# Regulations proposed to bring back Michigan's coaster brook trout



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

B.Jarvinen said:


> this really intrigued me. Is it time for a fresh new thread on Coasters, with 2014 information from the other Lake Superior states, and Canada?
> Or are they like the Cougars - the less said about them, the better, for the Cougars.


Not a bad idea, at all!


















By  Howard Meyerson | The Grand Rapids Press  
on September 14, 2014 at 6:00 AM, updated September 19, 2014 at 12:56 PMIt will take a while, but in a decade or so, anglers once again may be able to fish for coaster brook trout along Michigans Lake Superior shoreline and tributaries. 
State fisheries managers are embarking on a long-term experiment to see if the big lake-run brookies can be restored. 
Coasters are part of our natural heritage. They are a native species and a beautiful fish, said Troy Zorn, a fisheries research biologist at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Marquette Fisheries Research Station. He is the author of a proposal that will go before the Natural Resources Commission in October. 
This is an opportunity to try to restore a unique trophy fishery to anglers in the state, Zorn said. Were proposing restrictive regulations for eight (Upper Peninsula) streams. It will affect about 35 miles of river; about 23 of those miles have brook trout.
Read more here:
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/09/regulations_proposed_to_bring.html


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Many researchers have said they haven&#8217;t really seen any link between what the kids (brookie offspring) are doing under lab-conditions & what the parents (brookie adults) are doing in the real world, undermining the idea of a separate set of genetics for stream brookies & Coasters. That suggests the trigger may be environmental, that something is going on in the streams that pushes the coasters out.
So what&#8217;s happening in the environment? Some research groups have turned to computer simulations to come up with a plausible-yet-unconfirmed explanation. When big female coasters come in from the lake to spawn in the tributaries, they&#8217;re carrying a lot of eggs that turn into a lot of baby brook trout. If the streams don&#8217;t have enough food to go around, the competition will drive some of those brook trout out into Lake Superior, where they adopt the better-eating coaster lifestyle. The flip side of that is if competition drops below a certain threshold (say, if fewer spawners return or a river begins producing more food), it looks like the coaster/stream population collapses into just a purely tributary-resident population. Scientists are going to have to be continuing to uncover the coaster&#8217;s secrets if that fishery is ever going to return to anything like what I experienced during the 1970s/80s. Although brook trout are native to Lake Michigan and many of their tributaries, coaster brook trout in recent decades have been found only in Lake Superior.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Cool video of the legendary and now threatened Coaster Brook Trout as several gather at a key spawning ground in the Lake Superior tributary Salmon Trout River. Notice how the fish hover at the edge of a sand strip. The sand covers what was until recently perfect habitat for laying eggs. But fish eggs do not survive in sand. Researchers at Michigan Technological University made this video available a couple of years ago to show why money was needed to vacuum the sand from essential and vanishing spawning habitat in the last, best Coaster Brook Trout spawning river in the US, the Salmon Trout River. I hope that link stuck....let's see....


----------



## zig (Aug 5, 2009)

Wow, cool link Itchn2Fish.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

I found this interesting:



Fishing Wisconsin said:


> Although once thought by most to be a unique brook trout strain the latest genetic research done in the Nipigon Bay region of Canada supports the theory that these fish are simply stream source brook trout. The study results said that: coasters come from tributary brook trout populations and just grow faster and reach larger sizes in the lake than their siblings that remain in streams. When coasters mature they return to the stream to spawn with their stream dwelling brothers and sisters.


http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/lakesuperior/cbrktrout.html


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Good stuff, thanks!

As the DNR is experimenting with raising limits on trout here and there, maybe they could let people catch all the Brown and Rainbow they want out of a possible Coaster rehab stream. Or just quit stocking Brown Trout in generalbut I'm not a Fisheries Biologist so this might be too simple of an idea.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

B.Jarvinen said:


> Good stuff, thanks!
> As the DNR is experimenting with raising limits on trout here and there, maybe they could let people catch all the Brown and Rainbow they want out of a possible Coaster rehab stream. Or just quit stocking Brown Trout in general&#8230;but I'm not a Fisheries Biologist so this might be too simple of an idea.


Yes, great link from Ray, very interesting reading. I liked the part that showed that the more wood in a stream, the better.
I agree, maybe they could let people catch all the Brown and Rainbow they want out of a possible Coaster rehab stream. Or just quit stocking Brown Trout in general. Brownies are voracious carnivores and eat alot of brookies where they co-exist. For instance, while stream habitat degradation contributed greatly to the demise of Michigan's grayling (& native brookies), it was the introduction of brown trout that was the final knock-out blow as the introduced brownies gobbled-up any hopes of the remaining grayling being able to re-produce.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree, I would rather have the brookies and grayling.


----------



## Jfish (Sep 22, 2010)

What about what the FED is doing on the Pictured Rocks NL? I have heard from many sources that they have been shocking everything in all of those streams that are connected to Lake Superior and throwing them on the banks. Everything that is not a brook trout that is.

There are no longer any coho being stocked in LS but there are a BUNCH of rainbows being stocked. There are also quite a few kings being stocked as well.

Sounds to me like they have a lot of different things that are going on. Being MDNR and the FED.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Would US Fish & Wildlife carry out operations on behalf of a National Lakeshore?


Something else I have been wondering but haven't clicked around to discover more:

From the article linked - "a proposal that will go before the Natural Resources Commission in October."

Does this mean a proposal is presented at one quarterly? meeting and then a decision is announced &#8230; at the next one?

I could see this getting a little lost in the shuffle of any media coverage after all the wolf ballot proposals, etc.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Canada is aware and takes interest of those fish through regulation in the Nipigon region. Not arguing or criticizing their management but one fish killed in the slot system per mo. enough in my humble opinion for an angler, they are that special. Yes ,overly conservative opinion. Their management is study based and not casual so I trust their judgments.
Amazing fish, their behavior and habitat always interesting and the large ones dwarf any other region. How they grow in near sterile waters would be a good study. Smelt may relate but fast growth debatable. Long winters.
When finding them near rock structure island size, in river system and in small tributaries too the realization is they are diverse in habitat use. 
Temp a big factor in spring in locating them but the size of water utilized over a year is huge. Diverse too from small inlets to great water bodies.
Stunning fish many anglers would be thrilled to catch, especially the bigger specimens.
Worth study ,restriction of take and preserving through constant monitoring of the fish, their food sources and environment? Absolutely.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Are the genetics different in these trout that makes them a separate species? I have caught a very large brook trout out of Lake Michigan in the NLP would that be a coaster or just a large brook trout. I have seen and caught some large brook trout on Lake Huron tributaries in the eastern UP. I could name some unmentionables that have very large brook trout in them in September and October (spawning). I have always been under the impression that brook trout can thrive in the great lakes and get rather large much like a rainbow or brown trout.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

