TOPIC:

I know it doesn't matter now...but why were there not some alternatives to the Chinook stocking? Obviously what may have worked in the past wasn't working presently. Wish there coukdve been some alternatives explored.
Kudos to dumping in more skamania.

I know it doesn't matter now...but why were there not some alternatives to the Chinook stocking? Obviously what may have worked in the past wasn't working presently. Wish there could've been some alternatives explored.
Kudos to dumping in more skamania, and hopefully more coho.
What kinds of returns do you estimate we get on coho??

Thank you for that detailed explanation. While it is disappointing on the lower, and soon to be suspended, chinook stocking, I'm not at all unhappy about seeing more steelies going into the lake. As a guy with a small boat, more potential closer-to-shore opportunities will definitely be appreciated.

Whalerman; what you're saying about the non-responsive, non-represented waterfowl situation reads exactly like the lake trout situation with and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service!

That's an excellent example for comparison sake: you are right! The lake trout issue on a federal level definitely draws a correlation to what we are experiencing on a state level when it comes to waterfowl seasons!! Total lack of communication and no reasoning behind the decisions being made: sounds like a perfect match to me!

All the states dnr has all these stats on kings and have or not release any info on the lakers and all the alewives they consume. We still have not got any numbers on how many lakers that are in the lake, it's all about salmon? I still feel that they are way off on natural reproduction as they state. They had to go to Wisconsin to fill salmon fry since Michigan did not have enough of a return to fill there needs. So if michigan had a couple of thousand fish that returned in a river that had 10s of thousands 4 to 5 years back, that they thought was naturally reproducing, how many smolts will be released in the lake in the spring? 100? 1000? 10000? Don't forget out of those couple thousand they are taking a couple hundred fish for breeding stock which equal less fish to breed naturally. The goal is to save the alewives population right! I'm for summer steelhead but how about in return cutting lakers by 90 percent. When you add more steelhead plus all the lakers plus they are naturally reproducing, that equal alewives being gobbled up more or worse then all the kings and cohos combined. It's like instead of killing the salmon over a couple or years it's being done slowly? The goal is to save the alewives in return to save the fishery right? But a fishery for who? The fisherman or a select few groups? Mike

THE LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE TROUT TASK GROUP
Brian Breidert, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Michigan City, IN
Charles Bronte (Chairperson), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Franken, WI
Mark Ebener, Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority, Sault Ste. Marie, MI
Randy Eshenroder, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI
Mark Holey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Franken, WI
Jory Jonas, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Charlevoix, MI
Charles Krueger, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI
Steve Lenart, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, Harbor Springs, MI
Charles Madenjian, U.S. Geological Survey, Ann Arbor, MI
Archie Martell, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Manistee, MI
Patrick McKee, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Sturgeon Bay, WI
Erik Olsen, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay, MI
Paul Peeters, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Sturgeon Bay, WI
Steve Robillard, Illinois Department of Conservation, Des Plaines, IL
Michael Toneys, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Sturgeon Bay, WI
Greg Wright, Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority, Sault Ste. Marie, MI

I read somewhere that the tribe that the agreement is with would never agree to cut lake trout stocking since they would be giving up something (fish they net) for nothing. I wonder, has anyone ever proposed to them that half of there 3.3 million fish be lakers and the other half be coho or steelhead as a way to satisfy there agreement? Maybe a dumb question? Seems the states could then cut coho or steelhead if they saw fit to decrease the top down squeeze on the alewives further.

Thanks for the info.

Pikesmith, the goal is to save the alewives we have according to our dnr. I agree but cut everything that eats them not just salmon. So adding more steelhead and not cutting lake trout will be good for the alewives oh 500000 wow thats a lot? The feds are doing what they want and the states are making no efforts to stop them. If the lake crashed which is looking like it is, lake trout will still be around whether they stop all lake trout stocking for the next 5yrs. That new state record was how old? And how many are in the lake right now? And theres signs of them naturally reproducing?Eating what? I'm no biologist but the dots don't connect in my book. The fact is there will be a fishery but one that won't include what we want to fish for. Mike