TOPIC:

Last week Wed. 10/11/17 Lake Huron Citizens Fishery Advisory Council met at Jay's Sporting Goods in Clare and on Tues. of this week the Lake Michigan Committee meets. Many issues are at stake, especially the future plants of predators ie: numbers of each species, locations, equivalencies. As President of the GLSI, I attended the Lake Huron meeting and to say that I was sorely disappointed is an understatement. In the last several posts we have brought to attention Lake Hurons Chinook planting program and specific lack of direction compared to Lake Michigan. The planting of Chinook at Nunns Creek for tribal gill netting use for sustenance and sales. Randy Claramunt is the LH MDNR Basin Coordinator and stated that nothing can be done about these numbers until the 2020 Consent Decree and felt that something can be accomplished concerning this. Frank Krist the committee chair expressed that nothing will be done or changed in the decree negotiations because of lack of whitefish in tribal netting efforts and they need the Chinook for monetary netting to make up for the lack of whitefish.
The GLSI has been arguing for the better management for our Great Lakes fisheries---yes; we have brought to attention the nearly 3/4's of a million chinook planted in Lake Huron vs. the 330,000 planted in Lake Michigan in Michigan waters and the 350,000 planted at Swan River the secondary egg collection site. Frank krist brought up that Lake Michigan in whole plants 1.3million chinook but what he fails to acknowledge is we are arguing for a return fishery to ports for angler access for both lakes. At the meeting a project was presented where the attendees voted on 5 choices, if salmon were cut to 0 up to and including if salmon could be planted up to 5 million and where these fish would be planted. In all votes the group voted the highest percentage to maintain the plants at Swan, Nunn and Cheboygan. What about planting fish in traditional ports like Harrisville, Oscoda, Harbor beach, Lexington?? What about angler access, economic impact, improving the fishery?? How many anglers drive and haul boats from southern Michigan where the largest populace lives to the Straits or Rogers City? The GLSI has been working with the LM Basin team to improve the fishery on L. Michigan but the L. Huron Committee doesn't appear to recognize this need on L. Huron. L. Michigan has had to reduce predator numbers due in part to L. Huron natal Chinook reproduction in Georgian Bay waters of Lake Huron. This has supposedly collapsed but is still taken into account for L. Michigan predator/prey ratio but not in Lake Huron. What is the lake Huron carrying capacity, prey assessment, modeling, plan? Randy Claramunt the LH Basin coordinator took over this position in January 2017 after spending his career on Lake Michigan and was instrumental in the modeling there. He has an awful lot of work to do.
I found it very interesting that Frank Krist commented that Lake Trout numbers are collapsing in Lake Huron. Is this true? Especially after last year it was presented that Lake trout in Lake Huron have EXCEEDED rehabilitation goals and are naturally reproducing and the effect is planting of Lake trout in Lake Huron is not needed any longer. What is the Agenda. What do the anglers want for Lake Huron and Michigan? Do we want Lake Trout at the cost of Chinook. Are Lake Trout in part in cause the collapse of the Whitefish, part of the alewife suppression plan. Supposedly there is a smelt population increase in LH and the result was mentioned that not as many salmon moved to Lake Michigan this year. If this is true and continues Lake Michigan can definitely increase salmon production. As anglers, businesses, stakeholders in this multi billion dollar a year fishery we need to demand answers, studies and documentation to prove what is fact. A chairman of a committee can't make a comment like that without throwing up data to support the comment--this is misdirection. The commercial fisherman that attended the meeting reacted very strongly to this comment and Lake trout are everywhere in Lake Huron and they can't get away from them. Is this a case that agencies didn't try hard to catch and do an accurate assessment of the Lake trout Population in order to press their agenda? This is extremely important for many reasons, to find out what is accurate and are we being force fed an agenda?

Thanks for the Update Ed.

I hate starting on the politics of everything as it just gets me more Irritated but I throw the BS Flag on this one. Monetary losses, huh I sure do see a lot of Casino's being built, but I guess all those are being funded solely by fisheries money. I guess in the 1800's when these treaties were made the fishery included Salmon even though they were not planted until the 1960's. Lake Trout would certainly have been on that list in the 1800's. One of the reasons for the Fedral Goverment had to continue stocking them for all these years with no reduction, to meet the terms of the treaty, I would guess. Reduced whitefish numbers could never be due to overfishing commercially either as time and time again it has been proven that the only group that over harvests fish are the non-commercial fisherman or loss of habitat forcing reduced numbers. I am not a politician so I know I do not know anything but, I am pretty sure in the years of research and developement that gill nets are pretty non-descrimative and trap everything that is too big to swim through the holes in the net. This is nothing but garbage being shoved down our throats and called prime rib. I know your group is trying to help and we appriciate it Ed, but without some growing of sack by the politicians to stand up for America we are doomed on so many more fronts than our fishing.

Living in so many areas across this country while in the military I have seen this time and time again and always centered around the same thing MONEY. Most everything goes back to 1800's treaties and we can do anything we want on Tribal lands or anywhere else we can argue 1800's treaties. Don't get me wrong if a group wants to invoke an 1800's treaty and obtain their quota of fish and game the way their ancestors did when the treaty was initiated and signed I have no issue with that. There is a tribe in Washington State that hunts whale every year following tribal practices to preserve their heritage. They build the boat, row it to the hunting grounds, then take a whale with hand thrown spear as they did in the 1800's. There is a modern boat there for support and safety but not involved other than video taping or if called upon in an emergency. I have no issue with this, but when a group walks through the valley of the forest with the women and children banging pots and pans so the elk will run up into the clear cuts so the men can pick them off with 300 win mags. Then parade through town with truck load after truck load of dead elk because every member of the tribe is entitled to 5 elk per year I do have an issue as our dollars are paying for the habitat restoration and regulation that is not happening. Video was taken to the local DNR station of this type hunting and quickly dismissed as not wanting to create an incident. Or back in the 80's and the netting of fish in northern Lake Michigan where numerous boats ran across nets not properly marked in areas that was not supposed do be netting. Boats getting riggers ripped right off the back of the boat due to tangling into the dead weight of all the captured fish. DNR did pull one net with the help of 3 bulldozers and found thousands of pounds of fish of all species just wasting away, needless waste I have a problem with. As technology is improved, bigger better methods are developed, forage base and habitats change these need to be taken into consideration. The unlimited needs to be taken out and assessed for furture sustainable levels for all based on methods used not outdated treaties.

Ok before anyone gets offended or thinks I am singling out one particular group this is not my intent just pointing out a few instances and not the only stories I could tell. I do know that other groups are not always on the up and up, as we hear about the deer poaching from Porter country a few years back. Several groups in Michigan over the years have been caught like the guys banging out the Ducks last year at more than double their limit. We all hear about these as the DNR doing their jobs and controlling the local and state resources so why do they not have the authority to control their resources for the whole state covering all groups with rights to hunt or fish? Why is it that everyone does not have to follow the same rules, hunt and fish with the same restrictions? Or have the same seasons that the State DNR controls to manage the Natural Resources? That is in the agencies name after all. The Double Standard is ridiculous and needs to be eliminated otherwise it will never get better. Every instance seems to come down to MONEY or GREED.

Excerpts from the ramblings of an old man
Just My Observations and Opinion.