Hi All--

Thanks for the great questions and comments. I will try to address them here to the best of my ability, and cite some of the studies (good call, onthewater) that support my thinking along the way:

Pijon: You say of the wild steelhead decline, "it has nothing to do with hatchery fish," and yet, every major, peer-reviewed scientific study of the last 20 years would tend to disagree.

Here are brief summaries of some of them: Hatcheries accelerate decline of salmon and steelhead returns <Kleiss, 2004>. Hatchery fish have a clear negative impact on wild fish populations <Chilcote et al. 2011>. Hatchery smolt releases increase predation on wild smolts <Quinn, 2005> and outcompete wild juveniles for habitat and food, reducing survival rates for both <Nakano 1994, Gotceitas and Godin 1992, Berejikian et all. 1996, McMichael et al. 1999>

The proportion of hatchery fish in a given river, under ALL hatchery scenarios, has a direct, negative correlation with overall reproductive performance of wild steelhead <Chilcote et al. 2011>

BillJr: Increasing hatchery plants doesn't work. Over the last 50 years, we have steadily ramped up hatchery releases only to see steadily diminishing returns and catch rate. But don't just take my word for it:

As hatchery stocking increases, catch decreases over time <McMillan 2012, using data from WDFW and ODFW>

On Chambers Creek itself, the source of most of our winter hatchery steelhead, the state tried to stem an alarming decline in returns with increased smolt releases. This resulted in minimal adult returns, trending toward zero. The program was cancelled in 1997. <Cooper and Johnsson 1992, Elfrich 2007>

A quick glance at graphs of hatchery smolt numbers overlaid on return rates or harvest rates on the Skykomish, Skagit and other Puget Sound rivers clearly demonstrates that the more hatchery fish we put in, the fewer adults--both hatchery and wild--we get back.

NW Panhandler: Sadly, the "great fishing" on broodstock returns appears to be a short-term illusion. Over time, broodstock programs have proven themselves ineffective. A couple of reasons are that hatchery strains (Chambers Creek fish are the perfect example) are selectively bred to succeed in a domestic environment, and wild broodstock juveniles have a difficult time surviving in hatchery ponds. Snyder Creek, on the Sol Duc had an extremely low rate of juvenile survival. Broodstock programs also remove wild fish from the process of natural selection in the wild, where the genetics continue to favor survival in both freshwater and salt.

This has been the subject of many scientific studies, with remarkably similar findings: Broodstock programs do not show better returns over time than standard hatcheries, and in fact, result in the same low reproductive rate. <Chilcote et al. 2011; Beatson et al. 2011; Christie et al. 2011; etc...>

Thanks, guys, for taking the time. As before, I believe the whole not-planting-hatchery-smolts-in-Puget-Sound-this-spring decision is good news for everyone who wants a shot at steelhead fishing in their future and for their kids, and their kids. We should celebrate, and thank the Wild Fish Conservancy for their work. This is good stuff.

Skookum