For readers new to this topic, the Inland Fisheries Policy Advisory Group (IFPAG) is a WDFW-sponsored group of citizens who provide WDFW management with public feedback on the agency's management of our state's freshwater fisheries (including trout lakes and streams). IFPAG members are appointed by the Director of WDFW and serve for 2 years. Many represent fishing clubs, resorts, and other fishing-related organizations and businesses; a couple are outdoor writers. Today's meeting in Olympia was the first IFPAG meeting of the 2009-2010 cycle, and it was a busy all-day meeting that covered a lot of ground. About half of IFPAG's members are new this year.
Budget. Of course, there was a detailed presentation by WDFW management on WDFW's budget for the coming biennium, and potential impacts on the agency of declining state tax revenues. The news is mostly bad, but not for muskie fishermen. Funding for muskie stocking comes from the warmwater enhancement account, which comes from license revenues, which are holding steady despite the economic downturn that is slaughtering general tax receipts. So, our program is safe for now. WDFW's overall budget outlook is rather unpleasant, though.
WDFW spends about $348 million per biennium. About half of this money comes from federal and local government sources and is tied to specific activities. Of the remainder, $60 million comes from the Wildlife Fund (i.e., hunting and fishing license sales) and $110 million from the State General Fund (taxes). The bottom line is that WDFW has to cut about $5 million between now and June 30, and another $30 million in the coming biennium. Of that amount, $14 million will be cut from fish programs. These figures are based on the November 2008 revenue forecast showing a $5.7 billion shortfall, and translate into eliminating 156 FTEs, closing several hatcheries, a 10% reduction in hatchery fish production, losing about 8% of the game wardens, and loss of some field science. But the revenue situation is rapidly worsening and the news media have reported that the March '09 forecast will show a revenue shortfall over $8 billion. Consequently, WDFW now expects staffing losses to grow to 170 positions.
Organizational issues. But there's more to the budget crisis than just program cuts and staff layoffs. The governor is thinking about consolidating agencies, and there is talk of combining WDFW with the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, the governor has proposed moving WDFW's enforcement officers (i.e., game wardens) to the State Patrol.
Apart from budget impacts, the Director of WDFW resigned in December and the agency is now under an interim director. In addition, several other top managers are fairly new to their jobs. Plus, musical chairs is going on in middle management because of retirements and RIFed employees exercising bumping rights. I still don't know who will replace Steve Jackson, the warmwater fisheries manager, who is retiring next month.
Rulemaking. 2008 was a "minor cycle" year, which means the public couldn't propose rule changes, but WDFW could (and did) bring some "housekeeping" proposals to the Commission last year. All rule changes must be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission, which has 9 members appointed by the Governor. The 2008 changes will take effect this year. The most controversial was an anti-snagging rule, which was approved by the Commission in modified form after input by bass and walleye anglers, who will be affected by new gear restrictions. The Commission also banned using leeches imported from other states, which affects walleye fishermen.
2009 is a "major cycle" year, and I plan to propose a ban on use of live or dead bait for tiger muskies, which will make the tiger muskie fishery an artificial-lures-only fishery. If anyone else wants any change in the tiger muskie fishing regulations, you can either submit the proposal yourself on a form that will be posted on WDFW's website, or feel free to discuss your issue with me. You can contact me through WL's private message system, or e-mail me at dwitt546@aol.com. (Make sure you put "Tiger muskie regulations" in the subject line so I don't think it's spam and delete it.)
Two-pole rule. A bill is moving through the Legislature that will authorize WDFW to charge anglers an extra fee of $10 ($5 for seniors) for the privilege of fishing with two rods per angler. I support this because it will make trolling for muskies more feasible. It's hard to cover enough water for this tactic to be effective with only 1 or 2 lines because of the low density and wide dispersal of this species. The standard trolling setup developed back east uses 6 lines. I would prefer a rule that allowed muskie trollers 3 lines each, so that a two-man team could use this setup, but we won't get that and 2 lines is better than nothing. You'll be able to use the 6-line setup with 3 anglers in the boat. With respect to this legislation, which I think will pass, I'm concentrating my efforts on ensuring that WDFW includes the tiger muskie lakes in the list of waters where 2 lines per angler are permitted, so muskie anglers will have the opportunity to experiment with trolling tactics. This is really the only way you can catch fish suspending in open water, and trolling might extend our fishing season into months when the muskies are off the shorelines and structure. The 2-pole fee is expected to raise about $1 million a year for WDFW.
Warmwater stocking. The information from Steve Jackson's presentation on warmwater stocking that I want to share with you is the recent average annual stocking numbers for the tiger muskie lakes. These are: Tapps, 1119; Mayfield, 786; Merwin, 1364; Curlew, 356; Evergreen, 271; Newman, 607; Silver, 396.
Military fishing licenses. At this point, I'm buttonholding anyone willing to listen, in an effort to build support for the idea. I asked WDFW to review the proposal and advise me of whether it would work from their point of view or if they have objections to it, and they haven't officially responded yet, but so far I'm getting all positive reactions. Ultimately, it will be up to citizens to make it happen by finding a legislator willing to sponsor the necessary legislation and then supporting its passage. This probably will be a long-term project, but in the strange and slippery world of politics you sometimes can make things happen by being both patient and persistent. But there also are times when, despite your best efforts, an idea or plan isn't accepted. This one requires an expenditure of money, which is a difficult thing to ask for in the present budgetary climate. But you won't get if you don't ask, so I'm asking.
IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Forum rules
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information. Thank you
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information. Thank you
-
Don Wittenberger
- Commander
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Shoreline
IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Loved that line. Thanks Don, for keeping everyone updated.Don Wittenberger wrote: ..... but in the strange and slippery world of politics you sometimes can make things happen by being both patient and persistent.
Though I am excited the Tigers are ok, for now, the loss of revenue and most importantly, jobs, is devastating.
My heart goes out to anyone going through this.
Concerning the Military license proposal; I am a member of NW TIGER PAC, which has 86 members
(3 more this week) who are "citizens".
