We caught em and ate em.

The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease

An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html


Worldwide 110 million tonnes seafood caught and aquaculture in 2006.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e01.pdf

Over fishing
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8385

More than one-half of the marine fish catch in the United States is taken in the Northeast Pacific and in Alaskan coastal waters.
http://www.dreamessays.com/customessays/World%20History/7430.htm


U.S. Landings in the 50 United States )(2):
8.3 billion pounds down 11% Valued at $4.4 billion - up 5%

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus08/highlight2008.pdf

This thread is about the Hood Canal. If I wanted generalized information about the overall depletion of fisheries throughout wa, let alone everywhere, I would go to one of the various other fisheries rant threads that continually take place on this forum. One the biggest down falls to steelhead management has been the generalizations in fisheries management- unjustified optimistic ussumptions, and a lack of attention to detail. A simplistic approach to the depletion of the Hood Canal salmon and steelhead restoration, assuming that the same thing is happening to them as everywhere else, will ultimately aid their downfall. There is a large number of things impacting these fish, and each issue should be handled individualy with the utmost attention to detail.

This has been a good thread thus far. Hope it can continue in a civil manner so we can continue to have some productive discussion. Unfortunately that seems to be the downfall with most of our defunct fisheries. The parties involved become so entrenched that they don't keep an open mind.

I gotta admit though "impeachable source" is sorta Freudian by nature.

Freespool,

Please take note. Please realize that sometimes I have supported your conclusions, and sometimes I have contradicted you. Even so, I have been consistent. You are not. You lay out a blanket response as though it were applicable to every and all situations, but it is not.

As noted in NMFS' ESA listing document for Puget Sound steelhead, habitat degradation and marine survival are the proximate causes of decline. However, within Puget Sound there are exceptions, and those exceptions are stream basins in Hood Canal, a narrow fiord-like water body that is geographically distinct from, but considered for fisheries management purposes as part of Puget Sound.

The tributaries entering the east side of HC are small streams that formerlly had densely forested watersheds. It's all been clear cut, much of it is developed for other uses, and some is timberland in regrowth. Over harvest may have played a part in the near extirpation of these steelhead populations; I can't say for sure. But habitat degradation is without a doubt a primary if not the proximate cause of decline.

The tributaries entering the west side of HC have their watersheds in the Olympic National Park and are pristine (not all of them, but the preponderance). Attributing the near extirpation of these steelhead (and some salmon) populations to habitat degradation is a stretch and passes neither the chuckle or red face tests. Don't ask WDFW for the answer to why these populations crashed. Neither the Director, any Deputy Director, or any Assistant Directors know. But several biologists who have been around a while and are infinitely more familiar with what has happened in HC would inform you, off the record I suppose, why these populations crashed, and it wasn't habitat degradation.

This thread is about HC steelhead, which most of us who are local, or nearly local, consider distinct from the major part of Puget Sound. You get yourself at odds with those who know when you cite a source that while generally applicable, is distinctly not applicable to the rivers and populations that are the subject of this discussion. Exceptions abound, and it is good to be aware of them so that you don't make an azz of yourself by using blanket statements that don't recognize that there are exceptions.

Sg

Due to net size with the largest fish caught over the years producing smaller slot size leftovers that might not be associated with the strongest and fittest then coupled with low escapement, I’d haven’t heard anything on here about depensation. Any thoughts?

You are a good referee salmo g.

Lucky Louie,

If the largest fish were such a good idea, then God wouldn't have made any small ones. This notion that large fish are more "fit" than small ones is substantiated main in the shallow minds of fishermen who can't differentiate between a fish and their pecker. There is no scientific evidence that small fish are less reproductively fit, and there is recent evidence that residualized male steelhead, about the size of small trout, effectively fertilize female steelhead eggs in many steelhead mating scenarios. This is the reason you aren't reading any posts by the biologists about this issue, because it isn't an issue.

Jgrizzle,

Just trying to help, not necessarily to referee - that's to much like hard work.

Sg

I’ll try again
Reproduction is less successful at low population densities which is despensation. This was the main question. Any thoughts regarding Hood Canal rivers and low population densities and could that be why
supplementation is helping out according to the Hamma Hamma study.

Freespool, we are supposed to buy your reasons as to why the numbers of Chum have been so low the last few years in the Skykomish?
Really? The fish just couldnt spawn because ? Because they were in the bottom of a commercail boat !
Ya know the hell with it. Some of ya can run with the "Bad habitat" reason for every fish run going under.
but when they close the Hoh, Queets, etc. just remember its not the overfishing.
And the WDFW is a impeachable source !!! what are you smokin?
outta here.

nm

I spoke to soon about the hamma hamma study. Carry on.

Wild brood stock eyed eggs was used from the Hamma Hamma R.for this study. Page 4/11
The Chamber creek stock was used in the Duckabush R. and the redds weren’t counted as part of this study.

The conservation hatchery program for steelhead (i.e., sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss) evaluated in this study caused an increase in the number of redds in the supplemented Hamma Hamma River compared with the presupplementation period. Three control populations (nonsupplemented) either remained stable or declined over the same period.

I'll be looking forward to watching the program when on in a couple of weeks and see what Dr. Barry Berejikian has to say.

Dude! I totaly missed that! Thanks for the check! I'll shutup.

Here is some easy reading for dumb folks like myself:

http://hamahamaoysters.com/blog/?p=58

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/mar/16/steelhead-get-boost-in-hamma-hamma-river/

More peer reviewed fisheries science conclusions on the decline of Puget Sound steelhead.
Note they don't mention anything about over harvest as a contributing factor for the decline.

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Publications/FP149.pdf


Habitat Conditions
Habitat utilization by steelhead has been most dramatically affected by a number of large
dams in basins feeding Puget Sound. In addition to eliminating accessibility to habitat, dams
affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, temperature profile, downstream gravel
recruitment, and the movement of large woody debris.
Many of the lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries in Puget Sound have been
dramatically altered by urban development. Urbanization and suburbanization have resulted in
the loss of historical land cover in exchange for large areas of imperious surface (buildings,
roads, parking lots, etc.). The loss of wetland and riparian habitat has dramatically changed the
hydrology of many urban streams, with increases in flood frequency and peak flow during storm
events and decreases in groundwater driven summer flows (Moscrip and Montgomery 1997,
Booth et al. 2002, May et al. 2003). Flood events result in gravel scour, bank erosion, and
sediment deposition. Land development for agricultural purposes has also altered the historical
land cover; however, because much of this development took place in river floodplains, there has
been a direct impact on river morphology. River braiding and sinuosity have been reduced by
dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, and channelizing the main stem. Constriction of the river,
especially during high flow events, increases likelihood of gravel scour and the dislocation of
rearing juveniles. Side channels are spawning habitat for steelhead and other salmonids.
Additionally, side channel areas provide juvenile rearing habitat, especially overwintering habitat
(Beechie et al. 2001, Collins and Montgomery 2002, Pess et al. 2002).
32
There are two major dams in the Nooksack Basin, the Nooksack Falls power plant
diversion dam (completed 1906) above the impassable Nooksack Falls at river kilometer (RKM)
104.6 and the water diversion dam (1960) on the Middle Fork Nooksack River (RKM 11.6). The
Nooksack Falls project is upstream of an inaccessible falls and has been out of operation since a
fire in 1997; however, there is concern that renewed operation may alter natural flows. The
water diversion dam on the Middle Fork Nooksack River currently prevents upstream access to
historical steelhead habitat; furthermore, the dam diverts a considerable proportion of the
summer flow to Lake Whatcom for eventual use by the City of Bellingham (Smith 2002).
Comanagers currently are evaluating the passage of salmon and steelhead over the Middle Fork
Diversion Dam.
The Skagit River Basin contains two dam complexes, the Lower and Upper Baker dams
on the Baker River, and the Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams on the Skagit River. Lower Baker
Dam was completed in 1927 at RKM 1.8 of the Baker River. Passage above the dams is
accomplished through a trap and haul program and downstream passage is accomplished via a
smolt collection facility at Upper Baker Dam (known as the “gulper”). Passage efficiency is
higher for larger (yearling) smolts that migrate near the surface, for example, coho salmon,
sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and steelhead, than for subyearling smolts of Chinook salmon, chum
salmon (O. keta), and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). The other dam complex, incorporating the
Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams, limits access at RKM 155.3 on the Upper Skagit River.
Surveys undertaken during the 1920s, prior to the construction of the first of the dams,
report steelhead were not present at or above the proposed location of the dams (Smith and Royal
1924). Similarly, the Seattle City Light diversion dam on the South Fork Tolt River in the
Snohomish River basin is located above the limit of steelhead migration (an impassable waterfall
is located at RKM 12.9). While these dams do not limit the habitat accessibility, they can affect
downstream steelhead population through changes in flow, or by blocking downstream
recruitment of gravel and large woody debris.
Landsburg Dam (RKM 35.1) on the Cedar River has blocked steelhead access to
approximately 27.4 km of mainstem habitat since 1900. Preliminary studies are currently
underway to provide passage for steelhead and other salmonids above the dam. Plans are also
being studied for restoring passage to the upper Green River. In 1913 the Tacoma Water
Headworks Diversion Dam eliminated access to 47.9 km of mainstem habitat. The construction
of Howard Hanson Dam (RKM 98.1) above the diversion dam in 1962 blocked access to several
kilometers of mainstem and tributary habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). It is thought a summer
run of steelhead historically existed in the Green River, but that the run was extirpated following
loss of access to headwater spawning areas following the construction of the diversion dam.
The Buckley Diversion Dam (RKM 39.1, completed 1911) and the Mud Mountain Dam
(RKM 47.6, completed 1942) impede upstream passage on the White River. Returning adults
are collected at a trap associated with the Buckley Diversion Dam and trucked around both dams.
Downstream smolt passage occurs through the dams rather than through a trap and haul system.
In addition to upstream and downstream migration effects on salmonids, flow diversion and
ramping rates can result in dewatered redds, fish strandings, delayed migration, and degraded
water conditions. In the Puyallup River Basin, the Electron Dam (RKM 67.3) has blocked
upstream passage for more than 90 years. Construction of a fish ladder in 2000 has provided
33
access over 16 km of mainstem habitat. Adult and juvenile fish passage studies are currently
underway.
In the Nisqually River Basin, the LaGrande Dam (RKM 63.5, completed 1945) and Alder
Dam (RKM 66, completed 1944) block upstream migration. At present there are no plans to
provide passage around these dams.
The two Cushman dams, Dam No. 1 (RKM 31.5, completed 1926) and Dam No. 2 (RKM
27.8, completed 1930) eliminated steelhead access to much of the North Fork Skokomish River.
Anecdotal evidence suggests steelhead utilized much of the North Fork, although it is not clear
whether these were winter or summer run fish. Additionally, the diversion of flow from the
North Fork to the powerhouse has reduced the overall flow of the Skokomish River by 40%
(USFS 1995).
In the Elwha River Basin, two dams, the Elwha (RKM 7.9, completed 1911) and the
Glines Canyon (RKM 21.6, completed 1927) block access to more than 100 km of historical
mainstem and tributary habitat. Both dams are scheduled for removal beginning in 2012.

So where's your data showing Puget Sound steelhead decline is caused by over harvest?
Or any PNW stocks for that matter.

Freespool,

That's not a peer-reviewed publication; it's an internal agency funding proposal. And you still fail to draw the distinction between HC and the rest of PS. Is the issue that you don't "get it?"

Sg

+1 that this is not peer-reviewed literature. In fact, the habitat comments are very general in nature and in some cases, misleading. For instance blockage of upstream migration by the dams on the Nisqually that were built in 1926 and 1930 had nothing to do with the precipitous decline in Nisqually steelhead that started around 1989.

OK Salmo I'll play, list the rivers where steelhead runs are failing, I will supply the scientific data that shows what the factors for decline are.

How many times do you need them listed?

Start with these-

Dosewallips
Duckabush
Hamma Hamma

Have you ever been to the Dosie or Duck Freespool. I doubt it. You best try comparing apples to apples. These rivers are as good as you get in the lower 48.

And lastly, I was around when the crash happened. I lived in Brinnon at the time. Grew up there and fished those rivers since I was a boy. You can find what ever study you like about the P.S systems. If you were there you would know that the rivers crashed when the nets were stretched. Plain and simple. No BS just truth. Watched it with my own eyes.