Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Collapse

64K views 711 replies 84 participants last post by  jpmarko 
#1 · (Edited)
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/12/are_lake_michigan_salmon_on_ve.html#incart_river

As many of you know I am quite opinionated young individual. Just thought Id see what some of your thoughts were on this.

Here was my initial response, please excuse any typos or improper grammar. I often post before I reread. Science is my strong suit most definitely not English. =P

There are many many ways to look at this. Obviously due to less fish being stocking, and variable year to year induction of wild Chinooks, numbers of total fish(Chinook) very. Less fish(Chinook) present and fluctuating bait levels, with high and low years. Last year was a freak year, crazy numbers of alewife and super sized fish, this year we had less alewife and more average size fish. The lake is in a state of fluctuations and it may be for my entire lifetime. From my limited experience and interpretation of the data, I don't see a crash. With less fish available, and catch rates down, maybe its time we bump back the five limit to three (Just for social benefits not scientifically; example easier for charters to catch a limit for clients). Also some anglers may need to step their game up if they want to catch fish, and adapt their trolling programs (instead of relying of just doing what they always do).
 
See less See more
#127 ·
Precisely , both Lakers and Steelhead were present long before the Alwive made it here. Though we may be facing fewer numbers the possibilty of much larger Kings is part of the equation. Perhaps all the big lake people should accidentally be dropping a bag of "bloom builder" off their gunnels each time out....
In a lake with significantly fewer alewife, fewer kings are likely. Juvenile chinook survivorship is the direct result of alewife year-class strength in any given year. The larger kings seen in creels in 2013 came at the expense of survivorship of 2010 year-class alewife to spawning maturity. The 2012 year-class was okay to good, meaning more chinook survived to mature to spawn in 2015. What this past 2013-14 winter wrought is near zero alewife survival in the 2013 year-class and loss of adult fish as well.

"The possibility of larger Kings is" Not "part of the equation." This is why the discssion is titled Collapse.

For all those folks extolling the Lake Huron sport fishery's resurgence, I have one question: Why are the marinas still largely empty on that side of Michigan during the open water fishing season? Great Lakes fisherman are largely nomadic!

Piscivorous salmonids eat fish that exist and swim routinely in their preferred temperature range, feeding out of temperature to a minimum due to the negative physiologic consequences.

With Diporeia gone from the lower lakes (still exist in good numbers in Lake Superior), Mysis diluviana (opossum shrimp) carry-out the majority of the vertical transport of energy from cold deep waters back to shallower surface waters where most of these salmonines exist. If they go the way of Diporeia sp.. they lake becomes several orders of magnitude more sterile in surface waters until fall/winter turnover. As a consequence, every fish species suffers a downward shift in food availability.

Mysis stocks, despite low numbers and densities of fish species that feed on them, are slowly declining in Lake Michigan. Likely due, at least in part, from loss of the spring diatom blooms in inshore waters. A resurgence in smelt, cisco, bloater, or alewife numbers will likely drive their abundance down further or precipitate a collapse even in the absence of futher expansions in Dreissenid mussel biomass.

Round goby seldom move more than six feet above the mussel colonies they feed on and spawn in. Lake trout, burbot, smallmouth bass, and walleye/yellow perch feed on them at sequentlially declining rates by species listed.

Current predation rate studies of round goby stocks in Lake Michigan indicate annual predation rates of 78 to nearly 90% on one year old fish, limiting stock expansion. Bottomline, their habitat(mussel colonies) is not expanding, and they are being eaten at rates that currently limit further significant expansion of populations.

A vibrant steelhead fishery existed pre-alewife expansion in the Great Lakes? That's news to me. The lake trout fishery that existed pre-alewife stock expansion was a commercial fishery, with very little open lake sport fishing.
 
#128 ·
Perhaps all the big lake people should accidentally be dropping a bag of "bloom builder" off their gunnels each time out....
Can't tell you how many times this thought has crossed my mind while looking at the bottom in 30+ FOW out of grindstone. Talk about a sterile fish desert!

I know a guy who produces plankton blumes using Alfalfa pellets and fertilizer. We need more cowdung runoff.
 
