indiscriminate gill netting on Lake Spokane/Long Lake?

[Ridgeratt]

I shanghaied this from another site.
The author is a person I fish with.   

http://www.northwestfishingreports.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=24172&sid=f08efc4bcb1d34f3f74d6f5c7bde7a2a

[bigtex]

So around 700 invasive fish have been removed and you seem to think that's a bad thing??? Less than 20% of the by-catch has died. This is a success from a biological standpoint. 

[Ridgeratt]

So around 700 invasive fish have been removed and you seem to think that's a bad thing??? Less than 20% of the by-catch has died. This is a success from a biological standpoint. 

Actually I have no problem removing the invasive fish. But I struggle with the accuracy of the by-catch numbers. When he was peeking in the 20 yard dumpster the nice fella in green told him to step away. Offered to have him detained if he didn't. 

The Dumpster appears to be a bit excessive for 700 fish and a small by-catch. The carp shoot at Moses lake filled up one that size.

 

On a postitive note I understand that the gill netting in the Pend Oreille River has all but eliminated the northern's Sounds like they are getting very few. But many have gotten over the Dam at Box Canyon and are in the lower river filtering into the Columbia.
 

[E-10]

I was the one that started a post on another site to try and find out why there were gill nets on Lake Spokane/Long Lake. It concerns me as an angler and someone who just contributed 157.30 to WA State to park, launch and fish this and other lakes. I asked a gentleman at the campground if he knew, and he told me my answer was in the roll-off dumpster, what I saw in the dumpster triggered more questions.
I remembered an article in the Spokesman about a carp removal project,http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/ but there was a lot more than carp in that dumpster, I climbed back up to get a couple pictures and was instructed by a man in a green jacket to “Get down from there right now!” I complied.
 
The man in green and I had a short discussion, and I went home to do some research.

Here is what I came up with.
I don’t have a problem with removing invasive species, but really, wasn’t everything caught in the nets with the exception of the single dead chinook and the largescale suckers a non-native invasive species?

The article http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/13/lake-spokane-carp-reduction-project-nets-550-carp-117-pike-first-week/ stated the carp were being removed to improve water quality, “notorious for stirring up lake bottom sediments as they feed.” But doesn’t the tench (a bottom feeder) do the same thing? Why were fifty-five of them returned? Aren’t these same fish part of the reason WDFW repeatedly has to kill off Williams and Badger lakes every few years?

The list of species caught and the article both imply that only 34 fish beside the almost 700 carp/pike targeted ended up in the dumpsters, I saw many more dead bycatch than this in the dumpster I looked in, some appeared to be really nice size bass and crappie.

[pd]

I am not sure I understand your complaint.

Your title suggests the gill netting of non-native species is indiscriminate.  Well, I hate to point out the obvious to you, but gill netting is almost always indiscriminate (the exception to this is mesh size, which can allow different sized fish to escape).  I would assume the state opted for the gill nets over poison for the simple reason that this is a river (not a lake)---nobody wants the poison to go downstream.  Gill nets are much more effective than seine nets in removing fish (seine netting is "selective" fishing).

Long story short, gill nets are very effective at removing the targeted fish, but we must accept the incidence of by-catch.  You cannot escape this result.  Kill the unwanted fish, hopefully mitigate the damage to the wanted fish, supplement the wanted fish if necessary.

I have no problem with this.

[E-10]

A couple of things.

The first information released http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/08/avista-begins-project-remove-carp-lake-spokane/ said WDFW, U of I and Avista would be removing non-native carp from Lake Spokane because Avista is required to improve water quality to fulfill federal dam relicensing requirements.

Two days after the carp removal project begins it is reported that the carp removal will also target northern pike http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/10/lake-spokane-carp-removal-also-targets-northern-pike/][url]http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/may/10/lake-spokane-carp-removal-also-targets-northern-pike/[/url]

Why some and not others? According to their tally sheet, non-native invasive species, some that cost us tens of thousands of dollars each year to eradicate, were released.  (As noted in the previous post)
 

Long story short, gill nets are very effective at removing the targeted fish, but we must accept the incidence of by-catch.

Agreed, but the very low bycatch dead reported does not jive with what I saw in the roll-off.

