# Public Mtgs on Lake MI Planning and Stocking



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

E-mail sent! Hope to attend the GH meeting also


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

I'm not sure how eliminating or even reducing the brown trout stocking would benefit the fishery at a lakewide or even local level. Brown trout are far from being an apex predator of the alewife. Kings and lake trout have been shown to be he two biggest consumers of alewife. Kings have already been drastically reduced. Next should be the lake trout. Of course, I think there should still be lake trout stocking, just not as much as is currently taking place.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

What we found in the stomachs of our browns this year was other browns. We also caught mostly 3-5# fish and not the 12-14" fish. Not thinking this coming spring will be much good, but then, I've been wrong before. Actually we've found the browns are coming up into the drowned river mouths and eating gizzard shad over the winter.

I know Lake Huron lost its browns as no one was talking about fishing for them, even though they were in fact fishing for them.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Jay Wesley said:


> Dowagiac River is next one. Pucker Street dam out next year opening 50 plus miles of river and stream habitat for browns, steelhead, coho, chinook and more!
> 
> Boardman River has some potential too, and we need to work with fishing community on what should be passed there as well.


That sounds great, Jay. Removing Pucker Street Dam might really boost the local fishery by providing some natural reproduction. It will be interesting to see how things change. I suspect it will be for the better.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

jpmarko said:


> I'm not sure how eliminating or even reducing the brown trout stocking would benefit the fishery at a lakewide or even local level. Brown trout are far from being an apex predator of the alewife. Kings and lake trout have been shown to be he two biggest consumers of alewife. Kings have already been drastically reduced. Next should be the lake trout. Of course, I think there should still be lake trout stocking, just not as much as is currently taking place.


Its not an alewife thing for browns, its the $300 some dollars cost per harvested fish, and the equivalent king mouths you can get if you ditch browns. Lake trout are "free" from the feds so there is no cost component for the state to have to weigh, just the "mouth" factor for lake trout. Look at the options, there are some good ones there that whack Lake Trout pretty decent, and move them the hell out of the south end where they are basically like rats at this point. As for browns...I will take kings every day over browns, as will most. Kings move around alot to different ports chasing bait providing opportunities in more places for more anglers, cost the least to raise in hatcheries, and provide a river fishing opportunity (unlike browns and lakers) and their eggs are like gold to following steelhead into the tribs. Not to mention the quality of fight, attraction to anglers, etc, etc. We are down to brass tacks as anglers now and with a limited number of "mouths" that we can support, hard decisions need to be made. Steelhead are untouchable at this point, but they sure do put a dent into alewife as well...so watch out for their "untouchable" status to come more into play when we talk about browns, lake trout and even the ridiculous speculation of atlantics in the future. As far as I am concerned we could go 33% coho, 33% kings, 33% steelhead (in chinook equivalents) and just be done with the rest of it. All three of those species provide both open water AND river opportunities, and draw by far the most angler participation. Lake Trout will be fine down south despite charters wailing on them regularly. Rec anglers don't target and release them anyway so there really is not that much pressure on them in the grand scheme of things. If silver fishing keeps the uptick, expect less pressure on trout, which the feds would love. There is huge natural reproduction of lake trout in the south end. With no tribal netting, Lake Trout are set for the rest of our life times especially if silver gets better...less pressure on them.


----------



## fisheater (Nov 14, 2010)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> What we found in the stomachs of our browns this year was other browns. We also caught mostly 3-5# fish and not the 12-14" fish. Not thinking this coming spring will be much good, but then, I've been wrong before. Actually we've found the browns are coming up into the drowned river mouths and eating gizzard shad over the winter.
> 
> I know Lake Huron lost its browns as no one was talking about fishing for them, even though they were in fact fishing for them.


I sure wish we had browns in Lake Huron. I always start shallow, sure would be nice to spend more time shallow.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I fished mainly for browns 14 times this year, kings 4. Just too busy in the summer. If the browns go away, any body interested in a well equipped 215 Sundowner with about $10k in tackle?

Seriously, with 5500 hours plus on the lake, that would be the final straw.

That $258 number is crap science as no one's even asking if we are catching browns. No survey, no creel census people out that early. Very few people charter for them so that data is out. I'm in the salmon ambassador program and log all my trips even if the "data before May and after September is meaningless" as I've been told. There's a lot more brown trout being targeted and caught than are recorded.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I would say fully 80% of my Lakers in the last five years around Holland / South Haven have been clipped.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Jay, are there any contingencies within these plans? Can we have more kings without fewer browns or Lakers? Is there hatchery room for more kings? Is funding an issue? 

Is the lake ready for more kings?

Sure would be nice to get a sizeable plant in Holland again. I blew it up fishing the harbor for returning kings this year by catching one. Which is one more than the last two years added up.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

What are the benefits of planting coho in Lansing vs. closer to the lake? I can't see any, after the extra year that coho spend in a hatchery, of giving them an extra 100 miles of river and a dam or two or more to traverse before reaching the lake. Seems like a benefit to the pike and not much else.

Are coho planted near the mouth as likely to run as far up the river?


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

The comments on losing brown plants because of being tight-lipped are absolutely true. When there are no creel clerks at ports, you rely on word of mouth to gain info on that particular port/area. Guys railing and keeping it to themselves is good for them, but bad for the port, as the DNR will dump your plant if they hear or see zero results.

In 2006 I landed a 28lb brown, and numerous others over 18 in Tawas. The year before, a 23lber, and again, fair amounts over 15lbs, in the Thumb. These were river mouth and river run fish. During this time, all you heard was “no browns, no browns”. Guys in boats would do well, but when asked, “nothing happening”. After people hear so much lack of perceived action, and see the same from people hiding their catch...you get your plant dropped. Our DNR is all about results, despite limited creel surveys, and if they are not getting them; they deem that plant a failure and stop it.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Jay, are there any contingencies within these plans? Can we have more kings without fewer browns or Lakers? Is there hatchery room for more kings? Is funding an issue?
> 
> Is the lake ready for more kings?
> 
> Sure would be nice to get a sizeable plant in Holland again. I blew it up fishing the harbor for returning kings this year by catching one. Which is one more than the last two years added up.


Right now, we need to reduce other predators to get more kings. The reductions that went into effect in 2017 was to create better balance. If we want more kings right now, we have to reduce other species. Once the predator and prey model looks more favorable, we can bring more kings back without reducing other species. It seemed like a lot of the comments that I have received in the last few years is that we reduced kings too much and that most anglers would like to see other species reduced. 

There is room in hatcheries for more kings. They are in the hatchery for less than 6 months so that is not an issue and they are relatively cheap to raise.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> What are the benefits of planting coho in Lansing vs. closer to the lake? I can't see any, after the extra year that coho spend in a hatchery, of giving them an extra 100 miles of river and a dam or two or more to traverse before reaching the lake. Seems like a benefit to the pike and not much else.
> 
> Are coho planted near the mouth as likely to run as far up the river?


Originally, coho were stocked in Lansing because several million dollars were spent to build fish ladders to get the salmon up to Lansing. After several years of monitoring fish passage at the webber dam, we have moved most of the stocking down to Lyons. Now we would like to move more or the Lyons coho down to the Rogue River and Grand Rapids area.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

ausable_steelhead said:


> The comments on losing brown plants because of being tight-lipped are absolutely true. When there are no creel clerks at ports, you rely on word of mouth to gain info on that particular port/area. Guys railing and keeping it to themselves is good for them, but bad for the port, as the DNR will dump your plant if they hear or see zero results.
> 
> In 2006 I landed a 28lb brown, and numerous others over 18 in Tawas. The year before, a 23lber, and again, fair amounts over 15lbs, in the Thumb. These were river mouth and river run fish. During this time, all you heard was “no browns, no browns”. Guys in boats would do well, but when asked, “nothing happening”. After people hear so much lack of perceived action, and see the same from people hiding their catch...you get your plant dropped. Our DNR is all about results, despite limited creel surveys, and if they are not getting them; they deem that plant a failure and stop it.


This is a good reason for people to join the Salmon Ambassador program or keep and submit logs of there catch if they are not fishing where or when creel is going on.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Thanks for the info.

I assume the runs on the Platte (and Grand) this year were an anomaly? I was at the Platte in late September and it was just stupid how many fish were in that river. But I want to make sure not every year is like that before I vote to pull fish from there, as that is the brood stock. I don't think the 20k quota is hit very often at the weir.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Can't fault the DNR for not having census takers out early on weeknights and such, when there's not as much traffic.

We were out of Port Sheldon one day when it was stupid rough on a Saturday, the only boat out there, and the poor census guy sat for hours by my rig until we came in to look at our catch. Which was ironically one (1) brown.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

danthebuilder said:


> Jay,
> 
> 2.2 browns equal 1 king.....
> 
> ...


The equivalents are based on some bioenergetic models in the 1980's and 1990's. The Predator and Prey model that we use now can estimate consumption of other species more on a lake-wide basis vs per individual fish. Those ratios are anywhere from 2.43 to 7.27 brown trout per one Chinook depending on the brown population and alewife population levels. If we have actual diet data for a given year that would obviously change it as well. 

I have calculated the cost for Lake Michigan and St. Joseph so far. Lake Michigan cost for brown trout harvest ranged from $92 to $267 for the last 10 years. For St.Joseph, the range was $39 to $586. Perhaps we are off on the number harvested, so if you double it or triple it the cost is still high compared to other species.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> I assume the runs on the Platte (and Grand) this year were an anomaly? I was at the Platte in late September and it was just stupid how many fish were in that river. But I want to make sure not every year is like that before I vote to pull fish from there, as that is the brood stock. I don't think the 20k quota is hit very often at the weir.


We used to always get 20K plus at the Platte. Post zebra and quagga mussels (2003), we hit 20 k every few years. The relationship with returns and numbers stocked is not as strong now. I think it has more to do with strong year classes of alewife.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

2001 must have been insane. I kayaked down the river this year at the peak and got sick of hitting fish with my paddle, or fish hitting the kayak.


----------



## Luckycatch75 (Apr 15, 2017)

Jay have 2017 biomass studies been completed yet? I definitely saw more bait both in and offshore this year than in 2016. Hoping the studies reflect that lakewide.


----------



## storman (Mar 12, 2008)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> "I don't dislike lake trout, but they are the last species I target."
> 
> x2.
> 
> ...


I agree I fish out of ludington and target coho kings and steel. I fished Lakers one time in the last three years. The coho fishery was awesome this year and the king fishing was pretty good as well. Cut as many Lakers as you can and keep coho and king plants as high as you dare and bait will allow. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## maddiedog (Nov 21, 2008)

Jay Wesley said:


> Jpmarko. Thanks for the comments. We could eliminate or reduce nearshore stocking of lake trout if there is public support. Appreciate the feedback.


I won't miss lake trout at all! Please feel free to add five votes for cutting near shore planting and reducing in favor of salmon. I have sent you a message on the past but I really enjoyed the strong coho fishery to year with an occasional nice king.


----------



## goodasgold (Jul 7, 2004)

I would like to see an immediate reduction on lake trout plants. Also, why are fall lake trout closed to fishing in places like GT Bay? From my understanding it's to protect spawning fish- angling pressure on lake trout would be a rain drop in the ocean. It's really hard to conceive how it would have even a minimal impact. However, those who wanted to pursue them could potentially have a fantastic nearshore fall fishery. By the way, the many lake trout that do run up the boardman to spawn are fair game. I just don't understand this policy in practice at all, it doesn't seem based in the interest of anglers.

I would commend the dnr in reducing king plants and would like to see the same reduced stocking level until we see baitfish populations really swing the pendulum back to where they were many years ago. Until then, I hope they hold off on an increase and jump to no premature conclusions about the forage base. I love the kings, and I hope one day we can look back on this decade as just a trough in a great fishery.

Finally, I would like to see stocking take a greatly reduced role overall in the Lake Michigan fishery. I want badly to see spawning habitat restoration and enhancement, dam removals, stream habitat management and wetland restoration reach the forefront of managing the fishery. These environmental factors have a long reaching effect on our fish out in the lake. The genetics of wild fish have proven to be much stronger and more adaptable to the fluctuations of adverse environmental effects. How great would it be to one day have a self sustaining wild fishery.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Great showing in Manistique! There were about 40 people, which is great for deer season. Thanks for all the great comments and engagement there. Most preferred our higher options 4 or 5 for each species. There were some good ideas on how to move fish in the U.P. As well.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

I don’t know where to leave feedback for the 2018-19 stocking options, so I’ll leave them here.

Brown trout— #1
Coho— #3
Lake trout— #4
Kings— #4

I’m from SW Michigan, so naturally I wanna keep brown trout and coho at my home port, cut lake trout, and increase kings. Is the DNR gonna hold a meeting in the SW to gauge anglers opinion there?

The big change anglers are anticipating most is cuts in lake trout. The proposed cuts are a step in the right direction, but they’re still not enough. Lakers are a waste of resources. People would rather have more of any other species. And yet they remain the most heavily stocked.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Jay Wesley said:


> Great showing in Manistique! There were about 40 people, which is great for deer season. Thanks for all the great comments and engagement there. Most preferred our higher options 4 or 5 for each species. There were some good ideas on how to move fish in the U.P. As well.


There are a handful of things I still scratch my head about: 1.)Given the reduction through time of spawning adult age classes within the Lake Michigan alewife stock, combined with the USFW's stable isotope food habits analysis data that presented by Matt Kornis at the annual Lake Committee meetings of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, a couple of years ago that documented that lake trout preferentially consume adult alewife over the more abundant juveniles in the population in Lake Michigan, it seems a bit of an oxymoron to ask whether inshore Lake trout plants should be reduced as a part of an effort to maintain a diverse multi-species salmonine fishery in the basin. 2.) There are a plethora of DNA studies that document that coaster brook trout are not genetically discrete, but rather originate from coastal Great Lakes tributaries that are intrinsically unproductive when environmental conditions produce large year-classes of fish that essentially "out number" in-stream habitat, flushing eventually into the Great Lakes...so splake plants are a bad idea, yet they occur at large rates in the basin with the largest proportional coaster brook trout populations?

When I was at "cow college" we learnt that, post-spawn, the adult alewife stock moved offshore into waters 15-FOW or deeper to feed on Diporeia sp. and Mysis diluviana, both of which were at the seasonal maximums for free fatty acid content, from feeding on the Spring diatom blooms. Diporeia hoyi are now largely absent, and Mysis diluviana are much reduced, but bloody red mysis have expanded well into this largely vacant niche, lending further credence to the value of diminishing inshore lake trout stocks and preserving what is left of the adult alewife stock.

The other thing I wonder about is the rationale of using bioenergetics data from the pre-Quagga sp. musseld dominance era to "inform and populate" the Predator-Prey Model calculation.

Oddly, the stable isotope data essentially argues that inshore lake trout and brown trout are near direct competitors, with high proportional consumption of round goby in their diets. So, why use bioenergetics data from and era where salmonines all fed on alwife and smelt, which were the, then dominant forage base components?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

I agree that we can update the equivalents. We are collecting more current diet data, which will change the equivalents based on gobies in diet. Equivalents will probably increase for lake trout and brown trout because they do eat goby and go down for steelhead and stay same for coho based on preliminary results.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Only had 9 at the Traverse City meeting. Very good conversations with more interest in keeping lake trout in Grand Traverse Bay area. 

Sad that newspaper won’t pick this up but they are always quick to print bad news.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

If you want to send me your opinion on options, send them to [email protected]. 

Next meeting is November 30th in Grand Haven.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Cork Dust said:


> There are a handful of things I still scratch my head about: 1.)Given the reduction through time of spawning adult age classes within the Lake Michigan alewife stock, combined with the USFW's stable isotope food habits analysis data that presented by Matt Kornis at the annual Lake Committee meetings of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, a couple of years ago that documented that lake trout preferentially consume adult alewife over the more abundant juveniles in the population in Lake Michigan, it seems a bit of an oxymoron to ask whether inshore Lake trout plants should be reduced as a part of an effort to maintain a diverse multi-species salmonine fishery in the basin. 2.) There are a plethora of DNA studies that document that coaster brook trout are not genetically discrete, but rather originate from coastal Great Lakes tributaries that are intrinsically unproductive when environmental conditions produce large year-classes of fish that essentially "out number" in-stream habitat, flushing eventually into the Great Lakes...so splake plants are a bad idea, yet they occur at large rates in the basin with the largest proportional coaster brook trout populations?
> 
> When I was at "cow college" we learnt that, post-spawn, the adult alewife stock moved offshore into waters 15-FOW or deeper to feed on Diporeia sp. and Mysis diluviana, both of which were at the seasonal maximums for free fatty acid content, from feeding on the Spring diatom blooms. Diporeia hoyi are now largely absent, and Mysis diluviana are much reduced, but bloody red mysis have expanded well into this largely vacant niche, lending further credence to the value of diminishing inshore lake trout stocks and preserving what is left of the adult alewife stock.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah blah. Diporeia were at their height only 30% of an alewifes diet...now are at 15%. Mussel theorists such as yourself love to give the impression that the only thing alewife ever ate were diporeia and now there isn’t a single diporeia left in the lake. Mysis are fine if not expanding...ask your buddy pothoven to prove otherwise. And while you are at it, let’s see the data on this bloody red shrimp explosion you are alluding to. And what bioenergetic data actually exists from the 1970s? Remember mussels have been here since the 80’s and have consumed every last scrap of plankton in the lake every 9 days since that time (per some ridiculous federal grant study by some guy in Ann Arbor paid off by the glfc)


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

slightofhand said:


> Blah blah blah blah. Diporeia were at their height only 30% of an alewifes diet...now are at 15%. Mussel theorists such as yourself love to give the impression that the only thing alewife ever ate were diporeia and now there isn’t a single diporeia left in the lake. Mysis are fine if not expanding...ask your buddy pothoven to prove otherwise. And while you are at it, let’s see the data on this bloody red shrimp explosion you are alluding to. And what bioenergetic data actually exists from the 1970s? Remember mussels have been here since the 80’s and have consumed every last scrap of plankton in the lake every 9 days since that time (per some ridiculous federal grant study by some guy in Ann Arbor paid off by the glfc)


Actually, the shift in Lake Michigan productivity that was a consequence of dreissenid filter feeding occurred during the 1995 through 2000 interval. As a self-proclaimed expert, it would serve you better to not apply their appearance date from the lower Great Lakes to Lake Michigan waters, it was not one event that occured lakewide, but a gradual spread through time.

It would also likely serve your perspective better to grasp that the 30% value is proportional occcurence in diets of alewife, not total caloric intake, which is significantly magnified for high quality food items in alewife diet, like Diporeia sp. and cladoceran zooplankton. Tofu ain't steak or chicken, but it does contain a fair amount of protein.

Steve Pothoven's group at the NOAA Great Lakes Lab were the source of the Mysis diluviana decline through time estimates.

Here is the data on YOY alewife energy density declines:
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/109567/fme12092.pdf;sequence=1

Here is the data from the initial invasion interval for adult fish:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Michigan_after_invasion_of_dreissenid_mussels

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel overview article on bloody red Mysis sp. spread:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...d-shrimps-impact-ecosystem-unknown/502884001/

I realize that, in the current era, it is now a popular pastime to "ape", particularly among his minions, the Golf-Course-Developer-in-Chief's habit of denying the value of evidence in order to embrace an alternate reality that apparently requires no support information, but Lake Michigan's fishery is where it is at as a consequence of BOTH top down (0ver consumption by a too high predator fish array) and bottom-up effects.

I realize this is difficult for you to grasp, since it doesn't fit your preconception. Evidence always gets in the way of pure speculation, as well as putting limits on its practice...for rational individuals.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Ho


Jay Wesley said:


> If you want to send me your opinion on options, send them to [email protected].
> 
> Next meeting is November 30th in Grand Haven.


Hope to see more than 9 of my fellow big lake fishermen tonight. Pretty pathetic showing up North.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Great to hear WOOD radio mention the meeting tonight


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Thanks again Jay for taking an evening to get feedback from the public. I hope you continue to seek feedback from stakeholders. I have to imagine it's hard to justify with such low turnout. Less than 30 participants for the entire lower peninsula does not speak well for the Lk Mi fishing communities interest in playing an active role


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

It is a bad time of year between the Holidays and deer season. Most anglers are on to other things. Hopefully people will at least send a written comment. My email is in this thread. Even a private message would work.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

These are golden days for waterfowl hunting. If the salmon fishery has taught us anything, it's not to take opportunity for granted as it can go away quickly.


----------



## storman (Mar 12, 2008)

Jay Wesley said:


> It is a bad time of year between the Holidays and deer season. Most anglers are on to other things. Hopefully people will at least send a written comment. My email is in this thread. Even a private message would work.


Email sent.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Keep comments coming. We will need to let hatcheries know our Chinook numbers in a couple weeks.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

We are close to making a decision. Had a lot of email comments this week. Thank you! Still time to get your opinion in on options. We will have to have our Chinook final number to hatcheries in the next couple weeks so they can make adjustments while they are still at fry stage.


----------

