LongLine

well.....I said it was an easy one. Did you get the crossword?

Here's an easy one. Know our hatcheries?

Something to do while waiting for football & turkey. (all Big-O fishing related) Happy Thanksgiving to all.

He may also have turned around and saw an ECO and realized he didn't have a license. Dirty shame cuz those are some nice perch.

How well do you know outboards? Can you find all the parts? Enjoy.

Safeguarding our Big-O Enjoy.

It's not a matter of whether they've seen it. They obviously know about it as the graphs I've posted are from the annual reports. The question is whether they know that stakeholders have concerns about it. As well as If and what can be done about it? Is anything being done? People called about the alewife issue back in the 60's and salmon were introduced. After a few years the salmon demonstrated a very good economic return, and it became a world class fishery that attracted fishermen from all over the country. (The 1st ESLO derby only had a few salmon turned in and a 6 Lb'r won the Rev Modish a 14 ft boat. Thereafter the fishery grew.) M.N. introduced the diseases but aqua culturists developed the treatments.as a preventive maintenance to protect the fishery. M.N. brought in the Lampreys, biochemists developed the lampricides, also as preventive maintenance. Man polluted the lake and agencies are trying to clean it up as preventive maintenance. If M.N. had her way, it'd be a glaciated lake like it was created by M.N. at the end of the last ice age. i.e. pure water...no living organism in it. I look at it as a preventive maintenance item. I'm a C&R Rec fisherman and I'd prefer they discuss and look into the issue at their monthly meeting rather than have them say: "well, nobody's expressed any concerns, so the stakeholders must be fat dumb & happy with the direction things are going in."

Ring, ring, ring Hello, this is DEC, your call may be recorded for quaility assurance, please wait for next available officer. DEC officer 1: Hello this is DEC officer 1, how can I help you? Caller: I'm very concerned about decreasing size of fish in Lake Ontario. DEC #1: Well, sir, as you know the Lake Ontario Fishery is important to NYS, and DEC continues to support that World Class Fishery. Have a nice day. Click. DEC #1 turning to to DEC supervisor: Hey you know, that was the 157th call we got concerning the fish in Lake Ontario. At headquarters monthly DEC meeting: Quality assurance operator to DEC boss: We've got a lot of calls about fish in Lake Ontario. DEC boss to DEC suppervisor: What's going on out there? Supervisor to boss: Well, there's some concern about the size of the fish out there. Boss to supervisor: That fishery is economically important to the State. We've changed creel limits; we've cut stocking; we're treating them for disease; we've greatly reduced phosphates and chemical pollution; we're stocking ciscos; we've improved hatchery conditions. We should look into it. Get our partners involved. (USGS, USFWS, OMNR, etc) Explain what's going on to our stakehoders and at least explain current and future programs that may affect the concerns. (All starts with some stakeholder input.)

Thanx Brian (Gambler) and Brian (schreckstoff) Very interesting reads. (BTW what is a "schreckstoff"?) Points that stuck out to me in the nature article: - All the pacific salmon have been experiencing it but to different degrees (They talk length not weight and some fish I caught this year seemed to be "girth-ier for their length than previous years.) - The length change over the years is not linear and that it occurs to different degrees in different areas of Alaska but there is a definite downward trend everywhere - That species are all younger when spawning. (Which is also happening on LO) - That the younger spawners have less eggs and there is less nutrient transfer. (which I take as less mass to decompose after spawning) - That there is no single driver to explain the King length decline. Ocean currents and surface temps are minor effects. - That they really didn't go into natural vs hatchery (What I think they refered to as "net pen") - That size has a large economic impact on Alaska I know that it took 510 Kings to get the 2.4 million eggs this year, but don't know how many fish it took to get previous years egg quotas. Anybody have those figures? Apparently, it's happening to Atlantic's in Europe too. I found these articles based on University of Helsinki research, (Which I think Morgan mentioned a few years ago) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181114104356.htm www.helsinki.fi/en/news/climate-change/salmon-are-shrinking-and-it-shows-their-genes https://phys.org/news/2022-02-wild-salmon-smaller-linked-aquaculture.html One identifies a growth gene. One suggests food source lacking Omega (something) in their diet. One said it's evolutionary as they'll die out if they don't spawn early. Nothing I've seen directly says small parents produce small offspring, but we can assume that's generally true based on human & animal husbandry. Altogether, as we have a single strain of Kings, I'm wondering about the feed and disease treatment chemicals at the hatchery. Not sure when disease treatment started. Are disease resistant fish smaller? I know there was a feed change years ago and the DEC staff had to scramble to correct it. Could something be added to the feed? (Fish doctors won't like that.)

