery. The section known as the "Holy Water" is literally world famous for its natural and productive trout fishery.Trout reproduce naturally, and insect activity (the prime food of native trout) is phenomenal. Is this to be risked for a few jobs? Look at the many jobs that would disappear if this great river was injured by a problem seeping downstream from the hatchery?
> 
> The hatchery's trout will be sold as food, not used for stocking.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that an outdoorsman site like this would support something that carries such a high risk.
> 
> BTW...I am a board member of the Anglers of the Au Sable. Does this make me biased? Damn right!!



The majority of Michigan anglers are restricted from fishing where they would like on the AuSable system.


----------



## [email protected]

-Axiom- said:


> Not unlike Outfitters.


Kelly (Michigan Streamside) seldom, if ever, guides on the waters that would most be affected by any hatchery problems. He's not weighing in because it would affect him directly. He's weighing in because he knows the very real risk involved.


----------



## Molson

"The owner is responsible if damage occurs." How? Fines? If damage is done, its done. Does anyone here really trust the DNR / DEQ of this state? Are they hiring additional resources to "monitor" this facility? I don't doubt "his heart is in the right place" now. He wants the permit. But, saying his facilities are better than the DNR's is really not a benchmark. Reference the Platte R. hatchery and the problems that were caused by the DNR. Potential damage is not corrected through fines. I live in the Au Sable R valley, and truly enjoy and respect its resources.


----------



## [email protected]

-Axiom- said:


> The majority of Michigan anglers are restricted from fishing where they would like on the AuSable system.


And how is that? If you are talking about the flies only section, it's a big, long river.


----------



## -Axiom-

[email protected] said:


> Kelly (Michigan Streamside) seldom, if ever, guides on the waters that would most be affected by any hatchery problems. He's not weighing in because it would affect him directly. He's weighing in because he knows the very real risk involved.



I got nothing against Kelly or any guides, but they make their living off of a public resource which as a group they try to restrict access to.


----------



## -Axiom-

[email protected] said:


> And how is that? If you are talking about the flies only section, it's a big, long river.


 Exactly, why can't I fish where I want.

Why am I restricted from the best trout water in the state.


----------



## DXT Deer Slayer

For as much as the original poster and others who for some mind-boggling reason support this fish farm have knocked the Anglers for displaying emotion in their case, you guys seem to show some serious emotion for the owner of this fish farm.

He's a nice guy? He stayed to answer questions?? His heart is in the right place???? Wow. You should go volunteer at his farm then. Or maybe take him out for a fish dinner date.... you guys seem super in to him.


----------



## [email protected]

You can fish there...you just have to use flies in some sections. As for the "best trout water in the state"...i'm sure there are many differing opinions on this. Heck I've had GREAT trout fishing on the Rifle.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

-Axiom- said:


> I got nothing against Kelly or any guides, but they make their living off of a public resource which as a group they try to restrict access to.


I have nothing to do with restricting access to any waters. Only restricting people from dumping there waste into any river! I do not want waste dumped in the Au Sable only because I'm fishing a guide? This site will not let me type how I really feel to that *ucking comment!


----------



## -Axiom-

[email protected] said:


> You can fish there...you just have to use flies in some sections. As for the "best trout water in the state"...i'm sure there are many differing opinions on this. Heck I've had GREAT trout fishing on the Rifle.



All of the best trout water in the state is Flies only and the very best that I know of is no-kill in addition.

The march continues to steal the rest of the trout water in the state.

So in order to fish where I want to fish it is required that I use an inferior method that I am not proficient at that takes years and quite a bit of $ to master.

Got it.


----------



## -Axiom-

MichiganStreamside said:


> I have nothing to do with restricting access to any waters. Only restricting people from dumping there waste into any river! I do not want waste dumped in the Au Sable only because I'm fishing a guide? This site will not let me type how I really feel to that *ucking comment!



I didn't bring your name into this the other guy did.

And yes if you are a member of TU you are part of a group trying to restrict my access to rivers throughout the state.

And if you are a member of Anglers of the AuSable it applies doubly so.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

-Axiom- said:


> I didn't bring your name into this the other guy did.
> 
> And yes if you are a member of TU you are part of a group trying to restrict my access to rivers throughout the state.
> 
> And if you are a member of Anglers of the AuSable it applies doubly so.


I'm not a member of either. I'm just not into dumping someones sewage in a river!


----------



## [email protected]

-Axiom- said:


> All of the best trout water in the state is Flies only and the very best that I know of is no-kill in addition.
> 
> The march continues to steal the rest of the trout water in the state.
> 
> So in order to fish where I want to fish it is required that I use an inferior method that I am not proficient at that takes years and quite a bit of $ to master.
> 
> Got it.


Inferior?? LOL. Try it...you actually might like it. You can get a complete outfit for less than $100 at Cabelas. Hell, I'm certain I could get some decent used gear to you for free, and I'll bet I could wrangle a free lesson for you. I have a cabin on Big Creek...no restrictions, and many people fish it with spinning gear. Good for them...I still kinda like using my fly rod. Also, I'm no purist...I do as much fishing with all kinds of gear besides fly tackle. I just like my fly rod on trout water.


----------



## -Axiom-

MichiganStreamside said:


> I'm not a member of either. I'm just not into dumping someones sewage in a river!


 I agree which is why I would like to see Kings eliminated.

I got something against corruption & elitism though which is what flies only stretches is.


----------



## -Axiom-

[email protected] said:


> Inferior?? LOL. Try it...you actually might like it. You can get a complete outfit for less than $100 at Cabelas. Hell, I'm certain I could get some decent used gear to you for free, and I'll bet I could wrangle a free lesson for you. I have a cabin on Big Creek...no restrictions, and many people fish it with spinning gear. Good for them...I still kinda like using my fly rod. Also, I'm no purist...I do as much fishing with all kinds of gear besides fly tackle. I just like my fly rod on trout water.



I have roughly $2k worth of fly fishing equipment and it is all pretty decent stuff, I rarely use it.

There is no reason for flies only water when artificials only would accomplish the same thing with the noted exception of less people on the river.

This is why it's flies only to restrict access and the number of people on the river.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

-Axiom- said:


> I agree which is why I would like to see Kings eliminated.
> 
> I got something against corruption & elitism though which is what flies only stretches is.


They should truck all that fish poop and dump it in your front yard since you got no problem with it!


----------



## -Axiom-

MichiganStreamside said:


> They should truck all that fish poop and dump it in your front yard since you got no problem with it!



I would care if it was the Boardman or the Manistee, but the AuSable represents elitism & corruption and will get no support from me.


----------



## [email protected]

-Axiom- said:


> I have roughly $2k worth of fly fishing equipment and it is all pretty decent stuff, I rarely use it.
> 
> There is no reason for flies only water when artificials only would accomplish the same thing with the noted exception of less people on the river.
> 
> This is why it's flies only to restrict access and the number of people on the river.


Hate to see $2k of fly gear go to waste...want to donate it to some of the fly shops that do kids events and events for folks having problems (cancer survivors etc)? of send me a PM with what you have....maybe I'll make you an offer for some.

In the meantime, this thread is getting off base. It's really about making sure there are adequate safeguards to protect the fishery....same thing if this was any good body of water or stretch of river. Nothing to do with gear restrictions.


----------



## [email protected]

-Axiom- said:


> I would care if it was the Boardman or the Manistee, but the AuSable represents elitism & corruption and will get no support from me.


 Sad...you are making this personal, rather than the protecting the river.


----------



## swampbuck

[email protected] said:


> It is true the Anglers of the Au Sable gets emotional about this, but the reasons are the facts. The Anglers' has spent serious money researching, hiring experts, and litigating this issue. Let's make one point very clear...they are not trying to prevent the hatchery's expansion, they are insisting proper safeguards are in place. There are well documented permanent disasters to prime trout water by hatcheries. And if a "problem" occurs, it isn't a matter of just cleaning up and fixing, the fishery may well never be the same. It has taken near a century to bring the Au Sable river back from the times of logging where logs were floated downriver scouring the banks and the streambed to pieces. That was followed by the demise, apparently forever, of the grayling to these waters. The Au sable, especially from Grayling to Mio pond is a wild trout fishery. The section known as the "Holy Water" is literally world famous for its natural and productive trout fishery.Trout reproduce naturally, and insect activity (the prime food of native trout) is phenomenal. Is this to be risked for a few jobs? Look at the many jobs that would disappear if this great river was injured by a problem seeping downstream from the hatchery?
> 
> The hatchery's trout will be sold as food, not used for stocking.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that an outdoorsman site like this would support something that carries such a high risk.
> 
> BTW...I am a board member of the Anglers of the Au Sable. Does this make me biased? Damn right!!


