Hunting Washington Forum

Other Activities => Fishing => Topic started by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:00:30 PM

Title: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:00:30 PM
Well they are at it again. I just want to draw attention to the facts here. Muckleshoot tribe has gotten approval to run 3 commercial fishing boats 5 days per week from end of March through At least June. Each boat will be running eight Nets with a length of 100 yards per net. Yes that means there will be 2,400 yards yards of Nets 5 days per week for the next 8 weeks.

These Nets are set in strategic areas to target and kill bass as they move to their spring time spawning areas. The Muckleshoots are under the thought process that bass are significantly impacting salmon smolt survival. There has been zero studies done on Lake Washington to prove this being a fact. Yet they are going to wipe this fishery out the same as they did on Lake Sammamish in 2019. There is just as much or more evidence that native Cutthroat trout target and negatively impact smolt survival yet there are no efforts to target removal of this species.

Largemouth were introduced to Lake WA in the early 1900’s while SM were introduced in the 60’ or earlier. These species thrive in the warming waters of Lake WA while, as upsetting as it is, since the lake was altered to flow west through Union canal, salmon have NOT and will NOT thrive in this lake.

3 commercial boats with 8 Nets each running X 5 days per week is HARDLY a “test”. It’s a commercial decimation of a 100 year old, nationally renowned sort fishery for the benefit of a very small special interest group.

What are everyone’s thoughts on this? How can this be allowable by law and why doesn’t WDFW step up and put a stop to this?


https://nwsportsmanmag.com/tribe-begins-warmwater-test-fishery-on-lake-washington-2-pike-reportedly-caught/
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 19, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Meh

Non native species. And there are viable Salmon runs through the locks and into the lakes.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 04:10:01 PM
 I gotta say, I am happy to see the tribes doing this myself! :tup:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 19, 2021, 04:18:14 PM
The number one thing killing salmon is development. Politicians won’t touch that though- too many of them have their hands in that cookie jar. Netting the bass won’t bring back sockeye. But whatever, kill the bass. Then you won’t have sockeye or bass to fish for.

Sincerely,

A duck hunter who has lost too much habitat to “salmon restoration”.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:23:02 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Fishmaker57 on April 19, 2021, 04:27:50 PM
Fighting an uphill battle here. Non-native species vs. a Sockeye fishery in Lak Washington that generates millions of dollars every day that it is open. I agree, there should be a smaller, more comprehensive study, during the Sockeye smolt releases upstream, to determine what impact, if any, there is from Bass. Hopefully they will at least be doing some stomach content evaluations to determine if there is predation taking place?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 04:32:02 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

 My first post wasn’t clear enough? Yes, I support this.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:32:47 PM
To the other comment about the salmon having access through the locks. True but they can’t survive the water temps. So...kill all the bass, kill everything in the lake that could possibly predate on smolt, kill all the mergansers and loons for that matter. Then release all the smolt you want and they still won’t come back. If they do get a year where they get a return they will count enough fish through the weir to get to their number then go out and catch their quota. You’ll likely never get a chance to sport fish for them.

The fact is this is a warm water fishery now. The idea of it being a cold water fishery died when the lake was altered to flow West.

My biggest issue with all this is it is simply put:

The tribes are being allowed to act like an unregulated SPECIAL INTEREST group. Department of Fish and Wildlife should be the ONLY group allowed to make these decisions and they should be made in the interest of the public that they serve!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 19, 2021, 04:33:00 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

Yes, I’m completely OK with eliminating non native species.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: KFhunter on April 19, 2021, 04:33:27 PM
Well are salmon in bass stomachs?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:35:49 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

 My first post wasn’t clear enough? Yes, I support this.

Not clearing how/why? Your statement is the same as me stating I would support them clear cutting the greenbelt behind your house.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: knighttime25 on April 19, 2021, 04:37:25 PM
So we can expect to see roadside stands selling fresh bass fillets soon?  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 19, 2021, 04:37:49 PM
To the other comment about the salmon having access through the locks. True but they can’t survive the water temps. So...kill all the bass, kill everything in the lake that could possibly predate on smolt, kill all the mergansers and loons for that matter. Then release all the smolt you want and they still won’t come back. If they do get a year where they get a return they will count enough fish through the weir to get to their number then go out and catch their quota. You’ll likely never get a chance to sport fish for them.

The fact is this is a warm water fishery now. The idea of it being a cold water fishery died when the lake was altered to flow West.

My biggest issue with all this is it is simply put:

The tribes are being allowed to act like an unregulated SPECIAL INTEREST group. Department of Fish and Wildlife should be the ONLY group allowed to make these decisions and they should be made in the interest of the public that they serve!


Sorry you don’t like the injuns....lol

I used to walk to work via the locks and can assure you there are lots of returning fish.


My guess is that they survived the spawning cycle via the lake.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 19, 2021, 04:40:37 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

Yes, I’m completely OK with eliminating non native species.

So, that includes sockeye?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 19, 2021, 04:44:38 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

Yes, I’m completely OK with eliminating non native species.

So, that includes sockeye?

If they can get approval..  lol
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 04:46:12 PM
Well are salmon in bass stomachs?

They did this same thing to Lake Sammamish in 2019 and it obviously crushed the bass fishing there. As part of the approval process for LOAF they were supposed to examine the stomach contents of the fish caught there. They have YET to produce these results and are at it now on Lake WA without publicly producing results from Sammamish.

They are also supposed to stop the netting if 3 native steelhead get caught but I would be shocked if they did.

It’s just funny to me the talk of “non-native” fish and bass have been there for over 100 years. Arguably Bass are as native to Lake WA or possibly more so than released smolt.

I guess my point is it’s the process that is the issue here. Not that if one person has a preference for bass or salmon.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 04:49:10 PM
So you are happy the state is allowing them to decimate a sport fishery with near zero evidence to show the targeted species has any negative impact on Salmon runs?

I am going to assume this is because you are a salmon fisherman? So am I. The difference is I am not silly enough to think that if Salmon were ever to come back that I would actually be able to fish them, let alone retain them here.

 My first post wasn’t clear enough? Yes, I support this.

Not clearing how/why? Your statement is the same as me stating I would support them clear cutting the greenbelt behind your house.

 I’m not understanding your question here. :dunno:

 Spiny rays are far more predatory feeders and prolific than trout and salmon....plenty of study’s for you to research. In fact, I’ve seen bass lures shaped and colored to mimic trout/salmon....I’ve never seen a salmon lure that imitates a bass!

 There is a reason the state uses rotenone in lakes from time to time, and yet spiny rays somehow continue to get out of control again years later...without needing help/plants.

 To my knowledge this net process has not been done in the lake before, I could be wrong, but the other option is to use retenone which would have a far greater effect on the spiny rays. Would you rather it come to that? :twocents:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Colville on April 19, 2021, 04:57:51 PM
What options can be managed easily?  There are protections in law for Water foul, for pinnipeds, for native fish species.  They can't make the water colder.

By the way, when I was a kid, you could take and keep 5 Sockeye on lake WA.  It is a potentially sustainable fishery in theory.  If some of the experiments you might want to run are excessively expensive or take difficult legal permissions, why not try things that are both legal and cheap?  Bass aren't native, they eat small fish.  Will this move the needle?  Dunno. But it's a very low cost, no legal hurdle attempt to see if you can make an impact.  I'm  hard pressed to see it as a negative.  Now if it doesn't move the needle, you abandon it.   There are others who would call for the bass to go as protection for native amphibians as well.   

I know it gores some oxen. But the state of the salmon return is garbage. It could disappear while we "study" how many smolt bass eat. One can't get the bass out of Lake WA no matter what they do so restoring bass to normal after this takes zero effort.  I guess the perch fisherman will have some upside here.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 05:00:51 PM
Warm water fisheries will be devastated due to this. And I am positive this won't have a great enough effect to open up the sockeye fishery due to this netting proccess. Sure bass eat smolt. No denial. But you will see this fishery taken away and still won't see a salmon fishery in return.
Economy from warm water fisheries will drop in the area for sure. Then it will be said that fisherman aren't a economic benefit. But its not there fault every last fishery is taken from them.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 05:05:55 PM
Warm water fisheries will be devastated due to this. And I am positive this won't have a great enough effect to open up the sockeye fishery due to this netting proccess. Sure bass eat smolt. No denial. But you will see this fishery taken away and still won't see a salmon fishery in return.
Economy from warm water fisheries will drop in the area for sure. Then it will be said that fisherman aren't a economic benefit. But its not there fault every last fishery is taken from them.

 I fished for sockeye for years, lots of notes taken that I can look at. Isn’t it interesting that when enjoying the lake today, tubing, jet skiing, Seafair, the water temp is roughly the same year to year? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Colville on April 19, 2021, 05:09:13 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 05:10:19 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.

 Bingo!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 05:10:39 PM
From how I interpreted reading through all the documents that were in place for when they netted Sammamish the idea was to sample stomach contents.

They haven’t produced those results. Had they produced them and it was found that Bass mainly predated on Salmon Smolt in the spring than so be it.

I also realize that unless they poison the lake they won’t completely remove the bass. They will come back. Especially as the water continues to warm in the summer. The lake is becoming better bass habitat as the water warms and worse salmon habitat. Couple that with the thousands of docks lining the lake, light pollution, abundance of sea lions and insert about a dozen other factors.

I definitely do NOT hate the Indians. I don’t hate the player I hate the game.

Mostly I just wanted to bring attention to this for those aren’t on the water in the next 8 weeks and would care/appreciate knowing what is currently going on.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 05:12:42 PM
Mostly I just wanted to bring attention to this for those aren’t on the water in the next 8 weeks and would care/appreciate knowing what is currently going on.

 :tup:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Colville on April 19, 2021, 05:19:51 PM
AK,  I'm 100% with you on the lack of production of data. WDFW hides almost 100% of it's wolf data for instance.  I don't think the data collection should just be handed over to the tribes, because these are not just tribal issues.  However it seems odd to run a one year test.  The variables that affect a salmon return are so numerous that a one year test is silly.  To really measure you'd probably want 5 or more years. If they did just one year on Sammamish, then I'm with you... it's stupid.  Ocean conditions could easily offset a year's reduction in bass.  That doesn't really mean I've come to your point of view, I'd support a 5 year or more, but a 1 year test seems very unlikely to deliver data you can rely on.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 05:36:52 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 19, 2021, 05:50:21 PM
AK,  I'm 100% with you on the lack of production of data. WDFW hides almost 100% of it's wolf data for instance.  I don't think the data collection should just be handed over to the tribes, because these are not just tribal issues.  However it seems odd to run a one year test.  The variables that affect a salmon return are so numerous that a one year test is silly.  To really measure you'd probably want 5 or more years. If they did just one year on Sammamish, then I'm with you... it's stupid.  Ocean conditions could easily offset a year's reduction in bass.  That doesn't really mean I've come to your point of view, I'd support a 5 year or more, but a 1 year test seems very unlikely to deliver data you can rely on.

If I remember correctly the objective wasn’t to study returns possibly related to the one year netting rather it was to “sample” the number of bass in a given area as well to sample the stomach contents during that time period when smolt were moving through. They did not publicly publish the “sample” numbers that were taken. Small bits of data has been shown but not nearly all. They never published the stomach content findings. Also I know that in Sammamish (and so far in Lk WA) they strategically placed the nets in areas where and when the bass would move into them as bass was a target.

It’s hard to figure how it can be a “sample” when they are rotating the nets around the lake and returning to areas 3 and 4 times that have already been netted. That’s a big arse “sample”.

It seems if they are going to be allowed to essentially commercial fish a public sport fishery on a public lake without the public’s approval/knowledge than that group needs to be held responsible for, at the least, publicly producing their results of the objectives that were set in the first place. If they can’t produce a study showing bass are even a small factor in Smolt survival than why continue with this process?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 05:57:26 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.

 The same can be said about wolves and mule deer. Are we to simply say screw it and let the deer herds disappear?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: 10Key on April 19, 2021, 06:00:24 PM
They will recover, either naturally or how they originally got there. Sounds to me like another instance of addressing a problem that has many more complex and costly solutions. Too bad really, my family and I really enjoy bass fishing Lake Washington.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: snake on April 19, 2021, 06:07:45 PM
Sounds good to me, bass have infested most bodies of water. Get rid of a few.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: GWP on April 19, 2021, 06:08:19 PM
They won’t ‘get rid of’ the bass. They ‘might’ knock down the numbers some for a while. It’s like the Asian Carp. Once they arrive, they are pretty much there to stay. Unless you kill the entire lake. What is Lake Wa? 17K acres? I doubt they could kill it off if they tried.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 06:14:13 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.

 The same can be said about wolves and mule deer. Are we to simply say screw it and let the deer herds disappear?

Isn't that what this state is doing about deer herds?  Lol point proven.

In all seriousness it is sad to see this state come to this. Where we keep having to sacrifice everything and see no positive results in return. Due to the fixes that are being put in place need to be more than one thing but a series of complex strategies to keep up with things until recovery happens. As recreational fisherman we did some on our end and ended the fishery and of course allowed it since numbers weren't there. But predation in commerants isn't being addressed federally even though the pacific flyway is the only flyway with no management. Seals and sea lions I would think tribes would have a say as they do on some of the columbia now. Implement that along the locks and reduce netting for salmon a few years along with adding netting with bass and push for more hatchery production. Add all these things together and you will see a good recovery. 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Mfowl on April 19, 2021, 07:44:19 PM
Predation by bass is blatantly obvious if you go fishing on Lk Wa or Samm right now through May. There are topwater hits w/smolts skippin away everywhere. The bass you catch are spitting out smolts. I've caught 9 species of fish in one day on Lk Samm using smolt lures this time of year. Everything hammers on the smolts. But I don't think netting the bass will save the salmon. I don't think there are more bass than the last time there was a sockeye season on Lk Wa in 2006, and that was a massive return. I bass fished both lakes back then too. The Columbia consistently returns plenty of sockeye and there piles of predatory fish in it. I think it has more to do with pollution/ development and warm water as mentioned.  :twocents:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 19, 2021, 07:45:04 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.

 The same can be said about wolves and mule deer. Are we to simply say screw it and let the deer herds disappear?

Isn't that what this state is doing about deer herds?  Lol point proven.

In all seriousness it is sad to see this state come to this. Where we keep having to sacrifice everything and see no positive results in return. Due to the fixes that are being put in place need to be more than one thing but a series of complex strategies to keep up with things until recovery happens. As recreational fisherman we did some on our end and ended the fishery and of course allowed it since numbers weren't there. But predation in commerants isn't being addressed federally even though the pacific flyway is the only flyway with no management. Seals and sea lions I would think tribes would have a say as they do on some of the columbia now. Implement that along the locks and reduce netting for salmon a few years along with adding netting with bass and push for more hatchery production. Add all these things together and you will see a good recovery.
This is incorrect, along with several other assertions/assumptions in your post.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 08:14:45 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.

 The same can be said about wolves and mule deer. Are we to simply say screw it and let the deer herds disappear?

Isn't that what this state is doing about deer herds?  Lol point proven.

In all seriousness it is sad to see this state come to this. Where we keep having to sacrifice everything and see no positive results in return. Due to the fixes that are being put in place need to be more than one thing but a series of complex strategies to keep up with things until recovery happens. As recreational fisherman we did some on our end and ended the fishery and of course allowed it since numbers weren't there. But predation in commerants isn't being addressed federally even though the pacific flyway is the only flyway with no management. Seals and sea lions I would think tribes would have a say as they do on some of the columbia now. Implement that along the locks and reduce netting for salmon a few years along with adding netting with bass and push for more hatchery production. Add all these things together and you will see a good recovery.
This is incorrect, along with several other assertions/assumptions in your post.
I have looked quite deeply into cormorant management in the US. In 3 flyways across the US there are over 50,000 permits issued for nuisance issues associated with cormorants. And the federal reports have shown 0 permits issued along the Pacific flyway. With the exception of Alaska. Please feel free to touch more on my "incorrect assertions/assumptions on comorants". Please show me records of where management is taken place with cormorants.

I believe we need to do many management practices to see a good result in recovery. Who can argue that and say that is incorrect. Wouldn't you agree there are many predators, not just warm water species such as bass. Habitat loss and pollution. Possibly less production from the state on hatcheries whether its sockeye or other species, netting practices, commercial harvest outside our state, bad ocean conditions, etc. I can go on and on but appears I am an idiot for thinking that killing bass will be the cure all. Sure they need to be managed not saying they don't. Give it 5 heck even 8 years and see how well this one net approach fixes the run. I will continue to believe that in 5 years we still won't see big returns and a fishery for recreational from this warmwater species netting only approach. And if it does open from this one step fix all approach I guess then I will call myself an idiot. Rant over.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 19, 2021, 08:23:08 PM
Federal processes take time.

https://wildlife.org/usfws-finalizes-cormorant-management-rule/
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 19, 2021, 08:25:17 PM
I believe it took effect mid February.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 08:32:43 PM
You are right about the new rule taking effect february 12 2021. Just looked into it. I spent all last year researching comorant management. Surprised to see that a new rule just went into place after all this time. Let's hope that the new rule will see some changes in management practices. It Definitely took them long enough to put a management rule in place and let's hope to see them follow through with it. And use management practices and not just use hazing techniques only. Actually really happy to see that getting set up.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 08:34:55 PM
Destroyed?   You can't get spiny rayed fish out of almost any body of water of any real size.  Bass will take a few years but they'll blast right back into place. I fish perch a few years after the retenone treatments in "trout" lakes.  I just see a risk reward discussion.  Risk of losing bass in lake WA, Zero.  Risk of losing salmon, significant.  One of these is native and irreplaceable, one you can't get rid of no matter what you do.
So I guess this proves my point a little. They will lower bass populations this year. Fishing will suck. And by the time bass recover as they will they will be back to eating smolt and you still won't see a salmon fishery. Due to the amount of time it takes to recover. :chuckle: then bass guys are frustrated and its a loss all the way around.
For sure it may make a short term difference a little but we need management in many ways including seals and sea lions at the mouth of the lake along the locks.

 The same can be said about wolves and mule deer. Are we to simply say screw it and let the deer herds disappear?

Isn't that what this state is doing about deer herds?  Lol point proven.

In all seriousness it is sad to see this state come to this. Where we keep having to sacrifice everything and see no positive results in return. Due to the fixes that are being put in place need to be more than one thing but a series of complex strategies to keep up with things until recovery happens. As recreational fisherman we did some on our end and ended the fishery and of course allowed it since numbers weren't there. But predation in commerants isn't being addressed federally even though the pacific flyway is the only flyway with no management. Seals and sea lions I would think tribes would have a say as they do on some of the columbia now. Implement that along the locks and reduce netting for salmon a few years along with adding netting with bass and push for more hatchery production. Add all these things together and you will see a good recovery.
This is incorrect, along with several other assertions/assumptions in your post.
And if it does open from this one step fix all approach I guess then I will call myself an idiot.

 I missed the post, or the part in the article that said this is a one step fix all. :rolleyes:

 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 08:44:07 PM
I have read articles in years past and talked to Muckleshoots associated with netting on Lake Sammamish. They claim that roughly 80% of smolt are killed off by warmwater species before making it to the salt. And say if they get rid of that predation it will solve the runs. No this is not my assumption or assertion this is what I am being told. So saying a one step fix all is based off of that. In which I don't agree with either. As I said one step of many that needs to take place. Many management practices need to be seen and I believe we both can agree on that.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 19, 2021, 08:54:41 PM
Duckmen1 you are on track. I agree with most of what you're saying except the single track and lack of action. Many processes are miserably slow and have limiting factors that  often feel insurmountable. Impoundments, ag, development, intercept fisheries, international agreements(or lack there of), mmpa- you touch on many of them. The wdfw just finished their periodic status review on sea lions.  Jeffries just reaffirmed seal populations as well as assessments/recommendations. Things are happening, not nearly as fast as any of us would like, but they are.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 19, 2021, 08:57:49 PM
I have read articles in years past and talked to Muckleshoots associated with netting on Lake Sammamish. They claim that roughly 80% of smolt are killed off by warmwater species before making it to the salt. And say if they get rid of that predation it will solve the runs. No this is not my assumption or assertion this is what I am being told. So saying a one step fix all is based off of that. In which I don't agree with either. As I said one step of many that needs to take place. Many management practices need to be seen and I believe we both can agree on that.
Where is the one step fix assertion?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Duckslayer89 on April 19, 2021, 08:59:46 PM
The number one thing killing salmon is development. Politicians won’t touch that though- too many of them have their hands in that cookie jar. Netting the bass won’t bring back sockeye. But whatever, kill the bass. Then you won’t have sockeye or bass to fish for.

Sincerely,

A duck hunter who has lost too much habitat to “salmon restoration”.

 :yeah: Love this
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 09:19:14 PM
I have read articles in years past and talked to Muckleshoots associated with netting on Lake Sammamish. They claim that roughly 80% of smolt are killed off by warmwater species before making it to the salt. And say if they get rid of that predation it will solve the runs. No this is not my assumption or assertion this is what I am being told. So saying a one step fix all is based off of that. In which I don't agree with either. As I said one step of many that needs to take place. Many management practices need to be seen and I believe we both can agree on that.

 You just admitted there is info out there suggesting high mortality due to “warmwater species”, yet are going on and on against the tribes attempting to due something about it. :chuckle:

 Did you recently purchase a bass boat to fish Lake Washington! :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 19, 2021, 09:31:40 PM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass. And yes it does suck to watch fisherman loose out on yet another good fishery. Sure bass will rebound but that proves my point again toward you. It won't make a difference. No I don't personally like to fish washington for bass even though it's a good fishery. So makes no difference to me personally for my outings. Trust me I catch a ton of bass and good quality at most places I go.
But answer this. How long will it be before a sockeye fishery opens up for you based off of this netting??? Would love to hear a time frame of predictions.

Funny how they netted Sammamish and numbers of kings have been on a decline for a number of years now. So far numbers aren't going up. Just saying. But I will give that another 4 years and see. With similar production from hatchery let's see how high the numbers of returning fish don't rise.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2021, 09:55:50 PM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Cylvertip on April 19, 2021, 10:02:31 PM
How long does something have to be present to be considered native?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 19, 2021, 10:40:03 PM
How long does something have to be present to be considered native?

Just follow the science man... :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 19, 2021, 10:53:38 PM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run
. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:

Why kill the bass then?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 19, 2021, 10:54:59 PM
How long does something have to be present to be considered native?

That depends on what kind of boat you bought.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2021, 12:09:14 AM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run
. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:

Why kill the bass then?

 Just one of many possible steps that need to be made to increase all the runs, sockeye, coho, chinook and steelhead. ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Roosevelt walleye on April 20, 2021, 06:43:06 AM
Hopefully the tribes in Washington don't read this and realize there are many in support of eliminating all non natives here. We might find ourselves on the chopping block!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 20, 2021, 07:00:26 AM
So, everyone in favor of eliminating non-native species from all state water to benefit salmon etc are OK with ELIMINATING the NATIVE Squawfish...AKA. Northern Pike Minnow You are OK with a bounty put on the NATIVE Squawfish? OHHH the Humanity.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: GWP on April 20, 2021, 07:12:17 AM
Yeah, careful what you wish for. I was surprised at the types on ‘non native’ fish we have in Washington and how many of the popular fish are ‘non native’.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: 10Key on April 20, 2021, 07:13:15 AM
Another great way to pit fisherman against each other. Even if reducing spiny ray numbers in Lake Washington would increase salmonid populations, who do you think will take those "extras"? I'll give a hint, the same folks that gill net out in front of the Ballard Locks. And by the way, this program will make no noticeable difference in salmo #s, we all lose.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 20, 2021, 07:22:32 AM
I have read articles in years past and talked to Muckleshoots associated with netting on Lake Sammamish. They claim that roughly 80% of smolt are killed off by warmwater species before making it to the salt. And say if they get rid of that predation it will solve the runs. No this is not my assumption or assertion this is what I am being told. So saying a one step fix all is based off of that. In which I don't agree with either. As I said one step of many that needs to take place. Many management practices need to be seen and I believe we both can agree on that.

 You just admitted there is info out there suggesting high mortality due to “warmwater species”, yet are going on and on against the tribes attempting to due something about it. :chuckle:

 Did you recently purchase a bass boat to fish Lake Washington! :chuckle:

The “info” he is talking about is one tribes claim that warm water species kill 80% of the salmon smolt before they reach salt. This claim is baseless and was one of the main reasons why they were originally allowed to net Sammamish in the first place. To “sample” the numbers of bass in an area and to examine the stomach content of those sample fish.

Now, neither of those two things have actually happened. They rotated 8 Nets through Sammamish for nearly 5 months in strategic areas over and again. They published very, very few catch records and never published any findings of stomach contents. Why? Probably because they didn’t find what the results wanted. Yet they are at it again blindly crippling an awesome bass fishery with no science behind their actions. The only real study that has ever been completed on bass-smolt predation was not on WA waters and the study found bass at less than .5% of the available smolt forage.

The above is the pet of it that really upsets me. These are our public waters and our public resources being messed with here. The only group that should be allowed to conduct this type of action should be the WDFW.

At this rate Who’s to say what’s next?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on April 20, 2021, 07:27:26 AM
We should just let them net up all Europeans too.  :chuckle:  I still don’t like the idea a tribe can do what ever they want when they want, with some half cocked idea they are going to save all the salmon.  That is one heck of a fishery and has been for some time now.  A little common sense would explain that Largemouth aren’t eating all the salmon smolts.  They have finally warped the minds of sportsman when we start following these “non natives are bad narratives”.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 20, 2021, 07:38:03 AM
I'm willing to bet that netting a bunch of bass in Lake Wa this year will provide little support to salmon/trout/steelhead populations as well impact detrimental to bass.  I am also willing to bet that this will improve bass fishing for years to come.  Less competition for the remaining bass as well as a little more food. 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on April 20, 2021, 07:42:59 AM
I'm willing to bet that netting a bunch of bass in Lake Wa this year will provide little support to salmon/trout/steelhead populations as well impact detrimental to bass.  I am also willing to bet that this will improve bass fishing for years to come.  Less competition for the remaining bass as well as a little more food.
:tup: You might be on to something!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: jay.sharkbait on April 20, 2021, 07:47:39 AM
I thought WDFW was incompetent?

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 08:32:39 AM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 08:52:56 AM
They should get much stronger nets and run them right below the locks.  That would make a difference in salmon mortality for sure.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 20, 2021, 09:18:50 AM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.

Yes but no. Check out the article in my original post. It has an outline of exactly where the nets were placed. They are being extremely strategic about where the nets are placed and when they are placed there.

Plus think about that line being moved around the lake 5 days per week for 2 months. That’s like moving your line around the lake to 40 different strategic locations. There is nothing random about where these are placed.

It will make a big hit on the population but not wipe it out. Regardless the science isn’t there. Heck what if the Perch are actually killing more salmon smolt then the bass. The bass eat the Perch so if they are going to go straight off of theory then this netting could actually make things worse for the smolt survival.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 09:40:43 AM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.

Yes but no. Check out the article in my original post. It has an outline of exactly where the nets were placed. They are being extremely strategic about where the nets are placed and when they are placed there.

Plus think about that line being moved around the lake 5 days per week for 2 months. That’s like moving your line around the lake to 40 different strategic locations. There is nothing random about where these are placed.

It will make a big hit on the population but not wipe it out. Regardless the science isn’t there. Heck what if the Perch are actually killing more salmon smolt then the bass. The bass eat the Perch so if they are going to go straight off of theory then this netting could actually make things worse for the smolt survival.

The map looks bass ackwards to me, but maybe that's why I suck at catching smallmouth! I'd think there would be more movement between deep and shallow (east-west on that map), and that they'd have the nets parallel to the shoreline.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 20, 2021, 09:50:17 AM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:

If the Silver run is quite good with regular limitsI guess they are doing good. Sockeye fisheries have struggled and there are no fisheries in there anymore. So that is where my focus turns to on lake Washington. But lets back up a little. Go back over to lake Sammamish. Where you out talking to the tribe out at the state park in the boat they had there. I was. It was said by them that this was a one step fix all for the Kings that run up Issaquah Creek. Yeah even after netting took place I looked at Hatchery escapement reports and such and actually did some research on it. Didn't just get onto a forum and run my mouth about something I new nothing about. Ill post up a couple years of reports. Reports are documents of actual data. Not just me running my mouth. So far we have seen a decrease in Salmon after netting and poor warmwater fisheries in return on Sammamish. Just saying. Although it does take time to rebound. So give it a few years and remember the discussing we are all having about how this would "fix" the salmon runs. I am done with this topic. Pics show 2008 well when there was a fantastic bass fishery. To current report well when the bass fishery went to trash at Sammamish.

And the nets will spread all throughout areas of lake washington and rotated to more areas throughout the season as bass transition. So it won't be a 1 line along an Island pic. That's kinda lime saying hey a river is only 50 yards wide. But the river runs 50 river miles. But they only want to use 1 50 yard net on a 50 mile river. I know that's a math equation but let's pull out our math skills. Lol
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2021, 10:25:11 AM
I see this netting being consistant with the Tribes past actions of actually embracing predator control. Will this one thing of reducing bass make a difference? I doubt it.

What I do know us that the WDFW won't be the tip of the spear when it comes to predator control. The Tribes will in large part because the Animal Rights organizations fear them and wont attack them like they will the WDFW.

Some have mentioned doing something about the seals by the locks... dont you think the Tribes have a better chance at adressing this issue than the department? How about reinstating a second bag limit for Mergansers during Duck season?  Or how about dealing with the massive ammounts of Cormorants? (I have heard rumor that a couple of tribes have been doing thier part on the DL....


Im personally not happy that salmon seem to dictate all things in this state. Most of us have bitched and moaned about all manner of predators. Would I prefer that the Tribes focus thier efforst else where? Sure! The fact is that ALL predators need management.

As to the fact that the Tribes have not shared salmon data... be it the recruitment they think they will get from flooding the Farmed Island, or the ammount of Fry the bass eat.  I WISH they shared the data with the public. As consumptive users we share a similar goal. It should be plainly obvious that they dont trust the wdfw... nor are they especially concerned with our oppinion... lots of uniformed ones on here, and not that anyone seems to make that easier by not sharing the data...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Platensek-po on April 20, 2021, 10:38:02 AM
Man this topic is kind of sad to me. Why do so many people care about bass in western wa? You can catch bass in what? 49 states? You can only catch pacific salmon in 4 or 5. And the way it’s going soon you won’t be able to catch them anywhere but in one state. There are literally thousands and thousands of places to catch bass and it’s rising. Salmon have specific habitats that they need or they don’t survive. Bunch of crybabies on here worried about what a tribe is doing to try and save a resource that they have been using for some 14k years. Yet you guys think bass should be considered native cause some dumbbell introduces them 100yrs ago? A lot needs to be done to save salmon and IMO it’s already probably to late. Rising temps in the sound and how our rain patterns are now in the fall will probably do them in along with everything else. Does that mean we should just give up and all fish for bass? Yuck. Do you guys not want to see future generations at least be able to see salmon runs? If you love spiny ray fish you can literally fish for them just about anywhere. Go for it. But if it comes to competing with salmon or steelhead then I see no argument as to why you would ever ever possibly think that spiny rays fish need any kind of protection. How many of you actually eat bass anyway? Gross.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 10:53:20 AM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:

If the Silver run is quite good with regular limitsI guess they are doing good. Sockeye fisheries have struggled and there are no fisheries in there anymore. So that is where my focus turns to on lake Washington. But lets back up a little. Go back over to lake Sammamish. Where you out talking to the tribe out at the state park in the boat they had there. I was. It was said by them that this was a one step fix all for the Kings that run up Issaquah Creek. Yeah even after netting took place I looked at Hatchery escapement reports and such and actually did some research on it. Didn't just get onto a forum and run my mouth about something I new nothing about. Ill post up a couple years of reports. Reports are documents of actual data. Not just me running my mouth. So far we have seen a decrease in Salmon after netting and poor warmwater fisheries in return on Sammamish. Just saying. Although it does take time to rebound. So give it a few years and remember the discussing we are all having about how this would "fix" the salmon runs. I am done with this topic. Pics show 2008 well when there was a fantastic bass fishery. To current report well when the bass fishery went to trash at Sammamish.

And the nets will spread all throughout areas of lake washington and rotated to more areas throughout the season as bass transition. So it won't be a 1 line along an Island pic. That's kinda lime saying hey a river is only 50 yards wide. But the river runs 50 river miles. But they only want to use 1 50 yard net on a 50 mile river. I know that's a math equation but let's pull out our math skills. Lol

It was just for scale. My point is, it's a gigantic lake. But your comparison to a 50 yard net in a 50 yard wide river is silly. But...math.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 20, 2021, 11:02:11 AM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 11:09:01 AM
There were docks and locks when the last bumper return of sockeye happened.  I'm not ready to write it off as a lost cause.  It certainly needs a ton of help, but it could happen.

In addition to bass, they are trying to locate, remove and figure out how many pike are in the lake.  Getting the pike out of there would help all of the fish people want to chase with the exception of pike I suppose.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: duckmen1 on April 20, 2021, 11:09:59 AM
First off dude my post also say that I am not in denial of bass predation. Thats pretty obvious. I have also said that if multiple management practices are done sure have at it. All I have said repeatedly is that we won't see a sockeye fishery due to solely netting of bass.

 Dude? How old are you? :chuckle:

 “Multiple management practices” begin somewhere. Again, you presume this is “the one step fix all”, as you continue to rail on about it. Please point out where ANYONE has suggested this!

 Secondly, I never said this would bring back the sockeye fishery, another “assumption” of yours.

 You should know there are other species of salmon that run through the lake. The silver fishing is quite good and we limit regularly when they run. ;)

 Carry on Dude! :tup:

If the Silver run is quite good with regular limitsI guess they are doing good. Sockeye fisheries have struggled and there are no fisheries in there anymore. So that is where my focus turns to on lake Washington. But lets back up a little. Go back over to lake Sammamish. Where you out talking to the tribe out at the state park in the boat they had there. I was. It was said by them that this was a one step fix all for the Kings that run up Issaquah Creek. Yeah even after netting took place I looked at Hatchery escapement reports and such and actually did some research on it. Didn't just get onto a forum and run my mouth about something I new nothing about. Ill post up a couple years of reports. Reports are documents of actual data. Not just me running my mouth. So far we have seen a decrease in Salmon after netting and poor warmwater fisheries in return on Sammamish. Just saying. Although it does take time to rebound. So give it a few years and remember the discussing we are all having about how this would "fix" the salmon runs. I am done with this topic. Pics show 2008 well when there was a fantastic bass fishery. To current report well when the bass fishery went to trash at Sammamish.

