Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: Angry Perch on April 20, 2021, 03:50:01 PMYa, 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.
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".
Oh! Now I understand. Sometimes before my 5th cup of coffee, English is my second language.
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.
Quote from: full choke on April 20, 2021, 04:43:56 PMHe 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 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.
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? I rest my case.
Quote from: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 12:18:16 AMAnd that makes my statement untrue how?
And that makes my statement untrue how?
Quote from: huntnphool on April 21, 2021, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 12:18:16 AMAnd that makes my statement untrue how? 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.
Quote from: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 10:50:26 PMQuote from: huntnphool on April 21, 2021, 12:36:08 AMQuote from: Cylvertip on April 21, 2021, 12:18:16 AMAnd that makes my statement untrue how? 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. How long have natives been fishing for salmon in the lake/state?
End of debate!!