# DNR Fisheries Proposal meeting-Ludington



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

RedM2 said:


> Make it open season on lakers with no limit for a couple years. We can always plant more in the future...somehow we need to get large numbers of them out of the system in short order.


Agreed...but the consent decree stands in the way.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

someone11 said:


> Agreed...but the consent decree stands in the way.


Which part of the decree restricts bag limits and season?


----------



## born2fish87 (Jul 17, 2009)

Fishndude said:


> What is your theory for why the DNR is hell-bent on cutting Chinook plants, and for eradicating them from the lakes, again? I see the ideas, but haven't seen the reasoning behind them. Why do you suppose the DNR suddenly doesn't want King Salmon anymore, after 50 years of a fantastic sport fishery that has produced enormous revenue?
> 
> Talk about tunnel vision..........


The only reason Chinook were ever planted into Lake Michigan was because the alewife population was out of control. The lamprey were killing the lake trout which caused the alewife population to explode since they didn't have any predators. Now the lamprey and alewife are under control there is less need for chinook.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Anglers fought like crazy to not reduce chinook stocking in Lake Huron too. So DNR maintained stocking. You know the result. 

We will do a better job at all predator stocking. We have a group of scientist looking at productivity of the lake. Once we know that we can look at the capacity to sustain pelagic prey. Then adjust accordingly. We need the same understanding for gobies. 

Most of our policies and research have been focused on chinook as they are the most popular fish in the lakes.


----------



## Southsider1 (Dec 22, 2014)

born2fish87 said:


> The only reason Chinook were ever planted into Lake Michigan was because the alewife population was out of control. The lamprey were killing the lake trout which caused the alewife population to explode since they didn't have any predators. Now the lamprey and alewife are under control there is less need for chinook.


Yes but they were also brought in to create a sport fishery via Dr. Tanner for anglers in the Great Lakes and it created great one that pumped millions into local economies around the lake. The vast majority of people who buy Great Lakes style boats, take charters, rent hotel rooms, etc do it to catch kings. No doubt the lake can no longer support huge plants of any predator but to insinuate that the king salmon's only purpose is to keep the alewife population under control, IMHO, is a huge case of tunnel vision.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Hello, looks like this will be the active thread on these questions for the time being, not sure where to ask these two questions otherwise.

1 - It is impressive, to me, how the population levels and spawning success of the Alewives is so carefully researched. Does this same process produce an estimate of population levels for the Gobies? Going up, going down, peaks-and-valleys each year? 

2 - Has there been any thought to opening up the season a little on Lake Trout when they come in-shore in the fall? Traditionally they were protected by the season dates at that time to help their spawning success. There are folks who do want to catch them and keep them in-shore but the southern zones close to Lake Trout 10-31. So when Steelhead fishing along the shore in November, all Lake Trout must be released. Allowing the catch to go up just slightly would accomplish the same thing as stocking cuts, wouldn't it?

Lake Trout recovery seems to be a success - do they need as much protection now? I can't think of anywhere Chinook spawning is protected - that's quite the opposite.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

No. There currently is not a good method to estimate goby biomass. More research and thought is going into that. 

The proposal on the table right now included opening the season for lake trout to all season.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

No. There currently is not a good method to estimate goby biomass. More research and thought is going into that. 

The proposal on the table right now included opening the season for lake trout to all season.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Jay Wesley said:


> Anglers fought like crazy to not reduce chinook stocking in Lake Huron too. So DNR maintained stocking. You know the result.


This is a good point. I am dumbfounded at the lack of insight into the problem by many anglers. There are many charters and anglers who are fighting cuts in chinook. They must have never heard of Huron. They are making the same mistake. Same song, second verse. Fortunately, the DNR learned from history and is taking appropriate measures to try to avoid a collapse despite the poor judgment of many anglers.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

We are focusing way too much on the chinook in my opinion when the real elephant in the room that'll impact the future of the fishery is the lake trout.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

born2fish87 said:


> The only reason Chinook were ever planted into Lake Michigan was because the alewife population was out of control. The lamprey were killing the lake trout which caused the alewife population to explode since they didn't have any predators. Now the lamprey and alewife are under control there is less need for chinook.


Alewifes were not "the" reason . Timing did ,in many eyes relate.
Smelt and small fish provided a forage base .
Having seen the rafts of dead alewifes ,on beach and sandbars, and less of them after salmon introductions made it appear it was all about the alewifes.
The key players in introducing salmon said otherwise though.
Having seen the evolution from "coho" fever forward first hand I do feel for the charter industry ,but recognise the native vs non native fish argument too.A put take system needs a forage base, when competing with natives who should be favored? Sterile salmon would be a hoot as they would stay in the lake and bust some tackle ,not my idea ,but a fun sounding one. Weights are down on chinooks from earlier times ,if forage based ,less stocking when forage is down is not totally unsound.


----------



## danthebuilder (Nov 22, 2011)

The native fishery goals are insane. They should be planting lake trout in small numbers but only out in the offshore reefs. Just enough to keep a low stable population and with the main goal of just keeping them from going extinct. Once our lakes have cleaned up to the point a fish can grow of size without putting our public at risk with toxins and pcbs. Only then should any talk or action of expanding lake trout in the lake. If they want an actual native fishery they should focus on the fish that don't contain toxins and PCB's. You know native fish that people actually want to catch. IDK tho, that's common sense. We can't be having that.

But hey! you're going to be able to fish for lake trout in november & december now. Problem solved!


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> What is your theory for why the DNR is hell-bent on cutting Chinook plants, and for eradicating them from the lakes, again? I see the ideas, but haven't seen the reasoning behind them. Why do you suppose the DNR suddenly doesn't want King Salmon anymore, after 50 years of a fantastic sport fishery that has produced enormous revenue?
> 
> Talk about tunnel vision..........


I am pretty sure I have never stated "DNR doesn't want king salmon anymore"...ever. Nor I have I ever used the word "eradication" along side of "king salmon". Tunnel vision in their actions by targeting chinooks as the only possible saving method up to this point to reduce predation on alewife is the issue. Their growing attention towards the lake trout component is promising, however, what will they do with the Lake Trout coming from the Federal hatcheries that they requested two years ago is the issue. Those fish cannot be thrown into a landfill, and the lake cannot obviously accept them in light of our current situation. That should have been addressed at the same time the chinook stocks began getting cut years ago, but it was not. So here we are.


----------



## twolaketown (Jun 23, 2015)

Quick question. What hatcheries produce the federal government's Lake Trout plants?


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

Thanks Jay!

It feels like the Lake Michigan ecosystem is like a mile long freight train, famous for not being able to stop on a dime / turn on a dime / mix any metaphors. But the cars in the train are moving in different directions...


----------



## born2fish87 (Jul 17, 2009)

Southsider1 said:


> Yes but they were also brought in to create a sport fishery via Dr. Tanner for anglers in the Great Lakes and it created great one that pumped millions into local economies around the lake. The vast majority of people who buy Great Lakes style boats, take charters, rent hotel rooms, etc do it to catch kings. No doubt the lake can no longer support huge plants of any predator but to insinuate that the king salmon's only purpose is to keep the alewife population under control, IMHO, is a huge case of tunnel vision.


Bad wording on my part. I totally agree. And it was all salmon not just kings.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

slightofhand said:


> I am pretty sure I have never stated "DNR doesn't want king salmon anymore"...ever. Nor I have I ever used the word "eradication" along side of "king salmon". Tunnel vision in their actions by targeting chinooks as the only possible saving method up to this point to reduce predation on alewife is the issue. Their growing attention towards the lake trout component is promising, however, what will they do with the Lake Trout coming from the Federal hatcheries that they requested two years ago is the issue. Those fish cannot be thrown into a landfill, and the lake cannot obviously accept them in light of our current situation. That should have been addressed at the same time the chinook stocks began getting cut years ago, but it was not. So here we are.


No landfill needed. There are lots of inland lakes that would love to have them!!


----------



## Huntmich (Sep 4, 2008)

Here's an idea that I haven't heard or seen proposed. If natural is the way of the here and now, and Chinook plants are being reduced, wouldn't it be a good idea to close the season at some point. Whether it be Labor Day, the week before or what have you. If natural is going to be what is relied on for now, close it off and let them spawn. It'll tick a lot of people off but every idea does. I'm not sure if it'd even make a difference, but I don't think it'd hurt for a season or 2 too see what happens.


----------



## jpmarko (Feb 26, 2010)

Huntmich said:


> Here's an idea that I haven't heard or seen proposed. If natural is the way of the here and now, and Chinook plants are being reduced, wouldn't it be a good idea to close the season at some point. Whether it be Labor Day, the week before or what have you. If natural is going to be what is relied on for now, close it off and let them spawn. It'll tick a lot of people off but every idea does. I'm not sure if it'd even make a difference, but I don't think it'd hurt for a season or 2 too see what happens.


Huntmich, maybe you haven't been following along. The issue isn't that chinook aren't reproducing well in the wild and need to be protected to raise their numbers. The issue is that there are too many predators (both chinook and lake trout) and too little bait. If we somehow manage to increase the salmon population by protecting them when they are on their spawning run, then there could be more salmon eating what precious few alewife and other baitfish are out there. Right now, we need to thin out the number of predators until the alewife and other baitfish rebound. When there is a health baitfish population in Lake Michigan, then we can work on bringing back more salmon.


----------



## Huntmich (Sep 4, 2008)

I've been following, agree with the chinook cuts, agree that there needs to be more laker cuts and I agree the ales need some bounce back. It's a suggestion that I haven't seen anywhere. Not everyone agrees with the cuts. Was in Ludington on the weekend and there's fliers around at campgrounds and captain chucks for stopping the cuts. How good is the natural reproduction? They say it's good but they also say lakers don't eat a lot of ales and they're the future of the lake.


----------

