# St Joe Steelhead



## chintastic

Julez81,

I wouldn't say Wisconsin's salmon stocking dwarfs Michigan's. Since we have taken a more than harsh stocking cut in salmon AND trout populations, our fisheries definitely have been affected. 

In all honesty I have no idea what our salmon and steelhead run will look like this year, nor would I even be able to tell someone which river will get the better runs. Personally, I could give a **** about brown trout. Terrible fighting and tasting.


----------



## eggfly

limpinglogan said:


> That is interesting I would like to hear more about habitat improvement and what we can do to make that happen.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly why my proposal is perfect...cut 'some' of the very high number of cohos that no ones likes any way and make room for more skamania, LRB's and Kings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least someone agrees with me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree that my comments are a little brash...but there are really people who prefer 2-5lb coho over the other fish I listed...why?
> 
> 
> 
> It is also a spring time fishery in the southern portion of the lake that boosts 1 hour limits and charters advertising 6 man limits or your money back...they could afford to have a couple less coho swimming around.
> 
> Everyone seems to think I am proposing a complete drop of the program...but I am only arguing that 250K+ is a ridiculous large number that could be reduced to work in some diversification of other species that offer more to the fishery than the coho do.


To answer your question on why I like coho more. To me they taste much better than kings and LRB. I also love finding a large school in a river as they are very aggressive and will hit almost anything. Don't get me wrong, kings fight better but are not as tasty in my opinion.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

limpinglogan 

I once traded a small like 3 pound male coho to a buddy for a 18 pound hen king. He wanted something good to eat and I wanted some fresh bait. Win win.


----------



## wartfroggy

limpinglogan said:


> I can agree that my comments are a little brash...but there are really people who prefer 2-5lb coho over the other fish I listed...why?


As noted, they are much better on the grill than a mushy king. For me, it would be a toss up between a brown, a steelie, and a nice ho on the grill. Even once they hit the river, they are firmer than most of the kings are before they hit the pier head. 

They get pretty crazy, and when you find a school, it can be like a feeding frenzy. The are fast, dart around a lot, unfortunately they like to spin your stuff into a mess, but hey, they are trying to get away. They are more likely to come out of the water than a king. They will hit just about anything. 

While you keep mentioning 2-5# fish, they are usually more in the 5-10# with some larger by the time they get further north later in the year. Saw a giant coho caught on Hammbone at the Frankfort tourney a couple yrs ago, weighing in at 28.9#. Tell me that wouldn't be fun. Back in 99, when I was still chartering, almost every trip from July through August we would have multiple cohos meeting master angler. There was about 700 master angler cohos turned in that year, and I know for an absolute fact that a lot were not turned in by charters and people who didn't realize they were coho. The sports shop in town used to hand out a free lure to anyone weighing in a master angler fish, and quit that for coho that year because they couldn't keep up with it. Mid to upper teen coho were everywhere, and they went bananas when they hooked up. A LOT of tackle was lost by a lot of people that summer. So, my point it, they aren't all 2-5# fish.....

Because, as mentioned, they provide an additional fishery. While the spring coho season down south gets a lot of attention, they also fill in some quieter times up north in the fall, when they pop into the river. And, unlike most kings in the river, they are still pretty aggressive. 

Because I LOVE getting a nice, fat, female coho right around late Aug or Sept. My favorite spawn to use on the pier or beach in early fall. 

I could keep going on, but like you said, no one likes cohos anyways.


----------



## wintrrun

limpinglogan said:


> I can agree that my comments are a little brash...but there are really people who prefer 2-5lb coho over the other fish I listed...why?


Quality. On a lot of different levels.


----------



## smizasch

Coho is the cleanest species of salmon or trout in the great lakes. Browns are one of the dirtiest. Don't get me wrong though I love me some brown trout.


----------



## average-joe

Completely ignorant young guy jumpin just tryin to learn from everyone, I love all of em if ya ask me. On the comment above though can you explain more on what you mean by clean and dirty?


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Fishndude

I would say that Cohos are the best tasting of our Salmonids, followed by Steelhead. I would put Lakers 3rd, followed by Brown Trout, and Kings are last. But that is my opinion. 

Clean meaning they aren't as full of toxins. Browns grow more slowly, and eat more stuff that contains toxins, so they build up more residual toxins in their flesh. Cohos (especially smaller ones) don't have a lot of toxins.


----------



## average-joe

Thanks for the explanation... That's what I assumed, interesting how low you rank kings, I would agree but didn't think that was the general consensus 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Trout King

King fillets make great catfish bait.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Trout King said:


> King fillets make great catfish bait.


Now wheres the guy who chimes in and says he uses whole dead skams he picks up off the river bottom for flatheads????:lol:


----------



## Chad Smith

I have grown tired of plunging toilets and dumping trash cans, I get no respect. I would like to make a career change to improve my quality of life. Can someone please point me in the way of admissions for Michigan-Sportsman School of Biology and Fine dining. I vow to pass judgement and make broad assumptions...


----------



## Kelsey1

Classes held at the 6th St boat launch begining in september.....


----------



## Trout King

Chad Smith said:


> I have grown tired of plunging toilets and dumping trash cans, I get no respect. I would like to make a career change to improve my quality of life. Can someone please point me in the way of admissions for Michigan-Sportsman School of Biology and Fine dining. I vow to pass judgement and make broad assumptions...


Best post I have seen thus far.


----------



## Julez81

I literally laughed out loud.

September? Wish I could make but I haz plans all month.


----------



## Boozer

Chad Smith said:


> I have grown tired of plunging toilets and dumping trash cans, I get no respect. I would like to make a career change to improve my quality of life. Can someone please point me in the way of admissions for Michigan-Sportsman School of Biology and Fine dining. I vow to pass judgement and make broad assumptions...


Just a broad assumption BUT, judging by your avatar photo, I would say you have the fine dining part down...


----------



## METTLEFISH

All the habitat improvement in the world will not produce one more fish. Our temperature (s) are the issue. All the wasted money I see on stream bank stabilization is a total loss. Stream beds are meant to meander across river valleys carrying nutrients with them. 
Start emphasizing efforts on streams that have what the fish need. Quit wasting funds and efforts on waters that are just too warm or cold....

Temperature... Temperature... Temperature....


----------



## Fishndude

average-joe said:


> Thanks for the explanation... That's what I assumed, interesting how low you rank kings, I would agree but didn't think that was the general consensus
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


People really like to catch Kings because they are big, and they fight hard. They are marginal table fare when they are silver, in the lakes. Once they hit the rivers, they start to decline from marginal table fare, to Seagull food. Oh, I'll keep a few Kings every year, and smoke them - for other people. I catch enough Steelhead to keep my silver fish eating wants satisfied. But Kings sure do pull hard.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

METTLEFISH said:


> All the habitat improvement in the world will not produce one more fish. Our temperature (s) are the issue. All the wasted money I see on stream bank stabilization is a total loss. Stream beds are meant to meander across river valleys carrying nutrients with them.
> Start emphasizing efforts on streams that have what the fish need. Quit wasting funds and efforts on waters that are just too warm or cold....
> 
> Temperature... Temperature... Temperature....


Lies. Way before I was born part of the creek I live on (farmers) was dammed off to create a irrigation pond. To my knowledge in exchange the area around it was made a wildlife preserve for so many odd years. It never should have been aloud to be built. The water flowing into the creek from it is in the 80s most summers, luckily down river other feeder arms are cold and cool it back down rapidly in the lower stretches before it enters the Joe. So we have a whole section of a large creek that is useless because of this. Areas like this deeply need habitat restoration and could allow for more carrying capacity in the creek in future years.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Fishndude said:


> People really like to catch Kings because they are big, and they fight hard. They are marginal table fare when they are silver, in the lakes. Once they hit the rivers, they start to decline from marginal table fare, to Seagull food. Oh, I'll keep a few Kings every year, and smoke them - for other people. I catch enough Steelhead to keep my silver fish eating wants satisfied. But Kings sure do pull hard.


Dude you don't have a clue, I smoke the salmon then can them in pint jars. I use them to make a salmon dip. When I go to a party or family gathering if I bring it, it is gone way before the dinner is ready. People don't say hi anymore when I show up it is "did you bring the salmon dip?"I usually fish salmon until the steelhead run is going good. I grill a few fresh and the rest go into the smoker


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

No one likes coho and no one fishes for coho...why not cut those plants in half and add more kings, LRB's and skams...the fishery would be way more diverse...and those are better fish anyways and you end up with the same amount of predators in the lake. 

So the 1st week of September you have a few less coho swimming around for the one week they are in the system before they die BUT you would have more Kings, LRB and Skams swimming around...two of those species can survive and return multiple times. 

Big Lake guys all share the same sentiment...they would all prefer to catch kings, LRB and skams over coho...so why stock 250K+ coho in the Grand? 



Thanks for speaking for me.

Last year I fished the Platte, the mouth of the Little Manistee (as the lake was literally freezing - the kings were long such dead and mush but the buck coho were awesome in full spawning colors and totally edible - they hardly fall apart in one week after Spetember as you said), and Loon Lake, just for coho. I carry a collection of orange dodgers on my boat, just for coho. I have flat black tadpollies and fireplugs on hand, just for coho.

I also made three trips to the southern end of Lake Michigan this spring, just for coho. A couple years ago in May we had fish at the piers chasing bait. My crew that day loves eating coho, we were horsing in and rail dumping lightly hooked 10-15# kings in order to keep coho, as we don't see them too often in the spring at Holland. 

But no one fishes for coho.


----------



## smizasch

I highly recomend this recipe for your next king. This is all I will ever do with kings.
http://honest-food.net/2013/07/15/salmon-candy-recipe/


----------



## smizasch

Far Beyond Driven said:


> No one likes coho and no one fishes for coho...why not cut those plants in half and add more kings, LRB's and skams...the fishery would be way more diverse...and those are better fish anyways and you end up with the same amount of predators in the lake.
> 
> So the 1st week of September you have a few less coho swimming around for the one week they are in the system before they die BUT you would have more Kings, LRB and Skams swimming around...two of those species can survive and return multiple times.
> 
> Big Lake guys all share the same sentiment...they would all prefer to catch kings, LRB and skams over coho...so why stock 250K+ coho in the Grand?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for speaking for me.
> 
> Last year I fished the Platte, the mouth of the Little Manistee (as the lake was literally freezing - the kings were long such dead and mush but the buck coho were awesome in full spawning colors and totally edible - they hardly fall apart in one week after Spetember as you said), and Loon Lake, just for coho. I carry a collection of orange dodgers on my boat, just for coho. I have flat black tadpollies and fireplugs on hand, just for coho.
> 
> I also made three trips to the southern end of Lake Michigan this spring, just for coho. A couple years ago in May we had fish at the piers chasing bait. My crew that day loves eating coho, we were horsing in and rail dumping lightly hooked 10-15# kings in order to keep coho, as we don't see them too often in the spring at Holland.
> 
> But no one fishes for coho.


Coho is hands down the best eating fish in the Great Lakes outside of Perch. They don't get as big though so if you're not in to eating your catch I could see how some people might not like to catch them as much.


----------



## johnny5alive

Multispeciestamer said:


> Lies. Way before I was born part of the creek I live on (farmers) was dammed off to create a irrigation pond. To my knowledge in exchange the area around it was made a wildlife preserve for so many odd years. It never should have been aloud to be built. The water flowing into the creek from it is in the 80s most summers, luckily down river other feeder arms are cold and cool it back down rapidly in the lower stretches before it enters the Joe. So we have a whole section of a large creek that is useless because of this. Areas like this deeply need habitat restoration and could allow for more carrying capacity in the creek in future years.


Another creek up the road used to be 4 to 5 feet deep from its st joe mouth all the way up to the first road crossing and cold the whole way. You could have 50 people down there with lots of elbow room guys fishing about 300 yards of creek. The road commission did work on the culverts near there which changed the flow rates coming down. The creek started filling in upstream first which forced more people to the very end of the creek . More foot traffic there lead to erosion and now you had the creek filling in from low flow and from the erosion.


----------



## wartfroggy

smizasch said:


> I highly recomend this recipe for your next king. This is all I will ever do with kings.
> http://honest-food.net/2013/07/15/salmon-candy-recipe/


Pretty much how I do mine. But I just call it smoked s fish. And usually with steelhead or a laker, because even when smoking, I'd rather have something besides a king.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Multispeciestamer said:


> Lies. Way before I was born part of the creek I live on (farmers) was dammed off to create a irrigation pond. To my knowledge in exchange the area around it was made a wildlife preserve for so many odd years. It never should have been aloud to be built. The water flowing into the creek from it is in the 80s most summers, luckily down river other feeder arms are cold and cool it back down rapidly in the lower stretches before it enters the Joe. So we have a whole section of a large creek that is useless because of this. Areas like this deeply need habitat restoration and could allow for more carrying capacity in the creek in future years.


 
And just how many Indemic Species of Trout and Salmon did these fabled waters hold? You see, after millions of years there was only one Specie Native to the Great Lakes region and it was a Char. Only three or four Streams in the lower held them. Yet travel a few thousand miles west and low an behold, many species of them. Michigan just does not lend itself to them, naturally. Certainly if Michigan had suitable habitat it would hold those species naturally, it does not.


----------



## wartfroggy

METTLEFISH said:


> You see, after millions of years there was only one Specie Native to the Great Lakes region and it was a Char.


Well, a char isn't really a species, but I see what you are getting at. Yes, brookies are a char, and yes they are the only species that we currently have that was native. But don't forget about the grayling, which is now gone, and mostly due to loss of habitat. So that would be a 2nd species. 

And your comment on habitat restoration not making a difference is a joke. You look at how much gravel has been filled in with sand, increased sedimentation from farm fields and clearing of riparian vegetation, how many rivers are now much warmer than ever due stream and creek diversion, as well as increased field, road, and parking lot run-off, there is no way that your claim holds any water.


----------



## concentroutin

A little late to chime in here (dang busy work), but I'm pretty sure one reason for the massive coho plant in the Grand is to benefit the Lansing area with some salmonids. Coho are better suited to travel long distances as most can agree that the kangs don't generally get above say Portland with any real numbers. Lansing/EL unfortunately does not have tons of fishing opportunities (I know, I lived there for awhile), and this coho run helps. Feel free to chime in on that Mr. Wesley, I have been wrong before. Logan, not to gang up on you, but I really like catching coho. There is still a nice 'wild' un-stocked run on the northeast side of the state that fills many gaps for me as the king runs up there are a trickle of what they used to be. Don't get me wrong, kings are bigger, badder and fight way better pound for pound, but coho have saved many a day for me on the Grand/other west-side rivers, and are (possibly) filling a more-recently available niche on the northeast side. Just my two cents.


----------



## Jay Wesley

concentroutin said:


> A little late to chime in here (dang busy work), but I'm pretty sure one reason for the massive coho plant in the Grand is to benefit the Lansing area with some salmonids. Coho are better suited to travel long distances as most can agree that the kangs don't generally get above say Portland with any real numbers. Lansing/EL unfortunately does not have tons of fishing opportunities (I know, I lived there for awhile), and this coho run helps. Feel free to chime in on that Mr. Wesley, I have been wrong before. Logan, not to gang up on you, but I really like catching coho. There is still a nice 'wild' un-stocked run on the northeast side of the state that fills many gaps for me as the king runs up there are a trickle of what they used to be. Don't get me wrong, kings are bigger, badder and fight way better pound for pound, but coho have saved many a day for me on the Grand/other west-side rivers, and are (possibly) filling a more-recently available niche on the northeast side. Just my two cents.


Coho do tend to run faster and further upstream than Chinook. Yes. It is to get fish up into urban areas like Grand Rapids, Ionia, Portland, Grand Ledge and Lansing. However, we do not think that we have to stock them all in Lansing to see the same return to Lansing. A majority of the coho stocking has been moved to Lyons.


----------



## Dirtybird25

METTLEFISH said:


> All the habitat improvement in the world will not produce one more fish. Our temperature (s) are the issue. All the wasted money I see on stream bank stabilization is a total loss. Stream beds are meant to meander across river valleys carrying nutrients with them.
> Start emphasizing efforts on streams that have what the fish need. Quit wasting funds and efforts on waters that are just too warm or cold....
> 
> Temperature... Temperature... Temperature....


With all due respect, it certainly helps other fish species capable of reproducing in that water, as it offers valuable habitat for smolts, etc. Furthermore, habitat improvement (ie dam removal, meander projects, etc) can often improve water temperature as well. They can go hand and hand.



> And just how many Indemic Species of Trout and Salmon did these fabled waters hold? You see, after millions of years there was only one Specie Native to the Great Lakes region and it was a Char. Only three or four Streams in the lower held them. Yet travel a few thousand miles west and low an behold, many species of them. Michigan just does not lend itself to them, naturally. Certainly if Michigan had suitable habitat it would hold those species naturally, it does not.


I think you mean, endemic... but I know what you mean. While Michigan waters didn't traditionally hold trout and salmon, it wasn't because of water temperature. In fact, Michigan Grayling were fish very sensitive to water temps and Michigan was once teeming with them. We didn't have trout and salmon because we aren't on the ocean (rainbows, salmon) and brown trout haden't arrived from Europe yet. Graylings existence should be validity enough to show that Michigan had temperatures good enough to support cold water species. Ironically, it wasn't temperatures that made them extinct... it was habitat destruction.


----------



## swampbuck

All this debate about salmon planting is amusing....yes cut the plantings more so there will be more food for the quaggas and zebras....err uhh, I mean ales....or salmon....or however the story reads. The problem is a collapse at the bottom of the food chain, and short of adding nutrients/pollution to the lake, or killing the mussels some how it's all smoke and mirrors.

The game is in the fourth quarter guys, and the mussels are winning. Cutting the plants is doing nothing but delaying what will happen. The focus should be on species that don't depend on alewives.

The MDNR needs to grow a pair and clue the salmon guys into the reality of the situation, and quit wasting valuable time and resources.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

swampbuck said:


> All this debate about salmon planting is amusing....yes cut the plantings more so there will be more food for the quaggas and zebras....err uhh, I mean ales....or salmon....or however the story reads. The problem is a collapse at the bottom of the food chain, and short of adding nutrients/pollution to the lake, or killing the mussels some how it's all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The game is in the fourth quarter guys, and the mussels are winning. Cutting the plants is doing nothing but delaying what will happen. The focus should be on species that don't depend on alewives.
> 
> The MDNR needs to grow a pair and clue the salmon guys into the reality of the situation, and quit wasting valuable time and resources.


Life finds a way. I do not know to what extent but the lake can find a balance. Native fish species and invasive fish species eat zebra mussels and possibly quagga. Sturgeon, whitefish, gobies, freshwater drum, suckers, all feed on mussels. I remember when I was younger the entire pier was full of zebra mussels, along with every thing else they could attach to. You didnt dear want your line to brush up against them. Yet these days I dont see hardly any. Where did they all go, and was it lack of food or predation that killed them? Maybe its just my local port, idk.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

METTLEFISH said:


> And just how many Indemic Species of Trout and Salmon did these fabled waters hold? You see, after millions of years there was only one Specie Native to the Great Lakes region and it was a Char. Only three or four Streams in the lower held them. Yet travel a few thousand miles west and low an behold, many species of them. Michigan just does not lend itself to them, naturally. Certainly if Michigan had suitable habitat it would hold those species naturally, it does not.


Why does is have to be trout and salmon what about the native cold water species that can no longer survive in this section of creek. Darters, shiners, the list goes on, all now displaced. Of my years living here I have found one darter in my section, down in the cold water sections of the creek its loaded with them. The habitat on the upper section has been destroyed, gravel gone, cold water gone, uninhabitable for these once native species for months of the year.


----------



## Fishndude

Robert Holmes said:


> Dude you don't have a clue, I smoke the salmon then can them in pint jars. I use them to make a salmon dip. When I go to a party or family gathering if I bring it, it is gone way before the dinner is ready. People don't say hi anymore when I show up it is "did you bring the salmon dip?"I usually fish salmon until the steelhead run is going good. I grill a few fresh and the rest go into the smoker


To each their own, I guess. I've been catching Salmon and Steelhead for 40 years, and smoking them for for about 30 years. I've had fresh Kings from the lake, "chrome" Kings from lower rivers, and nasty old boots in November that were just The Swimming Dead. I get plenty of compliments, and make a great Steelhead/Salmon Mousse as well. I just don't eat the Kings myself - but I'm happy to give them to other people. For me, "the Steelhead run" is anytime I can fish for them, because you can literally catch them every day in MI. I do love Kings for one reason - I get most of my Steelhead bait from them. And they do pull hard.


----------



## Fishndude

swampbuck said:


> All this debate about salmon planting is amusing....yes cut the plantings more so there will be more food for the quaggas and zebras....err uhh, I mean ales....or salmon....or however the story reads. The problem is a collapse at the bottom of the food chain, and short of adding nutrients/pollution to the lake, or killing the mussels some how it's all smoke and mirrors.
> 
> The game is in the fourth quarter guys, and the mussels are winning. Cutting the plants is doing nothing but delaying what will happen. The focus should be on species that don't depend on alewives.
> 
> The MDNR needs to grow a pair and clue the salmon guys into the reality of the situation, and quit wasting valuable time and resources.


Agreed, with one exception. The Mussels are absolutely devastating our lakes, and out-competing baitfish for food. But I think the DNR is doing a very good job of trying to balance the system with plants, to maintain a Salmon fishery for as long as it can be done. I don't see any strong signs that lake Huron is recovering for Alewives, or Salmon. But other fish are doing better/well. The loss of commercial (charter) fishing for Kings at major lake Huron ports has really hurt some cities - Oscoda, Harrisville, Alpena, etc. There are almost no charters left on the east coast. Some of them moved west, and some closed up shop. If the same thing happens on the west side, they can't just move back over to Huron, because there aren't enough Kings to support decent charter fishing for them. 

Try to remember that Kings stay in the lakes for 3-4 years before they return to spawn. When stressed, they will return at younger age, which is a natural response to the stress of starving. That was why we had "mini-Chinnies" for a few years on lake Huron tribs. So the DNR is planting fish for returns several years down the road. How can they know what impact on baitfish those plants will have, until 3 or 4 years have passed? The simple answer is, they can't. So they make the best educated guesses they can. And I, for one, applaud them. 

Hats off to Jay Wesley, Mark Tonello, and their cronies, for keeping things going for us. If they stopped planting all Salmon and Steelhead completely, we would quickly find out how much natural reproduction there is for those species in our State. I don't really want to find that out. 
And one last thought. If they increased the plants again, and the fish just wiped out the Alewives, as happened on lake Huron, what would everyone think about that? No Alewives = no Salmon, pretty much. Sure a few get caught on Huron, here and there. But nobody targets them with high success rates, on a regular basis. 
Also, MI is only one State, out of five, that border the four great lakes we tough, and plants anadromous fish in them. And add Canada to the list. We can't just do whatever we want to with the lakes. We have to work in accord with 5 other States, and Canada. I'm sure it ain't easy.


----------



## swampbuck

The worst part is the period after the crash, before native fish repopulate. At least the USFW is thinking ahead.


----------



## troutguy26

Fishndude said:


> Also, MI is only one State, out of five, that border the four great lakes we tough, and plants anadromous fish in them. And add Canada to the list. We can't just do whatever we want to with the lakes. We have to work in accord with 5 other States, and Canada. I'm sure it ain't easy.


This is the part I think a lot of people forget about. 



Sent from my LG-LS980 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Fishndude said:


> Agreed, with one exception. The Mussels are absolutely devastating our lakes, and out-competing baitfish for food. But I think the DNR is doing a very good job of trying to balance the system with plants, to maintain a Salmon fishery for as long as it can be done. I don't see any strong signs that lake Huron is recovering for Alewives, or Salmon. But other fish are doing better/well. The loss of commercial (charter) fishing for Kings at major lake Huron ports has really hurt some cities - Oscoda, Harrisville, Alpena, etc. There are almost no charters left on the east coast. Some of them moved west, and some closed up shop. If the same thing happens on the west side, they can't just move back over to Huron, because there aren't enough Kings to support decent charter fishing for them.
> 
> Try to remember that Kings stay in the lakes for 3-4 years before they return to spawn. When stressed, they will return at younger age, which is a natural response to the stress of starving. That was why we had "mini-Chinnies" for a few years on lake Huron tribs. So the DNR is planting fish for returns several years down the road. How can they know what impact on baitfish those plants will have, until 3 or 4 years have passed? The simple answer is, they can't. So they make the best educated guesses they can. And I, for one, applaud them.
> 
> Hats off to Jay Wesley, Mark Tonello, and their cronies, for keeping things going for us. If they stopped planting all Salmon and Steelhead completely, we would quickly find out how much natural reproduction there is for those species in our State. I don't really want to find that out.
> And one last thought. If they increased the plants again, and the fish just wiped out the Alewives, as happened on lake Huron, what would everyone think about that? No Alewives = no Salmon, pretty much. Sure a few get caught on Huron, here and there. But nobody targets them with high success rates, on a regular basis.
> Also, MI is only one State, out of five, that border the four great lakes we tough, and plants anadromous fish in them. And add Canada to the list. We can't just do whatever we want to with the lakes. We have to work in accord with 5 other States, and Canada. I'm sure it ain't easy.


That is an interesting theory on the Jack kings. But we do have to understand that Chinooks naturally don't all run on a set year, this is natural diversity. Chinooks males can mature as parr and never even leave the stream and still spawn. And they do this even with ideal conditions that would allow for maturing fully.

If they took out the alewife by stocking more kings I myself would't care, in fact as much as I love kings, that was the option I supported. Its not right to protect an invasive species. As to what would form only one could speculate. The choice was made, so no sense dwelling on it, if kings are here to stay might as well manage it the best we can.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Grayling are Whitefish. Water too cold for Trout and Salmon hold Char. All the perfect habitat will only hold so many fish. Un checked predators due to lack of trapping (Mink) can wipe out entire populations of fish in ponds, streams. Erosion due to improper storm run off is an issue. Natural movement of stream beds across the river valley is not an issue. 

I love the Trout and Salmon we now have. However there are many issues that arise with them. I don't want to see the State spending "tons" of money to continue on a failing issue. If they can survive on their own in certain waters then so be it. Those fish should be regulated. I sure don't want to see efforts like the Pheasant program, get so much funding while our Native Fawna go un attended to. Humans think they know so much, take the Coelacanth for instance....


----------



## concentroutin

Swampbuck- you are spot on with the 4th quarter talk. I think the kings in Lake Michigan are in real trouble; maybe 5 years looking at the alewife long-term crash. That is why I am excited about Lake Huron. The kings were fun but I am looking ahead and hoping that the Atlantic's take south of the bridge. Steelhead, lake trout, walleye - not the end of the world. Our state still rocks for overall fishing opportunities. Healthy debates are never a bad thing, even on the deck of the Titanic.


----------



## swampbuck

I like salmon myself, I just don't think it's a good idea to continue to expend resources on a fishery that is on life support. 

With alewives on the ropes, there is an opportunity to restore species that have been suppressed by the alewives..... Before the salmon crash happens.

Instead they are going to ride that pony till it dies. Without anything to take its place. 

And when it does die a whole lot of charter captains and fishermen will lose their ***** on worthless equipment......remember Lake Huron, but don't learn from it.


