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
# 15. Liberalize bag limits for walleye on Lake Roosevelt and the Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt
Updated 10/18/2012

 • Final Rule Actions
 • See comments

Rules Category
Eastern Washington and Columbia Region Freshwater

Type of Rule Change Proposal
Conservation

County or Location Information
Stevens/Lincoln counties

Short Description
Increase harvest of walleye in Lake Roosevelt.

Explanation
Updated to clarify Table 1. The explanations for options 2 and 3 were reversed.
The Lake Roosevelt walleye population remains overabundant following the liberalization of harvest regulations in 2007, which were intended to reduce the abundance of walleye in the reservoir. Fall walleye index netting (FWIN) catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data indicates walleye abundance has not declined (Figure 1) and fish continue to exhibit slow growth and poor condition due to a predator/ prey imbalance within the reservoir. In addition, predation on other game and non-game fish species is a concern at the present abundance level. Creel data indicate that angler harvest (about 50,000 walleye annually) is not sufficient to achieve management objectives (Figure 2). Modeling suggests that an increase in angler harvest to 150,000 annually is necessary to meet management objectives. Opening the Spokane Arm during the walleye spawning season in April and May represents increased recreational opportunity, and four sportfishing regulation alternatives are being considered to allow for an increase in angler harvest (Table 1).



 

Table 1. Lake Roosevelt sportfishing regulation alternatives. All to include opening of Spokane Arm during April – May.

Option 1 Retain Current 8 fish limit with 1 over 22”
This regulation is not currently meeting the objective to reduce the population through angler harvest.
Option 2 16 fish limit
Based on modeling results this regulation should increase angler harvest of walleye. Exploitation rates for age 9+ fish (22” length plus) will likely increase.
Option 3 16 fish limit with 1 over 22”
Based on modeling results this regulation should provide for increased angler harvest of walleye, while maintaining the current exploitation rate for age 9+ fish (22” length plus) between 30-90%.
Option 4 No regulation on daily limit or size
Biologically, a “no limit” would be acceptable in managing this population. Socially, WDFW understands that this proposal may be unacceptable to constituents.

Original Rule Proposal Number(s)
DFW344121
DFW913471
DFW370243
DFW780973
DFW431170

Final Rule Actions

Staff Recommendation
All options include opening of Spokane Arm during April - May (year-round season).

  • Option 1: Retain Current 8 fish limit with 1 over 22"
  • Option 2: 16 fish limit
  • Option 3: 16 fish limit with 1 over 22
" Option 4: No regulation on daily limit or size

Commission Action
Adopted: Spokane River mouth to 400 feet below Little Falls Dam-- year round season. Lake Roosevelt and Spokane River section-- Walleye 16 fish daily limit.

Rule Modifications
No


Public Testimony

Representatives from the Confederated Colville Tribe of Indians spoke about the efforts they are making to remove walleye from tribal fishing areas and the negative economic impact that walleye, an introduced species, have on tribal members.

Online Public Comments  (123 comments)

CASSCLES, RONALD J  September 20, 2012
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
I agree that the walleye catch limit should be raised in Lake Roosevelt. Many of us on the West side like to fish there in the spring and fall and would like to see the posession limit raised also as it is a very long way to drive over there and not be able to bring home a few more VERY good eating fish
KING, GARY L  September 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Implement DFW344121.
FUNDINE, BILL   September 21, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I would vote for option 3.... Reduction of small fish will enhance the larger fish population... Having said that opening the Spokane Arm will increase harvest but probably not to the extent believed as the lake level historically is not high enough to launch at Porcupine Bay which means possible launch at Fort Spokane then a 10 mile run to mile post 5 in the river... Not everyone will be willing to spend the money on gas....
GRAYBILL, RICHARD D  September 21, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I fish Lake Roosevelt regularly for Walleye. I believe option 3 would be best, but suggest you add that "It is mandatory that all Walleye under 22" be retained until the daily limit is reached".
LOISEAU, STEVEN   September 24, 2012
COLVILLE, WA  
Comments:
As a resident of the upper Columbia, above Lake Roosevelt (Northport), I agree with option #4 as a necessity if we hope to see the potential of a native trout fishery still hanging on in the face of walleye predation, particularly in the richest and most sensitive American Reach segment, the 15 miles of riverine habitat running from China Bend at the head of Lake Roosevelt proper, to the border (maps showing the lake extending to the US/Canada border are misleading), and including the connected 30 mile segment extending from the border to Keenleyside Dam at Castlegar, BC. The portion of the river in the Northport area is becoming a 'destination' native trout fishery, already stimulating the local economy far more than the walleye fishery ever has. I urge the the adoption of option #4.
RYNES, JOE E  September 28, 2012
REARDAN, WA  
Comments:
I believe if you would want to make a dent in the population of the walleye option 4 is the only option. I have fished the lake for over 20 years and there have been many days when I have caught over 40 walleye in the same area without moving more than 50 yards. The problem is most people do not know how to fish for walleye, and will only catch a few each day.
ANDERSON, JACOB A  October 03, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I support a change in the walleye regulations to liberalize the harvest of these fish. After fishing for walleye on the spokane arm for several years now I have noticed the fish are very abundant and very small in size. I feel option #3 would be the best option to maintain constituent support and also help to meet harvest objectives.
CORNELIUS, CHRIS   October 06, 2012
SPOKANE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
Please enact option 4 as it would provide the greatest benefit for native fish.
BUNNIS, SEAN R  October 08, 2012
NINE MILE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
option 3 is the direction I'm leaning to. I personally don't fish roosevelt as much as I used to partially because of gas prices. Allowing a higher harvest would make the trip worth making. In addition allowing fishing during the april and may months on the spokane arm is definitely attractive. I think that is when you will see bigger bags of fish coming out of the lake. The goal is to reduce the number of fish in the lake it sounds like. The only concern I have about allowing the increased bag limit on the spokane arm during the spawn is that too many fish might be taken out over a few years making fishing harder.
FISHER, CHRISTOPHER J  October 08, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
I would support Option 4. Realize that this option may meet with social resistance, however, WDFW may need to increase effort in public outreach and education. Also, realize that this regulation may be beneficial to WDFW in increased license sales and be easy to enforce. As a second option I would support Option 2.
ROBARDS, EUGENE T  October 16, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I fish Lake Roosevelt for walleye a couple times a year. And, this year caught an abundance of small 12" or smaller fish. In six days of fishing at two different times this last summer, the result was the same. We did not get one fish over 22" But, did get out limit of 14 to 17" at least one day. I'm ok with increasing the limit but keeping the one over 22" intact. That keeps the brood stock healthy.
LLEWELLYN, TERRENCE C  October 17, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to increasing the limit of this gamefish. The walleye fishery has a positive economic impact on the area and removing too many fish would be a step backwards. I have been fishing the area since the 70's and the numbers are good but the quality is not. I believe I speak for many when I say I would rather catch quality than numbers and I think the best way to increase the average lifespan is to decrease the number of fish taken.
CASSCLES, RON J  October 19, 2012
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
I beleive that option #3 would work and be a benifit to both the Lake and Arm as well as the people who fish the lake in the spring. Ron Casscles, Sequim
