Post by: Sniper101 on March 11, 2013, 02:07:45 PM
Post by: WSU on March 11, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on March 11, 2013, 02:15:16 PM
Although great eats! Walleye are not even a native specie in the Columbia and our Salmon and Steelhead need help.
Imo, not enough people fish for them to keep them under control.
Post by: bobcat on March 11, 2013, 02:16:52 PM
Good change in my opinion! :tup:
Post by: Curly on March 11, 2013, 02:18:32 PM
What really needs to happen is 4 of the Snake River dams should be breached. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 11, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 11, 2013, 02:51:14 PM
I like it. I don't know why we are spending our tax dollars on management of invasive species, especially when the invasive species eat our native species. I do feel bad for anyone who has their fishing impacted.
:yeah:
What really needs to happen is 4 of the Snake River dams should be breached. :twocents:
agreed
Post by: Mfowl on March 11, 2013, 06:08:15 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 11, 2013, 08:30:01 PM
Post by: Ripper on March 11, 2013, 08:45:03 PM
Post by: Bunny Thumper on March 11, 2013, 08:45:57 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on March 11, 2013, 08:51:20 PM
More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.:yeah:
Post by: Sniper101 on March 11, 2013, 09:07:45 PM
exactly. And you guys are right, it won't wipe out the bass, itll wipe out the quality fish and the fish in areas were people who eat the fish found them while theyre spawning.More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.:yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 09:12:50 PM
OR how about taking away the protection of sea lions, Cornmerants, and mergansers? Don't think "enough" people would shoot them? I would kill a limit of each if there was a seperate one from my normal duck limit. :twocents:+1, I'd be down there tomorrow.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 11, 2013, 09:15:01 PM
COUNT ME IN AS WELL! hate all 3.OR how about taking away the protection of sea lions, Cornmerants, and mergansers? Don't think "enough" people would shoot them? I would kill a limit of each if there was a seperate one from my normal duck limit. :twocents:+1, I'd be down there tomorrow.
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 11, 2013, 09:36:41 PM
What really needs to happen is 4 of the Snake River dams should be breached. :twocents:
agreed
[/quote]
I think that is a terrible idea. Do you know the mess that would cause over here. For the last 4-5 years excluding this year we have seen record steelhead returns and salmon runs reviving. So how does this support removing the dams. I wasn't here before they put them in but I was here in mid 90's when they did the drawdown. And it was a huge mess with millions of dollars of damage to the roads and other infrastructure. We have 40 years of silt behind these dams and it would probably kill all the salmon and steelhead runs if the were removed all at once. It would take BILLIONS of dollars to this and maybe Tens of BILLIONS of dollars. Most of the people I talk to didn't want the dams in the first place but almost all don't want them removed. So you can keep you dam removal ideas on your side of the mountains a leave us alone.
Post by: Curly on March 11, 2013, 09:42:10 PM
If not dam 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. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 11, 2013, 09:44:00 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 11, 2013, 09:51:28 PM
I kill my fair share of mergansers each year, just wish there was a seperate bag limit... if there was i'd make a special hunt just for them...
There's a flock of about 80 of them on the bay on the west side of the island the last few days. Wonder how many herring and surf perch they eat. :yike: I pulled a 10" spiny ray out of one on the Chehalis many years ago, the thing could hardly get off the water, hence Boom, Splash. :chuckle:
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 11, 2013, 09:56:12 PM
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.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.
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. :twocents:
Post by: Scottystyle on March 12, 2013, 12:42:36 AM
Post by: PolarBear on March 12, 2013, 12:48:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 02:20:36 AM
The way I understand it, they built a hatchery to produce Kokanee, a native specie that I used to catch fairly often as a kid here in Stevens County on Roosevelt before there were any walleye. I also used to catch Dolly Varden (bull trout) when I was a kid. This kokanee hatchery was built with BPA money to replenish native fisheries. It failed because all the kokanee are being eaten by walleye, in fact many of the native trout and most of the native scrap fish are mostly gone too. The majority of fish that's in Roosevelt are walleye to the point that they are eating themselves. By liberalizing limits they hope to bring walleye numbers in line so that some of these other native species can recover.
I am not saying we should eliminate all walleye, a lot of people like catching them and they are good for our local economy. But I can tell you this, when the walleye first got going good the average fish was 24 inches and fat, there was plenty of food for them to grow. Now you can fish and you are lucky to catch a 24 inch walleye because they don't have enough to eat. I firmly beleive the walleye fishery in Roosevelt will actually benefit from this rule.
Post by: sakoshooter on March 12, 2013, 03:18:25 AM
More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.X2
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 12, 2013, 05:46:45 AM
In Roosevelt it's not about salmon and steelhead, there are none here, they don't get past the dams below us on the Columbia. :twocents:
The way I understand it, they built a hatchery to produce Kokanee, a native specie that I used to catch fairly often as a kid here in Stevens County on Roosevelt before there were any walleye. I also used to catch Dolly Varden (bull trout) when I was a kid. This kokanee hatchery was built with BPA money to replenish native fisheries. It failed because all the kokanee are being eaten by walleye, in fact many of the native trout and most of the native scrap fish are mostly gone too. The majority of fish that's in Roosevelt are walleye to the point that they are eating themselves. By liberalizing limits they hope to bring walleye numbers in line so that some of these other native species can recover.
I am not saying we should eliminate all walleye, a lot of people like catching them and they are good for our local economy. But I can tell you this, when the walleye first got going good the average fish was 24 inches and fat, there was plenty of food for them to grow. Now you can fish and you are lucky to catch a 24 inch walleye because they don't have enough to eat. I firmly beleive the walleye fishery in Roosevelt will actually benefit from this rule.
When they were first brought into Roosevelt they were considered scrap fish!!! We fished them and when checked by WDFW they said is that all you have. They would tells to catch all we wanted.
Then somebody figured out these could make them some mony!
Last spring they opened up the arm to the tribes and they were paying them a bounty to catch them but it was by hook and line. So they weren't able to net them and remove and non targeted fish.
I for one am glad to see this so the sportsman can get a chance to harvest some of them. They also have upped the limits on the Small mouths as well a few years ago.
On a side note the Kalispells and the WDGW are starting the netting of the Northens on the Pend Orielle this spring as well.
March 05, 2013
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267
Commission adopts new sportfishing
rules, approves land transactions
MOSES LAKE – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted numerous changes to sportfishing rules and approved three land transactions during a public meeting March 1 in Moses Lake.
Nearly 70 sportfishing rules were adopted by the commission, a nine-member citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Rules approved by the commission include:
•Increasing the daily catch limit for walleye from eight to 16 fish in Lake Roosevelt and a portion of the Spokane River – waters where there is an overabundance of walleye. The rule is designed to bring the walleye population back into balance with other fish populations, improving the quality of the fisheries. The rule also opens that portion of the Spokane River to the harvest of walleye year round.
•Limiting anglers to one white sturgeon per year in Washington’s waters beginning May 1. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, the new rule will also require anglers to release all white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, the Washington coast, Puget Sound and their tributaries. However, catch-and-release fishing for the species will be allowed in those areas. The rule is designed to address ongoing concerns about declines in the lower Columbia River white sturgeon population.
•Removing the daily catch limit for channel catfish and the daily catch and size limits for bass and walleye in portions of the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries to assist recovery efforts for salmon and steelhead. The changes are designed to increase the harvest of abundant bass, walleye and channel catfish, which prey on juvenile salmon and steelhead that are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
•Reducing the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in marine areas 4-11 and 13 and prohibiting the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length. The rule, designed to provide additional protection for the species, also reduces the fishing season for cabezon in those areas to May 1 through June 15.
Most new rules take effect May 1. Summaries of the rule changes, as adopted, will be available on WDFW’s website in the next two weeks.
In other action, the commission approved three land transactions, including the purchase of 1,614 acres in Asotin County. The acquisition is phase two of a multi-year project to secure a total of nearly 12,000 acres of riparian habitat for steelhead and bull trout and terrestrial habitat for deer, bighorn sheep and elk.
The commission also approved the purchase of 195 acres of lowlands in the Chinook River Estuary in Pacific County to increase salmon habitat, and an easement across four properties along Issaquah Creek in King County for the construction of a replacement intake system upstream from the WDFW Issaquah Fish Hatchery.
In other business, the commission held a public hearing on proposed changes to hunting rules. The 17 adjustments proposed by WDFW include allowing the use of illuminated arrow nocks for archery equipment and restoring antlerless elk opportunities for archery hunters in Yakima County, specifically in Game Management Units 352 (Nile) and 356 (Bumping).
The proposed adjustments are available on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#12-19-007. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#12-19-007.) The commission will consider final adoption of the proposed changes to hunting rules at its April 12-13 meeting in Olympia.
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 05:53:50 AM
OR how about taking away the protection of sea lions, Cormorants, and mergansers? Don't think "enough" people would shoot them? I would kill a limit of each if there was a separate one from my normal duck limit. :twocents:
:yeah:
Quote
Salmon recovery is hindered by conflicting policies, practices and laws. For example: Federal law protects migratory birds that are major salmon predators — yet up to 40 percent of some salmon stocks are consumed by birds, according to National Marine Fisheries Service research. There are conflicts between hatchery and wild fish, between protecting endangered salmon and maintaining harvest. These and other conflicting policies must be resolved.
The above quote (http://www.portoflewiston.com/wordpress/?page_id=92) says 40% of some salmon stocks are eaten by birds. Isn't it crazy to protect cormorants when they eat so much fish? Also, protecting the CA Sealions is simply CRAZY. Sealions and cormorant populations are very high.........there is no logical reason to protect them, especially at the expense of other endangered species.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 12, 2013, 06:29:41 AM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on March 12, 2013, 06:37:07 AM
This rule proposal is ridiculous. I fish for salmon, steelhead, bass, and walleye. We've seem record/near record runs recently in the upper Columbia on salmon and steelhead. There are millions and millions of dollars each year spend on protecting these runs. These runs are doing just fine, so why create a negative impact on these other fisheries by making them limitless. :dunno: F#&*%g stupid, at best.
Only someone looking at the big picture and there own agenda could possibly say this.
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 12, 2013, 06:38:52 AM
Post by: Special T on March 12, 2013, 07:58:22 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 08:27:46 AM
The other part of this walleye issue on Roosevelt is that the tribes are removing walleye from Roosevelt and the Spokane River to help recover native fish. That is happening no matter what WDFW does with walleye seasons. The way I understand it, it is completely out of WDFW's control.
So if the tribes are going to remove them anyway, I see no logical reason to not allow all fishers a chance to remove some of these walleye and actually work with the tribe to bring the walleye numbers under some sort of control. I'm actually amazed the commission did not remove the limit altogether, I think that shows they are trying to maintain as much of the walleye fishery for the walleye fishermen as they can.
As much as I like walleye, I have to tell you, they have done to roosevelt exactly what wolves will do to Washington if we allow too many wolves on the landscape. If you allow them to multiply in the Snake and lower Columbia to the same numbers as they are in Roosevelt, they will start doing the same damage to other species there.
This is no different than the northern pike (another non-native specie) expanding their numbers and posing a threat to other fish species in the entire system. The numbers of these non-native highly predatory fish must be controlled now before more damage is done.
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 08:33:58 AM
Curly, Where did you get that quote?
Port of Lewiston website. Click on the blue word "quote" in my message, it will take you to the page; then see item number 2.
Post by: muzbuster on March 12, 2013, 08:39:21 AM
exactly. And you guys are right, it won't wipe out the bass, itll wipe out the quality fish and the fish in areas were people who eat the fish found them while theyre spawning.More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.:yeah:
:yeah:X2I kill my fair share of mergansers each year, just wish there was a seperate bag limit... if there was i'd make a special hunt just for them...
There's a flock of about 80 of them on the bay on the west side of the island the last few days. Wonder how many herring and surf perch they eat. :yike: I pulled a 10" spiny ray out of one on the Chehalis many years ago, the thing could hardly get off the water, hence Boom, Splash. :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 08:48:33 AM
How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
I don't have any numbers of small fish they eat, maybe a bio might have that kind of data, that is questionable, has anyone done that kind of research?
FYI - I have witnessed walleye lined up along the shores of Roosevelt every time I have looked, I cannot say for certain walleye do this every single night of the year, but every time I have looked they are there. If anyone doubts this all you have to do is drive roads or drift a boat along the shore and shine a good light in the water. You will see a walleye every 5 to 50 feet in most cases along the entire stretch that you check, that has been my experience. I am not joking, probably 90% of the fish I have seen doing this at night are walleye, I have even looked at them with binoculars with the light on them, they are walleye. If you do this call the sherrif office or county dispatch before going and let them know what you are doing or I can verify that a deputy or warden will likely show up to investigate.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 12, 2013, 08:57:08 AM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 12, 2013, 09:01:43 AM
How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
I don't have any numbers of small fish they eat, maybe a bio might have that kind of data, that is questionable, has anyone done that kind of research?
FYI - I have witnessed walleye lined up along the shores of Roosevelt every time I have looked, I cannot say for certain walleye do this every single night of the year, but every time I have looked they are there. If anyone doubts this all you have to do is drive roads or drift a boat along the shore and shine a good light in the water. You will see a walleye every 5 to 50 feet in most cases along the entire stretch that you check, that has been my experience. I am not joking, probably 90% of the fish I have seen doing this at night are walleye, I have even looked at them with binoculars with the light on them, they are walleye. If you do this call the sherrif office or county dispatch before going and let them know what you are doing or I can verify that a deputy or warden will likely show up to investigate.
I know of one person who has done that type of research, with the help of another. The walleye in the lower portions of the river have totally different habits than those in other reservoirs, including Roosevelt. I check the stomach contents of EVERY walleye we keep and I do find the occasional smolt but for the most part it is 98% sculpins and perch. I am by no means an expert but I have been fishing for walleye on the Columbia and it’s tributaries since 1984 and have checked the stomach contents of literally thousands of walleye. Many of those are from March to July when the majority of smolts are coming down river.
All that a guy has to do is come down and spend a few days on the river in May to see what the Terns, Cormorants and Pelicans are doing to the smolts. You can literally watch them eat hundreds of smolt in a day.
Post by: bearpaw on March 12, 2013, 09:13:51 AM
How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
I don't have any numbers of small fish they eat, maybe a bio might have that kind of data, that is questionable, has anyone done that kind of research?
FYI - I have witnessed walleye lined up along the shores of Roosevelt every time I have looked, I cannot say for certain walleye do this every single night of the year, but every time I have looked they are there. If anyone doubts this all you have to do is drive roads or drift a boat along the shore and shine a good light in the water. You will see a walleye every 5 to 50 feet in most cases along the entire stretch that you check, that has been my experience. I am not joking, probably 90% of the fish I have seen doing this at night are walleye, I have even looked at them with binoculars with the light on them, they are walleye. If you do this call the sherrif office or county dispatch before going and let them know what you are doing or I can verify that a deputy or warden will likely show up to investigate.
I know of one person who has done that type of research, with the help of another. The walleye in the lower portions of the river have totally different habits than those in other reservoirs, including Roosevelt. I check the stomach contents of EVERY walleye we keep and I do find the occasional smolt but for the most part it is 98% sculpins and perch. I am by no means an expert but I have been fishing for walleye on the Columbia and it’s tributaries since 1984 and have checked the stomach contents of literally thousands of walleye. Many of those are from March to July when the majority of smolts are coming down river.
All that a guy has to do is come down and spend a few days on the river in May to see what the Terns, Cormorants and Pelicans are doing to the smolts. You can literally watch them eat hundreds of smolt in a day.
I am not disagreeing with you on the predatory birds, they will clean out a small lake or beaver pond in short order.
Have you ever shined a light along the shoreline, how frequently? I could be wrong but I suspect there is a good chance you will learn something about how walleye feed at night. This something I have done quite frequently and I am left wondering why walleye in Roosevelt would have to be so different. :dunno:
Post by: Gringo31 on March 12, 2013, 09:48:53 AM
Here is an article I read several years ago on the very thing...
Quote
Night Fishing for Walleye preparation: Much like a hunter who scouts out the area before the season starts, so should you "scout out the area". During daylight hours walleye like to hide in deep holes or in areas along a underwater ridge or island. At night these walleye like to move out of their holding areas and into the shallow water to find their meals. Knowing that you should be looking for long stretches of beach or long sections of shallow water. I like water from 5 feet to 10 feet max. If you see minnows jumping at dusk, that is a prime area to fish.
There is plenty I don't agree with when it comes to our WDFW. We don't manage predators period. Many ideas for improvement are plain as day stated in prior posts. I don't like all of the fee increases across the board and then they buying land. It rubs me wrong..
Quote
In other action, the commission approved three land transactions, including the purchase of 1,614 acres in Asotin County. The acquisition is phase two of a multi-year project to secure a total of nearly 12,000 acres of riparian habitat for steelhead and bull trout and terrestrial habitat for deer, bighorn sheep and elk.
The commission also approved the purchase of 195 acres of lowlands in the Chinook River Estuary in Pacific County to increase salmon habitat, and an easement across four properties along Issaquah Creek in King County for the construction of a replacement intake system upstream from the WDFW Issaquah Fish Hatchery.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 12, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
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.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.
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. :twocents:
There's no difference between hatchery and wild fish? Is that what your saying? Right....
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 12, 2013, 10:08:21 AM
Correct. You would be kidding yourself if hatchery fish didn't spawn with wild fish and the natives have fish hatcheries over here and they don't clip the fins. So we don't know what is going on just that we have steelhead that have clipped fins and ones without.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.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.
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. :twocents:
There's no difference between hatchery and wild fish? Is that what your saying? Right....
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 12, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
Correct. You would be kidding yourself if hatchery fish didn't spawn with wild fish and the natives have fish hatcheries over here and they don't clip the fins. So we don't know what is going on just that we have steelhead that have clipped fins and ones without.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.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.
If not damn breaching, then at least sealion removal from the Columbia along owith the gillnet ban. That would be much more helpful than the band-aid approach of removing a limit on bass and walleye. :twocents:
There's no difference between hatchery and wild fish? Is that what your saying? Right....
You should really read the pilchuck thread and educate yourself. I didn't say they won't intetbreed together. That's what we are trying to avoid. :bash:
Post by: Gringo31 on March 12, 2013, 10:13:13 AM
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 12, 2013, 10:19:24 AM
Correct. You would be kidding yourself if hatchery fish didn't spawn with wild fish and the natives have fish hatcheries over here and they don't clip the fins. So we don't know what is going on just that we have steelhead that have clipped fins and ones without.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.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.
If not damn breaching, then at least sealion removal from the Columbia along owith the gillnet ban. That would be much more helpful than the band-aid approach of removing a limit on bass and walleye. :twocents:
There's no difference between hatchery and wild fish? Is that what your saying? Right....
You should really read the pilchuck thread and educate yourself. I didn't say they won't intetbreed together. That's what we are trying to avoid. :bash:
which thread is this?What? They Kill all the fish they take in but are usually at capacity in October or November and then they don't take any in after that. and your telling me that ALL the stealhead and salmon return to exactly the same play? They how would the species spread itself in all the streams all over the West part of North America?
Last I checked Dwarshack dam was a "kill em all" dam. All fish, wild or hatchery were killed collected and their offspring then clipped.
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 12, 2013, 10:21:51 AM
How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
I don't have any numbers of small fish they eat, maybe a bio might have that kind of data, that is questionable, has anyone done that kind of research?
FYI - I have witnessed walleye lined up along the shores of Roosevelt every time I have looked, I cannot say for certain walleye do this every single night of the year, but every time I have looked they are there. If anyone doubts this all you have to do is drive roads or drift a boat along the shore and shine a good light in the water. You will see a walleye every 5 to 50 feet in most cases along the entire stretch that you check, that has been my experience. I am not joking, probably 90% of the fish I have seen doing this at night are walleye, I have even looked at them with binoculars with the light on them, they are walleye. If you do this call the sherrif office or county dispatch before going and let them know what you are doing or I can verify that a deputy or warden will likely show up to investigate.
I know of one person who has done that type of research, with the help of another. The walleye in the lower portions of the river have totally different habits than those in other reservoirs, including Roosevelt. I check the stomach contents of EVERY walleye we keep and I do find the occasional smolt but for the most part it is 98% sculpins and perch. I am by no means an expert but I have been fishing for walleye on the Columbia and it’s tributaries since 1984 and have checked the stomach contents of literally thousands of walleye. Many of those are from March to July when the majority of smolts are coming down river.
All that a guy has to do is come down and spend a few days on the river in May to see what the Terns, Cormorants and Pelicans are doing to the smolts. You can literally watch them eat hundreds of smolt in a day.
I am not disagreeing with you on the predatory birds, they will clean out a small lake or beaver pond in short order.
Have you ever shined a light along the shoreline, how frequently? I could be wrong but I suspect there is a good chance you will learn something about how walleye feed at night. This something I have done quite frequently and I am left wondering why walleye in Roosevelt would have to be so different. :dunno:
I've done this extensively in the Columbia, that's why I say they act different in the lower river than other bodies of water. I know that this is typical behavior in many other reservoirs, lakes, and rivers just not the columbia in the areas I frequent.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 12, 2013, 11:08:29 AM
This rule proposal is ridiculous. I fish for salmon, steelhead, bass, and walleye. We've seem record/near record runs recently in the upper Columbia on salmon and steelhead. There are millions and millions of dollars each year spend on protecting these runs. These runs are doing just fine, so why create a negative impact on these other fisheries by making them limitless. :dunno: F#&*%g stupid, at best.
Only someone looking at the big picture and there own agenda could possibly say this.
I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying that I'm concerned with my own agenda, and not welfare of all fisheries involved?
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 11:13:33 AM
This rule proposal is ridiculous. I fish for salmon, steelhead, bass, and walleye. We've seem record/near record runs recently in the upper Columbia on salmon and steelhead. There are millions and millions of dollars each year spend on protecting these runs. These runs are doing just fine, so why create a negative impact on these other fisheries by making them limitless. :dunno: F#&*%g stupid, at best.so true.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:14:38 AM
More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.
Talk to your state legislators. Commercial seasons are requried by state law.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:17:29 AM
I think that is a terrible idea. Do you know the mess that would cause over here. For the last 4-5 years excluding this year we have seen record steelhead returns and salmon runs reviving. So how does this support removing the dams. I wasn't here before they put them in but I was here in mid 90's when they did the drawdown. And it was a huge mess with millions of dollars of damage to the roads and other infrastructure. We have 40 years of silt behind these dams and it would probably kill all the salmon and steelhead runs if the were removed all at once. It would take BILLIONS of dollars to this and maybe Tens of BILLIONS of dollars. Most of the people I talk to didn't want the dams in the first place but almost all don't want them removed. So you can keep you dam removal ideas on your side of the mountains a leave us alone.
What really needs to happen is 4 of the Snake River dams should be breached. :twocents:
agreed
[/quote]
Actually, the studies show that dam removal wouldn't be as expensive as you allege, and that the cost of maintaing the 4 dams (which exist almost solely for barge transportation) would offset the cost of removal in the not too distant future.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 11:18:41 AM
Post by: Special T on March 12, 2013, 11:26:29 AM
I think the reason why the simple solutions are not normally adressed is because it keeps everthing in a state of turmoil benifiting many parties.
To me this move is an action in the right direction. I just wish they would take a look at many other species that have gone unmanged and do something about it. :twocents:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 12, 2013, 11:27:07 AM
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:28:05 AM
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.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.
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. :twocents:
Here is a quote from WDFW's webpage concerning Grand Ronde steelhead:
Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Microsatellite DNA analysis suggests the presence of multiple stocks within the Grande Ronde system and has shown that the naturally spawning fish are distinct from Wallowa hatchery summer steelhead (Shaklee and Young 2000b).
Apparently, they are genetically different than the summer runs released at Cottonwood and in Oregon. You can read the full report on the web page if you are interested.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 11:33:18 AM
Snipper, you talkin about the dip nets of off the fish platforms or gill nets? :dunno:gill nets, the platform nets are much more realistic as far as harvest numbers go.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 11:39:53 AM
I know alot about bass and walleye actually. I know walleye do eat a large portion of salmonoids when they are in the river, however reserch in the upper columbia shows that at most, salmonoids are only 20% of a basses diet when salmonoids are even present. Don't throw assumptions. I do try to imitate salmonoids with my bass baits when they are present, so yes I know bass eat them but the effects arn't that extreme. Not enough to legalize the slaughtering of plus sized bass and ruin the quality of bass in the columbia basin. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:The comercial seasons arn't the problem...and people will yell at me for hrowing out a race...but its the Tribal nets. Spendinding almost every day in the summer fishing for bass in the columbia I've seen the drastic effects these nets have on salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon...and hey blame it on he bass?! >:( I understand we took the indians land and freedom but can't there be more fair ways to let them catch salmon, ways that don't have such a drastic effect??? :bash: :dunno:
Bass are predatory invasive fish, as are walleye. I'm not saying you're incorrect about the tribal netting. It's just not part of your thread. Bass and walleye are. They don't belong here and, respectfully speaking Sniper, if you don't think they're preying on other fish, you don't know much about bass and walleye.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:41:18 AM
I know alot about bass and walleye actually. I know walleye do eat a large portion of salmonoids when they are in the river, however reserch in the upper columbia shows that at most, salmonoids are only 20% of a basses diet when salmonoids are even present. Don't throw assumptions. I do try to imitate salmonoids with my bass baits when they are present, so yes I know bass eat them but the effects arn't that extreme. Not enough to legalize the slaughtering of plus sized bass and ruin the quality of bass in the columbia basin. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:The comercial seasons arn't the problem...and people will yell at me for hrowing out a race...but its the Tribal nets. Spendinding almost every day in the summer fishing for bass in the columbia I've seen the drastic effects these nets have on salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon...and hey blame it on he bass?! >:( I understand we took the indians land and freedom but can't there be more fair ways to let them catch salmon, ways that don't have such a drastic effect??? :bash: :dunno:
Bass are predatory invasive fish, as are walleye. I'm not saying you're incorrect about the tribal netting. It's just not part of your thread. Bass and walleye are. They don't belong here and, respectfully speaking Sniper, if you don't think they're preying on other fish, you don't know much about bass and walleye.
How many smolts can the million or so bass eat if smolts comprise 20% of their diet?
Post by: B.G.hunter on March 12, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
I don't know about the Grande Ronde fish but the Clearwater hatchery fish are the same because they were started out of the same fish 50 years ago. The bios can see no difference between wild and hatchery. I think those some hatchery fish on the Grande Ronde were transplants from another river system.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.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.
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. :twocents:
Here is a quote from WDFW's webpage concerning Grand Ronde steelhead:
Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Microsatellite DNA analysis suggests the presence of multiple stocks within the Grande Ronde system and has shown that the naturally spawning fish are distinct from Wallowa hatchery summer steelhead (Shaklee and Young 2000b).
Apparently, they are genetically different than the summer runs released at Cottonwood and in Oregon. You can read the full report on the web page if you are interested.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 12:00:59 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 12, 2013, 12:03:03 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 12:15:13 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:and there goes all thee big 3-4 pound hens tha go up the Yak to SPAWN. The big fish bass fisherman strive to catch, and are so easily caught when they are spawning because they are protecting their young! The big fish don't even taste good, thats somthing people dont undersand. Sometimes I take my family along and will keep 10 or 12 small, 12 inch fish for he frying pan and thats fun every now and then. But now everyone is going to slaughter those large hens that don't even taste good. Catch and Release the big ones, thats all I ask.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 12:16:34 PM
The bass have been here way to many years to still be considering them "invasive species" guys so grow up. Everybody loves bass, theirs nothing wrong with them, yes they eat a few salmon smolt and deserved to be managed scientifically for whats best but completly uncontrolled harvest of the quality fish, which are the breeding fish and the fish that will be effected the worst is such a miserable fail by our fish and game department. Their job is to manage ALL populations of game fish and bass should be included in this. Its their job to find a healthy median between controlling the bass population and helping the salmon and steelhead populations as well.
That's where some of us disagree with you. They will always be an invasive species because they were planted here by man. Not only that, they have a negative affect on the local ecosystem. And, some of us don't think it is WDFW's job to manage invasive species that shouldn't be here in the first place. They should not find a median balance between managing invasive species and native species. It should be open season on invasives with the only "management" being aimed at removing them and reducing their impact to as close to zero as possible. I agree with Pianoman (is hell freezing over? :chuckle:) and think we should kill them all.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:and there goes all thee big 3-4 pound hens tha go up the Yak to SPAWN. The big fish bass fisherman strive to catch, and are so easily caught when they are spawning because they are protecting their young! The big fish don't even taste good, thats somthing people dont undersand. Sometimes I take my family along and will keep 10 or 12 small, 12 inch fish for he frying pan and thats fun every now and then. But now everyone is going to slaughter those large hens that don't even taste good. Catch and Release the big ones, thats all I ask.
There is a study that shows bass in the lower Yak eat a ton of smolts every spring. Why should we be protecting those fish when we know they are eating a ton of smolts?
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 12:23:35 PM
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 12:40:26 PM
I agree with Sniper, WDFW should be protecting the large females. Hell, it was WDFW bios that introduced smallmouth into the Yak in the 60's isn't it?
I said earlier in this thread that the rule change wouldn't make much difference to bass populations. I was only thinking about the serious bass fisherman that C&R most everything anyway. I forgot about the people that go down to the river fishing to eat bass. They could impact the population, especially if they target bass on their beds.
Post by: woodywsu on March 12, 2013, 12:49:16 PM
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 12:51:02 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:
What time of year does this occur? I will be in Richland over memorial day and may drag the drifter over if fishing would be good then.
Post by: Gobble Doc on March 12, 2013, 12:57:27 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
The dams have helped create great bass and walleye habitat. The Columbia pools are great bass fishing because the water is warmer than it would have been without the dams. It is a world class fishery for bass and walleye now............I don't feel like the goal should be to eliminate the species, though. (And we all know that the Columbia R dams are not going anywhere).THANKYOU!!!! :tup: :tup: :tup: :chuckle:
I agree with Sniper, WDFW should be protecting the large females. Hell, it was WDFW bios that introduced smallmouth into the Yak in the 60's isn't it?
I said earlier in this thread that the rule change wouldn't make much difference to bass populations. I was only thinking about the serious bass fisherman that C&R most everything anyway. I forgot about the people that go down to the river fishing to eat bass. They could impact the population, especially if they target bass on their beds.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 01:22:13 PM
Fill the freezer with smallmouth and cats? More like fill your freezer with pesticides from the Yak valley runoff. :dunno:the smallmouth arnt as bad because the majority are seasonal fish tha go up to spawn and feast on the salmon fry then run back out to he mouth of the columbia but the cats eat everything floating along the botom dead...and that stuff has to die somehow :yike: :yike: eww
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 01:24:46 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:
What time of year does this occur? I will be in Richland over memorial day and may drag the drifter over if fishing would be good then.
Memorial day weekend is prime time. There should be plenty of spawners up the Yakima on that weekend.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 01:47:12 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:
What time of year does this occur? I will be in Richland over memorial day and may drag the drifter over if fishing would be good then.
Memorial day weekend is prime time. There should be plenty of spawners up the Yakima on that weekend.
Good deal. I will watch the water conditions and probably bring the boat. Want some bass when I get back? I live just up the road (on Littlerock Rd).
Post by: MtnMuley on March 12, 2013, 03:50:47 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
:yeah: :tup:Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Post by: backyard bucks on March 12, 2013, 04:13:53 PM
Quote
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
and most will not know how or where to look anyways.. :chuckle:
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 04:17:18 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 12, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Nope. I don't think they are a big problem. Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow. As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Nope. I don't think they are a big problem. Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow. As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.
The salmon runs are only doing "great" compared to what they became after we f'd everything up (dams, logging, etc.). The Columbia is producing something like 1/25 of the salmon it used to, and most of those fish are hatchery fish.
Post by: boneaddict on March 12, 2013, 04:28:53 PM
my opinion as well, adding I am glad they opened it up for these species.More smoke and mirrors from the state. If they really wanted to save the salmon and steelhead they would outlaw ALL Nets in Wa State waters.:yeah:
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 04:35:13 PM
Cant wait to float the lower Yak for smallmouth and catfish! Gonna bring lots of coolers with ice and fill the freezer! This is the best rule change in along time! :IBCOOL:
What time of year does this occur? I will be in Richland over memorial day and may drag the drifter over if fishing would be good then.
Memorial day weekend is prime time. There should be plenty of spawners up the Yakima on that weekend.
Good deal. I will watch the water conditions and probably bring the boat. Want some bass when I get back? I live just up the road (on Littlerock Rd).
I'd take some. My wife always begs me to keep them, but I usually C&R.
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 04:39:11 PM
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on March 12, 2013, 04:40:19 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Nope. I don't think they are a big problem. Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow. As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.
Yup, you said it again. That clueless statement about Salmon runs are great.
Post by: gaddy on March 12, 2013, 04:47:20 PM
ive seen lakes killed by bass & walleye over population- no more perch, crappy,trout etc.. & yes bass will decline as well as the walleye eat. thats what they do.
all you guys that are C&R only are only looking out for your one interest & thats ok for you. if i catch em ill eat em (if i can get enough for a meal)
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 05:54:01 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 06:06:45 PM
And you know what I think? I think you're complely ignorant to how that will effect everyone else in the communiy. Not to mention, the eco-system has adjusted to bass and now they are just a part of the natural order. Like I said, I love fishing for both species of fish and fish for one species or the other every day. Im looking at his from both sides...I don't about you but I get my limit of salmon/steelhead most days I target them and thass more than enough fish for me so I think you don't have alot to complain about. :twocents: :bash:The bass have been here way to many years to still be considering them "invasive species" guys so grow up. Everybody loves bass, theirs nothing wrong with them, yes they eat a few salmon smolt and deserved to be managed scientifically for whats best but completly uncontrolled harvest of the quality fish, which are the breeding fish and the fish that will be effected the worst is such a miserable fail by our fish and game department. Their job is to manage ALL populations of game fish and bass should be included in this. Its their job to find a healthy median between controlling the bass population and helping the salmon and steelhead populations as well.
That's where some of us disagree with you. They will always be an invasive species because they were planted here by man. Not only that, they have a negative affect on the local ecosystem. And, some of us don't think it is WDFW's job to manage invasive species that shouldn't be here in the first place. They should not find a median balance between managing invasive species and native species. It should be open season on invasives with the only "management" being aimed at removing them and reducing their impact to as close to zero as possible. I agree with Pianoman (is hell freezing over? :chuckle:) and think we should kill them all.
Post by: Curly on March 12, 2013, 06:12:27 PM
I will shoot you a PM if I end up going over.8)
(Let me know if you need some plastic worms, grubs, or some jigheads).
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 12, 2013, 06:19:33 PM
Post by: Gobble Doc on March 12, 2013, 06:39:43 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 07:00:38 PM
We used to kill the smallies in the 80's below Horn Rapids. Rooster tails. Fun Stuff. Anyone remember the unboat races or am I just too old?ss. As for lures mepps spinners to plastics to plugs. It all gets bit on the Yak.
Post by: xd2005 on March 12, 2013, 07:53:49 PM
for one, the big bass don't even taste good, and they are all Im concerned about. Just release the bigger fish. We can regulate bass without killing every one we catch!! Bass arnt some evil fish.
And wolves aren't evil dogs. Sure, they eat some deer and elk here and there, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of all of them! Ad biologists are re-introducing them, so they must be good. :chuckle:
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 12, 2013, 08:03:41 PM
I'm not at all trying to put anybody down but most times of the year it's not exactly easy to do well on walleye. They're a mysterious fish and at times very hard to predict and find.
I'm not at all against keeping a few to eat but I see no need to "waste" any. We undoubtedly have the worlds BEST trophy walleye fishery and I feel it should definitely be managed.
I fish for Walleye, Bass, Steelhead, Salmon, Sturgeon, you name it. I don't want to see any of them go away.
Post by: walleye1 on March 12, 2013, 08:12:08 PM
Post by: xd2005 on March 12, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
Rocky mt elk are not native to washington either. Let's kill all them too.
I'm trying, I'm trying! :chuckle:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 12, 2013, 08:32:51 PM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 08:46:54 PM
Biggest smallie i have got out of there is 5.5 lbs. It was good eatin! As for other big bass i have eatin. A 7.5 lb large mouth that aite good to. The theroy of big fish dont eat good is out the window with me. Bigger fish means more better eatin than a small one! 7.5 lb walleye eat supper good as well! :twocents:well arnt you a cool cat!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 08:50:10 PM
no, all wolves need to die...Thats a s different story but they have havnt been around near as long as bass, the ecosystem hasnt adapted to wolves like the columbia has adapted to smallmouth....and by the time the ecosystem adapts to wolves...there wont be much left cuz thats the the closest thing that could happen to adapting!!for one, the big bass don't even taste good, and they are all Im concerned about. Just release the bigger fish. We can regulate bass without killing every one we catch!! Bass arnt some evil fish.
And wolves aren't evil dogs. Sure, they eat some deer and elk here and there, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of all of them! Ad biologists are re-introducing them, so they must be good. :chuckle:
Post by: Sniper101 on March 12, 2013, 08:53:31 PM
I hope this doesn't stir the pot too much... Most of the "average" salmon/steelhead anglers will not be able to catch enough walleye to hurt the population at all. Now the guys who are really in tune with fishing and fish behavior shouldn't and probably will not take this the wrong way but on this side of the state, most "seasonal" salmon/steelhead anglers don't have the knowledge to do that well on walleye.i agree, Im the same and I think that applys to bass too, however, EXCLUDING when the big fish are spawning and proecting there bds, then they are close to the banks where everyone fishes and could just happen upon a spawning flat where any fish will eat whatever you throw any where near them.
I'm not at all trying to put anybody down but most times of the year it's not exactly easy to do well on walleye. They're a mysterious fish and at times very hard to predict and find.
I'm not at all against keeping a few to eat but I see no need to "waste" any. We undoubtedly have the worlds BEST trophy walleye fishery and I feel it should definitely be managed.
I fish for Walleye, Bass, Steelhead, Salmon, Sturgeon, you name it. I don't want to see any of them go away.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 12, 2013, 09:51:10 PM
I hope this doesn't stir the pot too much... Most of the "average" salmon/steelhead anglers will not be able to catch enough walleye to hurt the population at all. Now the guys who are really in tune with fishing and fish behavior shouldn't and probably will not take this the wrong way but on this side of the state, most "seasonal" salmon/steelhead anglers don't have the knowledge to do that well on walleye.
I'm not at all trying to put anybody down but most times of the year it's not exactly easy to do well on walleye. They're a mysterious fish and at times very hard to predict and find.
I'm not at all against keeping a few to eat but I see no need to "waste" any. We undoubtedly have the worlds BEST trophy walleye fishery and I feel it should definitely be managed.
I fish for Walleye, Bass, Steelhead, Salmon, Sturgeon, you name it. I don't want to see any of them go away.
Gotta disagree. It will not take long for anyone who is really in tune with any type of fishing to figure out a certian species.
The first time I ever fished walleye I took my boat to mar don and we murdered them. We came back to the launch and people did not believe us when we told them how we did. Most others were gettin one or two fish per boat and we hooked on average 15 per day. It only took a couple fish to figure out the pattern and really lay the smack down on them.
Post by: lokidog on March 12, 2013, 11:06:11 PM
Biggest smallie i have got out of there is 5.5 lbs. It was good eatin! As for other big bass i have eatin. A 7.5 lb large mouth that aite good to. The theroy of big fish dont eat good is out the window with me. Bigger fish means more better eatin than a small one! 7.5 lb walleye eat supper good as well! :twocents:well arnt you a cool cat!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
Sorry Sniper, but I agree with Huntin, big fish taste gooood.
As to bass/walleye equalizing/being part of the current ecosystem, they are an introduced species. Something will prosper less as a new species prospers more, it is simple biology. When there is a limited food/habitat/space resource, competition WILL occur. The big question is this - with salmon/steelhead already reduced from historic numbers by dams, sea lions, birds, nets and other negative impacts of humanity, does the impact of bass/walleyes/even pike have a noticeable effect on salmonid populations? If the reduced numbers of native fish has led to an increase in bait for the juvenile fish, is there competition with the spiny ray juveniles for food? Maybe not. But, then the predatory aspect of spiny rays on juvenile salmonids also has to be considered. This is where the impact, if there is one, is most likely to occur since, I would argue, that competition for food has been reduced for the juveniles of both because of the decrease in salmonid populations, and there is increased predation on small fish (juvenile salmonids) since along with the birds the spiny rays eat them as well.
At historic levels of salmonid populations, the impact of spiny rays on juvenile salmonids might not have even been statistically significant. However, because of the reduced salmonid population, not so much due to spiny rays to begin with, the impact of the predation by spiny rays is much more significant and may actually cause a statistically significant portion of juvenile salmonid mortality.
So, in the end, barring bird/sea lion/dam/net removal, a significant increase in juvenile salmonid recruitment may be obtainable with a large pecentage reduction of spiny ray predators. Whether that reduction can actually be done, remains to be seen. I would bet that without huge amounts of gillnetting operations targeted at walleyes, the actual system-wide impact will be small. Unfortunately, many a bass/walleye fisherman's honeyhole may, however, be affected.
I would rather see WDFW fish stocking monies going to support spiny rays in areas where impacts on native salmonids would not be significant, than the amount of money they spend on planting rainbow trout, which are also mostly an introduced specie as well. I like to eat bass, panfish, walleyes much more than almost any stocker trout I have caught.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 13, 2013, 06:30:09 AM
I hope this doesn't stir the pot too much... Most of the "average" salmon/steelhead anglers will not be able to catch enough walleye to hurt the population at all. Now the guys who are really in tune with fishing and fish behavior shouldn't and probably will not take this the wrong way but on this side of the state, most "seasonal" salmon/steelhead anglers don't have the knowledge to do that well on walleye.
I'm not at all trying to put anybody down but most times of the year it's not exactly easy to do well on walleye. They're a mysterious fish and at times very hard to predict and find.
I'm not at all against keeping a few to eat but I see no need to "waste" any. We undoubtedly have the worlds BEST trophy walleye fishery and I feel it should definitely be managed.
I fish for Walleye, Bass, Steelhead, Salmon, Sturgeon, you name it. I don't want to see any of them go away.
Gotta disagree. It will not take long for anyone who is really in tune with any type of fishing to figure out a certian species.
The first time I ever fished walleye I took my boat to mar don and we murdered them. We came back to the launch and people did not believe us when we told them how we did. Most others were gettin one or two fish per boat and we hooked on average 15 per day. It only took a couple fish to figure out the pattern and really lay the smack down on them.
Mardon is a little different story. You may be in the "10%" of fisherman who catch "90%" of the fish.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 13, 2013, 07:04:55 AM
If the ecosystem has indeed "adapted", and salmon/steelhead are doing well in the Snake/Columbia (which many would question), it has only been a result of literally millions of dollars per year being shelled out through all of the agencies involved.
I haven't seen the latest numbers, but I am aware it is millions and millions of dollars per year.
Obviously, reducing non-native spiny rays by removing the catch limit comes "free" for the WDFW.
Post by: Alchase on March 13, 2013, 07:22:54 AM
There is a big pink elephant in the room everyone is ignoring
Post by: bobcat on March 13, 2013, 08:10:02 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on March 13, 2013, 08:10:15 AM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Nope. I don't think they are a big problem. Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow. As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.
The salmon runs are only doing "great" compared to what they became after we f'd everything up (dams, logging, etc.). The Columbia is producing something like 1/25 of the salmon it used to, and most of those fish are hatchery fish.
Well, this is 2013 and not the 1800's. Doesn't make sense to me to compare todays runs with those of the pre-dam/logging.
Post by: woodywsu on March 13, 2013, 08:24:39 AM
Buttonnubbs, I would be suprised if you can catch a limit on teh Mid-C. Let along catch enough to impact the population.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on March 13, 2013, 08:42:53 AM
Lets just give up on all the ESA listed stocks and have a free for all! After all the runs are doing fine! :chuckle:
Post by: Alchase on March 13, 2013, 08:50:36 AM
Probably because nobody wants to eat cormorants or sea lions so they can't justify a hunting season for them. And who's going to do the killing, if not hunters?
Pick me! Pick me!
I would volunteer my services, I would even buy my own ammo :hunt2:
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 13, 2013, 12:04:41 PM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on March 13, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
I have been reading on this forum for about a year and I am in disbelief how many sportsman do not understand that fighting against rights of other sportsman is exactly what the other side preys on. When the Salmon and Steelhead fishing is shut down because sportsman are taking to many of the native sea lions fish we will here some of you singing another tune.
Very clear to me. Sportsman should stick together and work together. Keep all sides happy to strengthen our overall heritage.
I'm not sure how to keep everyone happy but it would be ideal.
Post by: Curly on March 13, 2013, 12:46:22 PM
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 13, 2013, 12:48:28 PM
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 13, 2013, 12:51:27 PM
Post by: Curly on March 13, 2013, 12:53:09 PM
I do not understand how our state as well as the Colville tribe can talk about invasive species and at the same time plant Triploids in the same lakes and rivers that they are trying to eliminate bass and walleye.
Exactly. :tup:
Or planting rainbows in all the lowland lakes. In most cases those fish are "invasive".
Post by: WSU on March 13, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
Well Sniper, you got someone to agree with you. Take as a win. :chuckle: :chuckle:You mean someone with enough sense to look at the problem at hand with a fair eye??
I'm with ya sniper101. Pathetic management strategy at best by WDFW once again. I wouldn't take too much of this argument on this topic to heart. Just like with many other debate topics here, many of the posters just try to stir the pot or prefer to argue that water isn't wet.
Do you not think they are a problem or just not think many will kill them? If you are interested, try a google search for the key words "bass," "Yakima River," "fall chinook" and "smolt." You will find studies showing they prey heavily on smolt, especially native salmon smolts due to their smaller size.
I obviously can't predict how many people will kill them. I know that I plan to kill every single one I catch, but I also don't fish for them often.
Nope. I don't think they are a big problem. Surely they eat a few, but not near the numbers as other fish like the pikeminnow. As said before, these salmon runs are doing great, so I feel the management of bass and walleye shouldn't go unregulated.
The salmon runs are only doing "great" compared to what they became after we f'd everything up (dams, logging, etc.). The Columbia is producing something like 1/25 of the salmon it used to, and most of those fish are hatchery fish.
Well, this is 2013 and not the 1800's. Doesn't make sense to me to compare todays runs with those of the pre-dam/logging.
It doesn't make sense to me to ignore history and claim the runs are "great." Sticking our collective heads in the sand and saying this are "great" doesn't make it so.
Post by: WSU on March 13, 2013, 01:59:47 PM
I will shoot you a PM if I end up going over.8)
(Let me know if you need some plastic worms, grubs, or some jigheads).
Will do. I don't know much about the fishery, but am going to go with my brother in law who lives in Richland. I'm sure it won't be hard to figure out. My quick research tells me to look for spawning water and then pound on them once you find the beds. I've fished for bass enough to figure it out.
That said, anyone who has some good info to pass along is more than welcome to. I'd love to get my nephew into a bunch of fish.
Post by: Mfowl on March 13, 2013, 02:11:17 PM
Post by: Kc_Kracker on March 13, 2013, 02:35:37 PM
Post by: hunt_fish on March 13, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 13, 2013, 05:17:49 PM
Realize the money it is taking to recover salmon in the Columbia.
Last estimate I saw was over $10 BILLION in the last two decades. And supposedly the salmon runs are fine.
Pull away even a % of the vast funds being poured into this system, and guess what; there go the salmon.
Removing limits for spiny rays is simply a cheap plan to try to save money. I don't know if it will work; I doubt if the biologists do either. But it is cheap. And I'm sure they're hoping it will help.
10 BILLION dollars...
Post by: Curly on March 13, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
So where on the Columbia is this happening? I'm guessing Eastern Washington? I don't get why they would do that on the Columbia River in Eastern Washington, since salmon/steelhead seem to do fine. I could understand them maybe doing it in the Snake, since their populations are low for salmon.
Unless I'm mistaken, I take it that any part of the Columbia and anything tributary to it is affected. :o
Edit: I just re-read it. It does say "portions" of the Columbia and tributaries. So, I don't know what all is affected. :dunno:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 13, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
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
Post by: ICEMAN on March 13, 2013, 06:40:56 PM
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.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.
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. :twocents:
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
Post by: Bullkllr on March 13, 2013, 06:56:20 PM
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.
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 13, 2013, 07:06:28 PM
Post by: Mfowl on March 13, 2013, 11:05:38 PM
Post by: hunt_fish on March 14, 2013, 06:18:56 AM
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.
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 14, 2013, 06:19:31 AM
Post by: Curly on March 14, 2013, 06:44:50 AM
Post by: Mfowl on March 14, 2013, 08:08:43 AM
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 14, 2013, 08:15:30 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 14, 2013, 08:21:44 AM
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 :twocents:
Illegal to catch and release bass? :dunno:
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 14, 2013, 08:22:45 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on March 14, 2013, 08:23:52 AM
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 :twocents:
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. ;)
Post by: Curly on March 14, 2013, 08:25:18 AM
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 :twocents:
Where is the violation? :dunno: 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. :twocents:
Post by: Russ McDonald on March 14, 2013, 08:52:14 AM
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 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01384/wdfw01384.pdf)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 :twocents:
Where is the violation? :dunno: 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. :twocents:
I wanted to just view this thread and read along but thought it was time to put in my :twocents:. 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.
Post by: WSU on March 14, 2013, 09:44:03 AM
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. :twocents:
Google "yakima river" "bass" and "fall chinook."
Post by: Mfowl on March 14, 2013, 10:04:37 AM
Post by: Curly on March 14, 2013, 10:34:39 AM
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. :twocents:
Google "yakima river" "bass" and "fall chinook."
Will do. :hello:
Post by: plugger on March 14, 2013, 02:23:54 PM
Post by: lokidog on March 14, 2013, 02:50:51 PM
"Invasive species" means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
"Alien species" means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem.
Triploids technically do not fall into the Invasive Species definition because they are not able to propogate themselves. Rainbow trout can fall into this category if the ecosystem in which they are placed has spawning habitat. If there is no spawning habitat they cannot reproduce and therefore would not be invasive.
These definitions are federal definitions based on an executive order in 1999. Personally, having a Bachelors Degree in Zoology, I would include the "capable of propogating" only in the Invasive definition because if it cannot do that, all mortality will lead to the elimination of the species without input from an outside source. Ie. triploids are an alien species but not invasive whereas walleyes and bass are alien and invasive because they can self-propogate.
However, just because a species may not be invasive, does not mean that they have no environmental impact since they also need to eat and take up space, thus effecting the success of native species.
Scotchbroom is an invasive species but apple trees are not since they are both non-native but apple trees don't tend to do economic or environmental harm like Scotchbroom does.
Chinook salmon are an invasive species in the Great Lakes, though one that people don't seem to mind. Zebra mussels, however, are definitely invasive.
Post by: Sniper101 on March 15, 2013, 08:41:36 AM
What would keep me happy is to go ahead and increase the limits on bass, walleye and catfish, if they want but don't just remove all restrictions. I'd like to see something like an 18" max limit on bass and maybe a 24" max limit on walleye. Let those big fish go and thin out the smaller ones. They shouldn't try to destroy world class fisheries where people come from all over the country to catch these fish. They may be technically invasive, but the river conditions have made it such great habitat for them, why not let them coexist? Shouldn't the WDFW have studies to back up the rule change? I don't think the number of smolts they eat is all that great.......bass mostly eat crawfish, sculpins and perch. :twocents:truest statement yet....don't forget shad!:P
Post by: Sniper101 on March 15, 2013, 08:43:10 AM
So if you stock a river with salmon/steelhead that are not native to that river, does that not make them an evasive species :twocents: They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for MAN putting them in there. This may be the stupidest thing WDFW has ever done and that's saying something. There is no reason all fish cant be managed to create a quality fishery for all parties. How many native female salmon die from being released with how many eggs per fish. If your that worried about protecting them, you wouldn't be fishing for them. Some of you on hear need to get off your high horse, believe it or not we are all in this together. :bash::yeah:
Post by: bobcat on March 15, 2013, 08:51:49 AM
Quote
So if you stock a river with salmon/steelhead that are not native to that river, does that not make them an evasive species
I'm not a very good fisherman, so almost ALL fish are evasive to me. :dunno:
Post by: lokidog on March 15, 2013, 09:44:26 AM
QuoteSo if you stock a river with salmon/steelhead that are not native to that river, does that not make them an evasive species
I'm not a very good fisherman, so almost ALL fish are evasive to me. :dunno:
:chuckle:
What would keep me happy is to go ahead and increase the limits on bass, walleye and catfish, if they want but don't just remove all restrictions. I'd like to see something like an 18" max limit on bass and maybe a 24" max limit on walleye. Let those big fish go and thin out the smaller ones. They shouldn't try to destroy world class fisheries where people come from all over the country to catch these fish. They may be technically invasive, but the river conditions have made it such great habitat for them, why not let them coexist? Shouldn't the WDFW have studies to back up the rule change? I don't think the number of smolts they eat is all that great.......bass mostly eat crawfish, sculpins and perch. :twocents:truest statement yet....don't forget shad!:P
Not sure they ever have real studies to back anything they do up, some anti group just tells them what they want, and they do it. :bash:
Post by: Curly on March 15, 2013, 10:13:25 AM
QuoteSo if you stock a river with salmon/steelhead that are not native to that river, does that not make them an evasive species
I'm not a very good fisherman, so almost ALL fish are evasive to me. :dunno:
:lol4:
Walleye on the Columbia are very evasive for me. :'(
Post by: WSU on March 15, 2013, 10:34:04 AM
QuoteSo if you stock a river with salmon/steelhead that are not native to that river, does that not make them an evasive species
I'm not a very good fisherman, so almost ALL fish are evasive to me. :dunno:
:chuckle:What would keep me happy is to go ahead and increase the limits on bass, walleye and catfish, if they want but don't just remove all restrictions. I'd like to see something like an 18" max limit on bass and maybe a 24" max limit on walleye. Let those big fish go and thin out the smaller ones. They shouldn't try to destroy world class fisheries where people come from all over the country to catch these fish. They may be technically invasive, but the river conditions have made it such great habitat for them, why not let them coexist? Shouldn't the WDFW have studies to back up the rule change? I don't think the number of smolts they eat is all that great.......bass mostly eat crawfish, sculpins and perch. :twocents:truest statement yet....don't forget shad!:P
Not sure they ever have real studies to back anything they do up, some anti group just tells them what they want, and they do it. :bash:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, try doing the google search I've suggested on this thread multiple times. It will show you the study of Yakima smallies eating a ton of fall chinook smolts every spring. I guess the saying is true: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink...
Post by: plugger on March 15, 2013, 01:59:07 PM
Post by: Curly on March 15, 2013, 02:46:04 PM
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. :twocents:
Google "yakima river" "bass" and "fall chinook."
Will do. :hello:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-008-9375-1 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-008-9375-1)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/606/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/606/)
Quote
The lower Yakima River from Granger downstream to the Columbia River is well known for robust populations of smallmouth bass and channel catfish during the spring and summer months. Though some shoreline areas are open to the public, most of the better fishing areas are only accessible by boat.
Boat launch sites are located at Granger, Prosser, Benton City, Horn Rapids Park, Snively Road, Hyde Road, and Duportail Road. Smallmouth bass are generally under one and a half pounds, but fish up to six pounds are not uncommon. There is no daily limit on bass in the Yakima River but no more than three over 15 inches can be retained. Channel catfish are present throughout the lower Yakima River but the best fishing is usually in the lower ten miles during late Spring and Summer. There is no current minimum size restriction and no daily limit on channel catfish in the Yakima River.
The entire river including all tributaries and drains is closed to steelhead fishing. The Washington Department of Health (DOH) has issued this fish consumption advisory for the Yakima River due to DDT and DDE contamination: all anglers are recommended to limit consumption of carp, channel catfish, mountain whitefish, suckers, and Northern pikeminnow to one meal (8-ounce portion for adults, proportionally smaller for children) per week. For more information, contact the DOH Office of Environmental Health Assessments at (877) 485-7316 or visit the DOH website at www.doh.wa.gov/fish (http://www.doh.wa.gov/fish).
Post by: WSU on March 16, 2013, 10:17:05 AM
http://fish.washington.edu/research/oldenlab/pdf/2011/ReviewsFisheriesScience_2011.pdf (http://fish.washington.edu/research/oldenlab/pdf/2011/ReviewsFisheriesScience_2011.pdf)
SALMON
Predation
Smallmouth bass consumes vertebrates (primarily fish) and
invertebrates (such as crayfish) in their native range (Warren,
2009). In the PNW, smallmouth bass consumes similar prey
items. For example, native crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus)
and sculpin (Cottus spp.) were the primary diet items of smallmouth
bass in Lake Sammamish,Washington (Pflug and Pauley,
1984). In the John Day Reservoir, sculpin is also the primary
diet item for smallmouth bass, with crayfish increasing in importance
further downstream toward the John Day Dam (Poe et al.,
1991). Smallmouth bass is a non-selective, opportunistic feeder
(Pflug and Pauley, 1984; Weidel et al., 2000; Warren, 2009). In
the PNW, this means smallmouth bass may consume juvenile
Pacific salmon when the two species overlap in time and space.
For example, in Lake Washington, predation by smallmouth
bass increases in spring (50% salmon by weight of diet items)
when juvenile sockeye salmon utilizes littoral areas occupied by
smallmouth bass during outmigration (Fayram and Sibley, 2000;
Tabor et al., 2007). No salmon were found in smallmouth bass
diets between July and September (Fayram and Sibley, 2000),
suggesting limited spatial overlap during most of the year in
Lake Washington. Not all of these studies (e.g., Lake Washington)
pertain to salmon that are threatened or endangered;
however, they do provide information about overall feeding and
potential impacts on salmon from smallmouth bass.
In areas inhabited by threatened or endangered salmon,
specifically in the Columbia and Snake River basins, the percent
of smallmouth bass diets containing salmon ranges from 0 to
65% by frequency and 0 to 89% by weight (Table 2). Smallmouth
bass predation on salmon differs through time and across
regions, leading to the large range in diet composition. For example,
percent salmon in smallmouth bass diets was 12.4%
(9.8% Chinook, 2.6% unspecified salmon) below Bonneville
Dam, 14.2% (7.7% Chinook, 6.5% unspecified salmon) in lower
Columbia River reservoirs, and 25.8% (12.6% Chinook, 2.5%
steelhead; 10.7% unspecified) in the lower Snake River annually
from 1990 to 1996 (Zimmerman, 1999; Table 2). Major
tributaries of the Columbia River show similar variation in the
percentage of salmon in smallmouth bass diets (Table 2). When
identified, Chinook salmon is the most frequently consumed
salmon species. At dams on the lower Snake River, salmon composed
a higher proportion of the fish consumed by smallmouth
bass at Lower Granite Dam than at Lower Monumental Dam or
Little Goose Dam in 2007 (Table 3).
Post by: WSU on March 16, 2013, 10:19:02 AM
The impact of smallmouth bass in some river systems is evident
from consumption rates that range from 0 to 3.89 salmon
consumed per predator each day (Table 4). More salmon are
consumed by an individual smallmouth bass in the Yakima
River than in locations along the lower Columbia River (Table
4). Relative to the mainstem and major tributaries, fewer
salmon are consumed by an individual smallmouth bass in the
Snake River basin. Similarly, Fritts and Pearsons (2004) estimated
that over 335,000 juvenile salmon were consumed annually
(March–June) in the Yakima River, a higher annual value
relative to other locations.With few studies available across the
PNW, data suggests that between 0 and 35% of wild salmon are
consumed during outmigration by smallmouth bass (Table 4).
Again, the largest impact of smallmouth bass on the percentage
of the outmigrating salmon consumed appears in the Yakima
River relative to the lower Columbia and Snake River locations,
although the paucity of data from other locations limits the generality
of this statement. Comparing between regions is tenuous
due to the low amount of data, differences in the number and
timing of outmigrating salmon, abiotic conditions, system size,
and sampling technique to name a few complications. Testing
the interaction between temperature and outmigration timing is
an important next step to understand the regional differences in
smallmouth bass predation on salmon. Overall, smallmouth bass
predation reduces juvenile salmon populations under certain
conditions, and this effect will only increase as smallmouth bass
populations continue to expand in range or number. Even low
predation rates by smallmouth bass at individual locations could
accumulate into a substantial impact over an entire salmon run.
Abiotic Conditions
Abiotic factors, such as changes in flow, water clarity, and
temperature, are capable of altering the number of salmon consumed
by smallmouth bass (Naughton et al., 2004). Low flow
conditions due to dams augment predation by increasing salmon
residence time, while simultaneously reducing energetic costs
for smallmouth bass (Tabor et al., 1993). Reservoirs also reduce
water clarity, making salmon more susceptible to visual
predators. Flow and water clarity highly influence predation,
thus requiring location-specific estimates even between seemingly
similar near-dam and mid-reservoir habitats (Vigg et al.,
1991; Petersen, 1994). In the PNW, temperatures greater than
15◦C have been shown to increase smallmouth bass consumption
rates and predation on juvenile salmon (Fayram and Sibley,
2000; Tabor et al., 2007). For instance, juvenile salmon have a
thermal refuge from smallmouth bass in the pelagic zone of Lake
Washington until they pass the littoral zone during outmigration,
when and where temperatures are warmer (Tabor et al., 2007).
Salmon Size and Origin
The ratio of predator to prey size helps determine prey
susceptibility and capture success. Smallmouth bass preferentially
prey on smolts due to their high abundance and small
size in the Columbia and Yakima rivers (Tabor et al., 1993;
Fritts and Pearsons, 2006). In the lower Columbia River, most
individuals consumed were less than 130 mm Fork Length (FL)
(Zimmerman, 1999). Smallmouth bass also selects for salmon
weakened by bacterial kidney disease as compared to healthy
individuals (Mesa et al., 1998).
Smallmouth bass consumes salmon of both wild and hatchery
origin. Self-sustaining populations of wild or naturally produced
salmon are the goal of conservation efforts, and the role
of hatchery-origin salmon in the recovery of salmon populations
is complex.Whether smallmouth bass consume hatchery or naturally
produced salmon is dependent on availability and characteristics
of the juvenile salmon. In Lake Sammamish (Washington),
juvenile salmon from the Issaquah Hatchery dominated
smallmouth bass diets (Pflug and Pauley, 1984). By contrast, up
to 85% of salmon consumed by smallmouth bass in the mainstem
Columbia and Yakima rivers were naturally produced fish
(Tabor et al., 1993, Fritts and Pearsons, 2004). In both systems,
the naturally produced salmon consumed by smallmouth bass
were Chinook salmon, which are smaller than their hatchery
counterparts and available over a longer period than the short
pulses of hatchery released salmon. In other systems, hatchery
fish are typically considered more susceptible to predation due
to maladaptive defenses (Maynard et al., 1995; White et al.,
1995; Fritts and Pearsons, 2004).
Post by: plugger on March 16, 2013, 07:33:49 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 17, 2013, 01:08:00 AM
Plugger, of course nets are one of the more visible problems. Wish there was more that could be done.
But you don't cut off your thumbs because your leg is broken, right?
Post by: plugger on March 17, 2013, 04:34:46 AM
Post by: lokidog on March 17, 2013, 08:55:59 AM
This predation loss of juveniles to bass/walleyes is really only an issue because the runs are not healthy to begin with.
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2013, 09:11:37 AM
Post by: WSU on March 17, 2013, 09:51:46 AM
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2013, 09:52:07 AM
How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
:yeah:
And what do walleye eat a lot of? They eat lost of squaw fish. And we all know squafish mostly eat salmon and steelhead smolts. So, wouldn't it be good to at least protect the large walleye so that they can be in the river to reduce the numbers of squawfish? :dunno:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 18, 2013, 06:01:03 PM
Many involved with the Sport Reward Fishery speculate that the numbers of NPM in the John Day pool are lower than other pools for that very reason...How many smolts do walleye really eat? I only know one person on here that might be able to give me an educated answer. Basically I'm saying that the WDFW is guesssing that walleye hurt the smolts. Smolts live on top, walleye live on bottom, bass move to backwaters when the smolt are coming down, smolt try to stay with the current. It's the birds that they should try to crack down on.
:yeah:
And what do walleye eat a lot of? They eat lost of squaw fish. And we all know squafish mostly eat salmon and steelhead smolts. So, wouldn't it be good to at least protect the large walleye so that they can be in the river to reduce the numbers of squawfish? :dunno:
Post by: woodywsu on March 19, 2013, 02:19:45 PM
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1129/pdf/ofr20121129.pdf (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1129/pdf/ofr20121129.pdf)
This study sampled stomachs from northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, and walleye that were removed from the project area. In total 18 walleye were collected for sampling with only 12 having a non-empty diet. 11/12 had salmonids present.
While native and non-native piscivorous fish have a slight impact on out-migrating salmonids, their impact is quite minimal when compared to non-native terns (estimated 15-40% predation on steelhead smolts). However, managing smallmouth and walleye is a lot easier then attempting to reduce terns.
Post by: lokidog on March 19, 2013, 09:15:41 PM
Heres a report about predator studies in the Priest Rapids Project (Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1129/pdf/ofr20121129.pdf (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1129/pdf/ofr20121129.pdf)
This study sampled stomachs from northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, and walleye that were removed from the project area. In total 18 walleye were collected for sampling with only 12 having a non-empty diet. 11/12 had salmonids present.
While native and non-native piscivorous fish have a slight impact on out-migrating salmonids, their impact is quite minimal when compared to non-native terns (estimated 15-40% predation on steelhead smolts). However, managing smallmouth and walleye is a lot easier then attempting to reduce terns.
I'm not sure the term "non-native" really applies to the terns since they arrived here on their own, unfortunately, just like the sea lions. Noone planted them or brought them to WA in a cage. They are simply taking advantage od conditions that have often been created by people, just like the sea lions do. Having said that, they are indeed a problem but to deal with them, the Feds would have to be brought in unlike changing the regs for bass and walleyes.
Post by: woodywsu on March 20, 2013, 08:34:30 AM
Post by: Special T on March 20, 2013, 08:54:54 AM
I don't understand why people are against addressing one of the problems simply because other problems exist. I'm sure nobody manages their own life that way.I agree. I'm always amazed that sportmen have not been able to band togherte to gewt somehting done on fish predators in general. Sealions, cornmerants, megansers ect. If you want to get traction you must START somewhere and move forward... It seems the only options that seem left ot us is fighting against ourselves when there are so many things that COULD be done that 99% of uscould get behind. :twocents:
Post by: MtnMuley on March 20, 2013, 09:04:26 AM
I don't understand why people are against addressing one of the problems simply because other problems exist. I'm sure nobody manages their own life that way.I agree. I'm always amazed that sportmen have not been able to band togherte to gewt somehting done on fish predators in general. Sealions, cornmerants, megansers ect. If you want to get traction you must START somewhere and move forward... It seems the only options that seem left ot us is fighting against ourselves when there are so many things that COULD be done that 99% of uscould get behind. :twocents:
I don't agree. Why quit managing a few species? Obviously, it's the cheap, easy way out... :dunno: Much like a lot of the American attitude these days I see though. You mention "banding together" as sportsman......and this is what you call banding together? Opening of species to kill as many as you can without limits, while others practice catch and release to provide an opportunity for others and our younger generation......... :dunno: Pathetic at best is what it is. :twocents:
Post by: woodywsu on March 20, 2013, 09:29:09 AM
Post by: Special T on March 20, 2013, 10:28:32 AM
I don't think that attacking another sport fish is the best first step because it divides us instead of unites us. NOWHERE did i mention you claim of unabashed killing. I think you should od some reading about how many species have been protected especially corn merants since 1972 under the federal migratory bird act/treaty that was originally established in 1918.. They have been under protection for far too long, and it was DDT that caused numbers of Cornmerants to drop, NOT shooting.I don't understand why people are against addressing one of the problems simply because other problems exist. I'm sure nobody manages their own life that way.I agree. I'm always amazed that sportmen have not been able to band togherte to gewt somehting done on fish predators in general. Sealions, cornmerants, megansers ect. If you want to get traction you must START somewhere and move forward... It seems the only options that seem left ot us is fighting against ourselves when there are so many things that COULD be done that 99% of uscould get behind. :twocents:
I don't agree. Why quit managing a few species? Obviously, it's the cheap, easy way out... :dunno: Much like a lot of the American attitude these days I see though. You mention "banding together" as sportsman......and this is what you call banding together? Opening of species to kill as many as you can without limits, while others practice catch and release to provide an opportunity for others and our younger generation......... :dunno: Pathetic at best is what it is. :twocents:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018081392_cormorants27.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018081392_cormorants27.html)
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/treatlaw.html (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/treatlaw.html)
Post by: WSU on March 20, 2013, 10:40:03 AM
Post by: JLS on March 20, 2013, 10:42:06 AM
Also, it isn't like bass are going to be wiped out. We won't be successful in removing them from the snake, columbia, and tribs. And, even if we were, there are hundreds of other places to fish for bass where they don't cause so much harm to our native fish populations.
