# Native fish stocks in the Great Lakes and Tributaries.



## MarkP

If native fish stocks were a concern of the michigan dnr, then brown trout would not be and should not be stocked in inland rivers and lakes. Why? Because your state's fish is a brook trout, its native, and browns will out compete them for prime feeding lies.

If native fish stocks were a concern of the michigan dnr, then the reduction of king salmon stockings to protect the alewife in lake michigan would not have happened. These alewife produce thiaminase, an enzyme that creates thiamine deficiency in all trout and salmon species to a certain degree. Lake Trout, ironically a "native" species are greatly affected by consumption of alewife. Need proof? Post alewife eradication/"lake huron's crash": magically the lake trout natural reproduction sky rockets. Within 3 years of those alewife being niched out of the lake's foodweb, the atlantic salmon fishery takes off as well, because again, atlantics are greatly affected by thiamine deficiency per jim johnson of the michigan dnr. If thiamine deficiency was not an issue then why are all hatchery raised salmon in michigan treated for thiamine deficiency? 

Where are the efforts to bring back the bloaters and/or ciscoes in lake michigan? 

If michigan were concerned about the perch in lake michigan they could easily drop that limit to 15(which is plenty) like 2 of the other 3 lake michigan states(one state maintains a lake michigan limit of 5).

Where's the protection on the native sucker species?

Sturgeon stocks were wiped out due to dams on the major tributaries, and after all the push to remove pucker st dam on the dowagiac river, now the same folks pushing for its removal want to keep it around so they can continue to corner returning migratory fish for themselves. Another example would be the white water project on the grand river in downtown grand rapids. After reviewing the blueprints 6th st dam will be moved upstream about 1 mile. I understand the want to keep a lowhead dam or wier in place to keep invasives like lampreys and others from ascending specific river systems as means for keeping certain dams in place, but at the expense of native fish stocks? 

Commercial harvesting of native lake whitefish still occurs on the great lakes. 5 million pounds a year is the quota for lake michigan. That's 3 million more pounds than the entire red king crab harvest out of dutch harbor in 2012! Does that number seem a bit "extreme" to the native fish squakers?

Where's the lota lota(burbot) rehabilitation happening on lake michigan? Another "native".

What efforts are being done to improve habitat for freshwater drum? Yeah, they are native.

What native catfish refuges are there in the state of michigan?

Bass species are now "fair game" for catch and release during their most vulnerable time during their life cycle in the state of michigan. What is protecting their offspring when you are pulling the hook out and snapping one for instagram?

Walleye plantings now exceed salmon plantings on lake michigan's tributaries. What adverse effects do you think this has on native forage fish stocks?

All this talk about native species concerns had me really thinking about what is truly being done for those "nates".


----------



## Boozer

Can you direct me to the location of these statements people whom originally wanted the dam removed are now saying they do not.

I'm assuming you were intending to quote statements made on this site...

Everyone I know of who wanted the dam removed, still wants it removed, but based on the fact there was a natural "dam" of sorts there prior to the dam being built, myself and others feel it should have to be restored back to exactly how it was, since that boulder field or waterfall of sorts is still supposed to be there, under the sediment, that should not be an issue...

There are definitely many many people who do not want migratory fish to access the upper river, that was 90% of why people didn't want the dam removed, so by restoring it to it's natural state, all stake holders are happy and it's a win win situation for everyone as well...

I personally like the idea of leaving it so no migratory species can access the upper river after researching the pro's and con's of it which was not my original viewpoint a couple years ago, BUT if the river in its natural state had allowed fish from the St. Joseph River and lower Dowagiac River to access the upper Dowagiac and its tributaries, that would over-ride any personal feelings I would have had and I know those that I have spoken with, feel the same way. Since the river in documented history never allowed that, why change the river even more than it already has been, humans have screwed with that river enough, time for it to be returned to its natural state, as close as it can be anyway...


----------



## Robert Holmes

I think that the DNR is more interested in the cash cow. If they do not plant brown trout, walleye, muskie, Chinook, atlantics, coho, and other fish that bend your pole a little then people won't fish. The DNR has already lost millions of dollars on deer hunting in the UP due to their lovely wolves so they have to make it up somewhere.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Robert Holmes said:


> I think that the DNR is more interested in the cash cow. If they do not plant brown trout, walleye, muskie, Chinook, atlantics, coho, and other fish that bend your pole a little then people won't fish. The DNR has already lost millions of dollars on deer hunting in the UP due to their lovely wolves so they have to make it up somewhere.


Two of toughs are native.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Boozer said:


> Can you direct me to the location of these statements people whom originally wanted the dam removed are now saying they do not.
> 
> I'm assuming you were intending to quote statements made on this site...
> 
> Everyone I know of who wanted the dam removed, still wants it removed, but based on the fact there was a natural "dam" of sorts there prior to the dam being built, myself and others feel it should have to be restored back to exactly how it was, since that boulder field or waterfall of sorts is still supposed to be there, under the sediment, that should not be an issue...
> 
> There are definitely many many people who do not want migratory fish to access the upper river, that was 90% of why people didn't want the dam removed, so by restoring it to it's natural state, all stake holders are happy and it's a win win situation for everyone as well...
> 
> I personally like the idea of leaving it so no migratory species can access the upper river after researching the pro's and con's of it which was not my original viewpoint a couple years ago, BUT if the river in its natural state had allowed fish from the St. Joseph River and lower Dowagiac River to access the upper Dowagiac and its tributaries, that would over-ride any personal feelings I would have had and I know those that I have spoken with, feel the same way. Since the river in documented history never allowed that, why change the river even more than it already has been, humans have screwed with that river enough, time for it to be returned to its natural state, as close as it can be anyway...


If they stocked that river with pike it wouldn't hurt my feelings any, a species that once called that river home nearly wiped out.


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> Can you direct me to the location of these statements people whom originally wanted the dam removed are now saying they do not.
> 
> I'm assuming you were intending to quote statements made on this site...
> 
> Everyone I know of who wanted the dam removed, still wants it removed, but based on the fact there was a natural "dam" of sorts there prior to the dam being built, myself and others feel it should have to be restored back to exactly how it was, since that boulder field or waterfall of sorts is still supposed to be there, under the sediment, that should not be an issue...
> 
> There are definitely many many people who do not want migratory fish to access the upper river, that was 90% of why people didn't want the dam removed, so by restoring it to it's natural state, all stake holders are happy and it's a win win situation for everyone as well...
> 
> I personally like the idea of leaving it so no migratory species can access the upper river after researching the pro's and con's of it which was not my original viewpoint a couple years ago, BUT if the river in its natural state had allowed fish from the St. Joseph River and lower Dowagiac River to access the upper Dowagiac and its tributaries, that would over-ride any personal feelings I would have had and I know those that I have spoken with, feel the same way. Since the river in documented history never allowed that, why change the river even more than it already has been, humans have screwed with that river enough, time for it to be returned to its natural state, as close as it can be anyway...


I was referring to you.

Native fish do ascend that specific river and would utilize the waterway if given the chance. You'll be amazed what you can find when conditions are right. Unclipped post spawn laker at pucker st dam circa 2011.


----------



## Boozer

OK...

Don't think anyone ever said they wouldn't, but if they were never allowed passage upstream before the dam, should we further interfere with nature and allow them passage up river now when the reason for dam removal is to return the river to its natural state?

That's what it boils down to with me, your mileage may vary, that's fine with me, I don't make the decision of what happens so no reason to worry about what I think


----------



## Multispeciestamer

MarkP said:


> I was referring to you.
> 
> Native fish do ascend that specific river and would utilize the waterway if given the chance. You'll be amazed what you can find when conditions are right. Unclipped post spawn laker at pucker st dam circa 2011.


I dont think lakers were ever a part of that river system in the past. Walleyes, northerns and other polyanadromous fish were far more abundant in the past then they are now.


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> OK...
> 
> Don't think anyone ever said they wouldn't, but if they were never allowed passage upstream before the dam, should we further interfere with nature and allow them passage up river now when the reason for dam removal is to return the river to its natural state?
> 
> That's what it boils down to with me, your mileage may vary, that's fine with me, I don't make the decision of what happens so no reason to worry about what I think


The site in question looked much like rainbow rapids on the pm, easily "passable". At the old MEANDRS meetings they had photo albums of the river(pre-instagram days) in its original state. Almost identical to the pere marquette, based on the ole' black and whites. Being an actual landowner within the dowagiac river watershed I would love to see the river work its way back to where it was before it was straightened, then dammed.


----------



## Boozer

The overwhelming responses by anglers I have heard, do not want migratory species above the dam, specifically Salmon & steelhead. Their reasoning varies, roughly half don't want it as it will ruin the steelhead fishing below the dam during the Summer months, the other half want to fish upstream without migratory fish being present.

I want it to be exactly as it was before the dam, most of the posts you have seen me make on here were summarizing what most people want, not just stating my opinion. When I originally started wanting the dam removed, my desires were all about getting steelhead into the upper river, it would be great, but in some ways those desires are selfish so my opinion is simply, it should be returned to its natural state. The pollution from migratory species, obviously something for our fisheries managers to monitor. 

Removing the dam and not allowing migration would likely be the most popular decision from a social aspect, but social aspects are not all that are being considered.

The current MDNR opinion and perhaps their opinion all along, fish should be allowed to migrate...

I remember the area being more extreme than Rainbow Rapids, but been a long time since I seen photos.


----------



## Old Whaler

I've caught a bunch of salmon/trout well above 6th St with lampreys on them, and two weeks ago I caught a goby near Ada.
That's bad enough, but what happens if (when?) those Asian carp show up?
Could it be possible that in trying to return the river to its natural state, the unintended consequence is less natural than what we have now?...


----------



## MarkP

Old Whaler said:


> I've caught a bunch of salmon/trout well above 6th St with lampreys on them, and two weeks ago I caught a goby near Ada.
> That's bad enough, but what happens if (when?) those Asian carp show up?
> Could it be possible that in trying to return the river to its natural state, the unintended consequence is less natural than what we have now?...


