# The Upper Peninsula needs this...



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8x810mszCfU

This is a documentary of the Ringwood Fish Culture Station processes after following the efforts of volunteer group from the Metro East Anglers for the past year.

This video, now being shown at the Sportsman Show in Toronto, shows the full process from egg collection to releasing reared salmon and trout back into the tributaries of Lake Ontario.

This should be of interest to all outdoor enthusiasts who enjoy the great Lake Ontario fishery.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

LSSU has a similar operation that has been in operation for about 20 years now.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

LSSU has a great dept. I just wish this was a common practice on more than just the St. Mary's river. I was just in a discussion about keeping fish in rivers and the impact of it. I informed a few people that, in ONE county in Wisconsin, they contribute more to streams and rivers and their upkeep, than we do across the entire UP. That makes me sad. I try to impress upon fly fishermen and all anglers, that proper conservation starts with everyone. I don't want to make this into a huge debate. I just wish we had better management with our wonderful resources.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Out in Washington State, it is normal for individual rivers, and even creeks, to have their own hatchery for Salmon. That helps preserve the unique sub-strains of fish which are indigenous to each river/stream. It is funny, because a lot of their rivers get one kind of Salmon, but no others. Some get Salmon, but not Steelhead. They make a HUGE commitment to maintaining their Salmon stocks, and limits vary from river to river. But the fish are native there, too. It makes a difference. There are lots of volunteers who have helped in the Pacific Northwest, for many decades, to improve fisheries.

I grew up in Bay City, MI. In the 60's there were virtually zero Walleyes in Saginaw Bay. I fished it a lot growing up, and I NEVER caught a Walleye. Never caught a Sheephead either, although I saw some get caught. But sportsman banded together to supplement DNR plants of Walleyes, and helped establish Saginaw Bay as one of the World's premier Walleye fisheries. They still do this, every year. You can see their rearing pond from I-75.


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

IntoTheWild said:


> LSSU has a great dept. I just wish this was a common practice on more than just the St. Mary's river. I was just in a discussion about keeping fish in rivers and the impact of it. I informed a few people that, in ONE county in Wisconsin, they contribute more to streams and rivers and their upkeep, than we do across the entire UP. That makes me sad. I try to impress upon fly fishermen and all anglers, that proper conservation starts with everyone. I don't want to make this into a huge debate. I just wish we had better management with our wonderful resources.


Could part of the reason the UP sees less stocking be because it's simply more remote and the fisheries are healthy enough that they don't need to be supplemented as regularly? I guess that is the way I tend to picture it. I'm sure there are exceptions or maybe my perception is just off. Not trying to get into a big debate either and I share your general sentiment about more people needing to get involved in conservation. I guess, my initial response to the entire UP receiving less stocks than a single county in Wisconsin is the opposite of yours, namely that the UP is fortunate not to have to transplant as many fish to maintain healthy fish stocks. I will grant you that maybe that could be just because you know more of the particulars. Maybe the UP does need to stock more fish. I just think it's a bit simplistic to equate better management with more stocking ( Again, maybe you're not saying that either. Your opinion as said earlier could be the result of being more informed of certain particulars than I am).


----------



## youp50 (Jan 14, 2011)

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_28277-22460--,00.html

Some of your license dollars do go here, have been for quite a while. If you ever do vacation in the area, its a pretty neat stop.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

The Upper Penninsula has more hatcheries than the lower penninsula a good portion of the hatchery raised fish in the UP go to the lower penninsula to be planted.


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

Robert Holmes said:


> The Upper Penninsula has more hatcheries than the lower penninsula a good portion of the hatchery raised fish in the UP go to the lower penninsula to be planted.


Again though, is that inherently wrong that fished raised in the UP end up being planted in the LP? Do you feel that certain fisheries in the UP need more plants to sustain themselves or are most pretty healthy as is, where maybe habitat improvement/maintenance or some other conservation efforts would be a more worthwhile investment? I know you've commented before on the disproportionate number of trucks in route to lower peninsula destinations versus the upper peninsula. I gather that you feel the UP is getting shafted. Are more plants needed up north? Just asking and interested in opinions (hopefully evidence based, even if just anecdotal).


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

I was making a point about the video. The stocking program in this video turns Coho Salmon reproduction from less than 1% to over 80%. Our streams are similar here. There are a few hatcheries across the U.P. I liked the involvement and complexity of these hatcheries and how they function. They also have a great number of volunteers. 

DReihl9896 watched it. I see a ton of streams that are not managed properly or at all. There are a ton of streams up here that could use it. Many of these streams or rivers are almost devoid of fish. Erosion, over fishing, pollution, low water levels are some of the key elements that have ruined these watersheds. With some proper management, they could be at least slightly more inhabitable for fish. Simply planting in some streams would bring a return of fish and with a better habitat for spawning, would hopefully bring a return eventually.

I don't like stocking in wild populations, I feel it dilutes the sturdier and better genetics of the native fish already there. 

I would love to see more organizations or funds used towards making some of these waters productive.

I'll try to use an example here. I went to a meeting for an org I belong to. We had a few Wisconsin DNR employees explain to us all that is done to manage a few counties to help fish populations. Removal of beaver dams, increasing flow speed with structure, taking a census of the populations of trout were most of the things done.

When beavers dam up a stream, it kills the flow, raises the temperature of the stream, thus hurting brook trout, rainbow trout and species similar who need good oxygen levels with cooler water.

The Upper Peninsula has very little of this kind of help as well.

To answer a few of your questions. I don't mind some of our hatcheries helping other areas. I do think that a portion of our streams are healthy enough to sustain a healthy population of fish. I see it every year. I have been trying to stay off of the brook trout issue and save that for the other thread on this forum, but I see the impact from normal regulations all the time.

I should have been less vague about what I thought the U.P. needed.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

DReihl9896 said:


> Again though, is that inherently wrong that fished raised in the UP end up being planted in the LP? Do you feel that certain fisheries in the UP need more plants to sustain themselves or are most pretty healthy as is, where maybe habitat improvement/maintenance or some other conservation efforts would be a more worthwhile investment? I know you've commented before on the disproportionate number of trucks in route to lower peninsula destinations versus the upper peninsula. I gather that you feel the UP is getting shafted. Are more plants needed up north? Just asking and interested in opinions (hopefully evidence based, even if just anecdotal).


 More and more private efforts are relieving the DNR of what they are supposed to be doing. I would like to see Michigan divided into zones with an equal amount of fish going to each zone provided that the waters can sustain a healthy population. It has always been a practice of the DNR to plant fish heavier in areas that have more charter boats. As far as the UP goes it is holding its own pretty good. There are some areas that could use some help.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

Robert, I completely agree.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Just as a reminder; Salmon were introduced to the Great Lakes. They were never native. I honestly think the U.P. can probably support great fishing for natural species without significant stocking. There is just not too much population up there, and not as many downstaters make the trek to severely impact the fisheries. 

I think stocking of Salmon is fine, to support an artificial fishery. But if stocking non-native fish to support sport fishing endangers native species in the same ecosystem, I wouldn't support it. I think a lot of the water in the U.P. is more sterile than downstate rivers, and is less able to support high concentrations of fish. Over-planting could cause declines in native fish, which would be bad. In addition, Salmon just tear up smaller rivers, when they spawn. They dig hard when making redds, and can literally cause more erosion than might otherwise occur. Especially Kings, because they are larger.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Most fishermen probably know that splake are a hybrid and do not reproduce. The DNR plants thousands of splake in the Cedarville area every year. They are there to either grow old and die or to be caught by the fishermen who pay for them to be planted. If they are planted for fishermen to catch them then why is the season on them only 4 months long? The DNR needs to wake up on this one and let people fish for splake all year long.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

Fishindude? I don't know where you are going with the salmon redd statement. Salmon don't cause erosion by cutting redds. I have footage of them cutting redds, it's basically no different than steelhead, lake run browns, etc. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Stocking salmon doesn't seem to hurt many fisheries, imo. So what ARE native species? I think you need to realize that almost all the species in lake Michigan or the great lakes were introduced at one time or another.

Salmon, whether it be pinks, cohos or chinook are an integral part of the river systems. Their eggs sustain the populations, feed other fish species and aquatic insects. They also die at the end of spawning, their bodies act as compost and in turn create another food source for insects, birds, animals and the like. Their fry hatch in the river and either turn into food for large aquatic insects, birds, other fish species, animals etc. The survivors return to the lake to complete the cycle again.