:yeah:
About as likely as wolves being wiped out in the Northern Rockies by extremely liberal hunting seasons.
Post by: lokidog on March 20, 2013, 10:59:43 AM
They would be easier to manage if we all agreed they were non-native. They are not called "American" tern
We could all agree the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so. :dunno: :chuckle: Good thing the Mexicans and Central Americans don't feel that way about all the American ducks that migrate down there. ;)
Post by: plugger on March 24, 2013, 07:53:34 AM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 25, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
:yeah: :yeah:couldnt agree more.I don't understand why people are against addressing one of the problems simply because other problems exist. I'm sure nobody manages their own life that way.I agree. I'm always amazed that sportmen have not been able to band togherte to gewt somehting done on fish predators in general. Sealions, cornmerants, megansers ect. If you want to get traction you must START somewhere and move forward... It seems the only options that seem left ot us is fighting against ourselves when there are so many things that COULD be done that 99% of uscould get behind. :twocents:
I don't agree. Why quit managing a few species? Obviously, it's the cheap, easy way out... :dunno: Much like a lot of the American attitude these days I see though. You mention "banding together" as sportsman......and this is what you call banding together? Opening of species to kill as many as you can without limits, while others practice catch and release to provide an opportunity for others and our younger generation......... :dunno: Pathetic at best is what it is. :twocents:
Post by: Sniper101 on March 25, 2013, 10:55:29 AM
Also, it isn't like bass are going to be wiped out. We won't be successful in removing them from the snake, columbia, and tribs. And, even if we were, there are hundreds of other places to fish for bass where they don't cause so much harm to our native fish populations.they dont cause THAT much harm and youre right, they wont be wiped out, all the quality fish will and the "snake, columbia and tribs" have the best smallmouth bass fishing in the west, think about everyone.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 25, 2013, 11:14:09 AM
Post by: Sniper101 on March 25, 2013, 01:16:55 PM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on March 25, 2013, 01:18:21 PM
the ones in my profile are all around 4lbs and we released one over 6 and two 5s that day.....yah not a bad day lolNot trying to measure there jack...
Post by: WSU on March 25, 2013, 01:21:14 PM
Also, it isn't like bass are going to be wiped out. We won't be successful in removing them from the snake, columbia, and tribs. And, even if we were, there are hundreds of other places to fish for bass where they don't cause so much harm to our native fish populations.they dont cause THAT much harm and youre right, they wont be wiped out, all the quality fish will and the "snake, columbia and tribs" have the best smallmouth bass fishing in the west, think about everyone.
Why do you say they don't cause that much harm? How much harm do they cause?
Post by: TommyH on March 26, 2013, 12:03:05 AM
Manage them where needed to reduce numbers where needed, but I wouldn't mind a great place to go get some small mouth.
Post by: Special T on March 27, 2013, 02:52:52 PM
When i say sportmen should "band together" I mean CHOOSE issues that MOST of us can get behind...
I don't fish this state anymore, so if you want to keep protecting Cornmerants, Mergansers, and Sealions then its not really gona hurt me. :dunno:
Post by: MtnMuley on March 27, 2013, 03:15:44 PM
Post by: Kola16 on March 27, 2013, 03:29:38 PM
Post by: plugger on March 27, 2013, 05:00:35 PM
Post by: Mfowl on March 27, 2013, 05:20:20 PM
Since sealions, cormorants and terns are protected it makes sense to employ a more simple tactic such as this to boost smolt survival. When we can kill the sealions, cormorants and terns we'll do that to!
Post by: plugger on March 27, 2013, 06:08:31 PM
Post by: Mfowl on March 27, 2013, 06:36:05 PM
Post by: Thenewguy on March 27, 2013, 06:45:26 PM
COUNT ME IN AS WELL! hate all 3.OR how about taking away the protection of sea lions, Cornmerants, and mergansers? Don't think "enough" people would shoot them? I would kill a limit of each if there was a seperate one from my normal duck limit. :twocents:+1, I'd be down there tomorrow.
I would pay 100 bones for a sea lion tag!
Post by: hunterrcc on March 27, 2013, 10:19:51 PM
OR how about taking away the protection of sea lions, Cornmerants, and mergansers? Don't think "enough" people would shoot them? I would kill a limit of each if there was a seperate one from my normal duck limit. :twocents:
+ Pelcians!!
Post by: Bullkllr on March 28, 2013, 08:39:47 AM
They are federally mandated to recover wild salmon (under ESA).
They are hoping that removing some of the predatory fish population will help smolt survival. Its the cheapest (almost free) thing they came up with. Will it even make a dent? :dunno: I don't think they have anything other than hope to go on.
All of the other suggestions (sealion/bird/net removal-up to and including getting tribal nets out and removing dams) would be much more effective. Also much more expensive and difficult. There are federal rules protecting seals/birds that would/do require months in court to figure out. Then there are the politics involved with marine mammal/bird removal as well as tribal/non-tribal nets that have the WDFW's hands basically tied. Could they do more in these areas...probably... But with politcal/social pressure on them from multiple outside sources, they simply lack the money and will to do what it would take to make it happen.
Sorry to see it happen in such a divisive way, but the bass and walleye guys are the unwilling victims.
Post by: Special T on March 29, 2013, 01:19:52 PM
Post by: WALLEYEGUY on March 29, 2013, 02:17:53 PM
:bdid: :bdid: :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
WDFW FISHING RULE CHANGE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov (http://wdfw.wa.gov) <http://wdfw.wa.gov/>
March 28, 2013
New walleye rules for Lake Roosevelt,
lower San Poil River, lower Spokane River
Action: The daily walleye bag limit for Lake Roosevelt, the lower San Poil
River, and the lower Spokane River will increase to 16 fish with no size
restriction. In addition, the lower Spokane River from mouth (SR 25 Bridge)
upstream to 400 feet below Little Falls Dam will open for walleye fishing
April 1.
Effective Date: April 1 at 12:01 a.m. until further notice
Species affected: Walleye
Locations:
* Lake Roosevelt;
* The lower Spokane River from mouth (SR 25 Bridge) to 400 feet below Little
Falls Dam; and
* The lower San Poil River from Boundary Line A upstream to Boundary Line C
(as illustrated by the map in the current WDFW "Fishing in Washington" rules
pamphlet, or the Fishing section of the WDFW webpage at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/) ).
Reason for action: In early March, the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commission approved new fishing regulations designed to increase harvest on an
overabundant walleye populations in Lake Roosevelt and the lower Spokane
River. Besides providing additional fishing opportunities for anglers, these
changes will help to reduce walleye predation on native fish populations as
well as the number of small walleye in those waters. The permanent regulations
approved by the Commission will take effect May 1, 2013.
The emergency regulations will effectively initiate these changes April 1,
2013, a month sooner, to expedite the goals of the Commission's permanent
rules for Lake Roosevelt and the lower Spokane River. In addition, they apply
the 16-fish daily limit for walleye to the lower San Poil River, which also
has an overabundance of the species.
Other information: All other WDFW fishing regulations for Lake Roosevelt,
Spokane River, and San Poil River remain in effect.
Recreational fishing in Lake Roosevelt, and in the San Poil River between
Boundary A to Boundary C, requires a Washington State freshwater license and
compliance with established State fishing regulations. The Colville
Confederated Tribes (CCT) have established non-tribal recreational fishing
regulations which differ from State regulations in this area. Be advised that
anglers fishing in this area may be checked by tribal enforcement officers for
a tribal license. All waters upstream of Boundary C (above the 1310 mean sea
elevation) and within the CCT Reservation boundary are under the regulatory
authority of the CCT. For CCT fishing information call (509) 634-2110.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 29, 2013, 04:20:58 PM
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on March 30, 2013, 09:54:23 AM
Post by: WSU on April 04, 2013, 01:43:16 PM
Seems that they are overlooking the fact that Lake Roosevelt is not a native body of water. When the the native species thrived in the natural Columbia River it was in fact a river that is now a reservoir. I am not a biologist but it makes sense to me that once a river is stopped from being free flowing it changes the entire ecosystem. If we knock down every tree in Stevens county would we not expect for the species that are currently thriving to dwindle and other species to become more abundant?
That is a lot of the problem we have on the entire system (big C and Snake). I still don't see that as a justification to keep invasives around.
Post by: WALLEYEGUY on April 04, 2013, 01:53:09 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 04, 2013, 06:00:19 PM