# Missing Salmon



## Honkkilla59

I was watching the news last night and on the Traverse City news they had a report the the DNR has had only 500 fish at the weir in Manistee.
They also stated that they need 2000 to maintain the stocking levels . 
I'm sure I'm just another naysayers but where are all of the "natural reproducing " salmon we have been told exist.
I believe we have been sold a bill of goods on the number of so called naturally produced fish.
I find it a coincidence that out of all of the cold water streams that supposedly produce natural fish all have had very poor runs the last few years.
I would love to check the net pens next year and see if the fish the feds have claimed to have fin clipped really are.


----------



## o_mykiss

So, the feds AND all 4 states are in on a conspiracy? Why does it ALWAYS have to be some sort of conspiracy? They're tagging and clipping all the hatchery salmon. Why would they invest MILLIONS of dollars and not clip all the stocked fish? Their objectives of measuring the rate of wild reproduction and movement patterns would be unobtainable without clipping and tagging all stocked fish. 

Keep in mind that producing natural fish (or stocking fish for that matter) does not mean "survival to adult"


----------



## Honkkilla59

o_mykiss said:


> So, the feds AND all 4 states are in on a conspiracy? Why does it ALWAYS have to be some sort of conspiracy? They're tagging and clipping all the hatchery salmon. Why would they invest MILLIONS of dollars and not clip all the stocked fish? Their objectives of measuring the rate of wild reproduction and movement patterns would be unobtainable without clipping and tagging all stocked fish.
> 
> Keep in mind that producing natural fish (or stocking fish for that matter) does not mean "survival to adult"


The feds are all about returning things to there "natural " state .
Why did the biologist at the Sea Grant meeting profess for years that natural reproduction and survival were higher on natural fish.
If the numbers were correct where have the 4-6 million natural fish gone.Do you believe they all just didn't survive?


----------



## o_mykiss

Yep, they didn't survive. Size (growth) is down, despite stocking cuts, which indicates a baitfish issue. Stocking returns are still way below they should be given stocking numbers. Baitfish are way down. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense. Less food = less salmon. You can have all the natural production possible, but if there's no food, they're not going to survive to adulthood. Why do you think there aren't many kings in Lake Huron anymore, despite all the natural production out of the Canadian streams up there?


----------



## Honkkilla59

o_mykiss said:


> Yep, they didn't survive. Size (growth) is down, despite stocking cuts, which indicates a baitfish issue. Stocking returns are still way below they should be given stocking numbers. Baitfish are way down. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense. Less food = less salmon. You can have all the natural production possible, but if there's no food, they're not going to survive to adulthood. Why do you think there aren't many kings in Lake Huron anymore, despite all the natural production out of the Canadian streams up there?


Let me ask you do you fish from a boat? Do you fish in Lake michigan 50-75 days a year? .
Just wondering I have my own observations from fishing alot every year ,it's just strange to see alot of bait and no fish around it.


----------



## BigWoods Bob

Small salmon can't eat full sized Ales....from what I understand, the major obstacles to survival are during the first year in the lake, when they are still very small. If the food isn't there, then it is very easy to lose much of that year's class of fish....hatchery or wild.


----------



## o_mykiss

I fish from a boat, and from shore, and in the streams. Average about 40 days by boat, 40 by stream and 10 or 15 from pier. I also read a lot of boards in multiple states, and talk to my local biologists. Have seen lots of bait at times, other times have gone a month or two without seeing much. Important to keep in mind that local abundance does not mean lakewide abundance, and the chinooks are a lakewide fishery. Large, large areas of the lake are devoid of bait. That is not good.

Some ports have complained about not seeing bait all year, and then others had bait constantly. I trust the science of trawlings and acoustic surveys, not only because its way less biased than fishermen observations, but also because it lines up with observations on chinook abundance and chinook size

We had 2 complete busts in a row of alewife year classes. Baby kings need baby alewives to eat. An 8 inch king can't eat a 6 inch alewife. So survival of kings was very poor in 2013 and 2014 since there were practically no alewives produced in those years


----------



## Jay Wesley

Heard from a New York biologist on Monday. Lake Ontario's chinook runs have been poor to date as well. They have a little better prey balance but are seeing poor runs and are nervous for egg take. Wisconsin just fired up the Strawberry Creek weir, so it will be interesting to see what shows there as well.


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> Heard from a New York biologist on Monday. Lake Ontario's chinook runs have been poor to date as well. They have a little better prey balance but are seeing poor runs and are nervous for egg take. Wisconsin just fired up the Strawberry Creek weir, so it will be interesting to see what shows there as well.


Just did some digging on this issue earlier today as well....Lake O as stated by Jay is about void of any meaningful returns...except for Port Hope Ontario which has been experiencing an epic chinook run this year starting this past July. All ports west and south on the Canadian side are void of chinook returns...as are most New York ports with the exception of trickle returns in the Salmon River on the far east side. The Salmon River usually has enormous returns of Chinook each year (except for last season...late and slow).

Digging further towards the Georgian Bay area of Lake Huron where much of "our" purported natural reproduction takes place....has also been a ghost town so far this year. There are typically monster wild Chinook returns in this area (few are stocked in rivers there)...but the last "monster" return was 3 years ago.

So...it begs the question about this natural reproduction thing. Though it exists, perhaps over-inflated/estimated? I for one would love to see permanent weirs in place at all of the usual locations in Michigan to capture fish all year long. I know for a fact there are decent sized runs in Michigan rivers beginning in May.

If all of these wild and stocked Chinook are dying because of lack of food....then why are Lake Trout booming when they (Lake Trout) exclusively target Alewife once they (Alewife) appear in the spring and for the remainder of the season? Lake Trout as reported consume the same amount of forage as 2.4 Chinook's.

I can say after landing nearly 1000 Lake Trout in Lake Michigan this year, we observed less than a dozen gobies in Lake Trout stomachs after the second week of May...right about the time the Alewife appeared. It was all Alewife and stuffed full of Alewife from that point moving forward right through this past weekend. Prior to the second week of May it was all gobies. 

Why are Chinook reportedly dying and Lake Trout thriving....both fixated on Alewife as the primary food source?


----------



## wallerchamon

I gotta wonder if there might be something or some sort of disease that we aren't picking up on that is effecting the health as well


----------



## o_mykiss

I have noticed that same pattern in lakers... full of gobies until May, then summer they are on alewives. Gotta be when the water warms up and the gobies move inshore as the lakers are moving offshore to find their preferred tempsI think you have the ratio backwards though, a chinook eats 2-something times more than a laker in terms of equivalency. 

