The Illinois Department of Natural Resources is considering creating an exclusion zone around some of the dams in the area. I considered putting in all the names and addresses and deadlines for people to send in their comments on the proposal, but decided against it. The fewer comments the better, especially from fishermen.
The IDNR shouldn't even be asking for opinions on this. Put in the exclusion zones and be done with it.
Here's the proposed rule change, the list of dams, and at the end, my opinion on this whole thing.
17 Ill. Adm. Code 3703
Section 3703.20 Definitions
"Exclusion Zone" means a segment of the river, beginning 50 feet downstream of a dam and proceeding to a point 300 feet upstream of the dam, in which no one is allowed to enter for any purpose except those purposes exempted by this Part. This zone includes the spillway, gates, piers and other appurtenant dam works that are not designed for the express purpose of general pedestrian access.
Section 3703.Appendix A—List of Run-of-River Dams on Public Waters
Listed by dam name, county and body of water.
Algonquin Dam, McHenry, Fox River
Aurora - East Dam, Kane, Fox River
Aurora - West Dam, Kane, Fox River
Bernadotte, Fulton, Spoon River
Carpentersville Dam, Kane, Fox River
Dayton Dam, LaSalle, Fox River
Dixon Dam, Lee, Rock River
Elgin - Kimble Street Dam, Kane, Fox River
Fairbanks Road Dam, Cook, Des Plaines River
Fordham Dam, Winnebago, Rock River
Geneva Dam, Kane, Fox River
Hoffman Dam, Cook, Des Plaines River
Kankakee Dam, Kankakee, Kankakee River
Momence Dam, Kankakee, Kankakee River
Montgomery Dam, Kane, Fox River
North Aurora Dam, Kane, Fox River
North Batavia Dam, Kane, Fox River
Oregon Dam, Ogle, Rock River
Petersburg Dam, Menard, Sangamon River
Rockton Dam, Winnebago, Rock River
Sears Dam, Rock Island, Rock River
Sinnissippi Dam, Whiteside, Rock River
South Elgin Dam, Kane, Fox River
St. Charles Dam, Kane, Fox River
Steel Dam, Rock Island, Rock River
Sterling Lower Dam, Whiteside, Rock River
Stratton Lock and Dam, McHenry, Fox River
Vermilion River, Vermilion, Vermilion
Wilmington Dam, Will, Kankakee River
Wilmington Mill Race, Kankakee, Kankakee River
Yorkville Dam, Kendall, Fox River
__________________
It's 350 feet of the most dangerous, least productive stretch of water on a river.
Of the 31 dams listed, most of the ones I know are all the low head dams that no longer serve any real purpose. The discussion shouldn't be about exclusion zones, but immediate removal of any and all of these dams that no longer serve any real purpose.
The topic of the exclusion zones came up on some fishing websites a few months ago when this access limit was implemented on a variety of dams in the area. I responded back then with pretty much the above two paragraphs.
It got ignored.
Instead, the thread degenerated into diatribes on government control and intervention, limiting the many for the sake of the stupid few, how Blago's got to go and on and on and on.
It's happening again now on another fishing website. Nobody mentions the miles of river teeming with all varieties of fish species down stream from the dams. How you can go anywhere on just about any of these rivers and have a tremendous day of fishing without ever seeing a dam. It's just the constant whine of losing this 350 feet of access.
Like I said, it's 350 feet of the most dangerous, least productive stretch of water on a river.
Put your back against a wall, step off 51 feet, turn around and cast at the wall. Is there really any reason to be any closer to a dam than that? As for coming within 300 feet of the top of a dam . . . my dad used to slap me in the back of the head when I said or did something stupid. No explanation for the slap, the stupidity of what was said or done became quickly self evident.
I feel that slap coming, but more for anyone that complains about that 300 foot limit.
The issue of what to do with useless dams on a river has become some kind of absurd ongoing joke. What winds up happening with these dams is virtually nothing.
It's actually quite simple, the IDNR has all the data they need to show that these low head dams adversely effect the natural resources that the IDNR is supposed to be preserving and protecting.
If the IDNR owns the dam, it's even easier. They own it, it's adversely effecting natural resources, remove it. Everyone always talks about community involvement at that point, which is fine. As long as removal is the end result. In most cases the community where these dams are located handed ownership of the dam back to the IDNR. If it was important to them, why did they do that?
There's only one big problem. Lt. Pat Quinn can get this ball moving and direct the IDNR on what to do. The IDNR can then begin to move on these directives. Except that none of them seem to have the balls to put any of it in motion.
Instead, we get still more endless conversation on what to do with these dams.
I sense that slap aimed at the back of the head again, only this time it’s the collective heads of Pat Quinn and the IDNR.
I never could duck fast enough to avoid it.