Jump to content

Time for the NYSDEC and OMNR to increase Chinook numbers

Capt Vince Pierleoni
 Share

Recommended Posts

brownie787

brownie787

Posted
Posted

I feel to sustain a wild population of all salmon and trout species is very important. I wonder if the state would ever consider closing the smaller streams and feeder streams off rivers for natural spawning.

tiogafishaddict

tiogafishaddict

Posted
Posted

I didn't notice any questionings. But mother nature always has a hitch to throw in there. NY does much better then a lot of states. At least they have bait ( to much) to work with better then the bait not there that has happend before. Tricky business.

Dex

Dex

Posted
Posted

All,

 

you want scary, here are some FACTS.....

 

We fished the Atommik Invitational this last Saturday, and pre-fished Thursday and Friday from Port Bay to the Oswego area.  On Thursday we took 2 king bites in 8.5 hours - landing an 18lb and a 7lb.  On Friday (our best day), we took 8 king bites and caught 4 keepers - 20" and above with the largest 16lbs.  This was for 8 more hours of effort.  On Saturday, we took 5 king bites (including skippies) and landed 2 tourney fish - a 14lb and 9 lb king.  Among the 43 boats fishing the tourney, 40 kings were weighed in!!!  And oh yeah, with 2 fish and 23 lbs we finished in 8th!!!  We didn't land a 20lb king the entire 3 days and landed 10 kings (including skippies) in 24+hrs of fishing.  On pre-fish Friday, only 4 teams weighed in with a 20lb+ king.

 

As a point of comparison, last year our 6 best kings weighed 158+lbs!!!!!! and average of 26.5lbs per fish.  This year's big fish of the tourney was a 26.10lb fish.  Chew on these numbers for a bit.....

 

The entire year has been a grind x 1,000!!!

 

There is one heck of a lot of effort occuring with little to show for it.  Between the internet, technology, and the average angler being just plain BETTER than he/she was years ago, it's beyond awful.  Natural reproduction help supplement numbers in a down year?  Not seeing it.....

 

Dex

Team Thrillseeker

salmonboy41

salmonboy41

Posted
Posted

More Kings is what we want. Stop the Laker thing People come here for Kings you Know how many places have Lakers? People want Kings...

 

Spot on! I don't understand why the DEC feels the need to stock as many Lakers as they do. Why increase stocking of lake trout by 300,000. Is there really a shortage of lakers as it seems to me that the FEW guys that fish for lakers are not having a hard time getting lakers.  

For example during the spring LOC people where complaining about catching lake trout on the radio! why stock so heavily a fish people complain about catching? I say scratch the 300,000 increase in lake trout idea and put the increase into Kings and Steelhead.

This year is a prime example of why we need kings. just look at the ports like Olcott and the Oak there is hardly anyone around because the salmon fishing is so bad. We fished out of the Oak on Sunday and it looked like we where fishing in June out there with how few boats there where. On the flip side last year at this time there was so many boats out there it was hard to navigate even out on the 26 line.

I'd love to see the economic impact a bad king year like this one has on the local economy compared to a good year like 2012.

GAMBLER

GAMBLER

Posted
Posted

The addition of 300,000 lakers is being implemented to try to help out natural reproduction. I'm a big lake trout fan but I'm against stocking more. Over the last four seasons, my catch rate per hour is climbing. There is not shortage of lakers at all. The more lakers around, the harder it is to find bigger ones. Since 2011, my catch rate per hour has gone up significantly and we are having to weed through more smaller ones to find big ones. It is harder to get the big ones when the little ones are keeping your rods out of the water. I agree with Yankee 100% about the lakers living to long to increase their numbers. This could be detrimental to the fishery if we have bait issues. Hopefully that does not happen!

salmonboy41

salmonboy41

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't mind seeing a naturally sustaining population of lake trout as it would help to free up money that could be used elsewhere in the fishery, but if I'm remembering this correctly from the state of the lake meetings they need lake trout to reach age 7.5 to successfully reproduce and the average aged reached by lake trout in lake O is 5.5 years due to the lamprey issue. So if that's the case then no matter how many lakers they stock they wont self sustain until the lampreys are eliminated.

Yankee Troller

Yankee Troller

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't mind seeing a naturally sustaining population of lake trout as it would help to free up money that could be used elsewhere in the fishery, but if I'm remembering this correctly from the state of the lake meetings they need lake trout to reach age 7.5 to successfully reproduce and the average aged reached by lake trout in lake O is 5.5 years due to the lamprey issue. So if that's the case then no matter how many lakers they stock they wont self sustain until the lampreys are eliminated.

 

Wouldn't free up a dime! That's Fed $ to restore a fish that was natural to the Lake.

baitrigger

baitrigger

Posted
Posted

The laker will thrive. It has two things going for it that make it stand alone. In spring on the bar, it is not unusual to land 60 or more in four hours. First, not many folks want to eat them. I know some do, but not many. Second, they spawn in the open lake. They are not subject to the slaughter in the tribs. They are growing in size and numbers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...