Bass and Walleye Rule change on the Columbia and tributaries-CRAZY

[wildmanoutdoors]

 
Lets just give up on all the ESA listed stocks and have a free for all! After all the runs are doing fine! 

[Alchase]

Probably because nobody wants to eat cormorants or sea lions so they can't justify a hunting season for them. And who's going to do the killing, if not hunters?

Pick me! Pick me!
I would volunteer my services, I would even buy my own ammo 

[Roosevelt walleye]

I have been reading on this forum for about a year and I am in disbelief how many sportsman do not understand that fighting against rights of other sportsman is exactly what the other side preys on. When the Salmon and Steelhead fishing is shut down because sportsman are taking to many of the native sea lions fish we will here some of you singing another tune.

[BLUEBULLS]

I have been reading on this forum for about a year and I am in disbelief how many sportsman do not understand that fighting against rights of other sportsman is exactly what the other side preys on. When the Salmon and Steelhead fishing is shut down because sportsman are taking to many of the native sea lions fish we will here some of you singing another tune.

Very clear to me. Sportsman should stick together and work together. Keep all sides happy to strengthen our overall heritage.

I'm not sure how to keep everyone happy but it would be ideal.

[Curly]

What would keep me happy is to go ahead and increase the limits on bass, walleye and catfish, if they want but don't just remove all restrictions.  I'd like to see something like an 18" max limit on bass and maybe a 24" max limit on walleye.  Let those big fish go and thin out the smaller ones.  They shouldn't try to destroy world class fisheries where people come from all over the country to catch these fish.  They may be technically invasive, but the river conditions have made it such great habitat for them, why not let them coexist?  Shouldn't the WDFW have studies to back up the rule change?  I don't think the number of smolts they eat is all that great.......bass mostly eat crawfish, sculpins and perch.   

[Roosevelt walleye]

Thanks, glad I did not confuse everyone

[Roosevelt walleye]

I do not understand how our state as well as the Colville tribe can talk about invasive species and at the same time plant Triploids in the same lakes and rivers that they are trying to eliminate bass and walleye.

[Curly]

I do not understand how our state as well as the Colville tribe can talk about invasive species and at the same time plant Triploids in the same lakes and rivers that they are trying to eliminate bass and walleye.

Exactly.

Or planting rainbows in all the lowland lakes.  In most cases those fish are "invasive". 

[WSU]

Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. 

You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??

I'm with ya sniper101.  Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again.  I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart.  Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.

Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them?  If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt."  You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size. 

I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them.  I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.

Nope.  I don't think they are a big problem.  Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow.  As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.

The salmon runs are only doing "great" compared to what they became after we f'd everything up (dams, logging, etc.).  The Columbia is producing something like 1/25 of the salmon it used to, and most of those fish are hatchery fish.

Well, this is 2013 and not the 1800's.  Doesn't make sense to me to compare todays runs with those of the pre-dam/logging.

It doesn't make sense to me to ignore history and claim the runs are "great."  Sticking our collective heads in the sand and saying this are "great" doesn't make it so.

[WSU]

I will shoot you a PM if I end up going over.

(Let me know if you need some plastic worms, grubs, or some jigheads).

Will do.  I don't know much about the fishery, but am going to go with my brother in law who lives in Richland.  I'm sure it won't be hard to figure out.  My quick research tells me to look for spawning water and then pound on them once you find the beds.  I've fished for bass enough to figure it out. 

That said, anyone who has some good info to pass along is more than welcome to.  I'd love to get my nephew into a bunch of fish.

[Mfowl]

Triploids and stocker trout are a put and take fishery. These fish are sterile and don't actually reproduce in the wild. There may be "holdovers" that don't get caught but they don't sustain thier own populations. Bass and walleye are quite prolific, much more so than our native salmon and steelhead. Plus thier spawns are less affected by environmental conditions such as flood/low water etc. There are plenty of bass and walleye swimming in the Columbia and its tribs that have literally never seen a lure so this rule won't effect these fisheries too much. If it lets a few hundred thousand more smolts reach the ocean, I'm in.

[Kc_Kracker]

i love it, they are ravenous fish and there are huge numbers there tobe had this is not going to affect their population. now if they would demolish the walleye and pike popolation maybe the lake bass perch and bluegill trout and catfish would stand a chance

[hunt_fish]

So where on the Columbia is this happening?  I'm guessing Eastern Washington?  I don't get why they would do that on the Columbia River in Eastern Washington, since salmon/steelhead seem to do fine.  I could understand them maybe doing it in the Snake, since their populations are low for salmon.

[Bullkllr]

And once again...

Realize the money it is taking to recover salmon in the Columbia.

Last estimate I saw was over $10 BILLION  in the last two decades. And supposedly the salmon runs are fine.
Pull away even a % of the vast funds being poured into this system, and guess what; there go the salmon.

Removing limits for spiny rays is simply a cheap plan to try to save money. I don't know if it will work; I doubt if the biologists do either. But it is cheap. And I'm sure they're hoping it will help.

10 BILLION dollars...

[Curly]

So where on the Columbia is this happening?  I'm guessing Eastern Washington?  I don't get why they would do that on the Columbia River in Eastern Washington, since salmon/steelhead seem to do fine.  I could understand them maybe doing it in the Snake, since their populations are low for salmon.

Unless I'm mistaken, I take it that any part of the Columbia and anything tributary to it is affected. 

Edit:  I just re-read it.  It does say "portions" of the Columbia and tributaries.  So, I don't know what all is affected.