I didn't realize they still plant splake. I was informed they wrapped up planting those a few years back. I'll have to research that. Does it really matter if they reproduce or don't? They are a char species hybrid. Basically a cold water trout, why should they be any different? A longer season would only wipe them out faster.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Come on up to the EUP and throw a line in. You will find the best combined Atlantic, Pink, and Chinook Salmon fishery in the world period. I don't care what anyone says, I am right. Our sterile waters produce some big Chinook I catch just a few of them every year. Mackinac, Chippewa, and Luce counties produce some of the best pike, walleye, and muskie fishing that you will find anywhere. I have caught big steelhead up here 12 pounds plus every month of the year. I will say that we do not have good brown trout fishing and we could use some help. I have been on the DNR about brown trout but they don't listen to me.


----------



## Falesy (Oct 9, 2008)

IntoTheWild said:


> Stocking salmon doesn't seem to hurt many fisheries, imo. So what ARE native species? I think you need to realize that almost all the species in lake Michigan or the great lakes were introduced at one time or another.
> 
> Salmon, whether it be pinks, cohos or chinook are an integral part of the river systems. Their eggs sustain the populations, feed other fish species and aquatic insects. They also die at the end of spawning, their bodies act as compost and in turn create another food source for insects, birds, animals and the like. Their fry hatch in the river and either turn into food for large aquatic insects, birds, other fish species, animals etc. The survivors return to the lake to complete the cycle again.


Let me start out by saying that I'm not ripping ya, I totally agree with your statement of salmon species contributing positively to the aquatic ecosystem but the main focus of this state(MI) is preservation. No matter what arguement you make whether it be of the utmost positive impact will not fly with the DNR. They are far more focused on putting max effort into supporting native species, i.e. Lake Trout, Brook Trout, Whitefish. They had a big enough scare and screw up with the Lamprey situation and commercial overfishing, etc. that was mismanaged and decimated fish populations. They are focusing on fixing those issues and making sure that nothing like that happens again. Anything to do with impacting any of those Native elements the DNR turns a blind eye most of the time.


----------



## Falesy (Oct 9, 2008)

For example, I love to chase Steelhead in the Western U.P. Lake Superior streams. It's addicting as all get out, great way to get outside after a long U.P. winter :lol:

At first I saw a lot of potential in a lot of streams and did a lot of research on Steelhead in Lake Superior. I wondered why the DNR didn't spend more time/money or be more involved in the management in MI. It seems like in other Lake Superior Waters(MN, WI, and even Ontario). It also seems like it would be a viable sport fishery that cold bring money and more attention to the U.P.(It already does somewhat, there is a large migration from WI to MI during Steelhead season). Most of the Steelhead population in Lake Superior is comprised of Wild Stocks. MI hardly plants anything anymore, WI doesn't, MN plants some. Check database link below.

Great Lakes Fish Stocking Database
http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/exactsearch.htm

What I found boils down to 3 things. 

*1. Conflicts w/ Native Species-see post above*

*2. Habitat*
Yes, some of the MI Lake Superior streams look majestic during spring run off but truth of the matter is that sometimes or most of the time these same streams have a hard time retaining water all year. This conflicts with the crucial time frame of supporting newly hatched steelhead fry and also juvenile steelhead. Steelhead are programmed to run a river as far as possible to preserve the species and reach the best spawning habitat. The things I've seen them surpass as far as "fish barriers"(beaver dams, waterfalls, etc) even in low water is amazing. This is one of the factors that makes the wild Steelhead stock so tough and continues their survival. 

*3. Money*
Bottom line is that the MDNR doesn't want spend the money because it doesn't make sense financially. All of the studies that I've read have made point that the stocking of Steelhead is barely worth it in Lake Superior. There is minimal survival and return of stocked fish. The Steelhead pop. is almost entirely based on Wild fish. The only reason that they still plant is basically supplemental. WI doesn't stock any fish into Lake Superior. MN stocks fish but they base them off WILD Stocks, they have several facilities on Rivers that they study Steelhead on and take eggs, count #'s of returning fish. Bottom line is that all costs money that the MDNR doesn't want to spend. 

The only differences other than a few premo streams in each state that are naturally built for these situations is regulations. Ontario, MN, and WI all have specific regs for Lake Superior streams concentrating minimal bag limits, size restrictions and no kill zones. Don't quote me but I believe all those State's only allow a 1 fish per person per day rule. Compare that to MI where you can keep 3 per day.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It really sounds like the DNR is going to raise the fees everyone pays for licenses. I am not saying that it is a bad thing, they will probably hire a few more employees in law enforcement which are needed. They should invest some money into researching their laws and making changes as many of the laws were written over 50 years ago and times change. They should also really consider building 2 to 4 more hatcheries either that or donating funds to private hatcheries that raise fish for public waters. Areas that don't see too many fish planted could probably use a shot in the arm.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

Falesy,

You hit on some key points. They do stock some rivers with non-native species. My original point was that the non-native species dominate the native species in numbers (meaning more non-native species in the great lakes that native species). They do not normally interfere with native species, certainly in the major river systems.

There is great steelhead reproduction in the Lake Superior tribs. I do know of quite a few streams on the Lake Michigan side that do well in that regard. I know we can only ask so much of our DNR. I agree that planting in the streams that hold "dead water" could once again become bountiful. Stream management is key also. *Keeping water clean, cold and healthy is not always easy to achieve, but attainable*.

Lake Superior watersheds should not be stocked if the population has a good return. Stocked fish dilute the gene pool, lower or poorer reproduction and compete with healthier, sturdier native species. This is where each stream needs certain regulations if it's struggling.

I can only guess as far as the money goes. I know how poor our state is and specifically the U.P. I am a member of a few organizations and I have even volunteered to help the Wisconsin DNR, just to do anything to help trout waters and fish habitat. If we had more programs or organizations, I would help even further.

A year ago, while fly fishing, I met a fellow fly fishermen. We had a long conversation of how things can easily be destroyed (and quickly) through time. They deteriorate faster than they are rebuilt. It takes time, diligence and patience to see things change back for the better. He also informed that of all the worlds fish at the height of man, have now been reduced to 5%. *So, 95% of the world's fish are gone*. Over-harvesting, the decline or destruction of habitat and other factors have been the cause of most of this. Did you know that at one time in the late 1800's we had coaster brook trout in almost every river and stream across the Upper Peninsula? Amazing huh? I have only seen two of them in my *entire life*. One I lost on the fly and the other I netted for my brother. That is beyond sad. Where did they go? They were over fished.

The worst river I have ever been to for ethics, conservation, pollution and just trash is the manistique. It tops anywhere I have been to hands down. Locals litter, snag (I watched a local guy snag 9 spawning steelhead, kill them all and then pose for pictures with them, I know his name and have his photo even), spear, net, dump (violated) deer carcasses in the river and on the banks, dump oil in the river (saw an old lady do this twice), throw car parts in the water and the list goes on and on. Someone knew I fished there once and said, "How many drub needles and dirty diapers do you snag into a day?" Now you get the idea.

It's amazing to me that people in the U.P. do all these horrible things to their own home waters. I watch people snag salmon, steelhead, bass, you name it. They snag them, over-harvest, kill females for eggs and it's sickening. My favorite excuse is regarding salmon, etc is... "They are just going to die anyway." I always laugh initially. Then I reply, "Are you an idiot? How are they going to reproduce?" These same people are the same kind who say, "How come the DNR doesn't fix our river? There's no more FN fish!" I didn't realize the DNR had invented a magic wand. Haha.

I could go on with stories like this until I my fingers fall off from typing.

Unreal. The lack of education on conservation is staggering. If you want to keep your kids and future generations fishing, then do your part.

I have said it a million times, *conservation starts with every single angler*.


----------



## nmufish (Sep 11, 2007)

"You hit on some key points. They do stock some rivers with non-native species. My original point was that the non-native species dominate the native species in numbers (meaning more non-native species in the great lakes that native species). They do not normally interfere with native species, certainly in the major river systems."

Non-native species ALWAYS interfere with native species if they are in the same environment.The interaction could be beneficial for one or both species, but usually the native species is negatively impacted.Introducing steelhead into a brook trout stream does nothing to help native brook trout even in a major river system.

Over fishing was only one factor in the loss of coaster brook trout. Habitat degradation and the stocking of steelhead,browns,pinks,coho, and chinook didn't help either.

