Is this what you meant Eyefish?

In a word, yes. Hatchery and wild fish can co-exist. They can co-exist best in systems where a means of separation is present so that returning adults can be separated according to their hatchery or wild origin. A harder condition to meet is that they will also co-exist better when the wild populations are abundant relative to the numbers of returning hatchery fish. Likely candidate river systems include the Cowlitz, NF Lewis, Clackamas, McKenzie, and possibly other Willamette basin rivers too, where migration barriers exist or could reasonably be retrofitted to permit adult fish sorting.



I suppose we all would like to have wild runs that are healthy enough to not only be self-sustaining, but abundant enough to support a significant level of harvest (however many significant is). I don't think that is realistic in the PNW world that we have made. In WA's heavily populated Puget Sound region, wild runs that could support harvest every year and sustain themselves have not been present for 50 years, and longer for certain stocks. I read that the Puget Sound treaty tribes list naturally self-sustaining wild stocks that support a significant tribal harvest is their recovery goal. I don't know if they actually believe that's possible, but I've been around this all my life, and I think such a goal is delusional. That train has left the station, and it's not coming back.


It's not coming back because the human population continues to grow unchecked. And local, state, and federal agencies approve 10 projects that indirectly or directly degrade fish habitat for every habitat restoration project. Anybody should be able to do that math, and it doesn't bode well for the kind of wild fish population recovery the agencies and tribes have been talking about.


Regarding the question of can we have hatchery fish without wild fish? Hypothetically, yes, we can. Until the inevitable occurs. Despite backup systems and near fail-safe mechanisms, hatchery fish kills continue to happen. And they always will. The best that can be done is to reduce the frequency, but eliminating them is not possible. To think otherwise is as delusional as thinking wild stocks will be recovered to support large harvests. So the prudent manager and conservationist will do all he or she can to maintain as many of the extant wild populations as possible. Remember that intelligent tinkering includes saving all the parts.


Regarding the on-going squabble between Jacksalmon, Gun,rod,bow, and Big Game Fishing and commercial Chinook fisheries, we have to consider that the existing situation is not desirable or meeting the perceived needs of either sport or commercial fishing interests. People like to talk about "growing the pie" instead of fighting over the crumbs. That necessitates being blind to the facts that we have already been fighting over the crumbs for the last 2 or 3 decades. Most commercial salmon fishing has been relegated to the status of hobby fishing. As things get worse, which is likely, they will continue to fish until they feel they can no longer absorb the financial loss, probably depending on how well they are doing in the Alaska season, where many, if not most, actually earn a living from fishing. The state fishery agencies can't regulate the commercial interests out of fishing because they read their enabling state statutes as requiring commercial fishing. Some interests will read that as commercial fishing down to the last available salmon, profitable or not.


Sport fishing can exist at some level with really low abundance of salmon and steelhead. The only question is how many anglers will find it worth their time and interest to participate when the prospects of a successful fishing trip drop to unprecedented low levels. Think, for instance, of fishing for Atlantic salmon in Maine, where catching one fish for a week's fishing, or for a season, becomes the mark of success. How many will do it? I don't know, but it will be a lot less than are fishing today. Especially if that fishing is catch and release only, like fishing for wild steelhead in WA state is now.


I think Jackchinook is on the right track advocating for an end to commercial Chinook salmon exploitation when sportfishing seasons have been curtailed. The notion of all parties "sharing the pain" of low abundance is just a way to rationalize on-going diminishing returns that deliver a desirable outcome to no one. So it will take state legislation to end any part of commercial fishing since the agencies won't do it. There currently is a bill in the WA Legislature that intended to end non-treaty commercial gillnetting in the state. The commercial lobby, being as strong as it is, has so far weakened it to apply to the Columbia River only, which would allow the practice to continue in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound (where there are few non-treaty gillnet fisheries any more). So commercial gillnetting will end, either by legislation or lack of profitability. It's a matter of time, and how many crumbs remain.