# Forage base



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

How many have studied this report,

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf

There is definite cause for concern.


----------



## Salmonous Maximus (Jan 28, 2004)

One of the graphs that stand out to me is the one concerning the fish/mussels contrast and comparison over the last couple decades. Yikes!


----------



## llpof (Mar 31, 2012)

The mussels have the lake in a death spiral. To borrow a kids song, when it comes to nutrients "there's hole in the bottom of the sea". No control, no long term fish survival for the fishery many have come to know and love.

That said, the prospects long term for Sturgeon and Sheephead are going up and up; and aren't we really all about native species?


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

If the forage base cant support the top level predators the ramifications for lake Michigan are huge. I beleive[ with little supporting data] that steelhead may hold better but kings may be in real trouble. Limits have been increased in an effort to balance the forage base but it may be too little too late. The amount of natural reproduction will make it hard to reduce chinook numbers enough by reducing plants. If we allow the forage base to control predator numbers the initial crash will be devastating. The last few years the fish have been hungry, biting with abandon, and spread through out the water coloum.


----------



## Bill P (Apr 1, 2008)

Salmonous Maximus said:


> One of the graphs that stand out to me is the one concerning the fish/mussels contrast and comparison over the last couple decades. Yikes!


 
I won't get into a big debate about this, but I was at the Lake Michigan Regional Fishery Workshop in Pentwater in early January put on by Michigan Seagrant. They covered everything regarding the forage base and the measures being taken to avoid a crash in the fishery. Maintaining the Lake Michigan chinook salmon fishery is the #1 priority of the Great Lakes Advisory Council right now! The alewive numbers are at the same "just above sustainable" number that Lake Huron was at for several years prior to the crash. But they have learned a lot since that time and are taking measures to prevent the same thing.

All we can to is keep our fingers crossed. 

It was mentioned that, while they can't officially report it, the numbers of quagga muscles should start dropping in the next couple years. As I understood it, they have essentially maxed-out their cabability to proliferate in the Lake Michigan/Huron ecosystem. When that happens, the numbers begin to drop. It has already happened in Lakes Ontario and Erie. The researcher said there is no reason to expect it won't happen in Lake Huron/Michigan.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Bill P said:


> I won't get into a big debate about this, but I was at the Lake Michigan Regional Fishery Workshop in Pentwater in early January put on by Michigan Seagrant. They covered everything regarding the forage base and the measures being taken to avoid a crash in the fishery. Maintaining the Lake Michigan chinook salmon fishery is the #1 priority of the Great Lakes Advisory Council right now! The alewive numbers are at the same "just above sustainable" number that Lake Huron was at for several years prior to the crash. But they have learned a lot since that time and are taking measures to prevent the same thing.
> 
> All we can to is keep our fingers crossed.
> 
> It was mentioned that, while they can't officially report it, the numbers of quagga muscles should start dropping in the next couple years. As I understood it, they have essentially maxed-out their cabability to proliferate in the Lake Michigan/Huron ecosystem. When that happens, the numbers begin to drop. It has already happened in Lakes Ontario and Erie. The researcher said there is no reason to expect it won't happen in Lake Huron/Michigan.


 I wish they could change the fed's perspective of maintaining,developing lake trout populations as 1st priority.


----------



## UltimateOutdoorsman (Sep 13, 2001)

plugger said:


> I wish they could change the fed's perspective of maintaining,developing lake trout populations as 1st priority.


No thanks. Steelhead perhaps.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Thanks plugger. Sobering news indeed.

I found this statement the most troubling:

Of the 123 alewife otoliths aged, two independent readers arrived at the same estimate 90% of the time
(and they were able to reach a consensus age on the 12 disagreements). Using an age-length key and a
length distribution that corrected for densities, we estimated that 84% of adult alewives captured in the
bottom trawl during 2012 were age 2 and classified as the 2010 year-class (Figure 3). This unevenness in
age composition was also observed in 2011, as the 2010 year-class comprised 83% of the adults captured.
These two years are in stark contrast to the previous four years (2007-2010) when more evenness was
estimated among the age-classes, as indicated by at least three age-classes each contributing at least 10%
to the catch. *One additional change in recent years is a truncation in the age distribution. The maximum
age sampled has decreased from age 9 in 2007 to age 7 in 2008-2009 to age 6 in 2010-2011 to age 4 in
2012.*

Hope for the best, but no guarantees. Remember the 2011 season.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

I've made this call for years now, and people said I was crazy because they were marking " tons of bait" and catching "huge kings". A 20lb king isn't big, except for the last few years. I noticed smaller and smaller chinook every year I've lived up north and been fishing the northern lake Michigan area. When 80% of the fish are 10-12lbs for 3-4 years in a row, with only a few 15-17lbers and hardly any 20's...something is up. I also saw some big-headed, skinny fish like lake Huron had in 2004.

I grew up on the East side and fished through the salmon crash on that side. I know what it looks like and saw all the same signs over here. Lake Michigan anglers just seemed to be in denial. We'll see what happens moving forward. The next five years will be critical. The fact that lake Huron now has almost 2x the amount of pelagic bait than lake Michigan isn't good. Nor is the fact that lake Michigan currently has similar bait levels as lake Huron in 2004-2005.


----------



## Chasin (Jun 25, 2002)

As bad as Hurons crash was it will be small potatoes compared to Lake Mich. We really need to look at what can be done to save the alwives. Even if it means stopping all king stocking all together. Look at Huron, 10 years since the crash and still no alwives in the lake. The prey is more precious than the predator right now. Lets keep it here.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Chasin said:


> As bad as Hurons crash was it will be small potatoes compared to Lake Mich. We really need to look at what can be done to save the alewives. Even if it means stopping all king stocking all together. Look at Huron, 10 years since the crash and still no alewives in the lake. The prey is more precious than the predator right now. Lets keep it here.


The ONLY solution to "saving the Alewives," is finding a way to reduce the number of Mussels, and nobody has figured that out, yet. Truthfully, the cry should be, "Save The Diporiea Shrimp," which is what Alewives feed on. 25 years ago, samples showed upwards of 10,000 Diporiea in a cubic yard of water in lakes Huron and Michigan. Now there aren't any in a lot of places. Damned Mussels. The Alewives simply starved without Diporiea Shrimp to feed on. 

Reducing stocking of Salmon further won't bring back the Diporiea Shrimp. But there isn't a lot of sense in stocking fish that will starve, which is why the DNR quit planting Kings in Huron tribs, last year - with the exception of Swan Creek.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Prior to and just after the salmon were introduced alewives were knee deep on L Michigan shorelines. In the last 10 years I have yet to see an alewife in the stomach contents of a northern lake huron salmon. Yet every year I have caught a number of 20+ pound salmon and a 30 pounder each of the last two years. I think that the bigger salmon are in 300+ fow and are finding alewives or lake chubs to feed on there. When they show up to spawn is when they get caught.


----------



## todd v (Aug 25, 2009)

I have a bad feeling that there will be more than the lake huron guys praying for dnr succesful atlantic program. It may be the days of the king being king is not looking so good. I hope I am wrong. Maybee if the atlantic thing gets going in time it will not hurt as bad as huron.


----------



## Ann Arbor Hokie (Oct 6, 2011)

Fishndude said:


> The ONLY solution to "saving the Alewives," is finding a way to reduce the number of Mussels, and nobody has figured that out, yet.


http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/word...Technology-for-Dreissena-Control-4-Malloy.pdf

They just want to be very very sure that there are no unintended consequences on native aquatic species.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Ann Arbor Hokie said:


> http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/word...Technology-for-Dreissena-Control-4-Malloy.pdf
> 
> They just want to be very very sure that there are no unintended consequences on native aquatic species.


Another concern with the trillions of mussels out there is there will likely be a percentage of them that will display resistance to the bacteria. Those resistant populations reproduce, and in a period of time you are perhaps back to where you started, perhaps worse.


----------



## todd v (Aug 25, 2009)

Interesting research, there is an awful lot of water in the great lakes to be to excited.


----------



## UP POWER (Jan 17, 2007)

Robert Holmes said:


> Prior to and just after the salmon were introduced alewives were knee deep on L Michigan shorelines. In the last 10 years I have yet to see an alewife in the stomach contents of a northern lake huron salmon. Yet every year I have caught a number of 20+ pound salmon and a 30 pounder each of the last two years. I think that the bigger salmon are in 300+ fow and are finding alewives or lake chubs to feed on there. When they show up to spawn is when they get caught.


I only fished Huron one time last year. Of the 4 kings and 3 pinks I caught that morning in St. Ignace, every fish had large alewives in its stomach. I don't know what that means, just pointing out my personal experience. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Ann Arbor Hokie (Oct 6, 2011)

REG said:


> Another concern with the trillions of mussels out there is there will likely be a percentage of them that will display resistance to the bacteria. Those resistant populations reproduce, and in a period of time you are perhaps back to where you started, perhaps worse.


Yes and no. From reading the research, i believe the mussels die due to a "chemical/toxin" produced by the bacteria and not directly due to the bacteria itself. So if this toxin is incredibly potent (think arsenic to humans) resistance is less of a concern. Documents seem to indicate that deadbacteria areas effective as live ones. And reading the press releases, references to concentrations in PPMs seem to indicate this is the case. Though i agree playing with a biological system is risky business. The bigger issue if it does work, is handling the dieoff of mussels and the decay that will cause.



todd v said:


> Interesting research, there is an awful lot of water in the great lakes to be to excited.


From what i understand, the goal would be to remove mussels from major nutrient sources, thus allowing nutrients to reach the bluewater before being consumed. I.E. clear river mouths of mussels so they dont gobble up the nitrogen and phosphorous needed for an alewive type food chain.

The commercial development of the product seems to be done by zequanox.
http://www.marronebioinnovations.com/products/brand/zequanox/


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Ann Arbor Hokie said:


> Yes and no. From reading the research, i believe the mussels die due to a "chemical/toxin" produced by the bacteria and not directly due to the bacteria itself. So if this toxin is incredibly potent (think arsenic to humans) resistance is less of a concern. Documents seem to indicate that deadbacteria areas effective as live ones. And reading the press releases, references to concentrations in PPMs seem to indicate this is the case. Though i agree playing with a biological system is risky business. The bigger issue if it does work, is handling the dieoff of mussels and the decay that will cause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good points, AAH.


----------

