Robinson Creek Restoration
About:
The Robinson Creek Restoration was an idea I thought of when I was fishing for Creek Chub in the Creek right beside a large beaver dam.
The dam prevented the passage of fish through both sides of it and took away the natural flow of the river, resulting in loss of natural habitats,
and prevented spawning fish from being able to swim upstream to their spawning grounds.I later found out that beavers infested the river and
left many dams throughout the river. The beavers have since been removed but the dams remain.
The Goal:
The goal of this project is to try to remove the beaver dams and any other obstructing blockages along with garbage in the river, in hopes to return the river to its original state.
Date/Dates:
There is/are no set date/dates for this project yet but it will take place during the upcoming summer (summer of 2013).
How You Can Help:
Let other people know about the project. Volunteer to help remove the dams.
The current volunteers are:
Me
MichaelAngelo
Feel free to ask any questions. I am very open to suggestions as I would like to make this as successful as possible. If you would like to volunteer please PM me with your full name, email, home and cell numbers if possible.
This post will be updated whenever new information is gathered.
You may have this covered already but just in case...
I maybe wrong but it may be illegal to remove a Beaver dam or otherwise interfere with the Beavers in Ontario. I rember some people I know having Beaver issues on thier property:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central...3-eng.htm:
"Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for protecting fish and fish habitat across Canada. Under the Fisheries Act no one may carry out a work or undertaking that will cause the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat unless it has been authorized by DFO. By following the conditions and measures set out below you will be in compliance with subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act."
Also see:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/...90005.html
(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)zippyFX Wrote: [ -> ]You may have this covered already but just in case...
I maybe wrong but it may be illegal to remove a Beaver dam or otherwise interfere with the Beavers in Ontario. I rember some people I know having Beaver issues on thier property:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central...3-eng.htm:
"Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for protecting fish and fish habitat across Canada. Under the Fisheries Act no one may carry out a work or undertaking that will cause the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat unless it has been authorized by DFO. By following the conditions and measures set out below you will be in compliance with subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act."
Also see:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/...90005.html
The beavers were killed and removed by the MNR I believe or some other Ministry or Organization.
And JeremyRayGreen is gonna get approval from Ontario Streams to allow this project and maybe even help with it.
(04-02-2013 08:49 PM)Giuga10 Wrote: [ -> ]And JeremyRayGreen is gonna get approval from Ontario Streams to allow this project and maybe even help with it.
As long as we have approval. Zippy is right in that we can't go about interfering with streams without permission. Perhaps it would be wise to attain permission before asking for volunteers, or do we need to show that we have a strong group together before we can get permission? Chicken and the egg problem?
i started reading the first post and thought ...wonder if they know its illegal to.....read on and was so happy to see that all concerns were being addressed....in the old days people did what they wanted as individuals (right or wrong) ....these days anglers are knowledgeable and look to conservation guidelines before they do anything....anglers look to fall within the laws and regs.....anglers do not just concern themselves with the fish....they are concerned with the watershed, habitat, wildlife, birds, fish, neighbours.....this stewardship is amazing to see develope ....15 years ago it almost did not exist. good work guys....hope you get your permissions and restore the creek.....
Who is going to hop on board, and help Giuga / Nick with his endeavour in the restoration of a Raparian habitat, that is so vital to the ecosystem of the lake ontario tributaries, the produce a quality fishery for all shore anglers alike?
Yes We can get the support needed to create a program in what Giuga, is envisioning.
But in order to get the proper support and permits, there needs to be a solid "WORKFORCE" that is commited to a program they are creating.
It is always nice to here people are thankful that you are commited to trying to create something, But it's really hard when only 1% of those people actually stand up to help..
Check your pm again,
. I finally read your post here...
I'm still not 100% for supporting this cause...
Beavers, and their dams, are as much a part of the ecosystem as the fish in the stream. The reason beavers are found in the creek is because they considered the creek a good home for their families. It is a habitat that is natural enough, quiet enough and protected enough to build a home.
In nature, abandoned dams eventually rot and break apart from ice jams and spring flooding. This is the natural cycle.
The dams create new environment for specific species that require slower water. Sunfish, rockbass, largemouth bass, white sucker and bullhead catfish are just some of these species that appreciates the pond formed behind a beaver dam. Minnow species in creeks can also adapt to slow water habitats. Creek chubs, common shiners and blacknose dace can adapt. Ducks, heron and other bird species also appreciate the new habitat, as well many emergent plants.
To remove the dam is to destroy the habitat for some of these species, while trying to create habitat for others. I know your intention means well, Nick, in terms of trying to reestablish trout in the creek. However, in nature, beavers will build dams and remove trout habitat, while creating habitat for other species. And as long as there is cool water in the creek, resident trout can also thrive in a creek with beaver dams. You just won't see migratory steelheads...but you could see resident brown trout and brook trout appreciating it (if the water is cool enough...if there are underwater springs and a large enough riparian zone with overhead cover (trees, overhanging bushes) to cool down the water temperature.
Anyways, my point is that we have our "best intentions"...but nature often has her own intentions. Unless it is something that we do as human to affect the creek, I would rather say leave nature be and let her make her changes the way she intents it. That is...until it gets to the point which the abandoned dams lead to flooding of neighbouring lands and damage to homes, then sure, remove the abandoned dams.
**BTW, the dams were not even abandoned in the first place. MNR SHOT THE BEAVERS!!! Some call it wildlife management...I call it tampering with nature...in my books, it is a big no-no. Again, unless property is threatened, that's the only "if" I'll consider.
Now, that does not mean I'm not in favour of cleaning up garbage or naturalizing man-made channels to better the environment. But habitat restoration and human-intended stream engineering often walk a fine line, especially when there is underlying agendas behind the project.
BTW, I'm saying this because a few years ago, some "well meaning" individuals decided to remove a great log jam on Oshawa Creek at a favourite spot of mine. That log jam used to be THE holding area for steelhead and white suckers during the spawning run, and it provided great habitat for the resident brown trout and the odd brook trout.
Sure, it was very difficult to fish and land fish with that log jam in the way, but my friends and I understood the value of the log jam is much beyond our "selfish" need for fishable waters. That log jam was what made the spot so amazing. But some idiot decided the log jam (a natural one mind you) does not belong, dug the single big log out of the slope and then removed the other entangled drift wood away.
After the log jam was removed, the number of all species declined dramatically. We used to catch 9-15" brown trout consistently in a creek no wider than a car lane. One day, we caught a dozen brown trout to 15", a dozen suckers and half a dozen steelhead to 8lbs in that pool. The first year I fished that creek we landed over 20 steelhead between the 4 of us in that one pool, and lost just as many of them. Now I couldn't even find a brown trout after 3 extra years of fishing it, and the steelhead run gets smaller and smaller. That one pool with its log jam was the last significant holding area where fish could rest and hide from predators before the upstream spawning grounds. Eventually, I just gave up fishing that spot.
Again, sometimes "best intentions" may not be the best course of action. It's all about perspective. I tend to take the perspective toward actions that benefit all species and not just one species alone, and toward all organisms and not just fish alone.
(04-19-2013 01:27 PM)MuskieBait Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to take the perspective toward actions that benefit all species and no just one species alone, and toward all organisms and not just fish alone.
Here, here!
I however believe that there are some introduced species that need not be here.....salmon being one........ and that true valuable improvement doesnt always mean that angling success increases.
OT
(04-19-2013 01:58 PM)OldTimer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-19-2013 01:27 PM)MuskieBait Wrote: [ -> ]I tend to take the perspective toward actions that benefit all species and no just one species alone, and toward all organisms and not just fish alone.
Here, here!
I however believe that there are some introduced species that need not be here.....salmon being one........ and that true valuable improvement doesnt always mean that angling success increases.
OT
Agree...and that's why I go against the grain from the salmon/trout guys.
According to Michael and his attendance at the MEA meeting, some east tribs' salmon population is sustained by close to 50% natural population. Many east tribs has significant enough natural population of steelhead and brown trout as well. To me, there is no further need to increase stocking in those creeks. We should just nature decide her own course toward the future of those introduced but naturalized species.
The continued focus should be removal of man made obstruction and stream rehab. Access to suitable spawning ground and rearing habitat, and establishing habitat that is protected and clear of pollution can do much, much more than simple stocking effort. Stock effort is just medication to alleviate the symptoms, like cold medicine, but it doesn't get rid of the root cause of the issue. (Cold medicine doesn't kill the cold virus...no drug can kill the virus except for our body's immune system...and usually that takes 24-48 hours for our body to recognize the presence of virus in our body and a week to generate enough antibodies to combat the virus...that's why it take almost a week to get well from a cold. Cold medicine just thins the mucous, soothes the sore throat and reduces the cough.) Similarly, stocking more fish is just to put more fish into a stream that cannot sustain that kind of population with the currently available spawning and rearing habitat...otherwise, self sustained recruitment would be higher.
The only salmon I would support stock effort is the Atlantic Salmon. Man wiped them out by changing the streams with dams, and we wiped them out by pollution the water, and we wiped them out by overfishing. It is OUR DUTY to reestablish them. No if or but. I don't care what the charter captains has to say (their stake in those project is really own their bottom line...the dollar value), or anyone else for that matter. We need to take responsibility.
The same goes for the American Eel. Want to support a cause? Here's your cause. It is a noble cause...unlike the introduced salmon...
Hey....... who said the salmon/trout guys or charter boat captains are the angling majority in Ontario............. far from it..........real far. I wished Ontario MPP's and the MNR would realize this and act/support accordingly.
I'm all for stream rehab - as long as the end result still allows access for all - including anglers.
Unnecessary obstructions slowly disappear............ some need to stay re flood control - however more effective fish ladders or step channels could be installed.
Agree on the Atlantic Salmon.
American Eels do fight well............ I caught one as a youngster from a river beside a cheese factory in the Picton/Belleville area. "Black Creek" maybe?