Archive for the ‘grand river’ Category

Last Thursday turned into a gorgeous day with the sun shining brightly and the temperature hitting about 15 or 16C in Southern Ontario.  Most of the snow had melted away, and it was one of those days that just shouldn’t be wasted indoors. Especially at this time of the year when such sunny warm days are still rare.

Colleen and I decided to take advantage of the weather and we hit the road in the Jeep Liberty with the sunroof open. It was wonderful to feel the sun shining down on our heads! I thought it would be interesting to take a drive up to Highway 89 and see what the Grand River looked like near its headwaters.  Although in the summer months, one can often walk across the Grand at this point with barely getting their ankles wet, in spring the Grand can be ferocious with snow melt runoff and ice jams.  It is not uncommon for Highway 25 through the town of Grand Valley to be closed due to the river flooding over it’s banks.

The Grand begins it’s long journey near Dundalk, Ontario which is north of Highway 89. It crosses 89 east of Mount Forest, at the Village of Keldon.  On Thursday, the river was not as fast nor as high as many other previous springs, but considering it’s often not much more than a trickle here in the summer time, it was still impressive.

The Grand, looking upstream (north) at Highway 89.

Looking downstream at Highway 89

From Highway 89, the river flows through the Township of East Luther on its way to Grand Valley and the Village of Waldemar, picking up the flow of a number of tributary creeks and streams that drain the area.  North west of Grand Valley is the “Luther Marsh Conservation Area,” where visitors can hike, canoe in Luther Lake (after July 31st), cross country ski and snowmobile in winter, and enjoy the wildlife. Often, bird watchers have sightings of nesting trumpeter swans, great blue herons, loons and bald eagles. Some years ago, while visiting the area in late summer or early autumn, I watched as conservation officers captured young trumpeter swans which were to be relocated to add to a population on James Bay (if I recall correctly).

I used to live in Waldemar and remember well the spring time ice break-up on the Upper Grand. Huge chunks of ice floating down the river and often, the ice chunks would jam up together, causing dams and flooding of the banks.  In the summer, although the river is much lower, there are pockets where small smallmouth bass hang out and will take a variety of flies including small caddis floating on the surface.  I’ve spent a number of enjoyable  evenings wading the river in this area wearing shorts and using a light fly rod to trick the feeding bass before enjoying the lights of fireflies after dusk.

Upstream of Waldemar, near Grand Valley, a section of the river remains deep enough all summer for a population of pike to call home.  Downstream of Waldemar, as the river approaches Lake Bellwood (an artificial lake formed by Shand Dam), larger size smallmouth bass can be caught, if you know where to find them.  There are no trout in the upper reaches of the river. The water temperature is just far too warm in the summer with little overgrowth and few trees to provide shade.

Last Thursday, Colleen and I drove through Grand Valley and Waldemar and here’s what we saw:

Looking upstream from the bridge at Waldemar.

Looking downstream from the bridge at Waldemar.

After leaving Waldemar, we drove down towards Lake Bellwood, and then through Fergus on our way to Guelph.  The river looked quite high downstream of the Shand Dam near Fergus – where many anglers will probably be lined up come Opening Day in pursuit of the Brown Trout that are stocked here.

On Friday, we visited the picturesque town of Elora, where the Grand flows through on it’s way south ultimately flowing into Lake Erie.  The Elora area and south to Wilson’s Flats is also prime Brown Trout water for fly anglers.  Here’s Colleen and I with the Grand flowing over the dam at Elora, behind us:

Another post on conservation related subject because it’s on my mind.  It stems from recent discussions and some of my thoughts on what I find baffling:  Trying to turn the Conestogo River into a brown trout river when there is already populations of native fish in the river.

I would like to see “enhancement” for many of Ontario’s fish species. And as a very good friend of mine pointed out, not just Smallmouth Bass, but Northern Pike as well.

Consider this: The Grand River tailwater section is stocked annually with about 20 to 25 thousand Brown Trout annually. These are not naturally occurring fish in Ontario – although they were introduced to the Province many years ago and have done well in some streams and rivers. Well enough that they are able to reproduce on their own.

In The Grand River, there is no such hard evidence that there is any substantial reproduction going on.

And what do the fishing regulations say?

Well, trout in the tailwater section of the Grand must be released immediately.

What about other species such as Smallmouth Bass?  Nope – no special regulations apply.  No special regulations apply to Northern Pike.  Yet, the primary species of fish in that section of water is Brown Trout!

This makes no sense to me.

I suggest that there is an “elitism” among some fly anglers especially, in regard to trout.  Why exactly that is, I don’t know.  There also seems to be some attitutides that it is only trout anglers that clean up garbage or that spend their resources on stream enhancement projects.

This of course is nonsense as well.

Just as there are some who fish for Bass or Walleye and don’t respect the rules, or leave junk around – there are a LOT of Trout and Salmon anglers who are the same.  I know this to be a fact – I’ve seen it, I’ve picked up myself after some Trout and Salmon anglers, and have found myself disgusted by the actions of some Trout and Salmon anglers in regard to their treatment of the habitat of trout and salmon.

