dreamsteelie

Well, having been on Lake committees for many years with the NY, PA, OH and ONT fishery folks as well as the folks above them, they all rely on data to support their position or back up their decisions. That is a common theme. I agree, cut Lamprey treatments and they will increase as well as the damage they do. (Dont water plants and see if they die?? LOL) They are very data driven folks, whether wrong or right, it's just the system. They the use that data, deemed factual, to make recommendations and decisions. In this case, it helps present a very god argument or reason to make sure they maintain the treatments. Now they they have the proof , altho it was obvious as to what the results would end up)

See attached schedule for the Great Lakes! As you will see, it is quite extensive. Attachments: Cover letter and Great Lakes treatment dates and locations. Originally 8 locations were scheduled for Lake O but this was increased-apparently. Captain Pete GLFC 2025_PR_TreatmentSchedule.pdf GLFC 2025 Treatment Schedule.pdf 4.21.2025.pdf

More of the same information attached PDF "A team of fifteen scientists from six agencies found that the answer to both questions is a resounding “yes.” The research team found that reductions in lampricide applications—a pesticide highly selective to lampreys—during 2020-2021 corresponded to a rapid increase in sea lamprey abundance. In Lake Ontario, sea lamprey population sizes increased over an order of magnitude (10x)." Captain Pete 2025_SeaLampreyControl_Pandemic_Reduction.pdf

Thanks for the input Gator and Everyone, I know all of these chemicals are required to have MSDS sheets of course and would assume all parties involved considered the ramifications-if any of all of the products being used in waterways. I also know there are extensive permits that are required to do this and would assume each department issuing them knows of the chemicals and those ramifications? Before approving. But the assume word gets one in trouble. As stated in a prior email, some of the ingredient(s) come from China. Any known solutions or chemicals should be passed along to the GLFC. I know they are currently working on a different version of the TFM because they fear that eventually, the current formula will lose its effectiveness as the Lamprey adapt and become more immune. So the GLFC is preparing for this scenario. They have already stated that 5% or so currently survive TFM and are immune. I asked them at our meeting if TFM has been altered much since it's inception and they replied-no. I have attached a recent resolution we worked on recently-see attached. It has been accepted and now is public. Captain Pete GLFC U.S. Resolution for Full Support of the GL SLCP Including Full Restoration of Staff in the US to Implement Control Program_15April2025.pdf

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/04/11/invasive-sea-lamprey-covid-great-lakes/83025956007/ Attached article with some additional information. Thanks, Captain Pete

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/trump-reverses-cuts-great-lakes-lamprey-program-uncertainty-remains

Update: 3.27.25 I was invited to DC to address this issue with some politicians, see the process, watch the roll out of The Fish Thief movie during their DCEFF (the Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital (DCEFF))at the Canadian embassy, sit on a panel after the movie and obtain some additional information: It was a good experience including meeting the man that produced the Fish Thief movie. It would appear that the overall program will see 25% less stream treatments Great Lake wide in 2025. Primarily due to the lack of experienced employees to administer the treatments. The funding from CND and US is whole. So, bad news/good news. The goal of the GLFC is to keep the funding as is at the minimum but requested more to help offset the tariffs and to build more barriers for 2026. The request for additional funds is being made. Some of the TFM components come from China Greg McClinchey told me and they estimated a potential hit of $475K in added tariff cost. The vibe I received by all is that things will be back on track next year but I witnessed the efforts and know the efforts the GLFC is doing to help keep this program in full effect. Their goal is to keep the heat on and keep politicians informed. The article below is good to read. I spent all day Tuesday with Greg (8:30am-11:00pm more or less) He explains things well in the article. He also explained that when DOGE enacted the mass terminations everywhere it was for "probationary" level employees. He explained that many of these 12 USFW were classified as probationary because most were moved into "different" positions BUT were experienced long time employees actually with USFW. It was their "classification" which led to the terminations-Per Greg. They also rely on 25 seasonal staff to assist with the implementation of the program. The other issue that needs resolved is the ban on travel spending. He said currently that travel expenses are halted but obviously needed to send USFW personnel to perform treatments. It was unclear how they would manage that. Sea lamprey control program receives OK to rehire federal workers after initial scare https://www.michiganpublic.org/environment-climate-change/2025-03-26/sea-lamprey-control-program-receives-ok-to-rehire-federal-workers-after-initial-scare Additional Great lake info here: https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?e=5588c18d67&u=5b672d7c62922dbb20bc7549e&id=c117a72ea1 Check out this link to learn more about this annual week long event in DC https://dceff.org/ Thanks, Captain Pete

