# Lake Michigan salmon stocking reductions announced



## double trouble (Nov 20, 2003)

For Immediate Release 

August 27, 2012 



PROPOSED SALMON STOCKING REDUCTIONS ANNOUNCED

FOR LAKE MICHIGAN



ANN ARBOR, MIFollowing more than a year of consultation with angler groups and other stakeholders, the Lake Michigan Committee (LMC) has proposed a new management strategy for Lake Michigan salmon. Beginning in spring of 2013, the LMC recommends that Chinook salmon stocking in Lake Michigan be reduced to one-half of current stocking levels. With salmon egg collections to begin in September, 2012, fisheries management agencies are now developing plans to decrease fingerling production targets to levels supporting reduced stocking, for a minimum of three years. The LMC comprises representatives from each of the state fisheries management agencies in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA). The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) facilitates the committees activities.



The proposed Chinook salmon reduction is in response to recent increases in natural reproduction of Chinook and declines in the forage base. Recent studies have shown that approximately 55% of Chinook salmon in Lake Michigan is produced naturally, and prey fish (e.g., alewife) are currently at or near historic low levels, conditions similar to those leading to the collapse of prey fish populations in Lake Huron. The planned stocking reductions are intended to maintain a quality Chinook salmon fishery, while reducing the predation on the forage population.



While Chinook salmon are highly dependent on alewives, all Great Lakes salmonids use those forage fish to varying degrees. Balancing predator and prey populations by reducing predation pressure is necessary to stabilize the ecosystem as well as to preserve the quality and diversity of the multi-billion-dollar sport fishery. The LMCs approach gained widespread support from all agencies and their constituents throughout the decision-making process. Along with the proposed reductions, an adopted monitoring plan should allow management agencies to react quickly if conditions change.



Each LMC member agency must still approve and implement the committees recommendations. Under the proposed agreement, the 3.3 million Chinook salmon annually stocked into Lake Michigan would be reduced by 1.6 million fish, for a total of 1.7 million fish to be stocked. Of the reduced stocking, Michigan would shoulder the largest reduction, stocking 1.1 million fewer fish, since Michigan streams currently contribute the majority of the natural reproduction. Wisconsin would reduce its stocking by 440,000 fish, while Illinois and Indiana would reduce by 20,000 and 25,000 fish, respectively. The CORA tribes do not stock Chinook salmon. This proposed stocking reduction should still provide for fall spawning runs for stream and nearshore anglers. Each agency will work with their respective management teams to implement these changes in the manner most appropriate to each jurisdiction.



Contacts:

Tom Gorenflo, CORA: 906-632-0072 

Marc Gaden, GLFC: 734-417-8012

Steve Robillard, Illinois: 847-294-4134 

Jeremy Price, Indiana: 260-244-6805

Jay Wesley, Michigan: 269-685-6851 x 117 

Brad Eggold, Wisconsin: 414-382-7921


----------



## Waz_51 (Jan 10, 2010)

2 things i have questions about here...

1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.

2) I see that they include the CORA with just about everything related to these types of topics and it made me think about some stuff. Somebody once told me that Native Americans were allowed to snag. Is this a true statement or should I be calling his bluff? I dont mean to ruffle feathers with this question, I was just curious!


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Port by port cut decisions being made now, released sometime late Sept or early Oct.


----------



## walleyerick (Sep 30, 2004)

My big concern for the future is that what has been lacking in our catch this year.... Jacks. We have boated lots of two to four year old fish, but a lack of jacks has been noticible.


----------



## BigWoods Bob (Mar 15, 2007)

Waz_51 said:


> 2 things i have questions about here...
> 
> 1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.
> 
> 2) I see that they include the CORA with just about everything related to these types of topics and it made me think about some stuff. Somebody once told me that Native Americans were allowed to snag. Is this a true statement or should I be calling his bluff? I dont mean to ruffle feathers with this question, I was just curious!



