WDFW Seeks Public Comment on Liberalizing Limits for Bass, Walleye, and Channel Catfish

[Yard Sale]

 

[Rob Allen]

View attachment 212715

Did you remove it to see what it was?

 

[Yard Sale]

I did. It was some sort of salmonoid. It was a bit digested so not much scales to go by and I’m not a smolt ID guy. We caught lots of fish like this though.

Bonk and release for me, I’ll take zero heavy metal(primes is the end of my range) intake thanks.

 

[Jim Ficklin]

Bonk and release for me,

Well aren't you ethical.

 

[JACKspASS]

I dont understand why people feel the need to protect non indigenous, invasive species. They may not be consuming truckloads of smolts, however, they are taking over a niche in an important ecosystem.

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

I dont understand why people feel the need to protect non indigenous, invasive species. They may not be consuming truckloads of smolts, however, they are taking over a niche in an important ecosystem.

..... Well 'cuz, I happen to love Brown trout!

 

[Yard Sale]

Well aren't you ethical.

Is there something unethical about it?

You know how many 12-14” smallies I catch in a mile of the Columbia every year?

 

[O' Clarkii Stomias]

I ever understood why there was a bounty on pike minnows and not bass and walleyes. And yes, I have heard the conjecture that the indigenous pike minnows due to slackwater have more of an impact than the invasive spiney rays. I'm not buying it.

 

[Rob Allen]

I dont understand why people feel the need to protect non indigenous, invasive species. They may not be consuming truckloads of smolts, however, they are taking over a niche in an important ecosystem.

No, they are filling a niche that was previously unfilled.

I don't think anyone is talking about protecting invasive species. People are talking about how stupid it is to have public meetings about it under the guise of saving killer whales.

 

[Teal101]

I dont understand why people feel the need to protect non indigenous, invasive species. They may not be consuming truckloads of smolts, however, they are taking over a niche in an important ecosystem.

Taking over what niche? They have been here for over 80 years, if there was a niche to takeover they would have already done so and any effects been apparent. They're a scapegoat for the department and environmentalist groups so they dont have to spend money, time, and resources on the more expensive or controversial things like actually developing better habitat, breaching dated useless dams, and getting fish back in the upper half of the Columbia. The science doesnt back up this proposal at all, the only thing they will accomplish with this ruling is decimating a year round fishing opportunity and further alienating themselves from the angling base in this state. The state will never rid itself of the warmwater fish, thats a fact. Instead they should manage them properly. Studies on the Lower Yakima showed that the 8-12" class of Smallmouth was not only the largest population, but also the most piscivorous when it came to Salmon smolts. A targeted slot limit allowing large harvest of this size class while protecting the larger fish would help all the feel goods pretend like they're doing something for the salmon while also helping sustain a recreational fishery. Unfortunately for WDFW this bill is being pushed on them and the biologists are being told to keep their mouths shut when it comes to whether or not they agree with the proposal.

 

[zen leecher aka bill w]

last I checked most lakes in central wa were stocked with "invasive" rainbow trout that weren't there before.

 

[Rob Allen]

last I checked most lakes in central wa were stocked with "invasive" rainbow trout that weren't there before.

That's the sad truth. For the most part, among anglers, this is an issue of angling species preference and not at all related to the conservation of native species.


Davis lake in Oregon is a great example.
Lots of anglers want to poison the lake to get rid of bass, then turn around and plant it with hatchery trout.
Destroy an exceptional fishery for an invasive species to create a mediocre fishery for a different invasive species.


Oregon and Washington have totally destroyed their native fisheries, they are gone and are not coming back, ever.
Destroying high quality non native fisheries is stupid fisheries management.

 

[longputt]

So maybe this is feel good legislation and not ecologically driven. Anybody know for sure?

I'll dig around and see if I can find it, but I've read a paper showing that smallmouth were pretty hard on Lamprey.

 

[Vladimir Steblina]

last I checked most lakes in central wa were stocked with "invasive" rainbow trout that weren't there before.

Yeah, I had that argument with a fish biologist.

I pointed out to him that "WATER" is a "invasive" substance in most of eastern Washington.

 

[longputt]

"WATER" is a "invasive" substance in most of eastern Washington.

That is too funny...I'm still laughing as a I type.

Because there was no water, potholes or agriculture in E WA my grandfather's duck decoys are divers; bluebills, canvasback and redheads. I wonder if we had mallards in 1930?

I saw an interesting paper, from a study funded by BPA, that said rainbow trout need to be removed from the Yakima and Naches drainages to protect Lamprey and Salmon!