Spiel

State could benefit from increasing lakes stocked with muskie April 18, 2009 Howard Meyerson The Grand Rapids Press Ever wonder about the value of big fish? How an area known for big bass, walleye and pike can capture an angler's imagination? How anglers will fork over big bucks to make a special trip to those waters or go to extraordinary lengths to enjoy them? On the West side of the state, it's big salmon and steelhead. We have a prospering lake fishery for both and active river fisheries up and down the shoreline. In Lake Erie, its walleye. Huron, too. It's lake trout in Lake Superior, large hulking fish that can reach 40 pounds. Even the diminutive perch or bluegill can get angler's going when the fishing is good. Size always is good for fishing. It helps local economies. Fishing gave the state a $1.7 billion boost in 2006, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey. It isn't chump change. Which is why I found the DNR's new muskellunge plan interesting and important. You might think so, too. Public comments are being taken until April 30. In June, the plan goes to the Natural Resources Commission for adoption. The plan calls for expanding the number of waters where big muskie can be found. Right now, there are 111 waters where they can be fished. Only 77 of those have self-sustaining populations. The rest are hatchery products. Natural reproduction doesn't occur. That is mostly because the state uses northern muskies, a strain we get from Wisconsin, which need back bays and shallows to spawn. Development pressures and non-point pollution have resulted in habitat conditions where muskie eggs get covered with silt and do not hatch. The new plan calls for development of Great Lakes muskie broodstocks, a strain native to Michigan and one that can spawn in rivers, rather than muddy shallows. It proposes planting and growing them in drowned river mouths and lower rivers, where they would reproduce successfully and become self-sustaining, saving the state money by eliminating the need for hatchery plants. River mouths are places where muskies can feast on sheepshead, suckers and other rough fish that many feel have become too prevalent. They could reduce those numbers and create a trophy fishery at the same time, an idea many think could boost tourism. "We're trying to increase angling opportunities," said Kregg Smith, a DNR fisheries biologist and co-author for the agency's new muskellunge management plan. "(This approach) will provide anglers with the opportunity to catch big muskies and a way to control non-game fish populations that are now out of control." Great Lakes muskies, he said, still exist in certain Michigan waters such as Lake St. Clair, Torch, Skegemog and Elk lakes. They died off on other river systems as dams were built which limited their upstream spawning migration. Easier to stock inland lakes Michigan's choice to use the northern strain to stock inland waters was a matter of convenience. Wisconsin already grew them. Michigan hatcheries had little space to spare. "It was easier to bring their fingerlings into our limited hatchery," Smith said. "Since that time, we have improved the facility which now gives us the opportunity to collect our own (Great Lakes muskie) eggs in Lake St. Clair." Michigan started with tiger muskies, a hybrid of northern pike and muskie. But it stopped stocking them in 1992, when it switched to northern muskies. The plan now calls for developing three Michigan broodstock lakes for the Great Lakes strain and keeping one northern muskie broodstock lake. The young northern muskies would be planted in waters such as Murray Lake in Kent County where there is little chance of natural reproduction. Smith estimates it will take 8 to 10 years for that to occur. "We are very supportive of the plan," said Will Schultz, president of the Michigan Muskie Alliance, a group of conservation-minded muskie fishermen working to preserve, restore and protect muskies. The group promotes and practices catch and release fishing. Shultz said his group has minor concerns about stocking rates and hopes to see the state adopt a two-tier legal size limit to protect spawning muskies on waters where they naturally reproduce. The plan calls for maintaining the current 42-inch minimum size limit for anglers. "A 48- or 50-inch limit would be appropriate," Schultz said, explaining that Thornapple Lake muskies may be mature at 42-inches, but one grown up north might mature more slowly. It could be 7 years old and 45 inches before it reaches maturity. Fun to catch a whopper That's enough time, you might imagine, to produce a very big fish. Anglers do want them on the wall, Schultz said, but they recognize the inherent value of the fish. Muskies are a limited resource, not unlike sturgeon. Some muskies might be 15 years old. They are capable of living 20 or 30 years. Kill them off and anglers lose future generations. The anglers take a picture instead. The muskies' value alive outweighs its value on the wall.

