2012 Rule Change Proposals - Walleye & Bass

[YellowBear]

Bodofish,
Could you please tell me were you found Walleye and Bass on a invasive species list?
Last time I looked, Walleye and Bass were classified as Gamefish in Washington State.
I like to stay up on things so if you could help me out here I would be most grateful.

[Bodofish]

Bodofish,
Could you please tell me were you found Walleye and Bass on a invasive species list?
Last time I looked, Walleye and Bass were classified as Gamefish in Washington State.
I like to stay up on things so if you could help me out here I would be most grateful.

They are not Native in Washington State, all were planted by the State or "Bucket Biologists". Regardless of any list, if they are not native, they are invasive. Period.

This should dispell any agument as to their being not native.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/

[zen leecher]

Most trout are probably invasive as most trout have been planted by the WDFW. Most trout strains in WA are not native to the watersheds they are in.

[Bodofish]

Most trout are probably invasive as most trout have been planted by the WDFW. Most trout strains in WA are not native to the watersheds they are in.

That could be said but I'd be willing to bet most systems contained RBTs and it doesn't matter if they were planted or not as a Rainbow Trout is a Rainbow Trout, no genetic distiction between planter's, nate's or Steelhead. Don't care if you want to call it a red band or a Kamloops, still a rainbow with no genetic distiction. Yes I know cutts and others have been planted too but the same goes.

[zen leecher]

If the species of rainbow trout isn't native to the system/lake/stream/river then why worry if bass or walleye were native? It doesn't make sense to worry about things that small. It does make sense to manage the fishery for all species.

Also I'd be concerned about redside shiners as they probably weren't native either and drastically affect the amount of feed available to small trout.

[Bodofish]

I'm guessing there have been trout present in one form or another in most streams and rivers that make their way to the ocean, more often than not rainbows. Above a big set of falls, probably not. But if it connects all the salt, I'd bet it's had trout of some form swimming in it from before man has been here. It's a huge difference between adding the same species and purposly bringing fish from the mid west and letting them go so you have more fishing opportunities. I'm all for eradicationg the Maks too, they were planted all over EW and ID by a timber baron mid 1900's. They eat lots of smolt too, they should go. Same, same for Northerns.

[YellowBear]

Can you guys imagine how boring it would be to have only Trout to fish for?

As a angler I have no choice but to support the Salmon and Steelhead program.
I also support the program evey time I pay my power bill.
I choose not to fish for them anymore because of the low numbers of fish.
I have seen a population of fish dissapear more than once.
When the last Salmon and Steelhead make the migration upstream in the Columbia and Snake, it will be a sad day.
What ticks me off is the fisheries that I do take advantage of gets squat.

Bodo, we know how you feel about (NONE NATIVE) species, tell us what you think of the hybrids, should we get rid of them too?

[Bodofish]

Of what hybrids do you speak? Most are sterile so the populations don't grow.

[YellowBear]

According to the WDFW they are all sterile.
Lets speak of the Triploid to start.
As they are sterile they spend no energy on reproduction.
All they do is eat and grow.
As they grow larger they eat more and bigger prey.
What do you think they feed on?

[Bodofish]

According to the WDFW they are all sterile.
Lets speak of the Triploid to start.
As they are sterile they spend no energy on reproduction.
All they do is eat and grow.
As they grow larger they eat more and bigger prey.
What do you think they feed on?

Well first off triploids aren't hybrids, they are just RBT's that have been sterilized (well most). I'm guessing you're referring to Rufus. Except for downstream a little ways, Rufus is a closed system, they can't go up stream and have to make it through the turbines or spillway to go down stream. There is also a large limit on Trips in Pateros, so wipe them out and have a great dinner! Best eating fish in my opinion! I'm all for special fishes and stocks if they can be segregated from the wild populations. To answer, what do they feed on? Darn near anything that will fit in their mouths, just like any other fish, but they do have a real taste for fish chow as evidenced by the large population hanging at the pens. I do know one of their favorite snacks are bottom dwelling invertebrates as a well placed black jig on the bottom will give some very nice fights and dinners.
So of which Hybrids do you speak?

[YellowBear]

Well now you have really peeked my interest.
What do you think native Rainbows feed on?

[Bodofish]

Well now you have really peeked my interest.
What do you think native Rainbows feed on?

It really depends on the size, again anything that fits in it's mouth. The little guys are bug hunters pure and simple and they feed on the aquatic stage of most bugs and floaters too, again as long as they fit in the mouth (well sort of). As they get bigger and bigger things fit in their mouths they expand their palates. Like leaches, worms, mud bugs, salamanders, darn near anything they can choke down. Now for the glutton award, one time I caught a ten inch bow that had a good six inch long soft plastic bass lure, it looked like a newt or a salamander, lizardish affair in its mouth down to its gut and hanging the back legs and tail out its mouth. There's no doubt they are predators and rather voracious at that.

I've also caught some rather large native bows at the pens on Rufus so they have no problem sharing the Purina....
Again, anything that fits in their mouth.

[TroutSnipr]

I think we do need to be clear that there is a difference between non-native and invasive species. Invasive species were not legally brought or planted in the water by the WDFW. These are bucket biologists, people fishtank dumps, bilgewater stowaways, aquaculture escapees etc. The WDFW and it's predecessors brought and legally planted non-native gamefish species like walleyes and bass into a NON NATIVE habitat. That does not necessarily make them invasive species like lamprey, snakeheads, zebra mussels etc.

