"Fishing suffered from depleted runs. From 1976 to 1988, the Coho salmon catch dropped from 1.38 million to 74,000."


I ran into this excerpt from a historical account of Grays Harbor (Chehalis) County. Really puts things into perspective when present-day managers talk about "banner" runs by modern-day standards. I mean every one is oohing and ahhing over (bemoaning?) the bumper crop of 72,000 silvers the gillnetters took out of Willapa this year.

Funny how we all tend to look at salmon abundance in terms of such a small timescape.... ie the past 10-20 yrs.... and consider that "historical" abundance.

Don't get me wrong here.... I fully appreciate the opportunities presented by 2009's bumper crop of coho, but man oh man, what would it have been like to fish the salmon superhighway that WAS the Chehalis back in the day?

source

found the results from a derby in the 1950's. I believe the largest was a 65lb king and the smallest was around 25lb. Nowadays 25lbs is considered a derby winner around here. Not to get off topic, but when was the last time someone caught a skate in the sound.

While not all streams/rivers in the "Harbor District" (WRIAs 22,23,24) received plants on an annual basis, from 1952 to 1973, the total salmon plants (for all species, but predominately Chinook and coho) by the WA Dept of Fisheries were:

Fry
17,653,498

Fingerlings
87,412,536

Yearlings
45,905,585

Total plant
150,971,619

Total pounds
2,519,023

The following drainages were stocked one or more times:

Grays Harbor
Duck Lake 1972 4,980 Masu (Cherry salmon)
Campbell Slough
Humptulips River
Damon Creek
Big Creek
Stevens Creek
Donkey Creek
O'Brien Creek
Chenois Creek
Hoquiam River
E F Hoquiam River
M F Hoquiam River
Chehalis River
Wishkah River
Wynoochee River
Aberdeen Lake
Unknown
Satsop River
W F Satsop River
Canyon River
E F Satsop River
M F Satsop River
Satsop Springs
Bingham Creek
Phillips Creek
Cloquallum Creek
Wildcat Creek
Delezenne Creek (sp?)
Johns River
Andrews Creek
Porter Creek
Rock Creek
Black River
Waddell Creek
Skookumchuck River
Newaukum River
N F Newaukum River
S F Newaukum River
S F Chehalis River
Stillman Creek
Elk Creek
Seven Creek
Eight Creek
Swem Creek
Stowe Creek
Smith Creek
Thrash Creek
W F Chehalis River
E F Chehalis River
Sherman Creek
North River
Smith Creek
Clearwater Creek
Elkhorn Creek
Davis Creek
Little North River
Fall River
Willapa River
Johnson Slough
S F Willapa River
Rue Creek
Wilson Creek
Mill Creek
Stringer Creek
Trap Creek
Falls Creek
Fork Creeks
Half Moon Creek
Fern Creek
Niawtakum
Palix River
M Palix River
Canyon Creek
N Nemah River
Williams Creek
Cruiser Creek
S Nemah River
Mid Nemah River
Naselle River
S F Naselle River
Beam Creek
O'Connor Creek
Salmon Creek
N F Nasellle River
Alder Creek
Bear River

Total releases, across the state, in the same time frame (1952-1973) were:

Fry
283,385,283

Fingerling
154,994,857

Yearlings
404,282,085

Total Fish
842,662,225

Total Pounds
27,978,285

From 1976 to 1986, the WDF releases (statewide) totaled:

2,487,877,169 fish

An average of about 207,000,000 per year. This total doesn't include schools, cooperatives, tribal, or federal hatchery releases.

In 1987, all of the hatcheries in the state (state, tribal, federal, cooperative, schools) released a total (all species) of:

337,742,414

With the current discussions about the viability of hatchery fish, one has to wonder how far back do we need to go to determine whether a run is truly "wild" or does it have an appreciable amount of hatchery genetics and the subsequent off-spring are "natural origin returns". Maybe some of the fishing, in the good old days, was due to hatchery releases....

"Digger trips" (The Seattle Times, September 19, 1993) for razor clams plummeted from 749,000 in 1967 to 32,000 in 1993.

Not many remember or even know that until the "over passes" were built....all the traffic went thur Montensano....that 1 stop light would cause traffic to be backuped for "miles".

That whole artcle from Doc's "source", should be mandatory reading.

Thanks Doc......

Yup sixty's and seventy's were the peak of hatchery production, huge commercial fleets targeting them, every thing from sport boats with hand cranks to commercial trollers. Land use laws were lax or non-exsitent, so habitat was just bulldozed under, didn't need it, we had the hatcheries. ESA listings followed in the eighty's along with the Boldt decision, and its been a quagmire ever since.

As one who constantly tries to get folks to look back at the past, as far back as possible, there are some basic things to remember. Even if the habitat stayed the same and did not degrade, the simple fact of the Boldt Decision and Hoh v. Baldridge changed harvest patterns without changing run size.

Pre-Boldt, WDF emphasized harvest in the ocean. Boldt essentailly transferred half that catch to the Tribes in the rivers and Bays. So, a fishery that took a million fish could be reduced to half a million on the same runsize (more or less).

I believe, too, that in the 60s and 70s the Canadians were not targeting US stocks to the extent they did later. Whether it was the troll fleet commercially or the sport fleet (including US anglers going up there) these were all fish taken out of WA coastal fishery.

I agree, the hatcherys were built to supply huge ocean fisheries. With inriver just cleaning up excess, coastal wild stocks were wiped out in the hatchery mix along with the damage from dikes, logging, cow pastures etc.. Not sure when the westcoast Vancouver Island troll fishery peaked.

CM when did CWT's come into being? It was when the Canadians started recovering the tags that they figured out how to target US stocks AND DID.

SBD your off beam about 2/3'rds. Hatcheries were built to make up for ( mitigate ) lost natural production from human activity and provide for additional harvest. The ocean harvest is a fishery well after hatcheries came into being and took off like crazy with the growth in ocean sport fishing.

Through the history of harvest most was terminal based but not necessarily net. Traps and fish wheels dominated for many years. It is in my life time that the mixed stock ocean sport & commercial fisheries really developed and frankly they have had the most detrimental impact of any harvest method utilized in the PNW. It is the word mixed stock that is the key.

Carcassman,

Best I recall, Canadian interceptions really took off beginning in the late 60s, early 70s, coinciding with greatly reduced returns to Puget Sound and WA coast, but not as bad as PS.

Rivrguy,

CWT came into wide use about 1972. Frank Haw's buddy up on Shaw Is. invented the machine to make the tags and inject them in smolts.

Sg

Amen brother, Amen.

We go thru the most convoluted, unreliable, expensive-as-hell forecast and management strategies to accommodate "outside" mixed stock fisheries.

We would do ourselves and the fish a HUGE favor by transitioning back to terminal fisheries where the principal local stakeholders harvest their own fish. Each terminal fishery region lives and dies by its own harvest and conservation strategies... they reap exactly what they sow at the local level.

They would also be much more invested in conservation measures if they knew that the benefits would NOT be squandered to fish boxes in Canada and Alaska.

Local ownership and accountability of the resource based on stream of origin. It's the only way these problems will go away.

Now if we could just get past the roadblocks erected by the global scale industrial commercial interests that dominate Pacific salmon fisheries.

our biggest mistake.

Well said. Further, if you fish on maturing fish you get the largest fish, you use less fuel to chase them.

Most importantly, if (for example) essentially all of the harvest of Grays Harbor salmonids occurred inside the harbor, I'll bet that even the politicians would have an interest in good land-use decisions because their voters were directly affected by their decisions. You couldn't blame the Alaskans, Canadians, or the other boogiemen because the returns would be strongly controlled by what haqppened in the Harbor.

Never will happen because the local politicians (city, county, state, tribal) won't want to be put into the position where they are directly accountable and responsible for the results of their decisions.

We would do ourselves and the fish a HUGE favor by transitioning back to terminal fisheries where the principal local stakeholders harvest their own fish.

Doc, sounds good to me, but then you would have stay "inside", along with the charters. Or possibly all boats could be converted to jet drives, so we could fish the appropriate river of origin.

I suspect there may be an issue or two to resolve with the sports fishery if such regulations were to come about.....not that it isn't a grand idea.....the devil's in the details.

As a starting point, we should at least shoot for "terminal" management by basin of origin as defined by estuarine geoography.... ie Tillamook Bay, Columbia River, Willapa, Grays Harbor, etc.

Exact stream of origin might be a bit of a stretch, but within each basin, the local managers would be better able to rearrange the harvest effort and conservation directives to better meet individual tributary escapement goals.... IF they were so blessed to start with a full complement of fish returning to their basin, rather than scraps. Not saying they still couldn't f-it-up, but at least they start with a fighting chance, and they would have NO ONE to blame but themselves.

The way we do it now makes it damn near impossible to consistently achieve, and history affirms that.

River guy I started trolling when I was 17 in 1976, I speak from experience.

ESA Salmon Listings ESA Regulations & Permits Salmon Habitat Salmon Harvest & Hatcheries Marine Mammals





Salmon & Hydropower Salmon Recovery Planning Groundfish & Halibut Permits & Other Marine Species











Mitchell Act EIS

Mitchell Act map

EIS Key Topics to be Evaluated

Mitchell Act EIS Spring 2006 Bulletin

Mitchell Act EIS Spring 2009 Bulletin


Home > Salmon Harvest & Hatcheries > Hatcheries > Mitchell Act Program



Mitchell Act Program
The Mitchell Act was enacted in 1938 to provide for conservation of anadromous (salmon and steelhead) fishery resources of the Columbia River. The program has evolved into three primary components:

Operation of 17 fish hatcheries (from a high of 25 hatcheries and major rearing ponds) with the release of between 50 and 60 million juvenile anadromous fish in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
Construction, operation and maintenance of more than 700 fish screens at irrigation diversions to protect juvenile salmon and steelhead in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
Ongoing operations and maintenance of 90 fishways enhancing adult fish passage to nearly 2,000 miles of stream habitat in all three states.
Historically, production from the program has provided fish for tribal treaty fisheries in the Columbia River, and for ocean and in-river recreational and commercial fisheries. Renegotiation of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan per U.S. v. Oregon includes this program. More recently, hatchery programs funded through the Mitchell Act are conserving genetic resources for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and reintroducing salmon into parts of their former range.

With application of the ESA throughout the Columbia River Basin, substantial changes have been, and will continue to be required of the Mitchell Act Program. Overall hatchery production has been reduced from more than 100 million to less than 60 million fish. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared to evaluate the effects of the funding and operation of Mitchell Act hatcheries. Hatchery reprogramming efforts are under way to preserve genetic resources and revitalize restricted fishing opportunities by creating selective fisheries for marked hatchery fish, and terminal fisheries on hatchery-only fish.












Search NOAA Fisheries

Print Version

What's New

About the NWR

Subject Index

Current Issues

Species Lists

Publications

Biological Opinions

Public Consultation Tracking System
(PCTS)

Site Map








7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
206-526-6150
Email: Webmaster or Content Manager
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | About Us
Important Policies & Links



Page last updated: March 19, 2009





ESA Salmon Regulations & Permits4(D) RulesSection 10 PermitsProtected Resources DivisionSection 10 PermitsScientific Research AuthorizationsSalmon & HydropowerColumbia/Snake BasinFederal Energy Regulatory Commission ActivitiesHydropower DivisionPermitsCommercial Fishing StatisticsOther Marine SpeciesPermits HomeESA PermitsGroundfish PermitsOther PermitsOther Marine Species HomePuget Sound Marine FishesSalmon Recovery PlanningESA Recovery PlansRecovery DomainsPCSRFSalmon Recovery DivisionRecovery DomainsPuget SoundInterior ColumbiaWillamette/Lower ColumbiaOregon CoastInterior ColumbiaMid-ColumbiaSnake BasinUpper ColumbiaCurrent Permits ListESA Salmon ListingsSalmon PopulationsAlsea ResponseReports and PublicationsProtected Resources DivisionSalmon PopulationsChinookChumCohoPinkSockeyeSteelheadMapsGroundfish & HalibutGroundfish Fishery ManagementPacific HalibutGroundfish PermitsSustainable Fisheries DivisionGroundfish Management HomePublic Notices & Trip LimitsGroundfish Closed AreasRegulationsGroundfish
Essential Fish HabitatVessel Monitoring ProgramWhiting ManagementSablefish ManagementMarine MammalsWhales, Dolphins & PorpoiseSeals & Sea Lions (Pinnipeds)Watching Marine MammalsStranding InformationProtected Resources DivisionWhales Dolphins & PorpoiseKiller WhalesGray WhalesSalmon Harvest & HatcheriesSalmon Fishery ManagementHatcheriesState & Tribal ManagementSustainable Fisheries DivisionSalmon Recovery DivisionSalmon HabitatSalmon
Essential Fish HabitatCritical HabitatESA ConsultationsHabitat Conservation PlansHabitat Conservation Division


Mitchell Act Funding didn't start intill !938 and it probaly took another 10 or 15 years for the hatcheries to get built and start full 4-5 year production cycles. Thats when the Ocean troll fishery really took off, sixty's and seventy's were the heyday, damage was done by the eighty's to the coastal stocks and the rest is history. Now we have protected pinnipeds and reduced hatchery output and bulldozed habitat, wonder what there going to eat next.

