At our WSC board meeting last night we received a report that the state is considering a week long wild steelhead kill fishery on the Chehalis system [ including major tribs.] as their numbers indicate there will be some "extra" fish above escapement. After the harvest the system would close, no c-n-r.

That's too bad, I fish the chehalis river system a lot. I'd just like to see the river stay to wild release. From what I've seen this year, I can't imagine them being over escapement. Keep me posted if you hear this is for sure. I'll try to go out and sore mouth as many as possible and make sure the natives stay where they are supposed to, in the water.

Chromeslayer

Jerry Garcia,

So, who can we write to voice our concerns regarding this proposed scenerio? I'm guessing we are talking about "all" the tributaries to the Chehalis system, ie. the Wynoochee, Satsop, Skoomchuck -etc....? Need to act fast, Darin

Well, I guess that would be a great way to keep a supressed run down....kill the nates. WDFG never fails to amaze me

The decision would be made at the Region 6 office in Montesano. Bob Gibbons is the biologist floating the idea. I hear he's not good at reading his e-mails. The regional directors name is Sue Patnude, office phone 360 249-4628, fax number is 360 664-0689. I heard the fishery could be the end of March.

What the F are they thinking?

Folks interested in making their opinions known on this proposed fishery ought to do it right away, as the decision will likely be made in the next couple of weeks.

This one week kill fishery will come at the expense of a one month WSR fishery. Not a CNR fishery, but one where wild fish are released and hatchery fish are still legal to harvest.

I can't really understand the option to have a one week kill fishery.

KILL FISHERY

Forecast of 105 wild fish harvested, along with any incidental hatchery fish, which should account for a lot of fish, too, as all those tribs have late returning hatchery fish. Likely the hatchery harvest would far outweigh the amount of wild fish harvested.

Fishing lasts seven days, then that's it until June.

WILD STEELHEAD RELEASE FISHERY

No directed wild fish harvest, which protects the runs in all those tributaries, where a few fish could make the difference between making escapement in a few years or not.

Hatchery fish are still available to harvest...and will likely outnumber the wild fish encountered anyway, not to mention have an additional three weeks to put fish in the freezer, plus the added bonus of getting them out of the system so they don't spawn with the wild fish.

A month of fishing, rather than a week. More opportunity, more $$ in the local economies, less gas spent to drive out to the coast or up to the Skagit/Sauk to fish, and less pressure on those other open rivers, too, by spreading out the fishing pressure more.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, a feeling that WDFW is both creating opportunity and making an effort to not do it at the expense of wild fish. Lack of trust and integrity is a huge problem for WDFW right now, and this is a way to establish some of both.

That's my take on it, anyway...

Fish on...

Todd.

Darin,

Knock yourself out...I hope that lots of us make use of our voices to let the powers that be know that we're not happy with stuff like this.

Fish on...

Todd.

so let me get this straight..the washington fish and game want to set a kill fishery for wild steelhead instead of letting those fish live and spawn thus granting alot more steelhead to reproduce and have alot more fish in the system in say 2-4 years? they want to jus keep enough going to "sustain" the runs which by the way arent really that good anyways?? f'n rocket science..........

WDFW never seems to amaze me! Why they are thinking of proposing this is beyond me. Jerry, you seem to know quite a bit more than anyone else on this subject so I will direct my questions towards you. Does this include the entire chehalis system from the lets say 101 in Aberdeen to the high bridge on the Weyerhauser 1000 line? That is alot of water to open up for a kill fishery on wild steelhead. I bet the guys that help broodstock the Satsop every year are just thrilled with this news. If I could get some more information on everything it would make calling or emailing the people at the Monte office a litte bit easier.
If we put together a meeting on the subject do you think other sport fisherman will show? I for one am willing to do anything to get the state to reverse their decision. Let us know what's up and I will be more than happy to help. Until then keep the lines tight and release all nates.

