# Salmon Snagging Fact.



## ausable_steelhead

Jay Wesley said:


> Size is all about growth. Chinook and coho were huge when stocked in late 1960s and 70s because there was an unlimited food supply in alewife. Alewife numbers have steadily declines since. Size is up this year due to much less salmon and a couple good year classes of alewife.
> 
> We saw good sizes back in 2001 too when alewife and bloater chub numbers were good.
> 
> Steelhead are big this year too!


I just feel it would be interesting to see how another strain of salmon does. I feel after awhile, ours get stale.


----------



## Fishfighter

Why not Kenie or Russian River strain see how they do.


----------



## AdamBradley

I'm no biologist, but this is my observation as I can relate.

I do feel I see the lack of the gene pool in steelhead. It could be the strains, it could be the water temp, but this is what I see:

I have been fortunate to fish wild steelies out in washington. Steelies over there, in cold snow melt water fight like crazy. Nearly identical to our skamanias in 60 degree water. Water temp can't be any higher than low 40s the times I have been. I feel a direct correlation in their positioning in pools/runs, behavior, aggression, and fight to our skamanias. Our fall/spring/winter fish (little river primarily?) behave far differently.

Skamanias were introduced about 75 years after our typical steelies, so is there a correlation in the discussed lack of genetic diversity? I don't know for sure, again, just an armchair biologist here, but I suspect it.

With that said, I am reading this discussion with great interest!


----------



## danthebuilder

Fishfighter said:


> Why not Kenie or Russian River strain see how they do.


During the debates over the alewife collapse. It was said that if the salmon completely collapsed at the point there was no more broodstock. They would never reintroduce them by taking eggs from elsewhere because they are so concerned about bringing in disease.


----------



## Abel

The strain makes a lot of difference. I see it up here every year. Certain rivers produce salmon that stay it the ocean longer, those big BC and Kenai kings are in the salt water 4-6yrs to reach that 50-70lb mark.. Here in Kodiak, our hatchery strains were pulled from a river where they are all native/natural, usually average 25lbs when returning. The hatchery fish that we get returning from this strain only get to about 22lbs max, so something is lost in the hatchery process I think as well. But all these fish feed here in Kodiak feeding on the same baits, and our biggest fish are always BC bound fish, 4-6 salt fish.


----------



## Norman Kaster

Abel said:


> The strain makes a lot of difference. I see it up here every year. Certain rivers produce salmon that stay it the ocean longer, those big BC and Kenai kings are in the salt water 4-6yrs to reach that 50-70lb mark.. Here in Kodiak, our hatchery strains were pulled from a river where they are all native/natural, usually average 25lbs when returning. The hatchery fish that we get returning from this strain only get to about 22lbs max, so something is lost in the hatchery process I think as well. But all these fish feed here in Kodiak feeding on the same baits, and our biggest fish are always BC bound fish, 4-6 salt fish.


Very good comparisons, are the BC fish tagged and tracked therefore knowing the time spent in salt water....50-70 lbs vs. 22-25 lbs... It would be interesting to find out the travel routes. Are the BC Salmon running hundreds of miles off shore or just a few miles?


----------



## SJC

Abel said:


> The strain makes a lot of difference. I see it up here every year. Certain rivers produce salmon that stay it the ocean longer, those big BC and Kenai kings are in the salt water 4-6yrs to reach that 50-70lb mark.. Here in Kodiak, our hatchery strains were pulled from a river where they are all native/natural, usually average 25lbs when returning. The hatchery fish that we get returning from this strain only get to about 22lbs max, so something is lost in the hatchery process I think as well. But all these fish feed here in Kodiak feeding on the same baits, and our biggest fish are always BC bound fish, 4-6 salt fish.


Exactly. I fish a river for steelhead that receives zero plants. Several nearby rivers get good size plants and I fish these as well. Yet, I always catch my largest fish from the river that gets no hatchery fish. Yes, this river does get some strays, but the truly big ones don't even look the same. I say they are the last of a more pure original strain.


----------



## Abel

Norman Kaster said:


> Very good comparisons, are the BC fish tagged and tracked therefore knowing the time spent in salt water....50-70 lbs vs. 22-25 lbs... It would be interesting to find out the travel routes. Are the BC Salmon running hundreds of miles off shore or just a few miles?


They tag some of the wild fish in BC as they leave, most all the of the hatchery fish out of the PNW are tagged/clipped as well. You can check age of fish by scales rings and rings on the bone in the ear, just like rings on a tree.


----------



## hypox

As far as salmon, I wish we'd forget the Kings and go with coho and Atlantic's.


----------



## taxi

jimp said:


> A while back I read somewhere that the original gene pool of the imported larger fish, 40 years ago, has been diluted over the years by using the same descendents. In the wild, the larger more aggressive males took the best females. Some of those original larger ones waited an extra year, 5 instead of 4, to return to spawn and that characteristic has been diminished. It seems logical that new stock could be mixed in every few years to expand the gene pool. With the recycling of smaller fish coming through the weirs every year, the size ratio has declined.


A fish farmer in Michigan told me he heard about a fisheries manager from Michigan complaining that they needed to revive the genetic diversity in the salmon stocks in Michigan at a symposium in Washington State. "The reply from a Washington state biologist was, "What are you talking about. You only started with eggs from two fish!"

This is what I was told but can't verify if it's true. Typically genes from a pool of at least 200 fish is recommended.


----------



## taxi

TK81 said:


> We would always stop at high bridge during the run and watch those torpedos swimming upstream. Looking down from the bridge, some of those fish looked to be 50 lb'ers.
> 
> I remember in about 73 or 74, stopping at Newaygo and watching the guys bringing limits of 25 lb fish out. I was maybe 11 years old and my mom took a polaroid of me and a buddy holding a shovel handle with 5 fish around 30 lbs each hanging off it. She still has that picture.
> 
> If anyone remembers going the Holland in the 70's, you had to hold your nose crossing the beach until you got to the water. Alewive stench.


When I was studying fisheries at ACC back in 76-78 I used to marvel at the huge browns cruising back and forth next to the 9th street dam after they came in off the lake. The backs looked to be at least 6 inches wide and they were at least 10 lbs. I couldn't get them to bite to save my life!


----------



## taxi

Ranger Ray said:


> Remember flying along the shoreline and it was black with salmon for what seemed miles. The salmon fishing was unbelievable. On a good day, you would have a 2 man limit (10 fish) in just over a hour. Best we did was 45 minutes, and we couldn't get more than 2 poles going. As Archie Bunker would say, "those were the days."
> 
> I had to clean alewives off our beach daily and bury them. There were alewives, alewives and more alewives. There had to be millions! Maybe a billion! There would be a alewives every 10 foot on the surface dying. I still have nightmares of them. I hated alewives! LOL.


I remember a radio station down here in Indiana WOWO would announce when the salmon were staging on the river mouths in Michigan.


----------



## taxi

Jay Wesley said:


> Size is all about growth. Chinook and coho were huge when stocked in late 1960s and 70s because there was an unlimited food supply in alewife. Alewife numbers have steadily declines since. Size is up this year due to much less salmon and a couple good year classes of alewife.
> 
> We saw good sizes back in 2001 too when alewife and bloater chub numbers were good.
> 
> Steelhead are big this year too!


How many of you knew back in the heyday a world record size coho was netted or caught in a weir by fisheries personal in the Platte River larger then any coho in their native range? IIRR if was in the 20 lb. range.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Nearly 30# coho caught out of Frankfort a couple years ago, in a tournament none the less. Think Hambone caught it. Was not a state record though.


----------



## Fishndude

taxi said:


> When I was studying fisheries at ACC back in 76-78 I used to marvel at the huge browns cruising back and forth next to the 9th street dam after they came in off the lake. The backs looked to be at least 6 inches wide and they were at least 10 lbs. I couldn't get them to bite to save my life!


Alpena used to have incredible fishing for Browns, Salmon, and Steelhead. I used to get some Brown spawn every year, which put tons of Steelhead on my line. A buddy of mine kind of pioneered fishing spawn under a bobber for Kings there - eventually tons of guys started doing it, after seeing us putting on clinics while the snaggers watched. The last 3 times I went Salmon fishing there, I never saw a fish. Sad.


----------



## taxi

Fishndude said:


> Alpena used to have incredible fishing for Browns, Salmon, and Steelhead. I used to get some Brown spawn every year, which put tons of Steelhead on my line. A buddy of mine kind of pioneered fishing spawn under a bobber for Kings there - eventually tons of guys started doing it, after seeing us putting on clinics while the snaggers watched. The last 3 times I went Salmon fishing there, I never saw a fish. Sad.


Was told by a biologist several years back the walleye and cormorants do a number on the fish right after planting. He said there was only a 1/10th of 1 percent survival rate of the stocked browns! Did hear from friend in Alpena recently the MDNR really put he screws on the cormorants? Maybe things will get better?


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Browns been doing a number on browns around here. Had a good class of 2-4# fish this spring but not so much the 12" that are next year's eaters.


----------



## taxi

Well they are cannibalistic and will eat whatever is available.


