Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 11:16:38 AM
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2012/03/16/spokane-arm-walleye-bounty/
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2012/mar/16/spokane-tribe-offers-bounty-roosevelt-walleyes/
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2012, 12:02:28 PM
My dad was born in 1926 used to go with his dad to buy salmon from the indians fishing at Kettle falls. He remembers fishing the columbia before coulee dam. He sat on the mountainside and watched crews log off the reservoir banks while the dam was being built.
I grew up along Roosevelt and fished it daily all summer and as often as I could in spring, fall, and winter. There were native trout, burbot, and sturgeon, but only a few people knew when, how, and where to catch them for many years. Roosevelt was full of suckers, predatory squawfish, carp, and peemouth. I have caught thousands of each. The peemouth were so infested with parasite tapeworms, we would fish for them, set them on a rock, stomp them to get the tapeworm out, and then go burbot fishing that evening, that's the best burbot bait I ever found. My point before I got off the subject with tapeworms, is that Roosevelt was a cesspool of scrapfish until walleyes were introduced, I think in the late 70's.
By the 80's we were catching unbelievable amounts of big walleye. The average fish was 20" to 24" and then the size began to taper off as they overpopulated and ate up all the scap fish. Today the suckers, carp, squawfish, and peemouth are nearly non-existant. The netpens provide a good source of trout, so trout fishing is better than it ever was for most people and somehow the smallmouth have survived and actually seem to have increased in numbers. Sturgeon were overfished and we lost that fishery, but overall, fishing today in Roosevelt is a far better experience for most people than back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's when nobody fished it because most only caught scapfish.
The tribes have tried to get kokanee going but nothing comes back to the hatchery, I think everyone figures the walleye are eating the kokanee. That is possibly why the Spokanes are after the Walleye. I think the biggest problem with Roosevelt is that they use it for flushing salmon and controlling winter runoff. The lake bottom is mostly bare sand and rocks due to frequent draw downs, so certain food is limited and few fish get to successfully spawn, there is no easy answer to that problem. I would like to see more done with net pens to raise native species of fish as that bypasses the spawning problems and walleye predation.
I am interested in hearing why they are after the walleye, but at this point I doubt they will have a large impact.
Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 12:27:55 PM
Post by: TommyH on March 17, 2012, 01:12:40 PM
Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 02:45:22 PM
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2012, 02:59:35 PM
This really pisses me off that the tribe is offering a bounty to their members for walleye while the State closes the waters to try to protect the walleye during the spawn. :bash: That is outrageous. Great management there....... :bash:
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2012, 03:08:35 PM
BTW- my post above, I didn't word very well because I'm so pissed. I don't want anyone to think I'm bashing WDFW this time. They are actually managing walleye fairly well; it is the tribe that have their heads up their asses this time. >:(
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2012, 03:25:35 PM
I had heard that the wallys eat 90 something percent of all the kokes.
That's what I more or less heard too, but I think it's more like 99%. I think they only got back single digit numbers of fish at the Sherman Cr hatchery. I wonder if kokes could be reared in a small lake somewhere as breeders fish, stripped of eggs, moved from a hatchery to net pens, and relaesed when they get to a certain size?
Of course, kokes never were in high numbers in roosevelt. I have only ever caught a few in all my years of fishing the lake. With the walleye it might be more feasable to try and raise salmon to release like they do in the great lakes.
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
Kettle Falls used to be the biggest inland gathering place for indians in the northwest to fish for Salmon. Hudson Bay built the first inland trading post in about 1801 to 1803, at Kettle Falls because it was such a major gathering place for Indians from as far away as Montana.
When Coulee Dam was put in the salmon runs ended. The tribes are trying to find a fish resource to replace the lost runs.
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
I do feel a little sorry for them and it is sad that a lot of salmon runs are now extinct. They just didn't give fish ladders any thought back then. But what's done is done, and walleye is a great fishery there............there is not a good reason (IMO) to try to reduce the walleye fishery in favor of Kokanee.
Sounds like kokanee can't even reproduce naturally in the lake and they need a hatchery to sustain the fishery. Whereas walleye reproduce naturally and don't need any help; sounds like walleye are a better fish to keep in the reservoir.
It would be a shame however, if the tribe stopped stocking kokanee for the walleye to eat........ :chuckle:
Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 04:58:07 PM
For those that don't know, the issue is Salmon.
Kettle Falls used to be the biggest inland gathering place for indians in the northwest to fish for Salmon. Hudson Bay built the first inland trading post in about 1801 to 1803, at Kettle Falls because it was such a major gathering place for Indians from as far away as Montana.
When Coulee Dam was put in the salmon runs ended. The tribes are trying to find a fish resource to replace the lost runs.
Seems like it would be cheaper raising them and eating them?
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2012, 05:00:34 PM
It seems to me that there could be a lot of fish farming on the reservoir which could be fairly self sustaining and provide plenty of fish for the tribe, and with some good deal making maybe some big fish turned loose for sport fishers.
I'm all for partnerships that benefit everyone.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on March 17, 2012, 05:05:37 PM
Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 05:11:14 PM
Post by: sled on March 17, 2012, 05:28:16 PM
Crap like this is why I won't let my wife go to the casinos or take her to the buffet at the casino.:yeah: mine goes anyway! Stil pisses me off.
BTW- my post above, I didn't word very well because I'm so pissed. I don't want anyone to think I'm bashing WDFW this time. They are actually managing walleye fairly well; it is the tribe that have their heads up their asses this time. >:(
Post by: bearpaw on March 17, 2012, 05:34:14 PM
Yep but it seems that its their way or the highway. I think they are wasting their time. There are more walleye spawning areas than the Spokane arm or the Sanpoil. A waste of time and money. But that is the federal government for ya! There was even a proposal to increase walleye limit to 16 on Lake Roosevelt. I fish the lake all the time and its rare that I get all 8 walleye. Most fisherman catch what they want to eat. I release all 22" and above walleyes. The reason like mentioned above kokanee fingerlings are targeted by walleye is where they raise the damn kokanee..rivers, creeks where walleye spawn? Stupid! Raise them until they are 8-10" and release them.
