So, everyone has great points and I am learning allot.
Answer this for me--
If we are worried about hatchery plants and why some systems do not recover, why is the Great Lakes so full of fish that spawn very effectivly? The Habitat is not any better than ours in most rivers, They have a huge sport fishery, (no commercial fishing)and the fish are not hatchery brats, they are big strong and look better than most of the fish in Washington, and I am pretty sure that whole fishery started with Skamania eggs, right?

Now, most of us have fished the Cowlitz and Lewis, I have caught up to 23lb. summer runs out of the Lewis, clipped hatchery fish. In the 60's and 70's we caught dozens of big Summer Runs out of the Cowlitz, all hatchery fish. I will admit, most of the time we were the only ones on the river, but they were still big, strong spawning Steelhead with good genes.
Even the Skagit had huge Summer Runs in the late 70's and early 80's.
I am sure in most cases we will find that the State took eggs and did not cull the fish for the big ones and slowly the fish got smaller in most systems until all you have left are small hatchery fish returning. A bad cycle to get into I guess.
One last point, I understand Todd's position and it is a good one, my point has always been that over 30 years of taking Native Steelhead by all parties and especially the Indians has left us with an empty hole to try and get eggs to support a system. I hate the word escapment, it changes every year to suit the State.
Does not matter if we are talking "in the past", the past is what is establishing our future. Escapment was 50 times what it is today back in the late 70's, why is it not exactly the same as back then, nothing has changed other than the State can't get enough pairs to take eggs from other than some spots on the Skagit and those are just a shell of a run from what it used to be.

They were an invasive species with no natural predators. This fishery is starting to normalize as the populations of alewife and other bait fish are starting to increase, and the numbers of salmon and steelhead decrease. There are lots of articles associated with the impacts of introducing salmon and steelhead to the GL, I just don't have the links handy right now.

Additionally, there are some places that do have wildly reproducing fish, but in general a lot of there fish are of hatchery descent. I'm not sure what there survial rate of smolt to adult is so I can't say if they can get by with few fish planted.



Size is not really a good indication of fitness, as sometimes being big is a disadvantage. Also keep in mind that there is NO way that our selection of fish can even come close to the behavior wild fish take on. The dilution of genetics and the straying there of is difficult to manage, but regardless without a nearly even match of wild to hatchery genetics year after your, you'll end up with a statistical decay over time that will eventually cause it to be nothing more than hatchery fish. This is one of the reasons why some of the proposed integrated broodstock programs are under such fire.

As an example let's assume you have a drop of food coloring that you add to a buck of water. This would be the wild fish. The color is certainly more dilute after adding it to a larger bucket rather than a smaller one. Now lets say that you only add this drop only 1 in 5 bucket fills, and the rest of the time you use a drop or two from the previous bucket to color subsquent buckets. It's plain to see within a couple of drops in the bucket that the water will pretty much be clear. This is an exagerated example of how hatchery selection occurs, and why it's difficult to do genetics management on these fish.

A bad cycle to get into I guess.



To an extent there aren't the same pure strains of "wild" genetics around. But to simply state that the number of fish aren't what they should be because of past harvest practices ignores the other major affects. A lot has change since the 80's and I would say that other factors like habitat, dams, and encroachment have had a larger affect on the fish than genetic straying. But I'd leave that call to the bios who live this...

-- Cheers
-- James

It has been almost a month since Puget Sound steelhead were ESA listed. After the initial press releases public reaction, other than here and and other internet forums, has been business as usual. As anyone who has been reading the posts in this thread can attest to we have shown a lot of passion about the causes of steelhead decline but are having a hard time identifying appropriate actions to reduce that trend. For me it has been motivation to spend time learning more about the science and management particular to steelhead. Forgive this long post, but I would like to share some of my ideas and how I arrived at them.

First, I am pleased to report that as of June 1 full funding for the UW Highseas steelhead research project was provided by Sea Grant. A UW person is now on a Japanese vessel, working through June in the North Pacific / Gulf of Alaska and in the Bering Sea in July. Ocean steelhead research is important to us and also the Canadians. As sports fishermen we can support this research by letting our elected representatives know that funding international research is important. Last Decembers draft "Steelhead Management Plan" has a paragraph stating the importance of international research.

In thinking about steelhead the one thing that I found most important is the variety of life history types. No other Pacific salmon approaches steelhead in the complexity of possible life histories. Atlantic salmon are similar to steelhead so I read as many papers and reports as I could easily find. There is a long history of Atlantic Salmon fisheries management and research and ongoing efforts to restore runs in various countries. I also read similar literature for steelhead in the Pacific. The one report that I founds most useful is "Oncorhynchus mykiss: Assessment of Washington State’s Anadromous Populations and Programs" available for download from WDFW Fish Management web page. Chapter 2, the biology of steelhead, is the basis for many of my comments.

What do I think is important?

1. Steelhead recovery should not be part of the "Shared Strategy" and money for steelhead recovery should not be lumped into "Puget Sound" recovery programs. Shared Strategy is a coalition working primarily on chinook recovery, has a strong NOAA Fisheries input, and is politically popular. It remains to be seen if any progress will be made towards chinook recovery. Habitat improvement work with the goal of chinook recovery may have little benefit for steelhead. Steelhead utilize a part of the freshwater habitat that is not important for chinook. Puget Sound cleanup may help steelhead but it is not critical to their survival. Finally NOAA Fisheries shouldn't be the lead agency for recovery efforts. Their record on the Columbia river is not great, WDFW has spent years developing a comprehensive steelhead management plan that addresses the needs of steelhead recovery. Regardless of ones feeling about the policies of WDFW, the biologists and scientists of WDFW (and the tribes) are as qualified as any in the world to solve the problem. The work the state has done should not be abandoned.

2. Sports fishermen have to maintain a positive input to the process.. We need to be informed and educated, our influence is much greater than if we rely on emotions. We have to support actions that may not be popular (trout fishing bait bans is one that was discussed here and timber harvest restrictions are examples).

3. Sports fishermen can play an active role. Presently sports fishing organizations are purchasing acoustic tags for smolt tracking studies and are helping in the tagging operations. I think acoustic tagging studies should be done on kelts. Presently there is an ongoing study in Cook Inlet in Alaska looking at steelhead kelt migrations to saltwater from freshwater. Many studies have been done on Atlantic salmon. In an earlier post I mentioned the kelt reconditioning project on the Columbia and kelt reconditioning is mentioned in the Washington comprehensive steelhead management draft. Repeat spawners play a significant role in maintaining genetic diversity and they are an important hedge against a poor smolt production year.

4. The much discussed, maligned, and defended CNR fishery can be used to gather information. The CNR fishery in March and April probably has little stress induced effects on steelhead reproductive success because the fish are fully sexually mature, at maximum only a few weeks from spawning, and their migration is essentially complete. Because they are at or near their spawning areas it would be useful if sports fishermen could take scale samples and genetic samples. Population structure, age and growth, and the number of repeat spawners can be determined from such samples. Comparisons between the Skagit system and Olympic Peninsula rivers might be useful to monitor recovery activities. The state does some of this work now but I suspect the samples would be useful though funding to analyze samples would be necessary. Steelhead fishermen in Kamchatka have done this sort of sampling for several years, it does not take extensive training.

5. Stay interested, if you have read all of this thanks. I was pleased with the response to my earlier post about the UW Highseas Research program. Starting tomorrow there is an American Fisheries Society North Pacific International Chapter conference in Tacoma. I hope to hear some presentations about current steelhead research projects and will post comments if anything is useful to this discussion.

Thank you for the posts, WN1A. It's a pleasure to read them.

Setting aside the Aunty and Todd show. This has been one of the most interesting reads so far on this board. I think there is a broad knowledge base and we all benifit from the discussion. I am learning alot, and hope to continue to learn more as time passes here, thanks yall

Todd has recently embraced his feminine side and started to fly fish. Rumor has it he as one of those huge pink "Breast Cancer Research" Sage 8136 spey rods married to a a beauty of a reel. Think the reel is a lavendar Orvis, custom made with the engraving "Spey Pride" on the reelseat.... I think Todd has always been in the closet with his affinity for "pink worms", but after his encounter with Dec on the river.... Well, let's just say it was 15 minutes that changed him....

Encounter...true.

Spey rod? Also true...I've used it once, and can't cast it worth a chit...I'll figger it out eventually. It's not pink, neither is the reel. Not even the line.

Spey Pride...hmmm...I doubt I'll ever be a card carrying member...

Nice and accomodating? I guess my head was starting to spin from repeating "how can harvest be the problem when harvest doesn't exist?" and "all studies have shown that the one single CnR season in all of Puget Sound has absolutely no effect on the fish run there"...after two or three dozen repeats, either it was going to sink in, or it wasn't...I don't know if it did or not, but I'm done repeating it, that's fer sher!

I've always been nice and accomodating...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I caught my first fish on a flyrod in 1979...too late to "start"...

AuntyM,




Sorry for the delayed response, after 2 1/2 days of listening to presentations and talking to people about salmon recovery at the AFS meeting I had to take a break and think about other things. No studies have been done that I or my "expert advisor" know of. GPS tracking of fish requires that the fish spend some time at the surface to acquire the GPS signal and if the tag has upload capability to upload information to satellites. It might be possible with steelhead, limited archival tag (they measure pressure and temperature) recoveries indicate that steelhead spend most of their time in the upper 5 meters of the water column and do spend time at the surface. Another indicator is that the stomach contents of steelhead caught on the highseas often contain bits of plastic, probably from feeding at the surface.

Highseas steelhead tagging is difficult, primarily because so few are caught. Japanese research vessels catch a few thousand chum, pinks, and sockeye, but fewer coho and chinook and only 30 to 40 steelhead in a year. The gear used is trawls, long-lines, and research drift nets. This gear is not the best for getting fish in good condition for tagging. When the vessels are stopped for collecting oceanographic data the crew and fisheries scientists fish with sport gear to catch fish for tagging. The link below had some photos and descriptions of fishing on the highseas with sports gear.

http://home.comcast.net/~kate4fish/HighSeas/kayiomaru.htm

Another problem with tagging steelhead is tag recovery. Most salmon archival tag recoveries come from commercial fisheries, hatcheries and even canneries. The UW Highseas research group has tagged a limited number of steelhead with archival tags and has only had one recovered. That was caught in a Copper River delta fishery and was turned in several weeks later after a meeting of the fisherman in the area. There was a fear that they would be penalized for catching steelhead. In past years a limited number of disc tags from steelhead have been recovered, in some cases guides tried to discourage their clients from turning in the tags. The only two other steelhead archival tag recoveries that I know of were steelhead tagged as kelts in the Cook Inlet research project I mentioned in my previous post.

Thanks WN1A, I've enjoyed your informative posts.
How did you become Washington's "Alpha Mariner"?

Todd-
Based on your posts, one thing is for sure!
You are a lawyer.

Wooly Bully,



We bought our Puget Sound boat, a Pacific Mariner, used in 1980. The registration number was WN 1A. I was told that it was the first boat registered in the state and that we are the third owners. At that time the state did not register boats, it was done by the Coast Guard. When the state took over boat registration the old Coast Guard numbers were accepted by the state. What I have learned about the history of "Pacific Mariner" and the role of the company in Washington boat building is quite interesting. I would like to know more - another day in a different thread.

I heard several presentations about current steelhead research, some such as the Hood River broodstock program and the UW Forks creek hatchery - wild studies have been discussed in this forum before. A presentation by a WDFW employee who has been assigned to develop a model for steelhead management was interesting. The traditional models used for salmon management may not be valid for steelhead. Most of the models assume that all spawners die after spawning yet it seems that a healthy steelhead run may have around 20% repeat spawners. The common measures of smolt to adult return ratios and even escapement are clouded by the varied life histories of steelhead. A good example is , in the past few years it has been estimated that up to 75% of the spawning males in the Yakima system did not migrate to the ocean. A study that looked at genes in the brains of male Atlantic salmon at the smolt stage ( I don't understand the science but it has been published ) found that staying in the river was the true genetic behavior and migrating to the ocean was not. The concept of steelhead residuals may be the true genetic behavior and migrating to the ocean may be driven by environmental factors.

During the meeting there were numerous talks about salmon recovery, the director of WDFW, the King County executive, two senior NOAA Fisheries people, and the director of the governors salmon recovery office in the first 3 hours. During the course of the 2 1/2 days listening to people from federal and state agencies, universities, NGO's, tribes, and consulting firms one thing stood out. Everyone involved is serious about what they are doing and everyone needs funding. Unfortunately the numbers of people involved in planning, reviewing plans and programs, issuing permits and administering programs requires a big part of the available funds. Salmon recovery, and now Puget Sound clean up, is becoming a major industry. One of the last speakers of the 2 1/2 days said that over the past several years 23,000 projects, at a cost of several billion dollars, have been carried out in Washington to recover salmon. Very few of them have had any measurable results. It is not encouraging.

Bureaucracy and politics at its finest!