Anglers target gill-net plan

There were questions, suggestions and many criticisms on Thursday aimed at a lake trout gill netting project on Flathead Lake proposed by the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes.

All of it was directed at Art Noonan, deputy director for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and Tom McDonald, director of tribal fish, wildlife, recreation and conservation.

About 150 people showed up for the Kalispell meeting sponsored by Flathead Wildlife Inc.

In December, the tribes proposed a pilot project that would involve using angling and gill netting to remove 60,000 lake trout in 2010, 80,000 in 2011, and 100,000 in 2012.

McDonald explained that the proposal is the final “tool” in a 10-year Flathead Lake co-management plan developed in 2000 by the state and the tribes.

The tribes maintain that goals in the plan for suppressing the lake trout population have not been met through angler-based approaches, such as increasing the catch limit from five to 50 lake trout along with fall and spring Mack Days tournaments specifically designed to remove lake trout.

The lake trout population boomed in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of mysis shrimp being introduced into the Flathead system, and lake trout basically have overwhelmed native fish populations. McDonald stressed the tribes’ primary mission is the recovery of bull trout and cutthroat trout populations.

“We need to at least provide bull trout and cutthroat trout a chance to survive in Flathead Lake,” McDonald said.

Noonan explained that the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks position on the matter is that many questions need to be addressed before a gill netting project proceeds.

Most importantly, he said, can more lake trout suppression enhance bull trout recovery effectively?

“There are no secret agreements” between the tribes and the state, he stressed.

Speaking to Noonan, Flathead Wildlife member Warren Illi said, “You made one of the best points tonight when you said there are a hundred unanswered questions, and I agree with that.”

Illi pressed McDonald and Noonan on whether they are committed to vetting the pilot project with a thorough environmental review process. Particularly because the project could be funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency, it would require review under the National Environmental Policy Act, Illi said.

Noonan and McDonald said they are committed to such a review.

“We want to do it in a fashion that answers the questions,” Noonan responded.

But on at least two occasions during the meeting, McDonald referred to the project going through an “environmental assessment process.”

Environmental assessments are usually more streamlined, less detailed and more expeditious than environmental impact statements, which can take well over a year to complete.

The tribes are pressing for gill netting to get under way this year.

McDonald explained during the meeting that from the tribes’ perspective, the issue of lake trout suppression and bull trout recovery has been studied and discussed for the last decade.

He referred to a citizens advisory committee — with three nontribal members appointed by the governor, three tribal members appointed by the tribal chairman and a neutral member — that has carefully monitored the implementation and effectiveness of the co-management plan since it was adopted.

“We’ve got nine years into this and we don’t want to wait any longer,” McDonald said at one point.

The Flathead Wildlife Inc. leadership contends the project must require a full environmental impact statement.

“I truly believe that if there’s money coming from BPA, that really requires an EIS,” Chuck Hunt, the rod and gun club’s president, said after the meeting.

Several anglers who spoke at the meeting said they have noticed significant declines in lake trout catches, a sign to them that increased angling has been effective.

Several expressed concern that gill netting would destroy Flathead Lake’s most popular recreational fishery and lead to economic impacts as well.

“There’s a lot of good economy on that lake,” said Don Shaffer. “If you net it, you’re going to destroy it.”

Schaffer suggested introducing small- and large-mouth bass as a means of suppressing lake trout.

“We’re at where we are at because of that,” McDonald responded, referring to the consequences of introducing non-native species.

Another angler suggested introducing burbot, a native of Western Montana waters, as a way to target lake trout eggs.

Several speakers raised concerns about the unintended damage that gill netting can cause, including impacts to waterfowl and the potential “by-catch” of native species, including bull trout.

McDonald said he is confident that selective gill netting, targeting certain areas, would reduce the potential for unwanted by-catches.

Random, sample gill netting that has been carried out for years has shown a very low by-catch ratio. Asked if that information would be available during the environmental review process, McDonald said yes.

One speaker asserted that the tribes’ lake trout removal goals were arbitrary, and he questioned what level of bull trout recovery would be defined as acceptable.

The tribes’ goal, McDonald said, is when the lake has a bull trout population that is comparable to what existed in the 1960s, “where you can catch and keep and eat one bull trout a day.”

At one point a speaker who did not identify himself claimed that McDonald and Noonan were speaking with “forked tongues” and he accused them of pursuing a direction that would “crash” the lake trout population.

He drew a combative response from both McDonald and Noonan.

“I know it’s absolutely impossible to crash this lake trout population” because it is so large and widespread, McDonald said.

Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com