Northwest Fishing Reports

Dr. Hook posted the stocking data in the previous thread; here are those data again, except the 2007 figure is corrected to the number that Steve Jackson gave me this morning:

2000) 1,876 fish stocked
2002) 800 fish stocked
2005) 803 fish stocked
2006) 1,000 fish stocked
2007) 194 14-inch fish stocked

WDFW estimates mortality at 60% in the first year, then 35% annually, and 10 years as the limit of longevity. Accordingly, their analysis is that Tapps Lake has approximately 913 tiger muskies, or 719 excluding the 2007 plant, or a density of .313 fish per acre.

Using WDFW's mortality figures, I calculated that 390 of the fish planted in 2006 still survive, and as these fish also are smaller than 36 inches, after subtracting them from 719, I get a total of 429 legals in the lake. Allowing for a 10% margin of error (my own arbitrary MOE number), there would be approximately 385 to 475 legals in Tapps Lake.

Note: This comment was edited at 11:23 PM to correct a calculation error. My original figure for the number of legals in Lake Tapps was too low because I inadvertently used 60% as the first-year survival (instead of mortality) rate in calculating the number of surviving 2006 plants to subtract from 719 to determine the population of legals.

one thing i didnt see in the data is the percentage that they believe goes home for table fare, or is that part of the mortality rate. maybe you can ask your source. if it is part of the mortality rate, how much? and if it is significant then i believe educating signage at launches and possibly a larger limit would be of great help to the fisheries. i think most people put them back after they feel the slime and smell the greatness they leave behind. (sorry for adding the C&R comment Dr. Hook, i'm still looking for the 47 incher photos from last sunday, yes on your site) BTW did you guys check out the Tiger Musky photo from Silver Lake, man the fish looks wierd... looks like it has a bubba gump problem the way the lower jaw is.

Kenster wrote:Dr. Hook, i'm still looking for the 47 incher photos from last sunday

I never weighed or measured it.



And here's a couple bass I got a couple days prior.

Here's the link to my original thread:

http://www.washingtonlakes.com/Forum/vi ... php?t=1405

Out of the 4679 fish stocked over the last 7 years, your estimating that there are only 300/350 legal fish in the lake?? If thats the case then theres a serious problem and its not angler harvest.

I had a monster swim under my boat today.

thats a beauty!!! Nice Musky too!!!!! LOL! you only need another 4-5 inches to get in the books, that's a long monster! now we need to work on the smile! you have some great photos and i enjoyed viewing your other ones too!

thanks for sharing!

Thanks, it was nice seeing you on the lake. I got soaked out there!

Don as todays date your saying that all the efforts of WDFW to provide a viable musky fishery have only yielded 50 legal fish per year for over 2000 acres. If thats really the case, I'd say WDFW should be using our money for a program that yields better results, like Kokanee in Tapps!

I know that you really want to crunch the numbers to support catch and release, but that just doesn't sound right.

Kenster ~ Here's a couple more recent Tapps pics.

Hi Don:

Not sure if anyone knows standing stock and survivals of tiger muskies but your estimate is probably in the ball park. The assumption of tiger muskie standing stock in Washington is based on true muskellunge standing stocks in the midwest, but don't think they have been verified here. Determining standing stock here will be difficult because one of the assumptions in doing mark-recapture studies is that the marked fish mix randomly in the population after release, and tigers have been shown to have home ranges, and thus, don't mix randomly.

First year survival depends on forage availability and predation. Foraging ability and predator avoidance are influenced by release time, size, location (lake and within lake) and quality of juveniles (fin deformities, pellet fed or live fish food experienced, etc). Survival probably varies considerably from year to year. The first releases into a water may have great survival as the tigers tap into a fresh forage base. Seems like a first year survival of 40% may be high as otherwise there would be a bunch of 22-25" tigers, and folks don't see them. Survival for salmon in the first year after release is extremely poor (10-20%), so the learning curve may be tough for tigers also.

As far as the criticism of the tiger program being expensive, it may be the least expensive fish program by WDFW per hour of fishing recreation generated. On Mayfield from 1992-1998, assuming that trout cost $3/lb and tigers $10/lb, an average of $23,800 was spent annually planting trout while $1,900 was spent on tigers. Trout generated 3,870 hours of recreation while tigers generated 3,058 hours of recreation. Cost per hour of recreation was $6.15 for trout and $0.62 for tigers, making tigers 10 times a greater return on investment than trout.

Seems with that kind of return on investment, a few other waters should be considered for tiger introduction?

I'm not sure where you get your data but it sounds like you know what your talking about and you must be right Anglers are flocking to Tapps to catch 1 of the 300 legal fish in the lake. I think I saw two angling boats on the lake today and that included mine.

you would have seen 3 but i got stuck at work! lucky you!

Actually the other one was a ski boat but he was trying to fish!

tmusky wrote:
As far as the criticism of the tiger program being expensive, it may be the least expensive fish program by WDFW per hour of fishing recreation generated. On Mayfield from 1992-1998, assuming that trout cost $3/lb and tigers $10/lb, an average of $23,800 was spent annually planting trout while $1,900 was spent on tigers. Trout generated 3,870 hours of recreation while tigers generated 3,058 hours of recreation. Cost per hour of recreation was $6.15 for trout and $0.62 for tigers, making tigers 10 times a greater return on investment than trout.

Seems with that kind of return on investment, a few other waters should be considered for tiger introduction?

I think I have it figured out.

Its because trout are easy to catch, so people catch there limit and head out. You have to make 10,000 casts to catch a musky and people try for days and never do catch one, so the hours just keep racking up! Also, if you really want to get a kid hooked on fishing, take them Musky fishin'!

Seriously, how do you calculate "hours of recreation"? I've been fishing my entire life and I've never had anyone ask me how long I've been fishing and what I was fishing for..

Everyone: Please note that I have updated my original comment to correct a calculation error in my estimate of the number of legals currently in Tapps Lake.