Time to reel in Atlantic salmon program May 10, 2009 Matt Crawford / www.burlingtonfreepress.com I remember the first time I saw a wild Atlantic salmon. We were on Quebec's Gaspe Peninsula in the autumn, and I stopped on a bridge spanning the Bonaventure River to watch a fly-fisherman casting into a deep pool. The angler had been thigh-deep for about an hour, casting to three or four silvery shapes that flashed deep in the hole below the bridge in the October sun. The fisherman would cast his fly, let it ride down to where the fish laid, and then skitter it across the surface, hoping to anger the big fish into a strike. It didn't work -- at least I didn't see it work -- but he kept at it. Atlantic salmon, after all, are known as the fish of a thousand casts. In New England, particularly on the Connecticut River, Atlantic salmon are the fish of millions of dollars. And like the fisherman who keeps casting to them hoping his luck will change, we continue to pour tens of millions dollars into an Atlantic salmon recovery program hoping our luck will change. The difference is this: The angler, standing in the moving water casting his fly, is expending little more than time. On the Connecticut River, where the Atlantic salmon restoration program has been floundering for more than 40 years, we're spending time and a whole lot of money. Too much money, perhaps. In the wake of the recent news that the federal stimulus package contained an $890,000 earmark for an electrical system upgrade for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's salmon hatchery on the White River in Bethel, it seems as good a time as any to re-examine the Connecticut River salmon restoration program. Even the fisherman under the bridge on the Bonaventure River eventually called it quits. To stand there, doing the same thing, expecting different results just didn't make sense. When is somebody going to reel it in and wade away from this program? For years, I've operated under the belief that the paltry returns of Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut (the runs of anadromous fish were wiped out more than 200 years ago) made ecological sense. Every fish returning was a ray of hope, disregarding the fact that Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have spent millions of dollars on the program since it began in 1967. I've held out hope that science, money and hard work would someday restore a population of fish with deep social and biological importance. But now, with only about 150-200 salmon coming back into the Connecticut River each year, with our federal and state wildlife agencies (indeed, the country as a whole) forced to make difficult financial choices, with decades of science behind us, I wonder if it might be time to give up on the noble dream of restoring runs of Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River. And I know, it's hard to bring it up right now as thousands of school kids in New Hampshire and Vermont are involved in stocking Atlantic salmon fry in tributaries of the Connecticut. But if not now, when? Nobody wants to be the person who will be forever held responsible for allowing Connecticut River Atlantic salmon to become dinosaurs, and yes, the program has been on the cutting edge of fisheries science for years now. But at what cost? What else could the fishery folks in the states and federal agencies involved in the salmon program be doing if that money and time could be re-allocated. I'd love to see Atlantic salmon come back to New England's longest river, and even I'd pay extra money to fish for them if they ever did, but that's not going to happen. If we're going to get serious about climbing out of this country's economic mess, if we're going to get serious about getting our fish and wildlife agencies working on programs that deliver results, it's time to bow out of the Connecticut River Atlantic salmon restoration program. ------------------------------------------------------- Matt Crawford is the former Outdoors editor of the Burlington Free Press. He now contributes two columns a month.

Steelhead jumps into fisherman's boat May 7, 2009 / The Daily News Fishermen have been known to suggest that angling was so good that the fish were jumping into the boat. But that really happened Sunday, according to Jim Toteff of Kalama. Toteff reported that his friend J.R. Taylor of Longview, Taylor’s son-in-law Matt Holde and 7-year-old grandson Braden were fishing on Kress Lake. “A lot of fish were jumping,” Toteff said. “One fish jumped about three times and the third time it landed in the boat.” The surprised fishermen returned the 10-pound steelhead into the lake, but eventually reeled in eight trout. “Forever, Braden will remember the day fishing with his Grandpa,” Toteff said. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has planted 200 surplus winter steelhead in Kress, along with 4,500 catchable-sized rainbow trout since April 24, so angling should still be good, even if you have to actually hook the fish to catch them.

