Thanks to everyone that contributed their opinion to my earlier discussion. I have tried to soak up as much information about this issue since I first learned about it, and I will say that the community on here has offered me plenty of insight into the inner workings of this lawsuit and its potential.

First off...

Like many folks in the sportfishing industry, I am pro-wild fish. I think they are one of the most beautiful finned creatures that we have in our waters and I treat them with the utmost respect. Initially, Wild Snoqualmie Steelhead was the cause of my fishing infatuation. Honestly, I get far more excited with the thought of releasing one healthy wild fish than I do at the thought of limiting on hatchery winter steelhead. I've tied fancy jigs, I've dropped plenty of cash on premium rods both fly and gear. I dream of trips to far off meccas, I plan my free time around fishing. I love fishing. I live for fishing. For many anglers, often times our sportfishing passion turns us into artists and romantics about the fish... but we also have to be realists.

The fact of the matter is, Wild Steelhead in Puget Sound are the victim of many factors... largest of which is poor habitat. The resource extraction and urban sprawl that is the side effect of 150 years of carelessness has been the doom of these fish. For the first hundred years of modern settlement, we shaved the hillsides bare of trees, we used our rivers as sluices for logs which scoured every redd, we dammed as we pleased and we diked whatever estuary that we fancied.

WE SCREWED UP PUGET SOUND. Unregulated pollution from the WWII industrial complex to win regardless of any cost. Suburban sprawl. Enough asphalt to fill Delaware. A sewage treatment system that never separated rainwater from raw waste in one of the rainiest places in the country (if ya didn't know... severe rain events cause a direct sewage outflow into Puget Sound & some rivers). It's almost like we tried to kill off these fish. Big problems. Only now we are trying to fix it. We pour millions into rehabilitation. We mitigate new development. We regulate forestry a bit. But fixing the residual effects of 150 years of habitat destruction is the elephant in the room no one wants to tranquilize. It won't come fast. It won't come cheap. It won't get the broad support needed once folks realize they will actually have to pay for it.

FACT: The state fish of Washington is the Steelhead... they deserve better.

They swim through Everett (you, yeah you... I know you were thinking about weed & feed on the lawn this weekend!)
They swim through Seattle (how much meth is cooked under the 1st Ave So. Bridge now?)
They swim through Wild Fish Conservancy HQ Duvall (dude... don't let your purebred poop anywhere in my watershed bro!)
They swim through Puyallup (barfed up scones)

FACT: There is no location on planet earth with robust stocks of Wild Steelhead in a major metropolitan area. Our steelhead swim through the city. 3 MILLION PEOPLE LIVE IN PUGET SOUND.

So the issue is complex. And we have conservation groups threatening litigation against the state. We know that the stray rate and intermingling rate for Chambers Creek stock/Wild Fish is low.

QUESTION: When does one catch the most downriver winter hatchery fish?
ANSWER: January/February
QUESTION: When does one catch the most downriver winter wild fish?
ANSWER: May/June

I'm not saying the WFC's concerns don't have merrit. What I am saying is that just because their lawsuit may be justified, the correct solution is to work with the State of Washington to produce a Hatchery Genetic Management Plan that will work.

I want some feedback on a few things still....

I don't understand why our Commission hasn't tackled this massive issue before it came to this.
I don't understand why DFW hasn't gone to the Legislature or made public this multi-million dollar problem.
I don't understand why more people aren't upset about the loss of this fishery.
I don't understand if this is more of a paperwork issue or whether it's the fact no one in Seattle can agree on anything.
I don't understand why we the taxpayers are letting attorneys bully us and bleed dry our cash-strapped DFW, which is a distraction on so many levels.
I don't understand why WFC isn't getting grants to do the scientific research to find a real solution.
I don't understand why people think that Wild Steelhead will flourish once hatchery fish are gone when we haven't already seen a huge positive impact from reduced hatchery plants.
I don't understand why people who have seen their favorite sportfishing opportunities killed in the past standing up this time.
I don't understand why more folks aren't getting involved.

We must fight to get the permits, we must fight to get better science and better management.

Puget Sound has so many complex issues that hinder the recovery of key species, yet sometimes jumping in with both feet on a solution that is arguable and shaky at best is not wise.

If you sit back for a moment, think about how the act of fishing has benefited your life overall, think about your children, and think about never being able to fish for steelhead again in Puget Sound. That is the threat. Do you ever want to share that joy with your kids? If you close the hatcheries now, you will never see the day when we master a thriving wild fish population and a responsible hatchery program. If you shudder our steelhead hatcheries... they will never reopen. ONCE YOU LOSE IT YOU WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER GET IT BACK.

When you look back through the history of wild steelhead in the Puget Sound area, wild steelhead returned every month of the year. Now they are concentrated in a small portion of the year.

Wild steelhead, as Jerry said, returned 12 months of the year.
Wild steelhead used to spawn at least January-July, and maybe even wider
In places where they are abundant, wild steelhead have 50-80+% repeat spawners instead of next to nothing.
Wild steelhead, in PS, used to have significant numbers of age-1 smolts. Canadian research has shown that the same river produces numerically more smolts if they are age-1 than if age-2 and more smolts if they are age-2 than if age-3, and so on.

We have taken a fish that had a successful life history pattern and removed all the parts we found inconvenient. Kill off the earlies so we can catch chum and hatchery steelies, kill off the lates so we can fish springers, kill off the repeat spawners so we can kill them this year, and so on.

Stelhead are just too inconvenient to have around; they make management way too difficult.

If freshwater habitat was the primary problem, steelhead stocks would be doing better in Puget Sound streams with less development and degradation. They are not, stocks are down uniformly across all streams. If freshwater habitat was the primary problem, returning hatchery steelhead would fill Puget Sound rivers each year as they used to. They do not, they dont survive the marine environment in numbers to justify the cost of producing them.

That being said, I do think that resposible hatchery supplementation can occur without preventing wild fish recovery. However the speculative arguments that we should maintain hatchery programs simply because the freshwater habitat is incapable of supporting wild populations anymore lack sufficient science to support that conclusion. Clearly, the marine environment is the primary problem affecting both hatchery and wild steelhead in Puget Sound.

I find it odd that freshwater habitat continues to get blamed for why steelhead won't recover.

Anadromous cutthroat and anadromous native char seem to be rebounding pretty well. They spawn and rear in freshwater areas similar to steelhead and yet the are increasing. But, they don't have the take that steelhead do. And, they manage to do this in the horribly polluted and dieing Puget Sound.

Steelhead are telling us, by their lack of recovery, that we have not dealt with the issues that are keeping them down. The other species, whose life histories are similar to steelhead, are showing what works.

I don't really have an agenda or angle... I just don't want to see the death of our fisheries if we are not 100% positive that we will get the results we need.

Thanks for that, Carcassman. I was just thinking along the exact same lines. I find myself wondering all the time why steelhead don't seem to respond to protections the way other, similar species have. It seems as if there is some critical factor in their survival that we either don't understand or can't fix.

Is it freshwater habitat? Maybe, but I would echo Carcassman's questions above.

Is it overharvest? Probably not. Wild steelhead retention has been outlawed nearly everywhere for quite a while now, and there is very little commercial harvest on them (compared to what salmon are subjected to, at least). Sportfishing is probably a factor, but it hardly seems realistic to consider it a major limiting factor.

Is it genetic pollution by hatchery fish? Maybe, but wouldn't one have to ask how hatchery salmon, much larger numbers of whom likely spawn with their wild counterparts, haven't had a similarly devastating effect on wild salmon? At any rate, I think overharvest is the key limitation for salmon, as a worldwide food fish in high demand.

