# Grand Rapids Whitewater Project



## bombcast

I don't give a rip about kayaks or kayakers, but more in favor of dam removal for purely environmental/aesthetic reasons, and if the kayakers benefit, so be it. 

I'd love to see rapids from Northland or wherever the traditional beginning was all the way down. The biggest downside I see is opening spawning habitat to asian carp when/if they show up in a few years. The fishing will still be good, and I'd even hazard a guess better in a lot of ways. 

And Jim Bedford is perhaps the single BEST person we could have advocating on behalf of fishermen, of all types.


----------



## tannhd

Jim Bedford gets an artical written about him, and all of a sudden he is river reconstruction guru. 

If I catch 10,000 Steelhead by the time I am his age I want to redesign Lake Huron. Deal?

J/K


----------



## Trout King

tannhd said:


> Jim Bedford gets an artical written about him, and all of a sudden he is river reconstruction guru.
> 
> If I catch 10,000 Steelhead by the time I am his age I want to redesign Lake Huron. Deal?
> 
> J/K


bedford has a personal agenda, plain and simple. i run into him a lot upstream a lot. when chatting with him its simple to see. though he does have some good ideas he does try to push his personal beliefs on others and tries to convert others to conforming to his beliefs which not every fisherman would agree with. for example i usually kill a few steelies in the fall for the table, i had a limit at the dam and he tried con incing me that i shouldnt kill them bc they are 'special' fish and there wont be any left upstream for winter lol. this came just after i had a 30 fish day fishing one run upstream.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tannhd

Well I agree. Steelhead are very special. 


Unfortunately for them they are also very yummy. :lol:

Brookies are very special too, but they are even more yummy. :lol::lol:


----------



## Jones

Trout King said:


> i personally fish upstream more than gr, but this project will certainly fall into tax payers hands for very few to benefit. there are hundreds, if not thousands more who will visit gr to fish rather than kayak. i am a bit selfish in the respect that the dam keeps people from fishing my favorite spots upstream, but i also enjoy going downtown and banging 15 fisb in a few hrs when they are there in force. i spend money in gr for food gas bait and gear, what will a few hundred kayaks bring? a lot more people have fishing poles than kayaks. i say leave the main structure and build a coarse if theu want but possibly make it navigable for fishing boats. btw i kayak too, but i fish way way more. im biased but cmon, fishing brings in way more moneu to gr than kayaks will. i dont want to see lamprey in my trout tribs either! ive seen them below and they are not chestnuts. as for the eastsiders, they will just go rip elsewhere if the dam is gone, id rather have them there than in rockford or other placew fish pile up.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The amount of money that the "thousands" of fisherman bring to GR as a whole is laughable, at best. It's not like we are talking about Baldwin, a town that is heavily dependent on tourism and recreation for what little economy exists there. If most people are driving from the East side of the state, they typically go to less urban locales than 6th street. Its just not a destination fishery in that regard.

Furthermore, whose to say that less money would be brought in if the dams were removed? How do you know there won't be an influx of fisherman and other recreating individuals who enjoy a more natural river experience? 

If you care about the money that is lost in the Grand Rapids area due to the removal of the dam, think how much the gas stations and bait shops in Ionia will benefit from the migration of the "thousands" of fisherman. Pretty soon, your local community will be flush with cash, home values will rise, and school systems will improve. Talk about a win win situation.


----------



## Jones

tannhd said:


> Jim Bedford gets an artical written about him, and all of a sudden he is river reconstruction guru.
> 
> If I catch 10,000 Steelhead by the time I am his age I want to redesign Lake Huron. Deal?
> 
> J/K


A quick google search on Jim Bedford + steelhead yielded about 1,320,000 results. He's written books outlining practically every trout and steelhead stream in MI, and he's even taught classes on the stuff. When you have a CV like that, then yeah, they probably will come to you for advice at some point.


----------



## RAD FISH

:: I say this every time 6st dam removal comes up. Not going to happen for more reason's then you could even imagin. Hell we can't even get the slightest movment on removal of many smaller dams around the state. But still its talked about like there is acutully a chance 6st. will be removed. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN,NOT EVEN IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS. End of story, anyone one elese that wants to mention it anymore is completly wasting there time. You can type your but off about it be my gest wast your time and dream on dreamer.


:: Well I guess the MDNR has to look at what this nut job kayak group is proposeing. But to think there really going to let them put in there own ( as already said ) personal playground for a grain of sand group ( in compairison to fishermen ) of kayakers would be the biggest MDNR mistake to date. But hay they gave damn near the largest portion of river to a group of nut job flyfishermen already so nothing would suprise me at this point. The benifits of kayakers being down town Grand Rapids will never even come close to holding a candle to the benifits of fishermen being here ( go on how fishermen trash things and snag fish now, you'll have that every where ). If you think other wise you are most definitly on the WRONG site.


:: So Jay is this really worth all the wasted time? Put a porposed percetage on kayakers vs fishermen that use the river at 6st. befor or after this proposed project?


----------



## llpof

*Hi Jay,*
*Thank-you again for taking your time to keep us informed on this site. Im sure that many anglers could share stories of their interactions with other water sports enthusiasts.*

*Overtime, I have the opportunity to share water with jet-skiers, kayakers, surfers, kite boarders, paddle-boarders, sail-boarders, scuba divers, swimmers, and traditional boaters. **As a rule, the greater the experience of the enthusiast the less likely there will be conflicts.*

*An observation that I would want to share, is that the season for water sports has been growing significantly with the use of neoprene suits, and the steelhead seasons, with growing popularity of Skamania, are growing longer, thus with what was once only a periodic interaction is now a regular rub in a variety of locations.*

*Thus, my concern would be that while planners might believe that the interactions between anglers and water sport enthusiasts will be infrequent or evolve overtime; I am seeing greater numbers of confrontations every year. Some of these are becoming fairly contentious; thus I believe that the planning of this potential conflict is not ancillary or incidental; but rather should be very deliberate and specific. So that reasonable expectations can be made for all users regardless of how far they have traveled from.*


----------



## limpinglogan

I don't care either way....the whole thing seems funny to me. 

The only reason I care about leaving it in is if they take it out I wonder if that will mean more people at my spots that are are NOT 6th st.

Either way...fish will still be in the river and fishing will still be fishing...


----------



## Trout King

Jones said:


> A quick google search on Jim Bedford + steelhead yielded about 1,320,000 results. He's written books outlining practically every trout and steelhead stream in MI, and he's even taught classes on the stuff. When you have a CV like that, then yeah, they probably will come to you for advice at some point.


so he is the authority and should have more say than anyone else? he has personal beliefs about steelhead that a lot of other anglers wouldnt agree with. yes he is a good spinner fisherman and certainly catches fish. i dont believe that because he has fished for 50 years and taught some classes on basic steelheading that he should be considered the sole voice for anglers in thr whole deal. 
why dont thay take a survey from the general public? another special interest group trying to slide something through without general consensus? possibly...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pikedevil

Fishermen slamming Jim Bedford on a public forum and opposing dam removal...Is this real life? Man and I thought dams were a bad thing for the ecosytem. Ohhhhhh they block the non native hatchery fish so guys can catch them easier, silly me now I see why we have to keep the dam! 

And as for the dam "NEVER COMING OUT". Why not? It serves no purpose whatsoever and its old and due for repair/replacement soon. Who is gonna pay for that? Just blow the thing up I don't care. I could care less if they build a silly kayak course, that is besides the point.


----------



## riverbob

pikedevil said:


> And as for the dam "NEVER COMING OUT". Why not? It serves no purpose whatsoever........Well it keeps the water level up, above the dam. so we have boating up here. n it keeps the water level up in all the feeder streams n creeks. it in ables me to have waterfront property, n we even have a park call riverside. without the 8 foot of water the dam holds back for many miles up stream u would not have much of a grand river


----------



## TDI

riverbob said:


> pikedevil said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as for the dam "NEVER COMING OUT". Why not? It serves no purpose whatsoever
> 
> 
> 
> Well it keeps the water level up, above the dam. so we have boating up here. n it keeps the water level up in all the feeder streams n creeks. it in ables me to have waterfront property, n we even have a park call riverside. without the 8 foot of water the dam holds back for many miles up stream u would not have much of a grand river
Click to expand...

Uh huh.... 

Dam removal will also ease the migration of aquatic nuisance species to those tributaries up above too. The sad part is, the presence of Gobies are already located in some of them, including areas around Lansing in the Grand River as well.


----------



## tannhd

I wasn't bashing Bedford, and I support dam removal


----------



## RAD FISH

pikedevil said:


> Man and I thought dams were a bad thing for the ecosytem. Ohhhhhh they block the non native hatchery fish so guys can catch them easier, silly me now I see why we have to keep the dam!
> 
> 
> :: You do realize that dam was built waaaay befor the non native hatchery fish were first dump in the rivers right? Hell at least they put a ladder in for them to get above it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as for the dam "NEVER COMING OUT". Why not? It serves no purpose whatsoever and its old and due for repair/replacement soon. Who is gonna pay for that? Just blow the thing up I don't care. I could care less if they build a silly kayak course, that is besides the point.




:: You couldn't be more wrong to say the dam has no purpose whatsoever. Their are many purpose's for that dam. Yes many of them are reasons that would be of concern if there was removel because they where built because of the way the water flows with the dam in place ( some were mentioned below ). There are many many other reasons it won't be removed. But the city has already stated that if it blows out it will NOT be repaired or replaced. There is no way on earth anyone is going to pay the amount it would take to remove that dam, just another reason for ya. Look into it and you will find countless reasons it is "NEVER COMING OUT", unless mother nature takes it out.


----------



## cireofmi

I say just remove the coffers and leave the dam in place. Removing the coffers will make it safer for the kayakers and leaving the dam will help stop Asian carp from going any further upstream. I can't see enough people coming to Grand Rapids to kayak to spend money on changing the river for. If someone is willing to travel to kayak are there not better spots to do so in Michigan already than Grand Rapids even with a course? I say we give them the Rogue.


----------



## diztortion

cireofmi said:


> I say we give them the Rogue.


That's what I'm saying. It'll already fit in with a certain "life style" up there.

Why would they have to remove the coffers? Couldn't they terrace it with rock?


----------



## johnny5alive

Boozer said:


> That's quite a reach Hutch...
> 
> I guess my thoughts are, the MDNR isn't going to allow something like this if it destroys any and all fishing possibilities at one of the most popular fishing locales in the state. The "rapids" are still going to create a barrier of sorts at the base of them so anglers will still have their "crutch" to rely on...
> 
> Just a thought here, but perhaps something like South Bend has on the Joe would be a better option, the East Race gives them their "private play ground" and allows anglers and others stakeholders to have the river as well. You ever seen the East Race in South Bend, my guess is something like that would work great...
> 
> Is something like that what you mean by "diversions"?



NO, diversions is the gay bar downtown. He was taking a shot at gays, people who drink founders beer and Kayakers thats why he ignored your question and didnt explain himself.


----------



## riverbob

cireofmi said:


> I say just remove the coffers and leave the dam in place. Removing the coffers will make it safer for the kayakers and leaving the dam will help stop Asian carp from going any further upstream. I can't see enough people coming to Grand Rapids to kayak to spend money on changing the river for. If someone is willing to travel to kayak are there not better spots to do so in Michigan already than Grand Rapids even with a course? I say we give them the Rogue.


 the city payed big buck to put the coffer dams in. they were built to keep the water level up in the city, with out the coffer's you would have no water depht, all the way to fulton st. PS. the big dam doen't stop the lamprys or the gobie n it not going to stop the asian carp neither. pss. a side scoot running along the river for the kayakers seems like the best for both side's ( remember most kayaker's are fair wether boaters that like summer time n that when the river is at it's lowest NO COFFER NO WATER


----------



## thousandcasts

johnny5alive said:


> NO, diversions is the gay bar downtown. *He was taking a shot at gays*, people who drink founders beer and Kayakers thats why he ignored your question and didnt explain himself.


No...I wasn't, actually.


----------



## Oldgrandman

Jay Wesley said:


> *I do believe that it will improve lake sturgeon spawning and may help other species such as walleye.* Most of the river bottom above the dam is actually bedrock. This would provide excellent fish habitat.





Jay Wesley said:


> Originally Posted by *Jay Wesley*
> _Why is it a good sign? The city, developers, kayakers, state agencies, dnr, USFWS, and consultants continue to talk through the issues, which I think is a good sign of progress.
> 
> *I honestly do think that it will provide better fish habitat in downtown Grand Rapids. Better habitat means that multiple species of fish will hang around, which should translate to good fishing.*
> 
> Jim Bedford is working with the consultants and designers to make sure that fishing interest is being considered. Scott Hanshue (Senior Fish Biologist) and I have also been involved with meetings. Everything is conceptual, so it is hard to say how easy or hard that it will be for wading. We really can not comment until we know the rock size, placement, and depth of the water at that location._




_*Apparently not positive about any of that though.....*_

_All this talk about returning the river to it's natural state of the Grand Rapids is out of the question. Not only the dams would have to be removed but so would the walls and buildings on the East side. I think we all know that won't happen.
What do you think that whitewater park would look like now in this low water condition? And then when there is the normal and above normal water flow conditions? It would be quite the feat to be able to have it set up for the varying water flow conditions. Ranging from 1000-20,000 cfps...
[/COLOR] 
And yes, the coffers are there to help prevent the smelly river in low water conditions, consult some local history books about that.
_


----------



## thousandcasts

johnny5alive said:


> your sediment claims were not right, your guide claim was just shot down, now back to just fear? were's the facts to back that statement


In all fairness, I wouldn't say TK was making a broad guide claim--He was more or less directing an assessment at me specifically and I answered as such. 

Besides...and what's the best way to word this...I would like to think and hope that the interests of the everyday recreational angler are taken into account more than a guide or guides interests. It's a public resource that we all have to share...so, yeah...there's always going to be situations where a guide could benefit from this or that, or get screwed from this and that. But, if we're establishing some pecking order, then the recreational every day Joe Angler's needs should be at the top of the list before a guide. 

No doubt there's issues out there that concern me from my wallet's point of view, but even then the main thing should be how the recreational angler benefits from something or doesn't benefit from something.


----------



## diztortion

YGTBFKM?! 

These are *facts* that I posted earlier in the thread... 

East race in South Bend, first artificial rapids created in the country.

28 years old, 270,000 visitors. 5 Million to create, even at the "All day pass" of $15, still a million short of the initial investment.

Only open two months out of the year.

Closed to fishing, period.

I'd like to also know where they would create these two parks. Last I knew, FEMA wanted the city to make changes to the walls in the downtown area because they weren't tall enough.

This picture is from the Grand Rapids White Water facebook page, clearly an accurate representation. :lol:


----------



## riverbob

that looks like a 70's fish, when there was more food on the table. ps still no one will tell me, what efect all this river building, will have, when the spring thaw's come.(they must of not figered that out yet) or they haven't throught much about it.:sad:


----------



## diztortion

http://www.fox17online.com/news/fox...s-comes-with-a-price-20120723,0,2661643.story


----------



## riverbob

diztortion said:


> http://www.fox17online.com/news/fox...s-comes-with-a-price-20120723,0,2661643.story


 sounds like another case of let's leap. will look later. have they even throught about the spring ice flow ( the break up, when the river starts to move ) I can here it now, aw we didn't know, must be an act of god. 
Oh by the way( you builder's of the white water rapids) those rock.s that you put in,that get pushed down stream to the next bridge. will you be selling them a the bridge. or pushing them back upstream. I only ask because I could use 2 of them.


----------



## Trout King

johnny5alive, like i said i could really care less about the dam in or out. i have nothing to fear considering i have no issue putting a couple hundred steelies on the bankd of the grand and its tribs way above and below that dam each year. i do think however anyone who really thinks the paddlers care about anglers is naive.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jastharp

I will start with the ice question. This is not the first park where there is ice in the winter. Calgary Canada has a park.

Next about the flow range of 1000-20000 cfs. River Restoration the company that is designing the park has experience. They designed the park in Glenwood Springs Colorado on the Colorado river with a range of 1300 to up over 20000 cfs. Some parks are designed down to flows lower than 200 cfs. There is a lot of work and experience used to create a whitewater park.

Some of the facts someone posted about the East Race in South Bend are very wrong. First there is a group of paddlers does have access and does paddle much more than 2 months. I am one of them and start we the year in March and end in December, on the East Race. The only thing stopping us is ice in the winter, Gore Tex is a good thing. Even Santa gets on the race in December. http://www.santaontherace.com/ Stating the cost of a day pass is like saying the only economic impact of a fisherman is the price of a license. We all know the economic impact is greater. In addition the East Race most likely has saved lives. There is river rescue school here that has trained many swift water rescue crews over the years. http://www.indianariverrescue.com/history.php Maybe even the crews saving lives at your dam.

The person who made this statement anyone who really thinks the paddlers care about anglers is naive. Most likely doesnt believe biologists when they state that dam removal will increase fish habitat. Doesnt support members of the DNR who fight for dam removals to improve river. Or they will not support Trout Unlimited because they support dam removals. How is possible to want a dam to be removed and care about anglers?


----------



## limpinglogan

This thing is front page on the Grand Rapids Press today.

It says they have no idea where the money will come from and that the 27 million is for river restoration only it doesn't count the work need to be done on the shoreline. They are hoping for federal grants?!?!?

I am going to be pissed if I find out in these tough economic times my tax dollars go to this thing.


