I am a long time angler and advocate of healthy Wild Steelhead populations, but the die hard wild fish advocates' science regarding hatchery vs. wild is in conflict with their own argument in regards to the Skagit rebound. Supposedly, hatchery fish dilute the gene pool. The Skagit River has seen hatchery steelhead planted for many, many decades, just like other watersheds like the Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Green, Puyallup and Nisqually. Regardless of species, you cannot take a population that are effected by a diluted gene pool and rebuild them in 5-8 years. So if the Skagit has made a historic rebound with native populations with the argument that it is because of a lack of hatchery influence, then why are ALL watersheds deeper into Puget Sound not seeing the same results? The answer is that our other watersheds have deeper issues than just hatchery influence, mainly in-river habitat and poor juvenile survival in urbanized estuaries and beaches where they feed. I am not a biologist, but I have been following the issue for a while, it doesn't take a genius to see this as a ploy for Wild Fish Advocates to use every opportunity to bash our hatchery system without being honest with the public.

Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed

Andrew I appreciate your concerns but you really can’t compare the Skagit system with rivers located further south into Puget Sound….apples and oranges. In the article you linked from the Herald WDFW is mandated to establish at least one “gene bank” in each of three zones. I think the Skagit would be a great candidate. We are talking mostly about segregated winter (Chambers) steelhead programs and I’m sure you are aware of how dismal the winter program is on the Skagit as far as smolt/recruits ratios go. Historically it seems the more hatchery smolts released at Marblemount th fewer hatchery adults returned with a corresponding downward trend in the wild steelhead population. Since 2008, I think, they have cut back the number smolts planted and since we have seen the wild population increase. Is the current increasing wild population due JUST because of fewer hatchery plants, probably not but why not continue monitoring this aspect. If I’m not mistaken, due to the current lawsuit from WFC, they won’t be able to plant steelhead in the Skagit anyway for 12 years and seeing how it is a dismal program anyway…..why not set the Skagit aside for wild fish only. Then maybe (hopefully) they can monitor how the wild fish respond maybe compared to the nearby Snohomish which has lots of hatchery fish and a similar escapement of wild fish. Then maybe we can see who’s right.

As you indicated, just because there may be a statistical correlation does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. I believe I read that there has been a similar small rebound to Nisqually wild fish and there has been no EWSH plants there - at least for many, many years if at all.

Recent increases in wild stock returns could just as well be solely due to improved conditions yielding lower mortality.

Not sure that the Snohomish system is comparable to the Skagit so as to be
able to make valid conclusions.

As always I would like to ask the question: Does anybody have an in-basin genetic analysis for each of these systems?

If so where can we see it?

To my knowledge the Skagit system is the only system with a recent genetic analysis, and correct me if I am wrong, it showed less then 5% cross breeding of chambers creek & wild fish.

I WANT TO SEE THE SCIENCE FROM EACH BASIN TO PROVE HATCHERY CONTAMINATION BEFORE WE KEEP KILLING HATCHERY PROGRAMS!

Most of the WFC and American Rivers argument is based on summer hatchery programs from Non-Puget Sound streams. I'm no biologist but it seems to me that management based on speculation is not science, its guesswork.

Chambers fish come in during December and are timed to spawn by the end of February. Steelhead fry spawned in February in these streams face an almost impossible battle of survival. Between the lack of feed and the high water events in Feb & March it is near impossible for fry survival.

This is the reason for the wild fish timing of their spawing cycle in late April, May & early June.

John McMillan evaporates his credibility when stating it is believed (by whom, besides him?) that the Skagit wild steelhead have "rebounded" due to the reduction in the number of hatchery steelhead stocked since 2008.

