# Ask the Biologist



## drallam

I'm starting a new thread for anyone to ask questions to the DNR Biologists who graciously take part on these forums. Let's be respectful and take the opportunity to learn and share. I already asked this question on another thread, but am starting it here to establish the new thread.
Mark, a couple steelhead spawning questions. Does a hen put all her eggs in one spot? Do males fertilize more than one set of eggs? Do more than one male fertilize the same eggs?


----------



## John Hine

Hi Mark!! I think this is a scamania, I cought it august 7th off pt Betsy in deep water. What do you think??


----------



## Jim_MI

Here's one I have been wondering about: Why do some lakes seem to contain only millions of dink perch and few or no keepers? I thought it had to do with predators and food supply, but recently kept and cleaned a 4" perch and found a load of eggs inside. Are these stunted perch actually mature and breeding, producing innumerable genetically stunted offspring forevermore?

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

Here’s one...does the new (upcoming) Salmonine Project Workshop predator/prey model really have any chance of changing the Federal Agenda of “Native fish for Natives only”? 

Or is it a big appeasement scheme to make the sporting community believe they really had a say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Goinpostal83

ThreeDogsDown said:


> Here’s one...does the new (upcoming) Salmonine Project Workshop predator/prey model really have any chance of changing the Federal Agenda of “Native fish for Natives only”?
> 
> Or is it a big appeasement scheme to make the sporting community believe they really had a say?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We know the answer to that. "Why of course. We need all of your input and they value all of data to make the best decisions" behind door....hope they bought that let's go plant more lake trout hahahah


----------



## M. Tonello

John Hine said:


> Hi Mark!! I think this is a scamania, I cought it august 7th off pt Betsy in deep water. What do you think??
> View attachment 751371


John- looks like the fish has an adipose clip, so it's likely a hatchery fish. If it also had a left ventral clip, then it would have been a Manistee River Skamania. I can't tell from the pic if it did or not. So there's really no way to tell unless you sent the head in.


----------



## M. Tonello

Jim_MI said:


> Here's one I have been wondering about: Why do some lakes seem to contain only millions of dink perch and few or no keepers? I thought it had to do with predators and food supply, but recently kept and cleaned a 4" perch and found a load of eggs inside. Are these stunted perch actually mature and breeding, producing innumerable genetically stunted offspring forevermore?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk


Jim- I think you're on to something here. It may have more to do with the productivity and food supply for that lake than any predetermination for stunting. With some lakes and other species, if you can change the food supply, then the fish won't be stunted anymore. The problem is that with most yellow perch lakes we have limited or no tools to help us with that problem, unfortunately.


----------



## M. Tonello

ThreeDogsDown said:


> Here’s one...does the new (upcoming) Salmonine Project Workshop predator/prey model really have any chance of changing the Federal Agenda of “Native fish for Natives only”?
> 
> Or is it a big appeasement scheme to make the sporting community believe they really had a say?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hmm, seems like you have a predetermined answer in your head, so should I even bother answering?

Well I will. We could have easily wiped out the alewife forage base in Lake MI along with the Chinook Salmon fishery. Would have been simple- just keep stocking huge numbers of Chinooks, and they'll wipe out the alewives. We did not allow that to happen. We still have a salmon fishery right now, against many odds. Maybe not as good as we want it, but at least it's still viable. Groups like the MSSFA and GLSI have been instrumental in the decision making, which we really appreciate. So I would say no, it isn't just a big appeasement scheme. That said, you are probably correct in that there are some who favor native species. However, I'm very proud of the hard work that my colleagues in MDNR have done to try and save the salmon fishery.


----------



## John Hine

M. Tonello said:


> John- looks like the fish has an adipose clip, so it's likely a hatchery fish. If it also had a left ventral clip, then it would have been a Manistee River Skamania. I can't tell from the pic if it did or not. So there's really no way to tell unless you sent the head in.


Ok, thanks for the response. I’ve always heard of the skamania but just never really knew if they were a thing. Unfortunately I didn’t turn the head in but I will do so in the future. Do you find they spend most of their time far offshore or in nearer to the drop offs pre & post spawn? Do they follow baitfish in & out or do they lean on invertebrates more? I realize it’s an ongoing study so maybe these aren’t known yet, I’m just curious. TIA


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Can we please get browns back in lower Lake Michigan?

The coho have been sporadic at best both near and offshore, and the destination fishery concept for Ludington north seems to have done nothing to improve catch rates amongst my sources.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Is there any reading available about lower Lake Michigan walleye? They're out there, more than we probably know about. And seeing we don't get instant feedback on the planting or lack thereof as they take so long to grow up (unlike my 30-60 browns a year that plummeted from a low of 2 in 2019 to a new record low of 1 in 2020 with the recent cuts), I want to make sure this fishery continues.

Spent three hours at the piers ripping for steel in near perfect conditions on a July flip without a bite this summer, then change over to grind for walleye and dusk and start picking away. Nice ones too...


----------



## M. Tonello

They're definitely a thing. Skamania steelhead are a genetic strain that is predisposed to run in the summer instead of the fall or spring like the Little Manistee strain does. Indiana stocks big numbers of them in the St. Joseph River, and we stock approximately 34k annually in the Manistee River. They are known as roamers. You'll find them all over the lake. They also have higher straying rates than other steelhead streams, which is why they're caught in the Kzoo, Grand, Muskegon, PM, Betsie, etc. even though they aren't stocked there.

Regarding your diet question- steelhead have a more varied diet than Chinook salmon do, but they still love alewives. If alewives around, that's what they'll eat. They do occasionally eat invertebrates, but they prefer baitfish and in particular alewives.


----------



## M. Tonello

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Can we please get browns back in lower Lake Michigan?
> 
> The coho have been sporadic at best both near and offshore, and the destination fishery concept for Ludington north seems to have done nothing to improve catch rates amongst my sources.


Remember that I cover the north-central area of the LP from Muskegon up to Arcadia. You'll have to talk to Jay Wesley about brown trout stocking. Jay is the Lake Michigan Basin Coordinator and is responsible for all Michigan waters of Lake Michigan.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

M. Tonello said:


> Hmm, seems like you have a predetermined answer in your head, so should I even bother answering?
> 
> Well I will. We could have easily wiped out the alewife forage base in Lake MI along with the Chinook Salmon fishery. Would have been simple- just keep stocking huge numbers of Chinooks, and they'll wipe out the alewives. We did not allow that to happen. We still have a salmon fishery right now, against many odds. Maybe not as good as we want it, but at least it's still viable. Groups like the MSSFA and GLSI have been instrumental in the decision making, which we really appreciate. So I would say no, it isn't just a big appeasement scheme. That said, you are probably correct in that there are some who favor native species. However, I'm very proud of the hard work that my colleagues in MDNR have done to try and save the salmon fishery.


Good answer. I am relieved to have a ray of hope. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## M. Tonello

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Is there any reading available about lower Lake Michigan walleye? They're out there, more than we probably know about. And seeing we don't get instant feedback on the planting or lack thereof as they take so long to grow up (unlike my 30-60 browns a year that plummeted from a low of 2 in 2019 to a new record low of 1 in 2020 with the recent cuts), I want to make sure this fishery continues.
> 
> Spent three hours at the piers ripping for steel in near perfect conditions on a July flip without a bite this summer, then change over to grind for walleye and dusk and start picking away. Nice ones too...



Not that I'm aware of, but again I'm further north. One thing to be aware of- brown trout and walleye don't mix well, because walleye are very effective predators on stocked brown trout. Lake Huron is a prime example of this. When you have lots of adult walleye around, they will play hell on stocked trout. If the lake was full of alewives, then it probably wouldn't matter since the alewives would provide cover for the stocked trout. Unfortunately that isn't the case at present.


----------



## John Hine

M. Tonello said:


> They're definitely a thing. Skamania steelhead are a genetic strain that is predisposed to run in the summer instead of the fall or spring like the Little Manistee strain does. Indiana stocks big numbers of them in the St. Joseph River, and we stock approximately 34k annually in the Manistee River. They are known as roamers. You'll find them all over the lake. They also have higher straying rates than other steelhead streams, which is why they're caught in the Kzoo, Grand, Muskegon, PM, Betsie, etc. even though they aren't stocked there.
> 
> Regarding your diet question- steelhead have a more varied diet than Chinook salmon do, but they still love alewives. If alewives around, that's what they'll eat. They do occasionally eat invertebrates, but they prefer baitfish and in particular alewives.


Excellent, thanks


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

Guys fishing out of Tawas were catching browns last year, all year. Way more than I was. There's a few walleyes around Tawas. Guessing those browns migrated in after putting on some size. From where is a head scratch.

Had no problems catching browns between Muskegon and Whitehall even after the bait crash, and there's a lot of walleye around there too.

Ironically a great place to fish for walleye was casting around the salmon pens on Lake Mac after they were opened. Nephew got a 31" with seven smolts in it.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven

(You've got "coaster" walleye up your way too, or so I've heard) Would not surprise me a bit that a potential state record swims somewhere around the 45th parallel.


----------



## jatc

Far Beyond Driven said:


> (You've got "coaster" walleye up your way too, or so I've heard) Would not surprise me a bit that a potential state record swims somewhere around the 45th parallel.