#129 ·
As we all know the reason there are no boats on east side marinas is there are few kings in Lake Huron. No alewives not going to be many kings. As has been reported there has been large amounts of bait (shiners, shad and sticklebacks) and decent steelhead fishing along with some browns, walleye atlantics etc. People prefer to fish places that they have a chance to get kings. I might be wrong on this but i don't believe that the DNR monitors levels of shiners and shad (not sure about sticklebacks) in there trolling efferts. We are seeing huge pods of shiners up near the surface as far as 10 miles out up here.
When Huron crashed like many others we gave it up for a few years with no kings present but once big water fishing gets a hold of you its hard to give up. We now enjoy many 5-10 fish days with a mix bag of the species mentioned above.
Hopefully Michigan won't crash. I still like getting over there at least once a year to get a few of those kings. If it does I'm sure many people will get out of big water fishing. Some however will stick with it and hopefully like over here there will at least be a decent fishery to develop post crash.
 
#130 · (Edited)
The biggest king ive ever seen in person was this summer on Northern Lake Huron out of the port of Detour. The fish was hooked on a short copper in 100+ FOW on a small stinger spoon. Fish was lost boat side but my memory of it will last for ever. Also my first time ever fishing Lake Huron. (we landed several other 8-10 pound kings that day all packed with bait, but we also had several fishless days out in the same area days before).
(click for larger)
Colorfulness Rectangle Slope Plot Font


http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/product_files/Pelagic Preyfish Huron 2012.pdf
 

Attachments

#131 ·
The biggest king ive ever seen in person was this summer on Northern Lake Huron out of the port of Detour. The fish was hooked on a short copper in 100+ FOW on a small stinger spoon. Fish was lost boat side but my memory of it will last for ever. Also my first time ever fishing Lake Huron. (we landed several other 8-10 pound kings that day all packed with bait, but we also had several fishless days out in the same area days before).
(click for larger)
View attachment 71951

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/product_files/Pelagic Preyfish Huron 2012.pdf
Too bad present day numbers aren't available...
 
#132 ·
For all those folks extolling the Lake Huron sport fishery's resurgence, I have one question: Why are the marinas still largely empty on that side of Michigan during the open water fishing season? Great Lakes fisherman are largely nomadic!
For the past few years there has been a significant increase in boat traffic at the launches at least in the lower end of Lk Huron, specifically Pt Sanilac, Lexington, and even even Pt Huron. I can't speak for Harbor Beach and above as I don't fish those ports. I can say from the fishing reports I have seen from Harbor Beach also show good catches of fish. If you observe the tournament results from these ports in the spring you will note that many of the bags consist of fish other than lake trout.

Most of the boats seen are not the typical boats that one would see staying in marinas but ones that are easier to trailer and go from port to port. When I go to Traverse City in August I see that those marinas are pretty full but a vast majority of those boats are pleasure cruisers, something we just don't have a lot of at our harbors. So hence our marinas are not packed. Take for instance Sebewaing, access to the great walleye fishery on Saginaw bay yet a marina pretty devoid of boats but yet the launch and parking areas are packed. Again boats that are easier to trailer and move about to different ports.

I also believe that the learning curve on our end of Lk Huron is vastly different especially with the mixed fishery. The regular fishermen that fish these ports have adapted and do fairly well on the water, others that just stick to a standard salmon program don't do so well and are frustrated at the lack of fish catching.
 
#133 ·
We fished Huron a lot this year and marked more significant bait balls this year than we have in the past 7 years. It was like this out as far as the Sarnia Ridge...aka the reef. That's 25 miles out. The fish, Kings included, were full of bait...what kind of bait, I'm not sure, but bait none the less.
If you can, please do some stomach checks in 2015 and let us know what are in those kings. I have seen just about everything in a kings stomach, not sure if that is good or bad. But certainly smelt were target #1 back when I patrolled the east coast. I didn't even know what an alewife was until I started fishing LKMI.

Have caught kings full of juvenile perch, stickleback, shad and emerald shiners when they were more plentiful in LkMI in previous years.

We also gut the alewife of decent size to check maturity levels. This past season every ale we found (mostly in the gullets of lake trout) all were in full spawn...loaded with eggs.
 