From my first post:
Quote
at this point I doubt they will have a large impact.
You are right, I doubt they have a large impact unless they start netting them. It's possible some reduction in spawning might benefit the walleye and anglers. I don't know the biology well enough to say for sure, but it seems there's not enough feed in the river for all the little walleye to get bigger. As I had mentioned most of the other fish have been eaten years ago. I think walleye are eating littler walleye to stay alive. Wished i knew more specifics so I could make a more intelligent statement, just saying the way it looks to me.
Post by: yelp on March 17, 2012, 05:45:08 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 17, 2012, 09:18:47 PM
Post by: TommyH on March 18, 2012, 09:24:51 AM
Post by: yelp on March 18, 2012, 10:18:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2012, 11:14:19 AM
I have heard there's a big BPA fund or settlement to help establish a fishery for the (roosevelt area) tribes. I think that is likely what funded the Sherman Cr kokanee hatchery (a guess). It's really too bad that hasn't worked out. Kokanee are a great eating fish that draw a lot of fishermen and provide food for bigger fish.
Someone mentioned something about fish ladders. I remember reading somewhere that coulee is too big to use fish ladders. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a way around that if they really wanted to find a way. We did put men on the moon, seems we should be able to get salmon around a dam.
I also mentioned that it might be worth a try at raising salmon (chinook) in roosevelt like they have in the Great Lakes. That might be more fesable than the kokanee fishery.
No doubt the sport fishing opportunities today are much better for most fishers than it was 40 years ago when scrap fish dominated roosevelt. But, I have always thought it better to find a solution that works for everyone rather than just complain and this effort to find a replacement fishery for the loss of salmon could turn into a fishery that's beneficial to all fishers. In the process, I doubt anyone can exterminate walleye from roosevelt anyway and suspect any attemps might actually help the walleye fishery produce better sized fish. :twocents:
I wish we had a fish bio on here who knew more specific details. :dunno:
You might check with the Colville Tribal F&G, they have a very active department and watch their fish closely. They likely know every detail of what's going on and what the goal may be. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2012, 11:22:23 AM
Quote
Roosevelt has a phenomonal rainbow trout fishery. It is out there.
Keep in mind, there is very little natural reproduction, roosevelt is an artificial fishery that is supported by the net pens, the bulk of the trout fishery is due to the fish raised in net pens and released after they are big enough to not be eaten by walleye immediately.
Everyone who fishes roosevelt should throw a ten or twenty toward that effort every time they go fishing. You would see even better fishing. :tup:
Post by: TommyH on March 18, 2012, 01:54:25 PM
Post by: plugger on March 18, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
Post by: pjb3 on March 18, 2012, 06:36:28 PM
Boycott the Tribes. Don't support new casino in Spokane or use any casinos, fuel, don't use two river marina go to seven bays instead or miles creston store. etc.. http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2012/03/16/spokane-arm-walleye-bounty/
Should alway do that anyway. BOYCOTT them :bash:
Post by: TheHunt on March 19, 2012, 12:43:51 PM
Post by: woodywsu on March 19, 2012, 12:47:56 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 12:49:32 PM
Native fish should be a priority. I wouldn't be suprised to see all walleye and small mouth removed from the Columbia River system.
They could never remove all walleye and smallmouth.
Are Kokanee native in Roosevelt......I don't think so. :dunno:
Post by: woodywsu on March 19, 2012, 01:22:44 PM
And yes, kokanee are native.
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 02:24:37 PM
http://www.spokanetribe.com/dnr
Post by: woodywsu on March 19, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 02:38:23 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 02:42:28 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 02:56:27 PM
Currently, the lead field biologist is a white sturgeon biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. He provides the project with research direction and conducts the field work with the assistance of technicians provided by the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Additionally, the Spokane Tribe provides interagency coordination and overall project management.
well, it looks like its not just the Tribe pulling strings here to me? :dunno:
Coordination is of critical importance in the recovery of the upper Columbia River transboundary population. Since its inception, the project has been working cooperatively with the transboundary Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Initiative and Team (UCWSRI/T). This organization is comprised of US and Canadian federal, state, provincial, First Nations and Tribal representatives. The UCWSRI is co-chaired by one Canadian team member and one US team member, which is currently represented by the Spokane Tribe of Indians project manager. Their objective is to address recovery of the Upper Columbia white sturgeon population. This has become of critical importance to the Canadian representatives due to the recent listing of white sturgeon under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA) which has lent special emphasis to the recovery of the transboundary reach population. One of the major milestones met by the UCWSRT was the completion of an Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan that developed recovery measures for both the Canadian and US sections of the transboundary reach. The Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Recovery Project partially funded completion of this plan.
But thats fine, the easy way out is just to blame Tribes so why not, have at it.
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 03:01:06 PM
Additionally, the Spokane Tribe provides interagency coordination and overall project management.[/i]
Doesn't sound like very good interagency coordination to me. :rolleyes:
One agency closes it down to protect a species, the other has a bounty on the species. That is crazy.
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 03:01:34 PM
Post by: yelp on March 19, 2012, 03:03:50 PM
I still think there needs to be more communication between all users and managers about the fisheries management rather than some. Apparently all involved are not in agreement with current management. I wish them luck but I don't think it will be successful. The odds of catching a female during the spawn are 1 in 6? The main sex you catch during the spawn are males. A few females are caught but they are the minority not majority.
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 03:09:14 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 03:15:53 PM
Sounds to me like WDFW has more say than you know? :dunno:
Currently, the lead field biologist is a white sturgeon biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. He provides the project with research direction and conducts the field work with the assistance of technicians provided by the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Additionally, the Spokane Tribe provides interagency coordination and overall project management.
But thats fine, the easy way out is just to blame Tribes so why not, have at it.
Ok then. I'll blame the tribes and WDFW. They both suck.
WDFW should be able to do something to prevent this bounty. Why can't the WDFW bios and/or people higher up with some political pull be able to do something?
I haven't read any studies that show that walleyes are having an impact on white sturgeon........... :dunno: From the other articles it sounded like it was all about trying to save some kokanee..... ???
Post by: hillbillyhunting on March 19, 2012, 03:17:41 PM
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 03:23:20 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Sounds to me like WDFW has more say than you know? :dunno:
Currently, the lead field biologist is a white sturgeon biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. He provides the project with research direction and conducts the field work with the assistance of technicians provided by the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Additionally, the Spokane Tribe provides interagency coordination and overall project management.
But thats fine, the easy way out is just to blame Tribes so why not, have at it.
Ok then. I'll blame the tribes and WDFW. They both suck.
WDFW should be able to do something to prevent this bounty. Why can't the WDFW bios and/or people higher up with some political pull be able to do something? Are you comprehending anything I've posted? The WDFW's own bio is the lead bio for the Tribe and the Tribe works with others as a collaborative cooperative. Not just the Tribes pulling the strings here.
I haven't read any studies that show that walleyes are having an impact on white sturgeon........... :dunno: From the other articles it sounded like it was all about trying to save some kokanee..... ??? Obviously, you didn't read the link I provided but that's okay the easy road is always the fastest. Nevermind reading facts, just read the first thing you see and jump to conclusions.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on March 19, 2012, 03:41:13 PM
The most voracious predator on the Columbia is the Triploid Rainbow. That is a fact. Now the tribes and WDFW say they are contained to Rufus Woods, but everyone knows they are spreading throughout the system.
WDFW BIOLOGIST TOLD ME THAT THE ONLY RAINBOWS THEY PLANT IN LAKE ROOSEVELT FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS ARE TRIPLOIDS. THEY ARE NOT CONTAINED TO RUFUS ONLY. HE ALSO SAID THAT THE REASON THEY DO NOT RAISE KOKANEE AT SHERMAN CREEK IS THAT THEY NEVER CAME BACK IN LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS. AT THE SAME TIME THE BIOLOGIST'S NORTH OF THE BORDER IN CANADA STARTED GETTING RUNS OF KOKANEE IN STREAMS THAT WERE NEVER PLANTED. THEY TOOK DNA SAMPLES AND COMPARED THEM TO THE SHERMAN CREEK KOKANEE..........THEY WERE THE SAME!!!THE SHERMAN CREEK FISH WENT NORTH INTO CANADA AND STARTED SPAWNING UP THERE. SO THEY QUIT WASTING TIME RAISING THEM AT SHERMAN CREEK.
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 03:54:33 PM
Sounds to me like WDFW has more say than you know? :dunno:
Currently, the lead field biologist is a white sturgeon biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. He provides the project with research direction and conducts the field work with the assistance of technicians provided by the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Additionally, the Spokane Tribe provides interagency coordination and overall project management.
But thats fine, the easy way out is just to blame Tribes so why not, have at it.
Ok then. I'll blame the tribes and WDFW. They both suck.
WDFW should be able to do something to prevent this bounty. Why can't the WDFW bios and/or people higher up with some political pull be able to do something? Are you comprehending anything I've posted? The WDFW's own bio is the lead bio for the Tribe and the Tribe works with others as a collaborative cooperative. Not just the Tribes pulling the strings here.
I haven't read any studies that show that walleyes are having an impact on white sturgeon........... :dunno: From the other articles it sounded like it was all about trying to save some kokanee..... ??? Obviously, you didn't read the link I provided but that's okay the easy road is always the fastest. Nevermind reading facts, just read the first thing you see and jump to conclusions.
Of course I'm comprehending the stuff you posted. Why do you think I went from just blaming the tribe to blaming both WDFW and the tribe?
Your link did not have anything specific for walleye and sturgeon......it was a link to the spokane tribe website. (Try linking to something more specific next time; I'm not a mind reader.....maybe there was some article on there you wanted us to see, but maybe we didn't click on the right tab). But even though you didn't have a specific link, yes I had read a lot of things in the link and I read about a walleye netting program and sturgeon recovery. I didn't see anything about killing walleye due to wanting sturgeon recovery or anything talking about walleye eating sturgeon or even kokanee for that matter.
This whole topic started out because of some articles in NW Sportsman mag. That is why I mentioned the other articles and saving kokanee. I don't think you comprehend what I say here. ???
I don't like your condescending tone in your red remarks. I don't jump to conclusions either; I based my frustration on the subject based on everything I've read and based on the knowledge of the reason for the Spokane Arm closure by WDFW for many years.
Post by: Ripper on March 19, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Again, they didn't provide actuall data but did specify they were gathering and identifying the actual cause of low returns and survival rates but, they believe the walleye are a factor. I read all the info. on the DNR PAGE.
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 04:13:57 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
If reducing numbers of walleye is a good thing, then why does the WDFW close the season in the Arm during the spawing time?
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 19, 2012, 04:34:53 PM
Ok, thanks. I'll read the DNR page.
If reducing numbers of walleye is a good thing, then why does the WDFW close the season in the Arm during the spawing time?
:dunno: Maybe ask them that? Kind of like how the WDFW was going to issue keys to the Muckleshoot I believe last year to reduce the number of black bears in areas off limits to the public? WDFW is making fast decisions without thinking the entire process through, IMO. :dunno:
Post by: YJ Guide Service on March 19, 2012, 05:19:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2012, 06:55:07 PM
Native fish should be a priority. I wouldn't be suprised to see all walleye and small mouth removed from the Columbia River system.
They could never remove all walleye and smallmouth.
Are Kokanee native in Roosevelt......I don't think so. :dunno:
Yes they are native, the Columbia comes through the Arrow Lakes in B.C. where Kokanee have done better. Kootenay Lake dumps into the Columbia which also has good kokannee. I caught them every now and then since I was a kid, but there are fewer in Roosevelt all the time, I think due to walleye.
Post by: bearpaw on March 19, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
That makes sense that this is tied to the sturgeon too, they are in a lot of trouble up here, they can no longer replenish from the ocean and I have to tell you, fishermen really wiped them out before they shut it down.
Buck Canyon, I had not heard the kokes went to Canada, that's an interesting twist but makes sense because almost nothing came back to the hatchery.
This is really a tough issue. We do have more overall fishing opportunity on Roosevelt than there ever was before the 80's and that is due to the walleye and introduced trout. But at the same time, the fish we all like to catch are eating the last of the native species. These exotic fish at least provide a lot of recreation and food, but they are actually doing to native fish what knapweed and thistle have done to the countryside. :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 19, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 07:28:30 PM
That was a rhetorical question. It is NOT a good thing to keep walleye in during the spawn. :bash:Ok, thanks. I'll read the DNR page.
If reducing numbers of walleye is a good thing, then why does the WDFW close the season in the Arm during the spawing time?
:dunno: Maybe ask them that? Kind of like how the WDFW was going to issue keys to the Muckleshoot I believe last year to reduce the number of black bears in areas off limits to the public? WDFW is making fast decisions without thinking the entire process through, IMO. :dunno:
It could be a good thing if any of the big females are released, but keeping them is not a good idea.
I'll go read that Spokane tribe DNR page now.
Post by: YJ Guide Service on March 19, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
Post by: Curly on March 19, 2012, 07:40:55 PM
It talks about the hatcheries, fishing derbies, and that sturgeon study. Nothing really about walleye. I don't see where it says that killing walleye is supposed to help sturgeon or kokanee. It is probably what they are hoping, but I don't see what you were trying to point out with the DNR link. :dunno: Just the fact that a WDFW bio was working with the tribe?
Post by: woodywsu on March 20, 2012, 08:38:59 AM
WDFW is not the only agency to blame for the triploid issue. There are other agencies involved in permitting and allowing the use of net pens to raise these trout.
Post by: hillbillyhunting on March 20, 2012, 08:57:26 AM
I cant see how a bounty can be put on a game fish in this state, their not a invasive species. There has to be WAC that prohibits that. I also feel like i am being discriminated against as a non tribal fisherman. How can WDFW allow this on the Spokane river. I wonder what the agreement is between the state and the tribe? The Tribe doesn't own the fish or the water. I think its unfair to everyone that pays for a fishing license. I know its the same thing that happens on the coast with Salmon. I think they need to make it fair to everyone that fish's the arm is all. I think people wouldn't be as upset if it was a equal opportunity thing and not just one group getting to fish it and making money to do it. Just my opinion.
Walleye are not native to WA... http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
I would hate to see those days come back and they probably won't, because I don't see how they can completely rid roosevelt of walleye. But the net-pens do provide a huge fishery that will not be there without the netpens.
I read a study once that showed some sturgeon were breeding in Roosevelt's northern reaches. If we could reestablish a good population of big fish, I think they might breed again. Once breeding stock is established again, sturgeon might do their own breeding. Over fishing and poaching of big fish cleaned the big sturgeon out of Roosevelt and the WDFW did not act soon enough to save the fishery. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just stating what happened, nobody saw the end coming, it seems everyone thought it was a never ending fishery of big fish.
I am wondering why sturgeon and other native fish cannot be raised in hatcheries and netpens to a size that would survive predation before being released? Could that be a more effective way and less costly way to put sturgeon and native species of trout back in Roosevelt?
Post by: YJ Guide Service on March 20, 2012, 11:53:38 AM
I cant see how a bounty can be put on a game fish in this state, their not a invasive species. There has to be WAC that prohibits that. I also feel like i am being discriminated against as a non tribal fisherman. How can WDFW allow this on the Spokane river. I wonder what the agreement is between the state and the tribe? The Tribe doesn't own the fish or the water. I think its unfair to everyone that pays for a fishing license. I know its the same thing that happens on the coast with Salmon. I think they need to make it fair to everyone that fish's the arm is all. I think people wouldn't be as upset if it was a equal opportunity thing and not just one group getting to fish it and making money to do it. Just my opinion.
Walleye are not native to WA... http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/
Post by: Curly on March 20, 2012, 12:49:53 PM
My dad was really into kokanee fishing back then. I'm sure we would have fished Roosevelt if it was any good back then and I do think I'd remember if we did fish it and did well. So either we did fish it and didn't catch anything or we never fished it.......... ??
I did fish it in the mid 90's a few times for bass tournaments and a few times just for fun out with my wife. The lake has become a great fishery for smallmouth and walleye. I know its good for rainbows too, I just haven't targeted them.
I do hope they have success with Sturgeon and kokanee, but I don't think killing spawning walleye is the answer.
Post by: Ripper on March 20, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Here's the link: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/04/29/1469882/recovery-begins-for-white-sturgeon.html
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 01:35:57 PM
I read an article last year where the Native Americans were raising sturgeon in a hatchery and releasing them in the Tri-cities area I believe. What a great thing to do. I think they were raising them to 24 inches before releasing them. I would like to see something like that happen in Lake Roosevelt. Hell why not every pool on the Columbia. I would contribute money to that cause. I don't think there is a walleye that swims that could eat a 24" sturgeon.
Here's the link: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/04/29/1469882/recovery-begins-for-white-sturgeon.html
Great info, I will check out that link when I get time, that sounds like a good direction to go with this issue.... :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 01:39:27 PM
I read an article last year where the Native Americans were raising sturgeon in a hatchery and releasing them in the Tri-cities area I believe. What a great thing to do. I think they were raising them to 24 inches before releasing them. I would like to see something like that happen in Lake Roosevelt. Hell why not every pool on the Columbia. I would contribute money to that cause. I don't think there is a walleye that swims that could eat a 24" sturgeon.
Here's the link: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/04/29/1469882/recovery-begins-for-white-sturgeon.html
Great info, I will check out that link when I get time, that sounds like a good direction to go with this issue.... :tup:
I had to look at it... :chuckle:
I want to thank the Yakima Tribe for doing that project. This something that would be very nice to expand upon.
Post by: Ripper on March 20, 2012, 02:04:15 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 02:22:50 PM
WDFW is all messed up, they are cutting back on hatcheries when they need to increase revenue. :bash:
This sturgeon project sounds like a perfect example of what the tribes can do. Imagine if they were putting 1000 or 2000 sturgeon 24 inches long into Roosevelt every year.
Maybe some native rainbow, cutthroat, and bull trout, and some type of small native fish to feed everything. Like was said, this could happen in all the reservoirs.
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 02:39:34 PM
Post by: woodywsu on March 20, 2012, 02:41:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 02:47:04 PM
If you read the article, it is not just the tribes. Several agencies were involved with this fish release. Mid-C PUD's help fund and catch the broodstock for these releases along with other agencies. Last year, a spawning female and male were removed from the Wanapum Pool and transported to a hatchery by PUD staff. 95,000 eggs were hatched and they were both returned to the river. Those 95,000 juveniles were divided amongst agencies and will be released back in the various pools along the Columbia. That is two consecutive releases throughout the Columbia. Broodstock collection efforts will contine annually.
That's great news.... :tup: :tup: :tup:
Any idea what Roosevelt got?
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on March 20, 2012, 02:49:53 PM
Do you think there is any chance of this program expanding into the upper river and Roosevelt?
They announced a release of juvenile sturgeon in upper Lake Roosevelt area a couple years ago. I think they released about 500 if my memory is correct.
Post by: bearpaw on March 20, 2012, 02:53:41 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on March 20, 2012, 02:54:57 PM
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/03/21/fish-biologist-helps-yakamas-create-first-sturgeon-recovery-program
Fish biologist helps Yakamas create first sturgeon recovery program
by Phil Ferolito
Yakima Herald-Republic
HARRAH, Wash. -- Nearly two years ago, Donella Miller began a project south of town to bolster the survival of an ancient friend -- the sturgeon.
For decades, the Yakama Nation focused its efforts on restoring salmon in the Columbia River basin. But now, the tribe is looking to Miller to help the prehistoric fish that has been all but forgotten.
Working off a shoestring budget, she acquired holding ponds, filters, plumbing supplies and surplus hatchery equipment to create the tribe's first sturgeon recovery program on 15 acres of Yakama Nation land along Marion Drain.
When power was extended to the site in January, Miller, who works for the tribe's fisheries department, was more than ready.
"We actually had our first fish before we even had power," she quipped.
"Sturgeon have kind of taken the back burner to salmon all these years," said 36-year-old Miller. "There hasn't been much restoration efforts. I think if it weren't for the extended life cycle of them -- they can live a hundred years -- they'd be extinct on the Columbia River."
Next month, her efforts will come full circle when she releases her first sturgeon -- actually a few thousand -- into the Priest Rapids, Wanapum and Rocky Reach reservoirs of the Columbia River.
"I'm getting excited. We're going to have our first release," she said. "We're going to be doing monitoring, tracking."
About 40,000 sturgeon at a time can be raised at the hatchery, and the plan is to release them into various areas throughout the mid-Columbia River. As the program grows, there will be releases in lower sections of the river as well, she said.
Because of their cultural importance to the Yakamas, improving the sturgeon population in the basin is an important step, said Yakama Tribal Councilman Gerry Lewis.
"Sturgeon have been a staple (in Yakama culture and diet) just like salmon," he said. "It's important to bring back the sturgeon."
Tribal leaders praise Miller's initiative in building a hatchery mostly from scraps on idle land backed by the Toppenish Ridge. Her project has also caught the attention of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, a federal body that represents the fishing interests of the four river tribes -- Yakama, Umatailla, Nez Perce and Warm Springs.
Last week, members of the four tribes and the fish commission -- 35 people in all-- toured the makeshift hatchery.
Miller, a Yakama, showed them a dozen above-ground pools that dot the gravel-covered area. A manufactured building holds an office. Sturgeon, some already 3 feet long, fill the 4-foot swimming pools.
Miller's interest in fish restoration grew out of her experience in commercial fishing with her family on the Columbia River.
Like salmon, sturgeon are migratory fish, hatching in rivers and living in the ocean before returning to spawn. But unlike salmon, they live through many spawning cycles.
But when the dams went up on the Columbia and Snake rivers, sturgeon were trapped. As bottom feeders, they don't access the fish ladders like salmon. As a result, they don't reproduce like they used to, said Steve Parker, technical service coordinator for the Yakama fisheries program.
Using hatchery fish to bolster populations will eventually lead to more sturgeon for both tribal and nontribal fisherman, Miller said.
But first, sturgeon populations need to be sustainable, she said.
"So that they will be here for future generations," she said. "At the same time, we have a responsibility."
The tribe has long been interested in sturgeon restoration so Miller came along at the right time, Parker said.
Her focus on sturgeon began at the University of Idaho, where she earned a degree in fisheries resources.
After graduating in 2008, her tribe gave her the use of a travel trailer so she could visit other tribes and their sturgeon restoration efforts throughout the Columbia River and Snake River basins.
"It was interesting -- I was just absorbing all the information I could," she said. "I was learning all the little tricks that they had to get (sturgeon) to spawn, all the little tricks to get them to feed."
Female sturgeons are put on stretchers and massaged to help them drop their eggs into a tank, Miller explained.
The eggs are washed with a clay mixture, which removes a sticky membrane from the shells. Then they are put in incubating jars, where they hatch about a week later.
