TOPIC:

bloodruntackle.com/pro-tips/how-about-th...igan-salmon-fishing/

The author of this article is simply listed as Captain. I don't know who he is but he's a good writer. His story is entertaining, informative and mostly upbeat. There are certainly some good points in the essay that I whole-heartedly agree. Some I'm skeptical about. Others that are ideas thought from angles I've not considered.

Thanks for that Mike. It was a good read!

As the article states, if the dnr has been working the last 15 year of getting rid of king and elwives, why are they charging us for the salmon and trout stamp to fish lake michigan? Get rid of that department and close the fisherys and let nature take its course. See if the lakers can sustain themselfs without the 3 million plus stocked a year. Mike

Mike: The point you mentioned is one of the things I didn't agree with in the article. I don't think the DNR (here, Michigan, any of them) have an agenda to rid the lake of chinooks or other salmon/trout. 1) They have a big investment in it. 2) Especially when the fishing is good, they make a profit from having them in the lake.

DNRs aren't funded by general tax dollars. Their money comes from selling licenses and their share of the federal tax on fishing tackle - their share determined in part by how many licenses they sell.

No fish, no fishermen, no licenses, no fancy boats, no salaries, no office computers, no retirement pensions, etc.

The feds? I'm not so sure and the lake trout are (for some reason) the responsibility of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They don't operate on license fees. I'm sue there are some, probably not all, of the feds that could give a whit if there are salmon or steelhead in the lake.

Stop stocking any trout and salmon and my guess is in a few years all the steel and coho would be eliminated. A few browns would persist for another few years but be as rare as sturgeon. Chinooks would hold on for a while, but not in catchable numbers and would eventually go away for good. Though there is a miniscule amount of natural reproduction of lakers, there's not enough to sustain the population and they, too would be gone in 10 to 15 years, eventually dying of old age since there wouldn't be enough to target with sportfishing gear.

Side affects. Once the above starts becoming apparent, no need for lamprey control. To protect what?

The alewife population would begin to expand. It would not get as large as in the 1960s, but it would likely get to the point they would suppress the perch population.

Who or what would win? Cormorants.....

After attending that meeting in the fall in Michigan City with Ed, they make it sound like that's there agenda. If they were concern with the elwives population why are the states stocking lakers at all? With the feds pumping millions in the lake do to treaty rights, whats the point for the states to put anymore lakers or match what the feds put in unless they don't want no salmon species at all in there. There for, why charge us the extra money for the stamp thats intended to pay for the fishery to raise and stock them? They want the lake to be natural like it was back centuries ago fine, but don't take our money for something that your fazing out. The author of the article thinks people have the time or money to fish different ports at different times of year when many of the ports mentioned had good fishing throughout the year just like we had. Hopefully the winter will remain mild which will help the survival of perch and bait species unlike the last 2 years and the mussels all catch some virus that kills them all. Mike

First, as mentioned in my previous post, a federal fish biologist and a state fish biologist are two different creatures. Poor analogy, but it's like comparing a liberal politician and a conservative politician. They are both politicians, but their goals, agendas and philosophy are radically different.

The states don't stock lake trout. Only the feds. The feds operate almost independently from the states. They do participate with the GLFC - Lake Michigan Committee, the vehicle through which management decisions such as cutting chinook stocking by all states, but it seems they are like the dad at a family meeting. They don't always go along with the group, at least partly because the goals of the states are different from the goals of the feds.

Apparently, the feds are listening (a little). I just learned yesterday the feds are going to suspend stocking of "fall fingerling" lake trout for the time being. Fall fingerlings are "surplus" fish that, if left in the hatchery would cause over-crowding and could compromise the whole tank of fish. They will either divert them to somewhere else, or feed 'em to their cats. The best thing is that's a compromise they wouldn't have made a year or two ago.. The next best thing is it will mean a few less trout in the lake. The least important thing is in general, the survival rate for smaller fish is less than larger. I don't know the exact numbers but it's something like of 100K fall fingerlings, maybe 10K will survive to maturity. Of 100K fish stocked six months later in the spring, maybe 20K will survive to maturity.