john from craa

Good to see interest in learning more about the fish and discussion around it. To agree with Clofchick, not all stocked steelies are clipped. New York stopped clipping thier Chamber Creek fish in 2006 (500,000-700,000 yearlins per year stocked). They only clip Skamania (Left Pec, Left vent clips, sometimes with an adipose). Ontario clips the Right Pec, Right Vent or adipose only. While I'm sure some are missed as Chris says, MNR does have review protocols and they don't miss many at clipping time (maybe 1%). Most steelhead raised in a hatchery have visable fin wear from raceways and high density rearing. The dorsal fin is the most obvious. In my post above the bow Justin is releasing is a stocker (notice the dorsal is rubbed off). Fish that have a crisp dorsal are more likely to be wild (not a perfect rule, but its pretty accurate). If you look at other lake posts check out the dorsal on the steelhead. Steelhead are often raised to 12-16 months in the hatchery causing the fin damage, whereas chinook are stocked at 3 months after hatch so fin damage is minimal. If your looking for dinner it makes sense to keep a clipper and release a wild fish. Most of the west coast fishery have adopted a release wild fish rules and keep clippers. To correct clofchick, Steelhead were first introduced to Lake Ontario in the late 1800's (1885+/-). Alewives, smelt and lamprey came 50 years earlier. Atlantic salmon are still a native specie, even though the present fish being stocked are not genetically from Lake Ontario, they are the exact same species. As for the regs, I agree one should not bash some guy for following the regs, but there is nothing wrong with offering new and/or factual information to encourage the angling public to protect our resources in the vacuum created by lack of action and enforcement activity by MNR. Many fisheries have been destroyed by people following "the regs". The government is slow at tackling most issues and MNR is so under funded it is downright scarry. Great staff, just not enough of them or funds to conduct research or get into the feild to see what is going on enough. The Atlantic cod fishery comes to mind. The Severn Sound walleye fishery another. And while I agree the floods circa 1980 did help grow the eastern steelhead population, I disagree with the analysis that higher silt on spawning beds is the cause of todays declines. General impacts to the population (such as regional floods, lake biomass, juvenile predation in the lake, changing food web, weather impacts) all effect the whole population equally (i.e. each river population reacts similarily). Yet our GTA steelhead declines have not been similar. They crashed in different years, far apart and some have crashed by 75-80%, while others have remained fairly constant (ones with limited pressure). I'll add a post in a few days with more details on the overall subject. Its great to see so many people care enough to express their concerns or opinions. Tight lines, John

A few pics from the other day on the lake with a good friend and partner in conservation from CRAA, Justin. 5 hours or so on the water, 7/12 plus a few knock offs. All off Port Credit. Two triples, and steady action, topped by a 32-33 lb king and 7 lb Atlantic. With some bows and a coho it was a grand slam. All fish released to fight another day. John See you another day. Nice Coho 32-33 lb King Atlantic Steelie (notice no dorsal - hatchery fish) Teen chinook Release shot

Just to add to Canadadude's comments on steelhead recruitment or survival. Causes for steelhead declines? The Ganny fish have better access to quality spawning habitat today than they did in 1985-90 era (record years). The habitat is as good or better. Water flows are fairly stable on the long term average, again getting better. Why the decline? Most steelhead biologists I know suggest harvest (severe over harvest) is the main cause, but many other factors contribute. LOMU stated harvest was around 50% for the Ganny population between lake and river (Bowlby and Stanfield 2000/2001). The Swank PhD thesis on Great Lakes steelhead and the Brule River studies indicate the maximum sustainable harvest for Great Lakes steelhead is 15%. I could write a 50 page essay on this alone, but I doubt anyone realy wants to read all that much - we should be fishing. The second major cause for decline is poor year classes. A hot, dry summer can lead to 10% juvenile survival compared to a cold, wet summer in a decent stream. As this depressed year class ages they are hit with angler harvest and natural mortality. It then results in a poor spawning as they mature because not enough adults were alive to spawn. Add 3 hot summers back to back and you have a population decline, or 3 cold summers and you have a population expansion. Lower harvest helps to balance the population so bad years are buffered to ensure we have enough spawners (RSR - repleat spawner rate). The RSR should target 50-70%. The Ganny is lucky to break 40% these days and yet in the late 80's it was 60% plus. Other factors include zebra muscles, lower lake biomass and lake survival. However, lake survival should effect every river population the same. Yet the ganny population crashed in 1991-93 and the Wilmot population crashed in 96 (2-3 years after the small stream was on a popular fishing show of the era many times). Check out this link for info on a population that had all harvest stopped on a Great Lakes steelhead trib. The population increased by 300-400%. All other rivers around it with harvest have not changed and some have declined. Spawning access is also constant. Only harvest changed. www.northshoresteelhead.com/images/Slide1web.JPG If the population can handle 15% harvest, great...lets eat. But what happens when year after year we kill 30% of the population. We are left with crumbs. Sadly, the regulations are often not enough and they do not change fast enough. And keep in mind, if you catch a clipped steelie it is a put and take stocked fish. That is perfect for the table. But consider letting the wild ones swim! Tightlines, John

