WDFW Diet Studies

[Kenster]

As for the cost of Muskie fishing, I am glad you know guys that have tons of dough to spend. Again I ask you about the guys that don't? Why should they have to support a fish they can't afford to chaise?

I am glad that you were there to help your son release a 40 inch Tiger. Thats great.
What about the kid that has no dad to teach him. Between the Tiger and lets say the Largemouth,which one does he have a better chance of catching?

Okay so I must not of made my point clear. By me knowing guys that have spent "tons of dough" and not caught a musky, I am implying that you don't need money to catch Muskies. Just a fishing license and what ever cheap little fishing rod combo set you can afford. If you can't afford a rod then don't buy a fishing license! DUH!?! Also if your worried about supporting Tigers in your fisheries and not catching any, then you will probably quit fishing completely once you find out how your license fees are truely broken down. What % do you think goes to Native Salmon restoration? By the way, you wont be able to take one of those home either!!

As far as "the kid with no dad to teach him".......what's his mother doing? There are fisherwomen!

I hope that this is not getting too personal and reflecting your own current situation.

[Dr Hook]

So I have been biting my tongue for a while now.
I will not be silent anymore.
Dr.Hook, first off I find it very funny that you consider trout, kokanee, and coho a game fish.
instead of busting the chops of a musky fisherman, why don't you go kill some Sea loins or something! " Protect your garbage fish! opps I mean Salmoniod"
Don you are a good man, keep up the good fight!



P.S. whom ever runs this website don't give me a Gay @ss Navy rank. I am a SGT in the U.S. ARMY.
Don't demote me!

Thank you for your intelligent insite...

[muskyhunter28]

Ipodrodder, This State protects everything. Salmon, Sea loins that eat Salmon, Spotted owls, trees , and Illegal Aliens. You name it. Washington protects it!
Just because someone that was not elected into office Protects it!
Dose not mean it needs Protecting!

[YellowBear]

Hi there Don,
As far as the Sturgeon fishery is concerned I have no trouble with it.
The Salmon restoration has my vote.
Why?
Because they are a native species that has been exploited to the point that they are all but gone.
Do I fish for them? No.
You can't compare the Tiger to any native species.

Kenster
I understand what its like to have your favorite quarry questioned and trust me I am just trying to understand a few things. But I would like you to answer my question. Does the average guy have a better chance of catching a Muskie, or any of the other species?



We have but a handful of folks in this State that fish the Muskie. Yet the Muskie is a top priority for the WDFW.
The Tiger was brought into this State as a control for rough fish and by rough fish I mean anything that swims in the same waters. He is a in discriminant feeder. The Tiger will feed on whats most available whether it be Salmanoids, Pike minnows, Spinyrays or Carp. In other words it was a failed project.
The WDFW has made it a sport fish to save face. (IMHO)
I was part of a group that payed extra money each year to fish for my favorite species.
I think as far as the Muskie program goes, I think it should be set up that way.
Maybe there should be a proposal to start a fish tag system. If a guy wants to fish for Trout, he gets a Trout tag. If he wants to fish for Bass, a Bass tag. If its the Tiger he wants to target he buys a Muskie tag and so on.
With out the money from the general fund the Tiger will be gone first.
The thing that got me involved in this forum is the proposal of the 48 in minimum.
I don't think its fair and I think it ought to be retracted.

[muskyhunter]

Really think we need to move this particular forum to a different section. Getting way crazy. Now the the offensive lingo is starting to fly. What do the last 3-5 entries have anything to do with the diet studies and why has the DIET of this fish now become an issue? These numbers have been available for years..I think alot of people have started to loose their freegin minds here. We all need to start backing each other up and stop ridiculing everyone's favorite species. I'm hungry, my diet tells me my burgers are burning on the grill goota go!. You all try to be nice for awhile please!! I'm out!

[Don Wittenberger]

YB--

"You can't compare the Tiger to any native species."

Bass and walleyes aren't native species, either. Do I think tiger muskies should play second fiddle to native species? Absolutely! I would never suggest putting them in waters where they would eat or compete with salmon, steelhead, bull trout, etc. Washington is a salmonid state. I have no problem with salmonids getting most of the attention and resources. That's how it ought to be.

"Does the average guy have a better chance of catching a Muskie, or any of the other species?"

I catch more muskies than walleyes. I fish for walleyes, but I'm not very good at it, and don't catch very many walleyes. However, that doesn't translate into my advocating killing large walleyes.

"We have but a handful of folks in this State that fish the Muskie."

WDFW says 16,000.

"Yet the Muskie is a top priority for the WDFW."

That seems like a pretty subjective opinion, and I'm inclined to disagree with you.

"The Tiger was brought into this State as a control for rough fish and by rough fish I mean anything that swims in the same waters. He is a in discriminant feeder."

YB, having a discussion is fine, but let's not play disinformation games. Tiger muskies have discriminatory dietary preferences. WDFW field studies have shown the only game fish they eat in significant numbers is rainbow trout. The only water body they share with walleyes is Evergreen Lake, and people still catch walleyes at Evergreen.

"In other words it was a failed project."

If it was a failed project, don't you think WDFW would have discontinued it years ago? If it's a failed project, why do over 20 other states have tiger muskie stocking programs?

"The WDFW has made it a sport fish to save face. (IMHO)"

I think this statement would be slightly less ridiculous if you had said that WDFW biologists like tiger muskies because some of them like to fish for them, and there's an element of truth to that. However, the decision to stock them doesn't get made at that level. The original stocking of tiger muskies in Mayfield Lake not only required the personal approval of the WDFW director, but in addition, six other federal and state agencies had to sign off on it.

"I was part of a group that payed extra money each year to fish for my favorite species."

No, you were part of a group who paid extra money ($5 to be exact) to fish for warmwater species. Anyone who fished for any warmwater species had to pay 5 bucks into the "warmwater enhancement fund." That includes every tiger muskie angler in the state, not just people who fish for walleyes. It was the only way WDFW could get any money for warmwater fisheries in this salmonid-centric state. For years I've heard people gripe that WDFW didn't do anything for warmwater anglers. Well, they did something for warmwater anglers, and it cost us only 5 bucks a year, which is less than the cost of one walleye lure and far less than the cost of gas to make one trip to a lake, and should I mention that some walleye anglers spend forty thousand dollars on their boats and another forty thousand dollars on the pickup truck that tows the boat and forty or eighty bucks a night for motel rooms, and I don't hear them complain about that, nor do I hear them complain about what they spend on restaurant meals, and so on, yet people screeched when WDFW charged them $5 a year to invest in warmwater fisheries and they scream about paying $23 for an annual fishing licensing that includes free boat launching at dozens of lakes. I don't get it. Human nature is human nature, I guess. I can't think of any other explanation.

"I think as far as the Muskie program goes, I think it should be set up that way."

If I can buy peace with the anti-muskie faction for $5 a year, yes! yes! yes! where do I send the check? I'll write a check for $5 right now! I'll even contribute it to a walleye enhancement fund, to be spent exclusively on walleyes, if it'll get walleye anglers to not kill muskies.

"Maybe there should be a proposal to start a fish tag system. If a guy wants to fish for Trout, he gets a Trout tag. If he wants to fish for Bass, a Bass tag. If its the Tiger he wants to target he buys a Muskie tag and so on."

I don't have a problem with this concept, if you're willing to live with the extra bureaucracy and paperwork.

"With out the money from the general fund the Tiger will be gone first."

Let me get this straight. You're claiming that funding for tiger muskies comes from the general fund. In order to make that claim, you have to trace the tiger muskie funding through WDFW's budget documents to its source. Have you done that? Or are you just speculating? To be honest, I don't know where the tiger muskie money comes from. I assume it comes from license fees, but I might be wrong. There is no warmwater enhancement fee anymore, it was rolled into the general license fee, but I'm pretty sure there's still a warmwater budget. However, I'm not even sure that tiger muskie funding comes from the warmwater budget. State agency budgets can work in strange ways.

"The thing that got me involved in this forum is the proposal of the 48 in minimum.
I don't think its fair"

Why isn't it fair? What's fair about letting you ruin someone else's sport? Muskie anglers don't do that to you.

"and I think it ought to be retracted."

Since I filed this proposal, I'm in a position of authority to respond to this request, as I'm the person who would have to retract it. Here's my answer: No.

[Don Wittenberger]

Yellow Bear, I have to be honest with you, at this point I no longer believe you're dealing with this issue in good faith.

[muskyhunter]

Again Mr.Wittenberger........great information! SUPERB!!!!And without being outLANDISH AND TRYING TO TAKE A SHOT OR ANYHTINHG!! See yah on the water..

[YellowBear]

Hi there Don.
First off I would like to apologize if I angered you fellas it was not my intent.
I have enjoyed talking with you and others and hope we can get by this.

I am a multi species angler and I chaise just about everything including the Tigers.
I have never killed one and I am not sure that I ever will.

[Gone Fishin]

Great points Don and almost everyone else. I think the problem occuring here is there are people that see nothing but their favorite species. I think its great if someone considers themself a bass fisherman, a walleye fisherman, a muskie fisherman or what ever someone wants to consider themselves. Is there a such thing as a fisherman anymore? There are so many different species of fish in this state. I think we should all consider ourselves pretty damn lucky to have acces to great fishing for so many different species. I love fishing for anything that swims in the water. Some fish are great for eating and I am not opposed to keeping them, others are better left in the water. Can't people go fish and quit bickering?

I believe I was told that Mayfield used to have a great trout fishery. What severly damaged that fishery? not muskies, rough fish, like the pikeminnow aka squawfish that eveybody loves so much (kidding there, really). I believe that is the reason that the muskies were placed in mayfield, correct? Since then, their trout fishery has progressed quite a bit from the time the muskies were put in there. If anyone has info against or supporting this please post. So complaining that the muskies eat everything and ruin the fishery is obserd. Sure they will eat most anything that swims, but like you they have preferences. Do you eat everything in a grocery store equally? They help the fishery more than they hurt it because they keep the squawfish from causing more damage. So until someone can provide an example of where muskies ruined a fishery, I think that argument should be laid to rest.

I will say that two of my favorite bass lakes have muskie in them. Is there a problem catching nice bass there? NO
Walleye and muskie only co-exist in one body of water so there shouldn't be a lot of complaing from walleye fisherman. If there were muskie in roosevelt or potholes then maybe they could complain.
Trout anglers shouldn't complain either because in cases like mayfield, what did the muskies do? helped

So most the people arguing here are doing so because they have nothing better to do than argue about things that they know little about. Why don't you spend the time fishing instead? I guarantee that spending your time on the water will catch you more fish of whatever species you prefer than sitting here arguing about what is best for the lakes. WDFW pays people to do that job. Sure there are some politics involved in their decisions but trust me, most of them are more educated than most the people on this site. It's their job, let them do it. Sure they may read comments sent to them but ultimatley their research and past examples will make their decisions.

My suggestion is that everybody take at least one day of this long weekend, and go fishing! Isn't that what we all love to do? Your favorite species is not going to dissappear because you weren't arguing its case on here, trust me. I also suggest that in the near future people should experiment more with other species. Sure trout and perch taste great, and bass fight hard but how much fun would it be to land a big muskie? Every species can be fun to catch, each one has its perks. And no you dont need to go out and spend lots of money on $10-15 muskie lures to catch one. I own 0 "muskie" lures and I have caught 6 muskies. Go buy some $2 spinner baits, a $4 crank bait and maybe a $5 rapala or a version of such. I have only caught one muskie on a lure that cost more than $6. (A lure I borrowed from my grandfather because I am reluctant to pay such high prices for a lure that really isn't necessary)

So everybody have a great weekend and go fishing (I will be)! Tight lines wherever you go!

[reelinanrockin]

Can't people go fish and quit bickering?

Wish it was only about bickering. unfourtunatly some have taken it far beyond that.

[Kenster]

YB-I got a bit involved in our discussion and apoligize if I offended you. I am truely a multispecies fisherman.

Don-once again you know how to put it, great comments!

muskyhunter-we have all chilled! (BTW) is 28 your little bro? hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Gone Fishin- nice level headed comments.

reelinanrockin-I live in your neighborhood and will pick you up at 5:45am....let's fish!! (edit-sorry couldn't find your place)

[Don Wittenberger]

GF - I asked Steve Jackson at WDFW about muskies eating game fish. (In case anyone doesn't know, Steve is WDFW's warmwater program manager and a professional biologist.) Jackson said studies at the University of Minnesota concluded that muskies exist in too low numbers to adversely affect populations of game fish species.

YB - I'm not angry at you. We're arguing about fish, not doing something bad to my kid. I don't get emotionally involved in differences of opinion over policy matters. On the other hand, I've been a lawyer for over 30 years and know an insincere witness when I see one, and some of your comments seem to me to lack sincerity. I say that because your arguments are unreasonable and not factually grounded. Like any good debater, I call b.s. by its right name -- but that occurs on an intellectual, not emotional, plane.

Are there things I do get emotional about? You bet, and I'll give you a stunning example. Several years ago, when our daughter was a college student, living by herself in an apartment, she fell asleep on the living room couch. That saved her life; if she had gone to bed, she would be dead.

Around 2 a.m., a noise awakened her. A man wearing a ski mask and carrying a large knife cut through the window screen, pried open the window, and entered the apartment. She pulled a blanket over herself and lay very very still, watching. The intruder went to the bedroom first, then methodically searched every room, including the bathroom, and even looked in the closets. She realized he wasn't a burglar looking for something to steal, because there was money laying on a table that he didn't touch. He obviously was looking for her, not valuables. But he didn't turn on any lights, so he didn't see the lump on the couch. After a few minutes, he left the way he had come, through the window.

The guy was very professional. He wore gloves and left no fingerprints. He was in the apartment for only 3 or 4 minutes, yet searched it completely. The police said the m.o. matched a serial killer operating in the area at the time. (That individual was apprehended about 6 months later; we're not positive it was the same guy, although it seems likely.)

Needless to say, when my wife and I heard about it, we were extremely upset. It's impossible to explain in words how upset we were. I have very complex emotions about it. Our daughter escaped unharmed, and we know there are other parents in this world less lucky than we. Yet, I still can't think about how close we came to losing her without getting worked up over it.

Yes, there are things in life that people have every right to get angry about, but arguments over fish aren't in that category. This is America, Land of the Free, and we cherish our right to be opinionated, close-minded, and unreasonable. Yes people who put crapola in the public domain should expect to get called on it; but no one ought to take policy debates personally. Despite our differences of opinion over muskie regulations, I'm sure you're a great guy and would be a wonderful person to sit down and have a beer or smoke a cigar with. Life is too short to get angry about the wrong things. I save my anger for people like the s.o.b. who meant to rape and murder my child. I'd pull the switch on him myself, if they'd let me, with smoke pouring from my ears. I honestly wish I had been there with a loaded gun. That's a whole world different from anything I feel when arguing with you or other people about muskie harvest. No, I'm not angry at you.

So, let's keep this debate -- and our differences of opinion -- in perspective.

[EdmondsBassMan]

Wow Don that was an intense post! I can appreciate your feelings on debating about stuff! Life would be pretty darn boring if we all agreed on everything!

[Stacie Kelsey]

Might be of interest to some that we are using tiger musky in some high lakes to control excessive brook trout populations.

Tigers are going to eat the slowest fish in front of them.

stace

[dilbert]

Might be of interest to some that we are using tiger musky in some high lakes to control excessive brook trout populations.

Do many people fish for Muskies up at the Anderson lakes?

[Don Wittenberger]

According to WDFW's Determination of Non-Significance (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/05032fnl.pdf), approximately 90 12-inch fingerlings were stocked in these ponds (totaling 9 acres) to "monitor their effects on the non-native eastern brook trout population." Kind of looks like WDFW wanted to study whether tiger muskies can be used to eradicate or control non-native trout in places where they're not wanted. As this SEPA document was filed in 2005, these muskies probably were planted in late 2005 or early 2006, and would be 2 years old -- I'd guess about 24 to 28 inches -- now. Applying WDFW's rule-of-thumb of 65% first-year mortality and 35% second-year mortality, there might be about 20 of these little muskies left. With only 9 acres to swim around in, they won't grow to any real size, and probably will be gone in a couple years. WDFW planned to monitor them for only 3 years, from which I infer they didn't expect any to remain after that. This plant was for study purposes, not to create sport fishery, and I haven't heard of anyone fishing for them.

This isn't the first time WDFW has planted tiger muskies in small ponds. For example, there was a one-time plant in Whatcom County's Fazon Lake (32 acres) in 2002, and it's unlikely there are any left in that water body.