# Coho question.



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

Caught 2 coho yesterday on central Lake Huron. Both fish were chunky healthy 4-6 lb fish. Both had a combination of smelt, sticklebacks and gobs of bugs. Same as the steelhead we caught. I don't believe that the state plants any in Lake Huron. My question is why not? I know southern Lake Huron has a descent coho fishery in the spring and we get a few up here. They are great fish that seem to have a diverse diet and don't need alewives to survive.


----------



## Waz_51 (Jan 10, 2010)

A few have been showing up in Saginaw Bay this summer too


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

The issue is money. Takes a lot to grow coho. They are more picky than the chinooks and they stay in the hatchery longer.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

someone11 said:


> The issue is money. Takes a lot to grow coho. They are more picky than the chinooks and they stay in the hatchery longer.


Ah. Got it. 
Do you (or anybody reading this) know the difference in cost between the two?


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

Dont quote ne on what I said lol that would be my guess though. Kinda same reason they havent put atlantics in lk mi. I could talk to some people and see if they can give me a cost differentiation between the two.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

someone11 said:


> Dont quote ne on what I said lol that would be my guess though. Kinda same reason they havent put atlantics in lk mi. I could talk to some people and see if they can give me a cost differentiation between the two.


Thanks . Let me know if you find out.


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

Andy try asking jay Wesley. I'm sure he could answer it.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

No I didnt use jay. Heres your answer-

Hey Nick,

Chinooks are in the hatchery system about six months and cost $.35 per fish. You may know this, they are all AD clipped and CWT.

Coho are in the hatchery system about 18 months and cost $.90 per fish. They are not clipped or tagged.

Let me know if you need any more information.

Aaron Switzer
Northern Lower Peninsula
Area Hatchery Manager


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

T


someone11 said:


> No I didnt use jay. Heres your answer-
> 
> Hey Nick,
> 
> ...


Thanks for getting that info. I guess they could plant a third of the amount of cohos that they used to do chinook. Hopefully we can start hooking up to more Atlantics.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Coho by nature stay in the rivers longer before heading out than kings, which is why they hold them in the hatchery longer. There were some attempts to speed up the process and release them faster, but I don't think it faired very well.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

...


----------



## fish squeezer (May 13, 2007)

Andy
Great to hear. As you know Lake Huron has become very unique since the alewives are not very present. Many of the species in the lake now are naturally reproducing. Why? The alewife contained thiaminase which is like poison. It inhibits the proper development of the egg into a fish which is called EMS or early mortality syndrome. In the hatchery we are able to supplement with vit 12 to help things along for proper development in the past. So many species like lake trout walleye chinooks coho pinks are very good examples of fish reproducing naturally because the very few alewives.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Natural reproduction is great, but the minority want to catch the species that is benefiting the most. We are where we are, but I'd much rather have the fishery that has come and gone. The unique Huron that you speak of has caused many to stop fishing or spend the majority of their fishing hours elsewhere. In the meantime, I'll continue to make the most of it and enjoy time on the water.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

fish squeezer said:


> Andy
> Great to hear. As you know Lake Huron has become very unique since the alewives are not very present. Many of the species in the lake now are naturally reproducing. Why? The alewife contained thiaminase which is like poison. It inhibits the proper development of the egg into a fish which is called EMS or early mortality syndrome. In the hatchery we are able to supplement with vit 12 to help things along for proper development in the past. So many species like lake trout walleye chinooks coho pinks are very good examples of fish reproducing naturally because the very few alewives.


Is there any proof of a large number of coho reproducing?


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

There aren't a ton of Cohos reproducing naturally in lake Huron tribs, but there are some. One river in particular, has had "wild" Cohos since their planting was halted, many years ago. It is a small fishery, and mentioning it by name would only harm it. But it does put naturally spawned Cohos into the lake every year, and every year a class of them come back to spawn.


----------



## SJC (Sep 3, 2002)

I know of several Huron tribs that support yearly coho runs. I even know of a couple that are loaded with little coho in summer and many that are crawling with steelhead. The bottom line is that there is a fair amount of natural repo in Huron streams. I think the DNR should take advantage of this fact and help expand and nurture it. Why not try and improve some of these streams to make them more conducive to successful spawning. Maybe try planting some coho fingerlings way upstream on some of these coldwater tribs and see how it works out. That would take a lot of the cost out and it can't be any worse than dumping fish on top of a bunch of walleye, lakers, and cormorants at river mouths and harbors.

I miss the "old days" as much as anyone, but the old put and take ways of creating a fishery just don't work any more. We need to try something different. I spend a lot of time fishing for silver fish in Lake Huron and most of the fish we catch are wild fish, even though the lake still gets a ton of plants. Almost all of the tribs that still have good fishing also host wild runs of fish. Why not capitalize on this and run this lake as a true natural resource instead of like a trout pond.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm probably wrong here but, wasn't the underestimation of natural reproduction a big cause in the decline of Lake Huron? Simply put the lake couldn't support that many fish, the naturally reproducing fish were not accounted for? Obviously the alewive decline too, just wondering.

Sticklebacks or gobies are not the answer to our fishery either..I can imagine that young fish eating sticklebacks causes some issues or death?

Even though the number of anglers is very low on Lake Huron, there is no way this lake can support river fishing and lake fishing for Steelhead?? I would be for a lower limit on Steelhead on both Lakes right now, if we are catching natural or canadian plants with the Coho/Kings I think the limit on them should be lowered as well and up the Laker limit!!! Just my opinion here!


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

I actually think the steelhead fishing has gotten better each year over the past five years. Watch the reports that'll come out of the southern ports for the next 3 months. Double digit days are not uncommon.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

I'd rather have a box full of 7lb-10lb coho than kings... they taste better and they are scrappy little buggers. Of course this is wishful thinking.


----------



## storman (Mar 12, 2008)

I love catching kings eating them too but my favorite silver fish is the coho.


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

Coho are hard to beat. Probably the best of all the salmonoids in my opinion.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

"Sticklebacks or gobies are not the answer to our fishery either..I can imagine that young fish eating sticklebacks causes some issues or death?"

Just for clarification, I've never heard that sticklebacks are bad for fish to eat. In fact when talking to different dnr people they indicated that they are an important baitfish on huron. I think at least one kind is native to Lake Huron. Were you thinking of spiny water flee when referring to sticklebacks? Seems like almost every fish up here salmon to walleye has sticklebacks in their stomachs and they seem fine.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

Here is a MSU article I found on sticklebacks.
https://www.msu.edu/user/weigelem/files/The Importance of Stickleback.pdf


----------



## maggie79 (Jan 6, 2011)

I also think the dnr should start planting some cohos in lk huron. great taste great fight. they should give it a try for a few yrs. cost? they still plant plenty in lk mi.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

maggie79 said:


> I also think the dnr should start planting some cohos in lk huron. great taste great fight. they should give it a try for a few yrs. cost? they still plant plenty in lk mi.


Coho are one year and done... why not push for steelhead or atlantics? They at least live multiple years in the big lake and can run rivers more than once...


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

GuppyII said:


> Coho are one year and done... why not push for steelhead or atlantics? They at least live multiple years in the big lake and can run rivers more than once...


That's the first I've heard of them being one and done? Do you mean spawn once?


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

RedM2 said:


> That's the first I've heard of them being one and done? Do you mean spawn once?


No, I mean they only offer one year of fishing! 1.5 years at plant, the first year after planting they are almost too small to target, the 2 to 4 lbers in the spring are mature, they will be 8 to 12 lbs or better by fall when they run the rivers... and die...


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

GuppyII said:


> No, I mean they only offer one year of fishing! 1.5 years at plant, the first year after planting they are almost too small to target, the 2 to 4 lbers in the spring are mature, they will be 8 to 12 lbs or better by fall when they run the rivers... and die...


That's a good point Guppy. I hope they do plant more steel. I keep hearing rumblings of a steelhead limit cut. Without salmon that could really hurt big lake fishing on Lake Huron more than it already is. I really don't mind the lakers the small ones taste good and the large ones are good smoked. I just don't want to risk me or my family eating to many so I try not to target them much. If they do cut the limit I hope there is some other fish that fills in the gap besides lakers.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

I would love to see some more coho. Of course, I say the same thing about steelhead. Haven't caught an atlantic ever but they sound like a blast. Those are all great fish that would fill in the gap left by the diminishing king fishery.

Nice thing about kings, however, is that they are relatively easy to target once the lake sets up. The others tend to scatter more so and are usually further out. Or so it seems.


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

Coho are great eating but quite honestly it's a fish that is hard to target once the near shore fishery is done. At least for me it seems. I would much rather see the Atlantic fishery expanded.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

chuckinduck said:


> Coho are great eating but quite honestly it's a fish that is hard to target once the near shore fishery is done. At least for me it seems. I would much rather see the Atlantic fishery expanded.


True, they are harder to target offshore than are kings. But the near shore fishery is typically excellent in both the spring and fall. I would love to see atlantics but doubt the DNR will be planting them in Lake Michigan anytime soon if ever. Would love to see them there, however.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

Not really to hard to target, you need to kind of fish them like steelhead, think offshore, up high, and orange baits... same baits as spring but deeper water. They save a lot of trips for me, late morning head out and run 3.5mph+ until you find some then work em over good..


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Steelhead are just the most bang for the buck, as far as planting Salmonids goes, if Kings are out of the picture. They can be targeted year-round in Michigan rivers, and for most of the year on the lakes. They grow to a good size, fight well, readily take baits, and lures, and do have some natural reproduction in cooler rivers, and streams. And they taste better than Kings by far - although Coho from the lakes are better yet. I wonder if anyone has given any recent thought to expanding the Skamania program? If Indiana can raise them, I'm sure Michigan could, too. 
The Brown Trout fishing on lake Michigan, the last couple years, has been vastly improved.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Well, let's pray that the baitfish population starts doing better and we still have good numbers of kings around in the future. Although, I'd still be all for an expansion in the steelhead or coho plants even if the kings fishery sticks around. Steelhead really do offer great year round fishing.


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

andyotto said:


> "Sticklebacks or gobies are not the answer to our fishery either..I can imagine that young fish eating sticklebacks causes some issues or death?"
> 
> Just for clarification, I've never heard that sticklebacks are bad for fish to eat. In fact when talking to different dnr people they indicated that they are an important baitfish on huron. I think at least one kind is native to Lake Huron. Were you thinking of spiny water flee when referring to sticklebacks? Seems like almost every fish up here salmon to walleye has sticklebacks in their stomachs and they seem fine.[/Q
> 
> Spiny fish, pretty common that young fish die quite often with sticklebacks lodged in them. Not a problem for larger fish though!


----------



## Corey K (Dec 11, 2009)

Yeah I messed that up, just talking more about issues with plant size fish getting sticklebacks lodged in them and dying.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

I've encountered more, and nicer coho in the NE the last few years. I didn't get to the east side last fall, and most of the winter, so not sure on how the run was.

I believe maybe lake Huron and Michigan should be managed differently. Lake Huron should be be steelhead, atlantics, coho...with lakers and walleyes as the bonus native fish. Walleye are not going anywhere and lakers are what they are. Lake Michigan should be chinook, steelhead, brown trout...with lakers and maybe coho as the side species. It seems the ale's will hold steady, and while kings will be a lot smaller and a little less numerous, they'll be around enough to target.

Both lakes should have an emphasis on steelhead. They're adaptable, desirable, and available all year in different places. Lake Huron's great walleye fishing is a positive thing, and if people think they don't bring money or attention to the towns, they're just ignorant.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

ausable_steelhead said:


> I believe maybe lake Huron and Michigan should be managed differently.


Pretty sure thats what theyre doing lol


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Here is the question that has to be asked. How much money is the state going to lose while the biologists decide what to plant and what not to plant? They are planting Atlantic Salmon that are expensive to raise in the hatchery. They can be difficult to catch as a target fish and most do not enter rivers for inland fishing.I am just guessing but I think it would be safe to say that less than 2 percent of Atlantic Salmon are caught. The DNR in my opinion has never made good business decisions. Chinook, Coho, Steelhead and Brown Trout bring money into the state. There are some people who work for the DNR think that people will be happy catching the surplus of lake trout. That will only last so long. Not many people who have any experience fishing would pay $500 for a lake trout charter. In the long run you have to spend money to make money.


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

Not sure I agree that atlantics are difficult to target unless you are referring to the shear number of fish that is presently out there. They're still relatively new to the whole system and once the #s increase I think you'll see a lot more showing up in the harvest totals. It's been my experience if you know how to target them and you're in an area that holds fishable numbers catching them is definitely feasible.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Robert Holmes said:


> The DNR in my opinion has never made good business decisions. Chinook, Coho, Steelhead and Brown Trout bring money into the state.


Those two sentences in succession just make me want to laugh. How did those 4 species get into Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the first place?


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Robert Holmes said:


> Chinook, Coho, Steelhead and Brown Trout bring money into the state. There are some people who work for the DNR think that people will be happy catching the surplus of lake trout. That will only last so long. Not many people who have any experience fishing would pay $500 for a lake trout charter.


You are correct there. I know many anglers who say the same thing. Problem is the feds are planting them. Problem is finding a way to get them to slow down the lake trout plants.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

o_mykiss said:


> Those two sentences in succession just make me want to laugh. How did those 4 species get into Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the first place?


Dr. Howard Tanner... he pretty much single-handidly created the salmon fishery that is now disappearing. Yes, I know he worked for the MDNR, but they failed prior to his arrival.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

jpmarko said:


> You are correct there. I know many anglers who say the same thing. Problem is the feds are planting them. Problem is finding a way to get them to slow down the lake trout plants.


Doubtful. I'm sure their agenda falls inline with all this "rewilding" that they seem to be hung up on. Welcome to to the 21st century where rewilding restoration is the new gig. The only way is for the states to tell the feds to get bent, we know that's not going to happen anytime soon. Lol

The feds have been trying to restore lake trout populations in the Glakes for quite some time. They have been doing studies for decades. Ales and smelt has been their nemisis, but not anymore. Out west, there efforts are centered on various stream trout species.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

Theyre gonna have to slow down at some point. With lake trout being such slow growers at some point they will reach a carrying capacity. When that is- who knows.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

someone11 said:


> Pretty sure thats what theyre doing lol


I posted it like that, because people are talking about putting atlantics in lake Michigan once the kings go(if that happens).

I do feel that if chinooks collapse on the lakes, go heavy on steelhead. People will troll for them, and mixed with walleye...they'll bring people here. They will also get people to the rivers, which they already do anyways. Expand skamanias. I like how people write off everything not called "king salmon" before it has a chance.



> Chinook, Coho, Steelhead and Brown Trout bring money into the state


No, chinook and steelhead bring money to the state. Salmon out in the lake, steelhead in the rivers. The other two are bonus catches.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Lake Trout are like wolves, the more that there is the more federal jobs that they create. If you cut back on Lake trout some senators spoiled child will lose their job. It is like having a 10,000 acre pumpkin patch that is federally funded. Keep planting the pumpkins even though less than 1 percent of them are ever used the rest die and rot away.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

someone11 said:


> Theyre gonna have to slow down at some point. With lake trout being such slow growers at some point they will reach a carrying capacity. When that is- who knows.


Like walleyes in lk Huron, lake trout growth rates have dropped. In this document, the mention of desired alewife suppression pops up often. IMO, its clear the feds would like the lakes rid of alewife. Personally, I don't mind catching Lakers and am extremely happy with hurons wall eyes. But, I'm a bit confused by how two agencies can have goals that are counter to one another. the states is trying to regulate alewife predation where as the feds want them gone.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...a7208ae1e1f9bae1d4a.pdf?disableCoverPage=true

Heetal.(2015)recordedrisingpredationratesinLakeHuron since the Alewife collapse. By 2007, Lake Trout and Walleyes had replaced Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha as the lake’s leading predators. As the prey base declined, consumption continued at the same pace as during the pre–Alewife collapse era. Thus, the stocking and management of Lake Trout and Walleyes not only reestablished spawning populations large enough to foster natural reproduction but also restored the ecosystem functions of top predators. Grooming (or “cultivation,” as in Walters and Kitchel 2001) of the prey base by these top predators has thus far prevented a recovery of the Alewife population (He et al. 2015).

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS REHABILITATION STOCKING OF WALLEYESANDLAKETROUT 405 It is likely that a combination of heightened protection from harvest (including more effective harvest controls and designation of larger rehabilitation zones), the collapse of Alewives, and moreeffective control of Sea Lampreys hasbeenresponsible for progress toward the rehabilitation of Lake Trout since the late 1990s. By contrast, the collapse of Alewives has been almost singularly responsible for the Walleye recovery. While the factors working against rehabilitation differed somewhat between these two species, stocking could not meet the objectives set for either species until these factors had been addressed. Continued suppression of Alewives is probably essential for both the Lake Trout and Walleye recoveries to be sustained in the future. Sustained funding of an effective annual control program for Sea Lampreys will be essential if the progress toward Lake Trout rehabilitation is to continue. The prospects for continuous, adequate funding for this program are a management concern.

Efforts to restore these species in the Great Lakes constitute one of North America’s largest-scaled native keystone predator recovery projects


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

I have to disagree with you where you said the feds want the ales gone. The feds funded the multi-million dollar tagging trailers for the chinook and continue to help with tagging and tag recovery efforts. Why would they want to waste all the money they JUST put into the chinooks?


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Paying for knowledge to meet an agenda is SOP. Besides, isn't it printed in black & white in the study above. One thing that is certain. The feds have an agenda to restore "Keystone Species" or "Keystone Predators" across this country, Lakers in the great lakes happen to fall into this species category.. Any non native species that are a deterrent to that goal are unwanted. That's just the way the program works. You can't have both alewives and a fully restored great lakes laker population.

One thing to bear in mind. Lakers were self sustaining and abundant enough to provide commercial fisheries across the lakes. If that is what's considered fully restored, there's no room for ales, at least not in populations large enough to provide a king fishery as we new it.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Was just reading this piece earlier.
http://www.fws.gov/FieldNotes/regmap.cfm?arskey=36214&callingKey=region&callingValue=3

The information gained from CWT(coded wire tags) returns provides the Service and its partners the ability to estimate levels of natural reproduction, identify fish movement within and among the lakes, and assess the resultant contributions to regional fisheries. Biological data collected will also help to evaluate the health of the populations by providing growth rates and age composition of the fish at time of capture. In addition, the tag recoveries allow managers to determine post-release survival of various strains, hatcheries, and stocking locations providing the ability to evaluate the performance of hatchery rearing and stocking practices.

Since the program’s inception in 2010, nearly 48 million fish stocked into the Great Lakes have been mass marked by the Lab. The program is currently funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

someone11 said:


> I have to disagree with you where you said the feds want the ales gone. The feds funded the multi-million dollar tagging trailers for the chinook and continue to help with tagging and tag recovery efforts. Why would they want to waste all the money they JUST put into the chinooks?


Sorry if I offended you. Maybe you're not familiar with the role the feds have been playing in restoration of various native species around the country, wolves are the first thing that comes to mind.. The data from huron is all there. They know ales prevent lake trout from sucessfully reproducing. Why would they want ales in the laker food chain when the goal is a fully restored, self sustaining population of Lakers. They mention rehabilitated lake trout populations and the recovery of walleye have likely contributed to keeping alewife suppressed. In fact, I believe they stated predation was just as high as before the salmon crash.

With all this data, why do the feds continue to dump Lakers in lake Michigan? Do they not have enough data to know the harm they're doing to an already waining ale population by continuing to dump Lakers in.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Lake Trout, and Walleyes didn't "suppress" the Alewives before Pacific Salmon were introduced into the great lakes. Before the Salmon were planted, Alewives made up 90% of the biomass of the great lakes. That means 90 out of every 100 lbs of living matter in the lakes was Alewives. It took a real apex predator (Cohos, with the later addition of King Salmon) to take control of them. This seems like just so much more pivoting from the matter at hand. Again, the planting of Lake Trout isn't what has caused the demise of Alewives. It is the Mussels. Not one single other thing.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Correct, and it should also be noted that alewives/rainbow smelt suppress every species including coho and chinook.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

Fishndude said:


> Lake Trout, and Walleyes didn't "suppress" the Alewives before Pacific Salmon were introduced into the great lakes. Before the Salmon were planted, Alewives made up 90% of the biomass of the great lakes. That means 90 out of every 100 lbs of living matter in the lakes was Alewives. It took a real apex predator (Cohos, with the later addition of King Salmon) to take control of them. This seems like just so much more pivoting from the matter at hand. Again, the planting of Lake Trout isn't what has caused the demise of Alewives. It is the Mussels. Not one single other thing.


I understand mussels role in the demise of the alewives and ales will not support the same salmon fishery without a reduction of mussels. I also understand the part that states even without salmon, ales didn't recover in huron due too the recovery of lake trout and walleyes, which by the way I have no problem with. What I don't understand is, with all this data from Huron, it appears our DNR are using it, hence attempting to stave off a major bait fish crash by cutting salmon plants. Meanwhile, the feds continue dumping Lakers like its business as usual. The feds have a goal of fully restoring laker populations in the great lakes, is it not in their best interest to eliminate alewives? Lakers will insure the ales demise and they know it. What I have a problem with is, someone *****ing down my back then telling me its raining. They need to quit giving anglers false hope of a future king fishery and just tell them it's over.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

CHASINEYES said:


> Lakers will insure the ales demise and they know it. What I have a problem with is, someone *****ing down my back then telling me its raining. They need to quit giving anglers false hope of a future king fishery and just tell them it's over.


The problem with being upfront about what's going to happen now is the revenue they'd lose. You gotta make hay while the sun shines and the same applies to them... they're gonna squeeze the last few pennies out of what's left while they can.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I am missing something here. There were Lake Trout in the 1960's and alewives were thick. The feds plant Lake Trout because it creates jobs and they have an unlimited budget to work with. If you are in St Ignace in late April or early May drive around town. You will see no less than about 80 USFWS trucks at the motels. I assume they are lamprey control but I seldom if ever see them on the streams that I am fishing. On one river they took out the weir and hoop nets entirely. Could the Lake Trout hatcheries be converted to a more useful fish? It is my understanding that the Tribes could be taking over the federal fisheries soon. If so that could be a good thing.


----------



## sledman (Mar 26, 2014)

I second that Ive chartered the last 5 years out of Holland for silvers (mainly kings) once the silvers are gone i will not charter again if all there is to catch are lakers. They are unsafe to eat and don't put up the fight the kings do in my opinion .(in response to Robert's post #39)


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Another dent in the Michigan wallet thanks to the feds. Look at what wolves have done to the economy of the UP. Now the feds want lake trout to rule the great lakes. Expect a 10 percent reduction in charters each year for about the next 5 years. I have seen a big reduction in sport fishing already. Is the DNR going to stand by and suck up the losses? They could lose millions of dollars if the salmon go downhill. The small businesses that depend on fishermen will be taking on losses as well. Any given day of the week you can pull into the St Ignace boat launch and count the number of sport fishing boats on one hand. The launch site at Mackinaw City is the same way.


----------



## Chooch (Oct 24, 2008)

Okay, I tried to read through every post on this thread but ended up going the impatient route and wanted to ask; is there any difference (at least in The NW MI waters) between when the coho and kings run in the fall? I've fished the Kings coming into the Betsie and haven't run across any Coho and my guess is a little later than the kings? Anyone have any input here? 

I know where a large number of them come to spawn due to large, large numbers of juvenile fish but I'd like to have a timetable of when they run so I can possibly get onto a few. This is all weather dependent, I know. Just looking for a comparison between the king and coho run. Thanks! 

Matt


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

Coho spawn after kings


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

Chooch said:


> Okay, I tried to read through every post on this thread but ended up going the impatient route and wanted to ask; is there any difference (at least in The NW MI waters) between when the coho and kings run in the fall? I've fished the Kings coming into the Betsie and haven't run across any Coho and my guess is a little later than the kings? Anyone have any input here?
> 
> I know where a large number of them come to spawn due to large, large numbers of juvenile fish but I'd like to have a timetable of when they run so I can possibly get onto a few. This is all weather dependent, I know. Just looking for a comparison between the king and coho run. Thanks!
> 
> Matt


Kings spawn Sept-Nov, while coho spawn Nov-Jan typically. You will see extremes on both ends of the spectrum for both as well(very early or late fish).


----------



## fisheater (Nov 14, 2010)

Robert Holmes said:


> I am missing something here. There were Lake Trout in the 1960's and alewives were thick. The feds plant Lake Trout because it creates jobs and they have an unlimited budget to work with. If you are in St Ignace in late April or early May drive around town. You will see no less than about 80 USFWS trucks at the motels. I assume they are lamprey control but I seldom if ever see them on the streams that I am fishing. On one river they took out the weir and hoop nets entirely. Could the Lake Trout hatcheries be converted to a more useful fish? It is my understanding that the Tribes could be taking over the federal fisheries soon. If so that could be a good thing.


While there were lake trout in the 1960's it is my understanding they were at all time low populations due to lamprey predation. The lamprey predation combined with the inhibited ability for lake trout to reproduce with a diet high in alewives caused to what I understand lake trout being reduced to remnant levels.
Now the situation is quite different. Lake trout are not foraging primarily on alewives, so there is some reproduction, effective lamprey control, and seriously reduced alewive populations. In the present condition alewives are being predated at a level beyond their ability to reproduce, one of the predators (kings) cannot survive without the alewives, but the other predator (lakers) are being stocked in large numbers, and while able to consume alewives in large quantities, they actually do better with no alewives.
I do not think the federal government wants the alewives to survive. They may actually be operating under the idea that right now, quagga mussels have given them the rare opportunity to exterminate an invasive. Such opportunities are rare. They may be actually being aggressive in their approach before for some yet to be known reason things change.
I like salmon. I hope I can fish for them for a long time. I am just offering my thoughts on what I see.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Still missing something the Coho and Chinook are Pacific Ocean fish and Alewives are Atlantic Ocean fish. The Chinook and Coho should be able to survive without the Alewives. It is also my understanding from reading a few posts on this site that alewives are becoming more plentiful in the SW part of the state. Who knows what the future will bring. From what I understand the DNR is pretty content on planting more Steelhead and Atlantics. Some of the future plants of Atlantic Salmon will be in rivers hoping that they will return to the rivers to spawn. If that happens there should be some good summer fishing. My experience when this was done once before the salmon returned in July and the fishing was great.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

someone11 said:


> I have to disagree with you where you said the feds want the ales gone. The feds funded the multi-million dollar tagging trailers for the chinook and continue to help with tagging and tag recovery efforts. Why would they want to waste all the money they JUST put into the chinooks?


The fed's fund their "Lake Trout Trailers" and loan them to state DNR boys to "keep them quiet and at the trough" for their salmon tagging "experiment". There is no interest in salmon by the feds...at all. Now you understand the jam the DNR guys are in....they want salmon/alewife to succeed, but stay relatively quiet so they can continue to get Federal Dingell $$ and usage of the tagging trailers. Vicious cycle and working in the favor of the feds.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

A Guide for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan ...PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Q42A04&usg=AFQjCNHjsX8mVvkuZCjd3Dm8sxcHBjO6tA

Poor Survival of Early-Life Stages. Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS): Consumption of alewife, a non-native fish, by adult lake trout causes EMS in progeny. Reducing alewife numbers in selected rehabilitation areas through predation by lake trout kept at higher densities than in the past should encourage lake trout to diversify their diet. Rehabilitation of native coregonines (e.g., cisco) should be encouraged as these fishes can serve as a prey alternative to alewife and reduce the prevalence of EMS.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It affects all trout and salmon.

Kinda ironic. people want to save the alewives, to save the salmon....but the ales cause EMS and reproductive failure, in the salmon they are trying to save.


----------



## Kisutch (May 26, 2011)

Dr. Tanner had a blank slate. Hundreds of millions of dollars later and thousands upon thousands of happy people. You guys take your LAKE TROUT and stuff them. Some of us are just plain tired of interference in a great fishery. The sunrise over Platte Bay in the fall is something to behold. THANK YOU DR. TANNER FOR MAKING MY LIFE A MUCH MORE FULFILLING EXPERIENCE.

KISUTCH


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> It affects all trout and salmon.
> 
> Kinda ironic. people want to save the alewives, to save the salmon....but the ales cause EMS and reproductive failure, in the salmon they are trying to save.


If that's the case, then how is it that there was a robust wild salmon population in Lake Huron before it's collapse, which fed heavily on alewives? And why do we have a strong while population of salmon in Lake Michigan? Finally, how is it that salmon are able to reproduce on the West Coast, where they feed heavily herring, which is a relative to the alewife and also supposedly causes early mortality syndrome?


----------



## cedarlkDJ (Sep 2, 2002)

Kisutch said:


> The sunrise over Platte Bay in the fall is something to behold. THANK YOU DR. TANNER FOR MAKING MY LIFE A MUCH MORE FULFILLING EXPERIENCE.
> 
> KISUTCH



















Sunset is nice too......


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> It affects all trout and salmon.
> 
> Kinda ironic. people want to save the alewives, to save the salmon....but the ales cause EMS and reproductive failure, in the salmon they are trying to save.


I think people are willing to accept the ills of that irony because they understand that without the ales, we won't have a salmon fishery to speak of... people aren't trying to "save" salmon in the sense of their reproductive ability they are trying to save a man-made fishery (which myself and probably the majority support) that's dependent on a particular food source...alewives. Lake trout are a very vanilla fish in terms of sport fishing. When the lakes return to their (_non_) native strain of lake trout, sport fishing offshore will be dead.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

CHASINEYES said:


> A Guide for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan ...PDF
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Q42A04&usg=AFQjCNHjsX8mVvkuZCjd3Dm8sxcHBjO6tA
> 
> Poor Survival of Early-Life Stages. Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS): Consumption of alewife, a non-native fish, by adult lake trout causes EMS in progeny. Reducing alewife numbers in selected rehabilitation areas through predation by lake trout kept at higher densities than in the past should encourage lake trout to diversify their diet. Rehabilitation of native coregonines (e.g., cisco) should be encouraged as these fishes can serve as a prey alternative to alewife and reduce the prevalence of EMS.





swampbuck said:


> It affects all trout and salmon.
> 
> Kinda ironic. people want to save the alewives, to save the salmon....but the ales cause EMS and reproductive failure, in the salmon they are trying to save.


Just pointing out that it's blatantly obvious the Feds are slipping in the back door and intentionally bringing it down. All for Laker restoration. They continue to stock at a pace marked to reduce ales, (see above) at a time when ales can't handle anymore pressure. It's all published, why don't they verbally admit it to the fishing public?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It's the mussel's that are bringing it down. I like salmon also, and I think there will always be some. Just not in the numbers people want. Some will adapt to other forage.

But blaming it on lakers, Mdnr, usfw, the moon phase, zodiac sign....or whatever isn't going to change the future.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

No doubt the mussels are doing their part as well.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> It's the mussel's that are bringing it down. I like salmon also, and I think there will always be some. Just not in the numbers people want. Some will adapt to other forage.
> 
> But blaming it on lakers, Mdnr, usfw, the moon phase, zodiac sign....or whatever isn't going to change the future.


Do you think the Feds want ales to proliferate or come back in numbers to sustain the salmon fishery of the past?

Just saying the same thing as post number 63 without the sugar coating. I'd rather have it straight and to the point.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

This may have been posted before. If you like history, it's a good read.
http://m.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/The-man-with-the-salmon-plan-b99397807z1-284550491.html


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

CHASINEYES said:


> Do you think the Feds want ales to proliferate or come back in numbers to sustain the salmon fishery of the past?
> 
> Just saying the same thing as post number 63 without the sugar coating. I'd rather have it straight and to the point.


I think the Feds know what is going on, as well as the state agency's. And they are taking steps to insure a sustainable fishery after it happens, while the states are still wasting resources pandering to the salmon lobby......you asked. That's my opinion.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> I think the Feds know what is going on, as well as the state agency's. And they are taking steps to insure a sustainable fishery after it happens, while the states are still wasting resources pandering to the salmon lobby......you asked. That's my opinion.


The definition of a sustainable fishery could be debatable... if little to no one is fishing what we're left with, would that be considered a sustainable fishery? Lol.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> I think the Feds know what is going on, as well as the state agency's. And they are taking steps to insure a sustainable fishery after it happens, while the states are still wasting resources pandering to the salmon lobby......you asked. That's my opinion.


I knew that you could see through the BS. Lol


----------



## bronc72 (Nov 25, 2008)

I do believe the original reasoning behind the salmon plants was to eliminate or at least control the alewives.


----------



## CHASINEYES (Jun 3, 2007)

bronc72 said:


> I do believe the original reasoning behind the salmon plants was to eliminate or at least control the alewives.


 This from the link I posted above. It is a 3 part series with a complete history of Salmon and protections placed on alewives as the fishery evolved.

The Feds had their own agenda atleast as far back as the 60s. 

""""Tanner's push to plant in Michigan waters an exotic fish that could, theoretically, roam from one end of the Great Lakes to the other had obvious ramifications for the other Great Lakes states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York as well as the Province of Ontario. The U.S. government, meanwhile, had its own plan to restore native lake trout to help revive the lakes' commercial fishing industry.""""

From the man who envisioned salmon in the great lakes and the man who started it all.

"I always point out that we created a constituency for the lakes," said Tanner, who was named Conservationist of the Year in 1968 by the National Wildlife Federation.

"There was an awakening."

A pest with benefits

""""Tanner dismisses a widely held perception that salmon were primarily brought in to control alewives.

"We were fisheries biologists," he said in an interview. "We were not there to solve a beach problem. We were there to build a fishery."

He likened his approach to that of a rancher who stumbles upon an island the size of Lake Michigan that is overgrown with grass.""""


----------