Lake Surveys Will Help Manage Fisheries Lake Surveys Will Help Manage Fisheries Natural Resources Crews Monitoring Northwestern Ontario Lakes May 15, 2009 / www.mnr.gov.on.ca NEWS Provincial fisheries staff will be out on nearly 100 area lakes this summer, monitoring the lakes' health and gathering information to help manage fish populations effectively. Crews will survey lakes north of Ignace, Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake and Kenora by plane and boat from May 16 to September 13, collecting water samples and setting nets. Important dates: Saturday, May 16 - Aircraft begin biweekly aerial angler surveys. Tuesday, May 19 - Aircraft begin landing on survey lakes to collect water samples. Monday, June 15 - Crews begin netting operations. If you're on a lake that is being monitored and see Ministry of Natural Resources buoys, please avoid recreational activities in these areas. All nets will be clearly marked. QUOTE "We want to keep fisheries thriving in Ontario and give anglers the best possible opportunities, now and in the future. Monitoring programs give us the information we need to make effective decisions to keep fish populations strong across northwestern Ontario." - Donna Cansfield, Minister of Natural Resources QUICK FACTS Crews will survey lakes throughout Fisheries Management Zone 4, travelling as far north as St. Raphael Lake Provincial Park and Trout Lake. About 1.4 million anglers fish in Ontario each year. They spend more than $2.3 billion in the province annually. LEARN MORE Read aboutOntario's Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management. Learn about Ontario's new Fisheries Management Zones. Check out the latest Fishing Regulations Summary (ontario.ca/fishing). For More Information Ivan Langrish, Minister's Office, 416-314-2212 Media Desk, Communications Services Branch, 416-314-2106 General EnquiriesNatural Resources Information Centre 1-800-667-1940 TTY 1-866-686-6072 (Hearing Impaired)

PRESIDENT’S FISCAL 2010 BUDGET PROMISES MAJOR ADVANCES IN GREAT LAKES RESTORATION Congress Urged to Fund President Obama’s “Great Lakes Restoration Initiative” For Immediate Release May 14, 2009 / www.glfc.org ANN ARBOR, MI—The Great Lakes Fishery Commission today joined conservation groups, government agencies, industry, and non-governmental organizations in praising President Barack Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a major proposal to better address some of the Great Lakes basin’s most pressing needs. The initiative, included in the president’s fiscal 2010 budget, will direct badly needed funds toward areas such as invasive species, habitat restoration, water quality improvement, and native species recovery. The funds, if appropriated by Congress, would support many restoration proposals put forward by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration initiative and are designed to be the “down payment” in achieving measurable improvements in the Great Lakes ecosystem. “Thousands of citizens and governmental officials participated in the development of a comprehensive recovery plan for the Great Lakes,” said David Ullrich, Executive Director of the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence Cities Initiative, and U.S. Section Chair of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. “We are gratified that President Obama is truly interested in fulfilling his promise to protect and restore the Great Lakes, a national treasure that provides millions of the basin’s citizens with income, recreation, drinking water, and aesthetic beauty.” Ullrich continued: “President Obama’s proposal will direct funds toward carefully considered recommendations to address such problems as invasive species, non-point source pollution, native species restoration, and toxic contamination. The president’s proposal—which consists of $475 million for Great Lakes recovery—will allow us to tackle some of the most pressing problems the region faces.” Ullrich continued: “Investments in the Great Lakes make sense economically and environmentally. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in recovery will result in at least two dollars in economic return. Moreover, the ecological benefits of restoration are immeasurable. The president’s budget acknowledges that Great Lakes restoration is a crucial component of the effort to protect and improve the nation’s natural resources. Ecological recovery means economic recovery and such actions greatly improve the quality of life in the region.” The president’s proposal requires approval by Congress. Ullrich concluded: “The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is extremely pleased with the president’s proposal and looks forward to working with other agencies and private organizations in fulfilling the many high-priority recommendations developed through the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s planning process. The commission hopes Congress will act swiftly on the president’s proposal so that the revitalized process of restoring the Great Lakes can begin immediately.” Contact: Dr. Marc Gaden 734-417-8012

