Ok, Doomsday is here!!!!

The last "wild native" (genetic) steelhead is now gone forever in your river! C&R isn't an option anymore, because all the "Natives" are now gone. So what do we do if we still want to continue our sport fishing in that same river system?

According to majority of the postings on this board (my opinion), doomsday is almost here. So what options do we really have left?

Now what do we do as fishermen? Do we attempt to get some short of "genetic tissue" from the few fish left, in a good faith attempt to "bring them back" in the future, or do we move on? If so, onto what? What does "moving on" really mean to this board of fishermen?

Let's just "pretend" that this scenario has happened, and that we are now facing a new time and reality (no wild native fish left). What will be our choices and options if this is our true future? We already know what the ones who live, die and promote "wild" fish recovery will say, and we also know that they truly believe that it can be turned around. But what If they can not do it?

With that being said, I would like to hear from the 3000+ members on this board that may have different options and views of what our fisheries will be, if in fact this does becomes a reality!

This thread is not meant to prove which side is right or wrong, it's only meant to make us think what our alternatives and options are if our wild fish recovery efforts fails. Please don't attack any other members who answers may differ from yours. This is just a thread that will allow everyone to see what others may think the "alternatives" may be. Let's see all the science, thoughts, and any other options that may be out there. Like it or not, If the wild fish recovery don't make it, we will need some other options! Better to discuss them now instead of later!

Thanks ahead of time, and please, no personal attacks on anyone suggestions. If a suggestion is bad, please explain why you believe that it is a bad one.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

If our post-wild fish are anything like the Wind River springers or the Lewis River summer steelies we'll get along just fine, thank you.

Just reading that sent chills down my back, That really would be dooms day. I would loose all my sense if all the wild fish were gone.

Fishing for hatchery punes with no wild chrome... Might as well dam every river and sell whats left to the indians. Wild Steel is were it all began. I wish there were no hatcheries and loads of fish...dream on

Honestly, I would move to Alaska. They can come back. there are rivers that are doing it right now. These rivers were decimated to nothing then forgoten about. Im not gonna name them as they dont need a bunch of people fishing them but they can have spectactular wild steelhead fishing and from the recent reports ive gotten one of them is better than any of the OP rivers right now. And gues what hardly anybody is fishin it because people dont think the wild ones exist anymore.

One of them is near you Cowlitzfisherman.

Heres an idea how about we take all the hatchery smolts and place them in varios feeder streams on rivers as soon as they hatch so they grow up in the wild and maybe if we are lucky they will take on the characteristics of a native fish. Not the same but atleast there will be naturally spawning fish in our rivesrs again. just my two lincolns worth

What if this, what if that...how about we be a little optimistic, put some serious hardwork, time and energy and maybe a even a little sacrifice into saving our native/wild salmonids populations.

How about we put the fish first?...If we do, in the end, we will come out winners!

I know that last comment was corney...sorry!

The free spawning fish would eventually become that river's native wild fish. They would eventually develop characteristics that would set them apart from other rivers. Granted, they would always share some, as all steelhead do now.

I guess I am as concerned about the preservation of the health of a river as I am with the preservation of a true "native" run that goes back before whites arrived. To me protecting the health of a river is also protecting the health of our open spaces and forests and water quality, you know, tree huggin crap.

Mainly saying= death of the last wild fish is a [Bleeeeep!] up on our part, we would have, at that point, [Bleeeeep!] off. But even if we destroyed all fish for 4 years, fish would come, oh yes they would come, they wouldnt know why, but they would come. A yearning in them would pull them here. They would come and they would pay, pay to watch basebal... er...... um......

I hope that someone would figure out why they went away or possibly we are like what that guy in "The Matrix" said: "We are not mammals, every other mammal develops an equalibrium with it's enviroment".

Gee, Wally there is so much land.

Fish for bass. j/k

Brood stock/hatchery's/brood stock/hatchery's////
C-n-R.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE
P.S. Ban all net's

Become an Canadian citizen and move to Smithers BC
A State without wild steelhead is not worth living in. Spend a year fishing the Washougal and the East lewis and you'll soon agree

Robert Allen --- I have to disagree. I can't speak for the Washougal, but I have fished the north and east forks of the Lewis River since 1960 (hmmmm, that's 42 years!).

Our fishing today is as good, and in many ways better, than at any time in all those years on those rivers. Winter steelhead are down somewhat on both forks as are springers, for sure. Summer steelhead though are 10-fold better, and coho are every bit as good as I've ever seen.

Fall chinook this year on the North Fork will be more plentiful than at any time in the last 11 years. These are not my numbers --- they are publications of the F@W departments of Oregon and Washington.

Even generalizing to the Columbia as a whole finds good fishing when compared with historical levels of runs. This fall we will see the third highest run of fall chinook entering the Columbia since 1948 --- that run will be the highest in 12 years. Even the lowered estimate for Columbia River coho this fall will be the fourth highest in 12 years.

All this doesn't even take into account last year's record runs of both fall chinook and coho, and that includes the highest numbers of returning coho on the Lewis that any of us have ever seen. And the number of fall chinook and coho seen on the east fork Lewis this year was really encouraging.

It is easy to gripe about the "decline" in fishing. But it just ain't so. These are the "good old days".

Thumper, I fish Columbia tribs and you couldn't be more correct! The last five years for the rivers I fish have been DYNOMITE!

The Silver numbers...well you already know about that. And summer run Steelhead well heck you know all about that to!

FJ...out.

Thumper I said nothing about the quality of fishing opportunities.
I said the number of WILD steelhead...

As a fly angler I can do ok on summer fish. but relying on hatchery fish for winter steelhead flyfishing absolutely sucks!!!
I put in about 15 days of fly fishing on th East Lewis and Washoudal this winter, I caught exactly one fish and guess what it was a wild fish.
Having lots of hatchery fish means absolutely nothing to me without wild steelhead to me a river is useless.
As for the Washougal It is absolutely nothing compared to what it used to be and I can't imagine the East Fork is any better that in was either but I just started fishing it 3 years ago..
I have been fishing the Washougal however for about 20 years having grown up on it's banks and I can say as an expert ong the river, compared to the 1980's it absolutely sucks!! When was the last time anyone you know had a 10 fish day there lately??? they were pretty common for me when I was a kid.

As for Salmon on the Washougal the hatchery needs to be closed ASAP or at least eliminate the Chinook program. The Washougal chinook fishery is 100% a snagging fishery!!!

The East Lewis in my opinion is a poor fishery and does not provide a quality experience. Sure you can go there and catch some fish. But it is almost entirely a combat fishing situation unless you have a boat.
Thoes stupid chambers creek fish only hold in certain holes leaving the rest of the river vacant to me although there are plenty of fish it's not an enjoyable fishery.

I'm with RA3 ... can you say dual-citizenship?? Kamchatka?? Can I get triple-citizenship???

Oh yeah, I'd say I told you so on my way to my new home :p

I've dreamed about Kamchatka ever since I saw Soveral give a presentation at a FFF show many years back.

One can only dream...

Robert, Robert, Robert ---- Maybe you need to switch from fly-fishing to something that works....like bobbers and jigs. Honest, there are a ton of fish out there. We got three wild fish over 20 pounds last spring alone just at Daybreak Park, all within a week. Is it possible that you are just not fishing??

Thumper I bet thoes were the only 3 wild fish you caught all year too. For the past 3 winters I have put in an average of about 30 days per winter On the East Fork and Washougal combined , Mostly on the East Fork I have caught 1 fish on a fly and it was a wild fish. last year I spent exactly 2 days on the Hoh with the same result as 60 days locally. Likewise the year before in 5 days on the Sauk I caught 1 fish. Fly fishing works for steelhead Just not the lethargic chmbers creek fish they put in the East lewis that gang up in 5 or 6 pools that are accessible by foot which are full of gear fishermen. I am not denying that there are good numbers of hatchery fish there they do not however provide a quality experience!

The chambers creek fish hold in the following pools
Under the daybreak bridge, The powerline run, The Arabs hole and a couple of the high banked pools and a couple spots in lewisville park. Thats it for bank fishermen. The East Lewis used to provide that it no longer does. the wild fish population is in the low hundreds and there are literally more fishermen than fish.
For me a quality experience involves fish that will respond to a fly and in conditions where I can find a little elbow room. That is why I'd leave my beloved State and move to BC.
And that is why I don't like fishing the East Lewis

As a fly/jig/spinner fisherman, I gotta say Thumper, better come down off that soap box before a good fly fisherman knocks you off. Sure, you can catch more fish in more places with floats, but in the right place and time, a fly can be fished as well. I had a slow day on Oregon's North Coast last winter when I fished float/jig 8 hours with no success. Fished 2 with the fly and landed a 10 pound native. My 8 weight saved the day. This fall on the Deschutes, I did better with flies than spinners. The conditions do have to be right, but it works! I usually save a few ideal holes for the fly rod when fishing for winter nates. Guess what...I have about the same success ratios with either technique! Of course, there are many holes that you just cannot fish well with a fly, so a good fly fisherman has to select his water carefully.
As for the idea that we're going to lose all our wild steelhead......Here we go again! Isn't this fun!? Anyone out there tired of this one? Maybe we're lucky here in beaverland. Still lots of nates, although the mid 90's were really scary. My home river, the Clackamas had a return over Rivermill dam in '96 or '97 of 122 wild winter steelhead after averaging 1000 to 2000 in the '70's and '80's. ODFW then discontinued planting hatchery trout and steelhead in the upper river. Since then, it's been rebounding slowly. I think last year, there were about 800 wild fish over the dams. On the North Coast, oh man! These are the good ole' days! I've not been skunked in my last 8 or 10 trips going back to 2000. Lots of nates, many big nates. Of course, I target wild fish, so I'm fishing rivers that are known for their native fish and in some cases (Trask, Nehalem), are managed by ODFW for wild steelhead. More power to ODFW! Great fishing in February and March and those fish don't cost taxpayers a dirty dime! Fight twice as hard as brats too. That's all from me tonight.

Wild Chrome I am not trying to be on any soapbox. Robert Allen says that fishing on the East Lewis sucks with his fly rod, and I maintain that it has been fantastic with a bobber rod. Maybe the difference is in the technique, not in the number of fish. That's all. If fly fishing doesn't work when gear fishing does, I can't see how one can blame the fish!

Actually I don't target natives. Seems kinda cruel. I prefer to eat the ones I catch, not just hassle/release them. Fishing on the East Fork Lewis has been great. I love hatchery fish!

Guess I'll just buy a volume discount pass to the Acropolis' lunch buffets. Hell with fishing anymore.

How about cloning after habitat restoration.

Cowlitz Fisherman

You are a stud. You have taken it one step farther. So far not to many solutions though. Seems more like a love it (as it is, or is going), or leave it ( I won't live in a state with no wild fish ). I am not as against the wild fish as my last thread may have made me sound. I just wanted to see what everyone thought. This should be neat!!!

Elgaupo and Chuck

Sounds pretty cool if it would work. Lets do that with some wild stock. Back it up with some small stream restoration/protection, as well as estuary protection and bird depradation ellimination.

Thumper

Your name sounds a little like Sirbonkalot, at least the meaning is the same. Notice I have not said BONK one time. (Until now anyway)

I could not agree with you more. The fishing has been fantastic on the Lewis and Cowlitz systems, thanks to the hatchery programs. Almost makes you wish for more....But then there is that impact on the wild fish....If there are any....I love hatcheries they make so many fish to **** (You know).

Solution, ban all NETTING in rivers for the next 4 years and see what this does for the Native Runs.

Ban Netting + CnR all Nate's = High Mortality rate for the Native Runs improve Drastickly.

Now lets convince the Polititicians of this Idea........

Born to Fish Forced to Work......

cowlitzfisherman:

Your innitial post was to the effect that the very last native steelhead was gone. You cannot restore something that is extinct!

I agree there can be a happy medium we are however still too far on the leaning towards hatchery fish side.
Every river that recieves a steelhead run is planted with hatchery fish, even thoes that have not hatchery.
As of yet there is nothing in our hatchery managment that takes wild fish into consideration. We are not yet managing for wild steelhead other than limiting harvest.

