well, been flogging the snoqualmie from plums to the falls...nuttin'. Seen a few roll here and there but no takers on my BC Steel or small jigs. Anybody doin' any better?

How is the Sky putting out if at all?

I've floated the Sky from Sultan to BH three times since the opener and haven't touched a thing. I've seen more deer then metal. Pretty darn slow

Hit the Sky yesterday 7/18 did a lot of walking, threw a lot of stuff, one hit on a blue fox in the deepest pool I could find and not a thing else all day. Talked to one other fisherman just upriver of the Wallace, he said nothing even rolling in the hole at the mouth.

I fished the upper sky two weeks ago with only one Dolly. Including us there were 5 Drift boats a 2 man pontoon and 2 single pontoons. Only that Dolly and a small Jack for all fisherman.

...does this mean we all have to wait for the Reiter opener turkey shoot on Aug 1? Hope not.

reiter on aug 1... you done lost your mind! No way reiter will be opneing on time

whats going on? this is another year where the fishung sucks on these rivers. year after year it gets worse and worse. It's time that our game dept wises up and realizes what they are doing is not working.

Last month I was on the Kalama, the river was alive with creatures everthing from smolts to hellgramites. Today on the snocrummy I floated from FC to Reichters. nadda no smolts no steelhead and very damn few suckers and white fish. It almost looks dead.

10 years ago when they decided to spray that 2nd stage sewage on all the hills around the valley for timber production really wasn't very good to the river. We can thank the city of seattle, game dept, wyerhouser and the u dub for that one. It was classified as a study so no EIS was required. Not to mention all the golf courses and new homes in this area as well.

Sorry for the rant

I've been living and fishing the Snocrummy for 45 yrs and I just hate to see it go.

Only 63 fish have returned to Reiter thus far so don't expect to be claiming a rock anytime soon.

The hatchery program on the Sky is a joke. They not only don't seem very good at raising steelhead but those that do return seem to return only during a two day high water event. They also don't bite very well until after they have spawned wich seems to be within a couple of days of being in fresh water. Over the last several years my wild v hatchery catch ratio is about 10 to 1. Of course I'm not one to claim a rock during the one week hatchery run!

Although small the wild run seems to be holding steady on the Sno system. I think this is where the efforts should be aimed. I would rather have ten fresh wild fish in the river most days of the year than a week of 10 brat days every Dec.

There are a few things that I think would help.

Wild Sky needs to become law in order to preserve the headwaters of the Sky. http://www.house.gov/inslee/issues/environment/wildsky.html

The hatcheries should be used only for the propagation of wild fish ala Snider Cr.

The whole system should be open for catch and release every day of the year.

I've seen lean years before and am hopeful things will improve!

The Sky is indeed going through some leen times for Steelhead. Ive only fished it three days since june 1 and found a fish everyday but it consisted of long hours of flogging every drift i knew. My buddies that fish it everyday tell me things are really tough now. There are a few fish behind the usual rocks, not many

I agree with Brood. I could care less about the winter hatchery pukes. They shoot through to Reiter in 4 days, leaving 40 miles of beautiful water nearly void. The Nates need full protection and habitat enhancment in certain spawning areas. I landed my two biggest steelhead in Feb this year.

Steelhead with shoulders rock

Problem is; without Reiter the river would be shutdown even to CNR...

Points to ponder:

1. In order to have above average return years like the last couple, you have to have below average years. Maybe it's reality that sucks.

2. The Sky has the highest hatchery smolt to adult return rate of Puget Sound steelhead streams according to WDFW. So yeah, reliance on hatcheries is a crutch, but what do you expect when we extend more lip service than action to habitat protection?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Salmo g.:
[QB] Points to ponder:

2. The Sky has the highest hatchery smolt to adult return rate of Puget Sound steelhead streams according to WDFW. So yeah, reliance on hatcheries is a crutch, but what do you expect when we extend more lip service than action to habitat protection?


