# Chinook Plants



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

The salmon plants arrived Mon. and are looking pretty healthy so far, just got done babysitting them, they are a lot smaller than the Steelhead plants were. (3 to 4 inches) They are in pens at the mouth of Van Etten Creek and have nets covering them so at least we don't have to worry about the Cormorants or Gulls getting to them for now. I'm kind of curious to see how many will actually go up the AuSable past that point when or if they do return as they are drawing water from Van Etten for the pens and it seems to me that when they do return thats where they are going to go. Hopefully when they head out to the lake they will find enough food to sustain them and this effort won't be in vain. I guess I was mis-informed when I was told they were going to release them at the Whirlpool, they are not, they are simply going to open the pens and let them loose where they are. They will be in the pens for approx. 2 weeks before being released, my next shift is Sat. nite and I will let you know how it's going.


----------



## 4lbtest (Feb 28, 2007)

Why the pen? I've only seen steelies dumped


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Pretty interesting.............any pics.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Why the plants at all? According to a DNR Biologist I discussed Lake Huron Kings with, about 6 years ago, over 85% of the Kings in Huron at that time came from natural reproduction. Since there are more Kings than the Alewife population can really support, I do not understand why ANY are planted anymore. A real experiment would be to let the Salmon and Alewives find a natural balance in the lake.


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

They are holding them in the pens mainly because of they're size, if they released these little buggers directly into the river like they do the Steelhead they would be devoured by everything before they could smolt. They will hold them til they smolt (acclimate to the river) that way when they release them they should head straight to the lake instead of hanging around for a week or two like the Steel plants do. They are small enough that Bass and even pan fish would be able to feed on them not to mention the Gulls and whats left of the Cormorants. They will release them from the pens at nite in the hopes that by morning most will have shot to the lake. I will try to post some pics tomorrow, I didn't have my camera with me yesterday. Fishndude, I guess you'd have to ask a Biologist why they are stocking, maybe things have changed in the last 6 years I don't know! Didn't post this to start a debate!!


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

85% are natural but from what i read they are coming from canadian streams........so in order to get any type of a return plants need to happen on michigan streams.....thats how it was explained at the huron fisheries meeting i was at a few weeks ago.....

thanks slowdrift........


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

So far so good, the plants are doing good with very few dead ones so far. I took some pictures(not very good though) but can't figure out how to get them in a post(computer illiterate) did get them in the photo gallery.They will be in the pens at least one more week, the only critters we've had problems with are racoon's, they know how to get the nets off. The plants seem to go deep at nite so even though the ****'s can get under the nets they can't get to the fish. (during the day they are jumping like crazy) There is some one there 24/7 so the plants are being well cared for, they get 12lbs of food 4 times a day and the water temp is checked every hour, if the river water gets to warm there are two wells that can be used to cool the pens down, but so far we haven't had to use them. My next shift isn't till Thur (unlike the Cormorant Project there are plenty of volunteers for this) I'll let you know how it's going.


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

Thanks, it's neat to see how they are kept.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

walleyeman2006 said:


> 85% are natural but from what i read they are coming from canadian streams........so in order to get any type of a return plants need to happen on michigan streams.....thats how it was explained at the huron fisheries meeting i was at a few weeks ago.....
> 
> thanks slowdrift........


Sorry to not be clearer in my previous post. What I was told was that 85% of the Kings which were tested, when they returned to Michigan tributaries of Lake Huron, came from natural reproduction. They knew that because after BKD, all hatchery Kings are treated with tetracycline, which is an antibiotic; and it causes their spines to glow under black light. So if the DNR stopped planting Kings in Huron tribs, 85% of the former numbers of returning fish should still come back - roughly 6 out of 7. And since Kings stray a lot less than Steelhead, those fish were coming from Michigan spawners, not from Canada. And that means that since there is a very well documented shortage of food for Kings in Lake Huron, that if the DNR stopped planting Kings altogether, there should still be plenty of them for the amount of food which exists. And THAT means that the DNR could use the monies used to raise Kings for planting, to raise other fish for planting - perhaps Brown Trout or Steelhead, which do not rely as heavily on Alewives for food.


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

Just got done with another shift, things are looking good and the plants are real healthy. The majority are still trying to go up stream so it's going to be probably another week before they are released. There are some dropping to the back of the pens but until most move back they are going to be our guests. They are jumping a lot higher, the water is a foot and a half below the top and we have to keep putting them back when they jump out. The mortality rate has been low, we have had less than 90 die so far, out of 250,000 thats not bad. I took some more pictures but still haven't figured out how to put them in a post (almost got it), they are in the gallery for now. Hopefully it doesn't get to warm this weekend and the water temp stays down, if it gets to warm we can pump water from the wells and cool them down a little. My next shift is Sat. nite so until then.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

One question, why don't they pen the steelhead? Wouldn't that keep them safer and get a better imprint of the river?


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

Just speculating but it's probably a money thing, they would have to build other pens as these would be to small for plants of that size. What would I have done the month of April if I didn't chase Cormorants up and down the river, gone fishing??? :lol: I'll see if I can get an answer to that question unless someone can answer that.


----------



## Kelly Neuman (Apr 12, 2007)

I have talked with Sr. Biologist for Au Sable River a few different times about the use of net pens for stocking steelhead. His reasoning for not using them now were: Existing pen sizes would not hold all of steelhead or even close, steelhead can not be held to late into May because of water temps, when they reach smolt sage they must be released or they will die, and with lack of public support with current stocking project who is going to watch the pens. I know Shawn, Randy and Art would be there but sure how much more we would get and the DNR does see that. Myself I still think pens would be a better solution than what is done currently. Also he stated that new way of stocking has been done for two years now (low in system and bird harrassment) and there is no need to change until we see how it is working. That does make sense to me. A lot more steelhead have made it to Lake Huron the last two years and we should start seeing larger returns from this in the spring of 2009. I think the only real flaw in the current way of stocking steelhead in the lower Au Sable is not stocking all fish in the same week and I have been told that will be corrected in the future. This should cut harrassment project down to two weeks I would hope.


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

That answers that now doesn't it, thanks Kelly!


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

Sat with the fishies last nite, things are still going good although we could use some rain, the river is pretty low and starting to go below the intake pipe. The weather is warming so between that and the low water I think they will be released soon.(day or two) We have the wells but with the river water warming if we use the wells to bring the water up it will drop the temp in the pens to far below river temp and when released they will go into shock. They are calling for some rain tomorrow, we'll see what happens. I talked to the operator of the Dam last nite and he said he already has the lake down 5 inches but will go lower if necessary today, luckily until now it's been cool and not many people have they're docks or boats in yet so no one has complained, other than that they are still healthy and we are finding very few dead ones. You are absolutely right about releasing all the Steel plants in the same week Kelly, that would have eliminated 2 to 3 weeks of bird chasing.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

Fishndude said:


> Why the plants at all? According to a DNR Biologist I discussed Lake Huron Kings with, about 6 years ago, over 85% of the Kings in Huron at that time came from natural reproduction. Since there are more Kings than the Alewife population can really support, I do not understand why ANY are planted anymore. A real experiment would be to let the Salmon and Alewives find a natural balance in the lake.


Natural reproduction started occurring only _after_ the alwife population collapsed. This alewife contains high levels of an enzyme called thiaminase, which causes thiamin deficiencies in predator fish that eat them as a primary food source. This in turn causes infertility.

This is known as "alewife revenge". Here is a very good MDNR article that cites the new "foodweb" in Lake Huron and also mentions the 80 percent figure for natural reproduction (supported by Canadian tributaries).

EDIT: after 15 posts, I was able to add a direct link to the paper.

Long story short: the alwife was the only nutrient supporting the Chinook as well as the very thing preventing it from reproducing naturally. Now that it is gone, we should hope for a more diverse food chain in the interest of natural reproduction. Since the mussels are described as "permanent", I think that it is safe to say that we will never see salmon in the numbers that we did pre-mussels. The lake can only support so much biomass and it looks like the mussels will be consuming nearly all of it.

Food for thought: Gobies are the only thing that eats the mussels. Sturgeon love eating gobies. Preliminary evidence shows that the sturgeon population is recovering well (primarily in Lake St. Clair). Are we going to be overrun by Sturgeon soon?

EDIT - the paper also indicates that whitefish are consuming the mussels (another interesting thought).


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

Lake Michigan still has alewife and they get a fair amount of natural repo in their tribs. Run-of-river is what boosted natural reproduction of kings. I doubt alewife or kings will ever be prominent in Lake Huron like they were, but there will always be some around. Get rid of *ALOT* of the lake trout plants, and put some more brown trout in, that would be good.


----------



## Slodrift (Oct 28, 2006)

They will be released tonite at dark, everything went well this year, we had a low mortality rate and they are real healthy. We need that rain they're calling for to push them out to the lake a little quicker and hide them from the Gulls, but there are many other obstacles they will have to overcome and hopefully some will return.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

ausable_steelhead said:


> Lake Michigan still has alewife and they get a fair amount of natural repo in their tribs. Run-of-river is what boosted natural reproduction of kings.


The prey in Lake Michigan is a little more diverse but the rivers that support natural reproduction over there do indeed have better dynamics (higher gradients for better oxygenation and cooler temps). The Rifle River would be nearly perfect for reproduction on the east side if we didn't have the lakes heating up the headwaters so much. The Au Sable would be ideal if it didn't have the dams.



ausable_steelhead said:


> Get rid of *ALOT* of the lake trout plants, and put some more brown trout in, that would be good.


I think that the DNR is probably doing a smart thing by planting so many Lake Trout at this point - I just wish that they would be more transparent in discussing their logic with the the tax payers that fund them. But every time that I get a chance to argue with someone at the MDNR, I end up walking away with a little bit more knowledge.

In terms of brown trout, I agree. The adaptability of these fish is amazing. I was in the thumb area just fishing from shore for smallies when my bad luck prompted me to change it up - I clipped on a large rubber frog and cast it out into some lily pads. Nearly the second that it hit the water, my rod buckled over like I had hooked onto a tug boat. 

To my surprise, it wasn't a tug boat at all. I had simply hooked into a large brown that had come in to forage. This was the first lake run brown that I had ever caught and it really made me a believer. If we could only have one salmonid in the Great Lakes, I would vote for brown because of their diversity. You can catch 'em off of a downrigger in 200fow. You can catch 'em in a tranquil river that is 100 miles inland. Or you can catch 'em right offshore (generally at night) in the middle of nearly any season (even summer!).

If browns eat gobies in good numbers, then I say get rid of the laker plants to some degree (obviously, we need some diversity) and ramp up the browns. Hell, if the chinook don't come back in the numbers required to support a profitable fishery, then get rid of those, too. The charter boat industry in the thumb area has been killed. Browns could bring it back.


----------



## Queequeg (Aug 10, 2007)

Anyone have an pictures of these things? Sometimes I think I'm catching little browns or bows but they look a little different. DOes a smolt look at all like a small trout?


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *jellybread*
> The prey in Lake Michigan is a little more diverse but the rivers that support natural reproduction over there do indeed have better dynamics (higher gradients for better oxygenation and cooler temps). The Rifle River would be nearly perfect for reproduction on the east side if we didn't have the lakes heating up the headwaters so much. The Au Sable would be ideal if it didn't have the dams.


I agree, the Rifle would be perfect for large amounts of natural kings. Most of the river's run is made up of wild chinook. I think there's more natural repo for chinooks on the Au Sable then people realize. There would be more if people didn't wade out all over the gravel every spring, which I see all the time every year. I didn't see nearly as much salmon fry as I normally do in May and think "gravel crunching" has alot to do with it.




> Originally Posted by *jellybread*
> I think that the DNR is probably doing a smart thing by planting so many Lake Trout at this point - I just wish that they would be more transparent in discussing their logic with the the tax payers that fund them. But every time that I get a chance to argue with someone at the MDNR, I end up walking away with a little bit more knowledge.
> 
> In terms of brown trout, I agree. The adaptability of these fish is amazing. I was in the thumb area just fishing from shore for smallies when my bad luck prompted me to change it up - I clipped on a large rubber frog and cast it out into some lily pads. Nearly the second that it hit the water, my rod buckled over like I had hooked onto a tug boat.
> ...


I think they could do away with a large amount of the plants and still have plentiful lake trout, there is some natural repo going on with them. I fully agree if kings continue to struggle, then do away with them altogether, and plant ALOT more brown trout. They are the new trophy salmonoid in Lake Huron, commonly reaching the old salmon weights. The browns can also provide a river fishery, and for the most part, are better biters in the tribs then kings are. 

I was told by an Alpena fisheries biologist in an email that gobies and crayfish make up most of a lake brown's diet these days in Lake Huron, with emeralds making up the rest. Of course, they are gonna prey on any smelt or alewife they encounter, but they don't key on them like they used to. I believe that is why we don't have the shoreline fishery for browns in the spring as much as we used to, no smelt runs. 

I still think we should keep steelhead in the picture, as they are a very fun and popular fish. As far as the Thumb fishery, they had good brown trout fishing until they cut the $h!t out of the plant numbers. My first lake brown was out of the Thumb, my first good one was out of the Thumb, and my second largest was out of the Thumb, see where this is going?


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

> The Rifle River would be nearly perfect for reproduction on the east side if we didn't have the lakes heating up the headwaters so much. The Au Sable would be ideal if it didn't have the dams.


Kings spawn in the Fall (well probably 99.9% of them), and their eggs hatch in Spring. The smolts leave the rivers before temps rise to a lethal point, so they are not affected by the high summertime temps which make natural reproduction of Cohos and Steelhead inviable. Cohos and Steelhead also hatch, but their parr need to spend at least 1 year in their natal rivers before smolting, and the high temps which most Michigan streams and rivers reach in Summer will kill the parr before they can do that. Colder rivers and streams do get some natural reproduction of Steelhead, but most of those are smaller waters, and do not support large numbers; so planting is done to maintain the fisheries we enjoy so much. 

I also feel that planting more Steelhead and Browns would be better than planting ANY Kings @ Lake Huron and its tribs. Very few Kings return from the amount which are planted, and they depend almost totally on Alewives for food - and Alewives are few and far between. Because Browns and Steelhead have a more diverse diet, they can live without the Alewives, while the Kings die off. Cohos have not had any significant presence in Lake Huron in many years.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

> Cohos have not had any significant presence in Lake Huron in many years.


The last two springs they have been abundant, but then disappear the rest of the year for the most part. The DNR said this year has seen the highest catch rates for coho salmon in 6 years. Where they're coming from and where they go, I'm not sure.

I think that the really low water consumers usually has going during fall/winter also hampers successful chinook spawning, as it exposes gravel all the time.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

Fishndude said:


> Kings spawn in the Fall (well probably 99.9% of them), and their eggs hatch in Spring. The smolts leave the rivers before temps rise to a lethal point, so they are not affected by the high summertime temps which make natural reproduction of Cohos and Steelhead inviable.


Kings are hard-wired to feed in the pelagic and don't seem to be able to adapt (see page 8). So my comments were relating to salmonids other than kings. To the best of my knowledge, pretty much everything else requires at least a year in the river. Certainly, kings will play a small role. But it will be in proportion with the role of the alewife and diporeia. And these will most certainly be permanently reduced to small fractions of the pre-mussel era.

Perhaps the high temperature tolerance of the brown trout would suit the conditions of the Rifle River (which has been improved in recent years)? I say put a couple hundred thousand fingerlings in there and see what happens.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

ausable_steelhead said:


> I think there's more natural repo for chinooks on the Au Sable then people realize. There would be more if people didn't wade out all over the gravel every spring, which I see all the time every year. I didn't see nearly as much salmon fry as I normally do in May and think "gravel crunching" has alot to do with it.


If the Au Sable was free-flowing, the spawning area wouldn't be so small and this wouldn't be such a concern (i.e. - the crunching would be much less as a percentage). Look at the Pere Marquette, where the only plant is brown trout and everything else is natural reproduction. The wading is limited by the free flow and the spawning area is much more spread out.

I'm not expecting the dams to come out of the Au Sable right away, but it would be nice if I could fathom that my children might see that day. The river would be magnificent at that point.



ausable_steelhead said:


> I still think we should keep steelhead in the picture, as they are a very fun and popular fish.


Spring would not be spring without the steelies. But a synthetic fishery will only entertain a fisherman (fisherwoman?) for so long. Sooner or later (usually later), you'll want to see the beauty afforded by the places where the species are reproducing naturally, without assistance. We have a few of these areas in Michigan but most people are content to see them subdivided, collectively destroyed and replaced by a hatchery that is managed by the department of formerly natural resources.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

With the rising price of fossil fuels, I think that the hydro-electric power generating dams in Michigan are about to come into their own, and will be used more and more to produce electricity. While I agree that removing them would open more water for natural spawning of Salmonids, I don't really think that the dams _*should*_ be removed. Salmonids are not native to the Great Lakes, and we essentially have an artificial fishery for them. If the DNR would mandate that Consumer's Energy install the bottom draw equipment they are supposed to, it would cool the tailwaters below the dams, and would allow better natural reproduction of Salmon, Trout, and Steelhead. I think improving those limited fisheries would be better than opening entire rivers to fish migration and spawning. 

I still think that the single worst enemy of our Salmon and Steelhead fisheries is the Mussels; and that very drastic measures are justifiable to remedy that situation. I would advocate introducing just about any other species into the Great Lakes, if it would eradicate, or at least significantly control Zebra and Quagga Mussels.


----------



## jellybread (May 4, 2008)

Fishndude said:


> While I agree that removing them would open more water for natural spawning of Salmonids, I don't really think that the dams _*should*_ be removed. Salmonids are not native to the Great Lakes, and we essentially have an artificial fishery for them.


My desire to remove the dams would be unaffected if there were no salmonids in the water - that would just be a side benefit.

I am all for establishing an energy policy that minimizes the *impact* to the natural environment. Hydroelectric does not fall into this category so I do not support it in most cases. If we are going to burn coal like we currently do, then there really is no sense in destroying our rivers to offset an *obscenely tiny* fraction of this coal. Even if we optimized all of the hydroelectric that we could, we'd probably still be under 10 percent of our total energy consumption.

The 13 Consumers dams in Michigan only support the needs of "50 to 55 thousand residential customers" (page 37). That is a drop in the bucket (pardon the pun). Is this small benefit worth the disruption and pollution? (Consumers dams do pollute and even Tippy has a variance because it exceeds EPA standards)

The Great Lakes produce plenty of wind. Just 50 modern, 5 megawatt wind turbines would displace the power generated by the 13 Consumers dams. And you could place them far enough offshore to be out-of-sight. In terms of environmental disruption, the blades on a turbine this large don't even turn fast enough to kill a bird (though there would still be incidental collisions). The submarine transmission cables would produce heat that would be transferred to the water (negligible to the Great Lakes). Other than that, I don't see them being nearly as disruptive as hydroelectric.

What if we installed 1000 of these turbines? What about oilgae? If they are going to kill us with coal, then I say "smoke it up". But don't plug up the rivers for the sake of marketing.

(we should probably start another thread if we want to get into this)


----------

