sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fish kill

Michigan’s 200 Years of Changes

A special report from the Huron River Watershed Council ISSUED: 2014

Michigan boasts 11,000 lakes, 36,000 miles of streams and rivers, and is surrounded by the largest system of freshwater lakes on Earth. Over the past two hundred years, European settlers and their descendents have done much to alter these natural systems and the creatures that inhabit them. In this special report, Paul Steen, HRWC Watershed Ecologist, examines how humans changed diversity and abundance in Michigan since 1830 through greed, stewardship, ignorance and intention.

1830-1873: A History of Abuse In the 1830s, many immigrants settled in Michigan and set up homes, farms, and villages. Resource extraction from the land Sturgeon line the docks in this late 19th century photo. Sturgeon and water defined this period as the set- were initially killed and wasted, and later harvested to near extinction. tlers worked hard, used Michigan’s natural source: Public Domain, Freshwater and Marine Image Bank resources, and thrived. Iron, copper, timber, and fish were in plentiful supply. During these early times, Michigan’s fish- to destroy by dumping these reasons, fisherman saw the sturgeon as eries seemed inexhaustible. Lake whitefish fish on land or purposely injuring them a nuisance species and often killed them was deemed as “one of the highest quality and dropping them overboard to die. just to get rid of them. They piled the food ever discovered throughout the The sturgeon became the “poster child” fish in long rows on shore and burned world” and it “rivaled the great forest of of this pointless waste. In 1973, former them and, because of the sturgeon’s white pine or the buffaloes on the west- DNR Fish Division Chief Wayne Tody high fat content, they also burned the ern plains.” However, commercial wrote, “Today, we deplore the slaughter carcasses in boat boilers. quickly depleted the abundant fisheries of of the passenger pigeon, the American By 1860, a market for a whole early Michigan as the industry grew in the bison… But very likely, no single animal variety of sturgeon products took hold, Great Lakes and major rivers. The Michigan was ever subjected to such deliberate transforming sturgeon from a nuisance Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wanton destruction as was the lake species to a commodity prized for its Fish Division has estimated that at least sturgeon.” hide, meat, and (caviar). This market 1.2 billion pounds of fish (whitefish and Lake sturgeon are very large (fifty took the sturgeon out of the frying pan others) were taken from Lakes Superior, pound fish were common, and many and put it into the fire and, in just two Michigan, and Huron from 1830-1890. reached a length of nine feet). The bony generations, the sturgeon of the Great As catches declined, the fishing industry plates covering the sturgeon would Lakes would be harvested near to developed new exploitive nets, gear, and get entangled in fishing nets and tear extinction. techniques to keep the catch high. Other the webbing. Also, as the sturgeon is Today the sturgeon can still be found. non-target species, known as “bycatch”, a , fishermen mistakenly But it is a state-listed threatened spe- suffered as a result. thought that these fish ate the young cies and a federal species of concern. A standard practice for fisherman was of the more valuable species. For these Federal and state scientists have had some success in protecting and build- number of fisherman, the amount or ing the sturgeon population by creating type of gear, or even total catch. In ad- sturgeon habitat in Lake Erie and Lake dition, the state legislature questioned St. Clair. the Commission’s effectiveness and cut its budget in half. Eventually the full 1873-1929: The Beginning budget was reinstated, but the legisla- of — ture told the Commission that it could Stocking no longer allocate money toward the Spurred on by a need to more carefully rearing and stocking of commercial fish. manage the resource, in 1873, the state The fish rearing operations in Detroit government started the precursor of were abandoned. After the turn of the the Michigan DNR Fish Division – the century, under considerable pressure Board of Fish Commission. The Com- from commercial fishing enterprises, mission’s first responsibility was to the federal U.S. Fisheries Commission “select a suitable location for a State began to operate these empty facili- fish-breeding establishment, for the ties – but the state government was The Michigan grayling was prized for artificial propagation and cultivation of officially done with assisting the com- its beauty and abused for its love of White Fish and such other kinds of the mercial fishing business. the artificial fly. credit: Public Domain, better class of food-fishes as they may The Commission, with their days U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service direct.” managing Great Lakes commercial fish- eries behind them, began to invest more heavily in and non-existent regulations. Native inland waters and intensi- brook populations declined be- fied their efforts to spread cause the introduced brown trout was species around more competitive and able to thrive the state. One of the Com- in slightly warmer waters. However, of mission’s main jobs was particular lament is the decline and loss to move native species to of the beautiful grayling during this time new areas. By the turn of period. the century, the Commis- The extirpation of the grayling was sion spread brook trout the result of overharvesting and habitat Commercial fisheries harvested over a billion from the Upper Peninsula loss. As railroads spread, northern pounds of lake fish from the Great Lakes in the to 1,500 different streams streams became more accessible to late 1800s. source: Public Domain, Freshwater in the Lower Peninsula. more people and, as F.A. Westerman, and Marine Image Bank Warm water fish were MDNR Fisheries Division Chief noted not ignored; the Commis- in 1961, “This greatly intensified the By 1890, after 20 years of attempt- sion spread bass, , and panfish to angling pressure on these beautiful ing to revitalize the commercial areas where they had not been, such as fish, which for sheer beauty and game- through rearing and stocking, the Fish isolated lakes. ness could not be excelled by any Commission knew that their efforts The Fish Commission also brought other fish… No fish responded more were on a “break even” level. Whitefish new species to Michigan by widely avidly to the artificial fly. Long lead- commercial fisheries still existed, but spreading both “German” trout and ers to which three and even four flies the catch was very low and many of the “California” trout. German trout were attached often yielded successive fishermen could not earn enough to became better known as brown trout, catch of three and even four fish at a stay above the poverty level. With no a name change precipitated by the gen- cast… soon the question arose, ‘What regulations in place, the fishermen were eral dislike of Germany during World had become of the grayling?’” William keeping everything they caught despite War I. California trout were eventually Montague, a pioneer at Paris, Mecosta size, and the fish stocked by the Fish called rainbow trout. It is a shame that County, recalled an adventure with Commission were not given enough neither of the old names stuck, since grayling when interviewed in his old age. time to mature and reproduce. most people today do not know that “One spring the grayling were running In 1897, the Fish Commission at- brown and rainbow trout are not na- up the Hersey. We noted they had some tempted a political route to fight deple- tive to Michigan. difficulty in passing an obstruction in the tion. However, the state legislature did Like the commercial fishery, game stream, so we placed a canoe crosswise not allow it to place limitations on the fish suffered from poor management at that point and caught over seven PAGE 2 hundred in one afternoon.” Needless to say, sustainability was not a main- stream concept in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Unwise logging practices decimated Timber operations in particular river habitat in caused extensive erosion, damming, Michigan throughout and altered stream hydrology. White the 19th century and pine harvesting was in full swing in into the 20th century, the latter half of the 19th century as seen in this picture throughout Michigan. All of the prime of the Muskegon River. grayling streams were also in water- source: Used with sheds that had tremendous expanses permission, Bentley Historical Library, of white pine. Loggers used streams University of Michigan, as the conveyance to transport the BL005914 logs from upper parts of watersheds down to the Great Lakes, where they could be picked up by ships and car- ried to population centers like Chicago, Detroit, and Buffalo. It was common 1930-1967: Fisheries Research 2) lake and stream surveys; practice to build dams and create large In 1921, the state legislature created the 3) lake and stream habitat improve- impoundments to store the logs. Upon Michigan Department of Conservation ment structures; time to transport, the loggers would (MDC), the forerunner to the current 4) nursery areas identification and breach the dam and ride the logs Department of Natural Resources. The protection; down the river in a huge rush of water. legislature consolidated the various 5) migration studies; As the logs traveled downstream, they state natural resources agencies under 6) disease studies; and destroyed the stream banks, and the the roof of the MDC, including the 7) fish sampling techniques. Fisheries Commission. With the founding of IFR, fisheries In 1930, the MDC took management took steps towards more a huge leap ahead for holistic management rather than man- fisheries management agement focused on maximizing com- with the founding of mercial and recreational fish harvests. the Institute for Fish- IFR used scientific principles to under- eries Research (IFR). stand the life histories of fish – the why The research produced and how of fish life and reproduction from IFR quickly began and the management of habitat and to steer the course of populations. fisheries management, Throughout this early era of fisher- not only for Michigan, ies research, managers and scientists The Institute of Fisheries Research is located on the but also for the whole continually formulated new ideas and University of Michigan campus in the Museums Annex country. improved methods. In particular, new Building, seen here as it appeared on May 12, 1942. The IFR, located stocking concepts and techniques It hasn’t changed much over the years. photo: C.M. Flaten, IFR on the University of evolved over time. MDC was no longer Michigan’s Ann Arbor in favor of introducing new species of campus, was, and still foreign game or fish food, which was a released water scoured the streambed is, a place for professional scientists to major change from the practices of the of important gravel and rock substrate. collaborate with students and profes- 19th and early 20th centuries. However, Overharvesting and the timber sors to combine scientific research the MDC continued to move millions of practices took their toll on the grayling. with practical on-the-ground manage- native bass and perch to isolated inland Other members of the grayling family ment. From 1930 to 1945, IFR devel- lakes, and it continued to stock nonna- are still living in Montana, Europe, and oped and implemented almost all of tive brown and rainbow trout. the Arctic, but fisherman last reported the modern day concepts of fisheries For example, historically fish were catching the Michigan Grayling in 1935. management. Activities included: stocked as fry, but more and more man- 1) creel censuses – checking the agers began stocking fish as fingerlings catches of sport fisherman; PAGE 3 – young fish that had grown enough to A New Management as the Civilian Conservation Corps. At be about the size of a finger. Research Technique this time, fishery managers regarded initially had shown that fingerlings were IFR researchers and MDC field staff stream improvements as a miracle that far more likely to survive to than developed “stream improvement” tech- would transform recreational fishing. In younger fish. nology in this era and used it as a tool instructions on how to properly build By 1950, IFR had shown using creel to increase the total amount of fish that a stream improvement project, IFR surveys and marked fish that less than a stream could sustain. Stream improve- founder Carl Hubbs stated that “any 2% of fingerling trout survived to be ment structures were contraptions project, even when built improperly or caught by a fisherman. Surveys after made of wood and rock and placed in the wrong position in the stream, stocking legal-sized trout indicated into streams to provide additional fish would still probably do more good than that the return was much higher, and habitat or alter the flow, substrate, or harm.” so stocking full-sized trout became a stream banks. For example, fishery man- Yet, as the principle aim was to more common practice. agers could copy natural overhanging quickly increase the quantity of habitat, banks by putting wooden little regard was paid towards maintain- boxes in the stream and ing the stream’s natural appearance. Im- covering them with rock, provements often consisted of wooden or scour away excess sand boards and heavy rebar that looked out by placing rock vanes or of place in a stream setting. In addition, boards into the stream to managers based their plans more on constrict the channel size the expectation of what the structures and increase water veloc- would do rather than on hard evidence ity. Stream improvements or experience. It wasn’t until many were primarily used in years later that research began to accu- trout streams, although mulate on whether the structures actu- they were occasion- ally were favorable for fish. In hindsight, ally used in warm-water it is very possible that these structures streams or lakes as well. were not doing anything other than In Michigan, stream concentrating the fish in the stream and Scientists were experimenting with the planting of adult- improvement work began making it easier for fishermen to catch sized fish through the 1940’s and this became the in the early 1930’s on the them, and were not aiding reproduction standard practice during the 1950’s. photo: IFR, 1947 Little Manistee River, fol- in any fashion. lowed soon after on the Stream improvement practices Stocking methods also changed Huron, the Rouge, and the East Branch eventually improved. In 1967, Wisconsin after research showed that stocking of the Black. The MDC built several scientists wrote Guidelines for Manage- itself might be harmful to naturally thousand structures in the first five ment of Trout Stream Habitat reproducing populations. Fifteen years years using department labor as well after the founding of IFR, Fisheries Di- vision chief F.A. Westerman presented a rather revolutionary idea: “The evi- dence… leads to the conclusion that stocking is unnecessary, uneconomical, or even harmful if the species suited to the environment are already pres- ent.” While stocking is still widely used across Michigan as a fisheries manage- ment tool, it is typically done in a more thoughtful and rigorous way than what was done in the 19th century and most of the 20th century. Early fisheries manager surveys creek improvement work. Original caption: “A structure which will make the dry fly fisherman cuss. This cross log makes it practically impossible for him to fish.” photo: IFR, 1936

PAGE 4 in Wisconsin, which managers and scientists were quick to dub “The Bible” of stream improvement. In this publication, the authors introduced a new theory on stream improvement. In contrast to what Carl Hubbs taught in 1932, they saw that improvement structures had the potential to damage the stream if built improperly. They put a greater emphasis on using vegeta- tion, rock, and other natural materials in constructing stream habitat, so that an improved stream looked less like a construction zone and more like a natural river. However, despite these advancements in stream improvement projects, their success was still varied. This “V” deflector (foreground) and “boom” bank cover Research showed, as often as not, that (background) were installed in the East Branch of the the “improvements” were not doing Black River in 1931. Photo: IFR anything in terms of actually improving conditions for fish. fix itself. They argued for using rock managers must begin to study the However, the Wisconsin document riprap to stabilize stream banks and streams as a whole instead of as indi- went well beyond attempting to fix the erecting fencing around cattle cross- vidual reaches. These concepts were 1930’s era of stream improvement. It ings. If managers could reduce incom- novel in 1967 and started to make first also promoted ideas about preventing ing sediment, a stream would be able steps towards our current approach habitat degradation in the first place. to eventually flush excess sediments of watershed management and stream The authors supported the position downstream with no additional human restoration. that managers should help the stream aid. In addition, they proposed that Fish Kill on Ford Lake Not all of the management techniques developed in this era are viewed positively by the framework of early 21st century environmentalism. Rotenone is a poison extracted from plants in the pea family that indigenous people often used for fishing. In the 1930’s, IFR scientists developed rotenone as a tool that could remove, sample, or destroy fish populations. They performed studies to determine lethal doses for different fish species, sizes, and habitats. Scientists and managers used rotentone to sample fish where non-lethal methods would not be effective. However, rotenone was also often used to eradicate the “rough” fish (non-game large fish) in inland lakes, to reduce competition for newly introduced trout and other