# Lead Lures ***!!!



## fish em all

I was out salmon fishing on a river near me and found myself in a part were everyone was fishing with lead lures shaped like minnows. Me being the smart mouth I am asked one guy "You get alot of bites with that" as he had 2 fish on the stringer. He proceded to tell me that if you get to the top of a hole that they do bite it. I called him on the BS he gave me and he seemed not to like this very much. I guess I just don't understand the fun of fishing with 50 lb test and a sinker with 2 trebles attached. I think these people are way to comfortable on our rivers taking salmon with a method like this that they don't even try to hide what they are doing. SALMON DO BITE!!! I know the DNR is spread out because of funding but these guys are hurting our fishing. It makes me sick on what I have seen people do. I witnessed two older guys snagging females off a bed cutting them open taking eggs and throwing them back in the river. RAP can only do so much especially during the salmon season as deer hunting is under way as well. When there is 20 people "fishing" with methods like this we as sportsman need to take a stand and confront this crap head on.


----------



## tannhd

Bring your brass knuckles.


----------



## dwrobins

One of the reasons I kept my kids tee-ball bat. Works well one-handed. Never understood blatant grip & rip snagging.


----------



## wartfroggy

Those lead minnow spoons are great. They must look like a small rainbow trout and the salmon are afraid that it will steal their eggs, because of the way the salmon swat at it and then get hooked in the tail.


----------



## -Axiom-

The biggest problem with the snaggers isn't their methods, it's the mess they leave behind.

People seem to forget that these are non-native fish that are going to die soon anyway.


----------



## thousandcasts

I was just giving this thread a look and seriously, the following banner ad was at the top of the page: 

_"Pure Michigan--Your Trip Begins Here..."_ 

Now talk about some comedic irony, huh? :lol:


----------



## kzoofisher

Anglers need to police themselves, pay for someone else to do it or put up with the consequences. That access is for the public, not for fisherman, so if fisherman are a problem group then they should be the ones to suffer. I would feel the same way if it were kayakers or mountainbikers making the mess. In this case it is obviously salmon fisherman that are the problem so any increased costs should be focused on them, a Manistee River salmon tag for $10 with a $200 fine might help cover costs. 
My preference here would be to have camping restricted to April 1 through Labor Day so that the reasonable people still get to camp most of the season.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## StonedFly

Carry a telescoping tree pruner. Extend it out to dinkus' fishing line from the other side of the river, and cut that bitch!

Also, why arent the fines for snagging $1000 or more? The DNR says they lack funds.That would be a sufficient way to increase revenue. I think Treble hooks should be banned completely. Sorry for you hardware huckers. Single hooks will still catch fish. Yeah we pay to stock these salmon but I dont remember the state ever having an indispensable amount of money to throw at our recreations.. 86 the Kings! Stock more Steel! Improve more tributaries for natural reproduction.

Disrespecting nature is down right unacceptable. Unfortunately the majority of people that will read these rants are people that agree mostly. The real idiots cant surf the web. They arent intelligent enough.


----------



## bauerj8

Without Kings how am I supposed to catch Steel? Eggs flies are do not comply with my gut chucking religion.


----------



## fish em all

-Axiom- said:


> The biggest problem with the snaggers isn't their methods, it's the mess they leave behind.
> 
> People seem to forget that these are non-native fish that are going to die soon anyway.


NOT ALL SALMON THAT ARE BEING SNAGGED WILL DIE, some do return back to the great lakes. This is the attitude that snaggers give me when confronted. Sure some will die but only after they spawned. Snaggers are not targeting the ones with white on them they are targeting the fish that have yet to spawn. Even being Non-Native fish that is no excuse to snag them. They are a prized game fish in michigan along with steelhead (steel is still my favorite). Speaking of steelhead these same snaggers that are taking salmon with this method are using it to pull steelhead off of beds. So whats the excuse here some steelhead do die after spawning but most return. To you snagging is acceptable. I have a problem with everything about snagging from setup to the methods.


----------



## kzoofisher

My guess is that enforcement isn't as profitable as it would appear. When you add up surveillance and ticket writing time for a couple of officers, court costs, CO time lost in court and fines that never get collected the red side of the sheet looks bad. The fines have to remain reasonable or they won't stand up to a challenge so you can only collect so much per violation. I'd be willing to pay for more enforcement but a lot of other folks won't. One solution might be to hire a private party who can take pictures of violtors in the act, record license plates and provide all that to the DNR. That guy won't be cheap though and I wouldn't be surprised if a violent crime was the end result.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Waz_51

StonedFly said:


> Carry a telescoping tree pruner. Extend it out to dinkus' fishing line from the other side of the river, and cut that bitch!
> 
> Also, why arent the fines for snagging $1000 or more? The DNR says they lack funds.That would be a sufficient way to increase revenue. I think Treble hooks should be banned completely. Sorry for you hardware huckers. Single hooks will still catch fish. Yeah we pay to stock these salmon but I dont remember the state ever having an indispensable amount of money to throw at our recreations.. 86 the Kings! Stock more Steel! Improve more tributaries for natural reproduction.
> 
> Disrespecting nature is down right unacceptable. Unfortunately the majority of people that will read these rants are people that agree mostly. The real idiots cant surf the web. They arent intelligent enough.



you cant ban treble hooks, itll never happen...aside from fishing skein under bobbers, i like to throw lures like flatfish, shad raps, and squid...those lures will out fish skein on the right day and generally produce at least a few strikes every outing


----------



## thousandcasts

fish em all said:


> NOT ALL SALMON THAT ARE BEING SNAGGED WILL DIE, some do return back to the great lakes. This is the attitude that snaggers give me when confronted. Sure some will die but only after they spawned. Snaggers are not targeting the ones with white on them they are targeting the fish that have yet to spawn. Even being Non-Native fish that is no excuse to snag them. They are a prized game fish in michigan along with steelhead (steel is still my favorite). Speaking of steelhead these same snaggers that are taking salmon with this method are using it to pull steelhead off of beds. So whats the excuse here some steelhead do die after spawning but most return. To you snagging is acceptable. I have a problem with everything about snagging from setup to the methods.


No...all will die. Snagged, caught in mouth and released or left completely alone--No king or coho will live to spawn again. Not one. Atlantics are different story, but they're not a relevant part of the discussion when it comes to west side rivers. 

Kings and cohos have an irreversible death sentence and it starts long before they even go through the pier heads. That two year old jack king that's squirting love juice all over your waders? He's dead too. 

