# Lake Michigan Salmon and Trout Stocking Meeting



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> and you would think, someone who lived "here" at one point would know that...


So now it comes out (as usual). Why is it that you have this perceived beef with me? I didn't comment to ruffle feathers and I have shown that I can have a reasonable debate with people. We don't have to agree on everything and I am fine with us disagreeing on this. But I really don't understand why you feel compelled to insult me every time I post. Furthermore, just because I don't currently live in Michigan does not mean that I don't have a right to post here. You are only using that as a scapegoat to attack me, because if you really felt that way, you would be saying the same thing to guys like Wildcatwick. There are plenty of other out of state posters on here for you to follow around and pester, but you choose to focus on me.


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

woolybug25 said:


> You haven't proved a single one of my points wrong. Even the article Boozer posted (which you said you liked) supported my arguments and was pro wild fish. You obviously didn't read any of the articles as well. There were plenty of non west coast fish talked about, like Atlantic Salmon.
> 
> You can say, "end of discussion", but nothing you said disproved any of my points. If you like put and take fisheries, fine. I'm not trying to change your opinion. But if you are saying that there is no value to a naturally reproducing population of fish, then I vehemently disagree. So do most fisheries biologists as well.
> 
> And as I said earlier about non-native species. It's a whole different conversation. All I am saying that is if a state is going to dump millions of dollars into the fishery, they should focus on creating wild populations ("native", again, is a different topic) that are not only healthier, but allows them to focus their money on other things like stream restoration.


you still have yet to provide any data for the great lakes natural fish.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> you still have yet to provide any data for the great lakes natural fish.


What data are you looking for exactly? I provided you over a 100 articles that show that wild fish are healthier and that stocked fish hurt wild fishes ability to sustain their population. There were articles from all over the country. There isn't some biological factor that makes Michigan different than the rest of the country where somehow, magically, stocked fish are better than wild ones. 

Why don't you provide me with data showing that hatchery fish are equal to wild fish? 

I will be happy to get more info for someone else that wants to have a reasonable conversation about the topic, but the reality is that you will just continue this game of spinning to try to argue with me. Feel however you want about it, I really couldn't care less about your opinion at this point.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> you still have yet to provide any data for the great lakes natural fish.


You want one directly from the great lakes, here ya go. Now your turn, show me some data that shows that I am wrong. 



> Stocked fish lack the resilience of wild fish and are inherently less likely to persist in a changing environment. In his vision statement, stocked fish are seen as surrogates for wild fish, perhaps for extended times in areas where fish communities and habitats have been seriously impaired. During these periods, however, *self-sustainability should remain the goal and opportunities for increased self-sustainability should be favored over increased opportunities for hatchery based fisheries*, when the two goals conflict.


http://www.glfc.org/pubs/vishea.htm


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

woolybug25 said:


> So now it comes out (as usual). Why is it that you have this perceived beef with me? I didn't comment to ruffle feathers and I have shown that I can have a reasonable debate with people. We don't have to agree on everything and I am fine with us disagreeing on this. But I really don't understand why you feel compelled to insult me every time I post. Furthermore, just because I don't currently live in Michigan does not mean that I don't have a right to post here. You are only using that as a scapegoat to attack me, because if you really felt that way, you would be saying the same thing to guys like Wildcatwick. There are plenty of other out of state posters on here for you to follow around and pester, but you choose to focus on me.


i focus on you because your posts seem agenda based. if you infact lived here you would know what the moderator pointed out. instead you claim our fishery is crap because they stock fish to keep a fabricated fishery going. that summed up together is a multi billion dollar industry around these parts. yet a strain of steelhead created in a hatchery seems to be out growing your superior wild fish. your data to back your arguements is based on native environments on the west coast, resident stream trout data(which is not what im talking about) AND atlantic native environments as well. these steelhead are not native to the great lakes. the conditions in the environment here are not the same as the areas your data is pointing out. most rivers in the great lakes are far too warm in the summer months to provide sufficient nursery water for immature fish. thats not just my opinion, its fact.


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

woolybug25 said:


> You want one directly from the great lakes, here ya go. Now your turn, show me some data that shows that I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.glfc.org/pubs/vishea.htm


again, your data is in regards to NATIVE fish! you just took it out of context to help your agenda.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> i focus on you because your posts seem agenda based. if you infact lived here you would know what the moderator pointed out. instead you claim our fishery is crap because they stock fish to keep a fabricated fishery going. that summed up together is a multi billion dollar industry around these parts. yet a strain of steelhead created in a hatchery seems to be out growing your superior wild fish. your data to back your arguements is based on native environments on the west coast, resident stream trout data(which is not what im talking about) AND atlantic native environments as well. these steelhead are not native to the great lakes. the conditions in the environment here are not the same as the areas your data is pointing out. most rivers in the great lakes are far too warm in the summer months to provide sufficient nursery water for immature fish. thats not just my opinion, its fact.


Look at the post directly above yours. I provided exactly what you asked for. Info from the Great Lakes supporting wild fish populations over hatchery fish. In fact, I have provided hundreds of other articles through the wild fish conservancy linked earlier. How is anything I said linked to any other agenda than hopes for a better fishery? What is your agenda exactly?

As I said, I have provided you a ton of info supporting my thoughts (literally hundreds) and even Boozer linked an article that supported it as well. So either find some info that supports your belief or lets close the lid on your lip service. Becuause after all, you are the one that took the conversation off of opinions vs data. I have provided data that supports my side and you have not provided anything.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> again, your data is in regards to NATIVE fish! you just took it out of context to help your agenda.


You obviously didn't read the article. Of course they support native species, but as evidenced by the quote I highlighted (I even tried to make it easy for you) the GLFC supports management of wild fisheries vs hatchery. It clear as mud, dude. 

Again, time to put up your own data. I'm not the one on the defensive, you are. If you have data to support your claims, then show me.


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

woolybug25 said:


> Look at the post directly above yours. I provided exactly what you asked for. Info from the Great Lakes supporting wild fish populations over hatchery fish. In fact, I have provided hundreds of other articles through the wild fish conservancy linked earlier. How is anything I said linked to any other agenda than hopes for a better fishery? What is your agenda exactly?
> 
> As I said, I have provided you a ton of info supporting my thoughts (literally hundreds) and even Boozer linked an article that supported it as well. So either find some info that supports your belief or lets close the lid on your lip service. Becuause after all, you are the one that took the conversation off of opinions vs data. I have provided data that supports my side and you have not provided anything.


you want data, ok.

indiana state record steelhead: 26.62lbs 7/5/1999(stocked skamania strain: adipose clip)

illinois state record steelhead: 31lbs 6.72oz 7/10/1993(stocked skamania strain: ventral clip)

wisconsin state record steelhead: 27lbs 2oz. 7/26/1997(stocked skamania strain: adipose clip)

michigan state record steelhead: 26lbs 8oz. circa 1975(stocked lil manistee strain: no clip info...yet)

ohio state record steelhead: 21.3lbs 6/25/2010(stocked lil manistee strain: hatchery wear on fins and mutilated dorsal fin)

PA state record steelhead: 20lbs. 3oz circa 2001(stocked domestic strain: missing dorsal fin and hatchery wear on other fins)

new york state record steelhead: 31lbs 3oz. 8/14/2004(stocked skamania strain: mutilated dorsal fin and hatchery wear on other fins)

ontario province record steelhead: 40.68lbs 9/21/2005(also a stocked croaker strain: mutilated dorsal fin and factual genetic evidence of being a croaker by OMNR)

wisconsin state record brown trout: 41lbs 8 oz(stocked seeforellan: left pectoral clip)

michigan state record brown trout: 41lbs. 7 oz.(stocked seeforellan: mutilated fins and possible left pectoral partial clip)

also hatchery fish below...

http://www.fishing-in-saskatchewan.com/article-details.asp?articleid=28

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...009/09/new-pending-all-tackle-world-record-ra

you wanted the info, and you got it


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

Do you even read what I write? Seriously.

First of all, you do not know that all of those fish were stocked. You are assuming they are because they have a stocking program. But there is a lot of natural reproduction in the midwest. Are you really saying that you dont see a difference between hatchery fish and wild fish when you catch them? If you cannot tell the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. 


But that is beyond the point. You cant compare a genetically engineered triloid rainbows from a private lake to a run of the mill stocker rainbow. Just throwing out state records and making the assumption that they were all stocked is silly. Furthermore, that doesn't change the fact that a population of wild fish on average is healthier than an equal population of the same stocked strain. That's why they reproduce better (reference wfc articles for validation). 

So again, show me an article or professional biologist opinion that states that hatchery fish are equal or better than their wild counterparts. As I have said, I have literally provided over 100 to you and all you have done is shown me the sizes of record fish and an article about some goons that fished a newly opened lake filled with genetically engineered fish. 

They can make a genetically engineered rainbow tomorrow that is bigger than the record. But using that as a comparison to a stream born fish is like comparing apples to oranges. Michigan isn't planting genetically engineered rainbows, they are planting hatchery fish that compete with wild fish for food and spawning. The latter of which makes it nearly impossible for a wild population to occur. 

Find me a biologist that agrees with you that hatchery fish are equals to wild fish. I did what you asked of me, now its your turn.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

Eat a Peach for Peace and calm down boys...


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

woolybug25 said:


> They can make a genetically engineered rainbow tomorrow that is bigger than the record. But using that as a comparison to a stream born fish is like comparing apples to oranges. Michigan isn't planting genetically engineered rainbows, they are planting hatchery fish that compete with wild fish for food and spawning. The latter of which makes it nearly impossible for a wild population to occur.
> 
> .


No, water temp plays the biggest part in regard to Michigan having wild fisheries or not. 

So while it's simply dandy to think about all these wild steelhead swimming up the Joe, the Mo or K-zoo and Big M, it's not gonna happen. The small creeks and what not that have both ideal summer and winter water temps (i.e. spring fed as opposed to marsh lands or what not) absolutely do contribute some wild offspring, but certainly not in any numbers where a fishery can be sustained without added and significant hatchery plants. That's pretty much why you only see rivers like the PM and the Little M that have a self sustaining population. I believe it was the Seelbach (sp?) studies and what not that concretely proved this along with other studies done by DNR personel and most of it was presented at one of the previous coldwater committee meetings. 

However, don't take my word for it--we can wait for Jay to pop on here and say pretty much the same thing.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

thousandcasts said:


> No, water temp plays the biggest part in regard to Michigan having wild fisheries or not.
> 
> So while it's simply dandy to think about all these wild steelhead swimming up the Joe, the Mo or K-zoo and Big M, it's not gonna happen. The small creeks and what not that have both ideal summer and winter water temps (i.e. spring fed as opposed to marsh lands or what not) absolutely do contribute some wild offspring, but certainly not in any numbers where a fishery can be sustained without added and significant hatchery plants. That's pretty much why you only see rivers like the PM and the Little M that have a self sustaining population. I believe it was the Seelbach (sp?) studies and what not that concretely proved this along with other studies done by DNR personel and most of it was presented at one of the previous coldwater committee meetings.
> 
> However, don't take my word for it--we can wait for Jay to pop on here and say pretty much the same thing.


I'm not saying that I expect them to magically make rivers like the St Joe capable of sustaining a 100% wild populations. But I think that you would agree with me that there can be a lot done to increase the amount of wild fish overall. There are some rivers like the MO, that could certainly support more wild fish. I'm not advocating stopping the stocking of steelhead, but rather embrace a philosophy that revolves around creating more wild stocks of fish. 

Then they could use those extra dollars for habitat improvements that could lead to better overall fisheries as well. Maybe there could be a few bucks left over for those ferns to decorate the dam with. 

While I agree that Jay will mention that not all Michigan habitat is suitable for wild populations (never disputed), I think he will generally agree with me that wild trout and salmon are superior to hatchery fish. I know his counterpart Jim Dexter certainly did:



> *There is a wealth of evidence in the
> literature that suggests wild salmonid strains
> outperform their domestic equivalents* (Avery et
> al. 2001). For example, Greene (1952), Vincent
> ...


http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2080rr_363265_7.pdf


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Trout King said:


> Don't get me wrong I love to salmon fish, but it wouldn't break my heart to see more cuts. The rivers with great natural reproduction will continue to pump out wild fish as long as there will be enough food to support them, if that means rivers like the Grand get less kings, so be it, that means more food for wild fish. I'd just like to see more adranomous browns, I guess I don't understand why they just don't make the runs like they used to(I've only heard). Strain? less survival? I'm not expert on Lake Michigan, but it seems like browns (and steelhead) are more adaptable than kings and have a wider range within their diets. These are just a few of my personal opinions though, I've never really enjoyed salmon fishing too much any further south than the White River.
> 
> After all this talk about fish stocking, at heart I am a steelhead fisherman before salmon and what I'd REALLY like to see is fin clips on all hatchery fish. I understand it is a budget issue, but thats what I want to see and care about more than chinook stocking in SW Michigan.
> 
> Jay, here is a hypothetical question, in your opinion (or studies), if all adranomous stocking was cut, would SW Michigan be able to sustain a solid steelhead fishery with natural reproduction alone? Particularly the Grand and Muskegon?


Muskegon River (Maybe) but the Grand is a no. There would be a few tributaries in the Grand, But I think the fishery for steelhead would go down without stocking.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

woolybug25 said:


> I'm not saying that I expect them to magically make rivers like the St Joe capable of sustaining a 100% wild populations. But I think that you would agree with me that there can be a lot done to increase the amount of wild fish overall. There are some rivers like the MO, that could certainly support more wild fish. I'm not advocating stopping the stocking of steelhead, but rather embrace a philosophy that revolves around creating more wild stocks of fish.
> 
> Then they could use those extra dollars for habitat improvements that could lead to better overall fisheries as well. Maybe there could be a few bucks left over for those ferns to decorate the dam with.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm missing what the argument is in this thread. Would any biologist say that wild fish are by and large superior to hatchery fish? Yes. Would I like to see the fin clips return so we can better tell the difference? Hell yes. Do I support a lower limit in rivers where natural reproduction is significant? Absolutely. 

I'd LOVE to see a large wild population in the Mo, for example, but as long as Croton is there and summer temps rocket toward 80 for the entire system, those fry are cooked. If that river had about six more Bigelow Creeks, it'd be a whole different ball game. It's kind of ironic in a universal way, that the Grand gets more wild fish in the annual return--simply because it has more creeks. Which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, I'd imagine.

One thing I hear a lot is that there should be more done to protect wild steelhead. When one thinks about, most of the wild fish come from parents that spawned in the ideal little tribs of most mainstreams. Most of those don't open up to fishing until the last Sat in April, so any fish that are there to spawn will be done and gone. Other than a lower limit in rivers like the PM and Little M, there's not a whole lot more that can be done to protect wild fish...in this state anyway.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

Jay Wesley said:


> Muskegon River (Maybe) but the Grand is a no. There would be a few tributaries in the Grand, But I think the fishery for steelhead would go down without stocking.


Hi Jay, what are your thoughts on improving wild stocks in the rivers that can support them? Does the DNR favor improving wild stocks _when possible_? We all know that it wont work in every river, and some fisheries simply cannot have runs without hatchery fish, but do you personally feel that there are opportunities to create larger wild fish populations in Michigan as a whole?


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

Jay Wesley said:


> Muskegon River (Maybe) but the Grand is a no. There would be a few tributaries in the Grand, But I think the fishery for steelhead would go down without stocking.


thank you jay.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

thousandcasts said:


> I guess I'm missing what the argument is in this thread. Would any biologist say that wild fish are by and large superior to hatchery fish? Yes. Would I like to see the fin clips return so we can better tell the difference? Hell yes. Do I support a lower limit in rivers where natural reproduction is significant? Absolutely.


Then you and I are in agreeance (that tasted like salt to say, lol). I mentioned that I would like to see more effort for wild fish and Mark asked why. He disagrees with me that wild fish are superior to hatchery fish. 

I also completely agree that not all rivers are capable of wild populations, the Joe for instance.


----------



## mark (Feb 4, 2000)

woolybug25 said:


> Hi Jay, what are your thoughts on improving wild stocks in the rivers that can support them? Does the DNR favor improving wild stocks _when possible_? We all know that it wont work in every river, and some fisheries simply cannot have runs without hatchery fish, but do you personally feel that there are opportunities to create larger wild fish populations in Michigan as a whole?


the few rivers that do get large enough sustainable wild runs are managed for wild fish. all that information is available by the various dnr agencies.


----------



## woolybug25 (Aug 9, 2011)

mark said:


> the few rivers that do get large enough sustainable wild runs are managed for wild fish. all that information is available by the various dnr agencies.


Jay just mentioned above that the Mo and some of the Grand tribs (but not the Grand itself) could be a possible candidates for more wild fish and he made no mention of if there were or were not others. He just said that some rivers would decline without them. 

This also doesn't change your argument that hatchery fish are equals to wild fish. I believe it's becoming quite clear that you are incorrect in that respect.


----------