Its my belief that there are a lot more coasters out there than we think.They are not a an easy fish to study. I know plenty of people that get into them regularly in the fall they just don't broadcast it on the internet for everyone to see. 

I agree with you on the manastink, that is a true s**t show. Big fish bring out the worst in people and it gets ugly with all the snagging and the mouth hockey.People targeting browns when they are spawning and the season is closed ect


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It sounds like Manistique could use a hatchery, the DNR could lease a portion of one of the paper mills and set up a nice hatchery. Once people are involved with a natural resource they give it a little more respect. Travel east a little bit in a month and see all of the litter left behind by smelt dippers.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

@nmufish

The only competition brook trout may face is from invasive species like bass and possible fry, juvenile steelhead, etc. If steelhead come up and spawn in brook trout waters, they will help feed brook trout, via; eggs, young and fry. They *usually* won't be in a stream long enough to do much harm. The young steelhead usually won't spend enough time to compete with brook trout for food, prime feeding lies etc. This could be true and false depending on the stream or situation though.

Coasters exist primarily on superior watersheds. The two I saw, were on the Lake Michigan side (which makes them even more rare.) My point is, they are quite rare regardless of how many we see or don't see. Overfishing was the primary factor in coasters being wiped out. I would hope no one would broadcast them over the internet. =)

Yes, the stink is the worst place I have ever seen. I love the "mouth hockey" comment. That's classic. I might have to swipe that one.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

In my opinion a coaster brook trout is just a brook trout that has spent part of its life in the great lakes and returns to an inland waterway. If this is the case why is a coaster any different than a steelhead or brown trout? It is just a very large brook trout, that happened to survive out in the great lakes and has returned to a stream.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

*A coaster brook trout is a lake-run brook trout*. A *typical* U.P. brook trout is a river resident brook trout and does not spend it's life in a lake, it spends it's life in a river or stream. A coaster returns to the stream to spawn, then returns to the lake to live and feed.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

This must be a coaster. It was caught in Lake Michigan 25 inches 5 lbs 2 ounces. To save some posts it is definitely not a splake. It was caught near a stream that has a plentiful supply of brook trout. I will say that it was caught in the lower penninsula and not in the UP where most coasters are caught.


----------



## nmufish (Sep 11, 2007)

I always thought that steelhead smolt after a year (or longer) so that is a considerable amount that they would be competing with YOY brookies for food and cool water in the summer. NMU did a study in the pictured rocks area on several streams where they actively removed steelhead adults and fry through shocking and netting. The results are not published yet, but i am pretty sure brook trout numbers increased after the removal. Before the removal we shocked way more rainbow smolts than brookies. The DNR also did a study on the effects of steelies on browns and brookies and found steelhead to be harmful when introduced. 

http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICAT...ies/654-Brown-trout-steelhead-competition.pdf

BTW I caught a brookie on the stink last winter. Lake run or a dropback from upstream? It was around 13" and very skinny.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

Like I was saying...The young steelhead usually won't spend enough time to compete with brook trout for food, prime feeding lies etc. This could be true and false depending on the stream or situation though. I would bet it's more so in superior watersheds rather than lake michigan. Just my opinion of course.

I am sure this all varies depending on the health of the stream, populations of both brook and bows. There's no doubt in my mind that they compete in some ways. Obviously, a large sized juvenile steelhead might take up a prime lie and keep other brook trout away. Like I said, there are so many variables. Have you ever watched trout behavior? I think it's interesting to see them in their natural habitat and how they react to each other.

You may have caught a coaster. I am almost certain they cannot survive in such brutally warm waters in the summer time. My brother caught a 15+ one with a giant head and skinny palish color as well on a lake mi trib too. I lost one about a pound and a half to two pounds also on a lake mi trib. I thought it was just a skip at first, as I was netting it, it did the char tumble and was gone.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Some good light reading here in relation to competition between native and non-native salmonids. Most of the research I've seen seems to indicate that Steelhead and Brown Trout are strong competitors with native brook trout, while Salmon have less impact since their young are in the river a far shorter amount of time.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_10951_11302-96503--,00.html#519

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f81-164

Don


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

fishinDon said:


> Some good light reading here in relation to competition between native and non-native salmonids. Most of the research I've seen seems to indicate that Steelhead and Brown Trout are strong competitors with native brook trout, while Salmon have less impact since their young are in the river a far shorter amount of time.
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_10951_11302-96503--,00.html#519
> 
> ...


In the NW forums, M. Tonello just posted a fisheries report for that area. In one particular section of the report, it briefly mentions a survey of a branch that constitutes the headwaters of the PM. Absent in the list of species found in the survey, are brook trout. That fits with what I've observed over the years as I've only ever observed a small handful of brookies ever caught there, even though that particular section runs cold and clean all year. Every thing seems like it would be ideal for brook trout except that the other salmonids have been so successful. So it follows that the only explanation I can think of as to why more brook trout aren't found in this area, is that they are simply out competed by the other salmonids present in the stream. I know this is merely an inference from anecdotal evidence and doesn't hold the weight of a more comprehensive study (and I'm sure there are variables I didn't consider that might contribute to the lack of brookies as well), but I would tend to think this adds support to the idea that the presence of browns and other salmonids can have a negative effect on brook trout populations or prevent them from thriving in an environment where they otherwise would.


----------



## osmerus (Sep 18, 2008)

Great conversation had to get involved, have not posted in a bit. Steelhead and Coho def. compete with brooks for the first 1-2 years of life in a stream. I did some electroshocking studies in the E.U.P with Lake State a ways back and many of the Superior tribs are full of Coho smolts. Young rainbows were always present but many times the young Coho outnumbered the rainbows. Most U.P rivers and streams have huge macro-invert communities, so the foods there. Conducive habitat for young salmonids in these smaller systems is whats at a premium and its there that rainbows and coho's out compete brookies.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Most of the good brook trout streams in the UP that share waters with salmon only have salmon in the last mabey 1 mile of stream before it dumps into the great lakes. The salmon cannot navigate too far upstream in these smaller streams to spawn. I would kind of think that the smolt gradually work their way downstream until they hit the lake. I have followed many streams upstream during the salmon run and after about a half mile you see fewer and fewer redds. Lower water levels and obstructions have a lot to do with this.


----------



## IntoTheWild (Feb 19, 2013)

I enjoyed reading those studies. It does seem to weigh more heavily that I thought on Brook Trout. Most of the streams I fly fish or have fly fished for them, there are almost no other species to compete with them. I know on a lot of superior watersheds, brookies get more competition.

Osmerus, that's a good point. I thought of a few streams I don't fly fish now because that they are dominated by Coho smolts.

It's sad how much brook trout habitat has declined.


----------



## Falesy (Oct 9, 2008)

Robert Holmes said:


> Most of the good brook trout streams in the UP that share waters with salmon only have salmon in the last mabey 1 mile of stream before it dumps into the great lakes. The salmon cannot navigate too far upstream in these smaller streams to spawn. I would kind of think that the smolt gradually work their way downstream until they hit the lake. I have followed many streams upstream during the salmon run and after about a half mile you see fewer and fewer redds. Lower water levels and obstructions have a lot to do with this.


 
I agree totally. Thats why you can fish the same river above and below a natural fish barrier(waterfall) and it will be two totally different streams. Above good for speckies, below hard to find a speck and mostly steelie and coho smolts. 

I've also observed this redd pattern with salmon in the Superior Tribs. I've seen it with steelhead also but only late in the run. Late in the run I've witnessed steelhead redds at almost the first decent gravel and current washing over it up from the lake, I mean real close to the lake. Salmon don't seem to have the drive as Steelhead to run as far upriver. They make it past some obstructions and some of the same ones steelhead do but they seem run out of gas and then just find some gravel and spawn, alot more sporadic than steelhead. They're actually a lot harder to pin down in the smaller tribs than steelhead because they'll be so spread out when normally steelies will be as close to the barriers or a few bends downstream of them. 

I know there is a mass emigration of steelhead smolts early in summer, around June I believe if I remember from my studies. This info is coming from studies on Superior. Smolts continue to emigrate most of the "open" water year but the main downstream migration towards the lake is arond June. 

Thats a good way to scout. If your fishing for specks way upstream somewhere you think the steelies can't get to and running into smolts, you've got some scouting for the next spring run.


----------

