Northwest Fishing Reports

hey this is a link to the information on the killing off of sprague lake very informative

info on sprague lake

couple years ago they used 2-4D to kill a bunch of the millfoil. Phase two I guess. From what I understand it was the residents that requested the rehab because boating was becoming almost impossible.

it's a bunch of crap....my .02 cents

Mossy wrote:it's a bunch of crap....my .02 cents

Sure is. F&W thinks every lake should be a trout lake. Thats what its really about. Sprague is the only lake in under a 2 hour drive from Spokane with walleye or channel cats that i know of. Next nearest place is Potholes or Banks unless you drive an hour and a half to Roosevelt and are willing to eat the metallic fish from there. Not me. Another lake full of hatchery trout is not what i want. I wish they would just leave it alone.

honestly i think it sounds like a good idea. get rid of the carp and tench that are seriously affecting the water quality, along with the walleye, which for whatever reason are so hard to catch out there. i think sprague has a chance to become an excellent bass fishery, and they would be the apex predator in that bunch unless they threw the tiger muskies in there, which i hope they dont. there's no reason to stock the muskies if they kill off all the garbage fish, and id rather not have to worry about them while bass fishing personally.

Bodofish wrote:couple years ago they used 2-4D to kill a bunch of the millfoil. Phase two I guess. From what I understand it was the residents that requested the rehab because boating was becoming almost impossible.

Wrong lake, they have never had a millfoil problem in Sprague. In fact, except for a few weeds on the edges, and a strong alge bloom (Blue-Green) that gets thicker than pea soup, there are no weeds in Sprague.

As for what I think, well, I guess I've responded on the good and bad of this before.

I will miss the Walleye, and I think that without the Walleye the pearch will come back and take over the lake. I think that the Carp will be back in large numbers within 5 years.

I think that if the F & W had done there job, and allowed for a more liberal Walleye limit 10 years ago, we would not be discussing this now, but would instead be talking about how great Sprague has been this year.

Paul & Sammi wrote:

Mossy wrote:it's a bunch of crap....my .02 cents

Sure is. F&W thinks every lake should be a trout lake. Thats what its really about. Sprague is the only lake in under a 2 hour drive from Spokane with walleye or channel cats that i know of. Next nearest place is Potholes or Banks unless you drive an hour and a half to Roosevelt and are willing to eat the metallic fish from there. Not me. Another lake full of hatchery trout is not what i want. I wish they would just leave it alone.

Its really too bad. Trout are great to fish for, but they get really old really quick, just because of all the trout lakes around. But the WDFW loves them because of all the money they make from them. They see that a lake is full of carp/tench and it actually gives them an excuse to kill the lake off. I was there last year and we caught a bunch of nice crappie, a huge bluegill and a couple of 1 lb trout. But I did also catch a small carp. But this was only in a couple hours of fishing. But I think the reason why they want to turn it into an all trout lake is because the lake fits the bill. Its the only decent sized lake around that area, trout are the most popular species in the state, and Sprague has a bunch of underground springs. To top it all off, they just rehabbed it 15 or 20 years ago. The last 5 have been the most productive. I don't get to fish Sprague as much as I would like, but its just another lake that wont be worth fishing (other than for pan sized trout and small panfish) for the next couple of years.

Paul & Sammi -
According to WDFW's release -

"If the lake is treated this fall, it would be re-stocked next spring with crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass, channel catfish, rainbow trout and possibly sterile tiger muskies. No walleye or smallmouth bass would be re-stocked. "

How does that make Sprague a trout lake?

The vast majority of public lakes in Washington are not trout only waters. Get a little tired of folks thinking each and every lake should contain their favorite fish. The warm water anglers have become as bad as the trout anglers/WDFW were 20 years ago in pusing their single minded agenda. It is just as wrong today as it was then. This state is blessed with an incredible diverse resource base that attracts a diverse angler interest. The key to successful fish management will be providing diverse recreational opportunities within the capibilities of the habitats. However those opportunities can not and should be provide in each and every lake.

