GLF

The Bay has poor ice conditions. At Palmer Road there is some new shelf ice but due to the recent snow it is not safe. Fishing is slow near the Hot Ponds.

Still no ice and plenty of open-water. Anglers are fishing from boats. Plenty of yellow perch were caught in front of Rat Island using minnows.

Hi Tom! Thanks for taking the time and doing an intro. This forum is dedicated to salmon fishing. We look forward to your stories and tips. If you need anything, just let out a yell!

The large presence of alewife in an area has been shown to directly affect the biodiversity of that area, even during annual lows in the population size. In some places in the Great Lakes, fish populations have been shown to consist of nearly 75% alewife. Weinstein and Logan show clearly in their paper that a species with that amount of dominance drastically effects local diversity of an ecosystem. In particular, alewife feed on eggs and larvae of other fish species, a major method in which they outcompete other zooplanktivores.

There has been some suggestion that alewife carry the virus VEN, or viral erythrocytic necrosis, however this does not seem to be a particular threat, as VEN has not shown to be fatal. Species that feed on landlock alewife have shown to be thiamin deficient. As alewife dominate local communities, this may be an issue for predators that can find little else to feed on. Alewife have been shown to cause both early mortality syndrome (EMS) and Cayuga syndrome in lake trout and Atlantic salmon populations, and thiamin deficiency may be to blame.

Finally, mass die-offs in alewife populations occur periodically, and this can cause both aeshetic and hygenic problems for humans in the area as hundreds or thousands of alewife decay on the beaches. This, of course, also places economic strains on local economies that must pay to remove the fish, often by bulldozing them.

Control Level Diagnosis: "Minimal Priority" - Alewife have invaded the Great Lakes system, and the ecosystem is fundamentally changed. Alewife are so fundamental part of the ecosystem that removing them now could potentially do unforeseen damage along all trophic levels. As Atlantic salmon are re-introduced into the environment, increased predation may result and alewife populations will decline naturally. Alewife have been present in Lake Ontario for over 150 years; their presence is not only stabilized, but their status as "non-native" may become less clear as time goes on. If our definition of non-native is based in the exploration time period, the introduction of alewife came soon after that. In addition, it is not impossible that alewife could have arrived in the Great Lakes via other routes. Their introduction seems more "natural" as their range could have overlapped with the Great Lakes anyway. In addition, they are not causing major financial problems, and in fact can be beneficial to local economies.

This diagnosis, however, applies only to the Great Lakes and other areas that alewife have invaded. Plenty of freshwater lakes throughout the northeast are susceptible to introduction and subsequent invasion by alewife, and in places that have not suffered invasion yet, natural resource managers must be wary of accidental or inentional introductions by humans. If introduced, alewife can cause large-scale changes in the ecosystem, including the decline of native species, and overall biodiversity.

Control Method: Population reduction is essentially the only possible method of control in the Great Lakes at this point. Increasing the effort to re-introduce Atlantic salmon to the area would certainly help, as well as increasing support for native species that may feed on alewife eggs. Active culling may also be beneficial in reducing local populations, particularly if done during times when alewife are either congregated together for spawning, or in winter when they are more susceptible to cold temperatures.

Containment may also help in terms of legislating the distribution of Alewife. Vermont already has passed laws making transportation of alewife, dead or alive, illegal, but the law goes further to bar people from capturing them. Increased fishing of alewife, as long as their use is monitored, may be beneficial in reducing population size. Ensuring that alewife do not spread beyond their current range should be the focus, at this point, as removing them from the Great Lakes is unlikely.

Common Name: Alewife (Gaspereau, Sawbelly, Spreau, Kyak, Kiack, River herring, Glut herring)

Scientific Name: Alosa pseudoharengus

Classification:

Phylum or Division: Chordata

Class: Osteichthyes

Order: Clupeiformes

Family: Clupeidae

Identification: Adult alewife are typically 10 to 12 inches in length (25 to 30 cm), with a green back and silvery belly; they have a single black spot located behind the eye. The scales that line up in a row along the belly give it one of its common names, the sawbelly. The blue-back herring (A. aestivalis) is a physically similar species, and it is difficult to distinguish between the two. The only definable difference (alewife tend to have larger eyes, and blueback herrings have more "compressed" bodies, but these are difficult to enumerate unless directly comparing the two species in hand) is the color of the peritoneum in the two species. The abdominal cavity in the blueback herring is much darker, almost black, whereas the alewife has a paler abdominal cavity with some black spots. Misidentification between the two species may cause problems in identifying range and abundance.

