The equally, if not more important, afternoon was spent discussing issues and the four options offered to conference participants. The LMMA asked that only these four options be considered during the breakout sessions.

 Options considered

1. Continue present stocking rates.

• 105% of 1986 levels of alewives consumed
2. Cut Stocking of all five species.

• Chinook - 33%, Steelhead - 39%, Lake Trout - 25%, Coho - 8%, Brown Trout -35%
• 80% of 1986 levels of alewives consumed
3. Cut Chinook Salmon stocking 45%; leave other species at present levels.

• 79% of 1986 levels of alewives consumed
4. Cut Chinook Salmon stocking 27%; leave other species at present levels.

• 90% of 1986 levels of alewives consumed

1. Increase Lake Trout stocking 34%
2. Reduce Chinooks 60%
3. Reduce Steelhead 68%
4. Increase Coho 42%
5. Reduce Brown Trout 51%

In preliminary documents and a white paper mailed to potential conferees, comparison levels between 1998 and 1986 were offered by LMMA through their computer modeling, which predicted that the present lakewide stock of salmonids now equals or exceeds peak levels. Reference was also made to the SIMPLE model developed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in the mid-1980’s.

Highly touted at the time, SIMPLE (Sustainability of Intensively Managed Fish Populations in Lake Ecosystems) has proven to have an accuracy rate of about 15-20%. Bill Horns (WI DNR) acknowledged LMMA recognizes models and assumptions can be wrong, and that some parameters are difficult to estimate, but he added “we may be on the verge of another lakewide breakdown.”

Parking Lot Options

While only four options were offered for consideration, the six breakout groups generated options and variations of their own to achieve reduced salmon stocks. Facilitators placed them in a “parking lot” for further consideration by the LMMA. Over 60 variations were offered and facilitator John McKinney highlighted those below in his wrap-up:
 
 

1. Increase creel limits
2. Shore Fishing important in stocking strategy
3. What about the LT (humpers)? If predators are cut will USFWS increase LT stocking?
4. Impacts of other “planktivores” on forage species mix (gizzard shad, sticklebacks, emerald shiners)
5. If Chinook have to be cut, insure LT proportion is not increased
6. Support 80% now and then adjust if necessary
7. Would favor option 1, if no commercial harvest
8. States must agree on stocking levels, too.
9. “Very political”
10. Like to see more steelhead in the lake
11. Fishing successes will make changes hard to sell
12. Be sure public understands the risk, if “do nothing” is the choice
13. Base on 1990, not 1986
14. Look beyond stocking reductions – at bag limits, more tourneys, free fishing
15. Burbot and LT could be the major problem
16. What would more mixed species scenarios show? (more modeling?)
17. Cut Chinook in areas where getting least return
18. Increase number of rods
19. Lakewide bag limits
20. Consider changes in bag limits and seasons as tools to accomplish objectives

There was a marked difference between the two previous lakewide conferences - on coho and perch, held on April 9 and December 10, 1994 - and the rationale for holding the stocking conference.

The proposal to reduce stocking in Lake Michigan is really a success story in disguise. Cleaner water, improved stream conditions, enhanced habitat and dam removals all have played a roll in increased natural recruitment of Chinook (25-45%), steelhead (15-20%), and coho at 5%. LMMA advises upwards of 3 million Chinook salmon annually are added to the Lake Michigan biomass through natural means in addition to the approximately 13.8 million fish planted annually by the departments of natural resources of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin (LMMA). Annual planting numbers have been fairly consistent for over 20 years.

BKD was another factor of consideration for the conference, as were other symptoms of ecosystem stress including poor recruitment of perch and chubs, and declines in growth rates of some salmonids. LMMA warns these stress indicators may be warning signals that stocking levels are exceeding the lake’s carrying capacity. Recent sampling also indicated BKD may again be on the rise.

 In 1994 EMS (early mortality syndrome) in the four states’ hatcheries and a court order restricting coho egg collections severely reduced coho stocking opportunities. Simultaneously, the dramatic collapse of yellow perch and perch recruitment capabilities created another management emergency in the lake. Both issues forced reduced creel limits on the angling community and the elimination of commercial harvesting of yellow perch for the foreseeable future.