From most accounts the fishing and recreation currently being provided in Spargue is just a shadow of what it was in the decade following the first Sprague Lake rehabilation. Privide some awful good fishing for a diverse mixed of fish species - what is wrong in trying to recapture that success? At the time of the first rehab many in the warm water angling community opposed the treatment but were surprised at the fishing that followed.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma wrote:Paul & Sammi -
According to WDFW's release -

"If the lake is treated this fall, it would be re-stocked next spring with crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass, channel catfish, rainbow trout and possibly sterile tiger muskies. No walleye or smallmouth bass would be re-stocked. "

How does that make Sprague a trout lake?

It look's like more of a trout habitat that can provide year round trout angleing because of the under ground springs, but if they are planting bluegill, crappie, bass, and chanal cat's what are you guy's complaining about?

They are planting more than just trout in Sprauge. But They are going to manage the lake more for trout fishing. This isnt a terrible ide but thats how they managed it the first time, and it busted back then and chance are it will bust now. For those of you that have been to sprague, you know there is nothing special about the lake, acoupl of run down resorts, the water is nasty, and the boat ramp are far from great. The best thing about sprague are nice walleye population, huge catfish and some huge bows. Now that they are going to kill it off the walleye population wont exist, the cats will take years to reach the size they are now. Also some lakes you just cant get the carp out of sprague is one of them. So after killing the lake off, we will have the same problem 10 years from now. Not to mention in most cases when a lake gets killed, it takes 5 years for it really be back to it potential.

I really find it hard to believe that they can't get enough people to catch the walleye...

though I tend to give WDFW a pass on this one and will grudgingly support their plan, it has always been my opinion that WDFW management has a thing about walleye... the thing is they don't like them......


That said, if they can prove their new plan will increase angler participation it will be a good thing...


it would be a better thing to increase angler participation by teaching participants how to catch the walleye

I've fished Sprague a couple times there in the past 3 years and cept for a couple nice perch and crappie my boys and I did lousy. We were trying for Walleyes mainly and also did try for Bass. Earlier this year we tryied for Walleye with a continget of NWwalleye.com people just to see if any Walleye could be caught. Anyway very few if any were caught. The water was really badly stained with water clarity only bout 6 inches. My boy did get a nice perch and crappie off the dock though.
When cleaning them at 4 seasons resort, a Washington Game Biologist came over and we chatted for a bit and talked about the rehab. He stated that they accually wanted to make it a trophy Largemouth Bass lake. The trout planted right after the rehab will be there just for a fishing oppertunity for anglers interest. Then in the spring will plant the largemouth, panfish and the rest of things. The Tiger Muskies were an option in the future and not the present. As for the rehab he was stating that they were going to dump the rotone(? spelling) in all inlets then truout the lake, all the way down cow creek and even possibly cow lake. Then they were going to put a dam on the outlet creek with a fish trap there to catch any carp or tench that may come back up from cow creek so not to get back in the lake. One thing for sure the lake is loaded with carp!!!!!! And it's prob. the problem of the water clarity.
My opionion it'll be sad to see the walleye killed off in this lake, but if it'll become a super Largemouth fishery super I'll be back. I like camping at the resorts and it's also a great lake not to worry about waterskiiers and jet skis because of the shallow areas of the lake.

I think they are trying to have a balance of predator/prey more than make it a trout lake.
The only problem I have with it, is that I don't believe it will work. Check back in 10 years It will probably have the same species in it and this will just be a waste of money, time and resources...

Just wondering when in the fall is the "kill off" is going to happen? I may have to take a run out there for some easy catch walleye...I fished out there a few years ago lost one really nice bass. I did notice a crap load of big carp..Has there ever been a bowfishing contest out there for those fugly things?That possibly might be a good way to get rid of the carp.I'm kinda up in the air though on the kill off...like the lake alot. Maybe in the end this will be for the better...anyone ever notice the huge flocks of white pelicans out there on the far west island? Are they there seasonally? see yah

Smalma:
I tire of people who form their opinions of others with little or no facts.