Grass Carp are considered "asian" carp, and are abundant throughout michigan and their tributaries. The bad ones, whether or not they were introduced or not, have been documented in the most fertile of all the great lakes, lake erie, since 1996. Now the fear propaganda being spread indicates that only 10 introduced asian carp would destroy the great lakes, but at least that many specimens have been taken out of lake erie since 1996, but, no indication has been made that they are thriving over there. Since they have been introduced in lake erie since 1996, what's to stop them from spreading into lake huron and then eventually lake michigan?


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> The overwhelming responses by anglers I have heard, do not want migratory species above the dam, specifically Salmon & steelhead. Their reasoning varies, roughly half don't want it as it will ruin the steelhead fishing below the dam during the Summer months, the other half want to fish upstream without migratory fish being present.
> 
> I want it to be exactly as it was before the dam, most of the posts you have seen me make on here were summarizing what most people want, not just stating my opinion. When I originally started wanting the dam removed, my desires were all about getting steelhead into the upper river, it would be great, but in some ways those desires are selfish so my opinion is simply, it should be returned to its natural state. The pollution from migratory species, obviously something for our fisheries managers to monitor.
> 
> Removing the dam and not allowing migration would likely be the most popular decision from a social aspect, but social aspects are not all that are being considered.
> 
> The current MDNR opinion and perhaps their opinion all along, fish should be allowed to migrate...
> 
> I remember the area being more extreme than Rainbow Rapids, but been a long time since I seen photos.


Michigan anglers should be buying an indiana fishing license if they are so concerned about that summer steelhead fishery in the dowagiac river. Its a matter of public record in indiana so to claim you do can be followed up on.

Furthermore, to claim a waterfall is located in southwest michigan right through sandy loams of glacial moraines is comical. The only waterfall in the LP is shale exposure on the ocqueoc river up in the northeastern part of the LP. I feel this "waterfall" excuse is only used to justify keeping the dam in place for individuals' personal wants. The trout upstream of the dam are not native, only the creek chubs and shiners.


----------



## Boozer

MarkP said:


> Michigan anglers should be buying an indiana fishing license if they are so concerned about that summer steelhead fishery in the dowagiac river. Its a matter of public record in indiana so to claim you do can be followed up on.
> 
> Furthermore, to claim a waterfall is located in southwest michigan right through sandy loams of glacial moraines is comical. The only waterfall in the LP is shale exposure on the ocqueoc river up in the northeastern part of the LP. I feel this "waterfall" excuse is only used to justify keeping the dam in place for individuals' personal wants. The trout upstream of the dam are not native, only the creek chubs and shiners.


All of this has been covered, many many times, you should attend some of the meetings and voice your opinion.

What you have mentioned here has been gone over by TU, Fed Fish & Wildlife, MDNR, etc....

In fact, this stuff was all gone over 2+ years ago...

You are correct, the people that have spoken out about allowing migratory fish up river were doing so because of social reasons mixed with some science. However, apparently social reasons are something that must be accounted for. If you don't like that, you need to voice your opinion to the powers that be.

I say some science is mixed in as the migratory species, the ones in question anyway, are not native, which obviously neither are the Brown Trout everyone is OK with so that leaves you with sort of a stalemate.

Basically the City of Niles is whom you need to voice your opinion to at this point, and Jay Wesley.

It is my opinion, the one path that would leave everyone without the ability to complain as much would be to say, we cannot do anything different than how it naturally was, you use the historical photos of the way it was prior to the dam and you return it to that form.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

MarkP said:


> Michigan anglers should be buying an indiana fishing license if they are so concerned about that summer steelhead fishery in the dowagiac river. Its a matter of public record in indiana so to claim you do can be followed up on.
> 
> Furthermore, to claim a waterfall is located in southwest michigan right through sandy loams of glacial moraines is comical. The only waterfall in the LP is shale exposure on the ocqueoc river up in the northeastern part of the LP. I feel this "waterfall" excuse is only used to justify keeping the dam in place for individuals' personal wants. The trout upstream of the dam are not native, only the creek chubs and shiners and pike, rock bass, darters, the list goes on and on, and covers more then just fish..


:evil:


----------



## Old Whaler

MarkP said:


> Grass Carp are considered "asian" carp, and are abundant throughout michigan and their tributaries. The bad ones, whether or not they were introduced or not, have been documented in the most fertile of all the great lakes, lake erie, since 1996. Now the fear propaganda being spread indicates that only 10 introduced asian carp would destroy the great lakes, but at least that many specimens have been taken out of lake erie since 1996, but, no indication has been made that they are thriving over there. Since they have been introduced in lake erie since 1996, what's to stop them from spreading into lake huron and then eventually lake michigan?


I was talking about the dam removal.


----------



## Boozer

Old Whaler said:


> I was talking about the dam removal.


The statement from the feds was pretty cut & dry about that...

Because they have the ability theoretically to stop invasive species from ascending the Joe at Berrien Springs and Buchanan Dams it is perceived removing the Pucker Street Dam is a non-issue in that regard...

If those dams did not exist downstream in the system, the project would have scored much lower as far as the Feds are concerned....


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Old Whaler said:


> I was talking about the dam removal.


I don't think they are a threat to that ecosystem anyways being a cool water fishery and not a warm one. You dont even really see many Common carp in there. I mean there are a few, but they are by no means flourishing.


----------



## MarkP

Multispeciestamer said:


> :evil:


Didn't you say pike were extinct?


----------



## fishfly

MarkP said:


> Grass Carp are considered "asian" carp, and are abundant throughout michigan and their tributaries. The bad ones, whether or not they were introduced or not, have been documented in the most fertile of all the great lakes, lake erie, since 1996. Now the fear propaganda being spread indicates that only 10 introduced asian carp would destroy the great lakes, but at least that many specimens have been taken out of lake erie since 1996, but, no indication has been made that they are thriving over there. Since they have been introduced in lake erie since 1996, what's to stop them from spreading into lake huron and then eventually lake michigan?


You sure Mark? I thought the only documented findings of the "bad ones" was their DNA, not actual fish?


----------



## Multispeciestamer

MarkP said:


> Didn't you say pike were extinct?


I said "nearly wiped out" As in some still around. The slack waters on this said river are still full of Grass Pickerel, or at least were this spring.


----------



## MarkP

fishfly said:


> You sure Mark? I thought the only documented findings of the "bad ones" was their DNA, not actual fish?


Up to 20lb specimens john. Its on the invasive species distribution map listing with documented dates, time, and location via gps on the USGS site. Most of the specimens have come from sandusky bay. If they aren't taking off in the most fertile great lake, what makes anyone think they will survive a crashing lake michigan?


----------



## MarkP

Multispeciestamer said:


> I said "nearly wiped out" As in some still around. The slack waters on this said river are still full of Grass Pickerel, or at least were this spring.


I can definitely say that pike biomass outweighs total salmon biomass combined in the st joe river. Try fishing more of the backwaters on the mainstream. While smallie fishing in 2012, covering only a few miles of river, I caught just as many small pike as smallmouth bass. Which on a normal summer day, fishing the st joe can be literally almost every cast(every cast for the vandams). Catching that many small pike indicates to me, like in inland lake populations locally, that their size may be stunted due to over-population. But, like someone said, my opinion is biased because I'm an out of stater, that owns land in your state, and only fishes for trout and salmon.


----------



## Boozer

Mark-

I keep hearing from people you are out to prove there is some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the MDNR and Salmon, but nobody ever knows exactly what this theory is, I have to admit, am really interested to know? What is it? I even heard you got really out of line at some public meetings and all kinds of crazy stuff. All of that is hearsay and I could care less about anything other than being curious what this theory of yours is. Please share!


----------



## fishfly

He theorizes that salmon actually bite. Hahaha everybody knows you have to snag them:.


----------



## fishfly

MarkP said:


> Up to 20lb specimens john. Its on the invasive species distribution map listing with documented dates, time, and location via gps on the USGS site. Most of the specimens have come from sandusky bay. If they aren't taking off in the most fertile great lake, what makes anyone think they will survive a crashing lake michigan?


Thx I'll check it out once the govment is back open for business...


----------



## Boozer

The Asian Carp found in Erie are said to have escaped from local ponds and are not believed to have ascended into the lake via the waterways under watch now. That is according to the GLMRIS people...


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> Mark-
> 
> I keep hearing from people you are out to prove there is some sort of conspiracy theory regarding the MDNR and Salmon, but nobody ever knows exactly what this theory is, I have to admit, am really interested to know? What is it? I even heard you got really out of line at some public meetings and all kinds of crazy stuff. All of that is hearsay and I could care less about anything other than being curious what this theory of yours is. Please share!





Jay Wesley said:


> MarkP, Mr. Wilson is right on. Chinook salmon maturity is based on growth rate. When fish are growing fast, they mature earlier. We typically see more 2 year old mature kings when growth is good. We see more 4 year old kings when growth is slow. The majority of mature fish are 3 year olds.
> 
> Below is a link to research report 2029 that looked at age and growth of chinook before, during, and sllightly after the BKD era in Lake Michigan.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_19056-46197--,00.html
> 
> You will have to go to report 2029.
> 
> Each Great Lake behaves differently and so do the fish that live there. We can make some comparisons, but it is best to use data from the lake that you are interested in.
> 
> There was the same debate back in the late 1980s when BKD broke out about bait. The data showed that forage was an issue then and that led to the stocking reductions in the late 1990s. This same debate about bait continues today.


_*So which is it? Chinook salmon stocking reductions were intended to increase the size of the fish, but now you are saying if they eat too much they mature faster, which in turn makes them return at a younger age(IE smaller). This is what you stated correct? Also where can I find the creel data for lake michigan this year and in years past? I would like to compare chinook harvest in the northern end of the lake compared to the southern part of the lake post stocking reductions. 

One more thing, since broodstock egg taking of salmon is subcontracted out to american-canadian fisheries inc. of washington state every year at a cost of $200,000 per year, how are they taking stock on the age of returning salmon if they are only interested in processing the carcasses for cat and dog food down the line? I also don't understand how a webcam can be shut down due to cost but this payout has to happen every year, when other states on the same lake take on volunteers to do the same thing for FREE. I have tried to contact the CEO of the company cited to find out more information regarding the ins and outs of what contract was signed and what responsibility they have at each wier site, to no avail. So far the only information attained states that some of these fish are ending up in cans of purina cat and dog food. No one will come out and say it on the record via the MDNR, but that contract signed is the reasoning why so many fish were continued to be stocked in northern lake michigan post stocking reductions, even though all the reproduction in the lake occurs in the same area. 

You also stated that the lake huron chinook program would be ceased yet in 2013 695,000 chinooks were stocked at wier sites alone. Thats more than you stocked in lake michigan this year total! Why plant so many chinook in a lake with little to no alewife, since you said that's what chinooks eat, right?

Also whats up with all the king planting in lake superior? Baitfish biomass studies cite that there are no numbers of alewife for forage. What would these salmon be eating and why plant them if there is nothing for them to eat according to the MDNR?

Thanks for the follow up Jay!

Mark*_

Not a conspiracy theory. As the thread this was posted in was deleted within 24 hours. Now, I hope I don't get banned for asking legitimate questions. Since the MDNR is funded by public money, I feel its our job(the paying public) to keep tabs on the checks and balances of the chinook salmon fishery and other fisheries.

The "talk" apparently taking place by various members of this site about me could be construed as libel considering the rumors you have been told by others members here, as evidenced by your quotation. I would have attended the annual GLFC meeting in Montreal, however the public was not informed in proper lead time for those needing to attain a passport just to attend the meeting, hence my lack of attendance. What meetings I did attend were in your area and I didn't catch your attendance at either meetings, as both meetings regarding this fishery had attendance sign-in sheets prior to entrance. What was sad about the benton harbor meeting in 2012, was the fact that more people from out of state showed up to the meeting than people living in berrien county. It really showed me who cares about the coldwater fishery in southern lake michigan, and who doesn't.


----------



## Boozer

Mark-

I don't follow the other sections of this site much, so I have never seen any of these discussions, nor heard any of your comments.

I didn't even hear about it from other members here, I heard about it from employees of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife that were at some meeting you got very loud at and that is all I ever was told and didn't ask anything further. However, I was always curious what you got upset about... Nothing more... nothing less...


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> Mark-
> 
> I don't follow the other sections of this site much, so I have never seen any of these discussions, nor heard any of your comments.
> 
> I didn't even hear about it from other members here, I heard about it from employees of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife that were at some meeting you got very loud at and that is all I ever was told and didn't ask anything further. However, I was always curious what you got upset about...


At the only 2 meetings I have attended, USFWS wasn't even represented, and furthermore I didn't even get up to say anything. I didn't need to say anything, as SU of Indiana, SU of Wisconsin, SU of Illinois, The Wisconsin Sportfishing Council, River Wildlife members, SW michigan steelheaders, South Haven Steelheaders, and many other groups represented asked all the same questions I had, and most still aren't answered. The only time I ever said anything was at an asian carp meeting, when the coast guard representation blatantly lied about ballast water sterilization laws with regard to invasives passing through the welland canal. Libel is real.


----------



## Boozer

I was at the meeting you spoke to the Coast Guard, that was not the one, it was some meeting to do with King Salmon stocking reductions...

Your name was mentioned, was said you got really loud and angry about something to do with stocking of Salmon. All I know... Was just curious...


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> I was at the meeting you spoke to the Coast Guard, that was not the one, it was some meeting to do with King Salmon stocking reductions...
> 
> Your name was mentioned, was said you got really loud and angry about something to do with stocking of Salmon. All I know... Was just curious...


Perhaps it was a story, like the 60" gar.


----------



## Boozer

MarkP said:


> Perhaps it was a story, like the 60" gar.


Not a story bud, surprised this is the first you heard of it as one of the individuals whom said it is relation to someone you know...

Don't get ticked at me, I have been nothing but cordial towards you here, despite your personal attacks at me. I have heard from several people even Trev that you were on to some "conspiracy theory" type thing regarding the MDNR, but nobody ever went into detail what it was about or even said anything positive or negative about it, so I asked you personally. Sorry if that upsets you...

Anyway, will be interesting to see what Jay Wesley has to say regarding your comments.


----------



## MarkP

The 2012 Alewife population estimate was 191 
million yearling-and-older fish (Fig. 2.5.2). This 
is very similar to the estimate from the previous 
year, and in line with the average level over the 
last 10 years. Using the average weight of gill net
-caught fish, this numeric estimate translates into 
a biomass estimate of 5,577 MT, which is a 40% 
increase from the previous year. The increase is, 
however, almost entirely due to an increase in the 
average weight of the fish

page 51 of the lake ontario fish community and fisheries report: 2012.

http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/LOA 13.01.pdf

In this report it states that the total lakewide biomass of alewife in lake ontario is 5,577 metric tons which converts to 5.577 kilotons on the acoustic survery. Lake Ontario is roughly 7,000 square miles of water.

Lake Michigan's acoustic biomass for 2012 is 31 kilotons which converts to 31,000 metric tons of forage species. Since Lake Michigan is roughly 21,000 square miles of water, to actually compare the density of lake michigan's bait to lake ontario's, you would need to divide lake michigan's metric tonnage(31,000) by a factor of 3 to compensate for lake michigan's bigger size. By dividing 31,000 by 3 to compensate you still have almost double the bait here compared to there(in a record low biomass year). Also, over 90% of lake michigan's total forage biomass consists of only alewife, so if you wanted an actual estimate of alewife, just subtract another 10% off the divided number. Unfortunately due to government shut down currently, the USGS 2012 acoustic study report for lake michigan is not available to the public until the shutdown ends.

Hope this info that is available to the public helps!

Lake Ontario also has roughly the same natural reproduction rate as lake michigan does in regards to chinook salmon, however just plants by NY state equate to 1.5 million smolts per year. OMNR stocking records are available, but inaccurate due to private sportfishing club stockings off of their database. That many stocked in a lake 3 times smaller just by one state/province raises questions here.

Let's also get some terminology correct across the board. In lake ontario's report age-3 chinook there by their definition have spent 4 summers in the lake before beginning spawning migration. Here in lake michigan the majority of fish returning since 2001 have only spent 3 summers in the lake(with the exception of 2011's run and this year's as well) before beginning their spawning migration.

I only have a high school education in the sciences, and math, but was able to figure all this out on my own accord.


----------



## ab5228

MarkP said:


> The 2012 Alewife population estimate was 191
> million yearling-and-older fish (Fig. 2.5.2). This
> is very similar to the estimate from the previous
> year, and in line with the average level over the
> last 10 years. Using the average weight of gill net
> -caught fish, this numeric estimate translates into
> a biomass estimate of 5,577 MT, which is a 40%
> increase from the previous year. The increase is,
> however, almost entirely due to an increase in the
> average weight of the fish
> 
> page 51 of the lake ontario fish community and fisheries report: 2012.
> 
> http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/LOA 13.01.pdf
> 
> In this report it states that the total lakewide biomass of alewife in lake ontario is 5,577 metric tons which converts to 5.577 kilotons on the acoustic survery. Lake Ontario is roughly 7,000 square miles of water.
> 
> Lake Michigan's acoustic biomass for 2012 is 31 kilotons which converts to 31,000 metric tons of forage species. Since Lake Michigan is roughly 21,000 square miles of water, to actually compare the density of lake michigan's bait to lake ontario's, you would need to divide lake michigan's metric tonnage(31,000) by a factor of 3 to compensate for lake michigan's bigger size. By dividing 31,000 by 3 to compensate you still have almost double the bait here compared to there(in a record low biomass year). Also, over 90% of lake michigan's total forage biomass consists of only alewife, so if you wanted an actual estimate of alewife, just subtract another 10% off the divided number. Unfortunately due to government shut down currently, the USGS 2012 acoustic study report for lake michigan is not available to the public until the shutdown ends.
> 
> Hope this info that is available to the public helps!
> 
> Lake Ontario also has roughly the same natural reproduction rate as lake michigan does in regards to chinook salmon, however just plants by NY state equate to 1.5 million smolts per year. OMNR stocking records are available, but inaccurate due to private sportfishing club stockings off of their database. That many stocked in a lake 3 times smaller just by one state/province raises questions here.
> 
> Let's also get some terminology correct across the board. In lake ontario's report age-3 chinook there by their definition have spent 4 summers in the lake before beginning spawning migration. Here in lake michigan the majority of fish returning since 2001 have only spent 3 summers in the lake(with the exception of 2011's run and this year's as well) before beginning their spawning migration.
> 
> I only have a high school education in the sciences, and math, but was able to figure all this out on my own accord.



You should be comparing lake volume rather than surface area here. I don't disagree with the point you try to make but try making comparisons of density of bait by actually calculating the density. Surface area can help you calculate the volume however, surface area alone has nothing to do with density. Square mileage is not volume


----------



## MarkP

ab5228 said:


> You should be comparing lake volume rather than surface area here. I don't disagree with the point you try to make but try making comparisons of density of bait by actually calculating the density. Surface area can help you calculate the volume however, surface area alone has nothing to do with density. Square mileage is not volume


Water volume comparison is still 3 times bigger on lake michigan(1180 cubic miles) compared to lake ontario(393.5 cubic miles), so the conversion factor of 3, stays the same. Thanks for pointing that out though!


----------



## Multispeciestamer

MarkP said:


> I can definitely say that pike biomass outweighs total salmon biomass combined in the st joe river. Try fishing more of the backwaters on the mainstream. While smallie fishing in 2012, covering only a few miles of river, I caught just as many small pike as smallmouth bass. Which on a normal summer day, fishing the st joe can be literally almost every cast(every cast for the vandams). Catching that many small pike indicates to me, like in inland lake populations locally, that their size may be stunted due to over-population. But, like someone said, my opinion is biased because I'm an out of stater, that owns land in your state, and only fishes for trout and salmon.


We are talking about two different rivers now. The upper/mid Joes pike fishery is thriving to my understanding, with some monsters around. I hear of maybe one caught out of the other river every few years from others, and thats it. I have never so much as seen one on this river.


----------



## MarkP

Multispeciestamer said:


> We are talking about two different rivers now. The upper/mid Joes pike fishery is thriving to my understanding, with some monsters around. I hear of maybe one caught out of the other river every few years from others, and thats it. I have never so much as seen one on this river.


Which? The dowagiac? Fish closer to lake of the woods where currents are froggier, they are there. Mill Pond on the dowagiac creek portion of that watershed is also LOADED with pike. When Lake LaGrange still existed(removed reservoir on middle dowagiac creek) , it was probably the best pike lake in SW michigan with all the 10-20lbers being taken out of there every winter in "tip up town". All part of the dowagiac river watershed. I don't live there full time and all this mentioned is within minutes of where you live. You should have been taking advantage all this time I guess.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Oops. Trying to respond.


----------



## itchn2fish

........enjoying this thread..........


----------



## Jay Wesley

_So which is it? Chinook salmon stocking reductions were intended to increase the size of the fish, but now you are saying if they eat too much they mature faster, which in turn makes them return at a younger age(IE smaller). This is what you stated correct?_ 
The stocking reductions were intended to bring better balance between predators and prey. We had a lot of warning signs that Lake Michigan was headed where Lake Huron was prior to its crash. The majority of anglers wanted to head off such a crash so stocking reductions were implemented. Fish size is an indicator of the health of the fish as well as how much food they have. We typically look at the size of 3 year old females. If the lake is in better balance, we would see larger fish, which is the result of faster growth. There is often an increase in jacks when growth is good, so obviously these fish are smaller. However, we also see rather large (15 to 20 lb) two and three year olds when growth is good. This year many of the three year olds are over 30 lbs.

_Also where can I find the creel data for lake michigan this year and in years past? I would like to compare chinook harvest in the northern end of the lake compared to the southern part of the lake post stocking reductions. _

There are two sources: 1) is the charter boat catch statistics; 2) is the creel statistics. You can find them at:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/chartercreel/

O_ne more thing, since broodstock egg taking of salmon is subcontracted out to american-canadian fisheries inc. of washington state every year at a cost of $200,000 per year, how are they taking stock on the age of returning salmon if they are only interested in processing the carcasses for cat and dog food down the line?_

DNR staff take sub-samples at the weirs and in the American-Canadian Facility to look for tagged fish and to assess run size and fish size. 

_I also don't understand how a webcam can be shut down due to cost but this payout has to happen every year, when other states on the same lake take on volunteers to do the same thing for FREE. _

The issue with the web cam at Berrien Springs is the cost to run a T1 line into the facility and the challenges that we have to meet the State of Michigan security standards for any state computer hooked up to the state system. To get the new line and meet the new standards would have cost $20,000 a year. This is something that we could not afford from our ladder budget. I am very open to another party hosting a web cam on their web site. I have been mentioning this at various sport organization meetings to try to find a partnership that will work. If you have an organization in mind that we could work with, I would love to speak with them as this was a popular cam for anglers. 

_I have tried to contact the CEO of the company cited to find out more information regarding the ins and outs of what contract was signed and what responsibility they have at each wier site, to no avail. So far the only information attained states that some of these fish are ending up in cans of purina cat and dog food. No one will come out and say it on the record via the MDNR, but that contract signed is the reasoning why so many fish were continued to be stocked in northern lake michigan post stocking reductions, even though all the reproduction in the lake occurs in the same area. _

The reason the Little Manistee and Manistee systems still have high stocking numbers is because the Little Manistee is our primary broodstock weir for salmon. You can contact Ed Eisch at the Platte Hatchery for a copy of the contract with American-Canadian. 

_You also stated that the lake huron chinook program would be ceased yet in 2013 695,000 chinooks were stocked at wier sites alone. Thats more than you stocked in lake michigan this year total! Why plant so many chinook in a lake with little to no alewife, since you said that's what chinooks eat, right?_

The Lake Huron Basin Team and Basin Coordinator work with their Lake Huron Fishery Citizens Advisory committee along with the Lake Huron Committee and various research agencies to set their stocking strategy for Lake Huron. Although they did reduce Chinook salmon numbers considerably. They do still stock more than Michigan stocks in Lake Michigan. Part of the reason was that Swan Creek is an index site and an alternate egg take site. The Michigan side of Lake Huron has little natural reproduction and their constituent groups wanted to maintain some stocking sites. The reality is that the survival of these salmon are low and many have shown up in Lake Michigan in search of alewife. One major stocking site is Cheboygan, which is basically the divide of Lake Michigan and Huron. There are still more Chinook stocked in Lake Michigan when you add up Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana together. Our web site has more on stocking chinook in Lake Huron. 

_Also whats up with all the king planting in lake superior? Baitfish biomass studies cite that there are no numbers of alewife for forage. What would these salmon be eating and why plant them if there is nothing for them to eat according to the MDNR?_

Due to political pressure, Fisheries Division has experimented with some Chinook and coho stocking. Again, the survival of these fish are poor and the fishery created is small. 

Last, Public Meetings are held throughout the state annually. The best are the regional meetings provided by Michigan Sea Grant. They bring in various agencies that collect data on the Great Lakes to present at these meetings. Researchers from other agencies also say that there is an issue with bait in Lake Michigan. Yes. There were good year classes in 2010 and 2012. However, the age structure is truncated with no adult alewife. This is the condition that was observed just before the LH crash. I certainly never expected to see salmon size increase so much in one year. This indicates that there is a lot of bait compared to recent years and that perhaps a year class or two of Chinook was poor. I still think that managing the lake conservatively is the way to go. We can always stock more Chinook if necessary. However, it is a lot harder reducing Chinook numbers quickly to prevent a crash. Lets let the system stabilize for a year or two before jumping to conclusions or making major changes.


----------



## ab5228

Jay Wesley
I still think that managing the lake conservatively is the way to go. We can always stock more Chinook if necessary. However said:


> Seems reasonable.


----------



## REG

MarkP said:


> The 2012 Alewife population estimate was 191
> million yearling-and-older fish (Fig. 2.5.2). This
> is very similar to the estimate from the previous
> year, and in line with the average level over the
> last 10 years. Using the average weight of gill net
> -caught fish, this numeric estimate translates into
> a biomass estimate of 5,577 MT, which is a 40%
> increase from the previous year. The increase is,
> however, almost entirely due to an increase in the
> average weight of the fish
> 
> page 51 of the lake ontario fish community and fisheries report: 2012.
> 
> http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/LOA 13.01.pdf
> 
> In this report it states that the total lakewide biomass of alewife in lake ontario is 5,577 metric tons which converts to 5.577 kilotons on the acoustic survery. Lake Ontario is roughly 7,000 square miles of water.
> 
> Lake Michigan's acoustic biomass for 2012 is 31 kilotons which converts to 31,000 metric tons of forage species. Since Lake Michigan is roughly 21,000 square miles of water, to actually compare the density of lake michigan's bait to lake ontario's, you would need to divide lake michigan's metric tonnage(31,000) by a factor of 3 to compensate for lake michigan's bigger size. By dividing 31,000 by 3 to compensate you still have almost double the bait here compared to there(in a record low biomass year). Also, over 90% of lake michigan's total forage biomass consists of only alewife, so if you wanted an actual estimate of alewife, just subtract another 10% off the divided number. Unfortunately due to government shut down currently, the USGS 2012 acoustic study report for lake michigan is not available to the public until the shutdown ends.
> 
> Hope this info that is available to the public helps!
> 
> Lake Ontario also has roughly the same natural reproduction rate as lake michigan does in regards to chinook salmon, however just plants by NY state equate to 1.5 million smolts per year. OMNR stocking records are available, but inaccurate due to private sportfishing club stockings off of their database. That many stocked in a lake 3 times smaller just by one state/province raises questions here.
> 
> Let's also get some terminology correct across the board. In lake ontario's report age-3 chinook there by their definition have spent 4 summers in the lake before beginning spawning migration. Here in lake michigan the majority of fish returning since 2001 have only spent 3 summers in the lake(with the exception of 2011's run and this year's as well) before beginning their spawning migration.
> 
> I only have a high school education in the sciences, and math, but was able to figure all this out on my own accord.


Mark, small itsy bitsy point that doesn't really detract from your main point, which we talked about before is metric tons and the short ton, which is mostly used in the US, are different. Whereas a ton as referred to here is 2000lbs, a metric ton (or tonne) is roughly a bit over 2200lbs. Thus, 31 kilotons= roughly a bit over 28 metric tons.


----------



## MarkP

REG said:


> Mark, small itsy bitsy point that doesn't really detract from your main point, which we talked about before is metric tons and the short ton, which is mostly used in the US, are different. Whereas a ton as referred to here is 2000lbs, a metric ton (or tonne) is roughly a bit over 2200lbs. Thus, 31 kilotons= roughly a bit over 28 metric tons.


The language I spoke is incorrect. I ment to say kilotonnes as per the USGS baitfish reports currently unavailable due to government furlough/shutdown.

For proof I mis-spoke by language and not the numbers, here is a copy of the 2009 acoustic survey on page 1 in the opening abstract, you can clearly see kilotonnes, not kilotons. Thank you INDNR in Michigan City for the help and link!

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fw-Lake_Michigan_Acoustic_2009.pdf


----------



## MarkP

Jay Wesley said:


> _So which is it? Chinook salmon stocking reductions were intended to increase the size of the fish, but now you are saying if they eat too much they mature faster, which in turn makes them return at a younger age(IE smaller). This is what you stated correct?_
> The stocking reductions were intended to bring better balance between predators and prey. We had a lot of warning signs that Lake Michigan was headed where Lake Huron was prior to its crash. The majority of anglers wanted to head off such a crash so stocking reductions were implemented. Fish size is an indicator of the health of the fish as well as how much food they have. We typically look at the size of 3 year old females. If the lake is in better balance, we would see larger fish, which is the result of faster growth. There is often an increase in jacks when growth is good, so obviously these fish are smaller. However, we also see rather large (15 to 20 lb) two and three year olds when growth is good. This year many of the three year olds are over 30 lbs.
> 
> _Also where can I find the creel data for lake michigan this year and in years past? I would like to compare chinook harvest in the northern end of the lake compared to the southern part of the lake post stocking reductions. _
> 
> There are two sources: 1) is the charter boat catch statistics; 2) is the creel statistics. You can find them at:
> http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/chartercreel/
> 
> O_ne more thing, since broodstock egg taking of salmon is subcontracted out to american-canadian fisheries inc. of washington state every year at a cost of $200,000 per year, how are they taking stock on the age of returning salmon if they are only interested in processing the carcasses for cat and dog food down the line?_
> 
> DNR staff take sub-samples at the weirs and in the American-Canadian Facility to look for tagged fish and to assess run size and fish size.
> 
> _I also don't understand how a webcam can be shut down due to cost but this payout has to happen every year, when other states on the same lake take on volunteers to do the same thing for FREE. _
> 
> The issue with the web cam at Berrien Springs is the cost to run a T1 line into the facility and the challenges that we have to meet the State of Michigan security standards for any state computer hooked up to the state system. To get the new line and meet the new standards would have cost $20,000 a year. This is something that we could not afford from our ladder budget. I am very open to another party hosting a web cam on their web site. I have been mentioning this at various sport organization meetings to try to find a partnership that will work. If you have an organization in mind that we could work with, I would love to speak with them as this was a popular cam for anglers.
> 
> _I have tried to contact the CEO of the company cited to find out more information regarding the ins and outs of what contract was signed and what responsibility they have at each wier site, to no avail. So far the only information attained states that some of these fish are ending up in cans of purina cat and dog food. No one will come out and say it on the record via the MDNR, but that contract signed is the reasoning why so many fish were continued to be stocked in northern lake michigan post stocking reductions, even though all the reproduction in the lake occurs in the same area. _
> 
> The reason the Little Manistee and Manistee systems still have high stocking numbers is because the Little Manistee is our primary broodstock weir for salmon. You can contact Ed Eisch at the Platte Hatchery for a copy of the contract with American-Canadian.
> 
> _You also stated that the lake huron chinook program would be ceased yet in 2013 695,000 chinooks were stocked at wier sites alone. Thats more than you stocked in lake michigan this year total! Why plant so many chinook in a lake with little to no alewife, since you said that's what chinooks eat, right?_
> 
> The Lake Huron Basin Team and Basin Coordinator work with their Lake Huron Fishery Citizens Advisory committee along with the Lake Huron Committee and various research agencies to set their stocking strategy for Lake Huron. Although they did reduce Chinook salmon numbers considerably. They do still stock more than Michigan stocks in Lake Michigan. Part of the reason was that Swan Creek is an index site and an alternate egg take site. The Michigan side of Lake Huron has little natural reproduction and their constituent groups wanted to maintain some stocking sites. The reality is that the survival of these salmon are low and many have shown up in Lake Michigan in search of alewife. One major stocking site is Cheboygan, which is basically the divide of Lake Michigan and Huron. There are still more Chinook stocked in Lake Michigan when you add up Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana together. Our web site has more on stocking chinook in Lake Huron.
> 
> _Also whats up with all the king planting in lake superior? Baitfish biomass studies cite that there are no numbers of alewife for forage. What would these salmon be eating and why plant them if there is nothing for them to eat according to the MDNR?_
> 
> Due to political pressure, Fisheries Division has experimented with some Chinook and coho stocking. Again, the survival of these fish are poor and the fishery created is small.
> 
> Last, Public Meetings are held throughout the state annually. The best are the regional meetings provided by Michigan Sea Grant. They bring in various agencies that collect data on the Great Lakes to present at these meetings. Researchers from other agencies also say that there is an issue with bait in Lake Michigan. Yes. There were good year classes in 2010 and 2012. However, the age structure is truncated with no adult alewife. This is the condition that was observed just before the LH crash. I certainly never expected to see salmon size increase so much in one year. This indicates that there is a lot of bait compared to recent years and that perhaps a year class or two of Chinook was poor. I still think that managing the lake conservatively is the way to go. We can always stock more Chinook if necessary. However, it is a lot harder reducing Chinook numbers quickly to prevent a crash. Lets let the system stabilize for a year or two before jumping to conclusions or making major changes.


Thank you very much for responding. Whether or not I got an answer was going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not I would be renewing my Michigan fishing license for the 19th year consecutively. That charter creel link will definitely come in handy in my continued research. It doesn't, however, show the entire lake's harvest by individual number of fish caught, as the only graphs shown to the public in regards to that are shown by pounds of fish taken. 

Ive attended at least 8 different egg take broodstock salmon collections at the various michigan weirs. On the calcite property, and boardman weir sites, never once have scale samples been taken for fish aging while in my presence. Only one time that I attended the egg takes at the lil manistee weir were any scale samples taken for aging while fish were being processed. I can say every single time I attended an egg take for broodstock at wisconsin weirs(root river) scale samples for aging were taken for chinook and coho salmon. 7 times I have attended egg takes for broodstock in wisconsin over the years. 

While I agree that a 25.5lb 37" chinook is a 3 summer in the lake fish, I don't agree that a 44" by 25" chinook only spent 3 summers in the lake to reach that length.

Thanks again for the follow up!


----------



## Jay Wesley

MarkP said:


> Thank you very much for responding. Whether or not I got an answer was going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not I would be renewing my Michigan fishing license for the 19th year consecutively. That charter creel link will definitely come in handy in my continued research. It doesn't, however, show the entire lake's harvest by individual number of fish caught, as the only graphs shown to the public in regards to that are shown by pounds of fish taken.
> 
> Ive attended at least 8 different egg take broodstock salmon collections at the various michigan weirs. On the calcite property, and boardman weir sites, never once have scale samples been taken for fish aging while in my presence. Only one time that I attended the egg takes at the lil manistee weir were any scale samples taken for aging while fish were being processed. I can say every single time I attended an egg take for broodstock at wisconsin weirs(root river) scale samples for aging were taken for chinook and coho salmon. 7 times I have attended egg takes for broodstock in wisconsin over the years.
> 
> While I agree that a 25.5lb 37" chinook is a 3 summer in the lake fish, I don't agree that a 44" by 25" chinook only spent 3 summers in the lake to reach that length.
> 
> Thanks again for the follow up!


Glad to hear that you are considering buying another Michigan license. 

In that chinook aging report, you will see that the accuracy of aging mature chinook with scales is tricky at best. Vertebrae are much better. Michigan has been stocking our index and weir sites with coded wire tagged fish for many years. This is what we primarily use to age fish from the weirs and the American-Canadian processing plant. Scales are taken on lake caught chinook as part of the creel survey program. We also collect scales while conducting various lake assessment surveys with the research vessel R.V. Steelhead. All of these data together give us a good idea of fish growth and year class strength. 

In our recently developed stocking policy, Strawberry Creek weir fish from Wisconsin are used because they age and weight individual fish. The Lake Committee looks at the average weight of age 3 females.


----------



## MarkP

Jay Wesley said:


> Glad to hear that you are considering buying another Michigan license.
> 
> In that chinook aging report, you will see that the accuracy of aging mature chinook with scales is tricky at best. Vertebrae are much better. Michigan has been stocking our index and weir sites with coded wire tagged fish for many years. This is what we primarily use to age fish from the weirs and the American-Canadian processing plant. Scales are taken on lake caught chinook as part of the creel survey program. We also collect scales while conducting various lake assessment surveys with the research vessel R.V. Steelhead. All of these data together give us a good idea of fish growth and year class strength.
> 
> In our recently developed stocking policy, Strawberry Creek weir fish from Wisconsin are used because they age and weight individual fish. The Lake Committee looks at the average weight of age 3 females.


Thanks again for the follow up. According to the benton harbor meeting in the spring of 2012 and the great lakes fish stocking database, only starting in 2011's stocking were all kings adipose/coded wire tagged that were stocked. Also every other state on lake michigan plants chinook salmon with the intent to provide opportunity for every fishing license purchaser(river, pier, and boat). Besides the big sable circus that continues to be stocked post 2013's reductions, why are these kings managed solely in michigan for offshore boats, when we all pay the same for the fishery?

Furthermore you mention the coded wire tagging for aging of chinook salmon in michigan, but what about aging of coho salmon at the platte weir? None of the coho planted there have coded wire tags implanted, and based on the GLFC fish stocking database the last clippings on record were in 2010 for only ~50,000 fish compared to the total annual plant of about 800,000 per year. You did mention that scale sampling for aging salmon is sketchy at best, so are the spine assessments for coho taking place at american-canadian fisheries'(a private company) processing plant as well?


----------



## Boozer

What are the other states doing differently in order to provide King fisheries for all types of fisheries that Michigan is not?


----------



## o_mykiss

Stocking in really marginal rivers, perhaps? I was under the impression that Michigan doesn't do things that much differently than other states. In fact I'd say Michigan by far has the best combo of pier/harbor/river fishing when compared to other states


----------



## Boozer

I know when the strain of King Salmon to be used in the Great Lakes was chosen, they used a strain that ran later, in an attempt to maximize the angling opportunities for Big Lake anglers, but I believe all states use that strain so doubtful that would be it.

Maybe stocking locations.


----------



## Boozer

Jay Wesley said:


> Glad to hear that you are considering buying another Michigan license.
> 
> In that chinook aging report, you will see that the accuracy of aging mature chinook with scales is tricky at best. Vertebrae are much better. Michigan has been stocking our index and weir sites with coded wire tagged fish for many years. This is what we primarily use to age fish from the weirs and the American-Canadian processing plant. Scales are taken on lake caught chinook as part of the creel survey program. We also collect scales while conducting various lake assessment surveys with the research vessel R.V. Steelhead. All of these data together give us a good idea of fish growth and year class strength.
> 
> In our recently developed stocking policy, Strawberry Creek weir fish from Wisconsin are used because they age and weight individual fish. The Lake Committee looks at the average weight of age 3 females.


Jay-

Despite the popularity among many anglers to fish for King Salmon.

How can a natural resources division manage a fishery to maintain a healthy population of an invasive species "Alewife" in order to maintain a healthy population of an introduced non-native species "Salmon", all at the expense of native species which live in the same watersheds?

How can that even be legal?

Shouldn't the logical option be to do what it takes to eradicate the Alewife from the lake? Then move away from stocking Salmon?

I understand there is a social aspect to managing our fisheries, but should native species not come first and rank above all else?