[zen leecher]

Bingo!!! Troutsnipr I believe we have a winner!!

[Matt]

Actually, yes they are still invasive species. All that illustrates is how dumb the state is on a regular basis. They plant a predatory species with no idea or regard for how it will impact our resources then go "whoops" shouldn't have done that once S hits the fan. Now THAT is good science.

This whole debate is a joke.

I know I'm laughing.

[Bodofish]

I think we do need to be clear that there is a difference between non-native and invasive species. Invasive species were not legally brought or planted in the water by the WDFW. These are bucket biologists, people fishtank dumps, bilgewater stowaways, aquaculture escapees etc. The WDFW and it's predecessors brought and legally planted non-native gamefish species like walleyes and bass into a NON NATIVE habitat. That does not necessarily make them invasive species like lamprey, snakeheads, zebra mussels etc.

Yes you're right on the non-native and invasive to a point but that doesn't make either exclusive. You can have a natural occurring invasive species but in every case of non-native introduction, they are always invasive as they upset the ecosystem. In most cases the Walleyes and Maks were not planted by WDFW. I'm sure they have but in this case they (Walley's) were introduced to the Columbia system by bucket bios. Read up about them on WDFW site, they're pretty clear about it.

PS Lamprey are native to the Columbia system, they are a fish that has been used in Indian rituals from the dawn of time.

PPS: Thanks Matt!

[TroutSnipr]

I think we do need to be clear that there is a difference between non-native and invasive species. Invasive species were not legally brought or planted in the water by the WDFW. These are bucket biologists, people fishtank dumps, bilgewater stowaways, aquaculture escapees etc. The WDFW and it's predecessors brought and legally planted non-native gamefish species like walleyes and bass into a NON NATIVE habitat. That does not necessarily make them invasive species like lamprey, snakeheads, zebra mussels etc.

Yes you're right on the non-native and invasive to a point but that doesn't make either exclusive. You can have a natural occurring invasive species but in every case of non-native introduction, they are always invasive as they upset the ecosystem. In most cases the Walleyes and Maks were not planted by WDFW. I'm sure they have but in this case they (Walley's) were introduced to the Columbia system by bucket bios. Read up about them on WDFW site, they're pretty clear about it.

PS Lamprey are native to the Columbia system, they are a fish that has been used in Indian rituals from the dawn of time.

PPS: Thanks Matt!

The walleye is not a native Washington fish, and just how walleyes originally entered the state is unknown. The first verification of a walleye in Washington was in 1962, from Banks Lake in eastern Washington. Soon afterwards, populations began to show up in Franklin Roosevelt Lake (connected to Banks Lake through a huge pipe and pump). Since then they have spread from these original sites to the remainder of the mainstem Columbia river, from near the mouth to the Canadian border.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/walleye/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My guess is that they were sent mixed in a lot of purchased fry from a hatchery in another state. My brother works for the Pennsylvania DNR and has routinely seen fry from commercial private hatcheries arrive with mixed species in the tank. As fry it is vary hard to know that the fry are not all of the same species unless they are raised to a larger size and you happen to notice that 100 out of the 50,000 1" fish you are looking at just don't look right. Kind of like a piscatorial 'Where's Waldo' if you will. According to him its quite a common occurrence and I know that WDFW has bought fish from out of state private commercial hatcheries for many years.

And in regards to the lampreys I know they are native here, but they are a huge problem as an invasive non-native species in the Great lakes where they have entered the system through the St. Lawrence Seaway...

[Bodofish]

Walleyes don't get mixed with trout because they come from different hatcheries, up until recient times, all of our out of State hatchery fish came from Northern CA where they only raise trout.

This is getting beyond stupid.

[TroutSnipr]

The WDFW has bought catfish from multiple out of state hatcheries, and IIRC the original Tiger Musky stocks were out of state as well. The California catfish hatchery is now defunct and they are negotiating with a hatchery in Alabama I believe for future catfish stocking...

The origin of Washington’s walleyes is uncertain. The two most prevalent theories are: they were introduced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the 1950s when Walleye fry from Lake Oneida (New York) were released into Lake Roosevelt; or, they were planted into Devil’s Lake (near Steamboat Rock) in the 1930's, and were released into Banks lake and the Columbia River system when Devil’s Lake was inundated by the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project.

The first authenticated planting of bass in the Northwest took place in 1888, in Oregon’s Willamette River. In Washington, the United States Fish Commission in 1890 distributed 1,220 largemouth among Lake Washington on the west side, and Lake Colville (now known as Sprague Lake) and Loon Lake on the east side. In 1891 Loon and Liberty lakes shared
another 125 fish. In 1892 Clear, McDonald, American, Loon, Deer, Liberty and Gravelly lakes divided 3,457 largemouth. (Note: there are now at least 17 Clear lakes in Washington; it’s not “clear” which of these is referred to.) 1893 saw another 400 largemouth shared by Clear, Padden and Shepherd lakes and an unnamed public lake in Skagit County. In 1895, Loon,
Cavanaugh, Silver (not specifically identified, probably Cowlitz County; we have 11 or more Silver Lakes), St.Clair, Welty and Clear lakes split 625 fish. Within a fewyears of the first introduction, largemouth were reportedly being sold in Spokane fish stalls for 15 to 17cents a pound.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00204/wdfw00204.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The feds planting walleyes and bass nearly 8+ decades ago may have been misinformed by modern day wildlife management terms but is hardly bucket biology.

[Bodofish]

I suggest a remedial reading course. Last post.