1 / 36

NON-NATIVE SALMOINDS IN LAKE SUPERIOR

NON-NATIVE SALMOINDS IN LAKE SUPERIOR. Don Schreiner, MNDNR Steve Schram, WIDNR Shawn Sitar, MIDNR Mike Petzold, OMNR. History. First successful introductions began in late 1800’s with rainbow and brown trout

jbrett
Download Presentation

NON-NATIVE SALMOINDS IN LAKE SUPERIOR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NON-NATIVE SALMOINDS IN LAKE SUPERIOR Don Schreiner, MNDNR Steve Schram, WIDNR Shawn Sitar, MIDNR Mike Petzold, OMNR

  2. History • First successful introductions began in late 1800’s with rainbow and brown trout • Coho and chinook salmon first introduced by MI in mid 1960’s, quickly followed by other agencies • Introductions targeted at controlling exotic invaders and redirecting angling effort • All species have become naturalized and are sustained largely by natural reproduction

  3. Fish Community ObjectiveNon-native Salmonids • Manage populations of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout that are predominately self-sustaining, but that may be supplemented by stocking that is compatible with restoration and management goals established for native fish species.

  4. Role on Non-native Salmonids in the Lake Superior Fish Community • Species are migratory - spawn in streams and migrate to the lake after smolting • Thermal habitat is limited • Impact on a lake-wide basis is minimal • May have significant impact in tributaries and near-shore areas

  5. Waters of Lake Superior 0-240 ft (0-80 meters) > 240 ft (> 80 meters)

  6. The Fishery • Approximately 1/3 of total angler catch • Expanded sport fishing opportunities • Provided increased shore and stream opportunity • Created a surface water trolling fishery • Contaminant levels less than lake trout

  7. Status – Open Water Creel Surveys • Wisconsin – 1972 – 2000, May 1 – Sept. 30 • Minnesota – 1972 – 2000, Memorial W.E. – Sept. 30 • Michigan – 1987 – 2000, Selected sites May 1 – Sept. 30 • Ontario – Intermittent - selected sites - diaries • Lack of standardization in other recreational fisheries • Spring and fall stream fisheries • Winter fishery

  8. Distribution of Major Salmonids in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior from 1990-2000

  9. Distribution of Major Non-native Salmonids in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior from 1990-2000

  10. Distribution of Major Salmonids in Ontario Waters of Lake Superior 1987-1999

  11. Distribution of Major Non-native Salmonids in Ontario Waters of Lake Superior 1987-1999

  12. Status • Stocking history • Catch history • CPUE in open water recreational fishery

  13. Rainbow Trout • Introduced in 1895 • Present population largely a result of natural reproduction • Return rate of stocked yearlings less than 1% except Kamloops • Increased control of angler exploitation • Abundance has declined since the 1950’s – lake trout, pacific salmon, increased exploitation, stream habitat

  14. Number of Rainbow Trout Stocked in Lake Superior

  15. Number of Rainbow Trout Caught in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  16. CPUE of Rainbow Trout in Lake Superior

  17. Brown Trout • Introduced in late 1890’s • Have naturalized in a number of tributaries • WI and MI still stock in localized areas • Hatchery contribution 50% in WI and 40% in MI • Brule River supports largest naturalized run

  18. Number of Brown Trout Stocked in Lake Superior

  19. Number of Brown Trout Caught in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  20. CPUE of Brown Trout in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  21. Coho Salmon • Introduced by MI in 1966, MN from 1969-1974 • Quickly became naturalized, no longer stocked • Life cycle of 3 years, anglers mostly exploit age 2+ • Harvest fluctuates greatly – fishing mostly one YC • Slower growth and smaller size than other Great Lakes

  22. Number of Coho Salmon Stocked in Lake Superior

  23. Number of Coho Salmon Caught in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  24. CPUE of Coho Salmon in Lake Superior

  25. Chinook Salmon • Introduced by MI in 1967, followed by other agencies • Use larger rivers for spawning • BKD relatively low compared to other Great Lakes • Approximately 75% of chinook salmon are produced by natural reproduction – Peck et al 1999 • All agencies continue to stock – effectiveness ?????

  26. Number of Chinook Salmon Stocked in Lake Superior

  27. Number of Chinook Salmon Caught in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  28. CPUE of Chinook Salmon in Lake Superior

  29. Chinook Salmon Study • Contribution of hatchery fish to fishery • Agency specific fin clips 1988-1990 • Returns assessed from 1990-1994 • Wild fish comprised 75% lake-wide • Hatchery contribution greatest MN-WI-MI-ON • Significant movement

  30. Hatchery Contributions of Chinook Salmon 1990-1994

  31. Pink Salmon • Accidentally introduced in 1956 • Have become naturalized • Life cycle of 2 years initially, 3 year life cycle common • Harvest fluctuates greatly – one year class • Late fall boat fishery and fall stream fishery

  32. Number of Pink Salmon Caught in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  33. Mean Size of Non-native Salmonids in U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  34. Mean Size of Non-native Salmonids Among States of U.S. Waters of Lake Superior

  35. Recommendations • Meeting FCO’s based on present knowledge • Determine impact on native species in tributaries and near-shore areas • Standardized creel surveys • Critically review present stocking programs • Use of Lake Superior strains • Effectiveness – Cost:Benefit • Realistic expectations • Disease

More Related