# Stocking Pink Salmon, Why not ?



## detroitjim

Seems to me that the DNR should consider some limited stocking of Pink salmon in both Lake Michigan and southern Lake Huron. 

Quote from this DNR publication 
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_53405-214109--,00.html
"Unlike other Pacific salmon, the population of pinks does not seem to have been impacted by the decline in alewife numbers in Lake Huron."

Pinks average 3 lbs,Chinook average 15 lbs and Coho 9 lbs.

That being the case ,the system should be able to support 5 pinks for every chinook and 3 pinks for each coho.(rough extrapolation, many other factors).

Since there hasn't been any official stocking of Pink salmon their population is a result of natural reproduction.

I know the typical fishery for pinks is in northern Huron. 
There doesn't appear to be any data on where they may have been caught outside their normal range.

Over the past ten years the DNR has planted millions of Chinook and Coho in both lake Michigan and Huron. Their efforts have seen diminishing returns annually.

I think its time for them to try something different.


----------



## U D

So, where do the Altantics they have been planting in Lake Huron fit into your thoughts?


----------



## Thirty pointer

Pinks were planted for food for native tribes but were accidentally planted in the wrong area .They are prolific breeders some years in the soo ...many locals hate them .I fish them on even years and have a blast some years but i really do not know their impact on other species .The kings in the St. Mary's are spotty now but there used to be great numbers of both kings and pinks .Atlantics have taken the place of kings but require a whole new technique to catch them .As far as planting pinks elsewhere i think it would have been done years ago if it were a viable option


----------



## detroitjim

I can't find any studies on natural reproduction for Atlantic salmon in the great lakes.
The DNR plants of Atlantic salmon seem to be achieving positive results. 
Looks like Atlantic salmon average weight is 6lbs. 
So two Pinks for every Atlantic . More fish for us to potentially catch and the higher likelihood for natural reproduction.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Where are you averaging 3# on pinks? Last time we got into them they were about 11- 14" and we dragged them until they died without knowing it. Not to mention by the time we cleared lines and landed them, the little meat they had was so soft we tossed them back for the sea gulls.


----------



## Cork Dust

detroitjim said:


> I can't find any studies on natural reproduction for Atlantic salmon in the great lakes.
> The DNR plants of Atlantic salmon seem to be achieving positive results.
> Looks like Atlantic salmon average weight is 6lbs.
> So two Pinks for every Atlantic . More fish for us to potentially catch and the higher likelihood for natural reproduction.


Basically, because Atlantic Salmon never existed in any Great Lake other than Ontario. They haven't reproduced naturally in Lakes Ontario...since the deforestation of that basin and European settlement. Atlantics have been planted since then by Ontario, LSSU, and now Michigan(again), with some success.


----------



## detroitjim

Thirty pointer said:


> Pinks were planted for food for native tribes but were accidentally planted in the wrong area


The second sentence of the linked DNR publication. Of course you have to believe what they've written.
"Back in the 1950s, pink salmon that were being raised in a Canadian hatchery and were destined for Hudson Bay wound up in a Lake Superior tributary."


----------



## detroitjim

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Where are you averaging 3# on pinks? Last time we got into them they were about 11- 14" and we dragged them until they died without knowing it. Not to mention by the time we cleared lines and landed them, the little meat they had was so soft we tossed them back for the sea gulls.



linked DNR publication. "pinks typically weigh in the three-pound range as adults"

The data for Chinook and Coho are from the DNR as well.

Can't understand your statement, bragging of the willful wanton waste?


----------



## Thirty pointer

detroitjim said:


> I can't find any studies on natural reproduction for Atlantic salmon in the great lakes.
> The DNR plants of Atlantic salmon seem to be achieving positive results.
> Looks like Atlantic salmon average weight is 6lbs.
> So two Pinks for every Atlantic . More fish for us to potentially catch and the higher likelihood for natural reproduction.


Not knocking pinks i love catching them. Although i have caught a few around three pounds it is rare in the soo most around 1 lb .Atlantics are realatively new plantings but seem to be catching hold in different areas .They are also primo fighters and much better to eat .You can see the Atlantics on the LSSU fish cam when they come in .


----------



## RedM2

Cork Dust said:


> Basically, because Atlantic Salmon never existed in any Great Lake other than Ontario. They haven't reproduced naturally in Lakes Ontario...since the deforestation of that basin and European settlement. Atlantics have been planted since then by Ontario, LSSU, and now Michigan(again), with some success.


There are areas they weren't planted that we've seen them going through the motions of spawning this year. I wonder if there will be successful spawning down the road. Your thoughts?


----------



## mbirdsley

I would think pinks would be good for the river guys.


----------



## LabtechLewis

Here's one from 2016 (last trip I went on). We called them "sardines" that year because they were so small. I second what FBD said. We've drug them around Detour before on downrigger rods until the meat was all bruised up. Not the best table fare at that point. I think 2 lbs per is a good long term average. Not sure we need to consume resources to stock more of them, but they sure are a pretty fish!


----------



## detroitjim

LabtechLewis said:


> Not sure we need to consume resources to stock


 I'm with you on that . At the same time stocking of Chinook and Coho is not very fruitful.Seems as though a large percentile of doing so is utterly wasteful. Use a bit of the hatchery resources for some *limited *stocking of pinks rather than for Kings and Coho.


----------



## Johnnydeerhunt

They don't fight that hard, because they are like 1.25lbs in most instances. I was able to find a spot where I could call my shot and wait for the downrigger rods to "twitch". No dragging those fish around, and our grilled pinks could generously be referred to as "mushy". Their flesh had the consistency of paste. I would take my one coho over two pinks, or one nice King over five. I don't think they are going to be attractive to most people to get them out en masse on the big lake. Heck, they are cutting brown plants...why would we want to start putting pinks in?


----------



## Cork Dust

RedM2 said:


> There are areas they weren't planted that we've seen them going through the motions of spawning this year. I wonder if there will be successful spawning down the road. Your thoughts?


The MDNR Lake Huron plants appear to be slowly expanding. That said, this fishery will never be the size of the Pacific Salmon fishery that existed, since forage within the basin remains limited by either overfishing on the Canadian side or over-predation on the U.S. side.


----------



## Cork Dust

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Where are you averaging 3# on pinks? Last time we got into them they were about 11- 14" and we dragged them until they died without knowing it. Not to mention by the time we cleared lines and landed them, the little meat they had was so soft we tossed them back for the sea gulls.


Canned, they're okay. Fresh caught, not much by way of taste quality. I would prefer a brown trout fillet.


----------



## twohats

Just poking my nose in into this thread, What would be great is if they introduced Sockeyes, awesome eating.


----------



## Thirty pointer

I will can pinks for salmon patties or remove entrails and vacuum seal in bags of about 6 to put on the smoker occasionally .


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Not going to bother to clean a fish for two mushy, small fillets. At least if I shake them off at the back if my boat something can eat them, instead of throwing them down the grinder at the cleaning station.

I base my experience on thousands of hours trolling and not the DNR generalities.

Other than the Soo, I don't think pinks will ever be a draw to fish somewhere. They're pretty cool to cast or jig for. Trolling with 20# test, not so much.

It was funny when everyone said there was no reproduction of kings in the rivers yet pinks were expanding every year on their own.


----------



## -Axiom-

In a predator heavy environment IMO we really don't need Pink salmon.

The Pink salmon I have had wasn't very good.


----------



## RedM2

Pinks make good fish tacos. If they are going to plant anything in Lake Huron in addition to what's already planted, I'd be in favor of coho, which are generalist feeders. Of course, more Atlantics would be a welcomed addition, too.


----------



## piscatorial warrior

I have caught and eaten Pink Salmon on two occasions. I smoked one and grilled one. As far as taste and texture, both times they came in as a distant second to a late-October river King. :sad:


----------



## jpmarko

I think that planting additional species (of any kind) is a bad idea given the relative lack of baitfish in the lakes. I certainly wouldn’t mind tangling with a few pinks (sockeye sounds like an even better idea), but this probably isn’t the time to be introducing more mouths to feed.


----------



## Thirty pointer

Pinks are a blast when they come in in great numbers but they must be a burden on other fish for forage .When the kings were on their last leg in the soo you would often catch very skinny fish .


----------



## andyotto

Agree that intentionally planting pinks probably isn't a good idea at this time and I prefer just more steelhead and Atlantics. 
However as far as eating goes as long as I've kept them cold and firm they have been pretty good. They do turn mushy fast though.


----------



## Fishndude

twohats said:


> Just poking my nose in into this thread, What would be great is if they introduced Sockeyes, awesome eating.


Sockeyes mostly (almost totally) eat Plankton. They eat a lot of Krill. I don't see adding a species that feeds on the bottom of the food chain as a solution to the challenges the Great Lakes Salmon are experiencing. But they are the best-eating Salmon anywhere. Hands-down. Fortunately we can buy them "jet-fresh." 
https://salmonbrokers.net/what-do-sockeye-salmon-eat/


----------



## Cork Dust

piscatorial warrior said:


> I have caught and eaten Pink Salmon on two occasions. I smoked one and grilled one. As far as taste and texture, both times they came in as a distant second to a late-October river King. :sad:


Excellent description, with one exception, you left-out that the King was covered two-thirds with Saprolegnia sp. fungus! We used to catch Pinooks (chinook/pink cross) in the Garden River in Ontario, even those fish were not good table fare.


----------



## blackghost

I bet pinks would do great in the southern basin of Lake Michigan. Probably would get a lot bigger than in the St. Mary's too. For table far, even the ocean run fish aren't as desirable. In Seattle the guys would bleed them and gut them immediately and get them on ice. That seemed to do the trick.

Wonder if there's enough Mysis for sockeye. The coho sure feast on them early in the year and they taste great.


----------



## 357Maximum

Why not stripers and/or wipers? Both would eat gobies and be available for surf fishing in shorts ya know. :lol: When I dream of WHY NOTS that would be my dream. I will never see it, but it is my dream. Barring that my vote would go towards more Atlantics, at least they taste good. 




[/ATTACH]


----------



## Quack Addict

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Where are you averaging 3# on pinks? Last time we got into them they were about 11- 14"


Those are "3# fish" to a lot of guys.

Sent from my XT1585 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Cork Dust

Fishndude said:


> Sockeyes mostly (almost totally) eat Plankton. They eat a lot of Krill. I don't see adding a species that feeds on the bottom of the food chain as a solution to the challenges the Great Lakes Salmon are experiencing. But they are the best-eating Salmon anywhere. Hands-down. Fortunately we can buy them "jet-fresh."
> https://salmonbrokers.net/what-do-sockeye-salmon-eat/


They also generally stay in sub-alpine lakes for a year after hatching-out in tributaries that feed these lakes, prior exiting to smolt and shift over to osmoregulation systems that function in salt water. From a hatchery rearing program standpoint, that equates to an expensive fish to rear and plant, with no garantee of success.


----------



## charminultra

Pinks are tiny. They might be fun on brook trout gear. I marked a freaking pod of them out on Huron and thought I hit the mother load of steel head or something cool like that, turned out they were just pinks and couldn’t even tell I had 6 of 6 lines hooked up with them.


----------



## rugbym10sflyu

how about we quit stocking non-native salmon all together. they are not good table fare compared to pacific salmon that come from the pacific ocean and the ecosystem is obviously not stable with them as the primary species to manage. while I enjoy fishing, my main priority is for food and there are MUCH better tasting native fish that I believe should receive more focus. alewife are gone which was the primary reason for stocking salmon so lets call it a success and move on


----------



## detroitjim

357Maximum said:


> Why not stripers and/or wipers?


Interesting.....Wonder what a forum of fisheries biologists think.

I found an old thread http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/archive/discuss/index.php?topic=1385.0 that claims Stripers were planted in Lake Erie back in the 40's.


----------



## detroitjim

rugbym10sflyu said:


> how about we quit stocking non-native salmon all together.


Even though the salmonid fishery is depressed compared to its heyday . A lot of dollars are spent in their pursuit stimulating Michigans economy. It's highly unlikely the DNR will ever cease salmon stocking operation barring a catastrophe. 



rugbym10sflyu said:


> my main priority is for food and there are MUCH better tasting native fish


Indeed..... everyone enjoys fish that are better table fare.But if food is *your* priority ,anything that is in season and legal size should be in your creel . Then ultimately end up on your plate ,regardless of their palatability .
A goal of the suggestion "planting pinks" is ,more fish available for us to catch.


----------



## RLWagner

detroitjim said:


> Seems to me that the DNR should consider some limited stocking of Pink salmon in both Lake Michigan and southern Lake Huron.
> 
> Quote from this DNR publication
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_53405-214109--,00.html
> "Unlike other Pacific salmon, the *population of pinks does not seem to have been impacted by the decline in alewife numbers in* Lake Huron."
> 
> Pinks average 3 lbs,Chinook average 15 lbs and Coho 9 lbs.
> 
> That being the case ,the system *should be able to support 5 pinks for every chinook and 3 pinks for each coho*.(rough extrapolation, many other factors).
> 
> Since there hasn't been any official stocking of Pink salmon their population is a result of natural reproduction.
> 
> I know the typical fishery for pinks is in northern Huron.
> There doesn't appear to be any data on where they may have been caught outside their normal range.
> 
> Over the past ten years the DNR has planted millions of Chinook and Coho in both lake Michigan and Huron. Their efforts have seen diminishing returns annually.
> 
> I think its time for them to try something different.


Seems you made the case that Pinks may not even feed on alewife very much, then draw the 5/1 and 3/1 comparison...... Does not sound like there is very much to support the ratios. 

So actually the pinks may feed on the biomass required by other fish such as Chromers, or Perch or Walleye? Personally I am not sure. Does not seem like any easy button here like just planting a bunch of Pinks. 

I would suspect the DNR Biologists are and have been hard at work on this one......


----------



## 357Maximum

detroitjim said:


> Interesting.....Wonder what a forum of fisheries biologists think.
> 
> I found an old thread http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/archive/discuss/index.php?topic=1385.0 that claims Stripers were planted in Lake Erie back in the 40's.



Stripers were actually one of Tanner's original thoughts before he chose the pacific carp cause he got a "deal" on all them eggs though. :lol: As far as I know wipers were the only other sea bass stocked in Erie, but in super small numbers though. The king has pretty much run its course and has proven to have severe adaptability issues in the changing lakes, why not give another fish a shot? That's just my greedy little thought and I have never played fisheries biologist and I didn't even stay at the Holiday Inn last night either. The thought of tackling goby munching stripers close to shore while wearing shorts instead of bundled up in neoprene sure would excite me though. It will never happen but a guy can dream. Being content with playing with their little cousins will have to do I guess. I already have my rods and tackle ready and waiting for the white bass run. I anticipate it all winter, every winter. One of my favorite fish to play with in this state actually. <<<<<<< yes I know I am not in the majority on that opinion, and I don't care. :lol:


----------



## DeerSlayer36

I think we should focus on planting native fish species back into the GLs, enough with the transplants!


