...then maybe some will make it back up to Lake Sutherland, but it is going to be a while until they can get past the dams. Out migrating smolts will have an increasingly easy time as the dams come down. Wild fish can't be caught in the river/streams in the basin so a size restriction and a fish trap/ladder for returning adults along with a size restriction or a partial season closure on the lake during the spawn time should be workable options that would allow the lake to remain open.

Right now I'm thinking about all of the opportunity I've given up over the years for the benefit of the resource...No year around salmon season, no rock fish retention, reduced or eliminated lingcod season, no wild steelhead retention, no wild chinook retention, no wild coho retention, no dolly varden/bull trout fishery, no year around crab fishery, no months-long razor seasons, reduced limits on steamer clams, no take of abalone, no retention of SRC, shorter general fishing seasons, greatly increased fees, much added reporting, barbless hooks, no bait, new access permits, new public use fees, fines for not reporting, reduced crab opportunity, eliminated retention of many species, restrictions on my property rights, loss of access to rivers, posted tidelands, increased commercial exploitation, and just plain a lot more BS to contend with. And by the way I also own waterfront and paid a lot of money to enjoy all of the associated public resource benefits that can be - and have been - taken away at any time.

So for those few people who want to fight over the temporary loss of an artificial put and take trout fishery on one freaking lake that could make possible the remarkable recovery a functionally extinct run of a very unique wild fish run that persists only in a remnant gene pool and may be lost forever without immediate and heroic intervention, well, you appear selfish and being rude only amplifies that appearance.

And while we're at it, just put the heads up out there for eliminating the put-N-take rainbow planters. Once the dams come down and Lake Sutherland has free passage to and from the salt, it ain't put and take no more!

Continuing to stock Sutherland with planter trout is as stupid as stocking the Elwha with Chambers winter steel.

Stupid!

Milt Roe:

I understand your frustration but your (our) losses are not a justification for blindly accepting what WDFW and the other agencies tied into this thing purport without there being an opportunity for the public to review the hypothesis and supporting data/rationale, discuss all of the alternatives, and arrive at the best solution - whatever that may be. And by the way, most of the changes you set forth herein have been the product of that public review process. So with your frustrations do you really want to impose this closure upon those folks without an open public hearing?

Also, I understood that the issue was the closing of the lake to all fishing with emphasis on kokanee rather than the "loss" of an artificial trout fishery as you describe it. The DNA studies apparently prove that the kokanee in the lake are from original stocks trapped behind the dam and have been self-sustaining in the lake ever since even though there has been an active fishery on them.

As you are a waterfront owner I find it strange that you have complained about restrictions on your property rights and then complained about posted tidelands (presumably meanings your loss of access to them). Is it possible that those tidelands were owned by someone exerting THEIR property rights? Care to elaborate?

This is all I'm requesting of WDFW. Do your due diligence, be accountable, and provide information back to us as you receive it. Keep the lake open until we've received answers to the questions we asked on December 15th and had more opportunity for public review and input. Not angry ranting, not making demands, not being unreasonable pig-headed jerks. Just an opportunity to sit down and be treated respectfully and have our concerns addressed.

I am not too proud to change my mind, and if WDFW can show that they have a plan, with the t's crossed and the i's dotted, based on sound science, I will support their recommendation. But in my experience, efforts like this take planning, and I haven't heard anything yet, specific to Lake Sutherland and the Sockeye, to show that this has been planned out. Let's get our cart back behind our horse.

According to a 1994 USFW report, they planted millions of Kokanee in Sutherland years ago, from several hatcheries around the western part of the state. If someone can help me figure out how to send a pdf, I'd like to make it available if anyone is interested.

Looks like the version of this study that's available online doesn't provide the complete report.

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/FP072.pdf

You'll notice in the table of contents, there is reference to appendices. Appendix A is noted as "Hatchery Kokanee Releases into Lake Sutherland".... page 38.

I have the rest of the document (pages 20-50) in 2 pdf files. Is it possible to attach a file to a post?

Ronald, interesting info there. Thanks for posting.

All 3 files are available at this link (about halfway down the page): Status of Kokanee Salmon in the Lake Sutherland Basin and Prospects for Sockeye Salmon Restoration

Appendix A is available directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service homepage here: Hatchery kokanee Releases into Lake Sutherland

So it looks like Lake Sutherland was planted with close to 7 million hatchery Kokanee from 1933-1964, right? So does that mean that even if the genetics of the Elwha Sockeye match the Sutherland Kokanee, they're still hatchery fish?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Yes, I saw both of those posts. Perhaps my question wasn't clear enough. Assuming that the posts regarding the genetic testing are correct, and the Lake Sutherland Kokanee and Elwha Sockeye are the same fish genetically, do the genetics match the hatchery stock (which came from the Lake Crescent, Aberdeen, South Tacoma, Quilcene, and Shelton hatcheries) or do the genetics match the genetics of original Lake Sutherland stock (if there even was an existing native stock to begin with)? Does anyone know where these hatcheries got their fish?

What I'm asking is if we have any evidence that Lake Sutherland had Sockeye or Kokanee before they were planted. At the meeting at Peninsula College on December 15th, I thought WDFW said that they don't have any scientific evidence that Lake Sutherland ever had NATIVE Sockeye or Kokanee and that the genetic testing that they had pointed to the genetics matching other non-Elwha river systems.

I thought one of the papers linked above said that the Sutherland spawning stock was dissimilar to Baker Lake and the others...but I think the more important point would be that even if they do have bits of the other fish in them, the fact that the Elwah and Sutherland fish are the same means that the Sutherland fish have made it out to sea and come back as adults, even if those adults can't make it back to Sutherland.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, yes, this is certainly true. But I guess what I'm wondering is how this information influenced WDFW listing the restoration prospect of Sockeye as Fair/Poor even if they are able to close Lake Sutherland for 5 years. If these fish were originally planted, and haven't been planted for decades, then maybe that would explain why WDFW feels the restoration potential is fair at best (per their report to the WDFW Commission on January 7th).

The Wunderliche document also states:

"The USDI et al. (1994) proposes two concurrent restoration processes: enhancing the anadromous component of Lake Sutherland kokanee (assuming it retained a significant genetic element of the original Elwha sockeye) or seeking a suitable outside stock. Kokanee, even though landlocked for many generations, may produce anadromous offspring which through captive rearing might be used to restore depleted sockeye stocks. Smolts would be trapped at the outlet weir, captive reared to maturity, and their offspring returned to Lake Sutherland over one or more cycles prior to removal of the Elwha dam. Concurrently, other potential sockeye donor stocks would be screened. If use of Lake Sutherland kokanee proved not feasible, sockeye fry from a suitable donor stock would be introduced into Lake Sutherland beginning one year prior to Elwha Dam Removal."


This sounds a little different from "we'd like to close the lake and see if these fish come back on their own", which was what I heard WDFW say on December 15th. I just want to know what the *real* plan is, and I don't feel like anyone has been willing to step up to the plate and say, "This is exactly what we are planning to do in the next 10 years with Lake Sutherland".

What I'm hearing now is, "We don't think the restoration potential for Sockeye is very good without our intervention so we might stick some stock from somewhere else in there." I'm wondering if that is really what we want.

And I'm understandably nervous about messing with a good thing, which Lake Sutherland is currently.

And the question still remains.......How is closing the lake going to significantly increase the chances of success for this wet dream fishery?
Here's my version of how it will go. ....... If the lake is closed for 5 years and the sockeye rebound doesn't happen, we'll be in the same place as we are now. If the sockeye runs do rebound after a 5 year closure there will be a line-up of folks to claim credit.....whether or not the fish would have naturally rebounded or not. In either case absolutely nothing will have been learned. But, hey, at least we removed the lake from the fishermen to enjoy. AND we had another rubber stamp public input meeting/vote (the results of which shall be immediately concealed prior to round filing).
If we err on the side of the resouce far enough, we can call a halt to water skiing too (maybe gas powered craft of all design), as it may impede the natural interactions of this freshly sainted project. Can I get an AMEN?

+1

You could always sell your property, move!!!!!! I think not, you're blowing smoke......

I've watched this Elwha bit since the late 60's......time to move on.....40+ years was more than enough time for any studies to be made....get the dams torn down.......put a 5 year "nobody fish that area", move on in favor of the fish. If you can't stand the "no fishing bit", I suggest you lease your house to one of the millions of people that would just love to be lakeside and enjoy the beauty of that part of Washington State.

That's my take on this whole thing!!!!!!!!!!

Aunty:

I know.....I'd say NO to any hatchery fish......Move the netting off river, so they won't be without "ceremonial fish or subsistance".

In the 70's the netting could be justified......many poor tribes....but with all the casino's....the need should not be there. Maybe its time for the tribes with the "big dollar" casino's.......to setup "if you will" a fund to be drawn from.....when problems like this surface. Maybe its time for tribes to take care of there own???????

Looks like Lake Sutherland will stay open for the usual trout season, April thru October, for the foreseeable future.

Fish on...

Todd

Got the email this morning.....
College professor (ex-Fed Park employee) used the term "Use through wise management". I think the timing and slot limit is a good compromise that works for all.

Total "cave in" by the same fish and wildlife commission that everyone believes is doing such a swell job using science to manage our natural resources.

Political pressure, pure and simple. Same as always.

Always interesting watching a thread like this one. Those who want something changed or to remain the same put the full court press on. Depending who wins the issue the other claims political pressure and it always is. So if the Lake stays open it was bowing to political pressure says one side. If the lake is closed bowing to political pressure says the other.

Now the closer side will claim science is on their side but in the real world at best science is half politics. It just varies depending on what science, issue, and cost to those impacted. The real world has little ownership in anything until political pressure is added. It is how our system works.

Since I seem to have been attending quite a few Commission meetings lately to include this past Friday when this matter was discussed and the vote taken I certainly would not categorize it as a "Cave In" by the Commission. By the way, that description smacks of sour grapes.

I also do not have a direct interest in access to the Lake Sutherland fishery.

My observation is that those folks with a direct interest wanted on open process where all of the facts pertaining to possible recolonization by sockeye could be examined. Their "political pressure" achieved that goal. I do not believe their "political pressure" resulted in the final decision to allow a continued fishery with a slot limit.

Several critical points considered by the Commission were:

1. There is nothing in the plans for the Elwah to actively try to re-establish a sockeye run. Instead, any recolonization would occur by individual fish from the current kokanee population reverting to an anadromous life cycle or via strays.
2. There are several significant beaver dams on Indian Creek. When queried about the ability of sockeye to pass over/through these the regional biologist stated that due to access difficulties and the size of the dams they had been unable to determine if there were open slots for fish passage. He did opine that he was sure that silvers could transit them. He made no statement regarding whether sockeye would be successful.
3. There are no plans to breach those dams.
4. Commissioner Mehnken added that his experience with Redfish Lake sockeye was that its return from the brink was due to capture of the few remaining returning sockeye and a successful artificial spawning/rearing program rather than resident kokanee reverting to an anadromous life cycle and that few, if any, such reversions occur.

So, I hope this debunks the "cave in" accusation.

And if anyone thinks that doing away with the Commission will improve the decision making process you are simply delusional.