# Salmon Stocking Survey Results



## Boozer

http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/fisheries/stocking/12-716-Salmon-Stocking-Survey.pdf

I guess my only question/concern is, where will the steelhead cuts be made if this is the plan they follow through with?


----------



## Jay Wesley

Thanks for posting the survey. 

The States have not decided on an option yet. 

In previous discussions, we talked about mixing up the species potentially as long as the overall predation rates decline. 

For example, Michigan might reduce Chinook salmon by 30%, steelhead by 0%, brown trout by 20%, coho by 10%, and lake trout by 10%. 

Another potential avenue might be that Wisconsin goes with option 4 and Michigan goes with option 2, since most people in Wisconsin favored option 4 and Michigan favored 2. 

The ultimate goal is to reduce predation. The actual percentages in the options were used in the computer model and gave favorable results. I believe that the model will continue to produce favorable results provided that the same number of predators are reduced. It is not this simple since each species has a different predation rate, but we can figure that into the mix. 

To be honest, I am not that thrilled with option 4 because it goes against our Lake Trout Rehabilitation plan. Therefore, any lake trout reductions will be nearshore stockings, which is what the anglers catch. All of the stocking will have to go to the offshore reefs according to the rehabilitation plan.


----------



## riverman

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for posting the survey.
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate goal is to reduce predation. The actual percentages in the options were used in the computer model and gave favorable results. I believe that the model will continue to produce favorable results provided that the same number of predators are reduced. It is not this simple since each species has a different predation rate, but we can figure that into the mix.


I hope so Jay. It just seems so logical to me that an outstanding fishery can still thrive by simply reducing the population of the pig at the table.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

The DNR is stepping in the wrong direction here I feel, your protecting an artifical fishery for money reasons. Stock the hell out of the kings until the ales are wipped clean out. Also I have seen no shortage of bait this year, in fact seen more then ive ever seen in the past 5-8 years. If the DNR wants to bring the Lakers back and be able to quit stocking them you must kill the salmon fishery, simply put you can not have both. I love to catch salmon and steelhead but its time for some change.


----------



## riverbob

riverman said:


> I hope so Jay. It just seems so logical to me that an outstanding fishery can still thrive by simply reducing the population of the pig at the table.


.....I agree



Multispeciestamer said:


> The DNR is stepping in the wrong direction here I feel, your protecting an artifical fishery for money reasons. Stock the hell out of the kings until the ales are wipped clean out. Also I have seen no shortage of bait this year, in fact seen more then ive ever seen in the past 5-8 years. If the DNR wants to bring the Lakers back and be able to quit stocking them you must kill the salmon fishery, simply put you can not have both. I love to catch salmon and steelhead but its time for some change.


.......Lake trout r mainly cault in the big lake, what about us inlander's, we need fish to run upstream, where most of the fishermen are. ( myself, I like more steel)


----------



## REG

Jay,

I was under the impression that USFWS stocked all the Lake Trout. What portion (if any) does USFWS stock?


----------



## thousandcasts

If anyone wonders why the average angler tends to end up on the losing end of things in many cases, look no further than the number of anglers in Michigan who took the survey: 

271

A simple, easy to use survey and only 271 people took the time to click a link and fill in a few blanks. 

Pathetic.


----------



## Trout King

i dont see whats wrong with the way things are now...if anything cut kings in sw mi
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

Trout King said:


> i dont see whats wrong with the way things are now...if anything cut kings in sw mi
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Uh...it's the ports from Grand Haven down that rely on the plants the most. Once the northern based fish migrate out of the southern waters and back up toward their natal streams, that wouldn't leave many fish for those southern ports in July and August.


----------



## diztortion

thousandcasts said:


> If anyone wonders why the average angler tends to end up on the losing end of things in many cases, look no further than the number of anglers in Michigan who took the survey:
> 
> 271
> 
> A simple, easy to use survey and only 271 people took the time to click a link and fill in a few blanks.
> 
> Pathetic.


I wonder how many times walrangler filled out a survey.. 

It's sad that as mentioned, in the next coming years this board will fill up with blame game. At least those anglers have no one to blame but themselves.

I do thank Jay and others, for taking the time and resources to help keep anglers informed.


----------



## Alpha Buck

It seems like it would be a stupid decision to cut the Steelhead plants. Most of the Steelhead that I have been cleaning have had more bugs in their bellies than baitfish. 

It would be nice to see Michigan get on the Skamania bandwagon if they are going to cut the Kings in the southern ports.

Lakers are worthless to most of the people that I know. If they were the only thing left in the lake I wouldn't even waste my time. Save the gas and reel in a wet sock in the nearest pond.


----------



## Trout King

Alpha Buck said:


> It seems like it would be a stupid decision to cut the Steelhead plants. Most of the Steelhead that I have been cleaning have had more bugs in their bellies than baitfish.
> 
> It would be nice to see Michigan get on the Skamania bandwagon if they are going to cut the Kings in the southern ports.
> 
> Lakers are worthless to most of the people that I know. If they were the only think left in the lake I wouldn't even waste my time. Save the gas and reel in a wet sock in the nearest pond.


exactly my thought process...skams instead of kings in sw mi, and still have kings in nw mi.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

Alpha Buck said:


> Lakers are worthless to most of the people that I know. If they were the only thing left in the lake I wouldn't even waste my time. Save the gas and reel in a wet sock in the nearest pond.


True 'dat!


----------



## REG

thousandcasts said:


> If anyone wonders why the average angler tends to end up on the losing end of things in many cases, look no further than the number of anglers in Michigan who took the survey:
> 
> 271
> 
> A simple, easy to use survey and only 271 people took the time to click a link and fill in a few blanks.
> 
> Pathetic.


This conference didn't get nowhere near the press as compared to previous conferences. While MI Sea Grant and DNR did their job to spread the word, there was no mention by the other various DNR's and Sea Grant offices. The news of the meeting was supposed to be spread by the stakeholder delegates that worked with the Task Force.:help: Some clubs knew about it and received almost no mention in the press outside of MI.


----------



## slamthefish

271. That cannot possibly be right. It cant.Only 271 Michigan anglers took the time to give their opinion on what is possibly the most important management decision in this states outdoor recreation history. 271. This topic was raging on these forums not so long ago.271. 271. 271. The DNR management staff must be shaking their heads in bewilderment.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

riverbob said:


> .....I agree
> 
> .......Lake trout r mainly cault in the big lake, what about us inlander's, we need fish to run upstream, where most of the fishermen are. ( myself, I like more steel)


 I get wild laker runs up my local river. They are always beautifuly colored up with perfect fins and no clips. Dnr says they are not wild, I would like to see some evidence for this, I like to catch them none the less. To say they dont fight you must be crazy, they fight harder then any walleye. Maybe not as hard as a king. Ive even hooked a few on spinners that will jump and fight like crazy you swear you hooked into a late skam until you get it in to see its a laker.


----------



## quest32a

Pretty sure the only wild lake trout around the Michigan area are on the ne side of lake Huron . Can't remember the name of the basin or bay but I do trust our dnr and Feds when they say those are the only wild lakers in the great lakes. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## wartfroggy

diztortion said:


> I wonder how many times walrangler filled out a survey..


 I don't remember there being any perch options. 
Well, I guess it could have been worse. It would have been 270 but I did fill out my survey. All that you can do is do your part, and hope that others will also. As mentioned, a huge thanks to Jay for the time and energy that he put into both the survey and keeping us informed on this site. I know that there were those that did not make it easy all of the time, but in general I think that your effort was greatly appreciated.


----------



## limpinglogan

I have asked this before and either was laughed at or no one replied.

I will try again...If the salmonoid fishing on the Great Lakes is such a big industry and reduced numbers of bait are causing a need to reduce plants...why can't an initiative be started to plant more bait? 

I get that the Kings were originally planted in the 1960's to control the alewife population and not every one wants more alewives in the lake but if it means more tourism and added revenue why not?

What is stopping the planting of alewife's, perch, smelt etc...? Not enough food to support them? Who cares about food in the lake for them to eat...why not rear a couple million in a pool and feed them pellets all spring and dump them 1 mile of the pier heads in July...let the kings feast!

I am also wondering how they calculate that the bait numbers are down. I trust the biologists a lot more then any one else BUT all the guys I know that fish out of Muskegon and Grand Haven say that there is more bait then ever.




On another note I am trying to figure out why they are still planting so many Coho if the numbers need to be reduced. I don't know any one who specifically targets Coho and all the guys I know are disappointed when the hook up with a Coho.

I am not sure that I have an opinion on the Lakers...I know they fight like a wet sock when you hook them on the big lake. I also know that they can get huge and a picture holding a 25+ Laker would be cool.


----------



## diztortion

Planting more bait in a less fertile lake would cause an immediate crash. Or close to it.

Even if it didn't cause a crash, it would create a rat race with the DNR to keep up stocking efforts of not only salmon, but their preferred forage.


----------



## wartfroggy

limpinglogan said:


> I have asked this before and either was laughed at or no one replied.
> 
> I will try again...If the salmonoid fishing on the Great Lakes is such a big industry and reduced numbers of bait are causing a need to reduce plants...why can't an initiative be started to plant more bait?


What will they eat once they are in Lake Mich? You plant fish mainly because their reproductive success is lower than the demand for them. Ales spawn like crazy most years. That is not the problem. There is not enough food for them due to increased competition from mussels, cleanup efforts on the lake, etc. Dumping more ales into the lake would just mean that they would end up starving and possibly crashing the entire population. And besides, you would never be able to plant enough ales to make any noticable difference. You would also need to raise them for alot longer than a year to make them a useful addition, as they are still pretty small at 1 yr old. Add to that the cost and equipment that would be needed to raise them. Ales are pretty sensitive to water quality and conditions. It isn't like raising fat head minnows. You would need fairly deep, clean, cool water, and a whole lot of it. 





limpinglogan said:


> On another note I am trying to figure out why they are still planting so many Coho if the numbers need to be reduced. I don't know any one who specifically targets Coho and all the guys I know are disappointed when the hook up with a Coho.


Really? Ever been to St Joe, South Haven, New Buff, or Mich City in the spring? Ever been up north, like to the Betsie, in the fall? Or how about the guys in the rest of the state, Grand River, PM, Manistee, etc, that fish the hoes in the river well after the white rod army is done raping kings off of their beds? 
Then there is the continuous random catches of hoes on the big lake all year long. They might not be specifically targeted all of the time, but they are a great addition to the days catch. 

Maybe it is because alot of people prefer to eat them over a king. Maybe it is because they go absolutely ape sheet when hooked and do cartwheels in the air. Maybe it is just for the change of pace. Maybe it is because of the crazy nonstop action they can provide in the spring. It could be for alot of reasons......but I, along with alot of other people, really enjoy catching them.


----------



## Trout King

agree keep the coho in sw mich, dump the king stocking in sw and more skams. sw mi is worthless king fishing minus a fe monhs. hell screw kings and let them do what they need to do naturally. either way its going to be boom or bust for them depending on ales. right now the grand and jo kings are a waste...imo coho fishery is more important than half rotted kings(lake) and full rotted in the river. btw mst, any walleye is the worst fighting fish, along w crappie
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ranger Ray

After the last manipulation of polling numbers I witnessed, I have no faith in what I am being told by my DNR.


----------



## METTLEFISH

To me offering the survey is a token act. Equipment & license sales tell all the bio's need to know regarding the Anglers, there is little biological evidence in a survey. I just hope it can be held together, and we all have some fish to catch. Perhaps... if the Asian Carp do make the lakes, a Pheromone can be developed to attract them then euthanize and utilize/recycle their nutrients for the lakes....perhaps that could be done to the Common Carp now!


----------



## REG

quest32a said:


> Pretty sure the only wild lake trout around the Michigan area are on the ne side of lake Huron . Can't remember the name of the basin or bay but I do trust our dnr and Feds when they say those are the only wild lakers in the great lakes.
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Lake Superior?


----------



## REG

limpinglogan said:


> I have asked this before and either was laughed at or no one replied.
> 
> I will try again...If the salmonoid fishing on the Great Lakes is such a big industry and reduced numbers of bait are causing a need to reduce plants...why can't an initiative be started to plant more bait?
> 
> I get that the Kings were originally planted in the 1960's to control the alewife population and not every one wants more alewives in the lake but if it means more tourism and added revenue why not?
> 
> What is stopping the planting of alewife's, perch, smelt etc...? Not enough food to support them? Who cares about food in the lake for them to eat...why not rear a couple million in a pool and feed them pellets all spring and dump them 1 mile of the pier heads in July...let the kings feast!
> 
> I am also wondering how they calculate that the bait numbers are down. I trust the biologists a lot more then any one else BUT all the guys I know that fish out of Muskegon and Grand Haven say that there is more bait then ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On another note I am trying to figure out why they are still planting so many Coho if the numbers need to be reduced. I don't know any one who specifically targets Coho and all the guys I know are disappointed when the hook up with a Coho.
> 
> I am not sure that I have an opinion on the Lakers...I know they fight like a wet sock when you hook them on the big lake. I also know that they can get huge and a picture holding a 25+ Laker would be cool.


Besides all that wartfroggy said, you're talking alot of money that no DNR has at this time, don't know how well they'd perform in a hatchery enviroment, you couldn't raise enough prey fish to make a dent into what's needed, also, and this applies to MST's opinion regarding overstocking salmon to crash alewife populations.... in this "what if" scenario, if you overstock predators to the point of starving them out, wouldn't there be a raised possibility of disease influx arising in that starving predator base. If a fish disease was able to take hold and flourish on a swollen, starving predator population,in chinook by example, what's the possibiility of that disease spilling over into other fish populations.
While it didn't appear to happen with Lake Huron chinook to any degree,
and perhaps negligble, but ???.


----------



## quest32a

REG said:


> Lake Superior?


No it's lake Huron I'll look up the name. For a quick minute I was a fisheries and wildlife major and that is about all I remember haha. Superior may have some wild fish too but oil don't remember any spots in lake Michigan where they were successfully reproducing. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## quest32a

Parry Sound in Georgian Bay. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> To say they dont fight you must be crazy, they fight harder then any walleye.


 Harder than a walleye? You aren't setting the bar very high, now are you?


----------



## swampbuck

So we are managing a invasive/non-indigenous ecosystem for what is supposedly a multi billion dollar industry....And only 270 people can take the time to fill out the survey, And they choose the minimum cuts least likely to save their beloved invasive alewives.......What a ******* joke.

Restore the native species, This salmon thing has ran its course.


----------



## TDI

> So we are managing a invasive/non-indigenous ecosystem for what is supposedly a multi billion dollar industry....And only 270 people can take the time to fill out the survey, And they choose the minimum cuts least likely to save their beloved invasive alewives.......What a ******* joke.
> 
> Restore the native species, This salmon thing has ran its course.


+1)


----------



## wartfroggy

I am suprised that there was even 1 person who took the survey that proposed increasing the salmon plants. How would this be a good thing? Whether or not you support additional cuts, I can't imagine someone believing that we should actually increase salmon plants at this point. Was this just some guy that couldn't catch a fish last year and believes that a lack of fish was his only problem? It amazes me how everyone thinks that everything can be fixed by planting fish. Didn't catch enough fish? Plant more. We are running out of baitfish? Plant more. Oh you want more perch in Lake Michigan? Plant more. It is as if no one ever took a highschool biology course and has never heard of a carrying capacity.


----------



## thousandcasts

slamthefish said:


> 271. That cannot possibly be right. It cant.Only 271 Michigan anglers took the time to give their opinion on what is possibly the most important management decision in this states outdoor recreation history. 271. This topic was raging on these forums not so long ago.271. 271. 271. The DNR management staff must be shaking their heads in bewilderment.


It's like anything else on here...b**** like hell about something after the fact, but don't do a (freaking) thing when given the opportunity to be a voice in the process. 

What can you expect though when a large number are just lurking on here looking for fishing spots and hot action so they don't have to waste gas actually looking for fish? 

As I said earlier, I find the 271 number to be pathetic, but it doesn't shock me.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> I am suprised that there was even 1 person who took the survey that proposed increasing the salmon plants. How would this be a good thing? Whether or not you support additional cuts, I can't imagine someone believing that we should actually increase salmon plants at this point. Was this just some guy that couldn't catch a fish last year and believes that a lack of fish was his only problem? It amazes me how everyone thinks that everything can be fixed by planting fish. Didn't catch enough fish? Plant more. We are running out of baitfish? Plant more. Oh you want more perch in Lake Michigan? Plant more. It is as if no one ever took a highschool biology course and has never heard of a carrying capacity.


 More KINGS! Down with the alewife! Bring back the natives. St. Joe river gets tons of Lakers spawning along its lower length and pier heads every year. Lakers that mainly eat gobies and whitefish as bait. You can not tell me there are no native Lakers in SW MI. While they still may not be a ton, there are for sure some, some of the eggs must survive.


----------



## thousandcasts

Multispeciestamer said:


> More KINGS! Down with the alewife! Bring back the natives. St. Joe river gets tons of Lakers spawning along its lower length and pier heads every year. Lakers that mainly eat gobies and whitefish as bait. You can not tell me there are no native Lakers in SW MI. While they still may not be a ton, there are for sure some, some of the eggs must survive.


Really dude...are you trying to set a record or something for the most "EPIC FAIL's" in one life time? If not, then lets fix the problem. It usually starts when you say, "I think..." 

When ever you find yourself saying, "well, I think..." just stop right there and count to 100 or count to potato--whatever you're most comfortable with. After you count to 100, don't continue to think. At that point, simply listen and pay attention to what's being presented and then when you absorb some of that, you might find yourself learning a thing or two. 

Just trying to help, bro!


----------



## toto

It surprises me that only 271 people filled out the questionnaire, I know I was one of them. Heres what I know, not what I think you cannot just stock fish in numbers that cannot be maintained. By that, you need to balance the predators to the forage base, and that ain't easy, its always a guessing game at best. You can look at the forage and determine if its up or down, and stock accordingly, but then next year you have a banner year on the forage base, and then you have too much. On the other hand, if you have too much forage, you will probably have bigger fish. When you several states planting fish, you must find coordinate together to get the balance right. The other thing that comes into play is, these fish havea tendency to wander, just as hutch said earlier. What I mean is, if they are planted in Wisconsin doesn't mean they'll stay in Wisconsin, etc. If that happens to a great degree, you then have Wisconsin anglers complaining their DNR doesn't stock enough, and on and on. Hope you get my point,


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> It surprises me that only 271 people filled out the questionnaire, I know I was one of them. Heres what I know, not what I think you cannot just stock fish in numbers that cannot be maintained. By that, you need to balance the predators to the forage base, and that ain't easy, its always a guessing game at best. You can look at the forage and determine if its up or down, and stock accordingly, but then next year you have a banner year on the forage base, and then you have too much. On the other hand, if you have too much forage, you will probably have bigger fish. When you several states planting fish, you must find coordinate together to get the balance right. The other thing that comes into play is, these fish havea tendency to wander, just as hutch said earlier. What I mean is, if they are planted in Wisconsin doesn't mean they'll stay in Wisconsin, etc. If that happens to a great degree, you then have Wisconsin anglers complaining their DNR doesn't stock enough, and on and on. Hope you get my point,


Correct. At one point, there was a large number of Huron planted kings showing up in the creel numbers off the Lake Michigan ports. The bulk of the fish migrate to the southern waters during the winter since that's where it's "warmer" and most of the bait migrates there. Same thing with the "shelf" from Ludington to Manistee later in the summer. A ton of bait gathers there, so do the fish. 

Lake Michigan is what...40, 50 miles across on average? That's nothing to a fish that still has the basic DNA of a fish that's used to traveling thousands of miles out in the ocean.

Since none of the southern waters have anywhere near the natural repro of the northern waters, those guys rely on the plants more so than those up north. Jay can answer this more accurately, but I believe when they did the tail studies on the Grand, they found that less than 10% of the kings were wild. Conversely, it's 80% in a river like the Big M.

Further, yeah...there's a ton of bait out there right now and all the predator fish are bigger. I thought, "huh? What the hell are they talking about?" when it came to forage issue. But then Jay pointed out that all that bait is from one year class and when you start paying attention, you realize that most of the ales are the same size and there isn't that variety of big ones, medium ones and small ones like you'd normally see. The bulk of them are, indeed, pretty much the same size. So, putting 2 + 2 together and paying attention, one could certainly start leaning toward the side of caution. I know that doing that has had me singing a slightly different tune lately!


----------



## Ranger Ray

So let me get this right. We have too many fish for the forage available in the big lake, so we need to reduce stocking. When they hit the river, we have to do C&R to save all we can to reproduce, so more fish make it back out to the big lake, that can't handle any more fish (not to mention that higher plain of nirvana).


----------



## llpof

swampbuck said:


> So we are managing a invasive/non-indigenous ecosystem for what is supposedly a multi billion dollar industry....And only 270 people can take the time to fill out the survey, And they choose the minimum cuts least likely to save their beloved invasive alewives.......What a ******* joke.
> 
> Restore the native species, This salmon thing has ran its course.


What? are you somehow amazed? Read the political forum here, you should see how they vote (if at all)!:lol:

I hope some of you guys got out this week. It's been slammin'.


----------



## toto

As far as natural reproduction, take a look at the Betsie, as far as my memory serves me, I don't they've ever planted salmon in the Betsie and look at the runs they have every year. Pretty amazing if you ask me. As for catch and release, I know there are those that feel we should catch and release those too, but if they are good shape, I'll release them right into my freezer. Of course, once they've been in the river for any amount of time, I don't even want to touch em to release them.

One other thing of note, its very difficult to repair a system from the bottom up without the bottom being there. What I'm saying is, if we need to use natural reproduction for the alewives, we have to allow nature to repair the forage base, and that is problematic at best. I have no idea about this next statement, but with the elimination of dumping ballast water in the Great Lakes, I wonder if that has been a factor in reducing alewives as well. I'm sure Jay would have a better understanding than I do on that. What it boils down to oddly enough, the salmon were planted to take care of the alewives in the first place, and apparantly they have done their job. What was created is a collosal fishery over time, and I doubt even the DNR had any idea it would grow to these proportions. Can we get it back to a great fishery again, probably, but its gonna take some sense of logic to do so, and cooperation between the states.


----------



## thousandcasts

Ranger Ray said:


> So let me get this right. We have too many fish for the forage available in the big lake, so we need to reduce stocking. When they hit the river, we have to do C&R to save all we can to reproduce, so more fish make it back out to the big lake, that can't handle any more fish (not to mention that higher plain of nirvana).


Well, there you've brought up the great dichotomy. The big lake and any harvest doesn't exist. It's only when a salmon or steelhead enters a river is it a sin to harvest any. 

Now, in order to buy into the great dichotomy, you have to ignore certain things. You have to ignore the fact that our entire great lakes steelhead fishery comes from about 1500 fish taken at the wier. 1500 fish equals the entire amount of smolts planted in Michigan and other states. Gotta ignore that. 

Next, we all know how packed a place like Tippy and it's downstream access points get, right? Right...guys lined up shoulder to shoulder dragging fish in left and right and a lot of those fish are white tailed hens with empty bellies. Winter comes along and then spring and starting in April, you begin to see clouds of inch long wild chinook parr in areas like Suicide Bend, Tunk, Sawdust, etc...ya know, all the places where a few months earlier it was shoulder to shoulder harvest. Why are all those little salmon there? Who cares...ya gotta ignore that. You can't let common sense get in the way of the great dichotomy. You can't even acknowledge the fact that despite the traffic and despite the harvest, those fish are still spawning and creating millions, yes millions of little ones that successfully out migrate. 

Steelhead--the Seelbach (sp?) studies don't exist. The fact that most of Michigan's waters are NOT conducive to successful steelhead wild smolt survival doesn't exist. As soon as you harvest a river steelhead, you're a meat fishing slob. 

I could go on, but most people with a clue already understand the great dichotomy and that there is no place for such ridiculous concepts like fact and reality when buying into the G.D. 

Myself...I choose to practice mostly catch and release, just as I choose to harvest a few fish each year. Somehow, I still manage to sleep good at night even though the fact that I do harvest even one fish automatically slaps that "meat fishing slob" label on my back.


----------



## toto

As far as Seelbachs studies, heres some numbers to think about. Each female carries approximately 7500 eggs, out of those 7500 about 1% will out migrate. If you have 1500 fish, and we assume they are half females, we have 750 fish x 7500 eggs = 56250 eggs +/-. If we then assume that one percent of those out migrate, you have roughly 562 outmigrated fish. I'm going from memory here, and only using the bottom end of the numbers established. Thats not taking into account that the hatchey system has a lot higher percentage of fish that are capable of out migrating, but I'm using only natural reproduction numbers as a stand point. Obviously, I'm using the 1500 fish numbers not taking into account that you may mean 1500 females, in which case the numbers would be quite a bit higher. One good case in point is the Platte River. Fish haven't been planted in there for quite some time, until this last year, and the numbers show they are reproducing at a great enough rate to sustain the fishery there. Of course that could be combined with the fact there are thousands of coho, and lesser amounts of kings up that river every fall, so I don't know how much of contributes to the downfall of the steelie numbers there. The bottom line is, with steelhead, it appears they may not be able to reproduce naturally enough to sustain the fishery we have become used to. I also know the above numbers don't make sense on the surface, but they are what they are.


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> As far as Seelbachs studies, heres some numbers to think about. Each female carries approximately 7500 eggs, out of those 7500 about 1% will out migrate. If you have 1500 fish, and we assume they are half females, we have 750 fish x 7500 eggs = 56250 eggs +/-. If we then assume that one percent of those out migrate, you have roughly 562 outmigrated fish. I'm going from memory here, and only using the bottom end of the numbers established. Thats not taking into account that the hatchey system has a lot higher percentage of fish that are capable of out migrating, but I'm using only natural reproduction numbers as a stand point. Obviously, I'm using the 1500 fish numbers not taking into account that you may mean 1500 females, in which case the numbers would be quite a bit higher. One good case in point is the Platte River. Fish haven't been planted in there for quite some time, until this last year, and the numbers show they are reproducing at a great enough rate to sustain the fishery there. Of course that could be combined with the fact there are thousands of coho, and lesser amounts of kings up that river every fall, so I don't know how much of contributes to the downfall of the steelie numbers there. The bottom line is, with steelhead, it appears they may not be able to reproduce naturally enough to sustain the fishery we have become used to. I also know the above numbers don't make sense on the surface, but they are what they are.


7500 eggs x 750 females is 5,625,000 eggs. Of which, Michigan's hatchery system can only raise about 1.2 million smolts. That's max due to the fact that they're at capacity at wolf lake, which is the one hatchery where they can get the perfect water temps to effectively raise steelhead. So, the actual # of fish required could be less than 1500 fish needed. You gotta figure half and half since they prefer to do one to one pairing when fertilizing eggs. 

But yes, the number of out migrating wild smolts will be very low in most rivers since summer water temps kill off most of the newly hatched before September even rolls around. Then those that do survive the summer then have to survive the winter. Winter is also a factor since young steelhead require a perfect window of temps in order to survive a year or more and reach smolt size. Extreme winter and cold water temps also kills off a fair share of the young. 

Chinook--they hatch and out migrate fairly quickly, hence why they're able to have a huge amount of natural repro messing up the predator to prey balance. 

However, all of that is moot. It doesn't fit into the great dichotomy, thus it doesn't exist.


----------



## toto

Sorry about the math, I missed that class I guess. But you see my point. Even at those numbers, you are looking a, what, 5600 +/- that out migrate, at least in nature.


----------



## REG

Besides the lack of fanfare for this meeting, perhaps some viewed the choices to vote on much like Mel Gibson's character in Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome looked at the Wheel of Doom.

That said, do you think more people would have voted if there was an option for a 50% reduction in Lake Trout stocking?  :lol::lol:

Actually, I have to say I am not too surprised with how many people voted, even though this was by far the easiest and most convenient lakewide meeting ever.

All in, I think Jay Wesley and Dan O'Keefe did a great job communicating and hosting the meeting.


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> Sorry about the math, I missed that class I guess. But you see my point. Even at those numbers, you are looking a, what, 5600 +/- that out migrate, at least in nature.


Pretty much. For this study on the Betsie, it was less than 3,000 wild fish that reached smolt size and out migrated each year. 

For anyone who wants a crash course in basic steelhead biology, this same study should be required reading since most of the science and survival factors apply to all Michigan steelhead and Tammy knows her stuff. It needs to be mentioned again that when it comes to steelhead in this state, Tammy knows her stuff. 

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/ifr/ifrlibra/research/reports/2046rr.pdf

My apologies to anyone who might be offended that I breached the sanctity of fantasy by injecting science and fact into the equation.


----------



## toto

Yep that looks right to me, from what I remember. When I was going to college, I did a research paper on steelhead, and had a sit down with Dr. Seelbach, well he wasn't a doctor yet when I met with him, he was doing his doctoral studies then, but those numbers look pretty much the same as what he was talking about. Its surprising though jus how few steelies actually out migrate, at least on the Betsie. Those numbers can, and probably would change on other streams rivers, assuming the water temps can stay within a comfortable range for the age 3 smolts. I also found it interesting that the Betsie showed younger age classes out migrating, and one can only guess as to the reasons why. My best guess would be they out migrate due to water temp, but thats only a guess. Next time I catch one on the Betsie I'll ask him/her.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

thousandcasts said:


> Really dude...are you trying to set a record or something for the most "EPIC FAIL's" in one life time? If not, then lets fix the problem. It usually starts when you say, "I think..."
> 
> When ever you find yourself saying, "well, I think..." just stop right there and count to 100 or count to potato--whatever you're most comfortable with. After you count to 100, don't continue to think. At that point, simply listen and pay attention to what's being presented and then when you absorb some of that, you might find yourself learning a thing or two.
> 
> Just trying to help, bro!


 I can say its a fact that the St. Joe river gets a large amount of Lakers spawning. Lakers can and do key on gobies, smelt, whitefish, ciscos, shinners not just alewifes, off setting the inbalance that does not allow them to spawn (I know you already know this but for anyone who does not). Also are all Lakers clipped? How far do they travel? Is there a study to even see how many lakers are spawning with limited success since other forage became more abundent in recent years? The Lakers I see have no clips, no evidence of fin wear from being raised in a hatchery.


----------



## samsteel

Alpha Buck said:


> It would be nice to see Michigan get on the Skamania bandwagon if they are going to cut the Kings in the southern ports.
> 
> Lakers are worthless to most of the people that I know. If they were the only thing left in the lake I wouldn't even waste my time. Save the gas and reel in a wet sock in the nearest pond.


 


thousandcasts said:


> True 'dat!


another vote for Lakers suck! I will never understand how those who have felt the pull of a fresh king or steelie, would not do anything they could to sustain that fishery, artificial or not. Where else anywhere near here can you battle fish with the combination of size, speed and strength? Maybe stripers somewhere a few states down, but they are also stocked to control over abundent baitfish populations and to create fisheries. I don't understand the "hating" , it's like it's the trendy thing to say on here from those who either struggle catching them, used to live here, but now live out of state and are most likely jealous.....or have lives that don't allow them to fish anymore. Haters gonna hate I guess. Lakers????? Give me a break!!


----------



## toto

Sam, I don't totally understand your point, except about the lakers. Who is hating on salmon, or am I reading that wrong. From where I sit, if you don't find a balance of predator/prey, you won't have a very good fishery, and thats just the facts. Help me clear up what you meant.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

So we wipe out a fish from its native home and can only keep them around by stocking, we keep around a invasive species to keep our bill folds full and to save a species we stocked to wipe out the invasive species in the first place. We want to keep wasting money to plant Lakers but dont want to give them a fighting chance. We have done very little with helping stugeon on Michigans side of Lake Michigan. Smallies and Walleyes eggs may be getting ate at a faster rate then they can reproduce. We allow no limit on a main predator of gobies the freshwater drum. At least whitefish are doing great I guess, also been seeing lots of native shiners, so maybe not all is lost.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> So we wipe out a fish from its native home and can only keep them around by stocking, we keep around a invasive species to keep our bill folds full and to save a species we stocked to wipe out the invasive species in the first place. We want to keep wasting money to plant Lakers but dont want to give them a fighting chance. We have done very little with helping stugeon on Michigans side of Lake Michigan. Smallies and Walleyes eggs may be getting ate at a faster rate then they can reproduce. We allow no limit on a main predator of gobies the freshwater drum. At least whitefish are doing great I guess, also been seeing lots of native shiners, so maybe not all is lost.


 Don't tell me you want to start planting perch to control the carp too? Man you sure are starting to sound alot like someone that used to post on here from time to time.....I just can't remember who....


----------



## samsteel

toto said:


> Sam, I don't totally understand your point, except about the lakers. Who is hating on salmon, or am I reading that wrong. From where I sit, if you don't find a balance of predator/prey, you won't have a very good fishery, and thats just the facts. Help me clear up what you meant.


Toto, your dead on about the predator/prey relationship and as much as I hate it, I voted 50% reduction in salmon stocks, because I think it's necessary. It's not you at all, but this whole, restore Lake Michigan back to it's original state and do away with the salmon and focus on the native fish, I think is ridiculous. There are so many great fisheries that are supported by stocking or introducing species, but Lake Michigan salmon get beat up on in these forums, by individuals for lame reasons (reasons I mentioned in the last post) They are an introduced species and have created a world famous fishery and story in Michigan, maybe the most impressive freshwater fishery in the world if you ask me. Again, they are not invasive, they are introduced. Lake Michigan will never be restored to it's original state....to many factors, environment, invasives etc. So I get irritated when people come on here and try to muddy the water, with their bring back the lakers and perch and do away with the salmon. I get tired of guys who don't fish anymore, or moved states away coming on here and trying to muddy the water, because they are jealous they don't have the resource available anymore. Most of all, I just really want my son and daughter to feel a fresh king striking a lure, or dropping a bobber. I want to see my kids holding a fish as big as them. Kids can go anywhere and catch bass, bluegill, walleye, etc. But how many kids across the country get to have a chance at salmon? I just think we are so lucky and like Alpha Buck said. If the lake was full of Lake Trout and the Salmon/Steelhead go away, then I think I will have to take up kayaking in downtown GR, because I am not chasing those greasy fish.
Here is an example of the hating of salmon


swampbuck said:


> So we are managing a invasive/non-indigenous ecosystem for what is supposedly a multi billion dollar industry....And only 270 people can take the time to fill out the survey, And they choose the minimum cuts least likely to save their beloved invasive alewives.......What a ******* joke.
> Restore the native species, This salmon thing has ran its course.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> You can not tell me there are no native Lakers in SW MI.


 And you cannot tell me that there are. While there may be some naturally reproduced lakers (but likely very few), it is highly inlikely that there are any native strains of Lake Trout left in SW Lake Mich, or anywhere in Lake Mich. From what I understand, for the most part, there are no or very few "native" lakers left in Lake Michigan, as they were pretty much wiped out by the 50's. They have been pretty much been run down and over taken by plantings of other strains not native to Lake Mich over the years.


----------



## wartfroggy

quest32a said:


> Pretty sure the only wild lake trout around the Michigan area are on the ne side of lake Huron . Can't remember the name of the basin or bay but I do trust our dnr and Feds when they say those are the only wild lakers in the great lakes.
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 Is that the Parry Sound strain you are thinking of?
There are also native/wild strains still found in Lake Superior, which have been considered for introduction into lake mich.


----------



## METTLEFISH

wartfroggy said:


> I am suprised that there was even 1 person who took the survey that proposed increasing the salmon plants. How would this be a good thing? Whether or not you support additional cuts, I can't imagine someone believing that we should actually increase salmon plants at this point. Was this just some guy that couldn't catch a fish last year and believes that a lack of fish was his only problem? It amazes me how everyone thinks that everything can be fixed by planting fish. Didn't catch enough fish? Plant more. We are running out of baitfish? Plant more. Oh you want more perch in Lake Michigan? Plant more. It is as if no one ever took a highschool biology course and has never heard of a carrying capacity.


Agreed! Though it is possible to rehabilitate the fertility of the lakes. It's time for this to be seriously considered, land is fertilized to yileld a maximum crop, the water can be also.....


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> And you cannot tell me that there are. While there may be some naturally reproduced lakers (but likely very few), it is highly inlikely that there are any native strains of Lake Trout left in SW Lake Mich, or anywhere in Lake Mich. From what I understand, for the most part, there are no or very few "native" lakers left in Lake Michigan, as they were pretty much wiped out by the 50's. They have been pretty much been run down and over taken by plantings of other strains not native to Lake Mich over the years.


 My bad WILD BORN.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

samsteel said:


> Toto, your dead on about the predator/prey relationship and as much as I hate it, I voted 50% reduction in salmon stocks, because I think it's necessary. It's not you at all, but this whole, restore Lake Michigan back to it's original state and do away with the salmon and focus on the native fish, I think is ridiculous. There are so many great fisheries that are supported by stocking or introducing species, but Lake Michigan salmon get beat up on in these forums, by individuals for lame reasons (reasons I mentioned in the last post) They are an introduced species and have created a world famous fishery and story in Michigan, maybe the most impressive freshwater fishery in the world if you ask me. Again, they are not invasive, they are introduced. Lake Michigan will never be restored to it's original state....to many factors, environment, invasives etc. So I get irritated when people come on here and try to muddy the water, with their bring back the lakers and perch and do away with the salmon. I get tired of guys who don't fish anymore, or moved states away coming on here and trying to muddy the water, because they are jealous they don't have the resource available anymore. Most of all, I just really want my son and daughter to feel a fresh king striking a lure, or dropping a bobber. I want to see my kids holding a fish as big as them. Kids can go anywhere and catch bass, bluegill, walleye, etc. But how many kids across the country get to have a chance at salmon? I just think we are so lucky and like Alpha Buck said. If the lake was full of Lake Trout and the Salmon/Steelhead go away, then I think I will have to take up kayaking in downtown GR, because I am not chasing those greasy fish.
> Here is an example of the hating of salmon


 Man has to limit his power, because no one else is going to tell us to limit it. Just because we can does not cut it. Nature evolved the way it did for a reason who were we to go and tamper with it. Its true it will never be the same ever, and whats done is done. We need to look at ways to get more wild populations going as to use funds for other projects, like Great Lakes Muskies in Lake Michigan, fixing our "drowning" lake run brown fishery, getting sturgeon numbers back up, removing more dams, etc.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> We need to look at ways to get more wild populations going as to use funds for other projects, like Great Lakes Muskies in Lake Michigan....


 Not sure that is where I would be dumping a bunch of money either...... I don't see that ever taking off. Gotta remember, Lake Mich is alot different than LSC.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> My bad WILD BORN.


 Maybe we should go back and count how many times you called someone out when they said "native" instead of "wild" when referring to a steelhead, brown, or salmon. 
And I honestly didn't intend to call you out on that little difference. I didn't think you meant wild...you seemed pretty set on that they were native.


----------



## Jones

thousandcasts said:


> Really dude...are you trying to set a record or something for the most "EPIC FAIL's" in one life time? If not, then lets fix the problem. It usually starts when you say, "I think..."
> 
> When ever you find yourself saying, "well, I think..." just stop right there and count to 100 or count to potato--whatever you're most comfortable with. After you count to 100, don't continue to think. At that point, simply listen and pay attention to what's being presented and then when you absorb some of that, you might find yourself learning a thing or two.


----------



## troutguy26

thousandcasts said:


> Well, if people were all about getting rid of those trout because they were hurting the native sucker and chub populations, I'd be willing to bet that you'd be jumping up and down screaming about how they either have no clue how to catch a trout or they just simply have no clue. Correct?


Id probaly be shooting guns and starting fires instead of jumping up and down. Lol. This salmon thing means alot to the state and alot of people and i get that. It evens means alot to the hutch for sure. But lets look at this aspect. I posted on here at what ten or eleven am? Left to fish and just got home. In the mean time while fishing i hooked alot of very nice browns pushing up to 17in and also got into some fish alot of people seem to have a hard time with. So i cant knock the diversity since i fished maybe 8hrs and smacked the piss outta some nice fish. I love where i live and how in 20 minutes i got everything. Heck some spots i can almost walk there. But i still hold my prejudice to salmon and always will. Just how i roll i guess unless someone wants to set some upstream limits on them then id vote salmon party all day long.


----------



## thousandcasts

troutguy26 said:


> Id probaly be shooting guns and starting fires instead of jumping up and down. Lol. This salmon thing means alot to the state and alot of people and i get that. It evens means alot to the hutch for sure. But lets look at this aspect. I posted on here at what ten or eleven am? Left to fish and just got home. In the mean time while fishing i hooked alot of very nice browns pushing up to 17in and also got into some fish alot of people seem to have a hard time with. So i cant knock the diversity since i fished maybe 8hrs and smacked the piss outta some nice fish. I love where i live and how in 20 minutes i got everything. Heck some spots i can almost walk there. But i still hold my prejudice to salmon and always will. Just how i roll i guess unless someone wants to set some upstream limits on them then id vote salmon party all day long.


I was using a "gentle example." Shooting fires and starting guns would just be the starting point for me.  :lol:

Trust me, I get the trout fishing love...that's how I feel about salmon fishing and both fisheries have provided plenty to a lot of people for decades now. That's the great thing about this state--there's different resources to love!


----------



## thousandcasts

samsteel said:


> I strongly agree with this...but i am curious why u think that.
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Pretty much what Reg said--more focus on the kings = less focus on the steelhead out there. We may not like the five salmon limit in principle, but it does reduce that "we got our three kings, now lets try to finish up the box with some steelhead" thing since guys are just gonna focus on getting the salmon limit.


----------



## troutguy26

Exactly. Theres something for everyone. Its just if we could get a little more "summer" action going without a guy having to have his spots already nailed down i beleive itd help alot. Just my couple pennies.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Perhaps an inland Trout stamp and a big lakes stamp would quiet some of the issues of the two fisheries, I believe the inland Trout fishery would quickly die off without the funds from the Trout stamp purchases for the big Lakes....


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Trout King said:


> im not a salmon hater, but o do feel money is wasted dumping any kings into the grand or joe.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 The only reason its wasted on the joe is because they are kept in some large net pen. If it was still managed as a river fishery things may be different, still get lots of kings up many streams. And always tons of small kings still around the piers in the late spring, seen a group of about 100 small kings swim by the pier today, still around even in 70 degree water. More adaptive to water temps then most think.


----------



## troutguy26

METTLEFISH said:


> Perhaps an inland Trout stamp and a big lakes stamp would quiet some of the issues of the two fisheries, I believe the inland Trout fishery would quickly die off without the funds from the Trout stamp purchases for the big Lakes....


Would there be a seperate license for char?


----------



## thousandcasts

Multispeciestamer said:


> The only reason its wasted on the joe is because they are kept in some large net pen. If it was still managed as a river fishery things may be different, still get lots of kings up many streams. And always tons of small kings still around the piers in the late spring, seen a group of about 100 small kings swim by the pier today, still around even in 70 degree water. More adaptive to water temps then most think.


It's not like they've used those net pens at just about every port or something for, oh...I don't know...the last 20 years. Now it's a waste?


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> seen a group of about 100 small kings swim by the pier today, still around even in 70 degree water. More adaptive to water temps then most think.


So you "seen" a group of 100 small kings in warm water today. How does that turn into them being more adaptive than most think? What did seeing them for a couple of minutes tell you about their survival in that warm of weather. They aren't in that warm water because they want to be...they are there because they got stuck with it.


----------



## quest32a

Multispeciestamer said:


> The only reason its wasted on the joe is because they are kept in some large net pen. If it was still managed as a river fishery things may be different, still get lots of kings up many streams. And always tons of small kings still around the piers in the late spring, seen a group of about 100 small kings swim by the pier today, still around even in 70 degree water. More adaptive to water temps then most think.


I'm assuming you mean very small? As in an inch or two? 
I


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## wartfroggy

thousandcasts said:


> It's not like they've used those net pens at just about every port or something for, oh...I don't know...the last 20 years. Now it's a waste?


 Yeah, Lud has had it's net pens in at the state park for a very long time. I want to say it was one of the first. Anyways, I have yet to see any evidence of it being a "waste".


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> So you "seen" a group of 100 small kings in warm water today. How does that turn into them being more adaptive than most think? What did seeing them for a couple of minutes tell you about their survival in that warm of weather. They aren't in that warm water because they want to be...they are there because they got stuck with it.


 They could have followed the cooler water, but they stayed, and they were not belly up, all I ment by it. Also got a cool pic for you guys of the three age groups of ales near the piers in good numbers.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

quest32a said:


> I'm assuming you mean very small? As in an inch or two?
> I
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 Yes


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> They could have followed the cooler water, but they stayed, and they were not belly up, all I ment by it. Also got a cool pic for you guys of the three age groups of ales near the piers in good numbers.


 Too bad there isn't more than just 3 age classes. And they were probably all small too, weren't they? Haven't been seeing much of the older year classes lately, at least not around here. 
And as far as them following the water....if there is a steady stream of them falling out of the river, once the water is warm, it is pretty hard to follow the cold water....it is already gone. You are assuming that those fish had been there all week and decided to stay even though the water warmed up, which may not be the case. They could have just as easily dropped out of the warm river, to find a warm lake.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> Too bad there isn't more than just 3 age classes. And they were probably all small too, weren't they? Haven't been seeing much of the older year classes lately, at least not around here.
> And as far as them following the water....if there is a steady stream of them falling out of the river, once the water is warm, it is pretty hard to follow the cold water....it is already gone. You are assuming that those fish had been there all week and decided to stay even though the water warmed up, which may not be the case. They could have just as easily dropped out of the warm river, to find a warm lake.


 Very possible indeed, been seeing small kings 2-3 inchers since April. And we have tons of thos big giant ales.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> Very possible indeed, been seeing small kings 2-3 inchers since April. And we have tons of thos big giant ales.


 I'd sure love to fill up a bucket w/ those big guys. All I have seen the last few years up here has been them little dinks.


----------



## Trout King

hutch i realize sw mi is more focused on the big lake as that is where the money is? but why dump the 60000 or whataver it is in upstream in those rivers? its a waste. still have some in the pens, but honestly they could never plant those rivers again and you would still have the similar numbers hit the rivers and not 2inch smoltd getting gobbled by everything. hell i enjoy going down and slamming the salmon in the harbors, but screw the river fishery. btw plenty of hos and skams even kings in sw lk mi at times. sw mi river kings suck imo. 

btw like tg26 i went trouting today and ended up collectimg 5 brooks between 12-14 inches which are much more tasty then a rottem scab thats rotting near the piers at the mouth of the grand or joe. 
im sure you can guess my option when i filled out my survey. if i want to catch kings i head north and find plenty otjer than the couple times i bluegill fisb them in the harbors each year. it wouldnt hurt my feelings if there were half the amount of decaying salmon wallowing around the pens in grand haven every year. thats just me though...everyone has there things and caring about sw mi kings isnt mine when i can make a run north and pound salmon all day long for 2 months if i want. there isnt a lack of kingd swimmimg lk mi, but would jusg be more seasonal if they cut stocks in sw mi imo.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## diztortion

If you cut the stocking in the SW part of the state, you'll displace a large amount of anglers. As it is right now, people from the East side of the state travel the entire West coast to fish salmon in the fall. With no plants in the SW, you could have an influx of three different parts of the state converging on the entire North west.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## diztortion

As cheap as it is to plant chinook, cutting stocks in the naturally reproducing Northwest should be an easy decision, at least in my opinion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## METTLEFISH

troutguy26 said:


> Would there be a seperate license for char?


I believe if you read the license information they are covered by it.




diztortion said:


> As cheap as it is to plant chinook, cutting stocks in the naturally reproducing Northwest should be an easy decision, at least in my opinion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is an obvious choice for the Bio's, though I am yet to hear of it being pondered. Any studies of naturally produced king/Coho (rivers) in the State? Look at the Pinks, doing fine from a miniscule amount of escapees... perhaps the wild genes are being weekened by the hatchery fish...


----------



## Trout King

i guess i will just go salmon fishing when it is time, as far as what they do with stocking them, well, i just really dont care.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wartfroggy

diztortion said:


> If you cut the stocking in the SW part of the state, you'll displace a large amount of anglers. As it is right now, people from the East side of the state travel the entire West coast to fish salmon in the fall. With no plants in the SW, you could have an influx of three different parts of the state converging on the entire North west.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 And it won't be just the anglers from our state that we displace....you will also drive a large number of FIPs further north.


----------



## thousandcasts

Trout King said:


> hutch i realize sw mi is more focused on the big lake as that is where the money is? but why dump the 60000 or whataver it is in upstream in those rivers? its a waste. still have some in the pens, but honestly they could never plant those rivers again and you would still have the similar numbers hit the rivers and not 2inch smoltd getting gobbled by everything. hell i enjoy going down and slamming the salmon in the harbors, but screw the river fishery. btw plenty of hos and skams even kings in sw lk mi at times. sw mi river kings suck imo.
> 
> btw like tg26 i went trouting today and ended up collectimg 5 brooks between 12-14 inches which are much more tasty then a rottem scab thats rotting near the piers at the mouth of the grand or joe.
> im sure you can guess my option when i filled out my survey. if i want to catch kings i head north and find plenty otjer than the couple times i bluegill fisb them in the harbors each year. it wouldnt hurt my feelings if there were half the amount of decaying salmon wallowing around the pens in grand haven every year. thats just me though...everyone has there things and caring about sw mi kings isnt mine when i can make a run north and pound salmon all day long for 2 months if i want. there isnt a lack of kingd swimmimg lk mi, but would jusg be more seasonal if they cut stocks in sw mi imo.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, they're going to dump X amount of fish into the upper reaches of the St. Joe because I assume that's part of the agreement between Indiana and Michigan. The be all end all of that agreement is the skams. If the Joe gets its 100K plus skam plant along with X amount of skams they truck up to the Big Manistee, then 60K kings is nothing if that's what Indiana wants. Otherwise the bulk of the plants are in the net pens down low.


----------



## toto

As far as stocking kings in the NW, I know the Betsie has one heck of a salmon run, and they don't stock that. Not sure about the Big Man, but I would imagine they stock there. As for cohos, the bulk are planted at the Platte, and it appears its going to be that way for some time, after all they spent millions updating the hatchery a few years ago.


----------



## thousandcasts

toto said:


> As far as stocking kings in the NW, I know the Betsie has one heck of a salmon run, and they don't stock that. Not sure about the Big Man, but I would imagine they stock there. As for cohos, the bulk are planted at the Platte, and it appears its going to be that way for some time, after all they spent millions updating the hatchery a few years ago.


The Big M gets a minimal plant--minimal based on how big it was years ago. The tetraoxycyclene (sp?) tail sample studies show that about 80% of the fish returning to the Big M are wild. From the Muskegon up, the big five (Mo, White, PM, Big M, Betsie) are all wild "salmon factories" as one biologist put it. 

The Little M gets a huge plant of kings, but that's for brood stock purposes and making sure they get a big enough return to the wier. Same as the coho plants in the Platte. Even so, the Little M plant has been reduced over the last several years.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Thanks for the comments thus far. 

Michigan DNR will be discussing some options internally at a meeting this week. We more than likely will pick on the "big at the table" and will be recommending reducing mainly Chinooks in Michigan. 

Wisonsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the tribes will meet June 28th to come up with the lakewide strategy. 

Steelhead are way too popular, and I do not see our biologist on board to make any reductions with them. 

What about brown trout? Do people really target these fish or are they just a bonus fish that you occasionally catch.


----------



## REG

Both.


----------



## Boozer

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments thus far.
> 
> Michigan DNR will be discussing some options internally at a meeting this week. We more than likely will pick on the "big at the table" and will be recommending reducing mainly Chinooks in Michigan.
> 
> Wisonsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the tribes will meet June 28th to come up with the lakewide strategy.
> 
> Steelhead are way too popular, and I do not see our biologist on board to make any reductions with them.
> 
> What about brown trout? Do people really target these fish or are they just a bonus fish that you occasionally catch.


Well...

Regarding Brown Trout, I think they would have more of a following if they were stocked more heavily, they are not highly abundant these days in comparison to years ago, at least here on the Joe anyway...


----------



## toto

Not that I'm up there much for that, but the brown fishery would be nice. It isn't what it used to be, or maybe they are targeted like they used to be either.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments thus far.
> 
> Michigan DNR will be discussing some options internally at a meeting this week. We more than likely will pick on the "big at the table" and will be recommending reducing mainly Chinooks in Michigan.
> 
> Wisonsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the tribes will meet June 28th to come up with the lakewide strategy.
> 
> Steelhead are way too popular, and I do not see our biologist on board to make any reductions with them.
> 
> What about brown trout? Do people really target these fish or are they just a bonus fish that you occasionally catch.


 Your brown trout fishery is not doing so well out of St. Joe. I spend alot of time in the spring along with a few other local anglers targeting them. I landed 2 browns this spring, one small one while fishing for coho(which I released), and one 7 pounder or so while targeting them (also released). My friend logged in many hours and never caught a one, he fishes for browns only in the spring with large dead baits. I hear from all the old guys about how good the fishery use to be, but its not up to par by my standards, and I am sure others down here feel the same. I once heard the brown brood stock is raised in a large pond, instead of taking wild stock every year. Also the whole pectoral fin cutting thing, not doing them any good. And stocking them at the pier heads, also not doing them any good. My thoughts, not saying I am right, not looking to fight with fellow members on here about this. Just my opinions. One last thing I put in alot of time at Berrien and have still yet to ever catch a lake run brown, I see maybe two landed a fall. From looking at your return numbers which are piss poor on the Joe, something needs to change. They have a mostly untaped food source on the big lake its time to put browns to use. Brown fishery could be better then its ever been.


----------



## thousandcasts

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments thus far.
> 
> Michigan DNR will be discussing some options internally at a meeting this week. We more than likely will pick on the "big at the table" and will be recommending reducing mainly Chinooks in Michigan.
> 
> Wisonsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the tribes will meet June 28th to come up with the lakewide strategy.
> 
> Steelhead are way too popular, and I do not see our biologist on board to make any reductions with them.
> 
> What about brown trout? Do people really target these fish or are they just a bonus fish that you occasionally catch.


The lake run browns used to be a very productive fishery in some river systems. Now, you're lucky to catch one or two per season in rivers where you could literally expect one or two a day during the fall. In that regard, they've become a "bonus." Hell, I'm out on the water as much as anyone, if not more than some, and it's been two years since I caught an actual lake run brown. 

I know guys still target them off the piers and shore line in the spring, but you definitely don't hear about that being anywhere near what it may have been several years ago. 

Any idea how much you're leaning at reducing the "pig?" 30%-50%?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments thus far.
> 
> Michigan DNR will be discussing some options internally at a meeting this week. We more than likely will pick on the "big at the table" and will be recommending reducing mainly Chinooks in Michigan.
> 
> Wisonsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and the tribes will meet June 28th to come up with the lakewide strategy.
> 
> Steelhead are way too popular, and I do not see our biologist on board to make any reductions with them.
> 
> What about brown trout? Do people really target these fish or are they just a bonus fish that you occasionally catch.


Browns are targeted in the spring all along the west side. Very popular as a first ice out target on the big lake.


----------



## wartfroggy

thousandcasts said:


> I know guys still target them off the piers and shore line in the spring, but you definitely don't hear about that being anywhere near what it may have been several years ago.


 Up around these parts, this year was one of the better ones that alot of people have seen in a few years. Not nearly as good as say 99-01, but alot better than 09-'10 ish. And, quite a few smaller fish which makes the future look good. 
I would love to see a better brown fishery on the big lake. Milwaukee has it, but they also have cooler temps most of the year and quite a bit of bait in the harbor becuase of it. Brown fishing in the spring is one of my favorite times of year on the big lake, and browns are honestly about my favorite big lake fish there is. There is just something about catching them, plus the fact that each is so unique with different coloring/patterning. The problem with the near shore brown fishing is complicated. First, you have to have fish in order for them to be there. Second, and a problem that has screwed up many springs, is that their abundance in the shallow water is often dictated by weather. Too much warm water or too much east wind, and those fish are gone. Well, not gone, usually in deeper water. Most guys don't chase them out to the deeper water...they just stay inside and pound the same water they always do. They end up with a poor catch and blame it on that there are no browns. There are browns...but just not where they are fishing. same with the pier. Just because there are no browns within casting distance doesn't mean that there are no browns. That is like someone walking out on the pier in mid july when the water is piss warm fom top to bottom, casting spoons, getting skunked, and the declaring that there are no kings in the lake.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Find the smelt, find the browns.


----------



## Jay Wesley

thousandcasts said:


> The lake run browns used to be a very productive fishery in some river systems. Now, you're lucky to catch one or two per season in rivers where you could literally expect one or two a day during the fall. In that regard, they've become a "bonus." Hell, I'm out on the water as much as anyone, if not more than some, and it's been two years since I caught an actual lake run brown.
> 
> I know guys still target them off the piers and shore line in the spring, but you definitely don't hear about that being anywhere near what it may have been several years ago.
> 
> Any idea how much you're leaning at reducing the "pig?" 30%-50%?


If we are only going to cut Chinook, it will be 50%. If we include other species (which there is not a lot of support for in Michigan) it would come down to 30 to 40%.


----------



## Jay Wesley

I agree with your comments that the brown trout fishery is not what it used to be. 

We are trying a new strain from the Sturgeon River in Michigan, so it is a wild source.

Temperature is a big issue now. The water warms fast with these warmer winters. Wisconsin continues to have a good fishery due to cooler water. 

I brought up browns because we still stock a fair amount and they do not create much of a fishery anymore.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Old timers I know/knew all spoke highly of the Browns BEFORE the Kings/Coho... not huge numbers... but fish in the 20's were fairly common... I think there were Smelt then too!


----------



## wartfroggy

I would have no issue seeing salmon plants cut back a bit more if they could do some more work on the brown fishery. Oh, and plant some skams in the PM. With all of the crappy river systems that see skam plants....seeing more than the occasional stray on the PM would be amazing.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

wartfroggy said:


> I would have no issue seeing salmon plants cut back a bit more if they could do some more work on the brown fishery. Oh, and plant some skams in the PM. With all of the crappy river systems that see skam plants....seeing more than the occasional stray on the PM would be amazing.


This. My only difference would be plant skams in a _few_ of the cooler tribs up north(hint-hint). I LOVE lake run browns. They're my next favorite after steelhead. I've landed 4 in my 4 years up north, and we get a tiny plant(16-19,000).


----------



## thousandcasts

wartfroggy said:


> Up around these parts, this year was one of the better ones that alot of people have seen in a few years. Not nearly as good as say 99-01, but alot better than 09-'10 ish. And, quite a few smaller fish which makes the future look good.
> I would love to see a better brown fishery on the big lake. Milwaukee has it, but they also have cooler temps most of the year and quite a bit of bait in the harbor becuase of it. Brown fishing in the spring is one of my favorite times of year on the big lake, and browns are honestly about my favorite big lake fish there is. There is just something about catching them, plus the fact that each is so unique with different coloring/patterning. The problem with the near shore brown fishing is complicated. First, you have to have fish in order for them to be there. Second, and a problem that has screwed up many springs, is that their abundance in the shallow water is often dictated by weather. Too much warm water or too much east wind, and those fish are gone. Well, not gone, usually in deeper water. Most guys don't chase them out to the deeper water...they just stay inside and pound the same water they always do. They end up with a poor catch and blame it on that there are no browns. There are browns...but just not where they are fishing. same with the pier. Just because there are no browns within casting distance doesn't mean that there are no browns. That is like someone walking out on the pier in mid july when the water is piss warm fom top to bottom, casting spoons, getting skunked, and the declaring that there are no kings in the lake.


Yeah, I can only add the input as a river fisherman on the LRB's and can't really say that much about the lake. Hell, even when I had a big lake boat, I was in the rivers until May and never got out to target the ice out browns. So, I know we used to see a lot of them in the rivers, but now we don't. Other than knowing about that new strain they're working with, I really can't give any other input than "we don't see them in river like we used to." 

I certainly wouldn't have enough knowledge or insight to have any opinion on whether they keep stocking them or not!


----------



## samsteel

For me, Lake run browns caught in the river are probably the coolest bonus fish you can catch anywhere. What a neat surprise when you pull one up into the net and see those amazing patterns. I am not sure if there are really enough numbers to target them in the rivers anymore?? I target steelhead and get the occasional bonus brown. Last year on the Grand we boated about 7 or 8 in the fall and those are the last lake runs I have seen in the river. Fished all the same spots this year and didn't see a one. 
Definitely a fish worthy of more consideration.....especially over the green "wet sock" previously mentioned. The near shore fishery in the spring is a cool opportunity that I hope we can keep around. Fun to go out in a boat or from the piers and get a few footballs. But for me, I would like to see West Michigan continue to focus on being the premier steelhead river fishery on this side of the country and continue working to have the biggest and baddest king fishery in the lakes and the river runs up North. Milwaukee has an amazing Brown Trout thing going on over there, let them focus on that and continue to develop it. Again, look at all the amazing fishing opportunities we have within a short distance. Brown Trout in Wisconsin, Steelies and Kings here, Skams...Walleye in Saginaw and Detroit.....good to be a Meechegander!


----------



## thousandcasts

samsteel said:


> For me, Lake run browns caught in the river are probably the coolest bonus fish you can catch anywhere. What a neat surprise when you pull one up into the net and see those amazing patterns. I am not sure if there are really enough numbers to target them in the rivers anymore?? I target steelhead and get the occasional bonus brown. Last year on the Grand we boated about 7 or 8 in the fall and those are the last lake runs I have seen in the river. Fished all the same spots this year and didn't see a one.
> Definitely a fish worthy of more consideration.....especially over the green "wet sock" previously mentioned. The near shore fishery in the spring is a cool opportunity that I hope we can keep around. Fun to go out in a boat or from the piers and get a few footballs. But for me, I would like to see West Michigan continue to focus on being the premier steelhead river fishery on this side of the country and continue working to have the biggest and baddest king fishery in the lakes and the river runs up North. Milwaukee has an amazing Brown Trout thing going on over there, let them focus on that and continue to develop it. Again, look at all the amazing fishing opportunities we have within a short distance. Brown Trout in Wisconsin, Steelies and Kings here, Skams...Walleye in Saginaw and Detroit.....good to be a Meechegander!


Did you just say, "what a neat surprise?" Gosh Beaver, does Eddie Haskell think it's neat too? 

Come to think of it, I don't even remember giving you permission to speak and you spoke, so...there's gonna be some repercussions coming. :evil:


----------



## samsteel

thousandcasts said:


> Did you just say, "what a neat surprise?" Gosh Beaver, does Eddie Haskell think it's neat too?
> 
> Come to think of it, I don't even remember giving you permission to speak and you spoke, so...there's gonna be some repercussions coming. :evil:


 
you know what's gonna be "neat??" when I buckle in your bad knee with my boot the next time I see you and you collapse in agonizing pain!


----------



## thousandcasts

samsteel said:


> you know what's gonna be "neat??" when I buckle in your bad knee with my boot the next time I see you and you collapse in agonizing pain!


