Northwest Fishing Reports

2000) 1,876 fish stocked
2002) 800 fish stocked
2005) 803 fish stocked
2006) 1,000 fish stocked
2007) 200 fish stocked

Total) 4679 fish stocked

Tapps is 2296 acres

Estimated population density .05 fish per acre. That puts the estimated fish count currently in the lake at 1148 fish.

Based on the numbers above is it correct to assume that roughly 3531 fish have meet their demise in one manner or another since 2000?

I thought I remembered reading it was .5 fish per acre? [s]That would make it 2339 for the carrying capacity of the lake and 2340 fish in question... Almost 50/50... I wonder if that's a coincidence?[/s]
I wonder what percent survive each stocking?

And were looking at no fish being stocked in 2008 due to a virus problem with the fish. Could this be a long term problem? Doesn't leave much room for the meat fisherman if the plantings end!

I must say if those fishermen/women looking to fetch a Musky for the dinner plate I will ask....WHY? Try some dink Smallies or crappie or perch.They are easier to catch...taste much better. Or just wander into a grocery store and pick up some Gorton's frozen fish..You know the old catch phrase...."If its Gorton's its got to be good"....As for as the VHS virus...well...it might be awhile before that all gets snuffed out. But there are other alternatives....as "DUBYA" would say check out the internets...good day!!

It only makes sense to release any muskies caught. I realize it can be tempting to keep a fish like a muskie, but with the future of the plantings in this state unsure at best (at least for the next few years) the population of fish could take a big hit without voluntary catch and release of all fish. We're extremely lucky to have this fishery in the state and we should be the best stewards possible for the fish's sake!

What does this have to do with releasing fish?

Dilbert I believe .5 fish per acre, is 1 fish per 2 acres, not 1 fish per acre.

Jigman if the planting ends then it wouldn't leave much room for anyone, lets hope that doesn't happen. Fortunatly the bios at WDFW don't see a problem with the future situation. Right now its uncertain if we'll see a stocking in 2008.

I was working as a pollworker in today's election, so I haven't really had a chance yet to study this or get more information. There are a couple of missing pieces of information that I think are critical to drawing conclusions from the raw stocking data:

1. How big were the fingerlings when they were stocked?
2. What is the mortality curve?

"Mortality curve" refers to the percentage of surviving fish from a given year-class with each passing year. You start at 100% when they're put in the lake, then a year later you have X% still alive, and a year after that Y% still alive, and so on. I don't know what these numbers are.

Fingerling size makes a big difference in the first-year survival rate. WDFW normally stocks tiger muskies when they're a year old and 12 to 15 inches in length to assure high survival rates. If they were stocked at a smaller size, they might get eaten by predators. So, if any of these stockings involved smaller than normal fish, you would end up with lower survival among that year-class.

Quick and dirty analysis -- Tiger muskies live 6 to 8 years, and any carryovers from the 2000 plant would now be 8 years old, so there's probably very few fish from that year-class still in the lake. The 2006 and 2007 stockings are still sub-legals. All of the legals in Tapps Lake are from the 2002 and 2005 plants, which originally totaled 1,603 fingerlings, but because the fish planted in 2002 are now almost 7 years old, there's probably been quite a bit of mortality among that year-class. So, from the raw data, it looks as though the lake's population would likely be at or below the lake's presumptive carrying capacity of 0.5 fish per care (1148 fish).

There should be a good crop of tropy fish in about 3 to 4 years from the 2006 year-class, but that may depend on how many people practice C&R. The next year-class will be very small, and then we skip a year, so those 2006 fish represent most of the fish stocked over a 3-year period and are the fish that will have to provide anglers with their sport during the 2010-2013 time frame.

Eggs are still available from Minnesota DNR (as of right now). The reason WDFW won't stock any tiger muskies in 2008 is because they're going to do their own in-house testing for VHS (as an extra layer of protection against importing the disease into Washingotn) and it will take them a year to set up the testing facility and procedures. WDFW anticipates the new testing procedures will be up and running in time to resume stocking in 2009.

You guys are determined to turn every discussion here into a catch and release discussion aren't you...

I was just trying to post some data for you and maybe figure out how many fish we need stocked in the lake every year to sustain a good fishery.

Dr Hook wrote: Dilbert I believe .5 fish per acre, is 1 fish per 2 acres, not 1 fish per acre.

Yep... I was thinking 4679 acres, not 4679 fish. !#-o That would be a much bigger lake!

I'm surprised that the thought of 1000+ toothy critters in that lake doesn't keep more water skiers away!

Hey Don, Dilbert and Jigman,
As far as the mortality rate is concerned,does the WDFW also take into consideration the number of fish eaten by say Ospreys and Eagles? Have heard sighting of these big birds snatching the Ski's for their dinner too. Especially this year when the water was down for such a long period of time the birds of prey were quite busy.(TAPPS) And the number of Musky hit by boaters..I have personally seen 2 larger fish with pretty good prop gashes that may or may not have survived.
And when the Muskies are smaller there is some cannibalism..have these numbers been documented?
How about getting fish from Pennsylvania or Jersey or New York State..great fisheries for Tigers there too!! Don't you worry Jigman!
From what I understand the younger Muskies are the ones responible for the disapearing salmon and koke fingerlings and as these fish mature and get larger they tend to forage for the squaw and sucker/carp soft rayed fish.So I think that some of the numbers were sqewed a bit for the kokes eaten at Mayfield..would this be a good assumption on my part? Mayfied at that time was just overpopulated with the squaws and so a 14 inch Musky could not possibly eat a squaw the same size as itself.
And Dilbert, I think the Muskies would prefer the skiers with the painted toe nails more often..what do you think?
Just to close for now...I have heard reports from a very reliable source that there has been sightings of at least ten different muskies in one very specific area at Mayfield Lake..that would blow the 1 fish per acre theory right out of the water...see yah

I called Steve Jackson at WDFW this afternoon to get mortality figures. He said Minnesota DNR estimates first-year mortality at 75% but Washington's is less (60%) because we don't have northern pike in our waters. These figures include bird predation. I don't know what, if any, mortality they attribute to boat collisions. I didn't ask about cannibalism, but off the top of my head, I don't think there'd be any in a stocked fishery. Cannibalism occurs in nature among small fry, but I can't visualize 14-inch fingerlings eating each other. I don't know the answer to your question about predation on kokes.

Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey all have muskie populations. However, Minnesota DNR is the only source of certified eggs. WDFW is looking into possibly getting eggs from Kentucky if they lose their Minnesota source. So far as I know, WDFW has not considered importing eggs from the other states you mentioned. If the Minnesota eggs go away, Plan B is to own their own broodstock fish and harvest and process the eggs themselves. They are working on leasing a privately owned pond with no public access in Idaho for this purpose.

"there has been sightings of at least ten different muskies in one very specific area at Mayfield Lake..that would blow the 1 fish per acre theory right out of the water" Not at all. The fish/acre "theory" estimates a lake's total population. It says nothing about distribution of the fish within the lake.

I believe trollers using skiers for bait can increase their catch by painting the bait's toenails black, red, orange, yellow, chartreuse, purple, or white. Also, the skier should not be trolled faster than about 8 mph.

Hi there Don.
You say that the mortality rate is 75% back East and out here its 60%.
You also mentioned the difference being we do not have the Northern.
What may I ask is eating the 14 in Muskie?
Other than a bird of prey or man, what else would be big enough to take one?
I have seen photos of small Muskie with another the same size in its mouth but its rare.
I am sure a large Tiger will eat a small one, but what else would do the deed?

YB, the whole idea of stocking them at 12" to 15" is to prevent other fish eating them. If you want to know what factors were considered in arriving at their mortality estimates, I suggest you give Jackson or Bolding at WDFW a call. I don't know the answer to that. But off the top of my head, I can imagine post-stocking mortality being caused by, among other things,

Some don't learn how to hunt for food
Weaker specimens fail to survive the rigors of life in the wild
Large birds of prey such as eagles and ospreys
Disease
Being washed over dams or sucked through turbines (doesn't apply to all lakes)
Water quality problems
Low preyfish populations

Regarding the last two items, Tapps can be quite turbid at times, especially with boat traffic churning up sediment, which might cause young tiger muskies to have trouble finding their prey. I don't know if Tapps is polluted by leaking septic systems, storm runoff, etc., but that's a common problem in developed areas.

Hook, are you saying that if you can't keep them, no one else should be able to fish for them?

Sort of off topic, but is Tapps the only Washington muskie lake with an annual draw down? Any idea how many acres the lake is in the winter?

Don Wittenberger wrote:Hook, are you saying that if you can't keep them, no one else should be able to fish for them?

Not at all, why would you even say that.. You keep taking personal shots at me, why?

I'm sorry you interpreted my question as a "personal shot" because it wasn't intended that way. Nor do I believe I've taken any other "personal shots" at you. I simply asked for a clarification of this comment:

"If thats really the case, I'd say WDFW should be using our money for a program that yields better results, like Kokanee in Tapps!"

I interpreted this comment to mean WDFW shouldn't spend money to stock fish you can't catch, keep, and eat. Did I misunderstand?

Don Wittenberger wrote: Did I misunderstand?

Yep..