----------



## FishFace23

That is when the DNR allowed guys to sell the eggs. People would just rip hens and gut them and take buckets of eggs to the cleaning stations and get paid. Bad decision by the DNR back then.


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

FishFace23 said:


> That is when the DNR allowed guys to sell the eggs. People would just rip hens and gut them and take buckets of eggs to the cleaning stations and get paid. Bad decision by the DNR back then.


A friend was telling me about this a while back, I guess he and his buddy littered a small river with carcasses left and right and when all was said and done he said they made 3000 dollars one day and this was back in the 70s


----------



## FishFace23

Outdoor2daCore said:


> A friend was telling me about this a while back, I guess he and his buddy littered a small river with carcasses left and right and when all was said and done he said they made 3000 dollars one day and this was back in the 70s


He is probably telling you the truth. It was terrible.


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

FishFace23 said:


> He is probably telling you the truth. It was terrible.


He's a heck of a fisherman, I don't doubt him one bit. As far as I am concerned, if it's legal ppl will do it, ethical, that's another story. Laws are made to keep honest people honest.


----------



## Michigander11oic

I was there as a kid.It's true.There was people from all over the states we never seen before.They was gutting them for the eggs. Think it was about 3 or 4 dollars a pound.We never sold any eggs.But we all came home with our limits thanks to them.We thought it was sad they was doing that for money 

Sent from my VS840PP using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## slowpaya

Far Beyond Driven said:


> View attachment 270966
> Browns been doing a number on browns around here. Had a good class of 2-4# fish this spring but not so much the 12" that are next year's eaters.


coupla nice brns fbd


----------



## slowpaya

:Welcome:Michigander welcome to mich sprtsmn:Welcome:


----------



## danthebuilder

FishFace23 said:


> That is when the DNR allowed guys to sell the eggs. People would just rip hens and gut them and take buckets of eggs to the cleaning stations and get paid. Bad decision by the DNR back then.





Outdoor2daCore said:


> A friend was telling me about this a while back, I guess he and his buddy littered a small river with carcasses left and right and when all was said and done he said they made 3000 dollars one day and this was back in the 70s


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## anon02032020

I got 23 coho on 23 casts at the state park in Ludington one day. Snagging was great fun. A Michigan spider with two ounces below it worked great. Foam wrapped around the rod handle was the best. Wish I had power pro then. No stretch.


----------



## Thirty pointer

*Those were the days for snagging almost constant fish breaking the water .Litter was another reason for the ban .Them no deposit cans and bottles were all over the bank *


----------



## PRU2

I enjoyed reading this thread and do remember the number of dead alewives piled up on the beach at Manistee. But also remember the waste that was on the beach every spring from all the garbage that was dumped into Lake Michigan... Before landfills I guess. Not uncommon to find a lot of hospital waste, needles, bandages etc...


----------



## Abel

taxi said:


> How many of you knew back in the heyday a world record size coho was netted or caught in a weir by fisheries personal in the Platte River larger then any coho in their native range? IIRR if was in the 20 lb. range.


Not many realize that the world record Coho was not caught in Alaska, but in New York out of the Salmon River IIRC. I know it was/is a New York fish, 30lbs 8.oz I think. AK state record is only 26lbs.


----------



## mbirdsley

PRU2 said:


> I enjoyed reading this thread and do remember the number of dead alewives piled up on the beach at Manistee. But also remember the waste that was on the beach every spring from all the garbage that was dumped into Lake Michigan... Before landfills I guess. Not uncommon to find a lot of hospital waste, needles, bandages etc...


Grandpa has a saying about swimming in Frankfort “ don’t swim between the piers because, you will get polio( or some other disease)”. This goes back to the days when the Ann Arbor carferries we’re still running when he was a kid. because back than when you went to the bathroom on the ferries or any laker it went right into the lake. He still can’t believe people swim between the pier heads. The piers still do trap all the nasty stuff between them.


----------



## Fishndude

Polio is transmitted through human waste in Betsie Bay? I missed the news story, lol. The water is pretty darned clean/clear in Betsie Bay the last 15 years or so.


----------



## DecoySlayer

Back in the '50's people were scared about polio. I had several friends in leg braces, a couple in iron lungs. It was a horrible disease. It very well could be contracted by swimming in contaminated water. That disease is one part of the '50's that I don't miss. Let's hope that it never comes back.

*How does polio spread?*

Poliovirus is very contagious. It spreads through contact with the stool (poop) of an infected person or droplets from a sneeze or cough. If you get stool or droplets from an infected person on your hands and you touch your mouth, you can get infected. Also, if your child puts objects, like toys, that have stool or droplets on them into their mouth, they can get infected.

An infected person may spread the virus to others immediately before and usually 1 to 2 weeks after developing symptoms. The virus may live in an infected person’s stool for many weeks. He or she can contaminate food and water when they touch it with unwashed hands.


----------



## multibeard

I had polio in 1957 even after having shots. Luckily I had no paralysis. I have never been able to get in shape as far as running is concerned. I was in foot ball at the time so getting worn down from that night have contributed to my getting polio. Who knows.

I mentioned my having polio to one of my former primary care doctors. The first words out of his nasty mouth were "Who told you had polio?". I named the two Docs I had and told him, "They forgot more about polio than you will ever know!!!". When he denied that his partner had done surgery on my knee that was the end of seeing him. If they kept medical records straight the record of the surgery would have been in the file.


----------



## DecoySlayer

I remember standing in a long line at the school, with tons of families, to get sugar cubes dosed with vaccine.


----------



## multibeard

Getting it on sugar cubes was a lot better than the shots. I continued getting the vaccine even after having polio. I can remember getting a shot at the DRs. office from a real short nurse. She had to stand on a stool to reach my shoulder as she was not even 5 foot tall. Dang that shot hurt. I became friends with her and her husband years later. I keep reminding her about her giving me that shot.


----------



## DecoySlayer

multibeard said:


> Getting it on sugar cubes was a lot better than the shots. I continued getting the vaccine even after having polio. I can remember getting a shot at the DRs. office from a real short nurse. She had to stand on a stool to reach my shoulder as she was not even 5 foot tall. Dang that shot hurt. I became friends with her and her husband years later. I keep reminding her about her giving me that shot.



I don't remember if I ever got the polio shot. As long as my brain functions I will never forget the long lines for the sugar cubes and the relief that we finally had a chance to end the horror known as polio. Let's hope it never returns.


----------



## Cork Dust

ausable_steelhead said:


> I was just wondering about this yesterday. Why not go out west, and try adding another strain to freshen the mix? We've had the same strain of chinook forever.


Please keep in mind that you essentially have two populations of chinook salmon swimming around in Lake Michigan: hatchery origin and wild origin fish. Generally, hatchery origin fish mature after three years, returning to spawn. Wild fish return to spawn at 3,4,5 years after hatching and smolting (generally 5-6months in a stream). One factor in getting big is largely age related. The other is forage availability and forage quality, which both have declined. Forage availability has been extensively documented and discussed; forage quality while a significant contributor to fish size and growth rates is less well-known. In the early 2000s adult alewife energy density (essentially fat content) declined in response to the dreisennid mussel invasion's impacts on invertebrates and phytoplankton densities. Adult alewife energy density has remained relatively stable since that initial decline. However, alewife stock make-up has shifted from one composed of up to 8 adult year-classes in Lake Michigan, to a stock dominated by juvenile fish with only a smattering of adult age-classes present. During this interval of shift in stock make-up (2007-2011/12) juvenile alewife energy content has also declined for Young-of-the-Year (YOY) fish as inshore diatom blooms in spring through early summer have diminished or outright disappeared in inshore Lake Michigan waters.

In response to this shift in forage quality and size/age/energy content make-up, chinook and all the other salmonines essentially have to search more their diminished prey fish AND eat more of them annually to grow at the same body weight and attain roughly the same mass at age of spawning. If you are a piscivorous fish that feeds in schools this essentially means increasing your search (swimming interval) time to locate prey, which has negative energy costs related to overall growth and size attained. This is what has motivated fishery managers to repeatedly decrease chinook stocking rates drastically, more radically than they would have had the wild origin stock component continued to increase in proportional total stock make-up.

So, now that I have summarized the gloom and doom section of what I am trying to convey, let's take a look at what the lower chinook densities have produced:



































ties are producing:
















I've tried repeatedly to delete the repetitive pics...maybe an administator could intervene and clean this post up?


----------



## Cork Dust

I suspect, given a mild winter, we will see several fish over forty pounds caught from Lake Michigan waters in 2018!

The fishery isn't dead...yet! I would encourage all of you to attend the Lake Michigan Fishery Annual workshop in Ludington in a couple of weeks, sponsored by Michigan Sea Grant and the MDNR. The presentation subjects will be interesting, as will the general discussion.

https://westshore.asapconnected.com/EventDetail.aspx?pk=1018665

IF you cannot attend, please contact Dan O'Keefe's office to request that he videotaped the presentations to post them to You Tube for Public view. Yes, Sea Grant has the equipment and expertise to do the this...and should provide this to the Public without the need for multiple requests made via the user base!


----------



## Apple Knocker

Hey, that guy in the repeat pictures looks familiar. Here is one that is from 2017 season.


----------

