2012 Rule Change Proposals - Walleye & Bass

[Lundegard]

All walleye and bass anglers should take a trip to the following link:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ ... ommend.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Rule Change Proposal #9, the WDFW proposes to remove the minimum size and the daily bag limit for walleye and bass on the Columbia River (among other places) between McNary Dam and Chief Joseph Dam. The intent, as stated by the Department, is to improve survivability of salmon and steelhead.

While one might not be able to argue that these ESA-listed species need help, one certainly can argue that there is science out there indicating that walleye and bass are not the primary limiting factor in salmon and steelhead smolt survival. For example, Chelan County PUD did a study for it's dam relicensing, and found that the top three consumers of smolt are mergansers, cormorants, and pikeminnow, all three of which have no harvest by sportsmen (except a few pikeminnow).

Let's look at this logic. How many economic turns (in dollars) do bass and walleye fishermen generate? How many economic turns do mergansers and cormorants generate? And pikeminnow? How many high-dollar bass tournaments are held on the Columbia River in the Tri-Cities area? Where did the state record Walleye come from? Think of all those dollars. (I live in Wenatchee by the way, so I'm not simply plugging for Tri-Cities). So, if we eliminate the bass, what happens to the dollars generated by that fishing? On the other hand, if we alter the waterfowl season to open up cormorants and mergansers (if even just for every other year), you can bet that salmon and steelhead fisherman might now become hunters in order to eliminate the threat to their species. Think of those dollars generated.

Either way, I would encourage all folks to go to the link above and submit your comments. It sure would be a shame for Pateros's Apple Pie Jamboree bass tournament every July to be cancelled forever, all in the name of steelhead and salmon.

[Augwen]

It seems that they are pretty intent on the bass and the walleye and that they will do something along their way of thinking no matter what the sportsmen think. Or so the options listed imply. They are doing the same thing with Lake Roosevelt. IMO it is hard to slow down the government . So with that in mind, voting for the options that will at least maintain some spawning sized fish (option 2) might be the way to go.

[Bodofish]

It seems that they are pretty intent on the bass and the walleye and that they will do something along their way of thinking no matter what the sportsmen think. Or so the options listed imply. They are doing the same thing with Lake Roosevelt. IMO it is hard to slow down the government . So with that in mind, voting for the options that will at least maintain some spawning sized fish (option 2) might be the way to go.

I doubt they will be doing anything with Roosevelt as Salmon and Steelhead can't and don't go past Chief Joe, no fish ladders and no trucking.

[natetreat]

Are there enough people that would kill bass to make a dent in the population? They're pretty prolific, over here on the west side we have too many of them, so much catch and release our bass are stunted and small.

[Augwen]

Travel past proposal #9 to #15. They want to also open up the limits for bass and walleye on Roosevelt. They have decided to allow fishing in the Spokane Arm during the major walleye spawning period. This area has traditionally been closed during April and May during that spawn. If you look at the options for Roosevelt they have done or want to do, pretty much the same thing as they want to do on the Columbia but the reasoning is for trout and kokanee rather than salmon and steelhead. I agree with you Nate. What I see on our lake is a lot of small bass. It would help if the bass fisherman would keep at least part of their catch. We tried to have a bass tournement this last summer with a rule that you had to keep all the bass that you caught. We were going to clean the catches and have a fish fry afterwards. None of the bass guys would participate because of the KEEP rule.

[Amx]

You would need to change the rules a little. So that fish under a certain length are kept, not all the bass caught. Let the 3 lb and larger go.

[TroutSnipr]

It's quickly coming to a point that any freshwater non-salmonid is going to be considered a nuisance fish. The Spokane tribe have already said that they are basically going to encourage the destruction of the walleye population by instituting walleye catch bounties.

http://www.washingtonlakes.com/forum/vi ... 19&t=14736" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/m ... ator-trap/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.northwestwalleye.com/phpBB3/ ... .php?f=1&t.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

[Lundegard]

The bass and walleye in the section of the Columbia where the change is proposed, are not numerous, stunted and small. On the contrary. Ask fishermen who have caught walleye below Wells Dam, Rock Island Dam, or Rocky Reach Dam, for example.....they will tell you that an 8 pound walleye is not surprising, and that it's tough to catch a limit of walleye there (5 fish) because they are all over 22". Ask the bass guys who fish the Hanford Reach in some of the big tournaments....20 pounds of smallmouth for a 5-fish limit is no surprise. And ask Mike Hepper who caught his 19 pound state record walleye below the mouth of the Snake how many small overabundant walleye there are.

So herein lies the problem: the bass are numerous and stunted on the westside, and the westside is predominantly salmon and steelheaders. They want the Columbia to be a salmon and steelhead fishery. So those folks assume (inaccurately) that since the bass are small and numerous on the westside, they must be so on the Columbia.

For discussion purposes, what would people say if this was the following rule proposal: "The Columbia River between McNary Dam and Chief Joseph Dam shall be catch and release only for all salmon and steelhead year round."

