TOPIC:

Great Lakes Salmon Initiative

Well here is another interesting link, talking about walleye vs perch in Saginaw Bay and Cisco restoration. Journalistic presentation by MSU www.greatlakesecho.org Keep in mind that this is funded by Great Lakes Fishery Trust, EPA through GLRI funding which also gives grants to USFWS for native species restoration. States DNR's struggle to get any financing through GLRI funds if project is not only for native restoration. These are usually one sided one direction studies and journalistic reviews.

greatlakesecho.org/…/saginaw-bay-perch-populations-up-again…

With the Ludington Workshop coming up soon and an hour is dedicated to presenting Cisco restoration in Lake Michigan, here is an article with Cisco mixed in. Walleye are contributing to the lack of Perch return in the bay because they feed almost exclusively on perch in the fall and prevents them from attaining adult hood. Well I was surprised to learn this since nearly 100% of the stomach contents that I have seen, contain shad, shiners and gobies. I have caught walleye in the bay with perch in them, mainly in June to early July. What about the number of Lakers that enter the system--are they eating perch. What about the commercial fishery practice of harvesting fish in the spring during spawning runs--could this contribute to less perch?

Read carefully about cisco in this article. Remember that cisco a relative of whitefish, bloaters is a shallow water pelagic relative, mainly a planktivore but does eat alewives, smelt, and gobies. Why else would people troll on Grand Traverse Bay with walleye spoons to target them? It says--some evidence they laid eggs in the Bay, (some?), could act as a buffer for perch, (could?)--Cautiously optimistic initiative to rear and stock in outer bay,(don't have a clue? will this work? will it be food for walleye? will this suppress alewives, smelt and gobies?) how do walleye eat 12 to 26in cisco? Its an experiment, but cisco have been successfully introduced to other areas.

The USFWS wants to plant 1-10 million cisco in Lake Michigan and will present at the Ludington Workshop the pros of this program. Saginaw Bay is an experiment? Are we going to let the USFWS experiment (screw) with Lake Michigan, put more mouths and predators into the lake to consume alewives, smelt and gobies. The States DNRs are showing a commitment to solidify a salmonid fishery and a balanced predator prey population. With constantly changing dynamics and new invasives entering this system in 10yrs this may not be possible but the future sure looks bright at this time. The GLSI and WLBA are representing stakeholders and DNRs are listening on Lake Michigan and responding responsibly. The tribes would prefer Whitefish, state DNRs would prefer Whitefish. Why won't the USFWS listen to stakeholders? What is the real agenda--follow the money!

I hope that people attend this very important Workshop, there is more on the agenda like Coho, Mussels and hopefully Jay presents Michigan 2018 stocking plan. The GLSI would like to hold a membership meeting open to the public the night before in Ludington and will try to get discounted motel room rates. We would like to get an idea of interest in this to give the facility an idea of numbers.

Walleye have been eating cisco in Minnesota for years. It's one of their top baitfish. Not sure why the freak out about them wanting to put them in lake michigan? Maybe i don't know something.

Looks like it was covered in the original post. Cisco compete at the bottom of the foodchain with everything else for plankton, and then after a year when they are 9-12 inches, they turn around and eat everything smaller than it. They would wipe out the remaining alewife and and remnant smelt pops.

Not looking to start a debate or a conversation but i would recommend everyone to sit down and read the Lake Michigan lake trout rehabilitation plan. It clearly states Cisco’s purpose in Lake Michigan and why they want to plant them in certain areas of the lake. From there you can form your own opinion. It’s a long read but it’s worth it and will clear a lot of questions up. I do believe it was written before we started having big bait issues throughout the lake.

Scott wrote:

Walleye have been eating cisco in Minnesota for years. It's one of their top baitfish. Not sure why the freak out about them wanting to put them in lake michigan? Maybe i don't know something.

For what I understand there are 2 strains of Cisco’s. One that’s more of a prey fish and ones that a predator.