From Bushbear's figures....

52 - 73 = 842,662,225 fish total released (21 year span)

76 - 86 = 2,487,877,169 fish total released (10 year span)

(no data 74 and 75?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that less than 1/4 of the fish/year release occurred in the first bracket.

My personal recollection (which is far from infallible) is that many commercial fisherman were in business from the early '60s until the mid 70's.

Boldt was when? 1976?

Buy out of commercial licenses occured when?

What is interesting to me, is that the commercial fleet fell apart when supposedly the hatchery production was at it's peak.
It would be nice to see the catch records for those years, along with their distribution.

Am I missing something? (other than a few too many brain cells from way too much fun in the 60's )

collected sufficient sample sizes (n > 100) for weekly estimates of stock composition in
seven weeks (Figure 3). The number of samples collected per weekly opener ranged from 0 –
1173 and sampling efforts were highly dependent on weather conditions. Sample sizes were
sometimes limited by low catch rates. Weekly stock proportions from IA and MSA averaged
over all weeks were similar: Central Valley fall and spring contributed the greatest percent (MSA
weekly average 61.01 %; range 43.91% - 71.49%, Table 4). The Klamath ranged from 3.82% to
11.32% (weeks of 9 July 2006 and 17 September 2006, respectively) with an average over all
weeks of 6.47%. The Rogue River spiked at 19.13% during October, up from 1.70% in the first
week of August (average 7.26%). Stocks from the California Coast reporting region averaged
2.20% (range 0.67% - 5.38%), and the Northern California/Southern Oregon Coast contributed
an estimated average of 2.25% (range 0.60% - 5.75%). Weekly trends for the Klamath,
California Coast, and Northern California/Southern Oregon stocks were largely comparable
(Figure 7). One of Project CROOS’s objectives was to test our ability to provide genetic stock
estimates for management and protection of fish from the Klamath basin. Of all treatments of
data considered, the conservative dataset estimated the greatest contribution from the Klamath
basin on a weekly basis (Figure 7) but the method that would be most useful for management
remains to be determined.
Global p


Here's a sample of some genetic testing done off the mid to southern oregon coast...What a constantly moving mess, try and manage for escapements in each drainage.

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974) better known as the "Boldt Decision", was a controversial 1974 court case which affirmed the right of most of the tribes in the U.S. state of Washington to continue to harvest salmon

Slab
Guess I'm missing your question, Brushbears numbers appear to be all Washington releases so with out Canadian and Alaskan catch numbers hard to tell what was being intercepted at that time. Washington did a buyout on nontribal commercial permits, PS, Coastal and Columbia river, reducing there numbers by something like 80% in the eighty's I believe. Which was reallocated to tribal fisheries, Oregon and California haven't. Alaska has been moving there season's to more inside area's were there not impacting lower 48 stocks as much, but they kinda got overrun by out of work lower 48 trollers who snapped up there loose permits. Trying to find an article I read by a POed Alaskan manager.

SBD....I was just trying to figure out why, with the huge increase in hatchery plants around 76, there were so many commercials that folded.
Did the Canadians get them all, the Tribes, or ?
My personal steelheading experience was that two years after Boldt, the steelheading fell on it's face. I remember writing a disgusted note on my punch card when I turned it in. that would have been 76.

It's hard to believe that with a 4+ fold increase in plants that the numbers I saw were so dramatically reduced. It could be that I only recall the decline in steelhead and not salmon....I'm not sure now.

Shooting from the hip, I would guess Canadian troll fisherys. Might have traded it for some PS sockeye, don't know. But I'm sure Washington Oregon troll started the slow desent in the early eighties.

