collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA  (Read 7299 times)

Offline Bill W

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 1914
  • Location: Moses Lake
  • Groups: NRA, CBA
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #135 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/

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 8982
  • Location: Arlington
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #136 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.

Offline Angry Perch

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 4986
  • Location: Sammamish
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #137 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.

Offline James

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Washington
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #138 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.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 10:47:43 AM by James »
You will never shoot a camp bull by spending all your time hunting in the woods.

Offline Kola16

  • <><
  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 3010
  • Location: Belfair
  • Go Cougs!
    • https://www.facebook.com/robbie.v.bailey16
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #139 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.
If guns kill people...then pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat!

"God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy!"   -Billy Currington

Offline Bill W

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 1914
  • Location: Moses Lake
  • Groups: NRA, CBA
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #140 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.

Offline Bullkllr

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 3769
  • Location: Graham
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #141 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
"WE THE PEOPLE..."

Offline Stein

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 8982
  • Location: Arlington
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #142 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.

Offline Bill W

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 1914
  • Location: Moses Lake
  • Groups: NRA, CBA
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #143 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:

Offline James

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Washington
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #144 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.

You will never shoot a camp bull by spending all your time hunting in the woods.

Offline Angry Perch

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 4986
  • Location: Sammamish
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #145 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:

Offline James

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 231
  • Location: Washington
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #146 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.
You will never shoot a camp bull by spending all your time hunting in the woods.

Offline M_ray

  • Non-Hunting & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2007
  • Posts: 4407
  • Location: I'm takin the 5th on this one
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #147 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 8-10Ē anyway and the bass arenít 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 arenít you guys beating down that door?

Also why arenít you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

Iíll be ok with this under one condition... tell me what thing you enjoy that I can take away!
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are not those of HW Management, Admins, Mods or Myself... But they are the opinions of Elvis who has revealed them to me through the medium of my pet hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...


MB

Growing old is mandatory ... Growing up is optional!

Offline Angry Perch

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 4986
  • Location: Sammamish
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #148 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:

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+13)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 22402
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Make it Rain!
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Commercial Gill Nets Target BASS in Lake WA
« Reply #149 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 8-10Ē anyway and the bass arenít 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 arenít you guys beating down that door?

Also why arenít you guys complaining to the dept about closing hatchery programs instead of killing a resource that other sportsman enjoy?

Iíll 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
« Last Edit: April 23, 2021, 09:57:02 AM by Special T »
In archery we have something like the way of the superior man. When the archer misses the center of the target, he turns round and seeks for the cause of his failure in himself. 

Confucius

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Bad hatch year? by LDennis24
[Today at 11:54:37 PM]


Proof that Hollywood elites hate mule deer hunters by Stein
[Today at 11:23:25 PM]


Year round Bull Elk season by Platensek-po
[Today at 11:10:57 PM]


California AR Ban over Turned by highside74
[Today at 11:09:18 PM]


coeur d'alene kokanee by Stein
[Today at 11:08:58 PM]


Goose Decoy Shopping by Phishead
[Today at 10:43:30 PM]


Past Chelan Bighorn tag holders by Ridgerunner
[Today at 10:34:54 PM]


Looking for Your Help - Donate Used or New Gear by GWP
[Today at 10:34:21 PM]


Looking for Eurasian Doves by GWP
[Today at 10:29:36 PM]


Trail cam pics 2021 by huntnnw
[Today at 10:16:16 PM]


Waterfowling East of the Snoqualmie River by jackelope
[Today at 10:12:18 PM]


Who trains for woods carry? by jasnt
[Today at 10:04:07 PM]


BACON!!! by Scruffy
[Today at 09:43:16 PM]


Special Hunt Antlerless Deer - Mashel GMU 654 by duckmen1
[Today at 09:37:19 PM]


Finally ordered a suppressor by ASHQUACK
[Today at 09:09:41 PM]


Ocean Charter Recommendations by Shaqdiesel
[Today at 08:55:44 PM]


Letís see your throwback pictures by Fletch
[Today at 08:48:41 PM]


N555 and hybrid 100v for sale or trade by jakeweb
[Today at 08:41:10 PM]


Bayliner Capri bogs down under Full Throttle by kingmountain
[Today at 08:41:06 PM]


WTS Primers by deerhunter_98520
[Today at 08:40:33 PM]