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

[Mr Mykiss]

Unfortunately there is not a whole lot of great data on walleye in the mid-Columbia. My definition of good data would be recent studies with reasonable sample sizes taken throughout the year in a random fashion as to eliminate bias.
I will produce what I might consider to be the clearest example of walleye behavior as it relates to smolts. Interpret as you will...

There is a bounty program (the "Sport Reward Fishery") on Northern Pikeminnow (squawfish) a piscivore that is native to the Columbia system. Cash rewards are given to anglers who catch and turn in these fish May-October. What some of you may not know is that this program  also pays people to fish off the downstream side of dams to catch and kill predators (mostly Pikeminnow) targeting juvenile salmonids. If you will allow this to be a fair assumption, they are paying people to fish off dams because the Pikeminnow are moving up to the dam to target smolts. Here are the numbers of fish that these dam anglers caught in 2010. These numbers are taken directly from the PSMFC (with ODFW and WDFW) report.
Dam Angling 2010
The Dalles Dam: 1,323 Pikeminnow, 8 walleye
John Day Dam:   2,675 Pikeminnow, 60 walleye

Dam Angling 2011
The Dalles and John Day Dams combined:
4,256 Pikeminnow, 136 Walleye

[ICEMAN]

Well, if native steelhead runs are ever going to be viable, damn removal should happen sooner than later.  From what I've read, it can be done responsibly. 

If not damn breaching, then at least sealion removal from the Columbia along with the gillnet ban.  That would be much more helpful than the band-aid approach of removing a limit on bass and walleye.

You have been reading the liberal/hippie press haven't you.  Almost all of the fisherman on the snake/clearwater have been catching 3 to 1  unclipped (or native) to every hatchery fish.  There is no difference in DNA between a wild fish over and hatchery fish.  If you took a 100 hatchery DNA's and 100 wild fish DNA's and mixed them up no bio in world could tell the difference.

There's no difference between hatchery and wild fish? Is that what your saying? Right....

There is no basic difference between the two IMHO. Here is a reply I got from wildlife many years ago about clipped fish releases.

Thank you for your e-mail correspondence to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Program.

Currently 45% of hatchery salmon and steelhead are released without their adipose fin being clipped.  WDFW adipose fin clips hatchery chinook, coho and steelhead and the percentages vary by region.  In Puget Sound 83% are adipose fin clipped, the Washington Coast, 45% and the Columbia River 40%, giving a statewide average of 55% adipose fin clipped.  WDFW is currently working toward mass marking fall chinook in the Columbia River and on the Washington Coast which will raise the statewide average to over 90%.  Not all hatchery fish will be marked as some are used to help rebuild wildstocks.  Not marking them prevents them from being harvested in selective fisheries and allows them to return to the streams to help rebuild these natural runs.   

If you have further questions, please email again or call  (360) 902-2700.  Our Customer Service hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Sincerely,
Fish Program

[Bullkllr]

There would not be any DNA disparity between wild and hatchery stocks (as long as they originated from the same stock, of course).

Multiple published studies seem to show a big difference in hatchery raised fish not being able to spawn successfully and produce progeny that actually survive in a wild environment. Apparently this is true even 1 generation removed from the wild.

Hatcheries are pretty good at producing fish for harvest. But that's about it. Every year the well needs to be filled again, and it takes a lot of funding to keep the endless cycle going.

[Roosevelt walleye]

So a fish that is sterile and eating smolt is ok? Pianoman my point was not that they are doing it so we should too, it just really makes me question motive if it is ok to plant invasive species in the same water they are supposedly trying to eradicate invasive species. Get it?

[Mfowl]

Triploid trout are planted in Rufus Woods, no salmon runs reach that portion of the river. The fish that dispurse below Chief Joseph dam are very minimal. Nowhere else in the mid to lower Columbia are trout stocked intentionally. Some may reach the river through creeks/irrigation canals but again it is very minimal. Most trout stockings occur in lakes with marginal habitat and food sources. They're not meant to start a new fishery, only supplement an existing one. The state stopped stocking tiger muskies in Red Rock Lake becuase specimens were found in the mid Columbia. Red Rock feeds into Crab Cr. which then feeds directly to the Columbia. Tiger muskies are highly predatory and sterile which makes them noninvasive yet the state stopped stocking them to reduce potential impact on Columbia salmon/steelhead runs. If triploids were responsible for heavy predation of smolts there would be measures in place to stop that as well. There is no evidence to support that because they are not previlent where the salmon smolts are. Bass and walleye expand to new areas and establish new populations, since they are nonnative that makes them invasive.

[hunt_fish]

Triploid trout are planted in Rufus Woods, no salmon runs reach that portion of the river. The fish that dispurse below Chief Joseph dam are very minimal. Nowhere else in the mid to lower Columbia are trout stocked intentionally. Some may reach the river through creeks/irrigation canals but again it is very minimal. Most trout stockings occur in lakes with marginal habitat and food sources. They're not meant to start a new fishery, only supplement an existing one. The state stopped stocking tiger muskies in Red Rock Lake becuase specimens were found in the mid Columbia. Red Rock feeds into Crab Cr. which then feeds directly to the Columbia. Tiger muskies are highly predatory and sterile which makes them noninvasive yet the state stopped stocking them to reduce potential impact on Columbia salmon/steelhead runs. If triploids were responsible for heavy predation of smolts there would be measures in place to stop that as well. There is no evidence to support that because they are not previlent where the salmon smolts are. Bass and walleye expand to new areas and establish new populations, since they are nonnative that makes them invasive.

It's pretty simple that Washington is a trout and salmon state either way.  That's their money maker with sport fishermen for the most part.  Wasn't it Sprague Lake that was a pretty good walleye lake then they killed off the lake because of walleye a couple years ago?  I'd wish they'd dedicate some westside lakes to warmwater fisheries so when I go to visit I'd be able to catch more than just trout.

[Roosevelt walleye]

Also the put and take fisheries create a lot of gov. jobs that are not needed with self sustaining fisheries, and it is all about money. Earlier it was mentioned that there has been 10 billion spent on salmon recovery but do you not think they want to quit spending that money? Obviously we difffer in opinion but I believe that the fish can coexist and keeping numbers of bass and walleye down might be needed but to kill all of the big spawning fish is going to really hurt these fisheries.

[Curly]

I'm still waiting for a WDFW study that shows how many salmon or steelhead smolts get eaten by bass or walleye.  (Isn't part of the mission statement of WFW say that decisions that WDFW makes should be based on scientific study?)  If we were discussing this as part of WFW, I would think we'd request studies to support the decision to try to destroy some very popular fisheries.

[Mfowl]

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread and will reiterate that I do and will continue to release mature/breeding age fish of both bass and walleye. The smaller fish make better table fare. Just becuase I could keep a stringer full of 4lb bass doesn't mean that I will. I think a lot of people will continue this practice. The casual fisherman that wants to keep what they catch won't likely catch more than they already do. I don't see it being combat fishing conditions on the spawning beds each year until the populations collapse. In the long run it may improve the quality of our spinyray fishing through improved forage base and less competition for suitable habitat. Dense populations of fish turn into stunted populations of fish.

[Roosevelt walleye]

I think we all know that bass and walleye eat minnows, but the discussion is about how many salmon and steelhead smolt they eat. If their diet consist mainly of minnows from other non native fish it is not an issue. Not sure any of us want limits set off the fact that you know bass and walleye eat minnows.

[bobcat]

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread and will reiterate that I do and will continue to release mature/breeding age fish of both bass and walleye. The smaller fish make better table fare. Just becuase I could keep a stringer full of 4lb bass doesn't mean that I will. I think a lot of people will continue this practice. The casual fisherman that wants to keep what they catch won't likely catch more than they already do. I don't see it being combat fishing conditions on the spawning beds each year until the populations collapse. In the long run it may improve the quality of our spinyray fishing through improved forage base and less competition for suitable habitat. Dense populations of fish turn into stunted populations of fish.

You're posting your personal violations of state and federal law on an open forum? Not really very bright. Just my 

Illegal to catch and release bass? 

[Roosevelt walleye]

Actually Curly was the one that mentioned it being scientific based but yes I would like to see the studies if in fact they were done.

[MtnMuley]

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread and will reiterate that I do and will continue to release mature/breeding age fish of both bass and walleye. The smaller fish make better table fare. Just becuase I could keep a stringer full of 4lb bass doesn't mean that I will. I think a lot of people will continue this practice. The casual fisherman that wants to keep what they catch won't likely catch more than they already do. I don't see it being combat fishing conditions on the spawning beds each year until the populations collapse. In the long run it may improve the quality of our spinyray fishing through improved forage base and less competition for suitable habitat. Dense populations of fish turn into stunted populations of fish.

