WDFW LogoWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
  HELP | EMPLOYMENT | NEWS | CONTACT  
WDFW LogoFishing & Shellfishing
Report a Poacher or Other Violation

Fishing Hotline
360-902-2500

Shellfish Rule
Change Hotline

1-866-880-5431

More Hotline Information...

For more information on
fishing, please contact the
WDFW Fish Program.
360-902-2700
Fish Program District Biologists

For fishing regulation
questions, e-mail us at:
fishregs@dfw.wa.gov

For all other questions and comments, e-mail us at:
fishpgm@dfw.wa.gov

 

 
See proposed rule
language (CR-103)
2013 Recreational Fishing Rules Concise Explanatory Statement
Fish & Wildlife Commission
Meeting Feb. 8-9, 2013

2013 – 2014 Sportfishing Rule Proposals – Briefing and Public Hearing. Audio available.

Sportfishing Rule Changes for 2013-2014

Sportfishing Rule Proposals & Comments

View proposals and comments on proposals that were submitted by the public and WDFW staff.
There are two types of rules available for viewing.


Recommended
for Public Comment
Not Recommended
for further consideration
View by Category
Statewide Coastal Region
Freshwater
Statewide
Shellfish/Seaweed
Puget Sound
Region Freshwater
Coastal Region
Marine
Puget Sound
Region Marine
Eastern Washington and
Columbia Region Freshwater

Recommended for Public Comment

Rule Change Recommendation Short Title
# 9. Remove or modify size and daily limits for bass, walleye, and channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries

 • Final Rule Actions
 • See comments

Rules Category
Eastern Washington and Columbia Region Freshwater

Type of Rule Change Proposal
Conservation

Short Description
Below are two proposed rule options to reduce negative interactions between Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed anadromous fish and predatory warmwater fish:

Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.

Option 2 – Remove daily limits and modify size limits for bass and walleye and remove daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.

  • Bass – no daily limit, no more than 3 over 15 inches
  • Walleye –no daily limit, no more than 1 over 24 inches
  • Channel catfish - no daily limit

Rivers or portions of rivers affected by both proposed options:

Bass and walleye:

Stream

Portion of stream affected by proposal

Columbia River mainstem

McNary Dam upstream to Chief Joseph Dam

Yakima River and tributaries

All portions of the Yakima River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Okanogan River and tributaries

All portions of the Okanogan River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Walla Walla River and tributaries

All portions of the Walla Walla River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Snake River mainstem

Confluence with Columbia River upstream to the Idaho/Oregon border

Tucannon River and tributaries

All portions of the Tucannon River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Palouse River from mouth to Palouse Falls

All portions of the Palouse River that are open to game fish angling

Grande Ronde River and tributaries

All portions of the Grande Ronde River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Channel catfish:  size and daily limits for channel catfish were removed in 2002 in the majority of waters listed above.  Remove daily limits in the following:

Stream

Portion of stream affected by proposal

Columbia River mainstem

Priest Rapids Dam upstream to Chief Joseph Dam

Okanogan River and tributaries

All portions of the Okanogan River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Tucannon River and tributaries

All portions of the Tucannon River and tributaries that are open to game fish angling

Explanation
This proposal seeks to increase the harvest of bass, walleye and channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries to reduce competition and predation on Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed anadromous salmonids. This proposal is consistent with supporting The Department‘s conservation mission to support ESA listed salmon and steelhead recovery in the Columbia River Basin. Conserving ESA listed anadromous salmonids through sport fishing regulation is one of many strategies necessary to achieve salmon and steelhead recovery goals.

Original Rule Proposal Number(s)
DFW332292

Final Rule Actions

Staff Recommendation
Adopt with modification
Option 1: Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.

Option 2: Remove daily limits and modify size limits for bass and walleye and remove daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.

  • Bass - no daily limit, no more than 3 over 15 inches
  • Walleye -no daily limit, no more than 1 over 24 inches
  • Channel catfish - no daily limit

Commission Action
Adopted: Option 1 modifying the area "from OR/WA border above McNary Dam upstream" and clarifying the area on the Touchet River (no size and no daily limits for bass, walleye, and channel catfish).

Rule Modifications
Clarify the regulation is from the Washington/Oregon border above McNary Dam on the Columbia River upstream.


Public Testimony

There were no comments.

Online Public Comments  (248 comments)

HEIDEL, ED G  September 20, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support this change. It seems ridiculous to pay people to catch native squawfish, and allow these invasive, non-native species to proliferate and decimate the population of salmon and steelhead smolts.
MAGNUSON, PAULA   September 21, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I'm not sure I understand why you set a size limit that you have set? You should put a size limit on the smallest size you can keep for walleye and bass. Bass not sure what size you would want to put on that, but walleye should go back to the 18 inch instead of the 16 inch. Atleast they have a chance to get bigger. I don't like the one limit over 24 inches for the walleye - maybe you can explain that reason?
BURNS, BILL   September 21, 2012
LONG BEACH, WA  
Comments:
This is a good start, but need to go to all columbia river. Help save our salmon.
GRAYBILL, RICHARD D  September 21, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
Walleye are a very popular game fish in Eastern Washington. I believe Bass more seriously impact our juvenile Salmon and Steelhead. I strongly disagree with removing the daily limit on Walleye. But would agree with the removal of the daily limit on Bass and Catfish.
HYLAND, CHRIS   September 21, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
Well, brace for the hundreds of comments against this. This is not the first time this has been run up the flag pole.......... But Option 1 should be implemented. We are spending MILLIONS to recover salmon/steelhead populations (yes, the BPA figures are inflated on their spending, because they include foregone revenue from spill, which is incorrect; but that's another story). Yet we allow these non-native specieis to flourish. Also, this is only above McNary. And if WDFW spent all the resources to kill Northern Pike in the NE corner of the state, shouldn't this be logical to do so as well???? If you can't bring yourself to do this permanently, then set it up for a 5 year trial period and see what happens. Let the whining begin............
LEE, JEFF B  September 22, 2012
BOW, WA  
Comments:
Recommend AGAINST this proposal as the studies of bass and walleyes as predators on anadromous fish show some impact but not conclusive compared with the effect that overharvest would have spiny ray fish and it's contribution to both the local economy and the sales of licenses and impact on WDFW budget. There are many more spiny ray fishermen than the agency realizes and the fishery would be greatly impacted if restrictions were lifted.
SAWYER, RICK J  September 23, 2012
RITZVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Allow 2 pole endorsement on th Palouse river as that is where the catfish walleye and panfish hang out in the spring and the anadromous fish don't go into the Palouse anyway and the boundary is easily identified.
LOISEAU, STEVEN   September 24, 2012
COLVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I agree with the proposal that retention limits be removed for bass, walleye and catfish. But disagree that only 3 bass over 15 inches, and 1 walleye over 24 inches are the exception. Seems counter-productive, if the goal be to effectively cut down the populations of non-native predators. I suggest we refine and keep it simple for law enforcement and managers, and simply withdraw all restrictions on the take of non-native (and illegaly introduced) fish species. I don't believe unrestricted take will wipe these fish out altogether. If there is an agenda to maintain non-native species as a viable sport fishery within the Columbia mainstem, I don't see it in serious jeapardy due to unrestricted take. But it would serve to tip the balance slightly, in favor of our valuable native salmonids. Thanks
LANG, CHARLES J  September 24, 2012
PRINEVILLE, OR  
Comments:
If you have done stomach sample surveys of the species, you would know that bass predation on salmonids is very low in comparison to the pike minnows they eat, which consume high numbers of them. Don't let your non-native quest force you to harm what you claim you are trying to improve. Look around. On the John Day River, the stealhead run improved every year since the introduction. Verified by ODFW stomach sample survey by Tim Unterwegner and report. Protect the large SMB and improve your salmon/stealhead runs.
JOHNSON, LONNIE E  September 24, 2012
GRANTS PASS, OR  
Comments:
The pikeminnow is the much more dangerous predator. Why would you remove limits on the larger SMB (smallmouth bass), that eat the pikeminnow? Leaving the larger SMB will actually help the salmonid population. Have you done actual stomach content surveys? I understand the urge to remove all "other" fish, but look closely at the realities.
KERBOW, DOCK L  September 24, 2012
PRINEVILLE, OR  
Comments:
I do not like option 1 or 2 leave it were it is.
PANGLE, KEVIN L  September 24, 2012
BEND, OR  
Comments:
Please reconsider this proposal. Please do your own stomach surveys on actual SMB from with in the river system not that of other bodies of water. I am convinced that you will see that larger SMB actually eat the pike mimow - the true salmonid preditor. This proposal is not based on facts from The Columbia River system. In fact, keeping the SMB fishery intact, or improve it will help the salmon/steelhead fishery by eating more pike minnow.
MCCLINTOCK, LARRY   September 25, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
making this change will be detrimental to a couple of great fisheries that help draw people from the mid west to fish in Oregon and Washington. Doing this will not save the salmonids since there are more detrimental preditors of them. Walleye love to eat pikemonnow and feast on them heavily which is a benefit. In the columbia walleye do not suspend and are in the bottom 18 inches of the river. It will be a sad day if this is passed into law. It will also help to destroy a world calss fishery!
REESE, ELDON J  September 25, 2012
FOX ISLAND, WA, WA  
Comments:
This sounds more like politics as usual. What scientific basis is this recommendation based on? Concentrate more on eliminating the tribal overfishing, seal lion predation, gill nets and bird preditation.
SCHUMACHER, WILLIAM   September 26, 2012
CASTLE ROCK, WA  
Comments:
The Columbia River is one of the best walleye fisheries in the country. This proposal will do nothing but ruin the fishery. The size limit should be 16 inches, one over 24 and the daily limit should be 5. I am opposed to any other change to the fishing rules concerning walleye or bass in the Columbia or Snake Rivers.
TUINSTRA, DAN R  September 26, 2012
UMATILLA , OR  
Comments:
I am not in favor of the change. It is not based on accurate research. The biggest predator is pike minnow on Salmon. All of the targeted fish eat pike minnows. Again, Washington is working really hard to destroy a world class walleye fishery! This is not needed.
COX, BRETT R  September 26, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I would like to see daily limits and size limits stay where they are currently. I fish for walleye year round on the Columbia below McNary and on the Snake below little goose. I have watched the popularity of walleye fishing increase dramatically over the past 5 years. I have also seen the size and quantity of the walleye I catch decrease. The Walleye fishery on the Columbia was a world class walleye fishery 10 years ago. I am sad to say those days are behind us. I would like to see the state do more research on this fishery. I would be willing to volunteer in these efforts by logging and submitting my catch records.
HANSON, CHRIS A  September 26, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I don't think that adding the walleye into the mix is a good idea since there is no conclusive science that shows walleye as a major predator of outmigrating salmon smolts. Yes, they are non-native, and yes, they are an apex predator, but they have not been shown to have a significant impact on outmigration as smallmouth bass and pikeminnow have (not to mention terns and cormorants). The lower Columbia River system is home to a tremendous trophy walleye fishery and to negatively impact the future of that by removing large portions of the younger population would be something we'll come to regret in a few years.
SCHUMACHER, CHUCK   September 26, 2012
HAPPY VALLEY, OR  
Comments:
Where is your proof concerning the smallmouth, walleye and Channel Cats? What about the Pike Minnow? They do more damage to the salmon steelhead runs than the above three combined. You are making decisions that effect many without giving the results of studies and well documented proof. Why is that? I travel to the Tri Cities often to fish for the above three. This will have an impact on the quality of that fishery as well. I would only wish that you give results of studies and even stomach checks to point the finger at three fine sport fish.
RALSTON, LEONARD G  September 26, 2012
GRESHAM, OR  
Comments:
I can not comment on bass on catfish predation but I have fished for Walleye for the last 40 years on the Columbia main stem from McNary Dam to below Bonneville Dam. Seldom have if found salmonid fingerlings in the stomach contents. At the most 1 out of 30 fish caught would have remains of salmonid fingerlings.The majority of the stomach contents were crayfish, bass, crappie,shad, and most importantly pikeminnows. Long term, removing limits on these fish will harm the sport fishin on all of these waters and dramically reduce sport fishing partcipaton.
GAUB, STEVE   September 26, 2012
WILBUR, WA  
Comments:
DO NOT DESTROY OUR WALLEYE FISHERY!!!!! It is the number 1 money maker for Lincoln County. Keep the current limit on walleyes, yes remove the limit on bass. At the worst, don't remove the slot limit and let folks keep the small eating walleye. Why do you guys HATE Walleyes?? They are a great fish and should be managed as such. Please don't ruin one of the best walleye fisherys in the world!!
GAUB, STEVE   September 26, 2012
WILBUR, WA  
Comments:
DO NOT DESTROY OUR WALLEYE FISHERY!!!!! It is the number 1 money maker for Lincoln County. Keep the current limit on walleyes, yes remove the limit on bass. At the worst, don't remove the slot limit and let folks keep the small eating walleye. Why do you guys HATE Walleyes?? They are a great fish and should be managed as such. Please don't ruin one of the best walleye fisherys in the world!!
COX, BRETT R  September 26, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
Has there been any consideration of monitoring the catch of salmon and steelhead in native american nets to reach recovery goals. Are there any limits to the number of nets native american fisherman can place? Is it legal for native american fisherman to leave their floats in place year after year?
GOWAN, RON   September 26, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I have never commented on a proposal before this. The department needs to consider that these species provide all year angling opportunities tn the columbia and snake river systems. I would like to see the department make a proposal which is reviewed by independent fishery scientists.
DAHL, TOM M  September 26, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
This is another poorly thought out proposal, with no scientific basis, and a prejudice against anything but anadromous species. I strongly oppose it.
WALKER, ALLAN   September 26, 2012
SPOKANE , WA  
Comments:
The problem for salmon and trout in the Columbia River is not the walleye it's the dams. So stop picking on the walleye and walleye anglers who add so much to the sates economy. And work out better habitat and constant water flows and water levels so the salmon and trout can reproduce and thrive. Look at what the Canadians have done with Kootenay Lake in BC to restore the fish populations after the dams went in and stock dropped out of sight. they have a world class fishery again. Do not blow up a world class walleye fishers (where the next world record walleye is bound to be caught) to help a struggling fishery by not addressing the main cause.
GURTISEN, O.D., JAMES M  September 26, 2012
TROUTDALE , OR  
Comments:
I am a Fisheries Science Grad from U of W. I have read and collected all the available rsearch regarding Walleye in the Northwest. My analysis is that there is no good evidence that Walleye predation is influencing salmon survival. It is possible that Walleye feeding habits are helping Salmon survival. Your efforts may be good intentions but there is little justification for it.
GABRIEL, KIMO   September 26, 2012
HERMISTON, OR  
Comments:
I think it is very mis guided to think that removing limits on walleye will have any effect on salmonid populations,or that harvest will actually increase. The current liberal limits on walleye have done little to reduce walleye popualtions because just a handful of experienced anglers are actually able to catch a limit on a consistant basis, and the weekend warrior seldom ever catches a limit. If you would research the catch rates of the walleye tourney's on the river , you would see that even the most experienced walleye anglers will struggle to catch a 6 walleye tourney limit in an 8 hour day. In the most recent tourney out of Umatilla 2 weeks ago, only one team out of forty three caught a 6 fish limit each day. So remove the limit or not, there won't be any effect on walleye populations and therefore no reduction on predation of salmonids by walleye. As far a competition is concerned, how are a walleye competing with salmonids? Are they swimming into hatcheries and eatin
MARRS, SCOTT W  September 27, 2012
MAUPIN, OR  
Comments:
I have Worked for years with the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department and one of the projects was to assess predation of Small Mouth bass on migrating Salmon smolts. This took place during the peak of the Salmon smolt migration on the Willamette river. Out of the nearly 200 Smallmouth sampled there was a potential of 1 smolt or otherwise a total negative impact on the smolt migration. I am also aware that the the prime predator on smolts ant other species of young is the Norther Pike Minnow ,(squaw fish, chub) or whatever the current term is being used. I believe that based on studies that I have been involved in suggest Smalmouth Bass inhabit a different water column than the smolts. If I were to speculate, understanding the nature of Walleye I would suggest the same is true. This deregulation proposal in my opinion does nothing but target a fishery that does not conform to a native idealism and does not solve the real problem.
ROOS, ERIC   September 27, 2012
ABERDEEN, WA  
Comments:
I like to see option 2 implemented.
LONG, JON   September 27, 2012
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
As a fisherman that targets Salmon, Walleye, and Bass. I really don't see the benefit of removing the limit on Walleye or Bass since I have never caught my limit on the lower Columbia, even if I did I would not be in favor of this, so please don't do this.
VARLAND, AARON T  September 27, 2012
HERMISTON, OR  
Comments:
With recent legislation allowing Native Tribes to resell "incidentally caught" walleye, this is a blatant disrespect to a world class walleye fishery and the people that fish for them. It makes it very clear that fish and wildlife agencies from both WA and OR care very little about this fishery. Your own netting samples have proven time and time again that walleyes have a neglible impact on juvenile salmon and steelhead. Learn to manage a fishery correctly, it seems that the steelhead estimate was a litte light this year, like 147982 over bonneville year to date.
LODERMEIER, ROBERT A  September 27, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
RE: Rule Change Recommendation #9 I'm a dedicated walleye fisherman, that lives in Seattle, but travels to Eastern Washington on a frequent basis to fish for Walleyes; spending money on fuel, food and logging along the way. In addition, I've purchased a brand new boat within the last 12 months, from Valley Marine (in Yakima) that is specialized for fishing for walleye. All money kept in state. The Columbia River doesn't only draw me and money to fish walleyes in it, but many midwesterners fly to Washington State every year (my brother from Wisconsin for example) in seach of an elusive trophy walleye. I suggest that you reach out to local fishing guides that specialize in walleyes to get a better idea on how many of their clientel come from out of state, bringing money to Washington State. Celebrate the walleye and the bounty (cold hard cash) that it can bring to Washington State by NOT passing this change. Advertise the fishery and more people will come driving
BEACH, TED   September 28, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
This appears to be another way to rid the system of Walleye the feds are encouraging this because of the money they put towards the return of the salmon and steelhead there is no proof if all the fish targeted in this proposal were eliminated that the salmon and steelhead would return to expected numbers this is a proposal that should not even be considered it is wrong wrong wrong!! I wished WDF&W and the Feds would just be truthful for once and come out and say yes we are wanting to rid the system of WALLEYE There is a tremendous opportunity to increase the economy of Washington and have a viable renewable resource if the walleye were managed properly as they are in the mid west and east where they co-exist with salmon and steelhead Lets face it ladies and gentlemen it all boils down to one thing it's not about the sound biological scientific findings it's DOLLARS thats what this proposal is all about..
TIERNEY, BILL   September 28, 2012
RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
People love to fish for smallmouth and bass and the limits should stay the same. Until there is more scientific study done, I think removing limits on theses fish is premature. I also fish for steelhead and salmon. But I only do so for limited periods of time. Walleye and Bass offer more consistent angling and rarely do I catch a limit on walleye. Economically the walleye and bass fishing on the columbia river is a good thing for our local area. Fishermen buy gas, boats, food, stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, and add to the livelihoods of people in the area. There are other options to help salmon and steelhead. Lets deal with harvest, terns, spawning habitat, pelicans, dam flows, global warming, etc. etc.
TRACHTENBARG, DAVID   September 28, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I fully support implementation of Option 1 to help reduce impacts to ESA listed species. Option 2 would reduce negative interactions between Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed anadromous fish and predatory warmwater fish and be an improvement over current regulations, however it would not do enough to reduce impacts to ESA-listed species to the extent possible by implementation of Option 1.
TRUMBO, BRAD   September 28, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I feel like option 1 will get stronger opposition from the public in general and I can understand that from bass and walleye anglers. I think we can work with either option and it is a step in the right direction for higher smolt survival. I support either option. If either of these options pass it will be interesting to see if a measurable increase in smolt survival and posible adult returns are realized in the next 10 years.
REINS, DEE   September 28, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Bad idea removing fish who are predators for Pike Minnow (Squaw fish) who are the real predators of the Salmon. Someone is not thinking or doing a complete study on this . In Merwin, Yale, and other resevoirs Muskie are being introduced to reduce the pike minnows, so the Kokane (Land locked Salmon) will survive. In the same light, the Walleye and Bass are pike minnow predators. If you really want to help Salmon, get rid of Tern Island at the mouth of the columbia. That is a man made island where Terns eat thousands of smolts, after they have been transported down the columbia. I have scuba dived in the tributaries to the Columbia, the pike minnows place themselves below waterfalls, so when the smolts come thru, it is an easy meal. One small waterfall has a dozen or more big fat squaw fish.
GROSVENOR, ERIC G  September 28, 2012
UNDERWOOD, WA  
Comments:
I would go a step further and have no size limit at all. Why protect any large breeding female. It seems backwards to manage a sport fishery on a invasive species while dumping billions into esa listed salmon recovery. I would hope Washington has the balls to approach Oregon and have the same types of changes in the Lower Columiba between Bonneville and Mcnary where it's more of a problem.
POTTORFF, DAVID L  September 28, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
You have no data to back any of you changes,if you want to control numbers of salmon and steelhead open the season on comerants and pelicans along with sea gulls. Between these and seals and sea lions you do more to control numbers than changing limits on any of the other fish.
WINDSOR, ROB   September 28, 2012
THE DALLES, OR  
Comments:
I strongly recommend that for the good of future generations of fishing that the current regulations stay in place. Thank you
LOHSE, SHERRI M  September 28, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Please do not let this proposal pass. The bass in our upper rivers aid in eating the pike minnows which helps our salmon and steelhead runs exist and come back to better numbers. This is crazy to take away a limit of a fish that helps keep the balance in our rivers, if you do this it will be hurtful and actually change the balance of everything.
EGAN, WILLIAM E  September 28, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Do your own stomach samples and not below the dams where everything gets ground up and offers a smorgasbord for fish to feed on. Bass and walleye feed on pikeminnows, chubs, shad and shinners. They feed on crayfish and occasionally salmonoids. Catfish are more opportunistic feeders. I have worked with both cold and warm water fisheries for over 40 years. I am surprised your ignorant staff did not propose a bounty on warm water fish as most anglers release bass and some walleye and there is a limited catfishery. The birds are far more effective predators and follow the downstream migrants but you can't control them or the dams, I have found smolt in salmons bellies as well your proposals are bogus and I will not spend a cent fishing, camping or in Washington if they pass.
ALLEN, GEORGE E  September 28, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I don't support either option because they won't make any difference on salmon & steelhead survival. Anglers in the Columbia seldom catch their limits & the ones that do will still practice catch & release. It's just one more feel good regulation to keep from addressing gill nets, sea lions & terns. Option 2 would be the best of the 2 & would have the most support of the warmwater anglers.
KESSLER, WILLIAM D  September 28, 2012
CASTLE ROCK, WA  
Comments:
There is no need to increase or eliminate the limit on bass, walleye, and/or catfish. Those fish are not the problem. Instead, teach the salmon/steelhead anglers to practice catch & release so they can be involved in conservation of their sport.
SMITH, CHARLES   September 28, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Delay proposed rule changes until stomach samples of walleye, bass, catfish, and pike minnow determine the amount of salmon and steelhead smolt consumed. There is a great deal of animosity from salmon anglers toward bass, however, I suspect that their belief has not been substantiated by facts. Please establish facts before giving in to political pressure. Thank you, Chuck Smith
PELLETIER, RENAUD   September 29, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this proposed rule change. Based on thirty five years experience of smallmouth bass fishing in the Columbia and its tributaries I have seen only minimal predation of bass, and walleye on steelhead and salmon smolt. I do not believe removal of bag and take restrictions will benefit anadromous fish returns.
KELLY, TROY M  September 29, 2012
FALL CITY , WA  
Comments:
This rule change will help do nothing to help the amount of returning adult salmon in the columbia river. All this rule will do is destroy healthy populations of other fish species. If you want to get more salmon back each year try not stringing nets across the river.
JORDAN, DAN   September 29, 2012
FLORENCE, OR  
Comments:
It seems for such a regulation there should be studies proving that the predation of smallmouth on salmonoids, thru stomach samples, in the Columbia is occuring at an effective rate. Predation by smallmouth on pike minnows, who are the real culprits, are a benefit instead of a problem. Therefore, I think this regulation does not make sense,
MAY, GLENN   September 29, 2012
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
There's absolutely NO science whatsoever to these proposals. In fact, study after study designed to prove bass are predating and reducing salmon populations have all proven otherwise. Salmon are NOT part of their primary diet! In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever bass have any negative effect on salmon populations. This rule, if passed, will create a major, major uproar and crises within your department. A nationwide publicity campaign will be launched in response. Try me.
BORIGINI, JOSEPH A  September 29, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
YES---DO IT!!!!
NOBLE, ADRIAN   September 29, 2012
DUDLEY, GA  
Comments:
Can you prove that Walleye and Largemouth Bass populations are the cause of Salmon downfall? And I mean scientific proof, not some idiot top brass who thinks he knows whats best. If not, then leave it alone!!!!!
KAMEZAKI, YOSHI   September 29, 2012
CUPERTINO, CA  
Comments:
Salmon population is effected by so many different environmental variables. There's no direct and conclusive evidence linking bass to salmon population. This is a premature proposal without concrete scientific data.
WESTGATE, CLAYTON   September 29, 2012
SHAWNEE, KS  
Comments:
Is there any unbias study to prove that the species of fish you're trying to remove are doing excessive amounts of damage to the salmon? Isn't it possible you're going to unbalance an ecosystem and possibly make it worse? What is the concern? Are the bass, walleye, and catfish supposedly eating the salmon or is it that they're eating all the salmon's food supply? This seems like a decision that could have a tremendous impact that is being made without any substance to back it.
NELSON, TOM   September 30, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
All the research I have seen indicates that predation by bass and walleye is an extremely low percentage of smolt loss. Why target these species when there are other predators that account for a far greater percentage of loss? All this will accomplish is to harm two other great sources of fishing that are self sustaining without vast amounts of money spent producing them. If there is scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
NEUDORFER, JOHN A  September 30, 2012
CHENEY, WA  
Comments:
If a change needs to be made I'm in favor of the 2nd option of •Bass – no daily limit, no more than 3 over 15 inches, •Walleye –no daily limit, no more than 1 over 24 inches, & •Channel catfish - no daily limit. This seems to be more fare to Warm water fisherman & Salmon/Steelhead fisherman. thanks
MAY, KIMBERLEE M  September 30, 2012
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
I would like to see all the studies showing Bass, Walleye and Channel Cats hurt Salmon. Salmon are a open water schooling fish and the others are structure/cover oriented fish. Show the proof! Whose idea was this? Obviously not someone with the education needed to make this decision. Again show the proof? Maybe you should look at the people catching Salmon. I was on the Columbia 9/22 and 9/23 and I’ll tell you the river was obsoletely covered with Salmon boats, must have been 100 of them in one 200 yard stretch. Really! Get them off the river and you might get your Salmon back. IT'S NOT THE BASS, WALLEYE OR CAT FISH.
IHLE, TIMOTHY   September 30, 2012
CAMAS, WA  
Comments:
Recent studies have determined that Smallmouth predation on juvenile salmonids has negligible effects on populations- you know this and have documented this several times! The economic value of a smallmouth bass fishery that is healthy enough to support business and tournaments all along the columbia river and drainages is far to valuable to squander on this proposed daily limit change. This proposed limit change will adversely impact not only the smallmouth, cat and walleye population but also the businesses that rely on the health of these fisheries. As the president of Columbia River Bassmasters and nonconsumptive tourney angler, new Ranger boat purchaser, hotel patron, restaurnant patron, etc of venues all along the Columbia River I heartily object to this change of regulation.
SHAFF JR, RICHARD A  September 30, 2012
RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
I am appauled at removing limitsw on Bass, Walleye and Catfish. However this view does explain why WDFW ignores enforcing the current fishing regulations of bass harvest on the Yakima River by bank fisherman.
SYLVIA, MICHAEL J  September 30, 2012
W. WAREHAM, MA  
Comments:
T he Columbia river is one of the top bass fisheries in the country, and has world renowned walleye fishing. Thing is, there are zero studies that show bass and/or walleye deplete salmon populations. In fact, study after study designed to "prove" they eat thousands of salmon fry like sea lions, have all failed, and have in fact proven they DON'T prefer salmon. There is no scientific link between bass and walleye, and salmon populations. Best regards, Michael Sylvia
WIGNALL, TIM J  September 30, 2012
BEAVERTON, OR  
Comments:
As an avid harvestor of walleye and bass in the upper Columbia I can not remember the last time I seen a salmon or steelhead smolt in the stomach contents of my catch. What I do frequently see are small pike minnows which are detrimental. I hope the states of WA & OR consider all the facts and implications before making such a decision. Bass & walleye fisherman come from all over the country to fish the Columbia for a chance to catch a trophy. Eliminating limits will certainly impact this fishery and the economic benefit it brings to the Northwest. Please consider all the facts and validate the "real" impact (economic and on the salmonidae family) of eliminating these fish from our rivers before making such a decision.
MAGRUDER, ERIC M  September 30, 2012
WALDORF, MD  
Comments:
As a yearly visitor to Washington state (my son lives in Carnation) I am interested in its environmental issues. However, with this subject Washington appears to be publicly stating that they do not truly understand how to manage a sports-fishery, and/or they are content to kneel to lobbyist with special interest; or have a pre-paid agenda of their own. In either regard they are not using sound judgment based on scientific facts in their decision process. I would suggest you hold a round table with experts from across the country and listen to what they can offer on this subject.
LANE, DOUGLAS J  September 30, 2012
LONGVIEW, WA  
Comments:
The fact this proposed ruling is based on on the premise, bass, walleye are detrimental to salmon and steeelhead populations is mis-informed. The primary forage of these species is sculpin, crawfish and juvenile perch. Bass fishing is rapidly becoming the salvation of these water ways as anglers such as myself have shifted to warm water species instead of the ruling STS anglers. Show the evidence !!!!!!! Bass anglers contibute millions of dollars into the economy and are more conciensious toward habitat issues than other sport fisherman. The Columbia is world renowned for it's smallmouth and walleye fisheries and DESERVE to be equally protected.
PARKER , MICHAEL   September 30, 2012
LA CENTER, WA  
Comments:
I would not like to see this approved. From all the studies I have seen, only about 5% of stomach contents of smallmouth are salmonoid. Such a change for that reason would destroy one of the best fisheries in America. A fishery of this quality, with the negative support it receives now, is absolutely amazing. The amount of money spent by warm water anglers is higher than any other. If the fishery was actually managed it would be the best in the world with an income up and down the river system to support itself and help other species.
O'CONNELL, SHAWN   September 30, 2012
BREWSTER, WA  
Comments:
I am not in favor of this proposal and would love to see the supporting science. My concern is that this is another move based on politics and not fisheries management. I have always donated money to the state for fisheries related projects but will cease to do so if this is implemented.
REID, JEFF J  October 01, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Smallmouth are not the problem, this reg will hurt the smallmouth population!
BATEY, GENE   October 01, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
Do not change what is already inplace.
GRAY, KEVIN   October 01, 2012
HERMISTON , OR  
Comments:
Make up your mind. Either try to get rid of the bass (and all the revenue they provide) or manage them. 2 years ago you try to protect them, and the next year you're taking the limits off.
KINNEY, DENNIS E  October 01, 2012
ROSEBURG, OR  
Comments:
Thr removal of bag limits on warmwater fish could not be more wrong. The Columbia is a wonderful fishery because the bass etc. are eating the pike minnows and helping the entire resouce. The regs. are good as they are now. Dennis Kinney Roseburg, Or.
SMITH, JAMES F  October 01, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
I completely disagree with the proposed changes to SMB limits as outlined for the Columbia River. The effect that they have on Salmon and Steelhead fry is minimal. My guess would be that that is also true for Walleye. The predominate feed for the SMB is the crayfish followed by the Goby and the fry of the carp. Modify the limits as you propose and you will see an increase in Carp, Gobys and Crayfish, but not a significant change in Salmon or Steelhead. This change is a continuing hair-brained idea that is proposed by the Tribes and Salmon aficionados every few years. I know NW fishery biologists who share this view completely.
FITZSIMMONS, NICHOLAS M  October 01, 2012
LYLE, WA  
Comments:
As an avid fishermen fishing over 100 days a year for most of Washington's game species including Salmon and Steelhead I am severely apposed to both proposals listed above. The Columbia River is one of the Smallmouth jewels of the US that is only bettered by a handfull body of waters, which could be devestated by the regulations above. Instead of looking for an easy way out without comprehensive studies down by the state (not college kids), Washington should actually complete and publish studies showing what percentage of Smallmouth are eating smolt and how much. I believe you will find that reducing Smallmouth numbers will greatly harm the Smallmouth fishing with only providing the most minimal benefit to Salmon and Steelhead. Other things could be done to enhance the Columbia's runs much more efficiently such as controlling the Sea Lions and Seals better at the lower dams, regulating commercial fishermen within the river system better, and improving water quality.
ENEVOLD, DUSTIN W  October 01, 2012
GREENACRES, WA  
Comments:
I am an avid steelhead and salmon fisherman. Targeting species such as bass is a bad idea in this river system. Bass are a great game fish. We need to continue to target northern pike minnow which are also a food source for bass. Without bass/catfish, northern pike minnow would thrive more than they already do. I think we need to concentrate on real issues such as wolf's and cougars. If you haven't been on Mica lately I reccomend you do. The wolf's are destroying what little elk hunting we have left in Washington and starting to really affect the moose that are on Mica Peak. Also the idea that we cannot run cougars with dogs is crazy. I know I am talking about a whole different issue from the bass above, but this is what we need to spend money on, not bass/catfish.
JANKE, ANDREW B  October 01, 2012
WARREN, OR  
Comments:
Don't remove the warm water fish they eat the smaller Pike Minnow. Don't let the Salmon, Trout, & Steelheaders influence your decision. There is a lot of warm water fisherman in this state. That pay's for licenses lures boats ect. We have a good thing, let's not mess it up over petty politics. Thanks, Andrew Janke
HIGGINBOTHAM, FRED G  October 01, 2012
WEST RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
I agree with idea behind this proposal 100%. I prefer Option 1.With all the regional interest and demand to recover our salmon & steelhead populations, WA, OR and ID ALL need to make some changes. In one study I found by Bruce Reiman et al. 1991, they estimated from 1983-86 bass and walleye ate over 351,000 & 243,000 juvenile salmonids, respectively, in the John Day pool alone. I know WDFW and the other state agencies will take a lot of heat for this change but the salmon already have a major obstacle in their recovery - sport & commercial fishing. Salmon & steelhead are the ONLY animals I've ever heard of that are listed under the ESA and we allow people to kill them. The states aren't going to stop salmon fishing so they should take off size/limit restrictions on these predators. I'm old enough to remember the big runs of salmon in ID and WA, & the only thing I'd like 2 c b 4 I die, besides stable wolf populations, is the recovery of salmon & steelhead.
SHRUM, JIM L  October 01, 2012
ROSEBURG, OR  
Comments:
I very strongly disagree with the proposal for the changes to the warm water regulations. "Our River" is a great fishery. We don't need to do things to destroy specific aspects of the fishery. The studies have been done as to the impact of warm water species on the Salmon species. There is no reason making these changes would be anything except a negative. There are alot of fishermen who only fish for warm water species. These fisheries should be managed with respect to the monies these anglers spend as well. Warm water anglers feel they have no support at all from "Our" fishery management systems. Thank you.
BAKER, RUSS F  October 01, 2012
KENT, WA  
Comments:
Bass of both species primarily feed on crawfish in the Columbia River and its tributaries. Limiting fisherman to 3 bass over 15" will not affect in any way the salmonoid fishery. Nets, Cormorants, over harvest by commercial fisherman, and dams are the problem. Past creel surveys have stated that bass are not the problem.
CREAMER, JOSH P  October 01, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
It would ruin an amazing smallmouth fishery there beautiful fish. Would be a damn shame!
LAMB, JESSE   October 02, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
