# Steelhead populations struggle. Will a catch limit help?



## Nostromo

I saw this and thought I'd share here. This article reports that numbers at the Little Manistee weir have gone from 6000 in 2002 to 2000 in 2020. But the overall numbers stated have gone from 3.5 million in 2011 to 3.0 million in 2018. Obviously that a lot of fish missing. But the DNR speaking to the NRC didn't recommend cutting bag limits. 
_"Maintaining current steelhead populations does not require immediate action, such as reducing bag limits, according to Todd Grischk, assistant chief of the Fisheries Division. According to the DNR, only 58 percent of general anglers catch one steelhead a season, and 24 percent catch more than two. Wesley said many anglers generally do not harvest steelhead, preferring to catch and release."
Steelhead numbers down_

Seems to me 58% of " general " anglers catching a steelhead isn't to bad. Assuming they are either incidental catches or casual Steelheaders. But issues mentioned in the article like warming temperatures and clearer Great Lakes water are not going to go away any time soon.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Populations of all non indigenous Salmonids are down. Like Lk. Huron - Lk. Michigan crashed. From an all time population high in 2013 to where we are now. Though there’s been a balancing of the issue. I believe with the lack of fertility this is where “they” expect the populations to be.

There has been an uptick or recognition of naturally produced fish. Those fish have been part of the take. Suggesting the regulations are effective at present.
If regulations were to change to meet an objective - that objective would be within the parameters of the environment at present.

“We” can’t simply want more fish and plant them. They must have ample food resources - at this time those are far from they were or we’d like. However, if you want to catch fish and keep fish - you certainly have a very good chance of doing so.


----------



## Cork Dust

Nostromo said:


> I saw this and thought I'd share here. This article reports that numbers at the Little Manistee weir have gone from 6000 in 2002 to 2000 in 2020. But the overall numbers stated have gone from 3.5 million in 2011 to 3.0 million in 2018. Obviously that a lot of fish missing. But the DNR speaking to the NRC didn't recommend cutting bag limits.
> _"Maintaining current steelhead populations does not require immediate action, such as reducing bag limits, according to Todd Grischk, assistant chief of the Fisheries Division. According to the DNR, only 58 percent of general anglers catch one steelhead a season, and 24 percent catch more than two. Wesley said many anglers generally do not harvest steelhead, preferring to catch and release."
> Steelhead numbers down_
> 
> Seems to me 58% of " general " anglers catching a steelhead isn't to bad. Assuming they are either incidental catches or casual Steelheaders. But issues mentioned in the article like warming temperatures and clearer Great Lakes water are not going to go away any time soon.


Now, add-in the post-hooking mortality for caught and released fish, which can run as high as 50% when a fih is played to exhaustion and poorly handled by removing from the water prior release. When a fish is removed from the water, their gill lamellae adhere to each other significantly reducing the surface area for gas exchange and oxygen uptake.The more free CO2concentrations increase the greater the rate of acidification of the plasma, which alters cell membrane permeability and functon.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

I have been trying hard to remember to check for clipped fins on every Steelhead I see up close. This year it has been 4 clipped of 7 fish total. (I have only caught one). 

As for “angler observations,” the diary program is good. I have met a creel clerk while fishing Steelhead exactly once, and a CO, never.

If the NRC wants to dial things in on this question, I believe they should fund a new improved data collection program a fair bit more. Just using the #s from the Weir feels pretty thin to me. As does using data more than a few years old.


----------



## Chriss83

Nostromo said:


> I saw this and thought I'd share here. This article reports that numbers at the Little Manistee weir have gone from 6000 in 2002 to 2000 in 2020. But the overall numbers stated have gone from 3.5 million in 2011 to 3.0 million in 2018. Obviously that a lot of fish missing. But the DNR speaking to the NRC didn't recommend cutting bag limits.
> _"Maintaining current steelhead populations does not require immediate action, such as reducing bag limits, according to Todd Grischk, assistant chief of the Fisheries Division. According to the DNR, only 58 percent of general anglers catch one steelhead a season, and 24 percent catch more than two. Wesley said many anglers generally do not harvest steelhead, preferring to catch and release."
> Steelhead numbers down_
> 
> Seems to me 58% of " general " anglers catching a steelhead isn't to bad. Assuming they are either incidental catches or casual Steelheaders. But issues mentioned in the article like warming temperatures and clearer Great Lakes water are not going to go away any time soon.


Just funny few years ago Wesley was talking how anglers could have 0 effect ever on fishery numbers. Limits didn't matter. He sure is good at saying whatever works for his agenda


----------



## METTLEFISH

Chriss83 said:


> Just funny few years ago Wesley was talking how anglers could have 0 effect ever on fishery numbers. Limits didn't matter. He sure is good at saying whatever works for his agenda


I think a lot of people forget the time lapse between stocking and returns. As I said prior - the fish now are representative of 2/3/4 years ago’s production/stocking. Through the years of 5 fish limits the fish were doing there own thing and reproducing. That production is the secondary cause of the 2014 collapse. First is the baitfish collapse.

I’m not a huge fan of a lot of the things Bio’s say and do. They did predict at the onset of the Salmon program they’d not successfully spawn - even though there was much evidence here and around the World that potomodromous Salmonids are successful in spawning efforts. However they do have more knowledge than most and are tasked with creating and managing this fishery. I just wish they’d follow what the fish are telling them.


----------



## Fishndude

I thought Alewives caused fish to not reproduce naturally as well, because of the thiaminase in their bodies? If that is true, then the reduction in Alewives should have exactly the opposite effect - a LOT more naturally reproduced Salmon, and Steelhead. 

Face it, guys. Silver fish in MI fed/feed heavily, and some almost exclusively, on Alewives. When there were unlimited numbers of Alewives, there were unlimited numbers of Kings, Cohos, Browns, and Steelhead. And we literally had the best fishery for Salmon, and Steelhead, in the world. And the State was planting tons of Lake Trout at that time, to re-establish their numbers, as well. As soon as the Alewives crashed, which was due to the introduction of Zebra, and Quagga Mussels, the numbers of Salmon, Browns, and Steelhead declined. And that did happen long before 2013. Lake Huron crashed in 2005, and the numbers @ Lake Michigan started declining seriously within a couple years. Lots of guys called me a doomsayer/naysayer for forecasting this, back then. But if people actually educated themselves on the Mussels, and how they live, it was real simple to see what the future held. And _*this*_ is that future. The Whitefish numbers have been steadily declining as well.

But, the size of fish being caught is better than it has been for years. And the DNR is recording numerous year-classes of Alewives in Lake Michigan, again. And a lot of other baitfish that had serious declines, are rebounding. I see a lot of Mussel shells on the lake and river bottoms, but not as many as I saw a handful of years ago. And the numbers of live Mussels in the place I can see them (read shoreline areas) seem to be significantly lower. Does anyone else remember the absolute drifts of Mussel shells that existed at the boat launch at Tippy for about a dozen years? They aren't there, anymore. 

The real key is Diporeia Shrimp, which is what Alewives feed on. I never hear anyone discussing them, and they were pretty much the key to the amazing food chain we used to have in the Great Lakes, as far as fishermen are concerned. They lost the battle with the Mussels, and that is what changed things for fishermen. 

Here's some light reading material for a blustery day, if you aren't out fishing in it. lol



Zooplankton of the Great Lakes





A Great Lakes mystery: The case of the disappearing species











Invasive mussels challenge commercial whitefish fishing in the Great Lakes | Great Lakes Echo


The spread of invasive quagga and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes has altered the ecology of lakes, including disrupting the food web in the lakes. Commercial whitefish fishers are facing challenges in their industry that may be the result of changes to the food web brought about by the...




greatlakesecho.org





And some less-light reading. This explains why the DNR isn't planting Kings and Browns in southern Lake Michigan anymore.






Task Report - NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory - Ann Arbor, MI, USA


Information from NOAA-GLERL




www.glerl.noaa.gov












[PDF] Continued disappearance of the benthic amphipod Diporeia spp. in Lake Michigan: is there evidence for food limitation? | Semantic Scholar


Intensive studies at 45 m sites in the southeastern region examined changes in lipid content, age structure, and benthic food inputs relative to the hypothesis that food limitation was a factor in Diporeia's disappearance. Benthic surveys were conducted in the southern basin of Lake Michigan and...




www.semanticscholar.org


----------



## Cork Dust

Fishndude said:


> I thought Alewives caused fish to not reproduce naturally as well, because of the thiaminase in their bodies? If that is true, then the reduction in Alewives should have exactly the opposite effect - a LOT more naturally reproduced Salmon, and Steelhead.
> 
> Face it, guys. Silver fish in MI fed/feed heavily, and some almost exclusively, on Alewives. When there were unlimited numbers of Alewives, there were unlimited numbers of Kings, Cohos, Browns, and Steelhead. And we literally had the best fishery for Salmon, and Steelhead, in the world. And the State was planting tons of Lake Trout at that time, to re-establish their numbers, as well. As soon as the Alewives crashed, which was due to the introduction of Zebra, and Quagga Mussels, the numbers of Salmon, Browns, and Steelhead declined. And that did happen long before 2013. Lake Huron crashed in 2005, and the numbers @ Lake Michigan started declining seriously within a couple years. Lots of guys called me a doomsayer/naysayer for forecasting this, back then. But if people actually educate themselves on the Mussels, and how they live, it was real simple to see what the future held. And _*this*_ is that future. The Whitefish numbers have been steadily declining as well.
> 
> But, the size of fish being caught is better than it has been for years. And the DNR is recording numerous year-classes of Alewives in Lake Michigan, again. And a lot of other baitfish that had serious declines, are rebounding. I see a lot of Mussel shells on the lake and river bottoms, but not as many as I saw a handful of years ago. And the numbers of live Mussels in the place I can see them (read shoreline areas) seem to be significantly lower. Does anyone else remember the absolute drifts of Mussel shells that existed at the boat launch at Tippy for about a dozen years? They aren't there, anymore.
> 
> The real key is Diporeia Shrimp, which is what Alewives feed on. I never hear anyone discussing them, and they were pretty much the key to the amazing food chain we used to have in the Great Lakes, as far as fishermen are concerned. They lost the battle with the Mussels, and that is what changed things for fishermen.
> 
> Here's some light reading material for a blustery day, if you aren't out fishing in it. lol
> 
> 
> 
> Zooplankton of the Great Lakes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Great Lakes mystery: The case of the disappearing species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invasive mussels challenge commercial whitefish fishing in the Great Lakes | Great Lakes Echo
> 
> 
> The spread of invasive quagga and zebra mussels in the Great Lakes has altered the ecology of lakes, including disrupting the food web in the lakes. Commercial whitefish fishers are facing challenges in their industry that may be the result of changes to the food web brought about by the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greatlakesecho.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some less-light reading. This explains why the DNR isn't planting Kings and Browns in southern Lake Michigan anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Task Report - NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory - Ann Arbor, MI, USA
> 
> 
> Information from NOAA-GLERL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.glerl.noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [PDF] Continued disappearance of the benthic amphipod Diporeia spp. in Lake Michigan: is there evidence for food limitation? | Semantic Scholar
> 
> 
> Intensive studies at 45 m sites in the southeastern region examined changes in lipid content, age structure, and benthic food inputs relative to the hypothesis that food limitation was a factor in Diporeia's disappearance. Benthic surveys were conducted in the southern basin of Lake Michigan and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.semanticscholar.org


A couple of major clarifications: High thiaminase in fish tissues induces Early MortalitySyndrome in ALL salmonines. Lake trout and atlantic salmon appear to be the most sensitive, with EMS rates in the70% and up range even when alewife stocks were at their lowest densitiesa handful of years bac. These data were drawn from open lake populations in Lake Michigan and presented at a recent lake committee meeting a few years back at the Great Lakes Fishery Comission's annual meeting.On the other end of the EMS sensitivity spectrum are Pacific salmon and steelead, all members of the genus Onchorhynchus sp.The secind clariication, alewife did not cllapse as a consequence of the eradication of the deepwater amphipods stocks in Lake Michigan. Their body fat content did decline, as did their growth rates and fecundity.In 2009, lake trout numbers in Lake Michigan surpassed those of chinook salmon. Alewife rob their body fat storesin late winter /early spring to shunt that energy into production of eggs and sperm prior spawning. Immediatey post-spawn these fish would move offshore into waters generally deeper than 150 feet where they would feed heavily on diproeia sp. amphipods which were at their annual maximum free-fatty acid content from feeding on the spring diatom blooms. This enabled alewife to quickly restore somatic energy content and recover body fat stores after spawning, in-turn serving as the main driver the energy recovery in these forage fish which was eventually transferred to salmon and trout. It was the broad loss of the inshore diatom blooms that has impacted both alewife growth and fat content. The second factor that has significantly contributed to the recent marked decline in alewife is the reality that lake trout are feeding differentially on large post-spawn alewife shifting the age structure downward to its ebb in 2013-2015 when the stock was composted of two year-classes and some "change", only one of which was secually mature.The collapse of the wild origin stock component via the harsh winter and low water of 2012 of Micigan chinook occured couincidentally with the2013 stocking declines of 70% on the Michigan water's side of the basin.

You also left out the sfgnificant role that Mysis diluviana have played in back-filling the role that the declines of Dipoeria caused. Mysis sp.have been augmented by one invasive bloody red mysis species as well that lives inshore on rocky substratesThose declines in inshoremussels you note are likely the loss of zebra mussels, now displaced by Quagga mussels.








National Invasive Species Awareness Week: Bloody red shrimp


Learn more about the bloody red shrimp, an aquatic invasive species in Michigan, and what you can do about it.




www.canr.msu.edu





Perch, whitefish,smelt, alewife, cisco, along with juveniles slamonines eat these three invertebrates. chinook in Lake superior feed heavily on them and smelt


----------



## toto

One question I would have is, what are the numbers in other states such as Wisconsin etc. Are they up or down? If they are down, now we can figure out from there, if however they are up in Wisconsin, we would need to discover the difference in habitat. I remember talking once to one of the biologists about seeing steelhead on the surface of the water on the Pere Marquette several years ago, when I asked why it was studied and determined to be a thiamine problem with eating too many alewives. All I know is it seems the advent of mussels has screwed everything up from years ago, and we are probably at the point of no return. Some of the problems with browns is the cormorant problem, but of course I doubt that's the whole picture either. I suspect, at least in the browns, that there are more out there but they have moved there normal grounds to other more hospitable areas, but that's only a guess. All I know is, we can only hope the MDNR knows of what they speak. I for one only keep maybe 2 fish all year, unless of course it is injured enough to not make it. Besides all this, IF what Cork Dust says concerning the mortality rates are correct, I would really wonder just what this one limit thing from another thread says about the guides. If these guides are fishing every day, and they have a higher catch rate than you or I, who's really doing the damage? Just asking for a friend.


----------



## Cork Dust

toto said:


> One question I would have is, what are the numbers in other states such as Wisconsin etc. Are they up or down? If they are down, now we can figure out from there, if however they are up in Wisconsin, we would need to discover the difference in habitat. I remember talking once to one of the biologists about seeing steelhead on the surface of the water on the Pere Marquette several years ago, when I asked why it was studied and determined to be a thiamine problem with eating too many alewives. All I know is it seems the advent of mussels has screwed everything up from years ago, and we are probably at the point of no return. Some of the problems with browns is the cormorant problem, but of course I doubt that's the whole picture either. I suspect, at least in the browns, that there are more out there but they have moved there normal grounds to other more hospitable areas, but that's only a guess. All I know is, we can only hope the MDNR knows of what they speak. I for one only keep maybe 2 fish all year, unless of course it is injured enough to not make it. Besides all this, IF what Cork Dust says concerning the mortality rates are correct, I would really wonder just what this one limit thing from another thread says about the guides. If these guides are fishing every day, and they have a higher catch rate than you or I, who's really doing the damage? Just asking for a friend.





https://www.wildsteelheaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Twardek-2018-Bulkley_steelhead_CnR_angling.pdf



This study doesn't effectively assess long-term physiologic alterations that induce mortality, just one-time catch and release assessment. It also lends no evidence of mortality impacts of multiple C&R events on an individual fish which would be markedly impacted by ambient stream temperature and handling degree and duration. There is another short-term steelhead C&R mortality assessment that employed tags and follow-up for released fish that concluded that running fish up on the bank or into gravel bars induced significant brain swelling that eventually led to fish death via brain trauma. Shawn Sitar conducted one of the best long-term evaluations of salmonine mortality done on Great Lakes lake trout. His conclusions yeilded significantly greater mortality estimates when compared to values derived from short-term C&R studies. 

One thing that stood out from CMU's research on steelhead demes using otolith micro-chemistry assessments. Both wild and hatchery fish that originated from stocks from the Manistee, Little Manistee, PM, and I believe the Boardman as well, independent of where they are planted (by state or water body plant sites) had greater survival when compared to other hatchery strains throughout the basin for Michigan and other states.

Here is a summary article from the Michigan Sea Grant Steelhead Symposium with a variety of life history aspects assessed and summarized:









Steelhead declines spur discussion of research and management options


The first Steelhead Fishery Workshop addressed questions related to steelhead harvest, bag limits, stocking strategies, and diet.




www.canr.msu.edu


----------



## Tunaman

NO


----------



## toto

Tunaman, NO? 

Cork, I think though that my point is valid in that there just isn't enough research overall to figure exactly what's going on. Until we can have a complete set of data from all conceivable scenarios, I don't think a knee jerk reaction is the right answer.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Say and quote all the studies you’d like. If these issues are the cause, why were these issue not brought to light prior to the planting of these Salmonids? Why weren’t these issues - issues when the lakes were full of nutrients? Blah blah this… blah blah that. When it comes down to it - the lakes are lacking fertility.


----------



## syonker

Didn’t we lose a year of plants as well due to covid?


----------



## Chriss83

toto said:


> One question I would have is, what are the numbers in other states such as Wisconsin etc. Are they up or down? If they are down, now we can figure out from there, if however they are up in Wisconsin, we would need to discover the difference in habitat. I remember talking once to one of the biologists about seeing steelhead on the surface of the water on the Pere Marquette several years ago, when I asked why it was studied and determined to be a thiamine problem with eating too many alewives. All I know is it seems the advent of mussels has screwed everything up from years ago, and we are probably at the point of no return. Some of the problems with browns is the cormorant problem, but of course I doubt that's the whole picture either. I suspect, at least in the browns, that there are more out there but they have moved there normal grounds to other more hospitable areas, but that's only a guess. All I know is, we can only hope the MDNR knows of what they speak. I for one only keep maybe 2 fish all year, unless of course it is injured enough to not make it. Besides all this, IF what Cork Dust says concerning the mortality rates are correct, I would really wonder just what this one limit thing from another thread says about the guides. If these guides are fishing every day, and they have a higher catch rate than you or I, who's really doing the damage? Just asking for a friend.


Browns it seem more of the strain. Good brown fishing stopped when they started with same strains as are streams get. Doesn't make much sense. Went from world class brown fishery to a surprise to catch one fishery.


----------



## Chriss83

METTLEFISH said:


> Say and quote all the studies you’d like. If these issues are the cause, why were these issue not brought to light prior to the planting of these Salmonids? Why weren’t these issues - issues when the lakes were full of nutrients? Blah blah this… blah blah that. When it comes down to it - the lakes are lacking fertility.


Is that why average size is up on steel and kings? More shrimp in cohos over last 4 or 5 years than in a long time? Not saying things are great but infernal would mean smaller fish would it not?


----------



## Kisutch

Boy oh boy oh boy. When are any of you going to get it thru your thick non permeable skulls that 45 million effing lake trout, once again that's 45 MILLION worthless, adult alewife consuming, non fighting, non consumptive (their words not mine), federal tax consuming crap fish are inhaling all the outgoing smolts. Please give me another study. Take all that research and stuff it. Fed fish for everyone, everywhere. That effing Cisco is just another effing Lake trout. Inedible and sucking up alewife. Turning alewife biomass into a a jigging nightmare in the upper lake. Once again keep slurping the koolaid. I have been getting my net pen ready for years. My Lake Michigan bio says that we are going to increase the plant in 2023. But first to appease that fly rodding, special needs water fisheries chief we need to reduce the king plant by 250,000. We have to save the fishery for the children. Effing greasers and Cisco for everybody.

Hey Fishindude, or any of you other non fishing armchair heroes, please point out to me in the 2000 Consent Decree where it says that "Silver Fish" have to take a back seat to anything that the powers that be are stuffing up our behinds. Not an effing thing anywhere that says we have to downsize "Our" fishery. But that 4wt toting fishery cheif is playing us all. His second in command is just a mouthpiece. The guy doesn't even fish. Like most of the command structure there is not one voice of dissent. Morale must be closing in on about "zero" thru the ranks. What a sad state of affairs. I am sick and tired of hearing that we need more time to study the problem. Here is a bulletin hot off the "Kisutch" computer model. LAKE TROUT AND NOW CISCO, BOTH FEDERAL TAX DOLLAR ABORTIONS, ARE CONSUMING MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF ALWIFE. MORE THAN YOU ANY OF YOU COULD EVER COMPREHEND. THOSE WORTHLESS FISH ARE OUT THERE 24/7/365 DESTROYING OUR ONCE GREAT FISHERY. LET US DUCK AND COVER UNDER THE SLOWED CONSENT TALKS AND SCREW THE SPORTFISHING COMMUNITY, AGAIN. IN TWO YEARS WE WILL GET AN INCREASE OF LAKERS AND AN UNQUANTIFIABLE PLANT OF CISCO. ALL BECAUSE THE TALKS WILL STILL HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED, AND THAT ARMPATCH JACKET WEARING CHEIF IN LANSING NEEDS TO MAKE DAMN SURE THAT HIS LEGACY WILL BE SECURE. THAT LAGACY IS TO RID THE WORLD OF ANYTHING DR HOWARD TANNER. TO WIPE OUT THE ANTICIPATION AND HAPPINESS OF A SUNRISE WHILE SETTING LINES ON LAKE MICHIGAN. OF WAITING FOR THAT FIRST ROD TO MOVE OR THE THOUGHT OF A DRAG GETTING SMOKED BY A BIG SPRING KING. IM PRETTY SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THAT GUYS OFFICE. HELL HE HAS TO LEAVE US COMMON FOLK FOR HIS "SPECIAL NEEDS" WATER. WATER I DETEST AND DON'T EVER CARE TO SEE. FLIES ONLY. WHAT IS THAT. I HAVE ONE ON EVERY PAIR OF PANTS I OWN. OOPS OFF COURSE. I have to get my net pens ready for 2023. In the mean time could someone please explain to the fishing community that we did have a steelhead plant this past spring. Covid did not allow for a steelhead egg take spring 2020. That means we will not have a steelhead plant this coming spring 2022. Steelhead, like coho, need to spend a second winter in the raceways. One day this might sink in but I doubt it.

Kisutch 

God Bless Dr Howard Tanner 

Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder 

Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We Pledge to Kill Them All"

Alewife what?


----------



## METTLEFISH

Chriss83 said:


> Is that why average size is up on steel and kings? More shrimp in cohos over last 4 or 5 years than in a long time? Not saying things are great but infernal would mean smaller fish would it not?


No, that is why the reduced plantings - to accommodate a smaller biomass of baitfish. Fewer fish for less bait. The whole 2013 fiasco was
blamed on Chinook produced in Canadien tributaries that emigrated to Lk. Michigan that were not accounted for in the bio’s equations.


----------



## Chriss83

METTLEFISH said:


> No, that is why the reduced plantings - to accommodate a smaller biomass of baitfish. Fewer fish for less bait. The whole 2013 fiasco was
> blamed on Chinook produced in Canadien tributaries that emigrated to Lk. Michigan that were not accounted for in the bio’s equations.


???? You said lake is in fertal? Why then is the more mysis shrimp showing up again? And why are fish bigger? With bait pops rebounding? I dont really want more plants but not sure how bigger fish and more bait can show an infertal lake.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Kisutch said:


> Boy oh boy oh boy. When are any of you going to get it thru your thick non permeable skulls that 45 million effing lake trout, once again that's 45 MILLION worthless, adult alewife consuming, non fighting, non consumptive (their words not mine), federal tax consuming crap fish are inhaling all the outgoing smolts. Please give me another study. Take all that research and stuff it. Fed fish for everyone, everywhere. That effing Cisco is just another effing Lake trout. Inedible and sucking up alewife. Turning alewife biomass into a a jigging nightmare in the upper lake. Once again keep slurping the koolaid. I have been getting my net pen ready for years. My Lake Michigan bio says that we are going to increase the plant in 2023. But first to appease that fly rodding, special needs water fisheries chief we need to reduce the king plant by 250,000. We have to save the fishery for the children. Effing greasers and Cisco for everybody.
> 
> Hey Fishindude, or any of you other non fishing armchair heroes, please point out to me in the 2000 Consent Decree where it says that "Silver Fish" have to take a back seat to anything that the powers that be are stuffing up our behinds. Not an effing thing anywhere that says we have to downsize "Our" fishery. But that 4wt toting fishery cheif is playing us all. His second in command is just a mouthpiece. The guy doesn't even fish. Like most of the command structure there is not one voice of dissent. Morale must be closing in on about "zero" thru the ranks. What a sad state of affairs. I am sick and tired of hearing that we need more time to study the problem. Here is a bulletin hot off the "Kisutch" computer model. LAKE TROUT AND NOW CISCO, BOTH FEDERAL TAX DOLLAR ABORTIONS, ARE CONSUMING MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF ALWIFE. MORE THAN YOU ANY OF YOU COULD EVER COMPREHEND. THOSE WORTHLESS FISH ARE OUT THERE 24/7/365 DESTROYING OUR ONCE GREAT FISHERY. LET US DUCK AND COVER UNDER THE SLOWED CONSENT TALKS AND SCREW THE SPORTFISHING COMMUNITY, AGAIN. IN TWO YEARS WE WILL GET AN INCREASE OF LAKERS AND AN UNQUANTIFIABLE PLANT OF CISCO. ALL BECAUSE THE TALKS WILL STILL HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED, AND THAT ARMPATCH JACKET WEARING CHEIF IN LANSING NEEDS TO MAKE DAMN SURE THAT HIS LEGACY WILL BE SECURE. THAT LAGACY IS TO RID THE WORLD OF ANYTHING DR HOWARD TANNER. TO WIPE OUT THE ANTICIPATION AND HAPPINESS OF A SUNRISE WHILE SETTING LINES ON LAKE MICHIGAN. OF WAITING FOR THAT FIRST ROD TO MOVE OR THE THOUGHT OF A DRAG GETTING SMOKED BY A BIG SPRING KING. IM PRETTY SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THAT GUYS OFFICE. HELL HE HAS TO LEAVE US COMMON FOLK FOR HIS "SPECIAL NEEDS" WATER. WATER I DETEST AND DON'T EVER CARE TO SEE. FLIES ONLY. WHAT IS THAT. I HAVE ONE ON EVERY PAIR OF PANTS I OWN. OOPS OFF COURSE. I have to get my net pens ready for 2023. In the mean time could someone please explain to the fishing community that we did have a steelhead plant this past spring. Covid did not allow for a steelhead egg take spring 2020. That means we will not have a steelhead plant this coming spring 2022. Steelhead, like coho, need to spend a second winter in the raceways. One day this might sink in but I doubt it.
> 
> Kisutch
> 
> God Bless Dr Howard Tanner
> 
> Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder
> 
> Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We Pledge to Kill Them All"
> 
> Alewife what?