Great action and kudos for releaseing some bows. But I have to comment on some 'MYTHS' in this thread. Lake Ontario steelhead are put and take (false). The steelhead are mostly wild. Released steelhead in the lake will die (false - if handled properly and hot gill hooked) Steelhead are mainly WILD fish in Lake Ontario, but the exact levels are hard to confirm since NY state recently stopped clipping their Chambers Creek stocking (700-900,000 fish per year). They do clip all Skamania. Ontario clips all of their steelhead stcoked (Right Ventral or Adipose). Most hatchery rainbows have damage to their dorsal fin from life in the hatchery. So if a fish is missing a fin it is prime for the keeping. But wild steelhead need our help. Runs in Ontario are depressed and over harvest (in lake and river) is a leading suspect. The Pacific salmon are stocked by NY and Ontario for a put and take fishery. All stocked chinook are adipose clipped back to 2008 year class (now hitting 10-15 pounds). Natural reproduction of chinooks is very, very high. NYSDEC estimates average WILD chinook reproduction from the Salmon River, NY alone to be 4 to 10 million salmon every year. NYSDEC only stocks 1.8 million chinook into all NY state waters from the Black to Niagara. MNR has no clue what our natural reproduction rates are because they have no money for propper assesment and hit the field long after most chinook juveniles leave rivers for the lake. As for releasing bows in the lake, minimize out of water time, barbless hooks are great and consider unhooking smaller fish at the side of the boat without netting them. Many of CRAA's tagged steelhead that have been caught and released in the lake have returned to the Credit to spawn again. Catch and release works. Steelhead catch rates have increased dramatically in the past three years (at their highest rate ever - NYSDEC 2009 report). This happens to coincide when NY state lowered their steelhead limit to 1 fish, minimum 21" on shore and 3 fish, minimum 21" in the lake. Steelhead returns to NY's Salmon River hatchery increased by 200% over the same period. Yet the Ganaraska steelhead run continues to hold at 25% of its best run. In the same period the Credit River's steelhead run has also increased by roughly 80% due to very high release rates. I encourage all anglers to watch for fin clips on Lake Ontario steelhead and consider releasing fish with all their fins so they have a chance to spawn and improve our future fishing. Tight lines, John

This is not a river fishing, pier fishing or lake fishing issue. It is everyone's issue to share equally and work on. HH is off base. The moment a fish is post spawn and you catch it, you are in fact catching it before it's next spawning run. If you catch a steelhead in July in 50/400 fow you are catching it 4-8 months prior to its next spawning run. If you catch it in Sept-April in the river(pre spawn) you are simply catching it 6-0 months prior to spawning. Sorry - there is no difference, they are both pre-spawn fish. And Jet, I see your offended, but I made no issue with you or your post and none is intended. I simply stated we all need to restrict our harvest and cannot rely on the MNR to set sustainable harvest levels. I have been rigging Lake Ontario and other Great Lakes for 25 years and steelheading longer. I am clearly aware of the issues on both sides of shore. I doubt Joeseph was flaming you, but stating anglers, especially lake anglers need to reduce their harvest rates. As do shore and river anglers if we every want to have a maintain and improve the fishery. Mind you, NYDEC shows steelhead and Pacific salmon catch rates at or near their best on record (back to early 80's). A few release lake shots would be great to see too. NYDEC estimated 224,900 angler days of fishing just Lake Ontario on the NY side in 2009 from April 22 to Sept. This does not inclde any stream anglers and nothing from Ontario. Fair to say 500,000 angler days is very conservative. If everyone killed 1 fish each, that is half a million dead adult fish. That is not sustainable. Over harvest is the main cause of fishery decline, like the Ganny dropping from 18,000 to 5,000. This decline likely had several causes, possible including lower lake survival, increased angling pressure, but no doubt overall harvest (especially from the winter pier fishery and post opener fishery) are the leading cause IMO. That is why a 2/1 limit is still not enough to sustain the fishery. Simply put, out of 150 or so Credit River tags caught in the lake in the past 4 years, 93% have been killed. Whereas in the river fishery, out of 300 tags only 6% have been killed, with a 94% release rate. To add info to Wallico's post, many of the handfull of released lake steelhead with tags have shown at the Credit again the next fall or spring to spawn. So catch and release in the lake works just fine. And barbless hooks really help when your using a treble or 2/0 siwash and minimizing out of water time or not netting at all if possible. John

