# Berrien Springs Fish Ladder to Close Permanently???



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

There is an article in todays paper stating that the Village of Berrien Springs has passed some legislature requesting that the fish ladder on the Berrien Springs Dam on the Saint Joseph River be closed due to the Asian Carp threat.

It's in the Herald Palladium...


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Ruh, roh. Makes sense to ensure Asian Carp don't move up through the system. If it happens, I have to think IN will stop planting Skams in the Joe. That would be bad for MI anglers who love Skams.


----------



## steely74 (Feb 9, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> Ruh, roh. Makes sense to ensure Asian Carp don't move up through the system. If it happens, I have to think IN will stop planting Skams in the Joe. That would be bad for MI anglers who love Skams.


I agree but the whole ladder system seems to be a big waste of money. Indiana stocks 250,000+ fish a year to have maybe 5,000 return to In waters. Not worth it in my opinion for Indiana... However other states also do the same. PA. stocks the crap out of the Connie which flows through OH and PA. Most of the fish are picked off in OH before they make it all the way back to PA. I haven't read into it for a while but IN stocks skams and MI stocks salmon. Some years IN stocks winter run, skams and salmon into the Joe. I never fish the IN side of the Jo so it does not really matter to me if fish make it up there.

It would really suck though since I do fish above Berrien in MI waters.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Word is...

This was tried 15 months ago and denied...

MDNR says there is NO reason for it to close and they will fight it...


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Just for clarity. Berrien Spring passed a resolution stating that they want the ladder closed to prevent spread of Asian carp. Although that is an option to consider, there is no reason to implement it at this time.

Indiana and Michigan recieved funding through an Anadromous Fish Act to build the ladders. Along with that we have signed agreements of how the ladders and St. Joseph River should be managed. 

The resolution is not legal. It just states the opinion of Berrien Springs. 

Berrien Springs has wanted the ladders closed ever since 1992 when the ladders were completed. Their reasoning is to keep more fish in their area to help with tourism. They fail to realize that most of the steelhead in the system comes from Indiana stocking. 

The resolution was sent to the Governor and all the legislators in the area.


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

Luckily this wont actually happen. And while I hate to play conspiracy theory I have a strong sense and some sources saying this has nothing to do with asian carp and everything to do with keeping the fish in the lower river to make fishing better. Seems a little too convenient for the town with the most to gain to say "hey lets close the ladder" when the carp aren't even in lake michigan yet. Could you imagine the skam fishing the next 4 or so years below berrien if the ladder was closed all summer.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

I did a little digging, amazingly the Charter Captain's whom operate below this dam seem to be the main ones pushing for it, imagine that, LOL...

I guess up North they try to make gear regulations, down here they just try and keep all the fish for themselves, LOL


----------



## pikedevil (Feb 11, 2003)

Ahh politics at its finest. I think its time to email bomb some officials in Berrien Springs and apparently some selfish fishing guides and let them know tricking the public when their real motive is to hog a natural resource for financial gain is going to backfire. This is one of the most rediculous stories I've ever heard.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

To be honest, I was told the best thing to do would be to write the following people expressing your opinion.

The reasoning for this is these are the same people Berrien Springs is appealing to for these changes to be made.

Governor Rick Snyder

State Senator John Proos

State Representatives: Al Pscholka & Sharon Tyler

U.S. Representative: Fred Upton


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I am 100% against closing that fish ladder, for a few reasons. But if it does close, I would like to know about it ASAP, so I can plan some Skam trips before the IN plants returns are done returning. :evilsmile I have been there when a major run was in the river, and that ladder was closed. Some incredible fishing was had for a few days.


----------



## Big Brown (Sep 18, 2007)

^^ What he said. 2 years ago the ladder was closed around a holiday and it was off the hook...or on the hook:evilsmile


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

If guys are complaining about a lack of fish now, wait until the DNR does the third round of cuts in the chinook plants (that they're proposing). Catching a salmon down there will be about as common as catching a sturgeon, and then they'll be hoping and praying that Indiana keeps stocking the skams because that'll be the only run they'll be getting in the fall.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

These are just a few questions that have came to mind that I have been asking around. Still have yet to get any responses, but look forward to hearing the answers...

1) Has there been any Asian Carp DNA detected outside of Southwestern Lake Michigan?

2) If so, has there been any DNA detected near Southwest Michigan in Lake Michigan?

3) Has there been any DNA detected in/near the St. Joseph River?

4) Has there even been any DNA testing done in Southwest Michigan or in/near the St. Joseph River?

5) If there hasn't been any testing done, have these entities pushing for closure of the fish ladder made any type of request for testing to be done?

6) If there hasn't been any testing, what would it take to make it begin being done on a routine basis? 