And the nets will spread all throughout areas of lake washington and rotated to more areas throughout the season as bass transition. So it won't be a 1 line along an Island pic. That's kinda lime saying hey a river is only 50 yards wide. But the river runs 50 river miles. But they only want to use 1 50 yard net on a 50 mile river. I know that's a math equation but let's pull out our math skills. Lol

It was just for scale. My point is, it's a gigantic lake. But your comparison to a 50 yard net in a 50 yard wide river is silly. But...math.

My point is a valid point though. Those 24 100yard long nets will be spread out amongst the lake and throughout the lake. Along different sections of the lake and rotated around for months. Will have a big impact on that fishery. Not as small of an impact as that map portrays. Just saying. But it really don't matter take that fishery down and again see no difference as my documents are showing from the hatchery.

But on a positive note yes at least these groups don't have a say on matters the tribe does as the wdfw can't do anything because of these anti groups. So maybe just maybe it will show more of a light to push for more practices to combine with this netting and then hopefully we will see higher returns.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 20, 2021, 11:23:42 AM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
You have a tremendous misunderstanding of life.  In addition to the misunderstanding you show a lack of willingness to educate yourself or even learn.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 11:31:16 AM
I think it's interesting to discuss "native" anything in a waterway that is so far removed from it's natural state. I never really studied the history of Lake Washington, or heard of the Black River, which was the only way in for Salmon prior to the Montlake cut and ship canal. Pretty interesting for anyone like me that hadn't really looked into it. 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 11:40:14 AM
Certainly not your typical salmon run, in or out.

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 12:02:36 PM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.

Yes but no. Check out the article in my original post. It has an outline of exactly where the nets were placed. They are being extremely strategic about where the nets are placed and when they are placed there.

Plus think about that line being moved around the lake 5 days per week for 2 months. That’s like moving your line around the lake to 40 different strategic locations. There is nothing random about where these are placed.

It will make a big hit on the population but not wipe it out. Regardless the science isn’t there. Heck what if the Perch are actually killing more salmon smolt then the bass. The bass eat the Perch so if they are going to go straight off of theory then this netting could actually make things worse for the smolt survival.

https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ReviewsFisheriesScience_2011.pdf

Look at the charts here. Some are showing salmon are up to 50% of the bass' diet in certain places. The study concludes that bass can have a dramatic effect on salmon and steelhead runs.

I believe that the OP is likely a dedicated bass fisherman, while he may indeed fish for other species including salmonids. I spent decades pursuing only bass for catch and release fishing. I get it. Being a bass fisherman, he's upset this species is being singled out for removal (fair?). But they're not being singled out. The WDFW and tribes have been aggressively targeting several invasive species which affect the salmonids - pike minnow, walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass, musky.

I think it's a good thing and they're not going far enough. Why not also single out the sea lions? They should be killing them wherever they see them upstream from Astoria. I believe that combining all of these efforts could have a dramatic positive effect on salmonid populations.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 20, 2021, 12:18:05 PM
“We just have to do something.”

Worst excuse ever. Doesn’t work for guns, not gonna work for Lake Washington sockeye. But good luck. Take one more opportunity away from sportsman.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 12:21:33 PM
“We just have to do something.”

Worst excuse ever. Doesn’t work for guns, not gonna work for Lake Washington sockeye. But good luck. Take one more opportunity away from sportsman.

Sometimes these actions help sportsmen AND wildlife.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 20, 2021, 12:25:21 PM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
You have a tremendous misunderstanding of life.  In addition to the misunderstanding you show a lack of willingness to educate yourself or even learn.

Really Tbar, I’m sure the exact thing could be said of you and this post. I’ve shown I’ve done a good amount of research on the subject. What’s available for public knowledge anyhow.

One only stated the facts. If you are upset with the fact that special interest tribal groups are allowed to net salmon on Subsistence Permits then sell their Subsistence catch for commercial profits you should be upset. Not at me though. Maybe direct your anger towards your boy Inslee.

Talk to your boy Inslee
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: KFhunter on April 20, 2021, 12:29:59 PM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.

Here is what it looks like to me


he broke out the crayons lol 😆
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 12:35:49 PM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
You have a tremendous misunderstanding of life.  In addition to the misunderstanding you show a lack of willingness to educate yourself or even learn.

Really Tbar, I’m sure the exact thing could be said of you and this post. I’ve shown I’ve done a good amount of research on the subject. What’s available for public knowledge anyhow.

One only stated the facts. If you are upset with the fact that special interest tribal groups are allowed to net salmon on Subsistence Permits then sell their Subsistence catch for commercial profits you should be upset. Not at me though. Maybe direct your anger towards your boy Inslee.

Talk to your boy Inslee

The state government has nothing to do with tribal harvest rights, only in working with them locally to manage and track harvests, breeding programs, etc. Tribal rights are defined through treaties passed by Congress and signed by the President. I wish we could blame Inslee for those but we can't.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 12:43:28 PM
Certainly not your typical salmon run, in or out.

No, not the easiest, but arguably far easier than making it all the way up the Columbia to the Snake in Idaho.  It's like 800-900 river miles plus four dams on the Columbia and four on the snake.  They can do some amazing stuff provided they aren't eaten on the way out or the way back.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 20, 2021, 12:55:13 PM
FYI, this is what 2400 yards of net looks like on Lake Washington.

Yes but no. Check out the article in my original post. It has an outline of exactly where the nets were placed. They are being extremely strategic about where the nets are placed and when they are placed there.

Plus think about that line being moved around the lake 5 days per week for 2 months. That’s like moving your line around the lake to 40 different strategic locations. There is nothing random about where these are placed.

It will make a big hit on the population but not wipe it out. Regardless the science isn’t there. Heck what if the Perch are actually killing more salmon smolt then the bass. The bass eat the Perch so if they are going to go straight off of theory then this netting could actually make things worse for the smolt survival.

https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ReviewsFisheriesScience_2011.pdf

Look at the charts here. Some are showing salmon are up to 50% of the bass' diet in certain places. The study concludes that bass can have a dramatic effect on salmon and steelhead runs.

I believe that the OP is likely a dedicated bass fisherman, while he may indeed fish for other species including salmonids. I spent decades pursuing only bass for catch and release fishing. I get it. Being a bass fisherman, he's upset this species is being singled out for removal (fair?). But they're not being singled out. The WDFW and tribes have been aggressively targeting several invasive species which affect the salmonids - pike minnow, walleye, smallmouth and largemouth bass, musky.

I think it's a good thing and they're not going far enough. Why not also single out the sea lions? They should be killing them wherever they see them upstream from Astoria. I believe that combining all of these efforts could have a dramatic positive effect on salmonid populations.

Squawfish are not invasive species. They are just as native as any of the salmon species. Why pick one native specie over another?  Can't sell squawfish??
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 20, 2021, 01:03:43 PM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
You have a tremendous misunderstanding of life.  In addition to the misunderstanding you show a lack of willingness to educate yourself or even learn.

Really Tbar, I’m sure the exact thing could be said of you and this post. I’ve shown I’ve done a good amount of research on the subject. What’s available for public knowledge anyhow.

One only stated the facts. If you are upset with the fact that special interest tribal groups are allowed to net salmon on Subsistence Permits then sell their Subsistence catch for commercial profits you should be upset. Not at me though. Maybe direct your anger towards your boy Inslee.

Talk to your boy Inslee

The state government has nothing to do with tribal harvest rights, only in working with them locally to manage and track harvests, breeding programs, etc. Tribal rights are defined through treaties passed by Congress and signed by the President. I wish we could blame Inslee for those but we can't.

Yes all true but the state pays for the production of the hatchery fish. They are not native. The WDFW should be protecting the rights sports fisherman have paid/signed up for. Particularly sport fish, in this case Bass. They can start to do that by overseeing this project and demanding to see/make public the results from the Sammamish warm water Tribal catch from 2019. If the results show a high content of Salmonids in bass stomach contents than I would be all for the netting combined with other predatory management.

It would be amazing if we could get a sockeye and chinook return to lake WA. But if we do there simply will be very little “native” about it. Based off of the way this state management rolls over to special interest groups we the sports people would not gain access to this new, non-native resource.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: grundy53 on April 20, 2021, 01:07:43 PM
So instead of one ruined fishery we'll have 2 ruined fisheries. Neat.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 01:08:12 PM
Squaws are native to our area, but not in all portions of all the rivers and lakes.  Damming the rivers slowed the water which led to it warming and they could then expand their range and numbers dramatically.

WDFW's pikeminnow program isn't trying to eradicate them, just to knock the numbers back a bit, I think the goal is a 10-20% reduction - fairly traditional predator control to remove some pressure on the salmon.  Nobody seems to be suing on that one so it continues much unlike similar aspirations for pig seals, sea lions and birds.

For the stuff like northern pike, they would like to get them all out of the lake for sure if they could.

I think much of it comes down to what they can do without being sued to stop.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 01:27:48 PM
Certainly not your typical salmon run, in or out.

No, not the easiest, but arguably far easier than making it all the way up the Columbia to the Snake in Idaho.  It's like 800-900 river miles plus four dams on the Columbia and four on the snake.  They can do some amazing stuff provided they aren't eaten on the way out or the way back.

I'm looking more at water temp and quality vs distance. They certainly are amazing. Catching sockeye in Lake Wenatchee, and seeing the whitewater they traverse in the Tumwater Canyon is flat out crazy.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 01:40:44 PM
For sure the water temp is not helpful at all.  Those fish pretty much have all the odds stacked against them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 01:43:56 PM
The mail was put in the Sockeye coffin long ago for Lake WA when man completely altered the lake. There’s nothing native about how salmon enter and exit the lake now anyhow. Combined with literally every home on the lake shore having a large dock, light and other pollution all along the smolt migration route, etc.


I think a lot of the beef with this from most people is more about a single special interest group being allowed to mess with a public sport fishery without prior public approval to do so. Not so much about Bass VS Salmon.

That being said the bass we’re doing amazingly well in the lake. Lake WA was a top 100 bass lake in the US and top 16 bass lake in the West. But let’s wipe out the bass for no scientific reasoning just so this special interest group can have access to more fish they claim to have rights to. Mind you these “native” fish are being produced through state funded and state run hatcheries.

Like myself and others have said the chances of any sport fishery having access to any successful sockeye or Chinook run recovery is laughable. What will happen if there is excess is they will be netted under “subsistence” regulations then commercially sold that same day for a PROFIT.

The whole process is a PATHETIC
You have a tremendous misunderstanding of life.  In addition to the misunderstanding you show a lack of willingness to educate yourself or even learn.

Really Tbar, I’m sure the exact thing could be said of you and this post. I’ve shown I’ve done a good amount of research on the subject. What’s available for public knowledge anyhow.

One only stated the facts. If you are upset with the fact that special interest tribal groups are allowed to net salmon on Subsistence Permits then sell their Subsistence catch for commercial profits you should be upset. Not at me though. Maybe direct your anger towards your boy Inslee.

