Swan Lake

[mtjim66]

I just posted this on the Fishing Reports and Conditions but I thought I would get it out here for everyone's information.  Someone was asking about the fishing is Swan and here is my $0.02....



In my opinion, Swan has been (and is being) ruined as a fishery.  My in-laws have a cabin on the lake and my family spends quite a bit of time up there.  For the last three years FWP has been gill-netting the macks out of the lake in an effort to try to save the bull trout.  This tactic has never ever worked in any other lake in America, but some young biologist uttered the five most dangerous words in American politics these days - "we've got to do something" and therefore they are stripping out Swan.  The bye catch has been huge (rainbows, bulls, pike, kokes, etc.) and for the past three summers, the fishing has gone steadily down to the point where I don't bother any more.  I'm sure there are still some small perch, but even the pike have gone down due to the reduction in small feeder lake trout.  Once they have spent all of our tax and licence money, the lake will come back in 10 years or so, but for now it sucks.  It is my understanding that they intend to keep this practice up for a few more years.  I would encourage anyone who has an issue with this to contact FWP, get the story from them, and give them your comments.

[missoulafish]

So what is an acceptable alternative to control the macs? You seem like you have a lot of insight on the lake.

[mtjim66]

I think experience shows us that once macs get a foot hold, they are there for good.  I would point to Flathead and Yellowstone lakes as examples.  I also think that since there are pike (another non-native species) and macs all up and down that valley, they are eventually going to make there home is Swan no matter what us humans try to do.  My problem with what they are doing up there is that it is trashing all the other fish populations and quite frankly, I thought the bulls were competing well with the pike and macs before the netting started.  We were catching bulls regularly while targeting macs and now, I can't seem to find any trout in that lake.

[missoulafish]

hmmm...good points.

[Cornbread]

They should simply make it illegal to return any lake trout caught back to the lake and encourage sport angling of lake trout on a monetary reward system like Oregon and Washington do to control pike minnow populations on the Columbia and Willamette. If you offer $3 a lake trout for every laker over 10" or something similar like what Oregon and Washington do for pike minnow you get guys who go out every day and target that fish species. Instead of spending millions on a failed gill netting program that trashes the fishery you spend only thousands and you get a direct targeted catch with very little by catch.

The reward system is more monetarily effective because when netting the state bears the entire cost of the operation and the cost is fixed regardless of target catch and by catch. It costs you the same amount to run nets every day and catch nothing as it does to run those same nets every day and catch  something. With a reward based system you only pay for the fish caught and you are outsourcing the cost of the actual fishing to those people willing to go out and fish for them. The state only ends up paying for what it actually wants (less lake trout).

[Quantoson]

Bull Trout & Cutthroat being a species of concern will eventually make fishing obsolete if the Lakers are eradicated.  Next will be the Pike, then Rainbow and that will leave the fisheries regulating catching Cutthroat and Bulls like they regulate the wolf hunt.  This is most likely the objective of the Vegans and anti-fishing/hunting organizations.

IMO leave the fish be, species populations such as they are and the fishery will evolve and balance its self in time.  By the way, I have not spoken to anyone who has ever mentioned that they like or even prefer eating Bull Trout. 

[cant stop jigging]

;   cornbread,
                That would be by far to easy!
         Leave it to the FWP to find the most expensive and most invasive way for other game fish to do it!
     You'd  think after all the trial and errors they have done on Flathead lake over the years they would listen to some of the
     sportsman for once!!!
                                           Fred    (born and raised on the Flathead)

[mtjim66]

Here is contact info for the biologist:

Leo Rosenthal
Region 1 Fisheries Biologist
406-751-4548
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/contactUs/staff/contactForm.html?id=003208

[Quantoson]

I invited Mr. Rosenthal to comment.

[Cornbread]

I was kinda thinking about fishing Swan this weekend, but now I'm not.  I guess those area gas stations and restaurants won't be getting my business either, even though they did nothing wrong. 

