collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Washington bass, walleye fishing limits liberalized in response to orca crisis  (Read 14503 times)

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 12948
  • Location: Arlington
I agree with you about 85% Bass, but the fact is that warm water species do eat salmon and if less of them are in certain lakes then there will be an increase in the amount of salmon that make it to the salt.

I fully agree it isn't in the top 3 list of problems facing salmon, but it is on the list.  There isn't a magic button because even if we killed all the seals and birds there is still the problem of the blob and general ocean conditions as well as stuff like drought, dams, bedding grounds, poaching, and a hundred other things.

In my opinion, we should make progress wherever we can.  It's a small step, but a step.  I have no problems with WDFW trying things knowing they won't all work as expected.  This is something they can do that doesn't cost a ton of money, require a decade or two of studies.

That said, we should absolutely be pursuing the other fixes as well.  As sportsmen, we should be much better organized and funded to provide some hp to the fight.

Offline bassquatch

  • AKA: Porter's Pursuits on YouTube to help you catch more bass!
  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 2550
  • Location: Arlington, WA
  • Something clever.
Appreciate it and not trying to argue but EVERY species of TROUT eat small fish as well, including salmon smolts. For the survival of the salmon species, should the WDFW stop planting trout in all of the 77 lakes listed? Should all trout limits be lifted? Should trout be eradicated from the rivers and streams also? :dunno: Just because trout are "native" to these waters doesn't discount their negative impact on salmon smolts.

The money saved not planting trout annually could go towards habitat restoration or towards payouts for the pike minnow program (that hasn't eliminated pike minnow) Spiny rays aren't the only carnivorous fish species sharing the water with the defenseless salmon smolts.   :twocents:
AKA: Porter's Pursuits on YouTube to help you catch more bass!

Offline ctwiggs1

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2009
  • Posts: 4220
I doubt rainbow trout are truly native in most of those waters either.

Offline Panic Minnow

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 65
Appreciate it and not trying to argue but EVERY species of TROUT eat small fish as well, including salmon smolts. For the survival of the salmon species, should the WDFW stop planting trout in all of the 77 lakes listed? Should all trout limits be lifted? Should trout be eradicated from the rivers and streams also? :dunno: Just because trout are "native" to these waters doesn't discount their negative impact on salmon smolts.

The money saved not planting trout annually could go towards habitat restoration or towards payouts for the pike minnow program (that hasn't eliminated pike minnow) Spiny rays aren't the only carnivorous fish species sharing the water with the defenseless salmon smolts.   :twocents:

Great idea! But what would I be able to use to fertilize my garden then if it weren't for the incidental hatchery trout catches.....JK

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 12948
  • Location: Arlington
I doubt rainbow trout are truly native in most of those waters either.

 :yeah:

Rainbows are only native to a tiny fraction of WA waters.  They have been around in mass for so long we tend to think of them as native as opposed to an man-made invasive species. :peep:

Offline GoldenRing270

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Methow
Yep.

yellow perch, bluegill, bass, crappie and other spiny rays were introduced by the US government to Washington lakes as early as 1890's... decades before rainbows were introduced.

Offline Katmai Guy

  • Retired
  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2014
  • Posts: 1590
  • Location: Covington
You're incorrect, the rainbow has been around for 40-50,000 yrs.  You might be thinking of the Brook trout, they were planted in just about every piece of stillwater in western WA.
"Keep shootin, when there's lead in the air, there's hope"

Offline GoldenRing270

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 98
  • Location: Methow
Specifically, lowland lakes in Washington. Rainbow trout are not native to many of these lakes. They were introduced/planted in the early/mid 1900's.

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 14545
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
They moved up the coast, straying from river to river, colonizing new gravel as the ice sheets receded.  Original rainbows were from southern Mexico.

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 12948
  • Location: Arlington
You're incorrect, the rainbow has been around for 40-50,000 yrs.  You might be thinking of the Brook trout, they were planted in just about every piece of stillwater in western WA.

It’s been on existence, just not on many WA lakes and rivers.  WA plants the original species native to the few places, but puts them everywhere.

It’s the same story everywhere in the country.  I bet 80-90% of the places that have them were introduced by man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 


* Advertisement

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal