upangler.com

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: LBDN fishery  (Read 6161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fish-ti-cuffs

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
    • UPangler
    • Email
LBDN fishery
« on: March 16, 2017, 05:19:44 PM »

I'm not sure if this was posted anywhere else on the forums or not, thought it was interesting.

https://www.facebook.com/tricia.ann.7505/posts/10154129874487434

Brett
Logged
Brett Lewis
FishTiCuffs
><))))°>

"It's on like Bing Bong, Jack" --Uncle Si

Dire Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1016
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2017, 06:41:38 AM »

These gentlemen are cherry picking among the data. It is not light penetration or water temperature or food abundance. It is light penetration, combined with water temperatures, combined with seasonal food abundance. A fish integrates ALL of these factors to influence its movement and distribution, daily, seasonally and annually- particularly a fish that is both schooling and mobile like walleye stocks.

Stream outflow driven turbidity does two things: 1.It reduces water clarity, as Jerry Peterson states. 2.Those suspended organic particles actually absorb sunlight energy, warming the water column...particularly in a shallow system like northern Little Bay de Noc.  IF seasonal rainfall is the sole or principal driving influence regarding light penetration (turbidity) in northern Little Bay de Noc, you would expect two outcomes during high rainfall years, assuming seasonal temperature ranges are comparable: 1. Lower water clarity and lower phytoplankton production along with lower zooplankton production, adversely impacting young yellow perch/walleye and forage fish. 2. Higher water temperatures, particularly in July/August. Water clarity has increased, which also increases light penetration to depth.


I can pull some data Steve Pothoven, NOAA researcher, obtained from intensive sampling a recent(2014?) flood event in Lake Michigan inshore waters off the mouth of the Grand River. What he found was that much (actually, nearly all) of the nutrients and suspended particulates were filtered-up by inshore Quagga sp. mussel populations and were removed within a couple of weeks after the flood event ceased.  How far did this nutrient and turbidity plume's influence extend offshore during after the flooding? Not very far and for not very long.  He was quite surprised by how quickly this massive inflow was sucked-up by mussel colonies.  Did it do much for phytoplankton and zooplankton growth stimulation? No, the influx disappeared too quickly... 

Which do you think would generate a larger volume discharge flow rate number: All the rivers discharging to Little Bay de Noc north of Gladstone, or the Grand River in flood?

What Mr. Petersen left out is that mussel colony expansion became first significant around 2000, increasing EXPONENTIALLY from 2005 until around 2012 in inshore waters of Lake Michigan. My point? There are a hell of a lot more invasive mussels out there happily filtering away since Jerry Peterson's retirement date. Does he acknowledge changes in water filtration rates related to current mussel density levels? NO!

IF you are going to compare water temperature data, those data better be taken at the same date, site, time of day, and depth in the water column...Yet,you will still have variability that is sky-high because of annual temperature differences.  No mention that any of this occurred beyond other groups sampling the temps. in the bay...one of them (EPA) at the same general site. Does the water in the Bays de Noc sit in one place day after day? Hell, no! Other than the very head end of Little Bay de Noc, seasonal winds move that water around on a near-constant basis

The massive stocking rates Peterson mentions historically were intended to raise fish densities to high levels to saturate the system with spawning fish in the spring and regenerate reef spawning stocks THROUGHOUT the Bays de Noc. This effort occurred during a time of far more abundant forage densities, particularly for yellow perch, trout perch and alewife. Odd that he leaves this out to focus only on the declines in stocking and spawner return rates to the head-end tributaries in Little Bay de Noc.  Jerry is from an era where the MDNR produced a "hatchery product" to augment sport fisheries. As productivity has declined in the Great Lakes management emphasis has shifted to try to keep fish stocks in-sync with declining forage, including the Bays de Noc.