We are doing very little habitat restoration we are changing very little about how we manage hatchery fish.
Exuse me for getting angry but just what the hell do you wanna do to balance things out??? The State of Washington is already DOING NOTHING to save wild steelhead especially in terms of hatchery managment. So anything that is done to "balance things out" has to be done in the interest of wild fish. There is no way to increase hatchery production and have it be good for wild fish..

There is more than enough hatchery fish in all our rivers to sustain enough harvest for everyone! You cannot say you want more hatchery fish and say you want to restore wild runs the two things are absolutely contradictory!
To achieve a balance we need FEWER hatchery fish plain and simple any argument against this fact is an argument against ALL the avaliable science. There is no science that says otherwise. People who want more hatchery fish have to by deffinition want fewer wild fish. Thats the only way it works,

DC CnR release mortality using proper methods is 3% or less.

I guess I don't understand all the fuss about hatchery vs native fisheries. I travel a bit and have witnessed marvelous salmon and steelhead fishing in upstate New York as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. Not just gear guys either. I've seen a lot of very happy flyfishermen with their G-Loomis rods and elegant reels yanking their fair share of some very magnificent hatchery fish out of those waters too.

And not a native fish anywhere to be seen, except for a rare atlantic salmon mixed in with all the chinook and skamania strain steelhead on the Oswego and Salmon rivers in upstate New York.

Again, no native fish. All of these runs are professionally and intensely-managed hatchery efforts using stocks that we Northwesterners provided. Little ones out, big ones back. Happy, happy fishermen, and with generally good reason because there are many more fish per fisherman there than we have here, by far.

What am I missing? What is this abiding distaste for hatchery fish? Where we have native runs of either salmon or steelhead that can feasibly be protected let's do it (for example, the North Fork Lewis fall chinook). But where we have predominantly hatchery fish get out there and enjoy them.

Thumper I agree get out and enjoy them and take them out of the system. The problem with hatchery fish is 1 when we plant them in such large numbers they outcompete the wild juveniles and when they return as adults, stray from the hatchery and spawn in the wild.

As far as a game fish All i can say that as a fly fishermen i have more chance of cathching 1 of the 2-300 wild winter runs in the East lewis that 1 of the 1500-2000 hatchery fish becuase the hatchery fish are not nearly as aggressive.
You should also know, and this is obvious, there is no hatchery on the East Lewis therefore every hatchery fish that is not harvest remains in the system and spawns. recent studies have shown that for every pair hatchery fish spawning in the wild the reporductive siccess of a native pair is eliminated.

Never ever no matter what under any circumstances never release a hatchery fish that you catch on a river that has no hatchery!!

This is not about being anti-hatchery fish it's about looking at reality. Hatchery fish are bad for wild fish there is no way around that. The Cowlitz is the only river I know of that no longer has a wild run big enough to save. All the other rivers have a good chance if we do the right things now.
I oppose the idea of giving up and only managing for hatchery fish. Therefore I oppose increasing hatchery plants anywhere. There are plenty of hatchery fish in all our rivers already and increasing thoes numbers WILL decrease the number of wild fish.
decreasing the number of wild fish on any river in Washington state in unacceptable to me and I would expect to almost every angler in the state of Washington.

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/jan0702a.htm

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/jan2402a.htm

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/feb2002e.htm

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/feb2002c.htm

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/feb2002b.htm

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/regs/regchng/feb2002a.htm

nothing??????

Robert Allen --- I understand your frustration concerning the East Fork Lewis. I am interested in what you would specifically suggest for this river. Give us a solution that you would support. Does it involve termination of hatchery plantings?

Thumper,
I'll tell you why I have a distaste for hatchery brats: They don't fight well. They're like catching bass when you're fishing for steelhead. The natives are so much bigger, stronger, more aggressive, jump more, jump higher, run more.....etc. When fishing a river like the Clackamas or Deschutes that supports nates and brats, I can usually tell within 5 seconds if I've got a wild or hatchery fish on. Maybe 10% of the time I'm wrong. The first wild winter Oregon coast steelhead I ever landed jumped 9 times! The first 5 or 6 jumps were probably 6 feet out of the water. How many of you have caught a winter brat like that? How many have caught a summer brat like that? Out of the >100 winter and summer brats I've caught, I've had 1 fish jump more than 3 or 4 times (an early summer hen that jumped 6 times). I've lost count of how many really hot wild fish I've caught (not to brag, just to make a point). I have to assume that many people participating in these wild vs. hatchery threads have not caught any/many fresh wild steelhead because they don't know the magnitude of this difference. Wild steelhead are like a different species. For fishermen interested in sport instead of fillets, wild fish are way superior! I enjoy steelhead fillets as much as anyone...I'm having them tonight as a matter of fact, but for those who fish more for sport than for food, there is absolutely no comparison.

Thumper I don't care how it's done but if we are to protect the wild fish in the East Lewis river we have to eliminate hatchery fish before they spawn. I beieve terminating the hatchery plants is the best way to do that. Whats wrong with setting ONE river aside?? One river out of the whole state! but since that is never going to happen. my next suggestion would be to put a fish trap just above the lweisville boat ramp and only passing the wild fish above that. I don't know how else to do it..

To the poster above ( can't remember who it was)
about the closures to protect wild fish.. Thats exactly my point. thank you.

Bob All 3,
This is a hot issue on the Sandy river right now. The problem is, it takes a lot of money to put in a fish weir. I've talked to several Oregon fisheries biologists who believe it's eventually going to come down to certain rivers managed for brats, other rivers managed for natives. I'm skeptical if there's another solution that would be acceptable to all the competing parties.
Coming soon to a river near you......A knockdown, dragout fight over "To brat, or not to brat; That is the question!"

Wild Chrome you may very well be right. In that case the East lewis not having a hatchery would be a prime example of a place to manage as a wild fish river. it's also of interest a Fishing Comservation group of which i am a member proposed the idea of brat rivers and wild rivers WDFW staff over 10 years ago. it was rejected coldly.

here everyone read this...

Hatcheries actually hurt survival of salmon, new study concludes
The Vancouver Sun
Thu 28 Feb 2002
Scott Simpson

In a challenge to conventional views about the value of fish hatcheries, a new report warns hatchery programs are actually wiping out the fish they're trying to save.
Oregon biologist Mark Chilcote reviewed steelhead data on 12 Oregon rivers collected over 26 years and concludes that hatchery fish are poor breeders -- one-third to one-eighth as effective as native fish. They also pass on that deadly trait to their wild cousins as the two groups intermingle on spawning grounds.

Chilcote's work has serious implications in British Columbia where, since the late 1970s, the federal government has spent more than $1 billion on salmon hatcheries. The province has pursued a steelhead recovery program that has failed to keep many south coast and Vancouver Island runs from veering towards extinction.

In a paper to be presented today to the Oregon chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Chilcote warns that the more hatchery fish you put into a system, the faster the native population declines.

"The number of naturally produced fish can be expected to decline as the presence of hatchery fish in the spawning population increases," the paper says.

"The results of this study suggest that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of brood stock origin and quality, are ineffective at producing offspring that survive to adulthood."

For example, he says a population of 300 wild spawners produces more returning adults than 2,400 hatchery spawners.

A draft copy of Chilcote's paper, which is being submitted to the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, was obtained by The Vancouver Sun.

Chilcote says reacting to lower fish populations by adding more hatchery fish could accelerate the decline because removing more native fish to boost the hatchery population effectively robs the stream of its most proficient spawners.

Chilcote has spend 29 years as a steelhead specialist, geneticist and conservation program leader with the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife.

His conclusions don't just apply south of the border where indiscriminate breeding programs have used multi-generation hatchery fish to boost waning stocks in troubled rivers -- thereby escalating the threat of breeding failure.

British Columbia's conservative policy of breeding only native fish to create the next generation of hatchery steelhead, annually removing about 10 per cent of a given population, is seen as equally culpable. On a better-than-average Lower Mainland stream with an annual return of 500 steelhead, about 25 breeding pairs of wild fish would be removed each year as hatchery brood stock.

About another 10 per cent of the wild population is lost because of mortal injuries suffered during capture and release by anglers.

Under the B.C. program, anglers are allowed to keep hatchery fish -- identifiable by a clipped adipose fin on their backs -- but must release all wild fish.

Chilcote says native fish captured for hatchery breeding are only marginally more successful than semi-domesticated hatchery fish at propagating themselves -- and neither group is even half as productive as fish that are left in the wild.

On some Lower Mainland and east coast Vancouver Island streams where the wild-capture breeding programs operated, winter steelhead populations have plummeted to less than 20 fish in recent years, forcing long-term angling closures.

On other streams where wild populations were large, such as the 5,000-steelhead Chilliwack-Vedder, the percentage of wild fish withdrawn for hatchery spawning was significantly below 10 per cent and those streams continue to thrive.

B.C. fisheries biologists say some of the decline on smaller streams is due to climate change, although Chilcote says he took climate change into account when calculating the impact of hatchery programs.

A fish and wildlife branch spokesman acknowledged that Chilcote's report raises some troubling questions and noted hatchery programs on some of the worst-hit streams such as the Capilano River have already been cancelled.

"We are going to take it seriously and have a look at it," said fish and wildlife use branch director Don Peterson. "We have our own concerns about the anadromous [seagoing fish] stocking programs and the impact they may be having on wild populations."

Peterson noted the branch is also funding long-term genetic research and alternative enhancement methods such as boosting the nutrient levels in streams in order to make food more abundant for hatchling fish.

Immediately after Chilcote presents his findings, Oregon fish and wildlife colleague Tom Nickerson is presenting a paper suggesting similar problems exist with coho salmon hatcheries.

Chilcote could not be reached for comment but Nickerson said after reviewing coho returns to Oregon streams in the 1990s, it appears hatchery programs are depressing wild salmon stocks.

Nickerson suggests that the release of massive numbers of hatchery coho smolts into Oregon rivers -- as many as a million into a single stream -- attracts exceptional numbers of salmon predators such as seals and seabirds. Wild smolts are among the victims of the subsequent feeding frenzies.

"I found that the more hatchery fish you had, the lower the productivity [of the wild fish]," Nickerson said. "There was a negative relationship with hatchery fish."

Salmon enhancement staff with the department of fisheries and oceans declined to comment on the studies. They have interbred coho and wild salmon in their programs, in a manner similar to that of the Americans.

Habitat and enhancement section spokesperson Carrie Mishima said Chilcote's report on steelhead falls within the provincial government's mandate, and said federal staff want to see Nickerson's full report before commenting on its implications for hatchery coho programs in B.C.

The department has drastically scaled back its salmon hatchery programs in recent years, and spent about $23.5 million in the last fiscal year on programs including hatcheries, community involvement and habitat restoration.

Coho releases from all hatcheries in B.C. in 2001 totalled

4.1 million fry and 11.1 million smolts. These numbers included releases from hatcheries operated by DFO, hatcheries operated under contract to the federal government and hatcheries operated by community groups.

The department has not issued annual reports on the effectiveness of its coho enhancement programs since the early 1990s, and a 1998 Simon Fraser University report on an ongoing coho population crash in B.C., Washington and Oregon says the department has little information about wild stocks off the southern B.C. coast.

However, the report does note a decline in reproductive ability of coho over the last 18 years.

Steelhead Society of B.C. president Scott Baker-McGarva predicts the report will generate controversy because hatcheries generate fish that anglers are able to harvest. He said there is "no doubt" many sport fishing lobbyists will reject Chilcote's conclusions if it means they can no longer keep the fish they catch.

"There is a social argument, and a science argument," Baker-McGarva said.

Steelhead society director Poul Bech, a former fisheries technician who carried out the B.C. government's steelhead enhancement program in the Lower Mainland region, said "this study shows that hatchery programs are often not beneficial and sometimes are actually a detriment to wild steelhead populations."

He said wild steelhead have adapted genetically to survive a variety of challenges in their natal streams, the ocean and along migration routes.

"Climate, ocean and stream conditions are changing at unprecedented rates resulting in potentially dire consequences for steelhead populations," Bech said.

"If wild steelhead populations are to survive over the long term, the priority must be to maximize the adaptive potential of those populations to ensure the best possible chance of successfully adapting to conditions as they change."

Lynn Hunter
Fisheries and Aquaculture Specialist
The David Suzuki Foundation
11-630 Huxley Street
Victoria, BC V8Z 3X8
Phone 250-479-0937
Fax 250-479-9154

Robert Allen --- I think you are out of luck if you think that local fisherfolks in Southwest Washington would stand still for a stop to hatchery plants on the East Fork Lewis. But the weir or trap above Lewisville would seem to make some sense. Have you ever talked to the Fish First people about your idea?

Wild Chrome --- I know that my opinion is in the minority here, but I think you are wrong to generalize about the fighting abilities of hatchery vs wild steelhead. True there are wimpy brats, but there are also ass-kickers like our North Fork Lewis summer hatchery fish. Virtually all are in the range of 8-14 pounds and they will tear you up. We've had them nearly jump over the boat. Wonderful fighters. On the other hand, the really large wild fish (15-20+ pounders) that I have caught on the East Fork Lewis in recent years have been very poor fighters for the most part. The males in particular just kinda swim around like a big old submarine. Most do not jump at all. Generalizing in either case is probably not very useful.

Robert Allen3

This isn't about some ones thesis, or paid for study, this is about "options"! Please don't come down on other posters that think, and have different opinions other then yours. Let's first hear what everyone else has to say before anyone else criticize what they have said. We have all seen enough studies now to gag a fish! Lets just see what "others" think may be the answer. Fair enough?

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Bob All 3

Get over yourself already!!!! We all know that the science proves that the brats are bad for the nates. OK! Enough said about that. Now, lets face the realities of the situation.

Most, if not all of the river systems along the I-5 coradore have at least one hatchery on them. So you would most likely be out of luck shuting down those hatcheries.

Wait, I think the Stilligaumish system is devoid of hatcheries, so there is one that could be managed for nates with restricted fishing methods (flyfishing only). Yea Baby!

As for the lewis/cowlitz/snohomish/kalama etc....Rivers with established runs of hatchery fish on at least one of the tributaries, shuting them down will not happen. Population densities, and poularity with BONKERS from accross the state will keep the hatcheries alive and well (I know, hurting the wild poulation).

Perhaps a few rivers out on the coast could be operated for nate only.

You have to remember that money(Bonkers) talks, and as the majority will get their way.

Nothing will be simple, but I really like the way Cowlitz Fisherman is going.

To Bob All 3, How about the N.F Stillaguamish, I believe Lee Wolf helped in designating that as a a fly fishing only section of river . I believe that season starts in April. As far as I know,
there are no hatcheries on that river.

If you've never fished it, the runs are beautiful and the scenery is spectacular.

Wild Chrome

I was just re reading all of the replies, and something you said caught my attention!

You said; "I target wild fish, so I'm fishing rivers that are known for their native fish and in some cases (Trask, Nehalem), are managed by ODFW for wild steelhead. More power to ODFW! Great fishing in February and March and those fish don't cost taxpayers a dirty dime!"

Whenever any state agency "manages" our resources, it's costing us plenty of money! It doesn't really matter if they are managing it for either "hatchery" or "wild" fish. If the money isn't spent on "hatcheries", then it will still will get spent! The "money" always is COMPLETLY spent! Usually it almost always spent on their own jobs and their benefits. Just look around and smell the roses!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Well guys i'll tell you what all you guys who want more hatchery fish better not start complaining when rivers start to close (as is already happening). That is what WILL happen!

Adding more hatchery fish will cause continued decline of wild stocks at as a result more and more rivers will close as a result, and you better not say a word about it! If you want to pressure WDFW to plant more fish then the decline of wild steelhead is directly your fault so you better not complain when every river is closed because of additional ESA listings!
It seems to me that some of you aew unwilling to give up anything in the short term to help the long term survival of out quarry. I am saddened that you feel that way.

Cowlitzfisherman,
The Trask and Nehalem hatchery programs were actually eliminated in large part due to budget shortfalls. Guess which fish cost more to manage?

Thumper,
It's nice to hear about hard fighting fish regardless of their origins. The few hot brats I have hooked have been early summer-runs west of the Cascades. Most of them are not as hot as the wild fish I've caught in the same rivers. I've never hooked what I would consider a really hot winter brat. I think the difference between wild and hatchery is greater when the water's cold. East of the Cascades, which is where I do most of my summer steelheading, I have never caught a brat that has fought as well as an average native. I think the natives retain their strength better on the long trip out of the ocean.

Incidently, on the Deschutes, the fish are counted as they pass over Shears Falls. Last year the ratio was 5 brats per native. The ratio of fish caught was one to one! (those were ODFW's numbers, not mine. See Frank Amato's column in STS for more details).

Regarding large natives not jumping, that's not a wild vs hatchery thing, that's a big steelhead thing. The big bucks (>15 pounds) don't jump much. They fight more like chinooks.

There is a world of diference between a hatchery fish and a wild fish in the fight,size and inteligence!There are two hatchery runs on my favorite river the old run that hangs on from the seventys and the clipped fish that the state just dumps in to justify a fishery.Both those runs of fish don't even really fight,just roll around on the end of the line!They do not get over 8 lbs and will hold in a section of the river even when they clearly know you are there.Anybody with any time with native fish can tell right off the bat whether it is a hatch or wild winter run.Summer run fish are a diferant story due to water temp and the fact that they come into the river to hang out for awile not just to reproduce!

I have to agree that money talks and that is exactly why we will see,almost in our life time,a very important part of the balance of nature,the wild steelhead,disapear.This saddens me deaply because hatch fish will never compete in my world,with gods creations.Every river and trib has a slighty diferant wild fish.Bigger tail smaller tails ,The colors they change into as blend back into there childhood home all means alot to me and my obsession.

Unfortunately CF prediction is not far off I am afraid,and still no responsibility by the state,just more mismanagment.I am afraid that the returns to the quilliute sytem this spring is going to once again show the absolute inefectiveness of this MSY b.s

I am glad that they are going to change the hatch program as it is need of a revamping entirely.Anybody that thinks that a cement pool full of fish being hand fed and manhandled by man can replace nature is not looking for the truth.I have been working at the quilicene hatch for a few weeks clipping fish,just to get an idea how this works.There is no part of the real world incorporated into the hatchery to prepare the fish for life.Instead the state has relied on big numbers of of ignorant helpless smolt to obtain a small return.This wrong and does not give nature one bit of credit.

It does seem that the only places that the hatchery programs seem to work are where the native fish are not an issue.Think about that.I am fortunate enough to know the diferance but my kids may not,then it will not matter,right?

Hatcheries are hear to stay but that does not justify killing off the nates.There are good number of rivers that need to be shut down period.Not subsidised with hatcheries.This policy of planting a small amount of fish into a stream to justify keeping it open is going to kill some very beautifull runs.I believe that hatcheries put on the low end of some of our rivers,that have the ability to collect the returning fish are needed to subsidize what the population wants.

If I was to build a hatchery it would be a stream and a pond in the woods much like eagle springs on the sol duc.It would have natural COVER.It would have natural food subsidized by fish food but not at 10:00 every morning to the masses but a random automatic machine that sprays small amounts at diferant spots all day.In a perfect world I would would not put fish through the process of getting its fins clipped.I would keep human interaction down to the absolute minimum.I would keep birds out with a trained dog but still allow some predatory interaction.I know there is more to it than that like disease etc but does it have to be a sterile test tube on a set schedule?

I think another problem that some of us have with the hatcheries is visiting one during a peak time of the year.The blatant snagging,the litter,The urine,the total incondsideration for others,the crowd in general,the thiefs in the parking lots,the tangled lines all to catch a fish that is smaller weaker and stupid?????

Robert Allen3

Long posts seem to scare people away!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Robert,

I am compelled to let the "common fishermen" know the truth!!!

For one, WE are not talking about Coho here, but "WE" are talking about steelhead, right? These are two species that may have some things in "common" but they are pretty much like too different birds, aren't they? For one thing and it's a big thing, Coho only return home once in their life cycle, and then they spawn and Die! As you know, steelhead can spawn and return numerous times.

Coho spawn in mainly side channels and smaller size streams, right? They (Coho) pretty much like the same types of water that cutthroat do for spawning, don't they? Coho, become one of the steelheads main food chains when they die and spawn, don't they? They (Coho) become one of steelhead best food sources for their fry, don't they? Steelhead spawners are NOT the main source of stream side food for Coho.

Even throwing all of that out, your posted study only "suggests" that there is a negative impact and interaction between wild fish and hatchery incubators. Let's not also forget that almost all "hatcheries" save the "best" fry for their own programs, and then dump the rest of the diseased, weak, and sub stander fry into every other "experiment". It's called "self survival" dump your crap onto everyone else, and lord and behold, your program always comes out on top! I have seen this done on the Cowlitz, time after time! And believe me; it's done the same everywhere else!

Furthermore, it appears that your "posted study" only applies to "costal streams" and then, only Coho. All one has to do is read DEEPLY into what you have copied and posted (i.e. STEP HATCHBOX EVALUATION). Again, read what this study says; "The purpose of the "STEP hatchbox" evaluation program was to evaluate the effectiveness of coho salmon fry that result from late spawning broodstock incubated in STEP hatchboxes, to rehabilitate wild populations of "coho salmon".."

Maybe this paragraph covers it all;

"SUMMARY"
" There is little argument that good artificial incubation techniques can have egg-to-fry survival rates of well over 95%, a significant increase over values reported for naturally incubated eggs. However, there is little evidence that egg-to-fry survival rates are "limiting the adult production of most salmonid fishes". (emphasis added) One exception to this may be with chum salmon, which migrate into salt-water almost immediately after emerging from the gravel. For salmonid species with extended freshwater rearing
(coho, steelhead, cutthroat, and some chinook stocks) factors other than egg to fry survival rate are probably more important in determining adult production levels.

Does the word "Ocean survival" ring a BIG bell to you Robert Allen3?

None of these "older studies" ever took, or has fully analyzed this into there study, or have taken this newly discovered FACT into consideration, did they?

So please, no more copy and pasting of "old" studies or "old facts" that only "suggest" what may or may not be happening! Let's talk "REAL TURKEY" here, and let EVERYONE fully understand what is really going on!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Bob All 3 and Cowlitzfisherman,
I don't have enough time or brainpower left today to read your whole posts. I do have personal relationships with a couple fisheries biologists here in Oregon who believe based on the science done here that hatchery fish inc. wild broodstock do harm wild fish numbers (natives or not). They base their opinions on a whole lot more science than anyone's going to post here.

My own experience is that I catch more wild steelhead in rivers that aren't planted with brats.

Your COOL Cowlitzfisherman!!!

The hatchbox idea sounds good. Lets d it with both hatchery eggs and wild egg. Anytime you can get up tp 95% survivabilty you are on the right track. It seems hatchboxes could be put on any number of small tributaries.

There is a small stream that runs through my property on the Cowlitz. How would I go about getting a hatchbox permit and eggs etc... I think it would be a great learning experience for my children....The stream is between blue creek and barrier on the north side of the river. It has running water all year

Wishiniwasfishin

You can contact either the FOC office (360) 748-7793 Or Dave Becker at (360) 864-4865. Dave used to be the guy that was in charge of those egg box projects. I don't know if Dave is still the lead guy, but he will put you onto the right one if he is not not still doing it. Hope this will help you out.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Wild Chrome

You just said; "My own experience is that I catch more wild steelhead in rivers that aren't planted with brats"

Well, what else could you possibly catch if nothing else was planted in that same river???? You must be getting REALLY tired!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Interesting discussion-

It seems everyone falls into the trap of latching on to some magic bullet to fix the ills of our rivers - Wild steelhead release, egg box/fry release, wild brood stock, etc. The reality is that we are destroying our rivers and simple and easy fixes are not going to do the trick.

Robert Allen 3 is correct - there is more than ample evidence that fry and egg box release of salmonids that spend extended time in freshwater (coho and steelhead) contributes little future returns. See no need to go into more studies - millions of coho fry a year had been planted in Puget Sound rivers for decades with no measureable success. Steelhead are different than coho - they spend even more time in freshwater (normally 2 years rather 1 year for coho) thus are even more limited by freshwater survival factors.

Going to Catch and Release is also just another magic bullet. CnR is not a conservation tool but rather a management tool that can be used to allocate impacts, provide access to other stocks (salmon, hatchery steelhead etc.) with minimal impacts on co-mingled wild stocks, or provide increasing fishing if anglers are willing to release the fish.

The bottom line is that in many of our wild steelhead populations are in trouble because our rivers are in trouble. We need to set aside this "holy Grail" search for the "magic bullet" solution and step up and address what ails our rivers. This begins with an examination of each and everyone of us looking honestly at our own impacts on the resource both in our fishing and our life styles. It has taken nearly 150 years of a wide variety of activities to put us in this position and reversing this declining trend will not occur over night.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

Since you are a "biologist", why not put your neck out onto this shopping block and give us your professional point of view on how we can restore our fish runs. I to have a "few friends" that are biologists, but they too always take the easy way out.

Please, tell us how you would solve this 150 year old trend. Do you have any "new" ideas, if so please let them fly!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman,
Nothing a good triple mocha can't cure!

On the subject of what else I'd catch besides wild fish in an unplanted river, one word: Brats! I've caught many stray hatchery steelhead in either rivers that weren't planted, or in rivers that weren't their river of origin, which could be determined by the finclips. On the Deschutes River, for instance the local brats all have a right maxillary clip and are of native broodstock origin. About half the brats caught in that river (more in some years) don't have a maxillary clip! Last year, I caught a brat on the Nehalem river about 25 miles upstream from the mouth of the North Fork, which is the nearest river with a hatchery. The year before, I caught one about 30 miles upstream from it. On the Trask river, which gets no brat steelhead, a lot of people target brats in December and January because there are so many stray brats from the Wilson and Kilchis.

My comment regarding catching more wild steelhead in unplanted rivers has to do with hours of effort per fish ratio. It's just plain lower (better) for wild steelhead on unplanted rivers. I choose my river du jour based on water levels, time of year, weather, and other factors. In February and March, when the current conditions tell me to fish a river that's not planted, I tend to catch more wild steelhead than when conditions tell me to fish a river that has wild steelhead and is planted with brats.

Cowlitzfisherman -
I doubt I have any new ideas - folks alot smarter than I have struggled with these issues far long than I have.

However as a fisher and one who cares deeply about conservation I believe the following -

1) Success will depend on directing the obivous zeal and passion for steelhead and the other salmonids exhibited by nearly everyone visiting this board towards developement of solutions. First and foremost we must stop this wrestling over who gets what piece of the steelhead pie and work instead on increasing the size of the pie.

2) The focus can not be on a single species or several species but on the whole of the river systems. The various salmonid species of the region have evolued over many 1,000s of years in river systems that were very dynamic. These rivers were constantly changing; creating new channels, filling others, constructing log jams, washing out others, moving across the valley floor, filling and expanding estuaries, etc. The last 150 years we as a society have tried our collective best to reduce the rivers to a static environment. This static condition is the antithesis of a functioning river system and the biolgical resources they supports. Fish in such an environment become as plastic as hatchery fish.

3) The last century and 1/2 we have used more and more of the innate capacity of our rivers to support a variety of human needs (power, water, timber, agiculture, fishing, etc). For fishing to continue we as fishers need to demand that a portion of our rivers productivity be set aside to support fishing - we can argue later about how to allocate that productivity between various user groups. Without sitting aside that productivity your doomsday will certainly occur. If we aren't successful soon the demand from the competing uses will reduce the system's productivity to a point that even catch and release can not be supported. That may not occur in my lifetime but clearly that is where we are headed.

4) Taking no action is almost always wrong for the fish. We can not be afraid to move forward out of fear of making a mistake but rather do our collective best to make an informed decision as possible. That said we must admit past mistakes and learn from them. Heaven knows I have made more than my share of mistakes. Fish management must by its very nature must be a process of building and improving upon past actions.

5) I view my role as one of providing the best information (warts and all) that I have so that each of you can make informed decisions. In that line I'll give you a honest assessment of the pros and cons of actions that you or others may propose. If that makes me the local SOB, then so be it.

As I promised I have no "magic bullets". Much of the work will need to be piece meal - river by river. We'll need to work on details as we go along.

The cynic in me says that restoring rivers is impossible. The optimist says I must try.

To me it is not about just steelhead but rather about being able to wade rivers that are alive and supporting diverse naturally produced salmonid populations. A future where such opportunities are limited to remote areas and/or national parks is very bleak indeed.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

What you have said is true. BUT this thread is all about options, and we need everybody to bring out their "silver bullets" before this war can be won. I have attended more technical fishery meetings then I ever want to remember (just enough to become dangerous).The average guy never gets the time or opportunity to see what these "silver bullets" are, and this thread was intended to bring everyone's minds together in an attempt to turn this mess around.

To me, it's quickly coming down to only a "Micro Management" policy for each river system. The problem is to large now to manage as a whole, and I believe that "generally managing" our river systems all in the same fashion will not solve the nightmare that now exists. That is why I am asking this board to make some suggestions on how their most favorite river system could or should be managed. I think that this board could benefit immensely from the vast experience that exists outside of our fish management agencies. They are locked into their own way of thinking because of their own politics and policies. We are not!

Here, we are free to say and discuss every conceivable option that we want to. We are not concerned about "hurting" each others feeling, or burning a bridge or two behind us. I have worked with both our state and federal agencies for more then 16 years now, and I have seen their "mental block" at work. I know that we can find many of the answers IF we can ever get over OUR native and hatchery "mental blockade"!

I for one am tired of being forced to take a side. The answers lie somewhere between managing native fish SEPARATELY from hatchery fish. The simple truth is that every river system will eventually need to be "Micro Managed" as an individual river system.

So folks, pick a river, pick any river and tell us how you would "manage" it. Tell us why you think that your management strategies may work. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, the agencies will read this thread and start hearing what WE really want! Just think YOU can do all that without even leaving YOUR desk!!

We did it on the Cowlitz, and you can do it on your river too!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman:

Lets try this again, part of any plan to save wild salmon/steelhead has to involve keeping hatchery fish from spawing in the wild and their planting must be done in such as way as to minimize impacts on wild juveniles.
Since this thread has become about developing a strategy for saving these fish. That is my part of the solution.

Cowlitzfisherman,
I'm not so sure I want the Deschutes, Sandy, Nehalem, Trask Rivers, etc. to be another Cowlitz. Maybe I should come up there and fish? I've fished the Kalama and Klickitat several times and was impressed with the numbers of hatchery fish on the Kalama (not the way they fought...pretty average brats, though it was fall). I did catch a hot wild steelhead and a hot wild coho on the Klickitat last November. I was much more impressed with the Klickitat's fish, access, scenery. Is that what the Cowlitz is like?
Here in beaverland, the last time I fished was on the Nehalem. I had my favorite series of pools to myself and caught 3 wild steelhead in 3 hours, inc. one that jumped 8 times in the 40 degree water. Is the Cowlitz like that?
I don't mean to be cocky or a smart ass, but I like the priority wild fish have been receiving more and more and I'm happy with what changes in management I've seen from ODFW, Mt. Hood N.F., PGE, and many other players here in Oregon. I'd fish more in your state and spend more cash while there if more WA rivers were managed for wild fish.

On the subject of local fisherman making management decisions, be careful what you wish for. Noone can screw up a situation better than a self-ascribed expert with a little bit of knowledge and a lot of incentive. I see that all the time in my work as a veterinarian. The sick animals that get cared for by their know-it-all owners instead of vets are rarely as well off. Sometimes they die. I don't want that type of scenario on my rivers and fish, thanks.

Wild Chrome

Let's not forget who has gotten us were we are today!

It was your so-called "Experts", and those early biologists who got us where we are now! And that is a FACT that can not be denied! I'll take my chances with an all "new gang" from now on. Too much of that "old blood" still calling all the shots up our way.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Cowlitzfisherman,

I could tell you some interesting stories about how vets used to treat/mistreat animals due to ignorance and lack of knowledge. Things have come a long way. There are still some old-school vets out there, but overall the profession is doing far better work than it was 20 or 30 years ago, much less 50 or 60 years ago.

I think fisheries biology has gone through a similar learning curve in the last few decades. I think it would be foolish to take control of our natural resources out of the hands of those who have the most training to manage them. Agreed, we have to be vocal about what we want from our fish resources. You and I certainly are that, huh?!

Wild Chrome

The problem is that thoes who know what to do to save the fish are not the ones making the decisions. the head steelhead manager in washington state ignores all the incoming new science, throws it in the trash infavor of thoes old school ways. His name is Bob Gibbons and he believes only in hatcheries and MSY. he is the enemy not your regional biologists. I desperatly wished that he read this forum because I'd love to tell him that his professional career has been a dismal failure. This man should be fired for the didservice he has done to this state.

Robert,

there are a few other "key" names, but I will save them for a later date!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I do not wish to sound like a self proclaimed expert on the steelhead situation, because I am actually the least informed fellow that follows your guys' threads. I do use these discussions, to learn, and slowly you guys are helping me form the the feelings I have, with the science and facts around the science into an understanding.I have hidden back in the canyons and quiet spots to ignore the situation for as long as I can.I have developed such a deep love for the wild steelhead, that are left out here on the canal, that I can't stand the thought of sacrificing the wild,for numbers of bonkable fish. Please bear with me; I am using interaction with you and others in the know, to learn as much as I can! I respect the veiws of others as much as my own, even when they are not the same as mine. Over the years, I have found that interaction with others has lead to a greater understanding of the whole picture and truth.

I whole-heartly have to agree that every river system is differant than the other. They are all unique and all have differant impacts that are affecting them. There is no way to lump them all into a single cure all.

This leads to a need to STUDY every system seperately? As has been mentioned before, these studys can be manipulated to meet the needs of which ever group is looking for the answers. These studys also have become a scape goat. It is safer to study than react. There is less of a responsibility in the end. Is there a third party unconnected, to the seperation of interest Would the state ever allow a third party to reveiw existing studys? Then would the third party have the ability to take their findings and combine and review them with the states findings?

As complicated as the decision making process is in this state, and the united states, how do you get the facts made into a decision?

Due to the seperation of interest in this state, I do not see a solution beng reached in time to help the situation. This whole scenario alarms me! There is enough wild stock left out here to bring back the natives, but what we have now,will not be here ten years from now.

Bob All 3,
I keep hearing this about WDFW. It's sad. The only way to fight it is by joining with others and being an incredibly squeaky wheel! Having the mainstream fisheries biologists and ESA on your side doesn't hurt either.

LtlCleo,
Unfortunately, getting the facts made into decisions is political to the core. The powers at be cannot even decide what the facts are. Here in Oregon, we have some very vocal pro-native fish organizations. They must exist in Washington too, right? These groups are pretty connected with managing fish biologists, and some have the ear of the governor. Afterall, we have a flyfishing, pro-environment, pro-native fish governor here in Oregon 7 years running. Maybe that's where the difference lies? I don't know enough about the situation to say. If Gov. Locke were concerned about the extinction of native salmonid runs, maybe your cause would be in better shape.
This probably is completely incidental, but I wrote a very pointed, but respectful and eloquent letter to Oregon's U.S. senator Smith regarding his labelling anyone who supported an environmental cause an "extremist" a few years ago. He had been using that term frequently to defend the natural resources industry from a variety of environmentalist initiatives aimed at protecting certain threatened forests, animals, and fishes. Anyone who didn't agree with him (and the industry) got labelled an "extremist". After my letter, I never heard him use that term again and he's since taken a much more moderate tone toward the environmental community. I think his change of tone was mainly influenced by Slade Gorton's defeat and by his then-potential U.S. senate race with Gov. Kitzhaber. I do wonder if my letter may have touched a button in his mind though. Sending letters to those in power cannot hurt and might help. If an organized group sends a few hundred letters, all the better.