Carp or Northern Pike Minnow disposal - What is actually the best way to do it?

[iwalton]

My name has nothing to do with bow fishing.

Hey, my apologies.

As you can see, you go down a slippery slope, once you take the position that something bad is "here to stay", you give permission to ignore the problem.

I'm all for arguing over the topic, but let's avoid using such a classic informal fallacy, shall we?

Making carp a "food fish" did not make your friends, if you actually have any, start eating carp.

Cute. A little defensive here eh? Let's try moving beyond such personal attacks and let me ask you, in your vast experience working with fishery management, what you would suggest WA officially designate the common carp (and mirror carp too?) as, if not a food fish? Certainly not a gamefish, like the northern pikeminnow? Just about every major type of fish in WA has some sort of classification as per its legal status. Tiger muskies are an interesting way to control the population, and I agree, the new 50'' rule might very well reduce carp numbers.

I will concur, carp are indeed "here to stay", but just like misquotes, I won't start liking them, I will continue to slap them, and I will use whatever preventative is available to prevent them from spreading.

Well, at least we agree on one thing:)

[Stacie Kelsey]

Interesing discussion points.

The RCW that deals with waste is 77.15.170 and states a person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if:

The person recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.

There are a couple different penalty degrees depending on the specific situation. Now, with regard to carp, if you are out bow angling for carp, you cannot shoot them and leave them at the lake. You must take them home. The basis of this RCW is 'intentional waste'.

As far as the communities that eat carp - I haven't done any surveys, but I know that they are there because I've been involved with many meetings over the years with these groups as we laid out the issues with the commercial carp fishery. There are a lot of people that eat carp, especially during religious holiday.

In additon to the commercial fishery on carp there is a large sport fishery in this area for carp as well.

Nik - yes, if you bash a pikeminnow's head in and let it float that is intentional waste.

Carp are here to stay and so we must manage them in the best way we can. If plausible, that can include a commercial fishery, or some other removal. The first thing is to determine if they are a problem. The second thing is to determine what should be done. We are dealing with this at Silver Lake in Cowlitz County. I've had my anglers out doing one test fishery already. We have done test fisheries on lakes on the east side as well.

So the bottom line is, do not intentionaly waste fish. This includes bonking food or game fish on the head and leaving them at the lake.

[YellowBear]

Stacie.
Could you explain this "test fishery" a bit more?

[racfish]

In a lake as big as Lk Wa who cares about reducing the carp population. They eat millfoil.One of the few fish that do in my understanding of the species. As it is right now you have to fish at least in 30 feet of water to avoid the dreadful grass.I say leave the carp alone. I disagree with the use of rotenone. Who are we to play the balance of nature. Havent you seen what thats done to our game in Wa state allready.Now you want to play with an ecosystem we have no business doing it. I enjoy watching the carp roll in the springtime. I like trying to hook one and get reeled on my trout gear.Y'all want everything just optimum for your fishing pleasures.Havent we screwed around with nature enough?We create the problems today that need fixing later. You guys crack me up. I agree with Stacie for once. Let the carp be. Using rotenone isnt the answer in my opinion.Its us that need to change the way we think . But then....Thats just me.

[iwalton]

Interesing discussion points.

Nik - yes, if you bash a pikeminnow's head in and let it float that is intentional waste.

So the bottom line is, do not intentionaly waste fish. This includes bonking food or game fish on the head and leaving them at the lake.

Glad to hear this, Stacie, thanks! Too many times I've watched anglers doing this, and claim it was the "right thing to do." Some even just leave them rotting on public docks, both are great ways to turn public opinion against anglers.

In a lake as big as Lk Wa who cares about reducing the carp population. They eat millfoil.One of the few fish that do in my understanding of the species. As it is right now you have to fish at least in 30 feet of water to avoid the dreadful grass.I say leave the carp alone. I disagree with the use of rotenone. Who are we to play the balance of nature. Havent you seen what thats done to our game in Wa state allready.Now you want to play with an ecosystem we have no business doing it. I enjoy watching the carp roll in the springtime. I like trying to hook one and get reeled on my trout gear.Y'all want everything just optimum for your fishing pleasures.Havent we screwed around with nature enough?We create the problems today that need fixing later. You guys crack me up. I agree with Stacie for once. Let the carp be. Using rotenone isnt the answer in my opinion.Its us that need to change the way we think . But then....Thats just me.

+9000!:)

[FishTank]

I've continued to read up on WDFW and their past decisions, and I'm actually inclined to leave it to them to handle potential fishery problems. Sometimes WDFW decisions aren't what they appear to be on the surface, and if what I've learned today is accurate we do owe a great deal of gratitude for what they are at least trying to do with these waters.

I really think that if we have a problem with carp or pikeminnow, we should attempt to cooperate with the WDFW to keep these fish in check. In the case of Sprague lake, I believe that even though walleye were purposely excluded from the lake the WDFW uncovered that the real problem fish was carp. It's not like the WDFW spent a bunch of money on Sprague lake with the sole purpose of removing the walleye.

By the way, does anyone know if Liberty Lake actually has walleye in it? I've been hearing this rumor, and actually heard that the walleye that shocked in Sprague lake got transported to Liberty.

[blufin loui]

Hello Stacie, Thanks for all your responses to this topic. At times you have been put on the spot with questions, but your responses have answered some questions for many of us. It is awsome that this topic has been discussed in such a civil manner. There are many who have strong feelings one way or the other on this issue, but have been able to respond in an appropriate manner. Makes a person proud to be part of the WL family. Keep up the good work WL members. One question on the food fish, game fish classification- why would the carp be classed as a food fish, and the pike-minnow be classed as a game fish? Also the lowly pike-minnow has been a mainstay bait in the past for many fishermen. Since the pike-minnow is utilized by comercial fishing, can it still be utilized as "cut" bait after the reclassification? Thanks to any and all who may have some input on this question.

[YellowBear]

I am not a big fan of rotenone, just pointing out a differant way to use it.

As far as I know rotenone is ileagle in this state but the WDFW must be exempt from this law.

[Stacie Kelsey]

Hey guys - I'll try and answer each point:

Common carp test fishery - this is a fishery we do on both sides of the state to determine carp abundance in a lake/river. We use anglers that participate in the common carp commercial fishery. They use a trammel net, which is a two panel that has a minimum mesh of 5.5". Fish will get tangled in the net but still be able to breathe. The test fishery involves setting net in types of shoreline area that common carp are known to inhabit. The nets are set for 20 minutes to 2 hours. Just like in the commercial fishery, the test fishery anglers have to be within visible range of the nets. They are marked with buoys so other boaters know their location.

Fish classifications - pikeminnow were only recently classified as game fish along with peamouth and suckers - carp have been classified as food fish for a long time. Carp are considered food fish because of the various commercial fisheries on them. Let me do some checking regarding pikeminnow as cut bait - I'll report back on Monday.


I'm heading out to Silver Lake so I have to jet but I will get the rest of the answers to the questions on Monday!

Thanks!

stace

[Anglinarcher]

My name has nothing to do with bow fishing.

Hey, my apologies.

As you can see, you go down a slippery slope, once you take the position that something bad is "here to stay", you give permission to ignore the problem.

I'm all for arguing over the topic, but let's avoid using such a classic informal fallacy, shall we?

Making carp a "food fish" did not make your friends, if you actually have any, start eating carp.

Cute. A little defensive here eh? Let's try moving beyond such personal attacks and let me ask you, in your vast experience working with fishery management, what you would suggest WA officially designate the common carp (and mirror carp too?) as, if not a food fish? Certainly not a gamefish, like the northern pikeminnow? Just about every major type of fish in WA has some sort of classification as per its legal status. Tiger muskies are an interesting way to control the population, and I agree, the new 50'' rule might very well reduce carp numbers.

I will concur, carp are indeed "here to stay", but just like misquotes, I won't start liking them, I will continue to slap them, and I will use whatever preventative is available to prevent them from spreading.

Well, at least we agree on one thing:)

IWalton, I'm kind of sorry I was out fishing and not responding for so long, but the responses so far have been interesting. OK, not really, I don't find the discussions nearly as fun as Walleye Fishing. LOL

I'm impressed that you went to the web that taught something about what a "slippery slope" argument was. The philosophical points of view taken by this site are by no means main stream, but I see where you hang your hat now. I still contend that if we take a fatalistic point of view that something is "here to stay" that we are giving permission to leave it status quo. The very fact that carp are suffering from, and being killed by, what appears to be a virus in Spokane Lake (AKA Long Lake) would tend to prove that perhaps carp are indeed not "here to stay", unless we choose to do nothing.

I think perhaps the defensive response is yours, but I suppose I can see how you could have interpreted my comments about friends as such. In fact, I do not question that you have friends, I question that you have friends that eat carp. A favorite Liberal Argument is always that one knows something special because they have some special connection to a special group. Unfortunately, more often then not, such connections do not exist, but the claim seems permissible under the presumption that the end justifies the means. I do not subscribe to the belief that the end justifies the means, so I find that I must question your connections to aforementioned special groups.

My experience obtained dealing with fisheries would suggest that listing carp as a "Non-Game fish", or an "Invasive Species" would serve the State well. With such designations, elimination of carp by fishermen would not be illegal. Fish flesh, such as carp or pikeminnow fillets (yes, I would suggest pikeminnow should be re-designated from game fish to one of these two categories), could be used as bait, or garden fortification, under such categories. Such a designation would not by it's nature allow littering, but it would decriminalize not eating carp. Under the designation of "food fish", like Salmon is, then wasting would constitute doing anything other then eating them. As for the commercial fisheries program for carp, commercial fisheries will only work if the returns of such catches offer sufficient monetary return that it is profitable. In short, the carp problem will need to be completely out of hand before it will be profitable. Additionally, most bodies of water are either too small, too deep, or too shallow to ever functionally fish for carp commercially.

A couple of final comments for iwalton, we can't even agree on how many things we agree on. You agreed with me about the Tiger Muskies and on the misquotes. two things not one. Isn't it funny that the first personal attach was yours regarding my moniker, but you want to be the first one to suggest we move beyond "such personal attacks". Would that also apply to your intentional use of the term VAST experience? I suppose that attacks are only personal if you are the one receiving them?

[Anglinarcher]

In a lake as big as Lk Wa who cares about reducing the carp population. They eat millfoil.One of the few fish that do in my understanding of the species. As it is right now you have to fish at least in 30 feet of water to avoid the dreadful grass.I say leave the carp alone. I disagree with the use of rotenone. Who are we to play the balance of nature. Havent you seen what thats done to our game in Wa state allready.Now you want to play with an ecosystem we have no business doing it. I enjoy watching the carp roll in the springtime. I like trying to hook one and get reeled on my trout gear.Y'all want everything just optimum for your fishing pleasures.Havent we screwed around with nature enough?We create the problems today that need fixing later. You guys crack me up. I agree with Stacie for once. Let the carp be. Using rotenone isnt the answer in my opinion.Its us that need to change the way we think . But then....Thats just me.

Lake Washington may indeed be one lake where the carp are not a problem. It is possible that it is cold enough, large enough, deep enough, that carp are not impacting the water quality, as least not yet.

Still, what about the use of grass carp. Grass Carp are a carp that has been sterilized and planted into bodies of water in Washington to "eat" invasive species of weeds. Like Triploid Rainbow Trout, Tiger Muskies, and now Grass Carp, sterile species grow fast, eat a lot, but their numbers can be carefully controlled. Carp are invasive because they overpopulate in our environment, our ecosystem. They are here because, as you said, we played with the balance of nature once before.

At what point would you decide to try to undo the actions of previous uneducated managers that brought carp into our country? Would you suggest that native Salmon, perhaps native trout die off because of degraded spawning beds, turbid waters. Do you propose that we do nothing now and let nature take its course? If so, please so indicate because when the rest of us want our Salmon and Trout we want you to stand out as a beacon for your cause.

[Anglinarcher]

Interesing discussion points.

The RCW that deals with waste is 77.15.170 and states a person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if:

The person recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.

There are a couple different penalty degrees depending on the specific situation. Now, with regard to carp, if you are out bow angling for carp, you cannot shoot them and leave them at the lake. You must take them home. The basis of this RCW is 'intentional waste'.

As far as the communities that eat carp - I haven't done any surveys, but I know that they are there because I've been involved with many meetings over the years with these groups as we laid out the issues with the commercial carp fishery. There are a lot of people that eat carp, especially during religious holiday.

In additon to the commercial fishery on carp there is a large sport fishery in this area for carp as well.

Nik - yes, if you bash a pikeminnow's head in and let it float that is intentional waste.

Carp are here to stay and so we must manage them in the best way we can. If plausible, that can include a commercial fishery, or some other removal. The first thing is to determine if they are a problem. The second thing is to determine what should be done. We are dealing with this at Silver Lake in Cowlitz County. I've had my anglers out doing one test fishery already. We have done test fisheries on lakes on the east side as well.

