Catch and Release Rule Proposal

[Don Wittenberger]

The state Fish and Wildlife Commission conducts rulemaking on a two-year calendar, and 2007 is a "major cycle" year. I have already submitted a rule proposal to change Washington's tiger musky bag limit from 1 fish over 36 inches per day to catch-and-release-only statewide. WDFW staff actually approached me earlier this spring with the suggestion I request such a rule, and I have done so.

But, even though a catch-and-release rule is already in the hopper, the Commission is a political body that responds to public pressure, and it will help the cause if a number of other people not only support my rule proposal, but also submit their own. If WDFW receives a number of catch-and-release rule proposals, they will collect them and submit them together to the Commission, or consolidate them into one proposal. If the Commission sees a flood of requests, they'll have to take this issue seriously.

The deadline for submitting rule proposals is June 1. More information and forms are here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/index.htm You can also use this process to request changes in sportfishing regulations affecting other species or individual lakes, if you have any in mind. Note, however, that the rulemaking process can't address enforcement issues, such as not enough wardens to prevent violations of fishing regulations already on the books.

Later in the year, there will be an opportunity for public comment; and, eventually, we may need some people willing to go to Olympia to testify at a Commission meeting in support of the catch-and-release rule.

Now let me explain why tiger muskies should be catch-and-release only.

As of 2007, we have tiger musky fisheries in seven lakes totaling 11,400 surface acres. Using WDFW's benchmark of 0.5 adult tiger muskies per surface acre (which exceeds the density of most prime musky lakes in the fish's native range, and which I think is optimistic), we have at best a little over 5,000 tiger muskies of fishable size in the entire state. According to WDFW, at least 16,000 license holders are targeting this species. That's roughly 1 tiger musky for every 3 fishermen who wants to catch one.

In addition, the native muskellunge range is being ravaged by a fish disease. Quarantines are being imposed to try to keep it from spreading. These quarantines threaten to cut off WDFW's supply of muskellunge eggs. In fact, WDFW staff have already informed me there probably will be no tiger musky stocking anywhere in Washington next year.

Finally, I want to point out that musky fishing nosedived in the upper midwest after the 1950s because anglers were harvesting the fish. Nearly all the record muskies were caught in the 1930s and 1940s, and the big fish disappeared after World War II, when more roads and more people with cars opened up those lakes to a lot more fishing pressure and the musky populations quickly got decimated. As elusive and hard to catch as these fish are, they can't withstand the fishing pressure they get in today's crowded waters. For example, Wisconsin's famous Chippewa Flowage (which is about the same size as Potholes) is estimated to hold about 30,000 muskies, but over 50,000 fishermen fish for muskies on The Chip every year, and they catch about 3,000 fish a year or roughly 10% of the population. Now keep in mind these are "true" muskies that can live in the wild for 25 to 30 years, and are capable of reproducing themselves. The only reason The Chip produces that many fish is because the release rate there is nearly 100%. That fishery was nearly destroyed until anglers voluntarily adopted a release ethic beginning in the 1970s. Tiger muskies, by contrast, live only 6 to 8 years and can't reproduce themselves, so our fishery is totally dependent on restocking, and in the absence of stocking, will be totally dependent on angler release.

Catch and release works. University researchers and state and provincial fishery agencies have invested significant sums and effort in conducting research, and what we have learned is that when muskies are properly handled, the mortality rate is very low. Tagging studies have shown the same fish getting caught repeatedly and sometimes growing to trophy size over the years. Today, thanks to catch-and-release, both the numbers of fish and average fish size, and also the size of the largest fish, are way up in the midwest's prime waters. The quality of the fishing experience there is due to catch and release, and if the old practices of killing to fish for show-and-tell back at the dock had persisted, there wouldn't be enough fish to be worth fishing for in those waters today. Especially in view of the fact the popularity of the sport of musky fishing has soared in the last few years, and there are many more people targeting the species today.

The problem here in Washington is not going to be the dedicated musky anglers who love this fish and don't have to be told to release them, which probably includes everyone reading this board. Rather, the harvest will occur by non-musky anglers and casual recreational anglers who don't understand the issues or don't care about the impact on our sport, and you can't stop that harvest if it's legal. A catch-and-release regulation won't entirely stop the harvest, because there will always be some people who didn't get the word or are willing to break the law. We all know there are people out there snagging fish, spearing fish, and taking more than the bag limit. But the vast majority of people act in good faith and want to comply with the regulations, and there's an additional number who may not respect the rules but will obey them because they fear the consequences of getting caught breaking them. So, this rule change should be effective to reduce the angler mortality of our favorite species. I believe it's an essential step in preserving these fish for the enjoyment of sport fishermen; and, frankly, if we fail to persuade the Commission to adopt this rule, the sport of musky fishing may be short-lived in Washington. Wisconsin has 700 musky lakes; we have 7 musky lakes, only 3 or 4 of them large enough to support substantial populations, and they simply won't be able to stand the fishing pressure they're certain to get as more people are attracted to this species.

So, I hope you'll all join me in lobby the Fish and Wildlife Commission for a catch-and-release-only regulation. It's time to make this change to the regulations. I'll keep you posted of relevant developments and crucial dates as the year progresses.

[muskyhunter]

Hey Don,
Very well written and very informative....good job!

[Deadeyemark]

I submitted a request for tiger muskies to be Catch & Release only a couple of years ago and it flopped at the WDFW. I submitted this request again a few days ago. Hopefully with the start of a Muskies Inc chapter and the amount of people interested in this sport now, it will be a success this time.

[littleriver]

I totally agree with you guys here...

Tigers should be cnr only.....


I've never eaten a muskie of any kind but I've caught lots and lots of northern pike over the years and
tried cooking them on occasion.. not that great.... and I seriously doubt that muskies or tiger muskies are much different..



These are beautiful fish that I will probably never fish for (too many lakes, too many fish, not enough time.. that kind of thing)
and I don't think cnr is a blanket solution to every fish management problem... but I think it really applys here..


Maybe we could set up a deal with the tribal fishermen.... bring in a bona fide photo of a tiger muskie over 20" that you released and you get a free, fresh, gill net caught coho or something like that.....

I mean fishing is for fun.... let's try to have some fun with this....

[bigastrout]

I will support this and send in a request. It makes perfect sense. If we have a catch and release rule then WDFW can spend less money replacing fish, which frees up money to put them in other lakes. This is a win win rule suggestion.

[Don Wittenberger]

Actually, cost is not a problem. Stocking tiger muskies costs WDFW only $5,000 a year, or thereabouts. What threatens the stocking program is unavailability of eggs. The eggs have to be certified disease-free or they can't be imported into the state. The only supplier meeting this requirement is Minnesota DNR. About a year ago, they decided to stop supplying tiger muskie eggs because of a Minnesota law that required them to give equal access to the eggs to private groups, fish farms, etc. DNR staff didn't like the administrative hassles of dealing with hundreds of small customers. They were overruled at the political level, which kept Minn. DNR in the business of producing tiger muskie eggs for now, but there's another threat on the horizon: A fish immune-system disease that's spreading like wildfire in the midwest. WDFW has already informed me there will be no stocking in 2008.

In response to these egg availability problems, WDFW staff proposed in July 2006 to stock female muskellunge in one or two Washington lakes to provide a local source of muskie eggs, which would be fertilized with milt from Pend Oreilles River northern pike to produce tiger muskie fingerlings for stocking in our remaining muskie lakes. WDFW chose Newman and Silver lakes because they aren't connected to other watersheds. If this plan had gone forward, we eventually would have had fishing for "true" muskies in those lakes. However, the plan was shelved because of public opposition.

Plan B is to lease ponds on private land to keep the female muskies in. These ponds will not be accessible to the public, and there will be no fishing allowed for these broodstock fish. They will be stripped of their eggs, which will be fertilized by northern pike milt, and raised in a WDFW hatchery. It appears this plan is moving forward, and prospects for its implementation look good at this point, but it will take time.

