No limit-walleye and bass

[Sharphook]

I understand that the ODFW is thinking of taking the limits off walleye and bass to save the salmon. Concerned fishermen and fisherwomen might want to e-mail the ODFW and give them your thoughts on this matter. Write to Roy Elicker odfw.info@state.or.us and express your opinion.

[fishinjay]

That makes zero sense to do that to the walleye. Walleye do not feed on salmon smolts, ODFW themselfes confirmed this in the mid 90s when researching the matter. They electro shocked below dams and found walleye had near zero salmon smolts inside them. And that is even below the dams where smolts get shoped up by turbines and become food for everything. Walleye feed on carp, *********, suchers, and chub. That is what the ODFW found in there research. Walleye are a lazy predator and only feed on or near the bottom. salmon smolt are fast on stay near the surface. Since walleye feed on squafish one might think that as a benefit for the salmon, but alot of "SALMON ANGLERS" are just looking for excuses and other things to place blame on instead of educating themselfes on the matter. And thats why you here alot of salmon anglers whining about other fish eating all there salmon, but nobody ever says "what about all the salmon anglers" dont they keep every single fish they catch. Yes they do. I even have witnessed guys keeping wild fish here and there using the excuse of "I been out here all day and deserve to take home a fish". Or my favorite is ODFW is not doing a good enough job putting enough salmon in the rivers", yes i actually heard a salmon angler say that. Face it guys and gals, if you keep every salmon you catch there going to go away. Walleye and bass are not the problems, overharvesting can be a problem.

Now please dont flame me about the walleye facts until you research it yourself. The WDFW also knows that walleye are not a threat to salmon. And considers them a game fish and wants to lower the limit on the columbia, so maybe that will help since its a shared body of water between the two states.

[bw22]

jerlj3brqjrem

[hooksetter1]

Originally Posted by fishinjay

That makes zero sense to do that to the walleye. Walleye do not feed on salmon smolts, ODFW themselfes confirmed this in the mid 90s when researching the matter. They electro shocked below dams and found walleye had near zero salmon smolts inside them. And that is even below the dams where smolts get shoped up by turbines and become food for everything. Walleye feed on carp, *********, suchers, and chub. That is what the ODFW found in there research. Walleye are a lazy predator and only feed on or near the bottom. salmon smolt are fast on stay near the surface. Since walleye feed on squafish one might think that as a benefit for the salmon, but alot of "SALMON ANGLERS" are just looking for excuses and other things to place blame on instead of educating themselfes on the matter. And thats why you here alot of salmon anglers whining about other fish eating all there salmon, but nobody ever says "what about all the salmon anglers" dont they keep every single fish they catch. Yes they do. I even have witnessed guys keeping wild fish here and there using the excuse of "I been out here all day and deserve to take home a fish". Or my favorite is ODFW is not doing a good enough job putting enough salmon in the rivers", yes i actually heard a salmon angler say that. Face it guys and gals, if you keep every salmon you catch there going to go away. Walleye and bass are not the problems, overharvesting can be a problem.

Now please dont flame me about the walleye facts until you research it yourself. The WDFW also knows that walleye are not a threat to salmon. And considers them a game fish and wants to lower the limit on the columbia, so maybe that will help since its a shared body of water between the two states.

A little cynical, but understandable. I'd agree that Walleye aren't a significant problem, but there's no denying that smallmouth are. It's been seen on the Umpqua and the Columbia that smallies engorge themselves on smolts, many more in fact than the average fisherman takes home in a season. I'd argue the number probably is larger than the number of salmon caught in total on a given body of water. But larger than these issues is that of habitat, and our invasion of it. Unless we can make more strides in this direction, such as the removal of Marmot Dam that took place or the proposed removal of those on the Klamath, Rogue and upper Snake, even removing introduced species won't be enough.

[QH's Paw]

Originally Posted by bw22

jerlj3brqjrem

Huh?

[Damon]

I could be confused on the walleye part. But, if I understand the regulations correctly, there is no limit on walleye except in the "Columbia River Zone". But really with walleye I don't think over fishing is a concern. Bass, Now that's a different story. No limit would be completely ridiculous. I've lived in Oregon all my life, and I've never known ODFW to be concerned about managing warmwater fish. Even though they are slowly expanding everywhere. That may be a bad thing but at some point it will have to be excepted!

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by hooksetter1

It's been seen on the Umpqua and the Columbia that smallies engorge themselves on smolts, many more in fact than the average fisherman takes home in a season.

Please educate me on this. most often salmon smolts are reared in colder water than smallies generally inhabit.

Therefore the smallies must wait for the smolt to migrate toward the ocean. Do the smolt do this when smallies are active.

If Smallies fed so actively on smolt, I think you would see absolute anihalation on Rivers like the snake and grande Ronde.

Those smolt have so far to go through Smally infested waters, yet I seem to hook into a few wild steelhead every year.


I'm not so naive as to believe that Smolts arent predated upon every once in a while, but given the numbers of smallies from the Snake to the Ocean,...I can't believe its a significant source of nutrition in any way shape or form. If it was.....Steelhead would be wiped out.

[Hunt'nFish]

Well I can tell ya I've seen a impact on the walleye #'s after they went from 5 fish to a 10 fish limit.
You used to be able to go out and pick up a few every trip.....not so any more.
Has this reduction in walleye 3's had a positive impact on salmon returns?....no.
I personally don't think walleye & smallmouth are major factors. All I see in them are shad fry, peamouths and crawdads.

All I ask is that decisions be based on science, not knee jerk reactions to salmon huggers and ODFW politicians wanting to APPEAR to be doing something.
Show us the data to justify the decision and I'll support it.
IMO, the walleye & smallmouth, although not native, represent as big a fishery as salmon & steelhead.
AND I don't have to call a 1-800 # every morning to find out if I can fish or not.
Hunt'nFish

[hooksetter1]

Originally Posted by raptorschild

Please educate me on this. most often salmon smolts are reared in colder water than smallies generally inhabit.

Therefore the smallies must wait for the smolt to migrate toward the ocean. Do the smolt do this when smallies are active.

If Smallies fed so actively on smolt, I think you would see absolute anihalation on Rivers like the snake and grande Ronde.

Those smolt have so far to go through Smally infested waters, yet I seem to hook into a few wild steelhead every year.


I'm not so naive as to believe that Smolts arent predated upon every once in a while, but given the numbers of smallies from the Snake to the Ocean,...I can't believe its a significant source of nutrition in any way shape or form. If it was.....Steelhead would be wiped out.

Here's some numbers and a study from the DFW, pretty astounding.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=9&gl=us

Also, one can deduce that predation is an issue from the lures people are using/recommend using, which has a focus on juvenile samlmon/steelhead imitations.

[STGRule]

I worked on the original Predator-Prey study in the Columbia in the 1980's.

I'm having trouble with your assertions. At that time we found that walleye ate more smolt per fish than any other predator. The fact that there were so few of them then meant that the cumulative loss was small compared to other species. That consumption rate may or may not still stand, but to say that walleye don't eat salmonid smolts is naive.

ANY exotic disrupts the food chain for native species in any water body whether they compete directly or indirectly.

A more liberal take policy is unlikely to impact real population numbers. Those that take and keep isn't likely to change much. But to say that walleye have no impact on salmonids is just not true.

Many years ago WDFW and ODFW went round and round about walleye fishing. WDFW staff was advocating to make walleye a trophy fishery and ODFW was advocating for liberal takes. WDFW pushed a political agenda as opposed to a biological agenda. The decision to make walleye a trophy fishery had nothing at all to do with biology.

Originally Posted by fishinjay

That makes zero sense to do that to the walleye. Walleye do not feed on salmon smolts, ODFW themselfes confirmed this in the mid 90s when researching the matter. They electro shocked below dams and found walleye had near zero salmon smolts inside them. And that is even below the dams where smolts get shoped up by turbines and become food for everything. Walleye feed on carp, *********, suchers, and chub. That is what the ODFW found in there research. Walleye are a lazy predator and only feed on or near the bottom. salmon smolt are fast on stay near the surface. Since walleye feed on squafish one might think that as a benefit for the salmon, but alot of "SALMON ANGLERS" are just looking for excuses and other things to place blame on instead of educating themselfes on the matter. And thats why you here alot of salmon anglers whining about other fish eating all there salmon, but nobody ever says "what about all the salmon anglers" dont they keep every single fish they catch. Yes they do. I even have witnessed guys keeping wild fish here and there using the excuse of "I been out here all day and deserve to take home a fish". Or my favorite is " ODFW is not doing a good enough job putting enough salmon in the rivers", yes i actually heard a salmon angler say that. Face it guys and gals, if you keep every salmon you catch there going to go away. Walleye and bass are not the problems, overharvesting can be a problem.

Now please dont flame me about the walleye facts until you research it yourself. The WDFW also knows that walleye are not a threat to salmon. And considers them a game fish and wants to lower the limit on the columbia, so maybe that will help since its a shared body of water between the two states.

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by hooksetter1

Here's some numbers and a study from the DFW, pretty astounding.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=9&gl=us

Also, one can deduce that predation is an issue from the lures people are using/recommend using, which has a focus on juvenile samlmon/steelhead imitations.

The study you linked says that Smallmouth Bass account for 4% of salmoid predation, and that in fact CATFISH are a 7-8 times larger problem.

If you really think that Smallmouth are a significant reason for the decline of Salmon....look no further than this study that you linked.

Again....If smallmouth were the salmon killers people make them to be.....not a wild steelhead would EVER make it to the ocean from the. Snake River system....EVER!!!!!!! yet they do.

As for your assessment that because people use Trout imititations as bait that somehow equates to smallmouth as major contributors...is just kinda silly.

One can quickly summize that the imititations mimick dieing, or struggling fish...the kind that will die anyway from many different predators or on their own. Healthy smolt, and fisherman presentations are two INCREDIBLY different deals. ie....real fish hide, and can do things bait fish can't.....thats the reason smallies eat them...because they appear injured.

