My point has always been that the Yakima is a huge watershed minus any steelhead hatchery. After 40 years of any minus sports season. The entire watershed should be chucked full of steelhead. More than "a bit better". As stated above. 40 freaking years and all there is " a bit better"... Makes me just laugh. Not really though.

Brewer,

I don't know how you evaluate what a river should produce, but I think any reasonable estimation process has to consider all the major factors that affect productivity, capacity, and diversity. In order for the Yakima to be chuck full of steelhead two major factors that limit productivity and capacity would have to be removed. First, eliminate use of the Yakima basin as an irrigation water source and restore the water supply and hydrologic cycle to fish production instead of fruit and vegetables. Second, eliminate upstream and downstream passage mortality associated with the four lower Columbia River mainstem dams. Do those things and you would be surprised at the steelhead population response in the Yak.

Sg

And third, significantly increase the number of spawning salmon to way above what manager's currently want.

Continuing to be too many people making demands on the watershed.

Better not click on this link, it might make you as sick as I am...

http://emeraldwateranglers.com/2013/10/15/yakima-steelhead-ponder-this/

awesome link.

still seems a mystery as to why the upper Yakima basin is not being used better by steelhead.


from the link,

"Yakima and many of its tributaries such as Big Creek, Cabin Creek, Teanaway River, and many others should have at least another 6,000-10,000 … even under present conditions. Given the good passage conditions in the Columbia in recent years and the good overall ocean conditions, the Yakima should be having wild steelhead returns of 15,000-20,000."


SG, you catch that? "even under present conditions"

So what exactly is the point you are trying to make Brewer?

That if there were mass hatchery steelhead plants afforded to the Yakima basin that those fish would somehow return in greater numbers than the already adapted stocks of wild steelhead? Or, just plant mass numbers of hatchery fish for angler opportunity?

The link does not say who made this estimate or the methodology used, so it is difficult to respond to these estimates. Further in the note the author suggests potential production of a bunch of different species based on the historical amount of spawning gravel available and says that "I do not have a present estimate we will eventually have for historic Yakima steelhead based on spawning gravel, but I can guarantee it will be well above 100,000."

Really only one thing to say....no one I know in the field thinks that the amount of available spawning gravel controls steelhead production.

The point is very clear. These "wild gene bank rivers" are a joke.

EFLewis is basically a sterile river. Guys fish it knowing it has no hatch fish in anymore. The effort to even hook a wild fish is not happening.

Brewer,

Yes, I read the linked article. As OncyT points out, the estimates presented are questionable at best. Spawning gravel is not the limiting factor for any of the species considered, except possibly sockeye when the gravel area is small and the lake area is large. And there is ample gravel in the historical sockeye spawning tributaries relative to the size of the lakes the juveniles reared.

There is a lot more in those estimates that bear a critical analysis, but it's not worth going into without more habitat information, and not the kind used by the authors of the linked article.

The upshot is that the Yakima is doing pretty well in consideration of the severe limitations imposed by the many storage reservoirs, irrigation diversion dams, and the regulation of river flow to meet irrigation demands, irrespective of fisheries needs. And yes, I'm aware of the changes made around 20 years ago for "flip-flop" to protect spring Chinook redds in the Yakima.

Sg

Your exact point was not clearly stated therefore not understood.

I disagree with your EFL assessment and your choice in referencing the Yakima as being comparable to WGB designated systems on the west side.

your a idiot!

Pot, meet Kettle...

One thing that is probably affecting Yakima steelhead a lot is the summer/fall flow regime. Apparently, if mykiss juveniles are exposed to higher flows of colder water they residualize; become resident rainbows. The irrigation-based flow regime is probably keeping anadromous numbers down because they don't "have" to leave the system.

This is why so called sportsmen will continue sitting on the sidelines watching steelhead go extinct, at the same time the last great rivers are being needlessly engineered into oblivion... Because it's easier for internet fisheries experts to continue doing what they do best, creating further animosity and division by bitching about things they can't do anything about, instead of working constructively with one another towards attainable goals, that yield practical and real solutions.

You ever consider a 12 step program, coupled with some form of psychiatric help Brewer?

[quote=
You ever consider a 12 step program, coupled with some form of psychiatric help Brewer?
[/quote]

12 step programs are for quitters.

as for the psych recommendation, no.


i'm not trying to interfere with anything. I just don't see the gene bank proposal as a future fix. yes my personal opinion is like noses, everyone has one

the Yakima R. example was based as a 40 year example.

Carcassman,

Continuing with your thoughts on the spring flow regime for Brewer's further edification, spring runoff under natural hydrologic conditions begin decreasing after the end of June, when mykill fry begin emerging from the gravel. Irrigation management sustains high flows in July and August for crops, thereby minimizing the hectares available as critical fry colonization habitat (< 1' deep, < 1 fps velocity). Large steelhead and rainbow productivity is impossible in the flow-controlled Yakima and tributaries. Whether resident or anadromous, mykiss reproduction in the basin is associated with tributaries that have the most normative spring and summer streamflows. All those rainbow trout that make the Yakima Washington state's only blue ribbon trout stream, they come from an assortment of small tributary streams. And there are a lot more steelhead spawners in the Naches than the Yakima for this reason.

Getting back to Brewer's allegation that wild steelhead gene bank designations are a joke, I disagree. In each region where WSGBs are designated, streams that have the best extant wild steelhead populations and have the best habitat - looking forward - are the ones being selected. This makes me wonder what criteria Brewer would use to make such designations.

Sg

On the streams chosen for Gene banks, has any study been done to determine the number or percentage of hatchery/wild spawning that takes place. Since introgression seems to be minor after all these years, it would seem this is the biggest issue.

well tell me when anything WDFG has had any success when they've been involved?

I guess a good example would be this. image having a nice car in the beginning (free running wild fish rivers)... then after 60 years of hot rodding, tire roasting, street racing and hundreds of wrecks and tree benders (WDFG).... the car is in now well totaled beyond recognition in the junk yard (now hatchery ruined and decimated rivers) car is pulled from wrecking yard, put into a garage. then wait for wrecked car to now fix itself (GPWF rivers).

just sayen SG

SG did you ever see my pm?

Your right, it would have been great if the department would have taken this initiative 50 years ago, or even 20. I'm sure the sporties would have been much more accepting then....right.

I think the impressive thing is that any of these rivers have a single fish in them, let alone several hundred. If that is not a testimony to their resiliency, I don't know what is.

I'm fine with laying off of them in a few places and I don't particularly care if you are not.