Spring brings fish stocking, regulation changes

108 thoughts on “Spring brings fish stocking, regulation changes”

1. Scoop – just get the hell out of the Great Lakes. Go to Alaska, or Oregon to fish your precious salmon. Those of us that understand more than just a bottom line understand what has been said here over and over. If you want chinook you need alewife, and by reducing chinook stocking you are saving alewife, and by doing so you are causing harm to the Great Lakes.

   Let’s be clear you are not helping the Great Lakes in any way. If you are for Chinook fisheries in Lake Michigan you are against the following native species: lake trout (keystone species with the most importance in all of the Great Lakes foodwebs), walleye, perch, bloater, deepwater sculpin, and other native species that the alewife negatively affects. All for the sake of your god-damned precious salmon fishing. Ridiculous and there is no further argument here unless you continue to claim that MONEY is the only and most importnat thing in your life 0 that is the only basis for your argument. Money. Maybe you should go get your pound of flesh from the Merchant of Venice waiting at the docks for you.

   Until you can prove chinook no longer need alewife tio get by, or until we use them to get rid of alewife don’t tell me, or anyone else you support the Great Lakes for future generations. You support your pocketbook, period. You have no concerns for creating long-term, self recruiting, little-management-required fisheries such as clearly exemplified by what;s happening in Lakes Erie and St. Clair, and some would argue in Huron recently as chinook and alewife crashed.

   Your fishery requires millions upon millions, if not billions of dollars in management each year and it will continue to do so – all while the returns to taxpaers from salmon fishing continue to dwindle, perhaps I believe even to the point where it is no longer in teh black anymore if everything were to be calculated out.

   There is no end in sight to the tax dollars that will be spent, mine and yours, to continue an unsustainable fishery, that wasn’t even meant to be here in the first place, hellllllo? If there is a good and evil side to this argument, the salmon fisherman are evil and will burn in hell for the continued waste of our precious money and resources. Enjoy it there maybe you can fish for salmon on the lake of fire on your ridiculous salmon rig while you burn in hell.

2. Tom, “stealing” the tax? Who do you think is putting a nice pile of money into the D-J funds? Ever price the equipment for those big lake boats? It’s not cheap! Most of us have one to two dozen rod and reel combos at minimum (in addition to all our much-cheaper perch, bass, walleye, etc. rods). In Wisconsin there’s also a salmon and trout stamp that funds the hatcheries.

   Funny you mention the spiny fleas. “Spiny” is the key word. They don’t often get eaten, and when they do, they can cause problems for the host. See http://greatlakesecho.org/2013/04/23/spreading-the-invasive-spiny-water-flea-upsets-lake-ecosystems/.

   Destroy our fisheries? The salmon “experiment” spawned a great fishing revolution that eventually led to a number of “inventions” or modifications to things already out there, fueling an entire industry. There are thousands of jobs tied directly to salmon fishing.

   Salmon made the cover of all the Big 3 outdoor magazines in the 60s and 70s (and the insides and occasional covers countless times since). It is a fishery that includes private boaters, charter anglers, pier fishermen and shore/river casters and drifters. It is a fishery for those with $100,000 rigs, $10,000 rigs, $1,000 rigs, $100 rigs and $10 rigs (but you’ll run out of line or have it snapped on those little cheap panfish reels if you hook a pier or river king!). A “bass or walleye” rod/reel combo in the $25-$50 range, adequately spooled, can do the job for pier/shore/river anglers.

   Our multi-billion-dollar fishery is threatened by Asian carp, if not in a decade or two, than surely in 30 to 50 years, “experts” say, whether or not the system is closed. Yet we’re to believe that perch and other natives will protect us by eating the young Asians? That’s insane.

3. Yep scoopy the one thing I’ll agree with you is, no one plan will make everybody happy, but dime a dozen is guys like you, you first. Plain fact if we keep chinook we have one option, protect the alewives. This plan only benefits one small group, does not benefit the ecosystem in any way, actually destroys it for everyone else, including native fish.By stealing the Dingell tackle tax every fisherman in the country is being forced to support the salmon experiment, which protects the invasive species which are escapeing out of Lake Michigan and affecting thier own fisheries. One plan, one option because you or the DNR said so doesn’t cut no mustard with me. All the way back to Tanner the DNR and many others knows alewives are a bad thing, the lake would be much better off without them, this is self evident. We are supposed to be doing what’s best for the lakes the resource, none of your excuses justifies intentionally destroying that for one fish. I’m looking at an article from the Great Lakes Priorities Legislative News Regarding spiny fleas “High numbers would not pose a problem if spiny water fleas were heavily consumed by predators” now you just plug any invasive species you want into that statement, because the basic principle is the same and works anywhere in the world, except lake Michigan according to you and your friends. In truth the fastest and and most cost effective way to fix this problem, would be to fire the entire MDNR fishery Division. It would be much cheaper to pay them thier pensions and get them out of the way, then continue to let them destroy our fisheries for thier own personal gain. The problem always dicates the solution. I care about the problems opinion is, not whether or not you get to catch a salmon. One plan to do what’s best for the resource is for the common good, your plan sucks! Quite frankly!

4. Seriously??? There are hundreds of videos on Lake Michigan salmon fishing online. Here’s just one neat example, from NW Michigan last year, more than 16,000 views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmWgdmCjXj8. Want more? Just type in Lake Michigan chinook and you’ll see more props than you can even imagine.

5. Once again – still not seeing the props for chinook fisheries in the Great Lakes out there, not salmon scoop – native fishes, right here, again, good luck with salmon dude – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC7iI3nfTSE&feature=youtu.be

6. Tom, folks who believe they’re the only ones with the right answer are a dime a dozen. The rest of us with open minds understand that you don’t simply throw out a multi-billion-dollar sport fishing industry in hopes of creating a $100 million one (which is a pipe dream anyway in an irrevocably changed ecosystem). Last I checked, Green Bay was Lake Michigan’s largest bay. It’s but one of many examples throughout the Great Lakes of bays and harbors and rivers and lakes rich in predators, yet packed with exotics.

   Clinging to this dream – “A healthy native fish population would make our lake resistant to invasive species,” – doesn’t make it true. The greatest sport and commercial harvests in Green Bay history came at a time when zebra mussels first arrived. So many perch swimming around, plus oodles of bass, pike, walleyes and more. Yet the mussels thrived. Now it’s quaggas the coat the bottom of the lake from one end to the other, yet you act as if stocked perch are the panacea that will save us.

   K, yes, both netters (legal commercials and illegal “sport” netters) and sport anglers who sold to restaurants or “double-dipped” on the daily bag when the fish were in spawning indeed hurt two decades ago. But perch have had some huge hatches since, record even in 2003, and a commercial net fishery at a fraction of what it once was (and no commercial netting for perch in Wisconsin’s portion of Lake Michigan for close to two decades now). You can bet the finned and winged predators are eating far more perch than those lucky enough to be able to buy some fresh-caught GB netted perch in a local restaurant or fish shop.

   Tom’s tale of “a half-million people quit fishing because they weren’t catching fish” is laughable. One study after another, whether state or federal, biased or independent, has found the same thing: that lapsed hunters and anglers say things like “not enough time” or “too many other competing interests” or “work or family obligations” instead of “not catching fish.”

   There are fish aplenty to catch in lakes, bays, harbors, rivers, creeks, ponds, flowages and reservoirs, everything from panfish and bass to pike, walleyes, muskies, trout, catfish and more.

   Salmon and trout are not just a boat species. The spring steelhead tributary runs last for months, actually starting in winter and this year running well into May. Brown trout are available off piers in spring, and when the winds are right (vary depending on your position in the lake, but generally, sustained offshore), you can find trout and salmon species near shore before sunrise in summer. September to ice-up brings pier, shore and river opportunities for browns, cohos, chinooks and in some areas, lakers, brookies, rainbows, splakes and Atlantics. In winter, you can catch trout (and some late-running salmon) through iced-over rivers, bays and harbors.

   If you’ve got money to throw away and want to feed predators in today’s gin-clear water, get permission and stock all the perch you can. Can’t get permission? Dump ’em in anyway. After all, the ocean-going ships dump without permission, and sport anglers who caught and kept more than their legal limit of perch, sometimes selling the extras to local restaurants, were in violation, too. I’m being facetious, of course, but either way, it’ll be the same result: tasty treats for cormorants, gulls, pelicans, pike, walleyes and more.

   p.s. check out this week’s Michigan DNR fishing report … good stuff!

7. Gee, round and round and nothing answered or changes. First it’s claimed that the perch industry is worth $100 million, then it’s stocking perch could never secure $100 million in profit. Who said profit? i questioned if it was really worth $100 million, no proof was supplied so why argue with yourself?
   ‘DNR seeking to boost anybody’s profit interferes with the functioning and effectiveness of business’, what a joke, that’s the Wis. commercial fishing industry for the past 20 years, they demanded interference, profit boosting and protection. commercials fishers even admit it, they ‘recognize that it will never be self supporting’. Now instead of taking sport license money ($400,000/yr), they want tax dollar subsidies!
   And yes Ie’ve seen papers linking mussels to disappearance of Diporeia. But a later paper asked the question, why did Diporeia disappear first in the deepest parts of Lake Michigan, when mussels first settled the shallow waters. Just like Lake Michigan, Green Bay perch were at their highest levels right before quota was installed. Perch numbers declined after more pressure from nets, not mussels. Marinette investigation & CanAm are just 2 examples of greedy and harmful commercial netters. Like i pointed out, GB perch numbers increased even when mussels were present, but perch numbers declined 75% after commercial limits went up 5 fold. Absolute proof it aint’ the mussels its the nets! Why can’t we replace by stocking those perch netted illegally, it’s only fair right? And we’re back to that one note tune, only alewives can be controlled with predators. Kind of misses the point, if 1.4 million perch will eat some invasives, then 140 million perch will eat 100 times the poundage of invasives. Common sense right. And just how would that NOT help the lake? Stocking perch only harms one group, the commercial perch fisherman. Am i right scoop? And it really only hurts 4 of them in Wis. right? Commercials also see perch in the belly of a walleye or musky as a waste of a valuable natural resource, right? LL – Lobbyist logic.

8. Dear Joe, Thank you for your comments. If I may K is right mostly, if we use facts and real fish biology, there is no reason for anyone to want alewives. I believe what K is driving at is the “salmon are worth billions” claim that distracts from the real problems connected to keeping the salmon, and the main obstacle we have to get past, very gray area, based on fear of loss. The loss would only be one fish (chinook) but the entire natural ecosystem would benefit from that loss. I believe the $100. million K is talking about is the sportfishery created by Perch restoration. Pretty much your available customer base would be everybody, young, old, handicapped everyone and also if managed right year round,ice fishing (safe areas for spawning created, wetland restoration, no alewives wiping out the spawn attemppt, sustainable limits etc..) Now at $4.29 a gallon I don’t see a big rush to buy salmon boats. It is either that or $500 bucks for 4 hours of salmon fishing charter. People quit fishing (1/2 million) because they weren’t catching fish. I believe the problem is two fold the DNR’s reputation is at stake it was thier idea to plant salmon. And hatchery jobs, they reduced stocking chinook, but now are trying to raise atlantic salmon, can’t have a layoff can we. One former Illinois DNR biologists actually slipped up quite a while back, and said we have hatchery jobs to worry about. Retired now raises trout for the state at his fish farm. Follow the money …. understand? You can’t swing a cat wothout hitting a conflict of interest. I say the salmon are not worth A billion let alone billions, they’re costing us billions. Invisible money from people that apperantlly don’t feel the need to buy fishing licenses. Why do we have to increase lincense costs, where’s the billions at? Minnesota says it’s fishery is worth 11.5 billion, Ohio says it’s Erie fishery is 11.5 billion, no salmon, end of the world without salmon? Hardly a Lake Reborn with many options, versus alewives first last and always. Everything about the salmon is a lie because it has to be, the public can’t know the true cost of keeping the salmon, they’re worth billions!

9. And we’re back to Green Bay again. Scoop it would be nice if you turned from the dark side, but I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting, it is funny tho. All right, we can have a thousand meetings, we can have a thousand more studies. Waste another 10 years arguing, spend billions of dollars, and after all that, we would still need to keep the alewives the dominant fish in Lake Michigan if we keep the chinook. This would still require the continued intentional destruction of the native fish populations/ecosystem, because alewives and salmon cannot survive in a healthy freshwater ecosystem. The 123 pounds of alewives per chinook minimum rule, will never change, regardless of how entertaining scoop and his friends are, or how many lies the DNR puts out there. Management is always responsible and that rule never changes. A healthy native fish population would make our lake resistant to invasive species, salmon and alewives are from out of town. I’m rooting for the home team, the DNR is supposed to be as well. There’s this law, public trust etc….

10. They already have fish that love gobies: they’re called smallmouth bass. World-class bass fisheries with huge bass fat on gobies and gizzard shad, maybe some alewives and of course, crawfish and perch, too. Many other toothy predators eat gobies, everything from pike to muskies to brown trout and more, and even whitefish eat young gobies. That’s what is fueling the whitefish explosion in 10-50+ feet of water on Green Bay every winter.

    “West Michigan Perch go out to 90 feet, that’s about 4 miles. So now we have a 4 mile deep living barrier that will control most all the invasives we have now. No matter how they get in. Low maintainence, just reduce limits and let them spawn unmolested by us and invasive species to keep healthy numbers.”

    Perch, they were at their HIGHEST DENSITY in Green Bay just over two decades ago, right when zebra mussels arrived. What good did that do? Tom, you are absolutely dreaming that any number of perch will ever control all the invasives, or even any of them! GB is loaded with toothy predators, plus incredible numbers of hungry whitefish starved of their usual deep-water “fatty” zooplankton, diporeia, which crashed very possibly due to zebra and quagga explosion. Yet gobies are probably the most abundant fish out there, even after a decade-plus of interaction.

    Purdue University paper, May, 2008: “The spread of invasive zebra and quagga mussels – voracious filter feeders with an overlapping diet – largely coincides with Diporeia’s decline and is widely believed to be at least partially responsible.”

11. Okay, K, then I assume what you’re saying is what I thought you were saying all along. That is, Janssen isn’t trying to fix a problem of the Great Lakes being used as a fish farm; and the problem with the perch is most likely chemical. I’ve made posts with regards to this. Furthermore, stocking perch could never secure $100 million in profit. Even if it would, the function of the DNR is not to seek profit whether it comes from stocking salmon, perch or fighting invasives. It’s the same principle, not two topics to split into a cyclic argument. Any action by the DNR seeking to boost anybody’s profit interferes with the functioning and effectiveness of business. That is not to say everything has to function perfectly; and is what I assume Tom meant when he said the stocking of salmon isn’t scientific because the DNR’s interest is based on keeping alewives.

12. That’s right the only thing the DNR has added to the lake by the millions are invasives like salmon. As i mentioned 50 years ago, they made the best of a bad thing, now their addicted to alewives for profit. wait till they find some exotic that eat gobies, then they’ll stock those instead of perch and risky loosing that supposed $100 million perch industry.

13. Dear Paul, the DNR trucks, or what’s in them is controlled by the DNR thus the mismanagement. They plant a fish that requires a special diet (chinook/alewife plan) and both salmon and alewives require a low native predator population to exist, especially in the spawning grounds, or near shore areas where 85% of most people fish. I agree the most invasives came in on a boat, and people are working to stop that. However the point is when they get off the boat will the body of water be safe for them ti thrive/ High native predators makes it hard for them to get a foothold (please see biotic-resistance) lack of predators let the alewives take over, the legend of the salmon program. But what they fail to mention, lake trout was not the only predator that got over fished. They all did. Left the lake wide open to a little fish that never grows too big for predators to take over. Asian Carp do grow too big live over 25 years and spawn several times a year. Attacking the spawn or juveniles before they get too big is thier only weakspot. The same weakspot alewives exploit. Scoop and his friends are just selfish, milking the system, to get thier way. Nothing new there happens all over the country,thier just part of the problem, but this is for the future of the Great Lakes and beyond not just who controls the public money. They can’t do it without the permission of the MDNR fishery Div. they are the real problem, not the fish from out of town.

14. Ok fellas pop quiz! “In Lake Michigan abundance of most fish species has declined with the increase in alewife”. What famous person said that? Now Joe I ain’t sure if you know it but you hit it right on the head. Hydrolic separation or a barrier regardless of type only controls that one spot where it is, obstacle is a better word, not control. Now ecological separation, is what I’m talking about. As in the !ecological separation of species!, a healthy native fish population/predators makes the entire body of water a control. West Michigan Perch go out to 90 feet, that’s about 4 miles. So now we have a 4 mile deep living barrier that will control most all the invasives we have now. No matter how they get in. Low maintainence, just reduce limits and let them spawn unmolested by us and invasive species to keep healthy numbers. I would point out when alewives were 90% they planted predators this was a system wide control. The problem thier predator (chinook) only eats one invasive species alewife. Saltwater/coldwater species no good against freshwater/warmwater invasive species (see lake) the fish that controls the spawning grounds controls the fish populations. For over 50 years that’s been the alewife, low years good native spawn, high years not so much (documented actually) alewives come into spawn right when natives hatch. DNR calls it bad timing, I call it not supposed to be there in the first place.Asian Carp will be in the spawning grounds year round with a much bigger appetite than alewives. Scoop and friends don’t like lake trout because they don’t fight hard enough,this is science based? If alewives can control an entire great lakes fish populations with that tiny little mouth and no teeth. Then a healthy diverse native fish population can do the same. The most vulnerable time for all fish surviving the spawn attempt, this includes Asian Carp, this is what they attack. OK pop Quiz answer who says alewives are bad? That would be DR. Howard Tanner the father of the salmon experiment in 1966 made that statement. Also in that article they had planted steelhead first,regarding spawning “Steelhead stay upstream well away from alewives for 2 years” returning at 6 inches “At this size they are safe from alewife predation” So using Tanners logic (and the facts) all we have to do is keep perch walleye etc… away from the alewives to get a good spawn, simple! We only have to do it until alewives are gone, then good spawns cost nothing, also simple. But the alewives gone thing, therein lies the rub. I just want to do what Tanner hisself did, but with native fish, so what’s the problem? PS. They knew what alewives did from the beginning and they still know!

15. What about the salmon? Is that for 50 years ago? Or were both gobies and alewives imported for DNR profit? Now you’re using the Joe then Tom but Joe argument.

16. The Lakes almost empty, of the few fish left the majority of predators are non-native salmon and of the prey, 80% of what’s left is alewives and goby. it’s time the DNR’s thought about adding some other fish. As to a 100 million perch industry, is that for 20 years ago or all the great lakes? if it’s suppose to be for just lake michigan, i don’t believe it, nothing i read so far indicates that kind of value for the few perch left.

17. A hydrological separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River system is not an ecological separation. The interrogation and prosecution of individuals carrying bait buckets anywhere near Chicago would be unprecidented.

18. You guys are too much. Look up the estimated tonnage of invasive mussels when perch were booming (answer, near zero). There have been some very good hatches of perch at times in lower Lake Michigan, and with alewife numbers at or near historic lows for more than a decade now, perch still aren’t making it. There’s no commercial nets to blame in Lake Michigan. Green Bay has nets and a lot more perch and alewives!

    The mismanagement of Lake Michigan has nothing to do with DNR trucks. It had everything to do with foreign vessels allowed to discharge untreated water into our fresh water, and with Illinois allowed to divert water and open the door to carp.

19. If I may fellas.First the OFFICIAL PLAN is to keep the alewives the dominant fish (Fishery commission goals) documented no need to look further for what the problem is. But, Jannsens drift theory been around for a while. Fact: alewives drastically changed the zooplankton levels in Lake Michigan shortly after they got here, thus less zooplankton near shore, outshore IE everywhere. Prior to alewives drift or not, Perch were thriving. Yes K I agree, I have called it bio-pollution in the past because the “experts” called invasives that, stating chemical pollution will break down over time, bio-pollution keeps increasing itself, which we can all see. The thiamine thing alewives pass on affects reproduction deformed eggs they have to soak coho in thiamine to get them to survive. K your right, 98 they tried the costs too much to raise Perch thing, “take all the money in all 4 states treasuries” I would point out restoring the walleyes in Saginaw bay/Huron did not drain any budget, the goal was to eliminate alewives and now Perch and every other native fish are coming back gangbusters, according to the DNR. No states budgets busted from restoration! And Joe this is all our problem even scoops, across the US, the mismanagement of Lake Michigan is the root cause, source point etc.. of most of the countrys invasive problems. It is an invasive factory by design. When Asian Carp start jumping in the “salmon boats” trying to get out of the marinas, they will be screaming for somebody to do something, and I’m pretty sure scoopy will be in the front yelling loudest. Probably to stock alewives.

20. K, look up retardants on this site. I think you’ll find “fish farm”… Tom never said the DNR is paid to keep alewives. He just said they were protecting alewives… Now, to answer the money question. If you were farming salmon, the survival rate of the fingerlings would be much higher. You wouldn’t have to worry about tagging them, genetic mutation, and studying their effects on other fish populations. There are many private lakes (ponds) that stock fish for sport. All of these activities are not possible without the DNR. Otherwise, you could just dump a bunch of asian carp fishmeal into Lake Michigan and see what life forms appear (recycling?)… No, wait, I take that back K, there’s a huuuge market for controling phragmites on the lakes… Oh wait, don’t forget about the $100 million perch industry… just “breaking a stick with a brick in the sand on the beach in San Trope.”

21. Yea right, chemicals are sooo tested in studies. Like DDT? Studies into its affects on birds happened only after birds disappeared. Now fish are missing, new chemicals are present and management has ruled out, or worse, STILL studying, old chemicals? DNR type thinking. No wonder the lake’s empty, Janssen’s right Lake Michigan is nothing but a fish farm. A terribly mismanaged, special interest only, fish farm. Tom’s right, the DNR’s aren’t paid to protect invasives. It’s a misuse of power to protect invasives and thereby only certain businesses. There would be public hearings if it were found that DNR’s were helping businesses to keep pollution in Lake Michigan. But surprise, surprise the DNR’s want to increase their numbers to increase profits of special interests, including their own hatcheries. DNR stupid trick #1, protect alewives, don’t stock native prey. Stupid trick #2, thinking they can protect alewives from endless supply of Federal lake trout.

22. K, the problem is that these “maybe” chemicals are tracked. PCB’s were shown to cause reproduction problems in fish. If there is a problem with a certain chemical, you’d hope that it’d show up in a study. So, to say you’d think that a little missing fish would cause an investigation into pollutants is after the fact in that these pollutants are already under investigation… Now I can easily tell you where you’re losing money, and in fact already hinted at it, but that’s Tom’s problem? I don’t get it.

23. I have a problem with the focus of Janssen’s theory, assumptions and use of it, one being as an excuse used by special interests. He assumes YOY starve, assumes it’s for lack of food caused by quaggas. Yet perch get first shot at plankton on the surface while quaggas get last shot at the bottom. Maybe YOY perch are poisoned by chemicals. Or adaptation requires tens or hundreds of millions of adults to guarantee YOY survival. Janssen starvation theory DOES support stocking of fingerling size perch but the WDNR got around that 10 years ago with their one size fits all excuse: ‘It’s too expensive to stock perch’. What cost removing dams and stocking sturgeon, or stocking walleyes to be speared? Never mind the $1 million cost for perch stocking could generation $100 million. The harm of taking ~$6 million in Wis. sport license monies to subsidize commercial fishing is obvious.

    True Tom, true, the DNR’s aren’t doing their jobs. May I suggest instead of calling them invasives we call them Bio-Pollutants (BP). That way it’s more obvious which special interest profits from increased BP or ask why they wish to stop BP cleanup. The public has had no problem with cleaning up pollutants such as DDT, PCB’s Dioxin, Mercury, etc, despite monetary loss by companies producing them. And have no problem with companies profiting from cleanup. I think it levels the field historically, if you’re going to list chemical polluters profiting or refusing cleanup, why not the same with BP? Stock perch again, help with the BP cleanup.

24. It doesn’t matter how many people fish for salmon 10 or 10 million. Or how many fish for Perch for that matter. The issue is protecting our natural resources. The MDNR’s top priority is saving the alewives, this destroys the natural resource and that’s not what the DNR gets paid to do.

25. K, I’m not familiar with the chemical processes, but there’s a large amount of fluids involved in making paper at a paper plant. You have to pulp the wood into tiny particles you can reconstitute into paper. This is done in large tanks, and the fluids from this process used to be freely discharged into aquatic systems. The result is pcb’s. From what I understand, the fire retardants you are talking about are mixed with petroleum products to make plastics. This would make the use of these retardants common since all petroleum products burn. How much biproduct is discharged into ecosystems I have no idea, nor do I understand how to filter them from the environment. To suggest that something like hormones from sewerage plants is having a greater impact on roe survival than water clarity seems unrealistic. As far as the gobies go, as long as the DNR says not to return them to the water, anyone fishing them out is welcome to have at it. I’m not sure if this is what you are talking about, but it’s the best I can interprit. Both mussels and foreign chemicals would be undesirable.

26. Paul, what the debate is about is special interests protecting certain invasives and weaking Lake Michigan. Two invasives, the alewife and smelt can be eliminated now, by just stocking more predators, including salmon. But wiping out alewives ends most if not all salmon fishing, a big special interest, plus state run salmon hatcheries, another one. The second special interest are the commercial fishermen. If perch are stocked to control gobies, then commercial perch fishing comes to an end, costing that special interest group. Same group with smelt. Both special interests require an unhealthy Lake Michigan. Where a healthy Lake Michigan is better able to defend itself against invasives. If 2 invasives cause such debate, what chance change with 148 more species to go? Ooops, that right, great lake shipping is a 3rd special interest.

    Joe, I’m not sure of the salmon stocking. But the USGS keeps track of how many prey fish are left, in case something other then predators are driving down their numbers. Mussels have been blamed lately. Strange pollution hasn’t been blamed for anything? I hear there’s 2 fire retardants present besides the oldies like pcb & dioxin. You’d think little, newly hatched fish missing would cause investigation into pollutants, my guess is blaming invasives is easier, safer and cheaper.

