just read in the local paper that the Puyallup tribe is building and hopes to open a new salmon hactery on clarks creek about a mile off the puyallup river. it will be a natural setting with earthen ponds fille dwith gravel,boulders tree stumps etc. plan to raise 400K kings a year. nice move by the tribe

I read the article to, I wonder if something like this this would help to get better returns of hatchery steelhead.

I've read about several of these "natural hatcheries" that attempt to mimic the natural conditions found in streams. However, I'm not so sure that these will produce fitter smolts because of the basic premise of hatchery operations: creating a large number of smolts from relatively few adults.

In the wild you may get single digit survival from egg to smolt while in hatcheries, survival rates of 80 to 90 percent are not uncommon. Those few wild smolts that make it do so because they are extremely healthy and fit, genetically adapted to the stream of origin, aggressive feeders, resistent to disease, able to avoid predators, etc. All those that aren't, die! That's why fish geneticists have found genetic differences between smolts born of wild fish but raised in a hatchery--i.e., 1st generation brood stock-- compared to wild smolts raised in the river.

In order to co-exist with wild fish and have no detrimental effects, there is building evidence that hatchery programs should adopt policies and operations that foremost keep the hatchery fish separate from the wild fish. Broodstock programs should be used to produce a higher quality of fish or higher survival rates for harvest fisheries, not as a way to "make" wild fish or make runs that are more compatible with wild runs. Just doesn't seem to work.

This doesn't mean that hatcheries have to be eliminated, but adjusted to keep hatchery/wild interactions to a threshold minimum that won't be detrimental to wild populations. Without hatchery production, fishing opportunities (both commercial and recreational) will be substantially curtailed over what exists now, and there will likely be a continued pressure to allow the harvest of wild fish.

That about sums up my conclusions from the various threads discussing the wild broodstock issue.

A new Puyallup hatchery will make for some very productive days fishing off of Redondo.

the bogey steelhead hacthery is earthen pond. one wild male chinook could be used to fertalize many eggs....think that should be done to stop the interbreding of inferier weak gened hatchery fish. or for that matter just take several pairs of them from the wild.

Heres the article from the TNT

Legally, I think they have to be AuntyM

Chromeo

I see...

Chromeo

hactery rhymes with factory

AuntyM

Good point, if truly facing extinction. But as the one ODFW memo pointed out with coho, there's the possibility that taking the wild fish and using them as broodstock vs letting them spawn in the wild may be a wash. I think the Oregon Clackamas case was probably an extreme, so there may be cases where broodstock programs may be used to supplement wild runs, but only in extreme and dire circumstances.

Individual salmon stocks are pretty resilient--they have to be because of wildly changing environmental conditions that humans have no control over. There are cases where stocks have been knocked down to a few dozen fish in one year, only to rebound to near normal populations in the next few. You really have to go out of your way to knock a stock to the "extinction" point. Not that it hasn't been done. But I think the only stocks that are truly facing that kind of trouble are in the upper Columbia--those fish that have to contend with numerous dams, temperatures, non-indigenous predators, as well as incidental take in fisheries. Other very strange cases such as the Nisqually and Cedar runs that we haven't a clue of whats going on may also fall into this category. Except in these extreme cases, I believe restrictive management efforts can keep depressed runs from falling into critical condition.

Yeah, I don't know that much about the Hood Canal streams, but kind of assume that they also fall into the Nisqually and Cedar category. We just don't really know why the runs won't rebuild on the Nasty and Cedar, despite draconian restrictions on harvest. Is this the case with the canal streams?

If so, I'm wondering if the underlying reason for lack of run resilience is some strange habitat thing that until solved, no amount supplementation will work. Hate to be so pessimistic, but look how quickly the Toutle recovered after a mountain blew it apart. This watershed was essentially destroyed by St. Helens, but 15-20 years later, it's got fish. Makes you wonder about the fact that the Toutle wasn't a recipient of a dam (unlike the Nasty,Cedar, or Skoke) or substantial agriculture/logging.

I think if they recieve any federal funding for thier fish programs they are required to clipp thier fish.

"legislation introduced by U.S Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and signed into law by President Bush requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to begin mass marking fish, including coho chinook and steelhead, released from federally operated or financed hatcheries."

where is this clarks creek? is it that tiny creek down by the bridge on river road or is it up river? fishing at redondo will be pretty hot for easy limits, as is, he does the best ive seen out there allready, that is..with me in the boat with him lol

bb75, it is the creek off river road that u can cross over the bridge to get to the other side...levey road.

"Tribes don't have to clip. Why would they want to clip? I think tribes want all fish to be harvestable and to hell with wild fish. "


Aunty you dont know how right you are!

Working for a tribe for near 4 years you here alot of things.

Look at the Quileute Tribes support of the City of Forks in opposition to WSR. All fish need to be deemed harvestable, If they arnt then what comes next. Get my drift. Im sure they have been doing a little thinking.

i think puget sound tribes have been mass marking for a few years now....but not hood canal,the strait or the coast yet....soon i believe....

and give those 'nature pond' studies a few more years of returns to see for sure how they work...but from what i've heard so far they seem to help quite a bit....though some 'nature ponds' seem better than others...the elwha's told me they get over twice the number of coho return from the 'nature pond' as from their circulars....

you are inaccurate about PS tribes mass marking for years. Tulalips for example to not clip but mark some fish with tags in the head. Why do you think the checkers use wands? Because not all hatcherey fish are clipped....especially if they come from a tribal hatchery. The tribes have opposed fin clipping ever since it began...they oppose it because they want more fish to harvest....nothing more.

i think if you check the tulalip's own site you'll see they've been mass marking for some time..or trying to anyways....the fish at their hatchery and they also pay for fish at wallace river to be MMd...so have the nisquallys ,sqauxins,puyallups and the fish from gorst and grover's etc....it's the point no point and coastal guys still resisting ....
there are double index groups released that are half clipped and half unclipped to evaluate selective fisheries though....