Another potential threat to the long-turn sustainability of our tiger muskie fisheries is personnel changes in WDFW. Fortunately, the tiger muskie stocking program enjoys good support from WDFW's warmwater staff and the director. However, key staff are approaching retirement age, and when they leave over the next few years, there's no assurance their replacements will give a hoot for tiger muskies. The director serves at the pleasure of the Commission, a politically appointed body, and a change at the top could also affect continuation of the the tiger muskie program. The answer to this problem is to build a constituency for tiger muskies before these changes happen. That does two things. First, it gives a sympathetic director or staff a foundation to stand on when supporting this fishery. Second, a firm base of public support for the fishery makes it harder for unsympathetic officials to terminate the stocking program. An important part of our campaign must consist of getting resort owners on board. When you patronize a resort on a tiger muskie lake or go to a local business, let them know you're there because of the tiger muskies. If local business people come to believe that tiger muskie anglers are part of their customer base, they will put pressure on the department and their elected officials to maintain the fishery.

[bad esox]

Don,

Great job!! you are absolutely right. We as a group of avid muskie anglers must have a "united" voice within this state to work with "our" WDFW. I am hoping that the formation of a "Muskies Inc." in Washington and getting more people educated about this fish will help. I too would support a total "Catch and Release" program for this fish. Muskies can do more good for the lake and our fishery when they are returned to it. One could view it as a "recycling" program for the WDFW. In the long run the WDFW is getting much more for the money they have already spent.

On the topic of "eggs" and stocking I spoke with Steve Jackson Manager of WDFW not to long ago. Steve told me at that time that the WDFW was looking at a privately owned 600 acre lake in Eastern Washington to raise "Tiger" muskies. He also mentioned that Idaho may consider doing the same thing. I think this is very positive for our state.

When you guys get out there let people know about "Muskies" and that you love fishing for them. I know, I know they will look at you strangely but it's o.k., really:) The people down around Lake Mayfield have already started to refer to my wife and I as "those muskie people". It is like we said we saw a U.F.O. or something!!! Hey, have you guy's ever seen a U.F.O. while muskie fishing? Maybe another time...Support The Sport!!!!

[KUP]

Good food for thought, Don.
There is power in numbers.
There is power in the press.
And if we report it, there is power in the dollars we spend.

It's pretty exciting to think we are getting our own Muskies Inc. Chapter
to address some of these very real issues.
I plan on being there; would not miss this historic moment.
I want my name on that list of "founding members" !

The managers of Lake Mayfield Resort are going to be there, too.

And so it begins........

"Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world.
For, indeed, that's all who ever have."
Margaret Mead

[KUP]

And it is EASY to fill out the form on-line with the link Don provided, above.

And for those without access,
I volunteer to bring a stack of blank WDFW Rule Proposal Forms to the meeting.
Muskie Guy, bring yours, too! All voices need to be heard.

We only have 7 days after the meeting to get them to Olympia (inc. mail time) and they only do this every 2 years.

[Don Wittenberger]

Apparently I'm already a Muskies Inc. member, as one of my friends bought a membership for me as a gift. My understanding is that I belong to the Twin Cities chapter in Minnesota. I haven't made any of their meetings yet, though. (LOL)

I'd like to clarify a couple things. First, why is it critical to release muskies, if they can be replaced by stocking? The answer is a mathematical one, Simply put, they grow to adult size too slowly to keep ahead of the harvest level that will occur if ANY harvest is permitted by the regulations. And you can't increase the number of adult muskies by stuffing a lake with fingerlings, because the population-limiting factors are lake size and food supply, not the amount of stocking. The extra fingerlings will simply die. The survival rate is pretty low to start with; WDFW typically puts several thousand fingerlings annually in each of our tiger muskie lakes, but Silver Lake probably can't support more than 200 to 250 adult tiger muskies, and Evergreen Reservoir maybe half that. If you figure it takes 4 or 5 years for a fish to get to 36 to 40 inches, I think you can see that when the population is only a couple hundred to start with, it won't take much harvest to wipe out the entire adult population, and all you'll have in the lake is fingerlings and sub-legal juveniles.

