FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
Stakeholder Meetings
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Collaborative Process
• The stocking reductions in 1999 and 2006 were determined by agencies and broughtto the public for comment.
• This process involved stakeholders from the beginning.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Establishment of Goals and Objectives (Work Shop 1)
• Stakeholder Meetings– April 2011 in Michigan– June 2011 in Wisconsin
• Stakeholders represented various Lake Michigan angling organizations from Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
• Both Stakeholders and Agencies Stated Goals and Objectives
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Core Stakeholder Group
• Jeff Sadula, Calumet harbor Sport Fish Association (Illinois)• Ed Makauska, Trollers Unlimited (Illinois)• Bill Meier, Salmon Unlimited (Illinois)• Mike Ratter, Salmon Unlimited (Indiana)• Mike Ryan, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Advisor (Indiana)• Jeff Guerra, Michiana Steelheaders (Indiana)• John Robertson, Michigan United Conservation Clubs (Michigan)• Denny Grinold, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Advisor (Michigan)• Dennis Eade, Michigan Steelheaders (Michigan)• Todd Pollesch, Great Lakes Fishery Commission Advisor (Wisconsin)• John Hanson, Great Lakes Sport Fish Federation (Wisconsin)• Duane Nadolski, Great Lakes Sport Fish Federation (Wisconsin)
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Work Shop 2 Overview November 5th Portage, Indiana
• Discussed How Managers Make Decisions• Reviewed Chinook salmon abundance, natural
reproduction, growth, condition, and health• Reviewed prey abundance and forecasts• Learned about the Lake Michigan Decision Analysis
Model• Developed scenarios to evaluate and refine the model
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Work Shop 3 Overview January 23rd Chesterton, Indiana
• Reviewed Lake Michigan Decision Analysis Model outcomes
• Discussed model outcomes• Began discussions about stocking
strategies
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Next Steps
• Communicate the State of Lake Michigan to the Public• Further Discussion of the proposed stocking options• Assist agencies in making an informed decision to
meet fishery goals and objectives• Conduct workshops (Benton Harbor and Wisconsin) to
gather public comments• Focus on the concept of a particular stocking
option NOT tactical decisions
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Collaborative Process• The stocking reductions in 1999 and 2006 were determined by agencies and brought to the public for comment. • This process involved stakeholders from the beginning.
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessSummary of Stakeholder Meetings
Workshop 1 - Stakeholder Meetings• April 2011 in Michigan, June 2011 in Wisconsin
Workshop 2 Overview - Stakeholders• November 5th Portage, Indiana
Workshop 3 Overview - Stakeholders• January 23rd Chesterton, Indiana
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessSummary of Stakeholder Meetings
Workshop 4 – Stakeholders and public • April 14, 2012, Benton Harbor, MI
Workshop 5Milwaukee WI – May 1Green Bay WI - May 8• Reviewed information, presented stocking options, received Feedback, presented link to online survey for further comments
Workshop 6Milwaukee WI – August 9Green Bay WI - August 7• Presented Lake Michigan Committee proposal to reduce Chinook salmon stocking, received feedback and comments
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Indicators of Chinook Abundance, Growth, and Health
Scott HansenWisconsin Department of Natural Resources
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Michigan/Wisconsin Weir Returns
Chinook salmon catch rates (MI charter)
Angler Success (Harvest > 3 Chinook salmon per day MI)N
umbe
r • 1
,000
Per
cent
of A
ngle
rsN
umbe
r per
hr
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
010203040506070
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1965
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
Stoc
king
(mill
ions
of s
mol
ts)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Har
vest
(mill
ions
of p
ound
s)StockedHarvest
Lake-wide Stocking and Harvest(Chinook salmon only)
StockingReductions
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Estimated Chinook Salmon Recruitment in Lake Michigan, 1967-2009
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
196719701973197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009
Mill
ions
of
smol
ts
Total StockedNatural
Year Class
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Collection Year
Year Class
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2007 56.1
2008 82.9 55.3
2009 65.7 62.3 53.5
2010 67.2 61.5 69.1 54.5
2011 Age-5 Age-4 Age-3 Age-2 Age-1
OTC Project Results
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Growth/Condition Indices• Salmon growth and condition
– Index of forage availability and pred/prey balance– Provides information to aid stocking decisions– Several “Red Flags” indices:
• Creel weight at age 2+
• Weir weight at age 3+
• Weir standard weight of a 30” Chinook
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Weight at age 3(Strawberry Creek weir)
Weight at age 2(June-July MI fishery)
Standard weight(Strawberry Creek weir)
Gra
ms
Gra
ms
Gra
ms
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
2.2
3.3
7.7
4.4
6.6
5.5
8.8
9.9
11.0P
ounds
6.6
8.8
17.6
9.9
15.0
11.0
19.8
22.0 Pounds
7.5
7.9
9.3
8.4
8.8
9.7
10.1 Pounds
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Trout egg thiamineconcentration
Signs of disease at weirs(percent healthy)
Salmonine composition(percent non-Chinook)
Nm
ol /
gram
Per
cent
Per
cent
80
85
90
95
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Chinook salmon
Lake trout
Coho
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Year
Perc
ent o
f the
har
vest
Salmonid Community Composition
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Summary• Natural reproduction is high (> 50%)
• 2011 alewife recruitment low
• Catch rates recently stabilized (MI waters)– Lower Chinook harvest in WI in 2011
• Improving size at age– 2010 alewife year class assimilated well into population
• Disease incidence very low
• Salmonine composition improved
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan 2011Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations
Chuck Madenjian, Bo Bunnell,
Tim Desorcie, Margi Chriscinske,
Melissa Kostich, and Jean Adams
USGS Great Lakes Science Center
Ann Arbor, MI
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
USGS Bottom Trawl Survey
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
USGS Acoustics Survey
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
1973 1981 1989 1997 20050
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Num
eric
den
sity
(num
ber/h
a)
1973 1981 1989 1997 2005
Year
0
10
20
30
Bio
mas
s de
nsity
(kg/
ha)
Adult alewife
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Bio
mas
s (g
/ha)
Year
Lake Huron
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Per
cent
Age 3
Age 0
Age 5
Age 6
Age 8
Age 2
Age 1
Age 4
Age 7
2006
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Per
cent
Age 3
Age 0
Age 5Age 6
Age 2Age 1
Age 4
Alewife length-age distribution, 2009
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Per
cent
Age-0Age-1Age-2Age-3Age-4Age-5Age-6
Age 0Age 1Age 2Age 3Age 4Age 5Age 6
Alewife length-age distribution, 2010
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
15 35 55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215
Total length (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Per
cent
Age-0Age-1Age-2Age-3Age-4Age-5Age-6
Age 0Age 1Age 2Age 3Age 4Age 5Age 6
Alewife length-age distribution, 2011
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Deepwater sculpin1.86 kt
Slimy sculpin1.93 kt
Bloater3.70 kt
Rainbow smelt0.47 kt
Ninespine stickleback0.04 kt
Alewife7.64 kt
Round goby1.83 kt
Lake Michigan, 2011
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
1973 1980 1987 1994 2001 2008
Year
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Lake
-wid
e bi
omas
s (k
t)Bloater
Slimy sculpin
Deepwater sculpinRainbow smelt
Round goby
Ninespine stickleback
Alewife
Lake Michigan, 1973 - 2011
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Conclusions and prognosis
• Total prey fish biomass, as estimated by the bottom trawl, in 2011 was 17.47 kt, the lowest value in the time series
• Total prey fish biomass has remained below 30 kt since 2007
• Two factors contributing to low prey fish biomass: prolonged period of low bloater recruitment and intensified predation by Chinook salmon on alewives
• Adult alewife biomass density has remained low for an eight-year period and age distribution has been truncated during the past three years; characteristics similar to Lake Huron alewife population prior to collapse during 2003-2004
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Conclusions and prognosis (continued)
• Whether or not alewife population collapses in Lake Michigan depends on several factors: Chinook salmon abundance, alewife year-class strength in 2012, environmental effects on alewife survival
• To quantify bottom-up effects, additional years of surveillance and additional analyses needed
• Prey fish biomass in 2011 was far below FCO
• Whether prey fish biomass will ever exceed 100 kt in the near future will depend on the ability of the bloater population to recover
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Searching for a good stocking policy for Lake Michigan salmonines
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
Dr. Michael L. Jones and Iyob Tsehaye Quantitative Fisheries Center, Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Decision Analysis
Structured, formal method for comparing alternative management actionsMain components: Specify objectives Identify management options Assess knowledge and account for uncertainties Use model to forecast possible outcomes
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
The Big QuestionHow many salmon and trout should we stock into Lake Michigan each year?
• more stocking leads to greater harvest, and thus benefits ‐ unless…
• too much stocking leads to poor feeding conditions and increased mortality, but
• too little stocking may lead to negative effects of alewife on other species
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
How many salmon and trout are out there?
Total salmonine numbers have remained relatively stable since 1990 Reduced Chinook stocking has been offset by increased wild fish production More recently, improved survival of older Chinook salmon has also offset reduced stocking
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
How many salmon and trout are out there?
Age‐3 Chinook numbers
Salmonine abundance
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
How much do they eat?
Total consumption has remained fairly stable for last decade Chinook salmon have accounted for more than half of total demand consistently since 1980 Large alewife accounted for more than 40% of total prey consumed since 1980, except in the late 1980s when small alewife dominated
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
What happens to salmon and trout feeding when prey numbers are low?
• Chinook salmon consumption has declined when alewife abundance declined
• Chinook salmon size and condition decrease• Similar, but weaker pattern for lake trout
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Policy simulation model
Accounts for uncertainties: key uncertainties concern prey recruitment (supply) and predator feeding (demand)
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
What weKnow
Management Decisions
Prediction of Outcome
2
12
1
ˆˆ
n
xn
ii
)(ƒ x
52 xxy
LMDA
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
The model forecasts possible future changes in fish populations and harvest, given a stocking policy
• There are many possible futures, so we need to look at the range of possible (likely) outcomes– This range tells us what we think is most likely, but also
what might happen– Mainly we’re interested in how likely it is that bad things
will happen• Here’s how it works…
Model results
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ale
wife
Bio
mas
s (k
t)
Year
Generating results:First simulation
Average biomass = 243 kT
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
1 kT = 1000 mT = 2,200,000 pounds
243kT = 530,000,000 pounds
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
First simulation:average alewife
biomass = 243 kt
Generating results
0
2
4
6
8
10
< 100 100-500 > 500
Num
ber o
f Sim
ulat
ions
Biomass (kt)Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
220,000,000 lbs
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Generating results:Second simulation
Average biomass = 52 kT
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ale
wife
Bio
mas
s
YearLake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Second simulation:average alewife biomass = 52 kt
Generating results
0
2
4
6
8
10
< 100 100-500 > 500
Num
ber o
f Sim
ulat
ions
Biomass (kT)Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
220,000,000 lbs
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
… and so on (e.g., results after 15
simulations)
Generating results
0
2
4
6
8
10
< 100 100-500 > 500
Num
ber o
f Sim
ulat
ions
Biomass (kt)Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
220,000,000 lbs
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
An example result: Status quo policy
0
10
20
30
40
50
<100 100‐500 >500
Num
ber o
f sim
ulations
Biomass (KT)
In 45 of 100 cases alewife biomass
was between 100 and 500 kt: OK
In 26 of 100 cases alewife biomass was less than 100 kt: BAD
Lake Michigan Decision Analysis - 2012
220,000,000 lbs
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Evaluating Options
Lake Michigan Stocking Strategies public meeting April 14, 2012
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Evaluating Options
• Each of the 4 options lowers risk using different species mixes
• All involve stocking reductions for 2013
• Public feedback, model outputs, and field data for determination of management strategy
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Stocking OptionsOption 1 - 50% reduction in Chinook salmon, then
evaluate after 5 yearsOption 2 - 50% reduction in Chinook salmon, alter
Chinook stocking based on feedback policyOption 3 - 30% reduction in Chinook salmon and 10%
others (except lake trout), alter stocking based on feedback policy
Option 4 - 30% reduction in Chinook salmon and 10% others, alter stocking based on feedback policy
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Feedback Policy• Based on weight of age-3+ Chinook salmon
• Chinook salmon weight strongly influenced by abundance of alewife
• Weight below 15.4 lbs - reduce stocking
• Weight above 17.6 lbs - increase stocking
• Potentially adjustments every 3 years
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Model output for Option 1• 50% reduction in Chinook salmon, then evaluate after 5 years
LowAlewife biomass
Low Chinook weight
(<13 lbs)
Low Chinook harvest
Low Chinook catch rates
(<8 / 100 hrs)
Option 1 14% 23% 21% 19%
Status Quo 23% 35% 20% 20%
Probability
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Model output for Option 2• 50% reduction in Chinook, use Chinook weight as
feedback to determine actions (3 year interval)
LowAlewife biomass
Low Chinook weight
(<13 lbs)
Low Chinook harvest
Low Chinook catch rates
(<8 / 100 hrs)
Option 2 12% 20% 21% 19%
Status Quo 23% 35% 20% 20%
Probability
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Model output for Option 3• 30% reduction in Chinook and 10% others (excluding
LAT), use Chinook weight as feedback to determine actions (3 year interval)
LowAlewife biomass
Low Chinook weight
(<13 lbs)
Low Chinook harvest
Low Chinook catch rates
(<8 / 100 hrs)
Option 3 4% 12% 10% 9%
Status Quo 23% 35% 20% 20%
Probability
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Model output for Option 4• 30% reduction in Chinook and 10% all others, use
Chinook weight as feedback to determine actions (3 year interval)
LowAlewife biomass
Low Chinook weight
(<13 lbs)
Low Chinook harvest
Low Chinook catch rates
(<8 / 100 hrs)
Option 4 3% 11% 7% 6%
Status Quo 23% 35% 20% 20%
Probability
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Comparison of OptionsLow
Alewife biomass
Low Chinook weight
(<13 lbs)
Low Chinook harvest
Low Chinook catch rates
(<8 / 100 hrs)
Option 1 14% 23% 21% 19%Option 2 12% 20% 21% 19%Option 3 4% 12% 10% 9%Option 4 3% 11% 7% 6%Status Quo 23% 35% 20% 20%
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
Online Survey resultsOPTION 1: 50% reduction in Chinook salmon stocking for 2013.Average Rating: FAIR (1.97) (Poor = 1, Fair = 2, Neutral= 3, Good = 4, Excellent = 5)
Ranking: 69% WORST, 11% BEST (Worst = 1, Best = 4)
OPTION 2: 50% reduction in Chinook salmon stocking for 2013. Average Rating: between FAIR and NEUTRAL (2.61)Ranking: 2% WORST, 20% BEST
OPTION 3: 30% reduction in Chinook salmon stocking and 10% reduction in coho salmon, steelhead, and brown trout stocking for 2013. Average Rating: NEUTRAL (2.96)Ranking: 8% WORST, 15% BEST
OPTION 4: 30% reduction in Chinook salmon stocking and 10% reduction in coho salmon, steelhead, brown trout, and lake trout stocking for 2013. Average Rating: between NEUTRAL and GOOD (3.28)Ranking: 20% WORST, 54% BEST
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
Online Survey results
Averagerating
IL IN MI WI
Option 1 1.97 1.84 2.09 2.21 1.54 FAIR
Option 2 2.61 2.33 3.12 2.95 1.95 FAIR to NEUTRAL
Option 3 2.96 3.46 2.44 2.83 2.80 NEUTRAL
Option 4 3.28 3.25 3.00 3.12 3.69 NEUTRAL to GOOD
Rate your level of comfort with the four options (Poor = 1, Fair = 2, Neutral= 3, Good = 4, Excellent = 5)
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
Online Survey resultsAveragerating
IL IN MI WI
Option 1 1.68 1.61 1.84 1.88 1.27
Option 2 2.56 2.30 2.78 2.80 2.25
Option 3 2.77 3.11 2.56 2.54 2.92
Option 4 3.00 3.01 2.84 2.78 3.54
Rank the four options below (Worst = 1, Best = 4)
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process - Approved
50% reduction in Chinook salmon lakewide• Michigan will take larger percentage (66.8%)• Wisconsin’s reduction will be 37.8%
Wisconsin will reduce Chinook salmon stocking to 723,700 fish starting in 2013
Can reduce stocking of coho, rainbow, brown or lake trout in coming years to limit reductions in Chinook stocking
Will use the weight of female age 3+ Chinook salmon at Strawberry Creek Weir as the feedback to adjust stocking levels up or down in the future.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
Use 2012 stocking quotas as the base for all futurechanges to stocking numbers
2012 CURRENT STOCKING PLANS BY WISCONSINBrown trout Chinook Coho Rainbow Steelhead
WI 672,000 1,164,000 500,000 120,000 510,000
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
ChinookSalmon
2012 Plan3,327,500
2013 Plan1,663,750
%Reduction
WI 1,164,000 723,700 37.8
IL 250,000 230,000 8.0
IN 225,000 200,000 11.1
MI 1,688,500 560,000 66.8
TOTALS 3,327,500 1,713,700 48.5
MI stocking in Natural Reproducing streams = 405,000
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
Results from online survey indicate a strong desire from Wisconsin anglers to reduce other species Option 4 had the highest rating of any option Option 4 was ranked the best option
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
Chinook salmon equivalents may be used instead of Chinook salmon for the reductions
Wisconsin must take at least a 30% reduction in Chinook salmon (349,200) The remaining reductions can be taken in Chinook salmon or other species based on the following equivalent table. (~90,792)
Chinook salmon equivalents
1 Chinook salmon = 2.2 Brown Trout
3.2 Coho Salmon2.4 Rainbow Trout2.3 yearling Lake Trout5.8 fall fingerling Lake Trout
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
Female age 3+ Chinook salmon from Strawberry Creek Weir, Wisconsin will be the feedback parameter
Ask Lake Michigan Technical Committee and Salmonid Working Group to look at that parameter and suggest others if appropriate Basically, increase stocking when weights above 19.8 lbs (9 kg) or decrease when weights below 15.4 lbs (7 kg) – 3 year average Between 19.8 and 15.4 lbs, look at trends and adjust if needed
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy ProcessApproved Detail
Reductions in Lake Trout can occur Limit reductions to secondary sites (i.e. near shore sites) Risk that if these fish are not produced it may be hard to get them back Maximum = 250,000 fingerlings Maximum = 150,000 yearlings 108,000 chinook salmon equivalents
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
Next Steps• Create options for specific reductions by
county• Create presentations and develop options
at October LMFT meeting• Present information to Lake Michigan
Fisheries Forum in December• Receive public comment on options and
make decision by January 1, 2013
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT……………………..….. we make fishing better
Lake Michigan Salmon Stocking Strategy Process
• Comments and Questions?
• [email protected]– 414-382-7921
• [email protected]– 608-266-8782