Do you think that Skamania strain summerruns have a higher succes rate of spawning in the wild than our chambers creek winter strain?

I was asking this because ive notticed that Ive been getting more and more unmarked summerruns every year. Theese fish are perfect and clearly not raised in a hatchery environment.

In one of the rivers I fish you can really tell the difference in body shape between the wild and hatchery fish and a good number of theese unmarked fish resemble the Skamania strain more than actual the wild fish.

Somthin else I see is that the hatchery summerruns tend to stray much further than the hatchery winter fish.

Rich,

Yes, but only slightly. The summer runs still carry their negative hatchery baggage, but they spawn very close to the normal time for summer run spawning, unlike the Chambers Creek brats that are totally out of synch. For that reason, if no other, the Skamania fish could be expected to have slightly better reproductive success in the natural environment. Where it gets interesting is in the subsequent generations. The second or third generation of Skamania fish spawning in the wild could be expected to have reproductive success very nearly matching that of native fish in the same environment. I don't know of any data that support this, but it can be inferred from the development of wild summer runs - that physically resemble the Skamania fish - where there were previously few or none.

And summer runs stray notoriously. Tagging at various locations in the Columbia River basin has indicated that summer fish will stray, or dip in, to other than home rivers, only to eventually return to the river they came from as the time approaches for them to spawn. Without straying, there could be no colonization. I think the summer run is the pioneer among steelhead, always seeking to expand the range of habitat where they might reproduce successfully.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,

Do you think it is a good or bad thing that theese skamania fish could possibly re-establish wild stocks that have since gone extinct or are close too it.

I know theese fish can never be the same fish as true native stock, but are they the next best thing?

I know that the Skamania strain has established many wild runs in the great lakes systems. They seem to be really tuff fish and are as close as you can get to wild without useing wild brood.

Only my opinion.

Rich,

I don't think it's as simple as good or bad unless one simply wants to fish and has no care for the remaining ecosystem. When Skamania fish take hold in a system that had few or no native summer runs, you're still not getting a free deal. Something in the system pays for it. If not displaced native summer run production, then very likely it will be displace production of some winter run production, although that should occur mainly at the margin of winter run productivity - but truthfully, we really don't know.

Such new summer run production could also come at the cost of resident trout production. I can't classify that as either good or bad. It is a trade of one type of biodiversity for another. When the summer runs take hold at the expense of any pre-existing population, they do so only because they are reasonably well adapted to the environmental conditions they encounter.

Several of the coastal rivers had native summer run populations, although significantly smaller than the predominant winter run populations. Introduction of Skamania fish most likely results in introgression with the native fish. If the total summer run population seems to have increased, it has occurred at the expense of either or both the native summer and winter fish. There is no free lunch in the environment.

You have to consider the trade offs. Historically there was a native summer run population in the upper Sky, mainly the North Fork. The falls on the South Fork kept that upper sub-basin restricted as resident trout habitat. But the native trout were pretty well fished out; extensive stocking of hatchery trout was commonplace. By coincidence, Skamania summer runs and possibly some remaining endemic summer runs entered the South Fork when salmon were trucked above the falls and have established a population. Is that good or bad? Or just a different fishery diversity than before?

We might regret the loss of the native trout population, but not having the present steelhead - and bull trout - populations or the introduced salmon would not bring the trout back. It's a disturbed ecosystem, and it cannot be made what it was.

Examples abound. Can you imagine Montana without rainbow or brown trout? Trout fishermen love them, but it hasn't been such a hot deal for native cutthroat trout diversity or abundance. Same with the steelhead and salmon in the Great Lakes. They are only well adapted to a handful of tributaries. Most of the populations are hatchery supported, and they do displace other fish, or take up the ecological slack for extirpated species.

Changes in biodiversity are an environmental fact of life. I hope we can hold the regretable ones to a minimum.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well put, as usual, Salmo G. If we have learned nothing else we have learned that mother nature is mysterious and we don't have more than a rudimentary understanding of how she works. Whether it be man made wetlands to mitigate for wetlands destroyed by housing and/or commercial development, or man made fish (hatchery stock)to mitigate for destroyed native runs, man does not do a better job than nature. We have a better shot of understanding what the carrying capacity of a stream system is, I still think what goes on in the ocean habitat is a real mystery. It also has cycles that we are just beginning to understand. We, as committed stewards of the resource that we love to catch, must work on those things that we have control of. First and foremost, statewide release of all native steelhead! If we can get that instituted, then we occupy a moral high ground that may allow us to address tribal netting, environmental/habitat issues, and commercial netting of salmon. Until then, we are just another complaining user group wanting "our share". I know this rant is somewhat off topic - however, the one thing that nature teaches us is that nothing we do to the resource exists in a vacuum. Every action we take will have a corresponding reaction in the ecosystem and in the political system. Thanks for listening.

[This message has been edited by eddie (edited 03-21-2001).]

Rock and roll Salmo G !! Very well thought out stuff! However, as you point out, there is no good data to suggest that hatchery summer runs have any significant introgression to date on our coast. Good experiments are lacking, and most have addressed the topic of genetic drift from winter Chambers Cr clones. With regard to our coastal rivers, it is somewhat doubtful that there ever was an independent thriving native trout population in the last 15,000 years. Folks figure they got fished out but that's probably not true. In fact, the profile of our coastal rivers reflects a fascinating trait of the steelhead. Rainbow trout are the ultimate dimorphic species. They maintain both a "native trout" and an anadromous population component of each river population. In rivers such as ours, with such deplete nutrient bases, the anadromous aspect of the dimorphism is the most economic to sustain, as survival with an ocean-going parent seems to work best, and very few streamborn natives result. Current evidence suggests that a parent of either sub-type can beget the other (ie. a steelhead spawns and one of a thousand fry decides to be a native trout). Of course the natives certainly don't survive around here, without much food in our glacial rivers. In the Great Lakes you bet they are adaptive. In fact if a piece of river or stream touches Lake Michigan, it will guaranteed have a population of spawning salmon and steelhead. The Great Lakes model proves the adaptive potential of our hatchery stocks, and is further evidence that current hatchery practices should be abandoned in favor of native broodstock programs. That is if we value wild genetics, and realize that each river comprises a totally unique population of fish (that's why those peninsula hogs are so thick, and the Sky fish are more long and sleek). For my two cents, I think if ANY wild fish remain, even if they're sadly depleted, we should stop stocking the river with clones. If the run is extinct, then perhaps a clonal supplement could be in order. Sorry for the rant, too much coffee, over and out.

I grew up on the Washougal where the Skamania (mongrel) steelhead was fabricated. This is the fish that destroyed the Washougal native runs and cemented my opinion on hatcheries. Keep in mind that most runs in the great lakes area are still being planted with skamania steelhead. After talking to many of the people from that area it is my opinion that natural production based off hatchery plants is extreme;y limited and rare. In their home river, the Washougal Skamania have been of absolutely no benefit. Since the late 1980's returns have been extremely small providing only a token fishery for locals. Skamanias will typically move very quickly through the system and when they do hold up it is in the deepest slowest water. It is my not so humble opinion that the production of skamania steelhead should be halted imediatly and at the very least the outplanting of these fish be discontinued.
I have seen hundreds of skamania steelhead spawning in the Washougal yet there is never an increase in unclipped fish. I think their reproductive suceess has always been and still is next to nothing. The good point in this is that any wild fish in areas where skamania steelhead exsist are very likely completely unaffected by skamania stock genetics.

if it is the survival of the native species that is desired should unclipped skamania be released? I'm with eddie for statewide release of native fish.

Thanks for all the input.

Theese Skamania fish spread like wild fire. Ive caught them on many rivers that dont even get a summer plant. Rivers such as the Hoko, Upper Bogie, Dickey, Hoh, and have heard of a few coming out of Goodman.

Rich have the fish you caught in thoes places been clipped strays or unclipped?
They are notorious for straying it's not uncommon for Skamania hatchery fish from the Washougal to be caught as far upriver as the Deschutes summer over there then return back to the Washougal.
Skamania summer runs planted in the South toutle have had a very negative impact on the wild winter steelhead there and likely have the same impact everywhere they exsist

Hmmmm, How have Skamania summer-run fish affected winter-run fish in the Toutle, or for that matter the Washougal? I'm having a problem with your logic. If the Skamanias are not good reproducers, then how are they going to take over a run?

My home river is the Skykomish, and the hatchery summer-run over most of the 90s have been outstanding. In most years, the hatchery got its escapement before August and in December it was a toss-up of whether you were going to hook a mint-bright winter brat or a black summer-run at Reiter (Reiter Ponds Hatchery drift). None of these remaining hatchery summer-runs were collected by the hatchery and most anglers were releasing them because of their color. Presumably you had a lot of them spawning in the main river over many years of the 90s. Yet, every year I catch less than a handful of native (unclipped) summer-run fish, indicative of the very small run of summer fish that historically used the basin.

These fish have not likely mixed with the native winter-run in the Sky either, because of very little overlap in spawn timing.

What is the mechanism of disruption that causes the problems? From what I've heard, both the summer and winter-runs (native) on the Washougal have been depressed for some time now. Could there be another reason for the declines, like logging/development? I really don't know that area, but they plant Skamanias in a lot of Puget Sound streams that have enough water during the summer, and there appear to be minimal interactions.

Well the rivers down here generally have excellent habitat in the upper reaches and poor habitat in the lower sections much like the puget sound streams. I don't know why Skamania summer runs affect wild fish. I just know that during the mid- late 80's the South Toutle was the only sttream in southwest Washington to be meeting it's escapement goals. As soon as the Skamania fish were planted the Toutle failed to reach it's escapement goals inspite of WSR regs having been implimented. Conversely an increase in returning wild summer runs in the Wind river occured last summer it was also the first year of no Skamania fish influence. The jump was from an average of around 30 fish to 150 fish. Keep in mind also that the Skamania steelhead isnot the same as the Washougal strain fish. The skamania stock was concieved back in the 1970's where hatchery workers took the largest males and bred them with the largest females in an attempt to create a "super race" of steelhead. This program has a history of disease and other hatchery problems that has unfortunatly spread to the Washougals Wild fish most notably IHN.

There's no data that support any introgression from Skamania-strain hatchery fish to any summer or winter fish in Washington state rivers. As for the Great Lakes, after having lived there for 28 years I've found that many streams no longer have a hatchery plant yet receive tremendous runs of fish annually due to naturally reproducing populations (primarily in the spring, but some summer runs as well). I'm talking about rivers that are so filled with fish piling up on each other in every piece of holding water you wouldn't believe it. These fish spawn successfully, there is no doubt in the world.

Then my question to you is why aren't the rivers around here filled with skamania fish? As soon as they were no longer planted in the Wind river they completely disapeared. When they slashed the numbers planted in the Washougal the numbers declined drastically! same with the East Lewis river. Why havent they take a strong hold in deer creek on the Stilly? Why haven't they taken hold in the Klickitat and the dozens of other rivers they have been planted in? There is no introgression because when they spawn in the wild they do not reporduce( at least on the west coast) A study done on the Kalama has shown that even though progeny of hatchery fish spawning in the river vastly outnumber wild progeny theunclipped returning adults are almost exclusively of wild decent. It is clear in every study i have seen that hatchery steelhead when spawning in the wild here on the west coast they do not reproduce!
The famed Deschutes river in central Oregon is now in what is called reproductive failure meaning that the fish spawning are not replacing themselves at a sustainable rate. Studies have also shown 70% of spawners in the Deschutes are out of basin hatchery strays. Hatchery steelhead for whatever reason reproduce extremely poor in the wild and Skamanias are a no exclusion. I have an empty river to prove it

Have been on the plus side of the Skamania fish with a 19lb summer run taken at the bowling alley drift on the Washougal, and have seen the decline of the same run over the years on the same river. I thought that the Wind was not going to be planted anymore, is that right? Hope that the same will be true for the Klickitat and the Washougal.thanks

Skyrise. you are correct they quit planting the Wind a few years ago. Last summer was the first year of no hatchery return for the wind and it was the best run in the last 5 or 6 years. It's still closed to steelheading though.
First thing i'd like to see is the halting of the planting of the East fork and the Klickitat and anywhere else hatcher fish cant be collected at a hatchery. Unfortunatly the Washougal has the hatchery so it is not likely they will stop planting it.