I was wondering why most hatcheries don't live spawn steelhead and then recycle them to come back in future years? It would seem that even with the excess fish you could just dump the eggs and sperm and toss the fish back.

Once they're spawned you don't have to worry about them interacting with wild fish and it would seem they would have a reasonable survival rate, at least better than a smolt.

probably economics...you have to sedate the fish and have a set up to do that...takes more time and skill to do it too....it's easier to just bonk and strip 'em...

I agree. They should live spawn at least the one, two, and three salts. There then would be thousands of more hatchery fish returning to the rivers. Plus if half of these fish die, they would only fertilize the streams by releasing nutrients from their decomposing bodies that feed insects which smolts feed on. Good point BossMan.

Jay

the kalama river hatchery seems to dump 50-100/week into kress lake to be fished for there. seems like you should release them back into the rivers and maybe one or two will check out new rivers to spawn in or re salt and come back bigger. I read an article about some tagged steelhead that would spawn in two or three rivers.

It's mostly a matter of choice. It's a lot easier to kill spawn them, so there may be a small cost savings to doing it that way.

Live spawning would allow kelts to be released to either survive and return again (not as larger fish, generally - they lose so much weight making the spawning run) or die and "feed" the ecosystem. If hatchery kelts survive at a rate similar to wild ones, then the return rate would be higher than the smolt to adult survival rate.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I believe that many hatchery fish spawn naturally in the river. At least I believe that's the case in rivers like the Skookumchuck and Salmon... May be wrong though

CTS,

Indeed, hatchery steelhead do spawn naturally in many rivers. However, in places where it's been studied, the hatchery spawners are not very successful reproducers. Either the fry don't survive well to the smolt stage, or the hatchery-gone-wild smolts don't survive well to the adult stage.

I think it may vary, and those hatchery steelhead whose spawn timing is the same as their wild counterparts, might be more successful. Something's different, as the late-run hatchery winter runs from the Cowlitz are creating some naturally spawning wild winter runs for the upper Cowlitz now. They may not be as successful after 30 years of hatchery culture, but they seem to be able to catch on.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

in the skookumchuck i'd bet the hatchery fish spawning would have some pretty good survival rates for their fry since they use stock from the river itself...no hatchery fish go above the dam though...only wild or feral guys...skookumchuck kill spawns most fish but once in awhile they live spawn them....

You know Salmo,

I wonder about these late run Cowlitz fish that have been spawning so successfully. Not that they are not spawning successfully, but don't you find it kind of STRANGE that the Cowlitz has this special genetic type of steelhead that has apparently turned a lot of old THE SCIENTIFIC studies kind up side down?

You know me, and you also know that I have a nose when it comes to dealing with fishy smelling things! Just maybe it's working so darn well on the Cowlitz because of such watch dogs groups like CPR-Fish and the Friends of the Cowlitz. Do you suppose that some "scientist" or biologist might be a "little bit gun shy" about playing with his study results when he has at lease 2 diehard groups watching every single move that he even thinks about making on a study?

You know both of our groups pretty darn well by now, and would you want to have Dave or me, or worse yet both of us looking over your shoulder every time you analyzed or "adjusted" your study result, or its protocol? You may say no on this board, but I know better! Just ask old "Markie Boy" from Tacoma Power and see how gun-shy he his with releasing any of Tacoma's study information to us. Oh yea, he'll give us the final spin version, but not the "details" of how he got to the "spin"!

I can't say for a fact, but I'll bet you that there has never been such an ongoing study of using hatchery fish for restoration as there currently is on the Cowlitz. After going through a full year or better, of almost weekly meeting concerning Tacoma's and Lars "scientific" BS scam called Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT), I have for good reason, formed an opinion that a lot of these other "scientific" studies that have apparently been done in the past may very well be flawed.....no not flawed...., but just plain old fashion BS!!

If all of the hatchery/wild interaction studies were put together like the EDT process has been, then in my opinion, they are nothing more or less then money making scams. I don't have to repeat to you why I feel this way, because you were there and you saw the same crap that I saw going on, but I guest it doesn't really matter what meeting you have to be at each day when all you see is a bunch of crap everywhere you go. Crap is crap, so it probably didn't make a whole lot of difference to you since you draw the "lucky straw" for the Tacoma Project.

That process (EDT) is such a bunch of BS, and yes, I have told Lars that it was. I can understand him getting pretty excited about me saying that, especially when Tacoma paid him close to, if not more then one million dollars to do his EDT.... BS process! That process was not about "science" it was, as you known, about money and how you can jiggle the numbers and figures until you get the results that you are being paid to get. How many times were our questions answered with "hold that thought"? Now that was truly "science"!

Most of (but not all) the studies that I have heard of have only used one genetic species to prove their point that hatchery fish do not do well in the wild. That specie was the "Chamber Creek" stock! There in my opinion lies the problem! WE all know the short falls of the Chamber creek stocks, so what happens when they use "another" genetic stock like they have on the Cowlitz....presto.... you got fish!

Almost every study that has used the Chamber stocks as their protocol for their study were doomed and preordained from the beginning to come out with the same results (they don't work!) Personally, I think that curtain "genetic" stocks of fish may very well be the answer to restoring much of our "natural production" to many of our rivers (not all, but many)!

We just need to find the right, or close to right, genetic stocks to prove the point. One has to wonder why WDFW is not using some of the late winner run stocks from the Cowlitz in some other small rivers to "test the science" and see if these fish will work in the system. I think that if WDFW finds a watershed that was similar to that of the Cowlitz that they would work just fine. It sure appears to be working very well at this time on the Cowlitz, so why not see if it can work as well in some other river?

Maybe that is why both NMFS and WDFW has always referred to the Cowlitz Restoration Program has the "great experiment"

Well I have said enough here now to get all of those anti hatchery guys all excited again!


Cowlitzfisherman

Bravo Cowlitz,

You seem to know as well as I do that if a wdfw biologist doesnt go with the "status quo" they dont go very far in that department. making waves or going against the norm can get you a desk job. politics and science dont mix! to bad politics has been winning.

Have to agree with Cowlitz here too. We all know how the process works, and just imagine how many educated idiots would be out of work if they were to "imprint" the river on the smolts so they would return to spawn in that part of the river rather than returning to the hatchery to be bonk-spawned...... If the fish were successful at spawning naturally (which I believe they would after a couple of generations), our resident biologists would have to figure out what else to do to justify their salaries...... Oh my God, pity the thought of that!!!

MC

aren't the kalama research team guys doing just such a study? using 'native' stock reared at the upper hatchery and seeing how they do in comparison to in river 'native' fish?

The reason the hatcheries "kill spawn " is they are required to check every fish used for spawing for IHN disease. (infectious hematopoitic necrosis. here is the site about that disease. www.watershed-watch.org/ww/salmonfarming./diseaseconcerns.html

try www,watershed-watch.org. and go to salmon faming disease concerns sorry thats the best I can do. Pat

Congrats guys! It's nice to see that some of us are educated enough to ask questions and wonder why. Bravo to all you guys. The Cowlitz river is definitly a source of much debate but most people just fish and forget, instead of asking why. Its nice to know that I wasn't the only one questioning those overpaid, overprivelaged scientests salary.

they only test a percent of fish for ihn so they could actually live spawn more...i think it's either 60 or 120 ovarian samples for testing per species per year...if they find ihn in adult steelhead it's not so bad....eggs are water hardened in iodophor which seems to do the trick preventing vertical transmission to the fry...and if they are being transferred they have to be iodophored again...the harder thing is to get ihn free water to raise the fish in...so places like cowlitz and coleman have ozone treatment plants for their water...other places use well water and try to prevent stray sockeye(big ihn carriers) from getting upstream into their water supply if they use ihn free surface water...trout seem to handle ihn better but not salmon...except coho don't seem to carry it much

i live on the north fork of the sky and i'm amazed at all the hatchery fish up here every year. we are way upstream from reiter ponds and even further from the wallace hatchery.

so what are they doing this far up?

no need to rush up here to fish they arn't in to stong yet