There remain native wild steelhead in Washington's coastal, Puget Sound, and even in southwest Washington rivers that are little, or no, different genetically than they were 200 years ago. There has been some hatchery/wild introgression on some rivers, usually among the summer steelhead, but on most west side rivers the rate is so low as not to have been detected in genetic studies. Therefore, if you believe wild native steelhead are worth saving, there are numerous remaining stocks for us to conserve.

As for the notion that we could operate hatcheries on every river and tributary to sate our desire to "bonk," that hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false. Rivers are more than mere conduits for hatchery fish to migrate upstream and downstream in. They have finite carrying capacities, even for hatchery fish; not just for wild fish. It might be a great strategy if it worked, but ultimately it does not.

And regarding funding hatcheries if only our fish and game fees went only into the fish and wildlife budget, pull your head out of the budget darkness. Examine the fish and wildlife budget in full light and you will see that the total budget, and even just the amount spent on state hatcheries is far greater than the amount of money generated by our license fees. If WDFW had to survive on just the fees generated by licenses and such, many, if not most hatcheries in the state would have to close, excepting those paid for by Mitchell Act money or mitigation funds from utility companies.

Can you make a wild steelhead out of a hatchery one? Yes, I believe so. The Cowlitz experiment referred to is a good example. Wild, native steelhead were extirpated from the upper Cowlitz River due to no fish passage facilities or operations for about 30 years. WDFW believes they have maintained the native genetic stock in the "late winters" stock at the Cowlitz trout hatchery. We really don't know exactly what they are, but they're the best we have to work with in the Cowlitz basin. Late winters are spawned at the hatchery, the eggs incubated, and the fry fed a short while prior to being released, scatter planted it's called, throughout the upper river basin above Cowlitz Falls Dam. This scatter planting is done according to a formula developed and observed to be successful in lower B.C.

These hatchery fry rear naturally in the river system, and survive at rates from half to nearly the same as for "wild native" fry as reported by the B.C. authors. This indicates that the people doing the work are doing a good job, and the late winter Cowlitz hatchery stock is suitable for this experiment.

The Cowlitz Falls Dam only collects 40 to 50% of the downstream migrating smolts, but those that are collected and tranferred to the lower river have survived to adult at THREE times the survival rate of Cowlitz hatchery winter steelhead. So this once wild, then hatchery for 30 years, and now "wild" once again genetic strain of steelhead is completing the cycle. As CFM reported, more wild steelhead have returned to the barrier dam fish separator each of the past 4 years. These fish have spawned naturally in the upper Cowlitz River, producing offspring that are - - what? Wild? Native? Hatchery? I think they are wild native steelhead that have a hatchery streak in their bloodline. Big deal. Actually, it is a big deal. People are forever making statements as though the thought therein is absolute. Not so.

Some laws of nature are absolute, like gravity, or the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. But there is a lot of grey and haze as well. There has to be in order for the world to evolve into what it's become, and what it will become.

Wild native fish do better in the wild than hatchery fish. That shouldn't be such a surprise. Did you also know that hatchery fish do better in hatcheries than wild fish? Kind of makes sense when you think about it, doesn't it?

Regarding scientific fact: A fact is empirically verifiable. A scientific fact can be replicated by others to make and observe the same verification.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation: An hypothesis or theory regarding cyclical variation in physical, and influencing biological, processes in the Pacific Ocean. This, or other causes of variation in ocean upwelling and nutrient and subsequent food supplies greatly influences marine survival of all salmon and steelhead stocks that depend on it to grow to maturity. If the 90s was a decade of low ocean productivity, we may now be in a period of higher ocean productivity, and enjoying the benefit of fish runs that exploited that greater food abundance.

Methinks I've written too much on this; ending now.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.