It looks like a great day fishing, but I also support what Joe is saying...that releasing more fish, especially steelhead that are heavily supported by natural reproduction is very important. Those are some nice fish and there is nothing wrong with a few fillets for the table, but in the southern Ontario area anglers must lead by example with higher levels of catch and release to sustain the fishery. For those of you who beleive the MNR is up to date and on top of limits and harvest...you are dreaming. The MNR has seen their budgets cut to the bone for the past 25 years. They have very little assessment budget and no creel data from Lake Ontario that stands up to scientific scrutny since 1995. We (and MNR) must look to New York for their data. The MNR has a roughly 15-20 year lag in response to population trends and not just in Lake Ontario. The limits were set long ago and have yet to be revised. As an aside, NY lowered the lake and tributary limit by 70% in 2006. Steelhead catch in the NY lake creel has jumped by almost 50%, yet steelhead harvest has decined from 90% of fish caught to less than 50% in the past 5 years. And per the MJL, I'm sorry to say the 2/1 limit on tributaries will only lower harvest by 3-4% based on numerous studies inlcuiding the data used to develop the Bowlby and Stanfield,2000 paper. Only a slot limit or minimum size limit on both the lake and river fishery will have a noticable impact on harvest levels and increase the population. Also regarding that study, they made the assumption that the run of fish to the Gannaraska and Wilmot was static (i.e. all the same fish, which is incorrect). If the run is say 10,000 fish in a given year to the river, the rivers actual population may be 15-20,000, as not all fish run to spawn every year and many younger fish (up to 12 pounds) may not have entered the river to spawn at all. This method under-estimates the actual lake harvest of the rivers population by 50-100%. Ask yourself why NY - which has a mainly stocked salmon and trout fishery has a limit of 1 steelhead on shore and 2 in the lake with a minimum 21" limit, meanwhile Ontario just lowered river limits to 2 from 5 in 2008 and the lake still stands at 5, yet our north shore fishery is 98%+++ wild fish. Or that the MNR and partners are trying to establish Atlantic salmon, but you can keep 1 over 24" in the lake??? A solid bet is if you are harvesting a fish from Lake Ontario, keep a clipper. Ontario clips all its steelhead and chinook. NY clips 1/3 of their steelhead and all their chinooks. Chinook salmon are also reproducing in larger numbers, as are browns, coho, steelhead and even some Atlantics. Most hatchery raised salmon and trout will have visable dorsal fin damage too. So if the belly fins are all intact, but the dorsal is half gone, or flat then you likely have a stocker that was not clipped, but suitable for keeping). Protecting wild fish will only become more important in time. Hopefully NY will move to clipping all their steelhead once again soon. As for levels of wild fish in the lake...until they clip everything the powers that be cannot give a firm answer, but only a best guess. However, looking at clip rates in creel data from the lake, plus stocking and clip rates I would 'best estimate' the following: Steelhead - 70% wild, 30% hatchery origin Chinook - 45% wild, 55% hatchery (based on 2009 creel only - first year class of clipped chinooks) Coho - 10% wild, 90% hatchery (limited creel data) browns - not enough lake data I also urge anglers to pinch all your barbs. Barbless hooks make release far easier, especially when your rigging in the lake. Plus eating fish from Lake Ontario is not on my list of 'things I consider safe to eat'! Tight lines, John Kendell President, CRAA

Grew about 4-5 cm over the year. 43 last year, 47-48 cm this year. Water temps exceeded the survival limit for brook trout by several degrees Celcius this summer below Streetsville and the only cold water refuge below that is Lake Ontario. And yes, CRAA volunteers caught him last year while we were operating the fishway (Sept 17), 10 days prior to the chinook collection. Although the MNR bio netted him (he was out helping to move Atlantics). I'll post the video on youtube when I have time. MNR/OFAH got him out of the fishway the other day while looking for salar. John

Many of you may recall CRAA caught a 3.2 lb coaster brookie in the Streetsville fishway in September last year (2008). The fish had its adipose fin removed for genetics and was transported to a small tributary in the upper Credit. He was seen in november spawning in that trib. Guess who showed up in the fishway yestderday!!!! Yes, the same brook trout, one year later, larger and with the adipose clip. A tissue sample was taken and will be genetically confirmed. For the handfull of doubters who said he was not a coaster or migratory brookie - explain that one. He was caught in the fishway two years in a row. Both times in the top jump, below the fish screen. Hopefully he will be making more babies in the fall in the upper river. Very Cool. John

Some funny posts...I was wondering what Dave has been doing after work. With respect to a few questions and comments: Streetsville fishway - it is a fish ladder and if opened every jumping specie can pass. Pacifics are held back for egg collection (under the fmp as Rich noted), trout, Atlantics, bass, sucker and all native species are lifted. CRAA volunteers have operated the fishway for the MNR since 1991. Norval fishway - I have been working on this project for 12 years, getting the land owner on board and going through the long delays of the FMP and red tape. The MNR is very supportive and CRAA and MNR are working closely to get the project done. I spend several hours every week dealing with engineers, designs or other matters for this project alone. If all goes well it wil be built in the next 8 months. Wild chinooks - A new study done in NY on the Salmon River shows roughly 60% of chinooks are wild in Lake Ontario (not the bios involved in Atlantic studies). As noted above, in 2011 we will know for sure. Early creel studies on small salmon this summer are pointing to a 50:50 ratio of wild versus adipose clipped chinooks under 4 pounds. Chinooks are also begining to adapt to our tribs and more are staying until fall or even for a full year in Eastern tribs (based on MNR and CA electro-shocking data). This has been found on some Gbay tribs since the late 90's (MNR and U of G info). Chinooks are also adapting to the thiamine shortage, as their offspring are surviving in both wild and hatchery. CRAA has documented wild chinook fry in large quantities in the Credit since 1998! Some years are good, some are poor. Anchor ice and spring floods seem to be the main factors in poor year classes. More river access would likely improve natural reproduction dramatically on the Credit. Wild coho - in 2006 three tribs of the lower Credit were found to have wild YOY (young of the year) coho salmon. Coho are stocked at an older age so they were wild fish. Funny, they got past Streetsville even without the fishway. So do many steelhead. Brook trout - First off, 99.8% of the wild, self sustaining brook trout populations exisit above barriers that lake fish (except Atlantics) and resident browns do not have access too. There is a very short section (200m) of a major trib that brookies and rainbows can overlap at present due to adult transfers. This still provides over 2/3 of the watershed to brook trout water only. There are two other tributaries that support brook trout in the middle section. One is separated by a large dam. This trib has seen over 10,000 trees planted and a bunch of cattle fencing, and rehab done by CRAA. The other trib only became a cold water section last fall, after work initiated by CRAA in 1998. The trib was hitting 30.5C in 1998. With our partners on the project (MNR, CVC, OS, etc) we added 2.5km of cold water habitat by removing a 3 acre on-line pond, dropping water temps by an astounding 6-7C. This summer electro-fishing found good numbers of brookies where they had not been (since sometime in the 1800's or so). Guess what else they caught, Atlantics, browns and rainbows. All together - uh oh! The bottom line is lake run steelhead will not be entering 99.8% of the brook trout water - so why all the concern? With rehabilitation and other work CRAA is trying to grow the brook trout population and habitat. I'd like to see more people get involved in that sort of work with CRAA rather than the 'don't hurt them' comments. How about more 'let's help them' comments!!!!! Brook trout - CRAA is heavily involved in trying to protect their habitat and rehabilitate lost populations. We are also involved in helping any migratory brookies as rare as they are (wait till my next post). Brook trout - as Louis noted, are in serious trouble in the headwaters and a sewage treatment plant appears to be the culprit. Some water samples and fish survival data has been taken, but no major action has been made by the group involved to stop the problem (that I am aware of). One site that normally produced 50-150 brookies every summer is now just about void of trout. Very sad. Most brook trout populations that have been lost in Ontario were damaged by habitat destruction, dams, ground water takering or polution, water polution and my favourite, stocking onto wild populations and breeding out the wild genetics (oops). Because browns and bows are able to survive in the degraded habitat and have grown populations they are often blamed for the brook trout decline. Just like lamprey have been demonized for the lake trout crash in the 1940's, but that was recently proven to be pollution that caused the crash. I grew up fishing two major brook trout creeks that are both all but void of trout today. The first (upper Pine) was supported solely by stocking in the 70's. Steelhead utilize the habitat too and some blamed them. Nope, it was stocking and the 5 acrea lake that warmed the water 5-6C just upstream. On the other (tiny trib of the Geen) it was over fishing. Any brookie over 3" was taken and this remote stream had boot tracks and full creels from many a trespasser. Atlantics - while genetically they are not identical, the specie is still a native fish. The extinct population was derived from ocean salmon 10,000 years ago. The specie adds a new component to the fishery. A few hundred Atlantic's are not taking away any other salmonids so why all the fuss? American strays - I noted Clofchick said 1/3 of eastern tribs fish are strays? NY clips about 1/2 their stocked rainbows every year. Yet in the Ganny US clips account for less than 1% of the run. On the Credit (largest north shore river) US clups account for 3-10 fish out of 1000-1500 per year (or about 0.5%). Accounting for unclipped NY stockers this still only gives us 1-2% NY strays, not 33%. Stray rates are very low, as we have only had 2 Credit fish reported from eastern tribs, out of several hundred tag returns (one in duffins, one in Bowmanville). Steelhead declines - Some MNR bios beleive it is caused by lower lake survival, yet this is not supported by other Great Lakes research and annual fluctuations in river juvenile production. Rivers produce young based greatly on the summer weather and winter freezing. Some year classes are huge (like 1992, 1994, 2008, 2009), others are very poor. The subsequent return rates in following years changes based on this. While the lake is a bottleneck to survival, runs can easily increase 50% from one good year class. What causes the strong year class to then slowly disapear? Angler over-harvest and natural mortality. We cannot control the latter, but we can control the harvest. Look at www.northshoresteelhead.com for more info. Look at research links for portage creek. The bottom line - we need to see a lot more of you getting involved in rehab efforts! Many hands make light work. Tight lines, John

