Sprague
Forum rules
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information.
Forum Post Guidelines: This Forum is rated “Family Friendly”. Civil discussions are encouraged and welcomed. Name calling, negative, harassing, or threatening comments will be removed and may result in suspension or IP Ban without notice. Please refer to the Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines post for more information.
-
zen leecher aka Bill W
- Captain
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:51 pm
- Location: Moses Lake
RE:Sprague
Walleye fishing is a little slow.
RE:Sprague
you don't say... 
RE:Sprague
Taken directly from today's Spokesman Review paper online;
"Sprague Lake has had an algae bloom, but trout fishing remains good, particularly over the springs near Sprague Lake Resort. Despite the heat and shallow water, Sprague Lake trout are in excellent shape, and their red flesh is excellent eating. Small trout are 11 inches, but the average is 14 inches."
Me personally I will be ice fishing there this winter for the trout, but I have no plans to fish any earlier.
"Sprague Lake has had an algae bloom, but trout fishing remains good, particularly over the springs near Sprague Lake Resort. Despite the heat and shallow water, Sprague Lake trout are in excellent shape, and their red flesh is excellent eating. Small trout are 11 inches, but the average is 14 inches."
Me personally I will be ice fishing there this winter for the trout, but I have no plans to fish any earlier.
-
Anglinarcher
- Admiral
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 1:28 pm
- Location: Eastern Washington
RE:Sprague
I have seen the Bass, and Crappie, that they put in there. I doubt that they were put in early enough to spawn this year, and there were not nearly enough to be worth fishing for now, but it was good seed stock. Considering the numbers and size, I'd expect 6 or 7 years before we start to call it a good warm water fishery.
Of course the trout are in there.
The rest, well, for me, is hear say, so I'll stop there.
Of course the trout are in there.
The rest, well, for me, is hear say, so I'll stop there.
Too much water, so many fish, too little time.
RE:Sprague
It was my understanding that walleye were not part of the long term plan and were one of the reason the lake was killed off, too many predators and not enough bait. Below is a statement straight off the WDFW website regarding Sprague Lake.
"The trout plantings are necessary after the 1,840-acre lake, which is alongside Interstate 90 in eastern Washington's Adams and Lincoln counties, was treated with rotenone in October to rehabilitate a declining sport fishery. Carp, tench, walleye and other species were removed after the lake was treated with rotenone, a naturally occurring substance derived from the roots of tropical plants that kills fish but does not hurt people, pets, livestock or wildlife.
The first fish we're putting back in Sprague Lake are catchable-size rainbow trout from our hatcheries, said Chris Donley, WDFW district fish biologist. Later this spring, we'll stock crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass and channel catfish that will take a few years to grow and reproduce.
Overall, WDFW will stock about 160,000 catchable-size rainbow trout, including about 3,200 triploid trout that weigh up to 1.5 pounds each, in Sprague Lake over the next two months. Cow Lake, which is part of the Sprague Lake watershed, also was treated with rotenone last fall and will be stocked with about 6,000 rainbow trout.
Approximately 200,000 rainbow trout fingerlings and 80,000 cutthroat trout fingerlings also will be stocked in the Sprague Lake watershed to support future trout fisheries, said Donley.
Later this spring, largemouth bass, bluegill and crappie will be stocked in Sprague Lake. WDFW also will return about 4,000 black crappie and at least 60 channel catfish that were collected from Sprague Lake before last fall's treatment."
As it's such a shallow lake, I wouldn't fish it until Late October or November when the trout lose that muddy taste they pick up in the summer months. I don't understand the WDFW line of thinking, a shallow Eastern Washington lake is not the best choice for planting trout and should be a Spiny Ray and Muskie lake all the way!
"The trout plantings are necessary after the 1,840-acre lake, which is alongside Interstate 90 in eastern Washington's Adams and Lincoln counties, was treated with rotenone in October to rehabilitate a declining sport fishery. Carp, tench, walleye and other species were removed after the lake was treated with rotenone, a naturally occurring substance derived from the roots of tropical plants that kills fish but does not hurt people, pets, livestock or wildlife.
The first fish we're putting back in Sprague Lake are catchable-size rainbow trout from our hatcheries, said Chris Donley, WDFW district fish biologist. Later this spring, we'll stock crappie, bluegill, largemouth bass and channel catfish that will take a few years to grow and reproduce.
