Smalma

I really enjoy it (like a snake bite) when you ask me questions because you really make me think before I answer! Obviously you have a lot more access to information then most people do and also know how to get more when you need it! That gives you an unfair advantage, but we all must put up or shut up!

Ok, with that being said, I will give you my "best laymen's" answer to some of the "tuff technical questions" that you are always so good at imposing onto us.

You asked;" The run timing and spawning timing of the native Cowlitz steelhead you report were surprising similar to that of the Skagit fish. Could it be because of similar spring/summer hydrographs?"

The answer to that question is, yes that could be one of the answers, or it could just be part of the answer. But there is another possibility that we must first considered before one could draw that conclusion. Since 1938, the Cowlitz received numerous plants of steelhead from just about every major river system in the state! They could have just as easily been the "genetic prodigy" from plants from the Skagit River or a combination of several plants from multiple rivers. I do not know if that is what's has happen, but it would have had made sense, at the time, for WDW to do something like this, especially because of the similarities of the Cowlitz and the Skagit run timing.

Since it's been about ten years ago since I had last seen that data, I do not recall if Skagit stocks had been used in the earlier plants of the Cowlitz or not. I do recall that the Cowlitz did get lots of plants from outside of its own basin. I do know that they "consistently used" chamber creek stocks from about 1951 to 1967. Each year from 51-67 they planted an average of about 41,661 steelhead smolts @ 2.5-13/lb into the Cowlitz.

You say; "With 60 days between the end of the hatchery spawning and the beginning of spawning of the "late" fish it would seem to my simple mind that some uniquness of the "late" stock could have been maintained."

That may have been true for the egg take years in 2002, but I do not believe that was the case, or the policy of WDW during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not all eggs that have been taken from the Cowlitz have been programmed or used in the Cowlitz either! The Cowlitz Trout Hatchery had been used to "playing god" with their run timing and the fish sizes (2's&3's). They have a long standing record of selecting brood stocks for programs during the late 60 through the 70 and 80's time period. Here are just a few examples of the percentage of eggs that WDW took for hatchery production of the "late winter steelhead" on the Cowlitz.

In the year 1968, they only took eggs from these months for the winter runs:
Dec-0.0%
Jan - 0.0%
Feb-5.4%
Mar-32.9%
Apr-61.7%
May-0.0%

Year 1975 they took eggs from these months only for winter runs:
Dec-2.5%
Jan-58.4%
Feb-37.0%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-2.2%
May-0.0%

In 1983 they took eggs from these moths only:
Dec- 41.5%
Jan - 51.4%
Feb- 3.6%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-1.7%
May-1.7%

From 1974-1979, almost no eggs were taken to support the March - May timing of the steelhead run!

Do you still believe that this "special unique" supper stock of genetically selected steelhead could have stayed unmixed and separate after 35 years of genetic mixing like this has occurred?

It's my opinion the "reason" that these "special" genetic stocks were developed, or "remarkably discovered" by the WDFW were because of the "Wild Salmonid Policy"!
It was quickly starting to have a huge "conflict" with the reintroduction program, and the commercial fisheries on the Lower Columbia River.

Obviously, WDF could not be promoting both a restoration program and commencing a massive commercial gill net fishery at the same time they were claiming to be "restoring wild steelhead". It doesn't take a scientist, or a biologist to figure this one out!

Washington State law prohibited them from "intentional" or commercially taking of steelhead (both wild and sport). In 1994, a decision was made by WDFW to develop a plan that would allow WDFW to continue both the "Restoration Programs" and the Columbia Commercial Gill Net Fishery to co-exist.

Historically the "native run" of Cowlitz Winter steelhead started entering the Lower Columbia River in early to mid-November. The commercial gill net fishery for coho would be going into full swing by that same time period. Cowlitz coho (late stock) peak in late November-early December and continue to come in until February. Since coho and steelhead are almost the same in size, the coho nets would not be able to let these steelhead pass through their net fishery without taking a heavey toll. So how could WDFW allow a massive coho fishery to continue on the Lower Columbia, and at the same time claim to be participating in a recovery/restoration program for "wild steelhead" that are being nailed in big numbers during the coho net fishery?

Presto! The answer was a simple one; WDFW decided to develop/create one specially unique returned timed stock of steelhead that would "not be returning at the same time" that the Columbia River coho gill net fishery was occurring! That way, NMFS would not be force legally by law or some outside group to "shut down" the commercial coho fishery when to many "wild steelhead" from the restoration program were being caught and counted in the NMFS "incidental take allotment"!

Because of the conflict between the coho commercial fishery and the return timing of the native stocks of Cowlitz Winter run steelhead almost 4 months, or one half of the original native run timing has now been totally eliminated! Biology and science at its best!

Smalma,
The "original Cowlitz Falls Restoration Management Plan" called for a "balance between wild, native and hatchery fish populations. This newer "self declared" version that WDFW has now created does not represent the original restoration Plan or its goals. It's really hard to image or believe that after 35+ years of hatchery interbreeding/mixing, plus WDFW own admission in 1984 that only 1.6% of all the "natural production" in the Cowlitz was likely that of hatchery stocks and not that of native genetic stocks should tell the "rest of the story"!

Finally, your last statement was; "It is also interesting to note that on a board that has many members who champion "wild steelhead" that there would be such support to maintain hatchery production at all costs and little support to enhancing the wild production of steelhead."

Maybe fishermen like what they have been doing on the Cowlitz for last 35+ years and do not want to "create" a wild fish run that will prohibit their last chance or opportunities to enjoy a harvest!

Well Smalma, that's about the best that this here laymen can do to answer your questions! I hope that you can understand what I have wrote, and understand the amount time and work that it takes to give you an answer that will meet your high criteria standards.

If I have failed, well through me another one, and let's see if I can handle it too!

You are one tuff person to reply to!

Cowlitzfisherman