Article about the disappearance of salmon in Huron

[andymaviglia]

detnews.com/article/20110827/METRO/108270353/1409/rss36

[ScoutB]

That's pretty sad. It's all about controlling the invasive species.

[SPLASH]

Thanks for posting, this is something I have kept up on quite a bit since I used to be able to come home with 2-3 kings every fall surf fishing trip to Tawas. I haven't bothered going since 2007.
There is some truth in this article, but some not so much, and then what wasn't mentioned.
What isn't true is blaming the invasives for everything. Also not true is that Kings cleared out alewives.
If you dig deeper (I mean past the DNRE and local newspapers) you will find that this is not just at the state level. Federal fishery directors want Lake Huron to return to a "Natural Fishery". A Natural Fishery means NO SALMON! As this article pointed out, Kings and Cohos were introduced, also were Atlantics and Pinks. The goal of a Natural Fishery is to have Lake Trout as the main predator. Lake trout are native. The Federal Fishery Directors would take the cost of planting Lake Trout off of Michigan's hands. Once again, it's partially about money.
Anyone who has fished the great lakes can tell you Lakers are no way near as sought after as Kings (Sorry Jeff ;D) . Complaints about Lakers are they have a built in grease so no butter is needed in a pan to cook, they can live up to 100 years and that means way more eating of baitfish than a salmon living on average 4 years will eat, they feed more in colder water temps than most fish increasing the loss of baitfish, they don't fight like a King, etc.
The major problem is lack of baitfish. It said it in this article and in many others. Talk to a longtime Huron fisherman and they will agree. The last kings I caught there in 2006 or 2007 had the length to be 15-20 pound fish, but were so skinny they weighed 6-12. Very sad to see eggs in a fish weighing 6 pounds that you caught right before it started it's journey upstream to spawn and die. PATHETIC! This is just my personal example, read up on this and there are even worse ones.
Well, time to share some facts as to why the baitfish are gone in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan has just started to see a decline. Lake Huron has this bay called Saginaw in it. Saginaw Bay has millions of walleye in it, maybe billions. They are stocked a ton and natural reproduction is quite successful also. Walleye eat a whole lot of baitfish and grow fast. Walleye also (as mentioned in this article) cruise rivermouths and streams waiting for fingerlings to eat. Go to a few sites and read about it, there are some feeding frenzies out there. Yet year after year DNRE release fingerlings in the same places at the same times. This myth that walleye stay in Saginaw Bay is just that, a myth. Go to sites and read reports or talk to Bay fisherman. It's pretty common knowledge that once the Bay warms to it's summer highs, you aren't catching any big ones, you have to leave the Bay and go out to deeper water in Lake Huron to catch them. So now you have the Long living Lake Trout and voracious appetite walleys in the depths of Huron eating everything. Salmon fingerlings can't get past the walleyes to get to deep water, but then the few that do have very little to eat because the Lakers and Eyes have already eaten everything.
If invasives were to perdominately be blamed for this lack of baitfish than why is Lake Michigan just in recent years experiencing the same problem? Laker numbers are increasing in Lake Michigan, as well as walleye. Yes, invasives are around and they have changed the water, and yes they can be blamed some for this problem in Lake Huron, but they aren't even close to being the main problem. Very easy to blame invasives instead of admit fault in the way of what and how many is planted.
Now I encourage you all to research this in the way of fishermen reports as I do. Not just MS, but others too. Talk to people in marinas, piers, etc.
There are 2 ways to look at this as I see it. One is to enjoy the mixed bag in Lake Huron. There are still Kings there the report in this article of whoever it was saying they haven't seen one since 2006 is rediculous, they are caught everyday, just nowhere near as many or as large as in the 80's. This has been the best King year on Huron since the early 2,000s, but the DNRE won't promote that since the Feds want it to become a "Natural Fishery". Wouldn't set well with uninformed fishermen if they found out things are correcting themselves and with planting changes, Kings could come back. The mixed bag....... Many love this, some do not. Some like going out and getting a limit on Kings with an occasional Coho, Steelhead, Laker or Brown. Some like going out and having the catch be more balanced. If you are the first type, Lake Michigan is for you. Yup, we are forced to pick a lake these days based on what we want to catch instead of the old days of it being pretty much the same on both and this is how it will be in the future if we as fishermen aka the ones paying for everything, don't standup for themselves.
Currently from what I read and hear about ake Huron is that a day fishing you get an average like this. Lakers being most caught, Steelhead making a comeback and increasing catch numbers to right around the same as walleye (not in the bay), slightly more Browns than the occasional Atlantic and King. Don't hear much about Cohos or Pinks. So if you like the thrill of catching a mixed bag, enjoy Huron, but in the future it will probably become Lakers and walleyes, with everything else's numbers decreasing.

