Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Public Mtgs on Lake MI Planning and Stocking

6K views 78 replies 18 participants last post by  Jay Wesley 
#1 ·
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/1c3025b

Nov. 8, 2017

Contact: Jay Wesley, 269-685-6851, ext. 117 or Elyse Walter, 517-284-5839

DNR seeks public input on Lake Michigan management plan and future stocking efforts
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources will host three public meetings this month along the Lake Michigan coast – Nov. 28 in Manistique, Nov. 29 in Traverse City and Nov. 30 in Grand Haven – to hear from the public on two issues that will affect the lake: a draft management plan and future stocking activities.

Draft Lake Michigan management plan
This draft plan sets long-term vision and goals for the Lake Michigan fishery. It also outlines the process for ensuring the public is involved and is aligned with shorter-term strategies and tactics. The draft plan was developed through engagement with focus groups, advisory committees and DNR staff.

A copy of the draft plan is available for public feedback and can be found online at https://mdnrlmfmp.wordpress.com/. This website is hosted through a partnership with Michigan Sea Grant.

Stocking options
The DNR, together with other state natural resource agencies and tribal fishery managers, is working to balance predators in Lake Michigan with available prey. Last year, Chinook salmon stocking in Michigan waters was reduced by 41 percent as part of that effort. Throughout 2017, stakeholders provided the DNR with considerable feedback to consider reducing other predators (rather than just Chinook salmon) to seek a predator and prey balance.

Future stocking options now are available on the DNR’s salmon website for public feedback. These options propose reductions and movement of brown trout, movement of some coho salmon to southern Lake Michigan, and reductions in second-priority lake trout stocking sites in northern Lake Michigan. These options follow a new concept that emerged from focus group discussions while developing the draft Lake Michigan management plan.

“Collecting public input is a critical part in effectively managing Michigan’s world-class fisheries,” said Jay Wesley, the DNR’s Lake Michigan Basin coordinator. “The conversations we hope to have at this month’s meetings will help us all re-think how we do some new things on Lake Michigan, yet still meet the needs of anglers and the resource.”

Public meeting dates, locations
  • Tuesday, Nov. 28 – Manistique
    6:30 to 8 p.m.
    Comfort Inn Conference Room, 617 E. Lake Shore Drive

  • Wednesday, Nov. 29 – Traverse City
    6:30 to 8 p.m.
    Boardman River Nature Center, 1450 Cass Road

  • Thursday, Nov. 30 – Grand Haven
    6:30 to 8 p.m.
    Loutit District Library, 407 Columbus Ave.
For more information, contact Jay Wesley at 269-685-6851, ext. 117 or wesleyj@michigan.gov.
 
See less See more
#31 ·
The comments on losing brown plants because of being tight-lipped are absolutely true. When there are no creel clerks at ports, you rely on word of mouth to gain info on that particular port/area. Guys railing and keeping it to themselves is good for them, but bad for the port, as the DNR will dump your plant if they hear or see zero results.

In 2006 I landed a 28lb brown, and numerous others over 18 in Tawas. The year before, a 23lber, and again, fair amounts over 15lbs, in the Thumb. These were river mouth and river run fish. During this time, all you heard was “no browns, no browns”. Guys in boats would do well, but when asked, “nothing happening”. After people hear so much lack of perceived action, and see the same from people hiding their catch...you get your plant dropped. Our DNR is all about results, despite limited creel surveys, and if they are not getting them; they deem that plant a failure and stop it.
 
#35 ·
Thanks for the info.

I assume the runs on the Platte (and Grand) this year were an anomaly? I was at the Platte in late September and it was just stupid how many fish were in that river. But I want to make sure not every year is like that before I vote to pull fish from there, as that is the brood stock. I don't think the 20k quota is hit very often at the weir.
 
#36 ·
Can't fault the DNR for not having census takers out early on weeknights and such, when there's not as much traffic.

We were out of Port Sheldon one day when it was stupid rough on a Saturday, the only boat out there, and the poor census guy sat for hours by my rig until we came in to look at our catch. Which was ironically one (1) brown.
 
#41 ·
Jay, if browns were reduced, how many more kings would go into the lake? I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to cut browns if, let's say, only 150k more kings were stocked lakewide as a result. There probably wouldn't be a noticeable effect. It seems like natural reproduction, which is dependent on a strong alewife year class, has a bigger impact on king numbers than stocking. Am I wrong here?

I feel like it would be a shame to see browns go away just to increase the "number" of kings stocked, since it may not produce a tangible increase in the number of kings harvested. Plus, I do feel browns are underreported. They do provide a spring fishery that is nearshore.

Hey, we could always chop the number of lakers to make room for kings. Plenty of those and nobody is begging for them.
 
#42 ·
JP

One of the options is to cut 380k lakers. That allows the ability to add 165k kings.

The brown cut are proposed to a maximum of 200k browns, That allows 90k more kings(according to their ratios).

The maximum proposal for kings though, only adds 200k kings total. So to get the maximum number of kings. Things don't need to be cut all the way.

The way things look to me browns get basically moved up north to 4 ports. A lot more kings in the southern ports.

I think it would restore the ability for the pier fishermen in the south to not completely waste his/her time every other year chasing after kings. Its a huge win for the southern ports. Minus FBD and some other guys. Its a net positive for the southern ports overall.

I would be fine with cutting 380k lakers and 200k browns and getting the 200k kings as long as the ports they get planted at remains the same. I got a feeling other ports are going to be do their best to go after increases proposed in the southern portion of the lake to go to their ports. That is one of my concerns.
 
#43 ·
The equivalents are based on some bioenergetic models in the 1980's and 1990's. The Predator and Prey model that we use now can estimate consumption of other species more on a lake-wide basis vs per individual fish. Those ratios are anywhere from 2.43 to 7.27 brown trout per one Chinook depending on the brown population and alewife population levels. If we have actual diet data for a given year that would obviously change it as well.

I have calculated the cost for Lake Michigan and St. Joseph so far. Lake Michigan cost for brown trout harvest ranged from $92 to $267 for the last 10 years. For St.Joseph, the range was $39 to $586. Perhaps we are off on the number harvested, so if you double it or triple it the cost is still high compared to other species.
If you told me a gas station hot dog tastes better(disclosure, I don't eat fish), they fight like crap, & they taste like crap. More people probably target lake trout than browns. I would have probably said yeah, makes sense to not spend our limited resources on them.

If you told me 7.2 instead of 2.4 I would have believed you and wouldn't have 2nd guessed it at all. I understand that the science has not been done properly lately and you're operating with blinders. I think you should do a better job in the future of disclosing that. You're being very very generous allowing 90k kings to be planted by cutting 200k. You really should only be allowing 28k kings(but probably less) if you want to remain around the same predator levels

I honestly don't even care if you guys decide to never plant another brown in this state ever again and don't add a king back after cutting them all. I just don't want to see absolute bulls*** data being used to make the decision behind cutting them. That's offensive to me and should be to yourself being a man of science. The 2.4 & $258 is based on junk data at best. I would say more than 95% of the fish caught. The creel guy doesn't see Or if he does see. It doesn't get recorded because it wasn't caught officially in lake michigan.

---- To those who want to catch one before they disappear ----

If you want to catch a brown in South Haven.(the land of a grand total of 8k planted fish a year.) In the spring. 2/5oz cleo. Orange/Bronze. Park in the north or south beach parking lot like you're going to fish the pier. Then just fish the channel there. Literally right next to the parking lot. On the best years ever. There is just 4 people fishing there max. Room for a few hundred more so I don't care telling people. We see the creel guy. He comes up and talks to us. These fish are not caught in 'technically' lake michigan So none of those fish get officially recorded.

If the wind is out of the south, We fish the south side so its at our backs. If its out of the north we fish the north side and you stay out of the wind with the sand hill being on the north side. Being out of the wind is nice, it's a lot warmer than fishing the pier. You guys really should bring the kids down to fish this in the spring so they can experience it before the plug is pulled on it. If nobody is there, Don't worry. Fish there anyways.

Now, if someone wants to come to town this november(right now) & catch a brown. Look for a storm sewer drainpipe that goes into the river. Don't worry if its not flowing right now. They still hold around those things. If you find one around docks. Don't stand on the end of the docks(that's where most people fail). Stand on the shore. Cast into the middle of the river and reel it in and you'll get hit when you're in the docks. If there is no docks. Its nicer when you hookup and don't got to worry about them taking you around the docks. Bronze #3 or #4 mepps with an orange blade is best.

If you want to catch a brown in the middle of the summer while the water is warm and it's not during a flip. 50-70 fow or so Look at where the perch guys are and start fishing just barely deeper than them. Troll SLOW. Lake trout slow. If you troll fast you won't catch them. Orange has worked best for us. I have only had a brute on once and lost it next to the boat. The rest have been like the spring browns. We do this in the evening and we come back long after the creel guy has left town. We don't do this often because I think they're boring fish. I also don't eat fish.

Then I think FDB has talked enough about trolling the beach that you understand that method.

Its honestly probably the same exact methods/spots for every single port. Most of those methods if you run into a creel guy. It isn't recorded.

Now, the trick to catching them on the pier here locally in the spring while steelhead fishing with spawn. Is to take one of your rods and cast it out as far as you can. That rod will pick up the browns. Nobody hardly ever casts out that far so the creel guy hardly ever records anyone catching them.
 
#46 ·
If you told me a gas station hot dog tastes better(disclosure, I don't eat fish), they fight like crap, & they taste like crap. More people probably target lake trout than browns. I would have probably said yeah, makes sense to not spend our limited resources on them.

If you told me 7.2 instead of 2.4 I would have believed you and wouldn't have 2nd guessed it at all. I understand that the science has not been done properly lately and you're operating with blinders. I think you should do a better job in the future of disclosing that. You're being very very generous allowing 90k kings to be planted by cutting 200k. You really should only be allowing 28k kings(but probably less) if you want to remain around the same predator levels

I honestly don't even care if you guys decide to never plant another brown in this state ever again and don't add a king back after cutting them all. I just don't want to see absolute bulls*** data being used to make the decision behind cutting them. That's offensive to me and should be to yourself being a man of science. The 2.4 & $258 is based on junk data at best. I would say more than 95% of the fish caught. The creel guy doesn't see Or if he does see. It doesn't get recorded because it wasn't caught officially in lake michigan.

---- To those who want to catch one before they disappear ----

If you want to catch a brown in South Haven.(the land of a grand total of 8k planted fish a year.) In the spring. 2/5oz cleo. Orange/Bronze. Park in the north or south beach parking lot like you're going to fish the pier. Then just fish the channel there. Literally right next to the parking lot. On the best years ever. There is just 4 people fishing there max. Room for a few hundred more so I don't care telling people. We see the creel guy. He comes up and talks to us. These fish are not caught in 'technically' lake michigan So none of those fish get officially recorded.

If the wind is out of the south, We fish the south side so its at our backs. If its out of the north we fish the north side and you stay out of the wind with the sand hill being on the north side. Being out of the wind is nice, it's a lot warmer than fishing the pier. You guys really should bring the kids down to fish this in the spring so they can experience it before the plug is pulled on it. If nobody is there, Don't worry. Fish there anyways.

Now, if someone wants to come to town this november(right now) & catch a brown. Look for a storm sewer drainpipe that goes into the river. Don't worry if its not flowing right now. They still hold around those things. If you find one around docks. Don't stand on the end of the docks(that's where most people fail). Stand on the shore. Cast into the middle of the river and reel it in and you'll get hit when you're in the docks. If there is no docks. Its nicer when you hookup and don't got to worry about them taking you around the docks. Bronze #3 or #4 mepps with an orange blade is best.