No mention of trends-through-time regarding Walleye condition, which would give you a snap-shot of whether fish were forage limited. I doubt it due to stock declines. Round goby are numerous in the Bays de Noc. Are they preferred wallleye forage? No. A pre-Quagga sp. mussel invasion era food habits assessment of walleye in the Bays de Noc (n-416) indicated that yellow, perch, trout perch, stickleback and alewife were preferred forage.

If Jerry wants to advocate for a hatchery supplemented fishery, that is his choice and option. He got himself in hot water a handful of years back for engaging in unauthorized fish stocking in the Bays de Noc.

I know the tribes plant Bays de Noc waters with walleye. Not mentioned. Is this an offset for the damage they do via netting? No.

"Illegal commercial fishery"...very valid points. The subsistence regulations state: One hundred pounds round weight IN POSSESSION at any point in time...as he said, an clear-cut incentive to violate. The other side of that coin? Selling subsistence catch is illegal;SO IS BUYING THESE FISH from subsistence fishers!

No nets can be set within .3 of a mile of a spawning trib.  The Consent Decree specifies Lat/Lang. grid values that nets cannot be set, within specific date intervals.  These should be enforced. 

If you read the annual Consent Decree catch reports, subsistence netting violations are quantified(what percent of illegal netters get caught is still an unknown) in them.   The fine is generally $150 with no loss of fishing license or gear, even for repeat offenders.  Don't look for the USFWS to prosecute anyone from their sting investigation...

 Jerry should have also mentioned that taking walleye during spawning is highly destructive to the resource, since you are killing fish and removing them from the population in the interval when they are about to contribute to population maintenance and growth. In effect, they survived and concentrated those eggs and sperm when others did not, and then they are removed from the stock when they are about to convert that energy into future populations via spawning.

I could not find an updated double crested cormorant food habits study more recent that the early 2000s (2004-2006) on Green Bay/Bays de Noc waters. The researchers assessed stomach contents from 1,429 double crested cormorants. They found yellow perch, dominated spring stomach contents with alewife and round goby also present. As yellow perch and alewife shifted to deeper offshore depths-cormorants usually feed in 40FOW or less depths-round goby and gizzard shad dominated cormorant diet. Based on the MDNR trawl data (Zorn/Mistak et al) for forage fish, which indicates that round goby dominate the trawl catches, I would say it is a pretty high probability "guesstimate" to choose round goby of the principal food item in double crested cormorant diets.

Do not try to eat a gizard shad, they do not "reward" your fillet efforts!  Trust me on this one.

I posted this earlier:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271518390_Walleye_management_strategy_for_Little_Bay_de_Noc_Lake_Michigan_Michigan_DNR_Fisheries_Division_Marquette_Fisheries_Research_Station_and_Northern_Lake_Michigan_Management_Unit

On page fifteen, at the bottom are two tables that are arrayed based on matrix values for a variety of assessed walleye population trend variables, as well as forage fish agundance determined from trawl sampling.  A type of matrix grid was assembled to enable summed scores to be tabulated to achieve a final Barometer Score coefficient that would be inidcative of the trend of the assemblage of values.  Table A lists Barometer Score values for fifteen years of compiled data.  Table B lists Barometer Scores for the last five years of the study date range.

What the authors are attempting to do is to look at each of these individual parameters through time to determine whether they remain within the 40th to 60th percentile bands(GRAY Bars on each graph) or exceed the 30th and 80th percentile values that were pre-specified as Red Flag triggers to increase or decrease stocking, respectively.

Assuming that the five year data have continued to trend the same way(Table B), stocking increases are probably going to be recommended.  The authors state earlier in the analysis that other studies have indicated that stocking can function to suppress adjacent year-class survival rates in wild populations of walleye that are largely self-sustaining. 

Basically, why caution is being exercised prior stocking increase recommendations.

