Northwest Fishing Reports

Due to budget cuts and a Governor's Executive Order, WDFW isn't inviting the public to submit rule proposals this year, and is proposing only a minimal number of rule changes of its own. These two are of interest to the musky/pike angling community:

#1. Northern Pike Classification

Proposal: Removes northern pike from being designated as a game fish and retains the designation as a prohibited species.

Explanation: Currently, northern pike (Esox lucius) is listed as both a game fish and as a prohibited species. Northern pike have expanded greatly in numbers and distribution in the northeast section of Washington. Their position as an apex predator and prolific spawner creates widespread potential for negative impacts to native and other game species. The potential for their negative impacts, both environmentally and economically, cannot be overstated. Having this species classified as both a game fish and a prohibited species is at cross purposes to our goal of controlling their numbers and distribution. Further, we do want them to inhabit new waters. Removing the northern pike’s designation as a game fish better aligns with the management intent for this species and will not affect the Department’s ability to manage this species and promote their harvest.

#2. Pend Oreille Two Pole Fishery (PenPend Oreille County)

Proposal: Allows for a two pole endorsement on the Pend Oreille River. This will increase the harvest of northern pike and assist with native salmonid recovery.

Explanation: This rule change will result in increased opportunity for harvest of northern pike in Box Canyon and Boundary reservoirs via the use of the two pole endorsement. The increased harvest of northern pike is the result of their abundance increasing dramatically in recent years, resulting in the decreased abundance of native fish and other game fishes in Box Canyon Reservoir. Allowing use of the two pole endorsement to fish these waters should result in increased revenue for the Department.

These two proposals relating to walleye fishing in Lake Roosevelt and the Spokane Arm may also interest some of you:

#12. Roosevelt Lake Walleye

Proposal: Increases the daily limit of walleye in Roosevelt Lake from 8 to 16 fish per day (only 1 over 22” may be retained).

Explanation: This will improve walleye fishing and reduce this species’ predation on trout. The overabundant population of walleye in Roosevelt Lake exhibits a low body condition (many young, skinny walleye). This is a result of reservoir dynamics, consistent large year class recruitment and limited forage. In 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a daily limit of eight walleye (with only one fish over 22”) to reduce the number of small walleye and balance the population. To achieve walleye and trout management objectives, the Department estimated at that time that 75,000 to 100,000 walleye would need to be caught and removed from Roosevelt Lake annually. Between 2007 and 2009 the average number of walleye harvested annually was just under 40,000 fish. Current fishing effort has not been sufficient to achieve the intended level of harvest. To be effective, current modeling suggests the number of walleye harvested annually will need to more than double.

#13. Lower Spokane River 2-Pole and Kokanee fisheries

Proposal: Allows 2 pole endorsement fishing in the Lower Spokane River from the mouth (SR 25 bridge) to 400’ below Little Falls Dam. Also adds a kokanee fishery that is year round, with no minimum size, a daily limit of 6 fish, and up to two fish with an adipose fin. Provides a walleye fishery from June 1 to March 31 with no minimum size limit and harvest of 16 fish, with no more than 1 fish over 22”.

Explanation: Provides increased opportunity by allowing 2 poles and increased daily limit for walleye. Also maximizes recreational opportunity of hatchery kokanee that are released as mitigation for hydropower construction and operations’ impacts in Lake Roosevelt.

Public meetings on the proposed rules are scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM at the following locations and dates:

Oct. 24 – Aberdeen Log Pavilion, Aberdeen
Oct. 25 – WDFW’s Mill Creek Office, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek
Oct. 26 – WDFW’s Headquarters, 600 Capitol Way N, Room 172, Olympia
Oct. 27 – WDFW’s Spokane Office, 2315 North Discovery Place, Spokane Valley

WDFW also will accept written comments until December 30 at Sportfishing.Rules@dfw.wa.gov[/

Interesting, where did you find this article?

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

You can be put on the WDFW's email list for news of changes and proposals. I get about 2 emails a week and post relevant ones on the site.

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

In reply to the question of where I got this information, I'm one of the 15 members of WDFW's Inland Fisheries Policy Advisory Group (IFPAG), so I'm on WDFW's distribution list and the proposed rules and public meeting schedule were e-mailed to me by WDFW's rules coordinator.