If you want to catch a brown in the middle of the summer while the water is warm and it's not during a flip. 50-70 fow or so Look at where the perch guys are and start fishing just barely deeper than them. Troll SLOW. Lake trout slow. If you troll fast you won't catch them. Orange has worked best for us. I have only had a brute on once and lost it next to the boat. The rest have been like the spring browns. We do this in the evening and we come back long after the creel guy has left town. We don't do this often because I think they're boring fish. I also don't eat fish.

Then I think FDB has talked enough about trolling the beach that you understand that method.

Its honestly probably the same exact methods/spots for every single port. Most of those methods if you run into a creel guy. It isn't recorded.

Now, the trick to catching them on the pier here locally in the spring while steelhead fishing with spawn. Is to take one of your rods and cast it out as far as you can. That rod will pick up the browns. Nobody hardly ever casts out that far so the creel guy hardly ever records anyone catching them.
Man you really gave it up there! I know a guy who can pull a 3 man brown limit every time he goes out ...he fishes the douglas rocks. Despite having fished with him numerous times and knowing the program down to every detail, whenever I ask my buddies what they want to do when we fish out of that port, they all say lets go try for silver. Many do not care for eating browns, which are like a 15lb lake trout, maybe worse. I release most fish I catch when I can, but I usually leave it up to friends to decide what we are going to target. The one thing I never hear is "Lets go fish for lakers" lol. I feel for you brown guys no doubt, there are probably more than are reported. But we have no one to blame but ourselves for having to cut desirable fish such as browns, or trade with kings, coho, etc....because we all fell asleep at the wheel when the feds rammed lake trout down our throats and our MDNR went along with it. Now we have such an untenable predator situation we are forced to cut what we would rather have, because there is so much of what we never wanted in the first place. At least we are not as gullible as the Lake Huron guys who bit the Laker program hook line and sinker and are beyond all hope for repair. Now those guys think Cisco are the answer to their problems and are buying the fed crap bs again. We may have caught it in the nick of time on Lake Michigan and it looks like we have a chance to turn our fishery around to one that is dictated by sportsman not bureaucrats. We all wont get what we want at our ports of interest, but some things we will probably really like in the long run. I am particularly interested in this coho movement to create greater access to more anglers in southern ports instead of stacking them all in nowheresville where you can hardly get a crack at them. Kings should go where they have the most benefit and will contribute more to local natural reproduction. Pulse stocking imo is a political move, not a biological one. Anyway, we are where we are, tough decisions but at least we are moving in the right direction.
 
#47 ·
I'm just curious as to why the proposal is cutting the browns near the population centers, the easiest ports to fish, the ones that open up first and:

1. Giving the ports up north more browns, when they already got increases a few years ago and
2. Keeping the plants in the UP?

Anyone tell me how the brown fishing is in Escanaba?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gino
#49 ·
I'm from Escanaba, live in Ohio now. Make at least two trips home every year. My wife and I have had really good luck with browns. We don't necessarily fish for them, but catch them chucking spoons for pike. My brother and his neighbor target them in front of river mouths and have done pretty well the last couple years. My wife caught a nice one last year and it was honestly one of the best fish I've ever eaten
 
#48 ·
Even the home of world class Lake Michigan brown trout shore fishing (WI) will undergo a 50% reduction in brown trout stocking this year.

A complete elimination of stocking the German strain will occur leaving only the seaforellen strain all in favor of planting more kings.

Like FBD, I've been shore fishing the skinny water for browns the last 20 odd year both during the heyday as well as lean times. A single core with a hammered nickel/black edged Jr Flutter Devle behind a planner board south bound out of Whitehall down to Hoffmaster State Park on a zigzag course will produce.

I can count on 2 fingers the time a creel census taker counted our catch at the Lakeside Inn ramp on White Lake since I've been fishing browns. Perhaps the census takers were at the Montague ramp?
 
#50 ·
I've got a friend who comes up from Fort Wayne to fish for browns during Tulip Time in May. Used to rent a place for a week in the summer to fish for kings and take up his boat, but that's not worth it any more.

