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

#76
SB, You may be reading more into my words that I wrote. Jack answered the questions above before you got a little steamed. I'm an eclectic fisherman, not strictly trout, and I didn't want to see a world class fishery (see Proposal #9) ruined for a trout fishery that appears to be the livelihood of a few guides. I feel the needs of many need to be considered before the wishes of a few. I am not dislexic, I do have an interest in #9 (but no axe), no war of words with a guide that may be wallet related, and I do think I'm in the correct league. This is participation in democracy.

Tie some more flies and take a deep breath.
Leech, who's talking about Proposal #9 on this post? If you want to deal with that one I suggest you start a thread regarding #9. You seem incapable of composing a comment that is not skewed off topic or that does not contain insults. This is my last reply to you. If you cannot conduct yourself as a gentleman, then I'd prefer you stay off my post.
 
#77
Not having fished the UC or having fished for Walleye, I don't want to judge the merits of either for sportfishing. I would like to comment on a line from Zen's recent post about whose needs the state is looking out for. They have responsibility to all residents of the state in regulating our natural resources, not just those of us who like to fish or hunt. Preserving our NATIVE natural resources is a widely recognized societal "need," which, in some cases can and should trump the "needs" of a relatively small community of resource users, whichever side of the sportfishing community one may be on.

Dick
Excellent comment. Thanks. Now I'll take that breath another poster advised me to take. In the fresh air of that clarity you succinctly provided. Somehow, through the years, WDFW has veered away from their original mission statement. Now they're expected to provide fisheries for the eclectic & those guys from Alabama & Wisconsin who want the fish they had back home.
 
#78
I just dont think that a walleye fishery is more important to the environment than any NATIVE population. I really dont even think it should be left in the hands voters who are at best, semi educated about the subject (myself included). The state should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and take action to save our one of the last pure examples of OUR STATE FISH. All native species were here long before us and regardless who wants to fish for what, we need to respect nature first and foremost.
Thank you for the clarity. We need you.
 
#79
Pike "fiasco"? The current catch & kill solution has not been in effect long enough to draw any conclusions from anybody in the field that I know of, so if you have study info that indicates otherwise I'd like to know about it. And you're right, "knee jerk" reactions don't get anything done.

Nice to know that larger walleye are not the "big bad spawners". Yet they are spawners. And big eaters. Option #4 is included in Proposition #15, not as a "knee jerk reaction" but because most of the biologists working on the problem see it as the best solution, though admittedly the hardest to implement due to push-back from perch fans. At this point, nobody can project the outcome of any of the options, so let us not jerk. If one does not prove out, we can try another. At this point, you & I are simply arguing personal opinions. And you are certainly entitled to yours. My purpose is not to twist anybody's arm regarding option #4, but rather to steer readers toward the WDFW comment box. That you let your opinion be heard there, whatever it may be, is good enough for me.
I am active in the warm water community and the response I have heard from many Pike fisherman is they are no longer heading east to fish for them due to the fish they are catching being stunted. The nets took care of a lot of the larger individuals and destroyed any trophy value the fishery had. The less people fishing, the less problem fish caught. Since it has not been in effect long enough to draw any conclusions as to it's effectiveness, why is the state giving the option to implement the same solution again in another fishery? It's akin to implementing hatcheries on all the Columbia tributaries that are struggling before we knew the consequences. Now here we are trying to reverse that fiasco.

Your own quoted paper states "Specifically, walleye ages one through three appeared to be the primary culprit. Walleye in this age group were estimated to have consumed 469,991 kokanee fry, of which 100% were consumed by this age group; and 3,766 yearling kokanee, of which 54% were consumed by this age group." In other words, the young fish are the ones causing the majority of the issue. Implementing a slot limit reduces the amount of fish in this age group while still allowing recruitment to larger mature fishes and maintaining the sport fishery in the area. Attempting to catch and kill and eliminate a species is impossible. There is almost no way to remove Walleye from the system, at this point you have to coexist with them by proper management. I'd like to see a study done where option #4 has been successfully implemented. It was a knee jerk reaction implemented on the Pike and the only success I have heard of has been the destruction of a sport fishery and stunting of the population. I'm not here to sway anybody either way either, I'm just supplying facts and ideas from the opposition. I'd prefer to have commenters that are informed from both sides writing their comment. Not only will they learn or understand better, but their comment may include important points for their choice as opposed to a plain "I support #4".
 
#80
Jack, Thanks for the answers for my questions. I'm satisfied. Now to see the difference between the proposals between the Upper Columbia and the Middle or Lower Columbia. Around the tri-cities and below is a world class fishery for giant walleye. It would be a shame to waste a fishery such as that. Kettle Falls area doesn't have the same size walleye and isn't (in my opinion) the same quality of fishery.

The other Proposal is #9 and it corresponds with option 4 on Proposal #15.
I havent fishes above Grand Coulee, But I know the area below pumps out fish 15+lbs every year. It is turning into the world class fishery the tri cities area has become.
 
#81
Excellent comment. Thanks. Now I'll take that breath another poster advised me to take. In the fresh air of that clarity you succinctly provided. Somehow, through the years, WDFW has veered away from their original mission statement. Now they're expected to provide fisheries for the eclectic & those guys from Alabama & Wisconsin who want the fish they had back home.
WDFW is managing all it's resources like it is supposed to, not just catering to one crowd. The comment above really sheds light on how you feel. I guess you feel it necessary to destroy the sport fisheries for most introduced warm water fish to help the plight of the PNW salmonids. I'd assume that you are informed and intelligent enough to know that that is an impossible feat to accomplish.
-Proud eclectic Washingtonian.
 
#82
I'd like to see a study done where option #4 has been successfully implemented.
The state of Idaho is doing just this on the South Fork of the Snake, with unlimited take for rainbows, in an attempt to reduce the impact of rainbows on the native fine-spot Cutthroat population. It has worked to reduce numbers, but not as well as they hoped, because the main problem is that fly fisherman, who are the predominant fishers on the SF Snake, want to C&R everything and have a hard time keeping fish!

D
 
#83
The state of Idaho is doing just this on the South Fork of the Snake, with unlimited take for rainbows, in an attempt to reduce the impact of rainbows on the native fine-spot Cutthroat population. It has worked to reduce numbers, but not as well as they hoped, because the main problem is that fly fisherman, who are the predominant fishers on the SF Snake, want to C&R everything and have a hard time keeping fish!

D
Do you have a link to a report? I'd be interested in reading it. Not calling you out as a liar, I just like to be informed. I havent seen a study that has proven catch and kill has worked to reduce overall population in such a way to benefit the target recovery species.
 

Pat Lat

Mad Flyentist
#84
Just wanted to point out the fact that the scenario in #3 looks good because some of the bigger fish that get left in the system could theoretically attract more people to the fishery and in turn, fish out the smaller ones.
So in theory this sounds good, but we're forgetting that a trophy fishery for walleyes is stupid because when people go fishing for big walleye my guess is that they want to keep them anyway. Not a lot of gear guys would be attracted to the lure of "you might catch trophy size fish but then you have to let it go or you'll have to stop fishing" so I dont think big walleye is any sort of attraction unless you can harvest them. They're not especially known for their fighting tenacity, acrobatics, beauty, nobility or really anything other than their taste.

A 15lb walleye is great, but a trout half that size is exponentially better for a trophy fishery.
 
#85
Just wanted to point out the fact that the scenario in #3 looks good because some of the bigger fish that get left in the system could theoretically attract more people to the fishery and in turn, fish out the smaller ones.
So in theory this sounds good, but we're forgetting that a trophy fishery for walleyes is stupid because when people go fishing for big walleye my guess is that they want to keep them anyway. Not a lot of gear guys would be attracted to the lure of "you might catch trophy size fish but then you have to let it go or you'll have to stop fishing" so I dont think big walleye is any sort of attraction unless you can harvest them. They're not especially known for their fighting tenacity, acrobatics, beauty, nobility or really anything other than their taste.

A 15lb walleye is great, but a trout half that size is exponentially better for a trophy fishery.
You dont know Walleye fisherman then. I know many people who fish well past dark for Walleye at the off chance of catching a big girl and then letting her go. It's no different then the people who fish for large trout then release them. You lump the catch and kill crowd of fisherman with every other gear fisherman and really show your ignorance to gear fisherman. How do you think Bass fishing works?
 

o mykiss

Active Member
#86
WDFW is managing all it's resources like it is supposed to, not just catering to one crowd. The comment above really sheds light on how you feel. I guess you feel it necessary to destroy the sport fisheries for most introduced warm water fish to help the plight of the PNW salmonids. I'd assume that you are informed and intelligent enough to know that that is an impossible feat to accomplish.
-Proud eclectic Washingtonian.
Impossible why? Politically or biologically? Both? I take your earlier points that it is debatable whether Option 4 is the most effective way to deal with the problem, but I can't tell if you're even admitting there is a problem or if you're suggesting that the state should be maintaining warm water fisheries in places where there are still native salmonids.
 

