Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

WDFW Proposal #15 A Fighting Chance For Washington's Greatest Native Trout Fishery

Article 
Tags
wdfw
14K views 111 replies 29 participants last post by  Steve Bird 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Having eaten once-abundant forage species like peamouth, pikeminnow and whitefish to the verge of extinction within Lake Roosevelt and the American-Canadian Reach segment of the Columbia above Lake Roosevelt, the out-of-control population of illegally introduced walleye rely increasingly more on native salmonids spawned in the Reach and LR tributaries as a source of prey, and as well, a despairingly high percentage of LR net-pen raised trout and kokanee. Sadly, it may already be too late for spawning populations of native strain kokanee. The redband and kokanee net-pen programs have, it comes to light, been costly and ultimately futile, with around 90% of net-pen fish eaten by walleye and smallmouth bass before reaching maturity. Here's the latest findings from Lake Roosevelt: http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P120243

We are on the verge of losing the greatest and most irreplaceable native trout fishery in our state, and some would argue the lower '48, and for no good reason but for pure, slow moving ignorance fortified with short-sighted faux-economic politics. As recently as 1990, while myself and other locals foresaw the collapse of our native fishery due to walleye predation, local fisheries agencies still thought that "managing" the Lake Roosevelt-UC drainage as a walleye fishery was a good idea, and, incredibly, they are still holding one foot on that crazy base, and that in spite of the most recent studies showing that walleye predation will destroy this fishery - and then, in turn, without sufficient feed, the artificial walleye fishery itself will collapse. We see the process accelerating, WDFW recognizes it, and has finally moved to ask public input on solutions. Of the suggestions WDFW puts forth, I and other UCNFA writers agree that only one of the proposals might have the impact needed to save the UC native trout fishery, and that is to remove ALL restrictions on the take of walleye and smallmouth bass. WDFW have set up a site to take your comments. Our native salmonid fishery is at the tipping point. I urge you to take a minute to let the department know your opinion. December 15th is the deadline for comments. Your input right now is crucial to the future of the Columbia's native fish. Your voice is stronger than you may know. Please leave a comment on Proposal #15: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/proposal.php?id=27

I live beside the best-kept secret in Washington flyfishing. Problem with that is: bad things happen in secret. If you'd like to learn more about the upper Columbia, its fish and fly patterns, from a local's perspective, check it out here: http://columbiatrout.blogspot.com/

 
See less See more
#2 ·
Nice post Steve! Just a point of clarity that I'm sure you know, but that may not be clear to all who read your post: Kokanee, while a salmonid, are not trout. After re-reading your post I could see that you did not intend to include kokanee in the general "trout" bucket, but just wanted to clarify for those that may want to comment on the proposal not to reference "kokanee trout".
 
#3 ·
question: haven't we already lost? I mean those kokanee and rainbows were sockeye and steelhead before the grand coulee right?

Kokanee are as much trout as any other member of the genus. And much more trout that bull trout, brook trout or lake trout.

Anyway how do you get rid of the walleye? Just wondering
 
#5 ·
I haven't read up on walleye fisheries and such but I'll assume that they are a bit like pike, wouldn't it make more sense to have limit on really big fish for two reasons 1) to maintain intrest in the fishery, if there are less small fish chances of a true trophy are much higher thus you can maintain fishing pressure more than an all out limit on everything which kills the big fish too reducing fishing pressure. 2) I'd assume big walleye also eat little walleye?
 
#15 ·
I'm just saying that it would suck to kill a crap ton of game fish, and be left with no trout and a crap ton of little game fish that nobody wants to catch (eating the trout and kokes).

Seems to me the best solution is to get rid of the dams ;)
 
#22 ·
Steve B. Where is your information that walleye were illegally introduced? From what I have read and heard, it is uncertain whether an individual or a federal agency that introduced them into Washington. I don't see it being illegal if it was the latter.
Bucket biologists were moving fish across the world in the 1800's. Sounds like from here...http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/ the stockings of the first fish were not official.
 
