Northwest Fishing Reports

does anybody know if there is walleyes in green lake, or lake washington?

fishingboy wrote:does anybody know if there is walleyes in green lake, or lake washington?

walleye in Lk WA? Yes.

Worth fishing for them? No.

why is it not worth for fishing for them?

fishingboy wrote:why is it not worth for fishing for them?

not enough of them in numbers to locate and catch with consistency. You'll end up catching bass and perch instead when targeting walleye, which is not a bad thing actually


Here's a 2005 article from the Seattle Times

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... lug=outn13

If you catch a walleye in either of those lakes it would be a fluke. A private party's attempt to illegally stock a lake without thinking about the repercussions. I would hope that the fish would be kept or killed and reported to the WDFW. The last thing those lakes need are another predator in the water feeding on salmon, trout and steelhead smolts. Fishingboy, I think I know where you are headed with this post. The closest body of water to the Seattle area in which you can reliably catch walleye is the the Wanapum pool on the Columbia River. If you drive just a bit further past Vantage to Evergreen Reservoir, you can enjoy some great warm water fishing without the need of a large boat. Evergreen contains a wide variety of fish and you may get lucky and hook into a Tiger Muskie to boot! I've heard that you can also catch them below Bonneville almost down to the salt chuck but that can be some tough fishing especially in a smaller boat. Sadly, I have not yet made a walleye trip this year but I may give it a shot this winter. I've been itching to go after some of the hogs in the North end of the Wanapum pool.

G-man, G-man, G-man... Another uninformed fisherman. Look, first off, Walleye are very lethargic fish. They are not a species that is going to ambush piles of those rocket fish. Imagine Warren Sapp chasing after Reggie Bush, it is NOT gonna happen. Plus, they live on the opposite side of the water column. Now if an injured smolt (say Matt Hasselback) was limping around in front of Mr. Walleye, yes, he make take him out of the food chain.

Washington State is really missing out on this, that lake wold be the perfect environment for BOTH species. Actually I can think of a few that would be perfect. But the State apparently needs to have every lake filled with trout.

maybe i can find email adresess then i will email WDFW headquaters and see if they are willing to dump walleyes into lake washington... and then the lake would be come more popular then it is now!

i just email and reported the idiots who dumped illegal walleyes dumped into lake washington. i recommened to them to dumped legal walleyes into lake washington!

Hal,

Look, I love walleye with a passion but they just don't belong in those waters. In a totally closed system, fine load up the lake with whatever the majority of the anglers want. However, introducing a new species in a system in which you can't control the population or eliminate it if necessary is just plain irresponsible, as it doesn't take much to upset an ecosystem. Yes walleye are ambush predators but what do you suppose they eat, snails? They ambush prey during low light conditions and they blend in very well with the lake/river bottom, so don't sell them short on being able to catch any fish that gets near them. If you have ever tried dragging a plug at 5+mph after the spawn in late Spring for them, you'll understand why the Warren Sapp analogy doesn't hold water. I have come to accept that in order to fish for walleye, I need to travel to the "dry" side of the state and I can live with that.

Personally I would be more worried about Northern Pike Minnows than Walleye when you talk about smolt mortality. Or maybe even worse the dang Cormorants. Open a Corm belly around the Columbia and you will find them fat on smolt. Walleyes love Northern Pike Minnows or Squaw Fish (same species) like candy. They are found in the Walleye craw where ever the two mix. As to whether Walleye should, could, or may be introduced to Lake Washington. Too late. That pod is there, growing, and reproducing and surviving. It will take 30 or 40 years of steady adaption but we will have a Walleye population there for the fishing. I use that figure because that is how long it took the Columbia to produce a viable fishery. Other lakes are simply not going to allow for survival of Walleye in Western Washington (they hate muddy bottoms). Sauger would be the better bet in our muddy bottom lakes. Riffe could support them and Mayfield could also and there are plenty of forage fish and gravel and rock flats there. The problem with these lakes is the drawdown at the spawn time. Just some thoughts, that's all.

fishingboy wrote:i just email and reported the idiots who dumped illegal walleyes dumped into lake washington.

You emailed the WDFW and reported that people dumped Walleye into Lake Washington, even though you don't know when it was done, didnt see anybody do it, and haven't actually seen any Walley in the lake yourself??:-k

There are no Walley in Greenlake.

G-Man wrote:Hal,

Look, I love walleye with a passion but they just don't belong in those waters. In a totally closed system, fine load up the lake with whatever the majority of the anglers want. However, introducing a new species in a system in which you can't control the population or eliminate it if necessary is just plain irresponsible, as it doesn't take much to upset an ecosystem. Yes walleye are ambush predators but what do you suppose they eat, snails? They ambush prey during low light conditions and they blend in very well with the lake/river bottom, so don't sell them short on being able to catch any fish that gets near them. If you have ever tried dragging a plug at 5+mph after the spawn in late Spring for them, you'll understand why the Warren Sapp analogy doesn't hold water. I have come to accept that in order to fish for walleye, I need to travel to the "dry" side of the state and I can live with that.

Ive only found one Walleye with a trout in its stomach, period. (Banks lake, rufus woods). Plus I am not sure it actually was a trout, but the meat was red/pink.
I have cleaned alot of them. What IS in their stomach? Crawfish. Perch.Sculpin. All bottom dwelling and the crawfish are the main forage IMO. Trout usually do not hang out down there. Sure they may at times!
I will never pull a crank bait at 5mph, but I am pretty certain even the slowest fish in the water can swim alot faster than that. TROUT are without a doubt the fastest. Saw it on espn7 the other day.
Show me ONE lake where Walleye have "damaged" an ecosystem. Please do not use Washington State DNR's reasoning either. We all know how accurate they are.

