New fish Ladder under Construction on the Credit

[aniceguy]

Finally after yesars of work, countless man hours and more raising a portion of the funds

The Norval Fish Ladder on the Credit River is under construction.

 

CRAA has funded over $120,000 in engineering and construction costs through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (from the US), CFWIP, SARS and internal fundraising work. MNR covered additional engineering costs directly from the local budget and managed to find funding for the construction phase too!

 

The fishway work began on January 10th, 2011 and should be complete by March 31, 2011.

 

If all goes well, CRAA will be lifting steelhead at Norval for the first time ever. Steelhead will be transferred as usual, as steelhead still do not have open access past Norval.

 

Brown trout (non native gamefish), Atlantic salmon, brook trout, redside dace, American Eel and all other native species will have wide open access to the whole middle watershed to the Niagara Escarpment!

 

Anglers and members are reminded that Norval Dam and the fishway sit on a private farm and are strictly private property. Volunteers will be permitted to help at the new ladder when CRAA is operating to lift fish under controlled access. However there is no public access to the fish ladder for any other reason whatsoever.

On a side note MNR i the last few years has spent millions on fish culture with two new facilities ( dorion and Normandale ) this project and much more, sometimes we dont all see the up front working of the mnr but its still there and working on core projects

Edited February 3, 2011 by aniceguy

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

This is excellent news!

[4x4bassin]

How far up the credit can the steelhead get with this fish ladder now ? Is there any other barriers ?

Good job to everyone involved

Edited February 3, 2011 by 4x4bassin

[bigugli]

Wonderful

[Richard S.]

How far up the credit can the steelhead get with this fish ladder now ? Is there any other barriers ?

Good job to everyone involved

 

 

There are but none that will hold back migratory's.

 

 

Rich.

[BillM]

I thought that there was a deal that if this ladder was built an electro barrier(Or something) had to be put in place so these fish wouldn't make it into the UC?

[SRT8 smoker craft]

Good work Louis and John and all the CRAA members gives me hope that I can get things done on my home river

[4x4bassin]

I thought that there was a deal that if this ladder was built an electro barrier(Or something) had to be put in place so these fish wouldn't make it into the UC?

I thought this as well !

[aniceguy]

As part of the Credit river Fisheries managment plan, it calls for a barrier for migratory fish which is currently in progress as an environmental assesment co authored by my self and John. This new ladder will currently not service Rainbow Trout and Pacific Salmon, it might in the future but thats up for much discussion.

 

Those proponants of the salmon restoration program who say its going to ruin a fishery can hang up the hat because its that very program that was the catalist for this new ladder

 

The OMNR manages its fisheries under a classification method, Native fish such as Brook trout, red side dace are at top of this list, followed by naturalized fish Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout then the put delay and take fishery of Pacifics then the invasives at the bottom.

Brown trout in the upper Credit below the cataract based on a genetics as determined by Ontario's leading fish genetisist are one in the same so now migratory browns are given access to the entire watershed, yet rainbows who have been in the system at the minimum from 1956 ( as per MNR ) are not allowed above Norval other then manual transfers to a feed tributary for no other reason then social.

 

For every single document there is an opposing one and there is no clear scientific proof one way or the other bottom line is some studies that say native brookies out compete exotic salmonids and some that say that say they can't compete. Papers that say steelhead whipe out brookies or browns, or that chinook whipe all others out, etc, etc. There are papers that say Atlantic's displace steelhead, steelhead displace Atlantics, browns displace brookies, brookies displace browns, and brookies displace chinooks. For every study that found X there is a study that found Y. Reports from the north shore of Superior suggest brookies seem to do very well with all the wild Pacifics and have developed a sympbiotic relationship there is no clear path, what is clear is that groups such as Trout Unlimited and Issiac Walton Fly fishing Club have in some cases publically and in many cases behind the scenes tried every single approach to not allow Migratory fish above Norval, in fact one president publically stated that there should be no migratories allowed into the river at all.