This is a serious threat and measures do need to be taken, however, the measures need to be done in a proper manner. A introduced species should never outweigh that of a native species fishery, however if there is no reason to end the introduced fishery, then this should be portrayed in the actions taken...


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

There has been no detections in southwest Michigan .

We sampled the Galien and St. Joseph rivers. Both had negative results. Samples were taken from St. Joe/Benton Harbor and Berrien Springs.

eDNA is our best early warning system. To date, the only detections have been in Chicago .

We will continue to test these areas.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

thousandcasts said:


> If guys are complaining about a lack of fish now, wait until the DNR does the third round of cuts in the chinook plants (that they're proposing). Catching a salmon down there will be about as common as catching a sturgeon, and then they'll be hoping and praying that Indiana keeps stocking the skams because that'll be the only run they'll be getting in the fall.


The DNR will be conducting a public process in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin to run various senarios of salmon and trout management in Lake Michigan in the next year. There could be changes up or down or with other species based on these meetings and their outcomes. 

No decision has been made to make any changes. In fact, we are cautiously optimistic of where things are at right now.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Jay Wesley said:


> The DNR will be conducting a public process in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin to run various senarios of salmon and trout management in Lake Michigan in the next year. There could be changes up or down or with other species based on these meetings and their outcomes.
> 
> No decision has been made to make any changes. In fact, we are cautiously optimistic of where things are at right now.


Thank you for the clarification, Jay--it is much appreciated.

However, with all due respect--and I wouldn't address this without absolute respect for the job you guys do, but if you're cautiously optimistic, then why does anything have to be done? 

Yes--bait fish numbers are down. But, anybody with a boat and a fish finder is finding plenty of bait pods out there. In addition, you could stand at any cleaning station and fill a five gallon bucket in an hour with all the ales that are in the stomachs of kings getting cleaned. 

Yes--salmon sizes are down as well, but they're not sickly looking fish. They're very stocky proportion wise and full of piss and vinegar. 

We get X amount of salmon planted + natural recruitment. We get X amount of steelhead planted. No one can deny that there's issues with the big lake right now, but catch rates have been good, fish are healthy and people are mostly happy with the great fishery we have. 

Other than some of the limits on the wild rivers (steelhead--PM, Little M), Why change anything?


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

thousandcasts said:


> Thank you for the clarification, Jay--it is much appreciated.
> 
> However, with all due respect--and I wouldn't address this without absolute respect for the job you guys do, but if you're cautiously optimistic, then why does anything have to be done?
> 
> ...


Perhaps they would like to be smart about it and ensure they are making the right changes in the right places and if no changes are needed, none will be made.

People have been screaming and screaming for more detailed studies which are specific to watersheds, now they do it and you ask why???


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

There may not be changes. 

We have stated after each cut that we will complete an evaluation 5 years after the cut to see where we are. 

This process will look at where we have been, current data and trends, and model future scenarios side by side with the public. The public will actually come up with the scenarios. 

A perfectly fine outcome could be no changes. Maybe some minor or major tweaking is needed. 

We won't know until we complete the process.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Please let us know when these meetings will take place Jay.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Getting back to the ladders and Asian carp

If Asian carp do find there way into the St. Joseph River, there is an option to trap and transfer fish at the Berrien Springs fish ladder. There is a trap there, so fish could be sorted by hand allowing only salmon, steelhead, and native species to go upstream. The Asian carp could be removed. 

This would be labor intensive but would ensure upstream movement of valuable fish while keeping the carp from going up.


----------



## speydude (Apr 22, 2011)

Boozer said:


> I did a little digging, amazingly the Charter Captain's whom operate below this dam seem to be the main ones pushing for it, imagine that, LOL...
> 
> I guess up North they try to make gear regulations, down here they just try and keep all the fish for themselves, LOL


And your proof of that is?.............. and asian carp are not a real threat anymore?????


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Boozer said:


> Perhaps they would like to be smart about it and ensure they are making the right changes in the right places and if no changes are needed, none will be made.
> 
> People have been screaming and screaming for more detailed studies which are specific to watersheds, now they do it and you ask why???


Who's asking "why?" about specific studies pertaining to watersheds? If anything, budget cuts have put a dent on any specific studies--especially when the creel clerks are taking a big hit this year and there's going to be watersheds (I believe the Joe is one of them) where there aren't going to be any clerks assigned at all. I.e. "no data gathered." 

I'm not talking about studies, I'm talking about a third cut in the chinook plants--no more, no less.


----------



## speydude (Apr 22, 2011)

Seems like same old story, I heard or my digging found, like an old lady flapping her jaws. You need proof to be credible... not word of mouth.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

speydude said:


> Seems like same old story, I heard or my digging found, like an old lady flapping her jaws. You need proof to be credible... not word of mouth.


I really like you created a new username today to try and discredit anything and anyone, bravo on proving there is tools left out there...

If you only knew...


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

thousandcasts said:


> Who's asking "why?" about specific studies pertaining to watersheds? If anything, budget cuts have put a dent on any specific studies--especially when the creel clerks are taking a big hit this year and there's going to be watersheds (I believe the Joe is one of them) where there aren't going to be any clerks assigned at all. I.e. "no data gathered."
> 
> I'm not talking about studies, I'm talking about a third cut in the chinook plants--no more, no less.


You asked why anything had to be done :lol:


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

speydude said:


> And your proof of that is?.............. and asian carp are not a real threat anymore?????


Yeah, they most certainly are, but using them as a scare tactic to push an agenda that aids in certain individuals to make a buck easier utilizing PUBLIC resources is complete and utter BS...

Not to mention bringing an end to a multi million dollar investment between two states and federal tax dollars as well as essentially ending 75% of the stocking on this river. Which would also have a very big negative effect on the port fishery in St. Joseph as well.

Essentially the bottom line is, politicians should not be managing our resources, the DNR should be, this is the basis for the original post...


----------



## speydude (Apr 22, 2011)

Boozer said:


> Yeah, they most certainly are, but using them as a scare tactic to push an agenda that aids in certain individuals to make a buck easier utilizing PUBLIC resources is complete and utter BS...
> 
> Not to mention bringing an end to a multi million dollar investment between two states and federal tax dollars as well as essentially ending 75% of the stocking on this river. Which would also have a very big negative effect on the port fishery in St. Joseph as well.
> 
> Essentially the bottom line is, politicians should not be managing our resources, the DNR should be, this is the basis for the original post...


 
That investment is in the past, have you never seen the gov waste money? Are you sure you are from here???? Indiana stands to save a lot of money were they to lock down the dam, yjeu would not need to plant Indy waters would they. One less hatchery spewing out anti-biotic fed fish.... Sounds like a win for Indy.

Besides Skams belly up after 4-5 minutes of a fight, really sad to see them die like that in the summer, would be best thing for them is not to plant anymore.... bottom line, waste of a good fish.

Anyone who fishes Skams in the summer is a fool and very selfish, all they want to do is stroke thier little egos, concerning how good of a fisherman they are.

In all actually being the dam buster that you are I would think you would be for rallying the tearing down of all dams on the Joe. Guess that only matters in certain cases eh? They have nuke plant at Bridgeman that provides a ton of power.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Actually, I would love to see all the dams go on the Joe, will never happen though...

Just speaking for myself, I am more interested in the Fall fishery skamania provide, not the Summer fishery...


----------



## speydude (Apr 22, 2011)

Boozer said:


> Actually, I would love to see all the dams go on the Joe, will never happen though...
> 
> Just speaking for myself, I am more interested in the Fall fishery skamania provide, not the Summer fishery...


 
They have to survive the summer to make it to the fall, if they can't get back to the lake they are pooched. Fished them many years ago, they will go back to the lake if thay can, low/warm water kind of stops that, not to mention the row of snaggers they face,


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

The Asian Carp have gotten past several Dams, and closed locks, and the barrier. How is having thousands of Asian carp stacked up below a dam a good thing? Watching bait buckets is a prudent move, but it does not reduce the invasive populations, and has yet to stop anything. Reducing their numbers reduces the chance of being moved/transfered by whatever means, including the ones that swim. Regardless of how an invasive species get here, instead of running into a bunch of hungry native fish,and winding up D.O.A. they're are having a family reunions. Lake Michigan is the land of opportunity for invasive fish, being cleaned up, plenty of food, not too many local predators, invasive friendly. We can't control where they go, we can only control how many predators they run into. It really is that simple.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Jay Wesley said:


> The DNR will be conducting a public process in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin to run various senarios of salmon and trout management in Lake Michigan in the next year. There could be changes up or down or with other species based on these meetings and their outcomes.
> 
> No decision has been made to make any changes. In fact, we are cautiously optimistic of where things are at right now.


Is there a change of process from the previous meetings (1994-2005)??


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

REG said:


> Is there a change of process from the previous meetings (1994-2005)??


 Great Question! The results of previous meetings doesn't seem to be working too well. The invasive species still seem to be winning, and license sales and interest still dropping. Take a neighbor Fishing! There's a reason the neighbor and almost 1/2 million people quit buying fishing licences since 1986. One fish does not fit all.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Gotta plant PERCH by the gazillions! A gazillion Perch will not only consume all small Asian Bighead and Silver Carp, but they will also eradicate Alewives, Salmon, Steelhead, and all other invasive species! And everyone loves to eat Perch, and they fight great. All hatchery efforts should be focused on Perch planting, and let the nature figure out where all the other species fit into the picture.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Fishndude said:


> Gotta plant PERCH by the gazillions!


 A gazillion is not enough. We must plant perch to INFINITY and beyond! There can never be enough. When you think you have planted too many, plant more. Besides, since the perch don't have enough food to hold a high population by natural reproduction, we must plant astronomical numbers to dominate the lakes. Perch are the only species worth planting because they are the best. No walleyes, no trout, no salmon, only perch. And more perch. Alewives are still invasive.


----------



## centerpin (Jun 13, 2009)

One of the carp species has developed this weird natural ability to jump very well out the water and there by escape predators. This could pose a problem.

I still think that sterilization techniques and those bio bullets are real possibilities. But Walranger5 is right about how the carp bypassed dams and other natural obstacles along their route. sad but true.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

centerpin said:


> One of the carp species has developed this weird natural ability to jump very well out the water and there by escape predators. This could pose a problem.
> 
> I still think that sterilization techniques and those bio bullets are real possibilities. But Walranger5 is right about how the carp bypassed dams and other natural obstacles along their route. sad but true.


 In Minnesota, they want to repair a dam, to block them from going upstream. They admit they would be surrendering everything below to the Asian carp. I don't don't want to surrender so much as a mud puddle to any invasive species, including alewives. Salmon were planted as predators to control alewives, which were at 90% of the fish, a common number for Asian carp. At 90% Alewives controled the lake, zooplankton, any spawn attempts, alewives controlled. Protecting the alewives has created an invasive sanctuary, a protected invasive incubator, invasives are breeding and spreading inland and beyond. The outlying states should by rights be sueing us. Salmon are a one trick pony, dependant on an invasive species for survival (alewives) thus we have to scarifice the entire natural ecosystem for one fish, that doesn't even belong here. I could say the salmon are our biggest liability, but that would be "exactly" true. Managing the lake for an invasive is. We can either do what's best for the lakes or what's best for the salmon, we can't do both. The proof is going on now, and swimming out of the Chicago river.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Some things which I would like to see addressed...

1) I keep seeing these requests to "close the canals" in Chicago, etc... Yet I never see any requests to close the welland canal which is just as big of a threat, why is this?

2) Has anyone done any studies in regards to the effect closing this canal would have on pollution? At this point, much of the highly polluted water draining into Lake Michigan from the IN/IL border area ends up going down the Mississippi thanks to these canals, if we stopped this, what will happen to the Lake Michigan ecosystem?

You never see any of this mentioned...


----------



## Speyday (Oct 1, 2004)

If I can figure out a way to take them on a 7 wt., I will make lemonade out of this, I assure you. 

There is a method developing to fish for these guys involving bread crumbs and a wiffle ball/hook rig that hangs below a bobber.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Screw that...

I will move out West before I make lemonade out of those worthless fish...

Hopefully it never comes to that, something has got to be done...


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

Fishndude said:


> Gotta plant PERCH by the gazillions! A gazillion Perch will not only consume all small Asian Bighead and Silver Carp, but they will also eradicate Alewives, Salmon, Steelhead, and all other invasive species! And everyone loves to eat Perch, and they fight great. All hatchery efforts should be focused on Perch planting, and let the nature figure out where all the other species fit into the picture.


 Yes I would plant Perch, as many as we could, and Walleye, and Pike And Muskie, as many as it took to bring back the balance in the lakes. The true balance, the one nature intended. We need no hatcheries, just common sense. All the things they're are saying about Asian carp now, is what they were saying about alewives in 1966, drastic change in zooplankton, dominate etc... Why is it ok for alewives to hog the zooplankton but not asian carp? 1/2 million people quit fishing because they weren't catching fish. Not just being skunked a few times, but being skunked for years, this fact is ok with you? It's their fault they didn't want to buy a salmon boat like you? You expect them to keep buying the salmon stamp to stock your fish, but catch little or nothing themselves? Given the facts, there is a compromise, we could have a steelhead fishery, along with a healthy native fishery. However if we keep the salmon then every other fishery has to compromise, to protect the alewives? This is no compromise, and it isn't working, in sooooo many ways. If closing the locks is the best thing to save the lakes, then that's what we should do. But it would cost tourboat jobs, to hell with everybody. Keeping the salmon, same thing.


----------



## earl (Sep 7, 2007)

Boozer said:


> Screw that...
> 
> I will move out West before I make lemonade out of those worthless fish...
> 
> Hopefully it never comes to that, something has got to be done...


Yup.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

walranger5 said:


> Yes I would plant Perch, as many as we could, and Walleye, and Pike And Muskie, as many as it took to bring back the balance in the lakes. The true balance, the one nature intended.