game fish. In 1973, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) used rotenone on Ford Lake in Ypsilanti in order to kill the common , suckers, and bullhead and open up the water for stocked walleye, rainbow trout, and bass. The whole Fish managers stir up the episode was a debacle. First, in order to make the limited amounts of rotenone witches brew of derris root more effective, upstream dams reduced water flow to Ford Lake in order to drop (rotenone) and water in order the water level by three feet, creating drought like conditions throughout the Ann to poison Clear Lake in Alcona Arbor and Ypsilanti reaches of the Huron River. Second, the organizers expected County. photo: IFR, 1938 to have one thousand volunteers to help with the cleanup, but only twenty-five people showed up. Apparently picking up dead fish is not a very appealing volunteer event. The small number of people could not handle the tons of dead fish, and the rotting carcasses lined the lake for two weeks. A local government official eventually brought in prisoners to clean up the fish. Third, the dam operator on the downstream end of Ford Lake accidently opened the dam, releasing the poison into Belleville Lake and unintentionally killing thousands more fish. All told, over 400 tons of fish died in the two lakes. The day after the Belleville kill, an embarrassed DNR put a short-term ban on the use of rotenone. Ironically, Ford Lake has a thriving carp population today, showing that this fish is not so easily removed. PAGE 5 IMPROVED MANAGEMENT With improved knowledge of fish and ecosystem science, fisheries managers were able to create more effective rules and regula- tions. Through 1930-1965, fish- ing licenses catch limits, closed seasons, and minimum fish sizes were introduced and enforced. All of these regulations were designed to prevent excessive harvesting and allow fish to reach adult size and reproduce successfully. This lamprey mouth seems like some- thing from a sci-fi horror movie, but to a HIGHLIGHTS: 1930-1973: Invasives Attack! fish it is an all-too-real threat to survival. credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • 1931: The first recreational trout Throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st licenses were required ($1.75 centuries, there have been numerous for adults), and the first catch intentional and accidental fish intro- ibly changed the ecology of the Great limits were set (15 brown and 15 ductions into the Great Lakes and its Lakes. rainbow trout per day). tributaries. Only some of these species The story begins with sea lamprey, were able to establish reproducing • 1933: The MDC established native to the Atlantic Ocean. Sometime populations. As mentioned previously, closed seasons for several spe- in the 19th century, the sea lamprey non-native brown and rainbow trout cies – times of the year that entered the Great Lakes – most likely were intentionally introduced and fishermen were not permitted through the Erie Canal, which runs thrived, and are major contributors to to fish. from the Hudson River in New York Michigan’s sport fisheries. The Ameri- State to Lake Ontario at Buffalo, New • 1935: People using dynamite on can eel and the cutthroat trout are York. From there, the fish used the fish were given high fees ($100- two examples of fish that were intro- Welland Canal to bypass Niagara Falls 300) and/or jail time (90-120 duced but failed to establish reproduc- and enter Lake Erie, where it was first days). ing populations. Fish introductions can officially recorded in 1921. By 1938, sea • 1939: Catch limits were placed be considered good or bad depending lamprey were spawning in the rivers on Great Lakes smallmouth bass on any particular person’s perspec- that flow into Lake Michigan and Lake (10 fish per day). tive. For example, the Huron, and by 1948 the fish appeared • 1945: Tougher catch limits were has been around for almost 150 years in Lake Superior. placed on trout (15 fish or 10 and is widely considered a nuisance Lampreys were not unknown to the pounds), and limits were placed species, although many anglers like the Great Lakes prior to the sea lam- on panfish (25 per day). challenge of landing such a large fish. prey invasion. In fact, the Great Lakes Regardless of perspective, there is no • 1955: Snagging fish was deemed system has four native lamprey species: argument that the Great Lakes fishery illegal (keep a fish after putting a chestnut, silver, American brook, and ecosystems have changed irreparably. hook through a fin or the body). northern brook lampreys. Both the Coho and Chinook were chestnut and silver lamprey are parasit- • 1959: Size limits were set on pike introduced in the early 20th century ic fish, meaning that in their adult stage (at least 20 inches). but did not thrive as a sport fishery they feed on the blood of other fish. • 1964: “Trout streams” were until they were actively stocked start- However, they rarely kill their host fish. designated giving special restric- ing in 1966. The stocking of these two On the other hand, sea lampreys tions on lures, catch limits, and salmonids in particular is a very inter- are parasitic fish that quite readily kill size limits. esting ecological story of the interac- their hosts. The sea lamprey picked • 1965: Brook Trout become the tions between the salmon, the native the lake trout, the top predator of State Fish of Michigan. lake trout, and two invasive species: the Great Lakes, as its preferred host. the alewife and the sea lamprey. The Prior to the sea lamprey invasion, com- interactions of these species irrevers- mercial harvests of lake trout averaged PAGE 6 15 million pounds per year. By the 1960s, the 1966-1972: Using Fire catch had dwindled to Fight Fire to 300,000 pounds At the same time the sea lamprey per year. The lake were decimating the top predators of trout population was the Great Lakes, a small , in rapid decline, and the alewife, entered the Great Lakes eventually the species through the same route as the sea lam- became extinct in prey. The decline of top predator fish