Comments on: Threat to Sport Fishery
Newest First
By hotfishmt on 04-12-12 @ 9:23 am
I agree with Bob 100%. Sport Fishing in Flathead Lake will be all but gone if they keep taking unlimited numbers of Lake Trout. If that fishing aspect goes by the roadside….about
al that is left is Perch fishing….whoopie. That is not going to create interest nor revenue for
any people in the charter business.
Let the SKT use some of its $$$ with all the govt contracts to do the study….that is steep
enough in tax money to shovel some into other areas of interest.
And…Bull Trout…other know as Dolly Varden…..no shortage in other area at all….Canada
has plenty as well as California & Oregon.
By Lucky on 04-12-12 @ 10:59 am
Don’t believe everything you read. We are, of course, in very real danger of losing our nativebull trout and both the number and size of cutthroats in the river system have declined due
entirely to predation by lake trout. Bull trout redds in the North and Middle forks averaged 392
during the 1980s. During that time we had a productive and exciting bull trout fishery in the
Flathead with 5,000 to 6,000 bull trout to 20 pounds caught annually by anglers. For the last
decade the average number of redds has been 186. Today it is illegal to fish for bull trout in
our home waters and you have to release every cutthroat you catch.
Lake trout have infested our entire watershed to the detriment of every other species of sport
fish. Lake trout have taken over native fish habitat in Quartz Lake, Logging Lake, Middle and
Lower Quartz, Bowan Lake, Harrison Lake, Kintla Lake, Lake McDonald and Rogers Lake in Glacier
Park. The Park Service considers Cerulean and Akokala lakes vulnerable to lake trout invasion.
Swan Lake was invaded by lake trout in 1995. Lake trout have now reached Lindbergh and Holland
lakes. Fishing pressure on Swan has dropped by more than 50% and all species of native fish
there are rapidly declining.
How much is enough? There are now 1.8 million lake trout in Flathead Lake which you can only
fish for with an expensive boat, downriggers, fish finders, etc. Many believe, the more lake
trout the better, but the lake trout population is vastly overpopulated and size and condition
of the fish is declining. Are we ready to surrender our entire watershed to mercury-contaminated
fish that you cannot safely eat? We have the knowledge and technology to regain some of the
diversity of our fishery while there are still some fishing opportunities left. We still have
time to recover our home-grown “steelhead” fishery in the form of large healthy bull trout.
Oh, and by the way, bull trout went extinct in California in 1971 and Oregon is pursuing a
rigorous program to restore their declining bull trout populations. A Canadian fishing license
is now $80 and gas is $4/gallon.
By terryt on 04-14-12 @ 9:44 am
While a member of tu I feel the money spent on bull and cutthroat is like Obamas continued push toward a socalist government. These two species of fish will never be able to compeate
with the stronger species. To continue to throw money at them is a waste of funds. These
species are on the seamingly never ending trout welfare program.To keep funding and doing
countless studies gets us no where but deeper in debt. Look at drainages in the Flathead that
have been closed to fishing for over 30 years with the thought of improving the fish counts.
They have done no good and the counts continue to go down. Lets face the fact that these two
trout species are doomed and move on.
TerryT
By Lucky on 04-14-12 @ 12:04 pm
Terry, I strongly disagree that the money spent thus far has been wasted. Nearly all the moneyspent has gone to projects that help our fisheries. Projects funded by BPA money like the South
Fork restoration project, Sekokini Springs, and habitat restoration have all meant that we have
better fishing, pristine waters, and have extended the lives and numbers of cutthroats and bull
trout in our watershed. The major factor we continue to ignore is lake trout. Not because it
can’t be done, but because it is complicated and expensive. We know removal of predators can be
done and we know that it works from the success of other projects such as Swan Lake and Pend
Oreille.
There is a small law that we often ignore, called the Endangered Species Act. Once we decide
that there is nothing more we can do and step back from trying to increase the numbers of native
fish, the Federal Government is required to step in and manage those species. Once that happens,
there will be virtually no fishery in the Flathead in waters that contain protected fish. The
problem doesn’t go away because we quit trying.
As for the money, that doesn’t belong to Obama or Congress, it belongs to us. The Northwest
Power Act was approved by the four northwest states to give state governments more say in the
regulation of hydropower within their borders. The money comes from a fund set up by BPA
specifically to mitigate resource damage caused by operation of the hydropower network. The
money comes from ratepayers who, by the way, enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the
nation even with funding these projects. BPA directs an average of $220 million per year to
habitat and restoration projects. That money will be spent regardless of what happens to native
fish in the Flathead. It will go to remove northern pike from the upper Columbia, pike minnow
bounties, hatcheries in Oregon and Washington, restoration of sturgeon, or any number of worthy
projects that won’t help our natives. You will pay the cost no matter where the money is used.
