TOPIC:

This topic is going to be out there with all the talk lately. When King cuts were introduced the State of Michigan took it hard. To cut kings meant that many ports that used to see stockings didn't after the cuts.The reduction or cuts meant that the state also saw a loss of money coming in. With the size increase to kings brought back some anglers to Michigan. Increase in revenues were seen coming back. It is a hard balance when your state needs angler money. Angler hours is something that can be tracked and is on a yearly basis.
It is tempting to just look at angler dollars. Still others are demanding that its time to take stocking up.
As a member of the Great Lakes Salmon Initiative I have had a chance to meet other MDNR managers and talk with them. I also had the same chance to talk with recreational fishermen from around the lake and Lake Huron. Kings are the money maker, coho are the back bone.
The state of Michigan plants approx.80% of ALL coho in Lake Michigan.In return the state of Michigan anglers only take approx.16-18% of those coho. So where would we be with out that happening??????
The consent decree is coming for a revisit in 2020. What will be the decisions when the decree is ironed out? How will it effect us and the rest of the lake? In a previous post I mentioned that the State of Michigan takes Twice as many Lakers as the state of Wisconsin who has a laker limit of 5 vs's 3 for Michigan. I was wrong the numbers are more like the state of Michigan took 5 times the total of what Wisconsin takes.
Why? It falls back to Michigan taking the biggest hurt in the cuts.If they want to fish then lakers made up the slack with not much silver fish to go around. We are blessed that we here in Indiana get a good slug of those Michigan fish in the spring time.
We have talked about balance,,,,, stocking cuts,,,,,,, possible stocking increases,,,,,, and how it affects anglers hours that contribute to angler dollars. It is a hard balancing to keep on top of..There is always new information coming out and my hat is off to the MDNR as they continue to try to keep this juggling act going. If you want to get involved and i hope you do, then please understand other items of interest.
Lake Huron is now crashed for approx.15yrs. They took NO cuts when we did. They do not have the same science developed for that lake(Huron) as Lake Michigan sits today. Alewife have not made a recovery there after 15 years. Probably due to over stocking of Lake Trout and walleye.
Once the forage base crashes and the predator pit stays the same how do alewife get a chance for recovery????? After all this time with both lakes connected there still are issues. Randy Claramunt is a new basin coordinator for Lake Huron. I have had time to talk with him in person and I believe Randy is going to tryhard to make some changes. I believe Randy used to work for Jay Wesley, so he is aware of all the science used on Lake Michigan. The part that I have seen that bothers me the most is how local politics gets in the way of doing things or should I say making changes.
So moving forward, I think Brother Nature hit it on the head.But, any king increases need to be done slowly. We for sure do not want to go back to cuts down the road cause we went to far to quick. This is really tuff for me to say as I'm getting older and sure I want to see more kings before I stop fishing. But,,,,, what I want most is a healthy fishery. A needed reduction in Lake Trout. And to see you young guys with those beautiful young kids you have to be part of this fishery as we go forward.

I do not envy to guys making those decisions. So many voices in the room and everybody thinks they’re right. I was looking at the pier at MC over the weekend and the water is as high as I’ve ever remembered seeing it. Is it a coincidence that we’re seeing baitfish rebounding with these wet years and that they crashed on dry years? Increasing natural reproduction, changing mussel populations, fluctuating nutrient and water levels... the managers are trying to solve a puzzle and the pieces are changing in their hands. Tough job.

Well said Ed, I’m sure I’m not the only one but I truly appreciate you taking your time to stay informed and passing along the information.

As you and I were talking Ed on the phone about this subject during all my distractions at home, it would seem to be prudent to take a wait and see attitude about the stocking increases. The points Southshore made were also things we talked about. The climate as an effect on the baitfish population and where the predator fish are located and being fished for. Needs to looked at longer term. I hope that more cuts are not in the future but rather keeping the status quo on king stocking levels. If bigger, better spawns of bait fish are seen then increase the king levels to an acceptable level. Even if more fish were added to the lake it would take several years to see the benefits provided the right amount of baitfish were and stayed present.

I understand that the Michigan people are upset about Hoosiers taking kings and cohos that were not stocked by Indiana, especially this spring because it was so good. But we have no control over weather or those fish and their behaviors. It was our year to shine with all the extra water and nutrients flowing into lake from the Indiana rivers. It made for the perfect fishing storm. As Southshore said a prolonged drought could make our great king fishing go and stay to the north again and coho and trout will again be our mainstays. Thanks Ed for your involvement in S.I.

I agree. We are still walking the edge of a knife on baitfish populations IMO. Though there has been a slight increase the last three seasons, the percentage of total alewife that are mature spawning fish is the critical component. The 2012-2013 classes have been getting chewed down year by year.

I believe Ben has stated in the past the fact that the nearshore mussel numbers are declining has also helped with the nutrients closer to shore.

Like many on the site, I have fished the lake for 30 years and about 25 years ago I came to the conclusion that I would rather catch fewer fish that are larger than to limit out on small fish. Understandably charters get paid to put fish in the box but what seems to keep customers coming back from my experience of talking to captains and being a charter customer myself on other waters is not a cooler full of smaller fish, its the one or two big fish mixed in there that the customers, friends, your kids will remember forever. Our posts tell the story, if someone catches a big anything that pic goes on a post. If we go out and catch a bunch of small to medium fish we post it but rarely show pics once the newness of Spring wears off of limits of 4lbs cohos. This of course is just my opinion but if the current stocking plans yield fewer but larger fish I'm all for it. So I'll pose the question, would you rather catch 5 fish over 10lbs with a chance at a monster (not all lake trout) or 10 fish under 10lbs?

Quality over quanity for me. The natural spawning kings can boost their own population without our help. If the baby kings can find small alewives to feed on then more of the natural produced fish will survive and the king population will go up naturally.

It’s funny how a few years ago people were hoping for any kind of King fishery and a Huron like fishery appeared imminent. Now many are getting to the point of thinking anything less than a limit is somehow a bad trip. I always wonder what happens to these limits after the brag board pics are taken? How many are actually cleaned and consumed vs in the trash in 6 months? I have been doing my best to release as many as I can while still enjoying the fishery.

Just my .02 cents

Regulator wrote:

It’s funny how a few years ago people were hoping for any kind of King fishery and a Huron like fishery appeared imminent. Now many are getting to the point of thinking anything less than a limit is somehow a bad trip. I always wonder what happens to these limits after the brag board pics are taken? How many are actually cleaned and consumed vs in the trash in 6 months? I have been doing my best to release as many as I can while still enjoying the fishery.

I think that’s a good attitude to have. Take what you need and conserve some for the future. This would be an easy and inexpensive way to increase fish populations in the short term. Good stewardship of the resource should be our first objective.

Regulator wrote:

It’s funny how a few years ago people were hoping for any kind of King fishery and a Huron like fishery appeared imminent. Now many are getting to the point of thinking anything less than a limit is somehow a bad trip. I always wonder what happens to these limits after the brag board pics are taken? How many are actually cleaned and consumed vs in the trash in 6 months? I have been doing my best to release as many as I can while still enjoying the fishery.

Just my .02 cents

I would hate to think any of those fish are being wasted, but human nature and all. For me, raising a herd of kids takes a lot of resources and if I can enjoy the outdoors AND provide some variety for my family, more's the better. Can't afford to buy good salmon at the store, but I'd also hate to take a fair accounting of my hobbies.