TOPIC:

Naze: Save an alewife? Slash lake trout stockings
Kevin Naze, For USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin 6:53 a.m. CDT June 16, 2016
636016602992170482-KEW-0618-Naze-column---chinook.jpg
(Photo: Courtesy Kinn's Sport Fishing)
If state natural resources agencies want what’s best for anglers and the port communities that rely on the multimillion-dollar impact of salmon fishing, now might be a good time to play hardball with the feds.

It’s been a decade since more chinooks were stocked than lake trout in Lake Michigan, and in recent years there have been two to four times more lake trout — more than 3.5 million lakers annually in 2012 and 2013, for example — planted than “kings.”

“This is ridiculous,” said Troy Mattson of Kinn’s Sport Fishing in Algoma. “They keep blaming the kings for the decline in alewives, yet (the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) keep planting millions of lake trout. If this is truly a top-down predation issue, why keep stocking a fish that lives for decades and isn’t even the main attraction for our customers?”

A multi-state and tribal committee recommendation to slash chinook stocking 61.5 percent next spring — just four years after a 50 percent lakewide cut — has charter captains and other sport anglers furious.

A trio of public meetings will be held later this month to accept feedback and discuss other options, including 6-8 p.m. June 27 at Lakeshore Technical College in Cleveland and 6-8 p.m. June 29 at the Brown County Library in Green Bay.

Anglers are seeing a lot of alewives near shore and in deeper water on their fish locators this year, as well as in the bellies of the trout and salmon they’re catching. Most are small, likely from a decent 2015 year class, but there are mixed sizes.

Annual federal acoustic and trawl surveys show a shrinking number of adult alewives, and fish managers are trying to avoid a crash of the forage base like happened in Lake Huron more than a decade ago.

Todd Kalish, deputy director of the Wisconsin DNR fisheries bureau, worked with the Michigan DNR when alewives collapsed on Lake Huron about 13 years ago. He said the resulting crash of the salmon fishery was “an absolute catastrophe,” and should be a cautionary tale for Wisconsin given the more than $100 million in annual spending by Great Lakes sport anglers here.

Kalish encourages anglers to come to the meetings with creative thoughts and suggestions for management strategies. He said agencies want to work with anglers, and hope to preserve the salmon fishery while developing options to enhance and maintain a diverse fishery.

But Tom Kleiman of Accurate Marine in Kewaunee, president of the Wisconsin Lakeshore Business Association — a group formed earlier this year to promote Lake Michigan’s world-class salmon and trout fishery — said his group is asking Gov. Scott Walker and DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp to reject the committee’s proposal and recommend that salmon stocking levels remain stable, rainbow and brown trout stockings be increased and the daily bag limit for lake trout be raised from two to five.

Kleiman said charter captains were visibly upset at the timing of the DNR press release this week, right before the peak of the summer fishing season.

The proposal would equate to a 56 percent chinook salmon reduction (from 810,000 to 355,000) for Wisconsin. Other states would also take a hit: Michigan would drop from 560,000 to 200,000, Illinois from 230,000 to 90,000 and Indiana from 200,000 to 45,000.

The proposal follows a third round of stocking reductions in 2013, when committee and state natural resource managers agreed to the current total from previous levels of more than three million chinook stocked each year.

Compare that to the period between 1978 and 1990, when Wisconsin alone stocked more than two million chinooks 11 times, including nearly 2.9 million in 1984 and more than 2.7 million in 1989.

If the committee’s proposal stands, it would be the fewest “kings” stocked by Wisconsin since 1972 — three years after the state’s first planting of chinooks.

Anglers, business owners and anyone else can comment by emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..








Kevin Naze is a freelance outdoors writer. Email him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

293
CONNECT
TWEET
LINKEDIN
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE

Man this article couldn't have been anymore "RIGHT ON" in my opinion. Specifically, the impact of Lake trout and the absolute pure stupidity of the fact that they continue to stock them, and will not budge on even the idea of it. Honestly, in what world do we live that a fish that can potentially live to be over 40 years old (as we've obviously just seen) not have an impact on the food chain? Furthermore, I'll throw this one out: what statistical data do they have compiled from trawl/sonar data that place a number on the true population of Lake Trout that are really already in big the lake? Sure, salmon numbers are cyclical and will wash out after 4 years, so even if they screw up, there is a period of correction with eventual natural death being the solution. So where is the margin of error on lakers? When is enough, enough on a fish that lives so long? I'd love to see the day come when the feds say "oh we stocked too many lake trout now, but don't know how to fix the issue since they don't die like salmon do..."

Here's one thing for sure: they are not and cannot be over-fished. The only people fishing for grease are charter captains or tournament anglers, and that's still not enough to make a dent in my opinion. How many guys on this board alone target lakers purposely for the table? I'd like to see that survey and the % that comes back. A couple for the smoker maybe, sure - but never an over-harvest issue. If the DNR state/federal agencies can't even find them to count them to better examine the existing population, I doubt they are being found and caught by enough fishermen that actually want them. Truth be told, if charter clients really knew their prospects of catching nothing but grease for the entire day is all they had to look forward to, that won't hurt the charter fishery. Luckily, the prospects of a "big fish" picture are worthy enough to continue to keep a very important charter fleet in business. That, along with a good time on a boat for a day on the lake away from work and good comaraderie with friends. That's what a charter is all about in the first place. The fish are always a bonus. There'll always be somebody to man a rod and reel up a 5 gallon bucket of fighting grease.

All I'm saying in my rant is, the fact that nobody can get through to the feds that sportfishermen do not want anymore laker stockings is truly a great example of government at work. I believe in a balanced lake, yes: but again, balance at what cost? If reducing the predator-prey relationship is truly the objective, you don't have to have a fancy biology degree from night school to realize lake trout do eat alewife!!!!!!!!!!

It seems that the lake trout is a can't miss or can't go wrong thing in regards to its stocking and restocking. It is always successful it seems. The gov. agencies are going to do what will in their opinion will have the greatest return. Myself I would rather see the lake trout stockings stopped completely and have steelhead become the default stocking species. The kings are to niche specific for the lake now they are saying with alewife numbers down, even though they are still being bagged by anglers. Steelhead will feed on a more diverse food base making them a better choice for stocking. I have seen gobies, alewife, and small perch in the bellies of steelhead that I have butchered. Is there anybody out there that does not like to catch steelhead? I think they bring everything to the table.