It's a busy study but multiple strains seem apparent. The whys may be environment factors after glacial periods but studies show differences...

http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Three_Minnesota_Tributaries_of_Lake_Superior

Coasters seem not to be a unique d.n.a. but their habits differ from others.
http://www.tucanada.org/index.asp?p=2025


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Here is the deal. If the DNR thinks there actually is a chance to bring them back, and it's is not an environmental issue. Then take some of these streams and stop everyone from fishing them, period. After several years, do a review of returning fish to see if it is having an impact.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Reporting them when and where caught may help studies. While not saying catch and release is all fishing should be,coasters could be photo shot and if viable put back.
With their nomadic lifestyle and at times cruising greatlake's shores there could be vulnerabilities at times besides hitting streams to spawn.
The advantage of a large water body providing a preferred temp in it somewhere seems a critical part.
While not plugged into studies I have not read of environmental stress or lack of habitat a cause of decline outside of some silting of spawning area in one instance.
Vulnerability of fry and a food source reducing pressure on them and of course food for them as well would seem to follow proper varied water types environment. Mortality rates would be of interest, especially the effect in areas/fish from areas that receive planted species that may prey on them.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Waif said:


> It's a busy study but multiple strains seem apparent. The whys may be environment factors after glacial periods but studies show differences...
> 
> http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Three_Minnesota_Tributaries_of_Lake_Superior
> 
> ...


With all due respect, the study conclusion was that Coaster populations at each site have a distinct genetic signature specific to their geographic site of origin and do not resemble each other, even though these fish populations exist in open waters of Lake Superior, they don't appear to mix during spawning, maintaining genetic segregation. These data lend further credence to the growing general consensus perspective that Coaster Brook Trout are essentially excess production fish from a specific watershed that eventually find their way into open lake waters and thrive to reproduce in their natal streams(thus no mixing of mtDNA markers from population to population,even at sites not far removed from each other like Tobin Harbor fish, when compared to those at other sites on Isle Royale National Park).

When I was working on developing fish mortality assessment models for the Ludington Pumped Storage powere generating facility, we caught several coaster brook trout in our Lake Michigan assessment netting program. These and the poster's recent catch constitute true coaster brook trout. 

What appears to influence the Coaster population associated with the Salmon Trout are several factors: 1.) It is a flash basin, filling quickly on a major precipitation event, which tends to increase aquatic insect drift and population "scouring", decreasing annual productivity i.e. inducing food limits that fluctuate annually and seasonally in concert with preciptation cycling. 2.)This stream can form anchor ice on the streambed substrate in severely cold winters, further limiting streambed aqautic invertebrate production(we conducted streamflow and water quality monitoring associated with the Eagle Mine site monitoring this past brutal winter. On two sampling dates, stream water temperatures were below freezing, with flow the only factor that was keeping the water column "liquid", luckily we were not using a mechanical flow meter). 3.) Despite several years of effort expended by Superior Watershed Partnership biologists to secure monies and oversee efforts to rework stream crossings on several roads within the salmon trout watershed to diminish sand movement into the watercourse, surface erosion related sand sediment intrusion remains an issue that limits spawning substrate availability and viability. 4.) Upstream access, during spawning runs, appears to be limited to the stream segment below the first falls, which, in turn segregates fish from access to additional available spawning gravel substrate upstream to keep fertilized eggs aerated.

The MDNR has been actively engaged in using Fyke nets to remove spawning coho from the segment of the Salmon Trout below the first falls to limit trout Redd disruption and destruction, as well as attempting to diminish larval and juvenile inter-specific fish competition for a limited food resource, post hatch, in spring and early summer months.

There is an extensive MDNR Fisheries Division Report that addresses genetics markers for several brook trout populations on watercourses along the section of the Lake Superior shoreline that was developed to address the recent application(s) for endangered species status for Coaster Brook Trout in Michigan. Their data essentially mirrored the above cited research, indicating that, in years of overproduction of brook trout in a specific watershed, excess production fish are "forced" downstream while searching for vacant holding sites,
eventually resulting in an annually fluctuating cohort of site specific annual production finding their way into open lake waters where they prosper, but remain imprinted to spawn in their natal streams, upon reaching sexual maturity. 

This research has led MDNR Fishery Managers to move to continue to plant splake (lake trout/Brook Trout hybrids) in the Great Lakes, even though a VERY small subset of these fish have been found to be able to reproduce. The concensus perspective is that these fish do not pose a dilution threat to the genetics of Coaster Brook Trout populations, since there is a very low probability of these two stocks intermixing during spawning based on factors such as: timing, site, and physical proximity.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Interesting. Rare in my opinion to retain isolated strains in open environment but without input I risk ignorance.
A special fish indeed. Here is hoping it does retain recognition and not get lost in the shuffle.
The salmonoid type return to natal waters shines through yet. Another marvel of their evolution and diversity.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

The key is that they remain physically seperate and discreet during their spawning interval. Note: The companion study essentially documents the lack of interbreeding betweein natural "native" stocks and hatchery origin indifiduals even though they were intermixing within the reservoir. I suspect that the actual timing of each deme's spawning window has near-zero temporal overlap i.e. they don't show up to dance with each other at the same spawning window.

Fish stocks that intermix throughout the year, but return to specific sites, be those sites reefs or streams are relatively common in both freshwater and marine systems, particularly for salmonines who imprint on their natal stream's chemical signature during the smolting interval,enabling them to swim to return with high rates of accuracy at the specific time when other stock members are ready to spawn. 

There actually is a growing body of data indicating that hatchery raised chinook salmon in the Great Lakes have diminished olfactory lobe as well as telencephelon mass, which play key roles in their ability to accurately imprint and, thus, return to natal streams to spawn. This altered ability in homing to natal streams appears to have played a key role in the slow, but steady expansion of wild origin chinook, hatched from these "straying" adult fish over an extended interval of time. Now, age specific estimates of the wild origin chinook stock component in Lake Michigan range from 54 to 67% for age-II THROUGH age-IV fish.


----------



## phawks (Aug 29, 2014)

Thanks for all the information everyone. I find this stuff really interesting. Physicist by trade but, I've been looking to get into more biophysics things. Biology (especially marine) has always interested me.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Great to see the DNR trying to manage some more watersheds for the best they can be. The Department really seems to be moving forward to take advantage of the special opportunities that Michigan has to offer. 

This may not happen for 2015 because of the hold the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act has put on everything but I feel good about them getting it done for 2016. Seeing as how the Coasters don't appear to be a separate species I'm not sure the NRC will have the power designate special rules for them without public comment in March but, I'll admit that I don't know the legal ins and out of the public comment periods. Maybe it can happen and the sooner the better; these things take time. As the saying goes, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

They can make special rules for body's of water. Helping coaster could just be a coincidence. I have caught a few at isle royale and the keeweenaw 15-20 years ago, unforgettable


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> They can make special rules for body's of water. Helping coaster could just be a coincidence. I have caught a few at isle royale and the keeweenaw 15-20 years ago, unforgettable


They had the authority and will have it again in March. Can they read proposed changes into the record in February and then enact them in March? I think so but can't say for sure and they plan on only changing four FO's at that time. They still have the authority to do some things that's certain. We may wait a year for the Coasters, which is OK if not optimal. From the CRSC minutes.


> Nick also mentioned that the recent referendum and citizen-led legislation has had an unintended consequence on modifying fishing regulations for this cycle. The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) will not officially have authority to modify sport-fishing regulations until mid-March, 2015. Therefore, only four Fisheries Orders&#8217;s will be up for action this fall: Black Lake sturgeon regulations, Designated Trout Streams, 10-brook trout bag regulation streams additions, and Lac Vieux Desert flowage walleye bag limit. All other regulations will be presented to the NRC &#8220;For Information&#8221; in March, and &#8220;Action&#8221; in April.


The next CRSC meeting is scheduled for May; they held a special meeting last year in March maybe they will hold one for this.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Dang wolf voters messing up my fishing regulations. What will those evil creatures tear up next?

I think next year I will do my part and catch and eat every durn Brown and resident Rainbow trout I can get in some of those streams. Maybe a few of them never did get Browns to start with, I hope&#8230;.unless even where they weren't planted, they too slowly build native populations in streams from errant spawners?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

B.Jarvinen said:


> Dang wolf voters messing up my fishing regulations. What will those evil creatures tear up next?
> 
> I think next year I will do my part and catch and eat every durn Brown and resident Rainbow trout I can get in some of those streams. Maybe a few of them never did get Browns to start with, I hope.unless even w untilhere they weren't planted, they too slowly build native populations in streams from errant spawners?


It is not likely that much can be done until the snow melts and the runoff is over anyway. That could go into June.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Don't mean to rain on any bodies parade but this coaster hoopla has been an on-again off-again thing for decade after decade. It seems to come up about as often as the UP becoming the 51st state and the results have been the same for both. My hopes of catching big brookies on a regular basis have been raised and then my expectations dashed so many times I have lost count.

I am no fisheries biologist but wouldn't it seem logical that the thousands and thousands of brookies that have been planted directly into the Great Lakes over the years should have produced some sort of consistent fishery in at least some isolated areas if the big lakes were still suitable habitat? To the best of my knowledge each and every attempt was abandoned when no fish returned to the site and few if any were reported caught in the area.

After that doom and gloom rant I would like to merely add that I really and truly hope that this effort to establish coasters will be wildly successful and not like every other attempt. FM


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

For your consideration. 
Once seeing fish over five pounds a fisherman is left to wonder what can be done to see the hows and whys of their existence, and where the future lies for them.
They are vulnerable.

http://ontariofishingcommunity.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=35388


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Very interesting link, thanks for posting. The downward effect of fishing pressure on fish size has been established in marine environments for some time. Studies are starting to pile up that show fresh water recreational angling has the same effect, sometimes reducing biomass by as much as two or three times. Interestingly, increasing minimum size limits to well above the size of sexual maturity seems to greatly mitigate the effects of angling pressure, allowing the population to be controlled by natural selection rather than angler selection. That is, letting fish get bigger means that more fish will get bigger, because large size becomes a positive factor in reproduction rather than a negative factor.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I have caught very large brook trout in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior tributaries. My guess is that they are not the "coasters" just very large brook trout. Is it possible that the "coasters" are just very large brook trout? When I was a kid I caught some very large brook trout from farm streams near where I grew up. Being in the central LP these streams had no close connection to the great lakes. I would think that many of these "coasters" are just large brookies that come into the lakes from Canada.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

kzoofisher said:


> Very interesting link, thanks for posting. The downward effect of fishing pressure on fish size has been established in marine environments for some time. Studies are starting to pile up that show fresh water recreational angling has the same effect, sometimes reducing biomass by as much as two or three times. Interestingly, increasing minimum size limits to well above the size of sexual maturity seems to greatly mitigate the effects of angling pressure, allowing the population to be controlled by natural selection rather than angler selection. That is, letting fish get bigger means that more fish will get bigger, because large size becomes a positive factor in reproduction rather than a negative factor.


What is likely to be operating is that regulations that increase minimum fish size(in nearly all instances this is based on the average fish length for the individual species when sexual maturity first occurs) enables these fish to reproduced repeatedly prior being exposed to hook and line mortality. If productivity of the lake, river, or stream doesn't decline as population density approaches carrying capacity, fish numbers as well as individual size increase.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Robert Holmes said:


> I have caught very large brook trout in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior tributaries. My guess is that they are not the "coasters" just very large brook trout. Is it possible that the "coasters" are just very large brook trout? When I was a kid I caught some very large brook trout from farm streams near where I grew up. Being in the central LP these streams had no close connection to the great lakes. I would think that many of these "coasters" are just large brookies that come into the lakes from Canada.


The farm streams you fished as a kid had far less pressure, as well as intact water quality, enabling them to crank-out those nice brook trout. Brook trout, like any other member of the genus Salvelinus are VERY succeptible to hook and line fishing pressure. 

If you draw a horizontal line across the lower peninsula through Grand Rapids and just south of Clare, streams south of this line are generally far more productive than streams and rivers located north of this line, largely due to agricultural runoff as well as their inherently higher carbonate hardness values. Hardwater lakes and rivers can produce more fish food per unit time than a comparable volume soft-water system. Prior Dreissenid mussel invasion of the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan had the inherent capacity to produce a littler over three times the fish biomass when compared to Lake Superior's value. Why? Significantly higher carbonate hardness values.

