# Salmon and Steelhead limits



## Rainbowjack (Jul 10, 2015)

So with the major reduction in the populations shouldnt the dnr be proactive and reduce the daily limits? Just looking for opinnions and thoughts


----------



## MIfishslayer91 (Dec 24, 2013)

Same reason as why they quit stocking, they're letting them fall out. They were an invasive species the dnr put in, a new invasive is taking them out. Steelhead are doing fine though no need to change limits on those.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

What "they" should be doing is collecting and stocking about 10 million of every type of sea critter that could possibly/remotely survive in the lakes from all around the world. Let MaNature duke it out once and for all in a Battle Royale, so we do not go through this "new invasive saga" every coupld of years. Once and for all just get it over with and let MaNature tell us what should be swimming in the Great Lakes. Not like the Feds are going to quit allowing "stocking" one ballast load at a time tomorrow or something.


----------



## Rainbowjack (Jul 10, 2015)

I would disagree on the steelhead numbers. Look at thedata from the LM weir the last several years


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Reducing Salmon limits defeats the purpose of the DNR to try to find a balance between predator and prey.

If the prey rebounds the salmon will rebound naturally. We have streams and rivers with the ability to self sustain a salmon population, but the prey base in the lake is really showing in our returns. Less fish (stocking), more food for the remaining wild fish, while possibly giving the ales a chance to recover without being gobbled by tons of starving kings. 

Steelhead are doing fine according to the DNR, the Little Man returns have been pretty low, but they only count when fish are being collected or passed (weir in place). The fish that are naturally spawning there seem to have found timings to avoid the weir. I think maybe a rotational collection of fish for eggs and milt would help the steelhead as far as mixing genes and keeping viable natural reproduction. The Platte, Boardman, and Pere Marquette would be nice alternatives if they wanted to rotate brood streams. Unfortunately, this may not be fiscally the most responsible thing to do at the time because the construction and operating would be very expensive. 

I don't have the answers, only opinions, I trust the biologists have a better grip on what is happening and the direction that we need to go.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Rainbowjack said:


> I would disagree on the steelhead numbers. Look at thedata from the LM weir the last several years


With less salmon the steelhead will do very well despite more fishing pressure.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Well lets think a bout this. The idea of reduced stocking is to reduce the number of fish in the system. I would therefore think, reducing limits would be the antithesis to the goal of reducing the number of fish.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Here we go, we go from the chumming issue and segue right into reduce limits. The DNR has already stated the steelhead numbers are fine, and leave a 3 day daily limit the way it is. Guess I could say I told ya so.


----------



## Rainbowjack (Jul 10, 2015)

Thanks for the thoughts guys. I have been fishing the systems for over 30 years. I know that the numbers are down. I was just looking for input


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Ranger Ray said:


> Well lets think a bout this. The idea of reduced stocking is to reduce the number of fish in the system. I would therefore think, reducing limits would be the antithesis to the goal of reducing the number of fish.


Why not increase limits on lake trout.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I still say that our DNR needs to take a look at what Wisconsin is doing to improve the quality and quantity of their fishing and take notes. Not a single boat fishing in the straits today again. That lake trout thing is really going good.


----------



## krackshot (Feb 23, 2010)

I wouldn't leave my house to catch a lake trout!! They need to quit stocking so many fish that hardly any one wants to eat or catch any how.


----------



## MIfishslayer91 (Dec 24, 2013)

Just open a bow fishing season for lake trout


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

Ranger Ray said:


> Well lets think a bout this. The idea of reduced stocking is to reduce the number of fish in the system. I would therefore think, reducing limits would be the antithesis to the goal of reducing the number of fish.


Maybe the plan is looking at a predominate self sustained fishery.. accomplished by mostly wild naturalized stocks successfully spawning. LOTS of tribs are very viable Chinook nurseries. Lowering the cost of maintaining a population would be cost effective.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Maybe. Up to this point the conversation has been about declining biomass as to planting numbers. If it is a goal of the DNR to go all natural and native, they should tell us. Our DNR has done a good job creating a put and take system, where without it, there would not be many fish to target. Why they would all of a sudden want to eliminate that and go all natural and deviate from what has been basically a policy for all my life, is beyond me. I am sure the golf courses would welcome an influx of money.


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

I agree Ranger Ray, the DNR have done a great job in my book. The prior status quo has been a constant over my entire life as well. Things are changing though.. it's a fine 'balance' line to achieve and I believe it's been done quite well. But options are narrowing.. will be surprised if we ever see anything resembling the glory days (Chinook / Coho) again though. I never said "*all* natural and native." Only that by potentially allowing tribs to produce to their carrying capacity / maximum returns and supplement / stock form there could be economical for our fisheries budget.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Agree shotgunner. The DNR wants to allow areas that can sustain themselves to do that and to repurpose stocking funds to other areas for stocking or habitat restoration. A lot of people are having trouble wrapping their heads around the idea and have come up with some pretty crazy conspiracy theories in other threads. What it boils down to its that they will continue to stock silver in places that have basically no nat repo but they will quit in places where there is enough nat repo to sustain the fishery. Heck, they quit planting salmon in the Joe a few years ago and trout in many of our southern streams so it isn't like this is something new.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

*"Massive reduction in population."*

What has Jay and everyone been talking about in the other thread. The lack of forage base and the reason for reducing fish numbers. Let me say that again, to reduce numbers. Why lower limits when we want to reduce numbers? No reason to. May even be a reason to increase them


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

Ranger Ray; I never meant to suggest or imply that limits should be lowered. Only that it could be efficient to capitalize on our NR tributaries in achieving whatever balance our field biologist determine for best plan. 

I haven't been active on here for a while, have not seen the "other thread" containing Jay's comments. Please provide a link and I'll try to review.

Thanks


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Got it! All good.

Here is the link:

821 replies. Good luck with that. LOL.


http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/more-chinook-salmon-stocking-cuts-proposed.567335/


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Also this thread which is much shorter but includes both why the DNR does what it does and some of the more extreme views against their mission. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...riffle-construction-below-allegan-dam.569414/


----------



## shotgunner (Jan 15, 2003)

Thanks fellas.. 5 pages into the link RR provided.. only 55 more to go  It is an eye opener already on a couple fronts.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Part of the problem is that when the DNR plants fish a large percentage of them are dumped into the SW part of the state exactly where they want the alewife to rebound.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This brings up a good point, you can actually take this line of thinking and combine with the trouble with the NRC. Remember, it isn't really the DNR that controls anything with our fisheries. In past threads there are those who have stated we need to have "social" thinking into the process of what should be done with our outdoor pursuits. Here is exactly why the "social" thinking is wrong. Basically we have here a cry for more salmon, it may not appear that way in the beginning, but it is what it is. Now, with the logic of our illustrious NRC, because the people want it, they should have it, and to heck with the science that says we can't sustain it. Just as some other issues, if you cry long enough, and loud enough, you'll get what you want. Perhaps we should start a crying campaign to have more salmon planted, what the science says has nothing to do with it. Here, let's try it together, PLANT MORE SALMON PLANT MORE SALMON.......:banghead3


----------



## Rainbowjack (Jul 10, 2015)

toto said:


> This brings up a good point, you can actually take this line of thinking and combine with the trouble with the NRC. Remember, it isn't really the DNR that controls anything with our fisheries. In past threads there are those who have stated we need to have "social" thinking into the process of what should be done with our outdoor pursuits. Here is exactly why the "social" thinking is wrong. Basically we have here a cry for more salmon, it may not appear that way in the beginning, but it is what it is. Now, with the logic of our illustrious NRC, because the people want it, they should have it, and to heck with the science that says we can't sustain it. Just as some other issues, if you cry long enough, and loud enough, you'll get what you want. Perhaps we should start a crying campaign to have more salmon planted, what the science says has nothing to do with it. Here, let's try it together, PLANT MORE SALMON PLANT MORE SALMON.......:banghead3



