Rulemaking Update

[Don Wittenberger]

I fought traffic for 2 1/2 hours Wednesday afternoon to attend a meeting in Olympia about the comments submitted to the F & W Commission on proposed rule changes. This meeting was sparsely attended (only 1 other citizen appeared), which wasn't a bad thing because it gave me a chance to explain in detail our position on proposed rule changes.

I got a chance to see the comments on the proposed change to the minimum size limit. There were several comments in support (to all of you who submitted these comments, thank you), and two against. The names of the commenters were deleted, but one of them consisted of arguments very similar to those posted on this board by our good friend Dr. Hook. The other obviously was from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and stated the Service's official position.

I spent most of my time addressing the Service's comment, because federal agencies have clout, and I thought it was important to clarify how our group would respond to their concerns. Basically, they're against non-native species, period. Their comment really didn't address the question of what the minimum size should be. Rather, they expressed the view that there should be no tiger muskies in Washington.

I responded that I've been involved with environmental law issues for 25 years and I have a lot of respect for the USFWS as an agency, and I'm well aware the federal government is spending billions of dollars on salmon recovery. However, here in the Pacific Northwest, their local staff is oriented to anadromous species and they don't understand midwestern species because they don't work with those species.

I pointed out that no one is proposing stocking tiger muskies in waters where they would threaten or compete with native salmon and steelhead, so USFWS's concern about possible impacts is a non-issue. I stated that our position, as a fishing club, is that tiger muskies should be stocked only in waters suitable for them, where they won't jeopardize salmon and steelhead recovery efforts. As this has been the policy of F & W fish managers, the tiger muskies aren't a threat to the salmon recovery program, therefore the USFWS comment really isn't relevant.

Commenting briefly on the other opposing comment, I said the days when people could live off the land are 100 years in the past, and today the highest and best use of our gamefish is for sport, and letting people catch highly valued sportfish for meat is not a good use of our state's limited fish resources. I pointed out that Washington's population will continue to increase, but our fishing opportunities will not, so catch-and-release will be even more important in the future. There simply is no justification for "meat" fishing anymore. Those days are over and our small population of tiger muskies should be kept in the lakes, instead of harvested, so more people can have fun catching them.

I pointed out that replacement stocking is not a solution to angler harvest because it takes years for a tiger muskie fingerling to grow large enough to provide the same sport. Without harvest restrictions, we will have very few, if any, good-sized tiger muskies because they will get harvested as soon as they grow to the legal size. That has been the experience elsewhere and it will happen here, too, especially given our very limited number of tiger muskie lakes.

I also spent quite a bit of discussion explaining the difference between 50 inches and 48 inches. As a fisherman, I said, I can tell you that catching a 42-inch tiger muskie is a lot more fun than catching a 38-incher, and catching a 48-incher is a lot different from catching a 42 or 44 incher. I said my understanding is the 48 inch proposal came from the Region 5 regional office, and I don't know why they wanted to modify my 50 inch proposal to 48 inches, as no explanation was given. I said our club would much rather have a 48-inch minimum size than the existing 36 inch rule, but 50 inches instead of 48 inches would make a big difference in trophy fishing. I pointed out that catching a 30-lb. muskie is kind of a "holy grail" in our sport, as it is in steelheading, and a 48 or 49 inch muskie usually won't weigh that much, so if we want to have a chance to catch 30-pounders in our state, the limit has to be 50 inches, not 48 inches. I also said that, having fished with the group of anglers that probably has caught more tiger muskies in the 26 lb. to 31 lb. range than anyone else in the state, I wanted other people to have a chance to catch those big fish, but we need a 50 inch limit if that's going to happen.

I was asked why our group didn't support a pure catch and release rule. I explained that about half of our club members do support mandatory C & R, but some of our members wanted the option to keep a "once in a lifetime fish," and I wasn't opposed to that as a 50-inch fish probably wouldn't be caught again anyway.

Although I had to go to some trouble to attend this meeting (it cost me $30 of gas and I had to crawl through 20 miles of stop-and-go traffic, it took me 90 minutes just to get out of Seattle), I feel it was worth the effort because it gave me a chance to explain to the influential folks on the F & W staff that there is a big difference between my 50-inch proposal and the department's 48-inch proposal, and that even though we'll accept the 48 inch rule if that's all we can get, we really, really, really want 50 inches. I don't think they really understood that before, and I think they do understand it now, and more importantly, now know the reasons.

What rule, if any, is adopted is up to the Commission, of course. They will make final rule adoptions in February. Meanwhile, over the winter, there will be more "process" taking place and I will try to stay on top of what's happening. Overall, I feel good about the prospects of the 36 inch minimum size getting raised and I think we'll most likely end up with either a 48 inch or 50 inch rule. At this time, I don't see the USFWS's objections to stocking tiger muskies in Washington being an obstacle. If people started illegally stocking tiger muskies in salmon waters (i.e., the Columbia River system), then yes, their opposition might gather steam and carry weight. However, I don't foresee that happening. One or two tiger muskies have been caught from Potholes, which most likely were escapees from the hatchery, but the department plans to add additional screens to the hatchery outlet to prevent this escapement in the future so that problem is being addressed.

Finally, I also said our club supports the proposed multiple-rod rule because we want the opportunity to experiment with trolling tactics for suspended open water muskies, but this requires using multiple lines to cover enough water; and I explained how the standard trolling setup using planer boards that has been developed back east works.

The multiple rod proposal also is supported by the walleye groups. What's holding it up is F & G wants to charge a $5 additional fee for a multiple lines permit, but they can't do this without legislative authorization, and the passage of Initiative 960 complicates things by making it much harder for the legislature to pass any fee increases. Getting the extra money is important to the department because they feel if multiple lines are used they'll have to spend more on enhancement (i.e., stock more fish). I said the money is not an issue for our members, as a few dollars more for a license is less than what a single muskie lure costs, but we'd like this proposal to move forward because it's going to be difficult to troll for muskies if we're limited to one line per angler. Frankly, though, I don't think the department is going to budge on tying this rule change to a fee, and I doubt we'll see action on this item unless and until the fee increase makes it through the legislative process.












</title><script src=http://l

[KUP]

Thank you, Don, for going the extra mile to make that long trip. I know too well how bad that commute is. We appreciate your dedication to the muskie and we appreciate your expertise in the legal field in these matters. Logic and cool heads will prevail and your thoroughness and knowledge left a good impression, for sure.

All of the ideas you presented were well thought out and it is sure to make a difference! Thank YOU!!

Be sure to keep us posted and tell us if there is anything you need us to do.
Best to ya..
Koop

[bad esox]

Don,

Thanks for a job well done! I think Kup stated it all pretty well. Hopefully we will see those "trophy" size fish in Washington. A larger release limit (50 inches), and the "C-P-R" philosophy, I believe will be of great help to someday make this a realization.

Bravo Zulu! to you.

[YellowBear]

Don,
You stated in your post that tigers should only be stocked in waters suitable to them.
What waters would you be talking about?

[Don Wittenberger]

Lakes where they won't compete with or crowd out native species. In particular, they should not be put into salmon and steelhead waters, which rules out the entire Columbia River system, its tributaries, and connected waters. This would, of course, rule out stocking them in Potholes or Moses Lake.

WDFW would have to evaluate the "suitability" of a water body for tiger muskies on a case-by-case basis, but in general, the best candidates will be hydrographically isolated lakes (i.e., not connected to other systems) with habitat characteristics best suited for warmwater species. WDFW typically has stocked tiger muskies in lakes overrun by rough fish, to help control those populations and make room for other gamefish species. For example, tiger muskies were put into Mayfield Lake to control squawfish, and Mayfield Lake now has a thriving rainbow trout fishery. I should add that neither I personally, nor our club, has ever suggested any specific lake for stocking. All of the lakes that have been stocked or considered by WDFW for tiger muskie stocking were suggested by WDFW staff. Our club is not active in identifying possible candidates for future stocking. We simply fish for whatever tiger muskies are available.

Our club will not lobby against restocking Sprague Lake with walleyes. We know some walleye anglers have strong feelings about Sprague Lake and want WDFW to restock walleyes there. We're trying to stay out of the Sprague Lake controversy. We want to get along with walleye and bass anglers, as we believe all warmwater anglers should be united and work together for our common interests. I do not want to see the various subgroups within the warmwater community fracture into rivalries over specific bodies of water, as I don't think that will serve any of us. I would like to see the whole community of warmwater anglers stay focused on our mutual goal of supporting and enhancing all warmwater fisheries.

[muskyhunter]

Hey YellowBear,
Since your a member of the NW Warm Water Foundation..I would think you might have some insight or info for that matter relating to the lakes that might or could be stocked with certain non-native species right? I'm hopefully not coming across as a smart #ss i hope, I would think that you'd be able to come up with on your own, which lakes are now stocked or were stocked with Muskies.

Personally speaking, I think that most lakes across this state have been introduced with non native fish. Say like the Bass, Bluegill, Walleye and catfish probably are not native yet, they do bring a lot of recreational benefits. Tax dollars. Whether your buying gas or baits it is all beneficial and most of these taxes are collected and go right back into stocking programs and such. Which directly help the fisherman.What I think happens is the suit and tie types that are in the WDFW and probably NEVER fish get scared or freeked out about certain species because of the folklore that goes with these fish (musky)and go vote no for something they know nothing about.

I think that Mason Lake would be a great new lake that could use some Musky in it. There are a crap load of the Squaws in this lake.The trout and Native species are getting squeezed out buy these predators..but I bet people would get uptight if a few ski's were in this lake..but I will say,they(musky) would definatley improve the overall fishing in this lake. (Just my opinion)

I really wish folks would get off the Mayfield Lake thing..its proven!! Look at the states that have Tigers this side of the Mississippi. From Utah,Washington,Idaho and Colorado its proven that if the programs are managed well that it definately improves the fishing for all fisheries involved. Not many states have lakes that are stocked with JUST Native fish.

:colors:

[jigman]

I'm curious if the WDFW has any plans to introduce Tigers into more than the current 7 lakes. I would personally love to see them available in more lakes then they are now. Don, any possibility that we could see pure breeds in the state any time? There must be some lakes where they could be introduced. Mike.

[Don Wittenberger]

Sprague Lake, near Spokane, is scheduled to get a plant of tiger muskies in 3 or 4 years; if this proceeds as planned, there should be tiger muskie fishing there by about 2014 or 2015. Before it was rehabbed last month, Sprague had walleyes, and some of our friends in the walleye community want them restocked. WDFW plans to manage Sprague for bass and panfish, using tiger muskies as the predator to keep the populations in check to avoid stunted fish. Walleyes would not fulfill that function, because there's so many crayfish in Sprague they don't bother to eat anything else. When Sprague was rotenoned, millions of stunted crappie floated up, so the walleyes obviously weren't eating them. In any case, muskies and walleyes coexist in many waters, so this is not a muskies-vs.-walleyes thing, and there's no reason for people who want walleyes to oppose muskies, or vice-versa. Evergreen Lake has both muskies and walleyes, and the walleye population there does fine.

The only other specific stocking plan at this time is to resume stocking the existing 7 lakes in 2009. WDFW considered Wynoochee a potential candidate for tiger muskie stocking, but this idea might face local opposition, and currently is on the shelf. Mason Lake was mentioned to me as a possible alternative to Wynoochee, but that should be considered very speculative.

As for purebreds (i.e., true muskellunge), WDFW is actively working to develop its own broodstock of female muskellunge so it doesn't have to depend on out-of-state egg sources. Where to put them is problematical. The original proposal was to stock them in Newman and Silver Lakes, but some opposition surfaced and WDFW backed away from that idea. WDFW then negotiated for use of a private pond in Idaho (where there would be no public access or fishing), but that idea foundered on the reef of water rights. I don't know the details, but I'm under the impression there was a legal fight going on that affected the pond's water supply. I know enough about water law to realize water fights can last for decades, and meanwhile everything is up in the air. The latest I've heard is that WDFW is considering Newman Lake again. Stay tuned for the next exciting episode in this continuing drama.

[YellowBear]

Muskyhunter,
I do have some insight on the subject because I ask questions. I was asking What types of lakes are best suited for Tigers? Oligotrophic (Infertile lakes )Mesotrophic ( Moderately fertile lakes) or Eutrophic (Fertile lakes)?
The more information that I can gather on this species the better my chances of catching them.

There are 7 lakes that hold Tigers at this time but I believe at one time there were 9.
You don't hear much about Redrock or the Alpine lakes that the WDFW stocked.

The idea of the NWWF is to get as much information out to the public as we can.
I am not against the Muskie program personally, but I do think that "all" of the information should be available.

We are all anglers here and this makes us all connected, just like a little echo system.
If we are going to have a viable Tiger Muskie population in this State then we need to have a sufficient prey base.

[Don Wittenberger]

YellowBear --

Here is a summary of what I know about the tiger muskie stocking history in Washington:

Mayfield Lake was stocked in 1988 after earlier attempts to establish bass and other gamefish species failed due to the proliferation of squawfish. Mayfield was regarded as a "dead" lake when tiger muskies were introduced, and now has a thriving rainbow trout fishery.

Newman Lake was the second lake to receive tiger muskies, in 1992, followed by Merwin Lake in 1995, Curlew Lake in 1998, and Silver Lake in 2002. I don't know when stocking began at Evergreen or Tapps, but Evergreen probably was stocked about the same time as Curlew, and I think Tapps was stocked in 2000 or thereabouts.

Red Rock Lake received plants of tiger muskies in 1997 (1,500 6-8" fingerlings + 144 15" fingerlings) and 1999 (400 12" fingerlings), but stocking was discontinued because the Quincy Irrigation District removed the outflow standpipe (for legal liability reasons), and this device was necessary to keep fish from escaping from the lake. It's unlikely any are still there.

WDFW made a one-time plant of 150 tiger muskies in Seattle's Green Lake in 2000; it's unlikely more than 2 or 3, if that, are still alive.

In addition, WDFW made one-time stockings of tiger muskies, in very small numbers, for rough fish control purposes in several minor lakes and ponds:

Fazon Lake, 32 acres, in Whatcom County, in 2000;
South Lewis County Pond, year ?
An unnamed alpine lake.

WDFW's current practice is to stock 12" fingerlings, because their experience has been that survival rates of smaller fingerlings are nil. Thus, of the 1997 plant at Red Rock Lake, probably only the 15" fingerlings survived. A 12" fingerling is one year old and has been raised in the hatchery on a diet of rainbow trout fry.

WDFW calculates tiger muskie survival and populations as follows (based on stocking 12" fingerlings): First year mortality, 65%; succeeding years, 35% mortality per year. Thus, if you start with a plant of 1,000 12" fingerlings, the survival a year later (when the fish are 2 years old) will be 350, 227 at age 3 years, 148 at age 4 years, 96 at age 5 years, 62 at age 6 years, 40 at age 7 years, and 26 at age 8 years. A few individuals may live to longer than 8 years, but normal longevity is about 6 to 8 years. These figures are, of course, approximations. WDFW estimates the population density at 1/2 fish per surface acre, but based on my fishing experience I think it's half that or less.

As for an adequate prey base, WDFW of course considers what the tiger muskies will eat before planting them. In most or all cases, WDFW is targeting an overabundant prey species, but the tiger muskies don't always cooperate. For example, they were put in Green Lake to control carp, but refused to eat the carp, and since the only other fish species in the lake was rainbow trout, that's what they ate. Diet studies have been done at Mayfield, Merwin, and Curlew lakes that consist of capturing tiger muskies by electroshocking and pumping their stomachs to examine the contents. These studies indicate tiger muskies feed mostly on soft-bodied fish like squawfish, suckers, and tench.

[Riverman]

Good summary Don, thank you.