It's hard to know where to begin with this, especially if I don't want to go on for 20 or 30 pages. Let's start with the fact that the Skagit has been stocked with millions upon millions of hatchery steelhead smolts since the 1950s. If hatchery steelhead were as bad for wild fish as claimed by WFC, there would be few or no wild fish left. However, wild steelhead abundance appears to have held its own through the 1960s, but over-fishing from the combination of high recreational harvest in the late 1960s AND treaty tribal harvest beginning in 1974 caused the low abundance of wild steelhead spawners documented in the late 1970s. Conservation measures for both the recreational and tribal fisheries led to an actual, true, rebound of increased wild steelhead abundance in the 1980s, admittedly aided by years of good marine survival. With harvest by both the recreational and treaty fisheries under control, the reduced abundance that began in the early 1990s can only be rationally attributed to a period of lower marine survival.

If one examines the period of record of good data for harvest and escapement (1977 - to the present) it becomes apparent that Skagit steelhead have not really declined, but rather their abundance rises and falls with variations in marine survival. To say that Skagit steelhead have suddenly rebounded is either B.S., or just plain silly. They have not rebounded. The last two or three years have experienced about average run sizes for the recent period of record.

The low point return of 2,500 in 2009 is no more due to negative hatchery influence than is the high point return of 16,000 in 1988 due to "positive" hatchery influence. McMillan's conclusion is only supported by selectively cherry picking data points and by ignoring the rest of the available information. That's irresponsible fish biology and analysis in my book.

I've never claimed that hatchery steelhead are good for wild steelhead abundance. Eliminating hatchery steelhead will probably have a positive effect on wild steelhead. However, the measure of that positive effect, based on what evidence I have examined to date, is likely to be too small for you or I to count. The abundance of wild steelhead in the Skagit is controlled by factors that have so much greater effect than that of the hatchery steelhead component, the hatchery effect attenuates to background noise. Yet it becomes the basis for lawsuits and major shifts in management that carry significant social and economic impacts.

Most everyone here knows I like wild steelhead. And that I like to fly fish for them on the Skagit River in particular. And that I would support actions that will actually produce a positive benefit for wild Skagit steelhead. All this chasing of the hatchery steelhead issue around is just crazy [Bleeeeep!] man. Not to mention that it distracts attention from things that could make a difference.

Sg

Well said, SG...

Hatchery steelhead do not fit WFC's ideology of steelhead or steelhead fishing. If they(hatchery steel) smashed a skated dry with consistency and were managed for cnr we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Back in the day when marine conditions were favorable it was common to have seasons when the native and hatchery runs fished great. When marine conditions fell off, so did the native and hatchery populations. To what degree the hatchery fish are dragging down the native populations has got to be minimal at best and thats what needs to be figured out, so every river system can be managed on a case by case basis...

Or, if you don't look at the issue with WFC blinders on, you'd understand that the two situations you speak of are entirely unrelated. When you factor for a decline in freshwater habitat quality and quantity, abysmal early marine survival, incomplete or insufficient data, and continued human population growth over the same years, the picture gets painted with lots of pretty colors.

Edit: And the increase in hatchery production in response to gradually declining survival rates.



Others were too nice in their response about this comment. I say your reasoning on this is may be improved if you engage the statistical services of an intoxicated mentally handicapped orangutan. No one in their right mind would draw population dynamic conclusions from 3 years of available (and highly limited) data. I don't even think WFC would stoop to this level, but then again, they seem to make all of their arguments using highly unrelated correlations.

Tastless you didn't finish my quote....

Since 2008, I think, they have cut back the number smolts planted and since we have seen the wild population increase. Is the current increasing wild population due JUST because of fewer hatchery plants, probably not but why not continue monitoring this aspect.

See the "probably not" in there dip [Bleeeeep!]....

Why not make the Skagit hatchery steelhead free and study this issue? You know like get some real data? I'd be happy that the data would show there is no significant relationship.

Oh and Steve are you sure you are not confusing John McMillian with his father Bill?

The Everett Herald seems to have a problem with reaching out to the range of stakeholders on natural resources topics. At least in this instance their one-sided OPINION is identified as just that. But it still carries weight with the general public. One would reasonably expect that the Herald would interview and quote representatives from both sides of an issue and then wade in with their opinion. This most recent product smacks of having an opinion then searching out and quoting only folks supporting their position.

