MOre Pike Propoganda??

[AJ's Dad]

I don't have time to interject my opinion on this article this morning but thought I would share it. It's kind of hard to believe if you ask me.
http://www.cdapress.com/outdoors/201811 ... hain_lakes_

[Sideburns]

Genetic analysis should be an exact science, yah? Sure looks like they did an awful lot of sampling to back up their claimed origins. They sure are quick to point the finger at bucket biologists though.... (as usual).

[The Quadfather]

I don't have time this interject my opinion on this article this morning but thought I would share it. It's kind of hard to believe if you ask me.
http://www.cdapress.com/outdoors/201811 ... hain_lakes_

When you have more time, I hope you will come back and share your thoughts on why you are doubtful of the theory of the bucket biologists?

I’m not at all meaning to sound sarcastic. You clearly are involved in the Pike fishery, and I would value your thoughts. I just know that people do sometimes transport fish via live wells, etc. right or wrong, some people just want to see an unusual species more readily available to themselves for sport.
Walleye have been caught in Lake WA. and recently Tilapia found dead @ the Samammish launch. (That was probably just a fish-fry that went bad)

[AJ's Dad]

First off, everything I say in this post is purely my opinion, and based on what I feel is simply common sense and logic. I have no fisheries or biology education, just a lot of years of fishing and life experience. I’m not antigovernment or a conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, I’m not interested in getting into a pissing match with other members about this subject. I’m just interested to hear the thoughts of others. Personally, I despise it when people state their opinion as though it is “Pure Fact” when they have little to no data to back up their comments.

To begin with, I will say that when the battle to euthanize (not study) the northern pike in the Pend Oreille River started, I made a prediction that we would see exactly what’s going on right now. Again, I tried to base my comments back then on common sense and opinion.
As memory serves me, the BPA allocated $10 million to the Kalispell Tribe, over a ten year time span, to help “Suppress” the pike population. To me their intent was clear from the very beginning. They described their efforts as “Research” and enlisted the assistance (or should I say, deceived) of volunteers, including fishermen that were passionate about this fishery. This early research in my opinion, was simply allowing them to pinpoint the most effective areas to net and kill spawning pike during a time that they were most vulnerable. In other words, find out where they go to spawn, set their gill nets, and catch and kill every pike they possibly could, regardless of what other species may effected in the process.
I feel that from early on, they began a program of instilling fear in the public that the dreaded northern pike was an out of control species that was going to eat it’s way through every other species in the reservoirs. Focus seemed to be mainly on blaming the pike for the diminishing population of West Slope Cutthroat Trout, a species that I believe was having survival problems long before the 2004 date that the pike were originally discovered in the river.
I said back then, and I will say again that I believe this pike removal program has deep roots in the financial aspect of it all. My prediction back in 2011 was that millions of dollars would be spent killing pike over several years, then as the ten year time frame of the money distribution came close to an end, another theory about the pike population would pop up to create fear, and the hands would be held out once again. If I remember right, the information I was able to find online in 2011 said that the BPA was obligated to spend lots of money every year related to salmon recovery efforts, due to the fact that their dams were hurting the salmon population. Hence the big scare that pike could wipe out the salmonid populations in the Columbia system.
My opinion is that the pike are being blamed for diminishing populations of other species in the system, while other non native species like the large and small mouth bass continue to gobble up their share of anything that swims. I would imagine that if you sent a small west slope cutthroat trout swimming past a small mouth, it would get eaten just as fast as it would if you sent it in front of a pike. Try determining the population of bass in that river system. If you think there’s a big pike population, you should see how many bass are in there. Again the bass of both types are NON NATIVE, just like the pike, and in my opinion just as voracious when it comes to feeding time.

Now on to my thoughts about this article:
Statements like this one from the article, “Despite an effort by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Kalispel Tribe to reduce pike numbers in the Pend Oreille River system by about 90 percent — by using gillnetting, increased angler harvest and through pike derbies — the population continued to grow and migrate downstream.
The population continued to grow and migrate? I fished that river regularly before the all out effort to kill pike started. Pike were fun to catch and easy to locate. Within the first month of gill netting they became nearly impossible to find. After the netting got started, I participated in a pike tournament there and the winner caught 2 small pike. That’s it, 2. Two years later, in 2014 a friend and I fished the river again looking for pike and found one short, skinny pike in a whole day of fishing. That tells me that the population wasn’t growing, it was disappearing. Sure the ones that had already made it over the dam were continuing to move down stream, but likely not in the numbers they would have without the gill netting. Again, this statement seems to be trying to create fear in the general public, with what looks to me like inaccurate information. It seems to me that the netting is giving them what they were looking for.
Here’s what I find hard to believe.
Genetic research shows Idaho’s pike population mostly remains in Idaho’s portion of the Pend Oreille River downstream from Sandpoint. Lake Pend Oreille was not a primary source for fish in the river and in Lake Roosevelt,” Carim said.
Mostly remains in Idaho’s portion of the river down stream from Sandpoint? Not a primary source?? So let me get this straight. Pike come into the Pend Orielle system but then they miraculously just stop moving down river and don’t go over the Albeni Falls dam and into the Box Canyon reservoir?? Please. Like I said I’m no fisheries biologist but give me and the general public a little credit for not being completely ignorant. Why would they stop there and not move on down stream??
I’m not saying that it’s not possible that someone could transport pike from the chain lakes they mention. However, Google maps shows it being an hour and a half drive from the Medimont area to Newport Washington. Live wells back in 2004 were not as advanced they are now, and a “Bucket” would surely have trouble sustaining a pike’s life, long enough to get fish relocated over that distance without killing them. Not impossible, but kind of tough. On top of that, once a fish gets illegally planted in a body of water, it swims off to who knows where. In a body of water the size of the PO river, I can’t imagine how long it would take a male pike to go find a girlfriend to make babies with. A few fish at a time seems like it would take a long time to create a problem. It’s not like someone took a fish hatchery truck full of baby pike and dumped them in the river all at once.
They mention the pike in Long Lake, and also say, “The pike in the Spokane River were not closely related to the Coeur d’Alene River drainage,”. So, are the pike in Long Lake which is between the Spokane River and the Coeur d alene system, not related? Are they now implicating that the pike in Long Lake are bucket biology to? Again, not at all impossible but to me it’s highly probable that the pike in Long Lake came from the Cda system.
They say, Northern pike aren’t indigenous west of the Rockies and North Idaho’s chain lakes population was introduced in the 1970s. Carim’s research uses fin clippings from pike in several lakes in Idaho that comprises a data set. Because the data set does not include fin clips from many lakes in which fish are present, including Hayden Lake, the question remains. “What other population contributed to the invasion?”.
I guess I could interject a little theory on this one myself. What makes a species indigenous to a certain area? How does a fish species naturally increase it’s indigenous area? How did any pike ever get to their original indigenous location. They had to start somewhere. Right or wrong. I would theorize that it’s possible the pike in all of these water systems just might have gotten there the same way you and I got here. They were put there by their creator. HHMMM, there’s a thought. Why is it that pike can cohabitate in the same body of water as salmonids in Canada, where they are a coveted fish, and do the same in the Midwest where they are indigenous, but they can’t do it in Washington??? Management in my opinion is the answer. Not euthanizing them.
I’m not interested in doing battle over this. As I said before I’m very passionate about pike fish and don’t want to see them endanger other species like salmon. I’m just saying we may not be getting the most accurate, unbiased information. I think we’re seeing information that certain groups want us to see to justify what they’re looking for.
$$MONEY$$

Have a great day.

[The Quadfather]

Thank you for the well written and informative breakdown of the Pike history. Again, I do not live over there or fish those waters, so thank you for some of discussion on location distances from point to point, and pathways of Pike travel.

I live with a similar frustration in my fishing world. My favorite species to target is Mackinaw in lake Cle Elum.
This species is going through similar challenges, as the Yakima tribal authorities have been re-establishing the Sockeye to lake Cle Elum, for some time now. Believe me, I totally understand how Sockeye are wonderful, tastey, and the financial incentives, etc. but gosh-darn it.. I honestly prefer to fish for my Macks. So here I am with the tribe netting the lake for Mack’s... never mind that the nets pull out the Burbot, German Browns, large rainbows, and whatever else.

