# Arctic Grayling



## Wellston

Interesting article on re-introducing graying in the Manistee.
Jim

http://www.michiganrivernews.com/20...d-stymie-arctic-grayling-revival-in-michigan/


----------



## Jackster1

I remember when they tried bringing them back in the early '90's and I also remember the mount old man Geeke has hanging in the shop on Woodward. I always wanted to catch one and finally did a couple years ago. The thing I forgot to do was whiff that sucker. I always heard they smelled like thyme but reckon I'll have to find that out at another time.

Cool fish and the namesake of a certain town many of us center our trout fishing around. It would be great to get them back where they belong.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

I think it's that they _taste _like thyme, not smell like thyme.

They fight like a wet sock but are beautiful. I caught an 18" Arctic Grayling in Katmai this summer but everyone else along was too busy fighting their own fish to snap a picture of the big one.

Here's a 12" specimen in the photo below. Anyone wanting to catch an Arctic Grayling should stop in at the PM Lodge in Baldin and talk to Frank the owner. He is hosting 4 trips to www.naknekrivercamp.com and it's perhaps the least expensive way to fish the Katmai area of Alaska.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Here's another Alaskan treasure, Arctic Char. On a fly in to Contact Creek we caught these cast after cast. I lost count at 25. 

They're basically like 4 lb brook trout and just as pretty.There were lots of big Grayling in the stream but the Char were far more aggressive and it was hard to get to the Grayling. Not a bad problem to have. :lol:


----------



## 2PawsRiver

Would be nice to be able to catch a Grayling without having to go to Alaska, but then again it's always good to have an excuse to go to Alaska, speaking of which.....in case your interested Paul we have begun planning next years trip to Alaska, going to be a couples trip around the end of August for around 11 days. Meeting with some guys on the Manistee this week for some Salmon fishing and iron out the details.

Here is my very first.........didn't black out the background, wasn't to concerned about giving away my secret spot...


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

2PawsRiver said:


> Would be nice to be able to catch a Grayling without having to go to Alaska, but then again it's always good to have an excuse to go to Alaska, speaking of which.....in case your interested Paul we have begun planning next years trip to Alaska, going to be a couples trip around the end of August for around 11 days. Meeting with some guys on the Manistee this week for some Salmon fishing and iron out the details.
> 
> Here is my very first.........didn't black out the background, wasn't to concerned about giving away my secret spot...


Mark, really nice Grayling. That looks like Peter's Creek.

Thanks for the invite to join your trip. My wife Erin loves Alaska and we would be in except that I am going with my buddy back to Naknek River Camp in early September. I have no doubt that your wife will love Alaska. I am guessing that Sharon will want to return and if you do another couples trip we would be very interested.

Did you make it to Talkeetna? It's about an hour from the Forks Bar and is a fun town with shops and good bar food if your group heads back up to Peter's Creek.

Did you ever run into the dog that hangs out at Peter's Creek? If your Grayling pic above is from Peter's Creek, this picture was taken just downstream.

Good luck on the Manistee. Fish have been huge this year.


----------



## 2PawsRiver

I know the dog and I recognize the bridge.

Should rat you out to Erin, "He could be taking you to Alaska, but he's going with his Buddy.":evil:

We didn't make Talkeetna, but passed it on the way in. We will stop this time...since we're taking wives, it's a fishing/touristing trip.

Sorry Wellston, didn't mean to hijack your thread.

Would be great to see Grayling back, they are a beautiful fish, but honestly, to me they were horrible table fare.


----------



## woolybug25

I am probably going to catch hell for this, but oh well. 

I don't think that they should be using Federal funds from the NATIVE Species Grants program for this. This may show an oversight from our friends at US Fish and Wildlife. See, while Michigan certianly had grayling long ago, they were an entirely different subspecies from Arctic Grayling. Michigan has never had a native population of Arctic Grayling, only Michigan Grayling which are genetically different, and also exctinct. 

Those funds should only be going to agencies attempting to reestablish native species to their traditional waters. There is a difference between these two subspecies genetically. Trout Unlimited did this same thing in Denver with Cutthroat Trout. They planted them in the Platte in Denver (which was dumb to begin with), and instead of taking the advice to plant the sturdier brown trout, they decided that they wanted to only plant native fish.... and proceeded to plant Snake River Cuts.... Snake River Cuts are obviously native to Wyoming, not Colorado.