I will probably be out on Lonepine or Noxon all day Sunday if you want to fish out there I am always looking for friends to fish with so you are more than welcome to join me. I am trying to see if I can get Jim F to come out as well if he can. Noxon is going to depend on what I find out there Saturday after I am done snow shoeing.

[RobG]

Here is contact info for the biologist:

Leo Rosenthal
Region 1 Fisheries Biologist
406-751-4548
http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/contactUs/staff/contactForm.html?id=003208

I grew up on Swan Lake too (across from the Terrace, pre-electricity days). I love the bull trout and am a TU member, but don't know much about the mac situation since I moved before that happened.

You can download a 3-yr May 2012 report here: http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/fishing/nr_0673.html

My gut feel is to let it run a few more years. Nothing is worse than shutting down a program midstream since NGOs will always use the conflict as a revenue generator to get it back again, and it won't be clear if the program would have worked if continued.

[double_a85]

All across the state we are seeing this native versus non-native status and how to "improve" the fishery to native status. Mountain streams being poisoned to remove brookies and put the native cuts back in, ect, ect, ect. My concern is at what point is enough? This state generates MILLIONS of dollars from people fishing... and most target non-native species. What would the Big Horn be like if we removed all the NON-native rainbow and browns, or any of the other amazing blue ribbon streams we enjoy in Montana? What about Fort Peck and its trophy walleye, pike, salmon, and lake trout fishery? It was the biologists of years past that started these fisheries and now people with the same title are the ones trying to turn back the clock... it will never work.

[mtjim66]

Robg, I'm with you - I love the bulls on Swan. Again, my problem is that they really seem to be down since the netting started. We used to be fairly successful catching them and now, not so much. Also, the biologist freely admit that they have never been successful eradicating a non-native species with a netting program but they felt compelled to do "something".  I don't think it's going to work and I also think they are doing more harm than good.

[RobG]

Robg, I'm with you - I love the bulls on Swan. Again, my problem is that they really seem to be down since the netting started. We used to be fairly successful catching them and now, not so much. Also, the biologist freely admit that they have never been successful eradicating a non-native species with a netting program but they felt compelled to do "something".  I don't think it's going to work and I also think they are doing more harm than good.

You are a lot closer to the issue than I am, but the report indicates the bycatch doesn't explain the decline in total. Their techniques will also likely improve in the future. Given that the concern was that the lake trout would reduce the bull trout numbers it seems quite possible that stopping the program would do away with the bull trout entirely. I.e. the program is probably doing more good than bad. Whether it is cost effective is another matter....

The lake trout are in Holland Lake so I'm sure they are entrenched int he system. They will be in Swan forever unless we have a miracle, but if the numbers are lowered it could help the bulls. I am a strong supporter of native fisheries, but I wonder if these netting programs are cost effective. Still, it seems like giving the plan a few more years seems prudent based on the report.

[BigSage]

The Native fish are an "indicator" species.  If all of the native fish are gone, then that means there is something very wrong with the ecosystem, water quality, forage etc....  And that usually means WE screwed it up.

[Quantoson]

Mr. Rosenthal did respond to me logically.  I'm sure he would not mind if I forwarded this to those who request it.  He also encouraged anyone with questions or suggestions to fell free to call him or email him.  He would be glad to discuss it at length.

Seems like a personable person. 

[DoogieMT]

.....  I guess those area gas stations and restaurants won't be getting my business either, even though they did nothing wrong.

You haven't been to Swan Lake in awhile have you.  Only thing you might be able to buy in Swan Lake during the winter is a over priced vegie burger at the laughing horse lol and that is if the kitchen is even open

[missoulafish]

Q - can you post it up here? I am sure we are all interested.

[Quantoson]

Here it is

Hi Herb. Thanks for contacting me regarding the lake trout removal project in Swan Lake. I did read the first thread you provided a link to but the bottom link did not work. I appreciate the concern that you and other anglers share regarding the project, as the issue is large and complicated. I noticed that one of your online forum members posted a link to our 3-year summary report. As far as information goes this document is a great place to start, as it includes answers to many of the questions your members provided (i.e. bycatch of other fish species, objectives of the project, etc.). I have attached a copy of that report as well. Bycatch continues to be a major concern for this project. However, as you will see in the report, bycatch of other fish species has been relatively low throughout the course of the project. In four years of netting, and over 30,000 lake trout removed, only 53 rainbow trout and 11 northern pike were caught. Bull trout and kokanee bycatch was higher than for rainbow and pike, and their status continues to be closely monitored. Declines in adult bull trout and kokanee abundance have been seen in recent years, and while bycatch could be partially responsible for that decline, much of it is also related to an increasing lake trout population. However, both kokanee and bull trout redd counts (spawning nest surveys) showed slight increases in 2012 which was encouraging and will hopefully continue in future years. I encourage you (and others) to read the report and if you have additional questions, to contact me personally either by phone or email. I would be more than happy to sit down and go over the data with you. Thanks again.
Leo

[missoulafish]

Thank you Sir:)

[Quantoson]

 
your very welcome

[BigSage]

Cornbread, I'm probably heading to Lindberg to chase some Lakers on Sunday.  If not, Noxon is my back-up plan

[wingnutty]

Problem is, every fisherman is an expert on aquatic biology, even if they actually aren't.

The problem is, indeed complicated, but all too often people have knee-jerk reactions and 'think' they know cause and effect.  Reality is that a lot times, it takes a good amount of research and, often trial and error to really determine the effectiveness of different management options.

I know Leo personally.  I know him to be a good guy, who truly cares about the resource, as well as the recreational users.  He is very level-headed (as is obvious by his response) and he isn't out to destroy a prime fishery.  Most people who actually know Leo would probably agree with that assessment, so I would suggest abstaining from a witch hunt in this case.  People also forget the difficult situation many of the biologists are faced with; they get pressure from ALL sides and it is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone, all the time.  I wish those complaining could go do Leo's job for a while and if they did, they'd probably be a lot more tolerant. 

We have a problem in Western MT with 'bucket biology'.  Some of the same disgruntled voices ridiculing MTFWP are the same ones who either a.) turn a blind eye to improper introductions, b.) openly support them, or c.) actively engage in them.  The introduction of lake trout vastly changes fisheries, that is well understood.  Those that think lake trout will not heavily impact the Swan Lake fishery are dilusional.  It is very likely that catch numbers of bulls decreased for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is predation due to lake trout.  We already have numerous lakes where we can target lake trout, I see no reason not to at least study different management strategies to try and reduce lake trout populations in the Swan.

I support recreational fishing as much as anyone, anywhere.  I highly value the diversity of game fish we have in our area, including bass, pike and perch; I prefer to fish for those species over trout.  However, I also think we need to actively combat illegal introductions in some fisheries.  We also do need to support research regarding managing illegally introduced fish species.

[doublehaul]

My in-laws own a "cabin" (lakehouse) right on the lake. I fish it every summer for pike and haven't caught one yet. All I catch is 10-15 inch trout.....I guess it keeps the transplants happy. As for me I think Lake Trout are a pretty cool fish, unfortunately this native/non-native issue has gotten out of control. Maybe our G&F funding could be spent in a more productive manner.

Just one mans opinion.

[wingnutty]

I stopped fishing Swan right after I first heard they were gill netting.  I wish they never did bc some of the pike were monsters.

As per the report Leo discusses:

In four years of netting, and over 30,000 lake trout removed, only 53 rainbow trout and 11 northern pike were caught

I don't think you need to worry too much about reduction in northern populations due to the gill netting.  If northern populations are declining, it is likely that there are other reason....perhaps direct competition with lake trout for forage?

[vicster]

My problem with the lake trout in Swan is that it was one of the few strongholds for Bull trout in Montana.  These are trout with pike like tendency's that used to reach giant proportions (32lbs ID record) in western lakes.  Someone said they may not be great eating, but they are freaking awesome to catch (and a native that have been practically exterminated as a sport fish because of declines in numbers).  Anyone who says just let them be and have it settle out must really like lakers, because that will be about all thats left to fish for (example Flathead Lake).  I don't know the best way to try to control them is, but I think that FWP tracks them to identify spawning areas for gill nets.  Share that info with sportsmen, have them kill as many spawners as they can, put a bounty on them, do a mac days, pretty much declare war.  There there to stay, but if we can keep them knocked back with targeted fishing it could be a win win with harvest opportunities for lakers and less competition for other species.

[wingnutty]

I do agree that FWP should probably consider offering a bounty-type system for macs, at least in some areas. 

I for one am concerned about the spread of macs as I think in 100 years fisherman may be looking at a new reality in a lot of these lakes, and that is subpar fishing for anything but macs (i.e. flathead).  There are plenty of lakes where people can go target macs.  I say leave some lakes alone as mac fishers (these would be lakes most suitable to macs and less important for other species) and aggressively target macs in other lakes. 

I don't fully support, or not support the gill netting in the swan, rather, I think we should let the study continue to see what can be revealed.  I'm against gill netting on flathead, as that is a totally different situation and fishery.

[RobG]

fyi - The bycatch of species other than bulls and lakers are not accurately recorded as stated in their reports.

Why do you say that?

[Quantoson]

The Native fish are an "indicator" species.  If all of the native fish are gone, then that means there is something very wrong with the ecosystem, water quality, forage etc....  And that usually means WE screwed it up. 

Indicator species can only be used if the eco system is in an original state.  The indicator species must be adjusted to the modifications made to the eco system.  What everyone has failed to disclose is that, if correct by the study of Bull Trout, the Bull travel up river to spawn.  Stay up river for up to 3 years. Now that being said, it is understandable why the Bull Trout population at Flathead Lake has declined and other species have flourished.  Bull Trout in Kocanusa travel all the way back up to Canada for example.

The Swan had a hydro dam, Hungry Horse has a dam which I think has never been added or evaluated to the total equation.  The numbers are sure to have dropped for the Bull Trout almost immediately because of the obstacles.  They can no longer have the historical migratory route.  Also the report uses figures not of true historical fact but of presumptions numbers of Bull Trout that would have or could have been in the Swan.

So this talk about trying to stabilize the Bull Trout population to historical numbers will not work unless the complete drainage system is refitted to historical ecology which will not happen.... I hope.  I know that the Lake Trout and other species of fish were introduced into the drainage system.  Where will the line for the eradication man made mistakes be drawn, how much of the license fee and tax dollars need to be spent to rectify the blunder and can it really be rectified?

P.S.  I read the entire report tonight

[PerchAssault]

I want to encourage everybody to check the FWP web page weekly.  Where was everybody when this was out for public comment in 2012?  14 comments were submitted! 11 in favor of gillnetting. There have been more people chiming in here than commented during the official period...

Until 2012, you could keep a bull.  After three years of gill netting, now we can't keep any!  Is it because of angling pressure or the by catch? I am only asking the question, as I have interviewed Leo, and have been all over the issue for the last 5 years. You can read the reports and decide for yourself.  Seems like this year, they had MORE in the nets, after three years of decline...just like Yellowstone...18 years and counting and no results.

Another question I continue to ask...WHY is there still a 10 fish limit on lake trout, when they are gillnetting upwards of 30,000 of them? If I catch 11, I have to throw it back so the gill netters can kill it...

I actually support efforts to reduce lake trout in Swan, because I feel it's a small enough system where it can be done effectively.  I think it is a system where we CAN preserve the bulls.

I just think we kill too many of the fish we are trying to save by gill netting. Same thing will happen WHEN we let them gill net Flathead.  (Don't kid yourself, it's coming) Pay me $5 for every lake trout I catch and I will be there EVERY DAY, assuming you remove the 10 fish limit...

Mike