The Marblemount hatchery steelhead production change is a budget issue. It's not a tribal issue, although the Skagit tribes as co-managers with WDFW, have some say in decision making.

Mike,

It only sucks if the end result is fewer adult hatchery steelhead returns. It may not be, as large plants of hatchery steelhead smolts have not typically produced large adult returns. Since smolt to adult returns on steelhead are so poor, it makes better sense financially to cut back on steelhead production rather than coho, or chinook which are reared mostly for research purposes at Marblemount and not so much as a production program.

The tribes may harvest by gillnet their legal share of the steelhead and salmon resource, but you already knew that.

Those hatchery fish (and wild ones, too) do get hammered out in the salt, but it isn't the gillnets you love to hate so much that's doing it. Unfortunately, neither I nor other biologists know just what is suppressing early marine survival of Puget Sound and Georgia Strait steelhead in recent years. Eliminating gillnets would increase the supply of steelhead for you to fish over, but you really are dreaming if you believe that the actual smolt to adult return rates would be "smashing" or any bit better than has been reported in recent years.

Curtis,

WDFW began using localized stocks of Chambers Creek steelhead on the Skagit and other rivers probably 15 years or more ago in an effort to have hatchery fish that are better adapted to each river's hatchery facilities and river system. Unfortunately, hatchery steelhead return rates on the Skagit have remained low.

Regarding native steelhead broodstock programs in the Skagit basin, it's been tried three times that I'm aware of. Once on the Sauk by Darrington Rod and Gun Club, on the Skagit by the Wildcat Steelhead Club, and on the Skagit by the Skagit System Cooperative. In most cases, the number of returning adults couldn't be monitored to evaluate the results, but some Sauk data were collected by Ted Mueller on the first couple brood returns. The Skagit Coop released their fish in the Baker so returns could be counted at the Baker trap. The first Coop brood return was encouraging because it was four times greater than the Chambers hatchery broodstock return. But it subsequently faltered. Based on three projects covering from 1977 through 1994 or 95, I think it's safe to conclude that those native broodstock return as many, if not more, subsequent generation recruits by leaving them in the river to spawn naturally.

Native broodstock programs can produce positive impacts in some cases. However, I think there is now ample evidence that any such programs should be rigorously evaluated. Most are feel-good exercises.

Grandpa,

The Marblemount hatchery steelhead cutback is a budget issue. The tribe's influence on this was specifically limited to the minor part of the steelhead funding provided by Seattle City Light as part of its hydro project mitigation. Even then, the tribe's proposed diverting some of the money away from the unproductive steelhead program. But the tribe's don't control the decision. A concensus decision of all the parties to the hydro license agreement (WDFW, Tribes, USFWS, NMFS, USFS, and NPS) is required to make any funding shifts of the Seattle money. Seattle's steelhead obligation is roughly the cost of rearing 70,000 steelhead smolts. Because WDFW is efficient at Marblemount (thanks Steve Stout!) they can stretch that to 100,000 or more. In any event, it should be clear that WDFW didn't cave in to the tribes, and that the tribes could, with everyone else's concurrence, only influence funding that affects a small part of the total steelhead program. Therefore, most of the program change is due to a budget shortfall that has nothing to do with Seattle City Light or the Skagit Tribes.

Kerry,

The Skagit hatchery steelhead program wasn't a dismal failure from the beginning. The early years appear to have been very successful. However, that has been typical of many, if not most, hatchery steelhead programs. Unfortunately, only some of them retain that productivity over time. The Skagit was not one of them. The downside as I see it, was not recognizing the collapse of the program earlier. A lot of good money has been thrown after bad. But it's amazing how much public opinion has favored stocking large numbers of hatchery steelhead even if the returns have not justified it. People like to feel good, even if they're throwing money away.

Smalma,

Thanks again. As we have seen, a lot of folks prefer to debate without facts. We're a couple of spoil sports, I think. I'm also somewhat ambivalent about the hatchery steelhead program. Love to catch them, but I'm too tight with money to just throw it away. Worse yet, I've always dreamed of the Skagit as a major summer run fishery. Yeah, I'm ducking before the bricks start flying!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.