27. What is the survival rate of stocked salmon in Lake Michigan 15 percent? I’m asking because I do not know. How many of these fish are tagged so the fishery department can follow their effects on the lake?

28. Old DNR theory never dies, it just gets relabeled. But you’re wrong to believe it’s as easy as stock salmon, catch more salmon and say goodbye to alewives, 1960’s. Now alewives are protected and its: ‘But you’re wrong to believe it’s as easy as stock perch, catch more perch and say goodbye to gobies.’
    Just like WDNR really do report goby numbers declining in GB. Perch fishing isn’t better in Wis. it’s gone. Perch fishing is better everywhere then Wis, it’s documented. Obviously Michigan has managed their perch better then Wis. But on the other hand i also have no problem with someone wanting better perch fishing off MI.
    Something has to be done to increase perch numbers, creel survey excuses, gobie and mussel excuses or other DNR excuses or other rumors of plankton distribution ain’t it. Now Cormorants as villains, really? They were here 10,000 years ago, nets weren’t. 23 million perch disappeared from 1990-1996 and not a cormorant or quagga in sight off SE Wis. Excuses haven’t done it. Protecting commercial fishing hasn’t. Let’s try something new and protect the fish instead of their netters. And the fish wiped out for lack of protection, let’s stock them. Stop excuses and start fixing. Start by stocking perch again, it’s simple enough even DNR officials can understand.

29. What all of you aren’t getting is that there are more than 150 invasive species already in the lake, and more to come. Getting rid of the one that right now is driving millions of dollars annually to Great Lakes ports is idiotic, even more so in light of the fact that it will not do anything to stop any of the other exotics.

30. The anonymous commenter makes a good point – who are we if we are not investing in our future by getting rid of invasive species, but instead protecting them? Really I think we need to ask ourselves who we are if we are having this argument. We have really regressed as a species ourselves if we can’t grasp this basic concept. In 40 years has our culture changed that much that the only thing that matters anymore is money? Salmon = money = God? Great Lake$$$$, goodbye.

31. First, keep in mind my earlier comment about anglers who never or rarely get creeled. Second, it stands to reason an area that allows far greater daily limit (MI 50/35 vs. WI Lake MI 5/GB 15) is going to see a larger catch. That said, it’s ironic that Tom complains about “no perch” yet you’re telling me they’re catching plenty. So, too, does Grand Rapids Press writer Howard Meyerson, in this April 13, 2012 piece:

    “But creel surveys show that Lake Michigan still provides anglers with 400,000 to 700,000 perch each year. Anglers caught more than 1 million yearly in the 1980s and 1990s. The fishery peaked at more than 2 million in 1994.

    The perch decline was brought on by a number of factors, including over-harvesting and depressed reproduction. The drop in perch reproduction is linked to diminished plankton levels as a result of zebra mussels. Plankton is not evenly distributed across Lake Michigan, according to state officials.

    That spottiness, combined with water temperatures and varying input from rivers, accounts for occasional spikes in the catch in places such as Green Bay, Wis.”

    (Once again, the WI numbers are mere guesses, with no creel in winter and spotty coverage the rest of the year).

    Perhaps Michigan should follow Wisconsin’s lead and greatly reduce the sport angler bag limit on perch, and close fishing during the spawn. Funny, though, you’re telling me fishing is better there than in WI.

32. It has been claimed, in the face of common sense?, that: Having higher perch limits doesn’t necessarily mean better perch fishing. Echo, per the MDNR, just Grand Haven, reported the harvest of more perch then all of Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan counties combined, for the entire season of 45 weeks. Echo mentioned that atlantic salmon were stocked instead of chinook. Does this really benefit sportsmen or just make work at DNR hatcheries? To really benefit Lake Michigan fishermen, it’s quite clear in my example that across the lake from Grand Haven, Milwaukee would benefit more from perch stocking, wouldn’t hatcheries too?

33. Good one K. I don’t disagree with Jansens larval drift, larval Perch and Walleye do drift, got no choice until they can swim good don’t matter where they are.Predators and food dictate survival. Alewives drastically changed the zooplankton shortly after they got here and added larval fish to thier diets according to one study target larval fish even if there’s lots of zooplankton. Asian Carp just suck it all in. Spiny fleas a thriving they eat zooplankton where they getting it from? Gobies and the rest eat it as well. The fish that guard thier eggs are hanging in there, bluegills get a second spawn when alewives are gone, we need to listen to the fish, and guard the natives to get them into the game. Walleyes and Pike been eatin perch for 10,000 years. The alewives interupted the recruitment to keep the balance. From those peoples way of thinking only alewives are allowed to eat zooplankton and only salmon are allowed to eat alewives. Silly but true.

34. I realized, in the span of a lifetime of my son (~45 years) as a collective we have gone from being concerned citizens, scientists, great lakes enthusiasts, environmentalists, politicians, fisherman, businessmen and women, and so many other great things tied to the Great Lakes, a collective really, determined and together on a united front against ecological destruction, mismanagement, invasive species, from that united position that we need to get rid of invasive species (i.e., bringing in salmon to do so) and especially the most harmful ones (clearly alewife), to a position perhaps of complacency or fear or solely economic interest (is that all the Great Lakes are anymore, economics?) a position today where we (except a few willing to speak up and speak out) actually stand by and PROTECT harmful invasive species. Protect them. Period. You are for salmon, you are for protecting harmful invasive species in the Great Lakes and for continued waste of OUR money and resources.

35. K, the cloudy water was in the 60s, 70s and 80s, pre-mussels! Are you old enough to remember? I am! Walked on the breakwater and you were lucky to be able to see bottom off the end of the pier IF it was dead calm at least two or three days running. Even then, “aquamarine” more often than not, almost “milky” looking with the sunshine streaming through. That’s how rich with microscopic food it was. That’s the same reason why shore fishing for salmon and trout was so good back then. Today, not so much, though they do come in during spawning time, or to chase bait after dark (and pier guys who used to first arrive by 5 a.m. are now going home then).

    “Just like Michigan thought when in 1970 it ended commercial game fishing, including perch and it worked. They currently have the highest perch limits.”

    Having higher perch limits doesn’t necessarily mean better perch fishing. You’re talking about a state that actually INCREASED salmon stocking to make up for Wisconsin’s cuts a decade or so ago. They didn’t believe that natural recruitment was as huge a factor as they know realize it is.

    Stock all the perch you want. All of us perch lovers would absolutely love it if that’s all it took to get great perch fishing in Lake Michigan again. Stock millions of jumbos and let ’em spawn, and see where it gets you. Many predators and the ever-present cormorants sure would eat good.

    Tom, you give yourself too much credit. I’ve never asked anyone to ban you from anywhere. You’re no threat to me or any salmon fisherman. I admire your passion for perch. I love perch, too. But you’re wrong to believe it’s as easy as stock perch, catch more perch and say goodbye to gobies. It’s laughable really. The stupidest thing you’ve ever read? Seriously, you need to do some research on goby reproduction and life history. Even in the face of a massive number of bass, walleyes, whitefish, perch, burbot, pike, cormorants, pelicans and many other goby gulpers, gobies continue to spread far and wide in Green Bay. What part of that don’t you understand? Hello? Wall? Am I talking to you?

36. All you’d be doing is wasting a renewable resource, the battle cry of commercial fishermen. Like an old growth tree is wasted on a forest? Those game fish that eat those perch and the perch themselves, are worth over 20 times what a netted perch is worth, so I’d hardly call it wasted, I’d call it best use. Just like Michigan thought when in 1970 it ended commercial game fishing, including perch and it worked. They currently have the highest perch limits. Closing commercial fishing would also end sportsmen having to subsidize those businesses and let sportsmen keep their $400,000/yr to stock perch.
    Some other misconceptions. The so called perch split, here’s how it actually works, the WNDR first split perch 50/50 by numbers, then by poundage since commercials catch perch half again as large. So the perch are actually split 66/33 by weight, documented. Historically off SE WI that resulted in commercials reporting 2 large perch for every small sport perch. But after adding both confirmed and estimated illegal, the split for 1986 — 1996 becomes 3 to 4 large perch taken by commercials for every small sport perch. Not 50/50. Currently GB sportsmen catch a few more perch, because there aren’t enough large perch to satisfy netters. Historically though, split favored commercials.
    Why are only perch split 50/50? Why not smelt and chubs to feed salmon, whitefish, less then 10%, for that talked about great sport ice fishing? Commercials talked of cutting salmon numbers to increase smelt, documented.
    Why a problem with Dr. Janssen’s, I’d rather catch a bass comment, but no problem referencing Dr. Janssen’s THEORY of perch larvae drift? Historically Lake Michigan perch adapted to having hundreds of millions or even a billion in the lake, how can the perch be expected to ‘renew’ when there are only around 1.4 million perch currently left in the entire lake?
    Last but not least, perch used to survive in cloudy, plankton-rich water? How does anyone know what the water looked like before the white man showed up? Maybe removing phosphates from run off caused the clearing?

    How does that work; there’s no point in stocking perch because salmon eat them, but more salmon can’t be stocked because there’s not enough food for them?!?!

    Stock perch, not salmon.

37. Well scoop, the real world is like the Mississippi and everywhere else. Can’t have enough predators to control gobies etc…? Scoop that is the stupidest most ignorant thing anyone can say, yet you and your alewife loving friends keep saying it. You still think I’m talking to you, I can’t write slow enough for you, I’m talking near you. Every person that puts together 2+2 and figures out the truth of whats going on, couple here, couple there scares the hell out of you and your salmon friends. Makes it worth putting up with all the rubbish. Your salmon friends got me banned from 2 outdoor chat rooms, because I wouldn’t agree with them, but mostly because guys started agreeing with me. You and the DNR may have tried to get me blocked from this site, wouldn’t surprise me. I could give you chapter and verse from a hundred studies wouldn’t matter, you’d just make something else up.

38. Tommy, too bad the real world isn’t like an enclosed lake in Illinois. Mississippi and Illinois rivers, Great Lakes, etc. no comparison vs. the “fenced” preserves.

    K says: “If perch will never get to pre-mussel levels, why are they still being netted? Why is it, an irrevocably changed Lake Michigan, only prevents stocking perch, but doesn’t prevent netting them or ending commercial fishing?”

    Perch haven’t been netted in Lake Michigan (at least on the WI side) since the mid-90s.

    In Green Bay, as mentioned previously, the harvest is split between commercials and sport anglers (even though sport anglers most years have taken far more perch than the netters). Say you close off all perch netting and perch sport angling …. all you’d be doing is wasting a renewable resource. More of each age class of eating-size perch would fall victim to the giant muskies, pike, walleyes, bass and other predators in Green Bay.

    In an article entitled, “Perch poised for lake revival,” from 2008 in the Chicago Tribune (after a banner hatch in 2005), two paragraphs stand out:

    “Perch used to thrive in cloudy, plankton-rich water that is now relentlessly filtered clear by invasive mussels. And almost any larger fish from alewives to coho salmon will gladly devour them.

    Even weather can doom a crop of perch. After hatching, perch larvae drift in water currents that could as easily deposit them in lush nurseries (a good year) as in barren underwater food deserts (most years, seemingly).”

    Amen.

39. My goodness! Alright Scoopy. 1. Explain why zebra mussels only “wiped out alewives practically overnight” in Huron yet doesn’t seem to affect the other native which are rebounding? The only change being no alewives. 2. People don’t use the internet as much as you think, we got 1568 in 3 weeks with a face to face petition to restore perch. The MDNR got less than 580 to save the alewives, even with threatening the loss of the entire fishery for a year and a half, (which really would only be chinook) 3. If as you say perch ain’t finding food after yolksak then stocking at 2 inches is called for because they don’t need zooplankton and according to WDNR 2 inches is the size they start eating zebra mussels, and Ohio DNR says start eating gobies.
    Asian Carp have everything to do with alewives, gobies and every other fish from out of town! Surviving the spawn (recruitment)is the most vulnerable time for all fish icluding asian carp. The alewives were keeping most all native fish populations in Lake Huron for over 40 years by attacking the spawn attempt, controling the zooplankton, pigging out on larval fish, they admit this. Because there numbers were high enough to make an impact. Alewives only have a short time 30 some days before perch walleye get too big for them to eat, yet contolled the whole lake by controlling the spawn attempts. A combo of perch walleye pike muskie would be able to feed on asian carp most of the first year, the more we have the more they eat!
    Chinook only eat alewives only live 3/4 years need lots of alewives to grow big enough to make you happy. Lots of alewives bad, same as asian carp.
    When you get an invasive species you are supposed to work to minmize thier impact, not plan to increase in fact make the invasive dominant (that would be alewives).
    Predator type scoopy, if your top predator only eats one thing, then all the other “things” are safe. The proof is in the lake.
    And according to the carp experts after you kill off carp poison net whatever you have to stock predators, because the ones you miss will spawn and fill the hole you just made. A nice hole no predators or competition because you just killed them! Got it now? See how it works? Proof? They’re taking out millions of pounds of Asian Carp and they’re increasing. 2 lakes in Illinois carp free over 30 years high predators maintained.
    We have an invasive species problem, protecting one protects them all, the proofs in the lake!

40. Echo reports that the number of Chinook salmon stocked will be cut by two-thirds as it has been for 7 years. Why?!? For the past 40 years DNR theory and management has been that, you can’t have enough salmon in Lake Michigan to stop alewives. Every salmon that could be hatched, reared and dumped in the lake, was. Now history has proven that not only can you have enough predators you can have too many. If non-native salmon can do it, why can’t natives like walleye, pike, perch and musky? So I’ll bet on history and say, you can have enough predators in Green Bay and Lake Michigan to stop gobies. All it takes is the will to protect and stock their predators, but this time let’s stick to native perch and not some expensive, exotic non-native thing.

41. I guess Dr. Janssen’s opinion has merit as he gives it at a meeting with the public, DNR and sports clubs. There aren’t enough perch left to make an industry. Bring back perch and the fishermen will follow. Whitefish are targeted because there are no perch, even the WDNR mentioned in their report that ice fishermen had to sort for perch over 7 inches.
    A dead perch caught in a net is also a perch that won’t spawn and that’s a mature breeding perch, not some fry.
    Perch nets are easier to remove then the big predators which generate lots of tourism dollars. The WDNR reduced Lake Michigan sport season so that the large perch could spawn multiple years, but in GB they net the big perch. If those large predators have plenty of other fish to eat, stocked perch have protection in numbers. If perch will never get to pre-mussel levels, why are they still being netted? Why is it, an irrevocably changed Lake Michigan, only prevents stocking perch, but doesn’t prevent netting them or ending commercial fishing? Why is it mussels only starve fry yellow perch and not the fry of walleye, gobies, whitefish, etc, etc? Many species of fish are stocked at fingerling size to increase survival, why not perch too if they could benefit? A sport caught perch generates 20 times the money of a netted perch, it sounds like they’re worth stocking to me.
    The petition thing was a bit of a surprise, though 2 generations of fishermen don’t know what good perch fishing is and so many people and clubs don’t question the DNR’s and the time thing. But to be fair, where were the petitions to first stock salmon, to stock 100 million walleyes in GB, or for that matter, all the previous perch stockings in Lake Michigan? Is the public against stocking perch, I doubt it. Are commercials against stocking perch, you bet, even on record. If perch are stocked the netting of them ends. Some politicians and the WDNR are big supporters of commercial fishing.
    Even the USGS has questioned blaming mussels for all ills, “However, Bunnell et al. (2009b) proposed that the bulk of the decline in total prey fish biomass may be better explained by factors other than food-web-induced effects by dreissenids, including poor fish recruitment (that preceded the mussel expansion), shifts in fish habitat, and increased fish predation by Chinook salmon and lake trout.” Research to the perch decline is not lacking, it’s just so damning. For example, 2005 Dr. Wilberg Yellow Perch Dynamics in Southwestern Lake Michigan during 1986—2002; found too many large breeding perch were removed. Perch recruitment stopped due to overfishing, before mussels appeared. Note the names on the cover page, Eggold, Clapp, Makaukas. Commercials killed that fishery and the WDNR didn’t feel the need to replace the estimated 6 million illegally netted mature perch! 2008, Changes in yellow perch length frequencies and sex ratios following closure of the commercial fishery and reduction in sport bag limits in southern Lake Michigan, Lauer. And the WDNR stated that larger female perch can produce up to 15 times more eggs, yet only large Lake Michigan females are protected, the GB perch are netted before they get as big.

    Why does common sense find GB walleyes kill more perch then are netted but doesn’t find that ending the netting of perch, and letting all those adult perch live instead, will increase perch numbers? Why is it alewives can’t be netted in order to feed more salmon, but the netting of perch can’t be ended to feed more walleye and pike and muskie? OR to create more sport perch tourism dollars?

    Lake Michigan prey is 80% invasive, prey levels are down 90%, biomass is down, and management encourages the netting of perch and other native species. But don’t you dare net an invasive? Dr. Janssen is right, they’ve turn Lake Michigan into a fish farm. I think it’s run for special interest, not for the health of the lake. I think it’s way past time to start stocking natives.

42. Asian carp have nothing to do with alewives. You could never stock enough predators to make a dent on spawning carp. Think the Mississippi River system pre-carp invasion (even though there’s still plenty of predators in there now). Heck, think the regular common carp we have. The only way out, even in predator-rich environments, is poisoning the whole system. If Asians ever get in in sufficient numbers, they’ll prefer the very same Great Lakes tribs that are the warmest and have the most “eats.” Those same rivers have abundant predators: bass, catfish, pike and so many more. Will it be enough? No. Just like you can’t have enough predators in Green Bay to stop gobies, yet both are thriving.

43. Nonetheless. Currently the alewives are the main obstacle, “to be or not to be” which shouldn’t be the question. According to D. Chapman our top Asian Carp expert. “Asian Carp are the most efficient fresh water filter feeding fish in the world” they will be that efficient here. There will be no “question”.

44. David, researcher Janssen’s opinion does not represent a majority of sport anglers along the lakeshore. A big clue is when he states that he went back to bass after catching his first salmon in the late 60s. If he compares the fight and flesh of a dying fall coho in a stream in ’69 to a summer king that melts 200 yards of line from your reel (and tastes incredible), it’s no wonder he doesn’t “get” the appeal of salmon.

    No doubt perch have declined, but that ’91 record you mention doesn’t take into account that back then nobody targeted and caught whitefish through the ice. For nearly a decade now, WHITEFISH are the No. 1 hook and line ice-fished species on Green Bay because they are abundant enough that 10-fish daily limits are common. Dozens of guides fill multiple shacks day after day on the bay. It’s a huge industry. Hardly anyone targets perch when there’s a bite like that. The guys who do had a very good winter, better than average. Again, though, they’re far outnumbered. In the 90s, DNR flights estimated 10,000 anglers on the ice of Green Bay some weekends! The bag limit was 50 perch (compared to 15 today).

    You need common sense, not a source to tell you walleyes (and many other predators, finned and winged) kill more perch than nets. Millions of large predators need to eat. Young perch hatches in GB have often been good to excellent in the past 15 years, including a record 2003 year class. You think the guys catching one limit of walleyes after another on Green Bay day after day after day are catching the last walleye out there? Walleyes eat perch! A dead perch eaten any time of its life is a perch that won’t spawn. Nobody is telling you to net the large predators; just asking for common sense thinking on what they’re eating (besides young gizzard shad, never-ending gobies, alewives and young whitefish, among others). If you think those big predators are going to disappear any time soon, you’ll be disappointed. The bass and walleye fishing just keeps getting better and better, and muskies are protected by a 50-inch minimum size limit. Few folks bother to target pike any more when they have tasty walleyes on the feed.

    Tom, the perch stocking petition you signed on change.org has but 142 signatures in nearly a year’s time, hardly a mandate for change. There are more guys than that fishing salmon in a single port on a given summer day.

    K, you’re right, that pre-mussels is not comparable to today. That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. It’s almost certain that perch will never be where they were pre-mussel – even if we banned all commercial and sport fishing today – due to an irrevocably changed Lake Michigan ecosystem.

    A Milwaukee Journal story on Lake Michigan perch last August included the link to the “stock perch” petition, as well as this telling paragraph:

    “Though comprehensive research on the cause of the perch decline is lacking, most biologists implicate the drastic changes in the lake’s food web brought on by invasive zebra and quagga mussels. Once larval perch absorb their yolk sac, they don’t seem to find enough food to survive.”

45. I thought a frame of reference for perch numbers being mentioned might help. Lake Michigan’s record high sport harvest of perch was 886,000 in 1992, so last years 9,100 harvested perch represent a decline of 99%. For Green Bay, the record sport harvest was 3.5 million in 1991, so last years sport perch harvest of the mentioned 158,000 perch represent a decline of +95%. Reported commercial harvest declined 90%. The USGS have been separating Green Bay and Lake Michigan fish harvests since 1953. The Wisconsin DNR have been doing so with sport perch since at least 1986.

46. Mr. Paulson, i read that, i saw that the value of alewives was being questioned specifically mentioning perch. Since the wis. DNR is a really big supporter of commercial fishing and salmon fishing, i’m wondering if this means the DNR isn’t going to or shouldn’t support future salmon fishing as much? What did you get out of it? do you know where someone can look at a copy of that chart and speech that was mentioned?

47. Humm, I guess i have to be more specific for scoop.
    WDNR perch sport numbers, 9115 for lake michigan, worst on record. 158,000 for GB is right, that’s the 3rd worst on record, down 50% from last year. Perch quota pre-mussels is not comparable to today, perch number after mussels is. in 2005 GB perch numbers rose to 7.5 million, 3 years later after 2 commercial limits increases they fell to only 1.8 million perch and then WDNR stops counting adult perch. why? “good numbers of both young perch..” compared to what? 5 years ago or 50 years ago? “Walleyes kill more perch than commercial nets”, source please. How many walleye, pike and musky are killed in perch nets, 2 lbs per 100 ft? It’s not the little fish that protect a fishery, its the big mature, spawners. Nets take the big breeders first, Dr. Wilberg’s paper addresses that. Lake Michigan perch being 50-100% larger then GB shows perch become bigger when not netted. As to the large smallies, muskie, great number of walleye and pike all claimed to be eating perch. Why would anyone want those fish to starve and harm the great sport fishery, rather then to stop netting perch and stock perch until there are plenty of large breeders! Too many big pike, get real, should they be netted to cut their numbers? All those predators were there and perch too when the quota was only 20,000 lbs. as to gobies, if perch eat gobies too, why would you want to net perch instead of netting gobies? So which is it, “finding good numbers of both young perch”, or ‘But stock small perch and you’ll do little more than feed bigger fish’. aren’t the small perch in GB right now doing the same thing, just being eaten? it’s obvious there haven’t been nor are there now, enough perch, young or old to increase their numbers. Let alone fill current quota of 100,000 lbs. it’s o.k. to stock walleye, trout, pike, etc, etc, but not o.k. to stock perch again? why? The public is all for stocking perch all for stopping the netting of perch, so why isn’t the public getting and protecting the fish they want? Because the commercials want perch, even more then they can now catch. Let’s hear from the WDNR as to the minimum perch level for the lake, at which point, first commercial then sport fishing will be closed? 30% down, 50% down, 80%?? 98% of the GB perch are gone and no perch are being stocked, because someone’s afraid of other fish with teeth. When all those big smallies, pike, walleye and muskie disappear, maybe then perch will be stocked again. i don’t think you’ll have long to wait.

48. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a May 25 article relevant to this discussion: Fishery expert urges diversity; Lake Michigan anglers should consider value of native species.

    See: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/fishery-expert-urges-diversity-b9917951z1-208970611.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GLINnews+%28GLIN+Daily+News%29

49. “For example Wis. sport fishers harvested a record low 9100 perch for all of lake michigan last year.”

    You failed to report the more than 158,000 estimate of perch caught in Green Bay in 2012, Lake Michigan’s largest bay.

    Also, DNR doesn’t even creel the lakeshore much of the season. Of more than 50 trips last year, I wasn’t creeled even once!

50. Yes, please do an in-depth piece Echo, and you will make short work of K’s “facts” …… there certainly are no easy answers to any perch decline. Man played a role, no doubt, both netters and “sport” fishermen who took more than their fair share or in a few cases, even caught and sold to restaurants.

    “A WI perch recovery in GB was wiped out in 2005 when the WNDR raised perch limits from 20,000 to 100,000 lbs. So it’s proven that nets hurt perch more then mussels.” False. The quota was once nearly a half-million pounds pre-mussels. Walleyes kill more perch than commercial nets. You can go out on Green Bay right now and catch limit after limit of perch-eating walleyes. Stock more “natives” so we can have more perch???

    Alewife density is nowhere near what it was pre-mussels, but the facts are that there are numerous sizeable year classes of alewives on GB as proven by DNR assessments last year looking for young perch (and finding good numbers of both young perch and alewives). The trawl and acoustic data on Lake Michigan proper was far from encouraging, but GB remains a bright spot for both alewives and young perch.

    As for perch declining before mussels, perch catch in Green Bay was an all-time high in ’90-’91. Mussels (first zebras) arrived about that time frame. Cormorants boomed. White pelicans returned (incredible numbers today). Walleyes absolutely skyrocketed in the past decade; more giant smallmouth today than ever. It took a 6+ pound average to win a Door County tournament two weeks ago and many 7+ lb. smallies were caught, including an 8-1/2-pounder! Average weight on more than 1,600 bass caught in two days by 140+ teams? 4+ lbs. per bass AVERAGE! Muskies stocked and protected until they’re 50 inches plus. Huge pike and hardly anyone fishing for them any more. All eat perch.

    I have nothing against stocking perch. Heck, I’m all for it if you want to spend money on feeding predators (man included). But stock small perch and you’ll do little more than feed bigger fish. You’ll never stock enough to put even a dent in mussels or gobies. The smallmouths on Green Bay love gobies; so do the whitefish and many other species, yet gobies are everywhere. You heard of the “fish of 10,000 casts,” the muskie? Well, you could call the goby the fish of every cast in many areas. They carpet the bottom, just like the mussels. No longer can you leave your bait tight to the bottom unless you want nothing but gobies. Most anglers fish a foot or more up now when targeting perch or their bait bill will be incredibly high.

