www.nwwarmwater.org

[YellowBear]

The Northwest Warmwater Foundation has its web site up.
We are asking for your input on issues pertaining to angling in Washington State.
Please take the time to check it out.
www.nwwarmwater.org.
Click on view site and then go to the open forum.
There you will find some of the issues that we are concerned with.

Thank you for your time.

[eustace]

Thanks Yellowbear, great idea.

[Rosann G]

Thanks for posting the website. Looks like it will be interesting to follow so I have favorited it in my fishing organizations folder.
Rosann

[fishnislife]

Great lookn website YellowBear. I checked the whole thing out and you guys really have it together. I hope you can really make a difference with those issue at hand. Keep up the great work.



fishnislife

[kevinb]

Overall the site looks really well.
But I get the idea the Foundation is paranoid about tiger muskies.
No need for debate here. Thanks for the link.

[Don Wittenberger]

The possibility of importing VHS via tiger muskies is a legitimate concern, but this issue is being addressed by WDFW in a comprehensive way. WDFW has never imported live tiger muskie fry, only certified disease-free eggs, and beginning this year all tiger muskie eggs will be disinfected at WSU before going to the hatchery as an additional (and redundant) safeguard. Long-term, WDFW is working to establish its own broodstock program (possibly as a joint venture with other western states), which would eliminate the need to import eggs from other states altogether. So many precautions are taken with regard to tiger muskie eggs that the chances of importing VHS by this route are very, very low; so there's really no need to be concerned about the tiger muskie stocking program on this score.

I'm very supportive of the idea of citizens getting involved with the management of our warmwater fisheries. We have a number of fishing clubs, fishing-oriented groups, and interested individuals doing exactly that. Citizen input is a valuable and healthy part of the process. There are only two observations I would make about it. First, as warmwater anglers pursuing several different species, we can't expect to agree among ourselves on everyting all the time. These disagreements should be seen as honest differences of opinion among well-intentioned people, and debated on that basis. Second, where the science is concerned, I'm cautious about relying on opinions or anecdotal evidence from amateur sources, and while input from anglers is definitely of value, common sense tells me to rely on the scientific expertise of professional biologists until there is substantial reason to believe their conclusions are mistaken. For example, WDFW tells me angler harvest kills only about 3% of the Potholes walleye population annually, which leads me to think that the key to improving the productivity of my walleye fishing there is not necessarily putting more walleyes in Potholes but rather improving my walleye angling skills.

[YellowBear]

As there is no cure for VHS, there is no comprehensive way to assure that it will not come from the Tiger program.
You pointed out the fact that the chances of importing VHS by this route is very, very low, but not impossible.
It has also been brought up a few times that the WDFW is, and has been working on a brood stock program of there own.
Maybe you could explain to the folks here why there Musky broodstock were destroyed.

I do agree that we as anglers must join together instead of being divided by species.
All game fish are predators, they all feed on each other.

When ever there is an imbalance, the scientific expertise of the professional biologist suggest a kill off instead providing forage. Why?

I asked at one time, were are the big Crappie and Perch? I was told that the lakes in Washington were not capable of growing large pan fish, they used to be here. I am not just talking about the Basin lakes. The Pend Orellie river had big slabs at one time. long lake in Spokane county, Twin lakes, Coffee pot, Downs, Chapman, the Snake River, Lake Roosevelt,
Newman, Eloika, Horseshoe in Stevens county, Sprague, Bonny lake in Spokane county, Rock lake. just to name a few.
Now we have a few lakes that hold small 10 inch fish. You can still find a 12 or 13 inch Crappie now and then but not many.
It's been so long since I have seen a 17 or 18 inch Crappie, I am beginning to think they were a dream.
Panfish are prolific spawners and yet we can't seem to get the numbers of big fish to rise, Why?
Keep in mind that the Panfish are at the bottom of the food chain, If the Panfish are not doing well then the larger fish that prey on them "cannot" do well.

Now I admit that I am a amature source of information, but after fishing for more than 45 years in this state I have seen many things change.

I made this post to let folks know about the site.
It was put together by one of our members and we will be adding to it as time goes on.

I would also like to thank Washingtonlakes.com for the oppertunity to reach out to more anglers.

[Don Wittenberger]

I want to make a couple of corrections to my comment above, based on information kindly supplied by Steve Jackson at WDFW.

Item one, in Steve's words (via e-mail), "The spawn muskies are tested for VHS by MN DNR prior to shipping to WDFW. Upon receiving the tiger muskie eggs from MN DNR, WDFW will place the disinfected eggs in a newly built quarantine facility where the effluent is treated with ozone to kill any potential viruses. Later the fry will be twice tested by WDFW for VHS while in quarantine in WA. If and only if, all test are negative for VHS, will we continue to culture the fry and later plant them into WA waters."

Item two, Steve also says, "WSU is not involved in any of these actions."

As I stated above, redundant testing procedures are in place to safeguard against importing VHS into Washington via tiger muskie eggs, and these safeguards reduce the risk to a very low (I would argue non-existent, except we all know there's no such thing as absolute certainty in science) level. I feel it's a non-issue.

In reading NWWF's web site, I saw concerns expressed about tiger muskies getting into the Columbia River system and connected waters. As Muskie Inc. Chapter 57's legislative liaison, let me assure you there is no agenda to plant tiger muskies in Moses Lake, Potholes, any of the Columbia River impoundments, or other waters where they might compete with native species. Our club fully supports the efforts of the federal and state governments to protect and restore the Columbia River System's andronomous fish runs, and to preserve and enhance native species throughout the state. We visualize the tiger muskies as always being a limited fishery in waters suitable for them where they are compatible with these other objectives.

Walleyes and bass are, of course, non-native species. Walleyes, unlike tiger muskies, prey on salmon smolt in the Columbia River. However, they are so well-established in the Columbia that no one contemplates getting rid of them. It probably couldn't be done. Our club certainly does not oppose efforts by WDFW to improve walleye and bass fishing anywhere in the state. I don't see a conflict between what we want, and what your group wants. There is no reason why our respective organizations can't be natural allies on warmwater fisheries issues. However, if your group is philosophically opposed to any and all tiger muskies in Washington, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that, because our group obviously doesn't accept that point of view.

I have some concerns about what seems like a reticence of yourself and possibly some of NWWF's other members to accept the validity of WDFW's management techniques and scientific conclusions. I'm not saying we should slavishly accept anything WDFW says as true; nor am I saying a bit of skepticism is unhealthy. I'm a strong believer in the idea that citizens have a right and a role to scrutinize the actions of government, ask questions, and provide input on policies and decisions affecting us. However, as scientific amateurs, it's in our own best interest to be cautious about substituting our own opinions for the judgments of professional biologists, unles there's a substantial reason to believe they've erred, because we might end up harming the fisheries we're trying to improve. Let's not shoot ourselves in both feet through instinctive distrust of the department.

Here is what Steve told me about the walleyes in Moses Lake and Potholes:

"The 2003 Moses Lake study estimated annual walleye exploitation at 1.22%. This rate was estimated when the minimum size limit for walleye in Moses Lake was 18 inches. This extremely low exploitation rate was the main reason for the rule change to a 12 inch minimum size, and a 8 fish daily limit. The walleye population was dominating the forage species in Moses Lake and at that exploitation rate the predator/prey balance could only get worse. We did not do a similar intensive study on Potholes reservoir like the Moses Lake study. We do annual FWIN surveys on both waters and we did creel surveys on both waters in 2006 and 2007. FWIN surveys are not indicating a walleye population decline, nor do they suggest that walleye are now over exploited (>25%). Even with the reduced minimum size limit and an increase in the daily bag limit from 5 walleye to 8, the annual exploitation is still likely less than 5% on both waters."

I don't fish Moses Lake, but I fished Potholes for panfish back in the 80s when it was known as "perch heaven." I understand Moses Lake was once a great panfish lake. Where did the panfish go? It stands to reason the walleyes ate them. Walleyes are, after all, voracious predators. And the panfish decline coincided, time-wise, with the appearance of walleyes. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not a biologist, but common sense suggests to me that if you want to catch slab bluegills and crappie in Moses Lake or Potholes again, we'd have to get rid of the walleyes. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary. But, at present, I believe the decline of ML's bluegills and crappies, and Potholes' perch, is due to walleyes taking over those waters.

