a month ago i posted about the sound rivers appearing to be dead (link below). At that time, some of you told me I needed to change my attitude, try fly fishing, get up earlier in the morning, bad years cycle etc. Now some of those same people are here in this thread complaining about how dead the river is.

Ive only lived here three years and only been fishing for three years. The main thing Ive learned in those three years is you can take all the other fishermens advice, stories, reports and or opinions and just toss em in the trash.

Im glad to know that you all now think as i do that the river is dying and Im not just a lousy fisherman who needs to get up earlier ( I am a lousy fisherman who needs to get up earlier, but thats besides the point)

Im glad i didnt bust my ass, buy a buncha new float gear, hunt down holes i never heard of and no one will tell me about, etc as you all suggested.

The Sky is Dead. RIP.

Question is what now? Where do i go for some fish and some quiet on the river?

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=021768#000000

Chives
Some fish and some quiet = AK via float plane.
We live in a big city . The days of solitude are pretty much gone.
That said there is still some pretty damn good fishing in WA.

The steelies will come. About three years ago I landed a job as a ranger on the Deschutes R. in Oregon. In September I was on my days off helping the ODF&W tag fish at the Shears Falls and on one of those nights we tagged over 400 redsides and of those 400 about 20 were B-run Clearwater fish estimated at 15#. The tagger guy said that these fish will run the 40 miles up river and up the ladder because the columbia is too warm and the deschutes has dam releases from the bottom which create very cool and consistant water temps. He also told me that he marked down the tag of a returning redside and found out a day later that it had gone back down the deschutes, up the columbia and was caught at the john day in one days time. I wasn't there so it could be urban myth but lets face it these fish move and they go up different rivers so maybe (happy thoughs) they are either in the ocean or hanging out in another river until its time. Lets keep our fingers crossed because I am not a biologist and even they don't seem to have an answer.

Chives, Its not all doom and gloom. Yes, this year is shapping up to be poor. Like I stated in the orinal link you provided;
1: never give up
2: Never stop learning while on the water

I could take you out tommorrow and get you a fish no problem. Am i a great fisherman? hell no, but ive spent tons of hours exploring and taking in everything the river has to offer. IT pays off because now i know exactly what rocks to throw behind. Granite, there might only be 1 fish, were normally there are 5.

Like Salmo said, everything cycles. We had banner runs in 2000, 2001,2002.... 2003 was so-so 2004 was mediocre, now 2005 is pretty lame, BUT 2006 could be off the charts if ocean conditions swing.

TK -
just for your information Monte Cristo (the old mining town founded in the 1890s) is located on the SF Sauk - it is over Poddle Dog Pass (headwaters of Silver Creek). Maybe you are thinking of Mineral City located a fair ways up Silver Creek (NF Sky tirbs).

The planting of hatchery steelhead in the Snohomish basin (Snoqualmie, Tolt, NF Sky) predates the Reiter program by a fair bit. I was catching hatchery summer steelhead in the system at least a decade prior to the first returns to Reiter, If the crash of the steelhead on the Sky is due to mis-management of the hatchery program at Reiter why are the wild summer steelhead on the South Fork Tolt crashing as well - since early the 1990s there has no hatchery plants in the Tolt, wild steelhead release throughout the basin. The wild summer steelhead were at good levels until the past two years - again support somehting occurring outside of the basin (marine survival issues).

The Sky is far from a dead river. The coho and pink returns over the last 5 years are among the highest in decades, the chum returns are at high levels, natural chinook spawning is as high as it has been in 25 years. The bull trout numbers have increased nearly 10 fold in less than 20 years. From all reports the sea-run cutthroat fishing in the system continues to be outstanding.

The major differences between the situation of the wild steelhead in the basin and the salmon/bull trout/sea-runs is that only wild steelhead can not be harvested.

Tight lines
Curt

You must admit though that the timing of the Gov wanting to nix the hatchery summer run steelhead program in the sky and the subsequent lower and lower returns since then are suspicious. 20 years ago hardly anyone even knew there were summer runs in that river and the fish were numerous and larger than the winter runs. But then it wasn't a sled fest either.

Dizzy,

Think it’a poor excuse all you want. Fish go in the ocean in search of food, but each stock is genetically pre-programed to follow certain oceanic pathways. So those steelhead that are fairing poorly are likely traversing a less productive area than the high seas grazing salmon that are in better shape. Marine survival encompasses a lot of territory, and one hypothesis is that the depressed steelhead runs might be encountering their marine problem closer to Puget Sound and Johnstone Strait, long before they reach the high seas. You don’t see the same impacts to the productive salmon runs because they go other places in the ocean. Fisheries biologists used to make the same mistake, believing that the ocean was a big homogenous mixing bowl of fish food and rearing opportunity. We’ve learned that simply isn’t the case, and now the ocean - to the extent we know and understand it - is part of the salmon and steelhead story that can be told.

I can’t help what you believe. I and other biologists can only tell you what we know. Beyond that we can only hypothesize using the best information we have from whatever sources to try to piece together an explanation for things unknown.

WDFW could close Reiter Ponds for a while, but what good would that do? Then there would be no hatchery winter or summer steelhead. How would that serve your interest to catch a fish? Placing boulders only works in some streams, and last I looked, the Sky isn’t short of boulders. Placing logs is generally a waste of time in the high energy streams of the northwest. Engineered logjams are showing some signs of promise, but even the best of those sustain immense amounts of flood damage. That is a very expensive way to maintain habitat quality, and WDFW and everybody else in the fish business doesn’t have a fraction of the financial resources it would take.

The way these systems successfully worked was when there was an abundant supply of old growth timber along the river banks for steady recruitment into the system, so that the ones washed out each year would be replaced by new. If you’ve looked at the riparian areas, you know that ain’t possible because those areas were logged long ago. WDFW isn’t exactly in the tree planting business, and would need permission to do it. Further, people cut down trees to have a better view of the river from their homes and cabins. It ain’t easy to replace the historic riparian old growth when anything that obstructs a view is destined for a date with a chain saw. Some of those ideas are being implemented by WDFW and others in places where they have half a chance and sometimes even less of a chance than that.

You aren’t the only one who hates to see a river, or in this case, a steelhead population in trouble. The managers of the resource wouldn’t hesitate to make changes that would produce larger runs if it was within their capability to do so. The unfortunate news is that none of us has the answer - but we won’t stop looking.

Chives,

If you’ve read the whole thread, you know the Sky is anything but dead. Yeah, the summer run steelhead return this year is nothing to write home about, but that’s the way it goes. As mentioned by other posters, both fish and some degree of solitude are attainable. Sounds like you haven’t tried hard enough, or haven’t learned yet how to both try hard and find it/them. Malybe somebody will take you by the hand, but don’t count on it. It’s still quite possible to do it the old fashioned way on your own. But you have to learn what resources will help you out and then go out and get ‘em and use ‘em. I’ll share this: it ain’t rocket science, and the answers are mostly right in front of you. That is, everything you need to know has been presented on this web site over the past few years. I know, I’ve written a small bunch of it myself.

Stlhead,

A government conspiracy makes for entertaining idle chat over a beer, but does it withstand critical analysis? Check the smolt plants by brood year and subsequent adult returns and smolt to adult survival rates. Maybe the conspiracy theory is correct, but if so, it can be verified. I know, that’s work and not nearly as much fun as b!tching about the government and WDFW screwing you out of your license money. If you think hardly anybody knew there were summer runs in the Sky 20 years ago, then how would you explain the incredible crowds that turned out in the late 1970s when the Reiter program began really kicking out results. Our standards of hardly anybody must be a lot different.

Smalma,

Thanks for chiming in. Now why don’t you lazy desk jockeys get out there and make this river what it should be? (Insert smiley face) I ain’t catching any summer runs either, so it must be WDFW’s fault.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

When the water's low people start *****ing about how bad the fishing is. Yeah, there are fewer fish this year than others. Our population is going up, causing fish numbers to go down. Dizzy, how badly do you want to help the fish? The departure of recent immigrants from other states would do wonders for the runs.

Salmo G and Smalma. Thanks for taking the time to respond to various topics. Always great information.
I have been able to handle a few fish this summer on the fly rod but the numbers are only about 1/4 of what I'd see in most years. Think choppy water.

Bank Walker, how can you call the 2004 summer run season even mediocre when Reiter did not open until mid-October? 2000 was a banner year? Do you remember 1990's when it opened in early July and there were 50 fish caught per day, every day? The last "above average" year was 1997, IMO.....straight downhill since then. Every year its harder and harder to get their lousy 350 fish.

Anyone who has spend any time fishing or hunting in WA should by now realize that populations of deer, elk, grouse, upland birds, FISH, etc. run in cycles due to many factors - harsh/mild winters, El Nino, etc. Hopefully this the the bottom of the cycle and it will start to improve.

Salmo, I have laid off our fish managers due to the even worse drop in steelhead numbers on Vancouver Island, who I thought were doing a much better job with the same resource.

But this "ocean conditions" thing is a little confusing. I mean, how can ocean conditions be so awesome for salmon (evident by large runs of big fish - 15 lb pinks and 20 lb coho?) and so pitiful for steelhead? How can the Snohomish watershed have such crappy steelhead habitat yet have primo salmon habitat that foster runs of 200,000+ coho?

How critical is habitat as it pertains to returning numbers of hatchery fish? Maybe some as outgoing juveniles, but isn't it more of a numbers game? I mean this years Cow return is from a plant of 159,000 smolts, two years ago the return was from a plant of 650,000 fish. I bet they will have fewer fish in the Cow this summer, regardless of habitat or ocean conditions, right? I bet if the Sky plant was 207,000 instead of 107,000 fishing would be much better on the Sky at present.

Habitat is a very critical issue when talking about winter/spring wild steelhead, but for summer hatchery fish?

Due to the absence of Sky summer fish I have been scouting other rivers and am having quite a bit of fun. Finding other species to target helps too, like this 4-5 lb Dolly I got yesterday.



Ike

Ikiss -
nice "Dolly"!

It should be noted that the steelhead fry/parr/presmolts require much the same freshwater habitat whether they are summer or winter fish. Typically in Puget Sound rivers the only difference is that summer fish are found in a different protion of the basin (usually in upper portions of the basin not easily accessible to the winter fish).

Whether the freshwater water habitat is good or back when there is a large variation in marine survival we see a wide swings in run sizes. You mentioned the situation on Vacouver Island. At the Koegh River on the north end of the Island they have study the situation with steelhead since the late 1970s. As part of those studies they have counted the number of wild smolts leaving the system and the adults coming back. From the late 1970s to the early 1990s the average smolt to adult survival was about 15% (as high as 25% one year). In recent years it has been 3% or less.

If the Snohmish summers or winters (hatchery or wild) are seeing similar declines in survival (a lowering of survival by 5 fold which appears to be similar here in Puget Sound) can we be surprised that the resulting runs are smaller?

I'm really curious as to what addition or new
"management actions" that critics would suggest that WDFW adopt?

A common suggestion is use a different hatchery brood stock. Given that the wild populations have similarily collapsed how would using them as a brood source lead one to believe that they would experience higher survivals? Just curious>

Tight lines
Curt

probably all the chemical and sewage that gets dumped in there along the way. PS is like a big lake and stuff stays in there.

IKiss, I dont judge how the fishing is based on what Reiter gets in the trapps. How do you explain all the hatchery fish trucked over Sunset, when WDFW doesnt stock that river anymore? What im saying is, alot of Reiters fish dont come up the creek till fall rains/cooloer temps push them up. I can call 2004 a mediocre year, because i was on the water darn near everyday, and there was fish to be had. (compared to other years i listed)

Anywho, good topic with lots of good info.

I wander how a broodstock program would affect the Native population as far as crossbreeding and diluting the gene pool. The Skagit/Sno system put out some incredible specimens this FEB/March/APR. BE terrible if hatchery interactions further depleted things, or maybe it could enhance it???

Sorry Banker, that was not an attack...I just thought that last years summer return was piss poor at best.....i.e. WAY below average. Just because you can go catch a couple of fish behind your usual rocks does not make it a mediocre year. I expect this years return to be about the same or perhaps worse.

The number of fish in the trap/at Reiter is for sure a barometer of run size though. In above average years they get their fish early, it opens early, at Reiter you can stand on rocks looking at fish all day, and there are fish throughout the system starting June 1. When was the last year that happened?

Smalma, I guess my statements regarding quality of habitat as it pertains to successful returns of hatchery fish is based on the premise (probably false) that the juvenile hatchery fish are raised to an age where they will migrate out of the system fairly quickly. If they are raised in pens for their entire juvenile stage, then flush out quickly, how important is the habitat for one/two weeks of their life in the river?

One step further....how less important is habitat if you did it Clancy Holt/Cowlitz style - take the smolts directly from the pens and barge them down to the estuaries, and they never touch a drop of the habitat?

I think the Skamania run is just fine Smalma, they are always 7-8 lb healthy fish and are in the river from May 'til December - just plant more! I think the Chambers Creek winter stock could use some new blood though, there might be a couple of December fish left you could use for broodstock.

Ike

Ike -
Sorry I mis-understood your habitat question. Regarding the moving of the smolts downstream prior to being released - It has been demostrated that the further that the fish migrate the more that get eaten by predators. However I'm not sure that measurable affects the overall survival of the total released. The majority of those eaten are those that are least fit than there mates; the result being that if they were nto eaten in the river they would continue to less fit and likely end up as food for a marine predator rather than a freshwater predator.

Moving the smolts downwstream would surely help reduce the upstrream impacts from any smolts that will not migrate and become residuals (that is stay in the river). Whether that would be a benefit to the river system and its fish population likely depends on the system and the species of concern.

Regading the use of some wild fish in the Chambers brood stock. First one has to remember that river entery timing and spawn timing are not necessarily linked. Staying with the Snohomish system the wild winter steelhead spawn between early March and well into June. Those earliest entering wild fish are months from spawning. The Chambers Creek fish in the Snohomish spawn from late December through mid/late February. As you can see it would be difficult to mix wild fish with the hatchery fish.

A better question to ask is how do you want the hatchery fish to be different? Fish by their very natural are very plastic genetically and their characteristics can be changed fairly easily if one desires.

Currently the hatchery fish are early timed. Historically this was due to the need to have extra time to rear them to acceptable size so that the smolts would successful migrate and return. The hatchery was able to take advantage of the addition months of rearing to get the fish to smolt size. In the last 20 years it has also been recognized that by having earlier spawning timing that the interactions between hatchery and wild fish on the spawning grounds is reduced and it is much easier to develop fishery management actions that exert vastly different exploitation rates on hatchery and wild stocks.

Given the above I assume that continuing the early timing is desireable and should be continued.

The smaller size of the hatchery fish is a function of several factors including:

1) the earlier run timing results in less rearing time which means smaller fish.

2) Younger average age of the hatchery fish (they are mostly 2 salts).

3) Hatcheries seem not to exert the same selective pressure to be larger fish.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION - To get larger fish one could select for more older (3-salt fish). However that may result in lower return rates. An alternate method may be to select for the fasts growing 2 salt fish. That of course would require substantial surplus fish back to the hatchery and the cost of marking. measuring, aging, and holding fish until it can be determined which are the fasts growing.

The question of the hatchery fish being poor biters. This is largely due to two factors.

1) The fish entering the river at a relative mature stage of sexual developement (more about this later).

2) Anglers keeping the biters. The more likely that a fish is to bite the less likely it is to reach the hatchery the result is that over time the population becomes poorer bites.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION - Reserve a portion of the hatchery release for brood stock by not externally marking them - on the Snohomish (as with most systems) they would them be illegal to keep. Not sure that anglers (as a whole) would be willing give a portion of their fish for this. With the current poor returns a significant portion would have to be unmarked. In addition the unmarked fish would have to be tagged with some other internal tag so that biologist and hatchery workers could still identify the hatchery from the wild fish.

Another potential action would be have a program of catching the hatchery brood stock by hook and line methods prior to reaching the terminal area. This would be fairly expensive if using volunteers - transportation of the collected fish and other logistic aspects would be the largest issues.

The ripeness of the returning hatchery fish is caused by much the same factors as the non-biting fish. That is the longer the fish is in the river before spawning the less likely they are going to contribute to the gene pool.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION - As with the biting issue not externally marking some of the release may result in less selective pressure on being sexual mature on entery into the river. It is likely that it would take a number of generations to see much of a change in the population.

All the hatchery fish returning at the same time. Here part of the problem is the hatcheries need to assure that they collect enough eggs to met the program needs. Currently on the Snohomish the hatchery ha attempted to collect the programs eggs spread out over a couple months - the target was 50% of the eggs taken in December, 30% in January, and 20% in February.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION - I think the spreading out of the eggs takes over time is a reasonable way to go. The question is the above ratios the best way to go.

While I'm sure that you have other issues Hoever I have rambled along far too long. Any comments/thoughts?

Tight lines
Curt

I'll be checking the hatchery counts and this and other boards. When i see fish coming back into the Sky I will return to fish it again, but i aint gonna go out and pound the Sky anymore. Beleive me or not, i dont care, I have put in my time on that river.

These quotes....
and my experience on that river, combined with the hatchery counts are just totally inconsistent with statements like this....
Im tired of hearing "you shoulda been here yesterday!" or "wait till next year!"

I am going to find another nearby river, spend some years on it, and see how it compares if nothing else. I'll let you know what i find out if anything.

I like the idea of leaving unmarked fish to enhance the "biter" gene pool. Isnt it illegal to release "unmarked" fish though? How bout clipping the ventral(or is it pectoral) fin on the belly for ID purposes?

THis option is probably to spendy, but how about spreading the smolt plants throughout the whole system in tributary creeks and having adult trapps(weirs) to collect adults. That way it would spread fishing pressure and give the lower river a shot in the arm, say if you released fish in 1. Elwell creek, woods creek, and maybe some tribs above Reiter? Idaho does this and it seems to work pretty good, as long as you can capture fish so there no wild fish interactions

IKiss... i know what you mean. I think ive gotten to complacent with the runs we have been experiencing recently

i dont think it is the hatchery management that is the largest problem.... the problem is the depts whole mission statement of maximum sustainable yield and collusion with commercial fishermen.......

outside of the environmental problems.....dont put the commercial fishermen first and things will change...... the dept and the commercials both want the smallest pie possible and its written right in the mission statement.....maximim sustainable yield translates exactly to "no growth of pie"

and the banner years you guys are mentioning are considered banner because they are bigger than the horrible years....they are still pitiful and if its not returning wild steelhead....sorry its not banner...its a bumpercrop but nothing natural or indicative of positive changes....just good farming that year

LOL.......

Lupo:

"i dont think it is the hatchery management that is the largest problem.... the problem is the depts whole mission statement of maximum sustainable yield and collusion with commercial fishermen......."

Don't be too shocked now...we AGREE on this.

Is there anything we can do? Outside of an open revolt, I don't think so. This "pie" is a very complicated dynamic..not so simple to change the sizes of the slices.

MB