I read the WDFW fact sheet on Sprague several weeks ago and am well aware of the restocking plans. I am very glad it will contain that much diversity! And by no means do I feel every lake should have my favorite fish in it. I'm not even sure what fish that would be. If I picked the trout, then every lake and river within 100 miles has my fish. If I pick walleye, then there is one lake, soon to be 0. Would it really be so horrible if one lake in Eastern Wa had little or no trout fishing? I agree that the WDFW has a broader focus than 20 years ago thankfully, and thanks mostly to the efforts of these bass guys, in my opinion. But the favoritism towards stocked fish still persists in here and I still see publications and lake descriptions for my area that say things like how "illegally planted bass have caused a decline in trout fishing here" Those bass have sold a lot of licenses, rods and reels, and boats and put some serious money into the local economies too.

I remember the rise of the walleyes in Roosevelt in the 70's and how F&G (Fish and Game dept back then) wanted to, but could find no feasible way to rid the lake of them. They were considered a trash fish by F&G and they ate the trout. I went to meetings between them and the new Spokane Walleye club. I remember 7 Bays when it was nothing in 1980. And working as a contractor there from 1982-87 setting up mobile homes, putting up boat buildings, decks, patio covers..etc.. for the wave of people who came during those years primarily for the walleye fishing. The walleye brought a truly new fishing opportunity to Washington and walleyes brought new money to the area. And suddenly the walleye was almost a good fish to F&G. Their vision began to broaden some what during those years and they finally started acknowledging the many other sides of the trout coin.

I also remember what Sprague Lake was like in 1985 before the last rotenone treatment. Carp, sunfish and a million stunted perch mostly. Just about no one fished there. I was in favor of the treatment back then. After the rotenone, with no large predators or much competition for food, by 88-89 the trout fishing was fantastic, and for a few years there after. I was in that crowd of boats.

But a couple paragraphs down the WDFW fact sheet also says this: "The growing imbalance of predator fish has contributed to a decline in sport fishing. Due to predation, survival rates in trout stocked in Sprague Lake have been extremely low. Angler effort has declined"

I admit my views may be a bit skewed towards doubt due to some of WDFW's decisions and attitudes in the past. The carp were planted in lakes the late 1890's but it was the F&G who planted the lovely tench in some of our area lakes in the 1980's. (What were they thinking??) I try to focus on the things I see as improvements in attitudes towards more diversity and fishing opportunities, but the above statement made me pause when I first read it and think maybe things really haven't changed much. Walleyes eat trout, and trout fishing is the primary focus yet again. Don't get me wrong. I love trout! I had a nice brown for dinner last night in fact. But will overall "angler effort" really be increased it total, or will it simply be a shift of trout anglers from one lake to another? My bet is on the latter.

Since the May 2007 fact sheet was released, some new facts have surfaced. In an article which appeared in the Spokesman Review on September 2, 2007, regarding Sprague Lake, it states: "State biologists were embarrassed this summer to realize they had made a mathematical error in estimating the lakes walleye fishery for making their case that the predator-prey balance was way out of balance, shade of the Hubble Telescope error, they confused hectares with acres in converting the number of walleyes caught in sampling nets and estimated the lake had 65,000 walleye. The correct number is about 26,000". The WDFW 's initial estimate was nearly 3 times the actual corrected number. WDFW biologist Chris Donley also states in the article "For anglers to make a dent and control the walleye fishery, the exploitation rate should be 30-35 percent" He also notes the rate as being only 8.7%. This is the same number stated in the May 2007 WDFW fact sheet on Sprague lake. The 8.7% was based on there being 65,000 fish, not 26,000. Therefor the corrected exploitation rate number should now be around 25%. WDFW states that the predator-prey fish is way out of balance. Wouldn't this result in a stunted fish population due to intense competition for food? Yet Scott Haugen of the Four Season Resort states in the article that the average walleye he sees caught is about 2 lbs. It's also stated in the article that "8-14 lb catfish are caught regularly off their dock". Crappie, perch and bass seem to be doing well also. Perhaps the roles of what fish is predator or prey in this lake should be reexamined as well. In spite of this somewhat cloudy issue, their huge initial errors in estimating the walleye population, harvest rates, and conclusions based on those erroneous numbers, the WDFW has not reexamined their decision and still plans to kill this lake in October. Why haven't they? Is this just more of the same type of Spokane area political decisions we have seen time and time again? Decisions are made, facts are found or omitted as needed to support the decision, taxpayer money is spent and a select few individuals benefit. I wish could fallow the entire money trail on this one and see where it leads because it all smells like rotting fish to me.