Love the stories of cleaning fish in the hotel room.
 
#52 ·
Hi Jay. Just wondering if splake are a viable near shore option as opposed to lake trout? I honestly don't hate lake trout or anything, my only issue is consumption advisories with them. Since splake grow pretty fast I'm assuming they'd be safer to eat, especially for my kids. Are they cost-effective? Is it hatchery space? Lack of wild reproduction? Just curious. I used to catch them in the u.p. when they were stocked and thought they were delicious.
 
#53 ·
Thanks for all the comments so far. I will rethink some of the brown trout options. Also, I need support to reduce lake trout. Are you good with reducing nearshore stocking? If so, should it be more?
Thanks!
Jay,

You have all the support from my end to reduce or even eliminate lake trout stocking nearshore. I don't dislike lake trout, but they are the last species I target. Actually, I don't target them at all. If I have to choose between lake trout and other silver fish, then lake trout have to go.

I would think that you should have plenty of support to reduce lake trout. The exception would be maybe a couple of charters who are desperate to catch something, anything, for their clients and are afraid that if you reduce nearshore lake trout stocking then there won't be anything left to catch.

These are times in which we can't have everything. If we want more silver fish, we need to reduce lake trout. I know that MOST anglers think like me and want lake trout stocking reduced or even eliminated.

Thanks for listening, Jay.
 
#57 ·
Jay, what is the best way for anglers to show public support? Is there an online questionnaire? Do they need to email the DNR or contact the state senator? Attend meetings? How are you gauging public support?

I'm assuming you are referencing anglers when you say public support.

Thanks for your reply.
 
#58 ·
Jay,

I would like to see a fishery where every single year 30lb kings are caught by someone somewhere. 20lbers are caught by a ton of guys. I'd love to see an aggressive reduction in lake trout stockings. More aggressive than you have proposed. I love the idea of you guys planting a ton of kings but I feel we should be cautious in doing so.

In the future, if we see a year without that many people catching 20lb kings. I'd like to see an immediate reduction in the lake trout & king plants. If that involves fertilizing a farmers field or making dog food instead of planting more fish in the spring. I feel that's the right decision to make.

It would be nice if you guys laid out a framework to make these decisions automatically based on that & everyone agreed to them before the time comes. So if/when a time comes that we need to reduce our plants. Its not the same political mess it was this last time around. We can all point the agreement and say it sucks but it is what it is.
 
#59 ·
Jay, what is the best way for anglers to show public support? Is there an online questionnaire? Do they need to email the DNR or contact the state senator? Attend meetings? How are you gauging public support?

I'm assuming you are referencing anglers when you say public support.

Thanks for your reply.
I will look at the responses and comments in this forum and others. If you don't want to make your comment public, you can send PM or to wesleyj@michigan.gov. We also have 3 meetings set up next week that was in the original post.
 
#60 ·
"I don't dislike lake trout, but they are the last species I target."

x2.

Spread the coho out, keep the browns spread around, hold the kings or possibly add more if the science says we can support it. That may be too much too early, but then, a bump in the king plantings is moot compared to one river having a good return on natural reproduction.

If you want to bump the hours spent on the lake up 40+% as the stated goal says, you'll need a diverse, year 'round opportunity, especially for near shore and pier opportunities. Of all the plans listed, the first change that would have absolutely no effect on effort spent on the lake would be the cutting of lakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: storman
#61 ·
I agree I fish out of ludington and target coho kings and steel. I fished Lakers one time in the last three years. The coho fishery was awesome this year and the king fishing was pretty good as well. Cut as many Lakers as you can and keep coho and king plants as high as you dare and bait will allow.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
#63 ·
I would like to see an immediate reduction on lake trout plants. Also, why are fall lake trout closed to fishing in places like GT Bay? From my understanding it's to protect spawning fish- angling pressure on lake trout would be a rain drop in the ocean. It's really hard to conceive how it would have even a minimal impact. However, those who wanted to pursue them could potentially have a fantastic nearshore fall fishery. By the way, the many lake trout that do run up the boardman to spawn are fair game. I just don't understand this policy in practice at all, it doesn't seem based in the interest of anglers.

