# Everyones thoughts



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

Well im from the UP and i took my fam on a camping trip downstate. we went from Harrisville to Manistee to Cheboygan. I Fished the Au Sable river 2 days and was very disapointed by the number of beer bottles in the river and tubers floating by starting around 8 am. Its a beautiful cold river other than that. Then Manistee i fished the little manistee for 3 days i stoped using dry flies because every cast a 6 in rainbow would scnach it up i switched to large spinners for browns and cought a few. Then a 20lb king swollowed my #4 panther martin with a five foot rod and 4lb test. I had him on for a few minutes which was a surprise and he shook the hook. I didnt even see him in that deep cut bank till he lunged like a great white at that spinner. The manistee the little and another that is connected have to be the most beautiful clear cold rivers in michigan they were in the low 50's. Most of our rivers are pretty tannin stained and a little warmer but still beautiful. My question is i feel that these rivers excpecially the little manistee would be a better stream if it wasnt for the invasive steelhead and salmon the river can only support "X" amount of fish per mile and the baby steelies seem to have taken over. I think this would be a prime stream for Grayling and brookies the native fish to michigan waters. I think these streams should have closed weirs year round and attempt to replenish native fish. Any thoughts.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Looks like you might find out, at least on the Uppe Manistee. The Indian Tribes are apparantly going to try it and see. As for below tippy, it would only work, possibly, in the first couple of miles below Tippy, after that the water warms up too much, and all the brookies would die for sure. These studies have all been done before. You can find these studies by researching DNR website, or going to the Fisheries Institute at UofM.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

This is gonna piss some people off prolly but i do feel we should only let our salmon and steelhead run so far up a river then be stopped. Alot of good streams as you said have those runs as to where if they didnt the trout fishing could be amazing. Flat out. I really dont know where to place such things at cause these salmon and steelhead are a big source of tourist money and a big chunk of the dnr's money to so these fish would still need good spawning grounds and places to hide from people. Other than that i dont know to much about how itd all work but i know i wouldnt be against it.


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

Thanks for the info and replies i will check it out. Up here most our run rivers have barriers either large waterfalls or spillways. and usually no native trout only Bows below but above is class A 18inch brookie waters. so it seems to work well up here.


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

ericjames said:


> Thanks for the info and replies i will check it out. Up here most our run rivers have barriers either large waterfalls or spillways. and usually no native trout only Bows below but above is class A 18inch brookie waters. so it seems to work well up here.


great..then you can stay up in the UP and catch your brookies and browns,and we will stay down here and catch our salmon and steelhead..:evil:


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Eric i agree and agate falls is a great example of that ive fished it below and above and the difference is amazing.


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

Trout guy you hit that one on the head it was one of the ones i was thinking of and various others northeast of that. Lost on the ice i wasnt trying to draw a line. I just think rivers like the manistee and little because of the quality of water, would benifit all species if like agate falls below has a tremendous steelhead run and i regularly fly fish steelhead with much sucess there but is segrigated from the native species. but i believe it is significantly benificial and important to maintain native species which browns are not. Correct me if im wrong but im sure sportsman from downstate would love to be able to fish the lower in Spring fall and winter for steel and catch a 20 inch wall mounter brookie early summer on the headwaters of the same river.


----------



## STEELnICE (Dec 4, 2007)

I can't figure out why some want to keep bigger trout and salmon out of the rivers so that there will be supposedly more resident (smaller) trout. Who would want to catch a steelhead or a king when you could catch some 15" Browns?  Plus the Pere Marquette doesn't seem to support this theory where plenty of 20+" browns share spawning waters with steelhead and kings. Kings add a lot of biomass to the river systems they spawn in. Catching resident browns is no more special to me than catching suckers or chubs!! :yikes:


----------



## Big Brown (Sep 18, 2007)

STEELnICE said:


> Plus the Pere Marquette doesn't seem to support this theory where plenty of 20+" browns share spawning waters with steelhead and kings.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

The Little River happens to be one of the true gems of Michigan rivers, and supports the single best natural runs of Steelhead in the State. All of our planted Steelhead come from eggs taken at the weir on this river, with the exception of Skamanias, which we get from Indiana - we trade some Manistee strain fish for their Skams. It also has great naturally spawned Brown Trout, and plenty of Brookies - especially in the upper stretches. The DNR makes a strong effort to block most of the spawning Kings in this river, so they can harvest the eggs and milt; but also to preserve the stretches above the weir from the wear and tear spawning Salmon put on a river. Early and very late Salmon make it past the weir, and there are lots of naturally spawned Kings in it, too. I say leave it as it is. There are plenty of rivers with Trout in them, but not so many with really good runs of naturally spawned Steelhead and Salmon.


----------



## Bull Market (Mar 12, 2005)

Yes, indeed, the Man and Little R are very productive waters. Quite certain, they could create some mighty big brookies, if the other fish were restricted. The flip side of the coin says that all those steelhead and (especially) salmon, bring a lot of protein into the river from the Great Lakes. The roe and rotting flesh from the salmon contributes a lot to the size of the resident browns. Bottom line is would you rather that those fisheries provide big brook trout, or monster brown trout, with andronomous action, too. 
My vote is to keep things the way they are. When I want to catch a big brookie, I'll head across the bridge. 
Good discussion.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Well, if you want natural sportfish to the Little Manistee system, you would have to drop brook trout. At least according the the history published here:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2005-8_Little-Manistee_River_144067_7.pdf

The DNR did stock grayling in a couple of locations in the mid 80's. The stocking never took that well, especially on the upper Manistee where it was tried. Several reasons were stated, including being "caught out" and also predation by existing trout populations. The grayling stocked in the UP did a bit better, meaning they didn't disappear as quick. However, they were stocked in a small lake, and I believe they may have "cleaned", meaning rid the lake of all fishy competition/predators before stocking. It was there that I caught a few small (7-9") grayling, which is kind of neat to look back at it in retrospect of having caught grayling in MI.

I am not sure what the tribes will do different this time in trying to get grayling established, but I wish them luck.

One other thing relative to competition between stream dwelling and potadromous salmonines. Though typically blasted by trout anglers for ruining brown/brook trout fisheries, from the fisheries literature I have seen, steelhead are more direct competitors to stream trout than chinook. If you think about it, most steelhead fry spend around two years in the river before smolting, whereas chinook spawned in the fall will outmigrate the following spring. Hence, the bunch of 6" rainbows you encountered.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

This is an interesting thread. I rarely fish salmon/steelhead, instead I spend most of my time chasing brookies and browns. To some, the fish I chase are a waste of time. And to others, it's the other way around. I like the fact that we have a nice balance of opportunites for everyone. I'm with bull market, lets leave it the way it is. There are plenty of rivers that the anadromous fish can't swim (or can only travel a very short stretch). 

Side note one: I think it would be neat if we could find a few rivers or tribs to re-establish the grayling, since we unwittingly removed them in the first place.

Side note two: This same question is about to be front and center on the Boardman, since they are about to remove all the dams, allowing salmon and steelhead all the way to the headwaters, unless the DNR puts a blocking weir or other structure in their way...As we move toward removing more and more old dams, this may actually become a "real" management question for the DNR to answer some day.

Don


----------



## tannhd (Dec 3, 2010)

I'm typically for removing as many dams and man-made structures in a river system as possible to restore a river to it's natural state.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

I'd be against it and just for this simple fact.
There are already miles of quality trout fishing currently in the NLP that do not see salmon or steelhead runs.
There are opportunities for big brook trout within the Little Man system. Your odds just go down once you hit the mainstream.
It might not be easy by U.P. standards but the possibility for great brook trout fishing already exists in the NLP.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spin to Win (Dec 7, 2010)

Bull Market said:


> ...The flip side of the coin says that all those steelhead and (especially) salmon, bring a lot of protein into the river from the Great Lakes. The roe and rotting flesh from the salmon contributes a lot to the size of the resident browns. Bottom line is would you rather that those fisheries provide big brook trout, or monster brown trout, with andronomous action, too.
> My vote is to keep things the way they are. When I want to catch a big brookie, I'll head across the bridge.
> Good discussion.


I couldn't agree with this Bull Market more. The common thought is that the salmon and steelhead smolts compete for food with resident trout, which is in fact true. But the biomass brought in from the big lake in the form of carcasses and eggs by far outweighs the the competition that the offspring of salmon and steelhead bring to a river.

