# Lake Michigan assessment 2019



## JDS1242 (Jun 23, 2016)

https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...ws-alewife-remain-near-record-low/4827453002/


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

Great! I know, let’s thro some more lakers in there to feed on them & hey, how bout some Cisco too, cormorants: blah blah


----------



## blackghost (Oct 2, 2010)

Maybe bottom trawls don't have as many alewives because they don't hug the bottom due to lack of food?

Instead they're feeding in water closer to the surface?


----------



## JDS1242 (Jun 23, 2016)

I believe the age breakdown is likely the most important data to take from the bottom trawls. Based on yearly numbers of alewife however I don't know how much stock i put into the specific numbers, for example:
alewife biomass by year,
2017: .02 kg/ha
2018: .54 kg/ha
2019: .07 kg/ha

from 2017 to 2018 did alewife numbers really increase 27 fold, and then back down? 

I do agree alewife remain at very low levels and we should not be increasing stocking, but i think this measuring method is wildly inaccurate.


----------



## John Hine (Mar 31, 2019)

I thought I was just reading an article by the Dnr that said the alewife were returning to healthier numbers, now I can’t find it so maybe not. Who knows what to believe?

Hey Jay, you willing to comment on this?


----------



## Southsider1 (Dec 22, 2014)

This should be exhibit A for why we should reduce stocking at the tribal negotiations. 

I thought we were increasing stocking in 2020 due to a better predator/prey balance?


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Kisutch (May 26, 2011)

I do not sit behind a computer screen all day everyday but I do spend a decent amount of time staring at my boat electronics. This past fishing season my graph was repeatedly interrupted by many echoes. Some of those echoes were 40 to 60 feet thick. I do believe that most of those echoes were from alewife and not nuclear fallout from Japan. So something must be wrong with the back end of those trawl nets. Maybe if they tied the end shut some different data might be collected. What I am really trying to say is that last year was the most bait I have seen since the 2010-2012 seasons. It still does not, nor will it ever, mean anything to all those nice people who call the shots. 

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

Kisutch said:


> I do not sit behind a computer screen all day everyday but I do spend a decent amount of time staring at my boat electronics. This past fishing season my graph was repeatedly interrupted by many echoes. Some of those echoes were 40 to 60 feet thick. I do believe that most of those echoes were from alewife and not nuclear fallout from Japan. So something must be wrong with the back end of those trawl nets. Maybe if they tied the end shut some different data might be collected. What I am really trying to say is that last year was the most bait I have seen since the 2010-2012 seasons. It still does not, nor will it ever, mean anything to all those nice people who call the shots.
> 
> Kisutch
> 
> ...


I agree! Also, off shore winds can effect the trawl take as well. Many factors do. I am and have been a proponent of wild fish, meaning NO STOCKING in ports with good natural production. For the remainder of the ports only plant an amount that relates to the availability of bait fish. Also, I think that doing a bait fish study in the cleaning stations could produce a better understanding of what is actually going on in the lakes. Remember the old "don't forget your Ovaltine" commercial? well, dont forget your canister of bloom builder to put in "where necessary" to aid in fertility of the lakes, STERILE WATERS ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING, the same as sterile soils.


----------



## mbirdsley (Jan 12, 2012)

I have been reading some of jays stuff online. He thinks possibly alewives number increase could be attributed to all of the excess rain we have had the last couple of years. Meaning all the nutrients that are getting washed into our swollen rivers is finding it’s way back to the lake through the river mouths. 

I really wish we would focus our stocking efforts on rivers that have a shot of natural reproduction. There has got to be another river some where on the west side other than the Betsie than the kings can successfully spawn in. Seems like a lot of salmon released in the manistee end up in the betsie on top of the native Kong’s. I wish we could figure out why the Kings thrive so well in the betsie. I’ve always been told it gets to warm and is a marginal trout river in the summer. 

Once the Kings get stabilized through natural reproduction move on to the next species that needs a pick me up. Once natural reproduction kicks in and than we don’t need all the king smolts put them in other areas on the west side 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Trawls are worthless for alewife, alewife aren’t benthic, they are pelagic. Trawls are okay for bloaters or whatever else on the bottom.

USGS is retrofitting their survey vessel(s) to become stealthier. Researchers believe that the boats are in fact scaring away alewife from the boat during surveys, resulting in poor acoustics and/or trawls.

Interesting that chinook stocking is going up, despite the lower reported bait numbers. The predator prey model last year went the wrong direction also. Yet chinook stocking was increased. Doesn’t follow science. Wonder if the scientists are questioning their science? I know the rest of us are!

We all know that Wisconsins fishery division are rogue corrupt derelicts that gave the finger to everyone else, but what was Michigans excuse for ignoring their own warning signs of impending doom?


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

mbirdsley said:


> I have been reading some of jays stuff online. He thinks possibly alewives number increase could be attributed to all of the excess rain we have had the last couple of years. Meaning all the nutrients that are getting washed into our swollen rivers is finding it’s way back to the lake through the river mouths.
> 
> I really wish we would focus our stocking efforts on rivers that have a shot of natural reproduction. There has got to be another river some where on the west side other than the Betsie than the kings can successfully spawn in. Seems like a lot of salmon released in the manistee end up in the betsie on top of the native Kong’s. I wish we could figure out why the Kings thrive so well in the betsie. I’ve always been told it gets to warm and is a marginal trout river in the summer.
> 
> ...


