STOCKING LAKE O

[Row dog]

Had the pleasure of watching a Govt ON. hatchery truck out of North Bay emptying his load of 18mth. lake Trout {seneca strain} in Jordan . He had been in Grimsby just before and had said he was releasing 180,000. combined for both sites.

[SpoonPullers.com]

[BMAC]

I read they’ve been cutting back on king stocking in NY year over year for a while now given they’re worried about alewife populations.  Isn’t it risky to stock a lot of lakers given how long those things live?

[BillM]

I read they’ve been cutting back on king stocking in NY year over year for a while now given they’re worried about alewife populations.  Isn’t it risky to stock a lot of lakers given how long those things live?

What are you worried the lake trout are going to do?   Eat all the alewife?   

[malew]

Lake trout are eating gobies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RonRoach]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

[Got2Bite]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

[King Joe]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

that and lake lifespan is decades depending on waterbody, not 10-15.

King Joe Outa Here!

[DocK]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

I would say that is inaccurate. Yes they eat gobies and deep water sculpin (or just about anything for that matter), their primary food is alewife......period.

[drjoe]

Have yet to find gobies in the fish that we have taken ; mostly alewife with a few smelt ! Will keep looking !

[BillM]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

I would say that is inaccurate. Yes they eat gobies and deep water sculpin (or just about anything for that matter), their primary food is alewife......period.

I'd probably listen to the MNRF and the NY DNR over some guy on a message forum, just sayin'

[gordy mohr]

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

I would say that is inaccurate. Yes they eat gobies and deep water sculpin (or just about anything for that matter), their primary food is alewife......period.

I'd probably listen to the MNRF and the NY DNR over some guy on a message forum, just sayin'
[/quote

Lake trout eat anything . They live on average 10/15 years, so it dosent take a lot of math to see how much baitfish they consume. They do a lot of damage to the bait population - period

MNRF and the NY DNR have done sample studies, and Lakers eat primarily gobies, with little to no alewife found in the stomachs.

I would say that is inaccurate. Yes they eat gobies and deep water sculpin (or just about anything for that matter), their primary food is alewife......period.

I'd probably listen to the MNRF and the NY DNR over some guy on a message forum, just sayin'

ok Bill,  since you believe the mnr   ,   here is what they said :

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Lake Ontario Management Unit has been studying the lake trout population in Lake Ontario’s Canadian waters since 1996 (prior to that point, the trout were monitored binationally in a netting program). According to a 2016 Great Lakes Fishery Commission report released in March, lake trout numbers declined in the lake in the early 1990s following the invasion and reached their nadir in 2005. Since then, more have been gradually caught, albeit numbers are still below the ideal. The Ministry found that alewife is the most consumed food by weight.

[drjoe]

" numbers still below the IDEAL " ? What is that ?

[salmonman]

If you average the amount of fish consumed per year when comparing Lake Trout to Chinook Salmon, you would find that a Chinook Salmon will have a much higher consumption rate per year than a Laker.
  For one, Lake Trout have a much slower growth rate than Chinook Salmon.  This can be proven by the fact that a 20 pound salmon is usually 3 to 4 years old versus a 7+ year old Lake Trout.  Salmon are veracious eaters. 

Secondly, a Lake Trouts diet is much more variable than that of a salmon.  Where Lake Trout will combine benthic and mid-water prey items in their diet, Salmon are almost exclusively mid-water predators.  This means more Alewife and Smelt versus a Lake Trout that will also include bottom-dwellers such as sculpin and gobies.

Therefore I would say that salmon pose a much bigger threat to the Alewife population than Lakers.

Tightlines
Salmonman

[RonRoach]

Respectively 100% disagree. 1) Theres a lot more lakers in Lake O than salmon therefore more food consumed. 2) The longer anything lives the more food they eat. I mentioned 10- 15 years for a laker but as was pointed out to me it can be a heck of a lot longer, so at least 5 times the food consumption of a salmon and probably more like 8 to 10 times.   3) Yes they feed on the bottom but believe me they can be caught 20/30 feet down ,where theres alewives . Ive done that.

There is no doubt in my mind that less lakers would mean a lot more and bigger salmon. (as well as killing every cormorant )

[gambler]

If you average the amount of fish consumed per year when comparing Lake Trout to Chinook Salmon, you would find that a Chinook Salmon will have a much higher consumption rate per year than a Laker.
  For one, Lake Trout have a much slower growth rate than Chinook Salmon.  This can be proven by the fact that a 20 pound salmon is usually 3 to 4 years old versus a 7+ year old Lake Trout.  Salmon are veracious eaters. 

Secondly, a Lake Trouts diet is much more variable than that of a salmon.  Where Lake Trout will combine benthic and mid-water prey items in their diet, Salmon are almost exclusively mid-water predators.  This means more Alewife and Smelt versus a Lake Trout that will also include bottom-dwellers such as sculpin and gobies.

Therefore I would say that salmon pose a much bigger threat to the Alewife population than Lakers.

Tightlines
Salmonman

The comment about it taking a lake trout 7 years to eat what a salmon does in 4 years is true.  How ever, most lake trout live well past 7 yeas old, most kings do not live to see 4 years old in Lake O, and there are far more year lake trout swimming around Lake Ontario.  Compare stocking numbers and year classes for both species. you have at most 4 year classes of kings and possible 20+ year classes of lakers.  Another issues wiuth lake trouts longevity is getting them out of the system when bait levels are low.  In 3 years, the stocking cuts can make a big difference in kings.  Lakers will take a ton of years to get out of the system.