So according to what you are implying there should be ZERO planting of ANY fish species in ANY Michigan lakes or rivers. Fine, lets go that route. While we are at it lets exterminate every wolf that has been introduced, relocated or protected. Let's kill every Elk that is also here as a result of the reintroduction process and throw Moose and pheasants in there too


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Rainbowjack said:


> So according to what you are implying there should be ZERO planting of ANY fish species in ANY Michigan lakes or rivers. Fine, lets go that route. While we are at it lets exterminate every wolf that has been introduced, relocated or protected. Let's kill every Elk that is also here as a result of the reintroduction process and throw Moose and pheasants in there too


You do realize that the DNR is trying to maintain a salmon fishery by cutting salmon stocking, right?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Rainbow, let's not over think this, no one said there should no stocking, never even implied it. What I am saying is if it can't be sustained, why would you plant it? In this case, we've all known for years the salmon fishery has changed. They've gotten smaller, and smaller. That's a signal to the DNR that something is wrong, in this case it's the food base, there isn't any, or at least enough. Steelhead is a totally different matter altogether. Anyways, what I am saying is this: IF, even a small segement of the people were to approach the NRC, and cry long enough loud enough to have more salmon stocked, they would apparantly do it. After all it's what the people want, to heck with the science. As for the wolf, I have no opinion on that, I have no working knowledge of it, however, if the science says there can be a limited hunt, or that there should be, then fine. But this actually goes right to my point: If the anti's go to every NRC meeting for months on end, and cry and moan about the wolf, I would suspect the NRC would do exactly what they want, and again in this case, I'm talking about those who want the wolf protected.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Trout King said:


> You do realize that the DNR is trying to maintain a salmon fishery by cutting salmon stocking, right?


No need to cut salmon, why not raise coho which are not dependent upon alewife and plant them in Lake Superior. By changing fish planting locations you can have great fishing in other parts of the state that may have been neglected for years. They could plant lake trout on some of the inland lakes. The Ontario MNR quit planting kings in Huron years ago and moved that plant over to L Ontario.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> No need to cut salmon, why not raise coho which are not dependent upon alewife and plant them in Lake Superior. By changing fish planting locations you can have great fishing in other parts of the state that may have been neglected for years. They could plant lake trout on some of the inland lakes. The Ontario MNR quit planting kings in Huron years ago and moved that plant over to L Ontario.


They plant more fish where there are more people to utilize them. Cost effectiveness. The coho plants are remaining pretty high where they have usually planted them. I guess I should have specified "Chinook Salmon".


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

toto said:


> Rainbow, let's not over think this, no one said there should no stocking, never even implied it. What I am saying is if it can't be sustained, why would you plant it? In this case, we've all known for years the salmon fishery has changed. They've gotten smaller, and smaller. That's a signal to the DNR that something is wrong, in this case it's the food base, there isn't any, or at least enough. Steelhead is a totally different matter altogether. Anyways, what I am saying is this: IF, even a small segement of the people were to approach the NRC, and cry long enough loud enough to have more salmon stocked, they would apparantly do it. After all it's what the people want, to heck with the science. As for the wolf, I have no opinion on that, I have no working knowledge of it, however, if the science says there can be a limited hunt, or that there should be, then fine. But this actually goes right to my point: If the anti's go to every NRC meeting for months on end, and cry and moan about the wolf, I would suspect the NRC would do exactly what they want, and again in this case, I'm talking about those who want the wolf protected.


I have generally always advocated for this type of approach as well. Unfortunately the NRC, as well as our local DNR biologists, have frequently ignored this logic. For me, the biggest example of how a very small, but very powerful lobby can influence statewide fishing laws is the BASS tournament crowd. These bozos have somehow, someway convinced the DNR and NRC that fishing to fish that are actively spawning is no big deal!?!? The biologically correct rule would have been to allow pre-spawn, or heck, year-round bassing, but then close from late April, all of May and first half of June, at least in Northern lower and UP. But NOPE, the bass bubbas were determined to get their fish, so now small lakes like Big Platte end up with tournaments that rape the smallmouth beds for 3 weekends in row -which means basically 5 weeks of hardcore fishing as they need to pattern the lake before every tourney. But the DNR has basically no response even though we've taken many photos of the dead (failed revival) females just off the boat launch after the 'live' release weigh-ins. The fact they try to revive tournament fish at all is sad - but to have it happen to the largest breeding females of a population is obviously gonna be detrimental - anyway - that's one example of how jacked up things have gotten....

Then there is the coho debacle - SOMEBODY explain to me the logic of dumping nearly 1 freaking million coho smolts down the tiny Platte River every single year - and then they try and tell me this doesn't jack up the in-stream fishery, for which they have NO concern because it does not generate any $ the way the failed yo-yo experiment _used_ to... of course there has not been a coho return with fishing for probably 15 years or more... but no matter - they keep planting them by the 100's of thousands and probably will never stop.....  

Robert - there are already very well established populations of wild coho with stable returns in several Lake Superior tribs that currently receive very little pressure, compared to what we deal with down here - there is almost NO pressure, absent you and maybe 2 other dudes.... there is no justification for that fishery to get more of the expensive smolts - besides - I'd be very concerned about impacts to your wild fishery once you start stocking hatchery smolts!! The Platte steelie numbers have tanked since they started stocking it with lil M strain about 5 years ago...


----------



## gillhunter (Apr 23, 2010)

There is a point where the natural runs are greatly reduced due to overfishing. Even though the focus has been to reduce numbers (but plant MORE????? lakers......), the crowds are going to rape the natural runs......


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Benzie Rover said:


> I have generally always advocated for this type of approach as well. Unfortunately the NRC, as well as our local DNR biologists, have frequently ignored this logic. For me, the biggest example of how a very small, but very powerful lobby can influence statewide fishing laws is the BASS tournament crowd. These bozos have somehow, someway convinced the DNR and NRC that fishing to fish that are actively spawning is no big deal!?!? The biologically correct rule would have been to allow pre-spawn, or heck, year-round bassing, but then close from late April, all of May and first half of June, at least in Northern lower and UP. But NOPE, the bass bubbas were determined to get their fish, so now small lakes like Big Platte end up with tournaments that rape the smallmouth beds for 3 weekends in row -which means basically 5 weeks of hardcore fishing as they need to pattern the lake before every tourney. But the DNR has basically no response even though we've taken many photos of the dead (failed revival) females just off the boat launch after the 'live' release weigh-ins. The fact they try to revive tournament fish at all is sad - but to have it happen to the largest breeding females of a population is obviously gonna be detrimental - anyway - that's one example of how jacked up things have gotten....
> 
> Then there is the coho debacle - SOMEBODY explain to me the logic of dumping nearly 1 freaking million coho smolts down the tiny Platte River every single year - and then they try and tell me this doesn't jack up the in-stream fishery, for which they have NO concern because it does not generate any $ the way the failed yo-yo experiment _used_ to... of course there has not been a coho return with fishing for probably 15 years or more... but no matter - they keep planting them by the 100's of thousands and probably will never stop.....
> 
> Robert - there are already very well established populations of wild coho with stable returns in several Lake Superior tribs that currently receive very little pressure, compared to what we deal with down here - there is almost NO pressure, absent you and maybe 2 other dudes.... there is no justification for that fishery to get more of the expensive smolts - besides - I'd be very concerned about impacts to your wild fishery once you start stocking hatchery smolts!! The Platte steelie numbers have tanked since they started stocking it with lil M strain about 5 years ago...


Well said, and the same logic extends to hunting, we need to get rid of the NRC.


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

Benzie Rover said:


> I have generally always advocated for this type of approach as well. Unfortunately the NRC, as well as our local DNR biologists, have frequently ignored this logic. For me, the biggest example of how a very small, but very powerful lobby can influence statewide fishing laws is the BASS tournament crowd. These bozos have somehow, someway convinced the DNR and NRC that fishing to fish that are actively spawning is no big deal!?!? The biologically correct rule would have been to allow pre-spawn, or heck, year-round bassing, but then close from late April, all of May and first half of June, at least in Northern lower and UP. But NOPE, the bass bubbas were determined to get their fish, so now small lakes like Big Platte end up with tournaments that rape the smallmouth beds for 3 weekends in row -which means basically 5 weeks of hardcore fishing as they need to pattern the lake before every tourney. But the DNR has basically no response even though we've taken many photos of the dead (failed revival) females just off the boat launch after the 'live' release weigh-ins. The fact they try to revive tournament fish at all is sad - but to have it happen to the largest breeding females of a population is obviously gonna be detrimental - anyway - that's one example of how jacked up things have gotten....
> 
> Then there is the coho debacle - SOMEBODY explain to me the logic of dumping nearly 1 freaking million coho smolts down the tiny Platte River every single year - and then they try and tell me this doesn't jack up the in-stream fishery, for which they have NO concern because it does not generate any $ the way the failed yo-yo experiment _used_ to... of course there has not been a coho return with fishing for probably 15 years or more... but no matter - they keep planting them by the 100's of thousands and probably will never stop.....
> 
> Robert - there are already very well established populations of wild coho with stable returns in several Lake Superior tribs that currently receive very little pressure, compared to what we deal with down here - there is almost NO pressure, absent you and maybe 2 other dudes.... there is no justification for that fishery to get more of the expensive smolts - besides - I'd be very concerned about impacts to your wild fishery once you start stocking hatchery smolts!! The Platte steelie numbers have tanked since they started stocking it with lil M strain about 5 years ago...


Good post. You guys can dump some of those coho yearlings in Petoskey! We haven't had any "runs" up here since 2011. Even my wild trib has been minimal since 2012....on coho. Not sure why, since we have the huge plant in TC right down the road for strays to augment the naturals.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

ausable_steelhead said:


> Good post. You guys can dump some of those coho yearlings in Petoskey! We haven't had any "runs" up here since 2011. Even my wild trib has been minimal since 2012....on coho. Not sure why, since we have the huge plant in TC right down the road for strays to augment the naturals.


Right on Ausable - I'd love to share 'em , but they don't seem willing to spread 'em around. Heck - I've advocated for years to totally get rid of the yo-yo debacle in the Platte myself. If other areas want them, great, have them, just stop planting them here just to create an artificial fishery elsewhere in the state.

The main reason they keep this program intact anymore is to support a popular spring fishery for 2-3 lbers in SW lower Michigan. So.... why not plant them in the St. Joe or Big Mo!? I guess that's too logical... so, they just keep dumping them down the tiny platte.


----------



## glucas (Aug 27, 2013)

Benzie Rover said:


> Right on Ausable - I'd love to share 'em , but they don't seem willing to spread 'em around. Heck - I've advocated for years to totally get rid of the yo-yo debacle in the Platte myself. If other areas want them, great, have them, just stop planting them here just to create an artificial fishery elsewhere in the state.
> 
> The main reason they keep this program intact anymore is to support a popular spring fishery for 2-3 lbers in SW lower Michigan. So.... why not plant them in the St. Joe or Big Mo!? I guess that's too logical... so, they just keep dumping them down the tiny platte.


I don't think the Platt has seen 1,000,000 coho plant since the early 80's. I know the Platte lake assco. has complained for years to stop planting because the big returns that used to exist was causing too much pollution. I think they got their way. The Platte is a shadow of what it used to be.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

The Platte situation certainly was a mess, but I have to agree it wouldn't be a bad idea to spread these fish around a bit more. I'm not sure which lakes could do it, but why couldn't they plant them on some inland lakes? 
Swampbuck, I'm am glad that you said what you said about getting rid of the NRC. I think there are more people in this state who believe that, now, how do we go about it? Perhaps some sort of petition would do it, in fact, wouldn't surprise me if you could have a lot of support from the DNR themselves. The bottom line is, it's saddens me to see the mess this whole fishery is in, top to bottom in all of Michigan. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a perch fishery anymore, the salmon fishery is a mess, trout fishing in this state has been pretty given to the elite, and I'm quite sure the steelhead will be next on the list to get screwed up. 

IF I had my way on the Platte, which I don't, I would go back to the way it was 30 years ago. Close the fishing from the Lower Weir to the mouth from Labor Day til November 1st. I'm being selfish, I admit it, but I miss those days.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

glucas said:


> I don't think the Platt has seen 1,000,000 coho plant since the early 80's. I know the Platte lake assco. has complained for years to stop planting because the big returns that used to exist was causing too much pollution. I think they got their way. The Platte is a shadow of what it used to be.


Please check out the DNR stocking database - True, they have not quite hit 1 million in recent years - but in 2016 alone they stocked OVER 790,000 coho smolts... these are 4-6" fish.... not cheap. And very impactful to a tiny river that could never naturally reproduce at that level.... Find any other river that is stocked with any other salmonid anywhere close to this level (compared to the CFS (volume) of the river... Only PA steelies are stocked on a similar density as far as I know.... and for some reason our DNR laughs at this approach to steelhead management, yet, they are locked into this management for yo-yos on a river system that should not have to endure it.

The PLIA actually never complained about the number of smolts, although it should have, it was only concerned with the amount of phosphorus that was contributed by the returning adults - along with the amount of phosphorus from the fish poop created by the smolts... thankfully the hatchery no longer kicks out any phos to speak of since they redesigned the filtration system after the final lawsuit.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

toto said:


> The Platte situation certainly was a mess, but I have to agree it wouldn't be a bad idea to spread these fish around a bit more. I'm not sure which lakes could do it, but why couldn't they plant them on some inland lakes?
> Swampbuck, I'm am glad that you said what you said about getting rid of the NRC. I think there are more people in this state who believe that, now, how do we go about it? Perhaps some sort of petition would do it, in fact, wouldn't surprise me if you could have a lot of support from the DNR themselves. The bottom line is, it's saddens me to see the mess this whole fishery is in, top to bottom in all of Michigan. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a perch fishery anymore, the salmon fishery is a mess, trout fishing in this state has been pretty given to the elite, and I'm quite sure the steelhead will be next on the list to get screwed up.
> 
> IF I had my way on the Platte, which I don't, I would go back to the way it was 30 years ago. Close the fishing from the Lower Weir to the mouth from Labor Day til November 1st. I'm being selfish, I admit it, but I miss those days.


The NRC was a byproduct of prop G, a competing proposal used to defeat an anti bear hunting proposal.

In the process of implementing G, it became the MNREPA, basically it required sound scientific management.....Yup, just like the recent wolf hunt proposal that passed. So anyways it replaced the previous committee with what we have now. 

A committee of seven, who are appointed by the governor, are not required to have any qualifications or education related to the field. And can pretty much do what ever the hell they want, or their favored special interest's want. (Chum ban & restricted waters for example)

Can we get rid of them, probably not. But.....the legislature does have over site, and that is the only option, If you can find a legislator willing to jump into the sewer hole and play dirty. It can work. It has worked. 

That's how the evil crossbows became legal. And the 2 special interest group's controlling the crossbow ban were nearly destroyed. They could have and should have been! Especially MUCC!

So that's the way to do it. Several people here know how. Now we just need another legislator with the balls to do the right thing. And that's a tough one.


----------



## glucas (Aug 27, 2013)

swampbuck said:


> The NRC was a byproduct of prop G, a competing proposal used to defeat an anti bear hunting proposal.
> 
> In the process of implementing G, it became the MNREPA, basically it required sound scientific management.....Yup, just like the recent wolf hunt proposal that passed. So anyways it replaced the previous committee with what we have now.
> 
> ...


