I think the best analogy would be to say that we have been cutting the grass and fertilizing our lawn for years, and now have decided it isn't worth it and are going to stop fertilizing it and let it go back to its natural state. Depending on the damage done, it could take just a few years to never to get back to its original state. We can decide to speed it up by plantings or other methods, or simply sit back and watch. But the damage done and future limitations we place on the property will be the most important factors in whether it gets back to what it was years ago. If we tear down our house, plant trees, keep out people, a forest may eventually reappear.

That said, I think it is interesting to read the synapse by the department that states economics does not factor into the decision, only the welfare of the fish. Then it talks about fact that the hatchery is functionally obsolete and the current BPA funded hatchery on Abernathy Creek. It no where lists concerns of interbreeding be noted on Gray, but does state it happens on the three creeks. So, I want to know what the overall deciding criteria was in choosing the Gray River option was? The Gray/Chinook has an early returning stock, more opportunity (higher stocking numbers) and a more degraded habitat. Current stock is about 72% of Goal. The MAG has less stocking, a later and more interacting hatchery fish, and a less degraded head water. It is at about 71% of goal.

So, again, what was the reason to choose the Gray/Chinook option if it wasn't economical.

"In 2015, a 16-member citizen work group advised against siting a gene bank on the Elochoman and Skamokawa rivers, but did not reach a consensus on a final option. However, about 85 percent of the comments later received from the public supported the Grays/Chinook option", Le Fleur said.


“Those rivers have a number of advantages over the three streams, including a higher abundance of wild steelhead and more spawning habitat,” she said.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1616a/

it's really not so much the deciding factor. it's the pie chart scenario. if WDFG was to stop ALL hatchery production cold turkey persay. the entire state would be in a uproar! (at least I guess it would) WDFG has chosen the "we'll just slowly chip and take from the sportsmen while jacking them on license fees and Columbia river tax fees. license buyers don't know $hit!) which by the way seems very accurate!

in the next 10 years this GB plan will ooze across the state like a terminal cancer. mark brewer's words. just sayen, knowmsayen?

That's really going out on a limb with predictions. I could have predicted this in 2008 when the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission adopted its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan calling for the development of wild stock gene banks across the state. Just sayen.

just so you know this site harbor's many c0ck suckers...

nuff saying. knowmsayen?

Yeah Brewer, got your PM. Haven't made any springer trips yet. Probably not until steelhead season is over.

Sg

your a idiot! Wow.... unbelievable,,,

TROLLED!

I think he was pointing out "your" misspelling of "you're" and how ironic it was, given what you were trying to say....

But hey, that's just a guess.

Salmo

I was referring to late summer/fall flows. The enhanced flow to irrigate or allow salmon to migrate and spawn coupled with cooler water has created conditions more to the liking of a resident mykiss.

A similar mechanism has given rise to the presence of mini-jack salmon. Those are hatchery Chinook salmon smolts that mature to adults, but never leave the Columbia River. They spend their life in the reservoirs behind the dams, and return as mature adults but are only 8 inches long. Not much different than resident rainbows, except they're salmon.

PIT tag data has indicated that mini-jacks are much, much more common than anyone previously realized. They don't often return to the hatcheries because they're too small to go up the fish ladders, so they spawn in the tribs wherever they can, usually with wild fish. They are only found by surveying the spawning grounds with PIT tag detection equipment. Invariably, mini-jacks are hatchery fish.

Do those Chinooks die post spawn as many of the hatchery zeros don't. I heard at the Reno AFS meeting that research is finding wild age-0 Chinook in at least some populations that mature, spawn, live, and do the spawn/die thing the next season.

I've only heard of those that die after spawning, as they would normally. I've never heard of a situation where a Pacific salmon did not die after spawning. If so, that would be a big deal.

Those mini-jacks that cohoangler is referring to are 1+ that are from yearling releases, so that would be consistent with the zero age dying the next year. There are a couple of hatcheries in Puget Sound that can accidentally produce a large number of 0+ jacks (micro-jacks), but in my experience all of them died after spawning.

Do you have a link to the paper about maturing 0+ Chinook in the wild. I am surprised that a natural population could attain the growth rate necessary to bring on maturity as a 0+ in the wild.

I'll see if I can get hold of the reference on the current crop of zeros. I think it may be in California that the recent ones are. The first I read of it was the mid-50s article in Cal Fish and Game. The zeros were able to fertilize eggs and they did again as age-1, when they died.

http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/concr...3e6d368539.html

Read most all of this thread, and still can't figure out if these "Wild Steelhead Gene Banks" are a good thing, or a bad thing.

Could someone explain what is good about this, or bad...and in understandable English?

Also, why the hell does the Concrete City Council have anything to say about it?

Concrete is on the Skagit, why shouldn't they have an opinion?

The sad thing is that the gene bank concept anyway requires wild stock in a landscape that can support said fish. That should mean that the local communities and landowners are also on board with what that means.

Never figured that a city council in a town of 800 would know much about Steelhead genetics.

I've always felt that this type of of decision should be made based on the best science available, and what's best for the fish.

That is a fair question.

WFC court actions leads one to believe that gene banks are the solution as WFC goes full steam ahead with lawsuits to stop hatchery production and this could prove to be a case of jumping the gun.

If hatchery fish aren’t the culprit then getting rid of those annoying hatchery fish would be a self serving strategic move of the minority before the true answer unveils itself.

A better solution would be to wait and see if gene banks are a godsend before jumping off the deep end and finding out that hatchery fish are not the problem that some make it out to be.