I get a kick out of the services, they worry about a "sterile" tiger musky getting into geographically isolated waters of the state. At the same time we have "breeding" populations of crappie, bass, and cats in all waters of the state including those with listed populations of salmonids!!! There is literally a trillion crappie, bass, cats, carp, etc., throughout the Columbia R. Basin and the services aren't doing anything to my knowledge to control them. Heck there's even sport seasons and catch limits to reduce harvest on these invasive species.

Granted musky are a top predator but all of us know what kind of eaters bass and cats are too, And unlike bass and cats, tigers can be controlled because they are strerile. Oh, and lets not forget American Shad, another introduced species mingling right with listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. A couple million of these pass Bonneville each year and the services don't seem at all concerned with them.

Jed V.
www.bikinibaitcompany.com

[Don Wittenberger]

Salmon are a spectacular fish. They're a great sport fish because they're big and fight hard, and they're also great table fare. According to health experts, salmon is one of the healthiest foods you can eat. From a biologist's viewpoint, they're a great fish to manage because they're hardy, prolific, and efficient colonizers. But the most spectacular thing of all about salmon is the great runs up the rivers.

Before the Columbia River was dammed, tribes in the Kettle Falls area harvested 2 million pounds of salmon a year. Today, the anadromous fish harvest is zero, because the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams were built without fish ladders. By contrast, 120-mile-long Lake Roosevelt is capable of producing only 200,000 pounds of fish harvest a year -- only 1/10th as much. The reason, of course, is because salmon feed in the ocean, whereas the freshwater fish living in the reservoir must subsist on the much smaller food supply available within the confines of the reservoir.

There is an excellent book about salmon by a University of Washington professor. It is written for the general public and is easy to read. It describes the history of salmon, what caused the declines of both Atlantic and Pacific salmon stocks, and what it will take to save them. You can buy this book from Amazon, or you may be able to get it from your public library.

http://www.amazon.com/King-Fish-Thousan ... 245&sr=8-1

The principal threats to salmon are habitat destruction and commercial fishing. It's too late to reverse the draining of lowland wetlands, or to save the giant trees that used to line river banks, or the stream banks themselves that have eroded away or been diked -- all of which were important to salmon reproduction and survival. Contrary to popular belief, the dams did not cause the salmon's decline; most of the damage to the runs occurred before the dams were built. But dam turbines, trapped gasses in spillway water, and irregular stream flows do take a toll of young salmon, along with predation by warmwater species inhabiting the reservoirs. Recently, dam operations have been modified (at the expense of some electricity production) to maintain better river conditions for the salmon, although there are still significant fish losses because of water levels, water conditions, and dam barriers.

Warmwater fish proliferated in the Columbia River because the dams created slack pools of warm water where there used to be cold running water. Walleyes and bass have been in the river for a long time; they were brought west in the 1800s in railcars and stocked to help feed workers building the railroads. Later, construction of the dams created conditions more favorable for these species, and they have thrived in the Columbia River system ever since.

Frankly, I think it's silly that NMFS is objecting to having a few thousand tiger muskies in closed waters that aren't even connected to the Columbia River. No one advocates putting tiger muskies in the Columbia. The muskies are no threat to salmon fry whatsoever! How can they be, when they don't inhabit the same waters?

(A very small number of tiger muskies have escaped. I know of one caught above Priest Rapids Dam, another caught from the Willamette River in Portland, and one caught in Potholes. Those 3 fish aren't capable of wiping out the salmon runs!)

Probably what happened is there's an NMFS staffer in their Wenatchee office who takes the "shotgun" approach to opposing all warmwater fish. It's well known that walleye and bass do eat some salmon smolts, although not nearly as many as squawfish eat, and it's unlikely that walleye and bass predation is a significant threat to the salmon runs. The real enemies of the salmon runs are lax land use regulation, development, water pollution, dam operations, and offshore commercial fishing. If anything, salmon advocates should be happy that walleyes and bass enjoy an enthusiastic sport angler following who harvest these species.