Salmon Biology 101: As soon as they hatch, the clock is ticking...

And no, I'm NOT using that as an argument to justify snagging...just pointing out the natural way of the salmon. 



> why arent the fines for snagging $1000 or more? The DNR says they lack funds.That would be a sufficient way to increase revenue.


The DNR doesn't get those funds. The court system gets those funds. If they write a ticket, you don't pay the DNR, you pay your fine at the courthouse. Local government gets money, DNR doesn't see a dime of it.


----------



## kzoofisher

thousandcasts said:


> The DNR doesn't get those funds. The court system gets those funds. If they write a ticket, you don't pay the DNR, you pay your fine at the courthouse. Local government gets money, DNR doesn't see a dime of it.


Well, there you go. Dangerous duty, probably outnumbered 5 or 10 to 1, with no benefit to the Department and no strong public support for it. I sure don't blame the CO's for not enforceing any more than they do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fish em all

thousandcasts said:


> No...all will die. Snagged, caught in mouth and released or left completely alone--No king or coho will live to spawn again. Not one. Atlantics are different story, but they're not a relevant part of the discussion when it comes to west side rivers.
> 
> Kings and cohos have an irreversible death sentence and it starts long before they even go through the pier heads. That two year old jack king that's squirting love juice all over your waders? He's dead too.
> 
> Salmon Biology 101: As soon as they hatch, the clock is ticking...
> 
> And no, I'm NOT using that as an argument to justify snagging...just pointing out the natural way of the salmon.
> 
> 
> 
> The DNR doesn't get those funds. The court system gets those funds. If they write a ticket, you don't pay the DNR, you pay your fine at the courthouse. Local government gets money, DNR doesn't see a dime of it.


 
Sorry I was under the impression that jacks were there to feed not spawn but did some research and you are right. I figured that the jacks do what some of the lake run browns do and follow the salmon up to feed on the eggs, but I was wrong.


----------



## tannhd

Keep in mind that Salmon season for much of the state aligns with deer season. 

COs dont go to work on Oct 1st for deer season. They are working way before hand, making contact with land owners, setting up surveillence, and prepping for the season. Once Oct 1st finally comes around they keep busy enough with deer poaching to last them through the winter. 

:chillin: <- Is that supposed to be a black person?


----------



## salmo'dog

fish em all said:


> Sorry I was under the impression that jacks were there to feed not spawn but did some research and you are right. I figured that the jacks do what some of the lake run browns do and follow the salmon up to feed on the eggs, but I was wrong.


Lol...never doubt Hutch, he knows things!



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Trout King

bauerj8 said:


> Without Kings how am I supposed to catch Steel? Eggs flies are do not comply with my gut chucking religion.


use steelhead spawn.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trout King

but they are all going to die anyway!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thousandcasts

fish em all said:


> Sorry I was under the impression that jacks were there to feed not spawn but did some research and you are right. I figured that the jacks do what some of the lake run browns do and follow the salmon up to feed on the eggs, but I was wrong.


There's nothing for you to be sorry about, man! If I had to list all the times I thought this or that was true and then a fisheries biologist said, "uh...no, not even close." this site wouldn't have enough storage space to compile that list. :lol:


----------



## StonedFly

I prefer to hide in the woods and throw rocks at snaggers. I can run really fast tho. 

So if the DNR only sees 10% or whatever of a ticket, wouldnt it make sense to play the numbers game and write as many tickets as possible?


----------



## Shoeman

thousandcasts said:


> There's nothing wrong with C&D if that's how someone wants to fish.
> 
> I've come to learn that if I were to die tomorrow, would I want to look back and know that my last day was spent worrying about how someone else wants to fish? The answer would be an easy *&^% NO.


I hate it. It warps the average spool, a pain to retrieve, ect, but for some applications like a short hole below a flat it might be the ticket No other way to get it down before the offering gets bown out.

Sink tips and full sinkers just don't cut it and even bobbers (indicators. :lol take time for the fly to sink to pay dirt.

One of the reasons we run plugs off the edge of flats.


----------



## thousandcasts

StonedFly said:


> I prefer to hide in the woods and throw rocks at snaggers. I can run really fast tho.
> 
> So if the DNR only sees 10% or whatever of a ticket, wouldnt it make sense to play the numbers game and write as many tickets as possible?


But that's not the only thing they do and when you have three counties to cover, you have to sleep sometime. 

On top of just salmon, they have to run over here because this guy called and said that another guy has a bait pile that's to big. 

Then they have to run down somewhere else because one guide who acts like a school girl is calling in reports that other guides are waking where they shouldn't be waking. So, they have to sit there and watch and see if any waking is taking place. After two hours of watching nobody waking like the school girl reported, then they have to run to another place because...

then over here because...

and more running because...

The point is, they can't be everywhere and salmon isn't the only thing on their radar.


----------



## fish em all

thousandcasts said:


> Different now? It's always been a rule that it has to be IN the mouth. Think I'm kidding? I'm 43 now, back when I was 19 I got a king where my fly was outside the mouth just below the eye. The guy who netted it turned out to be an undercover CO and the general thought everyone had was "in the head...near the mouth, your good!" I stringered it up and guess what? I left with a nice ticket for "possessing a foul hooked fish."
> 
> That was almost 25 years ago and I learned right then and there that in the mouth means it damn well better be IN the mouth. How it gets in the mouth can be debated all day long and I have no interest in taking part in that. Short story is they haven't "changed" anything. It was in the mouth 25 years ago and it's still in the mouth today.


Like I said I could be wrong as you are almost double my age I will take your word on it....One of the few that I have read alot of your posts and trust your opinion.


----------



## jatc

fish em all said:


> Like I said I could be wrong as you are almost double my age I will take your word on it....One of the few that I have read alot of your posts and trust your opinion.






:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:

How's that for a compliment Hutch?

I sure wish my kids would use the same reasoning!


----------



## kzoofisher

Anybody know where to find a breakdown of CO's by county? There are 171 CO's in the state or just over 2/county. Obviously, some counties have different staffing needs and these needs can change depending on the time of year but if one CO covers three counties that leaves five other CO's free to police elsewhere. Some enforcement hotspots are easy to forecast and others not so much; during deer season many will be tied up at check stations or chasing complaints, around major holidays they have craziness at campgrounds and lakes, there are always poaching and littering and vandalism and meth labs but those are pretty spread out. My point is that the circus on the Manistee is a regular and predictable event. A few extra CO's from counties that are slow in September could be detailed to the area below Tippy, each spending 3 or 4 days and then going home. Heck, if they just parked at the access sites for a few hours it would probably cut the violating down to next to nothing. 