I'm not sure where the study is, but the DNR has reports which indicate the most pounds of resident brown trout per river mile. Guess what is #1 on the list??? The Little Manistee. I'm guessing that the PM isn't far behind it. I can't say how they impact the brookie population, but I doubt it's as bad as people think, especially since the majority of salmon wouldn't reach brookie water.

Bottom line is that *Salmon and Steelhead are* *GOOD for resident brown trout! *They bring huge amounts of nutrients to a stream from the big lake that wouldn't otherwise be there.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

This has been a great thread so far. Thanks to everyone who posted so far, here's my 2 cents:

I would tend to agree that Salmon may be a benefit to the growth rates of the browns, but I'm not as sure about the steelhead, due to the fact that they stay in the river a lot longer (1-3 years), as Reg already pointed out earlier in this thread.

This link seems to indicate that Steelhead specifically compete directly with resident trout:



> While a number of unique characteristics of the White Salmon River raise research questions about the effects of reintroduction of anadromousfish, the only information available at the time this report was compiled leads to the conclusion that the reintroduction of steelhead above Condit Dam may reduce the resident rainbow trout population between 70 and 90 percent.


While the Chinook Salmon have a much reduced impact:



> This information also leads to the conclusion that the reintroduction of chinook salmon above Condit Dam would reduce the resident rainbow trout population approximately lO percent. This reduction is due to a small overlap in the habitat used by resident rainbow trout and chinook salmon.


So back to the OP's original point, he caught a ton of juvenile steelhead, and in his opinion, it was at the expense of other trout species that could be present in the system. I tend to agree that Steelhead, specifically, will reduce the number of resident trout since they compete directly for habitat and food. 

Brown trout may do a better job of avoiding this competition since they tend to be larger, and can probably hold prime cover over the juvenile steelhead. Brook trout, however, probably do not fair as well. And obviously, resident rainbows, based on this study, do very poorly. 

Point is, a lot of factors go into a river's ecosystem and inter-species competition is certainly an important one. 

Back to my previous point (post), I don't want to see anything changed really. I'm just saying that Steelhead, may not be a blessing to resident trout, in fact, it's likely to be the opposite (even though they add biomass). Salmon on the other hand, yep, they drop off biomass and exit the river rapidly. Therefore, they probably are a benefit to the growth rates of the resident trout, while only providing a very small amount of competition.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.
Don


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

wintrrun said:


> I'd be against it and just for this simple fact.
> There are already miles of quality trout fishing currently in the NLP that do not see salmon or steelhead runs.
> There are opportunities for big brook trout within the Little Man system. Your odds just go down once you hit the mainstream.
> It might not be easy by U.P. standards but the possibility for great brook trout fishing already exists in the NLP.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


i have to agree with wintrrun on this..the little man has good numbers of brookies and browns,ive watched my kids catch both in the same area,along with the bows..the brook was about 9-10 inch..not a monster by any means,but a very nice fish for a brook..the bows they were catching were between the 6in and up to 12..again in the same area as the brooks..all of which were below the weir,and next to a pool of about 12 salmon..if you want to know where on that streach,pm me and ill let you know on the 1st.:evil:.besides that it wont do much to help the trout if you put a dam or fall to stop the salmon and steel,it will do more harm to the area..if you dont agree,take a look at homestead or tippy..the more places you put in to hold the fish/stop the run,the more places they stack up and get ripped apart by jack-*****es and over sized hooks:rant:.jmo..


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

I also agree to leave them as they are. Salmon _are_ hard on small streams, but like stated, the biological benefits are hard to ignore. The salmon egg feast in the fall provides young trout with a great source of calories and protein heading into winter. That helps get them through the coldwater period, and provides outstanding growth promotion. Although on a lesser scale, the spring drop of steelhead eggs, and kicked up bugs, gives trout a great start coming out of a long winter. The warming water and abundance of food really helps with growth and survival. Both seasonal salmon/steelhead runs help rivers stay productive.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Not sure what results were tallied, but:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...ies/654-Brown-trout-steelhead-competition.pdf


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

Im very happy with all the imput on this thread and i can definatly appreciate the differences in oppinion. I guess its a matter of what type of fishing you enjoy more. With the juvinile steelies competing with food supplys, like stated, Browns which grow faster and larger will still do OK. I guess its a trade off that there are Brookies present but thier numbers and growth will be hindered due to these factors. I talked to a bait shop owner who was quite to my elder and very knowlageable and he had cought a 18 inch 40 plus years ago but stated that your going to be hard pressed to find any over 12in down here. But at the same time the steellies and salmon kept his buisness alive. I think its a shame to have lost the Greyling which was an iconic figure in NLM. and Its hard to hear that some feel brookies and chubs are in the same catigorie when its our state fish. I guess the fact is i picture the early 1800's when the greyling and brookies ruled and coasters were one of the dominate preditory fish in the lakes and very little is done in there benifit but at the same time much reasources go into (no-offence) invasive species like salmon and stellies. But then again alot of funding comes from these fish. People traveled from all around the world to hook a coaster the size of a walley in the late 1800's. For me the solitude of brookie fishing is what draws me. But i guess i can look at it reigonaly and if the locals of the manistee area prefer stellies and obviously they do judging by the names of the roads in the area than i guess it works.Since im working on my biology degree these are questions that interest me.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

You play fast and loose with the tag of invasive species. For example, since Brookies are not native to the Little Manistee, do you consider them invasive? Also, what caused the demise of coasters and grayling? Salmon/steelhead or habitat destruction? Is the habitat still adequate for their revival? Would they be able to be supported in such numbers as to provide a fishery or would they require strict protection?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I can show you a river/stream that has a very healthy population of browns, and brookies, while at the same time plenty of salmon and steel reproduction. I am not convinced yet that these anadromous fish have that much effect. Maybe they do, but I haven't seen that, at least not at this river.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

REG said:


> Not sure what results were tallied, but:
> http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publicat...ies/654-Brown-trout-steelhead-competition.pdf


Some results (progress report) of this study here:

http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/federal%20aid%20annual%20reports/F-80-R-8/230654.pdf

Results seem to indicate that Steelhead have no impact on the size (either way, not bigger or smaller) of the brook trout or brown trout, but do cause a decline in abundance of both brown and brook (especially brook) trout.

Don


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

Im using the term invasive under with knowlage that it has a direct impact weather how small it may be on the populations of native species. Thats the definition. It is stated by the DNR that with certainty Greyling are directly affected by more aggressive browns and bows and also the change in ecosystem. Then yes since brookies were not in the little that would be so. but the report i read there were alot of works like "likley" and few records of the original fish community. In these reports it is proposed that non native fish and habitat destruction were the culprits. The gravel beds were destroyed by floating logs and water warming by loss of canopy from loging i beleive has come along way. but it does state lack of sutable habitat and non native fish made the 1980 replant fail. 
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_18958-53612--,00.html


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Hmmm, nice article, but on a side note, in one sentence there is reference to getting 3 grayling to hit in one cast, then another noting this non-aggressive species succumbing to other species. Getting 3 fish to come up at once to strike, then calling them non-aggressive? I think the explanation is simpler, such as which fish has a bigger, toothier mouth and can munch up the smaller specie.

Here is the definition for invasive species from the US Fish and Wildlife Service:
[IInvasive species are organisms that are introduced into a non-native ecosystem and which cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment or human health.][/I]
Now we can banter back and forth regarding whether browns and rainbows were truly invasive, but, if the grayling's habitat was inexorably altered to doom their survival, seems to me further debate is moot.

I will give you an alter scenario and you tell me-
Let's say the Little Manistee was going to be "cleaned" out of any competing species and grayling and only grayling were going to be re-introduced.

- How much more harm to the enviroment would there be clearing out browns, brooks and rainbows to the enviroment than just leaving it be?

- Would implementing the above bring more opportunity, or cause more economic harm? Consider the Little Manistee serves as brood stock for steelhead programs in 3 states at present.

- How long does a fish need to be established to be considered a "native" specie?

- How genetically similar are grayling that would be exported here from another location be to the extinct Michigan grayling?

- Who and what criteria are used to quantify "harm"?