Talk to your boy Inslee

The state government has nothing to do with tribal harvest rights, only in working with them locally to manage and track harvests, breeding programs, etc. Tribal rights are defined through treaties passed by Congress and signed by the President. I wish we could blame Inslee for those but we can't.

Yes all true but the state pays for the production of the hatchery fish. They are not native. The WDFW should be protecting the rights sports fisherman have paid/signed up for. Particularly sport fish, in this case Bass. They can start to do that by overseeing this project and demanding to see/make public the results from the Sammamish warm water Tribal catch from 2019. If the results show a high content of Salmonids in bass stomach contents than I would be all for the netting combined with other predatory management.

It would be amazing if we could get a sockeye and chinook return to lake WA. But if we do there simply will be very little “native” about it. Based off of the way this state management rolls over to special interest groups we the sports people would not gain access to this new, non-native resource.

Not all of them. The tribes also run and fund hatcheries.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on April 20, 2021, 01:51:59 PM
Squaws are native to our area, but not in all portions of all the rivers and lakes.  Damming the rivers slowed the water which led to it warming and they could then expand their range and numbers dramatically.

WDFW's pikeminnow program isn't trying to eradicate them, just to knock the numbers back a bit, I think the goal is a 10-20% reduction - fairly traditional predator control to remove some pressure on the salmon.  Nobody seems to be suing on that one so it continues much unlike similar aspirations for pig seals, sea lions and birds.

For the stuff like northern pike, they would like to get them all out of the lake for sure if they could.

I think much of it comes down to what they can do without being sued to stop.

They are native to the Columbia River where the bounty program has been in effect for about 31 THIRTY ONE years. Five months a year ....unlimited number of anglers...any bait or  legal fishing method...24 hours a day... there are NO controls to make sure they are not eradicated .   5.1 million squawfish paid for in the 31 years. That leaves about 459000000 in the Columbia. ---figuring 5.1 million is 10% of the population. Makes sense to me
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2021, 02:22:20 PM
The pike minnow fishery ive heard is a lot like bass fishing except it pays to go out. I KNOW if i lived in those areas that is what I would be doing!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 02:33:38 PM
I caught one in the two times I tried.  I think it's the fishing version of trapping for a living.  A couple people may make a meager living and most are lucky to pay the fuel bill.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 20, 2021, 02:56:10 PM
Hilarious that you guys that are in favor of this think that Bass are your Salmon's problem.

 Stop for one second and think??? There were no problems with the Sockeye runs in the 50's & 60's and even into the 70's and 80's and there have been Bass in that lake for over a hundred years. There were bass in there when the runs were strong so when did Bass become the problem?

I Guess the bass of 50 years ago were wussies and the bass of the 2000's are larger Salmon predator's? 


The sea lions and seals in front of the locks aren't a problem? huh? how soon we forget.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 02:58:47 PM
You should probably read all the posts. Your horse won't be quite so high when you try to get off of it.  :tup: Let me phrase that differently. Other predators, including sea lions, have been mentioned, not forgotten. It's like talking about wolves. Just because you're targeting the wolves, doesn't mean you're ignoring the other predators. You can target them all. All of the salmonid predators aren't mutually exclusive, either. You can target one or many. But this post is about the control of one of them - bass. That's why people aren't necessarily talking about sea lions.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 03:04:25 PM
I imagine more sockeye will return to the lake this year than 120 years ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 03:13:33 PM
I imagine more sockeye will return to the lake this year than 120 years ago.

Runs can improve. Baker River sockeye are a great example.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 03:17:37 PM
I imagine more sockeye will return to the lake this year than 120 years ago.

Runs can improve. Baker River sockeye are a great example.

These are Baker River sockeye for the most part, from what I understand. it doesn't sound like there was ever a substantial sockeye run prior to hatcheries.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 20, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
I imagine more sockeye will return to the lake this year than 120 years ago.

Runs can improve. Baker River sockeye are a great example.

These are Baker River sockeye for the most part, from what I understand. it doesn't sound like there was ever a substantial sockeye run prior to hatcheries.

I don't believe so. The Baker River sockeye spawn in Baker lake for the most part, way further to the North. Could be wrong but I don't think so.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 03:39:26 PM
It's a mix and not very conclusive.  Some people think there are native Bear Creek (Sammish) fish in addition to the transplanted (and now planted) fish and other streams.  I think there is also debate as to whether kokanee existed prior or around 1900 which would indicate native sockeye were there at some point prior.

I think the Cedar and Issaquah fish are generally believed to be Baker transplants and they are different from the Bear Creek fish which are either native or from somewhere else.  Apparently not a bunch of records exist as to what was done.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 20, 2021, 03:49:48 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 03:50:01 PM
Ya, I think they planted Baker fish in the 1930's. Judging by the size of Bear Creek, it's hard to imaging a super sizeable run. Interesting that early accounts refer to "red fish".
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 03:52:37 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

 

Are you saying it's pathetic to be gaga over 5 pound fish? I'd take a 5 pound smallie over a 20 pound king every day of the week and twice on Sunday. (As long as I can still buy a 20 pound king from Skillet!)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 20, 2021, 04:00:51 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 20, 2021, 04:04:40 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

 

I'd take a 5 pound smallie over a 20 pound king every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Then you're in the wrong state...
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 20, 2021, 04:08:09 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 20, 2021, 04:15:43 PM
I would happily take either a 5# smallie or a 20# chinook although the latter would make substantially better sushi. :tung:

I think one of the problems is we are trying to save everything and it just isn't going to work.  We can't have airports, malls, cars, dams, bass, sockeye, orcas, fishermen, overabundance of predators and everything at levels we are happy with in every waterway.

ESA stocks get the priority from the Feds and until they either extirpated or removed from the list, which is nearly impossible, we get these types of situations where we pay a price for a long time and they never really recover. 

Although most will admit that if they killed every predatory fish in the lake that the salmon would certainly benefit would that along with the other things we are/can do recover them?  I don't think so.  If we aren't planning on doing other substantial things I wonder if we are wasting time, money and other resources.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 20, 2021, 04:25:44 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?

No- bass DO eat salmon smolt. They have been doing it in the lake for 100 years. But getting rid of bass in the lake is NOT going to bring sockeye back.
Get rid of housing/development, airplane manufacturers, vehicles, ski boats and recreational users, whales, birds, seals, toxic waste and sewage, AND bass and you might, might, make some headway.

Until then- go catch yo self a hawg!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 04:30:23 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

 

I'd take a 5 pound smallie over a 20 pound king every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Then you're in the wrong state...

Only because they're gill netting all the bass!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 20, 2021, 04:31:02 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?

No- bass DO eat salmon smolt. They have been doing it in the lake for 100 years. But getting rid of bass in the lake is NOT going to bring sockeye back.
Get rid of housing/development, airplane manufacturers, vehicles, ski boats and recreational users, whales, birds, seals, toxic waste and sewage, AND bass and you might, might, make some headway.

Until then- go catch yo self a hawg!
I have. They lose their fight in less than a minute. Pretty lame fish. They also eat baby salmon. They ate them last year, 5 years ago, and 100 years ago so oust them.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: GWP on April 20, 2021, 04:34:11 PM
Couple years ago on Lake Wa. First day on the water with my new electronics. New fishing pole. New lure. Was not going to fish but saw this big blob swimming on the sonar and tossed the lure over by it. WHAM!!!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 04:36:44 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?

No- bass DO eat salmon smolt. They have been doing it in the lake for 100 years. But getting rid of bass in the lake is NOT going to bring sockeye back.
Get rid of housing/development, airplane manufacturers, vehicles, ski boats and recreational users, whales, birds, seals, toxic waste and sewage, AND bass and you might, might, make some headway.

Until then- go catch yo self a hawg!
I have. They lose their fight in less than a minute. Pretty lame fish. They also eat baby salmon. They ate them last year, 5 years ago, and 100 years ago so oust them.

I do believe we have a fish snob on our hands!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: GWP on April 20, 2021, 04:37:44 PM
Upside down, but you get the idea. I don’t try to fish for bass! I am a panfish guy usually. The was on 6# line.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 20, 2021, 04:42:32 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?

No- bass DO eat salmon smolt. They have been doing it in the lake for 100 years. But getting rid of bass in the lake is NOT going to bring sockeye back.
Get rid of housing/development, airplane manufacturers, vehicles, ski boats and recreational users, whales, birds, seals, toxic waste and sewage, AND bass and you might, might, make some headway.

Until then- go catch yo self a hawg!
I have. They lose their fight in less than a minute. Pretty lame fish. They also eat baby salmon. They ate them last year, 5 years ago, and 100 years ago so oust them.

I do believe we have a fish snob on our hands!
Okay guilty :chuckle: I do like bass fishing, but there are endless numbers of better places to bass fish...
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 20, 2021, 04:43:56 PM
10 bass totaling 20 lbs. is considered a good day of bass fishing in Washington. Bass fishermen's jaws drop over a 5 lb. bass. Pretty pathetic. Salmon need help, get rid of the bass. There are 1000s of lakes in Washington with them, and you don't have to fish in Seattle either.

There are actually tens of thousands of square miles you can go fish for salmon too- what was your point?

Bass aren't the problem with Lake Washington sockeye.

It was said earlier- coho are doing fine. Are Lake Washington bass related to Puget Sound Orca's? Do they only eat one type of smolt?
What's your point? Where in the world did I mention orcas? Bass may not be the problem, but a problem for sure regardless of how little or big. Are you saying bass don't eat salmon smolt?

No- bass DO eat salmon smolt. They have been doing it in the lake for 100 years. But getting rid of bass in the lake is NOT going to bring sockeye back.
Get rid of housing/development, airplane manufacturers, vehicles, ski boats and recreational users, whales, birds, seals, toxic waste and sewage, AND bass and you might, might, make some headway.

Until then- go catch yo self a hawg!
I have. They lose their fight in less than a minute. Pretty lame fish. They also eat baby salmon. They ate them last year, 5 years ago, and 100 years ago so oust them.

I do believe we have a fish snob on our hands!

He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 20, 2021, 05:04:11 PM
You should probably read all the posts. Your horse won't be quite so high when you try to get off of it.  :tup: Let me phrase that differently. Other predators, including sea lions, have been mentioned, not forgotten. It's like talking about wolves. Just because you're targeting the wolves, doesn't mean you're ignoring the other predators. You can target them all. All of the salmonid predators aren't mutually exclusive, either. You can target one or many. But this post is about the control of one of them - bass. That's why people aren't necessarily talking about sea lions.

No high horse here I was simply pointing out I dont think Bass are your Salmons problem, I mean being that Salmon had no problems for a good 70-80 years out of a hundred and all  ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: bassquatch on April 20, 2021, 08:23:50 PM
Has anyone ever seen the amount of stickleback herring in that frigging lake? If you haven't, then don't assume every time you see "bass busting" it's all salmon smolts! Smh

I work on the shores of this turd pond. I've seen stickleback schools running in the mornings stretching from 520 to South of Dabney Point! There's literally billions of them.

My two cents is let em have it. A lot of bass will survive. Bass also eat their own shortly after the spawn. The same way trout eat anything shiny and flashy...you know, all those trout lures that look suspiciously like tiny shiny salmon-esque little fishies. Lmao

I find more and more needles washing up on shore every week. Numerous sewage leaks have happened in that lake over the decades and God only knows what's in the rainwater runoff?! Take every bass out of that lake and the salmon won't rebound because they are still surrounded by far too many federally protected predators. The only thing that comes from this is millions of our tax (and special interest) dollars changing hands behind closed doors and more and more future regulations providing less and less access. If you think anything more than that is at foot, then you are fooling yourself.

Also, and I've witnessed this far too many times in both hunting AND fishing, any "outdoorsman" that openly applauds another outdoorsman's way of enjoying those outdoors getting overly regulated or coming under attack is applauding the demise of their own access to the outdoors. First they convince you to support the removal of this pesky species, then that one, their "non-native", so it makes sense and it's ok. What you're really doing is supporting the removal of the most pesky species of all...the outdoorsman. They hate all of us unilaterally.

A specific fishery being basically shut down, opens all the wrong doors. Once their finished wiping out bass on Lake Washington and salmon don't magically come back,  they will deem the species and lake too sensitive and all fishing on Lake Washington will eventually cease. Too risky to the critical habitat blah blah. Once that domino falls it gives momentum to the next, then the next, then your access goes away too.

While we sit here and engage in bashing each other's preferred species, pointing fingers and getting all riled up, they just continue to march towards their true ultimate goal. I couldn't care less what this whackadoodle State does to its hunting and fishing opportunties because there is no shortage of States that openly support and actively manage my preferred species (for millions in revenue) that I can retire to. Not to mention the hundreds of other lakes in this State to keep me occupied bass fishing until I retire.

I feel terrible for the future anglers of this State but maybe them not having access is a good thing in a way? I mean they won't ever have to worry about the appallingly act of having to defend the pursuit of their preferred species or being turned on by people they assumed shared their overall love for everything outdoors.

I'll kick back in my old age and watch on the news as salmon go extinct in the PNW and orca after orca turn belly up and bob around in Pungent Sound and probably laugh until I have a heart attack.
YAY SCIENCE! YAY RESEARCH! GO TRIBES! Hilarious.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Cylvertip on April 20, 2021, 09:58:51 PM
   There were no bass here at the beginning of the 1900's, true.  But remember, there were no sa!mon here at one time either.  They expanded their range and probably displaced other species.

   And if salmon and steelhead can't coexist with "warm water" predators, how do you explain the thriving populations in the Great Lakes?  I know one element we have that they dont. 

If anything, all commercial salmon fishing should be stopped inside Washington waters and all rec fishing should be catch and release for salmon and steelhead.

 :twocents: 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 20, 2021, 11:28:15 PM
   There were no bass here at the beginning of the 1900's, true.  But remember, there were no sa!mon here at one time either.

 Not true, salmon have inhabited the rivers that flow into the lake as far back as any documentation exists. :twocents:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 12:18:16 AM
And that makes my statement untrue how? 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 21, 2021, 12:36:08 AM
And that makes my statement untrue how?

 :DOH:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 21, 2021, 09:45:25 AM
Ya, I think they planted Baker fish in the 1930's. Judging by the size of Bear Creek, it's hard to imaging a super sizeable run. Interesting that early accounts refer to "red fish".

Actually, the Baker run had gone down to under 100 fish by 1985. Through habitat restoration, mainly percolation and aeration added to the floor of Baker Lake, the annual runs are now 15-17,000. This particular sock has some of the highest fat content at 25-28%. It's beautiful fish and I've been lucky enough to see the fishing operation and eat some of it.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 21, 2021, 09:50:14 AM
Ya, I think they planted Baker fish in the 1930's. Judging by the size of Bear Creek, it's hard to imaging a super sizeable run. Interesting that early accounts refer to "red fish".

Actually, the Baker run had gone down to under 100 fish by 1985. Through habitat restoration, mainly percolation and aeration added to the floor of Baker Lake, the annual runs are now 15-17,000. This particular sock has some of the highest fat content at 25-28%. It's beautiful fish and I've been lucky enough to see the fishing operation and eat some of it.

I was just stating that Baker lake fish were planted in the Lake Washington system in the '30s.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 21, 2021, 09:52:59 AM
Oh! Now I understand. Sometimes before my 5th cup of coffee, English is my second language.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 21, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Oh! Now I understand. Sometimes before my 5th cup of coffee, English is my second language.

And sometimes after my third martini... :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 21, 2021, 11:06:30 AM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Special T on April 21, 2021, 02:09:48 PM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.
Most of the state intertidal land that can be "restored" has been. The last couple of jems will happen in the next few years. When that happens the state will still need to come up with 1k acres of intertidal to purchase to meet its agreement obligation. Since the last great feed/hunting spots will be mud and catails, perhaps Waterfowlers will embrace the restoration then... at least we will end up with some more places to hunt!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 21, 2021, 03:19:41 PM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here  :o

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? :rolleyes: Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington!  :bash:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Jake Dogfish on April 21, 2021, 06:15:58 PM
As a Environmentalist Fundamentalist, I side with the Salmon every time over the Bass which are everywhere. Wether it is Bass, or the fake Walleye or Pike panic, don’t give in to these dumb excuses for gillnets!
 Instead of this waste of time gillnetting we should be planting fish in our creeks which will in turn improve the habitat.  Habitat is always the excuse for not doing anything to fix our salmon runs.
If you asked a Salmon if they want more gillnetting to help them survive what do you think it would say?  :bdid:
I rest my case.  :hello:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 21, 2021, 07:49:44 PM
If there were an easy button, I think it would have already been pressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 21, 2021, 10:29:54 PM
As a Environmentalist Fundamentalist, I side with the Salmon every time over the Bass which are everywhere. Wether it is Bass, or the fake Walleye or Pike panic, don’t give in to these dumb excuses for gillnets!
 Instead of this waste of time gillnetting we should be planting fish in our creeks which will in turn improve the habitat.  Habitat is always the excuse for not doing anything to fix our salmon runs.
If you asked a Salmon if they want more gillnetting to help them survive what do you think it would say?  :bdid:
I rest my case.  :hello:

 :yeah: This!

There were no problems when the state was planting fish and now that the hatchery programs have closed all the sudden its the bass that are at fault?   :rolleyes:

Some of you haven’t been paying attention over the years!  ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 10:50:26 PM
And that makes my statement untrue how?

 :DOH:

So, how far back does the documentation go? Late 1700's at best, correct?????  I am talking a day or two before that. 

If you want to just stand on that documentation, then bass have been here during half of that time. 

  Again, salmon migrated to lake Washington and its tributaries.  Heck, all of the tributaries of Puget Sound.  They have not been here forevever, they have been here for a blink of an eye, if that.  And bass for less than that, at least this time. 
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 21, 2021, 10:55:40 PM
And that makes my statement untrue how?

 :DOH:

So, how far back does the documentation go? Late 1700's at best, correct?????  I am talking a day or two before that. 

If you want to just stand on that documentation, then bass have been here during half of that time. 

  Again, salmon migrated to lake Washington and its tributaries.  Heck, all of the tributaries of Puget Sound.  They have not been here forevever, they have been here for a blink of an eye, if that.  And bass for less than that, at least this time.

  :chuckle: How long have natives been fishing for salmon in the lake/state?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 21, 2021, 11:49:15 PM
And that makes my statement untrue how?

 :DOH:

So, how far back does the documentation go? Late 1700's at best, correct?????  I am talking a day or two before that. 

If you want to just stand on that documentation, then bass have been here during half of that time. 

  Again, salmon migrated to lake Washington and its tributaries.  Heck, all of the tributaries of Puget Sound.  They have not been here forevever, they have been here for a blink of an eye, if that.  And bass for less than that, at least this time.

Gillnet the salmon- bring back the dinosuars!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Cylvertip on April 22, 2021, 12:29:28 AM
And that makes my statement untrue how?

 :DOH:

So, how far back does the documentation go? Late 1700's at best, correct?????  I am talking a day or two before that. 

If you want to just stand on that documentation, then bass have been here during half of that time. 

  Again, salmon migrated to lake Washington and its tributaries.  Heck, all of the tributaries of Puget Sound.  They have not been here forevever, they have been here for a blink of an eye, if that.  And bass for less than that, at least this time.

  :chuckle: How long have natives been fishing for salmon in the lake/state?

Exactly, how long?  ( here's a hint, not all that long)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 22, 2021, 08:29:28 AM
End of debate!!



Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 22, 2021, 08:49:49 AM
End of debate!!
Lol.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Bill W on April 22, 2021, 09:50:09 AM
just to stir the pot but it appears sockeye may not be native to Lake WA and could potentially be classed as an invasive species there.  They were introduced in 1935 when the ship canal was built and Lake WA lowered 8-9 feet.  So.... the bass were in lake WA before sockeye.

http://charlie.weathertogether.net/2019/05/23/lake-washingtons-dwindling-sockeye-runs/
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 22, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
They were in there before ship canal was built and that hammered them which then necessitated the Baker transplants to rebuild.  There are reports of sockeye/kokanee in there before or around 1900 if not earlier.

There is one DNA strain that isn't from Baker or any other known regional lake which would have to come from either the native lineage or transplants from an unknown source.  Given the proximity to Baker, it seems unlikely they would go further away to transplant when local resources were available.  I believe they live transplanted fish as opposed to a hatchery operation but could be wrong there.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 22, 2021, 10:20:30 AM
But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: James on April 22, 2021, 10:28:18 AM
A fishery bio that I know that has worked on lake wash sockeye told me this is the general consensus in the field:

-The lake Washington drainage had riverine sockeye (the seeding life history for sockeye) and kokanee prior to development. There isn't strong evidence for lake type sockeye, but with riverine sockeye around who knows, maybe a few.
-When they made the ship canal and changed the hydrology it killed off the pink and chum runs.
-Lake type sockeye were transplanted to "replaced" the pink and chum runs that were killed off.  Both for the tribes and non-tribal.

IIRC they started throwing some lake type sockeye in the Sammamish river and they did really well, so it was expanded from there with the cedar, hatcheries, etc.

One thing I find really interesting that they are looking into, apparently they think there were a number of different kokanee life history's in the lake Washington basin and a few stragglers of these might still be around. One example is every so often they get a handful of large kokanee that show up in the winter and spawn in Sammamish river tribs.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 22, 2021, 10:41:58 AM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here  :o

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? :rolleyes: Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington!  :bash:
You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Bill W on April 22, 2021, 10:47:00 AM
so to sum up the recent posts:

Bass were planted in the late 1800's
The ship canal was more important than the chum and pink runs.
The old sockeye run wasn't all that big as it didn't have a good spawning stream.
The old sockeye fry didn't have a good place to feed before going out to saltwater.
The new sockeye run was started with Baker River fish.
Those fish cohabited with smallmouth bass and had no issues with bass depredation.
Sockeye and steelhead run issues came later when the sea lion population rebounded and the ship canal made it easy for sea lions to predate on fish runs.

Based on this I don't feel bass are the key issue with the sockeye runs.  But they are a scapegoat as in the game of musical chairs they were the one left standing.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Bullkllr on April 22, 2021, 10:51:44 AM
Yeah, harpooning sea lions in the locks may not go over real well in the current environment
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 22, 2021, 10:52:33 AM
But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.

Probably, but who knows?  There wasn't a lot of notes or fisheries science going on back then, I think it was also probably relative.  Low numbers to a guy in 1850 could be much different from what we think of low numbers now.  In the 1850 we think the Columbia had a return estimated at 10-15 million fish, so "low" numbers of salmon relative to that could be a couple hundred thousand or a couple thousand.  In 1883, there were 1700 gill net boats in the big C that took something like 3 million fish in one season so nobody was probably too excited about a small river sockeye return.

I feel pretty safe agreeing with the notion that bass or any other fish aren't the primary cause of the sockeye demise in Lake WA.  That really isn't the question though because they do eat salmon and are an easier (legally, societal) fix then removing ship canal, cooling the lake or shooting a bunch of seals and sealions.  I think it comes down to what possible solutions or partial solutions are available and doing what they can. 

