# Fish Carcass disposal??



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

Hoping Jay will chime in on this one, but why is it that MI doesn't allow to return fish carcasses to the waters in which they are caught? MI isn't the only state like this, but this is a MI site so... It just seems that a large amount of nutrients are lost by throwing them in the dumpsters. Let sportsman throw the carcasses into the faster flowing waters in the rivers and set a limit on how far offshore they have to be to dump them. Never saw a carcass in a river that wasn't being devoured by minnows, bugs and crawfish. Trout love slamon flesh too, it's a popular fly up here in the late fall for bows. NY has had this in place since as long as I can remember, here in AK we put the cleaning tables in the water next to the popular fishing spots and ramps. Fillet, throw and go. Heck, we fillet lots of fish on logs in the river before hiking out. Always see fish munching on them, bears too


----------



## krackshot (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't know what your streams or rivers are like in AK But putting a cleaning station at any major launch site at any one of the north west rivers in Sept through October just down stream from it would be disgusting and probably fowl as well. In a weeks time during a good push there would be over a hundred carcasses laying on the bottom of the river easily seen. I don't believe that would be good by any measure. when salmon die they don't all do it simultaneously in the same spot it's throughout the water shed and scavengers do clean it up but to stack that kind of trash in only a three or four locations I would find particularly disturbing. Just my two cents.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

krackshot said:


> I don't know what your streams or rivers are like in AK But putting a cleaning station at any major launch site at any one of the north west rivers in Sept through October just down stream from it would be disgusting and probably fowl as well. In a weeks time during a good push there would be over a hundred carcasses laying on the bottom of the river easily seen. I don't believe that would be good by any measure. when salmon die they don't all do it simultaneously in the same spot it's throughout the water shed and scavengers do clean it up but to stack that kind of trash in only a three or four locations I would find particularly disturbing. Just my two cents.



Have you been to any of the cleaning stations this year on the big lake? They were pretty darn stinky! Since there was no grinder at the city launches in Ludington this year, it was the worst I have seen both cleaning stations. They were pulling the barrels out last time we were there about 2 weeks ago....I don't think you can call that a freezer, that is for sure...I would rather clean fish on a tailgate than go into town and clean fish if it's going to be like that...


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

When I find carcasses in the water I toss them back in the woods for the bears to eat. One thing that I hate is to let the public know where to fish. If I threw 5 big salmon carcasses into a local river the next day you would find 10 guys there fishing. Heck you could throw a couple of steelhead carcasses into a mud puddle in the UP and guys would be fishing there. You start throwing carcasses into the water you may as well put up a sign "fish here I caught two steelhead yesterday, here is your sign.".


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

I guess I just don't see how they are making much money at storing these barrels for fish food? Electricity and fuel delivering to Traverse City, then grinding, then freezing, then shipping to Seattle....Wouldn't it be cheaper to dump them offshore if legal? Nutrients? So Frankfort, Manistee, and Ludington do this, is there anywhere else that runs a luke cold freezer to store stinkin azz fish for weeks?


----------



## Abel (Feb 14, 2003)

The rivers that have the tables are more like the Manistee, and if you cut the carcass up and chucked it into the faster water, it will make it's way down stream. Most of our rivers here in Kodiak are the size of the Betsie with less flow and most people carry a knife with them, whack them on the spot and off home they go with no problems at all. The only time of year our rivers stink is when the pinks run heavy and water is low. This year has been the worst I've seen, but we've had a drought and the rivers were nearly dry, couple that with the largest run of pinks (millions in each river) I've ever seen....https://www.facebook.com/john.abel.96/videos/vb.100000657195127/1024665014232062/?type=3&theater and it's made a pretty stinky time lately, but rare. With the flow in the rivers there, doubtful it's be an issue, especially on the larger more popular rivers.


----------



## michiganmaniac (Dec 9, 2008)

I completely agree. I fished the kasilof river in Alaska and it had signs up stating that all fish carcasses must be disposed of back into the river. Salmon take tons of nutrients from the rivers and big lake to grow big and old enough to spawn, and their last step in life is to die and return what nutrients they have left back to the ecosystem. 

If people cleaned their fish at the launch and threw the carcasses in the river, most would be swept downstream. The ones that did not would obviously not be giving up a hot spot, because they are at the launch. Anyone who goes to the launch already knows that water. 

Lastly, any river that gets a decent run of kings has a ton of dead ones lying on the bottom at the end of October. When the runs were stronger they were literally everywhere. In 2-3 weeks they are pretty much gone. The decision to prohibit dumping of carcasses back into the watershed is purely social, because it would do nothing but good for the ecosystem, in and around the stream.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

From another thread:



M. Tonello said:


> The rule of not tossing carcasses back precedes my tenure in Fisheries Division by many years, so I can't really comment as to what the thought process was. But if I had to guess, I think Scadsobees is probably correct. It probably isn't socially acceptable to have a bunch of filleted carcasses all over the place in our Michigan rivers. Our rivers aren't remote like Alaska. Also, our rivers don't have the nutrient deficiencies that western rivers do. Western rivers are often mountain streams born out of bedrock, so they tend to be quite sterile. Our rivers are not that way.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Just a few years ago you could *smell *the Big Manistee river, when the Kings were spawning. I mean it smelled like.......spawning Salmon down at Rainbow Bend launch. It was that full of fish, and eggs, etc. And many thousands of Salmon died in that river each year. The first week of November you could boat down the river, and every rootball was covered in dead Salmon carcasses. And the shores were full of them, as well as the inside/downside of some slower river bends. I used to hook a dead Salmon every year, or two, bottom bouncing for Steelhead on the Ausable, before the Kings declined so much. 

I, too, think it would be a good idea to change that law. I fished for Sturgeon on the Columbia River, some years ago. We cleaned our catch, and the guide said we were required to put the carcasses back into the river. We put them with a pretty good sized pile of others, and he said they would be gone after the next high tide. 

Think of how may Crayfish would benefit from fish carcasses in the water! I don't think they would cause any problems, and would break down before recreational boaters were out the following summer. .


----------



## jigsnwigs (Feb 6, 2011)

Fishndude said:


> Just a few years ago you could *smell *the Big Manistee river, when the Kings were spawning. I mean it smelled like.......spawning Salmon down at Rainbow Bend launch. It was that full of fish, and eggs, etc. And many thousands of Salmon died in that river each year. The first week of November you could boat down the river, and every rootball was covered in dead Salmon carcasses. And the shores were full of them, as well as the inside/downside of some slower river bends. I used to hook a dead Salmon every year, or two, bottom bouncing for Steelhead on the Ausable, before the Kings declined so much.
> 
> I, too, think it would be a good idea to change that law. I fished for Sturgeon on the Columbia River, some years ago. We cleaned our catch, and the guide said we were required to put the carcasses back into the river. We put them with a pretty good sized pile of others, and he said they would be gone after the next high tide.
> 
> Think of how may Crayfish would benefit from fish carcasses in the water! I don't think they would cause any problems, and would break down before recreational boaters were out the following summer. .


Ditto! Hopefully this topic is brought up over the winter at some of the DNR town meetings.


----------



## bronc72 (Nov 25, 2008)

In 1987, got scolded by the DNR for cleaning a salmon next to a river, and my Uncle who was with me got a ticket for throwing some of the eggs in the river. I was 16 at the time and my filets were well over 15" so I just got a warning. The egg ticket was thrown out at the courthouse. I have not cleaned a fish near the water since.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Unfortunately those salmon are great bio accumulators of toxins....it's not just nutrients you are wanting to throw back


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

swampbuck said:


> Unfortunately those salmon are great bio accumulators of toxins....it's not just nutrients you are wanting to throw back


Geez still stuck on this, I don't think Salmon introduced pesticides, heavy metals, and other toxins. So a 3 year old Salmon ingests more toxins than a large farm puts out spraying a fields, erosion, sewage treatment, and oh the Badger? So all the water treatment plants are perfect? Come on, look at Lake Erie those current issues are not caused by Salmon...LOL Just keep being a Salmon hater...


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Corey K said:


> Geez still stuck on this, I don't think Salmon introduced pesticides, heavy metals, and other toxins. So a 3 year old Salmon ingests more toxins than a large farm puts out spraying a fields, erosion, sewage treatment, and oh the Badger? So all the water treatment plants are perfect? Come on, look at Lake Erie those current issues are not caused by Salmon...LOL Just keep being a Salmon hater...


Yep, they do. They bioaccumulate PCBs, and then bring those up rivers. There has been research showing that prior to salmon introduction there were no PCBs in stream trout in certain streams, and now the salmon have brought them in and the stream trout have PCBs as well


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

o_mykiss said:


> Yep, they do. They bioaccumulate PCBs, and then bring those up rivers. There has been research showing that prior to salmon introduction there were no PCBs in stream trout in certain streams, and now the salmon have brought them in and the stream trout have PCBs as well


While I don't think that concept is wild, it seems strange to me. PCBs and PBBs mostly settle to the bottom of rivers, where they accumulate. Salmon are not bottom feeders, and neither are Alewives. One of the nicer features of Kings is that they get (got) large, but did so relatively quickly, so they don't/didn't accumulate as much toxic stuff as other species that might get as large. A 20# King is probably 3 or 4 years old, while a 20# Laker might be 15 years old. The Laker lives longer, and eats more to get to that size (and they feed more on bottom-feeding prey), and they will accumulate more toxins that a Salmon.

Do you have a web link to the research you found about this? I am interested in reading it.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

o_mykiss said:


> Yep, they do. They bioaccumulate PCBs, and then bring those up rivers. There has been research showing that prior to salmon introduction there were no PCBs in stream trout in certain streams, and now the salmon have brought them in and the stream trout have PCBs as well


Ok, so one way or the other where are these contaminants going after a Salmon or any other fish for that matter going if it's disposed of else where? "WE" introduced these toxins, I would hate see the toxins in a 25lb Laker and worse case ontario someone buried the carcass in their garden for fertilizer...

http://bridgemi.com/2014/02/michigans-toxic-fish-face-long-recovery-state-finds/


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Corey K said:


> I guess I just don't see how they are making much money at storing these barrels for fish food? Electricity and fuel delivering to Traverse City, then grinding, then freezing, then shipping to Seattle....Wouldn't it be cheaper to dump them offshore if legal? Nutrients? So Frankfort, Manistee, and Ludington do this, is there anywhere else that runs a luke cold freezer to store stinkin azz fish for weeks?