Then maybe you guys should have presented you research and hard facts at the meeting. You lost a lot of ground at that meeting, the change in attitude toward the owner was palpable as it progressed. 

I love the ausable also. And I am also concerned for the future of Grayling.


----------



## swampbuck

I don't see the connection with net pens.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> I don't see the connection with net pens.


Let me help you with that. Are net pens and unfiltered inland fish farms both.....
1. Large monocultures in a confined space? Check
2. Prone to disease outbreak? Check
3. Require disease prevention methods and monitoring? Check
4. Dependent on currents to carry away unfiltered effluents? Check
5. At risk of escapes and the issues that relate? Check

What plans does HHTF have to deal with these issues? I for one do not accept the answer that I should trust HHTF because a businessman would not take a short cut to maintain profits in tough times. I also do not accept that I should just trust the government. Lastly, I do not believe that we should be subsidizing the lowest cost, least sustainable, practices in the industry and by doing so driving out the leading edge, high tech alternatives that are the future of large scale aquaculture.

The DNR is looking to expand steelhead production and needs a facility with the appropriate water temperature. What is the cost of a new well at Thompson as compared to the cost and benefit of converting Grayling to a state of the art hatchery that can be used as a pilot for expanding the industry throughout the state and making us a leader in a field we are environmentally predisposed to lead? Finding funding for Thompson appears unlikely after the Flint debacle and expenditures, funding the future in Crawford County might be something the legislature would approve.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I just looked at a post where Saginaw released millions of gallons of untreated waste water into the Saginaw River and there was not even a single concern about this. I guess if the Saginaw was a blue ribbon trout stream with miles of flies only fishing things might be different.


----------



## Au Sable Owner

Robert Holmes said:


> I just looked at a post where Saginaw released millions of gallons of untreated waste water into the Saginaw River and there was not even a single concern about this. I guess if the Saginaw was a blue ribbon trout stream with miles of flies only fishing things might be different.


a. Link?
b. I'm glad to see you recognize there is a difference between the Au Sable and the Saginaw rivers


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> Let me help you with that. Are net pens and unfiltered inland fish farms both.....
> 1. Large monocultures in a confined space? Check
> 2. Prone to disease outbreak? Check
> 3. Require disease prevention methods and monitoring? Check
> 4. Dependent on currents to carry away unfiltered effluents? Check
> 5. At risk of escapes and the issues that relate? Check
> 
> What plans does HHTF have to deal with these issues? I for one do not accept the answer that I should trust HHTF because a businessman would not take a short cut to maintain profits in tough times. I also do not accept that I should just trust the government. Lastly, I do not believe that we should be subsidizing the lowest cost, least sustainable, practices in the industry and by doing so driving out the leading edge, high tech alternatives that are the future of large scale aquaculture.
> 
> The DNR is looking to expand steelhead production and needs a facility with the appropriate water temperature. What is the cost of a new well at Thompson as compared to the cost and benefit of converting Grayling to a state of the art hatchery that can be used as a pilot for expanding the industry throughout the state and making us a leader in a field we are environmentally predisposed to lead? Finding funding for Thompson appears unlikely after the Flint debacle and expenditures, funding the future in Crawford County might be something the legislature would approve.


Is the desire for that steelhead hatchery, driving you opinion of the Trout farm.


----------



## Robert Holmes

So the DNR buys it back at a much inflated price. I think that I would be only too happy to sell it back to the DNR and get out from under it.


----------



## swampbuck

It wasn't sold, it was rented out. I wouldn't have a problem with the dnr resuming operation, if they wanted too.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> Is the desire for that steelhead hatchery, driving you opinion of the Trout farm.


No, I just got the idea yesterday. My guess is that it would be more expensive and take longer and time is short for the towns that depend on silver fish. Better to do both and make Grayling a research center for sustainable aquaculture. After steelhead numbers come up they could move to Atlantics, whitefish, cisco and maybe even branch into complimenting cold water species with warm water. You could use heat pumps to cool the water to optimum for whitefish and heat it enough for walleye. Grow plankton with some of the walleye waste and feed it to the white fish. There are many combinations of species this could be done with, including mollusks and crustacean I would love to see michigan become the leader and have a dozen or more of the top researchers based in Grayling. 

