# DNR answers questions about status of Lake Michigan fishery



## kingfisher 11

CHASINEYES said:


> Further down the sewer overflow and agriculture runoff line.


The Saginaw River systems help that out. Everytime we have a big rain the river gets a new flush.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Erie is also shallower, more sunlight hitting he bottom and fueling the food chain. Walk the beach on Lake Michigan and it's nothing but sand. Erie (and Saginaw Bay and the like) it's weeds and minnows and such.

Ontario benefits from Erie's run off.

As much as I like seeing all the work done to clean up Lake Macatawa, I recall pinnin size 5 J plugs 3' off the cannonball to help the fish find them. Last summer in the dark off Ludington we set a moonshine 40' down and could see it no issue.


----------



## RedM2

slightofhand said:


> The most logical and financially responsible move would be to completely eliminate planting of lake trout ( in southern rehabilitated areas) based on all the variables. The inevitable is being delayed (lake trout crashing remaining alewife stocks and potentially crashing Round Goby stocks) and I believe it would be wise to focus on protecting all baitfish stocks that support ALL gamefish in the lake (walleye, salmon, trout, steelhead, perch, browns, bass, etc). Everything eats alewife. The lake cannot survive on Round Goby alone as the sole baitfish stock.
> 
> Let's be real here...the dominant and most relevant game-fish in Lake Michigan and most widely pursued by anglers and tourists is the Chinook Salmon.
> 
> The pendulum has swung the other way....Chinook salmon are all but gone and there are WAY too many Lake Trout. A nice even balance would be great. How about zero lake trout stocking and zero chinook stocking and see who makes it?


We don't have control of the lake trout plants and we won't have control of them until the Feds give up their interest in returning lake trout to their glory days. My comments are based on the idea the lake trout plants will not stop because we don't have the power to stop them. If we could stop them, then everything I said goes out the window and we should adopt a plan similar to what you've outlined above...that doesn't appear to be a possibility any time soon. So, yes I do believe what I've said is the most logical and financially responsible thing to do.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Time to do what we did in the 1960"s fertilize the lakes. It worked well for the alewives back then. I don't recall there being as many lake trout then either.


----------



## swampbuck

Robert Holmes said:


> Time to do what we did in the 1960"s fertilize the lakes. It worked well for the alewives back then. I don't recall there being as many lake trout then either.


Yea...that what we need to do, Resume dumping billions of gallons of **** in Lake Michigan to feed the invasive species...Wow

Maybe if we pump enough in there we can have glow in the dark salmon !

......you would cause an explosion of mussel numbers, not alewives.


----------



## o_mykiss

Robert Holmes said:


> Time to do what we did in the 1960"s fertilize the lakes. It worked well for the alewives back then. I don't recall there being as many lake trout then either.


I'm pretty sure that in the 60s, the alewives were like 80 or 90% of the fish biomass in the lake, because lake trout (the only real consumer of alewive) had been decimated by sea lampreys and overfishing

Sure, there were a lot more nutrients available because the Clean Water Act hadn't been passed, but the real reason there were more nutrients is because there weren't 950 trillion mussels sucking all the nutrients out of the system

And there were tons of alewives because there was a lot of food for them and no predators

Besides, even if we did fertilize the lake, we'd just be fertilizing the mussels anyways right?


----------



## Fishndude

o_mykiss said:


> I'm pretty sure that in the 60s, the alewives were like 80 or 90% of the fish biomass in the lake, because lake trout (the only real consumer of alewive) had been decimated by sea lampreys and overfishing
> 
> Sure, there were a lot more nutrients available because the Clean Water Act hadn't been passed, but the real reason there were more nutrients is because there weren't 950 trillion mussels sucking all the nutrients out of the system
> 
> And there were tons of alewives because there was a lot of food for them and no predators
> 
> *Besides, even if we did fertilize the lake, we'd just be fertilizing the mussels anyways right?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> That is exactly correct. It is amazing that, after all the discussion about this, which started in earnest when lake Huron crashed (11 years ago), an awful lot of people either choose not to see what is obvious, or simply do not understand the problem - despite it being stated, and supported, ad nauseum. This isn't BKD. It isn't something anyone has a solution for, or that would have been implemented on lake Huron. It is just.......the end of King Salmon fishing in lake Michigan, as we have known it for 40 years. Very sad, but true.
> 
> On the plus side, when they are very few Kings returning to rivers, there won't be enough to attract hordes of anglers. That means that, anywhere that has decent natural reproduction may get halfway decent pushes of fish, and not many people will pursue them. Also, we can still go to lake Ontario for at least a few more years, and catch Kings there. They are getting smaller every year, but they still exist in good numbers. Heck, I may go there just to get fresh King eggs every fall, for Steelhead bait. And for the road trips. LOL.


----------



## Sparky23

So Jay are you saying that the state is fine with the feds continuing to destroy the lake by putting more lake trout in that eat more ales than anything else? All i have heard is we were against it but couldnt do anything about it. And how are you judging the amount of lakers out there and what they are eating? And where is all this antural reproduction going on? Sure isnt in the rivers.


----------



## RS1983

So we put salmon in the lake to eat the alewives now what eats mussells? There has to be some way to limit their population


----------



## Robert Holmes

RS1983 said:


> So we put salmon in the lake to eat the alewives now what eats mussells? There has to be some way to limit their population


Tannic Acid they don't like it. You will not find them near any of the UP river mouths. Why? I am thinking that it is the tannic acid in the rivers.


----------



## toto

How do you put tannic acid into the Great Lakes, enough at least to do any good. Its' hard to get your head around just how much water we are talking about here. I was also wondering, the other great lakes states, and Michigan, have an agreement as to how many predator fish they will stock. Can't remember the numbers now, but it was a lot. My question to that is, are the other states, Wisconsin for example, cutting back on their stocking too? Wouldn't seem to make much sense to me if only Michigan were lowering the stocking rates, if the others aren't as well.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Sparky23 said:


> So Jay are you saying that the state is fine with the feds continuing to destroy the lake by putting more lake trout in that eat more ales than anything else? All i have heard is we were against it but couldnt do anything about it. And how are you judging the amount of lakers out there and what they are eating? And where is all this antural reproduction going on? Sure isnt in the rivers.


The state is fine with lake trout rehabilitation as they are biologically engineered to survive in the Great Lakes. They spawn on reefs in the lake mostly. Historically there may have been river spawners. We are managing for resilience. Yes. We hear you loud and clear that you want mostly Chinook. If the system is changing too fast and won't support it, we need a diverse fish community that will continue to support a fishery. Yes. Lake trout do eat alewife but don't depend on them. Each lake trout eats the same amount of alewife as about 2.4 Chinook, and they can survive on no alewife. Maintaining predator and prey balance is the key. We do have some options to reduce other species to do that. Lake trout can be in the mix. We just need to follow interstate and tribal agreements such as the rehab strategy and consent decree.


----------



## o_mykiss

Lake Michigan's Volume, per wikipedia:

1,180 cubic miles

1,180 cubic miles of water

By my math (by which I mean google's unit converter) that comes out to 

= 1,299,318,233,965,804.5 U.S. gallons of water, which is 1.3 quadrillion gallons. 

A quadrillion I believe is one thousand billion



All 4 states manage the lake cooperatively and all agreed to the stocking cuts


----------



## Jay Wesley

If you were referring to chinook natural reproduction, then it was in the rivers. Prior to the 2013 stocking reduction, over 55% of the chinook in the lake were natural. The wild chinook survival in 2013 and 2014 was a bust due to weather and stream conditions and due to no small prey items. Therefore, the population of chinook is down 75%. To me, this is the best chance we have for alewife to recover even though we could have never been able to predict the low natural recruitment when the stocking reduction was made.


----------



## Jay Wesley

For stability and resilience of the Great Lakes fishery. We need all this passion to stop invasive species. We need to disconnect the Great Lakes. Employees of the state can not advocate. You know how invasives got here. Close the door!


----------



## RedM2

Jay Wesley said:


> The state is fine with lake trout rehabilitation as they are biologically engineered to survive in the Great Lakes. They spawn on reefs in the lake mostly. Historically there may have been river spawners. We are managing for resilience. Yes. We hear you loud and clear that you want mostly Chinook. If the system is changing too fast and won't support it, we need a diverse fish community that will continue to support a fishery...


Does the DNR honestly believe lake trout in large numbers will be part of the solution to provide a fishery that the _majority_ (besides the tribes) will enjoy? If they do, I suspect there will be a lot of people out of a job...unfortunately. :-/


----------



## fisheater

My question is in regard to alewive numbers. Last winter I read that this year would be critical to the alewive population. I have been waiting to see this survey. Is it already out, or is it yet to be released? I hope I am not rehashing old news.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Acoustic and trawl surveys are conducted in the fall. Preliminary reports are that bloater and yellow perch year classes were good and alewife was average. Data is being analyzed now for whole lake prey biomass estimates. We typically see the reports come out in March.


----------



## Jay Wesley

RedM2 said:


> Does the DNR honestly believe lake trout in large numbers will be part of the solution to provide a fishery that the _majority_ (besides the tribes) will enjoy? If they do, I suspect there will be a lot of people out of a job...unfortunately. :-/


If we were in complete control of the lake, we would manage for a diverse fishery with chinook as the key predator. This is why we have tried to preserve some alewife since the 1990s. The ecosystem as it is today is favoring lake trout. We are actually stocking more chinook in Lake Huron (at least Michigan is) than Lake Michigan, and lake trout and walleye took over Huron once alewife were out of the picture. The quickest way for us to make a complete switch to lake trout is stock more chinook until alewife are gone. At least that is what we learned in Lake Huron. Alewife are bad for lake trout, they can't reproduce due to low vitamin b from an alewife diet. Gobies are vitamin b pills. Gobies make up the majority of the prey base.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Jay Wesley said:


> Acoustic and trawl surveys are conducted in the fall. Preliminary reports are that bloater and yellow perch year classes were good and alewife was average. Data is being analyzed now for whole lake prey biomass estimates. We typically see the reports come out in March.


I've seen a large number of tiny alewife at Grand Haven this fall. Here's hoping for the best. I'm not sure that Kings are the most popular fish on the lakes, I'm more of a steelhead guy myself. I like the occasional switch-up with Salmon and Browns.

Jay I really appreciate the clarity that you bring to these pages, and I suspect that you know that most of the readers here have little appreciation for the difference between Federal and State efforts and the type of political effort that would go into modifying the Laker issue.


----------



## Lou is Blue

o_mykiss said:


> i've wondered that too. part of it is the massive number of browns they stock, which is I think 200,000 more than Michigan stocks. could be a strain thing or a size at stocking thing. But I think it is a habitat thing. The mass marking program showed that stocked kings survive better on that side of the lake, so maybe it is a food/environment issue, more upwelling bringing nutrients up, concentrated bait, etc


Gizzards all winter alewife all summer?


----------



## Jay Wesley

Habitat and temperature. Michigan Browns surviving better last few years because of cooler lake temperatures.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Jay Wesley said:


> Habitat and temperature. Michigan Browns surviving better last few years because of cooler lake temperatures.


What type of Habitat does that area provide that is conducive to very successful Brown trout numbers and growth? I always thought it might actually have something to do with the runoff that a big city like Milwaukee dumps into the lake. I would imagine that helps to feed bait in that area. We just don't have large industrial cities along Michigan's shoreline on that lake.
That's what I was imagining as a factor, maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks for the response Jay.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

There's been great fishingfor Brown's over there for many years. I''ve been going since 2005.

More plants, more structure, mire Cold water closer to shore so they stick around, bait (shad) in the harbors all winter.

Ontario has an all summer Brown fishery. Some tournaments limit or ban Brown's since if the king fishing is slow they can target and expect to catch double digit Brown's.


----------



## Southsider1

Jay Wesley said:


> If we were in complete control of the lake, we would manage for a diverse fishery with chinook as the key predator. This is why we have tried to preserve some alewife since the 1990s. The ecosystem as it is today is favoring lake trout. We are actually stocking more chinook in Lake Huron (at least Michigan is) than Lake Michigan, and lake trout and walleye took over Huron once alewife were out of the picture. The quickest way for us to make a complete switch to lake trout is stock more chinook until alewife are gone. At least that is what we learned in Lake Huron. Alewife are bad for lake trout, they can't reproduce due to low vitamin b from an alewife diet. Gobies are vitamin b pills. Gobies make up the majority of the prey base.


Jay, 

All due respect but how many Lakers have you personally seen filled with Gobies? I can count on two hands how many Gobies I have seen in lakers but I routinely see their stomachs packed with alewives. I'm an open the cooler type of guy regarding Great Lakes fishing and the Internet meaning I only believe it when I see it. I think the MDNR should have the creel people who check for tags cut open some of these lakers and take pictures of these stomachs full of gobies and post them on the MDNR website as evidence of the goby being the primary food source. This should be easy if they are the primary source and gobies greatly outnumber ales. This would go along way for me and I'm sure others who only see stomachs full of ales to prove that this is fact instead of theory.


----------



## Kisutch

SEEFORELLEN BROWN TROUT. WE DONT PLANT THEM ANYMORE. THE WISCONSIN BIOLOGIST THAT HEADS THEIR LAKE BROWN PROGRAM PERSONALLY TOLD ME THEY ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THEIR TROPHY BROWN TROUT PROGRAM. BY THE WAY HOW IS THE STURGEON RIVER STRAIN DOING.


----------



## Kisutch

LETS GET RID OF A FISH THAT HITS LIKE A TON OF BRICKS, JUMPS AT WILL, AND CAN ATTAIN WEIGHTS OF 40 PLUS POUNDS. SOUNDS LIKE A NO BRAINER. OH. THEN REPLACE IT WITH A TOTALLY UNPROVEN FISH FROM AN INLAND STREAM BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE THE ANSWER. PLEASE GO TO WISCONSIN GET SOME EGGS AND START PLANTING THIS STRAIN AGAIN. BOY OH BOY DO I MISS THOSE FISH.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Southsider1 said:


> Jay,
> 
> All due respect but how many Lakers have you personally seen filled with Gobies? I can count on two hands how many Gobies I have seen in lakers but I routinely see their stomachs packed with alewives. I'm an open the cooler type of guy regarding Great Lakes fishing and the Internet meaning I only believe it when I see it. I think the MDNR should have the creel people who check for tags cut open some of these lakers and take pictures of these stomachs full of gobies and post them on the MDNR website as evidence of the goby being the primary food source. This should be easy if they are the primary source and gobies greatly outnumber ales. This would go along way for me and I'm sure others who only see stomachs full of ales to prove that this is fact instead of theory.


Our research and assessment biologists catch several species in nets and conduct diet analysis on them. Lake trout do eat gobies and a lot of them compared to chinooks. Do lakers eat alewife? Absolutely! If you are fishing near bait like alewife, I am sure most of the predators that you catch will have alewife. It is a big lake out there and the bait and fish diets are not always the same in the middle of the lake compared to where most people fish, which is from shore and out 7 miles or so.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Kisutch said:


> LETS GET RID OF A FISH THAT HITS LIKE A TON OF BRICKS, JUMPS AT WILL, AND CAN ATTAIN WEIGHTS OF 40 PLUS POUNDS. SOUNDS LIKE A NO BRAINER. OH. THEN REPLACE IT WITH A TOTALLY UNPROVEN FISH FROM AN INLAND STREAM BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE THE ANSWER. PLEASE GO TO WISCONSIN GET SOME EGGS AND START PLANTING THIS STRAIN AGAIN. BOY OH BOY DO I MISS THOSE FISH.


Me too. Many 15 plus pound browns used to be caught in the northern part of the thumb. A few 20 -25 lbers too. Not that long ago, when seeforellens were planted. They cleaned up on Gobies too btw.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Lakers in the spring (now that we can target them in the spring, thanks to the DNR for that!) when we catch them in shallow water are packed with gobies. Find an area with a rock bottom in 30-50' in April, run some brown hot and tots in the bottom 10', and fill the cooler. In cold water sometimes they fight pretty well. For a laker.


----------



## o_mykiss

For what its worth, Wisconsin since 2000 has planted an average of 272,000 seeforellens per year and an average of 452,000 wild rose strain browns per year. Plus an average of 172,000 "SC" strain, whatever that stands for. Per the GLFC stocking database


----------



## RS1983

For the DNR guys on here, what are the chances of getting a replacement fish for the kings started in Lake Michigan? Ive heard some talk about Atlantic Salmon. What about Pinks? For all the browns that are stocked in the lake, why do they not run up the rivers to spawn like their european cousins (I know some do run the rivers),


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Jay, Thanks for putting up with all the armchair fisheries biologists....including myself. I think the open discussion is very helpful.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Well the key will be to match prey availability with the appropriate predators and then get some public feedback on what species you would prefer. I would say dumping more predators in the lake may be risky given that it is predator heavy right now. It will probably come down to what will we stock less of to add a new species. Most of our trout and salmon growth is going down, so we need to be careful. Species that can target more abundant prey like gobies would be preferable. Chinook salmon filled a specific niche to eat alewives. In the absence of alewife, there is not the same niche to fill. New species for consideration have to fill a new niche, which is something that will stay more bottom oriented because the productivity is on the bottom.

DNR is working on a Management Plan for Lake Michigan that will have plenty of opportunity to engage with the public. Hopefully, everyone that has an opinion will help us define what the Lake Michigan fishery should look like given its productive capabilities. We hope to have several meetings, webinars, and surveys to get your opinion.


----------



## CHASINEYES

Jay Wesley said:


> Well the key will be to match prey availability with the appropriate predators and then get some public feedback on what species you would prefer. I would say dumping more predators in the lake may be risky given that it is predator heavy right now. It will probably come down to what will we stock less of to add a new species. Most of our trout and salmon growth is going down, so we need to be careful. Species that can target more abundant prey like gobies would be preferable. Chinook salmon filled a specific niche to eat alewives. In the absence of alewife, there is not the same niche to fill. New species for consideration have to fill a new niche, which is something that will stay more bottom oriented because the productivity is on the bottom.
> 
> DNR is working on a Management Plan for Lake Michigan that will have plenty of opportunity to engage with the public. Hopefully, everyone that has an opinion will help us define what the Lake Michigan fishery should look like given its productive capabilities. We hope to have several meetings, webinars, and surveys to get your opinion.


I like the surveys. Gives everyone a chance to take part or (if you will) vote for their desired outcome. I do feel more could be done to expose more sportsmen to ongoing surveys. Not sure how, but I almost missed the northern pike survey. I happen to stumble upon it just before it was taken offline. The bass survey was much more known for some reason. Maybe the press got avoid of that one.


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

Jay Wesley said:


> Our research and assessment biologists catch several species in nets and conduct diet analysis on them. Lake trout do eat gobies and a lot of them compared to chinooks. Do lakers eat alewife? Absolutely! If you are fishing near bait like alewife, I am sure most of the predators that you catch will have alewife. It is a big lake out there and the bait and fish diets are not always the same in the middle of the lake compared to where most people fish, which is from shore and out 7 miles or so.



This makes a lot of sense to me, everyone on this thread has been talking about lakers and how they are packed with ales but it is clear they are fishing bait balls of ales and subsequently the fish they are catching are full of ales. I fish the GTBs from ice out through the fall for other species not protected. For the lakers I catch 90% of their stomach contain alewives. Very rarely, unless the ales are shallow do I ever see ales in there stomachs, it's all gobies. FYI other than the spring when we fish shallow we are typically jigging bottom in 100 or so feet of water. Another interesting observation was I caught a laker with a half dozen quaggas in his gut. I speculate they are accidentally ingested while rooting for gobies. Gobies and mussels are so thick around us if you bounce bottom you will catch gobies or quaggas very often. My two cents.


----------



## Sparky23

Jay you just said we shouldnt be dumping more preditors in but you continue you dump in the lakers, Have you done a study on what percentage of lakers prefer gobies other than in winter months? They quit stocking sea forlin or however its spelled because of difficulty in raising or at least thats what i have heard, Wis. continues it and continues to have success, we started to seeing amazing results and then stopped another brilliant move.OUtdoor2dacore, you wont find as many ales in lakers in GTB because there isnt as many ales, A reason that the average sie is smaller


----------



## plugger

I would be thrilled with a solid walleye and perch fishery.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

plugger said:


> I would be thrilled with a solid walleye and perch fishery.


I respect this opinion that comes from a lot of guys, but the great lakes should have a much better fishery than just some perch and walleye. I must be spoiled living next to Lake St. Clair, but man perch and walleye don't excite like the other sportfish. I know they taste better than most though.


----------



## RS1983

Salmonous Maximus said:


> I respect this opinion that comes from a lot of guys, but the great lakes should have a much better fishery than just some perch and walleye. I must be spoiled living next to Lake St. Clair, but man perch and walleye don't excite like the other sportfish. I know they taste better than most though.


That's exactly it. Lake michigan wouldn't be the same without some reel screaming kind of fish. As much as I like perch and walleye I kinda figure lake Erie is more conducive for that kind of fishing than eastern lake michigan which is more sterile and gets deep very fast. Question for Jay: other than lake trout, are there any fish that would be able to survive with less alewife in the lake? In your opinion what would be a good fish to stock?


----------



## Southsider1

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Lakers in the spring (now that we can target them in the spring, thanks to the DNR for that!) when we catch them in shallow water are packed with gobies. Find an area with a rock bottom in 30-50' in April, run some brown hot and tots in the bottom 10', and fill the cooler. In cold water sometimes they fight pretty well. For a laker.


Please take a break from those brown limits and fill that cooler with lakers this spring once. take a pic with them filled with gobies and post it. I'm not saying it's not true, I just rarely see gobies unless I'm perch fishing -and then I see them too often!! I caught probably 20 lakers in South Haven in May this year and most of the stomachs were empty or had ales. Honestly I saw more baby perch this year in Kings stomachs than I ever have. Not sure if that's a fluke or what.


