# Grayling plan released



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Streams that will receive Grayling have not been named, don't know that any have been chosen or which are on the list of candidates except that they will be in the Manistee watershed. 

*New action plan shares direction for state's Arctic Grayling efforts*
Michigan Department of Natural Resources sent this bulletin at 07/14/2017 10:11 AM EDT






*Statewide DNR News*
July 14, 2017

Contact: Todd Grischke, 517-284-5830 or Elyse Walter, 517-284-5839

*Michigan Arctic Grayling Initiative announces action plan mapping out future efforts*






The Michigan Arctic Grayling Initiative – a statewide partnership effort focused on restoring self-sustaining populations of this native fish – unveiled its official action plan at Thursday's Natural Resources Commission meeting in Lansing. The plan details the initiative’s goals and various activities it plans to accomplish over the next several years.

This initiative, founded by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, was announced in June 2016 and consists of 32 organizations.

The action plan is the result of multiple meetings of the partners where ideas, questions and information gaps were identified and then condensed into four main focus areas: research, management, fish production and outreach and education.

“Large populations of Arctic grayling were once found throughout Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and even in an Upper Peninsula stream – in fact, this iconic, cold-water fish species was native only to Michigan and Montana in the lower 48 states,” said DNR Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter. “With the launch of the Arctic grayling action plan, we’re moving an important step closer to making it possible for residents and visitors to once again find this slate-blue beauty with the distinctive dorsal fin in Michigan waters.”

This initiative is looking for resources from a variety of sources to help reach its goals, like the Consumers Energy Foundation grant the DNR, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and Michigan Technological University received in February 2017. These funds are being used to collect habitat and fish community data in the upper Big Manistee River and create an outreach plan to engage Michigan citizens in the reintroduction efforts and once again make Arctic grayling an important part of Michigan’s heritage.

“Contributions by organizations like the Consumers Energy Foundation are invaluable as this initiative works toward making a dream a reality,” said Frank Beaver, director of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians' Natural Resources Department. “It’s so exciting to see so many partners working to try and bring back this significant species.”

Representatives from both the DNR and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians were on hand at yesterday's Natural Resources Commission meeting to share details of the plan.

For more information on the history of Arctic grayling in Michigan, visit the initiative’s newly launched website at migrayling.org. 



https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/1a8e527


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

This would be awesome. I hope it works!


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Excellent! Better and BIGGER Brown trout!


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

This should be interesting. Should make for some great fly fishing if they can survive.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Steve said:


> This should be interesting. Should make for some great fly fishing if they can survive.



Grayling are a LOT of fun on a fly rod! I used to fish for them all the time when I lived in England. They take a fly like it's going out of style. My favorite grayling fly was a "Tups Indispensable" tied size 18 or 20. I fished it upstream, traditional English style.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Steve said:


> This should be interesting. Should make for some great fly fishing if they can survive.


I hope I live long enough to find out. I think we are many years from having fishable populations.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

I too really hope it works out. Not sure exactly how it will but one can hope. I wonder where exactly they are planning to stock.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

If I read right, they hope to treat and stock creeks that are unattractive to brown's that flow into the Manistee.
They are following the Montana re-stocking model.

Good thing the Native American's have a Casino to pay for the Brown Trout Weight gain program. 

In a bunch of the places I fished in the west, we had to through every Brown back up on shore, BY LAW. 
They naturally out compete the native fish after they were stocked.

I suppose with enough money you could accomplish re-introduction. Sustaining it?
Prove it to me.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

I think there are some tribs to the Manistee that have mostly brookies right now. I wonder if any of these would be suitable for the grayling.


----------



## Duck-Hunter (Mar 31, 2005)

I hope it works out. It would be awesome to see a population once again and catch Grayling in our home state.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

I like the idea but I suspect that this is huge waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.


The browns are going to eat them all.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Most, if not all, of the money is coming from private sources so I guess they can spend it however they want. The action plan is clear that they are looking for streams with very low brown trout populations. As Steve mentioned there are some that fit the bill in the Upper Manistee drainage, I know a couple and I don't even fish over there much. There are others in other watersheds and they might be candidates after the initial phase is complete. There is an agreement among all parties NOT to *treat* streams for brown trout removal. 

I think it is great that some people in Michigan are willing to push the envelope and try something new. It may not work as well as it did in Montana but they will learn a lot and maybe be able apply that knowledge to other areas. That's how we advance.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

-Axiom- said:


> I like the idea but I suspect that this is huge waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> 
> The browns are going to eat them all.


Why would you think the browns are going to eat them all? 

Every where I fished for grayling, both in England and Scotland, they lived in the same water with browns. Brown trout and grayling are both native there. 

Grayling also did well in rivers that that sea trout runs as well. 

Stock them in enough numbers, and large enough to fend for themselves, they should take. They were native here, we should be able to bring them back. IF money becomes a problem take it from the non-native stocking programs and use it to return the grayling to Michigan.


----------



## skb20 (Sep 23, 2010)

The Manistee received a small planting of grayling in the late seventies early eighties. caught a few each year.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

-Axiom- said:


> I like the idea but I suspect that this is huge waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> 
> The browns are going to eat them all.


That is what happened every other time they were planted since the Brown trout were introduced. 

Maybe they'll have a Grayling stamp, and anyone that wants to do catch and release Grayling fishing can buy one. Then grow them to a decent size, and just plant them.

To my knowledge, which I admit is incomplete, unless there is a wholesale habitat and predator change, there is no reason to expect a different outcome.
This, what I would characterize as a "Bad Idea", seems to pop up every 10 years or so. Makes one wonder if anyone pay attention to prior results down in Fisheries.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Why is it that when we want to repair a horrible mistake, like driving a species out of the state, it always seem to be a "bad idea"? Fixing a mistake is always good. Stock them by the millions. We were able to establish all kinds of invasive species, on purpose. We can restore the grayling. Personally, I would have NO problem getting rid of invasive species to restore the grayling.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

skb20 said:


> The Manistee received a small planting of grayling in the late seventies early eighties. caught a few each year.


I routinely fish that area. One day, a conversation on the stream with a local revealed that the locals discovered how easy the grayling were to catch and were taking them out by the boat load. That would certainly handicap any reintroduction efforts.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Reintroductions are tricky and often fail to meet project goals. Seems a lot of this is based on Montana's successful program. It is dangerous to assume there is a recipe for restoration success. Seems very nebulous at the moment but hopefully it works.


----------



## Brian Berg (Jun 22, 2013)

There are still a lot of prestine rivers and streams in the UP that they could thrive in.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Decoy- I just view doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result as insanity.

Logging and power generation changed our state's rivers. I don't know if there are the resources, or the will, to change very much habitat back.
After reading about the river clean up down state that reversed a decade of TU efforts in just a few days, I'm not optimistic.
And if it involved brown trout eradication, I think the cold water fishermen would burn Lansing.
The Tribe seems to have acquired enough land along the Manistee, that they can use their resources and sovereignty to have all the Grayling they can afford.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

I have fished just about every single trib of the Manistee from Deward down to Tippy. I've caught browns in everyone I have fished. When the temperature increases in the main stream those hogs enter it. They also spawn in them. I don't see this working.


----------



## capper (Sep 3, 2015)

I'm not sure what all the worry is about. In Alaska - Grayling co-exist and thrive along with both Lake trout and Northern Pike. I have caught them in both streams and lakes that had both species.
My biggest concern would be the fact that they are truly easy to catch. You can catch just as many on a silver #2 Mepps spinner as you can on a #12 black Gnat dry fly. They are very susceptible to over fishing. I personally have witnessed the population in a wonderful stream along the Alaska pipeline, being nearly wiped out in just a few years.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that stocking can't provide enough fry to overcome predation. If the DNR had 2000 brood stock fish maybe they could hatch enough eggs in stream to make it work with large brown trout populations.

Boardman mentioned some big browns coming into tribs when the water heats up. Those fish might disappear pretty quickly if they were no longer stocked in the mainstream. The popularity of that tactic isn't going to be very high, might not be on the table at all.

Grayling are easy to catch. If folks fishing the streams can't control themselves, and I have no reason to believe they can't, the streams should be closed to all fishing. Penalties for violation should be very, very high: fines of $500 per fish, minimum jail sentences of 3 months and loss of fishing/hunting privileges for 10 years. Sounds steep I know but private entities creating a public resource is a rare treasure and should be protected. I feel the same about the Saginaw Bay fishery and the DNR footed most of the bill for that but private groups helped a lot.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

kzoofisher said:


> My guess, and it's only a guess, is that stocking can't provide enough fry to overcome predation. If the DNR had 2000 brood stock fish maybe they could hatch enough eggs in stream to make it work with large brown trout populations.
> 
> Boardman mentioned some big browns coming into tribs when the water heats up. Those fish might disappear pretty quickly if they were no longer stocked in the mainstream. The popularity of that tactic isn't going to be very high, might not be on the table at all.
> 
> Grayling are easy to catch. If folks fishing the streams can't control themselves, and I have no reason to believe they can't, the streams should be closed to all fishing. Penalties for violation should be very, very high: fines of $500 per fish, minimum jail sentences of 3 months and loss of fishing/hunting privileges for 10 years. Sounds steep I know but private entities creating a public resource is a rare treasure and should be protected. I feel the same about the Saginaw Bay fishery and the DNR footed most of the bill for that but private groups helped a lot.



I am all for private groups doing whatever to improve quality & habitat but that in no way grants them or the affected water some kind of special privilege nor warrants special or additional regulations.

If this is going to result in additional regulations I would/will be entirely against it.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Gamekeeper said:


> Decoy- I just view doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result as insanity.
> 
> Logging and power generation changed our state's rivers. I don't know if there are the resources, or the will, to change very much habitat back.
> After reading about the river clean up down state that reversed a decade of TU efforts in just a few days, I'm not optimistic.
> ...


It may not work, but if we can get them reintroduced it would be a good thing. Grayling were native to Michigan, it was as bad to drive them out as many other things we do. Like damming rivers, draining marshes, pollution and introduction of invasive species. Any time we can right an environmental wrong, we win.


----------



## -Axiom- (Jul 24, 2010)

DecoySlayer said:


> It may not work, but if we can get them reintroduced it would be a good thing. Grayling were native to Michigan, it was as bad to drive them out as many other things we do. Like damming rivers, draining marshes, pollution and introduction of invasive species. Any time we can right an environmental wrong, we win.


The habitat is entirely different now than it was 100+ yrs ago, this isn't going to change.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

-Axiom- said:


> The habitat is entirely different now than it was 100+ yrs ago, this isn't going to change.


Of course it is going to change. Change is never ending. We can restore the grayling if we choose to, or not. We can repair a lot of the damage, like returning dammed rivers to their free flowing state, or not. We can restore the swamps, bogs and marshes, or not. 

The greatest problem we face is not the fact that it can't be restored, it's that, in spite of all the "noise" people make about fixing the environment, most don't want to. Most only want to "fix it" at the state it was in when they were 20.

Nothing I say will change what is going to take place. I would love to see the grayling return, just because the are a really cool fish and they are MUCH better eating than an stinky ole trout, at least in my opinion they are. 

When I had grayling to fish for I would almost always target them before trout.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Montana also did something different with the rearing pens, actually rearing the stocked fish in the waters where they were to be released I believe. This was another key to their success. I'm all for attempting another re-introduction of a native species and I believe lessons have been learned since the last attempt. Finally, this is being paid with by private funds.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Another myth is that science can science it's way out of environmental problems. Sometimes the damage is so great or the system has experience such change that you will never get a stream back to a pre-impairment condition. Are partial measures enough to establish a breeding population? Maybe. Some times the only thing preventing the establishment of a population is a near by source population to dispurse. Pheasants Forever can fall short here (field of dreamscape myth). Sometimes it is not enough to plant some riparian vegetation, pull out a few browns, and stock. Sometimes the problem is more complex than that.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

RonSwanson said:


> Another myth is that science can science it's way out of environmental problems. Sometimes the damage is so great or the system has experience such change that you will never get a stream back to a pre-impairment condition. Are partial measures enough to establish a breeding population? Maybe. Some times the only thing preventing the establishment of a population is a near by source population to dispurse. Pheasants Forever can fall short here (field of dreamscape myth). Sometimes it is not enough to plant some riparian vegetation, pull out a few browns, and stock. Sometimes the problem is more complex than that.


Of course it may fail. It may not be possible. We should try because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

DecoySlayer said:


> Of course it may fail. It may not be possible. We should try because it is the right thing to do.


I'm not arguing that we shouldn't. Worst case scenario is that it improves the quality of those streams but the grayling's do not return. That's still a win in my book.

Just pointing out some of the trappings of restoration science. Various states have taken a lot of nifty approaches to introductions. Stream side farms and "trophy rivers" with various limits on season dates, tackle, and size limits have been very effective at establishing and growing populations of fish.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Unless there is a Khmer Rouge style Brown trout re-education program, they will do as they have always done.

This is a typical "fool and their money" type effort.

Grow them in a lake somewhere, dump them in the tribs. Make people buy a stamp to keep them.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Well looks like we are going to find out if they can survive. As long as this isn't used to promote restrictions all over the Manistee watershed, I be good with it. Restrictions on graylings themselves, understandable.


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Unfortunately, history shows us that there would be no decent fishing if left to the public trust.
If you are going to have Grayling, you're going to have government involved in it.
Or some bizarre reinterpretation of the sovereign rights of the Native people's.

I am only somewhat familiar with the Manistee watershed. 
I know the tribe holds all kinds of land downstream from Highbridge. 

Do they hold much up toward Mesick?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Gamekeeper said:


> Unless there is a Khmer Rouge style Brown trout re-education program, they will do as they have always done.
> 
> This is a typical "fool and their money" type effort.
> 
> Grow them in a lake somewhere, dump them in the tribs. Make people buy a stamp to keep them.



Are Michigan brown trout somehow harder on grayling than those in England and Scotland? How is it that grayling live right along side brown, and sea trout, which are sea run brown trout, without any problem over there? I often could take a limit of trout, and grayling, on the same day on the same stream/river. 

I guess I don't understand.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I am guessing the only chance to restore them is in a stream not already hosting the Great Lakes Trout/Salmon species?

Be that as it may, it seems like this would be easier on a small system Lake Superior stream than anywhere else. Are the U.P. bands taking an interest in this?


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

You'd have to ask a fisheries person or TU guy for that.
Upon introduction, Brown trout out competed the Grayling in our rivers.

What might have changed?

Why aren't there already Grayling in the streams they are intended to be reintroduced to? There probably were at one time.
If not, then if it didn't work before, why would it work now?

Without addressing the original cause for their disappearance, it would seem unlikely to have much success.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I thought the Grayling were gone a fair bit before any Brown Trout were ever introduced?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

B.Jarvinen said:


> I thought the Grayling were gone a fair bit before any Brown Trout were ever introduced?


No, that particular invasive species was introduced into Michigan in 1883. The last grayling were removed in the 1930's in a last ditch effort to save them. 

I believe it was primarily loss of habitat, and commercial fishing, that did in the grayling. It was a great loss.


----------



## slowpaya (Oct 23, 2011)

the logs did a job on their spawning grounds.seems I fished the rapid river for them on the last attempt,never got 1


----------

