Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2008

[GLF]

Conclusions

Since the Lake Michigan bottom trawl survey

began in 1973, prey fish biomass has never been

lower. Several species are at either record or

near-record lows, including alewife, bloater,

rainbow smelt, deepwater sculpins, and ninespine

sticklebacks. Slimy sculpin is the only native

species whose biomass is above the long-term

average. The invasive round goby also

dramatically increased in 2008, and now

represents 18% of the total prey fish biomass.

Our bottom trawl results are somewhat tempered

by the results of the acoustic survey (Warner et al.

2009), which revealed increases in alewife and

bloater biomass in 2008 relative to 2007 (though

both species remain far below the biomasses

attained in the 1990s). Nonetheless, prey fish

biomass in 2008 was at an unprecedented low,

and managers should consider how this could

influence salmonines production in coming years.

An obvious question is whether excessive

predation by salmonines is underlying these

downward trends in prey fish biomass. The

truncated age distribution of alewives and bloater

is suggestive of high predation. However,

excessive predation cannot be responsible for the

decline of all species, given that several do not

figure prominently in salmonine diets (i.e.,

deepwater sculpins, ninespine sticklebacks).

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2008LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf

[Nailer]

It sounds like the biomass need a stimulus package from the government;)

I hope the fishing doesn't end up like our economy in Michigan

[Boltman]

I do not understand why they do not raisethe bait fish along with the predator fish, it seems lke they would want to heavily stock these in order to feed the past years fish they raised in the hatcheries.... the DNR is an institution that I will never understand, I am friends with a DNR officer at Higgins Lake state park and even he doesn't understand why they do what they do, like not stocking Lake Huron with alewives, to bring back te Salmon and other predatory fish.... let's just prey and hassle the DNR more, so they will get the hint and stock more baitfish....only then will the salmon get bigger for years to come...

[Adam Bomb]

It seems that their efforts are targeted towards restoration of natural species. So, ales and salmon are not a top priority on huron.

For example, the lack of alewives has directly impacted the walleye populations in lake huron because the Y.O.Y. walleye arent being preyed apon by adult alewives. Even perch benefit from the lack of their presence. Unfortunately other species of salmon and trout have suffered in their absense. Hopefully a solution to the bait issues isnt far off. I would love to see upper lake huron be the fishery it was when i was a younger.

[1mainiac]

It is kinda a catch 22 we brought in the salmon to get rid of the alewives and now that it has worked people want to fix the alewives to keep the salmon. You have to see the irony in all of this yes we all love chasing salmon but they are not native fish and alewives or not don't reproduce and survive well here. We don't have ice coold mountain streams for them to spawn in yes we are getting some natural reproduction however some years it is hit and miss. Many of our rivers warm up too fast and also blow out in the spring and many times in the fall with heavy rainfall. As it is my bet is without stocking salmon would not survive long in our system.

[GLF]

As it is my bet is without stocking salmon would not survive long in our system.

I spoke with a DNR officer about this last year. There are numerous streams that have never been stocked that now have naturally repoducing salmon in them.

[1mainiac]

I spoke with a DNR officer about this last year. There are numerous streams that have never been stocked that now have naturally repoducing salmon in them.

While I understand this and it is true and there are also areas where stocking has been reduced due to natural reproduction. The fact is they were introduced in the Great Lakes in the 1800's and did not take. Now that they have been promoted and pushed for 40 plus years we are getting some reproduction. But given there are few good spawning areas I doubt we could come close to a fishery without stocking them. We just don't have a mountain range providing the steady clear cold streams they need to do well in the early stages for strong natural reproduction. Steelhead and Browns are likely here to stay but still have to find good gravel in smaller streams that won't get blown out with spring flooding. Just like The Muskegon river has one of the biggest Walleye spawn runs many years has poor results so they shock the river and harvest the eggs and sperm to breed them in controlled conditions. If they had never dug the canals in the first place I highly doubt any of us would be discussing salmon fishing here in MI.

[fishinmachine2]

While I understand this and it is true and there are also areas where stocking has been reduced due to natural reproduction. The fact is they were introduced in the Great Lakes in the 1800's and did not take. Now that they have been promoted and pushed for 40 plus years we are getting some reproduction. But given there are few good spawning areas I doubt we could come close to a fishery without stocking them. We just don't have a mountain range providing the steady clear cold streams they need to do well in the early stages for strong natural reproduction. Steelhead and Browns are likely here to stay but still have to find good gravel in smaller streams that won't get blown out with spring flooding. Just like The Muskegon river has one of the biggest Walleye spawn runs many years has poor results so they shock the river and harvest the eggs and sperm to breed them in controlled conditions. If they had never dug the canals in the first place I highly doubt any of us would be discussing salmon fishing here in MI.

Theres more natural reproduction then you think!! We will always have salmon in Lake Michigan waters because of this! I'm glad they are cutting plants back as we have too many salmon in our waters and thats why the fish arent as big as they used to be!! I would rather see a few less fish and more bigger fish!! With that said I bet we are gonna start seeing some bigger fish and I bet the alewives will start to make more of a come back!! Just my $.02

Scott

[Nailer]

I read/copied this from a different site and found it very interesting.

I received a copy of the acoustic data for Forage Fish Abundance Estimates for 2008. It also includes year-to-year density comparisons for past survey years. There are a series of YOY(young of the Year) alewife density overlays on Lake Michigan, as well as YAO (Juveniles-adults and older Alewife) density overlays for fish in the water column.

There are two large, clockwise surface current gyres that form in Lake Michigan. One circulates in the southern portion of the basin, with its northern edge around the mid-lake hump between Ludington and Milwaukee. The other is more elongated north and south, and sweeps most of the northern portion of the basin. While Lake Michigan waters mix between these two gyres, volumes exchanged are not massive.

River current driven outflows along the shore intersect these nutrient rich plumes, hit these circulating currents, spinning these waters in a clockwise pattern around the basin annually. These same,primarily westerly winds sweep Green Bay waters annually as well. Green Bay outflow and the north current gyre intersect along a boundary seam from Washington Island to Point Detour, extending in a thinning strip to the Straits of Mackinaw.

Highest densities of pelagic Alewife, Smelt, and Bloater YOY and juvenile fish occur in the northern portion of the basin along the boundary layer and in a stripe along the base of the Door peninsula from south of Sheboygan up to Sturgeon Bay. The next volume of water that contains high concentrations of pelagic forage fish is in the seam for Washington Island, to Point Detour, to Naubinway.

Highest densities that occur in the southern portion of the basin occur in the southeastern portion of Lake Michigan off of Pentwater down to St. Joe/Benton Harbor.

So, if you ever wonder why fishing is good in these areas, it is where the forage fish are abundant! Bottom line, no matter what happens in the basin proper. I think Fairport and Cedar River will always provide a good fishery.

Kinda like the conversation law enforcement folks had with John Dillinger. When asked why he always robbed banks. Dillinger replied, "Because that's where the money is!" Well, maybe then, but not now!

[Vitalidle]

Fairport fishing sucks:rolleyes:

[GLF]

I would rather see a few less fish and more bigger fish!!

Scott

I second this.

However, I think it will be years before we start to see the bigger fish.

[1mainiac]

I guess some are not seeing my point which is we need to control the invassive species that swim in here and ruin our fishery. If they had chosen a differant fish to control the alewives in the 50's we would not be having this chat. If they had never ruined the lakes by putting in the canals we would not be discussing this either. And if we don't stop the Asian carp and who knows what else will swim in here or show up on the bottom of a ship coming in here we will end up talking about much of this in past tense like many of the old men who remember the great Herring Fishery. If we had realized our mistake with the alewife problem and closed the canals before we let the Zebra Mussels and Gobes and all the others sneak in who knows what we would have now. Instead the government will discuss the issues and sit on their hands till it is completely distroyed then they will spend billions of our money to try and fix what they allowed to get screwed up in the first place. Kinda like what is happening now in washington on a slightly smaller scale.

[GLF]

I believe the other fish they were considering stocking in Lake Michigan were stripers. Myself, I am glad the stocked the salmon. Did I mention how tasty the salmon are?

Yes the government needs to be proactive instead of reactive to the invasive species. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way things operate.

I can not believe they have not come up with something else instead of the electric barrier. Something needs to be done now before they get past it instead of after they get past it. This is another case of them being reactive to a situation.

[1mainiac]

My point is that most estimate the cost of closing the canals and transfering the cargo to great lakes only ships would run about 50 million a year. Most of this money would be added to the local economy in the form of new jobs to transfer the cargo and a few more Great Lakes only ships. So while as consumers we would incur higher net costs for those goods shipped in here. Much of it would wash out and on the other hand waiting will distroy a multi billion a year fishing industry. So like any other government controlled situation it does not matter how many billions are lost cause it is not their money.

[Satisfaxion_Gauranteed]

I try not to stress too much about things that are outside of my realm of control. I can't make more fish or bigger fish. All I can do about that is be educated about the situation.

Things I can do are enjoy the fishing that is available, be a responsible fisherman, be safe on the water, pay my due fees, and enjoy some of the great resources we do have.

Even with some of the challenges that present the fisheries now, the Great Lakes represent some of the greatest resoures in the world. I think that's pretty cool and I think there are people who make a living working for us and our state(s) to do thier best to ensure good conservation of those resources.

my 2cents,