FUNDINE, BILL   October 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Option #3.... I believe this will reduce numbers and reduce the number of 9+ due to the expanded limit & increase the opportunity to catch the 9+.... BUT... the catch rate will not be significantly reduced in the April-May time frame as in the past the lake level has been to low to launch at either Ft. Spokane or Pocurpine Bay... Launching and running from 7 Bays will not be practiced due to the distance... Should the lake level be high enough to launch at Pocurpine Bay then your belief will be correct..
KING, GARY L  October 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Please adopt rule proposal #DFW370243. Thank you.
LOFQUIST, KEN   October 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I think a 12 fish limit would be enough with one over 22. I think the arm should also remain closed during April and May.
HENRICHS, SAM   October 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Although this does not explain the reasoning behind the desire to lower walleye abundance, if biologically, and scientifically backed, I find options 2 and 4 the best to reach management goals, but do not support depletion of walleye at the behest of promoting red band trout or some other ridiculous effort. It's like the netting of pike in the Pend O'rielle. It was a great fishery enjoyed by many, many anglers, whether native or not. Make the most of what you have.
LOISEAU, STEVEN D  October 21, 2012
COLVILLE, WA  
Comments:
As one who lives beside the American Reach of the Columbia above Lake Roosevelt (this segment of river is considered LR), and has been fishing it since 1974, it is my opinion that illegally introduced walleye, ideally, should be eradicated entirely from this water if the valuable native genome is to survive (native whitefish have disappeared). The quality native trout fishery in the Reach between China Bend and the US/Canada border is contributing much to local economy as it continues to grow in popularity. In my opinion, the best possible option is to eliminate restrictions on walleye take altogether. No limit. No size restrictions. Favoring option #4. (And that some of our citizens like to catch & eat walleye does not exactly qualify as a 'social' issue. Continuing to lose our native fish populations is the real 'social' issue.)
WALKER, ALLAN   October 22, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I support option #3.
SCHROEDER, DOUGLAS B  October 29, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I prefer option 3. I also suggest to remove the 2 day position limit for walleye if the goal is to increase harvest.
FISCHER, THOMAS R  November 01, 2012
SPOKANE VALLY, WA  
Comments:
Option 3 I'm opposed to opening the Spokane Arm to year round fishing. If the average wallleye fisherman only catches 3 or 4 fish per trip, increasing the limit isn't going to make them catch any more fish
FISCHER, DIANNE L  November 01, 2012
SPOKANE VALLY, WA  
Comments:
option 3
NEWSTROM, JAMES G  November 06, 2012
SPOKANE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
I Favor option #4 for the following reasons, 1. IT WOULD BE THE FASTEST WAY TO REDUCE THE OVER POPULATION IF THAT IS IN FACT THE PROBLEM. 2. IF OVER POPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM BUT FOOD AVAILABILITY IS THE PROBLEM THIS WILL ATTACK IT ALSO.
DE BRUIN, CLARENCE M  November 08, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
With trepidition, I am in favor of Option 3 which proposes a 16 fish limit with 1 over 22". However, I still remember when there was a 15 walleye limit on Lake Roosevelt and the fishery almost collapsed. Therefore, a slot limit was initiated and the fishery rebounded. My fear is that with the many more walleye anglers on the lake now than in the days of the 15 fish limit, the fishery could decline rapidly. However, I am in agreement with my fellow Spokane Walleye Club members that something needs to be done and Option 3 is the best of the lot. Thank you.
NATHAN, DOUGLAS T  November 20, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
While not convinced a reduction in the walleye population is necessary, and certainly not for opening up the Spokane Arm during April and May, I could live with option #3 being the least damaging.
KELLY, TOM   November 21, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
to up the limit of walleye in the resivor is acceptable, however a "no limit would kill the walleye fishery all together...as far as a predator, big fish eat small fish..they don't care what kind.
CARVER SR., RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Please pass rule change#15 with option#3 I agree there are plenty of fish to warrent the increased harvest.
DALAN, DAVID F  November 30, 2012
WALLA WALLA, WA  
Comments:
I like option #4. I confess to being saddened by the fact that warmwater species in any salmonid bearing watershed are managed as anything other than an invasive species. The salmonids of the Columbia drainage above Grand Coulee dam are the last genetic savings of a unique population of fishes. Very likely residualized Sockeye and Steelhead.(trapped by the massive backwater). PLEASE do what is needed to begin managing warm water species appropriately for the environs in question. Thank you,
DOHERTY, MICHAEL   November 30, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
option 4 is the only one that makes sense. If you want the salmon and trout native to the area to have any chance of survival, let's get rid of Walleye. And while we're at it bass, perch, catfish and any other invasive species.
BREHM, BERT G  November 30, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
The should be no limit to the harvesting of walleye in Lake Roosevelt. Please manage the Columbia to remove invasive species including spiny rays.
MERECKIS, TOM   November 30, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I think we should adopt a no limit fishery for invasive predators like walleye and smallmouth bass in order to maximize the ability of the native salmonid populations to rebound. Let's be decisive on this!
FERGUSON, JAMES   November 30, 2012
CAMANO ISLAND, WA  
Comments:
I support option 4. Could live with option 3.
NIEMEYER, BRAD R  November 30, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 : no daily limit on walleye
STEPHENSON, ROY   December 01, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 is the "ONLY" option that will work. Its time to stop pussy footing around with these fish. The bag limit on both walleye and Small Mouth bass should be totally eliminated and sportsman encouraged to kill every one they catch.
EHLERS, DENNIS E  December 01, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 2 & 3 don't do enough and 1 does nothing.
STRATTON, KERRY   December 02, 2012
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA  
Comments:
I would like to see option 4 put into place. Saving the native species should be what is most important.
OLSON, WILLIAM R  December 02, 2012
DRAPER, UT  
Comments:
Hello, I realize I am out of state, however I have spent a fair amount of time fishing in Washington since 1993. With the loss of the Puget Sound winter/spring wild steelhead fisheries, my time spent fishing in Washington has dwindled. This particular trout fishery is the last one that has my interest, one that will draw me back to your state to fish. Otherwise the rest of my time is spent in Idaho, Oregon and Canada. Please choose option 4. Thank You, William Olson
GRATE, JAY W  December 02, 2012
WEST RICHLAND, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 as first choice Option 2 as second choice I support all measures to eliminate introduced nonnative spiney ray fish, from lake Roosevelt and the upper Columbia, including unlimited harvest, bounties, and gill netting. I encourage the WDFW to cooperate more closely with the tribes in these matters, and to make regulations uniform between WA and tribal waters. The upper columbia is a genetic reservoir for salmonids that existed here before the damn were built, and a world class salmonid fishery. (kokanee and rainbow trout) Jay
CHRISTENSON, IAIN A  December 02, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Regarding the populations of Walleye, the current level of restriction puts extreme amounts of pressure on other species. I would feel relieved to see option 4, exercised in the management of Walleye.
OSTBY, BJORN   December 02, 2012
CHATTAROY , WA  
Comments:
As an angler that enjoys fishing for the upper Columbia's native trout as well as walleye, I am in favor of option #4, no limit on walleye. I understand the social and financial implications this includes, but I believe protecting and allowing for a thriving native fishery is of upmost importance. Furthermore, if the wild trout population is allowed to reach its fullest potential I envision the upper Columbia becoming a significant fishing travel destination on par with fisheries in Montana and Alaska.
DEJONG, ERIC A  December 02, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I am enthusiastically in favor of Option 4 as it seems it would be most beneficial for native game and forage fish populations.
FRANSEN, STEVE   December 02, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Prefer Option 4 or whatever alternative will reduce the number of exotic species fish the most.
POPE, JEFFREY T  December 02, 2012
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
Please strongly consider option 4. To protect native fish, then you need to remove as many walleye as possible, both large and small. Let's not forget they are an introduced species. With no size or limit, you will definitely get more fishing pressure.
CRAIG, BARRY   December 02, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Please at least go to option three immediately. Is it poosible to go to Option 4 for three years and then reassess?
MITCHELL, JACK   December 02, 2012
GOLDENDALE, WA  
Comments:
Hands down # 4 is needed. We need to manage for biology not agendas.......
WHITELAW , BRANDON   December 02, 2012
COULEE DAM , WA  
Comments:
Option 4. I know down on this end of Roosevelt the walleye faction will scream bloody murder, but it needs to be done. Predation is getting out of hand. I don't know what good it will do, especially without taking limits off smallmouth as well.
NYSTROM, CHRIS   December 02, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I support option #4...for the sake of protecting the kokanee and Redband trout.
SEWELL-BANCROFT, PHIL   December 03, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I suggest that walleye, bass, and catfish limits be removed.
SMITH, GREGORY M  December 03, 2012
ELLENSBURG, WA  
Comments:
Anything to save the native fish. Please remove all limits on envasive fish.
KANE, MARK B  December 03, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 is preferred as the Walleye are an invasive species and are decimating the native trout population.
EARL, DAVIUD A  December 03, 2012
SILVERTON, OR  
Comments:
No Limit- Option 4
STONE, BRIAN   December 03, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Please pass option #4 of rule change # 15. Thanks
OLMSTEAD, RICHARD   December 03, 2012