I guess my point is that as much as salmon are such the fish of the PNW, I wish they didn’t have so much influence within State’s management. ($$$).
There are other fisheries out there that people can explore and enjoy very much.
(Or at least while those species are still around)

[Sideburns]

Well sir, I'll have to take your word for it.... I dont even know where most of the lakes mentioned are. I will certainly reread your post and try to comprehend the info more in depth, as im very interested in your point of view and the fishery. You are very knowledgeable and passionate about the systems and species that you spend your time on. I wish I had that kind of faith in the people that manage our fisheries.

Without changing the topic here too much, I see that the management of the lakes in my local area does not know what is going on, dont care or dont have the resources to properly manage the systems. They make uneducated decisions, that negatively impact the lakes and never seem to reach out to the people that can help fill in the blanks. I doubt that there are more than a handful of people that know as much or care as much about the small lakes or the crappie, cutthroat or kokanee in these lakes that I love. When I have concerns about my neighborhood lakes, I get to write to someone that is a 2 hour drive away, that has likely never seen many of these lakes.

In a perfect world, the people like you and me would have a lot more input and say in the management of these things. Many of us would be very happy to share and document our knowledge, collect data or contribute in any way possible. We are not hard to find.... The more I think about it, the more I come to the same conclusion as you have. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Fish-N-Fool]

Genetic analysis should be an exact science, yah? Sure looks like they did an awful lot of sampling to back up their claimed origins. They sure are quick to point the finger at bucket biologists though.... (as usual).

Well they are right about that, It was bucket bios at work but not who you would think. I was told by a man that witnessed it, that the Kalispel tribe planted pike in Box canyon from Noxon back in 2001. Ten years or so later they get paid 10 million to gill net them. Pretty nice scam they got going there.

[Fish-N-Fool]

Genetic research shows Idaho’s pike population mostly remains in Idaho’s portion of the Pend Oreille River downstream from Sandpoint.

This statement is total BS as until this year there was NO Pike population in the river below Sandpoint. The only Pike you could find were up in the Clark Fork Delta and a few sloughs on the N.E. side of the lake. I have fished the P.O. river from the dam to the long bridge since 1998 and I have never seen a pike in that part of the river until this last year. They are still very rare in this part of the river with a few fish seen at Morton and Cocolalla and a small population in Chuck slough, Many of the sloughs up in the lake still have no sign of Pike in them.

[Fish-N-Fool]

AJ wrote;
I guess I could interject a little theory on this one myself. What makes a species indigenous to a certain area? How does a fish species naturally increase it’s indigenous area? How did any pike ever get to their original indigenous location. They had to start somewhere. Right or wrong.

If they can swim all the way over here from England and Europe across the ocean the Rocky mountains would be nothing.

[Fish-N-Fool]

From CDA press;
Designating pike a prohibited species requires that anglers kill pike as soon as they are caught, and it makes transporting live pike illegal.

This is more out and out lies that F&G dish out. Nowhere does it say in the laws that you have to kill pike that are legally caught and released in the state.
Here are the rules ,
An invasive species may not be possessed, imported, purchased, sold, propagated, transported, or released into state waters except as provided in RCW 77.15.253.
It says nothing about killing fish caught out of waters in Washington, only that they can not be transported alive.
I have been dealing with the BS and lies that Washington and Idaho F&G have been handing out for the past 10 years. Calling them out on their lies in the public meetings and getting kicked out of more then one for standing up to them and not letting them tell their BS lies to the less informed at these meetings. They run fish management the same way Hitler ran Germany with lies, threats, and intimidation.

[hewesfisher]

From CDA press;
Designating pike a prohibited species requires that anglers kill pike as soon as they are caught, and it makes transporting live pike illegal.

This is more out and out lies that F&G dish out. Nowhere does it say in the laws that you have to kill pike that are legally caught and released in the state.
Here are the rules ,
An invasive species may not be possessed, imported, purchased, sold, propagated, transported, or released into state waters except as provided in RCW 77.15.253.
It says nothing about killing fish caught out of waters in Washington, only that they can not be transported alive.
I have been dealing with the BS and lies that Washington and Idaho F&G have been handing out for the past 10 years.

Revised Code of Washington (RCW) does not apply in Idaho and the issue being discussed is entirely within Idaho borders. See Idaho Title 36 Fish and Game for Idaho laws.