If this is true than the other Puget Sound rivers must really suck. Since I've lived in Washington which has been 4 years now, the Skykomish has been added to my list of one of the worst rivers I've ever fished. Granted it has it's moments, but it's usually only good for one day, like when Reiter opens. I think the WDFW has really let this river go to hell in a hand basket, which is a real shame.

Dizzy,

Sorry about putting you on the spot, since you've lived in WA only 4 years, but please tell me exactly what WDFW has done, or not done, that has let this river system go to hell in a hand basket.

The Snohomish system has among the healthiest wild coho, pink, and chum salmon populations anywhere in the state. All Puget Sound steelhead populations, hatchery and wild, have been in the bucket the last few years, and the proximate cause appears to be something in the marine environment that WDFW nor any other natural resource government agency controls. So for clarity's sake, please advise what WDFW's doing wrong, as I know people there who can change things.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

salmo- i respect your wealth of scientific knowledge and have learned alot from the info you have brought to the board , however; i must ask---why do you keep saying that we need to have below average years to have above average years? its a statement that is so true that it is absolutely useless! thats just the definition of an average isnt it?

isnt that analagouse to a politician saying "im tired of half the population living under the median income" thats what a median is the halfway point

we have averages that are moving towards ZERO!!!!! who cares if you have above average years and below average years- you will have that with any arithmetic mean with any polulation of anything!!!! your only repeating the definition of an average.

when the average is two fish per year returning and an above average year is three fish and below average year is one fish will you guys still be saying the same thing? the statement will be no less true than it is today.

a cantinued reliance on hatcheries with no attempt at controlling the commercials and environment is like picking cocaine out of the carpet......it may make you feel better for the next ten minutes but it does nothing to solve the real issue which is overdependance and dwindling supply

Lupo,

Yes, my statement was of the obvious. But I make it because so many anglers don’t seem to get it. For example, we have two above average returns like the last two on the Sky, or the last three on the NFL and Cowlitz. Next thing ya’ know, that becomes the bar that fishermen expect to see, and when we get a below average year like this summer, suddenly WDFW doesn’t know how to manage the fishery. It’s no secret that I’m happy to criticize any agency (including my own) and any party for what they actually do, however, it’s just plain stupid to think, let alone expect, well above average run sizes each and every year - because then they wouldn’t be average for one thing. The average would be at a new and higher level. Not that that’s a bad thing, if it’s actually sustainable. But it generally isn’t.

Sorry if the term about above and below average is over-worked for you, but a lot of posters here clearly don’t understand this, and it’s evident from what they write. That’s the simple reason for my stating and re-stating here from time to time.

Yes, we have some averages that are moving toward zero. In Puget Sound those appear to be wild chinook and steelhead. It does not include wild pink and chum salmon or any hatchery population that I’m presently aware of. In fact, some of those wild pink and chum populations are very near historic known highs. Some PS coho are in really good shape, like the Snoho, and some, especially in south Sound, and not so good. And the condition of the habitat tends to show the reason why.

Also to reiterate for the nigh-on-umpteenth time, fishery agencies have very little influence on the condition of the habitat. The things that affect habitat are mostly regulated, or not regulated, as the case may be, by DOE, DNR, WSDOT, and county planning depts. and Commissioners. And for every fish friendly action they cause, they also approve 9 or 10 unfriendly ones. Which is why some wild fish populations are heading toward an average run size of zero.

I’ll be sure to say that the average has gone to hell well before the 10 year average return of any population reaches two fish.

Not to defend WDFW on this, but I’m still waiting to hear what WDFW did wrong to cause this poor return of Snoho summer steelhead, which BTW, there weren’t a heck of a lot of prior to the Reiter program that began in 1974, first returns in 1976.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

"Snoho summer steelhead, which BTW, there weren’t a heck of a lot of prior to the Reiter program that began in 1974, first returns in 1976"

Wanna bet. as a kid I used to fish the summer run all the way up from Index to monte Cristo and from index to the falls. Seemed like they where behind every rock. I remember the first one I ever hooked. I cast my single 3 natual colored Pautzke salmon eggs to the opposite bank where a big rock set up a nice eddy with a big log providing cover for the hole. I had been catching cutts all day and had set my drag a little tighter on the Johnson Century reel. A big summer run that my dad later estimated at 15lbs + grabbed my bait and head back under the log to deep water. My dad yelled loosen the drag . I was trying to loosen the drag as the fish bent my rod nearly double. I was using 8 lb test as we always did and when the fish took off out of the eddy down stream with a couple of head shakes and a snap of the line . The fish did not stay hooked but I did. Almost no one fished for them back then. It was the Summer of 1966 and I was 8 years old.

I'm not talking about the salmon I'm talking about the steelhead. How can you narrow it down to poor ocean conditions. It seems like that is everyone's default answer. When I lived in Oregon I fished rivers with the same characteristics as the Skykomish and the numbers were always there. I have many friends that guide in Oregon and they seem to be doing fairly well. The fish that return to Oregon migrate out to the same ocean that the steelhead returning to Washington rivers migrate to.

I to have fished the Sky sense the 70s . I think that we are having a low return year.

To slander the river or the game dept shows ones lack of understanding of the fishery and the surrounding environment.

The Sky has always been a popular river,now the Sky valley is popular place to live.With all the new housing,and all the new people that live in the valley ,coupled with a low water summer,You have to expect some impact on the fishery.

TK,

Sure, I’d take the bet, but what is being bet on is unverifiable, and therefore not suitable for betting.

Relative to the summer steelhead returns since Reiter began returning adults in 1976, native summer steelhead returns to the NF Sky and the Tolt in the Snoq were necessarily small in number by virtue of the relatively small amount of habitat available to produce them. The fact that you hooked one in 1966 is indicative of a fish you hooked, but not the runsize. You may not recall, but the WA state human population was about 1/3 of what it is today in 1966, and far fewer people were fishing for anything, summer steelhead included. It didn’t take much of a run to provide good fishing for the smaller angling populations that existed then.

Not that it matters, but Puget Sound native summer steelhead are predominately one salt fish, with large fish being rare. Thousands of native Deer Creek steelhead were caught and recorded over the years from the NF Stilly, and they rarely topped 14 pounds, which is not to say that none did.

Further, that would have been quite a run from Index to Monte Cristo, seeing how Index is on the lower NF Sky and Monte Cristo is on the SF Sauk. A mountain pass separates those locations, and it isn’t and wasn’t inhabited by steelhead. Enos Bradner described the NF Sky native summer run in his book from the 1950s. I don’t recall the title at the moment, sorry to say. Maybe it was “The Inside on the Outdoors”

Dizzy,

OK, let’s talk about the steelhead then. Biologists have narrowed it down to something in the marine conditions because the usual culprits of freshwater floods and droughts were isolated from the rest of the data. The upshot is that even with good spawning escapements and good freshwater rearing conditions and good smolt production from the systems where that can be estimated or counted, the recruits per spawner has averaged less than one, meaning the populations are barely replacing themselves. (If that isn’t complicated enough, wild winter runs are surviving at a lower rate than wild summer runs lately.) If it isn’t a freshwater factor, it must be a marine factor, but we don’t know what marine factor. Additionally, low returns are occurring among hatchery runs as well, which are not subject the same freshwater limitations as wild fish. But hatchery fish are subject to the same marine factors as wild fish. This isn’t simply default; it’s strong inferential evidence of a marine factor limitation.

All steelhead migrate into the same Pacific Ocean, but they don’t all migrate to the same places in that ocean. Not all areas of the ocean are equally productive at any given time. The current depressed steelhead runs are those originating in Puget Sound and British Columbia as far up as the north end of Vancouver Island. Steelhead populations north of there and from the WA coast and south, including those you refer to in Oregon, are not experiencing this effect. Something along the migration route taken by Puget Sound and lower BC steelhead is impacting survival.