Additional information:

WDFW
4800 Devenshire Road
Montesano, WA 98563

You can also find info, email addresses etc. from the WDFW main web page

A meeting is a great idea.
Good Fishing, Darin

Okay well I called the Devonshire office and talked to Sue. The information she gave me was this; There is a proposal for a 2 or 3 day kill fishery of wild steelhead on the Chehalis system and it's tribs. If the proposal does indeed happen it will happen at the end of March she said. She gave me Bill Cambell's number 249-1203, she said he was the guy that I needed to talk to. I called and left a msg on this guys machine. She said it is still being proposed but that things are looking promising for the fishery. Promising my @$$! Darin, I can get a huge auditorium to host a meeting in free of charge. If you guys want to do this, I can see if maybe some of the guys from the department would like to attend the meeting. Lets keep the ball rolling. Let me know what more I can do.

From what I have heard it is gonna become a forgone opertunity issue, So the State would rather give the opertunity to you, Know that being said if you continue to release the fish (Natives) then know damage done. But the other inities will not get your share. Opertunity does not have to = Harvest let your beliefs be your guide. I do not agree with giving up the late hatchery fish but if it happens in late March and the nets won't get our share and we can have a high percentage of nate release during this period then it is all good with me. matt

From what I have heard it is gonna become a forgone opertunity issue, So the State would rather give the opertunity to you, Know that being said if you continue to release the fish (Natives) then know damage done. But the other inities will not get your share. Opertunity does not have to = Harvest let your beliefs be your guide. I do not agree with giving up the late hatchery fish but if it happens in late March and the nets won't get our share and we can have a high percentage of nate release during this period then it is all good with me. matt

Sounds like they're doing this to justify a tribal net fishery for nates

I don't know how the WDFW has figured that there is a surplus of wild steelhead. I fish the Chehalis system almost exclusively after the new year, every year. It's close to home and I have private access to a lot of areas. From what I've seen and heard so far is that the wild and hatchery return is poor at best. It was much better last year and could have warranted a wild "bonking" session. I'm not in favor of one, but I think the system could have handled it.

Here's something to think about though. If the Indians were halted for "bonking week" and couldn't net, would this change anybody's mind? I know that will never happen, but....

Hey everybody,
Remember this fishery a few years down the road when the offspring of these fish are returning and watch for the DFW to rule emergency closures for the entire chehalis system. Would'nt that be a joke!

Can we fire the entire WDFW and hire some intelligent people to replace them? Or even some people that aren't that smart, but have SOME common sense?

The system is being netted 5-6 days a week as we speak, So they don't have to justify a native net schedule. Thay are all ready killing them. And they want more, They want your allotment. By opening it to you it will save the fish you are allotted to spawn if we a concerned fisher people will continue to release the nates as we continually preach.

I'm sick of this kind of stupidity...... when am I issued my half of net control????

This is what I know
Hi Guys-

As I related at the BOD meeting last night the WDFW is seeking input on the Chehalis system steelhead fishery for this year. The predicted run size includes a harvestable surplus this year of wild fish and they are looking at 3 options for management:

Background data for 2003

run size 10975 wild fish estimated
treaty catch 648
Chehalis tribal 330 this leaves 9997 wild fish
e-goal 8600
Available 9997-8600 = 1397 fish available for possible sport use

Option 1: Season: Mar 1-7
Predicted catch of 145 to 196 fish, leaving a buffer of 1201 fish

Option 2: Season: Mar 24-31
Estimated catch: 166 to 223, leaving a buffer of 1074 fish

Option 3: Extend Wild Steelhead Release (WSR) season for 2 weeks to April 15 on the Wynooche and Satsop and to April 30 on the Chehalis.

No information was provided on hooking mortality, but I assume that it is less than the buffer amount.

The Advisory Group was about divided in their vote for these options: 9 for option 2 and 8 for option 3.

Data shows the Chehalis system has been above the escapement goal for 4 years without a kill fishery by roughly 500 to 3000 fish with last year being about 10,500 fish escaping to the spawning grounds.

Other facts:

The Chehalis system was underescaped between 1987 and 1997 except for 1989 when it just made the goal.

The Wnyooche has made escapement since 1894, except for 87, 92 and 96.

The Satsop has been underescaped since 1987 except for just making it in 93, 94, 98, and making it by 700 or so fish in 02.

The mainstem of the Chehalis has been underescaped since 1987 except for 99 and 2000.

We reviewed this fishery last year in the Advisory Group and Nate and I (along with a few others) voted for WSR. The Department followed that option. They now seem to favor a kill fishery, as it has been closed for a long time (to a kill fishery).

I again voted for WSR suggesting it would be better to allow the fish to spawn and hopefully build the run higher before a harvest.

I talked to B. Leland today and he said there is still a small amount of time to get comments in. He suggested sending e-mail comments to him and Bob Gibbons. I would suggest sending them also to Director Jeff Koenings and Bill Freymond. Here are those address'

Bob Leland lelandrfl@dfw.wa.gov
Bob Gibbons gibborgg@dfw.wa.gov
Jeff Koenings koenijpg@dfw.wa.gov
Bill Freymond freymbhf@dfw.wa.gov

Time is of the essence. Try to get comments in by the end of the week as they will make their decision early in March.

Cheers-dick

Jerry-
I presume you had that detailed information (at least in general form) after yur board meeting - why not include that in the first post. Stirring the pot?

The three options you present (via Dick) are all targeted at killing additional wild fish. The first two in directed harvest of wild fish and the third in hooking mortality in a WSR fishery for an aditional 2 to 4 week period.

Based on the comments above it seemed most were preferring an additional option - put them all on the spawning grounds - leave the season as is (somewhat surprised that at least on the committee didn't lean this way). Others (Todd et al) seem to prefer killing some additional wild fish just as long it is in a WSR fishery (willing to sacrifice some fish for increased opportunity?).

As always it seems these debates are as much about who gets what piece of the pie as it is the fish's needs.

Tight lines
Smalma

Please call Bill Cambell(WDFW acting agent) at 360-249-1203 to voice any concerns or questions regarding the status of this proposal.

Darin

Smalma, I received the email with the detailed info Wednesday night at 6:05 on my work computer and posted it when I got to work Thursday am, so not trying to stir the pot. I thought the issue was serious enough to post the info I had before I got the follow-up email. Apparently by the "stir the pot" comment you must feel the numbers in the email indicate that we should have a kill fishery.

Jerry -
The first posting seem to indicate that the only item of discussion was whether to harvest the"surplus" fish or not and no CnR.

Turn outs that CnR (WSR) is an option (#3). Further, that under even the most harvest directed option a 12.5% buffer is expected over the escapement goal.

I was not adovacating harvest or no harvest -just that the two situations above are very different and I found the first post unnecessarily misleading.

I thought a year or so ago I made my position on what I thought steelhead management guidelines could be pretty clear.

For consideration - if a 12.5% buffer above the escapement goal is not enough (let's save the discussion of the whether the goal is correct or not for later), how much buffer would be enough? Should the same buffer apply to any CnR fisheries targeting wild fish? If not why not?

Tight lines
Smalma

What frustrates me is the channel of communication. Why did I have to find out about this on this board? Where is WDFW's public notice on their website? Newspapers?

Again, seems they are trying to slide something by us with little input.

Smalma- A cnr fishery with hatchery retention and a longer season would be a better option than a short wild kill season and no hatchery retention after the river closes.I don't know the numbers[perhaps nobody does] but maybe removing more hatchery fish from the system so they don't spawn with wild fish[with the lower survival rate of hatch/wild interaction] might offset the hooking mortality in a cnr season. I'm also concerned that a large percentage of wild fish killed may be hens for the eggs and it's my belief that hens are more valuable than the bucks on a one to one basis. Sorry about the crack about your beliefs about harvesting the fish, that was stirring the pot. :p

Allow me to be the lone dissentor on the native kill plan for the chehalis system.Although i do release natives,i have bonked 18lbd hatchery fish.So have most, if not all of you.I have seen many of you show big hatchery steelies ,in person inpicture,on these pages that you took home and ate.I dont know the return on hatchery spawns but i know their real close to the return on native spawn.I dont think many of us has caught an actual native.That native that you released was a hatchery spawn or a fish that didnt get clipped.so before a bunch of you hatchery fish eaters get real upset,think about releasing that next nice hatchery fish you or your client takes home.

I vote for a longer season with selective gear rules and good c&r practices by anglers, to keep wild steelhead hooking mortality down . Allow continued retention of hatchery fish to keep hatchery/wild interaction down. The fish win, the anglers win, seems like a win-win to me. What am I missing here?

"I dont know the return on hatchery spawns but i know their real close to the return on native spawn."

Wrong. Hatchery fish spawning in the wild have a much lower success rate than natives. And because of that, it's not very likely that the natives we catch are actually the result of hatchery fish spawning.

Smalma, The info I received was that the state was moving toward a wild kill. Your right about there being 3 options, it seemed their mind was made up to remove some of those pesky wild fish.

Jerry -
Of course all three options would be removing some of those "pesky" wild fish from the spawning population.

With the various sections of the Chehalis open for an extra 2 to 4 weeks how wild fish would be released? From all reports there can be dozens of boats a day on the system with even more bankies with good catch rates. Apply a 10% handling mortality (want to err on the side of fish of course) the wild fish mortality would likely approach that being proposed in the first 2 options. So the discussion is not really about what is best for the fish but rather what user group gets to use (kill) that resource.

Tight lines
Smalma

thank you fishalot ive been saying that alot they cant clip all the fish and not all hatchery fish spawn at the hatchey so all there off spring are wild fish NOT you guys are going to flame me on this but i think those extra fish are dead anyway you look at it either you get them or the indains will rember its the goverment they do what they want and say something different its happening in the midleast right now i dont trust this goverment at all

You know, smalma, that's such a load. Is closing the entire system down completely an option? If it's not, then WDFW has determined that x amount of fish ARE going to be harvested. That being said, what kind of jackass would want to minimize the revenue that would be generated by such a harvest?

"Use" the resource in a manner which minimizes revenue? Good work, WDFW.

Smalma,

As you know, we usually agree on most everything regarding wild steelhead management...or agree to disagree

This time, however, I'm going have to join Dan S. and call bull$hit...

Even if we accept your simplification that it's not about saving fish, that it's about who gets to kill them, there are signficant differences between the "who gets to kill 'em" options...and they're not allocation issues.

1. Revenue-this is pretty obvious, I think. Fishermen will spend more money in a month than they will in 3-7 days. The argument that effort will drastically reduce due to the requirement to release wild fish doesn't work, either, because it will still be open for retention of hatchery fish.

2. Reduction of hatchery/wild introgression-if a clipped fish retention season lasts a month rather than 3-7 days, more hatchery fish will be removed from the system, meaning less will spawn or attempt to spawn in the system. You know the science better than I do as to the damage done to wild fish by hatchery fish spawning in the river.

3. Satisfaction of those who wish to harvest fish-a month of hatchery fish retention with WSR will put a lot more fish in the freezer than a 3-7 day kill fishery.

Those factors, among others, make a month long selective fishery better than a three day kill fishery, even if I accept that the real issue is just that of allocation, i.e., a battle between the two groups who will kill fish in any fishery, directly or indirectly.

However, I don't accept that as true, either.

What's the projection? Something like 130 wild fish harvested in the kill option? Even using the 10% incidental mortality you cited above that would mean 1300 fish would have to be cnr'd to reach that same level of harvest. That's just not going to happen, and the actual amount cnr'd, multiplied by 10%, will likely be much, much less than 130 fish.

[EDIT: I just re-read the proposals and was reminded that the projected wild fish harvest under options one or two ranges from 143 or so to 223 or so. These numbers make the above argument regarding relative mortalities between the options even more compelling...1400 fish cnr'd would be even more amazing, and 2300 of them would be almost unbelievable. Not just an allocation issue... ]

While I appreciate "erring on the side of the fish", as you noted above, presumably due to the inordinate amount of times you've had that phrase thrown at you, I think it better applies to things we don't know. The compilation of all the available steelhead hook and release mortality studies, which you've seen, shows a pretty consistent 3%-5% mortality.

I'm having a really hard time seeing why any other option even comes close to option three, in terms of conservation, opportunity, or revenue, not to mention reducing a bit of the pressure on the Sauk/Skagit and OP streams.

Fish on...

Todd.

Oh, yeah, anyone who truly believes that either there are no wild fish, or that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is in any way good, then they are completely ignorant of the ALL the current scientific data whose results are directly contrary to those beliefs.

Why not leave it the way it is. And weither it is Broodstocking with native parents, Hatchery fish or true nates Spawning in the wild is all Theory = Science. Sure Nates might have a higher success rate, But it is also run timing, Not alot of nates in the systems in Dec when the hatchery fish try to spawn, Could that be because mother nature and raging rivers over time wiped out the earlier nates .It is all Theory, Projected returns are theory, Spawning is theory. This years returns are sure not what everyone projected and if you truely think the system will meet it's escapement this year, I will tell you that at this time last year the numbers where far higher, Just my rantings

Todd -
What would be the fun if we all always agreed? It is the healthy debate of issues that explore all sides that results in the increase of the collective knowledge of those in the debate. It is only those who unwilling to look at the various sides of an issue that are doomed to remain in ignorance.

To your points
1) I have long (back to the 1970s) made the argued that CnR fisheries often produce more man-days of fishing per day fish. However not all anglers wish to participate in such fisheries. It may well be that more license buyers wish to bonk the occassional or not so occassional fish on the Chehalis. The fact that the steelhead advisory committee voted more or less evenly on this issue it may be a close call on this basin.

2) In the Bolt case area when there are not harvestable wild fish the fisheries have been managed under wild steelhead release (WSR) regulations. Such regulations remain in place until there are few hatchery fish (at least unspawned fish) available. In rivers planted with Chambers Creek type fish that is the end of February. While I'm not very familar with the Chehalis system and its fisheries management it would appear that a latter timed brood stock is used thus the end of March end of WSR on the Satsop/Wynoochee and the end of April on the Skookumchuck. Additional spring fishing may well not provide much additional opportunity at hatchery fish. Do you or any locals know if many fresh winter hatchery fish are entering the Satsop/Wynoochee at the end of March or the Skookumchuck the last of April?

There may not be many hatchery fish to kill.

3) While your proposed hooking mortality rates may be appropriate with highly skilled and conscious anglers many are not. Those that frequent this board undoubtly are more passion and better informed anglers than the average angler but one doesn't have look very long to find photo examples of fish not being handled in a manner that would insure its best chance of survival. Bob Hooten the guru of steelhead and steelhead hooking mortalities studies (source of much of your mortality estimates) from BC has recommended that in general fisheries the values from his studies be doubled - ergo the 10%.

Given all the miles of water that would be open to the catching of wild fish how a day do you think might be handled? I continually hear of multiple fish days per boat.

Again I enjoy these debates and it is through them that I'm have been able to expand my limited knowledge.

Tight lines
Smalma

i've caught caught a hatchery hen with tight eggs in the last week of april on the skook lat year( i think it'd already been recycled though)...they don't put any hatchery fish above skookumchuck dam ...only 'feral' or wild....though hatchery fish spawn below the dam...i forget how late they take eggs...gotta double check...but i think they're done by the beginning of april....

I want to be sure to get this right... With all the state budget cuts going around our local hatcherys are in jeopardy so...instead of allowing the "surplus" of wilds that have made it past pollution, nets, and destruction of habitat, we are going to allow the kill of a valuable asset that may reduce the future need of state involvement to supplement the return of steelhead to our rivers. I think I got that right, but I still don't get it....

Smalma,

You're right, of course, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun, or informative, if we agreed about everything...

Some additional responses to your responses

1. What's being proposed is not a CnR season, but an additional WSR season with hatchery retention. I would hope not too many folks would complain about that type of fishery, as that's what we have all summer, and all winter except for a few streams.

2. There are broodstock programs in a couple major Chehalis tribs that result in March/April hatchery fish, and a couple of other hatchery programs, big and small, that also have good returns of late hatchery fish. I wouldn't be surprised to find a 50/50 split of hatchery and wild fish through March, probably leaning to more like 75/25 for natives by mid-April. There will be lots of clipped fish to fish for, catch, and harvest.

3. It's hard to argue with you about various levels of skill, or more to the point, care, involved in properly fighting and releasing steelhead. In the context of current impacts, 10% includes a generous margin of error, and it's not necessarily a bad idea to keep it there.

When we're talking about what is possible with good CnR techniques, and where we'll hopefully get through better education, I'll stick with 3% or 4%

I'll further admit that I don't know how many fish will be encountered, wild or hatchery, during a month long season on those rivers. As usual, it'll be a function of effort, weather, and presence of fish. I guess we'll see.

Fish on...

Todd.

Contack ISSU and Idaho Rivers United for additional support ??

Quoting Todd.....Oh, yeah, anyone who truly believes that either there are no wild fish, or that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is in any way good, then they are completely ignorant of the ALL the current scientific data whose results are directly contrary to those beliefs.
_____________________________________

And said with enthusiasm! Todd, I dare say, if spawning hatchery fish are not "in any way good" then WTF are we doing raising them outside of pens? Perhaps some study is needed to learn a practical way to sterilize them? Or dye them with luminous dye so they can be killed more easily? Get serious. Hatchery fish have caused much discussion and hypothesizing about gene pool deterioration, etc., etc., etc. But they are still here swimming about the oceans and returning as weighty and healthy as their wild counterparts, and regardless of arguments, I'm not convinced that anyone can tell the difference between one and the other prior to landing it. If you think you can.....try it. Go ahead and verbalize your guess to a buddy and see how you do. In a mix of hatchery fish and wild fish, you will not be able to tell one from the other.....guaranteed. Don't get me wrong....I don't kill natives, but I regard the hatchery fish/wild fish controversy as highly over dramatized. It's kind of like the 12.5% buffer over escapement.....now there's a number.....12.5%....oooooeeeeee. Or halibut allotments to the pound...UH HUH

All I'm saying, is that if WDFW wants to be respected, then common sense and reality need to come together....and perhaps a rewording of the term "best available science" into "estimated" is in order.
Flame ON!

I particpate in fisheries where harvest of all or at least most fish is allowed. I will only fish if the wild season is open.


In this case WDFG is cutting it to close. They are 10-15 % over goal and trying to jump in with an intensified fishery. They can't measure run size to within 10-15 %, add in error in predicting and error in the spawner goal and it gets to risky. The Chehalis is a big river and has been depressed recently. I say let all the wild fish spawn.

I like to fish and harvest. With my limited skill, in C & R before long I have either killed or badly stressed a native. Bad feeling. If I can't eat it, I don't fish it. Thats me. Its OK if you like C & R.

Many push for C & R based on conservation. In all caps KILL FISHERY FOR WILD STEELHEAD, they try to demonize those who prefer to harvest. Do you have confidence in WDFG methods to the point you can say harvest is bad, but it is OK to hook, land, stress severely and release (hopefully still alive) a native steelhead. It sounds like allocation advocacy under the mascurade of conservation. If you don't think the biology supports harvest of fish, leave the fish alone rather than a hypocritical position that puts someone else off the river.

The C & R folks again show a sincere interest in conservation and compassion for wild fish by trying to catch out the hatchery fish that would otherwise spawn with and damage the wild fish. Is releasing hatchery fish on top of wild fish and then trying to fish them out good conservation? If hatchery fish spawning with wild fish is doing damage, I guarantee it will be better to not grow the hatchery fish in the first place.!!

I'm OK with allocation to C & R. It might be what most people want, best for the economy etc. However, don't make allocation arguements based on conservation. You will never really be able to clearly sort out and address conservation again from that point forward.

My comment to WDFG would be to close the fishery this year. Scale back hatchery programs severely. Allow wild runs to recover which they will do. Divide the basin based on allocation with some areas C & R and other for harvest.

"But they are still here swimming about the oceans and returning as weighty and healthy as their wild counterparts..."

If hatchery fish are "returning as weighty and healthy" as wild fish, then why does such a poor percentage of hatchery plants return compared to wild fish?

Todd -
Your suggested ratio of 75 wild fish to 25 hatchery fish in April illustrates clearly one of the down sides of late timed wild brood stocks. If it is indeed as you suggest or even close to that ratio then on those years with poor wild runs (recent past?) and no fisheries in April there must be an awful lot of hatchery fish spwaning with wild fish. In your example it might be as much as 25% - clearly above the guidelines in the State's Wild Salmonid Policy (max. of 10% for similar stocks). I assumed (probably incorrectly that peak wild spawning in much of the system would be late April/early May -thus the ratio of hatchery to wild in mid-April would likely be that we would see on the spawning grounds.

On years of poor wild runs the managers face the dilemma of having excessive hatchery fish spawning or exposing the depressed wild fish to extra fishing impacts.

I can hear so of the earlier posters ready to argue that the hatchery fish from wild brood stock are as good as the wild fish. I don't believe so. There is a growing body of information that any offspring from fish that had spend an extend period of time in hatchery do not survival as well as naturally produced fish from wild fish. Perhaps a hypothetical example will illustrate why that might be. Let's compare the results of a pair of fish spawning in the wild and a pair used in a brood stock program. I will use a typical fecundity of 5,000 eggs per female.

The wild case - For a river being managed unde MSY and the escapement goal being met those 5,000 eggs would typcially produce about 30 smolts or with a 10% smolt to adult survival I would expect those two spawners to produce 3 returning adults - In this case the population could sustain a fishing impact of 33%. If the river was managed at carrying capacity then I would expect about 20 smolts and 2 adults - fishing impacts would have to be zero!

In the hatchery/wild brood stock those 5,000 eggs might produce 3,500 smolts and with a decent hatchery smolt to adult survival of 4% would produce 140 adults.

Please notice.
The eggs from naturally spawning fish had a freshwater mortality of more than 99%. That means that the resulting smolts were the fittest of the fittest. The parent female likely was more successful than most in picking a good redd site. The fry that survived had behaviors that were the very best at avoiding predators, feeding food, finding safe refuge from floods and droughts and were very luckily. When they return they will likely pass those behaviors on to their offspring.

Meanwhile that fish produced in the hatchery were not nearly as rigorously selected against (freshwater mortlatiy of 30%) and many of them will have behaviors that would not be as successful in the wild. Thus in the wild on the whole their offspring will be less fit than those from naturally produced parents.

It should also be noted that there were a heck of lot more adults produced in the hatchery program per pair of spawners. Hatcheries can be very good producing fish to catch but not very good at producing successful spawners.

All of the above once again shows how complex steelhead and steelhead management are.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma......with all due respect, the concept of survival of the fittest is popular, but not necessarily accurate. Exactly what percentage of the survivors are the result of luck? Now I realize that my question is impossible to answer, but don't you think it a reasonable one? Perfectly strong, healthy parents producing the best possible fertilization success can be wiped out by a herd of elk, a falling tree....hundreds of other possibilities.

Since it seems that hatchery fish don't survive well in the wild, and we all know that wild fish could use a hand (go ahead, jump all over that statement), don't you think that incubators are a very real concept? I KNOW that I could design a floating incubator that would protect the eggs and free the young. I really seems like an avenue that needs some serious time and effort put into it to me.

Fun5Acres, As much as we try- Mankind cannot do what mother nature does best.

Since it's so late...I'll just make a short comment:

Anything that we do to increase the productivity of native fish by putting them in any situation from a hatchery to a spawning box or a broodstock program that includes either/or...we produce an animal that does not measure up to the quality or numbers that are produced via wild spawning by wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd....

"How can that be so?"

I am not talking about assisting in any way that would restrict the offspring's natural struggle to survive......only in assuring that the offspring have the maximum CHANCE at that survival.

I am sure that none of my children suffered major setbacks by my wife having a doctor present when they were born (an extreme comparison, I know, but you catch the drift?).

I get the distinct impression that this is a political football, and that WDFW employees are assigned the task of selling concepts that aid, but do not actually achieve rapid recovery (going through the motions, so to speak).

NOW, how do I make this next statement without being accusatory?

Since it is my belief that money (the great, green God) drives most things in life, then perhaps it is the desire for Federal funds that keeps recovery at bay. After all, if I were in charge of WDFW, I could use the unexpressed (at least publically) rationale that the struggle with producing fish could be greatly eased by buying "necessary" land, easements, water rights, etc., etc., etc.

What do you think? Am I on to something?

At any rate, I appreciate your patience, Todd. It must be exhausting.