Speaking of motivations, are your personal feelings for Vogler driving your opinion of his farm?


----------



## Au Sable Owner

swampbuck said:


> It wasn't sold, it was rented out.


It's actually more complicated than that. 
The State abandoned the hatchery in the mid 60's and twenty years later, transferred the property to Crawford County to be used at a tourist attraction. 
About 4 years ago, the Grayling Recreational Authority, who had been running the place for 3 months a year, announced they would no longer run it because of loosing $4k a year. 
Based on Crawford County Avalanche articles, about 6 weeks later, HHFT was having conversations with the county to run the hatchery for tourists 3 months a year and keep hundreds of thousands lbs of fish in the raceways year round. 
The DNR said that as long as the hatchery was open to the public, they would (and did) sign off. 
The county now leases the facility to HHFT for 5¢ a year. HHFT also keeps between 30 and 40 thousand tourist dollars (based on testimony at the hearing) each summer.


----------



## swampbuck

Nope, never met the guy, only spoke with him for a couple minutes at the meeting.

I would pretty much support anything safe that would keep that facility open. 

The decision should not be based on the emotions of a special interest group.

What I would really like to see is for both sides to put the facts in writing into the public arena.

My original comment was based on my feeling the AofA came up short in the meeting, and I stand bye that.

That doesn't mean that I don't support protecting our natural resources. At the same time, their fly fishing monopoly of the river and theirs members own commercial/financial interest is also a factor. Quite frankly, They DO NOT own that river, and they have pissed a lot of people off.


----------



## Au Sable Owner

swampbuck said:


> I would pretty much support anything safe that would keep that facility open.


Join the Anglers and contribute because you share exactly the same goal.



swampbuck said:


> The decision should not be based on the emotions of a special interest group.


Is this referring to the "small family farmer" just trying to "feed the world" (while making a profit)?



swampbuck said:


> What I would really like to see is for both sides to put the facts in writing into the public arena.


This is being done at the hearing. According to the judge, to the tune of 250 pages of testimony a day. 14 days down, 4 to go.


----------



## swampbuck

Hopefully some of the good pages will make it out to the public


----------



## swampbuck

Au Sable Owner said:


> Join the Anglers and contribute because you share exactly the same goal.
> 
> 
> Is this referring to the "small family farmer" just trying to "feed the world" (while making a profit)?
> 
> 
> This is being done at the hearing. According to the judge, to the tune of 250 pages of testimony a day. 14 days down, 4 to go.


Get rid of the fly restrictions,and I will join...lol

Maybe you guys should have a trout fishing/canoeing/river museum at the site. 

I was involved in looking at that, back when the hatchery building was across the stream. Also in the Rayburn lodge move. Which could have also been left in place for that purpose. They wouldn't allow it. We did manage to save it


----------



## Au Sable Owner

swampbuck said:


> Maybe you guys should have a trout fishing/canoeing/river museum at the site.


I remember the hope for that at the hatchery in the early 2000's. As I recall, funding was an issue. 
Lovells Township Historical Society has a great "trout" museum. 
Roscommon has a River Center already.


----------



## swampbuck

BUT, it really should be there next to and associated with the Hatchery.


----------



## kzoofisher

Au Sable Owner said:


> I remember the hope for that at the hatchery in the early 2000's. As I recall, funding was an issue.
> Lovells Township Historical Society has a great "trout" museum.
> Roscommon has a River Center already.


Don't forget the Crawford County Museum downtown or Hartwick Pines. No shortage of local history in the area.


----------



## fishmaster1

Robert Holmes said:


> I just looked at a post where Saginaw released millions of gallons of untreated waste water into the Saginaw River and there was not even a single concern about this. I guess if the Saginaw was a blue ribbon trout stream with miles of flies only fishing things might be different.


Sad, it's way worse and the #'s of gallons discharged per year are far more than what is published for public view. Amazed on how so many ignore the fact that it's basically a No bodily contact river year-round! For the ones that disagree......do some research from the DEQ,EPA,Cleanwater act, local health department records, satellite views. Then chime in......