Not only can they snag salmon, but they can SPEAR salmon!!!!

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

> 1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.


Not ignorant, but also not practical. The reason the Alewives are dying out is because of the invasion of Zebra and Quagga Mussels. The Mussels out-compete a minute freshwater Shrimp that are native to the Great Lakes, for food. The Alewives eat the Shrimp - Diporiea Shrimp. The Shrimp are disappearing, and so are the Alewives. And just like planting more Kings, it will just result in more fish dying. They don't have enough to eat, so they starve. The DNR quit planting Kings in lake Huron completely. None this year.


----------



## HoytMan44 (Sep 26, 2007)

Fishndude said:


> Not ignorant, but also not practical. The reason the Alewives are dying out is because of the invasion of Zebra and Quagga Mussels. The Mussels out-compete a minute freshwater Shrimp that are native to the Great Lakes, for food. The Alewives eat the Shrimp - Diporiea Shrimp. The Shrimp are disappearing, and so are the Alewives. And just like planting more Kings, it will just result in more fish dying. They don't have enough to eat, so they starve. The DNR quit planting Kings in lake Huron completely. None this year.


They stocked 341,415 kings in the Swan River.


----------



## Cement Pond (Jan 2, 2011)

Waz_51 said:


> 1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.


 
No need to plant alewives. Kings will survive on other pelagic baitfish. Why would the MDNR bother planting 406,730 in Lake Superior this year if they believed the only thing Kings ate were Alewives? There's never been a lprolific Alewife Population in Lake Superior (thankfully)...

Personally, I would try to eradicate the Alewives from Lake Michigan as well. I really don't understand the logic of this "save the alewives" campaign.

Lake Huron is stabilizing nicely since the Alewives crashed. Walleye and Lake Trout (native species) are Reproducing succesfully, smelt and perch populations are up, the Atlantics seem to be flourishing, and the list goes on. On top of all that, there ARE still kings around (no one really fishes for them). 

In my opinion, the lack of Alewives in Huron provides a more diverse and healthy fishery.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Cement Pond said:


> No need to plant alewives. Kings will survive on other pelagic baitfish. Why would the MDNR bother planting 406,730 in Lake Superior this year if they believed the only thing Kings ate were Alewives? There's never been a lprolific Alewife Population in Lake Superior (thankfully)...
> 
> Personally, I would try to eradicate the Alewives from Lake Michigan as well. I really don't understand the logic of this "save the alewives" campaign.
> 
> ...


Great lakes Kings will almost eat nothing other than Alewives. They would rather starve than eat other baitfish, for the most part. Since the other baitfish species in lake Huron are increasing, how come the naturally produced Kings aren't proliferating? There will always be at least a few Kings around, but nothing like there were just 10 years ago.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Tons of jacks around the pier heads this spring, so many that we stopped fishing for browns when the bait was in as we were getting too many little kings.

Look at the results for the Grand Haven tournament this year when the fishing was awful and guys were running into the piers to catch jacks to get points. Funny when a $300k boat weighs in 12 fish for 8.35#.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Waz_51 said:


> 2 things i have questions about here...
> 
> 1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.
> 
> 2) I see that they include the CORA with just about everything related to these types of topics and it made me think about some stuff. Somebody once told me that Native Americans were allowed to snag. Is this a true statement or should I be calling his bluff? I dont mean to ruffle feathers with this question, I was just curious!


The tribes can spear under a permit system. Although it looks bad, they really do not take that many. It is not a concern for the resource. Most tribal members have a deep appreciation for the resource. Unfortunately, a few bad apples exist.


----------



## LonLB (Oct 11, 2009)

Fishndude said:


> Great lakes Kings will almost eat nothing other than Alewives. They would rather starve than eat other baitfish, for the most part. Since the other baitfish species in lake Huron are increasing, how come the naturally produced Kings aren't proliferating? There will always be at least a few Kings around, but nothing like there were just 10 years ago.