[Augwen]

That would certainly get the attention of a lot of folks!!! I cannot see it ever happening however. Option #2 on the proposed rule #9 would seem to maintain at least the spawners and if you are correct in the current size of the bass and walleye in this area, fishermen would not be keeping a lot of fish. With option #1, they could keep everything regardless of size. They have started the rule change and IMO they will keep going. Lets at least try to mitigate the future damage.

[YellowBear]

Every licence sold supports the Salmon and Steelhead.
Every licence sold supports the hybrid programs that are going on.
The only attention the Warmwater species get is how do we get rid of them.
The WDFW tells us we have enough Walleye waters in Washington.
The WDFW also removes millions of Walleye from these waters every year.
This rule change is just another poke in the eye with a dull stick.

I like the idea of catch and release for all Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia.
I think a better plan would be NO! Salmon or Steelhead fishing in fresh water.

[Augwen]

Millions? Maybe thousands.....

[Matt]

One word here: Invasive

Those fish don't belong in the basin, and historically wouldn't be there.

More power to DFW, lets preserve the native stocks.

There is SIGNIFICANT literature to support the detriment that walleye and SMB have on smolt outmigrants. Look at the Kokanee in the San Poil arm. The Colville Confederated Tribes have research to show Walleye, and to a more extreme extent SMB, are just sitting at the mouth of the San Poil and gobbling up outmigrant fry like drinking water from a hose nozzle. Individual diet analysis has shown upwards of 50 fry PER FISH in the stomachs of SMB and Walleye at the mouth of the San Poil reservoir.

Also, of particular importance is the area in which they have proposed the changes. Lake Pateros is the end of the line for migrating salmonids in the Columbia. Chief Joe is 0% fish passage. This is obviously why they have targeted this area. That means that warmwater and spiny ray populations in Roosevelt and Rufus won't be effected. Its good policy IMO.

[YellowBear]

The Fall Walleye Index Study (FWIN) nets 300 to 400 Walleye per year in 6 differant locations.
Each netting kills a average 0f 35 adult female Walleye.
Each female can carry around 300,000 eggs.
You do the math.

The research done at the San Poil is a bit onesided.
There are many more preditors feeding in there than the Walleye and Bass.
Trout, Pikeminnow and Hybrids take there fare share as do the birds.

With all of the manipulation that has gone on over the past 50 years, the native stocks were gone years ago.
If we are going to prolong the demise of the Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia and Snake we need to let them at least Spawn.((IMHO)

[Matt]

I won't waste time "doing any math" when we are talking about maintaining an invasive species. The irradiation of the Walleye population in the proposed reaches is a win for the environment.

The argument that the native stocks are "gone" has no foundation, and is simply not true. Diluted, sure, but gone? Far from it. Show me the data.

Bottom line is these two species are INVASIVE not only in the Columbia, but all of Washington State. The argument to sustain or augment these stocks is ludicrous.

I don't see how the San Poil studies are "one sided" or a better word would be bias.... My point in bringing up those studies is simply to identify that a single individual adult walleye can consume upwards of 50 fry in no time flat, and there is data to prove as such. Sure there are "other predators" but that does not discount the irrefutable evidence that indicates the success and proliferation of SMB and Walleye as salmonid predators in the Columbia River. Eliminate the invasive predatory species, and let the native predators prey on salmonids as was historically the norm and see how the populations fluctuate.....

I just don't buy it YB.

[zen leecher]

From a native american standpoint the white man is an invasive species.

[Amx]

[Bodofish]

From a native american standpoint the white man is an invasive species.

Sorry, impossibility as we are all the same species. There's just not enough genetic distinction to make a species call.

[Amx]

Fish are fish, there is room for all of them. Except the squawfish that is. THEY are the worst when it comes to eating the smolts, studies have proven they are MUCH worse than any Bass or Walleye.

Salmon are being decimated by the NETTING, by ALL species and sub species of MAN, not by ANY sportman fishing with hook and line and rod.

As far as trout are concerned, they die if you LOOK at them crosseyed. They HAVE to be planted for there to be any population to fish for. Even if there was ONLY catch and release for all trout, then they'd still die off just by being caught, they can't stand the pressure.

[YellowBear]

Well put Mr. Leecher.

The Bass and Walleye have taken the blaim for the decline in many fisheries.
Are they a factor in the Salmon and Steehead in Washington?
How many miles of Salmon and Steelhead spawning areas were lost to the higher waters?
How many are lost at the dams ?
How many eggs die because of the unstable water temps?
How many eggs die because of silt and mud insted of gravel?
How many eggs,fry and fish die due to human error?
How many fry are taken by Birds?
How many fish die because of pollution?
How many fish fall prey to Seals and Whales?
How many are harvested by nets?
How many are harvested by Rod and reel?
How many are taken on the high seas where they spend most of there life?

And we are told its the Bass and Walleye ...

[Bodofish]

All moot points as Bass and Walleyes are invasive species. There is no argument for them.