Just returned home from the Lower lakes meeting held in Niagara Falls; Ontario. Some updates for those interested: The Canadian deficit was mostly paid back. It approached around 10 million US a while back, so I asked for an update and was told things are good again. Canada is responsible for about 32% and US 68% of the annual funding. The Great Lakes Fishery commission has about a budget of $25 million annually. The 12 to 14 folks that were terminated were all offered their jobs back within last 72 hours. Some accepted but some did not. I don't know the exact #. However, 5 additional folks accepted the early exit program/buy out. Lake Ontario exhibited the worst Lamprey Eel wounding rate of ALL of the Great Lakes in 2024 and was a direct result of the lack of treatments in 2020 and 2021. (See pic attached) No treatments were done on lake Erie or Ontario those 2 years. This information is provided by: angler creel surveys, trap netting, gill nets and the markings are recorded from the Salmon River hatchery returns. DFO(Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Canada) will cost likely continue the TFM treatment service in Lake Ontario in the immediate future. I did not get a good explanation of reason as to why they treat Lake O but they are contracted by USFW/GLFC to do Lake O . (Assume its lack of personnel?) The Eel markings decreased in 2024 and are related to the treatments that started back up in 2022/2023. Again proof of how important the treatments are. 12 locations are scheduled in lake Ontario (N and S shores) in 2025 and 4 in Lake Erie. Most of the 12 Lake O areas will be on the eastern end. They rolled out this, which hit home even more: Call in the DOMINO EFFECT Dead fish don't spawn-so how many additional salmon and trout did not spawn as a result of losing their life to Lamprey? Less fish for anglers to catch. The scarring is less appetizing to anglers when they do catch a fish Estimated 114,000 increase in lampreys in Lake O as a result of non treatment years. That equated to 4.5 million pounds of fish lost, and $100,000 million in lost fish investment, just in Lake Ontario. GLFC will lose about 25% of their needed Lamprey Eel funding in 2025. The goal is to have it restored for 2026 now. The GLFC folks seem somewhat positive about funding being restored but asked once again to rattle the chains and contact your reps. about this. For you Lake Erie-NY fisher folks: The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Yellow Perch was reduced by about 10% as a result of lower estimated perch populations and young of the year. 6.6 mil fish to 5.8 mil fish. The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Walleye was reduced by about 12% as a result of lower estimated perch populations and young of the year. 12.8 million pounds of fish to 11.3 million pounds of fish. FYI-there was a "control" method developed and put into place on Lake Erie. I was part of this process, which took over 3 years (from memory) to finally come up with a model that seemed to work and be accepted by all stake holders on Lake Erie (including commercial and sport). It was a long process and many meetings. End result was a formula where TAC allowed would never increase more than 20% in a given year and would never be decreased by more than 20%. Most of that was crucial to the Lake Erie trap netters (US side) and Ontario netters. The walleye TAC was increased in 2023 as an example but 2024 results showed a decrease in stocks and year classes, so the lower TAC kicked in. I should have additional info next week from Washington. Below you will see the wounding chart which shows the results of 2 years on not treatment ! I will mention this movie again-Its a good watch and very educational. https://www.thefishthief.com/ Captain Pete Vision Quest Sport Fishing

Not sure how many anglers see this publication: called Great Lakes Daily News from the Great lakes Commission-which is different from the Great lakes Fishery Commission. Many good articles about what's happening currently on the Great Lakes https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?e=5588c18d67&u=5b672d7c62922dbb20bc7549e&id=5d80a18af6

Folks, Let's all keep the discussion in check and related to this, please. I reached out to my contact at the GLFC this week to clarify some of the good discussion topics on the other thread and to get some up to date information on how things have been done recently and or in the past. See the answers below: Some of this was not known to myself, so it was good to get some clarifications-because things to change. Some of this information ties into what several of you posted, like seeing some CND DFO folks on the US side in one particular instance. Not sure how many took the time to reach out to their congressman via email or written but we did so in PA. Will it help? It cannot hurt. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducts stream treatments on behalf of the GLFC in U.S. tributaries and waters of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) conducts stream treatments on behalf of the GLFC in Canadian tributaries and waters of the Great Lakes. A wrinkle is that DFO also conducts some stream treatments in the U.S. – mainly on U.S. tributaries to Lake Ontario See answer to 1. above. Also, the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assists the GLFC in some aspects of sea lamprey control (quality assurance testing and regulatory agency compliance for lampricides and construction and maintenance of sea lamprey barriers, respectively). We also partner with many State, Tribal, and First Nation entities on various aspects of sea lamprey control as well. Trout or salmon kills associated with stream treatments are rare. I am not aware of any recent ones in Lake Ontario tributaries on either side of the border. These rare incidents typically occur with chinook salmon and only when treatments overlap spawning runs when fish are already stressed and near death. I have attached last year’s treatment schedule. These are posted on the GLFC website (www.glfc.org) when available (usually during the spring of each year). They are usually under the “Hot Topics” portion of the website. 12 permanent employees were fired. 6 were tasked with stream treatments; 5 were tasked with larval assessment surveys that are used to guide stream treatments; 1 was tasked with sea lamprey barrier work. We also lost 5 additional permanent employees to the Deferred Resignation Program. We have not been able to backfill any of these positions. These 17 employees account for 20% of permanent staff. Additionally, a hiring freeze prevented the timely hiring of 25 seasonal staff needed to fill out sea lamprey control crews. The hiring freeze has since been lifted and we are proceeding with hiring these staff, however, the delay will result in these staff not being available at the start of the field season. As things stand now, we are going to lose about a third of our capacity to control sea lamprey during 2025 We are still waiting for a transmitter that is small enough to insert into sea lamprey without affecting their behavior. Research is ongoing and I believe some will be tagged with transmitters this year, but this will mostly be to see how the lamprey behave with the transmitter in them (compared to those without a transmitter). We have other ways of finding spawning streams too. . www.sealamprey.org will get you a lot of information about sea lamprey control. Captain Pete Vision Quest Sport Fishing

To extend the point of treatments: The treatment needs to be applied by someone trained and experienced. It was also explained that before treatments are applied, they go in and assess the native species and aquatic life in any new streams they intend to treat. When they discovered the one stream in PA that had Lampreys spawning, there were delays in treatments due to the necessity to obtain permits. This was due to the face that a particular snail (I believe it was a snail) that lived in the stream. Eventually, they were allowed to treat the stream. The attached article provides most if not all the information concerning the impact of TFM on fish and other species, here are a few extracts. It is a long article but explains much about the results of fish/other species exposed to TFM: Here is an extract: https://www.glfc.org/pubs/pdfs/research/Wilkie et al. 2019. Control of invasive sea lampreys using the piscicide....pdf 5.1.1. TFM In trout exposed to routine, sub-lethal concentrations of TFM, few adverse effects have been noted, other than transient increases in plasma cortisol after treatment (Birceanu and Wilkie, 2018). At higher concentrations of TFM, decreases in muscle and liver glycogen have been observed (Birceanu et al., 2014). It is unlikely that such disturbances would have any long-term impact on the animal’s fitness, however, because liver glycogen fluctuates markedly in fishes with changes in food availability, food consumption and other stressors (Vijayan and Moon, 1992; Milligan, 2003; Miller et al., 2009). Muscle glycogen stores are also labile, as demonstrated by marked reductions following vigorous, exhaustive exercise (e.g. Milligan and Wood, 1986; Wang et al., 1994; Wilkie et al., 1997) and fasting (Scarabello et al., 1991). In the short-term, reductions in muscle glycogen could compromise burst or endurance swimming and negatively influence foraging or predator-evasion. However, there is a conspicuous lack of experiments investigating swim performance including burst, sustained and prolonged measures (see Farrell, 2008; Tierney, 2011 for reviews), in non-target fishes. It is likely that with feeding, glycogen stores would be restored within hours or days following TFM exposure. Brain glycogen concentrations also fluctuate markedly with fasting, followed by rapid replenishment following feeding (Soengas and Aldegunde, 2002; Polakof et al., 2007), suggesting that any neurophysiological energy deficits would be rapidly corrected in non-target fishes. It would be informative, however, to examine how altered energy charge in the brain following exposure to TFM influences behavior or sensory physiology in fishes. Sakamoto et al. (2016) noted that olfaction was impaired in lake sturgeon during exposure to TFM, but recovery following exposure was not examined. Nor were any behavioural effects, M.P. Wilkie, et al. Aquatic Toxicology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 11 including predator avoidance, noted in rainbow trout or fathead minnows exposed to TFM (Middaugh et al., 2014). Damage to the gills, as suggested in earlier studies (Christie and Battle, 1963; Mallatt et al., 1985, 1994), does not appear to be a factor in TFM-induced physiological disturbances, at least in moderately hard to very hard water. Mallatt et al. (1994) suggested that if TFM reduced ATP supply, active ion transport by the gill would be impaired, leading to ionoregulatory disturbances and death in both lamprey and nontarget fishes. However, exposure to TFM did not affect plasma ion balance or inhibit Na+uptake in larval sea lamprey, although it did cause an increase in branchial Na+/K+-ATPase activity following a 9–12 h exposure (Birceanu et al., 2009). Similarly, disturbances to ion balance, Na+/K+-ATPase and V-ATPase (H+-ATPase) activity were conspicuously absent in non-target fishes exposed to TFM, including lake sturgeon and rainbow trout (Birceanu et al., 2009, 2014; L. Sorensen and M.P. Wilkie, Unpublished findings) 5.2. Chronic toxicity The possibility that TFM negatively impacts vertebrates and invertebrates at the population level remains largely unexplored. Recently, Middaugh et al. (2014) reported that rainbow trout and lake sturgeon fingerlings experienced no adverse effects on growth in a two week period following a 12 h exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of TFM in the lab. They further noted that predator avoidance of fathead minnows (to largemouth bass) was unaffected by exposure to the lampricide, implying that a typical treatment does not affect growth or susceptibility to predation. When used appropriately, the adverse effects of TFM and niclosamide on aquatic ecosystems are minimal. However, instances of nontarget mortality do occur, which are often highly publicized. Such incidents, along with greater antipathy towards the chemical control of pests in general, have led to increasing public and regulatory concern about the effects of lampricides on aquatic biota. It is therefore imperative to develop further knowledge of the biology and sensitivity of non-target species to lampricides, with a focus on species, differences in rates of uptake, detoxification, distribution and elimination. Such knowledge is needed to provide sea lamprey control agents, fisheries managers, decision makers, and regulators with the ability to better identify, predict and mitigate any potential adverse effects arising from lampricide applications. Additional article on TFM/Results etc... https://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp85_6.pdf The GLFC/GLATOS program was also supposed to place transmitters in adult Lampreys to help discover additional spawning locations. I am not sure if they completed that goal but will try to find out if they did this. I will update this thread when I hear more. In the mean time, we all could write or email our State Reps. It is an easy process to email them from their websites. I have done this and have requested all of our clubs and associations in Erie, PA area to do so.

Longline, I am not sure why the concern? The treatments are not supposed to be harmful.. They treat a stream in PA with trout in it. I have never heard of a fish kill related to the treatments-anywhere.

The debacle occurred when State/Federal employees were permitted to stay home? told to? or not allowed to go to work during that period due to social distancing rules, etc... That halted the treatment just like many other businesses and activities and schools that were halted-no different. To my knowledge and from memory, the border was also shut down to keep us potential disease carrying Americans out of CND. So both reasons halted the treatments, technically. Yes-treatments are done sporadically all over the Great Lakes and alternate locations and years-again due to funding. It would be great if they could treat each stream that they spawn in every year, which would eradicate most over time. $$$$$$ tho. The Lampricide does not effect other species- The Fish Thief movie does a great job explaining all of this. The GLFC is US based and has Canadian advisers. We funded the treatments in CND with an agreement that they pay us back.

Just to clarify: The treatments are scheduled and applied by the GLFC which is US. The Cnds are supposed to "pay their share" and a a bit behind...... by millions. I know they are heavy handing the Cnds about this and hopefully, the money owed is paid back as well as future funds.

One more thing before I get back to work: The GLFC Upper and Lower Lakes meetings will be held the week of March 17th in Niagara Falls, ONT. I will be attending and expect I will definitely have up to date information on this. I will try to remember to share this. The Lake Ontario committee meets that Tuesday and Wednesday am. Captain Pete

Hi Spoonfed, Canadians are WAY behind on their share of the costs of such things. Like millions behind while they reap the benefits of USA paying for it. There was MUCH banter and pressure put on the CNDS as well as a boycotted meeting by the US because of this. This ones a longggggg story, BUT a solution is underway. All of the treatments are done are orchestrated thru the GLFC inc Canada. They were supposed to help pay. Much info on this website: https://www.glfc.org/ Captain Pete

Hi Spoonfed, Canadians are WAY behind on their share of the costs of such things. Like millions behind while they reap the benefits of USA paying for it. There was MUCH banter and pressure put on the CNDS as well as a boycotted meeting by the US because of this. This ones a longggggg story, BUT a solution is underway. All of the treatments are done are orchestrated thru the GLFC inc Canada. They were supposed to help pay. Much info on this website: https://www.glfc.org/ Captain Pete

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is working diligently to contest this and make the Administration aware of the importance of the program and what can be lost. I am involved as a sport fishing advisor to the State of PA and am being informed of the progress. I know it is underway. Support letter writing was requested and has begun, I copied Joe Yaeger from LOTSA on some things. It may help if individuals or groups contact their representatives and senators ASAP on this matter and ask the Administration to come up with the proper funding to continue the treatments. The majority of the cuts involved the field staff that applies the treatments (this is what I was told). There is discussion of calling on use of local volunteers to help (if needed). To help with the grunt work. I cannot dispute CUTS were needed in many things. However, I am sure that is the tree is shook hard, our Administration will go back and look at this again. I remain hopeful. Shake some trees. Voicing our opinion on a thread is one thing, making the time to contact your politicians, write letters, seek a meeting will take it to the next level. A common man once said. "doing nothing gets one nothing" EXCELLENT watch here: Amazon or Apple TV This is the history of the Lamprey Eel, salmon and how the treatments came to fruition. www.thefishthief.com Captain Pete Vision Quest Sport Fishing

The Chinook Salmon was introduced into the Lake Michigan in 1967. Sometimes called "King Salmon", these fish were not known to reproduce successfully. In 2007, the DNR of Lake Michigan's bordering states Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, began studying natural recruitment of the King Salmon. It is now found that nearly 54 percent of the annual king salmon catch is naturally reproduced. Great Lakes populations of Chinook are still supplemented by annual stocking programs, but the numbers stocked have been reduced considerably to maintain a thriving predator to prey population. Chinook Salmon spawn in streams over beds of large gravel, near riffles. Within two weeks after spawning, adult chinook die. Chinook compete with other salmon and trout for scarce spawning grounds. The following spring the eggs hatch, and the young usually remain in the river for one year before they migrate down to the lake. Once in the lake, males tend to remain for 1-2 years and females for 3-4 years. The King Salmon average a weight of 15 to 25 pounds and 38 inches in length. Young chinook in rivers eat insects, insect larvae and crustaceans; adults in the lakes eat fish almost exclusively. In the Great Lakes, smelt and alewives make up their main diet. Predators include rainbow trout, coho salmon smolts and fish-eating birds. The young also compete with trout and other salmon for food. Anglers prize chinook partly because of their large size and the challenge they present for fishing, and partly because they make a delicious meal. While other pacific salmon species have red flesh, chinook meat is often light pink. Chinook Salmon Chinook, or “King,” Salmon were first introduced into the Great Lakes water systems during the 1800’s following the near extinction of the Atlantic Salmon population in Lake Ontario. For centuries, legendary runs of Atlantic Salmon into the Tributaries of Lake Ontario supported growth of native populations in the New York and Canada regions, which spilled over to European settlement during the 1700 and 1800s. Despite plantings of 5 million fry and fingerlings from Lake Ontario stocks in 1866-84, the native Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario became extinct in the late 1800’s primarily because tributaries in which they spawned were blocked by mill dams. For nearly a century, all attempted stocking efforts throughout the Great Lakes failed. It wasn’t until a major stocking movement from 1966-1970 in Lake Michigan of 13 million chinook salmon that a footprint began to form. From 1970 until present day, a small population of 12-15% of fish are through natural reproduction, but the majority of salmon in the Great Lakes are a direct result of State stocking efforts and wildlife management. Today, average King Salmon weight 18-25 pounds, with fish pushing over 30 pounds entering the rivers every year. Off topic a bit but there was some bait/forage discussions here. Here is an interesting article done in MI with regard to lake trout and chinook food (bait) consumption done my Michigan State U. I have worked and with these folks at MSU (quantitative fish division) for several years. Usually, I just listen and digest their information-above my pay grade level of intelligence...(I am not sure if NY DEC has done a similar study?) Excerpt: So, on an annual basis a Chinook salmon eats more than a lake trout of the same size. We know that lake trout live longer than Chinook salmon, though. How much does an average lake trout eat over its entire lifetime as opposed to an average Chinook salmon? C.M.: The answer to this question partly depends on the definition of an entire lifetime for a lake trout. Based on the bioenergetics modeling by Don Stewart and others, an average lake trout consumes 143.3 lbs. of food between the time of stocking as a yearling into Lake Michigan and age 12. A Chinook salmon consumes 147.7 lbs. of food between the time of stocking as an age-0 fingerling into Lake Michigan and age 3.5, when a Chinook salmon is ready to spawn. J.J.: Chuck did a nice job of summarizing lifetime consumption of the two species above. When asking a question like this, it is important to consider why it is being asked. Total lifetime consumption of prey does not equate to information valuable in determining sustainability of the system. New year-classes of fish are always being produced and individual species have different life-spans and life-histories. Several generations of alewife and Chinook salmon will have cycled during the life-span of a lake trout. For example, during the lifespan of a lake trout age 12 which consumed 143.3 lbs. of prey there will have been four generations of Chinook salmon each consuming 147.7 lbs. of prey (590.8 total lbs.). Because of fluctuations in births and deaths and the lack of life-span synchrony among species, we typically summarize population levels of predators and prey on an annual basis in order to monitor for changes over. Now we know how much individual trout and salmon eat, but how many baitfish are eaten annually by all predators in Lake Michigan? How did estimated lake trout consumption compare to estimated Chinook salmon consumption on a lakewide basis in 2016? J.J.: In 2016, lake trout consumed 13.7 kt of prey and Chinook salmon consumed 38.4 kt. Even though numbers of Chinook salmon in 2016 were at all time low levels lake-wide, they consumed nearly 3 times as much forage as lake trout. In 2016, the biomass of Chinook salmon in Lake Michigan was estimated to be 5.0 kt and lake trout 5.9 kt. Just four years’ prior, in 2013, Chinook salmon biomass was substantially higher at 15.7 kt and lake trout were 7.0 kt. https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/files/Lake_Trout_Bioenergetics_PDF.pdf

These are the only u ones we know about and that actually get weighed/entered-how many do not? GOSD: July 27-Aug 2 Great Grand Prize Leader: 31.14# 1st Place: Nathan Mifsud – Wellers Bay – 27.64 lbs. 2nd Place: Jonas Usackas – Whitby – 27.48 lbs. 3rd Place: David McFaul – Rays Cottages – 27.22 lbs. 4th Place: Jessica Ritchie – Newcastle – 27.14 lbs. 5th Place: Andrew Tolcher – Peters Tackle – Fishin Clinician – 25.86 lbs. 6th Place: Tim Mandzak – Whitby – 25.78 lbs. 7th Place: Jack Robinson – Bluffers – 25.40 lbs. 8th Place: Justin Tadgell – Bluffers – 25.32 lbs. 9th Place: Mitch Hoyle – Newcastle – 25.27 lbs. 10th Place: Isaac Seabrook – Bluffers – 25.12 lbs. 11th Place: Adam Paryz – Lakefront Promenade – 25.00 lbs. 12th Place: Thomas O’Neill – Wellers Bay – 24.92 lbs. 13th Place: Vincent Lafrance – Cobourg – Gabriel Vachon – 24.88 lbs. 14th Place: Chris Attard – Newcastle – 24.72 lbs. 15th Place: Joel Tiede – Whitby – 24.52 lbs. 16th Place: Casey Moss – Lakefront Promenade – 24.48 lbs. 17th Place: Aaron Brautigam – Lakefront Promenade – 24.30 lbs. 18th Place: Doug Smart – Peters Tackle – 24.30 lbs. 19th Place: Fisher Mastromartino – Bronte – 24.16 lbs. 20th Place: Luke DePietro – Peters Tackle – Setting the Hook – 24.10 lbs. 21st Place: Sid Jensen – Bronte – 24.04 lbs. 22nd Place: Fran Stevenson – Whitby – 24.04 lbs. 23rd Place: Ryan Hymes – Lakefront Promenade – 23.98 lbs. 24th Place: Aaron Hyde – Lakefront Promenade – 23.90 lbs. 25th Place: Garneth Fry – Newcastle – 23.86 lbs.

A Happy Report I am not sure we can have it all. BIG fish and lots.... ? I know I would prefer a cooler of 10-20# kings VS 6 bigs all day. I know my clients would also. Hell, I may fall asleep in-between changing lures if fishing was slow but fish were big. This season may be arguably the best in years (ever?) in terms of fish being caught, happy anglers (most) and it seemed at times the entire S and N shores were HOT. There are some big adults around also. Lake Erie is going through a similar thing. LOTS and LOTS of fish, many happy anglers and a great fishery. Its rare to catch a "legitimate" 7# walleye right now. Do I care? not really, except in a tournament. Or I would care if I was dinking out and my peers were constantly catching hog eyes.. Not the case. Bigs are not the preferred eater anyways. (Less contamination also) I can speak for many rec and charter anglers. Its nice to catch a nice limit of fish and be back in at a reasonable time-avoiding sun, heat, sometimes bugs and waves (typically waves grow as the day progresses here). Whether that's Lake O or Erie. I fish both Lakes hard and sometimes the old saying is best left alone and it is: "take what the lake gives us". I know we can bring up the 2 or 3 years when Kings were 40# but things change, that was a LONG time ago. Cohos, when first introduced to Lake Erie in the late 70's and early 80's were PIGS.. Eventually, the stocking process, genetics and maybe less bait (always an argument) affected the size? By the end of the stocking program, the avg fish was 6-8#. Not 10-15#. Lake Michigan was similar. Lake Erie steel in PA are flat out BIG this year. There has been years when they were clones-mostly 4-6# fish. This year has been an exception. There has been more 10# plus steel boated so far than I can ever recall and I have been fishing for them for a longgg time. Was it the mild winter again? Large presence of Alewives this year? IDK but lets not change it in PA.. LOL Back to Lake O: Whatever happened recently to provide the great brown, steelhead and king fishery this year-I would take every year. Give Credit to the DEC or mild winter/weather conditions helped? My customers never said 1 word about catching small fish this year. Oh, I did not even mention those occasional overlooked coho which make great box fillers, r fun to catch and add to the diversity in Lake O. Then we have lakers to play with when desired. (Just ask Screamer Dave-they came in handy 2X this year:)) Been a great year so far aboard the V.Q. and yes, we do like Big fish also, just not sure we can ask or have both? Good topic folks. Captain Pete V.Q.