Is it dams? Maybe in some cases, but certainly not all. Systems without dams have struggled to recover wild steelhead as well.

Predation? Again, I would ask why other species wouldn't be impacted to the same degree, but I guess I can imagine that since their smolt outmigration timing coincides with the major shorebird migrations in our region, there might be a unique factor there. I kind of doubt it....

As milt roe said, it seems clear that something critical to steelhead survival in the marine environment is badly broken. I wonder whether we should pinpoint Puget Sound specifically as the compromised area, because sea run cutthroat, who seem to have a similar life history to steelhead, are doing fairly well throughout the sound.

Whatever it is, there seems to be something to which steelhead are far more sensitive than other salmonids that is limiting their recovery. Hopefully, we can figure out what that is. Then, we have to hope it's something we can reverse.

Whatever the case, at a time when budget restrictions are already crippling our DFW, it hardly seems like suing them (the ones who SHOULD have the most biologists trying to find the key to steelhead recovery) will do anything to assure the long term survival of wild steelhead. A saying about cutting one's nose off to spite his face comes to mind....

Members of the 63rd Legislature 2013-2014

The most important legislators to contact are from district 21, 22, 1, 2, 25-29, 23, 35, 30-48. A simple, short and to the point email to each of these legislators will go a long way.

Name E-mail District Position Party
Senator Rosemary McAuliffe rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov District 1 0 D
Rep. Derek Stanford derek.stanford@leg.wa.gov District 1 1 D
Rep. Luis Moscoso luis.moscoso@leg.wa.gov District 1 2 D
Senator Randi Becker randi.becker@leg.wa.gov District 2 0 R
Rep. Graham Hunt graham.hunt@leg.wa.gov District 2 1 R
Rep. J.T. Wilcox jt.wilcox@leg.wa.gov District 2 2 R
Senator Andy Billig andy.billig@leg.wa.gov District 3 0 D
Rep. Marcus Riccelli marcus.riccelli@leg.wa.gov District 3 1 D
Rep. Timm Ormsby timm.ormsby@leg.wa.gov District 3 2 D
Senator Mike Padden mike.padden@leg.wa.gov District 4 0 R
Rep. Leonard Christian leonard.christian@leg.wa.gov District 4 1 R
Rep. Matt Shea matt.shea@leg.wa.gov District 4 2 R
Senator Mark Mullet mark.mullet@leg.wa.gov District 5 0 D
Rep. Jay Rodne jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov District 5 1 R
Rep. Chad Magendanz chad.magendanz@leg.wa.gov District 5 2 R
Senator Michael Baumgartner michael.baumgartner@leg.wa.gov District 6 0 R
Rep. Kevin Parker kevin.parker@leg.wa.gov District 6 1 R
Rep. Jeff Holy jeff.holy@leg.wa.gov District 6 2 R
Senator Brian Dansel brian.dansel@leg.wa.gov District 7 0 R
Rep. Shelly Short shelly.short@leg.wa.gov District 7 1 R
Rep. Joel Kretz joel.kretz@leg.wa.gov District 7 2 R
Senator Sharon Brown sharon.brown@leg.wa.gov District 8 0 R
Rep. Brad Klippert brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov District 8 1 R
Rep. Larry Haler larry.haler@leg.wa.gov District 8 2 R
Senator Mark Schoesler mark.schoesler@leg.wa.gov District 9 0 R
Rep. Susan Fagan susan.fagan@leg.wa.gov District 9 1 R
Rep. Joe Schmick joe.schmick@leg.wa.gov District 9 2 R
Senator Barbara Bailey barbara.bailey@leg.wa.gov District 10 0 R
Rep. Norma Smith norma.smith@leg.wa.gov District 10 1 R
Rep. Dave Hayes dave.hayes@leg.wa.gov District 10 2 R
Senator Bob Hasegawa bob.hasegawa@leg.wa.gov District 11 0 D
Rep. Zack Hudgins zack.hudgins@leg.wa.gov District 11 1 D
Rep. Steve Bergquist steve.bergquist@leg.wa.gov District 11 2 D
Senator Linda Evans Parlette linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov District 12 0 R
Rep. Cary Condotta cary.condotta@leg.wa.gov District 12 1 R
Rep. Brad Hawkins brad.hawkins@leg.wa.gov District 12 2 R
Senator Janéa Holmquist Newbry janea.holmquistnewbry@leg.wa.gov District 13 0 R
Rep. Judy Warnick judy.warnick@leg.wa.gov District 13 1 R
Rep. Matt Manweller matt.manweller@leg.wa.gov District 13 2 R
Senator Curtis King curtis.king@leg.wa.gov District 14 0 R
Rep. Norm Johnson norm.johnson@leg.wa.gov District 14 1 R
Rep. Charles Ross charles.ross@leg.wa.gov District 14 2 R
Senator Jim Honeyford jim.honeyford@leg.wa.gov District 15 0 R
Rep. Bruce Chandler bruce.chandler@leg.wa.gov District 15 1 R
Rep. David Taylor david.taylor@leg.wa.gov District 15 2 R
Senator Mike Hewitt mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov District 16 0 R
Rep. Maureen Walsh maureen.walsh@leg.wa.gov District 16 1 R
Rep. Terry Nealey terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov District 16 2 R
Senator Don Benton don.benton@leg.wa.gov District 17 0 R
Rep. Monica Stonier monica.stonier@leg.wa.gov District 17 1 D
Rep. Paul Harris paul.harris@leg.wa.gov District 17 2 R
Senator Ann Rivers ann.rivers@leg.wa.gov District 18 0 R
Rep. Brandon Vick brandon.vick@leg.wa.gov District 18 1 R
Rep. Liz Pike liz.pike@leg.wa.gov District 18 2 R
Senator Brian Hatfield brian.hatfield@leg.wa.gov District 19 0 D
Rep. Dean Takko dean.takko@leg.wa.gov District 19 1 D
Rep. Brian Blake brian.blake@leg.wa.gov District 19 2 D
Senator John Braun john.braun@leg.wa.gov District 20 0 R
Rep. Richard DeBolt richard.debolt@leg.wa.gov District 20 1 R
Rep. Ed Orcutt ed.orcutt@leg.wa.gov District 20 2 R
Senator Marko Liias marko.liias@leg.wa.gov District 21 0 D
Rep. Mary Helen Roberts maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov District 21 1 D
Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self lillian.ortiz-self@leg.wa.gov District 21 2 D
Senator Karen Fraser karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov District 22 0 D
Rep. Chris Reykdal chris.reykdal@leg.wa.gov District 22 1 D
Rep. Sam Hunt sam.hunt@leg.wa.gov District 22 2 D
Senator Christine Rolfes christine.rolfes@leg.wa.gov District 23 0 D
Rep. Sherry Appleton sherry.appleton@leg.wa.gov District 23 1 D
Rep. Drew Hansen drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov District 23 2 D
Senator James Hargrove jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov District 24 0 D
Rep. Kevin Van De Wege kevin.vandewege@leg.wa.gov District 24 1 D
Rep. Steve Tharinger steve.tharinger@leg.wa.gov District 24 2 D
Senator Bruce Dammeier bruce.dammeier@leg.wa.gov District 25 0 R
Rep. Dawn Morrell dawn.morrell@leg.wa.gov District 25 1 D
Rep. Hans Zeiger hans.zeiger@leg.wa.gov District 25 2 R
Senator Jan Angel jan.angel@leg.wa.gov District 26 0 R
Rep. Jesse Young jesse.young@leg.wa.gov District 26 1 R
Rep. Larry Seaquist larry.seaquist@leg.wa.gov District 26 2 D
Senator Jeannie Darneille j.darneille@leg.wa.gov District 27 0 D
Rep. Laurie Jinkins laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov District 27 1 D
Rep. Jake Fey jake.fey@leg.wa.gov District 27 2 D
Senator Steve O'Ban steve.o'ban@leg.wa.gov District 28 0 R
Rep. Dick Muri dick.muri@leg.wa.gov District 28 1 R
Rep. Tami Green tami.green@leg.wa.gov District 28 2 D
Senator Steve Conway steve.conway@leg.wa.gov District 29 0 D
Rep. David Sawyer david.sawyer@leg.wa.gov District 29 1 D
Rep. Steve Kirby steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov District 29 2 D
Senator Tracey Eide tracey.eide@leg.wa.gov District 30 0 D
Rep. Linda Kochmar linda.kochmar@leg.wa.gov District 30 1 R
Rep. Roger Freeman roger.freeman@leg.wa.gov District 30 2 D
Senator Pam Roach pam.roach@leg.wa.gov District 31 0 R
Rep. Cathy Dahlquist cathy.dahlquist@leg.wa.gov District 31 1 R
Rep. Christopher Hurst christopher.hurst@leg.wa.gov District 31 2 D
Senator Maralyn Chase maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov District 32 0 D
Rep. Cindy Ryu cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov District 32 1 D
Rep. Ruth Kagi ruth.kagi@leg.wa.gov District 32 2 D
Senator Karen Keiser karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov District 33 0 D
Rep. Tina Orwall tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov District 33 1 D
Rep. Mia Gregerson mia.gregerson@leg.wa.gov District 33 2 D
Senator Sharon Nelson sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov District 34 0 D
Rep. Eileen Cody eileen.cody@leg.wa.gov District 34 1 D
Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon joe.fitzgibbon@leg.wa.gov District 34 2 D
Senator Tim Sheldon timothy.sheldon@leg.wa.gov District 35 0 D
Rep. Kathy Haigh kathy.haigh@leg.wa.gov District 35 1 D
Rep. Drew MacEwen drew.macewen@leg.wa.gov District 35 2 R
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov District 36 0 D
Rep. Reuven Carlyle reuven.carlyle@leg.wa.gov District 36 1 D
Rep. Gael Tarleton gael.tarleton@leg.wa.gov District 36 2 D
Senator Adam Kline adam.kline@leg.wa.gov District 37 0 D
Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos sharontomiko.santos@leg.wa.gov District 37 1 D
Rep. Eric Pettigrew eric.pettigrew@leg.wa.gov District 37 2 D
Senator John McCoy john.mccoy@leg.wa.gov District 38 0 D
Rep. June Robinson june.robinson@leg.wa.gov District 38 1 D
Rep. Mike Sells mike.sells@leg.wa.gov District 38 2 D
Senator Kirk Pearson kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov District 39 0 R
Rep. Dan Kristiansen dan.kristiansen@leg.wa.gov District 39 1 R
Rep. Elizabeth Scott elizabeth.scott@leg.wa.gov District 39 2 R
Senator Kevin Ranker kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov District 40 0 D
Rep. Kristine Lytton kristine.lytton@leg.wa.gov District 40 1 D
Rep. Jeff Morris jeff.morris@leg.wa.gov District 40 2 D
Senator Steve Litzow steve.litzow@leg.wa.gov District 41 0 R
Rep. Tana Senn tana.senn@leg.wa.gov District 41 1 D
Rep. Judy Clibborn judy.clibborn@leg.wa.gov District 41 2 D
Senator Doug Ericksen doug.ericksen@leg.wa.gov District 42 0 R
Rep. Jason Overstreet jason.overstreet@leg.wa.gov District 42 1 R
Rep. Vincent Buys vincent.buys@leg.wa.gov District 42 2 R
Senator Jamie Pedersen jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov District 43 0 D
Rep. Brady Walkinshaw brady.walkinshaw@leg.wa.gov District 43 1 D
Rep. Frank Chopp frank.chopp@leg.wa.gov District 43 2 D
Senator Steve Hobbs steve.hobbs@leg.wa.gov District 44 0 D
Rep. Hans Dunshee hans.dunshee@leg.wa.gov District 44 1 D
Rep. Mike Hope mike.hope@leg.wa.gov District 44 2 R
Senator Andy Hill andy.hill@leg.wa.gov District 45 0 R
Rep. Roger Goodman roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov District 45 1 D
Rep. Larry Springer larry.springer@leg.wa.gov District 45 2 D
Senator David Frockt david.frockt@leg.wa.gov District 46 0 D
Rep. Gerry Pollet gerry.pollet@leg.wa.gov District 46 1 D
Rep. Jessyn Farrell jessyn.farrell@leg.wa.gov District 46 2 D
Senator Joe Fain joe.fain@leg.wa.gov District 47 0 R
Rep. Mark Hargrove mark.hargrove@leg.wa.gov District 47 1 R
Rep. Pat Sullivan pat.sullivan@leg.wa.gov District 47 2 D
Senator Rodney Tom rodney.tom@leg.wa.gov District 48 0 D
Rep. Ross Hunter ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov District 48 1 D
Rep. Cyrus Habib cyrus.habib@leg.wa.gov District 48 2 D
Senator Annette Cleveland annette.cleveland@leg.wa.gov District 49 0 D
Rep. Sharon Wylie sharon.wylie@leg.wa.gov District 49 1 D
Rep. Jim Moeller jim.moeller@leg.wa.gov District 49 2 D

