Robinson Creek Restoration.

[Giuga10]

(04-19-2013 01:27 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  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.

I understand that beavers should be treated well too but there are no longer any beavers in the river so the extra unnecessary obstruction just sets the river back.

Also my intentions are not to re-establish trout in the river, there is a much more important fish that calls this river home... the Redside Dace (a species categorized as threatened) also I am also concerned about suckers, a great and native fish to this river which also spawns during the spring, I took a walk by the river today and noticed many suckers trying to make their way upstream but once they run into the blockages, they will not be able to reach their grounds because they are denied access, trout of course do play a factor in this as well because years ago this stream also used to be home to resident bows and browns but since 2003 I believe, there has been no record of these fish in the river.

Also in a reply I posted above I stated that the Beavers were shot and removed from the river by the MNR so yes I do know this.

Lastly my intentions are not to only remove dams. There is also A LOT of garbage and pollution in the river and unlike the dams the garbage does not break down over the winter. Just one example is a sunken shopping cart in the middle of a pool full of garbage which could be a great spot for fish but instead is covered in garbage.