Author Topic: STOCKING LAKE O  (Read 6656 times)

BMAC

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2021, 02:17:24 pm »
I can totally believe that salmon eat more alewife.  That makes sense to me.  But if you've got too many salmon in the lake relative to the bait population you can cut stocking (as they've done) and the impact of those cuts is felt relatively soon given salmon only live a few years.   I just worry that if we keep pounding lake trout in the lake and that population gets high there isn't much that can be done if the alewife population continues to decline ( because Lakers live so long).   The only lever we have then is Salmon and no one wants to see that cut drastically.

Given the alewife population can be volatile wouldn't we be better off focusing more on Kings, Coho's rainbows etc?  I'm not against Laker fishing ( it's quite fun especially if you're jigging for them) but I'd hate to see the baitfish population crash and ruin the fishery altogether.


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.

SpoonPullers.com

  • Advertisement
  • *****

Kinghunted

  • Shaker
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2021, 07:33:09 pm »
I did a research paper on 'Sustainability of the Lake Ontario Salmon Fishery' many years ago in University; the biggest detriment to Alewife population is not necessarily the number that get eaten but the number that survive cold water/cold winter years!

The lake 'almost' froze over in 2013/2014 and again in 2014/2015.  I believe we 'lost' a good percentage of young of year Alewife those winters which have been trying to come back from.  Hence the reduced number of stocked fish of all types.

I'm not going to get in the discussion of salmon Vs. lake trout as I'm with the majority on this board that Lake Ontario is a sports anglers paradise for hard fighting big salmon it's nice to throw in a few 'greasers' now and then but I wouldn't have invested $120k in a fully loaded salmon rig if I was only going to catch lakers.  A 14' boat, some wire line, some cowbells and boom i'm on em.

As much as I like to see diversity of salmonid populations in the lake, given it's a put and take fishery for the most part; give me hard fighting quality table fare if I want to eat something out of the lake......period!

gambler

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2021, 11:56:15 am »
I can totally believe that salmon eat more alewife.  That makes sense to me.  But if you've got too many salmon in the lake relative to the bait population you can cut stocking (as they've done) and the impact of those cuts is felt relatively soon given salmon only live a few years.   I just worry that if we keep pounding lake trout in the lake and that population gets high there isn't much that can be done if the alewife population continues to decline ( because Lakers live so long).   The only lever we have then is Salmon and no one wants to see that cut drastically.

Given the alewife population can be volatile wouldn't we be better off focusing more on Kings, Coho's rainbows etc?  I'm not against Laker fishing ( it's quite fun especially if you're jigging for them) but I'd hate to see the baitfish population crash and ruin the fishery altogether.


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.

As fishermen, there is something we can do.  Fish lake trout.  Just C&R fishing lake trout will put a dent in the population.  Mortality rates are high in lake trout.  Lake trout were cut also and we had a couple years of hatchery issues that quotas were not even close to being met.  I feel cormorants are a bigger issue to this fishery and it needs to be addressed on both sides of the pond. 

stlhdr1

  • 30 Pounder
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2021, 04:53:05 pm »
anybody know went in at the SCGF ramp today?..saw the hatchery truck there!

dilligaf0220

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2021, 06:24:51 pm »
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 wish people would stop continuing to spread this myth.



You are looking for Page 172

http://www.glfc.org/loc_mgmt_unit/LOA%2017.01.pdf
A speed bump on a lake of stinkboats & blowboats.

gordy mohr

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2021, 08:44:46 pm »
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 wish people would stop continuing to spread this myth.



You are looking for Page 172

http://www.glfc.org/loc_mgmt_unit/LOA%2017.01.pdf







taken right out of the text,  " A long term
analysis of diet items from adult lake trout (>450mm
TL) shows that Alewife are the most consumed diet
item by weight (Fig 8.5.10)"
of all the things Ive lost, I miss my mind the most

BMAC

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2021, 06:56:16 am »
This was incredibly helpful! Hope you're keeping well.


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 wish people would stop continuing to spread this myth.



You are looking for Page 172

http://www.glfc.org/loc_mgmt_unit/LOA%2017.01.pdf

RonRoach

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2021, 09:02:59 am »
It makes me smile. All these reports and studies which cost tens(hundreds) of thousand of dollars and all you have to do is use simple brain power. All lakers - live much longer than salmon  = more bait consumed which equates to alewives, together with all the other nasties ie comorants being depleted.
 Yes lakers eat gobies but theres not enough of them to keep a cat alive let alone a 10 year old greaseball.

. Very simple and most Lake O anglers know this, but no , we have to spend spend spend. Insanity at its finest

drjoe

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2021, 07:29:14 am »
Good post ! " RonRoach "

salmonman

  • Shaker
  • **
  • Posts: 31
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2021, 10:29:42 am »
It is true that a Lake Trout will consume a lot more Alewife in its lifetime than a Salmon.  As shown by the chart here, Alewife do make up a majority of their diet.  I guess my facts are not completely checked. 

Bottom line is that the MNR is trying to bring back historically native species to the Lake.  This is why they have been putting so much effort into the Atlantic program and shelling out so many Lakers.  You can also throw in the Walleye stocking in the west end.  Alewife and Rainbow Smelt were not historically present in Lake Ontario either.  This is why they have been trying to bring back Cisco populations too. 

As long as anglers want Pacific salmonids, there will always be a conflict in the ministries agenda when it comes to stock.  Its a classic case of economics versus nature.  Restoring the Lakes historic diversity or keeping up the billion dollar fishery. 

I personally think that the Lake will never return to historic populations and that it is senseless to try and do so.  Somewhere a balance needs to be reached.

Tightlines
Salmonman

salmon_slayer06

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2021, 06:46:09 am »
we have same problem happening in Lake Michigan. feds planting lakers by the millions while the lake is trying to rebound from bait crash.

chessy

  • Shaker
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2021, 01:32:26 pm »
most chinooks don't live past 3 years

Bob Webster

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2021, 04:24:17 pm »
According to Lake Michigan studies salmon consume over 3x as much, per year, than Lake trout.
And salmon reproduce faster. 
Chinook consume vastly more amounts of alewife than Lake trout do.
Lake trout are also  believed to consume less as they get older because the start to grow less.

" Several generations of alewife and Chinook salmon will have cycled during the life-span of a lake trout. For example, during the lifespan of a lake trout age 12 which consumed 143.3 lbs. of prey there will have been four generations of Chinook salmon each consuming 147.7 lbs. of prey (590.8 total lbs.)"

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/how_much_do_lake_trout_and_chinook_salmon_really_eat_msg17_okeefe17

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk


Splaker

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2021, 09:38:52 am »
It is true that a Lake Trout will consume a lot more Alewife in its lifetime than a Salmon.  As shown by the chart here, Alewife do make up a majority of their diet.  I guess my facts are not completely checked. 

Bottom line is that the MNR is trying to bring back historically native species to the Lake.  This is why they have been putting so much effort into the Atlantic program and shelling out so many Lakers.  You can also throw in the Walleye stocking in the west end.  Alewife and Rainbow Smelt were not historically present in Lake Ontario either.  This is why they have been trying to bring back Cisco populations too. 

As long as anglers want Pacific salmonids, there will always be a conflict in the ministries agenda when it comes to stock.  Its a classic case of economics versus nature.  Restoring the Lakes historic diversity or keeping up the billion dollar fishery. 

I personally think that the Lake will never return to historic populations and that it is senseless to try and do so.  Somewhere a balance needs to be reached.

Tightlines
Salmonman


"Bringing back historically native species" isn't good science and fails to meet the demand of the tax-payer/angler whose wishes are to catch more chinook than L. Trout.  Brining back this "native" is a non-starter.. The original strain of Lake O LT is gone.  Same could be said for the Atlantic salmon program. 

These biologists (and those who are behind these policies) are not thinking pragmatically, which is worrying.  There seems to be am "emotional" attachment to some ideal "pre-contact" ecosystem - that ecosystem will never come back.  That's like trying to rid the Americas of influenza or dandelions or gypsy moths... add 100 other things to this list.

This fishery exists for our recreational pleasure NOT for the whims and desires of some idealistic eggheads.


cams

  • 24 Pounder
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2021, 09:41:13 am »
It is true that a Lake Trout will consume a lot more Alewife in its lifetime than a Salmon.  As shown by the chart here, Alewife do make up a majority of their diet.  I guess my facts are not completely checked. 

Bottom line is that the MNR is trying to bring back historically native species to the Lake.  This is why they have been putting so much effort into the Atlantic program and shelling out so many Lakers.  You can also throw in the Walleye stocking in the west end.  Alewife and Rainbow Smelt were not historically present in Lake Ontario either.  This is why they have been trying to bring back Cisco populations too. 

As long as anglers want Pacific salmonids, there will always be a conflict in the ministries agenda when it comes to stock.  Its a classic case of economics versus nature.  Restoring the Lakes historic diversity or keeping up the billion dollar fishery. 

I personally think that the Lake will never return to historic populations and that it is senseless to try and do so.  Somewhere a balance needs to be reached.

Tightlines
Salmonman


"Bringing back historically native species" isn't good science and fails to meet the demand of the tax-payer/angler whose wishes are to catch more chinook than L. Trout.  Brining back this "native" is a non-starter.. The original strain of Lake O LT is gone.  Same could be said for the Atlantic salmon program. 

These biologists (and those who are behind these policies) are not thinking pragmatically, which is worrying.  There seems to be am "emotional" attachment to some ideal "pre-contact" ecosystem - that ecosystem will never come back.  That's like trying to rid the Americas of influenza or dandelions or gypsy moths... add 100 other things to this list.

This fishery exists for our recreational pleasure NOT for the whims and desires of some idealistic eggheads.


Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk