Science is also saying that many systems are grossly underescaped. An ongoing study in a pristine watershed in AK that appears to have never been logged shows that, in the absence of any pink salmon spawning the coho Catch (at 60% harvest rate) is about 1,000. At googobs of pinks the Catch (again at 60% hatvest) is 5-8,000. That suggests to me that productivity in the most "perfect, functional" habitat we have is controlled by the escapement level of other salmon species.

Ergo, you can "fix" the habitat but without a full complement of spawning anadromous fish the productivity will be low.

This science is out there, hase been in the literature since the mid-90s at least (the first mention was in the 20s), and is growing rapidly. It's there, but ignored.

You know it was prevailing science that said all woody debris out of the stream. That DOE said carcasses pollute the stream, the list is huge as too things science says especially from folks with a axe to grid. As to OP habitat being pour, from what starting point? If it is completely natural state, not yes but hell yes! If not that then compared to the rest of the coast? State ? Harvest has driven salmon stocks down time and time again but it is a response to our own vested interest in the system that stops real change.

The concept that we going to have enough money to fix degraded habitat is a dream. That we can stop further destruction of viable watersheds, yes but not likely in the near term. That harvest, especially ocean intercept fisheries, will be reduced and a ecosystem harvest approach stream by stream implemented? Doubt it so on we go with the totally irrational approach to Salmon that has existed my life time.

As to the Elwha a lot is riding on this experiment and I really doubt that the folks and tribes in that area give a wiz what a bunch of PS advocates think. The tribes will approach the Elwha restoration from a point of self interest political reality. Nothing all that unusual in that approach.

Yeah but now (Scientist) are telling us we need to get all the hatchery fish off the spawning grounds. OOOOOOOOK but when runs have a hatchery component that ranges from 50 to 98% exactly how are we supposed to reach escapements on these runs?

Medical doctors used to regularly prescribe leeches and electro shocking for their patients ailments.
Removing LWD happened, it was a mistake, it was a long time ago, we learn, we move on.

By not killing the wild fish in fisheries. And letting natural selection weed out whatever maladapted genes from the hatchery are in the population.

Think about it cman . The species you mention, pinks and chums are way underfished in comparison to coho & kings. Less pressure, more escapement, more fish to spawn, irregardless of habitat, more fry survive. As for the comeback of dollie varden, bull trout and cutthroat, hmmm, lets see. Could it be because they've been catch and release for years? The native sea run cutties are making a comeback since catch and release was established on the sound. They are not targeted by the commercial (native & non native) fisheries. The biggest thing we as a steward of the habitat can do is to protect the remaining habitat that we have. establishment of buffer zones on our rivers similar to Alaska. i.e. no logging within 5 miles of rivers, streams tributaries. Silt run off kills redds. PURE AND SIMPLE. PERIOD. When I was studying fisheries biology in the mid to late 70's at Western Wash. University, I watched the Skagit go from a very, very productive river to a shear abysmal fishery in about 4 short yrs. From 1976-1981, the Skagit Valley transformed from a beautiful tree lined, forested river valley, to an almost desert. The amount of siltation I measured from logging runoff, made me want to cry. I quit working in fisheries science after witnessing the devistation of what logging AND THE BOLDT DECISION did to our fisheries. The natives, commercials and sport fisherman couldn't see eye to eye or cooperate to save the future of our wild fish. Re-establishment of habitat will only occur if we back off and let mother nature do her work. Sometimes she surprises us with a fairly quick recovery. other times, it will just have to run its course and let the flora and fauna establish itself in cycles. we are so self centered and selfish, we don't have the patience to let it happen. we want fish, and we want em' now mentality.
The Elwah may recover in my lifetime is my hope. I know my sons, daughter and grandaughter will see her recover. The dollies, cutthroat and King gene pools are all still there. I dont know how diluted they will become.

Sounds easy enough but as someone who has had a birdseye view of many different fisheries S/C Ocean/Inriver I can tell you it isn't. Then you have the treaty tribes which are guarenteed 50% but they go last to make it even more complicated.

I know that there is no way that harvest will be reduced enough. Too much pressure from all sides.

Pinks and chums "underfished"? How about coho and Chinook overfished! The worst thing that ever happened to fish management was MSY. It looks at a single stock and ignores the place of that stock in the ecosystem.

It is odd that the fisheries agencies will demand water for fish, riparian protection for fish, reduction in logging for fish, removal of levees for fish, removal of culverts for fish, removal of dams for fish, and squeal like stuck pigs if they are asked to not kill fish for the ecosystem.

Give that man a GOLD star!

Can I lift another classic CM-ism for my signature line?

Anything to get a civil wholistic discussion going.

"I know that there is no way that harvest will be reduced enough. Too much pressure from all sides"



I agree there's to much focus on the kings, but I also remember a clip from the salmon summit that I believe LB posted a few months ago where the Regional Head of NMFS said stop the finger pointing fishing had been reduced 40% (again I might add). He also talked about losing another 20,000 acres if I remember right of PS habitat, so if we can't stop the habitat loss aren't we always overfishing and becoming more reliant on the hatcherys?

