NOTICE to all Pike Fishermen

[YellowBear]

I agree that the Pike will not be feeding on Salmon or Steelhead that are returning to spawn but they darn sure will feed on the smolt. Pike are like any other preditor and will feed on what ever is most available at the time.

[AJ's Dad]

Here's something that really gets me. This was taken directly from the memorandum that riverhaven posted a link to. IT's referring to Largemouth Bass in the POR

In Box Canyon Reservoir, largemouth bass provide an important sport and tribal subsistence
fishery. Research conducted in the mid 1990s indicated that largemouth bass relative
abundance was low and the population appeared to be limited by over-winter cover for
juveniles. A largemouth bass hatchery was constructed in 1997 for supplementing the river
population. In addition, habitat structures were placed in sloughs throughout Box Canyon
Reservoir. Monitoring results have shown a significant increase in the number of juvenile
largemouth bass in sloughs were structures were placed. This enhancement in habitat as well
as supplementation of largemouth bass has contributed to the sport and subsistence fishery.
While the goals for native fish and non-native fish management may appear to conflict, there is
a dramatic difference in habitat between the tributaries and Box Canyon Reservoir. The habitat
overlap between native trout and largemouth bass is limited and interaction between the two is
very unlikely.

Now can someone tell me why they say the habitat overlap between LMB and trout is limited and that interaction between the two species iss "Unlikely", yet they are concerned about the pike? In my opinion. pike inahbit very much the same kind of water as the LMB do.

And if they want to promote a subsistance fish, why not pike? They are very eatable, and they wouldn't need a fully staffed hatchery to provide them. All they would have to do is use the power company dollars to help manage and contain them.

AARRRRGGGHHHH

[Lucius]

Here's something that really gets me. This was taken directly from the memorandum that riverhaven posted a link to. IT's referring to Largemouth Bass in the POR

In Box Canyon Reservoir, largemouth bass provide an important sport and tribal subsistence
fishery. Research conducted in the mid 1990s indicated that largemouth bass relative
abundance was low and the population appeared to be limited by over-winter cover for
juveniles. A largemouth bass hatchery was constructed in 1997 for supplementing the river
population. In addition, habitat structures were placed in sloughs throughout Box Canyon
Reservoir. Monitoring results have shown a significant increase in the number of juvenile
largemouth bass in sloughs were structures were placed. This enhancement in habitat as well
as supplementation of largemouth bass has contributed to the sport and subsistence fishery.
While the goals for native fish and non-native fish management may appear to conflict, there is
a dramatic difference in habitat between the tributaries and Box Canyon Reservoir. The habitat
overlap between native trout and largemouth bass is limited and interaction between the two is
very unlikely.

Now can someone tell me why they say the habitat overlap between LMB and trout is limited and that interaction between the two species iss "Unlikely", yet they are concerned about the pike? In my opinion. pike inahbit very much the same kind of water as the LMB do.

And if they want to promote a subsistance fish, why not pike? They are very eatable, and they wouldn't need a fully staffed hatchery to provide them. All they would have to do is use the power company dollars to help manage and contain them.

AARRRRGGGHHHH

Great Point!!!!!

[Mark K]

This enhancement in habitat as well
as supplementation of largemouth bass has contributed to the sport and subsistence fishery.
While the goals for native fish and non-native fish management may appear to conflict, there is
a dramatic difference in habitat between the tributaries and Box Canyon Reservoir. The habitat
overlap between native trout and largemouth bass is limited and interaction between the two is
very unlikely.

Now can someone tell me why they say the habitat overlap between LMB and trout is limited and that interaction between the two species iss "Unlikely", yet they are concerned about the pike? In my opinion. pike inahbit very much the same kind of water as the LMB do.

Wow, and BPA bought this story So let me get this straight. Pike are detrimental to their LMB, and native trout. BUT they don't inhabit the same waters as the LMB, and they can't show trout in the diet of these Pike either??? I've got nothing else. This whole thing just stinks of hypocrisy and money grabbing. Lame.

If the tribe REALLY CARED about native fish they wouldn't stock PREDATOR LMB period!

