Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Boardman River fish passage comments due!

4K views 24 replies 9 participants last post by  Trout King 
#1 ·
Today is the LAST day to fill out your comments on the Boardman River fish passage survey:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-408679--,00.html

If you fish this river, or have a passion for inland trout fisheries, please take some time to submit your thoughts. While the dam removal process has been covered by a lot of media, the fish passage component has not. The DNR is proposing to operate the lower weir exactly the same as they do now, which is to block most of the Chinook run, but certainly not all of it. In addition, a good portion of the coho run occurs after they remove the lower weir. Steelhead will be totally unimpeded. Please let them know how you feel about this.

As for my thoughts - the MDNR is determined the make the Boardman a steelhead nursery, although they at least claim to be interested in getting comments from the public. To the extent they care to listen to us, I urge you to let them know how you feel about letting steelhead and salmon upstream. Long ago, fresh from grad school and firmly entrenched in my steelhead river rat days, I would have been all about steelhead and coho introduction. After all, if you have good habitat, all species should do fine in theroy. In fact, browns will often do great when provided the additional forage of fry and smolts. The PM is a great example of this in action. However, since Brown Bridge was removed I have been carefully observing how the brook trout have responded to the new coldwater regime and it has been amazing. There are young brookies showing up in big numbers all through out the old impoundment and even down along River Rd section now. However, once steelhead and coho smolts start to out-compete them, the rebounding brookies will suffer. Just like you find in the PM. Sure, there are a few brookies below M-37 in the PM, but the vast majority are relegated to the small trib streams and the uppermost reaches of the mainstream where a 6' rod touches the other bank.

In addition, back in 2012 Norte Dame concluded a bioaccumulation study looking into the toxicology impacts of consuming salmon eggs on brook trout. It was a well done study with solid control samples for comparison.

http://news.nd.edu/news/research-reveals-migrating-great-lakes-salmon-carry-contaminants-upstream/

Frankly, these results shocked me and are what cemented my opposition to steelhead and salmon introduction into the upper Boardman. The MDNR does not like these results and they are now supposedly pursuing their own version of this study. I have not heard any updates on how that is going or what the results are, but it will be interesting to see.

Again, please take a minute to give them your own $.02 on the issue.

Fish on,
Matt
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Thanks for posting. The DNR's own extensive study showed that steelhead introduction reduces brown trout by 50%. The PM and Bear Creek are exceptions to the rule and Fisheries has no solid theory what makes them different, everywhere else browns and brooks have a terrible time competing with steelhead.
 
#5 ·
LOL. You've never understood how the system works and still don't. All you have to comfort yourself is your sense of victimhood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: carsonr2
#6 ·
And tell me since you know so well. Where and when do they listen to the masses and not the specual interest or there choice? Since your so in love with everything they do? Public voted on chumming and despite the people voting being in favor it was banned.which make the lil fly twitchers like you happy..... 57 per. Approoval on aprs. No changes made....?nobody wants lake trout...lets plant more...lets see some examples rather than just bad mmouting me for having an opinion with examples to back it.
 
#7 ·
Where and when do they listen to the masses and not the specual interest or there choice?
This is where you make your mistake because you don't understand how the system works. The DNR doesn't make the rules but you bkame the biologists for it anyway. I'll give two examples.
1. The chumming ban. The DNR was against it. They said so in their presentations to the NRC and said there was no biological justification for it. The politicians on the NRC wanted it anyway and sent the DNR back to the drawing board to come up with multiple options so they could pass something. The DNR did what their bosses told them to do and we got a ban.

2. The ten brook trout limit in the UP. The DNR was lobbied to go back to that limit. They took public comments, the public was against it. They said the science showed that it might hurt brookies populations and size structures so they recommended against it. The NRC said "We don't care, make a bunch of streams 10 and do more studies". The DNR did as their bosses told them to do. The studies showed that yes, the higher limit was harmful and should be lowered. The NRC said "We don't care. Come up with a plan to raise the limit". And we got the ten brookie limit. Don't blame the DNR, blame the NRC and the silly people who thought that seven politicians would somehow be more *science based* than the professionals.
 
#10 ·
The limit will change for 2018. DNR is making up a short list to exclude for Coaster protection.
 
#11 ·
Beitner/Keystone would be a great place to put a fish blocking weir.


In my minds eye I'm trying to envision steelhead up in the north & south branch, and all the damage that will result from it...
 
#14 ·
I suspect that is the end goal.
Indeed - that is their exact goal.

The upper Platte is another perfect example of the fishery they are trying to create on the Boardman, where you have a piscivorous brown trout fishery (fish eating) and basically zero brook trout in the mainstream. The upper Boardman brown trout population will also change. Brown trout numbers will be lower overall due to the massive interspecfic competition from newly hatched salmon and steelhead and superimposition of redds (steelhead digging up brown and brook trout redds) - however there will be a few more larger brown trout around, which is what the DNR hangs their hat on. They will say 'look, what's the problem? There's big brown trout here'.... but the numbers of 8-14" fish will pretty much always go down... and they will in the Boardman too. But the DNR really doesn't care about those 'small' trout - their goal, at least in NW lower, is to appease the salmon and steelhead crowd.

The fact that some dudes on here continue to spout off about fly-fishing favoritism by managers is absurd and completely misses the main problem we ALL face - which is the blatant favoritism for steelhead and salmon fisheries that comes at the expense of our inland trout fisheries. The fact that dudes are focused on arguing how to angle for trout is one of our biggest problems. We should all be concerned about the presence or absence of the trout first - THEN figure out how to manage the angler. We are now a divided constituency, which makes it even harder to stand up for what spin fisherman, worm dunkers and fly fisherman ALL want - more trout in the river. Time to get our heads out of the sand and start advocating for inland trout populations and put some limits on this steelhead/salmon dominance that is being forced on every possible river system with a connection to Lake Michigan. After all - pretty much all of these species are introduced so you would think that the user groups would have at least some say in how they are managed.
 
#15 ·
And tell me since you know so well. Where and when do they listen to the masses and not the specual interest or there choice? Since your so in love with everything they do? Public voted on chumming and despite the people voting being in favor it was banned.which make the lil fly twitchers like you happy..... 57 per. Approoval on aprs. No changes made....?nobody wants lake trout...lets plant more...lets see some examples rather than just bad mmouting me for having an opinion with examples to back it.
So - your a bait proponent that feels ignored. I'm a trout proponent that feels ignored. We both feel ignored here. Just because my son and I prefer to use a fly rod at times and then use worms/spinners at other times does not make us exclusively 'fly twitchers' or 'bait dunkers'. We're fisherman. Stop hating and blaming fellow fisherman for the personal preferences of the DNR managers and their political bosses, the NRC. All trout fisherman want is more trout. Period. Let's work together to try and get more trout for everyone to fish for. And looky there - I've helped to hijack my own thread.
 
#17 ·
Nothing is final but I do think they have a preferred outcome. Pretty sure they will want to put in some sort of lamprey barrier. How far upstream and how permanent it is are two points that can be debated and it can serve as a maximum upstream point for migratory fish.

Another point of opposition to allowing silver fish free rein in the river is the circus those fisheries can to bring with them. Locals have already expressed concerns over increased trespass and over use of access areas and let's face it, they have a point. There are areas that get a little out of hand during the runs, from Berrien Springs right on up Benzonia, as well as ample trespass complaints along the PM and locals who are concerned about that can get their city/county commissioners as well as State Reps to contact the DNR or NRC and make their objections clear. As we have already seen, a few well connected people can have a lot of sway with the NRC and I suspect there are some well connected people in Grand Traverse County.

One last thing. The DNR's own studies show that the introduction of steelhead is harmful to native and naturalized fish populations. Allowing steelhead into the headwaters would be causing biological harm for a perceived social benefit and the NRC should oppose it for that reason alone. If the NRC does oppose it for that reason I'll buy a round of drinks at the local tavern of your choice.
 
#18 ·
The first decision by DNR is to inform the FISHpass project with objectives for a fish passage research project below the Union Street Dam in Traverse City. We basically want them to come up with technology that would allow passage of all fish and stop passage of all fish. A system like this would give us the most flexibility for future fisheries management. There is interest in passing all native fish and stopping all invasive fish. I think that we can all agree on that. As far as allowing salmon and steelhead, that is yet to be decided in terms of if, how many and what species.

With this system, we could test certain hypothesis in regards to the effect of steelhead on brook and brown trout. Is there a threshold that would allow some steelhead to reproduce in the system that would have minimal impact on trout? If there isn't and the decision is to manage for brown and brook trout only, steelhead could be stopped.

There is great interest to at least pass native species to take advantage of new habitat uncovered by these dam removals.