I invite you all to take a minutes and send copy of the editorial to the Gov., Senators Cantwell & Muarry and Rep. Dicks and tell them that you as voters are appalled at the expense for a hatchery and not allowing recovery of wild salmonids on the Elwah.

Double Haul -
An excellent article but unfortunately it is several years too late. Those horses have long escaped the barn. Construction on that $16.4 million hatchery began last year. The Elwha restoration plan is a done deal and it is unlikely we will see any significant changes in it until it is shown not to have succeeded.

However this has been an interesting discussion and clearly illustrates the complex world that our anadromous salmonids live in and the many and diverse pieces the various species and life histories require to thrive.

Dave Vedder -
Interesting that you mentioned the MF Snoqualmie and its CnR season. I grew up fishing the forks of the Snoqualmie and had fly fished the MF for more than 25 years prior to the start of the CnR season (1986?). Interestingly during the late 1950s through the 1960s the trout were much larger than today. In those days the norm were 10 to 16 inch cutthroat with 20 inch fish a possibility. By the mid-1970s the size fell dramatically with most fish 5 to 10 inches. Even the conservative management of the CnR season was not able to reverse that change.

I suspect the heavy logging of the MF valley during the 1950s and 60s the resultanting impacts of stream flows played a role in that decline. After fishing a number of PS streams over decades it is my observation that the really is a pretty good diversity of insect species found in our streams. However the biomass of those insect are less than what one would expect. Again my feeling that the altering of those streams hydrographs and simplication of the habitats are a major contributor to those cutthroat's decline.

Freespool -
In my career I found my various fishing rods the most valuable fisheries reserch tool I had. But then again that may account for why I was such a poor biologist!

CM -
Interesting that you mentioned how well the bull trout and sea-run cutthroat are doing. Since I happen to be near some of that success and spend a fair amount of time fishing for those critters I have thought a lot about why they have been so successful.

In the case of the Skagit/Sauk bull trout (a huge success story over the last 20 years) the key is clearly the quality of the critical habitat they use. The critical spawning and early rearing habitats are found in the uppper reaches of the basin and I estimated that 80% of the habitat is either pristine or near pristine - found in a National Park or wilderness areas. Once the bulls get a jump start in life their diverse behaviors allow them to take advantage of any potential rearing options.

The situation with the cutthroat isn't nearly as clear cut. However to no one's surprise I do have some thoughts/theories on their success. In watching the habitat they use it is pretty clear through out the Puget Sound lowlands there has been major changes in the small streams that the cutthroat and coho used. There has been major changes in those streams hydrographs; more frequent fall/winter flooding , lower summer flows, etc. In short in many cases what were historically mostly coho streams have been converted to cutthroat streams. That coupled with the lack of wild coho in many areas (less competition) those sea-runs have access to nearly as much habitat as they did decades ago.

BTW -
Regarding conservative harvest management - PS wild summer steelhead have been managed as conservatively as any group of fish in western Washington. Wild steelhead release for 25 years (as well as no tribal or ocean fisheries) and in places like Deer Creek on the NF Stillaguamish no hatchery fish and major portions of their freshwater habitats closed to fishing. Yet they continue to do as poorly as the worst of the other wild salmonids. just another illustration that restore our wild salmonids will require multiple and complex approaches.

Tight lines
Curt

Dave Vedder -
Interesting that you mentioned the MF Snoqualmie and its CnR season. I grew up fishing the forks of the Snoqualmie and had fly fished the MF for more than 25 years prior to the start of the CnR season (1986?). Interestingly during the late 1950s through the 1960s the trout were much larger than today. In those days the norm were 10 to 16 inch cutthroat with 20 inch fish a possibility. By the mid-1970s the size fell dramatically with most fish 5 to 10 inches. Even the conservative management of the CnR season was not able to reverse that change.


Curt,

In spite of the small size of the trout in the upper Middle Fork, I still fish it several times each summer. The area is just so damn pretty. (If you want to take the family for a picnic in a really spectacular setting head up the Middle Fork Road. Go as far as you can - the road gets rough in places) If you want more adventure cross the river and hike up the Pratt River. My largest fish from the Middle Fork was a 14 inch cutthroat, but I didn't start fishing it until around the mid 70s.

I fish a handful of small P.S. area streams each summer and fall. Most have fish in the 6-10 inch range, but I love it because they can be very spooky in crystal clear water, they are 100% wild, they are beautiful, and I seldom see another angler. My favorite stream has given me several in the 14-17 inch range but they do not come to hand easily. I usually eat one a year. Last year I killed my one and put it on a forked stick in the water. When I came back downstream it was missing. I think I fed a mink.

Streams in W WA are naturally nutrient poor due to the underlying geology and relatively high rainfall. Under a heavily forested canopy, streams receive relatively little solar energy and are also often very cold and dark. Low nutrient avilability and low solar inputs to streams both can severely limit primary production, invertebrate production, and fish production. Increase solar inputs and nutrients in those streams, and productivity typically goes up.

In addition nutrients that increase production through indirect trophic pathways, spawning salmon bring food for fish and invertebrates directly (eggs, fry, flesh) - So even a cold, dark, nutrient poor stream can still be very productive for fish IF sufficent spawning salmon are present to offset the lack of production from other trophic pathways. Pretty simple really.

We have seen the results of increasing solar inputs, it's called elevated stream temperatures, most commonly seen in the top three limiting factors for recovery.

In developed areas how much of that heat is due to stormwater drain off from large parking lots, driveways, and other cement or blacktopped property? Is there any data that you know of that could answer that?

Clearcuts and insufficient stream buffers are the primary factors for poor water quality in the PNW, but your correct urbanization has had a negative effect as well.
It's not an either or situation, we can protect anchor fish habitat and harvest timber, we just need the will to make it happen.

I think everyone here is right in some way. I too have fished in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Eastern Washington and Canada. (British Columbia) There is no question that some rivers are far more fertile than others. Maybe I haven't put enough thought into what a difference decaying fish would make in boosting the insect and crustacean populations. But, 30 years ago I was told by a state biologist that NONE of the rivers on the Oly Pen or really all of Western Washington could support native trout. I was dumb enough to buy into that. I never fished for trout in some of the rivers thinking there were none and only steelhead and salmon smolts were in the streams. Then a friend did some "field research" so to speak. He took his 5 weight fly rod with a floating line and an orange bodied stimulator and hiked down a stream I just can't mention and fished the stimulator and was amazed. We then began fishing that river and have caught rainbows to 22 inches. Yes, it's on the Peninsula. We debated as to whether they were steelhead or native rainbows but what threw us is that they ranged in size from 6 inches all the way up to the 22 inch fish. There were many fish in the 14 to 18 inch range. They all had similar markings leading us to believe that they were true rainbows. Someone mentioned dollies. I'm sure they chow on bugs as well as crustaceans but rarely surface bugs. They, as we all know will chomp a fish almost as big as they are! I think other fish are their main source of food. One last thing that no one has brought up regarding bugs is the terrestials. I've seen many fly ants, termites and grasshoppers on the rivers. Plus some insects that I don't recognize. All of which I witnessed being chomped by trout. Going all the way back to what started this post is I too believe that the Elwa is a unique opportunity to try and restore native fish. It has potential because of the way it sets up. I also believe it will take years because there will be a lot of silt and debris to clear out naturally. I can't wait to see it recover. I hope it happens sooner rather than later because I'm getting old!!!!!!

The thing I find particularly annoying about the new hatchery on the Elwha is that it represents the effective squandering of the best opportunity this region has ever seen (and will likely ever see) to find out whether wild fish can increase their numbers if left to their own devices. The fact that it is costing so much, at a time when tax dollars should be getting spent on much more socially responsible things, is another punch in the gut.

As for the overall decline in salmon and steelead populations, I believe all the standard culprits play significant roles, and in order to achieve anything close to full recovery of native stocks, I believe all will eventually (and as soon as possible) need to be addressed. I have personally tended to point at wild harvest reform as the thing we should tackle first, because it seems to me that it is the only thing we can immediately and completely affect. Habitat restoration, while it does need to happen in most systems, faces far too many obstacles (mostly financial, which is the kiss of death for any goodwill effort to undo damage humans have done) to be sufficiently effective in the short term. Hatcheries (the existing ones), while some of us may question their validity, support the vast majority of commercial fisheries and sport fisheries alike, so any change there will be a long-term goal at best. Hydroelectric dams are clearly a major problem, but they aren't going anywhere before humans find better sources of electricity than hydropower. Lest we forget, there are very strong political barriers blocking removal of those dams as well.

Basically, the way I see it is that undoing the environmental damage we have done will take far too long and cost far too much money to be considered a realistic short-term solution. Again, all those things need to be addressed (and we should start taking every opportunity that becomes available to do so immediately), but it seems foolish to me to invest all of one's hope in the tremendous amount of human and financial sacrifice that would be required to fix habitat, remove dams, and reform hatcheries in any reasonable length of time. People are far too closely-married to their lifestyles to allow for the sort of sacrifices that would need to be made to fix these things quickly.

All this leaves me with the opinion that harvest reform, while it's not a be all end all, is the most immediately effective thing we can do to increase salmon populations. Of course, true harvest reform requires that EVERYBODY reduces the number of fish they harvest, and NOBODY seems to want to give up any of what they have. That, in a nutshell, is why I am becoming increasingly pessimistic that meaningful recovery will ever happen. Most people are just too damned greedy, selfish, and short-sighted to get on board with anything that requires personal sacrifice.