1. Session 3 Ned Horner Regional Fisheries Manager
Horner, N.
Managing the Threat Posed by Lake Trout to the Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, Fishery
Ned Horner
Regional Fisheries Manager
Wild Trout VIII (Sept. 2004)

2. Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho
Sandpoint
Bayview
by Melo Maiolie
94,000 surface acres
1,152 feet deep

3. Bull Trout Spawning escapement 2,500-3,000.
Redds 412 to 881 counted in 19 tributary streams from 1983 to 2003.
Harvest of 1,000-1,700 recently.

4. Trophy Rainbow - Kokanee

5. Lake Trout in LPO Introduced in 1920s.
Insignificant fishery through 1980s.
Increased harvest in 1990s, but targeted by less than 10% of anglers.
Estimated harvest of 4,700 fish during 2000 creel census. Rapid increase in abundance?

6. Why are Lake Trout a Threat?
Have replaced bull trout populations across BT range.
Collapsed popular kokanee sport fisheries in Priest and Flathead lakes.
Threaten Yellowstone CT and YNP ecosystem.

7. Potential LPO Fishery Collapse
Depressed kokanee reduced further by 1997 flood. Loss of kokanee meant problems for trophy trout and char.
Emergency rule changes in 2000, but no improvement by Socially not accepted.
March 2002 workshop showed support for Citizens Advisory Committee.

8. CAC Formed Nine members selected from community in May 2002.
Guided by Charter.
Seven meetings over 6 months, final public workshop Oct 2002.
Came up with 16 findings, five recommendations.

9. Commercial Lake Trout Fishery
Establish commercial rod-and-reel fishery for lake trout. IFG Commission approved Dec
LT approved as commercial species, no limit on rods, limited to 10 licenses.
Support evaluation of deep water trap nets (live entrapment gear).

10. Deep Water Trap Nets

12. Deep Water Trap Net Evaluation
Contract signed for 2 year project beginning 2003, 9 nets to be fished October-March.
Use trap nets for mark-recapture population estimate, then intent was to harvest lake trout.
Just before netting began, anti-netting petition surfaced.

13. CANFOLPO
Problems with LPO fishery blamed on IDFG mismanagement and Avista dams.
Requested intervention by Governor’s office and immediate removal of nets.
Reported 1,820 signatures on petition (25% had fishing lic).

14. News Media – Reporting Conflict

15. Weekly letters to the editor in local paper.
Letters were from two people and their wives.

16. CANFOLPO
Posters and Meetings

17. So What Happened?
Trap nets were used to estimate population at 6,376 LT over 20 inches (see Peterson & Maiolie poster).
Trap nets were not used for de-population of lake trout as originally intended.

18. Why Weren’t Lake Trout Harvested?
Both biological and social concerns were an issue.
Biologically – LT population less than anticipated. Trap net efficiency 17%.
Socially – Use of trap nets and LT control became highly controversial.

19. Eroding Support Missed stakeholder group in CAC.
Constant reporting of controversy by media created doubt, confusion.
Organized fishing clubs supporting IDFG did not take CANFOLPO seriously and didn’t use media effectively.
Anglers just don’t like nets.

20. Where Do We Go From Here?
Increase public’s participation in decision making.
Evaluate angler harvest potential for lake trout.
Implement second season of trap net evaluation in fall 2005.
Develop LPO management plan.

21. Acknowledgements
-Many thanks to the nine members of the LPO CAC for taking time out of their busy lives to help solve complex problems associated with recovery of the Lake Pend Oreille fishery.
-Thanks to Avista Corporation for funding the $329,000 per year cost of the trap net evaluation.
-Thanks to Dennis Hickey and crew members of Harbor Fisheries, Inc. for working with a very challenging situation.
-Thanks to IDFG personnel and volunteers for data collection and analysis.