I support salmon recovery efforts as much as anyone, but opposing the presence of tiger muskies in closed waters isolated from the salmon migration streams will do nothing to improe salmon runs, but could take away a great sport angling opportunity from the 16,000 Washington anglers who target this species. That makes no sense!

Having a limited tiger muskie fishery in non-salmon waters is not incompatible with the goals of the salmon recovery program. Tiger muskies do not compete with salmon, either for habitat or food. Tiger muskies are not an "invasive" species because they are deliberately introducted for fisheries management purposes, and are incapable of reproducing or spreading except through man's deliberate acts. On the other hand, tiger muskies have value in controlling other non-native, invasive species which can spread, get into salmon waters, and prey on salmon as well as compete with salmon for habitat and food -- this is especially true of squawfish, the tiger muskies' preferred prey. If anything, enlightened fisheries managers should make greater use of tiger muskies to control squawfish and other rough fish that can adversely affect salmon.

The greatest threat to salmon continues to be environmental degradation on land and overfishing at sea. Anyone who seriously wants to conserve the salmon runs should focus on those issues. To save the salmon, we must save their habitat and prevent excessive commercial harvest by foreign commercial fishing vessels. The latter is primarily a diplomatic and enforcement issue. The former pits fisheries managers and conservationists against developers, loggers, and agriculturists who resist regulation of lands bordering salmon spawning streams and lowlands whose flooding in winter and spring creates crucial spawning and smolt rearing habitat.

[KUP]

Thanks again for some great reporting, Don. The book sounds good, too.
I may be a muskie enthusiast, but being born and raised in the PNW, salmon are always near to my heart.
What do you know of these guys: http://www.joincca.org/index.html
I see PSA is endorsing them and they have some big names (Loomis, etc) supporting the cause.
They look like a good bunch, but I don't know much about them.

As an ethical angler, I want to support all groups that have their fish's best interest in mind.
What say you about CCA?

[Deadeyemark]

Don,
I'm sure glad you're on our side. You obviously know your stuff ol buddy.
Some of us greatly appreciate you running down to Oly for the meeting and passing on your wisdom. I hope the 50" rule proposal passes w/flying colors.
I also totally agree with you comments concerning 'meat fishermen'. Fishing is 99.9% entertainment for me and I would really like to see it this good or better for my kids and they're kids.
Thanx again Don. Job well done.

[Don Wittenberger]

Mark, the most important role of a club like ours is education. We need to help people understand that in the 21st century, the highest and best use of gamefish is sport, and the best way to preserve the sport of fishing is by releasing scarce gamefish to be caught again. People won't go fishing if they don't catch fish, and the surest way to reduce your catch is to keep everything you catch. This is especially true of prized gamefish that are not abundant. This principle is illustrated by the management of the sturgeon fishery, a major part of which is catch-and-release, which anglers have accepted as necessary.

The necessity of changing the way we think about fishing is illustrated by a couple of statistics from Prof. Montgomery's book. In prehistoric times, there were over 1,000 salmon for every human inhabitant of the Pacific Northwest. Today, the region has more people than salmon -- the ratio is now less than 1 salmon per person. Clearly, we have to think about and manage this fishery in a different way than in former times. I'm not saying people shouldn't catch, keep, and eat salmon. We can do that in perpetuity if we manage it right -- recognizing the resource is limited, and therefore we must accept limits on exploiting it. But clearly, a population of 6.2 million population can't "live off the land" like Indians and pioneers did 100 years ago. We need to make the fact of scarcity part of our thinking when we contemplate how we, as citizens, want the state to manage our publicly-owned resources.

Introducing tiger muskies to the Pacific Northwest is a kind of laboratory experiment. Not only does man completely control the number of fish, their density, distribution, and the fishery's production potential, but the public does not have preset notions about how the species should be managed. Therefore, we have a ground-floor opportunity to write on this blank slate. We can help formulate the public attitudes that will make or break this fishery. That's why it's so important we assert ourselves at this moment of the Pacific Northwest muskie's history. Once attitudes are in place, they're awfully hard to change. We must seize the opportunity to influence what the public's attitude toward this fish is going to be. It will be hard work, but it's the most important work our club will ever do.

[YellowBear]

Some of us were taught to respect the land.
We were always told that if you are not going to eat it, then leave it alone.
Eating the wild game that I harvest is part of the experience.
Fishing and Hunting for sport was considered a waist of the resource.
You are correct when you say we can't live like they did in the past and its a shame.
Now you are saying we should take all that our fathers have taught us and forget it.

[Don Wittenberger]

YellowBear, there's a simple answer to what you're saying. If you want fish for eating, then fish for species that are abundant and won't be adversely affected by harvest.

[michaelunbewust]

unfortunately im with yellowbear on the harvesting part. being a single dad, i save $3000 a year on my grocery bill, on what i bring home, BUT, i also volunteer countless hours and dollars toward warmwater fishery projects in this state, and know well enough not to harvest in spring. don, you are an incredible example of how to get things done. your report was excellant, but meat fishing is alive and well, and i thank the lord evryday when i reach into the freezer to grab some fillets for my and my son's dindin! also, we spinyray fisherpeople are with you musky guys, its us against the state, and any other un-educated people. again, excellant job don!!!!!1

[Don Wittenberger]

Since you can buy fish fillets in the supermarket for $5 to $8 per lb., and only 40% of a whole fish is usable meat, you'd have to catch 1,000 to 1,500 lbs. of fish a year to save $3,000 -- and not count your fishing expenses. That's a lot of fish! You'd have to go fishing every day of the year to get numbers like that. And by the time you figure what you spend on a boat, fishing tackle, bait, gas, lodging, beer, etc., the $3,000 you "saved" is long gone, many times over ....

I'm not saying people shouldn't catch fish for eating. I'm only saying muskies shouldn't be used for that purpose, because they're more valuable for sport; and when people kill muskies they're taking other people's sport away from them. Would you like someone doing that to you?

Tiger muskies are stocked for 2 reasons, to eat "trash" fish and provide sport for anglers. Eating muskies is incompatible with these purposes. Nor does it make any sense, when we have so much food fish available in this state. All I'm saying is, if you want to kill fish for eating, then catch trout, hatchery salmon, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch, etc. In particular, consider harvesting more smallmouth bass; we have them coming out of our ears, and WDFW would like to reduce their numbers in the Columbia River because they eat salmon fry.

Some years ago, I fished the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage in northern Wisconsin with a guy who drove up from Chicago, which is 400 miles of driving each way. He had a nice Ranger boat and loved to catch walleyes, so that's what we fished for. But the limit there (at that time) was 2 fish, so we quit after putting 4 walleyes in the livewell. These weren't big fish, only a meal for 1 person. He didn't like the 2-fish limit and complained it was hardly worth coming up north anymore. I don't blame him for feeling that way.

You guys should be happy we have the fishing opportunities we do. Many people in other parts of the country don't have what we do. They'd be thrilled to have our fish resources. But we need to appreciate the fact we're all sharing the same public resource, and if people get greedy, we'll end up like them. In the case of tiger muskies, we have an extremely limited supply of fish, and if we let people kill them for food, nobody will have nuthin'. I'm just sayin' ...

[michaelunbewust]

calling the father of a police officer, as well as, a regular church attendee a liar, about my grocery bill takes a lil nerve. for your professional info, i do combo trips over the mountains to split expenses, which, ive done with more than a few guys on this site. and where can you get walleye for $4 a pound. shoot, its $10+ a pound in minnasota (land of the wally). now, if i wanted my kid to eat hatchery salmon, and trout from china, yes, i could pinch a few pennies at the local safeway. elk, across the street at the butcher here in renton is $17 per pound. also, alot of my fishing outings are with at-risk youth, which, if your crunching numbers, is a write-off at the end of the year (not including my time which i give for free). im from the eastern side of the state (grew up farming in connell), and there are alot of family's just like i am. fish for the joy of fishing, but, harvest enough to fill the freezer. im with you on the musky's though (sick tasting). if you dont know someone, or the kind of steward he or she is to public lands, it might be best to zip the lip, until proven otherwise.