Chinooks waste a lot of energy swimming open water looking for prey... lakers are fat and lazy and have slower metabolisms. I've read where up north - way up north in Canada- they can even subsist on algae 

I suspect that lakers are thriving because they eat what is easily available to them at all times of the year, which includes mostly gobies for half the year... whereas chinooks are only keying on alewives, and if there are none around for a couple months, they're in trouble


----------



## ausable_steelhead

I'm not sure what to think as far as wild fish either. The places I fish in northern LM are all wild with Medusa creek the only plant in the entire area(Petoskey/Charlevoix/Boyne). We've had very, very little around this fall...and some have been clipped fish, likely from Medusa. My buddies on the East side are catching many clipped fish; Lake Michigan fish possibly??


----------



## slightofhand

o_mykiss said:


> I have noticed that same pattern in lakers... full of gobies until May, then summer they are on alewives. Gotta be when the water warms up and the gobies move inshore as the lakers are moving offshore to find their preferred tempsI think you have the ratio backwards though, a chinook eats 2-something times more than a laker in terms of equivalency.
> 
> Chinooks waste a lot of energy swimming open water looking for prey... lakers are fat and lazy and have slower metabolisms. I've read where up north - way up north in Canada- they can even subsist on algae
> 
> I suspect that lakers are thriving because they eat what is easily available to them at all times of the year, which includes mostly gobies for half the year... whereas chinooks are only keying on alewives, and if there are none around for a couple months, they're in trouble


Jay Wesley's quote from a previous thread "lake trout consume the same amount of alewive as 2.4 chinook".

The chinook and alewife "winter" somewhere...probably together, in the middle of the lake. I am sure metabolisms lower considerably so food requirements for at least 3-4 months are probably pretty low compared to summer for kings. What would be considered strange, is when anglers mark huge plumes of bait for weeks on end....and no kings on that bait. You would think a starving fish would find that bait?

The trout I believe just kind of stay where they stay and eat whatever is there, or if multiple prey sources are available, target their preferred.....which seems to be the alewife. There are brief occasions that I have seen where alewife get blown out of an area and lake trout move in closer to shore to eat gobies...only to move back out to their preferred depths once alewife appear again.

On a brighter note...we caught (and released) 40-50 shaker kings from 8-15 inches this past weekend...both hatchery and wild fish together. Some small browns mixed in along with mature coho. I hope those little guys find some bugs or something to eat this winter.


----------



## o_mykiss

I am pretty sure Jay made a typo and meant to say that chinook consume as many alewife as 2.4 lake trout, because if you google it you can find it. http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lmc/Lake Michigan Committee Salmon Stocking Strategy 2014.pdf

Look at the 5th page. Looks like chinook equivalents are 2.4 for steelhead and 2.3 for lake trout


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Relying on natural production leaves us open to boom and bust years. Were the rivers blown out or low and sluggish 2-3 years ago? Would affect this year's stock of matures.


----------



## Robert Holmes

slightofhand said:


> Jay Wesley's quote from a previous thread "lake trout consume the same amount of alewive as 2.4 chinook".
> 
> The chinook and alewife "winter" somewhere...probably together, in the middle of the lake. I am sure metabolisms lower considerably so food requirements for at least 3-4 months are probably pretty low compared to summer for kings. What would be considered strange, is when anglers mark huge plumes of bait for weeks on end....and no kings on that bait. You would think a starving fish would find that bait?
> 
> The trout I believe just kind of stay where they stay and eat whatever is there, or if multiple prey sources are available, target their preferred.....which seems to be the alewife. There are brief occasions that I have seen where alewife get blown out of an area and lake trout move in closer to shore to eat gobies...only to move back out to their preferred depths once alewife appear again.
> 
> On a brighter note...we caught (and released) 40-50 shaker kings from 8-15 inches this past weekend...both hatchery and wild fish together. Some small browns mixed in along with mature coho. I hope those little guys find some bugs or something to eat this winter.


When the kings were skinny on the Lake Huron side we would catch a couple of skinny salmon then a big healthy bruiser. The big salmon would be full of shiners, smelt, or sticklebacks. THey can and do find other food.


----------



## SJC

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Relying on natural production leaves us open to boom and bust years. Were the rivers blown out or low and sluggish 2-3 years ago? Would affect this year's stock of matures.


Exactly! It seems that most people cannot understand that wild fish pops are almost never stable. Just look at salmon and steelhead runs on the west coast. Numbers bounce up and down and are managed to get the most out of the returns. Regs change year to year and sometimes day to day according to the size of return they are expecting/getting.


----------



## o_mykiss

Not only wild fish populations, but ALL fish populations are unstable if they system is unstable. There's two sides to the coin - number of predator fish, and number of prey fish. Prey fish are variable, so even if consistent stocking happens, the salmon populations fluctuate in concert with prey fish populations


----------



## andyotto

o_mykiss said:


> Not only wild fish populations, but ALL fish populations are unstable if they system is unstable. There's two sides to the coin - number of predator fish, and number of prey fish. Prey fish are variable, so even if consistent stocking happens, the salmon populations fluctuate in concert with prey fish populations


That is true o_mykiss but prey isn't the only factor in the fishery. Spawning conditions can impact the year to year ups and downs as well, as we are seeing with the current class of "wild" salmon. Stocking in part can even some of those factors out. But I agree the major problem is with prey species abundance.


----------



## Treven

Guys, this is why people keep beating on the lakers. Sure they eat less than a salmon, but MANY millions of the worthless bastards are planted every year, let alone how many naturally reproduce. So with A LOT more Lakers than Salmon eating alewives in concert together, bam, were completely blaming the mussels when its only supposedly mainly their fault. Nobody wants to touch the treaty-fish though, let's just let them ruin the salmon and steelhead fishery completely...

Who wants to do the math?


1 Chinook eats [supposedly] 2.3-2.4 the amount of 1 grease bass
Feds plant how many lakers? And how many reproduce each year (I know, supposedly not a lot... but still, some. We supposedly had 55% natural reproduction of Chinooks a few years ago, too...)
How many Chinooks are planted into Lake MI from all the bordering states?
The ratios start to make a little sense as to why people hate lake trout doesn't it? Those figgen fish eat a lot of alewives when you consider the whole population and not just look at it on an individual laker diet basis...


----------



## Corey K

No way Trev, Lakers are sluggish and just lay on the bottom with their mouths open hoping Goby's will swim into their mouths! Yeah right, just go ice fishing and watch how lazy Lakers are...Anyone that will say the massive amount of Lakers being stocked along with the number of Lakers currently inhabiting Lake Michigan are not affecting the prey/predator ratio is delusional. Kinda weird how Lake Huron and Lake Michigan Lakers are suspended feeding in open water 99% of the time feeding on those high riding Goby's...


----------



## slightofhand

Treven said:


> Guys, this is why people keep beating on the lakers. Sure they eat less than a salmon, but MANY millions of the worthless bastards are planted every year, let alone how many naturally reproduce. So with A LOT more Lakers than Salmon eating alewives in concert together, bam, were completely blaming the mussels when its only supposedly mainly their fault. Nobody wants to touch the treaty-fish though, let's just let them ruin the salmon and steelhead fishery completely...
> 
> Who wants to do the math?
> 
> 
> 1 Chinook eats [supposedly] 2.3-2.4 the amount of 1 grease bass
> Feds plant how many lakers? And how many reproduce each year (I know, supposedly not a lot... but still, some. We supposedly had 55% natural reproduction of Chinooks a few years ago, too...)
> How many Chinooks are planted into Lake MI from all the bordering states?
> The ratios start to make a little sense as to why people hate lake trout doesn't it? Those figgen fish eat a lot of alewives when you consider the whole population and not just look at it on an individual laker diet basis...


There are three guys, on this forum, who solely blame the mussels. Everyone else who watches this entire situation objectively and without an "anti-chinook" agenda as those three individuals do...understands that heavy predation from other predators is a huge player in this. Ask any biologist why they reduced chinook stocking...to cut back predation on alewife. Ask any biologist what happened in Lake Huron, the rise of the incessant walleye rehab program right in the middle of the ONLY alewife nursery on that lake...Saginaw Bay. It is so bad, so out of control, so over the top now in Saginaw Bay that they are trying to remove as many walleye as possible out of the bay because of predation of baby perch..and anything else walleye can get their jaws on. Too much..too fast for too long. Same as the lake trout rehab program on Lake Michigan. Both have decimated baitfish and juvenile fish populations. 

Predation is probably the biggest contributor to fluctuation in all baitfish populations, particularly the alewife, because alewife are the most preferred and targeted prey species year round by all gamefish (chinook, trout, walleye, bass, etc). Yes trout target gobies in the spring as they are not going to wander around the lake looking for alewives that aren't currently inhabiting their reef in 20-30 fow. Trout know the alewife will be there, as usual, in May.

Thus, we have the new predator-prey model of influencing stocking decisions. A smart move imo, however, ignoring Lake Trout as a predator is a gross injustice to sportsmen. There is no more pink elephant in the room, everyone see's it. It is the Lake Trout, and the rehab program, federally subsidized, in accordance with tribal consent decrees.

Every program in that last sentence needs to be dialed back and/or eliminated completely. You cannot manage the lake with a 20 year long set in stone federally dictated special interest agreement that comes with a heavy cost to sportsmen. At best, the lake should be managed on a 2 year or less window..it is just way too dynamic.


----------



## Treven

I'd like your post twice, if I could!


----------



## Jay Wesley

Anytime prey fish decline, you have to ask why? Recruitment, habitat, food, predation? In the case of Lake Michigan, it is a bottom up problem and a predation problem. Mussels have caused major reduction in primary production. This has caused major declines in alewife and other prey - except gobies. So in this instance the food pyramid is out of whack. That means there are too many predators to be supported. So yes, Slightofhand is correct and so are the people that said mussels are the problem. 

So the States and Tribes can start talking about Lake Trout reductions in areas the are meeting objectives. With any negotiation, there is give and take. Will people live with reduction of or a mix of steelhead, coho, and brown trout too. We here that some don't like lake trout and want Atlantics instead. This is just trading a predator for a predator. How would you reduce predation in the lake? Interested in your opinion.


----------



## jpmarko

At this point, I would simply reduce lake trout plants. I don't understand why we would need to reduce steelhead plants and plants of other species as well. I say that because lake trout are stocked in UNPROPORTIONATE numbers compared to other species. Now, if we were stocking as many steelhead as lake trout then I would say steelhead plants would have to be reduced as well. But we aren't. I bet you could cut lake trout plants by 1 million and increase steelhead by 200k and STILL significantly alleviate predatory pressure on the baitfish. And you would still be planting more lake trout than any other species.

Are you saying that the only way to negotiate a reduction in lake trout is to reduce other species as well?


----------



## kroppe

Jay,

Thanks as always for your knowledgable participation in this forum. 

My input to your question on lowering overall predation is to maintain salmon stocking at current 2015 levels, and to reduce lake trout stocking.


----------



## storman

I have no way of knowing if the ales will survive but like others have mentioned it would be nice to see the lake trout planting cut way back for a couple of years to try and help the situation. If the ales dont make it plant away. Just seems like the salmon cuts are the major plan to save them when we all know Lakers eat them too. Why not try to cut that program as well. Lakers also eat gobies I get that, gobies supposedly eat mussels maybe that can help also. I'm for trying everything we can to save the ales and the salmon fishing it would be a shame to loose the fishery and not have tried all we could. I would love to be able to continue take my kid and one day my grandkids salmon fishing on lk mi instead of telling them how great it was and we might have been able to save the fishery but we didn't do all we could do.


----------



## RedM2

Jay Wesley said:


> So the States and Tribes can start talking about Lake Trout reductions in areas the are meeting objectives. With any negotiation, there is give and take. Will people live with reduction of or a mix of steelhead, coho, and brown trout too. We here that some don't like lake trout and want Atlantics instead. This is just trading a predator for a predator. How would you reduce predation in the lake? Interested in your opinion.


If the baitfish populations are as poor as what's being relayed, _stop_ planting anything. However, a _very_ large percentage of the lake trout plants should probably be reduced regardless. Because lake trout seem to be excellent opportunistic feeders, they need to be the first to go...


----------



## tgafish

Jay Wesley said:


> Will people live with reduction of or a mix of steelhead, coho, and brown trout too. We here that some don't like lake trout and want Atlantics instead. This is just trading a predator for a predator. How would you reduce predation in the lake? Interested in your opinion.


I am in favor of anything that saves the salmon fishery and returns it to an average to above average angler success rate.


----------



## Honkkilla59

Jay Wesley said:


> Anytime prey fish decline, you have to ask why? Recruitment, habitat, food, predation? In the case of Lake Michigan, it is a bottom up problem and a predation problem. Mussels have caused major reduction in primary production. This has caused major declines in alewife and other prey - except gobies. So in this instance the food pyramid is out of whack. That means there are too many predators to be supported. So yes, Slightofhand is correct and so are the people that said mussels are the problem.
> 
> So the States and Tribes can start talking about Lake Trout reductions in areas the are meeting objectives. With any negotiation, there is give and take. Will people live with reduction of or a mix of steelhead, coho, and brown trout too. We here that some don't like lake trout and want Atlantics instead. This is just trading a predator for a predator. How would you reduce predation in the lake? Interested in your opinion.


Jay not to be disrespectful but you say some people dislike lake trout.
I would say as a sports fish the majority of fisherman do not fish for lake trout.
If lake trout were so saught after why aren't the harbors in Lake Huron busy with charter boats?
I would say that the Lakers in Lake Huron are larger and more plentiful than Lake Michigan . You can pull into almost any harbor in Lake Huron and find it devoid of anglers specifically seeking lake trout.
I have fished out of Manistee for over 40 years for salmon and can say that without salmon in Lake Michigan you will see the same collapse of the local economies as on the east side of the state.
I know many boat owners who have said they will get out of keeping a boat in a marina if the majority of fish left to catch are lake trout.


----------



## andyotto

I would be happy with lake trout. Not nearly as fun and tasty as salmon but if there was nothing else I would actively fish for them. The problem I have with lakers though is that I have a hard time putting them in the freezer knowing my wife, children and myself shouldn't be eating them. Having lived and fished through the crash on Huron, (I'm one of the dumb ones that still fishes over here) I'm not optimistic about any real king recovery. I don't think lakers are the answer though with the current advisories on them. I hope the DNR/fisheries dept. tries to convey this to the feds. I realise that is an up hill battle.


----------



## slightofhand

To follow up on Jay's response, which is greatly appreciated, and to other questions here why also other species must be cut if Lake Trout are cut. If I am not mistaken, the Consent Decree has verbiage to create a bullet proof vest around itself for exactly a situation like this. 

If the state decides to cut back on Lake Trout stocking, then other species MUST also be cut. Regardless if the other species are preferred, or not causing an issue of any kind (steelhead, coho, browns)...one or a mixture of those other species must get cut if Lake Trout are cut. 

This creates this unholy alliance between anti-king/pro steelhead crowd and the tribes....they back the "native only" agenda because they know if "native" lake trout are to be cut...the most likely trade off species that must be cut (because of the bullet proof vest) would be steelhead. Coho and browns most likely would be favored to keep at current stocking levels by big lake fishermen as they tend to have more predictable migration patterns throughout the season. Steelhead are expensive to rear in hatcheries, and more nomadic and often out of range of most small-boat nearshore fishermen for the majority of the season compared to browns and coho.

It is a lose lose for the regular sportsmen who enjoy targeting all of these species. If you want less lake trout then you must get less of the species you actually want.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be what the situation is here. And if it is..then here we are again with a long and very close look at the 2020 end of the current consent decree and "agreements" moving forward with the tribes.


----------



## Huntmich

andyotto said:


> I would be happy with lake trout. Not nearly as fun and tasty as salmon but if there was nothing else I would actively fish for them. The problem I have with lakers though is that I have a hard time putting them in the freezer knowing my wife, children and myself shouldn't be eating them. Having lived and fished through the crash on Huron, (I'm one of the dumb ones that still fishes over here) I'm not optimistic about any real king recovery. I don't think lakers are the answer though with the current advisories on them. I hope the DNR/fisheries dept. tries to convey this to the feds. I realise that is an up hill battle.


I'm in the same boat as Andy. I'm fishing regardless...but I prefer to catch anything but lakers


----------



## RedM2

slightofhand said:


> To follow up on Jay's response, which is greatly appreciated, and to other questions here why also other species must be cut if Lake Trout are cut. If I am not mistaken, the Consent Decree has verbiage to create a bullet proof vest around itself for exactly a situation like this.
> 
> If the state decides to cut back on Lake Trout stocking, then other species MUST also be cut. Regardless if the other species are preferred, or not causing an issue of any kind (steelhead, coho, browns)...one or a mixture of those other species must get cut if Lake Trout are cut.
> 
> This creates this unholy alliance between anti-king/pro steelhead crowd and the tribes....they back the "native only" agenda because they know if "native" lake trout are to be cut...the most likely trade off species that must be cut (because of the bullet proof vest) would be steelhead. Coho and browns most likely would be favored to keep at current stocking levels by big lake fishermen as they tend to have more predictable migration patterns throughout the season. Steelhead are expensive to rear in hatcheries, and more nomadic and often out of range of most small-boat nearshore fishermen for the majority of the season compared to browns and coho.
> 
> It is a lose lose for the regular sportsmen who enjoy targeting all of these species. If you want less lake trout then you must get less of the species you actually want.
> 
> Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be what the situation is here. And if it is..then here we are again with a long and very close look at the 2020 end of the current consent decree and "agreements" moving forward with the tribes.


If this is true, cut _everything_ from the stocking plans going forward. A lake trout fishery is a waste of time and money for the vast majority of people. I'd be willing to sacrifice other species so we don't have to have our tax dollars or license revenues go towards supporting something most fishermen do not want. For those who want to target lakers, I am sure there's now a breeding population to keep your interest in lake trout satiated. The tribes can suffer with the rest of fishermen...


----------



## Jay Wesley

Thanks for the comments. I was just testing the waters if you will. Steelhead would be off the table. We are doing all that we can right now to retrofit our hatcheries to raise additional steelhead.


----------



## hotbite

slightofhand said:


> To follow up on Jay's response, which is greatly appreciated, and to other questions here why also other species must be cut if Lake Trout are cut. If I am not mistaken, the Consent Decree has verbiage to create a bullet proof vest around itself for exactly a situation like this.
> 
> If the state decides to cut back on Lake Trout stocking, then other species MUST also be cut. Regardless if the other species are preferred, or not causing an issue of any kind (steelhead, coho, browns)...one or a mixture of those other species must get cut if Lake Trout are cut.
> 
> This creates this unholy alliance between anti-king/pro steelhead crowd and the tribes....they back the "native only" agenda because they know if "native" lake trout are to be cut...the most likely trade off species that must be cut (because of the bullet proof vest) would be steelhead. Coho and browns most likely would be favored to keep at current stocking levels by big lake fishermen as they tend to have more predictable migration patterns throughout the season. Steelhead are expensive to rear in hatcheries, and more nomadic and often out of range of most small-boat nearshore fishermen for the majority of the season compared to browns and coho.
> 
> It is a lose lose for the regular sportsmen who enjoy targeting all of these species. If you want less lake trout then you must get less of the species you actually want.
> 
> Again, I could be mistaken, but I believe that to be what the situation is here. And if it is..then here we are again with a long and very close look at the 2020 end of the current consent decree and "agreements" moving forward with the tribes.



The King Salmon were cut. They do not count? Lake Trout are about worthless to most of the fisherman that I know.


----------



## hotbite

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments. I was just testing the waters if you will. Steelhead would be off the table. We are doing all that we can right now to retrofit our hatcheries to raise additional steelhead.


More Steelhead and Coho would be nice.


----------



## jpmarko

Don't cut steelhead. That would be a death blow to the fishery. We could use more, if anything, now that salmon are few and far between. And I'm happy to hear the DNR is working on increasing steelhead plants.

I, too, wonder why the reduction in king plants doesn't count toward the agreed upon terms that if lake trout are cut then other species must be cut. Jay, are you able to provide more detail on the terms? My next question is whether this deal will come to an end in 2020 and the DNR be able to control stocking without federal constraints as the DNR should be able to do.


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> Thanks for the comments. I was just testing the waters if you will. Steelhead would be off the table. We are doing all that we can right now to retrofit our hatcheries to raise additional steelhead.


Why would steelhead be off the table? What agreement is in place to guarantee protected status for steelhead in addition to Lake Trout from a stocking perspective? How does one species gain protected "off the table" status over another? When and by whom was this determined?

Thanks Jay for the clarification on these questions. I think it is fair to be open on everything impacting stocking decisions moving forward, and this one I had not heard of prior.


----------



## Jay Wesley

DNR has a whole Tribal Section that works in partnership with the Tribes, Federal Government, and State. The Tribes have the right to fish the Great Lakes. The Consent Decree has negotiated many issues including allocation of the resource between the state and Tribes. Without this, it could be a free for all with no limit on nets or harvest. A main part of the Consent Decree is lake trout rehabilitation. Harvest limits are set to make sure that there is enough spawning stock out there to start and sustain natural reproduction. It also commits the Feds to stocking. Where we are meeting our objectives according to the rehabilitation strategy (mainly in the southern half of the lake), we can consider moving stocking to the north or reducing stocking. So there are options for lake trout outside the Tribal area, which is south of the Grand River.

If the main purpose of reducing stocking of lake trout is driven by predator balance, you know that there will be interest in talking about all predators. That is why I asked the question as to what you would be willing to reduce in addition to lake trout.

Steelhead (from the State's perspective) is off the table because we have heard loud and clear that anglers want more steelhead for the past 15 years. Space and water supply has been the issue as to why we are limited with steelhead. Space has opened to some decree with reduction of kings and making better use of our hatcheries with brown trout. The issue still remains water supply and need for a new well at Thompson Fish Hatchery. Angler groups have come out in support of making an investment in our hatcheries for more steelhead. Steelhead produce a good lake fishery and an outstanding river fishery. For those reasons, steelhead would be the last on our list to reduce; however, it also depends on angler opinion.

We are working on a Lake Michigan Management Plan that will address a lot of these stocking options and will also look at regulations and needs for habitat improvement and new research and assessments. I hope that you will attend meetings, webinars, and most importantly let us know through your comments what you would like to see in a Lake Michigan fishery. Obviously, we all have to consider what the lake is capable of producing but knowing what your vision is will help us while looking at all the agreements, rehabilitation plans, fish community objectives, and current conditions of the lake.


----------



## JB85

I would bet that at least 90% of sport fisherman would support lake trout stocking reductions. In fact, I would go a step further and say they would support elimination of any future stocking and reduction of lakers already in the lake if they were replaced by more desirable species...salmon, steelhead, browns and maybe atlantics. 

It seems the only group that wants lakers are the tribes. Wouldn't salmon and other non-laker species make for a more desirable commercial fishery anyway? The lake can support a certain number of fish, whatever that number is, I think it would be great if that number was made up of nearly all non-lake trout predators and I think most would agree. I don't really care that the lakers are native, I would rather catch just about anything else if I had the option. 

While we are on the subject of steelhead, it was mentioned in another thread that we were no longer going to stock skams. I don't know how accurate this is, but I would love to see an increase in skam stockings. If the king population is truly down for good this would be a great option that would provide a big lake, nearshore and river opportunity in the summer/late summer to offset the reduced king fishery.


----------



## jpmarko

I am also curious about the what will happen to the skamania. I know that river temps can get high in the summer and survival can suffer. But they also provide an awesome river and pier fishery when conditions are right. One that is unrivaled, in my opinion, during the summer months. They can be targeted offshore as well.

If there is no more summer steelhead fishery and a poor salmon fishery, then there will be a long dry stretch from May to October in the rivers and around the piers.


----------



## jpmarko

Jay Wesley said:


> If the main purpose of reducing stocking of lake trout is driven by predator balance, you know that there will be interest in talking about all predators. That is why I asked the question as to what you would be willing to reduce in addition to lake trout.


Jay, I understand this part of the agreement. I have a hard time justifying massive lake trout stocking that is greatly out of proportion to other species. Lake trout are stocked by the millions per year. Steelhead by hundreds of thousands. And other species by hundreds of thousands as well. The number of lake trout planted per year is massive and grossly out of proportion in comparison to that of other species. By the numbers, it would appear that the goal for the fishery is to make the lake trout the keystone predator. Is that part of the agreement? I should hope not. That would not make for a diverse fishery.

If lake trout were stocked by the hundreds of thousands like every other species, then I could agree to cutting stocking for all species. 

If you must, plant 1000 less brown trout in Lake Michigan and 1 million less lake trout. Or, if goals for lake trout rehabilitation have been met in the southern portion of the lake, then simply decrease stocking for lake trout in southern Lake Michigan. Goals have been met. No need to renegotiate anything or decrease stocking for other species. If it were me, I would not shift those lake trout plants north since that would simply increase predatory pressure up north. 

Steelhead and salmon are by far the most desirable and provide the best fishing opportunities and good table fare.


----------



## Jay Wesley

So everyone is on same page. Lake Michigan receives on average 1.4 million brown trout, 1.7 million Chinook (with 50 to 70% naturals entering lake), 2.6 million coho, 1.55 million steelhead, and 3.2 million lake trout. 

In 2016, lake trout will be reduced to about 2.9 million. The Lake Committee requested the elimination of 500,000 fall fingerlings.


----------



## storman

Jay Wesley said:


> So everyone is on same page. Lake Michigan receives on average 1.4 million brown trout, 1.7 million Chinook (with 50 to 70% naturals entering lake), 2.6 million coho, 1.55 million steelhead, and 3.2 million lake trout.
> 
> In 2016, lake trout will be reduced to about 2.9 million. The Lake Committee requested the elimination of 500,000 fall fingerlings.


Jay are you saying that 1.7 million Chinook number is a total including the estimated natural fish making there way back to the lake or 1.7 plus any natural spawned fish returning. 

Also the 3.2 million Laker fingerlings are there no natural spawned fish to add to the total? Still seams lopsided to me.

Thanks


----------



## Jay Wesley

1.7 million plus natural fish for chinook. Lake trout natural reproduction just started in the last 5 years. It is probably around 10 to 15% lakeside and growing now that gobies are part of their diet.


----------



## storman

So total Chinook somewhere around 2.5 million if 50% natural spawned fish?


----------



## Kisutch

Boy a whole 500,000 reduction of lake trout via fall fingerlings. Anybody with any knowledge of fall fingerling survival knows this reduction is a crock. Reduce those big fat juicy spring plants and we might get somewhere. Hey slight would you care to weigh in here.

Kisutch


----------



## jpmarko

Jay, how much are you hoping to expand the steelhead program by?


----------



## JB85

So the least desirable fish (for sport fisherman) has the greatest number of current stockings. 

Also the numbers don't seem to add up from a catching standpoint. I have rarely targeted lakers, but when I have they are fairly easy to catch. Not so for the salmon the last couple of year, they have been more hit or miss. Seems the charters don't have any problem catching Lakers either when they need to put clients on fish, when they can't find salmon. 

Also Jay, thank you for participating on these forums and sharing all the information that you do.


----------



## Jay Wesley

JB85 said:


> So the least desirable fish (for sport fisherman) has the greatest number of current stockings.
> 
> Also the numbers don't seem to add up from a catching standpoint. I have rarely targeted lakers, but when I have they are fairly easy to catch. Not so for the salmon the last couple of year, they have been more hit or miss. Seems the charters don't have any problem catching Lakers either when they need to put clients on fish, when they can't find salmon.
> 
> Also Jay, thank you for participating on these forums and sharing all the information that you do.


Those numbers are what goes into the lake. What survives depends on food availability, predation, and other conditions. Lake trout are surviving better lately with this more sterile lake condition from mussels and presence of gobies.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Kisutch said:


> Boy a whole 500,000 reduction of lake trout via fall fingerlings. Anybody with any knowledge of fall fingerling survival knows this reduction is a crock. Reduce those big fat juicy spring plants and we might get somewhere. Hey slight would you care to weigh in here.
> 
> Kisutch


It was the easiest portion to get through and is a start. Lake Committee is looking at the sites in the southern part of lake this winter. Those fall fingerlings equate to 200,000 yearlings.


----------



## o_mykiss

Jay, what sort of power does the lake committee have to reduce lake trout? Don't the feds have the ultimate say? I can't see them abandoning their goal of restoring lake trout populations


----------



## Jay Wesley

o_mykiss said:


> Jay, what sort of power does the lake committee have to reduce lake trout? Don't the feds have the ultimate say? I can't see them abandoning their goal of restoring lake trout populations


As long as we are showing objectives being met and are outside the treaty area, we have a lot of authority provided that we have consensus for a change among committee members.


----------



## JB85

Jay Wesley said:


> As long as we are showing objectives being met and are outside the treaty area, we have a lot of authority provided that we have consensus for a change among committee members.


What are the objectives? And where is the treaty area? Sorry if this information has been posted before, there is a ton of information in all of the combined threads....


----------



## slightofhand

Great discussion all around, and thank you again Jay. Lot's of people watching this and getting involved, and MDNR actively engaging stakeholder's like us regular guys. Productive, transparent, and very encouraging for sound decision making moving forward. 

We still have one of the best if not the best multi species fisheries imo. Keeping balance with everything in flux, trying to appease every stakeholder is not an easy job. Lot's of work to do but input from all sides flowing will produce better results than nobody talking about it or throwing up their hands in defeat.


----------



## Jay Wesley

jpmarko said:


> Jay, how much are you hoping to expand the steelhead program by?


By 155,000 yearlings.


----------



## Fishndude

I remember the DNR planting Steelhead at average sizes of 10 - 12 inches, back in the 1980's and 1990's. The returning fish were quite a bit larger, on average, than the fish we get today. I know it costs to raise fish for sport, but if we are going to go through all the motions, why not do the best job possible? Feed em a little more in the hatcheries. Those fish were the same age (yearlings), just larger than plants have been for a long time. It would also cut down on predation by Walleyes, Pike, Cormorants, etc.


----------



## Sparky23

How are you basing the fact that no lakers were naturally reproducing? I know of many spots around the pier where they spawn and have for many many years and used to in the rivers. I understand the thiamine deal and how its turns eggs soft or whatnot but if you say kings are 50-70% natural, and browns reproduce natural, and steelhead reproduce natural, and supposedly lakers are only targeting gobies, then how does it add up that the lakers havent been reproducing? Especially considering they still feed prodomently on ales, or as long as you ask fisherman and charter guys cleaning thousands a year they feed on ales, but you guys say gobies. And how far off do you think you guys on the supposed 50-75% on kings natural. Your own department acknowledged they were wrong on the % of natural kings, but by how much? Im really trying to understand this i know you probably think i am just bashing you Jay but these are my concerns, i appreciate you answering everyone's questions


----------



## danthebuilder

The US fish and wildlife have been doing stomach studies on lake michigan. I have absolutely no clue the results of the study. Does anyone?


----------



## Sparky23

Outdoor2daCore said:


> I'm a jig fisherman that catches hundreds of lakers a year and I only saw a handful of ales in the stomachs of lakers this summer, when I saw thousands of gobies, nearby 100% of our catch is full of gobies. I think it's all about where the fish was caught which will tell you what it's been feeding on. Now sparky and most the trollers are likely fishing at some midway or suspended area in the water column when I'm jig fishing bottom which is why I'm catching lakers full of gobies.


Where do you jig? The bays? Or up in northern waters? I have stated that i know and agree they target a bigger variety of prey there. I do troll, and do so from ice out untill you cant get on. I caught plenty of lakers in 40 ft. this spring and even those had ales in them. Im sure there are some that target gobies, but i still think the vast vast majority targets ales hence why they are caught so deep halfway down or over sand that doesnt hold big numbers of gobies. It all boils down to as Dan said, what are they doing to are lake...they are killing it slowly...unless you are one of the extreme minority that would rather see it a laker fishery only.


----------



## hitechman

I'm not a big lake fisherman (and never have been), but I do know "It ain't nice to fool with Mother Nature." When man interferes and tries to change things, it almost always fails in the end.

What I do know:
1-Lake trout are native to the great lakes. Among others, the Alewife (also alewive), Zebra Muscle (which has become a food source for some native fish), Coho, Lampreys, Goby, and Chinook are not native (invasive). Some were introduced on purpose (the Coho was introduced as a sport fish to control alewife populations/die off), others invaded by different means including ship ballast water being discharged into the great lakes, and the completion of the St. Laurence Seaway via the construction of canals--thus allowing some species to migrate/invade the great lakes. *Lake Trout were here, and thrived, long before any Alewife or Gobies were present.*
2- Coho feeding on alewifes, did reduce the "alewife problem", however eating them has been found to cause *reproductive failure in landlocked salmon and trout species*. Alewives contain enzymes that diminish the ability to store thiamin in tissues. The thiamin deficiency causes an illness called Cayuga Syndrome, which can cause 100 % mortality in larval offspring of landlocked salmon and trout. There is also evidence they have interfered with the smelt population.
3- The invasion of the Sea Lamprey greatly stressed the Lake Trout Population in the Great Lakes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My take on all of this:
It appears that the invasive Alewifes (a Lake Trout food) reduced the smelt population along with other factors, and the Lake Trout adapted to feed on Alewifes, and now Gobies as a new food source. It also appears that with a peak "overpopulation" in Salmon, there was a decline in the Alewife population, to which the salmon did/could not adapt as efficiently as the Lake Trout (predictor-prey relationships and population dynamics affecting the food cycle).

I believe that, in the end, man will not be able to "fix" these problems, no matter what he does, and nature will continue with her destiny. All these issues can be attributed to mankind, but nature has adapted to this little blip in her trek, and will put things back on course (possibly with some species extinctions along the way as well).

A question: Are the Salmon competing with the Lake Trout, or are the Lake Trout competing with the Salmon? In any competition there is going to be a winner and a loser.

Steve


----------



## toto

I really have no answers as to what the future of the fishery holds, what I do know is why the lakers are being planted so heavily by the feds. In the last tribal fishing agreement it was agreed that the feds would plant lakers heavily for purpose of tribal fishing rights. Of course at least the tribes are helping with this endeavor both in planting and financial support to do so. At least it explains why they are planting heavily on Lake Trout. The idea is, apparently, so they can eventually have a self sustaining population of lakers. My question then would become, why can't the feds, and the tribes understand that lakers should be considered in the prey equation along with the salmon. After all everyone knows lakers can, and do, eat alewives.


----------



## Huntmich

Robert Holmes said:


> As long as there is a supply and a demand for freshwater fish there will be commercial fishermen. I live in an area that has its share of commercial fishermen. Despite the commercial fishing pressure I am able to catch a fair share of fish. The people that hate the tribal fishing the most spend their paychecks in casinos and buy commercially caught fish. At some point you have to realize that supply and demand keeps all commercial fishing operations in existence. So if it was not a tribal operation than it would be okay for non tribal commercial fishermen to do the same thing. Keep in mind that the native americans hunted and fished on these lands long before your relatives or you had any say in the matter.


I don't disagree that natives were here first, but, where does it stop? I know people who have been deemed "native" when they're no more native then me. The lake trout thing isn't the only issue out there when it comes to what natives receive either. They get a bunch of deer tags, there own quota of elk tags, which i don't understand why they receive any. Since this is about fishing, I'll end this here

As far as the lake trout go, I'll still fish. I live on Huron. Didn't get the big water itch until I moved over here 5 years ago. Bought an 18 foot aluminum boat, had a friend talk me into rigging it, and we went out of Grand Haven one evening and I was hooked. Ive upgraded since then. It's definitely tougher fishing over here, but i don't see myself selling my stuff and getting out of it. I'll target the silver, and lakers are incidental catches. But even if there were nothing but lakers, I'd still go. It's not ideal, but I enjoy being out there. I made my first trip over to lake michigan since I went grand haven this year. With some tips from members on here, I did pretty well before my boat broke down and ended the trip way early. It was night and day from over here, and it was described as tough fishing over there this year. You want tough fishing, come over here. I hope that it recovers over there. I want to go back and if I can go 5 for 10 in the 5 or so hours of fishing we did, I'd be happy. I don't know what the cure is, but we're trying to control something that in the grand scheme of the lake, is only a small fraction of it. Yes, lakers need to be cut, but at the same time will it even matter at this point. I'm hoping like hell the Atlantics take off over here, but so far I've only caught 2.


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

Sparky23 said:


> Where do you jig? The bays? Or up in northern waters? I have stated that i know and agree they target a bigger variety of prey there. I do troll, and do so from ice out untill you cant get on. I caught plenty of lakers in 40 ft. this spring and even those had ales in them. Im sure there are some that target gobies, but i still think the vast vast majority targets ales hence why they are caught so deep halfway down or over sand that doesnt hold big numbers of gobies. It all boils down to as Dan said, what are they doing to are lake...they are killing it slowly...unless you are one of the extreme minority that would rather see it a laker fishery only.


Spark,

I jig the GTBs for lakers and ciscos mainly. I think you are exactly right. It's about where you are fishing, the lakers have adapted. In sandy areas they are suspending and eating ales. For us, it's some sand but lots of rock and zebra / quagga flats that dominate the underwater terrain which is why there are so many goby filled lakers. We had some schools of Ales under us there spring in like 30 feet of water and we were picking off ales on our jigs and lakers as well. In that one trip we caught gobies, mussels, ales, lakers, a whitefish, a Cisco, smallmouth bass, and even a freshwater drum in shallow.


----------



## swampbuck

Steve, smelt and alewives are interchangeable in regards to there effect on the ecosystem...including producing thiaminaise.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The kings will survive it will probably never be like the good old days but there will be some kings. The Atlantic Salmon are a tough breed of fish and very difficult to target. You would be better off to get rid of your salmon gear and start running your steelhead gear off from the downriggers. Use 8 lb test line and body baits or small spoons. They are probably the most difficult fish that there is to target on the open water. At night they will hit 2/5 oz glow in the dark cleos. The traditional salmon gear will produce an few Atlantics over a summer but don't bank on it. The reason that more are not caught is that 99 percent of the ones that get caught are incidental catches.


----------



## Honkkilla59

Robert Holmes said:


> As long as there is a supply and a demand for freshwater fish there will be commercial fishermen. I live in an area that has its share of commercial fishermen. Despite the commercial fishing pressure I am able to catch a fair share of fish. The people that hate the tribal fishing the most spend their paychecks in casinos and buy commercially caught fish. At some point you have to realize that supply and demand keeps all commercial fishing operations in existence. So if it was not a tribal operation than it would be okay for non tribal commercial fishermen to do the same thing. Keep in mind that the native americans hunted and fished on these lands long before your relatives or you had any say in the matter.


Personally I never buy fish or eat fish at a restaurant when I have plenty at home.
The difference between tribal and non tribal commercial netters is that the tribal nethers have a agenda financed by the taxpayers of this country. 
The tribes agenda only concerns thier interests .
Yes the tribes were here first but exemplify how losers can come out first in our society. Yep they lost the battles but won the war!


----------



## Lou is Blue

Honkkilla59 said:


> Personally I never buy fish or eat fish at a restaurant when I have plenty at home.
> The difference between tribal and non tribal commercial netters is that the tribal nethers have a agenda financed by the taxpayers of this country.
> The tribes agenda only concerns thier interests .
> Yes the tribes were here first but exemplify how losers can come out first in our society. Yep they lost the battles but won the war!


So who do think proposed the treaty? The Tribes? or your ancestors ? Who's the loser again?


----------



## slightofhand

Lou is Blue said:


> So who do think proposed the treaty? The Tribes? or your ancestors ? Who's the loser again?


The treaty is not the issue. The Consent Decree "bullet proof vest" is the issue...protect trout at all costs, regardless of the health of the fishery and the lake around it. It was extremely short sighted and naive for anyone to agree to a 20 year management plan.


----------



## Honkkilla59

Lou is Blue said:


> So who do think proposed the treaty? The Tribes? or your ancestors ? Who's the loser again?


Not my ancestors I'm 2nd generation American.
IMO if you are reliant on the goverment to support you, you are a loser .The tribes have been dependant on the government for decades.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Honkkilla59 said:


> Not my ancestors I'm 2nd generation American.
> IMO if you are reliant on the goverment to support you, you are a loser .The tribes have been dependant on the government for decades.


So they got run out of another country for what?


----------



## Robert Holmes

Honkkilla59 said:


> Personally I never buy fish or eat fish at a restaurant when I have plenty at home.
> The difference between tribal and non tribal commercial netters is that the tribal nethers have a agenda financed by the taxpayers of this country.
> The tribes agenda only concerns thier interests .
> Yes the tribes were here first but exemplify how losers can come out first in our society. Yep they lost the battles but won the war!


We rebuilt Japan and Germany after world war II


----------



## Robert Holmes

Honkkilla59 said:


> Not my ancestors I'm 2nd generation American.
> IMO if you are reliant on the goverment to support you, you are a loser .The tribes have been dependant on the government for decades.


The same government that took trillions of dollars from them. If the tribes got back 1 cent for every thousand dollars that they lost they would be doing very well. So well that they would not need to hunt, fish, and gather. Think about it before you reply. So a few tribal members commercial fish to fill a social demand for whitefish dinners or a smoked lake trout. They make a living in a somewhat depressed Michigan economy, not too many of them make a killing. I also don't for see any of the auto makers bringing too many jobs to the UP to give the native americans who live here other options. I also know many non native americans that have been dependent on the government for decades, so what is your point. I know many hard working native americans that are successful business owners and pay the government loads of money every year.


----------



## Robert Holmes

slightofhand said:


> The treaty is not the issue. The Consent Decree "bullet proof vest" is the issue...protect trout at all costs, regardless of the health of the fishery and the lake around it. It was extremely short sighted and naive for anyone to agree to a 20 year management plan.


The DNR was there and they represented every license buying hunter, fisherman, and trapper. If you ever fish in the UP or Northern Michigan and catch a walleye, steelhead, or salmon chances are good that the Sault Tribe either planted that fish or had something to do with it being planted. All of the tribes in the UP and Northern Michigan are involved in fisheries conservation. Many of the tribes have their own hatcheries and are expanding their operations. I have probably caught more fish planted by the tribes this year than I have caught planted by our DNR over the last 10 years. Like it or not the tribal governments will be replacing some of the federal governments fish management units. The top walleye lakes in Wisconsin are planted and pretty much managed by the tribal governments who work closely with the Wisconsin DNR.


----------



## slightofhand

Robert Holmes said:


> The DNR was there and they represented every license buying hunter, fisherman, and trapper. If you ever fish in the UP or Northern Michigan and catch a walleye, steelhead, or salmon chances are good that the Sault Tribe either planted that fish or had something to do with it being planted. All of the tribes in the UP and Northern Michigan are involved in fisheries conservation. Many of the tribes have their own hatcheries and are expanding their operations. I have probably caught more fish planted by the tribes this year than I have caught planted by our DNR over the last 10 years. Like it or not the tribal governments will be replacing some of the federal governments fish management units. The top walleye lakes in Wisconsin are planted and pretty much managed by the tribal governments who work closely with the Wisconsin DNR.


There is only one "government" and set of rules that I know of in this country....so I don't know what you are referring to.

If a couple of Indians want a "few trout" to smoke and sell...I can offer a constant and full supply if needed. For that matter we should allow all sportsmen to sell their rod and reel caught lake trout to fill the insatiable demand for smoked Lakers. Must be a UP thing because I have never seen smoked lake trout for sale anywhere myself.


----------



## Robert Holmes

slightofhand said:


> There is only one "government" and set of rules that I know of in this country....so I don't know what you are referring to.
> 
> If a couple of Indians want a "few trout" to smoke and sell...I can offer a constant and full supply if needed. For that matter we should allow all sportsmen to sell their rod and reel caught lake trout to fill the insatiable demand for smoked Lakers. Must be a UP thing because I have never seen smoked lake trout for sale anywhere myself.


I don't think that it is a Yooper thing. Many Yooper's that I know won't eat a lake trout. I think that it is more of a tourist thing. Everybody that I know that hunts and fishes has their own smoker. I guess if you are a tourist fudge and smoked lake trout mmmmmm. Personally if someone catches all of the lake trout it won't break my heart.


----------



## swampbuck

I think they federal gov. should throw out the consent agreement, and enforce the treaty of 1846 as written.


----------



## Honkkilla59

swampbuck said:


> I think they federal gov. should throw out the consent agreement, and enforce the treaty of 1846 as written.


Maybe we should go back and play cowboys and Indians again!


----------



## RedM2

swampbuck said:


> I think they federal gov. should throw out the consent agreement, and enforce the treaty of 1846 as written.


What's the Cliff Notes version of the treaty?

Things are lost and things are gained in conflict and war. Right or wrong it's happened this way since the beginning. This country currently belongs to the American people not the tribes.


----------

