Questions

[HB2]

Questions

There is some natural reproduction of Kings in LO . Do we know what percentage of say 100 mature kings in a given year are "wild" ? 

Also do both the stocked and "wild" Kings both natural reproduce equally ? 

And one more. What streams are able to sustain the fry till they can  return to the lake? 

 

Same questions as above for Rainbow / Steelheads .

 

My mind wanders sometimes this time of year. Thanks in advance. 

[Gill-T]

Any given year you will hear 35-48% wild kings per year class.  Most of the natural reproduction is on the North Canadian shore as they have better water quality and close streams in the fall to protect spawning.  Probably 90% of natural repro on South shore is coming from Salmon River.  I won't name other smaller tribs where nat. repro is happening but there are a few with good water.  I imagine the wild rainbow percentage is higher due to catch and release and their ability to use smaller tribs, but I am not aware of numbers.

[HB2]

Playing with the numbers a little to get by the cold weather , can only clean your reels & tackle boxes so much. .

So for a round number ,40 % of mature kings are wild fish. So out of 100 kings ,40 are wild. That's a pretty substantial number . So that means that if half of those 100 are lake boxed or stringered in a nat repro stream , 3 years from now there still  will be the 60 stocked ( if that stays constant) & only 20 wilds for a total of 80 . take half those fish and 3 years later there are only 76 total  , Approx a 25% reduction.  100 mature  fish are responsible for 40 mature  fish 3-4 years. Am I looking at this correctly ? 

 

3-5 years ago we had banner king  fishing , or at least I did. I remember reports from others of the same. Are we paying for that now ? 

[rolmops]

That is a nice calculation,but you are missing some important factors.

All the calculations about  salmon reproduction are a result of numbers that are counted after most natural and artificial  (fishing) attrition has taken place and these numbers are what is left at the end of the fish's natural life cycle or close to it. Not at the beginning. Your calculation presumes these numbers to be at the beginning.

Then there is another issue. The stocked fish comes from a very small percentage of the actual fish coming up the streams, while a much greater greater amount of fish spawns outside of the hatchery. The survival rate of the wild spawn is greatly influenced by temperatures and amounts of water and food available. That means that the "all other things being equal" factor which you presume in your calculation is non existent. I suspect that the wild spawn in a good year may be twice as successful as it is in a bad year.

Edited January 8, 2017 by rolmops

[jimski2]

Wild spawned fish are smaller than hatchery raised fish and are subject to being a major food source from all the salmon, trout, walleye and other predators in the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

[HB2]

My question was for mature 3 -4 year old fish .The ones that make the spawn run. So what happens  before 3 years is kind of a moot point as I see it. 

[Lucky13]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt15.pdf

 

Read sections 3, 8,9, and 10.  Should keep you busy for a while and provide some of the knowledge you seek.

[Capt Vince Pierleoni]

I think I know the harbor you fish out of. That trib has a dam on it and is trounced through by anglers. When you fish staging Salmon off that harbor, it will be primarily pen held stocked Salmon and direct stocked Salmon that have returned. The wild fish have "left the building" by then. They are already on the north shore and east end by then.

The single biggest factor to the number there for you to catch at the end of 2-4 yrs when the matures come home is predation on the released fingerlings. Warm water species take their toll, but its primarily cormorants that crop the fingerlings as they may make their way downstream and after they slide into the lake and hang around the harbor for awhile.

NY wanted to take greater measures to control cormorants but a lawsuit was threatened by the Feds. It is hoped with the new regime that serious control measures can be revisited.

[HB2]

Good stuff Capn Vince but my point is that if wilds are 40% of the kings out there ,a substantial number , 100 kings,both wild & stocked if both contribute equally,  are responsible for 40 fish 2-4 years later. Could be only 20 of the 100 are the ones making the 40 % , but what  20? As the fish roam the lake most of the time. 

I guess I am thinking about the mature fish available at spawn time to run the creeks.

[jimski2]

The fry, fingerlings and yearlings have to survive the onslaught of salmon, trout, pike, walleyes, yellow perch, white perch, white bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, crappies and numerous bird species beside cormorants.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

[HB2]

I understand all that , Jimski. I don't think a cormorant cares if it was a stocked or wild fish.

 

I just wonder what percentage of fish, stocked to wild,make it to spawning age. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rolmops]

This question is almost impossible to answer because there are too many factors that change from year to year. One of the very few things that we do know is that the stocked fry that has been kept in pens during their smolt usually have a far higher survival rate ,probably because they were not targeted for the few weeks they spent in a pen and also because their size increased while in the pens.

The only counting that is done is by the DEC.  Steve Le Pen (a DEC official) usually comes around to the different towns once a year with information about the very questions that you are asking.

[Gill-T]

13 hours ago, HB2 said:

I understand all that , Jimski. I don't think a cormorant cares if it was a stocked or wild fish.

 

I just wonder what percentage of fish, stocked to wild,make it to spawning age. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We do not have "fish counters" on our streams so there is no way to know the totality of the runs on the south shore.  Canadians have a pseudo-scientific method/formula on some North shore streams with dams and fish ladders that include using an electronic-eye fish counter + direct observation to come up with a "number".  I have recommended to Steve Lapan to get some "bean counter" machines to see if we can come up with a figure as to how many fish are making it back home.  This is critical information to the communities that rely economically on fish-runs as it may shed light to how few fish are actually returning.  Burt Dam comes to mind.  If we are losing our direct stocked and pen-reared fish in Niagara County to predation via cormorants or larger predator fish, the run total would be a great indicator and help dictate stocking numbers.  I gather from conversations with DEC leadership that they are very hesitant to move any more fish away from the Salmon River stocking site.  The DEC leadership have said they don't want to risk not getting enough eggs from returning fish to continue stocking the lake and therefore keep the Salmon River stocked with the majority of plants ( even in a stream with lots of natural reproduction).  There may be political pressure from all the fish-based businesses surrounding the Salmon River to keep the Salmon River flush with fish.   

[BSmaster]

Excellent opinions.  My take is not a this or that but add in that the parr are about 5-6 inches by May and when they leave the streams to get to the lake they have to run thru this guantlet, however, i also think this is about the same time that the emeralds are heading up into the streams so how do we really know the overall affect with all that food in the estuary.  So, did the Russians affect the Chinook's survival rate by hacking the DNC?  Hard to know without a major investment in stream analysis.  I think for the most part we only skim the surface of what is happening as a whole.  I think NYS surmises what is happening and makes it fact because they are in perception supposed to know exactly what is happening.  Its unfair for everyone but it takes serious dollars to analyze an aquatic ecosystem.  Something I don't think they have done adequately - and causality vs coincidence only confuses us more.  Just my 2 pennies.

[HB2]

On 1/11/2017 at 6:59 PM, rolmops said:

This question is almost impossible to answer because there are too many factors that change from year to year.

And there lies the $ 64,000 question . King numbers are down , way down . We had great ,or at least I did , king fishing 3-5 years back. Then it got king slow so steelhead/rainbows were targeted with great fishing. Now that is  slow and rainbow numbers are down . That being considered and stocking being about the same , what caused this ? Maybe taking all these fish had a big impact on our present day fishing . 40% is a lot. Kind of like taking money out of a retirement investment and expecting  the same yearly income to live on. A kind of reverse pyrimid effect. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by HB2

[rolmops]

That seems to be logical, but it does not take in account the last two brutal winters that were very destructive to the shad which are the main food source of the fish you mentioned above. In addition,the seasons of 4 and 5 years ago were well above average which made you start at the  high end of the scale. Also, the amount of fish that were stocked remained the same, which makes a big dent in your reverse pyramid theory. The main reason for the irregularity in numbers at least for these two years is the harsh winter weather. My guess is that the coming season will see some improvement, but still not what it can be mostly because we miss 2 year classes of shad which puts a dent in the food supply. Now we can also talk about the damage that is wrought by the immense filtering capabilities of the invasive mussel species, which are taking the base out from under the food pyramid. That is just a few reasons for the poor fishing.

Lake trout is probably the big victim of human fishery because they take a very long time to grow to respectable size and they have been targeted heavily because the other fish are not so easily found.

I am sure that there are a lot more reason that I do not understand,but blaming the state of the fishing in our lake on sports fishing is giving way too much credit to all the fishing public including the charters.

Edited January 13, 2017 by rolmops

[Silver Fox]

Maybe they should do the obvious and kill some cormorants and look in the stomachs, but that would be to logical and politically incorrect.

Lake Ontario salmon fishing charters

[LongLine]

SUNY-ESF published a study back in '98 that put the DEC on alert for natural reproduction.  They concluded that Natural repro could be anywhere from 15-90% depending on lake wide conditions. i.e. food supply, temps, winters, invassives etc.  Also I believe a couple years ago DEC did a study on the cormorants & found that in addition to eating a lot of smallmouths, they also went after gobies big time.

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[HB2]

49 minutes ago, rolmops said:

In addition,the seasons of 4 and 5 years ago were well above average which made you start at the  high end of the scale.

Ever hear of compound interest ?

 

50 minutes ago, rolmops said:

The main reason for the irregularity in numbers at least for these two years is the harsh winter weather.

We have had harsh winters before. Also hear a lot on here about how much bait is out there. 

 

51 minutes ago, rolmops said:

Now we can also talk about the damage that is wrought by the immense filtering capabilities of the invasive mussel species, which are taking the base out from under the food pyramid.

Zebra have been out there since mid 80's . Seems to me they are on the decline or have stabilized.

 

54 minutes ago, rolmops said:

Lake trout is probably the big victim of human fishery because they take a very long time to grow to respectable size and they have been targeted heavily because the other fish are not so easily found.

Don't feds stock high numbers of them ? They also nat reproduce. Seems to me they are C&Red more with no trib fishery  except for the niagara.

 

15 minutes ago, Silver Fox said:

Maybe they should do the obvious and kill some cormorants and look in the stomachs, but that would be to logical and politically incorrect.

I'm sure they eat their share , but once the fish reach 20" or so , they only real threat is a fish hook , or a bear.

 

1 hour ago, rolmops said:

I am sure that there are a lot more reason that I do not understand,but blaming the state of the fishing in our lake on sports fishing is giving way too much credit to all the fishing public including the charters.

I'm looking for reason, not trying to lay blame. 

[HB2]

15 minutes ago, LongLine said:

SUNY-ESF published a study back in '98 that put the DEC on alert for natural reproduction.  They concluded that Natural repro could be anywhere from 15-90% depending on lake wide conditions. i.e. food supply, temps, winters, invassives etc.  Also I believe a couple years ago DEC did a study on the cormorants & found that in addition to eating a lot of smallmouths, they also went after gobies big time.

Now I'm even more convinced. Longline , you are always on time .one smart dude. 

 

Anglers have gotten more profishent (pun intended ) at catching kings. 

[rolmops]

Compound interest? Maybe in a bank with all other things being equal which is the main requirement for building proper statistics.

The last two harsh winters were exceptional because of the almost complete ice coverage of the lake and the very cold water coming out of lake Erie deep into May. Two year classes of shad are absent because of it. The Zebra is old news,Now it is joined by the quaqua mussel which thrives in much deeper water than the zebra ever did. Lakers are targeted by charter boats and others when there is no other fish around and the clients want to take fish home. Of the ones that are released many are fatally damaged because they were hauled up a long way out of deep and cold water and the pressure difference makes it hard for them to survive, besides they grow very slowly and are very easy to catch.

The answers you are trying to find are not available because there too many variables and because of that ,it is impossible to make proper predictions or conclusions

[HB2]

We are in what, the 15th or so generation of the original pacific salmon stocks? Could be the fish are evolving from ocean habitat to LO. maybe why nat  rep fish are smaller. Mother nature. But that is a different issue. 

 

All your reasons may be legit ,Rol . But if the kings ,or any fish  or animal,nat repro, the more taken out , the less you have in latter years. To me that is just common sense.

 

So all these guys who go out and boat 50 lakers in an hr and C&R them are actually killing them. Well, that ain't good. But I don't think that's the case. Didn't I see a study somewhere that most survive? 

[rolmops]

19 minutes ago, HB2 said:

So all these guys who go out and boat 50 lakers in an hr and C&R them are actually killing them. Well, that ain't good. But I don't think that's the case. Didn't I see a study somewhere that most survive? 

In early spring the survival rate is very high because of the water temperature and most charter boat captains take care not to destroy  their reputation by carelessly killing the lakers. But still it is very hard on the lakers.

The reproduction succes of chinooks can vary wildly. They average 5000 eggs per female. Let's  say that  5000 wild fish spawn and 1% to 5 % survives to come back and spawn .Do the math and you will see that numbers vary wildly. These  survival numbers are optimistic but for calculation purposes they are useful. Even in the Alaskan rivers with their huge numbers of spawning fish there are boom and bust years.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by rolmops

[Xxx]

Well while you guys are crunching #'s and talking about size, let's turn the calendar back say 30 years. We had property on the Perch River, some probable remember the guys saying "years ago you could walk across the salmon they were so thick in the rivers" this is or should I say was the truth. What happened to that population? Another factor to toss into the number crunching is I saw many of guys boxing 2-3 year olds, the past two years. Our we shooting ourselves in the foot once again. Before we didn't have prey fish with the rights vitamins to support natural reproduction, but now the gobies help support that case. At first we thought that the gobies were shallow water dwellers, 30-40ft, while we were drop shotting in 60ft of water for bass and catching gobies out to 70ft we knew this theory was false, and the lakers spitting up gobies from the greater depths, this so called shallow dweller. The older years of fish were in there 35 pushing 40lds, now if you land a high 20- mid 30 you have a mounter!! So has the breeding of the same fish over & over resulted in smaller fish. Why not do what the founders of the kings did and introduce a new strain into the population of the kings we have. I'd have to say that the Canadians  are more advanced in there technical data to be able to detect a problem should it be. There is one advantage the Canadians have over the USA. New York itself has to foot these bills as the Canadians have the whole providence or country behind them, that's a big difference.

[HB2]

On 1/16/2017 at 6:55 AM, rolmops said:

Even in the Alaskan rivers with their huge numbers of spawning fish there are boom and bust years.

Yes , but all the fish up there are wild , or at least I think . So that makes our problem , a little more fixable. 

The Creel  survey boats with the big orange bumpers ( what a job, how do I get paid for that ) could say to the SR hatchery ," these guys pounded the kings this year, better grab some extra  eggs so they have some kings to catch in a few years". Could be as simple as that . Maybe they are doing that  already , or I would hope.