The vast majority of streams where brook trout dominate in Michigan now are very low productivity watersheds, so brook trout that emigrate out of them into open Great Lakes waters essentially are able to eat more, growing to larger size prior returning to spawn in their birth streams or rivers.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

The cited studies make it seem like 1) each river/stream has a unique sub-species of Brook Trout, which has evolved, and 2) the factor that most contributes to native Brookies becoming "Coaster Brookies," is overcrowding of the river by Trout. This scenario just screams for the State to establish small hatcheries on a number of worthy rivers/streams, in order to breed an overabundance of Brookies which are native to each river/stream, to push this to happen. Just stocking more than the carrying capacity for the river/stream, with releases at the right time of year, should accomplish the goal. 

The State of Washington does this to keep unique Salmon runs viable. There are literally hatcheries on rivers that dry up in the summer, but run from Fall - Spring. And, sometimes rivers that are within a couple miles of each other host completely different runs - ie; one might just get King Salmon, and a neighboring river might just get Cohos, or Chums, or Pinks. Washington makes a very strong effort to support unique runs of fish, and requires anglers to record all fish they catch, as well as whether the fish were caught, or released. This gives them a ton of useful data that our DNR doesn't have to work with.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

So if Great Lakes Brookies = Coasters = excess stream fish &#8230; how does that compare to Rainbows and Browns?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

There would be a great amount of interest in seeing a new coaster brookie fishery develop, but one wonders if the DNR has learned anything over the years. For one, a stream, river, brook, or any body of water only has a certain amount of carrying capacity, period. The next thing to look at is the biomass in the streams that is responsible for the growth rates of fish, again, period. If a body of water has X amount of biomass, the equilibrium is E than it stands to reason, that if X drops by even a small amount, then E suffers. It has been proven that creating new habitat has more effect on the species than fishing does. I'm sure if you stopped people from fishing a particular body of water, the fish would get bigger, well duh. But they will only grow to it's environment, and what the biomass will support. At some point, everyone needs to understand that the environment may only handle 1 20" fish/hectare, and the next will handle 20 fish/hectare only because of what is available to them. This has been studied to death, and I'm wondering why we need to try to do this AGAIN? I'm not saying it isn't worth while but there are areas of Lake Superior that do have big brook trout, I'm not going to say where.

Look, I don't want to change the subject too much, but it does correlate: Take a look at the AuSable, some years ago the powers that be in that area, by that I mean FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, Tu, etal, were concerned about the amount of sewage flowing in the Ausable (all branches), and rightfully so, the problem is, after the flowage was stopped, what happened, the fishing was terrible, lots of fish, but nothing to write home about, at least in size. It was discovered that now these trout didn't have biomass enough to properly reproduce, and to have a significant growth rate. The answer, let the village of Grayling pick up the leaves off the streets and dump them in the river, now why does that make any sense, I would thank that the oils from cars, and asphalt would do just as much, if not more harm that the aforementioned sewage problems. 

The bottom line is, you can't just dump a butt load of fish in the water and WHOLLA, we now have a great fishery, it just doesn't work that way, it needs to be done only where the water shed can support it, and if it can't support but a handful of fish, don't bother with it, it's just too expensive, and there are other things the DNR can do with that money.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Being , overflow stock, that reads wrong from what I'm after. 
Being finite in number to start with, the uniqueness is limited in number.
All species are limited but a conservative approach to mortality seems more critical than environment if it remains stable. I'm no big proponent of not killing fish when in good numbers but waters have their own limits, some if not most individually.
The factors painting a small proportion of a species into a corner once known can allow more attempts to encourage better recruitment but what is working needs to be maintained first. We're not over run with big brookies in many places for multiple reasons. Hooks and kill are part of it but taken out of the equation leaves other reasons for sure.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Toto,

Look, I don't want to change the subject too much, but it does correlate: Take a look at the AuSable, some years ago the powers that be in that area, by that I mean FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, Tu, etal, were concerned about the amount of sewage flowing in the Ausable (all branches), and rightfully so, the problem is, after the flowage was stopped, what happened, the fishing was terrible, lots of fish, but nothing to write home about, at least in size. It was discovered that now these trout didn't have biomass enough to properly reproduce, and to have a significant growth rate. The answer, let the village of Grayling pick up the leaves off the streets and dump them in the river, now why does that make any sense, I would think that the oils from cars, and asphalt would do just as much, if not more harm that the aforementioned sewage problems. "

Stream ecologists break organic material inputs in freshwater systems into two source groups: allochthonous- originating from outside the water body, autochthonous- originating from within the water body or stream course. 

Essentially aquatic insect production apparently declined after tertiary treated sewage outflows were diminished (less Phosphorus and Nitrogen coming into the stream course). Nitrogen is primarily employed by organic life forms to aid in forming the bonds that "knit" amino acids chains together to become proteins. Phosphorus is employed in several cellular compounds, but its primary benefit to organic critters is as an electron donor/carrier compound in reactions that require input energy to get going and running (I apologize, I am probably oversimplifying this for several readers). The molecules that doe this are: ATP, ADP, cyclic AMP. ATP stands for Adenosine Tri-Phosphate, our inter-cellular "go juice".

There is a large potential downside of just pumping N and P into a lake or river in significant quantities to drive production, since this can shift algal production (phytoplannton) over to a community dominated by blue-green algae and some of the toxic filamentous algae species that just moved Toldedo to shut down its water intake in Lake Eries this summer. 

By employing straight organic detritus infusions (dumping leaf litter into the water course), the fishery managers are attempting to jump start production and increase stream insect diversity and density, thus, restoring productivity to a level that 
increases trout carrying capacity, as well as fish growth, and maturation rates.

ANY organic debris that is placed in a stream or lake initially begins leaching it more labile organic compounds (Stuff that is water soluble leacks out into the water column from damaged tissues and through broken cell membranes). These compounds are taken-up quickly by attached algae, aiding growth and development. Bacteria, and aquatic fungi now start "chewing" on the leaves, further decomposing the organic mater component. Aquatic insects that are fragmenters, and grazers also colonize the organic debris, further fragmenting the lignified tissue component into smaller and smaller particles,which in-turn are again colonized by bacteria, algae, and fungi that glean the remainder of their more labile organic content out and turn it into more critters. The smaller particles are now swept in the current as organic drift, taken up by web spinning caddis flies that chew it into smaller chunks that are further decomposed by bacteria, algae and fungi.