Ding ding ding we have winner!

Close it. Poach it. And soon enough the vocal pain in the ass minority known as steel headers will be a thing of the past paving the way for politicians to line their pockets while [Bleeeeep!] up everything in their path.

SNAFU.

Make no mistake about it. Restoring healthy wild steelhead runs is not a goal of any gov agency. Selling licenses and sleds and gas are.

Steelheaders simply can't afford to buy politicians so were [Bleeeeep!].

The other species life histories are similar but are different in one very important aspect, the time spent in the ocean. The link below is to an article that was in the Osprey Newsletter, issue No. 75, May 2013. The entire issue is not available online, it has other interesting articles related to steelhead, but this article is on line through the NOAA SWFSC library. I am biased but I think it offers insight into why steelhead in Puget Sound are not doing well.

From the article; "The bottom line is that the North Pacific Ocean is crucial habitat for steelhead, and climate change and acidification threats to habitat in the ocean may become as great as those in our most imperiled streams."

Steelhead and Climate Change

people have to understand something...


all this talk about how our fish runs were 100 years ago, and trying to get them back to what they "used to be", well, they overlook, ignore, or just flat out dont think..

the only way to get something to be what it was, is to return it to the state of which is was when it was...

so if you want runs to be what they were in say 1890, you will need to revert everything back to what it was in 1890...

get rid of the cars, the people, the houses, the roads, the boats, the other people in the world that want to eat fish, airplanes, airports, cities, ect...

basically, restoring something to what it was 100 years ago, is impossible, and will never happen..

we have to work with what we have now, and maintain it... the problem is, is that people waited till there was nothing left, to try to maintain it, and thats the problem...

if you wait until the last minute to do something, you likely will lose 90 percent of the time... just look, weve already lost, because we waited too long to do anything about it...

fact is, things will never be what they were 100 years ago, because we are a different world than we were 100 years ago...

