Comments on: Montana SB 425, Fort Peck Hatchery funding bill passes http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/ Montana Fly Fishing blog with river flows, guide information, reports, weather, fly shops, fly tying, photography and news from the outdoors. Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:44:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Wayne Mumford http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1254 Wayne Mumford Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:36:51 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1254 By invasive I meant that Walleye are more aggressive feeders than their trout counterparts (Brown and Rainbow). Both will sometimes go predator but more often feed on smaller aquatic insects. They are less likely to over run existing populations (not always) compared to Walleye, Bass, or Pike. No put down intended for eastern Montana, I have been there many times and I enjoy the people and the country. I was just making a point that, compared to western Montana, livestock still outnumbers the human population. After watching how this bill came about, the path it took and the information that came to light in the process I would be much more likely to support a funding bill as long as Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks pulls it out of existing budget funds and not my wallet. They made the calls on the size of the hatchery and the the budget necessary to operate it- now they can figure out how to make it work without having us bail them out. And, I am not opposed to Walleye or Walleye Unlimited. I think they got left alone to swing on the end of the rope by MFWP when things started getting ugly for them. If MFWP can't come up with something on their own I think they are going to be answering to all of us, not just one part of the fishing demographic. By invasive I meant that Walleye are more aggressive feeders than their trout counterparts (Brown and Rainbow). Both will sometimes go predator but more often feed on smaller aquatic insects. They are less likely to over run existing populations (not always) compared to Walleye, Bass, or Pike.
No put down intended for eastern Montana, I have been there many times and I enjoy the people and the country. I was just making a point that, compared to western Montana, livestock still outnumbers the human population.
After watching how this bill came about, the path it took and the information that came to light in the process I would be much more likely to support a funding bill as long as Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks pulls it out of existing budget funds and not my wallet. They made the calls on the size of the hatchery and the the budget necessary to operate it- now they can figure out how to make it work without having us bail them out.
And, I am not opposed to Walleye or Walleye Unlimited. I think they got left alone to swing on the end of the rope by MFWP when things started getting ugly for them. If MFWP can’t come up with something on their own I think they are going to be answering to all of us, not just one part of the fishing demographic.

]]> By: Joe http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1249 Joe Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:16:52 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1249 (Sorry, I didn't finish before submitting) My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive species but ignored that Brown and Rainbow Trout are known to be non-native. I think all fishing opportunities out to be enhanced and if that means more walleye hatchery funding, so be it. Trout fishing gets its share of resources now its time for other species. It helps all fishermen if only to lower the pressure on other areas. Finally, I'm not sure what the writer's several reference to cows is about but it feels like a bit of a put down. If he's never spent time in Eastern Montana, he should do so. It's a lot different from Western Montana and in a lot of ways nicer. (Sorry, I didn’t finish before submitting)

My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive species but ignored that Brown and Rainbow Trout are known to be non-native.

I think all fishing opportunities out to be enhanced and if that means more walleye hatchery funding, so be it. Trout fishing gets its share of resources now its time for other species. It helps all fishermen if only to lower the pressure on other areas.

Finally, I’m not sure what the writer’s several reference to cows is about but it feels like a bit of a put down. If he’s never spent time in Eastern Montana, he should do so. It’s a lot different from Western Montana and in a lot of ways nicer.

]]> By: Joe http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1248 Joe Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:05:42 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1248 I didn't intend to restart the debate covered when SB15 was being considered. South & North Dakota both consider walleye to be native and it doesn't take much to believe that if so, they would have moved into Montana also. There are no natural barriers on the Missouri River till Fort Benton. My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive specieshttp://www.northern.edu/natsource/FISH/Walley1.htm I didn’t intend to restart the debate covered when SB15 was being considered. South & North Dakota both consider walleye to be native and it doesn’t take much to believe that if so, they would have moved into Montana also. There are no natural barriers on the Missouri River till Fort Benton.

My real intention was to point out the bias when the writer said walleye should be treated as an invasive specieshttp://www.northern.edu/natsource/FISH/Walley1.htm

]]> By: Wayne Mumford http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1234 Wayne Mumford Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:46:02 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1234 Joe, What's your source on Walleye being native up to Fort Benton on the Missouri? Lewis and Clark, who were the first to document native species on the upper Missouri do not mention Walleye in Montana. They do mention catching Sauger near Loma in June, 1806. They also caught Goldeye and shortly thereafter, near the Great Falls; they caught native Cutthroat trout. Joe,

What’s your source on Walleye being native up to Fort Benton on the Missouri? Lewis and Clark, who were the first to document native species on the upper Missouri do not mention Walleye in Montana. They do mention catching Sauger near Loma in June, 1806. They also caught Goldeye and shortly thereafter, near the Great Falls; they caught native Cutthroat trout.

]]> By: Joe http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1232 Joe Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:47:39 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1232 1. Walleye is more a native fish to Montana than are Brown or Rainbow trout. Walleye are native to the Missouri river at least to Fort Benton. Rainbow and Brown trout are not native to North America. 2. The Fort Peck hatchery was overbuilt at FWP directions. The hatchery that was requested to be built could have been supported by the warm water stamp, but because of all the extras, can't. 3. The Warm water stamp exempted Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter lakes. Those are very popular walleye fishing destinations. 4. There are 11 cold water hatcheries in Montana and now with Fort Peck there are two warm water hatcheries. 5. I've fished central and southwest Montana for over 35 years. The rivers are now too crowded with the wrong kind of people to be enjoyable, so do most of my fishing on lakes. People fishing for walleye lessen the pressure on rivers and fishing opportunities should be made available for that reason alone. 1. Walleye is more a native fish to Montana than are Brown or Rainbow trout. Walleye are native to the Missouri river at least to Fort Benton. Rainbow and Brown trout are not native to North America.
2. The Fort Peck hatchery was overbuilt at FWP directions. The hatchery that was requested to be built could have been supported by the warm water stamp, but because of all the extras, can’t.
3. The Warm water stamp exempted Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter lakes. Those are very popular walleye fishing destinations.
4. There are 11 cold water hatcheries in Montana and now with Fort Peck there are two warm water hatcheries.
5. I’ve fished central and southwest Montana for over 35 years. The rivers are now too crowded with the wrong kind of people to be enjoyable, so do most of my fishing on lakes. People fishing for walleye lessen the pressure on rivers and fishing opportunities should be made available for that reason alone.

]]> By: Wayne Mumford http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1224 Wayne Mumford Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:26:05 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1224 Hopefully we will see something for the additional money but so far it doesn't look like we have, at least not in the western half of the state. The initial plan for Fort Peck said there was to be some Large and Smallmouth Bass production but so far that has not been the case. The only thing being produced in significant numbers is Walleye and they are going into reservoirs mostly along the highline. If they actually kick out a significant amount of Bass annually and do some serious stocking in the lakes and ponds in the western part of the state (without whining about transporting the fish and adding another $1 onto the license to get them over here) I'd clam up. As for the Walleye, they can have all they want; east of the divide and out of the river systems. Till someone actually comes up with credible evidence that they are native they should be treated as an invasive non-native species. Hopefully we will see something for the additional money but so far it doesn’t look like we have, at least not in the western half of the state. The initial plan for Fort Peck said there was to be some Large and Smallmouth Bass production but so far that has not been the case. The only thing being produced in significant numbers is Walleye and they are going into reservoirs mostly along the highline.

If they actually kick out a significant amount of Bass annually and do some serious stocking in the lakes and ponds in the western part of the state (without whining about transporting the fish and adding another $1 onto the license to get them over here) I’d clam up.

As for the Walleye, they can have all they want; east of the divide and out of the river systems. Till someone actually comes up with credible evidence that they are native they should be treated as an invasive non-native species.

]]> By: Jeff http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1220 Jeff Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:52:40 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1220 Good point. I agree with this opinion entirely, i'm sure we won't get them to admit it but it won't do any good to either. Something to add to your point should be that all fisherman will gain regardless what type of spots you like on your fish by running this hatchery at full capacity. Everybody gains from this hatchery producing fish, we all will have to pay the extra $1.00 when we purchase our fishing licences. Good point.
I agree with this opinion entirely, i’m sure we won’t get them to admit it but it won’t do any good to either.

Something to add to your point should be that all fisherman will gain regardless what type of spots you like on your fish by running this hatchery at full capacity. Everybody gains from this hatchery producing fish, we all will have to pay the extra $1.00 when we purchase our fishing licences.

]]> By: Wayne Mumford http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Wayne Mumford Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:10:32 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1208 It should be. The problem is that you have Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks playing loose with facts and figures and just how big of hatchery they need in the first place. And when the costs blow up in their face they want us to pay more to clean up their mess. The point being that we shouldn't be legislating more bills and adding more costs to fishing because MFWP can't come up with a budget or make sound financial decisions on projects like the hatchery at Fort Peck. It should be. The problem is that you have Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks playing loose with facts and figures and just how big of hatchery they need in the first place. And when the costs blow up in their face they want us to pay more to clean up their mess.
The point being that we shouldn’t be legislating more bills and adding more costs to fishing because MFWP can’t come up with a budget or make sound financial decisions on projects like the hatchery at Fort Peck.

]]> By: Jeff http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-1199 Jeff Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:46:07 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-1199 This is simple, all fishing license fees should pay for all hatchery funding. This is simple, all fishing license fees should pay for all hatchery funding.

]]> By: montana walleye unlimited and hb 425 | Willfishforwork.com http://willfishforwork.com/2009/02/23/montana-sb-425-fort-peck-hatchery-funding-bill-passes/comment-page-1/#comment-970 montana walleye unlimited and hb 425 | Willfishforwork.com Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:37:35 +0000 http://willfishforwork.com/?p=504#comment-970 [...] SB 425 moving forward [...] [...] SB 425 moving forward [...]

]]>