then tell me. quit barking like a smartass who thinks he knows shitt and would wrather keep secrets than look an idiot. What, are all the unclipped fish actualy hatchery? wtf? tell me. It's a hatchery, like any other hatchery. Same shitt. The only thing that I could think of is that the timber companies are planting a bunch of unclipped fish to compensate for their ecosystem buttfuck. Is there some backdoor science going on or something? In all honesty I think there is no natural reason why there is a run that big in regards to all the [censored] it goes through. Quit being a dick without making a point.

Nah your being way to sensitive and you know the awnser you just have not took the time to walk it through. So start with harvest rates / natural spawner escapement and watershed productivity. Now walk out what happens when a hatchery does not have a stop weir or non mainstem water source. Now work the mix through ............... now with out being pissed think about it. Your letting getting a jab not let yourself see the awnser and problem yet you know both. This is not a new discussion as a number of organizations ALONG WITH AGENCY STAFF tried to get the funds to fix the problem but it got gunned in the agency budget stuff and no locals would step up to push it to Rep Kessler.

I assume you have it figured out now but if you haven't I will check in on the thread to see. It is fishing time and BB's like PP are for when there are no fish!

What's 80% between friends.

So are you saying that the only reason the wild populations are substantial is because the hatchery lacks the ability to capture the majority of the returning adults? And when you remove the hatchery, you potentialy remove a crutch for the wild runs because they are intermingled? Didn't they want to construct a tube so that anglers could toss in fish they would release (before cutbacks of course)?
I could see how that correlation would leave one to believe the hatcheries are good for the wild fish runs. Assuming the hatcheries clip all of their fish, I personaly fish the river and the majority of the kings I catch are wild.

And for the coho, the runs are still pretty fragile, so the lacking of hatchery coho fish will put pressure on the wild stocks from tribal harvest.

Did I work my way into your train of thought? If I didn't, I don't really care.

Well according to WDFW:
100% Coho clipping since '93
100% Chinook clipping since '06, this will be the first 5 year 100% clipped Chinook return on the Humptulips.

The hatchery is NOT going to be removed, not yet anyway. The hatchery will produce Steelhead at the current rate and Coho production will continue, although severly reduced. The reason for the reduction is it cuts one position at the hatchery and cuts the cost of operating as many pumps as they do when they are in full production with Chinook. I know, again, their word, but it is the reason we are gonna get so have to go with it. Arguing the real reason is pointless and unproductive.

I hope this starts to tell a major picture of the health of the Humptulips River Native Chinook return, this assumes that they are actualy clipping every fish they release. I know, it is their word but have to start somewhere and believe someone sooner or later or nothing productive can come from anything.

Sounds like I have found something to make a whole hearted effort in and do my part in. Pathetic to wait this long but better to do something sooner or later. Anyone willing to join me?

Rivrguy, whatever information you have I could really use it. Even if I can't share it yet, if I am gonna start to try and do something I need all the facts I can get.

The Humptulips system is getting a makeover that would make Zha Zha Gabor look like a teenager unless these years of road delays and culvert improvement is all for not.

Jgrizzle, I don't know what the "dirty little secret" is. But I suspect that that native runs might be stronger than they may be thought. All I have gotten so far is that there is a plan that has been suggested to stop hatchery produced from competing with native fish. The mass making plan is all part of it from what I have been told.

There are systems in Grays Harbor that have a 50:50 marked unmarked policy. The Satsop Hatchery is this way, what the reason I don't know for sure yet but I plan to find out. Something to do with hatchery natural spawning survival or something like that. More details to come if I can find them.

I like to give the benefit of the doubt until I find facts. Maybe, just maybe there is a plan that we can all live with that just may make fishing even better in the future instead of making it as bad as some may think it will get. Blind hope, maybe, but hope none the less.

If anyone else has contacts to call, minutes to read, plans to read or anything else that I can get my hands on please send it to me. I have the time to do this and will make every effort to do it the best I can.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks and I hate the idea but it is not gonna do any good to get angry about it and do nothing.

I see your point and I hope that the fact I have seen is the real reason I have faith that we will have a fishery in 4+ years for Chinook. I too caught majority native Chinook last year even with the supposed 100% marked hatchery program.

If there was truly a major concern about native stocks we would have a release wild Chinook listing on the river.

Jgrizzle: I think it is more that there is a healthy run and removing hatchery Chinook will allow native "healthy" stocks to reproduce without conpetition. This also gives a complete picture in the way that there will be no doubt if the Chinook is wild or hatchery in the counts. Hopeful account of what I believe might be the reason for this beyond budget cuts. True or not, only time will tell but I don't plan on leaving this to chance.

This is a proposal for the special session !!!!!
I have already been in touch with a ton of political types and fish types and we are forming a group to fight this !!! Once again it seems I have been pushed into the lead dog roll !!! I will need lots of help from alot of you who are passionate about this and who are much smarter then me or have more connections then I do. Stay tuned alot will be happening over the next few days......................

This will only happen over my dead body !!!!!

Peace
Fly

Anyone who wants more info can PM me. But you got it sorta. The hatchery stray rate was huge for years as they ran by ( many ) so good bad indifferent the hatchery coho & wild are same genetics. The feds bitching is why the coho releases were steadily cut back for years. The Chinook the same but they went to native broodstock and reduced the impacts but only to a degree.

The solution is a Stevens Creek intake and pipeline to give a non river water source to attract. ( Hump is pumped river / mostly ) Paul Seidel tried his best, as did Jim Scott but the lack of a all out push from locals let it get axed.