Most know of the Tribal/Char issue. And even with all those lakers, all those Cisco, all those Perch, all those Walleye, all those Mussels and all the fish taken by anglers - the Steelhead and Kings have naturally produced enough to be a large part of the take. (In some areas) Personally I’d like all planting stopped on rivers with an ample rate of production. I’ve said that for 30+ years.
I also wish the Tribes were forced to fish with the means at hand of the original treaty signing.


----------



## wildcoy73

the river I fish has had no issue with either. plenty to be caught. I have not caught either a salmon or steelhead on every trip since September.
yep took me a while to get it figured out, but once I hooked the first one, the rest have came easy.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Chriss83

wildcoy73 said:


> the river I fish has had no issue with either. plenty to be caught. I have not caught either a salmon or steelhead on every trip since September.
> yep took me a while to get it figured out, but once I hooked the first one, the rest have came easy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Well that river has gotten way way worse over the years if it's the one you posted on. Guess you are an expert since you finally caught one.


----------



## Cork Dust

Nostromo said:


> Lake Trout are native to our waters and while I agree they are not as sporting to catch. The trend has been to try and restore native animals and plant species.


Three points that are relavent to the Great Lakes Fishery Commision's near six decades long effort to restore lake trout as the "Keystone Predator" of the Great Lakes. This initiative has actually suceeded in ONE lake-Lake Superior. Why? Lake Superior still has a food web that is largely intact, resembling that which existed when lake trout dominated the fish community back in the mid-1900s.. Each of the lower Great Lakes has experienced as many as 180-some colonizations by invasive species at nearly all trophic levels over the duration of their restoration efforts, altering both energy flow pathways as well as energy density at nearly all trophic levels, which, in-turn has resulted in significantly altered annual production rates and productivity. Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) acts at different rates among salmonine species, with lake trout and atlantic salmon the most susceptible, or, why the Great Lakes have wild-origin populations of both Pacific salmon and steelhead. Point source nutrient inflows have been significantly diminished, as have point-source contaminants to a lesser degree since PCBs and dioxin-like PCB congeners continue to be released from tributary sediments via bacterial and invertebrate driven decomposition. Dry fallout of both nitrogen and phosphorus, along with inorganic and methylated-mercury are the principal sources of both nutrients and heavy metal contamiants to Great Lakes waters. Much has been made of the Dreissenid mussel colonies abiity to filter and sequester nutrients from the water column, but they are equally efficient at concentration of heavy metals withing their total biomass, much of which is passed-out in their pseudo-feces packets to get incorporated into body tissues of chironomids, amphipods, oligochaetes, etc. that colonize these mussel colonies. They in-turn are eaten by round goby. Smallmouth, walleye, muskellonge, northern pike, yellow perch, brown trout, lake trout and the cisco hybrid that is expanding in northern Lake Michigan all eat round goby for all or part of their annual diets. As I mentioned in an earlier post, round goby have about half the caloric density of a length-matched alewife or smelt in Lake Michigan; less than that in Lake Huron waters. Consequently, any fish stock that used to utiize alewife and smelt as their principal piscivore forage base, has to increase their individual consumption rate annually to maintain previous annual growth rates, or declines in growth will result longterm. 

I strongly suspect that the increases in lake trout body-burden methyl-mercury levels are not a consequence of lake trout stock maturation, since one of the sites sampled in the Wisconsin monitoring program was in the northern basin segment that is being overfished, but are a reflection of their increased utilization of round goby as a protein source. Wisconsin based toxicologists presented some disturbing data on lake trout methyl-mercury body burden levels from several sites in Lake Michigan a couple of years ago at the annual meetings of GLFC Lake Management Committees members. What they found was that lake trout at legal size for inclusion in sport and commercial fisher creels contained either higher or roughly equivalent methyl-mercury concentrations as spawning chinook salmon, implying that lake trout beccome more toxic over their life-span as a legal length fish in both the sport and tribal commercial fisheries. Keep in mind that methyl-mercury unlike PCBs or dioxin-like PCB congener breakdown products bio-concentrate in both fatty and muscle tissue at roughly equivalent levels, so how you fillet, skin and trim their fillets has only a beneficial impact on lowering their PCB and dioxin-like PCB congeners concentrations, not methyl-mercury. Also worth noting, Michigan remains as the only Great Lakes state to monitor and report on dioxin-like PCB congener cocentration in fish species, despite several agreements to move toward standardizing fish consumption advisories basin-wide, another failure of the GLFC oversight efforts.

Lake Huron was once held, after the alewife stock crash that peaked in 2005-2006, as a potential example of a Great Lake restoring its forage base as emeral shiners rebounded significanlty in the post-aleiwife era. What is now the broad trend is a forage fish stock composed largely of round goby, some smelt from north channel waters primarily, and a slowy rebuilding alewife stock whose numbers and existence in the food web and slowly expanding via the Straits of Mackinac waters, despite being hammered by a broad array of piscivores. I take this as further evidence that the Great Lakes Fishery Comm. Lake Management Committee members should re-read Guy Fleisher's decades-old analysis of the insosumountable issues that are at work to impair the forage fish stocks from ever approaching their Forage Fish Community Stock objectives...written well before the declines in alewife forage and invasive mussel invasion intervals.

Does it not make sense to finally stop trying to propagate a fish stock artificially that doesn't actually "fit" the current food web structure or function in four out of five of the Great Lakes, as well as the broad toxicant level content goals of the end-consumer base for the states directly involved in management, all of which derive most of their Fish and Game management monies from license sales, as well as Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Robertson revenues? I am always fascinated that the one agency that doesn't have a financial stake in the robustness of the Great Lakes Fishery also doesn't derive its annual operating monies directly from any aspect of the sport fishery.


----------



## Cork Dust

wildcoy73 said:


> the river I fish has had no issue with either. plenty to be caught. I have not caught either a salmon or steelhead on every trip since September.
> yep took me a while to get it figured out, but once I hooked the first one, the rest have came easy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N986U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Are you saying you are catching lake trout in the river you fish routinely?


----------



## 2stix-and-a-string

Do any of you remember pheasants?


----------



## METTLEFISH

Kisutch said:


> What education of fisheries and wildlife does Metalfish have. I am a descendant of a MIT graduate from the 50's. That was back when going to college actually meant something. In this day and age being a descendant of 7,342 fresh water hall of fame members has no meaning to me. Did they not have have a job and fished all day. Great. I have well over 1.25 million miles traveled in a car pursuing my disease. I don't brag about it. My father was trying to figure out what Nicola Tesla was doing. I have held a light bulb that lit in my hand without being in a socket. That was when I was six years old. I am substantially older. When have any of you had that experience in your life. You have know idea the power of the human brain. Nor have you grasped the power or retention of Cork Dust's brain. He still sets lines on northern Lake Michigan. He still enjoys chasing silver fish. He gets it. He consumes the available data. He cares to see that silver fish have a place in these Great Lakes. So lay off. You are taking on an individual that, like me, knows a helluva lot more than most of you.
> 
> Kisutch
> 
> God Bless Dr Howard Tanner
> 
> Former Lake Michigan Stakeholder
> 
> Lake Michigan Lake Trout Gillnetters Association "We Pledge to Kill Them All "
> 
> Alewife what?


Kisutch, I have a lifetime of reading and fishing these fish. Remember, the biologists - even Tanner said the salmon would not be successful at reproduction - even though there was ample evidence they would - Browns, Steelhead and even a wild run of Coho in a certain creek in Benzie county for decades
Prior. Though I don’t study all the info available - I do read a lot of it. Typically a degree leads one to only believe what they read, and not what is right in front of them. And the studies as others have mentioned are post issue. If the biologist are so great at what they do - why do we have issues with any fishery or game stock. 
So your proud of Corkdust’s ability to talk of studies that are mostly moot when published. I’m proud to be the great grandson of Lou. Eppinger. Corkdust still has not shown where I said nutrients are back to where they where or higher than they were. What I’ve said is when fish numbers are lower - typically there are more nutrients available per fish unless the environment continues to have a lessor amount of nutrient provided. Pretty simple.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Cork Dust said:


> Three points that are relavent to the Great Lakes Fishery Commision's near six decades long effort to restore lake trout as the "Keystone Predator" of the Great Lakes. This initiative has actually suceeded in ONE lake-Lake Superior. Why? Lake Superior still has a food web that is largely intact, resembling that which existed when lake trout dominated the fish community back in the mid-1900s.. Each of the lower Great Lakes has experienced as many as 180-some colonizations by invasive species at nearly all trophic levels over the duration of their restoration efforts, altering both energy flow pathways as well as energy density at nearly all trophic levels, which, in-turn has resulted in significantly altered annual production rates and productivity. Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) acts at different rates among salmonine species, with lake trout and atlantic salmon the most susceptible, or, why the Great Lakes have wild-origin populations of both Pacific salmon and steelhead. Point source nutrient inflows have been significantly diminished, as have point-source contaminants to a lesser degree since PCBs and dioxin-like PCB congeners continue to be released from tributary sediments via bacterial and invertebrate driven decomposition. Dry fallout of both nitrogen and phosphorus, along with inorganic and methylated-mercury are the principal sources of both nutrients and heavy metal contamiants to Great Lakes waters. Much has been made of the Dreissenid mussel colonies abiity to filter and sequester nutrients from the water column, but they are equally efficient at concentration of heavy metals withing their total biomass, much of which is passed-out in their pseudo-feces packets to get incorporated into body tissues of chironomids, amphipods, oligochaetes, etc. that colonize these mussel colonies. They in-turn are eaten by round goby. Smallmouth, walleye, muskellonge, northern pike, yellow
> 
> 
> Cork Dust said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three points that are relavent to the Great Lakes Fishery Commision's near six decades long effort to restore lake trout as the "Keystone Predator" of the Great Lakes. This initiative has actually suceeded in ONE lake-Lake Superior. Why? Lake Superior still has a food web that is largely intact, resembling that which existed when lake trout dominated the fish community back in the mid-1900s.. Each of the lower Great Lakes has experienced as many as 180-some colonizations by invasive species at nearly all trophic levels over the duration of their restoration efforts, altering both energy flow pathways as well as energy density at nearly all trophic levels, which, in-turn has resulted in significantly altered annual production rates and productivity. Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) acts at different rates among salmonine species, with lake trout and atlantic salmon the most susceptible, or, why the Great Lakes have wild-origin populations of both Pacific salmon and steelhead. Point source nutrient inflows have been significantly diminished, as have point-source contaminants to a lesser degree since PCBs and dioxin-like PCB congeners continue to be released from tributary sediments via bacterial and invertebrate driven decomposition. Dry fallout of both nitrogen and phosphorus, along with inorganic and methylated-mercury are the principal sources of both nutrients and heavy metal contamiants to Great Lakes waters. Much has been made of the Dreissenid mussel colonies abiity to filter and sequester nutrients from the water column, but they are equally efficient at concentration of heavy metals withing their total biomass, much of which is passed-out in their pseudo-feces packets to get incorporated into body tissues of chironomids, amphipods, oligochaetes, etc. that colonize these mussel colonies. They in-turn are eaten by round goby. Smallmouth, walleye, muskellonge, northern pike, yellow perch, brown trout, lake trout and the cisco hybrid that is expanding in northern Lake Michigan all eat round goby for all or part of their annual diets. As I mentioned in an earlier post, round goby have about half the caloric density of a length-matched alewife or smelt in Lake Michigan; less than that in Lake Huron waters. Consequently, any fish stock that used to utiize alewife and smelt as their principal piscivore forage base, has to increase their individual consumption rate annually to maintain previous annual growth rates, or declines in growth will result longterm.
> 
> I strongly suspect that the increases in lake trout body-burden methyl-mercury levels are not a consequence of lake trout stock maturation, since one of the sites sampled in the Wisconsin monitoring program was in the northern basin segment that is being overfished, but are a reflection of their increased utilization of round goby as a protein source. Wisconsin based toxicologists presented some disturbing data on lake trout methyl-mercury body burden levels from several sites in Lake Michigan a couple of years ago at the annual meetings of GLFC Lake Management Committees members. What they found was that lake trout at legal size for inclusion in sport and commercial fisher creels contained either higher or roughly equivalent methyl-mercury concentrations as spawning chinook salmon, implying that lake trout beccome more toxic over their life-span as a legal length fish in both the sport and tribal commercial fisheries. Keep in mind that methyl-mercury unlike PCBs or dioxin-like PCB congener breakdown products bio-concentrate in both fatty and muscle tissue at roughly equivalent levels, so how you fillet, skin and trim their fillets has only a beneficial impact on lowering their PCB and dioxin-like PCB congeners concentrations, not methyl-mercury. Also worth noting, Michigan remains as the only Great Lakes state to monitor and report on dioxin-like PCB congener cocentration in fish species, despite several agreements to move toward standardizing fish consumption advisories basin-wide, another failure of the GLFC oversight efforts.
> 
> Lake Huron was once held, after the alewife stock crash that peaked in 2005-2006, as a potential example of a Great Lake restoring its forage base as emeral shiners rebounded significanlty in the post-aleiwife era. What is now the broad trend is a forage fish stock composed largely of round goby, some smelt from north channel waters primarily, and a slowy rebuilding alewife stock whose numbers and existence in the food web and slowly expanding via the Straits of Mackinac waters, despite being hammered by a broad array of piscivores. I take this as further evidence that the Great Lakes Fishery Comm. Lake Management Committee members should re-read Guy Fleisher's decades-old analysis of the insosumountable issues that are at work to impair the forage fish stocks from ever approaching their Forage Fish Community Stock objectives...written well before the declines in alewife forage and invasive mussel invasion intervals.
> 
> Does it not make sense to finally stop trying to propagate a fish stock artificially that doesn't actually "fit" the current food web structure or function in four out of five of the Great Lakes, as well as the broad toxicant level content goals of the end-consumer base for the states directly involved in management, all of which derive most of their Fish and Game management monies from license sales, as well as Dingell-Johnson/Pittman Robertson revenues? I am always fascinated that the one agency that doesn't have a financial stake in the robustness of the Great Lakes Fishery also doesn't derive its annual operating monies directly from any aspect of the sport fishery.
Click to expand...

Cork Dust: You mention the necessity to eat more to maintain. Doesn’t that typically lead to caloric deficit?


----------



## METTLEFISH

2stix-and-a-string said:


> Do any of you remember pheasants?


Do you mean the invasive Asian Pheasant?


----------



## Cork Dust

METTLEFISH said:


> Kisutch, I have a lifetime of reading and fishing these fish. Remember, the biologists - even Tanner said the salmon would not be successful at reproduction - even though there was ample evidence they would - Browns, Steelhead and even a wild run of Coho in a certain creek in Benzie county for decades
> Prior. Though I don’t study all the info available - I do read a lot of it. Typically a degree leads one to only believe what they read, and not what is right in front of them. And the studies as others have mentioned are post issue. If the biologist are so great at what they do - why do we have issues with any fishery or game stock.
> So your proud of Corkdust’s ability to talk of studies that are mostly moot when published. I’m proud to be the great grandson of Lou. Eppinger. Corkdust still has not shown where I said nutrients are back to where they where or higher than they were. What I’ve said is when fish numbers are lower - typically there are more nutrients available per fish unless the environment continues to have a lessor amount of nutrient provided. Pretty simple.



Which is EXACTLY what has happened: Overland runoff, with the exception of Ohio's shoreline with Lake Erie, has decreased, as have all point sources of nitrogen and phosphorus, courtesy of the provisions enacted post-passage of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts and their ammendments. What remains is dry fallout as the principal source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Great Lakes. I have posted several lakewide monitoring studies that sample both total phophorus as well as dissolved phosphorus...all of which show marked declines in both shoreline and open water concentrations, both seasonally and annually, In order to learn information that disagrees with your preconceptions and postulations, you actually have to be willing to learn, grasp and concetually understand what all the current data indicate. Where did all the phosphourus and nitrogen go? Over half of it is bound in invasive mussel colonies in hard shell mass, with the remainder in soft mussel tissue...the reservoir you opt to overlook and fail to grasp in your summary sentence. Fewer fish? Yes and No. As sport fish have declined via declines in the alewife forage base, round goby have exploded in numbers and lake wide biomass. However, their energy density at matched length is roughly half that of the same size alewife and smelt. Fewer Diporeia sp. and Mysis diluviana? Yes. But massive increases in quagga mussel biomass that far and away offset these declines, an organism population that has sequestered the nutrients your "geneolgy" enables you to "understand and comprehend". The major reason biologists have to constantly adapt management to the current situation is because idiots like you grab a politician who, in turn either alters funding pathways or closes them, forcing political interventions that are not conducive to fish and game management, short or long-term.

I put my Alpha Burley knee-hghs on prior reading your most recent B.S, because you have no clue of what is actually going on in the Great Lakes or where the fishery is headed. How many times do scietists actually have to document the declines in nutrient levels and availability since dreissenid mussel invasion of the Great Lakes for you to actually achieve a working understanding of the present situation? Why did the zooplankton population shift from one dominated by cladoceran species like Daphnia sp. and Bosmina sp., with ample Diporeia sp. and Mysis sp (mysis densities have declined by 70% in Lake Michigan since invasive mussel infestation and proliferation) stocks to one now dominated by far smaller Limnocalanus sp copepods that are ominivores and characteristic of highly infertile oligotrophic waters now? As my dad would state...you are just STUMP DUMB. Why have alewife and smelt seasonal and annual somatic energy stores been documented to have declined sequentially from the early 2000s for both adults and juveniles, even though their population densities have also declined significantly? Per your perspective, they should have increased, after-all there are fewer of them swimming around?

Thanks for reminding me of the principal reason why I opted to leave fisheries biology and go to a field where I could amply provide for my family and retire early.


----------



## Cork Dust

METTLEFISH said:


> Cork Dust: You mention the necessity to eat more to maintain. Doesn’t that typically lead to caloric deficit?


Do you realize that your contention only applies in a situation where the prey species numbers or biomass is declining or far lower than previous values? Round Goby numbers and biomass are quite high in both Lakes Huron and Michigan. You clearly have no understanding of what you profess to understand.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Cork Dust said:


> Which is EXACTLY what has happened: Overland runoff, with the exception of Ohio's shoreline with Lake Erie, has decreased, as have all point sources of nitrogen and phosphorus, courtesy of the provisions enacted post-passage of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts and their ammendments. What remains is dry fallout as the principal source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Great Lakes. I have posted several lakewide monitoring studies that sample both total phophorus as well as dissolved phosphorus...all of which show marked declines in both shoreline and open water concentrations, both seasonally and annually, In order to learn information that disagrees with your preconceptions and postulations, you actually have to be willing to learn, grasp and concetually understand what all the current data indicate. Where did all the phosphourus and nitrogen go? Over half of it is bound in invasive mussel colonies in hard shell mass, with the remainder in soft mussel tissue...the reservoir you opt to overlook and fail to grasp in your summary sentence. Fewer fish? Yes and No. As sport fish have declined via declines in the alewife forage base, round goby have exploded in numbers and lake wide biomass. However, their energy density at matched length is roughly half that of the same size alewife and smelt. Fewer Diporeia sp. and Mysis diluviana? Yes. But massive increases in quagga mussel biomass that far and away offset these declines, an organism population that has sequestered the nutrients your "geneolgy" enables you to "understand and comprehend". The major reason biologists have to constantly adapt management to the current situation is because idiots like you grab a politician who, in turn either alters funding pathways or closes them, forcing political interventions that are not conducive to fish and game management, short or long-term.
> 
> I put my Alpha Burley knee-hghs on prior reading your most recent B.S, because you have no clue of what is actually going on in the Great Lakes or where the fishery is headed. How many times do scietists actually have to document the declines in nutrient levels and availability since dreissenid mussel invasion of the Great Lakes for you to actually achieve a working understanding of the present situation? Why did the zooplankton population shift from one dominated by cladoceran species like Daphnia sp. and Bosmina sp., with ample Diporeia sp. and Mysis sp (mysis densities have declined by 70% in Lake Michigan since invasive mussel infestation and proliferation) stocks to one now dominated by far smaller Limnocalanus sp copepods that are ominivores and characteristic of highly infertile oligotrophic waters now? As my dad would state...you are just STUMP DUMB. Why have alewife and smelt seasonal and annual somatic energy stores been documented to have declined sequentially from the early 2000s for both adults and juveniles, even though their population densities have also declined significantly? Per your perspective, they should have increased, after-all there are fewer of them swimming around?
> 
> Thanks for reminding me of the principal reason why I opted to leave fisheries biology and go to a field where I could amply provide for my family and retire early.
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> Remember though - the biologist say the salmon won’t eat the gobies!


BTW - Eppinger Manufacturing has and does contribute to Sea Grant. So your misleading spewing of false truths is further backed up by that statement.
Are you insinuating the only nutrients available are N & P? A lot of nutrients are stored in soils along River ways that erode and flow into larger bodies of water - providing a continual source of nutrients. Some people are confused by those touting sterile water. Sterile waters are why most Salmonids out migrate to the ocean or large lakes. Their return is the largest source of nutrient in many - many rivers, being found far form the waters edge in fact.
Not to get personal - however, you spew more BS than the manure spreader at the farm! Anybody knows the impact mussels have had. For you to imply I don’t further suggests your inability to face the fact that even reading can’t fix stupid. As I’ve said time and again - the lakes need more nutrients. Here’s a link that may be of interest to you.








Can Controversial Ocean Iron Fertilization Save Salmon?


What's been described as a "rogue" geoengineering experiment is really an effort, however flawed, to restore salmon abundance




www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## METTLEFISH

Cork Dust said:


> Do you realize that your contention only applies in a situation where the prey species numbers or biomass is declining or far lower than previous values? Round Goby numbers and biomass are quite high in both Lakes Huron and Michigan. You clearly have no understanding of what you profess to understand.


So gobies have the same nutrient availability as alewive? Could of swore you recently said otherwise!
Fishes can’t simply consume more to make up for lower nutrient in their prey species. It takes calories to catch those lil morsels ya know! So expending 65 calories to consume 30 that takes 6 to digest does not make up for the loss of nutrients.
BTW… Again - the biologist say the salmon won’t eat gobies!


----------



## Cork Dust

METTLEFISH said:


> BTW - Eppinger Manufacturing has and does contribute to Sea Grant. So your misleading spewing of false truths is further backed up by that statement.
> Are you insinuating the only nutrients available are N & P? A lot of nutrients are stored in soils along River ways that erode and flow into larger bodies of water - providing a continual source of nutrients. Some people are confused by those touting sterile water. Sterile waters are why most Salmonids out migrate to the ocean or large lakes. Their return is the largest source of nutrient in many - many rivers, being found far form the waters edge in fact.
> Not to get personal - however, you spew more BS than the manure spreader at the farm! Anybody knows the impact mussels have had. For you to imply I don’t further suggests your inability to face the fact that even reading can’t fix stupid. As I’ve said time and again - the lakes need more nutrients. Here’s a link that may be of interest to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can Controversial Ocean Iron Fertilization Save Salmon?
> 
> 
> What's been described as a "rogue" geoengineering experiment is really an effort, however flawed, to restore salmon abundance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com


Why do nitrogen and phosphorus drive biolgic production? Nitrogen is involved in forming the peptide bonds that dind amino acids in sequence to form protein moleducles, the building blocks that form muscl tissue enzymes that catalize many reactions, etc phosophorus is essential since it is the main ion that composes AdensosinTr-iphosphate, acompound that is fundamentally essential as an electron donor for many reactions inside biolgic tissue to actually occurr, why they are recognized asessential for biolgic systems to function. You have no fundamental clue of what you are talking about. You are citing why salmon and steelhead evolved to die after spawnings in their natal streams and river systems, which has no real beagring on current Great Lake nutrient loading rates or sources. Untreated sewage from a handful of large munical sewage treatment facilities annually handle more nitrogen and phosphorus than the annual release from all the rivers in the native range of Pacific salmon, including Russian streams



METTLEFISH said:


> So gobies have the same nutrient availability as alewive? Could of swore you recently said otherwise!
> Fishes can’t simply consume more to make up for lower nutrient in their prey species. It takes calories to catch those lil morsels ya know! So expending 65 calories to consume 30 that takes 6 to digest does not make up for the loss of nutrients.
> BTW… Again - the biologist say the salmon won’t eat gobies!


Their numbers are far greater, so on a total popution basis they represent far more. Do you grasp this reality? So, one more time:
On a matched size basis they contain about half the caloric density of alewife in Lake Michigan, less than that in Lake Huron. Congratulations on your inability to read for content since I covered all the energy cost at each time-step in the forage fish conversion to biomass post. The fish species that consume round goby at significant rates are not routinely pelagic feeders like Pacific salmon and steelhead, so your fictitious energy consumptionn versus energy derived example is not only based on a false numbers, it is irrelevant to these two species of salmon as well as to steelhead . 
Yes, there are documented cases of round goby in stomach contents of both cohos, steelhead, and chinook salmon. However, very few cases of chinook salmon eating them. Cal lDr. Brian Roth at MSU's Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife. He is running the multi-year calmonine food habitats analysis and monitering effort. I am quoting hi data.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Cork Dust said:


> Why do nitrogen and phosphorus drive biolgic production? Nitrogen is involved in forming the peptide bonds that dind amino acids in sequence to form protein moleducles, the building blocks that form muscl tissue enzymes that catalize many reactions, etc phosophorus is essential since it is the main ion that composes AdensosinTr-iphosphate, acompound that is fundamentally essential as an electron donor for many reactions inside biolgic tissue to actually occurr, why they are recognized asessential for biolgic systems to function. You have no fundamental clue of what you are talking about. You are citing why salmon and steelhead evolved to die after spawnings in their natal streams and river systems, which has no real beagring on current Great Lake nutrient loading rates or sources. Untreated sewage from a handful of large munical sewage treatment facilities annually handle more nitrogen and phosphorus than the annual release from all the rivers in the native range of Pacific salmon, including Russian streams
> 
> 
> 
> Their numbers are far greater, so on a total popution basis they represent far more. Do you grasp this reality? So, one more time:
> On a matched size basis they contain about half the caloric density of alewife in Lake Michigan, less than that in Lake Huron. Congratulations on your inability to read for content since I covered all the energy cost at each time-step in the forage fish conversion to biomass post. The fish species that consume round goby at significant rates are not routinely pelagic feeders like Pacific salmon and steelhead, so your fictitious energy consumptionn versus energy derived example is not only based on a false numbers, it is irrelevant to these two species of salmon as well as to steelhead .
> Yes, there are documented cases of round goby in stomach contents of both cohos, steelhead, and chinook salmon. However, very few cases of chinook salmon eating them. Cal lDr. Brian Roth at MSU's Dept of Fisheries and Wildlife. He is running the multi-year calmonine food habitats analysis and monitering effort. I am quoting hi data.