If that is the case, I think you are right that steelhead are greatly affected by the ocean, then why are folks constantly telling us that the freshwater habitat is in the toilet?

Is it because by saying so they can control land-use activities while there isn't much that locals can do about the ocean?

WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RUNS OR CONSERVATION SIDE
I HAVE TWO HUGE PROBLEMS WHEN READING THE POSTS ON THIS SITE AND ARGUMENTS THAT FOLLOW THE POSTS-
1. NO ONE EVER BRINGS UP THE FING COMMERCIAL GUYS!
2. NO ONE EVER BRINGS UP THE FING COMMERCIAL GUYS ESPECIALLY THE TWRALERS.

WE HAVE DEPLETED OCEAN STOCKS BY OVER 92 PERCENT.

AND FINALLY FACE IT GENTLEMEN WE ARE SCREWED HERE ON THE PUGET SOUND AND THE COAST IS NEXT

I think we can all agree that there has been lost habitat both in our freshwater and in our marine areas. Why are smolts not making it out of Puget Sound? Once we solve that problem, I think we will be on the road to recovery.

one of the problems could be the fact that the storm drains that come out of Seattle that are under water out in Elliot bay pump out the same amount of oil that the Valdez dumped, every 2 years, continuously..

so if 20+ years later, Prince William is still screwed up from that 1 spill, how can the PS water be good water, when roughly 10 spills of the same size have happened in the last 20 years? its not good water, and is obviously a huge problem that noone addresses..

watch this, and you will see what i am talking about..

http://video.pbs.org/video/1114515379/

Did you know that the main method of sewage disposal in Venice Italy is the current and tides? Now go Google Earth Venice's geography and tell me how well that works. Has anyone here ever smelled Venice? Now Google Earth Puget Sound and break out your multiplication tables.

Infection, disease, phosphates, herbicides, pesticides, oil / gas, habit loss, pharmaceuticals and predation all play a part in the decline, but Geography is the rug that ties the room together. Puget Sound is a cistern that has been cut and hacked to fit our needs, including all of the major lower and upper watersheds. That's why coastal Oregon, Washington, BC and Alaska runs are still healthy. Open Ocean water turn over, lack of major development and all of the nasties that come with it. Outside of Portland, Pugetropolis and Vancouver BC, there ain't bubkiss along coastal PNW for major population centers. It's not that hard to figure out and yes, its too late for PS. By biology standards, Steelhead are the proverbial Canary in the Coal Mine. The poor fish as playing Russian Roulette with an Auto. IMO - just being a realist.

A few million pinks diagree with your assessment. We need to spend some money to evaluate the survival bottlenecks in Puget Sound. Time to put aside the speculations and figure it out, opinions are no substitute for science. There is plenty of money out there for restoration and mitigation. Put some of that toward research.

WN1A -
Nice article; had read it when it came out.

In the article in mentioned that the older/larger groups of steelhead could be more effected by climate changes. Thought you might be interested in what is being seen on the Skagit.

Since the mid-1990s the portion of any steelhead brood year returning as 3-salt fish as compared to the 2-salt has been much lower (maybe 1/2) of that seen during the period from late 1970s into the early 1990s. There has been even a larger drop of in the repeat spawner rate.

The last a couple of return years have seen a age structures typically of what was seen in that earlier period. 55% two-salts and 45% 3-salts and repeat spawner rates of 15% up from less than 5%. A sign that at the Skagit fish are finding better ocean conditions????

Milt Roe -

While I agree that more research needs to be done including in Sound mortalities not sure that poor in sound survival accounts for all or even the majority the poor returns seen in the Sound as a whole. See the information above on the Skagit steelhead age structure changes. Looks to me that the longer the fish are in the ocean the worst they do; would indicate that there are survival issues long after the fish leave the Sound.

Curt

One of the problems in the ocean is that steelhead apparently eat a lot of plastic, which ends up killing them. Fits what Smalma said, the longer they are out there eating plastics.

We could, of course, clean up our act and not dispose of plastics as we do. nah, that's a non-starter.

Smalma, interesting observations about recent Skagit steelhead returns. After some discussions with Kate her thoughts are that age structure is related to ocean conditions. Russian biologists believe that repeat spawner rate is related to relative freshwater productivity and she tends to agree. The recent age structure being similar to that of the 1970s probably doesn't mean they are finding better ocean conditions, more likely poorer conditions and more competition from pinks and hatchery steelhead. Because time of return is in part determined by growth in the salt, in poor growth conditions it might take an extra year for many of the fish to reach the stage of return. The extra year in the ocean also mean higher mortality. In the 1970s steelhead populations were much higher and the fish would have been competing with each other for food so one might expect more 3 salt fish in the return. The dramatic change in ocean conditions in the early 80s and freshwater habitat losses reduced the population of steelhead and at the same time pink and chum populations were lower. It might have been the case that low populations meant less competition for food so that even though ocean conditions were not good a higher portion of the steelhead matured after two years in the salt. In recent years pink populations, particularly Russian pinks, which compete with steelhead have been high. In addition hatchery steelhead which compete with wild fish, at least for the first year in the salt if not longer, are being released at high numbers. The change in the age ratio might mean Skagit fish are finding better ocean conditions but more likely it is the opposite case.

One can make similar arguments about the freshwater life history stages and relative productivity to explain the repeat spawner rates. In both cases to know what is happening requires more ocean research and that is not happening now and probably not for some time in the future.

.

The plastic ocean, it is a problem and steelhead are at risk because they basically feed in the top of the water column where the most plastics is found. It probably kills some of them, nobody is out in the ocean looking for dead steelhead. The bigger problem is exposure to pollutants and the resulting loss of reproductive potential. Plastic particles concentrate all of the persistent organic pollutants on their surface by a factor of 1 to 10 million times over the sea water concentrations. The other part of the story is that as the larger pieces of plastic break up the total volume remains constant but the surface area is always increasing. Styrofoam coolers are one of the worst offenders. Small particles of styrofoam are common in ocean caught steelhead stomachs along with large pieces of other plastics and wads of mono filament line.

There have been a few studies addressing the absorption of pollutants from plastics in fish digestive systems. I don't think anyone has measured the actual pollutant concentration in adult steelhead. I suspect it is similar to that of chinnok salmon if not higher.

The link is to an extended abstract discussing the problem.

Plastic in Steelhead

The couple of long-term data sets I have seen on steelhead age show a couple of interesting things. The R/S increases as total age of the fish (measured only for first-returning fish) decreases. This fits with the observation that the longer they spend in the ocean, the fewer come back.

Age in steelhead is interesting. It appears that freshwater age is primarily controlled by the environment; higher productivity in the stream produces younger smolts. It also, based on Canadian studies, produces more smolts. This makes a two-edged sword that lowers returns; low FW productivity produces fewer and older smolts.

At the same time, salt-water age appears to be primarily controlled by inheritance. This is why practices like breeding the big Skamania summers with each other led to big fish coming back but fewer fish. As I recall, removing the smaller, younger fish from the broodstock led to a program that wasn't self sustaining. Again, older fish, lower R/S.

The above is applied to first returning fish only.

Wn1A, thanks for the link on plastics in steelhead. I think that is a very interesting subject to be aware of. Can you possibly provide some more links to research articles on this topic?
thanks in advance.

As far as I know this is the only research article that addresses plastic ingestion by salmon and steelhead in salt water. The data for this report was collected while examining stomach contents of ocean sampled fish for feeding and bioenergetics studies. I have been told that smolts that are collected in yearly coastal surveys often have plastic in their stomachs but it is not reported. Plastic ingestion has been observed in other species of marine food fish.

