New fish Ladder under Construction on the Credit

[mark02]

The UC stakeholders have definitely gone overboard with their tactics however they they are attempting to protect a fishery that is unique to Southern Ontario. Protecting this interest is no different or "narrow minded" than the unlimited access Credit Steelhead lobby. There are far more healthy and accessible Steelhead rivers in Ontario than there are good resident Brown fisheries...why POTENTIALLY lower the fishing quality on the UC by allowing migratories up that far? As I've stated previously an electrobarrier well above Norval but below the UC would benefit both groups.

 

It's no surprise that those who support unlimited steelhead access are ones who do not fish the UC on a regular basis...it's easy to brush-off the fishery as trival when one does not utilize it. I can assure you that these feelings are not shared on message boards that actually represent the stakeholders that do use it.

[solopaddler]

The UC stakeholders have definitely gone overboard with their tactics however they are attempting to protect a fishery that is unique to Southern Ontario. Protecting this interest is no different or "narrow minded" than the unlimited access Credit Steelhead lobby. There are far more healthy and accessible Steelhead rivers in Ontario than there are good resident Brown fisheries...why POTENTIALLY lower the fishing quality on the UC by allowing migratories up that far? As I've stated previously an electrobarrier well above Norval but below the UC would benefit both groups.

 

It's no surprise that those who support unlimited steelhead access are ones who do not fish the UC on a regular basis...it's easy to brush-off the fishery as trival when one does not utilize it. I can assure you that these feelings are not shared on message boards that actually represent the stakeholders that do use it.

 

I should qualify my statements that I fly fish and I'm alos an avid (float-fishing) Steelheader, who actually spends far more time chasing Steel than I do resident Trout. I simply appreciate both equally.

 

Dave I'll wager I've fished those waters more than most over the years yourself included.

 

I don't believe allowing steelhead access to those waters will harm native fisheries in the slightest.

 

That pretty much ends the argument for me.

[canadadude]

Dave I'll wager I've fished those waters more than most over the years yourself included.

 

I don't believe allowing steelhead access to those waters will harm native fisheries in the slightest.

 

That pretty much ends the argument for me.

Totally agreed, thanks Solo

[wallacio]

Dave I'll wager I've fished those waters more than most over the years yourself included.

 

 

My comment was not directed at any one person, rather a general observation...it's no surprise that those who support unlimited access are USUALLY only Steelheaders who do not fish the UC as well. Take it from someone who fishes there on a regular basis in the recent past, you'd be hard pressed to strike up a conversation with anyone who is knee-deep in the water there on any given day who actually supports unlimited migratory fish access there.

Edited February 6, 2011 by wallacio

[solopaddler]

 

My comment was not directed at any one person, rather a general observation...

 

 

Well you quoted me and included this statement in your reply:

 

"It's no surprise that those who support unlimited steelhead access are ones who do not fish the UC on a regular basis...it's easy to brush-off the fishery as trival when one does not utilize it. "

 

 

 

 

Take it from someone who fishes there on a regular basis in the recent past, you'd be hard pressed to strike up a conversation with anyone who is knee-deep in the water there on any given day who actually supports unlimited migratory fish access there.

 

 

 

That's just sad.

[aniceguy]

opps sorry if my prior post lead to some heated dialogue, that wasnt the intent, I wanted to show a glimpse of the issues surrounding the Credit and as I said the only issue to access is social, one group wants it one doesnt.

Canada Dude please re read my posts in there it explains why and how this ladder would be managed and the reationale behind it.

[canadadude]

opps sorry if my prior post lead to some heated dialogue, that wasnt the intent, I wanted to show a glimpse of the issues surrounding the Credit and as I said the only issue to access is social, one group wants it one doesnt.

Canada Dude please re read my posts in there it explains why and how this ladder would be managed and the reationale behind it.

thankyou....I have read your posts and I understand your reational, I may not agree with it, but please understand my concerns aswell, you guys do a great job I will admit!!!!!! but sorry I like to critisize somtimes, and I still think I,d like to more on this fish ladder hahahha,. I'm a crap disturber dude so anyway, I'll be honest learned alot from the thread and sorry if I infact derailed it badly. I may not agree but I am open to everyone's opinion and this one is a can of worms I and as you people there is alot of opinion on the Credit River, more then I would of thought and acctualy some great points on both sides

Edited February 6, 2011 by canadadude

[wallacio]

Poor choice of words on my part, again not my intent to single anyone out.

 

As for it being "sad" that the push for unlimited access is generally not supported by those who enjoy the fishery on a regular basis, it GENERALLY comes from a place of genuine concern (though I will admit there are closed-minded individuals in the mix) for what they are passionate about and if that's your definition of "sad" well...

 

Personally I've not seen any conclusive studies that would suggest that the Brown Trout fishery will not be negatively affected (density or fishing quality) any more than I've seen evidence that it will. I would more than pleased to read actual scientific data (not just opinions) that would indicate the Browns would not be affected (or even better, increase in number, size etc) if migratory fish were allowed unrestricted access. How could I not, it would be an amazing win-win scenario. To that end, I've asked John if he'd be so kind as to provide such data. Until that time those of us who feel passionately about the UC choose to err on the side of caution. I can only hope that the actual decision makers as the process moves forward are as equally objective.

Edited February 6, 2011 by wallacio

[wallacio]

opps sorry if my prior post lead to some heated dialogue, that wasnt the intent, I wanted to show a glimpse of the issues surrounding the Credit and as I said the only issue to access is social, one group wants it one doesnt.

Canada Dude please re read my posts in there it explains why and how this ladder would be managed and the reationale behind it.

 

No worries Louis...civil debate on this issue is a good thing!

[moemoe]

Between this post and the one on spoonpullers, I am trying to gain information on this subject, I am a lake troller, I wasn't in 98-02 when the stakeholders regarding this, made their laws and decisions, that being said why weren't the lake trollers asked, supposedly there are future meetings regarding this and i will do by damnest to be at those meetings, What I do find odd is there is not one opinion stating, "please leave steelhead and chinooks out the upper credit", on this board and spoonpullers, there is a 100% unison from members and posters to open up the river to all species. I do find it to be odd that there is more segrated opinion open to to allow steelhead access to all parts of the river but not chinook, because steelhead are a foreign species but have been a foreign species for longer. It's like the insurance company commercial that when one new kid wants some ice cream, he is told no, but the new kid who is "new..er" is asked chocolate or vanilla, and here it is

[justin elia]

My comment was not directed at any one person, rather a general observation...it's no surprise that those who support unlimited access are USUALLY only Steelheaders who do not fish the UC as well. Take it from someone who fishes there on a regular basis in the recent past, you'd be hard pressed to strike up a conversation with anyone who is knee-deep in the water there on any given day who actually supports unlimited migratory fish access there.

 

Ideally, every fish (and I mean all fish, not just steelhead) SHOULD have the ability to use their home river as they choose, whether it be up to Streetsville, Noval, Ingelwood or the Cataract. We should not have to decide for them, but in the interest of the various stakeholders on the Credit specificaly, we (CRAA) always try to come to a fair compromise when dealing with issues like barrier placement for example. The fact of the matter is, is that only the groups that represent the UC, dont use the whole system and are only interested in one fish (Brown Trout).

 

I agree with you Dave on your point, no angler who fishes the UC would want to see unlimited access for all fish. And in my opinion, its quite an "elitest" attitude by those anglers. It really should be about whats best for the FISH, not whats best for me. If we all thought that way I think our fisheries would be in much better shape and every group would have more opportunities to catch fish.

[wallacio]

Ideally, every fish (and I mean all fish, not just steelhead) SHOULD have the ability to use their home river as they choose, whether it be up to Streetsville, Noval, Ingelwood or the Cataract. We should not have to decide for them, but in the interest of the various stakeholders on the Credit specificaly, we (CRAA) always try to come to a fair compromise when dealing with issues like barrier placement for example.

 

Really? It would now seem that CRAA's position (based on opinons expressed by two of your executive members) that they no longer even support a barrier and believe that there should be unlimited Steelhead access to the Cataract. If this is not the case, please clarify.

 

 

It really should be about whats best for the FISH, not whats best for me. If we all thought that way I think our fisheries would be in much better shape and every group would have more opportunities to catch fish.

 

I agree with you HOWEVER you and the rest of CRAA make such statements on the huge assumption that opening up access to the entire system to migratories is actually going to be good for the UC Brown Trout population...I (and others) am not convinced it will until I see evidence to the contrary (which I have requested from CRAA and to date have not seen any). If unrestricted access turns out to be a bad thing for the long established UC fishery then it really won't have been best for the FISH will it? It will have only benefitted one group's agenda which CRAA is quick to critize other stateholder groups of doing. With that said, if data exists that shows the the UC Brown population would benefit from unrestricted access by Steelhead and others let me publically state that I'll be the first person to say throw open the gates!

 

Will there be any upcoming public meetings as things move forward (as I'd certainly like to attend) in order to continue to stay informed?

[john from craa]

Dave, when I have time I will pull some info together for you. But understand that is way down on my priority list as we have shows, the fishway construction, fish lifts, hatchery work, tree plantings and dozens of funding apps to do, not to mention my family life comes first. I am also waiting on updated data from a few sources via MNR and that could take some time.

 

And let me be clear, CRAA is not a steelhead club. CRAA is a pro fish club, unlike a few other groups active in the river that only work on 1-2 species. And I understand you are new to the UC. I am not. I have fished it since I was a kid and have freinds that have fished it since the 40's. You may note (if you have looked), that 1/3 of CRAA's exec team are mainly fly anglers and several only fly fish, with one being a past TU board member too. I think Louis is the only exec that does not fly fish...but he bass fishes so I guess we can let it slide). And note 1/2 of the clubs exec are also lake anglers (past and present) with boats and riggers. I know quite a few UC anglers that support wide open access and many UC land owners that also support wide open fish access. Yes there are some that are totally oppossed and many others that are somewhat oppossed because they have been fed false info based on long standing steriotypes.

 

To look from the other side, why should non native, exotic brown trout introduced from Europe be given special segregation from another exotic (steelhead or chinook or coho)? Are they special? And especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest the browns hurt the native brook trout. And by having a dam that blocks migration to protect the non native browns 100% fur sure hurts native fish including brookies, bass, etc, etc that become isolated or blocked from spawning by the dam.

 

It is important for anglers to attend public meetings, be informed and work with others and MNR. Too many simply sit on the riverbank letting things pass by and complain after the fact.

 

And Canadadude - CRAA is very aware of the economic benefits of the fishery - we funded some research and have been involved in several studies and CRAA runs a fish hatchery and we stock steelhead collected from wild parents every spring so I think we are also well aware of the benefit a good stocking plan has...as well as the risks. The $120,000 we funded for the ladder came from multiple sources with most coming from donations, fund raising and a major grant from a source in the United States.

 

Tight lines,

 

John

[Rustic-Fisher]

Very well put! :thumbsup_anim: