Northwest Fishing Reports

The following data are taken from my written notes of an oral presentation by WDFW biologist Bruce Bolding at the Muskies Inc. Chapter 57 meeting on May 24, 2007.

To capture tiger muskies for diet studies, WDFW biologists go out on the lakes in an electroshocking boat. Due to the limited range of the boom shocking equipment (6' to 10'), most of the fish in the studies are captured in shallow water along shorelines. A water sprayer is used to flush their stomachs; this does not harm the fish, which are released back into the lake. Stomach contents which are too digested to identify by visual inspection may be identifiable by laboratory analysis.

Mayfield Lake, May - October 2002

61 tiger muskies were captured. 34 had food in their stomachs. Northern pikeminnow (aka squawfish) 42%, suckers 30%, rainbow trout 7%, coho 4%. (Both of the coho were eaten by the same tiger muskie.)

Merwin Lake, May - October 2003

31 tiger muskies were captured. 16 had food in their stomachs. Northern pikeminnow 54%, suckers 6%, kokanee 17%.

Green, Curlew, and Silver Lakes, 2001 - 2004

276 tiger muskies were captured.
Green Lake -- Trout 69%, smallmouth and sculpins accounted for the balance.
Curlew Lake -- Northern pikeminnow 27%, rainbow trout 23%.
Silver Lake -- Rainbow trout 25%, largemouth bass 17%, unidentified 18%.

Note, Green Lake received a one-time plant of 150 tiger muskies in November 2002, which WDFW biologists hoped would eat carp. Instead, they ate the lake's rainbow trout "because there was nothing else for them to eat."

Note, the tiger muskies in Curlew Lake have seasonal diet preferences, dining on rainbow trout during the cold months and switching to northern pikeminnow during the warm months.

Note, the diet study at Silver Lake was conducted using juvenile tiger muskies as the lake did not have adult tiger muskies at the time. WDFW biologists hoped the tiger muskies would feed on the lake's numerous stunted tench after they got bigger.

My comment: When evaluating the statistical validity of these results, keep in mind that the sample sizes are rather small, and the capture methodology limited the sampling to fish in shallow shoreline habitat. Also, the results for a given lake will depend on what forage is available in the lake. It's well known to biologists that muskies prefer soft-bodied, soft-rayed fish. The willingness of the tiger muskies in these studies to eat rainbow trout may stem in part from the fact they were fed rainbow fingerlings in the hatchery rearing ponds.

Thats some very interesting data, thanks for posting it Don.

I did some caclulations and from the data you posted it looks like the majority of the musky diet is Gamefish. It broke down like this:

Gamefish: 192% (With the majority being salmonoid, 145%)
Trash Fish: 159%

(Eyes rolling)

I've never seen statistics come up with numbers like that. Maybe the battery needs changed in your calculator.

It looks like you didn't make adjustments for converting to percentages. I came up with 14.9% of the fish in the first two lakes ate salmonoids

I flunked math. I'm lucky the limit on Musky is 1 or I would really be in trouble. :jocolor:

More than 300 musky is a "significant sample size"and this information provides us with a good estimation of what's being consumed.

I would add that although the tigers are eating some salmonids they are predominately hatchery raised rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are dumped in by the tens of thousands for one purpose, harvest, and are in no jeopardy of disappearing. If the tigers were consuming a genetically sensitive population of native bull trout, salmon, steelhead, etc., then it would be much more of a concern. Yes trout are a sport fish and therefore generate state revenue but so are musky.

Keep in mind too that although the musky are eating some trout they are also reducing predation and competition for food by consuming rough fish. In the end the musky are very likely providing more benefit than harm despite the fact that they do indeed consume some salmonids. Tiger musky are big predators and opportunists and like a bear, coyote, or bull trout, they will take the easiest meal and hatchery raised rainbow trout are about as easy as it comes.

Jed V.
Bikini Bait Co.

It seems funny that the Tigers are raised on Rainbows.
When there was talk of a Bass hatchery the WDFW said it was to costly because they needed to be raised on fry.
Now we are paying to feed a fish that not only feeds on fry in the hatchery but we are teaching them to target Trout as adults.
Why are we raising a good sport fish as food for a unwanted species?
Why dosen't the WDFW feed them rough fish fry?

YellowBear:

Tigers in the hatchery are raised on pellets except for just prior to release when excess hatchery rainbow trout fry are introduced. Research has shown tigers fed live prey have much greater survival than fish only fed pellets. Tigers could be final reared on rough fish but there is a major disease problem in bringing wild fish into a hatchery, and infecting all, so the fish health folks won't allow it. Plus there is the expense of capturing small roughfish in the wild. Much cleaner to use a few trout fry that are above needs for stocking.

YB -- You say tiger muskies are "unwanted" yet that clearly is not the sentiment of the numerous muskie anglers posting in this thread. Apparently it's your sentiment ... may I ask why you don't want tiger muskies in our waters?

I always thought of trout as fish that guys go after for food to eat. When I think of Sport Fish the first fish that comes to mind is the Tiger Musky. Tiger Musky......All other fish are just bait! That would include trout.

Don Wittenberger wrote:YB -- You say tiger muskies are "unwanted" yet that clearly is not the sentiment of the numerous muskie anglers posting in this thread. Apparently it's your sentiment ... may I ask why you don't want tiger muskies in our waters?

We're in a tiger musky forum, of course the general concensous will be pro musky, however, I wouldn't think for a minute that the majority of WA anglers feel the same way.

tollefs wrote:I always thought of trout as fish that guys go after for food to eat. When I think of Sport Fish the first fish that comes to mind is the Tiger Musky. Tiger Musky......All other fish are just bait! That would include trout.

Everyone has their own desires and needs with it comes to fishing. I'll bet if you ask an avid trout angler if he thinks trout are for food and not sport, his answer would probably be much different than yours.

tmuskie, thank you for answering my question.

Don, its not that I don't want Tigers in our waters the fact of the matter is, I don't want a fish that we all can't enjoy. What are the chance's of a guy taking his kids down to a dock and catching a Tiger? Sure it happens. But he has a much better chance with ANY other species.
Other species such as the Bass will provide a better fishery than the Muskie.
More Trout stocked will improve on stunted populations of rough fish. There are ways to enhance our waters that will be more beneficial than a man made fish.
Every person that pays for a licence supports the Tiger but out of all the Anglers in this State there are very few that target the Tiger. You talk about the popularity of the Muskie and how it has grown but yet you have to go to a national club for support. Now with your proposal of a larger size limit you want to make it even harder to catch a legal fish. There are those of us that have more tackle than we will ever need. Big boats, sonar, GPS units, Maps, Cameras everything except depth charges yet what about the guys that are not that lucky. What about the folks that don't spend hundreds of dollars every year on Tackle? And yet they spend there money for a licence just like we do. Don't you think they should have as good a chance to enjoy catching a fish as we do?
What about the kids that spend there money on a few hooks and a tub of worms? Are you going to be the one that tells them they can't keep a 36 inch fish?
I am not out to stop the Muskie program and the WDFW has made it clear that they have no intention of dropping it. What I am hoping for is that we all can enjoy the thrill of releasing a big fish or taking one home.

Dr Hook wrote:

tollefs wrote:I always thought of trout as fish that guys go after for food to eat. When I think of Sport Fish the first fish that comes to mind is the Tiger Musky. Tiger Musky......All other fish are just bait! That would include trout.

Everyone has their own desires and needs with it comes to fishing. I'll bet if you ask an avid trout angler if he thinks trout are for food and not sport, his answer would probably be much different than yours.

Good point Dr Hook. I love that we can share how we feel on this site. Look on the bright side, we live in a great state with lots of fish. I would not want to live anywhere else.

YellowBear wrote:
Other species such as the Bass will provide a better fishery than the Muskie.
More Trout stocked will improve on stunted populations of rough fish. There are ways to enhance our waters that will be more beneficial than a man made fish.
Every person that pays for a licence supports the Tiger but out of all the Anglers in this State there are very few that target the Tiger. You talk about the popularity of the Muskie and how it has grown but yet you have to go to a national club for support. Now with your proposal of a larger size limit you want to make it even harder to catch a legal fish. There are those of us that have more tackle than we will ever need. Big boats, sonar, GPS units, Maps, Cameras everything except depth charges yet what about the guys that are not that lucky. What about the folks that don't spend hundreds of dollars every year on Tackle? And yet they spend there money for a licence just like we do. Don't you think they should have as good a chance to enjoy catching a fish as we do?
What about the kids that spend there money on a few hooks and a tub of worms? Are you going to be the one that tells them they can't keep a 36 inch fish?
I am not out to stop the Muskie program and the WDFW has made it clear that they have no intention of dropping it. What I am hoping for is that we all can enjoy the thrill of releasing a big fish or taking one home.

YB
Bass-I haven't heard of Bass targeting sqauw fish, have you? I believe that Tigers and their favored prey are both known as cold water species. Bass are warmwater. The Tigers are supposed to help improve the fisheries where the squaws are eating the salmon smolt or native fry, so that you can hopefully take home a dinner after you bought your license....unless you like the taste of pike minnow that is. If so you might as well keep the Tigers at 16", it's still bigger than most trout.

Manmade fish?-Tigers are actually a common flaw in nature, aren't there salmon and trout hatcheries? (man made) All that Don is doing will probably improve your kid's kids' fisheries and they will hopefully get their big one!

Money- I know of many guys that have spent tons of dough to catch a musky and they still haven't caught one. It's not the fancy gadgets that catch the fish it's the time spent fishing...not catching. The first 3 tigers in my life were all caught from shore at public access points.

Kids-when I helped my son release his 40 in. Tiger (2nd Tiger ever) he didn't whine a bit. He had more fun bragging at school with his photo. You forgot to mention that Tigers are non-reproducing, when the state tells you you CANNOT keep a native steelhead and your kids catches one, what do you do? You take pictures and release it, they reproduce. When you or your kids catch a 61in. sturgeon what do you do? you let it go after some pictures. that's the rule. If you check the regs, you follow the regs. So whether the legal limit is 36 or 50 it wont really matter. People and their childern will either follow the rules the way their perents taught them or they wont. Trust me taking home a 50 inch fish would be a whole lot bigger thrill than a scrawny little 36incher! The 36incher actually has a chance to get to 50 inches, does the trout?

So I have been biting my tongue for a while now.
I will not be silent anymore.
Dr.Hook, first off I find it very funny that you consider trout, kokanee, and coho a game fish.
instead of busting the chops of a musky fisherman, why don't you go kill some Sea loins or something! " Protect your garbage fish! opps I mean Salmoniod"
Don you are a good man, keep up the good fight!



P.S. whom ever runs this website don't give me a Gay @ss Navy rank. I am a SGT in the U.S. ARMY.
Don't demote me!

Bass are just like a Muskie, they will feed on what ever is most abundent.

Yes tigers are a commen flaw of nature were the Northern and The Muskie inhabit the same water.
In Washington State they are man made. However I beleave I read somewhere in this forum that the two do not cross breed because they spawn at different temps. Which you and I both know ain't so.

As for the cost of Muskie fishing, I am glad you know guys that have tons of dough to spend. Again I ask you about the guys that don't? Why should they have to support a fish they can't afford to chaise?

I am glad that you were there to help your son release a 40 inch Tiger. Thats great.
What about the kid that has no dad to teach him. Between the Tiger and lets say the Largemouth,which one does he have a better chance of catching?

YB -- Do you equate enjoying with killing? If so, I would ask you to reconsider your fishing philosophy, because I submit you can enjoy tiger muskies more if there are some in the lake to catch. Do you think WDFW shouldn't support the sturgeon fishery because very few people participate in it?

muskyhunter28 wrote:So I have been biting my tongue for a while now.
I will not be silent anymore.
Dr.Hook, first off I find it very funny that you consider trout, kokanee, and coho a game fish.
instead of busting the chops of a musky fisherman, why don't you go kill some Sea loins or something! " Protect your garbage fish! opps I mean Salmoniod"
Don you are a good man, keep up the good fight!



P.S. whom ever runs this website don't give me a Gay @ss Navy rank. I am a SGT in the U.S. ARMY.
Don't demote me!

Mike, keep this thread under watch. COHO!!!!! If coho was trash, there wouldn't be a state protection act! Now, count how many people who would care if squawfish went extinct. After that, count the coho supporters. Don't bust Dr. Hook's chops, he is a good man.