----------



## fishmaster1

Au Sable Owner said:


> a. Link?
> b. I'm glad to see you recognize there is a difference between the Au Sable and the Saginaw rivers


How could anybody NOT realize the difference in the two rivers???? Saginaw river will never be as clean But it can be a Hell of alot cleaner just by eliminating one huge factor......Human waste not fish ****!


----------



## Robert Holmes

Why not have a split use of the facility half for raising trout for the DNR and half to raise trout for people to eat.


----------



## Au Sable Owner

Robert Holmes said:


> Why not have a split use of the facility half for raising trout for the DNR and half to raise trout for people to eat.


I'm pretty sure that if the State wanted to raise fish in Grayling, they wouldn't have quit in the 60's. 
Since the 80's, the facility has been managed by the county as a place for tourists to visit, see a few (under 20,000 lbs) big fish, and learn some history of the area. That is until 2012, when it became a year round, Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production facility (with eventually up to 300,000 lbs of fish) operated for private profit.


----------



## Au Sable Owner

swampbuck said:


> There is a hold harmless cause in the permit protecting the state. Which makes him personally liable. He also stated that his home is an asset of the business. Which makes it and everything else open to seizure to pay damages.
> 
> Do you really think that he is not going to monitor fish health. Those fish are his livelihood.
> 
> Was anyone concerned about escapees when he donated/planted fish in the river for kids fishing ? Did AofA protest that. They weren't all caught, maybe you guys caught some.
> 
> See, that kind of stuff is what I am referring to when I say emotion instead of facts


You're beating a dead horse with the facts vs emotions thing.

He is an LLC! That's a *Limited Liability Corporation* which means his personal assets are protected. He doesn't lose anything and his saying otherwise is just not true. The audience's emotions were being played alright but not by the Anglers.

The lease, not the permit, holds the *county, *not the state, harmless for slip and fall kinds of accidents related to farm operations. The state (that'd be us) is on the hook if the river is harmed. According to the DEQ, a performance bond wasn't necessary because the state (us) has money for a cleanup. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that, after the tragedy in Flint, that's no longer the case.

The whole Youth Booster kids fishing thing is a really cheap shot. The Youth Boosters do something nice for kids and the Anglers take the heat for it. After the fact. You watch... I'll bet the kids fishing event in Grayling is history.


----------



## fishmaster1

Au Sable Owner said:


> Unless the permit from the DEQ was based on shoddy data.


What about SHODDY data/info from DEQ?


----------



## fishmaster1

Au Sable Owner said:


> Sticking with the alcohol theme, I'd say it's more like ID.
> If a minor with very realistic but fake ID get served, the server is breaking the law.
> Back to the fish farm, a permit based on wrong data is wrong and needs to be fixed.


Are you employed with the DEQ or have a close family member in the DEQ? Do some research into the DEQ and if you do you will quickly realize they do/have made huge mistakes and Continue to do so up to today's date.


----------



## Lamarsh

I have heard quite a bit from both sides on this. I've been to the old fish hatchery, and I fish the Au Sable a ton. I love the place. This project gives me a funny feeling, and I'm inclined to support the Anglers of the Au Sable, but I'm trying to remain open minded and collect all the facts I can.

Several people have mentioned that the permit requires the fish farm to filter the waste before dumping it back in the river. Is that true or not?

In any event, there's no doubt in my mind that this is going to negatively affect the river. It certainly will not help it.

And to all of you who are equating canoe liveries, guides, and the like to a fish farm like this because they are both "commercial businesses profiting from a natural resource," get a grip. That is about as far from an apples to apples comparison as it gets. Canoe liveries and guides barely affect the natural resource at all. They profit from it being there. Sure, packs of teens piss and maybe even take a dump in the river here and there, and there is some garbage here and there as well, but it is a far cry from a commercial farming operation like this.

And who gives a crap about either side being emotional about the issue. The farmer cares about making a ton of money, and the anglers care about the fish--what do you expect, people to go into this process with zero emotion? IMO the emotion thing is a total red herring here.

To the people whining about the flies only section--get a grip. What a phenomenon that FOR ONCE, spin fishermen are being bigger whiny cry babies than fly fishermen. I literally cannot think of a moment this has ever happened. The entertainment this phenomenon creates is enough of a reason to keep the flies only section alone. The other reason is the fact that, well, who gives a crap? Go fish other parts of the river. If you fish it enough, you'll realize there are just as good, if not better spots to fish (many, actually). And if you fish enough, you'll also realize there are times when flies actually work better, and vice-versa. 