The conversation of steelhead and salmon can continue while the project is designed and tested.
 
#20 ·
Native species? I have heard the talk about sturgeon but what else. There are virtually zero brook trout below Union St dam. Heck there a very few below Sabin either. I like steelhead and salmon fishing as much as everyone else but do we need ANOTHER river full of them? I have no issue driving to the Platte, Bestie, Manistee and others. What about type 1 regulations? The river upstream of Sabin is closed during the big spring and fall runs. With these fish in the system, people will be in there trying to catch them in closed waters. How about access? There is very little on a long stretch of rage middle river. The majority of anglers I have talk with are 100% against this.
 
#19 ·
This is where you make your mistake because you don't understand how the system works. The DNR doesn't make the rules but you bkame the biologists for it anyway. I'll give two examples.
1. The chumming ban. The DNR was against it. They said so in their presentations to the NRC and said there was no biological justification for it. The politicians on the NRC wanted it anyway and sent the DNR back to the drawing board to come up with multiple options so they could pass something. The DNR did what their bosses told them to do and we got a ban.

2. The ten brook trout limit in the UP. The DNR was lobbied to go back to that limit. They took public comments, the public was against it. They said the science showed that it might hurt brookies populations and size structures so they recommended against it. The NRC said "We don't care, make a bunch of streams 10 and do more studies". The DNR did as their bosses told them to do. The studies showed that yes, the higher limit was harmful and should be lowered. The NRC said "We don't care. Come up with a plan to raise the limit". And we got the ten brookie limit. Don't blame the DNR, blame the NRC and the silly people who thought that seven politicians would somehow be more *science based* than the professionals.
i actually do understand. As i was at many of the nrc meeting's about the chumming issue. So i guess its a state issue. I do not agree with many of the issues with the dnr or the nrc. I dont blindly follow and trust anything they say...book smarts do not always make you smart. I spend 250 days or more on the water a year so i do know whats going on in areas. I dont just flyfish although i do. I fish and do very well in bass tournys. Ice tournys along with big lake tournys. I think you assume i just wamt to bad mouth all the issues but i have a right to disagree with issues i dont agree with. Do you think wis. Bios are dumber than ours? Why did they cut there lake trout and then we took them? When the 10 charter captains i talk with weekly along with all my other buddies and myself see 90%ales in lakers should we just say well these are all the exceptions most eat all gobies? There are issues with the way things amd decisions are being made across the state.
 
#21 ·
I have letters and comment from those both for and against. Regulations will have to be discussed depending on fish management strategy. Maybe a type 4 to allow harvesting other species than trout like suckers. There is already an effort to gain more access to the river to support recreational activities regardless if salmon are allowed to pass.
 
#22 ·
I have never seen nor have I ever caught a sucker upstream of Sabin dam, is this what we have to look forward to?

There are accesses needed between Garfield & Shumsky and between Shumsky and Keystone.
 
#24 ·
If the DNR wants to test certain hypothesis in regards to the effect of steelhead on brook and brown trout there is a perfect place for that. It’s called Hunt Creek.

Unfortunately, anyone who has slightly followed this has realized that DNR fisheries has wanted to dump steelhead in the Boardman from day one and have been the number one cheerleader for that outcome. Any so-called conversation or process is nothing more than window dressing as far as DNR fisheries is concerned.

The only hope is the Grand Traverse Band. They have a say in the decision. Hopefully they won’t prioritize the big lake fishery at the expense of inland trout.
 
#25 ·
I could see the Boardman as being one of the best producers of steelhead in the state, if the fish are given access to the upper. Being a trout fisherman I would also like to see some places kept for trout, including brookies without migratory runs tearing up gravel and not having smolts compete with resident trout species. An observation over my years of trout fishing is; streams with no steelhead runs/closed streams do not have the amount of bank erosion, litter, or human destruction. Some places are best left alone and without migratory steelhead and salmon.

Would it be possible to compromise and give steelhead some access to suitable spawning grounds, while not allowing them too far up? Maybe strategically place a weir for egg collection etc, then harvest the salmon and let the steel go back below the barrier?

Probably a pipe dream, but just a thought. I have little experience with the Boardman, I have only trout fished the N and S Branches above the split, but those fish are some of the most beautiful I have encountered in the state and plenty of them to boot.

I have fished for salmon and steel in town also, but as any other urban fishery, it seems to be eroded and abused by the minority (slobs).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top