flathead lake

[Aaron072]

I just thought that everyone would like to know that they are trying to gillnet in 2012
there will be a meeting in kalispell feb 11 place and time are not yet known but it will be posted in the paper
anyone interested in this should go to flatheadanglers.com and sign up for the email lists

they want to gillnet 240,000 lake trout

[um04]

terrible idea

[fishin247]

Yeah, terrible idea. Nonnative fish that have outcompeted the native cuts and bull trout should always take priority.
Don't get me wrong, I take a fishing trip every fall to Flathead for fall mack days, and love the fact that I can pull a lot of fish out, but the population needs a little thining.

[Aaron072]

fish and game tried there hand once on flathead and now there's no salmon. whats going to take over when they wipe out half the lake trout? squafish/whitefish
I fish the lake religiously and last year i caught more bull trout than the previous 5 years combined

[fishin247]

Yeah but the squawfish and whitefish aren't predatory like the lakers. I would argue you're catching more bull trout now as a result of measures to thin the population such as liberal limits, and spring and fall mack days. Perhaps further measures, such as netting, will result in even more bull trout.

[Hook them Lipps]

I think they should open Lake Trout fishing to commercial fishing.  This gill netting will just support some big business.  Or waste a bunch of tax payers money.  Instead employ the local fisherman.  Like they do for the whitefish.  I would be out everyday if they paid for macks by the pound.  The fish and game could make some money by selling more commercail licences also.  Gaurenteed my plan would work.  OF COURSE IT MAKES WAY TOO MUCH SENSE!!  Gill netting will have a huge effect on the lake just like introducing the shrimp.  YOu can't take 25% of a lakes species out and think you know what will happen.  Possibly a huge number of pike minnows which will be so abbundant they will decimate the local Bull Trout Reds.  These guys are a bunch of idiots with their heads up thier a--.

[Aaron072]

and whats to say there not going to gillnet bulls and cuts when they net

[RobG]

I found some relevant docs:
http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36736
http://flatheadanglers.com/uploads/MOU_Attachment_D_Draft_Pilot_Project.pdf

A few years too late, but maybe it will help the bull trout. It would have been nice if they did this before they swam up the fishladder (duh) to Swan. Between the bucket biologist and the biologist biologists that whole area is a mess.  

[hillbilly1]

just wondering if any one would share a few tips on how to catch some of these macs i live in st ignatius so i would probally fish around polson any info would be greatly appritiated

[Hook them Lipps]

First you must be in a big enough boat.  I like to go to the West Shore camp ground.  If you don't have a boat you can fish from there on shore.  IF you do have a boat just troll in about 20 to 50 feet of water with leaded line.  Pretty much anywhere you go you can catch them.  Angels Point, Painted Rock,  I mostly fish around those two places.  In polson I'm not sure. Just be safe the waves can get 5 ft tall in a hurry. Call one of the charters (Mo Fish)  they will tell you anything you want to know.  Really good guys.

[um04]

when you gillnet, you get everything (including the bulls, and cuts). This is not the answer.

[RobG]

when you gillnet, you get everything (including the bulls, and cuts). This is not the answer.

Believe it or not, they understand that issue. Read the docs I linked. They will be gillnetting in the fall when the bulls are in the river on their way to spawning. Someone else mentioned that the increased number of pikeminnows will just eat the spawn. Bull trout evolved with pikeminnows which is maybe why they spawn far upstream where the pikeminnows don't live. Anyway, the smaller fish feed mostly on the shrimp so the forage fish will probably stay about the same. They mostly ate kokes anyway.

The most important thing about this exercise is that any adverse effects can be undone by stopping it. Yeah, they screwed up royally with the mysis shrimp, and arguably putting lakers and kokes in there in the first place, but this risks here are mostly social. That is, people like to catch the macs and want to keep numbers high. I would expect the outcome, if it does anything at all, to be larger but fewer fish.

rg

[Hook them Lipps]

My main point is that they can not remove that many fish and expect to understand the outcome.  The pike minnow was only an example of what might happen.  I would love to see Flathead lake with millions of Bull Trout and Cutts but I highly doubt that will ever happen.  Just look at what happened to Upper Still Water Lake.  It use to be full of Bull Trout and Cutts now it is nothing but perch pike and lake trout.  Like I said before.  Turn Flathead into a commercial fishing that the local fishermen can partake in and they will save themselves a lot of money and time.

[PerchAssault]

Informational meeting presented by Flathead Wildlife regarding this issue on Feb 11th, 7:00 PM at the Hampton in in Kalispell.  Art Noonan, Depty Director of FWP in Helena, and Tom McDonald of the CSKT will be on hand to explain the plan and field questions.  Whatever your stand, you need to be there so they can see how many people have concerns over this issue.

Make no mistake, this is an issue that will affect the fishery on Flathead Lake for the long term.  Everywhere else they have gillnetted, it has had long term effects (think Great lakes)  In Yellowstone, Priest, Pend' Orielle...they know that lake trout are there to stay.  So it becomes a suppression effort.  Big money, bykill of non intended species, etc.  Flathead Lake is and always will be dominated by Lake Trout.  Thanks to an ill fated "management effort" that took over 20 years for the consequences to become evident, we have what we have now.  Take the steps and do what you can to help "native fish" where you have the best chances.  Pissing in the wind to try and do anything in Flathead Lake.

FWP biologists estimate that at thier highest point back in the 70's, there were approx 6,000 bull trout in the Flathead system.  It is now estimated to be 3,000 and rebounding.  So why this effort and why now?  Where is the money coming from and why do FWP and CSKT biologists differ so greatly regarding the same data, gathered in the same manner, at the same time from the same fishery?

And remember, Lake Trout ARE native to Montana, just not Flahead Lake.  Search FWP's web site for Native fish" and you will educated about how they are classified by the State.  A management effort in the 60's, done with the greatest and purest of intentions, killed a world class sport fishery in the 80's.  How many chances do we get meddling with nature, and why will this effort be any different?

Please go to www.flatheadanglers.co m and read some info and register for the mailing list.  You can make your own opinions, as many already have, but keep up to date and be heard.  Those fish and that lake belong to all of us.

[fishin247]

So since they're native to a teeny tiny portion of MT that makes it ok

[RobG]

So since they're native to a teeny tiny portion of MT that makes it ok

I'm with you one this.. they are not native to any relevant ecosystem. Which doesn't mean the plan should be blessed or thrown out... it is just a point that shouldn't be raised.

[Quantoson]

I went to the link and read the PDF file.  Funny, they want to reduce the length of lake trout to an average of 26''....but the regs allow you to only keep 1 over 36.  In my opinion, the 36'' macs eat more fish.  If they are serious about reducing the size and enhancing the bull trout, cutthroat  population, why not eliminate the slot of 30 to 36 release, make a no daily limit and ditch the "only one mac over 36''?

Even when you fish the spring and fall mac derbies, the sponsors request that you call ahead of time when a mac 36'' or bigger is caught so you do not harm the fish if there is one already weighed in that exceeds yours. 

Macs 30'' to 36'' are the spawns.  But yet on page 4 of the report, they are trying to reduce the total mac population by 25% by 2012.  How if the spawns are to be released? 

Too many mixed messages here.  I've been told they want to maintain a trophy fishery by releasing the large macs.  Can't have both.   

[Hook them Lipps]

Like I said before no common sense.  Thats why they are just wasting our money.  It takes those fish over 20 years to get that big.  That is a lot of spawning and a lot of eating. If they were truely serious about reducing the number that would be the best place to start.  And no limit would also be a good place to start.  Dont expect any common sense from them.  You have to force it upon them.  That is why we the people are suppose to be in charge.  Not the idealist.  my buddy who works for the government on the lands east of the mountains told me that when he was hired, his boss told him that  his main job was to find ways to spend money.  Thats what they want, keep spending the money and make it seem like thier cause is so important that it keeps them a job.  Just like a lot of the inviromentalist.  Thats why they get so exstreem.  They have to keep people thinking that thier cause is just so that people keep paying the dues.  I'm going to stop now because this is becoming the tip of the iceberg thing for me. 

[PerchAssault]

I would like to thank you guys for at least being interested enough to open dialogue about it.  When you talk to the biologists about which fish are the prime spawners etc, it makes your head spin!  I can promise you, those big lakers that are 30-36 inchers will be a thing of the past in 15-20 years if they net out all the 25-28" fish.  It takes a lake trout 25 years to get to 30" at best.

I mentioned to a FWP guy that it sends mixed messages to net Swan Lake for three years to eradicate lake trout, yet still have a 10 fish limit for the anglers! Its absurd!  They spend hundreds of thousands to net, yet an angler who will keep 20 macs cant?  The response was "When you remove limits, people get a no limit mentality"....

I am not sure about the coment about the "native to MT so that makes it ok" comment...?  My point being, everything you read about the "evil lake trout" always says "non native".  That just makes it emotional, and many people fall for it.  the lake trout has been in Flathead for over 100 years.  They will NEVER be eradicated so any efforts are just going to be suppression, which means a screwed up fishery, for the only fish in the Lake that can be reliably fished for and counted on. And a lot of money spent to do so. 

Other gill netting going on in western lakes are to bring back Kokanee fisheries, another non native species if you want to go there.  We will never have a kokanee fishery back in Flathead, no matter how many lake trout you remove, because bull trout LOVE to eat Kokanee.  So that is a moot point.  In fact back in the 30's, they were saying the SAME things about bull trout that they are saying about Lake Trout now!  "The cannibal of the trout world" is how one story put it.

Eventually Mother Nature will have something to say about all this human meddling and it probably wont be anything we want to hear.

February 11th...7:00PM Hampton Inn in Kalispell.  Tell a friend.

[PerchAssault]

Oh, and by the way, this fishing off of Angel Point is on fire right now!!!  Talked to a couple guys as I was launching my boat yesterday who have just been having a blast all week.  Jigging in 90-110 FOW.  Big fish, and good action on them.

West shore launch is great, I put the big Raider in there, no problem.  Take a break from the ice fishing and go get some Big Mac's before they're all gone

[RobG]

My point being, everything you read about the "evil lake trout" always says "non native". 

That is because they are non-native, and causing problems. Kokes and whitefish are also non-native but were not causing problems. At any rate, it makes more sense to call them non-native than to call me an exstreem inviromentalist .

February 11th...7:00PM Hampton Inn in Kalispell.  Tell a friend.

I agree. Wish I could be there. I'll add get some guts and get up and speak if you want to be heard.

[fishin247]

"At any rate, it makes more sense to call them non-native than to call me an exstreem inviromentalist ." Nice.

Agreed. Kokes are nonnative, but they didn't have the same effect as the lake trout on the other fish populations. They are an extremely voratious editor. Also, these whitefish that some of you are concered about are native. You know back in the thirties they wouldn't have had the knowledge that we have now. From what I understand, there were nowhere near the deer populations we have today as a result of mismanaging the population. Here's the thing, if they thin out the population the size of the fish will be bigger. Less fish competing for the same amount of food. The lake trout become trophy size, the bull trout and cutthroat increase in numbers.  We will never get rid of the lake trout thanks to the mysis shrimp, and yes that wasn't the best move that the FWP made introducing them.  I would suggest that if someone wants clarification on something contained in the ten year plan, contact the tribes and ask them.  I'm sure they would be happy to talk.

[um04]

sorry to say, they are clueless...

[Aaron072]

tonight at 7:00 at the hampton inn kalispell

[Neptune]

Just a couple points...

On limits:  Current limit if 50 fish a day...If you look at the daily takes during the Mack Days tournaments(Spring or Fall) you will see that there are very few people that are able to catch 50 fish a day.  Now I'm not talking your average weekend Mack fisherman here, the people that really compete in this tourney(the top 25-50) participants know how to catch Macks and they DO NOT catch their limit every day(and these people fish for 8-12 hours to get what they get).  That being said, I think the limit becomes a mute point...50...100...unl imited they all work the same.

On Fish Populations:  FWP and the CSKT biologist are using less than perfect datum to arrive at their population density figures.  They are also extrapolating those population figure across the entire body of water.  If you've ever fished Flathead you know that those fish aren't present in the numbers the biologist want you to believe everywhere in that lake, in fact I would hazard a guess that those fish aren't present in those numbers in 25% of the lake.   The creel surveys that are done and the catch numbers that are presented are based on only a few locations in the lake that are known to consistently hold fish.  Now I'm no great fan of the lowly Lake Trout, but I'd rather have them to catch than a lake full of nothing!

On Bull Trout:  Anything that can be done to increase their numbers would be fantastic EXCEPT FOR NETTING THE LAKE!!!  You can try and argue that this is the only way to reduce the Lake Trout Population efficiently and that By Catch can be controlled..BLAH BLAH BLAH...   History doesn't lie!!!  Look at the history of using nets in ANY MAJOR WATERWAY and you will see the results that are not what was originally intended.  Nets catch fish efficiently and indiscriminately.  I believe that if FWP/CSKT start to use NETs we will see the fishery in Flathead all but die.  You will be able to catch a Mack here and there and a Bull Trout here and there, but catch multiples of anything other than squaw fish or Whitey's I don't think so...   Netting is just SAD!

Not sure if I'll be able to be there tonight, I have my kids this week...

[Aaron072]

neptune
couldn't agree more i too am struggling trying to make it in tonight.

[Aaron072]

made it to the meeting last night I'm hoping that more people will start to get envolved with this
some real good suggestions made my favorites being the introduction of largemouth and smallmouth bass to eat the lake trout fry also ling for trying to control the fry.
I thought about it a lot last night and i think the sqawfish has a lot more to do with this than people believe I can understand wanting to bring back cutthroat and bulltrout but i don't think wiping out the lake trout is going to solve the problem
the tribe has also doubled the prize money for spring mac days

[missoulafish]

There is already LMB in the lake and I believe SMB have been introduced in the past as well. I have a hard time believing that this would have any effect given that the  habitats of the bass and macs are so different that the  opportunity for the bass to eat any number of baby macs will rarely occur.

[Aaron072]

I disagree i've never seen largemouth but have seen smallmouth just not very many I know there are largemouth in the sloughs of the river so they could make it into the lake easily but there just isn't enough of them yet. If they were there i believe they would follow the fry

[missoulafish]

Largemouth have been in Flathead for decades. People still occasionaly catch them.