Rulemaking Update

[Don Wittenberger]

"fish for the joy of fishing"

Bingo.

For the record, I didn't call you a liar. I merely questioned the plausibility of an assertion you made, which is not the same thing, and is legitimate in a public debate. You shouldn't take offense at that. In the 34 years I've been a lawyer, my assertions have been disputed countless times, but I never took it personally or got mad about it. Let's not allow this conversation to descend into anger; let's be friends. I applaud your work with at-risk youth. What your son does for a living is irrelevant. Not knowing you, I can't comment on your stewardship of land, and haven't done so. This discussion is about killing muskies for their meat, nothing else. I oppose that, and explained why. You apparently agree with me on this point. But even if you didn't, that wouldn't keep me from wanting you as a friend.

[Don Wittenberger]

I went to church a lot, too, but I'm a liar anyway. My wife thinks muskie lures cost $5.

[YellowBear]

Good morning all.
Don, in the past 3 years 75% of the fish that have been on my table have been Smallmouth. You are write to say there has been a population explosion for the Smallmouth. I don't know why the Smallmouth has done so well here but I am glad that it has. The Tiger Muskie program will go on but I think the public should be informed on both sides of the issue.

You have mentioned several times that there are 16000 Musky chaisers in this state.
Those are the numbers that the WDFW has made public. The fact is that those numbers are not exactly correct.
The WDFW sent out a little questionnaire a few years back. I believe the question was, did you fish for Tigers?
16000 anglers said yes, I was one of them. There is a big difference between fishing for and targeting.

Something else that you bring up often is the feeding habits of the Muskie. Since we kicked this issue around before I have done some research into this question. A study done on Pewaukee lake in Wisconsin showed these results.
Yellow Perch 17.1%
Walleye 2.9%
Unidentified Percidae 5.7%
Largemouth Bass 14.3%
Green sunfish 2.9%
Sunfish (Bluegill or Crappie) 2.9%
Unidentified Centrarchidae 2.9%
Yellow Bullhead 2.9%
Unidentified 48.6%

85 Muskies sampled 32 yielded Specimens.
One 50 inch fish that was in the study had a 30 inch Musky in its belly.
A photo that was sent to me from a friend back east shows a 56 inch Northern taking a 36 inch Northern. Both fish were landed but the big fish was never hooked. Tigers do not practise catch and release and if a 50 inch Muskie will take a 30 inch Muskie you can bet it will take a 8lb Bass.

Another thing that I would like to point out is the fact that all of the warmwater species that are in this State, have been here a lot longer than the Tiger, yet we have a Tiger Musky hatchery but we do not have a warmwater hatchery. So in other words we can replace the Tiger but we have no means to replace the warm water species at this time. Keep in mind that in order to have a good population of Tigers we first need to have a great population of baitfish.

[Don Wittenberger]

16,000 is the only statistic we have right now, so it's the one I use. The Angler Diary program should produce useful data over the next few years, as more muskie anglers are participating in it now. Subjectively, I feel fishing pressure for tiger muskies has increased and I'm seeing a lot fewer muskies now. So, yeah, I feel there's a risk of fishing pressure wiping out this fishery if we don't manage it differently than we are now.

Here in Washington, the tiger muskies' diet is primarily squawfish. Wisconsin doesn't have squawfish. Washington doesn't have ciscoes, which Wisconsin muskies love to gorge on. It should be obvious why you can't extrapolate the species breakdown from a Wisconsin diet study to Washington waters. In general, Washington's tiger muskies prefer to eat soft-rayed fusiform species. Our tiger muskies eat squawfish and suckers like crazy, and so far as we know, rarely eat spinyrays.

So what's the point of your natural predation anecdotes? What does that prove? For every muskie eaten by a muskie or northern pike, thousands are caught by anglers. Which impacts the fishery more? Today, the answer probably is natural predation, because Wisconsin anglers release 99% of the muskies they catch. That's the answer we want. We can't do anything about natural mortality, but we sure can govern our own behavior.