The numbers posted are total salmon releases for the years given by WDF

BUSH BEAR
The following drainages were stocked one or more times:

Grays Harbor
Duck Lake 1972 4,980 Masu (Cherry salmon)
Campbell Slough
Humptulips River
Damon Creek
Big Creek
Stevens Creek
Donkey Creek
O'Brien Creek
Chenois Creek
Hoquiam River
E F Hoquiam River
M F Hoquiam River
Chehalis River
Wishkah River
Wynoochee River
Aberdeen Lake
Unknown
Satsop River
W F Satsop River
Canyon River
E F Satsop River
M F Satsop River
Satsop Springs
Bingham Creek
Phillips Creek
Cloquallum Creek
Wildcat Creek
Delezenne Creek (sp?)
Johns River
Andrews Creek
Porter Creek
Rock Creek
Black River
Waddell Creek
Skookumchuck River
Newaukum River
N F Newaukum River
S F Newaukum River
S F Chehalis River
Stillman Creek
Elk Creek
Seven Creek
Eight Creek
Swem Creek
Stowe Creek
Smith Creek
Thrash Creek
W F Chehalis River
E F Chehalis River
Sherman Creek
North River
Smith Creek
Clearwater Creek
Elkhorn Creek
Davis Creek
Little North River
Fall River
Willapa River
Johnson Slough
S F Willapa River
Rue Creek
Wilson Creek
Mill Creek
Stringer Creek
Trap Creek
Falls Creek
Fork Creeks
Half Moon Creek
Fern Creek
Niawtakum
Palix River
M Palix River
Canyon Creek
N Nemah River
Williams Creek
Cruiser Creek
S Nemah River
Mid Nemah River
Naselle River
S F Naselle River
Beam Creek
O'Connor Creek
Salmon Creek
N F Nasellle River
Alder Creek
Bear River

Total releases, across the state, in the same time frame (1952-1973) were:

Fry
283,385,283

Fingerling
154,994,857

Yearlings
404,282,085

Total Fish
842,662,225

Total Pounds
27,978,285

From 1976 to 1986, the WDF releases (statewide) totaled:

2,487,877,169 fish

An average of about 207,000,000 per year. This total doesn't include schools, cooperatives, tribal, or federal hatchery releases.

In 1987, all of the hatcheries in the state (state, tribal, federal, cooperative, schools) released a total (all species) of:

337,742,414

With the current discussions about the viability of hatchery fish, one has to wonder how far back do we need to go to determine whether a run is truly "wild" or does it have an appreciable amount of hatchery genetics and the subsequent off-spring are "natural origin returns". Maybe some of the fishing, in the good old days, was due to hatchery releases....



And people believe there is natives out there??????


We need hatchery fish to build wild stocks!!!

Slab,

With the Boldt Decision (US v WA) in 1974, non-treaty fishing began getting cut in half. So even though hatchery stocking was increasing, non-treaty commercial fishing began its downhill decline. Commercial license buy backs began in 1976 I think, and occurred 2 or 3 more times after that. Even tho hatchery stocking was increasing in the 1970s, it's important to remember that wild salmon and steelhead populations were nose diving at the same time due to habitat degradation and over fishing. The hatchery stocking increases could not keep up with the demands created by US v WA catch allocation sharing and the simultaneous reduction of wild fish availability.

Sg

SG would it be safe to say that when you add Alaska & Canada in the seventies through 80's that over harvest was the primary driver of the decline? Recognizing that the habitat issue & productivity were in a steady down hill run but it was the failure to recognize and reduce the harvest to the lower productivity that put the salmon stocks crash in hyper drive.

Close?

Gotta borrow freespool's sig line to underscore the point.

"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions."
Kennedy Wame

Im all for fish harvesting at origin. We sure could handle mor URB's actually making it upriver.

It would sure solve a whole lot of problems, getting rid of the blame game would be a gigantic step forward.

Those #'s are mind bogling.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

It is interesting to read all of the opinions about the reasons for the decreasing salmon catch over the past 60 years. All are correct to some degree but I suspect they only account for the variations (noise) in the trend and not the trend. As always with salmon it is important to think about all stages of their life history and to think globally, not locally. If you are not familiar with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation concept and its relationship to salmon numbers look at the link below. Unfortunately a lot of the management seems to ignore the PDO which leads to many of the problems discussed in this thread.

PDO

Yes they are mindboggling numbers, but thats also the problem, they shouldn't be. Somehow I just think if the feds/ BPA had a small fund set aside to retire these permits as they come up for sale and allow the fish to return to a point of origin fisheries program. Wouldn't have to be a gigantic buyout, just a small every year program that might cost a few million to let retiring fisherman out, what you don't want is young guys getting back in to mixed stock fisheries. The guy that takes the BPA money to the bank everymonth probaly has that much stuck under his seat cushions.

