Episode 90: The 70-Year Battle to Save Great Lakes Fisheries

The fate of North America's most valuable freshwater system rests in the hands of dedicated scientists working across political boundaries. Greg McClinchey from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission returns to Under the Canopy to reveal the fascinating story of how this binational organization has battled invasive sea lamprey for nearly 70 years while coordinating fisheries management across multiple jurisdictions.

Greg reveals the remarkable impact these parasitic invaders have had on Great Lakes ecosystems. Each sea lamprey consumes approximately 40 pounds of fish during its lifetime, while females produce around 100,000 eggs. Left unchecked for just 3-5 years, these invaders would collapse fish stocks throughout the basin. Through dedicated control efforts using targeted lampricides in tributary streams, the Commission has reduced lamprey populations by about 90% from their peak.

The conversation takes unexpected turns, including the surprising story of how lamprey from the Great Lakes became part of a royal pie for Queen Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee when lamprey couldn't be harvested from their native English waters due to conservation concerns. While European lamprey are considered delicacies, Greg explains why Great Lakes lamprey are unsafe for human consumption due to accumulated heavy metals.

We explore cutting-edge science initiatives like the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation System (GLATOS), which tracks fish movements throughout the lakes, and the potential for mass-marking hatchery fish. Most impressively, Greg shares news that lake trout populations in Lake Superior have been fully restored – a landmark conservation achievement after decades of work.

What stands out most is how this international organization maintains unanimous, science-based decision-making even during periods of political tension between the U.S. and Canada. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission stands as a model for how shared commitment to natural resources can transcend politics to achieve remarkable conservation outcomes.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
How did a small-town sheet metal mechanic come to
build one of Canada's mosticonic fishing lodges?
I'm your host, steve Nitzwicky,and you'll find out about that
and a whole lot more on theOutdoor Journal Radio Network's
newest podcast, diaries of aLodge Owner.
But this podcast will be morethan that.
Every week on Diaries of aLodge Owner, I'm going to

(00:25):
introduce you to a ton of greatpeople, share their stories of
our trials, tribulations andinspirations, learn and have
plenty of laughs along the way.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Meanwhile we're sitting there bobbing along
trying to figure out how tocatch a bass and we both decided
one day we were going to be ontelevision doing a fishing show.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
My hands get sore a little bit when I'm reeling in
all those bass in the summertime, but that's might be for more
fishing than it was punching youso confidently you said hey,
pat, have you ever eaten a drum?
Find Diaries of a Lodge Ownernow on Spotify, apple podcasts
or wherever you get your podcast.

Speaker 5 (01:13):
As the world gets louder and louder, the lessons
of our natural world becomeharder and harder to hear, but
they are still available tothose who know where to listen.
But they are still available tothose who know where to listen.
I'm Jerry Ouellette and I washonoured to serve as Ontario's
Minister of Natural Resources.
However, my journey into thewoods didn't come from politics.

(01:34):
Rather, it came from my time inthe bush and a mushroom.
In 2015, I was introduced tothe birch-hungry fungus known as
chaga, a tree conch withcenturies of medicinal
applications used by Indigenouspeoples all over the globe.
After nearly a decade ofharvest, use, testimonials and

(01:57):
research, my skepticism hasfaded to obsession and I now
spend my life dedicated toimproving the lives of others
through natural means.
But that's not what the show isabout.
My pursuit of this strangemushroom and my passion for the
outdoors has brought me to theplaces and around the people
that are shaped by our naturalworld.

(02:18):
On Outdoor Journal Radio'sUnder the Canopy podcast, I'm
going to take you along with meto see the places, meet the
people that will help you findyour outdoor passion and help
you live a life close to natureand under the canopy.
So join me today for anothergreat episode and hopefully we

(02:38):
can inspire a few more people tolive their lives under the
canopy people to live theirlives under the canopy Well, as
always.
We thank our guests, both inCanada, around the world, in the
States and everywhere else, andshould anybody have, at any
time, any questions or commentsor suggestions for shows or

(02:59):
ideas, let us know.
We'd be more than happy to seewhat we can do about getting
them on.
It sometimes takes a bit of timeto try and get them on, but
it's okay, and I got to tell youagain today.
It's that time of the year herewhere we are and it's a little
bit cold and snowy out therestill, and the maple syrup or
the maple sap is still running.

(03:20):
So we're out checking pails andmaking sure that everything's
okay.
But it looks like we got aboutanother week of sap running with
the way the temperatures areand after that it'd be hard to
say for sure because we've onlycan see weather for about 10
days and it looks like we gotsome cold snaps coming in
that'll send the sap down to theroots and back up again.

(03:41):
But today we have a guest who'scoming back with us again Greg
from the Great Lakes FisheriesCommission.
Welcome back, greg.

Speaker 4 (03:50):
Thank you very much, Jerry.
It's great to be here.

Speaker 5 (03:53):
Yeah, it was a pleasure Last time.
You know quite a few responsesregarding our discussions last
time and I think we want to talkabout a few other things and I
got to tell you I saw the boothat the Toronto Sportsman Show
and we were at the SportsmanShow and I reached out to the
individuals there but I didn'treally realize that was the
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.

(04:13):
That was actually theremanaging the booth or running
that booth talking about lampreyeels again.

Speaker 4 (04:19):
Yeah, we actually do.
The commission itself does afair bit of public outreach and
education and the basic reasonfor that is simply because so
much of what we do is dependenton public support.
We have to make sure that peoplebroadly not just anglers, not
just people who use the lakes,but people broadly who live

(04:40):
throughout the basin understandthe importance of the work
that's being done and the impact.
So we're always very happy tohave members of the public
approach us.
Certainly, whether you know, ifyou come across, for example, a
treatment in process, come onup.
There's typically folksstreamside ready to have those
conversations and to answer anyquestions that might be there.
We do outreach with, as youmentioned, things like the

(05:02):
Sportsman Show and other placeswhere people gather who have an
interest in the lakes and then,you know, in schools and with
scout groups and youth groupsthroughout the basin.
We try and make sure that notjust adults but that our younger
folks, our next generation ofanglers and lake users, are
aware of the, you know, theimportance of the Great Lakes

(05:23):
and the tremendous work and thenetworks that go into place to
keep those Great Lakesfunctioning and sustainable and
healthy for many years to come.

Speaker 5 (05:32):
Yeah, greg, tell us when.
Actually do they normally putthe lamprocyte in the streams
and you'll see those vehicles?
Now, I think it's the vehicles,or what are they.
I can't remember because I'veseen the vehicles at the
roadside with individuals there,and are they ministerial trucks
?
Or are they Great LakesFisheries Commission trucks?

Speaker 4 (05:54):
Now they're typically branded with the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission logo aswell as the US Fish and Wildlife
Service or Department ofFisheries and Oceans, depending
on where the troops are deployed.
So, as I think I mentioned whenwe last spoke, we do a lot of
work with our partners.
We have contracts with groupslike the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and, in Canada, with theDepartment of Fisheries and

(06:15):
Oceans, to help do this workthroughout the basin.
So, depending on who you're orwhere you are and who you're
talking to, the branding for allthree organizations, or at
least two of them, will be onthe trucks.

Speaker 5 (06:26):
Now, when the jurisdictions are how shall I
say this in conflict betweenCanada and the States.
Now, you know, with the tariffsand all that work, like the
Great Lakes Commission, stillcontinues on, does it not?
And everybody realizes that thebenefit is for both of us and
not just a singular benefit toany one particular jurisdiction.

Speaker 4 (06:45):
Yeah, indeed, the work continues and I would argue
that the work actually I meanit's important all the time, but
I actually think it takes on anadded air of importance.
The Great Lakes FisheryCommission has been around for
70 years and if you look backover that time, there have been
several examples where, you know, the occupant of the White
House and the Prime Minister ofCanada maybe didn't see eye to

(07:07):
eye on issues.
There have been times when thenational relationship has been
strained or whatever, and Ithink it's at those times when
our commission and groups likeours take on this added
importance, because it's our jobto make sure that, regardless
of what's happening nationallyand what other issues might be
on the table or up fordiscussion or taking up lots of

(07:30):
space on the front pagesthroughout the two countries, we
want to make sure that theGreat Lakes remain.
On that, canadian PrimeMinister Pierre Trudeau and US
President Richard Nixon didn'talways see eye to eye, but

(07:52):
despite that, despite maybe somefrictions and personality
frictions between those two men,every decision that was taken
by the Great Lakes FisheryCommission during that time
period when those two men werein office, every single one of
them was unanimous.
So you know, which is atestament to the work of the
commission, but it's also areally good indicator that we

(08:13):
don't do politics right.
That's not the job of thecommission.
We're a science-basedorganization.
We work broadly across thebasin with partners of all
stripes and all shapes and sizesand interests, and as long as
we can come together.
You know, in the commonunderstanding that the Great
Lakes need to be protected andwe need to do what's best for
the lakes and the fisherieswithin the lakes, we've been

(08:34):
able to bridge that gap, if Ican say it, and make sure that
the Great Lakes remain on thefront burner, no matter what's
happening nationally.
Oh, that's good so whentypically does the lamperside
get put in the streams?
Usually right about now.
So our season now.

(08:55):
Obviously things are dependenton weather.
As many of us as we look outour windows.
Today, I've got a bit of an icestorm coming down where I am
right now.
We're all reminded that winterhasn't quite left us yet, and
even I was up on Lake Huron overthe weekend and just the last
remnants of the ice are startingto finally dissipate from the
shoreline.
So once those conditions aresuch that we can get crews out

(09:17):
and we can start to do our work,typically between April and,
say, october, but sometimes ayear like this one, things go a
little bit later into April,maybe mid-April or even the end
of April, depending on the year,and would carry through into
the fall.

Speaker 5 (09:34):
So the ice needs to be out first.
Is that one of the conditionsIs that when the lamprey start
to come up to spawn.

Speaker 4 (09:43):
Well, yeah, there's a number of conditions.
Certainly, as long as winterhas still got us, it's maybe a
little early, but yeah, we needto get into the streams.
Of course we don't treatlamprey in the lakes themselves.
Lamprey typically live theirformative years and they're
breeding in the freshwaterrivers and tributaries that feed

(10:05):
into the Great Lakes, just likethey would.
They're actually native to theAtlantic Ocean, so in the ocean
environment they do the samething.
They live in the saltwater andfeed in the saltwater, but live
formative, their formative yearsand breed in the rivers.
Likewise, in the Great Lakesand that's where we can get them
we apply a lamperside compoundto those streams on a specific

(10:26):
schedule.
We have to make sure that theflow rates are appropriate, that
the pH and the alkalinity fallin at a certain level and of
course we want to make sure thatwe're getting lamprey when they
come into those spaces to breed.
Now we're not just gettingincoming lamprey ones that are
coming in to breed, but lampreyhave a multi-year life cycle, so

(10:47):
they tend to live in thoserivers depending on where they
are.
There's factors like watertemperature that can shape how
long they live in their larvalphase and so on.
But let's just say.
For example, we've identified astream A and we know that
lamprey live there in theirformative years, in their larval
phase, for say, three years.
Then, as long as we treat thatstream once every three years,

(11:12):
we wipe out, we eradicate thepopulations before they can move
out into the lake.
So it's a pretty complexprocess and I don't pretend to
be a scientist I think I saidthat to you when we last spoke
but fortunately the FisheryCommission has a lot of
scientists that work with us andhelp to guide these things.
But we make sure that we hitthose streams on a regular basis

(11:33):
so that there's no populationleft to move out into the lakes
to do their damage as they moveinto what we call their
parasitic phase.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
Right Now, the lamperside doesn't affect any of
the other eels that are found,whether it's the American eel,
or I think there's a stream eelas well, correct?

Speaker 4 (11:51):
So there are a couple of things.
So the lampricide is a compoundthat we put in the water and
basically it affects lamprey.
And I mean there are certainspecies, there is bykill, there
is some.
It's very, very limited.
There's a species of salamander, for example, that doesn't
process the chemical well.

(12:12):
So that's why it's done in sucha specific and targeted way.
But in essence what thiscompound is is it's a compound
that's introduced that thelamprey have never evolved the
ability to metabolize.
So if you put a lamprey and alake trout in a jar and you put
lampricide in, the lake troutwill survive and the lamprey

(12:34):
will not.
But certainly there areimplications for some other
species very few, but for some.
And that's part of our scienceprogram is designed to make sure
that we apply lampricide at avery specific level.
We don't want to, you know webasically our objective is to
apply it at as low a level as ispossible that we get the kill

(12:56):
of sea lamprey, of the invasivesea lamprey, and minimal damage
to any other susceptible speciesas possible, in addition to the
ecological implications thatwe're trying to minimize.
We also, you know, lamprocyteis expensive.
We don't want to be putting acompound into the waterways, one

(13:17):
for cost purposes, but justeven though it's been proven
safe.
We want to make sure that weminimize any impact that it
would have on the environment.
Now I will say that our testingand our science program over
the last 60 or 70, almost 70years would indicate that it
doesn't accumulate in theenvironment.
In fact, it's what we callphotosensitive, which means that

(13:37):
when exposed to sunlight forabout five or six hours, it
breaks down into its inertcomponents and becomes
completely undetectable.
So it's not dissipating, it'snot becoming diluted, it's
simply breaking down in itscomponent parts and presents no
additional risk to theenvironment.

Speaker 5 (13:55):
So you mentioned, is there a specific strain of
salamander that's susceptible?

Speaker 4 (14:01):
Yeah, well, I think any of the ancient fish or
ancient species of amphibians dohave.
There's some and I'm talkingirritation, I'm talking about
some of the implications there.
So, as I said, our scienceprogram works very hard to make
sure that we're not having thatkind of negative impact on other
species and other.
There are, of course, as youpointed out, there are some

(14:23):
endemic native lamprey speciesthat we want to make sure remain
.
So that's all factored into ourtreatment schedule and how we
do things to again minimize andit's easy to say, you know, well
, then you know some may say,well then we want to make sure
we don't do this, then Likelet's leave it, so that we're
not having an impact on some ofthose other native species.

(14:45):
The challenge we have and thisis the challenge with invasive
species broadly that if we donothing, you know the invasive
species will do their worst.
And in the case of lamprey, wehave a situation where if we
were to not treat sea lamprey,the invasive sea lamprey, for
between three and five years, wewould see the collapse of fish
stocks in the Great Lakes.

(15:05):
So you know it, it, it again,the, the lamprey treatment
process and the and the and theprogram that we run is is very
safe.
It's proven that time and timeagain over 70 years of of of
pretty aggressive science.
But we also want to make surethat that that we, we completely
minimize that and we and wehave as little impact on the

(15:27):
other species as possible.
But, considering thealternative, doing nothing would
not be an option.

Speaker 5 (15:32):
So for Greg, for 70 years they've been working on
these issues like this.
Now I'm not sure how longthey've been dealing with land
prey, but what's the impact been?
How come they haven'teradicated the lamprey eel if
it's being so successful or not?

Speaker 4 (15:53):
So let me give first.
The first lamprey was seen inthe Great Lakes just over a
century ago, but 104 or 5 yearsago the first one was seen.
And then, of course, ourtracking data from then on, and
it's become much more precisesince those very early days.
But we saw fish populationsplummet.

(16:13):
You can actually track on agraph.
As the lamprey gainedprominence in each of the lakes,
the fish populations plummetedin a direct correlation to that.
So they've been around forabout a century.
They were hugely damaging tothe fish populations and the
ecosystems in the 20s, 30s, 40sand even into the 50s.

(16:38):
It was really desperation thatdrove the governments of the day
, the state there are eightstates the province of Ontario
and two federal governments tofinally, out of desperation,
come together and strike thetreaty that we operate under
today, that basically one of ourkey pillars was to eliminate
sea lamprey.
And you ask why we haven'teliminated them.

(17:01):
Well, I'd point out that in1954, when the Fishery
Commission or our treaty wasfirst brought forward, we didn't
actually have lamperside yet.
We didn't know at that pointhow to control sea lamprey and
something of that scope hadnever been done before.
In fact, even today our programis the only example of a marine

(17:22):
vertebrate being held or beingcontrolled, rather at an
ecosystem-wide basis in theworld.
It's just something that's veryhard to do and a general rule
of thumb with any invasivespecies and people who you know
whether you're working withzebra mussels or viral
hemorrhagic septicemia or roundgoby or any of the 186 species

(17:44):
of invasives that live in thegreat lakes they will tell you
that it is much, much easier tocontrol, or rather to prevent a
species from becomingestablished, than it is to
control or even eliminate itonce it has become established.
So, as an example of that, anumber of years we detected

(18:05):
evidence of active breeding ofgrass carp in Lake Erie right,
which would be a very, very badthing to do If you're a duck
hunter, if you're someone whomakes use of that nearshore area
or you know, as we all like tosee a healthy ecosystem that
involves that nearshore area,having grass carp become
established in the Great Lakeswould just be a cataclysmic

(18:25):
disaster, almost on the scale ofsea lamp rate.
So a number of years ago, whenwe found that the US Congress
began to fund the FisheryCommission to the tune of about
a million dollars a year, and wenow have boats on the water and
we are actively removing grasscarp species or grass carp
individuals from Lake Erie.
We're doing testing in theadjacent lakes and in Lake Erie

(18:48):
to make sure there hasn't beenthat breach of containment and
expansion of the species.
And basically our science showsthat if we can remove about I
think it's 330 individuals fromthe ecosystem every year, that
species will never becomeestablished, basically the
fertile ones.
I mean there are some infertileones in the lakes and they've

(19:09):
never caused a major problem.
But the fertile ones will neverfind each other and hence the
species, while present, willnever become established.
So that really is a bit of adirect lesson that we've learned
from things like lamprey,because now that they're here, I
mean we've reduced theirpopulations to about 90% below

(19:29):
what they have been at theirheight.
But we're really looking at asituation where as we move
further and further, kind ofchasing that last lamprey, if
you will, based on the currentstate of technology and our
practices and so on, chasingthat last lamprey becomes
economically not viable.
Now that's not to say we'rethrowing up our hands and saying

(19:51):
you know, never, say never, butwe do have to look at it and
think you know we continue toexplore options for better
control, more targeted use oflamprey side, other supplemental
barriers and techniques thatcan be used to control lamprey,
other supplemental barriers andtechniques that can be used to
control lamprey, and the hope isone day down the road we might
be in a position where we caneliminate lamprey from the Great

(20:12):
Lakes, but we're simply notthere yet.

Speaker 5 (20:14):
So are lamprey.
After all these years thatwe're using the lamprey, are
they becoming resistant to it aswell?
That's a great question.

Speaker 4 (20:23):
The Fishery Commission has a $10 million
binational science program.
That's one of our key pillars aswell is to make sure that we
have good science on which tobase decisions, and there's been
a lot of work done over theyears on lampricide resistance
Basically.
You know, there's kind of amixed bag on this.
We're seeing that there is, youknow, some very, very kind of

(20:48):
maybe, but we're not reallyseeing anything that's alarming
or that's kind of definitivethat should be concerning to us.
Now, for us, the driving forcebehind trying to reduce reliance
on lampricide or become moretargeted isn't, you know, that
lamprey are becoming resistant,although if ever there were to

(21:11):
really be signs of that, we'dhave to be concerned pretty fast
.
The concern is that lampricideis quite expensive, and my
background, my youth background,is in agriculture, and so you
know, as I remember from thosedays, every farmer wants to use
as little pesticide as possible,because there's an
environmental implication inthat case sometimes, but there's

(21:34):
certainly a cost implication,and so we want to make sure that
we target it, that you don'twaste it and that it's not
applied more than it needs to bedone.
So all those factors combine tomake us kind of press for that
efficiency.
But at this point we haven'tbecome especially concerned
about lampreyside resistance.