To answer Silvio - photo period and genetics of the fish are the main factors in run timing. Our Pacific salmonids are from the West coast and carry their genetic timing. Once photo period (hours of daylight) are good it comes mainly to river temps and flow as stated above. Steelhead have a wide genetic range and thus run from August to June, with the November and March Peaks. Temps and flows are great in April, but a chinook or coho in the river is rare that time of year (but can happen). The cold wet summer has fish delayed in the lake but that will not stop them from running. Only a drought and hot temps will. By early August any heavy cold rain could and likely will bring a few fish into some rivers. I have seen small pods of chinook on many Ontario tribs by late July on occaision and seen large runs by August 20th. The more exciting question I would propose is : What will two cold, wet summers in a row mean to fishing salmonids in the future? My guess - more chrome! John

This is a favourite topic of mine. I see Louis already got to it. Firstly - catch and release mortality runs between 0.5 and 5% based on all the studies out there for various species of fish. For trout and salmon it tends to be under 1.5-2%. Just google "catch and release studies". 1/3 mortality is false. I see Joseph gave some good ideas on lake release as well. I would add pinching the barbs on your rigger spoons and cut bait. I have fished barbless in the lake for 15 years with no impact on my landing average. Smaller hooks are also better. No question a 3/0 siwash hook with a barb does damage. Change to a size 4-6 barbless treble or smaller single barbless. http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html (0.5 to 5 % covers many species) http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/Fisherie...and_release.htm (1.2% mortality on resident rainbow) Many others available. NY steelhead stray rates to the Credit River average 0.5% based on 19 years data and over 10,000 samples. Eastern tribs have not been stocked for roughly 40 years (except Duffins which ended stocking in the mid-late 80's). NY stockers have not bolstered the Lake O north shore runs. Massive Over Harvest Issues: No question river harvest is a larger problem than the lake, but that does not exclude the lake from impacts. The MNR's Lake Unit (LOMU) study (2000 report) http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/LOA%2001.01.pdf Section 10.1. Read carefully the bottom of page 10.3 and top of 10.4. They estimate a 48-50% harvest rate for lake and river combined (8-10% lake and 40% river). Sustainable Harvest is estimated at 15% based on studies by Swanson, George, Seelbach and DEC. Louis can e-mail pdfs if you like. The bottom line is simple. Too many wild steelhead are being harvested to sustain the fishery. We can argue all we want, but the bottom line is in 1989 the Ganny ran roughly 20,000 steelhead. This year maybe 5,000 if we're lucky. That is a 75% decline. The 20,000 were 99% wild fish so stocking did not influence the large returns. Harvest and Lake biomass are the only major changing factors. Yet runs of steelhead in some rivers with minimal harvest have been fairly stable. This indicates the lake Biomass is a mush smaller factor and harvest is the main culprit. Remember chinook stocking was cut in half by Ontario and NY in the early 90`s to offset reduced biomass. Consider the following angler changes: 1980's - Over 90% of river fishing was post opener, post spawning fish. Very, very few lake anglers know about the blue zone. I fished the blue zone as far back as 1986 and it was rare to see another boat out there. 1990's - fall river fishing grows dramatically as more anglers chase chinooks and discover fall steelhead. Early spring steelhead harvest grows dramatically on rivers (thanks to fishing shows for the Wilmot). Example - March 1989-91 maybe 5 cars fishing lower Wilmot. 1992-present - sometimes 200 cars. Word on the blue zone starts growing through the dacade. Charter boats start hitting it more. 2000's - Pre spawn river pressure remains high, but catch and release levels increase (but not nearly enough). Blue zone heavily exploited every day (June-Sept). Catch and release slowly increasing on lake, but not fast enough. CRAA's tag return data shows that tagged fish landed in the lake have a 95% harvest level, whereas only 5% of reports from river are kept. We also see many repeat spawners (with previous years tag) that were caught and released in the river the previous year or earlier in the season. Thus release works! A few other notes in the lake: All fish in the lake are mixed, meaning they could be from NY or Ontario. If a fin is missing it is a stocker (for sure) so enjoy it for dinner. If all fins are attached is is most likely a wild fish (could be a NY fish but they are clipping most stockers these days). A steelhead in the lake may or may not have spawned - it depends on its age and genetics. Here is an age breakdown and their size at first spawning from several thousand samples on the Credit River: Age 3, roughly 18 inches, 10% of run. (the percentage is based on maiden spawning fish and does not include repeat spawners) Age 4, roughly 24 inches, 35% of run. Age 5, roughly 27 inches, 50% of run. Age 6, roughly 30 inches, 5% of run. Thus a 30" fish you catch in the lake may never have spawned yet (but odds are it has). North Shore Steelheaders info - keep in mind they have a higher level of age 3 and 4 fish spawning and our fish on the Credit tend to stay an extra year in the lake before most spawn (makes for bigger fish). http://www.northshoresteelhead.com/project3.htm Keep in mind New York has dropped their rainbow limit to 1 steelhead, minimum 21 inches. And they rely on mostly stocked fish! Yet Ontario relys mostly on wild fish and our limits are 2 and 5. Does that make sense. Where CRAA beleives harvest needs to be! We need to redude wild steelhead harvest by roughly 50% and protect maiden spawners in both the lake and river. To reduce harvest a simple limit is NOT enough. A 2 fish limit does nothing (2-3% reduction in harvest), just optics. 1 fish does not do much either (10-13% reduction). Based on creel data. And this has been consitent with every study from Lake Superior, Huron, G-bay, Michigan and studies done in NY, Mich, Wis and Ohio. A minimum size or slot limit on both river and lake is neccisary to meet the harvest reduction needed. A few options: 1. 2 fish limit, but no wild fish under 30 inches can be kept. 2. 2 fish limit, no wild fish between 18 and 27 inches can be kept 3. 2 fish limit on clipped fish, no wild fish between 20 and 27 inches can be kept This allows harvest of clipped fish at any size and protects wild maiden spawners. Or we can do nothing and our children can ask us what those beautiful chrome fish are in the old photo album and we can tell them they were steelhead, but we ate them all! John Kendell President, CRAA

Raising a lot of money for stream rehab is not luck - it is a heck of a lot of work. Most of the CRAA executive volunteer 10-20 hours every week of the year on projects and hundreds of other volunteers give up many evenings and weekends. No luck - just hard work. Perhaps you will volunteer for a few 'workings' to plant trees or complete some stream rehah so you can see first hand what our projects are all about. CRAA has a tree planting with other partners on May 3 on Caledon Creek. (it happens to be a brook trout creek too). Details on our website. And your correct - CRAA does have a special interest in steelhead! We also have a special interest in browns, brookies, Atlantics, chinooks, coho, dace, chub, sucker, sturgeon, American eel, walleye, bass, pike, deer, beaver, coyote, salamanders, ducks, geese, etc, etc, etc. CRAA's workings are to improve the whole watershed, top to bottom and everything between regardless of gamefish or cyprinide. Perhaps you should come out to a few work days this summer and find out for yourself. Scugog Boy requested to see CRAA's mandate - pasted below. Here is the link as well. Posted since 1998 (needs a little updating with the reg changes brought forth). http://www.craa.on.ca/mandate.shtml CRAA's Mandate : To protect, restore and enjoy our rivers CRAA's Goals and Objectives. CRAA is a watershed group, so we work on the entire watershed and all species within. Our main focus is on sport fish, (trout, Atlantic and Pacific salmon and bass), but our work benefits everyone and everything in the valley from birds to animals to other valley users through carefully planned conservation work. CRAA's foremost objectives are a pristine river, with stable flows, reduced silt and flooding, a healthy valley with dense forest cover and improved groundwater. Spawning Steehead at Norval CRAA is very active in supporting and enhancing native species including brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by protecting and rehabilitating existing populations (brook trout and redside dace) and stocking (Atlantic salmon). CRAA is a strong advocate of the non-native, but now wild and self-sustaining resident brown trout (Salmo trutta) population, both in the Forks of the Credit above Inglewood and in the middle section of Bronte Creek, above Lowville. CRAA also strongly supports non-native, but now wild migratory steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout access to a barrier in Inglewood, in order to greatly increase wild, self-sustaining migratory fisheries. Segregatition of the resident trout fishery in the Forks of the Credit is practised, to allay concerns of over-harvest in this delicate resident fishery. Furthermore, CRAA supports the MNR's stocked Pacific salmon fishery in the lake and lower river as it creates a unique and popular fishery. Protecting resident trout populations and migratory spawning habitat from damage caused by threats such as urban sprawl, water taking, deforestation, chemical spills, etc are of the highest priority. CRAA diligently works with all levels of government agencies to assist in enforcement and lobby agencies for improving habitat protection. Enhancement and improvement of these unique fisheries is done through massive reforestation, stream rehabilitation, public education and conservation practices. CRAA is actively working to increase areas open to the public to improve angling opportunities, while reducing angler impacts and threats, such as over-harvest, on the fish population. In the near future CRAA hopes to see the lower Credit River open all year from Loyalist Creek to Eglinton Avenue for migratory trout and salmon, with a one fish limit and a minimum 30" size restriction on all salmon and trout. This will increase the open section by 60% while significantly reducing harvest of salmon and protecting very important maiden spawning wild steelhead and brown trout. The proposed regulations will ensure all returning adult trout will spawn at least once, ensuring they pass on their unique genetic makeup to future generations. These regulations will further improve fishing by increasing repeat spawning levels, which will lead to more and larger fish, with a much greater genetic diversity. CRAA is also working to open lower Bronte Creek from Rebecca Street to Dundas Street with the same regulations. These regulations are backed by scientific studies from the Great Lakes and highlight the importance of protecting maiden spawning fish, to preserve and increase genetic diversity and maximize the wild, self sustaining populations.

Wow! If half this energy was put forth to rehab streams, plant trees, lift fish and protect our rivers we might have more fish to catch and be too busy fishing and not spend our time typing away on chat boards. 8 pages! Like Louis, I have to jump in. Craig - good to see you keeping busy. You should drop by and see some chromers on the Credit - they are sweet. Every night at 5 pm if Mother Nature keeps it warm. Beer in the fridge (don't tell Louis). I am also one of those back in the day steelheaders, and have caught steel all over the Great Lakes, West Coast and salar on various Great Lakes and East Coast. However I support Atlantic salmon. For the record, there were 49 grilse lifted and confirmed at Streetsvile (pretty close to 50). 34 were transported to the headwaters. There were reports of a few larger fish, plus other grilse from the lower river not included in the 49. Not a lot, but a good start. Atlantic stocking numbers rhetoric: The vast majority of the one million Atlantic's stocked thus far were stocked as fry (about 750,000). About 200,000 fingerlings and only 60,000 yearlings. Why is this important? 1 smolt equals about 20 fingerlings and 100 fry. So in reality at a yearling (smolt) equivelent only 77,500 +/- have been stocked, divided by 3 years equals 25,000 per year. The partnerships production for more fish is just kicking into high gear in 2009. Some comparables: MNR stocked roughly 60,000 to 120,000 coho yearlings annualy to produce a run of 1000-1500 adults in the Credit in recent years. MNR stocks an average 25,000 yearling steelhead to the Credit each year - return is roughly 600-1,000 fish per year (this has five year classes making up the total or 120 to 200 fish from each years stocking). MNR stocks an annual average of 150,000 brown trout yearlings each year (6 times Atlantic stocking rate) - Only 12 fin clipped brown trout returned to the Streetsville fishway last year. How many clipped browns did you catch from the 150 k. Credit was stocked with roughly 25,000 Atlantic yearling equivelents (2005 year class) to produce a return of 50 grilse. You cannot compare stocking one million Atlantics (750,000 as fry) to 200,000 yearling steelhead or 150,000 yearling browns. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Pennsylvania stocks between 600,000 and 1.2 million steelhead smolts every year to create their cookie cutter steelhead fishery. NY stocks 50-100 K into one Erie trib alone to make a run - but much of the run is made up from Penn strays. Atlantic stocking is funded outside the MNR, not with tax dollars, but with third party money - so no loss to MNR's budget. Yet some of those dollars and support are helping all the other salmonids. As Louis stated, the Norval fishway is within our grasp and salar is key to helping speed the process up. That ladder will be a shot in the arm for wild steelhead and browns too! Quanlity vs. quantity - is stocking the answer? The last time I fished Pennsylvania was November 1994. I had 50 hot chromers in the first pool of the creek, all between 6-8 pounds. 3 pound tippet (pre dates florocarbon), longest fight - 60 seconds, longest run - 20 feet. I left the river and swore never to return to fish for lazy, weak cookie cutters. I have not been back since. I did enjoy the late run on the NY trib Craig and I shared several times in the late 90's as they had some muscle, but I would gladly take 5 Credit or Notty chromers over 50 of those fish. The other day I had a 5 pound buck in the Credit jump 8 times and take me down the river 300 feet - and I had 8.8 pound tippet on. Or the 15 pound buck the day before that kicked my ass for 10 minutes. Or the hot chromer a buddy had last week that walked him 400 yards down and kissed him goodbye. Some of our big rivers are blessed with strong fish, but over harvest and lack of access to spawning grounds are the hurdles to good fishing. Steelhead Genetic divergence? Most wild Great Lakes Steelhead have divereged. Wild Credit steelhead are genetically different than the stockers and they have only had 20-30 years to change. Notty and Bighead steelies are also divergent down to the tributary according to genetic studies done. North shore Superior steelhead - divergent. I do totally agree with Craig that even MNR's stocking should be done from wild returns, not 4th generation brood stock, but I feel managing our wild fish to prevent over harvest is more important. The Coaster Since I am the guy who took the pic posted here - my 2 cents. I did ask the brookie where it came from, but it just looked at me like I was an alien - not sure why? The brookie was in the top end of the Streetsville fishway with a pack of big chinooks. It had to jump over 5 - 12-18" jumps going upstream to get where it was caught. It did not pass down, unless it squeezed through the 1" square steel screen. So, could it be a resident that dropped down and went back up - highly unlikely - it was the middle of September. Temperatures two weeks prior in the river had been above the lethal level for brookies far above the ladder. It is also not the first one ever reported in the Credit and many have been reported lake wide. In 20 years of MNR and CVC shocking no brookie even close to that size has been caught in the upper Credit. My bet - lake run - only way to get that big and be where he was. And finally - the first pic - The picture quality is not clear enough to say 100%. My bet - it was a brown, but 10% of me says Atlantic too. The tail is slightly forked, the caudle peduncle is thin, the dorsal is sloped more and the head is more pointed, but the maxillary passes the eye and the base of the tail starts like a brown. Nonetheless, it is a tough call. We had a brown at the Streetsville fishway that was also a very difficult call. When asked if he was a brown or Atlantic the fish replied "certainly not sir, I'm a tarpon" Have fun and give a little back to your favourite fishery. With only 12 million dollars for MNR funding through tax dollars the MNR staff need our help! John President of CRAA

A long time since I posted here (had to re-register). But it is a favourite subject of mine as some of you know. There is no question in my mind that harvest is by far the leading cause of the decline in steelhead numbers in most rivers. Steelheading has changed a great deal in 25 years and so has the fishery. I started fishing steelies in the mid 70's as a child with my dad on the Pretty and became a steelhead bum in the mid-latter 80's and enjoyed the good old days and have been working hard to try and bring them back since it all fell apart. Other factors such as zebra muscles and cormorants are partial factors, as are many other changes to the lakes. However the rivers are generally getting better, colder and more stable flows as past reforestation projects grow. Exceptions to this are in areas adjacent to urban sprawl. Steelhead access to spawning grounds and stocking are factors but this is on a river by river basis. Example, The Credit had huge runs 20 years ago because MNR stocked 100k of yearling steelhead and they had access past Norval for quite a few years (steelhead cannot reproduce below Norval, but have very high juvenile levels above the dam). Those huge runs in the Ganny 20 years ago were 99% wild fish. None of those rivers had stocking and stray rates were quite low. The wording I have used elsewhere recently; we are fishing for the leftovers or crumbs from what we once had. Fishing pressure on steelhead increased dramatically between 1988 and 1995. The causes included chinook salmon runs drawing thousands of river anglers in fall who then realized these hot fall chromers were even more fun, many fishing magazines writing articles and naming rivers, runs, etc, and of course several fishing shows naming the river they were on. Prior to 88 the Ganny harbour was pretty quiet in March, but a couple articles and it went from 20 guys to 200 (and the fishing was hot). Or the Willy, went from 2-5 cars in 1988-90 pre season to 200 cars in 93-94 due to fishing shows highlighting the creek. I recall a show on the Willy aired in late May one year. I was passing by and had planned to see if any dropbacks were left - there were over 50 people fishing the S bends and everyone I spoke to had 'seen the show'. With a liberal limit of 5 it was slaughter city. One morning I saw over 1,000 dead pre spawn chromers walk off the lower Willy and garbage cans filled with gutted huns at the Ganny. Enforcement was not much better then either! Prior to 1985 almost all steelhead harvest was after opening day. By 1990-95 most presure was on pre-sapwn fish and we still had major post opener harvest. Around the same time the lake anglers discovered the blue zone and targeted big numbers all summer. High pressure fishing went from a 2 week window to almost 52 weeks a year on the population. Today pressure is somewhat reduced (fewer anglers and fewer fish), but it is still far too much. Still many pre spawn fish being killed, lake harvest and still the post opener harvest. Louis (aniceguy) told me about another eastern trib two years ago on opener. He was into a good pool and was fishing c & r. Meanwhile another 'group' of anglers was hauling them out as fast as they could, taking 30+ fish home. Sound's like CC's post without the wheelbarrel. On Gbay/Huron the MNR's creel stats showed changing from a 5 fish to 2 fish limit would only drop harvest by 4% and going to 1 fish would only cut it back 13% (this is form the 96-98 era). The target to bring the fishery back was a 50% reduction in harvest up there. Sadly we still have major harvest issues. The numbers on Lake Ontario are similar. LOMU's creel data for the Willy and Ganny show harvest rates for steelhead are 35-50% each year. Studies done indicate a 15% harvest is sustainable (ie. Swanson, Brule R, etc). A 2 fish limit does little to improve things. Only further protection such as slot limits or minimum sizes can acheive the needed harvest rates. The only thing keeping the fishery afloat is high release rates already. Examples of population growth after reduced harvest: The Brule River, Wisconsin. A minimum 26" size limit was established many years ago. The fish population grew dramatically (200-300%). Portage Creek example - with zero harvest and a detailed ongoing study the population has incresed well over 300% (up to 500%). Check out the link www.northshoresteelheaders.com and look at portage creek data. Silver Creek (Collingwood) - a small stream about 8 feet wide. No study, just my 30 years history having lived near it and growing up fishing it. In the early 80's it had a big run of steelies. Opener had several hundred fish in the upper section. By the early 90's intense pressure and harvest cut the run dramatically. The same reach may have had 50 fish rather than 200-500 in prior years. About 8 years ago MNR closed the stream until May 31. The last few years the same section has 200-400 fish again. Sadly we had to loose a fishing spot in the process. I would rather see lower harvest rates through smaller limits on steelhead so we can retain our fishing access and allow the population to re-build. Controlling zebra muscles, etc is beyond our control. Limiting over harvest is within our control. Catch and release survival rates on steelhead are very low (1-2% mortality) from most recent studies. Harvesting a fish for dinner is fine...if the population can sustain it. If every angler fishing the Ganny kept only 1 fish per year the run would still be 100% harvetsed (with a run of 4,000 to 7,000 fish per year). We can keep fishing for crumbs. Or we can do something about it and get the bakery back. 50 fish days for steelies were once common. John President, CRAA