CRAA Open Access Proposal

[justin elia]

Hi all,

 

Please take a few minutes to read CRAA's proposal to MNR to open full access for all species of fish (native and naturalized) in the Credit River. Please post any questions, comments or discussion in this thread.

 

http://www.craa.on.ca/pdf/CRAA-CRFMP-OpenAccessProposal-Dec2011.pdf

 

Justin

Edited January 31, 2012 by justin elia

[solopaddler]

Surprised no one's commented on this yet!

 

As someone who had the pleasure of fishing the Credit in the early 80's and enjoying the fishery immensely this can't happen soon enough.

 

I do have a couple of comments though.

 

Exactly how will the fish be given access?

 

Will functioning fishways be built? Better yet will dams be removed?

 

I would hope and assume that these small fragile headwater areas would not be part of any extended fall season and would be open to angling only during the inland trout season from late April 'till end of September.

 

I can also see a need to implement sanctuary areas 'till mid to late May.

 

Can you imagine the invasion of bank mutants descending on the Forks come opening day? LOL!

 

Much of what would be gained would be lost in one fell swoop by the strippers and rippers.

 

All in all it's an exciting proposal. Here's hoping it comes to pass.

[Snidley]

Catch and release only, no fish eggs as bait, single hook only and display of fishing licence on the exterior of the anglers vest. All of these rules COULD be enacted to facilitate an extended angling opportunity in the Credit. It won't happen because trout anglers in the lower are generally roe fishermen and they are reticent to give it up as are the casual anglers who consider keeping fish caught as part of the whole experience and are also unwilling to give it up. Why the MNR does not impliment the wearing of your licence where all can see eludes me totally. The proposal also flies in the face of the MNR's general trend to harmonize angling rules so as to treat different fisheries with the same rules. It's dumb but that sort of sums up the way things are done here. CRAA claims that opening up the upper to steelies and salmon would be a boon to the fishery while flyboys at Issac Walton claim the lake run fish would decimate the stream trout. I think they are both right and since the flyboys have the cash and influence I do believe nothing will change.

[justin elia]

Just to clearify, there is no mention of an additional extended season above the 407 in the fall.

[BillM]

Didn't Milo already post this?

[DRIFTER_016]

Didn't Milo already post this?

 

 

Over on FFN he did Bill.

[BillM]

Ah ok, I knew I saw it somewhere.

Edited February 1, 2012 by BillM

[John Bacon]

Catch and release only, no fish eggs as bait, single hook only and display of fishing licence on the exterior of the anglers vest. All of these rules COULD be enacted to facilitate an extended angling opportunity in the Credit. It won't happen because trout anglers in the lower are generally roe fishermen and they are reticent to give it up as are the casual anglers who consider keeping fish caught as part of the whole experience and are also unwilling to give it up. Why the MNR does not impliment the wearing of your licence where all can see eludes me totally. The proposal also flies in the face of the MNR's general trend to harmonize angling rules so as to treat different fisheries with the same rules. It's dumb but that sort of sums up the way things are done here. CRAA claims that opening up the upper to steelies and salmon would be a boon to the fishery while flyboys at Issac Walton claim the lake run fish would decimate the stream trout. I think they are both right and since the flyboys have the cash and influence I do believe nothing will change.

 

The proposal is about providing access for fish to the upper stretches of the Credit River; not about extended fishing seasons. Currently many species are blocked at Streetsville dam. Allowing Chinooks, and coho to pass the dam would give them access to a lot of river that could support natural reproduction. The river below the dam does not contain suitable spawning habitat.

 

 

 

Exactly how will the fish be given access?

 

Will functioning fishways be built? Better yet will dams be removed?

 

 

Allowing them past the Streetsville Dam alone will open up a lot of access. There is a controlled fishway at the dam. They currently allow the rainbows to pass through but the Chinook and coho are stopped at the dam. Allowing them past that point already gives them access to a lot more river. I am not sure where the next barrier would be. I do recall some barriers upstream of Streetsville recently being removed. Perhaps some the CRAA guys could elaborate.

[craigdritchie]

They currently allow the rainbows to pass through but the Chinook and coho are stopped at the dam.

Not exactly - coho and chinook fly over the dam in high water. You see them as far upstream as Hwy 7 pretty well every fall.

[wallacio]

For a parallel discussion of this topic, click here:

 

http://flyfishingforums.hipwader.com/viewtopic.php?id=6902&p=1

[solopaddler]

For a parallel discussion of this topic, click here:

 

http://flyfishingforums.hipwader.com/viewtopic.php?id=6902&p=1

 

 

Not exactly a parallel discussion Dave, although seeing the responses from some remarkably shortsighted fly fishermen who fish the upper Credit is interesting.

[wallacio]

Parallel, simultaneous, another discussion...whatever Noam Chomsky.

Edited February 1, 2012 by wallacio

[DRIFTER_016]

I like how they point out that the steelhead are introduced but they also forget to point out the fact that browns are also an introduced species.

[Snidley]

This discussion really raises some fundamental issues mainly when you look at the goals over at the MNR/CRAA. They would like a self sustaining pelagic fishery, one that opens up economic benefits as well as overall angling success, all the while reducing to a minimum ongoing management ie. stocking... in a fast growing metropolis of 4 million people. It just shows how stupid and useless our government really is. Essentially they are saying they would like a resource mangement pipedream to be real all the while, as a group, they would like to abandon all of their responsibilities too. I don't know where this latest issue of pelagics above Norval will end up because I sense big problems both logistically and scientifically but the solution for river management resides about 40 miles to the south of us in New York State. They have both pelagic and resident salmonoids in massive abundance but it does not come from a hands off approach. They work at it, hard, and most of the emphasis is on salmon, rainbows and steelhead that are stocked. The result is fabulous angling success with great economic benefits too. Success that far outweighs the costs to the state government. Up here CRAA and the MNR conspire with enhancements and efforts to turn back the clock using management philosophies that do not work...anywhere. Atlantics, a fish that is in no way the native fish of 200 years ago, will never take hold in the GTA or Lake Ontario UNLESS you stock them. Stocking Atlantic Salmon will always be the MOST expensive species to stock due to holdover requirements and they will never reproduce naturally in significant numbers yet CRAA, and the MNR dove headfirst into the latest offer to revive this extinct animal knowing they had a very short term private funder and limited resources of their own (unless cuts were made elsewhere). We are now living with the aftermath of an idiotic decision taken 5 years ago by all parties including the winery. Blown money, time and opportunities, resulting in future sacrifices and resource degradation. This is essentially politics 101 in Ontario for virtually all government responsibilities. Enhancing Credit River fishing opportunities and the resulting economic benifits will NOT happen by simply opening up the Credit beyond Norval. Reducing expenditures on stocking and other hands off approaches to managing fish stocks will never result in anything other than decline both in fish abundance and economic opportunities associated with angling. It is truly mind boggling to see these pathetic attempts at fisheries management innovation time and again when a working successful management strategy is literally next door.

[torco]

It has been proven time again that removing/reducing barriers along rivers is one of the best way to help with improving spawning rates for salmon and trout. I watched a very interesing documentary on it where on west coast river they were trying to stock back the levels of salmon for 20+ years and had limited success but once they removed several dams the results were almost immediate within a few years the number of salmon returning had increased dramatically. I realize I am sketchy with the details but the science is there as for the brown trout, I am not sure I buy that having steelhead and salmon migrate up the river will have a major negative impact on the fish but I realize the concern is more about the kinds of people that it may attract.

 

Anyways it worth the study in my opinion, the great lakes are already one giant experiment at this point

[DRIFTER_016]

I realize the concern is more about the kinds of people that it may attract.

 

 

Pretty irrevelent really when you consider the area is closed to angling during the salmon run time line.

[Spiel]

I'm still waiting for a proposal to keep salmon from moving beyond the estuaries.

[wallacio]

Pretty irrevelent really when you consider the area is closed to angling during the salmon run time line.

 

Actually it is not...the UC is open until Sept 30 which coincides with the peak of the Salmon runs (at minimum, the start of the runs).

[torco]

Pretty irrevelent really when you consider the area is closed to angling during the salmon run time line.

 

 

Agreed its a small window but I my point is that seems to be more the issue than whats good for fish when you read peoples posts.

[BillM]

the solution for river management resides about 40 miles to the south of us in New York State. They have both pelagic and resident salmonoids in massive abundance but it does not come from a hands off approach. They work at it, hard, and most of the emphasis is on salmon, rainbows and steelhead that are stocked. The result is fabulous angling success with great economic benefits too. Success that far outweighs the costs to the state government.

 

So instead of improving the spawning habitat, they just dump a million fish a year into the rivers. I'm sure that works for a lot of people, but not for the guys that are out looking for quality fish. Most of the guys I fish with (myself included) much prefer quality over quantity.

 

I don't we should be taking queues for our friends south of the border when it comes to fishery management.

[Paulus]

Just to clearify, there is no mention of an additional extended season above the 407 in the fall.

 

I think Mike was referring to the Spring season. Right now the forks are pretty quiet, relative to what happens S of Norval in the Spring.

 

This is a great debate and one that kind of signifies where we're at as a community that takes conservation seriously. We all have ideas on what "conservation" means - to some it's allowing diversity the full run of the river system; to others it's conserving the environment in its current state.

 

Even though I'm definitely a proponent of more Steelhead more of the time, I tend to agree that the proposal won't fly, not just because the North End fly fishers are more influential but also because if there should be harm done ... how could it be reversed? I think that this will be the big conundrum for the MNR. Maybe I missed a contingency plan in the proposal? (If not, why not give the idea a go on the Humber, first? More of a long term project, then, but you'd end up with 2 watersheds for the price of 1).

 

More stocking below Norval or Streetsville are good ideas, even though - as Billy said - not really a great way to promote quality over quantity. But it's a decent solution for keeping the segregation that currently exists, at once giving the forks fishers peace and the lower river rippers more to rip .

 

The irony of course is that a good number of fish have been lifted into tribs above Norval for a while now with little or no negative impact on other species - so the argument becomes one that is not so much about fish anymore, but about people. The rivershed belongs to everybody. And, though I live to see all dams smashed and torn down, is it for the best in all cases, for everyone involved?

 

I have to admit that I'm torn on this one!

 

p.-

Edited February 2, 2012 by Paulus

[Snidley]

Torc the film you recently saw about west coast dam removal is completely irrelavent to the Credit. Those dams that were removed in Cali were huge power dams that had dramatic effect on the water temperature of the rivers. Temperatures that were so off seasonal that the salmon could not move up fish ladders due to heat stress. Here the issue is very small dams that simply block passage. High water, lifting or a decent fishway would work but CRAA has always wanted them removed permenently and the Walton gang want them to stay. It's political more than anything and thats why CRAA will lose this one.

The guys concerned about steelhead quality usually don't really consider what is actually going on in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Usually if they make statements that the stocked American fish are of poor quality they either have not been fishing there for some time or they do not understand biology and the issue of water temperature and current speed on the fight in a steelhead. First off the strain now being raised in New York and I believe the others 2 states as well, is a better original strain of fish than those used by Ontario. In addition the Americans use the roe from wild caught fish while most Ontario stockers are from brood stock (with the exception perhaps of some of the CRAA fish which I believe they strip at the same time as the salmon). So the US fish start out with better genes and are only 1 generation from wild. Our stockers are multi generations from wild

 

Most of the Canadian anglers that consider that American stockers are "weak" or of lesser quality generally get this idea when fishing, in winter, on 16 Mile Creek off L Ontario or the Catt et al off Erie. First off Erie fish are smaller generally than L Ontario fish and of course the water is cold in winter as well. Add this to the fact that most of the tribs in the US tend to be moving without a lot of current in winter, at least when they are fishable. This means their steelhead don't pull like a Credit steelhead due to size of the fish and current speed in winter on the Credit. If anyone doubts this simply try on a rainbow from the Grand River. This group of fish was essentially created by strays from the US side when they were not doing a good job of imprinting. They have now evolved into some of the strongest naturalized steelhead you will encounter but of course you are encountering them in spring and fall not winter time. Another example is the Niagara River. Those are American fish, are they "weak"? For sure in winter with colder temperatures and less flow they are weaker than in spring of fall but weak, come now. How about fishing the Salmon or the Oswego. Think those fish are weak? I think not. How about the steelhead in the Blue Zone, the ones with all of their fins are New York stockers since they don't fin clip. Are they weak? No again, and like the Oswego's fish, the Salmon's fish, they are big too. And lots of them. And a percentage of those big fiesty stockers will naturalize because rainbows are expert adaptive foragers that are less effected by some of the chemicals in our baitfish (unlike those ecological Nanacies, Atlantic Salmon).

 

I'll say it again the solution to having a thriving pelagic fishery in an intensly urbanized setting constrained by lack of adequate funds is stocking. IF you could convince the flyboys to allow dam removal to open up large areas for your stockers to naturalize it would be fantastic....for the pelagics, pike and smallmouth Bass (but likely bad for diminutive native browns and rainbows). Same goes for stream improvement. It's great BUT it will never sufficiently change the abundance issue in a river like the Credit that gets huge pressure from bait anglers looking for eggs, casual anglers looking to take home evidence that they caught something and a rising temperatures. Bottom line, if CRAA and the MNR are seriously looking at dam removal as a panacea that would allow for a hands off management style to succeed with pelagics then they are dumber that even I thought, which is hard to imagine.

[torco]

hey Snidley you make some interesting points and yes that is the same documentary.

[craigdritchie]

Snidely, you are bang-on. Couldn't have said it better myself.