# Feb '12 Coldwater Report Available



## fishinDon

Ok, I made some time tonight and put this together:

http://glfsa.org/feb-2012-coldwater-committee-report

I try to do my best to put together an accurate report for you guys, that said, I know I don't catch everything, sometimes I'm too involved in the discussion to take good notes...so Hutch or any of the guys who were in attendance, feel free to elaborate/correct/etc. 

Thx guys,
Don


----------



## riverman

Thanks Don and Steve. If Tonello's report on the PM becomes available before the next meeting a link to that report would be welcome. I participated a couple different times with the "kayak" man and was happy to know Mark was in charge of the PM now or gathering more info for future direction.


----------



## thousandcasts

Well, I'm not one for hiding my thoughts, so here's a couple issues I've talked about in the meetings: 


I brought this up in the last coldwater resource meeting and I'll bring it up again: 

Walleye. Right now, several great lakes tribs are planted with thousands of walleye, below the last impoundments like a Tippy or Croton Dam, and most of those fish out migrate to Lake Michigan. Once out there, those fish basically vanish and are not targeted. When they finally do show up in the rivers and are accessible to more anglers, the season closes. It's already been established that plants are needed since natural repro isn't significant enough to sustain a population. Again, I'm talking about the sections from the last impoundments down to the big lakes. Upper sections and "lakes" such as Hardy Pond and what not are a different story. 

The point is, it's a wasted resource and license dollars are going straight to Ohio where they allow harvest when walleye are accessible to shore anglers. So money is spent to plant a fish that doesn't get utilized. Instead of spending money on park fishing ponds, we need to utilize what's already there. In this case, you're allowing Michigan money to go to another state because you close a season on a popular species to protect spawning fish that need to be planted in order to maintain a fishery that doesn't get utilized because the season is closed when more anglers can target them. Does that make sense? Of course not...and that long sentence I just presented is exactly how the situation is. How hard is it to simply change the wording on the season to include harvest on any great lakes trib up to the first dam? You still have a closed season on the upper sections where natural repro is more significant and you're giving people an opportunity to target a popular meat species that's reliant on plants anyway in areas where you don't need a boat to get to them. In effect, you've created a fishing opportunity by using what we already have. Not everyone gives a hoot about spring steelhead, but if you throw harvestable walleye into the mix, then you're going to have people who will be far more interested in picking up a rod. 

Wouldn't we rather have fishing money stay in house instead of going to the Maumee or other areas? How many people bypass the Huron, Muskegon, Grand, Kalamazoo and other rivers and go to Ohio instead? I've been to the Maumee in the spring and there's a lot of Michigan plates around there, I can tell you that much. 

Point is...right there is one example of something that would be simple to do and far more productive than creating "trout ponds." Add one sentence to the existing non closed areas: "any great lakes tributary up to the first dam or barrier." 

*NEXT:* 

Sept. 6th Manistee Lake closure...mouth of Little M. This closure was put into effect back in the early 90's DURING the BKD crash and they were worried about getting enough salmon to the wier. 

Since then, we're talking about how the lakes have too many salmon and the DNR continues to cut salmon plants. What sense does it make to close an area where legal fishing methods can be utilized in an open water scenario? The closure made sense in 1992, but makes no sense in 2012. 

Look at it this way: The river opens up on April 1st and broodstock steelhead are allowed to be harvested before they get to the wier, but at the same time, some guy in a kayak can't go troll some thundersticks off the mouth out in Manistee Lake after 9-6??? Leave the river closed from the wier down on 9-1, but lift the closure out in the lake itself. 

Those are Hutch's "agenda" items...or things I'd like to see addressed. Feel free to agree or disagree with the two things I brought up...any feedback is welcome since I won't "push" or bring up certain things if the majority thinks it's a bad idea...


----------



## riverman

I think your points about walleyes below any dam out of Lake Michigan is valid, but the White would be destroyed even more and you could walk across the MO on boat decks if you brought in another group of fishermen in the spring. Maybe as a compromise lower sections could be opened to your idea to take advantage of the run.


----------



## ausable_steelhead

thousandcasts said:


> Well, I'm not one for hiding my thoughts, so here's a couple issues I've talked about in the meetings:
> 
> 
> I brought this up in the last coldwater resource meeting and I'll bring it up again:
> 
> Walleye. Right now, several great lakes tribs are planted with thousands of walleye, below the last impoundments like a Tippy or Croton Dam, and most of those fish out migrate to Lake Michigan. Once out there, those fish basically vanish and are not targeted. When they finally do show up in the rivers and are accessible to more anglers, the season closes. It's already been established that plants are needed since natural repro isn't significant enough to sustain a population. Again, I'm talking about the sections from the last impoundments down to the big lakes. Upper sections and "lakes" such as Hardy Pond and what not are a different story.
> 
> The point is, it's a wasted resource and license dollars are going straight to Ohio where they allow harvest when walleye are accessible to shore anglers. So money is spent to plant a fish that doesn't get utilized. Instead of spending money on park fishing ponds, we need to utilize what's already there. In this case, you're allowing Michigan money to go to another state because you close a season on a popular species to protect spawning fish that need to be planted in order to maintain a fishery that doesn't get utilized because the season is closed when more anglers can target them. Does that make sense? Of course not...and that long sentence I just presented is exactly how the situation is. How hard is it to simply change the wording on the season to include harvest on any great lakes trib up to the first dam? You still have a closed season on the upper sections where natural repro is more significant and you're giving people an opportunity to target a popular meat species that's reliant on plants anyway in areas where you don't need a boat to get to them. In effect, you've created a fishing opportunity by using what we already have. Not everyone gives a hoot about spring steelhead, but if you throw harvestable walleye into the mix, then you're going to have people who will be far more interested in picking up a rod.
> 
> Wouldn't we rather have fishing money stay in house instead of going to the Maumee or other areas? How many people bypass the Huron, Muskegon, Grand, Kalamazoo and other rivers and go to Ohio instead? I've been to the Maumee in the spring and there's a lot of Michigan plates around there, I can tell you that much.
> 
> Point is...right there is one example of something that would be simple to do and far more productive than creating "trout ponds." Add one sentence to the existing non closed areas: "any great lakes tributary up to the first dam or barrier."