You may recall the Feb 2013 "news" article written shortly after the WDFW Commission passed its new shrimp policy wherein the Herald's writer interviewed one of the impacted non-tribal commercial shrimpers as well as his Farmers Markets customers bemoaning the impact of the new policy. Not one recreational shrimper was interviewed or quoted nor was the Commission. When recreational shrimpers responded strongly to the one-sided article the Herald did not offer up a follow-on piece nor did their staff writer accept any of the offers to have her actually go along on a recreational shrimping outing.

FYI - here is the Herald's Editorial Board:

• Jon Bauer, Opinion Editor: jbauer@heraldnet.com

• Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer: cmacpherson@heraldnet.com

• Neal Pattison, Executive Editor: npattison@heraldnet.com

• Josh O'Connor, Publisher: joconnor@heraldnet.com

Breezer - the increase of Skagit wilds was an improvement of spawning grounds as the sediment from the 2003 flood got washed out. Not the reduction of hatchery plants.

Thanks bk, I'm sure that is ANOTHER reason......

Breezer -
To expand a bit on bk's post following the fall of 2003 major flood (highest in the data base) there was an incredible amount of fine material in the Whitechuck, Suiattle, Sauk below the Whitechuck and the Skagit downstream of the Sauk. The river channel was literally buried in feet of sand. Not only did that sedimentation impact the eggs in the spring of 2004 but also those impacts continued through 2008. The eggs from the spawning steelhead in each of those spring emerged from the gravel approximately a month earlier (due to the low oxygen level/intra gravel flows). That early emergence comes at a significant survival cost of the newly emerging fry. It was not until the summer of 2009 that I saw a more normal fry emerging timing. So hardly surprised that there was significant jump in wild steelhead returns in 2013.


Another management change that occurred at about the same time was the setting aside all the Sauk, most of the Cascade and the upper most Skagit as wild salmonids management zone in 2008. That has resulted in a much more stable and abundance resident component to the o. mykiss population. Those resident rainbows not only provide stability to the steelhead population but also produce some steelhead smolts.

In short the situation is much more complex than just hatchery or no hatchery fish.

Curt

Beezer,

John is quoted in the article, not Bill. And I have a phone message from John asking to talk about it.

Sg

Salmo g.

I had assumed that John M. had been miss-quoted or at the very least isolated quotes were taken out of context. I will be interested to see what he has to say.

If not then TU's wild steelhead initiative has some serious catch upping to do to reach speed on steelhead management issues in this State and at the very least some serious bridge re-building to.

He was correct the Skagit system had a jump start on this "gene bank" idea. Just neglected to mention that jump start was on the Sauk in 2008 and included much more than just eliminating hatchery plants. I believe that those 2008 changes resulted in the largest "gene bank" in the State.

Curt

Smalma,

You're correct. A bit of a "my bad" for jumping on his quote. After getting the phone message from John I began thinking about being quoted in newspaper articles and if I could ever remember any of them being completely accurate. I couldn't. The slightest misquote in an article like that can really tilt its meaning.

I spoke with John, and he was quoted out of context. He was referring to a recent Skagit steelhead stock analysis by Casey Rough where marine survival, freshwater conditions, and hatchery stocking were variables most correlated with wild adult returns, respectively. We're agreed that correlation does not prove causation, however John does believe that the level of hatchery stocking is an important variable affecting wild stock abundance. I remain skeptical with regard to its effects on PS winter steelhead abundance. We also agree that hatchery stocking is the one variable that fish management actually can control, whereas marine and freshwater factors remain out of reach.

The upshot is that John was concerned about my remarks, enough so that we spoke for well over an hour. I'll try to be more careful the next time someone is quoted in a newspaper article.

Sg

C&R and no bait, especially on rivers without or below a natural anadromous barrier. The no fishing regulation should be the absolute last resort, in my opinion, but maybe we are at that point.

"All other trout" would also include cutts and ESA listed Bull Trout.