rules proposal: no limit on pan fish

[Amx]

We should be sure to tell the WDFW that there SHOULD BE A LIMIT on the pan fish. Otherwise people WILL be keeping hundreds at a time. That would decimate the population in most lakes real quick.

[riverhunter]

I'm ok with no limits on panfish in areas where native species will be impacted especially salmon. Lakes I would rather have them keep limits on panfish.

[TrackerPro16]

I can't imagine 'fishing out' panfish. There have been a lot of lakes that were 'Rehabilitated' due to an over abundance of panfish though...

[hewesfisher]

I support the rule proposal. Too many lakes full of stunted panfish competing for resources.

[Onmygame]

Used to be there was no limit on spiny rays.

I cannot think of one instance where any particular species of panfish was fished out - of any particular body of water.

It is unlikely that there is enough pressure anywhere to decimate these resilient fish.

I'm with the no limit group.

onmygame

[Fishin'Daze]

I believe that a limit should be in place - not for size (like most lakes) but instead for numbers. Here's why;
Each summer I make a trip to SD to visit family and FISH, FISH and then FISH some more. 30 years of fishing SD has given me great memories of numerous smallmouth, largemouth, white bass, perch, catfish, carp and best of all northern pike. For the most part we fish five or so local lakes including the one my parents live on. Six years ago two of our favorite lakes "panfish" reg's where changed to a no limit fishery for size and numbers. In SD panfish is different species of fish as here in WA.
Both of these lakes was our favorites for largemouth bass - high numbers and size - average 20 or so a day and 3-5 lbs. Also these lakes were really good for northern pike - I mean REALLY good. These two lakes were good fishing for panfish as well - although we don't target them but would catch them often. Perch are a big fishery in SD.
We along with numerous local fishing buddies have noticed a huge decrease in our fishing success in these two lakes in the past two years while the other lakes are still very productive. Used to see huge schools of fry swimming while we fished these two lakes but rarely see this anymore. The numerous bass and pike seem harder to find to the point we may forget about these two lakes.
It appears that the food fish for the bigger fish has decreased to the point that it has effected the larger fish.
Common sense says "yeah this will happen" if the food fish for larger fish decreases.
Keep in mind SD doesn't have the population or the fishing pressure we have here in WA. Salmon decreases here in WA is a good example.
So yeah we do need a limit for "panfish" if we want healthy numbers of larger fish.
But........ I guess we could just be happy with 10 inch trout planted each year.

[riverhunter]

I believe that a limit should be in place - not for size (like most lakes) but instead for numbers. Here's why;
Each summer I make a trip to SD to visit family and FISH, FISH and then FISH some more. 30 years of fishing SD has given me great memories of numerous smallmouth, largemouth, white bass, perch, catfish, carp and best of all northern pike. For the most part we fish five or so local lakes including the one my parents live on. Six years ago two of our favorite lakes "panfish" reg's where changed to a no limit fishery for size and numbers. In SD panfish is different species of fish as here in WA.
Both of these lakes was our favorites for largemouth bass - high numbers and size - average 20 or so a day and 3-5 lbs. Also these lakes were really good for northern pike - I mean REALLY good. These two lakes were good fishing for panfish as well - although we don't target them but would catch them often. Perch are a big fishery in SD.
We along with numerous local fishing buddies have noticed a huge decrease in our fishing success in these two lakes in the past two years while the other lakes are still very productive. Used to see huge schools of fry swimming while we fished these two lakes but rarely see this anymore. The numerous bass and pike seem harder to find to the point we may forget about these two lakes.
It appears that the food fish for the bigger fish has decreased to the point that it has effected the larger fish.
Common sense says "yeah this will happen" if the food fish for larger fish decreases.
Keep in mind SD doesn't have the population or the fishing pressure we have here in WA. Salmon decreases here in WA is a good example.
So yeah we do need a limit for "panfish" if we want healthy numbers of larger fish.
But........ I guess we could just be happy with 10 inch trout planted each year.

I agree and disagree with some of your views. First let's start off by saying that this isn't SD and comparing Washington to the Midwest is like comparing apples and oranges. Second most spiny rays are not native to washington and in rivers and streams they can disrupt the native ecosystem. Bigger fish like bass and walleye feed on salmon smolts which in return decreases the amount of smolts making it out to sea. They already face predators in the ocean and having these spiny rays feeding on them in rivers is a double whammy. The main reason salmon spawn in the rivers historically is because the offspring face A LOT less predators then in the ocean. Salmon are biologically programmed to return so they have no other options but coming back and forcing their offspring to face these new predators. We need to protect native species before invasive species and that's where the no limit rule should apply. That is where I disagree.

Where I do agree is that not everyone is into salmon fishing and that's where landlocked lakes come into play. I'm all for having a vibrant spiny ray fishery as they are fun to catch, sometimes easier to catch which in return is fun to bring the kiddos out for outdoor activities, and third some of them are really tasty. These fish in my opinion don't cause a real threat to other species residing in landlocked lakes. On the other hand some species benefit as the offspring sometimes become forage fish for species like trout. There is plenty of trout lakes in our state if that's what your into but we should also have some great spiny ray fisheries if we want to keep the sport of fishing appealing to the next generation. Like I said only in areas that cannot impact native species.

This is just my opinion and nothing is based on scientific studies but rather solely my opinions. I could be totally wrong for all I know but if I am right I believe this is how they should be managed.

[253Caster]

Its a simple math problem when you look at what this could do to some of the smaller acreage bodies of water in Washington. Of course some of the big lakes wont see as much of a negative impact or could even benefit from removal of bag limits, but the smaller lakes are full of species that use these fish as a main forage for a good duration of the year. This could destroy some of those fisheries. I think a better approach is to specify or determine what bodies of water could benefit and go from there.

OPPOSED

[Fishin'Daze]

riverhunter,
Good comments. Comparing SD to WA is an example of how reg's can change fishing in a body of water. So yes this can be a good comparison.
Panfish for the most part are natural to our WA lakes. Rainbow trout aren't. These are the facts. Yes some non-native fish have been introduced into some of our lakes which I have mixed feelings about.
As far as "it's all about the salmon" comment again yes some lakes are natural for the salmon to spawn in and grow somewhat before returning to the sea - if possible. But here in WA we have landlock salmon along with panfish and they seem to be doing just fine. It's not the panfish decreasing the salmon runs, I believe, but rather numerous other contributor's such as pollution, loss of habitat, over fishing (local and global) and mismanagement.
Think about it - the panfish have been here ever since I've been fishing WA (50 years) and not to long ago (10 years or so) salmon fishing was still pretty good and great 20 years ago and beyond.
OOOOHHHHH CRAP................I'm getting into "it's all about the salmon" discussion. SORRY GUYS.
Keep the panfish limit for numbers but not size.

[riverhunter]

My comments for salmon are not based on lakes but rather rivers and streams and never did I say it's all about the salmon. Example the columbia river which is overpopulated by panfish. I'm aware of the all the obstacles salmon face nowadays especially overfishing and pollution. But rather my comments reflect the fact that yes there should be a limit in lakes where no native species are a factor even if the lake supports landlocked salmon as most pf the landlocked salmon (kokanee)are stocked and actually do just fine living among panfish. But where native species are a factor we should eliminate the limits. This in itself will not bring the runs completely back but at least give a few more native fish a fighting chance. By the way before the late 1800s, the only resident freshwater fish living in Washington State were trout (cutthroat and rainbow), char (bull trout and Dolly Varden), nonanadromous salmon (kokanee), whitefish, burbot, northern pikeminnow, suckers and smaller fish generally unimportant to anglers so yes rainbows are native to lakes in Washington. Perch, all bass species, bluegill, crappie, walleye, carp and catfish are all introduced species. I'm not for removing these species in lakes where the majority of native species are trout example Potholes Reservoir, Moses lake on the east side, lake Stevens and Tapps lake here on the Westside, but I am for reducing numbers in streams and rivers.

[Fishin'Daze]

riverhunter,
Wow. Didn't mean to upset you or anyone by giving an example of what I've experienced in my fishing adventures. Yes you're correct about native species way back in the 1800's but I live for what is best for today. Do you still drive a horse and buggy to your fishing spots?
And yes you did bring the salmon into this "panfish" reg's discussion.
I don't mean to upset you but really-if you can't have your own comments without bashing someone's then maybe it's best not to comment.
I could easily argue most of your past comments but I chose not to as I appreciate what other's have to say without bashing them.
This website is getting more and more about I'm right and your wrong mentality - sad when instead we could enjoy each other's viewpoints.
Like other's I'm looking elsewhere for my fishing information.

[riverhunter]

No not upset at all. I was just reiterating that I never said it's all about salmon. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on anything including fishing proposals. That is why they are proposals because they want to hear different opinions from ppl like us. It seems to me that you are the one getting upset. I am just voicing my opinions about how I think panfish should be managed to better the environment so yes salmon is important when we speak of how to manage non native species whether its now or in the past. By the way isn't that what having forums are for. To have discussions about a certain topic whether we agree or not?

[meandermeadows]

I haven't been on here much, so I apologize if my questions are redundant...but I have two questions.

1) What qualifies as a panfish?
2) Did this go through?

Thanks guys

[JoshH]

I haven't been on here much, so I apologize if my questions are redundant...but I have two questions.

1) What qualifies as a panfish?
2) Did this go through?

Thanks guys

Typically your spiney rays, such as perch, pumpkin seeds, blue gill, and crappie.

[spokey9]

I'm good on the limits being taken off and I don't see it really impacting populations in very many lakes. Getting past the native/non native arguments, the truth is the vast majority of fishing hours on lakes in this state are spent pursuing trout or kokaneee. The next largest user group is bass fishing. The sheer numbers of people targeting panfish isn't that big and the relatively few that can effectively catch enough panfish a day to harm the population are those that for the most part don't keep more than a few a day anyways. So I like the option of keeping as many as I want but truth be told it wouldn't be more than a handful anyways. I primarily like less warden effort on enforcing panfish regs that really don't amount to much of a good or bad impact on their populations. Leaving more effort for enforcing compliance in more sensitive fisheries. Just my opinion though.

[Shad_Eating_Grin]

Used to be there was no limit on spiny rays.

I cannot think of one instance where any particular species of panfish was fished out - of any particular body of water.

It is unlikely that there is enough pressure anywhere to decimate these resilient fish.

I'm with the no limit group.

onmygame

For years (decades) and to this day, the statewide general rules have had the "no limit" on most of the panfish:

CRAPPIE, NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW,
PEAMOUTH CHUB, PERCH, SUCKERS,
SUNFISH, CATFISH (except CHANNEL),
ROCK BASS, STRIPED BASS:
No min. size. No daily limit.

The exceptions in the existing rules are for bass, and some bodies of water (like Silver Lake and Moses Lake) where there are some limits for perch/crappie.

[hewesfisher]

For years (decades) and to this day, the statewide general rules have had the "no limit" on most of the panfish:

CRAPPIE, NORTHERN PIKEMINNOW,
PEAMOUTH CHUB, PERCH, SUCKERS,
SUNFISH, CATFISH (except CHANNEL),
ROCK BASS, STRIPED BASS:
No min. size. No daily limit.

The exceptions in the existing rules are for bass, and some bodies of water (like Silver Lake and Moses Lake) where there are some limits for perch/crappie.