Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA

[Mfowl]

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

The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.

[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.

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

My point is that YOU used economic benefit of sockeye vs bass in YOUR argument that we should eliminate bass in favor of sockeye. I asked you to back up YOUR assumptions. YOU cannot. I get it.

MY personal belief is there is not that much of an economic impact provided by sockeye to justify killing the bass (which no one really thinks doing so will solely will bring back sockeye). The Lake is entirely surrounded by cities (7 or 8?)- which absolutely do not rely on fisherman's dollars to survive.

I do not think there is a study out to show how much fisherman spend year round fishing for bass on the lake. Nor do I think anyone is coming to town and renting hotel rooms to fish Lake Washington. Maybe a couple- but after all their crap gets ripped off out of their boats/trucks in the parking lot they won't do it again.

I grew up a block away from Lake Washington. I fished the sockeye season. I get that people enjoy it- though the hassle and the headache and crowding is stupid.

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.

[M_ray]

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.

Usually one one resorts to name calling when they don’t have a good argument.

You’ve made a lot of assumptions and put words in my mouth that I didn’t say but I’m the dumb one? I’m simply not convinced that Salmon are your problem as others have said in this thread there are many that have brought up other predators that feed on fry so I don’t see how mentioning that Makes me dumb. The only thing that makes me dumb is that you don’t agree with me. And yes bringing up wolves in a fish thread would be every bit as dumb as you Making the comparison that my comments Suggested that but I didn’t.

Since you have asked others to prove it I’ll ask you the same thing, where’s your proof or study that Bass are your problem with Salmon? And just because I ask this doesn’t mean I don’t care about salmon I actually care about both.

[M_ray]

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

My point is that YOU used economic benefit of sockeye vs bass in YOUR argument that we should eliminate bass in favor of sockeye. I asked you to back up YOUR assumptions. YOU cannot. I get it.

MY personal belief is there is not that much of an economic impact provided by sockeye to justify killing the bass (which no one really thinks doing so will solely will bring back sockeye). The Lake is entirely surrounded by cities (7 or 8?)- which absolutely do not rely on fisherman's dollars to survive.

I do not think there is a study out to show how much fisherman spend year round fishing for bass on the lake. Nor do I think anyone is coming to town and renting hotel rooms to fish Lake Washington. Maybe a couple- but after all their crap gets ripped off out of their boats/trucks in the parking lot they won't do it again.

I grew up a block away from Lake Washington. I fished the sockeye season. I get that people enjoy it- though the hassle and the headache and crowding is stupid.

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.

I know Pro bass fisherman from California that have come to fish lake Washington and stayed her a few days at a time in hotels.

[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! 

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

We're talking about native fish.

[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

The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.

So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?

[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

My point is that YOU used economic benefit of sockeye vs bass in YOUR argument that we should eliminate bass in favor of sockeye. I asked you to back up YOUR assumptions. YOU cannot. I get it.

MY personal belief is there is not that much of an economic impact provided by sockeye to justify killing the bass (which no one really thinks doing so will solely will bring back sockeye). The Lake is entirely surrounded by cities (7 or 8?)- which absolutely do not rely on fisherman's dollars to survive.

I do not think there is a study out to show how much fisherman spend year round fishing for bass on the lake. Nor do I think anyone is coming to town and renting hotel rooms to fish Lake Washington. Maybe a couple- but after all their crap gets ripped off out of their boats/trucks in the parking lot they won't do it again.

I grew up a block away from Lake Washington. I fished the sockeye season. I get that people enjoy it- though the hassle and the headache and crowding is stupid.

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.

My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

[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.

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

My point is that YOU used economic benefit of sockeye vs bass in YOUR argument that we should eliminate bass in favor of sockeye. I asked you to back up YOUR assumptions. YOU cannot. I get it.

MY personal belief is there is not that much of an economic impact provided by sockeye to justify killing the bass (which no one really thinks doing so will solely will bring back sockeye). The Lake is entirely surrounded by cities (7 or 8?)- which absolutely do not rely on fisherman's dollars to survive.

I do not think there is a study out to show how much fisherman spend year round fishing for bass on the lake. Nor do I think anyone is coming to town and renting hotel rooms to fish Lake Washington. Maybe a couple- but after all their crap gets ripped off out of their boats/trucks in the parking lot they won't do it again.

I grew up a block away from Lake Washington. I fished the sockeye season. I get that people enjoy it- though the hassle and the headache and crowding is stupid.

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.

My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

 

So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?

[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.

Usually one one resorts to name calling when they don’t have a good argument.

You’ve made a lot of assumptions and put words in my mouth that I didn’t say but I’m the dumb one? I’m simply not convinced that Salmon are your problem as others have said in this thread there are many that have brought up other predators that feed on fry so I don’t see how mentioning that Makes me dumb. The only thing that makes me dumb is that you don’t agree with me. And yes bringing up wolves in a fish thread would be every bit as dumb as you Making the comparison that my comments Suggested that but I didn’t.

Since you have asked others to prove it I’ll ask you the same thing, where’s your proof or study that Bass are your problem with Salmon? And just because I ask this doesn’t mean I don’t care about salmon I actually care about both.

You sound like a soccer player after getting a little bump and acting like someone snapped their femur. I ask ONE person to prove something irrelevant, and you need me to prove to you that bass eat little minnows?

But since you asked for it... https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70031585 ..and this was 2007 when we had more than 3 times the amount of sockeye.

[Mfowl]

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

The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.

So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?

We're already invested way past million$ and have nothing the show for it for over a decade. And its not because the bass ate them all.

[Kola16]

My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?

Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?

[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

The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.

So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?

We're already invested way past million$ and have nothing the show for it for over a decade. And its not because the bass ate them all.

So give up? Screw the salmon? Nobody has claimed that the bass ate all the salmon...

[full choke]

My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?

Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?

In your own quote, that you just requoted.

[Kola16]

My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?

Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?

In your own quote, that you just requoted.

Ya okay. Where are the synonyms for "save" or "killing" in the above quote.

[Kola16]

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%282000%29020%3C0081%3AIOPBSB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Another...

"For smallmouth bass larger than 150 mm total length, juvenile salmonids constituted 28% of the diet in the lake and 38% in the Lake Washington Ship Canal area during the out‐migration. A bioenergetics model was used to estimate an annual consumption of 76.7 g of juvenile salmonids by each smallmouth bass in the lake and 105.9 g of juvenile salmonids in the Ship Canal area."