Posts Tagged ‘friends of the grand’

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.

For about two decades, the Grand River in Ontario, just north, south and through Fergus has been hyped as a grand brown trout fishery.

I’m having my doubts.

I’d like to investigate this further – but many folk might be surprised to find out that Brown Trout are not even native to Ontario. Indeed, there are no “trout” native to Ontario – what we call Brook or Speckled Trout are actually members of the Char family, as are Lake Trout. Aurora Trout, native to a few rare northern lakes are also Chars.

At one time, there were fresh water fun Atlantic Salmon that could be found in tributaries of the Great Lakes. But Brown Trout? Not until some folk decided to import them from Europe.

And in many rivers and streams, Brown Trout have been able to reproduce naturally and maintain population. They’ve even migrated into other tributaries, and brown trout today, in Ontario are widely found.

But let’s consider the Grand River for a moment.

Earnest stocking of Brown Trout began about 20 years ago. Since then, between 20 and 25 thousand brown trout are stocked annually into the river below the Shand Damn. Some miles south of Wilson’s Flats, there is little expectation that Brown Trout could survive, let alone reproduce in the Grand River due to water conditions.

And if it weren’t for the Shand Damn, it’s unlikely too many trout of any species would survive in any part of the Grand River – being more historically and naturally a warmer water river in summer – conducive to bass, walleye, etc.

Let me also be clear: I very much enjoy the opportunity to fly fish and catch brown trout on the Grand River. It is so much fun, especially in the evenings while the fish are sipping on caddis to trick a few into thinking that the immitation I’m presenting is caddis looking enough – or edible enough – and watch and feel a brown trout attack it.

But is the Grand so grand and great? If for some reason, financial issues for example, were to be such that 25,000 trout couldn’t be stocked into the river over the course of two years in a row, would it be as pleasant as it is right now, in the pursuit of the brown trout?

I have my doubts.

Isn’t it interesting that after “Opening Day,” the Brown Trout action on the Grand kind of sucks – and the excuses are “it’s too cold,” or “flow rates are too high,” etc etc. – but after an influx of a stocking of 25,000 new trout – suddenly, things get better?

Merely co-incidence? I’m not so sure.

When you look at what various folk say about Brown Trout reproduction on the Grand, it’s interesting. Some say, “Success! We’ve seen some reproduction,” while others say, “There is little reproduction.”

Neither are lying. Perhaps to some, the fact that there is evidence of even a few new “naturally” reproduced trout in the Grand is success, while others are quite disappointed with how little the numbers seem to point to.

Are there some who just become “orgasmic” at the thought of brown trout, while ignoring other species that in the long run, might have done, and might do better? I don’t know.

Will the Grand be a “success” as long as 25,000 stockies are added each year? And while there are reports of folk catching some monstor browns in the 24+ inch category, what really keeps them coming back is the ability to hook one year old and some two year old stocked fish?

I’ll agree: Between the Shand Damn and quite a bit below Wilson’s Flats, on a good day – there is a lot of “brown trouty looking” water. But – there is a lot of water there that not only is “brown trouty” looking, but smallmouth bass looking – rainbow looking, migratory atlantic salmon looking, so why the emphasis on a species that is not even natural in the first place, and up to this point in time, evidence of reproduction is measured as “successful” when a few eggs hatch?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not suggesting that the entire “Grand Plan” be done away with. On the other hand, is the “Plan” so prejudiced toward Brown Trout, that nothing else is being looked at?

And why do non-native trout get so much energy and resources when it is possible that some amazing wonderful game species like smallmouth bass, that might do as well or better in an improved fishery, get no attention at all? Hell, if we assisted species like smallmouth bass, perhaps there wouldn’t need to be so many “catch and release” regulations; you could actually eat something you caught.

Pound for pound, I’d put up a Smallie any day against a Brown Trout for sheer enjoyment experience on the end of any line, whether fly line or that coming out of a baitcasting reel. And when cooked correctly, just as tasty too.

When the folks who first came up with the idea of having a great tailwater fishery on the Grand, did they oooh and ahhh over Brown Trout, and then spend equal time on thinking about other natural species? Or did they just keep on ooohing and ahhhing over Brown Trout? And since then, with 25,000 stocked each year, it’s the only direction they want to go, and will “make it happen, even if takes a thousand years” attitude? And I’m not suggesting that Brown Trout aren’t the best selection for the Grand Tailwater – but if there is an expectation that these Browns are going to reproduce naturally – well that hasn’t happened much at all – so why aren’t things being reviewed with this fact in mind?
The more I think about it, the more fraudulent the “Grand Plan” seems to be. Many are well meaning, but have bought into the masturbatory dreams of of some brown trout anglers, a few decades ago – and the cost of maintaining that masturbatory dream will never stop – as long as there are funds available to stock brown trout, that is the only thing to do, I guess.

Again, perhaps browns ARE the most suited for the idea of a “fishery” on the Grand’s Tailwaters. But why are Browns now being introduced into the Conestogo tailwaters when we’ve already got bass that can actually reproduce in that river? Why not be focussing attention on the fish that are native and instead of trying to create another brown trout fishery, improving what is already there?

That’s what baffles me.