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

[chinook35]

10 hours ago, Gator said:

After reading a bunch regarding naturalization, I'm a fan of the genetics theory. I'm sure bait plays a role, too, but in terms of adaptation as well as abundance. Organisms will shift toward their niche so as to remain viable. Earlier spawning, energy redirected to eggs rather than growth, these are all classic cues. We see exactly the same thing happening in the lab (we study metabolic plasticity and aging's effect on neurologic disease). 

 

When our models start showing signs of genetic drift, we backcross them onto an ancestral stock. What's the word on reintroducing some of that Pacific heritage? Natural reproduction isn't doing us any favors in terms of size at sexual maturity. Maybe it's time for an infusion of "new blood". Thoughts? 

On 4/29/2024 at 10:30 AM, Mikeyman104 said:

 

Edited June 20 by chinook35
Cross comment

[chinook35]

I have said for years that the DEC and fisheries should add new stock from the Pacific. It has been met with the answer that no new Pacific stock would be purchased and introduced. The Pacific salmon were introduced in the late 70’s to help control the alewife ( Mooneye ) population. Our camp beach and the sandy island beach would be ankle deep in dead moneyes washed up. The stink was phenomenal 

The control was successful ( maybe too much so ) 

The DEC and fisheries focus is now , to  reintroduce the indigenous species that were decimated in the 50’s  

I’m afraid that what we have now is our future 

 

 

Edited June 20 by chinook35

[GAMBLER]

32 minutes ago, chinook35 said:

I have said for years that the DEC and fisheries should add new stock from the Pacific. It has been met with the answer that no new Pacific stock would be purchased and introduced. The Pacific salmon were introduced in the late 70’s to help control the alewife ( Mooneye ) population. Our camp beach and the sandy island beach would be ankle deep in dead moneyes washed up. The stink was phenomenal 

The control was successful ( maybe too much so ) 

The DEC and fisheries focus is now , to  reintroduce the indigenous species that were decimated in the 50’s  

I’m afraid that what we have now is our future 

 

 

Some new genetics would be great but not all new.  The Lake Ontario strain has adpated to Lake Ontario.  We do not want to lose that.  When the DEC has been asked about it, they shut it down.  We are not asking for all new genetics.  Why not try 25% of the eggs for one season?  

[Trouthunter]

I have fished this lake since the mid 70s the lake produced many large salmon & steelhead then the fish had better genes & the DEC took eggs from the largest fish & in turn we had larger fish then as the years went by the fishery staff started taking anything to fill their stocking number no longer only taking big fish & our size has suffered ever since . Yes i do believe we do need some new genes mixed in our fish now to bring back those big fish . i am not saying we need to replace all but at least add some new genes to our fishery that can only help our fish sure our numbers are there but i would be great to see huge kings & steelhead back in our fishery thank you all for reading my two cents long live our great fishery

Edited June 20 by Trouthunter
correction

[Yankee Troller]

What are your thoughts on the DEC milking jacks "because their sperm is more potent?" 

 

I understand that on low water years you take what you get, but we haven't experienced that scenario in quite a while. 

[Gator]

There's emerging evidence in model organisms that germ cells can pass on an organism's "history" using a unique form of molecular memory that isn't limited to genomic information, and that this can impact things like stress resistance. For example, the progeny of parents that experience starvation are more adaptable to nutrient stress and this effect can persist for several generations. I'd say that it's not beyond belief that milking jacks could elicit some form of selective inheritance though a similar mechanism. 

 

And that's independent of the obvious fact that milking jacks bypasses endogenous selection in the wild through competition for females. If you artificially select for youth over normal selection for fitness, intuition says you'll get progeny that become sexually mature at a younger age. Is that true? I don't actually know, but dollars to donuts it contributes.

[Gill-T]

2 hours ago, Yankee Troller said:

What are your thoughts on the DEC milking jacks "because their sperm is more potent?" 

 

I understand that on low water years you take what you get, but we haven't experienced that scenario in quite a while. 

It should never happen. Canadian hatcheries have contributed in the past shortfalls in numbers. 

[Crestliner]

Sounds like we need a sawbelly hatchery!!!

[Sweet Caroline]

To me , logic tells me high catch rates and smaller size are indicative of a lower bait population. Simply put, the fish are more numerous and with less food to share, therefore they will bite your bait more regularly.  I believe steelhead, browns and coho sizes are all lower as well on average. Those fish do have a more diverse diet so maybe not as impacted as much as chinook, but still a noticeable difference in weight of those fish compared to past years.  Is genetics also affecting the size of browns, steelhead, cohos? I understand there are less 3 year olds, but there still are some, so what is the weight comparison of today’s 3 year olds to those of 20 years ago? If it is not a bait problem, then the size should have stayed about the same. 

 

Selecting only the larger, 3 and 4 year old fish at the hatchery certainly wouldn’t hurt. Not sure that is possible to still hit the stocking numbers we need. I don’t think that is the main culprit though. Again, we still have 3 olds, albeit not as many, but I’m pretty sure the size is down for the ones we have compared to the 3 olds of years past. Any genetic reintroduction would have to select for slower maturing fish of 3-5 years instead of the 2-3 we have now. Or a faster growing fish.  Not sure if either exists. 
 

The chinook we have today I’m certain have evolved. I.e less time staging in warm water, runs later in the fall and probably more natural reproduction then we had when they were first introduced. The Genny is not loaded with floaters anymore in early September like it was in the 80s, early 90s.  I’m sure size has evolved a bit too, selecting for smaller and faster maturing fish of only 2 years, rather then 3-4. Also makes for a very unpredictable fisheries management given the variability of natural reproduction from year to year. 
 

We have a great fishery, but I’ve pretty much given up on ever catching a 30 plus pound king again. I’m happy with anything over 20 now. 

I hate to say it but if weights keep going down the thrill is just not going to be there for me anymore regardless of how many salmon I catch in a morning. I know there has to be a balance. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Don’t want to struggle to catch 5 fish, but don’t need to regularly catch 20 plus either. We seemed to have a decent balance around 2007 or so, when you could catch double digits with some big ones mixed in. DEC has tough job of quantity vs quality for sure. 

[cnyh2ofowler]

Personally I’d rather catch a bunch of fish rather than a few big ones. That said, everyone fishes for different reasons. The biomass of bait fish certainly affects the size of the kings but the number of years the salmon spends in the lake is the biggest factor. Those 40+ pound fish were 5 year olds. If we want those big fish, the workers at the hatchery need to take eggs and sperm from the biggest fish and mix them. Or better yet, get some eggs from some Pacific fish that are 5 or 6 year old spawners. The Kenai River has lost its huge fish because for 50 years they have taken the biggest (oldest spawning) fish out before they can spawn. This has been a great conversation with everyone being respectful. Part of what makes this site great. Hope everyone has a great season.

[GAMBLER]

18 hours ago, Yankee Troller said:

What are your thoughts on the DEC milking jacks "because their sperm is more potent?" 

 

I understand that on low water years you take what you get, but we haven't experienced that scenario in quite a while. 

It's laziness.  If they have to handle a couple extra fish to get the appropriate amount of eggs / milt / eye up to reach stocking goals, do it.  Take from your biggest females and biggest males first.  Last resort, take from smaller fish.  

[GAMBLER]

7 hours ago, Sweet Caroline said:

To me , logic tells me high catch rates and smaller size are indicative of a lower bait population. Simply put, the fish are more numerous and with less food to share, therefore they will bite your bait more regularly.  I believe steelhead, browns and coho sizes are all lower as well on average. Those fish do have a more diverse diet so maybe not as impacted as much as chinook, but still a noticeable difference in weight of those fish compared to past years.  Is genetics also affecting the size of browns, steelhead, cohos? I understand there are less 3 year olds, but there still are some, so what is the weight comparison of today’s 3 year olds to those of 20 years ago? If it is not a bait problem, then the size should have stayed about the same. 

 

Selecting only the larger, 3 and 4 year old fish at the hatchery certainly wouldn’t hurt. Not sure that is possible to still hit the stocking numbers we need. I don’t think that is the main culprit though. Again, we still have 3 olds, albeit not as many, but I’m pretty sure the size is down for the ones we have compared to the 3 olds of years past. Any genetic reintroduction would have to select for slower maturing fish of 3-5 years instead of the 2-3 we have now. Or a faster growing fish.  Not sure if either exists. 
 

The chinook we have today I’m certain have evolved. I.e less time staging in warm water, runs later in the fall and probably more natural reproduction then we had when they were first introduced. The Genny is not loaded with floaters anymore in early September like it was in the 80s, early 90s.  I’m sure size has evolved a bit too, selecting for smaller and faster maturing fish of only 2 years, rather then 3-4. Also makes for a very unpredictable fisheries management given the variability of natural reproduction from year to year. 
 

We have a great fishery, but I’ve pretty much given up on ever catching a 30 plus pound king again. I’m happy with anything over 20 now. 

I hate to say it but if weights keep going down the thrill is just not going to be there for me anymore regardless of how many salmon I catch in a morning. I know there has to be a balance. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Don’t want to struggle to catch 5 fish, but don’t need to regularly catch 20 plus either. We seemed to have a decent balance around 2007 or so, when you could catch double digits with some big ones mixed in. DEC has tough job of quantity vs quality for sure. 

The bait biomass has been getting bigger in the past five years.  Steelhead size is down but Brown and lakers size is not.  We still see 20+ lb browns like the old days and the lakers caught in the last 10 or so years are big.  We can't use the LOC leaderboards to gauge trout sizes for the most part.  IF king fishing is unreal like it has been, the numbers of guys targeting trout is way down.  Less people targeting trout specifically = less big trout caught.  Yes there are incidentals but not as many as if they are targeted.   Same goes for steelhead.  If guys aren't venturing past 150' of water all summer because the kings are loaded inside, there is less chance of running into bigger and more steelhead.  

[Silver Fox]

8 hours ago, Sweet Caroline said:

To me , logic tells me high catch rates and smaller size are indicative of a lower bait population. Simply put, the fish are more numerous and with less food to share, therefore they will bite your bait more regularly.  I believe steelhead, browns and coho sizes are all lower as well on average. Those fish do have a more diverse diet so maybe not as impacted as much as chinook, but still a noticeable difference in weight of those fish compared to past years.  Is genetics also affecting the size of browns, steelhead, cohos? I understand there are less 3 year olds, but there still are some, so what is the weight comparison of today’s 3 year olds to those of 20 years ago? If it is not a bait problem, then the size should have stayed about the same. 

 

Selecting only the larger, 3 and 4 year old fish at the hatchery certainly wouldn’t hurt. Not sure that is possible to still hit the stocking numbers we need. I don’t think that is the main culprit though. Again, we still have 3 olds, albeit not as many, but I’m pretty sure the size is down for the ones we have compared to the 3 olds of years past. Any genetic reintroduction would have to select for slower maturing fish of 3-5 years instead of the 2-3 we have now. Or a faster growing fish.  Not sure if either exists. 
 

The chinook we have today I’m certain have evolved. I.e less time staging in warm water, runs later in the fall and probably more natural reproduction then we had when they were first introduced. The Genny is not loaded with floaters anymore in early September like it was in the 80s, early 90s.  I’m sure size has evolved a bit too, selecting for smaller and faster maturing fish of only 2 years, rather then 3-4. Also makes for a very unpredictable fisheries management given the variability of natural reproduction from year to year. 
 

We have a great fishery, but I’ve pretty much given up on ever catching a 30 plus pound king again. I’m happy with anything over 20 now. 

I hate to say it but if weights keep going down the thrill is just not going to be there for me anymore regardless of how many salmon I catch in a morning. I know there has to be a balance. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Don’t want to struggle to catch 5 fish, but don’t need to regularly catch 20 plus either. We seemed to have a decent balance around 2007 or so, when you could catch double digits with some big ones mixed in. DEC has tough job of quantity vs quality for sure. 

I don’t really see browns and coho sizes down. I believe the bows had a decent die off years ago also. These salmon are way off on their historical average size.

[HB2]

There a a lot of guys making a lot of assumptions on this.  Nobody knows for sure what the reasons are why this is happening . 

 

I feel if there is more Nat repro than originally thought , these fish would have to acclimate to their environment . That's mother nature. 

 

Also this is not your father's LO . It doesn't have the nutrients it once has.  When the zebras showed up and the bait biomass fell off we were told the bait was not as hearty and was stressed . And there is not nearly as much as what there was . Sure ,cit might have rebounded from what it was a few years ago but it's not nearly what it was early 90s . 

 

It might be a combination of things, who knows . 

 

But I would like to see them get some new eggs , mark them , and see what happens. 

[GAMBLER]

1 hour ago, HB2 said:

There a a lot of guys making a lot of assumptions on this.  Nobody knows for sure what the reasons are why this is happening . 

 

I feel if there is more Nat repro than originally thought , these fish would have to acclimate to their environment . That's mother nature. 

 

Also this is not your father's LO . It doesn't have the nutrients it once has.  When the zebras showed up and the bait biomass fell off we were told the bait was not as hearty and was stressed . And there is not nearly as much as what there was . Sure ,cit might have rebounded from what it was a few years ago but it's not nearly what it was early 90s . 

 

It might be a combination of things, who knows . 

 

But I would like to see them get some new eggs , mark them , and see what happens. 

Page six from the link I posted earlier in this thread.  Bait condition is up compared to 20 years ago. Not assuming, reading the data.  

[chinook35]

3 hours ago, GAMBLER said:

The bait biomass has been getting bigger in the past five years.  Steelhead size is down but Brown and lakers size is not.  We still see 20+ lb browns like the old days and the lakers caught in the last 10 or so years are big.  We can't use the LOC leaderboards to gauge trout sizes for the most part.  IF king fishing is unreal like it has been, the numbers of guys targeting trout is way down.  Less people targeting trout specifically = less big trout caught.  Yes there are incidentals but not as many as if they are targeted.   Same goes for steelhead.  If guys aren't venturing past 150' of water all summer because the kings are loaded inside, there is less chance of running into bigger and more steelhead.  

I believe the browns and especially the mud chickens (LT) feed heavily on the round gobi , which is bottom oriented. The chinook and coho are more dependent on the alewives , smelt and shiners.  There is certainly no shortage of gobies in the lake 

[GAMBLER]

55 minutes ago, chinook35 said:

I believe the browns and especially the mud chickens (LT) feed heavily on the round gobi , which is bottom oriented. The chinook and coho are more dependent on the alewives , smelt and shiners.  There is certainly no shortage of gobies in the lake 

From filleting tons of lakers, I can tell you they eat gobies but only when alewife aren’t present.  Their diet consonant of more alewife than gobies.  Now browns, I have found about a 50/50 mix of alewife and gobies. 

[King Davy]

I’ve read through this entire thread. I’m wondering how many of you have visited the hatchery during the egg take? I’ve been several times. I am amazed at how hatchery manager Tom orchestrates the entire process. Usually 8 to 12 techs are on the floor during the operation. 
 

One thing Tom started when he took over was to test sperm before it was distributed over the eggs. Because many of the males are duds. This testing has greatly increased the eye up success of the spawning season. The fish slide into the spawn room from an elevator lift. They are separated males from females. The males are in a water tank and are grabbed out by several techs. They absolutely don’t just grab smaller fish. Tom does the slitting of the females and he can tell immediately if a hen has healthy eggs or not. Some don’t make the cut. Many of the fish after being spawned end up on the DNA table to get scale and tissue samples so DEC can track their heritage. I witnessed many 20 pound plus fish giving up DNA samples all day.

 

I’ve watched as the techs hold the males over a tray of eggs. They do mix down from both big and smaller males. When I’ve been there I’ve not seen too many jacks in the mix. 
 

Take the time to visit the hatchey this summer and ask to meet with Tom. He is a celebrated fish culturist. Pick his brain since he is one of the top scientists with DEC. I know he has invited guests to the spawn floor. I know of one very critical stakeholder who got his shot at being down there. He changed his tune 180 degrees after experiencing the workout those folks get. The eggs get taken usually around Columbus Day only when water temps are just right which they have to be under 60 degrees.

 

And once the fish are ripe you have to get it done. It’s not like you can sort through 20 or 30k fish in the raceway in a matter of the 48 to 72 hours you have to complete this. 
 

Back in the day when I had an international organization of anglers and we held a conference in Canada with DEC and the MNR there was opinions that the lake was carrying over 30 million kings due to the nearly 70 % estimated wild stocks in the system from both the Canada and US waters. Of course there is no way to know for sure but formula’s on carrying capacity from trawls to what may be eating forage put the number of fish far far greater then what is being stocked.

 

As nearly 30 years of fishing Alaska I can tell you the days of 50 and 60 pound kings are over and have been for nearly 20 years. The last 40 pound king I caught there was in 2005. Will there be one or two around sure,  but the king salmon fishing in Alaska and the NW has crashed. Yes some rivers will still get decent runs in Bristol Bay but the Diamond of king fishing the Kenai is gone.

 

I truly doubt there would be any advantage to try and add those mediocre size king eggs from the pacific to the GL, I get a feed on the fishing from Michigan every week. This weeks report talked about small kings being caught out of every port that was famous for king fishing. At one point when their forage base was over stressed they cut stocking by 80%. Grew some bigger kings increased stocking and are back to better fishing for medium size fish.

 

And I don’t think it could ever be just genetics. I would agree after 50 years of managing the fishery the fish genetics have shifted. Bait up and down. Some years unhealthy bait due to things like polar vortex. Then huge climate change shifts. Where once I could be on a trout stream mid July in cool water fishing through a hail storm of a sulfer hatch those days don’t exist anymore. Or rarely. In land trout fishing is over by mid June due to low warm water.

 

i think it’s healthy to always chase the answers of “What Happened, How Come, What If” But talk to guys like Tom at the salmon river hatchery and other fishery scientists to see what they think since they are in the fish growing business 

 

 

[Gator]

I for one would love to see somebody like Tom offer his take on this. If you know him, could you direct him to this page and maybe ask if he could take a few minutes to carve out his thoughts? I and certainly most on here appreciate that there are no easy answers and that proving cause and effect over correlation is nearly impossible given the variables and caveats. But some informed speculation would be greatly appreciated. 

[King Davy]

Gator having worked with DEC folks the past 30 years, I know they read these web sites to see what is going on I’ve never known any of them to put in their two cents. There is a liability for them to jump on and start tossing around their thoughts.  And while a guy like Tom may have some realistic even accurate takes, if he can’t prove them 100% he can’t risk telling the world what might or might not be true. In the world of science and I know some on this sight are in science type jobs, you have to have proved a theory to put it out to the masses.

 

Visit the hatchery, see if you can get some of his time and talk to him. I would also suggest going to the egg take and see for yourself how it’s run before making assumptions on how they do it. It’s a hell of an undertaking.

[whaler1]

Numbers of kings is off the charts. Number of quality kings and steelhead is disappointing. 

[HB2]

The big king in the Spring LOC was 25# . We were told years ago  , I'm not sure how accurate this is , that the kings gain   a pound a week till late Aug . So that should mean that king would be 35 # give or take when it runs the stream . That's not to bad . So let's see what happens come Fall LOC . 

 

We used to pound the small mouth at Fair Haven  . 200 fish days  for  4 or 5 guys were not uncommon A 20 " fish was a trophy . Then came zebras, gobies , VHS . Now, a 20"fish is very common but there are less of them .  Why ? Because of change of diet . They eat the gobies . 

 

So don't discount the fact that what the kings eat may be the reason or at least part of it . 

[GAMBLER]

19 hours ago, King Davy said:

I’ve read through this entire thread. I’m wondering how many of you have visited the hatchery during the egg take? I’ve been several times. I am amazed at how hatchery manager Tom orchestrates the entire process. Usually 8 to 12 techs are on the floor during the operation. 
 

One thing Tom started when he took over was to test sperm before it was distributed over the eggs. Because many of the males are duds. This testing has greatly increased the eye up success of the spawning season. The fish slide into the spawn room from an elevator lift. They are separated males from females. The males are in a water tank and are grabbed out by several techs. They absolutely don’t just grab smaller fish. Tom does the slitting of the females and he can tell immediately if a hen has healthy eggs or not. Some don’t make the cut. Many of the fish after being spawned end up on the DNA table to get scale and tissue samples so DEC can track their heritage. I witnessed many 20 pound plus fish giving up DNA samples all day.

 

I’ve watched as the techs hold the males over a tray of eggs. They do mix down from both big and smaller males. When I’ve been there I’ve not seen too many jacks in the mix. 
 

Take the time to visit the hatchey this summer and ask to meet with Tom. He is a celebrated fish culturist. Pick his brain since he is one of the top scientists with DEC. I know he has invited guests to the spawn floor. I know of one very critical stakeholder who got his shot at being down there. He changed his tune 180 degrees after experiencing the workout those folks get. The eggs get taken usually around Columbus Day only when water temps are just right which they have to be under 60 degrees.

 

And once the fish are ripe you have to get it done. It’s not like you can sort through 20 or 30k fish in the raceway in a matter of the 48 to 72 hours you have to complete this. 
 

Back in the day when I had an international organization of anglers and we held a conference in Canada with DEC and the MNR there was opinions that the lake was carrying over 30 million kings due to the nearly 70 % estimated wild stocks in the system from both the Canada and US waters. Of course there is no way to know for sure but formula’s on carrying capacity from trawls to what may be eating forage put the number of fish far far greater then what is being stocked.

 

As nearly 30 years of fishing Alaska I can tell you the days of 50 and 60 pound kings are over and have been for nearly 20 years. The last 40 pound king I caught there was in 2005. Will there be one or two around sure,  but the king salmon fishing in Alaska and the NW has crashed. Yes some rivers will still get decent runs in Bristol Bay but the Diamond of king fishing the Kenai is gone.

 

I truly doubt there would be any advantage to try and add those mediocre size king eggs from the pacific to the GL, I get a feed on the fishing from Michigan every week. This weeks report talked about small kings being caught out of every port that was famous for king fishing. At one point when their forage base was over stressed they cut stocking by 80%. Grew some bigger kings increased stocking and are back to better fishing for medium size fish.

 

And I don’t think it could ever be just genetics. I would agree after 50 years of managing the fishery the fish genetics have shifted. Bait up and down. Some years unhealthy bait due to things like polar vortex. Then huge climate change shifts. Where once I could be on a trout stream mid July in cool water fishing through a hail storm of a sulfer hatch those days don’t exist anymore. Or rarely. In land trout fishing is over by mid June due to low warm water.

 

i think it’s healthy to always chase the answers of “What Happened, How Come, What If” But talk to guys like Tom at the salmon river hatchery and other fishery scientists to see what they think since they are in the fish growing business 

 

 

You would think the DEC would have a rep to come on these boards and talk shop with us.  They do a good job coming to meetings but why not do more?  Lake managers would more than likely be the ones to do the job or appoint someone that would. I wouldn’t think they would want someone to just come here and give us info without running the info through them first.  

[HB2]

2 hours ago, GAMBLER said:

You would think the DEC would have a rep to come on these boards and talk shop with us.  They do a good job coming to meetings but why not do more?  Lake managers would more than likely be the ones to do the job or appoint someone that would. I wouldn’t think they would want someone to just come here and give us info without running the info through them first.  

 

It's probably smart they don't participate in this **** show . There is a lot of stuff on here guys with no clue , me being one of them , throw around as fact and hearsay . And they will be opening themselves up to some disparaging remarks by some , and you know who you are , most likely . 

[King Davy]

Brian I don’t that is happening because truthfully I’d don’t think they have a better answer than what has been simmering on this thread. So now DEC has jumped into the Ancestry game. Building a data base of genealogy for salmon and trout species. The one caveat to that is it will take years of collective data to accurately form predictions on one heritage or another having greater say growth tendencies. 
 

I believe DEC had another banner year of seining on the salmon river. Not sure when the results get broadcast but once again the story could be another 8 to 10 million fry successfully 

hatched. I have a good friend former DEC guy for over 25 years who still shows up to help the guys from Cortland office do the sampling and he said there was a ton of Wild chinooks swimming out of the river. 

I fished the river in April and every step you took you were moving baby chinooks out of the way. Right now the Lake appears to be in balance simply because all those teens to low 20’s seem to have perfect body shape. No snakey looking fish. I know everyone is thankful for that. 
 

The Ferc license for the salmon river I think took place in 1996 or 1998. That started the emergence of large quantities of wild fish. And you had the 50 percent cut still in effect from 1993. Therefore the smaller population of stocked salmon had a buffet of bait to themselves.  One of my thoughts is that wild salmon just simply don’t grow as fast.  They don’t get a quick start being fed in a hatchey. One would argue yeah but we have 800k to 1m stocked fish. There should be plenty of bigger fish.  But it is also possible that the hatchery is spawning wild stocks who still carry the slower growth faster maturing hormones. 

Head scratcher for sure.