I have to ask:

Why should the state or the feds use our money to buy out a commercial fishing license? When every other small business in the state shuts down, they don't get their license bought out. If someone decides to get out of commercial fishing, the license should revert to the state. If the license is open to be re-issued, let the state sell it at auction and put the money back into the management program.

I know that the RCW lets the commercial fisher count the license as part of his/her estate, but that can and should be changed.

Do they sell small buisnesses when they retire, if the BPA decides to flood your property do you just grab anything you can carry and run. If the highway dept just has to have your farm or house do they just bulldoze it, that kind of train of thought. What would you do, would you fight?

WN1A is on to it...

Marine survival is a huge part of the picture. The 20 (or so) year stretch that ended in 1976-77 was the last long, consistent stretch of "cold" sea surface temperatures in our region. It was also the culmination of an ever increasing coastal coho harvest that reached record proportions in 1976. When catches from all fisheries are summed the harvest of coho off our coast was in the 2 million range that year. [note: this is also when the Fisheries Management and Conservation Act (the 200 mile limit act) went into effect. Clealry the state was overharvesting leading up to the implementation of federal management off our coasts. They slowly began to ratchet down the salmon harvests]

Will we ever see those catches again? Unlikley. Even if the marine conditions became favorable again (for higher local salmon stock survival) we don't have the habitat conditions that existed in the 1960's and early 70's. Many of the instream ecosystems that existed 40 years ago are diminished or simply gone. The trend for marine ecosystems is not looking all that terrific either.

It may sound kind of goofy when people like David Dicks, Bill Ruckelshaus and Billy Frank say... "this is our last best chance to save Puget Sound"... but they just might be right. The political will needed to lead this uphill battle may be hard to find however. The Gov and the Legislature are talking and money is being spent but are we really changing the way people treat the land, the water, the air, the resources, etc.? Is the kind of "sea-change" that needs to happen, about to happen? Someone needs to point out some indicators for me 'cause I ain't seeing it.

Toss in four hundred thousand protected pinnipeds that would only need to eat an average of 5 salmon a year to equal the 2 million. No your right don't think we will ever see those days again. The 12 to 200 mile limit was put in place to remove the foreign factory trawlers from our coasts. When I was salmon trolling with my brother on his little 26fter in 1976,it was common to be fishing around 4 or 5 russian trawlers that were working up and down the twelve mile limit. Over fishing yes but not by American fisherman.

TTT

Read the opening post.

Thought a bit of historic perspective might be appropriate as we face the Commission about the pending GH Salmon Harvest Policy this weekend.

I remember those years........Monty boat launch parking lot was full 7 days a week.......weekend, rigs were parked both sides of the road coming in....AND along the hiway.

Yep those were the years......

Another trip to the top...

As coho populations have plummeted the past 2 seasons, we're all struggling to wrap our minds around the pending prospect of the most dismal opportunities for salmon fishing in Western WA since I moved here 22 years ago.

It's really hard to believe that only 7 years ago ( about two coho generations) we were ALL enjoying a bumper crop of coho regionally. Or at least what most of us believed to be an EPIC coho run.

But 'epic' by what standard?

DAM we've come a long way in a very short time... and most certainly NOT in a good way.

I looked up the egg take for 2007 satsop hatchery took well over 2million coho eggs.. the hump hatch took roughly 2mill eggs .. and they use to plant 1.5 mill coho there.. now its around 2to3 hundred thousand.. every yr its less and less that get planted .. so less they plant the less come back they need to open the hatcheries up full bore and we will see good numbers again... (yes I know that ocean conditions are bad ) but more they plant the more fish will come back...

oh yea I forgot THREE gillnet user groups don't help at all...

I will try to post the EPIC coho numbers that returned to the Siuslaw river in Oregon back in the day that supported a number of canneries.

Good to remember what the really good times were like.

Thanks, doc.

We really do need to look at "what used to be". But it needs to be balanced by what was going on in the environment, both terrestrial and aquatic. What fisheries were going on in the ocean, what was the status of the food chain, how many seals, how many dams, and a whole list of things.

Just because we used to produce 5 million smolts doesn't mean we can now. I know of a number of hatcheries in WA where development in the watershed has reduced the amount of water they can divert. Can't grow fish without water.

Budget shortfall seems to be the most recent excuse.

Budget will always be the excuse given.