Each particle size reduction step provides nourishment to this, now larger and thus more productive and diverse aquatic insect community. 

The other point you made about concerns for additional inflows of petroleum residues is quite valid. I hope they are using yard debris and not scraping the curb-line gutters for their leaves. Also, keep in mind that these petroleum residues from auto exhaust and leaked oil and lubricants are all lighter than water, with a portion of them being washed into storm drains on each rain event. Some of these are degraded by bacteria living in the storm system drains. The remainder, more than what is degraded, is swept into the watercourse via the storm outfall.

So, what I am driving at is that what you are concerned about is likely already occurring on each rain event, as well as during snowmelt events(much higher concentrations of "stuff" that is bound in the snowpack flow into lakes and rivers per unit time, since they concentrate in the snowpack. What can be in snow? Mercury, sulfuric acids, petrochemicals from agriculture, mainly herbicides.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Since the zebra mussels have filtered the great lakes it is time or close to the time that we need to figure out a plan to fertilize the lakes.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes I do understand that with each rain event that these residues (for lack of a better phrase) do in fact leach into a water body, what troubles me is, IF you are to be a good steward, why would you intentionally do so? I hope you are right too in that this is merely yard waste.

What I do know is, if indeed you want to have a recurrence of coaster brook trout, the best way to do so, in advance, would be to create better habitat up stream. By that, large woody debris (LWD) would be a great idea, making sure that mid summer water temps aren't too high would be advisable as well. In some of the studies I have read, it appears that hook and line mortality isn't as big a factor as one may think, nor is building sand traps as big a factor in growing large trout. That last study was done on a branch of the Pere Marquette where it was discovered that sand loads, up or down, didn't seem to change the dynamics of the trout size, or populations. I will caution you if you look up that study, it also talks about other things in there that may not be popular and are irrelevant to this discussion.

To re-create a world class coaster brook trout fishery, you MUST start from the beginnings. Start by creating suitable spawning habitat in conjunction with proper water temps and you have a good start.

BTW, when I speak of biomass and carrying capacity, I am speaking of autochthonous. Of course every fall there will be a spike in (P) due primarily from fish spawning and dying, just one of the side benefits, or casualties if you will of returning salmon spawning. What is really amazing to me is just how far these contaminants can travel in ground water, or after leaching through to an under ground water supply. I have a friend who worked for the DNR, DEQ as a geologist and they have done studies in the U.P. on water contamination, at one point they found gasoline residue in the middle of swamp as far as they could go; in tracking down the source, it was discovered that it came from an old abandoned gas station 25 miles away. This is the sort of thing that needs to be done, if we are to get anywhere.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

B.Jarvinen said:


> So if Great Lakes Brookies = Coasters = excess stream fish  how does that compare to Rainbows and Browns?


For brown trout in Great Lakes plantings, the MDNR Fishery Div. has been using Seeforellen strain fish for a couple of decades. WDNR employs Seeforellen strain fish in their plants as well in Great Lakes waters, but they barge them offshore and release them deep into the water column to avoid avian predation and minimize grazing by inshore salmon and lake trout. 

Wild Rose strain fish carry the vast majority of stream release hatchery pproduction supplementation. 

Due to poor multi-year return rates, the MDNR was moving toward atlernate strain browns to carry the majority of their hatchery production. They were working on developing a brood stock composed of Sturgeon River strain fish. I don't know where this has progressed to right now.

Wisconsin uses three(?) strains of Steelhead: Ganaraska, Chambers Creek and Skamania in their hatchery system for Great Lakes plants. Michigan employs use of a multi-strain hybrid harvested via runs on the Little Manistee as its Steelhead egg/sperm source for hatchery rearing and eventual release. MDNR has, in the past planted Rogue, Umpqua, Siletz strains of summer run Steelhead in various locations, as well as Skamania strain fish.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

toto said:


> Yes I do understand that with each rain event that these residues (for lack of a better phrase) do in fact leach into a water body, what troubles me is, IF you are to be a good steward, why would you intentionally do so? I hope you are right too in that this is merely yard waste.
> 
> What I do know is, if indeed you want to have a recurrence of coaster brook trout, the best way to do so, in advance, would be to create better habitat up stream. By that, large woody debris (LWD) would be a great idea, making sure that mid summer water temps aren't too high would be advisable as well. In some of the studies I have read, it appears that hook and line mortality isn't as big a factor as one may think, nor is building sand traps as big a factor in growing large trout. That last study was done on a branch of the Pere Marquette where it was discovered that sand loads, up or down, didn't seem to change the dynamics of the trout size, or populations. I will caution you if you look up that study, it also talks about other things in there that may not be popular and are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> To re-create a world class coaster brook trout fishery, you MUST start from the beginnings. Start by creating suitable spawning habitat in conjunction with proper water temps and you have a good start.


Before we get into a discussion of stream bed load and its impacts on carrying capacity of trout populations, I'll focus on your last paragraph, as well as its implications. 

For illustration of my point, let's take two watersheds with identicial stream drainage areas, they are located at the same altitude and latitude, draining identical soil type and underlying rock strata. Rainfall and annual water budget calculation yields the same value for each water course. One stream has extensive deforested area(s) in its drainage throughout the water course and the other is located in a heavily forested topography.

One stream has a higher sediment load, higher instream seasonal water temperatures, as well as lower trout populations numbers, dominated by brown trout, with some rainbow mixed in and a smattering of brook trout well-up in the headwaters feeders. The other stream has a mix of brook trout and rainbow trout throughout its course, with brook trout dominating throughout the headwater drainages at high density. Fishery biologst teams shock each stream repeatedly over a several year period and determine via the Peterson Multiple Mark and Recapture model that:The brown trout dominated stream has a slightly greater total biomass of trout value than the rainbow, brook trout dominated stream.

Which watercourse contains which species array? Why?


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Cork Dust said:


> For brown trout in Great Lakes plantings, the MDNR Fishery Div. has been using Seeforellen strain fish for a couple of decades. WDNR employs Seeforellen strain fish in their plants as well in Great Lakes waters, but they barge them offshore and release them deep into the water column to avoid avian predation and minimize grazing by inshore salmon and lake trout.
> 
> Wild Rose strain fish carry the vast majority of stream release hatchery pproduction supplementation.
> 
> ...


I think Wisconsin plants Erwin, Arlee, and Kamloops as well. I looked up a clip from a funny looking steelhead last year and it was a wisconsin fish... couldn't believe all the strains they had.