I totally agree with GPC's comments and with Anglinarchers' comments about the walleye. My wife and I aren't able to travel very far from home very often, so I will miss having the ONLY walleye fishing opportunity near Spokane. And the carp and tench will be back. Why will a method that failed to rid the lake of carp before succeed now?. I honestly hope the WDFW can achieve their goal of a balanced lake with good diverse species fishery including a good trout fishery. That would be a perfect lake to me. In the shorter term I'm sure they will, but "within the capabilities of the habitat" is really the key to a long term success. I don't think Sprague lake & trout will fit that criteria in the long run. My humble opinion regarding this lake differs from others on that one I guess. I truly hope i'm wrong, but in 15 years we will probably be talking about killing an entire lake again so they can restock trout.

Before this becomes a book, here's my final thoughts: Rotenone is just one of the tools the WDFW has as an option for managing lakes. Personally I think it should be a tool of last resort, used only after all other practical methods have been exhausted. Nothing else has been done in Sprague Lake but raising the walleye limits slightly and for only 1 year. Decisions regarding this lake have been made based on flawed data. I witnessed the killing of Fan lake in 88 first hand. I saw 1000's of fish come swimming up gasping for breath until they all slowly died. I have fished, hunted and trapped my whole life. I am a 5th generation resident of Eastern Washington and grew up on a wheat and cattle farm. I have seen a lot of animals meet their end and am not a wuss when it comes to witnessing such things. But seeing an entire lake killed was a image I won't forget. Some of the fish were harvested, but it seemed such an incredible waste to me back then. And it still does. WDFW says that no fish will be allowed to be harvested from Sprague lake, citing liability reasons. I find the indiscriminate killing of animals, even unwanted fish, a little difficult to support no matter what the reasoning. Supporting a decision I feel had a predetermined bias, and which is based on what is now admittedly erroneous data, is impossible for me to support! And frankly, the thought of

Paul,
I would have to agree with all that you said.
I too have spent most of my life hunting, fishing and trapping.
To waste any game fish or animal is wrong, it says so in the game laws.
As a pup I remember the first time they killed off Silver lake in Spokane county.
My dad loaded up my brothers and I and we had a ball netting the fish that came up.
As kids we had never seen so many fish in the boat. We cleaned them and mom canned them.
We all lived.

This thing about liability is just another cover up thing as far as I see it.
We have always been told when a lake will be treated and to go get the fish.
Why is it all of the sudden they are telling us NO?
I have been to several lake killings and they always let us harvest before.
Whats going on at Sprague that the WDFW does not want the public to see?

The WDFW made the decision to kill Sprague and that they will do, but to let all of those fish go to waist is just wrong. Its kind of like planting a field and just before harvest you decide to through a match on it.

Every time I hear something more about the sprauge kill off I get madder and madder. Ok they plan on killing off sprauge, I am still upset but it happens so we have to go with the flow and hope for the best. Now they are saying that all th fish will be completly wasted ?!? I wouldn't have gone to sprauge to cash out on the fish anyway but thats is just out of line. I mean when its all said and done the people who buy the licences every year are the ones who paid for the fish, so now are not only going kill the fish we paid for they are now going to tell us we cant have the dead fish even if we wanted them. What about the food bank? There are people starving all over the state, why not let the food bank get the fish? Just like when they go out and catch those 800lb Mako sharks, they get donated to the food bank. And down south with the overabundant population of hogs. The hunters get paid to thin out the hog population and they turn around and donate tons and tons of hog meat every year. This just keeps making less and less sense.

Paul -
I try very hard to base my comments on facts - I don't recall ever stating any opinion about you and your fishing preferences. I did make some general comments how many folks (I was talking in generalities) seem to want every lake to have every fish.

You had pointed out "F&W thinks every lake should be a trout lake" - I merely ponted out that the post rehab plan called for planting a variety of fish with the idea that trout would provide a viable fishery while the warm water community began established. I think that might fall into the category of using the various fisheries management tools avaibable to the bios.

When the lake was "killed" in the mid 1980s I heard many of the same comments I hearing now however in hind sight most would probably have to admit that fishery post rehab was probably worth the effort - in fact if it wasn't the lake probably would not have the fans that it clearly has now. At the time of that rehab the hope was that the lake would produce 20 years of good fishing. It did so.

My question to you is your concerns with the actual rehab or the decision about not manage for walleye? Two different items.

Speaking of facts - Fish and Game (WDFW?) planted the tench in Sprague? I think not. I would love to see some sort of documentation to support that allegation. Tench are an European fish brought to the US by the US bureau of Fisheries in 1883. They were planted in the Spokane area by the feds in 1895-96. That pre-dates the old Game Department by more than 40 years. I know of no one within WDFW that is happy about having tench in the state. I suspect (but have no proof) that the source of tench in Sprague is the same as many exotic species in this States waters - plantings by the mid-night bucket crew.

While it indeed unfortunate that folks will not be allowed to keep the fish from the rehab ( I too have collected fish at various rehabs over the last 3 decades) folks are shooting the messanger rather the villian in this issue. The problem here is that the necessary studies to clear rotenone for human consumption have not been done and lacking that information the FDA (Federal Drug Authority) does not permit fish collected to be eaten. In this era of folks suing at the drop of the hat if some collected fish and got sick (for whatever reason) the state would be sued big time and you and I would end up paying. It costs big bucks to pay for such studies - I wonder if today other states allow folks to eat fish from rehabs?

By the way I think I probably have been to as many rehabs and read on the subject as much as any one here. My sole intent here was to provide some information for folks so that one could develope informed opinions. It is probable that I will never fish the lake however I thought that sharing my limited knowledge might helpful - apparently I was wrong.

Tight lines
Curt

Very good posts on this subject.
I certainly don't think they need another trout lake in the area, I wonder if this has to do with water quality at all? They better have a damn good reason for poisoning a good lake. Like I said, I have a feeling the majority of the species will be back in short time. Paul & Sammi, I bet you worked with Charlie Spencer a time or two back at seven Bays... RIP...

I wanted to make one more comment on this before it is too late; check that, it is too late. It sickens me to hear that Washington will not allow fish salvage. To my knowledge, and my knowledge is pretty extensive in this area, this is the first time that any western state has not allowed salvage.

I smell a rat.

Now, back to the Walleye. First, Sprague is a shallow lake and Walleye are skittish. When people fished more for trout than walleye, more boats were on the water and the walleye became comfortable with them. When the trout numbers declined, the boats declined, and the walleye became sensitive. To catch walleye on Sprague, you need to fish silent (electric on medium to low, especially when the wind is down - no radio music, no loud talking, etc.), and fish tight to the limited cover in Sprague. I know, you think I am nuts, well I'm the one that usually walks off with limits of walleye from the lake, even now. But to be honest with you, this whole thing has upset me enough that I have not floated a boat on the lake all year.

So, enough of my ranting, too few trout (limited by the size and numbers planted, not the walleye) and therefore too few boats. No matter what we want to believe, trout will always be easier to catch than walleye.

So next topic, how effective will the fish kill be? Lets say springs!

I use to advise and consult with the Idaho F & W some many years ago. They use to send down divers after and during the kill to see what was going on. When they found springs, they would see hundreds, even thousands, of fish with their noses deep in the fresh spring water. Guess what, the species that survived were the less desirable species like carp, bullhead catfish, chubs, etc. Why is it that the less desirable species can survive on less oxygen?

I don't care what the Washington "brains" think, they can't change the laws of science. We will loose the walleye, until Johny Fish Seed comes back to town. We will not loose the perch, they will come back. We will not loose the Tench or the Carp, they will be back. With Bass only as the top end predator, they will be back faster.

Nevertheless, the decision is made, and now apparently using bad data.

Kinda makes you glad your licenses fees are so low doesn't it?

On a side note, I will enjoy the trout with everyone else. I will enjoy the bass in the future, with everyone else, but they will not be as good as last time. The average depth of the water was higher in the past due to a small dam that was removed by a law suit. The water never gets deep enough into the shore cover to provide the size or numbers that the STATE remembers. This same loss of depth into the shore cover will also impact the pan fish. But no matter, the trout will do well, as long as they continue to plant them.

Tight lines!