That lake has a huge water column and could support both. But I do agree it will never happen. Legally

Hal,

The size of the water column has nothing to do with supporting different fish species. It all comes down to where the food they eat can be found. You don't think the walleye would congregate in and around the mouths of the various rivers and streams to feed on exiting fish? I'm not sure how much you have read or understand about the lake Washington ecosystem, but let it be said that after really being messed up it has started to find it's balance and recover to become one of the more consistent fisheries in the State. That being said there are still a couple of native species that need to recover fully before any thought of introducing another predator is even considered. Too many predators in one body of water spells certain doom for a fishery and can take decades to sort itself out naturally. Sprague Lake was a prime example, too many predators with not enough food. The lake Washington system has it's apex predator, the cutthroat, add to this a healthy smallmouth and largemouth bass population and another fish eating machine is not needed. Any infringement into a system by another predator is going to directly effect the food supply and the population of the other predators. Again, the problem with introducing any species into a system like the Columbia or Lake Washington is that you can't kill off the river or lake and start over again if something unexpected happens. Catch a few walleye down on the Columbia while the various smolts are trying to migrate down river and then get back to me. If they didn't taste so good and have such a devout following, I bet they would be targeted for termination much like the Northern Pike minnow. Believe me when I say I love walleye, I just think they should be contained more carefully as all non-native species should be/have been.

Here is an excerpt from a walleye fishing guide for the Columbia:

By Patrick McGann

Big walleye spend the warmer half of the year prowling the flats close to the bottom or lying in ambush near rocky structure . . . in both cases at 20 to 30 feet for fish over 4 pounds. They use their eyes to locate prey and their speed to overcome it. Target prey are shad and squawfish smolts, sculpins and the occasional salmon, steelhead or trout smolts. Walleye are NOT timid feeders. On the contrary, they are ferocious predators. When they see one of these fast-moving forage fish within their range, they strike with an aggressiveness that rivals ANY game fish!

And one from the Idaho forest commission:

The warmer water within the dam-created reservoirs provides excellent habitat for fish that eat salmon. Squawfish, walleye, channel catfish, and smallmouth bass all thrive in reservoir conditions and prey on salmon smolts.

a big percentage of walleye are caught in the bottom three feet of water which recent studys have found a bigger catch rate in the three ft range so the percentage of trout,smolts would be of a smaller percentage then pikeminnows (squaws) and probably bass and or other large trout. certainly lk washington and other waters shouldn't be stocked with these fish as walleye will use any waterways when they are on the move to spawn. so once they are in, at some point they could become a problem when there is plenty food. i myself have yet to find a smolt or trout in one, the usual has been perch, crawfish, and other bottomfish. once this food base becomes less then percetage would more than likely go up for trout, salmon smolts.

During the spawn they would congregate around the mouths for the spawn, and for that short period only. My point was that the majority of the time the Walleye are not going to target the fish that you all covet so highly. Why it bothers me (I dont live out there anyways) I have no clue, but it does. My point which you completly missed is the fact that both species live on opposite ends of the water column spectrum. Hence, the interaction between the 2 species is minimal.

Think about what you just wrote. Your claim is it's no big deal that the species would cross paths only when one of them is most vulnerable to the other. Come on man you can't really believe that? It doesn't matter whether someone covets one species over another, native fish that are trying to mount a comeback should not have to deal with a newly introduced non-native fish no matter how small the potential for harm is at first perceived. That's just responsible wildlife management, one just hopes that past mistakes are not repeated. The problem with Westside lakes is that most of them either empty into or have the potential to flood out to a body of water containing anadromous fish. Yes, even the water from Green Lake finds its way in the the Lake Washington system. I believe this is why Walleye will not be legally introduced on the Westside of our State, just look how they srpead on the Eastside and into the Columbia System.

This is turning out to be a good post.
I'm an avid walleye guy and would love to have a westside lake with some eyes. I thought American in Lakewood would
be a decent spot for them. However,I have to admit,I love fishing 'em but have no real knowledge of their feeding habits.
As for now I will continue to head east and spend a day or 2 just trying to locate fish before I can catch any.

go to banks lake! make sure you got a boat for that lake! awsome legal walleye there! over 2 feet! LONG!

G-Man wrote:Think about what you just wrote. Your claim is it's no big deal that the species would cross paths only when one of them is most vulnerable to the other. Come on man you can't really believe that? It doesn't matter whether someone covets one species over another, native fish that are trying to mount a comeback should not have to deal with a newly introduced non-native fish no matter how small the potential for harm is at first perceived. That's just responsible wildlife management, one just hopes that past mistakes are not repeated. The problem with Westside lakes is that most of them either empty into or have the potential to flood out to a body of water containing anadromous fish. Yes, even the water from Green Lake finds its way in the the Lake Washington system. I believe this is why Walleye will not be legally introduced on the Westside of our State, just look how they srpead on the Eastside and into the Columbia System.

They put the feedbag on before and after the spawn in MY experiences. They get pretty lazy around that time, kinda like the Seahawks O line. So yeah I thought about it. Anyways, I'm done wasting my time with this disagreement. Enjoy the trout.

in banks lake is there any over 20 pounds or so?