You can't force nature to take on the balance you want just by planting more. You need the food source to support the artificial population you want to create, and it isn't there. 



walranger5 said:


> We need no hatcheries, just common sense.


How are you going to plant gazzillions of perch, walleye, pike and musky without hatcheries? 



walranger5 said:


> Why is it ok for alewives to hog the zooplankton but not asian carp?


 The alewives aren't hogging it anymore. It is the quagga and zebra mussels doing that. 



walranger5 said:


> 1/2 million people quit fishing because they weren't catching fish. Not just being skunked a few times, but being skunked for years, *this fact is ok with you?*


 Show me how that is a fact. Cite that somewhere in some literature that the whole reason that there are fewer fishing licences sold now is because we have salmon in Lake Michigan, and that people were getting skunked for years. That is garbage logic. Hunting license sales have dropped. Fishing license sales around the COUNTRY have dropped. It isn't the salmon, it is a change in society. People are either too busy or aren't as interested in alot of things as they once were. 



walranger5 said:


> It's their fault they didn't want to buy a salmon boat like you? You expect them to keep buying the salmon stamp to stock your fish, but catch little or nothing themselves?


 Again, where are all of these people that couldn't catch anything for years? Were they strictly pier perch fishermen? It is not their fault they didn't buy a salmon boat. But you don't need a salmon boat. You can pier fish, river fish, charter a boat, fish with a friend, fish from a 14' boat, and these are just options to catch salmon. There are also tons of opportunities inland as well for warmwater fish. Who's fault will it be when all of these people with a salmon boat have to sell them because you want the salmon gone? If they don't want to fish for trout or salmon, then no one expects them to buy an all species license (there is no trout stamp anymore). It is their choice. 



walranger5 said:


> Given the facts, there is a compromise, we could have a steelhead fishery, along with a healthy native fishery. However if we keep the salmon then every other fishery has to compromise, to protect the alewives?


 Show me some of these facts that all of these other fisheries in the great lakes are being compromised due to the ales? We have a healthier Great Lakes walleye fishery than anyone can remember. We have a very health Lake Mich smallmouth fishery, if you know where and how. Same goes with Pike. But, once again, it all comes down to Perch, doesn't it? Yes, ale eat baby perch. But, perch also eat baby ales. 



walranger5 said:


> This is no compromise, and it isn't working, in sooooo many ways. If closing the locks is the best thing to save the lakes, then that's what we should do. But it would cost tourboat jobs, to hell with everybody. Keeping the salmon, same thing.


 Your only concern with closing the locks is the loss of tourboat jobs? But you are OK with all of the jobs that would be lost from ending the salmon fishery? All of the charterboats? All of the hotels and restraunts that enjoy the business that the salmon fishery brings to coastal towns? The lure companies we have, right here in Michigan? Companies like Yeck, Dreamweaver, Stinger, Great Lakes Holders, etc? The marinas that would lose business when noone had a reason to slip a big boat? The marine shops that maintain and repair those boats? None of those jobs matter? And that is from a very, VERY flawed theory that getting rid of salmon will keep future invasives such as Asian Carp out. Your theory, that a natural fishery without salmon will naturally fend off all invasives, doesn't really add up. We had no salmon in the Great Lakes, but then we got Lampreys. And then we got Alewives. Where were your perch then? It wasn't the salmon's fault, we hadn't introduced them yet. But you claim that getting rid of the salmon will fix everything? Makes no sense.


----------



## earl (Sep 7, 2007)

walranger5 said:


> The true balance, the one nature intended..


as clueless as ever.



walranger5 said:


> We need no hatcheries, just common sense. .


great, get some.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

walranger5 said:


> Yes I would plant Perch, as many as we could, and Walleye, and Pike And Muskie, as many as it took to bring back the balance in the lakes. The true balance, the one nature intended. We need no hatcheries, just common sense. All the things they're are saying about Asian carp now, is what they were saying about alewives in 1966, drastic change in zooplankton, dominate etc... Why is it ok for alewives to hog the zooplankton but not asian carp? 1/2 million people quit fishing because they weren't catching fish. Not just being skunked a few times, but being skunked for years, this fact is ok with you? It's their fault they didn't want to buy a salmon boat like you? You expect them to keep buying the salmon stamp to stock your fish, but catch little or nothing themselves? Given the facts, there is a compromise, we could have a steelhead fishery, along with a healthy native fishery. However if we keep the salmon then every other fishery has to compromise, to protect the alewives? This is no compromise, and it isn't working, in sooooo many ways. If closing the locks is the best thing to save the lakes, then that's what we should do. But it would cost tourboat jobs, to hell with everybody. Keeping the salmon, same thing.


