IFPAG Update

[Don Wittenberger]

For anyone new to this forum, IFPAG is the Inland Fisheries Policy Advisory Group of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), a group of citizens appointed by the Director to provide community feedback to the department on its fisheries management policies. Members typically are outdoor writers, resort and tackle shop owners, fishing club officers, and others interested in maintaining quality recreational fisheries. WDFW has several such advisory groups, and IFPAG is devoted to freshwater fishing on our inland lakes and rivers, including trout and the warmwater species. IFPAG typically meets 3 or 4 times a year, with the first meeting in Olympia early in the year and attended by the Director or his representative.

This year, IFPAG is being downsized from 25 members to 15 members, and the first meeting will be held sometime in March, although no date has been set yet. It is my understanding, from a department source, that the new group will receive their appointment letters this week, and I'm told that I've been reappointed to IFPAG for 2 more years. Due to the downsizing, there are only 2 new (i.e., non-returning) members this year, and because of limited space, not everyone who applied for IFPAG was chosen to be on it. It's my understanding that I will be the only IFPAG member from the muskie fishing community. It has always been, and will continue to be, my intent to represent the entire muskie fishing community on IFPAG. At this time, we have 3 muskie fishing clubs in Washington state, and to maintain my neutrality, I am not currently a member of any muskie fishing club. My hope is this will allow me to represent all 3 clubs impartially.

WDFW management is in the process of putting together an agenda for the March meeting. If there's any subject or issue you'd like me to bring up at that meeting, please e-mail me at Dw546@aol.com. Put "IFPAG" or something similar in the subject line, so I know it isn't spam and won't accidentally delete it. Over the next 2 years, I will continue to pursue the expansion of muskie fishing opportunities by adding one or more muskie lakes. In discussing this topic with department staff, we're especially focusing on the Northwest corner of the state, the area that includes Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Island counties, because we don't presently have any muskie fishing opportunities in that area, and there are a couple of possible candidate lakes there. As always, I'll work to make sure the existing stocking program is maintained, because without stocking we'd have no muskies. I believe the department continues to be committed to the tiger muskie program, but given current budget pressures and continually shifting management priorities, we can never take it for granted. I am not discussing northern pike regulations with the department anymore, because the consensus opinion among department and tribal biologists is that the POR pike population is thriving and doesn't need protection, and the department's main interest in pike is preventing their spread through illegal stocking. Apparently that has happened at a couple of Spokane-area lakes. Unless something I'm not now aware of comes up, I don't believe the tiger muskie community will be asking for any new or modified regulations in the next rulemaking cycle.

That's about all I can think of right now. If you have any issues, concerns, or questions, please feel free to contact me at the e-mail address above.

Don Wittenberger

[sparky1doug]

Don, we are all glad see you will still be carrying the flag of Muskie interests. Sorry to hear your no longer a member of tlhe Tiger Pac but perfectly understand. Are there some real possiblities of Tigers in NW WA? Keep us in the loop on progress for any new lakes for those Tigers. If there is anything we can do to help with the raising and planting of the Tigers let us know. As always we'll be there to do what we can. I'm curious about the Pike comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion of regulations was concerning over population and its effects. Weren't the proposed regulations dedicated to curbing the population and developing a quality rather than quantity fishery. The intent as I understand it was to protect only the larger fish so they could help control the population of "hammer handles". As the biologists explained to me contolling the over population of small Pike would benifit the balance of the fishery for the small mouth bass, large mouth bass and native trout. Perhaps there has been a change of philosophy and to do nothing will allow the problem to fix itself. We all hope that the Pike population will be limited to the POR, bucket biology has wrecked some fine fisheries and is very difficult to stop. I hope we have better luck at stopping it then idaho and Montana. Enough about Pike.

I would like to thank you for all you do Don.