Northwest Fishing Reports

Washington state adopts fishing regulations on a 2-year cycle. 2008 was a "major cycle" year, when any proposal (including those from the public) can be considered. 2009 is a "minor cycle" year, when proposals are limited to "conservation concerns, housekeeping issues, significant recreational opportunities" from department staff and "requests or assignments from our Fish and Wildlife Commission or other managers."

I have received the list of the 2009 "minor cycle" proposals, and identified 3 proposals that potentially may affect tiger muskie anglers.

Proposal #1 would "make it unlawful to use or possess and use live aquatic animals for bait in fresh water, with the exception that anglers may possess live shrimp for bait." This rule is aimed in part at stopping walleye anglers from importing leeches into Washington from unregulated private vendors in other states as a VHS prevention measure, but also will ban live crayfish and other live bait except shrimp. This rule doesn't address dead bait, but is a first step toward eliminating bait fishing for tiger muskies in our state. The problem with bait fishing is that if the fish swallows the hook, as is likely, the fish almost certainly won't survive. So, this rule helps our fishery by ending any live bait fishing that may be going on. Assuming it's adopted, our next step will be to propose an artificial lures-only rule for tiger muskies in the next major cycle.

Proposal #19 modifies fishing contest rules, and if adopted will "change the date for submission of fishing contest permit applications for the following year from November 1 of each year to July 1 of each year. The proposal would also allow contests to last 4 consecutive days instead of 3." The accompanying explanatory statement says, "After July 1, permits will need to be submitted not lessthan 30 days prior to the date of the proposed contest." Although aimed primarily at bass and walleye tournaments, this rule could affect the administration of Chapter 57 tiger muskie tournaments and the privately sponsored Mayfield Lake tiger muskie tournament, as it will apply to all fishing contests.

Proposal #24 is a revision of an anti-snagging rule that provoked objections from walleye anglers last year. The purpose of this rule is to prevent illegal snagging of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River, and other salmon/steelhead streams, by imposing tackle restrictions. This proposal would "require use of single hooks on all gear (floating or sinking, with or without bait." In the mainstem Columbia, it will apply only to anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead, in order to allow bass and walleye anglers to continue using plugs with treble hooks and other multiple-hook rigs; but in all other listed areas, it will apply to all species. The North Fork of the Lewis River from Colvin Creek to Merwin Dam is included in this prohibition, so it appears this rule would prohibit use of most standard muskie lures in the area of the Lewis River downstream from the dam. This will affect anyone desiring to fish for tiger muskies in the river. They are not plentiful there, and the river is not an established tiger muskie fishery, but tiger muskies are known to escape from Merwin Lake into the North Fork Lewis River and a few have been caught in the river. I may bring this up at the IFPAG meeting and ask that this restriction not apply to muskie anglers, in case anyone wants to fish for tiger muskies in the river. There is no guarantee, of course, that asking will result in modification of the proposed rule.

The next IFPAG meeting was scheduled for late October but has been moved up to Sept. 27. Anyone who would like to get a copy of the rule proposals via e-mail or has anything they want to discuss with me prior to the meeting can contact me at dwitt546@aol.com. As your representative on IFPAG, I am your bridge to the WDFW policy and rule making process, so please feel free to communicate with me about any of these issues.

Thank you Don

It would be nice if the musky fishermen would skip supporting proposal #1 and propose artificials only during the 2008 cycle.

It's bad enough not being able to use leeches for walleye but to also not be able to use Washington state crayfish.... that's bad. Actually proposal #1 would ban the use of Washington state leeches should one want to harvest their own

zen leecher aka Bill W wrote:It would be nice if the musky fishermen would ... propose artificials only during the 2008 cycle.

We can't, or I would have. Only staff can submit minor cycle proposals. Steve Jackson said it didn't meet the criteria. We'll submit it next year, and build support between now and then; that's the best we can do. Meanwhile, Proposal #1 is better than nothing.

Information like this should be posted to every forum.
I am sure there are many members of this web site that do not check out the Muskie forum.
As you stated Don, you are a bridge between the "public" and the WDFW.

Don Wittenberger wrote:

zen leecher aka Bill W wrote:It would be nice if the musky fishermen would ... propose artificials only during the 2008 cycle.

We can't, or I would have. Only staff can submit minor cycle proposals. Steve Jackson said it didn't meet the criteria. We'll submit it next year, and build support between now and then]

Uhhh...Don... I think I was looking at the wrong calendar. I meant the next major cycle. I must be living in the past.

Proposal #19 modifies fishing contest rules, and if adopted will "change the date for submission of fishing contest permit applications for the following year from November 1 of each year to July 1 of each year. The proposal would also allow contests to last 4 consecutive days instead of 3." The accompanying explanatory statement says, "After July 1, permits will need to be submitted not lessthan 30 days prior to the date of the proposed contest." Although aimed primarily at bass and walleye tournaments, this rule could affect the administration of Chapter 57 tiger muskie tournaments and the privately sponsored Mayfield Lake tiger muskie tournament, as it will apply to all fishing contests.

Just wondering whose idea was this?
Hopefully the Bass, Walleye, Musky and any other Club Presidents are aware of this change. Just asking a question....

No word on any upcoming changes to the state's, and more specifically the Pend Oreille River's pike regulations? I keep hearing too much of the "I release most my fish except when I get a bigger one over 15lbs"...... These 15-20lb fish never become 30+lb fish if everybody is keeping them... I would like to see a slot limit adopted to pike... keep and eat all the 20-30inch fish you want and release them between say, 36 and 46.... or 32-42... or something of the sort. Hey Don, is there anybody I can contact about future rules regarding pike?

MH -- I'll get back to you when I have that information. Not sure how long that'll take.

GF -- WDFW wants 2 or 3 years to conduct field surveys and study the issue before they take any action on POR's pike. Usually it's more effective to work with staff on regulatory issues than to pursue rule changes on our own, but we don't necessarily have to wait for WDFW action. In next year's major cycle, we could submit a proposal, although the odds of Commission approval are better with department support. One possible approach is to try persuading staff to support an interim slot rule while they think about how they want to manage this fishery on a long-term basis. I can't promise anything, because department staff is undecided and noncommittal at this point. As for where I think the angling community should be on this, I feel Chapter 57 should get involved with pike issues, and I agree with the idea of preserving a trophy pike fishery in the POR.

That sounds like a good idea to me. I think muskies inc. should have an interest in this topic. I believe that the pike fishery is just as important to manage properly as the muskie fishery. They fall under the same scrutiny and have the same bad reputation that the muskies have except that they aren't sterile, which makes it worse in the eyes of the ignorant. As much as I would like to see the pike fishery managed as a trophy fishery I also realize that pike can have a larger impact on a fishery than tigers because of their ability to reproduce. This is why I feel that this is an important topic. I would like to see the proper research done before any drastic measures are taken. It sounds to me like that is the attitude they have about it as well which is good to see.

I have alot to say on this,..in reference to pike but at this time I'm lacking the brain power(as usual)
Thank you Don for the info and thank you GF for looking out for this great fishery.

Gone Fishin wrote:I believe that the pike fishery is just as important to manage properly as the muskie fishery. They fall under the same scrutiny and have the same bad reputation that the muskies have except that they aren't sterile, which makes it worse in the eyes of the ignorant. As much as I would like to see the pike fishery managed as a trophy fishery I also realize that pike can have a larger impact on a fishery than tigers because of their ability to reproduce. This is why I feel that this is an important topic. I would like to see the proper research done before any drastic measures are taken. It sounds to me like that is the attitude they have about it as well which is good to see.

It's probably true that WDFW's biologists consider pike a potential nuisance species, but they actually aren't worried that pike in Long Lake and POR will spread to other waters. They've have had physical access to the Columbia River for many years, but haven't taken over the Columbia system. The reason is they can't reproduce in the river conditions (fluctuating water levels, etc.), so even if they escape from Long Lake or POR (and a few apparently do) they hit a wall, so to speak. I think WDFW is more concerned about anglers transplanting them. It's hard to see how else they got into Crocker Lake on the Olympic Peninsula, and WDFW obviously doesn't want people doing that, because then WDFW has to spend a lot of money on rotenone treatment to get rid of them. However, none of this precludes managing POR's pike as a sport fishery, and I think WDFW is open to that idea.

My proposal would be for artificial lures only on all tiger musky lakes. Simple without all the above confusion.

Mark, do you mean for all species, or just tiger muskies?

Isn't powerbait considered an artificial lure? If you banned that and worms it would shut down the trout fishermans skills on Curlew!!

Kenster

The proposal from Deadeyemark makes more sence.
It will effect fewer anglers and it will fource some to know more about the Tigers and the lakes that hold them.
It should also include the use of single barbless hooks be used in all Tiger lakes for all species just like Coffee Pot lk.

Rules to protect one species that apply to a whole lake, no matter what species you are targeting, are a good way to alienate other anglers in that fishery.

Kenster wrote:Isn't powerbait considered an artificial lure? If you banned that and worms it would shut down the trout fishermans skills on Curlew!!

Kenster

Power bait would still be considered bait, not an artificial lure. I do agree that if we tried to shut down lakes like Merwin to bait fishing, we would be in for a real fight with the Kokanee fishermen. There are a lot more of them than there are of us on lakes like that. I also agree with dilbert on the fact that we should not enter into this with the intentions of deliberately trying to stop people from enjoying the other fisheries that are enjoyed on the same bodies of water in which we are trying to improve the musky fisheries. We still need to be considerate of the tried and true methods that would have minimal efficts on the muskie population, i.e. fishing with white corn or a night crawler behind a wedding ring at 60 feet below the surface for kokanee. i don't think that these fishermen catch a lot of muskies in the first place, and secondly, if they do catch one on the light tackle that they are using, they will probably lose it in the fight. I know that there is still a hook in the jaw of a musky but it is very small and will most likely rust away before it brings any harm to the fish.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Dilbert. Bill says kudos and we should always treat others the way we want to be treated.

Muskyhunter -- Proposal #19 is an effort by WDFW to solve tournament scheduling conflicts between two large bass organizations, FLW and NW Bass, who brought the problem to WDFW's attention through a pair of state legislators, one in eastern Washington and one in the Puget Sound area. Washington state has about 200 bass tournaments a year, most of which occur on 10 popular bass waters (compared to about 6 to 8 walleye tournaments). So, this proposal came from the bass world, and is due to congestion on bass tournament waters. These groups want more certainty of what their tournament schedules will be to make it easier to plan and organize their events.

The change from 3 days to 4 days is for WDFW's administrative efficiency. These bass organizations are already doing 4-day tournaments, but under the existing regulation limiting contests to 3 days, WDFW has to process and issue two separate permits to accomodate the 4-day events. Extending the limit to 4 days eliminates the paperwork and staff time required to process the second permit.

Proposal #19 should have no effect on tiger muskie tournaments, as there's no bass tournaments on muskie waters and there's too few muskie tournaments to create scheduling conflicts. Organizers of muskie tournaments should have no difficulty getting any dates they want.