# Salmon Run 2014 Summary and Explanation of Poorness (Warning VERY LONG)



## Flyfisher

Robert Holmes said:


> Since 1967 we have found better and better ways to clean the water that we use before it is dumped back into our lakes. You can almost drink the water that comes out of the waste water treatment plants. We now need to find a way to fertilize the lakes with our waste products. Dairy Doo the great lakes, this will bring back the zooplankton and critters that are the initial food source for fish.


True, but the problem with that is you often end up with undesirable organisms (see Lake Erie near Toledo this past summer).


----------



## toto

Good post and well researched, sort of like a mini research paper. There are a couple of things that should be noted, just for information I guess.

First of all, a lot of us can still remember the early days of the coho fishery, although I wasn't there when it first started, I've talked to a few guys over the years that were. According to them, it was not unusual to hook over 100 cohos a day on the Platte Beach, and also in those days, these were real tackle busters, 20 + pounds wasn't unusual. Today, it seems they run about a third of that size, and I'm not biologist, but it seems to me that it could be caused by two factors, or one them at least. 1) the bait fish just aren't there in numbers enough, or 2) over the years, the egg takes have been from the same progeny over and over again, and as with all things like this, that can't be a good thing either. Coho's are great example of cyclical nature of the beast. For a few years, you won't get much more than a 6-8 LB coho, then all of a sudden you'll have one year where there are more over 12# fish than one can imagine, there could be study had there.

Next, you mentioned steelhead will eat alewives, and yes they do, however a few years ago on this very site, a guide on the P.M. was noticing steelhead swimming in circles upside down on the surface of the river, basically dying. He was encouraged by the DNR, in fact my memory thinks it was the same biologist you mentioned, to capture a couple of them and they would do a study. What they discovered is the thiamine levels in these fish was either too high, or too low, can't remember which now, but it was due to the fact the steel were eating too many alewives for their own good. Steelhead are like trout and they appear to do better by eating bugs etc off the surface, and they do that quite well. I've seem em off shore on the scum line literally eating bugs off the surface in over 900' of water.

Did you know the coho were not the first choice of the DNR in the beginning, they were only convinced to use salmon by Dr. Howard Tanner, he was convinced they do the intended work of eradicating the alewives, while at the same time create a wonderful fishery both off shore, and in land; boy was he right. BTW, what did the DNR originally want to plant, stripped bass.

IMHO, the DNR is doing the right thing by reducing planting to try to come up with a balance between predator and prey, it's just where is that balance?

As far as the mussels are concerned, I think they are here to stay. One needs to remember the vast amounts of the population of the mussels, but mostly the vast amounts of water that would need to be treated to have any effect, just boggles the mind to think of the amount of chemicals that would be needed to make any headway on this effort. I can recall several years ago talking to a guy who was doing a doctoral study from Ohio State on the zebra mussels in Platte Bay. His statement was, "you would not believe just how deep in the water column these mussels really inhabit". So it wasn't just a shallow water problem as originally thought, and therein lies the problem. How are you ever going to treat an amount of water equal to what is in Lk. Michigan, it just isn't practical.

All in all, a very good post by the OP, and a good thread to pay attention to.


----------



## Robert Holmes

On the other side of the coin perch, pike, walleyes, muskie, and sturgeon are all doing wonderful and better than expected. I caught monster pike this summer something that I have not done in a few years. It might be a trade off. I still like the chinook though. I hate the greasers so lets eliminate some of them.


----------



## tcfishes

I'm not sure if or how this bit of info might be relevant, but I did notice quite a few more "jacks" being caught in the Betsie this year. Even the adults seemed a little smaller too. Last year the average fish I caught were about 40". This year they were more like 30-32".

I caught a bunch of lakers on a charter last year, and I didnt think they were "greasy". I hope the kings arent done for, but I will survive if they are.


----------



## swampbuck

toto said:


> Next, you mentioned steelhead will eat alewives, and yes they do, however a few years ago on this very site, a guide on the P.M. was noticing steelhead swimming in circles upside down on the surface of the river, basically dying. He was encouraged by the DNR, in fact my memory thinks it was the same biologist you mentioned, to capture a couple of them and they would do a study. What they discovered is the thiamine levels in these fish was either too high, or too low, can't remember which now, but it was due to the fact the steel were eating too many alewives for their own good. Steelhead are like trout and they appear to do better by eating bugs etc off the surface, and they do that quite well. I've seem em off shore on the scum line literally eating bugs off the surface in over 900' of water.



Alewives and smelt produce a thiaminaise inhibitor in there bodies. Natural chemical warfare to control the level of predators.

That is why the hatcheries add thiamin to the samon eggs. That is also why, as the alewife/smelt population goes down in the Great Lakes...natural reproduction increases in those areas. The lack of thiamin this inhibitor causes can be deadly to trout species as well as inhibiting their spawning.

Unfortunately, the effects of alewives/smelt in one form or another serve to suppress nearly every native species of fish in the Great Lakes and have caused the extinction of some lake trout species in the lower Great Lakes.

They are easily the most damaging invasive ever to invade the Great Lakes ecosystem


----------



## Abel

Chlong, that was a pretty good read, but some issues with this paragraph.

"Heres why people, pinks and coho and steels LOVE alewives but don't need them to survive they eat other bait fish and insects...Tho if available they will eat alewives because years with high levels alewives = bigger average size of fish during the run... in saying that this 100% explains why kings are naturally bigger than cohos and pinks.. because the kings diet consists of mainly alewives! AND THIS IS WHY lake superior has much higher levels of cohos and pinks (because superior doesn't have many alewives and those salmon can live without them).This also explains why salmon from the west said of the U.S. so much bigger (Not because they live in the ocean but because in the ocean there are much higher population of alewives!)"

Kings are naturaly bigger because yes, they eat more baitfish (big fish don't eat small fish, they eat other big fish), but also, they spend more time in the big water feeding. Coho's return after 2 yrs in the big water, kings 3(Great Lakes fish). Look at your 2-3yr olds in the lakes, they're the same size on average as the returning cohos, it's the same way up here. Our returning coho's are the same size as our onmature (feeder ) kings. 

Als, kings in the PNW don't feed on alewives, alewives are an Atlantic baitfish, non-exsitent in the Pacific. Our kings over here are feeding primarily on Herring, Caplin, Sandlance and in the southern end Anhovies. Also, our king sup here are bigger becasue they do spend greater amounts of time in the salt feeding. The hatchery fish, they only spend 3yrs in the salt, they all average 12-20lbs with a 25lber thrown in the mix here and there. Our big boys, like the one below, they are spending 5-7yrs in the salt. The fish below actually have 3-14" herring in it's gut along with about 3 dozen Sandlance (smelt).

Other than that, good read throughout the thread.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.220961228100424.1073741832.135880053275209&type=3#!/BlazeNAbelCharters/photos/a.220961228100424.1073741832.135880053275209/238620726334474/?type=3&theater


----------



## Robert Holmes

The Michigan DNR is cutting back on planting salmon which is a given due to the lack of alewife. They are substituting steelhead and atlantic salmon which many fishermen are not going to complain. Both species will feed on alewife. It might be time to give it a couple of years where the great lakes do their own thing without planting any fish and see what happens. 
I have seen the alewife piled up on Lake Michigan shorelines 3 feet deep. Wow I wish a few of those were around now.


----------



## toto

swampbuck, sounds about right, couldn't remember the exact thing going on there, and was too lazy to look. Thanks.


----------



## swampbuck

The steel, browns and laker will have much higher reproduction without the thiamin inhibitor found in the invasives.


----------



## weatherby

Lots of good info. Thanks for posting it


----------



## REG

Abel said:


> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.220961228100424.1073741832.135880053275209&type=3#!/BlazeNAbelCharters/photos/a.220961228100424.1073741832.135880053275209/238620726334474/?type=3&theater



*Holy Crap! Now that's a king!:coolgleam:coolgleam*


----------



## StiffNeckRob

Abel said:


> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...5880053275209/238620726334474/?type=3&theater



Dude...running charters now with that boat you drug up from FL? Congrats! Sweet pic of the pup in the boat also. Glad to see you're doing well.


----------



## Tron322

swampbuck said:


> The steel, browns and laker will have much higher reproduction without the thiamin inhibitor found in the invasives.


not necessarily, lakers have been breeding much better lately...

the biologists I worked with a while back said it was probly because of the lakers eating Gobies, another invasive, heard walleyes loved eating the gobies too, and mussel shells wound up in whitefish bellies, but I have found pieces of plastic bait in whitefish I have cleaned.

and the lakers eating gobies and other stuff as opposed to eating the alewives had made them taste better, I love eating lakers now.


----------



## swampbuck

I was speaking about alewives and smelt, not gobies.


----------



## GuppyII

I am not sure on smelt having the thiamine inhibitors but here is a great bit of information. 


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...LTgp6c6wbMm1YCHmw&sig2=9iOc6jLOWchzn-6jnBFtyg


----------



## GuppyII

I was wrong swampbuck. This is a really good study by LSSU, the tabular data is very interesting, if you think about it that may be part of the reason why our chinook are spawning at an earlier age. The older fish don't have any survival so age 3 fish have some and it results in a genetic shift to/or for propensity for a 3 yo adult. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...KXPEQ1NJ5nkyp6EfA&sig2=itaNcNVRWtxdSYC9K-lf7A


----------



## swampbuck

I like the graphic I post #55. It bears repeating though that nearly all species have been effected....ever hear of belly burn

"Fish that eat smelt could experience belly burn. Smelt contain an enzyme that causes the stomachs of their predators to decompose quickly. Due to this, it is necessary for fishers to process these fish such as walleye more quickly. It has also been found that fish that prey on smelt have a higher fat content. This means that
even though these fish may be large, they do not contain more meat or protein."
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/sustain/intro.pdf


----------



## TightLines88

Flyfisher said:


> True, but the problem with that is you often end up with undesirable organisms (see Lake Erie near Toledo this past summer).


I lived in Toledo most of my life and trust me we don't want any waste water discharge. I fished the Maumee river for years and in the summer when fishing for smallies I'd usually wear shorts and old tennis shoes. If you didn't take your wet clothes off right away and take a shower soon after, you would get a nasty rash. That river is a decent fishery with an amazing walleye run but the water is downright nasty.


----------



## Fishndude

A buddy of mine went to Tippy Dam yesterday, to get loose Salmon eggs for Steelhead bait. He said there were 15 car parked in the lower lot at the peak time, and none in the upper lot. He got enough eggs to tie 12 spawnbags, and when it was obvious he wasn't going to get more, he drove home - to the Detroit area. He said there wasn't anyone downstream of the boat launch, or on the way down to Suicide Bend, or at Suicide. Normally the peak of the run (spawn) is right around OCt 10th, and then it tapers off for a few weeks. Oct 10th was dismal for Salmon @ Manistee this year, and the next week it is done.


----------



## chlong

Fishndude said:


> A buddy of mine went to Tippy Dam yesterday, to get loose Salmon eggs for Steelhead bait. He said there were 15 car parked in the lower lot at the peak time, and none in the upper lot. He got enough eggs to tie 12 spawnbags, and when it was obvious he wasn't going to get more, he drove home - to the Detroit area. He said there wasn't anyone downstream of the boat launch, or on the way down to Suicide Bend, or at Suicide. Normally the peak of the run (spawn) is right around OCt 10th, and then it tapers off for a few weeks. Oct 10th was dismal for Salmon @ Manistee this year, and the next week it is done.


I know, Ive never seen a year like this EVER!... and its not just one river haveing problems they all are... PM had one good weekend, last weekend of september. I have done 11 weekends fishing in that area of the state since august 1st... this is how it went... a few fish came, they came quick and didnt hold... that was august, september a few more came later in the month, october first hits BOOM, all the fish are dead basically, I just got back home from the PM, i didnt see any living salmon just decaying ones, like idk if its even worth indy fishing for steels.... at least using eggs, like i didnt even see much spawning going on with the salmon, for the steels to even get attracted to the spawn again... ya know?..


----------



## milanmark

> NOW after all this info your questions will probably be why are the coho and pinks and steels not affected????!


The Platte lower weir usually has passed 20,000 cohos by now and I just called the hotline and they are only up to 9,700. So the cohos have been affected... I saw an article somewhere and the DNR said the run is usually 30,000 at the lower weir (they only pass 20,000 max due to agreement long story). So with cohos 1/3 of normal that about fits the kings.... BTW I agree with the original writeup and think it's spot on but the count at the Platte weir being so low something is up with that also... Ideas?


----------



## Treven

Fishndude said:


> A buddy of mine went to Tippy Dam yesterday, to get loose Salmon eggs for Steelhead bait. He said there were 15 car parked in the lower lot at the peak time, and none in the upper lot. He got enough eggs to tie 12 spawnbags, and when it was obvious he wasn't going to get more, he drove home - to the Detroit area. He said there wasn't anyone downstream of the boat launch, or on the way down to Suicide Bend, or at Suicide. Normally the peak of the run (spawn) is right around OCt 10th, and then it tapers off for a few weeks. Oct 10th was dismal for Salmon @ Manistee this year, and the next week it is done.


I can 100% echo this. I did the exact same thing this past weekend. 

Only steelhead I saw in my travels this weekend were skams as well... Where's our winter fish?

I'm glad I scraped some 3/4 mature chinny skeins this past September or I would be in a world of hurt for this fall.


----------



## Abel

chlong said:


> like idk if its even worth indy fishing for steels.... at least using eggs, like i didnt even see much spawning going on with the salmon, for the steels to even get attracted to the spawn again... ya know?..


Eggs will always be a mainstay bait for steelies/browns. Look at the lakes that get no salmon returns, Burt, Mullet, Lake Erie(none of notice) especially. Eggs are always a primary/main bait, yes they have they're off days, but it's not dependant on teh salmon run.


----------



## Fishndude

Abel said:


> Eggs will always be a mainstay bait for steelies/browns. Look at the lakes that get no salmon returns, Burt, Mullet, Lake Erie(none of notice) especially. Eggs are always a primary/main bait, yes they have they're off days, but it's not dependant on teh salmon run.


If I can't get Salmon eggs, due to lack of spawning Salmon, then they will cease to be a primary/main bait I can use. It absolutely DOES depend on the Salmon run for me to be able to use loose Salmon eggs for bait. No Salmon = no bait. I have frozen eggs that will last me a couple/few years. But they don't get better over time, and eventually will be freezer burned beyond being useful. I get that eggs work as bait in places that don't have spawning Salmon. But they don't work if you can't get them at all. Commercially cured eggs suck for Steelhead, compared to the eggs I prepare and store for later use. 

So, I've fished Salmon, and Steelhead for a bit over 40 years. I can appreciate that the Salmon runs on lake Michigan tribs is WAY down from even the last few years. How much less? I would guess the run this year might have been less than 20% of what we have had in recent years. Maybe 10%. Where are the dead Kings lying on the river bottom, or stuck on logs, or lying on shore? They simply aren't there. 

Very scary. Hopefully this is a one-year anomoly. But it smells exactly like the crash on lake Huron to me. F&%@ :yikes: But I know for a fact that there are Alewives left in lake Michigan. I haven't seen an Alewife in lake Huron in a very long time.


----------



## Abel

I understand that FishDude, if you don't have eggs, you can't fish em. But that's not what he was getting at. From what he said, no salmon in the rivers means that steelies wouldn't take egg patterns or eggs.


----------



## AdamBradley

Speaking of what fishndude brought up... I hate to ask the question, but when was the last time anyone saw ales first hand? For me, june. Granted, I didn't do a ton of fishing this year as in past years, but, I fished some cold water days when I expected to see bait. Just curious when everyone last first hand, saw ales.


----------



## blackghost

Ales are in Holland anyways- the question is how many. Most of the fish I've caught in September/October have had a few alewives in them, several had a bunch of alewives in them. Actually caught a steelhead with a recently caught alewife half swallowed and another 6 digesting. Many of the fish had standard to mag sized alewives and a few of the fish had a bunch of 2-3 inch fish in them.

These trip includes September 27, 28 and October 11 and the total fish count was 22 fish (10 kings, 7 steelhead, 3 lakers, 1 coho and 1 brown).

I marked a decent amount of bait clouds on these trips as well.


----------



## tda513

blackghost said:


> Ales are in Holland anyways- the question is how many.


That's the question we wish we all knew. I have seen some huge schools around the pier heads. I also caught a steelhead from southern lake michigan this summer with seven whole alewives in its belly, but in the big scheme of things that is nothing. We also don't have a clue about how many salmon are actually in Lake Michigan. It is a big lake, and we know a lot less than we think about it. Unfortunately, as with Huron, we will probably learn our lessons in hindsight.


----------



## Fishndude

Abel said:


> I understand that FishDude, if you don't have eggs, you can't fish em. But that's not what he was getting at. From what he said, no salmon in the rivers means that steelies wouldn't take egg patterns or eggs.


Sorry for misunderstanding. I have never thought that having Salmon spawning in a particular river was a requisite for using eggs as bait in that river successfully. Steelhead eat eggs whether there are spawning Salmon around, or not. Salmon don't spawn in winter, spring, or summer - and I catch Steelhead in all of those seasons using eggs. Why do Steelhead bite yarn flies in bright contrasting colors, that don't resemble anything they feed on? Nobody knows, but they do. 

But, again, no Salmon = no eggs for Steelhead bait. That would suck out loud.


----------



## Treven

This is what I was making a point about in an earlier thread, regarding the low salmon numbers. 

First, comparing Lake Michigan to Lake Huron is apples to oranges. How exactly, I don't know - I'm not a biologist, but they would have crashed at the same time if this was apples to apples. Can we glean some things from what happened in Lake Huron, sure. In my mind, these are two different ecosystems that have now been managed very differently (because they are different...) up to current since said crash. 

Second, there are most definitely alewives in Lake Michigan still. I think the kings I caught looked plenty healthy, and I don't believe they are mainly feeding opportunistically on sources other than alewives looking like that. Sure they weren't as big as last year's class of fish. We had a big fish year. They happen. The DNR gets jack for funding, so my theory is the information used from the trawls to determine Lake Michigan's biomass were incomplete or skewed and they used what info they had to make some pretty big decisions. I'm not saying we didn't need to reduce stocks, At this point, I'm not sure anyone knows that for a fact! I'm thinking we probably reduced them too much, if anything. This leads to my third thought:

Lastly, I recall lots of talk that we have all this natural reproduction from the mid to northern west side rivers. A few (mainly one) small ones do, after what we have seen this season. I don't think the Big Manistee has all the natural reproduction it was claimed to have! I feel like I was lead to believe nearly all the mid to northern west side rivers needed little no dependence on stocking. I don't see this as very accurate as well, but the next few years of our reduced plant returns would confirm this if it is true.

The jist of my thoughts are: 
a.) There are a lot of theories, including my own, out there. 
b.) I don't think our DNR gets the monetary support they need to make the best decisions.
c.) I think there are some higher ups in fisheries that have other agendas for how Lake Michigan is managed (i.e. - not Tonello, he's for us from what I have gathered over the years), and there was likely some propaganda spread out very well from reading many posts on this site. 

This is just my opinion, please take it with a grain of salt if you are offended by it...


----------



## FishMichv2

Fishndude said:


> Sorry for misunderstanding. I have never thought that having Salmon spawning in a particular river was a requisite for using eggs as bait in that river successfully. Steelhead eat eggs whether there are spawning Salmon around, or not. Salmon don't spawn in winter, spring, or summer - and I catch Steelhead in all of those seasons using eggs. Why do Steelhead bite yarn flies in bright contrasting colors, that don't resemble anything they feed on? Nobody knows, but they do.
> 
> But, again, no Salmon = no eggs for Steelhead bait. That would suck out loud.


good question. i fish C&D rigs in the winter for steel and often do well on a single blue egg. you dont see too many naturally occurring blue eggs but steelhead and trout seem to like that blue egg fly some days.


----------



## FishMichv2

Treven said:


> This is what I was making a point about in an earlier thread, regarding the low salmon numbers.
> 
> First, comparing Lake Michigan to Lake Huron is apples to oranges. How exactly, I don't know - I'm not a biologist, but they would have crashed at the same time if this was apples to apples. Can we glean some things from what happened in Lake Huron, sure. In my mind, these are two different ecosystems that have now been managed very differently (because they are different...) up to current since said crash.
> 
> Second, there are most definitely alewives in Lake Michigan still. I think the kings I caught looked plenty healthy, and I don't believe they are feeding opportunistically on mainly things other than alewives looking like that. Sure they weren't as big as last year's class of fish. We had a big fish year. They happen. The DNR gets jack for funding, so my theory is the information used from the trawls to determine Lake Michigan's biomass were incomplete or skewed and they used what info they had to make some pretty big decisions. I'm not saying we didn't need to reduce stocks, At this point, I'm not sure anyone knows that for a fact! I'm thinking we probably reduced them too much, if anything. This leads to my third thought:
> 
> Lastly, I recall lots of talk that we have all this natural reproduction from the mid to northern west side rivers. A few (mainly one) small ones do, after what we have seen this season. I don't think the Big Manistee has all the natural reproduction it was claimed to have! I feel like I was lead to believe nearly all the mid to northern west side rivers needed little no dependence on stocking. I don't see this as very accurate as well, but the next few years of our reduced plant returns would confirm this if it is true.
> 
> The jist of my thoughts are:
> a.) There are a lot of theories, including my own, out there.
> b.) I don't think our DNR gets the monetary support they need to make the best decisions.
> c.) I think there are some higher ups in fisheries that have other agendas for how Lake Michigan is managed (i.e. - not Tonello, he's for us from what I have gathered over the years), and there was likely some propaganda spread out very well from reading many posts on this site.
> 
> This is just my opinion, please take it with a grain of salt if you are offended by it...


i lean more and more towards this past winter being really bad as playing a big role in the run being down this year. seems like if their food was low then we would be seeing some skinny fish. i havent seen any huge fish but they were all pretty darn healthy. if it is the winter that is the issue then i would expect that it affected the 1 and 2 year old fish as well. also, while numbers are certainly down I am still seeing some fresh fish show up little by little. i landed a very bright hen that probably was in the 17-18lb range two days ago which is probably a good 4-5lb larger than any other king ive landed this year.


----------



## diztortion

Treven said:


> Lastly, I recall lots of talk that we have all this natural reproduction from the mid to northern west side rivers. A few (mainly one) small ones do, after what we have seen this season. I don't think the Big Manistee has all the natural reproduction it was claimed to have! I feel like I was lead to believe nearly all the mid to northern west side rivers needed little no dependence on stocking. I don't see this as very accurate as well, but the next few years of our reduced plant returns would confirm this if it is true.


Lots of talk about Northern rivers having great natural reproduction but after reducing stocking, 70% of the plants went to Northern locales. 

This year on the Grand about 80% of my catch rate was CWT tagged fish.


----------



## Benzie Rover

chlong said:


> Thats a good possibility, I could guess that could play a role but I'm not sure if it did, That would be a biologist question, but defiantly something to look into maybe it did play a role? I might look into the data for 3-4 years ago spring and summer temps of the rivers and see if their is any other times in the past that the temps were high during the spring or summer and in those years were the spawning fish 3-4 years later affected? Deffinatly worth looking into


Actually - 95% of Chinook salmon YOY (young of year) leave Michigan river systems by mid-June so summer river temps have no consequence on them. Whereas YOY Coho and steelhead require a year of river residency before migrating to lake or ocean. THIS is why steelhead (and coho) reproduction is limited to coldwater systems, whereas the kings can reproduce in marginal trout water since their young leave before lethal summer temps. 

Anyway, for any folks interested in getting into the biologist end of this stuff, you REALLY should get ahold of a few 'classics' in great lakes salmonid research -here's a short list to get you started (the lit cited sections of these reports will get you a box full (or two if your like me) of stuff to read and sound smart about on the internet... None of this info is new, as you can easily see. 

1. Seelbach, Paul. Smolt migration of wild and hatchery-raised coho and chinook salmon in a tributary of Northern Lake Michigan. MDNR Fisheries Research Report No. 1935, August 1, 1985. 

2. Carl, LM. Natural reproduction of coho salmon and chinook salmon in some Michigan streams. NAJFM 4:375-380, 1982.

3. Carl, LM. Chinook Salmon (_Oncorhynchus tshawytscha_) density, growth, mortality, and movement in two Lake Michigan tributaries. Can. J. Zool. Vol. 62, 984, pg 65-70.

4. Zaft, David. Migration of wild chinook and coho salmon smolts from the Pere Marquette river, Michigan. MSU Master of Science Thesis, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1992

5. Taube, C.M. Transfer releases of coho salmon and trout into an upper part of Platte River, and observations on salmonid spawning. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division Report 1815, Lansing, MI


----------



## ramlund man

You gave me a blast from the past when you mentioned the first study by Paul Seelbach . I had an opportunity to help him and a buddy that worked for him doing Skamania migration research on the LM at the weir back in 1983 & 84. I'll never forget those days, we got to remove the Skamania smolts from traps, knock 'em out, take and preserve scale samples and revive and release them to resume their migration. Those are fond memories from quite a few years ago---just my $0.02---RLM


----------



## toto

As painful as this may be to say, perhaps the salmon fishery today is the new normal. I think we all agree there needs to be some balance between prey and predator, and we have how many states planting fish, 4, 5. I know I read somewhere that the states DNR's have agreed to a certain amount of fish planted overall, what that number is I'm not sure. Who knows, maybe if we had a couple of years of warm winters, the alewive population would rise enough to equal out the balance, but again not sure on that either. As someone else said, I'm sure the mussel problem contributes as well, so what to do about that, and that is a huge problem. I don't think you can create a fantastic fishery from top down, it needs to happen from bottom up.


----------



## chlong

toto said:


> I'm sure the mussel problem contributes as well, so what to do about that, and that is a huge problem. I don't think you can create a fantastic fishery from top down, it needs to happen from bottom up.


The mussels ARE the problem..... the mussels are turning the water sterile, clear and clean... bassically turning lake michigan into lake superior. the alewives will eventually die off if the mussels arnt controlled


----------



## chlong

AdamBradley said:


> Speaking of what fishndude brought up... I hate to ask the question, but when was the last time anyone saw ales first hand? For me, june. Granted, I didn't do a ton of fishing this year as in past years, but, I fished some cold water days when I expected to see bait. Just curious when everyone last first hand, saw ales.


Alewives have seasonal dies thats why you dont see many later in the year


----------



## AdamBradley

chlong said:


> Alewives have seasonal dies thats why you dont see many later in the year


But I have in past years fishing the same water temp of 52 degrees for 3 days straight? maybe the little guys wanted to lounge in the hot tub after running from predators up until august?


----------



## centerpin

Wow, I had no idea that striped bass were actually considered to control the break out Alewive population. We would have a completly different fishery if that would have happened. 

They make great gamefish for the shore based angler, striped bass fishing from the surf is incredibly popular on the east coast. With thousands of miles of shoreline available we could have become a Mecca for the shore based angler, instead most our salmon fishing is done offshore in expensive boats not accessible the the average angler.


----------



## REG

Another question I would have is if there is enough CWT data to draw conclusions, why and how was this data disseminated to the public?

When Lake Huron crashed, weren't lake trout, steelhead and brown trout continued to be stocked? In Lake Huron, was stocking of these species intensified after the alewives/chinook crash? 

Also, one question I've never heard addressed is if USFWS mission is the restoration of native species, which we've seen over the years with Lake Trout, why is there no USFWS activity for perch? I am not sure what they could do for them, but I really don't see any of their involvement when it comes to perch.
How about whitefish, or herring, walleye?


----------



## Cork Dust

o_mykiss said:


> not disagreeing with anythign else you posted, but can you clarify? Where in Wisconsin, Indiana, or Illinois are a large amount of naturally reproduced Chinooks coming from? Sure, plenty are coming in from Lake Huron but in Lake Michigan there's virtually zero natural reproduction excepting the Michigan rivers. How has the CWT study disproved that?


The CWT multi-year data documents that chinook salmon, wild and hatchery origin fish, mix thouroughly throughout the Lake Michigan basin, particularly as 2.5 and 3.5 YO fish. 


Current data indicate that first year fish tend to concentrate inshore(They feed heavily on terrestrial insects blown into the water) on the eastern side of Lake Micihigan.


----------



## o_mykiss

Ah, I see what your point is. My understanding is that Michigan took a disproportionate share of the chinook cuts because of the natural reproduction in Michigan waters means that there is still a fall fishery, whereas the other 3 states would have little fall fishing due to no natural reproduction. I don't think anybody in state DNRs ever thought that chinooks didn't thoroughly mix throughout the basin. Rather, they wanted to preserve their fall fisheries.


----------



## Cork Dust

REG said:


> Another question I would have is if there is enough CWT data to draw conclusions, why and how was this data disseminated to the public?
> 
> When Lake Huron crashed, weren't lake trout, steelhead and brown trout continued to be stocked? In Lake Huron, was stocking of these species intensified after the alewives/chinook crash?
> 
> Also, one question I've never heard addressed is if USFWS mission is the restoration of native species, which we've seen over the years with Lake Trout, why is there no USFWS activity for perch? I am not sure what they could do for them, but I really don't see any of their involvement when it comes to perch.
> How about whitefish, or herring, walleye?


