There's always a different way to look at the data. What I see is that the mixed stock saltwater fishery from both the Commercials (including Indians and charters) and sports fishermen has a pretty significant impact. What makes it tough is that I'm definitely of the belief that hatchery fish must die. Seeing that the hatchery fish came back strongly does not necessarily mean that the wild fish came back strongly. Although just as likely it does mean that they came back in good numbers. If that's the case, I would gladly trade the mixed stock saltwater fishery for more fish on the beds. The fundamental conundrum of Maximum Sustained Harvest versus Maximum Sustained Yield.

not to many folks will disagree with putting fish on the beds. but I think I would rather fish the salt in solitude in July and August than fish the spawning beds in October and November... yuk!

Myself, and I think many others would like to have the opportunity to do both!

What we CAN'T do is have 10's of thousands of surplus hatchery fish coming back to our hatcheries.

"Fish on the beds" is one thing, we would all like wild fish to hit the gravel, but if we do not show an ability to harvest our hatchery fish (surpluses) NMFS will pull our permits to release them. Plain and simple. Then we're ALL fvcked!

Not that simple. You are correct if those surplus fish end up on the spawning grounds, competing with wild salmon. That's not good. But there are a number of management actions that attempt to minimize that risk. If the fish managers can reduce the risk, either in time or space, the impacts to wild salmon can be reduced to acceptable levels.

The number of strays is proportional to the number of returns. If you have a heavy surplus you can assume a higher proportion of straying.

Perhaps but if the hatchery serves as a dead-end where no fish can get upstream of the hatchery, and there is no spawning habitat downstream, there are no impacts to wild fish regardless of the number of surplus adults. Many of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hatcheries in the Columbia Basin are like this (Little White Salmon, Spring Creek, etc). And some of the WDFW hatcheries have a barrier dam upstream, and virtually no habitat downstream. Again, the impact to wild fish from excess spawners is minor .

That's flawed logic. Escapements are only one consideration for our hatchery fish as well... if we send them out they are actively competing with wild fish in estuary/marine/offshore environements. More survivors = more competition, again it's directly related. If we don't show a proficiency in harvesting the fish we are asking to be put out, they will pull the permits to do so. NMFS has made this pretty clear in the past.

The concept that you can harvest hatchery escapements down to their minimum number is misguided. If the hatchery has a weir to stop the returning adults then the hatchery escapement will mirror the natural one. Take GH and it has always been managed for wild ( the Hump being the exception and no weir ) and that results in large hatchery returns. Point is the fish are not wasted they are the in river fishers opportunity. The word surplus is usually used to describe the number above the minimum 5% hatchery return needed by mixed stock fishers in estuary or similar fisheries in the salt and commercial fishers. Surplus is a hatchery term around eggtake requirements that gets hijacked by those trying to propel a harvest expansion not a biological rational.

Does anyone know what the thinking is at the Tumwater falls hatchery? The hatchery shows over 11,000 surplus with only 200 released. The falls themselves are said to be a natural barrier, with no fish being able to get above it. There were rumors that some might make it back during an extreme flood, but the fact that no wild fish make it back to the ladder would seem to point this to being a non-factor. That said, only 200 fish were released above the dam. The state does open it up for harvest, so, again, native fish are not deemed to be an issue. So, what harm could there be in releasing all of the surplus upstream. They are not table fare, but what if they did start to spawn naturally. I have seen these fish before they enter the hatchery and have yet to see one that would be worth eating, so unless they are selling the eggs for a profit, they might as well let them go rather than having to dispose of them elsewhere.

Most revenue from E&C sales go to the volunteer programs to be put to use working on the resource by the local communities. The E&C contract to the buyer is in the round bulk but facilities operated by volunteers can go outside the contract to generate a better $ value but it goes back into the resource also.

There is the risk that if Chinook are passed upstream at Tumwater Falls that they would establish a "wild" run. The Squaxins were (at least a decade or two ago) afraid that if there was a wild run of Chinook in the Deschutes that NOAA would want them listed and this would constrain the fishery for the hatchery Chinook. A few Chinook used to be passed up to provide a sport fishery. I think all the coho, even though they are an exotic invasive in the Deschutes, are passed upstream. For some undetermined reason, that run has crashed along with most deep South Sound fish that have yearling or older smolts.

So, you cant tell me there was no way to determine the large Coho returns returning to Washington based on what was being caught by the Canadians along the outside of Vancouver Island and along the Straights of Juan De Fuca during their Commercial troll fisheries and Sport caught fish with coded wire tags in their heads. It was a shame we got shut down. American sport boats were fishing out of Neah Bay and Sekiu in Canadian waters and returning home with tons of fish and no one was there checking their catch either, because of the current science WDFW was using.

The Canadian fishery would have been sampled and read by them. Obviously, there are agreements in place not to do that kind, or any kind, of in season analysis as we need to have auto-pilot fisheries.

Agreed. IMO, sports angling should not have been shut down. We hope for a better outcome to regulations on the season but will purchase 2017 Canadian licences again and fill our freezer with Washington clipped salmon if need be...
[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTENgSaeIY[/video]

I saw a few poached salmon off the beach this year... only saw one for sure in a boat but a few questionables... if we get shut down again this coming year, there will be some serious poaching going on...

The possibility of listing anything in the deschutes, I think was settled a while back. Somebody threatened to hold up the new fish ladder or some other hatchery upgrade, and the state responded that if it was an issue, they would just remove the ladder and shut down the hatchery. This would effectively stop any wild fish that were returning from getting up stream. If they need the ladder, it can effectively be proven that the run is artificial. They may not even have to shut down the hatchery, just refuse to pass anything through. If they make it good, if not, oh well. If that really is the reason for not putting fish through, then somebody needs to get a brain.

Those fish above Sunset Falls didn't swim there and they (Chinook, steelhead, Bull trout) are all ESA listed.

The fear was that NOAA would consider them listable. There was big pissing match when WDFW tried to see IF those Chinook could successfully spawn in the wild. As I recall, and the study (as almost all are) was cut short, it was not demonstratable that the unmarked adults that did come back were from the wild. The number fit easily under the category "drops"; unmarked hatchery fish.

Regarding the Deschutes, I think NMFS sometimes holds out hope for the improbably, if not the impossible. Last I heard, no returning unmarked Chinook could be said to be an NOR from Deschutes natural spawners. I'm not sure why. WDFW has passed thousands of Chinook upstream over the decades, so if Green River hatchery Chinook, via George Adams, were capable of establishing a natural run in the Deschutes River, they should have done so, but didn't. Maybe it's because there was always a greater infusion of HORs than NORs in every brood year, but I don't think so.

KInda' like the Nisqually, where endemic natural stock Chinook were extirpated by the 1960s, those Green River fish just won't establish natural populations every place they are stocked. Even in the Skok, where a NMFS bio first told me that many of the NF spawners were NORs, it later turned out, they are almost entirely HOR strays.

Getting back to the proposed Deschutes hatchery, the idea is well over 20 years old. It was originally planned to produce Chinook and steelhead. It was a marginal idea then. Based on what we know now, I think it's a complete waste of money. But the money from the Legislature has finally begun to trickle in. If WDFW tells the Legislature that what used to seem like a good idea is now a bad idea, the money goes away.

The number one rule of government bureaucracy is "grow the empire." You never pass up money. So WDFW will accept the money and build a hatchery that will not significantly increase Chinook salmon harvest for any WA fishery. And certainly zero steelhead. How is this a good use of $25 million taxpayer dollars?

The reality appears to be that the Deschutes is a decent resident and sea-run cutthroat fishery, that has existed since time immemorial. Salmon and steelhead just aren't on the menu, and people, especially people in WDFW, look to be having a hard time accepting that.

Sg

The resident cutties existed from time immemorial. The sea-runs from after the ladder was built. With all the hoo-ha about restoring the Deschutes estuary I'd like to see them do it right. Restore the estuary, remove the ladder, and fill in the Black Lake ditch so that Black Lake stays in the Chahalis.