Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA

[Kola16]

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!

Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

Just because you did not see bass as a problem X amount of years ago has no bearing on TODAY. X amount of years ago the sockeye stocks could reach 500K fish, therefore some fry being taken by bass was not a big concern. But now there are 20k fish. 25 times smaller! Big difference, but numbers and facts probably are not a concern of yours...Which leads back to the point you are completely missing. Bass are ONE problem! ONE of many. Why am I not talking about mergansers? Really, how is that still your question? Maybe if this thread were titled, Every Predator that Affects Lake WA Sockeye Stocks, I would be talking about mergansers. Check the all caps word in the thread title. Other predators do get discussed just in other APPROPRIATE threads. It wouldn't make sense for me to start whining about wolves killing caribou in this thread since that is not what this thread is about. Like 10+ posts have mentioned, there are more problems than just bass. Nets are a simple "band-aid" idea to managing a pest that should not be in our salmon waters. It is not like they're getting rid of all of them anyway, even though they should.

How many things do you want to take away from me I've alluded to many. You sound like Cuomo saying, white people’s kids need to start getting killed, when white people's kids are getting killed!

You are close minded to "losing an opportunity to sportsmen," yet salmon anglers are losing their opportunity, but you don't care about that. As long as the bass aren't harmed? I promise you a few strategically placed nets is not going to hurt the bass. You would have to poison the entire lake to completely rid the bass. They are simply being managed in an effort to save another resource for sportsman.

[Angry Perch]

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!

Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

Just because you did not see bass as a problem X amount of years ago has no bearing on TODAY. X amount of years ago the sockeye stocks could reach 500K fish, therefore some fry being taken by bass was not a big concern. But now there are 20k fish. 25 times smaller! Big difference, but numbers and facts probably are not a concern of yours...Which leads back to the point you are completely missing. Bass are ONE problem! ONE of many. Why am I not talking about mergansers? Really, how is that still your question? Maybe if this thread were titled, Every Predator that Affects Lake WA Sockeye Stocks, I would be talking about mergansers. Check the all caps word in the thread title. Other predators do get discussed just in other APPROPRIATE threads. It wouldn't make sense for me to start whining about wolves killing caribou in this thread since that is not what this thread is about. Like 10+ posts have mentioned, there are more problems than just bass. Nets are a simple "band-aid" idea to managing a pest that should not be in our salmon waters. It is not like they're getting rid of all of them anyway, even though they should.

How many things do you want to take away from me I've alluded to many. You sound like Cuomo saying, white people’s kids need to start getting killed, when white people's kids are getting killed!

You are close minded to "losing an opportunity to sportsmen," yet salmon anglers are losing their opportunity, but you don't care about that. As long as the bass aren't harmed? I promise you a few strategically placed nets is not going to hurt the bass. You would have to poison the entire lake to completely rid the bass. They are simply being managed in an effort to save another resource for sportsman.

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

[AKBowman]

This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

How much of the bass’ diet is made up of Salmonids in the spring on Lake Sammamish? We should know this b/c that was one of the reasons the Muckleshoots were given a federal permit to net Lake Sammamish in the first place. If it was substantial than I’m sure many who are against it would agree something needs to be done but given the co-existence and success of both species in many, many similar waters it’s VERY unlikely. Plus, if they found it to be true in Sammamish they would have shouted it from the hilltop as an excuse to continue. My guess is they found the opposite and Bass predation on Salmon fry in Lake Sammamish was statistically insignificant.

Yes “placing a few nets” around the lake won’t hurt the bass fishery too much. However, that is NOT what is happening. There is a fleet of 3 commercial fishing boats and they are super efficient. It will dramatically hobble what was a really excellent fishery which was enjoyed by many outdoors people.

The Salmon are supposed to be a public resource but again, any remaining resource will likely go to this private special interest group(s) and not to Sportsmen.

Show me the data! Otherwise I do feel like someone posted earlier...we are losing both opportunities.

[Tbar]

This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

How much of the bass’ diet is made up of Salmonids in the spring on Lake Sammamish? We should know this b/c that was one of the reasons the Muckleshoots were given a federal permit to net Lake Sammamish in the first place. If it was substantial than I’m sure many who are against it would agree something needs to be done but given the co-existence and success of both species in many, many similar waters it’s VERY unlikely. Plus, if they found it to be true in Sammamish they would have shouted it from the hilltop as an excuse to continue. My guess is they found the opposite and Bass predation on Salmon fry in Lake Sammamish was statistically insignificant.

Yes “placing a few nets” around the lake won’t hurt the bass fishery too much. However, that is NOT what is happening. There is a fleet of 3 commercial fishing boats and they are super efficient. It will dramatically hobble what was a really excellent fishery which was enjoyed by many outdoors people.

