Fish stocking at Red Cedar River. Photo: Department of Natural Resources
By Edith Zhou
This year’s fishing season is starting on the wheels of stocking trucks, new regulations and programs to attract more participants.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) said its $9 million program is stocking 19 million fish — 370 tons — including eight trout and salmon species and four cool-water species, including walleye and muskellunge.
This year, DNR’s fish-stocking vehicles will travel nearly 138,000 miles to more than 700 spots around the state.
Christian LeSage, a biologist at DNR’s Fisheries Division, said that overall, locations and species don’t change much from year to year. However, some locations are not always stocked, and new places are added.
“Basically, stocking sites are changed if the site is difficult for our trucks or there is no longer public access, and environmental conditions have changed at the location — for example, the water temperature is determined to be too warm for trout,” he said.
LeSage said one of the biggest changes this year is that DNR is releasing fewer chinook salmon in Lake Michigan because the lake’s ecosystem is changing rapidly.
The state used to stock 3.3 million chinook annually in Lake Michigan but has cut the number by two-thirds since 2006. Under its plan, for example, the Manistee River is getting 68 percent fewer chinook than in 2006 and the Grand River is getting none.
The plan is to continue at the reduced levels through 2015.
LeSage said another big change is the increasing number of Atlantic salmon stocked in Lake Huron. About 100,000 will be released into the lake and two of its tributary streams this spring.
That will provide “more angler opportunities in Lake Huron since the chinook salmon fishery declined,” he said.
LeSage said stocking is used to restore, enhance and create fishing opportunities.
“This is important for many cities and towns as anglers often come from other locations to fish a specific lake, stream or river, and it can boost some local economies.”
LeSage said one of the more significant regulation changes is the reduced number of muskellunge a person can keep.
“Muskellunge possession used to be one per day per angler, but starting from this season, only one may be harvested per angler per year, and a new tag now is required,” he said.
A muskellunge must be at least 40 to 50 inches long, depending on where it’s caught.
Amy Trotter, the resource policy manager at Michigan United Conservation Clubs, said many muskies anglers usually catch and release, so the revised regulation won’t influence recreational opportunities a lot.
“DNR is working very hard to increase and sustain fish populations. The influences won’t be seen for a few years,” Trotter said.
Other changes as of April 1 affect northern pike fishing, bow and spear fishing and possession limit regulations.
LeSage said to get more people to enjoy fishing, a new program called the Family Friendly Fishing Waters will provide a website with information about bodies of water that are easy to access.
The department asking anglers to submit information to the website.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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!
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.
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!
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….
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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
“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!
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.