# Lake Michigan salmon running light so far in 2014



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

whitetailfreak8 said:


> Steelhead and lakers have the same diet in the main lake as kings...kings crashed in Huron not steelhead or lakers...not saying you're wrong but if it's a loss of food source that's killing these fish why are alewives washing up on shore and why are kings the only ones dying off?


No, king salmon feed almost exclusively on alewives. Lake and brown trout will eat gobies, steelhead will eat bugs/insects.

Did the unusually harsh winter further decimate the remaining stocks of alewives, which were at historically low levels in 2012?


----------



## whitetailfreak8 (Nov 3, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> No, king salmon feed almost exclusively on alewives. Lake and brown trout will eat gobies, steelhead will eat bugs/insects.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unusually harsh winter further decimate the remaining stocks of alewives, which were at historically low levels in 2012?



Kings eat gobies as well


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

whitetailfreak8 said:


> Kings eat gobies as well


Really, how about linking an article or study to prove that? These are contrary to your statement, matter of fact the kings are increasing their intake of alewives as a total percentage of their diet.

http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2013/Study-suggests-diet-of-Great-Lakes-salmon-has-changed/



> Researchers collected more than 1,000 salmon stomachs from all states surrounding Lake Michigan in 2009 and 2010, and compared what they found to salmon diet analysis conducted by the DNR in the mid-1990s. Results showed diversity of the fish diets for small salmon (under about 20 inches) shifting from 58 percent alewives in the 1990s to 85 percent alewives in 2009-10. *The diet of larger salmon went from 84 percent to 99 percent alewives*.


And then there is this...

http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/home/default.aspx?tabid=575&videoid=18



> "We know that lake trout and brown trout are eating lots of round gobies," says Janssen. "But we also know that more pelagic species, like *Chinooks*, cohos and steelhead are not."


I'm anxiously awaiting proof that kings are eating gobies.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

I have found 2 gobies in kings, a few emerald shiners and a few shad, they dont activly feed on them, Browns and lakers love gobys. Steel and coho will feed on bugs, bait or anything else that moves by them.


----------



## whitetailfreak8 (Nov 3, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> Really, how about linking an article or study to prove that? These are contrary to your statement, matter of fact the kings are increasing their intake of alewives as a total percentage of their diet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Aren't you the guy that said kings don't jump in the river when they are hooked in the mouth? Lol I didn't say they kings main diet is a goby but they will eat them...sorry I don't have to time to sit here and look for research on this but looks like the comment above will have to do for now...


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Sparky23 said:


> I have found 2 gobies in kings, a few emerald shiners and a few shad, they dont activly feed on them, Browns and lakers love gobys. Steel and coho will feed on bugs, bait or anything else that moves by them.


Obviously, there are no absolutes. We have definitely found shad in the stomachs of kings in the spring, while trolling for browns, but for some reason they just don't seem as interested in them later in the year. I don't doubt that an occasional goby or even a perch end up in the stomach of a king from time to time. My point is that kings, as a whole, are feeding on alewives the vast majority of the time and their population depends on them in Lake Michigan. If the unusually harsh winter did a number on the alewife population we could be well on our way to a Lake Huron type of scenario.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I have to laugh. Since I have lived in Saint Ignace (1990) I have cleaned well over 2000 King Salmon and have yet to see one Alewife in the stomach of any of them. Plenty of sticklebacks, shiners, gobies, whitefish, walleye, lake trout, smelt, and some others. Not saying that they don't find and eat alewife here, I just have never seen one.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

wdf73 said:


> It's not just Lake Mi. I fish an unmentionable Lk Huron trib in the UP. One of the slowest years I've seen. Reports from superior are telling of fish being almost nonexistent.
> I am not a biologist or anything like it, but I can't help but wonder. What did all three lakes have in common?
> All I can think of is near record lows and much more area frozen last winter? Coincidence?


Lake Huron tributary. If it is the one I am thinking of I fish there on a regular basis. I caught 7 kings in August and 0 for the month of September. My August numbers were the highest I have ever had and September is the lowest. I guess you cannot go lower than 0. Coho are about average for me this year and steelhead are way lower.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

whitetailfreak8 said:


> Aren't you the guy that said kings don't jump in the river when they are hooked in the mouth? Lol I didn't say they kings main diet is a goby but they will eat them...sorry I don't have to time to sit here and look for research on this but looks like the comment above will have to do for now...


So, when the alewife population crashes in Lake Michigan, are the kings going to suddenly start eating gobies? No, they will starve and die like the ones did in Lake Huron.

And yes, I was the guy that made that comment about kings jumping when hooked in the mouth. Just like the goby discussion, there are always exceptions. And when I watch a video with salmon jumping all over the place, it becomes clear a good number of them were not hooked in the mouth.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

According to what I have been learning a majority of the salmon in the great lakes are naturally spawned fish. The majority of the fish come out of Georgian Bay according to the MNR. That number varies but according to their surveys it averages about 46 million fish per year. If 10 percent reach adult size that is 4.6 million fish. I think that less than 10 percent made it this year.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> According to what I have been learning a majority of the salmon in the great lakes are naturally spawned fish.


 Between 1/2 and 2/3rds are a result of natural reproduction.




Robert Holmes said:


> The majority of the fish come out of Georgian Bay according to the MNR.


That would be fish in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay itself, not the entire Great Lakes. The Lake Michigan tributaries in MI produce the bulk of the fish that inhabit Lake Michigan.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Flyfisher said:


> Between 1/2 and 2/3rds are a result of natural reproduction.
> 
> 
> That would be fish in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay itself, not the entire Great Lakes. The Lake Michigan tributaries in MI produce the bulk of the fish that inhabit Lake Michigan.


Are we looking at the possibility of another crash


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Are we looking at the possibility of another crash


What do you think? I haven't seen any 2014 studies/surveys on how well the alewife population survived this past winter, the most severe in a long time. Similar thing happened 10 years ago on Lake Huron, severe winter that devastated the alewives.


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

I personally do not think the alewives are "crashing" in Lake Michigan. I think it is normal "up's and down's" dependent on conditions. The past few years I have seen more dead alewives on the beaches of the West Side than I have, say 5 to 10 years ago. Maybe it has been lucky occurrences to for me to see such sights! Based on the DNR's recent lack of funding, I suspect these lake trawls to determine biomass were not complete enough to make the decisions they made. 

For the sport fishery and revenue kings bring to the great State of Michigan, I'd think I would be figuring out how to control things better. I think that is what some of them went to school for at least... I have heard a lot of things over the years about those that make the decisions around here and what "THEY" want. Reminds me of Obamacare, actually...

Hey, maybe we'll get Seeforellens back or Atlantics that grow bigger than 20lbs if the alewives do in-fact crash. Ha ha, as if, right?

This is all speculation on my part, take with a grain of salt if you wish.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Treven said:


> I personally do not think the alewives are "crashing" in Lake Michigan. I think it is normal "up's and down's" dependent on conditions. The past few years I have seen more dead alewives on the beaches of the West Side than I have, say 5 to 10 years ago. Maybe it has been lucky occurrences to for me to see such sights.! Based on the DNR's recent lack of funding, I suspect these lake trawls to determine biomass were not complete enough to make the decisions they made.
> 
> For the sport fishery and revenue kings bring to the great State of Michigan, I'd think I would be figuring out how to control things better. I think that is what some of them went to school for at least... I have heard a lot of things over the years about those that make the decisions around here and what "THEY" want. Reminds me of Obamacare, actually...
> 
> ...


Seeing dead alewives on the beach (particularly if it was this past spring) is not necessarily a good thing. It could mean they were stressed out from the severe winter.


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

Flyfisher said:


> Seeing dead alewives on the beach (particularly if it was this past spring) is not necessarily a good thing. It could mean they were stressed out from the severe winter.


I'm talking more in the summer. I remember not knowing what the massive piles were "back in the day," but the past 3-4 years I have seen ales in the summer especially after flips when I hadn't before that as much.


----------



## Treven (Feb 21, 2006)

And I'm with you on this past winter likely being hard on the alewives. If the DNR reduced plants because of the Farmer's Almanac forecast of this past winter a few years ago, I guess I need to start reading the Farmer's Almanac more!!

That is where I was going with the up's and downs based on conditions, earlier.


----------



## Cod (Sep 14, 2014)

The DNR have done extensive research about king diets and say they do eat mainly alewives, it's your choice to listen to the researchers who are paid to do this for a living or just be plain ignorant. Maybe things will pick up in Lake Michigan in the next few years, but it most of it depends on alewives numbers (which is affected by many variables).


----------



## msfcarp (Jun 6, 2006)

http://www.outdoornews.com/March-2014/Alewife-numbers-remain-low-in-Lake-Michigan/

Just read an article in Fridays Ludington news about the NRC meeting and the fisheries presentation, I can't find it online though.

Here is some more info for those who are interested in the status of Lake Michigan Salmon and preyfish.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-LMich_Prey_Fish_Report_Final_2013.pdf


----------



## chlong (Oct 14, 2014)

Here's the reason why the salmon run of 2014 is so slow http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5255863#post5255863


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

reason reason reason. Plain and simple, this is, will be the knew normal for a long time, the DNR wants this. The fishing is going to get worse, much worse. Its not because of the lack of fish that spawned 3 years ago, or anything else, Look at the numbers, they stocked fewer fish. Hard winter took a toll on those fewer fish. Next year there will be even fewer fish, again from DNR cuts. 2 years from now you will be wishing for the numbers we had this year. Simple math fewer fish in the system your gunna get fewer fish, and o yea kings hooked INSIDE the mouth in the river RARELY if ever jump, or maybe they just dont for me and flyfisher or anyone around us.


----------



## FishMichv2 (Oct 18, 2004)

Sparky23 said:


> reason reason reason. Plain and simple, this is, will be the knew normal for a long time, the DNR wants this. The fishing is going to get worse, much worse. Its not because of the lack of fish that spawned 3 years ago, or anything else, Look at the numbers, they stocked fewer fish. Hard winter took a toll on those fewer fish. Next year there will be even fewer fish, again from DNR cuts. 2 years from now you will be wishing for the numbers we had this year. Simple math fewer fish in the system your gunna get fewer fish, and o yea kings hooked INSIDE the mouth in the river RARELY if ever jump, or maybe they just dont for me and flyfisher or anyone around us.


stocking cuts didnt happen til last year so that wouldnt have any affect on this years run. also i dont believe Coho stocking was reduced at all.


----------



## Bigbird517 (Apr 12, 2014)

I keep reading all these reports about how the dnr has reduced stocking as an explanation for the low numbers of fish THIS year. 2013 is the first year of reduced stocking, it has absolutely nothing to do with this years low numbers. I fish a river that is all natural reproduction, no stocking and the numbers are down there as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

In speaking with various people who operate fish cleaning stations around Manistee area this year, I got a lot of feedback that almost all of the fish they cleaned were unclipped. And the DNR began clipping all planted Kings about 4 or 5 years ago. One guy told me that 99% of the fish he cleaned were naturally spawned. So, if the DNR doubled the plants, then 2% of the returning fish would logically come from plants. That doesn't seem like the juice is worth the squeeze to me. 

Everyone who "feels" like the DNR wants to get rid of Salmon, or "feels" like the scientific reasons already presented for the reduced numbers of Kings are wrong, are simply not willing or able to understand the simple facts. The facts are accurate. There simply isn't enough of the food Kings eat to support the numbers of Kings we became accustomed to for the last 45 years, or so. And, truthfully, the numbers have been declining for quite a few years. People newer to Salmon fishing wouldn't know that, but it is obvious to anyone who has pursued them for a few decades. 

We had hard winters ever winter in the 1970's, and there were more Salmon and Steelhead than you could shake a stick at. But there were way more Alewives than you could shake a stick at, too. Why didn't they both die off in those real hard winters? Guess what there wasn't at that time? Quagga, and Zebra Mussels. That is the story. It isn't that difficult to understand. If it feels terrible to understand the correct reason behind the decline in Salmon numbers, that is because it is a pretty terrible story. But it is THE story nonetheless. 

The DNR biologists feel that there was a poor spawn of Alewives 3 years ago (does anyone remember when Kings almost all spawned at 4 years of age?), which led to less food for the Kings planted at that time. So the Kings didn't get enough food when they were young (and preying on young of the year Alewives), so they died out. And there was a better spawn of Alewives the following year, so there is hope that there may be better Salmon runs in 2015. I hope so, but I won't bet money on it. 

Why would the DNR want there to be want fewer Salmon? There is no logic in that assumption. Zero. Salmon bring millions of dollars of revenue to our State. Many baitshops, and charters are going to go out of business after this dismal year of Salmon fishing. I am 100% sure that the DNR doesn't want that to happen. But they can't fix the problem.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree with everything you said. And I believe that the DNR has known for several years that it was out of their control. They have the Lake Huron experience in the books.

They could have softened the economic blow by being up front from the beginning. We have seen it repeatedly, salmon, pheasants, northern deer herds, wolves etc. again they are a day late and the economy a dollar short.

They will have salmon in those hatcheries again, it should be the species that will replace them. Lake Huron was a dead fishery for several years before it improved. A more proactive instead of reactive approach could have saved Lake Michigan from that fate.


----------



## rftech (Sep 28, 2009)

The discussion here has been fantastic! I am curious though, last year the run was the best I have seen in 10 to 15 years. The fish were plentiful and huge last year. If the alewives were on a major decline, why the big run? After last year I expected this year to be even better.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I agree with everything you said. And I believe that the DNR has known for several years that it was out of their control. They have the Lake Huron experience in the books.
> 
> They could have softened the economic blow by being up front from the beginning. We have seen it repeatedly, salmon, pheasants, northern deer herds, wolves etc. again they are a day late and the economy a dollar short.
> 
> They will have salmon in those hatcheries again, it should be the species that will replace them. Lake Huron was a dead fishery for several years before it improved. A more proactive instead of reactive approach could have saved Lake Michigan from that fate.


Reducing Salmon plants, in reaction to declining numbers of Alewives, was very proactive approach to addressing the Mussel problem, as it relates to Salmon in the great lakes. Not sure what proactive measures the DNR could have taken to avoid the Mussels being introduced in our lakes, but their reaction in reducing plants of Salmon was a proactive step.


----------



## FishMichv2 (Oct 18, 2004)

Fishndude said:


> In speaking with various people who operate fish cleaning stations around Manistee area this year, I got a lot of feedback that almost all of the fish they cleaned were unclipped. And the DNR began clipping all planted Kings about 4 or 5 years ago. One guy told me that 99% of the fish he cleaned were naturally spawned. So, if the DNR doubled the plants, then 2% of the returning fish would logically come from plants. That doesn't seem like the juice is worth the squeeze to me.
> 
> Everyone who "feels" like the DNR wants to get rid of Salmon, or "feels" like the scientific reasons already presented for the reduced numbers of Kings are wrong, are simply not willing or able to understand the simple facts. The facts are accurate. There simply isn't enough of the food Kings eat to support the numbers of Kings we became accustomed to for the last 45 years, or so. And, truthfully, the numbers have been declining for quite a few years. People newer to Salmon fishing wouldn't know that, but it is obvious to anyone who has pursued them for a few decades.
> 
> We had hard winters ever winter in the 1970's, and there were more Salmon and Steelhead than you could shake a stick at. But there were way more Alewives than you could shake a stick at, too. Why didn't they both die off in those real hard winters? Guess what there wasn't at that time? Quagga, and Zebra Mussels. That is the story. It isn't that difficult to understand. If it feels terrible to understand the correct reason behind the decline in Salmon numbers, that is because it is a pretty terrible story. But it is THE story nonetheless.


i wasnt around back in the 70s but if im not mistaken we have never had a winter like we had last year. ive lived on a lake my whole life and have never seen a fish kill like we had this winter. didnt we have the largest section on record of Lake Michigan freeze over? i know the food numbers are down and thats why the needed cuts were made last year but what does that have to do with this year? if food has been an issue then why arent we seeing skinny fish? maybe they are only seeing wild fish at the cleaning station because they are stronger than the hatchery fish? im not trying to argue, im just asking questions and throwing around ideas.

the crappy part of this for me personally is ive wanted to move north my whole life to have this fishery out my back door. i finally make it happen and everything is changing. here is to hoping for a good fall steelhead run.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I am under the impression that the DNR wants more walleye, atlantic salmon and steelhead in the great lakes. The chinook and coho are becoming a thing of the past. This will hurt the charter boat fishing as people do not want to pay $500 or more to fish for greasers. I sure would not be able to sleep at night knowing that I just charged someone to catch greasers on my boat.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

Last year was a good run because of a very good class of ales in 2010. Those fish got big and had good survivial rates. Thats why last year was so good. 
We see about 40% hatchery fish and 60% wild fish in the return rate. Some ports will have a higher rate of natural fish. For example, Frankfort, we always see a much higher percentage of natural fish there because the betsie is an all natural river. You have to look at the whole lake, not just one port.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Robert Holmes said:


> I am under the impression that the DNR wants more walleye, atlantic salmon and steelhead in the great lakes. The chinook and coho are becoming a thing of the past. This will hurt the charter boat fishing as people do not want to pay $500 or more to fish for greasers. I sure would not be able to sleep at night knowing that I just charged someone to catch greasers on my boat.


Okay, then look at what you just wrote from a slightly different perspective. The Mussels invaded, and are slowly destroying the Salmon fishery in our Great Lakes. But Salmon are not native to the lakes, and King Salmon in particular depend on Alewives for their food. So, in light of the massive reduction in the number of Alewives, which is resulting in big declines in Salmon numbers, and sizes, the DNR is changing their hatchery plan in favor of planting or supporting fish which are either native to the lakes, or not as dependent on Alewives for survival. 

It is worth noting that the shore/river fisheries for Salmon, and Steelhead are considered incidental by the DNR. They plant Salmon, and Steelhead to support the charters that fish for them in the lakes. It just so happens that the fish that don't get caught migrate back to their natal rivers to spawn, thereby providing a "bonus" fishery for people who don't have the ability to fish for them in the Great Lakes. I got that from a former Fisheries Biologist who was an instrument part of the hatchery program for many decades - now retired. So the DNR absolutely wants to have the best fisheries for Salmon we can have. But if the best fishery we can have is marginal (at best), then they need to focus on increasing other species to hopefully offset the decline in Salmon charters. 

Lakers aren't inherently bad, but they do have higher fat content than Salmon. They don't fight as well as Salmon, either. But they are native to our lakes. Steelhead aren't native to the Great Lakes, but they were first planted here a very long time ago - well over 125 years. It wasn't until Howard Tanner decided to plant Salmon that the DNR really ramped up the planting of Steelhead as well. And they are a better gamefish for the shore-bound anglers. You can find Steelhead in rivers in MI every single day of the year. I think they are a great alternative to Salmon. Sadly, a lot of people who pay for charters won't agree, and a lot of charters will probably close their doors in the next 12 months. 

I wonder what would be going on if Mr. Tanner's other "option" had been impemented? He considered planting Striped Bass in the lakes, to control the Alewife population. He decided on Pacific Salmon instead, and the rest is history.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

I would like to know what, if anything, can be done to decrease the amount of Lakers that are stocked every year? I know that the federal government has a role in this, but is the DNR powerless to do anything about this or do they want to see more Lakers in the system? The reason I ask this is because Lake trout are, by a wide margin, considered one of the less desirable fish in the ecosystem by anglers. Nevertheless, increasingly large numbers are stocked every year and they make a huge dent in the baitfish population. I don't know the exact numbers that are stocked every year, but from my readings it is a lot and more and more every year. Maybe someone can confirm this. My point is, if the baitfish population is in danger and we are decreasing the number of predator fish that we stock, specifically King salmon, then why do they continue to ramp up the numbers of Lake trout they stock? Stocking for them needs to be cut back too so that the baitfish population can recover. Lake trout will never sustain the kind of fishing industry we have. Very few people want them. I myself would NEVER plan a trip, let alone buy a boat, to fish for them.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

Lake trout are native


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

jpmarko said:


> I would like to know what, if anything, can be done to decrease the amount of Lakers that are stocked every year? I know that the federal government has a role in this, but is the DNR powerless to do anything about this or do they want to see more Lakers in the system? The reason I ask this is because Lake trout are, by a wide margin, considered one of the less desirable fish in the ecosystem by anglers. Nevertheless, increasingly large numbers are stocked every year and they make a huge dent in the baitfish population. I don't know the exact numbers that are stocked every year, but from my readings it is a lot and more and more every year. Maybe someone can confirm this. My point is, if the baitfish population is in danger and we are decreasing the number of predator fish that we stock, specifically King salmon, then why do they continue to ramp up the numbers of Lake trout they stock? Stocking for them needs to be cut back too so that the baitfish population can recover. Lake trout will never sustain the kind of fishing industry we have. Very few people want them. I myself would NEVER plan a trip, let alone buy a boat, to fish for them.


I'd rather catch one native lake trout then 3 invasive specie king salmon.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

wildcoy73 said:


> Lake trout are native


Well, I'm aware of that. That still doesn't answer why the DNR can't be consistent in the plan to help baitfish numbers rebound. Lake trout may be native but if you plant too many then it can make it difficult for the baitfish population to recover and can contribute to a crash. They can still plant them, just less numbers.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Jimbos said:


> I'd rather catch one native lake trout then 3 invasive specie king salmon.


But you would be in the vast minority. I'm not trying to butt heads. I'm just stating what the overall perception is. It's cool if you like Lake trout more, but most people do not prefer them to salmon. Plus, whether they are native or not, they eat baitfish too.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

jpmarko said:


> I would like to know what, if anything, can be done to decrease the amount of Lakers that are stocked every year? I know that the federal government has a role in this, but is the DNR powerless to do anything about this or do they want to see more Lakers in the system? The reason I ask this is because Lake trout are, by a wide margin, considered one of the less desirable fish in the ecosystem by anglers. Nevertheless, increasingly large numbers are stocked every year and they make a huge dent in the baitfish population. I don't know the exact numbers that are stocked every year, but from my readings it is a lot and more and more every year. Maybe someone can confirm this. My point is, if the baitfish population is in danger and we are decreasing the number of predator fish that we stock, specifically King salmon, then why do they continue to ramp up the numbers of Lake trout they stock? Stocking for them needs to be cut back too so that the baitfish population can recover. Lake trout will never sustain the kind of fishing industry we have. Very few people want them. I myself would NEVER plan a trip, let alone buy a boat, to fish for them.


As has already been noted in other posts on this thread, Lakers and King Salmon do not eat the same baitfish. Lakers tend to live on the bottom of the lakes, and they eat baitfish which also exist mostly on the bottom. Kings focus almost solely on Alewives, which suspend, and search for their preferred temperatures. Lakers do not compete with Kings for food, which is why the numbers of Lakers are increasing, while numbers of Kings are declining. This is a real simply concept, and has been widely discussed, here. 

If Kings virtually disappear, would you prefer to be able to target Lakers, or just be left with no options to fish for any Silver fish in our Great Lakes? That is the decision the DNR has been facing for a decade. If you want to see what happens when Kings disappear, drive to Oscoda, Harrisville, and Alpena, and ask about finding a Salmon charter. 

There are going to be some great deals on boats that will handle the big lakes in the next year. And lots of people will be trying to sell their trolling gear - just like they did on the east side of the State in the last 10 years. 



> A little bit of something is better than a whole lot of nothing.


I said that


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I may be wrong on this, but I think the plantings of Lake Trout is in combination with the U.S. Fish and wildlife service. That way it doesn't cost the state DNR nearly as much as planting other fish on their own. And of course the mere fact that lake trout are native would have something to do with it.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/library/fact-greatlakes.pdf


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

If Lake trout don't eat alewives, then how did they ever become affected by the thiamine inhibitor found in the flesh of alewives? I realize that Lake trout do not target ales, but they are voracious eaters and they do feed on them.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

I would rather see are watee clean and full of native fish any day of the week.


----------

