What's your opinion of the current state of our fishery?

[HB2]

You caught me LL . I'm full of s....

[RH93]

3 hours ago, HB2 said:

I can't see how those angler surveys are even remotely accurate , especially lake anglers . I fished a lot this year out of Sandy  ,caught a bunch  and only saw the survey boat once and stopped to see them . I don't know about how the Salmon River surveys go . 

 

 

 

Yup, I only saw the survey boat on the little salmon river twice this year on my way back to the marina from the lake.

Both times I had been skunked and reported zero fish. I fished 25 days this year, and caught fish 23 out of those 25 days. The state should look into a fish harvest reporting app to get a better idea of what people are harvesting out of the lake. I would have no problem logging in the fish I catch. 

[ut_falcon]

No one is talking about what happened on Lake Superior this year, they had record hatches of Cisco a few years ago and this year the salmon were pushing 40 pounds, bigger than any other of the great lakes.  We're talking average derby winner a few years ago was 15 pounds up to 39 pounds doubling in size in a few years, they've never had huge salmon like Lake Ontario until this year.

[LongLine]

 HB - Don't take that as an insult. 

 

Off topic from the subject of this thread, but there's a difference between "actively feeding" and "hitting."  Back in the 70's I caught a female while balancing on a rock, 1/3rd of way out the east side of the Oak Orchard channel on a very dismal October evening. (rainy, windy, freaking cold) Casting a CD5 Rapala.

 

Poor cast with a lot of slack. Fish hit it as soon as I reeled in the slack. Never saw fish till it was a couple feet from the rock.  Very dark and dropping eggs after I landed her. She had both trebles in her mouth.

 

 I thought it was great to catch 28# Salmon feeding under those condition. However, her guts were shriveled up and hard to distinguish which was what. (Totally empty stomach) I then thought that the lure settled directly in front of her, scared her so she grabbed it.

 

Since then, I've seen a lot of underwater videos of spawning fish.  Pre and post spawning smallmouth chase anything away from their nests. (Which is why the closed season) 

 

I've also seen underwater videos of Salmon runs. In addition to discoloration, hooked jaws and deformed bodies, I've noticed (in most of them) the frequency of their mouth and gill movement.  Spawning is very stressful and exhausting for Salmon so I can't help thinking these fish are gasping for breath. I.E. Sucking in a lot of water to get more oxygen.  Just like any animal's respiration rate increasing when stressed or exhausted. 

 

Bottom line:  Did that fish take the lure because it landed so close that she instinctively grabbed it.  Was she being protective?  Did she just suck it in during one of her deep breaths?  

 

She was a spawner, hit a lure but definitely was not "actively feeding."  
 

[HB2]

23 minutes ago, LongLine said:

 HB - Don't take that as an insult. 

 

Off topic from the subject of this thread, but there's a difference between "actively feeding" and "hitting."  Back in the 70's I caught a female while balancing on a rock, 1/3rd of way out the east side of the Oak Orchard channel on a very dismal October evening. (rainy, windy, freaking cold) Casting a CD5 Rapala.

 

Poor cast with a lot of slack. Fish hit it as soon as I reeled in the slack. Never saw fish till it was a couple feet from the rock.  Very dark and dropping eggs after I landed her. She had both trebles in her mouth.

 

 I thought it was great to catch 28# Salmon feeding under those condition. However, her guts were shriveled up and hard to distinguish which was what. (Totally empty stomach) I then thought that the lure settled directly in front of her, scared her so she grabbed it.

 

Since then, I've seen a lot of underwater videos of spawning fish.  Pre and post spawning smallmouth chase anything away from their nests. (Which is why the closed season) 

 

I've also seen underwater videos of Salmon runs. In addition to discoloration, hooked jaws and deformed bodies, I've noticed (in most of them) the frequency of their mouth and gill movement.  Spawning is very stressful and exhausting for Salmon so I can't help thinking these fish are gasping for breath. I.E. Sucking in a lot of water to get more oxygen.  Just like any animal's respiration rate increasing when stressed or exhausted. 

 

Bottom line:  Did that fish take the lure because it landed so close that she instinctively grabbed it.  Was she being protective?  Did she just suck it in during one of her deep breaths?  

 

She was a spawner, hit a lure but definitely was not "actively feeding."  
 

So now it's ," well they hit , but why did they hit? Were they actually feeding or was it a conditioned response ? " 

 

Give me a break 

[Gill-T]

On 10/17/2024 at 4:22 PM, ut_falcon said:

No one is talking about what happened on Lake Superior this year, they had record hatches of Cisco a few years ago and this year the salmon were pushing 40 pounds, bigger than any other of the great lakes.  We're talking average derby winner a few years ago was 15 pounds up to 39 pounds doubling in size in a few years, they've never had huge salmon like Lake Ontario until this year.

Huh?  Do tell!  Note winning king weights….

[AAA]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:28 PM, LongLine said:

 HB - Don't take that as an insult. 

 

Off topic from the subject of this thread, but there's a difference between "actively feeding" and "hitting."  Back in the 70's I caught a female while balancing on a rock, 1/3rd of way out the east side of the Oak Orchard channel on a very dismal October evening. (rainy, windy, freaking cold) Casting a CD5 Rapala.

 

Poor cast with a lot of slack. Fish hit it as soon as I reeled in the slack. Never saw fish till it was a couple feet from the rock.  Very dark and dropping eggs after I landed her. She had both trebles in her mouth.

 

 I thought it was great to catch 28# Salmon feeding under those condition. However, her guts were shriveled up and hard to distinguish which was what. (Totally empty stomach) I then thought that the lure settled directly in front of her, scared her so she grabbed it.

 

Since then, I've seen a lot of underwater videos of spawning fish.  Pre and post spawning smallmouth chase anything away from their nests. (Which is why the closed season) 

 

I've also seen underwater videos of Salmon runs. In addition to discoloration, hooked jaws and deformed bodies, I've noticed (in most of them) the frequency of their mouth and gill movement.  Spawning is very stressful and exhausting for Salmon so I can't help thinking these fish are gasping for breath. I.E. Sucking in a lot of water to get more oxygen.  Just like any animal's respiration rate increasing when stressed or exhausted. 

 

Bottom line:  Did that fish take the lure because it landed so close that she instinctively grabbed it.  Was she being protective?  Did she just suck it in during one of her deep breaths?  

 

She was a spawner, hit a lure but definitely was not "actively feeding."  
 

It may be true that spawners stop feeding but some definitely aggressively chase and hit lures.  While fishing the fall run from shore of lake near a small stream I have had Kings come charging out of the depths from distance and almost beach their selves chasing my spoon.  No flossing or deep breathing or startle response involved. And definitely not protecting redds as still in lake.

Edited October 19 by AAA

[GAMBLER]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:29 PM, HB2 said:

The " these fish don't hit " ain't right.  

I've had I would say 50 king hookups the last month or so ( my landing percentage sucks though) on skien. More than a few have swallowed the hook . I also have had a good number over the years smash a J 13 rapala . Also fly fishing early Nov browns have had  kings hit a woolly bugger pretty hard , and watched them do it .A lot of guys at the Oak fish skien off the wall successfully . So they don't hit is wrong . Sure there are an awfull lot of outlaws out there . So ticket them .Don't punish law following anglers . 

 

I really don't care about lake anglers and how they choose to fish .I use a lot of the same equipment .  I find it funny that anglers that have all this high tech equipment have a problem with someone with a fly or centerpin outfit and waders . 

 

So I have an idea , let's close down the Salmon River from Sept to Nov for 3 years . 

With one caviat, A moratorium on all Salmon tournaments on Lake Ontario for the same length of time .

You know ,shared sacrifice  . 

 

Then 4 to 7 years from now we MIGHT, MIGHT,  have a chance to catch kings that average 3 to 5 # bigger than we have now . 

 

Definitely not Worth it in my opinion. 

We have a great fishery with trophy fish , albeit not as big as they use to be . What a banner year this was . 

You are in hell if you  land a 20# king and think it's disappointing . 

 

Some people are never satisfied . 

 

 

The salmon are managed for the lake fishery.  The logic to shutdown tournaments in turn to shut down the very king fertile Salmon River (that the fishery depends on more and more) wouldn't be sticking to the plan of the salmon are managed for the lake fishery.  If the salmon were truly managed for the lake fishery, why shouldn't they shut down more parts of the Salmon River?  We all know neither will happen because it would hurt local economies around the lake.   The Garnaska RIver on the North shore is shutdown during the spawn to fishing.  The Garnaska has natural reproduction, and the runs are big (I believe they do not stock there anymore either correct me if I'm wrong).  Canada doesn't seem to care about the loss of revenue.  The lake is also managed as a put and take fishery.  Without tournaments, charters and rec guys harvesting kings in the lake, and trib guys roping them out, the alewife would be in big trouble.  With fewer taken in the lake, more alewife would be consumed, not enough roped out of the Salmon River, more natural reproduction would occur, and salmon numbers would climb.  The DEC plans on a number of these fish being taken out of the system.  IMO, not enough kings were taken out of the system this summer.  Huge numbers of kings can really put a dent in the alewife population.  The Steelhead are managed for the tributary fisheries and the DEC has put more restrictions on protecting steelhead in the lake (where they are not managed for) even though we don't rely on natural reproduction to sustain the fishery.  Hmmmm.   On a side note, we can't keep as many steelhead and we have a minimum size restriction and this was supposed to increase the size and numbers of steelhead returning to the tribs.  By the derby board the past couple of years, that doesn't look like it seemed to make much difference.   As for people never being satisfied, it's not that.  People want what we once had.  Yes, the fishery is amazing for numbers of kings but catching a 40lb king is now a pipe dream and a 30lb king isn't far behind.   Where does it end?  People aren't disappointed by a 20lb king, they are disappointed the fishery is heading in a direction that a 20lb king might be tough to come by if this trend continues.  Not long ago, you could catch 20 kings a day and still crack 30bs multiple times a season.  I don't know if you lake fished in 2000-2013 but those years were amazing too.   I have not caught a 30lb king on my boat since 2013.  The biggest we have caught since 2013 is 28lbs 9oz (2020).  If we caught too many kings during tournaments this season, how are you finding any kings at all in Sandy?  Shouldn't all the stray kings that Sandy relies on be in the freezer by now?  

[GAMBLER]

On 10/17/2024 at 4:22 PM, ut_falcon said:

No one is talking about what happened on Lake Superior this year, they had record hatches of Cisco a few years ago and this year the salmon were pushing 40 pounds, bigger than any other of the great lakes.  We're talking average derby winner a few years ago was 15 pounds up to 39 pounds doubling in size in a few years, they've never had huge salmon like Lake Ontario until this year.

 The picture of the leaderboard shows a different story….   A 39lb Grand prize, first place was 20 and change, 2nd was 10lbs and change, the rest of the board was filled with 5lb and change fish….. Hardly a great comeback for Lake Superior.  Lake Ontario spit out one really big king in June.  Joe Oakes caught a 37lb king.  

 

 

Edited October 19 by GAMBLER

[HB2]

The distain for the trib guys on this site really urks me . An awfull lot of crying for nothing . Are 30 fish days with 15 to 25 # kings not enough ? 

 

These fish are there for everyone to catch . Everyone gets their chance at them at some time during the year . Those Salmon River guys don't hurt the fishery one bit . In fact , even with the outlaws , they probably help . It's put and take . If a guy has a successful trip and comes back next year , all the better . Each out of state angler probably drops 150$+  per day minimum up here. The Pulaski region relies on that which is pretty much all they have . 

