LongLine

I 2nd, 3rd & 4th that motion about the clipping trailer! The also ought to do some updates on the telemetry studies that were done way back when and this time take in to account the invasives (mussels) and changing lake temperatures along the nearshore areas. (not just mid lake) Tom B. (LongLine)

Jerry - I'll support anything that good data shows. I certainly don't want it to go like huron, however I've lived by statistics for over 45 years. A fixed location trawl survey cannot give a good estimate of the entire population. Only random sampling can yield good conclusions about the entire population. If they didn't see many 3 yr olds this year then they didn't see many 2 yr olds last year or 1 yr olds the prior year, hence they should have thrown in a bunch of random sampling sites this year before proposing changes. I've seen their trawl site map & I see 120 trawls in the same basic locations. They threw in additional trawls but they were in the same locations. They need to revisit their sampling techniques rather than practicing their advanced mathematics. Is it best to err on the side of caution?...probably...so as long as they cut the Lakers, I'll vote for it. Tom B. (LongLine)

DEC admits that the salmon weren't in the usual places this year but that they were out there. Why can't they realize that alewives are also fish and probably did the same thing. i.e. took a different path? They're adamant in their fixed location trawling & even sent out that peer review paper but they didn't seem to read it themselves. It stated that the fixed location trawl can't give a good estimate of the overall population. I have never seen as many pods of baitfish as I have this year. They claim the salmon will only eat the 2 or 3 year olds but they'll slouch off the statement that we've all caught big fish on little lures & little ones on big lures as well as vice versa. Guess that's all antectodal though, isn't it. Tom B. (LongLine)

Mine jumped 3 times & would have spooled me if I didn't chase him down.

Sorry guys, I got the last one on Saturday…. Alewife is just under 5 1/2†and the pod wasn’t very big. (That lure is 3 ½†long) If the first alewife I've ever snagged is such a rare fish, I will definitely buy lottery tickets tomorrow! Tom B. (LongLine)

Don't be afraid of speeding it up a little. Just under three. try a flasher/fly above a clean spoon on 1 rigg'r. Hard to beat the ole black & silver. Tom B. (LongLine)

L-A-L - It's the gearing that will break. They generally rack & gear type lifting devices. The crank turns the gear. Teeth will break off the gear. Wheel is actually stronger than gear. A 2 1/2 Ton hydraulic jack is cheaper than a good trailer jack. Tom B. (LongLine)

DON'T use the trailer jack. i.e with the wheel on it! You won't know that's it's not strong enough until it breaks. With the rear end blocked up, the full weight of the boat will be on it. (I found out the hard way!) Those wheel jacks are only rated for a few hundred pounds & your boat looks like it weighs about 4200. Tom B. (LongLine)

Lower the tongue of your trailer as low as it will go. Cut some heavy timbers 2-3 ft long (min 4x4), place horizontally and make two stands at the rear of your boat. Bevel the top one on each pile to match your bottom. Then get a hydraulic jack to lift the front of your trailer. (DO NOT use the wheel winch) You should be able to get 6-8" clearance between boat & trailer.

The barge had the right of way....the tug had to continue on it present heading...

Interesting article. Most interesting is that where they plot an awful lot of empty triangles is exactly where I saw the most & biggest schools of baitfish. Tom B. (LongLine)

I see your point Brian, however the question is still how many alewives are out there? If they can't determine that then the stocking policy is a mere guessing game. Instead of sticking to their runway theory, you'd think they could run a few kitty-corner trawls between the runways. say...maybe..105 in the runways & 15 diagonally. Normally the water west of the river is colder than that which is east. Last year the water west was warmer than that which was east. Last year a lot more big catches were reported off Durand than off Russel. You'd think the scientific organizations would base their trawls on more than just N-S geographical locations. After all, the Guardian did a lot of sampling. You'd think that at least the left hand would look to see what the right hand was finding. The bait moves, just like Skate reported. You can't measure what you can't catch. Tom B. (LongLine)

The question concerns Chinooks and the alewife population and I don’t believe we should let anyone side-track that on lakers, the Feds or the “crooks†in politics. The issue is whether they have a good number for the abundance of alewives or not. From the latest published annual report, we know: 1. They use “Fixed station trawls.†This means they basically have 13 N-S “runways that are equally spaced along the southern shore. They do not trawl in between these “runways†nor in other directions. (The Fixed station has absolutely nothing to do with preferred temperature of the fish - It's geographically not piscatorically determined.) 2. They concentrated their alewife effort at depths greater than 70 meters. (That’s over 200 FOW) 3. The hydro-acoustical gizmo was also aimed upwards that year in addition to the traditional downwards looking unit and it showed alewives population never seen before, near the surface. 4. The adult population has been nearly the same for the last 5 years but this year’s adult crop was very “plump.†i.e fat & heathly 5. They used “conversion†mathematics and allowances for the Yankee-31 net/gear. They also used sensors and underwater video to watch the nets/gear. Now my questions are: What about the miles between the runways? Could there be more alewives there or could there be less? If all the alewives shifted a little to the east, then an awful lot of them could have been missed. DEC states that random trawls would be more precise but they use fixed station because other lakes do. What about the under 200 FOW? Mild winter, warmer lake, could there have been an awful lot of them in shallower? (which Brian has already attested to, at the pumping station) What was the population & sizes of the ones near the surface that had never been seen before? (It’s been my experience that if you’re catching little ones then fish deeper for the bigger ones) How can the adults be fat & healthy yet no little ones? You’d think “weather†or whatever would affect both little & big ones. i.e. if no little ones then skinny/unhealthy big ones. Don’t get me going on “fudge-factorsâ€! Rather tell me how many alewives were netted in runway number 1 on trawl #3 and then tell me how many in runway #5 on trawl #7 etc. How about showing some of the video? Tom B. (LongLine)

Steelhead

Jerry - The DEC/USGS guys do a great job - don't get me wrong. The issue is that their trawl strategy is based upon the assumption that alewives are randomly distributed around the lake. This assumption is not necessarily valid. Those 120 trawls only have a 10 minute duration and they are basically N-S. If they were randomly distributed then when a fisherman sees a pod then he wouldn't come back thru that general area time and again, You wouldn't hear guys talking about, or having the "clean screen" syndrome. If they were randomly distributed then on every trawl the DEC/USGS would haul in their net with pretty close to the same number of alewives...each time. Interestingly, they never publish those numbers of quantity or location. They can tell us with pretty good certainty the mix and the condition of what they catch but they can't tell us with the same certainty the quantity out there. Hence they publish "relative indices." Also note: they changed the way they trawl a few years back as they changed the type of net/gear. Remember the "fouling" problem? Tom B. (LongLine)

Sk8 - I have long held the belief that alewives are NOT randomly distributed as has been the assumption that the DEC has made for many years. I think you just gave testimony to that theory. They are not strong swimmers and the currents in Lake O can be awesome. Tom B. (LongLine)