    Don’t take my word for it. Check the fishing message boards for Wisconsin or Upper Michigan right now. Incredible Green Bay fishery for many native species. World class! Pretty decent MDNR fishing report last Thursday, too. Looking forward to this week’s report. It is far from the doom and gloom some would like to paint.

51. There is no comparision between that which is lost by not succeeding, and that which is lost by not trying!

52. Mr K, and Mister W, the goals or limits are set in the GLFC Fish community objectives. The DNR’s by law get last say what really happens by law do not have to listen to any advisory committee or group for that matter, and they do not, they can’t the 123 pounds of alewives per chinook rule rules. Studies show Perch are at a dangerous low level for the future, you read the charts alewives get a good spawn, perch go flat. I just got an E-mail from MUCC they say the new says decisions now have to be science based, by law. So the burden is on the MDNR fishery Div. they admit they’ve been doing it for the economic value, so we don’t need to argue anymore, we can now do the right thing, it’s now the law right? In 2004 all parties agreed in Chicago states,tribes etc.. that it was time for action against invasive species, not more studies. I agreed then, and I agree now. But we only got more studies and the “save the alewives plan” was the only “action”. If we actually obey the laws already in place, and use the Dindgell Act. restoration money as intended, “critical to the recovery of many of the nations sport fish species” (direct quote) we can get this thing turned around in short order. But we must not upset scoop and friends, I don’t remember seeing that in the brochure or the law. I don’t believe the MDNR fish Div. has authority to enter into any agreement that intentionally destroys the natural ecosystem, but they have increasing alewives and that’s thier excuse, Perch are banned from stocking because all 4 states agreed, for genetic concerns. Even if valid it can be addressed, but they agreed. So what? It ain’t working. The real science and facts tells us exactly what we need to do. We can’t blame the invasive species they didn’t ask to come here, they have no choice. The DNR fish divisions do, thus they are liable, no one else, it’s in thier job description, protect the natural resources. I think we have a public trust issue more than a science issue the science is pretty clear.

53. Yes i think the echo should carry this article farther, see the plans all the DNR’s have and which ones they don’t. They have plans and goals for the biomass they want for salmon and alewives, for how many salmon and trout they raise and stock. There are no studies nor plans i know of for the minimum biomass of perch needed to maintain perch numbers or to repopulate the lake. The WDNR has plans to make sure WI commercials get 50-66% of all harvestable perch instead and plans to stop public hearings for setting commercial quotas. The Echo could report how plans work. For example Wis. sport fishers harvested a record low 9100 perch for all of lake michigan last year. No goals with perch so no failures to report, where as hatchery goals of walleye and salmon are easy to report and even easier to claim tax dollars for. Does any other State have a plan for the rock bottom biomass of perch they need for conservation, for maintaining perch numbers or for repopulating the lake. nope. Amazing, plans for alewives but no plans for perch. What’s needed for netters, all sorts of plans, what’s needed for perch sport business, not a peep. Wait, the WDNR does have one plan for sport perch, absolutely no stocking of perch again. Now why is that?

54. I mostly came back to see if Scoop had responded to K. Could not have said it any better sir K and thanks for saying it an eloquent fashion that makes sense, gives your legitimate sources, and which does not skirt facts for the sake of argument. Maybe this article should stay on the front page a few more days, it has certainly got people fired up and been an interesting discussion. Maybe in fact someone at Echo, should write an entire article based upon the comments and thought-train here, would be interesting indeed.

55. Mr. K sir, very good, very good indeed, but mostly wasted on guys like scoop. They’re mostly a pain in the elbow, nothin really, just another private interest group trying to control the system, and our resources, which include funding. You make some good points, we could net bad fish, but in Sagonaw Bay they considered knocking down the alewives with netting (MDNR) but decided to let the Walleyes do it, even planted 2000 20 inch Walleye from Ohio to speed things up, as anyone can see it worked quite well. Now they no longer need to stock, so from a cost effective management plan, zero cost is the most effective, wouldn’t you say? Find the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Michigan,Lake Michigan committee as I told scoop this is where my numbers came from, thier numbers. By plan Invasive fish dominant (alewives) native fish minority. Publicly the DNR and the rest, are Committed to science based management, Committed to ecosystem based management! Pure baloney. they can’t be and protect the alewives, they told everyone the plan is to save alewives so….
    This is really a very easy fix, we only have to help the native fish survive the spawn, they will “balance” the problem and the ecosystem, but that’s a threat to alewives, not allowed. Can be down at a very low cost, we have yet to ask for money. There’s millions in dindell restoration act money being in my unbiased opinion, being stolen and mismanaged by the DNR fishery division to stock salmon and trout. I had to use the Freedom of Info act to find that out, but I got it from the horses mouth shall we say, and they seem to have no shame, They designate rivers as trout streams just because they plant trout in them. Lots more, all documented but like scoop they don’t want to hear it, even thier own studies.

56. I just had to write. Salmon may be worth $7 billion (which I doubt) but that was, ‘making the best of a bad situation’. If a magic wand was waved and today Lake Michigan was restored to its 1492 state, no manager would be allowed to stock invasives and exotics just for money. Many other lakes surrounded by poor communities don’t stock alewives and salmon to generate tourism dollars.
    Lake Trout are stocked by the Feds because their jobs/hatcheries are geared towards Lakers, just as the States stock salmon and other trout because of their jobs and politics. Which fish tastes better ain’t the reason. The question I have is why put scarce plankton into alewives and not the native herring? Don’t salmon eat them too?
    Also it appears to me that Scoop is trying to have it both ways. Musssels make the water too clear and there are too many predators, for great numbers of perch, but not to threaten gobies. Salmon could eat themselves out of food (alewives) but gobys won’t eat themselves out of food?
    Scoop asks “Why are there still alewives aplenty in Green Bay”? I ask, what alewives, per the GB bottom trawl reported by the WDNR alewives went from 28 to .2 in Northern GB and from 90 to .04 in Sourthern GB in less then 10 years. Even goby are down, maybe all those teeth really work? Once all evil was blamed on the alewife, now it’s the quagga mussel. Let’s straighten out certain other facts. Both perch and alewife numbers were in decline BEFORE mussels. Perch and chubs started declining in Wisconsin waters when the WDNR had commercials go to a quota system in 1989. The commercial violation of perch were horrific, see CanAm. 98% of the perch are gone from GB, and the WDNR hasn’t bothered doing SCAA surveys since 2009, so how many perch are really left? A WI perch recovery in GB was wiped out in 2005 when the WNDR raised perch limits from 20,000 to 100,000 lbs. So it’s proven that nets hurt perch more then mussels. Oh, Wis. netters are subsidized $400,000 per year from sportsmen because they don’t pay for full cost of their own license. The USGS report previously mentioned above states “However, Bunnell et al. (2009b) proposed that the bulk of the decline in total prey fish biomass may be better explained by factors other than food-web-induced effects by dreissenids, including poor fish recruitment (that preceded the mussel expansion), shifts in fish habitat, and increased fish predation by Chinook salmon and lake trout”.
    Instead of not netting invasives and removing only native fish, maybe the lake would be better off if it was the other way around? You know, net carp, gobies, alewives, smelt and leave the whitefish, perch, chub, herring, walleye, etc, you get it right? lol

57. Uneducated? Frustrated? LOL The numbers I quoted are from the lake Michigan committee OH-Fish-al plan for Lake Michigan. Alewives dominant, more than all native totals combined allowed actually. The people in the UP want the Perch back, they’re pushing to lower the limit up there, why if they got lots? They keep bringing up the tournament. Now it’s attack me and look at Green Bay, Green Bay, not focus on the problem. Alright Scoopy, lets look at Green Bay. Limit 15 closed during spawn, for Perch, and Bay Denoc one Walleye over 23 inches. So if Green Bay is Great for both Salmon and Perch etc.. lets do that here (Eastern Lake Michigan and connecting waters) costs nothing, according to you works great. What you don’t know, is we had this on our petition (except reduce to 25 but I like 15 better)plus close and the 23 inch walleye thing, but were denied because we added stocking if needed. The DNR pulled the Denoc walleye thing, they fought to get it back, 300 signatures, we had 5 times that, could get many more, denied. Why if it works so well? In Green Bay. We ain’t allowed high numbers by plan, read it your self, Lake Michigan Committee goals, the new update they took out alewife and put in prey, no numbers changed. Walleyes wont work in Lake Michigan proper, too cold? Your kidding with this one right? Walleyes have been using Lake Michigan for 10,000 years, they circle the lake like they do in Erie. World class, Where? I know Green Bay! (Who’s on First? Green Bay!) The Muskegon river system is the main spawning/nursery area for most of Lake Michigans Walleyes, hasn’t had a good Walleye spawn in over 50 years. So I’m not out of line wanting to try something different. I have talked to Wisconsin,Michigan, Illinois, pick a state fishery managers, the Carp Czars, the EPA, experts from across the country, even an Asian Carp expert from China. I’ve been all the way thru the system, recently the Senate and House NRC committees, which based on the response the DNR knows about it by now, if not they do now. We had a world class native fishery PRE -US and PRE- ALEWIVES, we’re the variable in this problem. You and the DNR still refuse to answer why the native fish in Huron are doing so well but still have mussels? I know Green Bay! Sorry scoop, your all wet on this. Alewives are an invasive species always will be, until you and your friends figure that out, I guess we’re stuck in Green Bay!

58. Tom, it’s frustrating trying to deal with someone so uneducated about the realities of invasives like gobies and quaggas, and someone who also is not getting it that the walleye fishery here is world-class, never better, and I’m not against walleye stocking (Michigan does it, Wisconsin did for quite a while but now has so much natural reproduction in all the Green Bay tributaries it’s not needed). You talk about perch, do some research, some of the best year classes ever on Green Bay, not being eaten by alewives and in fact they’re seeing them up to sizes much bigger than any alewife could ever eat before they “mysteriously” thin out. Doesn’t take an expert to realize that the world-class walleye and smallmouth bass fishery, abundant pike, cormorants, white pelicans and burbot, and a 50-inch minimum size limit on Great Lakes muskies (and abundant, annual stockings of young, hungry muskies) hammer the perch.

    You talk about that one tournament. Long ago, I provided you with websites and articles that not only refuted what you called poor perch fishing, but blew it right out of the water. Was perch fishing better 20+ years ago? Yes, in most areas it certainly was. AGAIN – PRE-MUSSEL INVASION.

    Not sure where you’re getting your walleye numbers from but there is more weight than that alone in Green Bay’s Fox River each spring, a fishery that attracts hundreds of boaters and shore anglers DAILY for more than a month, and it’s 99.9+ percent catch and release only with its 28-inch minimum size limit protecting the spawning ‘eyes.

    You need to talk to more Green Bay/Lake Michigan fisheries managers. Walleyes will never work well in Lake Michigan proper. It’s just too cold and not enough forage. They do well in the rivers, bays and harbors, but not the deep, cold big lake where salmon thrive. Perch in that mussel-cleared water are easy targets for any predator. The exception seems to be southern lake basin where it’s shallower and often murkier (and perhaps more “nutrients” from Milwaukee’s frequent “discharges” into the lake).

59. Dear Joe, I don’t know why salmon do good in Green Bay, never looked into that. The Wisconsin Perch group blame commercial fishers for restricting Perch. Some big Perch, how many is some? Clearly not as many as gobies. Alewives restrict Perch etc… recruitment, catch 15 or 50 if new ones don’t get added to replace them static or reduction in population. Why are invasives increasing? They get no pressure from us, and clearly not enough predation from any predator native or otherwise. If I may quote from the Asian Carp management Q and A, Q. What factors contribute to the sustainable population of asian Carp in the Great Lakes. A. MOST IMPORTANT of these include predator-prey interactions between the invading species and those in the new environment, end quote. Chinook only eat alewives, no interaction between other species, all other invasive species safe. Salmon and steelhead has been happening for decades, yep, and The natural ecosystem has been deteriorating for decades, still is except reversing in Huron from loss of alewives! Scoop and his friends only care about themselves, Stevie Wonder can see that. If both can exist together, then why fight so hard against restoring Perch and walleyes? Perch banned from stocking? Genetic concerns is hogwash, can be addressed. To quote Tanner “the lakes full of wonderful food” his quote about alewives, same same. I am not joking either, publicly it would be better if this was fixed in house. But can’t seem to find anyone with the ability to tell the truth.

60. My My My, alright Scoop, the alewives have been in control of the native fish populations and zooplankton for over 60 years,plain fact all documented stuff. Green Bay theu cut the limit and restricted commercial Perch fishing, perch are coming back, DNR wanted to increase limit, users said no. People in Escanaba say they’re not catching Perch like you say, had a tournament 600 people one Perch, you argue with them.What you think is a lot of Perch or Walleye is not even close to what it was before we got here. You and your friends are against restoring Perch and Walleye because you know what will happen to the alewives, so does the MDNR. “Maybe” Asian Carp wont take or survive “maybe” or perhaps your one of those who say “Asian Carp wont take over in my lifetime, wont have to deal with them” I’ve actually heard people say this. How do you deal with someone so shallow? Not my problem? Pass it on, let our kids worry about it. Can’t be enough native predators? Alright Scoop, Fishery Chief Jim Dexter way back when we started this in Outdoor Life Mag admitted Walleyes eat gobies but “There’s too many gobies you could never plant enough walleyes” end quote. Besides being the stupidest reason in the world to “not” plant predators, lets look at it. So if Dexter and you are right, never have enough walleyes/predators (that would include perch they eat gobies as well) then common sense logic and reason tells us we should be stocking every Walleye and Perch we can! They’ll never run out of food! Nobody will come here for gobies, but hundreds of thousands will come here for perch and walleyes. AND we don’t have to ever worry about “balancing the prey” we’ll never run out of gobies!!!! When the Lake was 90% alewives that wasn’t too many? no use stocking? If they would have only stocked say 100,000 chinook a year, would that be enough predators? Nope they planted millions, before they started to reduce them and could have wiped them out but as you say cut back stocking, raise limits to increase alewives by REDUCING PREDATORS. We’re only allowed 200,000 to 400,000 pounds of Walleyes for all of Lake Michigan and connecting waters by plan, that ain’t enough obviously. Only 2 to 4 million pounds of Perch also not enough. Asian Carp eat the same thing as alewives so we we know what they will do, the only good thing is they’ll do it to the alewives as well, the bad thing they’ll do it to all. But it seems we can’t do anything positive until the alewives are gone. Sorry Scoop, the DNR is responsible but you and your friends can say you helped destroy our lakes.

61. Scoop my arguement was this is why I don’t argue with Tom. If you tax your …businesses that manufacture boats, motors, downriggers and tackle to taxidermists and gas stations, bars/restaurants, hotels/motels/condos, sport shops, gift shops, grocery stores, coffee houses, wineries, farmer’s markets and more…
    more than you need to for an environment where …So many hungry predators – toothy and winged (cormorants and white pelicans) – yet no dent in the goby numbers. You can literally catch a goby every cast in most areas ranging from about one to 30 feet of water or more!

    What’s more, is that those same toothy predators – bass, walleyes, pike and muskies – DO NOT LIKE the colder, deeper waters of the main lake, where salmon and steelhead are the stars. There is room for both natives and stocked/naturally reproduced salmon/steelhead, and it’s been happening for decades!

    Tom, answer me this: WHY do salmon do so well in Green Bay, right alongside (actually in deeper, colder water, but same water body) the bass, walleyes, muskies, pike and, YES, yellow perch??? Michigan (Bays de Noc in Upper Green Bay) still has a 50-perch limit. WI is 15, and closed for spawning period (two months). There are some huge perch around again this year (season reopens next week). Why are there still so many gobies in Green Bay, so many despite the incredible number of predators? Why are there still alewives aplenty in Green Bay (unlike Lake Michigan, where adult numbers are near all-time lows)?… you’re not doing anyone a favor. That should more than explain “I am not joking.”

62. OK Joe, got it, you’re not kidding. But you haven’t said how your tax dollars support the charter fishery. They pretty much support themselves, considering they buy their own boats, equipment and gas; create jobs; and bring in thousands of license/stamp buying anglers a year. How do you support them?

    Tom, there is room for both. It’s been done for nearly 50 years. Walleyes (and many other native species) eat alewives, too. At certain times of year in Green Bay walleyes are stuffed with alewives. Have you ever fished lower GB, Door County, Oconto, Marinette or the Bays de Noc? All world-class fisheries for giant smallmouth and walleyes (national tours such as Cabela’s come every year) and very good fishing for northern pike, Great Lakes strain muskies, yellow perch, whitefish, brown trout, rainbows and chinooks, among others – all thriving in a place where netting surveys show more abundant year classes of alewives than in the main lake. Guys are reeling in browns, walleyes, muskies and more at the same time, yet chinooks are the top fish caught in the annual trout tourney at Marinette-Menominee each July!

    You keep bringing up Asian carp. There can NOT BE ENOUGH NATURAL PREDATORS to ever stop them should they get into the GL in sufficient breeding numbers. End of story. There are literally millions upon millions of walleyes, pike, muskies, smallmouth bass, burbot, yellow perch, whitefish and more in the waters of Green Bay, yet if you allowed a spawning population of Asian carp in, you’d NEVER stop them with predators. They’re like gobies – too prolific! Can’t stop ’em.

    We can save the lakes and save the alewives. We can have salmon and perch. We can have alewives and lake trout. We can have salmon and walleyes. We can, and we have, for more than 45 years.

    The only thing that’ll stop the salmon/alewives is if the salmon eat themselves out of their preferred forage. That’s why states wisely have cut back on stocking again this year, the most drastic cut yet.

    Today’s quagga-cleared water is great if you’re a SCUBA diver, but not so great if you’re a baby alewife, bloater, perch, smelt or whitefish looking for something to eat – or avoiding having something being able to more easily spot and eat you.

63. Scoop, if you ain’t DNR or making money off the salmon you have to be the most brainwashed guy I’ve met to date. Your not alone but clearly top of the pile. Can’t focus on the problem, always look here, look there, towns will dry up without salmon with you guys, all POPPYCOCK!
    If you can’t live without catching salmon I feel sorry for you, really, just sad. Just because the waters cold enough for salmon or trout doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Room for both eh? Chinook have to have alewives, alewives have to have good recruitment, surviving the spawn to adult. The chinook are dependant on alewives having a good recruitment. The alewives need low predators in the spawning/nursery near shore areas for survival. However this increases the predators for the native larval fish in the spawning grounds (That would be alewives and it’s supposed to be the natives spawning areas) The DNR,studies Walleyes Perch can’t survive with high alewives, Huron proof etc…. Managing the lake for invasive species gives us what we got, invasive species. You want to save the alewives for your one fish. Most people in the U.S. and Canada don’t want the Asian Carp to take over the Great Lakes. I’m with them. We can’t save the lakes and save your alewives, it’s one or the other. The law says protect the natural resources, saving alewives doesn’t do that.

64. Scoop, can you read? I am not kidding.

    Joe, you’re kidding, right? What tax dollars of mine are used by the charter boats? The economic impact to port communities and state fishing businesses is huge, everything from businesses that manufacture boats, motors, downriggers and tackle to taxidermists and gas stations, bars/restaurants, hotels/motels/condos, sport shops, gift shops, grocery stores, coffee houses, wineries, farmer’s markets and more.

65. Typing the most words doesn’t mean someone is any smarter than anyone else.

    What Tom fails to tell you is that there already is world-class bass, walleye, muskie and pike fishing in many bays and harbors of the Great Lakes. Green Bay is a perfect example. So many hungry predators – toothy and winged (cormorants and white pelicans) – yet no dent in the goby numbers. You can literally catch a goby every cast in most areas ranging from about one to 30 feet of water or more!

    What’s more, is that those same toothy predators – bass, walleyes, pike and muskies – DO NOT LIKE the colder, deeper waters of the main lake, where salmon and steelhead are the stars. There is room for both natives and stocked/naturally reproduced salmon/steelhead, and it’s been happening for decades!

    Tom, answer me this: WHY do salmon do so well in Green Bay, right alongside (actually in deeper, colder water, but same water body) the bass, walleyes, muskies, pike and, YES, yellow perch??? Michigan (Bays de Noc in Upper Green Bay) still has a 50-perch limit. WI is 15, and closed for spawning period (two months). There are some huge perch around again this year (season reopens next week). Why are there still so many gobies in Green Bay, so many despite the incredible number of predators? Why are there still alewives aplenty in Green Bay (unlike Lake Michigan, where adult numbers are near all-time lows)?

    You’re a smart guy, or so it would seem. You should be able to figure out why some fisheries work in some areas, and not in others. It’s not rocket science.

66. That’s why I don’t argue with Tom and am not kidding. I hope that answers your question.

67. Mr. Lachs, You are right too many ways to get in, however too many special interests too “big to fail” can’t close chicago, barge guys, tour guides, chemical shippers, etc… Ballast water too expensive all politics. So we can’t control how they get in, but we can control how many predators they run into no matter how they get in, which is how nature works. Google (biotic-resistance) we can make it very hard for any invasive to get a foothold or even survive, if invasive species can wipe out native fish, then native fish can wipe them out back. It’s all about the numbers. Hard to survive a spawn in a crowd, which is what alewives do to native fish. But resistant to invasive species make our lakes resistant to alewives and salmon both invasive species, and the only thing stopping us from restoring our native fishery which is what we all are supposed to be doing. Make the lakes uselees to invasives friendly to native fish simple.

68. Mr. waste Sir, Yes we do not need more laws, if we obey the ones we have we can fix this whole mess. I agree with increasing the salmon stocking, I actually was the one vote to do that in thier “save the alewives survey”. At 31% percent of the budget the DNR’s main management style is to stock fish, mostly salmon and trout. Keep in mind they have 6 hatcheries 4 all salmon trout, 2 salmon trout and “other” hatchery jobs create a major conflict of interest we’re supposed to ignore. They have stated in the past “We can’t just switch to another fish, our hatcheries don’t work like that” a recent article about stocking, “it depends if the water is to warm for trout” there ya go. We don’t need hatcheries, lower the limit on Perch, close during spawn, one walleye over 23 inches, we can raise both just in a pond real cheap. The salmon did eat the alewives in Huron, so did the Walleyes they stocked, that was the plan, walleyes took back control of the spawning grounds. We almost got rid of them here, Muskegon 1978, steelheaders pond, planted in July walleyes and perch increasing, alewives gone in June, salmon guys screaming to plant alewives just like now. DNR took the pond away from the steelheaders started planting micro walleyes in June 1985/86 alewives came back, perch walleye tanked, so did fishing interest and license sales, I was there. I live only 2 miles from the walleye pond. Technically they can say they stocked walleyes, and they do say it. But in reality all they’ve been doing is feeding alewives, went out of thier way last year alewives came in early, grabed some to stock Muskegon lake, left the rest to grow bigger for stocking inland. I believe we could have a smooth transition back to native with steelhead or atlantic salmon for the big lake “niche” fishery, but I belive hatchery jobs, and the DNR reputation and arrogance is the only thing stopping us.

69. My Goodness look at all this, all I can say is Thanks Guys. Alright here’s the scoop, scoop. Just because the salmon guys want to keep catching salmon doesn’t make it OK. It doesn’t matter how many salmon stakeholders there are, or how much money it may or may not generate. That has nothing to do with protecting our natural resources, keeping the salmon means we have to sacrifice the entire natural ecosystem for one fish, and that’s a fact. I believe the Perch limit in Green Bay is just 15 and closed during spawn, plus Bay De Noc only one walleye over 23 inches.(Perch also getting fat eating spiny fleas) Perch coming back in Saginaw/Huron “gangbusters” according to the DNR only change no alewives still got mussels. Alewives come into west Michigan river mouths to spawn right when Perch and Walleye hatch,(used to in Saginaw bay) the DNR calls it bad timing, I call it don’t belong there in the first place. Now couple other points scoop, less than 580 people indicated they wanted to keep fishing salmon from the DNR 4 states year and a half survey where they threatened we could lose the entire fishery if we lose the alewives. Truth is only chinook lost, and the entire ecosystem would benefit, and less than 580 people is not “an overwelming show of public support” and 80 guys in a meeting in South haven is not a “huge outpouring of public support” it’s 80 salmon guys in the same room! Dear Bob, please find the Saginaw Bay recovery plan No 29, MDNR, the plan was to get rid of alewives, because of predation.They used walleyes to get rid of them. Also they don’t believe alewives will come back as the Walleyes are in control, also the walleyes are eating salmon as fast as they plant them, understand? Lake trout were not the only predator overfished, Perch, Walleye all of them. Bass may not eat all the gobies, Perch and Walleyes can generate the numbers hunt in schools, add the 3 triple threat, add pike muskie now your reducing invasive species. Millions of starving chinook, swimming right over them, no threat. No threat to any invasive species. In the real world the DNR fishery Div. would be guilty of failure to do job assignment, there are other words for public servants. The Public Trust doctrine seems pretty clear to me, they’re supposed to be protecting the natural resources, for all of us.

70. Lachs – we can get rid of the alewife right now, we have the managerial lever to do so (stock more salmon not less) and the DNR chooses not to stock more, but less salmon to save the alewife. I agree – lets close the entry and exit points as best we can for invasive species, but don’t blame those on the current choices that the DNR makes regarding stocking policies and the choice to support non-native species over native species in Lake Michigan. So long as you you want chinook, you’ll need alewife, and alewife harm lake trout, walleye, perch, bloater, and other native species.Maybe the alewife could reinvade via the Welland canal one day if we got rid of them now, but I doubt it. If you have literature to suggest they could, I’d sure like to see it.

71. Anonymous, you nailed it when you said sampling wasn’t perfect, since gobies are mainly SHALLOW water fish and the sampling is mainly DEEP! Additionally, I said “prolific” – gobies can spawn five or six times each season (every 18-20 days) vs. once per year for alewives, and have a much greater hatching success due to the nesting activity.

72. Scoop has made some good points re non-native species. If you really want to restore the lake to “native” then the approach would be to eliminate the open barriers: Saint Lawrence and Chicago River. Since the Michigan DNR, Indiana DNR, Illinois DNR, Wisconsin DNR, Ontario Ministry of Fisheries, New York DNR, and on DO NOT control these waters and therefore can not manage it….

    So who manages the waters, THE FEDS….It is managed by the US Coast Guard and US Fish and Wildlife. They are the trump cards, plain and simple.

    Until the Chicago river is closed to keep the carp out, they will get in and they will seek the port of Benton Harbor as their refuge, fast enough, warm enough and they will populate. Why is it not closed, the US Commerce department deems the water necessary to float barges on the Mississippi, plain and simple. So if you want to beat up on the DNR (pick your state) they are the pawns chosen to manage “their water” and have no control…plain and simple.

73. Hey Joe, I’m not kidding. How do your tax dollars support the charter fishery? In Wisconsin, some sport angler funds have helped subsidize the commercial net fishery monitoring, but that’s a different story. Charters are not commercial fishermen. They bring in thousands of anglers who buy licenses and stamps that help fund hatcheries and fisheries programs of many types, and fill hotel rooms, restaurants, bait and tackle stores, gift shops, gas stations and more.

74. Scoop you are so wrong it exemplifies your ignorance. This paper right here clearly demonstrates that round goby lakewide biomass in Lake Michigan has never even come close what the highest biomass of alewives was, and that even today there is more biomass of alewife than round goby in the lake. It;s an open access paper published by the USGS, and by respected Great Lakes researchers, so once again scoop you prove just how wrong you are.
    The article is entitled: “Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2012” and is at this link below:

    http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf

    You will see that in figure 2, from about the 1970’s-1980’s. lakewide biomass of alewife was estimated anywhere from about 10-30 kilograms per hectare, and that since then except for the last 5-10 years the biomass has been around 5-10 kilograms per hectare. Round goby lakewide biomass you will see in figure 7 has never exceed 3.5 kilograms per hectare, and in most years since they arrived in Lake Michigan, the biomass has only been about 1.0 kilogram per hectare.
    I will admit, perhaps this is not perfect sampling, but this is the best information I know of out there.

    Further – salmon, even in native habitats, they have recruitment and returns to rivers that vary widely from year to year, why would they do better in The Great Lakes, and why would anyone return to fish here if they came in an “off year?” If you want long term economically sustainable fisheries, and if we want boosts to local economies that we can rely upon being consistent from year to year, salmon are not the answer. They are the problem.

75. Scoop, I honestly know from first hand experience that it seems really funny, but I’m not kidding. Furthermore, from first hand experience, I’m guessing that there is a high probability that you are kidding. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry.

76. Wow, you and your alias’ are so far off base. Bass will never eat enough gobies to even make a dent. Gobies are far more prolific than alewives ever were, or will be.

    If you want to get rid of alewife, stock more salmon. The four states surrounding Lake Michigan realize the bounty salmon bring in through license/stamp sales and local/regional/state economies, so they’ve cut back stocking to better balance baitfish to predators.

    Name a better salmon fishery than the Great Lakes right now? I’ve fished British Columbia and have friends who fish Alaska. We catch more fish here than there. The salmon fishery is world-class on the Great Lakes. Some Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan salmon tournaments lure 2,000-3,000+ anglers. Do any perch, bass, walleye, lake trout, etc. contests even come close to those kind of entry numbers? No. I’m not a huge tournament fan, even, but am just giving you an example of the drawing power of salmon.

    You call charters “special interests” yet the real winners are lakeside communities. Many small-town businesses that employ far more people than charters do wouldn’t even be able to make it without the spring, summer and fall salmon and trout fishery. Stop thinking of charters and DNR fisheries staff as the only ones who benefit from alewife! Thousands upon thousands of jobs are directly linked to Great Lakes salmon and trout.

77. The reason alewife are mostly, or that they are gone from Lake Huron are because the salmon ate them all Bob.

    The managerial lever we have that can eliminate the alewife, is to stock more salmon. By the way, when is the last time any invasive came in via the Welland canal. Let’s see, the last I know about is alewife, and that was nearly 70 years ago man.

    Also, when alewife invaded, we had very few native, or non-native predators in the lakes. Today the predator biomass, despite being low relative to some recent years, even without salmon is still very high. Lake trout are now naturally recruiting in Lake Huron. These predators and others like abundant walleye and perch in lake erie would stop any alewife re-invasion from the Welland canal. What else is to stop them now – the Welland Canal entry is completely different than in the 1940’s, and are all the other habitats alewife would have to reinvade through are much different ecologically speaking. Frankly I don’t think they could make it. As far as rebouding, there is clear evidence they would not so long as native predator biomass was high enough.

    Bob – you can add yourself to the list of disgrace sellouts interested in short term economic gains over long term ecological stability in the Great Lakes. You probably have some job to protect in which you study alewife, making you an even worse person.

    The only reason alewife are still a part of the ecosystem in the Great Lakes, is because ingrained old-timer, past their time, backwards thinking fishery managers are selling out to special interests out. But you guys can’t win out forever, the forces against this, which far outnumber and exceed yours, which are a younger, stronger movemnet han yours, we won;t be silenced, and we are mobilizing and we will demand action.

    Face it Bob and everyone else – Alewife are not a native species in the Great Lakes, are one of the most harmful invasive species the Great Lakes has ever known. Right now we have a method to get rid of them (a simple and clearly identified managerial lever which we can easily pull and which we lack for almost any other fishery in the Great Lakes), and yet we don’t use it.

    Ask yourself as I posed above, is the salmon fishery the best in the nation in the Great Lakes? Could it ever be — doubtful. Which one is the best in the nation Bob, that’s right a fishery that contains native species that are naturally recruited.

    Are you telling me Bob, that the bass that make up the trophy fishery in Lake ST. Clair, again best in the nation, which are eating a harmful invasive species round goby, will always require round goby for them to achieve a trophy fishery? Then we may as well work on saving the round goby, (another harmful invasive species) too right? How about dreissenid mussels? Shoudl we just accept hey are here forever, to forever screw up the ecosystem? Round goby eat these mussels, heck even whitefish eat them, and they could reinvade too right? So lets make sure we also save them, the invasive zebra and quagga mussels right Bob – this is your logic Bob not mine.

    The principles of ecology state that a species like alewife is out of place in the Great Lakes and it needs to go if you want to invest in our future. We control it right now, not nature. We brought it here, we have the responsibility to get rid of it if we can, even if there is a chance it will come back. You too have the responsibility for the next generation and your kids, to do the right thing. Sorry if you can;t comprehend this and stuck in an old way of thinking, I suggest you go back to school and learn something pal and learn some modern biolgiocal and ecological principles because you, scoop, and other salmon lovers are wrong.

78. “Unless you’re talking about all of the recreational fisherman being from some other country, there is no economic benefit… Tax dollars come from your wallet to put charter boat money back in. “

    Joe, you’re kidding, right? What tax dollars of mine are used by the charter boats? The economic impact to port communities and state fishing businesses is huge, everything from businesses that manufacture boats, motors, downriggers and tackle to taxidermists and gas stations, bars/restaurants, hotels/motels/condos, sport shops, gift shops, grocery stores, coffee houses, wineries, farmer’s markets and more.

    Waste, nobody can tell you with certainty what the “best” bass fishery is. Chequamegon Bay (Lake Superior) with its protective 22-inch minimum size limit may have the most huge bass; then again, perhaps it’s Door County,Wisc., where 6- and 7-pound smallmouths show up in the annual Sturgeon Bay Open and it takes a five-pound-plus average to win it). Last year’s professional anglers from Canada who won the $100,000 payout event said they’ve never seen a better smallmouth fishery. Additionally, salmon have also become self-sustaining in many areas with incredible natural reproduction in many Lake Huron and Michigan-side Lake Michigan rivers, enough so that stocking has been slashed three times in the past decade, including 50 percent lakewide in Lake Michigan this year.

    “Is the salmon fishery, one of the best in the nation, even one of the ten best? Don’t think so.”

    You’re dead wrong. It may be THE best in the lower 48! The catch rates in Lake Michigan far exceed those in Oregon and Washington, where our fish originally came from.

    “I have talked to many salmon guys, most did not know we have to sacrifice the Perch and Walleyes to be able to fish salmon. Most charters and the DNR do know.”

    You’re wrong Tom. Green Bay has an incredible (world-class) walleye fishery and very good perch fishery even with all the chinooks, steelhead, brown trout and splake. Additionally, perch fishing was even better in the 80s when salmon stockings were at their peak in Lake Michigan/Green Bay. What has changed since? Zebra mussels in the early 90s followed by quaggas – today’s dominant invasive. Water clarity and filtering of the bottom of the food chain are the main reasons perch will never rebound to historic levels in Lake Michigan.

79. waste_of_our_$_n_resources
    If the alewife population in Lake Michigan was further decimated in the present time, why do you think they would not resurge again at a later date? They were not an intentionally introduced species to the upper great lakes, and they are not stocked in the lakes. They, like white perch, entered through the Welland Canal and/or the Erie Canal, both of which are still open and will remain open. So how are you going to keep them from coming back, and how are you going to control them when they do without the Chinook? Native species couldn’t control them before and won’t do it in the future. And unless you are advocating closing the 2 canals and restoring Niagara Falls as a natural barrier to the atlantic fish species, Alewife are now part of the escosystem, and need to be managed as such.

80. Names? Sir they couldn’t print the “names” people used for the DNR when we did our petition, I could have got as many signatures as I wanted, but I got tired of people venting about the DNR, the petition was for restoring the Perch. Lets see, I’m looking right at the survey Question 4-5 “Invasive species control was listed as the number one prioity” Sorry I read that wrong. Why aren’t Quagga mussels wiping out all the other fish in Huron overnight, like they did alewives? I have talked to many salmon guys, most did not know we have to sacrifice the Perch and Walleyes to be able to fish salmon. Most charters and the DNR do know. Most regular salmon guys have no problem switching to steelhead to get the Perch and walleye back. Charters not so much. I have checked the launches several times, vs saginaw, same full there not here. Alright Dexter say in the 2012 report Michigans fishery is worth $4.5 billion dollars, this leaves $2.5 billion for Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Canada to split? If you believe the $7. billion.Ohio says it’s Erie fishery worth 11.5 billion no salmon. The plan is to restore (as in increase alewives) it was in all the papers, you miss that part? The law says protect the natural resources, salmon are not a natural resource never will be never can be. Spending public restoration funds to plant non-native invasive fish, well scoopy that’s a bad thing. I would call it misconduct in office, and it surely is not science based.

81. Tom – not more laws sir, I somewhat believe less regulation is better, but rather petitioning for a change that we make happen as citizens make happen, a change in stocking policies, i.e., lets increase salmon stocking right now instead of reducing it so as to get rid of the alewife. But great information, will tuck it away, thanks.

82. Scoop, sorry but 7 billion – that does not just come from salmon fishing. See this article right here, Great Lakes echo Scoop.

    http://greatlakesecho.org/2013/05/08/lake-st-clair-best-in-nation-for-bass-lake-erie-in-top-10/

    Get it: best in the nation, not second best, not third, but best.

    This best in the nation fishery, for bass a a highly desired sportfish, is a native species and native species fishery, and Lake Erie is one of the ten best in the nation. Took a little while to develop, and hard work by passionate fishery managers, but best in the nation scoop. Not Florida, where there are huge bass, right here.

    Is the salmon fishery, one of the best in the nation, even one of the ten best? Don’t think so.

    Guess what else, the native fishery is self recruiting. No stocking required. Do salmon require stocking?

    Face it Scoop and other special interest salmon sell-out doubters, if we invested in native species, even Lake Michigan could be named somewhere as one of the ten best fisheries in the world. But hey, keep thinking short term Scoop.

83. Scoop, it’s all fine spun recycling. If you look at the Nile Perch situation in Lake Victoria, Africa. A non-native species was introduced to the lake, and has been forcing native species to extinction. Nile Perch don’t have to be artificially introduced to the lake because they naturally reproduce in it. While not desirable, it gives fisherman an income in their efforts to control them. What you’re talking about in the Great Lakes is throwing money into the lakes and pulling food out instead of finding postivies you can draw out of the water because of the new life you found in it. Unless you’re talking about all of the recreational fisherman being from some other country, there is no economic benefit… Tax dollars come from your wallet to put charter boat money back in. There is nothing wrong with profiting from the stocking of non-native species, but it doesn’t always mean the DNR is doing the right thing. This is why I try not to argue with Tom. If we were all on a boat and he told you to “cast your line in a certain spot,” I know he’s not telling me to not “cast in the same spot.” I just figure he knows more about the ecosystem.

84. Tom, does it make you feel bigger and better to call names?

    For the record, surveyed anglers did not rank “invasive species” their “top priority.” Rather, aquatic invasives was chosen as the most important challenge faced by the DNR. Big difference! Quaqqa mussels are the NO. 1 “bad guy” out there, not Asian carp (at least not yet, and possibly not ever).

    “In the past 12 months, where did you fish the most? (select one).”

    You could only select one option. Even I would have selected “rivers” – Great Lakes rivers – since I fish them in winter and spring for steelhead and fall for brown trout and salmon.

    No boats at Muskegon? Could have been a “blow day” … we get those every so often, you know, BIG waves. Remember the links to the great salmon fishing and good perch fishing I posted here last year, after you claimed nobody was salmon fishing and nobody was catching perch?

