Lucky13

AS reported by NYSDEC biologists, the generalized pattern is west end early and then a gradual shift to the east end as spawning time approaches. As to numbers, the 2106 report documents the drop off in BT and RT numbers both in the lake fishery and in the tribs. But they also indicate that the numbers are whole lake averages, and quality may be much better or worse depending opn where you are. "During 2016, there were time periods and locations of both excellent and poor fishing quality. The four most sought after species are Chinook salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout, and coho salmon, and regulations allow a daily harvest limit of “3 in any combination” of these four species. In 2016, charter boat fishing quality (catch rate=number of fish caught per hour of angling) for these four species combined increased 21% from 2015 (Figure 2). • The best Chinook salmon fishing quality among charter boats occurred during 2003-2016. Fishing quality in 2016 was similar to the 2003-2016 average, primarily due to relatively good fishing in the West Region during May through August, and during July for all regions. Angler reports of poor Chinook fishing quality during portions of the 2016 fishing season and/or in specific areas were confirmed by survey results. • Fishing quality for brown trout was near record high levels in recent years, however, for a second consecutive year, fishing quality in 2016 was among the lowest recorded and 16% below the long-term average. • Coho salmon fishing quality in 2015 and 2016 was well below the long-term average (-57% and -70%, respectively). • Rainbow trout fishing quality was at record high levels each year 2008-2014; however, fishing quality declined markedly during 2015 and 2016. The 2016 catch rate was 25% below the long term average. • Lake trout fishing quality improved each year (2008-2013) from the 2007 record low, and has remained relatively stable since." .

Any introduced species is " exotic" to an ecosystem, if it is perceived negatively it is generally referred to as "invasive." Maybe I am reading your point wrong, but what I believe you said was "The single biggest suppressor of young alewife is the older larger alewife. " If this were the case, the large alewife that existed prior to the stocking of pacific species should have controlled, and even possibly crashed, their own population in the nearly large predator free environment that existed then. And history says that did not happen. I'm certainly not faulting the managers in LO, and was much less willing to risk the possible ecosystem collapse that could happen if there are too many large predators and not enough food for them. If the steelhead are eating the "large alewife," certainly the kings are, too, and if there is such a surplus of large alewife, I would think we'd be seeing more of those huge kings of the past, but size and condition numbers do not say the salmon are necessarily "overfed."

Drove Empire Blvd at the South end of Irondequoit Bay yesterday. If it goes up much more, that road might need to close.

I know Steve LaPan would love to have that magic wand that instantly creates a couple of million fish that aren't already in the system! Then he could generate adults, why mess around with little ones! He could [probably use it to better control the weather, too!

C'mon Vince, if this were true, why did we need to add exotics from the west coast to chow down the alewives, if the large ones eat up all the small ones? The large alewifes should have eliminated the young of the year back in the days, and the population should have collapsed. Those of us who are old enough to have seen the real die offs of the 50's and 60's know that was not happening, and back then there was nearly nothing else for the big alewifes to chow on except the small ones, as perch, walleye, and Lake Trout were all at surpressed levels. I had heard that you espoused this theory of big alewife as small alewife suppressor, (sure,any random filter feeding eating machine will get some larval and YOY fish of its own species), but I do not think that dog hunts.

Only making the point that many open water anglers, at least one who has posted on this thread, were also 'offended" that a discussion was had with tributary anglers, and the open water fishery folks were left out. Here we have a situation that is the opposite, but it is no biggie that it is a closed discussion. Most of the ditch fishers I know already trust the science, don't need to see the little fish on the decks, hopefully that trust can happen with the open water leadership as well in the future.

Considering the reaction many Lake operators had to not being included in the Hatchery meeting in February, I'm sure you're all bending over backwards to insure that tributary anglers are included in these "boat rides?" Jes' sayin.....

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2017/04/21/county-leaders-discuss-flooding-today/100736896/

Still cloudy, buyt looks l8ike the mud goes past Sodus, yesterday. https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/modis/modis.php?region=o&page=1&template=sub&image=t1.17099.1637.LakeOntario.143.250m.jpg

From my earlier post. "The rock was placed but the remainder of the barrier could not be placed due to low water in the fall, is slated to be completed in April and May, but could likely be delayed by high water. Some of the sand for completion of the barrier will come from the channel area, so the channel will get dredged, but maintenance of the channel was never an item in the barrier project, only a consideration. Finally, while it might be possible to place jetties on the ends of the barriers or at another location further restricting outflow of Salmon and Buttonwood creeks, that will require a funding source other then GLRI (even if it is restored) as there was no money in GLRI for navigation projects. Irondequoit Bay outlet was never supposed to need dredging and we've all seen how well that one works." Every harbor mouth on the south shore requires maintenance dredging at some time, or eventually fills in. It is possible to judge almost anything done by government as a huge waste of money. In this case the money would have been spent somewhere in the Great Lakes, so why not here? And as the GLRI was an environmental remediation funding stream that did not contain money for navigation projects, this was a possible use of some of the funding that would protect one of the largest remaining wetland complexes in the entire Great Lakes, and a very important part of the State FWMA system, which has importance for hunters, bird watchers, self powered boaters, and other tax and user fee payers. Other options were evaluated, but all offered less overall benefit, many at much more significant costs. I heard no feedback about waste of money at the public meetings that were held, where the meeting room at the Greece Town hall was at capacity, there was nearly unanimous support for the project.

This is likely true, but it is also unfortunate that the sport fishing community is generally so narrow minded. If the habitat improvement aspects of the project are as successful as similar work accomplished in Buck Pond, the pike should be back big time in a few years. Get your act together, and go petition the pols to come up with the money for a full navigation project. There was no money available for that kind of work under GLRI. And have fun with the permitting agencies like US Fish and Wildlife Service and NYSDEC, too. Please look at the attached presentation, which illustrates the historical record of the bay mouth. The remnants of the trolley line that bridged the entire opening at the turn of the 19th century are still out there. http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Portals/45/docs/BraddockBay/BraddockBay-PubMeeting-MAY-2015.pdf

Once the sand is placed, it will be planted with the kind of vegetation that holds dunes together. Similar structures constructed by USACE on Lake Erie have held up quite well, and have not required addition of more sand. Check out Simms Beach in Euclid Ohio, built in 1992.

I am not aware of any Federal or state money being used at the marina, I believe that is being funded by the Danielli family. Read the information on the USACE website, there was extensive modeling done for the headlands design, but it was NOT designed to keep a channel open. Dredging will continue to be needed, as it is all along the south shore. The north shore of Erie, where Crystal Beach is located, is a very different place, too.

The Braddocks habitat project was totally funded out of prior year appropriations. The GLRI is cut from Trumps PROPOSED budget, still a lot of horse trading before an actual budget gets passed (and how long has it been since they actually passed a budget in Washington, they have been working with continuing resolutions for funding. I think!)

Please remember that the Marina project is one project, and was still in permitting last I heard, and the structure is part of a separate project designed to protect the marshland from continued erosion, not to protect the channel. The rock was placed but the remainder of the barrier could not be placed due to low water in the fall, is slated to be completed in April and May, but could likely be delayed by high water. Some of the sand for completion of the barrier will come from the channel area, so the channel will get dredged, but maintenance of the channel was never an item in the barrier project, only a consideration. Finally, while it might be possible to place jetties on the ends of the barriers or at another location further restricting outflow of Salmon and Buttonwood creeks, that will require a funding source other then GLRI (even if it is restored) as there was no money in GLRI for navigation projects. Oh, and where pray tell, are these jetties that keep bay mouths open, Irondequoit was never supposed to need dredging and we've all seen how well that one works. http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/District-Projects/Braddock-Bay/