With a degree in Environmental Science and a profession in Fisheries Biology I understand the need to reduce the impacts on Endangered Species. In order to properly manage the resources and set harvest limits there must be research done that proves the negative impact on ESA listed species. Research I am familiar with shows very little if any impact on juvenile salmonids by bass and walleye. What study or studies are being referenced for this proposal? As an avid walleye fisherman I have many concerns with the proposal of removing the catch limit on walleye. In recent years there have been many giant walleye caught in the wallula pool above McNary. In 2007 Mike Hepper set the state record in this area with a 19.3lb fish that is the 6th biggest walleye ever taken within the US. This past year alone there were 4 fish offically weighed over 18lbs! To eliminate the harvest limit and size limit could be devastating to the world class fishery that we obviously take for granted.
WEED, NATHAN D  October 02, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
I am a C&R bass fisherman so of course I have an opposing opinion about this matter. Please do not reduce the restrictions on bass and walleye even more than they are as-is. If anything the retention of Large-mouth bass should be restricted during prespawn,spawn and post, and there should be a slot limit on Small mouth. The Columbia and Snake rivers have the habitat potential to be world class fisheries much like the Missouri River in the Dakotas. Perhaps ask how Minnesota PROFITS on rec fishing? They have spiny ray fish to thank which spawn every year. Not just while they are the way to their deathbed. The way things are going the Salmon money will run out and we will be left with nothing but Carp and Pike. If the rule does loosen up it wont make a difference anyways. I have never been approached by a game warden in the 20 years I have been fishing. There is nobody enforcing the current rules and the poachers in Burbank, Finly, and Pasco area are well aware of this
LEVEE\, CHARLES   October 02, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
This is a terrible idea as far as I'm concerned. We already have limits and many people poach them already. Walleye is a great resource in the Columbia river. Renowned across the country. They are also with out question, some of the best eating freshwater fish available across the US. If it becomes a free for all, the numbers will dwindle and shut down guides and other related business. Bass and Walleye may eat some salmonoids, but they also eat Pike minnow which are a much bigger and real "problem". As a matter of fact, the Pike Minnow population would probably explode. I don't see how ODFW can not realize this?
LYNCH, CRAIG T  October 02, 2012
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
Excellent plan! It makes little sense for BPA to spend 900 million annually in salmon/steelhead recovery efforts and to sponsor a rewardprogram for native pikeminnows at the same time that we have limits on illegally introduced exotics like bass and walleye. Please approve this measure which should save taxpayer money as well as assist salmon/steelhead recovery.
ANDERSON, JACOB A  October 02, 2012
RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
I am not in agreement with lifting limits on bass, walleye, and catfish in the waters listed above. I am not a biologist, but I have some first hand experience studying the diets of Smallmouth Bass in the Columbia River system. I have read the studies on the Yakima, and understand that Bass do predate on smolt...although this is not their primary food source. What I will say is that Oceanic Conditions, Dams, commercial overfishing, netting, wanton waste by native americans, water temp and quality, unnatural conditions that allow pikeminnow to thrive, and birds to wreak havoc on outgoing fish populations are the problems. If WDFW wants to potentially ruin world class fisheries knowing they will have absolutley no quantifiable impact on the fisheries they intend to help......well that is a marketing campaign and feel good story without substance or science that I cannot support. Any thought about how the pikeminnow population will explode if we remove its only predators?
MOBLEY, PATRICK T  October 02, 2012
KETTLE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
The introduction of rainbow smelt would positiveley impact the columbia river system allowing adult fish of all species ample food supplys while reducing predation on all species. The economic impact of walleye fishing is undeniable, do not put politics ahead of science, wild fish will always prey on released fish with poor survival instincts. Catching a naive released trout brings little joy to a true sportsman. Enhance what we have not the pipedream of a select few at taxpayer expense. Our daily limits far exceed walleye powerhouse destinations such ND, SD, WI, and MN. Removing limits is not the answer. Again, the rainbow smelt is a natural prey fish of walleyes and rainbow trout and allows rapid growth of both specimins. Beyond the smelt the state should avoid massive drawdowns of the lake that limit the growth of weedbeds and negatively affect spawning. This is the biggest crisis for the lake. Fertilizing the beds would enhance all fishing. Thank you
FEMLING, OTTIS   October 02, 2012
OKANOGAN, WA  
Comments:
This is a bad idea bass do not feed on salmonids as much as they eat northern pike minnow fry. The state has spent billions on salmon recovery and they have a viable fishery on the upper columbia river now. This preposal does not seem to be based on science but a kneejerk reaction.
HOGUE, ROBERT D  October 03, 2012
RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
How about just putting a 5 year moratorium on fishing for anadromous fish. Most (a huge percentage) of the walleye and bass are caught by sportsmen who practice catch and release. Too bad we don't have the same practice in use by salmon/steelhead fishermen (unless they are told by the state to do so for wild fish). Afraid of losing revenue from these clowns who pose as sportsmen? Folks who practice catch and release will not be impacted by this proposal. Those who keep their catch have been doing so regardless of bag limits. A dose of reality needed here!!
KUEHNE, LAUREN   October 03, 2012
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
As a scientist who has studied interactions of juvenile salmon and smallmouth bass for the past several years (both in a lab and in the field) I believe this proposed rule change would be a prudent and useful response to help mitigate the impacts of non-native predators and competitors on salmon populations. Further, I believe it would represent no material threat to warmwater populations for recreational sportfishing - particularly as the proposed rule change is geographically targeted to areas of overlap with salmon populations.
SIMON, CHAD D  October 03, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Who did the study that led to the proposal? Predation of salmon by bass naturally occurs on a minute scale since there is infrequent overlap of their range. If anything,it would make sense that bass would be more likely to have a positive impact on salmonids in the Columbia due to their predation of juvenile Northern Pikeminnow, walleye, and other species. A recent publication by Thomas A. Friesen, after a prolonged study by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife entitled: "A Review of Smallmouth Bass Predation on Juvenile Salmonids", researched bass predation of juvenile salmon in the Columbia river's Hanford Reach among others. Conclusions drawn from the research incuded: "No researchers conclude SMB are a “major” source of salmonid mortality" "The bass …will prove himself, if given the opportunity, the best friend of our salmon and trout.” I believe the March 2008, federal authorization to remove California sea lions was a step in the right direc
DALE, GEORGE A  October 03, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
I think we all know that the Northwest has an invested interest in Salmon and trout as it relates to fishing license sales. Salmon and Trout are the trophy fish that are targeting by a larg percentage of the fisherman on the river. However ther is a growing demand and popolarity of Walley and Bass fisherman. These two species enteract in a preditory fashion on each other more than they do the salmon and trout. Since Walley and Bass are resident in the Columbia and the oportunity to feed on each other is year round. the Salmon and the trout smolts are only in the river system a very short time and do not contribute to the year round food of Bass or Walley. I am a avaid Walley fisherman. I also fish for salmon and steelhead and trout. My purchase of my license is dependent on all of these fish not just one being more abundant than any other. I am opposed to this proposal. I do not see the value in desimating one over the other.
MCPHERSON, DONALD   October 03, 2012
BLACK DIAMOND, WA  
Comments:
You need to consider more than just Salmonoids. This is a dumb proposal. Please kill it.
GREEN, SONNY   October 04, 2012
HARRISONBURG, VA  
Comments:
You ask for comment on changing the impact of fish and how they relate to their enviroment, yet you offer no basis on which we can offer any said opinion. An opinion is worth nothing if there are no proven facts that the eco system is in serious trouble as you may suggest for the, I assume, Salmon you are trying to protect. As a Bass fisherman and a sportsman alike, I ask that you take into consideration what the impact would be on the enviroment as a whole and not just one species should this be allowed to happen and continue to be allowed in the future. We as humans tend to react and change things without thinking of the concequences of a long term effect of any given impact we may have made. Every part of our eco system has thrived through time and developed ways of ensuring that they continue to survive without interference from humans, deleting or an increasing effort to delete a species of any kind will be disastrous without proper study of the negitive impact.
PARKS, VIC   October 04, 2012
BURBANK, WA  
Comments:
Good Morning, I am not in favor of any changes in the regulations. The Walleye and Bass populations are already dropping. I've fished walleye for over 15 years now and when I started a 15-20 fish day was common. I haven't had a 10 fish day in over 6 years. In fact, to catch a fish is considered a good day now. The last 5 trips on the Snake River below Ice Harbor dam have produced no fish at all for me. All the guys I associate with have had similar reports with few or no fish. The increased number of fishermen have had a drastic impact on the walleye populations already. If you have to change something, lower the limits and raise the size restrictions. Since you have studies that show that walleye target squawfish, that would help salmon and steelhead populations. It just might be that the reduced numbers of walleye has helped the squawfish populations, which has hurt the salmon and steelhead. It is time to manage by sound data instead of kneejerk and warm fuzzy. Thank You!
CHEEVER, JEREMY J  October 04, 2012
CASHMERE, WA  
Comments:
this is a horrible idea, no limit on bass..first the river and then what inland lakes. Once again the game dept making terrible choices.
FAST, DAVID E  October 04, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
I recommend the implementation of Option 1. The predation of salmonids by bass, catfish and other predators has been studied by the lower Yakima river the WDFW Species Interaction Team under the YKFP program. They estimated that very high levels of fall chinook smolts were being consummed by smallmouth bass. Catfish were also observed to have eaten many (up to 29) salmondids per predator. After years of study with consistent results for these high consumption rates, the WDFW biologists said they could not change the regulations, so funding for that research was discontinued. No adaptive management there! It is well past time that actions were taken to reduce the negative impacts of exotic species predation on native salmonids and other populations of fish in the Columbia Basin. Option 1 should be adopted as soon as possible. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
CURDIE, DAVID D  October 04, 2012
OROVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am concerned about the wording “All portions of the Okanogan River and tributaries.” The Okanogan River flows through Lake Osoyoos. Toats Coulee runs through Palmer Lake into the Similkameen River and into the Okanogan River. What assurance does the WDFW give that the proposed bass rule changes will not be imposed upon Lakes Osoyoos and Palmer once approved?
STAHL, JOHN H  October 04, 2012
WINCHESTER, VA  
Comments:
It is a poverty whenever science is hijacked by emotion. Passion rules reason, and it is passion, not fact, leading those in Washington in their efforts to destroy the walleye and bass population. Study after study has been funded in efforts to link the two fish to declining salmon populations. Each study, every single one, shows no correlation whatsoever between the three fish. Please, allow science and fact to rule, not emotion! Thank you for your time. -Concerned across the country John
JORGENSEN, DOUGLAS   October 04, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
As an avid angler who fishes over 50 days a year, I find this new rule proposal ridiculous. I fish for multiple species, but to destroy our warm water fisheries for no benefit to salmon would be a travesty. Where is the biologists in this bit of proposed rule change? Keep the limits in place and do something positive for salmon, something science based.
RASMUSSEN, JOHN   October 05, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
I fully support this prop. to remove invasive species from the columbia river and its tribs! We are a unique region of the country, we need to support our native species!
CONLEY, WILL   October 06, 2012
LYLE, WA  
Comments:
I am highly supportive of removing harvest restrictions on bass, walleye, and channel catfish. Option 1 is the only choice. There should be no catch, possession, or size restrictions on non-native fish. Option 2 can only be described as a half-assed approach that would maintain high abundance of size classes that 1) prey upon native fish at disproportionately high rates and 2) have higher fecundity rates that contribute to persistence of non-native populations at disproportionately high rates. I am surprised and disappointed that the rule change will not apply downstream of McNary Dam on the Columbia R. I support rule changes beyond Option 1 including: - prohibit 'release' of any bass, walleye, and channel catfish - removal of bass, walleye, and channel catfish from 'wanton waste' enforcement - application to the entire length of the Columbia accessible to anadromous salmonids - removal of license requirements to fish for or possess bass, walleye,
MCALLISTER, MIKE   October 06, 2012
HOOD RIVER , OR  
Comments:
It looks like a good idea for reducing predation on outmigrating salmon. Option 1 being best. Please apply to the reach downstream of mcnary dam also.
BARTHOLOMEW, JEROD M  October 06, 2012
KLICKITAT, WA  
Comments:
I am highly supportive of removing harvest restrictions on bass, walleye, and channel catfish.  Option 1 is the only choice.  There should be no catch, possession, or size restrictions on non-native fish. Option 2 can only be described as a half-assed approach that would maintain high abundance of size classes that 1) prey upon native fish at disproportionately high rates and 2) have higher fecundity rates that contribute to persistence of non-native populations at disproportionately high rates. I am surprised and disappointed that the rule change will not apply downstream of McNary Dam on the Columbia R.  I support rule changes beyond Option 1 including: - prohibit 'release' of any bass, walleye, and channel catfish - removal of bass, walleye, and channel catfish from 'wanton waste' enforcement - application to the entire length of the Columbia accessible to anadromous salmonids - removal of license requirements to fish for or possess bass, walleye,
CORNELIUS, CHRIS   October 06, 2012
SPOKANE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
Please enact option 1 as it would provide the best option for native fish
BARBER, PETER E  October 06, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I am highly supportive of removing harvest restrictions on bass, walleye, and channel catfish. Option 1 is the only choice. There should be no catch, possession, or size restrictions on non-native fish. Option 2 can only be described as a half-assed approach that would maintain high abundance of size classes that 1) prey upon native fish at disproportionately high rates and 2) have higher fecundity rates that contribute to persistence of non-native populations at disproportionately high rates. I am surprised and disappointed that the rule change will not apply downstream of McNary Dam on the Columbia R. I support rule changes beyond Option 1 including: - prohibit 'release' of any bass, walleye, and channel catfish - removal of bass, walleye, and channel catfish from 'wanton waste' enforcement - application to the entire length of the Columbia accessible to anadromous salmonids - removal of license requirements to fish for or possess bass, walleye,
TAYLOR, JOHN   October 06, 2012
LYLE, WA  
Comments:
Favor Option 1 with modification Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass,walleye and channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries Thank you
FIELD, WESLEY   October 06, 2012
MOSCOW, ID  
Comments:
There should be no bag limit or possession limit on any non-native fish. The goal of managing any non native species in any state should be to eradicate the population. Also if the plan is to remove these predators, adding a size restriction keeps individuals with a high fecundity in the population which in return will add more individuals that will be predating on imperial species.
SELF, ALLAN   October 07, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
If you open no limit on bass or walleye their will be to maney people taking any thing. The mexicans are already taking over limits. All you think about is the indains. all you think about is stealhead and salmon. Not everybody likes to fish for them . Look whAT you did at sprague lake Kill everything and replant with rockey mountain carp. (trout) You people stink you couldnt make nothing work so leave things like they are . And get off your lazy buts and check the indains catch. you dont police them. What about the money you charged us for freashwater fish . the gov. put it in her pocket.
MELKUS, VINCENT   October 07, 2012
HARDIN, MT  
Comments:
I regularly go to Washington to the Columbia river for the spectacular bass fishing and spend a large sum of money doing this. If such regulation is passed and an attack on the bass population is under taken I will no longer fish or visit Washington.
HANRAHAN, TIM P  October 07, 2012
RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
I support a rule change to option 1
MARTIN, STEVE W  October 08, 2012
DAYTON, WA  
Comments:
Strongly support option 1. Non native fishes should not be managed for conserving them but rather should be managed for conserving native populations. The public has invested hundreds of millions of dollars for salmon and steelhead recovery, communities and landowners have made sacrifices or tradeoffs in support of salmon recovery, and anglers have accepted reduced fishing opportunity while the populations recover; the consumption of even one wild salmon by these introduced species is unaceptable. I applaud WDFW for the leadership in recommending this conservation regulation.