----------



## Jackster1

woolybug25 said:


> I am probably going to catch hell for this, but oh well.
> 
> I don't think that they should be using Federal funds from the NATIVE Species Grants program for this. This may show an oversight from our friends at US Fish and Wildlife. See, while Michigan certianly had grayling long ago, they were an entirely different subspecies from Arctic Grayling. Michigan has never had a native population of Arctic Grayling, only Michigan Grayling which are genetically different, and also exctinct.
> 
> Those funds should only be going to agencies attempting to reestablish native species to their traditional waters. There is a difference between these two subspecies genetically. Trout Unlimited did this same thing in Denver with Cutthroat Trout. They planted them in the Platte in Denver (which was dumb to begin with), and instead of taking the advice to plant the sturdier brown trout, they decided that they wanted to only plant native fish.... and proceeded to plant Snake River Cuts.... Snake River Cuts are obviously native to Wyoming, not Colorado.


Species means any grayling correct? You then go on to mention subspecies. Call me a anti-purist but I'm good with any as long as they're grayling.
This reminds me of a T.U. chapter here in the south who, in their efforts to prove they really like brook trout raided miles of trout water and threw every brown and rainbow trout they netted on the bank to die. This didn't go over to well to the average trout fisher who didn't mind being surprized with a nice, sizeable brown trout every so often. These fish killers eventually got the pet name of Trout LIMITED. I've fished a few of the streams in that area since then with friends but with the threat that if I ever told certain people about the particular streams we fished I would be hung by my thumbs.

The grayling I pictured were from Montana. Generally not easy pickins because of competition with the cuttys, bows and white fish from what I've been told.


----------



## Wellston

2PawsRiver said:


> Sorry Wellston, didn't mean to hijack your thread.
> 
> Would be great to see Grayling back, they are a beautiful fish, but honestly, to me they were horrible table fare.


No problem Mark! Love the Alaska pictures. It has been to long since I've been there. Need to get up there again.
Jim


----------



## woolybug25

Jackster1 said:


> Species means any grayling correct? You then go on to mention subspecies. Call me a anti-purist but I'm good with any as long as they're grayling.
> This reminds me of a T.U. chapter here in the south who, in their efforts to prove they really like brook trout raided miles of trout water and threw every brown and rainbow trout they netted on the bank to die. This didn't go over to well to the average trout fisher who didn't mind being surprized with a nice, sizeable brown trout every so often. These fish killers eventually got the pet name of Trout LIMITED. I've fished a few of the streams in that area since then with friends but with the threat that if I ever told certain people about the particular streams we fished I would be hung by my thumbs.
> 
> The grayling I pictured were from Montana. Generally not easy pickins because of competition with the cuttys, bows and white fish from what I've been told.


The whole point of the the funds are to reintroduce native fish back to their habitat. Arctic Grayling were never native to Michigan. I'm not saying that they couldn't be fun, just that these funds shouldn't be used for them, because it doesn't serve the purpose the funds were designed for. Which was reintrocing the EXACT species back into their traditional waters. For example, Michigan could start introducing Dolly Varden and say that Char (brookies are part of this family) are native to Michigan. This is obviously deceptive considering we have never had Dollies in MI and they are a completely different subspecies of char than our native brook trout. 

I completely disagree with you that if you are going to reintroduce fish, that you shouldn't get rid of the non-native species. What's the point of trying to reintroduce a native species if you don't remove the invasive fish that pushed them out to begin with?

As far as grayling in MT, the fish you named (sans the rainbows of course) are just as native to MT as grayling are, so I really dont think that after centuries of co-habitating, they now are posing a problem. So that isn't correct. You are correct with the rainbows though, they are completely non native to MT.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Several years ago the DNR made an attempt to plant grayling in several UP lakes and the St Marys river. I believe that this was a Canadian variety of grayling. Anyway they did not take and are all gone, most fisherman never knew that they were here.


----------



## Boozer

woolybug25 said:


> The whole point of the the funds are to reintroduce native fish back to their habitat. Arctic Grayling were never native to Michigan. I'm not saying that they couldn't be fun, just that these funds shouldn't be used for them, because it doesn't serve the purpose the funds were designed for. Which was reintrocing the EXACT species back into their traditional waters. For example, Michigan could start introducing Dolly Varden and say that Char (brookies are part of this family) are native to Michigan. This is obviously deceptive considering we have never had Dollies in MI and they are a completely different subspecies of char than our native brook trout.
> 
> I completely disagree with you that if you are going to reintroduce fish, that you shouldn't get rid of the non-native species. What's the point of trying to reintroduce a native species if you don't remove the invasive fish that pushed them out to begin with?
> 
> As far as grayling in MT, the fish you named (sans the rainbows of course) are just as native to MT as grayling are, so I really dont think that after centuries of co-habitating, they now are posing a problem. So that isn't correct. You are correct with the rainbows though, they are completely non native to MT.


You are correct, they are a different strain of Grayling, BUT if they were able to take hold, eventually they would evolve to be our own strain.

I would rather see money spent on this than thousands upon thousands of dollars continuously dumped into creating non-self sustaining populations of non-native Salmon here, wouldn't you?


----------



## woolybug25

Boozer said:


> You are correct, they are a different strain of Grayling, BUT if they were able to take hold, eventually they would evolve to be our own strain.
> 
> I would rather see money spent on this than thousands upon thousands of dollars continuously dumped into creating non-self sustaining populations of non-native Salmon here, wouldn't you?


I don't care if they want to try to plant them, I just don't think that Michigan should use the US Fish and Wildlife NATIVE Species Grants program for this. Those funds are suppose to be used for reintroducing native fish back into their traditional waters. For example, they are currently used for Greenback Cuts in CO, Golden Trout in CA & Wind River Range WY, etc. Those specific subspecies are struggling to maintain their traditional hold in their native waters and helping them survive is the purpose of the funds. 

I just don't think that in today's climate of limiting federal funds, we (as a country, mind) should be using the limited amount of Native Species Grants left in order to plant a non-native fish into marginal waters in which they never resided in the first place. These grants were never intended to be used as a science experiment to see what species can be introduced into new waters, they were created to protect/reintroduce native fish in their native habitat. 

If Michigan wants Grayling, they should pay for it themselves... maybe even with funds they use for currently for Kings.


----------



## Boozer

woolybug25 said:


> I don't care if they want to try to plant them, I just don't think that Michigan should use the US Fish and Wildlife NATIVE Species Grants program for this. Those funds are suppose to be used for reintroducing native fish back into their traditional waters. For example, they are currently used for Greenback Cuts in CO, Golden Trout in CA & Wind River Range WY, etc. Those specific subspecies are struggling to maintain their traditional hold in their native waters and helping them survive is the purpose of the funds.
> 
> I just don't think that in today's climate of limiting federal funds, we (as a country, mind) should be using the limited amount of Native Species Grants left in order to plant a non-native fish into marginal waters in which they never resided in the first place. These grants were never intended to be used as a science experiment to see what species can be introduced into new waters, they were created to protect/reintroduce native fish in their native habitat.
> 
> If Michigan wants Grayling, they should pay for it themselves... maybe even with funds they use for currently for Kings.


It's that specific tribe who obtained the funding, to my knowledge the State of Michigan had nothing to do with it, I could be wrong though...

I agree in some ways and disagree in others, if the money makes helping out any native species to once again roam in their native range, I am all for it, even if that means starting with a different sub species and in theory, eventually coming up with your own native sub species down the road, it's worth it...

Basically, I am all for any trend which takes away our fisheries management focus on continuing to support non-native species and not supporting the native species nearly as much...


----------



## bborow2501

I have seen this news around for a bit now, and the article you posted leaves out some important facts here is the original article before some facts were lost in the telephone game the news has been playing read "to study the potential for reintroducing the grayling" I would not get all up in arms about this since they are simply doing a feasibility study to see if it is even worth spending the money. http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2011/august/story44680.html


----------



## Robert Holmes

Boozer said:


> You are correct, they are a different strain of Grayling, BUT if they were able to take hold, eventually they would evolve to be our own strain.
> 
> I would rather see money spent on this than thousands upon thousands of dollars continuously dumped into creating non-self sustaining populations of non-native Salmon here, wouldn't you?


 Wether some people like them or not they are here to stay. The kings may cost a little money to raise them (less than 2% of the kings we caught in 2011 were clipped) but they generate a ton of money for Michigan. Right now Michigan needs the money so they keep planting Kings. I cannot picture a charter boat going 20 miles out on Lake Michigan to catch grayling off from lead core or riggers.


----------



## Boozer

Robert Holmes said:


> Wether some people like them or not they are here to stay. The kings may cost a little money to raise them (less than 2% of the kings we caught in 2011 were clipped) but they generate a ton of money for Michigan. Right now Michigan needs the money so they keep planting Kings. I cannot picture a charter boat going 20 miles out on Lake Michigan to catch grayling off from lead core or riggers.


So we should throw the environment under the proverbial tires to ensure a few dozen guys keep their jobs? Jobs which utilize public resources to ensure their own personal profits, then hold those public resources/environments hostage so they can continue to make a buck?

Think about it...


----------



## iceassasin

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Mark, really nice Grayling. That looks like Peter's Creek.
> 
> 
> Did you ever run into the dog that hangs out at Peter's Creek? If your Grayling pic above is from Peter's Creek, this picture was taken just downstream.
> 
> Good luck on the Manistee. Fish have been huge this year.


That pic really brings me back. Stood in almost that same spot catching Grayling on a mosquito dry it seemed like every cast. Never had an experience like it since. My buddy was catching silvers but I couldn't put down the fly rod. That is one of those days I wont forget. Thanks for taking me back.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

iceassasin said:


> That pic really brings me back. Stood in almost that same spot catching Grayling on a mosquito dry it seemed like every cast. Never had an experience like it since. My buddy was catching silvers but I couldn't put down the fly rod. That is one of those days I wont forget. Thanks for taking me back.


My pleasure.  If you look at the profile for 2PawsRiver he has links to his Alaska video, some of which was taken on Peter's Creek.

I wish I could say I slayed em on that creek. I think this is truly the largest fish I caught there. My wife hooked two nice rainbows, both threw the hook.

No complaints, though. Alaska is a dream come true.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

This original thread was about Grayling being reintroduced to Michigan.

I wish they'd manage the Little Manistee as a world class steelhead river. Get rid of the salmon. The browns and brookies can stay but if they closed the weir for 5 years straight to prevent any salmon from entering and then eliminated the salmon to focus on steelhead... my oh my. 

Get rid of the stupid egg harvesting. Let the steelhead have that river. Guys would go crazy to fish Michigan's trophy steelhead river. It's the only river that you can't fish in the middle of July in sneakers and shorts cuz it's so cold. It would be incredible if the stupid salmon smolts were eliminated from competing with the steelhead.

Just my $.02.


----------



## diztortion

FYI, the salmon smolts have migrated out by May/June.


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

diztortion said:


> FYI, the salmon smolts have migrated out by May/June.


Then why do I catch them on dry flies in August?


----------



## Boozer

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> Then why do I catch them on dry flies in August?


Likely Coho smolts....

Why should we take a river and manage it as a World Class Invasive Species Fishery?

If any changes in that nature are made, it should be to manage it as a World Class Nursery for Native Species...


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Likely Coho smolts....
> 
> Why should we take a river and manage it as a World Class Invasive Species Fishery?
> 
> If any changes in that nature are made, it should be to manage it as a World Class Nursery for Native Species...


What Invasive Species? Asian carp make it there already?

What native species? White sucker? Redhorse?


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> What Invasive Species? Asian carp make it there already?
> 
> What native species? White sucker? Redhorse?


Brook Trout for starters and yes, any other native species which naturally inhabited the river. I mean regardless of our personal preferences in what we like to fish for, any species native to a watershed should get the priority in making sure they are not hindered in any manner by species which were introduced here...

Steelhead and Salmon are invasive species...

Basically what I was getting at is this, why should Salmon "an invasive species" be ranked higher or protected anymore than Steelhead "yet another invasive species"...


----------



## OH-YEAH!!!

Boozer said:


> Likely Coho smolts....
> 
> Why should we take a river and manage it as a World Class Invasive Species Fishery?
> 
> If any changes in that nature are made, it should be to manage it as a World Class Nursery for Native Species...


There is no evidence that Brook Trout were ever found in the Little. Atlantic Salmon didn't make it above Niagara Falls.

There may have been Grayling. However, Grayling are not hardy, don't fight well and would likely NOT result in a destination fishery.

The Little Manistee is kind of an afterthought. It gets used as an egg factory.

Why not make it a designated Steelhead fishery? Guys go nuts to catch Steelhead and the Little is cold enough and has dozens of miles of spawning gravel.

Stock some really hardy Steelhead strain, close it to fishing for 5 years so the Steelhead can get established. 

I think it would be a huge winner.


----------



## Boozer

OH-YEAH!!! said:


> There is no evidence that Brook Trout were ever found in the Little. Atlantic Salmon didn't make it above Niagara Falls.
> 
> There may have been Grayling. However, Grayling are not hardy, don't fight well and would likely NOT result in a destination fishery.
> 
> The Little Manistee is kind of an afterthought. It gets used as an egg factory.
> 
> Why not make it a designated Steelhead fishery? Guys go nuts to catch Steelhead and the Little is cold enough and has dozens of miles of spawning gravel.
> 
> Stock some really hardy Steelhead strain, close it to fishing for 5 years so the Steelhead can get established.
> 
> I think it would be a huge winner.


Creating a destination fishery should not be the be all end all of conserving our natural resources...

Now don't get me wrong, as long as these non-natives don't do damage to our native fisheries, I could care less and I think the MDNR balances this quite well, but if these fish ever began to do damage to even a native Sucker's population, they should be put on the back burner and the native species should be protected, even if it isn't some destination anglers dream fish. We can't be selfish when it comes to Mother Nature...

A hardy strain of steelhead? Seriously? Ever heard of the Little Manistee Strain of steelhead? :lol:

It already is a huge winner bud...

It could likely use a longer closed season on the Little Man, but again, steelhead are put & take as they aren't native, there was a day where that statement would have upset me greatly, but the reality is, that's all they are. They wouldn't be here if they weren't stocked annually, sure many rivers would hold on and continue to produce fish, but numbers would go down and eventually, it would be a very limited fishery...

No, none of our Trout were native to that river, but at least Brookies were native to the area, of course if you could bring Grayling back, it would be great, but you would have to poison the river in order to get rid of all the Brown Trout, which I hardly forsee them doing. Then you have the whole issue of the original strain of Grayling being long gone. Just leave it as it is...


----------



## REG

Boozer said:


> Steelhead and Salmon are invasive species...
> 
> Basically what I was getting at is this, why should Salmon "an invasive species" be ranked higher or protected anymore than Steelhead "yet another invasive species"...


USFWS defines invasive species as, " organisms that are introduced into a non-native ecosystem and which cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment or human health." 

Please define how salmon/steelhead caused, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, enviroment or human health. Keep in mind that, especially with salmon, their is some overlap of these species within their natural range, where both flourish in the presence of each other quite nicely. 

Oh Yeah! has addressed that brook trout are non-native in the Little Manistee. In fact, by historical accounts, you might actually have to consider them invasive in the Little Manistee.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> USFWS defines invasive species as, " organisms that are introduced into a non-native ecosystem and which cause, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment or human health."
> 
> Please define how salmon/steelhead caused, or are likely to cause, harm to the economy, enviroment or human health. Keep in mind that, especially with salmon, their is some overlap of these species within their natural range, where both flourish in the presence of each other quite nicely.
> 
> Oh Yeah! has addressed that brook trout are non-native in the Little Manistee. In fact, by historical accounts, you might actually have to consider them invasive in the Little Manistee.


Feds consider Steelhead & Salmon invasive, so take it for what it's worth. They changed their actual term for them to non-indigenous sport fish instead of calling them invasive, but that was simply to put a more friendly term on the fish which were brought here. How could they justify spending millions on supporting invasive species stocking programs, think about it...

I can give you one example easily of how Salmon cause harm, they displace native species like Walleye, Smallmouth, etc... from their habitats once they enter a river, they push them out of the prime holding lies where the majority of food is present and while it doesn't destroy their populations, it does indeed effect native species, to what extent, we have no idea as there has never been such a study...

Don't forget, these non-natives have the ability to carry things like VHS and not be effected by them, therefore, they are essentially dispersing a virus which kills native fish...

I could keep going on and on, but not going to spend the time, those two reasons alone make them invasive species by definition...

I don't care that they are here, you know that, but I simply was saying, how do you rank one non-native over another "not including things like Gobies, Quaga Mussels, etc...", they are all non-natives and should rank behind natives in terms of conservation efforts, don't you agree?

So back to my entire point, when a guy says we need to remove one non-native in order to promote yet another non-natives population in a watershed, why go through all that work when neither one of them are native? Why not take that effort and promote a native fishery, or just simply leave it alone?


----------



## Rasputin

I ran into a guy many years ago that bragged about how easy it was to catch grayling. He was talking about fishing for them on the Manistee River above Hedenopyl where the DNR tried to reestablish them. Even if the evnironmental factors would allow for the reintroduction and success of grayling, slob fisherman would likely make sure the project failed. This idiot bragged of filling his boat with the things!


----------



## Boozer

Just one other thing...

It is not known whether Brook Trout were ever native to the Little Manistee, historical accounts show no signs of them, but it doesn't mean they never existed, there is no proof either way, period...

Kind of funny they were native to streams not far from the Little Manistee, yet never were there? Certainly not saying they were, but it does make one wonder. In the grand scheme of things, not important though...

One could guess that the LM being such perfect habitat for the Grayling, the Brookies were pushed out of the river in any real numbers and out-competed. Just a guess though, just like when people say they never were there, but it was never actually electro-shocked until the 1950's after a multitude of things had hurt the health of the eco-system. So there will always be that possibility...

The truth, we will never know, one thing is for sure, Brook Trout would be a much more Native species than Steelhead or Salmon. 

Like I said though, my point was never to say steelhead & Salmon should be dropped, I merely said, why do away with one to support another. Was no intention to start an argument. Some would say the Summer runs of Chinook that river receives are very unique and should be protected as it's the closest thing we have to a Michigan King Salmon strain. Others would say, screw the Salmon, we want more steelhead. As long as neither one are hurting the Native species though, why change anything...

This whole ordeal with the Pucker Street Dam and my research, it's amazing how much speculation there is in many things that are considered written in stone. One biologist claims Salmon running the river will have no effect on the resident fish, another says they do. My guess is, they do, but it's minimal. The list could go on and on of interesting stuff to ponder and discuss...

I have taken a lot of notes over the years here on the Joe and the migration of the resident Native species is without a doubt effected by the runs of Salmon, they without a doubt misplace the resident fish in the river, whether it's good or bad, who knows, but taking a resident fish and making it hold in another location in the river than the one it prefers, well it's definitely not natural at the least...

As you can tell, slow day here at the office...


----------



## Boozer

Just to throw another monkey wrench in the mix...

One Friend of mine has stated, and you can't argue it in all honesty...

A fish that was native here 100 years ago most certainly was native to a different environment than what we live in now, so just how native is it???

It may be native to that area on the map, but is it native to the current state of the ecosystem, where do you stop?

Man this is killing me, what a gorgeous day outside today, we should all be out fishing...


----------



## REG

Kory....the Feds? Come on....you know that's a stretch. Great Lakes salmon/steelhead aren't classified as invasive because they don't fit the definition. Additionally, if they were, wouldn't "the Feds" be compelled to intervene per the National Invasive Species Act of 1996? If they were "invasive", why would "the Feds" allow Illinois and Wisconsin to obtain rainbow eggs (Arlees and Kamloops) for stocking into Lake Michigan?

As far as impact on walleye/SM/pike, that door definitely swings both ways and you know also that. They seem to be flourishing fairly well, in part thanks to the abundance of salmonid flesh, both stocked and feral, every spring.

Getting back to the Little Manistee, there is no account of brook trout historically, yet there is ample account of Grayling being abundant and of brook trout being introduced(stocked) into that drainage. I don't think we can look past the historical accounting with supposition. As far as brook trout/grayling interaction, consider where in this wide world do these two species naturally co-exist and flourish side by side? I really can't think of anyplace. Maybe there was in an earlier time within the state? I can't comment on that. However, seems to me that brook trout outcompete grayling as opposed to the other way around.

In addition to your last statement regarding changed enviroment, it won't get any disagreement with me. That is why we have wild brown trout flourishing, yet can't get grayling established, or why steelhead and chinook salmon can flourish (relatively) and lake trout restoration efforts have failed.


----------



## Boozer

REG said:


> Kory....the Feds? Come on....you know that's a stretch. Great Lakes salmon/steelhead aren't classified as invasive because they don't fit the definition. Additionally, if they were, wouldn't "the Feds" be compelled to intervene per the National Invasive Species Act of 1996? If they were "invasive", why would "the Feds" allow Illinois and Wisconsin to obtain rainbow eggs (Arlees and Kamloops) for stocking into Lake Michigan?
> 
> As far as impact on walleye/SM/pike, that door definitely swings both ways and you know also that. They seem to be flourishing fairly well, in part thanks to the abundance of salmonid flesh, both stocked and feral, every spring.
> 
> Getting back to the Little Manistee, there is no account of brook trout historically, yet there is ample account of Grayling being abundant and of brook trout being introduced(stocked) into that drainage. I don't think we can look past the historical accounting with supposition. As far as brook trout/grayling interaction, consider where in this wide world do these two species naturally co-exist and flourish side by side? I really can't think of anyplace. Maybe there was in an earlier time within the state? I can't comment on that. However, seems to me that brook trout outcompete grayling as opposed to the other way around.
> 
> In addition to your last statement regarding changed enviroment, it won't get any disagreement with me. That is why we have wild brown trout flourishing, yet can't get grayling established, or why steelhead and chinook salmon can flourish (relatively) and lake trout restoration efforts have failed.


Stretch, yes, but still true. I think I made it very clear they were not of the same caliber as invasive species like "Mussels, Gobies, etc..."

I agree, you can't look past the fact that historical data shows they were not native and that they don't seem to do well together, BUT, there is always that chance, there is also the chance that by now, even if the Grayling had not been wiped out, Brookies would have found their way to the LM anyway and pushed them out or co-existed with them or just maybe the Grayling had such a strong hold their, they were able to resist the Brookies take over in that river, so many questions....

As far as native species co-existing with migratory non-native species, it does have some give & take on both sides, but when lets say a species like a Smallmouth Bass is pushed out of it's prime feeding habitat by a large number of big Kings during a time of year that is so vital to their survival through the Winter, it may be detrimental to them. It certainly isn't natural is all I ever said...


----------



## woolybug25

REG said:


> Getting back to the Little Manistee, there is no account of brook trout historically, yet there is ample account of Grayling being abundant and of brook trout being introduced(stocked) into that drainage. I don't think we can look past the historical accounting with supposition. *As far as brook trout/grayling interaction, consider where in this wide world do these two species naturally co-exist and flourish side by side? I really can't think of anyplace. *Maybe there was in an earlier time within the state? I can't comment on that. However, seems to me that brook trout outcompete grayling as opposed to the other way around.


I cant think of anywhere where they _naturally_ coexist, but that has more to do with the geography of their traditional habitats being different. We do have a couple streams that I know of here in CO where they coexist though. We still want to get rid of the brook trout for the sake of the greenbacks, but they don't seem to effect the grayling. The Grayling and Greenbacks have survived in these waters naturally for hundreds of years. 

Obviously grayling aren't going to be able to compete well with most trout species, but brook trout and grayling actually have many of the same environmental tolerances. It would then come down to food and predators, both of which, would be problems with browns/rainbows.


----------



## Boozer

Here's something to ponder...

If it was proven we could bring Arctic Grayling to the Little Manistee and as long as we wiped out all non-native residents of that river, they would survive just fine, would people go for it?

I mean, it may take hundreds of years, but eventually they would evolve to be our own strain.

Is there any difference in doing this and say, what we have done with our steelhead fishery. The Little Manistee is our own strain of steelhead after all.

When you look at it, these Grayling wouldn't be anymore native than the steelhead we have though, or would they?

This has basically been said before, but nobody has ever voiced their opinion of whether or not they would be OK with something like this. Is there really that much interest in bringing the Grayling back...


----------



## woolybug25

Boozer said:


> Here's something to ponder...
> 
> If it was proven we could bring Arctic Grayling to the Little Manistee and as long as we wiped out all non-native residents of that river, they would survive just fine, would people go for it?
> 
> I mean, it may take hundreds of years, but eventually they would evolve to be our own strain.
> 
> Is there any difference in doing this and say, what we have done with our steelhead fishery. The Little Manistee is our own strain of steelhead after all.
> 
> When you look at it, these Grayling wouldn't be anymore native than the steelhead we have though, or would they?


BINGO. I don't feel that they would be any closer to native than steelhead are. The argument that MI had grayling before is a flawed argument. Under that same argument, we could start planting Dollies and Kundzas and say they are native because their brethren Brook trout are. 

Wiping out all of the non natives from the LM to put in another non native fish would be asinine.


----------



## LumberJ

I'm not going to weigh-in on this one, but I really liked seeing the pics of other successful Grayling fishermen. They certainly aren't strong fighters, but on ultra-light gear they can still be fun. Here's a couple pics of Grayling from my last couple trips to Alaska:




























And of course the dandy from my profile pic:









While I haven't tried fly fishing yet, I'm certainly bringing a fly-rod on next year's trip! They were feeding off the surface like crazy 2 weeks back.


----------



## Boozer

Pictures like those make you want rivers full of them, very cool fish!


----------