It seems we could still have a migratory program, maybe even Salmon, but the real issue lies with the Alewife and more accurately, the Thiaminase they produce, allow the King Salmon to destroy their population and then you would have the ability to begin rebuilding a healthier ecosystem. Why is that not being done?


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> Besides the big sable circus that continues to be stocked post 2013's reductions, *why are these kings managed solely in michigan for offshore boats*, when we all pay the same for the fishery?


How is *this* so? The fish hit the rivers at the end of their life. And it doesn't seem to be the stated objective.....

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-297817--,00.html



> Michigan DNR created an internal task group of the Lake Michigan Basin Team to
> develop a tactical plan for specific site reductions. The plan remains centered
> on objectives and criteria developed in the 2006 Future Stocking Scenarios
> Report developed by staff representing Lakes Michigan and Huron. The criteria
> used to determine sites where reductions would occur were: 1) Natural
> reproduction - Stocking sites should be stocked less if contributions of
> naturalized fish were significant; *2) Maximize fishing opportunities - Consider
> the contribution to the open lake fishery, local fishing opportunities (fall
> fishery), and geographic parity;*


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Oldgrandman said:


> How is *this* so? The fish hit the rivers at the end of their life. And it doesn't seem to be the stated objective.....
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-297817--,00.html


Planting locations, and the amount stocked at these locations for one.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

o_mykiss said:


> Stocking in really marginal rivers, perhaps? I was under the impression that Michigan doesn't do things that much differently than other states. In fact I'd say Michigan by far has the best combo of pier/harbor/river fishing when compared to other states


Take Michigan's failed Seeforellen Brown Trout program for example, the brood stock was raised and kept in an unnatural environment. I am not 100% how brood stock was replaced as I was never given an answer but most likely it came from the offspring of these same pond raised trout. The population became inbreed certain traits never came about (getting more returning river run adults), and thus the program was disregarded. Other states (WI) that still have a booming brown fishery use different methods to collect brood stock they only use eggs and milt from returning fish to the rivers, instead of these pond raised monstrosities the MI DNR calls trout.


----------



## Oldgrandman

Multispeciestamer said:


> Planting locations, and the amount stocked at these locations for one.


 How does that favor the big lake boater? 

Amount planted has an effect on the big lake boater just the same as a river return fisherman. A certain percentage is going to be caught by both. 

You really got me on location, unless you think net pens are an issue. Records show they move upstream far beyond the net pens to spawn. I have evidence from my returned CWT fish heads in my photo gallery. 
More anglers ought to participate in this program to help the fisheries than do. It really is a big help.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Oldgrandman said:


> How does that favor the big lake boater?
> 
> Amount planted has an effect on the big lake boater just the same as a river return fisherman. A certain percentage is going to be caught by both.
> 
> You really got me on location, unless you think net pens are an issue. Records show they move upstream far beyond the net pens to spawn. I have evidence from my returned CWT fish heads in my photo gallery.
> More anglers ought to participate in this program to help the fisheries than do. It really is a big help.


To a certain respect there is an amount of stray from these net pin fish, as to what exact percentage, I have not a clue. I do know that some of these fish circle the area where planted until they perish.


----------



## MarkP

boozer said:


> jay-
> 
> despite the popularity among many anglers to fish for king salmon.
> 
> How can a natural resources division manage a fishery to maintain a healthy population of an invasive species "alewife" in order to maintain a healthy population of an introduced non-native species "salmon", all at the expense of native species which live in the same watersheds?
> 
> How can that even be legal?
> 
> Shouldn't the logical option be to do what it takes to eradicate the alewife from the lake? Then move away from stocking salmon?
> 
> I understand there is a social aspect to managing our fisheries, but should native species not come first and rank above all else?
> 
> It seems we could still have a migratory program, maybe even salmon, but the real issue lies with the alewife and more accurately, the thiaminase they produce, allow the king salmon to destroy their population and then you would have the ability to begin rebuilding a healthier ecosystem. Why is that not being done?


great post!


----------



## MarkP

o_mykiss said:


> Stocking in really marginal rivers, perhaps? I was under the impression that Michigan doesn't do things that much differently than other states. In fact I'd say Michigan by far has the best combo of pier/harbor/river fishing when compared to other states


You need to get out of michigan more. Coming from someone who annually supports every agency on lake michigan and their fisheries, there is even brook trout opportunities in lake michigan via other states besides michigan. Ironically brook trout, are NATIVE.


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> What are the other states doing differently in order to provide King fisheries for all types of fisheries that Michigan is not?


Upriver plants


----------



## MarkP

Oldgrandman said:


> How is *this* so? The fish hit the rivers at the end of their life. And it doesn't seem to be the stated objective.....
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-297817--,00.html



Let me bring this one a little closer to home for you(based on your username). How does removing the riverside park plant on the grand river(which in the epic 90's was over 300,000 chinook per year) create a fishery for grand rapids when all the current stocked chinook are 1000' from the mouth of the grand river? The Point is, it doesn't. Some people don't care what your opinion is of a river salmon's tablefare, some people just like to catch them. And, why they support the fishery monetarily.

To also put things into perspective. Roughly 59,000 chinook salmon will now be planted for the port of grand haven and the grand river. As per the michigan dnr, only 1-3 out of 1,000 of these planted fish will return as adults to where they were planted(again on average).


----------



## MarkP

jpmarko said:


> Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that whitefish are eating up all the food in the lake? Or are you saying there is plenty of food in the lake as evidenced by the abundance of whitefish?
> 
> I am just pointing out that the mussels have been undercutting the food supply in the lake from the bottom up, leaving less food for the baitfish, thus making bait more scarce. That's pretty well documented.


Regardless of what you read, the "bait" is still double here compared to lake ontario. These various agencies funded by federal money can't get funding if there is "no problems". What you end up reading is skewed data. You can not refute the size of chinooks in 2011, and 2013. The DNR wants to say they are 3 summer in the lake fish, and that's true to an extent. 3 summer in the lake chinook do not grow to or over 30lbs however. Not even in their native range they don't. Since chinooks start their out migration of streams and netpens at 3-4" in length, the first summer spent in lake michigan they don't even consume alewife, so really, they would have only 2 summers to "fatten up". Also, the stocking reductions this year would have no affect on the bait due to that reasoning/fact until next year. While I agree that a 25lb chinook at 36" of length can be a 3 summer in the lake fish during their spawning run, 40"+ chinook salmon ranging from 30 to almost 40lbs have spent 4 summers in the lake. That tells me that the king size problem is not the bait, but infact a genetics issue.

Also per the USGS, quagga mussels have had a larger impact on lake ontario compared to lake michigan. So, if thats the case, then why isn't lake ontario crashing? 

To put things into perspective about the commercial harvest of whitefish in lake michigan, lake huron, and lake superior: If the foodweb was as messed up as you notate why would a keystone native species in the lake be allowed to have 5 million pounds commercially removed per year on lakes michigan AND Huron. Plus the lake superior quota of 8 million pounds per year. Thats 18 million pounds of whitefish removed from the upper lakes if quota is met. To me and I'm sure others as well, thats a lot of fish that require the food you notate in the foodweb that is lost due to the mussels.

I may be an "out of stater" by trade, but I still live on lake michigan, and that makes me a stakeholder.


----------



## MarkP

Hey mods, can we make this a sticky? There is plenty of pertinent information in this thread regarding the lake michigan fisheries.

Thanks!


----------



## MarkP

Boozer said:


> That's false, ever since the Alewife came into the lake, native species have suffered.
> 
> You can still have almost everything we have now without the Alewife, just likely not the Pacific Salmon.
> 
> With your thought process it would be like stocking Tigers in Michigan, yeah the Wolves and Bears would have extra competition and several other downfalls, but we like Tigers better so it's OK.
> 
> Put it this way, what your saying is this:
> 
> I recognize we now have issues with baitfish and other small fish finding food due to the Mussels, but we should continue to manage the lake for a healthy population of Alewife in order to keep Salmon, that way native baitfish and native species are both being negatively impacted by the Alewife and the Mussels. Lets make it harder for them to naturally reproduce and find food...
> 
> Anyway, you can call it opinion, not worth arguing over.


Everyone forgets that native lake herring in lake michigan are about extinct in the main lake basins. Only in the bays of grand traverse, and small populations in the green bay region are whats left of such a prolific great lakes species. Why are they so beaten down? The invasive alewife. Western states with reservoirs stocked with chinook all contain lake herring as forage for the stocked chinook programs out there in those lakes, so to say kings won't eat ciscoes(lake herring) is ignorant(Ciscoes are also a better food source for salmon and trout as no thiaminase is produced by the cisco). The natives win and the salmon will still eat.


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> That stocking data just refuted your point.


You seem to be confusing the data.

Stocking data is not the same as data collected from returned fish with CWT in them. It is clear there are fish being stocked both places, and it isn't the DNR running the net pens, so they likely would not be planted there without volunteers who run them.

What else is clear is fish stocked in net pens are being caught upstream based on CWT returns. These are just the facts.


----------



## MarkP

Oldgrandman said:


> You seem to be confusing the data.
> 
> Stocking data is not the same as data collected from returned fish with CWT in them. It is clear there are fish being stocked both places, and it isn't the DNR running the net pens, so they likely would not be planted there without volunteers who run them.
> 
> What else is clear is fish stocked in net pens are being caught upstream. These are just the facts.


Im not confusing anything. The fishing was better upstream in grand rapids for chinook salmon when upwards of 300,000 were planted at riverside park yearly. I don't know what else there is to say. And again, if what you claim is true, then why EVER plant riverside park with chinook?


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> Im not confusing anything. The fishing was better upstream in grand rapids for chinook salmon when upwards of 300,000 were planted at riverside park yearly. I don't know what else there is to say. And again, if what you claim is true, then why EVER plant riverside park with chinook?


Not a question I can answer without speculation.

But where is the data that, (aside from the simple math = less fish planted means less fish will run the rivers,) that net pen fish are not returning to the river? This and this alone is my main point for posting in the first place. There IS data for that. 

I guess I have nothing else to add unless I decided to make an in depth study out of it, which I do not care to do.


----------



## Boozer

MarkP said:


> Everyone forgets that native lake herring in lake michigan are about extinct in the main lake basins. Only in the bays of grand traverse, and small populations in the green bay region are whats left of such a prolific great lakes species. Why are they so beaten down? The invasive alewife. Western states with reservoirs stocked with chinook all contain lake herring as forage for the stocked chinook programs out there in those lakes, so to say kings won't eat ciscoes(lake herring) is ignorant(Ciscoes are also a better food source for salmon and trout as no thiaminase is produced by the cisco). The natives win and the salmon will still eat.


Yes, but...

In order to rebuild the populations of the native baitfish, you would have to really ease back on stocking of King Salmon for a while if not completely halt stocking them, once you raised King Salmon populations extremely high for however many years it took them to essentially wipe out the Alewife... That is the only chance those native baitfish populations would have to rebuild. Assuming of course there is no real effective way to stock the baitfish...


----------



## Fishndude

Commercial fishing for Whitefish on lake Huron is a fraction of what it was before the Mussels came along. The same goes for Whitefish fishing @ lake Michigan. The long-time commercial fishermen are struggling to stay in business.


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Yes, but...
> 
> In order to rebuild the populations of the native baitfish, you would have to really ease back on stocking of King Salmon for a while if not completely halt stocking them, once you raised King Salmon populations extremely high for however many years it took them to essentially wipe out the Alewife... That is the only chance those native baitfish populations would have to rebuild. Assuming of course there is no real effective way to stock the baitfish...


Perhaps it is as simple as that, or perhaps you get some unintended consequences. For example, by crashing alewifes, how would that affect the overall health of both other introduced species, and native species that also prey significantly on alewifes? Do alewifes keep other invasive species, such as spiny and fishhook water fleas in check, and does extirpating alewifes further change the food web such that nature selects for other invasives? Additionally, does intentionally overworking a forage base to the point of malnourishing the predator species raise the chances of seeing an unintended disease outbreak(it appears there may have been precedent for that with BKD in the 80's)? Lastly, even if alewife numbers were artificially drawn down, do you get the chance to fill it back in with reintroductions of ciscos, is the lake's enviroment still conducive to those species flourishing, and/or does mother nature fill in the blanks, but perhaps not picking native species to do so?


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> Perhaps it is as simple as that, or perhaps you get some unintended consequences. For example, by crashing alewifes, how would that affect the overall health of both other introduced species, and native species that also prey significantly on alewifes? Do alewifes keep other invasive species, such as spiny and fishhook water fleas in check, and does extirpating alewifes further change the food web such that nature selects for other invasives? Additionally, does intentionally overworking a forage base to the point of malnourishing the predator species raise the chances of seeing an unintended disease outbreak(it appears there may have been precedent for that with BKD in the 80's)? Lastly, even if alewife numbers were artificially drawn down, do you get the chance to fill it back in with reintroductions of ciscos, is the lake's enviroment still conducive to those species flourishing, and/or does mother nature fill in the blanks, but perhaps not picking native species to do so?


GREAT questions, but they have pretty much already been answered with Lake Huron, have they not?


----------



## jpmarko

Boozer said:


> That's false, ever since the Alewife came into the lake, native species have suffered.
> 
> You can still have almost everything we have now without the Alewife, just likely not the Pacific Salmon.
> 
> With your thought process it would be like stocking Tigers in Michigan, yeah the Wolves and Bears would have extra competition and several other downfalls, but we like Tigers better so it's OK.
> 
> Put it this way, what your saying is this:
> 
> I recognize we now have issues with baitfish and other small fish finding food due to the Mussels, but we should continue to manage the lake for a healthy population of Alewife in order to keep Salmon, that way native baitfish and native species are both being negatively impacted by the Alewife and the Mussels. Lets make it harder for them to naturally reproduce and find food...
> 
> Anyway, you can call it opinion, not worth arguing over.


Lol okaaaaaaaay. Not sure how you got that. I didn't say the lake should be managed for alewife. I think it should be managed so there is a balance between baitfish and predators. What do you propose? That the DNR increases stocks of kings so that they wipe out the alewife? Don't you perhaps think that the few other remaining non-alewife baitfish populations will suffer as well? They'd all get wiped out, not just the alewife. The whole lake would crash. That wouldn't be very smart. 

All I am saying is that I think it is worthwhile for the DNR to keep in mind the salmon and steelhead (which they do) as well as the native fish when they manage the lake. Many salmon are naturally producing. They belong as much as the natives. 

I like walleye, perch, whitefish, lakers, and brookies too, but I wouldn't want to protect them solely "at the cost of all else" the same way I wouldn't want to protect salmon "at the cost of all else." Diversity is the way to go. Besides, the so-called "natives" are stocked just like the salmon and steelhead. 

The DNR apparently thinks the same way I do. They don't think its their duty to prioritize natives above all else and at the cost of all else.


----------



## Boozer

jpmarko said:


> Lol okaaaaaaaay. Not sure how you got that. I didn't say the lake should be managed for alewife. I think it should be managed so there is a balance between baitfish and predators. What do you propose? That the DNR increases stocks of kings so that they wipe out the alewife? Don't you perhaps think that the few other remaining non-alewife baitfish populations will suffer as well? They'd all get wiped out, not just the alewife. The whole lake would crash. That wouldn't be very smart.
> 
> All I am saying is that I think it is worthwhile for the DNR to keep in mind the salmon and steelhead (which they do) as well as the native fish when they manage the lake. Many salmon are naturally producing. They belong as much as the natives.
> 
> I like walleye, perch, whitefish, lakers, and brookies too, but I wouldn't want to protect them solely "at the cost of all else" the same way I wouldn't want to protect salmon "at the cost of all else." Diversity is the way to go. Besides, the so-called "natives" are stocked just like the salmon and steelhead.
> 
> The DNR apparently thinks the same way I do. They don't think its their duty to prioritize natives above all else and at the cost of all else.


The DNR largely is ruled by the almighty dollar, which is ruled by human greed and those largely not in the know, pretty much sums it up... Even when the field biologists have science proving things should be one way, political non-sense pushes regulations in other directions so I would refrain from using them as any type of example to follow at all times...

If you understand Salmon, you would realize, the current mindset is to manage the lake to maintain the Alewife in order to maintain the Salmon populations. Therefore, they are managing the lake for the Alewife...

To do away with the Alewife, does not necessarily mean to do away with the Salmon and certainly not steelhead...

When you have a species invade an ecosystem and its very existence creates issues for the native species to do their most basic act, reproduce, it should be a top priority to eradicate said species...

All of your points are pretty much moot, please refer to Lake Huron and what happened there when the Alewife/Salmon population crashed...

Not trying to start a flame war or disrespect you, just stating a few facts most people don't have a clue about. While I personally cannot stand Salmon "love steelhead", I don't force that opinion on others, but I do feel the Alewife is a serious issue we should at least attempt to do something about...


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> GREAT questions, but they have pretty much already been answered with Lake Huron, have they not?


As I was typing up my previous comments, I thought about that. No, we didn't see a disease outbreak when Huron crashed. But yes, we did see a disease outbreak in the 80's with BKD, which in which malnourishment was thought to play a temporal role. So, in oversimplified terms, with just those two instances we are sitting at 50%. 

One point that was brought up back in April 2012 is the differences between the two lakes. But even if you do get the same results (crashed alewife/salmon population), just where does that leave us? I think we should agree the jury is still out on that one.


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> Im not confusing anything. The fishing was better upstream in grand rapids for chinook salmon *when upwards of 300,000 were planted at riverside park yearly*.


You looking at the same database I am? Only 3 times were more than 200,000 chinook planted in Riverside (Kent) since 1990 and more than 100,000 9 times. 300,000 only once.....or am I doing something wrong?

http://www.michigandnr.com/FISHSTOCK/


----------



## jpmarko

Boozer said:


> All of your points are pretty much moot, please refer to Lake Huron and what happened there when the Alewife/Salmon population crashed...


Boozer, you make good points and I share many of your concerns.

I'm just hesitant to go ahead and dump millions of salmon into the lake to eradicate alewife. Yeah, I know what happened to Huron. The whole lake crashed. Towns evaporated. The salmon were not the only predator to suffer. It's taken 10 years for things to come back. And they STILL have to stock native species over there.

What tells you that a crash in Lake Michigan would happen the same way? Are you sure there won't be any disease break outs? You sure that native populations won't tank? You sure everything would go back to how it was 80 years ago? Doubtful.

Crashing a lake is not something to take lightly. And it's not predictable.


----------



## jpmarko

I would also like to add that while I am aware that there are politics at play and social issues that the DNR has to deal with, we do have people in places of power (like Jay) who genuinely care about not just their job but also the welfare of the lake and making the fishery sustainable.


----------



## limpinglogan

> You looking at the same database I am? Only 3 times were more than 200,000 chinook planted in Riverside (Kent) since 1990 and more than 100,000 9 times. 300,000 only once.....or am I doing something wrong?


What has it been the last few years? 30K? what is it this year? zero?

It might be time to except the Grand as a steelhead and coho river...and just feel lucky when you run into a king while targeting other species.

I never saw any good numbers of Kings in the Grand this year...maybe more are coming but so far this year I never saw a concentration of fish any where on the grand. You wont find any of the 6th st. guys telling you they hit good numbers of Kings...I was down there 2-3 times a week the last three weeks...guys have not been catching Kings down there. Why do you think it was busy for a week or so down there and then it wasn't busy...no one was catching anything. The cohos moved through quick and nothing was happening. 

Imagine what it will be like in the Grand after we start seeing the effects of the cuts...salmon fishing will be a waste of time on the Grand..if it isn't already.


----------



## limpinglogan

Boozer...if you had your way what would happen? What are you looking for?


----------



## Multispeciestamer

Fishndude said:


> Commercial fishing for Whitefish on lake Huron is a fraction of what it was before the Mussels came along. The same goes for Whitefish fishing @ lake Michigan. The long-time commercial fishermen are struggling to stay in business.


Whitefish are one of many species proven to eat these invasive mussels, the problem here lies solely with over harvest, and exploitation of a native species.


----------



## Multispeciestamer

limpinglogan said:


> Imagine what it will be like in the Grand after we start seeing the effects of the cuts...salmon fishing will be a waste of time on the Grand..if it isn't already.