Speaker 5 (21:54):
Interesting.
So, yeah, one of the otherthings that I found interesting
was that actually, lamprey eelis a pretty demand in-demand
food in some jurisdictionsaround the world.
Is that things that you've?
I believe England was one ofthe key places.

Speaker 4 (22:13):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, lamprey.
I was last year about mid lastyear I was attending a
conference in Halifax and I hada gentleman from Portugal come
up to me and he was so excitedhe was trying to convince me to
let him take the two or threelamprey we had in the display
case in the tank home with them,because they are so valuable in

(22:35):
Portugal.
They're considered a delicacyin places like Spain and
Portugal and the United Kingdombut they're critically
endangered in most of theirnative range so you can't
actually fish them anymore.
In fact there was aninteresting or at least I think
it's interesting story backduring the Golden Jubilee I
believe it was of the late QueenElizabeth II.

(22:55):
This story unfolded so there'sa city in England called
Gloucester that would.
It has this tradition datingback to the Middle Ages where
whenever there was a significantevent for the sovereign right a
birth or a coronation or ajubilee or whatever that they
would present a sea lamprey pieto the sovereign.

(23:17):
And to be clear, I think I havean image of a pie when somebody
says pie, which is this nicelittle pastry, and you cut it
into eight or you know eight or10 pieces, let's not kid.
Maybe six or eight pieces.
But this pie is this huge puffpastry that's sculpted to look
like a cathedral and it's madeout of sea lamprey.
But at the time, although it wasthe golden Jubilee, they were

(23:40):
not able to fish sea lamprey inthe area.
So Gloucester was in a bit of abind.
They wanted to continue thisancient tradition but obviously
couldn't do what they needed todo.
So they gave us a call at theFishery Commission and our
current executive secretaryhappened to be on vacation in
the United Kingdom just byhappenstance at the time.

(24:02):
So the commission fedexed somefrozen lamprey over to him.
It fedexed, I guess, quiteeasily, and he received it and
then took it to the gloucestercouncil and was presented.
He presented them with the sealamprey for their pie for the
queen and in return they gavehim a certificate declaring him
the official purveyor of the sealamprey for the city of
gloucester.
So it's all, lots of nobodydoes pomp and circumstance like

(24:23):
the like the british, but gavehim a certificate declaring him
the official purveyor of the sealamprey for the city of
Gloucester.
So it's all, lots of nobodydoes pomp and circumstance like
the British.
But that was a really kind ofinteresting story.
And Mark, our executivesecretary got to be a part of
this ancient tradition datingback to the Middle Ages.

Speaker 5 (24:39):
Really Well.
There's a market forindividuals who are looking for
Spain, England and Portugal.

Speaker 4 (24:48):
good thing, Because unfortunately, while sea lamprey
in the saltwater oceansenvironment is a delicacy,
regrettably because of some ofthe historical practices,

(25:11):
particularly the industrialpractices along in the Great
Lakes, great Lakes sea lamprey,who feed at the top of the food
chain and tend to concentrateyou know they eat the big fish
tend to contain unacceptablelevels of heavy metals like
mercury.
So unfortunately well,unfortunately, I don't think sea
lamprey to me, sea lampreydon't look particularly

(25:32):
delicious, but perhaps that'sjust a personal choice.
But it would not be advisablefor people to eat sea lamprey
from the Great Lakes because ofthat health risk that they
present.
Oh really, they're not.
Even as a matter of fact, we'vehad a number of questions over
the years asking you know, canthey be used for pet food?
Can they be you know any numberof things?
And the reality is no, theycan't.
Unfortunately.

(25:52):
Because that particularalthough I know lots of work is
going into cleaning up areas ofconcern in the Great Lakes and
obviously considerable progresshas been made we're not seeing
the lakes that catch on fire orrivers that catch on fire, we're
not seeing the kind ofpollution and industrial
contaminants that we once did,but unfortunately that legacy is
still there and in this casemeans we can't eat sea lamprey.

Speaker 5 (26:15):
Oh, interesting.
So, and it's not like some ofthe younger ones are well, hmm,
no, it really it hits them alland it's mostly you know.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
I'll give you an example.
So zebra mussels, I've oftenhad people say, well, why
couldn't we just, you know, eatthem?
There's an example out ofChicago where they have a fish
which they've now.
It's a carp and they've nowrebranded as the kopi and their
kind of unofficial motto hasbecome if you can't beat them,
eat them.
And their plan is to kind ofmarket kopi as a very desirable

(26:49):
food fish and to basically eattheir way through the problem.
It's an interesting concept andcertainly we are watching very
closely to see how that worksout over the longer term.
But in the case of zebra mussels, that would never work.
Or in the case of sea lamprey,that would never work.
Because zebra mussels, forexample, because they're filter
feeders, they tend toconcentrate things like botulism

(27:11):
.
So that's obviously notsomething that we want in the
human food chain.
And likewise with sea lamprey,because they eat the fish who
have eaten the fish who haveeaten the fish who have eaten
the fish who have eaten the fish, and they also concentrate
those heavy metals.
So again, uh, just as a as kindof an outcome or a of the
mechanism in which they gettheir food makes them not
desirable or not not practicalfor human consumption, in the

(27:33):
case of lamprey so what do youmean?

Speaker 5 (27:36):
a filter feeder?

Speaker 4 (27:38):
so, so, uh, uh, uh, a zebra mussel, they, they
basically they suck all thewater in, like.
So they establish themselves ina place and they kind of suck
in the water and filter itthrough and consume the
materials that are in the water.
And so what they do is theycreate these kind of zones and,
over long story short, theybasically find botulism and

(28:00):
things like that and andconcentrate it.
It's again with sea lamprey.
That's the challenge.
If well, I'll tell you what.
I'll give you the human example.
So, uh, medical evidence wouldsuggest that, uh, women who are
pregnant are often given advicenot to eat more than so many
helpings of fish within a givenperiod of time.
And I'm not a doctor, I'm notgiving that, that advice, I'm

(28:21):
simply saying that you'll oftenget that advice from your doctor
.
And, again, it's because ofthose heavy metals that might be
contained in fish or otherpollutants and so on, that we
just need to moderate that,particularly at a time when a
developing baby is part of thatequation.
So you know, these things allwork together and it basically

(28:43):
speaks to the larger message whyyou know, and again I mentioned
, progress is being made andthat's great, but why we need to
work so hard to you know, dobetter to do better than we have
in the past with regards to theenvironmental legacy that is
our Great Lakes, our great lakes.