[Mark K]

And this is exactly why the Kalispel tribe finds it that this issue is so important in Box Canyon, so THEY can be involved with the pay day. That money would be much better spent in Boundary and beyond... Jason Connor said last year that "Every pike I net is possibly 100,000 less Pike I have to deal with next year". That statement is true, so in these terms wouldn't you think that ONE pike taken out of Boundary even if it is much harder to catch is worth more than one Pike in Box Canyon where there is already a very established population? What happens when there is a good year class in Boundary? Just one step closer to encroachment on the Columbia...

It seems like a numbers game to me. A pike with 100,000 eggs is a pretty decent fish....my question is how many smaller fish now sexually mature due to the fact that that decent pike is now removed from the ecosystem? Considering the stat of 100 acres has 800 smaller pike and only 60...13 small pike for every big pike that means the smaller pike would only have to produce about 7,700 eggs to equate to that one bigger fish being removed. I think that number is very easily obtainable if not more.

True, but the point of my post was that if they only took one Pike out of Boundary res. whether it has 10 eggs or a million eggs it is much more valuable to them than any pike in Box Canyon where they are already established. Isn't the "goal" of this whole "project" to stop establishment of them downstream towards the Columbia? I understand why the Kalispels want so badly for all this work to be done in Box Canyon-$$$! It's just amazing to me WDFW just sits aside and watches as the problem potentially moves downstream.

In the end, out of the Salmon/Steelhead fisherman, Pike fisherman, Kalispel Tribe and WDFW- the Tribe are the true winners. Congrats on your new "partnership!" Now quit calling meetings and lying straight to our faces and pretending to listen. It's a waste of everyone's time. Your motives and intentions are clear. All 10 Million of them.

[Fish-N-Fool]

Wow, and BPA bought this story So let me get this straight. Pike are detrimental to their LMB, and native trout. BUT they don't inhabit the same waters as the LMB, and they can't show trout in the diet of these Pike either??? I've got nothing else. This whole thing just stinks of hypocrisy and money grabbing. Lame.

If the tribe REALLY CARED about native fish they wouldn't stock PREDATOR LMB period!

I was told by a man that lives up near Cusick that the Tribe are the ones that planted the Pike in there to start with to help control the Squawfish populations. He claimed that he was an eye witness to this illegal stocking about 15 years ago. Looks like it has turned into a nice little money maker for them now!! Better then a Casino!!! No wonder they don't want to do anything about the Pike in Boundary Res. Since I did not see this myself I don't know it to be a fact, but it sure makes yah wonder. Gee I wonder if the Colville tribe will have Pike next?

[Fish-N-Fool]

True, but the point of my post was that if they only took one Pike out of Boundary res. whether it has 10 eggs or a million eggs it is much more valuable to them than any pike in Box Canyon where they are already established. Isn't the "goal" of this whole "project" to stop establishment of them downstream towards the Columbia? I understand why the Kalispels want so badly for all this work to be done in Box Canyon-$$$! It's just amazing to me WDFW just sits aside and watches as the problem potentially moves downstream.

In the end, out of the Salmon/Steelhead fisherman, Pike fisherman, Kalispel Tribe and WDFW- the Tribe are the true winners. Congrats on your new "partnership!" Now quit calling meetings and lying straight to our faces and pretending to listen. It's a waste of everyone's time. Your motives and intentions are clear. All 10 Million of them.

I am 100% convinced that even if the pike did get into the lower Columbia it would not have ANY impact on the Steelhead or Salmon runs. As it has been stated already that Trout and Pike do not share the same habitat. What it would do it help rid that part of the river of the small perch, bullheads, squawfish and other scrap fish and actually improve the fishing like it has in the P.O. River. I think the fishing is better there now then it was 15 years go for everything except the L.M. Bass. I have seen a steady decline in their numbers in the past 7 to 8 years, but that is in a direct line with the increase of the S.M. Bass. Smallmouth are one of the most aggressive fish that swims and they will out compete any L.M. bass and drive them away from the prime habitat. I saw Smallmouth in shallow sloughs in past years chasing Largemouth off their beds. In my opinion this is the real reason for the decline of the Largemouth, but the game dept. doesn't seem to care about them. WDFW wont stop untill there is nothing in the P.O river worth catching just like the Idaho Fish and Game has done to Lake Pend Oreille. If it's worth catching they want to kill it.They have had a war against the Mackinaw and Trophy Rainbow trout in the lake for quite a few years now. Now they have found out that the Walleye have moved in and they are about to go to battle against then as well. That is why the locals now refer to Lake Pend Oreille, as the Dead Sea!!!!!

[Mark K]

Wow, and BPA bought this story So let me get this straight. Pike are detrimental to their LMB, and native trout. BUT they don't inhabit the same waters as the LMB, and they can't show trout in the diet of these Pike either??? I've got nothing else. This whole thing just stinks of hypocrisy and money grabbing. Lame.

If the tribe REALLY CARED about native fish they wouldn't stock PREDATOR LMB period!

I was told by a man that lives up near Cusick that the Tribe are the ones that planted the Pike in there to start with to help control the Squawfish populations. He claimed that he was an eye witness to this illegal stocking about 15 years ago. Looks like it has turned into a nice little money maker for them now!! Better then a Casino!!! No wonder they don't want to do anything about the Pike in Boundary Res. Since I did not see this myself I don't know it to be a fact, but it sure makes yah wonder. Gee I wonder if the Colville tribe will have Pike next?

I have a very hard time believing this. I agree with WDFW on where they came from. That is a whole different unimportant story though. As far as Pike not hurting the Columbia and Salmon, I would have to agree with you. And with the decision to focus on Box Canyon, it looks like we may know sooner rather than later.

[AJ's Dad]

Regardless of wheather or not someone illegally introduced pike to the POR 15 years ago, they have been, and will continue to come from the Clark Fork River, across the top of Pend Oreille Lake and over the dam at Albeni Falls. No matter how many they kill, they will still keep coming.

IMO:
The gillnetting Genocide will now receive significant funding and will be successfull in dramaticly reducing the pike population to the point that we will catch one or two on each trip to the POR. This may take a few years to accomplish but it will happen.

The dams are not going anywhere, so someone will always have their hand out to the power companies in the name of helping salmon. No matter how far upstream they are.

Some time after the alottment of money that we see laid out in the "Partnership Agreement" has been handed over, (at the end of the 10 year plan) we will more than likely see and hear nothing about Northern PIke in the POR for a while. Then, after a year or two they will do another "Study" and claim another high water year has brought tons of pike back to the river. This will be a never ending stream of revenue now as they have their foot in the door and their hands in the pockets at the BPA.

In perspective, they now have 10 years to come up with a game plan on how to renew this revenue stream and keep the money coming in, wheather it's by claiming renwed pike infestation or some other cockamamie creative issue. My guess is that the Smallmouth Bass better start packing their bags because they will be the next targeted species.

I hope the BPA knows what they have started here. It wouldn't surprize me to some time soon read in the news that Idaho and Montana have carpooled over to a BPA meeting and are standing there with their hands out saying "Hey what about us?" Remember, the pike came through those two states to get to the POR. Then again, maybe Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota can ride along with them. After all, the way the story goes is that pike were illegally introduced into Montana waters by fishermen bringing them in from those states.

Here's a thought:
Who do you suppose introduced pike to the waters where the experts refer to them as "Native species"? I'll tell you, look upward, ------------------------------- no, look higher upward. There you go. That's right, they were put there by the almighty. Yep I'm going to say it, the "G word" GOD put them there. Do you suppose the experts have ever considered the possibility that the good lord is the one responsible for the pike in the POR? Do you suppose it's possible that the pike in Montana waters were actually put there the same way they were put in their "Native waters"? I'll bet not.

Something to think about.

[YellowBear]

I need to ask you all a question.
What makes you think a Northern Pike will not feed on a Salmon or Steelhead smolt?
I have seen the post's about how the WDFW stretches the truth to benefit there side of the argument.
So I need to point it out when we do the same thing. Now as we all know I am not a big fan of the WDFW but on this I have to agree with them. Pike are preditors. If it come's by and they are hungry it will be eatin. I do not think the Pike can tell the differance between a 12 inch Pike minnow or a 12 inch Salmonid and I do not beleave he cares. The idea that they will not cross paths is just hoakum. I have taken many more Trout up near the bank than out in the middle of the lake.

[AJ's Dad]

Yellow Bear,
The question is not if a pike will eat a trout or salmon. I agree with you whole heartedly. A pike is an opportunistic feeder and I believe it will eat nearly anything that swims.

The point is that Pike don't primarily inhabit the same areas in a body of water that a slamonid type fish does. We aren't saying that the won't eat a trout and we're not saying that they will never cross paths. What we, I am saying is that the two species spend a majority of their lives no where near each other so the opportunity for a pike to eat a trout is limited. If you look back at the post I made on this thread on Tuesday, you will see a statement from the memorandum by Bonneville Power Administration where they say the habitat overlap between largemouth bass and trout is limited and interaction between the two species is very unlikely. If that is true for bass and trout then it should aslo be true of pike and trout since pike and bass primarily inhabit much the same water.

Also, during the studies, the bellies of a lot of the slaughtered pike were cut open to see what they had been eating. Early information I saw or heard of only showed a couple of trout overall that were found in those bellies. When I asked one of the Kalispel official about that statistic, I mentioned that I had read where they had only found like 2 or 3 trout in the pike stomach contents, he said "AHH well I'm not sure how many we have found. It hasn't been very many but I'm sure it was more than 2 or 3" That would be an interesting and enlightening statistic to see. If it was reported honestly. You would think that if they were finding trout in the bellies of those dead pike, they would have plastered photos of them all over the place just to make their point. But they haven't.

[Lucius]

I don't think we ever said pike woud never eat salmon or stealhead smolt, as you have stated they are opportunistic feeders and will eat what is near them when they are hunger. Now I did a little research about salmon and steelhead SMOLT, and they do inhabit the same waters that pike would (slow moving backwaters of the river), however I also heard from a few folks that the smolt in the Columbia river get barged to the Ocean to eliminate other types of predation from birds and such only adding to that pike predation on the SMOLT would be limited (correct me about the barging if I am wrong, I am just going off a few fisherman that I have gotten to know very well).

Also, comparing the Columbia River to the situation that is happening in Alaska is like comparing apples and oranges. The only food source in the rivers for which Alaska is refering to is Salmon and Steelhead where as the Columbia has perch, smallmouth bass, walleye, northernpike minnow and a few others that I am forgetting to metion. This provides a diverse ecosystem for pike to feed on especially with the squawfish. You could probably lift the bounty on the squawfish if the pike ever became established in the Columbia as I believe they would do a great job of drastically reducing their population to a more reasonable level.

All that said, we pike fisherman still don't want pike in the Columbia because of the possible problem they could cause if things were to go wrong. We understand Salmon and Steelhead are the kings of Washington and we don't ever want that to change. But when there are programs trying to promote the warm water fishing programs and create more of a diverse fishery in Washington, why not manage one that is self sustaining and the only cost would be for management purposes to include education programs about the fishery and proper management and not hatchery purposes? To go along with that you have clubs that are willing to help promote management and education that cost nothing. Seems like a win win to me.

Also, the number of trout that were pulled from the bellies of pike was 5 (figure I heard last year). Seems pretty minimal impact to me.

[Fish-N-Fool]

I also agree that a Pike will eat any fish that it can get close enough to catch and I myself have caught pike on a trout pattern swimbait. I know that pike and trout do not occupy the same water about 99% of the time. I read the report from a few years ago that the WDFW posted that of the 550 some pike they had caught in the gill nets that year and they did a stomach contents survey on. They only found 2 trout in the bellies of all those fish! I have looked for that report to re-post it but can no longer find it, so I think it must have been deleted. Most likely on purposes, but that report is the proof that Pike do not have the opportunity to eat trout or salmonoid type fish.

[YellowBear]

First off I would like to thank you guys for the discussion.

I would think that if 5 trout were found in the bellies of the Pike, it makes me think there are few Trout in the Pend Orellie to feed on.
Also with the numbers of small Perch and Bluegill in the river I would expect to see them show up in the diet.

I would have to dispute the memo from BPA about the Bass and Trout over lap.
I try to get over to Coffee pot a couple of times a year for the Trout.
I use a 3 inch Hellgie on a jighead and fish it just like I would for Largemouth with a six inch worm.
Moving along with the trolling motor casting at the bank and catching Trout. I have taken Trout right next to Smallmouth out of Sprague and I have caught Walleye and a Trout out of the same spot on the same bait. I bet if you put a #3 Mepps spinner on and fish your Pike spots you will catch some Trout.

[Mark K]

First off I would like to thank you guys for the discussion.

I would think that if 5 trout were found in the bellies of the Pike, it makes me think there are few Trout in the Pend Orellie to feed on.
Also with the numbers of small Perch and Bluegill in the river I would expect to see them show up in the diet.

I would have to dispute the memo from BPA about the Bass and Trout over lap.
I try to get over to Coffee pot a couple of times a year for the Trout.
I use a 3 inch Hellgie on a jighead and fish it just like I would for Largemouth with a six inch worm.
Moving along with the trolling motor casting at the bank and catching Trout. I have taken Trout right next to Smallmouth out of Sprague and I have caught Walleye and a Trout out of the same spot on the same bait. I bet if you put a #3 Mepps spinner on and fish your Pike spots you will catch some Trout.

In my time put in on the river I have caught 1 trout. It was a 19 inch brown I caught on... a trout colored 6" R2S swimbait. Ironic? My father in law caught a Mack in there last year, and I was with Kevin B when he hooked up with and lost a trout on a 1oz Spoon. You are right Yellowbear, there are not many in there. But this was a problem documented long before the Pike. It's all about the dams, water temps, and habitat as I'm sure you know by now.

[Mark K]

.

[Fish-N-Fool]

First off I would like to thank you guys for the discussion.

I would think that if 5 trout were found in the bellies of the Pike, it makes me think there are few Trout in the Pend Orellie to feed on.
Also with the numbers of small Perch and Bluegill in the river I would expect to see them show up in the diet.

I would have to dispute the memo from BPA about the Bass and Trout over lap.
I try to get over to Coffee pot a couple of times a year for the Trout.
I use a 3 inch Hellgie on a jighead and fish it just like I would for Largemouth with a six inch worm.
Moving along with the trolling motor casting at the bank and catching Trout. I have taken Trout right next to Smallmouth out of Sprague and I have caught Walleye and a Trout out of the same spot on the same bait. I bet if you put a #3 Mepps spinner on and fish your Pike spots you will catch some Trout.

In my time put in on the river I have caught 1 trout. It was a 19 inch brown I caught on... a trout colored 6" R2S swimbait. Ironic? My father in law caught a Mack in there last year, and I was with Kevin B when he hooked up with and lost a trout on a 1oz Spoon. You are right Yellowbear, there are not many in there. But this was a problem documented long before the Pike. It's all about the dams, water temps, and habitat as I'm sure you know by now.

I have caught hundreds trout out of the river. I get maybe 15 to 20 every year and I'm NOT a trout fisherman and I do not fish for trout. I catch them by mistake while bass and Pike fishing so there is no shortage of trout in the river. I have caught Browns up to 26", Rainbows up to 24", Cuts to 19", Dolly Vardens to 20" (AKA BULL) and Mackinaws to 23". So the only trout I have not caught out of it are Eastern brook that I believe would be in there. I catch most of these while fishing for Smallmouth with crawdad crankbaits or my Sink-N-Fool baits in the Hot Pink color and almost all were caught within 3 miles the Alibene Falls dam. Here is a 23" Brown I got just this week. Check out the 7" swimbait I hooked it on!!!!!!

[YellowBear]

There is a glimmer of hope here for the Pike.
Perhaps the WDFW will have the same success eradicating the Pike as they have getting rid of the other species they have tried to wipe out over the years.

Have a good season guys and be safe out there.

[MaxExp82]

Been out of the fishing game for a year or two, I was looking forward to Pike fishing this summer, and now I see a lot of drama has happened in the time Ive been gone...

Ironically enough, Ive been involved heavily in politics during that time... sad to see the world effecting us here to..

Part of this is Agenda 21 .

http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14841 ... urn false;


This country is corrupt to its core, from federal, to state, to county and city governments... To see such a simple organization such as WDFW also be so corrupt just makes me hang my head in shame... wasting millions more of our dollars...

Maybe I will forgo fishing another season and stay working harder at this politics thing.. I wish I would have came back sooner, I could have went to the WDFW meeting, I'm sure they did not follow procedure, someone should have called Point of order on them.. I would have needed to be there though...

The time will come soon when fishing itself with be threatened... divide and conquer has been the elites most successful plan for generations.

Make the Trout and Salmon fisherman hate each other, then they can just do their little puppet show , while doing what they wanted all along...

anyways...

AJ's Dad should look into the power structure of the local WDFW , and look into in vacant positions.. get involved , I would nominate or vote for you.
Wasting millions to control the uncontrollable is just the normal insanity at every level of government and every government and state department in existence... woohoo..

Long live the Pike !

Good fishing everyone !

[YellowBear]

Great source of information,
Thank you!