I kept tabs on the weir passing of coho last fall and it was just over 500, are you saying the rest are harvested at the weir like they were in the 80's? I used to drive 550 miles and stay for 2 weeks every year when I was skinny (1980) and watched the plant #'s drop buy 100,000 every year until it was down to 500,000 or so and it really showed up in my catches out in the bay casting for them. Started going to Olcott NY and giving them my money. I love the Platt area and still come up once in a while with my 28yr old son and he asks where are all the fish like in your videos back in the day? I just shrug my shoulders. I'm with you Toto. The Feds screwed that place up Nice campground but not fisher friendly any more.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

What I am saying is that about 70 percent of hatchery fish wind up being planted in Southern Michigan waters. Now throw in what Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois plants. This cannot be good for a rebound of bait fish of any kind. There is no game plan when it comes to the DNR planting fish. They plant thousands in the St Joe, Muskegon, Grand, Kazoo, Betsie, Manistee and so on. Even if they relocated 25% of these fish it might make a big difference. The "wild fishery" in Michigan all but disappeared in the 1960's when the DNR planted salmon to begin with. After that throw in a half dozen varieties of steelhead, brown trout, and lake trout. Right now the lakes are full of mutt fish since many of these have cross bred several times.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It will be interesting to see the weir counts this fall


----------



## glucas (Aug 27, 2013)

swampbuck said:


> It will be interesting to see the weir counts this fall


Could someone post the phone# for the weirs? Platte and Manistee, I had them but lost them. Thanks.


----------



## HeatherHettinger (Dec 2, 2011)

Platte River Hotline is 231-325-4611 extension 21
Little Manistee Weir Hotline is 231-775-9727 extension 6072

We are passing fish at the Lower Platte Weir, so that message has current information available. We are not in operation at the Little Manistee yet, so as of today that message only has information in regards to when we installed the weir grates for this season.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

Heather, great to see you on here! Us anglers really shouldn't take for granted just how many Dnr staff are on here providing accurate info! (Wesley, tonello, hettinger) thanks Heather, hope to see ya down south on the creek again this fall!


----------



## Bob Hunter (Jan 19, 2016)

Rainbowjack said:


> Kings will eat other things besides alewifes. Buddy cut one open he caught out of Manistee a few weeks ago and it had 14 gobies in it.


Gobies in my Kings to at Manistee.


----------



## AdamBradley (Mar 13, 2008)

The fish I killed at Manistee over labor day were all empty. Very interesting find though guys!


----------



## Lake Erie Monster (Nov 7, 2012)

"We are not in operation at the Little Manistee yet, so as of today that message only has information in regards to when we installed the weir grates for this season" - when do you plan an update? Seems like last year the same early season recording never changed. Perhaps it did but it must have been at least mid October if it was ever updated. Although an update of 3 salmon in mid October may have been a bleak message to post.


----------



## HeatherHettinger (Dec 2, 2011)

It will most likely be the first week of October when that line gets updated. The updates really only consist of important dates, how many fish we pass upstream, how many fish we spawn, and how many fish we harvest- so until we get in there to start egg take there really isn't much to report on!

If you want an idea of how many fish are sitting below the weir or what river conditions look like, its best to call the Cadillac Office at 231-775-9727 and ask to talk with Mark Tonello or Scott Heintzelman.


----------



## CaptnPea (Oct 2, 2012)

So rookie question... 2k+ let through on Monday... Approx how long to make it into the upper river... were I can toss some Skien in my back yard?


----------



## HeatherHettinger (Dec 2, 2011)

The coho on the Platte move pretty quick! A lot of it depends on water temperature- when the river is warm those fish will not hold and thus end up at the hatchery fast. For instance, we passed a small batch at the lower weir on Friday the 2nd and by 10am the next morning at least a third of the fish we let through were up at the hatchery. Now, as we get some cooler nights and the river temp goes down that will change, we will see more fish hold, but there are always some that are just inclined to head straight for the hatchery.

I can tell you that I live up by Haze Road and we didn't have very many fish up there when I took a look around this morning...So yes, depending on where your back yard is today might be a good day to try and get on some of those fish!


----------



## CaptnPea (Oct 2, 2012)

Cool thanks... come on cold weather...