*I read an article a few years back in In-Fisherman that the Alewives were causing poor reproduction in Kings, and other Salmon because some sort of chemical or protein was causing infertility. (due to the fact the salmon are ONLY eating Alewives)

(chemical in this case meaning naturally occurring in Alewives)*


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

LonLB said:


> *I read an article a few years back in In-Fisherman that the Alewives were causing poor reproduction in Kings, and other Salmon because some sort of chemical or protein was causing infertility. (due to the fact the salmon are ONLY eating Alewives)*
> 
> *(chemical in this case meaning naturally occurring in Alewives)*


Alewives contain thiaminase, which is an enzyme that prevents the uptake or eliminates thiamine. Thiamine in eggs can be important for survival of the egg. It affects fish differently. It might have medium to moderate impact on salmon fertility but a very high impact on lake trout fertility. 

Eggs in hatcheries are often treated with a thiamine bath to increase survival.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Not to undermine studies, but to me it seems that there is a good amount of natural reproduction throughout many systems to maintain a decent fishery even without extreme stocking efforts.

Unlike the steelhead that need survive the hot temps in a majority of the watersheds before smolting. 

I just remember the huge amount of salmon smolts on their way back to Lake Michigan on the Mo


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Shoeman said:


> Not to undermine studies, but to me it seems that there is a good amount of natural reproduction throughout many systems to maintain a decent fishery even without extreme stocking efforts.
> 
> Unlike the steelhead that need survive the hot temps in a majority of the watersheds before smolting.
> 
> I just remember the huge amount of salmon smolts on their way back to Lake Michigan on the Mo


You are exactly right. This is why I do not think that there will be a huge issue with the chinook salmon reduction. We have a pretty good idea that at least 55% of smolts in Lake Michigan are from natural origin. Estimates for older ages increase to about 65 to 70%. Just about all the natural fish are coming from Michigan streams. The rest are probably from lake huron.


----------



## boomstick (Aug 31, 2010)

Fishndude said:


> Great lakes Kings will almost eat nothing other than Alewives. They would rather starve than eat other baitfish, for the most part. Since the other baitfish species in lake Huron are increasing, how come the naturally produced Kings aren't proliferating? There will always be at least a few Kings around, but nothing like there were just 10 years ago.


Were catching kings out of manistee that are full of gobes! Some have 6 or more in there gut.


----------



## boomstick (Aug 31, 2010)

boomstick said:


> Were catching kings out of manistee that are full of gobes! Some have 6 or more in there gut.


We also caught a 4 year old king yesterday 9/6 that weight in at 7 lbs 31 inches. Big head little body. We had a coho that was the same weight. Less than 20 inches.


----------



## SALMOTRUTTA (Nov 10, 2010)

Waz_51 said:


> 2 things i have questions about here...
> 
> 1) Would it be a plausible idea to stock alewives in the GL to help the population out? I dont know if this is already done so please excuse my ignorance.
> 
> 2) I see that they include the CORA with just about everything related to these types of topics and it made me think about some stuff. Somebody once told me that Native Americans were allowed to snag. Is this a true statement or should I be calling his bluff? I dont mean to ruffle feathers with this question, I was just curious!


contrary to popular belief we ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SNAG!!! we can SPEAR,BOWFISH,DIPNET, and a few other means of harassing fish. kings are the only thing we are allowed to kill. BUT im not some spear weilding savage bent on destroying the fishery, i am allowed to take a double limit, (my mom is terminally ill and i catch her fish and i have to carry several permits) but ive never even been close to taking my limit this year. there is a little deal that we have where we can buy a michigan fishing license and take our limit for the michigan license and our indian license, i do get 2 buck and 3 doe tags on the house (different forum). my limit for steelhead on MOST rivers is only 2 fish and we are only allowed to shank 4 kings a day. Least they could do to make up for the indigenous holocaust. im only kidding about the last comment, seriously not trying to start a race war on the forum, we would lose. :xzicon_sm


