WDFW Warmwater Management

[iPodrodder]

People complain a lot about how the WDFW doesn't care about its warmwater species, especially bass. I've always thought that the WDFW has given us a blessing in disguise by not stocking bass like they do trout. What I would imagine is schools and schools of 10" bass, with lots of extra fishermen following. Trophy fisheries would be stunted by waves of small bass taking the food supply but at the same time being too big to make a meal for another.

Hypothetically, if they did stock cookie cutter largemouth and smallmouth, do you think that we would have the same principles of C&R as we do now? I don't think so. And if someday, the WDFW decided to halt bass plants, we wouldn't have the guys who make a sustainable fishery possible. They'd either all be at home, bored of the 10"ers, or softened with years without a threat of exhausting the lake. So what would be left on the lake? People with no concept of C&R, weekend warriors, keeping every bass even though there's no more coming from the state.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents out there.

[insert abrupt end to soapbox speech here]

[Anonymous]

So what's the question?
Sorry ipodrodder, kind of confused as to which question correlates to your poll.



If it is this one:

Hypothetically, if they did stock cookie cutter largemouth and smallmouth, do you think that we would have the same principles of C&R as we do now?

Then my answer is yes we would have the same principles.
And this would be a benefit to all fisheries. If monitored properly not to over populate the lakes.




fishnislife

[AaronE]

I have mixed feelings on this one. I do think that WDFW needs to do something specific for bass but I don't think their typical trout mentality would translate very well. After seeing the "grocery store" mentality of most people sitting on the bank trying to catch trout, that's definitely not going to help the bass habitats and will eventually lead to the same sort of "fish 'em until they're fished out" attitude. I've seen people out fishing for trout every day, hitting their limit, and then coming back the next day for an entire season. It's like grocery shopping for some people. Bass, I don't think, could handle that sort of pressure unless they were stocked at the same numbers as trout, which is going to lead to the average size being a 9" fish.

I made a suggestion a few weeks ago that I still think would work best. Take selected bass lakes and make them C&R only. Establish one or two per county, stock it once, and then let it sit. When the little ones out-populate the larger ones, open it up to a one day public fishing derby with bag limits on anything under 12", etc, to cull the population.

Obviously, my "plan" needs a lot of work, but I think it would go a long way to creating some trophy habitats for recreational fishing.

[kevinb]

Undecided, I have limited knowledge of the bass fishery overall.

[Rich McVey]

Undecided, I have limited knowledge of the bass fishery overall.

Same here, I do like AaronE's idea!!

[EastsideRedneck]

I think the problem is the lack of balance in how the fisheries are currently managed. The bass population would more than likely thrive if the WDFW didn't use our lakes as trout galleries. The planter trout may be an extra food source for our bass, but overall the annual plants are large enough in lakes like Beaver (King Co.) to have marginalized the entire fish population in that lake. I think the impact of balanced management of bass and trout plants (staggering and spacing out plants to occur every couple years)could be beneficial in the long term. I have always viewed planting fish as a means of sustaining vice the WDFW's saturation approach. Following this course would probably be a detriment to the lakes in the near term due to overfishing of trout, but better in the long term for both trout and bass. Quality over quantity... I would much rather catch one or two large fish than filling up stringer after stringer with little guys.

My .02

[JWerner]

[tagwatson360]

[BassinBomber]

I like Aaron's reply too,..hey Aaron have you thought of contacting WDFW with your ideas?

BB

[AaronE]

I think Aaron is onto something. Good post.

http://www.wvgameandfish.com/fishing/ba ... aa075804a/

I've fished these lakes in West Virginia and they really are outstanding bass habitats. West Virginia and Washington have similar bass fisheries and sizes run consistant from state to state. The WV state records are 12.28# and 9.75# for LMB and SMB. WA state records are 11# 9oz and 8# 12oz respectively, so the records are easily within a pound of each other per species.

If anyone thinks it would be worth the effort, I can research it, document it, and put something together. If we can generate a petition, I'd be willing to send it around to see how much weight we can get behind it. Wouldn't hurt to present it to WDFW and see what might come of it.

[kevinb]

I think Aaron is onto something. Good post.

http://www.wvgameandfish.com/fishing/ba ... aa075804a/

I've fished these lakes in West Virginia and they really are outstanding bass habitats. West Virginia and Washington have similar bass fisheries and sizes run consistant from state to state. The WV state records are 12.28# and 9.75# for LMB and SMB. WA state records are 11# 9oz and 8# 12oz respectively, so the records are easily within a pound of each other per species.

If anyone thinks it would be worth the effort, I can research it, document it, and put something together. If we can generate a petition, I'd be willing to send it around to see how much weight we can get behind it. Wouldn't hurt to present it to WDFW and see what might come of it.

I like this idea =d>

[BassinBomber]

I think Aaron is onto something. Good post.

http://www.wvgameandfish.com/fishing/ba ... aa075804a/

I've fished these lakes in West Virginia and they really are outstanding bass habitats. West Virginia and Washington have similar bass fisheries and sizes run consistant from state to state. The WV state records are 12.28# and 9.75# for LMB and SMB. WA state records are 11# 9oz and 8# 12oz respectively, so the records are easily within a pound of each other per species.

If anyone thinks it would be worth the effort, I can research it, document it, and put something together. If we can generate a petition, I'd be willing to send it around to see how much weight we can get behind it. Wouldn't hurt to present it to WDFW and see what might come of it.

largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 11.57 lbs Carl Pruitt Banks Lake, Grant Co. April 9, 1977
smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui 8.75 lbs Ray Wonacott Columbia River, Hanford Reach April 23, 1966

You got my support Aaron!

BB

[G-Man]

I don't think that we would have the same fishery if the State had been stocking bass as they do trout. As most of you have observed, our State fish and wildlife department doesn't get many things right on the first try. I can only imagine the mess we would have if bass had been regularly stocked by the State. Oddly though, I believe that they are managing the fishery properly and I do not have any complaints about the current regulations regarding our warmwater species. For sport, I'd rather catch a few larger bass than a bunch of small bass. However we do need to cull the little guys lest they overpopulate and wipe out the food for their parents, much like our teen age children do in our own homes! So where they are abundant, you need a catch and keep fishery for certain sizes. The one thing most folks need to realize is that the majority of Washington States freshwater habitats do not contain a natural food chain that would support an abundance of large bass. Minnows, threadfin shad and other small bait fish are not native to our freshwater lakes and streams and large bass adapt to feed on other sources such as the fry of other fish including native and planted trout and salmon. However those fish do not hang around in locations where bass can feed on them for a long time and thus we have a short growing season for our bass. You can see the slot limit that had been in place for both large and small mouth bass has done it's job. No one can say that we aren't seeing more larger fish caught every year, I can still remember when a 2lb to 3lb smallie was a huge fish. The regs have now been tailored to maintain the fishery, one only hopes that the State keeps an eye out and make adjustments when needed and in a timely manner.

[iPodrodder]

So what's the question?
Sorry ipodrodder, kind of confused as to which question correlates to your poll.



If it is this one:

Hypothetically, if they did stock cookie cutter largemouth and smallmouth, do you think that we would have the same principles of C&R as we do now?

Then my answer is yes we would have the same principles.
And this would be a benefit to all fisheries. If monitored properly not to over populate the lakes.




fishnislife

The poll question is "Would a bass stocking program similar to the trout program help or hurt bass fishing in Washington?"

The rest is pretty much a debate topic.

[Trent Hale]

I like Aarons Plan. But they should stock with 14in bass. If not all that every one will catch are dinks and we still have the same problem,and the lakes that don't allow gas motors are C&R. The 14in bass that aren't caught will spawn. The ones that say "HURT" must be trout fishing guys.

[Nik]

Instead of the mindless stocking of millions of dink bass (AKA the trout program), i would prefer to see many C&R only lakes as Aaron stated, or "trophy bass lakes" as they are called in Idaho where they have several already. There are literally no lakes here in Eastern Washington that are just bass lakes only, instead every lake is stocked with tons of trout every year and the bass are ignored. Also the WDFW taking some time to improve the warmwater fishery in other ways would be nice, as in caring even a tiny bit about adjusting water levels in reservoirs during peak spawning times, maybe planting some structure, and the stocking of bait fish where they are needed and largemouth where they are needed. Some lakes have plenty, some have not nearly enough, some have way too many. Lucky for us bass fisherman bass are WAY better at adjusting to the habitat they are given than trout, so despite the (lack of) efforts from the WDFW, we still have many fantastic bass fisheries. Also opening launches at bass lakes early and improving some of the launches for those that dont fish out of a 12 foot aluminum car topper would be nice.

I also agree that if bass are stocked they should be at least 12", that way they will be ready to spawn the next year, plus they are in the slot limit so they wouldn't all be caught and kept.

[iPodrodder]

I like Aarons Plan. But they should stock with 14in bass. If not all that every one will catch are dinks and we still have the same problem,and the lakes that don't allow gas motors are C&R. The 14in bass that aren't caught will spawn. The ones that say "HURT" must be trout fishing guys.

14" would cost a ton of money for the state. Plus, most people are just going to keep whatever they catch no matter what size.

Why would the trout guys say hurt?

I too like Aaron's plan, but read what I really meant for the poll question in my last post.

[Jordan]

it all depends on how big the bass are they plant and how many they plant... each body of water has a max poundage carrying cappacity... so a lake can support a ton of little fish... very few huge fish... or some middle ground... so if they started planting bass it would put more fish in the lake making the size of the fish slowly get smaller in time...so depending on what kind of bass fishery you want... it depends if stocking would be bad or not....

[ProAngler'sDaughter]

Aaron, it is my opinion that you should formalize your plan and see what happens...

[AaronE]

Aaron, it is my opinion that you should formalize your plan and see what happens...

Already started working on it. I've emailed the director of the WV program requesting any data they can provide on their C&R habitats, and I'm looking through additional state programs now. I'll keep everyone posted