May 14, 2009 Will Elliott / www.buffalonews.com Lake Ontario It happens nearly every fishing contest. Results of the Lake Ontario Counties (LOC) Derby never include fish non-entrants may have caught. For New Jersey angler Carl Brueger, the top prize of $12,500 was just a pleasant fantasy. While fishing mainly for lake trout along the Niagara Bar on a charter with Capt. Lloyd Schrack of Ameri-Can Fishing Charters on Friday, Brueger hooked into a big fish Schrack thought to be a king salmon. When the fish finally was brought close enough to net, the forked tail clearly identified it as a laker. None aboard this booked charter had entered the LOC Derby, but if they had, the trout would not only have taken the Lake Trout Division but also the Grand Prize for the heaviest entry. Brueger’s fish weighed in at 32 pounds, 11 ounces. The Grand Prize winner was a 24.5-pound salmon Thomas Mitchell of Burlington, Vt., caught during the derby. For winners in all divisions, go to loc.org. Both lake trout and king (Chinook) salmon continue as hot targets for drifters and trollers close to the Lake Ontario shoreline. Stick (body) baits trolled early mornings close to shore or spoons and dodger/fly rigs run deeper and later in the morning and day do the trick for a mix of browns, steelies and the odd school of coho salmon along the shoreline at 50-to 125-foot depths. For kings, Wilson-to-Niagara Bar waters draw the most boats and highest king count. In shore, Wilson, Olcott and Oak Orchard harbor waters all draw a good mix of perch, some crappie and the big boys: northern pike and bass. Perch have been the most consistent for schooling and sizes. Niagara River Despite steadily warming waters, steelhead trout still hold in good numbers along lower river drifts. Shore casters have begun seeing more and better perch catches along the Lewiston access sites. Larger ringbacks have shown this past week. Pier access Word from the New York Power Authority has it that work on expanding the parking area at the base of the Robert Moses Niagara Power Project will begin Monday. Access to the fishing pier will remain open during the project but the only parking available will be at the top of the hill. Lake Erie Perch prospects have widened for days when anglers can get boats on Erie’s open waters. Best schooling and catches come from deeper waters, but more spots have been added to the options. Seneca Shoals’ outer edges showed good perch numbers at 42 feet this past week. The Sturgeon Point to Evangola State Park depths continue to produce, but anglers out of Cattaraugus Creek have had good-to-better boat runs directly off Cattaraugus Creek at depths of 48 feet. The walleye bite just isn’t right. Jerry Olejniczak at Penrod Bait & Tackle looks for a slight rise in water temperatures before the night ’eyes open. Best daytime fishing fun has been the bass bite close to Buffalo. Boaters find nice-sized bass along the breakwaters and around shallower sections of rock reefs off the power windmills.

That's practically in my backyard, nice shots!

You know the taxman can put you on a payment plan. Would be good to have you come and join us all again.

Nice! Any chance you can get back for the Lakair weekend, it's been a while.

It matters not! I blame you 100%

True, very true. Only word of caution would be to back the boat in very slowly......steep ramp.

We have pickerel in Canada, Grass Pickerel, Chain Pickerel and Redfin Pickerel.

Exactly. Boaters sue for damage from gasoline blend

I definitely see a new musky rod in your future Joey, started working on it yesterday. Glad you had a "super" day.

Yep, I was drug to most of those places too.

Wow, everywhere I was on Simcoe Monday the water ranged from 42 to 44 degrees.

You are most welcome.

:)

Oh yes Laniel, lovely place. I really need to get back up there and catch some of those monster Kipawa Walleyes.

I had one years and years ago (5 horse), even after a complete rebuild of the carb the thing was piece of crap. Would only start at full throttle and would only run at full throttle and was the most unreliable piece of crap I owned (at the time. ). I once owned a Dodge after that.

That was so wrong!

How many folks here have had there picture taken with a slot fish? How many folks using a conservation license have a picture of themselves with a musky or perhaps a sturgeon? How many folks here follow (to the letter) all the board rules (even the ones you don't agree with)? How many folks here are posting while under the influence of illegal drugs? Or perhaps under the influence of alcohol (besides me)? Did I leave anyone out?

