CFM -
Regarding the later spwning timing of Skagit and other stocks - Here in the North Sound area I have noticed that the timing of wild steelhead spawning is such that the fry will emerge from the gravel after the high flows of the spring run subsides. Systems like the Skagit that have a large and prolong snow-melt driven run-offs that last to late July or early August have much later spawning. In the Skagit case the peak spawning is the middle part of May with that the fry emerging about August first. Based on your earlier cites it appears to me that the Tilton must have substantial snow-melt run-off normally lasting well into July.

To my knowledge the only extensive culture of Skgit wild steelhead stocks have been confined to that basin. It is unlikely that the Cowlitz has recieved plants of wild Skagit origin.

The salmonid stocks in the Pacific Northwest developed in very dynamic river systems that were constantly changing. As a result the fish developed the ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions (as a result their behaviors, life histories and even genetics were constantly undergoing subtle changes). If they could not they were toast. As a result given a change in a new environment they evolve quickly to be successful in that environment.

While we will likely never know what the genetic profiles of the historical wild stocks of the Cowlitz were (need samples from those fish prior to any hatchery/wild interactions and about the only likely hope would be some archived scale samples collected a half a century ago). It would appear to me that the current "late" Cowlitz stock with their late spawning would have a chance to successful adapt places like the Tilton. To my mind these fish would not necessarily be native but would be wild fish and if they are productive that is good enough for me. As Cohoangler mentioned this is the future of fish recovery with less worry or focus on the genetic purity of the fish and more on restoring functioning habitats and populating them with successfully adapted wild stocks that are as productive as possible (this Cowlitz discussion seems simlar to what is occurring on the East Coast with Atlantic salmon).

I did find it interesting that they are talking about getting fish back into 240 miles of habitat (that is more habitat than all the winter steehead habitat in the Snohomish basin). Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try.

I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest. However just as surely there are many who would feel giving the fish a chance to develop a viable wild populatin is a good thing and worth the sacrifice. For me issues like this is less about my needs today and more about preserving options for future generations.

On contentious issues like this there will not be agreement among all us diverse users. Rather they will be a wide range of opinions with facts and/or data of little concern on those from either pole of the issue. Let's agree to attempt to provide the best information available to us for those in the middle so that they can make an informed decision whether that be fore or against our own personal positon.

You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies.

Just one question - Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Tight lines
Smalma