 

When this FMP was authored and stakeholders were invited there was 1 pro fish Non Governmental Organization ( NGO ) proponant at that table he was dissected from all angles by groups like TU and Issiac Walton and today we see the current managment philosophy on the Credit, again there is no clear scientific proof as to why rainbows should not have full access to the Credit other then a social one argued by the above groups.

 

 

 

There are many who feel that once this managment plan comes for review in 2012 that all migratory fish should be allowed full access right to the cataract, and once we figure out the degree of naurally reproducing chinooks those too should be re classified into the same catagorty as browns and rainbows, and some say have full access to the cataract,two diametrically opposing views, fueled by passsion, and really other then a social reason ( we dont want anything to play with our resident brown fishery)there is no reason to allow this access. On other rivers where brown trout and rainbows intermix there is a grumble that the browns arent taking a dry, with the fry and smolts in the river I might suggest a steelhead patterned streamer

 

Of interest CRAA is also attempting to go a genetic analysis of Credit Brook Trout, as those that fish it for them know many are in the 8 inch range and as full adults are stunted from intermixing from stocked and native animals over the years by MNR, we know where there is potentially an un polluted genetic stream of these fish want to see if we can start the process of restoring the vibrant brook trout to the Credit that once existed.

[solopaddler]

 

This new ladder will currently not service Rainbow Trout and Pacific Salmon, it might in the future but thats up for much discussion.

 

 

 

 

What's the benefit then if steelhead and pacific salmon will not utilize the ladder? Am I missing something here?

[BillM]

Atlantics.

[solopaddler]

Not very impressed as it stands right now.

[canadadude]

What a joke,a fish ladder that dosn't move fish, only in Ontario hahahaha.I'm simply amazed,but not surprised this is typical of the OMNR.

[solopaddler]

The work being done by Louis and others is commendable and very much appreciated.

 

Unfortunately it seems wading through a quagmire of red tap tape takes time.

 

At least this is a positive step and brings hope for the future.

[justin elia]

Building the ladder is the first piece to the puzzle and we are now working on implementation and agreeing on a location for the barrier so that Steelhead and other migratories can access a higher reach in the system. This is a huge step in the right direction and the Credit is becoming a great river with a lot of positive change. Anyone who fished the Credit frequently this fall would agree that this has been by far the best year in quite some time. Im not sure many people are aware of the time and politics involved with an endeavour like this but it took 13 years of work to get here.

 

Another great point is that we won't have to transfer fish as far (previously from Streetsville), and eventually we can sit back and watch the fish do their own thing. Which is what its all about. If we give these fish access, they will pay us back many times over.

 

By lifting at Norval, we will also be able to determine more accurately how many Steelhead and other migratories make it above Streetsville on their own as well.

 

This is a very good thing for the Credit!

 

Kudos to John for his persistence.

[timmeh]

Sorry guys but I'm still a little confused here, maybe I'm missing something but my interpretation is; they're reconstructing the norval dam to allow some migratories (browns) to pass but others (pacific salmon) will not be able to pass. How exactly is that possible? Or they're putting in a barrier above the dam that will keep rainbows out of the upper Credit, but browns and atlantis presumably will pass? I'm sure there are very good intentions for the project but I don't fully understand exactly what's being done.

[solopaddler]

Why is it only now that migratory fish can be lifted and transferred upstream from Norval?

 

Did the landowner not allow you guys access in the past?

 

As has been said this is obviously a step in the right direction but it will do nothing to enhance the current run of steelhead.

[spinnerdoc]

Building the ladder is the first piece to the puzzle and we are now working on implementation and agreeing on a location for the barrier so that Steelhead and other migratories can access a higher reach in the system. This is a huge step in the right direction and the Credit is becoming a great river with a lot of positive change. Anyone who fished the Credit frequently this fall would agree that this has been by far the best year in quite some time. Im not sure many people are aware of the time and politics involved with an endeavour like this but it took 13 years of work to get here.