There is a single reason we have not been able to increase the numbers of cutthroats and bull
trout. We have ignored lake trout to the point that we are now in danger of turning over
management of Montana native fish to the Federal Government and that’s something none of us want
to see happen.
By hotfishmt on 04-15-12 @ 2:35 pm
Oh Lucky….sure sounds & reads like he work for some government agency ???? The cost is not worth effort or results. The government has it hands in too many ventures…an needs
to save some $$ even if Lucky says the money comes from BPA….that is a falsehood.
Since Ole Uncle Sam is in the RED….quit wasting $$ on a problem that is unfixable.
Wolves were imported from Canada….so what it wrong if…..later we import some Dolly
Varden from Canada???? nothing.
The endless $$$ pit called Uncle Sam is in debt to the tune of 13 Trillion…..an BPA is not
helping that red line of ink.
By Lucky on 04-15-12 @ 3:58 pm
Hotty: So, if I read this correctly, it sounds like you are saying that we should not bespending money on killing wolves, coyotes, mountain lions or other predators because saving our
deer and elk is just not worth the cost or the effort? We can always hunt imported herefords at
a much lower cost and certainly less effort.
By ICallB.S. on 04-16-12 @ 1:11 pm
Teach the wolves to fish for lake trout and lake trout only! There. Problem solved. You can thank me by giving me money.
By PerchAssault on 04-18-12 @ 11:22 pm
Lucky, I would like to respond to several statements you have made, and regularly make, about this issue…You say…
“We are, of course, in very real danger of losing our native bull trout and both the number and
size of cutthroats in the river system have declined due entirely to predation by lake trout.”
FWP population estimates indicate that bull trout numbers are twice now what they were at the
low point of the early 90’s. They are also 50% above the secure levels that were established to
indicate a population level that indicates they are no longer on the brink of extinction. You
continue to paint the picture that the bull trout are still facing extinction and it’s not true. While
they will NEVER get back to pre-Mysis numbers, they ARE coming back.
If cutthroat numbers are as bad as you have been saying, then every river fly fishing outfitter is
lying, as a check of the 4-5 local Outfitter websites indicate a robust and healthy “native fish
fishery in the Flathead system”.
“There are now 1.8 million lake trout in Flathead Lake which you can only
fish for with an expensive boat, downriggers, fish finders, etc.”
I don’t know how often you are on Flathead Lake, but I am out there for over 150 days a year. I
can say with authority that the majority of lake trout anglers fish from average family bow riders,
pontoons and smaller craft. Guides like myself use bigger boats for the comfort and safety
they afford, as well as the fact we can take customers fishing in the regularly rough waters that
send MOST other anglers home. No different than the majority of river guides who use $5000
drift boats, $500 waders and specialized fly rods and reels. They do so to afford their clients a
positive experience, not because it is necessary to catch fish. The fact that $500 tagged fish
are caught by shore anglers in Mack Days and that there are multitudes of You Tube videos
showing shore anglers and small boat anglers catching lake trout proves this statement is not
rooted in fact.
By PerchAssault on 04-18-12 @ 11:23 pm
I continue to take issue with Lucky’s comments below…
“I strongly disagree that the money spent thus far has been wasted. Nearly all the money
spent has gone to projects that help our fisheries. Projects funded by BPA money like the South
Fork restoration project, Sekokini Springs, and habitat restoration have all meant that we have
better fishing, pristine waters, and have extended the lives and numbers of cutthroats and bull
trout in our watershed.”
You recently took FWP to task for “abandoning native fish in the Flathead” for pulling out of the
process on Flathead…yet here you speak of a multitude of projects that prove just the
opposite. Where else in the state are native fish getting the same attention? Where else in the
state are anglers being asked to sacrifice 75-95 of their catchable fish for an “experiment”?
(Alternative D endorsed by the CSKT and supported by TU) Where are fly fishermen being
asked to sacrifice precious, non-native brown and rainbow trout in waters where the protected
bull trout and cutthroat trout are in peril? Can you recognize a double standard here? Many
obviously do.
We MUST allow the science to ensure we do not face another “Kokanee disaster”, but on an
even larger scale, ensuring our clean water, economic viability and the entire ecosystem is
allowed to have a fair shake, and not be sacrificed for two species of fish, that may or may not
be in the danger some would have us believe.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.