Post by: Ridgeratt on May 15, 2017, 05:35:13 PM
The author is a person I fish with. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
http://www.northwestfishingreports.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=24172&sid=f08efc4bcb1d34f3f74d6f5c7bde7a2a
Post by: bigtex on May 15, 2017, 05:45:10 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 15, 2017, 05:57:34 PM
So around 700 invasive fish have been removed and you seem to think that's a bad thing??? Less than 20% of the by-catch has died. This is a success from a biological standpoint. :twocents:
Actually I have no problem removing the invasive fish. But I struggle with the accuracy of the by-catch numbers. When he was peeking in the 20 yard dumpster the nice fella in green told him to step away. Offered to have him detained if he didn't.
The Dumpster appears to be a bit excessive for 700 fish and a small by-catch. The carp shoot at Moses lake filled up one that size.
:twocents: :twocents:
On a postitive note I understand that the gill netting in the Pend Oreille River has all but eliminated the northern's Sounds like they are getting very few. But many have gotten over the Dam at Box Canyon and are in the lower river filtering into the Columbia.
Post by: E-10 on May 16, 2017, 06:38:36 PM
I remembered an article in the Spokesman about a carp removal project,http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/) but there was a lot more than carp in that dumpster, I climbed back up to get a couple pictures and was instructed by a man in a green jacket to “Get down from there right now!” I complied.
The man in green and I had a short discussion, and I went home to do some research.
Here is what I came up with.
I don’t have a problem with removing invasive species, but really, wasn’t everything caught in the nets with the exception of the single dead chinook and the largescale suckers a non-native invasive species?
The article http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/13/lake-spokane-carp-reduction-project-nets-550-carp-117-pike-first-week/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/13/lake-spokane-carp-reduction-project-nets-550-carp-117-pike-first-week/) stated the carp were being removed to improve water quality, “notorious for stirring up lake bottom sediments as they feed.” But doesn’t the tench (a bottom feeder) do the same thing? Why were fifty-five of them returned? Aren’t these same fish part of the reason WDFW repeatedly has to kill off Williams and Badger lakes every few years?
The list of species caught and the article both imply that only 34 fish beside the almost 700 carp/pike targeted ended up in the dumpsters, I saw many more dead bycatch than this in the dumpster I looked in, some appeared to be really nice size bass and crappie.
Post by: pd on May 16, 2017, 06:48:53 PM
Your title suggests the gill netting of non-native species is indiscriminate. Well, I hate to point out the obvious to you, but gill netting is almost always indiscriminate (the exception to this is mesh size, which can allow different sized fish to escape). I would assume the state opted for the gill nets over poison for the simple reason that this is a river (not a lake)---nobody wants the poison to go downstream. Gill nets are much more effective than seine nets in removing fish (seine netting is "selective" fishing).
Long story short, gill nets are very effective at removing the targeted fish, but we must accept the incidence of by-catch. You cannot escape this result. Kill the unwanted fish, hopefully mitigate the damage to the wanted fish, supplement the wanted fish if necessary.
I have no problem with this.
Post by: E-10 on May 16, 2017, 07:30:05 PM
The first information released http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/) said WDFW, U of I and Avista would be removing non-native carp from Lake Spokane because Avista is required to improve water quality to fulfill federal dam relicensing requirements.
Two days after the carp removal project begins it is reported that the carp removal will also target northern pike http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/10/lake-spokane-carp-removal-also-targets-northern-pike/][url]http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/10/lake-spokane-carp-removal-also-targets-northern-pike/ (http://[url)[/url]
Why some and not others? According to their tally sheet, non-native invasive species, some that cost us tens of thousands of dollars each year to eradicate, were released. (As noted in the previous post)
Quote
Long story short, gill nets are very effective at removing the targeted fish, but we must accept the incidence of by-catch.Agreed, but the very low bycatch dead reported does not jive with what I saw in the roll-off.
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 16, 2017, 07:49:26 PM
Totals for the week were 550 carp and 117 northern pike caught and killed. Carp and northern pike are being removed and samples taken to better understand their origins and movements. Both are considered invasive species by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pike are not specifically being targeted, state officials say, but since they're a prohibited species in Washington, they're being removed if caught.
The largest pike caught this week weighed 22 pounds and was 42 inches long. Small pike would go through the large net mesh.
"One of the things we'll be looking at is whether pike are reproducing in Lake Spokane or whether most of them are originating from North Idaho," said Marc Divens, WDFW warmwater research biologist.
The carp removal project is led by Avista as part of its federal relicensing agreement to improve water quality in the Spokane River behind Long Lake Dam. Carp are notorious for stirring up lake bottom sediments as they feed.
Three years ago, Avista caught, radio tagged and released carp in a survey to determine where most of the carp congregate to spawn. That information is being used this year to help determine where the gillnets are placed.
The project is still in the experimental phase to learn how to catch and remove the maximum number of carp with a minimum bycatch, said Tim Vore, fisheries biologist for Avista.
Highest bycatch was large-scale sucker (63 total, 57 released alive), tench (55 total, 54 released alive), walleye (35 total, 18 released alive) and largemouth bass (20 total, 15 released alive).
Electro-shocking also was tried but with very poor results, Divens said.
The carp were in the pre-spawn stage while the pike that were caught appeared to be in the middle of spawning, with some of the female fish being full of eggs and others being spawned out, he said.
The 12-person crews will take a week off and then return for three more nights of netting, Vore said, noting that the carp may be more involved in spawning by then and easier to capture.
The timing has to be planned in advance to get the crews together. The project will seek to identify the right water levels and temperatures to capture carp for long-term management.
Could this be due to the inquiry's they will be more active after dark and stride to have the result's removed prior to daylight?
If the nets are a success why would they take time off. :dunno: :dunno:
550 Carp seem like they are fairly active now.
If they are also able to determine that there are several age classes in the lake. Based on the lakes background of a weedy shallow body of water it is a gold mine for them. When they started showing up in Roosevelt the WDFW informed us that the lake structure was not an ideal habitat. But if that's the case why has the Colville Tribe started a bounty system on them. They seem to spawn in that body of water. :dunno: :dunno:
Post by: pd on May 16, 2017, 10:47:36 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 17, 2017, 12:44:54 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 17, 2017, 05:05:54 AM
It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! :dunno:
Highest bycatch was large-scale sucker (63 total, 57 released alive), tench (55 total, 54 released alive), walleye (35 total, 18 released alive) and largemouth bass (20 total, 15 released alive).
It appears that the state picks and choose which Invasive fish they want to eliminate. Walleye used to be classified as a invasive species until they became a "Cash Cow" for the state.
Walleye are not native to Washington fish, and exactly how they originally entered the state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Lake Roosevelt (connected to Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the remainder of the main stem Columbia River, from near the mouth to the Canadian border and throughout reservoirs in the Columbia Basin Irrigation District.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/
Another Non-native species the WDFW continue to promote is the " Eastern Brook Trout" . The Dolly Varden is the true native species. But the WDFW still plant Eastern's and now are planting Triploid Eastern's in what appears to be part of Region 3.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 17, 2017, 06:49:49 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 17, 2017, 07:05:16 AM
It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! :dunno:
That's why the walleye were released- they are already prolific throughout the Columbia system, same with SM Bass. Even though they are non native, they are essentially a lost cause for management. The pike are still a burgeoning species in the system and we might have a chance at some level of control.
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on May 17, 2017, 08:19:28 AM
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on May 17, 2017, 08:47:02 AM
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Post by: bearpaw on May 17, 2017, 10:09:15 AM
It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! :dunno:
That's why the walleye were released- they are already prolific throughout the Columbia system, same with SM Bass. Even though they are non native, they are essentially a lost cause for management. The pike are still a burgeoning species in the system and we might have a chance at some level of control.
I figured that's why the walleye were released. I remember when walleye first started showing up in Roosevelt. Fishers welcomed them because basically Roosevelt was a cesspool of scrap fish, 40-50 years ago almost nobody fished Roosevelt, you had to know exactly when and where to fish to catch anything other than scrap fish. Today Roosevelt is a fishing mecca, mostly due to walleye introduction and the trout net pens. Walleye have literally eaten up all the scrap fish and changed the fish makeup in Roosevelt, but they have also migrated downstream and this has no doubt created impacts on salmon and steelhead smolt. I would hate to see northern pike throughout the Columbia system causing more impacts that cause more fishing closures.
There's probably not much impact to having introduced species in lakes with no exiting streams verses introduced species like pike invading an entire stream system and the impacts that an over abundance of predatory fish can create for salmon and steelhead smolt. I have nothing against having pike in a controlled environment, they are a blast to catch. But we should not ignore the potential for introduced predatory fish to destroy salmon and steelhead fisheries.
Post by: bearpaw on May 17, 2017, 10:23:19 AM
It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! :dunno:
Highest bycatch was large-scale sucker (63 total, 57 released alive), tench (55 total, 54 released alive), walleye (35 total, 18 released alive) and largemouth bass (20 total, 15 released alive).
It appears that the state picks and choose which Invasive fish they want to eliminate. Walleye used to be classified as a invasive species until they became a "Cash Cow" for the state.
Walleye are not native to Washington fish, and exactly how they originally entered the state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Lake Roosevelt (connected to Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the remainder of the main stem Columbia River, from near the mouth to the Canadian border and throughout reservoirs in the Columbia Basin Irrigation District.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/
Another Non-native species the WDFW continue to promote is the " Eastern Brook Trout" . The Dolly Varden is the true native species. But the WDFW still plant Eastern's and now are planting Triploid Eastern's in what appears to be part of Region 3.
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it WDFW policy to primarily plant fish in lowland lakes? Isn't the reason triploids are planted in many places is because they cannot reproduce on their own or cross with native fish?
Post by: E-10 on May 17, 2017, 05:06:47 PM
IMHO this post has gotten off track. :sry: My original post on NWF was asking what was going on with Lake Spokane, and why the carp removal project had turned into something more than a carp removal project. Two days in, it was reported that pike were being retained as well, and I get bycatch, and bycatch kills, it happens.
My biggest concern and shock came from what I saw in the dumpster, :yike: it looked to me at the time, like someone had used a giant dragnet from Lower Falls Dam to the Nine Mile campground, and threw everything caught in it, in the dumpster. There was a lot more bycatch in there than the list indicates.
And… I probably copped a “what the **** are you doing to my lake” attitude when the man in green told me to get off the dumpster and appeared to be anything but friendly or transparent about what was going on.
***Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for the State and Federal park rangers, and for our WDFW game wardens. Every contact I have had with them (excluding the one last week) has been a very pleasant, informative, experience.
Personally, I don’t like carp (unless they’re Koi in a pond) I don’t eat them, I don’t target them, I don’t want them in a lake, river, etc. eating resources that could help grow other species. I’m glad they’re trying to reduce/remove them.
I get that to some the pike pose a huge threat to salmon/steelhead numbers downstream, and others say maybe/maybe not. Personally, I like fishing for pike, catching them, and eating them, yes they are a blast to catch. But… I like steelhead more.
As for walleye, I like fishing for, catching, and eating them. I have spent the last couple of years learning how and where to fish for them and Burbot on Lake Roosevelt. Yes, Roosevelt is a great fishery.
And the other species in Lake Spokane, trout, large and smallmouth bass, crappie, and perch are all fun to catch.
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 17, 2017, 06:34:00 PM
No I mean it!! :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on May 17, 2017, 07:11:02 PM
The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.:yeah:
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Post by: E-10 on May 17, 2017, 07:53:37 PM
Quote
QuoteThat's why the walleye were released- they are already prolific throughout the Columbia system, same with SM Bass. Even though they are non native, they are essentially a lost cause for management. The pike are still a burgeoning species in the system and we might have a chance at some level of control.
And in reply to this
Quote
The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
this was just shared to my cell phone http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/mar/25/predator-trap/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/mar/25/predator-trap/)
Post by: Gobble Doc on May 17, 2017, 10:34:20 PM
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 18, 2017, 04:59:21 AM
Thanks
Dale you are correct. Triploids are a "Sterile" Genetic Mutation.
triploid
adjective
1. having a chromosome number that is three times the basic or haploid number.
noun
2. a triploid cell or organism.
Origin of triploid
Post by: E-10 on May 18, 2017, 01:45:40 PM
It's too bad you weren't able to get a picture of that dumpster.
Exactly what I was attempting to do when I was instructed by the man in green to get off that dumpster.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 18, 2017, 05:25:28 PM
Post by: Stein on May 18, 2017, 06:09:32 PM
The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Hate to rain on the party, but rainbows in that lake aren't native.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 18, 2017, 06:15:24 PM
Maybe not native to that particular lake but native to this state.The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Hate to rain on the party, but rainbows in that lake aren't native.
Post by: Stein on May 18, 2017, 07:50:09 PM
Maybe not native to that particular lake but native to this state.The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Hate to rain on the party, but rainbows in that lake aren't native.
There are only two options, native or introduced.
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 19, 2017, 05:05:24 AM
Maybe not native to that particular lake but native to this state.The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.
Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.
Hate to rain on the party, but rainbows in that lake aren't native.
There are only two options, native or introduced.
The redband trout is Spokane River's signature native fish
Eastern Regional Office The redband trout is Spokane River's signature native fish
by Jim Bellatty, Water Quality Program, Eastern Regional Office The Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii) is a subspecies of rainbow trout found in well-defined geographical distributions throughout Idaho, Montana and Washington, including the Spokane River basin. The redband trout has larger, more rounded spots than the rainbow trout and has orange-red color around the lateral line with very distinct white tips on the anal, dorsal, and pectoral fins. They exceed 10 inches at maturity and thrive in clean, cool, relatively small and low-sloped streams such as the Spokane River. As with other trout, they feed on insects, crustaceans and forage fish and they spawn late April through mid-June depending on water temperatures and levels. The fry (young fish) typically emerge in mid-July from the gravel in which the eggs were laid. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) conducted a survey in October 2007 of the redband trout in Spokane River, and they found some startling results. In the1980s and 1990s, fisheries managers estimated redband trout populations in the upper Spokane River between 2,000 and 19,000 fish. The 2008 survey found fewer than 1,200 fish. Barometer of aquatic health In one critical reach of the upper Spokane River, they found 61 redband trout per kilometer. Historically, this reach supported 222 redband trout per kilometer. This 75 percent reduction in the redband trout population over 30 years is troubling, especially knowing that redband trout are considered to be a priority, sentinel species by WDFW and a barometer of aquatic health. Scientists are still sorting out the reasons for the decline in the redband trout population, but they point to competing demands on the river system. Those include recreational boating, withdrawals from the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie aquifer for development, wastewater discharges into the river and hydroelectric dams. Poaching and predation are also factors. Some anglers aren't following the catch-andrelease rules, despite two decades of catch-and-release regulations. In addition, smallmouth bass appear to be feasting on redband trout. The non-native bass were illegally introduced to Lake Coeur d'Alene in Idaho. They spread into the river, where the redband trout became part of their diet. Despite these challenges, there is hope for the future of redband trout based on increased outreach and education efforts by organizations such as the Spokane Falls Trout Unlimited, the Spokane River Redband Coalition, the Spokane Riverkeeper, Avista Corp., WDFW and others. Signs along the river have heightened the awareness about these fish in both the community and among fishermen. Ecology also plays an important role in the protection and the sustainability of redband trout with our regulatory responsibilities including hydroelectric dam operations, toxic site cleanups, spill response, pollution prevention, water quality standards, instream flows, shoreline protection, total maximum daily load plans (TMDLs), point source discharge permitting, nonpoint source pollution control, stormwater management, and more. The wild redband trout is a signature native fish for the Spokane River and they deserve our continued attention and protection.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/images/062012-redbandtrout.pdf
:dunno: :dunno:
Post by: Stein on May 19, 2017, 08:11:05 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 19, 2017, 08:50:59 AM
I thought we were talking about the lake?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The river is the lake.
Post by: Miles on May 19, 2017, 09:05:00 AM
I thought we were talking about the lake?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The river is the lake.
Makes perfect sense.
Post by: Ridgeratt on May 19, 2017, 02:37:58 PM
:yeah:
Post by: E-10 on May 19, 2017, 03:07:35 PM
May I suggest that we all move this back to the center lane and wonder what the reason was for the extra large dumpster.
:yeah:
:yeah:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 20, 2017, 09:42:54 AM