Same thing for the Joe, and other SW rivers.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Boozer said:


> More steelhead on the Joe! LOL
> 
> If you can't catch 500+ steelhead a year on the Joe per say 100 days on the water, there is something wrong bud...
> 
> It already gets more steelhead stocked in it than most rivers in the World...
> 
> This is a large issue with fisheries management, people always want more, more, more stocked when in reality, it isn't more fish they need, but more skill... Not to sound harsh, but it's very true...


 The DNR sends 95% of the fish that are raised to the SW side of the state and people down there want more. I am beginning to wonder why I even buy a license anymore. Most of the fish that I catch come from Canada, Wisconsin, or a tribal plant. Mabey the tribe should sell public fishing licenses.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Jay Wesley said:


> Here are the costs that we use. These are for stocking sized fish. All trout, steelhead, and coho are stocked as yearlings. Chinook are stocked as spring fingerlings.
> 
> Cost per individual fish stocked:
> 
> Brown Trout (wild rose) = $1.52
> Brown Trout (Gilchrist Creek) = $0.87
> Steelhead (Michigan) = $1.72
> Coho = $0.87
> Chinook = $0.26


Jay, how much of the cost is associated with trucking the fish hundreds of miles to get them to the location where they will be planted? Some places you plant an excess of fish. There are many other places that one has to wonder why you paid a guy to drive the truck because so few are planted.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Here is one for Jay Wesley. This subject really jerks my chain. I look at the stocking reports once in awhile on the DNR website. You can go back years and look at millions of fish being stocked in one river system such as the Muskegon River and tributaries. That is a good thing if you fish on those waters frequently. Relatively a few miles away are two more river systems that also get millions of fish stocked in them every year. I happen to know of some areas north of the 45th parallel and in the UP that could use a few fish but for the most part they are totally or partially ignored by the DNR. Can't the DNR cut back on one spot and plant more fish in another spot even if it is just for a couple of years? I know that one of the local sportsman's clubs wanted the DNR to plant 50,000 walleyes in Brevort Lake and it was next to impossible to get them. The Eastern UP only gets about 50,000 steelhead per year. I battled with one of the fish biologists for about 6 years to get a few more brown trout and steelhead planted in the EUP and lost. Is it all political where the fish are planted or what? I know biology has little or nothing to do with it other than a few areas have great natural reproduction some years and that goes in cycles.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Robert Holmes said:


> Jay, how much of the cost is associated with trucking the fish hundreds of miles to get them to the location where they will be planted? Some places you plant an excess of fish. There are many other places that one has to wonder why you paid a guy to drive the truck because so few are planted.


This is an average cost. 

Our hatchery staff do an amazing job with the efficiency of trucking. They try to keep full trucks and not go anywhere with an empty load if they can. Often times if fish are being trucked to the south, they may stop at Wolf Lake and haul fish north. 

Brown trout stocking is probably most difficult because of the small number stocked at each site. Biologists have been reviewing this and try to eliminate or combine sites when possible. Fish are often counted off the truck, so that a full truck can come down and stock many of our small trout streams. 

If you see an ineffeciency, I would be happy to look into it.


----------



## Jay Wesley

Robert Holmes said:


> Here is one for Jay Wesley. This subject really jerks my chain. I look at the stocking reports once in awhile on the DNR website. You can go back years and look at millions of fish being stocked in one river system such as the Muskegon River and tributaries. That is a good thing if you fish on those waters frequently. Relatively a few miles away are two more river systems that also get millions of fish stocked in them every year. I happen to know of some areas north of the 45th parallel and in the UP that could use a few fish but for the most part they are totally or partially ignored by the DNR. Can't the DNR cut back on one spot and plant more fish in another spot even if it is just for a couple of years? I know that one of the local sportsman's clubs wanted the DNR to plant 50,000 walleyes in Brevort Lake and it was next to impossible to get them. The Eastern UP only gets about 50,000 steelhead per year. I battled with one of the fish biologists for about 6 years to get a few more brown trout and steelhead planted in the EUP and lost. Is it all political where the fish are planted or what? I know biology has little or nothing to do with it other than a few areas have great natural reproduction some years and that goes in cycles.


You should talk directly to the local biologist and managers. Walleye are possible as long as there is not significant natural reproduction. Brown trout are available. Fall fingerling steelhead could possibly be stocked but yearling steelhead would have to come from another site. 

There are some politics in regards to the consent Decree if these are 1836 tribal waters. Any new stocking needs to be communicated with the tribes. 

Talk to your local fish managers. They should at least be able to explain why they can or can't do something.


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> Jay isn't, but you are.
> 
> Look at the dates, then do some math.


I see my mistake here. Give you this one.


----------



## fishfly

A large portion of those net pen fish do NOT migrate upriver. That is fact. And I'm not talking about the ones that get caught in the lake.


----------



## MarkP

fishfly said:


> A large portion of those net pen fish do NOT migrate upriver. That is fact. And I'm not talking about the ones that get caught in the lake.


like!


----------



## Robert Holmes

Thanks for your response most of the waters in the UP are tribal consent waters. I have been told before that it has created a problem for the DNR to plant brown trout in certain areas of the UP. If you want to plant fish I will arrange for my son to pull the plug on the truck (he is a tribal member).


----------



## Oldgrandman

fishfly said:


> A large portion of those net pen fish do NOT migrate upriver. That is fact. And I'm not talking about the ones that get caught in the lake.


What is the tangible evidence of that? How do you arrive at that statement? How can you know a large portion of fish are from a specific plant and do not end up spawing upstream before they perish without some hands on evidence? I'd like to see it and I'll take a cup of STFU about it if you have it.


----------



## MarkP

Oldgrandman said:


> What is the tangible evidence of that? How do you arrive at that statement? How can you know a large portion of fish are from a specific plant and do not end up spawing upstream before they perish without some hands on evidence? I'd like to see it and I'll take a cup of STFU about it if you have it.


Can we all see what you are referencing?


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> Can we all see what you are referencing?


Not yet. Been trying to find and even requested from the DNR the data that should be available on the returns of CWT fish. Proving to be most difficult. I only have 1 of the cards I received with a couple salmon on it and I am sure that won't suffice. So unless I get the info from the DNR that they should and probably do have, I'll have no choice but to have that cup.....


----------



## MarkP

Oldgrandman said:


> Not yet. Been trying to find and even requested from the DNR the data that should be available on the returns of CWT fish. Proving to be most difficult. I only have 1 of the cards I received with a couple salmon on it and I am sure that won't suffice. So unless I get the info from the DNR that they should and probably do have, I'll have no choice but to have that cup.....


I dont doubt that some do run upstream, but the amount that do is what is in question. 10-100 sure, 10,000? HA!


----------



## Jay Wesley

The DNR coded-wire tag study reports and data can be found at:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_10951_11301-97831--,00.html

Since Chinook are primarily stocked to produce a lake fishery, most of the CWT work is based on what provides the best survival of Chinook and how to they contribute to the lake fishery. Net pen fish contribute more to the lake fishery than direct river stocking sites. 

Do net pen chinook provide a river fishery? Yes. How does it compare to direct stocking? We are not sure because the studies have not been set up to evaluate that. Based on angler observations, net pen fish probably do not run as far upstream as direct stocking. However, we are trying to manage the lake fishery primarily and the river fishery secondarily in regards to chinook. 

There has been some work done on steelhead in regards to overall survival and contribution to the fishery. Upstream stocking sites out performed downstream sites.


----------



## MarkP

Jay Wesley said:


> The DNR coded-wire tag study reports and data can be found at:
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_10951_11301-97831--,00.html
> 
> Since Chinook are primarily stocked to produce a lake fishery, most of the CWT work is based on what provides the best survival of Chinook and how to they contribute to the lake fishery. Net pen fish contribute more to the lake fishery than direct river stocking sites.
> 
> Do net pen chinook provide a river fishery? Yes. How does it compare to direct stocking? We are not sure because the studies have not been set up to evaluate that. Based on angler observations, net pen fish probably do not run as far upstream as direct stocking. However, we are trying to manage the lake fishery primarily and the river fishery secondarily in regards to chinook.
> 
> There has been some work done on steelhead in regards to overall survival and contribution to the fishery. Upstream stocking sites out performed downstream sites.


If steelhead are managed for the river fishery primarily, why is the daily limit the same on the open water fishery if the steelhead aren't planted primarily for that fishery? Shouldn't it be one? I mean we all pay the same for a fishing license every year, why does one small percentage of the angling community get opportunity at all that is stocked, while the majority don't?


----------



## Oldgrandman

MarkP said:


> I dont doubt that some do run upstream, but the amount that do is what is in question. 10-100 sure, 10,000? HA!


Yes that is the question to answer but it makes sense they would travel upstream, it is what they do and there is evidence of it.
I can accept what Jay is offering.


----------



## jpmarko

MarkP said:


> If steelhead are managed for the river fishery primarily, why is the daily limit the same on the open water fishery if the steelhead aren't planted primarily for that fishery? Shouldn't it be one? I mean we all pay the same for a fishing license every year, why does one small percentage of the angling community get opportunity at all that is stocked, while the majority don't?


I don't think that the answer is in punishing the guys who fish the lake. 

I fish the rivers primarily. But when I hit the pier or the big lake (which I do), I still want to have the opportunity to catch my limit of three steelhead. Not one.

Remember that a lot of the guys who take advantage of the lake fishery also frequent the rivers and vice versa. Plus, there is a lot of cost and effort involved in going out on the big lake. People don't do it so that they can limit out on a species after they have only caught one. I know people mostly go after chinook, but steelhead are also heavily targeted.

If you want a better river fishery for steelhead, then stock more steelhead. You'll get plenty of return to the river.


----------



## Jay Wesley

We really do not want to put lake anglers up against river anglers. Each should have equal opportunity to catch the same limit. 

Also, there has been a huge push to make regulations more simple, so having similar bag limits in the lake and river are best for that.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Jay Wesley said:


> We really do not want to put lake anglers up against river anglers. Each should have equal opportunity to catch the same limit.


A big thank you for that.


----------



## itchn2fish

JAY - Why not consider pinks (humpies)? They seem well-suited for some marginal streams in my area. Thanks!


----------