----------



## o_mykiss

I'll be happy to post pics of lakers with gobies this spring. From ice-out until late April to early May that's ALL that is in their stomach, and they are packed full. At least in Indiana and southern MI where I do all my trout fishing


----------



## jpmarko

I understand the predator-prey imbalance and that the future of the king fishery will depend on resolving the imbalance and establishing a solid baitfish population. Of course, the underlying problem is the mussels and there isn't much the DNR or anyone can do about that. I support them in the current stocking cuts in hopes that the alewives will rebound.

I like the idea of a diverse fishery. What I'm not happy about is the idea of a lake trout dominated fishery. That seems to be what this is becoming. If I can't have kings, then give me more steelhead, or coho, or browns, or atlantics. Lake trout are okay as a bycatch. I consider it a waste of my time and money when I go out on the lake in search of salmon or steelhead and all I can ever find are lake trout and more lake trout. I don't consider that a diverse or even a good fishery. I know there is a treaty, but I couldn't care less about that. It needs to be scrapped. Especially considering how many alewives the lake trout eat.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Sparky23 said:


> Jay you just said we shouldnt be dumping more preditors in but you continue you dump in the lakers, Have you done a study on what percentage of lakers prefer gobies other than in winter months? They quit stocking sea forlin or however its spelled because of difficulty in raising or at least thats what i have heard, Wis. continues it and continues to have success, we started to seeing amazing results and then stopped another brilliant move.OUtdoor2dacore, you wont find as many ales in lakers in GTB because there isnt as many ales, A reason that the average sie is smaller


Stocking has been very consistent the past 10 years for most species, and the states agreed to freeze the predator stocking to 2012 levels. My point was that we cannot just add more predators to the system. We have to reduce a species to add more of or another species. Lake trout would be part of that trade as long as we follow agreed upon rehabilitation strategy and goals and the 2000 Consent Decree. Seeforellen had issues in our hatcheries possibly due to genetics/breeding. We made a move to bring in wild Michigan strains from Gilchrist Creek and Sturgeon River to replace them.


----------



## Jay Wesley

RS1983 said:


> That's exactly it. Lake michigan wouldn't be the same without some reel screaming kind of fish. As much as I like perch and walleye I kinda figure lake Erie is more conducive for that kind of fishing than eastern lake michigan which is more sterile and gets deep very fast. Question for Jay: other than lake trout, are there any fish that would be able to survive with less alewife in the lake? In your opinion what would be a good fish to stock?


Considering what is in production right now, that would be brown trout and steelhead. Both do well when alewife are around but they will both search for other prey items as well. We are still experimenting with Atlantics in Lake Huron, so will have to let that experiment play out. Cisco seem to be doing better or at least expanding its population under this new ecosystem. Nearshore - smallmouth bass, yellow perch and walleye.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

We had a Brown a few springs ago with a perch, smelt, ale, three shiners, and two gobies in it. All about 3". Then it hit a j-11 rapala.

About the gobies in the Lakers, the ones I got in So Ha this spring were empty. But a few years ago when we were catching 15-20 a trip in March (and it was 80!) We were fishing gravel and all the fish were full of gobies.


----------



## RedM2

jpmarko said:


> I understand the predator-prey imbalance and that the future of the king fishery will depend on resolving the imbalance and establishing a solid baitfish population. Of course, the underlying problem is the mussels and there isn't much the DNR or anyone can do about that. I support them in the current stocking cuts in hopes that the alewives will rebound.
> 
> I like the idea of a diverse fishery. What I'm not happy about is the idea of a lake trout dominated fishery. That seems to be what this is becoming. If I can't have kings, then give me more steelhead, or coho, or browns, or atlantics. Lake trout are okay as a bycatch. I consider it a waste of my time and money when I go out on the lake in search of salmon or steelhead and all I can ever find are lake trout and more lake trout. I don't consider that a diverse or even a good fishery. I know there is a treaty, but I couldn't care less about that. It needs to be scrapped. Especially considering how many alewives the lake trout eat.


I think it's safe to say the majority of fishermen have the same view.


----------



## RedM2

Jay Wesley said:


> Lake trout would be part of that trade as long as we follow agreed upon rehabilitation strategy and goals and the 2000 Consent Decree.


This will be the death of a quality fishery and the loss of many jobs if the federal and state governments continue to pander to tribes...


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Jay Wesley said:


> We have to reduce a species to add more of or another species. Lake trout would be part of that trade as long as we follow agreed upon rehabilitation strategy and goals and the 2000 Consent Decree.


According to the Michigan.gov website, this treaty can be ammended. Would this horribly dire time for the fishery not satisfy grounds for an ammendment?

From Michigan.gov description of the 2000 Consent Decree-
*When conditions in the lakes warrant a change from the management strategy that was agreed upon in the year 2000, the Decree can be amended by consensus among the parties.*

Obviously things have changed 180 degrees since the year 2000.
This flaming pile of garbage treaty needs to be ammended.


----------



## Jay Wesley

The treaty needs to be renegotiated by 2020. Getting consensus would be a challenge. I believe there is room to reduce stocking outside the treaty area if the other states agree and we follow the rehab goals.


----------



## RS1983

RedM2 said:


> This will be the death of a quality fishery and the loss of many jobs if the federal and state governments continue to pander to tribes...


And it becomes especially difficult to tolerate when you consider how few tribal members actually participate in commercial fishing. I mean we are only talking about dozens of people here. The vast majority of any given tribe does not participate in this activity. To let a handful of people direct the management of a lake that affects millions of sportsman in four states is frigging ridiculous. But at the end of the day, a treaty is law


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

RS1983 said:


> But at the end of the day, a treaty is law


And could and Should be ammended. I know it would take work, but anyone with working eyes can see this fishery is broken.

I really don't understand the treaty, and I won't pretend to. If it is just set in place to apease tribal fisherman so they can net lakers and whitefish to no end then it really is a pitty. Is there a way to get the treaty revoked? In 2000, I'm sure it didn't seem like a big deal with the massive amount of bait swimming in the lake. If the predator/prey balance is largely out of balance, then the treaty should be amended to reflect that. If we have only 10 percent of the prey biomass compared to the year 2000, then we should only plant 10 percent of the Lakers that were originally planned. Anyone who thinks this treaty should not be changed or canceled to reflect the times is flat out wrong.
Why do we as sportsman have to deal with the consequences of the current conditions of the lakes ecosystem and the people that benefit from this ridiculous treaty don't have to feel one bit of the pain?


----------



## toto

CHASINEYES said:


> I like the surveys. Gives everyone a chance to take part or (if you will) vote for their desired outcome. I do feel more could be done to expose more sportsmen to ongoing surveys. Not sure how, but I almost missed the northern pike survey. I happen to stumble upon it just before it was taken offline. The bass survey was much more known for some reason. Maybe the press got avoid of that one.


Surveys are fine IF the ones who are supposed to look at them, do indeed look at them with open eyes, and not have tunnel vision. What no one knows, including Jay, is what is the DNR's real motive in some cases, such as we've see in some cases.obvious answer is use the biological evidence that is there. My opinion, nor anyone one of us who have opinions, matters. It is the biologists such as Jay, Mark Tonello et al who are the experts. When you hear of stories of guys catching salmon that have heads of a 20+ pounder, yet this fish weighs on 12 or so, then you have to start to take the bio's at their words. Let's give the biological evidence it's due and see where it takes us. The tribal agreement isn't the problem, all by itself, it's a combination of factors, and one has to start somewhere. I've never believed it is the DNR's responsibility to worry about the economy of a local community, or a person's business, there ONLY concern is the advocacy of the fish and wildlife, period.

As for the Treaty, it isn't going away, that's a federal deal. If it could be negotiated with the concern of everyone affected considered, perhaps we can fix that part of the problem, it it's a problem at all. I don't think it should have been allowed to let the fed's decide on what gets planted in the Great Lakes. As far as I know, the waters of the Great Lakes are "owned" by the states themselves. To allow the feds to use our waters, and use our resources, for the good or the bad, in an effort to appease the tribes, that is wrong.


----------



## Lou is Blue

toto said:


> Surveys are fine IF the ones who are supposed to look at them, do indeed look at them with open eyes, and not have tunnel vision. What no one knows, including Jay, is what is the DNR's real motive in some cases, such as we've see in some cases.obvious answer is use the biological evidence that is there. My opinion, nor anyone one of us who have opinions, matters. It is the biologists such as Jay, Mark Tonello et al who are the experts. When you hear of stories of guys catching salmon that have heads of a 20+ pounder, yet this fish weighs on 12 or so, then you have to start to take the bio's at their words. Let's give the biological evidence it's due and see where it takes us. The tribal agreement isn't the problem, all by itself, it's a combination of factors, and one has to start somewhere. I've never believed it is the DNR's responsibility to worry about the economy of a local community, or a person's business, there ONLY concern is the advocacy of the fish and wildlife, period.
> 
> As for the Treaty, it isn't going away, that's a federal deal. If it could be negotiated with the concern of everyone affected considered, perhaps we can fix that part of the problem, it it's a problem at all. I don't think it should have been allowed to let the fed's decide on what gets planted in the Great Lakes. As far as I know, the waters of the Great Lakes are "owned" by the states themselves. To allow the feds to use our waters, and use our resources, for the good or the bad, in an effort to appease the tribes, that is wrong.


Come on Toto, you strike me as the kind of guy that might have had a SGN (Stop Gill Netting) bumper sticker on his car up in Benzie County in the late 70's or early 80's when Judge Fox was ruling on the case, and the Steelheaders had their panties in a bunch; and we all had our asses handed to us. It's been a long time, and I was a college student then; but I ended reading copies of the documents. The judge was right, we left those rights on the table; everything else is simply crying about it. Wishing, hoping, and whining doesn't change it. The Indians have been pretty reasonable despite what's been said here.


----------



## RS1983

Salmonous Maximus said:


> And could and Should be ammended. I know it would take work, but anyone with working eyes can see this fishery is broken.
> 
> I really don't understand the treaty, and I won't pretend to. If it is just set in place to apease tribal fisherman so they can net lakers and whitefish to no end then it really is a pitty. Is there a way to get the treaty revoked? In 2000, I'm sure it didn't seem like a big deal with the massive amount of bait swimming in the lake. If the predator/prey balance is largely out of balance, then the treaty should be amended to reflect that. If we have only 10 percent of the prey biomass compared to the year 2000, then we should only plant 10 percent of the Lakers that were originally planned. Anyone who thinks this treaty should not be changed or canceled to reflect the times is flat out wrong.
> Why do we as sportsman have to deal with the consequences of the current conditions of the lakes ecosystem and the people that benefit from this ridiculous treaty don't have to feel one bit of the pain?


Yeah changing the treaty is easier said than done. The origins of this treaty date back to the mid 1800's when the Feds told the tribes that if they gave up legal rights to the lands of northern michigan they could continue as sovereign governments and hunt and fish as they saw fit. In 1856 the feds didn't give two bits about deer or fish. After about 150 years of the Feds ignoring the treaty the tribes pressed the issue and took it to the S.C.O.T.U.S and won so good luck getting them to give one inch on something they fought so hard to get.


----------



## toto

I am that type of guy, is that a problem??? Gill netting is never a good thing. I have no problems with the Fishing Treaty, it's just that there are people out there who are making more of it than needs to be. There was a point in time when there was one tribal fishery that was a problem, but I think that's been rectified at this point. BTW Blue, you may want to do some research and figure out who's water is the Great Lakes? What I can't figure out is why is it the fed's are doing whatever they want to do with water that isn't under their control, with the exception of keeping it navigable for commerce. But I suspect you, nor anyone is getting my point on that, but it's a side issue anyways, so don't worry about it. The bottom line is, this isn't an issue with the tribes, never did I personally say it was. But I do have one question concerning the op's question, aren't Lake Trout considered as one of the prey species in the Great Lakes? If so, wouldn't that mean they should reduce stocking on those also?


----------



## swampbuck

It should be noted also that it wasn't the tribes who polluted the lake....to the point the alewife population exploded, dooming the native trout species that they were promised.

Face it the alewife/salmon ecosystem should never have existed to begin with. We are experiencing the same feelings they did years before....as a result of the quaggas


----------



## BigWoods Bob

Lou is Blue said:


> The Indians have been pretty reasonable despite what's been said here.


Whether we like it or not, the Treaty will not get changed or canceled-- The Federal Courts have consistently ruled in favor of the Tribes. In Michigan, no doubt due to the hard work done by those who negotiated the Consent Decree, things actually aren't too bad--at least when compared with how bad they could be if the Tribes really wanted to push the issue and hold to the "full extent " of hunting and fishing rights granted by the Treaty of 1836. From what I understand, that could include things such as spearing walleyes on inland lakes, and hunting deer on "any undeveloped" lands within the Treaty area--Public or Private.......


----------



## Corey K

swampbuck said:


> It should be noted also that it wasn't the tribes who polluted the lake....to the point the alewife population exploded, dooming the native trout species that they were promised.
> 
> Face it the alewife/salmon ecosystem should never have existed to begin with. We are experiencing the same feelings they did years before....as a result of the quaggas


Didn't Sea Lamprey's and Commercial fishing doom the Native Lake Trout population, before the Ale's and Salmon?


----------



## RedM2

BigWoods Bob said:


> Whether we like it or not, the Treaty will not get changed or canceled-- The Federal Courts have consistently ruled in favor of the Tribes. In Michigan, no doubt due to the hard work done by those who negotiated the Consent Decree, things actually aren't too bad--at least when compared with how bad they could be if the Tribes really wanted to push the issue and hold to the "full extent " of hunting and fishing rights granted by the Treaty of 1836. From what I understand, that could include things such as spearing walleyes on inland lakes, and hunting deer on "any undeveloped" lands within the Treaty area--Public or Private.......


You'd be surprised what tribal members can do when it comes to fishing and hunting... our DNR can do nothing about them spearing whatever species they want. The most that can be done is to call it into the tribes version of the DNR, which is almost always ignored. They can arrest them for hunting on private land; however, they are to be turned over to the tribal courts upon arrest where the case is typically thrown out. This is all information from my buddy who is a DNR LEO in northern Michigan.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Woops delete


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

BigWoods Bob said:


> Whether we like it or not, the Treaty will not get changed or canceled-- The Federal Courts have consistently ruled in favor of the Tribes. In Michigan, no doubt due to the hard work done by those who negotiated the Consent Decree, things actually aren't too bad--at least when compared with how bad they could be if the Tribes really wanted to push the issue and hold to the "full extent " of hunting and fishing rights granted by the Treaty of 1836. From what I understand, that could include things such as spearing walleyes on inland lakes, and hunting deer on "any undeveloped" lands within the Treaty area--Public or Private.......


Sure, why not. We should all live like it's 1836....


----------



## Fishndude

Salmonous Maximus said:


> Sure, why not. We should all live like it's 1836....


White people took the land that native Americans had lived on for centuries (a concept the Indians couldn't even fathom, because nobody "owned" the land, in their cultures), and gave them certain privileges. And it was done through courts of law at the time, and legal documents were signed. Essentially the Indians were ripped off, legally. But, we could get rid of the terms of that treaty. We would simply have to give the Indians back about 1/3 of the lower peninsula, and over half of the upper peninsula. Try to convince the residents of Traverse City, Frankfort, and Manistee that would be a good idea. I'm sure the Indians would be glad to have that land back, since they now understand the concept of owning land pretty well.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Fishndude said:


> White people took the land that native Americans had lived on for centuries (a concept the Indians couldn't even fathom, because nobody "owned" the land, in their cultures), and gave them certain privileges. And it was done through courts of law at the time, and legal documents were signed. Essentially the Indians were ripped off, legally. But, we could get rid of the terms of that treaty. We would simply have to give the Indians back about 1/3 of the lower peninsula, and over half of the upper peninsula. Try to convince the residents of Traverse City, Frankfort, and Manistee that would be a good idea. I'm sure the Indians would be glad to have that land back, since they now understand the concept of owning land pretty well.


Ok, I'll take the casino then.
We should all have to pay back one another for what our ancestors did for the rest of time.
At what point do we stop making special arrangement to pander to groups of people that were obviously wronged in the very distant past. What did I, my dad, his dad, or his dad have anything to do with it....ugh. Not trying to open a can but there comes a point when I wonder about things like this. And I'm not just picking on the natives, or not trying to.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Salmonous Maximus said:


> Ok, I'll take the casino then.
> We should all have to pay back one another for what our ancestors did for the rest of time.
> At what point do we stop making special arrangement to pander to groups of people that were obviously wronged in the very distant past. What did I, my dad, his dad, or his dad have anything to do with it....ugh. Not trying to open a can but there comes a point when I wonder about things like this. And I'm not just picking on the natives, or not trying to.


Lol; let me guess; your anti-death tax too?


----------



## Lou is Blue

toto said:


> I am that type of guy, is that a problem??? Gill netting is never a good thing. I have no problems with the Fishing Treaty, it's just that there are people out there who are making more of it than needs to be. There was a point in time when there was one tribal fishery that was a problem, but I think that's been rectified at this point. BTW Blue, you may want to do some research and figure out who's water is the Great Lakes? What I can't figure out is why is it the fed's are doing whatever they want to do with water that isn't under their control, with the exception of keeping it navigable for commerce. But I suspect you, nor anyone is getting my point on that, but it's a side issue anyways, so don't worry about it. The bottom line is, this isn't an issue with the tribes, never did I personally say it was. But I do have one question concerning the op's question, aren't Lake Trout considered as one of the prey species in the Great Lakes? If so, wouldn't that mean they should reduce stocking on those also?


I had a bumper sticker in those days....can you imagine if we would have had the Internet in those days? What a scream! In the end; we drew up the treaties; we took advantage; and got the best of "the deal". I'd like it to change; I imagine the MDNR, will be on point for any renegotiation; and sportsmans groups will need to scramble to organize to take part. As bad as it has gotten I would imagine the tribes would be ready to talk; and the real holdout will be the naturalists and fed hatchery folks...I could be wrong.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

Lou is Blue said:


> Lol; let me guess; your anti-death tax too?


No,
You see, I don't have to worry about that. Nobody is leaving anything to me anyways.

So..this treaty is 179 years old in its origin and we have to blindly follow it to our fisheries death?
That's kinda my point.


----------



## CHASINEYES

toto said:


> Surveys are fine IF the ones who are supposed to look at them, do indeed look at them with open eyes, and not have tunnel vision. What no one knows, including Jay, is what is the DNR's real motive in some cases, such as we've see in some cases.obvious answer is use the biological evidence that is there. My opinion, nor anyone one of us who have opinions, matters. It is the biologists such as Jay, Mark Tonello et al who are the experts. When you hear of stories of guys catching salmon that have heads of a 20+ pounder, yet this fish weighs on 12 or so, then you have to start to take the bio's at their words. Let's give the biological evidence it's due and see where it takes us. The tribal agreement isn't the problem, all by itself, it's a combination of factors, and one has to start somewhere. I've never believed it is the DNR's responsibility to worry about the economy of a local community, or a person's business, there ONLY concern is the advocacy of the fish and wildlife, period.
> 
> As for the Treaty, it isn't going away, that's a federal deal. If it could be negotiated with the concern of everyone affected considered, perhaps we can fix that part of the problem, it it's a problem at all. I don't think it should have been allowed to let the fed's decide on what gets planted in the Great Lakes. As far as I know, the waters of the Great Lakes are "owned" by the states themselves. To allow the feds to use our waters, and use our resources, for the good or the bad, in an effort to appease the tribes, that is wrong.


I think the surveys are a good tool. The special interest side of things urks me a bit. I don't think the DNR will ever make decisions without taking biological evidence into consideration, that's the least of sportsmens worries. As Jay pointed out, several options will be on the table and you can bet they will based on biology. However, IMO, we did undermine our DNRs abilities when we gave final decision making processes to the NRC.

As for the feds. They have their own agendas. I'm pretty sure the original stated intent of lake trout rehabilitation was to establish a sustainable "commercial" lake trout fishery, long before any consent drivel.. Where water rights are concerned, get used to them staking claims wherever water is being used. Your children will probably see a day when they're paying fee s or taxed on private land water usage if we don't stop the infringement on States rights and private property rights.


----------



## CHASINEYES

Lou is Blue said:


> Lol; let me guess; your anti-death tax too?


Yes. They already had their mitts on it. the death tax sounds like a society entitlement problem.


----------



## BigWoods Bob

Salmonous Maximus said:


> So..this treaty is 179 years old in its origin and we have to blindly follow it to our fisheries death?
> That's kinda my point.


The "Point" is that the Treaty is a legal document or contract. As a Nation, we operate under the principle of "Rule of Law". Contracts can not just be arbitrarily broken or disposed of, without both parties agreeing. I'm sure that Cuba would certainly share your view (quoted above) in regards to Guantanamo Bay, but since the "Lease" for it was part of a Treaty signed in the early 1900's, there's not much they can do about it except complain at the UN. I don't like the implications of the Treaty of 1836 any more than you do-- (I lived through all the "Gill Net" wars of the late 1970's - 80's-- it got ugly at times to say the least), but like it or not we are stuck with it. Better to "Negotiate" the best deal that we can, than have the full "Force" of the treaty implications imposed upon us by the Federal Courts.


----------



## slightofhand

The 1836 treaty provides for fishing and hunting rights only on treaty lands ...and state waters. It's the consent decrees which are driving the insanity of lake trout rehabilitation over the brink. When the rehab goals outlined in the consent decree are met..the rehab program ends. I suspect stocking in many places will end once rehab goals are met. 2020 is the showdown..there will be millions of eyeballs and dollars watching the renegotiation of a new consent decree. If you don't like what's going on...then light a fire under the sportsman's groups who purport to represent you and make sure they state your position.


----------



## RedM2

BigWoods Bob said:


> The "Point" is that the Treaty is a legal document or contract. As a Nation, we operate under the principle of "Rule of Law". Contracts can not just be arbitrarily broken or disposed of, without both parties agreeing. I'm sure that Cuba would certainly share your view (quoted above) in regards to Guantanamo Bay, but since the "Lease" for it was part of a Treaty signed in the early 1900's, there's not much they can do about it except complain at the UN. I don't like the implications of the Treaty of 1836 any more than you do-- (I lived through all the "Gill Net" wars of the late 1970's - 80's-- it got ugly at times to say the least), but like it or not we are stuck with it. Better to "Negotiate" the best deal that we can, than have the full "Force" of the treaty implications imposed upon us by the Federal Courts.


Contacts can be broken... they are broken all the time. This really started to gain steam with the airline industry.


----------



## RedM2

Fishndude said:


> White people took the land that native Americans had lived on for centuries (a concept the Indians couldn't even fathom, because nobody "owned" the land, in their cultures), and gave them certain privileges. And it was done through courts of law at the time, and legal documents were signed. Essentially the Indians were ripped off, legally. But, we could get rid of the terms of that treaty. We would simply have to give the Indians back about 1/3 of the lower peninsula, and over half of the upper peninsula. Try to convince the residents of Traverse City, Frankfort, and Manistee that would be a good idea. I'm sure the Indians would be glad to have that land back, since they now understand the concept of owning land pretty well.


Ha...how do you think many nations of the world came to be? There's a winner and a loser. As unfortunate as it may have been in this circumstance, it's time to move on. We all live a different lifestyle now and it's time this treaty recognizes that. If they still want the treaty in place, they should be limited to the technology that was in place when it was first written up in 1836.


----------



## Honkkilla59

Fishndude said:


> White people took the land that native Americans had lived on for centuries (a concept the Indians couldn't even fathom, because nobody "owned" the land, in their cultures), and gave them certain privileges. And it was done through courts of law at the time, and legal documents were signed. Essentially the Indians were ripped off, legally. But, we could get rid of the terms of that treaty. We would simply have to give the Indians back about 1/3 of the lower peninsula, and over half of the upper peninsula. Try to convince the residents of Traverse City, Frankfort, and Manistee that would be a good idea. I'm sure the Indians would be glad to have that land back, since they now understand the concept of owning land pretty well.


We could just play Cowboys and Indians again and whoever loses the battle forfeits what they own in the war!


----------



## RedM2

Honkkilla59 said:


> We could just play Cowboys and Indians again and whoever loses the battle forfeits what they own in the war!


That or they could stop embracing their special priviledges status and join the rest of us...


----------



## Lou is Blue

RedM2 said:


> Ha...how do you think many nations of the world came to be? There's a winner and a loser. As unfortunate as it may have been in this circumstance, it's time to move on. We all live a different lifestyle now and it's time this treaty recognizes that. If they still want the treaty in place, they should be limited to the technology that was in place when it was first written up in 1836.


Yes, yes this argument it was hardly mentioned at all during the 70s and 80s....lol


----------



## Lou is Blue

RedM2 said:


> That or they could stop embracing their special priviledges status and join the rest of us...


Can we do it on "death taxes now" ? cause when Warren Buffet kicks the bucket I'm calling dibs....


----------



## swampbuck

Amazing what people will do to save non indigenous and invasive species.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus

BigWoods Bob said:


> The "Point" is that the Treaty is a legal document or contract. As a Nation, we operate under the principle of "Rule of Law". Contracts can not just be arbitrarily broken or disposed of, without both parties agreeing. I'm sure that Cuba would certainly share your view (quoted above) in regards to Guantanamo Bay, but since the "Lease" for it was part of a Treaty signed in the early 1900's, there's not much they can do about it except complain at the UN. I don't like the implications of the Treaty of 1836 any more than you do-- (I lived through all the "Gill Net" wars of the late 1970's - 80's-- it got ugly at times to say the least), but like it or not we are stuck with it. Better to "Negotiate" the best deal that we can, than have the full "Force" of the treaty implications imposed upon us by the Federal Courts.


I never-ever will claim to be a know it all, or even close. I'll put my law degree on my mantle next to my 60 pound King I caught this year outta Harbor Beach.
That said, you're telling me because this is a legal contract that dates back to the 1800s that we have no choice in the matter what so ever...Parties do need to get together,of course, and ammendments can be made. Or we can take the good old sit back and enjoy it approach.
I'm done trying to get political because it's not my thing. I'd rather go fish for Lakers.


----------



## BigWoods Bob

RedM2 said:


> Contacts can be broken... they are broken all the time.


Agreed, but when they are broken, courts generally have to "Allow" it on some "grounds". Given the way the Federal Courts have ruled (multiple times) on the Treaty issues, I wouldn't want to bet on the State of Michigan's chances if they decided to "Break" the Treaty of 1836. I would be all for an "Even playing field" as far as utilizing the natural resources of our State.... I'm just not sure it will happen. 

The other thing that you have to keep in mind is this...... We as sportsmen would likely be in a minority in terms of the "American Public" that would support this (breaking the Treaty)..... Since it doesn't directly "affect" most of the general public, I would bet there would be little support for our agenda.


----------



## slightofhand

BigWoods Bob said:


> Agreed, but when they are broken, courts generally have to "Allow" it on some "grounds". Given the way the Federal Courts have ruled (multiple times) on the Treaty issues, I wouldn't want to bet on the State of Michigan's chances if they decided to "Break" the Treaty of 1836. I would be all for an "Even playing field" as far as utilizing the natural resources of our State.... I'm just not sure it will happen.
> 
> The other thing that you have to keep in mind is this...... We as sportsmen would likely be in a minority in terms of the "American Public" that would support this (breaking the Treaty)..... Since it doesn't directly "affect" most of the general public, I would bet there would be little support for our agenda.


Nobody has to break anything.. Treaty included. First... You can't...and second its not the treaty that's the issue. It's the additional 'riders' negotiated by tribes in the form of consent decrees that are dictating stocking objectives in the lake. If you had no lake trout rehab mandate in the consent decree you probably would be loving the king fishing right now....no competition for bait from trout. But the lake trout rehab rider in the consent decree has tilted the predator balance heavily towards trout...thus denting remaining alewife pops that chinook could be otherwise be utilizing. That's the rub. Someone needs to get a definition of the rehab goals and find out what the criteria is for having met suçcessful rehab. Only at that point should the rehab lake trout stocking program stop and allow alewife populations to rebound. Everyone thinks its just mussels that are hurting alewife...its as much or more the intense predation once from kings and now also from lake trout. We asked for a balanced and diverse fishery and instead we have only lake trout. Time to reel this program back in.


----------



## Fishndude

How hard is it to help people understand that THE DECLINE IN ALEWIVES IS NOT THE RESULT OF PREDATION? Reducing stocks of Lake Trout isn't going to help the Ales come back. Reducing Salmon stocking isn't going to do it. They Alewives quite simply are starving in the lakes, because Diporeia Shrimp have virtually disappeared, and that was their prey. And every major predator species in the great lakes feasted on Alewives, when they were widely available. However, King Salmon pretty much only eat/ate Alewives. 

How hard is it? Just read through all these threads, and see how much denial is going on. Reducing stocking of Lake Trout, in addition to reducing stocking of Salmon, is like using another squirt gun to put out a house that is on fire. The DNR could stop planting all anadromous fish, and the Alewives would still continue to decline. Because the Alewives will starve without Diporeia Shrimp. And Diporeia Shrimp are starving, and disappearing because Quagga Mussels out-compete them for food in our great lakes. _*That's the bottom line.*_ It is pretty simple. 

I wonder if the DNR can raise Diporeia Shrimp for the Alewives to eat?


----------



## RedM2

Lou is Blue said:


> Yes, yes this argument it was hardly mentioned at all during the 70s and 80s....lol


I was still swimming for a portion of that time. Serious question, what event in the 80s are you referring to? What's significant about this argument having been mentioned previously?


----------



## RedM2

Fishndude said:


> How hard is it to help people understand that THE DECLINE IN ALEWIVES IS NOT THE RESULT OF PREDATION? Reducing stocks of Lake Trout isn't going to help the Ales come back. Reducing Salmon stocking isn't going to do it. They Alewives quite simply are starving in the lakes, because Diporeia Shrimp have virtually disappeared, and that was their prey. And every major predator species in the great lakes feasted on Alewives, when they were widely available. However, King Salmon pretty much only eat/ate Alewives.
> 
> How hard is it? Just read through all these threads, and see how much denial is going on. Reducing stocking of Lake Trout, in addition to reducing stocking of Salmon, is like using another squirt gun to put out a house that is on fire. The DNR could stop planting all anadromous fish, and the Alewives would still continue to decline. Because the Alewives will starve without Diporeia Shrimp. And Diporeia Shrimp are starving, and disappearing because Quagga Mussels out-compete them for food in our great lakes. _*That's the bottom line.*_ It is pretty simple.
> 
> I wonder if the DNR can raise Diporeia Shrimp for the Alewives to eat?


Everyone, including the DNR, should probably just toss their hands up in defeat, walk away, and come back in a few years to see what's going on... I say this in jest. It's true that there's nothing we can do, so why are we wasting the $$$ on the fishery?


----------



## Lou is Blue

RedM2 said:


> I was still swimming for a portion of that time. Serious question, what event in the 80s are you referring to? What's significant about this argument having been mentioned previously?


Confrontations between commercial Indian Fisherman and recreational sport Anglers took some very ugly turns. Up to rumors of gunshots, brandishing weapons, personal property damage, and more when some of the tribe members realized that they'd not been utilizing some of their rights and then attempted to do so; as I recall; part of that was the MDNR trying to regulate the activities of the Indian Fisherman. The Steelheaders generally represented the Sports fisherman in what would eventually end up in a negotiation between MDNR, the tribes, and sport fisherman. I recall some fairly drunk charter captains making some fairly bold threats in a bar in downtown Frankfort (now a yuppie type hangout). Others claiming they'd already ripped up nets by pulling cinder blocks through them at speed off their riggers.

It was all a semi organized protest, The stop gillnetting bumper stickers and other activities were largely intended for the legal bills of preventing the Indians from exercising their rights.

I bet someone here can find a link to judge Foxes decision and what led to the consent decree.

Probably the most often repeated thought by Sport Anglers was to make the Indians use 1836 technology. Wooden canoes, vine nets, and spears it didn't work out that way; and frankly we were just way off base.

For me it was a wake up moment. It was a bit of a shock to have to realize that "I'm the bad guy here".


----------



## swampbuck

RedM2 said:


> Everyone, including the DNR, should probably just toss their hands up in defeat, walk away, and come back in a few years to see what's going on... I say this in jest. It's true that there's nothing we can do, so why are we wasting the $$$ on the fishery?


I know you were joking....but you are correct. It is a waste of resources, which would be better spent creating a fishery that can co-exist with the quagga. Unfortunately the salmon lobby's influence will probably result in a dead period for Lake Michigan.


----------



## Lou is Blue

swampbuck said:


> I know you were joking....but you are correct. It is a waste of resources, which would be better spent creating a fishery that can co-exist with the quagga. Unfortunately the salmon lobby's influence will probably result in a dead period for Lake Michigan.


I feel a plant yellow perch kidney stone coming on here.


----------



## slightofhand

Fishndude said:


> How hard is it to help people understand that THE DECLINE IN ALEWIVES IS NOT THE RESULT OF PREDATION? Reducing stocks of Lake Trout isn't going to help the Ales come back. Reducing Salmon stocking isn't going to do it. They Alewives quite simply are starving in the lakes, because Diporeia Shrimp have virtually disappeared, and that was their prey. And every major predator species in the great lakes feasted on Alewives, when they were widely available. However, King Salmon pretty much only eat/ate Alewives.
> 
> How hard is it? Just read through all these threads, and see how much denial is going on. Reducing stocking of Lake Trout, in addition to reducing stocking of Salmon, is like using another squirt gun to put out a house that is on fire. The DNR could stop planting all anadromous fish, and the Alewives would still continue to decline. Because the Alewives will starve without Diporeia Shrimp. And Diporeia Shrimp are starving, and disappearing because Quagga Mussels out-compete them for food in our great lakes. _*That's the bottom line.*_ It is pretty simple.
> 
> I wonder if the DNR can raise Diporeia Shrimp for the Alewives to eat?


How hard is it for people to understand that chinook cuts were implemented to save the alewife? Counterintuitive to that effort is pumping the lake full of long living predators that aggressively seek out and feed on alewife....the lake trout. This discussion isn't about mussels it is about balancing predator and prey. Predator is lake trout and chinook...prey is alewife. This is all about stocking decisions now.


----------



## jpmarko

swampbuck said:


> Amazing what people will do to save non indigenous and invasive species.


Not everyone venerates so-called indigenous species. In your mind, a species that did not previously live in Lake Michigan is harmful and undesirable because it crowds out the species that you prize. There is nothing inherently better about walleye and perch. You just happen to like them more. Most people consider salmon more desirable and there is nothing wrong with that. They are a fish. Not an invading army.


----------



## RedM2

Lou is Blue said:


> Probably the most often repeated thought by Sport Anglers was to make the Indians use 1836 technology. Wooden canoes, vine nets, and spears it didn't work out that way; and frankly we were just way off base.
> 
> For me it was a wake up moment. It was a bit of a shock to have to realize that "I'm the bad guy here".


How so? Why should they be afforded the opportunity to utilize any technology available to maximize this privilege?

Also, thanks for the background information. I had no idea things were that intense.


----------



## jpmarko

Waiting until 2020 to renegotiate the treaty will be too late. According to the way things are going, alewives may be gone or beyond the point of no return by then if nothing changes. A lot of the DNR guys will be out of jobs. Lake Michigan is the reason they receive funding and the reason anglers buy licenses. With a collapse in Lake Michigan, license sales and angler involvement will decline. It'll be like having two lake Hurons.

The lake trout rehabilitation program needs renegotiating. They should drastically reduce stocking in the southwest basin of the lake. As a matter of fact, I believe Jay recently said that was a possibility in another thread on this subject.


----------



## toto

Here's a link to the 2007 Decree with Judge Enslen.

It's only 144 pages, but enjoy it covers a lot more than you think.

http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Proposed_Consent_Decreepages1-144_209977_7.pdf

This may help too http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/library/post-usvmi.pdf

http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/Fishing/2004ConsentDecreeImplementationReport.pdf


----------



## BigWoods Bob

swampbuck said:


> Amazing what people will do to save non indigenous and invasive species.


If you want to subscribe to that line of thinking, I guess we should just try to get rid of the few remaining pockets of "Wild Pheasant " after all....they are a "non indigenous , invasive species" as well.....


----------



## BigWoods Bob

jpmarko said:


> With a collapse in Lake Michigan, license sales and angler involvement will decline. It'll be like having two lake Hurons.


Ahhh.....but how many guys only buy a license to fish Salmon? A few to be sure, and probably a higher percentage if looking at non-residents, but remember. ..with the change in the license structure....there's no more "Trout and Salmon " stamp. Just a fishing license, so the impact might not be as high as you think.


----------



## CHASINEYES

Lou is Blue said:


> Confrontations between commercial Indian Fisherman and recreational sport Anglers took some very ugly turns. Up to rumors of gunshots, brandishing weapons, personal property damage, and more when some of the tribe members realized that they'd not been utilizing some of their rights and then attempted to do so; as I recall; part of that was the MDNR trying to regulate the activities of the Indian Fisherman. The Steelheaders generally represented the Sports fisherman in what would eventually end up in a negotiation between MDNR, the tribes, and sport fisherman. I recall some fairly drunk charter captains making some fairly bold threats in a bar in downtown Frankfort (now a yuppie type hangout). Others claiming they'd already ripped up nets by pulling cinder blocks through them at speed off their riggers.
> 
> It was all a semi organized protest, The stop gillnetting bumper stickers and other activities were largely intended for the legal bills of preventing the Indians from exercising their rights.
> 
> I bet someone here can find a link to judge Foxes decision and what led to the consent decree.
> 
> Probably the most often repeated thought by Sport Anglers was to make the Indians use 1836 technology. Wooden canoes, vine nets, and spears it didn't work out that way; and frankly we were just way off base.
> 
> For me it was a wake up moment. It was a bit of a shock to have to realize that "I'm the bad guy here".


Things also got pretty ugly in the Bays- De- Nocs back then with walleye netting as I recall.


----------



## Lou is Blue

Bakers Bar, how could I forget?

The rub with the Indians is that it isn't a privilege; it is a right. It predates the state by the fed; but that's me shooting from the hip.

Btw, Fishindude is so right; the problem is the absence of successful spawning alewife who are not actively reproducing for lack of food; not the lakers. The lake trout preserves and continuous stocking might have sped this up a couple of months...but really doesn't change the outcome. I suspect you couldn't completely erraticate the alewife anyway, there just won't be enough to support a significant King fishery. The lakers, Browns, and steelhead though; will be rooting around the bottom finding Gobi. I hope.


----------



## slightofhand

Lou is Blue said:


> Bakers Bar, how could I forget?
> 
> The rub with the Indians is that it isn't a privilege; it is a right. It predates the state by the fed; but that's me shooting from the hip.
> 
> Btw, Fishindude is so right; the problem is the absence of successful spawning alewife who are not actively reproducing for lack of food; not the lakers. The lake trout preserves and continuous stocking might have sped this up a couple of months...but really doesn't change the outcome. I suspect you couldn't completely erraticate the alewife anyway, there just won't be enough to support a significant King fishery. The lakers, Browns, and steelhead though; will be rooting around the bottom finding Gobi. I hope.


If the lake trout went the way of the chinook...almost non existent... Chinook would most likely immediately surge to fill the void again as apex predator of alewife. If there were no alewife..lake trout would consume virtually all goby stocks and themselves eventually starve in the process. Alewife are a critical component of lake michigan biomass as evident by drastically reducing chinook stocks by the dnr because of heavy predation.. That is irrefutable fact stated in the most recent bulletin published by the Mdnr on that very subject. Those mdnr biologists...not the two armchair guys on this thread, made that call to prevent a collapse of alewife. Early survey results are showing a positive sign for alewife reproduction this year with numerous half inch to inch sized ales being captured.

If heavy predation of alewife is an issue with chinook then it most certainly also is with lake trout.


----------



## swampbuck

What's the plan to prevent an alewife crash?


----------



## Lou is Blue

slightofhand said:


> If the lake trout went the way of the chinook...almost non existent... Chinook would most likely immediately surge to fill the void again as apex predator of alewife. If there were no alewife..lake trout would consume virtually all goby stocks and themselves eventually starve in the process. Alewife are a critical component of lake michigan biomass as evident by drastically reducing chinook stocks by the dnr because of heavy predation.. That is irrefutable fact stated in the most recent bulletin published by the Mdnr on that very subject. Those mdnr biologists...not the two armchair guys on this thread, made that call to prevent a collapse of alewife. Early survey results are showing a positive sign for alewife reproduction this year with numerous half inch to inch sized ales being captured.
> 
> If heavy predation of alewife is an issue with chinook then it most certainly also is with lake trout.



Yeah, yeah; went to the meetings heard the presentations. Posted about the little ales I'm seeing in the river thread. There's actually one more decent spawning year class left too; as anyone in grand haven the last couple weekends could attest.


The Lake Trout won't eat themselves out of house and home due to commercial fishing to keep their numbers within a reasonable bounds. Thus a balance might be found, between mussels, gobies, lake trout, and Indian commercial fisherman....so said then a former assistant biologist with a mosquito control commission......talk about an in holy balance.....


----------



## Lou is Blue

swampbuck said:


> What's the plan to prevent an alewife crash?


Obviously the plan was to reduce stocking & hope like hell; the remaining ales have found something else to feed on to spawn. It may have worked. The large ales in grand haven the last couple weeks are not the skinny starving dregs we've been seeing the last couple years. They'd take your average brown trout in a fair fight.


----------



## Southsider1

I think we should also consider the fact that we've had two of the coldest winters in history back to back which may have had a large effect on the food chain. I tend to think that Mother Nature has a larger role in the final result of this situation than the DNR, FEDs or tribes. I could go cut and paste someone else's research to sound educated on the matter but I can only comment on what I see with my own eyes in my little section of the lake for 5 months. But in the end - everything is just an educated guess. I mean ,at this point, the DNR is committed to sticking with this course of action as their goal of reducing salmon stocks was an overwhelming success. Now the only question is will the reduction in salmon have a direct effect on the alewife population? My guess in No as I caught no undersized emancipated looking fish like you regularly saw on Huron before the collapse but what I did catch more than I ever have in my 30 plus years on the water-Sheephead. Big Sheephead. Now I've caught Sheephead plenty of times at river mouths and in close but in 100 FOW? I've also talked to guys catching big cats offshore? These fish sure as heck were not underfed! Anyone ever think that something may be wrong with the stocking program that may be simply inadequate to rear certain fish that can survive under these circumstances? Maybe there is a degenerative strain of kings that we keep on using as stock. Maybe stock a different strain from another source? I mean who is in the position ,other than the FEDs, to question the DNRs theories? To my knowledge there is no real oversight. How many of you guys who are talking about plankton, shrimp and the food chain in general have done or are even capable of doing any meaningful independent research on a large scale? I'm certainly not nor have I ever meant anyone who is capable of it! The DNR might be on point or they might be making a bad situation worse. Only time will tell. I'm praying for the best!


----------



## Sparky23

Jay Wesley said:


> Stocking has been very consistent the past 10 years for most species, and the states agreed to freeze the predator stocking to 2012 levels. My point was that we cannot just add more predators to the system. We have to reduce a species to add more of or another species. Lake trout would be part of that trade as long as we follow agreed upon rehabilitation strategy and goals and the 2000 Consent Decree. Seeforellen had issues in our hatcheries possibly due to genetics/breeding. We made a move to bring in wild Michigan strains from Gilchrist Creek and Sturgeon River to replace them.



Why discontinue the seaforellen instead of just getting new brood stock? Replacing them with fish that dont get as big, and aren't proven as lake fish that run rivers? We were seeing many fish over 20#'s and a fair amount over 30. Caught in both the lake and rivers, and poof were done because of a few problems, others are having success with them so maybe we should have tried harder to fix the problem, Maybe ask Wisconsin how they are making theirs work? I understand you have to reduce predators in one area to put more in...but...Maybe you should rethink the goals that were made 15 years ago and replace them with the current needs of the lake? Which should not be to dump hundreds of thousands of garbage cans that love ale wives. Also you have said you are trying to eliminate the ales in huron all together, seems to me you guys are trying to do the same in lake michigan?


----------



## Outdoor2daCore

Jay Wesley said:


> Considering what is in production right now, that would be brown trout and steelhead. Both do well when alewife are around but they will both search for other prey items as well. We are still experimenting with Atlantics in Lake Huron, so will have to let that experiment play out. Cisco seem to be doing better or at least expanding its population under this new ecosystem. Nearshore - smallmouth bass, yellow perch and walleye.


Jay,

First off, I want to reiterate my thanks in your hard work and dedication to our fisheries and I understand it's not an easy task, especially with all the critical armchair biologists out there. I fish the GTBs and eating fish, but I am leery about eating too many lakers. One thing struck me as a big problem was today as I drove by west bay on a beautiful Saturday morning there was not a boat to be seen fishing.... Why? Well, lake trout season is closed for some reason, and there aren't fishable numbers of other species worth pursuing. To me I see this as an absolute shame, there is way too much productive water out there and it's basically a monoculture of lake trout which is not in my opinion at all what is the rehabilitation of the Great Lakes. There was once a diverse fishery with cold and even some warm water species available, now it's simply few and far between. I guess I just get a bit tired of the lack of diversity. I wish we'd focus on stocking more diversity are my thoughts.


----------



## jpmarko

Reduce lake trout plants. Increase steelhead plants.


----------



## HoytMan44

Jay,
Is it possible that the process of wire-tagging and clipping all of the stocked kings is effecting their survival?


----------



## JB85

Fishndude said:


> How hard is it to help people understand that THE DECLINE IN ALEWIVES IS NOT THE RESULT OF PREDATION? Reducing stocks of Lake Trout isn't going to help the Ales come back. Reducing Salmon stocking isn't going to do it. They Alewives quite simply are starving in the lakes, because Diporeia Shrimp have virtually disappeared, and that was their prey. And every major predator species in the great lakes feasted on Alewives, when they were widely available. However, King Salmon pretty much only eat/ate Alewives.
> 
> How hard is it? Just read through all these threads, and see how much denial is going on. Reducing stocking of Lake Trout, in addition to reducing stocking of Salmon, is like using another squirt gun to put out a house that is on fire. The DNR could stop planting all anadromous fish, and the Alewives would still continue to decline. Because the Alewives will starve without Diporeia Shrimp. And Diporeia Shrimp are starving, and disappearing because Quagga Mussels out-compete them for food in our great lakes. _*That's the bottom line.*_ It is pretty simple.
> 
> I wonder if the DNR can raise Diporeia Shrimp for the Alewives to eat?


I agree that mussels and the resulting impact to the very bottom of the food chain are a huge part of the problem, but they are certainly not the only problem. Too many predator fish and 2 years back to back with below average winter temps most certainly impacted the alewife stock . Even so, it appears that alewife stock may have improved this year. My personal belief is that the steps the DNR has taken by reducing plants was very timely and may have been what was needed to allow alewife stock to stabilize or possibly recover to some extent. Lake Michigan is certainly not devoid of bait, neither is Lake Huron although the type of bait has changed. 

I believe the lake will find a balance and will be able to support a viable predator/prey relationship that can coexist with the mussels. I just don't want the lake trout to be anywhere in the conversation as part of this relationship. Kings are (or were) the lifeblood of the charter fishery and the late summer fall economy for much of the western side of Michigan. Many of us on here have spent much of our lives chasing these great fish. I think every step possible needs to be taken to preserve this fishery, and that's not the case. The state (DNR) has made some adjustments but the feds continue to plant away with the lakers. 

If I had a say, my first step would be to completely eliminate any future lake trout plants, increase the limits and extend the season to reduce the lake trout population as much as possible and see where things shake out. The king fishery may or may not recover, but that would open the door for the more diverse fishery that many sport fisherman want...additional stockings of coho, brown, steelhead and maybe atlantics, whatever the DNR deems the best approach. I realize lakers have a more diverse diet than kings, but they certainly do feed on alewife and I just can't stomach the fact that so many are in the lake and continue to be put in the lake when there is concern around the alewife population.


----------



## Fishndude

JB85 said:


> I agree that mussels and the resulting impact to the very bottom of the food chain are a huge part of the problem, but they are certainly not the only problem. Too many predator fish and 2 years back to back with below average winter temps most certainly impacted the alewife stock . Even so, it appears that alewife stock may have improved this year. My personal belief is that the steps the DNR has taken by reducing plants was very timely and may have been what was needed to allow alewife stock to stabilize or possibly recover to some extent. Lake Michigan is certainly not devoid of bait, neither is Lake Huron although the type of bait has changed.



Too many people think that this problem will be just like BKD was. Or they rationalize that a couple colder than normal winters is contributing to the problem in a major way. The record cold winter temps we had the last couple winters are breaking records that were largely set in the 1970's, when we had TONS of Alewives, and Salmon. The super-cold winters didn't cause any problems with the Alewife, and Salmon populations then. Salmon are native to Alaska, where it gets much colder than it does here. They do just fine there.

I don't believe for 1 second that Alewife populations have stabilized. They have been declining at a steady rate since the Mussels were introduced. Their numbers have not increased year-over-year one time since we got the Mussels. And, while the Mussel numbers seem to have plateaued, they aren't declining. And, when they do, it will be because there isn't enough food for them. Which means that there won't be enough food for baitfish, either, since the Mussels are better at sucking nutrients out of the lakes than the species which baitfish prey on are.

Anyone who has made it a priority to research this matter understands the true nature of it. There isn't an upside, and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel - at least not right now. People who choose to blame the DNR for the lack of Salmon haven't looked into this enough, and are just making blind statements out of frustration. They don't know what is really going on. Lots of them have heard, but seem to pooh-pooh the reality of it. Surprise! Reality sucks in this case.


----------



## Treven

Mine in RED:



Fishndude said:


> Too many people think that this problem will be just like BKD was. Or they rationalize that a couple colder than normal winters is contributing to the problem in a major way. The record cold winter temps we had the last couple winters are breaking records that were largely set in the 1970's, when we had TONS of Alewives, and Salmon. The super-cold winters didn't cause any problems with the Alewife, and Salmon populations then. Salmon are native to Alaska, where it gets much colder than it does here. They do just fine there.
> 
> ??? Comparing the Pacific Ocean to Lake MI is a little off as far as comparing winter temperatures and how migratory fish react to them, but okay? The Lake MI biomass and alewife population was way different in the 70's than it was the past two winters, also... Everything I have come to understand is that hard winters do have a dramatic effect on everything in the Great Lakes, including alewife and other baitfish populations.
> 
> What was going on with Quagga mussels when Lake Huron crashed anyway? You keep relating everything back to Lake Huron, but these two lakes aren't exactly the same, otherwise Lake MI would have crashed at the exact same time as Lake Huron did. I agree with you, our ride is slowing down, but I'm not sure always comparing back to Lake Huron is the answer, either. The ride hasn't completely stopped yet. I think what everybody is asking for is a more concerted effort to conserve what we currently have and at least try for a better future. A better future without a large biomass of lake trout. Desired sportfish species dine on the same things as lakers, yet the lakers are not a desired sportfish. Everybody hates the predator ratio of lakers to other species that could replace them in the total biomass equation. Short term, that would be Chinooks for sure. Long term looks doubtful, but not ruled out yet, like Lake Huron apparently has been.
> 
> I would love for a sustainable predator ratio of fall strain steelhead (NY Chambers Creek) and Seeforellens to replace lakers.
> 
> I don't believe for 1 second that Alewife populations have stabilized. They have been declining at a steady rate since the Mussels were introduced. Their numbers have not increased year-over-year one time since we got the Mussels. And, while the Mussel numbers seem to have plateaued, they aren't declining. And, when they do, it will be because there isn't enough food for them. Which means that there won't be enough food for baitfish, either, since the Mussels are better at sucking nutrients out of the lakes than the species which baitfish prey on are.
> 
> Agreed. Except there is a new population of baitfish in your "comparable" Lake Huron in smelt and shiners, correct? Hence the steelhead fishery starting to rebound, I guess atlantics (I'm skeptical), walleyes, smallmouth, perch, etc. etc. all rebounding. Those baitfish have to be eating something the quaggas aren't. Now were back to why I think another strain of steelhead and Seeforellens would be nice in Lake Michigan. I think steelhead and Browns would LOVE to eat smelt and shiners in addition to everything else. That is all if Lake MI is going to follow in Lake Huron's footsteps, though.
> 
> Anyone who has made it a priority to research this matter understands the true nature of it. There isn't an upside, and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel - at least not right now. People who choose to blame the DNR for the lack of Salmon haven't looked into this enough, and are just making blind statements out of frustration. They don't know what is really going on. Lots of them have heard, but seem to pooh-pooh the reality of it. Surprise! Reality sucks in this case.
> 
> I think everyone is bitching about the predator ratio, loud and clear. The DNR didn't introduce the zebra and quagga mussels. The DNR isn't planting all the lake trout. The DNR and other surrounding states' DNR do have the responsibility of managing the fishery, though. I think people want to see more fight to reduce the undesirable predators (Lake Trout) and replace them with desirable ones. I think I just read 12 whole pages of those pleas... I think everyone understands the demise of our chinook fishery is a reality, but its also obvious there's a 1 in a million chance (insert Dumb and Dumber quote now: "So you're sayin there's a chance!?!", ha ha!) things could at least get a little better and kings might just be smaller ratio apex predator for the smaller population of alewife, but not Lake Huron extinct. It would be nice have a little more diverse fishery of hard pulling, cool-as-he!! Lake MI predators. I think that is what I have been reading and that is definitely what I am saying.


----------



## jpmarko

Yes, it would be great if the DNR at least TRIED to fight it. Or negotiate it. Hopefully, they will work on getting reduced laker plants in certain spots of the lake.


----------



## slightofhand

Fishndude said:


> Too many people think that this problem will be just like BKD was. Or they rationalize that a couple colder than normal winters is contributing to the problem in a major way. The record cold winter temps we had the last couple winters are breaking records that were largely set in the 1970's, when we had TONS of Alewives, and Salmon. The super-cold winters didn't cause any problems with the Alewife, and Salmon populations then. Salmon are native to Alaska, where it gets much colder than it does here. They do just fine there.
> 
> I don't believe for 1 second that Alewife populations have stabilized. They have been declining at a steady rate since the Mussels were introduced. Their numbers have not increased year-over-year one time since we got the Mussels. And, while the Mussel numbers seem to have plateaued, they aren't declining. And, when they do, it will be because there isn't enough food for them. Which means that there won't be enough food for baitfish, either, since the Mussels are better at sucking nutrients out of the lakes than the species which baitfish prey on are.
> 
> Anyone who has made it a priority to research this matter understands the true nature of it. There isn't an upside, and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel - at least not right now. People who choose to blame the DNR for the lack of Salmon haven't looked into this enough, and are just making blind statements out of frustration. They don't know what is really going on. Lots of them have heard, but seem to pooh-pooh the reality of it. Surprise! Reality sucks in this case.


Reality is this FishNDude.....the MDNR will do everything in it's power to save alewife and preserve and enhance Chinook fishing on Lake Michigan. They have a half dozen public meetings a year on the subject. They have taken dramatic steps which are producing results that they, and 95% of anglers in Michigan support. 

Alewife and Chinook will continue to be a primary focus of the diverse fishery Lake Michigan offers to it's residents and tourists. The few quack jobs roaming dark corners of MS-sportsman.com who dream of the day the king and alewife dead and completely gone...to be replaced by steelhead (laughable)..need to think about relocating themselves back into reality where the rest of us actually live.


----------



## Southsider1

Fishndude said:


> Too many people think that this problem will be just like BKD was. Or they rationalize that a couple colder than normal winters is contributing to the problem in a major way. The record cold winter temps we had the last couple winters are breaking records that were largely set in the 1970's, when we had TONS of Alewives, and Salmon. The super-cold winters didn't cause any problems with the Alewife, and Salmon populations then. Salmon are native to Alaska, where it gets much colder than it does here. They do just fine there.
> 
> I don't believe for 1 second that Alewife populations have stabilized. They have been declining at a steady rate since the Mussels were introduced. Their numbers have not increased year-over-year one time since we got the Mussels. And, while the Mussel numbers seem to have plateaued, they aren't declining. And, when they do, it will be because there isn't enough food for them. Which means that there won't be enough food for baitfish, either, since the Mussels are better at sucking nutrients out of the lakes than the species which baitfish prey on are.
> 
> Anyone who has made it a priority to research this matter understands the true nature of it. There isn't an upside, and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel - at least not right now. People who choose to blame the DNR for the lack of Salmon haven't looked into this enough, and are just making blind statements out of frustration. They don't know what is really going on. Lots of them have heard, but seem to pooh-pooh the reality of it. Surprise! Reality sucks in this case.


With all due respect, what have you "looked into" above and beyond standing by what the DNR has stated over and over again? In regard to cold winters and alewife populations- a simple google search yields studies that have shown a correlation between cold winter temperatures and adult alewife mortality. 

I think the frustration lies in that many of us do not see in our 100s of hours on the water things that are consistent with what the DNR portrays. One theory regarding the poor king returns/survival has been a possible correlation with the DNRs wire tagging of all fish and the use of an automated machine process to clip adipose fins. Could this be affecting the survival rates? I'm not delusional- I agree that the mussels have definitely altered the food chain but I spent lots of hours looking at two sonars and I did mark a decent amount of bait but not a lot of kings/predators mixed in. I can also say that ,while perch fishing in South Haven , I caught a decent amount of large ales including some doubles. Again, I agree that there is less bait but I also don't believe that it's a barren wasteland either. The resurgence of perch also leads me to believe that there is something for fry to eat. Only approx 500 fish have returned to Manistee weir out out the hundreds of thousands planted. In my opinion, something else has to be in play here. I have as much at stake as anyone, other than maybe charters, as I have a large fully equipped boat to maintain as well as a slip to pay for each year. In the end, I don't think it's fair to disregard other's opinions as uninformed just because you agree wholeheartedly with the DNR. I think that anyone who spends a decent amount of time on Lake Michigan trolling has a valid opinion- even if I don't agree with it -not so much for those who get all of their opinions online and/or fish a couple of times a year.


----------



## Jay Wesley

HoytMan44 said:


> Jay,
> Is it possible that the process of wire-tagging and clipping all of the stocked kings is effecting their survival?


There is no evidence of this. Some chinooks have been coded wire tagged since the late 1990s and by hand with a lot of handling. There was no evidence of major tagging mortality then and now the process is automated with very little human handling.


----------



## o_mykiss

Also, hasn't adipose clipping and CWT technology been in use since the 1960s, and been used to tag BILLIONS of salmon out west? This technology is very proven


----------



## HoytMan44

According to the little manistee weir recording they have harvested 386 kings so far this year. It also said that the egg-take is complete for the year and the eggs primarily came from the swan river weir. 

It went on to say that they will do another harvest this week at the little man, if the egg take is complete why don't they just pass all the remaining salmon upstream so that they can spawn?


----------



## o_mykiss

HoytMan44 said:


> According to the little manistee weir recording they have harvested 386 kings so far this year. It also said that the egg-take is complete for the year and the eggs primarily came from the swan river weir.
> 
> It went on to say that they will do another harvest this week at the little man, if the egg take is complete why don't they just pass all the remaining salmon upstream so that they can spawn?


I would guess because Michigan usually supplies Indiana (and maybe Illinois?) with king eggs as well


----------



## Fishndude

slightofhand said:


> Reality is this FishNDude.....the MDNR will do everything in it's power to save alewife and preserve and enhance Chinook fishing on Lake Michigan. They have a half dozen public meetings a year on the subject. They have taken dramatic steps which are producing results that they, and 95% of anglers in Michigan support.
> 
> Alewife and Chinook will continue to be a primary focus of the diverse fishery Lake Michigan offers to it's residents and tourists. The few quack jobs roaming dark corners of MS-sportsman.com who dream of the day the king and alewife dead and completely gone...to be replaced by steelhead (laughable)..need to think about relocating themselves back into reality where the rest of us actually live.


I am 100% sure the great folks @ DNR are doing everything possible to stem/prevent a total crash of the ecosystem of lake Michigan. I know this because I discussed it with DNR biologists almost 20 years ago, when the reality of the Mussel invasion was realized. And I've had numerous discussions since. And I applaud the actions that have been taken. Unfortunately nobody knows how to treat the problem in water the size of our great lakes. I've also researched possible solutions, from bacteria (live or dead) which is found in some soil, and which will kill the Mussels on contact; to some chemicals that will kill them. None of it is practical to use on a large scale, and nobody is willing to risk ALL of the fish and Mussels in our lakes, to try something radical. 

Alewives, and Chinook will be wanted by many, but I disagree that they will continue to be a primary focus of the diverse fishery lake Michigan offers. The writing is on the wall, and we are just waiting for the last nail to be hammered into the coffin. Sure there will always be some Kings around, but I don't think Salmon fishing will get better than it is right now, in the foreseeable future. It hasn't gotten better on lake Huron since 2004. I would love to be wrong about that, but I am pretty confident in my statement. I do dream about Alewives, and Salmon being gone from the lakes (mostly gone), but they are definitely bad dreams.


----------



## Fishndude

o_mykiss said:


> I would guess because Michigan usually supplies Indiana (and maybe Illinois?) with king eggs as well


Michigan trades Salmon (for planting) with Indiana, for Skamania we use for planting. We have been planting the Skams in the Big Man, and St Joseph rivers for many years. I have it from a very reliable source that this year was the last year we will be getting Skams from Indiana, and MI will not be planting them at all, going forward. Indiana still plants the Joe, in their State, so we will have Skams returning to that river, and some other nearby rivers. But the runs up north are bound to dwindle. A couple rivers that support natural reproduction will probably have a few, but very few. Those would be the Little Man, and Pere Marquette. I know Skams are caught in the PM, but when was the last time you saw a report about them? Few, and far between. They are an incidental catch.


----------



## aroflinger

Sooooooo are we still going to have an "all species" fishing license?


----------



## o_mykiss

actually I believe Michigan trades Indiana some winter run steelhead (planted in Indiana waters of the Joe) for the skamania steelhead planted in the Big Man. First i have heard about discontinuation of that deal... wonder why? Care to share your source (by PM if desired)?

And they do supply Indiana and Illinois with coho and chinook eggs, in an unrelated deal


----------



## Honkkilla59

aroflinger said:


> Sooooooo are we still going to have an "all species" fishing license?


Yep guaranteed revenue sream.
I believe that's why they combined them if they left them separate the salmon program wouldn't have enough money to support itself .
If the salmon fishery crashes do you think they will reduce the license fees?
Thier idea of all species will be carp,sheephead,catfish,etc.


----------



## swampbuck

RedM2 said:


> As has been stated numerous times, the lake trout being planted aren't a native strain. Technically they're invasive, too.


No, they would be non-indigenous. To be invasive it has to pose a threat to native species....like ale's for example.


----------



## Captnbobb

swampbuck said:


> No, they would be non-indigenous. To be invasive it has to pose a threat to native species....like ale's for example.


 But ales ain't native...maybe cisco


----------



## CHASINEYES

swampbuck said:


> No, they would be non-indigenous. To be invasive it has to pose a threat to native species....like ale's for example.


Ah, but they're a threat. The native strain has evolved for thousands of yeqrs to be suited to a particular body of water. With several strains of non evolved, non native being planted in say lk MI, they crossbreed with the evolved or naitive strain, thereby eliminating it. You see, what you're calling native, is no more native than smelt.


----------



## CHASINEYES

I believe it is well documented that lake trout are being planted from different far off bodies of water and are being chosen by traits. How's that native? Swampbuck, did you not state that you prefer the strain being planted in Higgins as table fare compared to the native strain?

I've said it before, I have no problem with Lakers, but let's call a spade a spade. Man has forever altered the environment and ecosystem. We are the trump card that will never go away, this is our domain. This romance with native is frivolous.


----------



## RedM2

swampbuck said:


> No, they would be non-indigenous. To be invasive it has to pose a threat to native species....like ale's for example.


Using what I presume to be the same source that you're referencing for your definition of non-indigenous and invasive, the alewife are NOT an invasive. They explicitly state alewives are non-indigenous. You can't have it both ways... ;-)


----------



## RedM2

Non-indigenous vs Invasive... http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochures/invasive/ansprimer.pdf


----------



## swampbuck

CHASINEYES said:


> I believe it is well documented that lake trout are being planted from different far off bodies of water and are being chosen by traits. How's that native? Swampbuck, did you not state that you prefer the strain being planted in Higgins as table fare compared to the native strain?
> 
> I've said it before, I have no problem with Lakers, but let's call a spade a spade. Man has forever altered the environment and ecosystem. We are the trump card that will never go away, this is our domain. This romance with native is frivolous.


As far as the Lake Michigan lakers. I read an article a couple years ago. As I recall there was 15 or so different strains of native lakers. Most of them are now Extinct, they ain't coming back. But there were a couple natives being worked on., don't know if they are planting them yet.

As far as Higgins lake. It is a pretty unique case. It has some similarities to the Great Lakes, and we recently went through a zebra invasion and crash of smelt.

I don't support the current plants, the DNR made the decision close to 100 years ago to create what we have. We have a big study going on and possible changes coming. But it hasn't been presented. Things have been changing on their own lately.

Natural for Higgins is Whitefish, walleye, pike, smallmouth, and perch.....I would love to see that come back.


----------



## jpmarko

I always laugh when people tout the "Oh, but lake trout are native and salmon are invasive" line. Native, indigenous, non-indigenous, invasive are all labels we like to apply. In my book, there is "desirable" and "undesirable." Lake trout fall into the undesirable category.

Btw, salmon have been reproducing just fine on an alewives diet. They apparently aren't bothered by the thiaminase in the flesh of the alewives.


----------



## wildcoy73

The states will do all they can to save the salmon. Way to much money involved not to.


----------

