I am so saddened and disgusted. In light of recent news of the Quinault Tribes short Winter Steelhead season announcement last week, and the WDFW coastal seasons to be announced, I wanted to start a conversation from those of you that know much more about what's been going on the last few years with our Steelhead. We all have witnessed the decline in numbers and realize it's a bunch of factors that are playing together. But what do we know for a fact that is causing the declines?
-Habitat? Has that really changed the last 5 years? Some better, some
worse.
-Harvest? Definitely know that it has dropped for both recreational
and tribal.
-High seas interception? Do we know if this is playing a role?
-Smolt Survival? A lot of unknowns but some facts exist.
-Dams and other migration obstacles.
-Are the predators overwhelming? Birds, pinnipeds?
-Ocean conditions? Food supply, the blob?
-Hatchery production? Has dropped significantly.
- Lawsuits have either eliminated or cut back many
programs.
-WDFW budget cuts.
-Steelhead are expensive to produce.
-Hatchery vs Wild debate?
-West Coast Region Wide Problem? How are the SE Alaska populations
doing?
-I read the Thompson R. B.C. population is down to
hundreds.
-How are other B.C. systems doing? Dean,
Skeena systems etc.
-Russian populations? Kola peninsula? I read this:
"According to Moscow State University biologists, in the 25
years since the KSP started, steelhead populations in the
three rivers have dramatically expanded by a factor of
four or five: Snotalvayam about 7,000 returning
steelhead, Kvachina about 9,000, and Utkholok about
20,000."
??? HOW CAN THIS BE ??? If it's a West Coast
Pacific Ocean problem?
Please fill in gaps I missed. Maybe a smoking gun exists?

Steelhead are not much different than any other species and I say that because be it a fish, reptile, or mammal, they all have one very real thing in common, if you take a abundant population and for what ever the reason reduce it to remnant populations the odds against that species recovering are very low. If you take extreme actions ( such as the Condor ) it can be reversed but it takes a long time and it cannot happen if you are harvesting that species. From Sealions to fur seals to birds if you want to save a species he first thing that must go is human impacts such as harvest. Then you have to figure out if it is also biologically driven by habitat degradation and human encroachment in the creature's in question habitat and to what degree. It is then that it can be determined if it can be restored to its place in the natural order.

Pick a species of fish, any damn species, and you will find that at the heart of the problem is human activity be it harvest or encroachment from human activity upon the environment it uses to survive. For Steelhead use Chinook as an example with populations plummeting all the things that surround the fish are in play right down to our Senator seeking billions of tax payer dollars to save the fish. Yet the destruction of salmon runs by over harvest from the Bering Sea right to the terminal fresh water continues and that is the first requirement to changing the outcome you have to stop killing the creature, period. It is then that you take on the difficult environmental issues but frankly the odds against Steelhead being anything but heavily protected remnant populations are slim.

RnG,

Freshwater habitat continues its downward trend for productivity and capacity, but I don't think it is the smoking gun that explains recent very poor returns of steelhead. If it were, wild returns would be poor, but hatchery returns would remain about the same. SAR (smolt to adult return) rates are way down for both hatchery and wild steelhead. And the same observation is occurring all up and down the west coast, varying only by degree in that southern OR and northern CA declines don't appear to be as bad as those further north.

The direct causes that have been identified are increased predation by marine mammals, reduced nearshore ocean productivity (blob, etc.), the north Pacific warm "spot" that is actually massive and huge and not just a "spot."

The massive releases of hatchery pinks and chum salmon from AK and Japan are likely competing for the same food supply that steelhead from northern OR to SE AK forage on, but I don't know if there is any quantitative data on this.

High seas interceptions were investigated as a potential impact in the 1990s when steelhead ocean survival rates took a downward dive. The conclusion is that such interceptions do occur, but the rate was conservatively estimated as no more than, and likey much less than 3% of WA steelhead. But that was nearly 30 years ago, and it might be worthwhile to take another look. Using satellite technology like Global Fish Watch is doing might be a way to obtain a new and better estimate.

Personally I think the over-riding proximate factor is ocean productivity. Whether that is caused by natural and cyclic factors or anthropomorphic pollution and or contamination and permanent long term, I don't know.

You also ask how Russian steelhead on the Kamchatka peninsula could increase in abundance at the same time as our west coast steelhead have crashed. There are two explanations for that. First, poaching of Kamchatka steelhead was much curtailed in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s. Second, the Kamchatka steelhead don't forage in the north Pacific as North American west coast steelhead do. The Kamchatka steelhead occur in rivers on the west side of the peninsula that drain into the Sea of Okhotsk, not into the North Pacific Ocean. The Sea of Okhotsk is like Puget Sound, only much larger, freezes over during the winter, and is not subject to the same conditions as the North Pacific in terms of natural cycles or human caused pollution.

Hiada Gwaii experiment? Its been almost 10 years now. Does anyone know if any good research has occurred to determine if it worked? From what I can tell, there has been no major research into the long term effects. It almost appears that those with the ability to research it avoid doing so, as they are sure it will not work and do not want to find out otherwise, as it destroys their original Hypothesis.

It is kind of like what I discovered years ago with when I had to pay for an Bald Eagle impact assessment. The government had maps showing a full or near recovery, but would not fund a study to determine if it had occurred. Those in the field had no desire to claim success, as they could easily be out of a job. Over 25 years later and while they admit they likely are at full carrying capacity, no attempt to determine if this is true or if a reduction in protections is needed. Self preservation appears to be more important, at times, than actual science.

There is lots about Kamchatkabthat is different from here. There are lots of problems, of various levels, with poaching. But, having evaluated a lot of salmon fisheries there:

1. Thet have a lot of intact habitat, no dams, and damn few people (so far).

2. The primary fisheries are on chum and pink. There are some hatcheries, but rather small.

3. Primary fisheries are trap and are not very mixed stock.

4. Intensive (weekly or more) management.

5. They have ecosystem-based salmon escapement goals looking at at least 1 and up to 2 kg/sq m.

6. I think there is little interest in steelhead other than by rich foreigners.

Basically, they have habitat, no dams, few hatheries, and don't use auto-pilot management. Since we can't or won't change the preceding, steelhead and salmon (wild) are one the way out here.

t change

The billions and billions of releases of hatchery salmonids by Pacific Rim countries have been going on for a long time, well before the more recent steep declines in steelhead abundance. BTW, do pink and chum fry compete with post-smolt size steelhead in the North Pacific?


https://npafc.org/wp-content/uploads/202...gust-update.png

Darth baiter, I thought about the same thing for a it, but came to the conclustion that while I am not sure if the fry compete with post-smolt size steelhead, I bet a lot of their prey do.

The releases pink and chum into the North Pacific have been correlated (all negative) with various species of salmon's survival, SRKW numbers, Antipodes shearwater populations, and zooplankton. The more fry releases, the bigger the impact. The impacts generally show the well-recognized even-odd variation in pink abundance. But the problem is not planting fish.......