Last I heard, the Sturgeon River browns were doing well in tailwaters in the Mo and Au Sable, and Wild Rose was performing better in inland lakes. I think Gilchrist Creek is in the mix too?


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Robert Holmes said:


> Since the zebra mussels have filtered the great lakes it is time or close to the time that we need to figure out a plan to fertilize the lakes.


Waaay too expensive to do now. If you "sbtract" Lake Erie( shallow basin, with way too much N and P coming in from agricultural runoff, as well as dry fallout), at this point, all that would achieve is to grow more Dreissenid mussels; zebra mussels inshore in shallower waters, and Quagga sp. offshore to depths of nearly 300'. 

If I had a magic wand I would go back in time kick the USCG service heads, as well as the US Army Corps Commanders repeatedly in their huge, round, amply lazy, self-serving, disinterested in environmental quality, behinds for about a two year interval. 

When Congress finally pushed through legislation requiring the USCG to actively monitor bilge water dumping in the St. Lawrence Seaway, the USCG Commander announced that they would not be able to implement monitoring for several years(I can't remember if it was five or seven) because they would have to develop training courses, manuals, stratedgies, etc. 

Remember the Gilbert Godfried schtick where he holds out his hand, palm-up and launches into a speech about forgetting to act if, say, I were to have a couple million dollars appear in my palm? Well, that is what the USCG and USACE have been doing on the invasive species front in the Great Lakes for well over a decade...!


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Gilchrest Creek was the brown strain I couldn't remember. I thought they (MDNR Hatchery folks)had some disasters in brook stock development. I know a MDNR hatchery manager via a nuisance beaver trapping/removal campaign of several years running on their sourcewater stream. I have to email him todaywith some lat/long coordinates, so I will ask Jim for an update.

I think Wisconsin paired-down their Steelhead strains... The interesting thing is that there are a number of streams along the Lake Michigan coast that have natural reproduction, with some genetic diversity added to these stocks via Wisconsin's "crazy quilt" steelhead release programs over the years. Adam Petralius and Brad Petzke both guide on these streams for steelhead and salmon. They have a much better handle on the "in the moment" stuff than I do. I think each of them are on Facebook.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Some great info there Corkdust. I think some of that may apply to my local lake which seems to be undergoing rapid and considerable change.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Toto, 

Your edit added paragraph essentially covered what I am driving at in the post on factors that impact trout species array, as well as annual production capacity and productivity.

Additionally, what I am trying to illustrate is the impacts associated with altered riparian habitat type and condition as it relates to driving what a given water course is best capable of producing when it comes to trout species array. 

My example would assign the brown trout dominated fishery system to the warmer, higher surface runoff(higher siltation rates and greater water course sunlight exposure raise water temperature, but also increase production, as well as productivity, until altitued or latitudinal factors come into play broadly. Browns are better able to withstand higher seasonal water temperatures and silt loads. 

The other points I was trying to illustrate in the example focus on O'Neal and Wills'(2010) study conclusions. IF: No major changes have occurred in raparian habitat via camp or home construction, road construction, bridge or stream crossing additons, deforestation, major alterations in agricultural practices or farming types, etc. have occurred in a watershed on a per unit time interval, bedload, within a stable annual range is an important component in the dynamics of stream watercourse stabilization and has very minimal negative impacts on trout population dynamics. Sediment trap construction would likely have a short time interval additive improvement in trout population biomass on an annual basis. As they state, about a year, likely shorter when added to more infertile streams, longer in more productive streams(my conjecture, based on their data). 

However, in a watershed different from the PM's, where a variety of human associated activities that increase sediment runoff(most liste above), and consequently bedload, are occurring, sediment trap construction and maintenance over an extended interval woul be warranted, as well as significantly improving stream trout carrying capacity via ancillary improvements in spawning habitat and increases in aquatic invertebrate biodiversity, biomass, and density values, seasonally and annually. 

If you approach a watershed that drains to the Great Lakes, with the goal of restoration of its brook trout carrying capacity, in hopes of increasing emigration of these fish to open lake waters, it is likely a VERY GOOD idea to determine baseline what would have to be modified throughout the watershed to increase the probability of achieving that end goal. The greater impact follow-up step would be to array those actions on a continuum of what should be done first to last, either from a beneficial impact standpoint or a cost to accomplish perspective. 

BTW, Rich O'Neal, Andy Nufur, and I all went through graduate school together. I also used to work with Rich when we were both employed by MSU, prior his departure for the MDNR and mine to the USFWS. Concientous, hard working guys, both of them.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Wisconsin's use of domestic rainbow strains (Kamloops, Erwins and Arlees), has been an attempt to find a strain that performs best in providing them a nearshore/onshore fishery. At this time, Arlees appear to fill that niche.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

REG said:


> Wisconsin's use of domestic rainbow strains (Kamloops, Erwins and Arlees), has been an attempt to find a strain that performs best in providing them a nearshore/onshore fishery. At this time, Arlees appear to fill that niche.


In both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan waters, or just Lake Superior?


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Cork Dust said:


> In both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan waters, or just Lake Superior?


As far as I know, Lake Michigan only. For WI's portion of Lake Superior, I believe at this time it's all natural reproduction.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Sorry I couldn't answer your question prior to this, a guy has to work sometimes. I can only say I had a 50/50 shot at getting the answer right, and frankly I only thought about 1/2 of what the answer really is. I would understand that with deforestation you create two problems, excess sand load, and warmer water temps, you can use the grayling for that example. As with all questions and answers, it usually leads to other questions, one big one in this case, what to do to ensure that this coaster brookie program is workable?? Isn't that basically where we started this??


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

toto said:


> Sorry I couldn't answer your question prior to this, a guy has to work sometimes. I can only say I had a 50/50 shot at getting the answer right, and frankly I only thought about 1/2 of what the answer really is. I would understand that with deforestation you create two problems, excess sand load, and warmer water temps, you can use the grayling for that example. As with all questions and answers, it usually leads to other questions, one big one in this case, what to do to ensure that this coaster brookie program is workable?? Isn't that basically where we started this??


It already has evolved over time to something that is workable, primarily as background knowledge of what causes or constitutes a brook trout that is deemed a "Coaster"brook trout has progressed.

Don't hold the expectation that your favorite stream that empties into the Great Lakes should be returned to a brook trout dominated system. In most cases that is an highly unrealistic expectation.

The char family are very susceptible to hook and line mortality. Killing a limit of brook trout on one of these trutaries doesn't achieve much toward increasing emigration rates to Great Lakes waters...

