# 2017 Chinook Salmon Fishing on Lake Michigan (opinions)



## [email protected] (Jul 17, 2014)

Is it crazy to think that a cisco revival might come only if alewives continue to decline, wouldn't that be the ultimate goal anyway? The true native prey fish return and then imagine what type of fishery we could have. At that point, we could get creative and maximize based on what sport fish would thrive, but to manage the whole system and try and play super biologists to keep alewives stocks high doesn't make sense. I love Chinook too, but I'm not going to say I love alewives. This will never happen again and its like apples to oranges, but would people be complaining if we had Coaster Brook Trout instead, I wouldn't. I think we can all agree we still do and should always have a world class fishery albeit an evolving one, we just need to stay ahead of the game. If we get Atlantics truly going in 20 years will anyone be complaining? Lake run Browns, Steelhead, Coho's, love em all, lets see what works.


----------



## Bwino33 (Feb 21, 2013)

About 70/30 the Kings this year for me.
With 70 percent of my Kings being natural reproduction and 30 percent planted. Netted two 24 pound kings this year.
I think the next two years will be decent, though I'm not optimistic after that because of the cuts to the plants and the number of salmon that get eaten off the mouth of the boardman river I see from the spring time lake trout I boat, but that's a whole other conversation.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

2017 is going to be tough, weir returns will give us a better idea but we have 2-4 year olds spawning this year. That leaves very few big kings to catch next year. I suspect a lot of small fish caught next year. But a few years from now could be very good if we produce a 2016 year class of ales.


----------



## Sparky23 (Aug 15, 2007)

Jay Wesley said:


> You should see more 1 and 2 year old chinook and a few 3 year olds and not as many 4's. Coho numbers and size will be up. Browns should be up. Steelhead numbers same with size up. Lake trout same. If the bait cooperates and spends more time on the Michigan side in 2017, catch rates could be much better than 2016.


Where are these 4 year old you speak of Jay since all studies have established there are like less than 1percent of 4 year olds returning anymore? Next year should have bigger fish as we have seen multiple 12-15 lb 2 year old or at least non mature fish already this year. Numbers will be in the tank i have a feeling though as were heading into a year where 2 bad spawns in a row happened i believe. Bigger and more coho would be nice but only make up for a few months of fish total as everyone knows they all but disappear in the summer and become almost as random as atlantics


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Last year, the 3 year old growth was slow so many did not spawn. We are seeing an unusual amount of 4 year olds this year.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Jay Wesley said:


> Last year, the 3 year old growth was slow so many did not spawn. We are seeing an unusual amount of 4 year olds this year.


Jay was that due to coming out of cold winters and cold water and slower metabolism or an alewife issue? Whatever your response is..how do we factor those factors into future stocking decisions. Is it even possible given the variability of mother nature?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

In 2015, we only had the remains of the 2010 and 2012 year classes of alewife, so it was a bait issue. The 2015 year class survived well and gave then something to eat this year. Hard to predict and that is why we like to see it in the data first to be sure. We can game with the model and run what if scenarios. 

Probably why most are upset with our proposal. We are being conservative. To me that is a better strategy for the long-term. 

With a conservative view, we will take the winter severity into account because that really set us back. Cold water in the summer is also bad cause the lake doesn't stratify giving more plankton to the mussels.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Jay Wesley said:


> In 2015, we only had the remains of the 2010 and 2012 year classes of alewife, so it was a bait issue. The 2015 year class survived well and gave then something to eat this year. Hard to predict and that is why we like to see it in the data first to be sure. We can game with the model and run what if scenarios.
> 
> Probably why most are upset with our proposal. We are being conservative. To me that is a better strategy for the long-term.
> 
> With a conservative view, we will take the winter severity into account because that really set us back. Cold water in the summer is also bad cause the lake doesn't stratify giving more plankton to the mussels.


Jay, if the mussels are robbing the alewife of anything to eat, how is it that alewife are going to survive? Also, how come the mussels don't have the same effect in their native waters that they do in our lakes?


----------



## Musselhead (Aug 6, 2016)

RedM2 said:


> Jay, if the mussels are robbing the alewife of anything to eat, how is it that alewife are going to survive? Also, how come the mussels don't have the same effect in their native waters that they do in our lakes?


Simply put - they evolved in and with their natural ecosystem. In our waters there was no natural counterbalance. We're seeing that transition with the goby population and how the nutrients are now being spread through the system.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Musselhead said:


> Simply put - they evolved in and with their natural ecosystem. In our waters there was no natural counterbalance. We're seeing that transition with the goby population and how the nutrients are now being spread through the system.


My question would then more specifically be, what is that natural counterbalance in the mussels' native environment? We keep hearing they strip the water column of its nutrients, so why aren't they striping their native waters of the nutrients? The MDNR has to have researched/inquired about these questions, so I am very interested in understanding the answers to these questions.


----------



## Musselhead (Aug 6, 2016)

RedM2 said:


> My question would then more specifically be, what is that natural counterbalance in the mussels' native environment? We keep hearing they strip the water column of its nutrients, so why aren't they striping their native waters of the nutrients? The MDNR has to have researched/inquired about these questions, so I am very interested in understanding the answers to these questions.


I brought these exact questions up when I was taking the wisconsin DNR to task on the current situation. My impression was it was never taken much further than "they evolved with their ecosystem." 

IMO I imagine predators such as the round goby for one. I also imagine the top of the food chain in those ecosystems are also primary predators of fish like the goby. 

I also believe (hopefully) that we've turned a corner. We typically drop a camera down to the bottom on a rigger several times a season. We've noticed a slight decline in bottom cover over the last year or two. It's completely unscientific, but for an average fisherman, that's all I have to keep an eye on it. Keep in mind, every time a new species is introduced into a system where it can thrive, there's a boom and bust cycle, followed in many instances of a sense of equilibrium. 

I personally would like to see more study as you've mentioned by our states. Considering the money involved in this sport fishery, it would be prudent.


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

RedM2 said:


> My question would then more specifically be, what is that natural counterbalance in the mussels' native environment? We keep hearing they strip the water column of its nutrients, so why aren't they striping their native waters of the nutrients? The MDNR has to have researched/inquired about these questions, so I am very interested in understanding the answers to these questions.


Additionally the type of lake (bottom structure like sand, rock or other sediments) and the amount of nutrients the lake receives annually also plays a role in how the mussels affect the lake. For example lake Erie has mussels but has so much nutrients going in that the mussels don't have near the effect.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Musselhead said:


> I brought these exact questions up when I was taking the wisconsin DNR to task on the current situation. My impression was it was never taken much further than "they evolved with their ecosystem."


Their response to that is too easy. That sounds like a lazy response that isn't backed by research. You'd think they'd know the answer if they are truly trying to figure out this issue. Many issues have been discussed ad nauseam regarding salmon, lake trout, etc., but this hasn't been answered in anything I've read/heard... 

Jay, could you please chime in on this when you have an opportunity?


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

andyotto said:


> Additionally the type of lake (bottom structure like sand, rock or other sediments) and the amount of nutrients the lake receives annually also plays a role in how the mussels affect the lake. For example lake Erie has mussels but has so much nutrients going in that the mussels don't have near the effect.


True, which is probably why Lake Ontario has been doing better. I am guessing Lake Ontario was the first lake to have mussels (even if not documented?) since most, if not all, foreign shipping comes through Lake Ontario first. It might be time to look whether or not the clean water act is actually a positive or negative (it's only 1 piece of the puzzle though).


----------



## Lake Erie Monster (Nov 7, 2012)

"It might be time to look whether or not the clean water act is actually a positive or negative (it's only 1 piece of the puzzle though)".

That's why I always save up and dump in Michigans rivers/lakes. I say poo poo to the Clean water act. 

https://media1.giphy.com/media/BZGOWw1XCBDKE/giphy.gif


----------



## andyotto (Sep 11, 2003)

RedM2 said:


> True, which is probably why Lake Ontario has been doing better. I am guessing Lake Ontario was the first lake to have mussels (even if not documented?) since most, if not all, foreign shipping comes through Lake Ontario first. It might be time to look whether or not the clean water act is actually a positive or negative (it's only 1 piece of the puzzle though).


