to pass along regarding some of the old practices. Hopefully these should show okay for everyone

Interesting bit of hatchery history I was not aware of. Thanks for sharing Bob.

...and right there is the birth of the Johnny Appleseeding of Skamania summer runs from the Washougal and Chambers Creek winter runs from Chambers all over the northwest...which is now resulting in miniscule returns of hatchery fish and huge detrimental effects on wild populations of winter runs and summer runs all over the State.

We've sown...and now we reap...we just don't reap much.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, that was my thought as well. It is like looking back at an awful moment in history. Unfortunately is wasn't/isn't just a moment. I like the old school vigilantes ramming logs through although I find it weird Bill attributes that to logging companies as I'm doubtful the logging companies themselves gave a damn about the fish?

Funny, to the fish, those full river-blocking weirs sure seem similar to dams.

Yep, Im sure that Chambers Creek would be an anadromous plethora if not for those evil hatchery fish. You guys ever hear of the 4 H's?

4 H's? What's that?

Just kidding. I could care less about Chambers Creek...I care about the dozens of streams that they dumped those turds in over the last century...

Fish on...

Todd

Wasn't the whole wild broodstock idea abandoned in the middle of the last century because the wild offspring didn't do well in a hatchery and the smaller fry releases were unsuccessful? Weren't the Chambers, Skamania, Big Creek stocks then bred to do well in a hatchery such that larger numbers could be planted at larger sizes so that more fish would return as adults? And aren't we now reducing the Chambers/Skamania/Big Creek plants because of interaction with wild fish. And aren't we now adding more wild broodstock to the hatchery programs because we've had to reduce the Chambers-type stocks?

Aaaaaagggghhhh!!!!!!! I'm getting dizzy!!!!!!!!

Our hatchery programs have a tendency to return to old practices and ideas approximately three years after we forget how poorly they worked the first time around...out of basin stocks, in basin stocks, wild broodstocks, egg boxes, fry releases, pre-smolt releases...all have been done multiple times over the years...and rarely work any better the second time...or third time...than they did the first time.

Fish on...

Todd

where is the chambers creek that the aforementioned fish came from? that little ditch by tacoma?

You pretty much hit it on the head.
The simple solution, eliminate all hatchery steelhead programs.
Restore the habitat to pre-white settled condition.
Voila, wild steelhead will magicly rebound to historical levels.

Please pass the pipe.

Wild Chrome -
You are correct, during the early 1900s egg taking stations were established on a number of streams (include a fair number of the larger Skagit tribs). The expectation was that a majority of the fry released would return as adults. Of course what happen was time and again those established egg taking stations (wiers across the creek to trap all the salmon/steelehad) would run out of fish to trap in 4 to 8 years.

Just one of the early examples of the failure of "Hatchery Promise" to replace wild production. Everytime folks learn a little more about the fish the thinking is that this time the production problem has been solved but once again the "Hatchery Promise" fails.

Bottom line hatcheries have been reasonably successful in producing fish for harvest. They a mixed track record in rescue programs. However the thinking that if folks are justr smart of enough the "Hatchery Promise" of hatchery fish being as good as wild (the old a fish is a fish) continues to disappoints.

Tight lines
Curt

That would be the one.

I think the better plan would be to just keep doing the same things that have failed for better than 100 years, and then blame it on tribal netting, ocean conditions, global warming, and the Tooth Fairy.

You know...kinda like we do now.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd-
Why are the Steelhead (fish from Skamania) doing so good in the Great Lakes? They have great runs of big fish.

Weirs in the past were definitely a barrier to natural spawning fish. Nowdays they`re used to cull hatchery fish out for egg take purposes. Most hatcheries don`t let hatchery fish above their weirs which is where the majority of native steelhead and spring chinook want to spawn. So I believe the problem with native re-population lies elsewhere. Good reading though, thanks Bob. Bill

GBL-
Because Great Lakes steelhead have no natural enemies, and they don't have to swim past your lodge.

Sincerely,
Todd

Yep, no natural enemies such as mergansers, grebes, herons, gulls or any piscivorous predators such as smallmouth bass, walleye, muskie, or perch. I guess those are unnatural enemies of an introduced species.

Its pretty much like saying the reason pheasants do so well in South Dakota is because there are no coyotes.

Oh we are talking about turds, who cares.

Not sure the runs are great nor big. Lots of hatchery supplementation provide the most "productive" fisheries there too, and the Skamania strain fish don't contribute to the bulk of that. Most huge number days happen in the hatchery zones.

I think on average that there's much more spawning habitat in Washington streams, and the in-stream life of the smolts is probably more dangerous in the GL tribs. However there's no polluted Sound, no ocean predation, no funky climatologic or oceanic fluctuations, no high seas commercial fisheries and no tribal nets to navigate in the GL. Pick yer poison,

fb

i think the pollution issue over there is a lot worse than here.

i'm still trying to wrap my head around why our escaped hatchery chinook can escape net pens in south america and become an invasive species in the rivers there, when our hatchery fish here can't spawn viable young.

Fry plants make all kinds of sense. They are purely wild (or at least as "wild" and wild gets now days) and they can be provided at minimal cost and much higher hatching ratio than wild spawn. The trick I'm guessing is to see that they are transferred to receptive areas in proper densities.
It baffles me why this simple concept isn't massively supported.

Is it not as if the State wants to keep the fish runs suppressed? Perhaps to magnify "our" need for Federal monies?

Maybe we will receive a fish "brail" out!