[harleypiker]

Thanks for some clarification on releasing pike in Washington, Fish-N-Fool.
The Colville tribe pays a $10 bounty on pike caught in Roosevelt if you put their head and photo in a provided freezer package. I've always wanted to take a pic of me releasing a pike, then put the pic and a 10 dollar bill in the freezer package and see what kind of reaction I would get. Rather like "reversing the call" in the old telephone booth era. However, I have been concerned that I might be providing photo proof of me breaking the law. I still better talk to a warden first to be "sure".

[TrackerPro16]

"An invasive species may not be possessed, imported, purchased, sold, propagated, transported, or released into state waters except as provided in RCW 77.15.253."

It does say 'released'. Whether it is from a truck, bucket or caught. Means you are not supposed to put it back. I don't have a dog in this fight. Never have caught a pike. Pike Minnow, yes, but not a pike. I do agree about the money being the drive for a lot of this stuff. And transporting, even back in the '70's was fairly easy to do and keep fish alive for hours. One sack of ice to keep dropping into the bucket a bit at a time to keep it cool, and a kid with a hose with the promise of $5 at the end of the ride for blowing air into the bucket 'until you get dizzy' when you get told to works just fine. Not that I would know anything about that... I heard a story about it once. Maybe. I don't remember exactly.

[Fish-N-Fool]

"An invasive species may not be possessed, imported, purchased, sold, propagated, transported, or released into state waters except as provided in RCW 77.15.253."

It does say 'released'. Whether it is from a truck, bucket or caught. Means you are not supposed to put it back. I don't have a dog in this fight. Never have caught a pike. Pike Minnow, yes, but not a pike. I do agree about the money being the drive for a lot of this stuff. And transporting, even back in the '70's was fairly easy to do and keep fish alive for hours. One sack of ice to keep dropping into the bucket a bit at a time to keep it cool, and a kid with a hose with the promise of $5 at the end of the ride for blowing air into the bucket 'until you get dizzy' when you get told to works just fine. Not that I would know anything about that... I heard a story about it once. Maybe. I don't remember exactly.

The word "released" is a little general in it's meaning in this case. In my reading of this is means fish can not be transported to a body of water and released where they were not fish of that species before.
I does not apply to fish caught from and let go in the same body of water IMHO.

[hewesfisher]

77.15.253 Unlawful use of prohibited aquatic animal species — Penalty.

[2007 c 350 § 5; 2002 c 281 § 4.]
Repealed by 2014 c 202 § 310.

RCW 77.15.290 Unlawful transportation of fish or wildlife—Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful transportation of fish or wildlife in the second degree if the person:
(a) Knowingly imports, moves within the state, or exports fish, shellfish, or wildlife in violation of any department rule governing the transportation or movement of fish, shellfish, or wildlife and the transportation does not involve big game, endangered fish or wildlife, deleterious exotic wildlife, or fish, shellfish, or wildlife having a value greater than two hundred fifty dollars; or
(b) Possesses but fails to affix or notch a big game transport tag as required by department rule.
(2) A person is guilty of unlawful transportation of fish or wildlife in the first degree if the person:
(a) Knowingly imports, moves within the state, or exports fish, shellfish, or wildlife in violation of any department rule governing the transportation or movement of fish, shellfish, or wildlife and the transportation involves big game, endangered fish or wildlife, deleterious exotic wildlife, or fish, shellfish, or wildlife with a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more; or
(b) Knowingly transports shellfish, shellstock, or equipment used in commercial culturing, taking, handling, or processing shellfish without a permit required by authority of this title.
(3)(a) Unlawful transportation of fish or wildlife in the second degree is a misdemeanor.
(b) Unlawful transportation of fish or wildlife in the first degree is a gross misdemeanor.
(4) This section does not apply to invasive species.

RCW 77.135 covers invasive species and you'll find "definitions" in 77.135.010.

[AJ's Dad]

I'm guessing all that is intended for fish brought to a lake from another location, not a fish that was already in that lake. If they intended for it to include that lake it likely would say "Must be retained and killed". However, with all the liberals that seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days, "Killed" might not be the correct term. They may say, invasive species "must be encouraged to expire".