The long and short of it without the hatchery production supplementing the wild spawning populations there ain't no way the Hump productivity is high enough to support the tribal / sport / commercial fisheries as they exist. The fear we faced then and now was the Coho could be driven down enough to lock out non tribal harvest on Coho. Chinook are the great unknown but everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that that tribal harvest comes before ANYTHING including conservation.

Bone tired from three days non stop fishing so forgive typos.

edit: As to habitat. Look at the timber age group and past / present / future harvest as tree farms are on 40 year rotations. The Hump habitat is in decline to a degree and will plateau out someplace just as the Chehalis ( and tribs ) has. That productivity will be less than past & best hope is stay at the present level. To see improvement? I doubt it as I worked for 38 years in the woods and have seen, and in my job contributed to, the accumulative impacts of tree farms which are huge and agencies have no way to adjust to it.

Hey dude, Coleman and I have ur back on this.... Let us know what we can do

got it.

I have to agree that our Coho fishery will be dismal at best come 2-3 years. Can't see much of a season if we get one at all.

What happens to the Chinook, who knows but it won't take more than 1-2 years after the last planted fish returns to know and know quickly.

BTW, if there is anyone else who fishes the Humptulips I could use a hand doing some sample collecting. I don't make it out but 3-6 times a month at best so my ability to collect is limitted. I have already talked to WDFW Montesano and they said they would love the help. I remember most of what they told me but will get it all reiterated Monday if I can and get it to anyone who wants it.

Hope to get them to agree to a "Blind" DNA study. We collect unbiased samples with data on species, size and such and they get the scales for DNA to be correlated later. Only I can think of to put together something that everyone can accept as having at least a little truth to it.

Glad to see anglers get upset enough to do something about the situation. Rvrguy has lots of history regarding this issue and many more in the Chehalis Basin, he is an excellent ally and source for information. The intake on Stevens Creek is a no-brainer, I first heard about it in 1997, and it was a recommendation of the HSRG panel as well. Long, long overdue and a common sense fix. (maybe that's why it's not been done?) Have heard of hatchery stray rates as high as 70% on the spawning grounds for many many years. Remember, this is your agency and your resource. You pay for it, and you have a right to direct its management. Go above WDFW to your legislatures and let 'gravity' to the rest.

Does anyone have the information on the cost, designs and other material regarding this intake? There is also the option of water run tirbines in the creek to run the pumps and produce electricity which could be used at all the GH hatcheries to save thousands. Wind operated pumps. Solar panels. Why is it so hard to get them up to date and cut the costs so they can be managed properly and not an all or nothing mentality?

In order to install turbines, hydropower, solar panels, new intakes, or whatever itg takes money. If the hatcheries don't have enough money to simply run the program and actually maintain the facility where do you think the money will come from?

They have a BUDGET over many years. Cut the overall budget by spending money now to save 10X as much down the road.

In the much used expression " full disclosure " I will say that CM was a mentor and advisor on Chehalis and Hump issues ( along with Paul Seidel, Randy Aho, Jim Scott, & Larry Peck ) as we worked jointly on basin issues so .............

CM do you remember the cost that Paul & Randy came up with for the intake? For some reason the number 250K sticks out but I will look in the old minutes to see if it is there. Also could not the source be non dedicated or general fund monies in the states construction budget? If not could you identify the sources WDF&W use for large construction upgrades and the state agencies in general use.

Also those working this issue need to contact Rep. Blake to get his support. Next the Senator and Rep whose districts the hatchery is in and begin to make your case.

Well they never plan for the future and the fish and fisherman suffer for it. They have had how many years to take advantage of things they could have done and probably avoided a lot of these cuts and budget shortfalls.

Stormy out today so doing the lazy bit ..... good to do.............

To the issue, yes they DO plan BUT a lot of competing interest are after the limited resources. That R 6 staff and some Olympia staff tried to get it is not enough. You have PS who always want the most, tribes want things, enviros .......... well you get it.

You have to get a plan that the agency agrees will work ( got it ), you have have a organized and focused LOCAL coalition with a spokesman THAT DOES NOT HAVE TIES TO SPORT VS COMMERCIAL, ( you don't have that ) and then you need a legislator ( Lynn and Sid who were majority leaders have retired ) that can double down the ante and force the issue to the top of WDF&W's problem list. So you have one out of the three but the one that takes the most time is done.

Bottom line? You need Rep Blake to have enough confidence in the local community sticking with him to go to the wall ......... hard, to force the issue. And not slamming non coastal folks your support is needed, but to legislators it is always the folks WHO LIVE IN THEIR DISTRICTS that matter most. Finally you need not just one legislator BUT the Coastal Caucus to support it.

If you don't have what it takes to do the above stay home as your gonna get ate alive by the competing interest in Olympia. Fact of life. Oh yeah one other thing. Mr. Phil ain't your friend! His job is to save the agencies structure at this point and he will get more cuts this special session that he will have to deal with. A gentlemen who was a budget writer for a governor once told me that it is budgeting by " pain management ". It will be Phil's job to manage the pain.

Don't recall if 250K was the figure, but that would have been about right back then.

Hell, WDFW did not prioritize the money to even maintain facilities. In all fairness, the problem is with the Leg, which by extension means us the voters and non-voters. Are our freeways, roads and bridges up to snuff? How good is your public water supply and sewers? Are your schools safe (from a construction perspective), well maintained, and stocked with supplies up to date enough to meet the needs of students and staff? The list goes on and on about how our infrastructure is not being taken care of.