----------



## tannhd

jastharp said:


> I will start with the ice question. This is not the first park where there is ice in the winter. Calgary Canada has a park.
> 
> Next about the flow range of 1000-20000 cfs. River Restoration the company that is designing the park has experience. They designed the park in Glenwood Springs Colorado on the Colorado river with a range of 1300 to up over 20000 cfs. Some parks are designed down to flows lower than 200 cfs. There is a lot of work and experience used to create a whitewater park.
> 
> Some of the facts someone posted about the East Race in South Bend are very wrong. First there is a group of paddlers does have access and does paddle much more than 2 months. I am one of them and start we the year in March and end in December, on the East Race. The only thing stopping us is ice in the winter, Gore Tex is a good thing. Even Santa gets on the race in December. http://www.santaontherace.com/ Stating the cost of a day pass is like saying the only economic impact of a fisherman is the price of a license. We all know the economic impact is greater. In addition the East Race most likely has saved lives. There is river rescue school here that has trained many swift water rescue crews over the years. http://www.indianariverrescue.com/history.php Maybe even the crews saving lives at your dam.
> 
> The person who made this statement &#8220;anyone who really thinks the paddlers care about anglers is naive.&#8221; Most likely doesn&#8217;t believe biologists when they state that dam removal will increase fish habitat. Doesn&#8217;t support members of the DNR who fight for dam removals to improve river. Or they will not support Trout Unlimited because they support dam removals. How is possible to want a dam to be removed and care about anglers?


 
I think the more you talk the more you are hurting yourself with the people on this forum. I was actually naive to much of the plan when I first heard about this. I heard "remove the dam". I thought; ya! I dont like dams. Let's get rid of it! I dont need the dam to catch fish, and I am pro dam removal 99% of the time (with the right cleanup, restoration, etc). 

Now we see that there are steadfast plans to dedicate (not share, but dedicate) portions of the river to a single sport. You may say that you have fishermen's best interests in mind, but I think we all know that there will be NO fishing in or near the park you are proposing. And if anyone believes otherwise I say you are foolish. It's like dedicating a part of the pool to a lap pool, but saying that everyone is free to play marco polo there. Have you ever seen a lap swimmer disturbed by little kids???

Trout King and others are correct in their worries. You and your group have an agenda. That agenda is geared towards the advancement of your sport. Not to restoring the river to its natural state. This is where I am offboard. There is no interest for the fishery, or the state of the river. The interest is for paddling. It just so happens that your group has some numbers that may correspond to our cause. Now you have to use them to get as many people onboard as possible. 

If youre going to remove the dam then remove it. Dont create unatural parks that are dedicated to a single sport. These parks are just as unnatural as dams. They are man made.


----------



## TDI

tannhd said:


> I think the more you talk the more you are hurting yourself with the people on this forum. I was actually naive to much of the plan when I first heard about this. I heard "remove the dam". I thought; ya! I dont like dams. Let's get rid of it! I dont need the dam to catch fish, and I am pro dam removal 99% of the time (with the right cleanup, restoration, etc).
> 
> Now we see that there are steadfast plans to dedicate (not share, but dedicate) portions of the river to a single sport. You may say that you have fishermen's best interests in mind, but I think we all know that there will be NO fishing in or near the park you are proposing. And if anyone believes otherwise I say you are foolish. It's like dedicating a part of the pool to a lap pool, but saying that everyone is free to play marco polo there. Have you ever seen a lap swimmer disturbed by little kids???
> 
> Trout King and others are correct in their worries. You and your group have an agenda. That agenda is geared towards the advancement of your sport. Not to restoring the river to its natural state. This is where I am offboard. There is no interest for the fishery, or the state of the river. The interest is for paddling. It just so happens that your group has some numbers that may correspond to our cause. Now you have to use them to get as many people onboard as possible.
> 
> If youre going to remove the dam then remove it. Dont create unatural parks that are dedicated to a single sport. These parks are just as unnatural as dams. They are man made.


This pretty much sums it all up.


----------



## limpinglogan

> I think the more you talk the more you are hurting yourself with the people on this forum. I was actually naive to much of the plan when I first heard about this. I heard "remove the dam". I thought; ya! I dont like dams. Let's get rid of it! I dont need the dam to catch fish, and I am pro dam removal 99% of the time (with the right cleanup, restoration, etc).
> 
> Now we see that there are steadfast plans to dedicate (not share, but dedicate) portions of the river to a single sport. You may say that you have fishermen's best interests in mind, but I think we all know that there will be NO fishing in or near the park you are proposing. And if anyone believes otherwise I say you are foolish. It's like dedicating a part of the pool to a lap pool, but saying that everyone is free to play marco polo there. Have you ever seen a lap swimmer disturbed by little kids???
> 
> Trout King and others are correct in their worries. You and your group have an agenda. That agenda is geared towards the advancement of your sport. Not to restoring the river to its natural state. This is where I am offboard. There is no interest for the fishery, or the state of the river. The interest is for paddling. It just so happens that your group has some numbers that may correspond to our cause. Now you have to use them to get as many people onboard as possible.
> 
> If youre going to remove the dam then remove it. Dont create unatural parks that are dedicated to a single sport. These parks are just as unnatural as dams. They are man made.


 
Well said! !!

I am getting more angery...


----------



## jerrob

tannhd said:


> I think the more you talk the more you are hurting yourself with the people on this forum. I was actually naive to much of the plan when I first heard about this. I heard "remove the dam". I thought; ya! I dont like dams. Let's get rid of it! I dont need the dam to catch fish, and I am pro dam removal 99% of the time (with the right cleanup, restoration, etc).
> 
> Now we see that there are steadfast plans to dedicate (not share, but dedicate) portions of the river to a single sport. You may say that you have fishermen's best interests in mind, but I think we all know that there will be NO fishing in or near the park you are proposing. And if anyone believes otherwise I say you are foolish. It's like dedicating a part of the pool to a lap pool, but saying that everyone is free to play marco polo there. Have you ever seen a lap swimmer disturbed by little kids???
> 
> Trout King and others are correct in their worries. You and your group have an agenda. That agenda is geared towards the advancement of your sport. Not to restoring the river to its natural state. This is where I am offboard. There is no interest for the fishery, or the state of the river. The interest is for paddling. It just so happens that your group has some numbers that may correspond to our cause. Now you have to use them to get as many people onboard as possible.
> 
> If youre going to remove the dam then remove it. Dont create unatural parks that are dedicated to a single sport. These parks are just as unnatural as dams. They are man made.


And there it is......... the truth, thanks Tan!
Now where's the petition that makes this B.S. go away?


----------



## tannhd

Well I have to be honest. I feel deceived by this group. If you look in the beginning of this thread you'll find that initially I was all for it. this has nothing to do with the environment. There may be some possible positive environmental side effects, but that is not the root cause. I am very disappointed.


----------



## Oldgrandman

tannhd said:


> Well I have to be honest. I feel deceived by this group. If you look in the beginning of this thread you'll find that initially I was all for it. this has nothing to do with the environment. There may be some possible positive environmental side effects, but that is not the root cause. I am very disappointed.


You said a mouthful. The river is the way it is because it served the community. Well it still does, just differently. Now a small group wants to change it for their interest.

I still do not like seeing a DNR guy say "I honestly do think" or "I do believe"...when talking about improving on fish spawning and habitat. They should KNOW this. 
Really nothing wrong with that now. This won't improve on the fact that they might spawn there, they already do. Walleye-steelhead-browns-salmon-smallmouth-etc. And it will likely not make any difference in survival since the river will not be any colder when this get done.
But I think people will see the "bring back The Rapids" idea and think it is good. That is how it is being played...


----------



## RAD FISH

:: Lets just say somehow this actually happens and they build this thing. There going to put up signs saying you cant fish in there kayak playground? I want front row seats when the salmon come in and they try to keep a bunch of watersides and downright gangsters from fish'n there.



:: Jay I'm very disappointed that you are supportive of this BS in any way what so ever. It does NOT benefit the fishermen and from what im seeing does exactly the opposite.


:: Tell me this are the amount of kayakers that are going to use this thing going to be even a fraction of fishermen and women that use this part of the river a year? HELL NO



:: I will say it again, this is a huge waste of time, effort and money.


----------



## jastharp

tannhd said:


> I think the more you talk the more you are hurting yourself with the people on this forum. I was actually naive to much of the plan when I first heard about this. I heard "remove the dam". I thought; ya! I dont like dams. Let's get rid of it! I dont need the dam to catch fish, and I am pro dam removal 99% of the time (with the right cleanup, restoration, etc).
> 
> Now we see that there are steadfast plans to dedicate (not share, but dedicate) portions of the river to a single sport. You may say that you have fishermen's best interests in mind, but I think we all know that there will be NO fishing in or near the park you are proposing. And if anyone believes otherwise I say you are foolish. It's like dedicating a part of the pool to a lap pool, but saying that everyone is free to play marco polo there. Have you ever seen a lap swimmer disturbed by little kids???
> 
> Trout King and others are correct in their worries. You and your group have an agenda. That agenda is geared towards the advancement of your sport. Not to restoring the river to its natural state. This is where I am offboard. There is no interest for the fishery, or the state of the river. The interest is for paddling. It just so happens that your group has some numbers that may correspond to our cause. Now you have to use them to get as many people onboard as possible.
> 
> If youre going to remove the dam then remove it. Dont create unatural parks that are dedicated to a single sport. These parks are just as unnatural as dams. They are man made.