I have witnessed walleye pulled out of the Manistee during the spawning closure that were well over 15 lbs. I have no doubt in my mind there are state record caliber fish swimming in northern Lake M.


----------



## Nickolai M Miotto

M. Tonello said:


> Not that I'm aware of, but again I'm further north. One thing to be aware of- brown trout and walleye don't mix well, because walleye are very effective predators on stocked brown trout. Lake Huron is a prime example of this. When you have lots of adult walleye around, they will play hell on stocked trout. If the lake was full of alewives, then it probably wouldn't matter since the alewives would provide cover for the stocked trout. Unfortunately that isn't the case at present.


Also..if you read the lake huron studies. Alwives were part of the problem with walleye reproduction. Alwife spawned about the time walleye fry were emerging, they alot of the fry. 

Sent from my SM-N981U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SJC

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Guys fishing out of Tawas were catching browns last year, all year. Way more than I was. There's a few walleyes around Tawas. Guessing those browns migrated in after putting on some size. From where is a head scratch.
> 
> Had no problems catching browns between Muskegon and Whitehall even after the bait crash, and there's a lot of walleye around there too.
> 
> Ironically a great place to fish for walleye was casting around the salmon pens on Lake Mac after they were opened. Nephew got a 31" with seven smolts in it.


The browns never totally went away in the Tawas area. The brown trout fishing used to be off the charts, but they were never totally gone, even after they stopped planting " lake runs ". I'm pretty sure that I know where the browns are coming from now. I think the DNR has it figured, too. 

Yes, there's tons of walleye around Tawas. There's also a bunch of stuff that a walleye can eat in the Saginaw bay area besides smolts. That, along with the fact that most of the trout, steelhead and salmon in the area are either planted or produced way upriver, is the main reason there is still a viable cold water fishery there, right on top of millions of walleye. When we plant these same fish outside of the bay area, they don't do so well. They are pretty much dumped right into the mouths of predators that have learned to expect it, with little or no buffer provided by other prey.

You Lake Michigan guys are starting to realize what us Huron folks have been dealing with for years. Stretches of mostly sterile, prey free lake, (even if it's only seasonal) full of predators (lakers and walleye) are not good places to dump thousands of smolts fresh from the hatchery. That being said, I'm almost certain that the lake Michigan brown plants would do better farther south where there's more prey buffer at planting time. I think we also need to change how we plant. We have some new blood on our side and they seem to realize what I have been telling the old watch for years. Just because it used to work is not a good reason to continue something that has stopped working.


----------



## John Hine

M. Tonello said:


> Remember that I cover the north-central area of the LP from Muskegon up to Arcadia. You'll have to talk to Jay Wesley about brown trout stocking. Jay is the Lake Michigan Basin Coordinator and is responsible for all Michigan waters of Lake Michigan.


I would like to see Jay come back on here. Not to be attacked or berated, lord knows there’s too much of that crap going on in this world right now, but I am truly interested in the plan for the future of the Lake Michigan fishery. Not just the planting schedule itself but also, how can “we” the average sportsman have input & impact on that schedule. I know a lot of regular folks have some great ideas and are more than willing to participate but they really don’t know how to do that. As an example, what you have/are doing with the browns in Higgins seems to be very successful & the locals that I talk to display a great sense of pride for having participated, I’m imagining that on a Lake Michigan size scale if you will. Ramblings, I know!

second question: is Nick really the best fisherman of you all?

Edit added; not to debate about the decree!!


----------



## drallam

John Hine said:


> I would like to see Jay come back on here. Not to be attacked or berated, lord knows there’s too much of that crap going on in this world right now, but I am truly interested in the plan for the future of the Lake Michigan fishery. Not just the planting schedule itself but also, how can “we” the average sportsman have input & impact on that schedule. I know a lot of regular folks have some great ideas and are more than willing to participate but they really don’t know how to do that. As an example, what you have/are doing with the browns in Higgins seems to be very successful & the locals that I talk to display a great sense of pride for having participated, I’m imagining that on a Lake Michigan size scale if you will. Ramblings, I know!
> 
> second question: is Nick really the best fisherman of you all?
> 
> Edit added; not to debate about the decree!!


I was recently talking to a DNR employee and asked about getting things done, like planting some of the species in public lakes that the DNR does on a contract to private water owners. This persons replay was the we need to make our voices heard. Most employees of the DNR want to do a good job to serve us, the people who pay their salaries. They want the same things we want in our workplace, people to treat us with respect and encouragement.


----------



## kmauntler

Far Beyond Driven said:


> (You've got "coaster" walleye up your way too, or so I've heard) Would not surprise me a bit that a potential state record swims somewhere around the 45th parallel.






















I was trolling for browns just outside the pierheads 2018. There are a few nice ones around for sure. This girl might still be swimming around out there too.


----------



## charminultra

I have a question. Would there be any reason to not allow perch/walleye spearing in the summertime on the Great Lakes? There wouldn’t be any trout or salmon in warm shallow water so don’t have to worry about poachers of those fish, probably would mainly be a scuba/free diving activity anyway. Although it would be fun with lights at night to spear some walleyes. Plus isn’t there an over abundance of walleyes in Lake Huron? Would be a good management tool as well as a fun as **** way to get some fish.


----------



## charminultra

Another question for the biologist. What’s the status of the cisco reintroduction to Saginaw bay?


----------



## M. Tonello

John Hine said:


> second question: is Nick really the best fisherman of you all?


He just might be! He's able to go more than some of us, so that helps.


----------



## M. Tonello

charminultra said:


> I have a question. Would there be any reason to not allow perch/walleye spearing in the summertime on the Great Lakes? There wouldn’t be any trout or salmon in warm shallow water so don’t have to worry about poachers of those fish, probably would mainly be a scuba/free diving activity anyway. Although it would be fun with lights at night to spear some walleyes. Plus isn’t there an over abundance of walleyes in Lake Huron? Would be a good management tool as well as a fun as **** way to get some fish.


We were approached recently by the Michigan Spearfishing Association on this. Stay tuned- we'll be having some further public discussion on this topic soon. Good question.


----------



## M. Tonello

charminultra said:


> Another question for the biologist. What’s the status of the cisco reintroduction to Saginaw bay?


Again, I don't cover that area but I've reached out to my colleagues on that side of the state. I'll let you know what I hear back.


----------



## John Hine

M. Tonello said:


> He just might be! He's able to go more than some of us, so that helps.


Just yanking yer chain on that.


----------



## M. Tonello

Couple thoughts on the walleye/brown trout issue. Yes we're aware of the transient nature of the big adult walleye, especially post spawn. In May/June we find them in places where they aren't normally present- PM Lake, Arcadia Lake, Betsie Bay, etc. These are fish from places like Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Manistee Lake, Portage Lake, etc. 

Regarding the browns- yes we're certainly aware that a few browns (likely wild) are still caught in certain areas of Lake Huron. However that doesn't equate to a destination fishery in which hundreds or thousands are caught and anglers can go directly target them. I will admit that we're all frustrated by the brown trout fishery on Lake MI in recent years.


----------



## M. Tonello

John Hine said:


> Just yanking yer chain on that.


Yep. The rest of us definitely have to live vicariously through Nick at times!


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Has anyone ever detected much genetic/‘strain’ difference in Coho and Chinook Salmon, like we discuss for Rainbow Trout?

I read recently about “spring” Chinook in Northern California and new efforts to revive a smaller but definitely spring-time run there. 

Were the Great Lakes stocked with single sources of those 2 Salmon and then used here as the base for our own weir & hatchery operations?


----------



## Zeboy

Can a biologist explain the logic (or in my belief, lack there of) behind this seasons limit change to Cisco? I'm not asking about the 12 -10 change. I am asking about the 12 - 5 change. Let me give a couple specific examples. Lake Charlevoix - Not a "connecting water" by definition, nor an "F" type lake like Muskegon, White, Manistee, Portage. Pretty common knowledge that cisco from Traverse Bay / Lake Michigan come into Lake Charlevoix in the winter. You can keep 10 (was 12 before this season) in Traverse Bay (or in the previously mentioned "F" lakes) but if the cisco travel 20 mile north and go into Lake Charlevoix anglers can only keep 5??? Last year you could keep 12.

Inland Lakes - There are several downstate inland lakes (some in Barry and Kalamazoo counties come to mind) where almost no one even fishes for cisco. In most of these lakes 12" - !4" fish are the max. In a few, I have seen them grow to 18". In speaking with DNR staff, previously, about these lakes, they "wished" more anglers would take advantage of the fishery. The cisco are more apt to die from old age or a heat wave in the summer than be caught by anglers, yet the limit was dropped from 12 to 5? That certainly isn't attracting anglers to a fishery or, in my opinion, protecting that fishery in any way.


----------



## charminultra

M. Tonello said:


> Again, I don't cover that area but I've reached out to my colleagues on that side of the state. I'll let you know what I hear back.


Thanks, I’m excited about Cisco. Got into them in grand traverse bay and they’re fun and good to eat. Also excited to hear about opening up some new species to spear that can be got while snorkeling.


----------



## SJC

M. Tonello said:


> Couple thoughts on the walleye/brown trout issue. Yes we're aware of the transient nature of the big adult walleye, especially post spawn. In May/June we find them in places where they aren't normally present- PM Lake, Arcadia Lake, Betsie Bay, etc. These are fish from places like Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Manistee Lake, Portage Lake, etc.
> 
> Regarding the browns- yes we're certainly aware that a few browns (likely wild) are still caught in certain areas of Lake Huron. However that doesn't equate to a destination fishery in which hundreds or thousands are caught and anglers can go directly target them. I will admit that we're all frustrated by the brown trout fishery on Lake MI in recent years.


I caught more browns in Huron the last few years than my buddies did in Michigan. Most of the browns that are being caught in Huron are from a small amount of "river brown" plants in a couple rivers. I know that there are some wild browns around, but to me, the evidence points to our "lake runs" being mostly from brown trout planted upriver that migrate to the lake.

It's not much of a destination fishery just for the browns and there's not enough around to fill coolers with them, but they definitely contribute to a pretty good mixed bag fishery that is for sure being recognized. Perhaps, we are going to have to forget about "destination fisheries" and filling coolers with one or two species? Maybe we need to start planting fish where they WILL work, instead of where we WANT them to work? I miss the days of dumping fish wherever, and they returned by the hundreds. I miss the 20 brown trips in the boat. I miss catching 20+ pound browns in marinas like fishing bluegill. I miss the endless supply of great steelhead bait. Those days are gone but I still think we can have a viable mixed bag fishery that includes brown trout if we follow the clues.


----------



## M. Tonello

Zeboy said:


> Can a biologist explain the logic (or in my belief, lack there of) behind this seasons limit change to Cisco? I'm not asking about the 12 -10 change. I am asking about the 12 - 5 change. Let me give a couple specific examples. Lake Charlevoix - Not a "connecting water" by definition, nor an "F" type lake like Muskegon, White, Manistee, Portage. Pretty common knowledge that cisco from Traverse Bay / Lake Michigan come into Lake Charlevoix in the winter. You can keep 10 (was 12 before this season) in Traverse Bay (or in the previously mentioned "F" lakes) but if the cisco travel 20 mile north and go into Lake Charlevoix anglers can only keep 5??? Last year you could keep 12.
> 
> Inland Lakes - There are several downstate inland lakes (some in Barry and Kalamazoo counties come to mind) where almost no one even fishes for cisco. In most of these lakes 12" - !4" fish are the max. In a few, I have seen them grow to 18". In speaking with DNR staff, previously, about these lakes, they "wished" more anglers would take advantage of the fishery. The cisco are more apt to die from old age or a heat wave in the summer than be caught by anglers, yet the limit was dropped from 12 to 5? That certainly isn't attracting anglers to a fishery or, in my opinion, protecting that fishery in any way.


Zeboy- You'd have to ask Heather Hettinger (my counterpart out of Traverse City, she covers Lake Charlevoix). I don't know what the thought process was there regarding Lake Charlevoix being a Type E lake.

Regarding inland lakes, I believe the 5 fish per day reg change is valid and I supported it. Remember that Cisco are a State-threatened species (see here:Coregonus artedi (Lake herring or Cisco ) - Michigan Natural Features Inventory). They are quite vulnerable in inland lakes. See this recent article about the rapidly shrinking number of Indiana lakes that can support cisco: Cisco, kid you not: Saving them inland in Indiana, considering stocking on southern Lake Michigan
There are several lakes in my management area that once had ciscoes but no longer do. I certainly respect your point of view, but as time moves on, inland lake cisco seem to be more and more vulnerable. Environmental factors like pollution and warming temps are probably a bigger threat than angler harvest, but this was one small thing we could do to perhaps give them a little more protection in inland lakes.


----------



## M. Tonello

charminultra said:


> Another question for the biologist. What’s the status of the cisco reintroduction to Saginaw bay?


Heard back from my colleagues from Bay City. They reached out to the USFWS and heard back from Chris Olds. Here's what he had to say: 
"Cisco rehabilitation in Saginaw Bay began in the fall of 2018 with an annual stocking target of 1.1 million fish, split between a spring and a fall stocking event. This stocking strategy will be in place for 10 years and we are currently in year four of the process. We are now seeking help from anglers and commercial fishermen when they capture a Cisco, to turn in the tail fin region into the MDNR or the FWS to look for the chemical mark on the bone to identify if its origin is from a hatchery or not." Here's the stocking numbers to this point:
2018: 1.1 million fall fingerlings
2019: 250k spring fingerlings, 250k fall fingerlings
2020: ~200k spring fingerlings, ~472k fall fingerlings

Also found this article with a google search: Cisco reintroduction could have enormous ripple effect on food chain - Spartan Newsroom


----------



## M. Tonello

B.Jarvinen said:


> Has anyone ever detected much genetic/‘strain’ difference in Coho and Chinook Salmon, like we discuss for Rainbow Trout?
> 
> I read recently about “spring” Chinook in Northern California and new efforts to revive a smaller but definitely spring-time run there.
> 
> Were the Great Lakes stocked with single sources of those 2 Salmon and then used here as the base for our own weir & hatchery operations?


Yes there are definitely differences in strains for coho and Chinook, just like for steelhead. If I recall correctly, our Chinook stem from two different strains from Washington State, and just one strain for our Coho.


----------



## M. Tonello

SJC said:


> Maybe we need to start planting fish where they WILL work, instead of where we WANT them to work?


Ha ha, well said. I totally agree. However finding those places these days seems a lot more difficult than it was just a few years ago! And you may be totally correct about those Lake Huron browns stemming from river-stocked fish. I'm not overly familiar with what's going on over there, but I urge you Lake Huron anglers to make sure to stay in touch with our Biologists in Gaylord and Bay City.


----------



## John Hine

Goinpostal83 said:


> So when Jay wesly volunteered to take 450k lake trout from Wisconsin that Wisconsin refused from the feds after saying he was doing all he could to stop plants and dumped them in the southern lake that was the feds? Or when every boat from st joe to Muskegon was catching basically a limit of browns from ice out through April is that when it was bad? Or was it when the state record was broke 2 consecutive years and then they stopped planting sea forelin strain browns because there brood stock was in bred? Or is it the planting of musky in southern ports a week before they stock the salmon? See you assume because I'm angry about things I don't and haven't done my research both on the water in meetings and online. But maybe it isn't me that needs to research things. Just because you feel they are doing a great job. Like they did on Huron and frankly still are doesn't mean we have to agree.


Lake Huron might have taken a beating with over planting at one point but she’s an amazing, diversified fishery today with an array of trout/salmonoids, walleye & many others. Their baitfish populations are also diversified, ales, shad, smelt, chubs ect. If you havnt fished it lately, you should.


----------



## Goinpostal83

John Hine said:


> Lake Huron might have taken a beating with over planting at one point but she’s an amazing, diversified fishery today with an array of trout/salmonoids, walleye & many others. Their baitfish populations are also diversified, ales, shad, smelt, chubs ect. If you havnt fished it lately, you should.


I have. Ask the still ghostish marinas how that worked out for them. Lake trout dominated. 100% not driving 5 hours for the chance at a few Atlantics


----------



## John Hine

Goinpostal83 said:


> I have. Ask the still ghostish marinas how that worked out for them. Lake trout dominated. 100% not driving 5 hours for the chance at a few Atlantics


Far from lake trout dominated. Every marina I’ve visited there were jam packed. Check out the history of the Tawas thread, Oscoda or alpena. I have friends out of Rogers city that are boating 60 plus kings a year, steelhead are everywhere & a very fair number of browns & walleye for days. Huron May have crashed but it’s resurgence is a success story in my book. I think your working off old information


----------



## andyotto

toto said:


> I certainly don 't want to start an argument here, but I have to degree somewhat with this. My reasoning is, what we need to do is let the biologists tell us will or won't work. I've discussed this aspect for years when it comes to the social aspect of things, and while I understand there has to be some of that, it needs to be understood that the public may want one thing, but the biology says something else. So, having said and to make it clear, let the biologists do their jobs and make decisions based on the biological science.


I agree that there are limits to what biologists can and should do. Planting a lot of kings in much of Lake Huron would not bear much fruit without an abundance of ales in much of the southern 2/3 of the lake. However there is often some “wiggle room” in what species can work and what species is desirable to sportsmen(women). In fact the DNR often asks, through surveys and committees, just that question. 

I had a good conversation with a DNR biologist specifically about perch in the outer bay. We were discussing the impact lakers have on young perch population in winter and spring. I questioned the over stocking of lakers and his response was “don’t lakers deserve to be in the Great Lakes too”. My answer to that was of course yes, but to what extent? My point here is that his opinion was “they deserve” to swim the Great Lakes. That is not a biological position but a social one just like you or I would have. I’m not saying this to disparage this biologist. He was very upfront and open about his personal preference about the restoration of native species.

As far as browns go the biggest impediment to their success is getting eaten before they mature. Browns are very adaptable in terms of what they eat and can thrive on a wide variety of bait. They just have a hard time running the gauntlet of hungry mouths which often are lakers. About 10 years ago we had a pilot program here in Tawas where the DNR planted 10,000 larger size (8-10 inch) browns that would have a better chance to not get eaten. That fishery was just starting to really get good when they decided to pull the plug. They weren’t getting much “interest” from fishermen who were mostly concentrating on walleye. I wish they would have given it a little more time for word to get out. I think they could have really had a good thing going.