100% agree. That could apply to SO many rivers really. Lake Huron is FULL of walleye, so why can't guys on the Au Sable, Tawas, Rifle-etc...rope them up? They want license sales and good angler hours, then cater to what's available. Plenty of people that are not as good at hitting steelhead in the spring, land plenty of walleyes on waxworms and spawn. Let those people keep them. The sucker guys plunking crawlers in the spring catch walleyes too, let them rope some up. Maybe a few more smolts will survive with less walleyes around?

I've noticed around the NE, there's a big lack of CO presence on the tribs with steelhead, but as soon as March 15 rolls around or walleyes start showing up, they're all over the place. Why's that? Are walleye more important than steelhead? I'm sure they're managed the same way as most trout/salmon, mainly for the big water fisheries. So why not allow the "incidental" river fisheries to be open like steelhead and salmon?


----------



## MarkP

Thanks for the info don!


----------



## Boozer

I lose confidence in a committee which does not understand the fact "flossing" can be done just as easily with a 2' leader as it can a 4'+ leader...

Once again, regulations for the entire state are being based around logic which is only realistic in the minds of a few unrealistic individuals...


----------



## SteelieArm14

That isnt true boozer. With a longer leader you can cover alot more water. If you are looking for biters then i see no reason to have a leader longer than 2'to be honest. Just my opinion.


----------



## Boozer

SteelieArm14 said:


> That isnt true boozer. With a longer leader you can cover alot more water. If you are looking for biters then i see no reason to have a leader longer than 2'to be honest. Just my opinion.


You keep only thinking of drifting and even then you are still wrong...

What about walking skein, trolling plugs with snap weights, etc etc etc... They are all types of angling where a leader is commonly used longer than 4' from wight to hook and NO fish are tight lined...

What about Bass anglers and Carolina rigging, they often utilize leads longer than 4' as well...

AND

when drifting, your leader is not stretched across the stream, it is going to be directly downstream of the sinker after a very short amount of time. So the length of the leader is not going to make a huge difference...

The bottom line, anyone who has any real time on the water knows, it's the person who controls whether or not they floss, not the leader length, period...

If you make a leader length law as proposed, guys will still rake gravel just as effectively with a leader of less than 4', most "flossing" is done with a leader of less than 4' anyway, so the only ones it hurts are the guys who are not abusing the long leads anyway...


----------



## fishinDon

Boozer said:


> I lose confidence in a committee which does not understand the fact "flossing" can be done just as easily with a 2' leader as it can a 4'+ leader...
> 
> Once again, regulations for the entire state are being based around logic which is only realistic in the minds of a few unrealistic individuals...


Hey Kory,
Your point above (2 feet/4 feet) was raised at the committee and validated by several members. Many members agreed flossing was a problem and many anecdotal stories of flossing were told. But no "consensus" was reached about a leader length restriction (4 feet or otherwise) due to many difficulties with such a law from enforcement to how effective it would be. 

There will be more discussion about this issue, and nothing may come of it, or a different plan all-together may come from it. I don't see any harm really in healthy discussion about an issue that most everyone agrees is occurring. Heck, right after the Coldwater Meeting the DNR fishing report contained this (Thx Hutch for the heads up email): 



> "Grand River at Grand Rapids: Continues with good steelhead catches by those using jigs and wax worms or wobble glows. *Off the east side boat launch and the Post Office, anglers are using pink or chartreuse yarn with 4 to 6 foot leaders with ½ ounce of weight.* Off the east wall, try jigs with wax worms about 4 to 6 feet down. Walleye action was good off the east side wall with bucktail jigs and minnows. Those fishing off Wealthy Street and Fulton Street caught steelhead and walleye with chrome Hot-n-Tots with red lips or chartreuse floating rapalas."


Maybe we don't need anymore rules, maybe it's simply education, which was also raised at the committee. Nothing has been changed, and it's quite possible that nothing will. Just discussions at this point...
Don


----------



## Boozer

Discussion is fine, it may lead to a good resolution and I love that, but I simply see a knee jerk reaction to special regulations taking place here and worry a bad idea will be pushed through simply out of spite...

I am not saying you or Hutch are the ones I worry about, however you cannot deny we already had some ridiculous rules put on the books, one has to worry it could possibly happen again...

Simply put, "flossing" is one of those things you cannot really do much about, education is by far the best option and would in my opinion really be the only thing that could ever limit it's practice...


----------



## thousandcasts

Boozer said:


> Discussion is fine, it may lead to a good resolution and I love that, but I simply see a knee jerk reaction to special regulations taking place here and worry a bad idea will be pushed through simply out of spite...
> 
> I am not saying you or Hutch are the ones I worry about, however you cannot deny we already had some ridiculous rules put on the books, one has to worry it could possibly happen again...
> 
> Simply put, "flossing" is one of those things you cannot really do much about, education is by far the best option and would in my opinion really be the only thing that could ever limit it's practice...


Yep, there are some "bad" rules still on the books--I mentioned two above (walleye and Manistee Lake). 

I am hesitant to support more rules--especially gear restrictions and ones that are hard to enforce or done out of "spite" as you put it. 

This is how I look at it. Anyone is welcome to attend a committee meeting and if they have something to present, then they are given time to present what they want to present. In this case, it was an angler at large who asked to speak prior to the meeting and he presented his case for a leader length restriction. 

It's a valid concern and definitely something that takes place widespread. There was discussion on the pro's of such a restriction and the cons of it. We simply did not have the time needed to discuss this in depth and so it was put on the agenda for further discussion. 

I think we would rather discuss certain things in depth instead of just dismissing things without at least giving it a fair chance to be discussed...especially when it comes from the general angling community. 

These meetings are a matter of public record and everything is done and discussed as transparently as possible--hence why we all agreed that when the minutes are published, we're OK with putting our names to our statements and thoughts. If someone has something to present and there's some substance behind the idea, then it should and will at least be a topic of discussion for the committee. Nothing may come of it because of this or that, but at least such decisions are made only after we've dicussed the issue and came to a consensus. 

That's the right thing to do, IMO, as opposed to saying, "thanks--now get out!" :lol:


----------



## troutguy26

After reading your report don and what hutch has going on with the soccer and suckers my question is why are kids subject to these gear resrictions? You see it alot in the rule book "take a kid fishing". Well with the lack of involvement in todays youth in the outdoors why are we holding them back from enjoying it? We gotta realize not every young kid is gonna wanna learn how to cast a fly rod and how technical that fishing can be is a big discouragement to them. The fact that not every parent has the money to invest into that sport to find out jr doesnt like it and is now turned off from trout fishing is a big negative. Imo kids should be able to fish any water they please with what they got and not be subjected to gear rescrictions. And lastly id like to see more rivers opened up for them to fish after season closes with the guidelines that are in effect right now for size and posession. I feel it would help get more kids on the water with what they got. I by no means am saying let them have free roam but as it stands theres very few streams open all year for kids.


----------



## Boozer

troutguy26 said:


> After reading your report don and what hutch has going on with the soccer and suckers my question is why are kids subject to these gear resrictions? You see it alot in the rule book "take a kid fishing". Well with the lack of involvement in todays youth in the outdoors why are we holding them back from enjoying it? We gotta realize not every young kid is gonna wanna learn how to cast a fly rod and how technical that fishing can be is a big discouragement to them. The fact that not every parent has the money to invest into that sport to find out jr doesnt like it and is now turned off from trout fishing is a big negative. Imo kids should be able to fish any water they please with what they got and not be subjected to gear rescrictions. And lastly id like to see more rivers opened up for them to fish after season closes with the guidelines that are in effect right now for size and posession. I feel it would help get more kids on the water with what they got. I by no means am saying let them have free roam but as it stands theres very few streams open all year for kids.


Why start children off with the thoughts they are allowed to have their own special rules? That sounds dangerous to me and would perhaps give them a sense of entitlement that may hinder the way they look at the resource later in life...


----------



## troutguy26

I see your point. Heres mine. Why start them off and have to explain to them why they have to have a certain type of fishing epuipment just to step foot on that water? Id rather explain that to a 15yr old then a 5yr old. Im sure id make alot more sense to them.


----------



## thousandcasts

Since I have eight year twin boys that I take fishing, I can say that kids could give hoot less what they're catching as long as they're catching something. 

With that in mind, one has to change their mindset when taking the kids fishing. My opinion is that if there's water that has certain restrictions, then you don't go there for family weekend--you go where you know the kids are gonna have a good time and they're going to catch plenty of fish when they feel like fishing.

I take my kids salmon fishing or skamania fishing, but I keep it as simple as possible and I target areas where there's fish to be caught. BUT, for every one time I take them to do that, there's ten times where we go to a lake or a river where they can catch all the fish they want with a worm. When they've had enough, we leave. I pretty much don't get into the hardcore fishing mindset when I take my boys and I let them go at their own pace. 

Point is, if you're taking a kid to a trout stream with special regs, then you're setting yourself up for failure. That's big boy water, sometimes you need to set your own wants aside and just find a playground that's more conducive to getting a child interested in fishing.


----------



## troutguy26

Good point hutch. Ya see when i was a kid river fishing is what i grew up doing. Sure we had our days of fishing the stocked trout ponds in the yoop but that still wasnt what i wanted to do. I wanted to be on the river sittin on the bank in front of a big hole. I guess when i look at it if these restrictions were in place then i feel they might have been a hinder to me doing that and that is not right in my eyes. Many memorys of fishing with gramps on a certain six miles that is now gear restricted wouldnt be there. I get that some kids need the high action bluegill fishing and so forth but not all do. I couldnt care less about numbers when i was young it was all about catching that one brookie to go show grandma. Im not trying to make this all about whats going on right now with the gear restrictions so If you want to keep me out no problem we will deal with that later. Just dont keep my next generation or anyone others off the water due to politics. Thats my 2 cents on it. This is a good discussion.


----------



## fishinDon

troutguy26 said:


> Good point hutch. Ya see when i was a kid river fishing is what i grew up doing. Sure we had our days of fishing the stocked trout ponds in the yoop but that still wasnt what i wanted to do. I wanted to be on the river sittin on the bank in front of a big hole. I guess when i look at it if these restrictions were in place then i feel they might have been a hinder to me doing that and that is not right in my eyes. Many memorys of fishing with gramps on a certain six miles that is now gear restricted wouldnt be there. I get that some kids need the high action bluegill fishing and so forth but not all do. I couldnt care less about numbers when i was young it was all about catching that one brookie to go show grandma. Im not trying to make this all about whats going on right now with the gear restrictions so If you want to keep me out no problem we will deal with that later. Just dont keep my next generation or anyone others off the water due to politics. Thats my 2 cents on it. This is a good discussion.


I think what you just described is the difference between an 5-8 year old (Hutch's boys and my kids) and a kid a little older, say 10-12. When I was really young, I didn't tag along with my dad and grandfather on trout trips, especially not in the UP. Beating brush, managing a pair of waders, and hiking a long way is not an easy task for a young kid. Not to mention that my attention span was as short as my tolerance for bug bites.  

Now a kid of 10-12 years old becomes completely different. Legs are longer, can fit in a pair of waders, has better coordination, doesn't need a snack every 10 minutes, etc. No reason a kid that age can't go. And when I was that age, I did. And I remember being just like you. If I could catch just one trout to show my grandma and my mom I was so thrilled - probably because I wanted to be like my dad/grandpa. 

I grew up dunking worms, cause that was the easiest way to learn and the most likely way that I would finally catch a trout. My nephew fished with my father and I all weekend on the lower Pere Marquette last spring to catch this one brown trout. The only trout he caught all weekend, on a crawler. I think the smile here says it all. He was 10 last year:










Don


----------



## troutguy26

Well i kinda had the silver spoon of trout fishing while growing up and was fishing at that young age. Main factor we had a trout stream right in front of the house. I learned to fish there and once bored with that stretch cause i wasnt allowed in the water we'd go hit the other stretch i talk about and just bridge hop to keep my attention and the action going. I guess its kinda a rare situation.


----------



## fishinDon

troutguy26 said:


> Well i kinda had the silver spoon of trout fishing while growing up and was fishing at that young age. Main factor we had a trout stream right in front of the house. I learned to fish there and once bored with that stretch cause i wasnt allowed in the water we'd go hit the other stretch i talk about and just bridge hop to keep my attention and the action going. I guess its kinda a rare situation.


Lucky guy, I grew up in downriver Detroit, the nearest trout stream to my neighborhood seemed like it was a 100 miles away!


----------



## fishinDon

METTLEFISH said:


> Because that's futile, books and classrooms are far different than actual Ecosysytems, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Once things crash, they get attention, not prior.



A bunch of attention is on Asian Carp and preventing them from entering the Great Lakes right now. The Great Lakes have not yet experienced a crash because of Asian Carp. Someone(s), somewhere(s) got involved and convinced DNRs, legislatures, etc. that this was an important issue.

I would encourage you to take your passion and get involved. The outdoor community needs more passionate advocates, regardless of their background and beliefs.

Don


----------



## METTLEFISH

And when did the Asian carp escape their ponds?.... I have little doubt they have made it to the Great Lakes, I have a friend that lives near the barrier, he's seen it down for days at a time, long before the outcry to stop them. DNA sampling indicates they have made it!.. 
My family has been involved for many decades, as have I ... it takes something like the Lk. MI. Perch or Salmon crash to get something done..... the continuing decline in angler numbers says a lot.... sadly. I live in an area that has an estimated 500 lakes, rivers or streams within 5 miles, there are very few lakes that have mature - non stunted populations of panfish, especially perch, and as soon as someone discovers there are some... they leave in buckets, mostly during the spawn.


----------



## thousandcasts

METTLEFISH said:


> And when did the Asian carp escape their ponds?.... I have little doubt they have made it to the Great Lakes, I have a friend that lives near the barrier, he's seen it down for days at a time, long before the outcry to stop them. DNA sampling indicates they have made it!..
> My family has been involved for many decades, as have I ... it takes something like the Lk. MI. Perch or Salmon crash to get something done..... *the continuing decline in angler numbers says a lot.... sadly*. I live in an area that has an estimated 500 lakes, rivers or streams within 5 miles, there are very few lakes that have mature - none stunted populations of panfish, especially perch, and as soon as someone discovers there are some... they leave in buckets, mostly during the spawn.


That's pretty much the reason I'm talking about the walleye below certain barriers. They rely on plants and go out of season when anglers can better access them. Maybe something like keeping that season open in certain areas would keep guys in state instead of running to Ohio for the walleye river fishery.


----------



## METTLEFISH

thousandcasts said:


> That's pretty much the reason I'm talking about the walleye below certain barriers. They rely on plants and go out of season when anglers can better access them. Maybe something like keeping that season open in certain areas would keep guys in state instead of running to Ohio for the walleye river fishery.


There should be more utilization of the fish for sure, all these fish get planted and have little to no pressure on them, some waters should definately have less restrictive laws simular to put and take!.


----------



## diztortion

Just to touch base again on the leader restriction..

What difference would it make if someone would run the same 12' leader and crimp on a couple of split shot 4' above the hook?


----------



## thousandcasts

METTLEFISH said:


> There should be more utilization of the fish for sure, all these fish get planted and have little to no pressure on them, some waters should definately have less restrictive laws simular to put and take!.


Well, that was really the entire reason that the trout regs on the Muskegon were changed from 15" size limit to 10" across the board. After creel studies and other factors, it was clear that most of the trout they were planting were not making it to 15" in any number that made the cost of planting worth the lack of harvest that was going on. When they factored in the cost of planting vs. the miniscule amount of fish that were making it to 15", they decided to lower the size limit to 10" so that more were being fished for and harvested--more bang for the buck. 

Same principle should apply to the walleye. Granted, they're far less expensive to raise, but when you're dumping 200,000 little ones into a water shed and then you figure that those fish are accessible to a broad angler base for about a month out of a year and natural reproduction is not a factor in adding many more fish to said watershed, then yes...they do need to be managed as a put n take fish at that point. And if the season is closed in areas where shore anglers and what not can have better access to said planted fish, then closing the season doesn't really make sense. I don't really eat fish, so I'm looking at it from the perspective of what provides more bang for the buck. If natural reproduction isn't a factor and the fishery is reliant on plants, then why have the closed season below those first barriers? 

Unless you're talking about a limited window where a few anglers target them out on the pier, they're pretty much just a waste of hatchery space the rest of the time. 

You can have half a million walleye swimming the depths of Lake Michigan for 11 months out of the year and nobody gives a hoot. How many people are breaking out the erie dearies and running out of Grand Haven going, "we're gonna get us some walleye today, boys!" Nobody is...so if the window where those fish are accessible is closed down, what's the point of continuing to plant them?


----------



## REG

thousandcasts said:


> Well, that was really the entire reason that the trout regs on the Muskegon were changed from 15" size limit to 10" across the board. After creel studies and other factors, it was clear that most of the trout they were planting were not making it to 15" in any number that made the cost of planting worth the lack of harvest that was going on. When they factored in the cost of planting vs. the miniscule amount of fish that were making it to 15", they decided to lower the size limit to 10" so that more were being fished for and harvested--more bang for the buck.
> 
> Same principle should apply to the walleye. Granted, they're far less expensive to raise, but when you're dumping 200,000 little ones into a water shed and then you figure that those fish are accessible to a broad angler base for about a month out of a year and natural reproduction is not a factor in adding many more fish to said watershed, then yes...they do need to be managed as a put n take fish at that point. And if the season is closed in areas where shore anglers and what not can have better access to said planted fish, then closing the season doesn't really make sense. I don't really eat fish, so I'm looking at it from the perspective of what provides more bang for the buck. If natural reproduction isn't a factor and the fishery is reliant on plants, then why have the closed season below those first barriers?
> 
> Unless you're talking about a limited window where a few anglers target them out on the pier, they're pretty much just a waste of hatchery space the rest of the time.
> 
> You can have half a million walleye swimming the depths of Lake Michigan for 11 months out of the year and nobody gives a hoot. How many people are breaking out the erie dearies and running out of Grand Haven going, "we're gonna get us some walleye today, boys!" Nobody is...so if the window where those fish are accessible is closed down, what's the point of continuing to plant them?


Your point is well taken except if anyone can figure out how to successfully target them the 11 months out of the year (or less, since some target them from end of Oct to early May), you'd see a goodly amount of anglers getting after them.


----------



## pikedevil

This is sure to send hutch into a frenzy but I think opening up rivers to wallye harvest during the spawning run is an awful idea. Yes there is little natural reproduction on the muskegon watershed but thats not true at all of many rivers in the state, especially in the UP. These river wallye are also very vulnerable especially in the smaller rivers to snagging and lining. If you open these fish up to harvest I can't imagine some of the shenanigans that would go on at say the white river and some of the rivers in the UP. And as were all aware with salmon fishing, snagging/lining is hard to regulate. Also there are biological differences to consider. With salmon and steelhead most of the fish being caught are 3-6 years old, those big adult spawning wallyes can be 8-15+ years old. Take a bunch of those females out when they are vulnerable and it takes a long time to replace them. The Muskegon river is also the brood stock river for wallye where the DNR takes its eggs to stock all the wallyes in the state. This includes all the inland lakes. It doesn't make since to allow 12 year old giant females to be taken out of that river when the state needs them for the hatchery program. Also the idea that these fish aren't being targetted legitamately and are just disappearing into lake michigan for 11 months is absurd. Muskegon lake has good wallye fishing especially in the fall and tracking studies have shown that a lot of those fish turn up in other drownriver mouth areas like lake macatawa and the lower grand river where they were caught by anglers in the summer months. Some of the muskegon lake fish migrate to green bay and the bay de nocs where last time I checked were extremely heavily fished year round for wallye. They aren't all camped out in 100 FOW not biting anyones lines off grand haven and being a big waste of money like you seem to want people to think. Also there are a lot more people targetting these fish than you think, wallye guys just keep it pretty hush hush. I have done very well in may and june on lake michigan wallye (noone pm me for info cuz I'm not telling you anything). Finally you've thrown out some big impressive stocking numbers but people need to realize those are typically 1 inch fish or fry that spend very little time in the hatchery and dont survive at the same rate that say steelhead do. Last point, why would this even be discussed in the coldwater commitee meetings, wouldnt wallye regulation/policy be discussed by a different commitee?


----------



## Boozer

There are TONS of people fishing the Joe 11 months of the year for Walleye, for what it's worth...

I think it is a very utilized fishery...


----------



## thousandcasts

pikedevil said:


> This is sure to send hutch into a frenzy but I think opening up rivers to wallye harvest during the spawning run is an awful idea. Yes there is little natural reproduction on the muskegon watershed but thats not true at all of many rivers in the state, especially in the UP. These river wallye are also very vulnerable especially in the smaller rivers to snagging and lining. If you open these fish up to harvest I can't imagine some of the shenanigans that would go on at say the white river and some of the rivers in the UP. And as were all aware with salmon fishing, snagging/lining is hard to regulate. Also there are biological differences to consider. With salmon and steelhead most of the fish being caught are 3-6 years old, those big adult spawning wallyes can be 8-15+ years old. Take a bunch of those females out when they are vulnerable and it takes a long time to replace them. The Muskegon river is also the brood stock river for wallye where the DNR takes its eggs to stock all the wallyes in the state. This includes all the inland lakes. It doesn't make since to allow 12 year old giant females to be taken out of that river when the state needs them for the hatchery program. Also the idea that these fish aren't being targetted legitamately and are just disappearing into lake michigan for 11 months is absurd. Muskegon lake has good wallye fishing especially in the fall and tracking studies have shown that a lot of those fish turn up in other drownriver mouth areas like lake macatawa and the lower grand river where they were caught by anglers in the summer months. Some of the muskegon lake fish migrate to green bay and the bay de nocs where last time I checked were extremely heavily fished year round for wallye. They aren't all camped out in 100 FOW not biting anyones lines off grand haven and being a big waste of money like you seem to want people to think. Also there are a lot more people targetting these fish than you think, wallye guys just keep it pretty hush hush. I have done very well in may and june on lake michigan wallye (noone pm me for info cuz I'm not telling you anything). Finally you've thrown out some big impressive stocking numbers but people need to realize those are typically 1 inch fish or fry that spend very little time in the hatchery and dont survive at the same rate that say steelhead do. Last point, why would this even be discussed in the coldwater commitee meetings, wouldnt wallye regulation/policy be discussed by a different commitee?


No...not gonna send me into any sort of frenzy at all. I personally could care less since I'm not a walleye fisherman nor do I plan to become one. 

OK, a subject was raised about the DNR getting involved with, let's call them "kiddie ponds" at parks and/or in public areas...with the intent being to recruit more younger fisherpeople and license sales. My thought process is that's great, but why throw money at something like that when you currently have planted species that are not utilized and Michigan money is going out of state to chase the same species that we close a season on. No more, no less. 

So what I'm doing is looking at it from a perspective of getting more bang for the buck out of a species that is already there and reliant on plants. This is not some "Hutch Pet Project." If five people think an open season in certain tribs is a great idea and 100 think it's stupid, I'll just drop it and say "oh well." So, while I may point out why I think it's a good idea, I have no investment in it other than the current discussions on this forum. 

Your points are well taken and I respect them.


----------



## pikedevil

Hutch i'm not saying this is your motivation so don't take this the wrong way but I know that some avid steelhead/trout/salmon fisherman want or would support opening wallye up for harvest in these rivers because they believe the large wallyes are eating stocked steelhead and brown trout. While this is certainly happening to some degree I dont think decimating a wallye fishery so that steelhead fishing might be slightly better is justifiable, and thats coming from a steelhead junky. Lets not forget wallye are the native species, not steelhead/salmon/brown trout.


----------



## thousandcasts

pikedevil said:


> Hutch i'm not saying this is your motivation so don't take this the wrong way but I know that some avid steelhead/trout/salmon fisherman want or would support opening wallye up for harvest in these rivers because they believe the large wallyes are eating stocked steelhead and brown trout. While this is certainly happening to some degree I dont think decimating a wallye fishery so that steelhead fishing might be slightly better is justifiable, and thats coming from a steelhead junky. Lets not forget wallye are the native species, not steelhead/salmon/brown trout.


I believe a difference of opinion is a good thing since it can lead to positive discussion, so nah...there's not much here that I'm going to take the wrong way or get offended about. 

I can assure you that I don't really think walleye have much impact on the salmon/steelhead fisheries. The planter rainbows and browns probably eat more parr than a walleye does...along with the smallmouth...the pike...etc. I've heard all that, but walleye have been there for years and years and years and so have salmon/steelhead...I'm fairly sure there's far more parr and smolt fatalities due to many other reasons than some walleye swimming around. 

I'm looking at it strictly from a financial standpoint. I've gone back and looked at yearly plant #'s, I've read the studies that show that walleye repro doesn't add much to the fishery in a lot of areas, so my thought is simply, why protect spawners that are not effectively spawning? Again, I'm ONLY talking about an open season from the big lakes up to the first barrier since there ARE self sustaining walleye populations in a lot of upstream areas in many rivers. Think of it as an open season below dams like 6th or Allegan or Croton, but the current closed season would still be in effect above those type of impoundments. 

Again, it's just an idea that's purely financial when I look at what I believe is a wasted opportunity that is dependant upon plants funded by license dollars. No other thought process or reasoning involved on my end.


----------



## riverman

How come your not on the river today Hutch? Every time I step outside I say what a fish day, quiet and a front moving in.


----------



## thousandcasts

riverman said:


> How come your not on the river today Hutch? Every time I step outside I say what a fish day, quiet and a front moving in.


Got a couple rod orders I'm working on at the moment--business before pleasure! I've just been jumping on here when I take a break from staring at thread because I've just had to keep up with "As The Tamer Fails" up in the Pin forum. Must see TV! :lol:


----------



## troutguy26

Looks like your show got cancelled.


----------



## thousandcasts

troutguy26 said:


> Looks like your show got cancelled.


That was just one episode. As long as there's The Tamer posting on here, there'll be plenty more episodes to come. :lol:


----------



## troutguy26

Gotta give credit tho he sticks to what he beleives in whether right or wrong and has done a heck of alot more reading then i. Mark was like the google of fish and i guess ya cant bring a knife to a gun fight. Thanks for some info guys it was pretty informative.


----------



## kzoofisher

The walleye season on rivers with steelhead in them really only closes for possession. If you are fishing the Muskegon in mid-April with spawn or spinners or worms or jigs or minnows or whatever and have no walleye in your possession I don't see how you could be ticketed, certainly not convicted. I suppose that there are some people who refuse to fish for walleye because they can't keep a trophy, but I would guess that the number is very small. As for getting kids out fishing, steelhead time is generally not kid friendly weather unless the kid is already hooked on fishing.

