Jump to content

FishDoctorCT

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About FishDoctorCT

  • Rank
    Fisherman
  • Birthday 07/18/1981

Personal Information

  • Real Name
    Mark
  • Biography
    "I just like to catch them"
  • Location
    on the water
  • Interests
    fishing, talking fish, arborist
  • Occupation
    tackle manufacturer
  1. on another forum i called this years before it actually happened. you dont stock the fish in southern lake michigan and you get nothing in return come august.
  2. i would like to see some results of mature chinooks and where they would be. growing tired of hearing that salmon arent managed for any shore opportunities when we all pay the same for the annual fishing license regardless of owning a boat or not.
  3. Based on the dates you have provided all these chinooks would be considered "immature" correct? If so I agree with your results.
  4. Okay, have to ask these: Montreal is in Quebec right? So what Great Lake is within the province of Quebec? Toronto, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, and even Chicago are cities LOCATED within the Great Lakes. Why isn't this annual meeting taking place at a more centrally located city/venue?
  5. Then Ryan, why are chinooks still stocked there at calcite in rogers city? Thought the MDNR gave up on kings in lake huron? You know cause chinooks cant survive without those whoppers you refer to as alewife(sarcasm). For analogy purposes you cant take bridget the midget and verne troyer, mate them, and expect to have shaq as offspring. MDNR takes the first 5000 fish no matter the size for broodstock from lil manistee. You feel that is acceptable, which unfortunately is what the MDNR wants so they dont have to be held responsible for these kings returning at 3 instead of 4 or 5 years of age.
  6. The improved reproduction correlates to the fact that the wild chinook salmon in the lake are actually returning at 3 years old instead of 4 years old(post BKD). Jay Wesley notated this in the mid 90's with his master's thesis. Again i say NO king at 3 years old will be 30+lbs, sorry, thats the facts. The length of time spent consuming alewife during a salmon's life in the lake as forage directly relates to the level of thiamine deficiency in each fish. Less consumption obviously occurs in fish that return a full year sooner. The fact is these hatchery raised salmon and trout are all treated for thiamine deficiency. If alewife numbers were so low, then there would be no need for such a procedure. Sorry, try again.
  7. There are 4 different wiers in michigan where kings can be obtained from for broodstock(and all coincidentally still get stocked). Anybody who is actively concerned about michigan's king salmon program should know that.
  8. brown trout stocking data for lake michigan: 2012 new buffalo: 22,250 st joe: 22,250 south haven: 26,500 saugatuck: 26,500 holland: 30,750 grand haven: 17,500 2013 new buffalo: 18,000 st. joe: 20,800 south haven: 8,875 saugatuck: 19,900 holland: 25,000 grand haven: 15,700 this data is provided by the michigan dnr fish stocking database for 2012 and 2013. contact your local biologist to express your feelings on the matter. first kings, now browns, whats next?
  9. Thanks Frank! Looking forward to this year's open water fishery over there!
  10. I feel the kings are not returning at 4 years or later due to poor hatchery practices in lake michigan, not forage issues. A 3 year old king simply cant grow to 30lbs no matter how high the lake's biomass of prey fish is. Infact NO fish can grow that fast unless it's genetics have been manipulated somehow. Common sense and experience show recent upped salmon size is due to older aged fish(true 4 year old king salmon via scale sample aging). Some guy on another forum claimed he caught 2 high teen kings that "he aged" and both were 2 years old out of lake michigan. If you buy that, I have ocean front property in arizona! To those that claim kings only eat alewife: The study you cite to back your opinions was done on lake michigan where 80+% of the lake's prey fish is alewife. DUH! Of course that study will show that kings are mainly eating alewife. Why dont they have any findings on lake huron kings' diets post alewife crash? In case anyone has forgot, lake huron's prey fish biomass total is 97 kilotonnes for 2012. Compared to lake michigan's total of 31 kilotonnes for 2012. That's over 3 times more bait over there! Id also say that lake huron has rebounded quite well since 2004. There also is no data on opossum shrimp or red mysis shrimp biomass in any of the great lakes that i can find. Another food source that is out there and nobody wants to talk about because diporeia shrimp supposedly is more important. Diporeia are not mysis shrimp. Opossum shrimp are mysis shrimp. Where is the data on their population size? Also why are gizzard shad, emerald shiner, grey shiner, spottail shiner, and all other forage species not included in the prey fish biomass studies done on lake michigan? I also dont understand how its legal to attempt to protect a federal invasive species to the great lakes. Its clear alewife pose a threat to all fish's natural reproduction cycle because their bodies produce thiaminase, an enzyme that causes thiamine deficiency in all species of the lakes. Dont believe me? Just so everyone knows every hatchery raised fish produced from lake michigan is treated for thiamine deficiency before being planted(including walleye). I also feel that % water content of the fish the dnr uses to claim these fish arent "healthy" also has to do with the fish's thiamine deficiency issues but good luck getting any MDNR rep to admit it. On a side note: The MDNR also by percentage reduced lake michigan's current stocking of brown trout by 20% give or take, so to say they are planting more of them "2 to 1" is ludacris based on 2013's stocking numbers. Dont believe me compare 2012 to 2013's numbers on their database. In conclusion, I feel all these reductions were a plan that was implemented in 2000 and has been a steady step down in stocking since then. Ports like charlevoix, manistee, muskegon, TC, and Manistique didnt need to be stocked while ports like holland, saugatuck, st joe, grand haven, and south haven were basically given the shaft. It has nothing to do with science as those northern ports have natural reproduction and the southern ports have zero. Id like to know how those northern ports got the pull to force the reductions where they were enforced. If the lil manistee has such great repo of kings why does that dinky creek need 150k kings planted in it every year? I sat next to the president of southwest michigan steelheaders at the 2012 benton harbor meeting about this issue and he didnt believe me that they would shaft ports south of MKG and give whats left to the northern ports as I felt then that they were attempting to monopolize the fishery since that part of the lake has all the natural reproduction. Guess what? I was right! I shouldnt have to go to that part of the state to fish for kings when appropriating the stockings to the right ports was simply, the right thing to do. As for the coming years since I'll now be forced north to find a king fishery from july on; I will do my best to not spend a dime(gas included) in that part of the state. They want to create tourism up there, so forcing it is the answer I guess? Probably also their reasoning for dumping temperature sensitive atlantics in the warmest 2 rivers on lake huron: thunder bay and ausable. Just STUPID! http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_63282-297817--,00.html president of sw michigan steelheaders interview http://www.outdoornews.com/December-2012-1/Lake-Michigan-ports-hit-hard-by-salmon-cuts/
  11. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeMichiganAcoustic.pdf
  12. I have fished lake huron since the crash and feel the lake is better off without alewife, kings included. The lake's prey fish biomass is also currently estimated at 97 kilotonnes. The MDNR's goal for lakewide biomass stability is 100 kilotonnes. Food for thought... link for those that question it. http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2012LakeHuronDemersal.pdf
  13. Although GLCFS is a great website with many tools for the open water angler(and shore bound angler as well), I take those temperature graphs with a grain of salt. Friday for example just outside a southern lake michigan port that graph claimed water temps were as high as 56 degrees on the surface. The actual water temp was 42 on the surface just off the south pier outside of the mudline in 20fow. Southern lake michigan ports take daily beach temperatures and water intake temperatures year round. Personally I wish all lake michigan ports would do that, not just after memorial day weekend til labor day weekend. Mark
×
×
  • Create New...