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.
There is no comparision between that which is lost by not succeeding, and that which is lost by not trying!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s why I don’t argue with Tom and am not kidding. I hope that answers your question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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 $100,000 payout event said they’ve never seen a better smallmouth fishery. Additionally, salmon have also become self-sustaining in many areas with incredible natural reproduction in many Lake Huron and Michigan-side Lake Michigan rivers, enough so that stocking has been slashed three times in the past decade, including 50 percent lakewide in Lake Michigan this year.
“Is the salmon fishery, one of the best in the nation, even one of the ten best? Don’t think so.”
You’re dead wrong. It may be THE best in the lower 48! The catch rates in Lake Michigan far exceed those in Oregon and Washington, where our fish originally came from.
“I have talked to many salmon guys, most did not know we have to sacrifice the Perch and Walleyes to be able to fish salmon. Most charters and the DNR do know.”
You’re wrong Tom. Green Bay has an incredible (world-class) walleye fishery and very good perch fishery even with all the chinooks, steelhead, brown trout and splake. Additionally, perch fishing was even better in the 80s when salmon stockings were at their peak in Lake Michigan/Green Bay. What has changed since? Zebra mussels in the early 90s followed by quaggas – today’s dominant invasive. Water clarity and filtering of the bottom of the food chain are the main reasons perch will never rebound to historic levels in Lake Michigan.
waste_of_our_$_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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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?