Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Sturgeon confirmed in merrill!

3K views 32 replies 20 participants last post by  Irafly 
#1 ·
Went to Merrill lake a second time this year but this time spotted a 6 to 7 foot sturg. in 7 to 8 feet of crystal clear water. both my friend and I wearing polarized glasses could see it plaIn as day as it slowly moved away from our boat.

This fish looked larger then the head rise we saw last time at the lake, it was 6 to 7 feet and over 100 pounds. I have fished and watched sturgeon at bonneville dam and willamette river FOR OVER 20 YEARS. watching 8 ft. sturgeon chasing shad and eels clear out of the water moving very fast to capture the food source would only tell me that these fish are taking a toll on one of the only fly fishing only lakes in the region! living in oregon I could still give info to WDFW or my friend lives in washington who also saw it very clearly!

The question is --- WHAT SHOULD BE DONE???
 
#3 ·
Agreed. If it is a 6'+ long sturgeon, then it is likely that the particular fish you saw may have been 30+ years old. I'm not possitive, but I doubt Merrill has been designated a fly fishing only lake for longer than that.......you see where this is going.
 
#4 ·
Care more about the fish he could be very old.
 
#6 ·
"Merrill Lake was formed when lava flows from Mt. St. Helens blocked the stream valley. In the early 1930's the lake was planted with eastern brook, rainbow and Montana black spots. Brown trout were introduced in 1987 and have proved to be very successful."

So this lake was once part of a river system.

Jay
 
#7 ·
I say it should be moved for its own sake and for the genetic coding it could pass on to other sturgeon. Unless there are more than one in there and they have figured out a way to spawn, that sturgeon needs to be someplace else.

Ira..
 
#9 ·
I say it should be moved for its own sake and for the genetic coding it could pass on to other sturgeon. Unless there are more than one in there and they have figured out a way to spawn, that sturgeon needs to be someplace else.

Ira..
Dollars to doughnuts there is a breeding population if there is just a random 6 footer in there. They have no problem reproducing in still water. Lets leave the (mis)managing of washington's fisheries to WDFW.
 
#8 ·
Went to Merrill lake a second time this year but this time spotted a 6 to 7 foot sturg. in 7 to 8 feet of crystal clear water. both my friend and I wearing polarized glasses could see it plaIn as day as it slowly moved away from our boat.

This fish looked larger then the head rise we saw last time at the lake, it was 6 to 7 feet and over 100 pounds. I have fished and watched sturgeon at bonneville dam and willamette river FOR OVER 20 YEARS. watching 8 ft. sturgeon chasing shad and eels clear out of the water moving very fast to capture the food source would only tell me that these fish are taking a toll on one of the only fly fishing only lakes in the region! living in oregon I could still give info to WDFW or my friend lives in washington who also saw it very clearly!

The question is --- WHAT SHOULD BE DONE???
v-rib chironomid fished 6 feet under an indicator.
 
#11 ·
So some think it should stay!

I guess sturg used to migrate up the little creek some 40 or 50 miles away from the columbia and reside in the creek. I can see sturg maybe migrating up the lewis river to be in swift-merwin-Yale but from what I know the furthest a sturgeon has been known to go up the sandy is about 4 miles (the gauge hole) and some have been caught on the lower clackamas very low in the river. I would guess the sandy smelt run would cause this but that has been gone for many years now. as far as I know merrill is much higher in elevation then the lewis system so sturgeon must of migrated up a tiny little west slope creek and live their in the 1800's so it should stay. My best guess is that it is illegally introduced and is feeding on native west slope cutthroat trout and the triploids and browns. but what the heck it's a fish and should be left alone. no wonder so many of our trout fisheries have been destroyed in both our states by warm water invasion. IT'S A FISH LET IT BE! maybe someone can give some history of sturgeon in this creek system. oh well it's your lake, seems the majority rules - rule on!
 
#13 ·
Peach - no hex yet that I saw but we didn't stay into the afternoon. sunny - no wind - fishing was not good for us with chiro's, nymphs under indi's or casting to the shore. trolling produced a few but nothing to keep us interested . doesn't mean on a cloudy or windy day that could change, water was very clear, nice but made it tough.

I'm thinking a 4 to 5 inch minnow pattern trolled fast with my 12 wt. outfit - captain "we need a bigger boat"
 
#15 ·
I think them feeding on triploids is a good thing:) .

I'm pretty sure any lake you can drive to, that is within an hour drive of the Columbia, has had sturgeon in it at some point in time.
 
#16 ·
I think it's pretty cool that there are at least a couple sturgeon in there that may date way back. If they are remnants of Merrill being part of a river system in the past, that are able to spawn in still water - awesome! I don't know jack about sturgeon, but, maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment as to whether the silty bottom at Merrill that also is the reason it produces one of the state's only hex hatches may be conducive to their spawning?

I'm +1 on leave the sturgeon alone (or try to hook up on one and release it...), btw. As stated above, if there are sturgeon there of that size, they are not the result of some bucket brigade.

I love the hex hatch there. I hope I can make it up there in the next few weeks.
 
#18 ·
Well if it was introduced at least it is a native species to the PNW. Regardless of how it got there, I would advise against harvesting it for depredations sake. I highly doubt that WDFW will want to go after it either. So I guess everyone will just have to wait until she dies......................................I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
#19 ·
Other than roe, what is the target value of sturgeon?

I have never seen fish that large so I do not know what they are about.

I know that they are sought in the Columbia, but I have no idea what they do with them. I know there is a "slot" size limit on them and there was one caught in Idaho long ago that was something like 11 feet long.
Other than that, to paraphrase Sgt. Schultz, I KNOW NOTHING!
 
#20 ·
Other than roe, what is the target value of sturgeon?

Sturgeon are great eating fish and one can cook and eat them many different styles.

I fished the hex hatch last year and will head down that way in a couple weeks. I'm thinking that I should bring my kayak not my float tube in the off chance one was to hook into the Sturgeon it would be a much safer sled ride across the lake.
 
#21 ·
A bucket brigader could have introduced the fish years ago. Sturgeon are hearty enough to be transported easily with the right equipment. Because of the special regulations on the lake, I doubt that the state will allow the fish to be targeted, unless it could be brought to the attention of a sturgeon recovery project.

If possible I think the fish would be much happier back in the Columbia, but that's part of the reason why this discussion has started in the first, personification! We take that out and keeping the fish in there just seems ridiculous.
 
#22 ·
You lost me there Irafly. You think the fish would be better off in the Columbia but you say that sentiment is a result of personification (by you I assume). Then you say the notion of leaving the fish in the lake is ridiculous when personification is taken out of the thought process? Do you see the contradiction here? So what destination would you pick that is free of personification? Ambiguous much?

By the way, capturing, safe transtportion and healthy release of this fish would be very, very expensive in a relative sense, given the potential benefits of the outcome. Do you have experience transporting live fish of this size? Just another way for WDFW to waste our tax money and reg fees doing stupid things that don't amount to much in terms of fish conservation or improved fishing opportunities. That fish has been in there for decades to reach that size even if he/she came from a bucket, which does seem likely given the gradient to the lake. I've fished that lake many times and I have a hard time accepting the notion that a sturgeon or two is noticeably affecting the fishing in that lake considering the annual plants and protective regs.

2 cents worth.
 
#23 ·
I'm sorry I lost you. Most of the arguments seemed to be about leaving the fish in the lake for what seemed like personification reasons, versus reality, so I used the same argument (which I then quite obviously contradicted) as others did, but in the opposite.

I have been part of moving fish this size safely and the cost is not that great. The largest cost is in gas pulling a heavy trailer. Have you been involved in something like this? As I mentioned before, I doubted the states involvement in a project like this, but there are several sturgeon recovery projects out there that with state permission would likely look into the possibility of moving such a fish to help with diversifying genetic stock. If this were to happen I imagine the fish would be better off back in it's natural habitat, it would have the opportunity to reproduce, and it could make the Merrill fishery better. Sounds like a win, win, win to me. So again take personification out, why keep it in there?

You lost me there Irafly. You think the fish would be better off in the Columbia but you say that sentiment is a result of personification (by you I assume). Then you say the notion of leaving the fish in the lake is ridiculous when personification is taken out of the thought process? Do you see the contradiction here? So what destination would you pick that is free of personification? Ambiguous much?

By the way, capturing, safe transtportion and healthy release of this fish would be very, very expensive in a relative sense, given the potential benefits of the outcome. Do you have experience transporting live fish of this size? Just another way for WDFW to waste our tax money and reg fees doing stupid things that don't amount to much in terms of fish conservation or improved fishing opportunities. That fish has been in there for decades to reach that size even if he/she came from a bucket, which does seem likely given the gradient to the lake. I've fished that lake many times and I have a hard time accepting the notion that a sturgeon or two is noticeably affecting the fishing in that lake considering the annual plants and protective regs.

2 cents worth.
 
#25 ·
There was a guy caught a few years ago in the Vancouver BC area with some in the trunk of his car. If I remember correctly they released two back into the Fraser river and the other one died,they did not know how long that they had been in the trunk but stated there was no moisture in the trunk except that which had came from the fish.
 
#26 ·
I don't think sturgeon prey on adult fish, or even juveniles much. They mostly are scavengers and bottom feeders.

From Wikipedia regarding diet of white sturgeon in the Columbia river:
"As adults, the white sturgeon's diet somewhat varies. This is dependent upon the river systems it lives in. In the Columbia River system, dead fish, crustaceans, and mollusks are all popular prey." The piece also mentions the huge shad population in the Columbia providing a large source of dead fish for scavenging.

D
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top