Washington Declares War On Bass

[Traveler2586]

Here's a little interesting history on fish expansion in the US.When early pioneers began migrating to the western United States, there were no catch limits on fish and no laws preventing people from modifying fish habitats to meet human needs for water, food, and safety. As settlement progressed, abundant fish populations began to decline. By 1870, growing concern for such declines prompted fishery studies, which spurred the establishment of fish spawning stations for collecting and hatching fish eggs and stocking small fish back into waters with declining fisheries. Many of these early spawning stations later became fish hatcheries, marking the beginning of the Fisheries Program and the NFHS.President Ulysses S. Grant is chiefly responsible for the first official government action to conserve U.S. fishery resources for future generations. President Grant established the U.S. Fish Commission in 1871. The Commission was the forerunner of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fisheries Program.In 1872, the first Federal fish hatchery, known as the Baird Hatcher, was established on the McCloud River in California. The NFHS has since grown into a large complex system devoted to conserving U.S. fishery resources.Originally Spencer Fullerton Baird was chosen by President Ulysses S. Grant to manage the fisheries in the country. He was named "Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries". In 1871 Baird took office but his work was still in effect. The people were now understanding the importance of the fisheries, for sport and food. With much pressure from organizations such as; American Fish Cultural Association and American Fisheries Society, Congress reserved $15,000 for the fisheries.The man that was chosen to essentially take Baird's position was Livingston Stone. With a group of scientists his job was to find the location of salmon spawning areas and develop a salmon hatchery so that the eggs could be managed and shipped around the country so that the salmon could be available for all. [EDIT: Question: Why was Salmon chosen?] Stone and his team located this area and started shipping eggs as soon as possible. A few miles from where they had originally found the salmon eggs, rainbow trout eggs were also found. Now rainbow trout eggs and salmon eggs were being shipped across the world.

Essentially every rainbow trout's native water is northern California. The Baird Hatchery was formed from Stone and today the hatchery still manages fish as they did back in the 1800s. <http://nctc.fws.gov/...iesHistory.html>

Question: has the NFHS ever stocked Bass in the Columbia River? If so, then it could be a nationally sanctioned fish in that waterway.

[WRB]

Black bass; LMB, SM, Spotted Bass, are not native species west of the Rocky mountains.

The Columbia river boarders Oregon and Washington, what is the Oregon deprtment of fish and game doing; are they in agreement with Washingtons policies? It seems the 2 states should be co-managing the fishery.

Tom

[Traveler2586]

Black bass; LMB, SM, Spotted Bass, are not native species west of the Rocky mountains.

The Columbia river boarders Oregon and Washington, what is the Oregon deprtment of fish and game doing; are they in agreement with Washingtons policies? It seems the 2 states should be co-managing the fishery.

Tom

True on both counts; but on the first count, it appears neither is the Striped Bass native to the Pacific, and the Salmon is only native to the N.W., and Rainbow Trout is only native to N. Calf., so are we going to throw them on the bank also.

Point is, man can only introduce a fish to a body of water, it is then up to the fish to survive (a form of natural selection; and not all make it in their new home).

For that matter, we are not native to this land, so should we leave??

It appears probable that the federal government sanctioned and funded the "placement of the fish for the good of the people" as a food and sport fish; so are we saying the federal government doesn't know what's best for our nation

In fact, I wounder, is the native fish in question a true Columbia river native, or were they placed there by the F&WS in the 1800's????

We now have the Northern Snakehead in my home waters, am I going to whine about it - no - there is nothing we can do about it now,,, am I going to take advantage of the opportunity to catch them - you bet

[NoBassPro]

I couldn't imagine the species of fish they're trying to remove competing really heavily with the salmon. I've never fished for salmon but from what I've heard it seems that salmon are more of an open water schooling fish while the others a more structure/cover oriented fish that could probably go most if not all of their lives without ever coming across a salmon. Either way it seems like a poor decision that could upset an ecosystem. It's kind of like someone removing all the coyotes to try to increase a deer population when the real problem isn't predators but available forage and they end up with a herd that grows bigger than the food supply can sustain because of the lack of predators.

Salmon fry tend to stick close to shore and would be the primary concern. Honestly, over development is probably to blame for recruitment issues far more than other species of fish, but this is a conveniant way to make it sound like they are doing something without costing them as much short term money as say, limiting development or removing dams would.

Having fished the Columbia, I will second that the smallmouth and walleye fisheries are excellent, and Banks Lake is a good LM and SM lake from my experiences. Its not a place I would go for the salmon or steelhead, though. They will never have the fisheries they once had again, and BC and AK will always be superior destinitions imo.

Its always about the money, and if you can show them they stand to lose more money by harming the bass fisheries than they would gain by whatever increase they hope to see in the salmon population, it would be beneficial to your campaign. The major issue will be combatting both the hardcore recreational fishermen and the commercial industry, even if it is fairly limited off the WA coast anymore.

[Traveler2586]

Salmon fry tend to stick close to shore and would be the primary concern. Honestly, over development is probably to blame for recruitment issues far more than other species of fish, but this is a conveniant way to make it sound like they are doing something without costing them as much short term money as say, limiting development or removing dams would.

Having fished the Columbia, I will second that the smallmouth and walleye fisheries are excellent, and Banks Lake is a good LM and SM lake from my experiences. Its not a place I would go for the salmon or steelhead, though. They will never have the fisheries they once had again, and BC and AK will always be superior destinitions imo.

Its always about the money, and if you can show them they stand to lose more money by harming the bass fisheries than they would gain by whatever increase they hope to see in the salmon population, it would be beneficial to your campaign. The major issue will be combatting both the hardcore recreational fishermen and the commercial industry, even if it is fairly limited off the WA coast anymore.

I've been researching this subject for the past few nights and my read indicates predation of Salmon and steelhead eggs may be more prevalent from "other pan fish", i.e. yellow perch, black crappie, etc. However, there may be another agenda here as well.

One thing of interest I noted was the 2011 report on Endangered wild life in Washington,

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife only designated the salmon and steelhead of the Columbia as candidates

for listing as Threatened in Washington.

[NoBassPro]

I've been researching this subject for the past few nights and my read indicates predation of Salmon and steelhead eggs may be more prevalent from "other pan fish", i.e. yellow perch, black crappie, etc. However, there may be another agenda here as well.

Its not just the eggs, the fry themseleves stay in the river for close to a year I believe. I know it is one of the reasons given for limiting shoreline access on the Kenai, but I'm no fisheries biologist either.

As far as the commercial fisheries go, I remember this type of thing going on at one time I was out there. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970730&slug=2552078

I don't know the current status, but it is a high tension area.

[Ricksbass]

I like the idea of making the black bass the national game fish

[Traveler2586]

I like the idea of making the black bass the national game fish

Maybe we should start another discussion on just this topic so we can see just what resources we have available to work with. If we put our minds to it anything is possible. But I have to wounder,,, why hasn't anyone done this by now? Many States have State Fish symbols, and some are LMB. But with as many anglers, clubs, and organizations that have come down the Pike over the last 100 years, why hasn't someone picked a National Fish?

But we need to focus on the state of Washington, and why are they singling out the fish they are on the Columbia? Given the diversity of fish in the river system, and the life cycle of the Threatened fish, things don't make since to me. There is predation among all fish in the river system. There has to be another reason the Salmon and Steelhead are not doing as well, and we need to fully understand this reason before taking actions.

What can we do as a group (other than filling out an on-line form) to let Washington State know we care about the fishery.

[Bass-minded]

Thanks for the heads up.