Last year I saw nets in Lake Sammamish and learned it was a test fishery for warm water species conducted by one of the local tribes. It was to determine if there was a viable commercial fishery available to exploit. I could never figure out for the life of me what they would do with smallmouth bass and other species(like cuttthroat) in the commercial market. Fish and chips? Dog food?
I saw some statistics from the 1st year it was conducted but have not heard or seen anything else since then. Has anyone else heard of this questionable project?
They claimed it would have minimal impact on any salmon runs since it was conducted in the spring and they said it wouldn't affect native steelhead because they were considered extinct in this fishery. Of course the nets were directly in front of the Issaquah Creek mouth and across the entrance of the slough at the north end of the lake. Is there no puddle/creek in this state that is not subject to netting?
I apologize If this subject has been beaten to death previously.

Lake Sammamish was "home to me", middle 50's. I lived in Redmond and the lake was a short bike ride from my house. North end of the lake had very few houses, matter of fact very few houses along the whole East side of the Lake.

I never heard anything about a tribal netting on the lake...it would be to bad if this was allowed but that said the tribes are the "big boys" in fishing rights in Washington State.

I grew up there in the 70s...the Muckleshoots used to net the mouth of both Issaquah and Sammamish, for coho and kings. They never did all that great, and the kings were total garbage, so they quit.

I think the amount of perch you would have to net up to have a viable commercial product would be pretty gigantic.

Fish on...

Todd

Kind of a lengthy read about the netting in Lake Sammamish.
SF

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/lake-sammamish-gillnetting-raises-questions/amp/

Here is an article on the subject.....

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/lake-sammamish-gillnetting-raises-questions/

I loved this quote in the article:

"Afterwards, though, he talked to a buddy with a fisheries degree about what he’d seen and now he isn’t so sure it can be considered a study."

Never talk too or trust anyone with a fisheries degree. Those damn idiots believe they know everything about anything related to fish and fisheries sciences and believe that anyone who doesn't have a degree is an idiot as well.

It's a vicious cycle.



PS. I got nothing. Maybe they just needed an excuse to get their net wets or something. I can't imagine their being enough fish in the entire lake for a commercial net fishery and it's common knowledge that any resident fish over 12" in length is highly contaminated and poses a health hazard for those that are crazy enough to actually eat them.

The netting they are talking about in the article is in Sammamish, not Lake Washington, so less worries about the contamination...but most the fish they are catching are native suckers, which are both commercially worthless and not even remotely a threat to any salmonids.

Wet nets it is.

Fish on...

Todd

That lake too.

I still wouldn't recommend anyone eating a fish 12" or great in either lake.

Just saying.

The key may be in where the funding for this "Study" is coming from.

"Pages 83 to 85 detail what is termed the “2019-2020 Warm Water Test Fishery” to collect data whether a directed fishery on spinyrays in the Lake Washington watershed could be “commercially viable” while also avoiding impacts on Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and steelhead.

Commercially viable means they could make money harvesting spinyrays and selling them. Ironic that most bass fisherman practice "catch and release" which would be especially galling to see nets catching the ones they release and more. If this plan works in this lake it would not be much of a stretch to assume it would be used in other lakes and then have management plans run by some brain surgeon to make sure that 50% of the total catch goes to Native fish operations. Isn't it fun to be a sport fisherman in Washington?
Also, I have not seen any concern about impacting native cutthroat populations. Sheesh.

I’d imagine with mesh size down to 3.75” some of the biggest and best cutts get taken out.
There doesn’t seem to be a lot of concern for native fish like cutthroat in either Lake Sammamish or Washington for that fact, which is a shame.
They seem to get blamed a lot for what they do naturally.
SF

The catch report from this test fishery does only have...one?...cutthroat in it. If they are targeting warmwater fish they should avoid most of them, since they are typically out in open water, and typically a little on the deep side.

I'm still trying to figure out how many perch they'd have to catch to make it "viable"...and how they can have half the fish be native suckers that are worth bupkiss commercially.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,
The article I posted mentioned 85 cutts being caught.
SF

Oh! Don't like.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, you said that suckers are not even remotely a threat to salmonids….

From Alaska game and fish department:

Food habits: The longnose sucker feeds primarily on the bottom of streams or lakes. It swims slowly along the bottom in search of invertebrates, which include insects, mollusks, snails, and crustaceans, and sometimes eats aquatic plants, algae and fish eggs. Its large lips enable it to suck up its food. Suckers have been shown to compete with salmonids in lakes and ponds.

They evolved together. They share and divide up the habitat. They don't conflict.

That is why salmon bury their eggs. Any eggs that are not buried get eaten by just about everything, including juvenile salmon. So the chance of survival for these eggs is just about zero if they're not underground. Suckers don't dig up salmon eggs to eat them. They just eat whatever is rolling along the bottom of the river.

I'm not sure what they are referring to when they say that suckers compete with salmonids in lakes and ponds. For the most part, salmonids don't inhabit lakes and ponds. They live in rivers and streams. They would certainly inhabit large lakes, but even then, competition is difficult to imagine. Most salmonids are pelagic (i.e., they inhabit the open water areas of a lake) while suckers are benthic (they inhabit the bottom of the lake). Not sure where the competition would occur, or if it does, how significant it might be.

If we are talking about juvenile coho, Chinook, and sockeye it's possible that the competition is for food, if the juveniles are rearing in a pond, side channel, or lake in the system.

Unfortunately for Lake Sammamish, if we are talking about eating salmonid eggs, that would mostly mean cutthroat, since all of the sea going salmon are pretty much born in the Issaquah Hatchery these days

In any event, it's all relative...I'm sure piscivorous fish like crappie, bass, and the like eating smolts is the actual competition we are worried about here.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes. Exactly correct. And for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington, yellow perch are the main culprit.

I think the major culprit would be the ginormous population of northern pike minnow that live in the slough and the lake.

The smelt are probably the direct competitor for the sockeye/kokanee. The perch, and soon the walleye, will be the pelagic predator.

It has been known for decades that the smallies chowed down on the Chinook released from Issaquah.