 

Another great point is that we won't have to transfer fish as far (previously from Streetsville), and eventually we can sit back and watch the fish do their own thing. Which is what its all about. If we give these fish access, they will pay us back many times over.

 

By lifting at Norval, we will also be able to determine more accurately how many Steelhead and other migratories make it above Streetsville on their own as well.

 

This is a very good thing for the Credit!

 

Kudos to John for his persistence.

Deffinitely a step towards the right direction. Hurray for the credit....i'd have to agree last fall was very good.

 

Let me see if i get this, so no steelhead will be lifted? It may not have the effect on the steelhead run at the moment but the prospect of getting full access would be something to look forward to.Whats a year to wait and see?

Edited February 4, 2011 by spinnerdoc

[aniceguy]

Let me preface this by saying the below comments no matter how harsh they seem to be are based on fact and yes it might ruffle some feathers but often said the truth hurts

 

-The Credit is a confusing river sometimes when looking at it from an end users perspective. Ok so the managment plan was created some time ago here is a link to the entire document www.craa.on.ca its on the front page. its a bit of a long read but very insightful, the parts regarding species partition are of particular interest and tie to this well

 

the long of the story.

 

when it was created years ago stakeholders, provided input to the MNR on how the resource should be best managed. Then as I said earlier there was really 1 NGO that was pro fish (let the migratories up and let it sort its self out to a point because brook trout always should be protected) but there were many others who wanted no pacific fish in the river to even come close geographically or physically to impede thier ability to catch resident brown trout ona dryfly. It was surrounded by some very big elitist style anglers who regardless of any pro fish approach stood strong that in no way was Joe public going to come to the forks and catch rainbows or god forbid a chinook or coho. In thier minds this would bring an unwanted group ( you know the general public ) to invade thier holy water,and some within these groups lobbied the MNR and others as hard as they could regardless of whats best for fish in general, they wanted to preserve thier special way and method of fishing harsh but there is truth to this.

 

As part of the David and Goliath story back then the 1 NGO wanting stelhead, chinook, coho and brown access got obliterated by other NGO's and some even say that the MNR was so intimidated it even sided with the ones not wanting the Pacifics and the very same Lake Browns up river, it was simple many ( Goliath ) by shear numbers got what they wanted, no pacifics at all. Now some concessions were made a potential barrier, experimental transfers etc, and we have what we have today.

 

Without the supplimental transfers and stocking done by one NGO the rainbow population would be at best 1000 or so, some stocked some strays, we estimate this years run could touple 5 digits all due to the work of select volenteers

 

A few years back John and I approached the mnr to start to transfer Rainbows to a feeder creek and if you followed its success we each year were transferring more and more fish, this year should again be a record amount also based on what we see, bringing me to the point.

We are seeing a huge influx of new rainbows some strays of course but many new fish from these transfers, now imagine, currently they have a few km of a few tributaries that they couldnt reach without mans help aka the CRAA lifts, while neither Norval or Streestville are perfect barriers some do slip by but with full access its 70 or 80 km of habitat they can reach, simply put imagine a few football fields of total access, right now they can only access about to the 10 yrs line of the first one, imagine if they could go the distance

So you see thats how the story unfolds Right now Atlantics and any Native species can if it could go anywhere in the system, but any introduced fish cant.

