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. WDFW is managing all it's resources like it is supposed to, not just catering to one crowd. The comment above really sheds light on how you feel. I guess you feel it necessary to destroy the sport fisheries for most introduced warm water fish to help the plight of the PNW salmonids. I'd assume that you are informed and intelligent enough to know that that is an impossible feat to accomplish.
    -Proud eclectic Washingtonian.
     
    P-FITZ98 likes this.
  2. The state of Idaho is doing just this on the South Fork of the Snake, with unlimited take for rainbows, in an attempt to reduce the impact of rainbows on the native fine-spot Cutthroat population. It has worked to reduce numbers, but not as well as they hoped, because the main problem is that fly fisherman, who are the predominant fishers on the SF Snake, want to C&R everything and have a hard time keeping fish!

    D
     
    Steve Bird likes this.
  3. Do you have a link to a report? I'd be interested in reading it. Not calling you out as a liar, I just like to be informed. I havent seen a study that has proven catch and kill has worked to reduce overall population in such a way to benefit the target recovery species.
     
  4. Just wanted to point out the fact that the scenario in #3 looks good because some of the bigger fish that get left in the system could theoretically attract more people to the fishery and in turn, fish out the smaller ones.
    So in theory this sounds good, but we're forgetting that a trophy fishery for walleyes is stupid because when people go fishing for big walleye my guess is that they want to keep them anyway. Not a lot of gear guys would be attracted to the lure of "you might catch trophy size fish but then you have to let it go or you'll have to stop fishing" so I dont think big walleye is any sort of attraction unless you can harvest them. They're not especially known for their fighting tenacity, acrobatics, beauty, nobility or really anything other than their taste.

    A 15lb walleye is great, but a trout half that size is exponentially better for a trophy fishery.
     
    Steve Bird likes this.
  5. You dont know Walleye fisherman then. I know many people who fish well past dark for Walleye at the off chance of catching a big girl and then letting her go. It's no different then the people who fish for large trout then release them. You lump the catch and kill crowd of fisherman with every other gear fisherman and really show your ignorance to gear fisherman. How do you think Bass fishing works?
     
    fifafu likes this.
  6. Impossible why? Politically or biologically? Both? I take your earlier points that it is debatable whether Option 4 is the most effective way to deal with the problem, but I can't tell if you're even admitting there is a problem or if you're suggesting that the state should be maintaining warm water fisheries in places where there are still native salmonids.
     
    Steelie Mike and Steve Bird like this.
  7. Well you are right about something I dont know very many walleye fisherman in washington, I know many more fisherman in washington that like to fish for the salmon and trout that are indigenous to the region. So it seems as though you're speaking for relatively few people, as if it were even about one group or another. Maybe we should be looking out for the species that has no where else to go instead of figuring out who can argue better (its me by the way).

    As for my previous post I still do not agree that a catch and release fishery for walleye will attract even as much attention as the tiger muskie fishery in washington, which is pretty much quarantined in small lakes and reservoirs like it should be.

    And quit with the "you just don't understand gear fishing argument" its ridiculous. I wasn't lumping together all gearheads as catch and kill types, although the majority are.

    And people C&R bass fish most often when there's nothing else to fish for, they put them back cause they taste like shit.
     
  8. I would like to point out one more thing. It is important, at least to me, that the public and future generations not get accustomed to having a "trophy walleye fishery" in this state.If you want one of those go to the midwest. The invasive and illegally introduced population of walleye should be treated as a nuisance.
    Native species should ALWAYS be protected by the people that inhabit THEIR habitat.
    Lets all quit masterdebating on the subject unless there truely is a new point of view to consider.
     
  9. Biologically. Extirpating a species from a body of water that large without destroying other native fauna is impossible. Even on smaller waters it has been tried before with limited success even when poisoning with chemicals. I am admitting there is a problem there. I am also suggesting the state should be managing the warm water fisheries in places where there are still native salmonids.
     
  10. You are the one who broke it into one group or another by calling out gear fisherman. Relatively few people? I'd like to know where you get your numbers from? Warm water fisheries attract millions of anglers every year. Lake Roosevelt attracts a large quantity of them to fish for Bass and Walleye. The other large majority go there to fish for the genetically mutated triploid trout that are in the system. It is not about gear fisherman vs fly fisherman. It's not about warmwater vs salmonids. It's about proper management.

    Being that there will be a slot limit to allow retention of 16 smaller table sized fish and the release of the trophy fish, I dont forsee it being an issue. As stated by another member and myself, many of the avid Walleye fisherman already practice catch and release on the trophy class fish and keep the smaller fish for food. I am pretty close with members of both chapter 57 and 60 of Muskies Inc and participate in the fishery. I dare say the walleye fishery as managed already attracts a larger crowd, and increasing the bag limit of slot fish to 16 while promoting release of the larger fish will not limit that. In fact, the current rule is already setup as such where 8 fish can be kept, only one trophy fish over 22".

    That is one of the most ironic and asinine comments I've seen here. I Bass fish year round because it's awesome and I enjoy it. I'll tell ya what, some breaded and deep fried smallies taste a hell of alot better then those pellet fed mutants out of Roosevelt. I guess all the tournament guys have nothing better to do either huh? Your ignorance is showing again.
     
  11. Correct. And I think proper fisheries management must include strategies to suppress/remove foreign and invasive species, regardless of their economic value. Especially if they are in the process of displacing economically, ecologically and culturally valuable species.
     
    Steve Bird and Pat Lat like this.
  12. no I just hate to see an invasive species killing off native stocks. REGARDLESS of who, or how many people oppose or support it, the real thread is about getting opinions on the subject, which you seem to have made you argument clear. in that case quit calling people ignorant without actually knowing them and I'll quit posting things that are intended to piss you off,

    I'm tired of it and I'm sure everyone else is too.
     
  13. Double like
     
  14. Which is what this proposal is doing. It is providing options to suppress the population to sustainable levels. I just disagree that option #4 is going to do this better than option #3. Removal as I have said before will be impossible. They should also remove the triploids should they not? They are non native and prey upon fry and smolt.
     
  15. What I'm posting is facts in support of option #3 and countering opposition in order to make an informed argument one way or the other. I believe the only one I've called ignorant is the one making ignorant statements, or to your admission trolling.

    Tight lines.
     
  16. If triploids someday develop functioning reproductive organs then ya probably.
     
    triploidjunkie and David Dalan like this.
  17. From old netting and fish-wheel practices to modern over harvest in all its forms, the power of the take is inarguable. Harvest can and has caused the disappearance of a uncountable number of fish stocks. In lakes. In rivers. In the oceans. So I simply cannot accept the presumption that warm water species cannot be effectively exterminated. Will they be? Only time will tell, certainly worth a shot.

    When it comes to invasives, i take a rather unpopular zero tolerance stance. Wild Horses, white tail deer in the west, browns in north america, transplanted rainbows are all worthy of extermination.
     
    Steve Bird and Pat Lat like this.
  18. Alpine 4x4, I like spiney rays as well. I live close & fish the Pend Orielle for pike & smallmouth regularly. I'm still catching big pike there. A buddy who lives in Ione caught the largest of his life this fall. Maybe we just got lucky on the days we fished. Due to its dams, I don't see the Pend Orielle any longer viable as a self sustaining trout fishery, as the Tribe over there claims it is trying to recover. I certainly don't see the worry over pike predation on trout, while the Tribe operates a smallmouth bass hatchery & introduces them into the river. It's a mess. And I'm not overly concerned about fenestration of pike into the Reach, frankly. They've been in the Spokane Arm for years, but LR & the upper Reach are far less than ideal environments for them. I could be wrong, but I doubt they'll ever be a real menace here. And I like the idea of people being able to fish walleye too, where they are viable and not a threat to a more valuable native fishery, which appears to be the case in the LR drainage. As for option #4, WDFW does give a brief synopsis of the reason at their site & also on the link I provided, so nobody is simply drumming that option without explanation, as you suggest. And of course, I agree, it's probably impossible to completely remove walleye now, though I'm not ruling out the possibility in the future. When I consider the size of the water, the level of fishing pressure, the numbers of fish, I just don't see the surgical removal of any particular age group, as your info & opinion seem to suggest, but rather an across-the-board diminishment in numbers as anglers catch & or release the spectrum of age groups. Besides, surveys show that as it stands right now, walleye fishermen, on average, aren't even catching the current limit. So the way I see it, lifting regs altogether won't have much of an affect at all, except to provide a bit more balance. With walleye eating 70% of the native redbands spawned in the Reach, we still have an amazing fishery. If the measure gains us another few % that might ensure sustainability.
     
    triploidjunkie and Pat Lat like this.
  19. There is certainly a diversity of opinion here. Yet it seems everybody wants to do the right thing, as they see it. Want to thank all who commented at the WDFW site & who weighed in here. You are saints. I updated the article at my blog & strung some photos along with it to show you what this is really all about. I'll be posting some more info there, as well as study links for those who are interested. Check out the two wild rainbows over 30" that Jack Mitchell caught this fall. Peace. http://columbiatrout.blogspot.com/
     
    Pat Lat likes this.
  20. Steve,
    Nice site and blog. Those who haven't visited it - should. I found it informative and insightful.
    Our remaining native fish need all the help and protection they can get. History has shown they can't do it for themselves - it is up to us.
    I voted for option # 4.
     
    Steve Bird likes this.

Share This Page