On the side of the token, there are many Bass and Walleye  anglers who prefer to fish for their favorite species, and who donate their own time and resources in cleanups, enhancement, and conservation.  I have an acquaintance who participates in Bass Tournaments in Southern Ontario.  I accepted an invitation from him to go fishing in his boat, and took along one of my sons for the experience.  At the dock area, this guy was busy picking up other people’s trash both before we put the boat into the water and after we took it out.

The fish we caught – every one a Bass – were ALL released back into the water after they were caught.

These generalizations that some make – and from my experience, these generalizations seem more popular among those who focus on trout 99% of the time.

But I’ll tell you what – discover there is a big pike in some of their favorite water, eating their favorite Brown Trout, and you’ll find just exactly how “conservation” minded some of these folk can be.  “Kill the pike!”

Even though the pike is in it’s own native natural habitat.

There are some fly angling clubs and associations that simply focus on trout.  And – let me be clear:  They do a great job! They work hard on river and stream enhancement. But, it’s with the focus of a non-native species in mind – that some seem to have more interest in “protecting” than those fish native to the area.  Trout are given a “god-like” status.

And yes, they sure are pretty! And a blast to catch.

A trout is just a fish. It ought not to be seen as any more important than other species – and I’d suggest that it might make for a good debate to wonder if here in Ontario, we shouldn’t be giving the Brown Trout less importance over the species of fish that occur naturally – and could probably use some help.

Does it make logical sense to continue applying special regulations to Brown Trout, when they are stocked annually, and already outnumber by an enormous margin, the natural species that exist?

I’m being taken to task in another forum – even being accused of a “bass whacker” and someone that has garbage cleaned up after me, for suggesing the “Grand Plan” is fraudulent, and should not be applied as any sort of model to the Conestogo River.

Here’s the “Grand Plan” official report, for public consumption. It’s a PDF file – and you can read it yourself.

There are two things, that in my opinion, are not written in BIG BOLD letters on everypage:

1. The “Grand Brown Trout Fishery” depends on annual stocking 20 to 25 thousand fish annually.

2. There is no evidence of any sustainable Brown Trout reproduction in the Grand Tailwater

As far as I’m concerned, all else is commentary.

The fact that through some cooperation with some agencies and some interested parties, along with the fact that 25,000 brown trout have been stocked annually for 15 years should make the Grand a “success story” or some “model” to be copied is utter bogus to me.

That’s not to take away from my own enjoyment of brown trout fishing on the Grand River tailwaters.

But tell me – why should such a “model,” that will require the annual stocking of fish forever, be something that should be copied in other tailwaters of Ontario where river water quality is poor – but there IS reproduction of natural native species – without much help – or even stocking of those species – be a model to adapt or accept?

Go read the “Grand Plan.” Tell me in your opinion, how “grand” it is, with the historical but brief admissions that natural brown trout reproduction evidence is limited and probably zilch for all intents and purposes.

Tell me why that same plan should be adopted for introduction to the Conestogo River tailwater system – where if adopted, there would be this enormous focus on Brown Trout, and quite likely the requirement to annually stock the Conestogo forever, in order to maintain that Brown Trout fishery, while ignoring what is already there, and native to Ontario, Smallmouth Bass?

Tell me why asking these questions motivates some to accuse me of being a “bass whacker” and someone who leaves garbage behind, to be picked up by “trout bums?”

If there was some hope that Brown Trout in the Grand River tailwaters would become a self sustaining fishery, without the need for constant stocking forever, well, let’s call that hope what it was: A great experiment that failed.

I would challenge anyone to prove that the same results as far as great growth rates – couldn’t have been obtained with natural fish species such as brook trout – couldn’t have been had.

But that’s not really my point.

My point is, attempting to use the same flawed model in regard to the Grand Tailwaters – the annual stocking of thousands of non-native fish over and over and over every year – is flawed if it is to be applied to other fisheries – when those other fisheries already have species of fish that naturally reproduce – can be caught on the fly rod, but will likely lose any focus or help if some plan like the “Grand Plan” is applied to those fisheries.

Specifically to the Conestogo, why aren’t we asking for more smallmouth bass stocking to bolster present natural stock, and instead, are trying to create a new “Brown Trout” fishery – a fishery that is not natural and never existed on the river, in it’s prime?

And if it’s a “trout” stream you want, then why not stock with Brookies – yeah.. I know.. not really “trout” – but natural to Ontario nonetheless – and while we’re rebuilding the river, we can stock with what should naturally be there, instead of creating an artificial fishery of imported brown trout?

How does asking these questions make me a “polluter” or someone inclined to leave garbage behind to be picked up by self described “trout bums” who fail to disclose their own financial interests in Brown Trout guiding?

Forgive me for my suspicions that there are some who would want to turn Southern Ontario’s best smallmouth bass and/or brook trout streams into their own financially positive but non native brown trout water. That will possibly require annual stocking, forever.

If you’re interested, the discussion thread is here.