put feeders at the bottom of deep pools in rivers for wild salmon fry, this way none of them would starve and by the time the hatchery smolts were released the wild fish would be as big as they are, kinda like the feeding stations for deer and elk. <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

If the hatcheries would put the salmon/ steelhead carcasses back in the river where they belong after they have spawned the fish there would be much more food available to the fry, thats the way nature does it .

I second fatpat. The WDFW needs more man/woman power to chuck carcasses back into the streams where they belong as essential marine derived nutrients(MDNs). Current stats show that the number of carcasses returned to the streams are far too low. It would make sense to strategically place these carcasses in streams where LWD enhancement/restoration/rehabilitation projects are occuring or have occured. Ideally a system could be set up such that after the fish get spawned, they load up the fish bins in pickups and drive to the streams. Oh yeah and they ought to keep the fish within the system to prevent spreading of pathogens.

Boater,

First of all I appreciate the thoughts you are applying to increasing wild salmonid production. I too have often daydreamed about ways to increase our rivers ability to produce fish. As to feeding juvenal salmon hatchery pellets, I do not believe this would improve matters much. If you have a river system that has reduced carrying capacity from limited food supplies I would recommend you look for ways to feed the bugs not the fish. Macro invertebrates, I believe, are the foundation of the salmonids fresh water food chain. As Fatpat and Rockhopper pointed out, salmon carcasses are absolutely the best source for the nutrients needed for aquatic bug production. The nutrients in carcasses are mostly in the form of fixed nitrogen and ortho-phosphorus and not like the chemical fertilizers currently leaching into rivers that can cause water quality issues. One of the historical problems with hatchery programs has been the interruption of the natural nutrient cycling that wild spawning salmon provide. With large numbers of a river basin’s fish returning to a hatchery where they are used for pet food, rivers have been starved for nutrients.
I would recommend that carcass programs be utilized to the maximum extent possible. If a river is TMDL listed and carcass programs are not allowed I would recommend releasing live, spawned out hatchery salmon into the TMDL listed body of water and let your DEQ argue that live fish pose a water quality issue. Because many of the river systems have had one or more individual runs of fish eliminated, the historical supply and timing of nutrients may not be available(no Chum Salmon or Lamprey). In this case I would recommend natural nutrient blocks be used to replace the missing nutrients. Bio Oregon has developed a natural compressed nutrient biscuit that uses a gelatin binding agent for timed release. The only problem with Bio-Oregon’s biscuit is that the dissolution rate is very dependant on water temp. I have been experimenting with a fish oil stearate (and other additives) as a binding agent (kind of like cubes of margarine) to make “river suet cakes”(salmon chunks mixed in gelatinous fish oil) but thus far have not succeeded. I really stink at organic chemistry

Regardless of food supply, habitat should be what focus on for improving. Large woody debris and complex woody debris are the things that are missing the most in today’s rivers and streams. Some recent data from the Nehalem indicates that cover and food in the estuary may be paramount in increasing adult spawners so working hard to increase smolts may have little effect on total populations.

Just keep on thinking, good ideas are found in strange places…

While the nutrients in salmon carcasses can be the engine that drives the productivity of our river systems we need the physical and biological processes that cycle those nutrients into that system. Historically the carcasses fed the food cycle by decomposing after becoming trapped by log jams, root wads, and other complex channel factors and by animals dragging and "recycling" the carcasses in the ripparian areas.

Unfortunately we as a society have destroyed much of the complexity of our stream channels. The use of rip-rap etc have resulted in stable channels will little or no migration across the valley floor. The end result is essential a single channel. This has been compounded by increased flooding caused by excessive imprevious surfaces in the basin and denuding of the hill sides. The result is that in most systems I know the only place that carcasses are retained long enough in the stream channel to decompose are the small coho streams - this past winter is the first time in more than 20 years that I saw significant numbers of chum carcasses actually shedding flesh into the water and the fish actually eating it - that should be an annual event.

In addition we have so reduced the ripparian areas on most main stem streams that it is hard to imagine bears etc being much of a factor in draggng carcasses from the river.

Bottom line other than the small coho streams additional carcasses are likely to washed out to sea rather than becoming part of the freshwater food chain - they might be good for the crabs though. While placing carcasses in the stream is a feel good project unless we are at the same time working to restore the river processes that creates complex habitats the benefits will be limited.

POS -
While insects are very important here in the North Puget Sound region where there still are substantial numbers of chum and pink salmon they may be less critical than the annual bonanza of loose eggs in the fall and fry in the spring in driving the productivity of the system.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

Thank you for your insight, however Oregon’s IMST has touched upon the issue of altered habitat and has provided clues as to the type of approach that is needed in this modern era. “Emulate” not “Duplicate” is the goal we should set for ourselves and not despair when conditions are not historically accurate. Specifically, without log jams (– large woody debris) or without rootwads (– complex woody debris) we should look for methods that emulate these essential parts of the nutrient vectoring process. Placing one inch wire mesh cages in streams and periodically dropping a carcass inside may solve the “washing out” issue. Attaching the cages to newly placed large woody debris may double the benefit. Allowing sport fishermen the opportunity to refill the cages every two weeks could increase the involvement of the general public and give us an excuse to be on the water more often (more kitchen passes).
As far as utilizing the entire riparian area as a nutrient sink I believe that burying the carcasses above the average high water mark may have the affect we would be looking for. We may also look at using salmon meal (small dried salmon chunks) as a wide broadcast fertilizer for riparian areas. Alaska fish fertilizer currently manufactures a salmon based fertilizer that is safe (according to federal guidelines) for use up to the waters edge. I believe the burying salmon chunks or even whole carcasses in the gravels on the bottom of the river would prove very beneficial in juicing up the nutrient content of the hydrophilic water flow.

As to off channel habitat for use in carcass placement it is difficult under current rules to simply dig a deep pool in a stream. In Oregon there are rules that restrict the total volume of gravel that can be removed. However it has been noticed that the rules do not restrict gravel removal from outside of the stream or it’s banks. Digging a channel or hole alongside a stream is not necessarily against the rules and allowing a flood event to wash away the remaining gravel that separates the two would be an act of nature. If the new side channel was previously filled with logs and rootwads so much the better for the fish. I am sure the feds would frown on this thinking but each of us holds within us what we believe is right or wrong.

With regards to pink and chum salmon please remember that the whole world is not Puget Sound or the Columbia. Many of the coastal rivers in Oregon today have very low or no returns of these fish. I believe that runs like chum salmon are probably the most important supply of Marine Derived Nutrients (MDN) that a river can have. Because these fishes offspring migrate to the ocean upon emergence they do not utilize the limited aquatic biomass in our streams. They provide a net benefit in the form of MDN to what I believe is a very important part of the stream ecosystem, the estuary.
Maybe if we want larger Chinook salmon runs on coastal rivers we should first make sure we have healthy and robust Chum salmon runs?