St Ignace has two cleaning stations with freezers. They were full of lake trout remains this summer from those who like lake trout.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

Robert Holmes said:


> St Ignace has two cleaning stations with freezers. They were full of lake trout remains this summer from those who like lake trout.


They probably could re-claim heavy metals from all those fish! What are they going to do with them? Put them in a container labeled "radio active" "toxic" oh and that little


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Usually about August people grab them for bear bait. Wondered why the bears have a glow to them. Now I know, it's the lake trout in their diet.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Fishndude said:


> While I don't think that concept is wild, it seems strange to me. PCBs and PBBs mostly settle to the bottom of rivers, where they accumulate. Salmon are not bottom feeders, and neither are Alewives. One of the nicer features of Kings is that they get (got) large, but did so relatively quickly, so they don't/didn't accumulate as much toxic stuff as other species that might get as large. A 20# King is probably 3 or 4 years old, while a 20# Laker might be 15 years old. The Laker lives longer, and eats more to get to that size (and they feed more on bottom-feeding prey), and they will accumulate more toxins that a Salmon.
> 
> Do you have a web link to the research you found about this? I am interested in reading it.


o_mykiss is correct, as I read a study where they had never seen some of these toxins in brook trout streams until the salmon appeared. Anything eating the eggs is absorbing the toxins. If o_mykiss doesn't come up with the study, I will track it down. I probably have it in my computer library somewhere.

Found it:

http://news.nd.edu/news/36015-resea...eat-lakes-salmon-carry-contaminants-upstream/


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Yep that's the one. 

Also, it's not just about how LONG a fish lives, but how much it eats. A 3 year old (most don't live to 4) chinook has to eat a LOT to get to 20 pounds in just 3 years. A lake trout doesn't eat nearly as much and grows much slower. They do have more fat and eat more gobies, which have higher concentrations of PCBs than alewives, but they don't eat as much as Chinooks.

Toxins bioaccumulate throughout the food chain, from the bottom up in a literal sense, and also in the food chain sense. It doesn't really matter that chinooks aren't bottom feeders, because their prey eats stuff that has toxins, so their prey has toxins. And since they eat so much, they get a pretty good dose that accumulates pretty rapidly.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

o_mykiss said:


> Yep that's the one.
> 
> Also, it's not just about how LONG a fish lives, but how much it eats. A 3 year old (most don't live to 4) chinook has to eat a LOT to get to 20 pounds in just 3 years. A lake trout doesn't eat nearly as much and grows much slower. They do have more fat and eat more gobies, which have higher concentrations of PCBs than alewives, but they don't eat as much as Chinooks.
> 
> Toxins bioaccumulate throughout the food chain, from the bottom up in a literal sense, and also in the food chain sense. It doesn't really matter that chinooks aren't bottom feeders, because their prey eats stuff that has toxins, so their prey has toxins. And since they eat so much, they get a pretty good dose that accumulates pretty rapidly.


So you know for a fact that a 20yr old Lake Trout doesn't eat as much as 3 yr old King? I agree with a lot you are saying and the research but, if you read that link I posted earlier toxins also accumulate from the top...wind drives air pollutants as well..granted they do technically sink...to the bottom..

So if a King spawns and dies in a river will the toxins not spread? Honestly the argument doesn't make sense to me, if fish of any kind are disposed of near a river I'm sure toxins are spread some how. What about birds, *****, bears, are they spreading toxins? How do you suppose we eliminate toxins from these waters then if it's already embedded? I'm sure we can all find 1 sided research and how Salmon are bad, and lake trout are great or the opposite...


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

Corey K said:


> ...and worse case Ontario....


That's a catch 23 situation! Ha ha ha, I should have been quoting Trailer Park Boys the past 2 weeks...


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't think it has anything to do with salmon or lakers being bad or good.

It has to do with being more concerned with preserving your favored species, than preserving the ecosystem for future generations.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

Treven said:


> That's a catch 23 situation! Ha ha ha, I should have been quoting Trailer Park Boys the past 2 weeks...


Yep lets just get 2 birds stoned at once and rid these darn lakes of Salmon and buy a Volkswagen!


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

Corey K said:


> Yep lets just get 2 birds stoned at once and rid these darn lakes of Salmon and buy a Volkswagen!


It wouldn't take rocket appliances and a grade 10 to get that done! It already is!


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

Treven said:


> That's a catch 23 situation! Ha ha ha, I should have been quoting Trailer Park Boys the past 2 weeks...


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

I think we need someone with a PFD to figure out this mess! Or Bubbles?


----------



## salmo'dog (Aug 24, 2007)

Corey K said:


> I think we need someone with a PFD to figure out this mess! Or Bubbles?


Or just give Ricky a shout out as he is more "smartable"!


----------

