Fly Fishing Forum banner

Stop Steelies, Browns Salmon Stocking?

8K views 75 replies 11 participants last post by  removed_by_request 
#1 ·
I just heard about a draft being circulated by "our friend", TU.
Basically, they have "joined up" with Great Lakes United to put pressure on senators, congressmen, etc. to try to restore the Great Lakes to their pristine state, and original fish species. A "quickie" sketch of what they want to do is:

1. Stop stocking exotics (e.g. Pac. salmon.Steelhead, Browns, etc.)

2. Restore original fish (lakers, burbot, sculpin, coastal brookies, yellow perch, bloaters, etc.)

3. Amend existing law to prevent introduction of "exotics" (salmon, steel and browns, etc.)

4. Make it federal mandate so that State agencies must comply.

I am procuring a copy of the original draft, and will forward it. In the meantime, I am NOT going to renew my TU membership, etc.

BobK
 
#2 ·
Bob,

Yes I would like to see that and will watch in my TU mgazine and other email newsletter for this.

What the Hxxx are they thinking sometimes I wonder about these purist stuff goes way to far. Besides it will never happen with the commercial sport fishing $$$ the andramous non native fish have brought to the great lakes.

Just remember the steelhead were stocked in the 1880s.

They must be atlantic salmon purists who want that species to have a chance again in Lake Ontario where it was once native.

Obviously you know which way vote goes on this one.

PM Out
 
#3 · (Edited)
Hal, I am getting a copy of the draft from a member of another site - www.lakeontario.org You have to scroll down to hit on the "click here" in bold print, then hit the first topic. He gives a little more detail. (Seven points, in all).

I think he is a charter captain - they have a lot to lose if this thing gets legs. I have e-mailed him to get a copy of the original draft, as he offered.

I am beginning to think that TU is falling into the tree hugger and Friends of Animals camp of eco-terrorists! Too bad - but you are right - "purists" can get carried away.

Incidentally, one of the problems with recovery of atlantics - atlantic salmon feed on alewives (among others), which result in a "vitamin blocker" in the fish producing limited stocking success. (I forget the details, but I believe it is a B vitamin derivative). Other salmonids are less susceptible to this.

I understand that Great Lakes United carries a lot of political clout on BOTH sides of the border - I guess it's up to us to turn public opinion the right way!

BobK
 
#4 ·
Sounds exciting.....

Hey thats a fairly aggressive position, I am supriesed that TU has taken such a definitive position on the issue of introduced stock.
I am looking forward to this disscussion it will be a nice break from the normal problems of the West Coast Salmon Wars.
As to quitting TU because of this position, I would suggest just the opposte get in involved and learn all you can about how and why they came to take that position and then work towards either modifying the position or accepting it.
With all the problems that are fisheries resources are faced with today its not really a good time to br dropping association with "the oldest defender of the trout", over a policy statement!
 
#5 ·
Bob,

Found it and read it, interesting, that will never fly in the great lakes due to the current sport fishery. TU needs to focus on saving our many rivers that are at risk and get off this non native stuff IMHO.

Interesting on the atlantics there if they ever get reestablished there in any numbers I will be out for sure. Lets hope for the best.

Alewife issue and atlantic salmon was new to me.

I think trying to have the atlantics spawn at the same fall time period with the kings, cohos, and browns is just to much competition for their already very limited numbers in the GL tribs. Thank god the steelhead spawn in the late winter and spring.

Thanks

Keep us posted on developments.

PM Out
 
#6 ·
The great lakes is an inland ocean system that has a huge capability to produce gamefish as proven over the years. Whether indigenous species or exotics, I would think that it's yield would be great if as much energy went into producing native species as does into exotics.

If I were a stakeholder in this argument, I would clearly argue in favor of restoring native species and I take a stand with TU on this one all the way.

IMHO - to say that native atlantics, brookies, lakers, and the vast array of species that once filled the lakes is less desirable or important than the put-and-take pacific species is a sad indicator of the mentality behind the fishery.

Maybe it's not practical to try this on all lakes, but it seems that there is currently ZERO focus on native species that any progress in that direction is better than none. A phased, fully qualified step-by-step approach could do no harm.

Look where the distribution of browns for sport purposes got us - whirling disease and it's impacts on our native american trout.

It's not about sport or personal indulgence, it's about respecting and preserving what God gave us - and the responsibility that comes with it.

