Looks like the steelhead's ability to re-establish historical genetics is not only resilient, but rapid!

https://wildsteelheaders.org/science-fri...he-elwha-river/

Fish on...

Todd

Not sure about re establish would be a term I would use. Whatever the environmental and harvest factors are will through natural selection determine genetics. In this case the areas blocked are mostly protected so things should go the way the article says. In the case of the Chinook not so much as to the return of the huge size. These were 5 / 6 / 7 year fish that are brutalized in the ocean harvest. Dams gone great step forward but it will be many years before we see what the Chinook run will evolve to. Steelhead do not get the marine destruction that other spieices do thank god but they are very vulnerable in the fresh water. What works on the Elwha ( with the watershed protected by the park ) exist in few places in the state.

Remember, too, that O. mykiss is optionally anadromous. In southern California they appear to have gone decades to even centuries of drought where they were wholly resident. When wet times returned, they became anadromous again The Elwha is about a century of dams, but even then the migratory/big water fish had the lakes and some below-dam anadromy.

As Rivrguy says, the big Chinook may come back only after we quit killing them in the ocean and let them grow to older ages. It is my understanding that there are still a minuscule few of the biog old fish left. Stop killing them, let them grow up, and let them have food in the ocean.

Good luck on the Chinook...genetics, maybe, but expression of 5+ year olds? Not a winning strategy any more, I'm afraid.

Steelhead...as noted, already happening.

Fish on...

Todd

The problem is that the Elwha were that big because that was what was needed for success in the river. No big fish, no successful recovery.

They definitely won't be able to use the same spawning areas as the big boys did.

Fish on...

Todd

Such a cool opportunity to learn about nature's healing powers.

I'm interested to see if a sockeye run develops going into Lake Sutherland through Indian Creek.

Don't know if it is still there but WDG had a screen structure in place at the outlet to Sutherland that blocked all up/down migration. Hopefully, it has been moved.

CM, I think they removed that screen, and changed the fishing regulations on the lake to allow less and only smaller kokanee be retained...thought being that the native run of sockeye would be able to re-establish.

Indian Creek, I believe?

Fish on...

Todd

Indian creek is correct.

It’s my understanding that a weir was supposed to be placed across the river to separate hatchery from wild fish and to keep hatchery fish out of the upper river. I’ve read several places that it isn’t happening, which was one of the agreed upon terms for putting in the new hatchery.
Can any confirm that the weir is or isn’t being used?
SF

A problem is that we know that kokanee can and will smolt and subsequent return as adult anadromous sockeye. If they want a sockeye run, stop putting kokanee in the lake. If they are there and naturally spawning, just leave them alone and let nature sort it out.

CM, I'm pretty sure the entire recovery plan for Elwha sockeye is to allow the resumption of anadromy by the existing lacustrine sockeye salmon from Lake Sutherlund. I do not believe there is any hatchery involvement in this particular species recovery plan.

But are kokanee planted in the lake for sport fishing?

Let me be more specific. I believe that there are no hatchery releases of Kokanee in Lake Sutherland, period.

Me, too.

I suspect Stonefish was mentioning that the main river should have had a weir installed to keep any stray hatchery fish from getting up to the spawning grounds on the Elwha proper.

Fish on...

Todd

Correct, I was referring to the weir or lack of on the main river, not Indian Creek.
SF

I just looked at WDFW's trout and kokanee palm and species pages. Sutherland is still pointed out as a kokanee lake. A bio I know who worked in the Skagit watershed noted that genetic studies showed the "kokanee" taken in Baker were anadromous sockeye.

Even if they are no longer stocking kokanee, if they want to restore sockeye in Sutherland stop fishing for O. nerka.

I think that the regs have an 18" maximum "kokanee" size limit intended to protect adult sockeye...but I agree, if re-establishing anadromous sockeye in the lake is the intent, then a kokanee fishery at this point is counter-productive.

Makes as much sense as killing wild "rainbow trout" in steelhead streams.

Fish on...

Todd

Pretty healthy population of those kokes - if they go anadromous should be a decent little jump start to a sockeye run. As much as I'd hate to give up fishing them out of my kayak when staying at the cabin, I'd trade that in to see sockeye coming up Indian creek any day.

An interesting aspect of the recovery will be if sockeye don't do well but the kokanee do. The lake shows the potential to grow smolts, but then the don't survive.

We are seeing the same sort of thing in the Cedar, and maybe other streams, with steelhead. Mykiss, like nerka, appear to be optionally anadromous in response to environmental conditions. If conditions in the ocean are "bad" the successful spawners are those that stay home. Some always go down to the sea, but until conditions improve their significant fecundity advantage is lost.

How will the managers respond when nature tells them that resident is the choice?