Lakes Ontario, Huron, allowed the alewife population to grow Erie, and Michigan. unchecked. In addition, the alewives A small population out-competed native forage fish (lake of lake trout was One sea lamprey would be enough to , emerald shiner, some spe- able to survive in make life miserable for this poor lake cies of chub, and yellow perch). By the Lake Superior. Other trout; two spells certain doom. 1960s, the alewives ate so much of the Great Lakes fish like whitefish, walleye, credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plankton crop of the Great Lakes that and steelhead (lake-run rainbow trout) they exhausted the bottom of the food were also hit hard by the sea lamprey, techniques were developed, like placing web and reduced competitor popula- though not as severely as the lake barriers at the mouths of the nursery tions. Ironically, they put such a strain trout. streams and releasing sterile male lam- on the food web that millions of the preys to compete alewives themselves died each summer, with the normal washing up on Great Lakes beaches males. All of and creating a stinky mess requiring these techniques tractors and bulldozers to rake, pile, helped reduce and clear away the carcasses. the Great Lakes populations of sea DEFINITIONS: lamprey by 90% Native or indigenous: species from their peak that exist in an area as the result abundance. The of natural processes, with no control efforts human intervention. are still ongoing today, since it has Non-native or exotic: spe- proven impos- cies that have been introduced sible to eradicate either accidently or intentionally A fisheries manager applies TFM to the sea lamprey the Manistique River in order to kill by humans. Accidental introduc- altogether. spawning sea lamprey. tions include fish entering through Lake trout credit: T. Lawrence, Great Lakes freighter ballast water and the populations have increased since the Fisheries Commission construction of canals. Intentional effective control of the lamprey. Lake introductions happen through trout have returned to all of the Great rogue individual actions like dump- Lakes, with varying success. Their ing a pet fish into a lake or through Invasive Control Success population in Lake Superior was noted purposeful management like the The sea lamprey is one of the few as “good” and “improving” in a 2009 stocking of salmon into the Great Great Lakes invasive species that EPA document, while the other Great Lakes. A non-native species may fisheries managers have successfully Lakes have populations described as or may not be considered invasive controlled. In the 1950s, scientists “poor” and “mixed.” In general, lake depending on the consequences. developed a lampricide called TFM trout populations remain far below his- (3-trifluoromethly-4-nitrophenol) toric levels, and heavy restrictions on which killed only the sea lamprey and Invasive: non-native species that commercial and recreational lake trout negatively affect the physical and/ had no discernible effect on other fishing remain. wildlife. This chemical, sprayed into lam- or biological components of the prey nursery streams, is quite effective, natural ecosystem. although expensive. Eventually other PAGE 7 with the decimation of the lake trout. The Lakes’ original ecosystem can- Managers began cultivating millions not be restored, and it will continue of the non-native Coho and Chinook to change with every new invasive (king) salmon in the State’s fish hatch- species that is established. The zebra eries and planted year-old fish into and quagga and round gobies tributaries. The program proved very are among the newer non-natives that successful: the salmon survival rate was have joined the Great Lakes ecosys- extremely high, and the alewife pro- tem; the silver and bighead carp (aka vided a plentiful food source. In Lake Asian carp) are potential invaders just Michigan, Coho were able to grow waiting for an electric barrier to fail. from one ounce to ten pounds in 17 With so many potential variables, it is months. The annual summer die-offs of difficult to predict the future for fish in millions of alewife also largely ceased, the Great Lakes. although smaller die-offs still occurred. The arrival of the sea lamprey and 2000-Present: Modern Issues alewife mark a distinct milestone in Stocking the life of the Great Lakes. The over- From the 19th century, when brown harvesting of whitefish and sturgeon in trout and rainbow trout were first the late 19th and early 20th centuries introduced, to the mid-20th century, altered many ecological interactions of when the Coho and Chinook salmon the Great Lakes, but the sea lamprey, were stocked to control alewives, Dead alewives cover this Lake alewife, and subsequent salmon stock- has shaped and defined Michigan shoreline. credit: Great ing radically changed the ecosystem to Michigan’s fisheries. Fisheries manag- Lakes Fisheries Commission such a great extent that today, most ers’ primary purpose in stocking fish people are not aware of which fish has always been to meet commer- species are indigenous to the Great cial fishing and recreational fishing Lakes. In 1965, Dr. Howard Tanner, chief of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, directed Fish Species Introduced into the Great Lakes research to look at how the current Successful, intentional Unsuccessful, intentional condition of the Great Lakes could be introductions introductions improved for both sport fishing and Atlantic salmon2 American eel ecosystem stability. Fisheries research- Brook trout 1, 3 American shad ers noted that steelhead were doing Brown trout 1 German whitefish 1 very well in Lake Michigan where Chinook salmon Chum salmon 1 alewives were abundant. Since steel- Coho salmon Common carp 1 head lived in upper river tributaries for Japanese salmon (masu) Goldfish1 Cutthroat trout the first two years of their lives, and Margined madtom 2 then swam down to the Great Lakes Mosquitofish 2 Accidental introductions, for their adult lives, the fish were large Oriental weatherfish2 with destructive results enough that they did not eat the same Pink salmon 2 Sea lamprey items as the alewife, so they were unaf- Rainbow smelt 1 Alewife fected by alewife competition. In fact, Rainbow trout 1 Round goby the steelhead were often big enough to Redear sunfish1 Tubenose goby eat the younger alewives themselves. Rudd After this observation, DNR man- 1 Highly successful introductions; wide- Ruffe spread distribution. agement decided to embark on a large White perch 2 Limited success; narrow distribution or scale effort to stock other fish that small populations. could grow in stream tributaries, live as 3 Brook trout only had a narrow range adults in the Great Lakes, and feed on in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula prior to the excess numbers of alewives. They widespread stocking, which is why this desired to find a fish that could fit into species is considered non-native. the top predator role that was lost PAGE 8 demands without altering to maintain and oftentimes, the ecosystem’s overall 2012 - MDNR FISH STOCKING NUMBERS not maintained at all. In integrity. However, over the Average addition, Borgeson stated, years there have been many Species Number Size (inches) “Their benefits are rarely changes to what species and demonstrated.” Instead of size of fish are stocked in Walleye 10.0 million 2.5* stream improvement work, an attempt to meet these Rainbow trout 3.2 million 7.8 Borgeson urged the division demands. The Michigan Chinook salmon 2.6 million 3.5 to address broader watershed Department of Natural Re- Brown trout 2.0 million 6.1 concerns, such as road sources DNR) once stocked Coho salmon 1.7 million 5.4 crossings, culverts, ORV trails, trout as fry (1875-1920), Lake Trout 450,000 11.7 and farming practices. “We can then as fingerlings (1920- Splake 215,000 8.0 accomplish more in the long 1950), and then as legal- Fathead minnow 130,000 1.7 run by using our knowledge of sized (large enough to keep Brook trout 100,000 8.0 the resource and our analysis while fishing) adults (1950- 90,000 6.6 of what it needs than we can 1960). Currently, the DNR Muskellunge 28,000 10.2 by work projects.” stocks fingerlings or very 13,000 9.0 Under this perspective of close to legal size, depending Bluegill 9,000 4.8 stream improvement, the Fish- on the situation. Black crappie 6,000 5.6 eries Division adopted a more Brook trout were once Lake sturgeon 6,000 5.3 cooperative approach focusing stocked very extensively Pumpkinseed 5,000 3.4 on working with private land- (about 16 million fry per Redear sunfish 3,000 4.0 owners, conservation districts, year from 1910-1920), but Yellow perch 2,000 6.4 and non-governmental organi- in 2012, only 100,000 brook Hybrid sunfish 2,000 6.7 zations. Currently, the Divi- trout were stocked. On the Northern pike 800 12.3 sion often uses its expertise other hand, rainbow trout in helping these groups plan were stocked more exten- * Walleye do not grow well in hatcheries and smaller projects and acts in a sup- sively in 2012 than any other fish are planted than other species. port position in implementing time in Michigan’s history them, but it will not take the with about 3.2 million near- lead in paying for or building legals planted. The stocking diverse range of fish sampling and fish- these projects. of other game fish species similarly ery management techniques including Instead, the Fisheries Division has fluctuated over time as deter- “stream improvement”, which involved began to focus on a watershed ap- mined by , manage- building structures in the stream to proach. The first watershed level ment needs, and the current values enhance fish populations. The success report, which focused on the Hu- of the DNR and other stakeholder of these projects was often mixed, ron River watershed, was issued in groups. when they were assessed at all. Fish 1995. The Division has completed 18 In the past, stocking was seen often used the artificial stream habitat, watershed assessments since then, as a panacea. It is now used more but it was difficult to determine if the covering most of the major water- judiciously, and usually in cases where habitat improvements were increasing sheds across the state. The purpose aquatic habitat supports growth and fish populations or simply concen- of the assessments is to describe the survival of a desired species, but for trating the existing fish around the characteristics of the watersheds and some reason reproduction is insuf- structures. their biological community, to identify ficient to maintain desired abundance. Over time, DNR attitudes and solve problems within the aquatic Fisheries scientists are also now con- towards stream improvement projects system and fisheries of the water- cerned more with survival of stocked changed. In a 1989 memo that marked sheds, and to provide an organized fish rather than how many they can a shift in stream improvement theory, long-term reference for agencies and stock. Dave Borgeson Sr., former Assistant citizens. Chief of the DNR Fisheries Division, Stream improvement and placed a moratorium on any new The struggling Great Lakes watershed management Division involvement with “traditional Invasive species everywhere In the 1930s, the DNR founded the instream habitat improvement work.” In the past two hundred years, more Institute of Fisheries Research in Ann He believed that these structures than 140 new non-native species have Arbor. Institute researchers created a were expensive to build, expensive colonized the Great Lakes and its PAGE 9 tributaries. These include fish (round goby, tubenose goby), crustaceans (spiny water flea, rusty crayfish), mollusks (zebra , quagga mus- sel), plants (eurasian water milfoil, phragmites, purple loosestrife), and even a (Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia- VHS). Some new species seem to have had little effect, but many have interfered with the ecosys- tem’s normal processes through fast growth and rapid reproduction (e.g. phragmites), high dispersal ability (e.g. zebra mussel), competitive ability (e.g. round goby), and outright fish death (e.g.VHS).