While consensus building was not a goal at any of the conferences, there was a sense of direction achieved at the first two. Not so with the stocking conference. There was no sense of direction offered the LMMAs, with a multitude of comments, questions and concerns traversing the spectrum of every option and opinion imaginable. If anything, a feeling of disco-fort over any stocking cuts and the continued emphasis on lake trout permeated the workshop. One conferee (Kowieski) alluded to verbal comments of the presenters expressing a desire for a salmon fishery, but their writings alluding to self sustaining populations of lake trout.

Rob Elliott (USFWS) put much of the proceedings in perspective with his question “What will be the balance of the future? Too many alewives? Too much mortality of Chinook?” There were no ready answers.

Another participant (Appleby) expressed concern the LMMA was not promoting Great Lakes fishing, with murmurs of agreement coming from the audience. Michigan DNR reps took exception to the comment, although some charter captains present even challenged Michigan. The other three state representatives were embarrassingly silent on the issue.

Another interesting angler observation was that gobies have been found in 140 ft. of water and lake trout are feeding on them.

 Breakout Sessions

To obtain additional input on the pros & cons of each option, the conference was divided into six afternoon breakout sessions, established by pre-registration to reflect a good mix of all groups and states present in each session. They were facilitated by Sea Grant personnel. One facilitator claimed he had to scramble for input because he only had 4 anglers and 5 government types in his session. Some comments were:

 Session #1
 
 

1. Possible perch recovery due to low alewife numbers
2. Increased bag limits reduce predation biomass
3. Need better hatchery fish
4. Could reduce angler effort
5. Alewife explosion
6. Cuts c/b across the board
7. Look at other fish cuts besides Chinook
8. Constituent input on species mix
9. Time lag may affect results
10. May create a better fishery
11. Consider natural reproduction when determining lakewide cuts
12. Short term peace

1. May provide larger fish
2. More of a safety net on forage with less cut in Chinook
3. Possible quicker rebound of forage
4. Same – easy politically
5. Collapse may occur again
6. Fish will continue to get smaller
7. Doesn’t reduce stocking of other species
8. Allows for more healthy food chain
9. More stable fishery
10. Larger fish
11. Could lead to alewife overabundance
12. Consistent Bag Limits Lakewide

1. Difficult to reduce stocking programs – local/political pressure
2. Individual states should hold meetings on plans
3. Which states will lower stocking levels
4. Long negative indirect economic effects
5. Reduce LT planting
6. Saves some rearing costs
7. Further protection of forage base
8. Bigger T/S
9. Just enough Chinook to keep balance
10. Healthier Chinook
11. Over or under protection of alewives
12. Possible lower harvest
13. Public opinion backlash
14. Forage impacted by predation, weather, food and habitat

1. Political suicide – political impact
2. Less boats
3. Puts me out of business
4. Major negative perception
5. Major decline in fishery
6. Catch/unit effort will decline
7. Pits river anglers against lake anglers
8. Tackle industry will collapse
9. Major backlash
10. Negative impact on clubs
11. LT proportion of biomass will be increased

1. All species cut unilaterally
2. Cut Chinook – replace with other species
3. Incremental cuts may ease the pain
4. Consensus to cut 45% Chinook back to 3.3
5. Lake trout are not cut
6. May be already too late
7. Negative impact on steelhead, coho, brown
8. Shotgun approach
9. Hard sell to public
10. No change – constituency support – Lakewide management efforts would suffer
11. BKD would increase
12. Natural repro still positive
13. If Chinook are cut, cut LT or no increased
14. Important role of LT must be recognized

1. Reduce Chinook and LT
2. Cuts will reduce anglers, opportunities
3. Reduces Chinook but protects predator biomass
4. Reasonable reduction – 90%
5. Supports scientific data
6. Less stocking/dependence on stocked fish
7. Larger salmonids
8. Decrease in BKD
9. Reduced risk of collapse of forage
10. Less fish and weirs
11. Opens door to consistent lakewide bass limits
12. Negative public perception

The Pros & Cons were:

 Pro:
 
 

1. Seen increase in Chinook — good fishing
2. Maintain license sales
3. Science hasn’t proved that stocking should be cut — see many alewives
4. Catch rates not close to 1986 levels
5. Short term peace
6. Possible perch recovery due to low alewife numbers

1. Will not reduce predator pressure
2. Will not reduce BKD incidence
3. Increase chance of another crash
4. Possible reduced harvest of all species
5. Growth rates lower
6. Unbalanced system
7. Reduced fishing effort - economics

 Credits:

 Thanks to the LMMA, specifically the four fish chiefs of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin for sponsoring the conference and again recognizing the importance of dialog and information exchange between management and constituencies. While the process was not meant to be a consensus builder, it did accomplish the goal of generating information to constituencies — and in turn getting input back from those present. The process was a proven communication tool twice before, and to that extent it was successful again this time.

 The LMMA is to be commended for its willingness and desire to get input from constituency groups on such an important and controversial matter.

 The meeting was again moderated and facilitated by IL-IN and MI Sea Grant personnel. Our thanks to agents Pat Charlebois, Ron Kinnunen, Mike Klepinger, John McKinney, Brian Miller and Chuck Pistis who moderated the day’s proceedings.

 As late as Friday evening September 11, there was an LMMA desire to change the moderator from a Sea Grant member to an angler — the chairman of the U.S. Advisors committee to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. It was opposed by the GLSFC on the basis of perceived compromise to neutrality, impartiality, credibility and professionalism by everyone attending the conference, and that Sea Grant would more comfortably fill that role.

 The Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council hosted the meeting.

Video Taping:

The information dissemination portion of the meeting (plenary) was audio/video-taped by Wisconsin DNR. This will be a valuable management tool. The tape may be made available at cost plus shipping charges, if enough interest is generated. Our thanks to Bill Horns for a copy of this tape.

Meeting Date

 In response to questions raised by more than one conferee on the date selected for the meeting, Indiana Fish Chief Bill James stated “There is no good time for such a conference.” This is especially true considering management’s position. If the decision is made to cut stocks it must be before eggs are collected at weirs. If a decision to cut stocks were made after eggs were collected and surplus eggs had to be trashed, it could be a politically fatal decision for some personnel and was widely perceived as unsound, with probable bureaucratic repercussions.

 However, in consideration of those targeted for attendance — the angling community — the date selected was one of the worst (attendance reflected that), and everyone involved in the recreational fishing industry knows it. In April 1994 there were 93 angler reps/leaders present at the Coho conference, and in December 1994, there were 119 anglers and 27 commercials present at the Perch conference. For this workshop there were 40 anglers, 6 charter captains, 10 observers, 6 Sea Grant facilitators and 31 government types present. If anglers are to be better represented at such meetings, more consideration must be given to date selection.

Lake Trout program

 Management expressed surprise over vocal opposition to the emphasis placed on the lake trout program by LMMA. The sport fishing community enjoys the five species mix being planted in the lake and desires it to be continued in proportionate measures. It is strongly opposed to the disproportionate emphasis placed on this species, the federal emphasis on only lake trout and the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on this philosophically and biologically flawed and, to date, woefully unsuccessful program.

Breakout Sessions

 Although DNR personnel attended the breakout sessions, their input was to be limited to observers and to clarify a question if called on. However, in four of the sessions their input consisted of dialog and debate on various comments offered by anglers — possibly intimidating others from speaking openly and without reservation. One facilitator had to repeatedly ask one DNR member to refrain.

Fish Community Objectives (FCO)

 The Lake Michigan Fish Community Objectives were often referred to in the papers issued by the LMMA in preparation for the Stocking Conference. These same FCOs were soundly rejected in their original form by the sport fishing community, when circulated for public comment. Yet they were distributed in 1995 without change, and are as contentious today as they were four years ago. LMMA’s white paper is laced with references to their FCO and the “Preservation and enhancement of natural reproduction of native fish,” with reference to salmonids almost as an afterthought or appeasement process. There continues to be a perception permeating throughout the sport fishing community that lake trout are perceived by LMMA and the feds to be the salvation of the Great Lakes. This view is rejected by the sport fishing community.

 If and when these Lake Michigan Fish Community Objectives are revised to better conform to contemporary concerns and needs, the angling community must be invited to participate in the revision process — not after the fact when the document is circulated for comments. Only then will a true partnership spirit be achieved and a document generated that expresses a consensus approach to ecosystem management to Lake Michigan’s resources. ----------------- If, as one speaker said, “Chinooks are the ecosystem managers of Lake Michigan,” they are also Mother Nature’s machine that drives both this recreational fishery and the economic dynamics. ----------------

Stocking Conference Statistics
 

Registration:

95 Registered

79 Paid

93 Present

Comparison of Conferences:

.	Coho	Perch	Stocking
#Sportfishing Reps/leaders	93	120	46
Sportfishing Organizations	46	47	19
Government (all agencies)	32	39	35
Sea Grant	4	6	6
Total present	129	193	93