Can they help as a group by contacting a legislator? PM me if so.
I'd bet many of this hearty band would be willing to help;
it is an important program and at least that is something we CAN change, even if the Budget is rocky.
Koop
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tiger Muskies are sterile.
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
-
Don Wittenberger
- Commander
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Shoreline
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
For readers unfamiliar with the military fishing license proposal, this initiative was born last fall when Lee Burns complained to me at a Chapter 57 meeting about visiting relatives, who were active-duty military on leave after tours of duty in Iraq, had to buy non-resident fishing license so Lee could take them fishing. Under current regulations, military personnel can buy a resident license if their duty station is in Washington. After thinking about this for, say, approximately 5 seconds, it dawned on me that the right thing to do is not extend the privilege of purchasing a resident license to nonresidents serving in combat zones, but to provide complimentary fishing licenses to all active duty military personnel, regardless of where they're serving or where their home of record is. This would be a way for the citizens of Washington to say "thank you" and "we're thinking of you" to all of the deserving men and women who make great personal sacrifices to defend and protect us.
But we've got to get away from the idea of "free" fishing licenses because government services aren't free. Hatcheries, biologists, fish stocking trucks, and game and fish law enforcement all cost money. Requiring WDFW to hand out more free licenses would weaken the agency's ability to provide these services. A better approach is to find a way of paying WDFW for "free" fishing licenses so the agency will have the money it needs to manage and enhance our fisheries. Using the Vietnam-era "Veterans Compensation Fund" as a model, I devised a plan to set up an external account, funded by cigaret taxes (as the cash bonuses paid to Washington residents who served in Vietnam were), which would buy the fishing licenses for those qualifying for them. This way, WDFW still gets the license revenue and license vendors still get their customary fee for issuing the licenses, but the licenses are a gift from the taxpayers of Washington to our military personnel. The cost of this program would be negligible compared to the 61-cents-a-pack tax increase that Congress just slapped on cigarets to pay for children's health care.
KUP --
To answer your question, I want to hear back from WDFW before proceeding with this plan in the Legislature. I want to give WDFW a chance to study the proposal and look for hidden pitfalls or ways that it could backfire against the agency. What if, for example, the Legislature adopted the idea of free military fishing licenses but rejected the funding mechanism? That could lead to a revenue loss of WDFW, which we don't want to happen. We need to be careful about any potential for unwanted and unintended consequences. But assuming the idea withstands scrutiny and we decide to go forward with it, we'll then need a friendly legislator willing to sponsor a bill or amendment, and I don't have a legislator lined up yet. That would be a BIG help, and I think it's okay to start working on that now, so we're ready to go if/when a window of opportunity opens.
That window may be very brief. The only way it could happen in this legislative session would be a scenario as follows. The revenue shortfall keeps getting worse and I think the Legislature will be forced to raise taxes. I also figure they'll hit the so-called "sin" taxes (alcohol and tobacco) first. So, when legislators cave in to what's already inevitable and act to raise taxes, there will be a bill to raise the cigaret tax. If we have already have a legislator working with us when that happens, then all that's required is to tack on an amendment that (1) re-establishes the "Veterans Compensation Fund" (which was terminated in 1979*), (2) adds another penny or two to the cigaret tax increase to fund it, and (3) authorizes the VCF to compensate WDFW for the "free" military fishing licenses. In other words, it's too late in the legislative session to introduce a new bill, but it's not too late to amend a tax bill, so you can get it in that way. It's a long-shot but, who knows, it might work.
When I chatted with WDFW's assistant director yesterday about this proposal, I speculated there might be resistance from legislators to giving WDFW a new revenue source at a time when every other agency is being asked to cut back. The solution, I suggested, is an offset; i.e., WDFW could volunteer, if necessary, to give up General Fund monies equal to what the complimentary license program would bring in, for the coming biennium. So, WDFW won't make anything from it in the next 2 years. But this recession won't last forever; the economy eventually will get better, and then WDFW will get to keep the extra money, and will have a permanent new funding source for fish programs.
Saying "thank you" to our military folks is something we've got to do. It isn't about the money. Washington taxpayers don't have to spend a lot of money. It's the thought behind it that counts. Remember the thread I posted recently about the POW bracelet? It isn't the bracelet itself that matters to the surviving sister, but rather the idea that, 39 years after her brother became an MIA, strangers on the other side of the continent are still thinking about him and care enough about his family to do this. That's very, very important to our military people in the field and their family, to know that THEY ARE NOT FORGOTTEN. This is something the people of Washington State must do, and I believe will do, through their elected representatives. How can the Legislature say "no" to this? I feel very confident the Legislature will vote for it. All we have to do is put it in front of them, then things will take care of themselves, on the strength of the idea itself.
* Needless to say, when the Legislature sunseted the veterans' bonuses, they didn't repeal the tax. (When have you ever heard of a tax being repealed?) Those revenues were redirected to a fund used to retire school construction bonds. Trying to recapture that funding to pay for military/veterans benefits might provoke opposition from school districts, so it's easier to implement the complimentary military fishing licenses plan by raising the cigaret tax again instead of fighting the school interests over who will get the original VCF tax.
But we've got to get away from the idea of "free" fishing licenses because government services aren't free. Hatcheries, biologists, fish stocking trucks, and game and fish law enforcement all cost money. Requiring WDFW to hand out more free licenses would weaken the agency's ability to provide these services. A better approach is to find a way of paying WDFW for "free" fishing licenses so the agency will have the money it needs to manage and enhance our fisheries. Using the Vietnam-era "Veterans Compensation Fund" as a model, I devised a plan to set up an external account, funded by cigaret taxes (as the cash bonuses paid to Washington residents who served in Vietnam were), which would buy the fishing licenses for those qualifying for them. This way, WDFW still gets the license revenue and license vendors still get their customary fee for issuing the licenses, but the licenses are a gift from the taxpayers of Washington to our military personnel. The cost of this program would be negligible compared to the 61-cents-a-pack tax increase that Congress just slapped on cigarets to pay for children's health care.
KUP --
To answer your question, I want to hear back from WDFW before proceeding with this plan in the Legislature. I want to give WDFW a chance to study the proposal and look for hidden pitfalls or ways that it could backfire against the agency. What if, for example, the Legislature adopted the idea of free military fishing licenses but rejected the funding mechanism? That could lead to a revenue loss of WDFW, which we don't want to happen. We need to be careful about any potential for unwanted and unintended consequences. But assuming the idea withstands scrutiny and we decide to go forward with it, we'll then need a friendly legislator willing to sponsor a bill or amendment, and I don't have a legislator lined up yet. That would be a BIG help, and I think it's okay to start working on that now, so we're ready to go if/when a window of opportunity opens.
That window may be very brief. The only way it could happen in this legislative session would be a scenario as follows. The revenue shortfall keeps getting worse and I think the Legislature will be forced to raise taxes. I also figure they'll hit the so-called "sin" taxes (alcohol and tobacco) first. So, when legislators cave in to what's already inevitable and act to raise taxes, there will be a bill to raise the cigaret tax. If we have already have a legislator working with us when that happens, then all that's required is to tack on an amendment that (1) re-establishes the "Veterans Compensation Fund" (which was terminated in 1979*), (2) adds another penny or two to the cigaret tax increase to fund it, and (3) authorizes the VCF to compensate WDFW for the "free" military fishing licenses. In other words, it's too late in the legislative session to introduce a new bill, but it's not too late to amend a tax bill, so you can get it in that way. It's a long-shot but, who knows, it might work.
When I chatted with WDFW's assistant director yesterday about this proposal, I speculated there might be resistance from legislators to giving WDFW a new revenue source at a time when every other agency is being asked to cut back. The solution, I suggested, is an offset; i.e., WDFW could volunteer, if necessary, to give up General Fund monies equal to what the complimentary license program would bring in, for the coming biennium. So, WDFW won't make anything from it in the next 2 years. But this recession won't last forever; the economy eventually will get better, and then WDFW will get to keep the extra money, and will have a permanent new funding source for fish programs.
Saying "thank you" to our military folks is something we've got to do. It isn't about the money. Washington taxpayers don't have to spend a lot of money. It's the thought behind it that counts. Remember the thread I posted recently about the POW bracelet? It isn't the bracelet itself that matters to the surviving sister, but rather the idea that, 39 years after her brother became an MIA, strangers on the other side of the continent are still thinking about him and care enough about his family to do this. That's very, very important to our military people in the field and their family, to know that THEY ARE NOT FORGOTTEN. This is something the people of Washington State must do, and I believe will do, through their elected representatives. How can the Legislature say "no" to this? I feel very confident the Legislature will vote for it. All we have to do is put it in front of them, then things will take care of themselves, on the strength of the idea itself.
* Needless to say, when the Legislature sunseted the veterans' bonuses, they didn't repeal the tax. (When have you ever heard of a tax being repealed?) Those revenues were redirected to a fund used to retire school construction bonds. Trying to recapture that funding to pay for military/veterans benefits might provoke opposition from school districts, so it's easier to implement the complimentary military fishing licenses plan by raising the cigaret tax again instead of fighting the school interests over who will get the original VCF tax.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
YellowBear
- Captain
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 9:44 am
- Location: Potholes
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Lets discuss a few things here.
Chapter 57 has talked about the Muskie populations being so vulnerable.
Catch and Release is what you all preach. Taking care of the Muskies we do have.
Now you want to change State laws so you can catch and possibly kill more by using 2 rods.
This does not make any sence to me. Many groups in the past have tryed to get the use of two rods on the books with no luck.
I bet it go's through now.
Trout hatcheries are being closed.
Warm water species are being ignored.
But we have decided to keep and expand the one program that contributes the least amount of money to the State.
PLEASE explain this to me.
The Muskie program is funded through the warm water enhancement funds and its conciderd a cold water fish.
Walleye guys have taken another hit, allthough there is no proof of leech's carrying VHS they have been outlawed, while there is proof that the Muskie carries and spreds the disease its OK?
The list of members of the IFPAG is impressive But were is the average angler represented?
The idea of free fishing to our Military is a nobel one for sure but we allready have a law in place that works very well.
The idea of opening our waters to free fishing from every State is something our fisheries cannot handle.
Chapter 57 has talked about the Muskie populations being so vulnerable.
Catch and Release is what you all preach. Taking care of the Muskies we do have.
Now you want to change State laws so you can catch and possibly kill more by using 2 rods.
This does not make any sence to me. Many groups in the past have tryed to get the use of two rods on the books with no luck.
I bet it go's through now.
Trout hatcheries are being closed.
Warm water species are being ignored.
But we have decided to keep and expand the one program that contributes the least amount of money to the State.
PLEASE explain this to me.
The Muskie program is funded through the warm water enhancement funds and its conciderd a cold water fish.
Walleye guys have taken another hit, allthough there is no proof of leech's carrying VHS they have been outlawed, while there is proof that the Muskie carries and spreds the disease its OK?
The list of members of the IFPAG is impressive But were is the average angler represented?
The idea of free fishing to our Military is a nobel one for sure but we allready have a law in place that works very well.
The idea of opening our waters to free fishing from every State is something our fisheries cannot handle.
YellowBear
Life member N.A.F.C.
Angling Masters international
Good luck and be safe
Life member N.A.F.C.
Angling Masters international
Good luck and be safe
-
swedefish4life1
- Admiral
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:14 pm
- Contact:
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Yellow Bear your on the correct $hitola:colors: :brilsmurf trail. 
Truth is hard to press when every year in truth they supply less and charge more that is called (labor intensive care):-$
but not about fish and game.
Steelhead, Coho and a ton more the support is fading fast but they will tell you some more BS about a very small Area and high popultations will bank on wild fish to bring it back the joke is on you but they can say it with far bigger words and stats but the average goof they bring out of school does not even know where a red= nest is in the river was that not in chapter 2! LMAO!! 
Fertilizer and Cat food trucks there dialed in!$$:cheers:
Truth is hard to press when every year in truth they supply less and charge more that is called (labor intensive care):-$
but not about fish and game.Steelhead, Coho and a ton more the support is fading fast but they will tell you some more BS about a very small Area and high popultations will bank on wild fish to bring it back the joke is on you but they can say it with far bigger words and stats but the average goof they bring out of school does not even know where a red= nest is in the river was that not in chapter 2! LMAO!!
Fertilizer and Cat food trucks there dialed in!$$:cheers:
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Don Wittenberger
- Commander
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Shoreline
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Well, YellowBear, let's find out if you're as good at listening as you are at talking.
Do I want muskie anglers to be able to fish multiple lines? Yes, because it's the only way trolling is effective for muskies, due to the low density and wide dispersal of this species. But we're merely along for the ride. 99% of the 2-pole permits will be sold to salmon and trout anglers, and that's who this program is targeted at. And that's the only way muskie anglers will ever fish with more than 1 line at a time, because you can't cast with more than 1 rod at a time, and we're going to ask the Commission to prohibit bait fishing (i.e., stillfishing) for muskies.
As for whether trolling will "kill more" muskies, where do you get that notion from? If you want to discuss this, fine, but let's at least keep the facts straight. A muskie that hits a crankbait equipped with treble hooks that's being trolled at 3 - 6 mph will be hooked in the lip every time. There is no way a muskie can swallow a trolled lure. It's moving too fast and the hooks set the instant he grabs it.
Do you think fishing pressure is significantly less because nonresidents have to pay 40 bucks for a license? What do you think of the idea of increasing licenses sales to military personnel by having the state pay for them, and then using some of that money to put more enforcement officers in the field to catch people who fish without a license or take more than the legal bag limit? I like that idea.
As for telling some guy who just got back from Iraq that he has to pay the nonresident fee because his wife and kids live in Kansas or Florida while he spends 15 months out of every 24 in Anbar Province, because he isn't as deserving of our generosity as his buddy from Renton, you go ahead and tell him that, if you want to. I won't. I don't give a damn where his home of record is, all I see is the dust on
The 2-rod rule is NOT, I repeat NOT, a Chapter 57 proposal. WDFW came up with this idea as a revenue-raiser. They project it will raise over $1 million a year from sale of 2-pole permits. The muskie fishing community had NOTHING to do with this proposal or the bill pending in the Legislature.YellowBear wrote: Chapter 57 has talked about the Muskie populations being so vulnerable. Catch and Release is what you all preach. Taking care of the Muskies we do have. Now you want to change State laws so you can catch and possibly kill more by using 2 rods.
Do I want muskie anglers to be able to fish multiple lines? Yes, because it's the only way trolling is effective for muskies, due to the low density and wide dispersal of this species. But we're merely along for the ride. 99% of the 2-pole permits will be sold to salmon and trout anglers, and that's who this program is targeted at. And that's the only way muskie anglers will ever fish with more than 1 line at a time, because you can't cast with more than 1 rod at a time, and we're going to ask the Commission to prohibit bait fishing (i.e., stillfishing) for muskies.
As for whether trolling will "kill more" muskies, where do you get that notion from? If you want to discuss this, fine, but let's at least keep the facts straight. A muskie that hits a crankbait equipped with treble hooks that's being trolled at 3 - 6 mph will be hooked in the lip every time. There is no way a muskie can swallow a trolled lure. It's moving too fast and the hooks set the instant he grabs it.
Well let's see. IFPAG has walleye and bass club representatives, some from the Hi-Lakers, a couple of outdoor writers who make their living by providing fishing information to average anglers, at least one resort owner who makes his living catering to recreational hunters and anglers, at least a couple of biologists, and oh yeah, of the approximately 25 members, there's one guy from the muskie clubs.Trout hatcheries are being closed.[/quote/
For lack of money to keep them open. Do you have $14 million? If so, WDFW wants to hear from you ASAP. As the staunch advocate for warmwater species that you are, you should be happy that put-and-take trout stocking, instead of warmwater stocking, is taking the hit.
Given that warmwater stocking is being protected while trout stocking gets decimated, this statement would make a pretty good sandwich if you put it between two slices of bread with a slice of cheese and a dollop of mustard or mayo on top of it.Warm water species are being ignored.
As you didn't specify which "program" you're referring to, I'll indulge an assumption that you mean muskies, and the short answer to this is that walleyes, bass, panfish, and catfish share warmwater funding and staff with muskies. Based on your current and past comments, it's evident that you won't be happy until muskies get no funding and there are no muskies. That's not what I'd call sharing. It seems you want it all. My answer to that is no, and I thank God that WDFW's answer to that is no, too. How about recognizing the fact that you're part of an angling community and you've got to work with, not against, other warmwater anglers because if we don't all work together none of us will have anything?But we have decided to keep and expand the one program that contributes the least amount of money to the State.
PLEASE explain this to me.
Yes.The Muskie program is funded through the warm water enhancement funds
No.and its conciderd a cold water fish.
What hit have walleye guys taken? How many walleye anglers fish for leeches, other than a few tournament guys who think leeches give them an edge? Almost all of my walleye fishing has been with buddies who are recreational anglers catching eaters and I've never seen any of them use leeches. Crawlers on jigheads or spinner harnesses work just fine for 98% of the people who fish for walleyes. To listen to you, you make it sound like they banned walleye fishing. Another baloney sandwich, anyone?Walleye guys have taken another hit, allthough there is no proof of leech's carrying VHS they have been outlawed, while there is proof that the Muskie carries and spreds the disease its OK?
I'm not WDFW, and I wasn't personally involved in the Great Leech Debate. But I do know that WDFW gave plenty of notice to the walleye clubs and the general public, went to great lengths to explain their position (which you couldn't have failed to hear unless you were deliberately not listening), and the Commissioners had all the public comments on the proposed rule change when they made their decision.
Here's the problem. (I'm explaining this for the general readership] The list of members of the IFPAG is impressive But were is the average angler represented?