As I and others have pointed out; walleye in the Mo, Kazoo, Joe and Lake Michigan are pursued most of the year, sometimes here and sometimes there. I know that when I was at Berrien a few weeks back and the steelhead were slow quite a few boats switched over to walleye. My biggest concern at the moment is the lack of natural reproduction in the Muskegon. Today there are runs of 35,00 t0 50,00 adults; in the 50's those numbers were more like 120,00 to 140,00. It's hard to imagine how many fish that would make accessible in the river below Newaygo and in Muskegon Lake and in Lake Michigan from 10" up to 10#. The fact that such a great historic fishery has been left to languish with only a few studies and no public support is a black eye for all sportsmen.


----------



## thousandcasts

kzoofisher said:


> The walleye season on rivers with steelhead in them really only closes for possession. If you are fishing the Muskegon in mid-April with spawn or spinners or worms or jigs or minnows or whatever and have no walleye in your possession I don't see how you could be ticketed, certainly not convicted. I suppose that there are some people who refuse to fish for walleye because they can't keep a trophy, but I would guess that the number is very small. As for getting kids out fishing, steelhead time is generally not kid friendly weather unless the kid is already hooked on fishing.
> 
> As I and others have pointed out; walleye in the Mo, Kazoo, Joe and Lake Michigan are pursued most of the year, sometimes here and sometimes there. I know that when I was at Berrien a few weeks back and the steelhead were slow quite a few boats switched over to walleye. My biggest concern at the moment is the lack of natural reproduction in the Muskegon. Today there are runs of 35,00 t0 50,00 adults; in the 50's those numbers were more like 120,00 to 140,00. It's hard to imagine how many fish that would make accessible in the river below Newaygo and in Muskegon Lake and in Lake Michigan from 10" up to 10#. The fact that such a great historic fishery has been left to languish with only a few studies and no public support is a black eye for all sportsmen.



In the Mo, there's something that kills quite a few adult walleye. I don't know what is for sure, It could be from the shocking boat, could be natural, but there's a couple spots where I've seen a lot of dead walleye on the river bottom in the spring--almost like some pools you might see after the salmon run. 

Not that I have a point to that since I have no idea what's caused it in different years, but it's more a point of discussion and it hasn't been just one year that I've seen that.


----------



## METTLEFISH

I would like to know if fish like humans, the younger the females, the stronger and less disease prone they are, are older hens producing less viable eggs and offspring?.... maybe the older beyond prime females should be culled!... just a thought....

P.S. Don't bring a gun to a knife fight... and don't try to weigh in a Char at a Trout tournament!...


----------



## kzoofisher

The studies I have read find no cause for the lack of reproduction. Predation, entombment by sand/silt, temperature, activities of other species, viability of eggs at laying, fertilization, all have been studied and proven not to be factors. There is a possibility that flows from the dam are affecting reproduction, but that has yet to be studied.


----------



## METTLEFISH

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4033124 

Found this posted elsewhere on here, confirms (?) what I said about older Females and their egg viability.


----------



## kzoofisher

From your link

"Division of Wildlife studies have shown consistently that most female Lake Erie walleye reach sexual maturity at age four; most of the males are ripe at two or three years old." This age breakdown mirrors the Muskegon.


"The word "fecundity" refers to the numbers of eggs produced. The word "fertility" refers to the number of actual offspring produced. After reaching sexual maturity, Lake Erie *walleye are likely to be at peak* *fertility for around three to five years*. Their peak fecundity may occur later."

We have no idea how many of the 35,000 to 50,000 spawners are females 8 to +10 years old and also don't know how many of the 8 and 9 year olds are still at peak fertility, so it is impossible to use age as a metric. What we do know is that recent studies conducted on the Muskegon itself do not show egg viability as a contributing factor. Between 3.5 billion and 5 billion eggs are laid and fertilized each year and 99.998% fail to reach adulthood. In fact, almost none of them get past the larval stage or reach Muskegon Lake. Researchers have focused on all the most likely factors and gotten nowhere. Unfortunately, there isn't much public interest in getting to the bottom of this so funding to continue the studies has dried up. Maybe when the next one gets published some fishing organizations will get on board and make enough of a fuss that we can restore a historic fishery and save the cost of planting fish at the same time.


----------



## METTLEFISH

As no one knows perhaps it may be a large portion of them are Ol'dry Doe's... possibly a genetic failure from there being so large a population of beyond prime females... ?


----------



## kzoofisher

We seem to be talking past each other. While the age structure has not been broken down in either of the recent studies I've seen, egg viability was looked at. Egg viability is not the problem. Survival of eggs to hatching is not the problem. Predation on larva is not the problem. Something else is preventing the larva from reaching Muskegon Lake in large numbers.


----------



## METTLEFISH

Any P.H. numbers?.....


----------



## kzoofisher

P.H.?


----------



## thousandcasts

It makes me wonder what type of effect, if any, the zebra mussles have had on walleye reproduction. Pretty much most of that upper Muskegon is just covered with zebra mussles on the bottom.


----------



## METTLEFISH

kzoofisher said:


> P.H.?


P.H. = Acidity/Alkalinity of the water.



thousandcasts said:


> It makes me wonder what type of effect, if any, the zebra mussles have had on walleye reproduction. Pretty much most of that upper Muskegon is just covered with zebra mussles on the bottom.


Thats an interesting thought!.... kzoo states there is no problem with the hatch...Hutch.... not many Alevines making it to Muskegon Lk. . How about others kzoo?...


----------



## kzoofisher

Oh, pH. Walleye are the species most effected, but their pH requirements are quite similar to other fishes in the river which are not suffering the same trouble. Walleye need 6.0-9.0, smallmouth 5.7-9.0 with optimum being 7.6-8.0 for both. Smallmouth, Steelhead, Salmon, White Suckers etc. are not having significant problems related to initial survival.

