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

#31
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.
I was curious as to where you got your info from. Thank you.
 

jwg

Active Member
#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
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
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
I really don't think that sport anglers could put much of a dent in the walleye/SMB fishery, even if there were no limits. There just isn't enough fishing pressure on that huge body of water. Put a bounty on them like pikeminnow, and that might attract more anglers.
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.
 

jwg

Active Member
#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
 

bjornjon

Active Member
#39
Done. This fishery is a great Washington treasure that's becoming more and more popular. Like you say though, the more friends the river has the more we can protect it.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
 

EHB86

Active Member
#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.
 
#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.)