Don just checking to see where the IFPAG members are with the Pike contraversy. I havent heard of any info that has been posted on where they stand on the state changing the status of the Pike or other potential rule changes concerning them(Pike). Is there anyone on the committee that is from the eastside of the state? Thanks

It is "crunch time" in the fight for Northern Pike fishery in Washington . The open meetings have come and gone now and it is time to give our written opinions. What is required here is dedicated, knowledgable, and determined Pike anglers to organize their efforts and passions to put forth the strongest show of support for a sustainable fishery. We need more signed petitions to save the fishery, more impassioned emails. Rest assured gentleman there is work going on through the appropriate channels to further effective resistance to rule changes and eradication practices. It is vitally importent to attend the upcoming Rules Comm. meeting on regulation changes and speak to the common goal of a responsibly managed, quality Northern Pike Fishery. I believe all sides (Anglers, WDFW, Kalispels) can agree on 4 main topics. The pike are impossible to completly remove from the Pend Oreille. The Pike population in the Pend Oreille River needs to managed at resonable levels. Angler pressure alone cannot control todays escalating numbers of pike. Pike could be a threat to salmon and steelhead populations down stream if not managed properly in their current habitate.
Here are the 3 topics which passionate Pike anglers disagree with the Kalispel Tribe and WDFW. The economic impact of the Pend Oreille pike fishery is absolutly important to anglers and communities which it benefits. Current survey/population erradication practices will not result (gill netting of the large pike, leaving the "hammer handles") in a manageable or desirable fishery. Nor will it meet thier goals of population control. The public was promised to be heard and included in a joint effort to establish Northern Pike management goals which achieve a controled, reasonable and desirable fishery. (this has clearly not happened or I would not have to write this).
I do believe the WDFW and Kalispels will find that like the Pike the support for this fishery is not going away anytime soon. In a time of extreme budget cuts for the WDFW you must ask yourself as one of the tax payers, is this project "money well spent"? I believe most will agree it is not. I would like to see my hard earned money spent rearing salmon and steelhead also preserving the vitally importent jobs of those people at WDFW whom (despite some disagreement on this topic) are very much appriciated for thier work.

Northern Pike are currently classified as both a Game Fish and Nonnative Aquatic Species by the WAC code. According to the Nonnative Aquatic Species classification in WAC the harvesting by nature of the written rules is not allowed without permit, permission and an outlined plan for control which is Technically and Economically feasible. Would the average fisherman be able to accomplish that hurdle in order to fish the Pend Oreille River for Pike? For that fact, have all the criteria been meet by the parties currently gill netting the Northern Pike? Current available studies show the Northern Pike have effected the Pumpkin Seed Crappie and Perch population, also nonnative species and have had negligable effect on Native Bulltrout or Westslope Cutthroat. Where is the proof of threat to native species? Are Pike a possible threat to down stream Salmon and Steelhead, you bet! All the more reason to have responsible, effective management plans built on cooperative action between anglers and the WDFW. Gill netting the large fish and leaving the small is counter productive to WDFW"s own goals and is not a proven effective method to long term population control. Lets begin to seperate the "spin tactics" from state law and factual data.

IFPAG has members from all over the state, including eastern Washington. Yesterday's (Nov. 19, 2011) IFPAG meeting in Ephrata was attended by 10 of the 15 members, plus several WDFW staff including Craig Burley (Fish Program manager), Bruce Bolding (warmwater manager), and Charmaine Ashbrook (sport rules process).

WDFW has characterized its proposed redesignation of northern pike from "game fish" to "prohibited species" as a "housekeeping" measure intended to resolve conflicting definitions in the sport fishing rules. I don't think it will have any legal effect on existing sport fishing practices for pike at POR. You will still be able to fish for pike, and to practice C&R if you choose. State law specifcally says anglers are allowed to release "prohibited" species of fish back to the waters they were caught from. But to POR's pike anglers, this proposed rule symbolizes the change in WDFW's attitude toward pike that evolved in response to POR's burgeoning pike population.

To recap, a few years ago WDFW responded to angler requests to manage POR pike as a trophy sport fishery by saying they wanted to conduct field studies before adopting regulations. Since then, WDFW and Kalispell tribal biologists have worked together to gather field data, and WDFW and the tribe now both consider pike an invasive species that pose a threat to native fish. WDFW fish managers say they would like to eradicate POR's pike, but they don't believe that's possible, so their goal is to keep them from spreading to other waters. This mindset is now entrenched at WDFW and won't change in the foreseeable future, so further efforts by sport anglers to get WDFW to manage pike as a sport fishery is tilting at windwills.

At yesterday's meeting, I read the question asked by Yankin Jaw Guide Service's in a comment above to the group, and asked for the other members' response. They all said they support WDFW's pike policy. In private conversation afterward, several told me they like to catch large, exciting fish as much as we do, and it's clear to me they don't want to deprive anyone of their sport fishery. But IFPAG's members have always supported scientific management of our fisheries, and we're all aware of the huge efforts and expenditures being made by federal, state, and local governments and tribes to preserve and restore Washington's declining native fish populations. We don't want these efforts undermined by a non-native fish getting out of control.

Unlike tiger muskies, which are sterile, northern pike can reproduce in the wild. In contrast to tiger muskies, whose population is very small and confined to isolated waters selected by WDFW biologists, northeastern Washington's northern pike are in a river system connected to the Columbia River. They're also prolific reproducers and voracious eaters, so they do pose a threat to native fish, especially if they spread from the POR to other waters. In other states invaded by northern pike, they've tended to take over the lakes and rivers they get into and crowd out other fish species. These systems eventually become overrun with small "hammer handles," and the large pike of interest to sport anglers also get crowded out.

In terms of where we go from here, you'll continue to be able to fish for POR pike, but the state won't protect large pike from harvest. That protection has never existed, so you're not losing anything you ever had as a result of this rule change. The most important thing for anglers to do is not transport these fish to other waters, and to report anyone seen doing that. WDFW will be more inclined to peacefully coexist with POR's pike if we all work together to keep the number of illegal "bucket biology" incidents at zero.

Don,
We all appreciate the time, money and effort you put into going to these IFPG meeting and reporting back the results and I don't want to take away from that appreciation. But as far as the pike community is concerned, we feel the methodology being taken towards the pike is an incorrect one. We in the pike community want what the WDFW want and that is to prevent the migration of northern pike into the columbia river system and other waters and to reduce the smaller pike population in the POR. But why is Washington trying to manage the small pike population so differently than the states that have already lived this problem and developed a successful management practice? For example when states like Minnesota have a small pike problem them enact a protected slot limit on the pike to change the size structure of the population class to a much smaller population of pike but the average size is much bigger often times leading to greater numbers of trophy fish. This is what we in the pike have wanted from the get go and we feel it is a win win for both sides. The pike population gets reduced and the amount of larger fish is increased. To say that not having a protected slot will not change anything as there was never a protected slot in the first place is also incorrect. Back before field studies were conducted the pike fishery was not as well known as it is now. In a recent article published even the Kalispel tribe was highlighting the fact before the pike boom the annual average of angler hours was 4000+. After the pike boom it is 70000+. It is safe to assume that with the increase in pressure, more big pike are being kept as compared to before. To add to that with the gill-net surveys being done annually as compared to before, we believe it is only adding to the small pike problem in the fact that the pike are trying to compensate for the reduction is big spawning females by sexually maturing much earlier in their life and spawning at 1.5-2 years of age rather than 3-5 years of age. Again examples can be drawn from states like Minnesota who have documented this phenomena thus coming to the conclusion that big pike are vulnerable to over harvest and in order to maintain a safe and equal balance, must be protected. We in the pike community will continue to promote and educate the legal and healthy harvest of small northern pike (under 26") as well as promote the catch and release of larger pike (over 26"). We will continue to host tournaments with this in mind and we would like to work with the WDFW, Kalispel Tribe, etc. to help promote this message because we feel it would be far more successful with everybody on the same page rather than on different pages.

The Voice Of The PIke Community

Don it sounds like your saying we as sports fisherman might as well just accept the fact WDFW isnt going to listen to us since they have already made up their minds on this reclassification because its already been well entrentched. I dont agree. I will keep encouraging everyone to contact their state legislators since these legislators seem to be the only ones WDFW has to answer to. We need to make sure these legislators are kept well informed of what is going on. I do agree we need to all work together on this. I would encourage WDFW to allow people in the Pike community that are well informed to work with them.