Second, that's a 60-acre pond, not a 600-acre lake. Specifically, two 60-acre ponds, one in Washington (I understand it's in the Potholes area), the other in Idaho. These are on private land (I assume ranches or farms) and WDFW has entered, or is negotiating, leases with the landowners. Basically, they'll rent the use of these ponds to keep the broodstock muskellunge in, and they will be fenced off and gated.

It's important to understand the sensitivies that exist out in the community. A couple years ago, someone caught a small tiger muskie in the Willamette River in Portland, and it got on the local TV stations. The general nature of the media and public reaction was: OMIGOD THERE ARE MUSKIES IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER THEY'RE GOING TO EAT ALL THE SALMON!!!!!!!!!

Now take a word of advice from me. I've been around politics and political campaigns for 45 years, and I worked as a lawyer in Washington state government for 27 years. I also like to read military history, so I know better than to attempt frontal assaults -- these don't work, and get you killed. When you're dealing with that level of fear and ignorance, you can't confront it directly, you've got to work around it -- or you will get run over in the political process. Tiger muskies aren't going to happen in any water connected to the Columbia River. Period. It's important that we realize that up front, because it affects everything from raising tiger muskies in hatcheries to the chances of getting additional lakes stocked.

For example, part of WDFW's broodstock proposal was to raise the offspring in the Mid-Columbia Hatchery at Moses Lake. Hatcheries, of course, need running water and therefore are built straddling flowing water sources that are connected to lakes or rivers. The way you keep the hatchery fish from escaping into the ecosystem is by installing screens. One screen is enough, and Mid-Columbia Hatchery has one; but to pacify the fearful public, WDFW proposed installing FIVE screens at MCH. The reasoning went, if they somehow get through Screen #1 then Screen #2 will stop them but if the muskies get through that one, we'll intercept them at Screen #3 or surely at Screen #4 or Screen #5. The fearful public would have none of it; the OMIGOD THEY'LL GET INTO THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND EAT ALL THE SALMON mentality overwhelmed reason and prevailed. We can't overcome this mentality; we have to work around it.

That's why the brookstock muskellunge have to be raised in 60-acre ponds on private land surrounded by fences and locked gates. I'm not sure yet whether WDFW will have to throw in armed guards, watch towers, and searchlights to make it fly. If this is what's necessary to pacify the fearful public, I'll support it.

Given such a climate, it goes without saying that as muskie anglers we have to be on our best behavior at all times. There can be no joking about midnight stocking; there can be no demanding behavior on our part; we are fleas riding on a tiger's back. Officially, the tiger muskies are stocked to control nuisance species because it's more effective and less costly than using rotenone to get rid of the nuisance species. The sport fishery is incidental. We must be respectful and willing to listen to the people who fear our favorite fish, and there are many such people in our state. We must be both careful and humble in our advocacy for more muskies (or, even, to keep the muskies we already have). We must be non-threatening. And, above all, we all must understand that there are people out there who sincerely believe that if even one tiger muskie ever gets into the Columbia River IT WILL EAT ALL THE SALMON!!!!!!! We can't afford to break out in derisive laughter at this idea, because the people who believe it have sufficient power and influence to end our state's tiger muskie program. We must respect and accomodate their fears in everything we do, and in our approach to how we do it.

A catch-and-release rule strengthens our hand in this regard, because if it's illegal to harvest tiger muskies, then no one can legally transport them, alive or dead. And if no one transports them, there's no way for them to end up in a lake or river where they're not supposed to be, is there? So, a catch-and-release rule will help us keep the MY GOD THEY'LL EAT ALL THE SALMON folks happy. It puts us in a position to say, "We're doing everything we can to make sure they don't get into any waters where they're not useful and wanted. And, as anglers, we're doing our part by ensuring that EVERY fisherman in this state who catches one throws it back into the lake it came from."