If somebody were to get organized (the guides association might help) they could probably get quite a few emails sent to the DNR asking for more enforcement. These emails should include the senders name and address, how often the sender salmon fishes and whether or not the snagging/trash/fights etc. at Tippy or the Betsie or wherever causes them to fish elsewhere. I know quite a few people who never fish Tippy or 6th street because they are such a zoo and if the DNR thinks there is more money being lost because of these circuses than is being made they will act.

Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter is at 
[email protected]

Enforcement Chief Gary Hagler 
[email protected]


----------



## thousandcasts

jatc said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:
> 
> How's that for a compliment Hutch?
> 
> I sure wish my kids would use the same reasoning!


Watching "Ancient Aliens" one night and a commercial for testosterone enhancement comes on. My son says, "you need to get some of that, daddy." I said, "why do you think I need some of that?" He answers, "cuz you're old and it says old people need more tusterone." 

"why you little...I'll mace you good!"


----------



## diztortion

I'm pretty positive that it's $10 and not 10%.. I seem to remember reading that in the deer forums regarding all sportsmen violations. 

The funds go into the general wildlife fund and not back into any specific division.


----------



## brookie1

kzoofisher said:


> Anybody know where to find a breakdown of CO's by county? There are 171 CO's in the state or just over 2/county. Obviously, some counties have different staffing needs and these needs can change depending on the time of year but if one CO covers three counties that leaves five other CO's free to police elsewhere. Some enforcement hotspots are easy to forecast and others not so much; during deer season many will be tied up at check stations or chasing complaints, around major holidays they have craziness at campgrounds and lakes, there are always poaching and littering and vandalism and meth labs but those are pretty spread out. My point is that the circus on the Manistee is a regular and predictable event. A few extra CO's from counties that are slow in September could be detailed to the area below Tippy, each spending 3 or 4 days and then going home. Heck, if they just parked at the access sites for a few hours it would probably cut the violating down to next to nothing.
> 
> If somebody were to get organized (the guides association might help) they could probably get quite a few emails sent to the DNR asking for more enforcement. These emails should include the senders name and address, how often the sender salmon fishes and whether or not the snagging/trash/fights etc. at Tippy or the Betsie or wherever causes them to fish elsewhere. I know quite a few people who never fish Tippy or 6th street because they are such a zoo and if the DNR thinks there is more money being lost because of these circuses than is being made they will act.
> 
> Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter is at
> [email protected]
> 
> Enforcement Chief Gary Hagler
> [email protected]


There are currently 120 COs in 9 different divisions. They aren't assigned to counties unless maybe they do something within a division. Here is the link to the divisions. Just click on a division to get contact information.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-42199-24666--,00.html

On a side note, we have no realistic chance of stopping snagging. You could put the entire force on it in shifts 24/7 and people would still do it. You simply couldn't cover every river every minute for the entire season. People just have no self control, especially when they see fish that big.


----------



## kzoofisher

> There are currently 120 COs in 9 different divisions. They aren't assigned to counties unless maybe they do something within a division. Here is the link to the divisions. Just click on a division to get contact information.


 The DNR lists 171 Conservation officers on its payroll, maybe 51 of them are not considered field staff. Even at 120 it works out to just under 1.5 officers per county, which sounds like enough manpower to make its presence felt at prime snagging areas if the DNR was inclined to make an issue of it.



> On a side note, we have no realistic chance of stopping snagging. You could put the entire force on it in shifts 24/7 and people would still do it. You simply couldn't cover every river every minute for the entire season.


 Of course you can't stop it, but you can slow it down. 100% enforcement is an awfully high standard to set for our LEO's, I'm willing to settle for something between no effort and the impossible. If a CO showed up at Tippy and other prime snagging spots at least once a day and spent a few hours there on weekends most of the snaggers would give it up or slink off to areas with lower fish concentrations. That's a start, not just for the fish of today but for the idea that conservation is something we're all a part of. We're talking about focused enforcement over a three or four week period to rein in a lawless group, very likely the same people who go on to violate during the deer, duck, small game, walleye and other seasons. The more you tolerate violators the bolder they get. Just look at the trouble the Feds had down south breaking the culture of game violators, we don't need generations growing up here with violating being the norm.


----------



## brookie1

I could be wrong on the number of COs but I thought we had a reduction from 160 sometime in the last 5 years or so. As for the rest of it, whatever. I am sure they know exactly where the biggest problem areas are. Anyway, you are welcome for me looking up the link with the contact info.


----------



## fish em all

I am glad to see people that have the same opinion as I do. I welcome all Opinions whether you believe the same way about the topic or not. I just want to make it clear I do not blame CO's they are doing the best they can under a command. Salmon are not their priority this time of year. I however do believe it is shop owners who sell the items that help to enable this to happen. Wait for it...I know it's coming "if the shop owners did not sell them there would be another way" I agree but when does it become a problem? when it is to late. It's because of this that I will never be able to catch a michigan grayling. If we allow it to happen it will. I know areas like tippy are crowded with snaggers, but they are becoming bolder and spreading out. To me it is a shameful method. We do not live in a society where it is a method to have to feed a family. If it was you wouldn't see people hauling 50 fish out of the river in a day.


----------



## thousandcasts

kzoofisher said:


> The DNR lists 171 Conservation officers on its payroll, maybe 51 of them are not considered field staff. Even at 120 it works out to just under 1.5 officers per county, which sounds like enough manpower to make its presence felt at prime snagging areas if the DNR was inclined to make an issue of it.
> 
> Of course you can't stop it, but you can slow it down. 100% enforcement is an awfully high standard to set for our LEO's, I'm willing to settle for something between no effort and the impossible. If a CO showed up at Tippy and other prime snagging spots at least once a day and spent a few hours there on weekends most of the snaggers would give it up or slink off to areas with lower fish concentrations. That's a start, not just for the fish of today but for the idea that conservation is something we're all a part of. We're talking about focused enforcement over a three or four week period to rein in a lawless group, very likely the same people who go on to violate during the deer, duck, small game, walleye and other seasons. The more you tolerate violators the bolder they get. Just look at the trouble the Feds had down south breaking the culture of game violators, we don't need generations growing up here with violating being the norm.


Some of those out of state boys don't give a *&^%. They get busted one year, they're right back there the next bragging about how "this time I brought some fine money!" or hell, I watched one group of guys try to get the CO to pose for a picture while they held the ticket up. No kidding. 

We tried this with the riverwatches--extra eyes, a visual deterent, extra manpower. Force the snaggers out or make them move to areas where they're more vunerable or outnumbered. On watch weekends, the DNR committed extra manpower to the watch areas. Out of the thousands of people who read these forums and declare their hate for snagging, we couldn't get more than the same 7 or 8 people to show up every year. For a time it actually worked. We'd see far less illegal activity during the watches than we did after the watches. There have been many, many times where the DNR has tried to attack this head on with the help of the sportsmen out there and a lack of interest and volunteers has lead to the failure of these programs. 

They made the committment, some of us volunteered for several years in a row, but after advertising it, trying to get more people involved, reading all the "I hate snaggers, rah, rah, rah" rhetoric and then having the same 7 or 8 people show up every year, it became disheartening. I finally gave up...after several years of doing it. I reached the point where it was "why the hell am I doing this year after year and with all the talking going on we're now down to SIX people? Give me a *&^%ing break!" So, it is what it is on here...rah,rah,rah rhetoric. They made the committment of time and manpower (pulling CO's from slower areas), tried to attack this issue for several years, tried to expand to other areas, we even did it during the spring steelhead run as well and year after year the end result was that nobody...showed...up. People talked a good game, but that's easy to do on the internet. When it came time for backing it up and showing up, you'd be amazed at how many weddings or lawn work or wife needs the car to go shopping issues suddenly came up on the exact day of the riverwatch. What a coincidence! 

It's not like we were giving up any fishing time either since that was part of it...if you wanted to fish, go fish. Watch...report in...make a day of it. I actually had some fun doing it. Even brought my then wife along for a few watches...it's not like it was some end of the world type burden, but again...thousands of talkers, 7 or 8 doers doth not a successful program make.


----------



## kzoofisher

> We tried this with the riverwatches--extra eyes, a visual deterent, extra manpower. Force the snaggers out or make them move to areas where they're more vunerable or outnumbered. On watch weekends, the DNR committed extra manpower to the watch areas. Out of the thousands of people who read these forums and declare their hate for snagging, we couldn't get more than the same 7 or 8 people to show up every year. For a time it actually worked. We'd see far less illegal activity during the watches than we did after the watches. There have been many, many times where the DNR has tried to attack this head on with the help of the sportsmen out there and a lack of interest and volunteers has lead to the failure of these programs.


 Half a dozen doers per thousand complainers is about average; that's why so many organizations just raise money from their members, so they can hire somebody to do the work. Getting people to send emails is easier but you'll still need the same core group of doers to meet with the DNR. So long as the snaggers stay focused on the salmon it's no skin off my nose. My concern is Michigan becoming a destination for those who want to violate or that these idiots decide that they have some entitlement to take any fish anywhere. At the moment the public and the DNR seem to have written a few areas off as hopeless, sort of like drug infested neighborhoods. If the *crank* epidemic stays there I'll be OK with it.


----------



## tannhd

kzoofisher said:


> Half a dozen doers per thousand complainers is about average; that's why so many organizations just raise money from their members, so they can hire somebody to do the work. Getting people to send emails is easier but you'll still need the same core group of doers to meet with the DNR. So long as the snaggers stay focused on the salmon it's no skin off my nose. My concern is Michigan becoming a destination for those who want to violate or that these idiots decide that they have some entitlement to take any fish anywhere. At the moment the public and the DNR seem to *have written a few areas off as hopeless, sort of like drug infested neighborhoods.* If the *crank* epidemic stays there I'll be OK with it.


 
If you want to find out more info I would suggest you get in contact with one of our COs (assuming you live in kzoo, too). Officer Holmes and Officer Higashi are our COs for the county. Both are really good guys who can explain further. I would hate for the blanket statement you dropped above to influence others into thinking that was actually the case.


----------



## swampbuck

-Axiom- said:


> The biggest problem with the snaggers isn't their methods, it's the mess they leave behind.
> 
> People seem to forget that these are non-native fish that are going to die soon anyway.


Exactly, In the case of salmon they will die and rot if they are not caught. Certainly on other species that return to the lake snagging laws should be enforced.......

Quite frankly an invasive species that is going to die anyways should not enjoy any protection IMO. Snagging, netting, spearing etc. should be legal. What purpose does it serve to let these fish go to waste ?


----------



## kzoofisher

tannhd said:


> If you want to find out more info I would suggest you get in contact with one of our COs (assuming you live in kzoo, too). Officer Holmes and Officer Higashi are our COs for the county. Both are really good guys who can explain further. I would hate for the blanket statement you dropped above to influence others into thinking that was actually the case.


Our CO's do the best they can with the limited resources they have. If Enforcement responded to the bellyacheing before and got little help from the complainers they need to move on to the customers who are serious about helping. I'm trying to encourage those who fish that area to do something outside of this forum. I'll write letters about anything but my time is limited so I reserve that for one area and then make damn sure that I get there to actually work on stuff at least once a month April to Oct. Since it appears that fewer than a dozen people care enough about Tippy/Tunk to show up I'll write it off as a bad spot. I'd bet though that someone who was willing to work with a variety of groups could get something done.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fish em all

swampbuck said:


> Exactly, In the case of salmon they will die and rot if they are not caught. Certainly on other species that return to the lake snagging laws should be enforced.......
> 
> Quite frankly an invasive species that is going to die anyways should not enjoy any protection IMO. Snagging, netting, spearing etc. should be legal. What purpose does it serve to let these fish go to waste ?


In nature there is no waste it will all be used!


----------



## tannhd

kzoofisher said:


> Our CO's do the best they can with the limited resources they have. If Enforcement responded to the bellyacheing before and got little help from the complainers they need to move on to the customers who are serious about helping. I'm trying to encourage those who fish that area to do something outside of this forum. I'll write letters about anything but my time is limited so I reserve that for one area and then make damn sure that I get there to actually work on stuff at least once a month April to Oct. Since it appears that fewer than a dozen people care enough about Tippy/Tunk to show up I'll write it off as a bad spot. I'd bet though that someone who was willing to work with a variety of groups could get something done.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Agreed.


----------



## someone11

swampbuck said:


> Quite frankly an invasive species that is going to die anyways should not enjoy any protection IMO. Snagging, netting, spearing etc. should be legal. What purpose does it serve to let these fish go to waste ?


Salmon are not an invasive species, they are an introduced species. And NONE of it gets wasted. You'd be surprised at the amount of nutrients ONE salmon produces for the stream/river. Without the runs of salmon rivers would be nearly dead and unable to sustain a population of fish. There have been studies shown to prove this and years of bad runs you can see the river not be as productive.


----------



## salmonfreak05

Well first thing is first, We had a great salmon season this year personally! I did an experiment, just a an observational experiment. I watched people come down all day, and checked out there gear. It's a mixture of your beloved ticklers, spoons, rooster tails, treble with yarn, flies, the whole nine. Out of my 9 years of salmon fishing I have only ever seen 1 guy drift skein and maybe 3 throw cranks, the rest of been as I stated. "Of course I only fish one area and that's where I'm noticing"

The tickler, or knock off, of this bait is however a legal bait! End of story! Bitch moan all you want. It meets the bare minimum standers of bait regulations. Correct me if I am wrong but I remember the sign DNR APPROVED, lol. 

I personally don't have a problem with them, I have seen them put smiles on a lot of people's faces, Yea they are using a legal bait but not fishing it legal, "sweeping and jerking", or fishing it legal and still foul hooking. The fact is foul hooked, snagging, is part of the salmon run. FLIES, LEAD, TREBS, it's going to happen no matter what. However its always that one guy or group of guys that ruin it for the next, trashing the place, making asses of them selves, etc, so personally its not the snagging or foul hooking, its the people that trash and dickheads that are the problem!

Ive said this in the past, people don't drive 500 600 700 miles to come up and fish all week for a few fish, they come up to enjoy the getaway and fill their freezers, not any different than locals who fill their freezers. Personally I wish the damn things would bite like a walleye or steel head bites during their runs, but they plain just don't.  I'm confused too, but I enjoy salmon fishing and I also enjoy the nature of this fish.


----------



## steely74

Its so easy to pick out the snaggers from their replies :lol:...

How come hundreds of other guys on here are able to catch fish legally? Meaning the fish are opening their mouth to "eat" the bait or lure.If you're chasing them down in a foot of water when they're trying to spawn, yeah good chance they won't bite. 

All this does is show your inexperience....

It's not about filling up freezers its about greed. 

The snaggers is why I dont have the desire to fish any of the northern rivers during the peak of the run. They are out in the SW rivers too! Just not as many...

Snaggers are at the bottom of the fishing ladder, and are looked down upon by the rest of the fishing community. If that's your idea of a good time ripping trebles in the backs of fish and reeling them in sideways you got problems...


----------



## fish em all

salmonfreak05 said:


> Well first thing is first, We had a great salmon season this year personally! I did an experiment, just a an observational experiment. I watched people come down all day, and checked out there gear. It's a mixture of your beloved ticklers, spoons, rooster tails, treble with yarn, flies, the whole nine. Out of my 9 years of salmon fishing I have only ever seen 1 guy drift skein and maybe 3 throw cranks, the rest of been as I stated. "Of course I only fish one area and that's where I'm noticing"
> 
> The tickler, or knock off, of this bait is however a legal bait! End of story! Bitch moan all you want. It meets the bare minimum standers of bait regulations. Correct me if I am wrong but I remember the sign DNR APPROVED, lol.
> 
> I personally don't have a problem with them, I have seen them put smiles on a lot of people's faces, Yea they are using a legal bait but not fishing it legal, "sweeping and jerking", or fishing it legal and still foul hooking. The fact is foul hooked, snagging, is part of the salmon run. FLIES, LEAD, TREBS, it's going to happen no matter what. However its always that one guy or group of guys that ruin it for the next, trashing the place, making asses of them selves, etc, so personally its not the snagging or foul hooking, its the people that trash and dickheads that are the problem!
> 
> Ive said this in the past, people don't drive 500 600 700 miles to come up and fish all week for a few fish, they come up to enjoy the getaway and fill their freezers, not any different than locals who fill their freezers. Personally I wish the damn things would bite like a walleye or steel head bites during their runs, but they plain just don't.  I'm confused too, but I enjoy salmon fishing and I also enjoy the nature of this fish.


 
I wouldn't care if you came from china to fish, snagging is not fishing it is being greedy. If you come 700 miles you should just except the fact that you many only catch 1 or 2. Oh and by the way THEY DO BITE JUST LIKE THE STEELHEAD. The steelhead don't like to bite in a foot of water either.


----------



## Fishndude

fish em all said:


> Foul hooking happens and can not be prevent period but out right snagging is ridiculous. I have foul hooked many salmon and even last weekend foul hooked a big female unhooked her let her start swimming and 50 yrds down stream someone walks up and grabs her by the tail and throws her on the bank.


I rarely foul hook fish, because I use methods that aren't conducive to foul hooking. If you fish in a way that is likely to foul hook fish, and are fishing to large fish in shallow fast-moving water, you will foul hook more fish, period. The choice is up to the individual. For what it is worth, snagging was legal when I started fishing for Salmon. I did it. Then I "progressed" to lining them. Then I learned to appreciate that it is possible to get them to bite, at least some of the time. Then I figured out that river Salmon are pretty much Seagull food, except for when they first enter the rivers, and even a lot of those are pretty nasty. 

I will say that I am not above asking snaggers for loose Salmon eggs. I stock up every fall, for my Steelhead bait. It's a great symbiotic relationship! I get great bait, and they get............to give me eggs they won't do anything productive with. :lol: Well, at Suicide Bend, the fish they drag up the stairs don't weigh as much without all the eggs.


----------



## BAY CREEPER

Its already bad enough that snaggers out number legit fisherman 100/1... but

Snagger's bring money to the area. They buy beer, lead lures, cigarettes, and more beer, cigarettes and lead lures. Supporting local business':lol:

Legit fisherman come prepared. They don't even bother stopping at a store because they have everything they need in their little vest.

I dont take sides so save your little hate filled PM. But don't you guys ever get dizzy from going back and forth so much?:yikes:

Edit: i am sure i will take some heat on this like always:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Robert Holmes

fish em all said:


> I am glad to see people that have the same opinion as I do. I welcome all Opinions whether you believe the same way about the topic or not. I just want to make it clear I do not blame CO's they are doing the best they can under a command. Salmon are not their priority this time of year. I however do believe it is shop owners who sell the items that help to enable this to happen. Wait for it...I know it's coming "if the shop owners did not sell them there would be another way" I agree but when does it become a problem? when it is to late. It's because of this that I will never be able to catch a michigan grayling. If we allow it to happen it will. I know areas like tippy are crowded with snaggers, but they are becoming bolder and spreading out. To me it is a shameful method. We do not live in a society where it is a method to have to feed a family. If it was you wouldn't see people hauling 50 fish out of the river in a day.


 Let the tackle store owners know that as a sport fisherman who fishes legally that you don't appreciate them selling tackle that supports illegal fishing techniques. It works sometimes.


----------



## steely74

BAY CREEPER said:


> Its already bad enough that snaggers out number legit fisherman 100/1... but
> 
> Snagger's bring money to the area. They buy beer, lead lures, cigarettes, and more beer, cigarettes and lead lures. Supporting local business':lol:
> 
> Legit fisherman come prepared. They don't even bother stopping at a store because they have everything they need in their little vest.
> 
> I dont take sides so save your little hate filled PM. But don't you guys ever get dizzy from going back and forth so much?:yikes:
> 
> Edit: i am sure i will take some heat on this like always:lol::lol::lol:


Welcome back creeper!  Says the mighty steely! LOL You gave me a good laugh with that one man...


----------



## steely74

Fishndude said:


> I will say that I am not above asking snaggers for loose Salmon eggs. I stock up every fall, for my Steelhead bait.


That is in a way showing that you approve their actions. I would not take eggs from a snagger just to let them know I don't approve and dislike what they are doing. I would not befriend any of the trashy snaggers on the river either. 

Down here I may spend a good part of my day on the phone trying to get these guys busted. If it means I only fish for an hour or so then so be it... There is always another day and I just want the trash off the river so I can come back and fish in peace...


----------



## biggzikid

I've never understood why it should matter. As long as people aren't going over limit, a snagged fish is as dead as a fish that happens to take a bite at a fly. Dead is dead. People can go down and net their limit and go home for all I care.


----------



## someone11

biggzikid said:


> I've never understood why it should matter. As long as people aren't going over limit, a snagged fish is as dead as a fish that happens to take a bite at a fly. Dead is dead. People can go down and net their limit and go home for all I care.


Dead is not dead if they havent spawned yet. Ive seen some pretty beat up fish still with eggs in them.


----------



## Grizzly Adams

Woods & Waters DNR log - waaaay to many tickets for people with pot. Let the cops handle that & focus on fishing & hunting


----------



## swampbuck

someone11 said:


> Salmon are not an invasive species, they are an introduced species. And NONE of it gets wasted. You'd be surprised at the amount of nutrients ONE salmon produces for the stream/river. Without the runs of salmon rivers would be nearly dead and unable to sustain a population of fish. There have been studies shown to prove this and years of bad runs you can see the river not be as productive.


They are not native, they have become established (reproducing), and their presence has a negative effect on native species....Invasives.

Are you saying the rivers were dead prior to the introduction of salmon?


----------



## someone11

swampbuck said:


> They are not native, they have become established (reproducing), and their presence has a negative effect on native species....Invasives.
> 
> Are you saying the rivers were dead prior to the introduction of salmon?


I never said salmon were native, they are not native. Rivers werent dead prior to salmon but before salmon were here the rivers had much less human disturbance to them and they were able to sustain themselves, barely. Tell me how salmon have a negative effect on the great lakes/rivers? Not saying you are wrong, just want to hear.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

Anyone who condones the use of any hook laden chunk of lead is a flat out idiot. I'm sorry, but after 40+ years of having salmon in the Great Lakes, if you're to stupid to figure out how to get them to bite or just plain lazy, you get all the ridicule you deserve. I'm off to go get some salmon to BITE....


----------



## Cwick925

ausable_steelhead said:


> Anyone who condones the use of any hook laden chunk of lead is a flat out idiot. I'm sorry, but after 40+ years of having salmon in the Great Lakes, if you're to stupid to figure out how to get them to bite or just plain lazy, you get all the ridicule you deserve. I'm off to go get some salmon to BITE....


All you guys do its bicker back n forth about snagging and catching in the mouth.

Personally I dont let other people bother me, If the guy 50yrds down wants to snag, I watch and laugh for a min, then hook a fish in the mouth in front of them, and if they ask, I give them a setup and show them how to do it.

All you guys act like snaggers poked your wife.. Bitch and moan all day and night... WHY DONT SOMEONE JUST POST A DAMN VIDEO SHOWING EVERYONE HOW TO CATCH PROPERLY (Im not the greatest computer person, or id do it, but i cant edit video for crap ) I mean for christ sakes, Teach people the right way.. 

Someone said they will only fish for an hour and the rest of the time they call the DNR? How long would it take you to go show a snagger how to do it right? Alot less time than calling the rap hotline all day.. Trust me i know, I was never taught how to catch them in the mouth, Untill one day i was on a NW river snagging at like 16yrs old, and a guy walked down to me and said "Hey, Ya, Know they bite right?" 
I replied with "yea ive seen it but i have 0 clue as to how to do it" 
guy says "would ya like me to show ya?" 
me -" You bet!"
and 5 mins later after he tossed me a couple flies, and showed me, Ive never had to snag again.

If all the bitching on here was teaching, We might have alot more educated fisherman.


----------



## swampbuck

someone11 said:


> I never said salmon were native, they are not native. Rivers werent dead prior to salmon but before salmon were here the rivers had much less human disturbance to them and they were able to sustain themselves, barely. Tell me how salmon have a negative effect on the great lakes/rivers? Not saying you are wrong, just want to hear.


 Are you familiar with the changes in native species in Lake Huron after the salmon/alewife ecosystem crashed ?


----------



## Waz_51

swampbuck said:


> Are you familiar with the changes in native species in Lake Huron after the salmon/alewife ecosystem crashed ?


I SORT OF AM! i know that in the Saginaw Bay region, the perch and walleye fisheries have EXPLODED since the salmon disappeared...more lake trout are showing up as well


----------



## someone11

swampbuck said:


> Are you familiar with the changes in native species in Lake Huron after the salmon/alewife ecosystem crashed ?


Yes im a fisheries management major lol. You blame it on the salmon but it was due to overstocking. The salmon were not harmful in the sense like gobies or zebra mussels are. There was just too many of them. They would have been fine, stable, and healthy with the right population level. Thats where the DNR screwed up and they realize this, they have better management practices now.


----------



## someone11

Waz_51 said:


> I SORT OF AM! i know that in the Saginaw Bay region, the perch and walleye fisheries have EXPLODED since the salmon disappeared...more lake trout are showing up as well


This is because when the alewives were gone the salmon went elsewhere for food...IE perch/smelt. Hopefully most know that alewives are the main food source for salmon in the GL, if we notice a diet shift in salmon towards perch/gobies/other non-alewives then its time to get worried. Its already too late for Lake Huron but we cant catch in time in Lake Michigan.


----------



## Waz_51

someone11 said:


> This is because when the alewives were gone the salmon went elsewhere for food...IE perch/smelt. Hopefully most know that alewives are the main food source for salmon in the GL, if we notice a diet shift in salmon towards perch/gobies/other non-alewives then its time to get worried. Its already too late for Lake Huron but we cant catch in time in Lake Michigan.


dont get me wrong, i love salmon but wouldnt this be an example of them being invasive? technically, they disrupted the natural processes in Lake Huron


----------



## ausable_steelhead

someone11 said:


> I dont think the DNR will ever completely stop stocking the salmon. Im going off knowledgeable speculation here so dont bash,* but if you completely stop stocking salmon the alewife population will boom again and we'll see them back on the beaches in a couple years.* Now I could be wrong but this is what I would see happening and is thus why they will continue to stock salmon.


Doubtful. If that was the case, Lake Huron would already be back to a good salmon fishery again. It's been 8 years since the official crash of the ale's there and they have not increased at all. The mussels were and continue to be, the problem.


----------



## tannhd

Ya but they make the water so nice and clear to swim in yay.


----------



## kzoofisher

Some serious hyperbole in this thread. If the lakes can no longer support the alewife then clearly they will not recover which may or may not be a good thing; a few years isn't long enough to judge Lake Huron's future. In L. Mi the states are trying to avoid a collapse, if the prey continue to decline the kings will, too. However, if the cuts can help achieve balance without catastrophe that is better for everyone. The states can't do anything to engineer what the balance will be, they can try to not overload one side of the equation while we all wait to see what happens.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## someone11

kzoofisher said:


> Some serious hyperbole in this thread. If the lakes can no longer support the alewife then clearly they will not recover which may or may not be a good thing; a few years isn't long enough to judge Lake Huron's future. *In L. Mi the states are trying to avoid a collapse, if the prey continue to decline the kings will, too. However, if the cuts can help achieve balance without catastrophe that is better for everyone. *The states can't do anything to engineer what the balance will be, they can try to not overload one side of the equation while we all wait to see what happens.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, exactly. I guess in my previous comment I meant to say Lake Michigan, not Lake Huron.



kzoofisher said:


> The states can't do anything to engineer what the balance will be, they can try to not overload one side of the equation while we all wait to see what happens.


They're trying to avoid what happened in Lake Huron for Lake Michigan.


----------



## swampbuck

someone11 said:


> They're trying to avoid what happened in Lake Huron for Lake Michigan.


Would that be the recovery of the perch? Walleye? laker's?, whitefish?......it seems that a lot of people are quite happy with what happened to Lk. Huron.


----------



## Cwick925

swampbuck said:


> Would that be the recovery of the perch? Walleye? laker's?, whitefish?......it seems that a lot of people are quite happy with what happened to Lk. Huron.


I thought i heard the walleye population has been crashing in huron the last couple years too? Maybe I just misheard someone, or misread.? I know it was awesome a few years ago when id go with my dad, But I coulda swore i heard the population had took a major decline ( Maybe it was from gilnetters ) I dont really remember what I think i heard, Just that the pop was down


----------



## Multispeciestamer

swampbuck said:


> Would that be the recovery of the perch? Walleye? laker's?, whitefish?......it seems that a lot of people are quite happy with what happened to Lk. Huron.


 Nature will sort things out on its own to some extent. The Whitefish population in Southern Lake Michigan is booming. Not to mention they are feeding heavly on invasive mussels. Michigan needs to make up its mind on what its going to do reguarding lakers and kings. You can simply not have both. They compete against themselves. One requires alewifes one requires the absence of them. I believe we do once again have wild naturaly reproducing Lake Trout in Lake Michigan, when I confronted Jay about it I got the cold sholder. I plan to take evidence, this fall. With lakers taking part of the many abundent food sources besides alewife no reason they cant reproduce. Lake trout love eating gobies.


----------



## JimP

Multispeciestamer said:


> Nature will sort things out on its own to some extent. The Whitefish population in Southern Lake Michigan is booming. Not to mention they are feeding heavly on invasive mussels. Michigan needs to make up its mind on what its going to do reguarding lakers and kings. You can simply not have both. They compete against themselves. One requires alewifes one requires the absence of them. I believe we do once again have wild naturaly reproducing Lake Trout in Lake Michigan, when I confronted Jay about it I got the cold sholder. I plan to take evidence, this fall. With lakers taking part of the many abundent food sources besides alewife no reason they cant reproduce. Lake trout love eating gobies.


Aren't Laker's more susceptible to lamprey's?
There were years they were almost decimated...everything caught had scars.
It was a big concern as to their survival in the 60's/70's, they live lower in the water column than the Salmon.

The Salmon provide much more $$ on the Lake Michigan economy than perch, whitefish or lakers...


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> Michigan needs to make up its mind on what its going to do reguarding lakers and kings. You can simply not have both. They compete against themselves.


 Somewhat, but I wouldn't say all that much. Yes, you will find some lakers suspended up in mid column and feeding with the kings, but you will also find plenty on the bottom out in well over 200 foot that are feeding on other food sources.


----------



## kzoofisher

The fate of the Lakers will eventually be decided by the Feds and the Tribes but my recollection is that they had set a date of 2025(?) to rehabilitate naturally reproducing populations. The states join in on these negotiations but ultimate authority lies with the partiess who signed the treaties. 

As for the benefits of gobies and mussels as a food source, we'll see. Gobies are a major food source for smallmouth in Erie and the smallies are averaging larger. The smallies are also being pressured on the nest by gobies and are laying fewer eggs than previously. Will the population tend towards fewer but larger smallmouth over the next few years? Will the clearer water create more habitat at greater depths and thereby increase numbers of fish? What happens if the mayflies can't burrow through the mussels? These are only a few questions on one lake, lots of unanswered questions about all the Lakes, too many to say what things will look like in 2025.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Multispeciestamer

jimp said:


> Aren't Laker's more susceptible to lamprey's?
> There were years they were almost decimated...everything caught had scars.
> It was a big concern as to their survival in the 60's/70's, they live lower in the water column than the Salmon.
> 
> The Salmon provide much more $$ on the Lake Michigan economy than perch, whitefish or lakers...


