Curious to know if this little river can sustain a larger run of salmon and Steel.
I fished it 5 times with good success when they're in, but it could be alot better.
I don't know much about this river.
It is very strange that other river of similiar size have a much larger run of fish.

Experts please fill me in.
Whats up with the old brewery?
Any plans for better fish management?

Thanks.

There is a plan to build a new hatchery up river a couple miles from where the curent one is. I have talked to the lady that runs that hatchery, and they are about as stumped as everyone else? Basically that river used to have a decent run of steelhead, a god to very good run of silvers. But both have almost dissapeared? One thing they are thinking is it has a virus in teh water that is fatal to salmon and trout, and they are doing more testing now to see what they can do. Hopefully with the new hatchery things will get better!
Buck

The Deschutes (Thurston Co.), like McAllister Creek, contains a parisite that is really rough on chinook and trout. I think it's less deadly to coho. The Deschutes historically had no anadromous fish due to Tumwater Falls, only native cutthroat trout. The cutthroat are affected by the parisite, but not so much as the introduced chinook and Chambers Creek steelhead. Consequently, it's just about impossible to develop a wild run of steelhead in this river, and hatchery returns are dependent in part on the smolts rapidly migrating out of the system in the spring before the parisite gets them. So it doesn't seem like the steelhead run will ever amount to much, and besides, the hatchery smolt release is pretty small.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

there's great trout fishing in the deschutes...it's considered one of the best streams in western washington by some. you can catch dozens of nice cutts in a day on a little mepps or spoon

i'd be interested in a salmon hatchery upstream of the falls, since it would give us a shot at some decent kings before they turn dark(they keep them in a holding tank now). the only problem with this is that it would turn into a snagfest of unbelievable proportion if there were nice salmon coming up this little river. it's very low and clear in the fall...it would look like the quilcene. the other thing that concerns me is that the hatchery would be located right below pioneer park. some of my favorite water would most definitely be off limits to fishing if this happened.

That's my river man..... I'll never forget that morning in February when I was 10 years old camping with my scout troop when I landed my first steelhead. Talk about planting a seed. I love the deschutes. However, I blame a large portion of the fish mortality on Capitol Lake. Coincidentally, the Deschutes gets an enormous amount of kings back each year though. This year they received over 5000 back to the hatchery. While unlikely to restore other runs, I'm guessing that it still may be possible. We did water testing on the Deschutes when I was in high school and were surprised to find relatively clean water. Sounds like Salmo has more info than I do though. If the steelhead run were to come back can you picture a better jig stream?

About the virus, where is it from?
What is it's host?

Ahhhh.......the ol' Deschutes. I grew up fishing this river and will give you my 2 cents worth. I don't think the issue of steelhead returning is a virus thing.......it's a "number of smolts planted" thing. In the 80's, this was a gem of a river high and low because 1) WDFW planted more steelhead smolts back then and 2) You ALSO had some Olympia area fishing organizations planting smolts.....lots of smolts! as enhancement projects. Those plants have since been discontinued except for a puny effort by WDFW.

Same goes for the silvers. They used to be planted in Johnson creek in the upper river for a period of years so a self-sustaining run could be estbalished. It worked for awhile but over time, the run faded. Maybe this is where the virus issue comes into play....I don't know. I do remember alot of years where there were just as many silvers as kings in the holding ponds at Tumwater Falls.

As to Capitol Lake influencing returns, it's possible but it can't kill fish if there are no fish planted. The lake's always been a cesspool but it's filled in bad over the years thus making smolts more vulnerable to predators and warm water temperatures. They used to dredge the lake but gave up on the effort. I know it was alot deeper 20 years ago and that it didn't have the gross weed problem it does now. Smolts migrate before temps. get dangerously high and they pass through the lake fairly fast. (according to old studies I recall) The worst culprit actually used to be the Olympia Brewery causing thermal pollution(hot water released from brewery tanks) but the brewery's not a factor anymore and I think they cleaned up there act years ago when they were in operation.

Whatever the case, it was a cool river to fish. If you have good fishing now, it will be due to local knowledge and good timing to catch the few that do return.

Percivil creek had fish atleast thats what the catch records say.