#134 ·
Precisely , both Lakers and Steelhead were present long before the Alwive made it here. Though we may be facing fewer numbers the possibilty of much larger Kings is part of the equation. Perhaps all the big lake people should accidentally be dropping a bag of "bloom builder" off their gunnels each time out....
Watch out...the green coats will write you a littering ticket for that.
 
#136 · (Edited)
Cork Dust,
All due respect, however I would be willing to bet you have absolutely NO documentation as to that statement of large fish not being part of the equation. The State and Feds. could not get rid of the Alwives if they tried. Same with the Kings. So that said, very few Kings feeding on the remaining bait COULD certainly produce a few robust specimens. Especially as competion for these fish will be much less than current effort
 
#137 ·
Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron both have loads of feeder fish or bait. From the sounds of it Southern Lake Michigan and Huron will be hurting for feeder fish. It is my guess that the salmon will head north in future years much sooner to follow the schools of bait. The great salmon fishing may just switch to the North. That will be interesting, but I could be right guess we will find out in about 7 months.
 
#138 · (Edited)
Northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron both have loads of feeder fish or bait. From the sounds of it Southern Lake Michigan and Huron will be hurting for feeder fish. It is my guess that the salmon will head north in future years much sooner to follow the schools of bait. The great salmon fishing may just switch to the North. That will be interesting, but I could be right guess we will find out in about 7 months.
I fish the southern basin of Lake Michigan and always see bait. You cant fish for perch with out snagging alewife! The opposite of what you said is what occurred this season. They found bait down here and never had a reason to move north till spawning urge kicked in. :lol:
 
#139 · (Edited)
Cork Dust,
All due respect, however I would be willing to bet you have absolutely NO documentation as to that statement of large fish not being part of the equation. The State and Feds. could not get rid of the Alwives if they tried. Same with the Kings. So that said, very few Kings feeding on the remaining bait COULD certainly produce a few robust specimens. Especially as competion for these fish will be much less than current effort
Brenden, T.O.,J.R.Bence, and E.B.Szalai.2012.An Age-Structured Integrated Assessment of Chinook Salmon Population Dynamics in Lake Huron's Main Basin since 1968.Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 141:919-933.

"The primary cause for this (98%) decline has been a substantial increase in Age-0 natural mortality rates, which peaked at an instantaneous ratre of around 6.3 in the late 2000s, although fishing mortality rates have also been quite high."

Essentially the authors concluded that chinook, absent the ability to emigrate to Lake Michigan, either die via starvation, are eaten by inshore predators while searching for alewife, or are caught before they reach age-3.


First the juvenile (age-0)chinook have to survive in a low alewife density environment. Then they have to expend energy to find, catch, and consume enough baitfish to repay the energy expended locating and eating prey, with the remainder going to growth. In predator-prey models this is termed a Type I Functional Response. Please feel free to contact Dr. Bence or Dr. J.M. Jones at MSU's Quantitative Fishery Center and have him or one of his graduate students walk you through their model.

What do you think the impetus was for chinook to emigrate to Lake Michigan from Lake Huron waters?

Lake Superior used to produce low to mid twenty pound chinook back in the mid-80s when smelt stocks were three times what they are now. Now chinook juveniles are largely eaten by inshore lean lake trout and are out competed for the remaining smelt stocks by both lean and fat lake trout. You see any master angler award chinook comin out of Lake Superior in the last decade?

Note the comments made in the USGS forage fish abundance data that is posted: Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior basins now all have approximately the same biomass. The species arrays for each of these lake basins differs. Lake Superior didn't get more productive, Dreissenid mussel filter feeding and the elimination of Diproreia amphipods have short-circuited energy transfer from the deepwater sections of Lakes Michigan and Huron to surface and inshore waters, depleting their inherent abilities to produce sport fish via making fish food.

I'll stick with what is likely to happen, not what maybe COULD happen.
 
#140 ·
Cork Dust I the article you just posted it mentions juvenile chinook age needing alewives to feed on that contradicts articles I have read that stated juvenile chinook feed on bugs for the early portions of thier lives , so which is right?
This imformation was from a SeaGrant presentation I attended in Ludington years ago.
 
#141 · (Edited)
Precisely , both Lakers and Steelhead were present long before the Alwive made it here. Though we may be facing fewer numbers the possibilty of much larger Kings is part of the equation. Perhaps all the big lake people should accidentally be dropping a bag of "bloom builder" off their gunnels each time out....
I learned to fish for Salmon, and Steelhead around 1973, and my "Mentor" was someone who had fished for Steelhead for years at that time. He told me stories about how he was happy to catch 2 or 3 Steelhead each year - although he fished for them a LOT. He mostly fished the Little Manistee River, which had a natural run of Steelhead. But they didn't exist in large numbers at all, because the DNR didn't plant them annually anywhere.
Lakers were on a serious decline in the 1960's, and well into the 1970's, due to predation by Sea Lamprey. Maybe that is why they weren't controlling the Alewife numbers effectively?

When Howard Tanner made the great decision to plant Salmon, to help control Alewives, and create a sport fishery at the same time, the DNR also ramped up efforts to raise, and plant Steelhead - although that didn't start for a bit after it was realized that planting Salmon was a big success. I would say Steelhead fishing really took off in the mid to late 1970's, and Salmon fishing was just incredible at that time, too.

Everyone can kick around all of the theories, and ideas to work around the collapse of the ecosystems of our lakes they want to. But (as I stated previously in this thread), as Cork Dust has explained perfectly, completely, and eloquently, there won't be a real solution to saving Salmon fishing unless someone comes up with a solution for the Mussels. "Fertilizing" the lakes will just feed the Mussels, which would actually hurt the fishery more. Kings simply won't focus on other prey fish than Alewives, regardless of people finding other fish in their stomachs from time to time. The lakes are amazingly more sterile than they were just 20 years ago, and that trend will continue, and get worse.

So, without Kings to fish for, Lake Trout are actually a decent backup plan. They don't focus solely on Alewives for their sustenance, although they will feed on Alewives when the opportunity presents itself. Steelhead are an even better option, as they present the best opportunities for anglers to target them - offshore, and in rivers. Browns are a decent alternate option as well. I think the right combination of Lakers, Steelhead, and Brown Trout is what will give us sustainable fishing for "Silver" fish in the future. Well, at least until someone comes up with a viable plan to fix the Mussel problem. :sad:
 
#142 ·
Cork Dust I the article you just posted it mentions juvenile chinook age needing alewives to feed on that contradicts articles I have read that stated juvenile chinook feed on bugs for the early portions of thier lives , so which is right?
This imformation was from a SeaGrant presentation I attended in Ludington years ago.
They feed post release or post smolt on terrestrials blown into the lake along the shoreline(grab a mask and snorkel and look in all the little troughs that run parallel the shoreline out to about 20FOW. In September/October they switch over to a fish diet consisting of juvenile alewife.(Warner et al.2008.The Influence of Alewife Year-Class Strength on Prey Selection and Abundance of Age-1 Chinook Salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.137: 1683-1700.) The interesting twist in all this is that at this interval in the Fall, juvenile alewife reach that fat content maxima going into Winter(lower content now in the post-Dreissenid mussel environment that now exists).

There is some good news hidden in this study. The 2012 alewife year-class was a decent one, so survival of chinook juveniles was improved. These fish will be spawning in Fall of 2015. Sadly, after this things look pretty bleak for salmon and alewife. The 2013 year-class survival of alewife was poor, with most of the remainder and some adult fish perishing in the winter of 2013-14.
 
#143 · (Edited)
Brenden, T.O.,J.R.Bence, and E.B.Szalai.2012.An Age-Structured Integrated Assessment of Chinook Salmon Population Dynamics in Lake Huron's Main Basin since 1968.Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 141:919-933.

"The primary cause for this (98%) decline has been a substantial increase in Age-0 natural mortality rates, which peaked at an instantaneous ratre of around 6.3 in the late 2000s, although fishing mortality rates have also been quite high."

Essentially the authors concluded that chinook, absent the ability to emigrate to Lake Michigan, either die via starvation, are eaten by inshore predators while searching for alewife, or are caught before they reach age-3.


First the juvenile (age-0)chinook have to survive in a low alewife density environment. Then they have to expend energy to find, catch, and consume enough baitfish to repay the energy expended locating and eating prey, with the remainder going to growth. In predator-prey models this is termed a Type I Functional Response. Please feel free to contact Dr. Bence or Dr. J.M. Jones at MSU's Quantitative Fishery Center and have him or one of his graduate students walk you through their model.

What do you think the impetus was for chinook to emigrate to Lake Michigan from Lake Huron waters?

Lake Superior used to produce low to mid twenty pound chinook back in the mid-80s when smelt stocks were three times what they are now. Now chinook juveniles are largely eaten by inshore lean lake trout and are out competed for the remaining smelt stocks by both lean and fat lake trout. You see any master angler award chinook comin out of Lake Superior in the last decade?

Note the comments made in the USGS forage fish abundance data that is posted: Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior basins now all have approximately the same biomass. The species arrays for each of these lake basins differs. Lake Superior didn't get more productive, Dreissenid mussel filter feeding and the elimination of Diproreia amphipods have short-circuited energy transfer from the deepwater sections of Lakes Michigan and Huron to surface and inshore waters, depleting their inherent abilities to produce sport fish via making fish food.

I'll stick with what is likely to happen, not what maybe COULD happen.
Yet Multi says he saw the biggest 'Nook' he's ever seen there this Summer. Obviously the food put them on the move to Lk. MI. The distance is nothing in relativity to covering what they do in their native waters.
 
#144 ·
I learned to fish for Salmon, and Steelhead around 1973, and my "Mentor" was someone who had fished for Steelhead for years at that time. He told me stories about how he was happy to catch 2 or 3 Steelhead each year - although he fished for them a LOT. He mostly fished the Little Manistee River, which had a natural run of Steelhead. But they didn't exist in large numbers at all, because the DNR didn't plant them annually anywhere.
Lakers were on a serious decline in the 1960's, and well into the 1970's, due to predation by Sea Lamprey. Maybe that is why they weren't controlling the Alewife numbers effectively?

When Howard Tanner made the great decision to plant Salmon, to help control Alewives, and create a sport fishery at the same time, the DNR also ramped up efforts to raise, and plant Steelhead - although that didn't start for a bit after it was realized that planting Salmon was a big success. I would say Steelhead fishing really took off in the mid to late 1970's, and Salmon fishing was just incredible at that time, too.

Everyone can kick around all of the theories, and ideas to work around the collapse of the ecosystems of our lakes they want to. But (as I stated previously in this thread), as Cork Dust has explained perfectly, completely, and eloquently, there won't be a real solution to saving Salmon fishing unless someone comes up with a solution for the Mussels. "Fertilizing" the lakes will just feed the Mussels, which would actually hurt the fishery more. Kings simply won't focus on other prey fish than Alewives, regardless of people finding other fish in their stomachs from time to time. The lakes are amazingly more sterile than they were just 20 years ago, and that trend will continue, and get worse.

So, without Kings to fish for, Lake Trout are actually a decent backup plan. They don't focus solely on Alewives for their sustenance, although they will feed on Alewives when the opportunity presents itself. Steelhead are an even better option, as they present the best opportunities for anglers to target them - offshore, and in rivers. Browns are a decent alternate option as well. I think the right combination of Lakers, Steelhead, and Brown Trout is what will give us sustainable fishing for "Silver" fish in the future. Well, at least until someone comes up with a viable plan to fix the Mussel problem. :sad:
Hate to break it to you, but Lake Trout are THE plan. How you can quantify decent, not sure about that. You can't eat them (per consumption advisories) and nobody wants to catch them. Hell yes they focus on alewife at least on lake Michigan. Somebody pull the trawl samples numbers for this past year...next to nothing on all counts, but alewife still leading the way in terms of biomass.

Lake Trout eat everything! Juvenile kings, 15" lake trout, gobies, perch, shad, shiner, smelt. We even caught them this past spring with bluegill and small catfish in their guts. They are total and complete wrecking machines.
 
#145 ·
Yet Multi says he saw the biggest 'Nook' he's ever seen there this Summer. Obviously the food put them on the move to Lk. MI. The distance is nothing in relativity to covering what they do in their native waters.
What you claimed initially as likely is that in an era post alewife crash in Lake Michigan, absent nearly all alewife in BOTH Lakes Huron and Michigan, average size of the remaining chinook will increase. Now, you are using a single observation of a single chinook that was large (and unverified) made in a Great Lake where the surviving chinook salmon stock achieves survival to age-3 by migrating into another Great Lake to feed as "evidence".