    How many times do I have to tell you I’m not a charter captain and don’t work for the DNR or feds? I have no reason to lie. You seem to think only DNR or charter captains would push for salmon. You need to talk to private trollers, pier anglers, river rats. We outnumber charters at least 10-1, much more at some ports.

    “This effort was successful, reducing alewife numbers and creating a recreational fishery that is estimated at $7 billion annually.”

    $7 BILLION? Enough said.

85. Well Scoopy, 12 months is a year, I took that to mean where people normally fish in a year, which is what it meant. The point is most people don’t fish the big lake can’t afford it. The near shore area fishery where people can and could fish easily is sacrificed for the minority salmon fishery. I broke down the key points of the DNR survey, 10,280 people Invasive Species control Number one priority, followed by native species recovery priority for the fishery division. Thier survey, but what is the DNR plan, plant atlantic salmon? More non-native species. As far as the too busy thing, just another excuse. So according to you, if people have time they would rather salmon fish, yet the real numbers say the reverse. A while back my wife and I took off work to go to Saginaw bay on a Wednesday, to beat the crowds non holiday week. The launch was packed, it seems we wern’t the only ones playing hooky from work. Muskegon launches were empty by the way, I had a friend check. But your statements are irrelevant, we are supposed top be doing what’s best for the lake and the ecosystem. Plain fact is thier is no benefit whatsoever for the ecosystem planting salmon and trout. Anyone who thinks keeping alewives the dominant fish is a good idea, needs anther line of work. Scoopy, politicians are very bad at being proactive, oh they use the words, but no. However politicians are very good at fixing blame after the fact, Management is always at fault, that rule never changes, The Senate and House just put the DNR on the Asian Carp/invasive hotseat, and made them responsible. The politicians wont take the heat, heat roles downhill. The DNR just told the whole world that restoring alewives is the most important thing in the world. Pretty hard to deny it.

86. Mr. Waste Sir, We already have laws, the law says protect the natural resources. The DNR added to protect cultural,social and economic considerations to their Protect the natural resourses mission statement. Science based is supposed to be a mandate, no political considerations, but mostly lip service, they use words like balance, and diversity but just heating up the air, they’re managing for salmon and trout, can’t do both. We have Executive Order 13112 regarding invasives, We have The Sustainable Fisheries Act which requires protecting spawning/nursery areas for recruitment, but is being applied to alewives. Please find (Spatially Explicit Measures of Production of Young Alewives in Lake Michigan:Linkage Between Essential Fish Habitat and Recruitment.) Then we have the Dingell Johnson Restoration Act, these funds are for restoration of native fish populations, habitat, wetlands restoration, and enhance access, launches, docks, piers, etc… these funds are being used to stock salmon and trout witch doesn’t restore anything it replaces the native fishery, has to be prtected from a healthy native/predator population. Case in point they are going to plant coho bigger and closer to Lake Michigan in the Grand to avoid predation better survival. Yet they plant Walleyes at 1/2 to 1 inch inch in Muskegon Lake right on top of millions of alewives, I have video. We submitted a petition to reduce Perch limit to 25, close during spawn and stock if needed. We were told Perch are banned from stocking. The Senate and House just dumped the resposibilty on the Fishery Div and the NRC. We don’t need more laws, if the DNR would obey the law we can fix this whole mess. I agree with science based management, not alewife science based. Also I believe your right Scoopy is wearing Green Pants or is a charter, the too big to fail crap is right out of the DNR/charters play book.

87. “Waste of” who are you to talk about hiding behind a computer? Possibly another handle for Tom M.? (your name-calling writing styles are similar). Even though I don’t owe you anything, I’m a sport angler only, not employed by any state or federal agency and not a charter captain.

    Second, did you read your own “article” posted? Key line: “This effort was successful, reducing alewife numbers and creating a recreational fishery that is estimated at $7 billion annually.”

    You can bet your bottom dollar they’ll continue to manage for that proven economic benefit. Huron is managing for natives now and despite good fishing for many species, has seen a dramatic drop in interested anglers.

    “Fishery managers face an interesting dilemma: whether to manage in the short term for a popular and economically important sport fishery or to embrace ecosystem change and manage primarily for native fish species that appear to be better suited to ongoing ecosystem changes.”

    The popular and economically important sport fishery wins, hands down. Anything else would be an incredibly risky and foolish gamble. The feds are pushing lakers, yet few Great Lakes sport anglers share that interest. Why do we continue to see annual stockings of multi-millions of long-lived, little-targeted, baitfish-eating lake trout?

    Exotics have changed the ecosystem forever, no doubt. But let’s not throw in the towel just yet. Salmon rule, and the spring fishing in the southern basin (cohos and a few steelhead and kings) has been fantastic with even better size than last year.

88. Tom, interesting how you failed to mention that the question on that survey read as follows, “In the past 12 months, where did you fish the most? (select one).”

    In other words, pretty reasonable that 44 percent picked inland lakes and another 31 percent rivers (they could only select ONE and select the place they fished the MOST). Lake Michigan at 12-14 percent, not bad, all things considered, especially figuring that “rivers” (31 percent) could easily be Great Lakes tributaries!

    Heck, even a salmon nut like me might fish inland and rivers “the most” over the course of a season.

    I also find it extremely interesting that you left out the results of the next question, “What prevents you from fishing at all or fishing more often? (select all that apply).”

    Lack of free time was No. 1, with nearly 70 percent of those responding selecting it. “Fish abundance” was the fourth most popular answer, chosen by roughly 25 percent of the anglers. That doesn’t mesh with your “nothing to catch” mantra, does it?

89. Tom and others, I am curious, if one were to try to get something on a political ballot in this regard what might it take? In other words, if we were to start getting signatures from the public in opposition to this management, who by the way pay the taxes that pay for all this, if we got enough, would this be a means to action?

    Scoop – you are just silly. Read this article man – will disprove all of what you say. And it was written by well-known respected scientists, one of whom works at The Great Lakes Fishery Commission. So read it scoop, then divulge who you really are and quit hiding behind your computer screen if you really believe in this, or, are you just another tool/mouthpiece for an agency that is too scared to reveal yourself?

    Where do you work, who do you work for, who are you? My bet is you are with one of the agencies, and have been there a long time and that you have a position, or rather self-interest over principle to protect, otherwise go ahead and reveal something about yourself. As you have said before, your breed of armchair science isn’t worth a damn compared to peer reviewed publications below that dispute everything you say.

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03632415.2012.731875#.UY6dNaLqkuc

    The article is entitled: Management of Alewife Using Pacific Salmon in the Great Lakes: Whether to Manage for Economics or the Ecosystem?

    Here’s the abstract:
    The combined destructive effects of overfishing, habitat destruction, and invasive species, especially alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) led to the loss of the native top predator lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) from most of the Great Lakes by 1960. Alewife populations then exploded, creating nuisance die-offs. Public demands for action, coupled with control of sea lamprey, allowed fishery managers to consider stocking Pacific salmon to control alewife and establish a recreational fishery. This effort was successful, reducing alewife numbers and creating a recreational fishery that is estimated at $7 billion annually. This fishery management regime may no longer be viable as new invasive species continue to alter the ecosystem. Fishery managers face an interesting dilemma: whether to manage in the short term for a popular and economically important sport fishery or to embrace ecosystem change and manage primarily for native fish species that appear to be better suited to ongoing ecosystem changes. Such dilemmas occur in great lakes around the world as fishery managers seek to balance economic pressure with changes in their respective ecosystems, often brought about by invasive species.

90. Harold I hear ya buddy. The only science being applied is the 123 pounds of alewives minimum per chinook, they can’t ignore that because it’s natures law (if we keep the chinook 123 pounds per has to happen) This one thing is controlling every action in Lake Michigan. Alewives can’t survive in a healthy native fish population, so they have to maintain the conditions that allowed them to thrive in the first place, lack of predators. The power is delegated to the DNR fishery Div. thier plan, thier call, they’re responsible. When The Asian Carp start smacking the public around, these politicals will be pointing all thier fingers at the DNR, they ain’t gonna take the blame for this. They just gave them exclusive power, they’re sitting ducks and don’t even know it. The bureaucrats know what’s coming, they know the system. They just painted a bullseye on the fishery division, it is thier plan after all.

91. Lets see Scoop old boy. According to the MDNR survey of 10,280 anglers, 7% to 9% fish Lake Huron. An older study said 65% fished Saginaw bay,probably much higher now with the walleye restored, and another study said Saginaw bay most important ice fishery in the state, Walleyes not Salmon. Salmon anglers/ stakeholders are the minority, always will be, simply by the high costs for one. But I don’t care if every man women and child in Michigan like salmon, I don’t care if salmon crap silver dollars when they get in the boat. We are ALL supposed to be doing what’s best for the ecosystem, that goes double for the DNR. What does the ecosystem need to be healthy? Well it doesn’t need alewives, only chinook need alewives no other fish. The entire ecosystem and us would benefit from the loss of the alewives, proven in Huron and anywhere else that doesn’t have alewives. Alewives eat roughly the same as Asian Carp zooplankton, larval fish etc… somehow that’s OK if alewives do it. We need predators for invasive species and the Asian Carp, we have several all native. However if you try to restore native fish stocks the salmon guys and the DNR throw a hissyfit! They’ll eat my alewives WAAAAAA! You want to risk all our lakes and rivers for one fish? Spend most of our public funds for restoration planting non-native fish, that just increases the problem? You can’t control nature with a vote, might as well vote no more tornados, see what that gets you.

92. Tom M: It is science based–“political” science. It’s all politics.

    The DNR and the Natural Resources Commission are now merely political pawns…in a game we all lose.

93. Lake Huron has some decent fishing for native species since chinooks crashed (and even ok chinook and Atlantic fishing in some ports at certain times of year), yet tourism is down roughly 90 percent since chinooks crashed. That should tell you, Tom M, what many Great Lakes anglers want to fish for. There is a reason salmon drive a multi-billion-dollar sport fishery. Their fight and flesh are both awesome. People come from across the country (and even from other countries!) to get in on the action. They can catch walleyes, pike, perch and other panfish and native species in most inland lakes, and many Great Lakes bays and harbors.

    Lake trout? I love big old lakers for their looks and young ones for their flesh on the grill, but they don’t put up much fight and while a “keystone species,” you don’t find throngs of anglers buying bait and tackle and booking charters to catch lakers.

    The reason Michigan DNR and other Great Lakes states spend so much on salmon, steelhead and brown trout is because those species fuel the sport fishing economic engine.

94. Now that Gov. Snyder has signed the bill, all actions have to be “science based.” How is stocking non-native fish science based? What is the benefit to the ecosystem by stocking trout and salmon? Is science based a mandate or an opinion? For the record of the $9 million dollars spent on stocking, $8,210,501 million dollars were for salmon asnd trout. $868,294 other, I asked. A little lopsided dont you think?

95. If this is the Wisconsin DNR here in this article, you should be just as ashamed if not more. Let’s be clear, this stocking policy means that lake trout, a keystone native Great Lakes species, likely will not be able to naturally recruit into populations because the alewife eat lake trout larvae. Shame on you DNR, shame on you and your “just here for a paycheck” type complacency.

96. Just ridiculous. Reduce the stocking of salmon to save the alweife, one of the most harmful invasive species the Great Lakes has ever known. You should be ashamed of yourselves for choosing short-term, special interest out-dated group-thinking economics over long term ecological stability, and therefore long term economically sustainable fisheries. Shame on you Michigan DNR.

97. In 1991 I helped the WDNR take GL Spotted Muskellunge eggs to get the Green Bay AOC reintroduced with their native GLS musky program. It is a long story after that, but the Green Bay fishery is fantastic today with over 50″ trophy muskellunge common. In the 20+ years since we have been working with local ML & WL AOCs, MDNR/WDNR partnership, and sport fishing clubs to eventually reintroduce the GLS muskellunge to Muskegon Lake and White Lake AOC. The huge available forage base will produce the trophy musky sport fishery tourism as the compliment to all the lake front GLRI restoration work still in progress.
    The #1 priority challenge to today for the AOC Muskegon Lake local tourism is the politics of the ‘AOC Branding’ by the big corporations trying to steal Fisherman’s Landing that is protected by the LWCF (26-00795) public trust. Friends of Muskegon Lake AOC are being politically gagged from speaking openly to defend Fisherman’s Landingin order to protect their jobs and grant money flowing. Therefore the Muskegon Lake AOC supporters of Fisherman’s Landing are looking for all statewide support possible to help save Fisherman’s Landing from being moved by the Muskegon area corporate political corruption. Thank you.
    Tom Hamilton, FL BOD

98. About when will the stocking end and when will it start I may plan a trip to go fishing up there this summer. Also when are u guys going to get rid of the Asian Carp start putting fish in to kill them off the population of them are growing rapidly and out of control.

99. I have to wonder: has the DNR ever stopped to think whether it might be better simply to sustain a healthy ecosystem so that fish stocking was not even necessary? The best places I have fished have been where the fish were naturally reproducing native species. You can’t beat the taste of a freshly caught pike or walleye cooked over a campfire!

100. How is stocking non-native salmon and trout restoring native species? Which salmon or trout species will be a good predator of Asian carp? Isn’t it true that salmon and trout have to be protected from high levels of native predators?