I want warmwater enhancement as much as you do. But when you mention hatcheries, that's an apples-to-oranges argument. Tiger muskies have to be raised in hatcheries because they're sterile hybrids that can't reproduce in nature. Walleyes, bass, and panfish not only reproduce naturally but seem to be doing quite well on their own. So, once again, you are throwing out a red herring. Let's also not overlook the fact stocking tiger muskies was WDFW's idea, for rough fish control purposes, and the recreational fishery is a byproduct. We tiger muskie anglers are merely hitchhikers on the running boards of WDFW's rough fish control program. Would you rather they use rotenone, the old method? It costs 10 times as much, and kills everything. That's why they use tiger muskies for this. Meanwhile, if you want WDFW to enhance spinyray fisheries with hatchery production, and you want me to support that, then come up with a viable proposal. I'll be happy to support it. For one thing, I would like to see supplemental stocking of largemouth in Banks Lake, if biologists think it'll help. I'm not a biologist, so I depend on professional opinion in these matters.

At one of the IFPAG meetings earlier this year, I suggested (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that WDFW should stock squawfish in our tiger muskie lakes. They thought this was very funny. Even the director chuckled. Reportedly that is the only time anyone has ever seen the director crack a smile.

[YellowBear]

You mentioned that you would like to see Largemouth stocked in Banks, this is kind of my point. We have no Bass to stock because we have no hatchery. The idea of taking fish from one lake to another is not feasible as that is a great way to spread diseases.

I understand that the WDFW came up with the Tiger idea to control rough fish as you call them. The WDFW considers spiny rays as a rough fish.

When you say that Washington's Tigers prefer to eat soft-rayed species, you must include the Trout.
The Tiger is a top of the line predator. If we put them in a lake that is loaded with Squawfish, that's what they will eat. If we stock them in a over population of Carp, then they will be the main meal. What happens when they get lets say the Squawfish in check? Would it be safe to say that the diet would change to something more abundant?

As for my point of natural predations I was merely trying to point out the size of the fish that Tigers will feed on.
In other words if we stock a lake with Tigers all the other fish in that lake are bait. In order for a predator to be successful it must take in more protein, and it needs to do this with as little effort as possible. A large fish will need to feed fewer times but it will need to feed on bigger fish. A large predator is not going to spend time and energy feeding on small fish, A large predator is going to feed on large fish. So when we talk about 45 to 50 inch Tigers we need to think about 25 to 30 inch prey. A 25 inch Bass or a 30 inch Walleye would be a great catch for most folks.

[Don Wittenberger]

YB,

You ask some good questions, and make some good points. However, some of what you believe is not correct.

I don't agree WDFW treats spinyrays like rough fish. That may have been true years ago, but today there's a warmwater section with its own budget and staff, spinyrays are well-represented on the freshwater fisheries advisory board, and a growing number of lakes are managed for warmwater species. There is more support for spinyrays inside WDFW right now than there has ever been.

Predicting what tiger muskies will eat isn't as cut-and-dried as you described. WDFW stocked tiger muskies in Green Lake to eat an overpopulation of carp, but they ignored the carp and ate rainbow trout. Maybe that's not too surprising, as they're fed trout in the hatchery. But let's see what happens after they're released into the wild. At Curlew Lake, they eat trout, but only in winter. At Mayfield Lake, they don't eat trout. Merwin Lake is full of kokanee, but the tiger muskies rarely eat them. There must be other factors besides forage availability coming into play. The lesson to take away from this is that you can't make blanket statements because it varies from lake to lake.

Some folks assert tigers will eat everything in a lake. My experience has been they're excruciatingly finicky. The biologists would agree with you that big tiger muskies prefer big forage, but lots of muskie anglers will tell you they've seen them hit only small lures. I can't get them to hit my rainbow trout colored lures. On the other hand, they do hit yellow and black, and chartreuse. Can you explain this? I can't. I've spent half a lifetime trying to figure it out, and I'm no closer to an answer.

[YellowBear]

Good morning Don,
I agree that there is more representation for the warmwater fishery today than before, but that's not saying much.
It has gone from contempt of the fishery to toleration, lol.
It is my understanding that our warmwater hatchery has indeed been in operation. It seems we raised some Bluegill and Crappie to restock Sprague lake. it also seems that these will be the last warmwater species to be raised in Washington. When I attended the FWIN studies on Banks, Potholes and Moses this year. I had a chance to ask many questions.