Agree. Its another example of a "one size fits all rule". I fish every winter down in Mosquito Lagoon Florida. There they have too many nutrients that are killing the habitat. We have the exact opposite problem. 

I'm guessing that many lakes in highly populated Europe where the mussels developed have a similar situation to Erie. High amounts of nutrients


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

jpmarko said:


> I'm sure they would feed on other pelagic baitfish too if there were any. But there aren't. All baitfish are donwn with the exception of the bottom-feeding goby. We need a good population of pelagic prey fish that live roughly in the same temp zones as kings. All we have are ales in Southern Lake Michigan.


That is exactly what happens when a majority of all of the fish that the DNR plants go to the same general area of the state. They have to eat something and that includes fish other than alewife. It will be a few years but I think that the DNR will wake up and relocate some of their fish planting. Right now would be as good as any time to move some coho plants from Lake Michigan to Lake Superior. Move some steelhead from the Muskegon River to the Cheboygan River. Move some brown trout from the Pere Marquette River to Manistique and so on.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

Please, Robert - your broken record is playing again

the kings mix completely throughout the lake, it doesn't matter where they are planted, they roam all over the place. Chinook diet in northern Lake Michigan has precisely zero to do with where they are stocked

you've said many times before you find tons of fish, and rarely have crowds to deal with. You make a great argument against yourself all the time


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

RedM2 said:


> Their response to that is too easy. That sounds like a lazy response that isn't backed by research. You'd think they'd know the answer if they are truly trying to figure out this issue. Many issues have been discussed ad nauseam regarding salmon, lake trout, etc., but this hasn't been answered in anything I've read/heard...
> 
> Jay, could you please chime in on this when you have an opportunity?


I am no mussel expert; however, I know that scientist from various universities and federal agencies are looking at options. Obviously, there are a lot of predators, parasites, and diseases that keep zebra and quagga mussels in check in their native areas. We don't have the predators yet, but more and more fish, birds, crayfish, etc are starting to use them. There is already Zequanox, which is a bacteria that can be applied to an area. There is a university looking for a virus that could spread through the population. Usually about the time you get it figured out, something happens to an invasive species population. Right now quagga mussel biomass is leveling off. Going down in the nearshore and going up in the offshore but no net gain.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Jay Wesley said:


> I am no mussel expert; however, I know that scientist from various universities and federal agencies are looking at options. Obviously, there are a lot of predators, parasites, and diseases that keep zebra and quagga mussels in check in their native areas. We don't have the predators yet, but more and more fish, birds, crayfish, etc are starting to use them. There is already Zequanox, which is a bacteria that can be applied to an area. There is a university looking for a virus that could spread through the population. Usually about the time you get it figured out, something happens to an invasive species population. Right now quagga mussel biomass is leveling off. Going down in the nearshore and going up in the offshore but no net gain.


Do you know the time it took from introduction in nearshore waters to the time they took to peak and from peak to decline? I would think this could give us a rough idea on the timeline they are working with in offshore waters. It'd be interesting to know how the parasites and disease that nature uses to control them in their native waters would impact our ecosystem.


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Jay Wesley said:


> I am no mussel expert; however, I know that scientist from various universities and federal agencies are looking at options. Obviously, there are a lot of predators, parasites, and diseases that keep zebra and quagga mussels in check in their native areas. We don't have the predators yet, but more and more fish, birds, crayfish, etc are starting to use them. There is already Zequanox, which is a bacteria that can be applied to an area. There is a university looking for a virus that could spread through the population. Usually about the time you get it figured out, something happens to an invasive species population. Right now quagga mussel biomass is leveling off. Going down in the nearshore and going up in the offshore but no net gain.


Any guesses as to why this might be happening? Nearshore vs offshore?


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

o_mykiss said:


> Please, Robert - your broken record is playing again
> 
> the kings mix completely throughout the lake, it doesn't matter where they are planted, they roam all over the place. Chinook diet in northern Lake Michigan has precisely zero to do with where they are stocked
> 
> you've said many times before you find tons of fish, and rarely have crowds to deal with. You make a great argument against yourself all the time


I am no expert and I don't pretend to be one. I have plenty of natural fish where I live to catch and do not need the DNR to plant even one. An 8th grader can figure out that if you have too many predators and not enough prey things won't work out eventually. Southern Lake Michigan is great fishing I have been there and filled a cooler more than once. Take a minute and look at the fish planting reports from Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. I realize that some fish move around but many don't. They stay in Southern Lake Michigan and eat everything. When the baitfish are gone then the predator fish will be gone, simple biology. 
I am not saying not to plant fish in Southern Lake Michigan. I am saying to take some of fish that are currently being planted there and plant them elsewhere, where other waters could use some fish. That is exactly what they are doing with the Atlantic Salmon now. Right now every harbor town in Michigan wants Atlantic Salmon there is enough of them in the EUP so why not spread them around a bit.


----------



## jumbojake (Apr 20, 2009)

SJC said:


> I don't agree. The Swan river plant saved our ass on egg take last year. Plus, those fish are being caught up and down both lakes, thus providing a fishery. I know of Swan fish being caught from Port Huron to St. Joe. I have seen a bunch of clipped fish come out of Huron this year. I would guess that most of these are probably Swan fish. Quite a few people still cold water fish in Huron and they like to get a few Kings, too...


I understand your point captain,I just think it's sad that lake huron salmon plants,may have saved lake michigan in future because that was are only option last year:\dnr did good dare by having that cushion.but dare is no natural reperduction in swan creek,like say verses oscoda,or little Manistee on westside,after they get there egg take.those swan creek fish are protected well,so I've should have said protected not wastedfor now I shall have faith in dnr,and see how are future salmon fish out ehand I want salmon in lake huron alaways have,just think a plant inn ocqueoc,or oscoda would be better for fisherpeople.afterall dare going to lake mi for food alegidly lake michigan never saved the salmon crash on lake huron,but the swan creek fishery egg take from last year is lake Michigan's future ,sounds like a tough go imo.


----------



## born2fish87 (Jul 17, 2009)

In my opinion with less stocking it will tremendously reduce the fishing pressure in Lake Michigan. I think there will obviously be less fish but more fish will be able to reach maturity and we will see more quality fish. I think in years to come we will see a lot more 30lb+ fish. 

I do a lot of snorkeling around southwest Michigan piers and in the last couple years I have noticed a lot more alewives so I don't think there is an issue with bait fish.


----------



## TrapperJohn (Jan 14, 2001)

born2fish87 said:


> I do a lot of snorkeling around southwest Michigan piers and in the last couple years I have noticed a lot more alewives so I don't think there is an issue with bait fish.


You are snorkeling where many of the alewife that are left in Lake Michigan are, mostly near river mouths! Snorkel out in 150' and report your results back in kiloton so we can get a more actuate estimate on numbers?


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

TrapperJohn said:


> You are snorkeling where many of the alewife that are left in Lake Michigan are, mostly near river mouths! Snorkel out in 150' and report your results back in kiloton so we can get a more actuate estimate on numbers?


You mean like go stand in a Walmart parking lot and look for deer because there used to be a corn field there? And report back to the world that because there is no corn in the walmart parking lot, there are no longer deer? Forget the fact that all the deer are in the subdivision and golf course next door mowing down shrubs and bushes. Deer and alewife are smart, the food has moved and so have they. Only a baitfish surveyor would still go to the walmart parking lot...you know...to keep his data "consistent".


----------



## Musselhead (Aug 6, 2016)

slightofhand said:


> You mean like go stand in a Walmart parking lot and look for deer because there used to be a corn field there? And report back to the world that because there is no corn in the walmart parking lot, there are no longer deer? Forget the fact that all the deer are in the subdivision and golf course next door mowing down shrubs and bushes. Deer and alewife are smart, the food has moved and so have they. Only a baitfish surveyor would still go to the walmart parking lot...you know...to keep his data "consistent".


Not a solid comparison. In this instance, deer would be more the chinook while corn would be the alewives.

When where there used to be corn is all now parking lots and subdivisions, the remaining deer are left to forage on whatever they can find - i.e. shrubs and trees. Either way, it's not conducive to having a sizeable herd of deer.

"Why not just go where there IS corn?" - it won't tell us anything new because corn was there before, when the subdivisions and parking lots were corn as well.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

slightofhand said:


> You mean like go stand in a Walmart parking lot and look for deer because there used to be a corn field there? And report back to the world that because there is no corn in the walmart parking lot, there are no longer deer? Forget the fact that all the deer are in the subdivision and golf course next door mowing down shrubs and bushes. Deer and alewife are smart, the food has moved and so have they. Only a baitfish surveyor would still go to the walmart parking lot...you know...to keep his data "consistent".


Worst analogy I've heard in years.
Here's the problem with your analogy and musslehead may have touched on it to. The water at 150ft is still habitable by alewife. They SHOULD be there but they are not (ie low abundance). The Walmart parking lot is no longer habitable for the deer so of course they aren't going to be there (duh).


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

Musselhead said:


> Not a solid comparison. In this instance, deer would be more the chinook while corn would be the alewives.
> 
> When where there used to be corn is all now parking lots and subdivisions, the remaining deer are left to forage on whatever they can find - i.e. shrubs and trees. Either way, it's not conducive to having a sizeable herd of deer.
> 
> "Why not just go where there IS corn?" - it won't tell us anything new because corn was there before, when the subdivisions and parking lots were corn as well.


No, it would not be. It is exactly as was stated. Why go looking for alewife where they used to be, and clearly are not now, because their food is all inshore now instead of both inshore and offshore. Again, and in a baitfish surveyors own words "I will say that if you want a lakewide estimate biomass and you don't cover areas you mention (nearshore), the biomass estimate will NOT be a lakewide estimate, which is critical for management purposes. Such an estimate would be falsely inflated if you only sample where fish are."

That quote from a USGS baitfish surveyor was forwarded to me. Alarming, to say the least...I mean, why would anyone go survey/sample where the fish are? What good could that possibly do? Lets go sample where the fish AREN'T! Genius I say...pure genius!


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

someone11 said:


> Worst analogy I've heard in years.
> Here's the problem with your analogy and musslehead may have touched on it to. The water at 150ft is still habitable by alewife. They SHOULD be there but they are not (ie low abundance). The Walmart parking lot is no longer habitable for the deer so of course they aren't going to be there (duh).


 Why is the water in 150 any more habitable to an alewife as a walmart parking lot is to a deer? Just because they can physically be there does not mean the should or would be. No reason to be there and no reason to look there. I feel like I am talking to my six year old...surely your parents approve of your useage of the internet someone11?


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Acoustic survey transects are randomly selected. There would be equal chance for a corn field or Walmart with each transect. With random surveys, you get a better picture of what is there without having to survey the entire state of Michigan or in this case Lake Michigan.


----------



## Musselhead (Aug 6, 2016)

slightofhand said:


> No, it would not be. It is exactly as was stated. Why go looking for alewife where they used to be, and clearly are not now, because their food is all inshore now instead of both inshore and offshore. Again, and in a baitfish surveyors own words "I will say that if you want a lakewide estimate biomass and you don't cover areas you mention (nearshore), the biomass estimate will NOT be a lakewide estimate, which is critical for management purposes. Such an estimate would be falsely inflated if you only sample where fish are."
> 
> That quote from a USGS baitfish surveyor was forwarded to me. Alarming, to say the least...I mean, why would anyone go survey/sample where the fish are? What good could that possibly do? Lets go sample where the fish AREN'T! Genius I say...pure genius!


They need to sample both. If they don't and only sample where there's baitfish, their conclusion will then be the lake is loaded with baitfish.

In your example, corn would still be the alewives. If I were to ONLY check how much corn is available in the Walmart parking lot and ignore the countryside, then I conclude that there's no corn for deer to feed on. If I ONLY check the countryside and ignore the parking lot, then there's a ton of corn and our area can support a lot more deer.

The only way to determine how many deer your area can support as a whole is to take the whole area into consideration.

Is their method perfect? No, it's not. However, given the size of the body of water, it's not bad considering funding and manpower.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

I might add that there used to be cornfields across most of the lake in historic surveys now there are more Walmart. Same with alewife. They used to be there. Now you find one good patch here and there with a lot of nothing (Walmart) in between.


