A big player in this is NOAA. Do they have the necedssary body parts to force meaningful recovery? We need to get hatchery fish off the spawning grounds, at least where the interfere with natural spawners.

That can be done by catching more of them. This would/could include nets, traps, hook and line, and so on. As has been pointed out, any of these methods run up against the incidental mortality. If you lower that rate, you can ramp up catch. But, you still kill the same number of protected fish.

If you can't lower the mortality rate in the fishery, then you lower the encounter rate of hatchery fish by reducing the stocking. This, actually, is a real problem because as you lower the amount of hatchery fish you increase the encounter rate with wild. Which will demand even lower release mortalities. Lowering hatchery production would/should kill off the mixed stock fisheries, especially the non-selective as more of the population would be wild.

After reading 9 pages of this it's apparent there's 3-4 people that understand the consequences...

*I don't care what group's back the theory of selective commercial fishing, I don't want to give up the extra hatchery fish to commercials.. Call me greedy but one thing I've noticed in life, every time you give something up you never get it back....

What I don't get is, didn't they already do some testing in the CR with these selective nets, Merwin traps, etc?

Why more testing? Is there actually a chance the states will veto the idea do to the fact that the selective fishing isn't productive enough? Why else test it? They already assume the low mortality rates...

Keith

if they plan ??, personally i don't have to ask

Guess ODFW is getting calls from upset people already about the 2 trollers working inside Bouy 10, and there reply is this is what the sports community wanted.

Seriously? I don't buy that for a minute....

Keith

Bet steelhead plants are going to be at the top of the hatchery cuts. There constraining both non and tribal commercial fisherys and sports can't keep them off the spawning beds.. Its coming!

There's no doubt in my mind that will happen.... Like I've said before, we're 5-6 years from disaster in the fishing world for sportsman... You can thank all the gungho morons for hitting the FF button and perhaps making those days come quicker....

All for a majority of wild fish that IMHO 90% of are mix-breeds, mis-clips, etc.... Sure there are some wild fish left but reality is we're a day late and $$ short from saving the true genetic strains of some stocks....

Keith

You don't seem to have much knowledge about fish genetics.
Any idea what the return rate is on hatchery/wild breeding fish?
If you guessed zero then your not very far off.
So what do suppose the return rate is on the F2 generation?
It is also near zero, so how on earth can you make those kinds of ridiculous statement about fish genealogy, when it's fairly clear you don't really know much about it at all.
That's the problem, it's a frigging black hole every time a hatchery fish breeds with a wild, nothing comes back.

Seems to me that the folks who want to restore only "pure", "unsullied", never been near a hatchery fish for wild fish had better concentrate on bull trout and Dolly Varden. The rest of them either have had or may have had a hatchery fish somewhere in the past.

Most of the studies will show a poorer survival for hatchery fish when they spawn in the wild. The reverse is equally true for wild fish in a hatchery; they do worse.

If we stop letting any hatchery fish spawn in wild, if we let what survives in the wild spawn, they will adapt. They will evolve to be the optimum fish in that environment if we give them the chance. If we keep wild escapments down and keep letting hatchery fish out there, of course survivals will go down.

I want to see the streams full of naturally spawning fish. If it takes using Chambers Creek steelhead to start it, and then what comes back stands on its own, that works.

Remember that 15,000 years ago there were no Puget Sound salmon at all, there were no Fraser River salmon. The Columbia was getting flushed with the Bretz Floods. The diversity we see is recent.

But, to say that we we want to only save the pure stocks means we have lost already.

Thats good Boater! You don't have to ask? Can you let the rest of us in on your highly developed line of inside information? Come on, we're all awaiting!

Black helicopters? Thermal devices? Holographic images? How do you know?

Help explain this, Kalama River as an example.....

Status: WDFW has submitted natural and hatchery draft management guidelines for Kalama fall
chinook that will be used in the interim until the TRT recommendations are developed (Fall
2003). In Washington, the LCR chinook ESU includes all naturally spawned chinook populations
from the mouth of the Columbia River to the Cascade Crest. Native fall chinook have been
reported in the Kalama, but a distinct stock no longer exists. The Kalama River fall chinook
natural spawners are a mixed stock of composite production with a significant portion of the
natural spawners hatchery produced fish. Kalama fall chinook are rated healthy because
escapements have usually exceeded the escapement goal of 2,000 adults (SaSI 2002). Natural
spawning abundance has exceeded 20,000 spawners, with spawning escapements from 1986-2001
ranging from 1,420 to 24,297 (average 6.287) but escapement levels have normally ranged from 2,000 to 4,000 since 1990. Although final escapement objectives have not been established by
the NMFS through a recovery plan, WDFW has established draft interim minimum escapement
objectives. The minimum fall chinook MSY escapement goal is 400 to 450 adult spawners passed
above the weir (based on habitat between the weir and Kalama Falls Hatchery). Since some fish
swim through the weir, this would lead to an escapement of 444 to 500 spawners in most years.
In addition, there is a significant amount of spawning that occurs below the Modrow weir.

So how do you explain the bold statements above? Never mind me though I'm just a moron that has no clue about the fishing world or politics...

Why is it that a distinct stock no longer exists?

Keith

A little more info for you freespool.....

Lower Columbia River Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is proposed as threatened on June 14,
2004.
Status: NMFS concludes that the LCR coho ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of
coho salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries from the mouth of the Columbia up to and
including the Big White Salmon and Hood Rivers. Twenty-one artificial propagation programs
are considered to be part of the ESU as NMFS has determined that these artificially propagated
stocks are genetically no more than moderately divergent from the natural populations (NMFS,
2004b). Currently Kalama coho programs are not one of 21 artificial propagation programs
proposed for listing (NOAA 69 FR 33101; 6/14/2004). Late stock coho (or Type N) were
historically produced in the Kalama basin with spawning occurring from late November into
March. Early stock coho (or Type S) were historically produced in the Kalama basin with
spawning occurring from October to mid November. Columbia River early and late stock coho
produced from Washington hatcheries are genetically similar. Kalama River wild coho run is a
fraction of its historical size. An escapement survey in the late 1930s observed 1,422 coho in the
Kalama River. In 1951, WDF estimated coho escapement to the basin was 3,000; both early and
late coho were present. Hatchery production accounts for most coho returning to the Kalama
River. Natural coho production is presumed to be very low. Electrofishing for juveniles in the
Little Kalama River (a major tributary downstream of Kalama Falls) in 1994 and 1995 showed no
coho but good numbers of steelhead. Coho have been planted in the Kalama basin since 1942;
releases were increased substantially in 1967. The coho program at the two Kalama hatchery
complexes was greatly reduced in recent years because of federal funding cuts; the remaining
coho program is about 700,000 smolts released annually, split evenly between early stock (reared
at Fallert Creek) and late stock (reared at Kalama Falls). (LCFRB Kalama Subbasin Report
Volume II, Chapter 10).

Odd huh?? Is that suggesting interbreeding?

Keith

Oh so now we are talking about coho?
When wild steelhead spawn with hatchery stocks, the return is nearly zero, and with every generation the hatchery genes grow less prevalent, until they disappear.
It's called natural selection, hatchery genes are not suitable for survival in the wild, fish with these genes don't thrive to survive, they just fade away.

No, not specifically about coho, Fall Chinook were noted too.


But as usual you cite your steelhead information.... Sure it's been Catch and Release for them for over 20 years in SW WA and there hasn't been much recovery on wild stocks in most streams.... You want to know why?

Because sportsman of all kinds get to fish for them year in and year out. The only populations that show any recovery are those that don't have consistent fishing pressure such as the Wind river. It being a bug chucking river, there's overall less pressure and less fish being caught/handled throughout the season therefore more fish hitting the spawning beds and less SMOLT being caught and handled which means more SMOLT headed for the ocean.

You shut down SW WA tribs (like the EF of the Lewis for 8 years and it will be climbing with wild winter steelhead. Look at the Toutle River/Green River.. They are....

Point to the story is, if you want wild steelhead recovery. Quit fishing for them and that means CnR too........

Keith

So how do you account for the limited harvest of wild steelhead in southern Oregon?
They have allowed a limited harvest ( 5 fish annually ) for over 20 years now, yet their numbers are healthy enough for harvest.
Why are these stocks stable, yet their northern cousins are ESA listed, and haven't recovered in spite of 25 years of C&R and no commercial harvest?
Are you blaming C&R?

Well great question...

Personally when you compare basin to basin you're talking about 2 complete different watersheds... For example all the LCR Wild Winter steelhead enter "smaller" tributaries with a ton of access points to fish for them. Not only that but you have higher populations of humans utilizing these SW WA streams than you do on your southern Oregon Coast rivers...

For example one of the best escapements of wild winter steelhead is on the Grays River yet it's the furthest away from human populations and get's the least amount of pressure with very few access points to the fish.. See what I'm saying.

This is the same reason the #'s of wild winter steelhead will and have crashed on the Olympic Penninsula... Heck I remember nearly 20 years ago going up there on a weekend during the peak of the season and the pressure was light to say the least. Now you can't even find a parking spot let alone a rock to stand on...

You close rivers like the Toutle River and Green River (trib of the Toutle) like they did and you get more than escapement back...

I'm not blaming CnR, I'm blaming over fishing them no matter the tactic....

Keith

Stopping fishing will only help if fishing is the limiting factor...which it's probably not for most every steelhead population in Washington State...though fishing over depressed stocks doesn't do them any favors, to be sure.

Fish on...

Todd

Have you ever read any stock assessment studies done by state and federal fisheries biologists?
Pay close attention to the "Limiting factors for recovery" section, there's where the scientists list, in order of severity, the factors that limit stock recovery.
In dozens of West slope and coast range studies the factors are almost always the same.

1. Water quality (elevated summer temps.)

2. Lack of stream complexity.

3. No large woody debris recruitment.

4. No over wintering back channel/alcove habitat.

5. Poor estuary habitat.


You won't find over harvest, or poor stock genetics as limiting factors for recovery, so scientifically speaking you are incorrect.

nope, its not that hard to figure out.

Scientifically speaking, if they knew wtf they were talking about our rivers would be flooded with wild steelhead...

Is it ironic that Forks, WA was technically undiscovered 10-15 years ago. Meaning the world didn't go there in masses as they do now? Is it ironic that as those Forks WA streams became more popular the steelhead #'s have diminished? Pretty scientific isn't it? What's changed in the last 20 years in Forks, WA that would correlate to your 5 reasons?

We had the same trend here in SW WA about 10-15 years prior.. In the 70's SW WA had great steelhead fishing with lots of big wild fish. Then Vancouver/Portland are booming towns with zillions of people that fish. You been to a river lately, find a parking spot.....

Keith