SJC said exactly what I have been thinking. A diversity of species throughout the Lake Michigan/Huron system is probably the way to go for the future which would include a mix of both native and nonnative species. The lakes are still changing from year to year. A variety of species with different attributes can best ensure a return from one year to the next. 
You’re right though that we need to somehow get the feds on board with this.

(sorry OP about this and other posts on this subject in this thread. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the direction you envisioned for this thread.).


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

The Native Species for Natives Only agenda is impossible to change with the current political leadership (including the DNR, NRC, and USFWS). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## M. Tonello

John Hine said:


> Question for the biologist:
> 1. When & where can I view the planting schedule for lake mi?
> 
> 2. Has there been any thoughts about reintroducing in mass the smelt population in lake mi? I know there are some smelt left out there but I’m talking about mass plants to boost the food chain ? How bout at least a 4 year study on it?


John,
1. I don't have those numbers right in front of me. Again I only cover a portion of Lake Michigan. You can contact Jay Wesley- he would have those numbers. [email protected]. You can view past Lake Michigan stockings here: DNR

2. No. For one thing- there's no need to since smelt are still present in Lake Michigan. Actually their numbers have increased in recent years, to the point where a few folks are even dipping again along the Lake MI shoreline. Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. Also, just like the bigger fish, they have to have something to eat. So stocking more baitfish into a lake that has become much more sterile than it used to be with much less plankton wouldn't be a wise move.


----------



## andyotto

I've got a question for you Mark. Has the DNR been able to track down where a lot of the "wild" fish are coming from. Particularly steelhead and atlantics. It seems that a large number aren't clipped. Is there a way to find the origin of these fish and is the DNR exploring this if possible. I know covid probably has interfered with a lot of plans. Just wondering if its possible and if there have been plans to do so. Thanks


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

I see today the DNR reversed its decision and is now allowing commercial netting deeper than 80’. 

What science changed to allow this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John Hine

ThreeDogsDown said:


> I see today the DNR reversed its decision and is now allowing commercial netting deeper than 80’.
> 
> What science changed to allow this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





M. Tonello said:


> John,
> 1. I don't have those numbers right in front of me. Again I only cover a portion of Lake Michigan. You can contact Jay Wesley- he would have those numbers. [email protected]. You can view past Lake Michigan stockings here: DNR
> 
> 2. No. For one thing- there's no need to since smelt are still present in Lake Michigan. Actually their numbers have increased in recent years, to the point where a few folks are even dipping again along the Lake MI shoreline. Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. Also, just like the bigger fish, they have to have something to eat. So stocking more baitfish into a lake that has become much more sterile than it used to be with much less plankton wouldn't be a wise move.
> [/QUOT
> 
> Better attorney’s, my guess.


----------



## drallam

I think much of the problem is that the laws are so old, it going to take a lot of give and take to make new rules that work with the existing fishery.


----------



## M. Tonello

andyotto said:


> I've got a question for you Mark. Has the DNR been able to track down where a lot of the "wild" fish are coming from. Particularly steelhead and atlantics. It seems that a large number aren't clipped. Is there a way to find the origin of these fish and is the DNR exploring this if possible. I know covid probably has interfered with a lot of plans. Just wondering if its possible and if there have been plans to do so. Thanks



Andy,
Remember I'm on the Lake Michigan side, so over here we get a lot of steelhead natural reproduction from rivers like the Little Manistee, Pere Marquette, Bear Creek, etc. I know you fish on Lake Huron, so that's what you're probably referring to. I don't know the Huron side as well, but I think there are some Canadian streams that put out good numbers of wild steelhead smolts. On the Atlantics I don't know. Last I heard was that maybe there was a little reproduction from the St. Marys, but that was it. You'd have to get in touch with some of our Lake Huron folks for better answers to those questions.

By the way I really like reading your reports, and I also like your willingness to help everyone else find fish too. Keep up the good work!


----------



## M. Tonello

ThreeDogsDown said:


> I see today the DNR reversed its decision and is now allowing commercial netting deeper than 80’.
> 
> What science changed to allow this?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not involved in any of the commercial stuff, so I'd have no comment on that.


----------



## andyotto

M. Tonello said:


> Andy,
> Remember I'm on the Lake Michigan side, so over here we get a lot of steelhead natural reproduction from rivers like the Little Manistee, Pere Marquette, Bear Creek, etc. I know you fish on Lake Huron, so that's what you're probably referring to. I don't know the Huron side as well, but I think there are some Canadian streams that put out good numbers of wild steelhead smolts. On the Atlantics I don't know. Last I heard was that maybe there was a little reproduction from the St. Marys, but that was it. You'd have to get in touch with some of our Lake Huron folks for better answers to those questions.
> 
> By the way I really like reading your reports, and I also like your willingness to help everyone else find fish too. Keep up the good work!


Thanks for the reply Mark and kind word. I guess my question was more just general info on how the DNR goes about tracking wild fish if that’s possible and if so do they do that or is it not something done currently.


----------



## slightofhand

M. Tonello said:


> John,
> 1. I don't have those numbers right in front of me. Again I only cover a portion of Lake Michigan. You can contact Jay Wesley- he would have those numbers. [email protected]. You can view past Lake Michigan stockings here: DNR
> 
> 2. No. For one thing- there's no need to since smelt are still present in Lake Michigan. Actually their numbers have increased in recent years, to the point where a few folks are even dipping again along the Lake MI shoreline. Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. Also, just like the bigger fish, they have to have something to eat. So stocking more baitfish into a lake that has become much more sterile than it used to be with much less plankton wouldn't be a wise move.


"Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. "

You say this Mark, but at the same time Cisco are being currently raised in hatcheries and are being stocked in both lakes under the guise of being "baitfish" for predators. In reality we know that Cisco are in fact the apex predator of the bottom end of the food chain...ravaging plankton feeders in their early stages of development, then ravaging alewife as they grow larger.


----------



## Goinpostal83

slightofhand said:


> "Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. "
> 
> You say this Mark, but at the same time Cisco are being currently raised in hatcheries and are being stocked in both lakes under the guise of being "baitfish" for predators. In reality we know that Cisco are in fact the apex predator of the bottom end of the food chain...ravaging plankton feeders in their early stages of development, then ravaging alewife as they grow larger.


Shocking isn't it lol. I've mentioned this 3 times now but I dont get responses since I ask hard questions.


----------



## Goinpostal83

*I've often wondered that...so they can raise 10 million say walleye. If they raised that then more than likely could double that number in ales. And im sorry but 20mil. Say 5per make it. So 4 million spawning making real numbers.*


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

If you don’t want any perch or alewife, go ahead and plant cisco. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John Hine

slightofhand said:


> "Even if we wanted to, even with all of our existing hatchery space, we could never raise enough baitfish of any species to make a difference in Lake Michigan. "
> 
> You say this Mark, but at the same time Cisco are being currently raised in hatcheries and are being stocked in both lakes under the guise of being "baitfish" for predators. In reality we know that Cisco are in fact the apex predator of the bottom end of the food chain...ravaging plankton feeders in their early stages of development, then ravaging alewife as they grow larger.


I agree, a hatchery for baitfish equates to net pens in any lake. We don’t have to feed every fish, just supplement what we have. How bout just a study to see instead of speculation, & return fish offal back to the water to booSt the production of zoo & micro plankton!


----------



## Goinpostal83

John Hine said:


> I agree, a hatchery for baitfish equates to net pens in any lake. We don’t have to feed every fish, just supplement what we have. How bout just a study to see instead of speculation, & return fish offal back to the water to booSt the production of zoo & micro plankton!


It wouldn't hurt for sure but wouldn't do a lot either with carcasses. Be easier to drop sheep **** from choppers for food and blooms. Our beaches and river mouths have to many people to have fillet salmon washing up unfortunately.


----------



## Fishndude

In some States, where the waters are naturally more sterile than the Great Lakes, it is required to return fish carcasses to the water. The laws in MI were written when the Great Lakes were literally too nutrient-rich. That was due to pollution, and farm runoff, with very little regulation. We've regulated discharges into the lakes a LOT, and then the Mussels came to really change things up. I think it is time to return the fish offal to the water from whence it came in MI. Why would it be a problem that couldn't be managed?


----------



## trucker3573

drallam said:


> I'm starting a new thread for anyone to ask questions to the DNR Biologists who graciously take part on these forums. Let's be respectful and take the opportunity to learn and share. I already asked this question on another thread, but am starting it here to establish the new thread.
> Mark, a couple steelhead spawning questions. Does a hen put all her eggs in one spot? Do males fertilize more than one set of eggs? Do more than one male fertilize the same eggs?


All I know is the dudes get screwed out of all the fun. Pun intended 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Goinpostal83

jpmarko said:


> I’m not taking sides. There are plenty of times I have disagreed with Wesley on this forum. But he has always been forthcoming and it should be clear to any intelligent person that his objective is to manage for a silver fish fishery. Yeah, people complain about the salmon cuts when there is “so much bait” and wine about how the DNR didn’t implement the Option 4 cuts in 2013 when they should have and cry about how brown trout stocking was halted in the southern port (I cry about that too). But the DNR did prevent a crash and they are increasing salmon plants. You may not like every move or decision, but their overall intention and effort has been a positive one for the salmon fishery. When you call somebody a liar who isn’t one, that makes you the liar.


