TOPIC:

Raven, I agree with what you're saying. I think a 500,000 cut in lakers is a joke. I'd like to see them cut 90% or to zero. But it seems the Feds are going to do whatever they want regardless. Frustrating to say the least.

Raven,

I'm glad you continue to hammer this laker topic home: that's something I've been wondering about for years now. Exactly how many Lake trout are in the lake, and how do they get a gauge on that when you are talking about a fish that lives forever? If they can do trawl nets/survey of alewife biomass, where is the data for lake trout volume? And if they have it, when is enough, enough? Yes, we know the DNR has heard our complaints and we know they know that we don't want anymore stockings, but again what's the data suggest? Who's not to say the lake isn't already over-run with lakers to begin with and that's the next crisis? And I'm not a conspiracy theory nut either: all I'm saying is, with the amount of Fed stockings that they continue to pump in, who is analyzing the laker balance between the natural reproduction (combined with stockings) to see how much damage they are causing to the equation?

WHALERMAN,

ask the DNR, seems like they have information on all the other things but yes how many lakers that live 20-30 and 40 years.
The new state record laker was stocked in the 70's.

Also ask them if this is true. The total amount of lakers + the total amount of steelheads are eating more alewife then the total amount of kings in the lake. But the kings are gone?????????????? There is another agenda out there and it doesn't appear to be trying to save alewife.

I would surely expect that to be the case. There are ALOT more Steelhead + Lake Trout in the Lake when compared to Kings.

We all saw the state of the fish last year. The lake was on the edge. The states are doing what they can to prevent disaster and try to appease anglers at the same time. They have no control over the USFWS.

The question is what can we do to gain a voice with the USFWS, how do we do it, and who is going to spear head it?

Or we just take matters into our own hands and have Lake Trout tournaments every day

BUT ISN'T THE KINGS BEING CUT TO ZERO TO TRY TO HELP THE ALEWIFE NUMBERS?

Didn't the coho only eat like 10-15 percent alewife? Why are we not hearing more about coho stocking? Why is it always a trout species that is replacing salmon?

Whalerman, it's not a conspiracy theorie, I just finally did some Internet looking and found some ugly truth. Search 2008-01.pdf which should have something to great lakes lake trout rehabilitation program. It's there in black and white the step by step of bringing back lake trout as the dominant predator.

The great lakes committed was formed in 65 to re-establish lake trout throughout the great lakes.

Alewives were a big problem and dominant food source that caused lakers to be sterile. So plant kings and cohos to destoy the alewives population not for the fisherman but to destroy alewives.

Makes me think was Huron and Superior crash by accident like they claim. Sounds like it to me slow and steady and if the anglers cried throw them a line of b.s that made some sense. Was it planned? After reading some of this makes me wonder?

The fishery we enjoy was a accident with the soul purpose of killing alewives to bring the lake trout back to spawning naturally.

This is just my interpretation and 2 cents. Mike

We will all just have to do our part, bring lots of friends/family/children -anyone that can add 2 more Lakers to the daily limit, and limit out on Lake Trout as often as possible during spawning season.

Maybe we can start a fertilizer company with all the Laker corpses? I'm not eating em.

A buddy and I took our limit of lake trout on Sunday. All 4 fish have been turned into dog food. I was a little nervous that even the dog wouldn't eat it or throw it up later. So far so good, and she loves it.

FowlHook wrote:

A buddy and I took our limit of lake trout on Sunday. All 4 fish have been turned into dog food. I was a little nervous that even the dog wouldn't eat it or throw it up later. So far so good, and she loves it.

That's funny!! Thank you.

Which is one of the questions I have always had. If one of the reasons that Lake Trout are being stocked is to adhere to a treaty with Native Americans for netting purposes, are they really eating them? Assuming Native Americans understand the health hazards are they not treating Lake Trout the same as other fisherman? Hasn't the DNR has basically said "just don't eat Lake Trout" given the size they make the cut off at? If people, Native American or otherwise, are netting these fish isn't the intent to eat a lot of them? Or are they all being resold as "dog food?" I wonder how hard the Native American community is pushing the issue of Lake Trout stocking and if the Federal Government has attempted to work with them given the changing conditions of the Lake since the treaty was drafted. Absolutely nothing against Native Americans, just trying to understand the logic.