# Michigan's Steelhead Management Philosophy Under Review



## Boozer

Pooch said:


> My opinion of what to do is not an option, but heare it is. i personally would like see and believe that we could drop the kings all together, at least on the lower portion of LM and up the stocking of all strains of steelhead and cohos. The king return has been poor for at least 5 years. If (arguably) the alewives are down in numbers, I believe this would help. Kings are veracious eaters, the whole reason they were stocked in the first place. We could catch these fish over and over, rather than once before they die. I know the lake industry would have an issue with this, and I know most of the states and local revenues come from the lake guys, so this would not happen, but it seems logical to me. I believe that is why ohio has the numbers and we don't. Just my 2 cents.


There are a lot of anglers whom agree with you, simply put, it will never happen though...


----------



## fishinDon

I voted to increase Skam plants, but I would only say that with this caveat. You'd have to reduce King/Coho plants or LM Steelhead plants. The big lake doesn't need any more predators, it's already close enough to capacity (or beyond, depending on who you believe). Based on the size of the Skams, they are obviously efficient predators!

Also, I like catching trout in the summer, so I'd prefer to see Steelhead (Skams or LM strain) stocked mostly in rivers like the Grand, Muskegon and Joe that are not great trout fisheries. Steelhead compete with young trout for 1-3 years in the river, whereas Salmon only stay in the river for a few months, so that has to be part of the equation too. 

Ideally, we'd figure out how to get naturalized stocks that can reproduce on their own. Then we wouldn't have to stock them. And it wouldn't cost us $1 per plant or $67 per netted fish. Steelhead need cold/stable sources of groundwater for good natural reproduction. Some rivers have more than enough cold water (Little Man), others do not - Betsie. We need to make sure we are protecting those cold groundwater sources because they are precious nurseries.

All of this makes me wonder why Jay voted the way he did as well. It's a complicated equation...
Don

P.S. Thx for posting this. Great discussion topic. The DNR just brought up putting together a management plan for Steelhead (as well as all inland trout) at the coldwater committee meeting this week.


----------



## Boozer

fishinDon said:


> I voted to increase Skam plants, but I would only say that with this caveat. You'd have to reduce King/Coho plants or LM Steelhead plants. The big lake doesn't need any more predators, it's already close enough to capacity (or beyond, depending on who you believe). Based on the size of the Skams, they are obviously efficient predators!
> 
> Also, I like catching trout in the summer, so I'd prefer to see Steelhead (Skams or LM strain) stocked mostly in rivers like the Grand, Muskegon and Joe that are not great trout fisheries. Steelhead compete with young trout for 1-3 years in the river, whereas Salmon only stay in the river for a few months, so that has to be part of the equation too.
> 
> Ideally, we'd figure out how to get naturalized stocks that can reproduce on their own. Then we wouldn't have to stock them. And it wouldn't cost us $1 per plant or $67 per netted fish. Steelhead need cold/stable sources of groundwater for good natural reproduction. Some rivers have more than enough cold water (Little Man), others do not - Betsie. We need to make sure we are protecting those cold groundwater sources because they are precious nurseries.
> 
> All of this makes me wonder why Jay voted the way he did as well. It's a complicated equation...
> Don
> 
> P.S. Thx for posting this. Great discussion topic. The DNR just brought up putting together a management plan for Steelhead (as well as all inland trout) at the coldwater committee meeting this week.


I will let Jay speak for himself for the most part, but will simply say, from a Biologists standpoint, Skamania are an inferior strain to the Little Manistee strain, from an anglers standpoint though the slightly extra price is worth it as they are superior to us from our standpoint and in the end, as long as it's not detrimental to our fishery, we as citizens do have some say in the matter. I have spoken at length with Jay about this issue, I can see his point of view, but at the same time, if we are paying for it, why can't we have what we want within reason.

Also, stocking Skams does not mean one cannot fish for Trout, if I choose to even at the peak of the Skamania run on tribs of the Joe, I can go target Trout and Skamania are not an issue. We also happen to have some damn good Trout natural reproduction on tribs down here that see a TON of skams. One trib specifically gets such great Brown Trout natural reproduction that they don't even have to stock it any longer.

Bottom line, what we experience down here is the exact opposite of what the one study claimed that the MDNR did on Skamania steelhead...

Stocking Skams in only the warmer streams is kind of backwards, why stock fish in a river they will not thrive in?


----------



## Trout King

I chose to leave it the way it is. I wouldn't mind seeing more skams in more rivers, the few I run into trout fishing every summer are a blast, but they are dead by the time they are landed (skams really can't be caught over and over in the summer). I believe maybe they should dump the King and Coho stocking in the Grand and Joe, if not the MO too and focus on putting in summer steelhead. Hell, by the time the Kings even hit 6th st they are disgusting and not edible (by my personal standards). I catch skams in the upper Grand and Tribs almost every summer now and the meat is still flame orange and the fish silver and fight hard. If you want to salmon fish then just head north. There are plenty of salmon that reproduce naturally like there are plenty of steelhead that repriduce naturally in the Grand system and many other tribs. If I am not mistaken, skams are very unsuccessful at natural reproduction, which should also be factored in. I really think we should all be greatful for the opportunities that we do have already, but some plantings don't make much sense. 

If it were my way I'd say get rid of the salmon stocking in lower L Michigan, at least what they put into the rivers, leave the net pens for the big lake guys, and fill the river planting of salmon void with summer steelhead, or better yet, lake run browns. Not to mention the browns and steelies will do much better with the changing ecology of Lake Michigan. More varied diets of these fish would definately help them survive better than the kings, but then again I'm hearing the alewife numbers are better this year(probably somewhat due to the salmon cuts).


----------



## thousandcasts

Like Don said, I'll repeat it a little more bluntly. Outside of a few areas, Michigan rivers, for the most part, do not have the habitat nor the temps needed to sustain wild steelhead fisheries. 

Does the Grand, for example, get a lot of wild fish? Yes, but " a lot" is a broad term. You have cold water tribs from Grand Haven to Lansing that can support some wild parr long enough for them to reach smolt size--which for the record takes a minimum of one year. So, not only do they have to survive the first summer, but also the first winter where anchor and string ice can kill them off as well. However, no matter how many wild fish those tribs produce to enhance the Grand river fishery, that's all that it is--an enhancement. Take away the 70+ thousand planted fish and that fishery takes a HUGE nose dive. Put those wild parr in the mainstream of the Grand and they're dead. 

The Muskegon even more so due to the lack of cold water tribs. Even if 5000 hens spawn successfully every spring, the Mo can get up to 74, 75 degrees in the summer. Wild parr in those temps = dead parr. 

Same thing on the Big M, the Joe, the K-zoo. Sure, every one of those rivers has some trib or two that can add wild fish to the population, but no where near enough to cut stocking. Not even close. 

So on, so forth, etc, etc. Fact. So no, Michigan does *NOT* get a lot of natural steelhead reproduction.


----------



## Boozer

Skams can be and are caught over and over, IF the river conditions allow it...

In regards to the Skams not naturally reproducing that well, I am not convinced, there hasn't been much in the way of good studies that pertain to that on rivers that would be good for any type of steelhead natural reproduction...

Hopefully with the introduction of this new fin clipping machine, Indiana will utilize that to clip Skams, that way we can see first hand how many wild fish there are down here and all up and down West Michigan for that matter...


----------



## thousandcasts

Skam natural reproduction is irrelevant when our Little Manistee strain can't sustain itself in most rivers. By that logic, that throws out the cross breeding argument. I mean, if 90% of the over all parr are dead by the end of the first summer, who cares if cross spawning occurs or not? 

Michigan needs every bit of the 1.2 million steelhead it's capable of raising. Lower the plant #'s in any river and you will see a difference. As far as the Little M strain is concerned, it really is that simple. Wild parr have to have near perfect conditions that fall within a specific temp range all year. Michigan does not have enough Pere Marquette River's or Little Manistee Rivers or Pickle Creek's to replace the 1.2 million needed to sustain the fishery we have now. Period. 

So whether skams spawn or not is...boobs on a boar hog, so to speak.


----------



## Boozer

thousandcasts said:


> Skam natural reproduction is irrelevant when our Little Manistee strain can't sustain itself in most rivers. By that logic, that throws out the cross breeding argument. I mean, if 90% of the over all parr are dead by the end of the first summer, who cares if cross spawning occurs or not?
> 
> Michigan needs every bit of the 1.2 million steelhead it's capable of raising. Lower the plant #'s in any river and you will see a difference. As far as the Little M strain is concerned, it really is that simple.  Wild parr have to have near perfect conditions that fall within a specific temp range all year. Michigan does not have enough Pere Marquette River's or Little Manistee Rivers or Pickle Creek's to replace the 1.2 million needed to sustain the fishery we have now. Period.
> 
> So whether skams spawn or not is...boobs on a boar hog, so to speak.


Exactly...


----------



## toto

Man did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or what, no body was trying to divert the conversation over to gear regs, I was only using an analogy.

An opinion was asked for and I answered it based on what I feel, if you don't like the fact that I'm not a huge skam fan, thats oppossed to what this thread is about. I just prefer the LM strain. geez, cool down, and read it again.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> Man did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or what, no body was trying to divert the conversation over to gear regs, I was only using an analogy.
> 
> An opinion was asked for and I answered it based on what I feel, if you don't like the fact that I'm not a huge skam fan, thats oppossed to what this thread is about. I just prefer the LM strain. geez, cool down, and read it again.


I wasn't upset, I simply stated that the gear restriction crap had no place here as all it would do is start up a fuming bunch of nonsense. You know I don't like what happened with it just like you, but was trying to keep this on track as simply put, these fish get a bad rap for a lot of wrong reasons...

Your statements were tossing in a little jab about not stocking in the PM because it had gear restricted water, which is perfectly fine as you are entitled to your opinion, but I just did not want to see a huge flaming crap wad begin due to a ordeal that has been beaten to death already.

In a nutshell all I was getting at is, leave the gear restriction arguing out of this to sort of keep it on track.

I did ask why you liked the LM strain more and all you could come up with was monetary reasons which were not completely accurate, but I honestly did not mean any ill will towards you, sorry if that offends you. If you like the LM strain more, that's awesome, I don't dislike it one bit, just would like to see the Skamania strain stocked a little more than it is.


----------



## thousandcasts

Boozer said:


> Exactly...


If one wants to expound further, how long been skams been in the Great Lakes. Hell, I remember catching them in the Joe back in '86. So, let's just say 25 years. 

Now, it takes about 800 hens to create 1.2 million fish in the hatchery (Little M strain). 

Let's say 10 skams find their way up the Grand and three of those fish find a nice little creek where they can nestle down, be comfortable and wait until the spring spawning time. 

Here comes the Little M spring run. Some Little M fish go up the same little creek where those three skams are. Two of those skams are hens, the other is a buck. Everybody pairs up and two dominant buck Little M fish hook up with the two skam hens. The skam buck hooks up with a Little M female. That creek is more than capable of supporting parr for the time needed.

After 25 years of this and the stray Wisconsin arlee strains that come up and the eagle lakes that out migrate and...and...and...

Wouldn't the gene pool be diluted by now? Stray skams go up the PM, wouldn't that be diluted by now?


----------



## toto

I just do, yes I like catching skams, but I quess its because I would rather do regular trout fishing in the summer time, rather than chasing skams. Not to say I don't, won't do it, but thats my preference.

If part of the logic is ecomics, wouldn't it make more sense to plant LM strain? I mean, isn't the economy hardest hit during the winter months, therefore the LM strain would help the economy more during that period, than the summer time. I don't know the real answer to that, but just using my twisted logic.

Sorry I brought the other stuff up, that wasn't my intent, really. As for natural reproduction, there are two rivers in Michigan that are known as indicator streams, or used to be at least. Those two are the LM, and the Platte. Neither of these rivers are stocked by the DNR, but rather depend on natural reproduction, and the DNR uses, or used those two rivers to "indicate" just how well the steelie numbers are holding up. I'm pretty sure they arent what they used to be thats for sure.

Sorry guys, again, didn't mean to upset an otherwise good thread.


----------



## Boozer

toto said:


> I just do, yes I like catching skams, but I quess its because I would rather do regular trout fishing in the summer time, rather than chasing skams. Not to say I don't, won't do it, but thats my preference.
> 
> If part of the logic is ecomics, wouldn't it make more sense to plant LM strain? I mean, isn't the economy hardest hit during the winter months, therefore the LM strain would help the economy more during that period, than the summer time. I don't know the real answer to that, but just using my twisted logic.
> 
> Sorry I brought the other stuff up, that wasn't my intent, really. As for natural reproduction, there are two rivers in Michigan that are known as indicator streams, or used to be at least. Those two are the LM, and the Platte. Neither of these rivers are stocked by the DNR, but rather depend on natural reproduction, and the DNR uses, or used those two rivers to "indicate" just how well the steelie numbers are holding up. I'm pretty sure they arent what they used to be thats for sure.
> 
> Sorry guys, again, didn't mean to upset an otherwise good thread.


That's cool, your opinion is exactly what the whole point of the post was. 

I think you are under the assumption we want the LM strain not stocked, which is not true, I at least want the LM strain to continue to be managed as it is, with the exception of trying to get more of them to run in the Fall. In no way do I want to see them replaced by Skams.

It was probably my fault, once again trying to do too many things at once and didn't come across in the manner I intended...


----------



## thousandcasts

Here's some fun numbers to play with. If you take Lake Huron and look at the Au Sable steelhead plant, it's 177,000.

That 177,000 is more than the Big M and Mo combined--and that INCLUDES the skams they put in the Big M. 

The typical statewide return on Little M fish is 5% to 15%

Now follow me...Lake Huron receives other plants besides the 177K in the Au Sable, but I'll leave those out for now. 

According to the creel studies on lake huron, there were 1100 steelhead harvested, 1300 caught and released. 2400 fish that saw a hook. If you only take the Au Sable plant into consideration, that gives you a return number of 1.5% 

That's fine, that's not the point. They have to plant X amount of fish to create some sort of fishery, that's fine. If they need 177K in one river to get that, so be it. 

Who here has fished skams in the Big M? (Raises hand). It can be pretty fair to decent when conditions are right. On average, the skam plant is about 25K to 30K...sometimes more, sometimes less depending on what we get from Indiana. 

25K skams creates a fishery. Hell, there's been fishable amounts to be caught when the plants are below 20K. 

By logic...if they were to put 15K in the Mo, 15K in the Grand, 15K in the White. Wouldn't that at least create something of an added fishery during the summer months? Would it be a significant fishery? Probably not, but it would definitely provide other destinations that at least would be worth targeting. 

45K worth of skams for three rivers is still 15K less than the 60K Little M strain fish that are put in the *Huron river* of all places, but I don't even want to get started on that subject. :lol: The K-zoo gets less than 30K Little M fish...for reference.


----------



## thousandcasts

Oh yeah...I forgot this part of the equation. Hatchery space. 

Michigan is limited to 1.2 million hatchery steelhead because of hatchery space, so my 45K skam theory has to be raised somewhere, right? 

Here's where it comes from on paper...everything's always easy on paper, right? 

You take the places with the lowest returns and subtract the following: 

Au Sable: -30K that still leaves a plant of 147K (which is still more than the Mo and Big M combined)

Huron River: -15K that still leaves a plant of 45K (which is more than what they were planting in the 90's)

If the Au Sable return is 1.5%, that means you lose 450 adults with a 30K plant reduction.

If the Huron is the same 1.5% and it's right around there, then they lose 250 adults. 

That's 600 fish lost by reducing those plants. How many adult skams are gained if the annual return averages 10% (using a middle ground between the 5 and 15% return rate)? 4500. Do the math. That's only reducing in those two rivers by the amount I used. That's leaving the rest of lake huron, Erie and all of Lake Michigan's Little M strain plants the way they are. 

Like I said...on paper, it makes sense. :lol: Of course there's 50 million other variables, but I'm dealing with the simplistic portion of it.


----------



## Boozer

Does anyone know if Indiana has the hatchery space to produce any additional Skams?


----------



## fishfly

thousandcasts said:


> The king return in the lower rivers is pretty much stocking dependant. They simply do not get the natural reproduction that the northern rivers get. The king plants have been cut twice in the last several years and the lower rivers took their hit because of that. It's no coincidence that the king returns in the Grand down to the Joe went to hell as soon as the king plants were cut.


 
This is a whole other debate but part of the problem with the returns is the locations of the net pens. The survivability may be increased by not releasing them upriver but when the fish return in the fall, most of them do not go up river. I used to fish Harbor Beach when I was younger and 4 years after they changed the location of the net pens, the fishing changed dramatically. The original location of the pens used to see thousands of fish return in the fall. After they moved the pens, hardly a fish was to be found in the original spot. You had to go to the other side of the harbor to find them. Yes these fish stray but by in large they go where they were released. Again I'm only talking about kings here.


----------



## Fishndude

In Washington State, where Salmon and Steelhead are native, there are hatcheries on MOST rivers. We have a few select hatheries on a few select rivers to raise all of our broodstock. In WA they mostly do this to sustain the native runs for every river, which are all somewhat unique. They treasure the fact that each river has its own native run of fish, and want to keep them going. They have a LOT of small hatheries, and even have some on rivers that dry up in summer. 

I think we need more hatheries to raise more Steelhead. That is pretty simple, and it is clear we don't need the capacity we have needed in the past to raise Kings and Cohos in the numbers we have been for a long time.


----------



## Boozer

Fishndude said:


> In Washington State, where Salmon and Steelhead are native, there are hatcheries on MOST rivers. We have a few select hatheries on a few select rivers to raise all of our broodstock. In WA they mostly do this to sustain the native runs for every river, which are all somewhat unique. They treasure the fact that each river has its own native run of fish, and want to keep them going. They have a LOT of small hatheries, and even have some on rivers that dry up in summer.
> 
> I think we need more hatheries to raise more Steelhead. That is pretty simple, and it is clear we don't need the capacity we have needed in the past to raise Kings and Cohos in the numbers we have been for a long time.


Actually the hatcheries in Washington are destroying the native wild populations hence why there is such a huge push to close them down...

I do agree though, we need more hatcheries, totally different situation here than out there...


----------



## thousandcasts

Fishndude said:


> In Washington State, where Salmon and Steelhead are native, there are hatcheries on MOST rivers. We have a few select hatheries on a few select rivers to raise all of our broodstock. In WA they mostly do this to sustain the native runs for every river, which are all somewhat unique. They treasure the fact that each river has its own native run of fish, and want to keep them going. They have a LOT of small hatheries, and even have some on rivers that dry up in summer.
> 
> I think we need more hatheries to raise more Steelhead. That is pretty simple, and it is clear we don't need the capacity we have needed in the past to raise Kings and Cohos in the numbers we have been for a long time.


Kings and Cohos are raised in the Platte hatchery. Steelies at wolf lake. Budget comes into play here. The platte hatchery water is too cold to get the steelhead growth rate they need in the amount of time needed. At Wolf Lake it's a million bucks just to dig the well to get more appropriate water. 

So, the hatchery space freed up from kings and coho reductions over the last few years, doesn't help the steelhead situation. It goes right back to a dwindling budget, cuts in staff, no money to upgrade the hatchery steelhead situation as far as more space is concerned.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I catch a few each winter on tip ups, got a 14 pounder a couple of years ago onn an ice rod. It way too much fun.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

The Au Sable gets 150,000 every year. The returns were good through about 2005, then they just fell off sharply. There's been spurts of good fishing since then, but nothing real consistent. The reasons for the reduced returns are presumed to be from multiple factors, including cormorant predation, increased walleye/laker predation, low river levels, poor flow management, less food in Huron, etc. 

I think most West side rivers have steelhead fishing that is fine, by comparison. There might be some that have declined to a point, but not like on the East side. Plant numbers seem good to me, as most of the larger rivers get solid, fairly consistent returns. Larger plants of skams would be great, but more in the way of distribution, than numbers.


----------



## thousandcasts

ausable_steelhead said:


> Larger plants of skams would be great, but more in the way of distribution, than numbers.


How do you distribute 30K worth of skams and still have a viable fishery? 

Michigan only puts 30K on average, more or less, into the Big M and the Big M alone. Every other skam for the most part, including the huge plants in the Joe is put there by Indiana--and that's the only Michigan River that they plant. Hell, what we get for the Big M plant comes directly from Indiana. 

So, if you're talking about Michigan's steelhead management, how do you create more skam opportunities without adding more skams? Because right now, all you have to work with as far is distribution is 30k on average. 

Just pointing that out for clarification--not saying you're right or wrong. That pretty much goes for everything I've posted on here...just pointing out certain facts as I know them.


----------



## tsr770

I too would like to see more skam plants spread across the west side rivers. The chance of being able to catch numbers of them in say the MO or the White would for sure bring myself and my family over to that side of the state during the summer months. Having children that are in school makes it hard for me to take a week off in the fall or winter to chase steelies, but in the summer months it is fairly easy to do so. It is also much easier to get children into fishing for them when they don't have to be bundled up and half frozen. If the state wants to continue having a large following of steelhead chasers, a easy way to get them started is being able to catch some when it is nice out. 

The people in our state have changed with the times, and I would have to guess that there are a lot less of the next generation on the rivers over the winter than there were 20-30 years ago. It just doesn't happen, why would a kid want to stand on a river in 30 degree weather when they can stay home and be warm while they play xbox. Everything has changed, I know this... Don't feel like hearing the speech on it... But if adapting the fishery to get more of our children on the water hooking into a silver bullet then it should be changed. I know that my kids would be willing to float a river in June, but not in December. I am quite sure that more guys than myself have young kids that they would enjoy having the chance to fish steelhead with on the MO, White, Betsie, heck even the Ausable on a 75 degree day. 

I agree with the Huron River being a losing battle, I personally believe that the returns are under 1%. I fished that river from October-April, 2-3 times a week with someone that knows that river better than anyone I have ever met and between the 2 of us we landed 23 fish, hooked 34. I spent one day in November with someone who knows the Grand pretty well and went 8 for 11 myself. Those numbers kind of speak for the returns, and while I love the idea of having a steelhead fishery close to home, the Huron just doesn't have the access on the lower river to support the pressure it recieves and the low number of fish that wander back up it.

I know that the Platte Hatchery is too cold for raising steelhead to smolt size, is it also too cold for browns? atlantics? Those are 2 fish that I wouldn't mind seeing replace the kings.


----------



## Jack Straw

I think that skamania were great in theory.
they were also great when the forage base was strong and fish were big.

That time has come and gone. Weather patterns have changed for the worse.

Hatchery skams? I feel they are a poor match for southern latitude streams that push 80F in the prime time they are supposed to run. (I realize this is an Indiana matter, but ....)

For steelhead in general, I'd like to see a focus on habitat, a shift in regulations that promotes less kill when they are in rivers, and maybe some careful stocking up north to see if a wild population can get established. I can think of a few UP streams and some tip of the mitt areas that might carry wild ones. BUT.........get some F1 fish from out west.....DONT get the F2/F3 hatchery inbreds. They are so dull and zombie like.

The IN program is really a pity to witness in the heat of summer with fish fighting for their lives, are doing what nature originally prgrammed them to do out west, but cant pull off here in the corn belt; and dodge their way through little ditches amongst such low-class angling practices.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Didn't vote. I think we need to find out exactly where our big lake fishery is at. Have we stopped a Huron disaster here? Don't know. I am almost for a cut back in all planting to see if the food base in Lake Michigan can rebound or it is the invasive's, and its not coming back. If I was to have to choose, I would lean at increasing the LM strain over all others. That was not a choice.


----------



## riverman

Ranger Ray said:


> Didn't vote. I think we need to find out exactly where our big lake fishery is at. Have we stopped a Huron disaster here? Don't know. I am almost for a cut back in all planting to see if the food base in Lake Michigan can rebound or it is the invasive's, and its not coming back. If I was to have to choose, I would lean at increasing the LM strain over all others. That was not a choice.


Absolutely, We are now managing the lake for basically the only food source left that the salmon and to some extent, steelhead have left to eat. Seems to me that food source once was an invasive species. We had our fifty years of fun with salmon/steelhead in every little warm trickle of water that flowed into L Michigan. It's time we let our cold streams be that fishery and the warm streams be the fisheries they can support. TC, your not the only that has a meltdown everytime the Huron plant #s are seen!!!!! I would like to see more skams planted in our northern streams, just don't see the sense of planting the warm southern streams any more until we have a firm handle on the Pond. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## skamaniac97

Plant more skams in the grand, mo and white. the white has multiple cold water tribs where skams would do just fine all summer long. the nearshore fishery around the pierheads would be much better in the summer also. Trollers would at least have the option of staying in shallow when water temps are right and the pier fishing would be much more consistant than it is now. Skams fight harder than LM fish and are generally larger and a hell of a lot more fun to catch IMO


----------



## Roger That

I would love to be able to fish for steelhead during the summer on the White.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> How do you distribute 30K worth of skams and still have a viable fishery?
> 
> Michigan only puts 30K on average, more or less, into the Big M and the Big M alone. Every other skam for the most part, including the huge plants in the Joe is put there by Indiana--and that's the only Michigan River that they plant. Hell, what we get for the Big M plant comes directly from Indiana.
> 
> So, if you're talking about Michigan's steelhead management, how do you create more skam opportunities without adding more skams? Because right now, all you have to work with as far is distribution is 30k on average.
> 
> Just pointing that out for clarification--not saying you're right or wrong. That pretty much goes for everything I've posted on here...just pointing out certain facts as I know them.
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Michigan's Steelhead Management Philosophy Under Review - Page 3 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=383745&page=3#ixzz1QFE4GELt



I'm talking about maybe raising a certain portion less of LM strain, and putting in more skams instead. Then planting them in a few other rivers that would be suitable. If space is to limited or it's just not feasible, than so be it. I hook enough strays where I fish to make it worth it as is.


----------



## samsteel

Boozer said:


> In the last two weeks I know of 3 Skams that were caught a 18, 19 and 23 pound fish, now when is the last time you seen a Little Manistee strain fish that large? I also truly believe Skams to be a funner fish to fight than the Little Manistee strain.


Kory, just curious, were any of those 3 fish caught in the river?


----------



## Multispeciestamer

The skamania strain needs work, but I think planting more of them and into different rivers is a huge plus. All they need is a push they have great potential. I also would like to see the cut of salmon stocking.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

thousandcasts said:


> If one wants to expound further, how long been skams been in the Great Lakes. Hell, I remember catching them in the Joe back in '86. So, let's just say 25 years.
> 
> Now, it takes about 800 hens to create 1.2 million fish in the hatchery (Little M strain).
> 
> Let's say 10 skams find their way up the Grand and three of those fish find a nice little creek where they can nestle down, be comfortable and wait until the spring spawning time.
> 
> Here comes the Little M spring run. Some Little M fish go up the same little creek where those three skams are. Two of those skams are hens, the other is a buck. Everybody pairs up and two dominant buck Little M fish hook up with the two skam hens. The skam buck hooks up with a Little M female. That creek is more than capable of supporting parr for the time needed.
> 
> After 25 years of this and the stray Wisconsin arlee strains that come up and the eagle lakes that out migrate and...and...and...
> 
> Wouldn't the gene pool be diluted by now? Stray skams go up the PM, wouldn't that be diluted by now?


Only skamania strain steelhead spawn at a different time then the LM fish. Usually in winter. Hence why even in the wild west coast they're are still summer steelhead and winter steelhead after all these years. And not one mosh pit of a steelhead.


----------



## steely74

Jack Straw said:


> The IN program is really a pity to witness in the heat of summer with fish fighting for their lives, are doing what nature originally prgrammed them to do out west, but cant pull off here in the corn belt; and dodge their way through little ditches amongst such low-class angling practices.


When water temps are right and the fish is brought in quickly they CAN be released but in the heat of the summer the fish will still bite. Those days its catch and keep. If people dont like it dont fish for them during the hottest months. Fresh skams are awesome, one that have wintered over in the river and have shriveled down to nothing not so much. 

Fish in Indiana have no problem surviving, all spring fed waters. While everyone knows the Jo gets really warm in the summer like last year. Picking the right rivers to stock is the biggest issue in my eyes. Michigan strain fish (lil man) wait til fall and have a better survival rate once ascending the river and can be caught and released easier than summer run fish. Fightin skams in bath water isnt very entertaining since the fight lasts 30 seconds... MY 2 AND LAST CENTS ON THIS, :coolgleam...


----------



## thousandcasts

Curious as to why anyone would want to see a cut in salmon stocking when the chinooks are one of the cheaper fish to raise and well...the results speak for themselves. Also, just because you cut kings, it does NOT free up hatchery space for more steelhead nor does it really help the food situation since one eats ales primarily and the other eats...anything. Shiners, bugs, gobies, some ales...you name it. Different forage needs. 

In addition, Throw the "non-native" argument out the window, because the DNR now considers those fish (salmon and steelhead) to be "naturalized" species and their management of those is just as high on the priority list as the native species. 

Besides, I make no secret that I'm a salmon guy first, steelheader second. You start talking about more chinook cuts and I go from interested observer just tossing out some ideas to Mr. "OK, You Just Stepped Over The Line."  :lol:

I've said this before, but I rank my favorite fishing this way: 

1) Lower river crank bait and skein salmon fishing.
2) Fall steelhead
3) Skams
4) Catfish
5) Carp
6)Colonoscopy
7) Root Canal
8) Spring steelhead

Now, if you'll excuse me--all those "cut salmon" comments has my IBS all flared up.


----------



## thousandcasts

Multispeciestamer said:


> Only skamania strain steelhead spawn at a different time then the LM fish. Usually in winter.


Aaaaaaaaaand...wrong. Go to Buchanan in March, find a certain creek, watch skams and Little M fish engaged in what amounts to one giant orgy. 

I could tell you exactly how a wintered over skam looks different from a Little M fish, but you'd probably tell me I'm wrong like when I pointed out how easy it is to tell if an unclipped skam is hatchery or wild, so I'll leave that part out and save myself some meaningless typing.


----------



## wolvron

thousandcasts said:


> Aaaaaaaaaand...wrong. Go to Buchanan in March, find a certain creek, watch skams and Little M fish engaged in what amounts to one giant orgy.
> 
> I could tell you exactly how a wintered over skam looks different from a Little M fish, but you'd probably tell me I'm wrong like when I pointed out how easy it is to tell if an unclipped skam is hatchery or wild, so I'll leave that part out and save myself some meaningless typing.


 NEXT time your in Buchanan watching the fish orgy let me know. nothing better than good fish porn.


----------



## thousandcasts

wolvron said:


> NEXT time your in Buchanan watching the fish orgy let me know. nothing better than good fish porn.


I've always said that what you do when you don't have a fishing rod in your hand is just as important than the time you spend casting. 

Every fish has it's own complex and unique behavior and when you have an opportunity to see certain species you target in different situations, it makes you better as an angler because you have a better understanding of how they're behaving. 

It's not just what they're doing on the gravel, it's what are they doing when they're in the holes as well. I've spent hours sitting up on high banks watching how salmon and steelhead move around in holes, what has them on the tail outs, what has them pushed to the front, what are they keying in on, etc. Where are the travel lanes, non descript resting areas...all that. 

I do that without a fishing pole anywhere near me. Hell, I've made runs up to certain rivers just so I could watch this or that and take mental notes. It's fun...and while I can't stand sight fishing ( I prefer the dark water and the mystery) it's peaceful and educational to just sit on a bank and learn more about your target without having a fishing rod in your hand...even one of those big orgies can answer a ton of questions about how they...uh...behave.  :lol:


----------



## Boozer

samsteel said:


> Kory, just curious, were any of those 3 fish caught in the river?


Yes, all three of them...

I gotta ask, those who said the Skamania strain is inferior, inbred, etc... Please clarify with proof, I know you don't have it, but will be fun to hear your answer...


----------



## Boozer

thousandcasts said:


> Aaaaaaaaaand...wrong. Go to Buchanan in March, find a certain creek, watch skams and Little M fish engaged in what amounts to one giant orgy.
> 
> I could tell you exactly how a wintered over skam looks different from a Little M fish, but you'd probably tell me I'm wrong like when I pointed out how easy it is to tell if an unclipped skam is hatchery or wild, so I'll leave that part out and save myself some meaningless typing.


Yeah, that would typically be Skam males and LM females, Skam hens are typically long gone before the LM fish begin spawning...


----------



## Boozer

steely74 said:


> When water temps are right and the fish is brought in quickly they CAN be released but in the heat of the summer the fish will still bite. Those days its catch and keep. If people dont like it dont fish for them during the hottest months. Fresh skams are awesome, one that have wintered over in the river and have shriveled down to nothing not so much.
> 
> Fish in Indiana have no problem surviving, all spring fed waters. While everyone knows the Jo gets really warm in the summer like last year. Picking the right rivers to stock is the biggest issue in my eyes. Michigan strain fish (lil man) wait til fall and have a better survival rate once ascending the river and can be caught and released easier than summer run fish. Fightin skams in bath water isnt very entertaining since the fight lasts 30 seconds... MY 2 AND LAST CENTS ON THIS, :coolgleam...


The majority of LM fish don't run in the Fall...


----------



## Boozer

riverman said:


> Absolutely, We are now managing the lake for basically the only food source left that the salmon and to some extent, steelhead have left to eat. Seems to me that food source once was an invasive species. We had our fifty years of fun with salmon/steelhead in every little warm trickle of water that flowed into L Michigan. It's time we let our cold streams be that fishery and the warm streams be the fisheries they can support. TC, your not the only that has a meltdown everytime the Huron plant #s are seen!!!!! I would like to see more skams planted in our northern streams, just don't see the sense of planting the warm southern streams any more until we have a firm handle on the Pond. My 2 cents worth.


I agree with that for the most part, that's one of my main points...

Why are we not trying to provide a Summer steelhead fishery where one can thrive and flourish and actually allow people to enjoy it...


----------



## thousandcasts

Boozer said:


> Yeah, that would typically be Skam males and LM females, Skam hens are typically long gone before the LM fish begin spawning...


Agreed--that's been my observation as well. It's usually the skam males that are jumping up there with the Little M hens.


----------



## REG

Well, I threw my vote with the majority, but that doesn't mean much when the realities are considered. I almost cast my vote to keep things the same, but what the heck, it's a poll and why not go for it.

Even though the fish look pretty healthy this year, so far, what was said about the forage base needs to be considered. Alewife populations have always been volatile, and having another prey species widely available to pick up the slack for pelagic predators is not clear. You can stock more steelhead, but the returns might be variable depending on drop out effect on the lake.

Bringing in a new strain of steelhead from the West Coast ain't gonna happen due to the voluntary quarrantine from doing so by all the GL states and Ontario. Otherwise, what the heck, let's get Skeena or Clearwater "B" strain fish. 

IN lately has had problems in getting brood stock from the St. Joe, so getting additional eggs is problematic. Even if they could get the fish, do they have room in their holding pond? Remember, skam brood stock needs to be carefully transferred to a cold water holding pond and held until they ripen in Jan/Feb. WI has been trying for the last couple of years to get skam eggs from IN again to restart stocking skams and they haven't been able to get eggs from IN. I would also very much doubt that MI DNR wants to get in the business of starting up and maintaining their own skam brood stock.

Well, if I were King of MI and decreed the Royale DNR of the Duchy of MI raise and stocked more skams, which rivers to stock them in? By example, IMHO, the best fishable runs of skams are in IN, with Trail Creek leading the pack. St. Joes gets too warm and whatever skam that can't wiggle up a cold water feeder or spring and keep from getting harrassed to death eventually gets the hot bath treatment. Trail creek, at least, doesn't get quite as warm, and is kind of marginal (at best) trout water. So, if you didn't want them in high quality rivers for whatever the concerns were (such as interbreeding with wild steelhead-if that ever even occurs), find some well shaded, coolwater streams and you might be able to get the same kind of magic. In my mind, the Betsie and White and a few others seem to fit that description. The Manistee seems to provide a decent fishery, but for those that remember, skam stocking on the MO didn't quite live up to it's expectations. From what I remember being told, low summer water levels around the mouth(s) of the river into Muskegon Lake were the culprit.

As far as increasing steelhead abundance, it would be interesting to see what would happen if we can get a few dams breached or get fish ladders on them. Upper reaches of some select rivers would be a virtual silver mine for raising steelhead smolts. That is, if the brown/brook trout fishermen already enjoying these waters don't mind...hmmmm.


----------



## steely74

Boozer said:


> The majority of LM fish don't run in the Fall...


I didn't want to reply again but I guess I will, LOL. True!, they are early spring run fish but my point was that they do not run in the warmer summer temps and wait til the river cools down a bit. Besides skams, fall run fish is where its at, spring steelheading is like shooting fish in a barrel. This year yeah everyone wants more skams but if this year was like last hot and dry people would have a different opinion.

EXCELLENT POST REG!

I also think a great deal of fall fish are harvested reducing the overall number in the river. Considering some fall fish are in there with the kings, why would a guy keep a decrepit nasty old king for the table and release a beautiful chrome fall run steely fresh in from the lake? More fall run fish will just mean more fall harvested fish... Didn't vote and don't plan to... I bet charter captains will love more fall run fish, that means they could run more charters before the frigid winter temps set in. 

Im sure for any of the charters that run below the dam the majority of your fall run fish can be pictured on their websites hanging by their jaw on their "brag board". Fall run fish aren't "in heat" so they just mill around and make easy pickings for the charters. Since they are not focused on spawning they are also easier to catch since they are still in feeding mode fresh in from the lake. On the other hand spring run fish run up stream fairly quickly to find suitable gravel and have a better chance of bypassing the charters and their "walls" of plugs and spawn. These fish are more accessible to the average guy wading a smaller stream or section of river upstream of the dam. Not to mention the fall fish that get picked off on the pier and big lake...


----------



## toto

As an additional mention as to I like fall run LM's vs skams, I quess goes to days gone by. I can still remember standing on the beach at Platte Bay and catching steelhead as fall and into the winter. You just don't see that anymore, why that is I'm not certain, but last year we went down to the mouth of the Platte, and there sat one lonely fisherman. I don't know, I quess the older I get, the more important these memories become, besides that, if there is a more beautiful place on earth, I'm not sure where that would be.

On the planting of predator fish overall, I know that years ago the Great Lake states made some type of agreement to only stock X number of fish overall. Not sure if that still stands today, but it makes sense. Need to find some kind of balance of forage and predator. I know Hutch won't like this much, but overall, I'd rather them increase the number of skams and Lm's, and reduce the kings, at least somewhat. Since we know the kings eat mostly alewives, and since the alewife numbers are down, wouldn't make sense to back off the kings, at least for a year or two. You might see a decrease in numbers for a couple of years, but theres plenty of natural reproduction in some places, just a thought.


----------



## REG

toto said:


> As an additional mention as to I like fall run LM's vs skams, I quess goes to days gone by. I can still remember standing on the beach at Platte Bay and catching steelhead as fall and into the winter. You just don't see that anymore, why that is I'm not certain, but last year we went down to the mouth of the Platte, and there sat one lonely fisherman. I don't know, I quess the older I get, the more important these memories become, besides that, if there is a more beautiful place on earth, I'm not sure where that would be.
> 
> On the planting of predator fish overall, I know that years ago the Great Lake states made some type of agreement to only stock X number of fish overall. Not sure if that still stands today, but it makes sense. Need to find some kind of balance of forage and predator. I know Hutch won't like this much, but overall, I'd rather them increase the number of skams and Lm's, and reduce the kings, at least somewhat. Since we know the kings eat mostly alewives, and since the alewife numbers are down, wouldn't make sense to back off the kings, at least for a year or two. You might see a decrease in numbers for a couple of years, but theres plenty of natural reproduction in some places, just a thought.


You could probably speak volumes to this, but many years ago, the one morning I was there, it was beautiful almost beyond description. The morning sun slightly peaking out from behind the clouds, scores of fishing rods pointed towards the morning sky, with the dune hills and the water providing the back canvas for that painting echoing in synapses.

Relative to your second paragraph-good point and yes that is true. A decrease in stocking of kings might not hurt as bad as thought. One piece of information I remember hearing that was discussed at the GLFC LM annual meeting was that based on the tetracycline marking study, while overall stocked to wild king ratio is roughly 50:50, that _that ratio of stocked:wild king ratio drops to 30:70 for age 2 and age 3 (mature sized) kings_


----------



## Boozer

All in all a very good discussion here...

However, with everything that has been said here, when you take away comments about strains and this and that, the predominent feeling you can take away is most anglers, at least here, would like to see a river based steelhead fishery management plan, they would like to see a better Fall run and less focus on Spring runs and if possible they would like to see a Summer steelhead fishery in rivers which you can actually utilize them in, not rivers like the Joe where the options to actually fish for them are so limited in the Summer, BUT they do provide us with an incredible Fall fishery as well, which most people seem to overlook. Perhaps that could be utilized in the future to enhance other rivers Fall fisheries.

My opinion, our steelhead fishery is currently being managed as a Spring fishery and I can't think of a worse way to manage it. It's an outdated way to manage it at the least, I would like to see that changed. It would appear over 80% of anglers "at least on here" share that feeling with me. Since the DNR wants our opinion on how we want to see steelhead populations managed in the future, this seems like a great way to start that off. I urge you guys to write the DNR (Jim Dexter) and tell him how you feel, if these guys don't know what we want, they can't try and do it. Times are tough, they aren't God, but perhaps there are some things that can be done to enhance at the very least our Fall runs of steelhead and maybe make the current plants of Skamania done so in a manner which would enhance the current Summer fishery we have.

What is great for a biologist is not always the best thing for an angler. While the Little Manistee strain may give us our best bang for our buck and make their job easier, it doesn't mean it gives us the best bang and they do technically work for us. I am not saying we should ignore what they say, but simply saying in certain circumstances, perhaps they could be a little more flexible in regards to what we want out of our fishery. The LM strain may have that ability, but perhaps managing it in a slightly different manner would enhance the whole fishery and allow for a more updated steelhead fishery which makes us anglers happier. I by no means am trying to say our fishery sucks or it must be changed immediately, in a nutshell, just wanted to provide a means for anglers to discuss what we want and therefore show the guys who are in charge that as well. The study the MDNR did on Skams is flawed, but that still doesn't mean they are the be all end all strain of steelhead. Year in and year out they are the largest steelhead caught here on the Joe, there is no arguing that, but that also doesn't mean they will provide everything we are looking for statewide either...


----------



## steely74

In bad years those skams that the river fisherman wants to see will only available to lake boat fisherman and occassionally pier fisherman. For example, last year, yeah the run down here was late but it was also very small. Near shore boat fisherman had a banner year for skams on the lake. Pier fisherman in certain conditions also did very well. In some instances, fall fishing can be considered a more of a lower river or boat fishery. Spring fish can get relatively unharassed from the big lake to someone's backyard...

I love fishing skams though and I can definitely see why people would want more of them. I also love fishing for them on the pier. If guys plan on doing both then yes, push for more skams. Skams in most cases is a catch and keep fishery also. I would also bet to say that there are guys on here that have only caught steelhead or their first steelhead in March,April or May. Summer or fall fish that winter over aren't getting any bigger in the river... 

Skams also stray anywhere there is bait. I caught them in Milwaukee where they haven't stocked them in years also north of St.Jo where they dont get stocked. Every year perch fisherman in Chicago lose rods to stray skams. They are unpredictable and go where ever they want. The studies I read showed that due to the low number of returning fish the DNR felt like it was not a success. Again those fish are being picked off by boat and pier guys or straying away...

I also don't see IN giving up more skams than it already does. 250,000+ plus fish in the JO to have maybe 5,000 return to IN waters... If the JO is no longer stocked with skams MI would have to buy the smolts and I don't see that happening...


----------



## Boozer

steely74 said:


> In bad years those skams that the river fisherman wants to see will only available to lake boat fisherman and occassionally pier fisherman. For example, last year, yeah the run down here was late but it was also very small. Near shore boat fisherman had a banner year for skams on the lake. Pier fisherman in certain conditions also did very well. In some instances, fall fishing can be considered a more of a lower river or boat fishery. Spring fish can get relatively unharassed from the big lake to someone's backyard...
> 
> I love fishing skams though and I can definitely see why people would want more of them. I also love fishing for them on the pier. If guys plan on doing both then yes, push for more skams. Skams in most cases is a catch and keep fishery also.
> 
> Skams also stray anywhere there is bait. I caught them in Milwaukee where they haven't stocked them in years also north of St.Jo where they dont get stocked. Every year perch fisherman in Chicago lose rods to stray skams. They are unpredictable and go where ever they want. The studies I read showed that due to the low number of returning fish the DNR felt like it was not a success. Again those fish are being picked off by boat and pier guys or straying away...
> 
> I also don't see IN giving up more skams than it already does. 250,000+ plus fish in the JO to have maybe 5,000 return to IN waters... If the JO is no longer stocked with skams MI would have to buy the smolts and I don't see that happening...


One thing to keep in mind, when Michigan stocked Summer steelhead, they were NOT Skamania strain fish. They used 3 other strains, think about that one...

You are dead wrong that some years only boat and pier fisherman will enjoy these fish, think about it, they go where they can flourish, quite remarkable really their desire to survive in comparison to other species. If the Joe is too hot, they dump into nearby rivers that aren't and the ones that don't, just add to our Fall fishery, they provide more river angling opportunities than the LM strain ever could dream of...

Yes, they do stray, all steelhead will and do though, all that means is they give you a good coverage area and allow more anglers to access them, it's not a valid reason to not stock them, it simply means you must take that into account when you stock them...


----------



## steely74

Skams are mutts as well, I guess just the right kind of mutt...


----------



## Boozer

Just to add a little more about the studies and statements that have been made by the MDNR...

One must realize how they do their creel studies...

Did you know that MDNR creel workers have their agendas planned one month in advance? They are told where they have to go and how long to stay there and are not allowed to sway from that one bit. You cannot study angler usage of a species like Summer steelhead in this manner, for example, in these studies, how many creel studies do you see done on piers in West Michigan right after a flip? None because you cannot schedule a turn over one month in advance. When is the last time you seen a creel worker below Berrien Dam when a big push of fish came in during the Summer? What about a creel worker on any West Michigan river during the Summer that isn't some type of Blue Ribbon Trout water? The bottom line is, the studies which have been done in regards to our Summer steelhead fishery are greatly flawed. What works for Fall, Winter & Spring steelhead does not work for Summer steelhead.

I give a lot of credit to our fisheries division and totally respect these guys, but I truly feel their opinion on Summer steelhead is skewed by bad data. Especially when every statement I have ever heard or seen in their studies, is the direct opposite of what myself and every other avid angler down here experience day in and day out and we spend a LOT more time around these fish than they do.


----------



## Boozer

steely74 said:


> Skams are mutts as well, I guess just the right kind of mutt...


Yeah, a mutt which was a cross between two pure breads...

Washougal and Klickitat Summer steelhead...

It has proven itself to be an extraordinary strain of steelhead here in the Great Lakes, honestly, the only ones who don't give it the credit it is do is Michigan and if you read through the studies which have been done over the years, anyone with any real expsoure to them will disagree with darn near every negative statement the MDNR will say about them. It's as if there is just too much pride involved with the Little Manistee strain and because of it, they make biased decisions when it comes to managing our fishery...

I see the LM strain steadily going towards a more Spring based fishery every year, it's lame, who the heck wants to fish for spawners other than a handful of guides that want to be able to put guys who can't fish on double digit numbers of fish by lining them off gravel. I guess most people up North probably don't see it quite like we do down here, but when you go from catching Skams to the time when LM's begin showing up in October which are usually skippers with the bigger ones "which are still on average 3-4 pounds smaller than our Summer fish" showing up somewhat in November but much more so later in the Spring after the crowds have left, the difference is VERY noticeable. The MDNR will claim their growth rates are almost the same, BUT the key is Skams have a much larger percentage of fish that stay in the lake an extra year and come home BIG. They were designed that way, who wouldn't want that??? That's an extra year they are exposed to the big lake fishery so obviously their returns to the river are smaller, but they are of higher quality, well that is if you enjoy catching bigger fish that kick your **** all over the river...

Heck, I bet AT LEAST 30% of the LM's that run the Joe, run between the last week of April and the end of May, many guys think they are early skams til they start droppin eggs and even more guys have quit fishing for steelhead down here by then, no creel guy around as he's focused on the lake by then so no data gets collected. They stay chrome, dump their eggs in a matter of days and leave, what kind of asset is that to our fishery?

Whether we actually get more Skams or not, really doesn't matter to me, I am just as happy fishing for Smallies, however, I really wish they would make a statement and then act on it along the lines of decreasing the number of Spring running steelhead and increasing the number of Fall running fish, if for no other reason than to allow more anglers more access to these fish...

I know I will always get to enjoy the benefits of Skams as Indiana will never stop stocking them, they know how great they are, but it would be nice if Michigan took them more seriously, oh well, cannot always have your cake and eat it too. Be sure to let the MDNR know what YOU want as what the majority wants is what matters, not what I want...

Now, off to see a river about some Smallies and then get home and get ready for chasing some silver ladies in the morn, sure is one hell of a state we live in, the angling opportunites are astonishing...


----------



## Fishndude

There is one very important aspect of this, that is being overlooked. The MIDNR plants Salmon and Steelhead to support the LAKE fishery - period. The river fisheries that occur are literally a side effect of planting these fish for the big lakes boat fishermen. That is where the money is. And, for most rivers, the fishing is put-and-take, supported only by stocking programs. Sure there are a lot of tiny little rivers and creeks that get some viable natural reproduction, and the LM and PM are larger rivers that support naturally spawned fish. But other than those two rivers, there are very few that can support naturally spawned Salmon and Steelhead in the numbers we are accustomed to. I will add the Betsie for wild Kings. I think it is time for the DNR to find out what we really have for naturalized runs of Kings in MI, and just cut the plants for a few years. The fish will find their balance with the prey base, and we will see what is going on with that. And, in the meantime, they can focus hatchery capacity and money on supporting other fish, which are not as dependent on the Alewives. Sorry, Hutch, but this is something that really needs to be done, for the sake of scientific study, and our Salmon fishery overall. Lots of people have been speculating for years about our fisheries, including the DNR. They need to figure this out with facts, instead of speculation. 

When I referred to Salmon hatcheries on Pacific Northwest rivers, I was not referring to giant hatcheries that pump out fish to plant in many places. There are a LOT of small hatcheries, on relatively small rivers, which are only designed to take eggs from the fish in that particular river, to be planted in that particular river. I mean small hatcheries - maybe 1 acre in size for the entire place. They were built to ensure that the specific strain of fish for each individual river is maintained, since commercial and river fishing has increased so much, and is reducing the native runs of fish. Of course there are much larger facilities as well, which pump out millions of fish. But the real treasures of WA State are the little rivers with their unique strains of Salmon, Trout, and Steelhead. They literally have fishing laws tailored to individual rivers and streams, out there. The regs are quite varied. And it is amazing that one small river will get lots of Kings, but no Cohos, and another river nearby might get great runs of Hos, and no Kings.


----------



## Boozer

That's just it "Dude" the DNR wants to know how we want steelhead managed, some of us are not ok with it being managed as it is...

In the current economy and large increases in angling interest for steelhead in the river, the "money" is not out on the lake so much anymore, at least in my opinion...

That was kind of the main point of this entire thread, to help show how much interest there is as managing a steelhead fishery based on the river anglers.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Boozer said:


> That's just it "Dude" the DNR wants to know how we want steelhead managed, some of us are not ok with it being managed as it is...
> 
> In the current economy and large increases in angling interest for steelhead in the river, the "money" is not out on the lake so much anymore, at least in my opinion...


 Steelhead in the lake are just a bi-catch I would think. Not many guys go out and troll just for steelhead. Alot of charters out on the lake today targeting skams.


----------



## johnny5alive

That poll is way to limited.

Its all or nothing on stocking. How bout some more options

like, "Reduce stocking on rivers where communities are against dam removal"

or "push for a license fee increase to offset any of the suggested stocking increases or dam removal/ land acquisition"


----------



## toto

Multi, there was a day however when guys would run 15 -20 miles off shore for steel in the summer. That was some incredible fishing, and the jumps the LM strain would do, would rival anything a skam does. But that was before $4 gas, so it isn't done much anymore. That and the king fishing has improved over the years, and charters don't have the need to run that far for fish.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

> In the current economy and large increases in angling interest for steelhead in the river, the "money" is not out on the lake so much anymore, at least in my opinion...
> 
> That was kind of the main point of this entire thread, to help show how much interest there is as managing a steelhead fishery based on the river anglers.


I've always wondered why they don't just manage BOTH to maximum potential. The river fisheries for both salmon and steelhead(especially) are very popular. I love rivers, personally, and fish flowing water more than anything.



> I think it is time for the DNR to find out what we really have for naturalized runs of Kings in MI, and just cut the plants for a few years. The fish will find their balance with the prey base, and we will see what is going on with that. And, in the meantime, they can focus hatchery capacity and money on supporting other fish, which are not as dependent on the Alewives. Sorry, Hutch, but this is something that really needs to be done, for the sake of scientific study, and our Salmon fishery overall.


I agree with this 100%. I think a lot more rivers get natural kings than most people think. Where I fish, there is only one place they stock salmon every year. Yet every fall, any trickle, flow, creek, ditch, stream or river running into Lake Michigan or connecting water, gets atleast a few salmon. The 3 main tribs in the area get most of their run from natural kings. There are some hatchery strays that provide additional #'s, but a lot are naturally spawned fish. Coho and steelhead reproduce naturally in this area as well, just on a lesser scale.


----------



## Fishndude

Multispeciestamer said:


> Steelhead in the lake are just a bi-catch I would think. Not many guys go out and troll just for steelhead. Alot of charters out on the lake today targeting skams.


You should be a politician with the contradictions you throw out. Just a bye-catch, AND a lot of charters target Skams on the lake??? As a politician, you are pretty safe if you are right 50% of the time, and this kind of statement is about 50% accurate. Salmon and Steelhead are basically planted to support the lake fishery. That is a plain fact. Much more money is spent by guys who own boats, or people who purchase charters, than is by river fishermen. I can understand that, with the declining numbers of Kings, the river fisheries are now getting more attention. 

So, Kory. Is this the "official" survey the DNR is basing its decisions on? I voted, but if the guys who control the decisions want a real discussion, I am glad to spend a few minutes bending their ears. Nothing angry, or malicious, and I am sure I have more questions than answers. But I have more opinions than either. :lol:
I will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that fishing in the 1980's and 1990's, for Steelhead, was MUCH better than it is, now. The Salmon fishing varied, due to the few years of BKD. But the Mussels have changed everything, and tetracycline applied to hatchery fish won't fix this problem. But our Steelhead are fewer and smaller on average than I can ever remember. It is GREAT to hear about some really large fish being caught. But the average Steelhead these days is probably around 5# - 6#. They just don't pull as hard, ya know? And face it, most of us like them because the larger fish DO pull hard. Really hard. Send-you-back-to-school-hard. It would be awesome of they tasted like Walleyes, but I will take the fight over the taste, any day. What other fish swimming in MI leaves you happy when they kick your ***? Put 10 of those on the end of my line every day, and I am the happiest camper!!!


----------



## steely74

johnny5alive said:


> That poll is way to limited.
> 
> Its all or nothing on stocking. How bout some more options
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I agree the first just sounds so much better than the other options. No one wants less skams and everyone always wants change...
> 
> Good options would have been:
> 
> increase skamania plantings and decrease LM plantings
> 
> decrease skamnia plantings and increase LM plantings
> 
> Push for more fall run fish
> 
> decrease steelhead stocking for more salmon
> 
> leave it the way it is
> 
> This would be a better representation of what anglers really think...


----------



## Boozer

Fishndude said:


> You should be a politician with the contradictions you throw out. Just a bye-catch, AND a lot of charters target Skams on the lake??? As a politician, you are pretty safe if you are right 50% of the time, and this kind of statement is about 50% accurate. Salmon and Steelhead are basically planted to support the lake fishery. That is a plain fact. Much more money is spent by guys who own boats, or people who purchase charters, than is by river fishermen. I can understand that, with the declining numbers of Kings, the river fisheries are now getting more attention.
> 
> So, Kory. Is this the "official" survey the DNR is basing its decisions on? I voted, but if the guys who control the decisions want a real discussion, I am glad to spend a few minutes bending their ears. Nothing angry, or malicious, and I am sure I have more questions than answers. But I have more opinions than either. :lol:
> I will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that fishing in the 1980's and 1990's, for Steelhead, was MUCH better than it is, now. The Salmon fishing varied, due to the few years of BKD. But the Mussels have changed everything, and tetracycline applied to hatchery fish won't fix this problem. But our Steelhead are fewer and smaller on average than I can ever remember. It is GREAT to hear about some really large fish being caught. But the average Steelhead these days is probably around 5# - 6#. They just don't pull as hard, ya know? And face it, most of us like them because the larger fish DO pull hard. Really hard. Send-you-back-to-school-hard. It would be awesome of they tasted like Walleyes, but I will take the fight over the taste, any day. What other fish swimming in MI leaves you happy when they kick your ***? Put 10 of those on the end of my line every day, and I am the happiest camper!!!


LOL, by no means is this an official anything...

The DNR really is reviewing how we want the steelhead fishery managed, the purpose of this post was for nothing more than to get people talking, toss up some facts, debunk so much of the mis-information which is out there and get a rough idea of what people really do want...

The poll was set up as it is for a reason, the main question being asked by the DNR is whether or not we want the steelhead fishery managed more as a river fishery or lake fishery. The Salmon are stocked as a lake fishery and the river is just an added benefit, the steelhead are really not technically managed as either way and the DNR would like to put something in writing in regards to how they are going to manage them in the future. The MDNR discredits the Skamania strain everytime you ask about them, yet look how many people voted in favor of that strain, that part of the poll was simply to show them regardless of their opinion of it, which as I have pointed out is very likely skewed by bad data, what our opinion as anglers is of it. I never put increase LM strain plants as it's literally not possible due to the fact there is zero hatchery space to do it. I tried to make it as accurate as I could based on the realities of the situation and get the point acrossed most anglers want a steelhead fishery based on earlier running fish and not the run, drop and leave crap that seems to be happening more and more every Spring. In the grand scheme of things, the poll was more of a way to get peoples attention than anything...

I'm the same way as you, I would honestly rather not even fish for steelhead if all I'm going to catch is sub 7 pound fish. I remember a time when a 12 pound fish was just another nice fish, that has gone, but I think it could come back, we just have to change the way they are managed. Cutting King Salmon stocks has indeed brought their average size back up, I don't think that is just a coincidence and I feel that more anglers fish for steelhead than they do Salmon, therefore, our fishery should be managed to please the majority of anglers, especially when you are talking about non-native species. By no means are all the big fish gone, just I am seeing a LOT less of them in the Fall in regards to LM strain fish, and that's what really sucks as I hate Spring steelhead fishing. Just my view though...

Like I said guys, the DNR wants our opinions, so give them your opinion, I would email them to Jim Dexter...


----------



## thousandcasts

A couple quotes from Star Wars would fit perfectly here. 

Yoda: "You must unlearn what you've already learned."

Obi Wan: "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them." 

Kory is correct on a lot of things--absolutely, the kings are managed as a lake fishery that provides an added benefit to the rivers. Just because the lower rivers like the Joe or Grand have seen diminished runs, it doesn't mean they're going to or even need to pull the plug on the kings when the catch rates off those ports have been good. 

As for cutting king plants for scientific study, there's another alternative that just started this year. All hatchery kings planted this year were mass marked with an adipose clip. In the past there have been random fish clipped, but never the entire plants. So, three years from now, you will be able to make a more accurate observation on lake wide hatchery vs. wild catch rates and ratios. In the past, there have been studies on specific rivers...Big Man 80% wild, Grand River 5% wild. 

When you look at some things, you can see why the DNR is looking at input on how we want to see the fishery managed. First off, when I've asked about the plant #'s for this river or that river, you have to realize that many of the biologists in charge inherited those types of things and operate under the whole, "this is how we've always done it" scenario. Right or wrong. 

Next, there's one sentence in an old lake wide management document that states, *"steelhead are managed as a river fishery."* That's it...one sentence. HOW to better manage that river fishery is open for debate...and again, that's why the DNR is going to solicit input on how we'd like to better see the fishery managed. The intent is definitely to manage it as a river fishery that provides an added benefit to the lake--the direct opposite of the kings. 

I don't just pull stuff out of my a** here. As a member of the DNR's Coldwater Steering Committee, I get the honor of seeing this study, this presentation and being able to talk to people who have made our steelhead their life's work and they have a geniune passion for it. HOWEVER--these papers and what not are not something that are for my eyes only. Every single person in this thread can see that stuff for themselves if they simply made a phone call to the right biologists or just sent an e-mail asking a few questions. THEY ACTUALLY WELCOME THAT. I've done it for years--trust me, you'll get a better understanding of things and some pretty pleasant conversations out of it. 

Anything on here is just a discussion that really has no bearing on anything. Sure, the DNR observes these conversations, but anyone can post anything they want under some alias like "Bunny Foofoo." Doesn't mean a whole lot. What goes a long way is an actual e-mail or phone call from someone with an actual name and/or address. I'll give you an example. If anyone follows any of the threads on here, Flyfisher has been screaming until he's blue in the face that he wants to see a leader length restriction. I gave him the right e-mail address and told him to send a fact based, detailed e-mail to the people who might look at that sort of thing. Guess what? He did that and it's one of many things that are on the committee's topics for discussion. They listen--they will clarify things for you or educate if needed. 

The point is, the steelhead fishery has largely been managed on a "this is how it's always been done" type philosophy. That's why they're going to push for more angler input because they want to manage it based on what we as anglers would like to see. 

There some givens that will not change. Hatchery space is limited to 1.2 million steelhead. Period, end of story. The budget keeps going down each year and positions are lost because of it. I asked the question of "why can't we just raise the all species license and earmark that money for the hatcheries and what not." IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Thanks to our state legislature, everything from licenses goes into the general fish and game fund. It's then distrubuted to the various departments from there. So, it's an all or none situation. Further, while the state government has NO PROBLEM raising this tax or that tax, they won't even touch or listen to the issue of needing to raise license fees. FACT. Oh, they need to raise the gas tax...no problem! Beer tax increase...no problem! We have to roll over, bite the pillow and take it. License fee increase? What? No way...we're not touching that, go away. 

They might as well change Pure Michigan to "the resources we're not gonna pay for campaign" That's NOT the DNR, that's the idiots we keep putting in office, but that's another story altogether.


----------



## Boozer

To say that Indiana is having trouble getting broodstock for their Skamania program is not quite accurate. During very hot Summers like last year, they do indeed have issues getting their quota out of the Joe, however, they simply just get them all from Trail Creek then...

I just wanted to touch on that as I seen a statement in regards to that and did not want people taking it as gospel. Again, a large part of why this thread was put up was to educate those who are mis-informed, which as you can see in this thread, there is a lot of information out there that is not quite accurate, especially in regards to Skamania strain steelhead...

When it comes to Great Lakes hatchery programs, Indiana has their stuff together...


----------



## toto

Someone made the mention of the size of the fish, both steel and kings. It seems to me that if the kings are a little larger, it would imply that the predator/prey relation is getting more in balance, which is a good thing. It should create larger and healthier fish in the long run. As for the size of the steel, yep I think they've gotton smaller, and if thats the goal to have larger fish, a study needs to be done on how to correct that.

The simple fact is, any lake, and I don't care how big it is, can only support adequately a certain amount of fish, period. For example, lets take a look at the cohos, which no one has mentioned, but I can remember how it was years ago, and some of the stories you just wouldn't believe, but I digress.

The point to the cohos is this: Over the years the ho's have gotten pretty small, except once in a great while, you'll have a year where they are pretty decent in size. I'm certainly no biologist, but if you continually using smaller and smaller fish to re-stock with, wouldn't they naturally be smaller? That and the fact of using the same gene pool over and over again, can't be a good thing, but again I'm no biologist. Just wondering if the same logic applies to steel as well. If anyone has a better answer, I'd love to hear it, and sometime I'll tell ya the stories of the old days and surf fishing for ho's.


----------



## steely74

Boozer said:


> When it comes to Great Lakes hatchery programs, Indiana has their stuff together...


I couldn't agree with you more! Sure we don't have the beautiful clear water rivers or the great MI scenery but for those in the know our Indiana DNR does take great care of us. Other condititions such as wind, rain and tempertature is beyond their control. When the conditions are right though, we know the fish will be there and where to look for them...

I will add 3 tributaries is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than the 50+ rivers, creeks or streams MI has.


----------



## pikedevil

Late to the party as usual.

Here is a question for hutch or whoever else might know.

Where would we get skamania eggs/milt for an increase in hatchery production? I assume were talking about raising skamania at wolf lake and raising fewer little manistee fish as a result. Is Indiana going to give us the eggs or is Michigan going to have to set up some sort of broodstock egg take facility of its own? If its the latter there would be serious costs and logistics issues to consider. Has this idea ever even entered the planning stages? 

Ultimately if cost were no issue I'd support a decision to make 10-20% of the total steelhead stocking in the state skamania strain fish. Primarily on large river systems with marginal cold water habitat with good access to pier/harbor fishing. The Grand, Muskegon, White, and Kalamazoo rivers seem like obvious candidates. 

As for how we manage steelhead fishing in michigan as a whole, I definantly believe steelhead should be managed as a river fish first and a big lake trolling fish 2nd. Its my opinion as well that steelhead should be managed less as a food fish and more focus on recycling fish through catch and release. If there is ever a push for a 1 or 2 fish limit I promise I will be one of the loudest supporters. But thats an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Boozer

pikedevil said:


> Late to the party as usual.
> 
> Here is a question for hutch or whoever else might know.
> 
> Where would we get skamania eggs/milt for an increase in hatchery production? I assume were talking about raising skamania at wolf lake and raising fewer little manistee fish as a result. Is Indiana going to give us the eggs or is Michigan going to have to set up some sort of broodstock egg take facility of its own? If its the latter there would be serious costs and logistics issues to consider. Has this idea ever even entered the planning stages?
> 
> Ultimately if cost were no issue I'd support a decision to make 10-20% of the total steelhead stocking in the state skamania strain fish. Primarily on large river systems with marginal cold water habitat with good access to pier/harbor fishing. The Grand, Muskegon, White, and Kalamazoo rivers seem like obvious candidates.
> 
> As for how we manage steelhead fishing in michigan as a whole, I definantly believe steelhead should be managed as a river fish first and a big lake trolling fish 2nd. Its my opinion as well that steelhead should be managed less as a food fish and more focus on recycling fish through catch and release. If there is ever a push for a 1 or 2 fish limit I promise I will be one of the loudest supporters. But thats an entirely different discussion.


More likely it would be attempting to work out a deal with Indiana to get a few more skams, BUT if you read, we discussed in detail not an increase persay, but to simply use the Skams we already get from Indiana in tribs where they would provide a better fishery by spreading them out more. That would obviously be a much more realistic goal...

Heck, a large percentage of Salmon stocked in Michigan are purchased via various organizations which are not state funded, perhaps we could do the same with Skamania strain steelhead...


----------



## pikedevil

Boozer said:


> More likely it would be attempting to work out a deal with Indiana to get a few more skams, BUT if you read, we discussed in detail not an increase persay, but to simply use the Skams we already get from Indiana in tribs where they would provide a better fishery by spreading them out more. That would obviously be a much more realistic goal.


I'm not sure what you mean.

Michigan only gets and stocks 30-35K skams right now in the big manistee, so we dont have enough to spread them out to multiple fisheries. Im sure we would have to raise them ourselves if the goal is for Michigan to stock 100k-200k which is likely what it would take to set up multiple worthwhile fisheries. Would Indiana even give us that many eggs, let alone smolts is the question.


----------



## steely74

I think he is referring to the number Indiana stocks in the JO... Taking those fish and finding a better river to stock them...


----------



## Boozer

pikedevil said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> Michigan only gets and stocks 30-35K skams right now in the big manistee, so we dont have enough to spread them out to multiple fisheries. Im sure we would have to raise them ourselves if the goal is for Michigan to stock 100k-200k which is likely what it would take to set up multiple worthwhile fisheries. Would Indiana even give us that many eggs, let alone smolts is the question.


Yeah, and what I was getting at is, why are we stocking those fish in a river like the Big Manistee when it gets so warm in the Summer.

My entire ideology in regards to Skams are, why stock them in a river where your only options are to fish a dam or creek mouths. It's absolutely ridiculous and does not utilize these fish to their fullest potential. Sure the Big Man offers more main river fishing opportunities for them than say the Joe, but a river like the Betsie, White, PM or something along those lines would offer better angling opportunites than the Big Man.

If we could get an extra 15,000 or so, would make it that much better, but if not, at least we would be using the fish we currently get to their fullest potential.

Your idea of a 100+ thousand smolts is not going to happen anytime soon unless Bill Gates decides he wants to donate a fish hatchery to Michigan, we are kind of talking the near future here and trying to be as realistic as possible. While we would all love to have that many, not going to happen, so if you spread out the current stocks more and take into consideration the amount of strays many of these rivers already get, it could provide a fairly good fishery on some of the cooler streams.

You cannot count what is stocked in the Joe as "our" fish as they are there for Indiana for the most part and you aren't going to get them to stock less in the Joe so we can have more in Northern Michigan.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The Skamania is originally from Washington State. I am sure that if the DNR worked with other states or mabey even Indian Tribes that have hatcheries that they could come up with resourses that would allow them to obtain more skamanis to release. I believe Wisconsin also has a pretty decent amount of Skamania that they release. In the early 1990's they were thick in Cheboygan and Petoskey and lots of people were trying to catch them. Get some good numbers of Skamania and that equals alot of fishing liscenses being sold so the program will pay for itself.


----------



## Boozer

Robert Holmes said:


> The Skamania is originally from Washington State. I am sure that if the DNR worked with other states or mabey even Indian Tribes that have hatcheries that they could come up with resourses that would allow them to obtain more skamanis to release. I believe Wisconsin also has a pretty decent amount of Skamania that they release. In the early 1990's they were thick in Cheboygan and Petoskey and lots of people were trying to catch them. Get some good numbers of Skamania and that equals alot of fishing liscenses being sold so the program will pay for itself.


Wisconsin dropped their Skamania program due to VHS concerns and lack of funding a few years ago. My guess is the fact their rivers were not conducive to Summer runs also played a major role in that decision...

Native American Tribes will likely never give out any funding to stock non-native species...


----------



## fishfly

We talk about the capacity of our (Michigan) hatcheries to raise steelhead being maxed out. What about the surrounding states capacities? Where are they at? Also isn't there private groups that raise fish or is it all at state hatcheries? Couldn't it be set up that when you buy your license you could donate a buck or two or ten towards the "cause" like all the other options that are there when you purchase your license on-line? The cause being raising more chrome...


----------



## thousandcasts

Here's a thought and this is another thing to think about. 

Reduce the limit from three fish to two fish. 

Now, if you're thinking about a river based fishery, wouldn't we all like to see more adults to be chased? Can't plant more, but...you can still add to the fishery.

Let's say there's 50,000 steelhead harvested each year--which is a realistic number. Reduce the limit across the board to two fish and you've just added a shade over 16,500 fish back into the fishery. When I say across the board, that means the big lake as well. 

It's simply another thing to think about, but a limit reduction of just one fish could make a big difference. 

Three fish limit reduced to a two fish limit could equate to a larger number being available to be caught.


----------



## johnny5alive

Wait Wut did I just read a couple pages back??:lol:

The same people who want to sue the state over bait restrictions are now calling the offices to demand "leader length" restrictions.

This is why I lurk, this place cracks me up. When is someone going to suggest banning fishing gravel....unless its from a boat and the water is stained or deeper than 5 feet.:lol:


----------



## toto

Talking about leader length is off track on this subject, but I will say I agree with it. Its been done out west for the exact same reasoning as the guys mention on this board.

As for the limit being reduced, that argument makes sense to me hutch, when you think of the numbers in the way you spelled them out, it makes perfect sense. In an earlier post, it was mentioned about spreading out the skams to cover more rivers that are deemed marginal, and that makes sense on the surface, but do we have enough fish to make that feasible? Or are we talking about a long term thing, assuming they will procreate enough in the future?

Whats been about this thread is there has been some very good ideas, and some rational thought as to how to fix the problem, if there is indeed a problem. After reading all these ideas, I want to say I have no problem with skams, but one other question, are they worth the expense? I think so, based on past history. I can remember when they used to plant them near the Betsie, you'd see guys fishing the piers all summer long, but not any more as they haven't been around for a while now. Wouldn't mind seeing that again, frankly, so I quess you guys are getting into your corner slightly, but as I said before, my heart is still with the LM's but I quess we can't use our emotions to solve anything, in reality. Speaking of that, perhaps we should start a thread on this subject and cohos, that would be interesting.


----------



## SteelieSpin

thousandcasts said:


> Here's a thought and this is another thing to think about.
> 
> Reduce the limit from three fish to two fish.
> 
> Now, if you're thinking about a river based fishery, wouldn't we all like to see more adults to be chased? Can't plant more, but...you can still add to the fishery.
> 
> Let's say there's 50,000 steelhead harvested each year--which is a realistic number. Reduce the limit across the board to two fish and you've just added a shade over 16,500 fish back into the fishery. When I say across the board, that means the big lake as well.
> 
> It's simply another thing to think about, but a limit reduction of just one fish could make a big difference.
> 
> Three fish limit reduced to a two fish limit could equate to a larger number being available to be caught.


I agree wholeheartedly with decreasing the the limit from 3 fish to 2. However, what you stated is only true if every time someone harvests fish, they are harvesting their limit. My guess is that of the times when an angler harvests a fish, he is not keeping 3. Any reduction to the daily limit has no effect for these cases. I'm not disagreeing with you, but just pointing out that the realized effect (fish left in the river to be caught again) of decreasing the daily limit is much smaller than you are assuming.


----------



## thousandcasts

SteelieSpin said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with decreasing the the limit from 3 fish to 2. However, what you stated is only true if every time someone harvests fish, they are harvesting their limit. My guess is that of the times when an angler harvests a fish, he is not keeping 3. Any reduction to the daily limit has no effect for these cases. I'm not disagreeing with you, but just pointing out that the realized effect (fish left in the river to be caught again) of decreasing the daily limit is much smaller than you are assuming.


Absolutely. I based it on a general 33.3% addition since that was the best case. The Creel department ran a model on this and I believe the actual number was a 17% addition to the fishery. Based on a 50,000 fish harvest, 17% would = 8500 more fish. 

Even so, a limit reduction of one fish would still have an overall positive effect and I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure welcome 8500 more adults looking at my spawn. :lol:


----------



## riverman

thousandcasts said:


> Absolutely. I based it on a general 33.3% addition since that was the best case. The Creel department ran a model on this and I believe the actual number was a 17% addition to the fishery. Based on a 50,000 fish harvest, 17% would = 8500 more fish.
> 
> Even so, a limit reduction of one fish would still have an overall positive effect and I don't know about anyone else, but I'd sure welcome 8500 more adults looking at my spawn. :lol:


With the water we had this spring to flush the spawners back out I'm pretty sure those #s are small for this fall/winter and 2012 spring. Have the itch already.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

thousandcasts said:


> Here's a thought and this is another thing to think about.
> 
> Reduce the limit from three fish to two fish.
> 
> Now, if you're thinking about a river based fishery, wouldn't we all like to see more adults to be chased? Can't plant more, but...you can still add to the fishery.
> 
> Let's say there's 50,000 steelhead harvested each year--which is a realistic number. Reduce the limit across the board to two fish and you've just added a shade over 16,500 fish back into the fishery. When I say across the board, that means the big lake as well.
> 
> It's simply another thing to think about, but a limit reduction of just one fish could make a big difference.
> 
> Three fish limit reduced to a two fish limit could equate to a larger number being available to be caught.


 I like that idea :coolgleam


----------



## steely74

As far as hatcheries go one must take into consideration that MI provides Ohio with all of their fingerlings and smolt. That's a whole state's worth of fish and they have like 6 Erie tribs that get stocked with LM fish. I am pretty sure these fish come from the Wolf Lake Hatchery in Kalamazoo.


----------



## lostontheice

more and bigger is always better,but what is the down fall of having more in the great lakes??Can the lakes carry more?? Ive talked to alot of "old timers" that still complain about the salmon and the numbers that were stocked,and how it has changed the great lakes(but dont hold to tight to what they say,only time ive talked to em was when they to was fishing kings on the river)..Can the river systems carry more fish?? I guess the best Idea is to get more info on why the plant numbers are down,and why have the DNR started planting less,and in less areas..jmhi


----------



## toto

Are these passing fish, or eggs from state to state a swap, or are they just good neighbor ideas? If they are a swap, what do we get in return?

On the above question, I can say that at one time there was an agreement with the surrounding states to only have X amount of predator fish in the great lakes. This was due to trying to keep the predator prey relationship in check. I don't know if that agreement still holds today, but its still one of those things where you want to balance that predator prey relationship. If the forage base can't handle the amount of fish in the lake, planting more fish will not solve that problem. I have no idea how they know the amount of forage base, or how many fish to stock according to those numbers, but to find that balance is what its all about.


----------



## steely74

Believe it or not at one point in time I am pretty sure MI was trading steel smolts for catfish, LMAO! :lol: :yikes: ... Unless they are still doing the same trade!


----------



## Robert Holmes

fishfly said:


> We talk about the capacity of our (Michigan) hatcheries to raise steelhead being maxed out. What about the surrounding states capacities? Where are they at? Also isn't there private groups that raise fish or is it all at state hatcheries? Couldn't it be set up that when you buy your license you could donate a buck or two or ten towards the "cause" like all the other options that are there when you purchase your license on-line? The cause being raising more chrome...


 THe state needs to spread the wealth and let the fish reproduce naturally and that alone will increase fish populations. Right now a presidential motorcade of hatchery trucks go to the SW side of the lower penninsula to release fingerlings every year. If Cheboygan Michigan was the home of 400 charter boats I am sure that Cheboygan would get more than its fair share of fish planted. It is about time that the DNR quit catering to charter operations and put the fish where everyone has a fair chance to catch them.


----------



## thousandcasts

lostontheice said:


> more and bigger is always better,but what is the down fall of having more in the great lakes??Can the lakes carry more?? Ive talked to alot of "old timers" that still complain about the salmon and the numbers that were stocked,and how it has changed the great lakes(but dont hold to tight to what they say,only time ive talked to em was when they to was fishing kings on the river)..Can the river systems carry more fish?? I guess the best Idea is to get more info on why the plant numbers are down,and why have the DNR started planting less,and in less areas..jmhi


There's hasn't been a cut in steelhead stocking in the last 20 years. They're still planting the same places they have been. In fact, there was a slight bump in plants on the west side this year...I think each river got about 5K more due to some extras. 

If someone is telling you the DNR is planting less steelhead and in less places, that's a straight up myth with no truth to it.


----------



## johnny5alive

toto said:


> Talking about leader length is off track on this subject, but I will say I agree with it. Its been done out west for the exact same reasoning as the guys mention on this board.
> 
> As for the limit being reduced, that argument makes sense to me hutch, when you think of the numbers in the way you spelled them out, it makes perfect sense. In an earlier post, it was mentioned about spreading out the skams to cover more rivers that are deemed marginal, and that makes sense on the surface, but do we have enough fish to make that feasible? Or are we talking about a long term thing, assuming they will procreate enough in the future?
> 
> Whats been about this thread is there has been some very good ideas, and some rational thought as to how to fix the problem, if there is indeed a problem. After reading all these ideas, I want to say I have no problem with skams, but one other question, are they worth the expense? I think so, based on past history. I can remember when they used to plant them near the Betsie, you'd see guys fishing the piers all summer long, but not any more as they haven't been around for a while now. Wouldn't mind seeing that again, frankly, so I quess you guys are getting into your corner slightly, but as I said before, my heart is still with the LM's but I quess we can't use our emotions to solve anything, in reality. Speaking of that, perhaps we should start a thread on this subject and cohos, that would be interesting.



You missed the point. When the same group of people who want to sue over gear restrictions but then themselves want gear restrictions because they believe "their restrictions are right and the others are unconstitutional" is hilarious and points out that its a good thing the dnr isnt run by message board posters. Anyone can string together a few sentences from a online fish evaluation and try to seem to be "in the know" and "connected".

and back to my first post in this thread. Stocking more and more is old school 60's style management. You guys are barking up the wrong tree if you think that will happen. Everyone should be talking about getting more access sites and dam removals.


----------



## earl

I'm not as current on hatchery practices as I ought to be, but I thought that Indiana raises both coho and Skams at the same hatchery. It would seem to a novice like me, that adjustments to the practices at the Platte River Hatchery could be made to free up some space for some skamania there.

Of course the desire would have to be there. I don't really have a complaint about the fall steelhead fishery.


----------



## Ranger Ray

johnny5alive said:


> You missed the point. When the same group of people who want to sue over gear restrictions but then themselves want gear restrictions because they believe "their restrictions are right and the others are unconstitutional" is hilarious and points out that its a good thing the dnr isnt run by message board posters. Anyone can string together a few sentences from a online fish evaluation and try to seem to be "in the know" and "connected".


Not all gear restrictions are unconstitutional. Ones that are done with no scientific reasoning and discriminatory are though.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

Screw leader length, just shut down fishing gravel. Either closed seasons or restricted spawning zones. On rivers where the majority of the run is hatch fish, fling n' zing away.

I really do think Michigan needs to re-evaluate their steelhead system, and maybe the whole fisheries for cold water fish period. We used to be on the forefront of Great Lakes salmonoid management, now it's like we're stuck in time. They need to do things that make sense, both logically and scientifically.


----------



## skamaniac97

here's an article i found interesting...

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/03/report_winter_steelhead_outper.html


----------



## diztortion

I'd be all about getting more fall run fish but not at the expense of the kings.

I like variety in the fall. 

I use to look forward to fishing in the Spring, but the last few years I haven't really cared at all. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## johnny5alive

Ranger Ray said:


> Not all gear restrictions are unconstitutional. Ones that are done with no scientific reasoning and discriminatory are though.


:lol: ok, might want to look up discrimination and the constitution

and just like that here comes the gravel comment.:lol: This place is so predictable.


----------



## earl

johnny5alive said:


> :lol: This place is so predictable.


So are whiners.


----------



## Ranger Ray

johnny5alive said:


> :lol: ok, might want to look up discrimination and the constitution


We have.


----------



## Jay Wesley

diztortion said:


> I'd be all about getting more fall run fish but not at the expense of the kings.
> 
> I like variety in the fall.
> 
> I use to look forward to fishing in the Spring, but the last few years I haven't really cared at all.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Great discussion here by everyone. I would like to hear more thoughts about regulation changes for steelhead. Would you entertain a regulation that favors survival of wild fish if all stocked steelhead could be marked? 

Something else to keep in mind, the Little Manistee River strain runs September through April. Skamania run a little in June, a little in July, some in August and mostly September through February. 

The point is that both strains run at various times. They are not all just in the summer and all in the winter.


----------



## riverman

Limit changes on streams that support wild fish would have little impact. Decreasing the torture those fish see every spring when on the rocks would be the way to go, but we are told year after year by the DNR that the closed sections and tribs on those streams are all that are needed to maintain the "wild" fishery on those streams. Anyone that gives a hoot about steelhead fishing on other streams that have "limited" wild fish have been releasing those fish for years, so I see little impact from your suggestion jay.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I would be first in line to pay twice the price for a fishing license to see a couple of more hatcheries built and more fish spread around. Those summer run steelhead could really be a push on the tourism. In the 1990's when they were thick at Cheboygan there was always 20+ guys fishing for them. Another 20+ people standing by the dam just to watch them leapng. It was loads of fun to watch them. As it is now if you don't own a boat you have to wait until fall to get a shot at Salmon and Steelhead. Planting more skamania would give everyone a shot at some silver year around.


----------



## steely74

Hopefully, within the next few years, Ohio plans to open a facility where they can hatch and raise their own steelhead smolts. After that if they no longer need to depend on MI there may be some more options available to MI fishery managers...

So far the process has been slow on the building of the new hatchery. They get some eggs and/or fingerlings from MI and raise them to smolt size but they always seem to have a lot of complications in their facilities..


----------



## Jay Wesley

steely74 said:


> Hopefully, within the next few years, Ohio plans to open a facility where they can hatch and raise their own steelhead smolts. After that if they no longer need to depend on MI there may be some more options available to MI fishery managers...
> 
> So far the process has been slow on the building of the new hatchery. They get some eggs and/or fingerlings from MI and raise them to smolt size but they always seem to have a lot of complications in their facilities..


 
Keep in mind that Michigan is at capacity (lacks raceway space and water supply) for yearling steelhead. We often have surplus eggs and fingerlings to trade with other states. So we do not gain any more yearlings by not trading fingerlings. All we could do is stock those fingerlings out but their survival is not very good because they are not very big at time of stocking. 

Just be aware of the age and size of fish at stocking, fingerlings and yearlings are like apples and oranges.


----------



## steely74

Thanks for the clarification Jay! So pretty much even if Mi did not trade fingerlings to OH there will not be an extra smolt raising capacity in MI hatcheries... So that is out of the question.

I was just brainstorming pretty much...


----------



## fishinDon

There was some discussion about 5 pages ago now on Skamania and them being "inferior" to the Little Man strain. A few members of the coldwater committee asked Jim Dexter about this and he provided us with a paper written by Jory Jonas (MDNR) for the Federal Aid Project that explains the DNR's reasoning for this conclusion. It's long, but if you care to download and read it, you can find it at the last link on this page:

http://glfsa.org/science-and-research/

Don


----------



## steely74

Here is a lengthy interesting read:


http://www.swmtu.org/documents/steelhead_symposium/Steelhead_Supinski_DNR.pdf

Down on page 8, I found sum good info...


----------



## steely74

Jay Wesley said:


> Just be aware of the age and size of fish at stocking, fingerlings and yearlings are like apples and oranges.


Just to clarify myself, I did take note of that as I clearly said fingerlings are given to OH where they are raised to be smolt/yearlings in OH facilities...


----------



## steely74

Hard to find good literature on the subject since I am sure people think I didn't know what I was talking about with trading steel for cats...

Some optomistic thinking would be if Ohio has a self sustaining steelhead breeding program maybe those fingerlings could be traded to Indiana for skamania... Once again just a thought...

The pdf link I put up does not mention anything about fingerlings only eggs. As far as I read...


----------



## Splitshot

If you state an opinion that is not accurate, most likely your conclusions will be inaccurate as well. The idea that salmon were planted for the lake guys is just not true. Salmon were planted in an attempt to reduce the alewife explosion in the great lakes because they were dying in large numbers every summer and stinking up our beaches. It was a forward looking idea and as a result of our DNR leadership a tremendous lake and river fishery developed.

I dont think we should all agree on issues just to get along, but this battle between lake and river fishing is a waste of time. I spent ten years chasing salmon and steelhead on the Great Lakes and over 50 years fishing steelhead in our rivers. To complain that lake guys are raping and killing all the fish is crazy especially since the river fishery is so good. 

I love the days when an experienced fisherman could hook over 20 steelhead a day but I remember when you were lucky to hook 20 in a season. Whenever something happens to the fishery we look for reasons. Unfortunately the DNR get the bulk of the criticism and when it comes to steelhead, the big lake guys get a lot of heat too when in reality natural conditions are most likely the cause.

We put a lot of energy into the discussion of wild fish. Since all the steelhead and salmon eggs that are hatched in our hatcheries are wild, the offspring are all wild. Both steelhead and salmon are planted to increase fishing opportunities in areas where a self sustaining fishery would either not exist or opportunities would be greatly reduced especially for steelhead because they must survive an entire summer, winter and spring before migrating to the big lakes.

The DNR does not bad mouth steelhead but state biological truths or conclusions based on the best biology and experience even when the information is not conclusive. The skamania steelhead are strong fighters but genetically they are inferior. Since the average size of LM steelhead averaged 15 lbs in the 60's and 70's the size problem is probably related to preferred food sources and not the strain.

Keeping steelhead at current limits is not hurting the fishery no matter how many of you conclude that it does. Thats from the DNR biologist not from fishermen who base assumptions on their own experience and draw erroneous conclusions. Likewise if the limit were raised to 5 the results and effect on the fishery would remain the same from year to year.

Since most of the steelhead dont live to spawn a second time it supports the reasonable idea that fishermen should keep more fish. If you are a guide or spend many days fishing steelhead, more kept steelhead will affect the overall number of fish you catch, but the numbers next year will remain the pretty much the same.

The other problem is many people confuse their ethical beliefs with the management of our steelhead. ie. I dont rake steelhead on gravel and I dont use long leaders etc. I am not making judgement about those issues because I dont support them either, but they are best left for another discussion

As I was writing this, I just received this e-mail from acting fisheries chief Jim Dexter. This should clarify some of the questions raised in this thread.

I have been receiving a few notes lately from Committee members regarding some of the discussion boards and threads regarding Skamania steelhead. Some of the discussions that we had within the committee regarding goals and objectives for steelhead are getting out there (thats good!) and much of the feedback in this short time period has been regarding desires for more Skamania.
1. Discussions on issues like this can be crucial to understanding angler desires and understanding management views. We have quite a history with this strain, and I want to briefly provide some information on it. If anyone wants to further the discussion after reviewing this information and the attachments I have provided (I think for the second time?) we could do that at the next meeting.
Michigan used to rear Skamania but does not anymore. Skamania are larger because the eggs are collected 8-10 weeks earlier than Little Manistee strain. Because of this, they also must be reared in lower densities. 
Michigan waters are currently stocked with Skamania in only two places: Manistee River (35,000) and the St. Joseph River (about 200,000). St. Joe River fish are all reared and stocked by Indiana. Manistee River fish are reared by Indiana and stocked by Michigan. We trade Little Manistee yearlings for Skamania, and due to the difference in rearing densities, we trade 40,000 yearling LMR fish for 35,000 skamania. 
Michigan is at capacity for rearing Steelhead, and that is just under 1.2 million yearlings. 
Michigan used to rear many more Skamania when they tried to break into this fishery 30 years ago. However, what many committee members may not know is that in order to do what was done back then, Winter strain steelhead were replaced by Skamania. Several rivers were stocked, and similar limited fisheries developed as we have today. For those that participated in steelhead fishing back then, the majority of anglers were not happy with the program, as they ultimately received fewer fish (remember the density issue), and did not have the fishing success that winter strain steelhead provided in fall/winter/spring. The result was the program was discontinued. Further reading on Michigans introduction of Skamania can be found in Fisheries Research Report Number 1948 by Dave Fielder; An Assessment of the introduction of summer steelhead into Michigan. 
Many of the results of that initial assessment were verified by our most recent research which I have attached. This was work conducted on the St. Joe River, Muskegon and Manistee. 
Skamania can and do provide significant fisheries. These are mostly lake, pier and shore based along the Great Lakes. Our best bang for the buck based on this most recent work is by far, hands down, winter run fish. They start running generally in September, and in most years are available in streams until early May. Here is an excerpt from the strain manuscript attached: 
With a few minor exceptions, the recreational fishery for winter-run fish outperformed the summer-run fish. In river fisheries, the winter-run fish provided much higher catch rates for the entire year particularly during spring and fall. Summer-run fish produced reasonable catch rates during the months of June and July on the Manistee River, however fishing effort was extremely low therefore providing small overall benefit. Summer-run fish on the St. Joseph River performed similar to the winter-run fish in June, July and August and were significantly lower in anglers catches than winter-run fish in spring and fall. In open waters of Lake Michigan, catch rates of the two strains were nearly equal. There was some evidence that nearshore fisheries were slightly more dependent on summer-run fish during the months of May and June particularly at St. Joseph. Summer-run fish appear to create niche fishing opportunities seasonally for some river and some pier fisheries. Given that yearling steelhead are costly to raise, there is low fishing effort associated with summer fisheries and returns are variable managers should consider the associated costs versus the benefits to recreational anglers and the resource.
As managers, when we know that there are requests from hundreds of thousands of more steelhead that we have no room to currently rear, would it be reasonable to consider from a management perspective reducing the number reared (meaning go to Skamania) to create some additional limited fisheries in a few months of the summer? While most of us on staff were much younger biologists back then, we confronted that question and are where we are now. 
Jim Dexter
Acting Fisheries Chief
517-373-3375
.
Thank you Mr. Dexter.

One final note. The gear restriction issue is not gear restriction BS. It is an issue that could have a tremendous  impact on all fishermen.



johnny5alive said:


> :lol: ok, might want to look up discrimination and the constitution
> 
> and just like that here comes the gravel comment.:lol: This place is so predictable.


Johnny,

The Public Trust Doctrine is apart of our common law and is indeed written into our State Constitution. It is there to protect our public lands and waters from special interest groups and government agencies from restricting our use of them. The PTD states that the government has an obligation to hold these lands and waters in trust for the public free forever.

Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.[1] The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."

If you really want to enter the discussion. Please provide one good reason we should have gear restrictions and we will have something to talk about. Perhaps you should do so in the gear restriction forum.

As far as your other comment about suing over this issue, our organization has no intention to sue anyone nor do we have plans to sue. We believe the law is clear and gear restrictions are not legal under the Public Trust Doctrine but even without the PTD we still believe that these rules discriminate against bait fishermen and they should be revoked for that reason alone. There are many other options to resolve these issues besides the courts.

If bait fishing were a real threat to our fisheries, most of us would support banning bait. We know there are lots of people Im guessing like you who dont mind limiting other citizens from our public waters and is why they make the statements they do.

The issue we are discussing here is if we should plant more Skamania steelhead. Based on the facts and hatchery space I say we maintain the status quo. Contrary to what some say we all want, I prefer to catch the 5 to 7 lb steelhead. They are mush faster, jump more and test your skill especially if you use lighter tackle.

I think every time we restrict fishermen by gear restrictions, limiting access, charging more to access fishing areas some fishermen drop out. We have lost 500,000 fishermen since 1986 according to a recent article published in Woods and Waters. Certainly high gas prices, the economy and other issues impact who buys fishing licenses these other issues especially fees are part of the problem.

We need to open more opportunities to all people not close them. My opinion is to look at any rule from the standpoint of does it encourage more participation or doe the rule restrict participation. In most cases I will support opening more opportunities to more people.


----------



## diztortion

Jay Wesley said:


> Great discussion here by everyone. I would like to hear more thoughts about regulation changes for steelhead. Would you entertain a regulation that favors survival of wild fish if all stocked steelhead could be marked?
> 
> Something else to keep in mind, the Little Manistee River strain runs September through April. Skamania run a little in June, a little in July, some in August and mostly September through February.
> 
> The point is that both strains run at various times. They are not all just in the summer and all in the winter.


Perhaps a 5 year study that involves regulations similar to Western Management practices.

Releasing wild fish while retaining hatchery fish.

Or a lower creel on wild fish; one wild and two hatchery to complete a limit.


----------



## johnny5alive

Splitshot,

You started you post with 
"If you state an opinion that is not accurate, most likely your conclusions will be inaccurate as well. The idea that salmon were planted for the lake guys is just not true. Salmon were planted in an attempt to reduce the alewife explosion in the great lakes because they were dying in large numbers every summer and stinking up our beaches. It was a forward looking idea and as a result of our DNR leadership a tremendous lake and river fishery developed."

Well you stated something that is not accurate which, most likely your conclusions will be inaccurate as well. 

Here's a link to a direct quote from the "father" of the great lakes salmon program. http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2011/04/the_salmon_experiment_the_inve.html

Well now on to the fact you assumed that I was one of those elitist trout unlimited guys most guys like you on this board complain about. Ive never fished a Gear Restricted section in my life. 

When will one of the anti-gear restriction guys admit that its totally hypocritical to Demand Flies only sections be eliminated when you guys want "leader length" restrictions and "no fishing gravel" restrictions. Its laughable.

Do you remember writing that we need more access? Well I wrote that in my first post which hasnt been addressed by anyone else in this thread, most want to focus on stocking more and more. I wasnt the person who first brought up restrictions, I was replying to others who are FOR GEAR RESTRICTIONS IN LEADERS.

Finally posting a definition of "discrimination" makes you a lawyer as much as playing MLB the show makes you a pro-baseball player. Gear Restrictions are totally legal and are not discrimination. Why?, because your choosing to exclude YOURSELF, you have the ability to fish these sections but YOU choose not to. Call Richard Bernstein and ask him if you have a case. This guy even sued his own Alma Mater UofM! He'll sue anyone for discrimination. I'll be waiting for his reply.:lol: 

and again as I first posted, Where is the support for Dam removals and money being spent on purchasing river fishing access like the recent ones on the unmentionables near Grand rapids and Berrien Springs


----------



## toto

Johnny, the simple fact is, long leaders have been proven to be detrimental to spawning steelhead. I don't have the study in front of me, but I'll find it if I must. This study was done out west, Washington I believe, and it was found that extensively long leaders are responsible for foul hooking spawning steelhead, and therefore the leader length was reduced, by law, to I believe its 6'.

What I don't understand about you is this: Why is you can't comprehend that someone can believe in one lawl, but not another? The bottom line here is this: You, obviously, are one of those folks who is frankly nervous about what we are doing on the bait restriction thing, if not, I doubt you'd say very much. Every post you've made in here on this thread has been off subject, and an obvious attempt to degrade what you don't want. 

One thing that is very important to understand about our stance, we are absolutely sure of the power of the Public Trust Doctrine, and we also understand just where the PTD came from. It was initiated by the Northwest Ordinance. Now for your history lesson, there are four documents that are known as the Organic Laws of the United States, those are the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance. If this N.O. document is that powerful, and the PTD derived from it, whats that say about the power of the PTD.

All I can say, is this thread was not about what you have brought up, and its sad that you had to use it to get on your bandwagon to attempt to squash our position, basically you are showing your naivity, and either get back to the original subject with constructive ideas, or just stay out of the thread. Its that easy, and we'll have the gear regs discussion some other day.


----------



## Boozer

fishinDon said:


> There was some discussion about 5 pages ago now on Skamania and them being "inferior" to the Little Man strain. A few members of the coldwater committee asked Jim Dexter about this and he provided us with a paper written by Jory Jonas (MDNR) for the Federal Aid Project that explains the DNR's reasoning for this conclusion. It's long, but if you care to download and read it, you can find it at the last link on this page:
> 
> http://glfsa.org/science-and-research/
> 
> Don


I have read that study multiple times, it is FULL of well I will just say very controversial claims and in my personal opinion, a very poorly conducted study...

Just one example: It words things so that the average angler at face value sees the Skamania strain is inferior, it states the growth rate is essentially the same and therefore LM's are not smaller than Skamania, the problem is, they forget to mention that Skams on average spend another year in the lake so as far as an angler is concerned, they are bigger, simply because the average fish that a river angler catches will indeed be larger. The study fails to attribute data collected into real World reality...

I sat and watched the IDNR collect 112 Skams today for their broodstock, out of those fish, my best guess would be 30-40 percent were 7-9 pound fish, the rest of them were 12-15 pound fish with a couple going into the high teens, virtually no fish inbetween, which obviously means the majority of fish were 4+ years old and the 7-9 pound fish were the 3 year old fish. They were not sorting them, that was literally their catch for 24 hours of their trap being set. LM's do NOT average in this size range when they run the river, plain and simple. I am sure food has a lot to do with the lacking in average size of LM's, but the main contributor is it seems like less and less LM strain fish are spending 3 years in the lake before running and that takes away from your trophy sized fish, I would like to see that looked into.

In regards to low angler interest for Skamania, I already stated why their data is flawed there, when you plan your creel workers schedules one month in advance, pretty tough to schedule it to coincide with the majority of angler use of this fishery. The problem the MDNR has is they are trying to study LM and Skamania strain steelhead in the same manner and it just doesn't work that way, they are remarkably different creatures and therefore require a different approach to studying and managing them. I have went back and found studies all the way back into the 80's and that is the one thing that stuck out the most to me, they are using techniques they use to study and manage Winter steelhead for Summer steelhead and I feel it has led to them collecting bad data. Again, this is just my opinion, but the proof is right there as far as I'm concerned...

I don't really care whether they raise more Skams or not, but I do not agree with how many of our fisheries guys perceive the results of that study. The fact fisheries decisions seem to be being based off that study, really disappoints me, but not the end of the World. The study makes one thing very clear, the individual whom did the study, has spent very little time around Skamania strain steelhead and perhaps any steelhead for that matter. The fact that the LM strain is easier and cheaper for them to manage is the reason it is their favorite, it's not a trash strain by any means, but it sure would be nice to see a different approach to managing our steelhead fishery and include some Skamania plants in rivers where they could thrive.

Bottom line, this topic seems like it's going a bit off tangent and getting argumentative to some degree with a couple of you, the entire reason for this thread was not for that guys, it was simply to get people discussing our steelhead fishery in a friendly manner, disagree all you want with me or anyone, it's how we learn from eachother, but please keep it friendly guys so the thread doesn't get closed down.


----------



## skamaniac97

Splitshot said:


> Contrary to what some say we all want, I prefer to catch the 5 to 7 lb steelhead. They are mush faster, jump more and test your skill especially if you use lighter tackle.
> 
> .


a 12 inch trout will seem faster and test your skill more if you use sewing thread for line, but i prefer 20 inchers, but thats just me.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Ive been seeing very good catch rates of Summer steelhead. Much more predictable then LM fish. BTW the dam was lined with skamania anglers today, more then you see most days during LM running times.


----------



## steely74

Multispeciestamer said:


> Ive been seeing very good catch rates of Summer steelhead. Much more predictable then LM fish. BTW the dam was lined with skamania anglers today, more then you see most days during LM running times.


Anyone who understands these fish knew this would be a good year for skams... Hopefully the weather patterns don't change drastically...


----------



## Boozer

Multispeciestamer said:


> Ive been seeing very good catch rates of Summer steelhead. Much more predictable then LM fish. BTW the dam was lined with skamania anglers today, more then you see most days during LM running times.


How are Skamania more predictable than LM strain steelhead? Could you explain that a little more?

I would argue that both are just as predictable as eachother, you just cannot really predict the Skams run timing as far in advance as you can the LM strain, just my observations though...


----------



## toto

Johnny, here is the law in NY on Lake Ontarion tribs.

The distance between the hook, artificial fly or lure and any weight attached to the line or leader, whether fixed or sliding, shall not exceed four feet. [This is the "4 foot leader rule."] 

Apparantly, we aren't the only state that is thinking, or have thought about leader lengths.

You know, when I look at the poll again, I probably should have voted for the first choice, but whatever. It appears the bottom line here is, we all have devotion, to some degree, to steelhead, whether they be LM, or Skams. Unfortunately, with the money troubles of the DNR, they have to make a choice, based on finances. Therefore, if its more cost effective to raise LM, then thats whats going to happen. I agree, its too bad that we couldn't have more hatchery space, or private hatcheries that could increase these numbers, but then again, it comes to economics with them as well. Perhaps, we on this site should start a slush fund to help out the DNR, or a private hatchery to make this happen, but the amount of money we could get from here, wouldn't be nearly enough. Its just something the DNR will have to figure out, and try to find the proper balance.


----------



## Boozer

Just a little FYI, here in the next couple of days, I am going to start a new poll...

It will cover whether we as anglers would be willing to give up a percentage of our LM plants to increase our skamania plants...

In all honesty, I don't know if I would, will have to give it some thought. I would LOVE to see the Skams that currently are stocked in the Big Manistee moved to another river which would provide better Summer angling opportunities, it could be a test so to speak, the MDNR could change the way they do their creel studies to be more effective, anglers would obviously be more educated about them than they were in the past and we could see first hand how it would work out.

I landed a Hen Skam yesterday here in the Joe, it was originally stocked in the Big Manistee looking at it's fin clip, it had spawned last Spring as still had some sores on her tail from the process, she was making her second run, however will not be finishing that one up, will be going on my smoker. Sure would be cool to know what river she ran the first time. Was a great day on the river, only part that stunk was it took me 9 casts to land my limit of Skams, then had to go on to other species to play with, if these fish were stocked in rivers where catch & release was an option, now that would rock...


----------



## steely74

The system is different down here but I have a certain date that I can mark my calender by as to when fall run fish will start. For the past 5 years or so I get my first fall run LM fish with a day or 2 of that particular date and usually its because I fish a day before or after that date...

I pay the extra bucks for an out of state license and I have no complaint about the fishery, period! MI is a lil more of a challenge than my home waters that I know like the back of my hand although some MI rivers are getting that way. The scenery, rivers, and tranquility of MI is the best in any state bordering Lake Michigan. Screw stocking more fish and regulating everything I WANT ENFORCEMENT!

I'd like to see some sections of river closed where there is a high volume of natural reproduction. I'd like to see the ban of the sale, use and posession of snagging devices. More protection for spawning salmon and steelhead that's what I'd like to see. Make the penalty so sever no one would take the chance!

We have a good mild summer and everyone has "skamania mania" :lol:. While last year everyone felt bad for every skam dumb enough to run up the piss warm St. Jo. Last year I even seen dead skams in a cold water creek where they should be able to survive, its a damn shame!

As a river fisherman giving up the good old reliable LM for some sporadic skams seems like a bad idea. IDK about everyone else but winter is my favorite time to steelhead fish. FIshing in 90 degree weather, getting eaten alive by mosquitoes, combat fishing for skams that you can't release is fun because of the fishes fight but other than that I love a nice 30 degree day in mid february with the river all to myself... 

This whole poll just seems to be pushing a personal agenda. I said early on it was totally biased.


----------



## Boozer

steely74 said:


> The system is different down here but I have a certain date that I can mark my calender by as to when fall run fish will start. For the past 5 years or so I get my first fall run LM fish with a day or 2 of that particular date and usually its because I fish a day before or after that date...
> 
> I pay the extra bucks for an out of state license and I have no complaint about the fishery, period! MI is a lil more of a challenge than my home waters that I know like the back of my hand although some MI rivers are getting that way. The scenery, rivers, and tranquility of MI is the best in any state bordering Lake Michigan. Screw stocking more fish and regulating everything I WANT ENFORCEMENT!
> 
> I'd like to see some sections of river closed where there is a high volume of natural reproduction. I'd like to see the ban of the sale, use and posession of snagging devices. More protection for spawning salmon and steelhead that's what I'd like to see.
> 
> We have a good mild summer and everyone has "skamania mania" :lol:. While last year everyone felt bad for every skam dumb enough to run up the piss warm St. Jo. Last year I even seen dead skams in a cold water creek where they should be able to survive, its a damn shame!
> 
> As a river fisherman giving up the good old reliable LM for some sporadic skams seems like a bad idea. IDK about everyone else but winter is my favorite time to steelhead fish. FIshing in 90 degree weather, getting eaten alive by mosquitoes, combat fishing for skams that you can't release is fun because of the fishes fight but other than that I love a nice 30 degree day in mid february with the river all to myself...
> 
> This whole poll just seems to be pushing a personal agenda. I said early on it was totally biased.


That's funny, from the beginning all I have seen is inaccurate statements from you, no offense, just being honest.

The poll is not biased one bit, there is a method to the madness so to speak and it was simply a way to get people talking and see what people thought "I believe I already stated that", I will tell you one thing this poll/post has done is show just how much false information there is out there and hopefully it has allowed for a lot of it to be corrected.

Skamania are not sporadic, if they were managed properly and put in the right places, that is one of the main points of this entire post, it amazes me how some people absolutely refuse to step away from stereo-types and bad information...

I don't have ANY agenda to push, period...

I myself am just as happy fishing for Smallies as I am Skamania, BUT at the same time I am not one to ignore something that has the ability to be something so much greater than it is, if it was just gone about properly. If the MDNR doesn't make any changes, I will not complain, but they said they wanted OUR opinion on how the fishery should be managed, I think they have gotten a lot of that information here...


----------



## johnny5alive

This whole poll just seems to be pushing a personal agenda. I said early on it was totally biased.[/QUOTE]

This whole website pushes agenda's, thats why no one can explain the hypocritical things people throw out. Its all about stock my river not yours, stock my fish not yours, use my bait not yours.


----------

