GBL -

I agree that the Situk must have near prefect habitat for ultimate steelhead production.

Howefver with all that going for the Situk and its steelhead how do you explain that for more than 25 years (1953 to the early 1980s) there was only 1,000 to 1,500 annually to the river?


Tight lines
Curt

No Thanks, Ma Nature is a better designer and can do a better job if given the chance. Caveat in form of a question: Do humans have the will to provide the fish a given chance?

Smalma-
Great question. I am going to do some research while up there and find out what crashed the run back then. I know the fish biologist up there and he has lots of info.
If you look at the picture under my name, you will see what the Situk river bottom looks like and yes it is near perfect spawning for the entire length, so that is one reason. That picture is one small hole loaded with Sockeye last year. Had to have a picture of the fish all lined up.

Being protected is another and it does have log jambs at every turn.

I would imagine back in those days, some of the problem was commercial driven, but I am not going to say for sure until I get the info. I will post when I find out.

The species as a whole got bonked by Judge Boldt. They've been going toward the light every since.

I have read Mr. McMillen's letter three time over the past week and each time my reaction has been that he should stick to writing about fly fishing. This sort of analysis, while it may appear to be based on some kind of science is bogus. I am not as polite as Smalma and Todd, both have pointed obvious faults with the analysis, because I think that it does not help wild steelhead. Steelhead management may not be particularly good but I think the people in management who are in a position to make positive changes would appreciate more thoughtful advice.

Why do I think the analysis is bad? Let me start by pointing out what wild steelhead advocates often forget. Steelhead are rainbow trout, a freshwater fish. Rainbow trout are an amazingly adaptable fish, they can be found in almost any fresh water around the North Pacific rim. Steelhead are a life history variant that have adapted to marginal fresh water habitats by becoming anadromous. Because of that life history the number returning to a river is always dependent on ocean conditions. It is also important to remember that in terms of numbers, steelhead are a minor component of the total number of Pacific salmon. For these reasons it is not valid to use the Situk or a river in Kamchatka as a model of what steelhead runs in Washington should be like.

In Kamchatka the steelhead rivers are the west coast draining into the Sea of Okhotsk, they are low gradient rivers draining tundra, and they freeze in the winter. On the east coast of Kamchatka the rivers are rainbow trout rives and are not known for steelhead. The Kamchatka steelhead are characterized by multiple spawners, 4 to 5 times is not unusual, very much like the rainbow trout on the east coast. Basically they are the same except that conditions on the west coast require the fish to go to the ocean to survive. Salmon runs in Kamchatka are similar to those in Alaska, steelhead are a small number of the total salmon. The run size can vary dramatically. In "Tent Life in Siberia" published in 1870 George Kennan describes visiting villages abandoned or where most residents were starving to death because of the collapse of salmon runs. This happened on a regular basis. Present Kamchatka steelhead runs might reflect the past management practice. Under communist rule fishing was not permitted except for a few native families who could fish for two days a year for their winter use. The area was a military area and travel was prohibited. A few University of Moscow scientists were able to study steelhead. They probably killed more steelhead than the native people and still do with the advent of eco-tourism fishing. There are no rivers in Washington that can be compared to the steelhead rivers of Kamchatka and I am sure that we wouldn't want a government like the Russian communists managing our fisheries.

The Situk river is a unique river, even in Alaska, and it is not valid to use it as a model for Washington rivers. It is a small, low gradient river draining from a spring fed lake, in a glacial region. It is considered one of the most productive rivers in Alaska, but the production is measured by the numbers of returning fish. The productivity is a reflection of good spawning habitat and good nearshore ocean conditions, not management. Other Alaska rivers are also very productive by these measures but don't have significant steelhead runs, in the Bristol Bay area for instance. What these rivers do have is a healthy population of rainbow trout, an indication of a truly productive freshwater habitat.

It is interesting to contrast the Hoh and Situk, looking at the last 20 years the peak flow was 3800 cfs in one year with peak flow normal being around 2000 cfs. A quick look at the peak flow for the Hoh over the same period indicates that the peak flows are generally around 30,000 cfs with a high of 62,000 cfs. It is flow that moves woody debris and gravel. The Hoh drainage is less than 4 times as big as that of the Situk but the energy that shapes the river through flow is more than 200 times greater. The same can be said for the other rivers on the west side. The potential productivity of the Hoh cannot be equated to the Situk at any time.

The idea that one can predict the theoretical productivity by taking the drainage basin area of a Washington river, divide it by the drainage area of the Situk, and then multiply the ratio by some historical Stiku run size doesn't work. If you take the calculation for the Stilliguamish and do the same for the Columbia the result is that the theoretical productivity for steelhead in the Columbia basin is between 80 and 105 million. If steelhead, a small part of overall salmon returns, were 10% of the total salmon runs in the Columbia the implication is that the potential productivity would be in the range of one billion fish. With all of the other salmon producing rivers around the Pacific rim the ocean could never support a run of that size to one river.

I could go on but it should be obvious that historical run sizes need to be based on historical observations. It is necessary to recognize that there has always been and always will be large variations in run size. For the purpose of recovery and restoration it is necessary to asses potential productivity on in basin eco systems and ocean conditions that out migrating fish might encounter. These are dynamic system and can never be put back to some previous configuration, one can only guess what conditions might be in the future. The Situk is a perfect example of what might happen. In January I heard a talk by a USGS person who studies glaciers in Alaska. Hubbard glacier is growing and there is a 50% chance that it will block Russell Fiord this summer. This has happen before in the past century but the blockage did not last long. What is unusual is that now the glacier is growing around and up into Russell Fiord so that any blockage will be a massive ice dam that extends to the bottom of the fiord and is not likely to be breached for years. The result is that the water will rise in Russell Fiord to a level where it will flow into the Situk. At that time the Situk flow will be equivalent to that of the Snake river. Nobody knows what the impact will be on salmon productivity but it is clear that the steelhead fishery will end for some time.

For the sole purpose of clarity......my cloning remarks are a TIC sign of frustration and not to be misconstued as anything more.

What I want to see is the same as most everyone here......rivers filled with wild fish. But........

What I fear is that economics will rule.....as it always does. That which produces the most money always wins. Sure there may be short term exceptions to the rule, but they are just that.....short term. It is absolutely my belief that world demand, not local demand, WILL determine what happens with fish that inhabit the oceans. Boldt be damned(literally...couldn't help myself ), he was only one more nail in the coffin of sport fishing for the average Joe.

IMO, whatever country produces the most fish for sale on the world market will control what the other countries decide. It is purely greed-driven economics that will determine what happens, like it or not. Ah, the power of The Almighty Buck!

The farmed fish supply is the most economical fish available for volumn of food source, at least in the short term. You can't argue that. The fact that they exist at all should tell you that is true. But you can argue all you want about the cost of raising hatchery fish, but then what is necessary to see is that the present numbers of wild fish don't make the cut when it comes to producing the biomass necessary to remotely satisfy demand.

An attempt is presently being made to convince those interested that wild fish can/will produce more fish than can be produced in a hatchery-supplimented system. B.S. Because hand-fed smolts spend less time in-river than their wild-spawned counterparts, they also don't make the demands on the eco-system of the host rivers that the feeding wild fish offspring do. That tells me that a hatchery-enhanced river system has the potential to be MUCH denser.

So when that argument fails, shall we talk quality of fish? Ahhh, there you go....that'll work. Uh Huh. It's not that the argument isn't correct....it is. The problem for me is that quality is one of those present-day luxuries that flies in the face of average affordability. I hate seeing fishing turned into an elistist sport. With an over abundance of time and money some can afford to be picky. Unfortunately, that's not me.

And for the record, cloning is a better option than the Frankenfish GMOs which have already been produced. They would be mirror-images of the original (actually I have no idea if cloning fish is even possible, but doesn't seem likely to me), and not entirely new creatures. But it wouldn't surprise me much if either becomes common place at some point. UGH.

Excellent letter, needs to be sent on to all members of the house and senate so they can read it and continue to do nothing.

Peace
Fly

thanks for the reads guys...c

I received the same email and have read some of this in Bill's earlier work. I don't think that either Kamchatka or the Situk are good models for WA's Puget Sound or coastal rivers. However, there is merit to the comments and criticisms, the take home message for me - because years ago I had the humbling task of reviewing historic Puget Sound salmon and steelhead catch data - is that our rivers are now mere fractions of their former productivity, capacity, and diversity. We really have done that much damage in 150 years; our industrial efficiency is that good - or bad - depending on one's point of view.

Sg