There is a significant difference in your current statement, when compared to your previous assertion.
 
#146 ·
Fishermen pay the bulk of the taxes and license fees that in turn pay to get the fish planted. Why allow the biologists decide what gets planted and where without ever once asking the fishermen? I have purchased a fishing license for the last 38 years, a couple of boats, thousands of dollars in bait and tackle. You think that someone in the DNR or USFWS would care about my opinion. I have voiced my opinion to the DNR many times and they don't care.
It seems like about every three years the game plan changes with what the hatcheries produce and plant. It also changes with what gets planted and where it gets planted.
The DNR, USFWS, and USDA have all but ruined the deer hunting in Michigan. Now they are going to ruin the great lakes fishing. Cut back on the lake trout as nobody wants them and plant more salmon and/or steelhead. If there is a lack of food for the salmon then plant more steelhead. WE DON'T WANT OR NEED ANYMORE LAKE TROUT !!!!!!!!!!!! Let the Fishermen decide. I am sick and tired of biologists who don't fish making all of the decisions. If hunting and fishing is not a priority on a resume then a person should not have a job with the DNR.
 
#147 ·
I really don't mind the Lakers so much but then again, I don't catch enough to really matter nor do I depend on sport fish to make my living. If the Salmon program in Michigan has truly run it's course, then I would sure like to see them planting those Seeforellen Brown Trout again. They are Big, Fun and Tasty. They don't depend on Alewife do they? ( Sorry if this is off-topic)
 
#148 · (Edited)
What you claimed initially as likely is that in an era post alewife crash in Lake Michigan, absent nearly all alewife in BOTH Lakes Huron and Michigan, average size of the remaining chinook will increase. Now, you are using a single observation of a single chinook that was large (and unverified) made in a Great Lake where the surviving chinook salmon stock achieves survival to age-3 by migrating into another Great Lake to feed as "evidence".

There is a significant difference in your current statement, when compared to your previous assertion.

It was ''grey" forgive me... however # 136 better implies my thoughts. Overall fewer Kings, provided there is still even mediocre Alwive populations could provide opportunituies for a few very large specimens. I am not sure if there are any studies showing "dominence" withing schooling Kings, however that may play a role in these "few Robust specimens'' as well..... nothing assertive in the scenario.
 
#149 · (Edited)
Brenden, T.O.,J.R.Bence, and E.B.Szalai.2012.An Age-Structured Integrated Assessment of Chinook Salmon Population Dynamics in Lake Huron's Main Basin since 1968.Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 141:919-933.

"Essentially the authors concluded that chinook, absent the ability to emigrate to Lake Michigan, either die via starvation, are eaten by inshore predators while searching for alewife, or are caught before they reach age-3."


Exactly what was there reason to believe there was no Emigration taking place or complete sterility there? Why on Earth would they not in their drive for survival move that miniscule distance, and how could sterility be accomplished?
 
#151 ·
Fishermen pay the bulk of the taxes and license fees that in turn pay to get the fish planted. Why allow the biologists decide what gets planted and where without ever once asking the fishermen? I have purchased a fishing license for the last 38 years, a couple of boats, thousands of dollars in bait and tackle. You think that someone in the DNR or USFWS would care about my opinion. I have voiced my opinion to the DNR many times and they don't care.
It seems like about every three years the game plan changes with what the hatcheries produce and plant. It also changes with what gets planted and where it gets planted.
The DNR, USFWS, and USDA have all but ruined the deer hunting in Michigan. Now they are going to ruin the great lakes fishing. Cut back on the lake trout as nobody wants them and plant more salmon and/or steelhead. If there is a lack of food for the salmon then plant more steelhead. WE DON'T WANT OR NEED ANYMORE LAKE TROUT !!!!!!!!!!!! Let the Fishermen decide. I am sick and tired of biologists who don't fish making all of the decisions. If hunting and fishing is not a priority on a resume then a person should not have a job with the DNR.
You can't possibly be serious. Biologists that don't fish really? Maybee you should join the advisory committee, walk a mile in their shoes, then fix the changing ecosystem!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top