You don't know me one bit, and you have no basis for judging me. I do not, and have never owned a boat for Salmon fishing, unless you count my 16' rowboat, that I take on a couple rivers for Salmon, for about 4 days/year. I am deeply concerned that 500,000 (unverified) fewer people are buying fishing licenses, as used to; in the same way I am concerned that over 800,000 people have moved out of our State in the last 5 years. And I honestly don't care one bit if the DNR continues stocking Salmon, or not. There will always be some Salmon around. If stocking was discontinued, the Salmon population would adjust naturally to match the baitfish population. 

If you think 1/2 million people quit fishing because they tried to catch fish for years, and got skunked every time, there is either something wrong with your logic, or with what all those morons were doing. Anyone can catch a fish in MI with a small amount of effort. A very small amount of effort. Heck, I had to catch a fish without a hook before my Pops would give me a hook to fish with, and I made it work. I've been hearing great reports from known sources, and even seeing fishing shows that highlight the great Perch fishing in MI, the last few years. Lots of BIG Perch are being caught. Things should be shaping up quickly, it would seem. 

I'm just glad you came back with your rhetoric, again. I was kind of missing it. :evilsmile


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

REG said:


> Is there a change of process from the previous meetings (1994-2005)??


Yes. This week, the Lake Michigan Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee submitted a list of objectives and management options for managing Lake Michigan. The main option to look at was with fish stocking. 

These ideas will be put into a structured decision analysis model to look at possible outcomes of various decisions based on the uncertaintiy of many key ecological variables.

This same process will occur in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 

By fall of this year, there should be a list of options for the public to consider. 

There will be a Public Meeting probably in the Benton Harbor Area in summer of 2012 for anglers from all states to meet and discuss. A decision will then be made before fall 2012 egg takes in case more or less eggs will taken.

If you want to just stock yellow perch, I am sure that could be modeled. However, there would be a lot of anglers that may have a different opinion regarding what the lake fishery should look like.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Jay Wesley said:


> Yes. This week, the Lake Michigan Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee submitted a list of objectives and management options for managing Lake Michigan. The main option to look at was with fish stocking.
> 
> These ideas will be put into a structured decision analysis model to look at possible outcomes of various decisions based on the uncertaintiy of many key ecological variables.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification Jay. I was starting to think the process might have been changed from the previous meetings in that the lakewide meeting was going to be dropped. Given the budget constraints for everyone involved, (whether agency, organization, or personal) I could see that happening.


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

Fishndude said:


> You don't know me one bit, and you have no basis for judging me. I do not, and have never owned a boat for Salmon fishing, unless you count my 16' rowboat, that I take on a couple rivers for Salmon, for about 4 days/year. I am deeply concerned that 500,000 (unverified) fewer people are buying fishing licenses, as used to; in the same way I am concerned that over 800,000 people have moved out of our State in the last 5 years. And I honestly don't care one bit if the DNR continues stocking Salmon, or not. There will always be some Salmon around. If stocking was discontinued, the Salmon population would adjust naturally to match the baitfish population.
> 
> If you think 1/2 million people quit fishing because they tried to catch fish for years, and got skunked every time, there is either something wrong with your logic, or with what all those morons were doing. Anyone can catch a fish in MI with a small amount of effort. A very small amount of effort. Heck, I had to catch a fish without a hook before my Pops would give me a hook to fish with, and I made it work. I've been hearing great reports from known sources, and even seeing fishing shows that highlight the great Perch fishing in MI, the last few years. Lots of BIG Perch are being caught. Things should be shaping up quickly, it would seem.
> 
> I'm just glad you came back with your rhetoric, again. I was kind of missing it. :evilsmile


 Alright, the DNR is concerned about the continueing drop in fishing license sales, The number of license sales lost documented by the DNR. License sales in the center of the country (mostly native fishery) steady or much higher than Michigan. Search fishing license sales U.S. Panfish (this would include Perch) is the number one sought after fish in the U.S. The MDNR admits it was the alewives keeping the walleyes down in Saginaw/Huron documented by them. Salmon were planted as predators or biological control for alewives. Now they say too many predators (salmon) would wipe out the alewives. So it is possible to get rid of an invasive species, contrary to what "they" say. They don't have a zebra mussel problem where they come from, because they have predators. Lake trout were not the only one overfished, Perch, Walleye all fish were over fished, 1962 there was no limit on Perch. My Dad quit taking us to the Lake because the Perch and Walleye were gone, you want to rewrite history go ahead, I was there. Talk to the people that quit fishing, ask them why? One old family friend told me he want's the asian carp, so we have something to catch! The DNr sent out discount coupons to the people who quit, didn't work. It wasn't the cost of lures, they wern't catching anything. In the past the DNR has said kids would rather play video games, imagine if a video game only let you shoot one zombie every 15 or 20 minutes instead of "lots" would that game sell VS one with "lots"? Good fishing means catching fish, not just drowning worms. The bottom line is the fishery is overrun with invasive species, license sales and interest are way down, and the best plan has is to increase an invasive species." Lack of predators" allows invasive species to thrive pretty standard, pick a biologist. We have predators, we aren't allowed to use them. Since Perch eat Zebra/ Quagga mussels, gobies, spiny fleas and several other invasive species, it will take awhile before they run out of food. I'm not judging anyone , I'm looking at the whole picture, given the facts the results aren't there to support your position. Plus you aren't the only reading these posts. Take the time to do the research, we can have an ecosystem based approach, which means the native fish win, or an alewive based approach which means invasive species win. I want to save the lakes, not one fish.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