The law in place says you get to pay the resident license fee if you're stationed in this state. If you're satisfied with that, more power to you, but I'm not and I think we can do better by our military personnel.The idea of free fishing to our Military is a nobel one for sure but we allready have a law in place that works very well.
First of all, the licenses won't be free, WDFW will be paid for them and that money will go for protecting and enhancing our fisheries. I'm glad you agree with me that WDFW shouldn't be required to hand out free fishing licenses because it takes money to manage our fisheries.The idea of opening our waters to free fishing from every State is something our fisheries cannot handle.
Do you think fishing pressure is significantly less because nonresidents have to pay 40 bucks for a license? What do you think of the idea of increasing licenses sales to military personnel by having the state pay for them, and then using some of that money to put more enforcement officers in the field to catch people who fish without a license or take more than the legal bag limit? I like that idea.
As for telling some guy who just got back from Iraq that he has to pay the nonresident fee because his wife and kids live in Kansas or Florida while he spends 15 months out of every 24 in Anbar Province, because he isn't as deserving of our generosity as his buddy from Renton, you go ahead and tell him that, if you want to. I won't. I don't give a damn where his home of record is, all I see is the dust on
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Hey Don!
Thanks for responding to YellowBear so elloquently! It saved me the possible embarassment of popping off and possibly offending someone other than YB. Also, thanks for representing the average angler at the IFPAG. If we didn't have the well educated and informed representation you provide, we might end up with someone like YB saying things at the IFPAG meetings like the posts he puts in forums that lead to my response today! Finally, thanks for serving and thanks for looking out for those of us who share the dedication and sacrifices you made in Vietnam by serving today.
Please keep up the great work!
YellowBear - you might want to do some homework and think before you send out another email or post. It just might make you look stupid - again.
Thanks for responding to YellowBear so elloquently! It saved me the possible embarassment of popping off and possibly offending someone other than YB. Also, thanks for representing the average angler at the IFPAG. If we didn't have the well educated and informed representation you provide, we might end up with someone like YB saying things at the IFPAG meetings like the posts he puts in forums that lead to my response today! Finally, thanks for serving and thanks for looking out for those of us who share the dedication and sacrifices you made in Vietnam by serving today.
Please keep up the great work!
YellowBear - you might want to do some homework and think before you send out another email or post. It just might make you look stupid - again.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Don,
Now that I have replied to the previous post and really focus on why I wanted to post in this topic, let's talk the WA State record methods. Specifically, the possibility of introducing a safe method to receive credit for a state record tiger musky without having to kill the fish. I would propose a method based on length, girth, photographic representation and eyewitnesses. Obviously the fish would only count as a record for the "release" category but it would be nice to have that record recognized by the WDFW.
What do you think? It would also prevent a situation like the one recently at Cave Run Lake where the musky could not be revived.
Craig
Now that I have replied to the previous post and really focus on why I wanted to post in this topic, let's talk the WA State record methods. Specifically, the possibility of introducing a safe method to receive credit for a state record tiger musky without having to kill the fish. I would propose a method based on length, girth, photographic representation and eyewitnesses. Obviously the fish would only count as a record for the "release" category but it would be nice to have that record recognized by the WDFW.
What do you think? It would also prevent a situation like the one recently at Cave Run Lake where the musky could not be revived.
Craig
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Hi Ski: I don't mean to hijack your thread, Don, but Craig, are you referring to Sarah Terry's fish from last November? I could be mistaken, but I thought she did try to release it and kept at it for 45 min. Are we talking about a different fish, or what am I missing? How could it have been prevented?
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/fish ... id=3716816
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/fish ... id=3716816
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tiger Muskies are sterile.
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
That would be the same one I was referring to. I don't think it had many more years left in it but just the same, it would be nice to have revived it. No fault to anyone involved - they all tried to do the right thing.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
I guess I only partially answered the question. My point is that muskies don't do very well after a prolonged state of "captivity." To have the fish official, they had to get it weighed, certified, etc. just like WA state. I don't think a fish would ever survive all that unless the WDFW official with certified scale was at the dock on the same lake the fish was caught. Not very realistic. I am advocating a new state record category (released) and weight is not considered in order to spare the fish.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
YellowBear
- Captain
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 9:44 am
- Location: Potholes
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
First of all I never said that chapter 57 was the group that made the proposal
for two rods.
In the past when ever this idea came up the WDFW explaned that it would be to much pressure on the fish.
I also never said that trolling would "kill more" muskie, what I said was "possibly kill more" Muskie.
The more a fish is handled the better chance it has to die. The more fish that are handled the better chance that more fish will die. A large fish will stress out more from a fight than a small fish will, this is a proven fact.
A Crankbait trolled at 3 - 6 mph will hook them in the lip every time is what you said, how fast do you think Crankbait is traviling when you reel it in?
Out of 6 Northern Pike caught in a day last year, all but one was hooked deep. Now I will addmit they hit spinners and not Cranks the idea that trolloing for Muskie will only hook the lip is well...
As I have asked the WDFW about warmwater stocking in the past and get no response, perhaps you could shed a bit of light on the subject.
Were are they being stocked and how many?
Were are they being raised?
How many are being raised each year?
What species are being raised?
I have been accused many times of not wanting any Tigers in this State, this is not true. What I would like to see is as much attention being given to all game species as the Tiger. You are correct that I am part of the angling community and that is why I question some of your post's. You tend to point out the positive side of things but forget to mention the negitive side. Case in point, Tigers are sterile, a new study that is out shows that some females remain fertile. Also it has been stated that the Tiger is short lived, we don't know the answer to this one because we have not tagged any as to get the answer.
It is also stated that a Tiger Muskie is not conciderd a cold water fish. Perhaps in Washington State, but if you look at the home range of both parent fish you will find that both come from the colder States and latitude's.
I don't know of any Walleye guys that fish for Leech's they tend to target Walleye.
In any case there are guys that use Leech's for all species, its the Walleye guys that use them for tournaments that are now restricted. I agree with you that Crawlers work as does many other things but there are days that a Leech will put the fish in the boat when the Crawler won't. Other than the idea of handling a leech is repulsive to some, there is nothing that we use that has the swimming action of the Leech. It has been asked what happens to left over Leech's, they become fish food. Leech's do not live in our waters, what we do have is bloodsuckers, The two are not the same. Our waters are to cold for them to thrive. Leech's were offered to the WDFW for testing but refused. I do understand that the eggs are tested and retested but there is still a chance that something will be missed at some time. As it is well known that the Muskie does carry and spred VHS, it should be of concern.
As I stated before your list of IFPAG members is impressive, but the list you posted all have one thing in common, they all in some way make money from our natural resources. As I do not, repeat do not have anything against this, I still do not see were the average angler is represented in the group.
The guy that sits on the bank to catch a meal.
As I said, your military license idea is nobel and I do commend you for your service, however since this is a fishing related endever, why should folks that smoke and drink but do not fish be taxed? From what I understand the tax on tobacco was implemented to help with health related cases, not free fishing license. If you want to do something truly good for our service men and women, think about helping the Vets hospitals.
Have a good day and as always its been fun.
for two rods.
In the past when ever this idea came up the WDFW explaned that it would be to much pressure on the fish.
I also never said that trolling would "kill more" muskie, what I said was "possibly kill more" Muskie.
The more a fish is handled the better chance it has to die. The more fish that are handled the better chance that more fish will die. A large fish will stress out more from a fight than a small fish will, this is a proven fact.
A Crankbait trolled at 3 - 6 mph will hook them in the lip every time is what you said, how fast do you think Crankbait is traviling when you reel it in?
Out of 6 Northern Pike caught in a day last year, all but one was hooked deep. Now I will addmit they hit spinners and not Cranks the idea that trolloing for Muskie will only hook the lip is well...
As I have asked the WDFW about warmwater stocking in the past and get no response, perhaps you could shed a bit of light on the subject.
Were are they being stocked and how many?
Were are they being raised?
How many are being raised each year?
What species are being raised?
I have been accused many times of not wanting any Tigers in this State, this is not true. What I would like to see is as much attention being given to all game species as the Tiger. You are correct that I am part of the angling community and that is why I question some of your post's. You tend to point out the positive side of things but forget to mention the negitive side. Case in point, Tigers are sterile, a new study that is out shows that some females remain fertile. Also it has been stated that the Tiger is short lived, we don't know the answer to this one because we have not tagged any as to get the answer.
It is also stated that a Tiger Muskie is not conciderd a cold water fish. Perhaps in Washington State, but if you look at the home range of both parent fish you will find that both come from the colder States and latitude's.
I don't know of any Walleye guys that fish for Leech's they tend to target Walleye.
In any case there are guys that use Leech's for all species, its the Walleye guys that use them for tournaments that are now restricted. I agree with you that Crawlers work as does many other things but there are days that a Leech will put the fish in the boat when the Crawler won't. Other than the idea of handling a leech is repulsive to some, there is nothing that we use that has the swimming action of the Leech. It has been asked what happens to left over Leech's, they become fish food. Leech's do not live in our waters, what we do have is bloodsuckers, The two are not the same. Our waters are to cold for them to thrive. Leech's were offered to the WDFW for testing but refused. I do understand that the eggs are tested and retested but there is still a chance that something will be missed at some time. As it is well known that the Muskie does carry and spred VHS, it should be of concern.
As I stated before your list of IFPAG members is impressive, but the list you posted all have one thing in common, they all in some way make money from our natural resources. As I do not, repeat do not have anything against this, I still do not see were the average angler is represented in the group.
The guy that sits on the bank to catch a meal.
As I said, your military license idea is nobel and I do commend you for your service, however since this is a fishing related endever, why should folks that smoke and drink but do not fish be taxed? From what I understand the tax on tobacco was implemented to help with health related cases, not free fishing license. If you want to do something truly good for our service men and women, think about helping the Vets hospitals.
Have a good day and as always its been fun.
YellowBear
Life member N.A.F.C.
Angling Masters international
Good luck and be safe
Life member N.A.F.C.
Angling Masters international
Good luck and be safe
-
Don Wittenberger
- Commander
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Shoreline
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
YB, I'm tempted to accuse you of posting disinformation and then changing your story when confronted, but maybe you actually believe the stuff you write.
However, you seem to forget what you wrote, or get confused by your own writings. For example, you wrote, "Now you want to change State laws so you can catch and possibly kill more by using 2 rods." But now you're saying,
It depends on which direction the muskie is going and how fast, but in any case, it's irrelevant because how fast you reel them in after they're hooked has nothing to do with whether they swallow the lure.
"We originally set up to raise every warmwater species in the state. That was a mistake because we don't need to stock them all. We stock tiger muskies, black crappies, walleyes, and channel catfish."
He noted that walleyes are difficult to raise in hatcheries because "they tend to eat each other." He told us WDFW sent some of its hatchery staff back east to learn how to raise walleyes and black crappies to improve WDFW's success rate with these species. The problem, he said, is "you need 50 ponds because you'll have failure in half of them, but we've got only 5 ponds." (Note, if you have a couple million dollars you don't need, WDFW is accepting donations.)
However, you seem to forget what you wrote, or get confused by your own writings. For example, you wrote, "Now you want to change State laws so you can catch and possibly kill more by using 2 rods." But now you're saying,
Coulda fooled me. It sure looks like that's what you said, but never mind, let's move on to the next item:YellowBear wrote: First of all I never said that chapter 57 was the group that made the proposal
for two rods.
First of all, field studies conducted by qualified biologists have shown that the survival rate for properly handled muskies caught on artificial lures is close to 100%. But apart from that, if handling mortality is a reason for people to not fish for muskies, then you shouldn't fish for walleyes or bass either.The more a fish is handled the better chance it has to die. The more fish that are handled the better chance that more fish will die. A large fish will stress out more from a fight than a small fish will, this is a proven fact.
A Crankbait trolled at 3 - 6 mph will hook them in the lip every time is what you said, how fast do you think Crankbait is traviling when you reel it in?