----------



## kbreal15 (Nov 2, 2015)

Good discussion! Not a lot to add here, but I would like to say that I've never understood size limits on kings, and coho. With the plantings down, and lower returns( wild returns) in my area I have a self imposed limit. Shouldn't we all? 
I hit the the betsie, and the pier last weekend with some friends that have never caught a king. Fun learning experience. Threw back a 16" king off the pier. Almost got thrown off myself! Lmbo... Those fish are the ones returning correct? Why would you keep it? Granted tasty, but not the pull I'm looking for. Seen more than a couple kept. And, yes not small coho. Wouldn't higher size limits help some area's? 
Food for thought..


----------



## Stash (Jul 24, 2016)

kbreal15 said:


> Good discussion! Not a lot to add here, but I would like to say that I've never understood size limits on kings, and coho. With the plantings down, and lower returns( wild returns) in my area I have a self imposed limit. Shouldn't we all?
> I hit the the betsie, and the pier last weekend with some friends that have never caught a king. Fun learning experience. Threw back a 16" king off the pier. Almost got thrown off myself! Lmbo... Those fish are the ones returning correct? Why would you keep it? Granted tasty, but not the pull I'm looking for. Seen more than a couple kept. And, yes not small coho. Wouldn't higher size limits help some area's?
> Food for thought..


Um; you know they all die after spawning right? Most of the little ones you see are jacks that will also die after spawning; what would you expect a change in size limit to do?


----------



## kbreal15 (Nov 2, 2015)

It was a small hen. Immature eggs I would quess also. How old would you guess on year class? I have always assumed that younger year( under 3) follow but return. I've seen them drop back just like steelhead. At least in my area. Off a pier, I do not think all run, and die. I may be off base, but pretty sure you won't see 15" fish spawning. Eating, and drop back yes. 
So, we are keeping fish before they have the chance to spawn. Correct?


----------



## HeatherHettinger (Dec 2, 2011)

Stash has it right; there is a portion of the male population of both Chinook and coho, that run streams as jacks. Those jacks are fish that have sexually matured early, they will run the river, spawn, and die rather than drop back out of the river system. Some of those jacks can be pretty small, but they do try to get their genes in the gene pool! If you are observing salmon in the river, that's going to be the last stop for them; very rare to actually have immature salmon drop back out of a river, their life histories and behaviors are much different from that of a steelhead.

However fishing on the pier this time of year can yield catches of immature male and female salmon that are not going to run the river, but are instead following the school, looking for good water, or following bait. Fall can be good on the piers or trolling in a little closer for those immatures; what we catch for immature Chinook in the fall often times gives us a small glimpse at what might be out there for adults next year.


----------



## kbreal15 (Nov 2, 2015)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I've seen plenty of jacks. I was referring to the lake(pier).


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

So you think the DNR wanting to reduce the numbers of salmon in the system, should be countered by throwing the fish we catch back? I would think reducing the spawning fish would help to reduce the numbers. You know the thing the DNR wants. Unless you want to make the case, numbers angler harvest aren't considered in the big picture. If for some reason they weren't, I would bet it was because the number was irrelevant in the overall picture.


----------



## kbreal15 (Nov 2, 2015)

Ok. I get where your going. I'm looking at it from a natural return rate perspective. I could give a .... What they are wanting to do. Just making sense of it from my perspective. If they bring the pop. Down to a natural return it does make sense. I grew up fishing the west coast, so maybe hatchery/wild return rate limits would make sense here also. I was just throwing idea's out there. Also, my original post was referring to pier/ mouth fishing. I'm not so (green)to assume returns of dark fish.


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

AdamBradley said:


> Heather, great to see you on here! Us anglers really shouldn't take for granted just how many Dnr staff are on here providing accurate info! (Wesley, tonello, hettinger) thanks Heather, hope to see ya down south on the creek again this fall!


Don't forget Wilson. Love his posts about the ladders and the walleye egg take on the MO. We are very fortunate to have the DNR on the site.


----------

