Lucky13

Honing in a bit more on the opening of the FCO's, which I posted before. The Binational Stakeholder's group was told in May that there are no plans for the foreseeable future to modify the FCO's. The King is the top dog in that statement, and for the pelagic niche in the detail of the document. That is the policy guidance document for USA and Canada.

I know this came up at the Pulaski meeting the other night, too, a friend up there questioned why he was hearing so much distrust on the part of so many lake anglers. So please educate me. What possible motive could these guys have for reducing stocking (an extremely conservative reduction to many scientists)? There has been no discussion to my knowledge of implementing the proposal one Pulaski area businessman has put forth to reduce king stocking and increase steelhead stocking, as the hatchery is not capable of handling more long holding time fish. Ditto increase in brown trout, unless they take them from the rest of the state (and there are a lot of non LO license buyers in the state). Lake trout are heavily limited now in terms of Federal hatchery capacity, and while they will not abandon them because they are a federal priority (that's right it is a federal waterway, international border and all that) and they occupy a different niche in the ecosystem than the kings. And Landlocked Salmon are also being raised and stocked at capacity, mostly in other waterbodies like Cayuga and Seneca. The FCO's are very explicit in their support for the King as the top pelagic predator, and both Countries have signed on to that. So what is their motive, other than prudent stewardship?

Honestly, guys, if I wanted to see the king gone, I would be out there with the rest of you calling for major increases in stocking of them. I believe it is the charter industry that years ago started "whispering in DEC's ears" in a concerted attempt to turn it from the Department of Environmental Conservation to the Department of Environmental Commerce. As to the title stakeholder, I pay the same license fee as you do, I just don't maintain a commercial livery license. There are also many non angler stakeholders along Lake Ontario (and Canadians, a LOT of whom see things differently than the charter industry on this side), the fishery is just one part of the bigger picture. I am just supporting the biologists in their contention that under current regimes, continuing to stock the number of kings they were stocking in 2016 carries a very high risk of starting the downward spiral (or complete collapse) that pretty much insures that Lake Huron will remain kingless, and has been plaguing Lake Michigan for a long time. But really, if you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, go ahead convince these guys to ignore the Science (which Andy Todd has said could lead to a "why bother with the science anyway, just dump in the fish" policy) and let the chips fall where they will, because if the alewife crashes, native species rehabilitation becomes very possible, and king reestablishment unlikely, unless you have a plan for teaching the salmon to eat gobies and gizzard shad all summer.

We get too soon old and too late smart. Ballast water regulations actually exacerbated the problems ( Dr. Edward Mills data), and at any rate, the cows are already out, so closing the barn door now is kind of late. But what I am hearing from many of you is "abandon the native species and dump more kings". Kings will collapse their food source (the alewife, why all this started to begin with) more quickly than any of the other species currently in the mix, and if the alewife goes, so do the kings, and likely all the other intentionally introduced non native species ( much easier to type "exotics" but Capt. Vince objects to that). And there are a number of tributary anglers, and residents of lakeshore communities, that would like to see the King gone, because the crowd attracted to the tributaries currently is less than "tisirable." Then there are cultural aspects of native species, historically important to our indigenous populations, and as I said before, important as indicators of successful ecological recovery.

Most folks you know. Can't, Never.... really positive thought processes, too. People said that about cleaning up contamination, too, 40 years ago. Re-establishment of native species is one benchmark for ecological recovery. The Objective that I quoted said nothing about former state or elimination of introduced species, it calls for a mix of both.

Now there is a strong, intelligent rebuttal!

From The FCO's for Lake Ontario: "The goal of fisheries management is to provide sustainable benefits to humans through the use of fish for food, recreation, culture, ecological function, and aesthetics by sustaining or increasing the abundance of desirable fish. Public consultation clearly indicates support for both a diversity of salmon and trout, dominated by trophy-sized Chinook Salmon, and protection and restoration of native species. The LOC acknowledges that managing for Alewife numbers to sufficiently support Chinook Salmon may limit restoration of some native species to their full potential. The Lake Ontario ecosystem is a mix of native and non-native species and has remained very resilient during the last 25 years. Despite an onslaught of invasions and rapid ecosystem change, Lake Ontario has provided a diversity of fish-related benefits. The LOC believes that maintaining a modest approach to stocking a diversity of trout and salmon species, the implementation of regulations to sustain a diverse mix of fisheries, continued efforts to protect and restore native species, and investing in monitoring and science-based assessment to understand ecosystem change are the best management strategies to ensure continuation of current and future benefits. The fish community objectives outlined here are, however, implicitly adaptive and will be subject to frequent review and change as the ecosystem evolves and our understanding of it improves." Atlantic Salmon and Lake Trout are the native species in the lake. And Lake Trout stocking had been seriously curtailed due to the failure of the federal hatchery, so the rise you indicate only brought the numbers back to FCO levels. Lake trout are also the top benthic predator, a niche the king is not thought to occupy (maybe some of the recent Canadian data on the depths they plumb will modify this, but in general King salmon are pelagic and are following the pelagic prey.) Steve was very clear in answering Matt's question that increases in the number of Salmon stocked would not necessarily correlate with increase in harvestable salmon on a linear basis, and risk of over pressuring the food base would rise as well, maybe to an unacceptable level of uncertainty from a management perspective. The best way for fisheries managers to go to a totally native species program would be to stock beaucoup more King salmon, which carries a high risk (and some of us would say probability) of alewife collapse, both through overpredation, and loss of sufficient residual adults to spawn at prior levels. Once the alewife is gone, there is no bait for the west coast species, so natives would be the logical and environmentally sound response. From my perspective, this "modest approach" is working, we are not seeing beaches littered with dead alewife, but we have also not seen deterioration of condition of the predators, so current management is keeping the alewife controlled but not over-controlled. With luck and good weather, we should see a hike in a couple of years, but please remember that 4.1 million fish is still a LOT of fish going into the pond, the glass is still 80% (hatchery) full, with the wild card of natural reproduction adding to that!

No argument from me about their intentions, but I tend to think of science as NOT Kool Aid.

Let's see now, they are still stocking 4.3 million fish, plus what is going in from natural reproduction, I would think that would be a positive message to communicate, thjs is not a draconian 46% like back in the Lange days. This in spite of recommendations from many scientists on both sides of the border, and many on the Binational stakeholder's group from the other side of the border, that the cuts were not deep enough to minimize the risk. And what motive other than improvement of the fishery would there be for putting less fish in? The best way to crash the king totally if they just wanted to go with native species would be to stock more and more, let them remove the alewife, and they would crash not long after. Any food pyramid that becomes top heavy with predators will collapse, or the health and condition of the predators will decline significantly. So, yes, I think the message was that these cuts will need to be maintained for at least 2019, too, perhaps 2020, but then upward adjustment becomes possible, although Steve did say he could make no promises because they need to factor in variables that can't be forecast. The paper is good, (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/loalewifeupdate2017.pdf) but it was augmented with scenario slides that show the probable effects of good and poor YOY hatches, and the discussion. Another 2 bad winters in a row situation might be disastrous, even if there was enough big chow, spawning for future year classes could be severely curtailed. I didn't hear anyone bashing anyone for not attending, just bemoaning that more folks did not avail themselves of the opportunity to hear the data and arguments first hand. Personally, I'm very glad we have scientists of this caliber making the decisions, my kids and grandkids may be also be able to enjoy the best fishing in the USA after I'm gone. It would probably help from a business standpoint if people focused on the glass being 90 % full ( or even 80% if you are a natural reproduction denier) rather than it being 10% empty!

Yes, it was a lot of the choir, but a much better turnout than last year when much of last night's information was first presented. You know they are not pulling punches, didn't sugarocoat the answer to Matt about the next couple of years being very possibly the same scenario, and spoke directly to a lot of what has been posted here and on other websites. Now it becomes necessary to figure out how to convince the naysayers that these guys are ONLY interested in maintaining the Number one fishery in the Lower 48!

Is it upstream of downstream from the impassable barrier, by the nuns?

https://www.glsc.usgs.gov/keywords/alewife You may need to go to a college library to read the journal articles in full. Can be frustrating to have to pay 35 bucks for an article that was originally publicly funded research, but, at least in the Rochester area, I know that U of R Science library and SUNY at Brockport have most all the Journals in their stacks.

"Shifts in the diet of Lake Ontario alewife in response to ecosystem change Journal of Great Lakes Research By: T.J. Stewart, W.G. Sprules, and R. O'Gorman Abstract In the 1990s, the Lake Ontario ecosystem was dramatically altered due to continued invasions of exotic species including dreissenid mussels and predatory cladocerans. We describe the diet and biomass of prey in the stomachs of adult (≥ 109 mm TL) and sub-adult (< 109 mm TL) alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in 2004 and 2005 across seasons and depths and compare our results to data from 1972 to 1988. During 2004 and 2005, adult alewife consumed primarily zooplankton prey at bottom depth zones < 70 m and primarily Mysis at bottom depth zones > 70 m. Mysis dominated the diets of adult alewife in all seasons except during the summer of 2004 when zooplankton dominated. Mysis dominated the diets of sub-adult alewife during early and late spring and zooplankton dominated the diets in summer and fall. Bythotrephes and Cercopagis were observed in the diets of both sub-adult and adult alewife. Diporeia was observed only rarely in adult alewife diets. The biomass of prey in alewife stomachs varied seasonally and increased with bottom depth for adult alewife. Alewife diets in 2004–2005 differed from those in 1972 and 1988 with an increase in the prevalence of Mysis, and a decline in the prevalence of zooplankton. The biomass of prey in adult alewife stomachs declined in 2004 and 2005 compared to 1972 and 1988, at bottom depth zones < 70 m but not at bottom depth zones > 70 m suggesting reduced food availability closer to shore. We hypothesize that consumption levels at the shallower depth zones, as indicated by very low biomass of prey in alewife stomachs, may not be sufficient to sustain alewife growth. The increased prevalence of Mysis and common occurrence of predatory cladocerans in the diet of alewife means that alewife have shifted to a higher trophic position. " Alewife eat just about anything that is the right size, but the baby alewife pass through the size where they are consumed by the adults relatively quickly, based on what Brian Weidel has presented in the past couple of years. If adult alewife were a significant predator of larval or YOY alewife, why didn't they eat themselves out of existence before the salmon were introduced?

Sorry , Jerry, I had you and the Gambler mixed up, Getting old is a ..... But thanks for the help there!

At which time a less conservative approach may be warranted! Sure hope you are correct.

The runoff-nutrient relationship may short circuit at the levels of rainfall experienced this spring. First flush stormwater runoff is high in pollutants, but as an event continues, nutrient levels drop off dramatically. I have not seen any loading data for the lake for 2017, if you have some please point me to it. I don't recall hearing a lot of doom and gloom stories about cladophora along the LO shoreline this past summer, and in a high nutrient environment, filamentous algae would be among the first organisms to respond with accelerated growth. Also regardless of how much nutrient is available, as long as it is sufficient, the number of alewife eggs that made it through to hatch will be the controlling factor on YOY numbers next year. That we will not get a handle on until next spring. According to what I recall Brian Weidel of USGS reporting, the fish that hatched this spring are just starting to enter the food chain for the larger predators now, and will not be preferred adult Chinook chow for at least another year. So while your model works, there is a lot of uncertainty in it also, especially considering we had a year for which there is really no data on the lake since the 1960's. And it was a very different lake and watershed in the 1960's. I hope you are right. If I was watching William Tell shooting at an apple on his kid's head, I would hope he had a strong tendency to shoot high, but I'd rather he didn't shoot then take the chance that he'd shoot low.

On what data do you base this conclusion? I am told we will not see the results of spawning this year until next spring. I hope you are correct, but I don't think you have anything on which to base this conclusion.

http://www.glfc.org/pubs/misc/jsp97.pdf I can't find any specific reference to preference for native communities over introduced species. Perhaps you can provide quotes or references. I can quote from the FCO's for Lake Ontario, where the king is still entrenched as the top pelagic predator, with fishable populations of the other trout and salmon species, and the Lake trout is listed as the top benthic predator, but that would rebut your contention about preference for native species reestablishment on the part of GLFC. Even the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management and Action Plan (LaMP) uses coho salmon as one indicator, so could hardly be focused completely on native species introduction. And as has been pointed out to me, if GLFC and DEC and OMNR wanted to reestablish native species, they would stock a whole lot more kings and let them collapse the pyramid from the top, rather than try to reduce predation and let the invasive herring recover.

I could argue that there is no proposed reduction, this is maintenance of the status quo from last year, despite recommendations from many fisheries scientists that further reductions be made. The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission is involved in the management of all the lakes and has been for years. Ed Sander, former chair of the Monroe County Fisheries Advisory Board, was one LO rep for years. This is not new. Point by point (my bold) on the DEC position paper: "In 2017, "larger" size Alewife that support both Alewife spawning and food for large Chinook salmon are primarily composed of age-2 (yellow bars; 2015 year class) and age-5 fish (black bars; 2012 year class). As expected, catches of age-3 (2014 year class; red bars) and age-4 (2013 year class; blue bars) Alewife were poor. The extreme long, cold winters of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 contributed to the poor 2013 and 2014 year classes, and these poor year classes will continue to affect the overall stability of Lake Ontario's Alewife population for several more years. The adult Alewife population in 2018 will be composed primarily of Alewife ages 2, 3, and 6. The Lake Ontario Committee is cautiously optimistic that the 2018 Alewife population can support both successful spawning (given favorable weather conditions) and prey demand from Chinook Salmon, Lake Trout and other trout and salmon." If you go back and look at the age/size graph, you will notice that a couple of the colors on the key barely show on the graph. These are the "missing" year classes. You also need to remember that these data are from spring trawls, before this entire summer of chowing by all those mature salmon you've been catching has further reduced the year classes. Biologically, Adult (3 year old) kings that are going from 8-15 lbs to 25-30 lbs in a few months, focus on large herring; captains I have spoken with have indicated that they don't see the little ones in the stomachs of the 3 year old kings (at least this year). The other trout and salmon, younger kings, cohos, steelhead, lakers and browns will chow on the smaller ones, and the trout will chow on other baitfish, as will the large kings if there is nothing else to eat, but that is going to further reduce the remaining population in each year class. Reduce these residual fish enough, you get a reduction in the following year's fish because there are insufficient remaining adult herring to reproduce a strong year class. Continue this, mean weight of returning adult Kings will start to drop off, numbers also. Continue it long enough, you could see a reduction in size and numbers like in Michigan, or a catastrophic and sudden collapse as was experienced in Huron. While there is a degree of uncertainty to the magnitude of these effects due to errors of measurement, the past experience in Lake Michigan , where much more dramatic stocking cuts have been made in an effort to stave off collapse, with questionable effect, and Lake Huron, where the fisheries scientists I have read indicate the pacific salmon fishery is done, have to inform the decisions of responsible stewards. Or, as Andy Todd has suggested (my interpretation, I don't want to put words in his mouth), we could dump the science, just stock a bunch of fish and let the chips fall where they fall. This will save a lot of monitoring dollars. But if the biologists are correct and the "death spiral" starts to form, you can't exactly come around wagging fingers and blaming anyone but yourselves. With a good hatch in spring 2018 (data will show in 2019) and assuming there was a good hatch in 2017 (YOY data from 2018 will show whether this happened or not), increase might be warranted, but I'm going to trust the pHD's to make that determination!

Somehow I don't see people going to the hassle it takes to get an MS and even a pHD as agents of the government out to get me. These guys are the first to admit that they work from limited datasets and have to do some interpolation, but that is the best information anyone has, other than some big blips on graphs, which are to many far superior to actual scientific methods LOL. So, Henry Bud, where are these "nets teeming with bait" in the data presented lakewide. In 2015, they had one massive haul in the Canadian survey. This creates some " skue" to the dataset, but the Canadian average and other data are still less than half of what was measured in 1999 for 1 yr olds, and less than half of what there was for 2+ in 2000. Based on those numbers, a really conservative manager might have proposed cuts more like 50% of the 2015 allocation. And Jerry, please show me some evidence of the cut being a budget matter, and if the budget were threatened why hasn't LOU raised the hue and cry and run to the legislators for restoration of funding the way many have for overriding the fisheries managers? Steve and Andy have explained right along that this conservative reduction is designed to take pressure off the bait while still maintaining the excellent trophy fishery for kings, a pretty tough tightrope to walk. Maybe I missed something in these position papers (both still on the DEC Website if anyone cares to actually read this stuff! ) and the meetings, that you guys can all read between the lines and find out. The Pens do give more bang for the buck, so they have a better handle on what is out there with pen fish then with direct stocked, unless of course local predators chow all the penfish as soon as they are released. And the pen projects are popular, so elimination of that just creates more animosity. These guys have a tough job, trying to reconcile the science with a bunch of "stakeholders" who all the time cry "More, more, more!" And yes, I think the numbers of fish stocked could get permanently reduced if the bait does not come back as forecast. But we have been told it will get raised once this “hole” moves through the system, and my experience of the management in place now is that they are committed to the FCO’s, which specify stocking levels in Appendix C. Please also remember that the GLFC Stakeholders group had it clarified last spring that there is no intention of changing the FCO’s in the near future, this is a time consuming process that is not necessary unless there is long term change to the system. If this alewife decline is sustained and there is a threat to the overall objective of maintaining a trophy king fishery, I would expect a permanent reduction in stocking levels, but if, as they forecast, reduction in predator demand combined with a few good year classes results in restored balance, stocking will return to the levels indicated in the FCO’s. The 2017 Alewife Survey (Figure 2) Here's an alternative scenario, let's stick another 20% additional Kings, and raise that another 20% for 10 years after that. I'll likely be too old to enjoy the Atlantic Salmon fishery we'll have 20 or so years from now, because the quickest way to eliminate the king from the Lake Ontario predator mix is to stock a whole bunch more, crash the bait entirely, and then start over with what God put here to begin with, Lake Trout and Atlantic Salmon.

If you take the time to look at the graph, there is a lot of overlap from year to year in size of alewife, but there is definitely a two year period where the numbers are very low. Of course the biologists aging data does not trump your superior knowledge and x ray vision. Andy Todd from OMNR did offer an alternative last year, they can stop all the science and just dump a bunch of fish in, and if the average size plummets, oh, well, you've still got a box full. At least if it does not collapse totally. And if the alewife crashed totally there would be no need to stock all the control fish, they could focus on native species reestablishment.

It is possible that they took that unintentional reduction into account in not making further adjustments to the numbers, i.e. an additional cut this year. Many of the non-stakeholder advisors to the LO Committee in the scientific community had indicated a desire for greater reductions to improve the likelihood of an alewife rebound. Most of the SNAFU last spring was in Region 8, and management there has pledged vigilance to prevent a reoccurrence in spring 2018.