Big Fish Eat Plastic

One question that only recently has been addressed; are the pollutants concentrated on and in the plastic absorbed by fish when the plastic is ingested. The answer seems to be yes from the link below.

Plastic Ingestion

Studies that look at pollutants in fish are mos often addressing the danger of eating contaminated fish and not how the fish are harmed. There is a growing concern though of the impacts on reproductive success of fish exposed to pollutants. The link below is to a local example.

Puget Sound

I wonder what the proportion of Pinks, Silvers, Nooks, Reds, Chums, and hatchery Steelhead was back in 1890 vs. today.

5-10% of the wild, if we're lucky, at least in the lower 48, from 1800. By 1890 we had already hammered a number of major populations (Columbia, Sacramento, for example)

Very interesting read WN1A... thank you for sharing.

Plastic!?!?!? great.....another problem to add to the list. What's next? Radioactive flotsam and jetsam?

Well, I suppose we should have known the massive, constantly growing collection of plastic (was the size of Texas last time I read something about it) concentrated in the Pacific gyre might pose problems eventually. It's thought to be a problem for birds, too.

Plastic's incredibly useful stuff, but it doesn't make good food. Unless we find a way to clean it up (and stop adding to it), that stuff will be there for thousands of years and beyond.

Makes sense this could be a big part of the reason the high seas roaming steelhead aren't surviving well.

Short rant

The discussion on the board about PS Steelhead has been the most scientifically informative topic I have read in the last 10 years of PP.

I tip my hat to all that have contributed with data and knowledge of the situation.

Here is what I think we have all learned:
We agree that we all want to see more wild Steelhead in the Puget Sound Systems. We have learned about many aspects of the life of a Steelhead and the problems they encounter in their life cycle. Many have gotten involved with the recovery of wild Steelhead because of the information and passion on this board.

The one thing that I find the most interesting is that none of these discussions would have happened with out HATCHERY STEELHEAD in the Puget Sound.

These fish plant the seed of Steelhead fishing in our upcoming fishermen.

With out local hatchery Steelhead the passionate fishermen may be a dying breed. Steelhead fishing will be for the elite,it will be for the people that can afford to travel great distances and pay for hotels.

The PS watersheds are nothing like what they were in the past, they never will be. We, as humans, have failed in preservation. I find myself looking at our PS rivers and note that in the last 25 years some things have changed for the better.

25 years ago the Tolt was logged to the river bank. Today there are setbacks in place to keep timber companies away from the stream side. Its not perfect but its a start.

25 years ago there were over 40 dairy farms in the Snoqualmie Valley today there are five.

25 years ago there was a dozer that pushed gravel and vegetation out of the lower Tolt River. Today there are trees as old as I am growing on what used to be gravel bars.

25 years ago there were no nature preserves in the Snoqualmie Valley. Today there are over 20.

Things are improving, its slow. If I have learned anything from our disussions its that there are bigger issues creating problems then hatchery fish. In fact these fish keep me passionate about fishing my home river and its wild Steelhead. I hope that the day will come when I can show my son where his grandpa fell in love with wild Steelhead and passed that passion down to me. With out these fish that may never happen in my lifetime.

I am not elite but I prefer wild. I grew up a ham and egger,fishing in chuck Taylor's and cut offs for summer runs , two pairs of pants and as many shirts as you could wear for winter fish and you came home soaked every trip. If I could only fly fish for steelhead the rest of my life knowing my great grand kids could maybe see a wild one I am all in vs a river full of 5 lb clones.

Elite in this case: the people that can afford to travel great distances and pay for hotels

I have a great job, a house payment, a truck payment, 1 kid and another on the way. I cant afford the time to drive to forks every weekend. I'm lucky to go two or three times a winter. I grew up the son of a school teacher and fishing was local, it didn't cost much to roll down to the mouth of the Tolt and catch a couple in the evening.

Personally money is not the issue, time is.

I think your missing the point. Local fisheries are important to the less fortunate.

Hopefully we can work together and create more opportunity rather then fight and have nothing.

+1

The term "elite" does get tossed around loosely here. Local fisheries are very important for steelhead fisherman and new recruits. We cant all afford to travel Out of state every few weeks to cure our addiction. Most of us started out a few miles from home on a local stream with less than 100$ of gear to our disposal. Im assuming the word "elite" is describing the dude with a good car, tank of gas, time, and a 2k spey rod

We all as sportsmen can agree that if we kill off sportfishing opportunity in Puget Sound (and the writing is on the wall, if you can't catch fish that is called NO OPPORTUNITY), then only those with the means to pay to fish the remaining world-class fisheries will see great steelhead fishing. If there is no fishing locally, mine will be the final generation of steelhead fishermen in Puget Sound.

How about blaming some of these backseat fisherman who live in different countries from where their CATCH comes from? You know the ones from Japan and China that send their lousy money our way so we can send them highly valued commodities theirs? They DO have an effect even if they aren't buying Steelhead directly. Backseat, clown, know nothing about something connoisseur's.

To my fellow steelheaders: The recent decision to not plant hatchery smolts in Puget Sound rivers this spring is something we should all be celebrating. We have been planting these rivers for decades and watched both the wild runs and the hatchery runs dwindle. To continue doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is, as they say, the very definition of insanity. Here are some reasons why this is our best shot at ANY kind of steelhead fishery in future years.

The hatcheries are not working. The run size, average fish size and quality of the angling experience are all trending downward. Why else would we call them "brats?" Of course, we adjust as our baseline expectations diminish, but from any kind of objective perspective, Puget Sound hatchery steelhead fisheries are at a low point. It's worth noting here that the actual Chambers Creek steelhead (from which our modern winter hatchery fish were created) has already gone extinct.

Cost: The hatcheries are also expensive, providing one of the lowest returns on investment of any public expenditure. A single hatchery steelhead harvested from the Nooksack River, has, in recent years, cost up to $2,400 to produce. On the Skagit, where it's a little better, the cost per harvested hatchery steelhead has been as high as $900. I can't imagine our non-fishing neighbors feeling very good about subsidizing a few people's recreation at this rate.

Science: Every major, peer-reviewed scientific study in the last decade has shown clearly that the presence of hatchery fish is a powerful detriment to wild fish recovery. When you ask WFC to spend money on "real science" or studies, I would argue the evidence is already there.

Habitat: According to recent surveys, the returns of wild fish are far below the carrying capacity of available spawning and rearing habitat in many Puget Sound rivers. While habitat has been damaged, it isn't the reason we have so few wild fish returning.

Elitism: The desire to recover wild steelhead isn't just an elitist, tree-hugging love of the beauty of wild fish. The fact is, they are our best shot at having any kind of fishery in the future. As hatchery returns trend toward zero, a healthy, sustainable (and free) run of wild steelhead provides recreational opportunities long into the future.

Proof: When Mt. St. Helens errupted, for all intents and purposes, it destroyed the Toutle River habitat with enormous flows of superheated ash and mud. The state abandoned its hatchery plants for this very reason. And yet, within seven years, there were more wild winter steelhead spawning in the Toutle than in any other lower Columbia tributary. As soon as DFW saw this and decided to "help" Mother Nature with renewed hatchery supplementation, the wild population crashed.

Proof: On the Salmon River in Oregon, the wild coho run had dwindled to a handful of returning spawners under decades of heavy hatchery supplementation. When the hatchery program was cancelled, the wild coho rebounded spectacularly (and immediately) coming back 3,500 strong within, I believe, less than four years.