 

I personally love fishing for these tributary kings .It's really a challenge  to get them to hit . And they might not have the power they had in the lake but they sure do fight .Had many, many ,  run 150 yds up or down the creek I could not stop . And so do a lot of other guys because I talk to them.Some come up every year .  Some don't want , or can't afford 700 to 1 k a day to pay a charter  and have a mate hand then a rod and reel the fish in . I was invited in a charter this year . Awesome captain and mate . If that's what salmon  fishing is , I'll take up birdwatching . 

 

The only chart or data that really matters to the state of NY is the one about economic impact . Which is probably why the judges in those municipalities the tickets get written in throw the cases out . 

 

And I don't care if a fish hits because it's hungry , out of aggression , it's a conditioned response or it just made a bad decision . It hit by its own choice .He took my bait ,which to me is what it's all about.  Getting them to hit . Are we going to make fishing WOKE now ? 

Edited October 19 by HB2

[GAMBLER]

27 minutes ago, HB2 said:

The distain for the trib guys on this site really urks me . An awfull lot of crying for nothing . Are 30 fish days with 15 to 25 # kings not enough ? 

 

These fish are there for everyone to catch . Everyone gets their chance at them at some time during the year . Those Salmon River guys don't hurt the fishery one bit . In fact , even with the outlaws , they probably help . It's put and take . If a guy has a successful trip and comes back next year , all the better . Each out of state angler probably drops 150$+  per day minimum up here. The Pulaski region relies on that which is pretty much all they have . 

 

I personally love fishing for these tributary kings .It's really a challenge  to get them to hit . And they might not have the power they had in the lake but they sure do fight .Had many, many ,  run 150 yds up or down the creek I could not stop . And so do a lot of other guys because I talk to them.Some come up every year .  Some don't want , or can't afford 700 to 1 k a day to pay a charter  and have a mate hand then a rod and reel the fish in . I was invited in a charter this year . Awesome captain and mate . If that's what salmon  fishing is , I'll take up birdwatching . 

 

The only chart or data that really matters to the state of NY is the one about economic impact . Which is probably why the judges in those municipalities the tickets get written in throw the cases out . 

 

And I don't care if a fish hits because it's hungry , out of aggression , it's a conditioned response or it just made a bad decision . It hit by its own choice .He took my bait ,which to me is what it's all about.  Getting them to hit . 

I said nothing bad about trib guys.  I just stated fact that the kings are managed for the lake not the tribs.  This was the DEC's idea not mine.  Like I said before, we used to have fish that hit 40lbs, now  barely 30.  When does the decline stop?  Do we do nothing until we can't find a 20lb king?  Look at the top 5 on the pics I posted above from Lake Superior.  Grand Prize 39lbs, 1st 20lbs, 2nd 10lbs 3rd -5th 5lbs.  Five pond and change kings won money.   That is sad. I wouldn't spend the money I spend yearly to continue fishing Lake Ontario to catch 5lb kings.  Thats not a fishery that is going keep people coming back...... 

Edited October 19 by GAMBLER

[HB2]

Relax , the sky is not falling .

At least not yet . 

[Jm1984]

I don’t think Gambler is saying the sky is falling, he’s pointing out a concerning trend.  It’s a trend that affects lake and trib guys.  This shouldn’t be an us and them situation.  Both sides of this should be after the same end goal here.  It’s likely going to mean some give and take on both sides.  

[GAMBLER]

11 hours ago, Jm1984 said:

I don’t think Gambler is saying the sky is falling, he’s pointing out a concerning trend.  It’s a trend that affects lake and trib guys.  This shouldn’t be an us and them situation.  Both sides of this should be after the same end goal here.  It’s likely going to mean some give and take on both sides.  

Seeing that the DEC has not come out with a definitive answer (lots of theories tossed around over the years) as to why the kings are shrinking, it's a very concerning trend to me.  The sky isn't falling yet but why wait until it is?  I bet the Lake Huron salmon guys wish action was taken before they lost their king fishery.  Let's be honest, most guys aren't going to book a charter or guide, travel from out of state or buy thousands of dollars in gear and a boat for little kings like in the picture above from Lake Superior.  5lb and change kings are not fun on big lake tackle and you don't get much filets off of them!  I know I wouldn't be dumping money into a motor rebuild for my boat if the kings were that small here!  15-25lb kings are fun but sliding the net under a 35+lb king sure is a special memory that one will never forget!  

[HB2]

Well  , the DEC has said repeatedly that it is bait related. I have my armchair quarterback  theory on why but they are the guys with the most experience with this . Banner year this year they supplied . 

 

I saw the most bait I have seen in a long time out there this year . There has been a biatfish biomass rebound the last few years . We are only about 5# off the mark for bigger fish actually. Let's see what happens when we have continuous years with   good bait instead of using this as an excuse to close the tribs . Let's wait and see next year if avg and top end are bigger . We had a banner year . Be happy for that  and hope for the best . 

 

I met the daughter in San Antonio of a guy who fishes a lot of Lakers in lake Superior. I have been going back and forth with him. The Lakers he catches average  5 # and a 10# is a big fish . If he gets a 10 fish day , that's a lot . He is jealous of what we have . It certainly could be worse . We are not Lake Superior. 

[Gill-T]

Lake Inferior 

[GAMBLER]

25 minutes ago, HB2 said:

Well  , the DEC has said repeatedly that it is bait related. I have my armchair quarterback  theory on why but they are the guys with the most experience with this . Banner year this year they supplied . 

 

I saw the most bait I have seen in a long time out there this year . There has been a biatfish biomass rebound the last few years . We are only about 5# off the mark for bigger fish actually. Let's see what happens when we have continuous years with   good bait instead of using this as an excuse to close the tribs . Let's wait and see next year if avg and top end are bigger . We had a banner year . Be happy for that  and hope for the best . 

 

I met the daughter in San Antonio of a guy who fishes a lot of Lakers in lake Superior. I have been going back and forth with him. The Lakers he catches average  5 # and a 10# is a big fish . If he gets a 10 fish day , that's a lot . He is jealous of what we have . It certainly could be worse . We are not Lake Superior. 

The DEC has said bait but the biomass has increased the past 5 or so years yet size has not improved.  The DEC is not going to close the tribs.  The financial backlash would not go over well with the local economies.  But, when you manage the salmon fishery for the lake, in times of need, you should be protecting the prime spawning areas you depend on to keep this fishery going (which they do have some areas closed).  If we didn't depend on natural reproduction as much as we do now with their new stocking plans, it wouldn't be an issue.  

[RH93]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:38 PM, LongLine said:

That's a pretty neat site:

I searched on the Ganaraska for the largest fish between 1 Oct and 13 Oct 2024.  This what came up Oct 7th:

Estimated length 126cm.  That's 49 1/2 inches!  If its girth was 25", then that was a 40 pounder.

 

 

 

 

I can spend all day on that site. There's quite a few big fish caught on that camera, pretty neat!

[ut_falcon]

Wawa Ontario north shore of lake Superior this year, multiple 30 pounders weighted in, here's a few.

 

My opinion has changed but now I think its purely a numbers things, good amount of bait in Lake Ontario, massive amount of salmon = smaller fish.  Natural reproduction in the past few years has skyrocketed, look at the ridiculous number of fish running the ganaraska, I've never seen it like that before.  I think lake Michigan with the 47 pound chinook a few years ago and now lake Superior prove beyond a doubt its not genetic, its predator/prey balance. We just need to decide if we want more fish or bigger fish, Lake Ontario is still the best ecosystem for chinook of the great lakes in my opinion.

Edited Tuesday at 02:58 PM by ut_falcon