You're posting your personal violations of state and federal law on an open forum? Not really very bright. Just my 

Are you serious pianoman?  The guy says he's going to continue to release the mature fish, which is what most bass and walleye anglers do, yet you twist it to fit your view on what he meant.  Time to look in the mirror and see who's not really very bright.

[Curly]

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread and will reiterate that I do and will continue to release mature/breeding age fish of both bass and walleye. The smaller fish make better table fare. Just becuase I could keep a stringer full of 4lb bass doesn't mean that I will. I think a lot of people will continue this practice. The casual fisherman that wants to keep what they catch won't likely catch more than they already do. I don't see it being combat fishing conditions on the spawning beds each year until the populations collapse. In the long run it may improve the quality of our spinyray fishing through improved forage base and less competition for suitable habitat. Dense populations of fish turn into stunted populations of fish.

You're posting your personal violations of state and federal law on an open forum? Not really very bright. Just my 

Where is the violation?     I will also continue to release the big ones. 

Another issue that hasn't been discussed here is about the mercury levels in bass.  The larger ones have more mercury build up in them.  It would be much better for one's health to eat the smaller ones and not eat the big ones.  Also, it is recommended to only eat so many ounces of bass per week due to mercury levels in them..........I don't remember the recommended amount but I do remember that the amount is small.

[Russ McDonald]

I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread and will reiterate that I do and will continue to release mature/breeding age fish of both bass and walleye. The smaller fish make better table fare. Just becuase I could keep a stringer full of 4lb bass doesn't mean that I will. I think a lot of people will continue this practice. The casual fisherman that wants to keep what they catch won't likely catch more than they already do. I don't see it being combat fishing conditions on the spawning beds each year until the populations collapse. In the long run it may improve the quality of our spinyray fishing through improved forage base and less competition for suitable habitat. Dense populations of fish turn into stunted populations of fish.

You're posting your personal violations of state and federal law on an open forum? Not really very bright. Just my 

Where is the violation?     I will also continue to release the big ones. 

Another issue that hasn't been discussed here is about the mercury levels in bass.  The larger ones have more mercury build up in them.  It would be much better for one's health to eat the smaller ones and not eat the big ones.  Also, it is recommended to only eat so many ounces of bass per week due to mercury levels in them..........I don't remember the recommended amount but I do remember that the amount is small.

Only in certain lakes not all lakes.  Lake Washington is one of the lakes you have to watch due to mercury levels. You can find in on page 20 in the fishing regs. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01384/wdfw01384.pdf

I wanted to just view this thread and read along but thought it was time to put in my  .  I grew up in the land of walleye's.  Also muskie, pike, catfish, bass,perch, trout, land locked salmon.  They all exist together in alot of the same lakes.  I respect and understand where the salmon and trout fishman come from.  Hey I have fished for salmon on rivers in CA.  I am here to tell you that no matter what DFW does the walleye and bass are here to stay.  You can't get rid of them all. For an example (even though it isn't bass or walleye) I saw a lake in CA where the DFG poisoned the lake twice over a 3 year period to get rid of northern pike and guess what they are still there.  Most fisherman will regulate themselves even if there is not limit.  I bet they won't be keeping fingerling bass or walleye.

Here is what you can keep for Bass:
LARGEMOUTH BASS
(See DOH advisory, page 20)
No min. size. Only LARGEMOUTH BASS less than 12" may be retained, except 1 over 17" may be
retained. Daily limit 5. Bass may be caught, retained, and released alive from a livewell until a daily
limit is in possession.
SMALLMOUTH BASS
(See DOH advisory, page 20)
No min. size. Only 1 SMALLMOUTH BASS over 14" may be retained. Daily limit 10. Bass may be
caught, retained, and released alive from a livewell until a daily limit is in possession.
Walleye:
WALLEYE Min. size 16". Daily limit 5. Only 1 over 22" may be retained. WALLEYE may be caught, retained, and
released alive from a livewell until daily limit is in possession.
This is from last years regs but just gives you what sizes you can keep and what you can't.