Dead Diamond River

[Bugman53]

Gents...Dennis here...the same Bugman53 of GLS "fame". Petegas...I'm the same guy, who with my wife, the Dartmouth grad, met you on the Henry's Fork in September of 2003! I think we've e-mailed since and I have your card here somewhere! Great to see you and hope your work at Big D is going well!

About Grant Rivers....My friend Kevin Evans is taking that watershed approach thanks to me opening my big mouth and offering to do some gratis fisheries consulting for the Management Comm., on which my wife sits in an alumni chair. My first work was to contact my pal John Randolph at FFM and find a brook trout guru. That man was Bill Flick...and you guessed it, he is the late, great Art Flick's son, retired from Cornell where he spent his carreer studying BT. Bill reviewed a pile of data for me and then I made a presentation to the Comm. After that, the Comm decided to move forward with additional information which I brought them in the form of my friend Scott McGill who is our consultant on Falling Spring Greenway in PA, and one of the world's very best stream/watershed restoration consultants.

The Grant has not been "logged abusively" as someone has said, for a very, very long time. Of course, historic watershed changes are what have left those rivers with high width/depth ratios, high bed loads, high summer temps, etc. Bill Flick thought there was and is poor recruitment to the three year old class fish, and therefore most of what is caught is small. There is a cadre of people who fish it with bait, also, and you all as do Bill and I recognize that BTs are a very angling susceptible fish.

Indeed, an new direction in thinking about the Grant Rivers is in place and I will continue to be involved with that thinking in conjunction with Scott McGill of Ecotone, Kevin and the Mgt. Committee. But none of this will happen overnight. There have been no angling regulation changes and as some have noted here, the Grant is not open to public vehicular access, but you can hike and bike from the Dead Diamond Road gate. But to rush up there expecting things to be different based on what you have heard would be a mistake. I only hunt the Grant in the Fall with my setters and the same conditions apply to access. My wife, of course, make all this possible. Dartmouth should be lauded for the progressive approach and direction, but it will take a lot of time to see meaurable differences. For info on the Grant Rivers from NHDNR, contact Diane Emerson at demerson@nhfgd.org. She is the State biologist who works with the College.

Hope this info is of use to those with an interest. Anyone wishing to discuss this with me may contact me via my e-mail or here in the forum.

Best,

Dennis

[fessiewig]

Thanks Bugman for that update. Sometimes info gets out there that is somewhat different from what is actually happening. It's good to hear "from the horses mouth", as it were.

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind. First, are you saying fishing in the Grant is not any better or worse than anywhere else in the area? Second, what is the average size of the BT being taken? And lastly, is there a move to change the regulations on the Grant Rivers to Fly Fishing Only, maybe even catch and release?

Thanks again.

[Bugman53]

Fess:

I don't know much about area fishing to be honest. What started my "work" for the Grant was a guy in the Orvis shop in Hanover complaining how bad it was and I decided to look into it. I brought this up the the Mgt. Comm and the reponse from Win Johnson, the Chair was basically "you're elected - check this out and report back!" Thus my effort. The Orvis guy's beef was small fish. I think he had a point from the data I saw, but to be fair, it appears thermal problems in the mainstem of the rivers provide little habitat in the warm season when fish should be out there for maximum forage - that's my opinion as an ecologist. Then, they are piled up in the tribs and I think there's a lot of competition for food. To fair to the entire system, these are not what you'd call highly fertile waters, but I think things could be improved.

I couldn't be sure about average size but a two year-old fish runs about eight inches give or take, if my memory is serving me.

I brought up the idea of FFO and restricted kill in there and it was received well in some quarters and not so good in others. "Outside" the Grant, in this case, I refer to Diane and NHDNR, she told us it would be difficult if not impossible to get the Commissioners or whatever body considers new regulations to support FFO, etc. Its a political thing as I was told. My personal reaction to this was and would be to say to NHDNR...."Fellas, this is private property - we can have our regulations or we can just post the whole damned place". I've seen this sort of position by private property owners work, but I didn't sense a lot of support for a high noon sort of showdown.

Anyway, that how it stands. Hope I answered your questions satisfactorily. If there's anything else I can do, just let me know.

Best,

Dennis

[fessiewig]

Thanks Dennis, your reply is appreciated. I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but if there is anything I can do to help get the FFO regs on this water, please let me know. That is, if you are going to pursue it.

[Gerry]

The NH Fish and Game dept adopted "Wild Trout management" regs for two tributaries of the Dead Diamond River - Alder Brook and Lamb Valley Brook. This implements single hook, barbless lures/flies and catch and release regs. Season closes to fishing on these waters on Labor Day. It would be great if the Dead Diamond and Swift Diamond rivers were also managed as Wild Trout waters.
There has been lots of local pressure against special regs water in far northern NH. Local politicians have been able to keep general regs on most waters in the area. If the owners of the land wanted special regs on waters on their property it would be really strange for the state to refuse. I think a letter to Lee Perry, Ex. Dir. of Fish and Game Dept, on behalf of Dartmouth would get some action. Regulations for approval for the 2006 season are now being considered.
tight lines,
Gerry

[Bugman53]

Gerry/Fess:

I stand corrected on those new regs. I was not aware of that change. This makes sense as if my memory serves me, they are the two most heavily populated tribs of the Dead, the ones on which Diane spends a lot of time. This can only help as when the water warms, those tribs get a lot of fish in them. Regarding the letter to Lee, I again suggest that for the political climate so described in N. NH, the college is not looking for that sort of showdown. But I agree...when a landowner spells it out, why would they not comply? I hope the longer term future is of restored mainstem waters carrying more and larger trout, FFO, C&R, and all the stuff that makes for a great fishery. That was my intent when I started the process. Maybe I'll even live to see it!

Best,

Dennis

[sbeausol]

Sounds like something TU might be able to help get rolling. If anything from a political side? I know this is out of your region, but would you agree with that Gerry?

Heck, if there is interest, maybe the members on this site could get something going not unlike the FFIM/Rapid thing? I know it is only our first week or so, but just a thought...

[sbeausol]

This topic has enough interest to stand alone so I split it off the original post

Enjoy!

[Bugman53]

Gents...I would urge caution here as this is private property and while technically the public can go in there on foot and bikes, the matter of management should be left to the College. I think they are on the right track. Remember, these rivers did not get into the condition they are over night and they will not be improved/restored over night by any means. Any rush to put more restraints or to impose the will of outsiders will, in my opinioin, be met with resistance simply because they and I believe that the pace and direction are appropriate. The habitat is the key to all this. When the populations iimprove and that condition begins to attract a heavier angler presence and impact, perhaps more special regs make sense then. In my opinion, if this all plays out, I would think the College might consider further steps. This is just getting going. Again, I would not create a stir about this. It needs to go at its own pace. Please be mindful also, that while I have provided information and support to this situation, I do not speak for the College or the Mgt. Comm., I've just tried to help out and that is my intent in participating in this discussion

Thanks to all,

Dennis

[Ken B]

Dennis,

First, I don't want you to think I'm being argumentative here as that's certainly not my goal. While the land may be private property, I don't beleive the water is. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And even if it is private property, the college surely has not done a good job of managing the fishery. My guess is that it hardly even crosses their minds and only comes to discussion becasue of their inability to manage the logging operations and the harsh effect it has had on the watershed.

I would love to see the board members flood Commissioner Perry's office with requests to make these waters FFO and C+R.

Ken

[fessiewig]

Ken,

I disagree! I think we should back off and give Dartmouth a chance to do this at their pace and in their way. From what Dennis has said, it seems to me that although you could make a case for past neglect of the rivers, they have come full circle and are in the process of "restoring" these rivers to health. I don't care who's doing it, it will take time. Actually, if you really wanted to improve the fish populations in those rivers perhaps the best thing that could be done would be to close them to all fishing for a number of years. Let's take Dennis' advice and back off.

[Gerry]

Between the newly implemented Wild Trout designation on the tribs and limited access, let's see how the trout fare before launching any additional regs.
Dennis, keep in mind that if you/Dartmouth want any help with habitat improvement, or support for approval of regulations, TU can be a good resource for you. (As well as the members of this board)
Gerry

[sbeausol]

My thought was more along the lines of aiding in restoration - whether that is by pushing for different regulations, or improving the fundamental health of the system, I would think the more people who and are educated on the issue, the more likely for a speedy, and healthy improvement. This is particularly important if the system's potential is high since places like that seem to be less common these days...

[Bugman53]

Guys....appreciate the thoughts, energy and enthusisam for the Grant rivers. I'm sure there will be partnership opportunities in the future with TU and other interested parties. As one with deep experience with this kind of stuff which includes being named TU's National Volunteer of the Year in 1993 for my work in starting and advancing Falling Spring Greenway in PA, (a partnership-intensive endeavor if there ever was one) I know the value of the sort of awareness and support a forum like this can quickly (and has already from this spirited discussion) develop for any resource. As long as my wife is on the Mgt. Comm., I'll do what I can to help the College in this regard. I would encourage anyone so interested to visit the Grant to get a better feel for the nature of the resource which can only serve to develop and maintain positive energy for the resource and its issues.

Best to all,

Dennis

[petegas]

hey Dennis-
great to "see" you around.......check your email in the next few days, i'll drop you a line to catch up, and let you know what i've been up too......currently swamped with work here in the lab. :?
-pete

[Bugman53]

Hey, Pete...I'll look for that. Great to hear from you!

[vermonster]

...Someone correct me if I'm wrong. And even if it is private property, the college surely has not done a good job of managing the fishery. My guess is that it hardly even crosses their minds and only comes to discussion becasue of their inability to manage the logging operations and the harsh effect it has had on the watershed.

I would love to see the board members flood Commissioner Perry's office with requests to make these waters FFO and C+R.

Ken

Ken,
I am not interested in starting an Internet argument, but would like to make several points regarding your statement above. I should preface these comments by stating I do not work for Dartmouth College or the NHFG department and do not claim to speak for them. I do have a bit of experience with the watershed in question, having spent the last 30+ years fishing there.

While it is possible that in the (distant) past there were forestry management practices on college owned lands that were in conflict with a wild brook trout fishery, in recent times there has been a substantial effort made to exceed best management practices and take steps to improve all wildlife habitat, which includes a very special emphasis on the wild brook trout fishery in the Diamond Rivers. Dartmouth works very closely with fisheries and wildlife biologists from NHFG and has their forestry operations monitored by independent experts in order to ensure these activities are managed with as little negative impact on both game and non-game wildlife species as possible. In many instances forestry management plans are developed to improve wildlife habitat (for example, the creation of successional habitat and regeneration of alder stands for woodcock and ruffed grouse, the creation of “no-cut” zones in historic deer wintering yards, etc.).

Dartmouth College employees and numerous volunteers have expended substantial time, effort, and funds to improve the watershed. This includes annual electrofishing and habitat surveys, the relocation of historic roads from riparian zones, elimination of hanging culverts, etc.

Unfortunately the fate of the watershed is not completely within the hands of Dartmouth College. The headwaters of both the Dead and Swift Diamond Rivers lie outside of the lands owned by the college. These lands have traditionally been industrial timberland and have received treatments that are not “fish friendly”: large scale clearcuts and herbicide applications. As Dennis has pointed out, it is likely the main stems of both rivers suffer from thermal pressure in the summer. While Dartmouth can take steps to improve the situation, abutting landowners also must do their part.

The watershed is also under pressure from downstream due to the illegal introduction of small mouth bass into Lake Umbagog—into which the river flows via the Magalloway River. As many of you know, a similar situation exists on the Rapid River in Maine. The Diamond drainage has a natural impediment to the migration of bass from downstream—a steep gorge with several plunge drops about ¼ mile from the mouth of the river. While bass have been caught at the foot of the gorge, to date I am aware of no bass caught by either angling or electrofishing above this barrier. However, my fear is that low summer/fall flows may eventually allow the influx of these invasives.

As you can likely tell I am very passionate about these rivers. I learned to flyfish there and hope to someday teach my children to do the same. While there is always room for improvement, I believe stating management of the wild brook trout fishery “has not crossed their minds” is a very inaccurate conclusion based on what I have witnessed firsthand. I believe the College has done an admirable job managing the land for both wildlife and the generation of scholarship monies (which is after all, the reason Dartmouth was originally granted the land in 1807).

I’m sure that any additional help, either in funds (yes, there is a non-profit fund you can donate to) or in time would be welcomed and is sure to help. Internet conjecture and accusations are, in my experience, unlikely to be as beneficial. Similarly, the designation of these waters as FFO/C+R is unlikely to be a cure-all, and may come with unintended negative consequences (fishing pressure). I’m inclined to listen carefully to the biologists at NHFG before jumping to conclusions. Dianne Emerson and others are very aware of the status of the watershed and Dartmouth’s desire to work together to improve it.

Regards,

VT

[Ken B]

VT,

Thanks for chiming in. I'd be the first one to admit I know little about the watershed and certainly don't know the background like it appears you do. My post should have been more of a question so I apoligize for that.

Ken

[fessiewig]

Yea, but think of it this way, Ken . . . . if you hadn't posted we would have never had this great dialog!

[Bugman53]

Guys...

Veromonster clearly came to this thread late, as you'll find in previous related postings, I cover nearly all of what he put up, but the reinforcement of these ideas: The College's commitment to improving the future, working co-operatively with NHDNR, etc. are all worthy of saying again, and so eloquently, as he did. Let's all of us just keep our eye on the ball of the future. I'm confident this will pan out in due time.

Best to you all,

Dennis