----------



## Creek-Chub (Apr 15, 2004)

SALMOTRUTTA said:


> seriously not trying to start a race war on the forum, we would lose. :xzicon_sm


Dude, hell of a sense of humor! 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

SALMOTRUTTA said:


> contrary to popular belief we ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SNAG!!! we can SPEAR,BOWFISH,DIPNET, and a few other means of harassing fish. kings are the only thing we are allowed to kill. BUT im not some spear weilding savage bent on destroying the fishery, i am allowed to take a double limit, (my mom is terminally ill and i catch her fish and i have to carry several permits) but ive never even been close to taking my limit this year. there is a little deal that we have where we can buy a michigan fishing license and take our limit for the michigan license and our indian license, i do get 2 buck and 3 doe tags on the house (different forum). my limit for steelhead on MOST rivers is only 2 fish and we are only allowed to shank 4 kings a day. Least they could do to make up for the indigenous holocaust. im only kidding about the last comment, seriously not trying to start a race war on the forum, we would lose. :xzicon_sm


Great post and more than likely sheds light on many misconceptions. 

Thank You!


----------



## skamaniac97 (Feb 17, 2009)

SALMOTRUTTA said:


> contrary to popular belief we ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SNAG!!! we can SPEAR,BOWFISH,DIPNET, and a few other means of harassing fish. kings are the only thing we are allowed to kill. BUT im not some spear weilding savage bent on destroying the fishery, i am allowed to take a double limit, (my mom is terminally ill and i catch her fish and i have to carry several permits) but ive never even been close to taking my limit this year. there is a little deal that we have where we can buy a michigan fishing license and take our limit for the michigan license and our indian license, i do get 2 buck and 3 doe tags on the house (different forum). my limit for steelhead on MOST rivers is only 2 fish and we are only allowed to shank 4 kings a day. Least they could do to make up for the indigenous holocaust. im only kidding about the last comment, seriously not trying to start a race war on the forum, we would lose. :xzicon_sm


when i was in the soo, i saw the natives snag countless atlantics, kings, pinks and steelhead and not once were they hassled by the C.O


----------



## FredBearYooper (Oct 5, 2009)

skamaniac97 said:


> when i was in the soo, i saw the natives snag countless atlantics, kings, pinks and steelhead and not once were they hassled by the C.O


When was this? Because the no snagging was passed not to long ago.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## FredBearYooper (Oct 5, 2009)

BigWoods Bob said:


> Not only can they snag salmon, but they can SPEAR salmon!!!!


Your sadly misinformed...Refer to the intelligent post by the other tribal man...that's what we really can do. Everyone really needs to calm down on the native snagging conquest. You should do a poll at tippy and see how many of the snaggers are tribal members...


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

If you go to the individual tribal websites, ie., Little River Band, Little Traverse Band, etc., most of them have their tribal hunting and fishing laws posted there for all to see, which may be slightly different from tribe to tribe but all fall under the most recent CORA agreement. 

Most CO's, as in Michigan DNR, will simply contact the tribal CO when they see a legal issue with a tribal member, as they have no jurisdiction over tribal members, other than to be able to detain them long enough to turn them over to the tribal legal authority should they feel the need to do so.


----------



## BigWoods Bob (Mar 15, 2007)

FredBearYooper said:


> When was this? Because the no snagging was passed not to long ago.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


As you said.....just recently changed...my bad.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

We also caught a 4 year old king yesterday 9/6 that weight in at 7 lbs 31 inches. 


How do you know it was four years old?

I hooked a 3# dark king in the channel this week. Was it four years old since it was spawning?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> We also caught a 4 year old king yesterday 9/6 that weight in at 7 lbs 31 inches.
> 
> 
> How do you know it was four years old?
> ...


Chinook salmon typically return to spawn at age 1, 2, 3, and 4. Majority are probably 2 to 3 years in age. I have seen 15 pound 2 year olds, so you can not go by size or that they are spawning.


----------