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence with this one as I can see valid arguments on both sides.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Bill W on April 22, 2021, 10:55:59 AM
I think I remember sockeye seasons every year in Lake Wa when I moved into the state (1973).  But then the state population was only 3 million then.  Maybe we should net some people and remove them. :yike:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: James on April 22, 2021, 11:00:45 AM
Here is something I think Hunt Wa members can identify with.

Puget sound drainage is a predator pit for salmon, both going out and coming back in.

Puget Sound and lake Washington have the two worst smolt morality rates recorded.

Fish that start in lake Washington have to go though BOTH.

In one of the studies I read, one of the big drivers to recent sockeye run declines has been improved water quality and clarity.  Makes smolts easier to be eaten.

While predation is a big problem from bass, perch, pinipeds, etc. its far from the only thing.  Infact there are very few things lake Washington salmonids have going for them.

To restore lake Washington anadromous salmonids is one hell of an uphill battle.

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 22, 2021, 11:26:02 AM
But that runs is believed to have been quite small, correct? Nothing like the numbers later on.

Probably, but who knows?  There wasn't a lot of notes or fisheries science going on back then, I think it was also probably relative.  Low numbers to a guy in 1850 could be much different from what we think of low numbers now.  In the 1850 we think the Columbia had a return estimated at 10-15 million fish, so "low" numbers of salmon relative to that could be a couple hundred thousand or a couple thousand.  In 1883, there were 1700 gill net boats in the big C that took something like 3 million fish in one season so nobody was probably too excited about a small river sockeye return.

I feel pretty safe agreeing with the notion that bass or any other fish aren't the primary cause of the sockeye demise in Lake WA.  That really isn't the question though because they do eat salmon and are an easier (legally, societal) fix then removing ship canal, cooling the lake or shooting a bunch of seals and sealions.  I think it comes down to what possible solutions or partial solutions are available and doing what they can. 

Honestly, I'm kind of on the fence with this one as I can see valid arguments on both sides.

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch!  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: James on April 22, 2021, 11:33:17 AM

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch!  :chuckle:

I grew up catching perch in lake wash basin, and have a fond place for it in my heart.  There is no doubt they hammer smolt though.

My recommendation:

Bonk and eat all medium to large perch.  They don't become piscivorous until they have some size on them.

Target them times of year when there is smolt outmigration's.  Fishing is good, they hit fish imitators, and you provide a tiny bit of cover for the smolt.

That way you can have your perch and eat them too.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 23, 2021, 07:24:49 AM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here  :o

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? :rolleyes: Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington!  :bash:
You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.

None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 23, 2021, 08:11:15 AM

I'm with you. Just don't take my perch!  :chuckle:

I grew up catching perch in lake wash basin, and have a fond place for it in my heart.  There is no doubt they hammer smolt though.

My recommendation:

Bonk and eat all medium to large perch.  They don't become piscivorous until they have some size on them.

Target them times of year when there is smolt outmigration's.  Fishing is good, they hit fish imitators, and you provide a tiny bit of cover for the smolt.

That way you can have your perch and eat them too.

Sammamish is pretty much a winter fishery for me. Fishing is much better, and I don't have to deal with all the people that are too stupid to realize boats are for fishing! :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Special T on April 23, 2021, 08:50:31 AM
He will change his tune in a couple of years when he loses his favorite duck hunting marshes to salmon restoration. Because, if we save one fish life, it is all worth it.
I did lose my favorite duck hunting spot to salmon restoration, but way to make assumptions :tup: It was where I shot my first duck ever, and my dog at the time retrieved her first duck ever, but it turns out there were better places to hunt and the salmon need help more than ducks.

So Bass are your political sacrifice because Salmon need more help? Even though the Bass were there when Salmon stocks were at their high and the Salmon didnt have a problem co-existing with Bass then??? That right there tells you its likely not the Bass that are your problem now? If they were you would have had problems long ago,  Bass arent going to wait 100 years to all of the sudden start being your problem for Salmon. 

Salmon and trout also eat bass fry. I watched trout gorge on baby bass last year on one of my favorite lakes so which is the apex predator again?

This is strange and absurd logic some of you have here  :o

BTW I'm with Bassquatch I don't have a dog in the fight because I don't fish LK Washington and I have many other spots that are better anyway. But I think its a sad when we loose opportunities for sportsmen no matter what it is, I've spoke up before for things I don't even do just for the fact that we cant and shouldn't be loosing any of these opportunities.

Where were the Muks in the 90's & early 2000's when this all started going south? Has anyone thought of that question? Oh let me tell you where they've been the last 20+ years ... taking the last of our steelhead out of the rivers. Now that there are none left they are so noble to step up and help save the salmon in the cedar river? :rolleyes: Gimme a break

I promise you if there was still a healthy run of steelhead in the Green and Puyallup there wouldn't be a Muk interested in wasting their time netting a Bass in Lk Washington!  :bash:
You missed the point completely, and did not read the rest of the posts. Bass are one of many problems as alluded to by other posters. Even if every bass was removed from Lake Wa I don't see that as a cure-all fix. But it would most definitely help a little salmon minnow make it past a gauntlet of gigantic, always hungry mouths.

Your salmon eating bass logic (or lack of) is also way out of proportion. Salmon do 99% of their eating in the ocean. Bass do 100% of their eating in the waters the baby salmon are. In other words, bass eat way more salmon than salmon eat bass. Why do you think bass fishing in the Columbia and Lake WA are considered to be "good?" MOST lakes in WA have bass and not salmon, and bass sizes and quantities are very poor.

Losing opportunities does suck, but salmon and other PNW native species are multitudes more important than bass in Washington, and removing some bass is a good START for salmon. I have lost many opportunities as a sportsman (duck, upland, deer, elk, fish), so it is nothing new to me. But if we just let any predator into our ecosystems where do we draw the line? Let's introduce a bunch more invasive species while we're at for sportsman! More species of wolves! Wild boars! Snakeheads! Asian Carp! The list could go on. Some sportsman would love it, but the wise would recognize the pitfalls. Salmon take precedence. Save your other lame fish for the fertilizer beds.

None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Washington Waterfowl Assocation has talked with Kyle Spragens about a second season with little responce. Ive heard rumor that Legislators have been approached as well about dealing with Mergansers.

I think plenty of folks agree that we need multiple speciecies predator management.  I wish we were focused on other predators  first but this might just be one of the things they can do right now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 09:03:49 AM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

You are close minded to "losing an opportunity to sportsmen," yet salmon anglers are losing their opportunity, but you don't care about that. As long as the bass aren't harmed? I promise you a few strategically placed nets is not going to hurt the bass. You would have to poison the entire lake to completely rid the bass. They are simply being managed in an effort to save another resource for sportsman.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 23, 2021, 09:25:14 AM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

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

There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 23, 2021, 09:30:13 AM
This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 23, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

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

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

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

Show me the data! Otherwise I do feel like someone posted earlier...we are losing both opportunities.
You have a one track mind with a gross misunderstanding of governmental structure, the constitution, case law and TAC allocation. You sound like the whiney snowflake enviros trying to stop pinniped management.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Platensek-po on April 23, 2021, 09:53:40 AM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

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

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

In 2006 the run was over 400k so not sure what you are talking about...and 2019 was the lowest return since they started counting in the 70s
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 10:07:40 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 23, 2021, 10:13:21 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: AKBowman on April 23, 2021, 10:51:48 AM
This takes me back to my main point and issue. IF Bass need to be managed in any WA lake it should be done or at least overseen by WDFW. They have no idea if Bass are making any significant impact on Salmon smolt. Yes Bass will East about anything, including salmon smolt but are they eating 1% of the available fry/smolt or are they killing .0001%? No one knows.

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

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

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

Show me the data! Otherwise I do feel like someone posted earlier...we are losing both opportunities.
You have a one track mind with a gross misunderstanding of governmental structure, the constitution, case law and TAC allocation. You sound like the whiney snowflake enviros trying to stop pinniped management.

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

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

Since we are all such Dunce Caps, can you please explain how it’s within the rights of a Private special interest group to pillage a public resource on public property?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 23, 2021, 11:21:16 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.

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

 I remember reading a article some years ago regarding the financial impact to the local economy. Although I don’t remember the exact figures estimated, I do remember being shocked how high the amount was, it was quite significant.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: hunthard on April 23, 2021, 11:26:20 AM
Heck just the launch fees at coulon ramp would millions...
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 11:28:53 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 23, 2021, 11:36:33 AM
Huntnphool, the first picture you posted shows my last boat being fished by it's previous owner.  Pretty cool.

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

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

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 23, 2021, 11:45:32 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...

Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: huntnphool on April 23, 2021, 11:46:41 AM
Another pic
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 11:57:39 AM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Mfowl on April 23, 2021, 12:18:15 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:

The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 23, 2021, 12:18:36 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 23, 2021, 12:23:48 PM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

Since you have asked others to prove it I’ll ask you the same thing, where’s your proof or study that Bass are your problem with Salmon? And just because I ask this doesn’t mean I don’t care about salmon I actually care about both.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: M_ray on April 23, 2021, 12:34:44 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

I know Pro bass fisherman from California that have come to fish lake Washington and stayed her a few days at a time in hotels.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Angry Perch on April 23, 2021, 12:38:59 PM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

We're talking about native fish.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 12:44:26 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:
The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.
So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 12:52:30 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.
My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 23, 2021, 12:58:32 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

I think your point is strictly emotional, economy has nothing to do with it. But as others have mentioned- bass, perch, trout, coho, are all readily available to fish for on the lake if you wish.
My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.

 :chuckle:

So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:06:58 PM
None of this explains why Bass were not a problem when Salmon stocks were at their high. I still maintain Bass are not your problem here. Salmon fry will stay in the safety of the river until they are 8-10” anyway and the bass aren’t in the river. By the time they hit the lake at a larger size they would have a greater chance of survival.

I would bet mergansers in the cedar river will eat more fry than bass eat juvenile salmon in the lake so why aren’t you guys beating down that door?

Also why aren’t you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

I’ll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
Once again you are missing the point, AND you are arguing about something your are ignorant to. Sockeye fry usually rear in lakes. Itty bitty things, therefore your 8"-10" size baby sockeye remark is dumb at best. And even then a big bass has no problem taking an 8" trout or salmon for that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

Since you have asked others to prove it I’ll ask you the same thing, where’s your proof or study that Bass are your problem with Salmon? And just because I ask this doesn’t mean I don’t care about salmon I actually care about both.
You sound like a soccer player after getting a little bump and acting like someone snapped their femur. I ask ONE person to prove something irrelevant, and you need me to prove to you that bass eat little minnows? :lol4:

But since you asked for it... https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70031585 (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70031585) ..and this was 2007 when we had more than 3 times the amount of sockeye.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Mfowl on April 23, 2021, 01:08:00 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:
The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.
So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?

We're already invested way past million$ and have nothing the show for it for over a decade. And its not because the bass ate them all.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:12:11 PM
My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.
:chuckle:
So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?
Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:16:17 PM
There was certainly never 500K native sockeye in the system, and probably not even 25k. If you are talking about half a million fish, you are talking about introduced fish, so we should probably start netting some of those!  :chuckle:
Prove it. There are no records of it. I can't say or even guess how many there were or were not in the system. Nobody knows how many sockeye used the lake, but it does not matter anyway. They're a native fish that supply an amazing opportunity to sportsman and the economy. A sockeye is a sockeye who cares where it came from it belongs in its native habitat.
What is the dollar figure that those sockeye provide to the economy? Who benefits from that? Gas stations? Mini-Marts?
A lot, but I am not sure I see the relevance. Sockeye are multitudes more valuable than bass also...
Awesome. Thank you for your detailed report to back up your claims.
Ya because I am really feel like digging up an official report on how valuable sockeye are to someone that is not even making a point that could just come up with the report themselves :rolleyes:
The point is bass fishing is currently putting money in to the economy if the form of gear, boat sales, gas and launch fees. We have not fished for sockeye in 15+years. There is no current value, only a money suck that a band aid won't fix. If and when we fish sockeye again in the lake it will be short and inconsistent. A minor rush to the economy compared to a year round contibutor.
So you do not want to invest in a million dollar fishery? A 3 lb. sockeye is worth at least $20. If we got the numbers back to 350k fish that is $7 mil in just the worth of the fish alone. You really want to know how much a bass is worth?

We're already invested way past million$ and have nothing the show for it for over a decade. And its not because the bass ate them all.
So give up? Screw the salmon? Nobody has claimed that the bass ate all the salmon...
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: full choke on April 23, 2021, 01:16:51 PM
My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.
:chuckle:
So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?
Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?

In your own quote, that you just requoted.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:24:18 PM
My opinions were weighed smallest on the economy. The economy was one of many points. I really don't see it that relevant anyway. Someone else mentioned that Lake Washington bass fishing is good for the economy and that is laughable compared to salmon, a billion dollar industry that keeps so many people employed.
:chuckle:
So, I do not follow common core math very well. How is killing bass in Lake Washington going to save a billion dollar industry?
Where did I say that killing bass in Lake WA is going to save a billion dollar industry?

In your own quote, that you just requoted.
Ya okay. Where are the synonyms for "save" or "killing" in the above quote.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:28:18 PM
https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%282000%29020%3C0081%3AIOPBSB%3E2.0.CO%3B2 (https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%282000%29020%3C0081%3AIOPBSB%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Another...

"For smallmouth bass larger than 150 mm total length, juvenile salmonids constituted 28% of the diet in the lake and 38% in the Lake Washington Ship Canal area during the out‐migration. A bioenergetics model was used to estimate an annual consumption of 76.7 g of juvenile salmonids by each smallmouth bass in the lake and 105.9 g of juvenile salmonids in the Ship Canal area."
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:41:34 PM
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-020-01016-0 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10641-020-01016-0)
Columbia smallmouth and chinook...

"We estimated that 869,371 subyearlings could be lost to smallmouth bass predation between riverine production areas and Lower Granite Dam in a given year. To provide a context for this estimated loss, we provide an illustration of its potential effect on the adult population. Assuming no juvenile mortality occurred downstream of the dam and depending on smolt-to-adult return rates, this represented up to 3.9–16.0% of the potential adult run that could have returned to Lower Granite Dam had no subyearling predation by smallmouth bass occurred upstream of the dam. Although this study was limited by a number of assumptions and constraints, it does provide an illustration of how predation affects juvenile and adult salmon loss over a broad, changing river landscape."

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:45:04 PM
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.578.8595&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.578.8595&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
Washington lakes and coho...

Over two years, we examined predation impacts of ten common introduced fishes (brown bullhead catfish Ameiurus
nebulosus, black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus, bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas, green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus, largemouth bass Micropterus
salmoides, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, warmouth
Lepomis gulosus, and yellow perch Perca flavescens) and two native fishes (cutthroat trout
Oncorhynchus clarki, and prickly sculpin Cottus asper) on wild juvenile coho salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch in three shallow western Washington lakes, all located in different
watersheds. Of these species, largemouth bass were responsible for an average of 98% of the
predation on coho salmon in all lakes, but total impact to each run varied among lakes and years.
Very few coho salmon were eaten by black crappie, brown bullhead catfish, cutthroat trout,
prickly sculpin, and yellow perch, while other species were not observed to eat coho salmon.
Juvenile coho salmon growth in all lakes was higher than in nearby streams. Therefore, food
competition between coho salmon and introduced fishes in lakes was probably not limiting coho
salmon populations. Largemouth bass are widespread, present in 85% of lowland warmwater
public-access lakes of Washington (n=421). Future research would help identify impact of
largemouth bass predation across the region, and prioritize lakes where impacts are most severe.
Nevertheless, attempts to transplant or increase largemouth bass numbers in lakes important to
coho salmon would be counterproductive to coho salmon enhancement efforts.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:49:41 PM
https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FreshwaterBiology_2012a.pdf (https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FreshwaterBiology_2012a.pdf)
To sum it up...Chinook are sitting ducks to smallmouth...

1. Non-native predators might inflict proportionally higher mortality on prey that have no
previous experience of them, compared to species that have coexisted with the predator for some
time.
2. We tested whether juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were less able to
recognise a non-native than a native predator, by investigating behavioural responses to the
chemical cues of the invasive smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and the native northern
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in both laboratory and field experiments.
3. Laboratory results demonstrated strong innate antipredator responses of individual juvenile
Chinook salmon to northern pikeminnow; fish spent 70% of time motionless and exhibited 100%
greater panic response than in controls. By contrast, antipredator responses to the chemical cues of
smallmouth bass did not differ from controls.
4. These results were supported by similar differences in recognition of these predator odours by
groups of juvenile Chinook salmon in fully natural conditions, though responses reflected a
greater range of antipredator behaviours by individuals. In field trials, responses to northern
pikeminnow odour resulted in increased flight or absence, reductions in swimming and foraging,
and increased time spent near the substratum, compared to smallmouth bass odour.
5. Given that survival of juvenile fish is facilitated by predator recognition, our results support
the hypothesis that naivety may be an important factor determining the effect of non-native
predators on prey populations. Efforts to manage the effect of native and non-native predators
may benefit by considering complex behavioural interactions, such as these at the individual
and group levels.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 01:56:54 PM
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/CedarR-predation-USFWS-final-report-Feb2014.pdf (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/CedarR-predation-USFWS-final-report-Feb2014.pdf)

Smallmouth Bass in the Pacific Northwest: A Threat to Native Species; a Benefit for Anglers

Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 02:04:29 PM
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/Pred_tracking_LWSC_final_report_Sept2010.pdf (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/Pred_tracking_LWSC_final_report_Sept2010.pdf)
Bass in Lake WA...

"Smallmouth bass inhabited a wide range of depths between 0 and 10 m deep but were
mostly found in the 2-4 m depth interval. The large area of the Gas Works Park site that was >
12 m deep was rarely used. Smallmouth bass strongly selected the bridge support structures at
the I-5/University Bridge site but also showed some positive selection for sparse vegetation,
vegetation edge, and nearshore overwater structures. At the Gas Works Park site, they showed a
selection for the beach shoreline and gravel/sand substrate. Smallmouth bass inhabited deeper
areas at the I-5/University Bridge site than at Gas Works Park; this was due largely to the use of
the deep support structures of the University Bridge. Large offshore, deep structures like the
University Bridge appear to allow smallmouth bass to inhabit offshore, deeper waters and
probably have greater overlap with juvenile Chinook salmon.

Course-scale tracking of smallmouth bass showed they have a strong seasonal migration
pattern between the LWSC and Lake Washington. Of the smallmouth bass we were able to
obtain seasonal movement information, 82% migrated to Lake Washington sometime between
June and October. Smallmouth bass < 350 mm FL were more likely to overwinter in the LWSC
and if they did migrate to Lake Washington, they migrated later in August-October. Most
returning smallmouth bass appeared to move into LWSC sometime from early March to midApril. Timing of their return to the LWSC appears to correspond to the initial warming period in
the spring and may be directly related to spawning. Smallmouth bass often showed some degree
of site fidelity between years for both spring/summer locations in the LWSC and
summer/fall/winter locations in Lake Washington. Because smallmouth bass often have a high
degree of spawning site fidelity, there can be different populations within the same water body.
Smallmouth bass in the LWSC may represent one perhaps two separate populations from
smallmouth bass that inhabit Lake Washington year-round."
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2021, 02:27:32 PM
There has been zero studies done on Lake Washington to prove this being a fact.
You positive about that ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: BigGoonTuna on April 24, 2021, 07:42:20 AM
i really have mixed feelings about this.  on one hand, our salmon populations are struggling and need a lot of help.  on the other hand, i'm not a big fan of wiping out a thriving fishery so that one that is functionally gone *might* benefit.

if we got rid of all non-native fish in this state, it sure would be some lousy fishing for the most part.  most lowland lakes don't even support natural populations of trout.  hope you like suckers and chub.

anadromous fish have incredibly complicated biology and it's a folly thinking that eliminating one threat to their existence like taking out predators, or dumping 10x more fish from a hatchery will restore their populations.  it's a death of 1000 cuts and a big part of that is that these fish don't really get along well with modern civilization.  they need cold, clean water (gone in the puget sound area), habitat (also gone), food (mostly gone) and predator control (good luck with our state government and the MMPA)

as sad as it is, i think that we are past the point of no return on a lot of salmonid stocks, and fishing for them as we knew it is pretty much gone.  how much opportunity have we lost in just the last 5 years?
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Stein on April 24, 2021, 08:19:36 AM
https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FreshwaterBiology_2012a.pdf (https://depts.washington.edu/oldenlab/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FreshwaterBiology_2012a.pdf)
To sum it up...Chinook are sitting ducks to smallmouth...

1. Non-native predators might inflict proportionally higher mortality on prey that have no
previous experience of them, compared to species that have coexisted with the predator for some
time.
2. We tested whether juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were less able to
recognise a non-native than a native predator, by investigating behavioural responses to the
chemical cues of the invasive smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and the native northern
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in both laboratory and field experiments.
3. Laboratory results demonstrated strong innate antipredator responses of individual juvenile
Chinook salmon to northern pikeminnow; fish spent 70% of time motionless and exhibited 100%
greater panic response than in controls. By contrast, antipredator responses to the chemical cues of
smallmouth bass did not differ from controls.


I must have a predator scent, sometimes when I go out fishing they just all freeze motionless and sit there and do nothing!
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: Tbar on April 24, 2021, 09:12:07 AM
i really have mixed feelings about this.  on one hand, our salmon populations are struggling and need a lot of help.  on the other hand, i'm not a big fan of wiping out a thriving fishery so that one that is functionally gone *might* benefit.

if we got rid of all non-native fish in this state, it sure would be some lousy fishing for the most part.  most lowland lakes don't even support natural populations of trout.  hope you like suckers and chub.

anadromous fish have incredibly complicated biology and it's a folly thinking that eliminating one threat to their existence like taking out predators, or dumping 10x more fish from a hatchery will restore their populations.  it's a death of 1000 cuts and a big part of that is that these fish don't really get along well with modern civilization.  they need cold, clean water (gone in the puget sound area), habitat (also gone), food (mostly gone) and predator control (good luck with our state government and the MMPA)

as sad as it is, i think that we are past the point of no return on a lot of salmonid stocks, and fishing for them as we knew it is pretty much gone.  how much opportunity have we lost in just the last 5 years?
Excellent post BigGoonTuna. Although I agree with most of your post I do not believe all is lost. The predation, on many levels, discounts the manipulations. Many cases I believe more salmon produced only facilitates a false carrying capacity for multiple predator species and may exacerbate the issue. The frustration is very real to multiple users.
Title: Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
Post by: GWP on April 24, 2021, 09:23:12 AM
Tribes (with the WDFW) have been searching for reasons why and how to help returning fish for some time. Just read an article that found possibly up to 50% of fish smolt are being eaten at the ship canal bridge floats where they bunch up. There is discussion on how to modify the floats or bridge structure to help.