It depends on which direction the muskie is going and how fast, but in any case, it's irrelevant because how fast you reel them in after they're hooked has nothing to do with whether they swallow the lure.
Countless muskies have been caught by trolling and I've never heard of one swallowing a large crankbait.Out of 6 Northern Pike caught in a day last year, all but one was hooked deep. Now I will addmit they hit spinners and not Cranks the idea that trolloing for Muskie will only hook the lip is well...
I don't have all of this information. Ask Steve Jackson at WDFW. Here's what he told us on Saturday at the IFPAG meeting:As I have asked the WDFW about warmwater stocking in the past and get no response, perhaps you could shed a bit of light on the subject. Were are they being stocked and how many? Were are they being raised? How many are being raised each year? What species are being raised?
"We originally set up to raise every warmwater species in the state. That was a mistake because we don't need to stock them all. We stock tiger muskies, black crappies, walleyes, and channel catfish."
He noted that walleyes are difficult to raise in hatcheries because "they tend to eat each other." He told us WDFW sent some of its hatchery staff back east to learn how to raise walleyes and black crappies to improve WDFW's success rate with these species. The problem, he said, is "you need 50 ponds because you'll have failure in half of them, but we've got only 5 ponds." (Note, if you have a couple million dollars you don't need, WDFW is accepting donations.)
I disagree with your claim that other warmwater species are being ignored. I disagree because it's not true. It's simply not true. Should I say that again? It's not true.I have been accused many times of not wanting any Tigers in this State, this is not true. What I would like to see is as much attention being given to all game species as the Tiger.
So if you cross a sterile male tiger muskies with a fertile female tiger muskie, what do you get? C'mon, this is a quiz, and there's only one correct answer.Case in point, Tigers are sterile, a new study that is out shows that some females remain fertile.
That isn't true, either. WDFW does tag tiger muskies. All of them. They're all tagged. I saw a slide show of the tagging operation at Saturday's meeting. They use the same equipment and staff that does salmon tagging. But tagging is beside the point. You don't need to tag a muskie, or any other fish, to know how old it is. Biologists can determine a fish's age from scales and bones. Tiger muskies occur in nature, plus they've been stocked in other states for decades, and there are fish biologists who spend their whole careers studying muskies, so do you think nobody knows how long tiger muskies live? Really? Do you actually believe the stuff you write?Also it has been stated that the Tiger is short lived, we don't know the answer to this one because we have not tagged any as to get the answer.
According to your reasoning, walleyes, bass, perch, bluegills, and crappies are also cold water fish because they're all found in "colder States and latitude's."It is also stated that a Tiger Muskie is not conciderd a cold water fish. Perhaps in Washington State, but if you look at the home range of both parent fish you will find that both come from the colder States and latitude's.
This is funny. You should be on Saturday Night Live.I don't know of any Walleye guys that fish for Leech's they tend to target Walleye.
Leech's do not live in our waters,
WDFW says differently, and between you and them, I believe them and don't believe you.
It is of concern. That's why they test the tiger muskie eggs 6 times, quarantine them, and pump the discharge water from the tiger muskie rearing pumps into the ground.Leech's were offered to the WDFW for testing but refused.[/quoted]
Do you understand that to protect Washington water from importing VHS via untested leeches purchased from unregulated out-of-state vendors, WDFW would have to test every batch of leeches? Do you have any idea of what that would cost? Is it even possible? When you get a delivery of mail-order leeches, are you willing to drive them to a WDFW testing facility before taking those leeches out on a lake?
There's also a chance a meteorite will hit your boat while you're fishing. It's impossible to completely eliminate risk]As it is well known that the Muskie does carry and spred VHS, it should be of concern.
This is pretty damned insulting. The people who serve on IFPAG donate their time and effort. They don't even get reimbursed for gas. While you're out fishing, they're spending Saturdays in meetings working hard to make the fishing better for you. Your claim that "they all in some way make money from our natural resources" is false. I don't. I'm sure there's others who don't, either. But even in a case like Mike Meeseberg, owner of Mar-Don Resort on potholes, he's making his living by providing lodging and restaurant meals and running a retail store that sells tackle, clothing, beer and ice, boating equipment, etc., renting boats, and so forth. What I'm saying is, Mike makes his living the same way other business people do, by spending his time on things like advertising, waiting on customers, preparing payrolls and tax returns, sweeping and painting and repairing, and so on. The guys who write for a living spend their time in front of a word processor putting words on a computer screen; they don't get paid to go fishing, they get paid to spend their time inside an office telling you where and when and how to go fishing. Your attitude sucks, Yellowbear. How about showing these people a little appreciation for what they do for guys like you?As I stated before your list of IFPAG members is impressive, but the list you posted all have one thing in common, they all in some way make money from our natural resources.
As I do not, repeat do not have anything against this, I still do not see were the average angler is represented in the group. The guy that sits on the bank to catch a meal.
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
I would like to see this too ski. I know the state of Colorado has a state record category for longest release for each species of fish. I know the state record for longest release for tiger muskie in colorado is a whopping 58" and pike is 48".Ski wrote:I guess I only partially answered the question. My point is that muskies don't do very well after a prolonged state of "captivity." To have the fish official, they had to get it weighed, certified, etc. just like WA state. I don't think a fish would ever survive all that unless the WDFW official with certified scale was at the dock on the same lake the fish was caught. Not very realistic. I am advocating a new state record category (released) and weight is not considered in order to spare the fish.
http://wildlife.state.co.us/Fishing/Awa ... sbyLength/
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Buddy - are you serious!? 58" Tiger? Holy Cow!! Regardless, maybe CO's method could serve as a template or guide.
On another note, Thanks again Don! You should have your own column!
On another note, Thanks again Don! You should have your own column!
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Has WDFW considered putting a stamp on fishing licenses?
Such as tiger musky,bass,trout etc. I think this might be worth a look considering the state's
financial situation. I hear that the state will be closing several trout hatcheries...if the option was on the table
to have a stamp/endorsement for trout(or other fishery) and that money would go directly to that fishery or maybe
a warmwater fishery stamp. Just an idea
Such as tiger musky,bass,trout etc. I think this might be worth a look considering the state's
financial situation. I hear that the state will be closing several trout hatcheries...if the option was on the table
to have a stamp/endorsement for trout(or other fishery) and that money would go directly to that fishery or maybe
a warmwater fishery stamp. Just an idea
http://www.nwburn.org/
Musky Mayhem Tackle
www.muskymayhemtackle.com
www.petemaina.com
Ken's Custom Lures
Musky Mayhem Tackle
www.muskymayhemtackle.com
www.petemaina.com
Ken's Custom Lures
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Straight up. I believe is was actually caught about a month or two after the state record (in weight) was caught. the link I posted above should take you right to it.
Don, as always you are a plethera of knowledge and I am sure glad you are on our side when it comes down to it.
Don, as always you are a plethera of knowledge and I am sure glad you are on our side when it comes down to it.
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Ski: Agreed.Ski wrote: I am advocating a new state record category (released) and weight is not considered in order to spare the fish.
Lucius: It is a mighty record, hopefully some day their fishery will overcome the problems and be returned to those glory days.
Setting back the thread for Don:
Someone has awoken the sleeping giant]
- Attachments
-
- leaping_man_post.jpg.rZd.125405.jpg (54.43 KiB) Viewed 2418 times
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tiger Muskies are sterile.
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
You can't keep them under 50 inches:
Let them do their job: Eating N.P.Minnows
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
I can honestly say that I believe that Washington State (until New Mexico proves otherwise) is currently the hottest Tiger Muskie Fishery in the world (I say world because I am pretty sure that the USA is the only country that has Tiger Muskies) right now. I only hope in due time that the Colorado Tiger Muskie Fishery can return to even a glimpse of what it was. But if we keep progressing the way we due here in Washington, it is only a matter of time before someone catches a fish of that size here in Washington. Hopefully it will be me 
-
Don Wittenberger
- Commander
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Shoreline
RE:IFPAG Meeting and Related Matters
Kevinb –
WDFW doesn’t use “stamps” anymore because they’re too expensive and cumbersome. Licenses are computer-generated, and any extra endorsements are printed directly on the license.
Several years ago, WDFW charged a $5 “warmwater enhancement” fee that eventually was folded into the general license fee. The Warmwater Account still exists, and funds all of the warmwater stocking programs including walleyes, bass, crappies, catfish, and tiger muskies.
Re trout, the following hatcheries are slated for closure: Colville, Omak, Bellingham, Arlington, and Mossyrock. Waters previously stocked from these hatcheries will continue to be stocked using fish from other hatcheries. However, due to budget cuts, there will be an overall reduction in trout production and stocking. WDFW estimates the reduction, in pounds of trout, as follows: Region 1, 0%; Region 2, 4%; Region 3, 0%; Region 4, 40%; Region 5, 14%; Region 6, 0%.
Ron Warren, WDFW’s Hatcheries Division Manager, said WDFW doesn’t have a model to predict how stocking reductions will affect license sales, but said “we think there’ll be some impact.” Noticing that the northwest corner of the state will take a big hit in trout stocking, it occurred to me that stocking a large and exciting gamefish in a good-sized lake close to population centers with good freeway access could help preserve license sales in Region 4. I mentioned this to Assistant Director Jim Scott in the hallway after Ron's presentation, and Scott predictably raised questions about whether Samish Lake has anadromous fish runs or is connected to streams that do. This is always the first question that will come up anytime we suggest a new tiger muskie lake. I think the answer in this case is that Samish Lake is a viable candidate lake, and if northwest Washington residents are about to lose a lot of their trout fishing, it makes sense to look at that as an opportunity. We have extra tiger muskies this year from higher than normal hatchery survival, so the fish already exist, and all that's needed is willingness by WDFW, a decision to go forward, and the staff time required to do the SEPA paperwork. The financial cost to WDFW would be negligible and it could give a nice underpinning to license sales in that part of the state, which currently doesn't have a tiger muskie lake.
WDFW doesn’t use “stamps” anymore because they’re too expensive and cumbersome. Licenses are computer-generated, and any extra endorsements are printed directly on the license.
Several years ago, WDFW charged a $5 “warmwater enhancement” fee that eventually was folded into the general license fee. The Warmwater Account still exists, and funds all of the warmwater stocking programs including walleyes, bass, crappies, catfish, and tiger muskies.
Re trout, the following hatcheries are slated for closure: Colville, Omak, Bellingham, Arlington, and Mossyrock. Waters previously stocked from these hatcheries will continue to be stocked using fish from other hatcheries. However, due to budget cuts, there will be an overall reduction in trout production and stocking. WDFW estimates the reduction, in pounds of trout, as follows: Region 1, 0%; Region 2, 4%; Region 3, 0%; Region 4, 40%; Region 5, 14%; Region 6, 0%.
Ron Warren, WDFW’s Hatcheries Division Manager, said WDFW doesn’t have a model to predict how stocking reductions will affect license sales, but said “we think there’ll be some impact.” Noticing that the northwest corner of the state will take a big hit in trout stocking, it occurred to me that stocking a large and exciting gamefish in a good-sized lake close to population centers with good freeway access could help preserve license sales in Region 4. I mentioned this to Assistant Director Jim Scott in the hallway after Ron's presentation, and Scott predictably raised questions about whether Samish Lake has anadromous fish runs or is connected to streams that do. This is always the first question that will come up anytime we suggest a new tiger muskie lake. I think the answer in this case is that Samish Lake is a viable candidate lake, and if northwest Washington residents are about to lose a lot of their trout fishing, it makes sense to look at that as an opportunity. We have extra tiger muskies this year from higher than normal hatchery survival, so the fish already exist, and all that's needed is willingness by WDFW, a decision to go forward, and the staff time required to do the SEPA paperwork. The financial cost to WDFW would be negligible and it could give a nice underpinning to license sales in that part of the state, which currently doesn't have a tiger muskie lake.