In the letter the authors (WFC?) are claiming that the Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead are a avoidable threat to Puget Sound wild winter steelhead. While I probably have it all wrong but isn't the implication from concern with that ending the planting of Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead the status of the wild winters in Puget Sound would improve?

NMFS Technical Recovery Team (TRT) in examining the wild steelhead populations of Puget Sound determined there were 32 what they called demographical independent populations (DIPs). Of those 32 DIPs 27 are winter populations. With the ending of the Chambers Creek program on the Skagit only 6 are currently being planted with Chambers Creek steelhead.

Of the 21 DIPs that are not being planted with Chambers Creek 9 have not been planted for at least 3 steelhead generations and another 10 have been planted for at least 1 steelhead generation. To my knowledge none of those populations have shown any measureable increase in wild steelhead numbers since the ending of the release of the hatchery fish.

Of further interest 1/2 of those DIPs do not have winter recreational seasons. Across the Puget Sound region many of the DIPs of neither recreational or tribal gill net fisheries during the winter. For those streams that are open to fishing (targeting hatchery steelhead or other species) during the winter 'the aggregate combined effect (total impacts associated with fishing) of all fisheries (yes that includes tribal take) in recent years has average about 4% .

For at least Puget Sound wild winter steelhead significant reductions of hatchery /wild interactions and fishing impacts have not resulted in any measureable improvements in the status of the wild steelhead. Could it be that if folks are really concern about recovery of PS wild steelhead that it is time to at factors other than hatchery and/or harvest?

Curt