----------



## Dirtybird25

METTLEFISH said:


> Grayling are Whitefish. Water too cold for Trout and Salmon hold Char. All the perfect habitat will only hold so many fish. Un checked predators due to lack of trapping (Mink) can wipe out entire populations of fish in ponds, streams. Erosion due to improper storm run off is an issue. Natural movement of stream beds across the river valley is not an issue.
> 
> I love the Trout and Salmon we now have. However there are many issues that arise with them. I don't want to see the State spending "tons" of money to continue on a failing issue. If they can survive on their own in certain waters then so be it. Those fish should be regulated. I sure don't want to see efforts like the Pheasant program, get so much funding while our Native Fawna go un attended to. Humans think they know so much, take the Coelacanth for instance....


I'm fully aware that grayling aren't trout, so my apologies if it came off that way, but that wasn't my point. My point is that grayling are cold water fish that are every bit as susceptible to warm water that trout are. You mentioned that the lack of native trout species was proof that our water temps were the issue. My point was that trout and salmon's lack of native roots have nothing to do with that. In fact, graylings predisposition to cold water and their once thriving population is evidence of that. You mentioned this also:



> All the habitat improvement in the world will not produce one more fish. Our temperature (s) are the issue. All the wasted money I see on stream bank stabilization is a total loss.


Habitat destruction was the exact reason that grayling aren't here anymore. Not water temperature. Trout and salmon not being native has nothing to do with that, but rather that they were either not native to the continent, or native to coastal regions. 

There has been tons of habitat improvement projects across the state that have been heralded for creating more and/or larger fish. Michigan was decimated by logging and agriculture, and that was the problem. Projects that have created better habitat and returning stream banks to their natural meanders have created excellent results. Habitat improvement works, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Dirtybird25 said:


> I'm fully aware that grayling aren't trout, so my apologies if it came off that way, but that wasn't my point. My point is that grayling are cold water fish that are every bit as susceptible to warm water that trout are. You mentioned that the lack of native trout species was proof that our water temps were the issue. My point was that trout and salmon's lack of native roots have nothing to do with that. In fact, graylings predisposition to cold water and their once thriving population is evidence of that. You mentioned this also:
> 
> 
> 
> Habitat destruction was the exact reason that grayling aren't here anymore. Not water temperature. Trout and salmon not being native has nothing to do with that, but rather that they were either not native to the continent, or native to coastal regions.
> 
> There has been tons of habitat improvement projects across the state that have been heralded for creating more and/or larger fish. Michigan was decimated by logging and agriculture, and that was the problem. Projects that have created better habitat and returning stream banks to their natural meanders have created excellent results. Habitat improvement works, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact.


 
Just like all the work done on the big Manistee down from Tippy... right? All that effort and money washing into the river. Silly. Rivers move naturally across the the river valley. Also Grayling never really flourished here. Though they did have a few streams that they were Native in, typically the same waters that held Char.

Surely over the millinia Trout and Salmon would of found homes in Michigan IF the habitat were conducive. As the water was right - in places - for Char and Grayling they took a perilous hold in those few waters. Waters too cold for certain species will not hold those certain species.


----------



## Dirtybird25

METTLEFISH said:


> Just like all the work done on the big Manistee down from Tippy... right? All that effort and money washing into the river. Silly. Rivers move naturally across the the river valley. Also Grayling never really flourished here. Though they did have a few streams that they were Native in, typically the same waters that held Char.


I could give you the bank work done on the PM, Upper Manistee, Ausable and if we are going to keep the convo focused on the southwest, the MEANDRS project on the upper Dowagiac. All of those projects improved the waterways and led to more fish. That's just off of the top of my head too. There are a ton of bank restoration successes to reference. 

You are dead wrong that grayling never flourished here too. Here is a reference:

"Arctic grayling were the
major game fish species present in these
streams where they flourished during the mid-
1800s. Although brook trout Salvelinus
fontinalis were widespread and abundant in
streams in Michigan's Upper Peninsula during
the middle of Ithe 1800s they were known to
live in only a few of the northernmost Lower
Peninsula streams such as the Jordan, Boyne,
Boardman, and Ocqueoc rivers (Vincent
1962). Historical records indicate that by the
1870s huge numbers of Arctic grayling were
being caught from Michigan's Lower Peninsula
rivers."

http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/IFR/ifrlibra/Research/reports/1985rr.pdf



> Surely over the millinia Trout and Salmon would of found homes in Michigan IF the habitat were conducive. As the water was right - in places - for Char and Grayling they took a perilous hold in those few waters. Waters too cold for certain species will not hold those certain species.


See the link above regarding the "perilous hold" you noted. What do you mean by "millinia trout"? Btw, Michigan was the very first place brown trout were planted in the US, and they are still a wild, reproducing species all over the state. So there isn't any state in the US that has a better history with them than we do. I simply don't get why the fact that ocean fish such as rainbows and salmon not being native to this area proves some point about water temperatures, or habitat improvement not working? They wouldn't have been native to the area because they weren't native to anywhere without an ocean coast.


----------



## Fishndude

Pretty much all of the sandy rivers in MI have hard substrate bottoms buried under the sand. As man progressively timbered off the forest, and cleared land along the rivers for floating logs, the banks eroded. Rivers widened, and became more shallow. And because the old-growth forest was gone, the sun hit the rivers directly, which has caused warming. Anyone who stumps through overgrown tag alder swamps for Brookies knows exactly what I mean. Those overgrown streams have narrow deeper runs with nice gravel on the bottom - and Trout. If you remove all that shore vegetation, those streams will be affected, and won't hold Trout as well anymore. 

So habitat restoration _*is*_ critical for improving rivers' abilities to support Trout, and Salmonids. But that still raises another concerns. TONS of rivers in MI get spawning Salmon and Steelhead. And some have decent natural returns. But not very many get returns that would support the amount of fishing that people currently do for those species, in Michigan. Why do you think there are closed seasons on the Little Man, and a "closed section" on the PM? That is purely to protect the fish to spawn naturally. And that is because those two particular rivers are cold enough in summer to support Steelhead, which need to spend (at least) a year in their natal rivers before they smolt. And, of course, they both support great natural reproduction of King Salmon, which smolt 6 months after they are spawned (don't need to spend a lot of time growing before they smolt). If there weren't closed seasons/sections of those rivers (I consider the C&R section of the river closed to keeping fish), then anglers would probably wipe those fisheries out in a few years. 

But no other lower peninsula rivers have a carrying capacity anywhere close to those rivers, on a relative size. Maybe all of the tribs of the Grand combined would be similar. And there are some rivers that have good natural reproduction for Kings, but not much for Steelhead. 

I've fished for these things for quite a while. I know old boys who fished for Steelhead when the DNR didn't really plant them. They were happy to catch 2 - 5 fish in a fall season of fishing. They all think planting of Salmon and Steelhead is pretty cool. I think so, too.

Walleye fishermen wish the State would quit spending so much money raising Salmon, Trout, and Steelhead in hatcheries, and focus on raising millions more Walleyes for planting. Walleyes are cheap to raise. :evilsmile


----------



## johnny5alive

Walleye fishermen wish the State would quit spending so much money raising Salmon, Trout, and Steelhead in hatcheries, and focus on raising millions more Walleyes for planting. Walleyes are cheap to raise. :evilsmile


only for a short time. Walleyes have to be planted at very small sizes which is not good for survival because they turn cannibalistic quickly and go from real cheap to produce to real expensive if you feed them minnows to keep them from eating each other. 

so actually they would be more expensive if they were stocked at the ages or size that the trout are.


----------



## swampbuck

We have no way of knowing how the native species would do today. Because their place in the ecosystem is currently occupied by invasive and non-indigenous species, propped up by public funds.

As far as grayling, they lived to maturity in Kneff lake when they were planted there in the early 90's. And it is no colder than much of the Ausable.

Here's an interesting read about lk. Huron 

http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/wisconsin/111329844.html


----------



## METTLEFISH

Dirtybird25 said:


> I could give you the bank work done on the PM, Upper Manistee, Ausable and if we are going to keep the convo focused on the southwest, the MEANDRS project on the upper Dowagiac. All of those projects improved the waterways and led to more fish. That's just off of the top of my head too. There are a ton of bank restoration successes to reference.
> 
> You are dead wrong that grayling never flourished here too. Here is a reference:
> 
> "Arctic grayling were the
> major game fish species present in these
> streams where they flourished during the mid-
> 1800s. Although brook trout Salvelinus
> fontinalis were widespread and abundant in
> streams in Michigan's Upper Peninsula during
> the middle of Ithe 1800s they were known to
> live in only a few of the northernmost Lower
> Peninsula streams such as the Jordan, Boyne,
> Boardman, and Ocqueoc rivers (Vincent
> 1962). Historical records indicate that by the
> 1870s huge numbers of Arctic grayling were
> being caught from Michigan's Lower Peninsula
> rivers."
> 
> http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/IFR/ifrlibra/Research/reports/1985rr.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> See the link above regarding the "perilous hold" you noted. What do you mean by "millinia trout"? Btw, Michigan was the very first place brown trout were planted in the US, and they are still a wild, reproducing species all over the state. So there isn't any state in the US that has a better history with them than we do. I simply don't get why the fact that ocean fish such as rainbows and salmon not being native to this area proves some point about water temperatures, or habitat improvement not working? They wouldn't have been native to the area because they weren't native to anywhere without an ocean coast.


Yes after being moved around the State by Anglers(much the same as many Sunfishes, Bass, Etc. .) They were present. Native?...Not. Also it was the Daming of the streams that has lead to the siltation issues. Previously when the waters were allowed to flow freely the sediments were flushed clean. The dams are the real issue, and the State is not renewing many licenses due to that fact. Again, free moving river beds are natural, to think not is ignorant.


----------



## METTLEFISH

The Walleye are what I call TRD's: "Toxin Removal Devices". The Saginaw sysytem is the most polluted waterway IN THE WORLD. What better way than to use Bio Magnification to remove the Toxins, and then place them in Caskets in cement containers under ground. I would love the state to plant them in inland lakes that are not polluted. However they will not do that as that does not remove the Toxins from the Saginaw/Erie system.


----------



## swampbuck

METTLEFISH said:


> The Walleye are what I call TRD's: "Toxin Removal Devices". The Saginaw sysytem is the most polluted waterway IN THE WORLD. What better way than to use Bio Magnification to remove the Toxins, and then place them in Caskets in cement containers under ground. I would love the state to plant them in inland lakes that are not polluted. However they will not do that as that does not remove the Toxins from the Saginaw/Erie system.



You might want to research the biomagnification of toxins by alewives and smelt that are passed on to salmon and trout, before you point a finger at walleye.

And while your at it how about those salmon transferring those toxins to streams on their spawning run.....

http://www.michiganrivernews.com/2011/12/great-lakes-salmon-polluting-michigans-stream-fish/


----------



## Dirtybird25

METTLEFISH said:


> Yes after being moved around the State by Anglers(much the same as many Sunfishes, Bass, Etc. .) They were present. Native?...Not.


I'm assuming you are referring to the grayling? If so, they were absolutely native. They were a subspecies of grayling distinct to Michigan, in fact. A thriving population in waters all over the state. They weren't moved around by anglers. 



> Also it was the Daming of the streams that has lead to the siltation issues. Previously when the waters were allowed to flow freely the sediments were flushed clean. The dams are the real issue, and the State is not renewing many licenses due to that fact. Again, free moving river beds are natural, to think not is ignorant.


While I agree with the damage that dams can present, I never tried to argue anything about dams. That being said, the straightening of rivers and logging created siltation issues far before the dams. 

You're kinda all over the place. Here you are saying that "free moving river bends" are natural, but earlier you were arguing that restoration projects to do just that "won't create a single fish". I guess i'll just step away from this conversation, because frankly I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I must have misunderstood you somewhere along the way.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Dirtybird25 said:


> I guess i'll just step away from this conversation, because frankly I don't understand what point you are trying to make.


----------



## wyandot

METTLEFISH said:


> The Walleye are what I call TRD's: "Toxin Removal Devices". The Saginaw sysytem is the most polluted waterway IN THE WORLD. What better way than to use Bio Magnification to remove the Toxins, and then place them in Caskets in cement containers under ground. I would love the state to plant them in inland lakes that are not polluted. However they will not do that as that does not remove the Toxins from the Saginaw/Erie system.


How amazingly clever. A massive waterway cleanup disguised as a world-class walleye fishery.And all this time I thought they planted them because people enjoy catching and eating them. The millions and millions of dollars it has pumped into our economy is a nice little by-product too.


----------



## Boozer

Floated the lower Joe yesterday to see numerous dead/dying skams...

Even on cooler Summers, the heat still proves to be too much...

Nothing more sickening than a fish gasping for air at the surface of the river, dying...

Thanks to the ignorance of the IDNR, we get to see it every year on the Joe!

Frustrating...


----------



## jerrob

Boozer said:


> Floated the lower Joe yesterday to see numerous dead/dying skams...
> 
> Even on cooler Summers, the heat still proves to be too much...
> 
> Nothing more sickening than a fish gasping for air at the surface of the river, dying...
> 
> Thanks to the ignorance of the IDNR, we get to see it every year on the Joe!
> 
> Frustrating...


I agree, but in IDNR's defense, it's not the most ignorant thing they've ever done. When a federal dollar is waggled in the face of our state politicians, nothing is safe.


----------



## Boozer

A great starting point would be collecting broodstock in September instead of June/July for the fish that are stocked in the Joe, yet they refuse to even try to alter the run timing, instead simply continuing on with the same ole crap of doing everything they can to keep the run timing as early as possible...

And before someone chimes in, yes I know not all skams run early, but they are currently collecting broodstock from the earliest running fish in an effort to maintain that desire for them to run early, so if it is necessary to collect broodstock early to increase the amount of early running fish, collecting later running ones should have a similar effect. I also believe they collect some later ones too, BUT they do not keep them separate, if you separated them and only stocked the later ones in the Joe, we may see improvement. I know it has never even been tried...

They can raise two sets of Skamania strain, those that were the offspring of broodstock collected early and those from offspring collected late, dump the early ones in the Indiana creeks and the late ones in the Joe, it would not cost more money, in fact it would lessen the amount of time they would have to hold some broodstock in their tanks and since fish that would run later when the water temps are safer, you would lose less fish to thermal stress, and they would be running at a time when anglers are actually fishing for them. It would make for a better quality fishery and be doing the fish a favor at the same time...


----------



## Fishndude

Boozer said:


> A great starting point would be collecting broodstock in September instead of June/July for the fish that are stocked in the Joe, yet they refuse to even try to alter the run timing, instead simply continuing on with the same ole crap of doing everything they can to keep the run timing as early as possible...
> 
> And before someone chimes in, yes I know not all skams run early, but they are currently collecting broodstock from the earliest running fish in an effort to maintain that desire for them to run early, so if it is necessary to collect broodstock early to increase the amount of early running fish, collecting later running ones should have a similar effect. I also believe they collect some later ones too, BUT they do not keep them separate, if you separated them and only stocked the later ones in the Joe, we may see improvement. I know it has never even been tried...
> 
> They can raise two sets of Skamania strain, those that were the offspring of broodstock collected early and those from offspring collected late, dump the early ones in the Indiana creeks and the late ones in the Joe, it would not cost more money, in fact it would lessen the amount of time they would have to hold some broodstock in their tanks and since fish that would run later when the water temps are safer, you would lose less fish to thermal stress, and they would be running at a time when anglers are actually fishing for them. It would make for a better quality fishery and be doing the fish a favor at the same time...


Heck I haven't been able to convince the DNR to take hatchery supplies from the largest fish in the last 30 years. What could it hurt to give it a try? As long as there are diverse fish spawning in the Little, they can always switch the program back.


----------



## wartfroggy

Boozer said:


> A great starting point would be collecting broodstock in September instead of June/July for the fish that are stocked in the Joe, yet they refuse to even try to alter the run timing, instead simply continuing on with the same ole crap of doing everything they can to keep the run timing as early as possible...
> 
> ..... but they are currently collecting broodstock from the earliest running fish in an effort to maintain that desire for them to run early, so if it is necessary to collect broodstock early to increase the amount of early running fish, collecting later running ones should have a similar effect....


Have done the same thing with the kings for a lot of years. At least they finally made a move to help equalize their husbandry practices and not do like 12 females with 1 male the way they used to. Slow progress, but some progress. 

But I agree with your point. Brood stock collection should definately be spread out more and later. Especially when you are dealing with fish that may be entering the river for months.


----------



## johnny5alive

Boozer said:


> Floated the lower Joe yesterday to see numerous dead/dying skams...
> 
> Even on cooler Summers, the heat still proves to be too much...
> 
> Nothing more sickening than a fish gasping for air at the surface of the river, dying...
> 
> Thanks to the ignorance of the IDNR, we get to see it every year on the Joe!
> 
> Frustrating...


Where are the pictures?


----------



## Boozer

johnny5alive said:


> Where are the pictures?


Didn't take any as I guess it's nothing new... See it all the time in the Summer...

The LEO that was with me would vouch I know...

It isn't a big secret here, anyone who spends any time here sees it, both the IDNR and MDNR are aware it happens and will openly admit it...


----------



## METTLEFISH

I would like some evidence that selecting early/later running fish would matter. Photo period is an Innate drive in returning, as is water flow. (freshet) The fact that there are ealier and later returning fish from the same Broodstock indicates that that philosophy may be flawed. Are they collecting fish for Broodstock in the Summer months? Seems stupid if they are. Why on earth would they do that with the Skams and not other Potomodromous fish here in the Great Lakes. Surely captive time causes great stresses on these fish and it would seem to raise issues both in spawn production and cost of retaining for those months til ripe spawn is available.


----------



## Boozer

METTLEFISH said:


> I would like some evidence that selecting early/later running fish would matter. Photo period is an Innate drive in returning, as is water flow. (freshet) The fact that there are ealier and later returning fish from the same Broodstock indicates that that philosophy may be flawed. Are they collecting fish for Broodstock in the Summer months? Seems stupid if they are. Why on earth would they do that with the Skams and not other Potomodromous fish here in the Great Lakes. Surely captive time causes great stresses on these fish and it would seem to raise issues both in spawn production and cost of retaining for those months til ripe spawn is available.


They definitely collect broodstock early "June/July" and I am almost positive they also collect some later too.

I have been told by the IDNR that they select for the earliest returning fish in an effort to maintain a "Summer" run, so if it works one way, I would think it would work the other way as well?

This is a quote from a fisheries biologist I spoke to regarding the current management program on the Joe, obviously he is not an employee of the IDNR...

"I hear you. Maybe they will look into a September running steelhead and take their broodstock then. There are very few people taking advantage of the summer runs, and a lot more people on the river in September, Oct, and Nov. It may be a good way for them to continue their program but tweak the run timing. With global warming it wont get any better."


----------



## chintastic

Boozer,

Personally, I haven't seen a major skam die off this year. Granted i didn't spend too much time on the Joe this summer, but water temps stayed relatively cool. Again, if MDNR and IDNR are aware of major die offs in the Joe, why not stock different rivers? Indiana would be better of dumping another 50-75k summer or fall Skamania in the Cal or Trail. This year skams were being caught in U.P. unmentionables that do not get skam stockings, not to mention all the other Michigan rivers that benefited off of Indiana's plantings. Everyone knows by the time those fish get to Mishawaka they have been beat on pretty hard.

I guess another thing that makes the Joe not fun, is unless the water temps are under 70 degrees in the summer (which is rarely), pretty much every fish you bring to shore is not releasable.


----------



## Julez81

When you look at the way Michigan Steelhead evolved over a century to thrive in a area that is both colder and hotter than the PNW. And when you look at what happened in Ohio when they switched from Pacific to Manistee to their runs and fish size. It seems to make plausible that selecting early or late fish could definitely steer over time the Skams in the Great Lakes to run earlier or later. And it even seems plausible you could get summer runs to handle warmer temps. The process that gets you there has its ethical questions no doubt.

Question, where do the broodstock for the Big Manistee stocking of Skams come from?


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boozer said:


> They definitely collect broodstock early "June/July" and I am almost positive they also collect some later too.
> 
> I have been told by the IDNR that they select for the earliest returning fish in an effort to maintain a "Summer" run, so if it works one way, I would think it would work the other way as well?
> 
> This is a quote from a fisheries biologist I spoke to regarding the current management program on the Joe, obviously he is not an employee of the IDNR...
> 
> "I hear you. Maybe they will look into a September running steelhead and take their broodstock then. There are very few people taking advantage of the summer runs, and a lot more people on the river in September, Oct, and Nov. It may be a good way for them to continue their program but tweak the run timing. With global warming it won&#8217;t get any better."


First off if he believes in Global Warming... well... I know for a fact that those Skams enter, leave, re enter, leave. So maybe taking stock based on water Temp. and not calender would be a suggestion. Keeping them for 6-8 months is also just plain dumb. Seems like an aweful high expense to determine weather or not those later selected fish would exihibit that trait in their Offspring. After all the diversity of their purpencity to run at many different times is evident, even though they came from the early running Stock.

How on Earth could the Physiological attributes of a Fish be changed by selective timing. Only genetic crossing could do that. All Trout and Salmon have prefered Temps. in the 50's when givin the option. The Tiger Trout is an example, neither Brown nor Brook of a cross that can handle higher Temps.


----------



## REG

Julez81 said:


> Question, where do the broodstock for the Big Manistee stocking of Skams come from?


Indiana.

Wisconsin attempted to select for later running skamania back in the 90's. Now, they do not have a skamania program as they were not able to maintain their broodstock by the mid 2000's. After that, broodstock shortages, plus VHS concerns ended egg procurement from IN by 2010. Granted, other factors may have been instrumental in the demise of their broodstock, but neverless, this serves as a precedential attempt to change run timing.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> Indiana.
> 
> Wisconsin attempted to select for later running skamania back in the 90's. Now, they do not have a skamania program as they were not able to maintain their broodstock by the mid 2000's. After that, broodstock shortages, plus VHS concerns ended egg procurement from IN by 2010. Granted, other factors may have been instrumental in the demise of their broodstock, but neverless, this serves as a precedential attempt to change run timing.


Comparing Wisconsin Rivers to ours hardly serves as a precedent! lol 

Not just the fact it is on a completely different side of the lake, but the lack of water in the Fall in Wisconsin as well as the enormous Brown Trout population, etc...


----------



## BigWoods Bob

chintastic said:


> Boozer,
> 
> This year skams were being caught in U.P. unmentionables that do not get skam stockings,releasable.


Nothing new....been summer runs up there since AT LEAST the late 1980's!! ;-)




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Comparing Wisconsin Rivers to ours hardly serves as a precedent! lol
> 
> Not just the fact it is on a completely different side of the lake, but the lack of water in the Fall in Wisconsin as well as the enormous Brown Trout population, etc...


Let's ignore the fact we are talking skamanias. So, by your response, there is no way that tinkering with brood stock selection to select for later running fish could potentially wash out returns? I did acknowledge other factors may have come into play, yet their brood stock steadily dwindled even in good water years. That said, I never would have even thought the fish cared about what side of the lake they were on, except when it comes to where the food is, but if you say so.... They've always had a good brown trout population, even in the years when they did have good skamania returns.

So if you feel that selecting for later running skamanias is the potential answer to mitigating die offs, what has been InDNR's response to that suggestion?


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> Let's ignore the fact we are talking skamanias. So, by your response, there is no way that tinkering with brood stock selection to select for later running fish could potentially wash out returns? I did acknowledge other factors may have come into play, yet their brood stock steadily dwindled even in good water years. That said, I never would have even thought the fish cared about what side of the lake they were on, except when it comes to where the food is, but if you say so.... They've always had a good brown trout population, even in the years when they did have good skamania returns.
> 
> So if you feel that selecting for later running skamanias is the potential answer to mitigating die offs, what has been InDNR's response to that suggestion?


The side of the lake comment was in regard to food, water temps, habitat, the types and numbers of fish present along their shoreline in comparison to ours, etc... The two sides of the lake are very different, not only in structure, but in water temps and many other ways. I figured you would make that assumption, but....

Wisconsin has had some issues with getting quality returns of other strains too, not just Skamania, so keep that in mind...

As far as possibly wiping out returns, I guess here is where I have an issue with this, exactly how would it do so? For starters, they would still have early running fish being stocked in the Indiana creeks but also many Skams run later anyway, some even run in the Winter, are you trying to say that stocking later running fish would mean they would stray more or would then just go out into the lake and die? We already have fish returning late over here so how would it not allow us to get broodstock every year? You could easily trap your quota in September in the Berrien Springs fish ladder here on the Joe...

I will say, my suggestions for trying to alter run timing are basically to me a last ditch effort to save the program as ethically the program should not be continued as it currently is, period...

I do believe there were other issues, one conversation I had with a Wisconsin DNR biologist back in 2006 or so, we had literally caught a large percentage of the skams they had stocked in that year class that Summer on the JOE which were clipped, was easy to tell when you got one of their clipped fish as they were missing so many fins. It really left their biologist perplexed. We had photos of them, caught a bunch of them that one year. Have caught them other years too, but that one year we got a LOT of them...

They had massive straying issues and it was likely due to habitat and river conditions... Indiana also has talked about such straying issues with Skamania and hence why they stock them so high in the system on the Joe losing so many of what they stock to the dams energy producing turbines. If they don't, they do not imprint on the river enough and hardly any will return. 

It is my belief, straying is so bad with Skams in part as they do not want to return to water that doesn't suit their comfort level for survival, which based on some statements from the IDNR, that would be a logical assumption...

The only statements I have ever gotten from the IDNR regarding tinkering with run timing was when I asked why they couldn't block the ladder in Berrien Springs until September every year and thus, would give the fish a better chance of having the opportunity to drop back down into the lake when the river got warm, their response was simply if they did that, most of the fish that dropped back down, would never return, they would simply go somewhere else. They also said that if they did come back, they wouldn't ascend the river to Indiana in as good of numbers. When I asked how they knew this, no response... So basically they were stating that getting numbers back to Indiana trumped the survival of the fish they were putting into this environment. They also have stated they selected early running fish as a means of keeping the run timing early, which I assumed meant they had a issue with the fish wanting to run later and later, hence why my thoughts of collecting broodtsock later may help change the run timing... 

I don't care if they try and alter run timing or shut down the stocking program of skams on the Joe entirely, I just want to see some type of effort made to not send so many fish on a suicide mission. We as sportsman should hold ourselves to a higher standard...

As for stocking them somewhere else, sure, but I would like to see studies done on the effects on native species by having steelhead present 12 months of the year prior to them just dumping them in...


----------



## Boozer

Fished the Joe in South Bend last night for a couple hours, in that time seen at least 5 dead skams floating down river past the boat as well as a couple on the river bottom and one dying skam sitting in slack water on the shoreline, basically dying...

Here are some photos I snapped real quick since someone asked about them. Each photo is a different fish, if you aren't seeing dead skams on the Joe in the Summer, you are either not very observant or just plain blind. I wasn't looking for them nor did I cover very much water, they are literally everywhere in the system. THis is a cool Summer too, just imagine what the hot ones do...


----------



## Boozer

*I yet again made an official complaint to the IDNR about the die-offs, every year I get some generic response and no changes are made...

Here is this years generic response. As you can see, they admit the issue, just never do anything about it. What they likely don't realize is, per discussions with their own politicians, in this country "STATE EMPLOYEES CAN BE HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IF THEY ARE OF THE NATURE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE" Gross Negligence would mean, they know what they are doing is wrong, but continue to do it. More on that at a later date, here is the most recent email I received...*

_Kory, we certainly understand your concerns. We have had a few reports this August regarding dead steelhead near the IUSB stretch of river. We have also discussed with the hatchery this related issue to see how many calls they have received. We appreciate your support of the program and would more than willing to sit down with you to discuss your concerns. We review our programs routinely and with the sea lamprey barrier coming on line in 2012, we have been looking at our steelhead program. There is also a good chance that mass marking/coded wire tagging of steelhead will begin in the very near future which will also provide an opportunity to evaluate and optimize our program within all of Indiana&#8217;s tributaries and for shore and lake fisherman. Making fishing better is our goal and providing opportunities within these three modes of fishing certainly does that. 

Brian Breidert, Lake Michigan Fisheries Biologist,
100 W. Water Street, Michigan City, Indiana 46360
219-874-6824, [email protected]
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3625.htm_

*The bright side is, at least this year they mentioned possibly doing something LOL I responded to this email with questions and photos of dead skams, etc... as of yet, never received a response...*


----------



## Boozer

I should add...

Last years response from the same biologist was, they had only had a couple complaints ever since starting the program about die-offs on the river during the Summer, which was very odd as I know many many other land owners on the river whom have been fed up with it for years and have complained...

At least in the course of a year it went from just a couple ever in the history of the program to a few this year alone...

*KEEP IN MIND THIS WAS A VERY COOL SUMMER AS WELL*


----------



## Dirtybird25

I'm not sure if this one individual biologist is doing anything worthy of gross negligence. He's probably not the only person pulling the strings and very well may not have the power to simply change the policies of several years, departments and decision makers based off of a letter written by a concerned angler. 

I don't like the skam program either, and agree with you in concept. But I wouldn't go as far as accusing this single person of gross negligence, pointing the finger at him personally and posting his actual name on the internet for people to attack. 

The guy didn't have to write you back or offer to meet with you. He could have simply ignored you, but he seemed to want to listen to your concerns and give you a response, complete with action items on his side. He probably didn't respond to your email of dead skams because he feels harassed. Not sure that is a good tactic for bringing them to our side of the argument.


----------



## Boozer

Dirtybird25 said:


> I'm not sure if this one individual biologist is doing anything worthy of gross negligence. He's probably not the only person pulling the strings and very well may not have the power to simply change the policies of several years, departments and decision makers based off of a letter written by a concerned angler.
> 
> I don't like the skam program either, and agree with you in concept. But I wouldn't go as far as accusing this single person of gross negligence, pointing the finger at him personally and posting his actual name on the internet for people to attack.
> 
> The guy didn't have to write you back or offer to meet with you. He could have simply ignored you, but he seemed to want to listen to your concerns and give you a response, complete with action items on his side. He probably didn't respond to your email of dead skams because he feels harassed. Not sure that is a good tactic for bringing them to our side of the argument.


1) Where did I accuse this one person of being solely responsible?

2) All people involved in this practice are aware of what is going on and if nothing is done to change it ALL of them CAN be held responsible according to the letter of the law is all I ever stated. I guess I figured common sense would show they would never be legally charged, but it portrayed they do have a standard they must adhere to no matter what and possibly more importantly, it raised some eyebrows to begin taking it seriously...

3) It isn't about bringing anyone over to "our" side of the "issue", they have been well aware of it for many many years and chose to ignore it and even more so boastfully bragged about the returns like they did last year, which the majority of those fish died soon after the article was published last year sadly and ironically enough...

4) Actually, if you know what channels to go through, they do have to respond to you, they literally do not have a choice in the matter...

5) Remember, this is several years in a row of emailing the IDNR and getting a response from the same guy, not the first time he has responded nor the first time he has been notified of the issue. At some point, you have to expect more than a written response do you not? Every year they also say we would love to meet with you, I respond, never once has it happened...

6) They aren't basing a single thing off a letter from me, they have the ability to go see it for themselves and I would be willing to bet they have seen it for themselves as if they have not, that would mean those in charge of managing the watershed, never spend any actual time on it! All you have to do is spend any time on the Joe in the Summer, open your eyes and voila!

I do understand and truly appreciate what you are saying here DirtyBird, I totally get it and for the first several years, I adhered to your ideology, but at some point, if nothing is going to be done, you go other routes if you truly are trying to get something done anyway. I don't post this stuff or send them emails because I enjoy complaining, I do so as what is happening is wrong in every way and because if I didn't, nobody likely would because most people these days, will talk all about how they care, but when it comes down to it, virtually nobody ever acts on it....

The other reason I posted this email entirely is it points out a HUGE issue in my eyes, they are not basing their requirements for action on the reality of the issue, but more so on how many complaints they have received. To me that is a huge red flag as it means they are not willing to act unless enough pressure is applied, so wrong isn't really wrong unless enough people complain? That is utterly ridiculous...


----------



## Dirtybird25

Boozer said:


> 1) Where did I accuse this one person of being solely responsible?


"STATE EMPLOYEES CAN BE *HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE* FOR THEIR ACTIONS IF THEY ARE OF THE NATURE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE"

then

"Brian Breidert, Lake Michigan Fisheries Biologist,
100 W. Water Street, Michigan City, Indiana 46360
219-874-6824, [email protected]
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3625.htm"

Seems pretty clear to me. 



> 2) All people involved in this practice are aware of what is going on and if nothing is done to change it ALL of them CAN be held responsible according to the letter of the law is all I ever stated. I guess I figured common sense would show they would never be legally charged, but it portrayed they do have a standard they must adhere to no matter what.


What law are they breaking? I know that I don't like seeing the dying steelhead, but no one is forcing their hand to stop the stocking. They are simply doing what has time and again been approved by the public for them to do. I guess I don't see what exactly you would be prosecuting them for or why a pencil pusher in INDNR should have to go to court for doing his job. Seems pretty intense. 



> 3) It isn't about bringing anyone over to "our" side of the "issue", they have been well aware of it for many many years and chose to ignore it and even more so boastfully bragged about the returns like they did last year, which the majority of those fish died soon after the article was published last year sadly enough...


I was just pointing out that calling him out personally is probably a bad way to get them to listen or work with you. Simply put, they don't have to respond to your emails. Not sure what is being implied with the quotations around "our" and "issue", but I do agree that the skam program is a bad one. I guess I simply don't think posted their emails and calling for their heads on the internet is a good way to get them to consider other options. 



> 4) Actually, if you know what channels to go through, they do have to respond to you, they literally do not have a choice in the matter...


Are you saying that the email you sent is something that they had to respond to? I would be interested in how that process works, because I am unaware of it. I realize that there are ways to get a response from them, but it sure seems like the guy was simply responding to normal correspondence. 

Not trying to fight with you. Just pointing out that I don't necessarily think blasting them like this is the most effective way to get change. To each their own though.


----------



## Boozer

Dirtybird25 said:


> "STATE EMPLOYEES CAN BE *HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE* FOR THEIR ACTIONS IF THEY ARE OF THE NATURE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE"
> 
> then
> 
> "Brian Breidert, Lake Michigan Fisheries Biologist,
> 100 W. Water Street, Michigan City, Indiana 46360
> 219-874-6824, [email protected]
> http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3625.htm"
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> 
> 
> What law are they breaking? I know that I don't like seeing the dying steelhead, but no one is forcing their hand to stop the stocking. They are simply doing what has time and again been approved by the public for them to do. I guess I don't see what exactly you would be prosecuting them for or why a pencil pusher in INDNR should have to go to court for doing his job. Seems pretty intense.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out that calling him out personally is probably a bad way to get them to listen or work with you. Simply put, they don't have to respond to your emails. Not sure what is being implied with the quotations around "our" and "issue", but I do agree that the skam program is a bad one. I guess I simply don't think posted their emails and calling for their heads on the internet is a good way to get them to consider other options.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the email you sent is something that they had to respond to? I would be interested in how that process works, because I am unaware of it. I realize that there are ways to get a response from them, but it sure seems like the guy was simply responding to normal correspondence.
> 
> Not trying to fight with you. Just pointing out that I don't necessarily think blasting them like this is the most effective way to get change. To each their own though.


OK, when I stated what I did I used the word "they", not him or his actual name, so the intention was anyone that is knowingly dumping fish in a watershed they have been proven to not be able to survive in during normal conditions, can be held responsible. Especially if they are a professional in that field and fully understand what is going on. 

You assumed I meant differently than exactly what I stated...

Wanton Waste and Animal Cruelty are just two laws that would easily apply here if you could prove they knowingly knew this was going on and continued to do it.

*My objective is not to get some guy in trouble or punished, my objective is to finally create the type of interior discussion between the biologists and the resources commission of Indiana to get something changed and not something looked into 10 years down the road, but more so immediately.* *Many many years of being the nice guy, clearly has not made that happen...
*

For example, the response I received last year was basically to the point, if they don't run in the Summer, Indiana doesn't get fish and if we don't get fish, then the program must be canned, well if a program relies on the horrible deaths of thousands upon thousands of fish and there is nothing that can be done to stop that, then by all means it should be canned!

While you may be new to this, this is nothing new and they all know exactly what is going on and if any of them cared, more would have been done before now, period. If they don't like the truth being shared for all to see, then maybe they should do something about it...

That's my thoughts, if you differ, that is great, I hold no ill will, I only represent myself so I am willing to take the heat as I stand behind my stance here. Being nice got me nowhere except for years of emails like I posted above and meanwhile, fish stocked by the IDNR continued to litter the river bottom and more importantly, suffer before doing so...

Be sure to read the comments I added to my previous post after you quoted it as I addressed some of your statements in more detail there...

By all means if you can get something done in a different way, I am all for supporting that, but like I said, many years of the same ole same ole have made me weary of ever seeing much change here...


----------



## johnny5alive

After all that writing you didn't even include what you actually wrote word for word. Actually you didn't include it at all. I gotta sense back pages ago in this thread you have more than dead skamania as motive.


----------



## Boozer

johnny5alive said:


> After all that writing you didn't even include what you actually wrote word for word. Actually you didn't include it at all. I gotta sense back pages ago in this thread you have more than dead skamania as motive.


What are you talking about?

I would LOVE to hear these ulterior motives I have! hahahahaha

PLEASE let me know what I would have to gain from Skams being gone from the Joe in the Summer as maybe I could benefit and just don't know it yet lol


----------



## johnny5alive

Why dontt you post want u wrote the guy. I would like to read what your plans for the Joe are.


----------



## o_mykiss

Boozer said:


> Wanton Waste and Animal Cruelty are just two laws that would easily apply here if you could prove they knowingly knew this was going on and continued to do it.


good idea, after that you can call up PETA and the HSUS and start a petition to ban fishing altogether! Heck maybe they would join you in trying to prove stocking fish is animal cruelty


----------



## Boozer

o_mykiss said:


> good idea, after that you can call up PETA and the HSUS and start a petition to ban fishing altogether! Heck maybe they would join you in trying to prove stocking fish is animal cruelty


I was waiting for that comment...

Big difference between supporting fishing and supporting the sort of die-offs that occur here annually...

Ignorance is bliss though, keep it up.


----------



## Boozer

johnny5alive said:


> Why dontt you post want u wrote the guy. I would like to read what your plans for the Joe are.


As has been stated many times, the beginning of research on what it would take to get them to run in say September instead of June/July, August and action soon after. They have stated they purposely select early running fish to keep them running early, why not try selecting later running fish instead? What about trying a different strain with a clipping unique to just them as well, nothing will be achieved overnight but at least start moving forward...

If the bulk of these fish ran in September, you wouldn't have the major die offs, so you avoid the unethical aspect, which if you have no issue with the die offs, fine, I personally do.

Less fish dying and getting stressed means more and higher quality fish for anglers in the Fall, which also happens to be when most are fishing for them anyway so you please the masses...

That was in a nutshell what I stated, I am not anti-Skamania, I am anti Summer die offs...

Do I personally wish some sections that currently do get migratory fish, did not, yeah it would be cool as it would be more native, but I am not an idiot nor selfish regarding natural resources owned by the public. With all the money spent on the migratory Trout & Salmon program here, it isn't going anywhere, but there is nothing wrong with tweaking it to avoid die offs and improve Fall fishing...

Indiana can still promote the Summer fishing on their creeks, where most people go to fish for them in the Summer anyway, don't see how it isn't a win win for anglers...


----------



## johnny5alive

Boozer said:


> As has been stated many times, the beginning of research on what it would take to get them to run in say September instead of June/July, August and action soon after. They have stated they purposely select early running fish to keep them running early, why not try selecting later running fish instead? What about trying a different strain with a clipping unique to just them as well, nothing will be achieved overnight but at least start moving forward...
> 
> If the bulk of these fish ran in September, you wouldn't have the major die offs, so you avoid the unethical aspect, which if you have no issue with the die offs, fine, I personally do.
> 
> Less fish dying and getting stressed means more and higher quality fish for anglers in the Fall, which also happens to be when most are fishing for them anyway so you please the masses...
> 
> That was in a nutshell what I stated, I am not anti-Skamania, I am anti Summer die offs...
> 
> Do I personally wish some sections that currently do get migratory fish, did not, yeah it would be cool as it would be more native, but I am not an idiot nor selfish regarding natural resources owned by the public. With all the money spent on the migratory Trout & Salmon program here, it isn't going anywhere, but there is nothing wrong with tweaking it to avoid die offs and improve Fall fishing...
> 
> Indiana can still promote the Summer fishing on their creeks, where most people go to fish for them in the Summer anyway, don't see how it isn't a win win for anglers...



basically you want the ladder shut down. thats what you posted many pages ago.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

johnny5alive said:


> basically you want the ladder shut down. thats what you posted many pages ago.


If they closed the ladder the die offs would be turned into a slaughter fest. It would make no difference they are going to die regardless.


----------



## Boozer

johnny5alive said:


> basically you want the ladder shut down. thats what you posted many pages ago.


That was one idea I had, however, what I feel is the best option is exactly what I stated, selecting later running fish or trying a new strain to get the fish to run in September or soon after versus June, July or August.

If you shut down the ladder, you would allow them a better chance at returning to the lake, you would inevitably create a large congregation of sorts at Berrien Dam though and it would not be ideal in comparison to attempting to select later running fish. I disagree with the kids thoughts that more fish would die that way than by being allowed access into the upper reaches of the river, but it would not be perfect.

That would not be an advantage or anything of the sort for me though as you eluded to... I don't fish for steelhead in the Summer any longer, only Fall and Winter these days, variety is what I enjoy so no desire to fish for them year round, but nothing against people that do. The only thing it would do for me is satisfy my desire to cease from seeing hundreds and thousands of dead steelhead every Summer. Any sportsman who is OK with something like that, is not a sportsman...


----------



## JVoutdoors

Boozer,
you are wasting alot of energy and well intended ideas busting the chops of some poor guy who gets your letter at the IDNR. And an employee no matter how low or high up cannot be charged with some cruelty law violation over acting out a gov policy you dont like because fish are dying. Advise from experience... you need to get some fishing/sportsman groups on your side, then have them apply organized pressure to the state elected politicians. That is how the system works. These groups have a heavy sway in MI on what the DNR does in many areas. One squeeky wheel doesnt get any grease but an organized group of sportsman will. Or if you just like to write long posts on this forum about what you would do if you were a biologist, knock yourself out. Great country we have.


----------



## Boozer

JVoutdoors said:


> Boozer,
> you are wasting alot of energy and well intended ideas busting the chops of some poor guy who gets your letter at the IDNR. And an employee no matter how low or high up cannot be charged with some cruelty law violation over acting out a gov policy you dont like because fish are dying. Advise from experience... you need to get some fishing/sportsman groups on your side, then have them apply organized pressure to the state elected politicians. That is how the system works. These groups have a heavy sway in MI on what the DNR does in many areas. One squeeky wheel doesnt get any grease but an organized group of sportsman will. Or if you just like to write long posts on this forum about what you would do if you were a biologist, knock yourself out. Great country we have.


The guy who responded is not just some nobody, he is the head biologist in charge of the area. This is not busting his chops, this is relaying the information he gave with my own personal experiences, in fact if anyone actually reads what that individual posted, he did elude to future plans of enhancing their steelhead program as well as reaching out to other entities to research my claims more, that was a large part of why I posted his response, however, in my opinion, they could do more and by sharing that with fellow sportsman, perhaps more could interact with the IDNR and possibly aid them in making changes.

The entire reason his name and all that was posted, he claimed he had never received any complaints about this except for one or two in all the years he had been involved last year when he wrote me back, this year he stated there were several, so maybe, just maybe me spreading the word had something to do with that so by doing what I did, maybe more whom have witnessed this could contact him as well.

My correspondences were sent not only to him, but the Indiana Natural Resources Commission.

I was actually told by a MDNR employee that sending photos and detailed accounts to both the fisheries division and the natural resources commission of Indiana as I have was a great way to get things going as what you want is internal discussion amongst them two entities to start and you want physical proof which I provided so it just isn't my word they are going by.

This is the first year I requested the information be forwarded to not only the fisheries division, but the natural resources commission as well and I did receive confirmation from the state that was done as I requested. I also sent my accounts to several elected officials as when multiple entities make inquiries into a matter, it likely will begin more internal discussion amongst the powers that be.

I am not just one squeaky wheel either, many other people complain every year about this.

I get what you are saying, but we basically have no groups in the area that would offer any type of real expertise on the matter so I simply do what I can and offer up my personal experiences with detailed locations and photos to the powers that be.

You are correct, they cannot be "charged" in the general sense, however they can be held accountable and the agency forced to change policy based on such things as gross negligence. That was the entire point, to open some eyes on the matter...

I will be away from the internet for a few days, but no matter how you interpret my previous posts, let me make it clear, my only intentions are to lessen the die offs and improve the fishing for everyone, as a whole I think Indiana does a great job managing the Saint Joseph River, but I do obviously feel there is room for improvement. I also feel they largely base their actions on the desires of sportsman as a whole, hence why I share this stuff here, I don't ask anyone to blindly follow what I say, I offer up my experience and let you go out and see for yourself, then come up with your own opinion.


----------



## samsteel

save the skams Kory!


----------



## danimalt14

What no one has mentioned-unless I skipped over the post(cause most of this is BS in my books)..

The skams even being in the river is a byproduct that the people large and in charge perrty much dont give a hoot about..

Skams were intended as a summer boat fishing staple around michigan city and st joe ..

Quite often it is best to just let sleeping dogs lie(IMHO)

Just like the mess(and lack of fish in the lower river) thats gonna happen in the D when they bust da dam out at pucker street.
Pitchfork city upstream - while the lower river will be silt for yrs.

Course this is just this old mans objective reasoning


----------