Overall, WDFW will stock about 160,000 catchable-size rainbow trout, including about 3,200 triploid trout that weigh up to 1.5 pounds each, in Sprague Lake over the next two months. Cow Lake, which is part of the Sprague Lake watershed, also was treated with rotenone last fall and will be stocked with about 6,000 rainbow trout.
Approximately 200,000 rainbow trout fingerlings and 80,000 cutthroat trout fingerlings also will be stocked in the Sprague Lake watershed to support future trout fisheries, said Donley.
Later this spring, largemouth bass, bluegill and crappie will be stocked in Sprague Lake. WDFW also will return about 4,000 black crappie and at least 60 channel catfish that were collected from Sprague Lake before last fall's treatment."
As it's such a shallow lake, I wouldn't fish it until Late October or November when the trout lose that muddy taste they pick up in the summer months. I don't understand the WDFW line of thinking, a shallow Eastern Washington lake is not the best choice for planting trout and should be a Spiny Ray and Muskie lake all the way!
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Gringo Pescador
- Moderator
- Posts: 2564
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:35 am
RE:Sprague
No opinions, no personal experience with Sprague, just read this and thought I'd put it out here..
From the WDFW Weekender Report for Sept 3-16...
"Donley reminded trout anglers that Sprague Lake is in excellent shape now, with water temperatures down, algae growth dying, water clarity good and early fall hatches of insects drawing fat rainbows to the surface. "
From the WDFW Weekender Report for Sept 3-16...
"Donley reminded trout anglers that Sprague Lake is in excellent shape now, with water temperatures down, algae growth dying, water clarity good and early fall hatches of insects drawing fat rainbows to the surface. "
I fish not because I regard fishing as being terribly important, but because I suspect that so many of the other concerns of men are equally unimportant, and not nearly so much fun. ~ John Volker
-
Jake Dogfish
- Commander
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:58 pm
- Location: Des Moines
RE:Sprague
I agree with you G-Man.
I just don't understand there thinking. Why does every lake have to have trout and bass in it?
How long will it take for the fish that were "removed" to come back?
I doubt they even left... What a waste of tax dollars and the limited fishing budget. Oh well, they can always close another Steelhead or Salmon hatchery.](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
I just don't understand there thinking. Why does every lake have to have trout and bass in it?
How long will it take for the fish that were "removed" to come back?
I doubt they even left... What a waste of tax dollars and the limited fishing budget. Oh well, they can always close another Steelhead or Salmon hatchery.
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RE:Sprague
Folks kind of forget that prior to the first rotenone treatment in 1983 Sprague was full of senile/stunted carp and support only a so-so fishery for bass and panfish. There was relative few man-days of fishing yearly prior to that time. At the treatment the number of 3 to 5 # carp was amazing and the general lack of bass and panfish surprising (yes I was there).
By virtually everyone's accounts the fishery that developed after that first treatment was a dramatic improvement of what was before and over the next 2 decades plus many 10,000s of additional man-days fish was provided. That first treatment was by far the largest and most expensive the State had ever under taken with the long term goal was to produce the mixed species fisheries that many of you apparently enjoyed. As with this treatment trout were used to bridge the fishing gap from the time of the treatment to when the warm water fishing can develop..
Often hear that the State does not do enough for the warm water anglers yet when they do attempt to do so (such as the recent Spague rotenone treatment) they tend to hear nothing but flak. I would have thought that give the success of the 1983 treatment that as the Sprague fishery started its downward slide that there would have been support for or at least a wait a see attitude about another treatment. However I guess I should realize by now that most of us tend not to look past our next trip and not down the road - that would seem to apply whether we are talking about lake treatements, ESA recovery, or most other aspects of the complicated world of fisheries management.
Tight lines
Curt
By virtually everyone's accounts the fishery that developed after that first treatment was a dramatic improvement of what was before and over the next 2 decades plus many 10,000s of additional man-days fish was provided. That first treatment was by far the largest and most expensive the State had ever under taken with the long term goal was to produce the mixed species fisheries that many of you apparently enjoyed. As with this treatment trout were used to bridge the fishing gap from the time of the treatment to when the warm water fishing can develop..
Often hear that the State does not do enough for the warm water anglers yet when they do attempt to do so (such as the recent Spague rotenone treatment) they tend to hear nothing but flak. I would have thought that give the success of the 1983 treatment that as the Sprague fishery started its downward slide that there would have been support for or at least a wait a see attitude about another treatment. However I guess I should realize by now that most of us tend not to look past our next trip and not down the road - that would seem to apply whether we are talking about lake treatements, ESA recovery, or most other aspects of the complicated world of fisheries management.
Tight lines
Curt
-
Jake Dogfish
- Commander
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:58 pm
- Location: Des Moines
RE:Sprague
Curt, obviously I am not against an effort to help warmwater fishing. I am just trying to understand the thinking here.
You say the lake was treated 25 years ago and was the largest and most expensive ever.
At what point did the fishery fall off?
Is there any chance at all for the rotenone treatment to eliminate the undesired species completely?
How did the fish get back in there in the first place?
Do you think that a cycle of rotenone and replant every 15-20 years is the best way to manage the lake?
Sounds expensive to me...
You say the lake was treated 25 years ago and was the largest and most expensive ever.
At what point did the fishery fall off?
Is there any chance at all for the rotenone treatment to eliminate the undesired species completely?
How did the fish get back in there in the first place?
Do you think that a cycle of rotenone and replant every 15-20 years is the best way to manage the lake?
Sounds expensive to me...
-
Marc Martyn
- Rear Admiral Two Stars
- Posts: 4100
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:01 am
RE:Sprague
I would like to see it a Pike/Tiger Muskie/Bass lake.
RE:Sprague
Here is how I view the process for Sprague and why I'm not hip to it.
Harvest and retain alive, desirable warm water species from the lake. - I must say this impressed me the first time I read it.
Kill off the lake - I'm OK with this it had a bunch of scrap fish in it that needed to be removed.
Plant the lake with trout - Why, does the State really think they will recoup the costs by selling more licenses for this fishery or do they feel guilty that the resorts on the lake will suffer during the re-hab time?
Re-introduce the desirable species previously harvested and plant more warm water species. - Again, impressed me when I read it.
Continue to plant trout on a regular basis - Why, do the warm water fish need them as forage food? Who in their right mind is going to travel to Sprague to fish for farm raised trout? I guess people who don't know any better.
I don't understand why our state is so obsessed with keeping a lake open for the harvest of farm raised trout. The amount of food that these planted trout will consume while in the lake could really help those other species get off to a much stronger start but I guess that isn't really what's important! What is evidently important is getting more folks fishing a lake and spending their money on licenses and someone figured that it can only be done by offering catchable trout. How many of you run down to Silver Lake in Cowlitz County to fish for trout? In a state where nearly every lake contains trout, what difference is one less going to make? OK, so throw in a few, but 160,000+ get real! They were oh so close with their plan but left out improving the habitat and allowing the lake to re-establish itself though minimal or zero fishing pressure. I personally won't fish a lake that has been re-habbed for a least a year after it is re-stocked. White meated, fin eroded, lethargic fish just don't make my day. Ok, I think I'm done expressing my narrow point of view for now and will turn the stage back over to another.
Not so fast! - I guess my real point is that if the state were to say to us, "We are going to need to shut down Sprague for a few years to make it a top notch warm water fishery." Most of us would say, "Awesome, make it a selective fishery, properly manage it and you've got a deal!" Don't give us the, "you can fish for some trout in the mean time", BS.
Harvest and retain alive, desirable warm water species from the lake. - I must say this impressed me the first time I read it.
Kill off the lake - I'm OK with this it had a bunch of scrap fish in it that needed to be removed.
Plant the lake with trout - Why, does the State really think they will recoup the costs by selling more licenses for this fishery or do they feel guilty that the resorts on the lake will suffer during the re-hab time?
Re-introduce the desirable species previously harvested and plant more warm water species. - Again, impressed me when I read it.
Continue to plant trout on a regular basis - Why, do the warm water fish need them as forage food? Who in their right mind is going to travel to Sprague to fish for farm raised trout? I guess people who don't know any better.
I don't understand why our state is so obsessed with keeping a lake open for the harvest of farm raised trout. The amount of food that these planted trout will consume while in the lake could really help those other species get off to a much stronger start but I guess that isn't really what's important! What is evidently important is getting more folks fishing a lake and spending their money on licenses and someone figured that it can only be done by offering catchable trout. How many of you run down to Silver Lake in Cowlitz County to fish for trout? In a state where nearly every lake contains trout, what difference is one less going to make? OK, so throw in a few, but 160,000+ get real! They were oh so close with their plan but left out improving the habitat and allowing the lake to re-establish itself though minimal or zero fishing pressure. I personally won't fish a lake that has been re-habbed for a least a year after it is re-stocked. White meated, fin eroded, lethargic fish just don't make my day. Ok, I think I'm done expressing my narrow point of view for now and will turn the stage back over to another.
Not so fast! - I guess my real point is that if the state were to say to us, "We are going to need to shut down Sprague for a few years to make it a top notch warm water fishery." Most of us would say, "Awesome, make it a selective fishery, properly manage it and you've got a deal!" Don't give us the, "you can fish for some trout in the mean time", BS.
RE:Sprague
Jake -
Since I do not fish Srague I don't know when it fell off though from reports one hears it sounds as if there was nearly 2 decades of good to excellent fishing following the treatment. When looking at the cost of the treatment over that time period I suspect it was a pretty good value. Just in terms of value of the man-days produced I would not be surprised that the trout fishing the first couple of years following the treatment greatly exceeded the cost of the treatment and the rest of the fishing would essentially be free.
The chances of a complete kill of undesireable species with a rotenone treatment varies some with the species targeted as well the lake themselves. Species that can be more difficult to kill completely inlcude pumpkinseed sunfish, tench, carp, and brown bullheads - though there certianly cases where those species have successfully been eliminated. Lakes with lots of springs, extensive swamps and marsh as well as irrigation waste water inflows can be difficult.
The chances of a complete kill on most lakes is actually quite good. In many cases where the undesireable fish re-appear they do so because of illegal introductions. It is those illegal introductions that are making management expensive and adversely impacts the quality of fishing. An example I'm familar with that illustrates the problem with those illega introductions happen here in Snohomish County. The state decided to treat Blackman's lake which for more than 30 years had been a trout only water. The non-salmonid species that had found their way into the lake at that time were largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and brown bullheads. The was treated with rotenone in the fall of 1980. In the following years there was not the expected benefits from the treatment and it was clear that the was still full of non-salmonids. While many thought the treatment effort had failed to kill the fish the State treated the lake once again in the fall of 1984. That time the species killed beside the trout included largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch , pumpkinseed sunfish, bluegills, fathead minnows, and carp. Notice the one of the hardest to kill - the brown bullhead had been eliminated but there were 3 new species that showed up in that short time period.
Unfortunately the Blackman's example has become the norm and the state in many areas is effective out of the rotenone treatment business. This has greatly increased the cost of producing trout fishing in those lakes. The only way to have a decent fishery is by planting expensive catchable size fish. The question of why trout is a good one and the answer is that many folks like fishing for them and more to the point rainbow trout are by far one of the easiest (dumb?) to catch. Thus they provide a fishery for novice/unskilled anglers which is often how many anglers are introduced to the fishing. This is especially true of the kids. When opening day of lowland lakes was a huge event (more than 3/4 anglers fishing that day) it was common to see 20 to 30% of the anglers being youngsters. Today I do not see anywhere that number of kids on any of our fisheries. The lack of recruiting young folks to the sport in the long run may be the most costly.
Is treating lake the best way to manage a water? No probably not however with folks constantly upsetting the apple cart with illegal introduction treating with rotenone often becomes the best way to maintain any sort of quality fishing. Back when the state managed many small lowland lakes as trout only waters because of the differences in cost between producing that trout fishery by planting small fry (2 to3" fsih that grew in the lake for year to provide 10 to 12 inch fish the following year) and producing that fishery by planitng catchables (the survival of the small fry with faced with competition for a warm water species complex fell to very low levels) it was not uncommon to save more than enough money in fish cost to pay for the treatment in just a couple of years. Treatments as frequently as every 5 or 6 years were cost effective.
G-man -
Interesting ideas. Have you ever taken the time to submit regulation proposals to create the type of management you are suggesting? Every two years the State asks for ideas/proposals from folks for regulation changes. The next opportunity should be next spring.
Tight lines
Curt
Since I do not fish Srague I don't know when it fell off though from reports one hears it sounds as if there was nearly 2 decades of good to excellent fishing following the treatment. When looking at the cost of the treatment over that time period I suspect it was a pretty good value. Just in terms of value of the man-days produced I would not be surprised that the trout fishing the first couple of years following the treatment greatly exceeded the cost of the treatment and the rest of the fishing would essentially be free.
The chances of a complete kill of undesireable species with a rotenone treatment varies some with the species targeted as well the lake themselves. Species that can be more difficult to kill completely inlcude pumpkinseed sunfish, tench, carp, and brown bullheads - though there certianly cases where those species have successfully been eliminated. Lakes with lots of springs, extensive swamps and marsh as well as irrigation waste water inflows can be difficult.
The chances of a complete kill on most lakes is actually quite good. In many cases where the undesireable fish re-appear they do so because of illegal introductions. It is those illegal introductions that are making management expensive and adversely impacts the quality of fishing. An example I'm familar with that illustrates the problem with those illega introductions happen here in Snohomish County. The state decided to treat Blackman's lake which for more than 30 years had been a trout only water. The non-salmonid species that had found their way into the lake at that time were largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish and brown bullheads. The was treated with rotenone in the fall of 1980. In the following years there was not the expected benefits from the treatment and it was clear that the was still full of non-salmonids. While many thought the treatment effort had failed to kill the fish the State treated the lake once again in the fall of 1984. That time the species killed beside the trout included largemouth bass, black crappie, yellow perch , pumpkinseed sunfish, bluegills, fathead minnows, and carp. Notice the one of the hardest to kill - the brown bullhead had been eliminated but there were 3 new species that showed up in that short time period.
Unfortunately the Blackman's example has become the norm and the state in many areas is effective out of the rotenone treatment business. This has greatly increased the cost of producing trout fishing in those lakes. The only way to have a decent fishery is by planting expensive catchable size fish. The question of why trout is a good one and the answer is that many folks like fishing for them and more to the point rainbow trout are by far one of the easiest (dumb?) to catch. Thus they provide a fishery for novice/unskilled anglers which is often how many anglers are introduced to the fishing. This is especially true of the kids. When opening day of lowland lakes was a huge event (more than 3/4 anglers fishing that day) it was common to see 20 to 30% of the anglers being youngsters. Today I do not see anywhere that number of kids on any of our fisheries. The lack of recruiting young folks to the sport in the long run may be the most costly.
Is treating lake the best way to manage a water? No probably not however with folks constantly upsetting the apple cart with illegal introduction treating with rotenone often becomes the best way to maintain any sort of quality fishing. Back when the state managed many small lowland lakes as trout only waters because of the differences in cost between producing that trout fishery by planting small fry (2 to3" fsih that grew in the lake for year to provide 10 to 12 inch fish the following year) and producing that fishery by planitng catchables (the survival of the small fry with faced with competition for a warm water species complex fell to very low levels) it was not uncommon to save more than enough money in fish cost to pay for the treatment in just a couple of years. Treatments as frequently as every 5 or 6 years were cost effective.
G-man -
Interesting ideas. Have you ever taken the time to submit regulation proposals to create the type of management you are suggesting? Every two years the State asks for ideas/proposals from folks for regulation changes. The next opportunity should be next spring.
Tight lines
Curt
RE:Sprague
I'd like to see it how it was! Don't have to drive 2 hours for walleye, 2 hours for monster cats, slow but big crappie fishing, decent bass, and every trout I caught out there was over 2 lbs. The carp have never been a problem for me, they jumped all over but never hooked one while trolling. Been fishing it for i'd say 14 years, been a go to lake. I wouldn't mind some muskies but hey, no sense in thinking of the past, it will never be as good as it was.
-
Anglinarcher
- Admiral
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 1:28 pm
- Location: Eastern Washington
RE:Sprague
Catching the carp was not the problem; carp tear up the bottom and reduce the overall life in a body of water. I suppose in Europe and Asia where they came from it is OK, but only because everyone catches carp for food and reduces the overall numbers and keep them in check.Mossy wrote:I'd like to see it how it was! Don't have to drive 2 hours for walleye, 2 hours for monster cats, slow but big crappie fishing, decent bass, and every trout I caught out there was over 2 lbs. The carp have never been a problem for me, they jumped all over but never hooked one while trolling. Been fishing it for i'd say 14 years, been a go to lake. I wouldn't mind some muskies but hey, no sense in thinking of the past, it will never be as good as it was.
I have to agree with you on most of the rest. It was nice to go there for some different walleye fishing, and I loved those monster cats.
I have hopes for the future, but again, it will take 5 or more years to see the Bass and Crappie get to the numbers and sizes necessary to draw people back. It will take at least that long for the Cats. I suppose that if you are going to subsidize the resorts you had to plant trout back.
Too much water, so many fish, too little time.
-
zen leecher aka Bill W
- Captain
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:51 pm
- Location: Moses Lake
RE:Sprague
my first visit to Sprague was July 1990. We caught big bluegills and largemouths. Walleyes...couldn't keep them off the line. I remember going though my tackle box trying to find something that walleye wouldn't bite on. Never found it. Anyways, that was the beginning of my trips to Sprague.
-
Anglinarcher
- Admiral
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 1:28 pm
- Location: Eastern Washington
RE:Sprague
And Zen, that is why I look forward to the Sprague of the future. I have been very critical of the F&W because they claimed that the walleye was part of the reason the killed the lake. Simply stated, that was a smoke screen.zen leecher aka Bill W wrote:my first visit to Sprague was July 1990. We caught big bluegills and largemouths. Walleyes...couldn't keep them off the line. I remember going though my tackle box trying to find something that walleye wouldn't bite on. Never found it. Anyways, that was the beginning of my trips to Sprague.
I have numerous accounts of the State finding very few Walleye in Sprague, and even the State's own paperwork just three years ago said that Walleye could not spawn in Sprague, so........................ Because they did not allow independent monitoring, we will never know for sure.
Still, as I have also indicated, the Carp were bad, very bad, and what was done was necessary.
And Marc, you will never get Pike in there, but Tigers, Bass, Bluegill, Crappie, sounds like a slice of heaven to me.
Too much water, so many fish, too little time.
RE:Sprague
Good call, I'd love to see a pike lake but doubt I will see that anytime soon,...muskie/bass...sounds good to me:cheers:Marc Martyn wrote:I would like to see it a Pike/Tiger Muskie/Bass lake.
http://www.nwburn.org/
Musky Mayhem Tackle
www.muskymayhemtackle.com
www.petemaina.com
Ken's Custom Lures
Musky Mayhem Tackle
www.muskymayhemtackle.com
www.petemaina.com
Ken's Custom Lures
-
Marc Martyn
- Rear Admiral Two Stars
- Posts: 4100
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:01 am
RE:Sprague
Being from South Dakota, it reminds me so much of the lakes back there. Long, narrow, wind swept and shallow. I have never really understood why some people insist on that being a trout lake. The water gets very warm, and it can't have a thermocline in it because it is so shallow and is also loaded with weeds. To me, that is not a good environment for trout. Yes, there is an abundance of food and they may grow fast. There are so many trout lakes in this state, why not try to make it a premier lake with Tiger Muskies, Bass, Crappie and Walleye.
The locals I have heard are against that. I don't get that. If it was a prime lake for big Muskies, Bass and Walleyes, people would come from all over to fish it. People flock to the midwest and Canada from all over the world for trophy Muskies and Northerns back there.
I will admit, I have lost interest in the WDFW plans for Sprague. They plant trout and a few years later wonder why it isn't doing well. I've seen it before. I for one am not that excited about Sprague Lake.
Oh, and those 3,200 triploid trout that weigh up to 1.5 pounds each, they will be poached by next June:cheers:
The locals I have heard are against that. I don't get that. If it was a prime lake for big Muskies, Bass and Walleyes, people would come from all over to fish it. People flock to the midwest and Canada from all over the world for trophy Muskies and Northerns back there.
I will admit, I have lost interest in the WDFW plans for Sprague. They plant trout and a few years later wonder why it isn't doing well. I've seen it before. I for one am not that excited about Sprague Lake.
Oh, and those 3,200 triploid trout that weigh up to 1.5 pounds each, they will be poached by next June:cheers:
Last edited by Anonymous on Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RE:Sprague
Used to fish there 5 years ago or more from the shore of the second boat launch from the city Sprague. We could limit out on trout in September in couple hours, all were 18 inches plus, except for they had this "muddy" taste to them.
I love this lake for ice fishing, mainly the perch, crappie and occasional trout.
I love this lake for ice fishing, mainly the perch, crappie and occasional trout.