Logged

always gone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1671
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2017, 12:02:42 AM »

Many valid points in video...bottom line..the fish found food elsewhere..Lake MI is a bathtub....very small to them... and fish will go where the food is. They left because there is better food elsewhere. Follow the food. Everything needs to eat.
Logged
Adam Petrelius

qbfishon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2017, 01:00:20 PM »

if you want to know why lbdn fishery is down go to saunders point and watch "subsistence" netting taking all the breeding walleyes. Its amazing that I'm not allowed to even fish for walleye this time of year, to allow the to spawn per Michigan Law, but there are no restrictions to people of tribal affiliation. Subsistence netters pulling up to pull nets in their brand new full size diesel 4x4 pickups, who work full time at good paying jobs right along side us, but need to net to survive, yeah right. IMO there is no subsistence lifestyles anymore. Follow the definition of subsistence.
Logged
Quinn Barrios
Grady White 208 Adventurer "Q-Boat"
MY HEROES DONT WEAR CAPES, THEY WEAR DOGTAGS

DanaM

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2017, 06:42:47 PM »

Agreed blond haired blue eyed Indians with more money than us, hell I know a millionaire with his "card" :(


if you want to know why lbdn fishery is down go to saunders point and watch "subsistence" netting taking all the breeding walleyes. Its amazing that I'm not allowed to even fish for walleye this time of year, to allow the to spawn per Michigan Law, but there are no restrictions to people of tribal affiliation. Subsistence netters pulling up to pull nets in their brand new full size diesel 4x4 pickups, who work full time at good paying jobs right along side us, but need to net to survive, yeah right. IMO there is no subsistence lifestyles anymore. Follow the definition of subsistence.
Logged

Dire Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1016
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2017, 07:24:11 AM »

Many valid points in video...bottom line..the fish found food elsewhere..Lake MI is a bathtub....very small to them... and fish will go where the food is. They left because there is better food elsewhere. Follow the food. Everything needs to eat.

Good point!  Round goby, though abundant in both the Bays de Noc, Green Bay proper and Lake Michigan, have been found to be "intermediate" in terms of caloric density when compared to yellow perch, alewife and smelt, the previous dominant food items from Great Lakes walleye food habits studies. So simply stating that round goby are abundant and SHOULD serve as a replacement forage item in walleye food habits doesn't carry much weight.
Logged

puckhead

  • New Guy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2017, 08:26:52 AM »

Time to stop looking at the problem and start working on solutions, It is a sad fishery I drive by that lake everyday what used to be thieving fishery thus booming business helper is now barren. You might see a sail boat. If you plant potatoes you get potatoes. Put the solutions on the table and work towards them.
Logged

Dire Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1016
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2017, 09:35:30 AM »

IF it was "my bus to drive": 1.) Work to restore yellow perch numbers to the northern Little and Big Bays de Noc. 2. Close the subsistence under ice and immediate pre-spawn open water fisheries down completely. At minimum, no under ice fishing after January. 3. Plant supplemental walleye to augment Whitefish, Days, Sturgeon, and lower Escanaba Rivers numbers following enactment of items 1and 2.
4. Support enhancement and preservation of the alewife stock in Lake Michigan at something near 100kt lake wide biomass levels.

Enacting this effectively is the overriding issue.


This will give you a snapshot perspective of how reliance on a lower caloric density fish for your main forage item has impacted Double Crested Cormorants in northern Lake Michigan waters:

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/2013_VanGuilder_Seefelt.pdf

I found some "numbers" for yellow perch energy density range(for all fish there is a seasonal variance in energy density, as well as a level of variation for adults versus juveniles)---roughly 1,100 to 1,500 calories/gram wet weight.  Using the VanGuilder et al values from Table 1., alewife would rank highest as valuable forage for walleye, followed by yellow perch, then round goby....another reason we SHOULD be fighting to save the alewife stocks in Lake Michigan, not just as a forage component for salmon.

Also, this is  another valid reason to argue that lake trout should not be the keystone predator in the food web for the lower Great Lakes...they just don't fit-in well anymore in an invasive species dominated system that can't be restored to any high level of semblance of that which existed when they were the dominant predator, prior alewife invasion.
Logged

qbfishon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2017, 06:31:09 PM »

IMO , my solution is too stop walleye fishing, I went to perch fishing myself. It just burns my butt to see the area stripped of a resource that is enjoyed by a lot of people to quell political pressure to sooth wrongs from 300 years ago. I understand why no one wants to plant fish when they get sucked up in the nets.  just when the walleye are gone , smaller mesh will be after the perch .What s next in 100 years are we going to allow musliums to make ieds because they need it to subsist 
Logged
Quinn Barrios
Grady White 208 Adventurer "Q-Boat"
MY HEROES DONT WEAR CAPES, THEY WEAR DOGTAGS

Dire Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1016
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2017, 07:11:04 AM »

Round goby energy density peaks in the fall. They are multiple times a year spawners (probably 3 to 4 at this latitude and temp. regime) with this peak associated with fat store buildup prior gamete production over winter months and prior their fist spring spawning surge.

Not a great fish to have as a replacement to the alewife stock for multiple reasons!
Logged

Perch2_Fayette

  • New Guy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2017, 10:16:03 AM »

Did I read that subsistence tribal netters can set gill nets like 0.3 miles from an active walleye spawning rivers?

That is like only 400 yds from a river mouth which is nothing.   If tribal netters truly value the resource, they would vote themselves not to target spawning fish that are vital to sustainability of the resource.  I wonder what it is they talk about during tribal meetings.

I'd like to see perch closed also a couple of weeks during peak spawning season. tons of spawners are harvest in Garden bay every year just before they spawn and all the boats are packed right into the key spawning areas.  That can't be good for the fishery. 

     
Logged
Lets go Fishing!!

Dire Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1016
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2017, 06:56:27 AM »

There are some GPS coordinates that block them seasonally from fishing subsistence nets past these latitude lines.  Are these enforced routinely?

Is the fine a deterrent if they are caught or is it just the cost of doing "business".  For sport fish captured immediately prior spawning, the fillet to round weight proportion is probably around 40% due to the weight of the gonads, particularly for females.

A hypothetical catch of walleye: 100lbs round weight= roughly 40lbs of fillets(closer to 50lbs for fish not close to spawning) at any one time in possession at 15.00/lb market value yields a legal possession catch of $600 of fish. Violation average cost= $150.   

Penalties are supposed to be set-up to function as a deterrent to discourage illegal behavior...not as an incidental cost to violate fishing regulations.
Logged

Al the Infidel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 974
    • View Profile
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2017, 09:35:52 AM »

  If tribal netters truly value the resource, they would vote themselves not to target spawning fish that are vital to sustainability of the resource.  I wonder what it is they talk about during tribal meetings.   

Chief to the tribal bookie, "Still got the real books in a safe place? Make the payment to our federal judge this year? Didja hear em whining on UPA the other day? Bwahahaha, Up your's white boys!"

Life member of Infidels for equal rights for whites  roll()
Logged
Al Johnson~ SEMPER FI

jd fish

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • 2 beautiful Sayings, love you grandpa, & FISH ON
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2017, 06:00:26 PM »

How about a new concept. We all know that a person must be 20% native American to be considered native American. With today's science this can be proven with a simple cheek swab. Should not the federal government now require this simple inexpensive test to prove ancestry and with this the privileges that go along with proven ancestry? I wonder how many Elizabeth Warrens will be unmasked.
Logged
THE 4 "F"s of my life
1. Fishing
2. Flying
3. Friends
4..............Forgot.

DanaM

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: LBDN fishery
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2017, 06:35:35 AM »

Lets not forget about all the other fish that are not sellable or unwanted that get dumped in the woods ie pike, bass, suckers etc

Make the Indians use traditional methods to catch fish no modern equipment then they can truly understand their heritage :)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3