Also, did the Anglers of the Au Sable create itself for this fish farm permit situation, or was it already in place before? I'm just curious if it was around a few years ago when that Canadian Gas Company got a permit issued to set up gas leases on some 2000+ acres in or around the holy waters..... What ever happened with that?


----------



## kzoofisher

Lamarsh said:


> Several people have mentioned that the permit requires the fish farm to filter the waste before dumping it back in the river. Is that true or not?


 That's what the court case is about. The defendant says the requirements of the permit are ample to protect the river and the plaintiffs say the permit is woefully inadequate.



Lamarsh said:


> Also, did the Anglers of the Au Sable create itself for this fish farm permit situation, or was it already in place before? I'm just curious if it was around a few years ago when that Canadian Gas Company got a permit issued to set up gas leases on some 2000+ acres in or around the holy waters..... What ever happened with that?


 They've been around almost thirty years and have been in the thick of many battles, including oil and gas drilling. Most recently they joined with other groups to put a stop to fracking along the Holy Waters, before that the drilling on the South Branch and the Kolke Creek diversion. In the *about us* and *projects* section of their site you will find some history of their accomplishments and the *data library* has some interesting reading, too.

http://www.ausableanglers.org/about-us/


----------



## Lamarsh

kzoofisher said:


> That's what the court case is about. The defendant says the requirements of the permit are ample to protect the river and the plaintiffs say the permit is woefully inadequate.


There are posts above that claim the permit includes a requirement that the waste be filtered out of the water that's to be put back into the river. That was not my understanding of the situation, because if that was the case this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## swampbuck

Filtration was gone over in the meeting. He can not expand the current operation, until sediment traps are installed. Disposal of the sediment was also covered. Along with current disposal of trapped sediments.


----------



## MichiganStreamside

swampbuck said:


> Filtration was gone over in the meeting. He can not expand the current operation, until sediment traps are installed. Disposal of the sediment was also covered. Along with current disposal of trapped sediments.


Did you listen to part where everyone involved has stated there is a risk to the Au Sable? For what? Someone to make money and to create 2 part time jobs for the area! What a joke!


----------



## Lamarsh

swampbuck said:


> Filtration was gone over in the meeting. He can not expand the current operation, until sediment traps are installed. Disposal of the sediment was also covered. Along with current disposal of trapped sediments.


Yes, this is what I wanted to know the veracity of. Is this true? If so, what is the problem the Anglers of the Au Sable have? What is it about the proposed sediment removal that needs to be made better? It seems Anglers of the Au Sable suggest that the water will just be dumped back into the river completely unfiltered, and I want to know whether that is indeed true.


----------



## swampbuck

And also the sediments will be used for high ground agriculture fertilizer.

I am not a scientist, I can't say that there will be no contamination. But those traps and removal are permit requirements.

It would be nice if we could get a non-biased breakdown of actual facts and data in print. From the DEQ or DNR


----------



## Lamarsh

swampbuck said:


> It would be nice if we could get a non-biased breakdown of actual facts and data in print. From the DEQ or DNR


There's no chance that, even with filtration, the water leaving the farm will affect the river. Anybody that doubts that is just kidding themselves. In any event, if there is adequate filtration and removal, it makes the Anglers of the Au Sable's cause much tougher IMO. 

As for getting an unbiased anything from the DEQ in a situation like this--good luck. I'd bet they are quite comfy with Vogler, but who knows.


----------



## swampbuck

Actually, at this time with the races being cleaned and sediments removed, the are producing a net decrease in contaminates as the water passes through.


----------



## Fishndude

swampbuck said:


> Actually, at this time with the races being cleaned and sediments removed, the are producing a net decrease in contaminates as the water passes through.


Doesn't that make it pretty hard for the owner to rape the resource of the Ausable River, as he obviously intends to do?  Now, what are we going to do about all the native Trout that crap in the river? :lol:


----------



## 357Maximum

Fishndude said:


> Doesn't that make it pretty hard for the owner to rape the resource of the Ausable River, as he obviously intends to do?  Now, what are we going to do about all the native Trout that crap in the river? :lol:


The liberal use of ROTENONE should make the whole system "sterile and pure" enough for anyone's standards :lol:


----------



## Robert Holmes

I hope that none of the AuSable River fishermen ever venture to the Rifle River. About a mile West of the river at M-55 is one of the larger dairy farms in the state of Michigan. There are loads of farms that line this river and the streams that feed the Rifle River. If I claimed there were 150 farms that dump agriculture waste into the river I might be underestimating. This river is crystal clear and is one of the best trout rivers in the mid west. If you compare the fish farm with the waste that is dumped into the Rifle River I doubt that it will hurt anything with or without filteration.


----------



## swampbuck

Fishndude said:


> Doesn't that make it pretty hard for the owner to rape the resource of the Ausable River, as he obviously intends to do?  Now, what are we going to do about all the native Trout that crap in the river? :lol:


There aren't very many native trout in the river. The non indigenous Browns have nearly wiped out the brookies.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> There aren't very many native trout in the river. The non indigenous Browns have nearly wiped out the brookies.


There aren't any native trout in the river. The Brookies were introduced, too. There are whitefish, they're native.


----------



## kzoofisher

Lamarsh said:


> Yes, this is what I wanted to know the veracity of. Is this true?


 "True" is not nearly as simple and straightforward as you might think. It is "true" that when the races are empty and being cleaned (post 132) the water being discharged is cleaner than the water entering. It is also a totally misleading "fact" designed to appeal to the emotions of those who don't want to look at the big picture. The disagreement isn't about when the races are EMPTY, of course they don't pollute when they are EMPTY. When they are FULL we get the DEQ on the witness stand saying_ "when the fish farm discharges effluent at the maximum levels allowed by the permit, the fish farm will emit 160,000 pounds of fish poop and uneaten fish food, and 1,600 pounds of phosphorus per year."_ That is the amount allowed under the permit. No spin, no befuddling with pollution rates when there are no fish at the farm, just black and white what the permit will allow. 

Here are some more quotes from this thread that give you a more accurate picture than just the spin from Vogler.



kzoofisher said:


> The HHTF does not and will not use state of the art technology because the expense of doing business responsibly will make the operation unprofitable. Their proposal is to use the same technology that was in place at Platte when the State got sued. The costs of doing business and risk of environmental damage must be borne by the public while HHTF collects the profits. They fully admit this and included it in their filing for the permit _ "*We have reviewed a number of alternatives to discharge under NPDES, but none of them are feasible for practical, efficiency and cost effectiveness reasons."*_ Pass through systems with quiet zones are good enough for small operations like what Grayling has been at <20,000#; they are woefully inadequate for the hundreds of thousands of pounds proposed.





kzoofisher said:


> He wants to go to 300,000# with completely insufficient waste water treatment, the same kind of treat meant that failed miserably at Platte where the production was A. 180,000# and B. salmon, many of which do not over winter.





kzoofisher said:


> Even with being granted a facility at virtually no cost -$0.05/yr- he can't turn profit without asking the public to take on the risk of any environmental degradation. His business model is too risky for insurance companies to take on affordably, it's too risky to attract private capital, yet the public is supposed to take on the risk for the reward of a couple of part time jobs?


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> There aren't any native trout in the river. The Brookies were introduced, too. There are whitefish, they're native.


There are no whitefish in the upper AuSable. Brook trout and grayling are the natives along with all the basic stuff


----------



## o_mykiss

swampbuck said:


> There are no whitefish in the upper AuSable. Brook trout and grayling are the natives along with all the basic stuff


Not true, I have caught several whitefish upstream of Mio. Sent to a biologist and confirmed that it was a round whitefish


----------



## Boardman Brookies

o_mykiss said:


> Not true, I have caught several whitefish upstream of Mio. Sent to a biologist and confirmed that it was a round whitefish


I never knew that. Cool. Any size to them?


----------



## -Axiom-

Boardman Brookies said:


> I never knew that. Cool. Any size to them?


 I thought it was odd when I caught the first one in the 90's, since then I have caught 4 more the biggest being the last one at 16", the others were 12"-14".


----------



## o_mykiss

I didn't measure it, but around 14 inches I'd say


----------



## beer and nuts

We used to catch what I thought were Menominee or small maybe whitefish in the very upper south branch in the 80's. They were if I remember 12-14 inches. Caught on worm. I think we caught maybe half dozen in a year or two.


----------



## piscatorial warrior

So, what's the latest update on this?


