Northwest Fishing Reports

I wanted to revisit Sprague Lake based on what has happened in the last 30 years.

Lately we have been talking about this in the Walleye and Panfish forum, but it seems to be the wrong place considering that Walleye are no longer present and panfish have not yet shown up.

I still have lots of hope for the lake, but ....... my next post will start to discuss my thoughts.

First, let me start off with how I see Sprague today.

Sprague is shallow, about 18' deep at best, with an average depth much less. From the road, it looks like a shallow muddy lake lined with reeds, but in reality, there is very little silt in Sprague. Near the Sprague Lake Resort you will find some mud, black mud, near the inlet and above the springs, but the rest of the lake is almost all rock without silt. In at least two spots that I know of, there are sand flats that should be great bluegill spawning locations. The very edges do have sufficient decayed algae mixed with silt to grow some groups of spatterdock (pads), reeds, some cattails, and bushes to the water line.

Sprague has a few exposed islands, but it also has several underwater humps that are prop busters. Four Seasons Resorts has a hand drawn map that offers some warning and if you keep your speed down inside these areas, you are just fine.

Despite the lack of silt, the lake is very fertile. The bug hatches can almost choke you at times. The warm water is a source of blue/green algae. By some time in June the water will start off clear at daybreak and turn to pea soup by mid to late in the day. This is not a bad thing in as much that it provides some shade for the fish. Also, the pea soup is mostly just at the surface unless the wind is blowing. If the wind is blowing it will stir up the algae and mix it through the water column.

Two years ago I started to fish Sprague again and discovered that 20 to 26 inch rainbows and some cutthroats were common. Last year the fish were smaller, but still 19+ inches. This year a few big fish are being caught but most are 14 to 16 inches -- still not bad trout. I have not seen a cutthroat in 2 years myself.

Two years ago I saw one bass and it missed it. Last year I saw two, and missed both. This year in two trips I have done much better, but I have not seen any of the Bluegills or Crappie or Channel Catfish that are said to have been put back. I have caught and measured bass from 8" to 6 pounds, with the average fish about 14 to 15". Still, they are very scattered and do not seem to be taking up ambush points. They seem to be feeding more like SMB in that they are moving around in small 2 or 3 fish wolf packs. It may be that the are doing this because their primary food source seems to be sculpins, perhaps fingerling trout as well, at this time.

So, what are your observations about this?

I thought it might be a good time to add to this. I moved to Spokane in 1999 so I do not have first hand knowledge of the past, but I have heard the reports and read about the past. I have some observations about the Sprague of 30 years ago, the time the last rehab was done.

First, I suspect the fishing was not quite as good as it is remembered. We always seem to remember things even better or worse then it actually was. Still, I still believe it was awesome. I kind of wish we had WL back then to document some of what went on. One thing is for sure, those that got into the big bows and few big cuts the last couple of years will tell stories of how great the fishing was at Sprague. Perhaps the F&W would have some evidence, but with a 25 year difference in methods and knowledge, even that would be questionable evidence.

Second, I discovered something in the first couple of years after I moved here. The evidence is still on the rocks and shore. At several of the stores in Sprague, especially the restaurant, there was a sign inviting people to a meeting trying to stop the removal of a small dam on Sprague. From what I can tell, there was a dam somewhere on the outlet that backed up the lake a couple of feet, and at sometime prior to 1999 it was removed. I have no doubt that this was after the last rehab as well. A couple of feet of extra water would leave water marks on the rocks and shore, and that is what you can see today. This might not seem like much, but it is critical to what I believe is impacting Sprague.

Third, because Sprague has mostly small and flat rocks on the bottom, with limited shore cover, there is not a lot of protection for young fish. With two extra feet of water, it might have made a huge difference. An extra two feet of water into the reeds and shore cover would have kept young of the year panfish protected all year.

Forth, weeds are and I suspect were a factor. I do not know what the carp had done to Sprague 30 years ago, if there were carp in Sprague, but I do know what they did in the last 15 years. Carp will denude the bottom of all but the toughest weeds. There was no grass, no soft weeds, nothing but the reeds and limited spatterdock. Now that the carp are gone the weeds are just starting to take hold and come back. In some places the weeds look like they might start to provide cover to panfish, if panfish are still in Sprague. I have also noticed that the water is so much cleaner now that the carp are gone.

So, what is the point of this? Well quite frankly it is that I am not surprised that we are not seeing many, if any, panfish at this time. Consider just what you would have if you put a few panfish in a swimming pool with bass and expected them to live? Personally, I expect the bass would have eaten the panfish out. Also, just how many trout were planted????? A rainbow or cutthroat will switch over to eating minnows, or baby bass and panfish, at about 16" in length. Because the trout did and do grow so well in Sprague, the swimming pool would have had trout competing for the few panfish that did reproduce.

I offer that the logic is sound...... the numbers of bass and panfish in Sprague are currently limited by the lack of cover and the amount of competition. I also offer the following to consider, if the lack of cover was a limiting factor, then if we do have at least some panfish left then the outlook in the next few years is promising. It believe it would be worth the efforts of the F&W to electroshock the lake right now, this month, to look for panfish. If they do not find appreciable quantities of bluegill they should stock more, NOW.

OK, more to follow, a little at a time.

Interesting analysis.

I fished Sprague once, back in 1987 from a rental row boat, trolling a spinner, and came home with five chunky, beautiful rainbow trout, 14-16". Great fun. The fish didn't taste very good that I remember, had a muddy taste to them.

Angling Archer, I think you hit the nail on the head for the most part,but I think the WDFW needs to stock a lot more NOW! I am affraid if they don't, the Carp will be back before the spiny rays get established.

Ya, I worry about that as well.

Mike Carey wrote:Interesting analysis.

I fished Sprague once, back in 1987 from a rental row boat, trolling a spinner, and came home with five chunky, beautiful rainbow trout, 14-16". Great fun. The fish didn't taste very good that I remember, had a muddy taste to them.

Mike, if I remember correctly, the last rehab was 85. If so, then you got it the 2nd year. I know that this time people could catch fish like that the 2nd year.

I did not fish it much the 2nd year, well, there are just so many places I can catch fish like that. Hey, so much water, so many fish, so little time.

Even last Saturday you could catch a limit of 14 to 16 inchers by trolling at about 7 to 8 feet, especially early in the day. I did not do it, but I talked to a guy that I noticed was killing them with his twin downriggers. At first I thought it was odd to have downriggers on Sprague, but it IS controlled depth fishing.

Now, the taste.......... I do not keep that many trout, or fish in general, but I will offer a secret. The fish do not taste muddy, they taste, well, partially cooked, spoiled, etc.

A hint to warm water trout fishermen - bleed the fish as soon as it is caught and get it on ice ASAP, like a couple of minutes. In fact, better to just gut the fish, toss the guts overboard for the gulls, then get it on ice. If you do that then your Sprague Lake trout will taste just fine.

Think of it this way. My youngest daughter is a chief and she has her Washington State "food preparers card" or whatever it is called. If she was to take raw trout and keep it at 60 or 70 degrees, the surface temperature of the water, for the time we are on the water, she would probably go to jail for endangering her customers. OK, I don't want to hear from my C&R friends about me telling people how to kill more trout.

I thought I would add a little more to my observations.

I wish that I could find the post, but after the last rehab, a few people were talking up how great the trout fishing was and how wonderful Sprague was for trout. Do the trout grow well in Sprague? Yes, they do. Do the trout survive well in Sprague? I am not so sure.

Sprague has one serious issue, it is so shallow that it warms a lot. With the depth and the wind it is not uncommon for it to reach 70+ at the bottom. This IS NOT healthy for trout. In fact, were it not for three of nature's gifts, the results would be deadly. One gift is the wind, lots of wind. The wind keeps the oxygen in the water and keeps the water well mixed. OK, the wind makes the bottom warmer but it also mixes the oxygen..... all right, maybe a trade off.

Next is the blue/green algae. The stuff settles to the bottom at night or during low light. As soon as the light increases, like at sunrise, the stuff starts to rise to the top. Were it not for the algae, I expect the water temps would exceed 80 degrees. But, when it dies, it uses up oxygen as well. Again, were it not for the wind, it would be bad, but because of the wind, and the shade, it works at Sprague.

Still, one additional gift is that there are some springs. I have not measured the temperature at the springs, but I have ice fished on Sprague and noticed that they flow well enough that it thins the ice and when the ice is not too deep, it even keeps it open at these spots. If the springs are normal for this area, then they probably flow at ~55 degrees. Because I know where they are, I often bait fish over them. I will be taking my grandkids there this year as well.

Now, if I am not so sure about trout survival, why are there so many trout? Call it stalking on steroids.

I cannot remember the number anymore but just after I mentioned my concerns in the post I mentioned before, people challenged me. I got on the internet and linked them to the past stalking reports for Washington State. It turned out that there were more trout planted in the year after the rehab then in the last 15 years before that combined. The next year was way way way above normal and even last year it was about the same as Rock Lake. Rock Lake has about the same number of surface acres. This year there are NO catchables planted, just fingerlings. Sure, 200,000 fingerlings sounds like a lot, but even in ideal conditions that equates to about 20,000 catchable trout or 10 per acre. With the higher water temperatures, it might be half or less then that. (percentage of die off leaves about 10% survival, if there is good water conditions, no predators, etc.)

What am I trying to say? I guess I am saying enjoy the trout while it last because it is not going to last much longer. Don't take my word for it, the State has said that they are transitioning to a warm water fishery. I suppose that even they know that it is not economically viable to try to keep putting trout into the water.

Shame too. If they put 35,000 catchables in Sprague every fall they would do well in Sprague in my opinion, even with Bass, Bluegills, or heaven forbid Walleye. NO! I am not saying there are Walleye in there; the State has made it clear that there will never be Walleye in there again. I am not even suggesting that they should be.

Next time I think I will pontificate on various baitfish options, i.e., bluegills, crappie, perch, etc.

I'm reading your pontifications every day.

Your fish care hints apply to all bodies of water, not just Sprague. I practice CGI - Catch, Gut, Ice - every time out no matter where I'm fishing. I even do that at Roosevelt in mid-winter with outdoor temps in the 30s.

Looking forward to your next installment.

Baitfish, panfish, whatever you want to call them are the key to making Sprague a good Bass lake.

I strongly suspect that there are crawfish that survived. I suspect that some Bullhead catfish survived, but only because it takes a pretty strong dose to kill those little devils. If they had used that strength, then there should not be Sculpins but there are, I caught them, so ...... Also, crayfish and bullhead catfish will both nose into the springs to survive the dose of Rotenone (spelling error I am sure). I have seen several studies that indicate that crayfish offer a bass more food value then sunfish do, and our native Signal Crayfish is prolific. Did you know that OUR Signal Crayfish is considered and invasive species in Europe. Serves them right for giving us milfoil, carp, tench, .....

OK, but have I seen any of them? Only the Sculpins. So, what would have been the best food to put back in for the Bass? Well, if we want to do the best job we can, then we should have re-stocked crayfish from the start. I have never ever heard of the State doing this, but it should have been done. After all, with the craze for native species, putting signal crayfish would be the "right" thing to do, right?

What about bluegills? Well, that is kind of what the rehab was all about. The problem with gills is that they need the right water temperatures to spawn, the right cover to protect the young of the year, the right conditions to survive. I believe that the past demonstrates that gills will grow and reproduce in Sprague, but the last few years of cold springs, coupled with a total lack of week cover until the last year or so, has taken what appears to be a heavy toll on them. If there had been too much cover, like most shallow lakes, then the gills could have overproduced. I suspect the State was pretty over cautious and put far too few gills in Sprague. OK, I have been kicking this dead horse pretty hard.

What about Crappie? Crappie tend to spawn in a wider range of water temperatures, but they prefer to spawn on wood or weeds, neither of which was present in Sprague until just recently. Still, they have one feature that is a super advantage.... they are pelagic or free swimming in open water soon after they hatch. This might sound like a disadvantage, but in reality free swimming crappie in open water are harder for bass to pick off. Still, with the number of trout that were planted, the pelagic crappie young of the year were very vulnerable. That might be one of the reasons that you just don't see Crappie in Sprague yet. Case in point, Coffee Pot Lake. That lake is loaded with trout, and bass, with special regulations, so it should be loaded with Crappie. They even have special regulations for them, yet I have not only never caught one but have never seen a school on my locator and have never ever talked to anyone who has caught one there. Still, we are talking about Sprague. Perhaps this is another case of kicking the dead horse, but I suspect that far too few were planted for us to see any crappie in Sprague for at least another 5 years. I sure do hope I am wrong.

Perch, what about them? They were specifically not planted in Sprague this time. I am not sure why, but I have my suspicions. The good thing about perch is that they always spawn in our climate. They spawn in deep weed lines, but lacking weeds they would spawn on anything. The bad thing about perch is that they can overpopulate very quickly. Because there was not any weeds to speak of in Sprague until now, the population would have been kept low by the trout and bass, but................... with weeds coming on now the perch could have exploded. Once they start to explode in numbers, then we are limited to killing it off again or putting Walleye again. Well, we all now what they think about Walleye in Sprague again.

A good friend and fisheries biologist for South Eastern Idaho once discussed this with me. He said he had excellent results planting bluegills and bass together. He said he had excellent results planting perch and bass together. He said that he had never had anything but bad results from planting perch, gills, and bass together. For some reason either the perch or the gills would overpopulate and no number of bass could keep them down. I have of course seen exceptions to this rule, and he acknowledged that, but the lakes he dealt with were small, shallow, much like Sprague, so.... OK, I will just say it out right, the State did something right by not planting Bass, perch and bluegills together.

What about other options? Why had Washington been so reluctant to plant Shad or Shiners or alewives in our waters? I suspect it goes back to our current fear of introducing anything new that is not native. I have heard it proposed that the Shad in the Columbia might make an excellent option. They spawn in fresh water and return to the salt, like Stripped Bass, like Steelhead, etc. Perhaps if landlocked they would do just fine, like the Strippers and metalheads do. If they got free or went down river, so what, we already have them. Just like Kokanee don't get as large as Sockeyes do, it is likely that the landlocked shad would remain smaller as well. Threadfin and Gizzard shad can get a couple of pounds as well, but most remain quite small and die off during the winter, so I see a lot of potential with the Columbia shad. Still, nota, nothing, not one piece of research that I can find.

So, other then doing a better job of monitoring the population of Bluegills and Crappie after the stalk, I am not sure what the state could have done. I do believe they have shown less then due diligence regarding this issue.

So, until I get back with my next thoughts, what do you think?

hewesfisher wrote:I'm reading your pontifications every day.

Your fish care hints apply to all bodies of water, not just Sprague. I practice CGI - Catch, Gut, Ice - every time out no matter where I'm fishing. I even do that at Roosevelt in mid-winter with outdoor temps in the 30s.

Looking forward to your next installment.

Thanks for tolerating my comments. I just feel it necessary to set the record straight.

Any idea why the WDFW decided not to restock Walleye in Sprague?

YellowBear,

You asked the question "Any idea why". OK, proof, no, ideas yes. You may not like what I have to say, but, yes, I do.

First let me start off by saying that I am glad that they did not put Walleye back in Sprague, at least not yet. Walleye are very effective feeders that can and will clean out prey fish if there is not an over abundance, or if there is not sufficient cover to protect them. Let me give you some examples.

In Southern Idaho, on the Nevada boarder, there is an impoundment called Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir. When I grew up I fished that reservoir a lot, because I could. It had been planted with LMB and SMB and crappie and perch and silvers and kokes and ....... What was apparent was that the trout were always struggling to find food, the Bass were almost non-existent, the crappie were few as hen's teeth. On the other hand, the Squawfish (yes, that is what the official name was in those days) and perch were so common it was disgusting. Perch were all 3 to 4 inches long and the Squawfish often swam and spawned in schools that numbered in the thousands. Sometime in the late 70's the State of Idaho started to plant Walleye fry. There were so many squawfish and so many perch that no walleye showed up for years. Finally the Walleye population built to the point that they started to spawn and best of all eat perch and squawfish. Those walleye went to town. Even today, SMB are now plentiful, perch are few but large, squawfish just almost don't exist, crappie are back in large schools and the trout grow big and fast. The walleye population has crashed now that the excess food is gone, but they did their job.

In South East Idaho, Oneida Reservoir is on the Bear River, a few miles upstream of Utah. Again, trash fish was the name of the game. Massive carp populations, stunted massive populations of perch, not much more existed. The state put Walleye in there and they cleaned the perch right out. After time, the carp started to be reduced as well, but Walleye are not a great treatment for carp problems due to their smaller mouth. In this case, Oneida was not as large as Salmon Falls and the Walleye did not leave any room for anything else. Still, suddenly the river below had trout in it that was not there before.

In summary, walleye can clean out a lake if it is not large enough and if it does not have enough food in it. Of course, if the Walleye cannot spawn, then this is annon-issue. With Sprague, if walleye were planted now, with so little food already in there for the Bass, the walleye would ruin the lake. Now, in the future, if trash or bait fish get overpopulated, then Walleye would be a good choice. The same is true for the Tiger Muskies. Maybe later, but now is too early.

Now, to answer your question, two factors; one is Eastern Washington State University and two is the Spokane Indian tribe. Just do an internet search and you will find that those two groups have teamed up a lot in the last 10+ years. Walleye have been the target of a lot of those investigations.

Chris Donley appears to be complicit at least, but most likely a partner in this. I believe that his actions, as well as the conclusions made by the State's own research team, seem to suggest this. Many of us have discussed this on this site, as well as other sites, even in person, but how do you ignore the fact that if you read the studies yourself you see very little to suggest that Walleye have done any harm. If anything, the walleye do harm to the "Northern Pike Minnow", saving far more trout and metalheads and salmon fry then they eat. The inconsistent statements the State have published regarding Walleye would suggest that either they are fools or they think we are fools. I will leave that to you do determine.

Let me offer a couple of quick examples. The tribe and State did a kokanee study on Roosevelt and discovered the limiting factor was the fact that the water temperatures did not thermocline. The fish had to move up and down too far each day to feed and still get back to cool enough water. The same thing with the trout. So, how do they respond, they gut the limits this year and open up the main spawning arm during the spawning season. Second, the state published in their walleye guides several times that Walleye did not spawn in Sprague. They seemed to protect the sizes, push the fish larger and larger while protecting the large ones by only allowing only one to be taken. Then they blame an overpopulation of Walleye, of large size, as the reason Sprague was not fishing well. Then when they get challenged on this site about a claim that the Walleye were hard to catch because they had too much food, they suddenly get their private parts exposed. Tell me please, how does a fish that "does not spawn in Sprague", a fish that has the large fish protected, a fish that they admit their own calculations in their study were flawed, suddenly overpopulate, and still has so much food that they are hard to catch?

So, why no walleye in Sprague, I propose the following reasons, in order:

1) too little food right now to support them.
2) the Spokane Indian Tribe does not want them.
3) the State of Washington "powers that be" don't like Walleye.
4) in today's era of political and environmental correctness, Walleye are an invasive species and therefore need to be destroyed.

OK, I think I covered the good. The carp are gone, the lake is cleaner then it has been for years, the trout are fishing well, the LMB are starting to show up.

I think I covered the bad. The LMB are starting to show up, and are healthy, but it appears that there are no or at least very few crappie and bluegills to feed them in the future.

Now I think I covered the Ugly. It was the Walleye that were used as the scape goat to kill off Sprague. Nevertheless, if sufficient cover had existed, the Walleye would have been fine, the Bass would still have existed, the bluegills would still be plentiful and large. The crappie still existed, but they too would have been better. A side note: One of the very few times that Donley would talk to me he indicated he had reviewed every option and that it was too expensive to create additional cover to protect the prey from the Walleye. Now that they are gone, it will not be politically correct to re-stalk them again.

So, you want a summary? I didn't think so.

I would like to point out that I invited the person that did the Bass promotion video for the State to join in this thread and provide his true information. To that end, it has not happened.

NEVERTHELESS, all is not lost. Sprague is indeed (the good) making a comeback. The fishing has been good for trout, it is getting better for Bass, it may get better for crappie and bluegills in the future. So, for now, I propose the best thing to do with Sprague is to go out and catch some

AA, your last pontification raised a couple questions in my mind.

Why does the Spokane Tribe have any say with how non-tribal waters, or waters not connected to tribal waters, are managed? In other words, why should there be any concern about walleye in a closed watershed? I can fully understand the reasons for their involvement with fishery management in border waters, but Sprague is not, nor does it (so far as I know) share or flow into any tribal water.

Am aware of the ongoing studies and research at Roosevelt, but not sure it's relevant with regard to Sprague unless the conclusion is walleye are an invasive species, and therefore, must be eliminated. Not aware of any natural salmonid runs in Sprague that would need to be protected from walleye. FWIW, the joint studies at Roosevelt aren't limited to trout and kokanee predation by walleye, they also include sturgeon. One think that puzzles me, I was unaware that EWU had a notable marine biology program. Rather curious about their involvement in WDFW studies and fisheries management decisions.

Great stuff you're posting, would be nice to have some thoughtful input from WDFW.

Final analysis is correct, go fishing!

I would like to find out how many fish were stocked in 1985 and how many were stocked in 2007.

hewesfisher wrote:AA, your last pontification raised a couple questions in my mind.

Why does the Spokane Tribe have any say with how non-tribal waters, or waters not connected to tribal waters, are managed? In other words, why should there be any concern about walleye in a closed watershed? I can fully understand the reasons for their involvement with fishery management in border waters, but Sprague is not, nor does it (so far as I know) share or flow into any tribal water.

Am aware of the ongoing studies and research at Roosevelt, but not sure it's relevant with regard to Sprague unless the conclusion is walleye are an invasive species, and therefore, must be eliminated. Not aware of any natural salmonid runs in Sprague that would need to be protected from walleye. FWIW, the joint studies at Roosevelt aren't limited to trout and kokanee predation by walleye, they also include sturgeon. One think that puzzles me, I was unaware that EWU had a notable marine biology program. Rather curious about their involvement in WDFW studies and fisheries management decisions.

Great stuff you're posting, would be nice to have some thoughtful input from WDFW.

Final analysis is correct, go fishing!

HF, I understand your concerns, but let me address them.

First, Eastern Washington does indeed have a Fisheries Program. I copied the following from a couple of quick internet searches. I think you said "I was unaware that EWU had a notable marine biology program"; I think you need to define notable.

One time I asked about research and studies on several lakes in Eastern Washington and the Spokane office of F&W kept referring me to EWU and their Library. I cannot comment on "notable" or competent.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eastern Washington University
Masters degree
Biology


The Department of Biology at Eastern Washington University offers a Master of Science in Biology.

The Master of Science in Biology program provides a demanding and rewarding experience in biology leading to competent scholarship and research capability. The department emphasizes research as a basic component of graduate study. A variety of research specialties are available within the department, including limnology, fisheries biology, parasitology, embryology, exercise physiology, wildlife biology, mycology, plant ecology, biotechnology, microbiology and immunology among others.
__________________________________________________________________

http://www.lrf.org/Env/EnvReports/EWUWa ... Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contributions to Fisheries Management in Eastern Washington State
Number 4 – March 2002
Prepared by:
……………
Eastern Washington University
Fisheries Research Center
Department of Biology
Cheney, Washington 99004

Annual Report Submitted to:
Spokane Tribe of Indians
P.O. Box 480
Wellpinit, WA 99040
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Second, how do we define closed systems? Let me give you a few examples.

The lake I mentioned, Salmon Falls Creek Res. in Idaho, was a "closed system". All water that entered it was funneled into irrigation canals that eventually dumped into the desert and sank in or evaporated. There was no exit to down stream systems. OK, that was true until a major winter event in the mid 90's when for the first time in the history of the Dam water actually filled the Res., overflowed over the top of the dam (not even a spill way, good thing it was solid concrete) and headed for the Snake River through the old natural canyon system. I understand that Idaho did an emergency kill of the down stream section to keep Walleye from spreading --- too bad to because it was one of the best unknown hike in trout fishing I ever knew.

How about bucket biologist? Or is that Jonnie Fish seed? The State has captured Walleye in Silver Lake, Spokane County, and indicated that they were transplanted illegally from Sprague due to the growth rate indicated in the Scales. The walleye apparently could not spawn in Silver, but they were there. This is documented by the State.

I have heard from a trusted source that a close friend of his caught some small Walleye in Rock Lake in Whitman County. With all of the fishing I do there, I would have expected that if they were reproducing I would have caught one by now, but that is not a given. I also can name several water systems that have been killed out for perch and Jonnie Fish Seed has put them back in. In reality, I am shocked that perch are not in Sprague now.

So, if the Indian Tribes can get federal and state funds to kill off Northern Pike in the P'O' River, and if they can start the process to get a grant to build a useless fish ladder over Albany Falls Dam, look at how much power they have. Additionally, all they need is a friendly ear and a few studies to influence how the State views species, especially non-native species.

Sprague has no chance of being a close system either. Not only do bucket biologist demonstrate it, but the body of water does have an outlet, one that eventually goes over Palouse Falls, then to the Snake/Columbia system. If Walleye are indeed in the process of being revised to an invasive species, like the Northern Pike, then .............. Because there is a direct link to the water that does connect with Tribal Lands, claims can be made by the tribes.

Please keep in mind that it is educated conjecture about the Tribal influence, but a document trail can be established. In a court of civil, you need only a preponderance of the evidence to prove your case. There is a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, I believe EWU is doing nothing more then catering to those that need or want their services. If they did not then they would not have a fisheries research arm.

I hope this clears up some of the concerns, but I totally agree, why can't we seem to get the WSDF&W to respond to these concerns?

YellowBear wrote:I would like to find out how many fish were stocked in 1985 and how many were stocked in 2007.

Good question. When I posted the link to the historical plant link once before, it triggered the State to remove the link from the internet.

Perhaps our State will answer that question for you? dan.garrett@dfw.wa.gov

Anglinarcher wrote:PS, let's go fishing!

PS, I think it might have been 1986, not 1985. I am not sure of the year.