LAKE FOREST PARK, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 4. Invasive species create a cascade of destructive impacts on an ecosystem. Supporting native recreational fishing for native fish is only one of many reasons to try to constrain invasive fish in the Columbia river. Options that will be less effective at reducing the number of invasives will not provide sufficient remediation to the damaging effects of those invasive species.
CARLOS, PETER J  December 03, 2012
BATTLE GROUND, WA  
Comments:
Please support what little native, wild fisheries remain and enforce the laws against illegal stocking of non native fish. No limit or size restrictions on bass and walleye.
HIGGINS, RYAN   December 03, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I believe option three would be the most beneficial to the existing trout population and the sport fishing groups. As per "A proposal for predator control to increase survival of kokanee salmon and rainbow trout" by the Colville Confederated Tribes, "Predation studies indicated walleye and smallmouth bass consumed fewer smolts as they got older (Beamesderfer 2000; Beamesderfer and Ward 1994; Zimmerman 1999). Most smolts were eaten by walleye smaller than those typically caught by anglers, so angler bounties on these fish would provide little benefit to the salmon survival." This statement clearly states that the effects of proposal #4 would be null. Using anglers to manage fish populations usually does not work very well.
ST. CLAIR, JAMES D  December 03, 2012
YAKIMA, WA  
Comments:
Because the trout and kokanee are a native species to this portion of the Columbia, and their life history strategy has already been altered by dam construction, I think we can be drastic with this rule proposal. With option 4, the invasive, non-native species (walleye), is targeted with no age-class discrimination. This seems to be the best option, as the larger walleye are probably the most fecund, and will produce the most juvenile, salmonid eating walleye each season. By allowing any age-class walleye to be taken, hopefully most anglers will keep the larger fish. This will then in turn reduce the number of fish capable of spawning within the population, and hopefully reduce the number of juvenile walleye within the population. Thus, option 4 seems to be the best choice for the long run.
MAXSON, STEWART R  December 03, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of option 4. My primary interest is in having healthy populations of wild, native fish. Any non-native fish introductions should be in closed systems like lakes, not rivers or reservoirs that are part of rivers.
WOOD, PETER L  December 03, 2012
NELSON, BC  
Comments:
I favor option 4 as a means of attempting to control walleye numbers. Walleye are a non-native species and a serious threat to native species in the upper Columbia system, including the Canadian section of the river between the international border and the Keenlyside dam at Castlegar, BC. This section is extremely valuable to BC anglers, and we are quite concerned that the native rainbow trout fishery here is at risk as a result of introduction of walleye in the upper Columbia system south of the border. Some consider the upper Columbia in Washington and BC to be a world class rainbow trout fishery. I doubt that the walleye fishery in the upper Columbia will ever attract that kind of attention. Walleye are an invasive species and should be treated as such. I strongly support any efforts by the WDFW and any anglers associations to reduce walleye populations, and I am willing to contribute to such efforts in any way I can. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposal 15
JOHNSON, BRAD W  December 03, 2012
NORTH BEND, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 should be adopted. WDFW needs to manage for native fishes over invasive and possibly illegally introduced species.
SCHROEDER, JERRY L  December 03, 2012
TOLEDO, WA  
Comments:
Recommend option 4
ARMSTRONG, GREG   December 03, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I opt for option #4 Removal of detrimental non native species such as walleye, in favor of native fish such as Redband Rainbows is an important and worthy goal in my mind. Thank you, Greg
ABRAMS, TERRY R  December 04, 2012
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
Support Option 4, and would support an all citizen commercial fishery directed at the Walleye. They do this in Montana and maybe elsewhere. It is a very desirable food fish. You could change the status from game fish to food fish and go from there. This could also be a mitigation to the lower columbia gillnetters. Think Win-Win folks.
BAERWALDE, MATTHEW J  December 04, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I support Option 4 for proposal #15. Native stocks should be protected from non-native interactions. Option 4 will do this most efficiently. Please protect UC Redbands by removing as many walleye as possible.
LATIMER, PATRICK M  December 04, 2012
DES MOINES, WA  
Comments:
option 4 sounds like a no brainer. Why on earth would we choose a walleye fishery over a NATIVE trout population. Im sure we'll never fully irradicate the entire population of walleye so occasional incidental catches will be appreciated at the dinner table but its not fair to the native trout for us to pussyfoot around the issue, the longer we wait the harder it will be.
DAVIDCHIK, MICHAEL D  December 04, 2012
CAMAS, WA  
Comments:
A no limit fishing on non-native walleye will not only enhance the fishery, but allow for decreased impacts on the native salmonids in the area. Please allow this catch and keep fishery for sports anglers and help native fish out in the process.
FITZGERALD, PATRICK R  December 05, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 sounds like the best plan to me!
FITZGERALD, PATRICK R  December 05, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Option 4 sounds like the best plan to me!
JOHNSON, DANIEL L  December 05, 2012
NEWCASTLE, WA  
Comments:
I strongly support recommendation #15, liberalization of bag limits on Lake Roosevelt and Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt.
BUCHANAN, MIKE E  December 05, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I support increasing the walleye harvest to protect other sport fish.
MILLER, BRIAN   December 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I prefer Option 4 No regulation on daily limit or size. Thank you
SCHAGER, RICHARD A  December 06, 2012
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
Vote for Option 4
KUHN, RICHARD I  December 06, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Again we introduced a species of fish that will do more harm than good. Someone has not learned a valuable lesson in letting the Good Lord handle things in Nature. Please put my opinion down for option #4.
BLUME, DONALD L  December 06, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I favor option 3, 16 fish with one over 22 inches. Thank you.
DIDENHOVER, TOM   December 06, 2012
OROVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Please implement option #4 to rule change recommendation #15. The walleye are not native and do not deserve any limits.
KING, GARY L  December 06, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I would be in favor of option #3,16 fish limit with 1 over 22” Based on modeling results this regulation should provide for increased angler harvest of walleye, while maintaining the current exploitation rate for age 9+ fish (22” length plus) between 30-90%.
BOUCHARD, HOWARD E  December 06, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
If the Spokane and Colville tribes are to continue gill netting then don't do anything. Leave regs alone until it is clear what impact they are going to have. Incidently all the walleye I catch and fat and happy so I don't see what you mean by lack of prey i.e. predator/prey imbalance. Also I have observed good perch populations up the Spokane Arm in fall. Nothing was starving to death from what I could tell.
LONG, PEGGY   December 06, 2012
DAVENPORT, WA  
Comments:
As an avid angler who regularly fishes the Spokane Arm of Lake Roosevelt, I stronly recommend adopting Option 4 of this proposal. As it stands now, if we don't reduce the spawners, WDFW goals will not likely be achieved. The only way to do that is to target fish when the water is low enough to concentrate the fish more. Fishing after June 1, when the water levels are usually high really limits anglers' ability to even find these fish, much less catch them.
HINDS, PATRICK E  December 07, 2012
OTIS ORCHARDS, WA  
Comments:
I would support option 4 if it were amended to include the "1 over 22" to maintain the trophy fish potential while increasing harvest for those wishing to fill their freezers. I would support option 3 as written. I would not support option 1 & 2 because of their inability to provide for increases in populations of over 22" fish.
LARGENT, CHUCK   December 07, 2012
WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
No limit and no size restrictions.
EASTWOOD, DOUGLAS M  December 07, 2012
KETTLE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
Option 1 - Retain 8 fish limit with 1 over 22".
GODDARD, MERLIN   December 07, 2012
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
option 2
AUSLAND, BART   December 08, 2012
EVANS, WA  
Comments:
I vote option 4.
THEILER, HUGH   December 08, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I would endorse Option 3. This supports removing smaller fish, while protecting "overs" which tend to be the most fit reproducers. I would also support opening the season during the spawning run on the Spokane arm. Last, I would ask for consideration of a sunset date - that is to say, the Department shall re-evaluate the system in 2 years, and adjust the limits accordingly.
CORNELIUS, TERRY   December 08, 2012
RIDGEFIELD, WA  
Comments:
I support option 4.
FISH, JAMES W  December 09, 2012
KETTLE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
Please, please, please, adopt option 4 (no regulation or daily limit on walleye) to save the world-class trout fishery in the American Reach of the Columbia River!
KOCH, GREG J  December 09, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I am a walleye and trout fisherman from Spokane. For Lake Roosevelt, I favor raising the daily bag limit to 16 walleye with only one fish over 22 inches (option 3). In my observation as an angler, the walleye on Roosevelt are under-nourished. The population needs to be thinned. I am hesitant to support the more aggressive option 2 and option 4. It is my understanding that the Spokane Arm will be open to fishing during the months of April and May from 2013 onward. I would like to see how the exploitation of walleye during the spawn will have on the fishery. I feel that protecting the larger females is a good move, at least initially. If the walleye is still too abundant in Lake Roosevelt after a couple of years with the regs for 16 fish (one over 22"), I will fully favor a more aggressive stance by the WDFW. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on this issue.
VAN HEST, PETRUS   December 10, 2012
SANTA MARIA, CA  
Comments:
In order to reduce predatory taking of native fish by walleye, it is best to remove all restrictions on daily limits and size of the introduced walleye.
FISH, JAMES A  December 10, 2012
SPOKANE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
I am an Upper Columbia trout flyfisher and am in full support of a no-limit walleye retention on the Columbia drainage system.
BROWN, MATT D  December 11, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I advocate option #4.
DAVIS, JIM   December 11, 2012
KETTLE FALLS , WA  
Comments:
I choose option #4.
OLTON, LOUIS   December 12, 2012
COLBERT, WA  
Comments:
As a Retired Navy Vet (2004) and Avid Fly Fisher, I won't pretend to Comprehend America's Political "Disfunction-ality!" Wether IT be in WA D.C. or here in Olympia! Your sick of hearing IT and We (the People) are TIRED of Suffering thru IT! Time is NOW to Wake Up, DO the RIGHT THING and SAVE THIS Wonderful Fishery on OUR side of the US/Canada Border! I've been fishing The UC for 3 years now and have noticed an alarming "catch rate" dwindle for those Beautiful and Powerful Redband Bows, while not fishing for, but catching those "Pesty" Walleye ABOVE Northport! Apparently Smallies are becoming a Problem as Predators on the young Redbands (I have not hooked up with any (yet!). Another Forgotten Potential onslaught are the PIKES! ? With my newish 16 ft. Skiff I have enjoyed 20+ fishing days each year on My Favorite River Fishery (UC), but as I said the"Scared Bows" (of the New Predators) has taken a toll on the hookup rate. It's Past
OLTON, LOUIS   December 12, 2012
COLBERT, WA  
Comments:
"Part 2" Time to declare "Open Season" on the Walleye up River of China Bend, Especially the Size where they become "A HAZARD ISSUE" to the Safety of those WILD REDBAND BOWS! TIRED OF THE "LET'S WAIT AND SEE" APPPROACH THAT is so PREVALENT IN POLITICALLY BIASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL, HAS COMMON SENSE BEEN TOSSED TO THE CURB FOREVER? YES IT IS A COMMON SENSE ISSUE, SIMPLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO! WE AS REPS. OF HUMANITY NEED TO GET SERIOUS IF WE ARE TO TURN THIS ONSLAUGHT AGAINST OURSELVES BY DESTROYING THE PLANET - 1 GRAIN OF SAND AT A TIME (SO WE CAN'T TELL TILL IT IS TO LATE-WHICH I BELIEVE IT IS!)! CAN'T KICK IT TO THE CURB ANY LONGER BOYS & GIRLS, WE ARE WAY BEYOND WHERE EARTH DAY #1 WAS (1970-My senior yr in H.S.). HUMANITY IS NOW 42 YEARS BEHIND THE 8 BALL ! ! GOD HELP YOUR GRAND CHILDREN FOR THERE WON'T BE MUCH LEFT TO TRY TO SALVAGE HERE ON OUR ONLY SOURCE OF LIFE in another 42 yrs.! (2054
RESSA, MICHAEL RESSA W  December 13, 2012
COLVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am strongly recommending Option 4 of WDFW proposal of walleye harvesting on the Upper Columbia. We must remind ourselves that walleye are not native of this river system. We must use every resource and tool to protect the self sustaining wild trout population of the upper columbia.
MANKE, HOWARD J  December 14, 2012
DAVENPORT, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of option #4. Having lived on and fished the Spokane arm since the mid 60's I can say the quality is the poorest ever. Too many stunted fish, to much competition.
AUGUSTINE, DUANE L  December 14, 2012
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
Option 3 should suffice for all concerned.
CLEMENTS, PHIL G  December 14, 2012
SPANGLE, WA  
Comments:
I support option 3.
SMITH, GREG   December 14, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I vote for Option 4
DODD, JOEL D  December 16, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
I support option 3. Option 4 would promote waste.
BROOKS, KEVAN T  January 28, 2013
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I support this proposal, I have noticed the size and girth of the walleye populations shrinking over the last several years and support increasing the limits to balance out the population of all the species in the lake.
LINDEBLAD, DAVID   December 21, 2012
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
Good idea.
CLARK, PATRICK D  December 27, 2012
FRUITLAND, WA  
Comments:
I am recently retired and have moved to Lake Roosevelt. The reason I moved to Lake Roosevelt was the good walleye fishing. I am for Option 1. The other options would be detrimental to the walleye fishery.
STEVENS, RICHARD A  December 30, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I'm in favor of the opyion 3. with my experience on lake roosevelt is the fish i caught in there this year(2012) the fish were skinny and alot of them.
ZALEVITS, JOHN H  January 27, 2013
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
OPTION 3 IS MY VOTE, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS FISHERY, WHILE ALLOWING OTHER FISH SPECIES TO THRIVE.
CHAMBERS, TIM   January 02, 2013
SANTA ROSA, CA  
Comments:
My father lives on lake Roosevelt and has seen the steady increase of the non-native walleye population and the steady decrease in the populations of other native species, primarily rainbow trout. Walleye are voracious predators and if not stopped will eventually wipe out the other native species in the lake as well as in the river above. I have experienced the world class rainbow trout fisher in the river and lake, and it would be a travesty to allow this great species be devastated by a non-native. Please consider adopting the most stringent option (#4) to help keep this non-native invader in check. Thank you!
THALER, WYATT M  January 06, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Please protect native redband trout and kokanee salmon in the Upper Columbia by adopting option 4.
NEFF, ADAM   January 06, 2013
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I support increasing or eliminating the bag limits for walleye in this region.
ZELK, ROBERT A  January 08, 2013
CAMANO ISLAND, WA  
Comments:
I support option #4 to help the native redband rainbow trout from walleye predation.
MANKE, BRAD A  January 10, 2013
COLVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Option 3 with no closure during spawning season.
SCHOENBERGER, ROB   January 26, 2013
MEAD, WA  
Comments:
I like the proposal #3, as we fish walleye as a food fish, we have had days when the 8 fish limit comes quick.Most times it does not however, but it would still be nice to be able to increase the filet count if available. Thanks for the opportunity to comment and for the fine job you are doing with limited resources. Does the dept., have a reserve officer program like a lot of other enforcement departments ? Interested if you do in eastern Wa. Rob
MCCARY, DAVID   January 12, 2013
KENNEWICK, WA  
Comments:
Option #2. I fish this area on a regular basis. There are a lot of 12-16 inch fish and a lot of people throw them back. If you increase to a 16 fish limit those who keep fish will add to desired 150,000 taken. Those who release will continue to do the same. I also agree with allowing individuals to fish during the spawning period. I would also for information to be sent out incuraging fishermen to keep the larger fish during the spawn.
FORGEY, BRAD   January 12, 2013
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I can support option 3 and if that doesn't meet your goals then move on to option 4. I've been fishing for Walleyes in Roosevelt since 1969 and I don't see where anything the WDFW has done has had any impact on them. They come and go depending on mother nature as far as I can see. Some years plenty and some years not...some years average size is bigger than others but they just keep chugging along despite us.
BAIRD, MICHAEL C  January 13, 2013
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of option 3 and opening the spokane arm year around. 16 walleyes aday would help make it cost effective for people with a low income.
HARBIN, MATTHEW   January 13, 2013
ADDY, WA  
Comments:
I like "Option 3". It gives anglers more fish and it takes better care for the 9+ year fish, if I read it right.
GAUB, STEVE   January 14, 2013
WILBUR, WA  
Comments:
Option #1 or #3 are the best. We MUST protect the big walleyes as they are the major predator of the little walleyes. If you allow an unlimitet take on large fish the small ones would really take over. Let mother nature keep the big fish while harvesting more of the small ones. Why does the WDFW hate walleyes? They are a great sport fish and very popular here in Eastern Washington. Please don't destroy our walleye fishery on Lake Roosevelt!!!
SMITH, TOM   January 14, 2013
OMAK, WA  
Comments:
Option 2 or 3. Option 4 is not a good option.
BORDERLINE BASSIN CONTENDERS, ROBERT HARRIMAN   January 15, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
We are in favor of more harvest, but only utilizing option 3 allowing only 1 over 22. Thanks for your dedication Sincerely, Bob Harriman, legis liaison Borderline Bassin Contenders
FENNING, WALTER   January 15, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I support #4
BUTLER, CHRIS   January 15, 2013
WINTHROP, WA  
Comments:
I support option 4. Lake Roosevelt including two major tributaries is a 186 miles of what I consider "non-native predator hell". The walleye and Large/small mouth bass have extremely large impacts on salmonid and sturgeon populations in Lake Roosevelt. Additionally, fallouts from Lake Roosevelt are moving downstream and are having impacts on ESA listed species. As a manager of a valuable resource (salmon/steelhead) you would think that your actions would speak louder than words. Although actions taken will impact the populations in a negative/positive aspect in Lake Roosevelt, you will never be successful in removing these species as they will continually fall into the system from above (ie. Idaho and Montana).
CHADWELL, ROBERT   January 16, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
While regulatory action is long overdue and late in coming forth for consideration, the only reasonable option at this point given the predation impact of the walleye population is Option #4. There is an immediate need to reduce the walleye population. It will take time for this to occur and the fisheries agencies can observe the impact of the implementation of this option. They can then determine what level of "take" the walleye population is appropriate. Don't fail to act now.
BAIRD, CATHRINE L  January 17, 2013
SPOKANE, WA  
Comments:
16 walleyes aday with 1 over 22 inches is a good idea to me.
KILBURY, RYAN   January 18, 2013
PASCO, WA  
Comments:
Option 3 is most desirable
FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I vote for option # 3. Though I only fish Roosevelt once a year, I've noticed that the size of the fish have gone down in recent years.
WILLIAMS, COLE S  January 28, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
Option 3 is the one I think should be the new regulation.This would give those that can and do catch walleye a better chance at reducing there numbers as I have seen that a lot of fisherman never catch a limit (my estimation is less that 30% catch limits)so this would help in reducing there numbers. Opening during April and May would also help in reducing their numbers

Other Comments Received