There's a lot more natives than exotics...sockeye are the exotics that don't belong.

A "zooplankton hatchery" might be good for some of the natives, though...as they'll happily munch on the zillion of sockeye fry swimming in circles off the Cedar River looking for something to eat ;)*

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Before anyone gets their panties bunched up, I assure that I am aware that sockeye fry are not zooplankton...though I doubt the natives in the lake will bother with making the distinction

There are native sockeye in the system. The North Lake stocks a pretty different from the Cedar and in-lake spawners. There used to be kokanee.

If one wanted a sockeye run and fishery in the system, it should probably be entirely hatchery-based, out of the south end. That way, sockeye would not interfere with Chinook and steelhead recovery.

I think that's the Issaquah Creek/Bear Creek fish...and those that spawn in Lake Sammamish.

Everything about the location, etc., with the Landsburg facility is cool...the only part about it that's not cool is that it won't increase any fishing opportunities, and will cost a shitton of money, and the fact that it's required by the HCP and/or LMA doesn't transform it into anything that will improve fishing.

I'm not sure why it's managed to protect diversity, blah, blah, blah, whatever of the Cedar River sockeye run...it's a wholly artificial run of fish that ought to be harvested to the hilt...it's got no reason to exist, otherwise.

Fish on...

Todd

Beats me too.

Zooplankton enhancement of LW wouldn't be that difficult, and cost a lot less than $30 M. AK and BC fertilize many sockeye lakes successfully, and the co-managers have that option under the Baker hydro license. Of course the primary problem with doing that in LW would be public perception of it and DOE perception of it as a water quality problem. That should be good for a 20 year delay, if not a state law passed against it. But it isn't the same as dumping untreated sewage in the lake, although that is one way of doing it. But AK and BC have it pretty dialed in such that the nitrogen and phosphate balance is controlled to produce phytoplankton (algae) that is fed upon by the daphnia that the sockeye favor. Oh well, kinda' thread drift.

Sg

I'll have to say, and this should come as no surprise...I don't think this much time, energy, or money...especially money...and trouble should be spent to prop up a wholly artificial run of fish that shares the land with a handful of already listed ESA fish, and probably more to come in the future.

I understand that WDFW would love to do something that is perceived as good by the public, since they don't seem to have a lot of those to lean on, and this fishery is really easy to manage (if the fish are there), and really popular, and makes some money for the region, too...but it's only "good" if it works, if it doesn't fukk up an entire ecosystem full of wild and ESA listed animals, and doesn't cost more than the benefits.

Unfortunately I think they'd rather take a black eye with the few who know the deal, and take a pat on the back from ther other 80% who don't give a schit about anything other than their sockeye fishery.

Fish on...

Todd