# Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Options



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

If you have not already taken the survey, I encourage you to do so. Public comment is open until May 15th. Survey can be found on Michigan Sea Grant Web Site at:

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


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

Thanks, Jay. 

A couple of those options included reducing Steelhead. As a fisherman I would rather see a decrease in Kings as long as the Steelhead amounts are left alone. As a concerned individual I really dont have enough info to make an educated pick regarding predator to prey quotas. So I chose the options as a fisherman.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

Thank you Jay. Your efforts in reaching out to the fishing community are commendable and I believe they will help in minimizing complaints later on. No doubt there will be alllllllllllllllllllllll kinds of bitchin (me included probably )
But at least I had my say


----------



## STEINFISHSKI (Jan 30, 2001)

Done, thanks! Cut the salmon and lake trout only IMO.


----------



## Alpha Buck (Jan 24, 2006)

STEINFISHSKI said:


> Done, thanks! Cut the salmon and lake trout only IMO.


^^^


----------



## riverbob (Jan 11, 2011)

STEINFISHSKI said:


> Done, thanks! Cut the salmon and lake trout only IMO.


 I agree, besides i think they make poor table fair


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Lake Huron has taught us a lot about the Great Lakes food webn, from microscopic organisms on up to alewives and salmon. When alewife numbers crashed there, so did salmon numbers. Cutting salmon stocking in Lake Huron has not had much if any impact on alewife numbers there. Cutting salmon stocking on Lake Michigan now may look good on paper and may make some people "feel good about doing something", but if the food chain is changing there and alewife populations are not doing well, cutting the number of salmon will not have much impact on the future of the forage biomass. If the alewife population crashes then so will the salmon fisheries. 

There are species of sport fish that seem to do just fine without Alewives in their diet. Atlantic salmon, steelhead, lake trout and walleyes all seem to be doing well in Lake Huron in the absence of alewives. I'd like to see another option that cuts salmon stocking while at the same time increases the stocking of other sport fish, especially Atlantic Salmon, steelhead and walleyes. Lake trout are already being stocked by the bazillion, so we already have enough of those fish in most places. When I see the DNR cut salmon stocking like they did in Lake Huron and then not replace that stocking investment with other species that are doing well there, it really looks to me like the DNR put up a smoke screen to just save some money.


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

RZR I will not allow you to sidetrack another thread. If you post in this forum anymore i will delete all posts.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Part of the problem is that Alewives are not the only forage fish whose numbers have declined significantly. Some shallow-water forage fish are doing well in lake Huron (Emerald Shiners are one example), but Salmon and Steelhead don't typically live where a lot of the baitfish in the lakes live. But Alewives live exactly where the Salmon and Trout like to be. Salmon and large Trout were the perfect solution to the Alewife problem in our lakes in the 1960's. The Mussels have changed that demographic enormously - and are continuing to change it. Lake Michigan is just more fertile than lake Huron, and hasn't been affected to the same degree - YET. Huron is more sterile because it is "downstream" of lakes Michigan and Superior, and Superior is a LOT more sterile than any of the other great lakes. 

I would advocate a significant reduction in stocking of King Salmon, and increases in Steelhead and Brown Trout stocking. I would even be on board with a complete moratorium in Salmon stocking for a couple years, to see what nature is doing on its own. 

Based on the recent threads about this, it seems the Mussels are just relentless in their expansion, and are continuing to decimate the lakes. I can appreciate that it may not be practical to treat the great lakes directly with bacteria that will kill the Mussels - whether the bacteria is alive, or dead. But we surely could use the bacteria to treat numerous LARGE river systems, that are overrun by Mussels - and which will eventually dump the bacteria into the lakes, where they will contribute to the decline in Mussels. How hard would it be to find a marsh, or river, or place that is conducive to raising those bacteria on a much larger scale, so they would be easily introduced to the nearest great lake, to kill Mussels? Do the bacteria also kill native Mussels? Would it be worth the risk to still introduce them to our great lakes, knowing they might eradicate native Mussels, with the understanding that we can reintroduce native species once the Zebra and Quaggas have been killed off? I am 100% sure there are inland lakes that host native Mussels, and haven't been invaded by Zebra and Quagga Mussels, yet. 

I have believed for many years that finding a way to halt the invasion of the Mussels is critical to the continued success of the fisheries we all love so much. Every year I become more convinced of it. It boggles my mind that nothing has been done to attack that problem in the 20+ years they have been here. Mussels are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. You can't fix a broken leg with a band-aid.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Fishndude said:


> Part of the problem is that Alewives are not the only forage fish whose numbers have declined significantly. Some shallow-water forage fish are doing well in lake Huron (Emerald Shiners are one example), but Salmon and Steelhead don't typically live where a lot of the baitfish in the lakes live. But Alewives live exactly where the Salmon and Trout like to be. Salmon and large Trout were the perfect solution to the Alewife problem in our lakes in the 1960's. The Mussels have changed that demographic enormously - and are continuing to change it. Lake Michigan is just more fertile than lake Huron, and hasn't been affected to the same degree - YET. Huron is more sterile because it is "downstream" of lakes Michigan and Superior, and Superior is a LOT more sterile than any of the other great lakes.
> 
> I would advocate a significant reduction in stocking of King Salmon, and increases in Steelhead and Brown Trout stocking. I would even be on board with a complete moratorium in Salmon stocking for a couple years, to see what nature is doing on its own.
> 
> ...


With the exception of the part about a complete halt of salmon stocking, I agree with the rest of that. 

I guess what baffles me is that--if they can figure out how to put poison into a sand so that it gets down and kills the lamprey, how can someone not figure out how to poison the mussels? Even if you only kill 15 to 20% if the mussels, that's 20% less that are filtering out the bottom of the food chain. Make the shipping industry pay for it since they're the ones responsible for this mess. 

Seperate item: How is it I should accept another reduction in king plants when they're taking "excess" coho and just dumping them in where ever? Coho eat ales too. Lets use Grand Haven as an example, you're gonna chop from there again, but keep planting a bunch of expensive coho in the hope that five actually make it to Lansing? They just dumped 100K of extra coho into the Rogue River and then turn around and expect me to jump up and down in support of another chinook cut. 

I get it...the forage is declining and kings are the big eaters. Whether I like it or not, I've gotta stomach another cut. Fine. But it doesn't sit well with me when at the same time, you're just dumping more coho right in and they're one of the most expensive fish to raise. Hey, we're gonna chop kings, but here's some more coho for ya! *&^% Coho. 

The state of the lake and the science points to another cut. Got it...can't argue with science. Unfortuneatly, the only option out of the four that is even remotely tolerable is the first one. If only for the fact that once they cut, they leave it alone for five years. 

So, I get the point, I get the science, I get all that--I just think the options suck. Which is why I presented my own option in the survey: cut kings 20%, coho 80%, don't touch steelhead, leave it alone for five years.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> I would advocate a significant reduction in stocking of King Salmon, and increases in Steelhead and Brown Trout stocking. I would even be on board with a complete moratorium in Salmon stocking for a couple years, to see what nature is doing on its own.


As far as a complete moratorium in salmon stocking, I thought Jay had mentioned in the other threat under the Cold Water and Species forum that according to the computer model, a complete cessation of salmon stocking would not help alewives rebound significantly more than a 50% cut. I could be wrong about what I read though. I'm pretty sure they base that stuff on mathematical formulas, and there isn't always a linear relationship between stocking cuts and alewive population growth. 

As far as cutting salmon and increasing other species, we still have to remember that all of the forage species in the lake are low. Not just alewives, but also bloaters, sculpin, rainbow smelt, perch, gobies and so on. Increasing steelhead or browns or any other predatorial species, while it may temporarily fill in the gap of the salmon cuts (which would be nice), would probably still work toward decreasing the overall level of forage out in the lake. Sucks. 

The lake is simply predator heavy.


----------



## Multispeciestamer (Jan 27, 2010)

riverbob said:


> I agree, besides i think they make poor table fair


 Yes cutting the native lake trout that eat gobies and are making a comeback makes a whole lot of sense, not.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Lake Huron has taught us a lot about the Great Lakes food webn, from microscopic organisms on up to alewives and salmon. When alewife numbers crashed there, so did salmon numbers. Cutting salmon stocking in Lake Huron has not had much if any impact on alewife numbers there. Cutting salmon stocking on Lake Michigan now may look good on paper and may make some people "feel good about doing something", but if the food chain is changing there and alewife populations are not doing well, cutting the number of salmon will not have much impact on the future of the forage biomass. If the alewife population crashes then so will the salmon fisheries.


That says it all right here.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

REG said:


> That says it all right here.


What do you think it says? I could read it as something totally different...maybe, who knows?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

I have seen some really good comments about cutting some species but maintaining steelhead. 

In options 3 and 4, we could figure out a species equivalent so that we could reduce chinook by 30% and just coho or brown trout and leave steelhead the same.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Jay Wesley said:


> I have seen some really good comments about cutting some species but maintaining steelhead.
> 
> In options 3 and 4, we could figure out a species equivalent so that we could reduce chinook by 30% and just coho or brown trout and leave steelhead the same.


That's the best alternative I've heard yet. Myself personally, I wouldn't even blink an eye if there was a 30% chinook cut and the rest was made up by chopping coho. The thing that turned me off from options 3 and 4 in the survey was the "S" word being mentioned as a possible cut. :lol:


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> What do you think it says? I could read it as something totally different...maybe, who knows?


It means we very well may have little to no control in the bigger picture of how the alewife/chinook connection plays out. In the whole scheme of things, using a finite analysis model to predict natural events in my mind must be taken in context of uncertainty. Thus, in the other thread, Jay's analogy to predicting the weather says it perfectly. 

One of the more senior gentlemen in one of the clubs I belong to continually makes the point of his dislike for naturally reproduced chinook, despite any advantages to the contrary. From his perspective, it's about the loss of control of the population of salmon, pretty much the "Genie's out of the bottle" phenomena. If you consider looking at Lake's Huron and Michigan as one ecosystem, you can't deny his point when you consider an estimated 13 to 18 million alewife loving chinook smolts being funneled into the combined systems. So, from the point that Trophy Specialist was making here, which I would agree, it's hard to rub my hands together and say Mission Accomplished just by cutting out a few million extra mouths that the collective "we" add into the system every year.

Look, for a greater part of the last 2 and a half decades, we've lived through a number of catastrophies that were to result in extremely dire circumstances for the Lake Michigan fishery....BKD, thiamine deficiciencies, VHS, alewife crashes......Remember seeing a modeling project back in the early 90's that we shouldn't have any alewifes left in the lake at all. But yet, over that time and worries, we've had some pretty awesome years despite all of these concerns. Through all of this, one develops a certain amount of temperance that guards against the sky falling mentality everytime one of these issues develops, and hopefully, from my perspective, the system will keep plugging along.

However, this time, for lack of a better description, it feels different. Perhaps it's seeing what happened in Lake Huron that fuels the concern. Thus, in my mind, I'll just enjoy what we have today, because who knows?


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

REG said:


> It means we very well may have little to no control in the bigger picture of how the alewife/chinook connection plays out. In the whole scheme of things, using a finite analysis model to predict natural events in my mind must be taken in context of uncertainty. Thus, in the other thread, Jay's analogy to predicting the weather says it perfectly.
> 
> One of the more senior gentlemen in one of the clubs I belong to continually makes the point of his dislike for naturally reproduced chinook, despite any advantages to the contrary. From his perspective, it's about the loss of control of the population of salmon, pretty much the "Genie's out of the bottle" phenomena. If you consider looking at Lake's Huron and Michigan as one ecosystem, you can't deny his point when you consider an estimated 13 to 18 million alewife loving chinook smolts being funneled into the combined systems. So, from the point that Trophy Specialist was making here, which I would agree, it's hard to rub my hands together and say Mission Accomplished just by cutting out a few million extra mouths that the collective "we" add into the system every year.
> 
> ...


Well, there you go...that's pretty much my exact thoughts on this, including a reference to the "sky falling," which is a comment I've used many times. 

I've accepted that another cut is coming. I don't like it, but I've accepted it. My personal opinion is this: those red flags have been there for over 10 years now. The salmon may be living off one year class of ales now, but this isn't the first time. I can recall at least three different times where it was one year class making up the forage and then, another year class finally came along and took its place. Look at when the fish were on the smaller side over here--they were still healthy and perfectly proportianate for their size. Those aren't my words, that come from a biologist. 

I'm *not* faulting the biologists here. They're going to do what they think is right based on the information in front of them. However, we've been hearing about this ale catastrophe for many years and yet the fishery remains fantastic. That's why it's hard for me to jump up and down in support of another cut. Like I said, I've accepted it and I don't fault the biologists for doing their job, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna be all smiles about it.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Yeah, I guess we are both

*SLAVES TO THE ALEWIFE:lol::lol::lol::lol:*

You know, you get to our age and you've likely been called everything in the book. But I have to say, this one's new on me.


----------



## limpinglogan (Sep 23, 2009)

Why can't they stock alewives? Or other bait fish like rainbow smelt?


----------