So… how did those things occur through history before a biologist studied and defined them and their roles! Amazing! Sounds like you’d tell the minor’s they are safe until we do a study on what killed the canary rather than accessing the birds state of health determining it’s dead, and most likely dead from gases in the mine! Great work there! Yes - caloric deficit is reel! (Real)
Also, caloric deficit is well documented and can linked across the different habitats here in Earth. Dr. Jude has assessed the pond I live on. And caloric deficit has been blamed for the stunting of fish’s therein. Good thing these Lk. MI. fish are awaiting the studies and not starving whilst they await the results of the studies!


----------



## Nostromo

METTLEFISH said:


> So… how did those things occur through history before a biologist studied and defined them and their roles! Amazing! Sounds like you’d tell the minor’s they are safe until we do a study on what killed the canary rather than accessing the birds state of health determining it’s dead, and most likely dead from gases in the mine! Great work there! Yes - caloric deficit is reel! (Real)
> Also, caloric deficit is well documented and can linked across the different habitats here in Earth. Dr. Jude has assessed the pond I live on. And caloric deficit has been blamed for the stunting of fish’s therein. Good thing these Lk. MI. fish are awaiting the studies and not starving whilst they await the results of the studies!


Well, I think the main take away from this is it's a complicated and dynamic system. Our understanding of it is growing and so is our ability to manage it.


----------



## Cork Dust

METTLEFISH said:


> So… how did those things occur through history before a biologist studied and defined them and their roles! Amazing! Sounds like you’d tell the minor’s they are safe until we do a study on what killed the canary rather than accessing the birds state of health determining it’s dead, and most likely dead from gases in the mine! Great work there! Yes - caloric deficit is reel! (Real)
> Also, caloric deficit is well documented and can linked across the different habitats here in Earth. Dr. Jude has assessed the pond I live on. And caloric deficit has been blamed for the stunting of fish’s therein. Good thing these Lk. MI. fish are awaiting the studies and not starving whilst they await the results of the studies!


Where on Earth did I say that caloric defecit was not a real phenomena? Actually, a perfect example occurred 2003 through 2005 as the alewife stocks in Lake Huron were reduced significantly to the point where they collapsed, due to over predation by too many chinook salmon. Northern Lake Michigan waters were flooded with too skinny chinook that were all head and no body. I have a photo on my 'fridge of me holding one I caught off Manistique out by the Beaver Island chain in 2005. You apparently don't recall that the MDNR Fishery personnel actually attempted to pro-actively reduce chinook plants to avoid this outcome several years prior its onset but were SHOUTED DOWN by "omniscient" sport fishers and the politicians they had secured to support them....how odd and out of the norm. Maybe there were not enough descendants of Fishing Hall of Fame members there who read proficiently, but comprehend little of what they "consume". Fish biologist refer to these folks as "remoras"...



https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2009/20090007.pdf



Why is caloric defecit not operative for lake trout, brown trout, smallmouth bass, and walleye who now routinely feed on round goby for current forage supplementation? Because their individual time-step energy expenditures to: Search and locate, capture, and eventually digest round goby are offset by their abundance and concentrations which enable prey fish to eat more goby per unit time and continue to grow at roughly historic rates. This type of predator-prey relationship is referred to as a functional response model by community ecologists. It was explained fully by Drs. Bence and Jones at the Sea Grant sponsored meetings that preceeded the series of meetings in all Lake Michigan bordering states on the rationale for developing the four stocking option offered in 2012 for implementation in Lake Michigan in spring of 2013. MSU's Quantitative Fishery lab. personnel developed this array of stocking options from an initial list of hundreds of choices via application of Decision Analysis modeling to determine: Optimal alewife stock density values that would cause minimal Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) issues for lake trout populations while ensuring a viable sport fishery. Political and fiscal concerns over-road the enactment of Option 4, a mixed species stocking array reduction, the choice that offered the highest probability of achieving the pre-stated goals. This is why we are at were we are in Lake Michigan fishery management.

I know Dave Jude to be exactly what he is, a glad-handing opportunist who peddles his credetials for income and press space. You will find it interesting that Jude's group was taking samples in Lake Michigan off Muskegon in the early 2000s when they hit massive concentrations of dreissenid mussels with their sampling gear, initiating broader sampling by the USGS lab. and Tom Nalepa's very thourough description of the proliferation and displacement of Diporeia sp. populations from much of the Lake Michigan subtrate from base densities of 1,500 per square meter. Jude ran back to Michigan's campus and grabbedd an underwater video camera and documented what they found. mountains of invasive mussels filtering invertebrates and their N and P contents out of the water column. Dr, Jude is also the "scientist" who subsequently made the claim that Asian carp would not be able to gain a foothold in the Great Lakes because the open lake nutrient concentrations were far too low to enable their fry and juvenile life stages to survive. Golly, one more documented study on nutrient depletion by Quagga sp. and zebra mussels. I guess he forgot that these two invasive carp species, silver and bighead, primarily spawn in large river systems and use them as nursery areas for their young prior moving into open water. Subesequent studies on these two Asian carp's energy demands for fry and juveniles determined that a seed population of a few dozen fish could jump-start a viable cell of these invasive fish.that would eventully spread to eliminate most river dwelling sport fish...like steelhead, the subject of this thread. .


----------



## METTLEFISH

Cork Dust said:


> Where on Earth did I say that caloric defecit was not a real phenomena? Actually, a perfect example occurred 2003 through 2005 as the alewife stocks in Lake Huron were reduced significantly to the point where they collapsed, due to over predation by too many chinook salmon. Northern Lake Michigan waters were flooded with too skinny chinook that were all head and no body. I have a photo on my 'fridge of me holding one I caught off Manistique out by the Beaver Island chain in 2005. You apparently don't recall that the MDNR Fishery personnel actually attempted to pro-actively reduce chinook plants to avoid this outcome several years prior its onset but were SHOUTED DOWN by "omniscient" sport fishers and the politicians they had secured to support them....how odd and out of the norm. Maybe there were not enough descendants of Fishing Hall of Fame members there who read proficiently, but comprehend little of what they "consume". Fish biologist refer to these folks as "remoras"...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/2009/20090007.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Why is caloric defecit not operative for lake trout, brown trout, smallmouth bass, and walleye who now routinely feed on round goby for current forage supplementation? Because their individual time-step energy expenditures to: Search and locate, capture, and eventually digest round goby are offset by their abundance and concentrations which enable prey fish to eat more goby per unit time and continue to grow at roughly historic rates. This type of predator-prey relationship is referred to as a functional response model by community ecologists. It was explained fully by Drs. Bence and Jones at the Sea Grant sponsored meetings that preceeded the series of meetings in all Lake Michigan bordering states on the rationale for developing the four stocking option offered in 2012 for implementation in Lake Michigan in spring of 2013. MSU's Quantitative Fishery lab. personnel developed this array of stocking options from an initial list of hundreds of choices via application of Decision Analysis modeling to determine: Optimal alewife stock density values that would cause minimal Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) issues for lake trout populations while ensuring a viable sport fishery. Political and fiscal concerns over-road the enactment of Option 4, a mixed species stocking array reduction, the choice that offered the highest probability of achieving the pre-stated goals. This is why we are at were we are in Lake Michigan fishery management.
> 
> I know Dave Jude to be exactly what he is, a glad-handing opportunist who peddles his credetials for income and press space. You will find it interesting that Jude's group was taking samples in Lake Michigan off Muskegon in the early 2000s when they hit massive concentrations of dreissenid mussels with their sampling gear, initiating broader sampling by the USGS lab. and Tom Nalepa's very thourough description of the proliferation and displacement of Diporeia sp. populations from much of the Lake Michigan subtrate from base densities of 1,500 per square meter. Jude ran back to Michigan's campus and grabbedd an underwater video camera and documented what they found. mountains of invasive mussels filtering invertebrates and their N and P contents out of the water column. Dr, Jude is also the "scientist" who subsequently made the claim that Asian carp would not be able to gain a foothold in the Great Lakes because the open lake nutrient concentrations were far too low to enable their fry and juvenile life stages to survive. Golly, one more documented study on nutrient depletion by Quagga sp. and zebra mussels. I guess he forgot that these two invasive carp species, silver and bighead, primarily spawn in large river systems and use them as nursery areas for their young prior moving into open water. Subesequent studies on these two Asian carp's energy demands for fry and juveniles determined that a seed population of a few dozen fish could jump-start a viable cell of these invasive fish.that would eventully spread to eliminate most river dwelling sport fish...like steelhead, the subject of this thread. .


So - over predation by salmon causes caloric deficit in alewives! Who knew! Again, the bio’s were not aware of the production in Canadian waters is what I read, perhaps it was Mr. Wesley? But it was definitely in print. Otherwise how on earth could there be too many salmon in Lk. MI. with all the bio’s employed to assess it?
I can read very well. So well in fact I’ve noted the lack of ability by bio’s to prevent further invasive’s.
Lamprey, Alewives, Loostrife, Milfoil, mussels, shrimp. I suppose they thought it wouldn’t happen again. Or perhaps if it did they wouldn’t reproduce. Or perhaps they invite them to provide work for themselves while they await their 20 and out.
Steelhead are river dwellers? Who knew, I thought they were either potomodromous or anadromous!
And yes Dr. Jude is a joke. He was terminated from work at our family cottage chain for his archaic stance on fisheries.


----------



## Cork Dust

So - over predation by salmon causes caloric deficit in alewives! Who knew! Again, the bio’s were not aware of the production in Canadian waters is what I read, perhaps it was Mr. Wesley? But it was definitely in print. Otherwise how on earth could there be too many salmon in Lk. MI. with all the bio’s employed to assess it?
I can read very well. So well in fact I’ve noted the lack of ability by bio’s to prevent further invasive’s.
Lamprey, Alewives, Loostrife, Milfoil, mussels, shrimp. I suppose they thought it wouldn’t happen again. Or perhaps if it did they wouldn’t reproduce. Or perhaps they invite them to provide work for themselves while they await their 20 and out.
Steelhead are river dwellers? Who knew, I thought they were either potomodromous or anadromous!
And yes Dr. Jude is a joke. He was terminated from work at our family cottage chain for his archaic stance on fisheries.
[/QUOTE] 

Interesting, yet you cite him to underscore your point, after having rejected his perspectives. A shill working for a functional moron...

Why do you continually attempt to twist my words, particularly when you continue to underscore that you don't have a funcitonal grasp or underestanding of basic aquatic food web structure and dynamics, limnology or limnoligic concepts, as well as simple biologic concepts on nutrient cycling, rate limiting nutrients, as well a basic chemistry? Is feeding your ego so important that it precludes and impairs your ability to learn based on actual evidence based studies that have been replicated enough over time to document their conclusions? 

Steelhead generally spend their first three to five years in rivers prior smolting and leaving for open lake waters or the ocean. This is why their populations in the Great Lakes would be adversly impacted by Asian carp invasion. Populations in rivers along the Alaskan coast north of the Aleutian Islands chain in western Alaska's Bristol Bay section do not leave their natal streams for the ocean and are referred to locally as rainbow trout, basically why I don't support them being lumped into the Pacific salmon genus, Onchorhynchus sp.. 









Steelhead / Rainbow Trout Species Profile, Alaska Department of Fish and Game


General information about Steelhead / Rainbow Trout in Alaska such as description, life history, range, habitat and more.




www.adfg.alaska.gov





Per usual, you got the salmon-alewife issue bass-ackwards. Alewife caloric density declined first,after mussel proliferation and Diporeia sp depletion. Sport fishers over-road the MDNR's attempts to reduce plants of chinook to keep the open lake populations in-sync with their forage base. These mandated too-high chinook planting rates lead to roughly three times more salmon in Lake Huron than the forage base of alewife could support, as well as the crash that initiated in 2000 to 2003. 

The Canadians, sadly, do a subpar job of both monitoring and managing their Great Lakes resources for a sovereign entity. They constantly cry poor. The USFWS donated a mass marking facility to the Canadian side to expedite fish marking for the CWT studies, one of the initial four purchased. These run about 4 million apiece to purchase. One of the major contributing issues in Lake Huron management is the poorly overseen commercial fishery operating off the Canada shore.

Bioligists identify the issue or issues, they have no supervisory enforcement authority to enact laws or enforce existing laws. Can you grasp the import of this reality? The lake shippers had a very good level of lobbyist support. Even after legislation was enacted to require bilge monitoring the US Coast Guard dragged their feet for years prior being forced to actually engage in enforcement and monitoring. Why, because they were getting political pressure to do so, with thinly veiled threats of decreased funding support. How is any of this related to the actions and responsibility of biologists?

The current Great Lakes Salmon Initiative (GLSI) is another poorly informed and directed effort to force fishery management policies via threats of loss of agency funding pathways via their political affiliations that run contrary to the what the science and scientific evidence supports. You should make an effort t get on the Board, you would find several of similar ilk among the group...self-involved for self-involvement's sake. What a happy marriage!


----------



## concentroutin

Get a room.  Hell, I am a fisheries guy and this is just exhausting.


----------



## Fishndude

All I am hearing is, "You stand here, and I'll stand there, and let's see who can piss the furthest."

So, does this mean that catch/keep limits will, or will not affect overall Steelhead numbers?


----------



## riverman

concentroutin said:


> Get a room.  Hell, I am a fisheries guy and this is just exhausting.


With a mirror so you both can watch


----------



## toto

The one thing I think we can ALL agree on is getting politicians out of our outdoor pursuits. If you look back at the history the DNR, back when it was the Department of Conservation, you would see it was law that the legislature was "handsoff" with this new department. Why? Because it was to be left to the experts, today, not so much.


----------



## piscatorial warrior

Steelhead Limit Proposal.



http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Nyberg_FO200.22_738193_7.pdf


----------



## toto

Interesting isn't it, not the Betsie, ro any other rivers other than the ones the guides use. HMMMMM


----------



## SteelieArm14

toto said:


> Interesting isn't it, not the Betsie, ro any other rivers other than the ones the guides use. HMMMMM


The guides us the Betsie. The last 5 years have been crazy with guides.


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## toto

SteelieArm14 said:


> The guides us the Betsie. The last 5 years have been crazy with guides.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Yes it has but it's not noted for guiding like the others. I just really want to know what science this Nyquist guy is using, or is it the science of gettting pressured by the guides association?


----------



## Chriss83

toto said:


> Yes it has but it's not noted for guiding like the others. I just really want to know what science this Nyquist guy is using, or is it the science of gettting pressured by the guides association?


Big difference not to start debate is it isn't fly guides. Just like you can chum on the grand but nowhere else. They didn't use the grand.


----------



## SteelieArm14

Chriss83 said:


> Big difference not to start debate is it isn't fly guides. Just like you can chum on the grand but nowhere else. They didn't use the grand.


Wait....you can chum the grand?


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Chriss83

SteelieArm14 said:


> Wait....you can chum the grand?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Yep


----------



## rippin lip

SteelieArm14 said:


> Wait....you can chum the grand?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Just watch the guides! I was fishing the rail last week and no fish the first 3 hours there and the guy next to me says the boat in the quarry hole is on his 6th hookup. I told him to watch the guide after they rope the fish. Sure enough after the fish was roped out came the skittles🤣


----------



## Chriss83

so rather sit there for 3 hours fishless?. I prefer catching fish.


----------



## rippin lip

Chriss83 said:


> so rather sit there for 3 hours fishless?. I prefer catching fish.


Good for you, the fourth hour was magic after the chummer left and stoped feeding them.


----------



## toto

Chriss83 said:


> Big difference not to start debate is it isn't fly guides. Just like you can chum on the grand but nowhere else. They didn't use the grand.


So, are you trying to say the guides aren't behind this? I'll BS on that if so.


----------



## Chriss83

toto said:


> So, are you trying to say the guides aren't behind this? I'll BS on that if so.


No. Saying they are. 100percent.


----------



## Chriss83

rippin lip said:


> Good for you, the fourth hour was magic after the chummer left and stoped feeding them.
> View attachment 802903
> 
> View attachment 802902
> 
> View attachment 802901
> 
> View attachment 802900


So you bad mouth someone that caught more fish than you doing something legal. While you froze for 3 hours fishless then took advantage of there chum after they left as the fish we then feeding. So basically nobody that fishes near the damn. Or any way other than you on the grand does it right. 🤷 who knew. Amazing how you have badmouth pretty much every type of fisherman at 6th street this fall while you fish there too. And it wasn't a guide just FYI and it was way more than 6


----------



## rippin lip

Chriss83 said:


> So you bad mouth someone that caught more fish than you doing something legal. While you froze for 3 hours fishless then took advantage of there chum after they left as the fish we then feeding. So basically nobody that fishes near the damn. Or any way other than you on the grand does it right. 🤷 who knew. Amazing how you have badmouth pretty much every type of fisherman at 6th street this fall while you fish there too. And it wasn't a guide just FYI and it was way more than 6


Where did I bad mouth you chumming? If that’s what you gotta do to get them to bite, have at it. You’re right I Don’t agree with the flossers at the dam, not my style. That chum didn’t help me after you left since I was fishing much higher and totally different run than you. FYI I didn’t freeze either, see I’m only wearing a sweatshirt and not my coat later in the hour😜


----------



## toto

Chriss83 said:


> No. Saying they are. 100percent.


Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Chriss83

rippin lip said:


> Where did I bad mouth you chumming? If that’s what you gotta do to get them to bite, have at it. You’re right I Don’t agree with the flossers at the dam, not my style. That chum didn’t help me after you left since I was fishing much higher and totally different run than you. FYI I didn’t freeze either, see I’m only wearing a sweatshirt and not my coat later in the hour😜


Wasn't me. A friend. And by way you talked sounded like you were bad mouthing it. Don't care just ironic everyone at or near the dam is doing it wrong except you sounded like.


----------



## toto

Here is some interesting reading, and may help to make up your mind, if you are undecided on this. Take the time to review it, and then make an educated decision as to what they should do as to the limit argument. I find it interesting on one page that as to just how many steelhead are actually caught, and kept. 



https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FD_Steelhead_740924_7.pdf


----------



## rippin lip

Chriss83 said:


> Wasn't me. A friend. And by way you talked sounded like you were bad mouthing it. Don't care just ironic everyone at or near the dam is doing it wrong except you sounded like.


There is plenty of fisherman that fish there that don’t need chum or to floss to catch fish. Not my style or theirs to floss or chum to get the results we’re looking for. I love @SteelieArm14 s phrase, “Do it right, get em to bite!”


----------



## Nostromo

rippin lip said:


> Good for you, the fourth hour was magic after the chummer left and stoped feeding them.
> View attachment 802903
> 
> View attachment 802902
> 
> View attachment 802901
> 
> View attachment 802900


Nice work.


----------



## rippin lip

Nostromo said:


> Nice work.


Just when you think the day is damned the bob drops, and game on!!! It’s what’s keeps ya goin back.


----------



## Chriss83

rippin lip said:


> There is plenty of fisherman that fish there that don’t need chum or to floss to catch fish. Not my style or theirs to floss or chum to get the results we’re looking for. I love @SteelieArm14 s phrase, “Do it right, get em to bite!”


Yep. You are so much better. That's the elitist attitude that has us in this position. Could have called it all the times I've fished next To ya there. Fishing "right" and getting them to bite.


----------



## rippin lip

Chriss83 said:


> Yep. You are so much better. That's the elitist attitude that has us in this position. Could have called it all the times I've fished next To ya there. Fishing "right" and getting them to bite.


Next time say hello To a fellow member


----------



## sthlhdr_616

Geez, this thread is more hostile than facebook during an election year... personally, I wouldnt consider someone an elitist for wanting fish to be caught ethically.


----------



## Krystalflash

Just out of curiosity… what species off eggs are being used for chum?


----------



## toto

Frankly I don't care one way or the other about chumming, I've stated it in the past I don't do as I like to travel light when I'm stream/river fishing. I guess it's one of those things that if it makes you feel good then do it, however I'll lean more towards ethical fishing, but hey that's just me.


----------



## Chriss83

sthlhdr_616 said:


> Geez, this thread is more hostile than facebook during an election year... personally, I wouldnt consider someone an elitist for wanting fish to be caught ethically.


Even if putting down others for doing it ethically? Hmm odd


----------



## sthlhdr_616

Chriss83 said:


> Even if putting down others for doing it ethically? Hmm odd


I guess I missed where he was "putting you down" . My bad I supppose


----------



## 2stix-and-a-string

Will not.


----------



## charminultra

I used to go out of Frankfort in June and get limits of steel in about an hour of fishing. Haven’t been in about 10 years. You could also get limits in the Manistee River with hot n tots in February


----------



## riverman

Really surprised nothing has been posted about the new reg passed on certain streams. As one well known guide said, just more fish to floss off gravel now.


----------



## toto

So they passed it eh? I'm telling ya, it's just getting stupid, the people voted for Prop G a few years ago, you know the one about using science? Then these idiots do whatever they want anyways, or at least what others convince them to do, either by being a PITA or by.......


----------



## riverman

Toto. It gets better. Only one fish from March 15 to may 15. Can you say sight fishing?


----------



## toto

Stupid, I just want this guy to explain himself, of course he's probably so full of himself he won't. I'll tell ya what, if we don't stand up and scream and yell and make our voices heard, this stuff will continue in other laws and regs too.


----------



## Krystalflash

Can’t find reg changes…can someone give the highlights. What’s happened?


----------



## SkunkCity

Krystalflash said:


> Can’t find reg changes…can someone give the highlights. What’s happened?











Steelhead bag limits reduced in some Michigan waters amid fish declines | Bridge Michigan


Growing public concern over the prized game fish’s declining population prompted the Natural Resources Commission to lower the daily bag limit from three to one during spawning season.




www.bridgemi.com


----------



## SkunkCity

SkunkCity said:


> Steelhead bag limits reduced in some Michigan waters amid fish declines | Bridge Michigan
> 
> 
> Growing public concern over the prized game fish’s declining population prompted the Natural Resources Commission to lower the daily bag limit from three to one during spawning season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bridgemi.com


Here’s the link.


----------



## Krystalflash

Thanks….got it.


----------



## Krystalflash

Well…I don’t like it! But maybe not for the reason a lot of other folks do. If a reduction in bag limited is being discussed on any fish or game, its because data shows a population reduction. So…none of us like a population loss of fish or game. Nobody wants restrictions on the things they are passionate about. I’ve read this a couple times, and please correct me if I missed something. So…during the spawning run when the fish are most concentrated the limit will be reduced to protect the population. Ok…but who is most impacted? I couldn’t see myself harvesting steelhead in this time period, but that’s just me. I completely understand why others would. Having said that, once again it’s the river fisherman that take the brunt. If I kill 3 in April that’s entirely different then killing 3 in August? Unless I’ve missed something no restriction on the big water. I’ve seen posts on this site with guys all pumped up, 3 Saturdays in a row “ we got a 4 man limit on steel” 10 rods out 6 hours of fishing we had a riot. I suggested some restraint and got slapped by a few guys. Now those same guys are posting “dead port” no fish or useless port. If the current wisdom is less harvest means more fish, that should apply to all forms of harvest. River and big water alike. It really doesn’t matter at what time of the year it is. A fish harvested in April is the same as a harvest in July. So if protection is required, protect year around and all location and forms. Everyone is in the same boat..no pun intended. At the end of the day its really disappointing that the population has collapsed throughout the Great Lakes like it has, in my area for the first time in 45 years the steelhead fishing isn’t slow, it’s non existent. 3 fish since September, even in a slow fall I would 30-40 by the new year. Really discouraging that is even a topic.


----------



## Nostromo

toto said:


> So they passed it eh? I'm telling ya, it's just getting stupid, the people voted for Prop G a few years ago, you know the one about using science? Then these idiots do whatever they want anyways, or at least what others convince them to do, either by being a PITA or by........ Guess it's time to quit buying Swedish Pimples. Actually what we should do, that don't agree with this is send emails to swedish pimple saying just that.


Prop "G" was a long time ago (1996) my friend. But, you are right! Whether or not to reduce creel limits is as much a matter of opinion as science. On the face of it. More fish released means more fish swimming. The Biolologists didn't think it would have a profound impact and Mr. Nyberg thought otherwise. Scientist advise and legislators act. That's our system.


----------



## Ranger Ray

What Mr. Nyberg thinks, shouldn't matter. He is there for "we the people." He should be made to follow the process like everyone else, and follow the science, not what "he thinks." Otherwise, he is just for himself. That was what prop G was supposed to protect us from. Imagine that. Mr. Nyberg is not a legislator. He was a political appointee.


----------



## Fishndude

Did Mr Nyberg create the decline in Steelhead numbers, and if-so, how? He seems to be tasked with trying to find a solution, and lowering the keep limit seems like a good way to do that. It's a guarantee that every Steelhead fishermen keep, reduces the total number of available Steelhead, right?


----------



## Ranger Ray

The science is tasked with the solution, if needed. Mr. Nyberg is there to make sure it is done equitably for all. Lets not forget, we already know in this topic, the biologists have already weighed in, as no reduction needed. I have no problem if there is a need for "reduction in limits." It needs to be done equitably between big lake and river. Otherwise, it's not science, but BS.


----------



## Chriss83

Fishndude said:


> Did Mr Nyberg create the decline in Steelhead numbers, and if-so, how? He seems to be tasked with trying to find a solution, and lowering the keep limit seems like a good way to do that. It's a guarantee that every Steelhead fishermen keep, reduces the total number of available Steelhead, right?


Me nyberg was tasked by tu and a handful of guides. If not this would be state wide but they only care about there holy waters and being able line fish on beds with less competition


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Of note is that the NRC vote was unanimous.

I think the text of the proposal could have used a little cleaning up with how it uses the word “exceptions” for one. Though I don’t see where actual regulation language has been published, yet?

As for the biology at play here it seems the interaction between Type 1 & Type 3-4 segments is being totally ignored. As is the difference in spawning dates in different Gt Lks basins.

I do think it gets a little silly to let people keep a 10” fish at the beach. I made that mistake once; when I noticed the skipper I kept was a planted fish I felt really stupid. Overall I always wish to catch Coho anyway and don’t fish Steelhead in late winter. But have seen Steelhead during early stream Trout season, all the way in to June in the U.P.


----------



## Nostromo

Ranger Ray said:


> What Mr. Nyberg thinks, shouldn't matter. He is there for "we the people." He should be made to follow the process like everyone else, and follow the science, not what "he thinks." Otherwise, he is just for himself. That was what prop G was supposed to protect us from. Imagine that. Mr. Nyberg is not a legislator. He was a political appointee.


My mistake on referring to David Nyberg as a legislator. He has done a great deal helping to produce pro-outdoors legislation. To imply that Mr. Nyberg is not appointed to apply reason is ridiculous. 


Ranger Ray said:


> The science is tasked with the solution, if needed. Mr. Nyberg is there to make sure it is done equitably for all. Let's not forget, we already know in this topic, the biologists have already weighed in, as no reduction needed. I have no problem if there is a need for "reduction in limits." It needs to be done equitably between big lake and river. Otherwise, it's not science, but BS.


So basically, you didn't get your way this time? Sorry. I happen to agree with what the Biologist recommended. It's true this new creel limit will impact me personally. But it's hard to argue with the simple fact that more fish released means more fish swimming.


----------



## Chriss83

Nostromo said:


> My mistake on referring to David Nyberg as a legislator. He has done a great deal helping to produce pro-outdoors legislation. To imply that Mr. Nyberg is not appointed to apply reason is ridiculous.
> 
> So basically, you didn't get your way this time? Sorry. I happen to agree with what the Biologist recommended. It's true this new creel limit will impact me personally. But it's hard to argue with the simple fact that more fish released means more fish swimming.


This didn't have to do with biological it had to do with guides as usual.
Fly guys that think they will catch more fish now.


----------



## Krystalflash

It is correct and I do agree ( catch/release mortality rates aside) and as I said in the past, every fish on the stringer tied to log along the bank is one less that swims….can’t the same be said about cooler strapped to the transom. I’m not against a limit reduction if needed. I’m disappointed in the swing and mis on the decision process. Protect the fish for 3-4 weeks a year from folks standing in freezing water holding one rod ( in most cases) and then saying the other 48-49 weeks it’s peddle to floor. 3-12 rod spread….let’s knock the snot out ‘em. It’s like fighting the war on smoking by banning blue,red and green matchbook covers. If protection is needed from sport fishers , it’s all sport fishers. Not just certain rivers in certain sections at certain times, it should apply to every habitat the fish inhabits for the entire year and life cycle. Or find another solution or throw in the towel.


----------



## Nostromo

Chriss83 said:


> This didn't have to do with biological it had to do with guides as usual.
> Fly guys that think they will catch more fish now.





Krystalflash said:


> It is correct and I do agree ( catch/release mortality rates aside) and as I said in the past, every fish on the stringer tied to log along the bank is one less that swims….can’t the same be said about cooler strapped to the transom. I’m not against a limit reduction if needed. I’m disappointed in the swing and mis on the decision process. Protect the fish for 3-4 weeks a year from folks standing in freezing water holding one rod ( in most cases) and then saying the other 48-49 weeks it’s peddle to floor. 3-12 rod spread….let’s knock the snot out ‘em. It’s like fighting the war on smoking by banning blue,red and green matchbook covers. If protection is needed from sport fishers , it’s all sport fishers. Not just certain rivers in certain sections at certain times, it should apply to every habitat the fish inhabits for the entire year and life cycle. Or find another solution or throw in the towel.


I think the idea is to slack off while the fish are in the stream taking care of business. Rather simple solution to a complicated problem _I know_.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Nostromo said:


> My mistake on referring to David Nyberg as a legislator. He has done a great deal helping to produce pro-outdoors legislation. To imply that Mr. Nyberg is not appointed to apply reason is ridiculous.
> 
> So basically, you didn't get your way this time? Sorry. I happen to agree with what the Biologist recommended. It's true this new creel limit will impact me personally. But it's hard to argue with the simple fact that more fish released means more fish swimming.


Ahh, yes of course, it was all about me not getting my way. Of course it never had anything to do with the science and biologists saying not needed. Of course Mr Nybergs reasoning was superior to the biologists, because he has done supposed good things for our fishery.


----------



## SkunkCity

Jay Wesley himself said on FB that he didn't think it was going to improve the fishery and will instead create "recycled fish". So, take that FWIW.


----------



## Nostromo

Ranger Ray said:


> Ahh, yes of course, it was all about me not getting my way. Of course, it never had anything to do with the science and biologists saying not needed. Of course, Mr. Nybergs reasoning was superior to the biologists, because he has done supposed good things for our fishery.


Could you explain, excepting as fact that steelhead numbers are in decline. Why creel limits can't be beneficial?


----------



## Krystalflash

Yes it’s intent was to have less harvested during the spawn. Ok…if that’s what’s required. Hell I be inclined to make no kill zones in lieu of restriction on a select group and no restrictions on others. Again its not my thing to kill more than 1-2 steelhead in November maybe. But others don’t feel that way and I respect that. Either it needs to be done correctly and fairly or leave it alone and find another solution. I’m not advocating hands in the air and do nothing, maybe what mean to say is, it didn’t go far enough. Again discouraging to even discuss. I don’t golf or collect stamps or model trains. A little wood working maybe, but like so many others my passion is river steelhead. If it’s going to be saved, lets go all in and across the board. Prior to Covid my travels to my home state of Michigan were frequent and exciting. Over here a large number of decent steelhead waters, close on December 31 and are completely closed to fishing until the last Saturday of April. Fish are long gone by that time most years. Thats been going on since this show started and closing rivers to all fishing for 4 straight months hasn’t helped or hurt the population. My age and pessimism are shining through, I’ll stop bitching.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Nostromo said:


> Could you explain, excepting as fact that steelhead numbers are in decline. Why creel limits can't be beneficial?


They can be beneficial. I am against the apparent one sided application of them. I have been involved with fisheries regulation for 20 years now. If there is a need, every fishery containing the fish should see the regulation. For some reason only the river fisherman pay. Which tells me it’s not really about the “fish”, but regulating a subset of fishermen.


----------



## Nostromo

Ranger Ray said:


> They can be beneficial. I am against the apparent one sided application of them. I have been involved with fisheries regulation for 20 years now. If there is a need, every fishery containing the fish should see the regulation. For some reason only the river fisherman pay. Which tells me it’s not really about the “fish”, but regulating a subset of fishermen.


They appear to be targeting fish actively spawning.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Sure.

I guess we better start limiting guides on the river, and shallow spawning area access during the spring run. After all, it's for the fish, it's all about the spawning fish. Oh, and I didn't know big lake fish didn't spawn. Who knew.

Wait! What?

*"“(Bag) limit reductions will not increase steelhead populations; however, it will have a net zero impact and would show the NRC’s commitment to addressing the problem,” Pels said."*

So it's symbolic? Too funny. Not really, that's sad. Who's the NRC's "commitment" to? Look squirrel!


----------



## B.Jarvinen

One thing the State is (possibly?) about to get more data on is the guiding business. I read about a new bill, I think in only House or Senate so far, that would start a basic results reporting system for hunting & fishing guides.


----------



## Cork Dust

toto said:


> Here is some interesting reading, and may help to make up your mind, if you are undecided on this. Take the time to review it, and then make an educated decision as to what they should do as to the limit argument. I find it interesting on one page that as to just how many steelhead are actually caught, and kept.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FD_Steelhead_740924_7.pdf


Yet, in spite of noting that degree of mortality via th instream fishery component, as well as the companon data stratifying catch and harvest proportioned between the guded fishers and non-guided (keep in mind that a steelhead guide is required by law to fill out catch reports as a charter fisherman and report these to Sea Grant), combined with those watershed that lagely carry the vast majority of the Michigan production of steelhead in Lake Michigan, you let stand your slanderous comments directed at both Mr.Nyberg and the steelead charter folks. Combine this with your earlier admonistions that the whole Issue needs further assessment to provide definitive answers I am lead to conclude that you are the one with the underlying agenda, not Commissioner Nyberg. His effort is simply a stopgap attempt at stabilizing the steelhead resource. I fail to see the value of assigning a motivation source...

As I documented earlier, post hooking mortality values, based on short-term assessments post release are generally low for steelhead, UNLESS those fish are caught and released during the spawning run. What is absent in the accumulated data for Michigan stream fish is data on the additive or exponential effects of post-release mortality on Steelhead caught and released repeatedly during their spawning runs.There is indirect evidence of elevated mortality Note: The tables that list the proportion of both repeat spawners and number of years spawning after attaining sexual matuirty, particularly when you note that individual fish growth and size remain comparable to historic values. Indirectly, this also underscores the secondary impacts of the declining forage base as well as steelhead dependence on alewife for a significant proportion of their energy intake on an annual basis, given their numeric decline through time that should act to lower intraspecific competition for forage. This again  confirms that nutrient availablity in the open lake has not increased, nor has productivity within any stratum of the food web, contary to Mettlefish's contentions.


----------



## Cork Dust

Ranger Ray said:


> Sure.
> 
> I guess we better start limiting guides on the river, and shallow spawning area access during the spring run. After all, it's for the fish, it's all about the spawning fish. Oh, and I didn't know big lake fish didn't spawn. Who knew.
> 
> Wait! What?
> 
> *"“(Bag) limit reductions will not increase steelhead populations; however, it will have a net zero impact and would show the NRC’s commitment to addressing the problem,” Pels said."*
> 
> So it's symbolic? Too funny. Not really, that's sad. Who's the NRC's "commitment" to? Look squirrel!


Intitially I was impressed that you considered someone else's viewpoint to be valid...then I realized it was done to undersocre your's, again. How characteristic of you. Big lake fish spawn until they get caught so frequently they are stressed if relased and still die; what the data support indirectly.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I di


toto said:


> That may be but it also says the DNR didn't feel new regs were needed. That's is exactly what they said when the guides were pushing for 1 fish 5 years ago.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> I do believe as you most likely do that the circumstances have changed since then.


----------



## toto

I'm sure they've changed a little bit, but if one looks up how many steelhead are in Michigan waters, I would say 3.5 million fish isn't too much to worry about, having said that, they feel now there are 3 million which is still nothing to worry about. Look for the record, I really don't care either way, what I do care about is if it's done the right way. By that I mean, let the science tell you what's needed. I only keep 1 or 2 fish all year personally so it won't affect me at all, but it's just one of those things that really irks me. If it wasn't done nefariously, why was it such a low key thing? Sure, one could say they had posted about it earlier, but frankly I never heard of it til it was pretty much over. The simple fact is this: On one hand the state or DNR or whoever has stated they are losing anglers and trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding, while at the same time the NRC is doing everything they can to get people disinterested in the outdoor sports. It isn't just fishing I"m talking about, it's hunting etc., but I'll stick with fishing for the time being.


----------



## METTLEFISH

toto said:


> I'm sure they've changed a little bit, but if one looks up how many steelhead are in Michigan waters, I would say 3.5 million fish isn't too much to worry about, having said that, they feel now there are 3 million which is still nothing to worry about. Look for the record, I really don't care either way, what I do care about is if it's done the right way. By that I mean, let the science tell you what's needed. I only keep 1 or 2 fish all year personally so it won't affect me at all, but it's just one of those things that really irks me. If it wasn't done nefariously, why was it such a low key thing? Sure, one could say they had posted about it earlier, but frankly I never heard of it til it was pretty much over. The simple fact is this: On one hand the state or DNR or whoever has stated they are losing anglers and trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding, while at the same time the NRC is doing everything they can to get people disinterested in the outdoor sports. It isn't just fishing I"m talking about, it's hunting etc., but I'll stick with fishing for the time being.


I thought the same tjing with the 3.5 v. 3.0 million numbers . I asked Mr. Wesley on his page what the fish per angler lost is, he didn’t have data on that. Only harvest numbers, primarily for the lake. The decline in hunting/fishing sales began around 1982 if my memory serves correct. Karen Eppinger always kept me abreast of those type of things. I was too busy fishin/huntin or workin back then, pre Web days…


----------



## toto

I just googled for those numbers in relation to numbers in Wisconsin. The reason I even stumbled across them was because I was trying to see if the WIsconsin returns were holding up,or whatever. I was trying to determine whether or not our fish may be heading to Wisconsin, just to cover one more aspect of the numbers I guess. My reason for thinking that way is due to the incredible spring king fishery in Lk Michigan over on the Wisconsin side. From what I heard from two different Wisconites this spring, you cannot go very far on a troll without bringing in your lines to see if alewives were so thick. Now I'm not saying that's a fact, but only what 2 different people told me. If that is true, that may explain, at least to some degree where our fish went. Swimming over to Wisconsin is no big deal for these fish.


----------



## METTLEFISH

toto said:


> I just googled for those numbers in relation to numbers in Wisconsin. The reason I even stumbled across them was because I was trying to see if the WIsconsin returns were holding up,or whatever. I was trying to determine whether or not our fish may be heading to Wisconsin, just to cover one more aspect of the numbers I guess. My reason for thinking that way is due to the incredible spring king fishery in Lk Michigan over on the Wisconsin side. From what I heard from two different Wisconites this spring, you cannot go very far on a troll without bringing in your lines to see if alewives were so thick. Now I'm not saying that's a fact, but only what 2 different people told me. If that is true, that may explain, at least to some degree where our fish went. Swimming over to Wisconsin is no big deal for these fish.(/QUOTE]
> 
> A couple hour swim if they want! I understand what you’re saying. If all the bait goes towards warm water (they do) all the predators will follow. I also think that the trawls face the same situation. If they’re trawling in an offshore blow - obviously that effects the success of the trawl.
> 500,000 fish is not a lot of fish in the scope of things. Now if it were all one area, then…
> I’d like to see the breakdown of year class within that/those numbers. If they know confidently there were 500,000 less, I’d think they’d have info on year class?


----------



## toto

One would think. I've been trying to find a little more insight to these numbers, but seem to have a hard time doing so. I'll keep trying, it's gotta be there somewhere.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Here’s some data he sent.


----------



## Bob Hunter

METTLEFISH said:


> If not renewable then why do they allow harvest and plant so many? and why do they spawn? And why do they have so many eggs (most won’t return to spawn - they get eaten)
> Again - the idea of putting them in the lakes was multi faceted. Eat/consume the massive amount of Aiewife, and create recreation for anglers. (that payfor them to be planted)
> These are not a sacred run of endangered fish. As you don’t know what I king is… you prolly think they’re indigenous to the state. Michigan has no indigenous trout.


Steelhead were not planted to c


METTLEFISH said:


> If not renewable then why do they allow harvest and plant so many? and why do they spawn? And why do they have so many eggs (most won’t return to spawn - they get eaten)
> Again - the idea of putting them in the lakes was multi faceted. Eat/consume the massive amount of Aiewife, and create recreation for anglers. (that payfor them to be planted)
> These are not a sacred run of endangered fish. As you don’t know what I king is… you prolly think they’re indigenous to the state. Michigan has no indigenous trout.


Steelhead were not introduced into the Great Lakes to consume alewives.


----------



## Bob Hunter

Chriss83 said:


> I've asked before but what percentage are planted in net pens? I feel like the decline started with the implementing of them more amd more. You can go to at least where salmon are released from pens in the fall and find kings swimming around until they die without ever running the river.


I don’t recall steelhead being raised in net pens, but salmon, yes.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Bob Hunter said:


> Steelhead were not planted to c
> 
> Steelhead were not introduced into the Great Lakes to consume alewives.


We all know that! Thanks though!
(However the numbers of planted Steelhead increased significantly because of the alewife. (Food source)


----------



## Krystalflash

Bob Hunter said:


> Steelhead were not planted to c
> 
> Steelhead were not introduced into the Great Lakes to consume alewives.





METTLEFISH said:


> If not renewable then why do they allow harvest and plant so many? and why do they spawn? And why do they have so many eggs (most won’t return to spawn - they get eaten)
> Again - the idea of putting them in the lakes was multi faceted. Eat/consume the massive amount of Aiewife, and create recreation for anglers. (that payfor them to be planted)
> These are not a sacred run of endangered fish. As you don’t know what I king is… you prolly think they’re indigenous to the state. Michigan has no indigenous trout.


Well….I’ve waited a few days to respond. Followed the tread…most of it was a good exchange of information. However some posts require some refinements. Why is there a need to correct someone when you know what they are trying to say. Char not BT, “ I’ve told you a hundred times”. Do you think you are educating or trying to puff yourself up? It’s Alewife not Aiewife. “Prolly” I know what you were attempting to say, I won’t correct that’s rude. As for me not knowing what a king is well..I invested/volunteer 15 years in collecting and fertilization eggs..raising and releasing conservatively around 3.5 million kings,Steelhead and Browns. I’m confident I could identify a King. I personally raised funds and organized 4 weekend fishing outing for children with special needs. Each child took home Rod/Reel combos tackle box and tackle. Back when there were local fishing expos, I spent weekends on stage conducting youth fishing instruction to help the next generation.Ponded pavement and on doors to muster up corporate funds for stream rehabilitation. I’m also confident that you didn’t invent the word indigenous. Do you really believe that folks who are passionate about the Great Lake fishery don’t know what fish are or are not indigenous? Bought and paid for….if you mean the purchasing of a fishing license buys us fish..well. I respectfully disagree. Additional effort is required. Sacred fish, perhaps not to you. Others may feel differently. Now if can list the good deeds you’ve done in support of the fishery, other then buying a licence please do so. Up front I’ll say you have my respect and gratitude. Well done…if not stop slapping people around. To some you don’t come off like you think.


----------



## Chriss83

Krystalflash said:


> Well….I’ve waited a few days to respond. Followed the tread…most of it was a good exchange of information. However some posts require some refinements. Why is there a need to correct someone when you know what they are trying to say. Char not BT, “ I’ve told you a hundred times”. Do you think you are educating or trying to puff yourself up? It’s Alewife not Aiewife. “Prolly” I know what you were attempting to say, I won’t correct that’s rude. As for me not knowing what a king is well..I invested/volunteer 15 years in collecting and fertilization eggs..raising and releasing conservatively around 3.5 million kings,Steelhead and Browns. I’m confident I could identify a King. I personally raised funds and organized 4 weekend fishing outing for children with special needs. Each child took home Rod/Reel combos tackle box and tackle. Back when there were local fishing expos, I spent weekends on stage conducting youth fishing instruction to help the next generation.Ponded pavement and on doors to muster up corporate funds for stream rehabilitation. I’m also confident that you didn’t invent the word indigenous. Do you really believe that folks who are passionate about the Great Lake fishery don’t know what fish are or are not indigenous? Bought and paid for….if you mean the purchasing of a fishing license buys us fish..well. I respectfully disagree. Additional effort is required. Sacred fish, perhaps not to you. Others may feel differently. Now if can list the good deeds you’ve done in support of the fishery, other then buying a licence please do so. Up front I’ll say you have my respect and gratitude. Well done…if not stop slapping people around. To some you don’t come off like you think.


Well he is a decendant of 2 fishing hall of famers lol. He can treat people how he wants. Although I mostly agree with him on this topic.


----------



## Krystalflash

Chriss83 said:


> Well he is a decendant of 2 fishing hall of famers lol. He can treat people how he wants. Although I mostly agree with him on this topic.


The odd and frustrating thing…I do as well. Some good information here. I really try to accept others points as perfectly valid. But holy smokes…insulting and demeaning. I guess I just have too much time on my hands… I shouldn’t get worked up about. It was supposed to be enjoyable. Funny how things go sideways. But I can be guilty of pushing things off the rails sometimes as well..I’ll go in the corner and give myself a good talking to. lol.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Krystalflash said:


> Well….I’ve waited a few days to respond. Followed the tread…most of it was a good exchange of information. However some posts require some refinements. Why is there a need to correct someone when you know what they are trying to say. Char not BT, “ I’ve told you a hundred times”. Do you think you are educating or trying to puff yourself up? It’s Alewife not Aiewife. “Prolly” I know what you were attempting to say, I won’t correct that’s rude. As for me not knowing what a king is well..I invested/volunteer 15 years in collecting and fertilization eggs..raising and releasing conservatively around 3.5 million kings,Steelhead and Browns. I’m confident I could identify a King. I personally raised funds and organized 4 weekend fishing outing for children with special needs. Each child took home Rod/Reel combos tackle box and tackle. Back when there were local fishing expos, I spent weekends on stage conducting youth fishing instruction to help the next generation.Ponded pavement and on doors to muster up corporate funds for stream rehabilitation. I’m also confident that you didn’t invent the word indigenous. Do you really believe that folks who are passionate about the Great Lake fishery don’t know what fish are or are not indigenous? Bought and paid for….if you mean the purchasing of a fishing license buys us fish..well. I respectfully disagree. Additional effort is required. Sacred fish, perhaps not to you. Others may feel differently. Now if can list the good deeds you’ve done in support of the fishery, other then buying a licence please do so. Up front I’ll say you have my respect and gratitude. Well done…if not stop slapping people around. To some you don’t come off like you think.


In reality I have sponsored and held childrens fishing derbies, volunteered at Camp Dearborns childrens fishing derbie sponsored in part by Eppinger manufacturing, gave “clinics” on spoon fishing piers - on the piers while handing out swag and spoons (donated by Eppinger manufacturing) to kids. Supplied more spoons and swag provided again by Eppinger Manufacturing for “Ricks Baitshack’s” “Camp For Kids” funds generating efforts. Done multiple articles with outdoor writer Bob Gwizd on river fishing steelhead in Michigan.(STS, State and local Newspapers) oSo, I too have done my share of promoting the outdoors - especially to children.
(not to mention two “Best Of Year” shows on Fred Trost’s show)
I suppose as well as not knowing what a “King” is - you’ve never seen a typo before!


----------



## Krystalflash

METTLEFISH said:


> In reality I have sponsored and held childrens fishing derbies, volunteered at Camp Dearborns childrens fishing derbie sponsored in part by Eppinger manufacturing, gave “clinics” on spoon fishing piers - on the piers while handing out swag and spoons (donated by Eppinger manufacturing) to kids. Supplied more spoons and swag provided again by Eppinger Manufacturing for “Ricks Baitshack’s” “Camp For Kids” funds generating efforts. Done multiple articles with outdoor writer Bob Gwizd on river fishing steelhead in Michigan.(STS, State and local Newspapers) oSo, I too have done my share of promoting the outdoors - especially to children.
> (not to mention two “Best Of Year” shows on Fred Trost’s show)
> I suppose as well as not knowing what a “King” is - you’ve never seen a typo before!





METTLEFISH said:


> In reality I have sponsored and held childrens fishing derbies, volunteered at Camp Dearborns childrens fishing derbie sponsored in part by Eppinger manufacturing, gave “clinics” on spoon fishing piers - on the piers while handing out swag and spoons (donated by Eppinger manufacturing) to kids. Supplied more spoons and swag provided again by Eppinger Manufacturing for “Ricks Baitshack’s” “Camp For Kids” funds generating efforts. Done multiple articles with outdoor writer Bob Gwizd on river fishing steelhead in Michigan.(STS, State and local Newspapers) oSo, I too have done my share of promoting the outdoors - especially to children.
> (not to mention two “Best Of Year” shows on Fred Trost’s show)
> I suppose as well as not knowing what a “King” is - you’ve never seen a typo before!


Thats impressive. Thank you for the contribution. I’m sure you have had a positive impact on many. Based on the last sentence…just need to put some effort in trimming back the arrogance. You Just couldn’t stop yourself, had to get the first and last dig in. You won..add that to your list of contributions. I’m humble and now know my place. I’m set straight.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Krystalflash said:


> Thats impressive. Thank you for the contribution. I’m sure you have had a positive impact on many. Based on the last sentence…just need to put some effort in trimming back the arrogance. You Just couldn’t stop yourself, had to get the first and last dig in. You won..add that to your list of contributions. I’m humble and now know my place. I’m set straight.


Oh! I forgot! I have one of the coolest inventions in fishing - Patent Pending. If you searched the web you could prolly find an article on it. 
You see, touting or gloating is really a nasty trait. It took your misplaced egging (gloating of yourself) to spur me to mention any of that. Other than my Great Grandfather and Great Uncle being in the freshwater Hall of Fame - of which I’ve been enthralled since I was young child. 
I wonder why those self absorbed people did that for them. Perhaps you could enlighten us?


----------



## Chriss83

METTLEFISH said:


> Oh! I forgot! I have one of the coolest inventions in fishing - Patent Pending. If you searched the web you could prolly find an article on it.
> You see, touting or gloating is really a nasty trait. It took your misplaced egging (gloating of yourself) to spur me to mention any of that. Other than my Great Grandfather and Great Uncle being in the freshwater Hall of Fame - of which I’ve been enthralled since I was young child.
> I wonder why those self absorbed people did that for them. Perhaps you could enlighten us?


Man you just can not stop. Any mirrors in your house?


----------



## Krystalflash

METTLEFISH said:


> Oh! I forgot! I have one of the coolest inventions in fishing - Patent Pending. If you searched the web you could prolly find an article on it.
> You see, touting or gloating is really a nasty trait. It took your misplaced egging (gloating of yourself) to spur me to mention any of that. Other than my Great Grandfather and Great Uncle being in the freshwater Hall of Fame - of which I’ve been enthralled since I was young child.
> I wonder why those self absorbed people did that for them. Perhaps you could enlighten us?


That’s great, I truly hope the patent and product work out for you. Perhaps it might improve my catch. I’ll search the web…thank you. Anything else you may have forgotten, I’m really limited on fishing skills. I’ll take all the help I can get. I’m fortunate to have your guidance and personal attention. Early Christmas gift..thanks so much.


----------



## Steve

Krystalflash said:


> Well….I’ve waited a few days to respond. Followed the tread…most of it was a good exchange of information. However some posts require some refinements. Why is there a need to correct someone when you know what they are trying to say. Char not BT, “ I’ve told you a hundred times”. Do you think you are educating or trying to puff yourself up? It’s Alewife not Aiewife. “Prolly” I know what you were attempting to say, I won’t correct that’s rude. As for me not knowing what a king is well..I invested/volunteer 15 years in collecting and fertilization eggs..raising and releasing conservatively around 3.5 million kings,Steelhead and Browns. I’m confident I could identify a King. I personally raised funds and organized 4 weekend fishing outing for children with special needs. Each child took home Rod/Reel combos tackle box and tackle. Back when there were local fishing expos, I spent weekends on stage conducting youth fishing instruction to help the next generation.Ponded pavement and on doors to muster up corporate funds for stream rehabilitation. I’m also confident that you didn’t invent the word indigenous. Do you really believe that folks who are passionate about the Great Lake fishery don’t know what fish are or are not indigenous? Bought and paid for….if you mean the purchasing of a fishing license buys us fish..well. I respectfully disagree. Additional effort is required. Sacred fish, perhaps not to you. Others may feel differently. Now if can list the good deeds you’ve done in support of the fishery, other then buying a licence please do so. Up front I’ll say you have my respect and gratitude. Well done…if not stop slapping people around. To some you don’t come off like you think.


Nicely done.


----------



## Krystalflash

Steve said:


> Nicely done.


Unfortunate things go so sideways sometimes. . IMO we should continue to participate with synergy and respect. If we learn along the way…great. If we can enhance others…fantastic. If we can have a positive influence the fishery with good intentions and effort..wonderful. Perhaps its my problem, but IMO suppression of thoughts, ideas, opinion or factual information Is never a good course of action. I’m sure the site was intended to be fun and informative. Open to participation for all…I will continue to check myself before I post, if I can’t do it with respect for others,I shouldn’t be participating. It’s a choice..either be positive or negative. Anyway I’m heading up the Huron coast in the morning, the river has flooded for the 5th time this fall and it will be perfect by the am…if I can’t find them now, I’ll be mystified has to what’s happened to them. Never could imagine they would disappear like it appears they have. I hope I’m wrong. I don’t even care if I hook up, if others in the crew do..at least I know they are around. Going to be frosty in the morning, but we’re going to give it a go…river closes in a couple of weeks…last shot on that stream.


----------