In any case, WDFW biologists have determined from their field studies that there are so many walleyes in Moses Lake and Potholes that their survey netting and angler harvest aren't making a dent in the walleye populations. I didn't read anything on NWWF's web site that refutes that. What I do see is a belief that WDFW netting a couple hundred walleyes for survey purposes or the current size and bag limit regulations are hurting the fishing. The facts don't seem to justify this belief.

I'm certainly not one to dismiss the practical experience of anglers on the water. We anglers do know whether the fishing is good or bad. However, I've learned to temper my subjective feelings about how good or bad the fishing is with a realization that my angling skill is a factor in whether I catch fish, too. Walleyes are hard to catch, and the absence of walleyes in my livewell probably has more to do with my angling skills than how many walleyes are in the lake. But then, I admit I'm not much of a walleye fisherman. It just seems to me that walleye angling has grown into the huge sport that it is, partly because catching them is a challenge that requires skill. Looking at walleye tournament results and seeing the same people at the top of the point standings year after year, tends to reaffirm this in my mind. At this point, I simply have no reason to disbelieve what the WDFW biologists tell us about the walleye populations. Why do you disbelieve them?

It also seems logical to me that walleyes can get overpopulated just like any other species, and when this happens, you get stunted fish and die-offs. The fact the F & G Commission changed the size and bag limits on Moses Lake and Potholes to encourage harvest of more and smaller walleyes tells me the biologists believe these waters are at risk of overpopulation and more harvest will improve the fishing. Why would they do it to hurt the fishing? And why is your group so suspicious of actions aimed at providing you with a quality walleye fishery in those waters?

I am, of course, open minded about what you might want to say on these topics.

[YellowBear]

Personally I have no worries about Tiger's being "planted" in the Columbia,
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
There are some concerns that Tiger's may be able to migrate, like say out of Evergreen.

I will agree that in Moses lake and Potholes, the Walleye had to be a factor in the decline of the panfish.
This does not explain the decline in many other lakes around the same time.
Lakes with no Walleye showed a decline.
With over fishing and Mt St. Helens, the introduction of the Walleye (in some waters), I can understand.
What I question, is why we are not seeing any improvement?

I have been a bit hard on the WDFW and for that I apologize.
I have all the respect and admiration for the WDFW.
There are a few individuals that I wonder about.

[michaelunbewust]

Don, i certainly don't have the vast knowledge about "scientific" stuff like you do. in fact, i rely on alot of your posts for the biologists side of things. you do detailed research, i know. refering to the survey's conducted by wdfw. im sure a couple of hundred walleye wouldnt effect a large population of walleye like in potholes, but, doing it 4-5 years in a row (alot more than 200 1 year), makes me think that 1000 fish taken during these survey's would effect ANY fishery, and, only certain people or groups get to participate in the actual survey and end of the day fish fry, which, alot of locals couldnt understand. on the survey's they have done, what NEW research have they discovered?? the same things everyone has known all along. the same ol' news, but, spending a ton of time and money, plus, depleting the resevior of walleye that taxpayers could be harvesting (all of this is just my own opinion). yellowbear does make a point about evergreen, because it ends up in the columbia thru the maze of canals over 55,000 acres, but, the biologists have said they think they may have died off in evergreen. ive personally have never seen one caught there. im glad to see 2 points of view, especially from you 2 guys, because i know you guys do alot of research. to a 35 year fisherguy, with not a whole lot of actual scientific" knowledge, i appreciate you both, so, keep it all coming!

[Don Wittenberger]

Michael, please keep in mind that I'm not a scientist, so any "scientific" information I post is second-hand as I have to depend on other sources for that type of information. I've been a lawyer for 34 years, and people in my profession are accustomed to collecting and presenting information, and evaluating evidence and the credibility of witnesses, but our skills generally do not lie in creating original data. Although I represent a fishing club in legislative and regulatory matters, when I post comments on these boards I'm speaking from my independent judgment and my own experiences as a fisherman, in addition to passing along information that I gather from other sources.

I don't think the state biologists are out there killing walleyes for no purpose. The data they collect is more valuable, and provides them with a much better picture of the fishery, if it is collected over time. A single year of sampling only gives them a snapshot of the fishery at one point in time, which is useless for spotting trends in fish populations. I really think we all ought to defer to their professional judgment in how much sampling is necessary to accomplish their research objectives. This is what they're trained and hired to do, and they're doing it for our angling benefit.

The first time I fished Evergreen, I hooked 3 tiger muskies in 10 hours of fishing spread over two days. That was several years ago. I don't fish Evergreen much anymore, but I occasionally spend a few hours there on my way to other destinations in eastern Washington, and I haven't caught or seen a tiger muskie at Evergreen for 2 or 3 years now. This lake may in fact be depleted. At only 235 acres, it would only hold 50 to 100 adult tiger muskies to begin with, even if no one harvested them, but the Quincy Wildlife Area (because of its location and free camping) attracts people who kill everything they catch regardless of the regulations, so I think it's going to be difficult to maintain a fishable population of tiger muskies there. It's theoretically possible for them to migrate from Evergreen to the Columbia River, and I honestly don't know whether any of them make it. These are the questions in my mind about that possibility. First, why would they leave the lake, where they have cover and a food supply? But let's assume a few fish get into the canal, either intentionally or by accident. It's a long way to the Columbia via a tortuous route; would they find their way to the river through the maze? Are there obstacles along the way, like head dams or screens, blocking their passage? Is there enough food and oxygen in the canals to keep them alive? Irrigation canals tend to be full of nitrogen-laden runoff from the fields, and those chemicals consume the dissolved oxygen in the water that fish need to live. Given long stretches of slack, slow moving water, are there areas of low-oxygen-content water that create an effective barrier to fish passage? I don't know the answers to any of these questions.

I do know of at least 2 tiger muskies being caught from the Columbia River, who most likely got into the river from other sources, plus 1 been caught from Potholes. At present, I don't see the escape of a tiny number of tiger muskies as a problem. I don't think anyone is putting them in livewells and transplanting them into unauthorized waters; they're hard to catch, hard to keep alive in a livewell, few people have boats with livewells big enough for tiger muskies, and the anglers possessing the equipment and skills to catch these fish have no motivation or inclination to do that. I believe the 2 escapees found in eastern Washington came from the hatchery or Red Rock Reservoir, which no longer has tiger muskies, and the 1 caught from the Willamette River in Portland may have made its way into the Columbia via the Lewis or Cowlitz River after escaping from Merwin or Mayfield Lake over or through the dams. A few have been found in the Lewis River, so we know there's some escape from Merwin Reservoir. In any case, the small number of escapees can't eat out the river, and can't increase their population through reproduction because they're sterile. Their impact on other species in the river is negligible.

NWWF raises a point about the risk a VHS-infected fish could pose to the entire river ecosystem. I don't know enough about VHS to comment on what would happen if an infected fish got into the river. Tiger muskies have been in Washington since 1988 and we have never had a case of a VHS-infected tiger muskie in our state. The eggs have always come from a reliable state game agency that provides certified disease-free eggs, but in response to VHS concerns, WDFW suspended the importation of tiger muskie eggs after 2006 while setting up its own in-state quarantine and disinfecting operation. This operation is now up and running, and tiger muskie stocking is on track to resume in 2009 with fingerlings reared from eggs obtained from Minnesota DNR this spring. The quarantine and disinfecting provides an additional, redundant layer of protection.

There's no guarantee that VHS won't come to our state, but if it does, it'll most likely get here as a result of some dunderhead transporting live fish from another state with the idea of stocking his favorite fishing hole. For example, WDFW precently poisoned a lake on the Olympic Peninsula that some yahoo planted with northern pike -- their presence had to be due to a "bucket biologist" because they sure didn't grow wings and fly there from Idaho or Montana. I believe if we ever get VHS here, that's how we'll get it; and that's why WDFW and our fishing clubs must educate the public to refrain from such silliness. I'm not worried that VHS will be brought in by the professional fish managers of WDFW who run our stocking programs.

[kevinb]

Its obvious here that the NWWF cares about the local fisheries. I may not agree with them on the muskie stocking efforts. Maybe in time we can reach an agreement. But overall I feel that the NWWF intentions are meant well. We want the same on both sides,(A Quality Fishery).

To YellowBear and Don,
I appreciate you both. You have healthy disagreements but always conduct your selves as true sportmans(Gentlemen)
I enjoy hearing both sides of an issue and both of you explain yourselves well. My hat is off to 'ya!!!
Just my $0.02

[YellowBear]

Don has pointed out the fact that the studies done by WDFW is just a snap shot so to speak, and this is true.
I will speak of the FWIN study as this is the one that I participated in.
I was at Bank's, Potholes and Moses and here is how it works.
The WDFW bring the nets in and they are laid out and the fish removed.
The Walleyes (being the subject of the study) are sorted out.
The fish are measured and samples taken from the fish in several areas.
Fat, reproductive organs, Otolith bones and I am sure there are a few others that I missed.
Bottom line is they have to die. This is a unavoidable fact.
It is a very good study as they can check for heavy metals, age, reproductive capabilities and the over all health of the fish.
But! Seeing as how these studies are all done at the same time of the year each year, we keep getting the same picture so to speak. As this study has been going on for some time now, we should know by now, how old a 20 inch eye is without the Otolith bones.
Samples of fat and reproductive organs could be collected from anglers. Measurements and weight could also be provided by anglers. This could turn into a year round study so instead of a snap shot we would have a video.

Question.
What did the WDFW learn from the 2007 study compared to 2002?

We have a untapped source of information that we do not seem to consider and that is the anglers themselves.
There must be a way to collect the needed information with out killing off more fish.

The WDFW tells us that the fish they kill in these studies is incidental and does not pose a thret to the population.
From my own experiance, the year after they started studies on Sprague, the fishing went down hill.
Now some would say it was my inability to catch fish, and this could be true. However! I had been quite successful at Sprague until the studies started.

If I am catching Walleyes, I do not judge the overall health of the population by the numbers of Walleyes that I catch.
In my unscientific way, I judge the overall population of a species by the numbers of incedentle catches that I make.
In other words, If I am fishing for Panfish with a float and a 1 inch grub and I am catching eyes, then I figure the population of eyes is healthy. But if I am fishing for eyes with spinner rigs, Crankbaits and Jigs and I am not catching any Walleyes, I have to think the population is down.

In my younger years I would be on the water around 200 days a year. Now that I am some older I only get out 100 to 125 days a year. If I am not on the water, I am gathering information from all across the nation as well as Canada.
My log books go back to 1964 and I relate to them often.

We as anglers must join together and get over this division caused by species.
This, my fish is good and yours is bad thing must stop if we are going to keep our sport healthy.

Mike,
How you been?
As far as the fillets go at the FWIN study.
It is open to the public (if you find out when and were)
Bring a knife and a fillet board.
It is my understanding that some of the locals that have showed up, simply come for the fillets.
They are welcome to them but it is only fare that they remove them themselves.
I watched two guys from the Columbia Basin Walleye Club clean fish for 3 days.
They handed out bagged fillets to those who helped.
These guys even went so far as to take the cheek meat, they let nothing go to waist.
Way to go CBWC and I thank you.

[Don Wittenberger]

"We as anglers must join together and get over this division caused by species.
This, my fish is good and yours is bad thing must stop if we are going to keep our sport healthy."

I agree; and I'm glad to report that among the current IFPAG group, cooperation and mutual support is very good, and I don't see signs of rivalry.

[michaelunbewust]

shoot, they can study all afternoon at the fillet station at mardon (the boats start coming in around 2). yellowbear, i knew about the fillets, but, was our understanding only the 1 club was allowed to participate. i was more interested in the other aspects of the survey. im not a "biologist", but, my cousin is for the BPA, and, he even said the survey's have not added any new knowledge, for which the survey's were meant for. always the same answer, meanwhile, there goes another 200 fish (and there were some whoppers/good breeders). my only issue is to get more anglers involved, and, come up with some new answers. if nothing new emerges, lets try some new ways to study these fish. with all the budget shortfalls for the WDFW, the money can be used for a number of other studies or program to actually help the fisheries. meanwhile, i come into the fillet staion over the next 3 days, if they want to send someone over, around 5 ish!! thanks to both don and yellowbear for this thread. a ton of info!!!!