Introduction
What began as a trip back to Michigan to fish the North Branch of the Au Sable with my aging parents evolved into a search for information on what happened to this wonderful stream where I learned to fly fish -- but which is now nearly barren.
Some months later, while searching the internet for information on the effects of electroshocking on spawning fish, I came across a link to Riverwatch. Former editor Edward McGlinn and I struck up an email dialogue that eventually led current editor Bob Linsenman to ask me to write this article.
To be fair to Michigan anglers, know that it is with some trepidation that I wade into this debate. I was born in Michigan, but have not resided there for almost 30 years. These are YOUR streams not mine and believe me, trout anglers everywhere have their hands full with conditions in their own states -- and Montana is no different. That said, I offer these observations and suggestions in the hope that you find them useful as you craft your own solutions to these serious problems.
Return to the North Branch
The rivers of our youth exert a special influence on us throughout our lives, a force that ebbs and flows with the passage of time but never vanishes entirely. And so it was that the North Branch of the Au Sable reached out across the miles and years, calling to me, calling me back to Michigan where I first cast a fly in 1961. On these gentle waters beneath the cedars and pines, a boy fell in love with the river's quiet voice and grew to manhood while learning the secrets of the stream. In my remembered dreams, these were the Holy Waters where I came again and again to join in the cyclical Dance of the Trout.
When I first waded into the stream after almost 30 years absence, tiny fingerlings darting through the shallows seemed a good sign. The water was clear, the banks looked stable and I thought, "All is well with the North Branch." Unfortunately, a long day of fishing revealed the stark and dismaying truth -- the North Branch when JFK was President is not the North Branch of 1998. The fingerlings are still there, but fish larger than 8 inches appear to have vanished entirely and the only species I caught were brook trout. No browns. No rainbows.
Searching for Answers - Finding Riverwatch
Returning to my home in Montana, I looked up Michigan DNR's web site and requested the fish population survey data. Since the material was not available online, I had to wait for hard copy. The cover letter that accompanied the surveys confirmed my "anecdotal" experience: "The present status of the trout population in general is on a low cycle. This is primarily based on the low abundance of larger trout, the ones sought after by anglers.
Natural reproduction is good, but survival from year to year poor." The graphs literally bottomed out at ZERO fish over 8 inches. I sent the information to my parents and together we grieved over the loss of "our" special stream.
A few months later, I stumbled onto the Riverwatch website and wrote then editor Edward McGlinn inquiring about the conditions I had experienced on the North Branch. Ed's first words in response to my sad observations were: "I wish I could disagree with you and offer some suggestion that you just had a couple of bad days on the river. However, I concur completely with your observations. The Anglers of the Au Sable have long advocated a more aggressive pursuit of the facts regarding the decline of fishing in the headwaters including the North Branch."
In the course of our exchange of information and experiences, the panoply of potential "causes" for the decimation of the North Branch fishery was dizzying. Some seem possible, while others seem unlikely. From what I was able to glean from the series of Riverwatch articles, there is a pending proposal to spend $600,000 for yet more studies on this already extensively studied river. It seems odd that more studies are needed. The DNR letter that accompanied the dismal fish surveys, pointed out that ". . . trout populations in the Au Sable River system have varied greatly through time and it has been very difficult to attribute these variations to specific factors. Michigan Department of Natural Resource's (sic), Fisheries Division, Trout Research Section, based at Hunt Creek Research Station has spent an enormous amount of time to understand the causes of the fluctuations including climatic factors, hydrology, pollution, stream habitat, predation, angling regulations, disease, and land use." Unfortunately, as McGlinn points out in his article, Heretical Opinions, by the time the studies are done, he "probably won't be around to find out" what may have caused the problems -- let alone to see actions initiated to remedy the deplorable conditions. McGlinn's article tore at my heart when he wrote, "Before I leave this world I would again like to have a slight taste of what it was like when I first started to fish this beautiful river too many years ago." His words held special poignancy because my parents, like McGlinn, remember what the North Branch once was. And like McGlinn, who is 68, they have been robbed of enjoying the simple pleasures of catching respectable trout on their beloved stream in the autumn of their lives. They are not alone.
In preparation for this article, I wrote to my father's old fishing buddies asking for their recollection of the North Branch. This excerpt, from Jim King of Sterling Heights, pretty much sums it up: "The river is the same - pristine as it was when we started fly fishing. However, the fish are non-existent today. Last Labor Day we tried our luck, but the only thing we could catch were 3-inch brooks, which were pretty little devils, but very discouraging. It is probably the last fly fishing trip I will ever make."
If it is tragic that my parents, McGlinn and King will never again experience the wonder and beauty of a healthy, productive North Branch, how much greater is the loss to present and future generations? Today's young people won't even have the solace of memories from a once-great stream. Instead, DNR's signs inform them that these are now "Quality Trout Waters." Too bad they will find no quality trout to fire their imaginations and inspire them, like McGlinn, to a lifetime of dedication to rivers, streams and trout.
An Alternative to Studies
Should this tragedy continue to be played out generation after generation, with no resolution in sight? Should you just "write off" rivers when something goes wrong and spend scarce dollars on studies trying to find the "something" that went wrong? Perhaps there is a better way to fix the North Branch -- through direct investment in habitat improvements to correct known problems with a minimum of red tape and minimal "administrative costs." Simply put, use your own good sense and massive angling experience to direct anglers' and taxpayer dollars to FIXING what's wrong -- not studying it.
When all is said and done, the "wrong" with the North Branch is probably not a single cause, but a combination of deleterious influences on the river, wrought by forces attendant to modern society. If my eyes didn't lie, riverside development, bait fishing, roadbuilding, and boat use have all increased significantly in recent decades. Along with these activities come more "to-the- river" lawns, instream docks, chemical and sediment run-off, septic groundwater pollution and a host of other impacts to the river's fishery. Riverwatch readers, like Montana anglers, are probably extremely frustrated as our treasured resources suffer abuse and decline while taxes and license costs continue to rise. The question is "What can you do about it?"
What Montana's Legislature Did - And Why
In 1989, the Montana legislature initiated the River Restoration program. Funded by an additional fifty cents on the cost of a resident license, the program was intended to address the plethora of impacts to rivers and streams with the overall goal of providing more fishable miles of river. Unfortunately, the program, which was wholly within the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks was, to put it mildly, not aggressively pursued by the agency. During this period K.L. Cool headed Montana's DFWP -- the same person who now heads the Michigan DNR. Michigan trout anglers should be warned -- under Cool's limited tenure, coldwater fisheries suffered while warmwater species, like walleye, saw significant growth.
Frustrated with the agency's lack of progress, the 1995 Legislature moved to establish and fund a much larger program called the Future Fisheries Improvement Act. Notably, legislators decided to put a Citizen's Panel, not the agency, in charge of approving projects for which the money could be used. The idea was simple: provide access to funds for fixing rivers -- not studying them. Intentionally, the legislature at every step of the way tried to get the money into on-the-land actions with as little red tape and as few "administrative costs" as possible.
The results have been astounding. Spring creeks have been completely rebuilt from cow-trampled bogs and now teem with naturally- reproducing trout that migrated to the "quality waters" from less desirable mainstems. From our largest rivers to our tiniest streams, bank stabilization, woody debris replacement, riparian fencing and runoff improvements are becoming a new and hopeful reality. The physical impacts to the system are evident: improved water quality, new and increased recruitment for mainstems from clean, productive spawning tributaries producing healthy, genetically-adapted trout.
Benefits for trout resulting from this program would easily justify the investment. But additional benefits are occurring as anglers and landowners work together to FIX what's wrong rather than fight each other over more regulations. Volunteers from anglers' groups to grade school students are gaining valuable hands-on experience in river restoration techniques. Meanwhile, old hands like Bud Lilly are lending their energy and deep understanding of stream systems to restoration projects. . . and restoration policy. The rewards are "on-stream" results and new generations of anglers who can experience and appreciate the wonders of healthy, productive river systems.
Why Not Try It In Michigan?
Is there any reason Michigan can't implement and benefit from such a program? In Montana's legislature, the bill was co-sponsored by legislators from both political parties and all walks of life . . . Republican ranchers working with urban Democrats to find and fund a solution to the problems our trout fisheries face. Notably, the Future Fisheries Improvement Act does not assess more taxes on anglers or citizens. Nor does it require more regulations on landowners. Instead, the legislature re-directed agency capital development budgets to on-the-land restoration. In essence, this common-sense approach spends money on the resource -- not the resource management agency.
Be warned! State agencies will fight like hell to keep dollars in their bureaucracy rather than give them back to citizens to fix what's wrong with their rivers and streams. In Montana, significant funding for the program came from dollars redirected from hatchery development. Montana's Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks put up a fierce battle to kill the bill while making wild claims about the dire consequences. Luckily, the agency lost that battle and the program was instituted and funded for more than two million dollars in its first two years.
The bottom line is that these rivers belong to the people of Michigan, not the DNR. And anglers' dollars are just that -- anglers' dollars, not agency dollars. If Michigan anglers want the North Branch restored to its former glory, then spend YOUR money where it will do the most good -- FIXING WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR RIVER -- not further documenting the decline. When Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt came to Montana this spring, he praised Montana's river restoration programs as "a model for the nation." But really, this isn't rocket science. It's simply a policy change that puts scarce fiscal resources to more productive use -- fixing the obvious problems facing our rivers and streams. And it's working.
Nothing will soothe the hurt in my heart for my parents, our old fishing buddies, or Michigan anglers like Ed McGlinn as they live with the sad loss of their once-wonderful streams. One thing seems obvious however -- on places like the North Branch, there is little left to lose by trying a different approach.
Investing directly in solving the problems, making funding available to private landowners, citizens groups and individuals working together to restore their rivers and streams may not solve all the problems of the North Branch. On the other hand, these actions just might provide a chance for current and future generations of anglers to experience "a slight taste" of what these rivers once were . . . and may be again. RWOL
Interested parties may wish to read Mr. Ochenski's upcoming article "Montana Miracles - Restoring our Rivers and Streams" which will appear in the January 1999 issue of Montana Magazine. He can be reached at his email address: ochenski@ixi.net.
© Copyright 1998- , Anglers of the Au Sable, Inc. All rights reserved. Last modified: January 29, 2002