I would commend the dnr in reducing king plants and would like to see the same reduced stocking level until we see baitfish populations really swing the pendulum back to where they were many years ago. Until then, I hope they hold off on an increase and jump to no premature conclusions about the forage base. I love the kings, and I hope one day we can look back on this decade as just a trough in a great fishery.

Finally, I would like to see stocking take a greatly reduced role overall in the Lake Michigan fishery. I want badly to see spawning habitat restoration and enhancement, dam removals, stream habitat management and wetland restoration reach the forefront of managing the fishery. These environmental factors have a long reaching effect on our fish out in the lake. The genetics of wild fish have proven to be much stronger and more adaptable to the fluctuations of adverse environmental effects. How great would it be to one day have a self sustaining wild fishery.
 
#64 ·
Great showing in Manistique! There were about 40 people, which is great for deer season. Thanks for all the great comments and engagement there. Most preferred our higher options 4 or 5 for each species. There were some good ideas on how to move fish in the U.P. As well.
 
#66 · (Edited)
There are a handful of things I still scratch my head about: 1.)Given the reduction through time of spawning adult age classes within the Lake Michigan alewife stock, combined with the USFW's stable isotope food habits analysis data that presented by Matt Kornis at the annual Lake Committee meetings of the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, a couple of years ago that documented that lake trout preferentially consume adult alewife over the more abundant juveniles in the population in Lake Michigan, it seems a bit of an oxymoron to ask whether inshore Lake trout plants should be reduced as a part of an effort to maintain a diverse multi-species salmonine fishery in the basin. 2.) There are a plethora of DNA studies that document that coaster brook trout are not genetically discrete, but rather originate from coastal Great Lakes tributaries that are intrinsically unproductive when environmental conditions produce large year-classes of fish that essentially "out number" in-stream habitat, flushing eventually into the Great Lakes...so splake plants are a bad idea, yet they occur at large rates in the basin with the largest proportional coaster brook trout populations?

When I was at "cow college" we learnt that, post-spawn, the adult alewife stock moved offshore into waters 15-FOW or deeper to feed on Diporeia sp. and Mysis diluviana, both of which were at the seasonal maximums for free fatty acid content, from feeding on the Spring diatom blooms. Diporeia hoyi are now largely absent, and Mysis diluviana are much reduced, but bloody red mysis have expanded well into this largely vacant niche, lending further credence to the value of diminishing inshore lake trout stocks and preserving what is left of the adult alewife stock.

The other thing I wonder about is the rationale of using bioenergetics data from the pre-Quagga sp. musseld dominance era to "inform and populate" the Predator-Prey Model calculation.

Oddly, the stable isotope data essentially argues that inshore lake trout and brown trout are near direct competitors, with high proportional consumption of round goby in their diets. So, why use bioenergetics data from and era where salmonines all fed on alwife and smelt, which were the, then dominant forage base components?
 
#65 ·
I don’t know where to leave feedback for the 2018-19 stocking options, so I’ll leave them here.

Brown trout— #1
Coho— #3
Lake trout— #4
Kings— #4

I’m from SW Michigan, so naturally I wanna keep brown trout and coho at my home port, cut lake trout, and increase kings. Is the DNR gonna hold a meeting in the SW to gauge anglers opinion there?

The big change anglers are anticipating most is cuts in lake trout. The proposed cuts are a step in the right direction, but they’re still not enough. Lakers are a waste of resources. People would rather have more of any other species. And yet they remain the most heavily stocked.
 
#67 ·
I agree that we can update the equivalents. We are collecting more current diet data, which will change the equivalents based on gobies in diet. Equivalents will probably increase for lake trout and brown trout because they do eat goby and go down for steelhead and stay same for coho based on preliminary results.
 
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