----------



## swampbuck

The whitefish are still there, in small numbers


----------



## piscatorial warrior

I meant what's the latest update on the Fish Farm?


----------



## Stand By

I wonder how often I may have seen those laying in a river and dismissed them as suckers or some other rough fish?


----------



## swampbuck

piscatorial warrior said:


> I meant what's the latest update on the Fish Farm?


I haven't heard anything about the expansion. But they are in operation.


----------



## kzoofisher

piscatorial warrior said:


> So, what's the latest update on this?


Lawsuit is ongoing. Anglers of the Au Sable are still taking donations for the lawsuit.


----------



## toto

For the record, and surprisingly so I suspect, but I can't condone this fish farm, there or anywhere else. One thing I would like to know is just how much fish poop or whatever IS acceptable? I mean, there obviously must be a number. 1600# per year doesn't sound like that much to me, when I compare to the Platte Lake fiasco from a few years ago. Serious question by the way.


----------



## swampbuck

It's been a while since I seen the numbers, but their proposal exceeded every requirement.

Might as well make it no kill, and fly's only while their at it.


----------



## kzoofisher

You were involved with the Platte lawsuit weren't you? Platte releases less than 100# per year now, how much did it release back when it was a problem?


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> It's been a while since I seen the numbers, but their proposal exceeded every requirement.
> 
> Might as well make it no kill, and fly's only while their at it.


I believe that's what the lawsuit is about, that the requirements are outdated and don't provide safety according to the latest science. Old rules do need updating, kind of like the commercial fishing fines that are 60(?) years old.


----------



## unclecrash

All i needed to see was the video of what happened to the canadian fisheries when they allowed fish farms in the main stream that the steelhead and salmon all have to pass through to know I dont want it in our streams.


----------



## 2 Rivers

kzoofisher said:


> Lawsuit is ongoing. Anglers of the Au Sable are still taking donations for the lawsuit.


Do you know who the group or groups are to get in touch with?


----------



## kzoofisher

https://www.ausableanglers.org/ Donate here. Somebody was matching donations for a while, up to $50,000. Don’t know if that is still going on and you can double your money.


----------



## 2 Rivers

kzoofisher said:


> https://www.ausableanglers.org/ Donate here. Somebody was matching donations for a while, up to $50,000. Don’t know if that is still going on and you can double your money.


Great, I will check out.

Over on the west side of state, not sure Battle Creek or Kalamazoo area, a few years back, wasn't there a gas or oil leak from pipe line on one of the Gas Companies on a branch or river; Kalamazoo that they were attempting to correct? I remember it was on the news, I was driving cross country and saw the worms they put out to collect debris, but did they do or clean up?
Then makes one wonder what has happened to eco system from these greedy folks?


----------



## kzoofisher

The spill was in Talmadge Creek, a trib of the Kalamazoo that enters the river between Marshall and Battle Creek. Roughly 800,000 gallons of heavy oil went in the water. Clean up went on for several years and remediation after that to restore vegetation and in stream woody debris. One of the bigger problems they had was that a large % of the crude sank and had to be dredged from the bottom of 25 miles of river. Last I heard the river is doing better but not back to where it was in 2009. The DNR is stocking fish in it and it is approved for human contact after being closed a couple years. I'll try to remember to ask about it at next weeks conversations and coffee meeting.


----------



## 2 Rivers

kzoofisher said:


> The spill was in Talmadge Creek, a trib of the Kalamazoo that enters the river between Marshall and Battle Creek. Roughly 800,000 gallons of heavy oil went in the water. Clean up went on for several years and remediation after that to restore vegetation and in stream woody debris. One of the bigger problems they had was that a large % of the crude sank and had to be dredged from the bottom of 25 miles of river. Last I heard the river is doing better but not back to where it was in 2009. The DNR is stocking fish in it and it is approved for human contact after being closed a couple years. I'll try to remember to ask about it at next weeks conversations and coffee meeting.


There are so many pristine creeks and rivers around the state that are neglected or abused and the DNR or DEQ, has no gitsmo (keeping language clean) to clamp down on these folks, or really make them pay for it!!
They don't very pathetic!
It's the fishing clubs or sportsman that throws the wrench in the gears and has to spend there money to fight!.

Just like this fish farm guy on the Ausable, You have a FOX in the hen house.

You tell more than the local reports are! Bravo!


----------

