Chumster,

I can only partially explain. I find that it depends who I’m talking with, but “native only” folks usually want to return fish population assemblages to what they were prior to any species introductions by humans. That is neither an intrinsically right nor wrong desire; it is just what some folks want. I used the term idealism in my post above because I believe it’s unrealistic to restore strictly native fisheries in some waters that are so totally modified like the Lake Washington drainage is. I’m not against having native species present in natal waters, of course. I do want them there to the extent that the watersheds can support them. And I’m not opposed to introductions that appear to be a good ecological “fit.” Kemmerich and his co-workers stocked Baker Lake sockeye in Issaquah Creek and the Cedar River in the late 1930s through 1940 or so. The species has persisted in Lake Washington all this time, and although other native fish species have declined in abundance, I’m not aware that the sockeye are directly or indirectly responsible for the result.

My thought is that a sockeye fishery is probably one of the more effective fishery uses that can be made of Lake Washington in its present condition, along with the considerable cutthroat trout population. These are species that appear to be a good fit with the habitat in its present condition. The primary effect of the proposed sockeye hatchery will be more consistent seeding of the lake with sockeye fry. Presently, sockeye egg to fry survival is inversely correlated with peak winter flood flows in the Cedar River. This should create more stability in the sockeye population, and it might similarly benefit the principle sockeye predator species.

Without hatcheries, there would be many fewer trout and salmon in Washington state. There would be no chinook or coho fishing and almost no steelhead fishing on the Columbia River and its tributaries. There would be no chinook fishing in Puget Sound and its tributaries, but we’d have a coho fishery about every other year, and very limited steelhead fishing. There would be consistent chum and pink fishing, however. The coast would be the last, best, fishing, of course, but the concentration of fishing pressure that would occur would likely require far more restrictive regulations. That could possibly be a way to finally get statewide wild steelhead release, even on the peninsula rivers. Oh, and trout fishing in lowland and most alpine lakes would disappear.

Wild runs, and wild runs of native stocks, can be restored, but only up to the productivity and capacity of the habitat. In most rivers of our state, that would mean very few harvestable chinook and steelhead. Harvestable coho are likely, but probably not every year. There could be recreational fishing, but my wild guess is that it would be no more than about 20% of the average existing levels, at best. If our society wants harvestable salmon and steelhead and trout in the future, then hatchery fish are necessary to fill that want.

I agree with you that fish need lobbyists, and anglers are important fish advocates. Absent an angling population, there would still be fish advocates, but many fewer, and in the long run, probably less effective. And, although a bitter pill for many, treaty fishing, with its very strong federal legal status, is one of the more effective advocates for fish, tho not always sharing the same priorities as many of this BB’s members.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.