If you don't want to see Lake Sutherland closed for 5 years, sign this petition and forward it to everyone you know.

We've made it really, really easy for your voice to be heard. Just click and sign.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lakesutherland/

All signatures WILL be presented to the WDFW commission in February.

This is our last chance!

Our goal is 100 signatures by February 4, 2011.

Why? You should present something more than that some people will be impacted. Maybe I'd support it, but given nothing else to go on I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the fish on this one.

Sorry.

Milt,

Seastorm is looking for support to keep the lake open. The impacts would take place if the lake is closed for five years. Its the Parks Dept that is suggesting that the lake be closed to fishing. Once again, they dont have any science that backs up the benefit of closing the lake. The lake contains Kokanee and the assumption is that the fish will begin to migrate out of the lake after the dam is torn down. The kokes are apparently spawning on their own. In addition, its been reported there are several beaver dams that would prevent migration. The lake serves over 300 home owners along the lake and many people who travel to the lake and camp in the area. The fish, according to one retired biologist do not spawn at the same time as the returning coho. If the beaver obstructions were removed and fish migrated up to the lake, than at most, the dept could stop fishing during the coho spawning season, but its unnecessary to shut it down for five years. About 125 people at the local town meeting are in favor of keeping the lake open. I was at the commission meeting and I dont think the guy who delivered the report to the commission made his case.
Edit Sockeye not coho.

Furthermore, several organizations including WSC and WFC and flyfishing organizations have lobbied the commission to resist the shut down of the river to fishing if the tribes continue to the planting of Chambers Creek Steelhead on the basis, there is no benefit to the recovery of those wild steelhead if they gene pool is contaminated with hatchery fish.

They all went on to site the value of a true wild recovery river in the lower 48. If the tribes cant fish for five years, what is the point of putting hatchery fish in the river that show up in two or three years, especially if they are not what the state or HSRG deems as beneficial to the recovery of wild fish in that river.

I'll side with milt roe.... and the fish.

I'll go on record opposing any fishing in the ENTIRE Elwha basin for one full life cycle of the longest living species.... chinook. And the closure should start AFTER the dams come down. Silly to start that timeline during the demolition when the returning fish can't even make use of all the habitat they expect to free up.

As far as putting hatchery fish in a re-vitalized Elwha.... well that's just dumber'n'hell.

And the idea of planting out-of-basin Chambers turds in there just takes dumber'n'hell to a new level altogether.

It ain't rocket science. Unleash the river.... then leave it the [censored] alone.

Now you just watch the fish come.

Doc, this is mainly about the lake. Not the river.

Scan the petition letter.

The lake is a vital component of the Elwha basin.

Anadromous sockeye deserve a shot at recovery, too, don't they?

They do, however, you are assuming that the residential kokes that reportedly spawn already would begin to migrate to sea. If the beaver dams exist and migration is not possible, than there is no benefit to shutting down the lake.

If there were no beaver dams and all the kokanee decided to migrate, then the lake could be planted with more trout and shut down during the spawning migration.

In Japan there is a lake where the sockeye either stay (kokanee) or smolt depending on lake productivity. Studies in Idaho have shown that kokanee retain the ability to smolt after 10,000 years of being lake residents.

Those fish can, with proper management of the lake productivity, become anadromous.

The presence of beaver dams does not guarantee blockage to migration but if "they" are serious about sockeye recovery then they will need to be dealt with each fall.

There are lakes in WA where the kokanee population produces anadromous sockeye without direct intervention. I think, if memory serves (Smalma may know) that the sockeye and kokanee in Baker Lake are genetically the ame fish.

It will probably take more than merely closing the lake, but that would be part of a holistic solution.

Having sat through that item during the recent Commission meeting what came to mind was whether these goals are mutually exclusive? Does keeping the lake open preclude the potential for sockeye reestablishing an anadromous population? If it is simply a matter of probability numbers then one has to speculate that if it doesn't happen in five years it might in 10 or 20 or 100 so why not just keep it closed (forever) on the off chance regeneration might occur? The presentation was pretty weak on the biological aspects and made it appear as someone's pet theory looking for a place to be played out. Exactly why can't the fishery remain open relative to the potential for the regeneration theory to play out?

Not necessarily, obviously the small reds will be rearing there, and planting stockers may eliminate the feed needed for their growth ... so that avenue will have to be studied.

The heavy development around the lake may have nuked that food source though, so it's hard to say without considerable research.

The lake appears to have a self-sustaining kokanee population that spawns in the inlet and there might be some spawning on springs/seeps in the lake.

There was a fish screen on the outlet for some period of time. I understand it was there to prevent out-migration of trout stocked in the lake. Probably worked for any kokanee that might have decided to wander down Indian Creek to Lake Aldwell. I don't think anyone knows if any made it over/through the dam and out to the salt. The screen came out some time back because it was causing water level problems in the lake when it would plug up with debris.

Sockeye dip in to the Elwha and Dungeness. I don't know if any redds have been documented in the rivers. With the sockeye life cycle, neither river currently provides the habitat for sockeye development.

Closure of Sutherland will have an economic impact on the local sporting goods stores. Loss of the lake to fishing means folks in PA and Sequim have to drive to Anderson (frequent closures due to blue algae) or Leland (same problems) or some smaller lakes to the east or Pleasant Lake to the west. None of the lakes have a kokanee fishery like Sutherland.

From my perspective, the lake can be kept open for trout/kokanee fishing and the outlet monitored for any departing kokanee. I'm presuming the catchable size kokanee in the lake probably won't be the ones that might decide to out-migrate. IF sockeye start to show up 3 or 4 years down the road, then the restrictions placed on the take of wild salmonids in the basin could be applied to adult/mature sockeye that are looking for a place to spawn in the lake, the inlet, or Indian Creek. The rest of the basin can and should be managed for wild fish recovery.

With the fact that Lake Crescent for many millenia flowed to the Elwha and not out through the Lyre ... I'm sure that pre-dams saw at least some sockeye passage into Sutherland. As the remnant lake of the massive landslide that separated the two lakes left the Sutherland piece much smaller, I'm sure it wasn't enormous in more recent times ... but just about every system out here with a lake available carries some sockeye.

My suggestion would be to close the lake to kokanee fishing in order to maintain the largest amount of spawners possible. Should be able to fish for trout as you would not catch to many kokanee that way. Release all Kokannee. No directed catch and release on Kokanee. After 5 years if no Sockeye, then do it how ever........Planting chambers creek stock........I'm sorry but you have to be kidding me, give the native rainbows in the upper river a chance if there are any.......anyone know whats up river at the moment?

Been a few years since I've been up top, but there used to be quite a few great big 'bows up there ...

Better to consider them a landlocked reservoir of kick-ass WILD steelhead.

Give them passage and out to sea they will go!

CM -
On Baker the majority (all?) of the kokanee in the lake were found to be residual sockeye. Due to poor smolt trapping many of the smolts were unable to find their way out of the lake. With improved smolt trapping there was a dramatic drop in "kokanee" abundance.

LB -
Just because folks insist on pulling a dumba$$ move with the steelhead should not preclude doing what may be the best for another species. Not sure whether the lake needs to be closed or not however like several others I'm with Milt here. Without more information have to side with potential fish benefits.

If folks hope to successfully lobby the Commission/agencies on this issue addition supporting information would be beneficial.

Doc -
Your salmon bias is showing!

I suspect that Chinook are not the oldest fish in the basin. It is likely that both rainbow and mountain whitefish live at least as long as the Chinook. And some of the bull trout surely live into their teens. Of course those species survive to spawn multiple times.

Tight lines
Curt

Sockeye do successfully spawn in the Dungeness. When they were pumping redds at the beginning of the springer program, one of the redds was actually sockeye.

Also, many of the systems in WA have riverine sockeye, including the Nooksack, Skagit, Green, Puyallup, Cowlitz, and others. There is the thought that the riverine fish are the base or source of all sockeye. They live in the rivers and are "looking" for glacial retreats that create lakes. Then, they invade the lakes. The lakes are an evolutionary dead end since the whole migration timing/spawn area/fry movement (inlet, outlet, in-lake) are unique; straying is probably not a good idea.

Smalma:

Let us be clear on my position. I never tied tribal steelhead plantings to the issue of potential sockeye regeneration. I think one is dumber than dirt and the other would be a great success story.

That said, no one has laid out how many kokanee are in the lake, what age/size would they potentially migrate (that is, would they be of legal size in the recreational fishery), and even if they are subject to a recreational fishing impact how great is that impact relative to the regeneration potential?

Those questions should be out for review and consideration against the adverse recreational opportunity and its economic considerations.

If this is a "natural at any cost" issue then I suggest a consistent approach would entail closing any and all commercial and recreational activities which might have an adverse impact on a species trying to rebuild itself. And such a "natural" approach would not include removing natural barriers to migration.

And, no, I do not fish this lake - never have and doubt I will but I understand the frustration of the local folks over this issue.

Larry, you arent LB.

To be completly open, I do not live in the area either, but could imagine traveling there if the Sockeye were to return in #'s like Baker Lake. It seems to me that one could fish for rainbow trout and not harm the kokanee population. I think the residents would be pretty happy if the salmon thrived and returned to their backyard....good eats

It would seem that the tribe just wants a nettable fish if they are serious about chambers creek stock, and not about allowing the native fish to regenerate........guess they might think that both can be done at the same time.