Original Distribution: The alewife used to be a purely anadromous species, breeding in freshwater rivers but returning to the ocean to complete their life cycle. They were typically found from Newfoundland to the Carolinas, preferring depths of approximately 150 to 350 ft off the coast, and spawning populations were found among the tributaries at a maximum of about 100 miles inland.

Current Distribution: Although the means of introduction are still debated, the alewife seems to have entered the Great Lakes at about the time of canal building in the late 19th century. Perhaps using the Erie as a mode of transportation, the alewife range increased greatly as they entered the Great Lakes and from there became established in all five lakes; cold temperatures in the winter have been known to kill off large populations periodically, but typically the alewife can survive most winter temperatures even in the northern parts of Lake Superior. These introduced populations have forsaken the second part of the anadromous life cycle, and do not return to the sea as adults. Instead, they spend the entirety of their life in fresh water. There are also a number of separate isolated inland populations in Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Site and Date of Introduction: Alewife were first detected in Lake Ontario in 1873, Erie in 1931, Huron in 1933, Michigan in 1949, and finally Lake Superior in 1954. The Ontario population should be only considered as the first date on record, not necessarily the introduction date.

Modes of Introduction: There are three main introduction theories for the alewife. It was first recorded in Lake Ontario in 1873, and some believe that it was native to the lake, but spread to the others with the decline of Atlantic salmon and lake trout, two natural predators of the alewife. Others have suggested that it was introduced when Ontario was being stocked with American shad in the 1880s. The third theory contends that the alewife used the newly-built Erie canal as an opened introduction point, connecting the Atlantic with the Great Lakes. All the Southern lake populations were introduced as a result of intentional introduction.

If the alewife had been native to Ontario previous to the opening of the Erie canal, it would have had to have traveled up the St. Lawrence river from the Atlantic earlier in its natural history. Genetic evaluation, however, shows that the Great Lake populations and the Atlantic populations are similar enough that the introduction was a recent event, and that the introduced population probably proceeded through the Erie canal. Their introduction into the lakes would not have been possible if not for the over-fishing of the Atlantic salmon and lake trout, or the alewife's ability to survive living only in freshwater, contrary to its natural anadromous life cycle.

Reasons Why it has Become Established: The alewife is mostly a filter feeder, but has been known to be piscivorous, feeding on fry as large as 50mm. Before their introduction, the Great Lakes ecosystem functioned with Atlantic salmon as the main predator, with no dominant filter feeding species. As the Atlantic salmon populations declined, the alewife would have found a suitable ecosystem with no strong competition for food resources. Introduced sea lamprey populations may have contributed to the decline of native species that could have outcompeted the alewife.

The extreme temperatures of the lakes generally support populations off alewife - although Lake Superior can occasionally get too cold and kill of a populatoin. Average temperatures are also suitable for spawning, between 12 and 22.5 degrees Celsius. It is also important to note that Alewife were once an anadromous species, and its vagility was appropriate to this life cycle. A spawning female lays somewhere 100,000 eggs, as an adapatation to the hazards of moving downstream and into the open ocean. Landlocked populations, though, may not face the same perils, and so their survival rate would increase. Current landlocked populations suggest that, on average, a female lays 17,000-38,000 eggs while breeding, but upon first introduction from the Erie canal, the initial populatoin may have had a much larger reproductive rate, allowing for the establishment of the species.

The alewive's ability to adapt from an anadromous life cycle to a landlocked one was a key factor in their establishment. While anadromous populations prefer slowly moving waters, and lay their eggs on sandy or gravelly bottoms, the landlocked populations show no preference for breeding grounds. Similarly, landlocked alewife were able to move from being exclusive filter feeders to also feeding on copepods and larvae. Alewife are generalists, which pre-supposes them to invasion.

Ecological Role: alewife are important zooplanktivores. They feed extensively on zooplankton, as well as small insect and fish larvae. They have three different feeding methods: gulping, individual particulate feeding, and filtering. Gulping involves opening the mouth wider for larger objects, as opposed to particulate feeding, during which the alewife open their mouth a small ways. When filtering, the alewife leaves its mouth open and captures any zooplankton and other small organisms present in its feeding area. Alewife may be good competitors for this particular niche, based on their success at transforming the zooplankton community in the Great Lakes. They also seem to have out-competed any native zooplanktivore species.

Alewife serve as food for larger organisms, including Atlantic salmon and lake trout. Herons and other pescivorous birds, as well as otter, mink and other aquatic mammals are all alewife predators. In addition, humans have been known to consume A. pseudoharengus. There are no known large species, however, that depend on the alewife for food - its removal from the Great Lakes, in other words, would probably not be particularly detrimental to larger species.

There are also a number of parasites that have been found in alewife, including Acanthocephala, cestodes, trematodes and copepods.

Benefits: Alewives feed on zookplankton so extensively that they increase water clarity in the Great Lakes; this may, most of the time, serve as an attraction to tourists who want "purity" in the lakes, but this can cause large algal blooms from time to time. Alewives also serve as a food source for many predators, including the diminishing Atlantic salmon. As conservationists attempt to re-stock the Great Lakes with the once-native salmon, alewife may become an important resource. Humans also consume alewife, and states along the Eastern seaboard have taken measures to support dwindling populations of anadromous alewife. Maine, in particular, has seen a dramatic decrease in population sizes, and has made efforts to restore historical spawning runs. Fishing licenses for alewife, as well as the potential tourists they invite, can be beneficial for the local economy.

Threats: Alewives have fundamentally altered the Great Lakes ecosystem. Since their invasion, all trophic levels have been effected by their extensive predation of zooplankton. This ecosystem now, in some places, significantly revolves around the alewife. Native zooplanktonivores have been out-competed. Zooplankton are fed upon extensively, clarifying the water but also allowing for algal blooms. Any potential damage from the alewife has already been done, as integration into the ecosystem seems to have come to completion, at least if temperatures in the lake remain stable. Warming in Lake Superior may cause an increase in alewife populations, leading to greater changes in the ecosystem.

Since we are talking lead weights on lead core. I went out with a guy last year and he had slip sinkers on a couple of lead core rigs. I kick myself in the a$$ for not paying better attention.

If you are a Charter Captain please send me a private message after you register.

What is the name on everyone's boat? How did you come up with the name?

Being a fishaholic is a hard disease to cure. I have had for over 30 years. Only cure is to be on the water.

welcome to the site!

I just saw the weather forecast for this weekend. Looks like it is suppose to be 48 on Friday and 42 on Saturday. I wonder if the steelies will be hitting

What are the specific colors of lead core? Is there a standard "color code" between manufacturers?

So far I have heard green, yellow, and blue. What are the rest of the colors on a 10 color spool?

You may want to add a price.

Welcome to the site Wayne. If you need anything, just give a yell.

Everyone should have a hot bait from last year. What was the one lure that put more fish in your boat then any other?

How many of you keep a log book for fishing? What was your success rate? I would like to know the number of trips you went out and the number of fish you put in the boat. It would be nice if you could also break it down into species.

I went out of Ludington one time last July. We boated 17 kings.

I wont argue with you on the speeds. My point with this thread was to stagger your speeds and to not troll a straight line all of the time.

Do you get more hits on down riggers or lead core lines when you make a turn with your boat?

No one piped up on this, so I will add to it How many times have you completed your turn and the rods started poping? What happend that caused the action?

There was a change in the lures speed/direction. The inside lures slow's down and flutter's, and the outside lures speed up as if trying to get away. When the boat straightens back out this causes the inside lures to take off again. This appear's to the predator that the lure(prey) was a wounded baitfish or one trying to get away. This caused a reaction strike.

Do not try and run a zig zag course in a pack of boats.

I have this years tournaments added to the calendar. Click on calendar in the upper navbar and select the month you wish to view. If I missed it, let me know and I will add them.

I added it to the calendar. This falls on the same day as the South Haven Steelheaders Big Jon Pro/Am.

New Directions: Alternative Control Methods Key to Future Sea Lamprey Management

Sea Lamprey Pheromones

Exciting new discoveries in pheromone communication by sea lampreys promise new tools. In part due to fieldwork conducted at the HBBS over the last decade, Michigan State University and University of Minnesota researchers identified two pheromones. Larvae burrowed in streams excrete a migratory pheromone. HBBS scientists had previously shown that sea lampreys do not home to natal streams, yet spawners are consistently found in the same streams. Evidence from tests by Peter Sorensen in two-choice mazes in raceways at the HBBS suggests the migratory pheromone is the method of stream selection. Field tests in the Hammond Bay area will attempt to direct movements of migrating adult sea lampreys. A second sex pheromone is released only by spermiated (ripe) adult male sea lampreys. It appears to trigger ovulation in females, and later (but only after the females are ovulated), attracts ripe females to the ripe males. Recent tests by Weiming Li in the Ocqueoc River showed that every ovulated female that made a choice between traps containing a ripe or non-ripe male chose the ripe male. Both pheromones may disrupt sea lamprey migrations or reproduction, or enhance trapping.

Emerging Technologies in Telemetry to Address Knowledge Gaps in Fish Community Ecology

Most of what we know of species interaction on temporal, depth, or thermal scales are derived from point observations with fishing gear or hydroacoustics. Progress in telemetry will soon allow us to reveal these interactions on a scale not imagined a decade ago. We are currently using new data storage tags to gain new insights into the depths and temperatures occupied by different strains of lake trout and by lake whitefish, chinook salmon, lake sturgeon and sea lampreys. Currently, we are limited to studying species where commercial or sport exploitation produces tag recoveries. Depths and distance in the Great Lakes preclude conventional radio or ultrasonic telemetry. We are presently working with the GLFC and LOTEK to develop a new type of tag for use with unexploited species or populations.

Barriers Reemerge

A combined low-head and electrical barrier was constructed on the Ocqueoc River, which functions effectively as a low-head barrier but also blocks sea lampreys during high water on this flood-prone stream. This combination of proven technologies allows effective blockage of migrating sea lampreys and passage of jumping fishes under a much broader range of stream flows. Under normal flows, the low-head barrier is functional, no current flows to the electrical barrier, and jumping fish can pass. During flood conditions, when the low-head barrier is inundated, the electric barrier automatically turns on and blocks sea lampreys. Scientists at HBBS will be working in the future with Robert McLaughlin and Gordon McDonald of the University of Guelph to better block sea lamprey migration and improve passage of other fishes at electrical, low-head, and inflatable barriers, and further reduce any negative effects of barriers on stream communities.

Sea Lamprey Control

The sea lamprey is one of the few aquatic invasive species that is being successfully controlled. In the late 1940s the State of Michigan began investigations into the biology of sea lampreys. In 1950, this became a federal program. In 1955, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was created under a convention between the United States and Canada for the purpose of restoring fisheries. One of the GLFC's primary duties was the control or eradication of sea lampreys. It currently manages sea lamprey populations across the Great Lakes to about 10% of their former levels. Control is delivered through its control agents, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. The commission also funds research on sea lampreys at the U.S. Geological Survey's Hammond Bay Biological Station, at Michigan State University, and at the University of Guelph, Ontario.

Control depends on breaking the life cycle. The first control efforts attempted to do that by blocking access to the spawning areas in streams. This was only partially successful because the weirs used to do this were impossible to maintain 100% of the time. There were attempts to use electric fields alone or in conjunction with the weirs, but that was eventually abandoned as too dangerous. A second vulnerable point in the life cycle is during the larval stage, when sea lampreys spend at least three years burrowed in the stream sediment. During the 1950s, over 6,000 chemicals were screened before finding one that was selectively toxic to sea lampreys. That chemical, TFM, has been carefully applied to infested streams, beginning in Lake Superior in 1958. Treatments quickly decreased sea lamprey numbers to 10% or less of their former numbers. Reduced lamprey numbers allowed native and stocked lake trout to survive and the lake trout populations to rebound. Recently, the restoration of lake trout in Lake Superior was declared a success and federal stocking of lake trout was stopped. Lake trout stocks in Lake Superior are once again selfsustaining.

Treatments with TFM start with electrofishing surveys of the Great Lakes tributaries known to potentially produce sea lampreys. Based on estimates of the number of metamorphosed sea lampreys to be produced and on treatment costs, a list of streams to be treated is made each year. Because of the duration of the larval stage, streams are treated at intervals of 3 to 5 years or longer. We now have extensive knowledge of the effect of water chemistry on safe levels of TFM and treatments rarely kill fish. TFM also degrades and does not bioaccumulate. In over 40 years of use there has been no documentation of accumulation or of long-term effects on streams despite repeated studies with that objective. The return on treatments is the reestablishment of predators and predator/prey balance in the Great Lakes and protection of native species from extinction.

Treatment with TFM is currently still the primary tool for control, but the GLFC, partnered with the Great Lakes Science Center, is committed to providing an integrated program of sea lamprey management in the future that will rely on an increasing number of new control methods. We are now revisiting some of the older concepts such as blocking spawning migration, but using new technologies. Ineffective and labor-intensive screen weirs have been replaced with low-head barriers that block sea lampreys but allow jumping fish to pass. We are also investigating adjustable height barriers that can be lowered after the spawning run, new electrical barriers that use safe levels of pulsed-DC current, and velocity barriers that use the relatively poor swimming ability of sea lampreys to block them but pass other fish.

Lampricide

Together with the UMESC in LaCrosse, the Hammond Bay Biological Station has played a major role in the discovery of lampricides and the refinement of techniques for their use. We continue to provide technical assistance to that program by supporting purchases of lampricide through a QA program, providing FWS personnel in the field with analytical support and standards, and through continuing research to refine our capability to predict safe and effect concentrations of lampricides in stream treatments.

Ecology and Assessment

Research done at Hammond Bay accounts for a significant part of our knowledge of the life cycle and ecology of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes, including effects on host species. Recent accomplishments include the first comprehensive analysis of parasitic growth, proof that there is no fidelity of sea lampreys to a natal stream, introduction of coded wire tags and mark recapture to estimate lake wide populations of parasites, estimates of attack lethality, and proof of the relationship between sea lamprey marks observed on fish and losses of lake trout. We contributed substantially to development of a spatial approach to assessment and treatment of sea lamprey larvae in the St. Marys River, resulting (in combination with sterile male releases, below) in lamprey populations in Lake Huron approaching fish community goals.

Alternative Control Methods

The station has played a key role in the development of several alternatives to lampricides. Initial development of barriers to block sea lampreys from spawning areas in stream was done at Hammond Bay. The most recent evolution of that technology, a combination of a low head barrier that blocks lampreys under normal spring flows and a pulsed-DC barrier that blocks them under flood conditions, was developed at the station. Nearly 30 years of research into the sterile male release technique resulted in successful implementation by the FWS on the St. Marys River and publication of proof of the effect on recruitment.

Sea Lamprey Life Cycle

Fortunately, only one year in the life of a sea lamprey is spent in parasitic feeding. They are unusual in having a complex life cycle, whereas most fish have a simple life cycle.

A. Sea lampreys go through an extended larval phase before metamorphosing into the bloodsucking parasitic phase. Each summer and fall there is one group of parasitic sea lampreys actively feeding in the Great Lakes.

B. The next spring, that group leaves the lake and migrates into tributary streams where they must build nests in clean gravel with flowing water.

C. Each female spawns an average of 60 to 70 thousand eggs.

D. After hatch, the larvae drift downstream to areas with slower currents and sand/silt bottoms. There, they establish permanent burrows and enter a larval stage varying in duration from 3 to 10-ormore years.

E. Larvae lack eyes and the oral disc. Living concealed in their burrows, they are harmless and filter microscopic material from the water for food. When they reach lengths of 120 mm or more, some individuals begin metamorphosis in mid summer.

F. During metamorphosis they develop eyes, the oral disc, and changes in their kidneys that (in their native range) would allow them to enter the salt water of the Atlantic Ocean. That fall or the following spring, they instead enter the Great Lakes to feed parasitically on fish that summer and fall, and mature and spawn the next spring completing their life cycle. Sea lampreys only spawn once and then die after spawning.

What is a Sea Lamprey?

The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is a marine invader from the Atlantic Ocean that entered the Great Lakes through the ship canals and locks built to bypass obstacles like Niagara Falls. An unintended consequence of these canals has been the introduction of invasive species. The sea lamprey was one of the first to invade the Great Lakes. It has been very damaging because part of its life cycle is spent feeding parasitically on the blood of host fish like the native lake trout. Sea lampreys are a very primitive, jawless fish. In the Great Lakes, people mistakenly referred to them as eels or lamprey-eels. But, sea lampreys are only very distantly related to eels and are correctly referred to only as lampreys. Although they are classified as a vertebrate, they lack bones and have only a cartilaginous rod or notochord for a spine. The paired fins found on most fish are also absent. The most remarkable feature of the sea lamprey is the toothstudded oral disk. During the parasitic period of their life cycle, they use the oral disc like a suction cup to attach to the side of a host fish. The many teeth on the rim of the disc provide traction and make it very difficult for a fish to dislodge a sea lamprey. Once attached, they use the teeth on the tongue in the center of the disk to rasp through the skin. An anticoagulant in their saliva maintains blood flow as they feed. Often the host dies from the blood loss. Estimates of the number of pounds of fish killed by each sea lamprey vary from about 15 to 40 pounds.

Several characteristics of the sea lamprey made it an effective marine invader of the Great Lakes. First, the sea lamprey is an anadromous fish. This means that it spawns in fresh water streams, the juvenile phase is spent in salt water in the ocean (or one of the Great Lakes as a substitute), and the adult returns to freshwater streams to spawn. Other anadromous, non-native fish in the Great Lakes include coho salmon, chinook salmon, pink salmon, Atlantic salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout, rainbow smelt, and alewives. Special modifications of their kidneys allows these species to live in either fresh or salt water. If you haven't thought of these species as non-native, they are. Second, sea lampreys produce large numbers of eggs. The Great Lakes contained several smaller, native lampreys, but the sea lamprey rapidly out competed them wherever their range overlapped. Third, we believe that lampreys locate streams for spawning using a pheromone excreted by larvae. This pheromone identifies streams successfully producing young. Because the native lampreys also produced this pheromone, the larger, invading sea lampreys had an effective road map for expansion.

Sea Lamprey Impact

Sea lampreys quickly devastated the fish communities of the Great Lakes. Sea lampreys probably entered Lake Ontario in the 1830s via manmade locks and ship canals. Improvements to the Welland Canal in 1919 allowed sea lampreys to bypass Niagara Falls and enter Lake Erie. After sea lampreys were discovered above Niagara Falls (in Lake Erie in 1921 and Lake Huron in the early 1930s), they spread throughout the upper Great Lakes by 1939. The lake trout was the main predatory species at that time and the sea lamprey's preferred host. Although early declines in lake trout abundance in the 1940s are suspected to have been caused by overfishing, sea lampreys are believed to be responsible for the very rapid decline in the later 1940s and 1950s. Lake trout actually became extinct in Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron (except a few inlets of Georgian Bay), and Michigan. Only remnant native stocks remained in Lake Superior. Two factors contributed to the devastating effect of sea lampreys. First, sea lampreys lacked effective predators. Second, the Great Lakes probably have as many miles of tributaries and as many acres of larval habitat as the native range of the sea lamprey along the Atlantic Coast. Host fishes in the Great Lakes are much smaller than those attacked in the Atlantic Ocean and are more likely to be killed by a sea lamprey attack. Between 40% and 60% of lake trout attacked by a sea lamprey will die from loss of blood. These attacks were a major cause of the collapse of lake trout, whitefish, and chub populations in the Great Lakes in the 1940s and 1950s. Lake trout harvests in the U. S. and Canada averaged 15 million pounds per year before the sea lamprey, but declined to record lows within 20 years of the sea lamprey's appearance.

Other equally important secondary effects were caused by cascading changes in the fish communities. After the elimination of predators like lake trout, the populations of invasive prey species like the rainbow smelt and alewife increased rapidly in the absence of predation. Those invasive species then out competed native species or preyed on their young. Extinctions of sculpin and deepwater cisco species have been suspected of being linked to extended periods of high abundance of smelt and alewives. The massive annual die offs of alewives that fouled the beaches in Michigan during the 1950s and 1960s were due to overcrowding and poor condition and were a secondary effect of the invasion of the sea lamprey. Alewives also prey heavily on zooplankton. Because zooplankton graze on phytoplankton, the density of phytoplankton increased and the color and clarity of water were affected, particularly in the lower Great Lakes.

Human activities were affected first through the loss of sport and commercial fisheries across the Great Lakes. Following those losses, came other, equally important economic effects caused by the disappearance of fishery-related jobs and the loss of fishing tourism. With the beaches fouled with dead alewives, there were also losses of tourism associated with beach use.

I have not fished for smelt in eons. Thanks for the report.