Hello Don,

First I want to say that I appreciate you keeping the Pike Community informed of what is going on with the Pike matters with the Pend Oreille River. I only hope that at some point the WDWF along with the Kalispel Tribe will take a look at some of the concerns the Pike community has and consider other options other than Gill Netting and Electroshocking. Growing up fishing the Chippewa Flowage in Hayward, Wisconsin for the past 20+ years I have seen first hand how a Pike problem can consume a fishery and what was done to control it so that it could be a better fishery for everyone with regards to all warm water fish. Back in the 70's the Chippewa Flowage began to see the first signs of Northern Pike which originally were not native to the Chippewa Flowage, by the 80's the numbers were steadily increasing and beginning to show signs of overpopulation. I can personally attest to this, because in the 80's the Fishing was still great on the "Chip" but it was slowly declining to the point where all you could catch beginning in the early 90's was "Hammer Handles." When the fishery began to decline at such a high rate the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency began to take action with the help of the Wisconsin DNR. In 1999 the CFJA along with the DNR conducted a report and found that the Northern Pike was estimated to be at 4.2 Pike per acre in comparison to Muskie which was estimated to be at 0.5 per acre while other native species were estimated to be right around average at best per acre. The real problem began after a very harsh winter in 1999 when it was realized after ice out that the majority of larger fish, including Northern Pike, Muskie and Walleye had been killed off due to a lack of oxygen. The problem was that the leftover Northern Pike that did make it thru that winter began to slowly take over thru the next few years and by 2005 they were estimated to have doubled in numbers while the other native fish were being overrun by them. The other major problem was that there was no other major size fish to help keep them in check. This is when the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency stepped back in and decided to do a major fishery overhaul and restock the "Chip." In doing this they saved the Chippewa Flowage because what they found out was that the Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass that were stocked that year began to eat the Juvenile Pike, but unfortunately the Largemouth Bass also began eating the juvenile Walleye as well so it took a major toll on that fishery. However the Muskie fishery flourished tremendously over the next few years because the numbers of Northern Pike had decreased giving the Muskie a chance to grow and balance out the fishery. The other plus was that as the Muskie grew they also helped keep the "Hammer Handles" in check giving the bigger Pike the opportunity to grow and flourish as well. With all of these measures put into place by the Chippewa Flowage Joint Agency and the DNR the Chippewa Flowage has become a phenomenal fishery once again and is beginning to show signs of getting back to what it once was. Another plus is that back last year in 2010 the CFJA stocked 13,000 new juvenile Walleyes between 7 to 9 inches in hopes that this will help to spark a successful Walleye Fishery for the future of the Chippewa Flowage. The key in all of this was that the DNR and the CFJA were willing to listen to the fishing community and were willing to take an open approach to the problem to do whatever it took to make things work for everyone. Since this, both Wisconsin and Minnesota have began using the same approach and have been extremely successful and now both States are beginning to see much larger size fish and more manageable numbers. I personally believe that if the WDFW and the Kalispel Tribe took a lesson from these situations and were more open to really considering other options they may be able to control the problem with the Pike on the Pend Oreille River more successfully. I can tell you this, if the WDFW and the Kalispel Tribe were willing to ask for help from the Pike community within Washington and Idaho I would almost assure you they all would be willing to do there part in keeping the Pend Oreille a manageable fishery. However nobody in the Pike community wants to kill off or slaughter the Pike species in the way that the Kalispel is asking the Pike community to do. We all are willing to harvest our fair share, but we do not want to help with eradicating the Pike. Over the past 20+ years I have seen the exact same attitudes from people growing up in Wisconsin, but after becoming educated on how to manage the Northern Pike, people around me, including myself began to realize just how important and enjoyable the Pike can be for a fishery. One idea that I think may be a good option for the Pend Oreille River is to stock it with a large amount of mature Largemouth Bass, a few Smallmouth Bass and maybe even some Tiger Muskies to help balance things out so that no fish can overtake the other. If there is one thing that is working back in the Mid-West it is the continual annual stocking of both Muskie and Tiger Muskie along with native species of fish which is helping to keep the Northern Pike population in manageable numbers. The biggest plus is that the Mid-West is beginning to see much bigger sizes with Northern Pike and Muskie and they are starting to realize that all these fish can coexist with each other without destroying the other. Hopefully one day the WDFW and the Kalispel will take this into consideration and look at other options to make the fishing for everyone better. Power to the Pike!

Nate "The Pike Baron"
Power In Knowing Esox PIKE