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?????

My personal opinion about how well "native" steelhead fight is a little bit different then some others who have posted on this tread. I think that the true "native steelhead" fights no harder, strikes no harder, nor is smarter then ANY other steelhead that has been raised in the "wild". It is that "wild" conditioning process that makes these survivors so damn tuff. I personally don't give the "gene theory thing" that much credit for the way that a steelhead fights. It's "being raised in the wild" that make these fish really tuff and smarter!

What's wrong with using stream side egg incubators to help benefit these troubled stocks? Why not use native stocks for brooding and increase the survival rates of "native fry" on the streams that may be "managed" for wild steelhead? What are the plus or minuses in doing this?

Why not use tons of hatchery feed fry in other steams for supplementation? If the fry don't survive like the "wild" fish do, then they just become food for others species, i.e. cutthroat and coho. What would be the plus or minuses to doing this method? It's appears to be working on the Cowlitz, so why wouldn't it work in your river of choice?

Wouldn't this accomplish what others have said was needed to create a more "normal" raised natural fish? The biggest deterrent that I can see is that it would "eliminate" many related WDFW "Hatchery Jobs"! Now we couldn't have that…could WE? And think of all that MONEY that WE, the sport fishermen could then apply to restoring our steelhead fishery.

No WE can't do anything like that now could WE?! If that worked, then someone would want to do the same thing with SALMON next, wouldn't they?

No, WE can't do that, because how would we be able to "mark" all the fish and keep spending our MONEY and getting almost nothing back in return?

This would also eliminate all the dreaded things that have been mentioned that occurs around our hatcheries. It's time for new ideas. For to long we have stayed in our dug-in trenches that are quickly become full of mudded water. Its time to get out and find drier land, so THINK HARDER folks!

OK, I have really thick skin so shoot this one down, but before you do that, please come up with a better idea!

Cowlitzfisherman

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

Cowlitzfisherman

I will say this first off. We are mainly having a difference of opinion based on philosohical difference not factual ones.

You just want fish to catch. I want wild fish protected no matter what the cost to me as an angler.
I agree genetics has nothing to do with how a fish fights at least in most cases. There are however rivers where the strain of steelhead fight harder that other rivers. I don't believe that has anything to do with hatchery vs wild genetics. For instance all fish seem to fight harder on the Klickitat regardless of their origin. Even the strays in that river seem to fight harder. My first guess would be that it has to do with water temps .

A very good friend of mine has a creek running through his property which is a trib to the Cowlitz. He just did the paperwork to start a hatchbox project on that stream. Ever year he has hatchery strays spawning in there funny with all the hatchery strays spawning there he never has any wild fish. Why do you think that is? Could it be that these hatchery strays spawning in his creek never have any offspring which make it to adult hood?? Absolutely yes!
As an enhancment tool they may be viable. As a restoration tool they have been shown ineffective. It all depends on what you want to accomplish. if all you want is more hatchery fish they are great. if you want to save a run of wild fish you cannot expect them to work.
From the most recent research (wether you believe it or not) it does not matter where you get your broodstock or how you plant them when humans get involved in the breeding and rearing of salmonid species the offspring have very very low reproductive abilities that decrease with each year of artificial propogation. Even the idea of captive rearing is getting debunked. Not by agendized fisheries biologists but by outside geneticists who have no agenda.

There is no way around it loss of natural selection and the process of domestication cause the cycle of increasing deletrious gene flow that makes for poor reproductive ability and survivability in hatchery stocks.
This project on the Upper Cowlitz is great it is also ONE of a kind and will only be proven a success in my book if at some point plants can be halted and the run persists without human intervention (other than fish passage).

I think the only way to save wild steelhead is to protect what we have left. It is impossible to protect what we have left by planting more fish no matter what the broodstock or method of planting.

EVALUATION OF HATCHBOX FRY RELEASE PROGRAM

Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rogers. 1998. Project Number: F-125-R-13. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

INTRODUCTION Historical Background and Rationale For Hatchboxes:

The use of coho salmon hatchery fry and fingerling to supplement wild populations has a long history in Oregon coastal streams. However, the evaluation of the success of these programs has been problematic, at best.
Juvenile coho salmon have been released into Oregon streams and rivers since about 1890. Until 1910, all the fish released were unfed fry. Beginning in about 1910 an experiment was set up at Central Hatchery (now Bonneville) to evaluate the effects of pond rearing the fry to a larger size prior to release. Returns of adult fish between 1914 and 1919 were at or near historical levels suggesting that the new rearing strategy was successful. The first coastal releases began about 1890 by R.D. Hume on the Rogue River. His self-proclaimed success led to the development of 10 coastal hatcheries or egg taking stations by 1915. By 1938, over 30 million coho salmon fingerlings and fry were being released into Oregon coastal streams.
By the early 1940s, the first smolt releases (fish larger than 25 fish per pound) were beginning. As the number of smolts released began to increase the numbers of fry and fingerlings released began to decline. The major reason was that larger fish were shown to survive better than fingerlings or fry. Other reasons cited include a major advancement in disease control (pasteurized feed), nutrition, better broodstock development and improved hatchery practices.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of adults spawned exceeded the capacity of the available hatchery rearing space, and the excess offspring were released as unfed fry. During this period, the first attempt to evaluate the success of the fry-stocking program was completed. An analysis of the relationship between hatchery coho salmon fry releases and adult escapement (McGie 1980) for the 1961 through 1971 broods, suggested that the release of fry “had no measurable influence on adult escapement.” Fry and fingerling releases subsequently began to decline.
In the early 1980s, a legislatively directed program of presmolt (2000/lb.) releases was initiated. An evaluation of this program (Nickelson et al. 1986) suggested that the increased number of fish released did not result in increased production of adults in streams where the fingerlings were stocked. Because of this evaluation and decreased numbers of excess adult fish returning to coastal hatcheries the number of fry and fingerlings released in recent years has declined.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began using hatchboxes on a large scale beginning in 1981 with the creation of the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP). This program was begun under legislative directive (ORS 496.430 to 496.460). The goal of the STEP program is to restore native stocks of salmon and trout to their historic levels of abundance. One of the techniques used to achieve this goal has been the use of volunteers to raise excess eggs in hatchboxes. ...The unfed fry are then released directly from hatchboxes or transported and released into local streams and rivers in an attempt to bolster depressed stocks. Approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for volunteers to obtain eggs from state hatcheries to incubate in hatchboxes is administered under OAR 635-09-090 to 635-09-140. Section one of this rule states that “all projects must comply with fish management goals and objectives as set forth in OAR 635-070-501 through 635-07-830, and species and/or area management plans adopted by the Commission.” It further states that a project will NOT be approved if it is not based on sound biological principles and is not supported by physical and biological stream survey information or if it proposes to use inappropriate methods to accomplish the project objectives.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will support the use of hatchboxes only in certain areas and under certain specific conditions. The areas where hatchboxes are most likely to be appropriate are streams historically inhabited by the juvenile fish of the species of interest, but where they are not now present. In some cases, hatchboxes are used in areas above artificial barriers that block passage of adult salmonids. Hatchboxes may be used to supplement existing populations only if information from a physical and biological survey of the stream suggests that the local population is extremely depressed and that there is sufficient habitat available to support the hatchbox fry without having a detrimental effect on the local population. Except for small projects that focus on education, releases into a stream is limited to one life cycle of the species. Hatchboxes are an inappropriate tool in areas where the available rearing habitat is already fully occupied by juvenile salmonids, or where the appropriate egg source (brood stock) is not available.
Social interactions between hatchbox fry and native wild fry generally result in displacement of the hatchbox fry into marginal habitats where survival is low, however, some wild fry are also displaced. Evaluations of salmon fingerling releases...suggest that the release of large numbers of fingerlings and fry into coastal streams does not result in increased adult production. Nickelson et al. (1986) documented a detrimental impact on wild adult coho salmon production from fingerling releases, partly because of the use of an inappropriate broodstock that spawned too early.

STEP HATCHBOX EVALUATION
During the early 1980s, we evaluated the effectiveness of using hatchery presmolts to rehabilitate naturally spawning coho salmon populations in coastal streams (Nickelson 1981; Niclelson et al. 1986; Solazzi et al. 1983, 1990). We found that the numbers of juvenile wild coho salmon were reduced in streams stocked with hatchery presmolts. We also found that, although the total number of spanwers in stocked and unstocked streams were similar in the years that the hatchery fish returned, the late-spawning wild adults in the stocked streams were 50% less abundant than in the unstocked streams. We concluded that the hatchery presmolts reduced the wild populations through competition and that the early returning hatchery fish failed to contribute significant numbers of offspring to the next generation. Two factors contributed to this result: 1) early spawning time of the hatchery broodstock, and 2) large size of the presmolts relative to wild fish.
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...

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Adult Abundance:
The number of adult coho salmon returning to the study streams during 1985-1987 was not significantly different between the treatment and reference streams. Because there was no difference in adult abundance between the reference and control streams, any differences in juvenile abundance should be due to the effects of stocking the hatchbox fry.
Juvenile Density:
We did not find an increase in juvenile coho salmon density as a result of stocking hatchbox fry for two years in the six study streams.
Results from sampling juvenile coho abundance and outmigration suggest that the hatchbox program was not effective at increasing the rearing density of juvenile coho salmon in the treatment streams. Our estimates suggest that 13% to 26% of the juvenile coho salmon fry stock in Oxbow Creek migrated out of the stream within four days after stocked.

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. Recent studies by Nickelson et al. (1992) for coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams suggest that winter habitat may often be the limiting factor in the freshwater environment, especially for juvenile coho salmon.

MALE COMPETITION AND BREEDING SUCCESS IN CAPTIVELY REARED AND WILD COHO SALMON

Berejikian, Barry, Skip Tezak, Linda Park, Steve Schroder, and Edward Beall. 1999. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists AnnualMeeting 1999.Organized by Andrew Hendry and Drew Hoysak. http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~ahendry/Rssymp.html

ABSTRACT: In the Pacific Northwest, releasing captively reared adult salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) for natural spawning is an evolving strategy for the recovery of imperiled populations. The ability of captively reared fish to spawn naturally may be compromised by their artificial rearing environments, which differ markedly from those experienced by wild fish. In this study, wild coho salmon (O. kisutch) males dominated access to spawning females in 11 of 14 independent trials. In two cases where satellite males (both captively reared) were observed participating in spawning, DNA fingerprinting results determined that they did not sire any of the progeny. When spawning occurred at night and was not observable, DNA results confirmed continuation of behaviour-based hierarchies determined before nightfall. Aggression data collected during the first hour of competition indicated that dominance was established soon after the males were introduced into a common arena containing a sexually active female. We hypothesize that status signaling and decisions by subordinate males to avoid direct competition may have minimized conflict. The competitive inferiority of captively reared coho salmon in this and a previous study probably reflects deficiencies in culture environments which fail to produce appropriate body coloration, body shape, and perhaps alter natural behavioral development

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

Wild Chrome

Yea, right!!!!

Everything in the world that we now do appears to "harms" wild fish, doesn't it?

That includes c&r, floods, droughts, harvest, hatcheries, growth, people, etc, etc. When will it end? It's just another cop-out for those of us who continue to refuse to not address the really "big question"…What will we do, when the last one is gone!

If "WE" don't find the time to fix it now, who is there to blame but us!

Cowlitzfisherman

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

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????