So the bottom line is, do not intentionaly waste fish. This includes bonking food or game fish on the head and leaving them at the lake.

Stacie, it would be interesting to know if the population of the State is in favor of your position, for that matter if the majority of the fisheries biologist in the world are in agreement with you and the State.

I notice that you fell back on the waste clause, a clause that is not well defined, and in fact is quite subjective. I offer that quilt lies in the eyes of the ticketing officer and sitting judge, not in the law books. This is unfortunate. I have seen, and I have read on this very site, where officers have positively commented on the killing of pikeminnow and the feeding of them to the osprey and eagles.

I was not surprised to see that you have not done a survey, and I suggest that this lack of a survey applies to the alleged sport fishery as well. I suggest that a vocal minority has your, and the State's, ear, not the majority of citizens or the biologist. Sounds like modern politics to me.

If, as you said, "Carp are here to stay and so we must manage them in the best way we can. If plausible, that can include a commercial fishery, or some other removal. The first thing is to determine if they are a problem. The second thing is to determine what should be done", then we do have something we can agree on. I am not so fatalistic that I feel we should not try to eliminate carp, but given the atmosphere in the State Fisheries Management right now, I must concede the point.

Having taken this position, are you now ready to agree that invasive weeds "are here to stay" so we must manage them in the best way we can? I can think of several other invasive species, weeds, mollusks, fish, etc., that we could talk about as well. If not, then where did you draw the line?

[racfish]

Do I know the answers to restoring our ecosystem back to its original beginnings? Nope..If I did Id be working with the State.I do know that building on the waterfont cant help much. The use of systemics and poisinous sprays cant help.Introducing a run of salmon that were never indiginous to the lake cant help. But it sure is a moneymaker. Our fisheries like most other nature balancing acts are due to $$$$$$$$. I mean money to be had ,not spent.Grass carp sound great.Can nature rebound now? Probably not.Im all for helping out the enviorment but personally I like catching and eating most species of fish not just salmon and trout.Drive along Mercedes Island (Mercer) and watch the contrution of million dollar docks with creasoted lumber.I guess we fish for now as long as the state makes a few dollars.In todays Seattle Times there was an article on pollution here in our waters.Can you believe that?I dont have the answers like I said earlier.I imagine that we must all help do our part to keep our waters clean or until the next disaster happens.

[bionic_one]

AA, Maybe I read it wrong, but didn't you say Carp was a food fish in Asia? There are a LOT of asian people in this state, so it's kinda hard to say they can't be considered a food fish.

I find it REALLY odd that nobody ever complains about smallmouth bass in the Columbia river when it's pretty obvious that they get fat on Salmon smolt.

[Anglinarcher]

Do I know the answers to restoring our ecosystem back to its original beginnings? Nope..If I did Id be working with the State.I do know that building on the waterfont cant help much. The use of systemics and poisinous sprays cant help.Introducing a run of salmon that were never indiginous to the lake cant help. But it sure is a moneymaker. Our fisheries like most other nature balancing acts are due to $$$$$$$$. I mean money to be had ,not spent.Grass carp sound great.Can nature rebound now? Probably not.Im all for helping out the enviorment but personally I like catching and eating most species of fish not just salmon and trout.Drive along Mercedes Island (Mercer) and watch the contrution of million dollar docks with creasoted lumber.I guess we fish for now as long as the state makes a few dollars.In todays Seattle Times there was an article on pollution here in our waters.Can you believe that?I dont have the answers like I said earlier.I imagine that we must all help do our part to keep our waters clean or until the next disaster happens.

We are in agreement in that respect.

[Anglinarcher]

AA, Maybe I read it wrong, but didn't you say Carp was a food fish in Asia? There are a LOT of asian people in this state, so it's kinda hard to say they can't be considered a food fish.

I find it REALLY odd that nobody ever complains about smallmouth bass in the Columbia river when it's pretty obvious that they get fat on Salmon smolt.

Yes, Carp are a food fish in Asia, and in most of Europe as well. In Asia, and in Europe, they have sufficient balances that prevent Carp from overpopulating - some natural, some man caused, some man made, but there is a balance for the most part.

In America, we do not have this balance, allowing carp overpopulate and damage the ecosystem. The question is "do we give them protective status by calling them a food fish", not "do we get people to eat them by calling them food fish". the question should be what status provides the best Environmental and Sociological benefits.

Let me try to make it clear enough for everyone to understand. Calling Carp a food fish does not make people eat them. Calling Carp a non-game fish or an invasive fish does not cause people to NOT EAT them.

Yes one, there is somewhat of a double standard with Walleye and Smallmouth Bass in the Columbia River. Some Salmon Smolts are eaten, as well as steelhead parr, but ironically the Bass and Walleye are doing what we are often not allowed to do, and that is control the Northern Pikeminnow to some extent. I don't remember the exact data, and it changes from time to time, but the Bass and Walleye eat 8 or 10 Pikeminnow minnows to every parr or smolt. Each Pikeminnow would grow up and eat dozens of parr or smolts, so in essence, you have some collateral damage, but in the big picture the Bass and Walleye are a good thing. It is a lot like planting Tiger Muskies, they do eat Trout, but they eat a lot more rough species, so in the long run, the Tigers improve the Trout habitat. Still, having said all of this, I have heard many Salmon and Steelhead anglers complain about the Walleye, Bass, and Catfish in the Columbia, but not as many as do Carp.

Still, your argument falls apart in two respects even if Bass did not do some good. One, they are native to this continent, so one would find it expected for this migration to happen in time, with or without man's intervention. Second, Bass and Walleye are not invasive. If fishermen are allowed to keep larger and more liberal size limits, the population drops. Invasive species are not so easily impacted by anglers.

In summary, giving Carp "food" species status is to protect them, with or without limits. Giving Carp protection is to permit an invasive species to have even more of a free hand to damage our ecosystem.

[FishTank]

AA, Maybe I read it wrong, but didn't you say Carp was a food fish in Asia? There are a LOT of asian people in this state, so it's kinda hard to say they can't be considered a food fish.

I find it REALLY odd that nobody ever complains about smallmouth bass in the Columbia river when it's pretty obvious that they get fat on Salmon smolt.

Might have something to do with their popularity. Carp is not a popular food fish to anyone except those who may have grown up eating it or companies who make their profit off of processing it as a substitute fish for packaged meals.

Let's not beat around the bush here with regard to unpopular fish. There is definitely a bias to provide a better environment to the more desirable fish. So if things seem a bit heated or negative with regard to a minority voice who is in favor of carp and/or pikeminnow, it's because it may seem that the few are getting their desires over the many.

I really don't think we should kid ourselves over carp as a food fish. Where I'm from, they are usually left on the bank to die. I've heard they are really bony and not easy to prepare for that matter.

Now to those who are making this a heated debate with the WDFW, I'm confident they will remove carp in situations where they are hurting a popular species of fish. I could be mistaken, but I think they have cleared lakes of carp where the opportunity arose so that crappie will prosper.

I'll say it again, I think the WDFW are the ones responsible for the warm water fish we have. That makes me really happy. :bounce:

[bionic_one]

I wasn't saying anything about protective status, or ecosystems, or any of that stuff. I simply put the fact out there that there is already a market for Carp as a food fish, being as there are so many asian people living in the state. Further, the whole "problem" in the original post and the laws, was that people wanted to bonk or otherwise kill the fish and throw them in the water. There's NOTHING stopping you from KEEPING the carp you come across and putting them in your garden or tossing them in the garbage / composter at home.

[Anglinarcher]

I wasn't saying anything about protective status, or ecosystems, or any of that stuff. I simply put the fact out there that there is already a market for Carp as a food fish, being as there are so many asian people living in the state. Further, the whole "problem" in the original post and the laws, was that people wanted to bonk or otherwise kill the fish and throw them in the water. There's NOTHING stopping you from KEEPING the carp you come across and putting them in your garden or tossing them in the garbage / composter at home.

You mean as long as Stacie and the WDF&W don't know about it?

I take exception to how you interpret the start of this thread. You are correct, "bonk or otherwise kill the fish and throw them in the water" would have been an option, but as far as disposal goes, it is not nor has it ever been suggested that this was the best option. I would suggest that I started this thread to provide an alternative to just that.

You claim that "There's NOTHING stopping you from KEEPING the carp you come across and putting them in your garden or tossing them in the garbage / composter at home". Let's see if Stacie lets this slide the next time Stacie visits our thread.

[flyfisher31]