That has always been your defense but very very few complained about the cuts rather that it wasn't across the board. I know about the decrees and I know we could have told them to shuv it if they truly cared. As Wisconsin did


----------



## Goinpostal83

John Hine said:


> I don’t disagree that the DNR and Jay feel that they have the best intentions most of the time, however, I don’t think he’ll ever be forgiven for claiming to be concerned about the baitfish population then taking on the laketrout that other states rejected. It’s also a tough pill to swallow to watch Wisconsin share the same lake we do & they’re multi species fishery is amazing & improving compared to ours. It’s also frustrating that our voice, our protector of Lake Michigan will not stand up & say enough is enough, our system cannot support these massive laker dumps. Add in that we now have a northern lake full of voracious eating Cisco’s with talk of spreading plants to different parts of the lake. How can we possibly take this threat of over planting silver seriously??
> The DNR has the ability to make things better. I know this because we have Lake Huron, it went from bust back to boom & has turned into a fantastic diversified fishery with an array of both preditor & prey.
> Lastly, it’s frustrating not to be able to speak to Jay in a public arena such as this, espically when other biologist are here answering questions. People will get nasty, sure, but there is an ignore button for a reason.
> Just some observations.


I know I've gotten nasty at times it happens when bold lies are told. He has done same over phone when giving multiple answers to multiple people. As have other area bios. Sad really and if you question them you are automatically a dnr basher. And many assume an idiot that knows nothing. There were many years i logged 100 trips on lake mi. And another 100 on rivers. They think what's in a book is final while we need a combo of sound logic on the water info and science


----------



## Fishndude

Why not restrict commentary on this thread, and just ask question of a DNR Biologist (or Biologists) who are willing to come here to answer them? There is no need to open a public debate with them here, over anything. I feel like this thread was intended mostly as a Public Service Announcement kind of thing for questions to be answered. 

If I was challenged every time I posted something on here, I would exercise my option not to play. It would be a shame of the Biologists felt that way.


----------



## Goinpostal83

Fishndude said:


> Why not restrict commentary on this thread, and just ask question of a DNR Biologist (or Biologists) who are willing to come here to answer them? There is no need to open a public debate with them here, over anything. I feel like this thread was intended mostly as a Public Service Announcement kind of thing for questions to be answered.
> 
> If I was challenged every time I posted something on here, I would exercise my option not to play. It would be a shame of the Biologists felt that way.


So you shouldn't be able to ask questions and get honest answers lol. Or ask hard questions?Thats the problem. Not saying mark isn't honest but most say what is needed to appease and the public should be able to ask people we pays salaries any questions we want


----------



## John Hine

Goinpostal83 said:


> I know I've gotten nasty at times it happens when bold lies are told. He has done same over phone when giving multiple answers to multiple people. As have other area bios. Sad really and if you question them you are automatically a dnr basher. And many assume an idiot that knows nothing. There were many years i logged 100 trips on lake mi. And another 100 on rivers. They think what's in a book is final while we need a combo of sound logic on the water info and science


I agree, rod tip science is very important. I’m just thinking maybe cooler heads might get us more cooperation. I understand the frustration, believe me.


----------



## toto

I have no knowledge of why Jay would have done that, but rest assured I don't believe anything nefarious was going on. One other thing to remember, this consent decree is pretty much a Michigan thing as far as I know, I could be wrong on that. I have no idea what you may have asked biologists over time, but it is my hope that they wouldn't just blantanly lie to you. I am not a biologist so I really can't answer for the answers that you received from them, but they do a pretty good job IMHO when you take into account of everything they deal with. I'm sure these bio's would much rather be out in the field doing what they rather than have to face the crowd, after all, if one side is happy the other isn't, and that's where I think social issues should be curtailed as much as possible when deciding on what to plant where, when, how, and how much.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

I’ll tell you one thing...the wizard that put together the new Walleye management plan ought to get a raise. Very thorough. It would be very hard for a recreational angler to make a suggestion against the rationale they laid down for stocking. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 7mmsendero

Here’s one: What happened to the perch and whitefish populations in Grand Traverse Bay since the 1980’s? The perch seemed to be barely hanging on by the 2000’s, and the whitefish were pretty tough to find by 2010.


----------



## 7mmsendero

Here’s another: When I was a kid in the 1980’s Elk Lake in Antrim County had a great perch fishery. It crashed by the 1990’s. We noticed Atlantic salmon were coming in with the perch during the evening bite. Is it possible the Atlantic salmon wiped out the perch?


----------



## John Hine

7mmsendero said:


> Here’s one: What happened to the perch and whitefish populations in Grand Traverse Bay since the 1980’s? The perch seemed to be barely hanging on by the 2000’s, and the whitefish were pretty tough to find by 2010.


Enter, excessive lake trout plants, currently bolstered by excessive Cisco plants = bye bye perch! Rumor has it the muscles are filtering out the food for whitefish fry. (Actually the tribal nets are/have demolished the whitefish population, probably beyond repair) I’m no biologist, just a data tracking old fisherman.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

We have until the 15th to recommend fisher management agenda items for MUCC to push to the DNR. I was think it is time for a perch season to protect spawners. This would be for GT Bays and the Northwestern Lake Michigan waters. (MM4 and 5). 

Agree? Disagree? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## o_mykiss

I'm not sure a perch season would really do anything to protect populations. What's the difference between keeping a perch in July and keeping one in March or April? It's still dead either way, and would never spawn again

Unless the goal is to reduce harvest a ton, to conserve the amount of total spawners. I dunno maybe that would accomplish the goal. How much of the total harvest in GT Bays happens during your proposed closure season?

I know down south, it's very little typically. Most of the harvest happens in the peak summer perching season


----------



## o_mykiss

Has there been any discussion of what to do if the brown trout stocking change to shift them all north doesn't work out?

Seems to me that there's a lot of talk about reduced steelhead runs all over the lake. A lot more people fish for steelhead than browns, and I would think that goes for the big lake as well as the rivers. If the recent brown trout stocking strategy doesn't work, any chance that hatchery space could be utilized on increasing steelhead plants?


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

o_mykiss said:


> I'm not sure a perch season would really do anything to protect populations. What's the difference between keeping a perch in July and keeping one in March or April? It's still dead either way, and would never spawn again
> 
> Unless the goal is to reduce harvest a ton, to conserve the amount of total spawners. I dunno maybe that would accomplish the goal. How much of the total harvest in GT Bays happens during your proposed closure season?
> 
> I know down south, it's very little typically. Most of the harvest happens in the peak summer perching season


The bulk of the big water perch harvest happens now, from ice out until late May. The three typical perch grounds (GT Bays, Northport, and specific spots along the Lake Michigan shoreline down to Frankfort get pounded. The limits taken out of these schools would be acceptable, except they are all jam-packed full of eggs and milt. 

So I would propose the same perch closure during the Inland Lakes walleye closure to keep it simple. (15March through the last Saturday in April). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John Hine

ThreeDogsDown said:


> The bulk of the big water perch harvest happens now, from ice out until late May. The three typical perch grounds (GT Bays, Northport, and specific spots along the Lake Michigan shoreline down to Frankfort get pounded. The limits taken out of these schools would be acceptable, except they are all jam-packed full of eggs and milt.
> 
> So I would propose the same perch closure during the Inland Lakes walleye closure to keep it simple. (15March through the last Saturday in April).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I could get behind that, at least a trial period. I don’t think there is a lot of accurate data on the status of our perch population. Heck, I would support a complete closure for a couple years if it would help. We need more & more accurate data on the perch. I think with lower amounts of baitfish in the bays, perch, 1-3”have moved from a preditor to a prey item, & I’m thinking all the lakers have bumped us from the top preditor spit there as well.


----------



## John Hine

#PLANTSOMEDAMBAITFISHINTHEBAYS!!!!


----------



## drallam

ThreeDogsDown said:


> The bulk of the big water perch harvest happens now, from ice out until late May. The three typical perch grounds (GT Bays, Northport, and specific spots along the Lake Michigan shoreline down to Frankfort get pounded. The limits taken out of these schools would be acceptable, except they are all jam-packed full of eggs and milt.
> 
> So I would propose the same perch closure during the Inland Lakes walleye closure to keep it simple. (15March through the last Saturday in April).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I support that idea.


----------



## charminultra

John Hine said:


> #PLANTSOMEDAMBAITFISHINTHEBAYS!!!!


They should plant some gobies or freshwater shrimp in there.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

So last Sunday night I was out at a Lake Michigan creek mouth hoping to dip some of those ever elusive Smelt &/or hook into a shore-cruising silver fish. My memory of a Fisheries report on the little creek is that it was written by one M. Tonello even. 

I was discussing water temps and fish behavior with my co-conspirator on that expedition when I happened to say “fish don’t know dates on calendars, they only know water temperatures.”

My friend responded: “what if they react to length of daylight?”

And I thought, now there is an interesting concept and one that only a well versed Ichthyologist might know: does any fish species change behavior on length of daylight?

I know in the world of plants some genera respond to that and some don’t.


----------



## fowl

Was in Petoskey in November talking to tribal crew at the marina that was after whitefish for egg take. It was particularly warm for Nov, and I made a comment about water temp and how the fish were probably late this year. The response was, “the peak is between the same dates in November regardless of water temp”. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## charminultra

Maybe it has something to do with the tides?


----------



## Fishndude

It has more to do with the photoperiods. Are tides different in the fall?


----------



## charminultra

Probably


----------



## M. Tonello

B.Jarvinen said:


> So last Sunday night I was out at a Lake Michigan creek mouth hoping to dip some of those ever elusive Smelt &/or hook into a shore-cruising silver fish. My memory of a Fisheries report on the little creek is that it was written by one M. Tonello even.
> 
> I was discussing water temps and fish behavior with my co-conspirator on that expedition when I happened to say “fish don’t know dates on calendars, they only know water temperatures.”
> 
> My friend responded: “what if they react to length of daylight?”
> 
> And I thought, now there is an interesting concept and one that only a well versed Ichthyologist might know: does any fish species change behavior on length of daylight?
> 
> I know in the world of plants some genera respond to that and some don’t.


Yes, fish are aware of and do respond to daylight length (known as photoperiod). However, it is just one of the factors they use for spawning cues. For example, a study done on the PM steelhead spawning run found flow and temperatures to be to the two biggest factors. In our hatcheries though, we will use photoperiod manipulation to get our broodstock to spawn earlier (since temps and flow are usually constant). If we can get them to spawn earlier, then we can grow them larger by stocking time.


----------



## B.Jarvinen

Thanks!

The more you know...the more fish you can catch.


----------



## fisheye

Why are fish planted in the harbors in Southern Lake Huron rather than the streams and rivers where I would think natural reproduction could be a possibility?


----------



## drallam

And as far as planting, a couple questions: why not plant at night to at least avoid predators from the air for a few hours? why not plant through the ice, again avoiding seagulls?


----------



## detroitjim

From the MiDNR stocking page

What exactly does this mean? Sensient Direct plant











****Well... Initially I thought it was a new method of planting fish.
After a bit more research I *now* realize it's the name of an industrial flavor making company in Harbor Beach.
Suppose that had they used "Senisient Industries property" there wouldn't have been any confusion.
****


----------



## Cork Dust

drallam said:


> And as far as planting, a couple questions: why not plant at night to at least avoid predators from the air for a few hours? why not plant through the ice, again avoiding seagulls?


Keep in mind that, in order to plant anywhere, a crew of people have to load the hatchery trucks and prepare them for travel prior departure. Fish are not just offloaded at one site either, but several. It's just not the overtime costs associated for the planting crew with when the fish are planted. One interesting thing that the WDNR dose is offload fish to barges that move offshore and plant salmonines deeper in the water column. When I worked at the USGS Sea Lamprey research lab on Hammond Bay, we would allow the MDNR of offload into the internal raceway and hold these fish until nightfall, releasing them to Lake Huron overnight. Some hatchery plants are done into net pens which enable the fish to better acclimate thermally as well as imprint to the native water's chemical signature which enhances return rates. These fish also "learn" a bit about predator avoidance as well as particulate feeding in a natural environment where food is not Purina Trout chow!


----------



## Goinpostal83

Cork Dust said:


> Keep in mind that, in order to plant anywhere, a crew of people have to load the hatchery trucks and prepare them for travel prior departure. Fish are not just offloaded at one site either, but several. It's just not the overtime costs associated for the planting crew with when the fish are planted. One interesting thing that the WDNR dose is offload fish to barges that move offshore and plant salmonines deeper in the water column. When I worked at the USGS Sea Lamprey research lab on Hammond Bay, we would allow the MDNR of offload into the internal raceway and hold these fish until nightfall, releasing them to Lake Huron overnight. Some hatchery plants are done into net pens which enable the fish to better acclimate thermally as well as imprint to the native water's chemical signature which enhances return rates. These fish also "learn" a bit about predator avoidance as well as particulate feeding in a natural environment where food is not Purina Trout chow!


Let's also keep in mind that it doesn't need to be over time and people act like its factory hard labor. It's a job they get paid to do.


----------



## Cork Dust

Goinpostal83 said:


> Let's also keep in mind that it doesn't need to be over time and people act like its factory hard labor. It's a job they get paid to do.


Factory labor is hard? You ever work on a trap net boat, lift gill nets, or fish an otter trawl at multiple sampling stations all night? 

...how are they not doing their job , which is plant a LOT of fish daily? Oh, now I get it, they are not doing what you subjectively determine to be the best approach to planting fish. Did you ever observe inshore lake trout gorging themselves on planted fish when they move inshore at night? Browns? I used to get a call from a guy who worked in the wastewater treatment plant next to one of the salmon release sites here. I fished through the much of the night the next two nights after the plants for years catching lake trout and an occasional brown trout. Even caught a walleye here and there...all full of chinook fingerlings. I did the same thing in the Upper Harbor when they emptied the net pens....same stomach contents, just larger. My Point? Avian predators are not the only prey vector impacting survival of planted Great Lakes fish.

It's also a job where decisions regarding planting of fish are made several levels over the heads of the people driving the trucks who are civil service employees, get paid overtime when they work outside of their normal job description hours and don't have a lot of latitude. Even over the heads of the hatchery manager many times...

In 2012, the State of Michigan's Lake Michigan fishery management representative to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission lake management committee was instructed to override the consensus input from MUCC, Michigan Steelheaders, Michigan Charter Association and several national conservation organizations' officers, as well as the majority of the respondents to the Sea Grant administered input questionnaire regarding future Lake Michigan fish plants to be initiated in spring of 2013. Instead of Option 4, a multi-species planting reduction they opted for another single species cut in chinook salmon plants. Remember, chinook eggs are taken in the fall and planted in the spring as smolts. Consequently, they are the cheapest salmonine to rear and toss away, if need be. The Chief of the Fisheries Division ordered this option since it would not require him to throw away any fish that were in multi-year rearing programs within the State hatchery system. He maintained, in private conversation that this is what lead to his predecessor's removal from the position.


----------



## Waif

Yumm. Soft finned prey!

One lake the planters hung alright in the creek , then bellied up when they entered the lake. Such things can happen.
The lake eventually supported trout. But thier vulnerability to human predation eventually put an end to them. A put take type fishery as far as trout. The lake had the basin and conditions trout could suceed in as far as staying fed and oxygenated.

Story time?
Watched a musky using a cut bank for cover cruise out of it into a spillway to grab prey , then return to the cover. Then back to the spillway again . Repeat.
What cares a predator of where the prey came from?

Another river site a holdover steelhead would leave the deep water and enter a four-five foot diameter hole with small trout and fish in it. That predator stirred the hole and it's residents up , sorting. Return to deep water , and repeat.

Mortality rates and plant numbers are likely data on paper since plantings inception (computer today) and add to the drudgery of studies.
Every site has it's own nuance of mortality causes. ( I'd suspect so anyways from my seat.)
Timing of planting could be a consideration.
Anyone heard of humans reacting to planting truck timing? L.o.l.. It's happened. After all , people are crazy.

C.D., I'd have traded laboring in multiple facilities for time on a craft wrestling nets and fish.
Lacked qualifications and opportunity though.


----------



## Goinpostal83

Cork Dust said:


> Factory labor is hard? You ever work on a trap net boat, lift gill nets, or fish an otter trawl at multiple sampling stations all night?
> 
> ...how are they not doing their job , which is plant a LOT of fish daily? Oh, now I get it, they are not doing what you subjectively determine to be the best approach to planting fish. Did you ever observe inshore lake trout gorging themselves on planted fish when they move inshore at night? Browns? I used to get a call from a guy who worked in the wastewater treatment plant next to one of the salmon release sites here. I fished through the much of the night the next two nights after the plants for years catching lake trout and an occasional brown trout. Even caught a walleye here and there...all full of chinook fingerlings. I did the same thing in the Upper Harbor when they emptied the net pens....same stomach contents, just larger. My Point? Avian predators are not the only prey vector impacting survival of planted Great Lakes fish.
> 
> It's also a job where decisions regarding planting of fish are made several levels over the heads of the people driving the trucks who are civil service employees, get paid overtime when they work outside of their normal job description hours and don't have a lot of latitude. Even over the heads of the hatchery manager many times...
> 
> In 2012, the State of Michigan's Lake Michigan fishery management representative to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission lake management committee was instructed to override the consensus input from MUCC, Michigan Steelheaders, Michigan Charter Association and several national conservation organizations' officers, as well as the majority of the respondents to the Sea Grant administered input questionnaire regarding future Lake Michigan fish plants to be initiated in spring of 2013. Instead of Option 4, a multi-species planting reduction they opted for another single species cut in chinook salmon plants. Remember, chinook eggs are taken in the fall and planted in the spring as smolts. Consequently, they are the cheapest salmonine to rear and toss away, if need be. The Chief of the Fisheries Division ordered this option since it would not require him to throw away any fish that were in multi-year rearing programs within the State hatchery system. He maintained, in private conversation that this is what lead to his predecessor's removal from the position.