State and SWP management efforts on the Salmon Trout over a seven year interval have resulted in a roughly 70% improvement in this stream's coaster brook trout run. Now that the war with the Huron Mountain Club has been resolved regarding Public access. If you fish the stream, practice restraint. The same holds true for Isle Royale streams in fall, as well as Tobin Harbor.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Cork Dust said:


> It already has evolved over time to something that is workable, primarily as background knowledge of what causes or constitutes a brook trout that is deemed a "Coaster"brook trout has progressed.
> 
> Don't hold the expectation that your favorite stream that empties into the Great Lakes should be returned to a brook trout dominated system. In most cases that is an highly unrealistic expectation.
> 
> ...



It is absolutely true that not all streams are workable for this effort. Just to use and example, pretty much any stream in Michigan that has a dam system would be out of the picture, at least in my mind. If there were deeper water behind these dams, perhaps, but since there isn't the water is just too warm. One thing though, I find this thread, and the ones about the salmon planting very informative, and for that, I thank you, and the others as well.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Thanks all indeed. There is a lot to the subject.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I'm familiar with the names of the planted strains from the stocking reports, though I can't say I get to fish enough time and in enough places to ever know anything about the differences in the strains. And I have a basic understanding about different trout streams, or even different sections of a trout stream, being more suited to one of the three main species.

But my question is - with Rainbows and Browns, are certain strains automatically migratory? So when stocked, all of the one strain migrates down to the Lake, and there could be both migratory and non-migratory individuals in the stream? Or is it the same as I'm reading here for Coasters - outmigration into a Lake is a result of very successful reproduction creating excess population that has to leave the stream?

Until I read this thread, I thought the genetics made for a migratory fish, and I believe that was the original approach with Coasters - try and move the genetics from existing runs on the north shore to recreate runs in other places.

I think in the 21st century we are pretty good at protecting stream habitat from new impacts, and are continually improving and repairing them such as via buffering agricultural impacts, paving road crossing segments, etc. I have seen a sediment trap in action on Federal land though I haven't had much chance to fish above it or below it to really check it out. I have heard that a sand plug takes a very long time to move downstream, and thus impacts from logging over a century ago are still present in places. But in other places, probably more in the lower peninsula, stream segments flow over sandy soils and certain segments will always have sand present. But that is taking the thread a little far from Coaster runs. 

What I have seen in the western U.P. the last two years makes me pretty optimistic that reestablishing a run could work; there is a lot of outstanding habitat with minimal impacts already, and things would only improve.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Browns and rainbows are introduced trout species in the Great Lakes. As such all genetic strains are non-natives, so to determine whether one strain versus another influences emigration from streams that flow to Great Lakes waters is a moot point. 

If you do a search on Alaskan steelhead, you will find that the panhandle and coastal streams below the base of the Aluetian archipelago island chain all have anadromous rainbows, but once you swing around to the western coast where the majority of the huge watershed river systems empty into the Bering Sea, rainbows are non-anadromous. I would conclude that instream production capacity, as well as individual year-class success values likely influence emigration, particularly for rainbows. 

Introduced brown trout and rainbows migrate out to the ocean(s) from river systems on the southern tip of South America in Argentina and Chile. Again, further underscoring the influence of inherent water chemistry and associated productivity in rivers as a major influence on trout population emigration rates over time. 

What I find most interesting in this example is that there was little or no evidence, prior these plants, that brown trout could change their osmoregulatory capacity via altering the molecular "sensitivity" of their salt cells in their gill membranes like rainbows and Pacific salmon do to survive in a marine envirionment where the medium has greater osmotic concentrations that their internal body fluids and cell contents. Obviously, the imprinting that occurs during the smolting process not only "locks" these fish into being able to "track" the chemical signature of their parent stream in open ocean waters, but also confers on them broad osmotic regulatory capacity adaption as well.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

itchn2fish said:


> Many researchers have said they havent really seen any link between what the kids (brookie offspring) are doing under lab-conditions & what the parents (brookie adults) are doing in the real world, undermining the idea of a separate set of genetics for stream brookies & Coasters. That suggests the trigger may be environmental, that something is going on in the streams that pushes the coasters out.
> So whats happening in the environment? Some research groups have turned to computer simulations to come up with a plausible-yet-unconfirmed explanation. When big female coasters come in from the lake to spawn in the tributaries, theyre carrying a lot of eggs that turn into a lot of baby brook trout. If the streams dont have enough food to go around, the competition will drive some of those brook trout out into Lake Superior, where they adopt the better-eating coaster lifestyle. The flip side of that is if competition drops below a certain threshold (say, if fewer spawners return or a river begins producing more food), it looks like the coaster/stream population collapses into just a purely tributary-resident population. Scientists are going to have to be continuing to uncover the coasters secrets if that fishery is ever going to return to anything like what I experienced during the 1970s/80s. Although brook trout are native to Lake Michigan and many of their tributaries, coaster brook trout in recent decades have been found only in Lake Superior.


Is there a correlation between other species as to why they've left the stream environment?, such as Steelhead.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

METTLEFISH said:


> Is there a correlation between other species as to why they've left the stream environment?, such as Steelhead.


When you say correlation, please be aware that a statistical correlation is not an indicator of a cause and effect relationship, it is simply an assessment of a covariance relationship. Reworded, in a positive correlation result, the assessed variables change or move through time in an increased, inter-related way. A negative or inverse correlation documents the opposite inter-relationship between the assessed variables. Simplified to layman terms, they interact in some capacity, but the causitive mechanism remains unknown(basically, it is likely driven by more than one impacting factor, all of them acting to varying degrees, but in-concert with each other.

Well, I'll stay with "true" steelhead populations on the west coast of North America. The streams these fish inhabit are small area tributaries draining igneous rock strata formations-very low productivity and annual production. What appears to be the principal driver of emigration of excees annual production fish after smolting to the ocean environment is a combination of habitat availability and food. Moving up the coast and rounding the Aluetian archipelago, the river systems shift over to large drainage area rivers that drain inland glaciated soils of both igneous and to a lesser degree sedimentary origins(sedimentary rock strata are built-up over time, consisting of inorganic and organic materials encapsulated in their layers,solidified by pressure from overlying strata. When resuspended upon weathering, they release signifcantly greater leached nutrients than igneous strata). Again, more habitat and holding water/cover available, as well as more food. 

My nephew guides at a fly-in camp on a Bristol Bay tributary that is quite large. After they send their fly-in customers back to the lodge, the three of them rearrange gear in the boats, mend equipment, eat, and then go fishing for 17lb and up resident rainbows with flesh flies.They rotate among fisher, netter, and boat "boy" positions over the "evening"(read this as long daylight interval). Ryan's best fish to date is this 32" caught and released male. They don't have a lot of clients who want to go after these fish because of the depths of the runs they inhabit, in combination with the current requires a ton of weight to get a six inch flesh fly down in front of the fish. Their clients mainly prefer sight fishing for salmon, char, and trout with lighter tackle in shallower water.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Cork Dust said:


> Introduced brown trout and rainbows migrate out to the ocean(s) from river systems on the southern tip of South America in Argentina and Chile. Again, further underscoring the influence of inherent water chemistry and associated productivity in rivers as a major influence on trout population emigration rates over time.
> 
> What I find most interesting in this example is that there was little or no evidence, prior these plants, that brown trout could change their osmoregulatory capacity via altering the molecular "sensitivity" of their salt cells in their gill membranes like rainbows and Pacific salmon do to survive in a marine envirionment where the medium has greater osmotic concentrations that their internal body fluids and cell contents. Obviously, the imprinting that occurs during the smolting process not only "locks" these fish into being able to "track" the chemical signature of their parent stream in open ocean waters, but also confers on them broad osmotic regulatory capacity adaption as well.


I'm under the impression that sea run browns are fairly common in Europe, even having regional names in a number of countries to distinguish between the sea runs and the river dwellers. As for the coasters, whether or not they are different species than the stream fish is interesting but not necessary for their protection and possible expansion of their runs. The overriding factor for coasters will be their economic importance. People are far more likely to travel and spend for big fish, and as the salmon fisheries dwindle more and more importance will be placed on creating glamorous fisheries for other species. Coasters certainly qualify. The DNR and the State will need to try to make up the revenue lost as the kings disappear from lake Michigan; coasters, trophy browns, steelhead, atlantics, smallmouth, walleye, pike, musky, all fit the bill as travel worthy fish. Not all our waters can produce travel quality fisheries but I expect that the ones that can are going to be treated differently than the ones that can't. That will mean more focused habitat improvements and special regs on Lake Superior tribs as well as special consideration for some pike lakes etc. That's the way I see the future, anyway.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

kzoofisher said:


> I'm under the impression that sea run browns are fairly common in Europe, even having regional names in a number of countries to distinguish between the sea runs and the river dwellers. As for the coasters, whether or not they are different species than the stream fish is interesting but not necessary for their protection and possible expansion of their runs. The overriding factor for coasters will be their economic importance. People are far more likely to travel and spend for big fish, and as the salmon fisheries dwindle more and more importance will be placed on creating glamorous fisheries for other species. Coasters certainly qualify. The DNR and the State will need to try to make up the revenue lost as the kings disappear from lake Michigan; coasters, trophy browns, steelhead, atlantics, smallmouth, walleye, pike, musky, all fit the bill as travel worthy fish. Not all our waters can produce travel quality fisheries but I expect that the ones that can are going to be treated differently than the ones that can't. That will mean more focused habitat improvements and special regs on Lake Superior tribs as well as special consideration for some pike lakes etc. That's the way I see the future, anyway.


The Coasters have gone the way of other trophy Natives such as giant Yellow Perch. These fish take many years to attain their oversized size. With competition being what it is, the only way to afford these fish the opportunity to attain that age and size would be no kill regulations. That would mean ZERO Angling pressure. We all know C&R does NOT mean there are no fish losses. I fear the Coaster in any viable numbers are a thing of the past.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> When you say correlation, please be aware that a statistical correlation is not an indicator of a cause and effect relationship, it is simply an assessment of a covariance relationship. Reworded, in a positive correlation result, the assessed variables change or move through time in an increased, inter-related way. A negative or inverse correlation documents the opposite inter-relationship between the assessed variables. Simplified to layman terms, they interact in some capacity, but the causitive mechanism remains unknown(basically, it is likely driven by more than one impacting factor, all of them acting to varying degrees, but in-concert with each other.
> 
> Well, I'll stay with "true" steelhead populations on the west coast of North America. The streams these fish inhabit are small area tributaries draining igneous rock strata formations-very low productivity and annual production. What appears to be the principal driver of emigration of excees annual production fish after smolting to the ocean environment is a combination of habitat availability and food. Moving up the coast and rounding the Aluetian archipelago, the river systems shift over to large drainage area rivers that drain inland glaciated soils of both igneous and to a lesser degree sedimentary origins(sedimentary rock strata are built-up over time, consisting of inorganic and organic materials encapsulated in their layers,solidified by pressure from overlying strata. When resuspended upon weathering, they release signifcantly greater leached nutrients than igneous strata). Again, more habitat and holding water/cover available, as well as more food.
> 
> My nephew guides at a fly-in camp on a Bristol Bay tributary that is quite large. After they send their fly-in customers back to the lodge, the three of them rearrange gear in the boats, mend equipment, eat, and then go fishing for 17lb and up resident rainbows with flesh flies.They rotate among fisher, netter, and boat "boy" positions over the "evening"(read this as long daylight interval). Ryan's best fish to date is this 32" caught and released male. They don't have a lot of clients who want to go after these fish because of the depths of the runs they inhabit, in combination with the current requires a ton of weight to get a six inch flesh fly down in front of the fish. Their clients mainly prefer sight fishing for salmon, char, and trout with lighter tackle in shallower water.


Those are nice fish for sure. A friends son owns Alaska Fly Fishers, and his wife is head of Coastal Fisheries. They too know some of these spots that hold absolute pigs of Rainbows. These fish are hard to reach as well. Onother key to the remaining quality fisheries and keeping them that way will be equipment restrictions. Perhaps simular to the no hunt on fly days regs. They are worth protecting IMO.


----------



## Waz_51 (Jan 10, 2010)

I'd just like to take the time to thank you guys for putting together this extraordinarily informative thread... The level of quality posts in this thread is truly a treat for both the eyes and the brain... All of this information makes me want to go back to college so that I can study marine biology or something similar in an effort to make a difference in varies topics such as coastal brook trout populations... Being only 28 years old, I'm definitely young enough still to make this a serious consideration! Coasties have been on my bucket list for quite some time... I can't imagine a better feeling than snapping a pic with a beautiful male, upwards of 10 pounds, then watching him tail off to where he came from!


----------

