TOPIC:

Was just curious of the data from all those kings brought in at the tournament's.
Anyone have the percentage of wild vs stocked?

67% wild at the Classic.

Pretty much the exact same number as the lakewide results from the past several years. It's looking like things have been stabilizing the last couple years, which is a welcome sign.

Just curious we were told at a Lake Michigan seminar that lake trout can't naturally reproduce on a diet of alewives so how is it that salmon can naturally reproduce on a diet of alewives? if we're getting flooded with all these natural Kings which would have to be in the millions where are they all coming from and why isn't the DNR keeping track or trying to keep track of this? Supposedly there's been natural reproduction going on since the seventies so why haven't there been more research on the rivers that supposedly it's occurring at? If we are to rely on natural reproduction of our Kings why isn't the daily limit being cut?

Chinook are less affected by low thiamine concentrations than the other salmonids. Several research studies in the mid-2000s by USGS and Michigan State concluded that chinooks can effectively reproduce with much lower levels of thiamine than coho, steelhead, or lake trout, because they have a lower metabolic requirement than other salmonid species. Here's one of the studies if you care to read it www.canr.msu.edu/qfc/publications/pdf-pu...almon_Honeyfield.pdf

Chinook thiamine concentration not only varies over time and size of fish, but can also vary between individuals in any given year. So even if many fish have low thiamine concentrations and experience fry mortality, there are still enough fish that have acceptable levels of thiamine and those fry survive. There is likely lots of compensatory mortality in chinook fry - there are far more fry produced than can survive, given available resources. So if lots of them die from early mortality syndrome (caused by low thiamine), the remaining fry can survive at higher rates, due to more available resources.


Studies of the total number of wild fish in Lake Michigan have been ongoing for the better part of 2 decades now. That's why there have been periodic stocking cuts, as the proportion of wild fish increased, both due to increasing reproduction in LM watershed, and after the collapse of Lake Huron, the migration of fish from LH to LM

As for keeping track of where the salmon come from, it's not exactly a simple process. There have been plenty of studies and observations of where chinook natural reproduction is happening. It's not exactly a secret that rivers like the PM, Betsie, Little and Big Manistee, Muskegon churn out tons of wild chinooks. But it has been difficult to quantity the extent lakewide contributed by each river in the LM watershed (and for that matter, Lake Huron).

First, you need to have every single stocked fish be marked. Otherwise you can't 100% reliably tell which is a wild fish. Then, obviously, you need some way of knowing where each of the adult fish came from. You can't exactly interrogate them to find out where they were born. We now have the marking part of the equation, since all the stocked chinooks have been fin-clipped since 2011.

Now, thanks to advances in technology have come a long way, it has become possible to determine the natal origin of adult fish. Basically, you remove the otolith from the adult fish, use a laser to vaporize the otolith core (which was formed in the natal river) and analyze the ratio of elements like Barium, Strontium, and Magnesium. Then you have to have water samples of all the different rivers to match up the chemical signature.

With the arrival of the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program and developments of the otolith microchemistry technique, there is an ongoing study to determine where wild chinook salmon are coming from, and the relative importance of each watershed. There's also a similar study in progress for steelhead

Oh, and in terms of the daily limit being cut, that works in the wrong direction of the current management direction. We're trying to reduce predatory pressure and build baitfish back up. Although stocking is the biggest lever than can be pulled, the only other real management tool is harvest. Cutting stocking and reducing harvest would be contrasting actions.

Thanks for the reply. I personally think the DNR's did the right thing when they started the reduced plants, and we are now seeing some results of that. Just my opinion.

great write up Ben. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks for the response, with the decrease of stocking you would see a increase in natural or all natural Kings compared to stock fish. we're down to stocking 3 million Kings a year what is the Fisheries figuring on the number of Naturals? And of course they could swing big time from year to year do to lake levels which impact River levels. I seen posted the last couple years the returns in Michigan Rivers were down 80 to 90%. So that would leave most of these natural fish coming from rivers from Lake Huron Waters. Another thing if you were trying to build the alewives population or the bait population why not increase limits on Lakers to 5 or more since they're so plentiful and naturally reproducing plus stop or make huge cuts in stocking of them.

Thanks Ben. Another great piece of info.

Ben will be the guest speaker at the June 12 meeting of the Michiana Walleye Assn, Mishawaka, IN. Everyone is welcome to attend and ask Ben questions. Our meeting starts at 7pm. No cost.