Northwest Fishing Reports

This is a major rulemaking year, which means the public can submit proposed changes to fishing regulations to WDFW and the F & W Commission. This year, I'm submitting two proposals on behalf of the tiger musky angling community: (1) "Special Gear Rules for Tiger Muskies" that would prohibit use of any type of natural bait, live or dead, for tiger muskies and limit tiger musky tackle to artificial lures only; and (2) a proposal to replace the weight-based tiger musky record with a measurement-based record.

The proposal relating to the tiger musky record has several changes from the draft proposal that I previously posted on this board: (1) Instead of length only, the record will be based on combined length and girth; (2) borrowing from the "Selective Gear Rules" for trout, I have added a requirement that record fish must be landed with a knotless net; and (3) instead of requiring a "sworn and notarized" affidavit of a witness, the affidavit need only by "sworn," to make the submission process a little easier for applicants.

The general public will have an opportunity to submit written comments on all rule proposals (including these) beginning September 1. WDFW will conduct regional public meetings to discuss rule proposals during the month of September, and the Commission will take public testimony on rule proposals in Olympia on November 6-7. In addition, anyone can submit his own proposal(s) to WDFW until June 1, either by e-mailing them to sportfishing@dfw.wa.gov, faxing to 360-902-2944, or mailing a completed form (downloadable from http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/index.htm) to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sportfishing Rules Committee, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia WA 98501-1091.

Here is the text of my proposals as submitted to WDFW:

Artificial Lures

1. Current rule you would like to change: Gear rules for tiger muskies.

2. Your proposed rule: A special gear restriction for tiger muskies would be created that prohibits all types of natural bait, live or dead, and limits the tackle that can be used to fish for, or catch, tiger muskies to artificial lures only. The use of artificial scents on artificial lures would continue to be allowed.
a. Species affected: Tiger muskies.
b. Geographic areas affected: Statewide.
c. Time of year in effect: Year-round.
d. Other details: This rule differs from the “Selective Gear Rules” in the fishing pamphlet, so it is suggested this regulation, if adopted, be listed in the pamphlet under a new category called “Special Gear Rules For Tiger Muskies”.

3. Why this change is needed: The use live fish as bait is already prohibited in Washington. This rule would expand the prohibition to include all types of natural bait, live or dead, when fishing for tiger muskies. This is a conservative measure aimed at reducing preventable angler mortality. Tiger muskies have several unique characteristics that justify exceptional regulations for this species: (A) They can’t reproduce naturally, so they’re reared in hatcheries and stocked at state expense, and replacing tiger muskies lost to angler mortality involves a cost to the state; (B) they have high recreational value and bring economic benefits to nearby communities; and (C) they exist in very low numbers, and maintaining a viable sport fishery depends the ability of the fish to survive being caught and released several times during their lifetime. The problem with bait is that fish usually swallow it, and get hooked in the throat or stomach; a study conducted by Wisconsin DNR demonstrated the mortality rate from swallowed bait rigs is 83% with 1 year. (This study was summarized in an article in the October/November issue of “Musky Hunter” magazine, a copy of which is attached. Because most tiger muskies are smaller than 50 inches, the legal minimum size, fish that are killed by bait rigs in most (if not all) cases will be fish that are not legal to harvest. Use of dead bait for northern pike is very common; and the growing popularity of northern pike fishing in Idaho and northeast Washington is likely to result in increased use of this fishing method for Washington’s tiger muskies, especially in eastern Washington, unless action is taken to restrict tiger muskie gear to artificial lures only.

4. Public or Agency Involvement:
a. Names of individuals or groups with whom you have discussed this change: Muskies Inc. Chapter 57; Cascade Musky Association; various individual tiger musky anglers; general public via comment forum on Washingtonlakes.com.
b. Describe their support or concerns: The organized tiger musky angling community supports restricting gear for tiger muskies to artificial lures only in order to prevent avoidable angler mortality of this species.

Tiger Musky Record

1. Current rule you would like to change: Criteria and procedures for recognizing state fishing records, pertaining to tiger muskies only; this proposal does not affect a state fishing record for any other species.
2. Your proposed rule: Replace the existing weight-based state record with a catch-and-release record based on the fish’s length and girth. If this proposal is adopted, the existing weight-based tiger musky record will be eliminated on the effective date of the rule, and a new tiger musky record will be established when the Department approves an application for the catch-and-release record. This proposal also establishes the requirements for the state tiger musky record as follows: 1. The fish must be legally caught by a licensed angler (or by a person who is not required to have a fishing license). 2. The fish must be landed with a knotless net and handled properly to avoid injuring the fish and released alive. 3. The length measurement will be taken by placing the fish on its side with the jaw closed on a flat surface and measuring a straight line from the tip of the snout to the extreme tip of the tail fin. 4. Length and girth measurements shall be determined in inches and quarter-inches, rounded down. 5. The measurement must be verified by (a) the sworn affidavit of a witness attesting the accuracy of the measurements, and (b) a photograph of the entire fish, with all fins visible, next to a marked measuring device, such as a tape measure, bump board, etc. 6. To verify that the angler claiming the record actually caught the fish, the witness affidavit shall include the angler’s name, and a second photograph of the angler with the fish must be submitted. When publicizing the record, the Department will state the fish’s length, girth, and combined length and girth as in the following hypothetical example: 48” x 23” (total 71”). The record will be the fish with the largest combined total of length and girth measurements.
a. Species affected: Tiger Musky
b. Geographic areas affected: Statewide
c. Time of year in effect: Year Round
d. Other details: Changes criteria for state tiger musky record

3. Why this change is needed: To encourage catch and release of trophy tiger muskies that exist in extremely limited numbers in Washington State. Under the Department’s general criteria and procedures for recognizing state fishing records, the fish must be killed to obtain a weighing on a certified scale and inspection by a Department biologist. By replacing the weight-based tiger musky record with a catch-and-release tiger musky record, this proposal eliminates incentives to kill record-sized tiger muskies, in order to further encourage live release of tiger muskies and promote conservation of the state’s population of trophy-sized tiger muskies, in order to maximize trophy fishing opportunities for this species. Verifying the size of a released fish is somewhat p

Thank you Don for all your hard work and being a great advocate for the
tiger musky fishery.

I like it except I am a bit confused about the knotless net part.... How many people own a knotless net large enough to land a tiger musky in? I have a very large musky net from frabil that has the rubberized coating on it. Does this qualify as a knotless net? I think this part might be getting a little picky. I do like the proposal and think it is a very good step towards promoting catch and release of all muskies. Good work Don.

The knotless net idea was a last-minute brainstorm that I got from reading the "Selective Gear Rules" for trout in the WDFW pamphlet. My thought was that if we're going to change the record criteria to promote C&R, then we should do it in a way that also promotes the best practices in handling the fish.

If there's some 50"+ jumbo musky out there I hope someone tells the fish not to bite on an angler's nightcrawler or live crayfish.

Gone Fishin wrote:I like it except I am a bit confused about the knotless net part.... How many people own a knotless net large enough to land a tiger musky in? I have a very large musky net from frabil that has the rubberized coating on it. Does this qualify as a knotless net? I think this part might be getting a little picky. I do like the proposal and think it is a very good step towards promoting catch and release of all muskies. Good work Don.

I would say that a rubber mesh net, or rubberized coating would qualify as a knotless net under selective gear rulses.

I still think the knotless net part is a bit much. Even if my rubber coated net qualifies it is not practical for most anglers. I fish for muskie and pike several times each week, so I invested in a great net for them. The average angler or the bass fisherman on most the muskie lakes are not going to have such a net. If they have a large net with them it is most likely a salmon net or something of the sort, because unlike most of us in this forum, they only fish for esox on occasion ands usually only when they are bass fishing lakes containing muskie. I would love to see the record go to someone among the muskie community and a memeber of this forum, but I don't think someone who is just getting into muskie fishing, a bass fisherman or the family out for the weekend should be excluded from possibly setting a state record.

The knotless net thing is practical on selective gear waters for trout because the only people fishing there are prepared for it. It would be nice if that was something that was practical for muskie waters but the truth is there are too many other people fishing those waters. The 2 lakes here with muskie (Newman and Silver) are very popular bass lakes and get quite a bit of trout and panfish fishing as well.

Working in a sporting goods store allows me to come in contact with a large majority of the local fishermen. I have seen some people's response to the 50 inch minimum rule. When they see so much effort going into protecting one species which they know little about they build resentment towards that species. I agree rules should be set to protect tiger muskies, but if we try to take it too far we are going to cause the negative view of them to grow. It will end up widening the gap between muskie fishermen and everybody else. What we need to do is close that gap and get them to better understand the species. I talk to people who don't like muskies and they have never fished for one. I get the comment about "can you believe this 50 inch rule?" all the time. I can just imagine the flak muskies would catch if now you required knotless nets. You are telling them that if they want to qualify for the state record they have to shell out some pretty good money for a special net.

I like the catch and release record, I think it is a great idea Don and I hope it is successful. I just don't think we have to take it as far as requiring a knotless net.

Don: Once again, your contribution to the tiger muskie is appreciated by all of us esox fans. Thank you for taking the time and effort to do all this, especially with the busy schedule you have this summer. These Rule change proposals are both important steps in improving the fishery. I support them as written.

And GF, I think you are in an excellent position, working in the Sporting Goods field, to help educate anglers about what the tiger is and why the rules have been implemented (esp. the 50 inch rule) and why these new regs. make sense, too. You are the advocate for the esox species when selling to anglers; I know you care about both the pike and TM, thank you for all you do.

GF, my proposal doesn't require anglers to use knotless nets for tiger muskies. It only requires a knotless net for recognition of a state record. The record holder should be a role model for other anglers.

Whether you agree or disagree with that idea, I want to emphasize it isn't the main object of the rule proposal, it's very secondary. The objective is to replace the weight-based record, which requires killing the fish, with a catch-and-release record. Adding the knotless net was a last-minute afterthought, and if a significant number of anglers don't like it, then it can go. It's not essential to the main objective. If you don't agree with it, then submit a written comment and/or testimony saying you support the C&R record but would like the knotless net provision deleted when the public comment period begins in September.

I think you did a good job Don but with due respect I also find the knotless net idea a bit much. If an angler is lucky enough to hook a state record tiger on an artifical lure the type of net he/she uses should not disqualify them IMHO. Can you imagine?

"Yea you caught a new state record but since your net has knots in it the fish doesn't count"................say what?

Jed V.

Don,

Let’s get this done because I got the new start record this weekend. Depending on which formula you use it was between 35.5 and 37lbs (48.5 x 25). I had two witnesses with me, I used a "knotless" net, I was using a bucktail lure so there is no issue with live bait and I have a photo with the fish. However I am short on the photo showing the fish next to the measuring board.
I know this fish won’t count but now we know there out there…

Thanks for your hard work, we all appreciate it.

I hook a big tiger -- really big -- and I don't want to risk trying to net it -- so I decide to try and beach it. I'm successful. The fish turns out to be a new record. I perform all other due diligence (photos, live release etc).

Is my new record denied because I didn't employ a knot-free net ???