Zebra Mussels (1990's) and Rusty Crayfish (2000's) are problems in the river, however both were introduced long after the walleye collapse (1950-mid '60s) and even long after stocking to replenish them was started (1978). The flows of the river began to be seriously altered by Croton Dam in the '30s and flows are critical for walleye reproduction. The larva need fast enough flows to get to Muskegon Lake before they consume their yolk sac. I think Croton is now a "rate of the river" dam and has been for a few years, so maybe the issue will begin to resolve itself.


----------



## jatc

Interesting topic here about the viability of the walleye fishery. I get to find a few times each spring to chase steelies on the Manistee and due to the way my schedule works out I'm usually fishing at night. It just blows my mind some nights on the size and numbers of walleyes that I get into. In fact there are some nights that I can't even get more than one or two drifts in without hooking a walleye (especially on a #10 black stonefly tied with a red casing).

I've always wondered where these fish are in the summer and why I don't hear about the guys fishing for them like I do over here by Saginaw Bay. I can honestly say without really stretching the truth even a little that I'll catch more 8 pound plus walleyes in two evenings on the Manistee than I will in 100 hours or more per year on Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. Just seems like somewhere in Lake M there must be one heck of a great untapped opportunity.

I also spend many, many hours in the persuit of silver fish off of Manistee, Frankfort, and Ludington and I've NEVER caught a walleye in the boat even when trolling shallow for browns during the spring when the walleye are stacked in 10' of water on The Bay.

Just seems strange and I'd like to know what is happening to all of these fish that we're protecting.


----------



## REG

jatc said:


> Interesting topic here about the viability of the walleye fishery. I get to find a few times each spring to chase steelies on the Manistee and due to the way my schedule works out I'm usually fishing at night. It just blows my mind some nights on the size and numbers of walleyes that I get into. In fact there are some nights that I can't even get more than one or two drifts in without hooking a walleye (especially on a #10 black stonefly tied with a red casing).
> 
> I've always wondered where these fish are in the summer and why I don't hear about the guys fishing for them like I do over here by Saginaw Bay. I can honestly say without really stretching the truth even a little that I'll catch more 8 pound plus walleyes in two evenings on the Manistee than I will in 100 hours or more per year on Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. Just seems like somewhere in Lake M there must be one heck of a great untapped opportunity.
> 
> I also spend many, many hours in the persuit of silver fish off of Manistee, Frankfort, and Ludington and I've NEVER caught a walleye in the boat even when trolling shallow for browns during the spring when the walleye are stacked in 10' of water on The Bay.
> 
> Just seems strange and I'd like to know what is happening to all of these fish that we're protecting.


Good question. I can't say about the Manistee, but I would imagine they end up doing much of the same as walleyes on the Muskegon.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Sr40_199576_7.pdf


----------



## thousandcasts

jatc said:


> Interesting topic here about the viability of the walleye fishery. I get to find a few times each spring to chase steelies on the Manistee and due to the way my schedule works out I'm usually fishing at night. It just blows my mind some nights on the size and numbers of walleyes that I get into. In fact there are some nights that I can't even get more than one or two drifts in without hooking a walleye (especially on a #10 black stonefly tied with a red casing).
> 
> I've always wondered where these fish are in the summer and why I don't hear about the guys fishing for them like I do over here by Saginaw Bay. I can honestly say without really stretching the truth even a little that I'll catch more 8 pound plus walleyes in two evenings on the Manistee than I will in 100 hours or more per year on Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. *Just seems like somewhere in Lake M there must be one heck of a great untapped opportunity.*
> 
> I also spend many, many hours in the persuit of silver fish off of Manistee, Frankfort, and Ludington and I've NEVER caught a walleye in the boat even when trolling shallow for browns during the spring when the walleye are stacked in 10' of water on The Bay.
> 
> *Just seems strange and I'd like to know what is happening to all of these fish that we're protecting*.


Well, like I said, it's not a fishery that's going to be "tapped" out there either. When boats are going out between the pier heads, they're sure as hell not thinking, "boy, I hope we get some walleye today!" nor do I think I'll live to see the day where Lake Michigan anglers are trading in their coppers for Erie Dearies. :lol:

Seems strange to me why we're protecting them in the first place...I haven't heard one argument yet that makes me think they should still be closing the season on those lower big lake tribs.


----------



## RML

I've been trolling the big lake for years and like you all mentioned no Walleye's and I use some nice small spoons they could easily eat. I don't want to let the whole cat out the bag but the eyes are lurking around harbors, rivers, peir heads etc. That's why we don't catch many trolling for SST in the G. Lakes. I don't believe they all vanish out in the big lake. They disperce in the whole system under wood, banks, docks, ect. There is just a ton of them concentrated in the Spring for prime natural reproduction area.

Weirdest thing I caught this last season was a sheephead, smashed a spoon at the BS Point and it was a 6-8 lb fish. I caught a another sheephead 3-4 lbs on a Walleye size spoon in Sag. Bay. Enought on the farm animals bahh, bahh...

I'd LOVE to see them shock up a bunch of these Big River Walleyes and see them transplant them to inland lakes near by to naturaly reproduce. They do a bunch of stocking but never see any results. Or milk them out for the stocking program but revive them and release them above the dams. :idea:

I troll my but off for a 1 fish limit. As soon as you catch the one pack it in and call it a day never catch 2. I almost always catch a target fish and a few others species but not 2. When you look at the stocking # you would think the fishery would be great. I don't know what happens to the planters but it's just weird you don't do better. I wouldn't have to catch a limit to be happy but 2 or 3 per person would be nice. I troll for 15 min and you catch a dandy the next 4 hours are just for fun. It has happened many times on many diffrent inland lakes..

Just my thoughts.


----------

