Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Bird, Nov 30, 2012.
You are right. That would suck. And if that was actually the case in this instance, I would not waste my time with this. However that is not the case. We have the trout, it's not a 'maybe'. (Did you read the links?) As a native rainbow fishery, as regards average size (19") & numbers per mile, the American-Canadian Reach segment is about on par with the Kenai.
Removeing the dams is a great Idea , Except what would heat & light my home and where would I plug in my car to charge the batteries so I can go fishing?????
Blame the walleye, not the politician or loss of habitat.
Simplistic. But don't worry. Those of us who are reading & actually working on the problem are portioning the blame around, as necessary.
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.
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.
Funny thing in that DFW article. Walleye are not just below Ice Harbor on the Snake anymore. The folks I know who chase them do so at the mouth of the Palouse River. I'd bet $100 they are spawning in there in the Spring.
Like this one...
I understand that David. But no one knows for sure, even the WDFW webpage you directed me says that their introduction is unknown. It could have been done illegally or a federal agency could have done it and records weren't kept or they were lost. So I have an issue with someone making a definitive statement about their being illegally introduced when it's not known for sure.
This was in a USGS document I looked at... "The person or agency responsible for introducing the species into Washington is uncertain. The federal government may have introduced them in the early 1960s (Dentler 1993). A sport fishery had developed in Lake Roosevelt, Washington, by the 1960s (McMahon and Bennett 1996)..'.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I knew anything about how they got here. I know there are lots of accounts of governments moving fish around. Would not surprise me if it was the Federal government, as Banks lake is water storage for federal projects (I think so anyway). Suppose one of the Reclimation folks was from the midwest and one day said "Eh there Olly, we got that new lake in Warshington, wanna put some of dem Wallaeyes in dere?"
(I have family from the Upper mid west, so I mock with love...)
Bruce, we can find no government agency copping to the deed. As one who has lived beside the Reach above LR since 1972, I can tell you that it has always been said, anecdotally, that a guy from Minnesota bucketed them into the lake back in the 50's. He lived locally, & I even heard his name back in the '70's, but can't remember it. Sorry. Call me Ally. However, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service does conclude that: "Walleye were illegally stocked into Lake Roosevelt in the 1950's." http://www.lrf.org/Env/Env-History.html That's good enough for me & my purpose, unless you have good evidence to the contrary.
You must be a very important person. How come I haven't heard about you before?
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.
We're all very important people, zen. Never heard of you either, before today. But now I have, so... Glad to meet you!