Pat Lat

Mad Flyentist
#87
Well you are right about something I dont know very many walleye fisherman in washington, I know many more fisherman in washington that like to fish for the salmon and trout that are indigenous to the region. So it seems as though you're speaking for relatively few people, as if it were even about one group or another. Maybe we should be looking out for the species that has no where else to go instead of figuring out who can argue better (its me by the way).

As for my previous post I still do not agree that a catch and release fishery for walleye will attract even as much attention as the tiger muskie fishery in washington, which is pretty much quarantined in small lakes and reservoirs like it should be.

And quit with the "you just don't understand gear fishing argument" its ridiculous. I wasn't lumping together all gearheads as catch and kill types, although the majority are.

And people C&R bass fish most often when there's nothing else to fish for, they put them back cause they taste like shit.
 

Pat Lat

Mad Flyentist
#88
I would like to point out one more thing. It is important, at least to me, that the public and future generations not get accustomed to having a "trophy walleye fishery" in this state.If you want one of those go to the midwest. The invasive and illegally introduced population of walleye should be treated as a nuisance.
Native species should ALWAYS be protected by the people that inhabit THEIR habitat.
Lets all quit masterdebating on the subject unless there truely is a new point of view to consider.
 
#89
Impossible why? Politically or biologically? Both? I take your earlier points that it is debatable whether Option 4 is the most effective way to deal with the problem, but I can't tell if you're even admitting there is a problem or if you're suggesting that the state should be maintaining warm water fisheries in places where there are still native salmonids.
Biologically. Extirpating a species from a body of water that large without destroying other native fauna is impossible. Even on smaller waters it has been tried before with limited success even when poisoning with chemicals. I am admitting there is a problem there. I am also suggesting the state should be managing the warm water fisheries in places where there are still native salmonids.
 
#90
Well you are right about something I dont know very many walleye fisherman in washington, I know many more fisherman in washington that like to fish for the salmon and trout that are indigenous to the region. So it seems as though you're speaking for relatively few people, as if it were even about one group or another. Maybe we should be looking out for the species that has no where else to go instead of figuring out who can argue better (its me by the way).

As for my previous post I still do not agree that a catch and release fishery for walleye will attract even as much attention as the tiger muskie fishery in washington, which is pretty much quarantined in small lakes and reservoirs like it should be.

And quit with the "you just don't understand gear fishing argument" its ridiculous. I wasn't lumping together all gearheads as catch and kill types, although the majority are.

And people C&R bass fish most often when there's nothing else to fish for, they put them back cause they taste like shit.
You are the one who broke it into one group or another by calling out gear fisherman. Relatively few people? I'd like to know where you get your numbers from? Warm water fisheries attract millions of anglers every year. Lake Roosevelt attracts a large quantity of them to fish for Bass and Walleye. The other large majority go there to fish for the genetically mutated triploid trout that are in the system. It is not about gear fisherman vs fly fisherman. It's not about warmwater vs salmonids. It's about proper management.

Being that there will be a slot limit to allow retention of 16 smaller table sized fish and the release of the trophy fish, I dont forsee it being an issue. As stated by another member and myself, many of the avid Walleye fisherman already practice catch and release on the trophy class fish and keep the smaller fish for food. I am pretty close with members of both chapter 57 and 60 of Muskies Inc and participate in the fishery. I dare say the walleye fishery as managed already attracts a larger crowd, and increasing the bag limit of slot fish to 16 while promoting release of the larger fish will not limit that. In fact, the current rule is already setup as such where 8 fish can be kept, only one trophy fish over 22".

That is one of the most ironic and asinine comments I've seen here. I Bass fish year round because it's awesome and I enjoy it. I'll tell ya what, some breaded and deep fried smallies taste a hell of alot better then those pellet fed mutants out of Roosevelt. I guess all the tournament guys have nothing better to do either huh? Your ignorance is showing again.