WALTERS, BRIAN T  October 08, 2012
GRAND COULEE, WA  
Comments:
We need daily limits. .people will take way more fish then they know what to do with. I think this will hurt the fishery very quick. Keep the daily limits in effect. Thanks Brian Walters
TACHELL, JONATHAN T  October 08, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
Remove all bag limits and size restriction on all non native warm water fish species wherever native fish especially salmon, steelhead, trout and char exist.
FISHER, CHRISTOPHER J  October 08, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
In regards to the consideration of liberal bag limits upon smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and walleye (Sander vitreus). First these two species are non-native to the Columbia River system. These two species, where native, are top-level predators. Based upon evaluations, specifically in the Yakima River basin, smallmouth bass consume large amounts of native salmonids, particularly summer migrants. Walleye become piscivorous beginning at a TL of 30 mm (Mathias and Li 1982), consequently juvenile salmonids would be a prey source for walleye for a large proportion of their life. Second by implementing a regulation which manages for the benefit of non-native species which have been documented to increase the mortality of native salmonid species, some which are Federally-listed. Therefore by implementing a regulation which adversely affects the survival of Federally-listed, this could be recognized by the public, natural resource agencies, or non-governmental organizations a
SCHMIDT, PETER   October 09, 2012
SHERWOOD, OR  
Comments:
I support this proposal which will help recovery of native anadromous fish.
HOCKERSMITH, ERIC   October 10, 2012
WAITSBURG, WA  
Comments:
Both options 1 and 2 are ethically appropriate steps for the state to take for recovery efforts of threatened and endangered endemic species. Walleye, bass, and catfish are not endemic to the Columbia River basin. They are a major predator on endemic listed stocks and may reduce the success of recovery efforts. Option 1 is better for recovery efforts than option 2 from but may be less popular with some portions of the public. I fully support WDFW efforts to reduce non-endemic populations which are limiting recovery efforts of threatened and endangered endemic species.
MIRAGLIO, MIKE A  October 10, 2012
CLARKSTON , WA  
Comments:
Isupport option 1 which seems to do a faster job at eliminating warm water preditors by killing all sizes if that is what the WDFW wants to do.
SKAAR, KIM W  October 10, 2012
CHELAN, WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to taking the limit off of bass, walley and channel catfish on any waterways. You are giving fishermen a chance to eliminate the fishery entirely. Currently there is very little enforcement on limits for spiny ray fish as we have witnessed this on Lake Chelan which is our home water. Our larger fish are being targeted during the spawning season and being taken home and fried up in a pan. Each year our tournament weights are going down and they have been for the past 10 years. The fish are smaller as fisherman are keeping the largest bass and eating them. I am in favor of limits and size restrictions for all bass, walleye and catfish as this can protect our fisheries for future generations. Too much emphasis is put on the salmon and steelhead populations in this State and very little to nothing is done for the spiny ray fishery. When will Washington State recognize that our Washington State Bass Federation has members too and we spend a lot of money on this spor
HOPKINS, JAMES W  October 10, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
This rule change is long over due. I support no limits on introduced species.
STROUP, ROBERT   October 10, 2012
LEAVENWORTH, WA  
Comments:
I personally believe that anything we can do to protect ESA listed anadromous fish an predatory warmwater fish. I am in favor of Option 1. I would hope that this does not include Banks Lake. This lake needs to have enforced rules for preservation of the fishery.
JOHNSON, BRADLEY J  October 11, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 1.
PINEO, DOUG   October 11, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support Option 1. I understand WDFW's dual mandate and the potential for conflict between them. On one hand you're responsible for managing wildlife-oriented outdoor recreation, and on the other, for protecting the state's natural heritage in fish and terrestrial wildlife and their habitats. Given the billions of dollars of public funds spent on restoring native runs of salmonids in the Columbia River watershed, WDFW should remove all size, possession and catch limits on non-native fish in all of the Columbia, Snake, and Grande Ronde river, including the entire Columbia below the McNary Dam.
FERRIER, GLEN L  October 11, 2012
LEAVENWORTH, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 1, thank you..
NELLE, PAMELA   October 12, 2012
PESHASTIN, WA  
Comments:
i support option 1 to support efforts to recover endangered salmon and steelhead
CORSALE, JANET C  October 12, 2012
WHITE SALMON, WA  
Comments:
I am highly supportive of removing harvest restrictions on bass, walleye, and channel catfish. Option 1 is the only choice that will to improve recovery of native fish. There should be no catch, possession, or size restrictions on non-native fish. I am extremely disappointed that the rule change will not apply downstream of McNary Dam on the Columbia River. I support rule changes beyond Option 1 including: - prohibit 'release' of any bass, walleye, and channel catfish - remove bass, walleye, and channel catfish from 'wanton waste' enforcement - apply to entire length of the Columbia River accessible to anadramous salmonids - remove license requirements to fish for or possess bass, walleye, or channel catfish
KLICKITAT CO. NAT. RES. DEPT., JOHN   October 12, 2012
GOLDENDALE, WA  
Comments:
Please see Attached Letter. In summary: •Klickitat County supports Option 1 of the 2013-2013 WDFW sport fish proposed rule change #9. •We advocate for the additional inclusion of the Columbia River and its tributaries below McNary Dam in the proposed rule change. •We strongly encourage removing the size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the White Salmon River, Klickitat River and Rock Creek.
ROWE, ANTHONY W  October 12, 2012
APO, AP  
Comments:
I am a resident of the state of Washington and am currently stationed overseas. I believe many of these species are having a negative impact on our steelhead and salmon. These species (steelhead and salmon) not only bring probably the most revenue to our fishing industry and our local economies but are probably the most sensitive and have the hardest time rebounding. Predation be these fish are having a negative impact along with Dams and many other influence's. Lets reduce what we can by reducing Bass, Walleye, and Channel Catfish.
QUADE, JOHN R  October 13, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
How about Option 3, i.e., Have Generalissimo Christine and the rest of the Democrats take their hands out of the Indian Wallets first and quit pandering to the Tribes. To be as frank as possible, this is a BullCrap Proposal. If the State would wake up and start developing this fisheries as a midwest tourist draw, it would not need as much Tribal Casino Kickbacks.
BYRNE, MARK E  October 13, 2012
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
An ODFW biologist in Central Oregon did conducted a stomach sample study of SMB in the John Day River in 1976-1977 and published the results and reported them in a 5 state workshop in 1998. "Management Implications of Co-occuring Native and Introduced Species" Bruce Shupp gave a presentation at the same workshop. The study sampled 500 SMB over several time periods and locations on the John Day. He reported out the stomach contents, which contained NO salmonids, but many non-game fish and a few unidentified fish. His conclusion was that: "The introduction of smallmouth bass into the John Day River does not appear to have a significant (if any) impact on native salmonids, based on the analysis of over 500 smallmouth bass stomach contents and an analysis of salmon and steelhead spawning data. Pt 1
BYRNE, MARK E  October 13, 2012
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
Chinook salmon spawning surveys show an increase in spawning densities over the last 20 years and summer steelhead spawning surveys follow trends similar to adjacent basins that have either no smallmouth bass or very few smallmouth bass. Anecdotal observations of long-term river users indicate that the number of northern pike minnows has declined since the introduction of smallmouth bass into the John Day River." Pt 2
BYRNE, MARK E  October 13, 2012
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
ODFW did a similar yet smaller study in Salem on the Willamette River in 1999 and found one salmonid type in 160 stomachs. Reducing the Smallmouth Bass will increase the pike minnows which make salmonids 75-80 percent of the diet. You just need to do the math to improve or trash our salmon fisheries. WDFW Manager Steve Jackson did a study of Bass diet on Lake Washington and salmonids did not even make the top ten on the list of prey species items accounted for in Smallmouth or Largemouth Bass stomach contents for this body of water. M E Byrne Conservation Director WA BASS PT 3
CARNEY, DAN   October 13, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
I do not support these measures directly. Where is the science to support the premase that the primary cause of decreased juvenille fish migrating to the ocean is caused by these "Warm Water" fish? What about efforts to reduce Blue Heron, Pelicans and Cormorants. I grew up fishing these waters (and still do) and never saw any of these fish-eating birds in the area.
FINCH, RICHARD B  October 14, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
Currently, during the steelhead season on the Okanogan River, only hatchery steelhead may be kept. Should allow harvest of bass, walleye , etc using the same selective fishing methods.
PEVEN, CHUCK   October 14, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
Option 1; maintaining a "trophy" fishery for walleye in particular cannot be justified considering the millions upon millions of dollars that are spent on salmon recovery. Why would the state promote non-native fisheries that have been shown to consume millions of juvenile salmonids (look at lower river studies by ODFW and USFWS from the 1990s and work performed in the Yakima River)? Certainly there will be push-back from warm water species anglers, but if someone compared the dollars generated from those fisheries to the millions that are spent on salmon recovery (financed from electrical rates of those same fishermen), I would have a tough time believing that the scale would be close, i.e., there is much more money spent on salmon recovery than what is generated to the economy through warm water fisheries.
JEZOREK, IAN   October 14, 2012
BINGEN, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support Option 1 to remove all size and take limits on bass, catfish, and walleye. I would also like to see this apply throughout the entire Columbia and tributaries. Managing these invasives for sportfishing while reducing number of native predators and spending millions on salmon and steelhead restoration has long been a misguided strategy and I am happy to see WDFW considering these changes. Thank you. Ian Jezorek
HEDDEN, DAVE J  October 14, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
Once again we are neglecting to look at the real issue. This regulation is a terrible solution. WDFW wonders why our license sales are decreasing. You are proposing to decimate our largest growing target species for anglers. Walleye are becoming the most targeted species (year around)in Eastern Washington. We have people from the Mid-West coming over to fish the Columbia River for walleye because we have an amazing fishery. If we are concerned about ESA (which, when I last checked was Federal) lets address the real issues. We don't have a shortage of fish, we have a shortage of fish management. Lets address Federal issues such as Terns, Sea Lions, Native "Commercial" nets (Non-Selective and most damaging), White Commercial Nets, AND management for maximum harvest for all parties involved. Let fish pass and then see the results. When we get people who understand the fishery and not just numbers, our fishery will improve. Bottom line, sportsman can be the only sele
LIND, RICK   October 14, 2012
TONASKET, WA  
Comments:
Where is the science to support this change? This is a political move and does not have the best interest of the resource in mind. Predation of salmon by bass does occur, but is extremely minimal due to the infrequent overlap of their range. If anything, bass likely have a positive impact on salmonids in the Columbia and its tributaries, due to their predation of Northern Pikeminnow, Carp and others. The WDFW is hanging their hat on one study but there are many others out there that do not support the Yakama River Study conclusions. There is a high probability that removing many SmallMouth bass from the river will increase the Northern Pikeminnow and have a negative impact on salmonids.
BORDERLINE BASSIN CONTENDERS, ROBERT HARRIMAN   October 15, 2012
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
Bordeline Bassin Contenders has been a club since 1973, We are also a long standing member of the Washington State Fed of Bass Clbs. The Fed helped form the rules and regs for the Columbia System into the current regs.We are not in favor of either proposal #1 or # 2, but if it had to be down to a proposal, it would be no2. We are against this overall proposal based on principle. First of all there were stomach studies done years ago -samples on bass, walleye, and chnl catfish relatg to salmon & steelhd smolt predation. Those samples indicated a very small percent 1% or less. The same sample time period showed the Northern Pike minnow over 30% - wow! We feel no gain would occurr by this ruling except bad relations betwn cold & warmwater fishers, and definitely negative marketg and relatnshps with the WDFW. A better solution would be to open the bounty system up on the northern pike minnow along with use of TigerMusky in the Wanapum pool and talk to Grant County PUD. sincerely BoB H
HYDE, KEN J  October 15, 2012
COULEE DAM, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support this proposal and would ask that future proposals include Lake Rooosevelt in the area under these fishing regulations for the following reasons: 1. Walleye continue to impact recruitment of Columbia River White Sturgeon in the upper reaches of Lake Roosevelt. 2. Natural reproduction of Trout and Kokanee continues to be impacted by walleye and smallmouth bass in spite of agressive hatchery and net pen rearing programs. 3. BPA (i.e. rate payers) has invested heavily in native trout, kokanee, and sturgeon augmentation programs on Lake Roosevelt. It appears to be less than ideal management that WDFW continues to protect and manage more for the non-native walleye and smallmouth bass. 4. Recent findings by researchers on Lake Roosevelt find that forage fish (prey) numbers have fallen by 90% as a direct result of walleye and bass predation.
MILLER, DOUG   October 15, 2012
GOLDENDALE, WA  
Comments:
Adopt with a variation. Purchase of a Bass (warmwater fisheries)Stamp to allow fishing for the listed species and to have the unlimited number of fish as presented in the proposal. This will function in gathering information on the number of warm water fishers for the State Survey and provide additional revenue to WDFW for enforcement (similar to the Columbia River Stamp). Additionally, if the proposal was adopted in a manner in which a stream could be opened for warm water fish above the current limit, a Bass or Walleye symbol could be placed in front of the stream, to allow anglers to know that the stream or lake is open to a larger limit. This would act the same as the Two-Pole endorsement and the Columbia River Stamp for Steelhead endorsement.
ROTHROCK, ROBERT M  October 15, 2012
TONASKET, WA  
Comments:
I have been employed at a water dist.for 23 years.I love to fish all types of species of fish. I believe in a balance of fish resources, and taking one species like bass out,to save salmon will only produce more numbers of pikeminnows which eat salmon probably more!At least bass are a popular sport species that if managed correctly will bring thousands $ to the local buissness, and to the state levels.There will be plenty of salmon in the columbia as long as the indians and wdfw run the hatcherys right! So I think proposal 9 is not the best solution at this time. thank you for your time Bob.
SCROGGINS, CULLY B  October 17, 2012
LONGVEIW, WA  
Comments:
I am a bass fisherman, i am 14 years old and i live in Longveiw and i fish all over the Colombia and i just want to say that if you take the limits out on bass and walleye you will decimate the population of bass. I under stand that they eat smult, but i think there should be a limit on them. I do bass tournaments and i don't want to see the bass population go down. We catch and release, and if people go out there and keep all they want, our tournament fishing will be over. Thanks, Sincerely Cully!
LLEWELLYN, TERRENCE C  October 17, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to this rule. I believe that as long as tribal members are allowed to use nets in these same waters and harvest the majority of the so call endangered species, the responsibility of preserving the few remaining fish should be shouldered by those who enjoy the warmwater/spiney ray fishery. Also predators like the Norther Pikeminnow would make a better target as there is no sport fishery for them and no group of anglers is being punished. Lastly the concept that the strain of salmon and steelhead currently in our river system is anything other than an artificially generated fishery is silly. Just because a returning steelhed has its adapose fin doesnt mean he is only 1 or 2 generations away from a direct line to the hatchery.
JENSEN, KIMBERLY L  October 17, 2012
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
Are you Nuts!!! I hate the taste of pink meat salmon! I love the white meat bass, walleye, and catfish! The Bass, Walleye and Catfish fisheries have been self sustainable for around 100 years, requiring no state moneys, and now you seek to destroy them. All species of fish feed on the fry of all species of fish. Targeting to eliminate one species over another is foolish and not conservation minded. Tax payers fund excessive amounts to support Salmon, when off shore factory ships are the true culprit, over harvesting, and putting salmon at risk. You cannot continue to over harvest in the Ocean and rivers and place the blame everywhere but where it really lies.It is long past time for the state of Washington to stop using pseudo-science that is politically driven to destroy the self sustaining Bass, Walleye and Catfish fisheries. Its time to embrace and promote these self sustaining fisheries, and dramatically limit off shore harvest along with in River harvest to truly improve Salmo
HENNESSEY, RYAN P  October 17, 2012
CLATSKANIE, OR  
Comments:
Neither is acceptable!!
SCROGGINS, GARY   October 17, 2012
LONGVIEW, WA  
Comments:
Not recommended, please do not change the rules on smallmouth bass, if you are really concerned about salmon and steelhead smolt, then remove all nets on the river to ensure we have the salmon and steelhead. The bass fishery is a tremendous sport fishing here in the northwest with many clubs and members who buy boats, tackle, rooms, gas from the state, so please do not change the regs.
SHUTTERS, MARVIN K  October 17, 2012
DAYTON , WA  
Comments:
I strongly recomend implimenting Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. Current regulations provide protection to these non-native stocks that contribute significantly to the mortalily of migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead. It is the largest size classes of bass and walleye that are most likely to feed largely on outmigrating juvenile salmonids. These building populations of bass and walleye are clearly becoming a drag on recovery salmon and steelhead populations.
AHOLA, BRANDON M  October 17, 2012
KELSO, WA  
Comments:
Bass fishing in washington state is gaining popularity fast. I belive that hammering on this fishery will turn away people from a great fishery that is self stimulating. Bass have been in these bodies of water for 100 years and do not need any help of funding to survive. I belive that predation on salmonoid smolt by bass is fairly limited from the studies I have read. This fishery has gotten many people interested in fishing because it is not plagued by a huge rule book of season closings and an angler can avoid combat fishing for salmon and steelhead. Passing this proposed plan would be a real shame for the future of angling in this state. I have already been crowded out and harassed by salmon angling crowds and slobby anglers that throw there beer bottles around. Please do not hammer down on a pure and fun angling experience that I and many people I know enjoy. Tournament fishing for walleye and bass also brings huge dollars into local towns. Reguards, Brandon M. Ahola WA Bass angl
RANDOLPH, DON   October 18, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I oppose both options on this rule change. Warmwater fisherman should not be penalized for the lack of salmon. Fight the causes; native nets and overharvest by sportsmen and commercial fisheries.
NORRIS, STEPHEN C  October 19, 2012
MCKENNA, WA  
Comments:
Neither option is acceptable Since the state does not stock warmwater fish like they do trout/salmon it does not make sense. Warmwater game fish are the fastest-growing segment of Washington’s resident sport fishery. The number of warmwater anglers increased from an estimated 170,000 in 1968 to 334,000 in 1994. During this same period, the number of warmwater angler-days increased from 2.1 million to almost 6.2 million; the percentage of all resident game fish anglers fishing for warmwater species increased from 52.3% to 62.7%; and the number of Washington anglers indicating a preference for warmwater species increased from 23% to 34.3%. (From 2005 DFW) Loosing the revenue from licenses, permits, retailers not to mention our conversation work all bass clubs must do as a requirement. This will go away by devasting our sport. Please reconsider leaving it alone or take other suggestions that will not devistate our fishing . Repectfully, Stephen Norris The Boeing Company
LIPPINCOTT, GENE L  October 20, 2012
CUSICK, WA  
Comments:
leave it alone it will balance out over time.
SHARP, TIM C  October 20, 2012
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
This proposal looks rediculous to me. Where is the scientific proof or reasearch that shows killing off the waklleye (or bass) would enhance the salmon and steelhead? These species do not inhabit the same water columns most of the time. I do believe that they prey on smolt, but the ones they target are the ones which are dying already from passage through the dams, not those that make it through the by-pass systems in use. You are going to throw away a world class fishery for walleye by continuing down this path. The rivers can be managed to provide for both warm water and the anadromous salmonid species at the same time. This will provide for more help to the economy than killing off either type of fish. Please do not ruin our bass and world class walleye fishing on the chance it may help the salmon and steelhead without proof that it will. Both species are managed for in the mid-west. We should be doing the same here. Thank you.
BEATTY, BRUCE W  October 22, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
Is there any scientific data to kill more bass,walleye and catfish? Fisheries are already deteriorating where there are liberal bass fishing limits and there seems to be no warm water enhancement despite the fact we spend the same for our fishing license to catch and release, as trout and salmon fisherman to catch and keep! I catch very few kokanee while bass fishing but do catch a fair number of rainbow and cuthroat trout on minnow baits. Why don't you propose cutting down on trout planting to save the kokanee?? Bottom line-your proposal hurts the warm water fishery far more than it helps the salmonids.
LAROCCO, MICHAEL   October 23, 2012
WOODLAND, WA  
Comments:
Why pay people to remove squaw fish and allow other, non-native smolt predators to thrive. If the community is going to spend millions of $$ on many different programs restoring salmon/steelhead #'s, than these introduced species #'s should also be reduced. I'm for the proposal.
JOHNSTON, MARK   October 23, 2012
ELLENSBURG, WA  
Comments:
I would like to see all limits removed on non-native fishes in this reach and all reaches of the Columbia river and it tributaries. This would include bass, crappie, pumpkin-seeds,perch, bullheads, catfish, carp, shad, lake trout and brook trout. I would also like to a rule that states "If you catch it you keep it". All of these fishes being non-native upset the ecosystem. Even if they are all not piscivarous, they still eat food and displace native fishes. Washington, Oregon and Idaho states along with various federal and tribal entities have spent a lot of time and money trying to bring back salmon and other native fishes to our waters. If you truly want to be good stewards of the state of Washington's natural resources you can not continue to advocate for non-native species in open water systems that are used by salmon and native trout. Lets get serious about native fish recovery in the Columbia river basin and this is a good start.
ZENDT, JOSEPH S  October 24, 2012
WHITE SALMON, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support aggressive tactics to reduce populations of non-native predator fish that, according to a growing body of scientific literature, are doing significant damage to native salmon and steelhead populations. Option 1 should be implemented. In addition, a similar regulation should be implemented in the Columbia River below McNary Dam, as well as any other location where native salmonids and non-native predators co-exist. I would also recommend that WDFW seriously consider requiring harvest of any bass, walleye, or channel catfish caught (i.e. make it illegal to release these fish if they are caught). It is inconsistent to manage non-native predator fish populations in ways that jeopardize recovery of salmon and steelhead, especially when billions of dollars in public funds go towards that recovery. Option 1 is a step in the right direction.
PARKER, STEVE S  October 29, 2012
ZILLAH, WA  
Comments:
This rule change is long overdue. WDFW should be making every effort to reduce or eliminate the impacts of these introduced species on ESA-listed salmonids and other indigenous fishes of great cultural, recreational, and commercial value. Stocking these voracious piscivores was ill-advised in the first instance, but managing them for sustainable yield fisheries cannot be reconciled against the enormous funding and resource efforts being applied to achieve even small, incremental improvements in the survival and abundance of the salmonids on which they prey. Particularly in view of the expensive bounty fisheries intended to reduce predation by the indigenous northern pike minnow, managing bass, walleye, and channel cats for sustainable yield simply makes no sense. Option 1 comes closer than Option 2 and should be adopted into permanent rules.
HEUPEL, RODNEY A  October 30, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I feel this proposal is purlely political in nature and is not based on scientific studies studies of the diet of the bass. The waters of the state must be managed to benifit all species involved also taking into consideration the economic effect of the spiecies. As a bass fisherman at heart I invest a lot of time and money in pursute of bass and also enjoy walleye fishing too. I could go to other web sites and quote studies that support my way of thinking but I feel that you are all ready aware of these studies. Count me amongst the numbers who want the fisheries management of the state to based on good science not politics.
CRAIG, JIM L  November 01, 2012
CASHMERE, WA  
Comments:
Good and overdue proposal. Tremendous efforts have gone into increasing survival of juvenile salmon and steelhead throughout the Columbia River system. The WDFW proposal has the potential to help reduce populations of these non-native fish (bass, walleye, catfish) which will help the native salmon and steelhead populations.
SCHWEITZER, JOHN F  November 07, 2012
LIBERTY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
I have fished walleye in WA, exclusively, for the last 14 years. I do not wet a line for any other species. Primarily fished Sprague Lake for 9 of those years before the treatment there. I hope that the Fish and Wildlife understand the amount of fisherman that LOVE this fish and that any negative impact that these rule changes have on the "quality" of walleye fishing will upset many fisherman in WA. I am against any rule change but as I learned with Sprague Lake, my opinion is noted but not really a deciding factor in the outcome. Option 2 would at least protect the fishery to a certain extent. Almost ALL walleye fisherman are fishing to catch limits as they want to fill the freezer, unlike bass fisherman who tend to throw fish back. Therefore, if you lift all limits and size restrictions....all fish will be kept. Also, have you looked at Canyon Ferry Resevoir in MT and what happened to the fishing there after limits were changed? Thanks for your time.
LAMPMAN, RALPH T  November 07, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. ESA listed species as well as other native species (such as Pacific lamprey) are heavily affected by these introduced exotic species. If we are serious about restoring these ESA species, we need to make real changes to the management of these exotic species. As a Yakama Nation Fisheries employee, I know first-hand how important the salmon fisheries is for their culture and tradition. Similarly, Pacific lamprey is an important species for the Upper Columbia tribes and lamprey numbers in the upper Columbia has declined severely, requiring drastic measures to bring them back. Just so we don't waste our restoration and recovery money down the drain, it is time that we alter our management policies on predatory invasive species to remedy the already pervasive negative effects.
BUTLER, CHRIS G  November 08, 2012
WINTHROP, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support Option 1 – ESA listed species as well as other native species are heavily affected by these introduced exotic species. If we are serious about restoring these ESA species, we need to make real changes to the management of these exotic species. As a Yakama Nation Fisheries employee, I know first-hand how important the salmon fisheries is to their culture and tradition. Just so we don't waste our restoration and recovery money down the drain, it is time that we alter our management policies on predatory invasive species to remedy the already pervasive negative effects. Additionally, the “Portion of stream affected by proposal” is considerable shortened. It is highly recommended that you extend your imaginary management line from Chief Joseph Dam to the Canadian Boarder. Lake Roosevelt Managers have been taking drastic measures in trying to control/reduce exotic numbers of walleye and bass with little success. The walleye and bass have considerable impacts on th
BOSCH, BILL   November 08, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 1. My understanding is that these are all non-native fish species and that there is substantial evidence that these fish consume a very large number of native juvenile salmonids. As the region is spending billions of dollars on salmon restoration and recovery, it seems to me a "no-brainer" that restoration of native salmon should be prioritized over the recreational value of these non-native predators. If the State of Washington is serious about salmon recovery, decreasing the population of these non-native predators needs to be a very high priority. Please approve option 1 as a permanent rule change.
BREIDERT, JASON   November 08, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I support option 1, no daily limit or size limit. It seems to me that the state should support reductions in non-native fish species to recover ESA listed native fish species or find some other way to mitigate for the effects of non-native sportfish on ESA listed native species.
HAWKINS, BILL A  November 09, 2012
SANDPOINT, ID  
Comments:
As a recreational fisherman who targets many species of fish I believe this proposal is a great start. I am a member of the Lake Pend Oreille Task Force which of was set up by Idaho Fish and Game to try and recover the collapsed kokanee population. This specifically targeted removing the introduced Mackinaw by angler incentives and netting. Where I see a problem in this proposal is it isn't dealing with the upstream reproductive grounds. Just like on LPO Montana and all the experts said Walleye can't make it through the dams. Well they are here. If nothing is done to address that breeding ground then this proposal will be jeopardized. Perhaps that is the long term goal so I certainly support this effort, however, I also understand the public outcry of any change so sometimes it is easier to make the right decision upfront. I'd highly encourage looking at the entire drainages instead of what is proposed.
HAWKINS, BILL A  November 09, 2012
SANDPOINT, ID  
Comments:
As a recreational fisherman who targets many species of fish I believe this proposal is a great start. I am a member of the Lake Pend Oreille Task Force which of was set up by Idaho Fish and Game to try and recover the collapsed kokanee population. This specifically targeted removing the introduced Mackinaw by angler incentives and netting. Where I see a problem in this proposal is it isn't dealing with the upstream reproductive grounds. Just like on LPO Montana and all the experts said Walleye can't make it through the dams. Well they are here. If nothing is done to address that breeding ground then this proposal will be jeopardized. Perhaps that is the long term goal so I certainly support this effort, however, I also understand the public outcry of any change so sometimes it is easier to make the right decision upfront. I'd highly encourage looking at the entire drainages instead of what is proposed.
MATHESIUS, MATT   November 09, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
What data supports the idea that walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish all predate anadromous salmonids equally? Does the data support the blanket waiver of limits for all three species? Is one more predatious than another? Of the three, which is the most problematic for salmonid populations? Specifically, where do walleye rank, and what studies might you point me to for verification? Thanks.
MOCK, RANDAL D  November 11, 2012
BEAVERTON, OR  
Comments:
I am writing in response to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's proposal to eliminate or modify Columbia River bag limits on bass and walleye. As it is currently written, I believe this proposed rule change contradicts the WDFW's definition of conservation. I also believe it may put recreational warm water fishermen at odds with cold water fishermen. Many bass fishermen have a long tradition of catch and release. I catch and release about 200 smallmouth bass a year. This proposed regulation is an assault on a vibrant fishery. I acknowledge that there are huge challenges facing the restoration of anadromous fish runs, foremost, dams, forest and agricultural practices, water withdrawals and over harvesting. If the WDFW has compelling scientific justification to support this regulation change, it is my opinion that they have done a poor job in educating the public on the reason behind this decision. I'm an Oregon resident who purchases a Washington fishing licen
SHARP, BILL   November 12, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
Support Option 1. This is a good first step. In the very near future this should be extended to the entire juvenile salmonid migration corridor (Columbia - WA. side), and all WA tributaries that contain anadromous stocks. Furthermore, studies must be conducted to determine if bounty programs, patterned after pike-minnow program, is warranted. By extending it to remainder of the Columbia (WA. side) I feel that would demonstrate to ODFW that regional salmon recovery is indeed a top priority to WA. State. I feel that federal salmon recovery funding to states should be evaluated based on that state’s “seriousness” to address this issues. Biologically this is a no-brainer. I hope that WDFW stands up to the political pressures and does what is right for salmon and steelhead.
JOHNSON, KEVIN R  November 15, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
I was a member of the Oregon State Police fish and wildlife division for 20 years. There were two studies done by ODFW on walleye predation of salmonids in the Columbia R., which revealed NO evidence of walleye salmonid predation. No information released by WDFW on the proposed regulation changes on walleyes proves any predation. With knowledge I have of the lack of scientific information posessed by WDFW or other entities, I believe that the proposed regulation changes are an excuse to eliminate non-native species using the term, "might help the PERCEIVED predation problem" and not on ANY scientific evidence proving salmonid predation by these species. An avid walleye fisherman, I mainly fish Snake R. below Little Goose Dam. My partners and I have caught numerous walleyes with fish of various sizes in their gullets, none of which could be identified as salmonids. I believe this proposal is prompted by the known dislike of non-native species, particularly walley
FROHLICH, JEFF   November 16, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
id like to comment on this .please do not try to change limits ob bass and walleye in snake river.if anything please stop fishing mouth of palouse river for walleyes at end of march to end of june to let fish spawn in this tributary.i know you want to save smolts.but havevnt we spent enough money on salmon and steelhead?they are just hatchery fish that keep the runs going.and it brings in enormas revenue.walleyes and bass cost nothing to support and add great fishing opportunity.help the walleye population by restricting fishing at this tributary please.lets face it the salmon and steelhead are just sustaind by hatcheries build some more.thank you
SHULKE, WILLIAM E  November 16, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
Thank you for giving me this opportunely to comment on this proposal. I am a avid fisherman and I love to fish the Snake River for all of the fish you have listed in this proposal. I do like fishing for the salmon and steelhead but not as much as I do for the bass and walleye. I don't want to see you remove or change the size and daily limits for bass and walleye. I fish for the bass and walleye all year long. Salmon and steelhead seasons are short. I don't know why you are thinking that the bass or walleye are a big problem or having a negative interactions between them and the steelhead and salmon. Please inform me of any studies you have on this interaction. I fish for bass and walleye when the juveniles salmon and steelhead are in the snake river and have not ever hooked one that had a smolt in it. Please protect out bass and walleye fishing in the snake river as it is. Please do not remove the daily or size limits on the walleye or bass!
SHULKE, WILLIAM E  November 16, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
Thank you for giving me this opportunely to comment on this proposal. I am a avid fisherman and I love to fish the Snake River for all of the fish you have listed in this proposal. I do like fishing for the salmon and steelhead but not as much as I do for the bass and walleye. I don't want to see you remove or change the size and daily limits for bass and walleye. I fish for the bass and walleye all year long. Salmon and steelhead seasons are short. I don't know why you are thinking that the bass or walleye are a big problem or having a negative interactions between them and the steelhead and salmon. Please inform me of any studies you have on this interaction. I fish for bass and walleye when the juveniles salmon and steelhead are in the snake river and have not ever hooked one that had a smolt in it. Please protect out bass and walleye fishing in the snake river as it is. Please do not remove the daily or size limits on the walleye or bass!
JACK, WORLE   November 16, 2012
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
prefer option 2, if i had to choose.....however, bag limit should be no more than 1 over 15 inches
NATHAN, DOUGLAS T  November 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
What happened to warm water fishing in this state? Not everyone goes after only salmonids. We have a trophy fishery for walleye in the Columbia that no other state has, and a select group wants to destroy it. Option #2 is the least of the two evils.
ALLEN, ROBERT E  November 20, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Flawed reasoning. 1. hatchery fish have more impact on listed stocks than non-native predators. We know they do it's been studied. 2. non-native predators provide a free fishery for the state hatchery fish provide a very expensive one. 3. because hatchery fish are just as bad or worse than invasive predators that reduces this to a fishery preference issue not a conservation one. 4. bass and walleye from the Columbia are not safe for human consumption due to high levels of PCB's and heavy metals Conclusion. What's good for the goose is good for the gander if we need to reduce bass and walleye we must also need to reduce hatchery salmon and steelhead so remove the limits on them to or choose to unfairly discriminate against warm water anglers.. The truth hurts.. suck it up and do the right thing Sincerely Rob Allen Wild Fish Conservationist, Steelhead Fly Fisher , Avid Bass Angler and unrepresented Washington voter
HARVEY, MARC   November 21, 2012
LYLE, WA  
Comments:
I am highly supportive of removing harvest restrictions on bass, walleye, and channel catfish. Option 1 is the best choice. There should be no catch, possession, or size restrictions on non-native fish that prey on ESA-listed salmonid species that the public is spending millions to recover. Option 2 is not acceptable and would maintain high abundance of size classes that 1) prey upon native fish at disproportionately high rates and 2) have higher fecundity rates that contribute to persistence of non-native populations at disproportionately high rates. I also support WDFW in working with ODFW to implement a similar rule in shared waters of the Columbia downstream of McNary Dam. I would also recommend that a rule change be adopted that prohibits the release of bass, walleye, and channel catfish.
RANDOLPH, DON K  November 25, 2012
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Can you please tell me what the goal and reasoning might be behind this proposal? Thank you.
SHARP, RICHARD K  November 25, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
THis is an excellent proposal! As long as the breeding populations Bass 15" and walleye 24" are observed the smaller fish can be harvested and managed as to not impact smolt migrations with allowing positive experiences to the fisherman.
CONLEY, ALEX   November 26, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
The Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife REcovery Board has expressed its support for Option #1 of rule change proposal #9 in a hard copy letter mailed to the Commission on Nov 26, 2012.
CARVER, RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
I am for rule change #9.We have needed this change for quite some time.This will help eliminate a lot of preditory fish from the real estuarrys of the migrating ESA listed salmon smolts. Thank you for letting us respond.
GREEN, BILL   November 29, 2012
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
Approve option 1
GREEN, ROSANN   November 29, 2012
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
Approve option 1
GRAVES, RITCHIE   November 29, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
The NOAA Fisheries Hydropower Division technical staff supports improving ecosystem functions to the extent practical in the Columbia River Basin. Exotic, non-native cool-water predatory fish species are a well-known impediment to our common goals of restoring native salmonid resources in the Pacific Northwest. The fisheries rule changes for bass, walleye and channel catfish proposed by WDFW (Reference ID: DFW332292) have the potential to improve this situation. We support the initiative taken by WDFW to pursue this important issue. From our perspective, pursuing the option that maximizes exploitation of these predators (Option 1) is likely the most appropriate course of action. In considering this rule change, we anticipate that WDFW will give appropriate thought to addressing the age classes of predators that have the greatest negative impact on salmonids and to addressing any compensatory responses through an adaptive management approach. Thank you for the opportunity to c
DALAN, DAVID F  November 30, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I support the extermination of invasive fishes in the Columbia and Snake river basins. Option #1 makes the most sense, as larger fish can consume a large number of juvenile salmonids, and are likely to reproduce successfully. To protect juvenile salmonids, I think it is critical to "short circuit" the reproductive cycle of invasive, warm water species. "Trophy" limits (options #2) are counterproductive.
SEWELL-BANCROFT, PHIL   December 03, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I suggest that walleye, bass, and catfish limits be removed.
MAXSON, STEWART R  December 03, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of option one. Protecting native species should be of primary importance on rivers. Non-native species should only be protected on closed systems such as lakes (not reservoirs).
NW FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, NOAA FISHERIES   December 06, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
We commend WDFW for opening this discussion and considering how altered fishing regulations may benefit threatened and endangered salmonids. Recent peer-reviewed science in the Columbia River Basin indicates the potential for significant impacts, both direct and indirect, of these non-native predators on ESA listed salmonids. In light of such results, reducing the number of reproductive adults (Option 1) has great potential to reduce predator population sizes and reduce the risk to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. In either case (Option 1 or Option 2), taking an ‘adaptive’ approach that includes monitoring how fish populations and anglers respond to regulation changes is appropriate.
QUADE, JOHN R  December 06, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
I see that with the only two options listed, The Governor/WDFW is catering to the tribes, ergo, insuring the continuence of the traditional political donations from the tribes -- Shame On You All!!!!!! There is NO scientific evidence this rule change will have any positive benefit other than catering to the Colville Tribe.
BOUCHARD, HOWARD E  December 06, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
No more than one smallmouth over 15 inches instead of 3. Only one walleye over 22 inches.
LONG, PEGGY   December 06, 2012
DAVENPORT, WA  
Comments:
We fish regularly on the Spokane arm of the Columbia; both my husband and I stronly believe that Option 1 of this proposed rule change would, by far, go farther toward reaching ESA goals. Walleye, especially, in the Spokane arm are wreaking havoc on all other fish species and their numbers MUST be reduced in order to assure the native species have a chance to survive. In addition, I feel the April/May closure of the Spokane arm should be done away with in its entirety.
LOVELACE, DAVID C  December 06, 2012
PATEROS, WA  
Comments:
I support option #2.If #1 is choosen, I belive the bass & walleye populations will be desamated.
ESPLEY, STEVEN   December 06, 2012
KIRKLAND, WA  
Comments:
There is no need to change limits of the mentioned species in these areas. There is not an over abundance of these fish and specific sport fishing for these fish brings the state revenus from anglers instate and out of state. Walleye fishing, for example, is a large revenu producing factor in many of the Midwest states and is exhibited by the many tournaments and destination entertainment venues offerd. Changing the " limits" of many of these species seems to be playing to the elitist entitlements of the " salmonoid first" segments of our vocal fishing society. Fish creel counts on all of the aforementioned species is minimal and within the considerd controllable and exceptable numbers. I would submit that there is no appreciable gain be adopting changes to the standing rules.
FILLION, DENIS G  December 07, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
Walleye- 1.is there data showing walleye's effect on salmon/steelhead ie: % of diet? 2. Walleye fishery should be promoted and enhanced; there is a world class walleye fishery in the Columbia river that could be improved on, it already brings in many $$$ for the state and a lot more $ could come in with good mangement and promotion. Afterall the fishing license revenue is not just from salmon/steelhead fisherman. 3. At the very least leave the size and daily limits as is. I am not much into Bass fishing but it is easy to see the huge dollars that bass fishing brings to the state.
WALKER, JOHNATHAN E  December 07, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I don't agree with the proposal. I'm a freshwater and non-salmonoid targeted angler. I'd imagine for every one Salmon angler in the state of Washington on the water fishing there is two non-salmonoid anlgers at an given moment. The Smallmouth bass population on the Columbia River and Snake River is stable and any manipulation would only detriment the population. Who is the target fisherman your trying to help... I'd imagine there is alot more money put into the economy over bass fishing than salmon. Bass fisherman need to be heard and acknowledged as a viable license purchasing community. There are no substantiating studies shown that smallmouth are hurting the population. I believe the Squaw Fish is your issue yet the project to decrease them failed. Like said you only hurting the economy by doing this and ruining a great fishery for the future.
HINDS, PATRICK E  December 07, 2012
OTIS ORCHARDS, WA  
Comments:
I support option 2. It should accomplish the goal by removing multitudes of small fish and protecting the quality sized fish.
GODDARD, MERLIN W  December 07, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
option 1
GERGELY, DALE E  December 07, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this change. Walleye, bass and catfish can be pursued essentially year round. To curtail bag limits on them in the name of improving salmon fishing suggest they pose one of the biggest threats. I suspect commercial & tribal netting restrictions, controlling birds such as the turns etc. might have more positive benefit on this objective. Let's try those controls first.
LIND, JIM   December 07, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I would like to know what studies support this proposal of reducing the walleye and smallmouth bass population in order to help the salmon. I can understand the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife wanting to help the salmon population grow and surive, it's the native fish with a long historical tradition in this region. I happen to love fishing for bass and would hate to see the population hurt on the Columbia unless we are absolutly sure of the cause and effect on the salmon. I moved out from Greenbay Wisconsin and we had excellent Salmon, Steelhead, Lake Trout, Walleye and Smallmouth bass fishing on lake Michigan. All five species seemed to thrive together. I recently retired from 35 years of coaching football, the last 10 with the Seahawks, and I love to fish. I have plently of time and would be more the happy to serve on any committes or panels to help discuse this in a public form. Thank you Jim Lind
GROSS, GEORGE A  December 07, 2012
MARLIN, WA  
Comments:
leave our walleye alone . whats a worse praditor rainbowtrout or a walleye? why get rid of a good fish that soo many off you like to eat.and what are they hurting?
THEILER, HUGH   December 08, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
My comments apply to the Columbia Mainstem from McNary to Chief Joseph Dam. I am extremely opposed to removing daily limits for bass and walleye in this water body. This stretch of river is spectacular habitat for both species. In fact, several stretches are well known for producing trophy sized walleye and smallmouth. The state record walleye came from this stretch. This proposal is extremely unfair to walleye fishermen. I would suggest you conduct outreach - poll the walleye and bass clubs, to get their input. DO NOT REMOVE THE DAILY LIMIT FOR BASS AND WALLEYE IN THIS SECTION!!!
FISHER, JAMES   December 08, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I agree with Option 1 with regard to bass, walleye and catfish in the mainstem Columbia. All of these species are preditors to juvenile salmon and steelhead and must be having an impact on T&E runs. I am not aware of a large number of fisherman that regularly target these fish and it would be beneficial to salmon and steelhead to increase harvest of these preditors.
LOVEJOY, PETER A  December 09, 2012
LYLE, WA  
Comments:
I support option 1.
AZINGER, JIM M  December 09, 2012
BRUSH PRAIRIE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support "limitless" fisheries. There are enough "sportsman" out there that don't call it a day until the five gallon bucket is full of something. I understand the concern for ESA listed and anadromous fish. Increasing limits and changing size limits I can understand but no daily limit I believe will remove other great fisheries of the Columbia River. Walleye and bass are still sought after fish and destroying their population will not help sportsman in this region.
HILL, ANDREW   December 10, 2012
MOSCOW, ID  
Comments:
I encourage the removal of daily bag limits for bass, walleye, and channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. While these fisheries do add to license sales and local economic inputs, they are not native to the Columbia and Snake River systems and the proposed rule changes should not see any ill economic repercussions. Of particular concern is their predatory impacts on native juvenile salmonid populations. While much effort has been focused on removal of native Northern Pikeminnow in the system, the removal of bass, walleye and channel catfish should also be a priority. Removing daily bag limits and modifying or eliminating size limits of these fish is a step forward in reducing their impacts juvenile salmonid populations.
KNIGHT, CHARLES T  December 11, 2012
PULLMAN, WA  
Comments:
I stongly recommend adoption of option 1. I fish the Snake River from Lower Granite to the Oregon line and I interact with the predation researchers. I believe the first option is best for a couple of reasons: 1- Substanial reduction in predation of the downstream migration of ESA species of smolt. 2.- Relieve of non existent enforcement efforts. I fish over 130 days a year on the river for the last 10 years and have only interacted with enforcement agents during steelhead/salmon season. Probably bad timing on my part.
WOOD, DANIEL L  December 11, 2012
ENTIAT, WA  
Comments:
I like this proposal! Clearly, there has to be a major impact by these species on the Salmon/steelhead, and bull trout populations. Thank you, Dan Wood
HICKS, TYLER L  December 11, 2012
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
I agree with this proposal. We shouldn't be spending millions on salmonid recovery while simultaneously maintaining populations of exotic predators of salmon and steelhead.
MILBRANDT, GORDON K  December 12, 2012
COLBERT, WA  
Comments:
It appears the radical change recommended based on a supposition the targeted species "may" inflict damage on native species suggests the veiled goal is species elimination. Fishermen pursuing the non-native species apparently are not considered relevant. If my conclusion is wrong, I suggest the goal then should be to achieve a balanced fishery. With respect to the proposed walleye limit, a balanced reduction of this species (both in individual size and total population) can be achieved via an example. Set a limit of ten fish total of which six must be less than 15 inches and only one fish over 20 inches. Therefore, one could potentially catch six fish under 15 inches, three between 15 and 20 inches and one over 20 inches. Raise the possession limit to 30. Given the fish population is likely shaped like a triangle with the larger fish being at the top of the triangle and in smaller numbers this is a balanced approach. Use real test net results to alter the mix in numbers
STEPHENSON, JAMES D  December 12, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
This is a major move in the right direction. Our native salmonids are too important not to do this. Thank you for a major step in the right direction. The first option is the best.
DAVIS, MELINDA J  December 12, 2012
TOPPENISH, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of option 1. Bass alone are a huge predator of juvenile salmonids, especially in the mid-lower sections of the Yakima River.
FIANDER, BILL H  December 12, 2012
HARRAH, WA  
Comments:
I agree with this rule change. I favor option 1. There has been a lot of money spent to increase the numbers of all salmonids. This is a valuable native species. Any exotic or non-native species should not be allowed to harm this work.
BILL, JAMIE   December 12, 2012
WAPATO, WA  
Comments:
I'm in favor of option 1. These fish eat a lot of young salmon and steelhead. I would like to see salmon and steelhead numbers that return to spawn increase.