[SPLASH]

Another thing I have thought of as to why this is the way things will be in the future for Lake Huron is this.
Walleye fishing saginaw Bay and out of the Bay have become very popular. I love it too. Charters for walleye have become more popular, and more charter captains pop up every year. There are major walleye tournament trails and not on such a big level are salmon tournaments (ever seen one on national television?) and these trails come to Saginaw Bay gaining it more nationwide recognition/promotion. I wonder if the state sees walleye as the main cash crop fishery now and the future so they do not care about those who still have hopes of salmon fishing improving in Lake Huron?

[andymaviglia]

Good points

[SPLASH]

Aug 28, 2011 17:46:14 GMT -5 andymaviglia said:

Good points

Thanks. It's pretty simple. For those who don't have a whole minute to read my post I will break it down.
You have a fish tank. You have goldfish in it. You add a shark and some goldfish disappear. Or you can add lots of sharks and a snail and watch the goldfish disappear much faster and blame it on the snail claiming it cleared the water.
seriously though, I had a nice conversation with a guy who has attended DNRE biologist meetings the past 10 or so years based on Lake Huron salmon etc. When he first started attending he said the biologists made a lot of sense with the plan back then to cut back salmon stocking to let baitfish numbers increase and he mentioned that when he attended his first meeting he was against cutting salmon stocking. He listened and learned, it was a great plan. He then spoke of not getting answers when the question arises "Why are salmon not being restocked now that the baitfish numbers have come back up"? The Steelhead are bigger and more numerous than they were years back and the Lake Trout are growing huge and their numbers have exploded.
So my point is that what I learned from this man is he was closed minded at first, listened and learned and saw how the plan was the best plan possible. He then saw the DNRE not keep their word and or change their mind when they got the results they hoped for with the experiment/plan. Makes you think "why"? My personal belief is a few things. For one, the DNRE is more worried about generating revenue the past few years. They had to with all the fuel being used for helicopters spying through the trees looking for deer bait piles. I mean, it makes perfect sense to spend those huge bucks in hopes of catching someone and writing a $125 ticket . They have to worry about all of those top of the line quads they buy (and fuel for them) so CO's can cruise Houghton lake every weekend (and others) checking thousands of licenses in hopes of writting just a few tickets . I'm all for catching poachers, but can't they wait at the ramp? Totally different subject I guess, but it fits in the whole plan to me. Isn't that why deer licenses went up in price a few years back? It surely wasn't because they raise and plant deer. So why care about the states economy and or sportsmen, just care about making money for themselves.
I also believe that the plan of turning Lake Huron into a natural fishery with the Feds could have possibly been in the works years back when the salmon stocking went down in hopes of increasing baitfish numbers. No proof and we probably never will know. Why should we? It's not like our tax dollars and license fees are what makes this all possible . Makes sense to me, get those baitfish numbers up for the Lakers and eyes? I have other ideas, but don't want to sound like some crazy conspiracy theorist. I hate those types, rather deal with facts. Fact is, there has to be a reason or reasons salmon aren't being brought back to Lake Huron. And it IS NOT because of invasives!
Another topic closely related. Atlantic salmon. Much smaller than Kings therefore will not eat as much. The DNRE said they were going to try an experiment with them. they were going to plant them in the northern areas of Lake Huron and see what happened. Well, they are caught everyday in Lake Huron now. Yes they are small, but they taste a hell of a lot better than a laker. So why is the DNRE not planning on following through now that the experiment has been proven a success? I have only read 2 reasons they have given. 1. The fish were not a success. They either starved, swam to Lake Michigan or just disappeared. 2. They are more expensive to raise for planting than kings, steelhead, and walleye.
The first is BS, but if the 2nd is true, how about this?
Raise the license fee $2. With over 873,000 fishing licenses sold in 2010, that would generate over $1.7 million that if they used it properly just for Atlantic salmon raising. Could use it for kings, but it won't happen in this lifetime. I'd have no problem with the raise. The poorest of poor can afford $2 more if they can afford the current price. Wanna fish that bad, you can find $2 in cans on the side of the street.
Sadly, I think we all suspect that money wouldn't JUST go to this.