Yea I didn't read that. We are talking about planting fish and taking eggs. I have volunteered and no. It is not hard nor hard work. I also netted in Alaska and while it's not the easiest thing in the world I've done a lot of things that were a lot harder


----------



## Cork Dust

Goinpostal83 said:


> Yea I didn't read that. We are talking about planting fish and taking eggs. I have volunteered and no. It is not hard nor hard work. I also netted in Alaska and while it's not the easiest thing in the world I've done a lot of things that were a lot harder


You showed-up for all of one day with all the gear and logistics work done by the people you infer are lazy. Congratulations. You didn't compile or bring the gear to the site, set it up and maintain it, remove it when egg take was completed along with the now-fertilized eggs, clean it all to use again in another water body or repack it in storage to do it all again. Yes, you showed up for a day and did a LITTLE of the work involved and then passed judgement. Try working a sorting table at the Little Mansitee weir for a month or so taking eggs and sorting non-target fish to their holding pens. AS I stated previously, the predators you see above water are the ones you claim they should be actively avoiding by releasing fish at night. Yet, the predator array that is inshore at night is just as daunting, why easily over ninety percent of planted fish don't make it to spawn as adults. Net penning in Michigan has raised the survival proportion as high as 165%.

Alaska gillnetting involves use of very short nets, large drum retrieval reels that are machine driven, shallow water sets, and boats playing bumper cars. The only hard work is picking fish quickly to reset. When the TAC for commercial catch is met in a very short interval the season is over on that water body. Most commercial nets are a thousand feet per gang and are fished over the year, with the exception of closure during spawning.


----------



## sfw1960

Enough bickering.
Keep it on point.
Goingpostal was warned - and has had his time here run dry.
I'm not here to babysit three year olds with poor manners.
Corkdust stay on topic and please keep your posts civil.
EVERYONE!
Thanks.


----------



## toto

I've often wondered why they don't plant browns out in the lake a ways in deeper water. They could use MV Steelhead to do this. I'm sure it would cost some money but it's worth a try. SO, my question to the biologist, why not try this? Or maybe there is some reason not to that I haven't thought of, besides costs.


----------



## Cork Dust

Why not go back to taking tissue plugs from chinook salmon to determine percent water content and lipid levels? Currently waiting until the compilation of AGE III fish weights from the Strawberry Creek fish take requires passage of an entire year with the added time interval to compile the data and "think" about it putting managers in a position of having to make a stocking alteration decision after egg-take and dollar expenditures involve in initiation of rearing sequence. Correlation coefficient is high for adult salmon approaching spawning, but actually improves per Amber Peter's M.S. thesis derived data for juvenile fish (R2-.70). Consequently, sampling to capture these fish inshore would be relatively simple and cost-effective as well as yielding a snapshot of the health status of the fastest growing salmonine stock component, yielding ample time to either alter stocking arrays within each three year decision interval if the data warrant it.

Right now, absent Jory Jonas' estimations of fish condition necessitated by the cancellation of trawling and acoustic sampling data on the status and trends of the forage stock, as well as the impacts of loss of a full year of all-species mass marking data, there is very limited data to inform managers for the near-term.


----------



## ThreeDogsDown

Cork Dust. You are doing it again. Your run on sentences with multiple adjectives in front of an eventual noun invite Dr Sominex every time. 

Let me guess. Former Government. 

How about this? Hey biologists, what happened to doing tissue samples? Answer: Covid. 

Next question. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cork Dust

ThreeDogsDown said:


> Cork Dust. You are doing it again. Your run on sentences with multiple adjectives in front of an eventual noun invite Dr Sominex every time.
> 
> Let me guess. Former Government.
> 
> How about this? Hey biologists, what happened to doing tissue samples? Answer: Covid.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Here is what you missed: Tissue samples in what? Why were they being done? Why was this important to determine? What value and relationship does this have to monitoring the fishery? Is there any justification for doing this that overrides dropping it, particularly now that the Lake Michigan Management Comm. will have to go forward with essentially no data to manage a 7billion dollar fishery?

Former fish biologist working for MSU and USFWS for a decade prior leaving to work for a pharma company in the private sector. Thirty-five years of scientific writing and discussions of research studies with physicians and medical field affiliated scientists. This scientific information writing style involves conveying information with actual support evidence in complex sentences. You know, like writing a question for a fish biologist to answer with an evidence driven response to justify their actions. I can understand your confusion since you, you are not a fish biologist. Thanks for playing... but the thread title basically excludes your input, opinion and net value..

Actually, it was dropped about three to four years ago because it was deemed too expensive to continue by Wisconsin DNR personnel who ran a dedicated boat offshore to collect samples via netting and do the analysis. Why I suggested alternate approaches to obtaining the tissue samples, as well as outlining the value of their use in management decisions going forward.


----------



## charminultra

multi species reduction, stable isotope, pyloric sphincter. All things I know about from reading cork dust


----------



## charminultra

Please keep up the good work it’s hard to waste time but not when I’ve got all this good stuff to read


----------



## drallam

Cork Dust said:


> Here is what you missed: Tissue samples in what? Why were they being done? Why was this important to determine? What value and relationship does this have to monitoring the fishery? Is there any justification for doing this that overrides dropping it, particularly now that the Lake Michigan Management Comm. will have to go forward with essentially no data to manage a 7billion dollar fishery?
> 
> Former fish biologist working for MSU and USFWS for a decade prior leaving to work for a pharma company in the private sector. Thirty-five years of scientific writing and discussions of research studies with physicians and medical field affiliated scientists. This scientific information writing style involves conveying information with actual support evidence in complex sentences. You know, like writing a question for a fish biologist to answer with an evidence driven response to justify their actions. I can understand your confusion since you, you are not a fish biologist. Thanks for playing... but the thread title basically excludes your input, opinion and net value..
> 
> Actually, it was dropped about three to four years ago because it was deemed too expensive to continue by Wisconsin DNR personnel who ran a dedicated boat offshore to collect samples via netting and do the analysis. Why I suggested alternate approaches to obtaining the tissue samples, as well as outlining the value of their use in management decisions going forward.


It seems to me that Michigan/Wisconsin/Illinois could share costs on studies like this, at least from Lake Michigan. We could do the same with Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania for Erie, Huron and Ontario.


----------



## Cork Dust

drallam said:


> It seems to me that Michigan/Wisconsin/Illinois could share costs on studies like this, at least from Lake Michigan. We could do the same with Ontario, New York, Pennsylvania for Erie, Huron and Ontario.


It was a blow-off answer for a decision that was made without much forethought. One of several questions he did not want to answer candidly. 

They could easily get the tissue samples via a number of routes, if they wanted the data. Hell, Dr,Roger Bergstadt went out and tagged around 50 chinook via hook and line trolling to insert bathymetric recording tags in the peritoneums of salmon. Somewhere around forty were turned-in via the fisherman who caught them in Lake Huron. Everyone was amazed to discover that chinook bounce up and down hundreds of feet repeatedly over the course of a day The only complication to the interpretation of his data was that the alewife stock was crashing over the duration of the study, complicating whether the behavior was a normal display of foraging, or starving fish looking anywhere for alewife. Keep in mind, background, that these fish have to regulate their bouyancy via a swim bladder, but as physoclistous fish, they can vent expanding gas out of their swim bladder as they rise via their pneumatic ducts into the G.I. tract.

I was in a phone conversation with Todd Kalish, Assistant Director of the Wi. Fisheries Div. asking him to provide data or justification on why they felt justified in splitting with the remainder of the Lake Michigan management comm. when they set the salmonine plants for Wisconsin last year, and crawfished on every other state after the press release had been disseminated. Having that data in-hand when the forage base is at such a precarious level likely looks like a very good idea. The USGS used to monitor Mysis sp densities via their acoustic sampling but dropped it several years back. Mysis sp and Diporeia sp. amphipods are responsible for biologic vertical transport of nutrients back to surface waters via their consumption at night when the migrate off bottom. Diporeia sp. are nearly absent from the lower lakes, courtesy of the invasive mussels filter feeding activities, so Mysis sp. are left to carry the load...


----------



## detroitjim

Always enjoyed reading the yearly newsletter from all of the management units. 
While some of the units are up to date(2020) with publishing their reports, five haven't issued a newsletter since 2017.

Lake Erie
Southern Lake Huron
Northern Lake Michigan
Western Lake Superior
Eastern Lake Superior

Any thoughts?


----------



## Ralph Smith

Well, I couldn't make it all the way through but did read the first 6 pages of most which were good until some finger pointing started..... there's a couple questions I have that could be in the last few pages so hopefully I'm not being redundant....
1. If people are worried about the Cisco eating alewives, aren't the Cisco a larger fish overall to use as a food source for all species? And what did they eat before there were alewives?
2. I understand the state has no control over the laker plants under the decree, but don't they have the authority to regulate the catch? In other words, why isn't the lake trout limit 5 and reduce the kings back to 3 in areas where the L.T. are abundant? Less lakers and more salmon is what everyone wants correct?
3. If there is significant natural spawning of salmon in a couple streams as they say..i.e..Betsie and P.M.....why not close the season after say Sept.30 to let them spawn?
Also, I'm in support of fish carcasses disposed offshore. You could put a mile limit to keep from washing ashore. They'll sink to bottom anyway after filleting. Punture air bladder if bloated. Leave fillets whole for identification and counting if checked.


----------



## M. Tonello

detroitjim said:


> Always enjoyed reading the yearly newsletter from all of the management units.
> While some of the units are up to date(2020) with publishing their reports, five haven't issued a newsletter since 2017.