You still haven’t explained what WDFW is doing wrong. Like I said, I know people there who can change things, but they need relevant information to make intelligent changes.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

SG,

There was a Marioposite mine just above Troublesome called Monte Critso. Only old timers would know about it . It marked the uppermost reaches of where you would find steelhead. I have seen salmon up further towards Bear falls. Bit of a test there. I spent equal time if not more on the Stilly from GF to Verlot. Lots of summer runs there as well.

Salmo g.

I think that your statement "the steelhead don't all migrate to the same places once in the ocean" is a poor excuse.
The fish go where the the food is. So my arguement was that if the fish are returning to Oregon rivers, but not to Puget Sound rivers than I believe the problem to be something other than "poor marine conditions". If it was poor marine conditions than wouldn't the Coho, Chum, and Pink salmon runs be impacted too? I don't see as big of an impact on the Salmon (excluding chinook) returning to the Puget Sound rivers as I do the steelhead.

I can't tell you exactly what the WDFW is doing wrong but I can tell you that they could do more. For example; they could close Reiter Ponds for awhile. They could place some logs/boulders in the river where the water gets especially low in the summertime. They could see about planting more trees along the banks to control water temperature, and create ideal holding areas. I don't think any of these ideas are currently being done. I'm not rambling on because I like to complain. I just love to fish and I hate to see the steelhead in trouble on a rive that has so much potential.

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

Chimming a little late on this one but definately an interesting thread.

Bank Walker Says "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"

I like your thinking however spreading hatchery fish throughout the system can be problematic. The way I understand the current science; it's best to isolate the adult hatchery fish from mixing/spawning with the the wilds. If you start trying to imprint hatchery parr/smolt to return as adults throughout the Skykomish system; i.e. Elwell Creek, Woods Creek etc. how would you propose to capture the returning hatchery adults? I think placing weirs across all these small tribes would greatly impact the passage of the wild fish. Also I imagine stations would be required for the parr/smolts, for 2 to 4 weeks???, prior to release in an effort to get the fish to "imprint" to that area. The imprinting stations would be required to keep the hatchery parr from competing with the wild parr. Imprinting stations would need preditor netting, daily feeding etc. kinda spendy for a program all ready under funded.

Dizzy

Keep on trying, I heard that 70 hatchery summer steelhead returned to the Wallace Hatchery just last week, so there are fish to be had. Keep that float/jig working!

Beezer

.

Beez:

It's not all bad. I floated the SKy for the first time (ever) last Sat. with BroodBuster and a couple fellows from another board. One of the guys in the other boat popped this nice Chromer.



We saw quite a few fish in the water, including some nice steelhead. River is real low flow right now....made it a great time to learn the river. TONS of rafters, etc. from Ben Howard to Lewis St., though. Kinda sucked having to avoid them all...next time I'll take out at BH.

Anytime you get an open seat, give me a holler. I look forward to a "front seat" spot again!

Mike

OK Mike, you're on! Nice pic too.....nothin' like a Lavro full of gear rods Oh, yeah, nice fish too!

Beez

Sg,

I know where the town of Monte Cristo is . I know where mineral city is. There was a mine named Monte Cristo on the Sky. It had a board sign above it and went back into the hill maybe 50 Ft. or so. The sign disaaspeared in the 70's sometime and the mine shft was blown up. You can still see the remnants. The gravel has little geen specks of Marioposite in it on that section.

Beezer, I see what your saying about acclimation ponds to isolate wild from hatch. As far as the weirs go, I believe most are fish friendly, whereas the hatchery fish are moved to a tanker truck and the wild fish are allowed to keep moving. (this would also give good indication of wild component.

The state already releases smolts in most tribs without acclimation sites and collection facilities. Although there are a couple who have acclimation ponds come to think of it.

I just know there is a better answer to how our hatcheries are run now. I know 95% is ocean but, there's gotta be somin better than the Reiter fiasco.

I here the Sky got a push of fish after the last good rain. Wish i could get a few hours on my favorite drift

Bankwalker/Breezer-
An interesting idea but as Breezer points there are various logistic/economic obstacles to such and approach.

The first is that fish raised at say Reiter that are truck to another trib and release still tend to migrate back to Reiter.

Given that information the use of conditioning ponds (where fish were trucked to the ponds and held for 4 to 6 weeks prior to release so that they might imprint to the site) is the next logical approach. As with many ideas that actually has been tried. 25 years ago on the Snohmish system there were at least 9 active conditioning ponds (On the Raging, Tolt, Pilchuck, Barr, Woods, Wagley, Sultan, North Sky and South Fork Sky). It was found that they not as successful as hoped. Many of the returning adult still returned to their orginal rearing sites.

In addition as Breezer suggested predation was an issue. It would be pretty expensive to predator proof the ponds and in this day and age kill the various predators is not a PC approach.

There can be a significant ecosystem cost to the developement and use of the ponds. Obviously one would want to have the ponds in the anadromous areas. That means the ponds could impact developing eggs and fry of various species. In addition that type of habitat attracts young juvenile salmonids (especially coho) which would be vulnerable to predation by the steelhead smolts prior to release. Again not sure that trading potential hatchery benefits for known impacts on wild populations are advisable.

Trapping the release sites to remove the returning hatchery fish has its own set of problems. Those sites would have to be staffed during the migration periods. 1) to prevent vandalism and 2) to allow other wild anadromous fish (coho and sea-run cuthroat) that would be migrating upstream at the same time for spawning - the coho spawn in the Sky tribs through most of January and the cutts from January thur May.

Finally such an approach typically results in those fish returning to the release areas ending up in areas where most anglers can not fish - private property. This combined with the fish being spread out through the system results in few fish being harvested by the sport anglers. Do you think in this era of poor returns it makes good sense to adopt strategies that will limit the access to those few fish that do return.

Bankwalker -
It is clear that you have some strong feelings about the inadequacy of the hatchery program at Reiter. I'm interested in other ideas you may have to improve that program that would likely be successful and not put wild stocks at additional risk.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma, Im not trying to be negative towards hatchery practices. All the reasons you shared make complete sense. Im just trying to think outside the box(probably not a good idea). Reiter is a major fishery in the sceme of things. Whereas Lewis St, Cracker Bar, to name some obvious ones where back in the day. My point is, its common to see 10+ fish taken from Reiter in early Dec, but very rarely will you see a fish taken at the drifts mentioned above. Thats why i got my tributary idea. (spread fish and pressure out)

If 20,00 smolts get planted in a trib, and the return rate was say 1%. 200 fish would return right. Of those 200, how many would actually return to the river of release, and how many would return to the original place of acclimation(reiter)????

If fish in the tribs were acounted for and trapped for broodstock for that river, than chances are the offspring would return to that river and not Reiter right???

Sorry for my rambling, hatchery fish science has always interested me for some strange reason.

Bank Walker -
Think outside of the box is never a bad idea - howelse do we learn and advance the state or our knowledge!

If the fish were collect in a trib they would have to be reared in that trib for the bulk of their early life (in the case of hatchery steelhead that is a little over 1 year - from the time the eggs hatch until the following May). To accomplsih what you want would require mimi-hatcheries on each of the tribs.

That would be quite a bit more expensive than the current system. Sources of reliable high quality water is always an issue with siting a hatchery. In addition additional $$s would be needed for capitol developement as well as O&M.

The characteristics that make what we call steelhead are controlled by both genetic and envirnomental factors. In your example if winter fish were trapped at say Woods Creek (hatchery or wild) their eggs collected and then reared say at Reiter. The offspring would return as winter steelhead (genetic) but they would return to Reiter (envirnomental).

Tight lines
Curt