Predicting what a large predator will eat is very simple, it abides by the law of nature. A large fish must expend as little energy as possible while getting the most protein as possible in order to survive. Trout are a very good example of this. Small Trout hit bugs and eggs little spinners and such but a big Trout is a predator, and feeds on baitfish, Crawdads and even small birds. As for the Green lake scenario, my guess would be that it takes more energy to digest a Carp than it does a Rainbow. Size ratio would also be a factor. If Green lake is stocked with Trout on a yearly basis you can bet the Tigers will key in on that as a yearly feeding opportunity. As for these other lakes that you mentioned we must keep in mind the times of the year that the study was done. To get a true idea of what is being eaten, a study of the fish needs to be done year around. That study would take way to much money and man hours to do. The only other way to do it would be angler reports but this would mean the fish would be killed.

My first Tiger was taken on a ice-jig with a bit of worm so I know that they will eat small prey.
This fish was 30 inches long and was skinny and not a bit impressive other than it was my first.
My guess was he was starving and was trying as hard as he could to survive. I took him off of a school of Perch and I hope he made it. He was in bad shape.

The studies that I have gathered all seem to agree that a Musky is a tough fish to catch. This could be due to several different things. A big fish may only feed once a week or two, depending on there digestive system. The numbers of fish in a body of water always seems to be low in other words, you need to be at the right place, at the right time, using the right bait. If a big fish has just fed chances are he won't feed again for sometime.

Black, Chartreuse and Yellow are colors found on most of our baitfish.
All three are on the Perch which seems most often to be the prey base.
My first choice of colors to imitate a Trout has always been Silver. I have never had much luck with Trout colored patterns. I have several Rapalas in different Trout patterns and none have ever been very impressive.

It is my humble opinion that in order to establish a viable fishery we must have a large enough prey base first.
The WDFW has done it backwards. They have put limits and restrictions on the predators when we should have had limits on the prey. I am glad that we finally have limits on our panfish but I am afraid it's to little, to late.

[Don Wittenberger]

I agree with you about the prey base. Another thing that needs to be done is manage each gamefish species according to the characteristics of that species. For example, some fisheries can withstand harvest better than others. Getting WDFW from "contempt" to "toleration" is not a small thing, but of course there's more work to be done. I do what I can by serving on IFPAG, posting on this board, and participating in a fishing club.

I used to fish Big Lake near Mt. Vernon for largemouth bass back in the 80s. The old Rebel rainbow-pattern lures slaughtered 'em. So did the Natural Ike in crappie. Can't get those lures anymore, or the old Creek Chub perch wigglefish, another good one. If something works, they stop making it. Funny how that works.

In the early years of the Mayfield Lake tiger muskie fishery, nearly all of them were caught on standard Rapalas. To this day, Mayfield muskies -- even the big ones -- prefer small baits. I use bigger stuff at Merwin than Mayfield, yet those fish came from the same hatchery. Weird.

[muskyhunter]

http://www.brainerdmuskies.com/WhatDoMu ... llyEat.pdf

Hey kids,
I know this is in the wrong forum.But since everyone else is doing it I thought what the hell..check out the website above. Fresh from the October 2007 Muskies Inc magazine. Check out the www.brainerdmuskies.com website. It seems to me that this would be great for the person(S) that want to become just a bit more educated on stocking programs that work back East and would be helpful to others. Mind you, these are regarding NON-HYBRID fish...they do reproduce......todd

[Deadeyemark]

Yellowbear,
I like to bass fish almost as much as musky fish and I don't want those darn tigers eating the bass either but from my experience, muskies prefer soft rayed, long skinny fish. Yep, they'll eat an occasional anything but that's not the norm. Even back home, some of the best trophy musky lakes are also some of the best trophy walleye and bass lakes.
The WDFW has eloctrofished Mayfield for bass and never(according to my source at the WDFW)come up with a single bass. I've caught a few and have seen a couple huge smallies there but the squawfish are so thck that a successful bass spawn is almost impossible.
As far as the muskies depleting the squawfish, I don't see it happening. The WDFW says it's almost impossible with the densities of muskies that will be stocked.
Sure would like to see ya come to one of our meetings some time. Good bunch of folks to meet. I'll bet you'd fit right in.

[YellowBear]

Thanks for the invite Mark, I am sure you have a great bunch of folks in your chapter of Muskies Inc.
As I have said before, I am not against the Musky or those that fish for them. My gripe is with the WDFW and the way they have gone about bringing this fish into this State.

I do have a question for all you musky fishers.
When the new size limit comes out (and it will pass), should those fish qualify for the record books? or should they be considered a farmed fish and have no place in the records?