#23 ·
my point is, kill as many small walleye, bass, and catfish as possible but C&R trophy fish, that way you have a trophy fishery for invasives which will lead to the continual fishing pressure needed to keep predator numbers low. If all the big fish are gone, nobody will fish for them and continue to fish for (and eat) the little ones.

its my observation that in species population dynamics a lynch mob mentality never seems do the trick and often has unintended consequences.
 
#29 ·
my point is, kill as many small walleye, bass, and catfish as possible but C&R trophy fish, that way you have a trophy fishery for invasives which will lead to the continual fishing pressure needed to keep predator numbers low. If all the big fish are gone, nobody will fish for them and continue to fish for (and eat) the little ones.

its my observation that in species population dynamics a lynch mob mentality never seems do the trick and often has unintended consequences.
What you contend is pretty much what's been happening since the early '70's & it hasn't worked. And interestingly, the average walleye ran bigger in the early '70's before there was a limit on them. And I think "lynch mob mentality" is an imprecise analogy in this case. WDFW fisheries biologists inserted the no reg option into Proposal #15 because they consider it the most viable option, according to my conversations with folks in the field, as well as notes on the proposal.
 
#24 ·
#33 ·
The numbers of kokanee consumed by walleye are pretty convincing that something needs to be done.

from a news article:
"research in 2009-2010 found walleye, primarily, and smallmouth bass, to a lesser extent, were consuming:
• 95 percent of the kokanee fry being released in the Sanpoil,
• 40 percent of kokanee yearlings,
• 24 percent of redband trout yearlings,
• 27 percent of 2-3-year-old redbands.
While researchers are trying other methods of releasing hatchery kokanee, they need to thin out that gantlet of voracious walleyes to get more survival. Researchers found as many as 70 kokanee in one walleye stomach.
see this for more details
https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P120243
There is information on which age class walleye are the worst offenders, data that some might interpret as favoring removal of younger walleye but keeping bigger walleye, however the bigger walleye are also the major spawners.

I think the tribes are ahead of wdfw in implementing unlimited catch, bounties and gill netting to remove walleye and I favor wdfw getting on board.

From fishing in the Sanpoil arm this summer, I can say the current regs from wa vs the tribes are just confusing and counter productive to what should be the aim to remove these nonnative predators.

However, walleye organizations are up in arms, and wdfw has to deal with them too.

Jay
 
#35 ·
Thanks for sharing this info with readers here, Jay. Yes, the Tribes, as well as B.C. Fisheries, are way out ahead of WDFW as regards the value of the UC drainage above Grand Coulee. It's a long, sordid & depressing tale (chunks of it outlined in my blog), but with enough light & pressure from citizen writers like yourself, they may have no choice but to get caught up. That is our hope. The stats you have are for Lake Roosevelt fish. Walleye predation is a bit lower in the 6-knot flows of the American-Canadian Reach (about a 45 mile segment) above LR, where the greatest portion of natives abide. B.C., Tribal & WDFW studies seem to concur that invasive species predation accounts for the loss of about 70% of natives spawned in that segment of the the drainage, & that includes non-sport natives like the four species of sculpin found there. So walleye are not only eating the trout, but also the feed source that larger trout depend on. And recently, due to diminishing forage populations, we are seeing an alarmingly high percentage of mature trout bearing wounds inflicted by small walleye, which have the disturbing habit of biting prey that is much too large for them to handle, & many of these trout die as a result of the infected wound. And O yes the walleye guys are outraged. And they are activated. Hate to say it, but if the fly guys, as a group, were as vocal as they, we would do a much better job of stopping The Crazy that continues to erode the quality of our native fisheries -- so my deepest thanks to you & those who took the time to comment.
 
#36 ·
True, LR is a large body of water, however fish there tend to concentrate in specific hard-bottom areas & these are well-known & utilized by anglers. During low water periods, as in early spring, fish are very concentrated. Targeting them isn't much of a problem. Which does make bounty fishing a viable option, & actually one that Tribal Fisheries is proposing, & I agree.
 
#38 ·
The colville tribe has started gil netting in the Sanpoil arm, while the Spokanes have a bounty on the Spokane arm.

Now that we haver more information in this thread, remember the original posters purpose. Please act politically and coment on the WDFW rule proposal:

Your voice is stronger than you may know. Please leave a comment on Proposal #15:http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/proposal.php?id=27

Jay
 
#42 ·
Done. Option 4 for me. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Steve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Bird
#44 ·
Thanks for bringing this to everyones attention Steve. This is sort of a back to the top post so more people will have a chance to read and comment to WDFW.

PS, there's a pretty neat little book out there that I coincidentally just ran across and picked up last week and I'm enjoying it a lot, called "Upper Columbia Flyfisher". For whatever reason I'd never seen it before and the bookstore in Port Townsend had a good supply of them. Well worth reading, and I have no commercial or personal connection.

Thanks for your efforts Steve.
 
#47 ·
Thanks for bringing this to everyones attention Steve. This is sort of a back to the top post so more people will have a chance to read and comment to WDFW.

PS, there's a pretty neat little book out there that I coincidentally just ran across and picked up last week and I'm enjoying it a lot, called "Upper Columbia Flyfisher". For whatever reason I'd never seen it before and the bookstore in Port Townsend had a good supply of them. Well worth reading, and I have no commercial or personal connection.

Thanks for your efforts Steve.
;-)
 
#45 ·
Done. Thanks for the headsup. On a similar note, remember a few years back when several ethically challenged guides were red-raping the hell out of the spawning redbands? When several concerned people in the flyfishing community started a petition to stop the insanity, it sparked a mini war with many locals and the offending guides. The outfitter actually had the audacity to defend these practices, even though overnight the pictures plastered all over his website (depicting huge native bows being pulled off their reds and dropping eggs) disappeared. Luckily we won that battle, and those crucial tributaries were closed down during the main spawning season. (The red-raper is a site sponser, so I won't name names.)
 
#46 ·
Thanks for leaving a comment with WDFW. On the other note: I am well aware of the situation you mention, & can tell you that there was no local mini war. The guides you mention were not robbing redds, but fishing near the creek mouths, which was legal for them at the time. They were fly fishing (from boats, in the mainstem) & releasing their catch; meanwhile bait fishing smoker fillers lined the banks killing limits. The closest thing to a 'war' I know of regarding that situation was when a guide-hating & overzealous soul attacked one of the guides at the boat ramp, & then the same guy, again, attacked the guide while he was giving a presentation at a show. And, sadly, though there is now an area closure of the mainstem at the creek mouths, those creeks are still open to fishing during the general season (during the spawn) & bait fishers are still walking out with 5-fish stringers of steelhead sized spawners. I certainly wish those who worked to get the creek mouth closures in effect would join in & help us get those creeks closed or under special regs, which, btw, that sponser guide you mention is diligently trying to do. There's always more to a story than most know.
 
#48 ·
Steve, Would you class the guide actions of fishing spawners at creek mouths ethical? There's a difference between what's legal and what's ethical. It's been in some of the hot discussions on WFF over the years.

Also, I had a one day license to fish Rufus Woods last winter. I thought it said I could fish the Columbia but the streams running into the Columbia were closed. I must have missed something as it appears some are open. What's the difference and what didn't I read correctly. I'll probably be back up in 2013 (provided the Mayans were wrong) as I'd like to try Triploidjunkie's fishing methods again.
 
#50 ·
Steve, Would you class the guide actions of fishing spawners at creek mouths ethical? There's a difference between what's legal and what's ethical. It's been in some of the hot discussions on WFF over the years.

Also, I had a one day license to fish Rufus Woods last winter. I thought it said I could fish the Columbia but the streams running into the Columbia were closed. I must have missed something as it appears some are open. What's the difference and what didn't I read correctly. I'll probably be back up in 2013 (provided the Mayans were wrong) as I'd like to try Triploidjunkie's fishing methods again.
In the case of the UC, those fish at creek mouths are, more precisely, pre-spawn fish. That said, if you fish anywhere in trout country during winter, you are fishing for pre-spawn fish, regardless the location (unless a put & take pond). And then, one might expand to say that we are always catching potential spawners. What metric would you use to define 'ethics'? In any case, not being the arbitor of ethical, & not knowing the nuances involved, I cannot pass judgement on any individual example. I've found ethics to be fairly transitory & ephemeral in nature. I confess there was a time, in my youth, when I was a killin mofo. I'd happily kill my limit any time I could - & I did it often. It was the times. That was what we did & I didn't know any better. That was a long time ago. Hope nobody will judge me by that now. As I became informed my ethics changed. As I become more informed, my ethics change more.

Rufus Woods is a little out of my territory so I'm not familiar with the regs governing all of its tribs. I do know that most of the Columbia tribs up this way fall under the general season regs, hence the winter closures.
 
#51 ·
Having eaten once-abundant forage species like peamouth, pikeminnow and whitefish to the verge of extinction within Lake Roosevelt and the American-Canadian Reach segment of the Columbia above Lake Roosevelt, the out-of-control population of illegally introduced walleye rely increasingly more on native salmonids spawned in the Reach and LR tributaries as a source of prey, and as well, a despairingly high percentage of LR net-pen raised trout and kokanee. Sadly, it may already be too late for spawning populations of native strain kokanee. The redband and kokanee net-pen programs have, it comes to light, been costly and ultimately futile, with around 90% of net-pen fish eaten by walleye and smallmouth bass before reaching maturity. Here's the latest findings from Lake Roosevelt: http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P120243

We are on the verge of losing the greatest and most irreplaceable native trout fishery in our state, and some would argue the lower '48, and for no good reason but for pure, slow moving ignorance fortified with short-sighted faux-economic politics. As recently as 1990, while myself and other locals foresaw the collapse of our native fishery due to walleye predation, local fisheries agencies still thought that "managing" the Lake Roosevelt-UC drainage as a walleye fishery was a good idea, and, incredibly, they are still holding one foot on that crazy base, and that in spite of the most recent studies showing that walleye predation will destroy this fishery - and then, in turn, without sufficient feed, the artificial walleye fishery itself will collapse. We see the process accelerating, WDFW recognizes it, and has finally moved to ask public input on solutions. Of the suggestions WDFW puts forth, I and other UCNFA writers agree that only one of the proposals might have the impact needed to save the UC native trout fishery, and that is to remove ALL restrictions on the take of walleye and smallmouth bass. WDFW have set up a site to take your comments. Our native salmonid fishery is at the tipping point. I urge you to take a minute to let the department know your opinion. December 15th is the deadline for comments. Your input right now is crucial to the future of the Columbia's native fish. Your voice is stronger than you may know. Please leave a comment on Proposal #15: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/proposal.php?id=27

I live beside the best-kept secret in Washington flyfishing. Problem with that is: bad things happen in secret. If you'd like to learn more about the upper Columbia, its fish and fly patterns, from a local's perspective, check it out here: http://columbiatrout.blogspot.com/
Your own article contradicts this suggestion "Predation studies indicated walleye and smallmouth bass consumed fewer smolts as they got older (Beamesderfer 2000; Beamesderfer and Ward 1994; Zimmerman 1999). Most smolts were eaten by walleye smaller than those typically caught by anglers, so angler bounties on these fish would provide little benefit to the salmon survival." No limits will hardly increase the catch of smaller fish, it will increase the amount of medium size to larger adults caught for food. A slot limit promoting take of smaller fish and leaving larger fish would be most beneficial in my opinion. The state has seen excellent results with this strategy when used with bass. The population of smaller fish is kept suppressed, freeing up resources for the rest of the ecosystem, while larger trophy adults are left in the ecosystem. Generally the state allows for the taking of one trophy fish per day. I went with #3.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top