Eric,
I agree with you totally.
I too question the blame of a viral infestation.
This river has no netting pressure so I would think that it could and should sustain a very healthy population of fish.
Also, since it is located directly in the capital, it should deserve top priority to prove that F&W can resurect a once healthy river.
Don't you agree.

olympia is too worried about keeping crapitol lake as a "reflecting pool" i wonder if they even bother looking at it in the summer, it gets so full of scum

it'd be nice to have a river like the deschutes for decent salmon fishing so close to home, especially in a year like this when the nisqually was a total bust. the fish come in, but they keep them in that holding tank at the falls until they turn into boots before they let them upriver

Iron:

I do agree. I would love to have the river be one worth pursuing on a regular basis again like the old days.

Chum: Keep in mind the entire deschutes chinook run is artificial and has never been designed to provide an upriver sport fishery. The holding ponds at the falls are there to collect eggs and ripen fish. Excess bucks are sometimes released upriver for sport........at least that's what they used to do. Actually, the entire chinook run exists to provide saltwater fisheries and act as an egg source for other hatcheries in the region that may fall short on their own egg take.

Again, this is what they used to do. I've been out of the loop for awhile and in this day of wild stock assessments, maintaining genetic purity and just overall being more careful they may do things differently now.

Iron:

I do agree. I would love to have the river be one worth pursuing on a regular basis again like the old days.

Chum: Keep in mind the entire deschutes chinook run is artificial and has never been designed to provide an upriver sport fishery. The holding ponds at the falls are there to collect eggs and ripen fish. Excess bucks are sometimes released upriver for sport........at least that's what they used to do. Actually, the entire chinook run exists to provide saltwater fisheries and act as an egg source for other hatcheries in the region that may fall short on their own egg take.

Again, this is what they used to do. I've been out of the loop for awhile and in this day of wild stock assessments, maintaining genetic purity and just overall being more careful they may do things differently now.

I, too, spent a lot of time on the river in my youth- Clear Lake area. I can viviidly recall the Kings and Silvers spawning right in front of our place... I never knew how they made it past the falls..

My understanding is the same as Eric's. Capitol Lake has a lot to do with it. Same as Percival Cove.. Pollution and algae bloom.
Looking at prior release numbers of Chinook from Percival and McAllister (25% of the total for the Puget Sound)) seems our BM program is going to go awash quickly in the next couple years. Especially down south.

Salmo... I am curious to know why the hatchery on McAllister closed- budget? This was my impression. Also, I further understand that major stream restoration was conducted in the immediate vincinity of the hatchery in hopes of producing a wild run of Kings (???). Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Well I basically grew up on this river also, just a couple of blocks away. I don't now the specifics on the fish plants back then, all I can say is there used to be some good runs of fish. I am talking about steelhead and silvers. This year the hatchery had the most silvers return they have ahd in over 10 years. The strange thing to me aobut the steelhead, is they realease about 25 thou smolts, but when they return, they just let them go right on by. So they have NO idea on how many steelhead they even have return. They know they had 2 but that was just because they came in while they were stil dealing with the kings. Also they get there steelhead smolts from diferent hatcheries. Why not stay with the same stock?? Any how they are trying to blame the virus thing right now. I don't think that is actually the case?? I am just hopin the new hatchery will help.
Buck

All,

The parasite is an intestinal fluke called Nanophyetus salmoncola. This is the same fluke that causes “salmon poisoning” in dogs that eat raw salmon flesh. It is common to many rivers, but for some reason is especially abundant, or hot, in south Puget Sound tributaries like McAllister Creek and the Deschutes River. Chinook salmon are the most susceptable salmonid species to this fluke. The intermediate host is the freshwater snail Oxytrema, where rediae develop. Cercariae are released from the snail and they penetrate members of trout, salmon, and char genera of fish.

The native resident cutthroat trout of the Deschutes River are also susceptable to the fluke, but having co-existed with it for centuries or more, they are more resistant than other species of fish that have been stocked there. For a salmon hatchery to be successful on the Deschutes, a fluke-free groundwater supply will be necessary for the functions of egg incubation and juvenile rearing. I do not think the Deschutes can sustain a natural chinook run of any significance, nor possibly of any other species, since the resident cutts would have a competitive edge due to their greater resistance to Nanophyetus. The river presumably could sustain hatchery runs of salmon and steelhead, if large enough numbers of hatchery smolts are stocked. It just doesn’t seem realistic to expect the hatchery fish that escape to spawn naturally in this stream to develop or sustain natural wild runs.

The former return of decent numbers of hatchery steelhead is most attributable to stocking more hatchery smolts during a period (1980s) of higher ocean survival. Ocean survival of Puget Sound steelhead is about one third of what it was during the 80s, hence, with fewer smolts planted, piddly returns.

Chum man,

Do you really want a chinook fishery on the Deschutes? I agree that it would be an ugly snagfest, as there is next to no water in September and October. I think the program better serves the various saltwater fisheries, like the August fishing at several popular south sound spots.

Downriggin,

I also thought McAllister was closed due to budget reasons, so I checked. It turns out that McAllister was never very productive anyway. Nanophyetus was only part of the problem. One of the risks explained to me was that returning adult chinook were loading up with the parasite. Then they could be eaten by raccoons or other animals, carry the cysts for years, and eventually deposit them in another watershed, like the Nisqually or Skookumchuck and infect them. The hatchery site was intertidal, so vibrio disease was also a problem. The upshot is that the production from that facility performed poorly in terms of contributions to fisheries. Plus, the few returning adults were of low value to the treaty fisheries, compared to those in the Nisqually. McAllister was originally built without the appropriate and necessary permits and was never a good fit for south sound salmon production. If WDFW is able to construct the proposed hatchery on the lower Deschutes, which also has an abundance of disease-free groundwater, the future chinook program appears likely to contribute more chinook to actual harvest than the past Deschutes and McAllister stations combined.

Buck,

Everyone would like a self-sustaining silver run, but that might not be in the cards. Other south sound streams that are hot with Nanophyetus have few or no silvers, so a strong coho run might be a long shot. Also, some years are much worse than others for Nanophyetus. I don’t know what stocks of steelhead have been stocked in the past; presently I think they stock from Puyallup. WDFW is reducing the amount of inter-basin transfers compared to the past, partly for disease, genetic, and other management reasons. I haven’t heard that the new hatchery will raise steelhead, although it probably could.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Here is an interesting artical about this fluke (if in fact it is all about the flukes); http://www.krisweb.com/krisweb_kt/biblio/trinity/foott/97reni.pdf

Snails are easy to terminate.

Salmo G. I don't think the deschutes could sustain a natural silver run, or a natural steelhead run for that matter. I son't see why the hatchery doesn't just plant more fish? I remember back in the mid 70's and all through the 80's that the river had good runs of both silvers and steelhead. It just seems like if they were able to get decent returns back then why not now? One thing i found interesting when I volunteered at teh Tum. Falls hatchery? Is that they silvers that did come back, all were of hatchery origin, buth they still had all of their fins intact??? The state is trying to make that a natrual silver run, when it never was? So why not just up the smolt release and do like the past? I realise that there were other parties involved back then, but it seems like there is enough egg take through out the rest of the state, to make up for that short fall?

Also on the Hatchery thing, I talked to Mary the lady that runs the Falls hatchery, and she said that the new one is slated to produce steelhead, they just aren't sure about how the parasite thing will affect that?

As for a king fishery on this river? there is No way. I wouldn't even think about taking one of those home for anything besides fertilizer. They start turnig greeen way out by Johson point, by the time they hit Capital lake, they aren't table fare at all. The kings are mainly for the black mouth seasons, and some fall oportunity throughout puget sound.
Buck

Buck,

I don't know why they don't just plant more smolts, but it probably comes down to cost. Puyallup can only raise so many steelhead smolts, and they are all allocated for release somewhere. Increasing the Deschutes plant means reducing it somewhere else.

Remember, the ocean survival was about 3 times greater in the 70s and 80s, so a given smolt plant produced 3 times as many returning adults then as now. With the present low survival, it would take a lot of smolts to get a fishable run size to return. Where would they come from?

If they build the new hatchery and raise steelhead also, there might be a decent run. But the focus is chinook, from what I've heard.

Marking all hatchery silvers just started a few years ago, so most of the hatchery silvers you saw at Tumwater Falls would have been unmarked in all years until quite recently.

I used to fish the Deschutes when I was a kid, too. But that was probably before you. I only fished for the cutthroat. I didn't know what steelhead were back then. In the 60s in high school, my buddy and I would float an 8' pram from the old Weyerhauser day use park at Military Rd bridge down to the brewery. We thought we were in "A River Runs Through It", but of course that was before the book was even written. It was fun, and the most dangerous thing seemed to be getting the pram hung up on a barb wire fence that stretched across the river, but we managed.

I hope the future of the D includes good fishing for more species. I'll drink to that!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Any idea why this is the case?

is there anywhere you can access the river besides pioneer and the bridge on 507? i've driven over the river on military and i think i've seen people parked there, but i'm not too sure if i can get in there.