Proof: Before the hatchery program on the Skagit ramped up to the massive plants we see today, the HARVEST of winter steelhead was frequently more than 20,000 fish per year. As the hatchery plants increased, instead of seeing more fish return, the downward spiral began. Today, the thought of harvesting 20,000 winter steelhead from the Skagit is beyond belief--that number represents far more than the total returns of hatchery and wild fish combined. Consider these numbers when you assess the quality of the fishery we have after decades of hatchery "supplementation."

Conclusion: Sure, we can continue to blame ocean conditions and plastic ingestion (neither of which we can do much about in the near term) or lack of freshwater habitat (not true) or pollution in the Sound, or commercial harvest, or tribal gillnets...but it's entirely possible, and even likely, that it's our hatcheries themselves that are causing the lack of fish.

Will we see the mind-blowing recoveries of wild fish like we've witnessed on the Toutle or the Salmon? That I cannot guarantee. But I do know that it's our best shot--and perhaps the only one we can actually control--for strong, healthy Puget Sound steelhead fisheries. Let's stop doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Celebrate the fact that we're on the brink of trying something new, something based on solid science, something that gives us a chance at quality fishing. This should be the best news any steelheader has heard in the last 30 years.

Skookum

The wild fish are pretty expensive also. We are spending 150 million a year on habitat restoration just in Puget Sound. They are not spending that to recover hatchery fish. So how much is that per fish that we don't even fish for? The statewide cost estimates for steelhead and salmon habitat recovery is 5.5 billion dollars from 2010 to 2019.
And I have no issue with the money being spent. I would like them to spend more to restore the habitat. But it may not be enough.

The bottom line is only 20% or less of the smolts leaving Puget Sound make it out. We are losing 80% before they get to the ocean. It is being studied. Look up the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project. Read the reports and they also have video or two.
Nothing will save these steelhead unless we figure this out and ways to mitigate the losses. And it has nothing to do with hatchery fish. It is an in Puget Sound and the Salish Sea issue.

If it costs 1000$ a fish to raise at the hatchery and we then double capacity it cuts the cost per fish nearly in half. If we cut capacity by half it doubles the cost of each hatchery fish. Most hatcheries have been cutting production.

In the years prior to fin clipping hatcheries selected the best looking fish to spawn. This included native steelhead. Catching 12-17 lb hatchery steelhead was common. Fin clipping and the ESA limited the available broodstock and in several fish generations they started showing the results of inbreeding, retarded dwarfs, quite common in the genetics of ALL species of animals when they are inbred generation after generation.

Skookum,

I appreciate your input on the subject. It would be greatly appreciated if you would cite some of these scientific studies you refer to.

Reason being, this is a big complicated issue with potentially huge ramifications for the future of fishing and hatchery practice in Washington. And IMO not only for steelhead. I am trying to educate myself but haven't formed an opinion on it as there are many good anecdotal arguments for and against hatchery fish stocking in our waterways. What stands out to me is that I have yet to see any real objective science to back up any of these arguments.

No snarkiness or sarcasm intended by this post, just honestly trying to understand the issue.

Thanks to all who have weighed in on this important topic.

Why can Oregon do Broodstock hatcheries and Washington can not? The fishermen and women in Oregon are enjoying some great steelhead fishing and it seems to get better each year. Instead of going for the entire rainbow, just prove to sportsmen that going wild will work..........make the Nisqually happen, then maybe ..........What about the broodstock program that [b] WAS WORKING [b] on the Solduck and was supposed to be moved over to the Bogichiel..........I'm tired of paying more for less.

The Sol Duc was working pretty well until they decided to make it a wild gene bank. I believe that WAS the only wild broodstock program in Wa.

Hi All--

Thanks for the great questions and comments. I will try to address them here to the best of my ability, and cite some of the studies (good call, onthewater) that support my thinking along the way:

Pijon: You say of the wild steelhead decline, "it has nothing to do with hatchery fish," and yet, every major, peer-reviewed scientific study of the last 20 years would tend to disagree.

Here are brief summaries of some of them: Hatcheries accelerate decline of salmon and steelhead returns <Kleiss, 2004>. Hatchery fish have a clear negative impact on wild fish populations <Chilcote et al. 2011>. Hatchery smolt releases increase predation on wild smolts <Quinn, 2005> and outcompete wild juveniles for habitat and food, reducing survival rates for both <Nakano 1994, Gotceitas and Godin 1992, Berejikian et all. 1996, McMichael et al. 1999>

The proportion of hatchery fish in a given river, under ALL hatchery scenarios, has a direct, negative correlation with overall reproductive performance of wild steelhead <Chilcote et al. 2011>

BillJr: Increasing hatchery plants doesn't work. Over the last 50 years, we have steadily ramped up hatchery releases only to see steadily diminishing returns and catch rate. But don't just take my word for it:

As hatchery stocking increases, catch decreases over time <McMillan 2012, using data from WDFW and ODFW>

On Chambers Creek itself, the source of most of our winter hatchery steelhead, the state tried to stem an alarming decline in returns with increased smolt releases. This resulted in minimal adult returns, trending toward zero. The program was cancelled in 1997. <Cooper and Johnsson 1992, Elfrich 2007>

A quick glance at graphs of hatchery smolt numbers overlaid on return rates or harvest rates on the Skykomish, Skagit and other Puget Sound rivers clearly demonstrates that the more hatchery fish we put in, the fewer adults--both hatchery and wild--we get back.

NW Panhandler: Sadly, the "great fishing" on broodstock returns appears to be a short-term illusion. Over time, broodstock programs have proven themselves ineffective. A couple of reasons are that hatchery strains (Chambers Creek fish are the perfect example) are selectively bred to succeed in a domestic environment, and wild broodstock juveniles have a difficult time surviving in hatchery ponds. Snyder Creek, on the Sol Duc had an extremely low rate of juvenile survival. Broodstock programs also remove wild fish from the process of natural selection in the wild, where the genetics continue to favor survival in both freshwater and salt.

This has been the subject of many scientific studies, with remarkably similar findings: Broodstock programs do not show better returns over time than standard hatcheries, and in fact, result in the same low reproductive rate. <Chilcote et al. 2011; Beatson et al. 2011; Christie et al. 2011; etc...>

Thanks, guys, for taking the time. As before, I believe the whole not-planting-hatchery-smolts-in-Puget-Sound-this-spring decision is good news for everyone who wants a shot at steelhead fishing in their future and for their kids, and their kids. We should celebrate, and thank the Wild Fish Conservancy for their work. This is good stuff.

Skookum

Skookum, I said that the Salish Sea marine survival issue has nothing to do with hatchery fish. Hatchery or wild, we are losing 80% of smolts before they reach the ocean. That will preclude any recovery regardless of how much habitat restoration is done.

Not to downplay the current results of the acoustic tag studies in PS but what was the measured historic level of in-sound mortality? Not the guessed-at number, not the modeled number, but actual measured number.

Until we have that, all we know is what we are seeing now and have no way to know if that number has changed.

Thanks, Skookum. That's certainly a lot of citations to support a hypothesis that there is a direct correlation between increasing hatchery plants and decreasing adult returns. While I'm convinced that hatchery introgression has a negative impact on wild steelhead, I'm not at all convinced that it's the major factor limiting steelhead returns, in Puget Sound or anywhere else.

If we truly want to see our children and granchildren fish for steelhead, we need to identify the major cause of their decline and address it to the greatest extent possible. It seems to me there's far too much we don't understand to make a decision as rash as eliminating hatchery plants from the Puget Sound region. That will result in full winter closures, and there are plenty of examples to show us that closed fisheries don't get reopened. There are also plenty of examples of how displacing anglers results in dangerous increases in pressure on other, neighboring regions that would also be closed to fishing were it not for their hatchery programs.

If you want us to fish in the future, I think it would be wise to support a more balanced approach; one that allows us to keep fishing, in some capacity, in the present.

Duplicate post...

If I had the numbers bookmarked I would post them.
I think you can find them by reading the publication on this site.
http://www.lltk.org/rebuilding-populations/salish-sea-marine-survival/overview

An easier way to understand it is to watch the video.
http://www.lltk.org/new-video-about-salish-sea-marine-survival-project-pacific-salmon-foundation

And if all else fails, send them an email and just ask.

http://www.lltk.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SSMSP%202-Pager_FINAL_8-19.pdf

The above link has a chart of historic survival of chinook. In the publications there are graphs that break down survival in multiple regions in the northwest and it becomes obvious this is a problem endemic to PS.

There is going to be a temporary solution that I suspect will not make anyone happy...but will be better than no solution.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd - when will the solution be made public?

I do not know...soon. I'm sorry I can't say more but I was let in on the situation in confidence.

Fish on...

Todd

Does it rhyme with "shut-er-down"?

fb

i just read from someone inside the "talks" that they have come to an agreement to only release 250k of the 900k smolts, and they are going into the Snohomish system.. the other 650k smolts that were going to be released in the rest of the rivers, are going to be disposed of...


so why only the Snoho system?

so Kurt Beardslee can still have fishing opportunities, close to his house, as he lives in Duvall?

2016/2017 is going to be a sad couple years for the rest of us... i dont know about you guys, but im not driving 2 and a half hours to fish the Snoho or Sky... i will go to the coast..

thanks WDFW and WFC, for screwing the rest of us anglers, because 1, you werent smart enough to do what was needed, and the WFC for just being stupid tree hugging, decieving, jerks....

thanks alot....

I think what you read on facebook may be a bit premature.

Fish on...

Todd

you know more about the internal cogwork on this situation than i do, so im sorry..

but that actually makes me worry even more...


what really upsets me, is that they just announced a little bit ago, that they would begin releasing Steelhead smolts out of the Voights hatchery again pretty shortly... i would have loved to have a winter stream to fish thats 10 minutes from my house... but that aint happening now..

this whole situation makes me sick, on all sides of the court..


sorry Todd..

It's looking more like 180k released in the Skykomish, all therest put in lakes or destroyed, $45k in legal fees to the WFC, and an agreement to not sue again for 2 years.

I hope WDFW/NOAA-F can get it together, and soon.

Fish on...

Todd

To clarify, this is just for chambers creek releases? Summer runs are unaffected at the moment?

A message board with anonymous posters is maybe the weakest source for information. Unless you get links.

I would welcome any settlement just to get this over with. Lets hear what it is and then complain.

The cost to produce the fish is about $1 each.

If your calculation to determine $2400 is based upon the number of adult fish returning that are harvested only by anglers, then this number might be true, if you didn't account for hatchery escapement and tribally harvested fish. I would wager that the amount of money spent by all anglers targeting these fish is much higher than the cost estimate, even by your standards.

Honestly I can't think of many government services that have ROI, so I have to question why you bring ROI up in the first place.



There are many major peer-reviewed studies which contradict the studies you bring up. "Every study" is a far stretch, even for a WFC employee such as your self.



We've lost 90% of the historic spawning and rearing areas in the Skagit and over 85% in the Nooksack; most PS systems have experienced the same degradation. To make the claim that the habitat is fine makes me want to smack my head on my keyboard. To suggest that everything in the habitat is fine and dandy is nothing more than a cop-out. Everyone who is involved in some way with recovery programs - government or not - understands that habitat is the primary limiting factor. Every WRIA document confirms that habitat condition is the primary limiting factor in every single region.

We know you want hatcheries gone, but don't pretend the habitat quality is fine so you can fulfill your desires. Doing so sends a bad message and it puts habitat protection and improvements in terrible positions.

The habitat is capable of supporting exactly as many natural origin fish reside in it. If carrying capacity is not being met, then the number of natural origin recruits is lacking. This is not a function of introgression, it's a function of poor survival whether its redd scour or juvenile mortality in the salt. I'm not making the case that redd scour is necessarily an issue, but I'm bring it up to show that mortality occurs at every stage of a fishes life.



I'm not very familiar with the Toutle, but looking at various documents on the Toutle, I have to question your assessment. For starters, escapement data was lacking. Second, there appears to be no differentiation between hatchery and natural fish in what surveys did occur. Third, what decent returns may have been experienced also occurred elsewhere.

Correlation does not equal causation.



Ahh, the famous "oregon coho" argument. It's easy to point blame at the hatcheries, but there are some facts which you and others prefer to ignore: a 90% reduction in marine harvest of those very stocks and greatly improved ocean conditions. Don't you think that a 90% reduction in harvest would vastly improve population size alone?

Again, correlation does not equal causation, but many in your camp seem intent on extrapolating far beyond reason. It's very easy to make extravagant correlations with fisheries data especially when only 2 or 3 sets of sequential data exist.



I think your figures are on the high side, but 12,000 harvested fish at the peak certainly wasn't responsible.

Do you think that exorbitant harvest may have played a role in decreasing performance of the natural population? Part of me says yes.

What was it that I said before... oh yeah -- correlation does not equal causation. Other populations in the Skagit followed a similar path as natural steelhead. Is that to say that hatchery steelhead caused the decline of chum and coho? Or, can we conclude that detrimental factors affected all populations similarly?



OK, let's keep trashing the environment. Let's shut down hatcheries and see what happens. You might as well just say "let's keep shitting on the environment and everything will be fine, because it's just the hatchery fish causing problems."

I'm seeing a really fascinating paradigm shift occurring lately. The people who would typically consider themselves environmentalist but want hatcheries gone are saying environmental conditions are fine, it's just the hatcheries suppressing recovery. Other the other hand, the rednecks who supported hatchery production all along because they want to whack and stack fish are coming around and saying we need hatcheries until we restore habitat because the habitat sucks. This assessment is of course not intended offense against pro-habitat rednecks.

A little bird told me the legal fees will be paid with fishing license fee funds.

Of course it will be paid by us. Its the government. They ain't cuttin' their own pay to cover.

I am not a habitat restoring redneck, but I am willing to learn. I am really starting to like rednecks. It will be interesting when they do end up closing some hatcheries or eliminating plants in PS and the fish don't respond.

What will be the excuse?

If we can't fish in Puget Sound, who would care if they took the 150 million they spend on habitat in PS and send it to the columbia basin. Not the fisherman, cause there won't be any.

When I put on my tinfoil hat, I see peta in the behind the curtain here.

I find that aspect of this situation fascinating as well. Seeing the "rednecks who supported hatchery production all along because they want to whack and stack fish", as you put it, ideologically aligned with the tribes is odd.

I look forward to the state getting THEIR legal fees paid one day.

Okay, this is an honest question: How many of you consider the current state of winter steelhead fishing on Puget Sound rivers a "quality experience?"

I'm serious, because the answer to this question would explain a lot. To me, what we have today is a poor excuse for steelhead fishing--the run size, the compressed timing, the speed at which Chambers Creek fish rush to the hatchery outlet holes, the average size and condition of the fish themselves...all a tiny shadow of what they could and should be.

And it's not like we can just hang onto what we have, which is what it appears many on this board would like to do. The hatchery returns are trending toward zero. Rivers are frequently closed just to get the few fish they need for hatchery spawning. The original run of Chambers Creek is extinct. The more smolts we release, the fewer adults--hatchery and wild--we get back. If we stick with what we're doing, we'll be expecting a different outcome right up until there's no Puget Sound winter steelhead at all.