There is no formulated sturgeon feed, so getting them to eat in a hatchery can be tricky, she said. They are fed every few hours, and tanks are frequently cleaned so feed stays fresh.
"Kind of like you would treat a baby," she said. "They have to eat every couple of hours -- (sturgeon) are the same way."
Parker says Miller could fill an encyclopedia with her knowledge of sturgeon.
"Every job she did, it just stuck in her head," he said. "I'm really proud of her, of just how creative and relentless she's been with the program."
Post by: YJ Guide Service on March 20, 2012, 03:04:54 PM
Post by: yelp on March 20, 2012, 04:13:33 PM
We wouldn't have half the lake fishing in WA if it wasn't for state hatcheries. I would like to see the tribes pursue more hatcheries for native fish species.
WDFW is all messed up, they are cutting back on hatcheries when they need to increase revenue. :bash:
This sturgeon project sounds like a perfect example of what the tribes can do. Imagine if they were putting 1000 or 2000 sturgeon 24 inches long into Roosevelt every year.
Maybe some native rainbow, cutthroat, and bull trout, and some type of small native fish to feed everything. Like was said, this could happen in all the reservoirs.
:twocents: Raise more fish 10 times as many..release more kokanee and trout.
Back to Walleye. There is no way any group, tribe, federal or state agency will ever get rid of walleye, small mouth bass, or pike with any program or bounty on the Columbia River system. Any pool on the columbia will be affected by the pool above it. If trout and kokanee fisherman are concerned about walleyes eating kokanee and trout they should be out there fishing for walleyes, bass and burbot too.
One last point. Burbot - a native washington fish which also eating lots of minnows. There was more burbot caught this spring in the spokane , hawk creek, etc than in years past. There are more predators to blame than walleye.
Walleyes according to everything I have read are to be thanked for cleaning up Lake Roosevelt which once was a cess pool. So walleyes enhanced the system which has better habitat now for kokanee and trout than it used to. At least since the dams were put in. Definately a Love/Hate relationship. Big fish will always eat small fish unless they are all plankton eaters. :twocents:
Post by: teal101 on March 20, 2012, 04:15:19 PM
Kettle Falls was the LARGEST Sockeye Salmon run in the Columbia system. As stated before it provided quite the bounty for tribes from all over the PNW. IMO the tribes are attempting to re-establish the native Sockeye runs by using Kokanee as the fish cant migrate up stream past the dam.
The logistics of creating a fish ladder up around Grand Coulee is insane. Attempting to get the fish to funnel into the ladder, then go up would be difficult. There would need to be multiple pools along the way for fish to rest to make it up the next set of rapids. This would take a lot of real estate as well as money to accomplish. Even if the fish make it above the dam, theres no telling how well the molt will fare coming back down. There is the large inlet to Banks Lake that the fish would be sucked into, hopelessly being lost in the irrigation system. There is also the fall over the dam that would more than likely kill any smolt as it slid down. A special bypass would have to be made to get the fish down the dam safely in a any number. Smolts would make it down safe, but the odds are stacked heavily against them.
Native fish hatcheries have had minimal effects on population, if not negative effects in some ecosystems. Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild stocks. Studies done have shown less wild survival instinct such as going to sea to spawn and eating habits. WDFW has tried many different ways of raising the fish, but all exhibit some form of domestication. This has led to the "watering down" of many of our native Steelhead runs in the state. This is why the hatchery on the Sol Duc was recently closed. Anadromous Salmonids are each individually genetically distinct populations. Each tributary of the Columbia river tributaries has its own genetic diversity. The Mission Creek Steelhead are a genetically distinct population of the Wenatchee River run, as are all of the Wenatchees tributaries. It is difficult to manage fish like this with hatcheries. It also really opens your eyes to how much extinction Grand Coulee caused. It did not extinct the species, but it did eradicate genetically individual populations forever. Managing anadromous species like catadromous populations wont work. The typical hatchery plant rainbow is catadromous, generally of the McKenzie strain.
Introducing a catadromous population of Chinook salmon like done in Lake Chelan would be an excellent idea imo. Hatchery raised fish tend to do better if they are catadromous. This would provide another fishery for the lake. Kokanee are high on the list of food for Trips, Walleye, and Bass, when they are in the same water columns and when conditions present themselves. Walleye and Bass will more often than not seek out easier to catch prey such as gobies or chubs as opposed to sleek fast Kokes. Introduce Kings, manage the trips, manage for future Kokanee runs. The walleye seem to be doing well in Roosevelt and may be stunting themselves. Possible higher bag limits in the smaller slot size may be warranted to attempt population control. It has been shown slot limits work well in maintaining population size and trophy quality.
It will be interesting to see how those White Sturgeon do. We are only now seeing the massive effects the dams are having on them. As previous generations die, I fear we may see less and less fish. Studies have shown a very low rate of breeding Sturgeon, mainly due to lack of proper spawning conditions. Only time will tell.
Post by: yelp on March 20, 2012, 04:16:18 PM
Post by: yelp on March 20, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
A lot of misinformation in this thread.
Kettle Falls was the LARGEST Sockeye Salmon run in the Columbia system. As stated before it provided quite the bounty for tribes from all over the PNW. IMO the tribes are attempting to re-establish the native Sockeye runs by using Kokanee as the fish cant migrate up stream past the dam.
The logistics of creating a fish ladder up around Grand Coulee is insane. Attempting to get the fish to funnel into the ladder, then go up would be difficult. There would need to be multiple pools along the way for fish to rest to make it up the next set of rapids. This would take a lot of real estate as well as money to accomplish. Even if the fish make it above the dam, theres no telling how well the molt will fare coming back down. There is the large inlet to Banks Lake that the fish would be sucked into, hopelessly being lost in the irrigation system. There is also the fall over the dam that would more than likely kill any smolt as it slid down. A special bypass would have to be made to get the fish down the dam safely in a any number. Smolts would make it down safe, but the odds are stacked heavily against them.