I've had relatives get it, along with hips. Have the surgery, get epoxied back together; bedrest for a day then get kicked out of bed and PT for a couple weeks or so. Only downside is that you'll be advised to give up pole vaulting.

Yes, I have faith in the scientific research also (as I studied Physics in college.) I realize that the lake has changed quite a bit since I walked through and smelled piles of alewives on the shores. I'm grateful for the fishery we have. HOWEVER, I would like a scientific explanation on why the graph I previously posted on the 4th page of this thread (which shows a big time downward trend in salmon weights starting at around 2002-2004) and this one, which definitely does NOT SHOW ANY downward trend in alewife population starting at the same time. (Even with a couple year lapse) All of which are published graphs. Looks kind of inconsistent to me. One could argue that the alewives were smaller, but above graphs show there were a lot more of them. Generally, when portions are smaller, "eating machines" go back for second helpings. Why don't/haven't they? They have a quota of how many they can eat a day? Food is/has been there. As density is up, it's not like they couldn't find food. Previously posted data showed 3 yr olds gaining only a couple pounds over the summer. Why weren't they bigger going into that 3rd year? i.e. 2 yr olds had to be smaller than pre-2004. Why...something stump their growth from YOY to 2 yrs? I hope things get better but when policy makers don't get stakeholder input, they have to assume the stakeholders are really happy with the directions things are going in and move on. Wait and see...who knows, maybe we'll get Sabre Tooth Tigers back.

Glad you got the boat all fixed up. A well running boat makes the fishing trips much more enjoyable. Sorry to hear you got cut off. I've had that happen when there were only 3 boats out there. Some guys are just "clowns." The Lake Unit doesn't work for the hatchery and the hatchery doesn't work for the Lake Unit. They communicate but both work for the policy makers at the Dept of Fisheries. The policy makers set the regs with input from all the regional groups, including stakeholders and others. The policy makers set the budgets. The regional groups have to submit requests for new pumps, personnel and whatever and hope they get approval. Each of the regional groups has to "fight" for funds. While not elected, the policy makers are political appointments. The policy makers have to review the annual report before publishing, which BTW where the heck is it???? I really appreciate Brian linking the prey fish assessment this year. The policy makers decided to go full bore on the Atlantic program even though the science has shown they won't survive. Why? Were the "trib guys" were pushing it? Why the Laker program? Because the Feds were pushing it? Why the Sturgeon? As I've said before: The policy makers want stakeholder input. Every time there is a policy/regulation proposal emails are sent out from DEC asking for input along with comment periods. Some guys just want to sit back and make fun of it, and I guess that's their prerogative as there are not only "clowns" on the water but also on the keyboard. I agree with Yank on this one. I'd like to hear what they've been doing as well as what they've planning to do about the size issue. How are their upcoming lake projects going to affect the salmon? Are we just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "live with it?" "Clowns" are funny, aren't they?

ifishy - The lake is a big place and crowds follow where the big ones are being caught. That's why the majority of guys who report great catches don't reveal exactly where they are. They know others will flock there the next day to catch "their" fish. The same goes for not naming small tribs. Fishing pressure will increase the next day. Word travels fast. Fishermen readily post smiling faces with their catches but very few post pictures of the sunrise or scenery of their outing. I-Bay has a great launch site now, but when I was there, the great majority of fishermen launches were fishing the bay, not the lake. I'm sure the same happens at other embayments. Here's some interesting tidbits from the '23 LOC - Salmon Div.. Spring: 8 of 21 prize winners were from out of state. All prize winners reported their fish from the west. The minimum weight for entry was 20 Lbs and 10 prize winners were under 21 Lbs. Summer: 6 of 21 were out of staters. 9 of 21 at the west end. 10 from east end. Fall: 6 of 21 were out of staters. 16 at east end, 4 west end. Minimum weight 25 Lbs with 8 prizes under 27 Lbs. What was the winner? Point being Fishermen follow the great catches. (Especially the tourists) Salmon are supposed to be "eating machines" especially before spawning, yet for over 30 years the average weight gain for 3 yr olds from July thru Sept has only been a couple of pounds. (30+ Lb'rs were caught in the 90's.) Safe bet that 2 yr olds pre-2004 were a lot bigger than 2 yr olds post 2004. When did we lose those two year classes of alewife? HB - A call to the DEC will express concern about the fishery. As I stated before "Policy makers will do nothing unless 'someone' benefits." DEC values and asks for stakeholder inputs. Opinions should be expressed now as DEC is putting their plans together for next year. I think the fishermen should be that "someone." West coast eggs won't help. I was out there a few years ago and caught basically what we call shakers. The guide's eyes bugged out when I told him we had 25-30 Lb fish. Besides, their fishery was in trouble this year & last as the Salmon seasons were cut short and cancelled out there. BFP- Unfortunately, gobies are bottom dwellers, Salmon are pelagic. i.e. wanderers that don't eat off the bottom.

Policy makers don't do anything without proof of a benefit to "someone." I love problems that solve themselves, unfortunately I've never seen one do it. Optimistic P-R certainly won't tackle one that's 1st showed up 20 yrs ago. Tourists come here to "catch" a trophy. If they do, they'll return. If they don't, they won't brag about it to their friends nor return. How many posts were there this year that included pictures of "little ones?" The DEC always asks for stakeholder input, but the number of respondents is always much less than the number of people who will be affected. This issue has economic impact as well as affecting the "quality of fishing" in NYS. I've been fishing Big-O & embayments longer than most members on this board have been born. I love being out on the water, away from the phone, keyboard and neighborhood. Unfortunately, I've seen Walleyes and Northerns become sparse in the embayments as well as seen Smallmouth limits in the lake become a rarity. I've seen catch rates on the lake go up, but angler effort go down, (Which tells me that guys who are good at it do very well, but those that don't, don't come back.) I used to see summertime boat launch parking lots packed with fishermen and I certainly didn't see that this year or last. Just a few years ago, I'd see 25-30 boats out there in the summer. (A lot of them smaller than me) This last summer, I saw maybe 6, at most. (All of which were much bigger than me.) In the "old days", I've seen hundreds. Point being: If you care about the Salmon fishing in Big-O, let the DEC know. BTW, Minimum weight for spring LOC is 20 Lbs. This year's 20th place went to a 20.07Lb'r. If the trend continues, there won't be a 20th place finisher in the next.

The "wait and see" approach is a re-active standpoint. The good old days aren't coming back. Unfortunately reacting to events on Big-O have taken a long time in recent history. Add 3-4 years after implementation to see substantial results for the Salmon. (Their time to mature.) We've seen phosphorous & chemical decline. We've seen stocking cuts. We've seen decreases in daily limits. We've seen this size decline for near 20 years. I believe in pro-active approaches. Rather than sit at computer complaining, here's a suggestion: Close the Salmon River, 7-10 days (one time event) for Salmon during egg-take time. Hire students from ESF, Cornell, Buffalo, Potsdam etc. Take the eggs & milt from large salmon and put in one "bucket." Take eggs & milt from smaller salmon & put in another "bucket." Raise/treat them the same; differentially tag them (with the clipping/marking trailer); Pen Rear them side by side, (perhaps at the SR.) Monitor them at fishing tournaments. Ask charter boats to be on lookout and "mail" them/data in. Then finally collect and analyze marked samples at the appropriate egg take time and report the results. I'm hoping someone from DEC is monitoring this thread and will chime in.

A lot of people and agencies have put a lot of hard work into it and built Lake Ontario into a world class fishery. The majority of out-of-staters come here for a chance to catch a trophy size Salmon. It has become an economic boom to many local economies as well as to the state. Some may be very happy with 10 or 15 Lbr's but with a daily limit of 3 and a 25 Lb minimum to enter the LOC, IMO, the tourist numbers (and $) will decrease given that the size of the "trophies" has a downward trend. Additionally, according to reports on this board, the majority of us, when we catch "little ones," move deeper to search out the "bigger ones." I believe it behooves us, the fishery and the economy to find out why there is a downward trend and possibly reverse it, or at least stabilize it.

I'll believe that. But when did pen rearing start? Pre 2004? (Actually 2001 given they had to grow for 3 yrs) i.e. what did they catch up to? The graph above shows two distinct weight ranges for 3 yr olds that breaks thereabouts 2004. Basically 18-22 for pre 2004 and 15-18 for 2005 to 2021. When I graph the summer weight gain mean data differences (DEC numbers above) it looks like this: The average gain from '91 to '04 is 1.1 whereas after 2004 is 1.9. Throwing out the years 2010 & 2011, (due to low sample size) the average is 1.3. So if the average weight gain went up, or basically stayed the same, the question is so why didn't the yearly mean weights go up to previous weight ranges shown on 2nd previous graph? (i.e. 18-22) If the average weight gain went up, or stayed the same, we can't blame alewife quantity. We also can't blame alewife nutritional value due to invasives, cleaner or warmer lake. It has to be genetic. I can't fathom (no pun intended) anyone genetically engineering a smaller fish.