Speaker 6 (29:10):
Back in 2016,.
Frank and I had a vision toamass the single largest
database of muskie anglingeducation material anywhere in
the world.

Speaker 3 (29:15):
Our dream was to harness the knowledge of this
amazing community and share itwith passionate anglers just
like you.

Speaker 6 (29:22):
Thus the Ugly Pike podcast was born and quickly
grew to become one of the topfishing podcasts in North
America.

Speaker 3 (29:29):
Step into the world of angling adventures and
embrace the thrill of the catchwith the Ugly Pike podcast.
Join us on our quest tounderstand what makes us
different as anglers and touncover what it takes to go
after the infamous fish of10,000 casts.

Speaker 6 (29:43):
The Ugly Pike podcast isn't just about fishing.
It's about creating atight-knit community of
passionate anglers who share thesame love for the sport.
Through laughter, throughcamaraderie and an unwavering
spirit of adventure.
This podcast will bring peopletogether.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
Subscribe now and never miss a moment of our
angling adventures.
Tight lines everyone.

Speaker 6 (30:05):
Find Ugly Pike now on Spotify, apple Podcasts or
wherever else you get yourpodcasts.

Speaker 5 (30:16):
And now it's time for another testimonial for Chaga
Health and Wellness.
Okay, I'm here in Millbrookwith Trevor, who had a great
experience and wants to share itwith us with the skin cream,
the Chaga skin cream.
Trevor, tell us what you wentthrough and how much you used
and go ahead.

Speaker 7 (30:32):
I've had eczema on my arm since I was a little kid
and it's always been quite arough patch there on my arm and
no lotion seemed to ever get itso that it was smooth on my arm
and no lotion seemed to ever getit so that it was smooth Right.
But using the Chaga, probablyfor three weeks, it feels like
normal skin now.
Yeah, and how often did you putit on?
I put it on maybe once everyother day.
I didn't remember to do itevery day.

(30:54):
Yeah, but once every other day,one time a day.

Speaker 5 (30:57):
Very good and you had great results.

Speaker 7 (31:00):
And now it feels like normal skin again.
Very good, and you didn't tryanything else, so you figure
that's what.
No, that worked, so I'msticking with that.

Speaker 5 (31:06):
Very good.
Well, thanks, trevor here inMillbrook, yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
Okay.

Speaker 5 (31:18):
We interrupt this program to bring you a special
offer from Chaga Health Wellnessprogram.
To bring you a special offerfrom Chaga Health and Wellness.
If you've listened this far andyou're still wondering about
this strange mushroom that Ikeep talking about and whether
you would benefit from it or not, I may have something of
interest to you.
To thank you for listening tothe show, I'm going to make
trying Chaga that much easier bygiving you a dollar off all our

(31:42):
Chaga products at checkout.
All you have to do is head overto our website,
chagahealthandwellnesscom, placea few items in the cart and
check out with the code CANOPYC-A-N-O-P-Y.
If you're new to Chaga, I'dhighly recommend the regular
Chaga tea.
This comes with 15 tea bags perpackage and each bag gives you

(32:05):
around five or six cups of tea.
Hey, thanks for listening Backto the episode.
So, and I'm not familiar withsea lamprey at all, but I know
that we have fish farms wherepeople rear rainbow trout, for
example.
Is there a possibility ofrearing lamprey eels in order to

(32:28):
provide as a food source?

Speaker 4 (32:29):
Certainly we've never .
We at the commission are highlyfocused on our mission to
eliminate, or to control,eliminate and hopefully one day
eradicate the species.
The challenge is there are manychallenges.
One of the challenges is thatthey don't belong here.
They don't interact withpopulations well.

(32:50):
They eat voraciously and breedeven more so.
I mean, every sea lamprey willeat about 40 pounds of fish in
its lifetime and every femalewill have about 100,000 eggs.
So it's really just a speciesthat doesn't belong here.
It hasn't co-evolved with GreatLakes fish.
They don't interact well.

(33:11):
I mean, almost every encounterbetween a lamprey and a Great
Lakes fish results in the deathof the fish as opposed to in
their native environment, wherethey might feed on a fish and
then move along.
That's partly because they'veco-evolved and their behaviors
are lined up.
They belong in that environment.
But it's also because oceanfish are bigger.
If you have a sea lampreythat's you know what 18 inches

(33:35):
long, that feeds on the side ofa whale, it's probably not going
to cause much harm.
But if you have that same sealamprey feed on the side of a
lake trout, it will kill thelake trout.
So we would never want to getinto a situation where we're
fostering the presence of thisspecies that so clearly doesn't
belong and has such clear anddamaging implications for the

(33:56):
Great Lakes environment broadly.
It's certainly something that'sbeen talked about, it's even
been studied by some, but everytime the answer comes back that
that would just be a very, verybad idea.

Speaker 5 (34:08):
Interesting.
So, Greg, tell us some of theother things that the Great
Lakes Fisheries Commission workson.
How does it manage fisheries,for example?

Speaker 4 (34:19):
Well, the interesting part is the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, I will say, doesn'tmanage fish, we manage the
people who manage the fish or wehelp to manage them.
So let me explain what thatmeans.
So, before our treaty cameabout, all of the jurisdictions
along the Great Lakes and Imentioned there are eight Great
Lakes states, as well as theprovince of Ontario, numerous

(34:42):
tribal and First Nationsinterests and private interests
and rights holders and thosekinds of things Everybody was
trying to do their thing on theGreat Lakes but there was no
coordination.
So you know, the state ofWisconsin would set a total
allowable catch for X withregards to fishing licenses, and
usually, you know, in thosedays, a very long time ago,

(35:04):
decades and decades ago, fishinglicenses were given out based
on how many people wanted to gofishing, not on how many fish
there were in the water.
In those days we'd have, Imentioned, if Wisconsin said it
was going to take X, then youknow its next door neighbor,
michigan, would say, well, ifthose guys can take X, we can
take X plus 10%.
And then Ontario would say,well, if those guys can take X,
we can take X plus 10%.
And then Ontario would say,well, if Michigan and Wisconsin

(35:26):
can take that, surely we cantake that plus a little bit more
too.
And it became this race to thebottom and that's why you saw a
really mismanaged or poorlymanaged fishery in those days,
and I'm talking about decadesago Now.
What happened when the FisheryCommission came along?
We were given three specificmandate items, and we've already

(35:46):
talked about the science, we'vealready talked about land
freight control.
But the third and sometimes Imight suggest, the most
important element although thatdepends on the day is this
cross-border coordinationmandate and what we were asked
at the time and this wasobviously long before me.
I'm speaking, you know, kind ofcolloquially as the
organization.

(36:06):
We were asked to bring all ofthe people together who manage
fisheries, all of the provincialand state regulators and DNRs
and everybody that had a hand inmanaging the Great Lakes
fishery, and to get them tocoordinate their efforts and to
think beyond their own piece ofshoreline.
So you know, for example,michigan borders four, great

(36:26):
Lakes, ontario borders five orsorry borders four, not Lake
Michigan.
There are some geologists whoclaim, I think, scientifically
speaking, that Lake Michigan andLake Huron are part of the same
lake, but for our discussionthey're not.
We don't want to get into thatdebate.
So ontario borders for,michigan borders for.

(36:46):
So what we've done is we'vecreated this, this we call it
the joint strategic plan ofmanagement for great lakes
fisheries.
And what we've done is we'vecreated lake committees and and
every state or the province whohas shoreline on a particular
lake then sits on the lakecommittee for that lake and
those lake committees manage thelake, so they and the fishery,

(37:10):
so they would jointly cometogether and set priorities.
They would talk aboutenvironmental things that they
need to do, you know, whenappropriate, total allowable
catch limits, fisheriesregulations, like all of the
things that go into managingthat fishery, and it it's all
facilitated by the Great LakesFishery Commission process.
We, you know, we don't takeaway their responsibility.

(37:30):
It's still there.
You know, the state of New Yorkhas jurisdiction for fishing in
the Great Lakes on their shores, as does Ontario and so on.
So what we do is we bring themtogether, we provide them with
the scientific information thatthey need to make informed,
logical, thoughtful decisions,and we set up a process where

(37:53):
it's not about getting just whatI want.
It's about getting what I wantby ensuring that everybody gets
what they want.
It's more of a sticks in abundle approach that has proven
really effective over the yearsand has really taken root.
So these lake committees nowfunction.
They meet regularly and theydiscuss and enact priorities for
their lakes and then they cometogether broadly to talk about

(38:16):
the lake system, which, again,these things simply never
happened before the Great LakesFishery Commission and that
process came along.
It's worth noting that thatentire process is
consensus-based and voluntary.
No state or the province has toparticipate.
But I think over the yearsthey've all come to understand

(38:36):
that it really is a positive,strong way of managing these
incredible resources and it'syielded results that I'm not
sure if I mentioned last time wespoke in November of 2024.
So just late last year onlythree or four months ago, I
guess four or five months agonow we were able to announce
that lake trout populations inLake Superior have been fully

(39:00):
restored.
Oh really, it really is.
It's an amazing announcement.
It's one that unfortunatelydidn't get as much press as we
might like to have seen it get.
But when you think about thisday and age, we don't often
recognize that things are goingso well.
But to have that species befully restored in the lake is
incredible.
It's a direct result of thehard work that's happening with

(39:21):
the lake is incredible.
It's a direct result of thehard work that's happening with
the lake committees and you knowwe can even look at.
You know, go to the other endof the system, go down to Lake
Erie and you see, or near theother end, you see that Lake
Erie now has a fully sustainablemarine, certified sustainable

(39:43):
fishery.
So, while Lake Erie is the mostproductive biologically
speaking of the lakes, it hasthe largest biological output,
like the largest catch of any ofthe lakes, but it's being done
in a way that is completelysustainable.
So these are all things thathave come about over the last
number of decades really sincethe 80s basically and are a

(40:05):
consequence of that committeestructure that's worked so well.

Speaker 5 (40:09):
Very good.
So what about other lakes forlake trout restoration?

Speaker 4 (40:14):
There's still certainly work to be done in
some of the other lakes.
We continue to work that wayand look forward to the day when
we can make the announcement inall of the lakes and for all of
the species of fish that areimportant to us, but we're
simply not there yet.

Speaker 5 (40:31):
Right, so tell us then about this.
What is it?
The GLATOS network and some ofthe background on that.

Speaker 4 (40:38):
Yeah, actually I'm really glad you asked that.
So GLADOS is short for let'ssee if I get this right the
Great Lakes Acoustic TelemetryObservation System, and
basically over the last numberof years and it's really grown
tremendously.
If you go on, there's actuallya GLADOS website.
If you could link to it off ofour page, glfcorg.

(40:59):
If you look up GLADOSG-L-A-T-O-S on our page, you'll
find that.
And what's happened is, over theyears, scientists have been
implanting Great Lakes fish withtransmitters that are, I guess,
kind of like the GPS on yourcar, and then there are
receivers that are throughoutthe lakes and basically we can
track fish movement through thisnetwork of receivers.

(41:21):
And so it's kind of thisnetwork of receivers, and so
it's a kind of this network ofresearchers who work together.
They use that acoustictelemetry to better understand
fish behavior and the ecology inthe lakes, and then that
information is it's an exampleof information that would be
made available to fish managers.
So, for example, if GLaDOSreveals that you know there's a

(41:42):
reduction in fish populations in, you know, lake Ontario, then
fish managers can deal with thataccordingly and whether that's
through the use of hatcheryresources or reduced allowable
catches and so on.
But it really is this remarkablenetwork of researchers that

(42:02):
have come together to basicallytrack individual fish, and it's
I mean, obviously we don't haveevery single fish in the lake
that the lakes tagged, but whatwe have is this kind of really
large and growing representativesample of what there is.
So it's a really it's anincredibly interesting project
that's been going on.

(42:23):
It's binational right, so itdoesn't again we operate in this
border-blind way, and it'sreally a way to allow us to
collaboratively work and tounderstand fish behaviors in
relation to Great Lakes ecologyand what's happening beneath the
water.
There's a lot happening underthe water, and this is just one

(42:44):
of those examples where we'retrying to understand it better.
The listening devices happen 24hours a day, 12 months out of
the year, so they give us areally great baseline on what's
happening there.

Speaker 5 (42:57):
So, with these devices, is it something that
you can determine patterns for?
Is it something that you candetermine patterns for?
Because I know I ran a charterboat back in the 80s on Lake
Ontario and when there was acool southern breeze, very slow
you would get a buildup of warmwater on the north side of Lake

(43:18):
Ontario.
So is this something that youcan determine patterns like that
for fishing reasons, so thatyou can see that the fish are
locating into this area forthese reasons?
So what?

Speaker 4 (43:29):
we wouldn't use it for would be for fish harvesting
purposes.
Right, it's not somethingthat's made available to tell
anglers, hey, go here, this iswhere the fish are.
But basically it's a tool thatwould be made available to
fisheries managers to seepopulations, and I'll give you a
concrete example of why thatwould be important.
So we want to control sealamprey.

