Tiger Muskies-Curlew Lake

[DuckDr.Duke]

What is the deal with the Tiger muskies in Curlew lake. I have been going their for a # of years and it seems that the muskies have taken over. I know they are sterile, but what the heck that lake it not that big. I really think that someone should petition to get them out  We caught 3 of them in the last 2 years and one was 48" long and couldn't keep it. Just think how many trout and bass that thing is eating to stay that big. I think if you catch it you should have to kill it.

[Madison]

No way.  Muskies beat the hell out of any other gamefish in that lake.

There are a limited number of lakes with muskies.  you should feel lucky to have caught one.

[DuckDr.Duke]

What I am saying is that the Muskies have got to be taking a toll on trout and bass in that lake. Years ago they used to have big bass in their, not any more. Its either over fished (bass) or the muskies have taken their toll. Curlew lake was not meant to be a muskie lake, just my opinion. For a # of years it remained a good trout fishing lake and still is but I think the muskies should go into a bigger lake, like banks or roosevelt. 

[DuckDr.Duke]

Never ate one because the minimum size on Curlew is 50"

[beagledog]

Just another thing you can thank the state for.my grandparents stay up at Tiffany's resort from April to the end of Sept.. And grandpa says the trout fishing seems to get worse for larger trout every year since the tiger muskies were put in and the state keeps putting more in there

[TheHunt]

Curlew...

My great grand father home steaded that area and my relatives still own property on the lake.  My son banked two a few years ago.  They are fun to catch for sure. 

[DuckDr.Duke]

Just another thing you can thank the state for.my grandparents stay up at Tiffany's resort from April to the end of Sept.. And grandpa says the trout fishing seems to get worse for larger trout every year since the tiger muskies were put in and the state keeps putting more in there

  I know the muskies have ruined that lake for trout fishing. 

[teal101]

Maybe y'all just need to re-learn how to fish.  I had no problems catching limits of rainbows up there this year.  When actually fishing for trout my smallest fish was 17".  I took a few planters around 12" while bass fishing.  The bass in that lake are stunted.  Tons of small fish everywhere.  Hardly any fish of size.

How many of those Squawfish have you caught recently?  I'd venture to say not near as many as before.  The tigers are decimating their numbers in there paving the way for trout fry escapement.  One Tiger Musky wont eat near as many trout as all the squaw fish it eats.  The state has to keep stocking the lake with rainbows because of the Squaws and probably somewhat due to the fishing pressure it gets.  They were doing a creel study this year at Tiffanys looking for hatchery fish vs wilds.

Curlew receives few Muskys compared to other larger lakes. The state puts in as many as the lake can support.  They're in their to weed the lake of trash fish.  They will and do eat trout and bass, but not enough to put a hurting on the population.  Take a look, heres a study backing it up.
http://www.nwtigermuskies.com/faq/

Tigers are a great "natural" way to regulate rough fish.  Without using Tigers the rough fish are free to populate and outgrow the lake, decimating the game fish species.  Tigers are controlled by the state.  The state does electro surveys counting tigers and adjust plant numbers based off of data gathered.  They dont just keep dumping fish in, some years the lake will receive more, and some years less.  Without tigers you're left with a lake full of rough fish.  In other lakes the poison the lakes out to get rid of them.  The tigers allow rough fish control and still allow angling for game species while also introducing a new species to pursue.

Ignorance spread by people who havent done any research on the tigers is disturbing.  Mindlessly killing these fish because somebody cant catch trout anymore is wrong.  It's called fishing, not catching.  Remember that.

Heres some "small" trout pictures from the "ruined" trout lake.  Right off of the dock at Tiffanys in less than an hour where I landed a 36"+ Tiger as well

[beagledog]

Nice fish teal
I think all that was being said was the trout fishing and bass fishing are not what the use to be.
About the squaw fish yes the tiger Muskie have seemed to wipe them out pretty well. But at what cost. Let me ask you and everyone else how many duckling do you see up there in the early summer.I have not personally been up there in two years due to work schedules.it is still a nice place to go and catch fish just not like it use to be when I was a kid and would go spend two or three weeks at a time with my grandparents and parents. If you stayed at Tiffany's you meet my grandpa Jack I'd bet ya , And there's no denying the old man knows how to catch fish up there

[superdown]

I stay at fishermans cove on the lake and the fishing is awesome  gotta watch those those things stealing the fish off the stringers hanging off the docks.

[DuckDr.Duke]

Teal101-
I never said that I couldn't catch trout in Curlew. And I have fished there for years, my dad has been going to Tiffany's and Black beach since the 1950's. I have caught lots of trout in Curlew. But in the last few years it has declined in the amount of bigger trout. I don't necessarily believe that its all about the Muskies eating the squaw. I think its all about the Tiger Muskie association being able to catch the state record Muskie and Curlew is the wrong lake to make that happen. I have seen a 4 ft tiger muskie eat two smaller ducks down by the old railroad bridge near the N end of the lake. I mean come on those fish are serious predators in a small lake just to make some club happy. I think they need to clean them out and then you will see the 3-4 pound rainbows grow.

Tigers are not a natural fish in that lake. Assuming you have a prestine forest full of deer and elk and you introduce 30 wolf packs, isn't this the same thing? They will kill everything in sight. You are introducing a species with out any control. You can't keep a muskie unless it is over 50", that is wrong. What is the point of not being able to keep a muskie under 50"?

Now about the squaws, there still in Curlew regardless of what the WDFW does and nwtiger muskie group. Tigers are the wrong species to be introduce to control squaw fish. Furthermore, I fish a large lake in B.C. Canada every year. There is no introduction of hatchery trout. They contiunually have 10 pound plus rainbows. And they had the  same problem with squaws. But, they let it be and to tell you the truth the trout were eating all the squaw fish and not the other way around.

I also believe the study is inaccurate because its bias, of course the nwtigermuskie group is going to say how great the fish are and what they are doing for the lake. But to make it accurate an independent group would have to look at it and report. Do you really think they will say something negative? About 10 years ago prior to the introduction of the Muskies, everyone kept saying the Muskies are great they will eat all the MillFoil in the lake, wrong. There is more Milfoil then ever before, Muskies are not herbivores. I am not ignorant, just stating some facts about the wrong fish in the wrong lake to make some group happy that I have never seen there before.

What is a rough fish as you are saying? the squaw fish, I don't think so. Tiger muskie is like a lingcod. If the muskie eats everything else (trout, bass) they will eat each other. I have caught muskies while bass fishing and I wished I could have killed them, but they were to small. And the bass in the 80's and 90's used to be a lot bigger than they are now.

[teal101]

Teal101-
I never said that I couldn't catch trout in Curlew. And I have fished there for years, my dad has been going to Tiffany's and Black beach since the 1950's. I have caught lots of trout in Curlew. But in the last few years it has declined in the amount of bigger trout. I don't necessarily believe that its all about the Muskies eating the squaw. I think its all about the Tiger Muskie association being able to catch the state record Muskie and Curlew is the wrong lake to make that happen. I have seen a 4 ft tiger muskie eat two smaller ducks down by the old railroad bridge near the N end of the lake. I mean come on those fish are serious predators in a small lake just to make some club happy. I think they need to clean them out and then you will see the 3-4 pound rainbows grow.

Tigers are not a natural fish in that lake. Assuming you have a prestine forest full of deer and elk and you introduce 30 wolf packs, isn't this the same thing? They will kill everything in sight. You are introducing a species with out any control. You can't keep a muskie unless it is over 50", that is wrong. What is the point of not being able to keep a muskie under 50"?

Now about the squaws, there still in Curlew regardless of what the WDFW does and nwtiger muskie group. Tigers are the wrong species to be introduce to control squaw fish. Furthermore, I fish a large lake in B.C. Canada every year. There is no introduction of hatchery trout. They contiunually have 10 pound plus rainbows. And they had the  same problem with squaws. But, they let it be and to tell you the truth the trout were eating all the squaw fish and not the other way around.

I also believe the study is inaccurate because its bias, of course the nwtigermuskie group is going to say how great the fish are and what they are doing for the lake. But to make it accurate an independent group would have to look at it and report. Do you really think they will say something negative? About 10 years ago prior to the introduction of the Muskies, everyone kept saying the Muskies are great they will eat all the MillFoil in the lake, wrong. There is more Milfoil then ever before, Muskies are not herbivores. I am not ignorant, just stating some facts about the wrong fish in the wrong lake to make some group happy that I have never seen there before.

What is a rough fish as you are saying? the squaw fish, I don't think so. Tiger muskie is like a lingcod. If the muskie eats everything else (trout, bass) they will eat each other. I have caught muskies while bass fishing and I wished I could have killed them, but they were to small. And the bass in the 80's and 90's used to be a lot bigger than they are now.

The Musky associations are there to support the state with its Tiger program.  Thinking that the introduction of the Tigers is based on a club wanting a record fish is ignorant, just as ignorant as thinking the state is doing it to appease a club that wasn't even founded during the first release of muskies in the state in 1988!  Theres a reason they dont stock other lakes with Tigers, they dont have a rough fish problem.  Curlew did and instead of doing nothing about it or poisoning the lake, they introduced a controlled species.

You're wolf analogy is flawed.  Wolves naturally reproduce.  Tigers dont.  The state calculates the amount of Tigers the lake can hold based on it's acreage.  You're concern is actually the number on deciding factor on the amount of muskies released into a lake.  That is followed by the population studies done on the fish currently in the lake.  They arent going to plant 4,000 tigers in Curlew, it's too small.  They arent going to bump the plants from 500 juveniles (by the way many of which die due to natural causes such as disease and predation) to 1000 if the tiger population is sustaining an allowable number. No they will continue to plant that amount or lessen it in order to maintain a proper balance.  Being as the tigers dont reproduce, theres no worry of accidental over population.  You can't keep them if theyre under 50" because if you could, people like you would mindlessly kill all of them and completely decimate the population skewing the states studies on tiger recruitment to maturity.  Killing a lot of muskies would only allow the state to bump plant numbers.

Of course they're still in the lake.  Theres no way to eradicate them.  The tigers have controlled their numbers, something the trout could not do before.  If the trout were all large 10lb fish eating the squaws, there wouldnt have been a squaw problem to begin with.  But the trout werent, and the fishery began to suffer.  Maybe the fishery has declined because of squaw recruitment and now the state has implemented a solution.  As the lake ecosystem acclimates to the tigers we can and will begin to see changes, some of which we can see now like the lack of squaws.

Before condemning the study based on party affiliation, maybe you should take a closer look at the study.  The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife actually conducted the study, which is an on going study.  The musky group only aids in helping the state with funding and personal.  It's like how the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation helps out with elk, the local musky groups help with the tigers.  People saying that a Tiger will eat milfoil are very mis-informed.  They are doing the same thing you are doing though, spreading propaganda in support of ones ideals without any scientific or factual backing.  You're biased hate towards Musky groups baffles me.  The groups were formed AFTER introduction of the muskies to support the program.  It's hard to make a non-existent group happy.  The groups dont pick the lakes either, the WDFW does.

A rough fish is just that, a non game fish species.  Carp, Tench, Squaws, Goldfish, etc are considered rough fish.  Musky already eat each other, just as bass eat other bass and trout eat other trout.  It's the cycle of life.  Theres still plenty of bass in the lake, and plenty of trout.  My dad has been going there since the 50's as well, and his family before that.  My girlfriend owns property up Kettle Falls Rd and her father and grandfather logged the highway into Republic from Wauconda.  She still has family and many friends up there.  None of them, nor my father has experienced this "lack of bigger rainbows".  We find them just fine.  Lakes change, ecosystems evolve and adjust, and fish change their habits, patterns, and forage based on such.  Again, it's fishing, not catching.

[DuckDr.Duke]

Teal101-
Biased hate, that's pretty powerful. I am definitely not a bias person. Furthermore, my point is that Tiger Muskies should be in a larger lake and not Curlew. Why are they still in Curlew since as you say ecosystem has balanced itself? Muskies are not a natural predator in that lake.

The introduction of Tiger Muskies should only be in a lake that can substantiate the population of them. Curlew lake is not the lake to withold that type of fish. The Tigers Muskies should be in lake where the resources can hold a fish of that kind.

I don't agree with your reasoning on why you are only allowed to keep a 50" muskie. The reason is that people want to be able to keep a trophy fish, and a fish over 50" is likely to weigh 35-40 pounds or more. How many trout, bass and squaws do think a 35-40 pound muskies eats every day?

What is a natural predator on the tiger muskie? Nothing.

Disease will occur with any species, and muskies being sterile are really not the natural specie that they were intended to be. So, their biology has been altered to create a fish that the Nwtigergroup and WDFW want.

Furthermore, you don't have control on what a predator species is eating, such as a tiger muskie, bass, trout or squaw. Why would you introduce a species that is so aggressive that it will eat everything in sight?

How would you control what a 4' tiger muskie is going to eat all day. The only way to control it s to remove the species. Tiger muskies were never a natural predator in that lake, its false introduction of a species to control another species. The only control of the tigers is the numbers, not the amount of fish or ducks they eat. You are letting a false species into an area that cannot hold that type of fish.

Why do you think the state and other groups routinely stock 80,000 + trout a year. People are sure not catching that many trout. Most likely to satisfy the muskies. If they didn't the muskie would starve to death.

Why don't you provide some data to support how much fish a juvenile muskie will eat?.

And you are correct Curlew is too small, and that is my point. You have a lake that was once full a big trout, now you catch 12-20" routinely. Until the muskies are gone, you will never see holdover trout as large as they once were.

I am not against introduction of muskies into a lake that can withhold the species. I guess you and I will agree to disagree.

[teal101]

Teal101-
Biased hate, that's pretty powerful. I am definitely not a bias person. Furthermore, my point is that Tiger Muskies should be in a larger lake and not Curlew. Why are they still in Curlew since as you say ecosystem has balanced itself? Muskies are not a natural predator in that lake.

The state only introduces as many muskies as the lake can support.  Negates your small lake theory.  Evergreen Reservoir in the Quincy Lakes is 1/4 the size of Curlew and has Tigers in it and is doing just fine.  Science and facts support my reasoning.

The introduction of Tiger Muskies should only be in a lake that can substantiate the population of them. Curlew lake is not the lake to withold that type of fish. The Tigers Muskies should be in lake where the resources can hold a fish of that kind.

Curlew can support the Muskies.  It has been for almost a decade now.  Theres still a ton of fish in the lake.  There is no evidence to say otherwise than a few old timers crying wolf about them eating all the trout.

I don't agree with your reasoning on why you are only allowed to keep a 50" muskie. The reason is that people want to be able to keep a trophy fish, and a fish over 50" is likely to weigh 35-40 pounds or more. How many trout, bass and squaws do think a 35-40 pound muskies eats every day?

Why dont you look into that.  The size limit used to be 36".  The WDFW upped the size to 50" to preserve the population since they do not naturally reproduce.  If they allowed harvest of 36" muskie the population would collapse and be ineffective at rough fish control.  Again reasoning backed by science and studies and not speculation.  A 40" Tiger is a trophy in my mind, I'd still practice catch, photo, and release regardless of size or limit.  Most bass fisherman do too, the state has a slot limit you know allowing one large fish.

What is a natural predator on the tiger muskie? Nothing.

It doesnt need one, it cant reproduce and take over a lake.  The natural predator is management by the state.

Disease will occur with any species, and muskies being sterile are really not the natural specie that they were intended to be. So, their biology has been altered to create a fish that the Nwtigergroup and WDFW want.

Actually Tigers occur naturally in many lakes where true Musky and Pike are present.  The WDFW as well as many other state organizations have realized the potential for such a fish and are now breeding them.  Again you throw out the club name when they have nothing to do with the creation of Tigers.

Furthermore, you don't have control on what a predator species is eating, such as a tiger muskie, bass, trout or squaw. Why would you introduce a species that is so aggressive that it will eat everything in sight?

No we dont, but studies here in WA, in NM, in MI, WI, MN, etc show what they are eating and squaws, suckers, tench and other rough fish are preferred over trout and bass.  Bass eat trout as well.  BTW Bass are a NON NATIVE species to WA state, but the trout in Curlew have adapted just fine.  They dont eat everything in sight, they eat what they prefer when they are hungry.  More fear mongering.

How would you control what a 4' tiger muskie is going to eat all day. The only way to control it s to remove the species. Tiger muskies were never a natural predator in that lake, its false introduction of a species to control another species. The only control of the tigers is the numbers, not the amount of fish or ducks they eat. You are letting a false species into an area that cannot hold that type of fish.

Bass arent a natural predator either, and we have NO control over their population because they reproduce naturally.  If you control the numbers, you control their intake.  A tiger will eat x amount of fish/ducks/muskrats a week.  If you only introduce as many fish as the lake can support you control your variable quite well.

Why do you think the state and other groups routinely stock 80,000 + trout a year. People are sure not catching that many trout. Most likely to satisfy the muskies. If they didn't the muskie would starve to death.

Because the state plants them in hundreds of lakes that barely support trout or the lakes get heavily over fished.  People are catching that many trout.  You're absolutely ignorant if you think they plant 80,000 trout to feed the muskies.  You do know theres only seven lakes in the entire state with muskies right?  Why would they plant trout in Wapato lake in Chelan when theres no musky in it if all their plants are to feed the musky?  It's because the lake cant naturally support the number of trout harvested by anglers like many other lakes in this state.  Curlew has been getting plants since well before musky introduction.  Your ideas are flawed.  The state plants trout in lakes they have no business being in, or to re-populate a lake they poisoned.

Why don't you provide some data to support how much fish a juvenile muskie will eat?.

Why dont you provide some data to back up ANY of your "facts".

And you are correct Curlew is too small, and that is my point. You have a lake that was once full a big trout, now you catch 12-20" routinely. Until the muskies are gone, you will never see holdover trout as large as they once were.

Now you're skewing what I said.  I stated Curlew is too small to support plants of 4,000 Musky. It is not too small to support plants of 500 Musky.  That is why the state plants 500, not 4,000.  It is still full of big trout.  I have no problem catching them.  Fishing, not catching.  Change your technique and you might be surprised.  The Musky have changed the ecosystem and fish behavior and you need to adapt to compensate.  The big fish are still there.

I am not against introduction of muskies into a lake that can withhold the species. I guess you and I will agree to disagree.

Curlew can and does withhold the species just fine.  it has been for nearly 10 years now.

We will disagree.  The problem is false information gets spread and then people cry wolf and latch on to false ideals that end up harming something good.  I hate to see people killing Musky out of fear they are eating all the trout when that is 100% false.

[teal101]

Nice fish teal
I think all that was being said was the trout fishing and bass fishing are not what the use to be.
About the squaw fish yes the tiger Muskie have seemed to wipe them out pretty well. But at what cost. Let me ask you and everyone else how many duckling do you see up there in the early summer.I have not personally been up there in two years due to work schedules.it is still a nice place to go and catch fish just not like it use to be when I was a kid and would go spend two or three weeks at a time with my grandparents and parents. If you stayed at Tiffany's you meet my grandpa Jack I'd bet ya , And there's no denying the old man knows how to catch fish up there

We've seen quite a few either Barrows or Common Goldeneyes nesting on the lake with chicks.  A few mallards and wigeon here and there.  Large groups of geese as well.

I probably have met him, lots of nice people that stay at Tiffanys.  We stay there every year out by the point and the old dock