I recieved clarification today on the Grandy Creek project and upon fully understanding what the Grandy Creek hatchery will provide, I am all in favor of it.

At this time, the WDFW is dumping about 500,000 hatchery fingerlings in many differnt tributaries and sloughs within the Skagit watershed (this has been taking place for about the past 5 years). Because they are being planted as fingerlings and not smolts, these winter steelhead are not imprinting. Thus, when they return as adults, they are straying not only within the watershed but within Puget Sound.

The Grandy Creek Project will build rearing ponds for these fingerlings so they can raise them to smolts and concentrate them in one area to reduce straying and to reduce the possibility of spawning with wild steelhead populations.

The Grandy Creek Project WILL NOT in fact raise the amount of winter steelhead planted within the Skagit...it will concentrate these fish to limit their interications with wild steelhead.

I believe it is time to fully support the Grandy Creek Project!!!

Right on Ryan I agree, maybe you can sway some of those featrher flickers to understand this.
Peace Superfly

Superfly-
In a way you are right but the truth behind the Grandy Creek Project was told to me by a fly-only fisherman who, along with many of his fly-only freinds on the Skagit, support the Grandy Creek Project 100%.

Only thing is it requires spending money that WDFW cannot afford to spend nor can our state for that matter. Especially if that money is going to creating another "blue creek type" terminal fishery. If they want to increase opportunity on the Skagit spend the money restoring some spawning tribs. There is more than enough opportunity for hatchery steelhead fishing in puget sound and on the Skagit. Wild fish are a permanent solution.

Also your now dumping 500,000 smolts into the river creating worse problems for wild juveniles and creating more competition for all the wild fish in the system including threatened chinook.

I am completely opposed to spending any more money anywhere in the state on hatchery programs period!

Whats wrong with a new terminal fishery in the north sound ?Last I heard 800,000 people moved into Pugettroplis in the last decade.Be nice to spread these folk out a little
I am 100% for the Grandy Creek project

Rob-
Because the fish are already being dumped into the Skagit, the Grandy Creek project is what is best for the wild steelhead populations as it nearly eliminates the straying that is so prevelent and thus the high possibility of cross-breading between hatchery and wild steelhead.

If they were not already in the system, I would be opposed to the Grandy Creek Project.

Phukk, The only thing that would make you happy RA3 is total elimanation of all hatcheries, banning all bait fishing and all baitfishing gear and for every person who wants to fish to have to be a fly ***g and a member of Washington trout.
Then you might be happy, maybe.
Peace Superfly

Sparkey

As you mentioned they plant thoes 500,000 as fingerlings and will be planting them as smolts with this new project. Smolts have a much better survival rate That means more interaction with wild fish. Wild fish that are in serious trouble as I am sure you are aware..

Superfly... What I am opposed to is ideas that are bad for wild fish... I am not opposed to bait fishing or any other type of gear fishing and i have never said or elluded to anything of the kind. Just yesterday I floated the north fork Lewis and hooked 3 all on gear (spinners and spoons).
This is not about methods or any organization . It's about keeping WDFW and the Wild cat steelhead club ( who proposed the idea) from killing off the wild fish in the Skagit.

RA3 - Would not smolts, which migrate rapidly towards the salt, have less interaction with the wild juveniles than hatchery fingerlings which develop and grow in the rivers before migrating?

It is my understanding that the purpose of this proposed facility is to imprint juvenile fish to return to a collection station downriver from the majority of steelhead spawning habitat in order to minimize possible adult interactivity with wild steelhead.

You have mentioned the Wildcat Steelhead Club as an example of "hostile to wild steelhead" organizations on several occasions.

Will you tell us more about who this organization is and in what ways they are a detriment towards wild fish?

Thanks - Plunker

Plunker. opposing statewide wild steelhead release without exception.. Enough said.

Smolts vs fingerlings is probably a toss up.. however i prefer the one that returns fewer adults and that would be the fingerlings.
Imprinting means nothing. The more hatchery sdults that return the more that will stray and spawn with wild fish and inturn the fewer wild fish there will be.. That is the way it always is and there is no way to avoid it unless you can remove every hatchery fish.

One other thing half a million steelhead smolts of a ton of fish more than should ever be allowed in the Skagit river. Thats more than is planted in all the columbia river tribs below the Dalles dam combined except the Cowlitz. There is more than plenty of opportunity to for guys to harvest hatchery steelhead in Puget sound as there is everwhere in the state. We don't need more harvest opportunity. We need more wild fish!!!! Wasting money on more hatchery programs does not do that.

Thanks for the clarification Robert.

Curiously, the only genetic study I've seen concerning possible Skamania hatchery stock and Wild Skagit steelhead interbreeding determined that absolutely no mixing of genetic material could be substantiated. The wild stock was pure after decades of intermingling.

"It's about keeping WDFW and the Wild cat steelhead club ( who proposed the idea) from killing off the wild fish in the Skagit."

Labeling a well known steelhead club as wild steelhead murderers is near as close to stereotyping as you can get. ?

This is the same group that volunteered to become volunteer watch dogs on the Samish River so we could fish hatchery chinook in that river after many years of not being able to fish it.

Many studies have shown that even after years of planting hatchery fish in a river...genetic introgression between hatchery fish and wild fish has not occurred. Planting smolts as Plunker pointed out will relieve the in river competition between wild and hatchery juveniles.

RA3 I really do wish in many ways that we could return the status of our salmonids back to the way they were 200 years ago.....hatcheries or not it just isn't going to happen in the Puget Sound basin. The human population in that area will grow and will tend towards being an urban community. They will still need more blacktop for rods and malls; lumber and stone for construction; agricultural products for their tables; water for their lawns and golf courses; and the list grows. They will talk the talk of the mystical deception of their connection with salmon...but will they walk the walk? The state our salmon resources are in and the solutions are a social and cultural problem that has and always will be very much larger than the argument over hatcheries. 200 years ago was 200 years ago...today is today....lets try to deal with the future with the full frank realization
that we can reshape the world somewhat but theres no going back 200 years?

Plunker.. There are other studies you need to read. You are correct there has been no identifyable gene flow from hatchery fish to wild fish in North Puget Sound. You know why?? Because when a hatchery fish and a wild fish spawn together their offspring do not survive!!!! That means ever hatchery fish that spawns with a wild fish takes that wild fish out of production!!!!!!! Thats why hatchery fish are soooooooo detrimental. Not because they interbreed but because they remove wild fish from production! It would be no different if ever wild fish that spawns with a hatchery fish were clubbed on the head before spawning.
We have excellent examples of how wild fish production can be increased sixfold in a single generation even with destroyed habitat and bad ocean conditions. The Keogh river on Vancouver Island is a success story beyond measure and shoule be used as an example of how to restore each and every whatershed and increase fishing opportunity without hatcheries...

Robert - I've read a little about the Keogh success story and must say that that succes can be summed up in three words.

habitat! - Habitat!! - HABITAT!!!

Read on...

Abstract: "Declivity in steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, recruitment at the Keogh River over the past decade" - Bruce R. Ward

"Survival and return of unharvested winter-run steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, at the Keogh River, British Columbia, declined abruptly and remained persistently low after 1990. Adult returns averaged 1168 fish from 1976 to 1990 but were significantly lower from 1991 to 1998 (mean 223). Forty wild females returned to the 35-km river in 1995-1996, 20 in 1996-1997, and less than 10 in 1997-1998. The positive linear relationship between smolts and returns was significantly lower after 1990 and no longer correlated with smolt size. Smolt-to-adult survival averaged 15% (1976 to 1989) but recently averaged 3.5% (1990 to 1995). Smolt number steadily declined to less than 1000 by 1998 from an average annual count of 7000. Smolts per spawner from 1991 to 1994 were, on average, 70% lower than previous estimates based on the same spawner abundance. Recruitment scenarios based on survival histories during freshwater and marine life stages indicated that adult recruits are currently below replacement and unsustainable if conditions continue or worsen. Factors influencing steelhead in the ocean and freshwater are likely similar for other salmonids; harvest impacts must be reduced and appropriate stock rebuilding measures implemented."

Read Also:
Keogh River Demonstration Site

"The Keogh River is the key evaluation project located on northeast coast of Vancouver Island near the communities of Port Hardy and Port McNeill. The Keogh drains into Queen Charlotte Strait after flowing through the Nawhitti Lowlands for 33 km from Keogh Lake. Due to the long-term research that has occurred here, the Keogh has become BC Environment's foremost aquatic demonstration site for British Columbia's Watershed Restoration Program (WRP). It is used to instruct restoration professionals on proper techniques for restoring fish habitat. WRP demonstration sites have been developed to demonstrate techniques used in the watershed restoration program by providing hands-on training to professional, technical and field personnel. They are also used to provide tours and public information.

Since 1996, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has managed approximately $800,000 in the aquatic restoration of the Keogh River plus a further $200,00 for hillslope and riparian work. Approximately 500 structures have been constructed to replace natural large wood that was lost due to past logging to streambanks in 55% of the riparian areas. A total of 68 instream restoration structures were built during the 98/99 season. A majority of this involved the creation of new fish habitat.

The river is a spawning/nursery ground for Steelhead, Coho, Pink, Chum and Cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden. An abundance of these species had declined as a result of past logging practices.

The entire river has been fertilized with slow-release nutrients to replace nutrients lost by the sharply reduced abundance of salmon carcasses.

In the spring of 1999, Coho and Steelhead smolt migrations more than doubled from the previous year. Other species, less-targeted, have also increased in abundance as a result of restoration.

By the spring of 2000, Coho smolt numbers continued to increase by another 50% to 75,000 smolts, slightly more than their historical average abundance. Potential benefits to returns of adult pink salmon (adults were 60,000 declining to 10,000) should be evident by the summer/fall of 2000. Steelhead smolts only increased marginally this spring, but the abundance of their fry in the river indicates they will also reach historical abundance in the next two years."

Is their something that I am missing?

Plunker -
Glad to see you posting on this topic; appreciate your well thought out views even when we may disagree.

A big thanks for post some of the work of Ward et al on the Keogh River (I can never figure out how to post that stuff). Their work is among of the best on the coast.

For those that have not read some of the Keogh River work the decline in steelhead abundance during the 1990s is especially alarming. Escapements fell from more than a 1,000 a year to just a handful of fish in just 2 fish generations. This was in spite of the river being managed "correctly". Regulations were catch and release with no hatchery fish planted. Most of the rivers the east coast of Vancouver Island, lower BC mainland and Puget Sound are experiencing similar production declines of their wild winter steelhead.

While hatchery and harvest issue are important factors in steelhead management the elimination of either or both are not magic bullets for the salvation of our steelhead. While we fight over these 2 side-issues the real war is being lost. The direction in which our society is going we run the very really risk of reducing our rivers to nothing more than wet conveyor belts than can only function to transport hatchery fish to and from the ocean.

Tight lines
Smalma

Superfly, I've been reading your posts for along time without responding to your drivel. Can't wait to run into you.......(it's a joke only my attorney would get)

Plunker .. That is exactly my point!!! Ya know the habitat on the Keogh river was completely destroyed by logging. If it wirked there it will wirk here. The problem is here we waste all of our fish money in failed supplementation projects. If we spent all that money on habitat here in Washington no one would ever even think of going to Alaska. We could fix our fish problems all the ESA problems and add a great deal to our economy. Instead we keep WASTING!!!! money on hatcheries which do not sccomplish anything except fill a few punchcards. I am for real steelhead fishing enhancment and the Grandy creek project does not do that it just perpetuates our failing system.

Hey RA3 I live on one of the most pristine rivers in this state. The adjacent rivers are also in prime shape in regards to habitat. No hatcheries on them and any hatchery steelhead releases have been minimal at best. Any suggestions why there are no fish? Sorry but your solution to the problem sometimes doesn't fit the problem all the time.

Speyguy I for one would like to be there....my money's on Uncle Joe .

Goose I don't know. It's hard to say since i don't know what rivers you are talking about, thier history. For instance take a look at the Washuogal river. At first glance you's say that the habitat is pristine but if you say it at flood stage you'd realize the kind of degradation that has occurred. There is more to quality habitat than clean gravel and cool water. Fish need habitat at all life stages. That means backwater rearing areas that means beaver ponds and the like.

What they did on the Keogh river was to reforest the river banks, dig side channels and to fertilize the streams. You local streams most likely lack one or more of the above either that or they were likely never very productive streams anyway.
All i am saying is that things are not going to get better by wasting more money on hatcheriesand that is why i oppose the Grandy creek project.