[Deadeyemark]

Without going into too much detail about genetics, lake make-up(fertile or not),availability of food, lake size etc.
I'd have to say that if we really get down to brass tacks here, darn near all the fish we catch(or fish for)are farmed in a way. Even the deer and elk we hunt could be considered in the same boat.
If I shoot my deer in a fenced pen, than I'd consider it a farmed deer. Same goes for the fish.
Should a state record rainbow trout be considered for the record books? Odds are it was raised in a hatchery, stocked in a lake and grew to it's record size basically in the wild.
If it wasn't for the rearing and stocking of smallies, largemouth and walleyes here in WA we'd all have to fish for trout and salmon. But then if you took away all the stocked fish we all have to fish for the very rare native salmon. Darn, that'd be boring!!!
One thling I'll say about the new size rule for muskies is that it WILL allow fish to reach record book size.
When I catch that new WA state record musky(yeah sure), you'll see 2 pics of it on walakes.com. One of me holding it nervously and another of it being released for someone else to get that excited. Same thing you do with your big bass. It's entertainment to me. I want to be able to play the game again and again and the same for my kids.

[Don Wittenberger]

Tiger muskies are "hatchery" fish, not farmed fish. A "farmed" fish is a fish that is commercially raised for food purposes, and spends its entire life in a pen or enclosure. Tiger muskies, by contrast, swim free after being released into the wild. They are not "wild" fish, however, because they were produced by a hatchery.

[YellowBear]

Any ideas of what the life span and growth rate of the Tiger is?

[reelinanrockin]

They can put the muskie in any lake or river they want in this state as far as I am concerned. They are sterile fish so it is impossible for them to take over the population...If they control the scrap fish like chubs or carp then it is a win win...you guys have won the battle and hounded me into submission I wont keep anymore tigers ..lol... I want them to control the scrap fish ..put them into Sammamish or lake washington...if they eat trout or salmon fry just dont plant any more tigers in there...they will die off in a few years.. no harm done....I think the bottom line is the wdfwl does not want to spend money on the muskie program...they can make more money stocking hatchery trout in the lakes....I hope they get the sprague situation figured out...it would be nice to have a ultra nice wamwater fishing lake in our state ( crappie especially)...I do better in Sammamish or Washington for perch than Banks or moses or potholes...I do better in Tapps for smallies than banks, moses or potholes...I wish we had a crappie lake in our state like Clear lake in no. Cal or brownlee resivoir on the snake river...but what the heck smallies and perch are keeping me happy for now#-o

[Don Wittenberger]

They live 6-8 years, and are a year old and about 12"-15" when released into the wild. A year later, they will be about 28", and a 3-year-old fish will be in the low to mid-30s. 1st year mortality is about 65%, after that about 35% a year.

WDFW plans to manage Sprague as a warmwater fishery, primarily bass and crappie. When they treated it in October, lots of stunted crappie were in there. WDFW plans to eventually put tiger muskies in Sprague, which may help the lake grow bigger crappies by keeping the population in check.

The Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation may build 3 more irrigation storage reservoirs, each the size of Banks Lake, in eastern Washington. The top sites being considered are near Prosser, on Crab Creek east of Potholes, and Hawk Creek on Lake Roosevelt.

[reelinanrockin]

Billy clapp lake and banks lake are loaded up with carp too...put some of those tigers in there too.

[Dr Hook]

I got a chance to see the comments on the proposed change to the minimum size limit. There were several comments in support (to all of you who submitted these comments, thank you), and two against. The names of the commenters were deleted, but one of them consisted of arguments very similar to those posted on this board by our good friend Dr. Hook. The other obviously was from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and stated the Service's official position.

Thanks for trying to give me credit, but I have to disappoint you. I never made a comment on the rule change. It just didn't seem important enough to me.

[Don Wittenberger]

Thanks for clarifying that, Dr. Hook.

[YellowBear]

A new Ohio state record Tiger Muskie has been certified by the Outdoor Writers of Ohio State Record Fish Committee on May 16th, 2006

A new state record Tiger weighing 31.64 pounds from Turkeyfoot Lake on April 28.
This fish was 47 inches long. The new record replaces the old one which was 31.5 pounds and was also caught of of Turkeyfoot, April 22 1999.

The Ohio Division of Wildlife District Three Fisheries Supervisor, Phil Hillman identified the catch.
Hillman also noted that Turkeyfoot Lake has not been stocked with Tigers since 1985, thereby making the record
21 years old.

Kind of a scary thought.