----------



## someone11 (Mar 15, 2009)

slightofhand said:


> Why is the water in 150 any more habitable to an alewife as a walmart parking lot is to a deer? Just because they can physically be there does not mean the should or would be. No reason to be there and no reason to look there. I feel like I am talking to my six year old...surely your parents approve of your useage of the internet someone11?


Personal attacks, really? And you say I'm the 6 year old...


----------



## ausable_steelhead (Sep 30, 2002)

For as many alewife as slightofhand claims are out there, and the "huge, thick fish" being raved about during summer...I have saw multiple slim kings. Long, but flat across the back, and thinner tail wrists. There have recently been some posted on this very site. 

I have also saw/hooked some tanks and had fun late one morning with a 20lb class female, and a 22-25lb male 15 minutes later, floating skein on 8lb. This AM, I saw a female easily pushing 25lbs. There are some damn solid chinook around, and also some that are in fact, lacking in diet.


----------



## born2fish87 (Jul 17, 2009)

TrapperJohn said:


> You are snorkeling where many of the alewife that are left in Lake Michigan are, mostly near river mouths! Snorkel out in 150' and report your results back in kiloton so we can get a more actuate estimate on numbers?


You are obviously being illogical. I think its a fair assumption that in 10 years going from rarely seeing them to seeing them by the 100's and maybe 1000's that the population of alewives is growing. That is just by one pier. They obviously travel all over the lake and not just river mouths.


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

They are spending more time at river mouths because the water is more nutrient rich. It is a good place to feed. The big lake goes through long periods of provide very little plankton. The last couple of years were better because the lake warmed up and kept some of the plankton higher in the water column away from quagga mussels. 2013 and 2014 were cold years with not much to eat out there. 

It's nature. There are ups and downs and patchy distributions so it looks great sometimes in some areas. The lake as a whole has been trending down in productivity so its total capacity to support prey fish has also trended down.


----------



## o_mykiss (May 21, 2013)

slightofhand said:


> Such an estimate would be falsely inflated if you only sample where fish are."


I'm not sure how you think that is a bad thing. It makes perfect sense. If you only sampled where the fish were, you would get a giant over-estimate of the baitfish population, conclude everything is better than it is, and then the predators eat all the bait and we're left with a Lake Huron situation

How is this a hard concept to grasp? I know we all WANT to have the baitfish be more abundant than the surveys say, but purposely biasing them to show an overestimate is just lying to ourselves to make us sleep better at night. It won't lead to a healthier lake (in fact, just the opposite)


----------



## slightofhand (Jul 21, 2010)

o_mykiss said:


> I'm not sure how you think that is a bad thing. It makes perfect sense. If you only sampled where the fish were, you would get a giant over-estimate of the baitfish population, conclude everything is better than it is, and then the predators eat all the bait and we're left with a Lake Huron situation
> 
> How is this a hard concept to grasp? I know we all WANT to have the baitfish be more abundant than the surveys say, but purposely biasing them to show an overestimate is just lying to ourselves to make us sleep better at night. It won't lead to a healthier lake (in fact, just the opposite)


But how does intentionally sampling where it is known there is NO alewife make this methodology any more valid? 

Let's use something more modern for an analogy, recognizing that things can and do change over time, like the lake ecosystem. Let's go to an overflow parking lot at an airport and observe that it is mostly empty. Then lets make the declaration that because it is mostly empty, and 10 years ago was mostly full, that air travel is now down.

Meanwhile, passengers are taking alternate methods of transportation to the airport. Rideshare, Uber, Lyft, mass transit, etc. Why would you not go to the GATES where passengers engage in air travel to get a better estimate? Why go to a location that is no longer used nor relevant, just because it was decades ago? That is the difference between a lakewide baitfish distribution study (being done now) and an actual biomass estimate. Two different things.

If you want to know how much of something there is, you go to where it is, and you count it. You do not go to where you know it is not, and then declare that it no longer exists.


----------



## jumbojake (Apr 20, 2009)

Walmart and kangs for life ya all


----------

