Northwest Fishing Reports

This isn't so much of an update, but really just wanted to post a link to a conversation I had online with the lead biologist from the Yakima Nation tribe regarding the gillnetting of the lake.
I just really wanted to hear from the tribe on what they think about the indiscriminate by-catch of other species of fish, i.e. German Browns, Burbot, even the sockeye that are being re-introduced.
I asked about this in the first question within the thread, but I got a long winded answer that never answered the question. I wrote back and got the lead bio. he was much better about explaining their process.

I know that this will likely not make the matter a good thing still, by many people's thinking, but if you take him at his word it sounds like they have good intentions on preserving at least Burbot, ("And suckers") huh? ya, those are important fish.

It is hard to swallow though hearing that they would pitch large German Browns in with the disposed Macks.
A fellow walakes member caught a 14lb Brown this summer. Such an incredible fish for most of us, but not native.... so out with the trash it goes.

Anyway... https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... nt_mention" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm all in favor of out with the trash. Sounds like they have a good plan.

sickbayer wrote:I'm all in favor of out with the trash. Sounds like they have a good plan.

You realize that means Pretty much everything but Kokes and the Socks the drop in.......

Yes I do. Best part about fishing for macks is the lake, beer and cigars. Never fished for the browns so I ain't gonna miss them. Macks have massive appetite so maybe we will see bigger rainbows and socks over the next few years.

sickbayer wrote:Yes I do. Best part about fishing for macks is the lake, beer and cigars. Never fished for the browns so I ain't gonna miss them. Macks have massive appetite so maybe we will see bigger rainbows and socks over the next few years.

Rainbows will go too. Everything but the lucky burbots and suckers. Really bad program imo. I don't see a fish ladder going in. By the time they're done they screw up everything all the way to the Columbia before they might get a run if 3 to 5 pound sockeyes doing anything. This isn't about kokes.

More of our license money ruining who knows how many viable fisheries for yet another tribe that ecology is the last thing on their mind. Think the Skok. all the way from the Columbia all the way to Snoqualmie Pass. This can only turn out bad. You will never fish Cle Elum again.

Well if that is the case so be it I ain't fished it for two years now. I'm all for hatcheries' and all for native fish.

sickbayer wrote:Well if that is the case so be it I ain't fished it for two years now. I'm all for hatcheries' and all for native fish.

AAAaaaaa.........considering all that has happened in just the last few years.... that makes no sense... pro wild fish equals fewer hatchery fish and less angler opportunity period. You'll have to figure it out on your own, I'm not holding your hand. You can't be in both camps. It's either one or the other.... unless ya just don't give a ****.

Mark I meant native species' in that body of water. So I was saying I'm all for hatcheries that are producing sockeye,kings and silvers that get dumped in lake Cle elm or anybody of water they belong. The Indians wont be using the same method we are all so pissed off about.

What is occurring, IMO, is a systematic reduction of license buying angler opportunity of what was traditional fisheries for those anglers fishing their particular waters. I never fished the Pend Oreille River, but those anglers were wronged. I've fished Roosevelt and caught walleye, but never in the arm, those anglers were wronged. I'm not a steel head guy but those PS winter anglers were wronged. Several rivers have gone to natural salmon production only, the anglers that either fished those rivers or would have caught those salmon while approaching those rivers were wronged. I remember fishing the White and Chiwawa rivers decades ago, closed permanently today. Now, the anglers who traditionally fished Cle Elum are losing their fishery. While there is very little I can do about it, I do care about their loss "EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT AFFECT MY FISHERY" !!!!YET!!!! or this time... Another decision of wildlife management is being made because of preferential treatment to a particular race, whether it's from fear, negotiation tactic or political correctness.... it's just wrong. PS, I've never fished Cle Elum either but I care about those who do.

Burbot are native to Cle Elum lake and are being trapped in the gill nets along with all of the other species found in the lake. Burbot,like walleye and perch, are physoclists which mean they can't expel air from their air bladders when brought up from the deep and suffer barotrauma. The agency gill netting the lake are "fizzing" the burbot and then dropping them back in the lake. The links below discuss the problems with "fizzing." The WDFW outlawed the use of set lines in 2006 for burbot because burbot are at high risk for over harvest R/T to slow growth, advanced age at sexual maturity, occurrence in few locations, and their high trophic position (see link). How did we go from outlawing set lines in 2006 to promoting gill nets in Cle Elum lake today? Also, one of the links shows that Washington does not advocate "fizzing." Links:

http://outdoorcanada.ca/10516/fishing/t ... -save-them" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.rockymountainanglers.com/ima ... niques.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/document ... oc=P121540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has particular
concern for the state’s burbot stocks due to the potential for over harvest. Burbot are at
high risk for over harvest because of slow growth, advanced age at sexual maturity,
occurrence in few locations, and their high trophic position (Bonar et al. 1997; Bonar et
al. 2000a). Without adequate stock assessment data, Washington’s burbot populations
will likely be managed conservatively. More conservative angling regulations restricting
the use of setlines for burbot were instituted in 2006.

buzzbob wrote:Burbot are native to Cle Elum lake and are being trapped in the gill nets along with all of the other species found in the lake. Burbot,like walleye and perch, are physoclists which mean they can't expel air from their air bladders when brought up from the deep and suffer barotrauma. The agency gill netting the lake are "fizzing" the burbot and then dropping them back in the lake. The links below discuss the problems with "fizzing." The WDFW outlawed the use of set lines in 2006 for burbot because burbot are at high risk for over harvest R/T to slow growth, advanced age at sexual maturity, occurrence in few locations, and their high trophic position (see link). How did we go from outlawing set lines in 2006 to promoting gill nets in Cle Elum lake today? Also, one of the links shows that Washington does not advocate "fizzing." Links:

http://outdoorcanada.ca/10516/fishing/t ... -save-them" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.rockymountainanglers.com/ima ... niques.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/document ... oc=P121540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has particular
concern for the state’s burbot stocks due to the potential for over harvest. Burbot are at
high risk for over harvest because of slow growth, advanced age at sexual maturity,
occurrence in few locations, and their high trophic position (Bonar et al. 1997; Bonar et
al. 2000a). Without adequate stock assessment data, Washington’s burbot populations
will likely be managed conservatively. More conservative angling regulations restricting
the use of setlines for burbot were instituted in 2006.

Because tribal interests trump the state.

+1..... More than once I've seen the tribes decide to start a new fishery only to get bored with it and fail part way through. At this point Cle Elum is s self sustaining fishery, granted they're non native but it's been working for nearly 100 years. How long do they have to live there to be native? All I can see is another ruined fishery. Thanks again WDFW!

For those interested in the early 80's the Lumis started a Coho aqua culture to raise sell the fish. Got bored with it and released a million plus cohos that were never going to migrate into Puget Sound. Sounds great? Not so much as the fish will never grow bigger than 4 pounds. Many have found new places to spawn.

I talked with one of the Bio Boys at the launch the other day.
He told me flat out that the WDFW's plan was to bring back native speces to our waters.
When I pointed out that the WDFW was stocking NON Native Trout he could not get away fast enough.

Here is an update an Cle Elum lake mackinaw removal. According to the tribe's biologist, only 50 lake trout were removed this fall and largest was only 12 lbs. There is also a WDFW proposal, #21, that, if approved, is going to lift the limit on lake, brown, and brook trout on Cle Elum and impose a slot limit/restriction on the kokanee limit. Also, proposal #23, if approved, will restrict the kokanee limit in both Kachees and Keechelus.

namaycush wrote:Here is an update an Cle Elum lake mackinaw removal. According to the tribe's biologist, only 50 lake trout were removed this fall and largest was only 12 lbs.

50??
Did they do away with the gill nets, and switch to single rod jigging?

That is hilarious, I appreciate your dry sense of humor, but I think Cle Elum is a 2 rod lake.

The kokanee slot limit is an annual thing to protect the sockeye run they are trying to establish.

namaycush wrote:Here is an update an Cle Elum lake mackinaw removal. According to the tribe's biologist, only 50 lake trout were removed this fall and largest was only 12 lbs.

That 12#-er was probably the one Mike knocked off my kokanee rod with his mad netting skills last June

Hey!!!!!!! No need to bring up embarrassing memories.

With only 50 mackinaw gillnetted this fall, I can think of only two scenarios; no fish left or they are not netting the right areas. Also, any ideas if/when the mackinaw limit is abolished how it will affect the mackinaw population.