If you are 99% pro dam removal why not look for ways to work with other groups to get dams removed. I would hope most fishermen would see the benefits of dam removal. Rapids are fished on all over the country. Just because there are rapids this will not stop the fishing. These rapids are an experience that you can not find anywhere in the middle of Michigan. 

You will never return the Grand Rapids back to its 100% natural state. For one no one knows exactly what that state is. Also there are several factors that would prevent this no matter what. They include the flood walls and the lamprey barrier that would have to be included no matter what. Any rapid in Grand Rapids is more natural than the current dams. Many dam removals can not return the river to its natural state for one reason or another but having those dams out are a positive thing. Look at pictures on this site of Chesaning Michigan dam removal. http://www.riverrestoration.info/chesaning/photogallery/index.htm Having the dam out is better than in.

Yes as a whitewater paddler I have an agenda. I would like to see a whitewater park built. I also know that everyone has an agenda. Why cant we find some common ground. Dam removal can improve the fish habitat. Why not maximize the benefit of dam removal by including some great whitewater for paddling. Is the only reason you are against this is that it will also benefit another group? They are only on their conceptual stage many things do need to be worked on. We can do this to benefit all.

When they first started pushing this park the idea was for a side channel of some sort. I thought that was a great idea. When they changed it at first I thought that was bad. I was thinking that the cost would go so high that they could not get a park done. Then after thinking about I understood what their agenda was. Imagine standing between that first design and the river. Look at the rapids in the park. Now turn to the river and explain why the Grand Rapids should not be there. Their agenda is not just a whitewater park it is something greater returning the Grand Rapids back to the Grand. They are trying to do it by getting the maximum benefit. We can work together to get the maximum benefit of dam removal.


----------



## troutguy26

Exactly. If you all work together on this noone gets excluded. I do think theres alot of fear behind this that fishing will be excluded but if you are there to make sure its not then hows it gonna happen? Or you all can just sit on here and gripe and do nothing then they can make it whatever they want to. Your choice.


----------



## diztortion

jastharp said:


> Some of the facts someone posted about the East Race in South Bend are very wrong. First there is a group of paddlers does have access and does paddle much more than 2 months. I am one of them and start we the year in March and end in December, on the East Race. The only thing stopping us is ice in the winter, Gore Tex is a good thing. Even Santa gets on the race in December. http://www.santaontherace.com/ Stating the cost of a day pass is like saying the only economic impact of a fisherman is the price of a license. We all know the economic impact is greater. In addition the East Race most likely has saved lives. There is river rescue school here that has trained many swift water rescue crews over the years. http://www.indianariverrescue.com/history.php Maybe even the crews saving lives at your dam.
> 
> The person who made this statement anyone who really thinks the paddlers care about anglers is naive. Most likely doesnt believe biologists when they state that dam removal will increase fish habitat. Doesnt support members of the DNR who fight for dam removals to improve river. Or they will not support Trout Unlimited because they support dam removals. How is possible to want a dam to be removed and care about anglers?


http://sbpark.org/parks/east-race-waterway/

I'm glad you're an entitled member than can use the park outside of the time allotted for the public. 

Fishermen pay for more than just a license. Most of the gear used by fisherman is taxed under the Dingell-Johnson Act, including fuel purchases from marinas. 

I'm unaware of any type of licensing or fees paid for by kayaking.

I love the straw man argument you create in the second paragraph. Clearly anyone opposed to the white water's personal play ground is against dam removal.


----------



## jerrob

Jay Wesley is just a PM away, I've sent him a PM stating my thoughts on this matter and suggest that everyone who's not on board with this do the same.
If anyone has any additional email addresses for the people who will make the final decision on this whitewater park, please post so they can be made aware of our opposition as well.
Is this an issue that a signed petition would be beneficial to get our voices heard? You're 100% right Cody, sitting here arguing with this guy over the forum is getting nothing done, and that's exactly what they want.
Is anyone experienced at getting this process started? I would be more than willing to volunteer my time to help. 
I enjoy every minute I get to spend in Michigan and feel privileged to do so, and would have no problem showing my opposition towards a special interest group attempting to take over a section of any river for their sole benefit.


----------



## limpinglogan

I am doing a little research on the one they built in Canada. It looks like it went way over budget and has safety concerns. Can any one help me confirm that they have no fishing zones? 

*Safety Concerns: *http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/05/17/calgary-weir-harvie-passage.html

*More Safety Concerns:* http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/17/white-water-warning-for-new-look-weir

*Test Day Not Open To The Public Yet: * 



 <-- Try fishing those runs with a couple guys going through there...then imagine a hundred of kaykers per hour.

*More Safety Concerns: *http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/07/16/calgary-harvie-passage-.html

*News Documentary:*


----------



## troutguy26

jerrob said:


> Jay Wesley is just a PM away, I've sent him a PM stating my thoughts on this matter and suggest that everyone who's not on board with this do the same.
> If anyone has any additional email addresses for the people who will make the final decision on this whitewater park, please post so they can be made aware of our opposition as well.
> Is this an issue that a signed petition would be beneficial to get our voices heard? You're 100% right Cody, sitting here arguing with this guy over the forum is getting nothing done, and that's exactly what they want.
> Is anyone experienced at getting this process started? I would be more than willing to volunteer my time to help.
> I enjoy every minute I get to spend in Michigan and feel privileged to do so, and would have no problem showing my opposition towards a special interest group attempting to take over a section of any river for their sole benefit.


What does the GLFSA think of this? Hope im not calling you guys out on this but it goes right along with the mission statement and what you guys work to defend. Angler access. I know im against it for that exact reason unless everyone has equal access to the river no matter what. If so then go ahead the resouces are there for everyone to use not just certain groups.


----------



## samsteel

jerrob said:


> Jay Wesley is just a PM away, I've sent him a PM stating my thoughts on this matter and suggest that everyone who's not on board with this do the same.
> If anyone has any additional email addresses for the people who will make the final decision on this whitewater park, please post so they can be made aware of our opposition as well.


 
*Mayor **George Heartwell*


email:
[email protected]
Phone: 616.456.3168
​ 

http://grcity.us/city-manager/Pages/Elected-Officials.aspx


----------



## Buckcreekguy

I have not heard of the time date or place of this as of yet!
I have been involved in this for about 4 months now and people are lining up to oppose this project!

Lots of people who enjoy the great fishing and the fish ladder are going to loose out,this is all about developer's who want to make the property they own along the river worth more at the expense of the rest of us! Kind of like buying out a neighborhood and saying "GET OUT"!!Keep the river the way it is now it brings in way more tourists than a kayak course ever will! Just take a look at South Bend Indiana it averages 900 people a year I would bet to guess that The fish ladder and the fishing the way it is now bring in way more people to the city than that in a couple of months!
We have a world class fishery here in Grand Rapids and it makes the city and its businesses a lot of money!Can we afford to loose the $$$ that comes in now When we can't maintain our city streets and other city services!
This will force fishermen that spend more money locally than kayaker's do to fish elsewhere because this will do nothing to help fishing!
The damn the way it is now also stops Lampey that prey on fish but have a difficult time making it past the damn we have in place now not to mention if the asian carp come to town! They have no solid plan for a lamprey barrier!
Grand Rapids white water has people fooled!


----------



## Buckcreekguy

Please check us out on facebook and like us if you agree or let us know if why you don't!

It is under:

Please Boycott Grand Rapids White Water Project

Thank you much!


----------



## tannhd

jastharp said:


> If you are 99% pro dam removal why not look for ways to work with other groups to get dams removed. I would hope most fishermen would see the benefits of dam removal. Rapids are fished on all over the country. Just because there are rapids this will not stop the fishing. These rapids are an experience that you can not find anywhere in the middle of Michigan.
> 
> You will never return the Grand Rapids back to its 100% natural state. For one no one knows exactly what that state is. Also there are several factors that would prevent this no matter what. They include the flood walls and the lamprey barrier that would have to be included no matter what. Any rapid in Grand Rapids is more natural than the current dams. Many dam removals can not return the river to its natural state for one reason or another but having those dams out are a positive thing. Look at pictures on this site of Chesaning Michigan dam removal. http://www.riverrestoration.info/chesaning/photogallery/index.htm Having the dam out is better than in.
> 
> Yes as a whitewater paddler I have an agenda. I would like to see a whitewater park built. I also know that everyone has an agenda. Why can&#8217;t we find some common ground. Dam removal can improve the fish habitat. Why not maximize the benefit of dam removal by including some great whitewater for paddling. Is the only reason you are against this is that it will also benefit another group? They are only on their conceptual stage many things do need to be worked on. We can do this to benefit all.
> 
> When they first started pushing this park the idea was for a side channel of some sort. I thought that was a great idea. When they changed it at first I thought that was bad. I was thinking that the cost would go so high that they could not get a park done. Then after thinking about I understood what their agenda was. Imagine standing between that first design and the river. Look at the rapids in the park. Now turn to the river and explain why the Grand Rapids should not be there. Their agenda is not just a whitewater park it is something greater returning the Grand Rapids back to the Grand. They are trying to do it by getting the maximum benefit. We can work together to get the maximum benefit of dam removal.


 
I think I made it quite clear that I was initially for this when it was under the guise of simply a dam removal. Even with a side channel I would agree that the benefits would outweigh the negatives. Yes I am for dam removal. Yes I am for conservation and restoration of our state's rivers and wildlife. 

You guys just pushed it a little too far. Indeed, let's work together to get the dam removed, but I won't work with you to segregate portions of the river for single sport use. The water is owned by no one. Putting a kayak park (which appears to be quite large according to your description above) puts certain ownership rights on stretches of the river that I am highly against. 

I have stated my concerns with the project. I don't typically make very long winded posts here so I dont feel like debating any further. I will be joining every single opposition group that I can find, and doing my part to keep the river a multi-use shared resource as every single group of people who lived before us imagined it. 

-Dan


----------



## jastharp

One last post from me. Some people are trying to make you believe that you will not be able to fish in the park that they are trying to do. Just read this article and know that that is wrong.
http://thegazette.com/2011/06/30/1-million-whitewater-course-improves-fishing/

Charles City officials expected Cedar River fishing to improve with the completion of a million-dollar kayak and canoe course. But the improvement has greatly exceeded expectations, according to Bob Kloberdanz, chairman of the citys Parks and Recreation Board.

Theyre catching everything down there. Its unbelievable, Kloberdanz said.

At any given time, he said, 10 to 15 anglers are fishing the quarter-mile stretch of re-engineered river that features three major riffles and 40 strategically placed red granite boulders, some as big as Volkswagen Beetles.

Walleyes, northern pike, smallmouth bass, channel catfish and crappies are all showing up in the catch.

Were talking nice fish, and lots of them, Kloberdanz said.

Officials have been pleasantly surprised by the number and variety of fish, as well as the speed with which they occupied the newly created habitat.

Kloberdanz said the stretch of river between the main dam and a smaller downstream dam had been a dead zone because fish could not get above the lower dam. No one even fished there, he said.

Now, with the establishment of a dependable fish passageway, anglers are catching fish all through the whitewater park, Kloberdanz said.

Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist Bill Kalishek said there is no way to document the anecdotal reports of improved fishing. But if the anglers are happy, I am happy. They are the people I am trying to serve, he said.

Kalishek, who provided input during consideration of a required DNR flood plain modification permit, said the fisheries bureau insisted upon establishment of fish passage, and the project engineers incorporated that recommendation in their design.

Citing the removal of a concrete retaining wall on the east side of the river and the placement of boulders to reduce the velocity of back-eddy currents, Kalishek said hes not surprised that the project has improved fish habitat and angler access.

Gary Lacy of Recreational Engineering and Planning of Boulder, Colo., said the Charles City site compares favorably with those of almost all the approximately 80 white-water courses his company has designed since 1983.

The gradient and flow are almost ideal, he said.

The project  which entailed installation of 10,200 tons of limestone, much of it in large blocks  has been paid for entirely with grants and donations, City Administrator Tom Brownlow said.

Kloberdanz said a grand opening will be held July 29 and 30 to showcase the recently completed project.


----------



## johnd

http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/charles-city1.jpg

When i look at this picture and imagine it wider like the grand, fishermen lining the banks elbow to elbow, And add thirty boats fishing the runs and i think the kayaks are going to have problems.


----------



## Trout King

kayakers may not be very happy sept through may when people are standing in every run and boats anchored up fishing. this makes me believe the majority of the area would be labeled no fishing if the group gets its way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trout King

btw i do like to think our biologists have a big clue, but this isnt about fish at all, so dont try to spin it into being better for everyone.
it was mentioned that mid mi doesnt have whitewater, well, thats because it wasnt made to geographically. kayak courses are not natural. 
again, i personally dont care about the dam in or out, but i do care about the thousands of fisherman who would most likely be getting the short end. 
im pretty sure i can already see how this is going to pan out realistically...no funds, and lots of opposition...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TC-fisherman

Trout King said:


> it was mentioned that mid mi doesnt have whitewater, well, thats because it wasnt made to geographically.


What's the name of the city where this dam is located?


----------



## Trout King

tc was is whitewater like this group is thinking? or just a set of rapids like you would find in any low lying area? i cant say for sure...can you? i wasnt around or know anyone who was. i dont think is was a kayak course. real kayak water is in appalachia and out west.
btw i enjoy kayaking but fisherman deserve a say.
maybe they should remove the boardman dams and build a course there, traverse would be a more popular kayaking destination.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jay Wesley

A lot of the pictures and videos that are posted here show kayakers riding big waves. 

This would only be possible during high flows on the Grand River. We would not approve a plan that would create these type of waves in all flow conditions. This type of design would not be natural for one and would prevent fish passage of most species, so we would not gain anything. 

We are looking for a more natural design that would allow fish passage of all species at normal flows. The existing park concept does not do this in my opinion. That is why we continue to offer feedback while it is still in the conceptual phase. 

If we say no right off the bat, we may miss an opportunity to see at least some dam removal (coffer dams) and possibly full dam removal. 

So continue to offer your opinion specific to the conceptual design. 

Jay


----------



## tannhd

Jay Wesley said:


> A lot of the pictures and videos that are posted here show kayakers riding big waves.
> 
> This would only be possible during high flows on the Grand River. We would not approve a plan that would create these type of waves in all flow conditions. This type of design would not be natural for one and would prevent fish passage of most species, so we would not gain anything.
> 
> We are looking for a more natural design that would allow fish passage of all species at normal flows. The existing park concept does not do this in my opinion. That is why we continue to offer feedback while it is still in the conceptual phase.
> 
> If we say no right off the bat, we may miss an opportunity to see at least some dam removal (coffer dams) and possibly full dam removal.
> 
> So continue to offer your opinion specific to the conceptual design.
> 
> Jay


 
Thanks, Jay.


----------



## pikedevil

Trout King said:


> btw i do like to think our biologists have a big clue, but this isnt about fish at all, so dont try to spin it into being better for everyone.


Its not about fish at all? How about improved fish passage for all species including native fish like Sturgeon, Wallye, Smallmouth bass, catfish and many others that don't readily go through fish ladders. You don't think opening up the largest watershed in the state to fish passage will help the ecosystem and the angling opportunites? Are we fish killers on this site or are we conservationist? This project is better for everyone, except I guess the guys that need to kill a bunch of non native steelhead that are trapped in a concrete jungle. This isn't a kayaking vs fishing war. I rate kayakers just a step below people on sea doos and wakeboard boats in my level of annoyance while im fishing but that doesn't mean anglers should fight this project.


----------



## riverbob

Jay Wesley said:


> A lot of the pictures and videos that are posted here show kayakers riding big waves.
> 
> This would only be possible during high flows on the Grand River. We would not approve a plan that would create these type of waves in all flow conditions. This type of design would not be natural for one and would prevent fish passage of most species, so we would not gain anything.
> 
> We are looking for a more natural design that would allow fish passage of all species at normal flows. The existing park concept does not do this in my opinion. That is why we continue to offer feedback while it is still in the conceptual phase.
> 
> If we say no right off the bat, we may miss an opportunity to see at least some dam removal (coffer dams) and possibly full dam removal.
> 
> So continue to offer your opinion specific to the conceptual design.
> 
> Jay


Jay, no one seams to want to talk about ice flow. you know n any one with half a brain. know's that any obstruction in the river is going to block the passage of ice from flowing threw. Don't get me wrong. I'm for the paddle park. But you need a different plan. Here's a quick River Bob plan build something alongside the river( like the old canal)(that I still remember swiming in) start it up stream any where you want. fill it with what ever rocks you want. This is the inportain part but a gate at the begining of the paddle run.(that way you can open or close it. So you can get what ever flow you want So the padders can chose what class rapids they want, on any given day.


----------



## troutguy26

pikedevil said:


> Its not about fish at all? How about improved fish passage for all species including native fish like Sturgeon, Wallye, Smallmouth bass, catfish and many others that don't readily go through fish ladders. You don't think opening up the largest watershed in the state to fish passage will help the ecosystem and the angling opportunites? Are we fish killers on this site or are we conservationist? This project is better for everyone, except I guess the guys that need to kill a bunch of non native steelhead that are trapped in a concrete jungle. This isn't a kayaking vs fishing war. I rate kayakers just a step below people on sea doos and wakeboard boats in my level of annoyance while im fishing but that doesn't mean anglers should fight this project.


I hear that. This can do alot of good if done right and to see that east side long line fest go away would be worth it alone.


----------



## tannhd

This is why I dislike posting on forums regarding serious matters. a lot gets lost in translation from typing. 

Trout guy and pike devil: you're just not understanding my position. Please don't make blanket statements about the ethics of the people who dont support this project. This shouldn't be viewed as a black and white subject. Each side has an argument, and each side wants to work to maintain fish habitat. This is not a good vs evil, or a green kayakers vs "not give a ****" gut chuckers debate. Don't try and make it look like that. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26

tannhd said:


> This is why I dislike posting on forums regarding serious matters. a lot gets lost in translation from typing.
> 
> Trout guy and pike devil: you're just not understanding my position. Please don't make blanket statements about the ethics of the people who dont support this project. This shouldn't be viewed as a black and white subject. Each side has an argument, and each side wants to work to maintain fish habitat. This is not a good vs evil, or a green kayakers vs "not give a ****" gut chuckers debate. Don't try and make it look like that.
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Wasnt trying to make this about ethics and sorry if it came off that way. That east side up by the dam is a joke and anyone who has been there knows that. I was on board with what he said about how this can help alot of species of fish migrate throughout the river. Personally i dont consider a dam and coffers "fish habitat". Now if were talking man made wing dams and so forth then thats a different story. Returning this river to somewhat its natural state is the best thing to be done as long as the public has access to the resources no matter what they are going there to do. One thing i dont get maybe someone can explain is how much kayaking is gonna be going on during the runs of fish that draw everyone there? Its usally pretty chilly out during those times and thats why i dont see it being a problem. Could be wrong tho and i agree things get lost in text.


----------



## Jay Wesley

riverbob said:


> Jay, no one seams to want to talk about ice flow. you know n any one with half a brain. know's that any obstruction in the river is going to block the passage of ice from flowing threw. Don't get me wrong. I'm for the paddle park. But you need a different plan. Here's a quick River Bob plan build something alongside the river( like the old canal)(that I still remember swiming in) start it up stream any where you want. fill it with what ever rocks you want. This is the inportain part but a gate at the begining of the paddle run.(that way you can open or close it. So you can get what ever flow you want So the padders can chose what class rapids they want, on any given day.


Well, I am not designing this. I am offering constructive critism to the folks that are. Once they get some sort of conceptual design figured out, they are then going to have to model the effects that it might have on river flows. Not sure if they can do the same thing for ice flows but they are aware of the ice jams. 

Your idea would work if it was just going to be for kayakers. This is what they have in South Bend, and the dam is still there. If they can come up with a design that removes the dams, I would much rather see that provided that there is still good fish habitat, fish passage, and fish ability.


----------



## J&D Mobile

There are tons of factors to go thru before saying yes or no. I personally at this point am totally against this project. I was a part of the meeting held last month and the meeting made me a lot more skeptical about the whole plan because they have done a study of the two miles of river effected and are trying to give false data. They tried to tell us that there is no quarry hole, no rebar, and no spinhole. GRWW also did no study of what impact upstream and downstream this would have. Dont you think the people that live in Grandville, Jenison, Hudsonville, Allendale, Eastmanville, and further down yet need to have peace of mind knowing that the river they hold dear will not change without a say in things. How about Someone just comes and rips your landscape out of your back yard without asking? 
Another part is who is funding the upkeep of this whole thing Grand Rapids can't even upkeep roads. The state of Michigan is also Broke so they cant boot the bill.
The fire fighters that risk so much to do all the rescues of overturned boats as it is putting rapids in puts them heroes in much greater danger as well as the people being rescued.How about all the handicapped or non wader fishermen that use the wall on the east side as a bountiful fishing hole to access the rivers wonderful fishery. 
I guess what I am saying is their 27.5 million dollar price tag is the river bed construction price what about the rest of it? And where is this money coming from The grants are still taxpayer money and i do not want mine used for this unorganized cobbled up mess


----------



## kzoofisher

Tannhd,
You and others have said that the whitewater plan can or will lead to exclusive use of the river. What is your evidence for that? I have seen others post that paddlers will have unfortunate interactions with fisherman and that fishing will be prohibited, so I asked why that would be true on the Grand when it doesn't cause major problems in other places where both activities use the same stretches of river. Here are some examples of what has been posted.



> Lets just say somehow this actually happens and they build this thing. There going to put up signs saying you cant fish in there kayak playground? I want front row seats when the salmon come in and they try to keep a bunch of watersides and downright gangsters from fish'n there.





> I enjoy every minute I get to spend in Michigan and feel privileged to do so, and would have no problem showing my opposition towards a special interest group attempting to take over a section of any river for their sole benefit.





> When i look at this picture and imagine it wider like the grand, fishermen lining the banks elbow to elbow, And add thirty boats fishing the runs and i think the kayaks are going to have problems.





> kayakers may not be very happy sept through may when people are standing in every run and boats anchored up fishing. this makes me believe the majority of the area would be labeled no fishing if the group gets its way.


From the quotes above I see zero evidence that the paddlers have any plans to take control of the river. Is there some evidence of such a plan?


----------



## J&D Mobile

Kzoofisher

I am not here to argue whether right or wrong but if you have ever fished the grand up by the dam you would understand, and I also fish and guide all over the state I have personally seen disputes on rivers like the White, Muskegon and the Pm where paddlers have gone over somebody's fishing hole and an altercation ensues with the group of fishermen ending up on the better end of the stick. I know there is a few boat fishermen on this site that frequent GR and they can tell you what happens when a boat full of guys get to close. the shore fishermen and the wading guys start casting at you and altercations happen even then imagine a kayak you wouldn't stand a chance. Again not saying it is right but it happens.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> Tannhd,
> You and others have said that the whitewater plan can or will lead to exclusive use of the river. What is your evidence for that? I have seen others post that paddlers will have unfortunate interactions with fisherman and that fishing will be prohibited, so I asked why that would be true on the Grand when it doesn't cause major problems in other places where both activities use the same stretches of river. Here are some examples of what has been posted.
> 
> From the quotes above I see zero evidence that the paddlers have any plans to take control of the river. Is there some evidence of such a plan?


Perhaps the term "Kayak Park" may raise a lil caution as to the "real' use of this ''new" river in downtown G.R. ........ I can see weekends when fishing is not allowed to facilitate ''Kayak" competitions, I am yet to see "off limits" signs posted for any fishing tournament....


----------



## kzoofisher

J&D Mobile said:


> Kzoofisher
> 
> I am not here to argue whether right or wrong but if you have ever fished the grand up by the dam you would understand, and I also fish and guide all over the state I have personally seen disputes on rivers like the White, Muskegon and the Pm where paddlers have gone over somebody's fishing hole and an altercation ensues with the group of fishermen ending up on the better end of the stick. I know there is a few boat fishermen on this site that frequent GR and they can tell you what happens when a boat full of guys get to close. the shore fishermen and the wading guys start casting at you and altercations happen even then imagine a kayak you wouldn't stand a chance. Again not saying it is right but it happens.


That makes sense as a concern without as you say considering its "rightness". I think it may be a concern for paddlers, too.


----------



## Master of the Chrome

Totally agree here. Same thing happens when boaters get too close to the fisherman on pier heads.


----------



## Master of the Chrome

I was at the same meeting with you. I am not on board either, my main concern is the lack of the lamprey barrier thats proposed. The engineer even mentioned that if the water levels were high enough that no fish would be allowed over, good-bye steelhead fishing in the spring upstream from there. We would be talking total revolt!


----------



## Master of the Chrome

Agree with your post here. there are a lot of numbers promised
500% increase in fish habitat
5 times increase in habitat diversity
850% increase in sturgeon spawning habitat
1 sea lamprey adjustable velocity barrier (big blow up tire in the river) 
275% increase in sport fishing perimeter
tons of white water and kayaking features
adjustable whitewater surf wave
to name a few! Still looks like a Kayakers white water park with some lofty promises to keep the fisherman drooling at the possibilities. I want some of what they are smoking


----------



## J&D Mobile

OK another thing as I sit and stew more about this a complete malfunction in government in the aspect of we can't even barely keep a state alive on taxpayer money. So how can we spend grant money on things we want and not on things that we need? Roads, Police and Fire, Agricultural Loss, job Growth, ect... So if there is money there why not redirect it to where it is NEEDED instead of a extravagant mess that we don't need? The ironic part is that the DNR supposedly is in favor of this but that grant money could keep there partner on the clock instead of out of work if used for something needed. I say quit hiding in the shadows and let the people that own property, make a living, or just frequent the river have a say in this whole thing. It seems everything is happening behind closed doors with a few fat wallets pushing things along with out consideration of people who actually use the river.


----------



## tannhd

METTLEFISH said:


> Perhaps the term "Kayak Park" may raise a lil caution as to the "real' use of this ''new" river in downtown G.R. ........ I can see weekends when fishing is not allowed to facilitate ''Kayak" competitions, I am yet to see "off limits" signs posted for any fishing tournament....


 
Pretty much that. If an organization is spearheading a alteration of the river, human nature will dictate a sense of ownerhsip as it is THEIR project. 

Also during the Salmon run it can get pretty messy over there as J&D stated. 

I don't even fish 6th St until all the Salmon circus clears for that very reason. 

I'm actually feeling a lot better about this now after Jay's post and also a quote from the GR Mayor.


----------



## riverbob

riverman said:


> Get rid of the thing before it does blow out. I can hear the board now if some spring day with high water it did rip open. Of course some that are so opposed might not be alive to post.


 boy,O boy. Just because some people don't agree with you, thats no reason to hope for there death. I bet You were the kid that took his toys home if he didn't get his way.Thats:sad: riverman.


----------



## riverman

I NEVER wish any death on a river, period. I was only saying what the outcry would be IF the concrete broke. Lawsuits, DNR bashing, the list is endless.


----------



## riverbob

Maybe, I miss under stood you(because of my age) I didn't read any thing about river death's, just death to those that are so opposed to your way of thinking.( Maybe I,m wearing my feeling on my cuff, so I'll rip it off, I have other shirts) From one old fishermen to another. You have a good day n tight lines.:chillinS I think I'll go fishing before it heats up.


----------



## TSS Caddis

kzoofisher said:


> Tannhd,
> You and others have said that the whitewater plan can or will lead to exclusive use of the river. What is your evidence for that? I have seen others post that paddlers will have unfortunate interactions with fisherman and that fishing will be prohibited, so I asked why that would be true on the Grand when it doesn't cause major problems in other places where both activities use the same stretches of river. Here are some examples of what has been posted.
> 
> 
> From the quotes above I see zero evidence that the paddlers have any plans to take control of the river. Is there some evidence of such a plan?


If you recall, I asked the guy rep'ing this how interactions will be handled. Will fisherman have access to fish the kayak lanes. I don't think he responded. 

I don't think it is for the people you quoted to prove there will be problems, I think it is the kayak's club to prove there will not be.


----------



## slowpaya

give me the tules an greasers:fish2:


----------



## Buckcreekguy

Jay Wesley,
What happens if or when your bosses come to you and say you need to stay out of this its not your fight? 
We need more people who will stand up for the fishermen so they can't shut us down!


----------



## J&D Mobile

Did you guys see the interview with George Hartwell he even states that it is going to be a kayak run? 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaky2bbw4-k&feature=player_embedded"]Mayor Heartwell's Video Blog July 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

Wonder if Heartwell will come Kayak in September or October to give us all a good laugh.


----------



## HURONFLY

I am all for dam removal and restorations of rivers in Michigan. This looks more like kayak playground to me. Check out the 9 minute argo cascades video by ribs1 on you tube to see the problems on the Huron river with another kayak project.


----------



## J&D Mobile

HURONFLY said:


> I am all for dam removal and restorations of rivers in Michigan. This looks more like kayak playground to me. Check out the 9 minute argo cascades video by ribs1 on you tube to see the problems on the Huron river with another kayak project.










Is this fair to fishermen? I bet this GRWW project turns out with little concern for Fishermen also.


----------



## jerrob

It seems like they've sold this idea to the G.R. mayor.
I wonder if he's walked the river with any anglers to get their opinion.

Does the PTD come into play in this scenario at all?


----------



## slowpaya

let the tules and candlesticks come


----------



## Trout King

rad fish...i wouldnt say nobody fishes king in gh...lol like blue gill fishing! whoops another slip up, now its going to be a zoo down there! 
and yes other impassable dams are going to draw crowds, but im sure that town will enjoy the influx of revenue that gr would be missing on!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

pikedevil said:


> A good read overall however I must disagree with your closing remarks. You state a "fishery could be ruined." I think you are mistaking the overall "fishery" with a "fishing spot". A fishing spot (6th street dam) will be altered and potentially ruined by this project, however the Grand River fishery has potential to benefit a great deal from the 100% fish passage dam removal would allow. Dams do great harm to fish populations and spawning potential on river systems, as I'm sure your well aware. The salmon and steelhead wont disappear from the grand river watershed, but fisherman may have to learn new fishing spots to be successful in catching them. In fact steelhead natural reproduction in cold water tribs could be bolstered by allowing their passage during cold water periods when they are unwilling to move through the ladder. Allowing them to get to spawning water with a more prolonged natural run timing will potentially help reproduction. Other native species like wallye and sturgeon could benefit tremendously from the dams removal. Would fisherman be for the dam's removal if there was no kayaking group involved? I would hope the answer would be yes, if not all we would be protecting is an artificial fish trap that stands in the way of rehabilitation of native species.


Great post. Restore the river to what it was and what it should be.


----------



## Trout King

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Great post. Restore the river to what it was and what it should be.


if that happens, then why not the white,mo to. it trully would help propogate a more wild salmon and steelhead fishery.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## troutguy26

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Great post. Restore the river to what it was and what it should be.


Agreed. 

TK why not the rest of em? Croton will never happen imo. But the one is hespertucky can be blown easily enough.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

troutguy26 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> TK why not the rest of em? Croton will never happen imo. But the one is hespertucky can be blown easily enough.


The power generating dams will never come down in Michigan. However, I agree that there really is no point to the dams in Hesperia and White Cloud so why not take them down? I'd hate to lose the great blue water fishery above White Cloud but those brookies are introduced and as we have seen in the PM, the browns may actually do better with the biomass from salmon/steelhead/sucker runs from the big lake. 

I think the White would be an ideal stream to stock a lot of Lake Run brown trout. 

I understand that 6th Street is an access liked by many. However, the Grand above Ionia is a much different river than what it is in its lower stretches. It could support sturgeon. Also, the stretch above Sixth Street is terrible. Channeled badly, poor habitat and an absurd flood plain in Comstock Park.


----------



## Flyfisher

Guess I'll put in my $0.02 

First off, the argument that removing the dam will hurt fishing is somewhat selfish. People don't want a "kayaker's playground", myself included, and yet they want to keep their "angler's playground" with big numbers of fish milling below the dam before they drop back or finally ascend the ladder. Not to mention the countless fish that are lined and snagged in the "boils". 

I'd support complete removal of the dam(s) and if the river is going to be "restored", then lets make it look like a Michigan river, not some mountain stream. For those of you familiar with the Muskegon River, think along the lines of the short section of rapids below Pine Street.

And the fish will still be there, still passing through, and still holding. The experienced anglers will find fish quite readily. The ones that relied on the dam to be able to hook fish will have to learn to actually fish a moving river.

Believe it or not, the river does not end at Fulton Street and fish hold throughout the entire river. And not all those holding fish below Fulton are necessarily dropbacks that have made it to the dam yet.


----------



## METTLEFISH

It seems to me that the State could give a list of "musts" to the designers/developers prior to all the money and time going into design. Perhaps a nice gravel area for spawing, a nice pool area to enhance cold water opportunities, fast water area that can not be Kayaked (Summer run habitat) Etc. Etc. 

I find it maddening that there is no effort within the fishing community to make an area of "prime" fishing habitat, yet a group of people that contribute far less economically than fishing does is going to have it's way on ''our'' waters...


Take the reins MDNR.... get some work done for "us" on this for free (their cost) to enhance this area for all species of Fishes, both warm and cold water. Don't sit back and "see'' what may come, dictate to them what happens!


----------



## headbanger421

pikedevil said:


> A good read overall however I must disagree with your closing remarks. You state a "fishery could be ruined." I think you are mistaking the overall "fishery" with a "fishing spot". A fishing spot (6th street dam) will be altered and potentially ruined by this project, however the Grand River fishery has potential to benefit a great deal from the 100% fish passage dam removal would allow. Dams do great harm to fish populations and spawning potential on river systems, as I'm sure your well aware. The salmon and steelhead wont disappear from the grand river watershed, but fisherman may have to learn new fishing spots to be successful in catching them. In fact steelhead natural reproduction in cold water tribs could be bolstered by allowing their passage during cold water periods when they are unwilling to move through the ladder. Allowing them to get to spawning water with a more prolonged natural run timing will potentially help reproduction. Other native species like wallye and sturgeon could benefit tremendously from the dams removal. Would fisherman be for the dam's removal if there was no kayaking group involved? I would hope the answer would be yes, if not all we would be protecting is an artificial fish trap that stands in the way of rehabilitation of native species.


 
Well said. From what I've been reading this seems more about losing a spot and less about kayakers having a playground. I do own a kayak but for hunting and fishing not whitewater but I really see no problem with there being a place for this sort of thing. Not everyone that enjoys the river is a fisherman but most of the "no" votes I've seen are people that think it is. Believe it or not, dam removal is better overall for the fish and the fishing. There won't be any loss of total fish in the river, they'll just be more spread out and it'll take a little more skill and patience to catch them. Plus a more open river will provide better fishing/paddling opportunities for a greater number of people which in turn will be better financially and I'm sure the state sees it that way too.


----------



## J&D Mobile

Ok time for my 0.02 cents We the ones opposed to the GRWW project well most of us aren't completely opposed to removing the dams if done in the right manor but this is a shabby at best plan. An inflatable barrier??? come on for real this is Grand Rapids it will get vandalized and what is natural about that? But yes killing a fishing spot not a fishery I agree? fishing spots are all over and I fish a lot of different places not just sixth street But the city generates from my numbers and I own a shop I know what I make down there the city generate about a quarter mil every year off fishermen there not including the ridiculous meter rate. How much will Kayakers generate they need to buy nothing to Kayak down there, just pull it off the roof and take a twenty minute ride down the river to pull it out put it back on the roof and go home. There are many factors to think about 

1- being the inflatable barrier? what happens when if fails? what is the life expectancy? It is a concept that does not go with the restore the natural state of the river. nothing natural about rubber tire across the river
2- removing the dam flooding? what happens when we get high water trees and a huge ice flow? There boulder fields ARE going to get moved by the ice and bridge pylons are most likely going to fail with nothing to break it up.
3-Fishery what is going to happen when we get kayakers during a run fights, drownings, ect...
4- who is financing this a lot of grants which is taxpayer money and could be used for a lot of different and better ways in an economic breakdown.
5- who maintains this when GRWW is gone? GR = broke state of MI.= broke so who? they cant even keep the fish cleaning station open or empty the trash bins. Who is going to pick up all the trash that ends up on these boulder islands chances are it will end up being a catch all looking like a land fill
6- Water rescues are difficult now how about rapids? how do you think the firemen feel about rescues in rapids? How about there families how do they feel about there husband,dad,brother,sister rescuing people in rapids? who is going to buy the Heli needed for rescues?
7- safety there are fights done there as it is you add kayakers and pissed off fishermen not a good combo and we are laying off police already
8- Fish ladder it will be obsolete for people (tourist and Local) to see a magnificent pert of Water wild life
9- places like the Rogue and Thornapple will be flooded with people and problems will get shifted to where fishermen can usually go and not be to crowded and them cities do not the the police force needed to control it.how does Rockford police feel about it?
10- property owners upstream as well as down stream what effect is it going to have they have only studied 2 mile of the river? What effect is it going to have on land value? 

well I could go on and on with the list but us (snaggers and liners) fishing the dam should have a huge say in thing because we know the river better than someone from Colorado will ever know. I personally am not completely opposed to the Restore the river idea just not a Kayakers playground nothing natural about that. 

To Flyfisher

As for being called a snagger think well if ya want we can fish any other river PM, White, Manistee,Big Sauble,Muskegon ect.. and I will still go fish for fish with ya if not more but 6th street is close for one and a great fishery you can as you say snag or line them but when I am up in the boils and have a spawn sack in the fishes gullet I guess I snagged that one and yes I do get foul hooked fish there even on a bobber but they go right back in the river it is still a good spot to go have a fantastic day with a bunch of other sportsman add kayaks not so much fun


----------



## quest32a

J&D Mobile said:


> 6- Water rescues are difficult now how about rapids? how do you think the firemen feel about rescues in rapids? How about there families how do they feel about there husband,dad,brother,sister rescuing people in rapids? who is going to buy the Heli needed for rescues?


Actually I think you are terribly wrong on this front. If you slip in rapids you will generally get pushed out the bottom and live. If you slip near the face of the dam you actually get sucked in and flipped over and over again until you die. I would much rather get sucked down a chute of rapids vs a low head dam. Do a google search on lowhead dams. They are one of the most dangerous things on a river. 

Also, ask the fire dept how much fun it was fishing their boat out of the coffers when it flipped, while trying to rescue another boat that had also flipped. The dam and coffers are far more dangerous than a set of rapids. 

Get the dam out of there and open up the river. Im not a fan of the kayak course thing, but I really don't think it will be nearly as bad as fisherman are making it out to be. 

The one thing I do find kind of funny though is the guys that are against the dam removal in their 1st breath are saying that the kayak course won't even be used and it will be a waste of money and no one will show up. In the next breath they are saying that there will be all sorts of fights because of all the kayakers that will be interfearing with the fisherman. You can't have it both ways.... its only going to be one or the other.


----------



## J&D Mobile

*quest32a*

First off I do believe I said rescues are dangerous as is. second I have slipped many times this year in fact and there is no tumbling or washing machine effect infact you can walk right at the base of the dam now it is only shin deep maybe thigh deep no huge hole to get tumbled in and as far as getting washed out the bottom tell that to the professional kayaker that tried the Trinity river ( kayak course ) that almost drowned in the rapids thirdly ten or fifteen kayaks are enough not tons of kayaks to instigate fight and so on no I do not think there will be tons of kayaks but enough to cause trouble


----------



## jerrob

A river rescue is gonna be dangerous under any circumstance, and more often than not, it's caused by someone's poor judgement and the rescuers don't hesitate to risk their lives to save another. My point being, if there's a river, there's gonna be rescues, dam or rapids.
As far as pro or anti dam removal, if there's not a legitimate concept for a lamprey barrier, dam removal here shouldn't even be on the table. I'm for dam removal, I'm for river restoration and I'm for everyone getting to use the river, it all has to be done correctly. 
What's wrong is one group or another getting preferential treatment and getting sole use of a section of river, whether it be anglers or paddlers. There's nothing stopping paddlers from putting in below the dam and paddling downriver as it is now, however, if this kayak playground goes in, it can deny angler access, be it with "NO-FISHING" signs or the inability to navigate fishing boats through the course. 
A proper lamprey barrier, followed by dam removal, then let Ma Nature run her coarse and let paddlers, anglers and everyone else, have access to the whole river.
Just my$.02


----------



## Trout King

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> The power generating dams will never come down in Michigan. However, I agree that there really is no point to the dams in Hesperia and White Cloud so why not take them down? I'd hate to lose the great blue water fishery above White Cloud but those brookies are introduced and as we have seen in the PM, the browns may actually do better with the biomass from salmon/steelhead/sucker runs from the big lake.
> 
> I think the White would be an ideal stream to stock a lot of Lake Run brown trout.
> 
> I understand that 6th Street is an access liked by many. However, the Grand above Ionia is a much different river than what it is in its lower stretches. It could support sturgeon. Also, the stretch above Sixth Street is terrible. Channeled badly, poor habitat and an absurd flood plain in Comstock Park.


agreed, lyons webber, croton hardy, tippy etc wont 
ever go. i dont see how the dams on the white will degrade the upper white. the browns and brookies will still be there. might be more suckers etc than already what is there, but they are native. the white already has a great lrb fishery, but id like to see more planted there and other rivers...if they find a strain which is truly adranomous, the older guys tell me when they switched they just dont push upriver like they used to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TSS Caddis

Curious, how far did the rapids existed above the dam prior to the dam installation?


----------



## Buckcreekguy

For everyone that is for dam removal this is not a true dam it is considered a spillway and the fish can swim up and over it! I understand that this is a heated subject with many of you and we all want to see a good outcome from this project!
We still need people to come to our Facebook page and hit the like button and show support we are up to 126 likes and growing at the rate of about 4 to 6 a day I know there is a lot more fishermen out there than that! 
What we want to start to do is forming a group of people who will help us get the word out about this project and its pro's and con's some kind of paper pamphlet or flier to show what they could loose or gain from this project! 
In the future we are also looking at T-shirts,bumper stickers and other ways of getting the word out!
We also have been contacting the local media but they are slow to respond!
I also will be personally be selling Steelhead jigs at $1.25 each with all of the monies collected going to this project these jigs are made on heavy duty jig hooks in many colors and styles that work well they can handle a steelhead if your interested in these send me a private message!

If you have any comments or suggestions feel free to post! 

*First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. 
Mahatma Gandhi*


----------



## troutguy26

1.25 a jig? Geez i only charge .75 a jig to the loyal members of MS.


----------



## METTLEFISH

.75!.... thats what a good hook costs!.......


----------



## Buckcreekguy

Your making the .75 I am doing this for a cause so we can have a louder voice I am making the jigs for free see what I am saying!


----------



## troutguy26

METTLEFISH said:


> .75!.... thats what a good hook costs!.......


For the average joe probaly true. But this aint no "ate bait" this is first class.


----------



## J&D Mobile

Lumberman said:


> I just attended a political leaders breakfast the other day and this came up. I was there for a totally different reason but this caught my interest. I hate to say it but someone with a lot of money is backing this deal. I never really paid much attention because I didn't think it would ever happen.
> 
> According to the conversation inheard it sounds like this deal is well on its way.
> 
> Access on the river has been shrinking for a long time now I would say it sounds like fishing the river in GR is on its way out.



Interesting to say the least. If someone with political ties and lots of money is backing this than why hide in the shadows if this is all on the up and up?


----------