(43:51):
Sea lamprey feed on fish.
So while we can't trackindividual sea lamprey, we can
track its prey prey.
So we know, for example, thatif populations of lake trout
begin to congregate in certainareas, that there's a better
than average chance that we'regoing to see increased lamprey

(44:11):
populations in those areas,because they're going where the
food is right, they don't careabout borders, they don't care
about what lake they're in,they're going after food.
And so we can then deploy our,so our sea lamprey control
program.
We work through this extendedsystem of committees and other
things like that that share thatinformation and, over the
course of a year, devise kind ofwhat the strategy should be for

(44:34):
next year's control season andthen we can deploy sea lamprey
control resources accordingly.
We know that streams andtributaries provide, you know.
We also have, you know,juvenile larval assessments and
we track wounding rates and allof those kinds of things, but
things like GLaDOS would help usto understand where fish
populations are and hence beingable to send control efforts

(44:57):
that way.
The other thing, and thebiggest thing, is being able to
direct hatchery resources right.
We want to make sure that, aswe're placing and we, the
Fishery Commission, don't lookafter hatcheries, but certainly
many of our partners do and wewant to make sure, if you're
increasing your output from ahatchery in a specific area or a
specific lake, that you havesome idea as the fish population

(45:19):
that might be there, becauseyou don't want to overload the
habitat and you don't want tounderutilize the habitat and the
available food that would bethere for fish going into the
environment.
It's also worth mentioning aninteresting side note.
We just had a bill reintroducedinto the US Congress.
It's spearheaded by Mr Hezingaand Mrs Dingell, who it's called

(45:43):
a mass marking project, andit's a really, really cool
project where they bring if itwas to pass, it would be funded
and we could deploy it on theGreat Lakes and basically what
it is is it's you set up thesekind of trailers, come in, they
set up these, troughs all of thefish going out of the hatchery
into the water, would go throughit and the machines would lop

(46:03):
off a tiny fatty protuberance ofthe adipose fin on the back of
a fish and it would lop that offand then it would insert a
radio tag into the snout of thefish and all of these fish would
then go out into the lakes andwhen they're caught, if an
angler looks at it and says, oh,this fish doesn't have an
adipose fin, when they you know,they chop off the fish's head,

(46:24):
they send it in for analysis andwe're able to track those fish
and to really drill down on fishpopulations coming out of
hatcheries whether or not weneed to do more or less
depending on what's happeningunder the water.
So it's another reallyinnovative example of something
that can be done to look closelyunder the water to see what

(46:45):
fish are doing.

Speaker 5 (46:46):
Interesting.
So how many fish would you betalking about trying to do this
process with?

Speaker 4 (46:51):
So again, the bill has not passed, it's just been
introduced.
And I'll say it's beenintroduced in previous
Congresses but never passed, notbecause anyone opposed it, but
I always say it's because it wasprobably, you know, priority
number 11 on a list of top 10and it just, it just hasn't
gotten done.
But but we're going to behopeful, we're going to continue
to press for its support andbasically, these machines can do

(47:14):
about 8 500 fish an hour andgive or take and the the
intention is is that it needs todo 100% of the fish coming out
of a hatchery, because that wayif you catch a fish that doesn't
have an adipose fin, youabsolutely know that it's a
hatchery fish.
But if you're only doing someof the fish coming out of

(47:37):
hatcheries, then you don't knowwith certainty that it's a
hatchery fish.
If the fish has an adipose fin,that it's a hatchery fish,
right, it might.
It might, if the fish has anadipose fin, it might be a
hatchery fish that didn't gothrough the system, or it might
be a natural fish.
So it's really one of thosethings we need to do, all or
nothing.

Speaker 5 (47:53):
So what species of fish are released into the Great
Lakes?

Speaker 4 (47:57):
Depends on the area, but I know there's a lot of work
being done sturgeon lake trout.
There's work being done withsalmon.
So it really it depends on thearea, it depends on the state or
the province, but they'rebasically the native fish
populations of the Great Lakesthat need a little bolstering
and the province of Ontario andthe states have long had

(48:18):
stocking processes.
In fact, back in those earlydays, back when the commission
kind of first came about, one ofthe reasons for needing to
control lamprey was they werethe states and the province were
dumping fish into the lakes andthey were just feeding lamprey,
basically because the lampreypopulations were so out of
control.
Obviously, if there's effortsand tax dollars going into

(48:40):
stocking fish in the Great Lakes, we want to make sure that
they're used for legitimaterecreational and commercial
fishing opportunities.

Speaker 5 (48:48):
Right.
So whereabouts are the work onsturgeon taking place?

Speaker 4 (48:52):
Can't give you a lot of examples on that.
I know that there's kind ofmixed work done throughout the
basin.
I can't name it for you off thetop of my head.

Speaker 5 (49:00):
Okay, I just wondered .
And are there species like thedeepwater ciscos being looked at
or not?

Speaker 4 (49:04):
There is some work because, of course, cisco, as
you, as you I'm sure you know,used to be in the Great Lakes
and one of the factors whythey're not in the Great Lakes
is because of sea lamp break,because of the out of control
work.
So there's, there's always, youknow, the the Corrigonian
research projects are are alwayslooking at how to reintroduce
some of these species.

(49:25):
But again, that's where thescience program is so important
and sometimes when you talk topeople they kind of roll their
eyes and think, oh, science,it's not that exciting, but it
really is the science that isfacilitating.
When you hear about lake troutin Lake Superior being fully
restored, that science, thatscience forms the backbone of

(49:46):
how those things happened.
It's how we control sea lamprey.
We had to first understand whatmakes a sea lamprey tick.
You know what are itsweaknesses so we could use those
weaknesses against it.
That's where we learned itcouldn't metabolize this
particular compound.
So that science program,whether it's GLADOS, whether
it's mass marking, whether it'sstraight out primary research,

(50:08):
it's really, really importantfor some of the work that we're
doing to manage the populationsbroadly, those fish managers and
part of that strategic plan.
They have to have thatinformation.

Speaker 5 (50:19):
Very interesting.
What about there's like smelt,smelt and things along those
lines, and do you do anyresearch or is there anything
taking place?
Because I can remember as ayouth, in the teens, going down
smelt fishing and the numbersare nowhere near and I always
try to find out when and wheresmelt might be running to be
able to take my sons out so theycan get an experience of what

(50:40):
it's like to go smelt fishing.
But it's very difficult to findanymore and I don't know much
or hear much about researchabout smelt.

Speaker 4 (50:46):
Yeah, so you and I maybe have the same vintage then
, because I know it's actuallytypically had been about this
time of year, maybe a littlelater than this, that you'd get
into the smelt runs when I was akid and so, yeah, I remember
that too.
You'd go out and you could justnet them in, or even with
buckets kind of thing.
So the Fishery Commission'smandate is not kind of all

(51:07):
encompassing, right.
We have a science mandate, wehave that lamprey control
mandate and then thatcoordination mandate.
So I don't want to leave anyonewith the impression that we're
kind of a one-stop shop.
We certainly work to support ourscience program.
You know people can apply forfunding and we will often fund
research.
So a lot of that work.
You know people can apply forfunding and we we will often
fund research.
So a lot of that work.

(51:28):
You know, as far as the what'sbeing done with specific species
is either being done by privateinterests or, in the case of
the state and and provincialgovernments, so we can support
certain scientific initiativeswhen it comes about.
We even have some limitedcapacity to do primary research
ourselves.
I mean we have biologicalstations at Marquette and

(51:49):
Ludington and so on.
But a lot of that research thatwe do primarily is focused on
lamprey control, the use ofpheromones and all sorts of
other things.
But we don't necessarily getinto that, the smelt stuff or
any of that other kind ofresearch elements ourselves,
although we're enthusiastic andalways open to ideas on how we
can partner up.

Speaker 5 (52:10):
So Greg, does the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
do they do presentations orhave seminars or like if a
fishing club was interested ingetting a presentation?
Is that something that thecommission provides or has
information for?

Speaker 4 (52:25):
We certainly we try very hard to do as much as we
can.
We're limited, we're a prettysmall but lean and lean
organization but, as I mentionedearlier, I will often go to
schools, I often speak at groups.
We have a communicationsdepartment that does outreach.
You met some of them youprobably met Andrea at the
Sportsman Show and so we try anddo as much of that as we can.

(52:48):
So certainly anyone who'sinterested can reach out to us
at GLFCorg.
I can't promise that we're ableto do it.
You know.
Again, work with our Canadianand US committees of advisors,

(53:11):
for example, are populated byreally great experts who we will
often deploy to help share thegood news of what we're doing
and what's being done throughoutthe basin the good news of what
we're doing and what's beingdone throughout the basin.
We have I mentioned the LakeCommittee members.
We actually just I just gotback from we took part in a film
festival, an environmental filmfestival in Washington DC,

(53:34):
where there was an expert paneland we had one of our
commissioners.
We had a charter boat captainfrom Pennsylvania and the
filmmaker that sat on that paneland talked about the work
that's being done and the filmitself, which was created or
supported by the FisheryCommission is called Fish Thief.
It's streaming on most serviceslike Apple and all that kind of

(53:57):
stuff, and it talks about the70-year history of trying to
control sea lamprey.
So there's some good stuffthere.
That's my little plug for themovie.
I'd urge all of your listenersto check it out.
It can be streamed at very lowor even, in some cases, no cost.
But all that to say thoseexperts that you'll see, some of
them in the film and then bythe Fishery Commission by

(54:20):
extension, are available,depending on time constraints
and scheduling, are available tospeak to groups.

Speaker 5 (54:27):
Very interesting.
Well, Greg, how can people findout when the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission will bedoing work in a stream near
where they are so they can askquestions or see the process
working and find out moredetails about that?
Is there a place that they cango to to find out some of those
information?

Speaker 4 (54:42):
Yeah, there's a wealth of information located on
our website at glfcorg and,failing that, you will also see
a staff directory on there.
So certainly you can.
There's numbers for our SeaLamprey director, our control
director there's my number.
Is there our communicationsdepartment?
All of our staff are happy toask those questions.
Once we get things queued upfor the season, the schedules

(55:07):
are typically set out into theareas so people will see them if
their local media picks it upand so on.
But certainly don't hesitate toreach out to the commission.
We're more than happy to answerquestions.

Speaker 5 (55:18):
Very good.
So once again, greg, how canpeople get in touch with
yourself or with the Great LakesFisheries Commission to find
out more details, and where togo to find out details about all
the things that we justfinished talking about?

Speaker 4 (55:31):
Yep, glfcorg GreatLakesFisheryCommissionorg
is a great resource.
There's everything.
All of the science informationis there, all of the information
on sea lamprey control, some ofthe developing stories that
we've just chatted about in theinitiatives and, as I said, my
number is listed on there GregMcClinchy, as well as our
director of communications andour director of lamprey control

(55:54):
operations.
So lots of staff resourcesthere.
There's stuff that's availablefor download.
You could take a look.
For example, there's a video onwhat a C lamprey treatment
looks like, a control treatmentlooks like.
You can watch that.
It's a wealth of information.
I would encourage people tohave a look.
We have a mandate to not onlyget information but to share

(56:14):
information, and we take thatvery seriously.
So, again, glfcorg, or give mea call.

Speaker 5 (56:21):
Well, thank you very much, Greg, for being on the
podcast.
We really appreciate the updateand all the information and the
great work that the Great LakesFisheries Commission is doing
in our Great Lakes here, both inthe States and in Canada, and
we want to make sure that youkeep it up.
And thank you for taking thetime to be on the podcast.

Speaker 4 (56:37):
Thank you very much, enjoy being here and we'd be
happy to be back anytime.

Speaker 5 (56:41):
Well, we appreciate that and Enjoy being here and
we'd be happy to be back anytime.
Well, we appreciate that, andjust something a little bit
different about things thathappen out there under the
canopy.
Thanks, greg, take care.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Hi everybody.
I'm Angelo Viola and I'm PeteBowman.
Now you might know us as thehosts of Canada's favorite
fishing show, but now we'rehosting a podcast.
That's right Every Thursday.

Speaker 4 (57:18):
Ang and I will be right here in your ears,
bringing you a brand new episodeof Outdoor Journal Radio.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
Hmm, Now what are we going to talk about for two
hours every week?

Speaker 4 (57:27):
Well, you know there's going to be a lot of
fishing.

Speaker 6 (57:29):
I knew exactly where those fish were going to be and
how to catch them, and they wereeasy to catch.

Speaker 2 (57:34):
Yeah, but it's not just a fishing show.
We're going to be talking topeople from all facets of the
outdoors, from athletes,outdoors From athletes.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
All the other guys would go golfing.

Speaker 7 (57:46):
Me and Garton Turk and all the Russians would go
fishing To scientists.
But now that we're reforestingand letting things breathe.

Speaker 6 (57:50):
It's the perfect transmission environment for
life.

Speaker 3 (57:53):
To chefs If any game isn't cooked properly, marinated
, you will taste it.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
And whoever else will pick up the phone Wherever you
are.
Outdoor Journal Radio seeks toanswer the questions and tell
the stories of all those whoenjoy being outside.
Find us on Spotify, applePodcasts or wherever you get
your podcasts.