This steelhead plunged into the Red Cedar River during a stocking event in April of 2013 at Michigan State University. credit: MSU Today

Lakes and inland lakes. VHS has even species are extremely important food been found in the Huron River water- sources for the larger Great Lake shed – in Baseline Lake in 2009. predators. An analysis from 2002- What invasive species lie around 2004 showed that the energy content the corner? Scientists, governments, of alewife was 23% lower than in and the public alike are well aware of 1979-1981, meaning that each individ- Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) the threat posed by several species ual fish is less nutritious for predators. is a dangerous fish disease that of Asian carp that are encroaching on What is the cause for this major originated in northern Canada and the Great Lakes through the Missis- decline in these species? As in all sci- traveled to the Great Lakes Region in sippi River system. Yet the political ence, causation is difficult to show, but 2005. While this gizzard shad shows will is lacking to make a permanent some scientists theorize that the ma- outward symptoms, not all infected barrier by closing the Chicago canal, jor cause of the decline is zebra mus- fish do.credit: M. Faisal, Michigan State University which connects Lake Michigan to the sels and quagga mussels sequestering system. This disagree- energy and nutrients that used to VHS is a recent threat. It ap- ment over how to manage a known support fish. However, other scientists peared in the Great Lakes basin in invasive species is a strong indicator believe that while these mussels do 2005 and is believed to have origi- of future regulatory conflicts that play a role, other factors such as poor nated from the maritime region of Great Lakes’ communities may face as reproduction, increased by Canada. VHS causes hemorrhaging in even newer invasive species enter the salmon, and alterations to fish habitat fishes’ liver, , spleen, and Lakes’ ecosystem. are a bigger concern. intestines, and the fish eventually die Round gobies are also causing from organ failure. Large fish kills have Record low populations of problems for forage fish, in particu- occurred in , muskel- forage fish lar along the Great Lakes coastline. lunge, and yellow perch. Smallmouth The Great Lakes fisheries are not Round gobies first appeared in the bass, crappie, and bluegill kills have doing well. Native forage fish popu- Great Lakes basin in 1997, and in also been confirmed. To date, remov- lations are currently near record that time are believed to have largely ing the virus once it has spread has lows, including cisco, bloater, mottled eliminated mottled sculpin and Johnny been impossible. Limiting the transfer sculpin, Johnny darter (in near-shore darter from near-shore areas due to of fish between water bodies and areas), and yellow perch. Even the egg predation and aggressive behav- teaching anglers to clean boating populations of two non-native forage ior. Round gobies also eat sturgeon equipment will reduce VHS spread. fish, the alewife and rainbow smelt, eggs and therefore have had a nega- This is an issue that affects the Great are close to record lows. All of these tive impact on sturgeon restoration PAGE 10 attempts. Recent evidence shows scents from dead lampreys actively that predators (in particular burbot repel live lamprey. Such pheromones and smallmouth bass) are learning to could be used to create “chemical eat round goby, which is promising. dams” that would block the lamprey If predators consistently recognize from Great Lakes tributaries. gobies as good food, then the worst Lake trout has been reintroduced effects of the round goby will be al- into all of the Great Lakes. Up until leviated. the last couple of years, management efforts to establish populations of lake Low predator populations trout have proved futile. However, Chinook salmon were at record low scientists have recently reported that body weights in 2003, followed by spawning is occurring in parts of Lake poor growth recorded in 2004; this Michigan and Lake Huron and that Recent sampling indicates that the was certainly related to the reduc- the wild lake trout fry are surviving beautiful lake trout may be making a tion in forage fish. In recent years, and maturing to reproducing adults. comeback. credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service stocking of Coho and Chinook has Scientists have theorized that alewife been greatly scaled back in order to predation on lake trout fry has been strike a better balance with the un- a major impediment on lake trout re- of water clarity due to zebra mussels derlying, depleted food web. In 2012, production, and it is possible that the has forced the whitefish to deeper the amount of Chinook and Coho record low alewife populations have waters, outside the reach of fisheries stocked was about half the amount allowed for lake trout rehabilitation. that use trap-nets. stocked in 1980. The Great Lakes originally con- Lake trout have never fully re- tained a vast resource of lake white- The lake sturgeon recovery covered from the sea lamprey; they fish, which were severely exploited by Sturgeon have several known rem- had disappeared from all of the Great commercial fishing in the 19th century. nant populations and reports have Lakes except for Lake Superior. How- Nearly 20 million pounds of whitefish indicated that the population is ever, good lamprey controls are in were harvested from the Great Lakes increasing but far from re-established. place, keeping the populations down every year from 1830 -1890. The The sturgeon is still listed as “very and making it possible for managers populations have long since dwindled, rare,” “endangered,” or “threatened” to work on helping the lake trout but a commercial fishery still exists depending on the exact wording used achieve self-sustaining populations. for whitefish today. Harvest reached by various state and federal agencies. Research on improving sea lamprey a modern peak of production in 1993, There is strong interest in restoring control is still ongoing. Michael Wag- with 7 million pounds of whitefish lake sturgeon and many actions are ner from Michigan State University caught. In 2004, the fishery hit a mod- underway. Substantial portions of the recently published a paper on how ern low at 4 million pounds of white- sturgeon’s historical spawning habi- fish. Catches since tats have been blocked by dams; pas- have averaged around sage specially designed for sturgeon 5 million pounds. has been put in on the Manistique Just like the River and Menominee River. In the St. other species men- Clair River, managers have installed tioned above, invasive artificial rock reefs to provide spawn- species have likely ing habitat and refuge areas. Stur- stressed whitefish geon are beginning to use these, and populations by harvest restrictions are now provid- depleting the base ing protection for long-lived adults of the food web. so they may spawn repeatedly for Invasive species also decades without risk of capture. have made whitefish harder to catch, as Improving Great Lakes filamentous management and zebra and quagga Lake management plans have been Some scientists suspect that zebra and quagga mussels mussels foul and developed by the federal and state are the primary reason for the current collapse of tangle fishing gear. In governments to address pollutants Great Lakes fish populations. credit: US Fish and Wildlife addition, an increase and stressors on each of the Great PAGE 11 Lakes. The focus of these plans is on lower four Great Lakes by approxi- Conclusions using a holistic ecosystem approach mately 75% from pre-European settle- The fish in the lake and river eco- and meeting the concerns of all ment. These wetlands are extremely systems in Michigan and throughout involved stakeholders. Priority goals important for young-of-the-year fish the Great Lakes basin are feeling the include restoration and protection growth. Wetlands are also heavily stress that has come from 200 years of fish health and habitat. In addition, affected by phragmites and purple of management and mismanagement. the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, loosestrife, which are known to From in the 19th century, started in 2010, is the largest invest- disturb the natural hydrologic cycles. to intentional species introductions ment in the Great Lakes in twenty However, in 2000, the Great Lakes and relocations in the 20th century, to years and involves eleven federal Wetlands Consortium was started to the dominance of invasive exotic spe- agencies. One of the major priori- monitor wetland health and restore cies at the beginning of the 21st cen- ties of this initiative is to prevent the wetland habitat. This group provides tury, there has certainly been a long introduction of new invasive species. scientific support for monitoring and history of “fishy” social and scientific Although populations are far from finds funding for a variety of man- problems. historic peak levels, good manage- agement projects. Progress is also The current situation in the ment has created a occurring on reducing phragmites in Great Lakes is dim, but a myriad of in the Great Lakes for commercial Great Lakes wetlands, and projects to intelligent people from universities, fisheries. Certainly commercial fishery reconnect many isolated wetlands to non-profits, environmental businesses, management has improved over time the Great Lakes are enjoying spectac- and all varieties of federal and state with better fish population models ular results. A reconnected wetland agencies are working on the prob- and more realistic goals. within the Ottawa National Wildlife lems. Certainly there is hope that Dredging, ditching, and draining Refuge on Lake Erie provided new wise management can turn things has reduced coastal wetlands on the habitat for millions of fish that moved around. Good data collection and sci- in and out of the habitat each week. entific analysis, pro-active policies and laws, and better public awareness are all important components in reaching this goal! – Paul Steen HRWC Watershed Ecologist

Special thanks to Jeff Schaeffer from the USGS Sources: • Michigan Department of Natural Resources Cen- Great Lakes Science Center and Kevin Wehrly • Biennial Report of the Fish Commission Board, tennial Report, 1873-1973. Michigan Department from the DNR Fisheries Division who provided 1892-1894. Michigan Department of Natural of Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Lansing, many useful suggestions. Resources Fisheries Division, Lansing, Michigan. Michigan. • Bunnell, D. [ed.]. 2012. The state of Lake Michigan • Michigan Sea Grant Fact Sheet, 2012. Viral Hem- in 2011. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission Spec. orrhagic Septicemia (VHS) in the Great Lakes. Pub. 12-01. • Michigan Sea Grant Fact Sheet 1997. The Five • Carp-ocalypse. The Ann Arbor Chronicle. http:// Lampreys of Michigan’s Great Lakes. Please direct all questions, reprint requests, and annarborchronicle.com/2010/07/29/in-the- • Sharp, E. Taking stock of salmon in Lake Michigan, other inquiries regarding this publication to: archives-carp-ocalypse/. July 29, 2010. Detroit Free Press, August 19, 2012. Paul Steen, Watershed Ecologist • Gorman, O. 2011. Great Lakes prey fish popula- • Tarzwell, C. M. 1937. Experimental Evidence Huron RiverWatershed Council tions: A cross-basin overview of status and trends on the Value of Trout Stream Improvement in 734-769-5123 x 601 from bottom trawl surveys, 1978-2011. USGS Michigan. Transactions of the American Fisheries [email protected] Great Lakes Science Center Report. Society. 66: 177-187. 1100 North Main • Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., P. W. Seelbach, G. E. • US EPA. 2009. State of the Great Lakes, Lake Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Whelan, and D. B. Jester, Jr. 1995. Huron River Trout, Indicator #93. http://www.epa.gov/solec/ assessment. Michigan Department of Natural sogl2009/0093laketrout.pdf Resources Fisheries Division Special Report. The DNR’s Huron River Watershed Assessment • The USGS Great Lakes Science Center. 2000. Sea is available for download at www.hrwc.org/the- • Hubbs, C.L. J.R. Greely, and C.M. Tarzwell. 1932. Lamprey- A Great Lakes Invader. Fact sheet. watershed/. The primary challenges to the Huron Methods for the Improvement of Michigan Trout • Wagner, M, et al. 2011. A deathly odor suggests Streams. University of Michigan, Institute for River as described in this report are fragmentation a new sustainable tool for controlling a costly Fisheries Research Bulletin No. 1. 54 pp. from dams, degradation from non-point pollution, invasive. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic and urban sprawl. • Latta, W.C. 1972. The effects of stream improve- Sciences.68: 1157–1160. ment upon the anglers’ catch and standing crop • White, R.J. and O.M. Brynildson. 1967. Guidelines of trout in the Pigeon River, Otsego County, Michigan Fish, HRWC © 2014 for Management of Trout Stream Habitat in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Illustrations page 8, Alewife; page 12, Brook trout Resources: Fisheries Division Research Report Resources: Technical Bulletin No. 39. J.Wolf, Laughing Goat Arts © 2014 1786.