Northwest Fishing Reports

Steve Jackson at WDFW now has sufficient funding for a 2009 spring stocking. Some of the money will go for the required disease certifications. If all goes well, WDFW might have up to 6,000 fingerlings next year. Various things can wrong, such as higher than expected hatchery mortality or problems getting eggs, but right now I feel optimistic about the 2009 stocking. This fall, we may want to discuss among ourselves how those fish should be divided among our 7 lakes. We don't control that decision, but I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to offer input to the department on where these fish should go.

The same egg-supply issues still exist and WFDW's long-term solution, the proposed broodstock program, is still far from being realized. There are no new developments with the broodstock program to report at this time. The department is working on it, and also is working on developing alternative egg sources, but the egg supply issue continues to hang over our heads.

We may soon have a statewide 50-inch minimum size limit. I want everyone to understand this is only one part of the big picture. To keep tiger muskies in our lakes for anglers to catch, we need to continue working on a variety of issues: Keeping the stocking program going, reducing angler mortality, protecting habitat, public education -- all of that. As a group, we are well positioned to gather information in an organized way. As anglers, we can be the eyes of the fish managers by monitoring what's going on in the fishery and keeping the department's biologists informed of any problems we observe with population depletion, habitat degradation, etc. It will take more than a minimum size limit and stocking program to preserve angler opportunities to catch nice-sized muskies.

I would put my 2 cents in that Silver Lake in Spokane county has all of the muskies it needs. It's probably the smallest lake that holds them, and I hardly go a trip without at least seeing one. The 50 inch limit sounds good to me.

Hey Don,
How do you suppose we help with the "reducing Angler Mortality"in your report?....just pullin' your chain here..someone's got to do it I guess..todd

MH, in response to your question -- and feel free to pull my chain as much as you like, I have a thick skin -- obviously we need to look after our own personal fish handling practices, but basically the answer is educating other anglers about proper fish handling techniques. This can take a number of forms, but obviously there's a role for the club to play in getting information out to the public, and as individual anglers we may have opportunities now and then to get this information out to other anglers. Another thing we can do is lobby for, and support, efforts by WDFW which might include things like signs at boat landings on our muskie lakes, putting the information on their web site, and anything else we can think of to get the word out to as many people as possible.

What about Viral Hemoragicseptesima?
I understand that this has turned out to be a big problem back East. I thought that it only affected the Musky, but after some research I find that it also will infect other species.

Now I may be wrong here, but why on gods green earth would we want to take the "chance" of bringing a bug like this to Washington?
We have already seen the WDFW does not know enough about this fish to be playing god.
We have found discrepancies with rate of growth, feeding habits, and age.
If just one egg is infected, we will have a much bigger problem.
We can control the fish, but we will not be able to control this virus.

WFDW is working it's tail off to ensure there are no introduction's of VHS in Washington State. The primary reason there will not be 2008 stocking of Tiger's is their concerns over importing this virus. They have a testing and screening method and are making sure it works. I'll bet they know what they are doing and will use a scintific, cautious approach after gathering the facts.

YellowBear, this is why WDFW must use eggs from Minnesota DNR. That agency is the only source of certified disease-free tiger muskie eggs. WDFW has worked with WSU to set up a testing lab here in Washington State to test eggs after receipt. This fail-safe testing provides another layer of protection against importing VHS via fish eggs, and may also make it feasible for WDFW to consider eggs from other state wildlife agencies if the Minnesota eggs become unavailable.

Actually, the biggest VHS threat to our native fisheries comes not from WDFW's fish stocking programs but from anglers using imported bait. This concern applies to frozen herring and smelt, and also a popular walleye bait which is not native to Washington. There is no screening of this imported bait for VHS and no regulation of its importation by anglers. Do you have any ideas on what WDFW should do about that?

Don Wittenberger wrote:YellowBear, this is why WDFW must use eggs from Minnesota DNR. That agency is the only source of certified disease-free tiger muskie eggs. WDFW has worked with WSU to set up a testing lab here in Washington State to test eggs after receipt. This fail-safe testing provides another layer of protection against importing VHS via fish eggs, and may also make it feasible for WDFW to consider eggs from other state wildlife agencies if the Minnesota eggs become unavailable.

Actually, the biggest VHS threat to our native fisheries comes not from WDFW's fish stocking programs but from anglers using imported bait. This concern applies to frozen herring and smelt, and also a popular walleye bait which is not native to Washington. There is no screening of this imported bait for VHS and no regulation of its importation by anglers. Do you have any ideas on what WDFW should do about that?

Don, do you know what baits could have VHS? Or brand names or anything? What about scents or dough baits? i know some of the newer stuff is made from pheramones, do you think fish pheramones could pass on VHS?

gpc, I don't know the answer to your question and suggest running that past the WDFW biologists. If you need an e-mail address to contact them, e-mail me at dwitt546@aol.com. My comment pertains to live and dead bait, not manufactured baits.

Don Wittenberger wrote:gpc, I don't know the answer to your question and suggest running that past the WDFW biologists. If you need an e-mail address to contact them, e-mail me at dwitt546@aol.com.

Cool thanks Don. I dont know a whole lot about this VHS (just about as much as WDFW tells us, wich cant be the whole truth). But if they are worried enough about it to stop a whole stocking program....... I want no part in it. In fact, once I figure out wich brands/ bait types that could be contaminated with VHS, are brands/bait types that I will never use again

First off I want to say that that VHS is not harmful to humans.
With that said, there is some good information about VHS at this site.
(www.dec.ny.gov/animals/25328.html)

Due to the potential adverse effects of this disease to fish populations and to prevent or delay its spread to other states, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued a Federal Order on October 24, 2006, that prohibits the importation of certain species of live fish from Ontario and Quebec and the innerstate movement of the same species from eight states bordering the Great Lakes. effective immediately. The states included are Illinos, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvaina, Wisconson and Minnesota.

The list of fish that this pertains too is very long but the Muskie and the Northern are both on it.
Now I know the WDFW is using eggs and not fish.
But in my humble country boy mind, if the fish are in question, then so are the eggs.

Utah Division of Wildlife Reasources.
( wildlife.utah.gov/news/06-12tiger_muskie.php)

DWR stops bringing tiger muskie into Utah

The risk of bringing VHS in from Minnesota waters, and infecting fish in Utah, is just too high........

What is it going to cost us to get WSU involved?
Are they going to do it for free?
Whats the extra cost going to be.
How much does it cost to raise an egg to release size?
I have a price list here that says I can buy a Muskie thats stocking size and there only $15.00 each, so I am guessing it might be some spendy to raise them from an egg to release size.
I have heard that the WDFW expects to loose 65% of fish stocked the first year? and 35% each year after?
Dosen't make good sence to me, but I am just a guy that buy,s a liscense.

To answer the remark about the bait situation, I have always felt that we should be able to use live bait.
Minnows, Waterdogs, Nightcrawlers, Worms, Crawdads, Mice what ever as long as said bait comes from Washington State.

Thanks for your time guys as always its been fun. :compress:

You may be able to buy tiger muskies from commercial sources, but you can't bring those fish into Washington. Currently, the only source for certified disease-free eggs is Minnesota DNR, whose eggs come from outside the VHS quarantine area.

At present, the WSU testing facility provides an extra layer of protection against importing diseased eggs. Longer term, it may allow WDFW to use eggs from New Jersey or Kentucky if Minnesota eggs become unavailable, as almost happened a couple years ago, and is also related to WDFW's efforts to set up a broodstock program so we don't have to depend on out-of-state eggs.

As I recollect the total budget for 2009 is $90,000 of which $50,000 is capital funds from the construction budget for the WSU facility. The WSU facility is a long-term investment, so you can't attribute all of that expense to the 2009 stocking. There are different ways to calculate WDFW's tiger muskies costs, but keep in mind they own and operate the hatchery anyway and feed them with rainbow trout raised in their own hatcheries. The cash expense is nowhere near $15 per fish, it's more like $1.50 to $2.00 per fingerling. The economic benefit is $7 million per year, so Washington is getting an excellent financial return on its investment in tiger muskies. The cost of this program is insignificant compared to the hundreds of millions spent on rearing salmon, steelhead, and trout.

WDFW estimates first year mortality in the wild at 65% and thereafter 35% per year. So, from 6,000 fingerlings we should end up with about 1,200 adult fish (34 to 38 inches) two years later. If they're caught and released several times over their lifespan, that's a lot of sport for the small expense involved, especially considering that the 16,000 anglers who target this species pay around $400,000 a year in license fees. Tiger muskies are one of the better fishing bargains around as far as how WDFW spends our license dollars.

Good morning folks.
ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?:cheers:

Don, I really want to thank you for debating with me as it causes me to research things that I normally wouldn't.

When the Animal and Plant Health Service (APHIS) issued the order in 2006, they described the infected area as the eight states that border the Great Lakes. They did not exclude parts of any of these states. The Leech Lake fishery were WDFW gets its eggs is in the infected area.

I have dealt with WSU many times in my life and I have all the confidence in the world in those folks but, they have never helped me for free. We have a friend that has a horse down there at this time. He has been there for 3 weeks and the bill is near $6,000.00. So as you can see its not cheap to get WSU involved. But I guess if they are going to get a $50,000.00 facility out of the deal they will be happy.

In order to set up a broodstock program, we will need pure Muskies to be brought into this state. So what you are telling me is that WDFW is planning this, and I for one am all for it, just as soon as they do what they were supposed to do with the warm water species. You have mentioned many times the amount of money spent on the Trout, Salmon and Steelhead but you have never said anything about how much is spent for spiny rays. All I ever hear is how much it cost's to kill them out. Some of us have been paying $5.00 a year for spiny rays since 1985 and we have not seen anything from it except the expansion of the Trout fisheries and the Tiger. I have been told that the Tiger program has been in effect since 1994, (but actually it was 1985) and at $90,000.00 a year. That's $1,260,000.00 that should have been spent on warm water fish.

Now for the mortality,
6000 minus 65% = 2100 fish.
2100 minus 35% = 1365 fish.
1365 minus 35% = 887.25 fish
887.25 minus 35% = 576.7125.
These numbers show that this project is nothing but a money pit, and job security.
This does not show me a good return for my money.
As for the 16,000 anglers that TARGET the tiger in Wa. I will have to do a little checking on that as I doubt it as the questionnaire that was sent out asked, did you fish for Tigers. It did not ask if you Target Tigers. I do not beleave for one second that we have 16000 anglers that buy a licence just for Tigers.

Personally I feel that this project should at the very least be put on hold until the Spinyray project catches up.

Thanks for your time guys and enjoy the game.

Hey YellowBear,
Some good info there..I would though, see about about getting ahold of Steve Jackson or Bruce Boldin Biologists at the WDFW. Maybe Don W. can get you in contact with these fine gentlemen that really know their stuff and hopefully educate you on some of these programs. I thought that since you are in the Warm Water Foundation you might have the ability to communicate with the WDFW and work side by side with them. But apparently you nor your group does this. Instead,as I see it, would rather BASH the WDFW for what they don't do for the fisherman. Maybe look into what they do get done and not be so critical of what they do not do.
Anyway talk with Don. He can help get you to the proper channels to speak with the folks you need to speak with. And please stop bashing the WDFW.

Peace..Go Pats!!

YB, you are correct the eggs come from Leech Lake, but I was told by WDFW this area of Minnesota is outside the quarantine area. I'm not questioning what you read on a web site, but on the other hand I'd like to think the biologists at WDFW are on top of this and know what they're doing, so let me just say I hope you're mistaken and they're not.

The broodstock program does not necessarily require bringing "pure" muskellunge into Washington. As I've posed before in this forum, WDFW is exploring a joint venture with several other states, and the last I heard about it is that the broodstock muskies may be kept in Montana.

The tiger muskie stocking program began in 1988, not 1985 or 1994. Mayfield Lake was the only lake stocked with tiger muskies until 1992, when Newman Lake was added to the stocking list, followed by Merwin in 1995 and Curlew in 1998. Most or all of the other lakes were added in 2000 or later.

The tiger muskie stocking program has not cost remotely close to $1.2 million. It's more like $6,000 to $10,000 a year.

No one has ever said 16,000 anglers fish for tiger muskies exclusively. Even I don't fish exclusively for tiger muskies, and I doubt that any of our Muskies Inc. chapter members fish only for muskies. There is a difference between saying 16,000 anglers "target" this species and "buy[ing] a licence just for Tigers." The 16,000 figure comes from WDFW angler surveys and you can consider that data with however little or much skepticism as you wish. I use it because it's the only information available from any source on that topic.

Complaining about an alleged lack of WDFW efforts to enhance other warmwater fisheries has been a recurring theme of yours in these comment threads, and I have previously responded to it by pointing out that WDFW has established an entire section with its own staff and budget that is devoted to managing and improving warmwater species fisheries. Not having to share these biologists and this budget with the marine or salmonid interests is a great big deal, because that means we don't have to compete with the more powerful salmon/steelhead/trout interests for staff time and budget dollars. IFPAG, the citizen panel that advises the director on all freshwater fisheries, includes both warmwater and salmonid interests and half or more of the people on that board speak for warmwater interests. In particular, bass and walleye clubs are well represented on IFPAG. Of IFPAG's two dozen members, I am the only one who speaks specifically for muskie anglers, so from my point of view, the other warmwater fisheries are not underrepresented and muskie anglers do not have an unfair advantage or undue influence on WDFW fish management policies. There is also a reason why tiger muskies are raised in hatcheries while bass and walleyes aren't: The latter have no difficulty reproducing in abundant numbers in the wild, whereas tiger muskies are a sterile hybrid that have to be hatchery-reared in order to exist at all.

What, exactly, do you want WDFW to do for bass, walleyes, and/or panfish, that they are not doing? If you have specific grievances or requests that you would like to bring before IFPAG, feel free to post them here or email me at dwitt546@aol.com, and I will be happy to present them to IFPAG on your behalf, because I don't speak only for tiger muskie anglers, I'm interested in improving fishing opportunities for all of our state's warmwater anglers.

Thanks Don..on that last thread...You can't please all the people all of the time..I reckon'. Todd

Don,
Thanks for talkin, I wish you a good season.

You too, YB. Won't be long now. Winter's almost over.

The groundhog saw it's shadow we will have at least 6 more weeks of cold wet no sun days. The night s will be darker also.
Bill

Hey ol duck breath Bill, you're depressing me.