# Possible Fish Ladder In Rockford?



## Flathead (May 5, 2005)

My mother was telling me, that her local paper is reporting, there could be a possible fish ladder at the Rockford dam, in the near future! Is this a good thing or a bad thing??


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

A few years ago for April Fool's the local paper had a computer generated image of a ladder on the dam. 

It'd be good if they left the river closed from the dam up.

Lots of good spawning gravel upstream and small feeder streams.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Flathead said:


> Is this a good thing or a bad thing??


 It would be better if the dam was removed entirely.


----------



## Nighttimer (Jul 24, 2001)

Bad. The upper river is a peaceful place in the fall and early spring. The thought of salmon and spring steelhead fisherman up there makes me shudder. Besides, it will keep the asain carp from getting up there.

The Rogue was selected by TU for river improvements. At this time, that plan does not include a fish ladder. It certainly won't happen in the "near future".


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Flyfisher said:


> It would be better if the dam was removed entirely.


Same thing down here on the Dowagiac...


----------



## Fishbone (Oct 10, 2008)

Nighttimer said:


> Bad. The upper river is a peaceful place in the fall and early spring. The thought of salmon and spring steelhead fisherman up there makes me shudder.



It would ruin the scenery off the deck for sure.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

The actual Rogue upstream from the dam is marginal trout water....a ladder would not be a bad idea, there are some feeders that would get some natural reproduction, but for the most part the upper Rogue isn't much other than a drainage ditch (I trout fish an actual drainage ditch that is much more productive than the mainstream upper Rogue). This could help the fishery a bit in adding a few more fish to the system. I know some browns that may get even bigger and benefit from some extra egg meals too. 

Will it ever happen? Doubtful

Would it be worth it? That is unforseen


----------



## Nighttimer (Jul 24, 2001)

Trout King said:


> The actual Rogue upstream from the dam is marginal trout water....


Well, they are hoping the program the Rogue has been selected for will change that. It wasn't _that_ long ago the Rogue stayed cooler in the summer, had deeper water, and supported bigger fish. They are hoping it will get back to that, but we'll see.

Even if that does happen, I still don't want to see a fish ladder. Its for selfish reasons, and I can admit that. I like that the lower river is a warm water fishery in the summer. Some good smallmouth fishing can be had.


----------



## Berg (Nov 8, 2010)

It's certainly an interesting idea. Unfortunately for proponents, &#8220;near future&#8221; in DNR talk is always 5+ years. 

I don&#8217;t think there needs to be concerned about the sustainability of the river if migratory fish are allowed back into that stretch of the river. I mean, they&#8217;ve been there before and, most likely, the river was producing more and better fish. I think putting in a fish ladder could potentially improve the quality of fishing above the dam as well as bringing a greater overall number of fish into the whole river.

On the other side, if there are fish above the dam we will certainly see more anglers&#8230;all year long. There goes the pristine waterway. With migratory species, particularly salmon, comes numerous lures in trees, beaten down paths on the banks and, naturally, trash. Look at any river with a decent salmon run and you&#8217;ll see what the upper Rogue may become. Also, we see the greater possibility of invasive species being introduced.

I consider the Rogue one of my go-to rivers and I love to fish it. In the perfect world I&#8217;d like to see the whole river opened up&#8230;I think it would return the river to a more natural state and improve fishing across the board. However, it seems that the negatives might outweigh the positives here. It&#8217;ll be interesting to follow though&#8230;of course, it&#8217;s all just talk anyway.


----------



## Nighttimer (Jul 24, 2001)

Berg said:


> I dont think there needs to be concerned about the sustainability of the river if migratory fish are allowed back into that stretch of the river. I mean, theyve been there before and, most likely, the river was producing more and better fish.


The Rockford Dam was completed in 1888. LOOOOONG before salmon and steelhead were introduced. The only migratory fish running up the Rogue back then were probably suckers.


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

I dont care what anyone says; Salmon and Steelhead in Cedar, Stegman, Rum, Duke and others would be awesome

Smallmouths?? Who cares about those rough fish..


----------



## Berg (Nov 8, 2010)

Oh yeah...haha, brain fart. Well, disregard that point then. I guess it's hard to say how the river would react if it's never seen anything like that although the lower part seems to be doing ok. 

I guess my point was even if the fishing could possibly benefit from a fish ladder the river in general may suffer from the migratory runs, or at least the human response to them.


----------



## Gooseanator26 (Mar 9, 2010)

At night we have pulled some rather large browns out of there on a mouse:coolgleam it is a very nice stretch of river above the dam


----------



## vano397 (Sep 15, 2006)

I gotta say there is no value of opening that part of the river to salmon/steelies. I love catching both, but the detriment to the previously mentioned creeks (Rum, Duke, Cedar, Stegman) would be in vain and an atrocity, not to mention the destruction of the work the state and TU have done in them for the benifit of the the trout population in the rogue (maybe a waste in itself but its an effort).
My biggest reason is that there is little successful reproduction in the grand river system for either species, and if it isn't happening in what is open in the rogue already, its not gonna help it to go farther up. I imagine the problem is the length of the grand that the little offspring have to take to get to the big lake is too much of a task, rather than the quality spawn in the rogue, so until that is fixed (completely impossible) there is no reason to screw up the rest of the rogue system.


----------



## Benz (Sep 25, 2010)

if they did it would pollute the river downstream so badly it would really hurt the fishery for every species. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that there is a TON of chemicals from a tannery that used to dump into the river right before the dam, and have been trapped behind the dam wall since..


----------



## Multispeciestamer (Jan 27, 2010)

Nighttimer said:


> The Rockford Dam was completed in 1888. LOOOOONG before salmon and steelhead were introduced. The only migratory fish running up the Rogue back then were probably suckers.


 I wouldnt rule out sturgeon as a past migratory fish.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Benz said:


> if they did it would pollute the river downstream so badly it would really hurt the fishery for every species. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that there is a TON of chemicals from a tannery that used to dump into the river right before the dam, and have been trapped behind the dam wall since..


Maybe Wolverine World Wide (ie Hush Puppies) should pay for the clean up of the polluted silt if the dam was ever removed. Unfortunately, the impoundment from the dam just creates an environment ripe for thermal pollution. 

While it doesn't really serve any purpose, the dam is a popular attraction in Rockford so I doubt it will go away iin the immediate future. But we can always wish, right?


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> While it doesn't really serve any purpose, the dam is a popular attraction in Rockford so I doubt it will go away iin the immediate future. But we can always wish, right?


Don't forget the metal statues they just put in...


----------



## diztortion (Sep 6, 2009)

Multispeciestamer said:


> I wouldnt rule out sturgeon as a past migratory fish.


I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

diztortion said:


> Don't forget the metal statues they just put in...


I havn't been there in a while, I can only imagine

I would love to at least see the boards removed, after Wolverine World Wide pays to have all the toxic silt removed, of course. Plant vegetation along the banks of the reclaimed river channel, and perhaps this would help keep things a little cooler in the summer?


----------