International study team excuses St. Clair R. in Huron water crisis May 6, 2009 Jim Moodie / www.manitoulin.ca LAKE HURON A much-anticipated report on the role of the St. Clair River in lowering the level of Lake Huron has largely exonerated the Sarnia outflow while placing most of the blame for water loss on climate change. On Friday, members of the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) board released findings of an investigation to determine "whether the conveyance capacity of the St. Clair River has changed, to assess if there is ongoing erosion in the river bed, and to identify other factors that may be affecting water levels," according to the report's authors. Titled Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels: St. Clair River, the draft study has concluded that erosion of the river is not appreciable at this point and is recommending that no remedial measures be undertaken to stopper the flow from Huron to Lake Erie. Boaters, cottagers and tourist operators on Lake Huron have been pointing to the lake's unregulated outlet as a key factor in the draining of upstream H20, particularly since the river was dredged in the 1960s and has been impacted by other human activities since. But the IUGLS board has largely discounted those concerns, arguing that the situation on the St. Clair has stabilized and other forces are at fault for waning Huron water. "A key finding from the range of studies of the sediment and hydrology of the St. Clair River is that the river bed has not experienced any ongoing erosion since 2000," reads the report. "Rather, the river bed appears to have been stable since at least 2000." The study panel did document a deepening of the river bed over the period of 1962-2006, but attributes much of this to a "a major event or series of events," notably ice jams, that were experienced in the mid-1980s, and resulted in "a temporary increase in flows." Packed ice, such as a major clogging that occurred on the St. Clair River in 1984, "can temporarily increase the force of the water's flow over a river bed by forcing the same volume of water to flow through a much smaller, constricted channel," the report notes. Water upstream of the jam gets backed up, while the flow under the ice is more intense than usual and "can trigger river-bed scouring," plus the depositing of sediment downstream. Further erosion occurs when the ice jam breaks up, the report notes. Extreme fluctuations in the levels of the Great Lakes during the mid-1980s "could have played a role in the relatively rapid change in the river's conveyance as well," according to the report. But the increase in outflow from Lake Huron via the St. Clair did not continue unabated, the researchers say; by the end of the 1980s, the river's conveyance level "had returned to pre-change conditions." Investigators determined that the "head drop," or difference in water levels, between Lakes Huron and Erie plummeted by 23 centimetres (nine inches) over the span of 1962 to 2006, with the ice-related erosion of the mid-'80s accounting for some of that. But crustal rebound-the rising of the earth's upper layer in the aftermath of the last glacier-has also been a factor in dropping Huron water, as has, to an even greater degree, climate change. "This factor has become even more important in recent years, accounting for an estimated 75 percent of the decline between 1962 and 2006," reads the report. Calling climate "the main driver of the lake-level relationships," the study authors point out that "there has been a persistent decline in net total supply of water to Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron over the past two decades that has resulted in declining lake levels and a change in the relationship to Lake Erie." Pinning Huron's water woes primarily on natural causes is not going over well with members of the Georgian Bay Association (GBA), which earlier commissioned its own hydrological study of changes to the St. Clair River and determined that shoreline alteration and mining activities at Huron's outlet are contributing to a loss of 12 billion gallons per day. The GBA has been swift to criticize the findings of the IUGLS, accusing the study board of using flawed data, screening out other important information that might have yielded a more urgent response to the problem, and failing to react with an appropriate sense of alarm to the issues it does identify. The IUGLS study confirms that "six billion more gallons of water are flowing out of Lakes Michigan and Huron per day as compared to 1971," according to a release from the GBA. Yet it refuses to recommend any structural changes, such as the installation of a weir or the laying of substrate on the river bottom, as the GBA had hoped might be the case. "The fact that it completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing," said Roy Schatz, the founding president of the GBA Foundation, in a release. Bill Bialkowski, a retired engineer and member of the GBA's Water Level Committee, suggested, in the same release, that the IUGLS panel ignored critical data. "The study board needs to move to a higher level of science in order to understand this complex river," he charged. "It appears that sources were carefully screened to support preconceived conclusions." The report's authors, however, maintain that the research was sweeping and impartial. "The report is the product of intense effort by a 10-member binational study board of experts and public members, who commissioned 42 research projects that engaged over 100 scientists," they point out. The St. Clair report is just one phase of an ongoing, multi-year study of the upper Great Lakes that was launched by the International Joint Commission, a quasi-judicial body established by the United States and Canada under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to prevent and resolve disputes concerning the shared freshwater resource. Funded equally by the US and Canadian governments, the Upper Lakes study group will now proceed to the next stage of its mandate, which is to examine the outflow from Lake Superior to Lake Huron via the St. Mary's River and recommend any physical or regulatory changes that may be required. In the meantime, a series of public meetings have been scheduled for input on the St. Clair River scientific report, including one slated for Little Current on May 20. The session will occur from 7-9 pm at the Little Current-Howland Recreation Centre.

Warning markers to be placed at eight GRCA dams May 06, 2009 / www.grandriver.ca The Grand River Conservation Authority is installing warning markers upstream of dams on the Grand, Nith and Speed rivers to provide additional notice to canoeists and kayakers to stay away from the dams. Installation is planned for these dates, although the scheduled is subject to change due to weather conditions: Friday, May 8 – Wellington Street Dam, Guelph – two buoys Monday, May 11 – Dunnville Dam, including Weirs 1, 2 and 3 – four buoys Tuesday, May 12 – Caledonia Dam – four buoys Tuesday, May 12 – Wilkes Dam, Brantford – three buoys Wednesday, May 13 – Parkhill Dam, Cambridge – four buoys Wednesday, May 13 – New Hamburg Dam – three buoys Thursday, May 14 – Bissell Dam, Elora – one buoy Thursday, May 14 – Drimmie Dam, Elora – boom The buoys are marked with a bright red diamond, which is an international warning symbol for boaters. They are in addition to existing warning and portage signs. The number of buoys at each dam depends on the width of the river. The boom at Drimmie Dam spans the river and consists of floats linked together with a chain. These dams are "run of the river" or "low head" dams. The water upstream of the dams can be still and placid, but the area downstream can be dangerous. Strong currents at the base of the dam can capsize a canoe or kayak and trap the occupant underwater. Buoys or booms have already been put in place at other GRCA dams: Rockwood, Conestogo, Woolwich, Shand and Guelph. For more information on river flows, see the River Data of the GRCA web site. Download a copy of a river safety pamphlet for children. Further information: Dave Schultz, GRCA Manager of Communications Phone: (519) 621-2763, Ext. 2273 Fax: (519) 621-4844 E-mail: [email protected]

The Maskinonge River needs our help! The Maskinonge River Recovery Project can help Where is the Maskinonge River? The Maskinonge River headwaters, or starting point, begin in the south near Queensville (East Gwillimbury) and in the north near Lockie Road (Georgina).The river flows through Ontario's Greenbelt through Keswick into Lake Simcoe. Problems The Maskinonge River's water quality and quantity as well as fish and wildlife habitat have declined steadily. This is a result of poor land stewardship practices like the removal of shoreline vegetation, increased urbanization and poor farming practices. This degradation has resulted because of a combination of many factors. Ultimately, it is because of poor land use practices in both the urban and rural areas of the subwatershed. A subwatershed is the area of land that drains into the river. Why Should I Care? The Maskinonge River subwatershed area encompasses 4,733 parcels of land -- one of those could be yours! Many of you use the Maskinonge River for recreation, for wildlife viewing, for fishing, for aesthetics from your property. It is also used by numerous fish and wildlife species as their home and drinking water source. In fact, the snapping turtle which is a species of concern (a species of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events), has been identified in the Maskinonge River. The Maskinonge River subwatershed is in bad shape - but the collective action of individuals can revive it. What's Being Done? In 1998, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Town of Georgina, along with input from the community, developed the Maskinonge Remedial Strategy. This identified some of the problems with the Maskinonge River subwatershed. Now, with the Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund, there is a developing project called the Maskinonge River Recovery Project (MRRP) comprised of groups like: the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority; Save the Maskinonge; York Environmental Stewardship; the Town of Georgina; and the Town of East Gwillimbury to work with the Maskinonge community to clean up the subwatershed. How Can I Help? After two public workshops, the MRRP has established a public committee to help develop a stewardship and education plan for the Maskinonge River subwatershed over the next several months. In the meantime, you can help by: Help us spread the word about the state of the Maskinonge River subwatershed Sign up for a free property visit if you are a Maskinonge subwatershed landowner Tell us if you are interested in what we are doing so we can keep you informed of upcoming Maskinonge events and ways you can participate What is a property visit? A property visit is free and is conducted by a MRRP project partner staff. Typically, they would come out to your property on a mutually agreed date for 1/2 - 1 hour to discuss with you any environmental questions, concerns, and/or issues you might have as a Maskinonge landowner. From there, they would discuss with you any potential environmental projects that might be suitable for your property. If there is a project that you would like to do, they would help you finding funding (typical cost share right now is about 50% from the Conservation Authority and 50% from the landowner or other sources) and filling in the necessary paper work. Examples of Potential Projects: tree planting removing hardened shorelines and replacing with naturalized, gradual sloping shorelines naturalizing (either through planting or by not mowing) the river's edge thus increasing the riparian buffer enhancing an existing wetland removing in-stream barriers etc All with our help! You don't have to do this alone Who do I contact to get involved? Please contact: Andee Pelan, Maskinonge River Covery Project Coordinator Phone: (905) 895-1281 ext. 244 E-mail: [email protected] More reading Maskinonge Remedial Strategy York Environmental Stewardship Landowner Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP) Town of Georgina Town of East Gwillimbury