|
|
Post by fishoil on Jun 16, 2016 9:24:40 GMT -5
With the proposed stocking cuts of 60%+ for salmon what do you see us fishing for in a few years? Will it be a trout fishery with the odd salmon? All lake trout? Rainbows?
I'm close to pulling the trigger on a new boat but am getting cold feet wondering what the future looks like on Lake Michigan. Would I be a fool for sinking money into a new boat with the future of salmon fishing on the lake in limbo?
|
|
|
|
Post by saugeye on Jun 16, 2016 11:44:40 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone can answer that. You would probably be best off talking to a fisheries biologist.
|
|
BFG
Full Member
Posts: 665
|
Post by BFG on Jun 16, 2016 13:00:04 GMT -5
Buy a rig you can trailer all over the place...versatile, safe, yet small enough for inland stuff if you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by saugeye on Jun 16, 2016 13:30:32 GMT -5
I agree with Clark. Want to fish Erie walleyes, trailer there. Want to fish Winnebago, superior, etc. you can move to where the fishing is good
|
|
|
|
Post by saugeye on Jun 16, 2016 13:31:55 GMT -5
Fishoil, do you live in the Green Bay Area?
|
|
|
|
Post by fishoil on Jun 16, 2016 15:04:10 GMT -5
Yes, I live just southwest of Green Bay in Freedom. I already have a boat for the smaller stuff. I'm looking at replacing my 25 footer with something a little bigger, just barely trailerable. The rig I'm getting close on is popular with the saltwater guys so I guess if Lake Michigan goes to heck there'll still be a market for it.  |
|
|
|
Post by saugeye on Jun 16, 2016 15:53:40 GMT -5
The king salmon fishery might, but the steelhead, coho, and ..... Laker fishery will probably increase
|
|
|
|
Post by saugeye on Jun 16, 2016 15:54:35 GMT -5
Sounds like walleyes on Green Bay are an incredible fishery
|
|
BlackOut
Full Member
BIRD IS THE WORD
Posts: 1,287
|
Post by BlackOut on Jun 16, 2016 17:51:47 GMT -5
There's always Lake O, plus Lake S an salt water sounds like a fun winter trip?  |
|
|
|
Post by northdrifter10 on Jun 20, 2016 12:53:06 GMT -5
I hate to hear the reduction of stocking and I can only imagine how the Lk Michigan economy is going to take a hit.
A total of 8 of us travel from MN every year and stay for a week in northern Door County and strictly go for salmon, something we don't have in Lake Superior, or at least the size. With the news of the reduction in stocking news we have already started looking for alternative vacation spots since we can stay right at home and catch greasers, steelhead.. and browns... maybe not the size but still we are addicted to the King's fight, and love to eat them.
Think of the hit, our crew alone spends at least $1000 each (Im sure more), so that $8k-$10k from our crew alone taken from the local economy... Think of all the other crews like ours...
The King Salmon fishery in Lake Michigan is an invaluable asset to your local economy...
|
|
BFG
Full Member
Posts: 665
|
Post by BFG on Jun 20, 2016 15:27:33 GMT -5
As long as there are alewives, there will be kings in Lake Michigan. Until they solve the mussel issue, it's a moot point to think it'll ever be great again. It will become totally dependent on the success rate of the natural reproduction, just like everywhere else in the world.
It's sad...but the good news is there hasn't been any hinting at reducing coho or steelhead plants.
|
|
|
|
Post by anchorman on Jun 20, 2016 16:21:46 GMT -5
I think the chinook fishing will continue to be about as good as last year, especially if the number of natural fish is good. Couple brutal winters maybe hurt a bit but future year classes should be better.
It does make me sick to my stomach that they won't cut coho and lake trout stocks by 60% as well. With 3.5 million lakers and 3 million cohos being dumped in the lake every year, they are chowing a hell of a lot more alewives than a million chinooks.
|
|
|
|
Post by rwalker on Jun 21, 2016 5:58:11 GMT -5
It does make me sick to my stomach that they won't cut coho and lake trout stocks by 60% as well. With 3.5 million lakers and 3 million cohos being dumped in the lake every year, they are chowing a hell of a lot more alewives than a million chinooks. So anchorman do you have any thoughts on why only Chinooks are being targeted for this reduction. I thought you may have read something or talked to someone that knows. A simple solution would be to simply raise & plant some alewives. But what do I know-I'm just a dumb fisherman.  |
|
|
|
Post by Quantum Leap on Jun 21, 2016 7:07:00 GMT -5
Chinooks eat 2.3 times more than any other species being planted that is why they are being targeted by fish managers.
That said, I would like them to eliminate lake trout plants to keep chinook numbers up. I have no problem with additional steelhead and coho plants.
|
|
sutty
Full Member
Posts: 310
|
Post by sutty on Jun 21, 2016 9:21:02 GMT -5
Since the Salmon and Steel head are not native they will always favor Lakers. Not that I am an expert just an opinion.
|
|
