11/14/2009 IFPAG Meeting

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jed Volkman on November 26, 2009 at 5:06pm

Does anyone have a feel for how many musky may be getting caught by bait fisherman? If it really isn't a problem then it seems to make more sense to not support the new rule. On the other hand, if a fair number of musky are dying at the hands of bait fisherman then maybe it is worth dealing with the scent ban to save them.

Jed V.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 26, 2009 at 7:35pm

Jed, there's no studies of this, but we have anecdotal stories. First, though, I want to mention that bait fishing for muskies is common in the midwest, but they use live suckers with quick-set rigs that lip-hook the muskies there, which helps reduce mortality (although they still have bait-rig mortality). Live fish aren't legal bait in Washington, and dead bait generally is still-fished, which means it's swallowed. Based on studies elsewhere (I submitted one with the proposal), you can assume close to 100% mortality for fish caught this way. Also, keep in mind that midwestern bait anglers are sport anglers who intend to release the fish, whereas here in the Pacific Northwest, still fishing with dead bait for northern pike is a common practice in Idaho by the general public who are fishing to fill coolers and kill everything they catch. In Idaho and other western states, pike are considered a nuisance species; but here in Washington, we don't want people killing tiger muskies under the legal harvest size of 50 inches (and we prefer they not kill them at all). The potential problem is that as pike fishing becomes more popular in Washington with the growth of the Pend O'Reilles River pike fishery, the dead-bait tactics widely used in the Idaho pike fishery may migrate into our tiger muskie fishery, especially at the Spokane-area tiger muskie lakes located near the pike fishing areas. But that's not the only problem. This issue also exists in western Washington, where at least three state-record-class tiger muskies over 30 pounds have been caught and killed by dead-bait fishermen who were NOT fishing for sport but to catch fish for eating purposes. Based on circumstantial evidence, it seems likely two of these big fish were snagged. Although we don't know how many people use dead bait for tiger muskies, it is one of those things that's likely to grow in popularity as word gets around, especially if the public hears about big fish being caught this way through newspaper accounts, word of mouth, etc. This rule aims to prevent it before it becomes widespread, so whether it's a problem now is the wrong question to ask. The right question is, will this become a threat to our tiger muskie fishery in the future? We don't know for sure, but the premise of this rule is prevention. Finally, let me leave you with this image: The last time I fished Hauser Lake, a couple years ago, there were about 20 bank fishermen stillfishing along the road across the lake from the boat launch, and they actually yelled at boat fishermen who got too close to "their" spot! Hauser Lake is in Idaho, about 4 miles down the road from Newman Lake, and these weren't sport fishermen; these were the people who fish to fill coolers and to whom pike and muskies are the same. The scent issue is a real issue, but if this rule is adopted, I will continue working to see if there is a way we can get scents exempted from the bait ban. Using scents doesn't hurt the fish; this rule doesn't target scents; I would like scents to remain legal; but if this rule is what we can get right now, and if it's shot down by opposition from tiger muskie anglers, we won't have any credibility on this issue and there won't be a second chance to get a dead-bait ban. It's now or never, and I believe the smart thing to do is take this rule and work to fix the flawed portion later.

Permalink Reply by Todd Reis on November 27, 2009 at 8:28pm

Jed Sir, I really do not think that there are that many folks out there dead sticking for Tigers. 2 that i know have in the past and those fish survived and released successfully. 1 guy used the quik-strike set up and did it correctly. the other guy who says i was the inspiration to this rule has done it too.Or at least he wrote about it. This individual has taken this on to be his rule change. Well that was 2 years ago. And i don't really know if he actually did it or was just editorializing cuz he has nothing else to do and is looking for attention. He did actually say that he listened to the rule that we were wanting to adopt but again changed it because the rules commision wanted to have the ban of scents and flavor added to the proposal.And he gave in. Don't know why, but did. I have sat in contract negotiations with my local union. 3 contracts.And if you cannot get the rule/language that you want in place that you demand you have the right to just pull it off the table and table it for future talks. Which would have been better than letting the commission basically dictate how that rule will be written.Its called negotiating.If we had to have waited till the next rule change session that would have been better. Maybe more support and education or ideas could have been shared. Which would have let all concerned,time to get back to the table to get a suitable rule change for all.
I do think that on Mayfield Lake in particular there are more fish(Tigers) being poached by one bowhunter/poacher than there are folks dead sticking it on that particular lake. Remember though dead sticking is legal. Bowhunting from a boat for Tigers is illegal.And I feel now that since there is a Eyes in the woods/Streamwatch group watching that lake. The bowhunter will eventually be caught. I have learned that there were 3-4 times that activity was stopped by a Streamwatch Volunteer. Just last year in fact.
I really do not think you'll see bunches of people now dead sticking it on the shorelines..The Idaho thing may have happened. Dont know, wasnt there.They do have a way bigger population of lakes that have pike and Tigers in them. And are stocked more often than here in this state.
And lastly the scented/flavored bait part of that rule was never ever brought up by the few that initially thought that it would be a good idea to just have an artificial bait fishery only for Tigers in this state. Thanks for reading my little rant again..i am truly and honestly for helping the Tiger Musky fishery here succeed.Hell i helped form CMA and the other group that was formed just a few years ago!!! I have been an avid Musky and other specie fisherman for nearly 30 years from Wisconsin to Minnesota and Oklahoma to now here in this great state so with that being said i thank you for your time..Todd


Jed Volkman said:

Does anyone have a feel for how many musky may be getting caught by bait fisherman? If it really isn't a problem then it seems to make more sense to not support the new rule. On the other hand, if a fair number of musky are dying at the hands of bait fisherman then maybe it is worth dealing with the scent ban to save them.

Jed V.

Permalink Reply by Todd Reis on November 27, 2009 at 8:30pm

Why are you being so obtuse?

Don Wittenberger said:

Very altruistic of you to look out for "folks you've heard of," Todd. This kind of hearsay isn't what I would risk the future of our muskie fishery on, though.

Permalink Reply by Don Wittenberger on November 27, 2009 at 10:28pm

There's nothing obtuse about what I said, Todd. I was very direct. What you've "heard" is hearsay. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts because it's unreliable, and it's not a sound basis for writing public laws, either. I decline to reverse my support for this proposal, and give up what it means for the muskie fishery, based on nothing more substantial than your recitation of second-hand stories which may or may not be true. But that's a side issue. The big picture is that this rule is what WDFW is willing to support. I did the negotiating, and you weren't there, so please don't pontificate to the readers of this blog about the negotiations because you don't know what you're talking about. WDFW bent over backwards for us by going along with this rule. They required only one concession, and made it clear the scent language was a "deal breaker," so I agreed to remove it. I knew some anglers would chafe at WDFW's insistence on including scents in the bait ban, but I also know we're not out of options to deal with that. You expostulate about "negotiating," but the fact is, your stated position is the rule must be exactly the way you want it or you're against it. That's not negotiation or compromise, that's a temper tantrum. You are mistaken that your views express those of the muskie community. You are the ONLY person who has asked people to tell the Commission to vote "no." Even Mark, despite his vehement objections to WDFW's position on the scent language, hasn't gone that far. We'll eventually get a chance to see the all the comments submitted to the Commission, but from the information I have right now, the comments are running about 8-to-1 in favor of this proposal. Nobody likes the scent ban, but nearly all the commenters are asking the Commission to adopt the rule. I feel I've handled this issue properly. The feedback I'm getting is the majority of our anglers support my handling of it. You don't get unanimity on anything, even the 50-inch rule wasn't unanimously supported, and if I waited from unanimity nothing would ever get done. In any case, I want everyone to remember that our disagreements over this proposal are honest disagreements among well-intentioned people who all want the best for the tiger muskie fishery. I'm confident that when this debate, no matter how sharp it may get while it's going on, is over we'll be able to keep our differences of opinion in perspective and we'll remember that we're all friends who have a great deal in common and are united by the same ultimate goals.

Todd said:

Why are you being so obtuse?

Don Wittenberger said:

Very altruistic of you to look out for "folks you've heard of," Todd. This kind of hearsay isn't what I would risk the future of our muskie fishery on, though.

Permalink Reply by N. Dillon on November 28, 2009 at 2:06am

I don't have all the insight as some of you but, my decision to support this proposal was simple. I feel that with the increased interest in Tiger Musky Fishing we should do anything possible to better protect these fish. I don’t like the scent ban one bit and expressed that numerous times but I can’t see not supporting a rule that would better protect Tigers for my own selfish reasons. I’m hoping that everyone who so elegantly shares there points of view on this forum also shares with the commission that will be making a decision on this rule. Hopefully we can get everyone to e-mail their concerns but also see the bigger good that’s within this.

Hell, at least I’ll save money by not buying scents. LOL

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page