# Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Public Meeting April 14



## ZingKing

Jay thank you for the info. Maybe I missed it but you seem to be very informed on the issues going on in the great lakes. What credentials do you have an what state are you from? How long have you been involved in this issue and what department do you work for? This is a very important issue to me as well as thousands of fishermen all over the great lakes. One thing that has always seemed funny to me is that how can we have lake Huron and lake Michigan when these waters are connected. Where is the dividening line? Does commerical fishing have anything to do with the decline of bait fish? How can you tell me that I am not marking 2011 class of alwife is that a fact or a assumption that you have made? I saw many rivers last spring loaded with spawing alewfie and the kings I caught last year had averge of 14# plus.Lots of questions but no one can tell what the future holds or predict it by computer models. Like before I feel this is a $$ issue far less then a predator to prey issue. I _maybe_ wrong but what I have seen the fish are bigger and this year seems to be off to a better start then last.


----------



## ZingKing

Jay my fault, I see that you are the acting basin coordinator for the salmon fisheries of the great lakes for the state of MI. Is there a possiablity that I could go out with you when forgage #s are taken? Thanks Todd...


----------



## BigFishGuy

I believe the USGS-GLSC , not the MI DNR, are the ones who do the fall bottom trawl survey to determine forage estimates, and its based on several depth contours at 7 ports (see the annual reports for more). However the state and USGS add provide estimates using hydroacoustics to estimate biomass of fish off the bottom ( ie pelagic). Note that alewife are not fully recruited to the bottom trawl gear until age 3. 

Thanks Jay for providing feedback on our comments we greatly appreciate you informing us and answering questions!


----------



## tgafish

Jay Wesley said:


> The Rehabilitation Strategy has a milestone of 2025 to see some evidence of natural reproduction of lake trout:
> 
> http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lmc/impstr_rehablktrout.pdf
> 
> The agencies and tribes are committed to stock lake trout until then. If you want more lake trout stocking reductions, they will come from nearshore stockings. *When we reduced nearshore stockings in the past, anglers were upset at this because those are the fish that they catch*.


I'm sorry Jay but I have never heard a Lk Mi fisherman complain about not landing enough lake trout unless they were fishing in a tournament and needed those trout to fill the old limits or heavy weights. Givin the choice I do not know a single angler who would take a LT over any of the "anadromous" species in the great lakes including atlantics and pinks.

It seems that the rehab strategy is being used as an excuse to fight *obvious * public opinion. 

If you want to hear upset just wait until the fisherman start seeing the outcome of these Chinook cuts while LT are held on a pedestal ( If that is the final choice) We definitely need the Chinook cuts but I say annihilate the LT stocking

I saw those poor guys on the East coast as I'm sure you did also. They still went out for years just to try capture a sliver of the joy of salmon fishing but they would come back with coolers of lakers and a look on their face like they had to take home the drunk fat chick at the end of the night. They still got some action but it was all slow,lumbering, and greasy:sad:


----------



## Jay Wesley

ZingKing said:


> Jay thank you for the info. Maybe I missed it but you seem to be very informed on the issues going on in the great lakes. What credentials do you have an what state are you from? How long have you been involved in this issue and what department do you work for? This is a very important issue to me as well as thousands of fishermen all over the great lakes. One thing that has always seemed funny to me is that how can we have lake Huron and lake Michigan when these waters are connected. Where is the dividening line? Does commerical fishing have anything to do with the decline of bait fish? How can you tell me that I am not marking 2011 class of alwife is that a fact or a assumption that you have made? I saw many rivers last spring loaded with spawing alewfie and the kings I caught last year had averge of 14# plus.Lots of questions but no one can tell what the future holds or predict it by computer models. Like before I feel this is a $$ issue far less then a predator to prey issue. I _maybe_ wrong but what I have seen the fish are bigger and this year seems to be off to a better start then last.


As you probably saw in a later message, I have been with Fisheries for 16 years and have been the Acting Lake Michigan Basin Coordinator for the last year. 

Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are hydrologically the same lake. They have different basin shapes and currents that make them behave a little differently. For the sake of management, we have managed them separately. For example, Canada does not have much interest in Michigan. 

In regards to the 2011 years class of alewives, the USGS and MDNR hydroaccoustic surveys found very few. 

We are using the best available data to forecast the future. 

This is not a money issue. This is simply a predator and prey balance issue. Chinook salmon are one of the least expensive fish that we stock. They go in as spring fingerlings and cost on average 26 cents each. If prey abundance rebounds, we will re-instate stocking levels. 

I do hope that we are wrong. If we are, the fish will only get bigger and better. 

If we do not do anything with these warning signs, we will be accused of letting the fishery collapse.


----------



## Jay Wesley

tgafish said:


> I'm sorry Jay but I have never heard a Lk Mi fisherman complain about not landing enough lake trout unless they were fishing in a tournament and needed those trout to fill the old limits or heavy weights. Givin the choice I do not know a single angler who would take a LT over any of the "anadromous" species in the great lakes including atlantics and pinks.
> 
> It seems that the rehab strategy is being used as an excuse to fight *obvious *public opinion.
> 
> If you want to hear upset just wait until the fisherman start seeing the outcome of these Chinook cuts while LT are held on a pedestal ( If that is the final choice) We definitely need the Chinook cuts but I say annihilate the LT stocking
> 
> I saw those poor guys on the East coast as I'm sure you did also. They still went out for years just to try capture a sliver of the joy of salmon fishing but they would come back with coolers of lakers and a look on their face like they had to take home the drunk fat chick at the end of the night. They still got some action but it was all slow,lumbering, and greasy:sad:


All agencies (federal, state, and tribal) are committed to lake trout rehabilitation. We will not pull the plug on it until we work through the implementation strategy for rehabilitation. 

We heard loud and clear from our stakeholder groups that they wanted a diverse fishery that was dominated by Chinook salmon. We are trying to balance those goals along with lake trout rehabilitation. The one thing that will bring down the Chinook fishery is an alewife collapse, and we are trying to avoid that. 

Not all anglers share your opinion about lake trout. When lake trout stocking was moved out to the reefs, we heard a lot from anglers saying that they were not able to catch them and that they were their bread and butter fish. We were able to make some adjustment that included state stocking in nearshore areas. Now some of these nearshore fisheries are coming back to some degree.


----------



## andyotto

Question from a guy who knows little about the biology of Lake Michigan, won't the Lake trout never be able to recover until the majority of alewives are out of the system. Isn't there something in the alewives that causes the lake trout to not be able reproduce naturally? If so, isn't cutting the salmon plants and enableing the alewives to rebound counter to the goal of getting lake trout to return to a naturally reproductive state? Don't get me wrong I'll take salmon all day over lake trout. It just seems like salmon and lake trout (at least naturally producing ones) are competeing goals. If you achieve conditions for one to thrive the other one will suffer.? Am I wrong about that?


----------



## Jay Wesley

andyotto said:


> Question from a guy who knows little about the biology of Lake Michigan, won't the Lake trout never be able to recover until the majority of alewives are out of the system. Isn't there something in the alewives that causes the lake trout to not be able reproduce naturally? If so, isn't cutting the salmon plants and enableing the alewives to rebound counter to the goal of getting lake trout to return to a naturally reproductive state? Don't get me wrong I'll take salmon all day over lake trout. It just seems like salmon and lake trout (at least naturally producing ones) are competeing goals. If you achieve conditions for one to thrive the other one will suffer.? Am I wrong about that?


Yes. Alewife tend to be high in an enzyme that prevents predator fish from absorbing thiamine. Thiamine is important in fish egg survival. It can have an effect on all predators including lake trout, steelhead, chinook salmon, and coho. If a fish eats more than just alewife, they are typically ok. If the diet is primarily alewife, there can be problems. Hatcheries often have to treat eggs with thiamine to help survival. 

The thiamine issue is one of many preventing the rehabilitation of lake trout. They obviously would have one less impediment if alewife numbers were low. 

This is why it is such a delicate balance to manage diverse fisheries. We are trying to keep a balanace so that we can have both chinook salmon and potential for lake trout rehabilitation.

Lake Trout in Lake Superior are naturally sustained and Lake Huron is moving towards that and both lakes have low alewife populations.


----------



## walranger5

andyotto said:


> Question from a guy who knows little about the biology of Lake Michigan, won't the Lake trout never be able to recover until the majority of alewives are out of the system. Isn't there something in the alewives that causes the lake trout to not be able reproduce naturally? If so, isn't cutting the salmon plants and enableing the alewives to rebound counter to the goal of getting lake trout to return to a naturally reproductive state? Don't get me wrong I'll take salmon all day over lake trout. It just seems like salmon and lake trout (at least naturally producing ones) are competeing goals. If you achieve conditions for one to thrive the other one will suffer.? Am I wrong about that?


 Nope! And not just Lake trout suffer.


----------



## M. Tonello

FYI- See this website here for another development on the Lake Michigan front: http://howardmeyerson.com/2012/04/13/update-anglers-propose-a-fifth-option-for-salmon-cuts/#more-558


----------



## Rzr

I have met my share of DNR employees unwilling to conduct simple correspondence with the general public or so much as give us the time of day when legally required to. I have witnessed meetings per year drastically cut, official recording of the meeting minutes axed, public speaking time cut to those willing to travel long distances, leadership of advisory boards simply 're-elected' for years at a time with no public applications accepted and too many other transgressions to properly list here.

I have also met decent people at the DNR who gladly give you the time of day when you respect their time as well. I want to thank the DNR employees who post here and educate us about the fishery as opposed to talking down to us or manipulating the conversation as has been my overwhelming experience. Whether we agree with what any state employee says or does is not the point. It is the fact that these posters conduct their business out here in the light of day and that they exhibit obvious respective for our concerns through their time spent here.

There are huge fiscal challenges ahead for the Great Lakes Region and we are I believe lucky to have straight shooters on this forum who are willing to give their side of the story when these dollars are (hopefully) spent on these issues.


----------



## swampbuck

Jay Wesley said:


> Yes. Alewife tend to be high in an enzyme that prevents predator fish from absorbing thiamine. Thiamine is important in fish egg survival. It can have an effect on all predators including lake trout, steelhead, chinook salmon, and coho. If a fish eats more than just alewife, they are typically ok. If the diet is primarily alewife, there can be problems. Hatcheries often have to treat eggs with thiamine to help survival.
> 
> The thiamine issue is one of many preventing the rehabilitation of lake trout. They obviously would have one less impediment if alewife numbers were low.
> 
> This is why it is such a delicate balance to manage diverse fisheries. We are trying to keep a balanace so that we can have both chinook salmon and potential for lake trout rehabilitation.
> 
> Lake Trout in Lake Superior are naturally sustained and Lake Huron is moving towards that and both lakes have low alewife populations.


That is a post from the MDNR, that has been needed for a long time. For a little more claity on the issue could you expand that thought, to include smelt. And explain the additional problems associated with these two invasive species, Such as bio-accumulation of contaminates such as Mercury and PCP that are then passed up the food chain, And the decrease in zooplankton to the detriment of other species such as perch,walleye,whitefish,hering,cisco etc.

At the time when salmon were introduced it was in response to an issue that no longer exist's. Now we find ourselves spending limited funds to stock both non indigenous species(salmon) and native species (lakers)....Because an invasive species (alewives/smelt) prevent the successful reproduction of the planted/native species. NOW we are concerned with preserving the invasive's that are preventing the desired natural reproduction, And to add to that we are lamenting the lack of pollution in Lake Michigan, because it is detrimental to preserving these invasives. 

Is this supposed a viable long term plan. I know the salmon guys wont like it, and I like salmon also..... Doesnt there come a time to cut our losses and instead focus on restoring the natural ecosystem. The days of the alewife/smelt/salmon ecosystem are comming to an end, whether we like it or not. Should we continue to throw money at it, grasping at straws....Or move on to the next chapter. The Fed's and the tribes have seen the writing on the wall and are moving on, Isnt it time for the MDNR to do the same.


----------



## Rzr

swampbuck said:


> "..Doesnt there come a time to cut our losses and instead focus on restoring the natural ecosystem. The days of the alewife/smelt/salmon ecosystem are comming to an end, whether we like it or not. Should we continue to throw money at it, grasping at straws....Or move on to the next chapter. The Fed's and the tribes have seen the writing on the wall and are moving on, Isnt it time for the MDNR to do the same.."


Great post.

I would rather see a plan developed around the realities that we face today and tomorrow (asian carp?) given the limited resources that any entity will have real soon and any possible future lack of cooperation that may delay well laid plans in the first place. If all three of these issues are not taken into consideration at every stage of the process I see very little hope of any one issue not derailing the entire effort very quickly. If merely controlling invasives while restoring the natural ecosystem is going to eat up every penny available during the forseeable future then managers need to come clean on this reality and cut our losses to preserve the greater ecosystem. 

We're in fiscal denial right now here in the United States and I see no reason for the Great Lakes to suffer unnecessarily from this because nobody perhaps has the guts to tell this group or that the reality of the situation.


----------



## REG

Swampbuck, preferences and dire socio-economic impacts aside, I would speculate lake trout restoration success based solely on removing the salmon/alewife complex might be limited by forage base constraints, at least in Lake Michigan. At this time, much of the lake trout's natural forage, ie herring in Lake Michigan are extinct or practically extinct (herring in Traverse Bay a notable exception), bloater chub and populations are extremely low, and sculpin populations have taken a big hit. Also, whitefish populations have dropped significantly. 

But, contaminant issues aside, a resurgent lake trout population, though perhaps not generally desired by the sport fishing community, would be welcome news for the commercial fishery business.


----------



## wartfroggy

REG said:


> At this time, much of the lake trout's natural forage, ie herring in Lake Michigan are extinct or practically extinct (herring in Traverse Bay a notable exception), bloater chub and populations are extremely low, and sculpin populations have taken a big hit. Also, whitefish populations have dropped significantly.


 I would expect to see the herring rebound fairly well if the ales were to disappear. And your comment on sculpin is very true, however, they have been largely replaced by the gobies in similar habitats, so there is still a source there.


----------



## REG

I can't say off the top of my head whether gobies get down as deep, but you are right and from what I remember, the lake trout already do utilize them.

However, as I see it, the limiting factor for all forage fish in LM is available food sources at the macroscopic level. That we know is way down for some key fish food species, ie diporeia. Thus, I tend to think the chances for any dramatic rebound for prey fish species and thus predator species may be limited by this.

But at the end of the day, who knows for sure?


----------



## Jay Wesley

REG said:


> I can't say off the top of my head whether gobies get down as deep, but you are right and from what I remember, the lake trout already do utilize them.
> 
> However, as I see it, the limiting factor for all forage fish in LM is available food sources at the macroscopic level. That we know is way down for some key fish food species, ie diporeia. Thus, I tend to think the chances for any dramatic rebound for prey fish species and thus predator species may be limited by this.
> 
> But at the end of the day, who knows for sure?


I really do not want to get into the argument of natural vs invasive vs naturalized species in the Great Lakes. We have too many invasive and naturalized fish, plankton, and plants to ever get back to the way it was. 

We are trying to manage for a diverse fishery that is socially, biologically and economically acceptable. Too many alewives is no doubt bad for the ecosystem and bad for native and many other species. Too few is bad for Chinook salmon, the most targeted fish in Lake Michigan. Regardless if its alewife, smelt, sculpin, bloater, herring, all of their populations are going down indicating a changing lake and too many predators. 

Even with alewives gone, lake trout would still have to work through the sea lamprey impediment. 

Better energy and funds should be spent at preventing new invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, so we do not have to spend so much time and money when they do get hear.


----------



## swampbuck

REG said:


> Swampbuck, preferences and dire socio-economic impacts aside,
> 
> I would speculate lake trout restoration success based solely on removing the salmon/alewife complex might be limited by forage base constraints, at least in Lake Michigan. At this time, much of the lake trout's natural forage, ie herring in Lake Michigan are extinct or practically extinct (herring in Traverse Bay a notable exception), bloater chub and populations are extremely low, and sculpin populations have taken a big hit. Also, whitefish populations have dropped significantly.
> 
> But, contaminant issues aside, a resurgent lake trout population, though perhaps not generally desired by the sport fishing community, would be welcome news for the commercial fishery business.


Reg, The environmental conditions that allowed the alewives and smelt to flourish are gone. The phosphates, nitrogen.....The pollution that allowed the salmon business to thrive is history. And thankfully that pollution is being reduced even more every day.

The missing species you mentioned are a result of competion for forage with an overpopulation of alewives/smelt. The same thing has happened in other bodies of water. Look at the things that have recovered in lake Huron since the "crash" of the invasives. It will probably change again due to the mussells, gobys and waterfleas.

The fact of the matter is, the Lake Michigan that existed in 1967, no longer exist's, Blame it on the E.P.A.

Would you rather see it crash like Lake Huron did, Or would it be better to transition to the new Lake Michigan, through a transition in types of fish planted.........Or maybe we can just pray for a miracle that will restore the bottom of the food chain to what it was 20 years ago, because ultimately that is where the problem is, and that issue is compounded by the mussels.

I believe there will always be some salmon, Just in much smaller numbers. Hopefullt it will be through natural reproduction.....Which by the way has started occuring with the reduction in alewives and smelt.


----------



## REG

Swampbuck, in deference to Jay's recent comments, will send you my thoughts via PM.


----------



## swampbuck

Just for reference my expierience comes research into the same situation happening by the smelt introduction to Higgins lake. A much smaller scale but It mirrors what has happened in the great lake.

Mr. Wesley, Thanks for the response. I think you are probably in a very tough spot on this issue. I am glad I am not in your shoes.

If you have a few, or hundred thousand or so, extra salmon laying around, We sure could use one good planting in Higgins Lake to knock the smelt population back a bit.


----------



## wartfroggy

swampbuck said:


> And to add to that we are lamenting the lack of pollution in Lake Michigan, because it is detrimental to preserving these invasives.


No, I am not defending or promoting more pollution, but thanks for twisting what I was saying. I was just pointing out that things were different in the 60-70's than they are now.


----------



## walranger5

I would suggest you all go to asiancarp.us (the Fed site) find the( Fishing down the Bighead and Silver Carps) released March 2012. The Asian Carp have all the attributes needed, what they're are doing down south they will do here. Very wide and diverse diet. Every action has a cost.


----------



## EdB

Jay, well done at today's meeting! I really appreciate the extra efforts you, Seagrant, MDNR along with the other states agencies are making to inform and involve the angling public on our future stocking strategies.


----------



## thousandcasts

Considering what I read yesterday and how it was dropped at the last minute, I'm starting wonder just how much of a dog and pony show any public input might be. 

Read this wonderful proposal that the Lake Michigan Citizens Advisory board dropped a couple days ago: 

"




> In a letter dated April 11, 2012 to Michigan fisheries chief, Jim Dexter, members of the state&#8217;s Lake Michigan Citizen&#8217;s Fishery Advisory Committee asked that the state consider a moratorium on salmon stocking for one to two years
> 
> &#8220;It is the consensus of the LMCFAC that a 5th option be considered &#8211;Stocking of Chinook salmon be stopped for a period of 1-2 years coupled with an extensive and intensive monitoring and evaluation program that could trigger stocking efforts should indicators prove necessary.
> 
> &#8220;Better to error on the side of increasing forage biomass &#8211; than a collapsed fishery. Doing too little &#8211; too late &#8211; is a path we can&#8217;t retrace,&#8221; the letter states.
> 
> The letter, signed by Paul Jensen who represents the commercial fishing industry, is indicative of how dicey conditions are in Lake Michigan. The committee members represent all segments of the Lake Michigan fishing community, including fishing charter captains, recreational anglers, tribal fishing interests, the Izaak Walton League and Michigan United Conservation Clubs.
> 
> Members of the committee state that there are too many red-flags appearing in their risk analysis model. The fifth option is to be brought up at the public salmon stocking workshop April 14 in Benton Harbor.
> 
> State fisheries researchers say Chinook salmon increasingly reproduce naturally in Lake Michigan tributaries. Estimates are that 50 percent of the one year old fish are natural. That can go as high as 80 percent of three and four-year olds. The naturally reproduced fish put pressure on the forage base that didn&#8217;t exist years ago.
> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lake Michigan basin coordinator, Jay Wesley said &#8220;We may be over-relying on hatchery stock now.&#8221; The stocking cuts are being proposed to balance the predator prey ratio in the lake


Now, nowhere in there do you see any suggestion to also lower the limit back to three fish IF they completely cut stocking. Of course the charter association can be on board with this. They fully expect to just roll around, boxing up their five fish and screw the little guys who might be effected by a complete halt of salmon plants. 

Any fish that those guys would be catching are going to be wild fish. So this effects everybody and every bait shop up and down the entire Lake Michigan coast and inland. Guess what? There's an entire inland industry that's also reliant on those fish. If they completely stop stocking then you might as well write off any sort of salmon run in most of the rivers. You're already eliminating 50% of the fish by a complete halt in stocking and then you still allow the big lake fishing industry to keep boxing up five per person? 

What happens later in the summer when the wild fish start moving back up the coast and ports like St. Joe and Grand Haven have no salmon left out there? They'll start going after steelhead, which will be yet another screw job for the inland fishery when there's less of those fish as well. 

The fishery does NOT belong to the big lake charter industry. It belongs to everyone who buys a fishing license. I can even begin to fully express my thoughts because I'm livid...flat out livid at the very thought that this "advisory board" would come up with this and drop it at the last minute. 

As far as I'm concerned it's a big f*** you to the rest of the people who have an ownership in the resource AND those who also contribute to the tourism dollars that the inland fishery also generates. Do the big lake guys care about that? Of course not...this proposal is evidence of that. They put their boats away after Labor Day and who cares what happens after that. As long as they get theirs, they obviously don't give a **** about the rest of the people who rely on or enjoy the resource. 

Think about it. Is there a mention of any reduced limit? Is there any mention of a reduced license fee since you're clearly not going to be getting what you pay for? No. 

Does something need to be done? Sure. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intellect can agree that another REDUCTION in salmon plants is on the horizen and probably it's for the best. If they want to cut the plants 50%, so be it. But to completely STOP stocking 100% and STILL let the big lake guys box up five fish per person? HELL NO. Also, the other states don't have as much natural repro as we do, so if they stop stocking as well then who's fish are those other states boxing up? Ours...by the time it's all said and done, the inland fisheries will be left with zip for a return. 

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. At this point, I can't even type anymore because I'm so fired up that I'm about to go off on even more of a tirade and I'll get myself banned. Suffice to say, I will NOT be supporting "proposal 5" nor will I be supporting any individual or org who proposed this AND who still expects to keep a five fish limit when ZERO fish are being planted. Period. If they want to propose a full halt in stocking and then also lower the limit so there's a fair distribution of our fish, then that's something to talk about. As is...it's one of the most disgraceful and greedy things I've ever seen involving the fisheries and it's a complete slap in the face to anyone who buys a fishing license.


----------



## llpof

Jay, I too was very impressed with the agency efforts to inform and solicit input. Will take my voting to the online survey (seems like everyone would have as a goal to minimize the liklihood of a complete collapse of the forage base, but I digress). I was a little surprised by how little is apparently known about "the good years" of successful reproduction by alewife (i.e. 2010 versus other years). I kind of hoped to learn more about it (like in Charles Madenjian presentation), but didn't see much more than identifying it as a major variable. Has that been studied versus lake conditions, fish plants or other indicators?


----------



## EdB

Hutch, That proposal did not come from the charter boat groups. I'm a member of the Ludington Charter Boat Association and we haven't taken a position on any of this yet and my personal take from others I've spoken with is we would not support a 100% cut. Many Capt's don't want any cuts but from the time I've spent researching this, I think some cuts are the prudent thing to do to protect our fishery.

The 100% cut didn't get much traction at today's meeting either so I don't think that is going to happen. 

I'd recommend everyone visit the Seagrant website, educate yourself on all the data by reading the reports and videos and then complete the online survey to share your input. A video of today's entire meeting should be up soon. Our fisheries managers are trying to prevent a collapse on Lk Mi like we had on Huron. We are all going to be screwed, big and small alike, if that happens. The Wisconsin guys are arguing most of the cuts should come in MI since we have more natural reproduction. Make sure to share your thoughts on that when you complete the survey.

You can get the info and share your opinion through the survey here:

http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/fisheries/stocking/index.html


----------



## thousandcasts

EdB said:


> Hutch, That proposal did not come from the charter boat groups. I'm a member of the Ludington Charter Boat Association and we haven't taken a position on any of this yet and my personal take from others I've spoken with is we would not support a 100% cut. Many Capt's don't want any cuts but from the time I've spent researching this, I think some cuts are the prudent thing to do to protect our fishery.
> 
> The 100% cut didn't get much traction at today's meeting either so I don't think that is going to happen.
> 
> I'd recommend everyone visit the Seagrant website, educate yourself on all the data by reading the reports and videos and then complete the online survey to share your input. A video of today's entire meeting should be up soon. Our fisheries managers are trying to prevent a collapse on Lk Mi like we had on Huron. We are all going to be screwed, big and small alike, if that happens. The Wisconsin guys are arguing most of the cuts should come in MI since we have more natural reproduction. Make sure to share your thoughts on that when you complete the survey.
> 
> You can get the info and share your opinion through the survey here:
> 
> http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/fisheries/stocking/index.html


Ed, 

Look who signed the letter and who it represents. It's very much implied that the charter association is part of who is presenting this. Now, if you say it's not and the org you associate with is not in favor of a 100% cut, then THANK GOD. I'm also glad to hear it didn't gain much traction. 

I absolutely agree that something needs to be done, but not a 100% halt in stocking and still keeping a five fish limit at the same time. A 50% cut? If that's what needs to be done, then do it. No problem. 

I knew what the four proposals were and I've seen the results of the forage studies, so there was really no need for me to drive down and hear and see what I already had knowledge of and I'm no longer opposed to some sort of REDUCTION in the plants. What pisses me off is that the advisory board slams this fifth proposal in at the last minute and the way they went about it all hush, hush, is abhorrent and completely against the principle of what these committees are about. I'm on the cold water committee, which deals with the inland river fisheries, and we operate in a transparent fashion. What exactly was transparent about the lake advisory board dropping this on the 11th and then it not even being presented to any sort of public until late yesterday?


----------



## Rzr

thousandcasts said:


> Ed,
> "...What pisses me off is that the advisory board slams this fifth proposal in at the last minute and the way they went about it all hush, hush, is abhorrent and completely against the principle of what these committees are about. I'm on the cold water committee, which deals with the inland river fisheries, and we operate in a transparent fashion. What exactly was transparent about the lake advisory board dropping this on the 11th and then it not even being presented to any sort of public until late yesterday?"


I hope that I don't offend here...but if the above back door dealing indeed really pisses you off...*do something about it* not only for your kid's sake but for all of us out here who have been arrogantly treated in the same manner by these gatekeeper advisory boards who could care less if you (or we) like it or not. 

Here's a strategy...find 5 other times that they've operated behind closed doors unlike your own group (shouldn't be too hard)...and demand to know why each individual board member 'today' is so sorry about being caught in the act...*when they obviously didn't give a damn about pulling the curtain shut on you and everybody else previously*.

The manner in which the state has set up these 'advisory boards' has been the largest source of corruption involving our natural resources for decades now and everybody who has ever dealt with these (cough) 'elected' boards knows this. What you have probably found as we have is that the members of these boards don't give a rip if you like what they do or not and they _sure as heck_ could care less if you disagree with how they disemminate information. The timing of their release of information and the vagueness of their positions (when they bother to give one) is the whole game in a nutshell. If you want to know anything then you damn well better be able to get to Lansing when the time comes (which is as infrequent as possible) and you damn well better not expect an answer to your questions when you get there AS NO STATE EMPLOYEE OR "NON-PROFIT" BOARD MEMBER THERE HAS ABSOLUTELY _ANYBODY_ THAT THEY MUST NECESSARILY ANSWER TO!!!

Don't figure that you would have to do any of this on your own thousandcasts as there are people reading this right now who would be _glad_ to find somebody 'pissed off' enough to finally shake this good 'ol boy system up HARD and toss more than a few of these various advisory board 'representatives' right out on their arrogant arses.


----------



## Rzr

And before we get 100 posts on how all of these people are 'volunteers' who 'work hard' on these issues...ask yourself why thousandcasts and the rest of us out here can somehow _immediately_ recognize this zero transparency bs _the second_ that it happens...but every single member of these advisory boards evidently can't *nor have they had the guts to say so* for literally decades now.


----------



## thousandcasts

Rzr said:


> I hope that I don't offend here...but if the above back door dealing indeed really pisses you off...*do something about it* not only for your kid's sake but for all of us out here who have been arrogantly treated in the same manner by these gatekeeper advisory boards who could care less if you (or we) like it or not.
> 
> Here's a strategy...find 5 other times that they've operated behind closed doors unlike your own group (shouldn't be too hard)...and demand to know why each individual board member 'today' is so sorry about being caught in the act...*when they obviously didn't give a damn about pulling the curtain shut on you and everybody else previously*.
> 
> The manner in which the state has set up these 'advisory boards' has been the largest source of corruption involving our natural resources for decades now and everybody who has ever dealt with these (cough) 'elected' boards knows this. What you have probably found as we have is that the members of these boards don't give a rip if you like what they do or not and they _sure as heck_ could care less if you disagree with how they disemminate information. The timing of their release of information and the vagueness of their positions (when they bother to give one) is the whole game in a nutshell. If you want to know anything then you damn well better be able to get to Lansing when the time comes (which is as infrequent as possible) and you damn well better not expect an answer to your questions when you get there AS NO STATE EMPLOYEE OR "NON-PROFIT" BOARD MEMBER THERE HAS ABSOLUTELY _ANYBODY_ THAT THEY MUST NECESSARILY ANSWER TO!!!
> 
> Don't figure that you would have to do any of this on your own thousandcasts as there are people reading this right now who would be _glad_ to find somebody 'pissed off' enough to finally shake this good 'ol boy system up HARD and toss more than a few of these various advisory board 'representatives' right out on their arrogant arses.


Apparently there needs to be more diveristy on the Lake Michigan advisory board. That's what they did with the cold water committee and my position or affiliation on there is "angler at large." Also, anyone is free to contact the head of the committee and request to either speak or simply attend and observe the meetings. And everything we discuss is open knowledge and we even post it in the forums on this site. When the minutes are posted, names are associated with who said what and that's also public record. 

I would expect the same thing with the Lake Michigan board, so you know what? I have no problem driving all over for the coldwater committee meetings, so everytime there's a Lake Michigan meeting from here on out, I will be requesting to attend. I have no problem with doing that, shame on me for not doing it prior.


----------



## thousandcasts

Let me be clear: 

I am NOT, NOT, NOT bashing the DNR here. They are trying to figure something out that still benefits as many people as possible. What I have a problem with and my problem is strictly aimed at is this: 

How can any "board" propose something that essentially drops an atomic bomb on an entire fishery, yet not also propose a harvest reduction so that there's a fair distribution of the available fish? Something like this should have never left the table in any way, shape or form. It needs to be removed from the list of options, buried in a concrete vault and never spoke of again. There were four viable options that while, maybe not the most palatable thing in the world, at least are reasonable and involve some form of common sense. This fifth proposal has none of that. That's not the DNR's fault. I repeat, I'm NOT bashing the DNR and I know they're in a very tough position here.


----------



## Rzr

thousandcasts said:


> *Apparently there needs to be more diveristy on the Lake Michigan advisory board.* That's what they did with the cold water committee and my position or affiliation on there is "angler at large." Also, anyone is free to contact the head of the committee and request to either speak or simply attend and observe the meetings. And everything we discuss is open knowledge and we even post it in the forums on this site. When the minutes are posted, names are associated with who said what and that's also public record.
> 
> I would expect the same thing with the Lake Michigan board, so you know what? I have no problem driving all over for the coldwater committee meetings, so everytime there's a Lake Michigan meeting from here on out, I will be requesting to attend. I have no problem with doing that, *shame on me for not doing it prior*.


If the Lake Michigan advisory board wanted more 'diversity'...that's exactly the manner in which they would have set the board up. If they wanted to operate as transparently as your board does...well I have a hard time believing that your group invented the concept and that these guys are 'now' only sorry that you called them out here for obviously not being so 'on accident' (back to business as usual after they 'apologize' as you will see later in this thread).

As far as shame on you for not attending a meeting where they tried to pull a fast one, I don't think that you got my point. There are _hundreds_ of us or more out here who have studied and experienced the Michigan state advisory board system firsthand. When you see very few people in attendance at these meetings it is for a reason. Most of the decent people who have given a damn over the years and who have spent untold time/dollars travelling to these meetings realize exactly how these board members were selected and by whom. None has any obligation to answer the simplest of questions; even so much as 'blink' when procedural rules are changed to limit the public's input or most importantly *give their position on any matter that comes before the board either publicly or otherwise*. You get pissed off about transparency...they EXPECT you to back the heck off with assertions that it is not their issue but YOURS for not being there in the first place.

There are plenty of people in this state who know that this system is both corrupt and broken...yet very few in the system presently who aren't part of the problem or willing to listen/believe those who have 'been there, done that'.

Good luck on your journey and hoping that you can fix what's broken before your kids are charged with cleaning up the entire mess later,

Rzr


----------



## thousandcasts

Let's set aside the fact that personally and for recreation, the inland salmon fishery is by far my most favorite thing in the world to do (not counting things involving my sons obviously), but I can also look at this from the perspective of being a guide.

The charters on the big lake bring in big money, but you know what? So do the inland guides, baitshops, hotels, campgrounds, etc. I'm usually booked up for the entire month of Sept. A lot of those people who book with me are from out of state. They buy gas, they buy lodging, licenses, food etc. It's not outrageous to say that a typical party could lay down a grand for a fishing trip when all things are factored in. Let's say that my bookings equate to 10 grand in tourist dollars. That's just me...which I also pay taxes on my income. 20 of me equals $200,000. Now, factor in all the people who don't use a guide. It's probably 20 people who come on their own vs. one who hires a guide. Those people also buy licenses, go to bait shops, campgrounds, etc. They have just as much interest in this fishery as does someone who runs a charter business--it's everybody's fishery. Just because I guide doesn't give me any more right to the fishery than anyone else, but I can also give a better perspective on how much $$$ a person does spend on the fishery that doesn't involve open water and downriggers. 

So, with this proposal, you take away at least 50% of the available fish and then you allow the same five fish per person harvest. That's great for the big lake guys, but what happens when the inland fishery gets to the point where it's not worth anyone coming or spending money to enjoy it? 

I'm simply livid that this 5th option even made it to the table. The other four options are fine and realistic. Let's approach it that way, then re-evaluate. But to just say, "awwww, just stop the plants completely." No...no...hell no. If that 5th option is eliminated, I'll shut up and go along with whatever of the other four options turns out to be what they think is best, but again...option 5 needs to go away yesterday.


----------



## llpof

I drove to Benton Harbor, and went to the meeting. After describing their four options, and handing out information, they took a break at three; for discussion and feedback from the public to follow. I left. There was no 5th option discussed, nor is it in the survey; did I miss somekind of end around after the break?


----------



## thousandcasts

llpof said:


> I drove to Benton Harbor, and went to the meeting. After describing their four options, and handing out information, they took a break at three; for discussion and feedback from the public to follow. I left. There was no 5th option discussed, nor is it in the survey; did I miss somekind of end around after the break?


Yes, this just came out yesterday and was cooked up by the Lake Michigan Citizen's Advisory board: 



> In a letter dated April 11, 2012 to Michigan fisheries chief, Jim Dexter, *members of the state&#8217;s Lake Michigan Citizen&#8217;s Fishery Advisory Committee asked that the state consider a moratorium on salmon stocking for one to two years*
> 
> &#8220;*It is the consensus of the LMCFAC that a 5th option be considered &#8211;Stocking of Chinook salmon be stopped for a period of 1-2 years *coupled with an extensive and intensive monitoring and evaluation program that could trigger stocking efforts should indicators prove necessary.
> 
> &#8220;Better to error on the side of increasing forage biomass &#8211; than a collapsed fishery. Doing too little &#8211; too late &#8211; is a path we can&#8217;t retrace,&#8221; the letter states.
> 
> The letter, signed by Paul Jensen who represents the commercial fishing industry, is indicative of how dicey conditions are in Lake Michigan. *The committee members represent all segments of the Lake Michigan fishing community, including fishing charter captains, recreational anglers, tribal fishing interests, the Izaak Walton League and Michigan United Conservation Clubs.*
> 
> Members of the committee state that there are too many red-flags appearing in their risk analysis model. *The fifth option is to be brought up at the public salmon stocking workshop April 14 in Benton Harbor.*
> 
> State fisheries researchers say Chinook salmon increasingly reproduce naturally in Lake Michigan tributaries. Estimates are that 50 percent of the one year old fish are natural. That can go as high as 80 percent of three and four-year olds. The naturally reproduced fish put pressure on the forage base that didn&#8217;t exist years ago.
> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lake Michigan basin coordinator, Jay Wesley said &#8220;We may be over-relying on hatchery stock now.&#8221; The stocking cuts are being proposed to balance the predator prey ratio in the lake


It became somewhat public on the 13th (yesterday), to be brought up on the 14th (today).


----------



## EdB

Hutch,I know your passionate about the resource but you can relax. The fisheries managers only presented the 4 prior options at the meeting. The rep from the advisory committee presented their propoosal, unnofficially, during the public comment period, just like any of us could have done if we were there. As I said before, it appeared to me it did not get traction. It is not even on the public survey where we can all add our feedback with comments about the 4 official proposals. Perhaps the 5th proposal will get added later, I don't know but I kind of doubt it. I don't think it is going anywhere. 

*I'm sure it won't go anywhere if their is substantial public feedback against it. Take and add your comments and concerns to the survey.*

I can also tell you this. The members of the advisory committee put forth their proposal out of a passion, love and concern for our resource. They only want a healthy fishery, both in the big lake and in the rivers. I don't agree with their proposal but it is not some closed door effort to screw the river guys. Outside of a nice 2010 alewive class, which is nothing special compared to the 80's and 90's, the forage base trends look bad over the last 6 years. The sad news on the extremely low 2011 year class of alewives is just getting out there and I can understand why some people are very worried about the future of Lk Mich. That is why the advisory committee is recommending a drastic cut. They care about our resource and I know and respect some of the members on the advisory commitee. I like option #4, based on info presented at today's meeting that was not released before. Watching the video will be informative when it is released.

At the meeting, we were informed there will be a long public comment period and a final decision won't be made till summer, no later than Sept 1. 

*Now is the time for the public to get involved and make your concerns known. *

I thought it was cool I was able to ask a question online during the meeting and it was spoken out loud at the meeting and answered. Great job by everyone who organized it.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

So why was the DNR not using these prevention measures when Lake Huron was red flagging in 2001-2002-2003? Record or near record catch rates on kings in 00, 01, 02, but lower alewife density should have meant a severe cut. 

I know they originally wanted around 50% in 98', but settled on 20%, because of the charter boats. That lasted a few years, before the salmon caught back up to the alewife numbers, eventually overtaking them. That happened in 2003/2004. Salmon fishing has been down ever since.

Sorry to kinda sway off subject, but it sucks to read them trying to save one lake, after letting another crash. I know the DNR didn't realize the extent of the mussels nor the large percentage of wild kings in Lake Huron at the time, but they should have just did what was needed to maintain the fishery. Like Thousandcasts said, the charters don't own the lake. If the red flags were there, then charter opinions or not, they should have done what was necessary at the time.


----------



## EdB

I think a major lesson was learned in Lake Huron...the hard way, which is very sad.


----------



## thousandcasts

EdB said:


> Hutch,I know your passionate about the resource but you can relax. The fisheries managers only presented the 4 prior options at the meeting. The rep from the advisory committee presented their propoosal, unnofficially, during the public comment period, just like any of us could have done if we were there. As I said before, it appeared to me it did not get traction. It is not even on the public survey where we can all add our feedback with comments about the 4 official proposals. Perhaps the 5th proposal will get added later, I don't know but I kind of doubt it. I don't think it is going anywhere.
> 
> *I'm sure it won't go anywhere is their is substantial public feedback against it. Take and add your comments and concerns to the survey.*
> 
> I can also tell you this. The members of the advisory committee put forth their proposal out of a passion, love and concern for our resource. They only want a healthy fishery, both in the big lake and in the rivers. I don't agree with their proposal but it is not some closed door effort to screw the river guys. Outside of a nice 2010 alewive class, the forage base trends look bad over the last 6 years. The sad news on the extremely low 2011 year class of alewives is just getting out there and I can understand why some people are very worried about the future of Lk Mich. That is why the advisory committee is recommending a drastic cut. They care about our resource and I know and respect some of the members on the advisory commitee. I like option #4, based on info presented at today's meeting that was not released before. Watching the video will be informative when it is released.
> 
> At the meeting, we were informed there will be a long public comment period and a final decision won't be made till summer, no later than Sept 1.
> 
> *Now is the time for the public to get involved and make your concerns known. *
> 
> I thought it was cool I was able to ask a question online during the meeting and it was spoken out loud at the meeting and answered. Great job by everyone who organized it.


I don't think it was a calculated plan to screw the inland guys...not at all. I think that would be the end result though and when someone presents something like that then it's apparent they didn't think everything through. Especially when they offer up a complete halt, but don't offer up a limit reduction as part of it. 

Look at it this way. If we're talking about steelhead management in the coldwater committee and we throw it out there at the last minute that all rivers will have a one fish limit, but nothing changes out on the big lake, then I think there'd be a good reason for us to be keel hauled, tarred and feathered, whatever. In a manner of speaking...not literally, but then again I couldn't blame someone for thinking we're laying a major screw on the majority of anglers. To me, this is no different. I don't doubt their passion--I simply do not like what they presented, period. Option five needs to die a quick death.

If it's not an official option and stays off the survey, then I'm good. And yes, my opinions are in that survey.


----------



## thousandcasts

Another thing is...we all know there's some issues out there. BUT, those same red flags have been there for 10 to 12 years now and yet the fishery remains in great shape numbers wise. This is NOT the first time they've been living off one big year class. I can recall two other instances in the past 10 years where one year class made up the bulk of the forage and then...another year class developed and took its place. So, these red flags are not new. 

I'm not dismissing the issues and if they feel they need a further reduction, so be it. However, the fishery has remained good and consistent since the danger signs started popping up over 10 years ago...anyone that's followed the fishery knows this. So NOW they're gonna come up with a proposal to completely eliminate stocking?


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> I have yet to hear a plan involving the entire ecosystem of the Great Lakes where cost wasn't an issue...I suppose mainly because the vast majority of the parties involved are either broke *or rely on someone who is broke* to receive their funding. It sounds as if your plan is the one that we truly need (no sarcasm intended; I'd really like to hear it and especially if it opens up a for-profit bidding war with a non-profit).
> 
> It's like the present day senior who doesn't want their bankrupt government check or coverage cut to save the Republic that _they_ presided over screwing up (don't tell their grandkids).
> 
> "_Cost_ is not the problem...'want' in making certain that we all now ride off into the sunset (unscathed) is the issue..."


 It is only want, they don't want. My fish farmer says we can gets millions of Perch out of a 3 acre pond, for $200. bucks, the DNR told me it would take all the money in all the states treasury to restore the Perch, poppy-cock pure poppy-cock! Just keeping them away from the alewives would do it.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> Thank you.
> 
> That is why I am immediately suspicous of any statement making excuses surrounding DNR led advisory board meetings and _especially_ if they involve transparency issues involving the stakeholders.
> 
> As you can see, whoever enters this conversation is loathe to speak of peeling the onion back on the entire concept of these cherry-picked boards. You can explain how they work and how to fix them all day long yet it is the concept of closed back door dealings absent any *real time* questions which drives the process.


 The law says the MDNR is responsible for protecting the natural resources. Last I knew the alewives are from out of town. DNR biologists are hired to be biologists not poll takers. Asking us what we want, is like asking the UAW (no slam intended) how many cars they want to make today? The best way is both parties work too make as many cars as required to pay the bills, guarantee all thier futures and wages, and control quality. Which is what they had to do, to survive, or lose it all. Without change all the bailout money in the world would have just been wasted. You are right about committes and meetings, at the Asian carp meetings if you don't follow the script and ask real questions, they get nervous, especially the MDNR.


----------



## Steelheadfred

I took the survey and voted for option one.

My suggestion was as follows.


Reduce Chinook stocking by 50%. Do not plant Kings north of the Muskegon River, natural reproduction is not documented and is significant, our rivers with the biggest King Runs do not have Kings planted in them. Sure the net pens have some strays.

I also advised an increase in less forage fish dependant based species that offer more Multiple Use - IE Steelhead and Brown Trout, fish that the common man can catch and provide more year round opportunity for everyone. I also mentioned a statewide reduction in Trout limits to two. IE Brown Trout and Steelhead, reduce them to two fish, manage Lake Trout however you want I'm not educated enough to comment.


----------



## walranger5

Spanky said:


> I know that's your opinion, but it is incorrect.
> 
> It is usually a" damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
> 
> If you anglers want the same thing to happen to Lk Mich that happened to Huron, then vote for "0 changes to current policy" That is irresponsible and greedy. Whether you have an axe to grind with the MDNR ( Rzr its very visible that your hate has clouded your judgement) or believe that the advisory committees are evil ( Hutch is still pissed because he wasn't invited to be on the board) it is paramount that the health of the great lakes be the deciding factor in the implementation of ANY of these plans. Its about the big picture. Don't sit there and preach about the fishing heritage for your children, while at the same time worrying about if your guide business will survive a change in policy to preserve that heritage. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the good of others, regardless of whether we like it or not.
> 
> And then there is this"transparency" fascination. I don't know how many advisory meetings that Rzr or Hutch have been to, but I know that when I am able to make the meetings ( over the last 6-7 yrs) that we are encouraged to speak with our stakeholders and constituents. The committee is made up of many different groups from many different areas of the Lk. Michigan Watershed. I have also never witnessed anyone being asked to leave, or being told it was a closed door meeting..............because the meetings are not closed to the public.
> 
> So I take offense to the statements that these advisory members don't give a crap about the fishery or the citizens of Michigan.Most, if not all of the members are very passionate about the fishery, are anglers themselves, AND...........are not just voting their opinions, but instead, we represent the groups and areas we are responsible for. We don't get paid, we don't get anything, except the satisfaction of helping the DNR and the people of Michigan work together to build a great fishery, and fishing opportunities for everyone.
> 
> While it might be entertaining for a few to argue about why someone hates the LMCAC, or despises the MDNR, its really counterproductive.
> 
> I was not able to make either of the LMCAC or the salmon workshop meetings, I am glad that some of the folks from here have. The sea grant does a great job presenting the workshop, and I have attended most of them, all the way back to when we had them at the Cook facility. They are asking for angler input. Give them just that. The vehicles are there to get the info to the DNR.Make a phone call, fill out the online surveys, talk with your LMCAC representatives. Do something positive!
> 
> It's very easy to sit back and gripe, with no ideas or opinions to offer as solutions. We have a whole country full of those people. Are you going to be proactive, or reactive. When it comes to the health and survival of the Lake Michigan ecosystem, proactive is the way to go. Reactive could be another Lk. Huron salmon collapse. Its very easy to point fingers and make accusations, but in the end who suffers? we all do. If the greedy/lazy ones do nothing and the lake takes a sheet, who will fix it? Who will pay for it? who will be pointing fingers then?
> 
> We have had reductions many times. Everyone said it was the end of the fishery, it wouldn't work ect. It did work, we did do away with BKD, we did have awesome king fisheries throughout the state, and those reductions for the most part are just a memory for some of us.
> 
> Last things I will say on this thread about these issues before us.
> 
> The kings we have been catching so far this spring are long and thin compared to last year. They are abundant and have bellies full of alewives, but are thinner than they should be IMO.
> 
> If the DNR does implement a reduction of planted salmon in order to reduce the total population of salmon, why in gods name would they also reduce limits. Sorry Hutch, but it doesn't make sense.Especially with the natural reproduction going on. Do the math!
> 
> Ripping on the DNR, LMCAC, Charter boat assoc, Steelheaders, trout unlimited or other fishery oriented groups doesn't solve anything. It just shows character flaws of the one doing the ripping.Stop being jealous,dramatic or vindictive, and get involved and do something positive. It serves the cause much more to help, than to just stir the pot and make waves.


 I am not slamming anyone, increasing the alewives not matter how only benefits one stakeholder group, and has zero benefits for health of the lakes and the common good. Trying to ram the salmon down everyone thoats for the 27 years, has resulted in a invasive species nightmare, and you want to argue to increase that? This is not science based, power grab. abuse of the system. pick one. We can only work together on your terms. The DNR is responsible period.


----------



## Rzr

walranger5 said:


> Excuse me, but the MDNR is totally responsible for everything that happens in the lake, everything.





Spanky said:


> I know that's your opinion, but it is incorrect.
> It is usually a" damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario..


Here's a short primer from one who who has witnessed every concocted strategy possible by those obviously running interference for both the DNR and their (cough) 'non-profit' leadership partners:

Take the reply above. Everybody in their right mind knows that what walranger has said is correct. Yet if Spanky can literally suspend reality using a worn out phrase that means absolutely nothing in terms of standing up for what's right _regardless_ of who is (liberal victim speak) 'damned'...then he has effectively discounted both walranger AND a basic truth at the same time.
It never stops there but this is how 'discrediting' those _simply stating facts_ begins.



Spanky said:


> "...If you anglers want the same thing to happen to Lk Mich that happened to Huron, then vote for "0 changes to current policy" That is irresponsible and greedy..."..


I don't remember anybody on this thread proposing anything remotely resembling this but remember one thing. If the DNR and their non-profit goons can paint YOU as the irresponsible and greedy ones for simply asking factual based questions or pushing for transparency...the battle is already half won in their eyes.



Spanky said:


> "...Whether you have an axe to grind with the MDNR ( Rzr its very visible that your hate has clouded your judgement) or believe that the advisory committees are evil ( Hutch is still pissed because he wasn't invited to be on the board) it is paramount that the health of the great lakes be the deciding factor in the implementation of ANY of these plans...."


Any problem that I have with the DNR or those unwilling to reform it either from the inside or out was illustrated by thousandcast's original 'pissed off' statement about a lack of transparency within the process. Those running interference for the DNR and their non-transparent 'partners' never refute simple facts surrounding these advisory boards because they can't. Instead, they will attack those presenting simple facts while throwing in some (obvious) meaningless statement in the same sentance in the hope that the former 'sticks' (which is basic Attack/Discredit 101 for those not familiar).



Spanky said:


> "...Don't sit there and preach about the fishing heritage for your children, while at the same time worrying about if your guide business will survive a change in policy to preserve that heritage. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the good of others, regardless of whether we like it or not..."


This is where the gatyekeepers get ugly. Each 'non-profit' partnering with the DNR behind closed doors doesn't necessarily want a meeting publicly recorded unveiling 'their' particular group's selfish requests to the department...*but they'll darn well applaud those running interference for them of attacking anybody in the 'for profit' sector who dares share their daily position statements out here in the light of day.* 



Spanky said:


> "...And then there is this"transparency" fascination. I don't know how many advisory meetings that Rzr or Hutch have been to, but I know that when I am able to make the meetings ( over the last 6-7 yrs) that *we are encouraged to speak with our stakeholders and constituents*. The committee is made up of many different groups from many different areas of the Lk. Michigan Watershed. I have also never witnessed anyone being asked to leave, or being told it was a closed door meeting..............because the meetings are not closed to the public..."


THEREIN THE PROBLEM LIES.
If you attend _any_ advisory board meeting to celebrate the cherry-picked union of stakeholders and whatever they and the DNR have decided previously before the meeting is even held...you'll be thanked profusely and put in the record as such. If you have any _other_ question that wasn't necessarily expected or requires quick thinking as to how their answer can be delayed or ignored just as long as possible or forever...your question will not only be fudged by the meeting minute recorder...but often greeted with hostility by both board members and audience members operating outside of their supposed ability to legally do so. If a board member simply responds as Spanky did above with a statement that blatantly has no basis in either fact or reality?...don't expect a chance to correct them or get said correction in the record (they're all kind of funny about that).



Spanky said:


> "..So I take offense to the statements that these advisory members don't give a crap about the fishery or the citizens of Michigan.."


Again, a very simple and often effective "re-direct" strategy.
Nobody on here has accused anybody in regards to "not giving a crap about the fishery". I DO believe that you don't give a crap about the citizenry of Michigan if you operate in nothing but a fully transparent and approachable/recordable manner. If the author can get you to believe that the former non-event occured...he sure as heck can convince you that (again) all board members, the DNR itself and those who gatekeep for them are indeed the 'victims' here for being called out on to the carpet in regards to overall transparency and the long corrupted advisory board system itself.

Gotta take a break...


----------



## walranger5

Steelheadfred said:


> I took the survey and voted for option one.
> 
> My suggestion was as follows.
> 
> 
> Reduce Chinook stocking by 50%. Do not plant Kings north of the Muskegon River, natural reproduction is not documented and is significant, our rivers with the biggest King Runs do not have Kings planted in them. Sure the net pens have some strays.
> 
> I also advised an increase in less forage fish based species that offer more Multiple Use - IE Steelhead and Brown Trout, fish that the common man can catch and provide more year round opportunity for everyone. I also mentioned a statewide reduction in Trout limits to two. IE Brown Trout and Steelhead, reduce them to two fish, manage Lake Trout however you want I'm not educated enough to comment.


 Just a guess but the total cut 2 year thing may be an idle threat to force you to chose the lesser of the 4 evils, old trick. I voted to restore the Perch, fit for all common men and especially kids.


----------



## thousandcasts

riverman said:


> IF and I really mean IF the state is sincere about protecting a multi million dollar artificially introduced fishery that MAYBE has a chance for survival, then they need to address it at all angles. You say Spanky that the limits on the lake should be left at five to help reduce the current population and I am fine with that. On the other hand I would presume the cold waters of the Pere Marquette probably is responsible for a huge number of those wild fish, but yet the best spawning gravel the river has to offer is catch and release. It will be interesting to see how serious and organized the state is the next few years. I have a feeling $$$$$ will still be in the driver seat and the "seriousness" will be along for the ride.


You mention the PM. Everyone knows that the PM and a few other rivers kick out the majority of wild salmon. They've done the studies on rivers like the Grand and maybe 5% of the return in a river like that is wild--very insignificant. 

Now, anyone with a basic understanding of salmon behavior knows that the bulk of the salmon migrate to the southern waters during the winter and then migrate back up as summer progresses. 

Right now, you have basically a 50/50 mix of wild v. hatchery fish. When the southern ports are hot, they're picking off St. Joe planted fish as well as PM wild fish...to put it in simple terms. Because of the plants, the harvest of PM wild fish is minimized. 

OK, now you take 100% of the hatchery fish out of the equation. By doing that, you've reduced the over all salmon population by 50% again, using a simple number. At the same time, you leave the limit at five fish. 

Well, at that point, every fish harvested is now a wild fish. So, if 10 fish are harvested now, five might be PM wild and five might be St. Joe hatchery. Down the road, all 10 harvested are PM wild. So now, you've reduced the amount of returning fish by 50%. 

What happens when you reduce the returning fish? You get less fish spawning which in turn reduces the amount of wild fish out in the pool. Meanwhile, the next year, the same five fish limit reduces the reduced pool even more and then less fish return yet again which in turn reduces the pool even more...so on and so forth. When it's all said and done, where there used to 50 fish spawning on the PM, you have five. In turn, that effects the businesses, the recreational anglers, everyone. 

So a two year halt in salmon plants effects the fishery for 10 years. Is there anyone out there that can understand why I would be livid at the idea of completely eliminating the plants yet still keeping a five fish limit? Anyone? 

To extend it further, what happens when those wild fish start going back up the coast and there's very few kings off the southern ports because they stopped the plants? Those guys are gonna turn their attention to what's out there--steelhead. So now you've got more guys boxing up more steelhead than normal and what is that going to effect? The inland fishery. This trickles down to and effects more than one species and one fishery. 

Kzoofisher might think I'm over-reacting and you know what, I probably am. I'm known to do that...I'm not a fake and I tend to blast my thoughts out there for better or worse. However, I'd rather over-react than under-react. I hope option five goes nowhere. I hope the very idea of it dies today. If they'd have come out and said that the consensus was that they felt comfortable with option one or option three, I wouldn't have blinked an eye.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Michigan needs to step up and be at the front of the Great Lakes fisheries. Look at what rivers achieve the best production and begin cuts there, do it now to see if this can work. I would rather catch wild fish. I know all about the numbers of this and that, but if ALL the fish are gone there will be NO numbers. The waters of the Great Lakes have been cleaned up considerably from the days of 90 yard tandem trailers hauling off dead Alewives, what was the carrying capacity then compared to now, certainly it was greater then. There are ways to increase the capacity, however society in general wants Glacial sterility in the lakes, in reality that is not how things need to be.


----------



## EdB

> Everybody in their right mind knows that what walranger has said is correct.


:coco:

Huh, how is the DNR responsible for sea lampreys, alewives, spiney water fleas, aisan carp and the rest of the long list of invasive species. Those are federal issues, not state issues. The states are left to deal with it. MDNR is trying to stop asian carp from getting in and the Feds are blocking them. Salmon was a way to deal with alewives and the positive economic results far exceed anything going on in the lakes prior to their introduction. 

You have a few good points but your conspiracy theories are extreme, inaccurate and way out of the ballpark.


----------



## swampbuck

Rzr said:


> If the DNR gave a damn about your concerns above (btw, why is 'transparency' and the manner in which 'somebody' ran these meetings not such a big issue for you now?) they would have either taken a position that _supported_ same or very clearly made a statement outlining their own.
> 
> I don't even have to read the meeting minutes to know that neither of those two things happened as the state operates under the same closed door principles that you 'used' to be pissed about several posts ago. Issues aren't the problem here folks. It's having the kahunas to *reform* a corrupt 'advisory' process that is these cherry-picked boards in the first place. If you want to blame the DNR or their love and (only publicly)'hate' bosom buddy non-profit so-called partners...it doesn't matter. _Neither_ party gives a damn as to what goes on in this forum, at their public meetings or if 20,000 of us sign a petition. If you think (or thought) transparency isn't the single biggest issue in everything outdoors related here in Michigan or that ignoring advisory board reform won't _tremendously_ effect your kid's ability to enjoy the same experiences you did moving forward...you're simply mistaken.


This statement is the uncomfortable TRUTH and it extends far beyond both fishing and hunting. There needs to be a reform of the MDNR at the upper levels, And that can only come through legislative reform.



walranger5 said:


> I am not slamming anyone, increasing the alewives not matter how only benefits one stakeholder group, and has zero benefits for health of the lakes and the common good. Trying to ram the salmon down everyone thoats for the 27 years, has resulted in a invasive species nightmare, and you want to argue to increase that? This is not science based, power grab. abuse of the system. pick one. We can only work together on your terms. The DNR is responsible period.


Lot of truth there.


----------



## Spanky

EdB said:


> :coco:
> 
> 
> You have a few good points but your conspiracy theories are extreme, inaccurate and way out of the ballpark.


Ya think? Its possible the whole world ( or those who disagree) are against this guy.:lol:


----------



## samsteel

EdB said:


> You have a few good points but your conspiracy theories are extreme, inaccurate and way out of the ballpark.


Exactly....rzr and walranger are derailing this topic....no wonder you guys have terrible experiences trying to get mdnr to correspond with you....you are irrational....and i am not seeing anything you have done to make our kids future fishery better other than tell us to we should stand up and be as irrational as you are. The mdnr is not the one who brought option 5 to the table and it doesnt even sound like they have acknowledged it...so why bash them about that option. I agree with hutch....i am more questionable of the committee that tried to slide it in there last second and may still be trying to do so without giving the public much notice. Thats where i believe hutch and i are having an issue with the "transparency." 
Maybe Jay will get on here and shed some light on this....if he isnt.accused of being the grassy nole shooter.


----------



## slightofhand

Obviously some of you guys on this thread know more than the rest of us minions...so....who proposed the 100% cut anyway? I am not here to start or spread rumors, but I did hear from a closer source to these discussions that it was the Steelheaders. Could someone from the Steelheaders confirm or deny this? If it was them, then the bigger question would be "Why?"

FWIW, I think the 100% cut was thrown out there (by whomever) to soften the blow of a 30-50% cut, all of which is fine by me. At the end of the day we wont know natural vs hatchery for a couple of years yet until the 100% clip program starts to show some data..


----------



## swampbuck

Jay Wesley said:


> I really do not want to get into the argument of natural vs invasive vs naturalized species in the Great Lakes. We have too many invasive and naturalized fish, plankton, and plants to ever get back to the way it was.
> 
> We are trying to manage for a diverse fishery that is socially, biologically and economically acceptable. Too many alewives is no doubt bad for the ecosystem and bad for native and many other species. Too few is bad for Chinook salmon, the most targeted fish in Lake Michigan. Regardless if its alewife, smelt, sculpin, bloater, herring, all of their populations are going down indicating a changing lake and too many predators.
> 
> Even with alewives gone, lake trout would still have to work through the sea lamprey impediment.
> 
> Better energy and funds should be spent at preventing new invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, so we do not have to spend so much time and money when they do get hear.


This post by Mr. Wesley is outstanding, Exactly what I would like to hear from the Department. 

Think about that.


----------



## Rzr

walranger said:
_Excuse me, but the MDNR is totally responsible for everything that happens in the lake, everything._



EdB said:


> :coco:
> 
> Huh, how is the DNR responsible for sea lampreys, alewives, spiney water fleas, aisan carp and the rest of the long list of invasive species. Those are federal issues, not state issues. The states are left to deal with it. MDNR is trying to stop asian carp from getting in and the Feds are blocking them. Salmon was a way to deal with alewives and the positive economic results far exceed anything going on in the lakes prior to their introduction.
> 
> You have a few good points but your conspiracy theories are extreme, inaccurate and way out of the ballpark.


Lesson#2 on Basic Gatekeeping for the DNR and Any Non-Profit Partner (101):

Take posters like walranger out of context (does anybody else here recognize this?) then nastily discredit any and all who 'dare' agree with him on even the most _basic_ of pretexts.

I would rather that you not agree with any of my 'few good points' Ed...but perhaps rebuke in print what I have offered to date regarding the currently corrupt advisory board system that you don't find factual or for heavens sakes 'conspiracy' related.


----------



## Rzr

Regarding the DNR's suggestion to concentrate on invasives:


swampbuck said:


> This post by Mr. Wesley is outstanding, Exactly what I would like to hear from the Department.
> 
> Think about that.


I like it as well if the FULL cost of doing so is honestly put forward and on an extended annual basis.
The problem that few here are willing to recognize (and I again liken this phenomena to seniors currently expecting full lifetime SS/Medicare/Medicaid benefits without shared sacrifice) is that we're BROKE. 

If anybody believes that the DNR is going to throw out a reality-based number assessing the cost of "what you like to hear" which necessarily cuts their non-profit partners off at the knees to save the lake itself from invasives...well then they really need to join a senior group pushing the "55 over and over and you're golden..." (screw your grandkids) Paul Ryan/Romney no-sacrifice entitlement plan that everybody seems to be on board with.


----------



## Rzr

slightofhand said:


> "...Obviously some of you guys know more than the rest of us minions...so....who proposed the 100% cut anyway? I am not here to start or spread rumors, but I did hear from a closer source to these discussions that it was the Steelheaders. Could someone from the Steelheaders confirm or deny this? If it was them, then the bigger question would be "Why?".


Be prepared to get a few pms requesting that you withdraw your question as us 'minions' as you put it aren't supposed to think all that _deep_ about how these 'mystery' proposals effect the overall commentary process when the voices are counted (see post #65).


----------



## samsteel

Spanky said:


> Its about the big picture. Don't sit there and preach about the fishing heritage for your children, while at the same time worrying about if your guide business will survive a change in policy to preserve that heritage. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the good of others, regardless of whether we like it or not.


Spanky, I am not a guide, I am just a recreational river fisherman who spends a ton of $$ and time fishing the rivers up and down western Michigan. You are exactly right when you say "Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the good of others, regardless of whether we like it or not." I am one of many river fisherman who feels that last second proposed option of 100% cuts, will cause much more sacrifice for the average angler, then the big lake charter guys who are more concerned with making a living. I understand your point; why decrease box limits if the goal is to balance out the predator-prey relationship, but to come up with a proposal as extreme as 100% cuts...well, if you changed the box limit to 3, the big lake guys would still do enough damage to knock back the predator-prey balance, while still leaving a few more of the wild fish to return and keep the river fisheries alive (at least to the point, where anglers will still spend money to travel after them) That's kind of our point though....that 5th option is just to extreme and should not be considered.


----------



## Spanky

thousandcasts said:


> Spanky,
> 
> Nothing personal here, but I AM involved. I'm on the DNR's coldwater committee, so I know FULL well how these boards work. And did the Lake Michigan board make anything about the proposed option five public before they sent it to the DNR? No. So, they did not take it to the citizens or shareholders before they tried to slide it in there. If you look in the regs forum or anything like that, we do bring anything we're talking about in the coldwater committee to the public. That's transparency and guess what, I've got a letter from the head of the fisheries division that states, as a member of the committee, I'm expected to act in a transparent fashion. So yes, transparency IS part of the equation whether you think so or not. Nothing about option five was transparent.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion by actually reading the research, that yes...another reduction would probably be best for the lake. I'm not opposed to that. What I'm opposed to is the "nuclear option" that was put on the table when the other four options are barely reasonable as it is.
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but while you might fish the rivers as well as the big lake, you clearly have a big lake mentality. Which is, as long as you get yours, who cares about the other guys who might rely on the fish that you don't box up? That's very clear if you can't comprehend why it's insane to take out ALL of the hatchery fish and yet, still think you should get a five fish limit out there. No biggie...you can say I don't make sense, I'm gonna say that you don't make sense, but I have nothing personal against Mr. Spanky. I'm not going to sit here and type this or that--it was established years ago that you and I will not see eye to eye on 75% of the stuff that comes out of the Lake Michigan committee, period, no way around that. :lol:
> 
> As for helping the cause--that's what I'm doing. I'm helping make sure that option 5 doesn't make it past the "discussion" stage. With the four already being considered, option 5 is overkill and doesn't make any sense what so ever, IMO.


OK Steve, I'm gonna try and respond to this even simpler . If you want to take salmon out of the ecosystem you do two things. Plant less, or harvest more, or both. if you plant the same and harvest less, the population goes up period. I would hope you would agree with this. If you plant less and harvest less you don't take much out of the population that hasn't already been taken out annually. So by your reasoning, you would be in favor of a 50% reduction of plants, but then want a 40%reduction in harvest( lake only). The net would be 10% reduction in a perfect world. I didn't see your suggestion as to how much to cut the harvest in the inland lakes and rivers. Should it also be 40%? I think you would not agree to that either. I would. I am more of a river angler than a lake angler by choice. I don't have a " mindset" towards any specific type of fishing when it comes to the LMCAC. I try very hard to be neutral and represent my stakeholders. I also try and vote in respect to the overall health of the lake, not special interest. I want that lake to be healthy for all Americans and citizens for many generations to come. That means those who get their water from the lake, their recreation on the lake, or those who fish for sport and commercially on the lake. 

The salmon life cycle is 3-4 years, and most kings are sexually mature at 3, cohos at 2-3 yrs. a 2 year moratorium will not affect 10 yrs of the fishery. Thats fuzzy math. with a 2 year moratorium you may not even notice it until 2 yrs after. That would then last for 2-3 more years. Total cycle 5-6 yrs IMO. Yes its possible it could suck for a few years. Ask the salmon fishers of huron if they would have rather went without for 2-3 yrs or go without possibly forever. I know hindsight is 20/20( another old phrase for Rzr) but to ignore what has happened in the past would be irresponsible for any of our managers.

Steve, I am not taking anything in your post personal. I realize your passion for the fishery, but you are not without agenda yourself. We probably will not agree on everything like you said, but you actually dispelled some of your own argument with the statement about transparency 

And I quote you "That's transparency and guess what, I've got a letter from the head of the fisheries division that states, as a member of the committee, I'm expected to act in a transparent fashion. So yes, transparency IS part of the equation whether you think so or not. Nothing about option five was transparent. "

Those of us on the LMCAC are also expected to do the same. Tell me how many dozen guys you spoke to about fishery issues in 2-3 days preceding this workshop on saturday. Its hard to get the word out about this in just a couple days. It is partly my fault because I couldn't make the meeting on the 10th. I would like to add this from the notice I received.



PROPOSED STOCKING POLICIES AND OPTIONS
The Lake Michigan Committee at their March 19th meeting agreed to move the four
options listed below forward for public comment. Option 1 follows the same stocking
policy implemented in the 1999 and 2006 stocking reductions. That is, a change in
stocking is made and then evaluated after five years. Options 2-4 represent feedback
policies where a stocking change is made, evaluated, and then adjustments (increases or
decreases) may be made more frequently than a 5-year interval. Given the logistics of
hatchery operation, it is anticipated that these adjustments could be enacted only every 2
to 3 years. The proposed stocking options are larger reductions in stocking compared to
1999 and 2006 because prey abundance continues to decline and stakeholders expressed a
low risk tolerance for low alewife abundance. Options 3 and 4 lower the risk of low
alewife abundance by stocking reductions of a mix salmon and trout species (Table 1).
1. Reduce Chinook salmon stocking lake-wide by 50% and evaluate after five
years.
 This option follows our existing policy to make a change, evaluate the results
over five years, and come back to the public for future changes.
2. Reduce Chinook salmon stocking lake-wide by 50% and make additional
reductions to stocking if weight of age-3 Chinook salmon is below 7 kg (15.4
lbs) or increase stocking if weight of age-3 Chinook salmon is above 8 kg
(17.6 lbs).
 This option uses Chinook salmon weight as an indicator of forage abundance
and fish health to determine when stocking changes are necessary. Agencies
would make changes more often than every five years (i.e., changes could
occur after 2, 3 or 4 years).
3. Reduce Chinook salmon stocking lake-wide by 30% and a mix of coho
salmon, steelhead, and brown trout by 10% and make additional reductions
to stocking if weight of age- 3 Chinook salmon is below 7 kg (15.4 lbs) or
increase stocking if weight of age-3 Chinook salmon is above 8 kg (17.6 lbs).
 This option uses Chinook salmon weight as an indicator of forage abundance
and fish health to determine when stocking changes are necessary. Agencies
would make changes more often than every five years (i.e., changes could
occur after 2, 3 or 4 years).
 Reducing the stocking of other species reduces predation and maintains higher
Chinook abundance while protecting lake trout for rehabilitation purposes.
4. Reduce Chinook salmon stocking lake-wide by 30% and a mix of other
salmon and trout species (coho salmon, steelhead, brown trout, and lake
trout) by 10% and make additional reductions to stocking if weight of age-3
Chinook salmon is below 7 kg (15.4 lbs) or increase stocking if weight of age-
3 Chinook salmon is above 8 kg (17.6 lbs).
 This option uses Chinook salmon weight as an indicator of forage abundance
and fish health to determine when stocking changes are necessary. Agencies
would make changes more often than every five years (i.e., changes could
occur after 2, 3 or 4 years).
 Reducing the stocking of other species reduces predation and maintains higher
Chinook abundance.


You can provide written comments at:
Fisheries Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
621 N. 10th Street
Plainwell, MI 49080
Or
[email protected]
There will also be a survey available on the Michigan Sea Grant web site by April 14th at:
http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/fisheries/stocking/index.html
Comments will be received until May 15th, 2012.


----------



## Rzr

samsteel said:


> "..That's kind of our point though....that 5th option is just to extreme and should not be considered.."


It's already being 'considered' by those of us forced to comment ad nauseum on it both here and soon (or presently?) in the DNR commentary process.

As intended, it saps energy and focus from the real questions at hand and is presently accomplishing exactly what it was intended to do. The mystery group at this meeting proposing what you are concerned with are 'big boys' who are supposed to craft well thought out proposals which don't muck up the process.

Believe me, when the public simply allows these non-profit partners 'passes' as if they were all rank amateurs at professionally analyzing the critically important courses of action which they propose....it only encourages the mischief that I have layed out in post #65 whether you believe a word of it or not (bad proposals make bad commentary make bad legislation...period).


----------



## Rzr

thousandcasts said:


> Apathy is a big part of it. I'd be rich if I had a dime for everytime we're talking about an issue in the river forums and someone says, "I don't know why everyone be arguin' we should all jist shut up and go fishin'"
> 
> Too many people shut up or don't show up when sometimes it's as simple as just filling out a survey. *You could add a webcam with strippers and chocolate cake and it's still not going to fix the apathy problem. That's the sad fact. The majority of people are content to let someone else do something...and when they don't, they blame the DNR instead of looking in the mirror*.


It's a little more complicated than that as we have several generations of potential leaders (some that aren't even adults yet ) who have either given up on being arrogantly attacked at the advisory level or who have no present method of becomming involved for this
same reason or a complete lack of information as to how the system works/what to expect. If you allow both the young and old to view both public and (cough) 'private' meetings then offer intelligent commentary given the experience then the word 'apathy' can be discussed. 
If we allow half the story to be told and then bunch everybody together because many simply won't accept a bogus management system or arrogant arses in their face after asking legitimate questions...you really can't blame anybody for anything besides not throwing the whole bunch out years ago.


----------



## thousandcasts

Rzr said:


> That's what I don't like about how both the DNR and their 'partners' are allowed to present proposals. They give them a year or better most often to come up with "commentary grade" material. I've rarely witnessed a dollar amount ever broken out or a detailed position statement presented on either side gleaned from all this time spent together picking each other's brains.
> 
> This is why many of you don't like me comparing what these advisory councils are tasked with accomplishing here to a basic business model.
> 
> If any of us came back to our boss or a corporate board with proposals outlined as laughingly undetailed as they are able to get away with (given the time spent)...both we AND the vendor (in this case partner non-profit) would be thrown out on our **** the _second_ we claimed that onwnership (in this case the general public) could intelligently comment or make informed decisions using any of it.
> 
> If the entire thing is as simple as these proposals indicate then I say farm the whole process out and see it we can save even more money by having mangement who put the pressure on stakeholders even more to present reasonable/workable solutions sans the arrogance..


I'm confused now. Who has the arrogance? Trust me, I've encountered some arrogant parties in the world of fisheries, but none of them were DNR employees. The ones I talk to most of the time have been nothing but down to earth and very open about answering any question I have.


----------



## swampbuck

Funding is an interesting topic in both wildlife and fisheries. In the case of fisheries it comes from Fishing license sales and Dingell-Johnson, Federal aid in sportfish restoration act. Dingell-Johnson requires license revenue stays in the Dept to recieve the federal aid. Now trying to get an accounting of how/where the money goes:lol::lol::lol:, good luck.

It would be interesting to find out exactly how the Sportfish restoration act addresses using federal funds to preserve and/or increase invasive and/or non-indigenous species. 

The wildlife division has used some creative tactics with funding in the past, Such as Using restricted DRIP funds for kirtland warbler habitat, claiming jack pine plantations are deer habitat.:lol: They got caught on that one. Hopefully Fisheries is a little more accountable with their expenditures.


----------



## Rzr

thousandcasts said:


> Apathy is a big part of it. I'd be rich if I had a dime for everytime we're talking about an issue in the river forums and someone says, "I don't know why everyone be arguin' we should all jist shut up and go fishin'"
> 
> Too many people shut up or don't show up when sometimes it's as simple as just filling out a survey. You could add a webcam with strippers and chocolate cake and it's still not going to fix the apathy problem. That's the sad fact. The majority of people are content to let someone else do something...and when they don't, they blame the DNR instead of looking in the mirror.





Rzr said:


> It's a little more complicated than that as we have several generations of potential leaders (some that aren't even adults yet ) who have either given up on being arrogantly attacked at the advisory level or who have no present method of becomming involved for this
> same reason or a complete lack of information as to how the system works/what to expect. If you allow both the young and old to view both public and (cough) 'private' meetings then offer intelligent commentary given the experience then the word 'apathy' can be discussed.
> *If we allow half the story to be told and then bunch everybody together because many simply won't accept a bogus management system or arrogant arses in their face after asking legitimate questions...you really can't blame anybody for anything besides not throwing the whole bunch out years ago*.





thousandcasts said:


> I'm confused now. Who has the arrogance? Trust me, I've encountered some arrogant parties in the world of fisheries, but none of them were DNR employees. The ones I talk to most of the time have been nothing but down to earth and very open about answering any question I have.


I separated the two out in general...yet in my personal experience with at least one board it was at many times hard to tell the difference between bogus even corrupt management and the arrogant stakeholders.

I find it very interesting that many constantly defend DNR employees...yet 110% completely *ignore* what obvious reforms are needed to allow those same individuals to simply do their jobs and 'handle' the arrogant lobbyists of which even you are evidently aware. When DNR employees are allowed to treat and serve the public as their employer vs these lobbyists and more importantly perpetually 'tenured' administration that even political cycles can't seem to reform there are plenty of good people to do the work needed. If we sit on the sidelines and allow both above (now largely corrupt) parties to dominate the agency then good people will inevitably get lumped in with the bad (remember, we're the one evidently adverse to cleaning house here and assisting those who you defend).


----------



## Rzr

swampbuck said:


> Funding is an interesting topic in both wildlife and fisheries. In the case of fisheries it comes from Fishing license sales and Dingell-Johnson, Federal aid in sportfish restoration act. Dingell-Johnson requires license revenue stays in the Dept to recieve the federal aid. *Now trying to get an accounting of how/where the money goes:lol::lol::lol:, good luck*.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out exactly how the Sportfish restoration act addresses using federal funds to preserve and/or increase invasive and/or non-indigenous species.
> 
> The wildlife division has used some creative tactics with funding in the past, Such as Using restricted DRIP funds for kirtland warbler habitat, claiming jack pine plantations are deer habitat.:lol: *They got caught on that one*. Hopefully Fisheries is a little more accountable with their expenditures.


Great post and I agree.
Proposals 1 through 4 (or even 5) are basically useless without at the very least least broad dollar figures attached to each and a proud sponsor standing individually by each one to boot. Jay characterized *the entire problem *a few posts backas* not *a money issue but predator/prey *and* invasive species related even going so far as to say the following:

*"...This is not a money issue. This is simply a predator and prey balance issue...."*

*"...Better energy and funds should be spent at preventing new invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, so we do not have to spend so much time and money when they do get here..."*

I know that Jay can't control how the advisory/commentary system is set up, what a joke these "took us a whole year!" insanely broad/anonymous proposals truly are or how their content is purposely framed to corrupt the commentary process.

But for heaven's sake people _read_ the two statements above in the context of what we are fiscally faced with presently and please tell me that there is _not_ something in conflict here! 
Does the above reflect what you are being asked to comment on?
Or has every party privy to this process been 'saving' their dollars vs invasives vs priorities (merely minor) public statements/proposals for May 15th? (which I love...they get a year...we get a month with meetings _still in progress_...and nobody complains).

The advisory system is broke folks. It has been a corrupt sham for literally decades now and if we all don't fix it before we leave here our kids are going to know exactly why the resource fell apart on our watch.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> Well, there's this one little detail about walleye at the moment. That is, they plant tons of them into Lake Michigan tribs and drowned lake mouths and then...they vanish. When they do return and are most available for the common angler, THE SEASON CLOSES. And because of the lack of natural reproduction that you mentioned and is common knowledge, then those walleye should be a put n take fishery, correct? So, when I'm fishing the Grand or Muskegon below Croton on March 20th, what logical reason can you give me that I'm forced to release a fish that my license dollars helped stock?
> 
> Meanwhile, how many $$$ are heading down to the Maumee because you can't keep a put n take walleye after March 15th?
> 
> So, you'll forgive me if I'm not in support of planting more fish that basically equates to no significant fishery when they're actually in season.


Well to start with by plan, Lake Michigan and tribs. is allowed only 200,000 pounds of Walleye, when they do plant they're just feeding the alewives, and others. 27 years of stocking thier way isn't working, I'm out of line, by wanting to try something different? Not hardly. We need more catch and release, all the Walleye guys I know don't have problem with a slot limit, the DNR does, even tho it's proven to help protect fish populations. If you don't want to fish walleyes don't, lots of people do, but they go where there's lots of them.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> As for no interest in salmon, my planner says otherwise. I offer catfish and stream trout trips during the "off season" and while I get a few trips, it doesn't have the interest by and large. Meanwhile, it's April and my September planner is filling up with...what? Salmon trips. So, I scrimp, save, offer myself as a male escort for large women in a craigslist ad and bide my time until salmon season. Since the male escort thing doesn't ever pay much...well nothing actually, here's hoping for at least a good amount of rod orders cuz catfish and walleye sure aren't going to pay the bills.


 Since salmon are the dominate fish by plan, then people will be fishing for them. In Indiana Perch number 1 sought after, Illinois only 6% use big lake due to high equipment costs. People go where they can catch fish, since Perch and Walleye are kept low, people go elsewhere, or in Michigans case, quit fishing all together. you don't want to fish walleyes don't, but don't tell me I have to fish for leftovers so you can limit on salmon. Saving the lake comes first, and the results of the salmon plan, is the ecosystem is about to crash. One fish worth that? Not one bit!


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> It sounds like simply defending the re-establishment of perch or walleye in Lake Michigan while at the same time acting halfway accomodating to other species/views will get you attacked in a hurry on here for sure. I can't imagine attending an advisory board meeting and receiving the abuse shown in these last few posts for simply standing up for what is obviously driving the economy on the west side for some freakishly unnatural reason. I can remember my Mom telling of perch so thick in the harbor (of course she didn't pay somebody to find them and was fishing off a yacht club dock) that her minnow literally parted the school as it sank to the bottom (she hated it).
> 
> This all sounds eerily familiar to defending multi-use trails here in Michigan vs 'me-only' single track. Some of us strive to create a resource that *all* can enjoy. Others loudly and nastily attack advisory board attendees for simply defending the multi-use 'can't we all work together' concept. I would have never have guessed but for the treatment of walranger here on these last few posts that this was happening out on the waters of our lakes as well.
> 
> Small wonder that few on here consider the cherry picked advisory board member concept anything but 'ideal' in helping push all-inclusive options out of the way.


Well that's the point when the lake was full of Perch, everybody went fishing for them. Just like any fishin, you go to a spot a couple times, if you don't catch nothing, you start looking for a new spot. I don't blame people for not wanting to put up with abuse, of some blowhard trying to brow beat them. Before the alewives lake Michigan was a very productive lake (biology wise) read the history, very interesting stuff. Destroying the great lakes because lake trout don't fight hard enough, is unacceptable. With that 2005 Perch spawn (alewives low) when they hit 8 inchs, the 2 bait shops we have left saw a big boost in business, not seen for 20 years, lake was full of guys, that was empty for 20 years, I was there. now they fished them back down. If fish aren't there to catch, don't matter what kind, people wont go there.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> I think it's more of the economic argument of, in the case of this issue, salmon v. walleye/perch. The supporter of the latter would argue that a perch fishery would bring in more $$$ and users than a salmon fishery...which is simply not true.
> 
> The walleye are there...200K get planted into White Lake alone. Pretty much the same amount in Muskegon Lake. So, it's not like the DNR is disregarding that species.
> 
> Perch are dependant on the bottom of the food chain, much like ales. If there's no bottom of the food chain, then what are you gonna do...plant more perch? If every last Alewife vanishes, what would be the reason for that? It'd be the fact that the invasive mussels wiped out the bottom of the food chain. Guess what...the perch aren't going to automatically bounce back because there's no ales. If there's no bottom of the food chain, then what are the young perch going to feed on? There's a reason why Ales are having good and bad years and it's the same reason perch have good and bad years. It starts at the very bottom of the chain and that's being sucked away by the mussels. That's not the DNR's fault.
> 
> It's not about multi use. This issue right here, right now is about protecting the money maker. The money makers in lake Michigan are salmon, followed by steelhead. They're not native, but they have the status of "preferred species." That's simply how it is. But in no meeting that I've ever attended nor in any conversation I've had with DNR officials have I ever heard them say, "&^%$ the native species!" Not once, not even anything remotely close to that. But what are they supposed to do when a native species and a forage fish that feeds the money maker are both dependent on the very thing that the mussels are sucking away to nothing?
> 
> They're not ignoring the natives over the preferred species, but dude can argue for perch all day long and doesn't change the fact that everything involving the bottom of the food chain is in Mother Nature's hands, not the DNR.


Why don't you tell him the truth why you guys and the DNR don't want Perch or Walleye in high numbers? The little tag line after the 4 proposals, reduce other species predation means more Chinook, think that means just lakers or steelies? Strange in Lake Huron, the mussels have yet to wipe out any other fish "practically overnight" just alewives. As far as what's the safe level for alewives. it appears, the level in Huron, as all native fish are rebounding, and according to the MDNR are fighting back, "Native Strike Back syndrome, they called it. So Huron is being restored like we're all supposed to be trying to do, but the salmon can't handle it. So we're all supposed to cry. Without salmon the steelhead are getting bigger they say, browns get huge eating gobies, but you gotta have salmon, that needs a special diet to survive, really!


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> It seems as if you are willing to spend the time needed to make your argument without attacking others while doing so. I would like to hear what the online participants had to say at Saturday's meeting in Benton Harbor. Does anybody know where these comments can be found?


I'd like to know if anyone proposed stocking alewives like did for Huron? The DNR said no, but push ain't come to shove yet. There's no doubt in my mind, it's been discussed behind closed doors.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> That reminds me of something, Diz...someone brought up declining license sales earlier.
> 
> It's not that people have stopped fishing, it's because the people in that X to Y age group who used to buy licenses NO LONGER LIVE HERE.
> 
> When you've got people packing up and moving to greener pastures, they're not even here to fish let alone buy a fishing license. They didn't quit fishing, they're probably fishing right now out in Iowa or wherever they moved to.
> 
> That blame would be placed on the auto industry, not the DNR.


 Well if they left, thier clones look pretty good, I've talked to people from Holland to the Soo, they want the Perch, many fond memories, want to take thier grand kids, or kids, of whatever kid. Kids want to go fishin where they can catch some. Your really reaching with this one.


----------



## walranger5

slightofhand said:


> The excess money not being used to rear chinook smolts in hatcheries should be used to raise more steelhead.


 Exactly, they keep thier hatcery jobs, you guys got fish to catch, we can restore the native fish.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> Apathy is a big part of it. I'd be rich if I had a dime for everytime we're talking about an issue in the river forums and someone says, "I don't know why everyone be arguin' we should all jist shut up and go fishin'"
> 
> Too many people shut up or don't show up when sometimes it's as simple as just filling out a survey. You could add a webcam with strippers and chocolate cake and it's still not going to fix the apathy problem. That's the sad fact. The majority of people are content to let someone else do something...and when they don't, they blame the DNR instead of looking in the mirror.


 Perhaps it's because, if people want to help, they have to help the salmon program. Anything thing that threatens the salmon is rejected. Just because people dont care about salmon, doesn't mean they don't want to help, they just don't want to help the salmon.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> It's a little more complicated than that as we have several generations of potential leaders (some that aren't even adults yet ) who have either given up on being arrogantly attacked at the advisory level or who have no present method of becomming involved for this
> same reason or a complete lack of information as to how the system works/what to expect. If you allow both the young and old to view both public and (cough) 'private' meetings then offer intelligent commentary given the experience then the word 'apathy' can be discussed.
> If we allow half the story to be told and then bunch everybody together because many simply won't accept a bogus management system or arrogant arses in their face after asking legitimate questions...you really can't blame anybody for anything besides not throwing the whole bunch out years ago.


 Amen!


----------



## slightofhand

walranger5 said:


> Well if they left, thier clones look pretty good, I've talked to people from Holland to the Soo, they want the Perch, many fond memories, want to take thier grand kids, or kids, of whatever kid. Kids want to go fishin where they can catch some. Your really reaching with this one.


Perch do not pay the bills....not even close. How many perch fishing tackle companies are based in the Great Lakes? How many salmon related tackle companies are based in the Great Lakes? How about fuel sales related to a perch charter vs salmon charter? I get on average about 3 people a year who call up and want to perch fish, the other 200 calls are people wanting to go salmon fishing. I can appreciate your novel reminiscence of days long ago, but there is no going back to the way it was. Its a completely different lake now. Ask the lowly lake trout...they throw millions of those things in the lake every year, and every single trout we catch is fin clipped. Zero natural reproduction. Unless I am missing something, why dont the lake trout reproduce anymore? They were the "native" species here. Are the salmon somehow not allowing them to spawn successfully? Are the salmon somehow not allowing walleye to spawn successfully? Dont get your points....at all..


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> Great post and I agree.
> Proposals 1 through 4 (or even 5) are basically useless without at the very least least broad dollar figures attached to each and a proud sponsor standing individually by each one to boot. Jay characterized *the entire problem *a few posts backas* not *a money issue but predator/prey *and* invasive species related even going so far as to say the following:
> 
> *"...This is not a money issue. This is simply a predator and prey balance issue...."*
> 
> *"...Better energy and funds should be spent at preventing new invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, so we do not have to spend so much time and money when they do get here..."*
> 
> I know that Jay can't control how the advisory/commentary system is set up, what a joke these "took us a whole year!" insanely broad/anonymous proposals truly are or how their content is purposely framed to corrupt the commentary process.
> 
> But for heaven's sake people _read_ the two statements above in the context of what we are fiscally faced with presently and please tell me that there is _not_ something in conflict here!
> Does the above reflect what you are being asked to comment on?
> Or has every party privy to this process been 'saving' their dollars vs invasives vs priorities (merely minor) public statements/proposals for May 15th? (which I love...they get a year...we get a month with meetings _still in progress_...and nobody complains).
> 
> The advisory system is broke folks. It has been a corrupt sham for literally decades now and if we all don't fix it before we leave here our kids are going to know exactly why the resource fell apart on our watch.


OK! Just for fun, lets say you pick whatever cuts, we do nothing else but try to "balance prey" we wait 5-10 yers to see what happens. If the alewives crash because of the "mussels" or whatever. What's plan B! If the asian Carp keep doubling we'll have 10 times as many to deal with. Increases in Gobies mussels pick one, then what? Plant alewives? How is ignoring the other invasives proactive!


----------



## ausable_steelhead

slightofhand said:


> Ask the lowly lake trout...they throw millions of those things in the lake every year, and every single trout we catch is fin clipped. Zero natural reproduction. Unless I am missing something, why dont the lake trout reproduce anymore? They were the "native" species here. Are the salmon somehow not allowing them to spawn successfully? Are the salmon somehow not allowing walleye to spawn successfully? Dont get your points....at all..


Lakers in Lk Mich have a Thiamine deficiency, from eating alewives, that curbs natural repo. The alewife population is also a big hit on perch and walleye recruitment.

Lake Huron's perch are coming back, and the walleyes have exploded, because of the lack of alewife predation on fry. The DNR hasn't stocked Saginaw Bay in atleast 6 years. The lack of ale's in their diet has also caused significant reproduction of lake trout in Lake Huron.


----------



## walranger5

slightofhand said:


> Perch do not pay the bills....not even close. How many perch fishing tackle companies are based in the Great Lakes? How many salmon related tackle companies are based in the Great Lakes? How about fuel sales related to a perch charter vs salmon charter? I get on average about 3 people a year who call up and want to perch fish, the other 200 calls are people wanting to go salmon fishing. I can appreciate your novel reminiscence of days long ago, but there is no going back to the way it was. Its a completely different lake now. Ask the lowly lake trout...they throw millions of those things in the lake every year, and every single trout we catch is fin clipped. Zero natural reproduction. Unless I am missing something, why dont the lake trout reproduce anymore? They were the "native" species here. Are the salmon somehow not allowing them to spawn successfully? Are the salmon somehow not allowing walleye to spawn successfully? Dont get your points....at all..


 Perch don't pay the bills, because we are not allowed to have Perch in numbers that would atract a crowd. Salmon aren't paying the bills either,DNR"S broke crying for money and the lakes in an invasive species crises. One study over a 10 year period, alewives wiped out nearly 100% of the Lake Trout spawn, On the Wisconsin side, they moved the laker stocking away from alewife spawning grounds. In Lake Huron, Lake Trout spawning not seen in 40 years, after alewives gone, all documented stuff. See a pattern here? If salmon is all you got, that's what people will fish for in that area, but don't try to say people don't want Perch, people want to catch fish, when they go fishing, just like you. The lake has to sacrifice, so you can catch your fish.


----------



## walranger5

ausable_steelhead said:


> Lakers in Lk Mich have a Thiamine deficiency, from eating alewives, that curbs natural repo. The alewife population is also a big hit on perch and walleye recruitment.
> 
> Lake Huron's perch are coming back, and the walleyes have exploded, because of the lack of alewife predation on fry. The DNR hasn't stocked Saginaw Bay in atleast 6 years. The lack of ale's in their diet has also caused significant reproduction of lake trout in Lake Huron.


 Thanks, your right on.


----------



## walranger5

swampbuck said:


> Funding is an interesting topic in both wildlife and fisheries. In the case of fisheries it comes from Fishing license sales and Dingell-Johnson, Federal aid in sportfish restoration act. Dingell-Johnson requires license revenue stays in the Dept to recieve the federal aid. Now trying to get an accounting of how/where the money goes:lol::lol::lol:, good luck.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out exactly how the Sportfish restoration act addresses using federal funds to preserve and/or increase invasive and/or non-indigenous species.
> 
> The wildlife division has used some creative tactics with funding in the past, Such as Using restricted DRIP funds for kirtland warbler habitat, claiming jack pine plantations are deer habitat.:lol: They got caught on that one. Hopefully Fisheries is a little more accountable with their expenditures.


 The DNR tacked an all-species fishing license on the kid hunting license, since kids don't need a fishing license this was not need, but there has to be a reason. My understanding. is this probably makes technically legal, to use those funds for the salmon/trout. I would also point out there's millions in Dindle Johnson, (tackle tax money) for NATIVE fish restoration, money we already paid. Might as well be millions of jelly beans, without a permit.


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> See a pattern here?


 Yup. You just posted 13 of the last 15 posts, all preaching how wonderful perch are, how they will be the savior to the lakes, and that this giant perch fishery will attract people from all over the country with fists full of money, anxious to spend $1.99 on some hooks and about $4 on some wigglers or minnows to fish for the weekend. Of course, as usual, there is nothing to back any of that up. 

The other pattern I have noticed is ever since you spiraled this thread from the original discussion to the perch messiah, a few of the key participants seem to have dropped out and you have overwhelmingly flooded the board. That is a shame, too, because this thread was going quite well. It had some great information and sharing of ideas, until it became a rip on the DNR festival, followed up with far reaching dreams and unsupported theories.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> That's what I don't like about how both the DNR and their 'partners' are allowed to present proposals. They give them a year or better most often to come up with "commentary grade" material. I've rarely witnessed a dollar amount ever broken out or a detailed position statement presented on either side gleaned from all this time spent together picking each other's brains.
> 
> This is why many of you don't like me comparing what these advisory councils are tasked with accomplishing here to a basic business model.
> 
> If any of us came back to our boss or a corporate board with proposals outlined as laughingly undetailed as they are able to get away with (given the time spent)...both we AND the vendor (in this case partner non-profit) would be thrown out on our **** the _second_ we claimed that onwnership (in this case the general public) could intelligently comment or make informed decisions using any of it.
> 
> If the entire thing is as simple as these proposals indicate then I say farm the whole process out and see it we can save even more money by having mangement who put the pressure on stakeholders even more to present reasonable/workable solutions sans the arrogance..


Your alright Rzr, I consider a biologist like an engineer in a factory, you tell me what needs to happen, I make it happen in the most cost effective way without sacrificing quality for the customer. Many meetings they want suggestions, then at the end tell you what the plan is, they already decided. I got out of management because of back stabbing, and BS, couple thousand guys lost thier jobs at one place. They say all the popular buzz words, but at the end of the day it's put it on the truck, don't worry about the customer! When they fixed the Quality at Ford, the dealers complained they wern't getting any warranty work, losing money? They lost a lot of customers to the Japenese because of quality, can't add 2+2 I guess. Salmon are worth billions is getting old, people are tired of it. The press is full of, the invasive species are out of control, the results of the DNR "plan" is all negative, but that's the plan!


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> Yup. You just posted 13 of the last 15 posts, all preaching how wonderful perch are, how they will be the savior to the lakes, and that this giant perch fishery will attract people from all over the country with fists full of money, anxious to spend $1.99 on some hooks and about $4 on some wigglers or minnows to fish for the weekend. Of course, as usual, there is nothing to back any of that up.
> 
> The other pattern I have noticed is ever since you spiraled this thread from the original discussion to the perch messiah, a few of the key participants seem to have dropped out and you have overwhelmingly flooded the board. That is a shame, too, because this thread was going quite well. It had some great information and sharing of ideas, until it became a rip on the DNR festival, followed up with far reaching dreams and unsupported theories.


I'm sensing some negative vibes here? I'm sorry, I responded to the posts, I thought this was a chat room? We are facing a serious problem here, I prefer to look at the whole picture, you only see salmon. We've several biologists, and studies that say we can control the asian Carp, zebra mussels, most any invasive species with predators. The key is "abundant levels" the fact that none of the predators is a salmon or trout is not my fault, that's nature. Stevie Wonder can see the salmon, are no good for the billions and trillions of other invasives, change in efforts is clearly called for. If a healthy Perch/walleye population is not a threat to salmon, then whats the problem? Real biologists say a healthy diverse native fishery is more resistant to invasive species. We clearly don't have that now. So what's your plan B if the balance thing does not work? Move to alaska so you can fish salmon?


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> Yup. You just posted 13 of the last 15 posts, all preaching how wonderful perch are, how they will be the savior to the lakes, and that this giant perch fishery will attract people from all over the country with fists full of money, anxious to spend $1.99 on some hooks and about $4 on some wigglers or minnows to fish for the weekend. Of course, as usual, there is nothing to back any of that up.
> 
> The other pattern I have noticed is ever since you spiraled this thread from the original discussion to the perch messiah, a few of the key participants seem to have dropped out and you have overwhelmingly flooded the board. That is a shame, too, because this thread was going quite well. It had some great information and sharing of ideas, until it became a rip on the DNR festival, followed up with far reaching dreams and unsupported theories.


 I have given you several facts and studies. The basic principles of The Saginaw Bay recovery Plan MDNR and Biotic- resistance studies is all that's required, if you chose to ignore them, that's your fault not mine. If you want go back to 1925, predator prey studies, start with Lotka-Voterra and work your way up from there. Or you could just tell these people the truth why you don't like Perch?


----------



## swampbuck

walranger5 said:


> I'd like to know if anyone proposed stocking alewives like did for Huron? The DNR said no, but push ain't come to shove yet. There's no doubt in my mind, it's been discussed behind closed doors.


This may seem like a preposterous idea.....But then again, Throughout the 90's the MDNR was transplanting rainbow smelt in inland lake's. They are just as invasive and damaging to native species, if not worse. Although certainly they would not do so with alewives. It would be impossible to plant enough to even be noticeable in the great lakes.

I do however wish that when they were netting those smelt out of Higgins lake, They would have got them all.


----------



## Rzr

Rzr said:


> Great post and I agree.
> Proposals 1 through 4 (or even 5) are basically useless without at the very least least broad dollar figures attached to each and a proud sponsor standing individually by each one to boot. Jay characterized *the entire problem *a few posts backas* not *a money issue but predator/prey *and* invasive species related even going so far as to say the following:
> 
> *"...This is not a money issue. This is simply a predator and prey balance issue...."*
> 
> *"...Better energy and funds should be spent at preventing new invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, so we do not have to spend so much time and money when they do get here..."*
> 
> I know that Jay can't control how the advisory/commentary system is set up, what a joke these "took us a whole year!" insanely broad/anonymous proposals truly are or how their content is purposely framed to corrupt the commentary process.
> 
> But for heaven's sake people _read_ the two statements above in the context of what we are fiscally faced with presently and please tell me that there is _not_ something in conflict here!
> Does the above reflect what you are being asked to comment on?
> Or has every party privy to this process been 'saving' their dollars vs invasives vs priorities (merely minor) public statements/proposals for May 15th? (which I love...they get a year...we get a month with meetings _still in progress_...and nobody complains).
> 
> The advisory system is broke folks. It has been a corrupt sham for literally decades now and if we all don't fix it before we leave here our kids are going to know exactly why the resource fell apart on our watch.





walranger5 said:


> OK! Just for fun, lets say you pick whatever cuts, we do nothing else but try to "balance prey" we wait 5-10 yers to see what happens. If the alewives crash because of the "mussels" or whatever. What's plan B! If the asian Carp keep doubling we'll have 10 times as many to deal with. Increases in Gobies mussels pick one, then what? Plant alewives? How is ignoring the other invasives proactive!


I left the question open as to just what was wrong with both Jay's assessment, the "blue ribbon panel's", how neither jived with the other and how the above starkly illustrates just why the entire closed door advisory systen is indeed broke.

I think that you are shooting the messenger for proposals that may not be currently under consideration or purposely not shown the light of day such as your own. This is not a proposal issue at heart...it is a 'wake up and smell the coffee' plea from our kids to quit arguing what they have slyly pigeon-holed us all in to.


----------



## wartfroggy

diztortion said:


> Out of curiosity, after a reduction in stocking efforts are achieved, where would the excess money to used there after?


 It would sure be nice to see some of that money go towards stream and habitat improvement. We have a few systems that already have pretty good natural reproduction. If we could improve on that, for salmon and trout alike, hopefully we could reduce plants some more and slowly work towards more of a self sustaining fishery. Of course, there will probably always be planting necessary, but I would really like to see our dependence on it less. Increased natural reproduction would be not just a financial benefit, but also get us on the right track to increased genetic diversity by removing/limiting the continuous bottle-necks created by harvesting a limited number of fish for eggs, at the same weirs every year.


----------



## Rzr

wartfroggy said:


> "..the other pattern I have noticed is ever since you spiraled this thread from the original discussion to the perch messiah, a few of the key participants seem to have dropped out and you have overwhelmingly flooded the board. That is a shame, too, because this thread was going quite well. It had some great information and *sharing of ideas*, until it became a rip on the DNR festival, followed up with far reaching dreams and unsupported theories.."


If there's anybody out there suddenly 'scared away' by posters who dare question the DNR proposal system, any single poster's commentary or the topic thread itself I'm guessing that they _probably_ don't harbor a strong opinion about a _lot_ of things resource-related in the first place. Either that or they're a non-profit member/ state employee who have been told to stay out of the conversation in the first place.

This is the liberal mindset.

Attempt to shut down or loudly complain about all simple conversation because poor "Joey" only wants to "share ideas" as opposed to simply _defending_ his statements intellectually or using that same intellect to set somebody straight with facts of his own.

"Joey" shouldn't have to work that hard...which is why the public receives Lake MI advisory proposals that lack any detail or even individual ownership in terms of the advisory commentary process as well.


----------



## Rzr

wartfroggy said:


> "It would sure be nice to see some of that money go towards stream and habitat improvement.."


If money is never mentioned in the proposals and Jay says that money is not the issue...please tell me where you expect to see money for "stream habitat" publicly brought forward any time soon so that we may all comment on your wish?

They probably (I hope) discussed "stream habitat" behind those closed doors...yet you can obviously only dream as to whether they did or not as you have absolutely no record of _what_ they talked about/how much everything costs *and never will* given the current system.


----------



## jpmarko

Man, are the moderators able to clean up this thread a little? It had a lot of good info in it about the current situation regarding salmon stockings and prey abundance in the big lake, but now you have to sift through a lot of junk that's way off topic to find a relevant post. I think that those people who want to discuss other issues should start their own thread altogether. This thread is way off topic.

Mods, can you possibly clean this thread up to get it back on track?


----------



## legal limit

Maybe i'm missing something here, but if there is even a question about a shortage of alwieves down the road, I would stop plants right now. I am a lake huron fisherman and you guys do not want to see what happens when the Lake crashes. I hope they get it figured out over there and everything turns out fine. I enjoy my few trips to your side of the Lake and hope the dnr can find a median with everyone.


----------



## Rzr

jpmarko said:


> Man, are the moderators able to clean up this thread a little? *It had a lot of good info in it about the current situation regarding salmon stockings and prey abundance in the big lake,* but now you have to sift through a lot of junk that's way off topic to find a relevant post. I think that those people who want to discuss other issues should start their own thread altogether. This thread is way off topic.
> 
> Mods, can you possibly clean this thread up to get it back on track?


The thread topic concerns the meeting and what indeed happens at same for those who are interested.

If you'd like to start a topic concerning strictly "salmon stocking and prey abundance"...I suggest that you start your own instead of attempting to erase the truth as to what indeed happens at these meetings or what DID happen at this one in particular.

Somehow, I'm able to sort through posts just fine if I want to learn something. I can't remember ever asking a mod to delete somebody's post just because I didn't agree with them...but then again...there's a lot of information in this thread in regards to the proposal process that many would just as soon see deleted.


----------



## ZingKing

Just a question, all involved. I would like to know what type of backround, degree or what makes you a sound expert on the lake Michigan fishery? Beside reading what is on the net (which is 100% true sorry gonna puke now) what qualifies you or us to make decisions on the fishery.We all have thoughts and what we think should be done, but 90% percent of this is personal based. Please keep your input coming to those who are involved in the final decisions.
Peresonaly saw the collapse in lake Huron of that fishery and what it did to the citys involved. Stores closed people out of work and entire towns shut down. I am not in agreement with the states proposals but would much rather see a fishery that is sustainable then a over all collapse. I have caught my fair share of salmon, walleye and other fish. I would rather sacrifice today to make sure or children can have the same great expericences that I have had.


----------



## jpmarko

Rzr said:


> The thread topic concerns the meeting and what indeed happens at same for those who are interested.
> 
> If you'd like to start a topic concerning strictly "salmon stocking and prey abundance"...I suggest that you start your own instead of attempting to erase the truth as to what indeed happens at these meetings or what DID happen at this one in particular.
> 
> Somehow, I'm able to sort through posts just fine if I want to learn something. I can't remember ever asking a mod to delete somebody's post just because I didn't agree with them...but then again...there's a lot of information in this thread in regards to the proposal process that many would just as soon see deleted.


Lol, okay....... 

I wasn't suggesting that "the truth" be "erased" or that certain discussions be censored as you seem to think I was. By all means, you're welcome to post or say whatever you want. I don't care. I just think the thread is way off topic. It's too bad, because it was very informative. Now it's just angry, disrespectful banter. That's all. You may agree, you may not. Either way, doesn't bother me. 

And who said I agree or disagree with you?


----------



## diztortion

wartfroggy said:


> It would sure be nice to see some of that money go towards stream and habitat improvement. We have a few systems that already have pretty good natural reproduction. If we could improve on that, for salmon and trout alike, hopefully we could reduce plants some more and slowly work towards more of a self sustaining fishery. Of course, there will probably always be planting necessary, but I would really like to see our dependence on it less. Increased natural reproduction would be not just a financial benefit, but also get us on the right track to increased genetic diversity by removing/limiting the continuous bottle-necks created by harvesting a limited number of fish for eggs, at the same weirs every year.


Habitat restoration was the first thing that popped into my mind.


----------



## wartfroggy

diztortion said:


> Habitat restoration was the first thing that popped into my mind.


 yes, but apparently that would make too much sense, and would not sit well with the conspiracy theorists and perch worshipers.


----------



## Spanky

diztortion said:


> Habitat restoration was the first thing that popped into my mind.


As long as its not happening on the flies only waters. Let the special interest groups who "own that water" pay for it. Especially all the miles they stole from the anglers of michigan last year.


----------



## thousandcasts

Spanky said:


> As long as its not happening on the flies only waters. Let the special interest groups who "own that water" pay for it. Especially all the miles they stole from the anglers of michigan last year.


By gosh, that makes me think of a GREAT idea. How about this: 

Flies only, no kill, special reg PERCH waters. Maybe start with a two mile area off South Haven? Orvis will probably build a lodge by the pier to try and take advantage of the crowds who will no doubt flock there!


----------



## walranger5

swampbuck said:


> This may seem like a preposterous idea.....But then again, Throughout the 90's the MDNR was transplanting rainbow smelt in inland lake's. They are just as invasive and damaging to native species, if not worse. Although certainly they would not do so with alewives. It would be impossible to plant enough to even be noticeable in the great lakes.
> 
> I do however wish that when they were netting those smelt out of Higgins lake, They would have got them all.


 In the GR press about this, couple comments too plant alewives, I'm sure they'll be more. Wisconsin has 22 lakes they're trying to get rid off smelt. MDNR lowered the limit.


----------



## walranger5

ZingKing said:


> Just a question, all involved. I would like to know what type of backround, degree or what makes you a sound expert on the lake Michigan fishery? Beside reading what is on the net (which is 100% true sorry gonna puke now) what qualifies you or us to make decisions on the fishery.We all have thoughts and what we think should be done, but 90% percent of this is personal based. Please keep your input coming to those who are involved in the final decisions.
> Peresonaly saw the collapse in lake Huron of that fishery and what it did to the citys involved. Stores closed people out of work and entire towns shut down. I am not in agreement with the states proposals but would much rather see a fishery that is sustainable then a over all collapse. I have caught my fair share of salmon, walleye and other fish. I would rather sacrifice today to make sure or children can have the same great expericences that I have had.


 None of us needs to be a biologist, we pay biologists to tell us the truth. Breaking down thier studies isn't hard, we paid for them. Alewives are like baby asian Carp, I see no sense in wanting more. You guys should really read the feds last carp study, you really should.


----------



## Rzr

Please reread the following statment from the DNR in the context of what has been discussed here to date, the *vast* difference between proposals and who the LMCFAM actually represents along with just how their proposal was last minute presented (but not included) as an option in the commentary process:

The DNR (Jay):
"...*The Lake Michigan Citizens Fishery Advisory Meeting is made up of river guys, watershed groups, steelheaders, GL Advisors, charter guys, river guides, UP reps, etc. 

The Advisory Committee gives recommendations to the DNR. 

Their "option 5" reduce chinook by 100% was more of a statement to show that they are really concerned about the future of the fishery and are not sure that a 50% cut is enough. This committee reviews and digests all of the data that you can also find on the Sea Grant web site. 

As far as transparency, I am not sure if we can get any more transparent other than going to everyone's house and have a coffee or beer to talk about the issue. 

This process of reviewing the state of the lake and stocking started 1 year ago. With the assistance of stakeholders, we came up with the 4 options. 

As stated in a post earlier, we looks at 26 or more options. A 100% cut was looked at but was not included due to a couple of reasons. First, it politically would be very difficult to implement, and two it did not perform in the model like we thought it might. It just lowered the chance of low alewife by maybe 5% more than the 50% cut. This is due to the variability in alewife populations and the increased response of natural reproduction to fill the gap. 

We are taking comments until May 15th. The survey monkey is open to anyone and we will be happy to email with you, address questions on forums, take phone calls, attend your local meetings etc. We will treat your "options 5, 6, 7, 8, etc" equally with the rest that we receive. 

I could see us tweaking one of the 4 proposed options but not shifting dramatically one way or another..."SIZE]* 


My questions are as follows:

#1) Who exactly came up with proposals #1 through 4...if a good share of the stakeholders charged with doing so have a collective opinion rushed in at the last minute *which doesn't even resemble the other 4 in the least*?

#2) Why is the collective opinion of this 'small' or 'insignificant' group of 'minority' stakeholders both kept off of the Michigan Sea Grant website AND the very state survey where residents are (supposedly) given the opportunity to consider the views of those who represent them?

#3) Why is the DNR allowed to predetermine any outcome whatsoever when so many vastly different proposals are on the table and the public's views not even in hand?

#4) Why would the public give a rip if an overwhelmingly supported proposal is "politically difficult to impliment" with the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem at stake and tough decisions needing to be made?

#5) Why do we allow advisory board members to remain anonymous as to what they propose or are in favor of...while at the same time allowing the DNR to speak for committees who evidently disagree *vehemently and with great consequence* (100% vs '30 or 50') with stakeholders, biologists or the state itself that we are not even allowed to identify?

I'm getting a little tired of those who feel that the process itself doesn't really matter here. Too many talk big as to how all of this is for their kids and how for decades now they have been 'setting the bar' for them through involvement in this non-profit or that and their creation of a 'world class' advisory board system.

How about looking at the example that you're setting for kids above and simply asking yourself if this is the correct manner in which collaborative efforts are constructed or in which true professionals behave?. 
Is the above truly _the best that you can do for them_ both in terms of transparency and the legacy some continually brag about handing down?...or could even _a child_ recognize that their generation will certainly have to do better transparency-wise in order to even pick up what's _left_ of the resource when we get done with it?


----------



## walranger5

Alright, what you guys don't get is what's gonna happen has already been decided, this is just A "formality" 

See now me, if we fix our invasive problem, and make the fishin real good again, I figure most people will just go fishin, like what happened in Saginaw Bay, and after the little 2005 Perch spawn here, wont care about past mistakes, just focus on catchin fish.
If we make fishing extra good, full restoration, and we can, there is a risk that someone might say "Why wasn't this done before?" But if the fishin's good I think most people will be more "forgiving" about things, be too busy fishing, to get mad.
However if the lake crashes, (not just salmon) and the asian Carp start taking over, people will want revenge, someones head on a platter.
The last part is for the Green Pants, this is as politically correct as I can get, and my last try to give you guys an out.


----------



## kzoofisher

> #1) Who exactly came up with proposals #1 through 4...if a good share of the stakeholders charged with doing so have a collective opinion rushed in at the last minute which doesn't even resemble the other 4 in the least?


The DNR made the proposals. If they didn't do exactly as their non-profit shadowy overlords desired, shouldn't you be happy?



> #2) Why is the collective opinion of this 'small' or 'insignificant' group of 'minority' stakeholders both kept off of the Michigan Sea Grant website AND the very state survey where residents are (supposedly) given the opportunity to consider the views of those who represent them?


Because the proposal was rejected by the DNR and it is too late to include it formally. That's what happens to advisors, they advise they don't command.



> #3) Why is the DNR allowed to predetermine any outcome whatsoever when so many vastly different proposals are on the table and the public's views not even in hand?


What outcome is predetermined and what is the publics view? The Advisory Committee, which is made up of groups that represent a variety of users like the charters and the steelheaders as well as interested "at-large" members, gave input to the DNR and the DNR made a decision based on that and the studies that have been conducted. The DNR is now canvassing the general public with a poll that includes a comment section. They also welcome your letters. Why not write a letter, get a few hundred people who agree with you to sign it and send it off?



> #4) Why would the public give a rip if an overwhelmingly supported proposal is "politically difficult to impliment" with the future of the Great Lakes ecosystem at stake and tough decisions needing to be made?


By definition a proposal isn't "overwhelmingly supported" if it is "politically difficult to implement".



> #5) Why do we allow advisory board members to remain anonymous as to what they propose or are in favor of


Board members aren't anonymous, in fact one was quoted in the news. Try asking him who everyone is. As for recording who said what in a general discussion, are you kidding me? 



> ...while at the same time allowing the DNR to speak for committees who evidently disagree vehemently and with great consequence (100% vs '30 or 50') with stakeholders, biologists or the state itself that we are not even allowed to identify?


Are you for or against the DNR being the *lap dog* of the non-profits? Make up your mind. Nothing after the word "disagree" makes sense so I can't respond to that.


----------



## walranger5

There is no comparision between that which is lost by not succeeding, and that which is lost by not trying!


----------



## Steelheadfred

diztortion said:


> Habitat restoration was the first thing that popped into my mind.



Why depend on Hatcheries if you don't have to? Natures Carry Capacity is pretty efficient, look at Grouse Cycles.

I agree 100% and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if eliminating two years of plants is the right thing to do. The natural reproduction is bigger every year it seems. There is a carry capacity to the lake, what is the worst thing that happens, you catch 50% less fish for two years? Then the lake fills with bait, you stock fish on top of bait.

You could put the money saved from the planting efforts into fixing riparian habitat to improve natural reproduction, lessen the crutch of hatcheries. You could also work towards better balance of prey species in the lake, more diversity, plant some more steelhead and browns.


----------



## Rzr

kzoofisher said:


> The DNR made the proposals. If they didn't do exactly as their non-profit shadowy overlords desired, shouldn't you be happy?.


After I have chosen to be serious and state facts I'll start off with correcting you without the sarcasm. The DNR does not list any of these proposals as their own nor is the process set up in that manner. This is why I fear for our kid's outdoor legacy. When even parents are unaware of how basic decision making processes are designed they have absolutely no chance of learning how to become involved themselves



kzoofisher said:


> Because the proposal was rejected by the DNR and it is too late to include it formally. That's what happens to advisors, they advise they don't command..


If the proposal was too late it wouldn't have been 'allowed' to be introduced FORMALLY (if you would like the news article which uses this very word, I will get it for you) in the very last public meeting influencing public opinion...at the very last second. 



kzoofisher said:


> What outcome is predetermined and what is the publics view? The Advisory Committee, which is made up of groups that represent a variety of users like the charters and the steelheaders as well as interested "at-large" members, gave input to the DNR and the DNR made a decision based on that and the studies that have been conducted. The DNR is now canvassing the general public with a poll that includes a comment section. They also welcome your letters. Why not write a letter, get a few hundred people who agree with you to sign it and send it off?.


I really hate to force you to "reread" what my entire commentary is based upon (I tried to make the letters _really_ big on this point and put them in bold) but here goes:
"...I could see us tweaking one of the 4 proposed options but not shifting dramatically one way or another..."
If you claim that proposals 1 through 4 are strictly the DNR's and the DNR only (see above) with stakeholder input 'sprinkled in' then I have a brain teaser for you:
The DNR (in Jay's statement) is obviously committed to but one of the 4 proposals as their solution. They have announced that they will NOT shift dramatically from whatever one (you say) "they" have selected for commentary...*although the public commentary process at that time had not even begun*. You say that any other stakeholder *joint* proposal was formally "rejected" by the DNR and not formally "accepted" by the DNR at the last second in Benton Harbor (where it was not allowed in to the commentary process at that time).
That's a tough brain teaser for you to solve if you and I disagree as to what is factual and what is not.



kzoofisher said:


> By definition a proposal isn't "overwhelmingly supported" if it is "politically difficult to implement"..


I'm not even going to give that one the decency of a reply. If that's what in our local school's dictionary and what we're teaching our kids in school...they'll never rise to the level of questioning anything which directly affects them. 



kzoofisher said:


> Board members aren't anonymous, in fact one was quoted in the news. Try asking him who everyone is. As for recording who said what in a general discussion, are you kidding me? .


Nobody said that advisory board members were anonymous. Now I'm beginning to believe that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing vs reading what is presented for discussion. It is my assertion that all proposals must be 'owned' by the very groups or state entites proposing them or the public receives two things:
1) Proposals lacking any detail whatsoever with not even dollar figures attached (see what we ended up with after a year of 'hard work')...

2) Competing proposals outside the advisory board and public commentary process which are 'pie in the sky' as compared to the released proposals (100% reduction for _two years_ vs 50% and even 30% cuts)...*and frankly designed to provide political 'cover' should the resource crash with 'anonymous' proposal authors nowhere to be found* ("hey, they wouldn't even put our "real" proposal out for commentary after we fought them tooth and nail for year at both the 30 and 50% _completely opposite_ stocking levels...it was _brutal_ back in '12!").

Standing up for what you believe and fighting for it is a long lost concept in this country. Michigan advisory boards as presently constructed allow all parties to shift effective blame when proposals have no stakeholder or state employee names listed beside them. The DNR will list these proposals as "consensus authored" should the unthinkable happen and the stakeholders did what they did for a reason with the DNR's blessing.



kzoofisher said:


> Are you for or against the DNR being the *lap dog* of the non-profits? *Make up your mind*. Nothing after the word "disagree" makes sense so I can't respond to that.


That nothing makes sense to you is really not my problem after I simply state facts here that are never refuted. Again, I never implied that the DNR was the 'lap dog' of anybody. The DNR rubs the non-profit's back (which is reciprocated) behind closed doors so that neither is responsible for standing up for anything and so that both receive a check from somebody at the end of the day (follow the money for those groups with the most influence). Nothing that the two of them speak about is a state secret. All stakeholders should be held responsible for reporting ALL conversations with our employees as the price of admission to both the state's power and the grants that they control. This will result in a fully transparent advisory process conducted in real time (which is half the problem) and a simple system that will allow our children to finally peer behind a curtain and onto a stage that they may someday want to occupy for the sake of their resource's protection.


----------



## samsteel

Steelheadfred said:


> Why depend on Hatcheries if you don't have to? Natures Carry Capacity is pretty efficient, look at Grouse Cycles.
> 
> I agree 100% and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if eliminating two years of plants is the right thing to do. The natural reproduction is bigger every year it seems. There is a carry capacity to the lake, what is the worst thing that happens, you catch 50% less fish for two years? Then the lake fills with bait, you stock fish on top of bait.
> 
> You could put the money saved from the planting efforts into fixing riparian habitat to improve natural reproduction, lessen the crutch of hatcheries. You could also work towards better balance of prey species in the lake, more diversity, plant some more steelhead and browns.


$$ will still be saved if we use any of the 4 options in the survey. Option 1 calls for a 50% cut.... It's still a huge cut, but not as drastic as a complete elimination of stocked fish for 2 years. The 4 options on the board are still very sizeable cuts, especially considering they are on top of cuts that have already been made over the past 10 years. I think 50% is drastic enough and can be re-evaluated down the road. 
Steelhead fred, just curious, but how many days do you spend a year chasing salmon, honestly? I am just wondering how that correlates with your opinion? I spend a lot of time and $$ traveling up and down W. Michigan chasing them and I don't want to catch 50% less fish as you say above, if it's not absolutely necessary.


----------



## Steelheadfred

samsteel said:


> $$ will still be saved if we use any of the 4 options in the survey. Option 1 calls for a 50% cut.... It's still a huge cut, but not as drastic as a complete elimination of stocked fish for 2 years. The 4 options on the board are still very sizeable cuts, especially considering they are on top of cuts that have already been made over the past 10 years. I think 50% is drastic enough and can be re-evaluated down the road.
> Steelhead fred, just curious, but how many days do you spend a year chasing salmon, honestly? I am just wondering how that correlates with your opinion? I spend a lot of time and $$ traveling up and down W. Michigan chasing them and I don't want to catch 50% less fish as you say above, if it's not absolutely necessary.



It does not matter how many you stock if there is no bait, I tend to think the lake has a carry capacity and you wont know if fishing will take a hit or not till you try something.

As far as how much I fish, what does that have to do with anything? I do fish kings, and I enjoy catching them, I just hedge my bets on under promising, over delivering, and an overall healthy ecosystem.


----------



## samsteel

Steelheadfred said:


> It does not matter how many you stock if there is no bait, I tend to think the lake has a carry capacity and you wont know if fishing will take a hit or not till you try something.
> 
> As far as how much I fish, what does that have to do with anything? I do fish kings, and I enjoy catching them, I just hedge my bets on under promising, over delivering, and an overall healthy ecosystem.


It wasn't anything personal at all....I just notice that those that almost exclusively fish for steelhead and maybe only get out for salmon a few times a year, tend to have different opinions about it, that's all. So, I think it has a lot to do with different people's opinions. 
I also agree with you about carry capacity and what you said about not knowing unless you try something. That's why I support a 50% cut in stocking and see what happens and adjust as needed. My opinion is that a 50% cut will hit all the objectives you stated above (under promising, over delivering, and an overall healthy ecosystem) While also lowering the chances that those of us who constantly pursue these fish, won't have to catch 1/2 as many as you say.


----------



## Steelheadfred

samsteel said:


> It wasn't anything personal at all....I just notice that those that almost exclusively fish for steelhead and maybe only get out for salmon a few times a year, tend to have different opinions about it, that's all. So, I think it has a lot to do with different people's opinions.
> I also agree with you about carry capacity and what you said about not knowing unless you try something. That's why I support a 50% cut in stocking and see what happens and adjust as needed. My opinion is that a 50% cut will hit all the objectives you stated above (under promising, over delivering, and an overall healthy ecosystem) While also lowering the chances that those of us who constantly pursue these fish, won't have to catch 1/2 as many as you say.


 
Sam,

Nothing personal, I also think we would all take 50% less fish to catch, than 0 fish at all.


----------



## samsteel

Steelheadfred said:


> Sam,
> 
> Nothing personal, I also think we would all take 50% less fish to catch, than 0 fish at all.


absolutely, no arguing that. But for now, I am going to stick with one of the 4 options put together by the DNR and the biologists. I do understand your points though, and respect them, but I just have not seen enough to this point, to feel that 100% stocking cuts for 2 years is necessary.


----------



## Steelheadfred

One last comment.

50% reduction in hatchery Kings is really only a 25% reduction of Kings in the lake. 

If the estimates that the lake is made up of 50wild/50Hatchery at current stocking rates.

My guess is, you will see the wild fish fill the void of the 25% less hatchery fish in the lake.


----------



## samsteel

Steelheadfred said:


> One last comment.
> 
> 50% reduction in hatchery Kings is really only a 25% reduction of Kings in the lake.
> 
> If the estimates that the lake is made up of 50wild/50Hatchery at current stocking rates.
> 
> My guess is, you will see the wild fish fill the void of the 25% less hatchery fish in the lake.


that's been covered in this thread by Jay and REG. I think your right and that will most likely happen. I am curious of how long biologists think it may take for wild fish to fill that void? I still think "doing nothing" is an extreme and "cutting everything" is an extreme and the answer is something gradual and in the middle with close evaluations. From the options that the DNR rolled out on that survey, I think they agree as well. Anyhow, sorry, not trying to get the last word....I'm done on this thread now. Back to the Walranger, Rzr show...have at it guys, lead your revolt against the man! Viva la perch!


----------



## Rzr

Steelheadfred said:


> "...I agree 100% and the more I think about it, the more I wonder if eliminating two years of plants is the right thing to do...You could put the money saved from the planting efforts into fixing riparian habitat to improve natural reproduction, lessen the crutch of hatcheries. You could also work towards better balance of prey species in the lake, more diversity, plant some more steelhead and browns.


If the stakeholders who proposed 100% cuts offered more details in their last second statement...I could see your point.

As it is, you have nothing to worry about in regards to what is the "right thing to do"...as Jay has already told you that their proposal was DOA... not to mention that you know already that stakeholders offered absolutely nothing resembling what you refer to above or anything else for that matter (publicly) when tasked for a year to come up with a solution.


----------



## Rzr

Steelheadfred said:


> "..One last comment..."





samsteel said:


> "...I'm done on this thread now..."


I've been on simple conversational forums for years now and have never undetrstood the desire to 'sign off'...should we all say 'bye' now? 

Still waiting for a single fact that has been presented here to be disputed (I don't deal in mere opinions when it comes to stakeholders, the DNR or poorly managed advisory boards...sorry.)


----------



## Jay Wesley

RZR, 

You asked about how we came up with the 4 options. It is described in the briefing and was talked about at the Benton Harbor meeting. These options met the goals and objectives of the agencies and stakeholder groups. 

I wouldn't say that a 100% cut was DOA. Our group looked at it as part of 26 or more other options. We could meet our objectives with lesser of a reduction so we did not want to offer it. Plus, I am not sure the majority of anglers would want to go that extreme right now. 

Option 2,3, and 4 have feedback policies so there could be continued cuts if the size of chinook stays down indicating continued low prey biomass. Eventually, you would get to a 100% cut or it would not be worth stocking anymore. 

For some of the others that commented:

Biologically, I would expect natural reproduction to fill the gap. The main issue is that some ports and most of our ports with high human populations and use would not get much of a return because they would be away from the rivers with natural reproduction. If we can get these ports comfortable with no stocking and lower fall returns, we could go to 100% reduction. My opinion is that the political fall out would be too large at this point to go to that extreme. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana do not have much natural reproduction and their agencies and stakeholders are actually concerned with the 30 or 50% reductions.


----------



## Jay Wesley

For those of you that have served on a focus group, stakeholder group, advisory group, and those that have filled out the survey or offered other comments, THANK YOU!

We appreciate and value your comments despite what a couple folks think on this site. 

These groups that work with us are very transparent. They are chosen to be on the groups because they are willing to commit their time and are also willing to bring us the opinion of their many members and take information back to them. It is a good way for us to get new ideas and discuss proposals before they go out to the public. We also take proposals from the general public. The U.P. Brook trout bag limit proposal was from the general public. It was reviewed by biologists and the Coldwater Resource Committee (advisors) and moved forward for comment. 

The old DNR would have just made a decision and you would have to read about it in the paper. 

This process took a year of review and consideration with stakeholders. 

I will not say that the process is perfect, but it is much better than how we used to do business. There is always room for improvement and I would be happy to take your suggestions.


----------



## swampbuck

Jay Wesley said:


> Biologically, I would expect natural reproduction to fill the gap. The main issue is that some ports and most of our ports with high human populations and use would not get much of a return because they would be away from the rivers with natural reproduction. If we can get these ports comfortable with no stocking and lower fall returns, we could go to 100% reduction. My opinion is that the political fall out would be too large at this point to go to that extreme. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana do not have much natural reproduction and their agencies and stakeholders are actually concerned with the 30 or 50% reductions.


 Shouldnt the Health of the Lk. Michigan ecosystem take priority over the amount of salmon returning to a certain river.


----------



## Jay Wesley

swampbuck said:


> Shouldnt the Health of the Lk. Michigan ecosystem take priority over the amount of salmon returning to a certain river.


Biologically - Yes

Ecosystem management has to consider the biological, social, and econmic effects of any decision. 

Model forecasts showed that we could accomplish our goals and meet our risk tolerance with the options proposed. Status quo and other options from between 0 and 50% reductions of chinook only did not. We could go higher than 50% but did not think that would be socially acceptable. If the public feels that we should go higher than 50%, we would consider it. That is why we are accepting comments now to see what your comfort level is. 

From a logistical standpoint, it would be a lot easier to do a 100% reduction, but I am not sure if everyone agrees or wants to go that far at this point.


----------



## EdB

> Shouldnt the Health of the Lk. Michigan ecosystem take priority over the amount of salmon returning to a certain river.


Yes, that is what this thread, the meeting and the process behind it is all about. We are coming off one of the best salmon fishing seasons in many years and this season is off to a great start with some awesome catches. The DNR is being proactive to protect the health of the Lk Mi ecosystem in the future. If you took the time to review the reseach Jay posted on his link and review the video of the meeting and other vidoes on Jay's link, you'll learn that the 4 proposals on the table have a very high probability to protect the resource for the future. There are also triggers within some of those proposals to have further stocking reductions if scientific data in the future indicate it is needed and I like those options the best. There was a tremendous amount of scientific data, review, multi-state communications, hard work from dedicated volunteers and vision behind this effort. The MDNR can't dictate what the other states around Lk Michigan do so politics and negotiations are a factor in what is going to happen. Some of you are so blind with your hate for the DNR(clear from your posting history here), you can't see proactive and positive change that is right in front of you.


----------



## swampbuck

Well I guess I will come clean also. alewives,smelt,gobys,mussels,spiney fleas etc. are all invasive and damaging to the environment. In the last few years I have become more informed (research) regarding invasive species due to the destruction of fishing on My local lake due to smelt. I still like salmon and hope their are always a few out there.

However the effect of these invasive species, in this case Alewives on Native Species and the ecosystem in general is and has been devastating. As far as I am concerned, For the MDNR to invest time and money to preserve/increase an invasive species that is every bit or more damaging than all of the others is a untenable position. 

In the begining the effect of alewives/smelt of the ecosystem was not completely clear........Science has now made it crystal clear. They need to be GONE. The MDNR's jub is to protect the Natural Resources, They should be 100% committed to eliminating every invasive. Hopefully a naturally reproducing remanent population of salmon will continue on and adapt to include other forage with any remaining alewives.

Heres my plan.........Plant every salmon they have, dump them all in there. And then turn and walk away, and let nature take its course. It's going to anyways, eventually. Focus on the fish that BELONG in the waters of this state, both great and inland lakes.


----------



## Rzr

swampbuck said:


> Interesting...Here is a Indiana dnr document that is verbatim the same as being discussed here including the stocking reduction options..*FROM 2006*. How did that work out?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Management agencies on Lake Michigan have narrowed the strategic options for public
> consideration to the following:​
> &#56256;&#56377;
> status quo, maintaining current stocking levels for all salmonids;
> &#56256;&#56377;​reduce Chinook salmon stocking by 25%;
> &#56256;&#56377;​reduce Chinook salmon stocking by 50%; or
> &#56256;&#56377; reduce stocking of all salmon and trout by 25%, except lake trout
> 
> http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/Lake-Michigan-Briefing-Paper.pdf​




Thanks for the research and great find.

If we throw in the stakeholder's suggestion *we will have paid for/sought out the follwing "expert research" for going on the last decade to save the fishery:*

1) *No change*. Yet another 'red herring' for the public commentary process that nobody will put their name on...yet a great way to draw votes away from competing proposals which may have merit but are not necessarily what the state or even stakeholders approve of (think one political party voting in the other's primary). Proposal #5 ("the proposal that never was") achieved the same goal in 2012 while providing political cover for stakeholders.

2) *25-30% reduction*. Radical change considering the weight that stocking programs have been given. Try reducing anything by 30% and see what happens to your outcome.

3)* 50% reduction*. This is the point at which most intelligent people start to question the proposal process itself. The "DNR" 2012 stocking proposals cram 4 different theories in to the above two extremely radical percentile ranges *without so much as a "this is why" behind a single one of them. *It's one thing to not name a supporting sponsor behind either four (strong opinions being what we pay these guys for)...yet quite another to even _allow_ "0 to 30 to 50%" as acceptable advisory process policy with a fishery quickly crashing around us.

4) *"Cut it all out and close shop" (for 2 years).* This was the straw that broke the camel's back. It proved very clearly that no one is indeed minding the store. The entire advisory board and every person associated with them obviously feel that if nobody publicly stands for anything...and if we propose every possible scenario including the most radical on either end of the spectrum (with no analysis attatched to each proposal)...then why can't we tell our kids years later that we all did our very best?

Probably the most important statment that has been made on this thread is the following:
*"..There are variances of how to keep a handle on this thing while protecting interests of everyone involved.." *

Aint _that_ the truth. :sad:

​


----------



## Rzr

jpmarko said:


> "..*Whether the lake is on the verge of imminent collapse or years off is irrelevant*...Man, if there were no salmon around I don't think I'd be going out to fish 100 to 150 days a year that I normally would. It'd maybe be 4 or 5 days out of the year. I'd probably move to Oregon, lol.."


I think that our kids are a littlle more worried about the relevancy of a fisheries collapse, the general health of the lake itself and the money needed just to fight invasives (which we don't have)....then with those who have already fished _through_ the good times and obviously posess the wealth needed to move elsewhere so that they may "prime fish" all the way into the sunset years of their life.

What our kids are asking for is simple accountability in terms of what is proposed to save the resource. We are broke. Every proposal that is submitted here on out must be accompanied by a breakdown of the entire fishery dollars available to throw at our problems. When we allow our state employees or the stakeholders advising them to shy away from individually stating their opinions publicly...*both* of these group's acountability level changes from "their best opinion" to frankly becomming part and parcel responsible for whatever happens in terms of the quality of the effort made.

The latter is what our kids will be asking us about in the years to come.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Was the collapse of Salmon populations in Lake Huron really due to a lack of forage fish like the DNR claims. Could it have been caused by the taking of spawning salmon at weirs on every drainage ditch, creek, stream, and river on the eastern side? Something to think about. The DNR will not talk about this as a factor because of the money that was involved. The primary spawning grounds for a majority of the salmon were completely cut off by weirs. These salmon were caught and sold commercially with the blessing of the DNR. It started on a small scale and got bigger and bigger until the salmon were wiped out. This was never done on the Lake Michigan side.


----------



## REG

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-video/early-spring-means-early-salmon-fishing/1805489410


----------



## jpmarko

Rzr said:


> I think that our kids are a littlle more worried about the relevancy of a fisheries collapse, the general health of the lake itself and the money needed just to fight invasives (which we don't have)....then with those who have already fished _through_ the good times and obviously posess the wealth needed to move elsewhere so that they may "prime fish" all the way into the sunset years of their life.


Rzr, I don't mind reading your posts and you do make some good points. But do not misquote me. I did not say that a future collapse of our fishery is irrelevant. I said that it is irrelevant whether it is quickly approaching or still off in the distant future because, either way, something needs to be done NOW to improve the health of the balance in Lake Michigan. If you are unable to understand the meaning behind what I am saying, then leave it alone and don't try quoting me. 

I care deeply about the future of Lake Michigan like pretty much everyone else on this site. I strongly believe that something needs to be done now so that the future can have good, and stable fishery. I think most levelheaded individuals would nod in agreement on that point. Where many disagree is on what that 'something' should be. It's not hard to see why there are so many different view points... Everyone, and I mean everyone, has their own agenda and vision of how Lake Michigan should be. That includes you, me, and nearly every other poster on this thread. Some have a benign agenda, some not so benign. Having said that, I wanna make one point. Whether for better or for worse, Lake Michigan will never return to how it was 50 or 60 years ago. There are too many well-established 'invasives' that make it humanly impossible to go back. If you ask me, the worst is, of course, the quagga mussel. Those things are what is sucking the nutrients and life out of the lake, affecting the survival and abundance of nearly all our beloved species. But good luck getting rid of those guys. 

We have the fishery that we have. Some are really happy about that, some not so much. I honestly don't think it is even possible to go back. It is out of human control. The best we can do is try to make small changes and hope a balance will be struck. Eventually a balance will be struck, and hopefully that balance will include some healthy chinook. 

I don't for a second believe that chinook don't belong out there in Lake Michigan. There may be issues with how and how much we stock them, and they may be an 'invasive' species, but that doesn't mean they don't belong out there. They're even making a slow, but definate, comeback in Lake Huron. And those are all wild.


----------



## walranger5

I would point out your all "voting" for the best way to fill the lake up with alewives, an invasive species, and i'm out of line?
In no other invasive species control plan, is the plan to INCREASE the invasive species. Every other plan is to reduce/get rid of in some fashion.

I would like to point out, that if the Asian Carp, get in our rivers. Just like any fish in a river, they will hide behind current breaks, structure. That structure will include bridge supports. The danger of the them jumping into traffic is very real, we have many they can clear (I've seen them go 20 feet) You would be risking your life every time you crossed a river/bridge with the carp in it. 
If that happens, they will have to put some kind of barrier below every bridge they can clear. Blocking all fish, steelhead etc.... from getting, upstrea They have to protect the public, they will have no choice. They jump into traffic one time, forget river fishin the way we know it. The cost would be staggering, and they wont care about alewives.
Not an issue down south, bridges high for big boats, I did see one on a road that ran close to the Illinois river, but no cars were coming when it landed. 
We have native predators for asian carp, we can minimize thier impact, and the rest, just like all the real invasive control plans say we're supposed to be doing. Or we can make safer for them by protecting the Alewives.
If the carp get going in the rivers, I can Gaurantee, they'll get behind the bridges, I can Guarantee they'll jump, (don't take much to set them off) the more there are, the better the chances some will land in traffic. Even if they don't 2 or 300 explode you'll look, distracted driving oh yea! 
Plus they will control the food.
So me, making sure we are doing everything to stop that from happening, or at least have minimal impact is more important than, saving an invasive species. I can work with you guys, but the alewife things gotta come off the table. The carp will shut it down anyway.


----------



## Rzr

jpmarko said:


> "...I will say this though; I've combed through the Michigan Sea Grant web site, listened to the videos, looked at the data and tried to follow what's happening as best I can. The website provides great info on the current status of prey and biomass abundance. *The DNR is doing the right thing in initiating cuts*. *Whether the lake is on the verge of imminent collapse or years off is irrelevant*. There is too little food to sustain the current king fishery. Making cuts right now will hopefully preserve a future salmon industry for anglers. *I like that the DNR is being proactive in this and that the changes are more gradual than drastic*, because it'll help us see in a couple years whether things will turn for the better or worse *without throwing the whole idea of salmon fishing out the window. *
> 
> *Man, if there were no salmon around I don't think I'd be going out to fish 100 to 150 days a year that I normally would. It'd maybe be 4 or 5 days out of the year. I'd probably move to Oregon, lol.."*





Rzr said:


> *I think that our kids are a littlle more worried about the relevancy of a fisheries collapse, the general health of the lake itself and the money needed just to fight invasives (which we don't have)....then with those who have already fished through the good times and obviously posess the wealth needed to move elsewhere so that they may "prime fish" all the way into the sunset years of their life*.
> 
> What our kids are asking for is simple accountability in terms of what is proposed to save the resource. We are broke. Every proposal that is submitted here on out must be accompanied by a breakdown of the entire fishery dollars available to throw at our problems. When we allow our state employees or the stakeholders advising them to shy away from individually stating their opinions publicly...*both* of these group's acountability level changes from "their best opinion" to frankly becomming part and parcel responsible for whatever happens in terms of the quality of the effort made.
> 
> The latter is what our kids will be asking us about in the years to come.





jpmarko said:


> Rzr, I don't mind reading your posts and you do make some good points. *But do not misquote me.* I did not say that a future collapse of our fishery is irrelevant. *I said that it is irrelevant whether it is quickly approaching or still off in the distant future because, either way, something needs to be done NOW to improve the health of the balance in Lake Michigan. If you are unable to understand the meaning behind what I am saying, then leave it alone and don't try quoting me. *
> 
> I care deeply about the future of Lake Michigan like pretty much everyone else on this site. *I strongly believe that something needs to be done now so that the future can have good, and stable fishery.* I think most levelheaded individuals would nod in agreement on that point. "*Where many disagree is on what that 'something' should be. It's not hard to see why there are so many different view points..." Everyone, and I mean everyone, has their own agenda and vision of how Lake Michigan should be.* That includes you, me, and nearly every other poster on this thread. Some have a benign agenda, some not so benign. Having said that, I wanna make one point. Whether for better or for worse, Lake Michigan will never return to how it was 50 or 60 years ago. There are too many well-established 'invasives' that make it humanly impossible to go back. If you ask me, the worst is, of course, the quagga mussel. Those things are what is sucking the nutrients and life out of the lake, affecting the survival and abundance of nearly all our beloved species. But good luck getting rid of those guys.
> 
> We have the fishery that we have. Some are really happy about that, some not so much. I honestly don't think it is even possible to go back. It is out of human control. The best we can do is try to make small changes and hope a balance will be struck. Eventually a balance will be struck, and hopefully that balance will include some healthy chinook.
> 
> I don't for a second believe that chinook don't belong out there in Lake Michigan. There may be issues with how and how much we stock them, and they may be an 'invasive' species, but that doesn't mean they don't belong out there. They're even making a slow, but definate, comeback in Lake Huron. And those are all wild.


As you can see above I did not misquote you. I try and not repost everything somebody says and if I have taken you out of context I certainly apologize...but here are your posts above and exactly why I do not agree with you:
*".*..*Everyone, and I mean everyone, has their own agenda and vision of how Lake Michigan should be..."*
We'd both like to think so...but obviously this meeting we are discussing and what immediately followed proves otherwise. The public commentary process is _designed_ around your statement being true so as to give "everyone" a glimpse at the very best opinions/visions out there (and this is important) *before* they send their comments in to the state.
You state above that you're already in agreement with the DNR's position. You also state that "...Where many disagree is on what that 'something' should be. It's not hard to see why there are so many different view points..."
There are no differing viewpoints of 'what that something should be' my friend!!!
You may believe that this fact is as insignificant as your other statement:
*"..Whether the lake is on the verge of imminent collapse or years off is irrelevant.."*
But I'm sorry..you're wrong again!!!
Here's a quote from Jay and the DNR 'trying' to explain their "it might be our opinion, it might be all of ours, we aren't going to tell you and you're sure as heck not getting anybody else's in the formal commentary process..." debacle:

"..Their (every stakeholder that we know of) "option 5" reduce chinook by 100% *was more of a statement* to show that they are really concerned about the future of the fishery and are *not sure* that a 50% cut is enough. This committee reviews and digests all of the data that you can also find on the Sea Grant web site. 

As far as transparency, I am not sure if we can get any more transparent other than going to everyone's house and have a coffee or beer to talk about the issue. 

This process of reviewing the state of the lake and stocking started *1 year ago*. *With the assistance of stakeholders, we came up with the 4 options*. 

As stated in a post earlier, we looks at 26 or more options. *A 100% cut was looked at but was not included* due to a couple of reasons. First, it politically would be very difficult to implement, and two *it did not perform in the model like we thought it might.* It just lowered the chance of low alewife by maybe 5% more than the 50% cut. This is due to the variability in alewife populations and the increased response of natural reproduction to fill the gap..."

Am I the only one here who can read the paragraph above and _comprehend_ it?
Or am I the only one here willing to simply _break it down_ for you in the context of who worked on what, for how long, *what they ALL apparently came up with*...

*AND HOW THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE STAKEHOLDER/ADVISORY PROCESS WAS PUT IN QUESTION AT THIS MEETING BY A LAST SECOND 'FLIP FLOP' COMPLETE WITH FORMAL "STATEMENT" BURIAL AFTERWARDS(?)* 

I didn't misquote what you said.
I asked you to consider our kids observing the above and what they would probably say to both you and all of us in regards to simple caretaking and professionalism:
"So you fished salmon 150 days out of the year 'back in the day' and were happy with the management of our resource..._even though you couldn't manage to put together a simple public commentary process that was either transparent or accurate_. Gee, I can see why you all headed somewhere else to fish after the resource collapsed and 'our' legacy was trashed..good job, generation "Details Don't Matter"!!!!.."

I was going to throw in the "*Whether the lake is on the verge of imminent collapse or years off is irrelevant..."* (as long as we do 'something' now)..but I think you get my point.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> I think that our kids are a littlle more worried about the relevancy of a fisheries collapse, the general health of the lake itself and the money needed just to fight invasives (which we don't have)....then with those who have already fished _through_ the good times and obviously posess the wealth needed to move elsewhere so that they may "prime fish" all the way into the sunset years of their life.
> 
> What our kids are asking for is simple accountability in terms of what is proposed to save the resource. We are broke. Every proposal that is submitted here on out must be accompanied by a breakdown of the entire fishery dollars available to throw at our problems. When we allow our state employees or the stakeholders advising them to shy away from individually stating their opinions publicly...*both* of these group's acountability level changes from "their best opinion" to frankly becomming part and parcel responsible for whatever happens in terms of the quality of the effort made.
> 
> The latter is what our kids will be asking us about in the years to come.


When your in the senior storage facility, and that kid spoon feeding you the pink jello, finds out, who screwed up the lakes and kept them from having fond memories of fishin with thier Dad. You probably wont like the yellow jello, or the chocolate puddin!


----------



## MrFysch

I would like to see the data of how if the stocking numbers are cut back that natural reproduction will replace those numbers. How many rivers below South of Ludington contribute anything significantly to the population of salmon in the Lake? How many in Indiana?? Illinois? Nice presentation on the eminent alewife collapse how about the facts on the other 90 percent of the equation. Cmon Jay if you are the voice who is determining my future fishing on Lake Michigan without any inputs from some very concerned and knowledgable people, at least give us some answers on how this all comes into play. 
And for everyone who think Lake Huron fishery is rebounding because of lack of fish plants...good luck with that. Lake Huron was always a flawed salmon fishery in terms of natural reproduction. The best salmon returns were always in Oscoda ....problem is the Ausauble below Foote Dam has never contributed much in terms of successful natural reproduction...the Rifle ...Augres ...Tawas...Thunder Bay and a handful of other rivers never will amount to much either. I think comparing the 2 fisheries is apple to oramges. Would like more answers please. Nobody I know wants a salmon collapse on Lake Michigan but more research is needed in my opinion.


----------



## Rzr

walranger5 said:


> When your in the senior storage facility, and that kid spoon feeding you the pink jello, finds out, who screwed up the lakes and kept them from having fond memories of fishin with thier Dad. You probably wont like the yellow jello, or the chocolate puddin!


What happened at the meeting last week was a turning point. 
We went from not necessarily being wholly responsible for screwing up the resource and offering only well educated opinions on its management...to nobody willing to put their name on anything while at the same time throwing in _opposite_ opinions outside the peon public commentary process.

If the above makes kids angry...I don't blame them. They already have many in this same age group trying to convince them that if you're 55 or over you shouldn't have to give an opinion on entitlements either...or 'share sacrifice' absolutely anything to receive what you were 'promised' in a country that is not only broke but north of more than 16 trillion in debt.

The April 14th, 2012 meeting will become a symbol for a lot of things to these kids...none of it necessarily good. :sad:


----------



## Rzr

MrFysch said:


> I would like to see the data of how if the stocking numbers are cut back that natural reproduction will replace those numbers. How many rivers below South of Ludington contribute anything significantly to the population of salmon in the Lake? How many in Indiana?? Illinois? Nice presentation on the eminent alewife collapse how about the facts on the other 90 percent of the equation. *Cmon Jay if you are the voice who is determining my future fishing on Lake Michigan without any inputs from some very concerned and knowledgable people, at least give us some answers on how this all comes into play.*
> And for everyone who think Lake Huron fishery is rebounding because of lack of fish plants...good luck with that. Lake Huron was always a flawed salmon fishery in terms of natural reproduction. The best salmon returns were always in Oscoda ....problem is the Ausauble below Foote Dam has never contributed much in terms of successful natural reproduction...the Rifle ...Augres ...Tawas...Thunder Bay and a handful of other rivers never will amount to much either. I think comparing the 2 fisheries is apple to oramges. *Would like more answers please. Nobody I know wants a salmon collapse on Lake Michigan but more research is needed in my opinion*.


The body of research is set aside as a separate "you figure it out as this relates to each individual proposal" for good reason.

If you have 4 different research-based opinions plus a fifth way out in left field which is 'disallowed' *but agreed upon by 90% in the room*...how in the world do you *INDIVIDUALLY* 'massage' that research to *fit* all 5 proposals when 90% of the people in the room _apparently_ have year long mutual agreements involving every single one of them? 

I think my percentage figures above can be corrected somewhat by the following:

What percentage of the advisory board gets a check from the state...and what percentage of the board signed on to proposal #5?

Are there _any_ non-payroll state employees who _didn't_ sign on to the (quickly introduced then buried) 'nucleur option' and if so, *who are they?*


----------



## Jay Wesley

MrFysch said:


> I would like to see the data of how if the stocking numbers are cut back that natural reproduction will replace those numbers. How many rivers below South of Ludington contribute anything significantly to the population of salmon in the Lake? How many in Indiana?? Illinois? Nice presentation on the eminent alewife collapse how about the facts on the other 90 percent of the equation. Cmon Jay if you are the voice who is determining my future fishing on Lake Michigan without any inputs from some very concerned and knowledgable people, at least give us some answers on how this all comes into play.
> And for everyone who think Lake Huron fishery is rebounding because of lack of fish plants...good luck with that. Lake Huron was always a flawed salmon fishery in terms of natural reproduction. The best salmon returns were always in Oscoda ....problem is the Ausauble below Foote Dam has never contributed much in terms of successful natural reproduction...the Rifle ...Augres ...Tawas...Thunder Bay and a handful of other rivers never will amount to much either. I think comparing the 2 fisheries is apple to oramges. Would like more answers please. Nobody I know wants a salmon collapse on Lake Michigan but more research is needed in my opinion.


As far as natural reproduction goes in Lake Michigan, our best estimates are based on the lake-wide population through mass marking programs. We have been marking all hatchery chinook with oxytetracycline. From this data, we have pretty good information suggesting that 50 to 55% of the smolts in the lake are wild. Figuring out how much each river contributes is a little more difficult to figure out. They require river specific outmigration studies. We would love to have this data every year on our rivers. However, the funds to do so are hard to come by. There is a new mass marking program now using coded wire tags. Every chinook stocked in Lake Huron and Michigan has been tagged starting in 2011. This will also give us more info on natural reproduction. 

We do know based on past studies and one time surveys that some rivers produce more than others. The rivers in Indiana, southern Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin produce few naturally reproduced chinook. Probably between 0 and 15%. As you move north in Michigan, we have evidence that the Muskegon, PM, Little Manistee, Betsie, Jordan, Bear and others do produce more natural fish from a range of 20 to 100%. 

We also have natural fish coming into Lake Michigan from Lake Huron. 

There have been some studies looking at micro-chemistry in fish to determine their river of origin. This seems to be working for Ontario rivers, which have some unique bedrock geology characteristics that can be used to tell some of the river systems apart. Michigan has more of a surficial geology and so far the science is not proven whether river systems could be differentiated. There are some scientist interested in looking into this. It would give us more information about what rivers are contributing to the wild population. 

Hope this helps. That was a good question that is on the minds of a lot of biologists and anglers.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Rzr said:


> The body of research is set aside as a separate "you figure it out as this relates to each individual proposal" for good reason.
> 
> If you have 4 different research-based opinions plus a fifth way out in left field which is 'disallowed' *but agreed upon by 90% in the room*...how in the world do you *INDIVIDUALLY* 'massage' that research to *fit* all 5 proposals when 90% of the people in the room _apparently_ have year long mutual agreements involving every single one of them?
> 
> I think my percentage figures above can be corrected somewhat by the following:
> 
> What percentage of the advisory board gets a check from the state...and what percentage of the board signed on to proposal #5?
> 
> Are there _any_ non-payroll state employees who _didn't_ sign on to the (quickly introduced then buried) 'nucleur option' and if so, *who are they?*


 
As far as state employees signing on to the 100% option, again this was a recommendation from the advisors to the DNR. The state employees there presented the data and listened to the advisors concerns and recommendations. The employees to not vote or are not part of the consensus building of the group. 

The advisors as stated before come to the meeting representing their stakeholder groups. They bring info in the meeting and take it back out to their groups. There are some anglers at large that are not represented by groups. Some members are from organizations like MUCC that have more of a general natural resource conservation mission. 

Again, I encourage you all to share your opinions and recommendations on the survey monkey or write to your agency representatives. This is the only way that we will know what the public wants. We will use this information and all the available scientific data to make an informed decsion that will have the best chance to achieve the goals and objectives that have been established for the lake. These goals and objectives were stated and established by the constiuent groups and agencies. We also have long established fish community objectives that were set by the Lake Michigan Committee (all states and tribes) that we have to consider as well.


----------



## maddiedog

Jay Wesley said:


> As far as natural reproduction goes in Lake Michigan, our best estimates are based on the lake-wide population through mass marking programs. We have been marking all hatchery chinook with oxytetracycline. From this data, we have pretty good information suggesting that 50 to 55% of the smolts in the lake are wild. Figuring out how much each river contributes is a little more difficult to figure out. They require river specific outmigration studies. We would love to have this data every year on our rivers. However, the funds to do so are hard to come by. There is a new mass marking program now using coded wire tags. Every chinook stocked in Lake Huron and Michigan has been tagged starting in 2011. This will also give us more info on natural reproduction.
> 
> We do know based on past studies and one time surveys that some rivers produce more than others. The rivers in Indiana, southern Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin produce few naturally reproduced chinook. Probably between 0 and 15%. As you move north in Michigan, we have evidence that the Muskegon, PM, Little Manistee, Betsie, Jordan, Bear and others do produce more natural fish from a range of 20 to 100%.
> 
> We also have natural fish coming into Lake Michigan from Lake Huron.
> 
> There have been some studies looking at micro-chemistry in fish to determine their river of origin. This seems to be working for Ontario rivers, which have some unique bedrock geology characteristics that can be used to tell some of the river systems apart. Michigan has more of a surficial geology and so far the science is not proven whether river systems could be differentiated. There are some scientist interested in looking into this. It would give us more information about what rivers are contributing to the wild population.
> 
> Hope this helps. That was a good question that is on the minds of a lot of biologists and anglers.


I fish out of ludington and in the past ten years have caught thousands of salmon. 1 was tagged. Every lake trout but one was tagged. Five steelhead. Zero coho.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Rzr

Jay Wesley said:


> As far as state employees signing on to the 100% option, again this was a recommendation from the advisors to the DNR


I don't recall anyone on this thread _claiming_ that the state signed on to option#5 but in fact pointing out the fact that they rejected it.
Your quote:
"...In fact, that option was turned down in our year long deliberation on the topic..."



Jay Wesley said:


> "...The advisors as stated before come to the meeting representing their stakeholder groups. They bring info in the meeting and take it back out to their groups. There are some anglers at large that are not represented by groups. Some members are from organizations like MUCC that have more of a general natural resource conservation mission...".


I think that everybody understands this. What folks _don't _understand is the fact that none of our questions are being answered here. "Anglers at Large" and the MUCC don't report back to the general public with information as to what went on at these meetings or who proposed what over a year's time...and you know this. The only non-agency 'peon public' group we have _left _representing us in the public commentary process _seems_ to be the Lake Michigan Citizen Fishery Advisory Committee...*which low and behold stated just before this meeting that they had come to a "consensus" on option#5*.
You evidently disagree with this:
"...At the Lake Michigan Citizen Fishery Advisory Committee meeting on April 10th, *most* members said that they would live with the 4 options. *A few* members were concerned that it was not enough and proposed the 100% reduction..." 
...you further went on to speak for them as follows:
"...Their "option 5" reduce chinook by 100% _was more of a statement_ to show that they are really concerned about the future of the fishery *and are not sure* that a 50% cut is enough..."

So which is it?
Every non-agency group that so much as takes _a thing_ back to the general public for consumption consensually agreeing to nucleur option #5 (at the last second) but immediately having it stricken (by the agencies) from the public commentary process...

...*or* 'your' version stating that the LMCFA collectively not only worked with you for an entire year to _come up with_ options 1 through 4..*but that the majority "were all for it...(just)before they were against it"?*(to paraphrase John Kerry).



Jay Wesley said:


> Again, I encourage you all to share your opinions and recommendations on the survey monkey or write to your agency representatives. This is the only way that we will know what the public wants. We will use this information and all the available scientific data to make an informed decsion that will have the best chance to achieve the goals and objectives that have been established for the lake. These goals and objectives were stated and established by the constiuent groups and agencies. We also have long established fish community objectives that were set by the Lake Michigan Committee (all states and tribes) that we have to consider as well.


I'm sorry but the above statement is just blain baloney given what we've laid out so far. You've already told us that the only public group providing any type of feedback to us did not submit a proposal with the 'proper' science behind it, *represent even a majority of their membership* or be even 'worthy' of submitting their opinions for public commentary!!! Furthermore, you claimed the following in regards to 'your' proposal: 
"...I could see *us* tweaking one of the 4 proposed options but *not* shifting dramatically one way or another..."

*WHAT KIND OF 'ORCHESTRATED CRAP' IS THAT ...AND WHY WON'T ANY OF THE GROUPS INVOLVED IN THIS 'YEAR LONG' PROCESS COME OUT HERE IN TO THE LIGHT OF DAY AND EXPLAIN THEMSELVES?*

I really don't expect the DNR or any of these agencies controlling what proposals are 'allowed' in to the commentary process to respond (they never do)...but where in the heck are _the rest_ of these groups representing 'us'...*who haven't even fought for the minutes of their own meetings with these guys to be posted on the web for literally years now?* ("concensus" on option#5?...who in the heck says so, at _what_ meeting did they ALL say it...and who in the heck broke off from the rest and claimed 'what'?).

What a mess.


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> I can blame the DNR because they are at fault, management is always at fault 100% of the time.


 That honestly has to be one of the most ignorant, sterotypical union minded, naive, and rediculous comments that I have read on this forum, EVER. I award you no points.....and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> I would point out your all "voting" for the best way to fill the lake up with alewives, an invasive species, and i'm out of line?


 Oh come on...you gotta be able to vote for something, right? You are always rambling about how you want the salmon gone so that you can have more perch...so just vote for the 100% cut in salmon plants. Oh, wait....that would mean more alwives. Um....them vote for no salmon cuts....oh wait......that would mean more salmon, at least temporarily. Damn. I guess you won't vote for anything that isn't specifically "only plant perch".


----------



## jpmarko

Rzr said:


> If you have 4 different research-based opinions plus a fifth way out in left field which is 'disallowed' *but agreed upon by 90% in the room*...


Rzr, you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm getting the feeling that you think that the vast majority of people out there that are concerned with this issue of salmon stockings (including constituents) actually favor a 100% cut in stockings. Am I understanding you right? 

I find it highly unlikely that most people would want to support option #5. The vast majority of people I've heard from do not support option #5, but are more comfortable with options #1-4. I don't care who the group of individuals is that came up with option #5 or who they claim to represent, because their option sure doesn't seem to represent the majority. Unless someone who has access to such information and statistics is able to prove otherwise and show that the vast majority of individuals prefer a moratorium on salmon stockings, I don't for a second believe that most people are even looking for an option #5. 

Seems like option #5 was left out in the end because there just weren't enough people who supported it. Which is fine. You'd need to have support in order for it to be a viable option. Which there is not.

To me, option #5 seems like a moot point. Why should the DNR have it out there if not enough people want it?


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> I would point out your all "voting" for the best way to fill the lake up with alewives, an invasive species, and i'm out of line?
> In no other invasive species control plan, is the plan to INCREASE the invasive species. Every other plan is to reduce/get rid of in some fashion.
> 
> I would like to point out, that if the Asian Carp, get in our rivers. Just like any fish in a river, they will hide behind current breaks, structure. That structure will include bridge supports. The danger of the them jumping into traffic is very real, we have many they can clear (I've seen them go 20 feet) You would be risking your life every time you crossed a river/bridge with the carp in it.


Walranger, I am in total agreement about the asian carp situation. Everything possible needs to be done to stop them. I don't think anybody wants to see them in Lake Michigan. But this issue doesn't have anything to do with the asian carp. It has to do with the management of salmon and prey in Lake Michigan. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is the DNR's job to work toward minimizing the threat posed by the asian carp, but it is also their job to maintain and preserve the Lake Michigan we have as best as they can. If they just dropped the ball on everything and focused 100% of their energy and funds on asian carp situation, the Lake could crash and more than just salmon would suffer. The DNR is in charge of managing, and that's what I and others expect them to do. As managers they will have multiple issues to handle, and should not ignore one because of another. 

Remember that this issue is not about increasing alewives. It is about not letting the lake crash. Alewives are not the only forage that is dwindling. Every other kind of forage out there is on the verge of being wiped out. The idea is to cut down on the number of predators so that the prey can rebound a little. ALL the prey, not JUST alewives.

Again, the issue here is not about invasives vs non-invasives. Those terms are used to flippantly. Salmon are invasives. Steelhead are invasives. Brown trout are invasives. But nowhere do I hear people saying we need to rid the lake of them. Except, maybe you.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> I don't recall anyone on this thread _claiming_ that the state signed on to option#5 but in fact pointing out the fact that they rejected it.
> Your quote:
> "...In fact, that option was turned down in our year long deliberation on the topic..."
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everybody understands this. What folks _don't _understand is the fact that none of our questions are being answered here. "Anglers at Large" and the MUCC don't report back to the general public with information as to what went on at these meetings or who proposed what over a year's time...and you know this. The only non-agency 'peon public' group we have _left _representing us in the public commentary process _seems_ to be the Lake Michigan Citizen Fishery Advisory Committee...*which low and behold stated just before this meeting that they had come to a "consensus" on option#5*.
> You evidently disagree with this:
> "...At the Lake Michigan Citizen Fishery Advisory Committee meeting on April 10th, *most* members said that they would live with the 4 options. *A few* members were concerned that it was not enough and proposed the 100% reduction..."
> ...you further went on to speak for them as follows:
> "...Their "option 5" reduce chinook by 100% _was more of a statement_ to show that they are really concerned about the future of the fishery *and are not sure* that a 50% cut is enough..."
> 
> So which is it?
> Every non-agency group that so much as takes _a thing_ back to the general public for consumption consensually agreeing to nucleur option #5 (at the last second) but immediately having it stricken (by the agencies) from the public commentary process...
> 
> ...*or* 'your' version stating that the LMCFA collectively not only worked with you for an entire year to _come up with_ options 1 through 4..*but that the majority "were all for it...(just)before they were against it"?*(to paraphrase John Kerry).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but the above statement is just blain baloney given what we've laid out so far. You've already told us that the only public group providing any type of feedback to us did not submit a proposal with the 'proper' science behind it, *represent even a majority of their membership* or be even 'worthy' of submitting their opinions for public commentary!!! Furthermore, you claimed the following in regards to 'your' proposal:
> "...I could see *us* tweaking one of the 4 proposed options but *not* shifting dramatically one way or another..."
> 
> *WHAT KIND OF 'ORCHESTRATED CRAP' IS THAT ...AND WHY WON'T ANY OF THE GROUPS INVOLVED IN THIS 'YEAR LONG' PROCESS COME OUT HERE IN TO THE LIGHT OF DAY AND EXPLAIN THEMSELVES?*
> 
> I really don't expect the DNR or any of these agencies controlling what proposals are 'allowed' in to the commentary process to respond (they never do)...but where in the heck are _the rest_ of these groups representing 'us'...*who haven't even fought for the minutes of their own meetings with these guys to be posted on the web for literally years now?* ("concensus" on option#5?...who in the heck says so, at _what_ meeting did they ALL say it...and who in the heck broke off from the rest and claimed 'what'?).
> 
> What a mess.


 Actually the "Alewife Protection Plan" started in 1985, this is merely, a more intense public extention of that. How many or who votes for what matters little. The number One hundred and Twenty Three, trumps everything. Like I said what's going to happen has already been decided, our opinion doesn't change the power of number 123.


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> That honestly has to be one of the most ignorant, sterotypical union minded, naive, and rediculous comments that I have read on this forum, EVER. I award you no points.....and may God have mercy on your soul.
> Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube


 To help put this in perpspective. I asked a Chinese Asian Carp expert if Asian Carp ate Larval fish? He's is qualfied to answer that question, I merely have to know how to ask the right question, to get to heart of the matter or the "root cause" of the problem. His answer was YES by the way. DNR biologists by law are responsible for protecting the natural resources of this state, that makes them management, and responsible, by any definition, you care to use. They are supposed to tell us what's best for the entire resource, not just one fish from out of town. All that's required of them is the ability to tell the truth, about what the problem is. Ecosystem based management is just that, what's best for the ecosystem, dictates our actions. If you based your desicions on social, or culture concerns, then there is no ecosystem based desicion invloved. 
My backround is management, and quality control, I see none of that here. What I do see is the me first syndrome of the highest order.


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Walranger, I am in total agreement about the asian carp situation. Everything possible needs to be done to stop them. I don't think anybody wants to see them in Lake Michigan. But this issue doesn't have anything to do with the asian carp. It has to do with the management of salmon and prey in Lake Michigan.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is the DNR's job to work toward minimizing the threat posed by the asian carp, but it is also their job to maintain and preserve the Lake Michigan we have as best as they can. If they just dropped the ball on everything and focused 100% of their energy and funds on asian carp situation, the Lake could crash and more than just salmon would suffer. The DNR is in charge of managing, and that's what I and others expect them to do. As managers they will have multiple issues to handle, and should not ignore one because of another.
> 
> Remember that this issue is not about increasing alewives. It is about not letting the lake crash. Alewives are not the only forage that is dwindling. Every other kind of forage out there is on the verge of being wiped out. The idea is to cut down on the number of predators so that the prey can rebound a little. ALL the prey, not JUST alewives.
> 
> Again, the issue here is not about invasives vs non-invasives. Those terms are used to flippantly. Salmon are invasives. Steelhead are invasives. Brown trout are invasives. But nowhere do I hear people saying we need to rid the lake of them. Except, maybe you.


 With respect, the plan is to increase the alewives so the salmon don't crash, not the lake. Filling lake Michigan back up with alewives is just like filling it up with baby asian carp, they eat the same thing, zooplankton. The negative impact on the natural ecosytem would be the same. (after asian carp get big, lot worse) but the impact would be the same as billions of baby asian carp. Several Asian carp experts, have warned about creating an asian carp market, giving an invasive species value, ""Those profiting will want that market to be ultimately sustainable" end quote. 
Now if you could push a button tomorrow and wipe out all the Asian Carp, but the Asian carp "stakeholders" said Whoa there buddy, we got Asian Carps jobs to think about here, let's not get in a hurry! Would you push the button? What's best for all concerned/everyone, or the specialinterest "stakeholders"? Now take out asian carp and plug in alewives, would you still push the button? Same exact thing we have here. What's best for all, or a few?
The native "prey" in Huron, are rebounding without alewives, with alewives, they were eaten by alewives same as the rest, documented.
True Steelhead, German Browns, not native, but the difference is not dependant on alewives to survive, the compromise everyone can live with. Chinook or nothin, means the lakes ecosystem is "invasive species friendly", because it has to be if we keep the alewife/salmon show, the proof is in the lake. 
If I'm wrong about this, then there should not be a problem restoring the native fish populations, but as you can see, "Me thinks they protest too much!" I ain't hard to get along with, ask anybody, but enoughs enough, this is for the whole ballawax!


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> Oh come on...you gotta be able to vote for something, right? You are always rambling about how you want the salmon gone so that you can have more perch...so just vote for the 100% cut in salmon plants. Oh, wait....that would mean more alwives. Um....them vote for no salmon cuts....oh wait......that would mean more salmon, at least temporarily. Damn. I guess you won't vote for anything that isn't specifically "only plant perch".


 My vote is for the health of the entire resource, the future of the ENTIRE resource. For a plan that doesn't require such drastic actions, that doesn't pit one interest against the other, that's in the best interests of everyone, long term. 
Your vote seems to be for you, or am I missing something?


----------



## walranger5

walranger5 said:


> With respect, the plan is to increase the alewives so the salmon don't crash, not the lake. Filling lake Michigan back up with alewives is just like filling it up with baby asian carp, they eat the same thing, zooplankton. The negative impact on the natural ecosytem would be the same. (after asian carp get big, lot worse) but the impact would be the same as billions of baby asian carp. Several Asian carp experts, have warned about creating an asian carp market, giving an invasive species value, ""Those profiting will want that market to be ultimately sustainable" end quote.
> Now if you could push a button tomorrow and wipe out all the Asian Carp, but the Asian carp "stakeholders" said Whoa there buddy, we got Asian Carps jobs to think about here, let's not get in a hurry! Would you push the button? What's best for all concerned/everyone, or the specialinterest "stakeholders"? Now take out asian carp and plug in alewives, would you still push the button? Same exact thing we have here. What's best for all, or a few?
> The native "prey" in Huron, are rebounding without alewives, with alewives, they were eaten by alewives same as the rest, documented.
> True Steelhead, German Browns, not native, but the difference is not dependant on alewives to survive, the compromise everyone can live with. Chinook or nothin, means the lakes ecosystem is "invasive species friendly", because it has to be if we keep the alewife/salmon show, the proof is in the lake.
> If I'm wrong about this, then there should not be a problem restoring the native fish populations, but as you can see, "Me thinks they protest too much!" I ain't hard to get along with, ask anybody, but enoughs enough, this is for the whole ballawax!


 P.S.I/we have proposed the Steelhead/Brown switch from salmon for roughly 7 years now. Now forced in Huron.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> What happened at the meeting last week was a turning point.
> We went from not necessarily being wholly responsible for screwing up the resource and offering only well educated opinions on its management...to nobody willing to put their name on anything while at the same time throwing in _opposite_ opinions outside the peon public commentary process.
> 
> If the above makes kids angry...I don't blame them. They already have many in this same age group trying to convince them that if you're 55 or over you shouldn't have to give an opinion on entitlements either...or 'share sacrifice' absolutely anything to receive what you were 'promised' in a country that is not only broke but north of more than 16 trillion in debt.
> 
> The April 14th, 2012 meeting will become a symbol for a lot of things to these kids...none of it necessarily good. :sad:


 A half a million "stakeholders" already voted they don't like the plan since 1986, they quit fishin altogether. We are throwing millions and billions of dollars (41% borrowed, your right we're broke) at trying to get rid of invasive species, and this effort is trying to commit an entire great lake to an invasive species, in the middle of an invasive species crisis? Silly plan? Try insane.


----------



## Rzr

Walranger said:
"...Ecosystem based management is just that, what's best for the ecosystem, dictates our actions. *If you based your desicions on social, or culture concerns, then there is no ecosystem based desicion invloved* 

Well said.

After Jay claimed that Option #5 wasn't 'doable' for both political/social reasons and the fact that it didn't fit a negative scientific model that the public was never allowed to view (which was, in his words, but 5% different in terms of total alewives than their own)...ecosystem based management should have taken hold automatically.

Whenever you have people in charge of your kid's irreplaceable resource legacy who are allowed to forge policy around what is politically or socially going to fly _even in the least_... it is no different than having them in charge of your local, state or national government. As we saw in this meeting, this unabridged power to 'nip ideas in the bud' EARLY quickly extends to the final (cough) "all important" public commentary process where they obviously never see the light of day either.

Everybody on here realizes that this is exactly how the greatest nation in the history of the world _literally fell to its knees_ throguh debt, non-transparent corruption *and the managerial paralysis that is political correctness *..yet _few_ forum members here to date besides walranger seems willing to connect the dots between the two in this regard.

You can't have it both ways in terms of ecosystem based mangement.
And by the way, NOT standing up for what you believe in? (see the "oh, OK, don't include our proposal, gee whiz..." _meek_ authors of option #5)...certainly doesn't help the public evaluate or offer proper commentary of their own either.


----------



## swampbuck

jpmarko said:


> Walranger, I am in total agreement about the asian carp situation. Everything possible needs to be done to stop them. I don't think anybody wants to see them in Lake Michigan. But this issue doesn't have anything to do with the asian carp. It has to do with the management of salmon and prey in Lake Michigan.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is the DNR's job to work toward minimizing the threat posed by the asian carp, but it is also their job to maintain and preserve the Lake Michigan we have as best as they can. If they just dropped the ball on everything and focused 100% of their energy and funds on asian carp situation, the Lake could crash and more than just salmon would suffer. The DNR is in charge of managing, and that's what I and others expect them to do. As managers they will have multiple issues to handle, and should not ignore one because of another.
> 
> Remember that this issue is not about increasing alewives. It is about not letting the lake crash. Alewives are not the only forage that is dwindling. Every other kind of forage out there is on the verge of being wiped out. The idea is to cut down on the number of predators so that the prey can rebound a little. ALL the prey, not JUST alewives.
> 
> Again, the issue here is not about invasives vs non-invasives. Those terms are used to flippantly. Salmon are invasives. Steelhead are invasives. Brown trout are invasives. But nowhere do I hear people saying we need to rid the lake of them. Except, maybe you.


All of the prey that you refer to was already decimated by the presence of alewives/smelt and their effect on the food chan, before the mussell problem arrived. Some of those "prey" species may actually have slowed the mussel's spread had they not already fallen victim to the prefered invasive.

The Salmon/alewife management and its effect on the native species is an intregal part of a much larger picture, Now the invasive mussels have arrived to seal the deal. We have not even begun to see the end result of this Mussel invasion. 

If everyone would remove their shades and do some research, They would see that the future is not nearly as bright as it seems. in fact it may have already set. At this point I believe the future is in the hands of "Mother Nature" and anything we humans attempt to change that is akin to pissing on a forest fire

As far as Salmon, browns and Rainbows being invasive......Generally the term invasive is reserved for species who have a negative affect on the native ecosystem. While they probably do have some minor effect through competition, Non-indigenous would be a more accurate term for those species.


----------



## Rzr

Rzr said:


> The only conversations that I am concerned with (and you know this) are those between legitimate stakeholders (we'll call them lobbyists)and the DNR as related to issues that the board is tasked with partnering on. The great thing about 'non-profits' is that we don't have to even burden the DNR with recording these events. Any "we're just doing this for (all of) you" partner receiving tax breaks is simply charged with keeping accurate immediately available public records of their conversations with our state employees which affect the board's decisions. Get caught doing anything else and be banned from conducting business with the state for life (problem solved). If I lead, work for or support a non-profit interacting with our government employees I am all for this. If I feel it is a partner's job to compete with other groups, lay cover down for state employees or massage the (keep in mind cherry-picked by the DNR) advisory process I am not. For those of you who feel that interacting with state or federal employees on simple environmental matters is indeed akin to saving the free world as we know it complete with 'top secret' conversational clearance I would say...get a life.
> 
> 
> As to your 2nd question, beginning to reform the advisory board model is easy:
> #1) Don't allow the DNR to cherry pick its members (50% of problem solved)
> #2) Don't allow the DNR to ad hoc extend the terms of members who don't agree with the above proposal putting the burden of transparency on the non-profits or individuals themselves (30% solved)
> #3) Invest in the technology already out there to lock down both state employee and non-profit positions as they occur in real time so that _actual_ 'stakeholders' (the general public) can accurately appraise the competence of those participating in these processes to begin with (see 'proposal #5' that you all are currently hollering about).
> #4) Quit relying on one DNR employee as the 'go to' person on all things advisory board "x". When the state is allowed to do this there is never a competing opinion running these boards. The bosom buddy relationship with less than desirable non-profits only gets stronger and bad DNR liasons are never thrown out for encouraging/profiting from (professionally) bad behavior.
> 
> There are many other ways to improve this mess but that's a start.


Sorry, kzoofisher...I missed reading your post #114. Here is my response with both my entire post above and your questions on each individual point included:

*Rzr said:*
*"..The only conversations that I am concerned with (and you know this) are those between legitimate stakeholders (we'll call them lobbyists)and the DNR as related to issues that the board is tasked with partnering on. The great thing about 'non-profits' is that we don't have to even burden the DNR with recording these events..."* 
The only conversations that I am concerned with (and you know this) are those between legitimate stakeholders (we'll call them lobbyists)and the DNR as related to issues that the board is tasked with partnering on. The great thing about 'non-profits' is that we don't have to even burden the DNR with recording these events



kzoofisher said:


> I didn't know that you wanted to create barriers for non-profits but not for anyone else. Good luck with the constitutionality of that...


If every non-profit or lobbyist in this country was simply required to report publicly as to what actually transpires between their organization and OUR employees as the price of admission to OUR legislative and funding process...what is 'unconstitutional' or a 'barrier to (who)?' about that?

*Rzr said:
"...Any "we're just doing this for (all of) you" partner receiving tax breaks is simply charged with keeping accurate immediately available public records of their conversations with our state employees which affect the board's decisions...."* 


kzoofisher said:


> Unless this is what you mean, but this includes just about every industry so we're back to creating barriers for any organization representing a variety of entities..


Yes, this is what I mean...that is why I said it. I'm talking every industry...every UNION....every single (cough) "non-profit" seeking to receive ANYTHING from our employees or agencies and willing to view the simple recording and broadcasting (internet) of their interactions with again OUR EMPLOYEES a darn cheap price to pay for what they may or may not receive. If they are simply offering advice?...all the better as our kids are instantly able to learn one heck of a lot more from a real time deal making process than they may ever learn in the classroom sans any political or agenda driven filter involved. 

* Rzr said:*
*"...For those of you who feel that interacting with state or federal employees on simple environmental matters is indeed akin to saving the free world as we know it complete with 'top secret' conversational clearance I would say...get a life. ..."* 



kzoofisher said:


> It isn't top secret conversational clearance, it's the first amendment. What is said in public meetings is public and you are free to attend those meetings and record them for our benefit, *what is said in private meetings between an individual or the representative of a group and a State employee is private. This is important because otherwise there can be a chilling effect on citizens who seek redress. *.


'Redress' in regards to what?
That the non-profit or individual with their hand out either didn't get the funding that they wanted or our employee didn't take the advice that they offered? You want _that crap_ covered under the 1st Amendment? Isn't it bad enough that groups like these believe that the 'right' to simple shakedowns or pandering is even included in the United States Constituion in the first place?

*Rzr said (in regards to solutions for fixing the mess that we are in presently):*
*#1) Don't allow the DNR to cherry pick its members (50% of problem solved) *



kzoofisher said:


> You keep saying this so I will ask again. _Other than the current members of advisory committees_ who do you see as appropriate members and how would you select them? You complain that they are cherry picked, what is the mechanism for fair selection? It's a straightforward question, try a straightforward answer.


Since you have eliminated every group voluntarily perverting the process presently and you obviously don't feel that said groups should be held publicly accountable whatsoever...how would you like me to answer a question involving 'new' members joining a corrupt process while at the same time keeping their integrities still somehow intact after Day#1? The mechanism for a fair selection involves opening up the conversational process to begin with so as to determine how many citizens are indeed interested in the subject manner. 
I would never join a (closed) non-profit again or serve on an advisory board for one simple reason: You are spending money to support leaders who are told the very first day that they have contact with OUR EMPLOYEES two things..._dilute_ whatever is said between the two of us to your own membership...*and don't ever even bother to come back here if you ever leak a word of what is said in this room to the general public*.
If you feel that this fact alone should qualify the DNR or anybody else in power to cherry pick public advisory board members...then please don't _then_ ask how "I" would pick them if you can't even admit that the system is corrupt to begin with! We have had good people turned away from participating in the advisory process for literally decades now and I can guarantee you that _none_ of them will be willing to return as advisory volunteers unless transparency in this long broke system is fixed first. 

Taking a break...I'll finish up with the rest of your questions some other time.


----------



## Rzr

swampbuck said:


> "...If everyone would remove their shades and do some research, They would see that the future is not nearly as bright as it seems. in fact it may have already set. *At this point I believe the future is in the hands of "Mother Nature" and anything we humans attempt to change that is akin to pissing on a forest fire*..."


If any 'agency' research ever pointed to what you believe it would be buried quicker than Option#5 and the reason I agree with you and say that is as follows:

Michigan employees (in every department) know full well that the writing is on the wall in terms of what can be done fiscally moving forward and more importantly involving future 'obligations' that simply cannot be met. When the move is made to basically fighting invasives with what litttle funds we can scrounge through the much more accountable and efficient for-profit sector that will spring up...we will sadly be forced to outsource much of our fisheries management as well.

You can do all the research you want (presently)...but none of it will ever point to policy adjustments supporting the bold statement that you made above. If it's in Mother Nature's hands and we're broke then priorities need to be set that do not resemble absolutely anything that was presented at this last meeting where the public was not obviously offered your view (or even supposedly our own) to comment on.


----------



## swampbuck

Rzr, There are several fish that eat Quagga's but I guess we gave up on those decades ago....Lake Havasu is using redear sunfish I wonder if those are safer than perch or whitefish for the Ale's.

Anyways heres some intersting reading from MTU and MSU bio's
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the connection to phytoplankton: These mussels are eating five to seven times as much phytoplankton as is being produced--so much that between 2001 and 2008 there's been a 75% decline in phytoplankton abundance.
Moving on, the resultant mussel poop stimulates the growth of Cladophora algae, which upon death and decomposition can cause the water to be depleted of oxygen.
Kerfoot describes what happens next: "When things go anaerobic, that kills off everything, including the quaggas, and creates conditions for botulism. We've had massive kills of fish-eating birds." Along with that, zooplankton will decline as well, and with them the fish that depend upon them. "A high percent of the fish biomass could be lost in the next couple years," Kerfoot notes

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-s...-michigan-ecosystem-to-point-of-collapse.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133010000936

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"These changes are unprecedented," he said. "In terms of algal abundance and water clarity, lakes Michigan and Huron are now similar to Lake Superior."

By filtering out the algae, the mussels are robbing other organisms of the food they need to survive. Of particular concern is the plight of Diporeia, a tiny shrimplike creature that was one of the pillars supporting the base of the Great Lakes food web.

Nearly every fish species in the Great Lakes relies on Diporeia at some point in its life cycle. But Diporiea populations have crashed in lakes Michigan and Huron, and the change is already impacting Great Lakes commercial fisheries and the sport-fishing enterprise.

"The big question now is how large the quagga mussel population will get," Ms Evans said. "And when it gets as big as it can get, will it stay at that level or will it die back because it has decimated its own food supply? We don't really know what to expect at this point."

http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/14631/invasive-mussels-cause-massive-ecological-changes


----------



## Rzr

swampbuck said:


> Rzr, There are several fish that eat Quagga's but I guess we gave up on those decades ago....Lake Havasu is using redear sunfish I wonder if those are safer than perch or whitefish for the Ale's.
> 
> Anyways heres some intersting reading from MTU and MSU bio's
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the connection to phytoplankton: These mussels are eating five to seven times as much phytoplankton as is being produced--so much that between 2001 and 2008 there's been a 75% decline in phytoplankton abundance.
> Moving on, the resultant mussel poop stimulates the growth of Cladophora algae, which upon death and decomposition can cause the water to be depleted of oxygen.
> Kerfoot describes what happens next: "When things go anaerobic, that kills off everything, including the quaggas, and creates conditions for botulism. We've had massive kills of fish-eating birds." Along with that, zooplankton will decline as well, and with them the fish that depend upon them. "A high percent of the fish biomass could be lost in the next couple years," Kerfoot notes
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/natural-s...-michigan-ecosystem-to-point-of-collapse.html
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133010000936
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "These changes are unprecedented," he said. "In terms of algal abundance and water clarity, lakes Michigan and Huron are now similar to Lake Superior."
> 
> By filtering out the algae, the mussels are robbing other organisms of the food they need to survive. Of particular concern is the plight of Diporeia, a tiny shrimplike creature that was one of the pillars supporting the base of the Great Lakes food web.
> 
> Nearly every fish species in the Great Lakes relies on Diporeia at some point in its life cycle. But Diporiea populations have crashed in lakes Michigan and Huron, and the change is already impacting Great Lakes commercial fisheries and the sport-fishing enterprise.
> 
> "The big question now is how large the quagga mussel population will get," Ms Evans said. "And when it gets as big as it can get, will it stay at that level or will it die back because it has decimated its own food supply? We don't really know what to expect at this point."
> 
> http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/14631/invasive-mussels-cause-massive-ecological-changes


Thanks for the good read. Maybe 'redears' are the slamon/perch compromise that this thread has been looking for! (never ate one, but I imagine that they taste as good or better than either). 

I think it was you swampbuck who pointed out that the DNR's 'save the salmon/save Lake Michigan' study going as far back as at least '05/'06 hasn't changed a bit when compared with this last meeting and realistically well into at least 2013 when all is said and done. 

Overlay that fact with the alarm bells going off in your post above and I really have a hard time believing that this last meeting was anything but a dog and pony show produced by those who darn well know better (insert agency, tribe, conservation club, biologist, sport/commercial fisherman, angler-at-large name here).


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> With respect, the plan is to increase the alewives so the salmon don't crash, not the lake. Filling lake Michigan back up with alewives is just like filling it up with baby asian carp, they eat the same thing, zooplankton. The negative impact on the natural ecosytem would be the same. (after asian carp get big, lot worse) but the impact would be the same as billions of baby asian carp.


Walranger, I see where you're going with the analogy, but alewives are not silver carp or bighead carp and do not pose the same kind of threat. Alewives are at a nearly all-time low. Their population is not on the verge of exploding and overwhelming the food chain. And they are not as prolific eaters. Yes, the DNR's plan is to increase their numbers so that the salmon don't crash, but not to the level that existed 40 plus years ago when there were so many they littered the beaches. That'll likely never come close to happening again. 

I would remind you that ALL the forage in the lake relies on plankton at some point in their life cycle. Not just alewife. Nothing new there. That includes perch, bloaters, sculpin and other prey. All are at an low. Why? Well, you can blame the quagga mussel.

There is nothing out there in Lake Michigan that can compare to the quagga mussel in terms of devouring plankton and truncating the food web. If it weren't for them, I dare say there would be an abundance of plankton and healthy food web. 

The mussels are the problem. Most will agree on that. Asian carp have the potential to compound that problem dramatically because of there prolific eating habits. But alewife, at this point, are not. They are held in check by the salmon and whatever else eats them. 

Now if the alewife overpopulated and became out of control like they did decades ago, then yeah, that would be bad. But then again, overpopulation of ANY species of forage is not a good thing. It's kind of like letting a pond be overrun with blue gill. That'll destroy the food web. But plant some bass, and all of a sudden the problem is nonexistent.


----------



## jpmarko

swampbuck said:


> All of the prey that you refer to was already decimated by the presence of alewives/smelt and their effect on the food chan, before the mussell problem arrived. Some of those "prey" species may actually have slowed the mussel's spread had they not already fallen victim to the prefered invasive.


I understand that and am aware of what happened decades ago. But the problem TODAY are the quagga. They are overwhelmingly responsible for truncating the food chain. The alewife do not exist in the numbers they did back then and probably never will again. That issue was solved when the salmon stocking began. 

If you eliminated all alewife today, the overall problem would still be there. Not much would change because the quagga are still there. Plankton levels would still continue to decrease. 

Now, if we're talking about a smaller ecosystem like an inland lake and somehow alewife or smelt got in there, it would be quite easy for them to overpopulate because they have no natural predator and the ecosystem is small. That would be awful. Again, kind of like having your favorite pond overrun by bluegill. Eventually it'll crash.


----------



## jpmarko

swampbuck said:


> Rzr, There are several fish that eat Quagga's but I guess we gave up on those decades ago....Lake Havasu is using redear sunfish I wonder if those are safer than perch or whitefish for the Ale's.


Swampbuck, I'm with you 100% on that one. I wish something would be done about the quagga. If only the DNR would introduce a natural predator for the quagga to start working on the problem. I don't understand for the life of me why they wouldn't want to. Perhaps they think Lake Michigan is just too big and that the problem is too big. I dunno, but still wish they would. That should help nip things in the bud.


----------



## swampbuck

JP, Now the mussels ARE going to cause the alewives, salmon, and pretty much whatever else is left to crash.......Maybe its time to focus on something that will work on the mussels and preventing new invasives from coming in.

Let me point out one thing here.....The plans that are proposed do absolutely NOTHING about the mussels. They are going to continue to multiply unchecked and consume the zooplankton at an ever increasing rate until the alewives (all forage fish actually) food scource is gone. But because of the salmon lobby the best plan we can come up with is to kick the can a couple more years down the road, instead of using those funds looking for a solution to the real problem.


----------



## jpmarko

swampbuck said:


> JP, Now the mussels ARE going to cause the alewives, salmon, and pretty much whatever else is left to crash.......Maybe its time to focus on something that will work on the mussels and preventing new invasives from coming in.
> 
> Let me point out one thing here.....The plans that are proposed do absolutely NOTHING about the mussels. They are going to continue to multiply unchecked and consume the zooplankton at an ever increasing rate until the alewives (all forage fish actually) food scource is gone. But because of the salmon lobby the best plan we can come up with is to kick the can a couple more years down the road, instead of using those funds looking for a solution to the real problem.


Well swampbuck, I'm not gonna argue with you there. I agree with you completely. 

I understand that the mussels are already hard at work dissembling the food web in Lake Michigan and wholeheartedly agree that the DNR should focus their energy on that problem. It may be too late already. Maybe not. I don't have the answer to that. But I have wanted to see something happen regarding the quagga for a while now. 

As far as the salmon stocking issue goes, since it doesn't cost more to stock less, then I'm all for it. The DNR will save a little bit of money and we can try to push of the crash of the chinook. Sounds great to me.

Of course, a potential crash will forever loom over our heads as long as the quagga are not addressed. They are the root of the problem and the problem can only be mitigated, not solved, as long as they multiply uninhibited.

Salmon are my absolute favorite to fish for. But you'd think that the salmon lobbyists who apparently have more vested interest in them than I would be concerned about having something done about the quagga, especially since the kings will probably be the first to crash when the food web completely disintegrates. They have the pickiest diet and will probably be affected first.


----------



## REG

jpmarko said:


> If only the DNR would introduce a natural predator for the quagga to start working on the problem. I don't understand for the life of me why they wouldn't want to. Perhaps they think Lake Michigan is just too big and that the problem is too big. I dunno, but still wish they would. That should help nip things in the bud.


One thing to keep in mind is it's two different things between a fish that will eat mussels and a fish that will flourish on a diet of quagga mussels.

As to an effective mussel predator, there is one that puts a wry grin on some biologists face....Asian Black Carp. Close cousin to the Silver and Bighead Carp. However, it is feared the Black Carp could end up as big or a bigger problem than the other two carps.

Swampbuck, you keep talking about a solution....what is the solution????


----------



## jpmarko

REG said:


> One thing to keep in mind is it's two different things between a fish that will eat mussels and a fish that will flourish on a diet of quagga mussels.


Good point. Take the alewife for example again. I've seen them in the bellies steelhead and browns. Even a walleye here and there. These predators can and will eat them, but they won't keep them in check. Only kings do that and flourish on them. They would need to find an analogous predator for the mussels.



REG said:


> As to an effective mussel predator, there is one that puts a wry grin on some biologists face....Asian Black Carp. Close cousin to the Silver and Bighead Carp. However, it is feared the Black Carp could end up as big or a bigger problem than the other two carps.


How ironic.

If there isn't an effective predator out there for the quagga mussel, or if one hasn't been found yet, well then there isn't much that can be done, is there?


----------



## walranger5

swampbuck said:


> All of the prey that you refer to was already decimated by the presence of alewives/smelt and their effect on the food chan, before the mussell problem arrived. Some of those "prey" species may actually have slowed the mussel's spread had they not already fallen victim to the prefered invasive.
> 
> The Salmon/alewife management and its effect on the native species is an intregal part of a much larger picture, Now the invasive mussels have arrived to seal the deal. We have not even begun to see the end result of this Mussel invasion.
> 
> If everyone would remove their shades and do some research, They would see that the future is not nearly as bright as it seems. in fact it may have already set. At this point I believe the future is in the hands of "Mother Nature" and anything we humans attempt to change that is akin to pissing on a forest fire
> 
> As far as Salmon, browns and Rainbows being invasive......Generally the term invasive is reserved for species who have a negative affect on the native ecosystem. While they probably do have some minor effect through competition, Non-indigenous would be a more accurate term for those species.


 The aleawives and smelt, are predators of larval fish, including our predators Perch, Walleye etc.... We overfished the native predators, decreasing the biotic- resistance and made it safe for them, to thrive (lack of predators is mentioned over and over in the legend) it is normal for alewives and salmon to not affect the each others recruitment, salmon hang up river and are too big for alewives to eat.(1966 paper by Tanner) Perch and walleye hatch right when the alewives come into spawn, at the perfect size. The alewives aren't supposed to be there, when natives hatch, in places where they are not good recruitment. This is documented by the MDNR and many others. Overfishing by us, predation from alewives, = poor year classes.
You research (biotic-resistance) take out fish names, take out your opinion your favorite fish. You also fail to explain how the other invasives that require zooplankton are thriving? spiny fleas, white perch, all of them. The one common thread they share is they get no pressure from us, or the alewife/salmon show. 
I'm sorry but intentionally increasing an invasive species during an invasive species crisis is pouring GAS on a forest fire!


----------



## Jay Wesley

walranger5 said:


> The question stands, how does the number one hundred twenty three, figure into this situation? Your hint was it used to be 103, but now it's 123, by your statements without using the number itself, These are your numbers, and what you are basing this effort on, the number that has to happen, to make the "salmon stakeholders" happy.
> 
> From 1873 to 1933, 60 years, why didn't they take?
> 
> Ref. Exotic Species in the Great Lakes A history of biotic crises: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Aug 9 1991


Walranger5, 

You really lost me. I do not see a question in 103 or 123 (perhaps my numbers are different than yours). If you have a specific question that you would like me to address, please ask it. There are a lot of long posts on this thread now, and I do not have the time to re-read all of them. If you think, I missed something, please ask the question again. 

Thanks.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Jay Wesley said:


> Sorry. I was just saying "careful" in terms of what you are asking for. Phosphorous is important in small amounts to aquatic systems. Too much can cause severe plant growth causing low oxygen and toxic algae situations.
> 
> Dr. Madenjian presented some phosphorous data for Lake Michigan in his April 14th talk, so I can at least give you the numbers from that talk.
> 
> Spring total phosphorous in the early 1970s was 6-7 ug/L. It declined through the 1980s and 1990s to about 5 ug/L. Since quagga mussels have come in, it is down to about 3 ug/L. This low level is similar to Lake Superior. This reduction in phosphorous has occured although our rivers continue to pump phosphorous and other nutrients out into the lake.


Jay, 
At a glance one could correlate last years abundace of fish and relative size of those fish to the RECORD setting precipitation amounts that the Great Lakes region had in 2011. That must raise a flag as to the fact that with proper nutrition the lakes can be managed in way that is benificial to to all the species now present in the system, including fisherpeople. (I hate being P.C.)


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> I stand by my statement, the negative impact would the same as the same number of baby asian carp planktivores, which alewives are. The alewives invade the spawning/nursery areas, thus concentrating thiers numbers and impact in one spot, and stay roughly 30 days, or until food gets low then move out. They have native fish boxed in.
> Do you know what they consider a safe level of alewives? It's ridiculous. Sorry the only safe level of any invasive species is zero!


Walranger, nearly all of these species we are discussing will eat each other at some point in their life cycle. Alewives, perch, walleye, etc. I fail to see what is wrong with that. Yes, the alewives do prey on other species. So what? The alewives are also a food item to some of those same species later on. There is no surprise in that relationship. 

You may stand by your statement relating alewives to baby asian carp. You may even be convinced of it. But alewives simply do not pose the same kind of threat. They do not consume 140% their body weight in plankton like baby asian carp do. They do not grow to be 30 to 100 lbs and filter massive amounts of plankton each day like adult asian carp. Neither are they growing in numbers unchecked like the asian carp.

Again, you can't just say that the alewives pose the same threat as asian carp without a reason. There isn't a correlation. Well, you can say it but it's not believable.

I'll mention again that the alewife isn't what ate all the plankton out there, as you seem to be implying that it has or will do. The quagga mussels are a thousand times more likely to have done that. They are overwhelmingly more extensive and filter more plankton. No need to look to the alewive for a scapegoat, you have the quagga mussels.


----------



## jpmarko

Found this interesting on the Sea Grant website, specifically beginning at the bottom on page 14 regarding Dreissenid Mussels:

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2011LakeMichiganPreyfishReport.pdf

Here are a few statements that stood out to me:

"According to the GLSC bottom trawl survey, biomass density of dreissenid mussels was highest in 2007 (Figure 13a), which followed an exponential like increase between 2004 and 2006 (Bunnell et al. 2009b)..."

"...Over this same period of dreissenid mussel increases, prey fish biomass was declining, which led to a dramatic increase in the percentage of dreissenids in the total bottom trawl catch (Figure 13b). Some authors have attributed the recent decline in prey fish to food-web changes induced by the expansion of dreissenids (Nalepa et al. 2009). However, Bunnell et al. (2009b) proposed that the bulk of the decline in total prey fish biomass may be better explained by factors other than food-web-induced effects by dreissenids, including poor fish recruitment (that preceded the mussel expansion), shifts in fish habitat, and increased fish predation by Chinook salmon..."

"...The biomass density of dreissenid mussels in 2011 was 14.97 kg per ha, which was equal to 29% of the peak biomass density estimated for 2007 (Figure 13a)..."

"...The exceptionally high biomass densities recorded in 2006 and 2007 were attributable to the expansion of quagga mussels into deeper (> 60 m) waters of Lake Michigan. However, there was no clear explanation for the drastic drop in dreissenid mussel biomass density between 2007 and 2008. According to the
results of the benthic macroinvertebrate survey led by Tom Nalepa at NOAA-GLERL, quagga mussel biomass density in Lake Michigan appears to have peaked sometime between 2008 and 2010. This peaking may be in response to the exceeding of the carrying capacity, and a decline in quagga mussel biomass density may be expected in upcoming years."


----------



## walranger5

Jay Wesley said:


> Walranger5,
> 
> You really lost me. I do not see a question in 103 or 123 (perhaps my numbers are different than yours). If you have a specific question that you would like me to address, please ask it. There are a lot of long posts on this thread now, and I do not have the time to re-read all of them. If you think, I missed something, please ask the question again.
> 
> Thanks.


 God I love it when you guys play dumb, but it's getting old pal real old.
Alright the 123 Rule, applies only to Salmon, and alewives, each salmon requires 123 pounds of alewives to reach 17 pounds in 3 years, it used to be 103, but the alewives are skinny so it requires 20% or 20 pounds more of alewives to reach 17 pounds. Your science. The 123 rule cannot be changed, minimum needed for healthy salmon and happy "salmon stakeholders" So the real " minimum safe level" is 123 pounds of alewives per salmon X number of fish per year class X mutiple year classes etc.... And the salmon are spawning "out of control" so your safe level has to be on the high side, because you don't know how many you got! There is no safe level for native fish, except zero alewives!

No other fish has to find 123 pounds of alewives, and in only 3 years before they die, salmon have to find 123 pounds of alewives in 3 years, can't change that. Votes can't change that.Your science.
Perhaps I should argue these points in a different venue, but I'm trying really hard to aviod that, this state does not need another scandal.
But you guys want to go back to 1966, to hell with everyone else, simple switch to steelhead/browns (covered in a 2002 paper by the way) would save a whole lot of "problems" shall we say.
No more patty cake, as I told Rozich once, "Do not question our resolove"
I have no problem if people wind up "pursueing other interests" it doesn't have to happen, there is a compromise all can live with, and nobody loses nothing, and the lake wins. The 123 Rule has got to go!


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Walranger, nearly all of these species we are discussing will eat each other at some point in their life cycle. Alewives, perch, walleye, etc. I fail to see what is wrong with that. Yes, the alewives do prey on other species. So what? The alewives are also a food item to some of those same species later on. There is no surprise in that relationship.
> 
> You may stand by your statement relating alewives to baby asian carp. You may even be convinced of it. But alewives simply do not pose the same kind of threat. They do not consume 140% their body weight in plankton like baby asian carp do. They do not grow to be 30 to 100 lbs and filter massive amounts of plankton each day like adult asian carp. Neither are they growing in numbers unchecked like the asian carp.
> 
> Again, you can't just say that the alewives pose the same threat as asian carp without a reason. There isn't a correlation. Well, you can say it but it's not believable.
> 
> I'll mention again that the alewife isn't what ate all the plankton out there, as you seem to be implying that it has or will do. The quagga mussels are a thousand times more likely to have done that. They are overwhelmingly more extensive and filter more plankton. No need to look to the alewive for a scapegoat, you have the quagga mussels.


 Well documented, alewives drastically changed the zooplankton structure after entering Lake Michigan, they like the larger ones. From a 2002 paper regading this issue (Fish species in the Great Lakes had evolved in the absense of a schooling pelagic planktivore that spawned in spring, like the alewife, so they were ill equipped to survive in the face of such a species. Consequently all remaing native species in Lake Huron and Michigan declined to low levels by the 60's") Thier words not mine. 
There is no safe level of any invasive species, "Best way is too keep them out" ain't that what they say, or none at all? Yes Asian Carp are the worst, I agree, my point is if baby asian carp stayed that size like alewives. Nonetheless this plan is too increase an invasive species, and yes there is a difference, a big difference!


----------



## walranger5

Jay Wesley said:


> Based on the trawl and accoustic data, I would say that overall prey levels are very low. Experts will argue as to why this is. Some say it is due to bottom up effects and some say top down.
> 
> Regardless of the cause, the system is predator heavy so we need to reduce predation.


 Sorry given there are trillions of zebra/quagga mussels, billions of gobies, spiny fleas, invasive white perch etc... the facts say we are very predator light, extremely so!

Alewife/salmon ratio might be heavy, but that's all.


----------



## walranger5

Gentelmen (and I'm using that term rather losely) it's time for ALL of us to face the facts, the Asian Carp are very real and we're running out of time. We are not going to have an Asian Carp problem, we HAVE an Asiain Carp problem, and assorted others. I can play 20 questions with the DNR all day long, and never get a good answer, already have.
Given the FACTS of our situation, all the REAL fish biology says the salmon gotta go. They will be useless agaianst the carp, just like they're useless against the other freshwater invasive species we have now.
There is life after salmon, the DNR might have to admit they made a MMMMMMMMistake, but I don't see that happening, I'm sure the DNR Spin Doctors will come up with something to cover thier butt, but that's thier problem.
Our problem is invasive species, more invasive species does not help that! Period!
We can work together, or fight over alewives? Clocks ticking!
One thing this discusion has done for me, was, 7 years IS my limit for BS, had enough.


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> Well documented, alewives drastically changed the zooplankton structure after entering Lake Michigan, they like the larger ones. From a 2002 paper regading this issue (Fish species in the Great Lakes had evolved in the absense of a schooling pelagic planktivore that spawned in spring, like the alewife, so they were ill equipped to survive in the face of such a species. Consequently all remaing native species in Lake Huron and Michigan declined to low levels by the 60's") Thier words not mine.
> There is no safe level of any invasive species, "Best way is too keep them out" ain't that what they say, or none at all? Yes Asian Carp are the worst, I agree, my point is if baby asian carp stayed that size like alewives. Nonetheless this plan is too increase an invasive species, and yes there is a difference, a big difference!


Well, Walranger... this will probably be my last post on this particular point regarding the alewife. Otherwise we'll go in circles and there's no point in that. 

I am fully aware of what happened 50 years ago. The alewives arrived back then in the billions and in absolutely overwhelming numbers. There were present in such great magnitude, it was unbelievable. To compound matters, they arrived rather quickly and had no natural predator in Lake Michigan that could really control them. Their sheer numbers, relatively quick arrival and lack of a predator left them unchecked. As such, they did quite a number on the food web and had more of a harmful impact. Any single species, native or invasive, in such sheer numbers could do that. Too much of any species is bad. So yeah, you're right as far as that goes. 

But we're not in the 1960s anymore. Salmon have solved the alewife problem. Alewives will never again exist in those numbers and haven't for a long time. They are in check. By virtue of their reduced numbers they cannot pose the threat they once did. 

I'll refer to my bluegill/bass analogy one last time. If you were to plant only bluegill in a pond, they would eventually overpopulate it and destroy the food web and whatever organisms or wildlife existed in the pond before they were planted. Very harmful. Once you balance them with a predator, like bass, the problem is solved and they will never again be a threat. Food web remains intact. Threat eliminated.

I realize we're not talking about a pond here and mere bluegill and bass. But there is a relationship there. Alewives, like any other species, would pose a threat if they were overpopulated and had no predator (like asian carp or quagga mussels). But that's not the case today as far as alewives go. 

Even by reducing salmon stocking the alewife population wouldn't explode. There are still plenty of salmon out there to keep them in check.

The only reason I could see a problem with any alewives at all, even in small numbers, is if I had a personal interest in seeing the perch or walleye population increase somewhat. But to me, there are enough perch or walleye. I can catch perch often enough and find walleye almost any day of the week.

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> Sorry given there are trillions of zebra/quagga mussels, billions of gobies, spiny fleas, invasive white perch etc... the facts say we are very predator light, extremely so!
> 
> Alewife/salmon ratio might be heavy, but that's all.



Walranger, maybe you should look up the current statistics for forage numbers. ALL of the forage has decreased. Not just alewives. Perch, rainbow smelt, bloaters, sculpin, goby, etc. Those are the facts and are detailed on the Sea Grant Website. Hence the argument that we are predator heavy.

Granted, there is no predator in Lake Michigan for the mussels. That is the only species for which predator light.


----------



## jpmarko

walranger5 said:


> God I love it when you guys play dumb, but it's getting old pal real old.





walranger5 said:


> Gentelmen (and I'm using that term rather loosely)...


Lol, there's no need to be condescending to anybody, Walranger. We're just sharing ideas and having a friendly debate. This is a forum, not a war zone.


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Lol, there's no need to be condescending to anybody, Walranger. We're just sharing ideas and having a friendly debate. This is a forum, not a war zone.


 A little humor with the (loosely) no humor intended with the playing dumb part. 
I've been dealing with these guys too long.

If you read the other posts it's quite simple: Steelhead and Browns and all our native fish are not controlled by the 123 Rule, only salmon. 
Thus if we keep the salmon, the 123 Rule, rules, to detriment of the entire lake. The "bath Tub" has to have 123 pounds of alewives per salmon or you guys ain't "happy" so all predators have to be restricted to obey the 123 Rule, this includes native fish.
The DNR has a lot of faults, but the worst is the "Failure to mention syndrome" They fail to mention the true cost of "thier science" and the 123 Rule.


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Walranger, maybe you should look up the current statistics for forage numbers. ALL of the forage has decreased. Not just alewives. Perch, rainbow smelt, bloaters, sculpin, goby, etc. Those are the facts and are detailed on the Sea Grant Website. Hence the argument that we are predator heavy.
> 
> Granted, there is no predator in Lake Michigan for the mussels. That is the only species for which predator light.


 I looked them up in Huron the total prey is around 50 ish kilotons, and all the native fish are recoving sans alewives. The dream number for lake Michigan is 500 kilotons, (this is safe level) more than that too many,They say. Really?
We have a predator for zebras in Lake Michigan, they're called Perch, they feed heavily on the mussels have the mouth gape for quaggas that gobies don't and the eat gobies as well, and we are very light on Perch, by design. But Perch set off Frog boy, and the DNR Why?


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Well, Walranger... this will probably be my last post on this particular point regarding the alewife. Otherwise we'll go in circles and there's no point in that.
> 
> I am fully aware of what happened 50 years ago. The alewives arrived back then in the billions and in absolutely overwhelming numbers. There were present in such great magnitude, it was unbelievable. To compound matters, they arrived rather quickly and had no natural predator in Lake Michigan that could really control them. Their sheer numbers, relatively quick arrival and lack of a predator left them unchecked. As such, they did quite a number on the food web and had more of a harmful impact. Any single species, native or invasive, in such sheer numbers could do that. Too much of any species is bad. So yeah, you're right as far as that goes.
> 
> But we're not in the 1960s anymore. Salmon have solved the alewife problem. Alewives will never again exist in those numbers and haven't for a long time. They are in check. By virtue of their reduced numbers they cannot pose the threat they once did.
> 
> I'll refer to my bluegill/bass analogy one last time. If you were to plant only bluegill in a pond, they would eventually overpopulate it and destroy the food web and whatever organisms or wildlife existed in the pond before they were planted. Very harmful. Once you balance them with a predator, like bass, the problem is solved and they will never again be a threat. Food web remains intact. Threat eliminated.
> 
> I realize we're not talking about a pond here and mere bluegill and bass. But there is a relationship there. Alewives, like any other species, would pose a threat if they were overpopulated and had no predator (like asian carp or quagga mussels). But that's not the case today as far as alewives go.
> 
> Even by reducing salmon stocking the alewife population wouldn't explode. There are still plenty of salmon out there to keep them in check.
> 
> The only reason I could see a problem with any alewives at all, even in small numbers, is if I had a personal interest in seeing the perch or walleye population increase somewhat. But to me, there are enough perch or walleye. I can catch perch often enough and find walleye almost any day of the week.
> 
> Sorry for the long post.


 This plan is trying to put us back to 1966, which salmon thrived and nothing else.


----------



## METTLEFISH

With the new zero Ph. laws most if not all states are mandating fishing will become worse for all species. This is not a Glacial watershed, the lakes should be utilized in a manor that is benificial to all inhabitants. Jay pointed out yesterday after being asked about the fertility of the lake, that it has dropped markedly since the the early 70's, it will continue to drop if nothing is done. Fertility must be raised in order to keep a viable fishery going. There is nothing wrong wtih having FERTILE water, mankind has inhabited areas near and along waterways for hundreds of thousands of years, and have utilized those waters for ''waste" disposal, thus increasing the fertility of the waters near and far, and increasing the yield of those waters. Hmmm maybe by design?,funny how things are symbiotic. I agree that the poisons of modern Man are terrible and have that effect on nature, we are discovering and reversing those issues now. 

As I have said many times before and will continue to, we need to increase the fertility of the lakes or face the kind of fishery we had before the issues of seaway. It all comes down to fertility!


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> We have a predator for zebras in Lake Michigan, they're called Perch, they feed heavily on the mussels have the mouth gape for quaggas that gobies don't and the eat gobies as well, *and we are very light on Perch, by design*. But Perch set off Frog boy, and the DNR Why?


Yeah, thats it. There is a giant DNR conspiracy against the perch. Black helecopters have been flying in at night and raping the perch from their spawning grounds to drive their numbers down. Down with the perch, long live the invasives. You are getting crazier. 

And the last part of you comment?? I have absolutely no issue with perch. In fact I enjoy fishing for perch very much. What sets me off is your giant hardon for perch, which basically turns everything you talk about into perch vs salmon circle jerk. 

OK.....venting over. 

By the way, wasn't this thread originally about the future options for Salmon Stocking before it was derailed by the perca flavescens cult? Can we get off of the perch, and back to the original topic....PLEASE?


----------



## EdB

Forgot about this great functionality on this website but I'm using it for the first time:

Go to your User Control Panel, then go to Settings then Options. Click "Edit Ignore List" and you add the person's screen name that you want to ignore. 

With a few mouse clicks, this thread is back on track


----------



## METTLEFISH

walranger5 said:


> This plan is trying to put us back to 1966, which salmon thrived and nothing else.


Salmon were few and far between in 66, do you have any numbers of said others that were low in numbers then, other than Lake Trout due to Lampreys?


----------



## Rzr

EdB said:


> Forgot about this great functionality on this website but I'm using it for the first time:
> 
> Go to your User Control Panel, then go to Settings then Options. Click "Edit Ignore List" and you add the person's screen name that you want to ignore.
> 
> With a few mouse clicks, this thread is back on track


I would add my screen name to that list since I seem to keep wanting to discuss what happened at the meeting itself (thread topic) and why every single stakeholder representing the peon public ('us')...seems to have submitted a "consensus" proposal (again, supposedly 'ours') that Jay says they didn't even believe in for an entire year and which truly wasn't a multi-group "consensus" opinion *as the press/stakeholders themselves stated* after all.

In addition, why this 'peon public' generated proposal *didn't even make it into the public commentary process* would be yet another reason to put my screen name on the ignore list...if you needed another one. 

Salmon stocking discussions are one thing...perverting the public commentary process and refusing to answer questions about same is quite another.


----------



## Jay Wesley

walranger5 said:


> God I love it when you guys play dumb, but it's getting old pal real old.
> Alright the 123 Rule, applies only to Salmon, and alewives, each salmon requires 123 pounds of alewives to reach 17 pounds in 3 years, it used to be 103, but the alewives are skinny so it requires 20% or 20 pounds more of alewives to reach 17 pounds. Your science. The 123 rule cannot be changed, minimum needed for healthy salmon and happy "salmon stakeholders" So the real " minimum safe level" is 123 pounds of alewives per salmon X number of fish per year class X mutiple year classes etc.... And the salmon are spawning "out of control" so your safe level has to be on the high side, because you don't know how many you got! There is no safe level for native fish, except zero alewives!
> 
> No other fish has to find 123 pounds of alewives, and in only 3 years before they die, salmon have to find 123 pounds of alewives in 3 years, can't change that. Votes can't change that.Your science.
> Perhaps I should argue these points in a different venue, but I'm trying really hard to aviod that, this state does not need another scandal.
> But you guys want to go back to 1966, to hell with everyone else, simple switch to steelhead/browns (covered in a 2002 paper by the way) would save a whole lot of "problems" shall we say.
> No more patty cake, as I told Rozich once, "Do not question our resolove"
> I have no problem if people wind up "pursueing other interests" it doesn't have to happen, there is a compromise all can live with, and nobody loses nothing, and the lake wins. The 123 Rule has got to go!


Sorry that I did not understand your 123 riddle. Was not intentially playing dumb. Anyway, you are right that it takes more alewife now to meet the same nutrition that the alewives had in the past. The alewives do not pack the same energy as they used to. Therefore it takes more alewife to sustain the same weight of chinook. Therefore, we feel that we are predator heavy.


----------



## walranger5

Jay Wesley said:


> RZM - We are looking for ideas on how we can communicate better with the public. Public meetings do not work since we had 3 meetings recently to discuss regulation changes and had 1 person show in Lansing, 11 in Kalamazoo, and 5 in Grand Rapids. We use the advisory Committees so we can have long discussions on issues and get opinion but you say they do not work. We are trying to work on these forums with some success. Trying internet surveys with some success. We are asking how else that we can better serve the angling community.
> 
> If you feel that we have not addressed your questions, please ask it directly. Thanks. We really are trying here.


 I don't think you'll get much public response on your monkey survey. Mostly because they don't care about salmon, they don't like alewives. But I believe the biggest reason is you are misleading the public with your statement "We only want to increase alewives to a safe level, where they don't affect native fish" and you don't tell them how many "you" think is safe. There is no safe level of any invasive species including, especially alewives! "The best way is not to let them in at all" Right? As in none is best? I agree, zero invasive species is safe, 2 Asian Carp could rock our whole world, if they find a safe place to spawn! Which you have created for the alewives, and are trying to make safer. The harder you try to protect the alewives, the faster the invasives increase, "out of control"

We could have a smooth transition from salmon back to a native fishery, with a "World Class" Steelhead and Brown fishery, that doesn't require protecting an invasive species, (Minimum 123 pounds of alewives per salmon, ridiculous to defend that) 
Stock all the salmon you can, transition the hatcheries to steelhead and browns. Let us restore the Perch and Walleye, the whole lake will benefit, which is what we're supposed to be doing.

Also the Corps annouced yesterday, they will add native predators to protect the lakes from asian Carp. West Michigan spawning grounds need predator protection as well, or they will be point zero for the asian carp explosion.


----------



## walranger5

Rzr said:


> I've been up here for weeks now pointing out to you what went wrong with the public process in this instance (the thread topic). So far, you have chosen to ignore every single fact presented (publicly) while 'pm'ing me only to be given even more facts...with no response on your part as well. The problem for you here is that I _know_ the public process and choose to stand up for it
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm just tired of you spinning the issue. It's not what "I" feel about anything. This is about YOU allowing OUR representatives to submit whatever THEY feel is the correct course of action _in to_ the public commentary process. I'm also tired of you ignoring exactly how this proposal came about, flip flopping back and forth on what committee members supported it and frankly downplaying the significance of the only meaningful broad-based committee which represents us. You've already inferred that "the agencies" are basically already in the tank for _one_ of these four 'agreed upon' proposals...so please don't insult our intelligence any longer in regards to encouraging us to 'vote'...while at the same time ignoring every other issue surrounding this meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, gosh...lucky us and shouldn't we feel blessed. We can't view what the only significant group representing us has to say in regards to a full year's worth of their study on the survey...but if we can conjure up something on our own?...have at it. Heck, why don't you guys just put up every piece of research that was ever discussed for a year...and we'll all 'guess' what groups 'might' have proposed had they been given the opportunity?
> 
> 
> The sentence does
> not even make sense Jay and you know it.
> "...our constituent groups and agencies did not list as part of the 4 options because..."
> When you figure out what you 'really' wanted to say...hit me with the
> "As stated several times" again and give me at least three examples of how the term "we" hasn't been used looser than a goose here every single time that you've offered us anything.
> Here's an example:
> "...This process of reviewing the state of the lake and stocking started 1 year ago. With the assistance of stakeholders, *we* came up with the 4 options.
> As stated in a post earlier, *we* looks at 26 or more options. A 100% cut was looked at but was not included due to a couple of reasons. First, it politically would be very difficult to implement, and two it did not perform in the model like *we* thought it might...."
> 
> And here is "we" as (flip-flop) defined by the entire peon public representation on your board AT THE LAST SECOND: http://howardmeyerson.com/2012/04/1...se-1-to-2-year-moratorium-on-salmon-stocking/
> http://howardmeyerson.com/2012/04/17/update-dnr-says-no-to-salmon-stocking-moratorium/
> 
> "We" doesn't mean a darn thing to us anymore, Jay and you have purposely bastardized the phrase in terms of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you exactly how I would like the department to improve in my pm that you never responded to. For those not privy to this one-sided discussion the main theme was transparency. When I ask you a tough question you answer it as my employee, _not_ a 'suggestion taker'. When the DNR starts believing that any conversation beyond the formal public meeting level is 'priveleged' when it comes to 'stocking fish'...then frankly a whole culture within_ a lot_ of state agencies needs to change.
> 
> Don't even get me started on Stokes or how now "everything's going to change" in terms of customer service. He sat right next to Humphries for all those years during the darkest days of the public advisory board system with 'nary a peep' and you well know it.


 This action is not moving forward, it's going backwards. But the public thinks it will be "safe for native fish" because the DNR said so.

It doesn't matter how many suggestions one makes, any suggestions that threaten the alewife/salmon show are automatically rejected. Oh you might get a fancy letter, with 20 dollar words, I have several but the end result is the same. Alewives first, last, and always. 

If the DNR considers this bodacious public display is being transparent, it is, they just told the whole world alewives are first, last and always, but didn't tell the true cost involved.

AnyTHING that requires the intentional destruction of the natural environment to survive has no value!!! And that includes the salmon!
Any system that allows that to happen, is clearly flawed.


----------



## kzoofisher

Rzr said:


> ..which is the topic of this thread.
> The above exchange is a great example of why it has become literally impossible to stay on topic with the department. All my time spent above simply laying out the salmon stocking proposal timeline, _questioning it_ and presenting the facts as at least 'we' know them to have transpired...wasted. Not only wasted, but flippantly 'spun' in Jay's response towards "...public meetings do not work.." and "..how else that we can better serve the angling community...".............
> 
> 
> Thought for the day:
> 
> Kids don't learn about their resources from textbooks...they learn from observing others arguing about their fast dissolving legacy in real time using 'real world' money that they will be someday expected to earn."


As a member of the public I vote against this proposal. Anyone else care to cast a vote?


----------



## kzoofisher

Jay,

Seeing as I was one of the 11 in Kalamazoo why don't you just implement whatever it was that we thought was best and forget about the people who don't bother to show up?


----------



## walranger5

kzoofisher said:


> As a member of the public I vote against this proposal. Anyone else care to cast a vote?


If your vote is against increasing the alewives, make that 2.

This is a good idea you got here, over 8,000 views, there's probably a lot of guys have an opinion, but don't want any grief from, "some people"

Just vote do you want more alewives or not?


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> This is a good idea you got here, over 8,000 views, there's probably a lot of guys have an opinion, but don't want any grief from, "some people"


 You are probably right. I noticed that there was alot more participation and open exchange of ideas before you changed the topic from salmon to perch.


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> You are probably right. I noticed that there was alot more participation and open exchange of ideas before you changed the topic from salmon to perch.


 My first good laugh of the day, thanks!
Frog boy, anybody that gets in here and supports Perch, or is against salmon, is taking chance of catching the "the rath of the Frog" 
Go to a seagrant meeting to be shouted down by a bunch of selfish alewife lovers? What good does that do?

This thread is about increasing the alewives in some manner, the DNR surrender Monkey survey has an other option/suggestion in it, after you pick one of the 4 choices. I pick none of the above, and am against any action, that increases an invasive species.
I am on topic, as the DNR is asking for suggestions, and other options.


----------



## Jay Wesley

samsteel said:


> Yeah...but how many people showed up for the salmon stocking meeting Jay?


 There were about 80 at the meeting and another 40 or so on the Adobe connect.


----------



## jpmarko

Walranger, 

It seems that you've made your point. Several times. Most people reading this thread can probably recite your argument. It's apparent that you have clear vision of what you want to see happen in Lake Michigan. In some of your posts it seems like you have a preconceived notion of what people want, and of how things will play out. But your info is lacking. Or more accurately, you are excluding good info because you don't want to hear it. 

I love perch fishing and I love walleye, too. And I know alot of people along the west coast of Michigan that love them too. Now, I haven't been to every port in Michigan. I've been to three, besides St. Joe, which is where I live. I do see boats fishing for perch. But there are exponentially more fishing for salmon and steelhead year round. The tackle shops there make their revenue off of salmon gear. I have fished Berrien dam and the St. Joe river a thousand times. There are always walleye to be caught, and I do see a couple of walleye fishermen everyday. But often times the bank down by the dam is lined with guys fishing salmon or steelhead. That never happens for walleye, even when they're in thick.

I know some guys prefer perch or walleye, but so many more prefer salmon. Each to his own. I don't care. You, however, have your own idea of what's popular out there that just doesn't coincide with reality. 

Perch can eat mussels here and there, but they don't thrive on mussels. It is one thing for them to eat them, another for them to flourish on a diet of them to the point that they will keep their numbers in check. Take walleye, for example. Walleye eat alewives, but they didn't prefer them and thus were unable to keep their numbers in check when the alewives invaded the lake. Chinook do thrive on them, and have been successful in keeping alewives in check. If you want a predator for the mussels, the perch are not it. If the perch were the ideal predator for the mussels, they would be flourishing by now because the mussels have been around for a long time. But they haven't. The perch are undersized. And their numbers are also down. 

Walranger, if you want to make an argument that sticks, it has to be based on accurate info and logic. Just re-stating the same thing again and again with exclamation marks doesn't win anyone over. Nor does believing in something strongly necessarily make it so.

It's easy to say the DNR won't listen to you because they are only committed to salmon. But don't expect to be taken seriously by the DNR when your argument doesn't rest on science or trends in Lake Michigan. Even the DNR are busy and has to be committed to looking at the data, trends, and behavior of the fish in Lake Michigan above you.


----------



## samsteel

Jay Wesley said:


> There were about 80 at the meeting and another 40 or so on the Adobe connect.


Ok....so not all public meetings are failures. I think this is also a huge statement about how important the salmon fishery is too so many. The coldwater committee meetings that are open to the public have good turnouts as well. Public meetings are important....i think that the attendence is usually based on the agenda topics. Some of us have to pick and choose.


----------



## born2fish

walranger5 said:


> I pick none of the above, and am against any action, that increases an invasive species.


Do you have any idea how dumb this statement is given what you said in your 4:54AM post? AND I QUOTE...

_"We could have a smooth transition from salmon back to a native fishery, with a "World Class" Steelhead and Brown fishery, that doesn't require protecting an invasive species...Stock all the salmon you can, transition the hatcheries to steelhead and browns_."

Steelhead and brown trout are not native to Michigan or the Great Lakes yet you are for increasing them by additional hartchery plantings?

An argument can be made that because brown trout are canabilistic towards other trout that they are harmful to native brook trout populations and therefore invasive.

I can see both sides of the Alewife issue and yes a lack of alewife may result in an increase in perch and walleye. However the fact remains that Lake Michigan is never going to revert back to what is was pre-European settlement. Zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and the extinction of diaporia and several of the native ciscos have indefiniately altered the system. There is no resetting the of the ecological system and therefore any management decision can not be made in a vacuum and must take into account the economics of the surrounding Lake Michigan communities. The salmon fishery is vitally important to Michigan's economy and can't simply be dismissed because there is an oportunity to affect 1 of the 150+ non-native Great Lake species that we humans have labeled as "invasive".


----------



## METTLEFISH

Perhaps keeping the cold water fisheries where they are most viable and letting some of the warm water fisheries go natural/native would work. Only supplement where and when/if necessary, if/as there is such good natural production why not let nature take it's course in a few sample situations and make decisions based on those results. Wild fish could/should mean larger - though fewer specimens, nothing wrong with that, the wild fish will migrate and provide fisheries throughout the lake (s) and perhaps planting as done in Rogers City (Harbor) to provide extra fish when / if necessary.


----------



## walranger5

jpmarko said:


> Walranger,
> 
> It seems that you've made your point. Several times. Most people reading this thread can probably recite your argument. It's apparent that you have clear vision of what you want to see happen in Lake Michigan. In some of your posts it seems like you have a preconceived notion of what people want, and of how things will play out. But your info is lacking. Or more accurately, you are excluding good info because you don't want to hear it.
> 
> I love perch fishing and I love walleye, too. And I know alot of people along the west coast of Michigan that love them too. Now, I haven't been to every port in Michigan. I've been to three, besides St. Joe, which is where I live. I do see boats fishing for perch. But there are exponentially more fishing for salmon and steelhead year round. The tackle shops there make their revenue off of salmon gear. I have fished Berrien dam and the St. Joe river a thousand times. There are always walleye to be caught, and I do see a couple of walleye fishermen everyday. But often times the bank down by the dam is lined with guys fishing salmon or steelhead. That never happens for walleye, even when they're in thick.
> 
> I know some guys prefer perch or walleye, but so many more prefer salmon. Each to his own. I don't care. You, however, have your own idea of what's popular out there that just doesn't coincide with reality.
> 
> Perch can eat mussels here and there, but they don't thrive on mussels. It is one thing for them to eat them, another for them to flourish on a diet of them to the point that they will keep their numbers in check. Take walleye, for example. Walleye eat alewives, but they didn't prefer them and thus were unable to keep their numbers in check when the alewives invaded the lake. Chinook do thrive on them, and have been successful in keeping alewives in check. If you want a predator for the mussels, the perch are not it. If the perch were the ideal predator for the mussels, they would be flourishing by now because the mussels have been around for a long time. But they haven't. The perch are undersized. And their numbers are also down.
> 
> Walranger, if you want to make an argument that sticks, it has to be based on accurate info and logic. Just re-stating the same thing again and again with exclamation marks doesn't win anyone over. Nor does believing in something strongly necessarily make it so.
> 
> It's easy to say the DNR won't listen to you because they are only committed to salmon. But don't expect to be taken seriously by the DNR when your argument doesn't rest on science or trends in Lake Michigan. Even the DNR are busy and has to be committed to looking at the data, trends, and behavior of the fish in Lake Michigan above you.


 Where any targeted fish numbers are low, in any fishery, there will be less effort for that fish, people like to go where they have the best chance of catching. If Salmon are the dominate fish in a lake, there will be more effort, but that doesn't mean the people that are forced to go elsewhere to catch Perch or Walleye, wouldn't rather stay home to do it.

The 2 bait shops we have left in Muskegon saw a huge boost in business after the 2005 Perch spawn, not seen in 20 years, there was a slight blip up in license sales. Bait shops closed because you don't need bait for salmon, and salmon fishing on lake Michigan is the most expensive fishing there is, most of your available customer base can't afford to or have no wish too!
People are fed up with the DNR, being brow beaten by some salmon are worth billions BS, so they gave up trying
The Alewives and 50 Perch a day are keeping the Perch and Walleye down. That's why they aren't thriving.

In a Muskegon River study, when the Walleyes drop back from spawn, they target the alewives in Muskegon Lake to spawn, dominate prey thing. Perch do show good growth from mussels, and Perch they found in green bay gain a year in growth from spiny fleas.
Walleyes were used as predators to get rid of the alewives in Saginaw Bay!
Now let's go back to Jays statement about the zebra mussel poison, only affect local spots not a lake wide control/affect, (actually need country wide now)

The original salmon plan, stock predators lake wide effect!
Restoring native predators would have a positive lake wide effect, in sufficient numbers.

Increasing the alewives, will produce a negative effect LAKE WIDE!
Got it Now!
This is based on real fish biology, by real biologists, and many studies that you don't want to hear.
The facts that everyone can see, tells us the Salmon experiment is a total failure.
I'll stick with the facts
If we keep the salmon we have to keep the alewives, no discusion changes that fact! And that fact is the Problem!


----------



## METTLEFISH

walranger5 said:


> Tody and Tanner (1966) "Chinook salmon seemed ideally suited to the environment of Lake Michigan that existed after the collapse of the native species, rich with an ideal prey source, and free from predators". (other than human).
> 
> Tody and Tanner (1966) "The Coho may reproduce readily in fresh water> The LACK of vertebrate predators in the Great Lakes, as compared with the pacific ocean, may lead to to a relativly high rate of survival"
> 
> Due to lack of predators Alewives expolded in abudance in only a few years, drastically altering the remaining native species complex.
> 
> So the number appears to be next to nothin? Safe for both salmon and alewives.


Those are findings of the proposed plantings...


----------



## Robert Holmes

I hope that the DNR biologist can explain this one. I normally catch between 80 and 120 Chinook Salmon in any given year in the straits of mackinac area. These are healthy fat salmon, most average between 10 and 20 pounds. I look at stomach contents when I clean my fish. I have yet to find a single alewife in any of the salmon that I have cleaned, ever. I have found whitefish, sticklebacks, lake trout, chubs, walleye, herring, smelt, and never ever an alewife. I have never ever seen an alewife at the cleaning station. Is it possible that they can survive and grow on other forage fish? Mabey they are not so dependent upon alewives to thrive. Or is it possible that the DNR throws so many salmon in SWLP that there has to be a super abundance of alewives for them to survive. If this is the case mother nature must have to cooperate with the DNR politics. Within 2 to 3 years Lake Huron will be the salmon superspot again with or without alewives. You will find out that you won't have to plant many salmon over there to get a great return.


----------



## METTLEFISH

walranger5 said:


> Where any targeted fish numbers are low, in any fishery, there will be less effort for that fish, people like to go where they have the best chance of catching. If Salmon are the dominate fish in a lake, there will be more effort, but that doesn't mean the people that are forced to go elsewhere to catch Perch or Walleye, wouldn't rather stay home to do it.
> 
> The 2 bait shops we have left in Muskegon saw a huge boost in business after the 2005 Perch spawn, not seen in 20 years, there was a slight blip up in license sales. Bait shops closed because you don't need bait for salmon, and salmon fishing on lake Michigan is the most expensive fishing there is, most of your available customer base can't afford to or have no wish too!
> People are fed up with the DNR, being brow beaten by some salmon are worth billions BS, so they gave up trying
> The Alewives and 50 Perch a day are keeping the Perch and Walleye down. That's why they aren't thriving.
> 
> In a Muskegon River study, when the Walleyes drop back from spawn, they target the alewives in Muskegon Lake to spawn, dominate prey thing. Perch do show good growth from mussels, and Perch they found in green bay gain a year in growth from spiny fleas.
> Walleyes were used as predators to get rid of the alewives in Saginaw Bay!
> Now let's go back to Jays statement about the zebra mussel poison, only affect local spots not a lake wide control/affect, (actually need country wide now)
> 
> The original salmon plan, stock predators lake wide effect!
> Restoring native predators would have a positive lake wide effect, in sufficient numbers.
> 
> Increasing the alewives, will produce a negative effect LAKE WIDE!
> Got it Now!
> This is based on real fish biology, by real biologists, and many studies that you don't want to hear.
> The facts that everyone can see, tells us the Salmon experiment is a total failure.
> I'll stick with the facts
> If we keep the salmon we have to keep the alewives, no discusion changes that fact! And that fact is the Problem!


Or one may surmise the planting of Walleye in the Saginaw system was in an effort to remove toxins in a cost effective mannor. Walleye are an apex predator (condensing Toxins) in the shallow waters of the Bay where Native/non Native Salmonids rarely venture except in the cold water months.
The 50 Perch a day probably has no effect on most populations, that's why we find so many ''Smerch". I do believe 50 is too many when you have a 100 people in a boat on a population of fish a hundred or so days a year, and that was what happened to the Perch in Lk. MI. in the 80's & 90's. They are learning that we need to lower some limits, and hopefully protect Perch and Panfish during the spawn, as was in the 30's,40's,and early 50's.


----------



## walranger5

born2fish said:


> Do you have any idea how dumb this statement is given what you said in your 4:54AM post? AND I QUOTE...
> 
> _"We could have a smooth transition from salmon back to a native fishery, with a "World Class" Steelhead and Brown fishery, that doesn't require protecting an invasive species...Stock all the salmon you can, transition the hatcheries to steelhead and browns_."
> 
> Steelhead and brown trout are not native to Michigan or the Great Lakes yet you are for increasing them by additional hartchery plantings?
> 
> An argument can be made that because brown trout are canabilistic towards other trout that they are harmful to native brook trout populations and therefore invasive.
> 
> I can see both sides of the Alewife issue and yes a lack of alewife may result in an increase in perch and walleye. However the fact remains that Lake Michigan is never going to revert back to what is was pre-European settlement. Zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and the extinction of diaporia and several of the native ciscos have indefiniately altered the system. There is no resetting the of the ecological system and therefore any management decision can not be made in a vacuum and must take into account the economics of the surrounding Lake Michigan communities. The salmon fishery is vitally important to Michigan's economy and can't simply be dismissed because there is an oportunity to affect 1 of the 150+ non-native Great Lake species that we humans have labeled as "invasive".


 I am aware browns are bullies, I am also aware that stream trout guys hate salmon because they kill the river run trout, seen it with my own eyes. 
In other studies in lakes where alewives show up, first the zooplankton crashes, then algae blooms increase, (because zooplankton eats/controls algae) Then recruitment of native fish crashes. Just like here, just like everywhere.
The Steelhead Brown compromise was also proposed in the 2002 paper regarding this issue, which seems to be the playbooh they're using. Salmon only thrive when alewives dominate. And if low alewives, switch to steelhead and lakers, (not dependant on alewives) Browns not dependant growing huge from eating gobies, which should give you guys all the fight you want, and not threaten the natural environment in total like the alewife/salmon plan does.

Ref. Ecological Factors Affecting the sustainabilty of Chinnok and Coho salmon, populations in the great lakes, especially Lake Michigan. Hansen and Holley 2002
Read it for yourself.
I offered a compromise everyone can live with, based on the facts and situation we have, and these "expert" studies!

We can go back to where it was, perhaps not perfect but close.
All the real fish studies say we should minmize the effects of invasive species, increasing the alewives maximises the effects!


----------



## jpmarko

Robert Holmes said:


> I hope that the DNR biologist can explain this one. I normally catch between 80 and 120 Chinook Salmon in any given year in the straits of mackinac area. These are healthy fat salmon, most average between 10 and 20 pounds. I look at stomach contents when I clean my fish. I have yet to find a single alewife in any of the salmon that I have cleaned, ever. I have found whitefish, sticklebacks, lake trout, chubs, walleye, herring, smelt, and never ever an alewife. I have never ever seen an alewife at the cleaning station. Is it possible that they can survive and grow on other forage fish? Mabey they are not so dependent upon alewives to thrive. Or is it possible that the DNR throws so many salmon in SWLP that there has to be a super abundance of alewives for them to survive. If this is the case mother nature must have to cooperate with the DNR politics. Within 2 to 3 years Lake Huron will be the salmon superspot again with or without alewives. You will find out that you won't have to plant many salmon over there to get a great return.


I do hear more and more reports of salmon catches from Huron. The fish that did survive the crash and their successive generations probably survived because they found other forage to prey on. 

Out of Saint Joe I've trolled for salmon in the summer while making big circlec around boats fishing for perch and got them. Even in Lake Michigan the salmon will eat other prey. But it seems like they prefer ale's here. That's not to say that they can't adapt. 

The problem is that alewives aren't the only prey that is dwindling in Lake Michigan. Perch, bloaters, sculpin, rainbow smelt, sticklebacks, etc. are all low. So even if the alewives disappeard and the salmon had to rely on another type of forage, well, that would be short-lived as well. There isn't a way to selectively increase which prey population we want to rebound. All we can do is lighten up on how many predators we stock and hope that all the species of prey rebound a little and establish their next year class.


----------



## walranger5

METTLEFISH said:


> Or one may surmise the planting of Walleye in the Saginaw system was in an effort to remove toxins in a cost effective mannor. Walleye are an apex predator (condensing Toxins) in the shallow waters of the Bay where Native/non Native Salmonids rarely venture except in the cold water months.
> The 50 Perch a day probably has no effect on most populations, that's why we find so many ''Smerch". I do believe 50 is too many when you have a 100 people in a boat on a population of fish a hundred or so days a year, and that was what happened to the Perch in Lk. MI. in the 80's & 90's. They are learning that we need to lower some limits, and hopefully protect Perch and Panfish during the spawn, as was in the 30's,40's,and early 50's.


 50 Perch a day during spawn has a big impact, and you know eveybody likes to keep the big jumbo females. The alewives come into spawn and wipe out any perch larvae that hatch, bigger impact, well documented. The Saginaw Bay Recovery plan MDNR was to get rid off the alewives because of predation on larval walleyes, restricting spawn success, Special Report 29 read it yourself. The DNR admitted the alewives were the problem.


----------



## walranger5

METTLEFISH said:


> Those are findings of the proposed plantings...


That was the state of the lakes fish populations, 
that they based thier decision on, that was it safe for salmon due lack of predators caused by alewives, overfishing reduced predators allowing the alewives to thrive.
I have a copy of Tanners paper from 1966, the DNR always knew what alewives do.

In the pacific north west where salmon come from. they are trying to get rid of the non-native invasive species, Perch and Walleye that are threatening the native salmon.
You see it's not natural for salmon to hatch in a lake full of Perch and Walleye/predators, they're not supposed to be there.
The same as alewives aren't supposed to be there when Perch and walleyes hatch.
That's as simple as I can put it.


----------



## thousandcasts

Robert Holmes said:


> I hope that the DNR biologist can explain this one. I normally catch between 80 and 120 Chinook Salmon in any given year in the straits of mackinac area. These are healthy fat salmon, most average between 10 and 20 pounds. I look at stomach contents when I clean my fish. I have yet to find a single alewife in any of the salmon that I have cleaned, ever. I have found whitefish, sticklebacks, lake trout, chubs, walleye, herring, smelt, and never ever an alewife. I have never ever seen an alewife at the cleaning station. Is it possible that they can survive and grow on other forage fish? Mabey they are not so dependent upon alewives to thrive. Or is it possible that the DNR throws so many salmon in SWLP that there has to be a super abundance of alewives for them to survive. If this is the case mother nature must have to cooperate with the DNR politics. Within 2 to 3 years Lake Huron will be the salmon superspot again with or without alewives. You will find out that you won't have to plant many salmon over there to get a great return.


I think it might depend on where you're at in the system. Jay can correct me on this, but the lakes are typically at the bottom end of what an ale can tolerate temp wise. They hate cold water. That's the major reason that you see ales pile into a harbor when ever the lake flips--they're seeking out the warmer water from the rivers and what not. So, maybe...and I'm merely just thinking out loud here, but maybe what you're seeing is a result of colder water in that area? I don't know--just offering a guess. From my experience, the kings they bring into a cleaning station in Manistee, for example, are full of ales--all sizes. Sometimes as soon as the guys make the first belly cut, those ales are spilling out. 

Another thing...and this is just for the sake of discussion, but at one point, there were a number of lake Huron fish that ended up in the Lake Michigan creels. I want to say that the number at one time was as high as 30%. That's a very significant amount of Huron kings that were migrating over and doing some damage to the Lake Michigan forage base. Could've been that way for years and vice versa, who knows...I just remember asking the question a few years back and being shocked at the number. 

I think Kings are a little more opportunistic than given credit for, food wise, but I think it was either Tonello or Jay who once gave a great analogy. That is, for a king and the subject of growth rates an "emerald shiner is like a celery stick, where an ale is like a cheeseburger."


----------



## walranger5

Robert Holmes said:


> I hope that the DNR biologist can explain this one. I normally catch between 80 and 120 Chinook Salmon in any given year in the straits of mackinac area. These are healthy fat salmon, most average between 10 and 20 pounds. I look at stomach contents when I clean my fish. I have yet to find a single alewife in any of the salmon that I have cleaned, ever. I have found whitefish, sticklebacks, lake trout, chubs, walleye, herring, smelt, and never ever an alewife. I have never ever seen an alewife at the cleaning station. Is it possible that they can survive and grow on other forage fish? Mabey they are not so dependent upon alewives to thrive. Or is it possible that the DNR throws so many salmon in SWLP that there has to be a super abundance of alewives for them to survive. If this is the case mother nature must have to cooperate with the DNR politics. Within 2 to 3 years Lake Huron will be the salmon superspot again with or without alewives. You will find out that you won't have to plant many salmon over there to get a great return.


 Good someone who's thinking, like he said, if salmon can survive without alewives, I don't have a problem with salmon, but you all seem to think they can't and want to hedge your bet, at the expense of everyone else.Fill the lake back up with alewives. How many salmon will make you guys happy? one Million? Nah drop in the bucket. 2? 5 million salmon? Give me a number not pounds, how many total salmon will make you happy? 10 million?, get your 5 and head for the barn at 9am? How many? Everyone how many salmon would make you happy?

Mother nature has to bend to DNR politics, about to break, just for the record.


----------



## thousandcasts

walranger5 said:


> Good someone who's thinking, like he said, if salmon can survive without alewives, I don't have a problem with salmon, but you all seem to think they can't and want to hedge your bet, at the expense of everyone else.Fill the lake back up with alewives. How many salmon will make you guys happy? one Million? Nah drop in the bucket. 2? 5 million salmon? Give me a number not pounds, how many total salmon will make you happy? 10 million?, get your 5 and head for the barn at 9am? How many? Everyone how many salmon would make you happy?
> 
> Mother nature has to bend to DNR politics, about to break, just for the record.


Are you posting just because you have nothing better to do? Your argument died as soon as you said "nobody cares about salmon." 

Salmon are the top dog, number one game fish in Lake Michigan. What alternate reality has you thinking anything otherwise? Sorry to ruin your day, but that's the simple fact, period. So, you can post all you want and rant about anything you want, but as soon as you start throwing out comments about "at the expense of everyone else," then you might as well be typing "blah, blah, blah" because the majority of "everyone else" understands the basic concept that the salmon fishery is the main draw, the main money maker and basically the be all end all of the Lake Michigan fishery.


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> How many salmon will make you guys happy? one Million? Nah drop in the bucket. 2? 5 million salmon? Give me a number not pounds, how many total salmon will make you happy? 10 million?, get your 5 and head for the barn at 9am? How many? Everyone how many salmon would make you happy?


You do realize that this thread has been about REDUCING the planting of salmon, right? You have said that salmon are evil creatures since you first started spouting your perch gospel on here....so less salmon is good, right? 
Face it, you won't be happy, no matter what they do, you will always find something to complain about. 

If they plant more salmon - you will complain that there are already too many salmon. 

If they plant less salmon - you will complain that the alewive population will increase. 

The only thing that will make you happy, honestly, is if they plant perch and walleyes only, and cut off everything else...until the alewives come back, the planted perch all starve, and no one can find the walleyes....


----------



## Carpmaster

wartfroggy said:


> You do realize that this thread has been about REDUCING the planting of salmon, right? You have said that salmon are evil creatures since you first started spouting your perch gospel on here....so less salmon is good, right?
> Face it, you won't be happy, no matter what they do, you will always find something to complain about.
> 
> If they plant more salmon - you will complain that there are already too many salmon.
> 
> If they plant less salmon - you will complain that the alewive population will increase.
> 
> The only thing that will make you happy, honestly, is if they plant perch and walleyes only, and cut off everything else...until the alewives come back, the planted perch all starve, and no one can find the walleyes....


What's next, develop a genetically altered bluegill that thrives in Lake Michigan and grows to 20# off of alewives and Quaggas? Naw, how bout whitefish? The netters need more whitefish! Someday some people will realize the true value of the salmon...or maybe not. :lol:


----------



## jpmarko

jpmarko said:


> Found this interesting on the Sea Grant website, specifically beginning at the bottom on page 14 regarding Dreissenid Mussels:
> 
> http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2011LakeMichiganPreyfishReport.pdf
> 
> Here are a few statements that stood out to me:
> 
> "According to the GLSC bottom trawl survey, biomass density of dreissenid mussels was highest in 2007 (Figure 13a), which followed an exponential like increase between 2004 and 2006 (Bunnell et al. 2009b)..."
> 
> "...The biomass density of dreissenid mussels in 2011 was 14.97 kg per ha, which was equal to 29% of the peak biomass density estimated for 2007 (Figure 13a)..."
> 
> "...However, there was no clear explanation for the drastic drop in dreissenid mussel biomass density between 2007 and 2008. According to the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate survey led by Tom Nalepa at NOAA-GLERL, quagga mussel biomass density in Lake Michigan appears to have peaked sometime between 2008 and 2010. This peaking may be in response to the exceeding of the carrying capacity, and a decline in quagga mussel biomass density may be expected in upcoming years."


 
Jay, I like that the DNR is being proactive in working toward preventing a predator-prey imbalance in Lake Michigan. I also like the 4 options you guys have available to reduce stocking of predators so that the forage can rebound. I think it's smart to tackle the the situation in the food web from the top down. That way we're not so top heavy. But I'm also curious about what the DNR thinks about attacking the problem from the bottom up, specifically in regards to mussels.

I found the above link on the Seagrant website and found it encouraging. If I'm reading it right, it seems like their has been a substantial decline in the quagga mussel population in our lake. 

What is your/the DNR's stance on the quagga mussel situation and what, if anything, should/could be done? I know it's not an easy subject and there is no quick fix, so I'm understanding of that. But just curious if the DNR forsees a hopeful future in regards to the mussels or if any work is being considered on that front? Or are we waiting to see if their numbers remain low and stabilize?

Thanks, Jay. Appreciate any response you can offer.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Anybody that thinks the Alewives will rebound by simply reducing Salmon stocking is in the dark so to say. FERTILITY FERTILITY FERTILITY... without it.... we get fewer and fewer fish of all types Native or not. Carrying capacity can be/is based upon that number, everything equates to fertility. So all the banter is for not, unless all the numbers equate to the fertility of the lakes, 'we're" peein in the wind... we'd be better of peein in the lakes.... raisin the FERTILITY!


----------



## METTLEFISH

walranger5 said:


> 50 Perch a day during spawn has a big impact, and you know eveybody likes to keep the big jumbo females. The alewives come into spawn and wipe out any perch larvae that hatch, bigger impact, well documented. The Saginaw Bay Recovery plan MDNR was to get rid off the alewives because of predation on larval walleyes, restricting spawn success, Special Report 29 read it yourself. The DNR admitted the alewives were the problem.


 
I hear ya on the big females, I and most of my fishing buddies iether have been for a long time or are starting to throw them back, that's the base of the fishery, and they do not eat as well as the smaller fish. When fertility is high prey species have higher egg (fertility) loads to compensate predation, so there again water fertility is the issue. No decisions should be made out of political pressure(s), sound science needs to be the foundation of every decision made. We have the intelligence to use the resources to our advantage, and we should!

When all's said and done WE are the most detrimental Invasive there is, perhaps we should extirpate ourselves (quicker) for the benifit of all others!....


----------



## thousandcasts

METTLEFISH said:


> When all's said and done WE are the most detrimental Invasive there is, perhaps we should extirpate ourselves (quicker) for the benifit of all others!....


Well, the end is inevitable. The sun will eventually burn out and become a white dwarf, but before it does it will expand to a red giant that completely consumes the earth--burning everything and everyone into a cinder that makes Mercury look like a relaxing spa. There won't be any ales, no perch, no humanity, not even a piece of charcoal left floating around the universe and this argument on here will cease to have any relevance what so ever. 

But hey...sleep tight. That's not gonna happen for a few million years which in space time is like next week.


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> You do realize that this thread has been about REDUCING the planting of salmon, right? You have said that salmon are evil creatures since you first started spouting your perch gospel on here....so less salmon is good, right?
> Face it, you won't be happy, no matter what they do, you will always find something to complain about.
> 
> If they plant more salmon - you will complain that there are already too many salmon.
> 
> If they plant less salmon - you will complain that the alewive population will increase.
> 
> The only thing that will make you happy, honestly, is if they plant perch and walleyes only, and cut off everything else...until the alewives come back, the planted perch all starve, and no one can find the walleyes....


They are cutting planting because they can't control spawning levels, you could see even more salmon, with a "really good" spawn, they can't control that, they can control stocking, I got it, you don't seem to got it.

The basics of real fish biology were figured out long ago, this is bizzarro biology, reverse, backwards. 
If the salmon can't survive without alewives, then that's called "Tuff Stuff!"
On this planet you cannot solve an invasive species problem, by increasing one.
I gave you all the studies you needed, if you didn't read them, fine. But I think you did, or you wouldn't be so afraid of few little o'l Perch!


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> Are you posting just because you have nothing better to do? Your argument died as soon as you said "nobody cares about salmon."
> 
> Salmon are the top dog, number one game fish in Lake Michigan. What alternate reality has you thinking anything otherwise? Sorry to ruin your day, but that's the simple fact, period. So, you can post all you want and rant about anything you want, but as soon as you start throwing out comments about "at the expense of everyone else," then you might as well be typing "blah, blah, blah" because the majority of "everyone else" understands the basic concept that the salmon fishery is the main draw, the main money maker and basically the be all end all of the Lake Michigan fishery.


 I don't care if the salmon crap silver dollars when they get in the boat. How much value is not the point, the true cost is the point, you want the lake and the people of Michigan to continue to be SLAVES TO THE ALEWIVES, because that's exactly what this is. No choice, no voice, just save the Alewives!

You want my grandkids, and thier kids to be slaves as well, for your own personal gain.
Most folks ain't to crazy about slavery, I'm one of them!

There's some other points about salmon, better dealt with in a more public forum.
Did I think you and Froggy would turn from the Darkside? Not really, But I tried.
As I said before, hard to discuss a problem, with the problem.


----------



## walranger5

thousandcasts said:


> Are you posting just because you have nothing better to do? Your argument died as soon as you said "nobody cares about salmon."
> 
> Salmon are the top dog, number one game fish in Lake Michigan. What alternate reality has you thinking anything otherwise? Sorry to ruin your day, but that's the simple fact, period. So, you can post all you want and rant about anything you want, but as soon as you start throwing out comments about "at the expense of everyone else," then you might as well be typing "blah, blah, blah" because the majority of "everyone else" understands the basic concept that the salmon fishery is the main draw, the main money maker and basically the be all end all of the Lake Michigan fishery.


 You got the "End All" part right, nothing else.


----------



## walranger5

METTLEFISH said:


> I hear ya on the big females, I and most of my fishing buddies iether have been for a long time or are starting to throw them back, that's the base of the fishery, and they do not eat as well as the smaller fish. When fertility is high prey species have higher egg (fertility) loads to compensate predation, so there again water fertility is the issue. No decisions should be made out of political pressure(s), sound science needs to be the foundation of every decision made. We have the intelligence to use the resources to our advantage, and we should!
> 
> When all's said and done WE are the most detrimental Invasive there is, perhaps we should extirpate ourselves (quicker) for the benifit of all others!....


 Yep, We are the Problem, the fish already told us what we need to do, but we're not listening. Blinded by the alewives, and half truths.
A half truth, is still a whole lie!


----------



## wartfroggy

walranger5 said:


> I gave you all the studies you needed, if you didn't read them, fine.


 When you say "giving us studies", you must mean telling everyone to research it for themselves, google "Perch-super-predator-mouth-gape" or "alewive-satan-salmon-devil-slave-evil", because you refuse to copy and paste a link, or quote an article?


----------



## walranger5

Carpmaster said:


> What's next, develop a genetically altered bluegill that thrives in Lake Michigan and grows to 20# off of alewives and Quaggas? Naw, how bout whitefish? The netters need more whitefish! Someday some people will realize the true value of the salmon...or maybe not. :lol:


 Perhaps the DNR could put salt pumps in some Sword Fish Or Tarpon! Or just fill the Lake with salt, since all they care about is having a saltwater fishery, that doesn't belong here.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

Salmon are a popular and important game fish in Michigan. While they do bring in big money, you'd be a fool to think that walleye do not. Perch probably wouldn't, but a good walleye fishery certainly does. A lot of you West siders are not around Saginaw Bay during the year. Drive around the Linwood area from December through August. Trucks with boats, quads and sleds EVERYWHERE. 

The access sites are jam packed with vehicles. In some spots, you see people for miles it seems. The Saginaw river is a zoo in the spring(and fall). The Bay is a zoo during winter, late spring and all through summer. As many, if not more boats out there than any of the big salmon ports. 

I'm a steelhead/salmon guy, but a good walleye fishery is big money.


----------



## walranger5

wartfroggy said:


> When you say "giving us studies", you must mean telling everyone to research it for themselves, google "Perch-super-predator-mouth-gape" or "alewive-satan-salmon-devil-slave-evil", because you refuse to copy and paste a link, or quote an article?


 Sorry Frogboy, I have quoted several, and you know it. 
I don't paste, I also don't twiitter, tweet, or facebook.

So I can't sit at the cool kids table? Not a problem.


----------



## Moderator

Jay,

We would like to thank you for your time and effort. You came here to get and share more information. A lot of that on your own time. Your passion for Michigan and it resources truly shine. 
-------------------------

Debate is healthy and all can gain a lot of information. It seems a select few took that way too far. This is not a website for personal agendas, but for the good of all.


Please continue as a few distractions have been removed.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Robert Holmes said:


> I hope that the DNR biologist can explain this one. I normally catch between 80 and 120 Chinook Salmon in any given year in the straits of mackinac area. These are healthy fat salmon, most average between 10 and 20 pounds. I look at stomach contents when I clean my fish. I have yet to find a single alewife in any of the salmon that I have cleaned, ever. I have found whitefish, sticklebacks, lake trout, chubs, walleye, herring, smelt, and never ever an alewife. I have never ever seen an alewife at the cleaning station. Is it possible that they can survive and grow on other forage fish? Mabey they are not so dependent upon alewives to thrive. Or is it possible that the DNR throws so many salmon in SWLP that there has to be a super abundance of alewives for them to survive. If this is the case mother nature must have to cooperate with the DNR politics. Within 2 to 3 years Lake Huron will be the salmon superspot again with or without alewives. You will find out that you won't have to plant many salmon over there to get a great return.


US Geological Survey recently conducted a diet study of chinook salmon in Lake Michigan. It was mostly alewife in the diet. This data is in the Dr. Madenjian presentation on Michigan Sea Grant. 

Based on your observations, Chinook in that part of the lakes have adapted to different prey. Perhaps they can access that prey because of cooler water temperatures in that part of the state. 

Salmon need to cruise in deeper water in Lake Michigan during the summer to find their preferred water temperature and they tend to find alewife in those areas. When salmon do come nearshore, we do so gobies and other prey items in their diet. 

Eastern Lake Michigan shores can get fairly warm in the summer. This is one reason that our brown trout don't always do as well as they do on the Wisconsin side. 

I will see if I can track down some diet data for chinook in Lake Huron.


----------



## Robert Holmes

In St Ignace it is not uncommon to nail a big fish in 30 fow 15 feet down at night, Unlike L Michigan the water temps are always changing with the wind or currents. I have fished South Haven before and it seems like you have to go out 7 miles to get into them in 100+ fow. I forgot to mention shiners and gobies are a common find in the stomachs. The salmon up here all seem to move into shallow water under the cover of darkness. In the early am I fish in 50 fow and have the riggers set at 25 feet. I only ever use two rods because you have a difficult time keeping those set. There is another spot on N Lake Huron where you could catch salmon at night all summer long standing in waders casting cleos,


----------



## thousandcasts

ausable_steelhead said:


> Salmon are a popular and important game fish in Michigan. While they do bring in big money, you'd be a fool to think that walleye do not. Perch probably wouldn't, but a good walleye fishery certainly does. A lot of you West siders are not around Saginaw Bay during the year. Drive around the Linwood area from December through August. Trucks with boats, quads and sleds EVERYWHERE.
> 
> The access sites are jam packed with vehicles. In some spots, you see people for miles it seems. The Saginaw river is a zoo in the spring(and fall). The Bay is a zoo during winter, late spring and all through summer. As many, if not more boats out there than any of the big salmon ports.
> 
> I'm a steelhead/salmon guy, but a good walleye fishery is big money.


Dude...it's not like they don't plant a bunch of walleye over here, it's the fact that those fish completely vanish and outside of some pier activity, there is no walleye fishery on this side. Lake Michigan doesn't have a Saginaw Bay...it was the same thing with the smelt. The east side had the big numbers of smelt, the west side had some but not anywhere near the draw as the east side. 

There are tons of walleye that come up just about every west side river every spring. It's not like there's no walleye, but after that they completely vanish. When you've got 200 boats trolling and big area from 20' to 50' and a lot of them are almost dredging bottom with a spread, then you'd think someone would be boxing up some walleye, right? Other than an odd ball one or two, it just doesn't happen. 

That is what makes Michigan so unique--yeah, you've got your walleye tourism on the east side and your salmon/steelhead draw on the west. So, no matter how much $$$ the walleye bring to the east side, there's no way you're gonna see the same impact on the west--and it's not because of a lack of fish, it's the fact that a consistent and reliable fishery doesn't exist since those walleye can easily vanish in the vast expanse of Lake Michigan.


----------



## swampbuck

Maybe its time to turn this whole alewife issue over to the new Michigan Aquatic Invasive Species Advisory Council. Maybe the DEQ has an idea. At least this group reports to the ELECTED legislature, Although the law spells out a more diverse group of participants than the MDEQ list shows.

https://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3677_8314-274077--,00.html


----------



## ausable_steelhead

thousandcasts said:


> Dude...it's not like they don't plant a bunch of walleye over here, it's the fact that those fish completely vanish and outside of some pier activity, there is no walleye fishery on this side. Lake Michigan doesn't have a Saginaw Bay...it was the same thing with the smelt. The east side had the big numbers of smelt, the west side had some but not anywhere near the draw as the east side.
> 
> There are tons of walleye that come up just about every west side river every spring. It's not like there's no walleye, but after that they completely vanish. When you've got 200 boats trolling and big area from 20' to 50' and a lot of them are almost dredging bottom with a spread, then you'd think someone would be boxing up some walleye, right? Other than an odd ball one or two, it just doesn't happen.
> 
> That is what makes Michigan so unique--yeah, you've got your walleye tourism on the east side and your salmon/steelhead draw on the west. So, no matter how much $$$ the walleye bring to the east side, there's no way you're gonna see the same impact on the west--and it's not because of a lack of fish, it's the fact that a consistent and reliable fishery doesn't exist since those walleye can easily vanish in the vast expanse of Lake Michigan.



Those fish can do the same thing in Lake Huron as well, it's not like Saginaw Bay keeps them in one place. Sag Bay is but one place to get them. From Au Gres all the way north to Alpena is FULL of walleye. More than likely farther north still, as well. People flock to the known places, but I'd bet if some boaters got motivated, they could probably really kill them trolling places like Oscoda, Harrisville and the like. 

Do people even try to develop a strategy for Lake Mich walleye? They suspend, often times near the surface, so if guys are dragging bottom, they're missing a ton of them. If those fish make big spawning runs, and reside in the rivers as resident fish, then they're out there in the lake. Rigging for salmon/lake trout and fishing where they reside isn't going to get you many walleyes(some BIG ones though).


----------



## METTLEFISH

ausable_steelhead said:


> Those fish can do the same thing in Lake Huron as well, it's not like Saginaw Bay keeps them in one place. Sag Bay is but one place to get them. From Au Gres all the way north to Alpena is FULL of walleye. More than likely farther north still, as well. People flock to the known places, but I'd bet if some boaters got motivated, they could probably really kill them trolling places like Oscoda, Harrisville and the like.
> 
> Do people even try to develop a strategy for Lake Mich walleye? They suspend, often times near the surface, so if guys are dragging bottom, they're missing a ton of them. If those fish make big spawning runs, and reside in the rivers as resident fish, then they're out there in the lake. Rigging for salmon/lake trout and fishing where they reside isn't going to get you many walleyes(some BIG ones though).


It's the food chain that keeps most of them and most of the attention on them in the Bay. Sure there are Walleye farthur north, but not the
numbers of the Bay. The small Sweet spot in Lk. Michigan has them spread over a huge area, till Fall/Winter when some follow food into the lower rivers & lakes. Look at the East basin in Erie, limit catches of Walleye and Steelehead from the same or nearly the same areas, temperature, food and structure have them grouped together. If such spots are to be had in Lk. Michigan they are yet to be found.


----------



## Boatown

Look what happen on Huron I think we have learned alot on how any why huron crashed and we now have the chance to stop MIchigan before it gets to bad. it will only take a few years of restrictions on stocking and will be back to normal


----------



## METTLEFISH

Boatown said:


> Look what happen on Huron I think we have learned alot on how any why huron crashed and we now have the chance to stop MIchigan before it gets to bad. it will only take a few years of restrictions on stocking and will be back to normal


 
If only it were that easy. Fertility is dropping because of several factors, the most iminent is the mussels, secondly strick regulations on Agriculture & wastewater emissions are slowly but steadiliy lowering the fertility of the lakes. It's as easy as this; want more fish!... increase the fertility!.... we use wastewater sludge on our farm crops, why not use it in the lakes!.....


----------



## swampbuck

METTLEFISH said:


> If only it were that easy. Fertility is dropping because of several factors, the most iminent is the mussels, secondly strick regulations on Agriculture & wastewater emissions are slowly but steadiliy lowering the fertility of the lakes. It's as easy as this; want more fish!... increase the fertility!.... we use wastewater sludge on our farm crops, why not use it in the lakes!.....


:yikes: WOW! Good luck with that.


----------



## llpof

Hi Jay, I had asked a question earlier, but I'm sure it simply got lost in all that other posting.

I did go the meeting in SJ/BH. I generally understand the type of computer simulation that was used to test the 26 models and reduce them down to four options, as memory serves option four offerred the lowest probability of a complete collapse of the fishery (and alewife population).

What I was struck by, was both how little information was provided, as well as how little I can find from other sources, are the recent years circumstances that may or may not lead to a successful alewife spawning (and thus in the computer simulation in the underlying evaluation what kind of statistical distribution was used to estimate this in the model)?

I don't intend to simply shoot from the hip here, but it seemed to me that this issue was the single largest factor in any forecast. There was extensive discussion of a single recent year class (2010?), but given that what I call a 4 year old king is what you call a three year old king, I would not want to assume that I understand what spring/summer produced those alewife.

I appreciate any feedback or direction that might indicate why that particular year was so good, and while everything else lately has been so bad.


----------



## llpof

I've observed this website for several years. It's great for some occasional good prose, some recent reports and tips, as well as fish pictures.

In the whole time I've observed the sight, issues of great passion and frustration have only been effectively addressed here twice (maybe some others that I'm not aware of).

Those have been, a group that formed here out of frustration with gear restrictions to become its own special interest group; and a vocal member here, that apparently got fedup enough to get organized and appointed to some fishery advisory group (thousandcasts). 

I don't mean this to sound like a taunt, but more like a mentoring issue. Change always happens through people, and simply railing on the internet might bring mild temporary relief. The key to getting change though, is having patience and channeling that passion to either try to reform from within (like tc), or become large enough to demand a seat at a table (like the gear restriction group).

Being the smartest guy in the room still isn't worth a damn if you can't find a way to get things done through people.


----------



## METTLEFISH

swampbuck said:


> :yikes: WOW! Good luck with that.


Yeah I know... sad isn't it!.... all the talk, all the modeling, all the meetings - mean absolutely nothing. The limiting factor is FERTILTY, the part of the equation that is the only real factor of determining what will happen is fertilty. Clean water acts and invasive species have cleaned up the water, inact those same regulations on crop feilds and millions of people and farm animals will die. Is fertile water polluted?... no, it's productive water. We have cleaned up the toxic emissions,(somewhat) though the Saginaw system is still one of - if not the most polluted water systems IN THE WORLD! Clear water is almost sterile water, green water grows all of the necessary organisms from Phytoplankton on up. If the current system is continued to be used the lakes will produce no viable game fish populations, we must increase or maintain the current fertility to have a viable game fish fishery!


----------



## EdB

The US Fish and Wildlife biologists collecting data from us at St Joe on Friday. They took scale samples, weight, length and the tails from our kings to check if they were stocked or reproduced naturally. First time I've met the Feds working at the docks. 












Fishing was good, took just a few hours for our limit.


----------



## REG

All I can think of is careful what you ask for...

Pollution issues aside, for one, what would make you think that any increases in fertility of the lake wouldn't just get totally absorbed by the quagga mussel population, and thus increasing their populations and resultant problems??


----------



## METTLEFISH

REG said:


> All I can think of is careful what you ask for...
> 
> Pollution issues aside, for one, what would make you think that any increases in fertility of the lake wouldn't just get totally absorbed by the quagga mussel population, and thus increasing their populations and resultant problems??


It very well could, however with the billions of Alewives back in the 60's they did not eat themselves from house and home. Some part of the fertility is put back into the system through excremant, and recycled. Will the Muscles eat themselves out of house and home?, it looks as if they may of already Ebbed from what the Sea Grant study says. However, if the current trend downward in fertility continues, all we'll have is great sunsets & sunrises from the lakes!


----------



## METTLEFISH

EdB,
What happened to those delicious morsels (tails) of those fish? I hope they did not go to Science!....


----------



## EdB

The biologist asked for them and we let them have them. The fish from the hatcherys are treated with a chemical that stays in their bones. They will analyze the tail bones and can determine if it is from a hatchery fish or a wild fish from the chemical markers.


----------



## Jay Wesley

llpof said:


> Hi Jay, I had asked a question earlier, but I'm sure it simply got lost in all that other posting.
> 
> I did go the meeting in SJ/BH. I generally understand the type of computer simulation that was used to test the 26 models and reduce them down to four options, as memory serves option four offerred the lowest probability of a complete collapse of the fishery (and alewife population).
> 
> What I was struck by, was both how little information was provided, as well as how little I can find from other sources, are the recent years circumstances that may or may not lead to a successful alewife spawning (and thus in the computer simulation in the underlying evaluation what kind of statistical distribution was used to estimate this in the model)?
> 
> I don't intend to simply shoot from the hip here, but it seemed to me that this issue was the single largest factor in any forecast. There was extensive discussion of a single recent year class (2010?), but given that what I call a 4 year old king is what you call a three year old king, I would not want to assume that I understand what spring/summer produced those alewife.
> 
> I appreciate any feedback or direction that might indicate why that particular year was so good, and while everything else lately has been so bad.


Very good question. We know a little about what makes a good alewife year class but unfortunately there is a lot that needs to be figured out yet. It for the most part is about timing. The eggs need to be fertilized and hatch at the right time when there is plankton for the fry to eat. That fry has to make it through many predators. Temperature has to be right for optimal growth. Back when there were multiple year classes of alewife ranging in age from 0 to 9 years old, you could have a couple of year class failures and still have plenty of adults for spawning stock (fertilized eggs). Now the spawning stock is very low, so you can not have too many failures before the population crashes. Predation rates are very high right now too, which continues to take away that adult spawning stock. 

The 2010 alewife year class was a surprise. I did not hear any biologists predicting it. With the warmer lake water temperatures right now, some biologists are predicting that we will have a good 2012 year class. We will have to wait and see. 

The unique part of the computer model is that it incorporates all the uncertainty that we have with the biology of the lake and predicting prey abundance. The model randomly picks alewife year class strength. Some years it might pick a great year class. Other years it might pick very poor.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Oxytetracycline... givem the necks next time, they're having a great dinner on the grill this evening!!....


----------



## swampbuck

METTLEFISH said:


> Yeah I know... sad isn't it!.... all the talk, all the modeling, all the meetings - mean absolutely nothing. The limiting factor is FERTILTY, the part of the equation that is the only real factor of determining what will happen is fertilty. Clean water acts and invasive species have cleaned up the water, inact those same regulations on crop feilds and millions of people and farm animals will die. Is fertile water polluted?... no, it's productive water. We have cleaned up the toxic emissions,(somewhat) though the Saginaw system is still one of - if not the most polluted water systems IN THE WORLD! Clear water is almost sterile water, green water grows all of the necessary organisms from Phytoplankton on up. If the current system is continued to be used the lakes will produce no viable game fish populations, we must increase or maintain the current fertility to have a viable game fish fishery!


First of all, I think you would run into an incredible amount of opposition to putting sludge or any pollutant in the great lakes. There is no way the govt or the public is going to go back, after the tremendous effort that has been put into cleaning up the lakes, For the sake of invasive and non-indigenous species.

As far the clear "sterile" having no viable game fish....It would have the same gamefish it had before the lakes became polluted. Just not the particular one you want. There are agencys working to restore those species now.......I heard theres a couple fish living in lake huron already.


----------



## METTLEFISH

swampbuck said:


> First of all, I think you would run into an incredible amount of opposition to putting sludge or any pollutant in the great lakes. There is no way the govt or the public is going to go back, after the tremendous effort that has been put into cleaning up the lakes, For the sake of invasive and non-indigenous species.
> 
> As far the clear "sterile" having no viable game fish....It would have the same gamefish it had before the lakes became polluted. Just not the particular one you want. There are agencys working to restore those species now.......I heard theres a couple fish living in lake huron already.


I think the lakes should be managed as crop fields are, yield. Indiginous species - sure! make sure they have a place in the system, that's easy enough if "they" would make the Indiginous people fish with methods that prevailed when the treaty was signed. Millions of acres are cleared for land crops, yet I don't hear anyone complaining about "Native" specie habitat loss, they gotta eat! I prefer to eat fish with my veggies, Lakers are for the smoker, so are Whitefish, I like those Pacific Salmonids that do so well in fertile environment that produces plenty of forage (Alwives). That sludge is utilized on our crop fields now, why not use it to raise the fertility in the lakes!

With a little effort the fertility could be fine tuned what ''we" want to accomplish, it would be great to know that all the thousands of dollars people have spent on gear for the great Lakes fisheries is not going down the drain!

Jay, what part of your models utilizes fertilty eqations?

P.S. How is fertilizer a pollutant?..... that would mean all of our crop fields are polluted!


----------



## Jay Wesley

METTLEFISH said:


> I think the lakes should be managed as crop fields are, yield. Indiginous species - sure! make sure they have a place in the system, that's easy enough if "they" would make the Indiginous people fish with methods that prevailed when the treaty was signed. Millions of acres are cleared for land crops, yet I don't hear anyone complaining about "Native" specie habitat loss, they gotta eat! I prefer to eat fish with my veggies, Lakers are for the smoker, so are Whitefish, I like those Pacific Salmonids that do so well in fertile environment that produces plenty of forage (Alwives). That sludge is utilized on our crop fields now, why not use it to raise the fertility in the lakes!
> 
> With a little effort the fertility could be fine tuned what ''we" want to accomplish, it would be great to know that all the thousands of dollars people have spent on gear for the great Lakes fisheries is not going down the drain!
> 
> Jay, what part of your models utilizes fertilty eqations?


Crop fields are basically monoculture. You can manipulate fertility to match a specific plants needs. However, lakes have many different species that require many different things. Sure - nutrients drive the system. However, too much is just as bad as too little. Lake Erie still has problems with algae and dead zones. Many of our inland lakes and rivers still have problems too. 

I do not think that the model uses fertility directly. It does produce variable amounts of prey which would be linked to fertility.


----------