The reason they do so well in the Betsie is it's conducive for them, they've sought out the river because of that. The rivers in Ontario that were/are producing hundreds of thousands of Chinook that made their way into Lk. MI. that contributed to the crash in 2013 are also conducive. Straying from natal rivers is insurance of genetic distribution, avoiding calamities that are brought on by lack of diversity. At least our biologists have learned to take genetics from what they believe are wild fish. I'd much rather catch one/two wild fish than 5/6 & so on planted fish, I firmly believe they are a much more superior fish than planted fish. Remember, HELP FIGHT STERILE WATERS!!!


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

slightofhand said:


> Trawls are worthless for alewife, alewife aren’t benthic, they are pelagic. Trawls are okay for bloaters or whatever else on the bottom.
> 
> USGS is retrofitting their survey vessel(s) to become stealthier. Researchers believe that the boats are in fact scaring away alewife from the boat during surveys, resulting in poor acoustics and/or trawls.
> 
> ...


Every time the DNR changes the way they Trawl, it skews their data. How come they Trawled the same way for decades, and used to get TONS of Alewives? If they didn't change the way they Trawled, and Alewives didn't become intelligent all-of-a-sudden, then the reason for their decline exists elsewhere. Maybe the theories about the Mussels decimating the bottom of the food chain are accurate?


----------



## Horseshoe (Oct 15, 2003)

Fishndude said:


> Every time the DNR changes the way they Trawl, it skews their data. How come they Trawled the same way for decades, and used to get TONS of Alewives? If they didn't change the way they Trawled, and Alewives didn't become intelligent all-of-a-sudden, then the reason for their decline exists elsewhere. Maybe the theories about the Mussels decimating the bottom of the food chain are accurate?


 Things change. Assuming that you have a few years on you, I'm sure you've seen towns that used to be booming that are now rather decimated. Populations have moved away to somewhere more desirable. If you based an estimate of the State's population on a sampling taken from that area, you might think that the population of the entire state has dropped while that may be the furthest thing from the truth. 

I remember as a youngster, perch were readily caught from our piers here in St. Joseph. But I also remember that in 10' of water, you darn sure couldn't see the bottom. I believe that perch don't really care to hang out in crystal clear 10' water too much, so that is why I don't think they are caught off the piers here anything like they used to be. Now I do believe that the mussels have significantly cleaned the water and I'm also sure that they have depleted parts of the lower food chain, which has probably impacted the alewife population. But to think that the same old testing methods will correspond to actual populations exactly as they did decades ago, I believe is flawed.


----------



## blackghost (Oct 2, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> Every time the DNR changes the way they Trawl, it skews their data. How come they Trawled the same way for decades, and used to get TONS of Alewives? If they didn't change the way they Trawled, and Alewives didn't become intelligent all-of-a-sudden, then the reason for their decline exists elsewhere. Maybe the theories about the Mussels decimating the bottom of the food chain are accurate?


Yes, the food web has changed. The trawls show that. What they don't show is where the alewives are now. They could be up higher. They also could readily avoid the trawls if the water is crystal clear. The whole dynamic of the lake has changed. I would agree that using a consistent set of data is important, but if that method of data collection is no longer relevant how does that help?

I think our biggest problem is that we don't really know whats happening to the lake. I think it's obvious it's not as bad as the data says. The question is how bad is it really?

Maybe they need to try to start estimating the number of returning alewives at the rivers/lakes that get them. That would help. I've seen the Holland DNR boat launch loaded top to bottom with alewives spawning at night.


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

Idk about u guys but kings should be record size this summer. Smelt numbers on the rebound in both lakes combined with open water all winter should be good. Wisconsin going to reap the benefits.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown (Jan 19, 2018)

Get an update on the 2020 Consent Decree Status, which might answer some if those questions. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Maybe Chinook reproduction is so successful in the Betsie because the river mouth lake is smaller than others = greater chance for the smolt to out-migrate to the Big Lake?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

What I can't understand is this: A couple of years ago I was down at the Platte River mouth in the fall. I saw literally millions of 1-2" alewives, and I mean millions. The river from the boat launch at the end of the road to the mouth itself was literally black from top to bottom, and all the way across. My question is, where did all those fish go? I think there are more ales than what we are being told, or are coming across in nets, but hey that's just me, and mettlefish of course.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown (Jan 19, 2018)

toto said:


> What I can't understand is this: A couple of years ago I was down at the Platte River mouth in the fall. I saw literally millions of 1-2" alewives, and I mean millions. The river from the boat launch at the end of the road to the mouth itself was literally black from top to bottom, and all the way across. My question is, where did all those fish go? I think there are more ales than what we are being told, or are coming across in nets, but hey that's just me, and mettlefish of course.


There is always the question of the accuracy of the bait trawls and surveys. I don’t think there will ever be an agreement on the amount in Lake Michigan until all alewife and smelt are all gone. 

What or who is “mettlefish”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Sorry bout that, was thinking of another thread, meant to say kisutch.


----------

