# Thoughts on CRSC meetings



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

It's a committee and things move slowly, but that March meeting appears to have been a special meeting called to discuss specific issues. Good to see them trying to get things done in a timely fashion. I don't expect to see some of the issues discussed turned into policy before 2016 at the earliest. 

I like the suggestion that members who don't show up can lose their seats. The waterfowl committee does this and it seems to have a fairly dedicated membership. 

A Trout Management Plan is a good thing. It'll be interesting to see how they institute a variety of goals like the pike plan does, but without complicating the regs. The pike regs have three goals: reducing populations, maintaining solid but unspectacular fisheries and creating trophy fisheries. Picking trout lakes and streams with criteria like that seems like a very complicated business indeed. Obviously, the criteria will be somewhat different (more like put and take, status quo and trophies); complicated any way you slice it. I'd rather see more complicated regs if it means better fishing, though that may put me in the minority. 

I'm also probably in a very small minority when it comes to steelhead natural reproduction. If the steelhead regularly fill the habitat to capacity I have to wonder how much pressure that puts on native non-game species. I know a lot of people don't much care what happens to the ecosystem as a whole so long as they can catch sport fish but I take the opposite view. Non-native sport fish should be second fiddle to native species. Maybe the steelhead runs are not an issue. If they are an issue the regs should be altered to increase take and reduce their numbers. I'm probably the only guy in the state who thinks that way. 

Just my two cents. Doubt the minutes from last Tuesdays meeting will be out for a while but I'll post them when I see them.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> I'm also probably in a very small minority when it comes to steelhead natural reproduction. If the steelhead regularly fill the habitat to capacity I have to wonder how much pressure that puts on native non-game species. I know a lot of people don't much care what happens to the ecosystem as a whole so long as they can catch sport fish but I take the opposite view. Non-native sport fish should be second fiddle to native species. Maybe the steelhead runs are not an issue. If they are an issue the regs should be altered to increase take and reduce their numbers. I'm probably the only guy in the state who thinks that way.
> 
> Just my two cents. Doubt the minutes from last Tuesdays meeting will be out for a while but I'll post them when I see them.


Alot of inland trout anglers get concerned when salmon/steelhead are given access to inland trout waters. You might have more support than you realize, but then, you likely also realize it's full of complexities, especially as it might relate to management by social dictum.

The whole Non-native vs native species is an interesting issue. The DNR identifies protection and enhancement of native species as one of it's goals, but imagine if that strategy was the overriding management paradigm. It's fair to say that would not just be a door that would swing both ways, but a door that would swing 360 degrees. One other question that also comes to mind is on how you want to define native (geographic, historical range, specific enviroment)?

Lastly, in concert to that issue, doesn't it seem ironic that many and perhaps most of the organizations that sit on the committee were at least initially based on fisheries for non-natives?


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

REG said:


> Alot of inland trout anglers get concerned when salmon/steelhead are given access to inland trout waters. You might have more support than you realize, but then, you likely also realize it's full of complexities, especially as it might relate to management by social dictum.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> This is the present debate about the Boardman. Presently steel/salmon are blocked by Sabin Dam. When that comes out who knows.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I hear what you guys are saying about migratory fish moving into reaches where they were previously blocked, thats a touchy subject and the arguments against it definitely have merit. The LM is 100% naturally reproducing so the stocking issue doesnt apply there, but the overpopulation issue might. I quit fishing there almost twenty years ago because I had a hard time keeping 6 rainbows/steelhead off my line. It was frustrating to have a good cast spoiled by those aggressive little fish and too much like bluegill fishing for my tastes when Im seeking a challenge. Looking back, it may be that those fish were so aggressive because they were starving.

Stocking has a long history of doing as much or more harm than good. Even in the recent past the best science available hasnt been good enough to prevent serious errors in stocking strategies (musky), though the DNR has recognized the errors and corrected them. A few decades ago groups like TU still believed in the fable of stocking as a means to create fisheries without any downside and they have some pretty embarrassing episodes to show for it. We continue to stock as put and take fisheries in quite a few rivers that can support very little if any natural reproduction. Sure, this provides recreational opportunities and that is a social good, but at what cost to the recreational opportunities that would exist if the native species were able to thrive without the competition of stocked fish? I would use the Muskegon as an example. It has a naturally reproducing population of kings, a put and take population of steelhead and a put and take population of catchable size rainbows that are planted each year. The kings survive because they exit the river almost immediately but the other two stick around, eating the food that would otherwise be available to young bass until the warm water kills them (almost all the rainbows), migrate out (a few) or they are caught. Were talking 100,000 or more 6+ fish every year. Is that causing any natives to be endangered? Apparently not. Is it keeping the bass and walleye fisheries from reaching their maximum potential? That question remains unanswered. Theres quite a bit of wiggle room between the unrealistic/impossible extremes of eradicating all non-natives and stocking non-natives without regard for their effect on the ecosystem. Im hoping that the Trout Management Plan will look at an appropriate balance and maybe make more of the public aware of the balance weve chosen.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Just to keep things real, virtually all discussions about native vs. non-native fish, invariably become confined to considerations for game fish species. Also, another commonality is the concern almost always targets select non-natives, and not others. But, that's OK. We're all anglers, just a matter of preferences.

One thing's for certain is the 50,000 or so walleye that move up the Muskegon every spring won't starve.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

REG said:


> Just to keep things real, virtually all discussions about native vs. non-native fish, invariably become confined to considerations for game fish species. Also, another commonality is the concern almost always targets select non-natives, and not others. But, that's OK. We're all anglers, just a matter of preferences.
> 
> *One thing's for certain is the 50,000 or so walleye that move up the Muskegon every spring won't starve.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> The walleye run in the Muskegon is a good example of a native fishery that is a pale shadow of what it could be. Historically that run was 10 times that size and today it exists only because the DNR stocks the river. None of the studies I have read have found a primary cause for the collapse which started in the '50s and became critical in the '60s. As you noted, the popular non-natives are there and the general public doesn't seem to care that a great resource is on life support, so long as they can catch the steelhead. Of course, it's the DNR's job to care about these things but without public support they won't dedicate funds to do enough research to find the cause. Heck, the main cause may be the dam and that isn't going anywhere. If the issue is the dam keeping the water too cool for too long in the spring, a not yet fully explored possibility, I can't see much public support for hurting the steelhead run to help out the walleye. That's how the social is woven into all our management decisions and how a dedicated group of walleye fisherman might be able to do something about it if they got really organized. It's a lot less of a drive from GR to the Mo than it is to the D and those additional 500,000 to 700,000 fish would remain available in Lake Michigan all summer, especially to near shore anglers on piers. Seems to me this is the sort of discussion that should be had as we look at a new statewide management plan.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

As you said it's hard to put a finger on the exact cause and while the dam/ blocked river migrations likely plays a large role, it would be remiss not to mention of loss of spawning/rearing habitat due to other causes, also other enviromental changes not associated with salmon/steelhead/brown trout stocking. 

Not sure how it would affect steelhead runs, as virtually all the successful spawning for the MO takes place in the coldwater feeders, not the main channel, as I've been told. The rest is stocked smolts and as you note, they're transients and like all the other rivers non-naturally sustaining rivers, they'll do alright. 

Let's talk about the other non-natives in the MO system that has been ignored to this point, brown trout. The summer trout fishing had received a huge amount of hype in the printed media. Not previously mentioned is the DNR stocks 40K+, and in some years as high as 75,000-85,000. Isn't this the river that in the trout magazines was referred to the "best tailwater east of the Mississippi, along with the Delaware"? I think the cognescenti know that's perhaps a stretch, but didn't that have a large impact on this river's popularity for what species gets the attention? I know I sure saw that during the summer decades ago and BTW, I was there targeting the natives you had mentioned (wallies/smallies). Moreover, wouldn't this fishery be the one that would derive benefit from implementation of a cold water draw bubbler? Perhaps the impetus of keeping summer river temps cool might lie with here.

I only bring this up as it's a perfect example of putting the target on the back of, in this case steelhead, while ignoring impacts of other non-natives, like brown trout. Like I said originally, this door swings all sorts of ways.

Here's a question for you. If you were King of Michigan, and decreed all dams to be removed, without making any artificial changes to the fishery and letting nature make it's choices, what would you expect to see on the Muskegon, Manistee and AuSable?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I am certainly no biologist but here's my take on the dam removal issue. On one hand it makes perfect sense to remove the dams that aren't being used in form or another. They serve no purpose any longer and some of them are in such disrepair it wouldn't make sense to fix em. I'm not positive on the cause and effect of allowing salmon and steelhead run all the river systems in question, but I believe would happen is that in time, the native fish would adapt. Since we are primarily using the boardman as an example of dam removal, or at least I think we are, let's look at that. I think that in time the fishery will find it's own level. In other words, the native fish will adapt to this change and find a level of population that is conducive to survival of the species on the Boardman. 

Now, if we remember, the Boardman also has a weir downtown TC that does not allow for the salmon to travel any further, at least probably 95% of them. Time will tell on what will happen.

As for steelhead limits, I can see both sides. There are some rivers where the probability of reproduction is pretty high, such as the Little Man, and the Platte. I will speak to the Platte at this time as that is the river I was weaned on, so to speak. I would really love to see the upper weir opened up, the one at the hatchery, and allow the steelies to go upriver and do their thing. The fishery, in my mind, for trout above the hatchery is basically marginal at best anyways, but it has lots of gravel for a great natural reproduction area. As for limits, 1 fish in the Platte, and Little Man would be good as both streams are indicator streams, or at least used to be, and should be protected somewhat. Other than that, I do believe this to be an issue we can all agree on, it's needs study to determine what would likely happen, we can all surmise some things, but unless we can gather some evidence none of us really knows. This is one of those two edged swords things, I guess.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The walleye spawn successfully, it&#8217;s just that the alevins never make it to Muskegon Lake. Croton Pond may take too long to warm or there may be a lack of soft bottom because everything settles out behind the dam or something else entirely; we won&#8217;t know unless a lot more money is dedicated to research. Of course with science, the best way to not get the answer you don&#8217;t want to get is not to fund the research.

You&#8217;re right about the brown trout and the bubbler, too. I think it is a mistake to try to turn a cool water fishery into a cold water fishery. If the Muskegon had historically been a cold water river I could see doing it but I think it is a waste of money to try to make a river something that the geology of the area is against. As a general rule I&#8217;m also against stocking fish that have little or no chance of lasting the summer and if you do stock, the ones that do survive had better be something special. The DNR has stopped doing this in our southern streams but the practice continues in the north. I see stocking in areas where there is all the necessary habitat except for spawning grounds a little differently. So long as the fish are not dumped in such huge numbers that it hurts the species that can reproduce there I&#8217;m ok with it. That sort of stocking is the case most of the time, especially in lakes.

If I were King of Michigan and the dams were removed without any artificial steps taken, I would expect the Muskegon to continue to have a good king run and the steelhead and browns would drop in numbers to be insignificant. Smallmouth would improve and maybe walleye, too. The Manistee and Au Sable would both be a lot more like the PM with great runs and great trout populations in the upper river and big browns and cool water fish in the lower water. Lamprey populations in the Great Lakes would explode due to spawning in the newly exposed reaches. Of course, I wouldn't do it that way. Careful consideration would have to be given to those dams that actually produce enough power to make them beneficial. Maintaining barriers against invasives like lamprey and gobies would be a concern, too. These same barriers could prevent the migration of salmonids, and that would be the kind of decision I would base partly on the culture and desires of the upstream communities. Do they want a salmon run? Do the economic benefits of a run outweigh the possible harm to the river as it exists without the run? Would they reproduce enough that we could redirect money from fish propagation to other uses? Can you keep salmonids out but still allow sturgeon, white bass and other natives to migrate? How much would the members of the Michigan Sportsman Forums be willing to bribe me for special considerations on their favorite water? Lots of questions and not a lot of easy answers.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Good thoughtful answers, toto and kzoo.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

In the March conference call 2 issues were discussed. Steelhead limits and Brook Trout size limits.

Reducing Steelhead limits, which got little to no play. Basically, the position of the DNR at this time appears to be that unless there's a groundswell of support from groups like MUCC, then there's not much to talk about. And at this time there really isn't a groundswell that they can identify. 

Changing Brook Trout size limits on Type 4 to match Type 1 to simplify the regs. I believe this is being taken to the NRC. 

Modifying Type 2 size limits for brook trout (also potentially lowering them to match Type 1). This received a lot of pushback from committee members and was shelved as there are only a handful of Type 2 streams left and the main rivers in question could likely be solved another way.

I don't have time for the May update right now. Maybe later.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Kzoo, you are right there aren't a lot of easy answers. One thing mentioned was the bubbler system. I really doesn't make much sense to have bubblers if the water above a dam is too warm anyways. What I'm saying is, take Tippy for example. I can't see that working very well as the water on the upside of the dam isn't deep enough to sustain cold water, at least to a degree to help much, with the possible exception of right below the dam for the first 1/2 mile or so. I'm not sure about the water above the dams on the MO, but for a bubbler to be effective, lots of cold water would be needed. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

One thing to consider with the salmon/steelhead having access to trout streams is the resident trout can gorge on salmon eggs in the fall, which can lead to some improved growth if I'm not mistaken

A lot of complexity to connectivity issues, invasives, natives, desireable non-natives, and the like, that's for sure


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

o_mykiss said:


> One thing to consider with the salmon/steelhead having access to trout streams is the resident trout can gorge on salmon eggs in the fall, which can lead to some improved growth if I'm not mistaken
> 
> A lot of complexity to connectivity issues, invasives, natives, desireable non-natives, and the like, that's for sure


True dat. On another note though, I read where many small stream trout that normally shouldn't show PCB's are, and they have determined it's from salmon and steelhead eggs.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't know if anyone is tracking the effectiveness of the bubblers at Croton, Tippy and Hodenpyle, but if they are able to reduce the number of days above 70 degrees or prevent highs from topping 74 they may be effective enough. I've always thought of "tailwaters" as being stretches downstream of deep dams that provide stable, cool temperatures in the range optimum for trout. None of our Michigan rivers qualify under that definition. In fact, Mio Pond is so shallow that a bubbler couldn't even be installed. In extremely hot summers it isn't unusual to see the temperature at Mio reach 70 degrees and remain there or above for several weeks. A summer like that can kill several year classes of fish and take years to recover from. One possible solution is to place cover in the thermal refuges that have been identified at creeks and seeps all the way down to the 4001 bridge. That's a mighty big project though and will take a conservation group with a lot of expertise, clout and money to pull it off.

The DNR is working to remove all the dams on the Kalamazoo between Morrow and Allegan. One is out already and another is in the works but it will be years before they are all gone. Consumers has agreed to repair the fish ladder at Allegan once the dams are out and that will open up the river to salmon and steelhead all the way to Morrow. Their will, of course, also be benefits to the resident walleye and smallmouth as well as other species like sturgeon (who will be getting a spawning riffle below Allegan Dam this year). This will also put wild brook trout in competition with young steelhead in some unmentionables. There will also be steelhead in some very wadeable and boatable water about 15 minutes from my door. I'm already getting a little conflicted about restricting upstream migrations. I'm not sure if the Trout Plan is going to address the expansion of migratory fish but I'll ask around this weekend when I'm in Grayling. Hopefully the Plan was discussed at last weeks meeting and will be at the next one. 

For discussions sake and before there is any plan proposed, what would you guys like to see based on what the DNR has said so far?


> The plan will focus on resident trout populations (brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout). The plans structure will differ from the existing pike and musky management plans, reflecting distinct aspects of resident trout management such as management of stream vs. lake fisheries, stocked vs. wild fisheries, stocking vs. habitat management trade-offs, etc.


I'd like to see a greater emphasis on habitat, tied to educational outreach to riparian property owners. Too often I see lawns cut to the waters edge and woody debris removed to make passage easier. With a little forethought you can clear just enough of a downed tree to get a boat through without taking it right back to the bank. 

I'd also like to see a greater emphasis on self-sustaining populations where possible. I think they fight harder and are more fun to catch.

I'd like to see fewer brown trout planted in waters that can sustain brook trout. This may be more applicable to the UP than the LP but it's our state fish and I'd like to see it getting more of the good water.

I'd like to see less stocking of trout in lakes where other fish could be stocked and where angler use is low or where similar opportunities exist nearby in the Great Lakes. Lake Trout stocking in Gull Lake is an example and I think Atlantics in Torch is similar, too.

Clarification of access laws and navigability criteria would be great but that is probably the purview of the legislature. Still, pushing it in a statewide management plan probably wouldn't hurt.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I would think the DNR is tracking the bubbler program, I know they do at Hodenpyle dam. Makes me wonder though if there is anything one could find about water temps etc prior to these dams being installed, and how the trout fishing was before those times. That would be an interesting study to do in an effort to see if removing dams would even matter in some cases. 

As for letting steel, and salmon go all the way upstream, as I said before I do believe that in time, things would balance out. Fish and wildlife are remarkable at adapting and surviving. That isn't to say that the fishing may not be messed up for a while for stream trout, but I think it would work out sooner or later, but again I'm no biologist so I really have no reason to believe that per se.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

There is more to this issue than meets the eye. I think the concept of focusing on habitat is something virtually everyone can support, and a little unity among anglers would be a breath of fresh air. That said, we also need to keep in mind that in a few circumstances, are we still making preference choices? Perhaps. Fortunately, the DNR has a well thought out, balanced approach to this, as found in the first goal of the fisheries division strategic plan and in my mind represents a rational yet pragmatic approach.

As a salmon/steelhead fan, my bias is toward liking increased natural reproduction/rearing habitat. Certainly, whenever possible, naturalized populations are just better, period. They are generally more robust, adaptive, and disease resistant. At least with chinook, they appear to survive better and contribute more to the fishery in the lake. As pointed out earlier, other fish get an extra protein boost from salmon/steelhead eggs, flesh and younglings. However, it's just not that simple. 

However, I know one older salmon/steelhead fan who had his hand in developing this fishery that _hates_ the idea of naturally reproducing salmon/steelhead. Why? He points to when Dr.'s Tanner/Tody initiated the salmon program in the 60's, one of the main management tenets was that the salmon fishery would need to be sustained by stocking, and if necessary, they could pull the plug on the program simply by not stocking fish. As he sees it, the problem, as it happened on Lake Huron and threatening to happen on Lake Michigan, is that through the success of naturally reproduced salmonids, the DNR's have lost control of salmon in the lakes, the whole genie out of the bottle thing. Other merits and discussion aside, he's got a good point. With that, how would producing more and more baby salmon/steelhead for lakes that just plain contains less and less food work out?

Ranger Ray brought up the whole PCB carryover effect. Another point taken.

How do salmon/steelhead interact/compete with stream dwelling fish? I know looking through the fisheries management reports, steelhead/brown trout interactions/competition has been looked at, and I remember something that chinook did not have such a negative impact on browns as speculated. How about brookies? I remember Steve Mondrella commenting on how steelie smolts have overrun some of his treasured brook trout streams. Non-game species, I don't even think we've even scratched this surface. As kzoo pointed out, much more questions than concrete answers.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

Kings may not have a impact on native stream trout, but the first couple of years they ran the PM the carnage was unbelievable on the trout. That was also the days when the PM was stocked top to bottom like many streams and loaded with trout.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

You are absolutely correct on Dr. Tanners statements. If we were to stop planting salmon altogether right now, I think before very long we wouldn't have any salmon, why well you would have people fishing them for one, and two even without that I would think the numbers would dwindle, but then again, not so sure on that. The other big problem at this point is the $, as much as I hate to say that, salmon fishing in Michigan is HUGE. I'm not one to advocate any fish regulations for the money, but in this case it is what it is. I can only imagine the havock that would play out in port cities without the salmon, it wouldn't be pretty. Perhaps Tanner should have left the original idea alone and gone with that. What's that you say? The original idea was to plant stripped bass, man can you imagine? Not sure if the impact for the sportsman would be the same but I wouldn't be surprised. At some point in time, salmon and alewives will reach a sustainable balance, and that's we all hope for. Not too many salmon, and not too many alewives. I think we are all smart to understand too, that in some years you will have a boom cycle for alewives, but that will only produce larger salmon, but I'm getting off point.

Back to the beginning, at least think I'm going back there. As for the brook trout limits in the U.P., I wouldn't have any problem with 10 and here's why. If the DNR has done their job and feel the fishery can support 10 per day, then have at it. IF, in a few years the populations change dramatically, then change them back to something else. Here's one thing to remember too, if you've ever fished any of the U.P. streams you can understand what I'm about to say. There is no way that these fish get fished everyday the way they do in other streams in the L.P. I would hazard a guess that there are fish in some of those streams that never see a hook. Some of that brush to get through is so tuff people won't go, period. Since we all know that fish are migratory in nature, it only makes sense that the fish will travel to areas with less competition for food, if an area gets fished out, another will replace it. 

As for the salmon steelhead having an impact on the stream trout, I'll stick with my assumption from before, but I will paint this scenario. Some of you know I pretty much have Platte River water running through my veins, we all have our favorites. We also all know the Platte is the first river planted with Coho's in the 60's, and we also all know that the fish run this river in pretty good numbers, even today there is still a fair amount of Coho's in the river. Let me just go quickly and say, I have fished this river above Platte Lake and had a bigger problem with small stream trout stealing my spawn bag than anything else. It's amazing to watch the little stream trout seemingly everywhere, swimming around the big guys. If you ever want to see if for yourself, just go to the hatchery weir and watch the fish below the weir, these little guys have figured out what's going on, they'll steal food right in front the bigger fish, while at the same time they appear to know they are [email protected]##A$ off the bigger guys. The bottom line there is, at least to me, and example of the stream trout adapting to their surroundings, not a scientific study, just an observation.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

toto said:


> You are absolutely correct on Dr. Tanners statements. If we were to stop planting salmon altogether right now, I think before very long we wouldn't have any salmon, why well you would have people fishing them for one, and two even without that I would think the numbers would dwindle, but then again, not so sure on that.


Why do you think we'd run out of salmon? Perhaps cohos, as they don't have much natural reproduction. But chinooks? Shoot, the last few years in Lake Michigan, 50-60% of all the fish have been naturally-reproduced. If we stopped planting fish, there'd be plenty of fish swimming around. A reduction in hatchery fish would probably mean alewives would increase as well, so there'd be plenty of food to go aroudn for the wild kings. Heck, natural reproduction might even expand to make up for the lack of stocking. I am willing to bet that stocking (in some streams) represses natural reproduction because of competition


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

You could be right, I really don't know, but here is where I was coming from. Yes Michigan does have a great natural reproduction of salmon but when you think about the numbers it just seems that at some point they won't be there, at least enough to have a viable fishery. Sorta like the sturgeon now, yep there there, but I wouldn't call that a viable fishery. What I mean is, and I'm going by recollection here but, a salmon lays what around 7500 eggs, can't remember. What I do remember is that about 1% of those will return to spawn after 4 years. That's 75 fish per 7500 eggs laid. Hey I don't know, maybe your scenario is more correct but I don't think we want to risk that, do we?


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

The other Lake Michigan states don't have very god nat repo so they'll go on planting anyway. Michigan will too, if only to sustain runs in the southern rivers. The rivers that do reproduce could be reduced; I'll wait and see about that. 

You make a good point about economics being an unavoidable part of the equation. Glamour fisheries get the lions share of the attention and the dollars and they always will. If a group of walleye fisherman want to restore the Muskegon they'll have to raise the profile of 'OL Marble Eyes. The new inland trout plan is likely to show the same sort of biases, to the detriment of brook trout I'm sad to say.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I was my understanding that the states surrounding the Great Lakes had an agreement as to how many predator fish, in this case salmon, steelhead, and browns, would be planted every year. I'm talking about overall numbers here, for example let's say the states combined can plant say 10million fish this year. Understand what I mean, not sure if I'm making this very clear on what I mean. The science in all this should dictate just how many fish are planted based on the available, or estimated availability of food sources, and I would think that that right there is the tricky part, figuring out what the food source populations will be from year to year. I would expect that with the cold weather this year in Michigan, it may be tough on the alewives, we'll see. It appears to me that no matter how it's done, salmon, and even to a lesser extent steelhead are cyclical in nature. Some years the fish are big and numerous, some years not so much. I've seen year classes of Coho's that would maybe a big one would 7-8 lbs. The next year they have to stop giving out Master Angler awards as there are so many fish over the 12 lbs mark. Go figure.

BTW, when talking about fish food source, it doesn't concern as much with steelhead. The reason being is I don't think that steelies concentrate as much on alewives, yes they'll eat em, but I don't believe like salmon do. I've seen steelhead off the scum line in 900' of water right on the surface eating bugs, just like a stream trout would. Kinda weird to see that for the first time, so what I'm getting at is the steelhead seem to have a more diverse diet than do salmon.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

kzoofisher said:


> The other Lake Michigan states don't have very god nat repo so they'll go on planting anyway. Michigan will too, if only to sustain runs in the southern rivers. The rivers that do reproduce could be reduced; I'll wait and see about that.
> 
> You make a good point about economics being an unavoidable part of the equation. Glamour fisheries get the lions share of the attention and the dollars and they always will. If a group of walleye fisherman want to restore the Muskegon they'll have to raise the profile of 'OL Marble Eyes. The new inland trout plan is likely to show the same sort of biases, to the detriment of brook trout I'm sad to say.


Looking regionally, the popularity of walleye and it's market absolutely dwarfs that of the steelhead fishery. It is just harder to tell on the Muskegon and other rivers when the season is closed during the spawning run. If there was an open season on walleye during the spring run, I would bet it's popularity would come shining though. For rest of the year, even at it's highest measured population in the 1950's at around 130K, it would be hard put to compete with other fisheries where walleye abundance is measured in the millions. Total guess on my part, but I would imagine local walleye guys prefer a fishery that is off most people's bucket list.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

REG said:


> There is more to this issue than meets the eye. I think the concept of focusing on habitat is something virtually everyone can support, and a little unity among anglers would be a breath of fresh air. That said, we also need to keep in mind that in a few circumstances, are we still making preference choices? Perhaps. Fortunately, the DNR has a well thought out, balanced approach to this, as found in the first goal of the fisheries division strategic plan and in my mind represents a rational yet pragmatic approach.
> 
> As a salmon/steelhead fan, my bias is toward liking increased natural reproduction/rearing habitat. Certainly, whenever possible, naturalized populations are just better, period. They are generally more robust, adaptive, and disease resistant. At least with chinook, they appear to survive better and contribute more to the fishery in the lake. As pointed out earlier, other fish get an extra protein boost from salmon/steelhead eggs, flesh and younglings. However, it's just not that simple.
> 
> ...


The MI DNR just shared a research paper with the Coldwater Committee on a study that was done at Hunt Creek that showed Steelhead were a significant source of competition for brown trout. PM me Bob if you are interested in the whole PDF. 

Here's the abstract:


> "We evaluated the effects of steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss(migratory Rainbow Trout) introduction on the popu-lation dynamics of resident Brown Trout Salmo trutta from 1995 to 2008 in a small, low-gradient trout stream. Dataon Brown Trout population density, survival, and growth were collected from the treatment section in Hunt Creek, Michigan, where adult steelhead were stocked each spring during 19982003, as well as from two reference stream reaches. The presence of steelhead had no apparent effect on the density of age-0 Brown Trout, but the mean density of all age-1 and older (age-1+) Brown Trout year-classes that interacted with juvenile steelhead of the same age was 46% lower than the density of age-1+ year-classes that did not interact with juvenile steelhead of the same age. No differences in density of age-1+ Brown Trout were detected in reference sections between the periods of steelhead presence or absence in the treatment section. Lower annual survival rates for year-classes of age-0 Brown Trout that interacted with steelhead in the Hunt Creek treatment section were the primary reason that density of age-1+ Brown Trout fell to nearly half the levels that existed before steelhead were introduced or after most steelhead had emigrated from the stream. Although our case study showed that the introduction of steelhead into a small, low-gradient stream resulted in lower densities of resident Brown Trout, upstream passage of steelhead into streams with high-quality habitat also offers tremendous potential to increase wild production of juvenile steelhead, thereby reducing &#64257;sheries
> managers reliance on hatchery-reared &#64257;sh for stocking the Great Lakes."


----------