Angry wrote:

Not looking to start a debate or a conversation but i would recommend everyone to sit down and read the Lake Michigan lake trout rehabilitation plan. It clearly states Cisco’s purpose in Lake Michigan and why they want to plant them in certain areas of the lake. From there you can form your own opinion. It’s a long read but it’s worth it and will clear a lot of questions up. I do believe it was written before we started having big bait issues throughout the lake.

www.glfc.org/pubs/misc/2008-01.pdf

Attached is the only document that a Lake Michigan fisherman really needs to absorb with regards to Cisco introduction and the profound negative impacts it would have on our existing predator prey modeling efforts for chinook/coho/steehead and alewife/smelt/goby. Cisco are an extremely aggressive and adaptive predator, outcompeting juvenile alewife for zooplankton at age 0, and then quickly growing to lengths of 12 inches or more and heavily preying upon alewife (and goby and smelt).

This Cisco restoration initiative for open waters of Lake Michigan is opposed strongly by MIchigan and Wisconsin DNR's, and is solely being put forward by the USFWS to put the final nail in the alewife coffin on Lake Michigan, despite a significant and measurable rebound in Alewife populations in the lake over the past two years. This Cisco restoration initiative runs completely counter to our states actions over the past decade to reduce predator stocks (Chinook) to balance prey with preyfish,and to allow Alewife to rebound. Indiana and Illinois are suspected to support the Cisco restoration program, and in doing so, are themselves promoting the suppression if not complete eradication of alewife from Lake Michigan. Who would do that despite strong opposition from their angler constituencies? Who would do that despite the clear and obvious preference by angler constituencies in Illinois and Indiana waters for "silver" pelagic species of Chinook, Coho and Steelhead?

12" + meat-eating Cisco (Lake Herring) are not food for anything other than a 20 year old lake trout. They are rarely if ever consumed and by only the largest of Chinook specimens in the final months of their lives. Cisco serve no preyfish purpose to Coho, Steelhead and the majority of Chinook age classes found in Lake Michigan.

Cisco restoration, as noted in the posts above, are to serve a dual purpose for Federal Fish and Wildlife managers. The first is to suppress and/or completely eradicate all non-native prey species (alewife, smelt, goby) and then to exist as the only food source for......Lake Trout.

The Lake Michigan Lake Trout restoration program is in its final days. There is no longer any stocking of Lake Trout in the entirety of the southern basin of Lake Michigan due to nearly complete and total rehabilitation (i.e. natural reproduction) of Lake Trout. Despite Federal interference in States fisheries management issues, and the primary lake forage still being Alewife, Lake Trout have been successfully rehabilitated in the majority of the Lake (outside of mandated Tribal Treaty Waters). This incessant push by the Feds to serve only Lake Trout, and actually go to the point of raising "baitfish" i.e. Cisco, for Lake Trout...again, flies in the face of States fisheries management directives clearly communicated by the angler community. Enough with Lake Trout, sportsmen have spoken. There are enough Lake Trout in the southern and mid- basin of Lake Michigan to support recreational/charter fishing activities for many many many decades into the future. We have no commercial fishing for Lake Trout in our waters, and can easily regulate harvest to ensure Lake Trout populations are healthy enough to support recreational fishing activities.

Restoring Cisco (Lake Herring) as a food source for Lake Trout, and at the same time to suppress and eradicate Alewife are nothing more than the ultimate goal of Federal Fisheries managers to eliminate Chinook from our sportfishery. Whats next, Coho and Steelhead? Without Alewife, Coho and Steelhead are both also doomed, despite being opportunistic feeders.... Nothing compares to an Alewife for Coho and Steelhead when considering protein rich food sources, and Cisco are certainly not a suitable or even realistic preyfish substitute for Coho and Steelhead.

Thanks for the good read Bloodrun. After reading about the cisco I thought about our coho, how they leave shore in the spring to eat mysis shrimp before coming back to shore later in the season. With out mysis as a part of the food chain, I do believe the coho would then have the last nail in the coffin.

Cisco would outcompete coho for mysis. That would definitely end our coho fishery that is so dependent on mysis in the early season. We don’t need any more competitors at the bottom of the food chain and certainly not ones that also move up the food chain at the same time and then eat other preyfish. It is a disastrous plan on so many levels. We all forget there is no food for even alewife because of the mussels remember? Now suddenly there IS enough plankton to support 10 million stocked Cisco per year? Laughable.

Thanks i obviously didn't know something.