# Steelhead in Huron river (wayne co)



## Levelpebble Angler (Jan 21, 2021)

charminultra said:


> I feel like they should put one of those electro fences or just a physical barrier up in this river to prevent fish from exiting out to the Great Lakes. You’re not supposed to eat fish from there and you don’t know if the steel head you caught out in the lakes spent a couple months in the Huron river soaking up all those pfas and stuff. Same with the ausable river they have all those pfas up there too.


Stick to lake michigan and its tribes and your problem is solved.


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Levelpebble Angler said:


> Stick to lake michigan and its tribes and your problem is solved.


I’m sure many of them are also contaminated.


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Fishndude said:


> Resident fish live in the river all their lives. They would have higher PFAS levels than fish swimming around in the Great Lakes, due to higher exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well if they are going to plant migratory fish in contaminated rivers that connect to the Great Lakes, then the advisory for the Great Lakes should be based off the worst case which would be a migratory fish that spends up to three straight years in a “do not eat“ body of water. That’s the logic I would apply, if I was publishing advisories that protect people’s health. Is that how those advisories were determined? Or was it just random fish tested with unknown life histories? I don’t know that answer.


----------



## Levelpebble Angler (Jan 21, 2021)

charminultra said:


> Well if they are going to plant migratory fish in contaminated rivers that connect to the Great Lakes, then the advisory for the Great Lakes should be based off the worst case which would be a migratory fish that spends up to three straight years in a “do not eat“ body of water. That’s the logic I would apply, if I was publishing advisories that protect people’s health. Is that how those advisories were determined? Or was it just random fish tested with unknown life histories? I don’t know that answer.


If your so concerned about the well-being of the people of Michigan maybe you should run for a position in our amazing government. Let your voice be heard there instead of here. 

This thread is for sharing fishing information about the huron river steelhead.


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Oops my bad


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

charminultra said:


> Well if they are going to plant migratory fish in contaminated rivers that connect to the Great Lakes, then the advisory for the Great Lakes should be based off the worst case which would be a migratory fish that spends up to three straight years in a “do not eat“ body of water. That’s the logic I would apply, if I was publishing advisories that protect people’s health. Is that how those advisories were determined? Or was it just random fish tested with unknown life histories? I don’t know that answer.


You didn't answer my question. You stated that the MI DNR should continue planting fish in the rivers that connect to the Great Lakes, but they should not plant Salmon, and Steelhead, which spend most of their lives in the Great Lakes. 

So, _*which species *_of fish should they be planting, in your estimation, and why? If you think they _*should, *_plant fish, you should have an idea which fish they should plant, right?


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Fishndude said:


> You didn't answer my question. You stated that the MI DNR should continue planting fish in the rivers that connect to the Great Lakes, but they should not plant Salmon, and Steelhead, which spend most of their lives in the Great Lakes.
> 
> So, _*which species *_of fish should they be planting, in your estimation, and why? If you think they _*should, *_plant fish, you should have an idea which fish they should plant, right?


I don’t know which species would fit the criteria. But the criteria would be: the only fish that get planted here are fish that will become residents of this river (using your definition of a resident fish). Or just plant them upstream of an impassable barrier such as a dam or electro fence. I suppose inedible species could also be an option, but again I don’t know what those would be.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

So, maybe plant Snail Darters, or Chubs? Log Perch, or Mudpuppies, maybe? Nobody eats those, right? 

Personally, I don't want my license dollars being used to raise and plant silly species of fish in Michigan waters. 

And your logic is still whacked, lol. As I've already mentioned, the fish that migrate out of these rivers, and spend most of their lives in the Great Lakes, have FAR lower PFAS levels than the resident fish that stay in the rivers. Planting little fish that spend a few weeks in the river before leaving means they won't accumulate much PFAS in the short time they live in the rivers. So, planting anadromous fish makes a ton of sense - which is what the DNR mostly does in these rivers. 

Both the Huron, and Ausable get a strong run of Walleyes that spawn, in the Spring. And both rivers have Walleyes living in them year-round. So, some of the Eyes are just in the rivers for spawning, and others live there, full-time. I wonder how to tell if it is safe to eat a Walleye from either of those rivers? Things that make you go, Hmmmmmmm????


----------

