Soldiers Meadow - What to do?

[fowl_language]

So I figure this will be a pretty hot button topic, but...I'm going to ask the question anyway.  I know we have a large constituent of southern Idaho folks on the board, but I would really like to get your thoughts on the subject too.  So IDFG used rotenone to kill off Soliders Meadow Res just before ice this year and gave a salvage order to anyone that wanted fish.  The report can be found here: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/viewNewsRelease.cfm?newsID=6796 .

Coming from the midwest a short 5 years ago, I have my thoughts on what should be done with it, but I know a lot of folks out here have a different historical fishing background, so I would like to get the general consensus on an ice fishing basis for what should be stocked.  When I first came out to Eastern Washington I didn't really get the whole "aquarium" lake idea, don't like the lake, then kill it, then restart.  But now I understand a little more about what the public wants and how they want it so I am seeing not only the side of the state agency but also the angler.

Lake facts:
- 124-acre reservoir with 4-miles of shoreline is administered by the Lewiston Orchards Irrigation District.
- Historically managed as a trout fishery only trout stocked in IDFG records from 1967.
- Bucket biologist introduction of warm water species to other lakes near Soliders Meadow include: Yellow Perch, Largemouth Bass, Crappie, Bluegill (Lakes: Winchester, Waha)
----------This is based on the IDFG stocking records for the area.

Lake map:


My thoughts:
Based on it's creation and the lack of other native species or the ability for them to move out of the res, I think this would be a great candidate for a northern Idaho walleye lake.  I think we lack a walleye fishery in the northern part of the state.  I know, I know the Pack and the Clark Fork might get overrun soon and there will be a fishery whether we like it or not, but Waldos have been crusin those systems for awhile and they haven't took hold yet, I doubt they will develop like the upper columbia.  The bathymetry of the res looks like it would work really well for walleye, so in short I think this should now be a trophy warm water species lake.  I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion and that's why I started this thread! Please post what you would do if you could call the shots! And please if this thread takes off, let's keep it civil!

[uprivercasey]

I am all for it. The only problem the IFG will have is that soldiers meadows flows into lapwai creek (I think) maybe manns lake or waha lake would be a better option.

[Duck-Slayer]

I'm for it.... That said, why do they only put sterile trout in a lot of lakes? So they can sustain themselves? Saves money I would think?, and if they can't, find something that will....  Would like too hear the trout guys side of it thou...
Matt

[fowl_language]

Yeah that's been the go to reason for no walleye in western states, the ability for them to move out of it into other water bodies, I guess the next thing would be people taking them from there and going somewhere else with them that is close by.  I get the worry I just wish we had a walleye option up here, I just got back from potholes tonight and it was great pulling a few walleye out of a hole again, too bad they were all about 8" long!

I think they do the sterile trout in some lakes like the triploids (3N sterile) so they grow to trophy size and don't choke themselves out.  I think this is pretty similar to stocking tiger trout (brown x brook cross) and tiger muskie (n. pike x muskellunge cross) both are sterile in the F1 generation like mules (male donkey x female horse).

I would think they could do this with walleye as well, I'm sure some of the eastern states have the sterility programs running for walleye i'll be sure to ask the aquaculture guys about this when I get back to campus this week. If they did I can't see a reason not to try it.

[StrikeMojo]

The reason IDF&G is reluctant to start walleye populations in any new lakes is that bucket biologists tend to spread them, and then they outcompete native species.  A sizeable walleye was caught last year in Strike for example.  I hate to say it, but it is human nature to move somewhere because it is a desirable place to live, then try to make it like where you came from.  Messing with nature often backfires.  Walleye eat a ton of salmon and steelhead smolts in the Columbia River.  A non-native species is having a detrimental effect on native (in some cases threatened) species.  The sad thing about all this is, you can never go back once you dump the first bicket of fish in a give waterway.

Yes, I love eating walleye, but I don't want them in every lake in Idaho.  Eventually someone who thinks they know more than the F&G would spread them all over.  It is happening with perch in south central Idaho right now.  F&G has spent a ton of money tryong to "fix" Horsethief and Lost Valley in recent years, only to have the bucket bios "restock" with more perch the next season.

The reason the IDF&G has turned to triploids is that native red-band rainbows don't do so well in hatcheries, and in order to keep that gene pool as clean as possible, they want to stock sterile non native subspeices.  The added bonus to triploids is they put all their chemical energy in to growing instead of developing reprodictive organs.  I like that aspect...

Not trying to start a war, but it is what it is...

[fowl_language]

Like I touched on earlier I think the bucket biologist angle is a clear and present danger, that's why I suggested a put and take fishery with sterile adults.

I got into this conversation with a Washington native the other day out on the ice.  I agree about the implications of changing the fisheries composition, but there are a lot more factors that are influencing the return of salmon in the Columbia than the San Poli or Spokane populations of walleye.

Although the returns are picking up into the Columbia you cannot expect to have native salmon returns equal to historic levels when you have the hydrological effects of multiple dams impounding the "native" lotic habitats.  I can't see the native salmon excuse to stop walleye intrusion, even with walleye gone the salmon are screwed, multiple reasons for the decrease.  I do agree that the the walleye population can influence rainbow reproduction by predation, but smallmouth have been implicated multiple times in bioenergenics models to actually eat more eggs and fry than walleye do.

Although I admit, I would like to catch walleye again like I did back in WI and maybe this is a bit of a person doing "move somewhere because it is a desirable place to live, then try to make it like where you came from."

But I'm also a realist, and when I look at the native redband systems or the Columbia systems for salmon, I don't see a reasonable expectation for these systems to rebound from the environmental impacts they have sustained.  Just think about the great lakes, every year Chinook come out of lake Michigan that rival the coastal records.  It is a multi-million dollar fishery economy based on the big two pacific salmon (Chinook and Coho) and Atlantic (brown trout) all three of these are non-native introductions based on a recreational fishery.  It's just hard for me to say something should be somewhere especially in northern Idaho and eastern Washington where the majority of these lakes were historically fishless and/or are man made.

At what point do we stop rehabilitation and start managing for recreation? This is a big question, I don't claim to know the answer but it's interesting to think about.

And maybe I'm off base on how many anglers prefer trout fisheries to warm water species out here, I might the outlier here.  I'm human so I tend to surround myself with like minded individuals and I'm sure that gives me a pretty strong case of tunnel vision.

Thanks for the comment StrikeMojo, it really got me thinking.

[codeman]

Ive always been of the opinion to make any given fishery the best it can be regardless of species. Do I want a poor to average trout fishery in a lake instead of a great walleye fishery simply because the trout are native? No. Do I want to ruin a great trout fishery for some walleye? No. Why spend so many millions on salmon in the columbia?  And ignore the sea lion problem?I like the dams. Save the money and build up the great small mouth and walleye fishery there. If you want salmon they arent going extinct. Plenty of places to go catch them.  Wish they would manage each individual fishery seperately and not blanket manage whole regions or states.  If theres a lake with poor fish populations figure out which species would do the best and plant those regardless if they are native or not.......do people realize how few opportunities we would have in the out doors if we had no bass no sunfish species no catfish no brook trout no brown trout no shad no yellow perch no pheasant no partridge.......all non native to the northwest

[StrikeMojo]

Fowl_Language,
    Your points are indeed valid.  Everyone has an opinion, and I was just throwing out mine.  I agree smallies and NATIVE pike-minnows do as much or more damage to the smolts (or much more) than the walleyes do.  I really like eating walleye.  It presents a quandary to me as well.  My point has always been, do we continue to add the problems of non-native fish introduction to the environmental issues that face salmon and steelhead or do we stop hurting them and try to fix what we can, or do we just scrap everything, admit we screwed up the most prolific anadromous fishery in the world and move on?

     To throw part of your argument back at you codeman, why sacrifice salmon and steelhead when there are plenty of places to go and catch walleye?  You also make valid points.

     The bottom line is, if EVERYONE was ethical and did the right thing, we could stock many lakes with no impact.  We as sportsmen need to police our own, and report the bucket biologists, not support their efforts, and realize that there are people with a better knowedge base that should be managing things...

[troutfool]

When I go fishing I am looking for a piece of the natural world, unaltered by man's genius.

I am of the opinion that the non-native species can be fun to catch and I am ok with having them in places where they cannot spread through the waterways.  The trouble is that they can spread in 5 gallon buckets.  Many reservoirs that are created for recreational angling are good candidates for largemouth bass, walleye, perch, bluegill, crappie etc. 

I also believe that in all connected waterways we should strive to maintain or increase the native fisheries.  Rivers and connected streams should have no limits on non-natives.  The salmon and snake rivers for example should have no limits on smallmouth bass. 

In short it would be fine to put walleye in soldiers meadow if you could guarantee that they wouldn't spread to other waterbodies either naturally or in a bucket but since that cannot be guaranteed I am against it.  I would rather they stock the lake with native fish and aquatic insects and other life trying to find a balance that could produce large =>18 inch trout. 

History has taught us that when we try to improve a fishery by adding something we cannot predict the final outcome and it often gets out of our control and leads to years and millions of dollars of rehabilitation.

I am not ready to give up on the native fish of Idaho, I am not ready to give up on steelhead and salmon.  Anyone who misses the fishing in their homestate is welcome to go back and fish there as often as they choose, please don't try and turn Idaho into someplace else.  The great thing about having such a large country is the variety that each state has to offer. Idaho doesn't need to be just like Michigan any more than Washington should be like Florida.

[Ziceman1]

Just so I am clear on this.  Take away all the man made reservoirs in the state.  How many large body's of water are you left with.  Out of those lakes what are the native fish species?   

[codeman]

Without small mouth bass most of southern idaho would be a fishless wasteland.  If you want to stop bucket biology increase the penalties and enforce them. Say forfeiture of vehicle and all gear 10k dollar fine and 6 mos in jail. Who would risk that?  I love catching all species. Like I said just make every body of water the best it can be regardless of species. If theres a lake with great trout fishing.......leave it alone. A river with great smallies.......leave it alone.  I think of the  owyhee river...... one of the best bass rivers in the country. If we knocked out all dams and removed all non natives.....what a boring river it would be.....

[DEER4DINNER]

I agree with StrikeMojo and troutfool.  Part of the allure of visiting other states, or even other parts of Idaho are the diversity in species and habitats.  Not just with fish, but with other hunting opportunities.  I make it out to North Dakota every couple years to visit in-laws.  A major bonus to that trip is the abundance of pheasants, walleyes, and pike.  I grew up in Eastern Idaho; so likewise, when visiting family back home the abundance of world renowned trout fisheries, high desert coyotes, mule deer, etc. are all great to see.  We should be happy and thankful for the natural resources that Idaho already has to offer. 

On the other hand, Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River are rapidly becoming walleye fisheries.  So I've heard.

As far as sterile walleye go...  and my research (quick google search) - It sounds as though they're difficult to produce.  http://dnr.state.co.us/newsapp/press.asp?pressid=4884

Not to get off topic, but I think some of the Northern lakes would actually benefit with a few more predators like Tiger Muskies.  Twin Lakes for instance.  All the 5" perch you can catch.  And in the spring, it's all the 8" crappies you can catch. 

[fowl_language]

Just so I am clear on this.  Take away all the man made reservoirs in the state.  How many large body's of water are you left with.  Out of those lakes what are the native fish species?

Someone from down south should probably answer this for the southern part of the state but if you did that in the northern you would be left with CDA, pend oreille and priest being the largest three.

If the lake has inlet's and outlets the fish composition would be, Bull trout, Redband Rainbow (maybe), Westslope cuts (maybe), Peamouth chub, N.Pike Minnow, Redside shinner, maybe a sculpin or two, burbot (maybe), mountain whitefish, pygmy whitefish, host of smaller minnows, and that's it.  Salmon if the systems connecting them had historic runs and there were no down stream inpoundments.  Idaho only has 39 native fish and that includes salmon and sturgeon, minnows and whitefish.

Lakes that are not connected by streams or rivers at all are generally thought to be originally fishless, created in the last big round of missula floods.  Unless they were more north or south of the wash out.

[uprivercasey]

In my opinion trout belong in rivers. There are many rivers that support healthy trout populations in Idaho . Pond trout are a waste of tax payers money! Taste like sh@-;! And are too easy to catch. Warm water species only need to be planted once. Plus the warm water species breed like rabbits( a lot more food for the table). The Stunted perch problem at soldiers meadow ( in my opinion) is because of the lack of predators ( walleye, bass, pike)

[Bigfish33]

In my opinion, being an Idahoan, giving up on salmon and steelhead , and other native species for non-native species  would just not make sense. This is not to say that I don't enjoy catching  warm water, introduced  panfish and the like , but  as many people have pointed out , if you want to catch walleye, pike, etc, there are many places where they  can be found  in the U.S.  Idaho , as it was pointed out , doesn't have  many true native species, but  in the past  many of our rivers and their tributaries had very high numbers of salmon and trout. In my opinion,  we have already put native species in a bind with river alterations like dams, and  even the chance of  creating  a new issue  for these fish isn't worth it.  IDFG is always going to be spending money on restoration of salmon ,  by adding a potential threat , it might just lead to  more money spent getting rid of a fish like walleye ...   As far as  creating recreational opportunities , I don't think there would be a more positive  impact on Idaho than having large anadromous fish runs . Just my two cents .

[fowl_language]

The predators to help stunted perch angle is an interesting one.  Personally I don't think it works all that well, if anyone has ever fished Silver lake out in Medical Lake, WA you can attest to this as well.  The place is filled with as many stunted perch as you can catch rarely reaching over 5" the lake has a very healthy population of tiger muskies and I've caught a 46.5" out of there, but the perch just can't make it to larger sizes even with the tigers and bass in the system.

I think that might be a case of not enough larger forage in the lake, all the perch are eating quite a bit of zooplankton but not enough other forage, I dunno though I never studied it, we shocked it a few time in Itchology but I never did any limnology on it.

Thanks everyone for the comments, I asked a professor today about the feasibility of sterile walleye and he said from what he has heard so far they have not been successful with it.  I have found a case study in Colorado where they stocked 450,000 with what they believed to be a 10% survival rate to maturity.  Also I have read that the sterilization of walleye stocked in Montana awhile ago had about a 98.5% sterility which to me means in Colorado roughly 6750 walleye are fertile and out of those 675 will reach maturity.  Meaning you'd have 675 walleye able to reproduce and depending on the size of the area I don't know if I like those odds.  I would need 100% stats before I would consider it I think.

http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/8212/Sterile_Walleye_Stocked_in_Colorado_Reservoirs/

Here is an interesting report on the possible bucket biologist introduction of walleye in Blue Mesa Res. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~brett/lab/documents/EIAfinalreport_000.pdf

[fowl_language]

As far as  creating recreational opportunities , I don't think there would be a more positive  impact on Idaho than having large anadromous fish runs . Just my two cents .

Yep, I totally agree. I just have a hard time believing it will happen, heck we had an amazing Chinook return this year but they had to pretty much all but close the Clearwater Steelhead fishery because of low returns.

[Bigfish33]

Fowl_language,

I too think the large runs of the past will be hard to reach, which is unfortunate, but they are a resilient fish.  As you were getting at, they seem to be unpredictable. I fish mainly the upper salmon, where this year the chinook run was pretty minuscule. Salmon and steelhead are hard enough to figure out anyway, and adding other obstacles to their course wouldn't seem to make it easier to figure them out

[fowl_language]

I agree for sure.  It's a tough nut to crack, honestly I like the cheap power and I like my way of life.  In reality do I want the dams gone...no of course not.  This is why I think we're going to have a real tough time working the salmon rehabilitation, we all have an expectation of life that we want to continue and removing the dams is not an option.  Heck we truck salmon and steelhead over a lot of the dams putting extra stress and strain on them.  Just look at Grand Coulee "Fish passage won't work cause it's too big" basically is the argument so instead of having those mind numbing returns they have the state record walleye come out of there before the Snake river started getting the big ones down by the tri-cities.

Even if we removed all the dams all the silt accumulation and stuff that is already there would be astronomical to overcome, we supplement the salmon runs with the fish we suspect will be better for the environmental condition, but what if that condition changes will we be supplementing the right way?

All in all if we could get the salmon back I wouldn't even be posting this idea based on the fact i'd probably be salmon fishing right now!

[Bigfish33]

I agree with you, that salmon recovery would be difficult without changing our lives  at this point. I'm hopeful sometime in the future there will be a way to bring those fish back to at least stable numbers, however. It's a waiting game, but I do think we should continue to help the fish we do have.

If we had the numbers, in the rivers they used to be in, you bet id be out there too!

[StrikeMojo]

I agree for sure.  It's a tough nut to crack, honestly I like the cheap power and I like my way of life.  /quote]

Last time I looked it up, removing the lower 4 Snake Dams (the worst of the bunch for anadromous fish) would result in the average Idaho rate payers electricity bill going up around $35.00 a YEAR.  Those dams do not produce as much power (in the big picture) as the "pro-dam" guys want you to believe.  All ratings on power production are at max production levels, and none of those dams run every turbine 100% of the time.  Often they are only making 25% of their maximum power.

[troutfool]

As far as dam removal is concerned I believe that we should remove the older dams that do not produce efficiently.  And we can continue to develop methods to allow salmon and steelhead smolts to avoid the slack water in the reservoirs that slows them down disorients them and makes them an easy target for predators. 

Also, I never said we should take away all the manmade reservoirs in the state, most provide excellent fishing opportunities.  And many of them produce large trout while others are managed for warmwater species.  I am not advocating for eliminating any of the warmwater fisheries that we have, I just don't want to create any more.  Our native fish are important resources.  You can go almost anywhere in the country and catch bass, bluegill and perch, but how many places have westslope cutthroat, yellowstone cutthroat, or redband trout. 

There are many lakes that had native trout so I can assure you that trout do also belong in lakes as much as they do in rivers.  I agree that the put and take fisheries for stocked rainbow trout are more costly than stocking warmwater species that will reproduce.  My point is only that it is a risk and once someone takes a bucket full of perch and dumps them in a large or connected waterbody where they don't belong, there is no going back and no knowing what the damage will be.

[Bigfish33]

Troutfool,

I couldn't agree more about your comment on Idaho cutthroat, and redbands etc. I like catching perch in cascade, crappie and bass at brownlee, but there's nothing like catching cutts in the summer . Something special about it