Hopefully this explains it better and sorry if I ruffled a few feathers

[BillM]

Lou, if I catch a steelhead at Cataract Falls, I'm going to leave it on your doorstep :)

Edited February 4, 2011 by BillM

[aniceguy]

-just ring the doorbell Bill so we can crack a few beers

[BillM]

LOL!!! Deal

[wallacio]

 

when it was created years ago stakeholders, provided input to the MNR on how the resource should be best managed. Then as I said earlier there was really 1 NGO that was pro fish (let the migratories up and let it sort its self out to a point because brook trout always should be protected) but there were many others who wanted no pacific fish in the river to even come close geographically or physically to impede thier ability to catch resident brown trout ona dryfly. It was surrounded by some very big elitist style anglers who regardless of any pro fish approach stood strong that in no way was Joe public going to come to the forks and catch rainbows or god forbid a chinook or coho. In thier minds this would bring an unwanted group ( you know the general public ) to invade thier holy water,and some within these groups lobbied the MNR and others as hard as they could regardless of whats best for fish in general, they wanted to preserve thier special way and method of fishing harsh but there is truth to this.

 

The hard work over the years from CRAA is definitely commendable and I can understand the frustration when other stakeholder groups have attempted to block efforts with heavy-handed measures. With that said, wouldn't it be more prudent to drop the rhetoric ie "elitists vs the general public" and attempt to work within a compromise that will see an increase in Steelhead numbers which does not potentially jeapordize the already established Brown Trout fishery above Inglewood ie accept the use of an electrobarrier rather than continuing to lobby for unrestricted access of all migratory fish right to the Cataract?

 

Before the usual responses of "Steelhead and Browns can and do co-exist in other systems" start popping up, let me say that I know that they do however it's already been stated by the CRAA executive that results of studies on multi-Salmonid species competition is far from conclusive. No one can definitively state that the Brown Trout population of the UC wouldn't suffer if Steelhead were allowed to spawn there any more than they can say there would be no effect.

 

The Upper Credit Brown Trout fishery is unique to Southern Ontario - a relatively large system which comfortably allows one to fly-fish, it contains good numbers of wild fish (many of them large) and with a great deal of public access. This fishery is enjoyed not by just a handful of "elitists" but by a large cross section of anglers on a daily basis. I know this because I fish there on a regular basis and it's not just the "Orvis Crowd" up there. In fact, they are the minority as most of them are on the Grand where it's easier pickings. You are more likely to find young guys who are passionate about fly fishing, casual anglers throwing a spinner as well as grizzled "Trout Bums" who live out of campers on the backs of their beat-up pick-ups. IMO this is reason enough to leave it the way it is ie by not taking the risk of changing the population dynamincs by allowing migratory Rainbows to gain access as far as the Cataract. Again, from where I sit the electrobarrier below Inglewood would be the ideal compromise - Steelhead would still have access to the tributaries that they are lifted into at the present time as well as the main stem below Inglewood thus increasing their numbers while at the same time not altering the UC Brown Trout fishery that so many of us enjoy as-is.

Edited February 4, 2011 by wallacio

[aniceguy]

The hard work over the years from CRAA is definitely commendable and I can understand the frustration when other stakeholder groups have attempted to block efforts with heavy-handed measures. With that said, wouldn't it be more prudent to drop the rhetoric ie "elitists vs the general public" and attempt to work within a compromise that will see an increase in Steelhead numbers which does not potentially jeapordize the already established Brown Trout fishery above Inglewood ie accept the use of an electrobarrier rather than continuing to lobby for unrestricted access of all migratory fish right to the Cataract?

 

Before the usual responses of "Steelhead and Browns can and do co-exist in other systems" start popping up, let me say that I know that they do however it's already been stated by the CRAA executive that results of studies on multi-Salmonid species competition is far from conclusive. No one can definitively state that the Brown Trout population of the UC wouldn't suffer if Steelhead were allowed to spawn there any more than they can say there would be no effect.

 

The Upper Credit Brown Trout fishery is unique to Southern Ontario - a relatively large system which comfortably allows one to fly-fish, it contains good numbers of wild fish (many of them large) and with a great deal of public access. This fishery is enjoyed not by just a handful of "elitists" but by a large cross section of anglers on a daily basis. I know this because I fish there on a regular basis and it's not just the "Orvis Crowd" up there. In fact, they are the minority as most of them are on the Grand where it's easier pickings. You are more likely to find young guys who are passionate about fly fishing, casual anglers throwing a spinner as well as grizzled "Trout Bums" who live out of campers on the backs of their beat-up pick-ups. IMO this is reason enough to leave it the way it is ie by not taking the risk of changing the population dynamincs by allowing migratory Rainbows to gain access as far as the Cataract. Again, from where I sit the electrobarrier below Inglewood would be the ideal compromise - Steelhead would still have access to the tributaries that they are lifted into at the present time as well as the main stem below Inglewood thus increasing their numbers while at the same time not altering the UC Brown Trout fishery that so many of us enjoy as-is.

 

When I said ruffle feathers I immediately thought of you as I know your passion for those upper Credit fish.

AS I said from the initial post this is a social issue and has nothing to do with the science behind it, it has been a 12 year plus effort to compromise, a few years back I approached a senior member of TU and asked if we can have a dialogue on this very matter, maybe I thought that even though we act as advisors to the MNR a unified front on a location of some sort of barrier would solve this issue once and for all. The answer I recieved was short of graphic but none the less it summed up to not in a milion years.

 

In answer to comprimise, how can there be one when a few stakeholders when given the opportunity to provide input as to a location, dont but in fact say that there should be no barrier, craa transfers shouldnt be allowed and stocking level should be dropped or eliminated all together, please answer that Dave, where is the comprimise there.

 

As to the Upper Credit while there is some uniqueness its far from being a stand alone fishery and I think we both can provide several rivers where the Brown fishing is even better, and yes it is an elitists attitude when one wants to protect one fish and a way of fishing for it, over other fish and multiple methods, its about Pro fish, alot of guys want that no kill removed and allow for fish retention, imagine how that would impact things

We all know have seen and heard of guys up there intimidating someone who isnt fishing a 4wt, this summer I personally know soemone who went up and fished single plastic eggs, a pink worm and such with float gear, only to have a dent in his car, and 3 very regular guys from there pretty much slide next to him and rip him a new one for his technique, thier comments were " you dont belong here" go to erindale.

My parents neighbor a 78 yr old who fished the upper in the 50's took his grandson, they parked at the grange slide down and fished, the boy had a bobber, and a berkley power bait egg sac, off the bridge a few guys ended up tossing rocks in the pool and threatened to call the police due to his angling tactics, of which to old man knew were within his rights, yet another example of the goings on that occur up there, while there are some great guys who fish up there, an equal amount of elitists exist who have said right to my face they would kill and drop in the bush any steelhead parr smolt or mature fish they saw, imagine how I felt hearing that...

The best streches of the upper are dominated by 3 or 4 property owners, of which one is so enraged over garbage that thier access might dissapear this year potenitally complete with private security guards enforcing this No access.

 

A decade ago there might have been comprimise, if groupls like TU and Issiac Walton were willing to even talk, these days growing numbers of anglers lake wise and stream wise are more educated and want more fish and with Ontario's biodiversity and sustaniability stratagy the Credit should be wide open allowing all migratory fish to utilize its avaliable habitat the time for status quo is gone, again if brown trout are managed and classified the same as rainbows and we know genetically the browns in the upper and lake are one in the same, lake run browns are allowed there now, why cant rainbows, when someone can answer that Im all ears until then I stand true that its time for a change

 

Of interest in a recent economic valuation of the credit steelhead out ranked in orders of magnitude all other fish, additional access for steelhead provide additional economic opportunities. Something else to ponder in all my years of lifting fish from Streetsville and with all the open invitations to Trout Unlimited and Issiac Walton I have yet to see any member of thier board or executive come to help with transfers< I wonder why

Edited February 4, 2011 by aniceguy

[wallacio]

CRAA's ongoing vocal criticism of TU and the Issac Walton club is ironic as it seems the same confrontational and uncompromising approach with ramming one's agenda through has now been adopted. I submit that compromise is still the best approach for both sides.