I ran across this earlier today, looks like they put it out earlier in Jan.

I'm wondering what folks think of this approach for steelhead management, both hatchery and wild?

http://www.wildsteelheaders.org/the-case...in-puget-sound/

I haven't really delved into it, but at first glance it looks like a pretty balanced approach...manage for wild fish where it's appropriate, manage for both where it's appropriate, and stuff rivers with hatchery fish where it's appropriate.

Fish on...

Todd

on the surface it looks good...but i have my doubts. we all see what happened down south, turn hatchery rivers with access(EFL, green) into gene banks, and keep planting the coweeman, which has no access or fish collection facility. kind of seems like some good ol boy landowner has pull within the department.

EFL has no hatchery...NFL is a factory hatchery stream, like the Cowlitz...two rivers that should be pumped up with a few million hatchery fish each.

Fish on...

Todd

For the hill of beans it amounts to, this idea has my full support.

Of their three plans, 2 of them are no different than what is already occurring. The Skagit already has a hatchery moratorium and the Sky Chambers program is the only early winter steelhead program that escaped the WFS lawsuit. It's obvious they're not proposing a massive meat fishery, so what additional benefit for a Skykomish meat fishery would this provide? Given their language about intensive monitoring and alluding to HSRG guidelines, I don't think there would be expansion of the hatchery program in any meaningful way.

An integrated program using native broodstock on the Stilly has a few ESA implications, the most significant being indirect impacts via CnR mortality and impacts to natural origin broodstock. It's surprising Mr. McMillan has used some of the language in this proposal, namely that an integrated hatchery program may "rebuild" the natural population. This idea is in direct conflict with what he and others have previously been saying for many years, namely that it would now be acceptable and even expected for hatchery steelhead to spawn with natural fish. His language suggests that lack of spawners is the reason there is a low population abundance, hence the request to boost the population through a hatchery recovery program. Lack of spawners is not the reason the population is low -- it's low because marine survival is poor. Supplementing the program won't do anything other than provide angling opportunity. I'm sure TU understands this, so why are they taking this route?

Although I understand that this proposal is more or less an experiment, the three rivers they have proposed conducting these programs are in the same geographic proximity. How would such programs benefit people in South Sound or Hood Canal?

I don't see much in the way of concessions, even though they specifically state this plan would require concessions from all. No more hatchery fish would be harvested than are now; I only see CnR opportunity, namely on the Skagit. I gather we now at the point where the people involved with suing WDFW over the EWS programs are now going "oh shi*, we can't fish for steelhead anymore."

An interesting idea and it is encouraging to see folks attempting to put together an integrated management approach and think a bit outside of the box.

That said not sure how practical that the portfolio approach would be on north Puget Sound rivers. A successful integrated hatchery (wild brood stock) on most of those rivers would be very difficult; to the point of not being practical. Brood stock, fish culture and management issues on a system like the Stillaguamish would very difficult with the resulting hatchery program being poorly integrated. In addition HSRG guidelines for allowable interactions (for example the portion of hatchery spawners in the natural spawning population) are such that the size of the hatchery program would be so limited as to provide limit fishing opportunities. At the same time the ESA steelhead would remain in jeopardy.

Without a doubt the single best candidate for an segregated hatchery program in the State was the Skagit which of course still remains off the table due to the WFC/WDFW settlement.

Curt

Sounds to me me they are having NW membership problems based on their past philosophies of wild only. I and lots others quit them after 15 yrs of support when they turned away from an opportunity philosophy vs conservation. I communicated back such in all mailings received since. The Cowlitz is a prime example of their support for the wild only goal. The Cowlitz, argued then, should be one of those "hatchery factories", TU rallied against during the last dam re-licensing for Tacoma City Light. Now they want to change? Well thank you very much and FU TU. NIce try and good luck! If I see a REAL concerted effort to change for opportunity you might get my interest back..... NOT! Plenty other LOCAL orgs to spend my $$ and time to support!