[Don Wittenberger]

If we behave ourselves, we may get a third tiger muskie lake in the Spokane area, which would be good news for anyone living in that area who is frustrated by the difficulty of catching one at Newman Lake, or by the low numbers of fish available at Silver Lake. (Silver Lake is still a young fishery putting out numbers of fish, but its productivity will drop as the population thins out to about 0.5 adult fish per surface acre.) And the potential new tiger muskie lake is a humdinger -- good size, good structure, a nice mix of deep and shallow water, within reasonable driving distance of both Potholes and Spokane (for anglers originating from those location), and already has a WDFW boat access. But we'll have to wait out the debate raging in the walleye community over whether to rotenone Sprague Lake, or not. According to WDFW, Sprague Lake is full of big walleyes -- over 60,000 of them -- but no one seems able to catch them. The walleyes have pretty much eaten everything else that used to swim in that lake, and are now reduced to subsisting on crawdads. The walleye clubs seem to support WDFW's plan to rehabilitate Sprague Lake, or at least are not objecting to it, but there are individual walleye anglers -- a good number of them -- who hate the idea of killing 60,000 big walleyes. WDFW's position is that very few people are fishing Sprague Lake anymore, so the lake is underutilized, and our state doesn't have enough lakes to leave one fallow. So they want to restore the lake to a fishery that will attract people. The owners of the resorts on Sprague Lake want people to come, too -- and bring their families.

So, what WDFW plans to do at Sprague Lake is rotenone it in October 2007 to wipe out the walleyes, then stock it with panfish, largemouth bass, and rainbow trout. The trout are a transitional species; after 4 or 5 years they'll be phased out. WDFW's current plan is to stock tiger muskies in Sprague Lake in the third year of restocking. If this plan goes forward, we'd have a fishable population of tiger muskies in 7 or 8 years. I may be dead by then, or not fishing any more (I just turned 61, have health problems, and am acutely aware that I have a limited number of muskie fishing seasons left), by I'm looking beyond my own lifetime. I'm not going to get between the walleye folks and WDFW; but should it work out that WDFW's rehabilitation goes forward, and we get tiger muskies in Sprague Lake, what we'll have there is 1,800 acres of water that couldn't be better suited for our favorite species if someone had designed it that way, and which could ultimately add close to 1,000 muskies to the sustainable population available to central and eastern Washington muskie lovers.

WDFW is also considering a reservoir that could add another thousand muskies to the western Washington fishery, and reduce the driving distance to a muskie lake for anglers residing in the Tacoma-Olympia-Aberdeen triangle. I won't name that lake at this time, because it's only at the conceptual stage. However, it is in a locality where some of the locals might not welcome the tiger muskies and mayt do everything they can to destroy them. Without a catch-and-release rule, there's a risk they will go fishing with the express intent of killing as many tiger muskies as they can. And, without a catch-and-release rule, it will be perfectly legal and there will be no way to stop them.

So, there are a lot of layers to this catch and release regulation. But, when I filed it, I specifically had that western Washington reservoir that's on WDFW's future-stocking list in mind. I'm worried that we might never get, or may lose, that potential fishery if the tiger muskies don't have legal protection against any and all harvest.

[bad esox]

We simply need the "Catch and Release" philosophy applied in Washington. This is not a huge fishery like in the "Mid-West". "Tiger" Muskies can not reproduce themselves and will need the help of "educated" anglers, and the WDFW, to survive. If you want to catch larger fish you must release the smaller ones.
Wisconsin, one of the premiere states in the nation for muskie fishing has proposed a 54" limit. The last time I checked it looked as if it was going to easily pass.
Minnesota and Wisconsin are both states with "Pure" and "Tiger" muskies. Between both of these states they have not 5-10 lakes to fish for these "critters" but well over one thousand lakes!!! (If not more). "Catch and Release", or C-P-R (Catch-Photo-Release) is practiced avidly in these states by knowledgeable anglers to make the fishery legendary. Just ask Al Linder of Infisherman fame!:)

[dlt074]

you've convinced me.

[panfisher]

as a person who grew up in minnesota and have fished musky and pike for eating usually 2-5lbs range i've found that i didn't care to eat them much bigger than that. plus at the time in those lakes i fish the numbers were to many. just like the walleye problem is happening here. you've written a good article and i have to agree with whats written and i intend to summit a request for cnr musky fishing. it was hard enough to get some sort of warmwater fishery program in this state, only proper regulation to sustain this fishery along with the other differnt fisheries will provide better opportunities for the fishing public. <')//<