You either fail to understand, or choose to ignore the single largest factor in the decline of MI fisheries - the Mussels. They are not "just something that affects things." The reason the Alewives have died off is because the Mussels out-compete THE foodsource the Alewives focus on, which is Diporiea Shrimp. Diporiea have evolved in the Great Lakes for 1000's of years, and form the bottom of the food chain of the lakes. There is your history. The Diporiea have all but disappeared from lake Huron, and have declined to a huge degree in lake Michigan. The southern part of lake Michigan still supports a decent amount. Most minnow species, and fry size gamefish prey heavily on Diporiea. Without the shrimp, all species dependent on them are declining. Period. 

The reason so many people fuss about the declines for Salmon and Trout is because a LOT more money is spent fishing for those fish, than for Perch. How many Salmon charters still exist in MI? How many Perch charters? The consumers have voted with their pocketbooks. With so much more money invested, more people have a lot to lose if the Salmon die out. I can't imagine Perch charters replacing the kind of revenue Salmon charters create.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Fishndude said:


> You either fail to understand, or choose to ignore the single largest factor in the decline of MI fisheries - the Mussels. They are not "just something that affects things." The reason the Alewives have died off is because the Mussels out-compete THE foodsource the Alewives focus on, which is Diporiea Shrimp. Diporiea have evolved in the Great Lakes for 1000's of years, and form the bottom of the food chain of the lakes. There is your history. The Diporiea have all but disappeared from lake Huron, and have declined to a huge degree in lake Michigan. The southern part of lake Michigan still supports a decent amount. Most minnow species, and fry size gamefish prey heavily on Diporiea. Without the shrimp, all species dependent on them are declining. Period.
> 
> The reason so many people fuss about the declines for Salmon and Trout is because a LOT more money is spent fishing for those fish, than for Perch. How many Salmon charters still exist in MI? How many Perch charters? The consumers have voted with their pocketbooks. With so much more money invested, more people have a lot to lose if the Salmon die out. I can't imagine Perch charters replacing the kind of revenue Salmon charters create.


Very true, however, I want to add one little thing. It's not like a huge number of Huron fish "died off." A lot of those fish migrated to Lake Michigan, which has been proven numerous times through creel studies. So there's your wild card in the Lake Michigan salmon population and if further cuts need to be made in chinook plants, chop away at the Huron plants since that will lessen the amount of fish that end up in Lake Michigan. Leave the Lake Michigan plants alone and you've still reduced the over all number some since you've drastically reduced the amount of fish that are migrating over.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Regarding Lake Huron, this bit comes up everytime I check USGS streamflow data:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2708


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

Jay Wesley said:


> Yes. This week, the Lake Michigan Citizens Fishery Advisory Committee submitted a list of objectives and management options for managing Lake Michigan. The main option to look at was with fish stocking.
> 
> These ideas will be put into a structured decision analysis model to look at possible outcomes of various decisions based on the uncertaintiy of many key ecological variables.
> 
> ...


 Yes that's true, the advisory committee already passed a resolution against planting Perch anywhere in Lake Michigan, but as you said about Berrian springs resolution, it's just an opinion. the Perch and walleye have adapted the best to "new food" from out of town. The salmon have not adapted at all. What you I or anyone else wants matters little, what the lakes or the solution to the problem requires matters. Since the official plan is to keep the alewife dominate, no one should be suprised we have an invasive problem. As long as the DNR continues to protect the alewives I will not support any DNR plans, and told Dexter as much. If we are going to everything by committee, or opinion, then why do we need biologists? What science is used for, I want this fish, regardless of the true cost?


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

walranger5 said:


> Yes that's true, the advisory committee already passed a resolution against planting Perch anywhere in Lake Michigan, but as you said about Berrian springs resolution, it's just an opinion. the Perch and walleye have adapted the best to "new food" from out of town. The salmon have not adapted at all. What you I or anyone else wants matters little, what the lakes or the solution to the problem requires matters. Since the official plan is to keep the alewife dominate, no one should be suprised we have an invasive problem. As long as the DNR continues to protect the alewives I will not support any DNR plans, and told Dexter as much. If we are going to everything by committee, or opinion, then why do we need biologists? What science is used for, I want this fish, regardless of the true cost?



What???????


----------



## Multispeciestamer (Jan 27, 2010)

From the looks of the fish this season and the visible clarity of the water I would say something positive is happening out there on Lake Michigan or at least the southern end. We had one of the best spring Coho runs anyone has ever seen this year. Kings are hitting know and I've heard unconfirmed reports of 20+ pound specimens. I've seen the photos of many high teen fish also being landed. The lake water has a tint to it and I have yet to be able to look off the side and see bottom like I could last year.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Multispeciestamer said:


> The lake water has a tint to it and I have yet to be able to look off the side and see bottom like I could last year.


 Could that be from alot of wind, blown out rivers and 2 weeks of solid rain?


----------



## Multispeciestamer (Jan 27, 2010)

wartfroggy said:


> Could that be from alot of wind, blown out rivers and 2 weeks of solid rain?


 Ive fished the piers at least once a week since February


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Multispeciestamer said:


> Ive fished the piers at least once a week since February


 I thought it was too cold out in Feb?


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

here we go again....


----------



## walranger5 (May 1, 2005)

Fishndude said:


> You either fail to understand, or choose to ignore the single largest factor in the decline of MI fisheries - the Mussels. They are not "just something that affects things." The reason the Alewives have died off is because the Mussels out-compete THE foodsource the Alewives focus on, which is Diporiea Shrimp. Diporiea have evolved in the Great Lakes for 1000's of years, and form the bottom of the food chain of the lakes. There is your history. The Diporiea have all but disappeared from lake Huron, and have declined to a huge degree in lake Michigan. The southern part of lake Michigan still supports a decent amount. Most minnow species, and fry size gamefish prey heavily on Diporiea. Without the shrimp, all species dependent on them are declining. Period.
> 
> The reason so many people fuss about the declines for Salmon and Trout is because a LOT more money is spent fishing for those fish, than for Perch. How many Salmon charters still exist in MI? How many Perch charters? The consumers have voted with their pocketbooks. With so much more money invested, more people have a lot to lose if the Salmon die out. I can't imagine Perch charters replacing the kind of revenue Salmon charters create.


 "IF" the mussels wiped out the Diporeia, then we have to get rid of the mussels, before they can be restored. 2nd The alewives are not supposed to be eating diporeia or anything else, they're an invasive species. Perhaps Alewives, and goby predation and being starved wiped them out? The Goby spread map does match where diporeia ain't, matched as they spread, plus gobies growing twice the normal size? The license sales drop and too many bait shops closings around lake Michigan mostly happened before the alewife crash and the economy collapse, started in 1986. Right in the middle of the hot Salmon fishing? Salmon can't survive without alewives, the lake can't survive with alewives. Not a hard choice at all!


----------



## earl (Sep 7, 2007)

walranger5 said:


> The license sales drop and too many bait shops closings around lake Michigan mostly happened before the alewife crash and the economy collapse, started in 1986. Right in the middle of the hot Salmon fishing? Salmon can't survive without alewives, the lake can't survive with alewives. Not a hard choice at all!


BKD, how can you not know that?


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

walranger5 said:


> *"IF" the mussels wiped out the Diporeia*


It isn't an IF......it happened. Do some research....



walranger5 said:


> 2nd The alewives are not supposed to be eating diporeia or anything else, they're an invasive species. Perhaps Alewives, and goby predation and being starved wiped them out? The Goby spread map does match where diporeia ain't, matched as they spread, plus gobies growing twice the normal size?


Again....DO SOME RESEARCH. The ales and gobies aren't hurting the diporeia population from eating them...the zebras are COMPETING with them. Diporea are a zooplankton. Zooplankton eat phytoplankton. Zebras eat phytoplankton. Diporea populations didn't drop suddenly intil the mussels took hold. Get it?



walranger5 said:


> The license sales drop and too many bait shops closings around lake Michigan mostly happened before the alewife crash and the economy collapse, started in 1986. Right in the middle of the hot Salmon fishing? Salmon can't survive without alewives, the lake can't survive with alewives. Not a hard choice at all!


As mentioned.....1986-1987 was the PEAK of the BKD issues. This was not from a lack of ales. There were no stunted little kings like we see now. These were BIG dead salmon washing up dead on the shores....and infected with Bacterial Kidney Disease. 1986 wasn't the middle of the "hot salmon fishing"....it was the beginning of a long DOWN PERIOD in salmon fishing. 

If you want to keep throwing around false info, fine. But if you want to keep arguing this, then at least know what you are talking about. You keep talking about all of these "Facts".....but you seem to miss alot of important FACTS.


----------