[Ridgeratt]

FISHING -- The first of two weeks being devoted to honing techniques for removing carp from Lake Spokane has concluded. Starting Monday, nets were set for three nights, pulled the next day and all fish were tallied.
Totals for the week were 550 carp and  117 northern pike caught and killed. Carp and northern pike are being removed and samples taken to better understand their origins and movements.  Both are considered invasive species by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Pike are not specifically being targeted, state officials say, but since they're a prohibited species in Washington, they're being removed if caught.
The largest pike caught this week weighed 22 pounds and was 42 inches long. Small pike would go through the large net mesh.
"One of the things we'll be looking at is whether pike are reproducing in Lake Spokane or whether most of them are originating from North Idaho," said Marc Divens, WDFW warmwater research biologist.
The carp removal project is led by Avista as part of its federal relicensing agreement to improve water quality in the Spokane River behind  Long Lake Dam. Carp are notorious for stirring up lake bottom sediments as they feed.
Three years ago, Avista caught, radio tagged and released carp in a survey to determine where most of the carp congregate to spawn. That information is being used this year to help determine where the gillnets are placed.
 The project is still in the experimental phase to learn how to catch and remove the maximum number of carp with a minimum bycatch, said Tim Vore, fisheries biologist for Avista.
Highest bycatch was large-scale sucker (63 total, 57 released alive), tench (55 total, 54 released alive), walleye (35 total, 18 released alive) and largemouth bass (20 total, 15 released alive).
Electro-shocking also was tried but with very poor results, Divens said.
The carp were in the pre-spawn stage while the pike that were caught appeared to be in the middle of spawning, with some of the female fish being full of eggs and others being spawned out, he said.
The 12-person crews will take a week off and then return for three more nights of netting, Vore said, noting that the carp may be more involved in spawning by then and easier to capture.
The timing has to be planned in advance to get the crews together.  The project will seek to identify the right water levels and temperatures to capture carp for long-term management.

Could this be due to the inquiry's they will be more active after dark and stride to have the result's removed prior to daylight?
If the nets are a success why would they take time off.   
550 Carp seem like they are fairly active now.
If they are also able to determine that there are several age classes in the lake. Based on the lakes background of a weedy shallow body of water it is a gold mine for them. When they started showing up in Roosevelt the WDFW informed us that the lake structure was not an ideal habitat. But if that's the case why has the Colville Tribe started a bounty system on them. They seem to spawn in that body of water.   

[pd]

Holy cow.  22#, 42 inch Northern?  That's a big fish.  Glad they killed him.

[bearpaw]

It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! 

[Ridgeratt]

It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! 

Highest bycatch was large-scale sucker (63 total, 57 released alive), tench (55 total, 54 released alive), walleye (35 total, 18 released alive) and largemouth bass (20 total, 15 released alive).

It appears that the state picks and choose which Invasive fish they want to eliminate. Walleye used to be classified as a invasive species until they became a "Cash Cow" for the state.

Walleye are not native to Washington fish, and exactly how they originally entered the state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Lake Roosevelt (connected to Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the remainder of the main stem Columbia River, from near the mouth to the Canadian border and throughout reservoirs in the Columbia Basin Irrigation District.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/

Another Non-native species the WDFW continue to promote is the " Eastern Brook Trout" . The Dolly Varden is the true native species. But the WDFW still plant Eastern's and now are planting Triploid Eastern's in what appears to be part of Region 3.

[ctwiggs1]

I mean really what is native at this point?  We stock every lake with rainbow trout, some of which are GMO to not breed for trophy size.  The term "native" when used in fishing seems completely inappropriate at this point.

[WAcoyotehunter]

It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! 

That's why the walleye were released- they are already prolific throughout the Columbia system, same with SM Bass.  Even though they are non native, they are essentially a lost cause for management.  The pike are still a burgeoning species in the system and we might have a chance at some level of control. 

[Roosevelt walleye]

Careful wishing for eradication of "Non-Native" species as I think most of us fall into this category.

[Roosevelt walleye]

The native species crowd that wants there only to be rainbow trout and salmon in this state should also understand that they are backing the tribes in this and if the tribes get their way you will not have the opportunity to fish at all.

Unbelievable that the same groups that think walleye/smallmouth/northern pike will be the end of the salmon are the very same groups that string as many nets as possible across every river with a salmon run.

[bearpaw]

It seems important to get a handle on these non-native invasive fish before it's too late. Might already be too late! 

That's why the walleye were released- they are already prolific throughout the Columbia system, same with SM Bass.  Even though they are non native, they are essentially a lost cause for management.  The pike are still a burgeoning species in the system and we might have a chance at some level of control.

I figured that's why the walleye were released. I remember when walleye first started showing up in Roosevelt. Fishers welcomed them because basically Roosevelt was a cesspool of scrap fish, 40-50 years ago almost nobody fished Roosevelt, you had to know exactly when and where to fish to catch anything other than scrap fish. Today Roosevelt is a fishing mecca, mostly due to walleye introduction and the trout net pens. Walleye have literally eaten up all the scrap fish and changed the fish makeup in Roosevelt, but they have also migrated downstream and this has no doubt created impacts on salmon and steelhead smolt. I would hate to see northern pike throughout the Columbia system causing more impacts that cause more fishing closures.

There's probably not much impact to having introduced species in lakes with no exiting streams verses introduced species like pike invading an entire stream system and the impacts that an over abundance of predatory fish can create for salmon and steelhead smolt. I have nothing against having pike in a controlled environment, they are a blast to catch. But we should not ignore the potential for introduced predatory fish to destroy salmon and steelhead fisheries.