# Grayling Making a Comeback?



## michiganoutdoorsman (Dec 29, 2010)

Did anyone hear about this? It would be awesome if they did! I realize it would probably be a lengthy process of bringing them back but if the DNR somehow could do it I think it would be really great to have a native fish back in our home waters. 
https://greatlakesecho.org/2020/04/...arctic-grayling-return-to-michigan-very-good/


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I have heard about it and hopefully it will take hold this time. I know a lot more science was put into this go around so the chances do seem to be good.


----------



## Ypsimax (Sep 26, 2019)

I believe it's a different species of grayling than was native to Michigan, but I really hope this is successful.


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

I hope the effort and money spent pays off. 

After catching some years ago I was impressed by their looks, they are a pretty fish and stocky too. Hope the stocking program works and takes off. 

Great idea IMO...

I have no idea as to the number of species out there....??? I thought there was only one ??


----------



## UPaquariest (May 13, 2010)

They are using eggs from Alaska, pre-covid one of PHDs from MSU was giving presentations on the program and her involvement in it. There is a podcast of the presentation on The Fishing Podcast. The science behind it is very interesting, toto, they certainly are doing alot more to understand why past efforts have failed.

https://www.thefishingpodcast.com/blogs/episodes/s2-ep-2-arctic-grayling-reintroduction


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

Didn't they plant grayling in the upper back in 80's maybe earlier?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

There was a planting some time ago but cant remember where. Didn't seem to take though. I can't remember all the specifics right now but they doing it differently this time around. I'm pretty sure the DNR is working in conjunction with some of the tribes on things, but not 100% sure on this one.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

It better take. Many millions have went into it. Multiple times. There a cool fish but they make brookies looks smart. Guessing this will just lead to more fly only and no kill or totally shut off sections of river. Hope im wrong but the ones pushing it will also push for more shut off water to the majority.


----------



## Nork (Apr 29, 2009)

Wife and I went to a presentation Nicole did at the Carl T. Johnson Center in Cadillac. I think there were four streams they were looking at. All northern lower. We've fished three of the four but the only one I remember was the Jordan. I remember the late Tom Rozich, RIP, being very skeptical about Grayling being able to be re-introduced. Hopefully, techniques have been improved. There's another thread from awhile back about plantings in the UP so I checked stocking data and there were some small lakes they were planted in. We fished a couple of those lakes and never caught any. Prior to living in the Cadillac area for six years we lived in Newberry for 10 years. Nobody ever mentioned anything about catching Grayling in any of those lakes they stocked. I'm sure with the number of fishing friends I have I would've known if someone actually caught one, if not them, someone else. I'm like Tom, skeptical, but like many of you, hopeful.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I had an in-depth discussion with Mr Rozich (RIP, Tom) about Grayling being re-introduced in MI. He informed me that MI rivers were almost all considerably narrower, and deeper before MI was logged off, in the late 1800's. The rivers/streams/creeks were also more shaded, and stayed cooler, and deeper than they are now. It was his opinion that the rivers/creeks/streams of MI were too warm in summer to support viable habitat for Grayling anymore. 

They were a special fish, and were exterminated in MI by habitat destruction. And we can't really return the rivers to the way they were before logging happened. I'd spend that money on something more productive.


----------



## drallam (Dec 31, 2019)

I'm hoping with the removal of the dams on the Boardman, that it could be a target river. It is 11 degrees colder every month of the year since their removal.


----------



## BeanOFish (Jul 28, 2003)

I saw the presentation about it this fall, and the general idea is that they are going to use some sort of device that they can put the eggs in, and that device is going to be put in the tribs of some rivers, and the upper sections of other rivers. Then the eggs will hatch in the river, hopefully imprint a home range for the grayling, and in hopes of the grayling not having constant competition with the browns in the rivers (seemed to think that brookies and grayling can coexist without issue). Which in theory seems like it will work. But I was up in Grayling a few weeks ago, and talked with a few of the guides I know and none of them think it's going to work. The general consensus from the guides is that the areas they are talking about putting the grayling in are spawning areas for the browns in the fall. During prespawn and postspawn in the those tribs and upper parts of the rivers they think the browns are going to use the grayling as a buffet to pack on weight. In turn they think a few may survive, but it will never be enough to make it a population worth targeting.


