TOPIC:

www.thenewsdispatch.com/sports/article_b...6a-ae8013124993.html

also see GLFC release at
mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442f5a...isp=inline&safe=1&zw

Pretty good summery of the whole situation Mike.

I'd like to add one more thing about this part

Now, after an end run by Wisconsin anglers and their elected officials to pressure the WDNR to make zero chinook cuts, the LMC has compromised to the 27 percent, with Wisconsin taking no cuts and making up the difference in their hatcheries by chopping brown trout stocking by something called "chinook equivalents."

Wisconsin told LMC that they would be reducing steelhead and coho pretty significantly in addition to that huge cut in brown trout. And then they put out a news release that says they are going to increase steelhead and coho. So there is definitely a lot of political end-running happening right now, and that is NOT a good thing for the cooperative management of the lake. The LMC is still having ongoing discussions about how to address this.

Wisconsin is flying awfully close to the sun right now and severely at risk of jeopardizing the entire cooperative management process by fisheries managers by involving politicians.

Cooperation needs to go both ways Ben. With Julians reefs laketrout having no problems with natural reproduction and supplying lake trout for the whole southern basin there should have been drastic cuts to lake trout, and stocking on Julians reef should stop. And seeing that lakers out number kings by around 2 to ,1 it really isn't fair to look at kings as the big predator of ales when the DNR allows this laketrout thing to get out of control.
After all how did the king cuts get started over years? Because they eat Alewife and are naturally reproducing. Now the lake trout are doing the same thing and were is the drastic need to cut them. Wisconsin did what they needed to.
They tried the other way. Michigan fishermen tried to talk. Yet there voices went unheard. Do you think that Michigan fishermen are really going to go that route again? They might have, if there was cooperation. I look at swan and strawberry and ask myself alot of questions when it comes to Michigan. You and your boss both told me your not for laketrout yet actions are what speaks. I don't want to see a crash but I certainly don't want the crash to be from an over abundace of lake trout eating the ale's. A fish that you are not suppose to consume at 29inches in lenght. At that size a fish that is only spawning its first time, with many spawns to come. Unlike any natrual reproduction that might be going on with kings. The southend doesn't need more lake trout not if your worried about the forage base. They are a predator just like any other predator and when ales are there for them to eat thats what they eat. So the predators are many not just kings and the way another state like Wisconsin handles things is going to be the way to get things done unless the predation of lake trout isn't looked at exactly the same as the kings.
Wisconsin does alot of things for their fishery that helps the fishery and proves that yearly. When was the last time another state stocked fish at night to make sure bird predation was at its lowest amount? They look at the fishery much different then others, and the way Indiana at one time did. I supported Wisconsin and I do support Michigans group Salmon In. now. If it takes getting politicians to go fishing to get them to understand what is taking place then I will gladly take them out, and cut open the bellies of those lakers. I am about saving forage not seeing one predator fish traded for another.

Agreed. The fact that the LMC could only get down to 2.54 million Lakers by 2018 is irresponsible. Whatever amount of Lakers that are required by consent decree should be the only Lakers going in the lake at this point until that can be worked on.
www.freep.com/story/sports/outdoors/2016...ut-fishing/92182902/
Jim Dexter's comments speak of his own personal agenda to me.
Why does one states personal agenda trump the others?
MC_Angler, are those increased coho and steelhead Wisconsin is putting in filling the void of the 400,000 Lakers they are cutting, or were those lakers already agreed upon by the LMC?

Ed, that was precisely my point - we're trying to save forage, not simply swap one species for another while leaving predation pressure the same. LMC heard angler input loud and clear and moved away from only chinook reductions, to trying to achieve the same amount of reduction in predation pressure in different ways, by cutting a mix of species, not just chinook. Again, the goal is to reduce predation pressure to allow the alewives to recover.

Wisconsin was allowed to keep their kings because of the significant reductions to other species they said they would implement. However, they are not abiding by that (according to their news release) and are planning on stocking more fish than they agreed upon, putting more predation pressure on the forage base.

Pikesmith, that is a great point about one state's agenda trumping others. At this point, Wisconsin is the only one that has broken apart from the agreements, and they are the only ones advancing their agenda above the other states. They are planning to put more predation pressure on the forage base than the states collectively agreed upon. The lake trout reduction had been already been agreed upon by LMC, and Wisconsin was the one that came in last-minute and said well we want to keep our chinooks, and we'll also reduce other species significantly to keep the total chinook-equivalent reduction where LMC wants it




FYI, the fall fingerling lake trout plants in Indiana this fall have been eliminated, and there will be no lake trout stocked in Indiana waters at all beginning in 2018. In terms of treaty vs non-treaty waters, I believe that going forward, less than 17% of all the lake trout stocked will be outside of treaty waters

Ben thats a great start on the lake trout. Thanks for sharing that information. Indiana doesn't have to end up split up like the others. But it will take alot of give on both ends. There is much that could be accomplished by us without a fight if we are looking for the same results.
A suggestion would be to have discussion ahead of any further cuts. You don't care for the way Wisconsin is doing things and some of us in Indiana had a problem hearing no more kings for the next 3 years. You feel Wisconsin is strong arming the situation and thats how it sounds the other way when you say no more kings for the next 3 years. Then want a meeting afterwards??? Are we in this together or having to work apart?
You can't make all fishermen happy and I don't expect that from you. We all have our pet fish and all have reasons for it. But, it comes down to dollars spent. And, getting the biggest bang for that buck spent. A lake trout fishery will not sell as much fishing equipment as a king fishery. The average boater is not going to make the expenditures for lakers as he would for kings. Even though we own the smallest area of the lake we still have the same interest as the other states. So for the economy of the area, and the needs and wants of the fishermen, lake trout do not fill that bill. The fishermen feel strongly that we are at a tipping point on lake trout and the cuts you mention are again good news. I believe the limit was also taken to 3 correct? I hope we can agree to disagree and find common ground that we both can share and work on items to bring the forage base back, and continue our world class fishery.

It seems like if they chose to cut browns in place of Kings if they can make the "chinook equivalent" math work there shouldn't be a problem. Predation should be the same.

I'm not convinced anglers' input was heard enough. The lake trout cut was not big enough.
If the forage base is at crisis levels then why does "50+ years of Lake trout rehabilitation" matter. Can't they be reduced and then resumed once the forage base improves the same way they are saying will be done with Kings.
The science supports multi species cuts. It supported multi species cuts back in 2013. why was it being ignored until enough people spoke up? Michigan seems to have it's own agenda also.
I'm glad Indiana is stopping stocking Lake Trout. I'm disappointed it won't happen until 2018.

Pikesmith wrote:

It seems like if they chose to cut browns in place of Kings if they can make the "chinook equivalent" math work there shouldn't be a problem. Predation should be the same.

The issue is Wisconsin needed to make other cuts (on top of the browns) to keep the chinook equivalent math the same. And then instead of doing that, they put out a news release detailing increases to other species instead of cuts. Resulting in predation pressure being higher than LMC is targeting

MC_Angler,
The release I read said they were stocking the same number of coho as they did in 2016. So the extra 70,000 steelhead are the issue, Is this correct?