Im curious what all you guys think about this proposal by the WDFW to breach dikes in the Skagit R. estuary area. Supposedly this will help juvenile salmon.

Benny,

Estuarine salt marsh is among the most productive juvenile habitat possible for chinook, chum, and pink salmon. To the extent that breaching dikes restores that type of habitat, the proposal is beneficial to salmon. Much of lower Fir Island and the flats south of Conway and north to Bayview and Edison was just that type of habitat a century ago, before diking made that land suitable for farming.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Is it the State's intent to BUY the ag land?

The state owns the land protected by the dikes that are proposed to be relocated. It's in the Skagit Wildlife Area. Also the dike district is buying some land to be flooded after another section of dike is relocated.

Another question. Will this really help the survival of the salmon population in the area?

Because its gonna screw the waterfowl hunters that use the area.

I would have to wonder just what kind of pesticides have been used on those farmlands. Salmonids and pesticides just don't mix very well.
In spite of that I do feel that wetland reclamation projects are the way to go in terms of salmon habitat restoration. Chum would stand the greatest benefit from marshlands since they utilize estuaries more than most other salmon.

Actually thats not true, juvenile coho would benefit from the marsh area more because they spend more time in fresh water before going to sea, chum and pink salmon head straight for the ocean after hatching.

Now I'm no fish major or anything but my logic on the whole chum vs. coho thing is that if coho spend say a year+ in the stream then they are not in the estuary and if the chum head straight to sea then they will be in the estuary more. kinda make sense. like jello

My prediction is that your not gonna see a great increase in the number of returning salmon with this romoval of the dikes. To increase salmon survival you also need quality habitat for spawning

I like the idea. An enormous amount of marsh land has been diked, not only in the skagit delta, but in Washington. I've read a few skagit county/valley history books and it's incredible the amount of land that was "made" out of estuaries. If the state is serious about habitat restoration then it's a necessary step. Spawning habitat and estuary habitat are both requirements for a healthy river system.

We need a good balance. Hopefully we don't mess it (both hunting & fishing) up. Aren't they suppose to find a replacement land for hunting?

Is it better to take no action than some action? I support any efforts to restore river delta's and estuaries in the Puget Sound region. And Benny, the next step may be to protect spawning habitats....But specifically in the case of the Skagit River sytem which includes all the forks of the Skagit, the Sauk, Suiattle, Whitechcuck and other streams, enhancing(protecting though is a different story..) spawning grounds is of lesser concern. Many of those headwaters are in fine shape for spawners these days since vast improvements have been made over the years as to timber practices in this particular watershed. Pollution & development are really not the issue in most mid & upper reaches of these rivers/streams. They may infact, be in some of the best shape out of all the Puget Sound rivers. In a sense, only the coastal rivers may have -more natural "purity" from top to bottom.
Good Fishing, Darin
-Don't worry, there are always side benefits of improving watersheds as far as waterfowl are concerned.

Am I understanding you Benny?

Restoring more wetlands to their natural state is going to screw up waterfowl hunting in Skagit Co?

How does that work? Last time I talked to a duck he said he prefers salt mash to ag land.

Also, It is my understanding, as far a spawing habitat goes, the skagit basin is in fine shape (relative to most other PS streams). I've heard that its rearing habitat that is truly limiting in the skagit. IF that is true then this project would definitely be good for salmon.

SO far as I can tell this sort of project increases available habitat for both salmon and waterfowl. . . What could possibly be bad about that?

The other duck--Geoduck!

I believe that ducks would prefer marshland to farmland because there would be a greater availability of vegetation as well as macroinvertebrates.

And the macroinvertebrates taste like chicken.

Geoduck,
I dont know what kind of duck you talked to. The Skagit area is one of the best area's for holding ducks due to the farms in the area (grain) on the westside. Wheat,barley,corn holds ducks on there migration southward. Marshland doesnt hold ducks. Marshland lets ducks rest. The reason why Potholes is such a great place to hunt is ag. production in the area along with the many wetlands. No grain, no ducks. Wetlands are not great producers of duck food. Neither is salt marsh. The skagit area is one of the best waterfowl places on the westside. The flyway will change and so will the duck hunting. In a sense the WDFW is walking away from 50 yrs of waterfowling tradition. But i guess thats the change in the WDFW policy now adays. More emphasis on fishing than game. Probably one of the reasons why our state is being thrashed on by the anti-hunters.

Benny,

Yes, this will help Skagit River chinook, pink, and chum, the species that make the most use of estuarine salt marsh. Coho make very limited use of the estuary. You won't see a great increase in salmon production from this action because, of the 80% of the Skagit estuarine salt marsh that has been "reclaimed" to ag land, this restoration action is but a tiny fraction. But hypothetically, it will contribute to an incremental increase.

The Skagit is not spawning habitat limited, and the mainstem offers the best spawning habitat in Puget Sound. Many of it's smaller tributaries have seen better days, but even many of those maintain fair productivity for spawning. Estuary habitat has been identified as a limiting factor for salmon production in the Skagit.

You believe that duck hunters are getting screwed by this plan. Another way of looking at it is that ducks, and duck hunters, have artificially benefitted from a century of diking that created grain fields that couldn't have existed without the dikes. Ducks and duck hunters have enjoyed a "subsidy" at the salmons' expense, if you will. So in the end, is it more "right" to grow ducks on artificially created and maintained duck habitat than to restore a small piece of historic salmon habitat? I guess it depends on your values.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I got a better idea. Lets ban all nets in the Skagit for 10 years and see if the Chinook recover without a land(a federal act under the ESA) grab. Or buy some land that was not purchased and maintained by duck hunters.

Like it or not we are all sportsmen and Skagit is the main waterfowl area in W WA. Did you know the state also wants to restore (ie flood) Leque Island, Nisqually, Samish unit and Spencer island? That would basically be the end of waterfowl hunting in W WA. Did you know the department of F&W mandate is to MAXIMIZE fishing and hunting oppertunity?

The state has no $$$ to fix a boat launch at Skagit but has $$$ to do feasability studies on dike breaching.
As a sidenote: land purchased with duck stamp $$$ must be used for duck hunting. As with Pittman-Robertson funds. The state had the chance to BUY property to flood but choose not to.

Skagit had decent runs of Kings in the 70s and Skagit HQ was there then.

If we stand and support each other we are stronger than if we divide ourselves.

Bruce
aka Coho at the Refuge

I'm about as PO'd about the "cereal bowls" in the Skagit flats as RA3 is about hatchery practices All those damn things do, besides encouraging all sorts of unsportsmanlike behavior like stashing boxes of shells to get around the shell limit, skybusting, shooting over other peoples decoys, throwing garbage around, and a host of other ills common to locations where game is artificially concentrated, is make the ducks winter up in Skagit County instead of coming down to the Chehalis Valley. And you want to talk about expenses and a waste of state money - maintianting that diked land in farmland and farming it every year is the real waste of money. Wintering habitat for waterfowl is not limiting at all - I myself have 80 acres of it that never got more than 2 dozen mallards on it all winter - and no northerns at all - because they were all up in those Skagit cereal bowls. Damn right, flood those farmed estuaries and force those ducks to spread out a little so we all get a shot at them.

Also, a recent study on the Fraser River delta showed that 90% of the daily caloric intake of juvenile chinook salmon occurred at high tide in saltmarshes, even though the water was only in the marsh 10% of the tide. Saltmarsh is the most critical habitat there is, and it is in the shortest supply in the Skagit of any of the several critical habitats needed for successful production of salmon. And saltmarsh habitat not only grows wild salmon, it grows hatchery salmon too, and can only improve the survival of hatchery fish. I would say that the most important thing that WDFW could do is to get ahold of all the diked saltmarsh it can and blow all the dikes.

And crissake, hunt your ducks in the wild, not in baited fields

Bruce,

To do that(ban nets) yes, it takes a loud and cohesive voice and most likey many years ahead of battle. (Plus, you have the Bartlet(sp?) ACT of the Feds to deal with...)-And still, I do not think it would ever be realisitic to think that Washington's native tribes would ever give up ALL of their fishing rights(even in the case of endangerment) -unless the resources is exhusted -completely. I fallow with what Spawner says regarding the "trash" hunters in those parts. No it might not be everyone, but you can be certain it's plenty. Most of my comrades wouldn't dare hunt waterfowl on this (west)side of the mountains at these "plunking -holes" anyway..... It's like going to the Washougal during the salmon run to have 6 other people cross lines with you....For years, and years, (second generation) many of my ol' friends go east for waterfowl for space and productivity. If you want to have these man-made waterfowl "watering holes" why not buy some land yourself. --Or you can go into what's called a "Cost Share Agreement" with a land owner(farmer) in the Skagit Valley. You become the steward of whatever acreage of a wetland within the borders of the farm owners land. The only thing you owe is your time, consideration and sharing some of the costs of whatever is proposed and agreed upon by -you, -the land owner/farmer, -and the acting body of the Farm Service Agency. You can in fact, get a group of people or an organization(Ducks Unlimited, smaller local group, friends etc.) to sponsor or act as a "group" steward instead of taking it all on yourself. The FSA will even help share the vast majority of finances of your proposed wetland enhancement/protection project. In some cases you may not have little if any costs associated if the wetland is in prime shape. --Or you decide not to put to much effort into it. The idea is preservation and secondly enhacement. Though, I think most people who become involved with these programs tend to go all out and in time regenerate the potential of the site -for hunting, ecology benefits, wildlife viewing etc... I've already had support from the NRCS with my wetland out near Republic, WA.
Just some thoughts on alternatives and ideas.....
Darin

I wouldn't consider the flooding of Leque Island or the Welts property a big loss. Thirty duck hunters and twenty pheasant hunters all hunting the same barley field isn't hunting at all. It's a joke. There is decent duck hunting to be had around here but none of it is at the major public access areas.

spawnout,
Look at the bright side of it man. At least you didn't have 200 hunters trespassing on yourland if you need help with that 2 dozen mallards let me know

Hey Bruce,
I know who you are :p

Steel-nerves, Thanks for the ideas. I have a group in mind to ask. I don't hunt those areas myself but many people do. They are not all slob hunters. Its all they have. Those are the major PUBLIC areas left.

Alot of areas had poor hunting this year due to mild weather and a continued poor hatch in Canada.

Yo Bruce,

Cheers! And good luck! Yes, I heard about the mild winter syndrome.....
Good Fishing, Darin

Sorry Benny, but I have to agree with Bruce in principle.

Don't get me wrong I hunt skagit bay a bit myself, but I think the departments ag land planted with barley is like crack for ducks. They can't stay away even though it kills them. If a private group tried to do the same thing they'd be busted by the feds for baiting.

I think this could make the duck numbers overwintering in the bay decrease, but I think the same number would still stop over. Also more salt marsh habitat might help out the widgeon and teal which I think have declined drastically in the skagit basin over the past ~20 years I've hunted it.

Besides all this. You have to look at whats good for both resources. Having more habitat is good for both ducks and fish. I think that is the bottom line.

Geoduck

Geoduck,

If you inferring that a private group would take on a project to enhance and protect an existing or depleted wetland to provide sport and other recreational opportunities(by so called "baiting" the area) you are mistaken. The "Fed" is the implementor of such programs given out by the FSA(Farm Service Agency), NRCS(National Resource Conservation Service) and others under the umbrella of the Department of Agriculture. These approved projects are done with the all aspects in mind, including the native and historical bio-enviro concerns, the farm owner and his crop turn over and the ideas the steward is interested in. Bottom line is when an agreement is made all parties have consensus and are regulated ultimately by the feds! Nothing but good has come out of most of these projects.
Good Fishing, Darin

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I am talking about is the state paying farmers to leave standing grain crops for the ducks to eat (and hunters to shoot them over the crops). This is essentially state sponsored baiting IMHO.

In the Mississippi flyway, the feds have busted private farmers and hunters for this for years. Around 1999-2000, they really ramped up their enforcement of baiting laws, including writing tickets for leaving unharvested crops to hunt over. But here in the Pacific flyway such enforcement does not seem to be as vigorous (or at least the state is exempt).

Geoduck,
That's pretty bad. A bunch of horse d%ng really. Maybe with these changes we'll see less of that.
Darin

Geoducks,
I do believe that the law says that you cannot plant a field, let the grain stay standing and hunt over it. You can knock the grain down or leave waste grain and hunt over it.

Geoduck,
I agree with your baiting remarks but isn't for example hatchery fish programs a way to promote more fishing and hence revenue? IMHO, baiting isn't very ethical but I think state may be after some revenue as well as providing opportunity to hunt near a big city. Therefore ethics is out of the door. Also hatchery programs may not be good for native fish but then again that is what creates the opportunity and the money. There is a vicious cycle somewhere

Stihlhead,
I like your avatar

Hunting Guys,

This is apples and oranges talk there fellas. Yes, they are both fruits and may even grow on the same land and are even eaten by the same people. But the arguements are seperate as far as the analogy goes. Yes fish and waterfowl have an intertwining here in the case of the Skagit but hatchery steelhead and salmon vs wild salmon & steelies are a seperate issue. I see your point though. But if you wanted a better analogy you'd have to make a case on feeding(they don't feed in fresh H20) adult steelhead to keep them around for better fishing..... Don't you think they're/we're finally starting to figure out the inadequecies and benefits of the hatchery issue? It may be a choice of having no fishery at all or atleast for some time(waiting for native runs to come back) than not have hatchery fish and in other cases -a hatchery run has been proven to be one of the principle or secondary damaging causes of wild fish degredation. So, point is, hatcheries may end up being the only way we can have fishing seasons and especially "catch & keep" seasons. In addition don't forget hatcheries do not only augement sport fishing but also are the primary support to many commercial and tribal fishing operations. The food-on-the- table for the average American has to come from somewhere...... I'm a firm believer in promoting better and more sound land stewardship and not to have "fishing ponds" and "duck holes" unless it's for the kids!
Good Fishing, Darin

BP,
I got it from a hunting site


Darin,

You may have misunderstood my remarks. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes in the process of creating hunting and fishing opportunities, we may do things that are not necessarily kosher. Especially when lots of $ is involved and we know how much junk sportsman buy.

Hunting season is over and these damn hunters are invading our site

See you guys in a few days. Going fishing

Hozeri! That translates to junk in Yiddish. I say we keep things kosher..... Sorry I miss understood you.
Darin - not afraid to be a Jew


Yea, you're right, we gotta keep these hunters out of the site.....

Stihlhead,
Yea, im a member on the refuge too. I check out the Washington site a lot.

Benny (aka dukbuster)