.02
 
#7 ·
Juro,
You have it exactly right.
We sportsmen sometimes don't realize that we can be part of the problem. That the non native fish we introduce or encouraged to be introduced over the years is a form of polution different from the steel mills of Gary, Indiana but still it is a form of polution.

Again with many sportsmen it comes down to catching when in this case and many others across the country should come down to the entire experience. Give TU great credit for what they are doing across the country from restoring native cuts in Wyoming to what they envision for our great lakes.

I hope our great lake friends will take the needed time and think about why they fish their local waters and that just maybe those waters will really become home waters when the native fish is king again.
 
#8 ·
I think you're on the wrong side of this one. The Great Lakes will never be "pristine" and support their native species again unless we do away with all human habitation around them. We would have to totally eliminate the cities of Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Toronto, Montreal, etc. to name a few, do away with all habitation and farming, etc. and create wilderness areas within 100 miles of the lakes, not to mention disrupting too many people's way of life.

I guess it boils down to fishing for a select few elites, or fishing for the masses.

Choose sides VERY CAREFULLY on this one - I still have an open mind until I read the original document!

I am a retired chemist, and did a lot of environmental improvement in my day, including rivers. I am open to anything reasonable, but not dumb and shortsighted!

BobK
 
#9 ·
There's a reason why certain species are native to an area and why they thrive there....it's basic evolution and ecology. To say that an organization such as TU should "get off this non-native stuff" is like saying that doctors should stop looking for disease cures and simply continue treating the symptoms.

The balance of nature works. Certain areas can sustain non-native species, but it's almost always better for the indigenous species if non-natives are not introduced. It's simple biology.

Will everyone agree on this? Hell no. :rolleyes:
 
#10 ·
BobK et. al. -

Let's not confuse the real discussion with rhetoric. No one in their right mind would think we could have a "pristine" G/L system anymore, that's not the issue.

Even less pertinent is "elitism". Why is it elite to try to restore native species? Would an equal number of atlantics, lake-run brookies, lakers and other native species be less of a working man's quarry or more so? More elite or less? Steelhead and steelheading is as elite as it gets in my book; it seems the masses want to eat cake. If it's really about fish for the masses, let's introduce tilapia.

It would be a miracle and victory for sportsmen if TU is able to accomplish awareness and some isolated progress in the restoration of native species in the region. It would help if some honorable anglers stood by this organization that has done so much for us.

I agree that the restoration of native species is the right thing to work toward in the GL and everywhere in the world. I am really surprised that sportsmen would react this way as if it posed some kind of threat.
 
#11 ·
Well if TUs agenda is now to restore all non native trout and salmon cold water species to U.S. cold water fisheries they should start with restoring brook trout, atlantic salmon, and graying, etc.. and remove the non native brown trout that were stocked starting in the 1880s which are now pervasive through out the U.S..

Browns are not native to the U.S. but there stocking has been highly successful just like the pacific salmon and steelhead have been to the great lakes. Maybe we should remove the non native browns and rainbows from the Beaverkill, Willowemuc, Pere Marquette, Ausable, Battenkill, etc and spend millions of dollars and decades trying to restore eastern brook trout and maybe even michigan grayling.

Will be watching TU to see just what there agenda is these days.

With all of the american rivers and fisheries on the endangered list impacting native and non native trout and salmon, why would TU spend precious time and limited money on trying to change a healthy non native fishery like the great lakes ?

They will never be successful on this issue in the great lakes, believe me and there are much higher cold water native and non native U.S. trout and salmon fishery issues for them to address.

Must be some political and corporate economic interests driving this, we will be watching this one for sure.

My 2 cents on this one

PM Out

P.S. Happy holidays from the great lakes in spite of this illogical thinking from a major trout and salmon conservation organization.
 
#12 ·
Juro,
You said it best..."IMHO - to say that native atlantics, brookies, lakers, and the vast array of species that once filled the lakes is less desirable or important than the put-and-take pacific species is a sad indicator of the mentality behind the fishery" You may or may not know just how sad the mentality can be. We are at least 10 years behind in terms of fisheries issues thinking. I wrote to TU this morning and asked them directly and specifically where they stand on the issue. I'll post response when I get it.

John
 
#13 ·
Get real!

Too bad you guys are limiting your thinking - this is not restoring species - the lake habitat has changed so much that it's highly doubtful that it will work, and is esentially courting disaster!

I would LOVE to see the native species return. In the same vein, I have a highly technical education and a lot of work behind me that gives me a little vision to what is needed.
It was a totally different habitat that exists today. I won't go into detail (I will, if pressed!), but just look around you.

For starters, you would have to poison the lakes and their tribs to start from scratch. How long would it take to recover to the point where we could even begin putting "desired" species in? Well, try a couple of lifetimes.

Then, we have to get rid of all the cities, towns and people, dams, ad nauseum.

When our species goes extinct (sometime in the next zero to 200,000 years from the Yellowstone Caldera eruption which WILL occur), or maybe a passing asteroid will hasten it, then the lakes and rivers will revert.

For now, all you will accomplish will be to waste more taxpayer's money by pouring it down a hole.

BobK
 
#14 ·
I hate to get involved in this one...

What is TU's stance on the introduced species out west in the Henry's Fork? Silver Creek? Madison? Missouri? Man o man have I heard quite a defense when it comes to these streams, yet, 99% of their fish are introduced from California and Europe. What gives???

Juro- if you are going to take such a hard lined stance on this issue of restoring the earth, and it fishies, to what evolution provided, then let's take it to the next level and extrapolate out what you are saying and how it should also apply to human terms. Put your money where your mouth is- quit your job, pack up the family and migrate back to Europe/Scandinavia. And while you are at it, get the rest of the human population to follow suit.

Sound absurd?

Unless you live your life, beyond any shadow of a doubt, completely non consumptive and in 100% perfect balance with the earth, then you have already compromised your argument.

Enough on this.
 
#15 ·
Just a question here, not an opinion.

This is old memory time only:

Something tickles the back of my mind on why the Salmon/Steelhead were introduced into the Great Lakes. Remember something about one, or more, of the lakes being over run with a small fish (Alwaies, or something like that). Huge numbers would die and wash up on the beaches.

The salmon/steelhead were planted as an experiment to control the population(s) of these fish. It worked.
fe
 
#16 ·
We all realize that this subject is a hot one and one that will pop up more often than not in the future. From re introduction of native fish and hatchery fish going by the wayside it will be a hot item.
We as sportfishermen will have to look deep and find out why we really fish.

In the 1960's the great lakes were just about dead. US and Canadian citizens along the lakes worked so hard at bringing back the lakes from the dead. It became a pride issue for all citizens across North America. Why must we stop now? There were a lot of industry and their supporters that said it was too late to bring the lakes back so leave them as they are. If we had done so then those grand lakes would still be dead.

It has come time to complete the job started over 40 years ago and yes it will probably take more than 40 more years to complete. To say that the native fish can not be brought back is the same as what the industrialist said in the 60's about bringing the lakes back. Are we seeing defeat in some of our sportsmen that it can't be done, that it's too great of a project to complete? If so they are wrong because just getting life back into the lakes probably took ten times the effort it will take to restore the native fish. Maybe this defeatest stand is something totally different. What are sportsmen who would oppose such an idea be so concerned about? Truth now.

Inland,
Wouldn't it be increadible if the Henery's Fork, Silver Creek, the Madison all went back to native fish. Can you imagine such wonderful rivers to be fished without all the ego that now wades those banks and in such large numbers. That goes for our eastern and mid western rivers also.
 
#17 ·
Inland, with all due respect you've totally lost me on this one.

I read this as "there is no such thing as success in degrees, only absolute extremes so live absurdly or shut up". This kind of argument is void of reason or hope, and makes no sense to me. Futhermore if you read what I posted it contradicts what I said.

I am not a spokesman nor am I a critic of TU, I am simply expressing my opinion on the matter (despite a tendency to be misquoted). I don't know their policies on the rockies, and yes I do believe we should have never introduced brown trout to the US.

As far as your emigration example - there is a fundamental difference you have chosen to ignore... no one is manipulating us into or out of existence, we are making the choices to move, leave, survive or perish.

Do the native fish species of North America control where they survive? Hardly. In fact it's by our hand that they have perished. If there were some greater power causing our demise, would you not have the passion to resist it, the pain of being incapable of resisting it, and would it be wrong if some portion of these superior beings cared that you existed or not? That is the "extrapolation" of which I speak.

I see nothing wrong in some progress being made toward their recovery by our hand, afterall - we caused their demise.

.02

inland said:
I hate to get involved in this one...

What is TU's stance on the introduced species out west in the Henry's Fork? Silver Creek? Madison? Missouri? Man o man have I heard quite a defense when it comes to these streams, yet, 99% of their fish are introduced from California and Europe. What gives???

Juro- if you are going to take such a hard lined stance on this issue of restoring the earth, and it fishies, to what evolution provided, then let's take it to the next level and extrapolate out what you are saying and how it should also apply to human terms. Put your money where your mouth is- quit your job, pack up the family and migrate back to Europe/Scandinavia. And while you are at it, get the rest of the human population to follow suit.

Sound absurd?

Unless you live your life, beyond any shadow of a doubt, completely non consumptive and in 100% perfect balance with the earth, then you have already compromised your argument.

Enough on this.
 
#18 · (Edited)
atlantics and alewives

This is one of the problems I alluded to. One of the simple facts that have to be accomplished is this:
1. Thiamin (vitamin B-1) is necesary in spawning salmonids for successful reproduction.
2. Thiaminase is an enzyme that inhibits ability in salmonids to absorb thiamin.

Thiamin is critical to development of eggs and fry.

Alewives (or "sawbellies") are loaded with thiaminase! They are one of the forage base fish for salmonids.

New York State has been conducting studies on this for a number of years, wondering why Atlantics had poor returns, and couldn't spawn with any success, even though they have been stocked in numbers for the past 20 years plus.

The most recent test that I am aware of is this:
6 return atlantics were captured. They were pampered and kept in clean water dosed with thiamin until ready to spawn. (3 died in this "storage). The remaining 3 did successfully spawn, and they now have 20,000 eggs which will be reintroduced into the system.

Incidentally, this affects all salmonids to varying extent. They are also running studies on rainbows (steelies) to determine the effect of thiamin injections during spawning runs versus spawning success.

This points out the need to totally clean out the lake of all species before starting out a restoration. Just from the sheer volume, the varying "turnover" rates for the different great lakes, etc., this is an exercise in futility.

Not that I am against the basic idea - it is just that man does not have the ability with today's technology to do this. Someday - maybe, but not now or in the foreseeable future.

Leave well enough alone until you have the tools and technology to perform the task successfully!

BobK
 
#20 ·
Alewives, themselves an exotic specis in the Great Lakes, were introduced during the 1950's if I am not mistaken, with the exception of Lake Ontario where they are believed to have navigated from the Hudson through the boat canal system or mixed in the stocking of shad that occurred there as well in those days. In any case, alewives in Lake Ontario did not thrive until the disappearance of lake trout and atlantic salmon due to overfishing and habitat destruction. In Lake Michigan, they have become the primary biomass in the lake since their introduction in the 50's.

Pacific species were introduced largely to control alewife populations according to historical accounts to stop the massive die-offs where millions of fish created health hazards along the shorelines, in addition to the recreational opportunities.

Today, although lake trout have been supplanted by hatchery programs, but they are unable to sustain themselves without intervention in what was once their most prevalent habitat on earth - the Great Lakes.

So I guess it depends on where you perceive the vicious circle to have begun. Before the alewife -or- after?
 
#21 ·
Thanks Juro,

This may sound crazy But: The Alewive problem could be taken care of in no time at all without poisioning the lakes. Simply start a commercial fishery again for the sole purpose of feeding the Aquaculture, chicken and pork industry. Remember 3 pounds of forage fish for one pound of growth in pen raised salmon. The commercials could wipe out Alewives in no time flat if there is money to be made and if there is a by catch on other non native fish so what. I know that will enrage sport fishermen and all the industry related to it but.
a key would be identifying what was native forage fish and making sure they would be able to come back when the time is right. I know there are many other problems to deal with but I believe in the people of the United States and Canada that if they put their minds, hearts and souls into it they could make it work.

And for the great lakes boys I know this is not my territory and should keep my nose out of it but after many years of going along with the masses and believing in hatcheries, non native trout so I could fill my own ego card it's time to look at some changes in beliefs. I also feel we will have to end our own NW hatchery program and shut down all sport fishing sometime in the future on our wild native steelhead.

Do we dare imagine how big the native Brook Trout could be in the great lakes. Anyone know what the lakes record is, how long ago it was caught and where it was caught?:eyecrazy:
 
#22 ·
Juro,

Don't get me wrong- I am not against restoration and conservation. I am certainly not against success in degrees, trudging forward is done one step at a time.

I am not the only one to get the same feeling from your posts this morning- BobK came to the same conclusion, albeit a 'little' ;) more politically written. It is basically going to require total elimination of man from the region to achieve the goal of restoration, even in varying degress of success, of the native fish species. The point of my rant this morning, are you willing to take it to that extreme? There is no way to poison the system without killing eveything in sight, the biomass is just too huge.

The genes from the Native Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon are gone, they have been extinct for over 100 years. All of these attempts to restore are through feral strains of fish from Maine and New Brunswick. Right back to step one here- introduction of non native species. Unless, of course: a salmon is a salmon is a salmon. So how do you propose fixing this problem?

For the thiamin deficiency- what is Roger Greil doing up on the Soo to overcome this? His fish feed on alewives too and continue to return at a very high rate (around 5% SAR).

What about the beating the native chars take from the lampreys? Anybody know the full extent of the negative impacts from the zebra mussel invasion?????????????????

I guess my hesitancy to support TU on this latest crusade comes down to the size of it all. What is the realistic possibility of achieving the goal? About as good as seeing the lower Snake dams breached, which is about 1/1,000,000,000,000 the scale. What about the hypocrisy between calling for native only species management in the GL's and fully supporting the feral species swimming around the famous trout rivers of the mountain west (among all the other places in our country)? That is what irks me the most :mad:
 
#23 ·
Lots of good replies, guys - My major problem on this proposal is simple - it is long on noble objectives, but totally void of the methods and techniques of doing the job! (Based on my personal experience as a Chemist, Chem. Engineer and Environmental Engineer, it was the usual problem we faced!)

If getting rid of the alewives was so easy, then how come we haven't been able to get a handle on carp? (That is another problem that we have to face, you know! These "spawn grazers" need elimination, too!) These lakes contain a VAST amount of water!

No one yet knows the effect of zebra mussels - or even how to control them! We do know that they consume large quantities of algae, etc. and limit the amounts of oxygen in areas of the lake, creating "dead zones" in the lakes, but control them? There are no methods to date. How about gobies - no one even seems to be concerned or give any thought to them, although limited studies have been done. Not to even mention the others from shipping (example - spiny fleas).

How 'bout the canals and the Seaway? We should eliminate them, too, and in that vein stop ocean shipping to the Midwest.

It's easy to propose the ideas - but implementation is the tough part. These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.

BobK
 
#24 ·
It's easy to propose the ideas - but implementation is the tough part. These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.
Funny - there are two camps here, one saying "CAN'T" and the other saying "LET's TRY SOMETHING". If these guys "go to college" will they come out saying "CAN'T" as well? I haven't heard a single solution proposed by those in the "CAN'T" camp either, just a verdict of impossibility. Good thing others have tried despite the odds in the past, if not for them striped bass would be extinct and we'd still be building illegal dams without fish ladders on salmon rivers out west.

BTW -

I agree with your point that it's hypocritical that an organization would be very pro-exotic in one region and pro-native in another. What led to the conclusion that TU is pro-exotics in the rockies?

Happy Holidays, thanks for the healthy debate
 
#25 ·
These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.
:rolleyes:

Actually TU has some of the most knowledgable fisheries biologists in the country working/volunteering for them. One of my good friends is working on his degree in fisheries biology and is active in TU and MDEQ. No offense, but, I would trust his opinion a whole lot more than that of a chemist. My 2¢. I have yet to get a response from TU regarding your statement. When I do I will post it. Merry Christmas Bob.

John
 
#26 ·
In the original document, nothing was offered in a plan to implement. Just a grandiose scheme without any underlying science or methodology to back it up. My remarks stand.

By the way, who pays for this effort? The taxpayer? Another few billion bucks down the drain?

The fish and game departments have the rest of their respective states to worry about - and that includes other species of fish, non-trib streams, game, and declining budgets these days.

Not to be a spoil sport - just come up with a logical, scientific based plan, not a proposal based upon idealism. I personally would LOVE to see coaster brookies and atlantics restored, it's just that I see no mention of addressing with an action plan and funding for the problems that exist today.

I have successfully fished for "coasters" where no one thinks they exist (remote Adirondack lakes) with good success. Where? I won't tell you - that's why they still exist!

BobK
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top