Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA

[Bill W]

just to stir the pot but it appears sockeye may not be native to Lake WA and could potentially be classed as an invasive species there.  They were introduced in 1935 when the ship canal was built and Lake WA lowered 8-9 feet.  So.... the bass were in lake WA before sockeye.

http://charlie.weathertogether.net/2019/05/23/lake-washingtons-dwindling-sockeye-runs/

[Stein]

They were in there before ship canal was built and that hammered them which then necessitated the Baker transplants to rebuild.  There are reports of sockeye/kokanee in there before or around 1900 if not earlier.

There is one DNA strain that isn't from Baker or any other known regional lake which would have to come from either the native lineage or transplants from an unknown source.  Given the proximity to Baker, it seems unlikely they would go further away to transplant when local resources were available.  I believe they live transplanted fish as opposed to a hatchery operation but could be wrong there.

[Angry Perch]

But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.

[James]

A fishery bio that I know that has worked on lake wash sockeye told me this is the general consensus in the field:

-The lake Washington drainage had riverine sockeye (the seeding life history for sockeye) and kokanee prior to development. There isn't strong evidence for lake type sockeye, but with riverine sockeye around who knows, maybe a few.
-When they made the ship canal and changed the hydrology it killed off the pink and chum runs.
-Lake type sockeye were transplanted to "replaced" the pink and chum runs that were killed off.  Both for the tribes and non-tribal.

IIRC they started throwing some lake type sockeye in the Sammamish river and they did really well, so it was expanded from there with the cedar, hatcheries, etc.

One thing I find really interesting that they are looking into, apparently they think there were a number of different kokanee life history's in the lake Washington basin and a few stragglers of these might still be around. One example is every so often they get a handful of large kokanee that show up in the winter and spawn in Sammamish river tribs.

[Kola16]

He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.

I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here 

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington! 

You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.

[Bill W]

so to sum up the recent posts:

Bass were planted in the late 1800's
The ship canal was more important than the chum and pink runs.
The old sockeye run wasn't all that big as it didn't have a good spawning stream.
The old sockeye fry didn't have a good place to feed before going out to saltwater.
The new sockeye run was started with Baker River fish.
Those fish cohabited with smallmouth bass and had no issues with bass depredation.
Sockeye and steelhead run issues came later when the sea lion population rebounded and the ship canal made it easy for sea lions to predate on fish runs.

Based on this I don't feel bass are the key issue with the sockeye runs.  But they are a scapegoat as in the game of musical chairs they were the one left standing.

[Bullkllr]

Yeah, harpooning sea lions in the locks may not go over real well in the current environment

[Stein]

But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.

Probably, but who knows?  There wasn't a lot of notes or fisheries science going on back then, I think it was also probably relative.  Low numbers to a guy in 1850 could be much different from what we think of low numbers now.  In the 1850 we think the Columbia had a return estimated at 10-15 million fish, so "low" numbers of salmon relative to that could be a couple hundred thousand or a couple thousand.  In 1883, there were 1700 gill net boats in the big C that took something like 3 million fish in one season so nobody was probably too excited about a small river sockeye return.

I feel pretty safe agreeing with the notion that bass or any other fish aren't the primary cause of the sockeye demise in Lake WA.  That really isn't the question though because they do eat salmon and are an easier (legally, societal) fix then removing ship canal, cooling the lake or shooting a bunch of seals and sealions.  I think it comes down to what possible solutions or partial solutions are available and doing what they can. 

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence with this one as I can see valid arguments on both sides.

[Bill W]

I think I remember sockeye seasons every year in Lake Wa when I moved into the state (1973).  But then the state population was only 3 million then.  Maybe we should net some people and remove them.

[James]

Here is something I think Hunt Wa members can identify with.

Puget sound drainage is a predator pit for salmon, both going out and coming back in.

Puget Sound and lake Washington have the two worst smolt morality rates recorded.

Fish that start in lake Washington have to go though BOTH.

In one of the studies I read, one of the big drivers to recent sockeye run declines has been improved water quality and clarity.  Makes smolts easier to be eaten.

While predation is a big problem from bass, perch, pinipeds, etc. its far from the only thing.  Infact there are very few things lake Washington salmonids have going for them.

To restore lake Washington anadromous salmonids is one hell of an uphill battle.

[Angry Perch]

But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.

Probably, but who knows?  There wasn't a lot of notes or fisheries science going on back then, I think it was also probably relative.  Low numbers to a guy in 1850 could be much different from what we think of low numbers now.  In the 1850 we think the Columbia had a return estimated at 10-15 million fish, so "low" numbers of salmon relative to that could be a couple hundred thousand or a couple thousand.  In 1883, there were 1700 gill net boats in the big C that took something like 3 million fish in one season so nobody was probably too excited about a small river sockeye return.

I feel pretty safe agreeing with the notion that bass or any other fish aren't the primary cause of the sockeye demise in Lake WA.  That really isn't the question though because they do eat salmon and are an easier (legally, societal) fix then removing ship canal, cooling the lake or shooting a bunch of seals and sealions.  I think it comes down to what possible solutions or partial solutions are available and doing what they can. 

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence with this one as I can see valid arguments on both sides.

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch! 

[James]

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch! 

I grew up catching perch in lake wash basin, and have a fond place for it in my heart.  There is no doubt they hammer smolt though.

My recommendation:

Bonk and eat all medium to large perch.  They don't become piscivorous until they have some size on them.

Target them times of year when there is smolt outmigration's.  Fishing is good, they hit fish imitators, and you provide a tiny bit of cover for the smolt.

That way you can have your perch and eat them too.

[M_ray]

He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.

I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here 

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington! 

You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.

None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!

[Angry Perch]

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch! 

I grew up catching perch in lake wash basin, and have a fond place for it in my heart.  There is no doubt they hammer smolt though.

My recommendation:

Bonk and eat all medium to large perch.  They don't become piscivorous until they have some size on them.

Target them times of year when there is smolt outmigration's.  Fishing is good, they hit fish imitators, and you provide a tiny bit of cover for the smolt.

That way you can have your perch and eat them too.

Sammamish is pretty much a winter fishery for me. Fishing is much better, and I don't have to deal with all the people that are too stupid to realize boats are for fishing!

[Special T]

He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.

I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here 

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington! 

You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.

None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!

Washington Waterfowl Assocation has talked with Kyle Spragens about a second season with little responce. Ive heard rumor that Legislators have been approached as well about dealing with Mergansers.

I think plenty of folks agree that we need multiple speciecies predator management.  I wish we were focused on other predators  first but this might just be one of the things they can do right now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk