Another 20% CUT in Chinook Stocking for 2019

[chinook35]

Do you have Federal Hatchery there?  Feds push LT in Lake Michigan.  Its a current mindset, out with the invasive, in with the native. 
 
State of Michigan bought in and reduced king stocking in Lake Michigan.  Wisconsin flipped the Feds off and plant twice the kings the state of Wisconsin does.  State of Michigan has rivers and streams capable of natural reproduction.  Wisconsin, not so.
 
Its good to see debate and exchange of information.  Its especially refreshing to see it done without malice.
 
There is little doubt that I will have to be out there next year....  although Alaska is calling, too.  And Nipigon Bay. And....

My family had a camp on N Sandy Pond when I was a kid. I can still remember the millions of dead moon eyes ( alewife) piled up on the beaches. This was an every summer occurrence in the 50’s and 60’s. The salmon stopped the annual die off . They also put an end to the smelt dipping. I have to believe that the fisheries biologists know what they’re talking about. I love the salmon fishery. But there is more to Lake O than the salmon fishery. Let’s let this play out and see what is in the future


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[GAMBLER]

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 8:44 PM, Lucky13 said:

Cuts to Lake Trout stocking are maintained at 20%, and have been deeper than that for the last two years due to Hatchery problems.  Atlantic Salmon have much greater space needs in a hatchery, and according to earlier NYSDEC reports, could only be raised at a one Atlantic for 100 kings ratio.  Neither is likely to ever supplant the king as alewife control, and the Fish Community Objectives have not been changed, which would be necessary for a change in “Official Policy.”   We have not seen what the fishery is like under the initial cuts, and it may be virtually indistinguishable from a “normal” year, when there are some salmon in Canada, but if you guys want to keep shooting yourselves in the foot with the “Sky is Falling” prophesies, they will likely become self-fulfilling in the minds of the out of staters and locals who hire charters.  There are still over 2.7 million fish going in on the US side of the lake, plus a VERY large component of natural reproduction.  As to this fall’s runs, it is only the last day in September, and most south shore tributaries are just settling into temperatures conducive to salmon spawners, it is still early. 

 

Capt Perlioni  said something to the effect that without predation, the alewife population will crash itself.  Why didn’t this happen before the kings?  We had die offs and windrows, but we had fish dying of old age due to complete lack of predators.    And if the steelhead are putting such a huge dent in the YOY alewife, where are the adults coming from in the “clouds of bait” being reported  all over the place?  I can see having a story and sticking to it, but it should at least be logical.

 

I will reiterate what I have said publicly, and on a PM earlier this week, if I wanted to see the end of the King Salmon in Lake Ontario, I would be pushing for a big bump in stocking, put lots more herring eating machines out there, and the alewife will crash rapidly.  Some of you guys seem all to ready to take one big roll of the dice with everything on the line, and I don’t think that is wise policy.  I am thankful, as King Davy has said, that we have a chance to ward off a lake wide collapse, and a management team willing to stick their necks out and take the heat to be proactive and prudent.

The Lake Trout restoration Plan calls for a certain amount of adult lake trout in the system to sustain/increase natural reproduction.  The adult lake trout population has been declining since 2014 (Lake Unit report for 2015,2016, 2017.) With stocking issues, the adult population is only going to drop more.   If the levels drop below the target, don't be surprised if the lake trout stockings increase over kings.  We saw this happen years back ( I can't remember which year 2011 maybe).  We were asking for more kings at the state of the lake meeting and were told there was not enough bait to support anymore stocking.  Later in the evening they told us they were increasing the lake trout stocking to increase the adult population to help natural reproduction. 

[Lucky13]

"With stocking issues, the adult population is only going to drop more.   If the levels drop below the target, don't be surprised if the lake trout stockings increase over kings." 

Let me see if I can get this straight.  We have issues with stocking i.e. we are not getting enough little fish from the Feds to meet quotas, so the Lake trout adult population is declining, so we should expect to see more stocking.  But we can’t get enough little lake trout now, what makes you think they will suddenly materialize because a “goal” changes?

 

You should also remember that the consensus document, the Fish Community Objectives, contains the lake trout as the top BENTHIC predator, along with the King as the top PELAGIC predator, so it is unrealistic to expect the lake trout to get phased out in favor of more and more kings.  Also, Lake Ontario is governed by more entities than the State of New York, both the United States and Canadian Federal entities have jurisdiction, as well as the Province of Ontario, and native species restoration is a priority at the Federal level because the thought is that it is not possible to make the judgement that the resource, Lake Ontario, has recovered from the multiple stressors to which it has been subjected over the last 100+ years if the native flora and fauna are not present, and at least on the road to recovery.  So Lake Trout are a priority and indicator for the Lake Ontario Action and Management Plan (LAMP), and will continue to be “pushed” by the Federal entities.

 

I know that DEC management follows these conversations, so I would expect that we will see a detailed  table of what is expected to be stocked in 2019 under this scenario, and I have been told that the 20% cut still occurs to Lake Trout.

 

Finally, I get this sense that at least part of the Charter Industry sees some “vast conspiracy” against the kings, and I wonder about that.  What “profit” is there for Andy and Steve to shift the population demographics of LO fish?  Why is it so hard to buy the idea that these guys would rather see a thriving, if somewhat smaller (and with SR natural reproduction and Canadian (unmeasured) natural reproduction, likely less than 20% less) predator base, until stability returns to the adult alewife population, than to carry the legacy into the future that they had the helm when LO “slid” the way Michigan or even Huron has.  I’ll remind you of Bob Lange, at the Fisheries Congress, when participating anglers indicated they wanted lots of big salmon AND healthy warm water fisheries like perch (Bob saw these as mutually exclusive), and did not want to see any stocking cuts regardless of stress on the alewife,  telling the gathered participants that if there was a crash to the bait, responsibility would fall squarely on their shoulders, not the shoulders of management.  

[GAMBLER]

"With stocking issues, the adult population is only going to drop more.   If the levels drop below the target, don't be surprised if the lake trout stockings increase over kings." 
Let me see if I can get this straight.  We have issues with stocking i.e. we are not getting enough little fish from the Feds to meet quotas, so the Lake trout adult population is declining, so we should expect to see more stocking.  But we can’t get enough little lake trout now, what makes you think they will suddenly materialize because a “goal” changes?
 
You should also remember that the consensus document, the Fish Community Objectives, contains the lake trout as the top BENTHIC predator, along with the King as the top PELAGIC predator, so it is unrealistic to expect the lake trout to get phased out in favor of more and more kings.  Also, Lake Ontario is governed by more entities than the State of New York, both the United States and Canadian Federal entities have jurisdiction, as well as the Province of Ontario, and native species restoration is a priority at the Federal level because the thought is that it is not possible to make the judgement that the resource, Lake Ontario, has recovered from the multiple stressors to which it has been subjected over the last 100+ years if the native flora and fauna are not present, and at least on the road to recovery.  So Lake Trout are a priority and indicator for the Lake Ontario Action and Management Plan (LAMP), and will continue to be “pushed” by the Federal entities.
 
I know that DEC management follows these conversations, so I would expect that we will see a detailed  table of what is expected to be stocked in 2019 under this scenario, and I have been told that the 20% cut still occurs to Lake Trout.
 
Finally, I get this sense that at least part of the Charter Industry sees some “vast conspiracy” against the kings, and I wonder about that.  What “profit” is there for Andy and Steve to shift the population demographics of LO fish?  Why is it so hard to buy the idea that these guys would rather see a thriving, if somewhat smaller (and with SR natural reproduction and Canadian (unmeasured) natural reproduction, likely less than 20% less) predator base, until stability returns to the adult alewife population, than to carry the legacy into the future that they had the helm when LO “slid” the way Michigan or even Huron has.  I’ll remind you of Bob Lange, at the Fisheries Congress, when participating anglers indicated they wanted lots of big salmon AND healthy warm water fisheries like perch (Bob saw these as mutually exclusive), and did not want to see any stocking cuts regardless of stress on the alewife,  telling the gathered participants that if there was a crash to the bait, responsibility would fall squarely on their shoulders, not the shoulders of management.  

They had no problems hitting the goal of 900,000 fish a couple years back. No one is being a conspiracy theorist here Lucky. They did it years back with the Lakers. What is stopping hem from doing it again? You can’t sit here and say they will not. I question things like this because there are holes in the data with the trawling issues this spring. When the boat is broken down and they do not get out and trawl early, the data is skewed. If they are so concerned about the bait numbers, why are they not increasing the king creek limit for 2019? There is a huge class of two year olds that will be doing more damage yet we are going to sit back and leave them out there to deplete the bait population more? On Lake Michigan, creel limit numbers jumped and stocking was cut at the same time to insure the pressure was off the bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[TyeeTanic]

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 10:17 AM, Gill-T said:

Natural reproduction is a function of amount of returning adults, trib fishing pressure, and trib water conditions. Decisions on stocking numbers as it relates to the effect of naturals, should occur AFTER the success of the spawn is completed and analyzed. Water temps are warm right now and the three year old class is weak. Unless the Canadian runs show different, we should not have much natural reproduction this year IMO. The Niagara is 69 degrees. 

 

I agree with this ... so far we've seen a nice initial run, and then most of those fish cooked when the weather got to 30'C on the weekend.  I'd imagine with all this rain we are getting now, the remainder of salmon are running, and that will be good, except it's meant to go to 25'C this weekend again ... so for the stragglers, that won't be good.

 

By the way, did they state WHY they want to cut stocks? Are they worried about the alewive population?

[Lucky13]

53 minutes ago, GAMBLER said:

They had no problems hitting the goal of 900,000 fish a couple years back. No one is being a conspiracy theorist here Lucky. They did it years back with the Lakers. What is stopping hem from doing it again? You can’t sit here and say they will not. I question things like this because there are holes in the data with the trawling issues this spring. When the boat is broken down and they do not get out and trawl early, the data is skewed. If they are so concerned about the bait numbers, why are they not increasing the king creek limit for 2019? There is a huge class of two year olds that will be doing more damage yet we are going to sit back and leave them out there to deplete the bait population more? On Lake Michigan, creel limit numbers jumped and stocking was cut at the same time to insure the pressure was off the bait.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Likely a very good question for a week from tonight, but I know the process in place for regulations changes is not rapid. 

[GAMBLER]

Likely a very good question for a week from tonight, but I know the process in place for regulations changes is not rapid. 

It should be an emergency regulation and a top priority if things are as bad as they say it is.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[stlhdr1st]

sorry, have to bring this up.."a further cut of 20 percent"...that is 20%of the 80%from last year.??..one does not have to be a mathematician for this one,and sadly where it is heading.........

i for one fished 3/4 days in every week on the cdn.south end.this year and.marked more bait balls than i have seen in many years..so thick at times, with the rods bouncing ,we actually impaled several  large alewifes,and had to keep checking our spoons..

Edited October 5, 2018 by stlhdr1st
addon

[Gill-T]

20% of the binational agreed upon number of Kings.  It is not cumulative with the other two recent cuts.  Good news out of the meeting is plans to tag stocked kings on both sides of the pond to get a handle on natural reproduction figures. Atlantic Salmon and Lake Trout stocking figures are not increasing.  

Edited October 5, 2018 by Gill-T

[Sk8man]

Regardless of the particular position one takes on the many issues connected with the current, past or future stocking efforts it is really great that those opinions can be given life on here. In the past we didn't have a good forum for discussing things as a group of concerned people. I also believe that if we step back away from the individual points of view and issues surrounding  short term considerations that the fishery is a very special one.The people at the DEC have been doing something right over the years as we have an incredible fishery overall, and this year was a good indicator of that fact. Things can always be improved but we shouldn't lose sight of what we already have either.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Sk8man

[HB2]

47 % Nat repro is a huge number ,as I have stated in the past . IMO ,it the difference between a great and not so great king year ,along with weather ,winds ,and currents .

 

I also think more tribs  than just the salmon river contribute to the Nat reproduction . 

 

And now that the DEC does not Mark the fish ,how would they know which are stocked or Nat reproduction ? 

 

 

[jason]

What is the chances the state released baby salmon from the hatchery and trying to fool us and say the 2016 yr was a huge natural reproduction. It just amazes me that they said half the salmon couple yrs back where sterile and now the are reproducing at 47% rate. Why are we not seeing this in other river that high. Bring back the fin clippings and and let have a true report from everyone fishing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[rolmops]

1 hour ago, jason said:

What is the chances the state released baby salmon from the hatchery and trying to fool us and say the 2016 yr was a huge natural reproduction. It just amazes me that they said half the salmon couple yrs back where sterile and now the are reproducing at 47% rate. Why are we not seeing this in other river that high. Bring back the fin clippings and and let have a true report from everyone fishing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Lake Ontario United mobile app
 

That is really very improbable and the statement above belongs in infowars.

[Silver Fox]

Did I hear maybe on Facebook, where everything is true, both side will be clipping stocked salmon

Silverfoxcharters.net

[Gill-T]

That is the plan. They will clip or chip for a three year period I believe. 

[Fat Trout]

That is the plan. They will clip or chip for a three year period I believe. 

I fish the river and lake and i can say that 2012 (if i remember the year right) was fascinating with the clipped salmon and what we saw when on clipped vs non clipped. I hav wished every year since that they kept that up. What showed up when wasnt any kind of 50/50 40/60 even 30/70 mix....it was stark contrast. Id love to gage volume of each year to year.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Lucky13]

Doesn’t anyone read anything anymore?  We are in the midst of a three years clipped coho study, that is why they want the heads, as many of the clipped fish also had coded wire tags. http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/112942.html

They did a full three year king salmon study when they first bought the trailer.  The results of this study were published years ago. 

From the 2015 SOL Summery: (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt15.pdf)  Also the 2014 study, section 3. (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt14.pdf)

“In 2008, the DEC purchased an automated fish marking trailer (AutoFish) capable of adiposeclipping and/or applying coded wire tags (CWTs) to salmon and trout automatically at a high rate of speed and accuracy. From 2008-2011, DEC and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry “mass-marked” all stocked Chinook salmon with an adipose fin clip in Lake Ontario to determine the relative contributions of wild and hatchery stocked Chinook salmon to the fishery.  To evaluate the relative performance of pen-reared and traditional, shore-stocked Chinook salmon, DEC marked sub-samples of Chinooks stocked at pen-rearing sites with CWTs in 2010, 2011, and 2013 (Section 3).

For the four year classes studied to determine the relative contribution of wild Chinook to the fishery (2008-2011 year classes), percentages of wild Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario varied by year class, age, and among regions from 2009-2015, but overall wild Chinook were an important component of the Lake Ontario fishery averaging 47% of the age 2-and age-3 lake harvest. The percentages of wild Chinook salmon in New York tributaries also varied among regions from 2009-2015 with percentages of age 2-3 wild salmon averaging 7.5% in western region tributaries, 18% in eastern region tributaries, and 58% in the Salmon River. “

Steelhead have not been done at all, so I would hope they would use the technology to evaluate that population before getting redundant with the Kings

Edited October 7, 2018 by Lucky13

[jimski2]

My brother guided an angler on the Deschka River to a sixty pound King Salmon. The maximum sized average king salmon size rather than too small average size.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

[Gill-T]

Lucky they are not doing any tagging studies on steelhead because they don’t really effect alewife numbers like kings do. The reason Steve LaPan gave for doing another tagging study on kings is developing natural runs. Fish generally run where stocked. Over the years naturalized salmon runs have developed/evolved slowly. If wild fish are increasing in number, the DEC/OMNR need a figure to set stocking numbers. 

[Lucky13]

7 minutes ago, Gill-T said:

Lucky they are not doing any tagging studies on steelhead because they don’t really effect alewife numbers like kings do. The reason Steve LaPan gave for doing another tagging study on kings is developing natural runs. Fish generally run where stocked. Over the years naturalized salmon runs have developed/evolved slowly. If wild fish are increasing in number, the DEC/OMNR need a figure to set stocking numbers. 

Boy, you will get into big trouble with Captains  Songin and Perlioni with that statement, LOL!   They maintain the steelhead are responsible for bad second year alewife numbers!  I am still sticking with the notion that the only significant natural reproduction on the south shore is the Salmon River.  The remainder of the tributaries are too warm in the summer.  On the Canadian side, there is definitely a need for better data. 

 

Tuesday will be very interesting, if only to get everyone on the same page about plans that apparently  have been discussed with one committee but not the general public.

[Sweet Caroline]

I believe that Kings are the only salmonids that can successfully  naturally reproduce in LO to any great extent due to the warm trib temps in the summer. Young kings migrate out in May and June before trib temps become too high. Much of the salmon river can get in the low 70s in the Summer which is lethal for young salmonids. Even Irondequoit Creek here in Roch gets good runs of kings every year and they haven’t been stocked in that creek in over 20 years. Getting a handle on natural reproduction is a good idea IMO to effectively manage the fishery. 

Edited October 8, 2018 by A-Lure-A

[rolmops]

The volunteers in the Credit River hatchery (Mississauga) do produce a lot of steelhead. Maybe that has some influence on the alewives in the western basin

[Gill-T]

There is no doubt steelhead eat YOY alewives in the epilimnion but compare a three year old steelhead to the size of a three year old king. The two species are on two different feeding programs. 

[Capt Vince Pierleoni]

2 hours ago, Lucky13 said:

Boy, you will get into big trouble with Captains  Songin and Perlioni with that statement, LOL!   They maintain the steelhead are responsible for bad second year alewife numbers!  I am still sticking with the notion that the only significant natural reproduction on the south shore is the Salmon River.  The remainder of the tributaries are too warm in the summer.  On the Canadian side, there is definitely a need for better data. 

 

Tuesday will be very interesting, if only to get everyone on the same page about plans that apparently  have been discussed with one committee but not the general public.

Charlie you need to knock it off with putting words in people mouths that were never said.  If you want to quote me--the science is wrong or incomplete. I have never said the 2nd year alewife numbers were "bad." To the contrary, they are immense. As for Capt Songin his quote was IF--IF they are so concerned with predation on young alewife then look no further than the Steelhead that target that size(first and second year) class of alewives almost exclusively. Not only do they prefer them, they occupy the same part of the water column much of the season. Stick to what you do best--repeating what you hear from the DEC. BTW, how many days a year do you spend ON Lake Ontario?  

[Fat Trout]

Doesn’t anyone read anything anymore?  We are in the midst of a three years clipped coho study, that is why they want the heads, as many of the clipped fish also had coded wire tags. http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/112942.html
They did a full three year king salmon study when they first bought the trailer.  The results of this study were published years ago. 
From the 2015 SOL Summery: (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt15.pdf)  Also the 2014 study, section 3. (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/lorpt14.pdf)
“In 2008, the DEC purchased an automated fish marking trailer (AutoFish) capable of adiposeclipping and/or applying coded wire tags (CWTs) to salmon and trout automatically at a high rate of speed and accuracy. From 2008-2011, DEC and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry “mass-marked” all stocked Chinook salmon with an adipose fin clip in Lake Ontario to determine the relative contributions of wild and hatchery stocked Chinook salmon to the fishery.  To evaluate the relative performance of pen-reared and traditional, shore-stocked Chinook salmon, DEC marked sub-samples of Chinooks stocked at pen-rearing sites with CWTs in 2010, 2011, and 2013 (Section 3).
For the four year classes studied to determine the relative contribution of wild Chinook to the fishery (2008-2011 year classes), percentages of wild Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario varied by year class, age, and among regions from 2009-2015, but overall wild Chinook were an important component of the Lake Ontario fishery averaging 47% of the age 2-and age-3 lake harvest. The percentages of wild Chinook salmon in New York tributaries also varied among regions from 2009-2015 with percentages of age 2-3 wild salmon averaging 7.5% in western region tributaries, 18% in eastern region tributaries, and 58% in the Salmon River. “
Steelhead have not been done at all, so I would hope they would use the technology to evaluate that population before getting redundant with the Kings

I might actually read your posts if they didnt always start out as condescending

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Lake Ontario United mobile app