Not True again. Have you ever talked to a Native Washingtonian east of the Cascades on the subject, especially the conservation aspect and surely the economics of the subject?? Sounds like another Grade repeater here.

Actually your reading of the study did not include the trapping/netting, i.e., locations based upon walleye migrations (they do do that to spawn), the timing of the migration, i.e., position in the river in relationships to the timing and locations of downstream migrating salmonoids -- Totally in different areas at different times. Hence the "Enhancement of Salmonoids."

Now exactly where are your studies that back up you OPINIONS?? Thought so, in the cave where the sun don't shine.

I'm okay with the proposed regs, but I have no illusions that they will make a dime bit of difference. Why? How often does anyone catch and keep a daily limit of walleye or bass or catfish? The current limit is around five per day. When was the last time you caught daily limit of 5 walleye, and then decided to stop fishing for them because you might go over the limit? For me - never. Not once. I have rarely caught and kept a limit of walleye (I've never kept a limit of bass), but when I did, it took me all day.

More often, I caught alot less than the current daily limit (5). In that case, the upper limit is irrelevant. They could make the daily limit 10 or 20 or 100 or a million, what difference does it make if you fish all day and only catch two? Or three?

WDFW can make the daily limit whatever they want. The fact is that daily bag limits do almost nothing to limit the average angler's overall harvest. WDFW knows this, but they are proposing this to get BPA, the Corps, and BoR off their back.

First of all - bite me.
Secondly, you've stated your opinion that my reading did not include... - I did read the damn thing. All I'm saying is that study is based on the distribution of predator fish and estimates of their consumption of salmonids. It does not look at other species eaten by the predators or their offspring which may or may not contribute to the salmon diet. It also doesn't look at the impact of these non native species on the diets of other species in the river. It doesn't look at a whole bunch of factors that could be relevant to the impact of the non-native species on the eco-system into which they were introduced. So, it's a bit premature to conclude that walleye are good for salmon from this data alone.

As for my opinion that there's a long history of disastrous unexpected effects due to the introduction of non-native species, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

I guess you missed the part about the what makes up the vast majority of a walleye's diet.

And if by eating those other species they force some other predator (terns, corms) to eat salmonids instead of the squawfish the salmonids still take it in the shorts.

Too often, we look at narrow views of questions rather than the larger ecosystem.

I guess you missed the big picture of what I said. No I did see the part about walleye eating squawfish. So I should have been more clear. What I didn't see was any mention of the non-fish portion of any of the non-native species' diets and anything about how that might connect to the greater food web up and down the food web. Yes, squawfish eat salmon and walleye eat squawfish. No that is not confirmatory evidence that walleye are good for salmon. The point is that this study is limited in what it looks at. For example do walleye or bass fry compete for other food with salmon fry? This study doesn't say anything about that.

Nope, it is totally the Colville Tribe behind this proposal.

Nope, and it is NOT Salmonoids.

Today is today, look at it from the perspective that if Walleye (and probably smallmouth bass) did not do their prey job on squawfish, the prime predator of downstream migrating salmonoids, what shape would the salmonoid runs be in?????

Terns & Corms already are feasting on salmonids, probably in greater numbers than they feast on squawfish.

The southfork of the umpqua is [Bleeeeep!] with bass and it is closed to all salmon (the runs are tanking in it) Same with the John Day. The NF is okay because there are no bass in it. Steelhead seem to coexist with bass a little better though. I have seen small mouth crushing smolts on the willie in the spring.. Not a good thing for salmon IMHO.

Won't argue any of it.

Like I said, I do my best to eat as many as I can when I get down there.

Back a while ago Crocker Lake, up near Discovery Bay, was rotenoned to remove northern pike. Along with them, a really nice pot of largemouth were also eliminated.

To WDFW's credit they did not put bass back in, even though the lake had been a well known bass lake. Instead, the native salmonids were left to the lake. Prior to exotics removal the whole system put out a maximum of 10-12K coho smolts. The lake itself is now producing 20-30K or more.