Jimp I will have to look into the lamprey thing. I see plenty of Lakers still alive with scars so being able to spawn with success should be the thing holding them back from recovery to some extent, lampreys are the other factor to recovery. 
Salmon do contain economic importance to the Human race. But who were we to have played with nature so much in the first place, why should we have to worry about the $$. Priorities are not right; it shouldnt be what benefits us the best but what benefits the ecosystem the best.


----------



## wartfroggy

Multispeciestamer said:


> I plan to take evidence, this fall.


 So how exactly do you plan to document the successful spawning of lake trout, and the survival of their eggs/fry, this fall? Just because there are lake trout that are attempting to spawn does not really prove that they are self sustaining, unless you could prove that they themselves were naturally reproduced. Even at that, a limited ammount of natural reproduction does not mean a self sustaining fishery.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

wartfroggy said:


> So how exactly do you plan to document the successful spawning of lake trout, and the survival of their eggs/fry, this fall? Just because there are lake trout that are attempting to spawn does not really prove that they are self sustaining, unless you could prove that they themselves were naturally reproduced. Even at that, a limited ammount of natural reproduction does not mean a self sustaining fishery.


 I am thinking of taking measurments and scale samples of every lake trout I come accross in the St. Joesph River for the next few years. Also noting if they have any fin clips, or wear on the fins from being hatchry raised. I come across my fair share of them, and the recent trends seem to be more and more with no clips and signs of any wear on the fins. Where as when I first started noticing them running the river they all had fin clips. I see tons of fingerling lakers caught in the fall by whitefish fisherman, most of which are gut hooked. And once again most "appear" to be wild fish. I am not saying these are 100% wild fish, but something for sure is going on, and is worth looking into.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

someone11 said:


> As quoted in my fisheries management 3rd edition techniques book...
> 
> "The term invasive species has been defined a number of ways. In the USA, Executive order 13112, signed by clinton in 99, defines invasive spp as "an alien species whos introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." In the "Executive Summary" of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISC 2001), an invasive spp is characterized as "a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health"
> 
> So its really up for interpretation. I dont view salmon as invasives because we introduced them and because of them they have kept the alewife population in check (for lake MI anyways) and they have helped Michigan's economy greatly. I dont see how salmon can be put in the same category as round gobies or zebra mussels. They dont cause nearly as much harm as those. Couldnt you also say alewives disrupted the natural process in lake huron?


 I highlighted in red what is wrong with our society today. The fact that this is in a text book and being taught to students just worsens the effect.

The definition should just be this. Ivasive species is a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem and causes evironmental disturbence. Makes no difference if we stocked it for personal gain or if it came in by other means. Both alter the ecosystem.


----------



## johnny5alive

tannhd said:


> Back to the CO issue for a sec. Here is some striking info that I find totally disgusting.
> 
> A DNR officer who writes a ticket will only get about 10% back to the DNR per ticket. ALSO they will ONLY get a return if it is a fish and game ticket.
> 
> FOR INSTANCE: A C.O. writes a guy for snagging salmon. This certain individual was also trespassing, no license and was smoking weed. The total amount of fees for this offender would be around $1000 after everything (depending on the individual and priors, etc). The DNR will see about $40-$50 return for those tickets issued.
> 
> I wonder why they are broke?????


The problem is not small fines or enforcement. The problem is prosecutors and judges who wont go thru with a case because they believe fish and game violations dont belong in their court rooms and couldnt care less.


----------



## someone11

Multispeciestamer said:


> I highlighted in red what is wrong with our society today. The fact that this is in a text book and being taught to students just worsens the effect.
> 
> The definition should just be this. Ivasive species is a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem and causes evironmental disturbence. Makes no difference if we stocked it for personal gain or if it came in by other means. Both alter the ecosystem.


Ill agree to disagree I guess. I would say an invasive is a non-native species that causes a more negative effect on the environment than positive. Now those terms are relative and would also have to be defined. (What is negative and what is positive). I dont think of salmon as invasives but maybe thats just my opinion. I think of "invading" as very bad for the environment/ecosystem when I think of invasives.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

someone11 said:


> Ill agree to disagree I guess. I would say an invasive is a non-native species that causes a more negative effect on the environment than positive. Now those terms are relative and would also have to be defined. (What is negative and what is positive). I dont think of salmon as invasives but maybe thats just my opinion. I think of "invading" as very bad for the environment/ecosystem when I think of invasives.


 Ill refine it even more for you. An invasive species is any species in an ecosystem that never naturaly occured there in the past.


----------



## thousandcasts

There's nothing invasive about a salmon or steelhead. They were purposely introduced with an end result in mind. Thus, they're considered a non-native, but preferred species. Meaning, they figure into any discussion just as a native species would. 

A salmon isn't any more invasive than a tiger muskie or catfish is when they're introduced into waters where they don't normally exists. 

Some people really need to read up on what an invasive species really is and it's certainly not a salmon or steelhead.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

thousandcasts said:


> There's nothing invasive about a salmon or steelhead. They were purposely introduced with an end result in mind. Thus, they're considered a non-native, but preferred species. Meaning, they figure into any discussion just as a native species would.
> 
> A salmon isn't any more invasive than a tiger muskie or catfish is when they're introduced into waters where they don't normally exists.
> 
> Some people really need to read up on what an invasive species really is and it's certainly not a salmon or steelhead.


 What about pink salmon which were never ment to be stocked in the first place. INVASIVE.:evil:


----------



## thousandcasts

Multispeciestamer said:


> Ill refine it even more for you. An invasive species is any species in an ecosystem that never naturaly occured there in the past.


Since we're refining things, maybe we should refine the fact that you're wrong now, you were wrong yesterday and it's not going out on a limb to predict that you'll be wrong tomorrow. 

Salmon and steelhead have no place being lumped into the same category as spiny water fleas, mussels, lampreys, red shrimp and anything else that wasn't purposely introduced. If a salmon is an invasive, then so is a brown trout...a red ear sunfish...the common carp...tiger muskie...etc


----------

