Nice to see that WDFW came up with a couple million "extra" Chinook fry to compensate for the loss??? Wonder where those fish came from? Actually, I'm pleased that they were able to do this, but it flies in the face of their out of basin policy transfer, etc. It just underlines the fact that most Puget Sound Chinook stocks are an out of basin mongrel stocks, a hodge podge of genetics that are likely well suited for their environment. After all, they keep coming back. There's no reason not to let the hatchery kings on the spawning beds, especially if we want recovery.

Another aspect of the transfer is that Tribal approval is needed. There are 3 Tribes that fish 13A, Minter's terminal area. Did the fish come from hatcheries in their U&A or from another Tribe's U&A. What agreements were made to have them "give up" harvest?

Tug,

Unless things have changed markedly, hatcheries typically take excess eggs if they receive more than the minimum number of broodstock required for their production goals. The reason has always been that losses during the egg to ponded fry stage could be higher than normally experienced, and the excess eggs would cover, or help cover, the loss. So if six hatcheries had extra eggs, or sac fry at this stage of development, then 2.75 million fry surplus to those hatcheries needs is a good partial buffer for offsetting the loss at Minter.

As for the mongrel hodge podge stock, don't fret. PS hatchery fall Chinook are likely somewhere in the range of being 99% pure Green River hatchery stock. The salmon hatchery at Sooes Creek on the Green River is one of the oldest in the state and in PS. So whenever a new PS hatchery was built, instead of capturing native broodstock from within the watershed of the new hatchery, the easiest way to start was to simply import some eyed eggs that were surplus to the needs at Sooes Creek, and start of new hatchery fall Chinook run on the river getting the new hatchery. So moving eggs or fry from one PS hatchery to another doesn't upset the "balance of nature" very much at all.

Before ESA, letting surplus returns of hatchery fish spawn naturally was SOP. Now with ESA WDFW has to limit the % of hatchery origin spawners (HOS) that spawn naturally with the "wild" Chinook in that river, even when most of those wild Chinook are progeny of the previous generation of HOS.

If there are out of basin transfers occurring then what is NOAA/NMFS's official position?

And the yet unanswered question is whether these fry were going to be destroyed as excess and are now re-purposed? Or are they simply donations from fish otherwise to be reared and released and thereby not actually representing a net increase/replacement for lost Minter fish?

Also, today's News Tribune reports that "Up to 2.75 million fall chinook fry will be taken from six other state hatcheries for release from Minter Creek and Tumwater Falls in May and June." State hatcheries or hatcheries within the State? More details would be nice.

That same article reported that "Officials said the loss of spring chinook was particularly painful because they were meant to help feed the dwindling population of southern resident orcas, which are endangered." Okay, if White River springers are no longer being reared as part of a recovery effort for that run then why not have a recreational season on them in the terminal area? And if being reared for Orcas then maybe ramp up that production!

Sounds just like the scenario with wild LCR tules and wild Willapa/Naselle chinook. That we have any measurable production from the gravel is an artifact of a constant artificial infusion of HOS.

What's interesting to me is NOAA's apparent concern for minimizing pHOS in rivers where the state runs the hatcheries... yet they have MUCH less concern about the tribal hatchery program to recover Snake River fall chinook.

So far, the tribal model on the Snake seems to have the upper hand in chinook recovery when compared to PS chinook and LCR tules.

AHFMD??? Maybe.... maybe not?

That would be because the tribes do not have to mate randomly and can choose the best fish to spawn. Ever fish the queets/salmon and seen the health of the tribal fish? They have good runs even when the state is claiming poor ocean conditions which is always thier excuse for poor returns. Those tribal fish are very different fish than the chambers creek WDFW diluted gene turds that are forced to spawn randomly.

So many have it all figured out.

Meanwhile the ratio of hatchery to wild fish plummets.

Obviously the predators now target the wild stocks.

Plant fish in every ditch.

Haved fished there lots over the years and have to say the quality has gone way up since the selective brood program started. They breed nothing smaller than 15#. But it has had it's problems. Last year the lower Quinault closed early for all fishers because returns were poor. Verdict still out for this year. I remember reading how selective summer run breeding at the Skamainia hatchery almost killed the Washougal summer Steelhead run. Produced some brutes though and they would tear you a new one when you hooked em. Can't think of any other examples other than rules of why not to selective breed. Maybe some Bio's have some science to add.

RUNnGUN, I remember one year ( I can't remember the exact year) the Quinault released their steelhead smolts from their hatchery on Lake Quinault. The problem was that they had a disease problem with the smolts. Instead of destroying them, they decided to plant them anyway in hopes of getting as many back as they could. Do you remember that and what year it was? Last year's poor return might have been the adults from that plant.

I remember that happening but I think it was a lot further back than to have "last year return" affected by that....but as to the exact year, just can't do that.

Thanks Drifter. I just can't remember the year but It might have been further back like you said.

I don't remember either. More than a year or two out any more everything runs together and confusion sets in. I checked my diaries and found no details. They didn't used to have a rearing facility on the lake, only a collection facility, but they do dump smolt in there. The only rearing was done at Cook Crk. and the Salmon. I think any more the Salmon hatchery only rears Salmon, and Cook rears the Steelhead for distribution. But I could be wrong cause things change and it's been a few years since I've been in the know.

Not breeding any fish under 15 can also result in problems because you then effectively exclude the two salt fish. The best would be to artificially select the largest and most healthiest fish from each years returns. Not hard to do these days with scale samples. Only problem is that the department is too lazy to do it. There are other means of artificially selecting also that would require less work. Using native broodstock is one of the easiest if there are adequate numbers of wild fish for that. But there are also other cost-effective methods not being employed.

Coming up on the one month point after the power failure and was wondering if any news is out there regarding a report from WDFW?

TIA

What incident report? You mean the one over there under the rug?

Promotions all around everybody!

Exactly that one that I "hoped" might be finished in a timely manner :-/ Guess it's broom meet the dust pan as usual...

Might give Minter and Eric Kinne a call (360) 902-2418 in the AM to see what the holdup might be> Stay tuned!

OK, it been a month.....


""This is a devastating loss," Kinne said. "The department is conducting an analysis to determine the root cause of what went wrong so that we can improve procedures at Minter Creek and our other hatcheries to help ensure this doesn't happen again."

1. Well, is this a cover up or is there going to be a "analysis to find the root cause of what went wrong"???????

2. What would a guess at the cost to rise 6.2 million salmon, to fry size ????

To include: labor, water, feed, electrical costs, and other related costs...

Just wondering...

The director said the the incident is being investigated and they hired a outside source.
Minter Creek is a great example of what Puget Sound could be. There are hundreds of Creeks that could be planted with hatchery fish that have out migration but no longer have successful spawning on average years. Plant every species of salmonids in them! Use volunteers similar to the Salmon in the Classroom program. It seems so simple?

There are sportfishing organizations that would like to participate in salmon propagation efforts to include floating hatchery rearing facilities and egg boxes. It seems that WDFW is so decentralized that there is no one currently and officially designated as the "go to" person to facilitate those volunteers. If WDFW is serious about getting more fish reared and released and use volunteers in so doing (cost effectiveness) then they need to have the proverbial one belly button to push.

Hello WDFW - we've been knocking on the door......