----------



## Robert Holmes

Pink Salmon when caught fresh in the great lakes should be put on ice right away and cleaned as soon as possible then smoked. They are in my opinion better than smoked whitefish. They are also very good canned. No need to plant them as they have been self sustaining for the last 50 years. Some years they return in good numbers and some years not so good.


----------



## 357Maximum

DeerSlayer36 said:


> I think we should focus on planting native fish species back into the GLs, enough with the transplants!



Too bad most natives are out of reach for a lot of folks most of the year because not everyone owns, can afford to own or even cares to own a dedicated big water boat. The ballast water "plantings" and the intentional plantings have guaranteed the lakes will never be all native so why not have a little fun with the cornucopia of human transgression against the lakes. "Native" is something we will never see again as Pandora cannot be put back in the box? A shore fishery for big fish could be fun and profitable. If you could show up to the beach with nothing but a beer cooler, a rod and a few big jigheads and catch a striper, I think that would be great.....again just me being selfish.


----------



## Fordguy

Stripers eat. Um... not sure how to respond to that. Seems pretty obvious. I'm not talking about releasing unlimited numbers or a population that will reproduce and end up out of control. Wipers (not stripers) do eat, but the upside is that they aren't picky. They will eat small carp, good sized shad and many of the invasive species that are already in the lake. Some day if the silver and bighead carp make it into the great lakes wipers and even stripers may provide a viable way to help control their numbers, but I digress. We're talking about stocking a different non-native fish species that offers more opportunity to the average angler. All fish eat. I've nothing against salmon, but they are a non-native fish in all the lakes except ontario and those salmon were gone a long time ago. Properly handled and prepared stripers or their hybrids can be rival for almost any fish on the dinner table. This is from a guy who grew up on trout and salmon/steelhead. Not that I'd want to eat either one every day, they're both unique and lend themselves to different presentations.
Now on to the popularity of salmon- there are plenty of places where the striper is the undisputed king of the fishing season. Try fishing the east coast during the fall migration. Fact is that most local Michigan fishermen (and women) haven't been exposed to them. We don't have them in our waters currently, and aside from walleye and perch, salmonids are pretty much the only sought after eating fish in the lakes. There are a lot of people who don't have a boat and can't afford money for a charter. Those are the people that wipers would benefit. They could buy an inexpensive surf rod and a little gear and fish to their hearts content. Fishing the big lakes shouldn't just be for the affluent.
If I didn't mess things up (technology is not my friend) below should be a pic of a 26" wiper (read HYBRID) that I caught in the Arkansas river last winter. If you've never seen a school of these fish in a topwater frenzy, you should search for it on youtube.


----------



## charminultra

From what I’ve seen the pinks don’t need to be stocked, at least in Lake Huron. Also I’ve noticed perch are getting bigger out there. And I see lots of small minnows so that’s good. The perch are for sure eating gobies and crayfish and small water bugs. Also I’ve seen Atlantic’s schooling up minows on the surface which is cool. This is on the southern basin of Huron.

As for only being able to fish the Great Lakes in a big expensive boat, that’s not true. I have a 16’ boat that cost 4000 and I go out all the time.


----------



## detroitjim

charminultra said:


> noticed perch are getting bigger


More than likely that is just the annual dynamics of perch . I've caught a lot of really nice jumbo perch when the salmon were booming.



charminultra said:


> From what I’ve seen the pinks don’t need to be stocked, at least in Lake Huron


Tend to agree with that in the northern section(Au Gres northward). Don't see or hear about many being caught from Port Sanilac southward. That's where the limited planting should be.

Been trying to find recent creel surveys for southern Lake Huron. There doesn't seem to be any available on the net.


----------



## RedM2

detroitjim said:


> More than likely that is just the annual dynamics of perch . I've caught a lot of really nice jumbo perch when the salmon were booming.
> 
> 
> Tend to agree with that in the northern section(Au Gres northward). Don't see or hear about many being caught from Port Sanilac southward. That's where the limited planting should be.
> 
> Been trying to find recent creel surveys for southern Lake Huron. There doesn't seem to be any available on the net.


I don't understand your draw to pinks? Other than the St. Mary's, I'm not sure there's a place they're targetable from shore. They don't fight, they drag on lines, and their appeal as table fare is suspect.


----------



## Fordguy

charminultra said:


> From what I’ve seen the pinks don’t need to be stocked, at least in Lake Huron. Also I’ve noticed perch are getting bigger out there. And I see lots of small minnows so that’s good. The perch are for sure eating gobies and crayfish and small water bugs. Also I’ve seen Atlantic’s schooling up minows on the surface which is cool. This is on the southern basin of Huron.
> 
> As for only being able to fish the Great Lakes in a big expensive boat, that’s not true. I have a 16’ boat that cost 4000 and I go out all the time.[/QU


$4000 plus annual registration, plus vehicle to pull said boat and trailer verses $50 for a surf rod and an assortment of plugs, jigs and spoons (or considerably less if you find the right garage/estate sales)= a no brainer when you live on a very tight budget. I realize that a tight budget means different things to different people, but when you drive an old ford escort to save money on gas... well, strapping that 16' boat to the roof is not a reasonable proposition. lol. Not saying it's impossible because I've certainly strapped items to the roof that probably shouldn't have been but- it's more of a last resort than a good idea.


----------



## charminultra

detroitjim said:


> More than likely that is just the annual dynamics of perch . I've caught a lot of really nice jumbo perch when the salmon were booming.
> 
> 
> Tend to agree with that in the northern section(Au Gres northward). Don't see or hear about many being caught from Port Sanilac southward. That's where the limited planting should be.
> 
> Been trying to find recent creel surveys for southern Lake Huron. There doesn't seem to be any available on the net.


I catch them frequently out of port sanilac and Lexington. They are good smoked but like others say a little soft when fried. Atlantic’s are very good eating nice red color to the meat. Pinks have more lighter color to the meat.

I usually keep the first fish of the day and many times it is a pink.


----------



## RedM2

Fordguy said:


> $4000 plus annual registration, plus vehicle to pull said boat and trailer verses $50 for a surf rod and an assortment of plugs, jigs and spoons (or considerably less if you find the right garage/estate sales)= a no brainer when you live on a very tight budget. I realize that a tight budget means different things to different people, but when you drive an old ford escort to save money on gas... well, strapping that 16' boat to the roof is not a reasonable proposition. lol. Not saying it's impossible because I've certainly strapped items to the roof that probably shouldn't have been but- it's more of a last resort than a good idea.


So then how would the state justify the ROI for stripers/wipers? Additionally, where is there sufficient public access to the "surf" areas on southern Lake Huron? It's almost all private.


----------



## Fordguy

Keep your feet wet and you don't have to worry about it.


----------



## RedM2

Fordguy said:


> Keep your feet wet and you don't have to worry about it.


How many miles are you willing to walk between public access sites because that's how it's going to be... miles. How many anglers do you think would be dedicated enough to do what you're suggesting? Also, how do you see the ROI being justified?


----------



## Fordguy

RedM2 said:


> How many miles are you willing to walk between public access sites because that's how it's going to be... miles. How many anglers do you think would be dedicated enough to do what you're suggesting? Also, how do you see the ROI being justified?


Debating access is another issue. Related, certainly, but another issue. Personally, when I'm out of state one of the access points for fishing is a 1 1/4 mile hike, just to get to the water (when the fishing is good and word gets out the parking lot fills up. After that there are miles of shoreline that I'll walk to fish or walk and fish- if the birds aren't showing me where the fish are. On an average outing I'll probably cover 4-7 miles total. So if you have an access point figure 3 miles minimally in either direction. I'm not above walking farther, but wipers are not typically a static fish. Who is going to walk where or how far really depends on the individual. I'm betting that once a few people catch or even get to fight a 5-10 lb hybrid in the surf on medium to med-light tackle there will be a cult following. They're a pretty fish, and they're very strong, they fight hard and with a big one you'll swear the darn thing has shoulders. I've had them knock a chug bug several feet out of the water when they hit on top, then return and grab it when it hits the water again. Wipers move a lot, almost constantly from my experience. If you fish an area long enough, eventually they'll show up. They'll show up more often if the baitfish are there. My point is that with wipers you have additional options. I'm not suggesting that we do away with salmon, so don't get your fluoro leader in a knot (for those who might think I'm anti-salmon). I simply said that a species that was accessible from the shoreline or shallows made sense especially when it's a hybrid who's numbers can be controlled by the DNR. Return on investment? Simple. With increased opportunity comes more license sales, more days spent using state parks and resources, more dollars spent on fishing gear and so on and so forth. Hybrids are also pretty easy to produce from what I've read. States like Oklahoma stock them in great quantities. They don't just hang out on the shoreline either. Depending on conditions, you might find them deep, or miles from shore chasing bait along the surface.


----------



## jpmarko

Do they primarily hang around the shoreline? I mean, salmon, steelhead and brown trout can be caught in the surf in the spring, fall, and winter. Skamania are at the pier heads in the summer. The river always has steelhead in it throughout the year. I don’t have anything against stripers, but I would be against stocking anything new at all at this time in the history of the Great Lakes. We need more baitfish. Stripers certainly aren’t gonna fix that. 

If we had more baitfish, the salmon fishery would revive. Substituting one predator for another won’t fix the problem. I’m not saying that that’s what you’re saying. I’m just stating my perspective.


----------



## 357Maximum

jpmarko said:


> Do they primarily hang around the shoreline? I mean, salmon, steelhead and brown trout can be caught in the surf in the spring, fall, and winter. Skamania are at the pier heads in the summer. The river always has steelhead in it throughout the year. I don’t have anything against stripers, but I would be against stocking anything new at all at this time in the history of the Great Lakes. We need more baitfish. Stripers certainly aren’t gonna fix that.
> 
> If we had more baitfish, the salmon fishery would revive. Substituting one predator for another won’t fix the problem. I’m not saying that that’s what you’re saying. I’m just stating my perspective.



The temperate basses will eat the bait that chinook do not seem to recognize as food. GOBIES (mudsucker) is a premier bait in many locales.


----------



## RedM2

Fordguy said:


> Debating access is another issue. Related, certainly, but another issue. Personally, when I'm out of state one of the access points for fishing is a 1 1/4 mile hike, just to get to the water (when the fishing is good and word gets out the parking lot fills up. After that there are miles of shoreline that I'll walk to fish or walk and fish- if the birds aren't showing me where the fish are. On an average outing I'll probably cover 4-7 miles total. So if you have an access point figure 3 miles minimally in either direction. I'm not above walking farther, but wipers are not typically a static fish. They move a lot, almost constantly from my experience. If you fish an area long enough, eventually they'll show up. They'll show up more often if the baitfish are there. My point is that with wipers you have additional options. I'm not suggesting that we do away with salmon, so don't get your fluoro leader in a knot. I simply said that a species that was accessible from the shoreline or shallows made sense especially when it's a hybrid who's numbers can be controlled by the DNR. Return on investment? Simple. With increased opportunity comes more license sales, more days spent using state parks and resources, more dollars spent on fishing gear and so on and so forth. Hybrids are also pretty easy to produce from what I've read. States like Oklahoma stock them in great quantities. They don't just hang out on the shoreline either. Depending on conditions, you might find them deep, or miles from shore chasing bait along the surface.


I am like you in the sense that I'll walk if needed...especially to hunt. However, the majority of outdoors persons aren't willing to do what we'll do. Additional options are good. No need to worry. My flouro isn't knotted or chafed. Lol.  I disagree with you on the MDNR's ROI especially considering the current complexities with our fishery (anglers like silver fish). I like the idea that they have a diverse diet. I also think it's something that could be considered down the road, but until the salmon fishery is all but gone I don't see it working. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Chasin

Lots of good talk going on here for potential opportunities for future fishing of the lake. But as someone who has dragged more pinks around than I care to even try to count, I really don't think more of them is an answer to anything. 
I would focus more on what it would take to get more bio diversity in the mid-water column. That's what actually cause the crash in the first place. The problem currently is not the amount of nurturance in the great lakes but where its located. What needs to be introduced to the lakes is a critter of some kind that has the ability to pull nurturance from the bottom of the lake and move it further up into the water column. *Diporeia* had the unique ability to do that before their disappearance in the lakes. It there another shrimplike creature that can do that?? Blood shrimp maybe? Find that animal and your name will go down in history as the great lakes savior...


----------



## Fordguy

jpmarko said:


> Do they primarily hang around the shoreline? I mean, salmon, steelhead and brown trout can be caught in the surf in the spring, fall, and winter. Skamania are at the pier heads in the summer. The river always has steelhead in it throughout the year. I don’t have anything against stripers, but I would be against stocking anything new at all at this time in the history of the Great Lakes. We need more baitfish. Stripers certainly aren’t gonna fix that.
> 
> If we had more baitfish, the salmon fishery would revive. Substituting one predator for another won’t fix the problem. I’m not saying that that’s what you’re saying. I’m just stating my perspective.


I would not say that they hang around any one area for an extended length of time. They are a pelagic fish. So unless you get lucky with the timing or know when the baitfish schools are close to shore from bird activity it can be hit or miss. That being said, at times they can be very predictable. There have been occasions when they would come into the same areas at the same times for 10 or 12 days in a row. They don't hang around long though, the bite is usually furious, but might last 15 minutes or might last an hour. When the bite is on, it's usually one fish after another, cast after cast. If they're running big that might give you time to land 3-7 fish. If they're small you might land 12-15.
One of my points in suggesting the hybrids is that we have more control because of the lack of natural reproduction. So when we have fewer baitfish, we stock fewer hybrids, or none at all. A few hybrids mixed in with the salmon and trout isn't going to hurt the population much either. Hybrids have a smaller mouth than stripers do, so (i'm guessing) predation on salmon species shouldn't be much worse than what we have currently. With the salmon stocking it seems like we have a hard time finding a balance in the natural cycle. 

I'm not suggesting that the DNR dump 50,000 fingerling hybrids into the lake and just see what happens. That would be foolish, and I don't think very many people would take that route. I'd start with a small number, say 5000 a year for 3 years in a row and put an 18" minimum size on them. Then encourage fishermen to report their catch as well as location and stomach contents. Small hybrids are likely to be eaten by many other fish species so I'm not worried about large numbers of them making it to 30". Even where they're stocked heavily very few make it to that size. Anyhow... just my 2 cents worth. Feel free to give back the change


----------



## charminultra

Chasin said:


> Lots of good talk going on here for potential opportunities for future fishing of the lake. But as someone who has dragged more pinks around than I care to even try to count, I really don't think more of them is an answer to anything.
> I would focus more on what it would take to get more bio diversity in the mid-water column. That's what actually cause the crash in the first place. The problem currently is not the amount of nurturance in the great lakes but where its located. What needs to be introduced to the lakes is a critter of some kind that has the ability to pull nurturance from the bottom of the lake and move it further up into the water column. *Diporeia* had the unique ability to do that before their disappearance in the lakes. It there another shrimplike creature that can do that?? Blood shrimp maybe? Find that animal and your name will go down in history as the great lakes savior...


The perch I catch have dieporea in them. Just looked it up and that’s what they are for sure


----------



## detroitjim

RedM2 said:


> I don't understand your draw to pinks.


It seems reasonable that the environment can support multiples of the more diminutive adult pink salmon versus Kings and Cohos. More fish to potentially harvest.With that can be higher bag limits. 
However, they may not be the answer to filling the void left by the loss of other salmonids. 
I'm convinced that another viable alternative could be hybrid Stripers.



RedM2 said:


> Other than the St. Mary's, I'm not sure there's a place they're targetable from shores


They'll at least have the same shore/shallow water fishery as Kings and Cohos.


----------



## jpmarko

The only way there will be a void in the fishery from the lack of salmon is if the baitfish population crashes. If that happens, there won’t be room to plant any predator, not even stripers or wipers. If the DNR backs off of stocking high numbers of predators for a few years, then the baitfish population will spring back and salmon (or any predator) can be sustained. In my mind, the problem in the lake isn’t the salmon or kind of predators necessarily, it’s the number of them that are stocked. We have been overstocking.


----------



## Ralph Smith

Ok, I just read all the pages, and from what I've seen is...we need a fish that is opportunistic feeder, is good table fare, can be caught close to shore, and or in the rivers. Also bigger than a pink, but not huge to deplete the food sources available. Sounds like a great fish if we could get one to take hold. With the science nowdays, they should be able to make it work, but would have to plant a lot in the beginning......My vote is for these!! ...Oh yeah, and they're natural to Michigan .
https://journal.amberjack.com/2015/07/good-news-for-lake-superiors-coaster-brook-trout/


----------



## blackghost

Coasters would be a nice stocking program to have!


----------



## Sparky23

blackghost said:


> Coasters would be a nice stocking program to have!


Has been tried many times. They are to elusive and sporadic. Know a guy that got a 5lb brookie out of south haven in the early 90s. Be cool be not feasible it seems.


----------



## blackghost

Sparky23 said:


> Has been tried many times. They are to elusive and sporadic. Know a guy that got a 5lb brookie out of south haven in the early 90s. Be cool be not feasible it seems.


I don't see it working out in the southern basin. Might work better where there's colder water - the southern edge of the UP or Lake Huron.

Lake trout would probably eat up a lot of the stocked fish though.


----------



## detroitjim

blackghost said:


> Coasters would be a nice stocking program to have!


Another viable alternative.



Sparky23 said:


> Has been tried many times.


Maybe worth a try now since most of the Lower peninsula plantings were when salmon stocks were comparatively high.

There hasn't been any Coaster planting activity for over 25 years
MIDNR Stocking Database lists:
Lake Michigan had plants of about 110,000 over 10 years (1980-1990).
The Lake Huron database show plants of over 200,000 from 1984-1991.



blackghost said:


> Lake trout would probably eat up a lot of the stocked fish though.


Salmon probably ate up a lot of the Coasters back then.
Even so,Lake trout numbers today aren't anywhere near what the population of salmon were then.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Pink Salmon are not really a highly sought after game fish.


----------



## Sparky23

detroitjim said:


> Another viable alternative.
> 
> 
> Maybe worth a try now since most of the Lower peninsula plantings were when salmon stocks were comparatively high.
> 
> There hasn't been any Coaster planting activity for over 25 years
> MIDNR Stocking Database lists:
> Lake Michigan had plants of about 110,000 over 10 years (1980-1990).
> The Lake Huron database show plants of over 200,000 from 1984-1991.
> 
> 
> Salmon probably ate up a lot of the Coasters back then.
> Even so,Lake trout numbers today aren't anywhere near what the population of salmon were then.


Problem with everything i read is half would go find a stream 9 months a year. Some planted here would end up in huron or wis. Its been tried many places. Never stuck. Be cool if it worked but doesnt seem to. Need to land lok brookies or else they roam. Not to mention brood stock is all but impossible.


----------



## wallyg

Sparky23 said:


> Problem with everything i read is half would go find a stream 9 months a year. Some planted here would end up in huron or wis. Its been tried many places. Never stuck. Be cool if it worked but doesnt seem to. Need to land lok brookies or else they roam. Not to mention brood stock is all but impossible.


Never caught a pink that was over 1.5 pounds in Southern Lake Huron. Most a lot smaller that got dragged for a while. My thought is Atlantics are a better choice, and results prove it.


----------



## Huntmich

No to pinks. Once every three years or whatever it is, is enough. They taste alright, but are more of a pain in the ass when they're in. Bring back some browns to Huron. If they want to see results, get that info out there. Miss the spring/early summer browns in Tawas.


----------



## Ralph Smith

Huntmich said:


> No to pinks. Once every three years or whatever it is, is enough. They taste alright, but are more of a pain in the ass when they're in. Bring back some browns to Huron. If they want to see results, get that info out there. Miss the spring/early summer browns in Tawas.


I hear you on the browns. Don't know why they stopped the stocking there. Should be plenty of bait up there. We used to fish them every April, was great times during the daytime while waiting for night to fish eyes and smelt .


----------



## Huntmich

Ralph Smith said:


> I hear you on the browns. Don't know why they stopped the stocking there. Should be plenty of bait up there. We used to fish them every April, was great times during the daytime while waiting for night to fish eyes and smelt .


I heard not enough return, but I don't believe people knew they needed to report them in order for the program to stay alive. Hell, I didn't even know until I seen something about it on here i think. By the time people really started hearing about it, it was too late

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Ralph Smith

Huntmich said:


> I heard not enough return, but I don't believe people knew they needed to report them in order for the program to stay alive. Hell, I didn't even know until I seen something about it on here i think. By the time people really started hearing about it, it was too late
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


yeah, I never knew you had to report a brown if you caught it? When did that start? lol...They were always stocked up there, never heard that. We'd fish them off the peir with bobbers and minnows. Never knew when you'd get a steelhead, pike, laker or whatever. Always have liked that peir.  I'm sure they're still fishing ice on the inside.


----------



## Huntmich

Ralph Smith said:


> yeah, I never knew you had to report a brown if you caught it? When did that start? lol...They were always stocked up there, never heard that. We'd fish them off the peir with bobbers and minnows. Never knew when you'd get a steelhead, pike, laker or whatever. Always have liked that peir.  I'm sure they're still fishing ice on the inside.


I don't know how that program worked or what they exactly wanted, but I heard poor returns, which was bs. I only got to be here for them for a couple seasons before they stopped. Would get 2+ a trip. Occasionally get one now. 

Ice is gone I think. Haven't really paid to close of attention to it. They're redoing the docks so there's a barge and backhoe in there. Been there all winter ripping out the old. They have that launch closed for I don't know how long. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## SJC

Huntmich said:


> I don't know how that program worked or what they exactly wanted, but I heard poor returns, which was bs. I only got to be here for them for a couple seasons before they stopped. Would get 2+ a trip. Occasionally get one now.
> 
> Ice is gone I think. Haven't really paid to close of attention to it. They're redoing the docks so there's a barge and backhoe in there. Been there all winter ripping out the old. They have that launch closed for I don't know how long.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


In the 90's, lots of people used to target them in and around Tawas Bay. They were available pretty much year round. We used to destroy them in the boat all summer, spring trolling was great, and they were almost a menace in the surf while steelhead fishing. The earlier strains would start showing up in the rivers in august. The seeforellens wouldn't show til November and provided great ice fishing action, plus they were huge, even if they tasted horrible. Never ending supply of loose spawn. The browns were a really good thing in my area.


----------



## Sparky23

wallyg said:


> Never caught a pink that was over 1.5 pounds in Southern Lake Huron. Most a lot smaller that got dragged for a while. My thought is Atlantics are a better choice, and results prove it.


I was responding and talking about coaster brookies that someone suggested


----------



## population control

I think we should try browns again. Lake Huron is different now than when it crashed. Browns eat gobys and there is a hell of a population of them. Will browns eat anything like a lake trout does ?


----------



## Sparky23

Yes. Browns are very opportunistic.


----------



## rodbender97

Bring back the browns best eating in my book can't stand eating salmon


----------



## nighttime

population control said:


> I think we should try browns again. Lake Huron is different now than when it crashed. Browns eat gobys and there is a hell of a population of them. Will browns eat anything like a lake trout does ?


Finding the right place to put them is key. Dnr has been trying different strains for the last 10 years and seems like things haven’t added up yet. There’s a river in Port Huron they’ve been stocking browns heavy (60k)in hopes of them showing up in southern Lake Huron. Program has been going on for about 10 years and this is it’s last year because of very poor returns. Dnr also has been using St Clair river.


----------



## andyotto

The browns in Tawas were starting to make a nice comeback following the crash about 5 or so years ago. For 3 years they planted 10000 a year in the bay. Then they cut the program. Said it was too expensive and a lack of participation. People were just getting turned on to the fishery again when they pulled the plug. Last spring we caught 5 smallish browns in the bay when none are even planted there (my guess is coming out of the rivers). Throughout the winter and spring we saw many threads in the Saginaw bay section with browns being caught. Seems to me they are eating something. They seem healthy. Maybe we can try again.


----------



## andyotto

SJC said:


> In the 90's, lots of people used to target them in and around Tawas Bay. They were available pretty much year round. We used to destroy them in the boat all summer, spring trolling was great, and they were almost a menace in the surf while steelhead fishing. The earlier strains would start showing up in the rivers in august. The seeforellens wouldn't show til November and provided great ice fishing action, plus they were huge, even if they tasted horrible. Never ending supply of loose spawn. The browns were a really good thing in my area.


I agree with you on the poor quality dinerfare of the big ones SJC but man those little ones taste great.


----------