In any case, the moral of the story is this. Flipping the term "invasive" to anything non-native is a loaded, and in some circles, can be a careless and dangerous moniker. In a sense, labeling salmon the same way is incorrect based on the definition above since there is no clear documentation of harm, enviromentally or economically. Once you start accepting and tagging desirable fish species that are better suited to the current enviroment as "invasive", you may be inviting and/or accepting their eradication. This view would be consistent with many anti-sportsmen groups. 

Seems lately this view of tagging introduced species as invasives is gaining traction, especially here in the Great Lakes region. It is typically espouced by those who either weren't around to remember what the lake was like before Dr.'s Tanner and Tody pulled off what was one of the most astounding fisheries management moves in modern history or by other groups with different agendas. Contrast this with the millions of dollars spent trying to restore Lake Trout into most of the great lakes. In short, the enviroment has changed. Lakers can't reproduce (except in Lake Superior and a few other instances). No fault of the introduced salmonids. period.

Also, how are you going to view fish population shifts due to enviromental, non-human introduced species? Does smallmouth bass inhabiting waters outside there natural range due to changes in the enviroment make them invasive if they replace trout or grayling? 

The bottom line is this, is what you see as black and white, in reality exists in many shades of grey. This is painting with an awfully big brush, but it's likely that 60-70% of sportfishing opportunities in the country involves fish stocked outside of the natural range. Do not discount the glaring benefits when trying to assess perceived harm.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

Well i beleive invasive might not be the correct term. Non native fish is better and thats what he is talking about from the begining. Alot of guys started talking about browns and how they do well when he is talking about brooks and grayling. Browns are gonna thrive in some many rivers that get warm that would never hold brookies that it is not even relavent.Grayling will never happen again in my eyes but the brooks could benefit big time.


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

The whole point has been lost when the idea of anti-sportsman groops come up in this post. There was never a point in this forum did i or anyone that agreed with me say anything about eradication of a species in an entire riversystem. The thought in mind was limiting the range of lake run fish to possible enhance both. The comparison to Agate falls and other UP streams was an example of where lake run fish are able to thrive below the falls and native species thrive above the falls. The evidence in my mind is pretty Black and White that steelhead in the rivers directly impact the native fish expecially slow growers and less aggressive strains. If you fish these streams with natural or man made barriers it is night and day above and below. They act like completley different river systems. This is my observation. My conversations with the DNR in Manistee they seem to have the same thoughts about steelhead. Salmon obviously have much less impact and possible benifit like stated in this forum. I dont want to get hung up on the deffinitons when that was the main point i was making.


----------



## Boozer (Sep 5, 2010)

I personally would like to see our fisheries managed more for native species. 

Get rid of the Brown Trout, steelhead, Salmon, etc....

Wouldn't bother me one bit...

BUT, I am just one person and would never want everyone to have to change just because of one persons views...

The past year I have essentially fished for native species almost exclusively, there is something about catching a fish that evolved to survive in the actual habitat you caught it in that is truly special...


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

REG said:


> - How genetically similar are grayling that would be exported here from another location be to the extinct Michigan grayling?


dont know if i would agree with this..as i have caught 3 in the last 2 years from a small unmentionable in northern gladwin co./roscommon co..to say extinct,would be wrong..


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

lostontheice said:


> dont know if i would agree with this..as i have caught 3 in the last 2 years from a small unmentionable in northern gladwin co./roscommon co..to say extinct,would be wrong..


That is way cool!


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

I don't believe the lake trout in Lks.Michigan and Huron are natives anymore either. Lake Superior has the only true natives. I think a lot of the brookies planted in Michigan anymore are also Seneca strain ...that is a New York species. How far into native do you wanna get? Good thread. Keep it going

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

I dont think we gotta get all purebred and bloodlined out on this might be a little much were not talkin bout dogs lol. Just the species that were origanally here. And as to these grayling got a pic to prove it otherwise with all do respect i think you might be related to pinnoichio.


----------



## ericjames (Aug 29, 2009)

:lol:


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

So Lost...you are saying you cought Grayling? Why dont you tell us where I am sure the DNR would like to know lol:lol:


----------



## skamaniac97 (Feb 17, 2009)

I want to try whatever "lostontheice" is smoking
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

