stopping stocking in lake ontario of salmon/trout

[Mac Attack]

I agree
And not because he got rid of the gorrila glue

I started fishing salmonids in lake O back in the mid to late 70's
They were fun and the lakes needed stocking because there wasn't any natural reproduction going on back then.  But today is different.
Way too much bait back then vs predictors
The phosphates created algea, which fed the biomass, which fed the baifish.
But there was no large fish to eat the  baitfish.
Like was done in Lake Michigan, our DEC started stocking.
It worked.
I was part of a study in the mid 80's
So I know this to be fact
Should they stop stocking?
Lakers - YES!!!!
Others - maybe
But I do feel tjhry can cut back for a bit so we don't see a crash like happened in !ake Michigan a few years back.
But I'm not a marinermarine biologist doing constant monitoring of things.  And neither is Trap.
So anything we post here is only conjecture.

Party on Garth.

Mac

[yankmyline]

Hey, at this point I agree with bshirtd. Let the out of state fishers pay for it. I'm just an average fisherman who buys his license every year. I pay for my privileges. I applaud the state for trying to encourage fishing opportunities and consequently increase license sales. However, these stocking programs are a financial loser. They always have been and always will be. They benefit the few, not the many.

Spin it any way you like. Show me the numbers and I'll jump on the band wagon.

Rg

Read your own post! Show me the numbers

[rgfixit]

Funny you should ask that. I've spent considerable time the past couple days trying to find out the actual total cost of the trout and salmon stocking program in NYS. It seems impossible to get that information. Without that number and the ability to assign a specific cost per angler for those programs, this is all conjecture.

In the end, I doubt if anyone is able to get true costs to apply factual information to this discussion.

It seems I'm always misunderstood when I ask for facts to back up claims. I'm not just some naysayer. I prefer to think and analyze rather than guess. I'm not a fan of "feel good" answers. They smack of politics.

I understand that trout fishing is an industry that brings tourism  dollars to NYS. But at what cost to me....the average joe who's bought a fishing license every year since 1966.

Show me how the programs are paid for other than from my pocket and I'll understand. How does the tourism money get into the hatchery's coffers? How much goes in?

That aside, I have real issues with put and take fishing. There's a lot of good information out there on the impact of stocking non native species in the streams, lakes and rivers of the US. But, that's not going to change. It's ingrained and expected these days.

So much for the soap box. I'm going for a morning run

Rg

[taxid]

I heard similar about Lake Michigan here at Indiana with same reasoning. I don't know the specifics or if it's true but I heard it

Hasn't that been ongoing for a while here on Lake Michigan?

On thing to keep in mind is if the forage base is dwindling it only makes sense to cut back on the stocking. It won't do anyone any good if the forage base declines appreciably or gets wiped out. A decline in the forage base not only makes the fish skinny and grow slower, it can increase stress and disease outbreaks.

As a taxidermist in Indiana I can tell you that when our forage base started declining the fish got a lot skinnier. Sad to see a salmon or brown that is 36 inches long and weighs only 10 pounds.

[bshirtd]

I have seen first hand charter boat capt's spend hundreds of dollars on equipment in their local shop. That being said I have worked at one of these local shops, for the nearly 15 years he's been in business, On a major artery of Lake Ontario, I can tell you 1st hand that the 200 bucks is not a "money maker" most smaller shops charge roughly the same weather it be spin doctors and flies or cleo's and rapalas and the profit margins aren't stellar. Not to mention just to make the 5-10 bucks you have to have $10,000 worth of inventory on your shelf ........Why not invest the money in stocking fish that naturally reproduce at a way higher rate than the kings we keep wasting our money on? Musky walleye or hey stock the heck out of those sturgeon.

[yankmyline]

I have seen first hand charter boat capt's spend hundreds of dollars on equipment in their local shop. That being said I have worked at one of these local shops, for the nearly 15 years he's been in business, On a major artery of Lake Ontario, I can tell you 1st hand that the 200 bucks is not a "money maker" most smaller shops charge roughly the same weather it be spin doctors and flies or cleo's and rapalas and the profit margins aren't stellar. Not to mention just to make the 5-10 bucks you have to have $10,000 worth of inventory on your shelf ........Why not invest the money in stocking fish that naturally reproduce at a way higher rate than the kings we keep wasting our money on? Musky walleye or hey stock the heck out of those sturgeon.

So what is going to keep the local shops open when the kings are gone? Also you think musky and sturgeon naturally reproduce at a higher rate than kings? Almost half the kings are from natural reproduction.

[taxid]

So what is going to keep the local shops open when the kings are gone? Also you think musky and sturgeon naturally reproduce at a higher rate than kings? Almost half the kings are from natural reproduction.

I don't know about half but I do one of the arguments in my neck of the woods of Lake Michigan is that there is some natural reproduction of kings.

[bshirtd]

So what is going to keep the local shops open when the kings are gone? Also you think musky and sturgeon naturally reproduce at a higher rate than kings? Almost half the kings are from natural reproduction.

Most shops (not all) the lake Ontario salmon are a very very small part of their overall income because most small businesses can't afford to have 10k or significantly more in inventory just sitting. If you look around shops are closing left and right to begin with as tackle can easily be bought online/larger stores and fewer people are buying live bait in the summer months with all these kings why isn't business booming?...... Almost all natural king reproduction occurs on the Canadian side. Besides as the DEC suggested the population of kings in the lake has significantly less to do with our stocking efforts and much more with weather and natural conditions. One thing for sure is a fact sturgeon and muskies both live WAY longer

[Mac Attack]

..........fewer people are buying live bait in the summer months..........


Not sure I agree with this completely.  But emeralds are typically not available in the hotter summer months.  I know TONS of perch guys that would love to buy them if they were available.  And I also know TONS of walleye fishermen that purchase crawlers all summer long.


...... Almost all natural king reproduction occurs on the Canadian side.

As stated before, where is the actual proof of this?  Point us to the actual DEC or MNR study that shows proof positive.


Besides as the DEC suggested the population of kings in the lake has significantly less to do with our stocking efforts and much more with weather and natural conditions.

See my response above.

As Bob said a few posts earlier, show us the actual proof.
Where are the links that we can see the DEC or MNR studies that back up what you are claiming here?
Otherwise all of this is pure conjecture.

[bshirtd]

It doesn't really matter I guess I just think a stamp program would do a better job allocating funds to where people want them rather than letting the govt. decide. Regardless of everything else I have said that was my initial point which we kind of got away from. I enjoy catching just about every species that swims so regardless of whats in a lake I am going to go catch it.

[bigredfishing]

Tom Allen (of A-Tom-Mik) posted this :
Please let me voice a rebuttal to an article labeled:
"Cutting Chinook Salmon Is Good Management"
An Open Mind Rebuttal
It is interesting how those that keep comparing to the collapse of the prey base in Lake Huron continue to suggest the only way to save Lake Michigan King Salmon is to cut the Salmon Biomass. They point to others that oppose this direction and say we do not support science… well wait a minute .. just what is science? It is the gathering of facts to help us make the best decisions? Science does not make the decisions .. humans do. What happens when those facts lead us down a blind path? What happens when those that are so sure with their numbers that they can only see one solution? Are the facts always correct? Do the facts have margins of error? Are the historical circumstances the same today? Is the environment the same? Are they “repeatable” with little error to the results? These questions are only part the decision process.
There was some science explanation and theory that was floating around several years ago that suggested trying to manage our fishery from the top predator down would be difficult. There was also a science suggestion that the final collapse in Lake Huron was not from just King Salmon, but more likely from a Lake Trout and Walleye explosion that devoured the young alewives before they could get to spawning age. Some talk of a “perfect” storm, and yes there was, but are we failing or willing to recognize all the facts? You see some feel there was an explosion of Lake Trout likely caused by continued increased Lake Trout plants and with less alewives (Lake Trout’s Natural birth control pill according to science) increased natural reproduction of Lake Trout… creating a “predator pit” phenomena. Those numbers have continued to grow … and yes there are no alewives. Other factors like invasive species have obviously impacted prey (alewives) also. More invasive species now says that our circumstances may be different today than twelve years ago.
Someone pointed out that in Lake Huron “a couple dozen charter boats operate where once there were a couple hundred and the angler effort remains more than 50-percent below what it once was when there were salmon”. Well, what do we expect … there are not any salmon??? Doesn’t this point to what our tourism, our fisher people, our industry wants and prefers? Salmon?? Or other predators?
And yes, the recreational fishery and tourism industry all around Lake Michigan’s shoreline faces a similar nightmare. UNLESS we act now and with open minds.
Michigan’s DNR proposes a stocking cut from 1.8 million salmon a year to 905,000 lake wide for 2017. Yes, many from west-side charter associations, sport fishing groups, the GLSI and the Michigan Charter Boat Association, sees it as a threat to their livelihood. But its more than that, it’s a threat to the future of many that fun fish in the big lake and our rivers, many that don’t even fish and to our future generations. As a fisherman that stood in the river between my father and Grandfather fishing the first run of salmon 50 years ago, I understand the passion, the thrill, the addiction that drives others to want and seek salmon fishing!
So you see it is not about one special interest group thinking they have exclusive rights to the salmon. It’s about what the majority of people want that all have ownership in the states resources and / or support the industry.
I like the idea of searching for solutions to save the fishery! You see, most captains and their respective organizations prefer A BALANCED Predator biomass. Currently the Lake Trout Biomass is estimated to be more than 2x that of King Salmon. They are out of balance … we have created a “predator” pit in Lake Michigan by ignoring the impacts of continuing to plant and not reduce Lake Trout plantings. We suppressed King Salmon plants several times now… to sacrifice for Lake Trout? Over 32 million Lake Trout planted in the last 10 years… and what do you think those mature Lake Trout are eating? Some keep down playing what they forage on… Science says that up to 60% of their diet is alewives. Lake Trout are opportunistic. They will eat what is in front of them that is easiest to catch. How many gobies are in 400’ of water??? What happens when the alewives are gone? What will they eat, Salmon, steelhead, brown, etc. fingerlings? No wonder Lake Huron cannot replenish Salmon!!
We keep hearing this “native” thing. What’s native about all the new Lake Trout strains that have been planted? I thought science said the native species was destroyed. WHO said we all wanted native anyway? Are we going back to horse and buggy too?
If we want Chinook salmon to remain a sport fish in Lake Michigan, the alewife prey base must not collapse as it did in Lake Huron. AND YES AS Science says, reduce the number of predators feeding on alewife to insure a healthy prey base. What more do you want, “the data generated by the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports this thinking”.
Alewife are the diet of many predator species thus, a balanced stocking must be implemented immediately. We also need to explore extreme measures to reduce other adult predator species besides picking on Salmon to try and avoid a collapse of the alewife biomass.
The decisions and solutions that we take should be in the best interest of ALL groups and public opinion. Total scientific management without looking at all solutions and exploring other needs is what will court disaster. I like to catch Lake Trout also and I hope I didn’t come across as eliminating them. We are not upset at Lake Trout… we got what we managed for. We are disappointed and frustrated at the lack of open minds to manage towards a valued balanced fishery.
We applaud organizations like Great Lakes Salmon Initiative for their efforts and the Ludington Charter Boat Association and Michigan Charter Boat Association for their stance as an organization on behalf of the majority of the membership! No King Salmon cuts for 2017 !
If you believe as we believe, you can help do more by joining Great Lakes Salmon Initiative.

[Mac Attack]

Thanks Lance.

It was long, but I read it.
And I pretty much agree with it too.
Especially the lake trout issues.
Lakers live longer than salmon.
Way longer.
And they have been documented as naturally reproducing.
So why do we keep the stocking numbers so high on them???

There are also many other variables.

Again, thanks Lance.

Mac

[bigredfishing]

Thanks Lance.

It was long, but I read it.
And I pretty much agree with it too.
Especially the lake trout issues.
Lakers live longer than salmon.
Way longer.
And they have been documented as naturally reproducing.
So why do we keep the stocking numbers so high on them???

There are also many other variables.

Again, thanks Lance.

Mac

Its the best case I've seen made for cutting more lakers then salmon. It makes a lot of sense to me.   It amazed me this year how many people utilize the salmonid fishery on the lake proper...and that 95% of those people are after salmon...and then we even get double value on those salmon because then everyone chases them in the creeks.  

[fishbone]

any fishery that has lamprey eels needs a balance of 60 percent lakers and 40 percent kings---ask the biologists---its not just a matter of stocking silver fish because people want silver fish----change is coming----we had it good for 30 years---they will try to keep it good for 30 more---but its gonna be waaaaay tougher

[gotabig1]

Where do the Lamprey come into the equation ? Do the lakers eat them?