The Salmon are supposed to be a public resource but again, any remaining resource will likely go to this private special interest group(s) and not to Sportsmen.

Show me the data! Otherwise I do feel like someone posted earlier...we are losing both opportunities.

You have a one track mind with a gross misunderstanding of governmental structure, the constitution, case law and TAC allocation. You sound like the whiney snowflake enviros trying to stop pinniped management.

[Platensek-po]

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!

Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

Just because you did not see bass as a problem X amount of years ago has no bearing on TODAY. X amount of years ago the sockeye stocks could reach 500K fish, therefore some fry being taken by bass was not a big concern. But now there are 20k fish. 25 times smaller! Big difference, but numbers and facts probably are not a concern of yours...Which leads back to the point you are completely missing. Bass are ONE problem! ONE of many. Why am I not talking about mergansers? Really, how is that still your question? Maybe if this thread were titled, Every Predator that Affects Lake WA Sockeye Stocks, I would be talking about mergansers. Check the all caps word in the thread title. Other predators do get discussed just in other APPROPRIATE threads. It wouldn't make sense for me to start whining about wolves killing caribou in this thread since that is not what this thread is about. Like 10+ posts have mentioned, there are more problems than just bass. Nets are a simple "band-aid" idea to managing a pest that should not be in our salmon waters. It is not like they're getting rid of all of them anyway, even though they should.

How many things do you want to take away from me I've alluded to many. You sound like Cuomo saying, white people’s kids need to start getting killed, when white people's kids are getting killed!

You are close minded to "losing an opportunity to sportsmen," yet salmon anglers are losing their opportunity, but you don't care about that. As long as the bass aren't harmed? I promise you a few strategically placed nets is not going to hurt the bass. You would have to poison the entire lake to completely rid the bass. They are simply being managed in an effort to save another resource for sportsman.

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

In 2006 the run was over 400k so not sure what you are talking about...and 2019 was the lowest return since they started counting in the 70s

[Kola16]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

[full choke]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?

[AKBowman]

This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

How much of the bass’ diet is made up of Salmonids in the spring on Lake Sammamish? We should know this b/c that was one of the reasons the Muckleshoots were given a federal permit to net Lake Sammamish in the first place. If it was substantial than I’m sure many who are against it would agree something needs to be done but given the co-existence and success of both species in many, many similar waters it’s VERY unlikely. Plus, if they found it to be true in Sammamish they would have shouted it from the hilltop as an excuse to continue. My guess is they found the opposite and Bass predation on Salmon fry in Lake Sammamish was statistically insignificant.

Yes “placing a few nets” around the lake won’t hurt the bass fishery too much. However, that is NOT what is happening. There is a fleet of 3 commercial fishing boats and they are super efficient. It will dramatically hobble what was a really excellent fishery which was enjoyed by many outdoors people.

The Salmon are supposed to be a public resource but again, any remaining resource will likely go to this private special interest group(s) and not to Sportsmen.

Show me the data! Otherwise I do feel like someone posted earlier...we are losing both opportunities.

You have a one track mind with a gross misunderstanding of governmental structure, the constitution, case law and TAC allocation. You sound like the whiney snowflake enviros trying to stop pinniped management.

T-Bar you don’t like other peoples points of views so you resort to essentially yelling at the other kid across the class...”you’re a whiney!”

Nice. Your elementary comments are perfect validation for your points.

Since we are all such Dunce Caps, can you please explain how it’s within the rights of a Private special interest group to pillage a public resource on public property?

[huntnphool]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?

 I remember reading a article some years ago regarding the financial impact to the local economy. Although I don’t remember the exact figures estimated, I do remember being shocked how high the amount was, it was quite significant.

[hunthard]

Heck just the launch fees at coulon ramp would millions...

[Kola16]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?

A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...

[Stein]

Huntnphool, the first picture you posted shows my last boat being fished by it's previous owner.  Pretty cool.

Yeah, that fishery is pretty special because it's right in the middle of town.  It would be hard to overestimate the impact to the economy there between gear, gas, launch fees, guides, hotels, restaurants.  If you haven't fished it before, it makes the Everett Coho Derby seem like a cute little small town event.  The entire lake from top to bottom, left to right, is packed with boats and that was before there were really any crowds anywhere else.  I couldn't imagine what it would look like if it opened today.

It's also special because those fish taste amazing, better than Copper River in my opinion.

[full choke]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?

A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...

Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.

[huntnphool]

Another pic

[Kola16]

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those! 

Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?

A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...

Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.

Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves