Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Bird, Nov 30, 2012.
Waxing philisophical aside, I'm just glad we're all on the same side now
Thank you. Exactly where we should be. ~Your Compatriot
"A finger working does a helluva lot more good than a finger pointing."
Why haven't we been talking about targeting those walleye on a fly rod, My guess is full sink on a 6-7wt with a nice big gummy minnow or bucktail streamer, probably throw on a 30 lb bite guard. I would think to troll with gear for a while and once you start getting bites throw some flies at em. I would love to eat some nuisance walleye.
Thanks for weighing in & providing some clarity, Jack. Best to you & Jennifer on the holidays as well.
Those of you UC trout fans who might be intimidated by the sheer bulk of the walleye lobby take note: Jack Mitchell, this site's sponser, is one of the founding members of the Upper Columbia Native Fish Alliance (UCNFA) circle of writers working on behalf of the UC native trout fishery. It was largely through UCNFA efforts that we were able to get the trout limit reduced from 5 to 2. (We tried for 1, to allow for retaining the occasional deeply hooked fish, but there's always the compromise.) Jack, on his own, through his extensive connections, was able to garner over 200 letters on behalf of the limit change. Our awareness raising campaign was largely responsible for WDFW finally, last year, recognizing Sheep Creek as a redband natal stream & setting up a survey there. Our efforts contributed to the fact that Proposition #15 is on the agenda for 2012-2013. (I really hate to see Jack mistreated, because it is unfair & unfounded, & he is probably the most powerful friend the UC fishery has.) I set up the Upper Columbia Flyfisher site as a rally point for our activities. There is only a handful of us, but we are able to exert pressure. A handful more like who we have & I am confident we can steamroll The Crazy. We welcome anybody who would like to join us in our occasional letter-bomb projects on behalf of UC natives.
O heck yes. Do it a lot. You can even skip the trolling part & just get to it.
Perhaps have a WFF walleye derby and subsequent fish cook. I think a few dozen extra fisherman for a weekend might be able to help a little.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
"Spawner" Walleye are any fish age 4 and above. Thats fish right around 16" and just barely a pound up to the big girls. Many Walleye guys let the big trophy girls go and keep the smaller fish for the fry. They are letting spawners go as well as keeping spawners. I believe there is a problem and I believe there is a solution and a need for change. Your catch and kill solution is being implemented on Pike right now in Eastern Washington and all it has done is destroy the trophy fish population and leave a bunch of small stunted Pike. It doesnt work. If you're going to implement a catch and kill it needs a slot limit to encourage keep of smaller fish and release of the larger fish to keep angler interest in the species. If you stunt them out you will have less anglers fishing for them and in turn less fish being caught and removed. The larger fish, as pointed out above, are not the big bad spawners, they are just a small population of sexually mature Walleye. They are also predators on the smaller fish.
My stance is not to advocate keeping and increasing Walleye populations, it is to manage them properly before we end up with another fiasco like the Pike issue. Knee jerk reactions dont get anything done.
I've read where you say 5 fish limit and later where the limit is reduced to 2. Is the 5 fish limit an issue of the past? If so please cite current issues.
Also I would like to have addressed the web photos of fish dripping eggs and the photos later removed.
If there is a problem and solution I would prefer it if the facts were correct and current. Otherwise it's just another political advertisement.
I am not aware of fish dripping egg photos that were on our website and then removed. We post alot of photos as we are on the water with guided trips year round in various locations. At times the photos change daily. If there were such photos removed, they weren't removed because of this BS, I can tell you that.
Have you ever fished the American Reach of the Upper Columbia? Not one day is the same. The fish are incredibly mobile and the water fluctuates drastically. When doing a study with the WDFW one particular week - We tagged 125 fish. On one day way caught and released 5 fish in a particular zone, the next day the water had dropped so much that there was hardly any water in that zone. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot just go back to a spot and catch a fish by a particular rock on that river and expect to catch a fish the next day in that spot.
I would be happy to discuss ethics with you and Triploid Junkie anyday.... However, this is not the place. What started out as an effort to garner support for a great cause has ended up in the 'soap opera' 'name calling' factor that cyberspace allows. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. No wonder gaining headway is difficult for a good cause.
You know it is interesting; Steve Bird and I are competitors yet friends. working together to try and better something; novel concept.
Currently 5 fish are allowed to be killed in the Creeks (General Season). These creeks are merely for reproduction in the lower reaches. These creeks should be completely off limits for catch and kill in these crucial areas.
The 2 fish limit refers to the mainstem.
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.
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.
Leech, your continually off-topic comments on this thread have led me to wonder if: you are dyslexic; you have a personal axe to grind; or you are simply a troll seeking attention; possibly all three. If it is a war of words you're after, I'd advise against it, as I'm getting the distinct impression you are attempting to play way out of your league. Though you are right about one thing: this is in fact a political advertisement. See, that's how it works in a participatory democracy, we advertise our issue & try to gain support. What is your problem with that?
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.
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.
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.