# Enjoy this last good year of salmon fishing, Lake Michigan near collapse.



## Bruce William

chuckinduck said:


> You're right everything is fine. Here's something for those who think nothing is wrong. 12327 fish were counted at the little manistee weir in 2012. In 2013 it dropped by 50% to 6427. Last year they counted 2,781. What say you now chicken little?? Oh wait. Are they just out deep still Cuz of all the cold water?


Our straw poll on the PM in flys only last year was just as dismal although not as scienentifc as the weir catch it as alarming and this is coming from someone that has fished the river for 25 years it was alarming.


----------



## jpmarko

The feds? Pthth, please. The feds are exacerbating the problem by dumping in LOADS of lake trout and worsening the imbalance between predator and prey fish. I realize people are anxious about the situation in Lake Michigan because of the low alewife numbers and the declining king fishery, but what they forget is other species play a role too. ALL BAITFISH populations are low and in a precarious position. That means that ALL PREDATORY fish stockings need to be curtailed. The federal government, in this situation, is doing Lake Michigan and its anglers no favors here whatsoever and is worsening the situation. Lake trout eat LOTS of alewives and other baitfish too. There are so many lake trout out there that they are sure to be strongly contributing to the demise of the baitfish population. People either love or hate the salmon and are blind to the rest of the pieces of the puzzle.


----------



## gunfun13

jpmarko said:


> The feds? Pthth, please. The feds are exacerbating the problem by dumping in LOADS of lake trout and worsening the imbalance between predator and prey fish. I realize people are anxious about the situation in Lake Michigan because of the low alewife numbers and the declining king fishery, but what they forget is other species play a role too. ALL BAITFISH populations are low and in a precarious position. That means that ALL PREDATORY fish stockings need to be curtailed. The federal government, in this situation, is doing Lake Michigan and its anglers no favors here whatsoever and is worsening the situation. Lake trout eat LOTS of alewives and other baitfish too. There are so many lake trout out there that they are sure to be strongly contributing to the demise of the baitfish population. People either love or hate the salmon and are blind to the rest of the pieces of the puzzle.


I plan to take and eat a lot of lakers this year to help the imbalance :evil:


----------



## Southsider1

What's the point of this thread? Everybody knows the fishing is going downhill but to keep on talking about it serves no purpose. If you are so sure it's going to tank then sell your stuff and go inland lake fishing or quit all together. I would rather focus on the coho limits they are getting on the south end of the lake and hope for the best the rest of the year. I do believe that the US government could step in and help rebuild the fishery if the tax revenue associated with salmon fishing was there but I can't tell you how many people I talk to who don't even know there are salmon in Lake Michigan. Drive around the marinas -90% of the boats are pleasure boats. That's where the real money is at. I live in Chicago and have been to marinas down the east side and if the marinas were filled with as many 100k fishing boats as 100k pleasure boats they would be doing a lot more to save the fishery because a big group of people with money know people who have the kind of influence to change things.

Just my 02.


----------



## swampbuck

It has nothing to do with the predators. The problem is a collapse at the bottom of the food chain. The mussel's are filtering out all of the zoo plankton, which ales and smelt require for survival (as well as other young fish species)

You could quit planting every trout and salmon in the lake. It still wouldn't fix the problem. At this point there is no solution for the mussels.


----------



## SalmonBum

Honkkilla59 said:


> Preach some thing long enough it may come true.
> You do realize even a broken clock is right twice a day !:lol:


Although your comment makes no sense to me, I do feel the collpase of salmon is all my fault, since I have been mentioning it the last 8 yrs that it could be coming, but then again I was just taking the info I had at hand from my DNR buddies and what they have been seeing in their research. Its only new news to the ones that ignored the signs.


----------



## hotbite

If the DNR is monitoring this post I would like to ask what their thoughts are on a Skamania or Atlantic Salmon program on Lake Michigan? Indiana has been very successful with the Skamania Steelhead and it seems like the piers in Michigan stack with people come summer when the summer run steelhead show up. The Skamania would provide a fishery for the boats, pier fisherman, and river guys, another bonus is that they will eat just about anything. A bug eater switch over seems to be the most logical decision to me. Is their any other reason than hatchery space? Maybe spend a little more money to keep the money coming in. 

I'd put a vote in for no more lake trout plants as well.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Outdoor2daCore said:


> And.... The FEDs are dumping in hundreds of thousands of lake trout in planting and our DNR is looking to decrease lake trout limit. I'm more of a lake trout guy, but def like chrome salmon, the whole deal doesn't make a lot of sense, I guess only time will tell to see what really happens.
> 
> Here's my beef on our whole fisheries issues. Why do we still have 25 panfish limited, 50 perch, 5 inland walleye, 12 whitefish, and we wonder why our fisheries are in such bad shape. We can't take and take and think it doesn't have any effects.


Exactly my concerns. Technology has increased to a point where "Fishermen" have cameras to show them what's going on so they need not even actively fish... no need for a lower Perch limit... they could NEVER be fished out of Lk. MI.!... Hey wait... ummmmm..... Same with Sunfishes, I see Poachers taking hundreds of Gills off of beds, claiming things such as "I only take the Males, so it doesn't hurt anything" WRONG.... the Fisheries people need to wake up, we can have quality fisheries, not just fisheries. Closed spawning seasons and lower limits with slots are needed to prevent the further colapse of our fisheries. Stunted Panfish populations lead to Caloric Debt, and stunting of game fishes. 
More vociferous - concerned Anglers are what is needed to get this ball rolling, let the fishieries people know we are not happy with how they are doing things. Other states are acting on these situations, so should Michigan.


----------



## chuckinduck

hotbite said:


> If the DNR is monitoring this post I would like to ask what their thoughts are on a Skamania or Atlantic Salmon program on Lake Michigan? Indiana has been very successful with the Skamania Steelhead and it seems like the piers in Michigan stack with people come summer when the summer run steelhead show up. The Skamania would provide a fishery for the boats, pier fisherman, and river guys, another bonus is that they will eat just about anything. A bug eater switch over seems to be the most logical decision to me. Is their any other reason than hatchery space? Maybe spend a little more money to keep the money coming in.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd put a vote in for no more lake trout plants as well.



I think they'd want to see how the run goes with Atlantics on huron first. From all I've read Atlantics are expensive to raise but they finally documented signs of natural reproduction of them last fall. So that's encouraging. They clearly don't need baitfish as much as a king so if this test case on Huron works (and it seems like it is) then who knows.


----------



## METTLEFISH

hotbite said:


> If the DNR is monitoring this post I would like to ask what their thoughts are on a Skamania or Atlantic Salmon program on Lake Michigan? Indiana has been very successful with the Skamania Steelhead and it seems like the piers in Michigan stack with people come summer when the summer run steelhead show up. The Skamania would provide a fishery for the boats, pier fisherman, and river guys, another bonus is that they will eat just about anything. A bug eater switch over seems to be the most logical decision to me. Is their any other reason than hatchery space? Maybe spend a little more money to keep the money coming in.
> 
> I'd put a vote in for no more lake trout plants as well.


Those Skamania will not be the 10-20 lbers. of the past without Alewives. A fertility program is needed to help maintain the fisheries that produce some twenty BILLION dollars of economic input Annualy around the region.


----------



## SalmonBum

It costs about a nickle to raise a chinook. Its about $5 (est) to rasie an atlantic salmon. So the #1 issue is cost. Sreelhead are not cheap either.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The feds are all about creating federal jobs with our tax dollars. That is why they keep dumping lake trout. It is very much the same with the wolves. They cannot have enough lake trout and wolves. When everything else goes by the wayside so will their tax dollars and their jobs. I really doubt that there is a federal biologist anywhere that knows what an ecosystem is. The feds should be working with the tribes and states and get a plan together.


----------



## starcraft_1961

If the kings fade away people go on unemployment and many jobs and Incomes are lost.
Seems like an effective way to keep people dependent on the system for a decent size region. The feds are interested in what's good for the Fed's. Their jobs our money.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The economic loss is one thing that the feds could care less about.Look at the economic loss that occurred when wolf populations got established. Now there is not a single biologist anywhere that can tell you when enough is enough. When economic factors are compiled between fish and wildlife the people who are paid by us might do what is right for the ecosystem. Planting more Chinook won't do anything but planting more steelhead will keep people fishing regardless of the cost.


----------



## SalmonBum

starcraft_1961 said:


> If the kings fade away people go on unemployment and many jobs and Incomes are lost.
> Seems like an effective way to keep people dependent on the system for a decent size region. The feds are interested in what's good for the Fed's. Their jobs our money.


You can plant all the kings you want. If the lake cannot support them, then they all die anyway. Just dumping in more fish is NOT the answer. The best thing that happened to Huron recently is when they stopped planting kings. Hopefully it will give the lake time to come back on its own. 

And the amount of lost jobs due to disappearance of salmon will be far minimal in the big piture of things. When the salmon are gone, the old fisherman are not gonna take up sitting on couch and watch old re-runs of south park. They are gonna find another hobby to spend thier hard earned money on, and that will create jobs, maybe even more. Its all a cycle. But God, do I not want to take up golf......


----------



## Corey K

SalmonBum said:


> You can plant all the kings you want. If the lake cannot support them, then they all die anyway. Just dumping in more fish is NOT the answer. The best thing that happened to Huron recently is when they stopped planting kings. Hopefully it will give the lake time to come back on its own.
> 
> And the amount of lost jobs due to disappearance of salmon will be far minimal in the big piture of things. When the salmon are gone, the old fisherman are not gonna take up sitting on couch and watch old re-runs of south park. They are gonna find another hobby to spend thier hard earned money on, and that will create jobs, maybe even more. Its all a cycle. But God, do I not want to take up golf......


They will all come to Saginaw Bay and charter until that crashes....Ummm I think we need like 8 million Seeforellens!!! And dump some rocks on our shoreline so they stay...lol


----------



## SalmonBum

Corey K said:


> They will all come to Saginaw Bay and charter until that crashes....Ummm I think we need like 8 million Seeforellens!!! And dump some rocks on our shoreline so they stay...lol


Why you complaining abou that? All the Saginaw bays guys come to Ludington for August. You can spot them a mile away trolling the point East\West pulling big boards :lol:


----------



## GuppyII

SalmonBum said:


> Why you complaining abou that? All the Saginaw bays guys come to Ludington for August. You can spot them a mile away trolling the point East\West pulling big boards :lol:


Careful! !! I resent that remark... I don't use big boards and usually stay away from the zoo too....


----------



## Corey K

SalmonBum said:


> Why you complaining abou that? All the Saginaw bays guys come to Ludington for August. You can spot them a mile away trolling the point East\West pulling big boards :lol:


Never needed to run a "Tuna Spread" on Saginaw Bay for a limit...lol

I will troll what ever way the current is going....I don't need to follow the "other" boats...

The biggest board I have is Tx-44's are those too big???


----------



## Ranger Ray

The steelhead coming out of the big lake are not all that healthy either. I am seeing a high percentage of emaciated fish. Not sure if the cause is lack of food, but something is up.


----------



## SalmonBum

Corey K said:


> Never needed to run a "Tuna Spread" on Saginaw Bay for a limit...lol
> 
> I will troll what ever way the current is going....I don't need to follow the "other" boats...
> 
> The biggest board I have is Tx-44's are those too big???


1. ahh.... your one of those guys that ALWAYS catch a limit. I gotcha.

2. You can troll whatever way you'd like, just as long as your not in a big group of boats and your the only one going against the grain.

3. Tx-44s are pretty big, but thats much better than them big planks most bay guys run.


----------



## Corey K

SalmonBum said:


> 1. ahh.... your one of those guys that ALWAYS catch a limit. I gotcha.
> 
> 2. You can troll whatever way you'd like, just as long as your not in a big group of boats and your the only one going against the grain.
> 
> 3. Tx-44s are pretty big, but thats much better than them big planks most bay guys run.


Your right, I bet you have a lot of fishing partners...If the structure wasn't North to South you would be screwed LOL.....

Oh and I did get skunked several times this year ice fishing, so no I don't ALWAYS limit.

I will be on the look out and warn others about their trolling direction. I will instruct others to pull the gear and go run and re-set for another straight pass...


----------



## Fishndude

chuckinduck said:


> The problem with huron was I don't think they saw the crash coming. It literally crashed overnight. The crash on Lk Michigan has been more of a gradual decline But most won't argue it has crashed. Hopefully the DNRs forward thinking will keep the lake from getting as bad as huron was at one point. If Huron can rebound so too can Michigan.


Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. The DNR, and Feds knew all about the Zebra, and Quagga Mussels long before lake Huron crashed. I discussed it with some of the people who had direct input into the matter. The Mussels didn't simply overpopulate the lake, and suck it dry of nutrients in a year. It took approximately 15 years. As soon as I knew about the Mussels (their existence, and how they live), I made it a point to dig further with the people who work with our fisheries. And I speculated that there would be a disastrous outcome if something wasn't done to control their spread. Unfortunately nobody (to this day) has figured out how to control the Mussels in watersheds the size of our great lakes. 

None of this is worth fighting about, because we all love to catch Kings. They are the most major source of bait for Steelhead I have, by far. And I like that they pull hard. I don't care to eat them, but I smoke some every year to give to my (Seagull, LOL) friends. At least I don't have $30K, or $75K invested in a boat, gear, etc., to fish for them. 

I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories, ie; "The Feds want a bazillion Lakers, and no Salmon; We just need to plant more Kings to have more Kings; There is plenty of baitfish for all the Salmon anyone could plant," etc. As already stated, and beat to death in another thread, titled, "Collapse," the simple fact of the matter is that the Quagga Mussels, and Zebra Mussels out-compete native shrimp (Diporiea) for food. And Alewives feed almost exclusively on Diporiea in our lakes, and Kings feed almost exclusively on Alewives. And Cohos, Steelhead, Browns, and Lakers all benefitted hugely from feasting on Alewives - Lakers least of all. 

I have known several MIDNR biologists over the years, and I assure you, not one of them wants to hurt the fisheries we have in any way. They are more passionate about our fisheries than any of us. Could they have reduced Salmon plants on lake Huron sooner? Sure. Would that have stopped the Mussels from ruining the lake for Salmon fishing? Not a bit - it just would have slowed the inevitable crash. And it was inevitable that it would also happen on lake Michigan, despite lots of people thinking otherwise. 

I feel really bad for the citizens of cities that are highly dependent on Salmon fishing. Frankfort, Manistee, and Ludington come to mind. Lots of recreational fishermen are selling their boats, and tackle now, before their resale market crumbles. The same thing happened in the towns on lake Huron, when it crashed, except that most didn't sell until after the crash, when there was a huge glut of stuff for sale. Forewarned, and forearmed.


----------



## SalmonBum

Corey K said:


> Your right, I bet you have a lot of fishing partners...If the structure wasn't North to South you would be screwed LOL.....


Not me. I'm just at home alone and to the west . I dont have a problem burning the fuel


----------



## ESOX

The Welland Canal caused the problem that led to salmon being planted. The Welland Canal provided it's own solution to the alwive problem it created. I am old enough to have seen the entire cycle. Full circle in a lifetime. The Coho fishing in GTB in the late 60's/ early 70's before Chins was something to behold......


----------



## Southsider1

I can anyone honesty name something ,other than the reintroduction of turkeys, that the MDNR has done well? Does anyone remember the unlimited doe permits to "manage" the "out of control" deer populations? Well between that and the great wolf reintroduction there are basically no deer left in the UP and the majority of the deer in the LP are either on private farmland or in subdivisions. The DNR always has an excuse-- water too hot/cold not enough/too much rain but if I was trying to save my job I would always an unverifiable answer/theory too.

Remember the salmon were planted to rid the alewives so they would stop stinking up the beaches -the fishery was just a bonus. Yah a few tackle shops might shut down but the all the beach towns from new buffalo to traverse city will still be packed in the summer if their are no fish in the lake. I'll bet you if the quagga mussels emitted some sort of bacteria that caused the water to stink or it caused skin irritation and people stopped going to the beaches and buying beachfront property they would spend the money to find a way to remove them but spend it to save a fish that they say are dangerous to eat anyway? I think not.


----------



## michiganmaniac

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers by saying this, but I think that everyone should stop hating on the mdnr as much as they do. I have met many people who work for the dnr and they are all very fine people. Its tough for them to please everyone, with thousands of different voices and opinions, plus limited funding. Sure they may not always be right, but neither am I. As long as we as people are imperfect, nothing we do will be perfect. I'm just glad that they actually care about the environment and don't sit by passively. 

Of course I hate to see the salmon go. But in ten years, who knows what the lakes will be like. Salmon may be all but a distant memory. 

As far as I'm concerned, the salmon(with the help of some tankers and mussels) did their job, killed all the alewifes hahahah. I'm just glad we have a great resident trout fishery in Michigan!


----------



## 7mmsendero

We destroyed the Great lakes long ago when we put in the canals and connected them to the rest of the world by boat. The problem continues to evolve and we don't the only way to save the Great Lakes is close the canals and then work on healing them which could take thousands of years.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how much traction this idea could ever have, but it made a lot of sense when I first heard about it. Close the Great Lakes to ocean traffic, and have a Great Lakes only fleet. Unload cargo at Buffalo and in Chicago, then reload cargo onto Great Lakes ships. It wouldn't be free, but it would create a bunch of jobs and protect the lakes from further invaders.


----------



## tda513

michiganmaniac said:


> I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers by saying this, but I think that everyone should stop hating on the mdnr as much as they do. I have met many people who work for the dnr and they are all very fine people. Its tough for them to please everyone, with thousands of different voices and opinions, plus limited funding. Sure they may not always be right, but neither am I. As long as we as people are imperfect, nothing we do will be perfect. I'm just glad that they actually care about the environment and don't sit by passively.
> 
> Of course I hate to see the salmon go. But in ten years, who knows what the lakes will be like. Salmon may be all but a distant memory.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, the salmon(with the help of some tankers and mussels) did their job, killed all the alewifes hahahah. I'm just glad we have a great resident trout fishery in Michigan!


Agreed. The whole salmon fishery was basically a huge experiment to begin with, and I think most can agree that the results have been pretty incredible over the last 40+ years. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade or so.


----------



## swampbuck

Fishndude said:


> Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. The DNR, and Feds knew all about the Zebra, and Quagga Mussels long before lake Huron crashed. I discussed it with some of the people who had direct input into the matter. The Mussels didn't simply overpopulate the lake, and suck it dry of nutrients in a year. It took approximately 15 years. As soon as I knew about the Mussels (their existence, and how they live), I made it a point to dig further with the people who work with our fisheries. And I speculated that there would be a disastrous outcome if something wasn't done to control their spread. Unfortunately nobody (to this day) has figured out how to control the Mussels in watersheds the size of our great lakes.
> 
> None of this is worth fighting about, because we all love to catch Kings. They are the most major source of bait for Steelhead I have, by far. And I like that they pull hard. I don't care to eat them, but I smoke some every year to give to my (Seagull, LOL) friends. At least I don't have $30K, or $75K invested in a boat, gear, etc., to fish for them.
> 
> I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories, ie; "The Feds want a bazillion Lakers, and no Salmon; We just need to plant more Kings to have more Kings; There is plenty of baitfish for all the Salmon anyone could plant," etc. As already stated, and beat to death in another thread, titled, "Collapse," the simple fact of the matter is that the Quagga Mussels, and Zebra Mussels out-compete native shrimp (Diporiea) for food. And Alewives feed almost exclusively on Diporiea in our lakes, and Kings feed almost exclusively on Alewives. And Cohos, Steelhead, Browns, and Lakers all benefitted hugely from feasting on Alewives - Lakers least of all.
> 
> I have known several MIDNR biologists over the years, and I assure you, not one of them wants to hurt the fisheries we have in any way. They are more passionate about our fisheries than any of us. Could they have reduced Salmon plants on lake Huron sooner? Sure. Would that have stopped the Mussels from ruining the lake for Salmon fishing? Not a bit - it just would have slowed the inevitable crash. And it was inevitable that it would also happen on lake Michigan, despite lots of people thinking otherwise.
> 
> I feel really bad for the citizens of cities that are highly dependent on Salmon fishing. Frankfort, Manistee, and Ludington come to mind. Lots of recreational fishermen are selling their boats, and tackle now, before their resale market crumbles. The same thing happened in the towns on lake Huron, when it crashed, except that most didn't sell until after the crash, when there was a huge glut of stuff for sale. Forewarned, and forearmed.



I agree with everything except... Rainbows, browns and lakers DID NOT benefit from alewives/smelt. And neither did any other species in the lake. Between the effects of thiaminais on spawning and life span, and early mortality syndrome both caused by them....as well as competition for food at the bottom of the food chain and heavy predation on fry and juvenile fish.

Not to mention their high fat content equates to a human surviving on Big Macs (want to know why Great Lakes lakers are greasy)......alewives and smelt have not benefitted anything, hell they even inhibit successful reproduction in chinook and coho.

Good riddance to them !


----------



## Ralph Smith

Well, I hope it crashes quick, I'm looking for a good deal on a big water boat by next year:lol:


----------



## Fishndude

swampbuck said:


> I agree with everything except... Rainbows, browns and lakers DID NOT benefit from alewives/smelt. And neither did any other species in the lake. Between the effects of thiaminais on spawning and life span, and early mortality syndrome both caused by them....as well as competition for food at the bottom of the food chain and heavy predation on fry and juvenile fish.
> 
> Not to mention their high fat content equates to a human surviving on Big Macs (want to know why Great Lakes lakers are greasy)......alewives and smelt have not benefitted anything, hell they even inhibit successful reproduction in chinook and coho.
> 
> Good riddance to them !


Well, the self-sustaining runs of Steelhead on the PM, and Little Manistee rivers thrived when there were tons of Alewives. And the fish grew very large. Many Steelhead over 20# were caught each year, for a long time, and those fish feasted on Alewives - and many were caught from piers by anglers using Alewives for bait. I've caught plenty of Steelhead and Browns using Alewives for bait. Now that the Alewives are dying out, the Steelhead, Kings, and Browns are smaller. To me that indicates that those species, which were always mostly planted to support good fishing, thrived on Alewives. But that is just my logic.


----------



## swampbuck

Just because they ran, doesn't mean they produced viable offspring....or that they weren't planted to begin with. 

The effect of alewives on trout/salmon as well as other species is well documented, a quick google search will give you days worth of reading material........unfortunately many fishermen can't handle the truth.


----------



## Lou is Blue

swampbuck said:


> Just because they ran, doesn't mean they produced viable offspring....or that they weren't planted to begin with.
> 
> The effect of alewives on trout/salmon as well as other species is well documented, a quick google search will give you days worth of reading material........unfortunately many fishermen can't handle the truth.


We live in world with a lake that has alewife. Who is going to purge them? You swampbuck ? Perch have a responsibility greater than you can possibly imagine. You weep for the salmon, and curse the juvenile perch ; you have that luxury. 

You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that juvenile perch promote a natural fishery, and lake trout while grotesque and incomprehensible to you promote a natural fishery.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on message boards, you want those baby perch, you need those baby perch.

We use these fish to form the backbone of a natural fishery, you use them as by-catch.


----------



## Ralph Smith

Lou is Blue said:


> We live in world with a lake that has alewife. Who is going to purge them? You swampbuck ? Perch have a responsibility greater than you can possibly imagine. You weep for the salmon, and curse the juvenile perch ; you have that luxury.
> 
> You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that juvenile perch promote a natural fishery, and lake trout while grotesque and incomprehensible to you promote a natural fishery.
> 
> You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about on message boards, you want those baby perch, you need those baby perch.
> 
> We use these fish to form the backbone of a natural fishery, you use them as by-catch.


Not sure I understand what your saying here:lol: But the lake is going down at some point, and will be just like Huron. You can put that in your pipe and smoke it


----------



## Fishndude

swampbuck said:


> Just because they ran, doesn't mean they produced viable offspring....or that they weren't planted to begin with.
> 
> The effect of alewives on trout/salmon as well as other species is well documented, a quick google search will give you days worth of reading material........unfortunately many fishermen can't handle the truth.


I am well versed on the issue of thiaminase/Vitamin B1 in Alewives, and the effects it has on young Salmon, and Trout mortality in our lakes. My point is that Salmon, and Steelhead still managed to successfully spawn in rivers that are conducive to successful spawning, when there were tons of Alewives in the lakes. And the adult fish were fat, and feisty. 

But, again, this isn't something to fight or argue over. None of US caused the Mussel invasion. It is what it is, and nobody has the solution. Will some people still harbor boats in Ludington, Manistee, and Frankfort? Of course - not every boater fishes. But a LOT of people who have kept boats in those towns are going to sell their stuff, and the towns are going to lose a buttload of revenue from fishermen. Check out Oscoda, and Harrisville, if you want proof of that. 
Are King Salmon going to die out to the point where it will be almost silly to target them? Yep, it seems so. Will Browns, Steelhead, and Cohos be quite a bit smaller than we have grown used to? Yep, that seems likely, too. Will the lakes still have some gamefish to fish for? Yes, they will. More Perch, Lakers, Smallmouth, Sturgeon, and Walleyes, which are all native fish. 



> I can anyone honesty name something ,other than the reintroduction of turkeys, that the MDNR has done well? Does anyone remember the unlimited doe permits to "manage" the "out of control" deer populations?


Sure. 1) The DNR, under the direction of Howard Tanner, introduced Pacific Salmon to the Great Lakes to consume Alewives, and invasive species which had overtaken the ecosystem. Prior to the introduction of Salmon, Alewives literally made up 90% of the biomass of the great lakes. Interesting aside: Mr. Tanner considered planting Striped Bass, but decided on Pacific Salmon, because they have shorter life cycles. 
2) The DNR issued unlimited doe permits on areas where Bovine Tuberculosis was getting to be a very serious problem. In the most highly infected area, 4% of the deer populate had Bovine Tuberculosis. That is 1 out of every 25 deer! They literally wanted to exterminate as many deer as possible, to thin the herd enough to make the disease die off, which has worked very well. 
3) The DNR, and everyone thought that Pacific Salmon would not bite once they entered rivers to spawn, so initially snagging of Salmon was allowed. Unfortunately that brought out the worst in some people, and everywhere that spawning Salmon were concentrated (dams, for the most part) was trashed by slobs every spawning season. When it was realized that savvy anglers could get Salmon to bite, after they entered the rivers, the DNR made snagging illegal. 

I think they got those things right, and that is the tip of the iceberg. When I grew up, the limit on Perch was 100/person/day. When the populations started to decline, the limit was lowered (50); then lowered further (35). Right now there are so many Walleyes in Saginaw Bay that the DNR is considering raising the quantity limit to 10, and lowering the size limit to 13", to give Perch a shot at rebounding. I'm sure there are myriad other things they have done, and do, to help make our State a better place for outdoors sports enthusiasts. With regards to Salmon planting, the lifecyle of Pacific Salmon is basically 3, or 4 years. When changes are made to the planting program, it takes 3, or 4 years to figure out what the results of the changes are/were. If they had a crystal ball that worked right, we wouldn't have Mussels, or Alewives, or any Pacific Salmon. How much fun would have been missed in the last 40 years if that was the case?


----------



## Ralph Smith

Fishndude said:


> I think they got those things right, and that is the tip of the iceberg. When I grew up, the limit on Perch was 100/person/day. When the populations started to decline, the limit was lowered (50); then lowered further (35). Right now there are so many Walleyes in Saginaw Bay that the DNR is considering raising the quantity limit to 10, and lowering the size limit to 13", to give Perch a shot at rebounding. I'm sure there are myriad other things they have done, and do, to help make our State a better place for outdoors sports enthusiasts. With regards to Salmon planting, the lifecyle of Pacific Salmon is basically 3, or 4 years. When changes are made to the planting program, it takes 3, or 4 years to figure out what the results of the changes are/were. If they had a crystal ball that worked right, we wouldn't have Mussels, or Alewives, or any Pacific Salmon. How much fun would have been missed in the last 40 years if that was the case?


Very good points and post Who knows what the next 20 years will hold. Maybe there will be loads of Atlantics and steel in the lakes in the future, or maybe everyone will be shooting Asian carp. Only time will tell. It's more in natures hand than ours. One bad thing, or good thing can shape the future.


----------



## aroflinger

Ralph Smith said:


> Very good points and post Who knows what the next 20 years will hold. Maybe there will be loads of Atlantics and steel in the lakes in the future, or maybe everyone will be shooting Asian carp. Only time will tell. It's more in natures hand than ours. One bad thing, or good thing can shape the future.


I'm using a Louisville slugger for asian carp!


----------



## iLiveInTrees

I love fishing lakers, they fight hard, so am looking forward to fishing for them long into the future. We have had "salmon camp" for the past 15 years as a group, carrying on the tradition laid out for us. Total bummer that my kids will most likely not get a chance to continue it.

Nothing can be done about it though, so no use in crying about it.....start new traditions!


----------



## swampbuck

Fishndude said:


> I am well versed on the issue of thiaminase/Vitamin B1 in Alewives, and the effects it has on young Salmon, and Trout mortality in our lakes. My point is that Salmon, and Steelhead still managed to successfully spawn in rivers that are conducive to successful spawning, when there were tons of Alewives in the lakes. And the adult fish were fat, and feisty.
> 
> 
> 
> But, again, this isn't something to fight or argue over. None of US caused the Mussel invasion. It is what it is, and nobody has the solution. Will some people still harbor boats in Ludington, Manistee, and Frankfort? Of course - not every boater fishes. But a LOT of people who have kept boats in those towns are going to sell their stuff, and the towns are going to lose a buttload of revenue from fishermen. Check out Oscoda, and Harrisville, if you want proof of that.
> 
> Are King Salmon going to die out to the point where it will be almost silly to target them? Yep, it seems so. Will Browns, Steelhead, and Cohos be quite a bit smaller than we have grown used to? Yep, that seems likely, too. Will the lakes still have some gamefish to fish for? Yes, they will. More Perch, Lakers, Smallmouth, Sturgeon, and Walleyes, which are all native fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. 1) The DNR, under the direction of Howard Tanner, introduced Pacific Salmon to the Great Lakes to consume Alewives, and invasive species which had overtaken the ecosystem. Prior to the introduction of Salmon, Alewives literally made up 90% of the biomass of the great lakes. Interesting aside: Mr. Tanner considered planting Striped Bass, but decided on Pacific Salmon, because they have shorter life cycles.
> 
> 2) The DNR issued unlimited doe permits on areas where Bovine Tuberculosis was getting to be a very serious problem. In the most highly infected area, 4% of the deer populate had Bovine Tuberculosis. That is 1 out of every 25 deer! They literally wanted to exterminate as many deer as possible, to thin the herd enough to make the disease die off, which has worked very well.
> 
> 3) The DNR, and everyone thought that Pacific Salmon would not bite once they entered rivers to spawn, so initially snagging of Salmon was allowed. Unfortunately that brought out the worst in some people, and everywhere that spawning Salmon were concentrated (dams, for the most part) was trashed by slobs every spawning season. When it was realized that savvy anglers could get Salmon to bite, after they entered the rivers, the DNR made snagging illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> I think they got those things right, and that is the tip of the iceberg. When I grew up, the limit on Perch was 100/person/day. When the populations started to decline, the limit was lowered (50); then lowered further (35). Right now there are so many Walleyes in Saginaw Bay that the DNR is considering raising the quantity limit to 10, and lowering the size limit to 13", to give Perch a shot at rebounding. I'm sure there are myriad other things they have done, and do, to help make our State a better place for outdoors sports enthusiasts. With regards to Salmon planting, the lifecyle of Pacific Salmon is basically 3, or 4 years. When changes are made to the planting program, it takes 3, or 4 years to figure out what the results of the changes are/were. If they had a crystal ball that worked right, we wouldn't have Mussels, or Alewives, or any Pacific Salmon. How much fun would have been missed in the last 40 years if that was the case?



I pretty much agree. So that being said, maybe the DNR and fishermen should quit expending time and resources beating a dead horse (ales/salmon) and start focusing their efforts on what comes next.


----------



## Sparky23

So now they lower the delicate lake trout limit to, 2? And put a slot on it. Have to preserve them with salmon going bye bye i guess, why not lower steel to 2, there the ones that are gunna take the hit when charters cant find salmon.


----------



## sslopok

chuckinduck said:


> We must have the fat lazy lakers on Lk huron. Only time I have had a good fight with one is generally when I catch them through the ice. The fish we catch trolling generally don't fight much at all. Every once in a great while one will forget he's a lake trout and impress me for a 30ft burst but rarely do I see one peel drag


The big pigs dont zip out drag, but they will sit on the bottom and make it a hell of a battle to pull them up. I'm talking about the 15+ lbs.


----------



## Gnarf

I'm no biologist but my catch rates and the catch rates of seasoned fisherman around me has been good. Most the kings I caught last year had good bait in them.

If its going to be anything like Huron after this year we would be seeing it very quickly with low numbers all around and caved in bellies. Haven't seen that yet. Plus immature fish catch rates after the run were good last year.

Maybe the cuts can prevent a huge crash and we will just see a less extreme decline, resulting in less fishermen, but allowing those who are left with decent catch rates? 
Just my observation.


----------



## Chandler

Gnarf said:


> I'm no biologist but my catch rates and the catch rates of seasoned fisherman around me has been good. Most the kings I caught last year had good bait in them.
> 
> If its going to be anything like Huron after this year we would be seeing it very quickly with low numbers all around and caved in bellies. Haven't seen that yet. Plus immature fish catch rates after the run were good last year.
> 
> Maybe the cuts can prevent a huge crash and we will just see a less extreme decline, resulting in less fishermen, but allowing those who are left with decent catch rates?
> Just my observation.


Agreed. Last year during trips in May we had good catches with a few good limits. June was slow like usual and it picked up mid July and after the run the fishing was hot offshore with a lot of juvenile fish. Most fish we caught last year were filled with bait. One of the captains was talking and said the year of 2012 is why there have been less kings. In 2012 if you can remember it was a warm year and people began fishing a lot earlier and a lot of the fish stayed in close and the Kings never really left out to the offshore reefs. When all those fish were in close all year people were nailing the fish and everyone and there brother was taking home bigger boxes than they normally would. Mix that in with everyone being able to be out earlier in the season the fish numbers are going to be dramatically down the next couple of years. Now as for the bait, we still marked lots of bait balls and if you were in the mud in grand haven there was bait everywhere in there. In some instances a few times we had to pull up lines because we had alewfies hanging on them. We barely had any fish that did not have bait in them. And with the great catches in the fall of 2014 I'm not too worried about this years fish. 2016 will be another story because of the cuts. But for 2015 season I think it we will have better catches.


----------



## 83mulligan

My personal opinion is that the Feds are glad to see the salmon go at this point and they will keep pumping lakers in to sustain some kind of sport fishery for anglers. When the big crash on salmon comes the charter industry will also crash. At that point they can replace that revenue stream with one that is much larger and with much less opposition in place to block it. Selling our fresh water to western states.


----------



## Lou is Blue

83mulligan said:


> My personal opinion is that the Feds are glad to see the salmon go at this point and they will keep pumping lakers in to sustain some kind of sport fishery for anglers. When the big crash on salmon comes the charter industry will also crash. At that point they can replace that revenue stream with one that is much larger and with much less opposition in place to block it. Selling our fresh water to western states.


Three things to keep in mind, from a guy who had nightmares about fishing river mouths for steelhead, and looking back at the piers:

1 like generations before us, if someone wants something we have here; we need to make them move here to enrich us; just like southern Californian real estate developers did. So repeat after me; if you really want our water move here.

2 if you believe sportsman here have political clout; wait until you see what Lake Michigan land owners can marshal

3 they'd have to get the guns first, lol; and I mean the long guns.


----------



## Ralph Smith

Lou is Blue said:


> Three things to keep in mind, from a guy who had nightmares about fishing river mouths for steelhead, and looking back at the piers:
> 
> 1 like generations before us, if someone wants something we have here; we need to make them move here to enrich us; just like southern Californian real estate developers did. So repeat after me; if you really want our water move here.
> 
> 2 if you believe sportsman here have political clout; wait until you see what Lake Michigan land owners can marshal
> 
> 3 *they'd have to get the guns first, lol; and I mean the long guns*.


So, I don't get it, were you shooting steelhead.:SHOCKED::lol:


----------



## slightofhand

Well it looks like this long drawn out collapse could now finally be coming to an end with a thud delivered by the MDNR. Not sure who leaked what, but over the weekend I heard from three unrelated parties from Wisc, Indiana and Michigan that there will be ZERO Chinook stocking Lake Michigan in 2016.

Could be a rumor, but it was in very quick succession that these three people came forward. Trying to track down a source referred to as a"michigan biologist"

Fear not however, the booming Lake Trout will continue to be stocked at a frenetic 3 million plus pace each year well into the future. It's so reassuring to know that lake trout never eat the non-existent alewife, so they should end up being okay.


----------



## tgafish

slightofhand said:


> Well it looks like this long drawn out collapse could now finally be coming to an end with a thud delivered by the MDNR. Not sure who leaked what, but over the weekend I heard from three unrelated parties from Wisc, Indiana and Michigan that there will be ZERO Chinook stocking Lake Michigan in 2016.
> 
> Could be a rumor, but it was in very quick succession that these three people came forward. Trying to track down a source referred to as a"michigan biologist"


Interesting rumor. I hope it's true. That would be a sign that they are not giving up on the fishery. If they wanted to return it to the natural state like the Feds and the tribe do they would simply dump 3-4 million smolts in the lake and call it over.

btw I think your LT number is a little misleading. I think that number is the total for all great lakes. If I remember correctly the total for LM was in the 1.3 or 1.7 range


----------



## Fishndude

slightofhand said:


> Well it looks like this long drawn out collapse could now finally be coming to an end with a thud delivered by the MDNR. Not sure who leaked what, but over the weekend I heard from three unrelated parties from Wisc, Indiana and Michigan that there will be ZERO Chinook stocking Lake Michigan in 2016.
> 
> Could be a rumor, but it was in very quick succession that these three people came forward. Trying to track down a source referred to as a"michigan biologist"
> 
> Fear not however, the booming Lake Trout will continue to be stocked at a frenetic 3 million plus pace each year well into the future. It's so reassuring to know that lake trout never eat the non-existent alewife, so they should end up being okay.


So, the fact that Alewives are finally dying out on lake Michigan, which means that Kings and Cohos will also die out, for the most part, doesn't mean anything to you? I would say that the increase in planting of Lakers is an effort by the DNR, and Feds, to sustain some sort of big lake fishery for people who have invested heavily in boats, and gear for fishing the lakes for large fish. The planting of the Lakers hasn't caused the demise of the Alewives. The Quagga Mussels took care of that. And without the Alewives, the Kings will go - it is a simple fact. 

So, since nobody is "choosing" Kings over Lakers, but simply reacting to the situation that exists, what would _*you*_ propose as an alternate solution to the problem of the Salmon disappearing? Real solutions, only, please.


----------



## Jay Wesley

slightofhand said:


> Well it looks like this long drawn out collapse could now finally be coming to an end with a thud delivered by the MDNR. Not sure who leaked what, but over the weekend I heard from three unrelated parties from Wisc, Indiana and Michigan that there will be ZERO Chinook stocking Lake Michigan in 2016.
> 
> Could be a rumor, but it was in very quick succession that these three people came forward. Trying to track down a source referred to as a"michigan biologist"
> 
> Fear not however, the booming Lake Trout will continue to be stocked at a frenetic 3 million plus pace each year well into the future. It's so reassuring to know that lake trout never eat the non-existent alewife, so they should end up being okay.


The Lake Michigan Committee has not made a decision on stocking for 2016. They will be discussing the issue throughout the summer. If stocking were reduced, it would be another attempt to balance the predators and prey out there and an attempt to allow alewife to sustain themselves and hopefully pull off a strong year class.


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> The Lake Michigan Committee has not made a decision on stocking for 2016. They will be discussing the issue throughout the summer. If stocking were reduced, it would be another attempt to balance the predators and prey out there and an attempt to allow alewife to sustain themselves and hopefully pull off a strong year class.


Thank you for the clarification Jay. I hope that for the committee's sake they now acknowledge the Lake Trout as a "predator" and are factoring in their numbers with regards to balancing with available prey. It is also encouraging to hear your support for alewife sustaining themselves as a valuable member to the forage base in lake Michigan for all predators.


----------



## jpmarko

Jay Wesley said:


> The Lake Michigan Committee has not made a decision on stocking for 2016. They will be discussing the issue throughout the summer. If stocking were reduced, it would be another attempt to balance the predators and prey out there and an attempt to allow alewife to sustain themselves and hopefully pull off a strong year class.


Yes, thanks for the clarification, Jay. Btw, where could one find the most recent info on trawl studies and baitfish numbers by the MDNR?


----------



## jpmarko

Jay, is there even a slight chance that the DNR could do something to decrease laker plant numbers in Lake Michigan? I have nothing against lake trout, but let's face it... they will feed heavily on alewives if they are around, which isn't helping the predator-prey balance in Lake Michigan.


----------



## storman

jpmarko said:


> Jay, is there even a slight chance that the DNR could do something to decrease laker plant numbers in Lake Michigan? I have nothing against lake trout, but let's face it... they will feed heavily on alewives if they are around, which isn't helping the predator-prey balance in Lake Michigan.



I have to think a lot of us are thinking the same thing as you are, and cant understand the continued large laker plants. I think we all understand the salmon fishing will decline with the bait declining but seems like we could try to balance ALL predator fish for the better of all us fisherman.


----------



## jpmarko

storman said:


> I have to think a lot of us are thinking the same thing as you are, and cant understand the continued large laker plants. I think we all understand the salmon fishing will decline with the bait declining but seems like we could try to balance ALL predator fish for the better of all us fisherman.


I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one to think that.


----------



## jpmarko

I am well aware of the fact that lake trout feed on a variety of things and do not need alewives to survive, unlike chinook. But, I also know that lake trout will feed heavily on alewives if they are around and readily available. And often times, they are around and lake trout will happily take advantage. It is not uncommon to find alewives in the stomachs of lake trout. Since there are so many lake trout in Lake Michigan right now, you will have a hard time convincing me that they aren't putting a dent in the bait fish population. Lake trout stocking needs to be reduced, one way or another, if the bait fish population is to rebound.


----------



## MrFysch

Mr Wesley ....could you please help me understand what the benefit of stopping the salmon plants would be? A few more alewives in Lake Michigan. What species are we protecting that relies on the alewives. Alewives population goes up and down due to a variety of reasons. Seems very simplistic to just stop planting salmon and wait and see what happens to the alewives population.


----------



## tgafish

jpmarko said:


> Yes, thanks for the clarification, Jay. Btw, where could one find the most recent info on trawl studies and baitfish numbers by the MDNR?


----------



## tgafish

This is 2013 results. We were told in January that this report for 2014 would be out sometime in the summer

www.glfc.org/lakecom/.../Compiled Reports from USGS 2014.pdf


----------



## jpmarko

Thanks. Was wondering where to find those.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Just keep in mind that all salmonines take advantage of alewife when they are the primary prey item in good abundance. This includes brown trout, lake trout, coho, and steelhead. Lake trout numbers are set by the Lake Trout Rehabilitation Plan and following Lake Trout Implementation Strategy - which reduced stocking numbers recommended in the rehabilitation plan. 

The Lake Committee is in agreement for Lake Trout stocking numbers at this time. The reason that lake trout are showing some natural reproduction is because they are switching their diet to gobies. In fact, as you know, gobies are plentiful in the lakes right now for those fish that will take advantage of them. 

Chinook are especially keyed in to alewife and are the primary predator to adjust if sustaining alewife is the objective. The other predators have shown an ability to switch to other prey items. 

Just from a negotiation standpoint, other fish such as steelhead, brown trout, and coho would have to be in consideration for reductions if we were to make major changes with lake trout. From what I have heard from most anglers, they do not want to see the other species reduced. 

We will be looking at evidence of a 2014 alewife year class (low numbers and small in size going into winter), condition of Chinook and other species, and catch rates of Chinook along with and primarily the predator/prey model in our determination of whether to reduce Chinook stocking again or stay at status quo for 2016. 

A majority of Chinook harvested throughout the lake each year are wild fish indicating that our stocked fish contribute much less to the fishery then they historically did. Stocking Chinook and regulations on harvesting Chinook are our primary management tools to control their numbers. The effect of these tool becomes less as natural reproduction becomes a bigger player in the lake and as we see more fish from Lake Huron coming over to Lake Michigan. 

I see that someone posted links to some very good presentations regarding the predator/prey model and productivity of the lake. If you need more information, please let me know. 

We are always open to your thoughts. 

Thanks! Jay


----------



## jpmarko

Jay, thanks for keeping us in the loop about all of this. It helps clear up some of the misinformation. I think you and the rest of the MDNR are doing an excellent job considering the situation. I am looking forward to the results coming out this summer on the 2014 year class of alewives. I know I'm in suspense.


----------



## danthebuilder

Who has been doing studies of what fish have been eating lately and where can I find the results of these studies?


----------



## BUGBOAT

"Just from a negotiation standpoint, other fish such as steelhead, brown trout, and coho would have to be in consideration for reductions if we were to make major changes with lake trout. From what I have heard from most anglers, they do not want to see the other species reduced."

Jay, not sure I understand this statement. Your saying if we cut back plants of Lake Trout, we would have to cut back steelhead, brown trout and coho. Seems logical to me, if we cut back on Lake Trout, we could plant MORE steelhead, brown trout, and Coho.


----------



## Jay Wesley

BUGBOAT said:


> "Just from a negotiation standpoint, other fish such as steelhead, brown trout, and coho would have to be in consideration for reductions if we were to make major changes with lake trout. From what I have heard from most anglers, they do not want to see the other species reduced."
> 
> Jay, not sure I understand this statement. Your saying if we cut back plants of Lake Trout, we would have to cut back steelhead, brown trout and coho. Seems logical to me, if we cut back on Lake Trout, we could plant MORE steelhead, brown trout, and Coho.


These species have relatively similar consumption rates of alewife. The Lake Committee has a plan and strategy for lake trout. We do not for the other species. My point was that there are other states and tribes involved with the lake-wide management. All those species need to be considered as options for reductions if we were going to go down that road to reduce lake trout.

My opinion is to continue to manage the Chinook salmon rather than change the overall diversity of the lake by reducing the other species. I get your point and opinion to have more steelhead, coho, and brown trout. I do believe that we can raise the stocking of some of those species given their diverse diet and would rather consider that then significantly reducing lake trout given the current plan and strategy that all parties signed off on. 

Alewife may go away regardless of what we do. Maintaining a diverse fishery will be the best option if that occurs. Therefore, it would not be a good plan to start reducing the other species.


----------



## METTLEFISH

There are ways of maintaining a productive environment in the lakes, however the mis information purveyed by those wanting a near sterile fertility level in the lakes will prevail. What once was a great fishery/recreation opportunity will be advertised as the Sunrise and Sunset State. The bright side of it is the many trips out West to where there are Native Trout and Salmon, and much-much more beautiful scenery to be had.


----------



## tgafish

METTLEFISH said:


> There are ways of maintaining a productive environment in the lakes, however the mis information purveyed by those wanting a near sterile fertility level in the lakes will prevail. What once was a great fishery/recreation opportunity will be advertised as the Sunrise and Sunset State. The bright side of it is the many trips out West to where there are Native Trout and Salmon, and much-much more beautiful scenery to be had.


Ya lost me there
Who are the purveyors of misinformation wanting sterile lakes?


----------



## Honkkilla59

METTLEFISH said:


> There are ways of maintaining a productive environment in the lakes, however the mis information purveyed by those wanting a near sterile fertility level in the lakes will prevail. What once was a great fishery/recreation opportunity will be advertised as the Sunrise and Sunset State. The bright side of it is the many trips out West to where there are Native Trout and Salmon, and much-much more beautiful scenery to be had.


No you have it wrong the lakes will be managed for the Indians and their native species, so the white man will have to learn to love those feisty lake trout, whitefish, cisco !:lol:
Don't worry though the tribes will provide jobs for all of those who have lost theirs due to the returning the lakes to there" natural " state!


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> Just keep in mind that all salmonines take advantage of alewife when they are the primary prey item in good abundance. This includes brown trout, lake trout, coho, and steelhead. Lake trout numbers are set by the Lake Trout Rehabilitation Plan and following Lake Trout Implementation Strategy - which reduced stocking numbers recommended in the rehabilitation plan.
> 
> The Lake Committee is in agreement for Lake Trout stocking numbers at this time. The reason that lake trout are showing some natural reproduction is because they are switching their diet to gobies. In fact, as you know, gobies are plentiful in the lakes right now for those fish that will take advantage of them.
> 
> Chinook are especially keyed in to alewife and are the primary predator to adjust if sustaining alewife is the objective. The other predators have shown an ability to switch to other prey items.
> 
> Just from a negotiation standpoint, other fish such as steelhead, brown trout, and coho would have to be in consideration for reductions if we were to make major changes with lake trout. From what I have heard from most anglers, they do not want to see the other species reduced.
> 
> We will be looking at evidence of a 2014 alewife year class (low numbers and small in size going into winter), condition of Chinook and other species, and catch rates of Chinook along with and primarily the predator/prey model in our determination of whether to reduce Chinook stocking again or stay at status quo for 2016.
> 
> A majority of Chinook harvested throughout the lake each year are wild fish indicating that our stocked fish contribute much less to the fishery then they historically did. Stocking Chinook and regulations on harvesting Chinook are our primary management tools to control their numbers. The effect of these tool becomes less as natural reproduction becomes a bigger player in the lake and as we see more fish from Lake Huron coming over to Lake Michigan.
> 
> I see that someone posted links to some very good presentations regarding the predator/prey model and productivity of the lake. If you need more information, please let me know.
> 
> We are always open to your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks! Jay


Great to hear on the Lake Trout natural reproduction! Now the Feds can reduce stocking them like we agreed to reduced stocking Chinook because of its natural reproduction abilities.


----------



## storman

slightofhand said:


> Great to hear on the Lake Trout natural reproduction! Now the Feds can reduce stocking them like we agreed to reduced stocking Chinook because of its natural reproduction abilities.




That would be great but I don't think its going to happen. I would love to see the ales survive and have a diverse fishery for all species not just Lakers but I feel its set it stone.

Hopefully the Atlantic program keeps growing and takes hold. We can all move west to east I'm sure towns like oscoda would love to have the fisherman return.


----------



## jpmarko

Man, I'm not hanging around Lake Michigan to fish lake trout, that's for sure. If the salmon crash and lake trout become the next dominant species, then I'm moving to the west coast. I am not investing in a boat and equipment to reel in fish that fight like a wet sock and virtually glow in the dark.


----------



## swampbuck

Blaming this particular problem on other predators, the fisheries div., the consent decree, etc. is a little misguided.

It is the mussels that are the problem, it's not the ales getting eaten, it's the ales having nothing to eat.

Mr. Wesley's comment about maintaing the other species in case it does crash is refreshing. That is the first indication I have seen that they are being proactive on the issue. Hopefully it's not needed, but if it happens, at least the impact will not be as severe as the dead period Huron went through.


----------



## swampbuck

This is the statement I am referring too.



Jay Wesley said:


> Alewife may go away regardless of what we do. Maintaining a diverse fishery will be the best option if that occurs. Therefore, it would not be a good plan to start reducing the other species.


----------



## Fishndude

swampbuck said:


> Blaming this particular problem on other predators, the fisheries div., the consent decree, etc. is a little misguided.
> 
> It is the mussels that are the problem, it's not the ales getting eaten, it's the ales having nothing to eat.


After 37 pages of another thread, and 7 pages of this one, some members still don't understand, or accept the fact of this. They simple need to try to blame the MIDNR for something that wasn't caused by the DNR. They are conspiracy theorists, and blindly believe things they are told by people they deem trustworthy, without any investigation of their own. They have the right to vote, too. :yikes:

Here's a link to "the other thread," titled, Collapse. There are lots of conspiracy theories, and denial in this. 
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=523819


----------



## Ralph Smith

jpmarko said:


> Man, I'm not hanging around Lake Michigan to fish lake trout, that's for sure. If the salmon crash and lake trout become the next dominant species, then I'm moving to the west coast. I am not investing in a boat and equipment to reel in fish that fight like a wet sock and virtually glow in the dark.


Don't worry, there will be Asian carp also!:lol:


----------



## Kisutch

After 37 pages and 60000 words of total crap. No conspiracy here. The feds do not. I repeat. The feds do not want those slimy salmon swimming i
in the Great Lakes. Cisco and lake trout for everyone. 

Kisutch

MY OWN TAX DOLLARS KILLING MY FISHERY

I DO GO TO MEETINGS 

I AM INFORMED

THEY DON'T CARE

THEY DON'T EVEN OWN BOATS

THEY HAVE NO PASSION


----------



## Jay Wesley

The federal government can only spend hatchery funds on native species; therefore, their interest with lake trout and cisco. Some anglers do like lake trout and were disappointed when all stocking was done on deep water reefs and refuges. They asked to have more lake trout stocked nearshore so they could catch them. 

Lake Ontario has a solid chinook population with a mix of other predators including Lake trout. They also had problems with low numbers of alewife. Their chinook now feed on alewife and Cisco. They consistently catch 20 pound chinook because their predators are in balance with prey. 

The Feds stocking Cisco may be a good thing if the right brood stock are used. We are seeing Cisco numbers naturally expanding in the northern part of the lake and down to Frankfort. Diversifying the fishery is a good thing for biological integrity. We have already seen what can happen when only two species are driving the fishery like chinook and alewife.


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> The federal government can only spend hatchery funds on native species; therefore, their interest with lake trout and cisco. Some anglers do like lake trout and were disappointed when all stocking was done on deep water reefs and refuges. They asked to have more lake trout stocked nearshore so they could catch them.
> 
> Lake Ontario has a solid chinook population with a mix of other predators including Lake trout. They also had problems with low numbers of alewife. Their chinook now feed on alewife and Cisco. They consistently catch 20 pound chinook because their predators are in balance with prey.
> 
> The Feds stocking Cisco may be a good thing if the right brood stock are used. We are seeing Cisco numbers naturally expanding in the northern part of the lake and down to Frankfort. Diversifying the fishery is a good thing for biological integrity. We have already seen what can happen when only two species are driving the fishery like chinook and alewife.


Jay, I like the thought of Cisco, but as many of our resident thread mongering biologists present on every single post they post, Quagga have apparently destroyed the bottom of the food chain. What then do Cisco eat? If there is no food for Alewife, then there is no food for Cisco? Do Cisco and Alewife eat something entirely different? For that matter, what do Shiners and other baitfish eat? If there is no bottom of the foodchain, then there are no baitfish. If there are no baitfish, then there are no lake trout, no chinook, no steelhead, no brown trout, etc. There will probably be lake trout due to their taking to the round goby, and round goby love Quagga of which we have plenty of.

Just trying to put the pieces together here..


----------



## Jay Wesley

slightofhand said:


> Jay, I like the thought of Cisco, but as many of our resident thread mongering biologists present on every single post they post, Quagga have apparently destroyed the bottom of the food chain. What then do Cisco eat? If there is no food for Alewife, then there is no food for Cisco? Do Cisco and Alewife eat something entirely different? For that matter, what do Shiners and other baitfish eat? If there is no bottom of the foodchain, then there are no baitfish. If there are no baitfish, then there are no lake trout, no chinook, no steelhead, no brown trout, etc. There will probably be lake trout due to their taking to the round goby, and round goby love Quagga of which we have plenty of.
> 
> Just trying to put the pieces together here..


I am not sure exactly what they are eating. The fact that their populations are growing and that they are expanding their current range in Lake Michigan suggests that they are finding something to eat. Some biologist believe that they are eating larval and small gobies. So, the cisco could be the link among guagga mussels, gobies, and predators like salmon and steelhead. The food source would be starting from the bottom rather than from prey fish that rely on suspended plankton and zooplankton. I have not seen an studies on it, but it is an interesting concept.


----------



## slightofhand

Jay Wesley said:


> I am not sure exactly what they are eating. The fact that their populations are growing and that they are expanding their current range in Lake Michigan suggests that they are finding something to eat. Some biologist believe that they are eating larval and small gobies. So, the cisco could be the link among guagga mussels, gobies, and predators like salmon and steelhead. The food source would be starting from the bottom rather than from prey fish that rely on suspended plankton and zooplankton. I have not seen an studies on it, but it is an interesting concept.


Thanks Jay, interesting indeed. That would be the score of the century if the Cisco can establish that link right back down to the bottom of the chain.


----------



## Ralph Smith

slightofhand said:


> Jay, I like the thought of Cisco, but as many of our resident thread mongering biologists present on every single post they post, Quagga have apparently destroyed the bottom of the food chain. What then do Cisco eat? If there is no food for Alewife, then there is no food for Cisco? Do Cisco and Alewife eat something entirely different? For that matter, what do Shiners and other baitfish eat? If there is no bottom of the foodchain, then there are no baitfish. If there are no baitfish, then there are no lake trout, no chinook, no steelhead, no brown trout, etc. There will probably be lake trout due to their taking to the round goby, and round goby love Quagga of which we have plenty of.
> 
> Just trying to put the pieces together here..


So then the mussels are not the end all to the bottom of food chain as many think. If lake Ontario is doing well, I'm sure they have and have had the mussels there before us Are there studies being done there to put the puzzle together? Why are they're ales surviving along with a lot of salmon?


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

Our Cisco in the GT bays are huge and fast growing, I don't think this strain is the fish that is filling the niche. Most traditional strains of Cisco have gone extinct as well as the chubs. I do like to see the stocking of Cisco though, they are filling a void for many fisherman that whitefish used to fill.


----------



## Honkkilla59

I'm sure they will have to build new marinas and add more hotels when the booming lake trout and cisco fishery take off!:lol:


----------



## jpmarko

Jay Wesley said:


> The Feds stocking Cisco may be a good thing if the right brood stock are used. We are seeing Cisco numbers naturally expanding in the northern part of the lake and down to Frankfort. Diversifying the fishery is a good thing for biological integrity. We have already seen what can happen when only two species are driving the fishery like chinook and alewife.


Jay, what do you mean by the right brood stock? Do you mean a broom stock that is able to self-sustain or one that is edible or palatable to the salmon? Are the feds stocking the right brood stock? If so, this is good news and offers another leg to prop up the salmon fishery. Is the DNR working together with the feds on this?


----------



## Ralph Smith

Honkkilla59 said:


> I'm sure they will have to build new marinas and add more hotels when the booming lake trout and cisco fishery take off!:lol:


There will be plenty closed ones from the salmon collapse that they can just reopen Bring back the perch, to heck with the salmon!!


----------



## jpmarko

Just to be clear, I have no problem with lake trout. I want to see a diverse fishery as well and think that is what we need for the health of the lake. But, I would like to see a diverse fishery WITH king salmon in it and WITH a healthy baitfish population. Not one without kings but with lots of lakers. That's why I'm supportive of the MDNR and thankful for their work. The feds I'm not always so sure about, because they seem to be off doing their own thing which is often out of sink with the overall management strategy for the big lake. 

Now cisco... there's a glimmer of hope. This is really the first I've heard of them taking off since I'm down in the southwestern part of the state. Do salmon eat these in lake michigan like they do in lake ontario? Is this something the DNR is trying to look at as a viable option to improve bait fish numbers throughout the lake?


----------



## Honkkilla59

Ralph Smith said:


> There will be plenty closed ones from the salmon collapse that they can just reopen Bring back the perch, to heck with the salmon!!


Yeah they will need all of those boat slips for the tin boat perch brigade! :lol:


----------



## chuckinduck

Ralph Smith said:


> There will be plenty closed ones from the salmon collapse that they can just reopen Bring back the perch, to heck with the salmon!!



Ralph you say that tongue in cheek I think. However once the crash is complete. (Personally I think it already did based off weir returns) those charters aren't going to stick around. Saginaw bay is where they'll all be headed to chase walleye.


----------



## Ralph Smith

I hope so, they need to thin some of the walleye out to help the perch out here too


----------



## METTLEFISH

Select several of the best naturally producing systems and supplement fertility in no uncertain terms. The Haida experiment is a good example of what can be done, though our situation different. Billions of Alewive were not able to deplete their food source as it was ample due to fertility levels.. New regualtions coupled with the Zebra and Quaga are to blame for the lack of fertility. Fertility is good. Look what it has done for land crops. It is no coincidence that HUmans have populated areas along rivers for millenia, taking from the environment and returning to it as well. Somewhere along the way a human (or two) with an alleged education began touting the necessity of sterile waters, contrary to what nature has proved to be needed for perpetuation of cycles. 

It can be done, however not without a large vocal group or two leading the way.


----------



## Jay Wesley

jpmarko said:


> Jay, what do you mean by the right brood stock? Do you mean a broom stock that is able to self-sustain or one that is edible or palatable to the salmon? Are the feds stocking the right brood stock? If so, this is good news and offers another leg to prop up the salmon fishery. Is the DNR working together with the feds on this?


There is a task group looking at an option for cisco. There once were several species or strains of cisco in the great lakes. The one that we are seeing in Lake Michigan is _artedi. _Other than bloater, the rest are extirpated or extinct in Lake Michigan. So if we were to stock cisco in Lake Michigan, we should be thinking of _artedi_. We also should consider where that broodstock comes from. The ones that are expanding from Grand Traverse Bay seem to have found a niche and are expanding their population. It would make most sense to use that population for broodstock rather than taking them from another lake that may be utilizing a different niche. 

Will these fish be a complete replacement for alewife? Probably not. When they are small/young, they would add to the prey base. They also have the ability to grow to a size that most predators could not eat them, which is bad in a way but also good because the adults have the ability to sustain the population in the face of heavy predation. 

This is still in the study phases and no decisions have been made. The decision will be made by the Lake Committee and not made by the Feds. The Feds obviously are a partner and will be part of the conversation.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Will the Chinook and Coho survive? I kind of think so probably not in the numbers that we are used to seeing and catching. My best salmon years were just before, during, and just after the Lake Huron Crash. I was fishing in Lake Huron and I caught some really big healthy fish. Last year was a really bad year for salmon and steelhead for me. I think that it was just an off year due to other factors. I cannot figure out how a Pacific salmon can be so dependent upon an Atlantic species (alewife) for prey.


----------



## mf2

Do the mussels also filter out the pollution? Lake Michigan has a lot of PCB contamination, they might be doing us a favor.


----------



## tgafish

Ralph Smith said:


> So then the mussels are not the end all to the bottom of food chain as many think. If lake Ontario is doing well, I'm sure they have and have had the mussels there before us Are there studies being done there to put the puzzle together? Why are they're ales surviving along with a lot of salmon?


Ralph the answer is in the fertility of the water that Mettlefish is talking about. Ontario is fed by Erie which actually has too much nutrients entering it. Zooplakton eat phytoplankton/Diatoms. Large spring blooms caused by Spring runoff support large zooplankton populations which in turn create a rich food source for the YOY ales during their most critical times coming out of winter and create healthy year classes. In Lake Mi we are giving the fertility a one two punch with clean water regulations specifically tied to phosphate control in fertilizer/cleaning products and the mussels.


----------



## swampbuck

So to put it bluntly, you are suggesting adding pollution to the lake to benifit the invasive species ?


----------



## blackghost

Lets look the definition of pollution

:the action or process of making land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

: substances that make land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use

So would nutrients be making the lake "dirty" or "not safe"? Maybe all the sediment controls and runoff prevention is reducing the amount of nutrients that are making it in to our lakes - and maybe we need to redefine the "clean water" or "healthy water" is. I don't think a lake filled with purified and sterilized water is a way to promote a good fishery. Managing Lake Michigan similarly to Lake Erie just won't work because the two lakes are completely different.


----------



## mf2

Took this off the WEB:

In 1976 environmentalists found PCBs in the sludge at Waukegan Harbor, the southwest end of Lake Michigan. They were able to trace the source of the PCBs back to the Outboard Marine Corporation that was producing boat motors next to the harbor. By 1982, the Outboard Marine Corporation was court-ordered to release quantitative data referring to their PCB waste released. The data stated that from 1954 they released 100,000 tons of PCB into the environment, and that the sludge contained PCBs in concentrations as high as 50%


----------



## tgafish

swampbuck said:


> So to put it bluntly, you are suggesting adding pollution to the lake to benifit the invasive species ?


Nope I'm not suggesting it I'm stating it. If it were a viable option I would absolutely advocate adding nutrients to the lake to benefit an invasive species if that invasive species happens to be alewives and salmon.


----------



## Fishndude

tgafish said:


> Nope I'm not suggesting it I'm stating it. If it were a viable option I would absolutely advocate adding nutrients to the lake to benefit an invasive species if that invasive species happens to be alewives and salmon.


Sure, except that the Mussels do a better job of filtering nutrients out of our lakes than the species Alewives prey on. So adding nutrients will just cause the Mussels to increase faster than the species the Alewives prey on. 

Now do you see the problem more clearly?


----------



## msfcarp

Jay Wesley said:


> There is a task group looking at an option for cisco. There once were several species or strains of cisco in the great lakes. The one that we are seeing in Lake Michigan is _artedi. _Other than bloater, the rest are extirpated or extinct in Lake Michigan. So if we were to stock cisco in Lake Michigan, we should be thinking of _artedi_. We also should consider where that broodstock comes from. The ones that are expanding from Grand Traverse Bay seem to have found a niche and are expanding their population. It would make most sense to use that population for broodstock rather than taking them from another lake that may be utilizing a different niche.
> 
> Will these fish be a complete replacement for alewife? Probably not. When they are small/young, they would add to the prey base. They also have the ability to grow to a size that most predators could not eat them, which is bad in a way but also good because the adults have the ability to sustain the population in the face of heavy predation.
> 
> This is still in the study phases and no decisions have been made. The decision will be made by the Lake Committee and not made by the Feds. The Feds obviously are a partner and will be part of the conversation.


I find this interesting, I wonder what strain cisco is doing so well in Lake Simcoe? I know they are thriving there after going way down in population, faced with the same ecosystem (mussels & Gobies)


----------



## slightofhand

Well on a lighter note, we caught 7 kings today from a southern lk mi port. 6 were three year olds 12lbs fatties, one was a two year old. 6 of the 8 had no adipose clip. One had alewife in its gut, others were empty. They just showed up from nowheresville, scales falling off and all. Just moving in from offshore right on schedule. 

We will see how this collapse plays out in the next few weeks when they start showing more of themselves.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Fishndude said:


> Sure, except that the Mussels do a better job of filtering nutrients out of our lakes than the species Alewives prey on. So adding nutrients will just cause the Mussels to increase faster than the species the Alewives prey on.
> 
> Now do you see the problem more clearly?


Not so. Thats why it has taken the combination of events to facilitate the crash. By adding a consistant nutrient source we can have a sustained fishery that will benefit many life forms, including humans.


----------



## METTLEFISH

SalmonBum said:


> Lake trout are the only Native trout species in Great Lakes. Thats why FED's want to bring them to a natural population again.
> 
> I have been commenting this crash has been coming the last 8 yrs, but most Lake MI fishing guys though the lake was excempt from the laws of mother nature.


Actually, Lake Trout are a Char, not a Trout. Char prefer colder water than Trout, same is true of the Brook Trout, not a Trout at all, but a Char.


----------



## Jay Wesley

The Great Lakes are connected to rivers, marshes, and bays. From the Industrial revolution through the 1970s, we put excessive amounts of nutrients in our inland lakes and streams causing hyper eutrophication. These waters became dead due to algae growth and lack of oxygen. Our Great Lakes were becoming eutrophic. The whole issue on Lake Erie is part of the reason the Clean Water Act was formed. For the health of the entire ecosystem, we do not want to go backwards by purposely adding more nutrients. Future generations would not appreciate that. 

There are a lot of nutrients on the bottom of the lake caught up in all the quagga mussel biomass. Some day, those mussels will die off releasing those nutrients. What would happen when that happens and we are purposely adding more?

There are plenty of nutrients coming out of our rivers. We need to protect and restore nearshore habitat at river mouths and in our bays so aquatic organisms can take advantage of those nutrients.


----------



## jpmarko

Jay Wesley said:


> There is a task group looking at an option for cisco. There once were several species or strains of cisco in the great lakes. The one that we are seeing in Lake Michigan is _artedi. _Other than bloater, the rest are extirpated or extinct in Lake Michigan. So if we were to stock cisco in Lake Michigan, we should be thinking of _artedi_. We also should consider where that broodstock comes from. The ones that are expanding from Grand Traverse Bay seem to have found a niche and are expanding their population. It would make most sense to use that population for broodstock rather than taking them from another lake that may be utilizing a different niche.
> 
> Will these fish be a complete replacement for alewife? Probably not. When they are small/young, they would add to the prey base. They also have the ability to grow to a size that most predators could not eat them, which is bad in a way but also good because the adults have the ability to sustain the population in the face of heavy predation.
> 
> This is still in the study phases and no decisions have been made. The decision will be made by the Lake Committee and not made by the Feds. The Feds obviously are a partner and will be part of the conversation.


Thanks, Jay. That's good to hear. And I agree that it may be a good thing that the older, more mature cisco would grow large enough that predators couldn't prey on them thus preserving the population numbers.

Good to know the DNR is being proactive. I know you guys are doing the best job that can be done.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Jay Wesley said:


> The Great Lakes are connected to rivers, marshes, and bays. From the Industrial revolution through the 1970s, we put excessive amounts of nutrients in our inland lakes and streams causing hyper eutrophication. These waters became dead due to algae growth and lack of oxygen. Our Great Lakes were becoming eutrophic. The whole issue on Lake Erie is part of the reason the Clean Water Act was formed. For the health of the entire ecosystem, we do not want to go backwards by purposely adding more nutrients. Future generations would not appreciate that.
> 
> There are plenty of nutrients coming out of our rivers. We need to protect and restore nearshore habitat at river mouths and in our bays so aquatic organisms can take advantage of those nutrients.


How is it that Gizzard Shad (native or not native?) are so great in number at Grand Haven and really nowhere else on Lake Michigan and then of course in Huron and Saginaw Bay. They also grow to a size to be impractical as bait; but at times become a viable food source at that port.


----------



## BUGBOAT

Got a few kings out of St. Joe today. They looked very healthy, but their guts were empty.


----------



## Fishndude

METTLEFISH said:


> Not so. Thats why it has taken the combination of events to facilitate the crash. By adding a consistant nutrient source we can have a sustained fishery that will benefit many life forms, including humans.


So, by your logic the Mussels are *not* filtering nutrients out of our waters? Or is the logic that nutrients coming from "a consistent nutrient source" would be different than the nutrients that flow out of rivers, marshes, etc? 

According to my logic, which is based on watching the evolution of Zebra and Quagga Mussels take over our lakes, more nutrients = more Mussels, period. And more Mussels = less nutrients for other species, period. At least that has been the progression for the last 20 years, or so.


----------



## RML

I'm all for nutrients now action...Start with waste water treatment plants. Take it offshore and dump it in. Work on a fleet of machines that will dislodge mussels up , pump them up into dredge and a fine grinder spit them out the back to unlock that biomass they hold if you want..Could even add some kind of old grain or grass laying around as a meal blend...Sitting around complaining the lakes have gotten sterile and doing nothing isn't acceptable..This isn't a new thing..It's been like watching a slow moving train and nobody wants to get together to push the bus load of kids off the tracks...

Get a clue and do something even is it's wrong...Don't just stand there looking confused, shrugging shoulders, and talking about it..Were talking Millions of lives at steak, Billions of dollars..This is the dis-connect between people that work hard ( the do people) and people that are over educated and never learned how to work a day in there life..It's your turn to be a hero with your PHD and save the fisheries of the Great Lakes.. First you have to get some dirt on your hands, step up to the plate and take a swing..

In the meantime reverse parts of the Clean Water Act or come up with another solution...We had 30-50 lb. Kings and Lakers running around when the water was so called polluted...Alewife's by the zillions..Then 30+ years of the CWA happened, Commercial netting,Indian netting, TFM treatments killing fish, Fish killed in raceways and pumps at Lamprey/ fish weirs and now look at US... You guys are right it's not any one thing it's a whole bunch of bad things all added up over years...

Who's idea was it to sterilize the Great lakes and what is the purpose of that?? I can see the really bad stuff PCB, Dioxins, and Mercury but the all organic stuff why remove that ??


----------



## jpmarko

Sparky23 said:


> Last minute decided to fish, ended up like somewhere around 22-25, 23-26, a bunch. All lakers and one steelhead, didnt have anything down for lakers but didnt matter, 50ish ft. was best, direction didnt matter, color didnt matter, size didnt matter for us. OUr 5 were for just over 50lbs best in the tourny , but we took 4th place, 1st place had 20 lbs. I know how the points per fish go, but getting beat by a fish that id it was 10 in. it just touched and his 2 brothers sucked. seems a bit rediculous, o well. Tourny was well ran and everything went quickly, need to add 5pts. for trout i think, but i dont run it. Side note all the lakers were puking up ales, and marked a few big bait balls. Everyone said every laker they had was full of ales.


This report by Sparky posted in the Big Lake Cold Water Fishing Reports section is what I've been hearing for the last couple of years from other fisherman and what has me somewhat concerned. Read the beginning and end of his post where he talks about the ales. There are lots of lakers out there these days and they seem to love ales. Almost more lakers than other species.


----------



## RML

Fishndude I'm with Mettelfish on this one..

The mussels have always been there..Back in the day the water was so dirty/ rich it didn't matter and nobody cared about them then because the lakes were fine so was the fishery ..Now the mussels are a catchphrase/ scape goat for there failures...We have a couple new invasive mussels but the Great Lakes has always had mussels and Lamprey..Were the native ones worse than the non native ones who knows??


----------



## danthebuilder

Do you live near the shore at all? Every time there is a huge storm that overloads the waste treatment plants the kids go swimming the next day and end up with rashes. The DEQ comes and takes measurements and finds high levels of ecoli. They close the beaches for days until the current takes it elsewhere and it dilutes itself. It upsets everybody. It hurts tourism. The fishing dollars are a VERY small fraction of the overall tourism dollars. I don't know if you've noticed this but we've got a lot more people tied to these waste treatment systems than we did 25 years ago.


----------



## RML

offshore Dan...way off shore.....I spend 50+ days a year in Ludington..yep been there during e coli closures after floods, we had a good boom of sea lice that season on our lines (a key ingredient)..need more of that but not on the beaches per say...there is a balance between safe swimming water and sterile water...There is about a billion gallons of water between 500 FOW and your Shoreline...You load the stuff in a tanker haul it out, pump it out... Bingo..Now we know why the lake is becoming sterile....Politics..Swimmers, beach goers, Great lake front property owners....There's plenty of warmer places to swim and less dangerous than the Great lakes...

I have people come here from around the world for our Salmon fishery..I would bet money if you were to compare the revenue from our Salmon fishing Vs beach goers..We spend twice as much it's not even a contest also those beach goers still like charters too so it's a combo vacation... The cost of big lake boats, slips,marinas, fuel, tackle,food, lodging, towing vehicles, air transportation car rental etc.....I could go on and on... What happens on the coast in tourism $$ for 3 months goes on all summer ++ for another 3 months upstream 30- 50 miles from the shore line..If you don't believe me just check out the East side of the state case and point...You really need both and all the tourism you can get...Never had 1 person show up here from Japan,China, France, Italy,Ireland,UK,Germany,Russia,Africa, S.America to take a swim or rent a canoe...But they do to Fish March--November !!

Waste treatment plants and the people may even benefit from cleaner water by swapping water out...I'm no treatment plant expert but I would have to think fresh water is better than water that has been processed 20,50,100,1000 times...Glad I'm on a well system yuck...


----------



## swampbuck

So you want to return the lake to this, in favor is king's ?


----------



## o_mykiss

RML said:


> Fishndude I'm with Mettelfish on this one..
> 
> The mussels have always been there..Back in the day the water was so dirty/ rich it didn't matter and nobody cared about them then because the lakes were fine so was the fishery ..Now the mussels are a catchphrase/ scape goat for there failures...We have a couple new invasive mussels but the Great Lakes has always had mussels and Lamprey..Were the native ones worse than the non native ones who knows??


Who knows if the dreissenids are worse than native mussels (unionids)? Everybody. Quagga/zebra mussels are far more prolific and outcompete native mussels. There's no conspiracy, the mussels are what is crashing the lake. The zebra mussels virtually eliminated unionids from the lake, and then quaggas virtually eliminated zebras through competition. They can live in deeper, colder water, which means they can colonize virtually the entire lake. That's why they are so bad. 

People have also always cared about the dreissenids, saying otherwise is revisionist history. Not only do they steal nutrients from the pelagic food web, but they also caused millions and millions of damage to industry and municipal water intakes and the like. They also lead to excessive algae and associated toxins, which are bad for water quality and have also led to duck die-offs thru botulism. I could go on, but I'm going to go cut the grass and then go fishing on this fine day!


----------



## RML

There is a balance swampbuck..We had great fishing 10-15 years ago and those pictures are not from then...Pictures are from way back in the day( nice scary picture)...When we had real fish in the great lakes...Lake Ontario has real fish, are there beaches that way now??


----------



## swampbuck

Obviously there was no balance. It would just end up supporting more mussels.


----------



## RML

maybe...maybe not...beats doing nothing...


----------



## limpinglogan

I am with RML...not just for kings but for the overall fishery and all species...I want to see action.


----------



## Honkkilla59

I just always ask with all of the super educated biologists how could it be not one brilliant person saw any of this coming?:


----------



## jpmarko

I would remind you guys that the DNR has and is taking action by reducing plants of predatory fish. Getting rid of the quagga mussels is gonna be the trick to a stronger fishery. While I agree that there is a balance to be had in legislating how much "nutrients" goes into the lake, there is also danger in going too far in the opposite direction. Beside, I don't EVER see legislation being passed to repeal the Clean Water Act or dump "nutrients" into the lake. Jay makes a good point too when he says that our rivers are already fertile enough. The problem is not how much nutrients is going into the lake. The problem is what is happening to the nutrients once it gets into the lake.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Honkkilla59 said:


> I just always ask with all of the super educated biologists how could it be not one brilliant person saw any of this coming?:


You guys that want some immediate action, should try running with sharp tools! You have no idea how you could rapidly compound the problems.


----------



## Ralph Smith

Dumping pollution back into the lake to try and maybe make it better for possibly better fishing is just plain ignorance. I don't care who you are:SHOCKED:


----------



## RML

whats your big idea Ralph..got anything..or you got your bucket of popcorn..


----------



## danthebuilder

Ralph Smith said:


> Dumping pollution back into the lake to try and maybe make it better for possibly better fishing is just plain ignorance. I don't care who you are:SHOCKED:


Thank you.


----------



## Ralph Smith

RML said:


> whats your big idea Ralph..got anything..or you got your bucket of popcorn..












:lol: :lol: I'd rather have clean water and a different fish species if that's what it must come to, then to fish in a sewer..jmo Has to be another way, or wait it out. If the mussles kill off all ecosystems, then everywhere in the world the water would be dead seas where they are. But that's not the case. I'm sure there's plenty of fish that survive in waters around the world where the mussels are prevalent, we just need to do more studying I guess.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Igorance is a terribel thing. Learn the differance between pollution and fertility. The same ignorance is what fuels the fallacy of "Climate Change" "Climate Turmoil" and Global Warming"...


----------



## Ralph Smith

METTLEFISH said:


> Igorance is a terribel thing. Learn the differance between pollution and fertility. The same ignorance is what fuels the fallacy of "Climate Change" "Climate Turmoil" and Global Warming"...


Dumping s.h.i.t. in the water is pollution...period. Let nature takes its course.


----------



## Southsider1

METTLEFISH said:


> Igorance is a terribel thing. Learn the differance between pollution and fertility. The same ignorance is what fuels the fallacy of "Climate Change" "Climate Turmoil" and Global Warming"...



I'm not trying to flame you but please enlighten me. Read this and tell me why 97% of climate scientists are wrong. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But, please, if the response is due to your political views and/or if it was because we had a cold winter the last couple of years in the Great Lakes don't bother. 

Thank you for your time


----------



## Honkkilla59

Southsider1 said:


> I'm not trying to flame you but please enlighten me. Read this and tell me why 97% of climate scientists are wrong. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> But, please, if the response is due to your political views and/or if it was because we had a cold winter the last couple of years in the Great Lakes don't bother.
> 
> Thank you for your time


Globull warming or climate change as it is now called has been beat to death on this forum. I will say just look now how all of the science and scientists that said fluoride was needed to be added to our water have now reversed couse. So much for settled science!


----------



## Lou is Blue

Southsider1 said:


> I'm not trying to flame you but please enlighten me. Read this and tell me why 97% of climate scientists are wrong. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> But, please, if the response is due to your political views and/or if it was because we had a cold winter the last couple of years in the Great Lakes don't bother.
> 
> Thank you for your time


You had to poke the bear? You've unleashed the beast for every crackpot conspiracy now.

Fluoride, the Kennedy's, evolution, run for your lives men!


----------



## Honkkilla59

Lou is Blue said:


> You had to poke the bear? You've unleashed the beast for every crackpot conspiracy now.
> 
> Fluoride, the Kennedy's, evolution, run for your lives men!


Now back to the collapse theories!


----------



## MrFysch

Most of the over 50 salmonoids we boated this weekend in southern Lake Michigan were chocked full of 5 inch alewives...I guess a few are still around


----------



## Fishndude

Well, then, everything is great, and in order. Back to business as usual. All the charters will be booked heavily, and everyone will catch lots of Kings for the foreseeable future. 

Just like they do on lake Huron. Just like last year on lake Michigan.  Better start stocking up on new boats, rods, reels, line, lures, downriggers, etc. Buy now, before the stock runs out!


----------



## RML

like the popcorn eating deer Ralph...haha:lol:


----------



## slightofhand

Fishndude said:


> Well, then, everything is great, and in order. Back to business as usual. All the charters will be booked heavily, and everyone will catch lots of Kings for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Just like they do on lake Huron. Just like last year on lake Michigan.  Better start stocking up on new boats, rods, reels, line, lures, downriggers, etc. Buy now, before the stock runs out!


What's with the passive aggressive snarky ******** fishndude? You obviously have an axe to grind with every charter captain, salmon fishermen, tackle company and anything else affiliated with the salmon fishing industry on lake Michigan. You mad bro? Can't catch em? Tired of reading everyone's fishing reports while you are at work? What's bugging you, maybe we can help?


----------



## Lou is Blue

MrFysch said:


> Most of the over 50 salmonoids we boated this weekend in southern Lake Michigan were chocked full of 5 inch alewives...I guess a few are still around


 
because this year or next is the make or break year for a good alewife spawn. those 5 inchers are, I think the 2010 yoy class, its just that they are the only good year class left. Its the lack of small ones.

For those who wonder why "its been years since we had good sized coho", its those years were getting a decent alewife spawn. There becomes little transition sized bait.



So, did we really know that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor?


----------



## dfeigel

Hey all, first time poster here but have been a member for over a year. I have read almost all of this thread and have noticed people wonder why so many lake trout are stocked over other species of fish.

I ran across this sometime back while doing research on the great lakes fishing and thought it might be interesting to some of you here:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/StipulationEntryDecree_282222_7.pdf

The feds are mandated by a judges ruling in this consent decree.

This is a direct quote from the listed pdf file:

"continue to rear lake trout at current OR "enhanced levels"
,
I hope this year works out for us all, and really hope this is not the collapse happening but rather just some off years due to weather. In reality I know a collapse is going to happen, and probably sooner then later.

Dustin Feigel
US Army (Retired/Disabled)
21 Foot Cruisers Inc Baron
http://hooahsalmonfishing.com/


----------



## Captnbobb

So it looks like the consent decree was supposed to be for 20 years. Who knows when it took effect, when it expires, and what negotiations are taking place to replace it (Or maybe that has already happened).


----------