LLOYD, SHANE M  December 12, 2012
WHITE SWAN , WA  
Comments:
i am in favor of option 1 because these fish are not native fish and they are eating a lot of yearling salmon i would like to see more salmon return spawn
TRAMMELL, JEFF   December 13, 2012
ELLENSBURG, WA  
Comments:
This proposal makes sense, they do not need any protection but the juvenile salmonids that they prey upon absolutely need protection. Eliminating catch limits will assist regional biologists' efforts to decrease unnaturally high mortality rates of juvenile fish.
MCCUTCHEON, CLINTON S  December 13, 2012
KENDRICK , ID  
Comments:
I am an Idaho resident. However, I live near the border of Washington and fish a lot. I beleive warm water exotic preditors are a much greater problem to our native salmon and steelhead than dams. I will purchase an out of state fishing permit and head down river if you in-act the proposal to allow unlimited catch on warm water fish. You have my support. Thank you for taking an important step toward bringing back our salmon run. C. Scott McCutcheon
PORTER, MICHAEL   December 14, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
Option 1 is a much needed rule change and change in the WDFW's policies in exotic fish management. Current management of these predaceous fish by the state runs contradictory to the Federal, Tribal, and the States own efforts to restore Salmon and Steelhead runs to the Columbia Basin. It is unfathomable that Washington State fish managers would use state and federal dollars to restore salmonids and in a direct polar opposite move manage for exotic fish that adversely affect salmonids. The WDFW, through its own studies, have determined there is negative affects on salmonids by these species listed within this rule change. This a much needed rule change which has been long in coming about. Why manage for a species which provides little subsistence value (check warnings of amounts of fish for consumption WDFW) when salmon and steelhead runs are available. As these runs continue to improve recreational fishers will have fishing opportunities replaced by any lost due a change in rules
JANKE, ANDREW   December 15, 2012
WARREN, OR  
Comments:
This proposal will not solve anything. Try improvements on fish ladders ect. Trying to get rid of the warm water fish such as the bass is not the answer. On the lower river the Birds eat a ton of smolt. Why does that get ignored? Another thing, as you know the Pike Minnow is native to the river. Why are we killing them. What makes them less worthy of living in the river?
AUGUSTINE, DUANE L  December 16, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Option 2 will still meet the needs of the avid fisherman.
DODD, JOEL D  December 16, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
Option 2 seems to me to make the most sense.
LINDEBLAD, DAVID   December 21, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
I prefer option one.
STEVENS, RICHARD A  December 30, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I'm in favor of option 2. with an addition to the rule: "while steelhead fishing is open above RockIsland Dam that if fishing for steelhead Barbless hooks are required". right now it is "barbless hooks for everything" if the steelhead season is open. i fish walleye here in wenatchee and when i target walleye that is all i catch. also if im targetting walleye i should not have to adjust the time i start fishing everyday because steelhead is open. if you want numbers reduced on walleye in the river dont reduce the time of day that we have to fish for them. please call me on this. this subject is dear to my heart and I'm glad to get to comment on this.
HIPWHILTSIB, HIPWHILTSIB   January 27, 2013
,   
Comments:
ROHR, PRCC FACILITATOR, DENNY   January 27, 2013
FOX ISLAND, WA  
Comments:
The USFWS, Yakama Nation, Colville Confederated Tribes, NMFS and Grant PUD are parties to the Priest Rapids Project Salmon/Steelhead Settlement Agreement, and are all represented on the Priest Rapids Coordinating Committee(PRCC). The Agreement purpose is to implement actions for the protection/mitigation/enhancement of species covered by the Agreement in the Upper Columbia River (UCR) basin, including achieving Project dam/reservoir survival standards for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed UCR steelhead/spring Chinook salmon. Several studies have verified Project area predation of juvenile salmonids by non-native species including bass, walleye and channel catfish. The PRCC firmly believes the proposed rule change will decrease predation of UCR ESA listed spring Chinook salmon/steelhead. The PRCC supports Option 1 - to remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia/Snake Rivers and their tributaries, for proposed Rule Change #9.
CHAMBERS, TIM   January 02, 2013
SANTA ROSA, CA  
Comments:
Having come to Washington for years to fish for the native species of steelhead, trout and salmon, I urge you to adopt option #1 to help control the populations of these non-native, predatorial species which threaten this great river system. Thank you!
KUECHENMEISTER, MARK E  January 05, 2013
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
i am not in favor of this proposal. bass and walleye fishing is extremely popular in the columbia and snake rivers and this proposal would result in these fisheries being basically unregulated. if you want to do something to improve salmon and steelhead numbers get the gillnets out of the river.
MAHONEY, DALE A  January 08, 2013
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
If the hatchery's cut the adipose fin on all the salmon they raised the salmon fishery on the upper columbia would be great. But thats never going to happen. There are trophy size walleye in the columbia and to deregulate the fishery would doom the large fish. The amount of money spent on walleye fishing in the state is not respected as seen when sprauge lake was poisened soo the trout fishery could be enhanced. Sprauge lake could have been managed for spinnyrays and brought a lot more money to the area and the state through licenses and sales tax.I personally fish for walleye on the columbia alot more than I do salmon, and to have the walleye fishery deregulated and wiped out as this proposal suggests would bring a close to my 40 plus years of buying a fishing lisence and all the other money I spend on fishing like boat tabs tackle bait and fuel it would be a considerable amount of taxs I would not pay the state to go fishing.
HUMLING, MICHAEL A  January 08, 2013
WINTHROP, WA  
Comments:
I support either option 1 or 2, with a preference for option 1 as it seems that this option would intuitively reduce the overall predation of native salmonids. However, I would support option 2 if there were compelling data to suggest that presence of some large fish would have a positive correlation with cannibalization of small centrachids, etc. Either way, good proposal
HEATER, JOEL A  January 08, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass this rule. The bass and walleye populations are fine right now and you have to know they are not the major reason for Salmon/Trout/Kokanee declines. What's next having no limit hunting seasons on seals and seagulls? They eat more salmon fry than walleye or bass. Just leave it alone and do the right thing. Thank you.
HARRELL, DAVE   January 26, 2013
MOSES LAKE, WA  
Comments:
Option 1 is way to harsh. Option 2 is also but its better than one. I would rather see the over on walleye reduced to 22". These warm water fisheries are becoming very popular and need to be protected also. Extermanation is not managing. There needs to be limits on these fish to keep them from over harvest. There are people out there that will take atvantage of the no limits and start or continue selling there harvest on the black market. At least with limits it makes them look over there shoulder. Please dont distroy this fishery.
MCARDLE, TERRY   January 09, 2013
COULEE DAM, WA  
Comments:
Removing limits on walleyes only serves to degrade the quality of the walleye fishery. This action only yields more walleye, but smaller. This has always failed when tried. Walleyes are present and hey have been for 50+ years. They have become a popular fishery. What yiou contemplate is not a biological move...it is a political move and it will not achieve the results the adipose lovers think it will. Please- BE BIOLOGISTS... not scummy politicians
WICKERSHAM, ED   January 25, 2013
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.
MILLER, JOSEPH L  January 11, 2013
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
The Public Utility Districts of Chelan, Douglas, and Grant counties endorse proposed Rule Change #9. The full endorsement is contained in a letter signed by the General Managers of each PUD and was submitted to WDFW on January 6, 2013. Given the space limitations of the online comment submittal form, we've included the following excerpt from the letter: "The mid-Columbia PUDs strongly encourage the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to adopt the proposed rule change, removing the size restrictions and daily catch limits for bass and walleye and daily catch limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. We believe that implementing the proposed rule change will reduce the impact of non-native fish predation on rearing and out-migrating salmon and steelhead, thereby aiding in the recovery of ESA listed upper Columbia River stocks."
WICKERSHAM, ED   January 25, 2013
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
I support option #1. Unfortunately it does not go far enough. With the literally hundreds of millions of dollars or more that has been spent on our attempt to recover and conserve wild and listed salmon and steelhead WDFW should remove all harvest restrictions on all deleterious exotic species, e.g. walleye, bass, catfish, perch, etc that occur in anadromous fish waters. I would suggest you could use the CR Endorsement list of tributaries as the basis for regulations that would remove any protection for these deleterious exotics. throughout the state there are ample areas where we can develop quality fishing opportunity for exotics where they are not adversely impacting wild and listed populations of native salmonids. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Wickersham Option 1 – Remove size and daily limits for bass and walleye and daily limits for channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries.
MCCARY, DAVID   January 12, 2013
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
Can we take a balaced approach to this? Up the limits on these fish first. If that does not get it done then look at a "no limit" change. I walleye and bass fish on the Columbia and I do not see why these fish need to be wiped out for the other species. I would note the gill netting has a high impact on some of the endangered species are we looking at that also? Might I recommend doubling the current limits? We can thank the tournament fishermen for some of these issues as they have pressured your department to restrict limits, with sucess, and also pressured for catch and release on the very species you note. Not all of us fish for money. Up the limit first and see what you get.
CHARLES, FRADY   January 14, 2013
TWISP, WA  
Comments:
This rule proposal is not only practical, but it is the only feasible option in light of salmon recovery efforts. Millions of dollars are spent annually to recover ESA-listed salmonids, yet current sport fishing regulations limit retention of non-native predatory species. Furthermore, fisherman are paid to catch and kill as many northern pikeminnow (a native species)as they can catch in an effort to provide increased survival to out-migrating smolts, but the same effort does not currently exist for non-native species.
GAUB, STEVE   January 14, 2013
WILBUR, WA  
Comments:
If we have to have one of the above options, please, please, please option #2. We need to protect the big walleyes. They are a major portion of the predation of little walleyes. If you kill the big fish the little ones will be even more prevelant. We need to really keep the current limit but if we have to change pick option#2.
BORDERLINE BASSIN CONTENDERS, ROBERT HARRIMAN   January 14, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
We are not in favor of this propsal, especially option one. We feel better solution of increased bounty on northern pike minnow above Wanapum pool should be proposed along with a tiger muskie introduction program. These two suggestions would really put the problem in better perspective and provide predator control to the culprit really doing the damage. If the Commission insists on this proposal, option 2 is the better of two. Again, our club is in favor of predator control whether it is a Cold Water or Warm Water fishery or both, but this proposal does not achieve nor rests easy with the Warm Water Segment of the State. Thanks to the Commission for their dedication to our resources. Sincerely, Bob Harriman, legis liaison Borderline Bassin Contenders
MANKOWSKI, DENNIS R  January 14, 2013
VANCUVER, WA  
Comments:
How can you justify a no limit on bass and walleye when you have a limit on the consumtion of these fish because of polution? These fish have the potential for becoming a cash cow for the economy of the towns along the Columbia and tributaries. If you look at the midwestern states and see the money and taxes that are generated.
MANKOWSKI, DENNIS R  January 14, 2013
VANCUVER, WA  
Comments:
How can you justify a no limit on bass and walleye when you have a limit on the consumtion of these fish because of polution? These fish have the potential for becoming a cash cow for the economy of the towns along the Columbia and tributaries. If you look at the midwestern states and see the money and taxes that are generated.
SMITH, TOM   January 14, 2013
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
Unless significant predation of ESA listed fish has been documented, do not apply either option.
BUTLER, CHRIS G  January 15, 2013
WINTHROP, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 1 but feel you need to extend the limit to the Canadian Boarder on the main stem Columbia.
ISAACSON, KEITH W  January 16, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I believe this proposal should be adopted, because these warm water species are none native and kill our Steelhead and Salmon Smolt! There should be no limit on size or numbers retained in the Columbia River, Snake River, and their tributaries. I vote for Option 1.
RANDOLPH, DON   January 17, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
This is the wrong way to go about increasing the population of endangered species. How about a moratorium on salmonid fishing by natives and sport fishermen for a few years? The number of nets in the river is appalling. Don't point fingers at the other fish; humans are the problem.
SMITH, CHARLES A  January 17, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Do not remove limits of bass, walleye, and catfish. Increase bounty on pike minnow due to have high predation (60% of diet) on salmon smolts by recent study. Predation figures of other game species shown to be significantly less. Note: I purchase a WA annual fishing license every year. Chuck Smith
SCHLUETER, MIKE A  January 17, 2013
MOSES LAKE, WA  
Comments:
Columbia Basin Walleye Club PO Box 1501 Moses Lake, WA. 98837 To: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife From: Mike Schlueter, CBWC President Date: January 12th, 2013 RE: Proposed Rule Changes for Columbia River 2013-2014 Interested Party, On behalf of the Columbia Basin Walleye Club (Club) Board of Directors and general membership, this letter is intended to inform the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) of the Club’s position on the proposed rule changes to the mainstem Columbia River upstream of McNary Dam for 2013-2014. The Club is a non-profit, charitable organization that seeks to educate, encourage, enhance, and stimulate interest in angling for walleye and all other species; to procure better cooperation with other organizations or agencies with similar objectives; encourage the observance and enforcement of game laws, and fight pollution in all waters. Family participation in all activities is encouraged and club sponsored activi
SWANSON, LAWRENCE C  January 20, 2013
BENTON CITY, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of Option 1. Option 2 preserves the larger bass that eat more ESA fish. The bass are not native to the Columbia River. How about removing more predatory birds?
FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I think this proposal should be tabled. The walleye fishery is known throughout the US as a whole class fishery and to allow no limits will destroy this fishery. I assume may be also be said for the bass fishery. I haven't heard of too many people fishing for catfish so this change may not be too detrimental to recreational fisherman. There is too much risk in this proposal when everyone knows what the real culprets are for poor salmon returns (not walleye, bass, or catfish).
REVELL, SCOTT   January 29, 2013
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
Regarding rule change recommendation # 9 to remove or modify size and daily limits for bass, walleye, and channel catfish in the Columbia River, Snake River and their tributaries. KID recommends lifting all retention limits on non-native predator fish in the river segments identified in your proposal, including the entire Yakima River. KID supports this fishing regulation change, particularly option 1, which will limit non-native piscivorous predation on native salmonid fishes. Second, the 2012 fishing regulations incorrectly refer to a watercourse in Benton County as Amon Creek, and KID asks that the name be corrected in the next edition of the fishing regulations. The watercourse is an irrigation drain, which has been constructed in certain areas. Its formal name, according to the United States Geological Survey is the Amon Wasteway. It is not a creek despite the year round presence of water in some areas. The Wasteway also serves as a delivery canal to supply the Gage Pumps, whi
ROSS, SHELBY C  January 29, 2013
MOSES LAKE, WA  
Comments:
This is not a suprise from the Dept of no fish and no game. "manage" our great walleye and bass fishing out of existance the way you have the deer, elk, and countless others! I believe there are wild game left in this state despite the state government "management." Why not stick to inventing new fee after new fee, under the idea this is somehow creating new oportunities.
JOHNSON, KEVIN R  January 29, 2013
CLARKSTON, WA  
Comments:
Regarding removing the limit on walleye on the Columbia and tributaries - there are many, many walleye anglers on the Columbia and Snake rivers whose chosen targeted species could be eliminated as a viable target species. This is a very poor proposal, with little or no viable scientific research to support the theory that walleyes are a principal preying species on salmonids. This is nothing more than a theory of some biologists who "think, maybe" that removing the limit on walleyes would increase the escapement of salmonid smolts. When there is scientific data to indicate that this would be beneficial, then it should be considered, but not before, just on the whim of a few biologists. Also, walleyes provide a wonderful fishing opportunity with little or no expense to the state, unlike trout and kokanee. They are much more hardy than trout and much better table fare. Think it over very seriously before you institute this change. Thank you, Kevin Johnson, Clarks

Other Comments Received