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

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Bird, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. 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.
  2. Bucket biologists were moving fish across the world in the 1800's. Sounds like from here... the stockings of the first fish were not official.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)..'.
  5. 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...)
  6. 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." That's good enough for me & my purpose, unless you have good evidence to the contrary.
  7. You must be a very important person. How come I haven't heard about you before?
    Steve Bird likes this.
  8. 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.
  9. We're all very important people, zen. Never heard of you either, before today. But now I have, so... Glad to meet you!
  10. I was curious as to where you got your info from. Thank you.
    Alpine4x4 and Steve Bird like this.
  11. You're welcome. Thanks for holding me to the wall. Keeps me from veering off track.
  12. 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
    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.

    Steve Bird likes this.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Done.

    Can some sort of netting be done to help eliminate the walleye?
    Steve Bird likes this.
  17. 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:

    Steve Bird likes this.
  18. 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.
    Steve Bird likes this.
  19. This would be an example of the 'troots' we are talking about.

Share This Page