Uh huh...the salmon plants aren't the only thing that's gonna get cut around here. It's definitely gonna be more than a 50% cut.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Use to be when people thought king fishing, Lake Michigan is where it was at. Not any more, now Lake Ontario is the best Great Lake for Kings, and is being talked about more and more, when I see fishing shows on TV fishing for kings its on Ontario, past two mags from STS have had articals about Lake Ontario Kings. I dont see that changing Ontario will continue to be the best king fishery of the Great Lakes. Some things I notice when I target spring browns, more are caught after the coho are done, March is coho time, April is Brown time. Surface temps are in the 60s most the time. You dont see many big lake trollers catching browns down here in the summer. So where are they in the summer? Chasing perch in 60 degree temps near shore? Seems like more would be caught perch fishing. Must be somewhere in between the two fisheries of perch and salmon?


----------



## thousandcasts

Multispeciestamer said:


> Use to be when people thought king fishing, Lake Michigan is where it was at. Not any more, now Lake Ontario is the best Great Lake for Kings, and is being talked about more and more, when I see fishing shows on TV fishing for kings its on Ontario, past two mags from STS have had articals about Lake Ontario Kings. I dont see that changing Ontario will continue to be the best king fishery of the Great Lakes. Some things I notice when I target spring browns, more are caught after the coho are done, March is coho time, April is Brown time. Surface temps are in the 60s most the time. You dont see many big lake trollers catching browns down here in the summer. So where are they in the summer? Chasing perch in 60 degree temps near shore? Seems like more would be caught perch fishing. Must be somewhere in between the two fisheries of perch and salmon?


How many times have you actually fished lake Ontario--or is it some TV shows and a couple articles that have you convinced that it's "the best great lake for kings?" 

I think Porky's is the best place to get a piece of a**. Never been there myself, but the movie said it was.


----------



## diztortion

thousandcasts said:


> I think Porky's is the best place to get a piece of a**. Never been there myself, but the movie said it was.


Watch out for that trap door.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

thousandcasts said:


> How many times have you actually fished lake Ontario--or is it some TV shows and a couple articles that have you convinced that it's "the best great lake for kings?"
> 
> I think Porky's is the best place to get a piece of a**. Never been there myself, but the movie said it was.


 ha ha


----------



## mudbat2128

wartfroggy said:


> Up around these parts, this year was one of the better ones that alot of people have seen in a few years. Not nearly as good as say 99-01, but alot better than 09-'10 ish. And, quite a few smaller fish which makes the future look good.
> I would love to see a better brown fishery on the big lake. Milwaukee has it, but they also have cooler temps most of the year and quite a bit of bait in the harbor becuase of it. Brown fishing in the spring is one of my favorite times of year on the big lake, and browns are honestly about my favorite big lake fish there is. There is just something about catching them, plus the fact that each is so unique with different coloring/patterning. The problem with the near shore brown fishing is complicated. First, you have to have fish in order for them to be there. Second, and a problem that has screwed up many springs, is that their abundance in the shallow water is often dictated by weather. Too much warm water or too much east wind, and those fish are gone. Well, not gone, usually in deeper water. Most guys don't chase them out to the deeper water...they just stay inside and pound the same water they always do. They end up with a poor catch and blame it on that there are no browns. There are browns...but just not where they are fishing. same with the pier. Just because there are no browns within casting distance doesn't mean that there are no browns. That is like someone walking out on the pier in mid july when the water is piss warm fom top to bottom, casting spoons, getting skunked, and the declaring that there are no kings in the lake.


I couldn't agree more. Had some decent fishing out of Manistee when conditions were right don't know why more people wern't fishing.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> Use to be when people thought king fishing, Lake Michigan is where it was at. Not any more, now Lake Ontario is the best Great Lake for Kings, and is being talked about more and more. I dont see that changing Ontario will continue to be the best king fishery of the Great Lakes.


 If Lake Mich has slipped, why don't you think Lake Ontario will? Or that Lake Mich could rebound? Or both? Because STS told you so?


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> Some things I notice when I target spring browns, more are caught after the coho are done, March is coho time, April is Brown time. Surface temps are in the 60s most the time. You dont see many big lake trollers catching browns down here in the summer. So where are they in the summer? Chasing perch in 60 degree temps near shore? Seems like more would be caught perch fishing. Must be somewhere in between the two fisheries of perch and salmon?


Really? Not so much up here...but then again, we aren't plagued by those little cohos like you are. We generally have pretty good brown fishing from the get go. I have trolled around ice burgs like it was an obstacle course and caught fish, and can remember back around 99 taking a 3 man limit on Valentines Day. And about where they are in the summer....they are there, but no one looks for them. Some years back, Mark Chmura (Pier Pressure) smoked the Lud tourney, all in less than 30 foot, even up in as shallow as 10 ft. Cold water, N and E wind... took his kings in there and his bonus fish were all big browns. Remember last year when you chastised me for keeping browns on the pier? They had followed the bait in with the perch. Guys were catching them perch fishing, as well as a couple of us casting for them. Most of my big lake summer browns have been accidental, but mostly in the same gerneral area and in about 60 to 80 foot of water. And also, I would say the majority of those were in the dark, or just as the sun was starting to come up. Just because you don't catch them, doesn't mean theyaren't there.


----------



## Trout King

oh mst...someday, just someday
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boozer

samsteel said:


> you know what's gonna be "neat??" when I buckle in your bad knee with my boot the next time I see you and you collapse in agonizing pain!



That's pretty neat!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3JodBR-vs"]Neature Walk - Episode 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## toto

I won't give away my secrets, but I can tell you the browns are there in the summer time, just need to know where to look. Some of the places you can catch might surprise me, and you'll be doing with no one around, and yes I'm talking the big lake.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> Really? Not so much up here...but then again, we aren't plagued by those little cohos like you are. We generally have pretty good brown fishing from the get go. I have trolled around ice burgs like it was an obstacle course and caught fish, and can remember back around 99 taking a 3 man limit on Valentines Day. And about where they are in the summer....they are there, but no one looks for them. Some years back, Mark Chmura (Pier Pressure) smoked the Lud tourney, all in less than 30 foot, even up in as shallow as 10 ft. Cold water, N and E wind... took his kings in there and his bonus fish were all big browns. Remember last year when you chastised me for keeping browns on the pier? They had followed the bait in with the perch. Guys were catching them perch fishing, as well as a couple of us casting for them. Most of my big lake summer browns have been accidental, but mostly in the same gerneral area and in about 60 to 80 foot of water. And also, I would say the majority of those were in the dark, or just as the sun was starting to come up. Just because you don't catch them, doesn't mean theyaren't there.


 The cohos are food for the big browns as well .


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> If Lake Mich has slipped, why don't you think Lake Ontario will? Or that Lake Mich could rebound? Or both? Because STS told you so?


 Just look at the numbers, good way to tell. I think Michigan could rebound, never said it couldnt. Ontario's going strong, until I see any data that says otherwise I dont see it falling. But anything is possible. Dont take the things I say so literal and pick at everything. Just read laugh and move on.


----------



## tannhd

I caught an Alewife on a spinner this last weekend. :16suspect


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> Just look at the numbers, good way to tell. I think Michigan could rebound, never said it couldnt. Ontario's going strong, until I see any data that says otherwise I dont see it falling. But anything is possible. Dont take the things I say so literal and pick at everything. Just read laugh and move on.


 I bet that until rencently, no one would have expected Lake Mich to take the fall that it did either.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> The cohos are food for the big browns as well .


 Yeah, alot of browns are out there eating 14-18" cohos? Smolts for sure, but not those little shakers that you fish for all spring.


----------



## samsteel

Boozer said:


> That's pretty neat!


Finally, you jumped on that one. I set that one up for the spike!


----------



## METTLEFISH

Drop your "balls" down the breaks and you'll get those summer Browns more often, they don't venture to far from bottom when it's hot and heavy, but follow the contour with your weights and you'll pick up some Browns in the big water. Then a little Brown Trout biology will put you on em heavy if you have your Venison all froze for the year....


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> Yeah, alot of browns are out there eating 14-18" cohos? Smolts for sure, but not those little shakers that you fish for all spring.


 some run even smaller 7-10 inchs, bite size for a 18+ pound brown


----------



## ausable_steelhead

Multispeciestamer said:


> some run even smaller 7-10 inchs, bite size for a 18+ pound brown


I've posted this pic before, but yes they _could_ eat a 14-18" yo yo if they wanted too.....


----------



## kzoofisher

ausable_steelhead said:


> I've posted this pic before, but yes they _could_ eat a 14-18" yo yo if they wanted too.....


Nice. Piscivorous fish prefer foods that are 25%-50% of their own length, less work for maximum benefit. That's why you see the musky guys throwing 12" baits and streamer guys throwing 6" patterns. 

Those spring coho and browns are a ton of fun if you lighten up you takle. I go out dragging flies on 6wt rods and have a blast when they are in less than 15' of water, plus you can get the occaisional bonus Atlantic.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

I tell you what when I am out this spring ill be running F18 rapalas alot . That is an awesome photo!


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> I tell you what when I am out this spring ill be running F18 rapalas alot . That is an awesome photo!


 We've caught alot of browns on F18 raps, especially in dirty water.


----------



## llpof

So the long and short of it is we want planted kings in the south, added skams in the north, to simply dabble in Browns? If the MDNR is going to dabble in Brown's they should probably do it in Huron, so they've got a working plan for Lake Michigan when the alewife collapse.


----------

