Gill-T

Thanks for the clarification on the meetings. It would have been nice to know the historical background of non-public meetings prior to my rant. Why was the charter associations so up in arms about the "secret meeting" last year if these are common place?

Dave, your name got thrown into the same mix as Lucky because you both have messaged the same rhetoric here on LOU that there are "anglers you know" that want no stocking of king salmon. I know you and Lucky understand the biological reasons of why that feat would be impossible given the nature of Lake Ontario today so I would hope that you guys would shout down those whom are ill informed. The behind closed door meetings do nothing but incite conspiracy theories. I would gladly buy you a scotch (I am a beer man myself) as I prefer face to face rather than the cold internet. Please understand the nature of my rant. Were there is smoke there is fire. If there is a movement behind the scenes to get rid of chinook salmon, this forum is a great place to bring those who hide in shadows out into the light. You and Lucky were the ones to state your fishing circle has anti-king sentiments. My apologies if I branded you as guilty by association. I would hope that in your leadership positions you would remember we are all stakeholders. Carry the concerns of the lunatic fringe but champion the wishes of the majority.

The answer is glow with UV.

Lucky, you Dave Agnes and the other handful of elitist anti-chinook anglers that somehow got in the ear of the DEC are completely delusional if you think you somehow represent a majority of Lake Ontario sportsmen and women. THE economic driver on Lake Ontario is the King Salmon.......period. Other than devout Steelheaders, nobody is booking trips from out-of-state to catch the other species like Lake Trout or Atlantic Salmon. If the economic driver is the King salmon, then it should be said that the majority of Lake Ontario anglers choose to target this great fish. Since you and your handful of elite anglers don't care for the king salmon, you represent a fringe group. Which begs the question why the hell is the DEC listening to a fringe group, let alone give you a title as a "stakeholder"??? You stand in the hallowed gravel of the Salmon River........the only source of our hatchery kings........and claim "people" don't want king salmon! Look around. All those zany, fish crazed stream anglers that you distain are merely showing their passion for the quarry they chase. Yes, there are those that leave trash behind (I hate them too). Yes, salmon carcasses are left to stink up homeowners riverbanks (then don't live on a waterway named the Salmon River!!). Lucky, I am sure you are as passionate about fishing as anyone on this forum. I am sure you are a very conservation minded angler that has been hands-on with stream improvement projects, and I am damn sure you have not figured out that the vast majority of LOU members are Chinook Salmon trollers. The fact you are willing to take on the task of "educating" LOU viewers about the state-of-lake, and help push the DEC/OMNR salmon cuts tells me you have an agenda......why else take the abuse and take the time out of your busy schedule to sit down and type the words. The fact that you and your group are having behind-closed-door meetings with DEC officials bending tales of anti-chinook sentiment is very unnerving. Go back to directing your angst towards something worthwhile such as working with the DEC to catch anglers leaving trash behind .....or snatching .......or the night poaching problem......lots of good causes but PLEASE stop spewing false statements that there all these "people" out there that want the Chinook Salmon gone. Rant over.

Get 4 other guys to share the charter and it becomes a bargain. You will make the investment back by gas savings trolling around trying to find fish or make them bite.

Wow! You guys fish Erie that late? Brave souls.

You have the type of rig to chase the large class of two year old kings right up until the launches freeze.

Good flow in streams this year should hopefully bolster natural repro. Pray for good lovin'

Because in the 80's Lake Ontario was brown Cladaphora soup. Alewives could swim in place and be fed. Larval predation i believe....YOY no.

So in checking with biologist with alewife experience, egg totals for Lake Ontario 5 year olds is more like 30,000 per fish. When I inquired about wether age structure and therefore egg production estimates along with average winter temps could help form a mathematical model that could be used to manage salmon stocking levels. I was told it is more complicated because large alewives predate on younger alewives. There is a scenario where if you have too many adult alewives, the YOY suffer.

I would add that the biology of the heavy year class of age 5 alewives- reminants of the record 2012 hatch- will be present to drop eggs as age 6 and age 7 (god willing). Each female alewife of age is capable of dropping 60,000-100,000 eggs. That is a huge difference between the low value and high value- almost double. The egg load is determined by fitness and age. Large fit alewives will drop almost double the amount of lesser age classes. The fatties being netted this spring are going to be pushing out another mega class if we have a mild winter.

Thank god.......you found my trousertrout! Please return as I am not feeling as confident in public with my Jordache jeans.

Lucky, perhaps if you left the rock strewn stream banks and actually went out onto the lake, you might see the results of all the runoff. If you don't own a boat, grab your floattube, a bag of cheetos, a secchi disk and have at it. My downrigger ball disappears at 7'. Right now at Olcott pier it looks a lot like the old times with bait around the piers, and seagulls everywhere.

True. Winter temps are the key. That's why we should wait til spring to determine.

Ah, Lucky.......you are showing your true colors again. If you want Kings gone, then why in the world would you start this thread?

The whiting effect, as seen on Modis, does not happen in an oligotrophic lake (clear infertile). With all the rain, Lady O is set to explode with all the nutrient-rich run-off. The OMNR and DEC last year described the needed cuts to King stocking numbers because of the hole in alewife population from the bad winters of '13 and '14. As the rationale for the cuts were laid out, it was argued that because alewives no longer live past 5 years of age on Lake Ontario, the hole in the population would severely hamper future stocks because the two lost future breeding classes. Thankfully, they decided to listen to us fishermen and survey more areas of the lake. The fruits from this years more intensive trawler search is that the population of alewife classes does in fact contain robust age 5,6, and 7 year olds that can cover the shortfall. The fish I saw on the Kaho were huge-fat alewives that often had food in their stomach despite being at the end of the winter cycle. The common sense approach would be to collect and raise the bi-national agreed upon numbers of kings and wait to set the final stocking numbers for spring after we see what this winter holds for us. Bad winter= make your cuts. Another mild winter or "normal" winter= give us the full allotment. https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/modis/modis.php?region=o&page=1&template=sub&image=t1.17242.1555.LakeOntario.143.250m.jpg