TastySalmon: The cost cited for N. Fork Nooksack hatchery winter steelhead is a "per harvested adult" cost based on simple math and the WDFW's own information.

I am not a WFC employee, but rather, a lifelong steelheader who is fed up with the current state of our fisheries. If you have "many peer-reviewed studies which contradict" the studies I cited, please list them here. I would love to see them.

I never, ever said "habitat is fine and dandy," and I am not copping out. I merely stated that we are below carrying capacity already on many of the rivers from a habitat standpoint, so that isn't the limiting factor.

I do not "want hatcheries gone" out of principle, I have just read through the science and understand that there's a good chance they are the primary cause of our declining fisheries. What I want is good steelhead fishing.

Anyway, I will stop trying to refute your arguments one by one here...I look forward to your response and the citing of contradictory studies. Again, my only agenda is to regain quality steelhead fishing opportunities in the near and longterm future. I am willing to "risk" the current state of fishing to help ensure that my kids and theirs have a chance at quality, self-sustaining fisheries in the future.

Skookum

I have been ideologically aligned with the tribes for about 30 years. Soon as I met some of my fishing counterparts.

And my support of the tribes gets reinforced everyday as I study restoration projects and out of the box thinking to restore salmon to places where they haven't been in decades. It is always the tribes directly involved or entirely in charge of these projects.

And since the WDFW has had such severe budget cuts, it has been the tribes that have stepped up and written checks to keep programs afloat. But we never hear about these things on the news. Nor do they get coverage in sportmans magazines.

Its easy to understand. For the tribes, the salmon are religion. For the state, its just a job.

no way in hell are hatcheries the prime reason wild Steelhead populations are in decline...

even the WFC themselves, on their own page, states that "habitat loss, over harvest, predation" ect are all factors in wild Steelhead decline..

the WFC chose to go the easy route, and just sue the WDFW for being idiots like they sometimes, if not usually are, and have accomplished NOTHING...

the Natives also plant Steelhead out of their hatcheries, why didnt they sue them?

because the Natives would mop the floor with them, and probably run them out of everything they are trying to do...

going after 1 thing, will do nothing.. you have to address all aspects of the challenge, to fulfill it... and if you dont like traveling say 10-20 minutes from your house, to enjoy fishing, being in the open air and woods, and just being away from the bullsh!t, well, your wish has been granted.... once they close, they will never open again, not in my life, your life, your kids life, or maybe even beyond that...

they killed Steelhead fishing on the Cedar YEARS ago, my dad liked to fish it in the 70s, and said it used to be a decent to good river.. yet it hasnt been open, hasnt been netted, and wheres it at?

the same place it was when they closed it...

this isnt the answer, this is another kink in the chain to do what people want to happen, and thats to see better fishing opportunities, and fish returning...

for now, we have lost...

The economy doesn't rely on steelhead fishing in pugetropolis. Go to any small town on a productive steelhead river(outside WA) and see hotels, diners, tackle shops full. Nobody gives two sh**ts about steelhead in suburbia because they have no economic value. The Sky and Skagit valley 30yrs ago things were a lot different. Most of the hardcore steelheaders have moved on from these places because the writing was on the wall a decade ago. The hatchery runs and fish are an absolute joke, I hope they stop planting all chambers fish. When it shuts down, it will be for good; like the cedar, Nisqually, etc.. Humpy fisherman we are

The ceder is open to catch and release only. And it has become a problem with poaching. And someone if they were a real low life, they could file their own lawsuit and close it to catch and release citing sections of the ESA.
This is going to be a race to zero. Zero fishing, zero catch and release fishing, especially over wild stocks.

The whole thing is just foolish. We are going to do peta's job for them.

Here is a study about chinook and coho recolonizing newly open water above Landsburg. It only one study on one body of water. They allowed the hatchery strays to spawn with the wild fish. This was done by city of Seattle with multiple partners. They have no dog in this fight.
This is the powerpoint presentation.

http://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/SalmonConference/presentations/WednesdayAMAnderson.pdf
Overall, allowing the hatchery females to spawn in 2003 - 2005 more
than doubled (2.7x) the total number of second generation recruits

The actual paper is Anderson et al 2012

Maybe the most important thing here is this is a very small population of fish and the wild males outnumbered the hatchery males about 3 to 1 and all males outnumbered the females about the same margin.

So a male chinook swam up the river to spawn and the only females left were those scrawny hatchery females. Sort of like you on a bar after last call.

the Cedar is open a couple months during the summer for trout fishing... there are maybe 1 or 2 Steelhead in that river during that time if any at all... it closes at the end of August like it has since it was opened back up...

yeah, poaching is an issue, but it is everywhere else as well, even when its open, but yes its still a problem...

see how trying to eliminate 1 thing, doesnt fix the problem?

According to the biologists, the rainbow trout in the cedar river are genetically identical to the steelhead. They just don't migrate to the salt. That population collapsed a few years after it was closed. I think they have given up on the steelhead in the cedar. A couple redds and less than half a dozen fish counted and its pretty much over.

And until the Puget Sound Steelhead plan is done in a few years, there is no funds or direction to do anything.

the rainbow trout in every river are genetically identical to steelhead.. one is anadromous the other is resident.. same DNA, same genetics, same habitat, just one leaves...

drive down Maple Valley Hwy at 6am on a nice December/January morning, just on the left side, pay attention, well before and close to when you get past the tressel near the Texaco... the WDFW could write 10-20 tickets right in that area... then theres Landsburg...

If I see anyone fishing the river in the winter I will be calling WDFW. This is a river where someone may actually catch the last migrating steelhead if they haven't already. Pretty sad.

"Okay, this is an honest question: How many of you consider the current state of winter steelhead fishing on Puget Sound rivers a "quality experience?" " -Skookum

I do.

I have fished both wild and hatchery fish my entire life in the Snoqualmie System. In my mind the experience of hatchery Steelhead fishing is a totally different experience then fishing wild Steelhead.

Hatchery fish are small, yes, but who cares, so are summer run. The December fishing on the Snoqualmie provides a quality fishery that's local. I average roughly five fish-on per trip in December and if I'm lucky I will land and keep three or four. Not a bad day in my book. The experience is still fun. The river is pristine, the fish fight good for six pounders and I get to go when ever time allows. The alternative is not fishing.

When the wild fish were available, I would shift gears and get into catch and release mode. I would fish different sections of the river, and use different tactics. In fact it was like having two different seasons and two different sets of expectations.

So for me, the hatchery experience is excellent.

Skookum, why are you hiding your name and affiliation?

I wont hide mine.

My name is Ray Gombiski and I enjoy catching hatchery Steelhead.

Hi All,

No good news on the lawsuit with WFC and the WDFW. There was a negotiated agreement earlier today that
700,000 steelhead smolt will be released into the lakes and about 250,000 smolt will be released into the Snohomish river system.
The WFC also agreed to defer any further legal action on the lawsuit filed April 1,2014 for two years. WDFW will also pay the legal fees incurred by WFC.

It will be very interesting to see what WDFW does with the fish. They have to go in lakes with no outlets, otherwise they will leave. They will also, if they were reared at all on surface water, have to go into lakes in the Fish Health Management Zone as the hatchery. Which could mean that the Nooksack fish stay in that watershed, the Skagit there, etc. Any deviations from the disease policy will require Tribal concurrence. As I recall, too, that any tribe can oppose, not just the local one(s).

More fun and games.