Actually, when alewife populations declined by 95% in the 2003-2006 interval, MDNR Fishery managers only cut chinook plants by 50%. Lake trout, steelhead, brown trout plants remained unaltered. 

In 2007 I contacted the Lake Huron Basin Coordinator for the MDNR, Dave Borgeson, Jr., requesting some rationale regarding why chinook plants remained so high, as well as whether these fish were exiting the system to Lake Michigan waters at high rates. After several email exchanges where I challenged his statements that minimal numbers of hatcher origin fish were emigrating to Lake Michigan, I was politely told to stop bothering him and go talk to then Lake Michigan Basin Advisory Committee representative for Michigan from the MDNR, Jim Dexter. 

What I essentially asked Dave Borgeson was, with 80% of the remaining chinook stock in Lake Huron concentrated in North Channel and Georgian Bay waters composed of wild origin fish that apparently are surviving, combined with background data that indicate that Chinook salmon are now wholey dependant on alewife for forage, as well as your own internal tag recovery data that indicate hatchery origin chinook plante at Swan Creek are being caught in southern Lake Michigan (not many, but they were recorded that far south in sport catch),how do you arrive at the conclusion that these fish are suviving by remaining in Lake Huron where there are no alewife...? At that point in time,the consensus estimate was roughly 5% of the pre-crash value of alewife remained in Lake Huron waters. 

To me, at least, this was ample indirect evidence that chinook were exiting Lake Huron to feed in Lake Michigan at some relatively significantly large rate (i.e.a large enough value to potentially impact the Lake Michigan forage base to some additional negative degree). My MDNR Fishery Divison contact conversations from 2007-2008 resulted in no alteration(s) in their management direction(s) or priorities that I coul discern...

I think it was 2011 before MDNR Fishery Division personnel announced that they were ceasing nearly all chinook plants in the basin other than some near the Straits and the Consensus Decree mandated 250,000 smolt plant at Nunn's Creek for the Tribal Fishery ( primarily Soo Band, with some Brimely Band, licensed Tribal Fisherman). Tribal fishery managers refused to allow this plant to be cut when that request was made. 

With regard to your comments about USFWS and USGS support of lake trout restoration focus absent other sport and commercially valuable species; you have gone to the "meat of the nut". 

I agree, a VERY odd laser like focus on one fish. Whenever I press Federal Fishery Managers about why they have thrown so much effort and dollars at lake trout restoration over several decades of failure. I get the, "We only propose lake trout as the eventual keystone predator!" Quite frankly, I have no idea what that means! I have a couple of suspicions regarding their motivations, but I'll keep them to myself. 

My perspective leans toward the conclusion that it is a pretty low probability of success avenue to focus on restoration of a top predator or "keystone predator" that relies on a food web that has been so radically altered by 184 invasive species introductions at several key trophic levels over decades. When you inspect the actual evidence currently being trumpeted as positive, regarding stock restoration, it is pretty weak. 

USGS Science center personnel have published data on altered energy dynamics for lake whitefish. They also monitor forage fish abundance via a joint bottom trawlng program with MDNR research vessel and personnel involvement. Lake Herring population monitoring occurs at the Federal level. Yellow Perch, walleye, smallmouth bass????


----------



## toto

Very good information on the whole matter. It sounds like you've done your homework over time. It also seems like you aren't overly impressed with a few from the DNR.


----------



## limpinglogan

Cork Dust seems to know what he is talking about...

I read a lot of this thread...I see some where Cork Dust said he doesn't think any one is contemplating adding the bacteria that kills the muscles to the lake...why not? Will this change in the future?

It seems like attempting to kill the muscles would be a big step in the right direction.


----------



## Treven

Cork Dust, this is everything I have heard second-hand over the past few years and I didn't feel at-liberty to share the details as you did since I was not the one getting this info first hand. I certainly did not want to mistake any info represented since I didn't initiate it. Thank you for sharing, since you have spoken first hand with those making decisions for us all here!! 

In my opinion, those making decisions fit right in with the recent and current governmental regimes. "Let's make decisions as to what I want and tell the masses what they want is impossible, even though they pay for it all! It's the new American way..."


----------



## chlong

I think this thread should become a sticky lol... its been active for almost 2 months lol this is great!


----------