----------



## michiganoutdoorsman (Dec 29, 2010)

I’ll stay hopeful, but the more I hear people talk about it the less hope I have. Lol.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

We waste quite a bit of money on foolish things. Why not this, I give the lady props for making changes on the next attempt. 
I fish one of the rivers that had plants back in what the 80-90's? Saw the signs but never any fish. The river was full of browns. I think they really fed on the small grayling.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

They are a super cool fish, but there Is a reason they failed every other time.


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

planting grayling in rivers has failed, maybe the grayling mite have a chance in some inland lakes


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

kingfisher 11 said:


> We waste quite a bit of money on foolish things. Why not this, I give the lady props for making changes on the next attempt.
> I fish one of the rivers that had plants back in what the 80-90's? Saw the signs but never any fish. The river was full of browns. I think they really fed on the small grayling.


 Funny, but I used to fish for grayling all over northern England, and in Scotland, and caught them just about everywhere I went. I also caught native brown trout, everywhere I went, and in rivers that were connected to the sea, I caught native sea run browns, stream browns and grayling.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

DecoySlayer said:


> Funny, but I used to fish for grayling all over northern England, and in Scotland, and caught them just about everywhere I went. I also caught native brown trout, everywhere I went, and in rivers that were connected to the sea, I caught native sea run browns, stream browns and grayling.


Yea. In alaska they compete with 5 species of salmon smoltz. Rainbows. Dollys. Artic whitefish. Northern pike...shefish. list goes on and on. And somehow there are grayling everywhere.


----------



## Andy G (Jul 30, 2006)

michiganoutdoorsman said:


> I’ll stay hopeful, but the more I hear people talk about it the less hope I have. Lol.


You should listen to Nicole talk about what she’s doing. So very different from past efforts. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Andy G (Jul 30, 2006)

Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

the grayling project is nothing more then the remake of the movie, dumb n dumber, lets say they make it for a year or two, then what, aw shucks the weather was to warm, or G we had a lot of rain,,,, wasted time n money,,,, I personally think there could of been a steelhead egg take, , but who am I to make that call, I'm sure there were some dnr that though the way I did, butttttt but,,,, as for a lake run brown trout plant, hell ya,,,, y not, a lot more Michigan people, would injoy cathing a nice brownie, then a tenny tiny fish, that is sucking for air, before ya throw it back to die,,,,,, wake up,,,, turn the light on


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> By “reintroduce” I mean start actively planting them again. There used to be good returns when they were planted before. Now there are few. Wisconsin is crushing it with their lake run brown plants.
> 
> The grayling project is a lark with a fish too sensitive for current stream conditions.


 It seems like the first step is to find or create a system that is devoid of brown trout.

I caught a brown last yr that had a 10" brookie in it's belly.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

riverbob said:


> the grayling project is nothing more then the remake of the movie, dumb n dumber, lets say they make it for a year or two, then what, aw shucks the weather was to warm, or G we had a lot of rain,,,, wasted time n money,,,, I personally think there could of been a steelhead egg take, , but who am I to make that call, I'm sure there were some dnr that though the way I did, butttttt but,,,, as for a lake run brown trout plant, hell ya,,,, y not, a lot more Michigan people, would injoy cathing a nice brownie, then a tenny tiny fish, that is sucking for air, before ya throw it back to die,,,,,, wake up,,,, turn the light on


You can have all the invasive trout you want, just don't put them in with my money. My money SHOULD be spent on restoring native species. Besides that grayling taste better than trout, fight better than trout, are not a fragile as trout and no where near as slimy. 

If I want to catch browns, I will go back to Scotland. The browns are much nicer there AND I can catch grayling on the same stream on the same flies.


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

DecoySlayer said:


> You can have all the invasive trout you want, just don't put them in with my money. My money SHOULD be spent on restoring native species. Besides that grayling taste better than trout, fight better than trout, are not a fragile as trout and no where near as slimy.
> 
> If I want to catch browns, I will go back to Scotland. The browns are much nicer there AND I can catch grayling on the same stream on the same flies.


 so what your saying is, u would rather have the dnr, take YOUR money n put it in the grayling kitty so some day u can eat a meal of grayling, it would b nice if that happens, but i'm thinkin u mite have to put a few more holes in your belt before that happens, but what do I know, I think the only way you will catch n eat a fresh meal of grayling in mich. someday maybe is, to put your balmoral on n go set in a middle some lake that could b grayling friendly n dunk a worm,, I here there easy to catch ,,,, good luck go gitum


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Actually, I wish they would bring back the trout and salmon stamps. I see no reason to pay for those programs when I don't fish for any of those species. 

I believe we should be trying to restore things to what they once were, as much as that is possible. 

It really does not matter, I have no say what so ever. I pay them because I have to. I fish ONLY for perch, catfish and walleye in this state. I will, if I am lucky enough to have a kid to take, fish for silver bass once in a while. 

I DO like the work being done to restore the sturgeon. It is a magnificent fish.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I basically look forward to catching one just to kinda catch one and say I did it and see the historical fish.

But I don't quite get the choice of meandering NW Lower systems with occasional warm lake inputs over short, pure ground water systems flowing through heavy timber. i.e. the north shore of another Peninsula - but those are all excellent for Brookies so I can't say I would want one of my favorites there selected for this program, either.


re: Big Manistee and Browns - keep in mind that the Manistee is essentially 3 separate river systems with the 2 dams. I don't fish the upper system but I thought it has a steady plant of Browns as does the middle one.

I do know one Brown stocking point in the U.P. that just doesn't seem to take very well (not enough deep water holding cover maybe?) and another U.P. one where reservoir maintenance wiped out a Brown population on a draw-down but should be a perfect place to set them up, with a reservoir source ending at another reservoir many river miles down stream. Instead it is all chubs and suckers now with water too warm for the Brookies or Grayling.


----------



## mrblond (Sep 17, 2016)

The latest rosenbauer pod is on the latest attempt at reintro of grayling


https://news.orvis.com/fly-fishing/podcast-return-of-the-grayling-with-nicole-watson


Haven’t listened yet


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

mrblond said:


> The latest rosenbauer pod is on the latest attempt at reintro of grayling
> 
> 
> https://news.orvis.com/fly-fishing/podcast-return-of-the-grayling-with-nicole-watson
> ...


I know the DNR biologists are far smarter than I when it comes to Grayling. But aren't UP streams colder than LP streams and would provide a better habitat. Lots of brook trout which supposedly are compatible with grayling.


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

Once you change nature it rarely ever resumes it's previous course. Many people have different ideas but nature always knows best for nature and we cannot grow old trees fast enough or groom rivers back the way they were and make most of the fisherman stay home to keep the fishing the way it was. Humans have interfered enough to put ALL Michigan rivers on a different course(figuratively and literally).

The biologist, scientists and many other professionals are using our money collectively to bring some of it back and unfortunately most of it is a wasted unless your profession benefits from these attempts in some form. Our state combined with surrounding states and country attempt to balance the great lakes yet seem to perpetually struggle.

Grayling will never stay in most of the lower peninsula for many reasons. The U.P. may have some wild water that could still hold grayling but I'm not even sure if many established in the U.P. rivers in the first place.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Have any of you ever wet waded the steam they are thinking about establishing grayling in the lower?


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

Grayling are dumb. They are very easy to catch and very sensitive to environmental changes. Trying to establish grayling in Michigan is like trying to train Steelhead to fetch.


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

i said it once, one more time, PUT THEM IN A LAKE, the people incharge, should quit trying to put that fish, where every tom dick n harry n other critters can give that fish a hard time , :idea: those incharge ,,,turn the light on,,you must/should b able to find a lake, in our great state, n make it grayling friendly (take bad fish out n put good things/bait in), now give it some time, then open it up with some kind of regulations, i can see it now 2+# fish,,,,,,,,,,,,please tell me y something like that won't work,,,,,,please i can take it. thanks


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

riverbob said:


> i said it once, one more time, PUT THEM IN A LAKE, the people incharge, should quit trying to put that fish, where every tom dick n harry n other critters can give that fish a hard time , :idea: those incharge ,,,turn the light on,,you must/should b able to find a lake, in our great state, n make it grayling friendly (take bad fish out n put good things/bait in), now give it some time, then open it up with some kind of regulations, i can see it now 2+# fish,,,,,,,,,,,,please tell me y something like that won't work,,,,,,please i can take in. thanks


Almost anything could work if you put enough money and resources into something. It wouldn't be a bad idea although I suspect the fish need flowing water however they do live in Alaskan lakes most reside in rivers, streams, etc.

The lakes they reside in are usually crystal clear, cold and deep with an established natural balance that is difficult to copy by humans.
Grayling in michigan are the way of the booby bird.


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

jeepgod said:


> Almost anything could work if you put enough money and resources into something. It wouldn't be a bad idea although I suspect the fish need flowing water however they do live in Alaskan lakes most reside in rivers, streams, etc.
> 
> The lakes they reside in are usually crystal clear, cold and deep with an established natural balance that is difficult to copy by humans.
> Grayling in michigan are the way of the booby bird.


 thanks your most likely right, but i was hopeing that they could find that perfect jewel spot to put them,,,,,,,,if not they should quit wasting our money, n there time witch we pay for n do something more productive


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

Our state is not taking care of itself responsibly. They cannot even maintain what we have now most of the time. I predict a big shift within our state within 5-10yrs. It's already happening.

Sometimes people need to hear.the word (No) but if the people in charge are being pressured and continue to waste our money on unproductive avenues, you will see unproductive and potential harmful outcomes.

Has anyone ever mentioned that our fisheries should be managed for peak effectiveness allowing for reliable and productive fishing for those that know how.

I would much rather see those funds allocated to projects that protect our investments we already utilize, instead of playing whack-A-Mole.

We need a fishing vaccine against waste and poor management.


----------



## bborow2501 (Nov 12, 2007)

jeepgod said:


> Grayling will never stay in most of the lower peninsula for many reasons. The U.P. may have some wild water that could still hold grayling but I'm not even sure if many established in the U.P. rivers in the first place.


Last Grayling caught in Michigan was in the Otter River in the western Upper Peninsula in 1936.

https://www.mininggazette.com/news/outdoors/2015/03/grayling-restoration-efforts-past-and-future/

Interesting perspective of when they tried to save the last of the Michigan population. As a MTU alumni I got to stay at that old hatchery, really cool place!


Sent from my LG-G710 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

And people wonder why our dnr despite being among the top in money allowed always complain about being under budgeted. Millions wasted yearly on some very bad ideas. Between this and and all of the sturgeon habitat I would imagine they are into the double le digit millions in last few years. Makes so much sense putting unnatural spawning habitat on top of very good natural habitat in turn ruining both.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

So we should allow the sturgeon go extinct? Is that good stewardship? 

People complain they don't want to pay for the grayling attempt. Fine, I don't fish for trout or salmon, I don't want to pay for that.


----------



## Kisutch (May 26, 2011)

Not to long ago the state had a "Salmon Stamp" program. We ignorant salmon fisherman have asked for a reinstatement of "said" program. And make "It" the fee something that will help our fishery. But no! Blank stares and no replies. It is all part of the plan to rid the state of the "silver fish" fishery. You still pay for a duck stamp! Why can't we fund our own fishery?

Kisutch

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association join now

Alewife what?


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

jeepgod said:


> Grayling are dumb. They are very easy to catch and very sensitive to environmental changes. Trying to establish grayling in Michigan is like trying to train Steelhead to fetch.


I agree. They are a very cool fish but very easy to catch. Wherever they plant them it better be highly regulated. Even if they survive the browns, scumbag illegal fisherman can wipe them out.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Browns and grayling get along just fine. Grayling even thrive in river with browns and the much larger sea run browns. There were many days when I would come home with a mixed bag of browns and grayling. Illegal fisherman is a far different problem.


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

They probably will not be able to eradicate all of the "silver fish" due to the michigan natives contributing a lot to some of the programs as well as other orgs. 

It is about everyone but only a few control the strings and not very well.

When you have a disorganized government, you have waste and ineffectiveness.


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

DecoySlayer said:


> Browns and grayling get along just fine. Grayling even thrive in river with browns and the much larger sea run browns. There were many days when I would come home with a mixed bag of browns and grayling. Illegal fisherman is a far different problem.


I can see where you are coming from but it is not just illegal activities. Competition for food or lack of food as well as cover, etc all contribute to the success for any fishery.

If the food chain is disrupted due to an overabundance of certain species it can disrupt the food chain on many levels.

There are many different considerations.........how established are the resident fish? How many large fish per mile, cover, food, population, temps, depth, flow, pressure, etc.

Then add the humans to the mix.

Hint: the food chain is already disrupted when the Grayling disappeared and other species grew.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

DecoySlayer said:


> So we should allow the sturgeon go extinct? Is that good stewardship?
> 
> People complain they don't want to pay for the grayling attempt. Fine, I don't fish for trout or salmon, I don't want to pay for that.


They were making a comeback just fine without millions spent on unnatural spawning habitat. That was put on top of some of the best natural habitat in the rivers it was done in.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Sparky23 said:


> They were making a comeback just fine without millions spent on unnatural spawning habitat. That was put on top of some of the best natural habitat in the rivers it was done in.


They were increasing the available habitat, trying to make up for all of the habitat that has been lost.


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

DecoySlayer said:


> They were increasing the available habitat, trying to make up for all of the habitat that has been lost.


Millions probably spent on a few sturgeon.
People are not just hungry or in need around the holidays. I would gladly give up the idea of Grayling for something else that shows better results. Such as classes to help people live off grid and be more independent instead. All the little classes and special outdoor segments are great for learning but why not broaden that spectrum allowing for better participation in the outdoors and bring more awareness. Create and grow an outdoor awareness culture for generations.

Remember the old shows that a lot of people watched? Social media has changed how we consume television, etc so it seems there is a large disconnect and people seem to have a lot more options out there than before without a large audience watching together.

Seems as though the younger the age, the less people are interested in the outdoors.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Sparky23 said:


> And people wonder why our dnr despite being among the top in money allowed always complain about being under budgeted. Millions wasted yearly on some very bad ideas. _*Between this and and all of the sturgeon habitat I would imagine they are into the double le digit millions in last few years.*_ Makes so much sense putting unnatural spawning habitat on top of very good natural habitat in turn ruining both.


Imagining something doesn't make it real, does it? How much money has the DNR actually spent creating more suitable habitat for Sturgeon? How much to re-establish Grayling? I know the Little River Band has been raising Sturgeon for decades, to help re-establish them in the Big Manistee, and Muskegon rivers. The DNR has worked with them, but the Tribe is actually raising the fish. The DNR has worked with numerous Sportsman groups in different areas to help protect spawning Sturgeon, and raise young fish in hatcheries. But I don't think they've spent double digit millions of dollars on these efforts. 

My opinion? The Grayling are gone, and the (handful of) restoration efforts have all failed. There simply isn't good habitat for them here, anymore. But Sturgeon are doing well, and their numbers are steadily increasing. I don't support efforts to reintroduce Grayling. But I support efforts to help Sturgeon reach better numbers.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Well multiple millions just on one on the kazoo. Could be spent a lot of better ways. But hey why wouldnt you create new good habitat rather than stick on top of good habitat. Makes perfect sense


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Sparky23 said:


> Well multiple millions just on one on the kazoo. Could be spent a lot of better ways. But hey why wouldnt you create new good habitat rather than stick on top of good habitat. Makes perfect sense


You've stated that the DNR is spending money uselessly to create good habitat, rather than "stick on top of good habitat," a couple times. What does that mean, exactly? Can you put it into context and cite examples of them creating new habitat, or examples of "sticking on top of good habitat?" I want to understand.


----------



## jeepgod (Apr 29, 2015)

Stu


Fishndude said:


> Imagining something doesn't make it real, does it? How much money has the DNR actually spent creating more suitable habitat for Sturgeon? How much to re-establish Grayling? I know the Little River Band has been raising Sturgeon for decades, to help re-establish them in the Big Manistee, and Muskegon rivers. The DNR has worked with them, but the Tribe is actually raising the fish. The DNR has worked with numerous Sportsman groups in different areas to help protect spawning Sturgeon, and raise young fish in hatcheries. But I don't they've spent double digit millions of dollars on these efforts.
> 
> My opinion? The Grayling are gone, and the (handful of) restoration efforts have all failed. There simply isn't good habitat for them here, anymore. But Sturgeon are doing well, and their numbers are steadily increasing. I don't support efforts to reintroduce Grayling. But I support efforts to help Sturgeon reach better numbers.


Sturgeon have stuck around a long time after being reintroduced, grayling have not. Why put that many resources into one species(the subject of Grayling not sturgeon)when so many others are lost? Pride, boredom? I suspect it is due to an endless pit of money and a few arrogant professionals.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Fishndude said:


> You've stated that the DNR is spending money uselessly to create good habitat, rather than "stick on top of good habitat," a couple times. What does that mean, exactly? Can you put it into context and cite examples of them creating new habitat, or examples of "sticking on top of good habitat?" I want to understand.


On the Kalamazoo river they spent multiple millions putting in "sturgeon spawning habitat" on top of a spot they have shocking them for 15 plus years already amd I have witnessed personally them spawning or paired in the past. This was also the best travel for multiple miles of river. They put the new man made structure in and not only did it make it harder to fish but also has slowly wilted in the sides. Slowed down the water and made majority of fish spawn elsewhere. Why would you take a spot that you have been shocking sturgeon for minimum of 15 years that I have seen it with great gravel and change it? Why not do this down stream a few hundred yards or whatever? Instead waste our money as well as federal Grant's to achieve something that was already there. Poor planning and spending of money that they supposedly are short on. I can easily see why.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I've fished for fish that return to rivers to spawn, in Michigan, for a very long time. It is interesting that fish will spawn in certain places, but not others. The current is just right in some places, and (although it looks the same to us) isn't quite right, somewhere else. Michigan rivers before logging were narrower, deeper, and the bottoms were more gravel than sand. But logging let banks wash in, and sand covered much of the gravel where fish spawned. Then the banks eroded more, and the rivers got wider, and shallower, and warmer). So, now the DNR has to work to re-create the natural spawning areas, and try to recreate/imitate the habitat of old. 

You aren't wrong about that - there probably is beautiful spawning gravel on the bottom of that area. But if it was covered with silt, it might not be as viable for spawning, as it is with improvement. 

And the various programs around Michigan, to reintroduce Sturgeon, have been pretty darned successful. I was born in 1960, and there were very few Sturgeon caught in the State, except for a relatively few places. Black, and Burt Lakes had popular spearing seasons, and Lake St Clair had a marginal fishery. The DNR has worked with Citizens, Indian Tribes, and various Sportsman groups for decades, to reintroduce Sturgeon in rivers around the State. There are not large numbers planted anywhere at one time. And it takes years before Sturgeon are mature, and can spawn. And, at that, every fish doesn't spawn every year - they spawn every couple/few years. But there are some Sturgeon that run up the Grand, Muskegon, and Manistee rivers. Probably the Kalamazoo, and some others, as well. There hasn't been as concerted an effort to re-establish them in Lake Huron tribs, but there is a great Citizen Patrol on a particular Black River, that gets a real good run of spawning Sturgeon. 

I could believe that millions of dollars have been spent over time for this endeavor. But I wouldn't think the State spends $1M/year on the efforts to raise, plant, and protect Sturgeon. I did a quick online search for the project you are so worked-up about, to create a better spawning habitat for Sturgeon in the Kalamazoo. It looks like it didn't cost the State of Michigan anything. 
https://michianaoutdoorsnews.com/ne...mazoo-river-project-targets-spawning-sturgeon

_"The project was made possible by a $200,000 contribution from *Consumers Energy* and a $190,000 *Great Lakes Tribal Coastal Grant provided to the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians* (also known as the *Gun Lake Tribe*). The project features numerous partners; including the DNR's Parks and Recreation Division and Allegan Heavy Equipment Crew, Stantec (provided design) and Grand Valley State University (providing monitoring)."

"The riffle will also be useful for walleye, darters, smallmouth bass, suckers, steelhead, Chinook salmon and coho salmon which also like to spawn in that area."_


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

http://www.brookhaven-lake.com/index.php/the-experience/fishing-for-arctic-grayling


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Every State that has tried in the past has failed at reintroduction of Grayling. The state of Montana figured out that instead of planting fry or fingerlings that eggs in a simple incubator in the stream has very high success at bringing these fish back to where they once were. We have our broodstock now in a hatchery. Hopefully with the new information out there it works. The worry of browns and brookies is just being thrown around. Montana has streams they are in and have had success with bringing Grayling back. Now streams are apple to oranges different so time will tell. 
From what i have seen it looks promising this time around!


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Fishndude said:


> I've fished for fish that return to rivers to spawn, in Michigan, for a very long time. It is interesting that fish will spawn in certain places, but not others. The current is just right in some places, and (although it looks the same to us) isn't quite right, somewhere else. Michigan rivers before logging were narrower, deeper, and the bottoms were more gravel than sand. But logging let banks wash in, and sand covered much of the gravel where fish spawned. Then the banks eroded more, and the rivers got wider, and shallower, and warmer). So, now the DNR has to work to re-create the natural spawning areas, and try to recreate/imitate the habitat of old.
> 
> You aren't wrong about that - there probably is beautiful spawning gravel on the bottom of that area. But if it was covered with silt, it might not be as viable for spawning, as it is with improvement.
> 
> ...


So the state workers that were there for months didnt get paid? The silt didnt build untill after the new ...improvements. we wanna make things natural but then make unnatural habitat for a fish that brings 0 economics to an area. They are a cool fish. Cought one steel fishing about 15 16 years ago. Saw the same about then as I do now.


----------



## MoJoRisin' (Jan 30, 2004)

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/09/...surrection-of-cherished-salmon-type-fish.html


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Discovering had an episode this week that highlighted the initiative.


----------

