Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act of 2025

Illinois fish agencies (and Tribes in Illinois) are named in the findings as partners in identifying mass marking needs. They would gain access to tagging data to guide stocking and restoration decisions, but may also face added coordination and tag-reporting work with federal partners.

Indiana is listed among the Great Lakes states working through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission structure. Better hatchery fish marking data can improve stocking and management decisions for Lake Michigan fisheries, with possible future changes to stocking priorities based on results.

Michigan is explicitly named in the findings. The program supports tagging of hatchery fish stocked in the basin and sharing results, which can affect Michigan’s sport and commercial fisheries through better stocking and predator/prey management—plus possible changes in plans as data accumulates.

Minnesota is named in the findings as part of the multi-state and Tribal partnership. The program’s data can help Minnesota and Tribal co-managers judge how well hatchery operations are working and guide Great Lakes restoration and fish management decisions over time.

Ohio is listed among the Great Lakes states involved. The program can improve information used for Lake Erie stocking and management decisions, which may help stabilize fishing opportunities while also potentially changing stocking strategies based on tag results.

Pennsylvania is named in the findings. Access to basin-wide tag data can help Pennsylvania manage Great Lakes fisheries (especially Lake Erie) and evaluate habitat restoration results, with possible future adjustments to stocking and management actions.

New York is explicitly included in the findings. The mass marking data can support management decisions for Lake Ontario and connected waters, including balancing stocked vs. wild fish and tracking how effective hatchery operations are over time.

Wisconsin is named in the findings as part of the Great Lakes partnership. Better tagging data can improve long-run fishery outcomes and help evaluate restoration and stocking actions, but may also bring added coordination and data-collection workload for agencies and partners.