Also....you'll find that most effective smallmouth fisherman use imititations that represent lizards, or crawfish much more often than rainbow trout imititations....Thats because Smallmouth feed more often on those types of forage. Pretty simple really. Largemouth on the other hand seem to enjoy rainbow colored smimbaits...but lucky for us they arent that prevalent in the Columbia/snake river drainages.

Not sayin Smallies don't feed on some smolt....they do....its just that Smallmouth arent the issue with declining salmon/steelhead. simple as that.

[walleye one]

I am a walleye guide from eastern oregon. I would love to see a report on how the walleye impact salmon and steelhead smolt. I have tryed to get a report from odfw warmwater managers and they keep telling me they are going to give me a copy, then I never recieve it. All I hear about is how devistating they are to smolt. Well it would sure have to be proven to me. Now Im' hearing that small smolt dont have a float blatter and they sink to the bottom were walleye are slautering them, give me a break. I do believe that a very small part of a walleyes diet is smolt, but only in early spring before any other spawn has occured. I have done my own studys on the fish that my clients and I have caught and it would suprise you to know that the number one fish found in there stomach by me is, (Walleye) ten to one over any other fish. I catch close to six hundred walleye a year I turn everything over 8#s loose and fish under 16 inches I turn loose. The ones I clean about four hundred other than finding a few smolt in them in early spring almost never a smolt. If you dont believe that I would love to see your study. After all we paid for it. I think that we should quit picking on fisherys that are bringing revenue to the state of oregon and start working on the real problems. In the last five years alone I have seen the numbers of Pelicans Turns and Comarants in my area Umatilla to Boardman (three mile) area go from a couple hundred birds to thousands. I could go on all night about the problems to are salmon fishery and walleye and bass would still be way down at the bottom of the list. Walleye and bass are not the problem. It should be five walleye like it used to be 18 to 24 inches one fish over 32 inches for a trophy. I think it should be managed for a trophy fishery. Leave the bass limit how it is, but thats my opionian. Bob Roberts Columbia Basin Guide Service
PS: I am and always will be a die hard Salmon and Steelhead fisherman From growing up on the Johnday and Deschutes rivers to Astoria and Tillimook.Theres nothing I love more. so I am truly on the side of Slime Rockets. We need to fix the problem

[wapiteaser]

plain and simple, they are both non-native fish. Both have an impact on salmon and steelhead runs. Dollar wise, salmon and steelhead are a million to one over walleye and bass. you couldn't fish these two species out of the CR if you tried. Increasing the limit would not be noticeable. One of the main problems with the salmon runs in the John Day are the smallmouth. It is a race to see who catches the last game fish in the river.

[1bigfish]

Originally Posted by hooksetter1

Also, one can deduce that predation is an issue from the lures people are using/recommend using, which has a focus on juvenile samlmon/steelhead imitations.

As raptorschild pointed out salmon/steelhead lures are not the first choise of lures by those that have been around bass fishing for years. Second and even more important is that these lures you speak of are used in bodies of water all around the US and even in Japan. Most of these lake have never had salmon/steelhead/trout in them so why are the fish still biting these lures? Third and last most of these lures that people assume to be STS imitation are actually shad imitation(just look at a Bass Pro Shops catalog and pay attention to the name of the colors)

Originally Posted by STGRule

A more liberal take policy is unlikely to impact real population numbers. Those that take and keep isn't likely to change much.

That is not true at all. If there was any truth to that statement then there would be no reason to even change the policy. Why change the policy if it "is unlikely to impact real population numbers."

Originally Posted by wapiteaser

Increasing the limit would not be noticeable.

See above reply

Originally Posted by wapiteaser

...walleye and bass. you couldn't fish these two species out of the CR if you tried. It is a race to see who catches the last game fish in the river.

If you couldn't fish these two species out the there is no worry about catching the last game fish. Bass & Walleye are both gamefish.

And lets not forget the rules of this board.


Welcome to the Bass and Panfish Board!

This is not the place for having "invasive species" discussions, as this is not the intent of this forum. In this same light, going over to the main Community board and jumping on others who do not agree with bass fishing as a sport is also not acceptable. In the end we all must agree to disagree and go about our lives. In the end, we are all here to talk fishing, which includes techniques, methods, reports, and anything else that helps us catch fish. If you cannot abide by these rules, then we ask that you find other waters in which you can wet your line.

Ifish Management
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=202150

[hooksetter1]

[/quote]
And lets not forget the rules of this board.


Welcome to the Bass and Panfish Board!

This is not the place for having "invasive species" discussions, as this is not the intent of this forum.

Ifish Management
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=202150[/quote]

Point taken.

[Jennie@ifish]

I was reading through this and wondering about that point.
I'm going to leave this discussion here, as there are some interesting points and corrections. However, I'm going to have to close it, even though it's not going as badly as some.
We DID ask that we not have invasive species arguments/discussions, so I'm closing this thread.
Sorry,
Jen