I think the perception is that not many people read these, so maybe they aren't worth the time and effort we put into them. Our unit (Central Lake Michigan) has committed to continuing to do them, as we've gotten good feedback from anglers telling us they like the newsletter. We've had our 2021 report done for awhile but we ran into formatting issues that we're trying to work through. Hopefully at least our report will be posted soon.

FYI the reports Detroitjim is referring to can be found here: DNR - Management Units
Click on the unit you're interested in.


----------



## M. Tonello

Ralph Smith said:


> 1. If people are worried about the Cisco eating alewives, aren't the Cisco a larger fish overall to use as a food source for all species? And what did they eat before there were alewives?
> 2. I understand the state has no control over the laker plants under the decree, but don't they have the authority to regulate the catch? In other words, why isn't the lake trout limit 5 and reduce the kings back to 3 in areas where the L.T. are abundant? Less lakers and more salmon is what everyone wants correct?
> 3. If there is significant natural spawning of salmon in a couple streams as they say..i.e..Betsie and P.M.....why not close the season after say Sept.30 to let them spawn?
> Also, I'm in support of fish carcasses disposed offshore. You could put a mile limit to keep from washing ashore. They'll sink to bottom anyway after fileting. Punture air batter if bloated. Leave fillets whole for identification and counting if checked.


Good questions Ralph, I'll do my best.

1. I'm a Lake Michigan guy, and we have not stocked any cisco over here. I have not been involved with the Lake Huron cisco project, so I don't want to say too much, but maybe this will help. One belief is that prior to invasives like alewives and smelt, cisco were one of the main preyfish in the Great Lakes. Now that the alewife population has been greatly reduced in Lake Huron, maybe we can replace them with the native cisco. I will say that the cisco in Lake MI have not been fitting that "preyfish" mold because they grow so quickly and get so big. Not sure if that was the case historically or not. 
2. This one is above my pay grade, but I'm sure that the tribes and feds would not be in favor of this. That would likely create a number of problems, particular when we're in the process of trying to negotiate a consent decree. Like it or not, the feds and the tribes are going to be players in the management of Lake MI.
3. We do have lots of closed areas on both of those systems. All the PM tribs are closed, as is the upper part of the Betsie. Even if they weren't, as anglers we don't harvest enough salmon to prevent them from spawning. At 5000+ eggs per female, it doesn't take a whole lot of females to seed the rivers with fry. The bigger problem for salmon reproduction is predation on the outmigrating smolts by walleye, lake trout, cormorants, etc., particularly now that alewife populations are lower and not providing the predator cover that they once did.
Fish carcasses- If I'm recalling correctly, this one would require legislative action to change, we can't do it via fish order. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but this is another one that is above my pay grade.


----------



## Fishndude

The most drastic difference in the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, following the introduction of Zebra and Quagga Mussels, was the disappearance of Diporeia Shrimp. Everything in the bottom of the food chain fed on them, and they were amazingly prolific. Then they were virtually gone....


----------



## tgafish

M. Tonello said:


> Good questions Ralph, I'll do my best.
> 
> 1. I'm a Lake Michigan guy, and we have not stocked any cisco over here. I have not been involved with the Lake Huron cisco project, so I don't want to say too much, but maybe this will help. One belief is that prior to invasives like alewives and smelt, cisco were one of the main preyfish in the Great Lakes. Now that the alewife population has been greatly reduced in Lake Huron, maybe we can replace them with the native cisco. I will say that the cisco in Lake MI have not been fitting that "preyfish" mold because they grow so quickly and get so big. Not sure if that was the case historically or not.
> 2. This one is above my pay grade, but I'm sure that the tribes and feds would not be in favor of this. That would likely create a number of problems, particular when we're in the process of trying to negotiate a consent decree. Like it or not, the feds and the tribes are going to be players in the management of Lake MI.
> 3. We do have lots of closed areas on both of those systems. All the PM tribs are closed, as is the upper part of the Betsie. Even if they weren't, as anglers we don't harvest enough salmon to prevent them from spawning. At 5000+ eggs per female, it doesn't take a whole lot of females to seed the rivers with fry. The bigger problem for salmon reproduction is predation on the outmigrating smolts by walleye, lake trout, cormorants, etc., particularly now that alewife populations are lower and not providing the predator cover that they once did.
> Fish carcasses- If I'm recalling correctly, this one would require legislative action to change, we can't do it via fish order. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but this is another one that is above my pay grade.


Some things to add that I've learned over the past couple years attending every zoom meeting and in person meeting I could
1. Some managers believe the Traverse bay Ciscoes may have evolved into a sub species. As Mark said they grow fast and large. Upper Huron Cisco (the ones used for Sag bay planting) "may" prey less heavily on bait fish. We won't know until they mature in Sag Bay. Two concerning things to me are: We are planting millions of them for several years and they are not showing up in stomach content data of lake trout and walleye. Will they compete with Yellow perch causing an up and down pressure with current heavy walleye predation perch and cisco possibly limiting prey.
2. All parties involved are committed to a lake trout rehabilitation plan. That drives most management decisions concerning LT. They could increase limits in Non treaty waters but they stopped planting those waters not too long ago and I'm guessing the thought is too wait a bit and see how the population responds before adding harvest pressure.
3. I'm guessing no manager would want to publicly comment on this but natural reproduction for salmon, especially kings, is an unstable part of the predator prey equation. We quabble over additions and subtractions of 100K to 500K to king stocking while natural reproduction can and does swing by the millions every year. Natural reproduction in Ontario was one of the main contributors to the Huron crash. There is plenty of hatchery capacity to increase plants if bait numbers call for it. At this point it would seem dangerous to increase natural reproduction and reduce harvest opportunity.

Mark please feel free to correct anything I may have gotten wrong


----------



## drallam

I know that the weir is in on the Boardman, when will they actually begin taking spawn?


----------



## Whitetail_hunter

drallam said:


> I know that the weir is in on the Boardman, when will they actually begin taking spawn?


Never


----------



## M. Tonello

drallam said:


> I know that the weir is in on the Boardman, when will they actually begin taking spawn?


The Boardman is a harvest weir, not an egg-take facility. We have taken eggs there a few times over the years just to prove we could do it, but it isn't a regular occurrence. There is no plan to take eggs at the Boardman this fall.


----------



## drallam

Have you started at the Little Manistee?


----------



## M. Tonello

No. The fish typically are not ripe enough until October. We'll likely turn the pumps on in late September and start pulling fish into the ponds then.


----------



## Larry Ridge

M. Tonello said:


> No. The fish typically are not ripe enough until October. We'll likely turn the pumps on in late September and start pulling fish into the ponds then.


This is a couple of questions about port of frankfort. Is the dnr trying to see how many kings are spawning in the Betsie. Are any coho that spawn in the Betsie? I fish out of Frankfort and there were more cohos around and earlier than normal. Thanks . Buckeye2


----------



## M. Tonello

Larry Ridge said:


> This is a couple of questions about port of frankfort. Is the dnr trying to see how many kings are spawning in the Betsie. Are any coho that spawn in the Betsie? I fish out of Frankfort and there were more cohos around and earlier than normal. Thanks . Buckeye2


Larry,
There aren't any ongoing studies to enumerate the number of spawning kings in the Betsie. Our most recent data was from a creel survey conducted on the Betsie River in 2010. See here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FR24_597245_7.pdf
In that study, the estimated harvest of Chinook salmon was 13,620. That's just harvest though, that's not the total run. Yes there are coho salmon in the Betsie River. We see their offspring every time we conduct electrofishing on the Betsie River at our Kurick Road index station. 
FYI- all coho and Chinook salmon that run the Betsie are either wild or stray. None are stocked in the Betsie River. 
Time will tell on the number of coho around. We'll see how strong the Platte River run is. We have a weir on the lower Platte River that allows us to count the number of returning adults on that river.


----------



## charminultra

M. Tonello said:


> Heard back from my colleagues from Bay City. They reached out to the USFWS and heard back from Chris Olds. Here's what he had to say:
> "Cisco rehabilitation in Saginaw Bay began in the fall of 2018 with an annual stocking target of 1.1 million fish, split between a spring and a fall stocking event. This stocking strategy will be in place for 10 years and we are currently in year four of the process. We are now seeking help from anglers and commercial fishermen when they capture a Cisco, to turn in the tail fin region into the MDNR or the FWS to look for the chemical mark on the bone to identify if its origin is from a hatchery or not." Here's the stocking numbers to this point:
> 2018: 1.1 million fall fingerlings
> 2019: 250k spring fingerlings, 250k fall fingerlings
> 2020: ~200k spring fingerlings, ~472k fall fingerlings
> 
> Also found this article with a google search: Cisco reintroduction could have enormous ripple effect on food chain - Spartan Newsroom


Hey have you guys heard anything sbout the ciscoes? They should be mature by now from 2018.


----------



## CHASINEYES

charminultra said:


> Hey have you guys heard anything sbout the ciscoes? They should be mature by now from 2018.


I too have been wondering how the Cisco are doing.


----------



## jeffryg

CHASINEYES said:


> I too have been wondering how the Cisco are doing.


I found this presentation on YouTube; from November of this year.
Cisco restoration via reintroduction in central Lake Huron and factors affecting their success - YouTube


----------

