Your opinions on Lake Trout restoration in the Great Lakes

[kovarnic]

Fishing enthusiasts...We need your help!
I am a senior at Michigan State University in the Fisheries and Wildlife Management program. My group and I are doing a project on the human dimensions of lake trout restoration in the Great Lakes and I am hoping to gather your opinions on the effectiveness of management actions and the status of the restoration. Do you value the Lake Trout fishery in the Great Lakes and would you like to see it restored? Is it more important to you to catch fewer larger fish or more smaller fish? Are you satisfied with the current status? Do you believe current management actions are effective? What actions would you suggest for future management?
Please help us out and tell us what you think. Feel free to expand on our posted questions.

[plugger]

In my opinion the lake trout ranks just ahead of carp. I would prefer are resources went to salmon, steelhead, browns, coho, and walleye. We try to avoid setups that lake trout prefer.

[EdB]

I think the Fed's pre-occupation with the Lake Trout are a waste of resources and the costs better spent to improve salmon, steelhead or brown trout fishing. We don't target lake trout when fishing. I am concerned that our tax dollars are being used for the most part to supplement commercial fishing. If the Feds were serious about trying to create a self sustaining Lake trout population (their stated goal), then they should not be supporting commercial fishing for Lake Trout like they have.

[Jimbos]

Here goes.......I think any efforts to restore lake trout will be wasted as long as there is gill netting permitted in the Great Lakes, and i'm not saying this to start an Indian bashing thread. Here's why I say this.

I have been fishing Little Traverse bay going on 20 years, and know every hump, dropoff,and point. I have casted for these fish, jigged, handlined, downrigged, and longlined. You can say I have almost studied these fish, their patterns and movements in an unscientific way. Little Traverse because of it's remoteness is almost a closed fishery and has been a perfect test bed for laker studies(which has been done for as long as I can remember).
Forgive me but I can't remember what the limit for lakers was 20 years a go, but about 10 years a go they dropped the limit to 2 fish with a 24 inch size limit.
Please note there is a large lake trout preserve due west of Little Traverse.
Due to usually taking my vacation in late July/early August I would target lakers in the July period, but have fished them as early as the season permitted in 20 feet of water.
Through the years the fishing remained steady or gotten better, which could also be due to me learning their patterns and the bay better. 30 inch fish were not hard to catch(and released). When the size limit was increased to 24 inches and the limit dropped to 2, the fishing certainly got better, but the average size of the fish caught didn't increase, with many,many fish in the 20 inch range being caught also.

Little Traverse has never been a hotbed of fishing activity. Not 5% of a Manistee/Ludington/Rogers City in fishing pressure, and it remains the same today. One thing changed though, in 1997 or there abouts the gill netters showed up. They do the usual sneaking out during the night and in by dawn. If you look at where the nets are permitted, it's west of a line drawn from north to south between Petosky and Harbor Springs. Which due to bottom structure is the best fishing areas. In 1999 there was a massive alewive die off, with floating alewives everywhere, was this due to the taking of predator fish? IMHO it was.
The laker fishing has crashed IMHO. A troll along the usual spots shows massive schools of tightly packed fish still where they always have been. Tightly packed fish usually means small fish, and that's just what they are, 16 to 20 inch lakers. A laker cannot even make it to 24 inches anymore before their taken. It's not even worth the effort fishing for them in the bay.

Sooooo, in my opinion I wouldn't even waste the limited dollars in trying to restore the fishery, all it's doing is providing a put/take for the netters.

[Can't Touch This]

OI never cauhgt a lake trout/slamon/steelhaed(had a few on), but, let me tell you, lake trout are just as important to the economy as salmon and steelhead. I would deffinently go for them, there fun to catch, and put up a great fight, i bet anyone who fishes lake superior would say the same. Because lake superior has the best laker fishing in the world, and we can't let that go to waste. And lake trout are natral to michigan, unlike salmonids, and i think since this is their envirment, and there original home, i think it's good to keep tight managment.

[Steely-Head]

I agree with Jimbos. :( I really cant see a bright future when virtually unrestricted netting is allowed. It would be really nice to see them begin to spawn in massive numbers again, like back in the good ol' days (through to the mid 1800's)

[SALMONATOR]

I say Kings and steelies first, then browns and coho, then Atlantics and pinks, and make sure the resident trout are taken care of, and then manage the lakers.
The majority of the $$$ should go to the fisheries that the most anglers have a chance at taking advantage of. Not one where it is leagle for some to clean up on fish and the rest left to handle the leftovers. If the bounty of lakers is so plentifull that they can be caught from a net, than I see no reason for the rest of us to pay for keeping them that way for the few who can take the majority of the return. When they stop being that plentifull, First ban gill-nets, then come looking for $$$.

Al

[Jimbos]

Okay, a tad more Little Traverse Bay info.
The reason I got to understand this bay so well is I decided to target just a few places and get to know a particular body of water or area, and it's fish movements as well as I possibly could. So it has shut me out of fishing many different ports, but Little Traverse satisfied my needs for a spot for lakers/browns and salmon, with the occasional steelhead thrown in.

I don't have the exact years or numbers of fish handy, but in the early 90's the DNR took up the stocking of browns in the bay. I knew they were doing it, but it took me until about 1995 to start hooking a few by accident. Why I didn't target these fish is because I usually wasn't up there early enough in the year to troll the shallows and damn if I could figure out where they went after that.
Then a few years back we had a cold, late spring, and low and behold there they were in early June, easy to find.
Why I mention this is in the spirit of thread regarding the stocking of lakers and my thinking is "forget it", and that saddens me...BUTTTTTTT, the browns are growing like crazy and seem to be happier then a pig in dodo in that bay. Plus their east of the Petosky/Harbor Springs gillnet line restriction and have a chance to survive. I don't know what size a brown has to be to make someone happy, but browns of 12-17 lbs makes me very happy.

[Chasin]

I feel any native fish actualy should take precedence over non-native species. That said I feel there getting to be too many lake trout planted and not enough salmon. What most people dont understand is that it is very hard to get a handle on just how many laketrout are in the lakes. They have been planting year after year in the same numbers as the salmon spiecies,but live much longer. Planting Salmon is much more of an exact science for the DNR because they know the exact life cycle of the fish they are putting into the lake. In only 4 years they get back a great deal of info. through wier checks, and other fish counts in rivers that just are not possible with lake trout. Living and fishing in the southern end of lake huron I have seen a dramatic jump in the lake trout population in the last couple of years especialy in the spring and early fall. I have also talked with commercial fisherman in Sarnia and they have told me that in the fall everytime they checked thier trap nets, (already having their quota of lakers for the year) they have to release 600 to 1 thousand laketrout every time they check thier nets. They also told me that the laketrout are starting to displace the walleye in the same areas. I feel laketrout play a very important part of the Great Lakes system. But know more than the Salmon.

Ten year planting example:
species 1yr 2yr 3yr 4yr 5yr 6yr 7yr 8yr 9yr 10yr
laketrout 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
King Salmon 10 20 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
You only get as many fish as the lifecycle dictates.

[jeremy L]

if no one likes lakers, OPEN THE SEASON TO SHORE ANGLERS. Sorry, had to get my biggest problem point with laker managment across;) :)

[fishlkmich]

Planting Lake Trout in Lakes Huron and Michigan is a waste of angler's dollars!!! We are paying to plant fish that have a relatively low natural reproduction rate in these lakes. The size limits have gone up to the point where almost any Lake Trout caught from these lakes is considered unsafe to eat by the Michigan Department of Community Health. Yet, these same fish are being netted by the commercial fishermen and being sold in Michigan grocery stores and restaurants to unsuspecting women and children for food. So, Michigan anglers are paying to plant a fish that, if caught and is of legal size to keep, it is not safe to eat. At the same time we are paying to have these fish planted so that they can be sold at the marketplace to people that do not know that they are not safe to eat. This is criminal!!! The sportsmen of this state should start a class action lawsuit to be reimbursed for every planted Lake Trout, Salmon and Walleye that is taken by commercial fishermen!!! Why are we subsidizing a commercial fishery with OUR money to have the fish that WE plant end up in a net??? Instead of creating the fishery that we desire we are planting fish for commercial harvest. This is just WRONG!!!:mad:

[Termie33]

Let me first start off by saying i prefer salmon to lakers. BUt it is awefully nice to know i can find lakers if i havent run into a salmon. I fish port austin, and there is no problem catching lakers, and ive heard of it referred to as the best place on lake huron for lakers. I believe part of the reason is because there arent too many nets towards the thumb of MI. With that being said, i believe a native fish should be focused on and kept. Salmon are easier to manage because of the 4 year life cycle. Lakers can live to be 20 years old, and are more delicate. I also read in an earlier post about browns flurrishing...i believe this is because in the summer browns are usually in warmer water then the rest of salmon and trout, making me to believe the majority are out of nets harm. Also, the arguement about low reproduction rates...all salmon and trout have a low reproduction rate in mi...does that mean stop planting everything? SO my suggestion is fight the nets(although it will never happen). Another suggestion which will sound off the wall is plant alewives. More bait, bigger and more fish. Just my thoughs

[jeremy L]

the planting of bait would be a good idea, however, i would perfer if they were to plant smelt, more then alewives. I think lake huron at least would benfit for smelt plants, as number recently seemed to have fallen.

[kingfisher 11]

Ah yes, I remember the good old days as a young man on the dock in Petoskey and at Elk rapids.

Lakers wer so big in Petoskey that the guys who tried to snag them under the lights could'nt hold them even on heavy line.

They use to be so thick in the fall at the dam in elk rapids that you could drop a lure down and snag one evey time. They two were very big then. I bet there was many 20 pound plus fish down there. Those days are now gone, and not because of fish lines.

I do like having lakers in the big lakes. You always know if all else fails you can drop down to the bottom and let some rookies have fun bringing them in. They sure get a kick out of it.

I have caught my biggest lakers in the past 10 years off the tip of the thumb. Not uncommon to get one around twenty pounds when I fished it a few years back.

I don't like spending all that money to plant lakers and have someone net them out. I have heard that the natives americans have spent monies in the fisheries. I am not sure how much but they have started to put some money back in. Maybe common sense tells them the public is turning on them. There futures in netting may someday go away if they don't change public opinion.

Keep planting but, put most of the resources into the salmon, steelies, walleye and browns.

[Getaway]

I like having the lakers out there, they give us a well rounded resource, but I feel the management is poor. By that I am refering to the commercial netting and toxin problem.

[robin]

I appreciate having the lake trout to catch on Lake Huron. I like to get the boat out as soon as possible in the spring and I can usually count on catching alot of lakers before I ever see a salmon. Sure, they don't put up much of a fight, but a few fish for the smoker is better than getting skunked any day. Not to mention, the kids I've had on my boat have always enjoyed reeling in a lake trout. I feel for anyone who fishes near nets. I don't sympathize with those who are allowed to use them. Casino revenue isn't enough?

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

Ask anyone that works on a commercial fishing boat what they do with Lake Trout. They bring them in the fornt door and throw them out the back door as fast as they can.
They are worthless as far as they are concerned.
Made me sick!
Chad

[Termie33]

If this is true they better come up with better ways NOT to catch lakers, what a waste of a resource. Anyone that knows how to properly clean a fish will know that if you clean it throughly, it doesnt taste much different then a salmon, especially if its smoked.

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

It waqs the fact that on the commercial market they weren't worth beans. And they caught so many of them in their nets.
Chad

[Termie33]

All the more reason for them to find ways NOT to catch them

[Whit1]

In order of preference I'd list for Great Lakes management
1. Browns
2. Steelheads
5. Chinook Salmon
6. Coho Salmon
8. Lake Trout

(yes, I know the countingordering just ain't up to snuff)

I'd much rather see the ever shrinking money supply go into managing Browns and Steelheads rather than Lake Trout. However, they do have a commercial value for the charter boat skippers and their clients.

[fishlkmich]

A couple of links with supporting numbers:

http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/index.asp?Sec=News&str=4021

“Tribes fishing Lake Michigan, for instance, are permitted to harvest up to 2 million lake trout, which has flooded the market and driven prices down”

Our commercial fishermen are taking SO MANY Lake Trout that they are driving prices down across the nation!!!

http://www.mfrcc.com/whatsnew/annualreport.PDF

"Table 6. Summary of tribal commercial lake trout harvest (pounds) by management unit in 1836 Treaty-ceded waters of the Great Lakes for the 2001 fishing season."

Lake Unit = Total

Michigan MM-1,2,3 = 431,827
MM-4 = 52,556
MM-5 = 6,134

Huron MH-1 = 113,551

Superior
MI-6 = 9,254
MI-7 = 39,458
MI-8 = 44,127

Total = 696,907

So, it seems to me that if commercial fishermen took almost ¾ of a MILLION POUNDS of Lake Trout in 2001 they didn’t just “throw them out the back door”.

I would like to remind everyone that the size limits on Lake Trout have been increasing for recreational fishermen to allow commercial fishermen to fill THEIR quotas. I would also like to remind you all that WE pay to have Lake Trout planted in Lakes Michigan and Huron because Lake Trout do not reproduce naturally in those waters in large enough numbers to fill the commercial quotas. That’s over a HALF of a MILLION pounds of Lake Trout that you and I paid for in 2001, alone, for commercial harvest. Why aren’t the commercial fishermen paying for planting Lake Trout, Salmon, Walleye and Perch to be planted if they are harvesting these fish?:confused:

We could and SHOULD do something about this problem! I would like to see a $5.00 discount for a Lake Trout exemption on my fishing license. I don't want the big Lakers that are full of toxins, so my money wouldn't be used to plant them and I wouldn't keep any. Lakers that are legal to keep from Lakes Huron and Michigan are not safe to eat, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health.

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

If they are permitted to take 2 million fish on Lk Mich. and they only take 690,000 lbs all together What is your point???
I'm just relaying to you what a certain Canadian commercial fisherman on Lk Huron told me that they do everyday.
I think your post makes my point.
To the guys pulling perch, walleye, and other fish the Lakers are just a bother to them.
Chad

[fishlkmich]

There are open permits to net bloater chubs and no commercial fisherman wants to fish them in the area with available permits.

I don't get my limit of fish every time I go out.

I don't know if its a lack of fishermen, or fish, that restricted their catch in 2001. Maybe it was because it was their first year getting into the business, after the new consent decree. My point is that I don't want to pay for any fish going into their nets. My point is that they kept a half of a million pounds. They made money on those fish. All I know is that I pay to have fish planted for commercials to net. If a half of a million pounds of fish per year sounds like peanuts to you, it doesn't to me. It is the sole reason that our length limits have gone up and I resent the fact that I am still paying the price. Let them pick up the tab whether its 2 million, or 200,000!

Mark

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

You've totally twisted my reply to the post.
You are the one that put up the statistics.
Do you fish for every fish that is planted?????
Do you drive on every road that is built with tax money??
The fact that you want five bucks back from the state cause you don't like the fish they have planted for you is dumb.
Do you think Lake Trout are the only fish you pay for that is planted then netted???
You said you don't want the fish, what the heck do you care what the size limit is!!!???
Again what is your point?
Most recreational fishermen are against any kind of netting.
Chad

[SALMONATOR]

This here is Turnin' into a good ol' heated battle!! Can't believe I'm not in the middle of it this time!!

Kovarnic,

I'd be interested to hear what you and your classmates have learned from this post so far and how it's affected the course of your studies.

So whats the future of our Great Lakes planting situation? Any insight? What do you think?

Al

[Coldwater Charters]

Well, I do a little fishing on Lake Michigan. My Lake Trout numbers over the past 2 years are down over 50% then years before. I fish where there are no nets so,,,who knows what has happened. Of course I haven't spent allot of time in the area they seem to hang out either so that probably has more to it then anything. I can't complain much about anything that our fishery has given us in the past 10 years really. It has seemed to have gotten better every year.

As far as the $5.00 rebate on your fishing license I like how Great Lakes answered that "Do you drive on every road that is built with tax money???" The problem with today is if it aint my bag,,,I aint paying for it. There are so many tax dollars and license fee's that go towards things that I will never utilize or even see that it would make your head spin. I also like the idea to have a program to enhance the only indigenous Great Lakes sport fish left a program that will keep good numbers throughout the lake. Even though I'm not a fan of the Commercial netting, they take a small percentage of the fish that is available to us. And here is a fact that probably most don't look at. The Eco system of the Great Lakes can only support so many predator fish, after that, decease starts rearing it's ugly head in the form of BKD whirling decease to name a few.

Lake Trout have gotten a bad rap and IMO it all revolves around when the hit the deck they poop, slime and puke up all over the place,,,,come to think of it they are pretty nasty:) But IMO Lake Trout eat just as good as any Salmon, Steelhead or Brown Trout out there. Now saying that,,,,I try not to eat any of them over 12 pounds or so and Brown Trout too unless they are smoked.

I vote to keep up the Lake Trout Program and keep the numbers where those in charge think they should be. I look at it like this war with Iraq right now. Everyone here has an opinion on this with limited resources available to us,,,but I'm still happy they aren't letting me call the shots,,,,I'll leave it up to the professionals until I see reason to disagree.

It all about the big scheme of things,,, not the tunnel vision picture that some of us have even me from time to time.

[Whit1]

Cap't Coldwater,
Excellent post!

I'll also second what Splitshot says about toning down the retoric when we disagree. It is possible to debate topics without resorting to childish antics.

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

I said it was dumb, Whit said it was childish. What's the difference?
I didn't say fishlkmich was dumb I said the idea of giving him 5 bucks back was dumb. Come-on are we that PC?
It wasn't a personal attack.
Chad

[Whit1]

GLO,
You misunderstood my "childish" comment. Please refer to the PM that I just sent to you.

[Linda G.]

Lake trout aren't preferred by most Lake Huron and Michigan anglers. I think everyone knows that.

But they are targeted quite deliberately in Lake Superior by sport anglers and charter boat captains. I know, a couple of years ago, I was in a boat off Black River, catching so many lake trout my arms hurt, but all the time trying desperately to convince the captain that we'd like to try the early spring jack runs of salmon...;)

He didn't seem to understand me. In the UP, lake trout are everything!! And apparently, to some anglers, a boatload of lake trout is better any day of the week than a handful of salmon.

IMO, we need to continue targeting most of our lake trout efforts to Lake Superior, a big lake with lots of room for both sport anglers and commercial/tribal fishermen, if everyone wants to get along and work out their differences.

But we need to cater to sport anglers on the lower Great Lakes more than the commercial fisherman, so I would like to see some lake trout planted, with more of an emphasis on browns, steelhead and salmon.


I'd like to continue to see lake trout in the lower Great Lakes as well, if you've never been out fishing with someone who's never fished the big lakes before, you may not realize that to a newbie, a big fish is a big fish, whether it's a king salmon or a carp.


And don't knock the native Mackinaw lake trout. I've caught them off the shores of Isle Royale and in the Nipigon River of Ontario, and believe me, they're not like any other lake trout. They are, simply, magnificent fish, with brilliant orange fin coloration. They are also GREAT fighters in shallow water under 65 ft in early summer, and they eat like no other lake trout you've ever eaten. They are a part of Great Lakes history, and I'd hate to see them extirpated from our Great Lakes.

[Shoeman]

We can't stop the netting.


No need to discuss this again and again.
It's a Federal Issue.

I will not allow any additional netting threads. Indian or Commercial.

If anyone wants to warn others about the location of nets (GPS numbers), that are near our fishing grounds, that's cool, other than that,
they will be DELETED

[Jimbos]

I know what a hot issue the netting thing is. I didn't want to start an Indian bashing thread but it's tough to discuss the drop in lake trout fishing without bringing up one of the root causes of the problem.

The netting issue has to be mentioned if you talk great lakes fishing, but it can't turn into a bashing party.

[fishlkmich]

While I refuse to believe that there is anything that people cannot do, with a strong enough desire, I will not refer to commercial fishing on this Web site if it is not allowed.

If my ideas sound dumb, or childish, to some that is fine with me. I would like those to consider the fact that Lakes Michigan and Huron fishery is a “put and take” fishery. You pay for Salmon and Trout to be planted in these lakes and if the DNR quit planting any given species that species would eventually disappear from these lakes. Some natural reproduction occurs, but not enough to sustain any one species without supplemental planting. That is why Kings, Coho, Browns, Lakers and Steelhead are planted in these lakes. It is also why Lakers are not planted in Superior any longer. They are reproducing in adequate numbers in Lake Superior and supplemental planting is no longer necessary, although recreational fishing is impacting this fishery to the point where additional restrictions on size and creel limits are being imposed.

So, now we have established that we are paying to have fish planted so that we can catch them. How do we pay for it? Funds from “all species” license are a large part of the revenue. Is it dumb, or childish, for the DNR to charge extra for the users of a resource to pay for the right to use that resource? Should the DNR spread the cost of planting these fish across the board? That would reduce the price of licenses for Salmon and Trout fishermen, but would raise the cost for those who do not fish for them. If your answer to this question is no then why would the idea of me not paying for a fish to be planted that I don’t fish for, or keep, be dumb, or childish? I think that it’s a GREAT idea! I think that we should have a check box for each of the planted Great Lakes species and only pay for what we want to keep. That way the DNR would see which species Great Lakes fishermen want planted and could raise the types of fish that we want to catch from revenues raised for those fish. At the same time my license fees would be reduced because I don’t keep Lakers and Browns. These fish are full of PCBs and Dioxins that I don’t want to eat, or feed to my family and friends. Perhaps they could let everyone pitch in extra if they just wanted Salmon and Steelhead planted.

I feel that people who do not consider other opinions are just narrow minded.

[Shoeman]

Seeing I don't fish for Bass and walleye, perhaps I can buy a "Trout and salmon only" license.

.....and then I woke up, in a cold sweat and I got spooled.... (again)

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

I would try to name the things that you pay for and don't use but I don't have the time.
How do you know what taking one of the only original species out of the lakes would do to the lake?
Salmon are fun for you to catch and tasty so we should only have salmon and Steelhead.
How do you know that Lakers and Salmon only survive becuase of each other?
Maybe if we didn't plant Lakers, the Salmon would be toxic (allegedly).
After all I could live without women but not for very long.
Sorry if I offended you fishlk that was not my intention. But there is not much else to argue about here.
It seems that everyone here is a conservative;).
Thank God, Chad
Dammit I pay for those shoulder mounted Rockets I want to shoot one:D
Chad, eating Lake Trout (not)

[Coldwater Charters]

Originally posted by fishlkmich
At the same time my license fees would be reduced because I don’t keep Lakers and Browns. These fish are full of PCBs and Dioxins that I don’t want to eat, or feed to my family and friends. Perhaps they could let everyone pitch in extra if they just wanted Salmon and Steelhead planted.

I feel that people who do not consider other opinions are just narrow minded.

fishlkmich, I have to disagree with you about "These fish are full of PCBs" somewhat. The young fish have no more of a health risk then any other fish you catch anywhere. To say "These fish are full of PCBs is very irresponsible on your part. The majority of lake Trout and Brown Trout caught are under no restrictions. Even the bigger and older fish if cleaned correctly will have no effect on the consumer. It seems your last sentence should be something you should follow, not us.

IMO your opinion makes absolutely no sense and therefore that is why you are getting such a back lash from others towards it. I personally don't understand the big deal anyway,,,you can't afford 13.95 for the stamp. Your argument has no merit and seems very self centered!!!

[fishlkmich]

MDCH Guidelines:

Lake Huron:
Brown Trout:
Women and children - do not eat over 18 inches
Lake Trout:
Everyone - Do not eat over 22 inches W/C - don't eat over 10 inches

Lake Michigan:
Browns:
Everyone - Do not eat over 22 inches
Lake Trout:
Everyone - Do not eat over 22 inches

Smaller fish have other restrictions.

CC,

Those are facts. You cannot clean the toxins out of these fish. Call the Michigan Department of Community Health before you call me a liar.

It may be in the best interest of a charter captain to spread disinformation. I have no interest other than telling the truth.

[Termie33]

Fish if you read CC post it says the majority of the fish caught are under no restrictions. And honestly, most lakers or browns caught are at or under 22 inches in length. Secondly he said if you clean the larger fish properly it will not affect the consumer. THis is also true. Toxins are held in the fat of fish. Take out the mudvayne(lateral line), the belly, areas around the fins, and other dark meat then you are fine. I Myself have never thrown a laker back because it was too big and unsafe, i just know the true facts. On a side note, before you treat the regulations as fact, they have also come under fire as to how true their guidelines are. THink about that one.

[GreatLakesOutfitters]

I agree with Coldwater (surprised?).
I usually cook my meals before I eat them. I'm glad you don't keep and eat those fish fishlkmich.
Did you know that your license goes to pay for the planting of those fish? Just kidding.
I've been eating those fish all my life. I don't know how we got to this point, probably me but I believe,
The more fish the better.
Have you ever eaten a Muskie?
Have you ever caught a Sturgeon? Do you know the amount of money that goes into Sturgeon research.
You can't pick and choose what you want to pay for. FIshing is not life or death. If you cant afford the license fees don't fish
Charter Captains are very careful about spreading disinformation, an occasional "we're killing up here" but I believe that is the extent of it.
Chad

[Whit1]

Originally posted by Linda G.
And don't knock the native Mackinaw lake trout. I've caught them off the shores of Isle Royale and in the Nipigon River of Ontario, and believe me, they're not like any other lake trout. They are, simply, magnificent fish, with brilliant orange fin coloration. They are also GREAT fighters in shallow water under 65 ft in early summer, and they eat like no other lake trout you've ever eaten. They are a part of Great Lakes history, and I'd hate to see them extirpated from our Great Lakes.

That's saying a load of truth young lady. those old time Mackinaw Trout (lakers) were and are superb fish, not at all like the "modern" day laker.

[fishlkmich]

I’ll just stick to Lakers since that’s where this started.

Minimum length to keep in Lake Huron north of Alpena (approx.) Actually - north of the 44 degrees 50 minutes north latitude line – 20 inches

MDCH guidelines:
Everyone - Do not eat over 22 inches. Women and children - don't eat over 10 inches (10 inches minimum length for areas south)

Minimum length to keep in Lake Michigan south of Frankfort/Arcadia - 22 inches

MDCH guidelines:
Everyone – Do not eat over 22 inches

Termie33,

I have spoken with biologists and toxicologists from the Michigan Department of Community Health and they have told me that no matter how you clean these fish they are NOT SAFE TO EAT. Please provide proof otherwise. You can’t keep the “safe” fish anymore because the length limits don’t allow it!!! I want to know where you get YOUR information if I am so wrong.

GreatLakesOutfitters,

Ditto!!!

And, I have a 1999 23’ fully outfitted boat, so a few bucks doesn’t bother me. Some other issues that I am not under the liberty on this board to discuss do bother me. By the way, Salmon and Steelhead do not have the same body fat content as Lakers and Browns. That is why fish with a higher body fat content contain more toxins. The fat is “marbled” through the meat, which is why it cannot be removed by careful cleaning.

To say that there is some sort of symbiotic relationship between Lakers and Salmon is pure hypothesis. The Lakers in Lakes Huron and Michigan are not the original strain that was once there, so that doesn’t wash either.

Shoeman,

We have Small Game licenses and I would equate that with the general fishing license, i.e. Bass and Walleye. Most planting is done for Great Lakes species.

Everyone,

What is SO WRONG with applying the same types of rules to Great Lakes fishing that we do for Michigan hunting? Small Game, except for Turkey, which has special tags for certain areas. Then there are Deer tags, Bear lotteries, Elk lotteries, Fur permits…

All I am saying is that a system could be devised that would stock more desirable fish, with fewer toxins and a better fight, than what we have now. Fish that are not primarily targeted by groups other than sportsmen may be reduced in numbers. The fishermen who fish these waters and pay to have the fish planted would choose the system. The cost of license fees could be increased for all I care! As long as we could choose where our money goes in terms of what species of fish are planted.

[jeremy L]

haven't we discussed this issure enough? the toxins in fish?

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26097

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25169

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23926

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=173922#post173922