Native fish hatcheries have had minimal effects on population, if not negative effects in some ecosystems. Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild stocks. Studies done have shown less wild survival instinct such as going to sea to spawn and eating habits. WDFW has tried many different ways of raising the fish, but all exhibit some form of domestication. This has led to the "watering down" of many of our native Steelhead runs in the state. This is why the hatchery on the Sol Duc was recently closed. Anadromous Salmonids are each individually genetically distinct populations. Each tributary of the Columbia river tributaries has its own genetic diversity. The Mission Creek Steelhead are a genetically distinct population of the Wenatchee River run, as are all of the Wenatchees tributaries. It is difficult to manage fish like this with hatcheries. It also really opens your eyes to how much extinction Grand Coulee caused. It did not extinct the species, but it did eradicate genetically individual populations forever. Managing anadromous species like catadromous populations wont work. The typical hatchery plant rainbow is catadromous, generally of the McKenzie strain.
Introducing a catadromous population of Chinook salmon like done in Lake Chelan would be an excellent idea imo. Hatchery raised fish tend to do better if they are catadromous. This would provide another fishery for the lake. Kokanee are high on the list of food for Trips, Walleye, and Bass, when they are in the same water columns and when conditions present themselves. Walleye and Bass will more often than not seek out easier to catch prey such as gobies or chubs as opposed to sleek fast Kokes. Introduce Kings, manage the trips, manage for future Kokanee runs. The walleye seem to be doing well in Roosevelt and may be stunting themselves. Possible higher bag limits in the smaller slot size may be warranted to attempt population control. It has been shown slot limits work well in maintaining population size and trophy quality.
It will be interesting to see how those White Sturgeon do. We are only now seeing the massive effects the dams are having on them. As previous generations die, I fear we may see less and less fish. Studies have shown a very low rate of breeding Sturgeon, mainly due to lack of proper spawning conditions. Only time will tell.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say Teal. I think that it is a hard road replaceing sockeyes with kokanee. Don't put it past a ladder not being built.. Rumor has it the Colvilles maybe looking into it with the new Salmon hatchery by Chief Joseph Dam. I think it could be done but it would be a very large undertaking.
Post by: teal101 on March 20, 2012, 04:45:36 PM
Agreed, it will be a long road replacing the largest Columbia River Sockeye run with Kokes. It would be awesome to see though, that or a true Sockeye run. The Sockeye need a lake to spawn in, and sadly, the construction of Grand Coulee destroyed almost all of their native runs.
Post by: woodywsu on March 21, 2012, 08:33:02 AM
Studies have shown a very low rate of breeding Sturgeon, mainly due to lack of proper spawning conditions. Only time will tell.
Sturgeon have a low rate of breeding due to the time it takes to create that many eggs (5 years); not due to lack of proper spawning conditions. The latest threat to sturgeon have been sea lions and poaching. Genetics is hurting them as well due to dam passage being very minimal.
Do you think there is any chance of this program expanding into the upper river and Roosevelt?
Yes, recovery efforts are in place in the upper columbia as well.
Post by: woodywsu on March 21, 2012, 08:40:21 AM
One last point. Burbot - a native washington fish which also eating lots of minnows. There was more burbot caught this spring in the spokane , hawk creek, etc than in years past. There are more predators to blame than walleye.
Agree, there are several predators out there, but burbot and pikeminnow are native. Walleye, smallmouth, and pike are not. However, I think the biggest predator of all is the caspian tern, also non-native and extremely detrimental to juvenile steelhead.
I would hate to see walleye and smallmouth numbers reduced in the rivers, but there is a lot of talk about them being removed from the areas with native species struggling. But if there is reason to reduce the numbers, let the season be open to everybody with increased limits and no slot limits.
Post by: Special T on March 21, 2012, 09:00:49 AM
what boggles my mind is thatthe WDFW does not really use hunters and anglers to thier full potential... There are all kinds of predators that need managing.. Why place a limit on Mergansers? Or at least a seperate limit like coots. There is no danger of having too many cornmerants here on the coast... they eat lots of fish...
Post by: teal101 on March 21, 2012, 09:21:37 AM
Studies have shown a very low rate of breeding Sturgeon, mainly due to lack of proper spawning conditions. Only time will tell.
Sturgeon have a low rate of breeding due to the time it takes to create that many eggs (5 years); not due to lack of proper spawning conditions. The latest threat to sturgeon have been sea lions and poaching. Genetics is hurting them as well due to dam passage being very minimal.Do you think there is any chance of this program expanding into the upper river and Roosevelt?
Yes, recovery efforts are in place in the upper columbia as well.
Sturgeon have always had a low breeding rate due to egg production. That is a well known fact. The damming of the river has destroyed much of the suitable spawning habitat due to changes in the river flow.
"White sturgeon rely on streams, rivers, and estuarine habitat as well as marine waters during their lifecycle. White sturgeon prefer to spawn in rivers with swift currents and large cobble; no nest is built. Research indicates that water flow is one of the key determinants of larval survival. "
Much of the described habitat was lost when the dams turned the swift Columbia into a series of slow moving lakes. While I agree the sea lions and poaching are not helping, you can not disregard the loss of critical spawning habitat. Being that these fish live for so long it is hard to see an immediate population impact as was shown with Salmon and Steelhead. What has been seen is a decrease in the number of spawning fish. Just like Salmon the Sturgeon had a reliance on the ocean to bulk up and grow. Land locking multiple populations has eliminated their ability to get to the fertile ocean and they must rely on the river for their entire life cycle, where as before the river was only for spawning and rearing.
Resources:
http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu_wsturg_fact.html
Post by: teal101 on March 21, 2012, 09:23:41 AM
:yeah:
what boggles my mind is thatthe WDFW does not really use hunters and anglers to thier full potential... There are all kinds of predators that need managing.. Why place a limit on Mergansers? Or at least a seperate limit like coots. There is no danger of having too many cornmerants here on the coast... they eat lots of fish...
The duck hunting community has been pushing for the past 2-3 years for a separate Merganser limit. So far it has been denied. I agree there is a lot more we as sportsman can do to help. Cormorants and Terns need control in certain areas.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 02, 2012, 08:09:10 AM
Post by: Special T on April 03, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 03, 2012, 06:46:29 PM
Why place a limit on Mergansers? Or at least a seperate limit like coots. There is no danger of having too many cornmerants here on the coast... they eat lots of fish...
All migratory birds are ultimately managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. USFWS essentially tells WDFW (and other states) how long their seasons and limits should be, as well as some other federal laws such as 3 shell limit and no baiting. States can be even more restrictive then what USFWS says but they can't be less restrictive. So in order for a seperate limit to be applied to mergansers it would have to come from USFWS.
Post by: Special T on April 04, 2012, 07:48:38 AM
Post by: cem3434 on April 04, 2012, 08:09:52 AM
One last point. Burbot - a native washington fish which also eating lots of minnows. There was more burbot caught this spring in the spokane , hawk creek, etc than in years past. There are more predators to blame than walleye.
Agree, there are several predators out there, but burbot and pikeminnow are native. Walleye, smallmouth, and pike are not. However, I think the biggest predator of all is the caspian tern, also non-native and extremely detrimental to juvenile steelhead.
I would hate to see walleye and smallmouth numbers reduced in the rivers, but there is a lot of talk about them being removed from the areas with native species struggling. But if there is reason to reduce the numbers, let the season be open to everybody with increased limits and no slot limits.
:yeah: I couldnt agree more.
Post by: teal101 on April 04, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
Why place a limit on Mergansers? Or at least a seperate limit like coots. There is no danger of having too many cornmerants here on the coast... they eat lots of fish...
All migratory birds are ultimately managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. USFWS essentially tells WDFW (and other states) how long their seasons and limits should be, as well as some other federal laws such as 3 shell limit and no baiting. States can be even more restrictive then what USFWS says but they can't be less restrictive. So in order for a seperate limit to be applied to mergansers it would have to come from USFWS.
It is already in place with the USFWS. The Eastern Flyway has a separate 5 bird Merganser limit in many states. At this point it is the state of Washington that is causing the restriction issue.
Post by: Curly on April 04, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
Post by: Special T on April 04, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 04, 2012, 07:00:33 PM
Why place a limit on Mergansers? Or at least a seperate limit like coots. There is no danger of having too many cornmerants here on the coast... they eat lots of fish...
All migratory birds are ultimately managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. USFWS essentially tells WDFW (and other states) how long their seasons and limits should be, as well as some other federal laws such as 3 shell limit and no baiting. States can be even more restrictive then what USFWS says but they can't be less restrictive. So in order for a seperate limit to be applied to mergansers it would have to come from USFWS.
It is already in place with the USFWS. The Eastern Flyway has a separate 5 bird Merganser limit in many states. At this point it is the state of Washington that is causing the restriction issue.
If WDFW wanted to end this restriction the final approval would still have to come from USFWS. The USFWS manages seasons by flyways, the Pacific Flyway (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming) does not have a separate merganser limit. For the 2011 season only the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways had a seperate merganser limit.
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/news.cfm?id=2144374848
Post by: bigtex on April 04, 2012, 07:03:36 PM
So Tex you are saying that i should be talking with my Reps and Sen about this not my state reps?
Best answer would be both. The final approval would be from USFWS. However it would likely take WDFW petitioning USFWS for it to get any attention. WDFW couldn't simply make a season on their own.
Post by: teal101 on April 05, 2012, 09:28:48 AM
Anyway, if the WAG would go on record as supporting the proposal and ask the WDFW to also support the proposal that would help a lot.
The main draw backs seem to still be #1. making already complex regs more complex, #2 wastage of the birds after they are put in the bag and the lack of an apparent need to separate the Mergs as our limits right now are very liberal.
I counter that
#1 the regs are not simple anyway and having to ID ducks is paramount to being a waterfowler. We have to know the difference between a hen Pintail and a hen Widgeon, etc...... so ID is a non factor in the complexity of the regs to me anyway. If you can't read another paragraph in the regs and figure out what you can and can't shoot then maybe you shouldn't be out there hunting?
#2 wastage is an ethics problem. Despite that BS that is spread all the time Mergs are an edible bird and if you don't think so don't shoot one, simple as that!
#3 The lack of need for a separate merg limit is arbitrary I believe. This Regulation was changed in 1980. The request was written by the USFW. The purpose was to "simplify the regulations and lessen the POTENTIAL (emphasis added by me) for wanton waste of mergansers" But in the 7 page proposal it stated that harvest numbers were low. From 1966 through1975 the average bag of Mergansers in the Pacific FW was 8,172 per year which was 0.2 percent of the total duck harvest. I don't have anything more current as to harvest numbers but we were told that the mergansers are "one of the success stories of all the North American Waterfowl" by a member of the Study Committee last July so I think that the population status is a non factor.
The bottom line is that all the other Flyways still have their separate Merg limit, I believe. Ours was taken away at the request of the USFW not at the request of the hunters, I believe. Having a separate limit adds hunter opportunity for the waterfowler if he seeks to add them to his bag.
So if anyone wants to speak out on this the meeting is tomorrow in North Bend I believe. I'm sure it's open to the public but I don't know if they allow comments from the floor? Maybe a WAG member can comment on the process of their meetings?"
Pulled from another duck forum. This was in 2007, I'm not sure how much the issue has been pushed since then.
Heres another thread with info:
http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=455226&highlight=merganser+limit
Post by: Special T on April 06, 2012, 12:41:37 AM
Post by: teal101 on April 06, 2012, 08:34:45 AM
Good info, wish i could be there tomorrow!
That info was from 2007. It was shot down and really hasnt been fought for since to my knowledge.