Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#978176 - 07/03/17 11:25 PM Steelhead plantings.
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Anyone who wonders why fishing is so cruddy should look at the planting numbers. The Green gets 16000 winter runs and the Puyallup gets none, but the White, which is basically off limits, gets 32,000. The Quillayute system gets 179000 while the sooez (on Makah Reservation) gets 204000. I am not sure why the tribe finds it possible to put out as many as they want but the state keeps finding ways to limit the production. Seems a bit off. I mean really, more fish planted in the Sooez than the Snohomish system, Green, and Puyallup rivers combined. With the die offs in the Cowlitz program, they probably even get more winter runs platted than that system. Getting pretty ridiculous.
This came up because I was wondering about the lack of fish at the barrier dam when I stopped by yesterday. Well, looks like last year on the 7th they had a bout 1200 back and this year on the 3rd they had about 320, with about 89 for the past 5 days. They also have just about half the springers of last years return. Pretty dismal.

I would love to find some fish but I guess I have to settle the almost non-existent opportunity.

Top
#978177 - 07/04/17 04:25 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
Originally Posted By: Krijack


I would love to find some fish but I guess I have to settle the almost non-existent opportunity.


1st June, since 1980, in my fishing a local river for summer run......not a punch on my card, not a take down, so I feel your pain !!!!!!

It can only get better???????
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#978184 - 07/04/17 10:52 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
That White River plant is probably a wild broodstock program being used to aid in recovery of the wild stock there. It was started, if memory serves, in the late 90s.

Top
#978264 - 07/07/17 10:19 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
In addition to its spring Chinook program, the Muckleshoot Tribe has been doing a wild steelhead broodstock program at the White River hatchery for a number of years now. Returns haven't been especially good, consistent with the survivals we observed with the acoustically tagged steelhead smolts from the Nisqually and Skokomish systems this spring.

Top
#978268 - 07/07/17 11:21 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The Puyallups are, or were, heavily involved in the White River Steelhead.

The acoustic tagging data I have seen across species seems to show little difference in downstream survival between hatchery and wild fish of the same species. In fact, hatchery fish will occasionally show higher survivals when they are mass released rather than the volitional migration of wild fish. This would suggest that the losses are predator-based and probably based on (rather) small predator population taking a constant number of fish per day.

Some losses we saw on downstream migration between two traps could be explained energetically by one Great Blue Heron.

Top
#978269 - 07/07/17 11:24 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
jgreen Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 315
Loc: Elma, WA
All i know is I can walk into cook creek or salmon river with my Quinault buddy any day of the week from late November to March and catch steelhead. Why? Because they absolutely stuff them with fish. Cook creek alone gets nearly 400,000 fish planted a year. Thats the answer, not protecting a couple of fish. Stock baby stock. Imagine if the Humptulips, Wynoochee, Satsop and skookumchuck had 300,000+ winter run plants each? It would be a world class destination. 500,000 in the skagit? Sure! Why not? That river could sustain it. The Quinault and Salmon river hatcheries should be the models for our state hatcheries not the envy of the states tributary fisherman.

We need to plug more than one or two rivers. Plain and simple. Spread out the pressure. Soon, everyone will be fishing the OlyPenn. Those rivers are on the way to being just like the "S" I-5 rivers...

Top
#978270 - 07/07/17 11:38 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
There does appear to be a correlation between number of smolts planted and resultant fishery. That's really obvious, plant more get more back.

But, it does seem, coastwide, that you need to put out a couple hundred thousand to have hopes for a reasonable fishery.

May be a number of reasons for this. Overwhelm smelt predators is one. Second is genetic. Plant, say 10,000 smolts (as WDG/WDW/WDF used to do, and you may have the progeny of three females. Poor genetics, few genetic resources maybe.

Look at the successful salmon programs. Who runs one with a plant of 10-20-30K?

This may mean that hatchery steelhead programs will need to be confined to areas where half a million can be planted after collecting the eggs from returning adults there. Take a good-sized facility to accomplish that. And bird netting so the smolts don't "vanish".

Have asked this question of program size to various Pacific Coast Steelhead managers but have gotten no response.

Top
#978274 - 07/07/17 01:04 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: jgreen]
Bent Metal Offline
Carcass

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
Originally Posted By: jgreen
All i know is I can walk into cook creek or salmon river with my Quinault buddy any day of the week from late November to March and catch steelhead. Why? Because they absolutely stuff them with fish. Cook creek alone gets nearly 400,000 fish planted a year. Thats the answer, not protecting a couple of fish. Stock baby stock.


This.....

Before long someone will point out that the Skagit did plant 400+k and got didly back, however I do agree with plant more fish to get fish back. Idaho plants millions and gets tens of thousands back. If they only stocked 500k springer smolts, nobody would be fishing the Big C in spring. Since preserving native winter steelhead genetics is important, I don't know why all these puget sound rivers can't get alot more summer plants and then be selective on where to stock winters.

All boils down to budgets and management.....
_________________________




Top
#978276 - 07/07/17 02:20 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
People make their living coming up with reasons and studies identifying why we can plant a chit ton of steelhead.
If I had my way they would be broke and we would have fishing like Washington once did.

Plant fish morons.

Top
#978287 - 07/07/17 09:39 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
FishDoctor Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 527
Water pollution is killing Puget sound steelhead at a alarming rate. The sound is toxic to steelhead, its a simple fact that few seem to know.
_________________________
FishDoctor

Top
#978288 - 07/07/17 09:50 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: jgreen]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Originally Posted By: jgreen
All i know is I can walk into cook creek or salmon river with my Quinault buddy any day of the week from late November to March and catch steelhead. Why? Because they absolutely stuff them with fish. Cook creek alone gets nearly 400,000 fish planted a year. Thats the answer, not protecting a couple of fish. Stock baby stock. Imagine if the Humptulips, Wynoochee, Satsop and skookumchuck had 300,000+ winter run plants each? It would be a world class destination. 500,000 in the skagit? Sure! Why not? That river could sustain it. The Quinault and Salmon river hatcheries should be the models for our state hatcheries not the envy of the states tributary fisherman.

We need to plug more than one or two rivers. Plain and simple. Spread out the pressure. Soon, everyone will be fishing the OlyPenn. Those rivers are on the way to being just like the "S" I-5 rivers...


And where pray tell do you expect these millions of eggs to magically materialize from?

Pennies from Heaven?
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#978289 - 07/07/17 10:07 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Kind of a circular problem. In order to release a lot of fish you need a shitload of eggs. That requires a lot of adults. To get a lot of adults you need to not kill them in fisheries so you need to manage in-season or have good forecasts. You'll need a large hatchery with clean, cold water to produce the huge yearlings.

It can be done but would take money and commitment. And at the cost of the wild stock in those rivers. But, do you want a reasonable annual fishery or continuous closures??

Top
#978291 - 07/08/17 07:05 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
FishDoctor -
The thing that confuses me is if Puget Sound is toxic to steelhead why is that fish like sea-run cutthroat who smolt at the same size and time as the steelhead are doing relatively well through out Puget Sound?


Are the two living in the same water?

If folks are ever to understand what is happening with the steelhead somehow they will need to parse out how various factors are differently affecting other species that are doing better.

Curt

Top
#978292 - 07/08/17 07:17 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
cobble cruiser Offline
~B-F-D~

Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 2256
It's pretty obvious rivers like the Cowlitz, Quinault, Cook Crk and others that receive massive plants get the huge returns. With that comes the crowds of anglers of course. I do agree it would be nice to designate certain rivers to stock motherloads of smolts in. Spread these locations out evenly throughout the state and thus spread the crowds. Question is, at what rivers expense? Also the point Doc brings up is a good one. One factor with coastal rivers that's glaring is the percentage of return adults is much higher than that of the Puget Sound Rivers.

I know this.... I'm tired of watching rivers shut down everywhere with zip opportunities anywhere within a hundred miles. Central and southern Puget sound are toast and seem to have no chance in Hades with our Microsoft Amazon population explosion. Pollution of the sound and tributaries and estuaries don't seem to be helping and groups like WFC just reap the rewards. When most steelbeaders in the state (and outside, even guides) flock to the Olympic peninsula and love those fish to death, we will soon have nothing and baby huey will stomp his way to the next location effectively ruining it too.

So what's the point? To fish or not to fish? What's important to us and our conscience from an environmental sense? Where do we draw the line of do we just give up and stop fishing so our grandchildren may or may not have an opportunity? Can the Puget Sound recover enough to sustain wild fish popluations? Not looking likely and ya cant bring up how well the Skagits doing because it's north of the healthy demarcation line.

I certainly don't have the answers but I hate watching the the last piece of the pie on the OP get decimated because there is no where else to catch a steelhead in the Puget Sound.


Edited by cobble cruiser (07/08/17 07:22 AM)
_________________________
http://www.wooldridgeboats.com

Top
#978294 - 07/08/17 07:35 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
jgreen Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 315
Loc: Elma, WA
Id start with any river with a dam on it, 400,000 winters right off the bat. I mean really...what are you protecting there.

Pressure isn't a huge deal when there is the fish to sustain it. I guess I'm forgetting one point, the tribes. If we plant more, they get more right? Isn't that how it works?

Top
#978295 - 07/08/17 07:55 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Planting more smolts is only part of the equation!

Just for fun I found 3 rivers (the Quinault on the coast, the Cowlitz on the lower Columbia and the Skagit on Puget Sound) that all received smolt plants of at least 500,000 winter smolts the same year. Just looking at the returns (sport catch plus tribal plus hatchery rack return) two years later (2000/2001)I found the smolt to return survival variety quite a bit.

On the Quinault return rate was 1.9%
On the Cowlitz it was 1.0%
On the Skagit it was 0.4%

Or based on the limited sample at a smolt plant of 500,000 the Cowlitz would get 2.5 times as many fish back as the Skagit and the Quinault would get 4.75 times as many fish back as the Skagit.

Curt

Top
#978296 - 07/08/17 10:34 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
The disparity in smolt to adult return rate illustrated in Smalma's post above is critical in making any decisions about stocking hatchery steelhead. The next logical question is "how much are you willing to pay" for that hatchery steelhead? I haven't looked at costs/smolt in a long time, but it was around $6/pound for many hatcheries in 1992. I don't think it's a stretch to say that cost would be about $10/pound these days. At 6 smolts/pound and a smolt to adult return to the Skagit of 0.4%, it would take 240 pounds, at a cost of $2,400 to return a single adult hatchery steelhead to the Skagit. And of course, the Skagit treaty tribes would be entitled to half the harvestable number. That would increase the cost to well north of $5,000 to put one hatchery steelhead in the recreational angler's creel, since sport fishing is less than 100% efficient.

How much will you pay to catch one hatchery steelhead in Puget Sound?

Top
#978297 - 07/08/17 11:27 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Salmo,
Do you have any idea how that number was derived. I would assume that a budget for a hatchery would be split into items like maintenance, operating equipment, water testing and purification, electricity, staff and feed. In non-government setting, all things would be aimed at the most productive output. Sometime capacity can allow for a double or triple output for a minimum cost of just perhaps feed, while at the same time adding just one more can double the cost. With all the reductions in plantings it would seem that we could be paying more and more per smolt. Knowing the department, they would just lump total out put with total production, and then get an average cost, not separating out expensive or non-productive programs. With all the factors playing into the numbers that can be planted, it is highly unlikely that many are actually functioning at the best and most productive number. A complete audit may be in order to see what best can be done. My gut feeling is that one reason the tribal hatcheries can pump out production like they do is that they are able to isolate costs to the one hatchery and produce output at the most productive number, not one determined by many different factors.

There is so much to consider. Finding out what the major limiting factors to returns is vital. It is possible that the Quinault and Salmon get the higher returns partially by overwhelming the predators. The Makah hatchery is right at the top of the tide water influence, about a mile or two from the ocean. Are the Skagit fish being overwhelmed by predators. Are they finding a lack of feed and not surviving. Or, perhaps the plant size as compared to the river size encourages them to stay in the river longer, exposing them to more predation or pollution. If we don't understand the limiting factors, all else becomes a guessing game that we will likely never be able to solve.


Edited by Krijack (07/08/17 11:35 AM)

Top
#978298 - 07/08/17 11:36 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Salmo g.]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
If you guys are going to use QIN production to compare with WDF&W you need to look into the history of that program Manny put together. It is not at all like WDF&W from brood to rearing. Steelhead are not a good match for hatchery rearing do to it's natural life cycle and habitat use.

Now as to cost benefit ratio it varies so I will not argue with the numbers up but again it varies. Take GH and the best hatchery cost benefit ratio is Summerrun Steelhead by a mile. Additionally with no natural runs zero genetic conflict & high value fishery. WDF&W did here and will oppose / object / stonewall any effort to rearrange the hatchery complex around game fish as they ARE the Department of Fisheries that got saddled with old game ( or ate them alive as a WDG employee described ) and want to do nothing but reduce game fish programs. The one exception is lake plants whose licenses pay a monster portions of their income. WDF&W's has two focuses the ocean fishery and commercial but Rec fishers have terminal, are, and will be a giant pain in the ass to them. Add to that if describing parts of the male anatomy as a agency they have stones the size of a grain of sand when addressing over harvest.


Edited by Rivrguy (07/08/17 11:39 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#978299 - 07/08/17 11:40 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
SG-
Think something is amiss with your math. AT 6 smolts/pound and a cost of $10/pound it would cost $1.67 per smolt. At a 0.4% smolt to adult survival it would take 250 smolts to produce a single adult steelhead. 250 times $1.67 equals a cost of $417.50 per adult.

That may still make economic sense. I see that the 2017 WDFW Hoh river steelhead creel survey it took over 5 angler days to catch a single steelhead.

Curt

Top
#978300 - 07/08/17 11:52 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Rivrguy]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Rivrguy, you are being so charitable. Size of a gain of sand? That'd be Huge. Trump-Class.

Top
#978301 - 07/08/17 02:45 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
There have been many reviews of the advisability of contracting out the production of anadromous smolts. The general conclusion is that programs run by the state have constraints such as stock (each stream with a different stock) that would severely cut into a private's profits. Also, the state has to rear anadromous fish to survive in the wild whereas privates produce fish that are confined their whole life. Now, the privates can do put and take trout as that is little different from a commercial grow and kill operation.

While I know that the Department of Salmon has not treated game fish and gamefish bios very well I am aware of a very nice summer run steelhead program that WDF ran on the Sol Duc. It was under the table, done because it was fun, etc but it was apparently very successful. And then WDG made a fuss and shut it down. There have been some interesting projects carried on at hatcheries by some inventive and inquisitive staff.

Top
#978305 - 07/08/17 05:24 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Smalma,

Thanks for the catch. That figure did seem high, but in my rush I didn't bother to check the math. My bad!

Krijack,

See above. I messed up the math by about a decimal point, ergo, an order of magnitude. Even so, the cost of smolts is high. Where the numbers came from? Harry Senn, former and long time head of WDF hatchery division. When he retired he consulted on hatchery costs, construction, and operation for BPA. The numbers were modified by other consultants to fit different projects as they came up. Basically the cost is the cost, and includes all costs including amortization of hatchery facilities - capital construction, renovation at 30 years, and replacement at 50 years. All utilities, labor, machinery, supplies, and fish feed are part of the cost.

You want to know the real reason some tribes can produce huge numbers of hatchery fish? OPM = other people's money. Tribes get federal dollars under rights protection funding via the BIA, and certain tribes that have enough political horsepower get directed line item appropriations. Admittedly, some tribes also use locally sourced funds, like from bingo halls and casinos to help fund hatchery programs. But the lions share is federal funding.

A potential cost saving is that many PS hatcheries have cut back the number of steelhead smolts raised and planted. So they likely have above average costs/smolt by being under utilized. Increasing production to design capacity would optimize production costs, but then there's that whole ESA limitation thing affecting hatcheries these days.

Rivrguy,

Chum salmon generally pencil out as having the highest cost:benefit ratio. Although coho and Chinook would have better cost:benefit ratios if we include the value of salmon caught in B.C., not to rub salt in a wound or anything.

CM,

Shush about any SD summer runs. Never happened, and if it did, long gone. DL and all.

Sg

Top
#978306 - 07/08/17 06:31 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Yeah, Salmo, long gone. But some folks were pretty happy for a while. And, truly, a unique way to successfully culture steelhead.

Top
#978309 - 07/09/17 08:26 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope



Interesting article I was reading started out below. Amazing how this has not changed.

Managing Salmon for
Ecosystem Needs in the
Pacific Northwest:
Limiting Science Input in
Ecosystem Management—Silos R Us
J. Hal Michael, Jr., Science Outreach Director, Sustainable Fisheries Foundation, 511 Flora Vista Road NE, Olympia, WA

The mindset permeating salmonid management in Washington,
and probably most other fisheries managed worldwide, can be
encapsulated in the last draft of a steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss
management plan that was developed by the state of Washington
and treaty Indian tribes 26 years ago (Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], unpublished data):
A purpose of fisheries management is to ensure achievement
of a desired level of catch. In order to maintain this
level, it is necessary to prevent the capture of a certain
portion of the run, so that these uncaught fish can spawn
and produce fish for future use. An escapement allowance
must be evaluated primarily according to whether it
achieves the catch objective.



Note that fish serve two purposes: catch and production of
catch. No other values or benefits are recognized.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#978312 - 07/09/17 11:48 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Smalma]
FishDoctor Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/05/02
Posts: 527
Originally Posted By: Smalma
FishDoctor -
The thing that confuses me is if Puget Sound is toxic to steelhead why is that fish like sea-run cutthroat who smolt at the same size and time as the steelhead are doing relatively well through out Puget Sound?


Are the two living in the same water?

If folks are ever to understand what is happening with the steelhead somehow they will need to parse out how various factors are differently affecting other species that are doing better.

Curt


Curt,
Its a toxic mix of thousands of chemicals as you know. If indeed cutts are faring better then it would be of some hope that our wastes are not killing everything (yet). There are a lot of possible problems for steelhead in the sound and rivers also as this study outlines and discusses. PCB, Estrogen's and flame retardants are just the tip the iceburg IMO. Steelhead may be exposed to more"hot-spots" in the sound (and rivers) than cutts, or there may be many other reasons for a difference in survival. Bottom line: we need to keep our waters cleaner or face the fact that these fish are going away. The coastal waters are cleaner, and fish dont have the toxins like the sound does. There seems to be a good correlation of survival to adult with water quality IMO. >The closer to the city, the worse it is. Even the Nisqually fish are HOT with PCB's and other toxins.

http://marinesurvivalproject.com/wp-cont...port-FINAL.pdf.

source:
Puget Sound Steelhead Marine Survival: 2013-2015 research findings summary
Puget Sound Steelhead Marine Survival Workgroup December 31, 2015
_________________________
FishDoctor

Top
#978313 - 07/09/17 11:54 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
We do know that coho are significantly more susceptible to stream pollution than are chum. Cutthroat are also seemingly more resilient to poor conditions than other salmonids, at least the coastal. They seem to survive in streams and the sound better.

Too often we seem to believe that a fish is a fish is a fish and if something is bad for one it is bad for all,

Top
#978314 - 07/09/17 01:19 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
5 * General Evo Offline
Lord of the Chums

Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6825
the only thing that killed off the Chum on the upper Puyallup and Carbon systems, was asian demand for the eggs, and the greed of the tribes....
_________________________
BLM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
ANTIFA IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION


Top
#978316 - 07/09/17 02:44 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
ondarvr Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 1882
Loc: Spokane WA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman


Too often we seem to believe that a fish is a fish is a fish and if something is bad for one it is bad for all,


I'm fairly confident nets are bad for all of them.

Top
#978321 - 07/10/17 07:22 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: ondarvr]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
As with all things biological, the answer is yes and no. Back in the 80s, Skagit coho were chronically under escaped. So much so that there was no bay/river fishing for them by netters. It got complicated by the (then) fairly robust chum runs as the incidental catch was pretty high. So, WDF and the Tribes put in something like a 6" or 6.5" minimum mesh requirement on gill nets during the chum fishery.

Coho by catch essentially disappeared. When salmon management ended (WDF conservation control) on 11/30 a 5" minimum was put in place for steelhead harvest. Suddenly, all sorts of coho showed up.

While gill nets are not perfect they can be used in a size-selective manner and significantly reduce by catch if the two species are of reasonably different sizes.

Still, it would need to be enforced and users would need 3 or 4 nets for a year rather tan just one.

Top
#978324 - 07/10/17 01:17 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
You guys base all your junk science on the numbers provided by who?

WDFW?

WDFW.........
The same clowns that couldn't even count the number of fish in a net pen?
The same lame ducks that couldn't figure out where or how the fish disappeared?

Give me a break.

Your numbers are a joke.

Plant fish morons!!!

Top
#978337 - 07/11/17 11:34 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
For those that still cannot grasp the concept.............

PLANT FISH!!!!!!!!!!

Top
#978341 - 07/11/17 01:22 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman

While gill nets are not perfect they can be used in a size-selective manner and significantly reduce by catch if the two species are of reasonably different sizes.

Still, it would need to be enforced and users would need 3 or 4 nets for a year rather tan just one.


Enforcement would be much easier if only 1 group was netting. I go to NOF meetings and listen as the "cowboys" complain about having 2 or 3 sizes of nets and then whether it is gill net or tangle nets, there is another choice...stop netting completely.....
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#978345 - 07/11/17 02:17 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
NickD90 Offline
Shooting Instructor for hire

Registered: 10/26/10
Posts: 7260
Loc: Snohomish, WA
"OUR FISH ARE TURNING GAY!!!!" - Alexjonessupersteelheadvitalityinfowars.com
_________________________
“If the military were fighting for our freedom, they would be storming Capitol Hill”. – FleaFlickr02

Top
#978347 - 07/11/17 02:28 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: DrifterWA]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I get tired of the excuse that it is too expensive for multiple nets, too expensive to enforce, too expensive to monitor, too expensive to manage in-season.

You either do the job, the whole job, or you don't. If the long term survival and productivity of our resources are important, then put the money into it. Do it right. If you don't have the money to do it right close it.

Top
#978354 - 07/11/17 05:22 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Have a question? I have printed WDFW or State Game Dept. harvest reports back to 1983-84. The Steelhead plant numbers didn't start showing up on the reports until 1988-89. Anyone know where to find those plant numbers previous to 1988-89? The Green used to be hot for Summerun on the openers Memorial Day weekend and the change in June in the early 80's. I'm curious what kind of numbers it took to produce the catches then? Icy creek was on fire on the opener w/ a bunch stacked in there, w/ fish scattered all through the Gorge.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#978355 - 07/11/17 05:29 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The R4 office should have that. The Area Bio should have it. I thought the plant numbers were reported with the catch data earlier than the 80s. WDG used to have a rearing pond complex in the Upper Green. I forget the name. Icy and Crisp were WDF facilities for salmon. Icy had really nice water for growing fish.

Top
#978356 - 07/11/17 06:15 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Jake Dogfish Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/24/00
Posts: 554
Loc: Des Moines
I've seen numbers in books, not sure about online. They planted more for sure. Back when a Steelhead was a Steelhead...

Top
#978359 - 07/11/17 07:43 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
RUNnGun-

WDFW produce a report a few years back "O. mykiss": Assessment of Washington State's steelhead populations and programs. That should be available by searching their site (might try Statewide steelhead plan and look for that report. Within the report there are a number of appendixes that provide historical data base for various regions of the State. While the smolt planting history is by no means complete but on some of the larger basin it can go back to about 1960.

For complete information contact the agency directly (either the fish program in Olympia or the regional office).

Curt

Top
#978376 - 07/11/17 11:20 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Steelheadman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/15/99
Posts: 4214
Loc: Poulsbo, WA,USA
Same stuff is happening down in Oregon. Haven't purchased a fishing license in Washington and probably will not this year. Maybe they will wake up and figure out why their revenue is going down. Too bad for the bios on this forum. Just read in the Seattle PI that Salmon Bay is planning to double the commercial fishing fleet. Oh Joy! I look forward to fishing in Mexico!


Edited by Steelheadman (07/11/17 11:21 PM)
_________________________
I'd Rather Be Fishing for Summer Steelhead!

Top
#978399 - 07/12/17 11:54 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The White River Spring Chinook were native to the Green. I don't see any real reason why a Springer Hatchery is not built at the base of Howard Hansen that does just springers and does it primarily for harvest. Eliminate all Fall Chinook hatchery production on the Green and let the wild stock recover without hatchery interference.

Top
#978406 - 07/12/17 01:56 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Although the Green isn't much for coho, their biology is spawn high and rear low. So, working for coho in the upper watershed and **cking over the lower watershed is a long-term loser for them. Since Chinook are mainstem spawners and rear for a while in the mainstem they are losing a lot by thinking the mid and upper river is where to have the Chinook.

Top
#978643 - 07/24/17 01:13 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Maybe they are late, and there is a week for them to come in, but I think the numbers explain why there is little catching going on.

COWLITZ SALMON HATCHERY Cowlitz River Hatchery
Stock- H
Adult total 293 - - - - - - released 127 - - on-hand 166 07/19/17


COWLITZ SALMON HATCHERY Cowlitz River Hatchery
Stock- H
Adult total 3,302 - - - - - -Released 1,879 -mortality 9 on- hand 1,414 07/27/16

and for the last week
Last week, Tacoma Power employees recovered 293 spring Chinook adults, 10 spring Chinook jacks, 14 mini-jacks and 161 summer-run steelhead adults and one cutthroat trout in five days of operations at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery separator
During the past week, Tacoma Power employees released 130 spring Chinook adults and five spring Chinook jacks into the Cispus River near the mouth of Yellow Jacket Creek and they released 49 spring Chinook adults and two spring Chinook jacks at Franklin Bridge in Packwood

Appears its not because they are recycling so many- I think they are starting to see the picture and hold a few.

With 3000 coming in this week fishing should be incredible!!

Top
#978723 - 07/28/17 01:40 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
I'm disgusted. I have made 4 trips to the Kalama so far and hooked 2 fish. Plant numbers looked good at 122,162. This is the 4th year in arrow it has sucked. Talked to lots of guys I've seen for years, the same report from them. Not sure what has changed? Used to see bunches move through the lower river through July. I have spotted 1zies 2zies is all the last few years. The plant numbers haven't changed much from historic records if you believe in the smolt stocking reports. I think they are not raising and releasing what the printouts say they are, to save $$. Regardless something is different, and I don't believe in 4 years of bad survival conditions. The beginners hole doesn't produce anymore either. I wonder if they have changed the stocking locations? Something is up and it sucks.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#978727 - 07/28/17 03:13 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Somebody who is more familiar with the Kalama in particular but over the past decade or so there have been significant shifts in what stock is used. Kalama may have been using Skamania summers. These fish had a certain survival rate and a timing of return. WDFW may have shifted to a "local" broodstock. These will have a different response to culture and may have different return timing.

Another piece to consider is that under the "Mother Station" concept, where the broodstock all came from one location it is likely that those fish were exposed to significantly less fishing. Now, the local broodstock has to deal with the local fishery. What os spawned is what is not caught in active fisheries. The broodstock is selecting for fish that are less susceptible to biting. This should be a concern especially if the broodstock represents a very small fraction of the adult return.

Top
#978728 - 07/28/17 04:18 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
It seems that the more successful brood stock programs us or include sports caught fish. I know they did on the Sol Duc and I think many, if not most, of the Oregon programs do too.

Top
#978737 - 07/28/17 08:48 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
OLD FB Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 09/05/14
Posts: 196
Loc: Stanwood WA
Originally Posted By: Krijack
It seems that the more successful brood stock programs us or include sports caught fish. I know they did on the Sol Duc and I think many, if not most, of the Oregon programs do too.


You are correct on the Oregon info you posted!

Top
#978739 - 07/28/17 09:45 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Somebody who is more familiar with the Kalama in particular but over the past decade or so there have been significant shifts in what stock is used. Kalama may have been using Skamania summers. These fish had a certain survival rate and a timing of return. WDFW may have shifted to a "local" broodstock. These will have a different response to culture and may have different return timing.

Another piece to consider is that under the "Mother Station" concept, where the broodstock all came from one location it is likely that those fish were exposed to significantly less fishing. Now, the local broodstock has to deal with the local fishery. What os spawned is what is not caught in active fisheries. The broodstock is selecting for fish that are less susceptible to biting. This should be a concern especially if the broodstock represents a very small fraction of the adult return.


Forgive me for my inability to understand your comments. If the change to a broodstock means different timing, then I should be sight seeing the same amount of fish at a different time, even if they are non biters? I'm not seeing the same numbers of fish I used to period, through my participation up to the end of July. If your familiar with the Kalama, than you know that it is a sight fishery for those that have the skill to see them. They are not there, period. Are you saying the push could be in August or September when their is no water and hardly anyone around fishing? That doesn't sound like an effective hatchery catch and keep fishery to me? Why change a good thing? The numbers don't exist like they used to, bottom line. Summer run has always been my favorite and the WDFW has fd it up like everything else they change. I wonder why even have a hatchery program if you can't catch and keep? Is there a future? Help me here.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#978740 - 07/28/17 10:03 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: RUNnGUN]
Denham Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 05/30/15
Posts: 120
Loc: Maple Valley
Perhaps you should try later on, when no one else is fishing... Might be pleasantly surprised whistle

Top
#978744 - 07/29/17 06:50 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: RUNnGUN]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Why change a "good thing"? Because the agency is required to consider the supposed ecological consequences of the hatchery. The goal of management now is "do no harm" to the wild stock. It is not "provide a fishery". A fishery is a secondary goal to wild fish protection.

As to the timing thing, I mostly worked with winters and had only some contacts with the Kalama but I recall that back in the 70s there was, even then, a big push of summers that arrived at K Falls in late summer/fall. If they were holding in the lower river or not, I don't know.

Also, have water temps in the Kalama changed? The Deschutes in Oregon, until the recent recovery plans were put in operation and warmed the lower river, used to host many over-summer stocks from Idaho. Summer in the cool Deschutes and then go home when the mainstem cooled.

Top
#978745 - 07/29/17 10:19 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
All of the Columbia River tributaries are experiencing very low summer steelhead returns this year, in the range of 15 to 20% of the recent 10-year average. I see no reason why the Kalama would be immune to this problem. The best "guesses" for this low survival are the legacy effects of the "blob" that out-migrating smolts experienced in the form of low nutrient, low forage supplies in near shore coastal ocean waters and the effects of the 2015 drought. While the number of hatchery smolts released has been reduced and even eliminated on some rivers, the Kalama does not appear to be on that list.

Top
#978929 - 08/08/17 02:52 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Salmo g.]
gooybob Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/01/11
Posts: 993
Loc: Tacoma
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
In addition to its spring Chinook program, the Muckleshoot Tribe has been doing a wild steelhead broodstock program at the White River hatchery for a number of years now. Returns haven't been especially good, consistent with the survivals we observed with the acoustically tagged steelhead smolts from the Nisqually and Skokomish systems this spring.


It's difficult to get any accurate data when you're counting on honesty from the tribes. They have been consistently unreliable in their reporting and then of course there's the fact that they NET THE RIVERS. I've said this for a long time. There isn't a more devastating impact on all migratory fish in this state (hatchery or native) then gill nets strung across a river. When they "claim" they are fishing/netting for salmon (and getting far more than their share) they are killing other species as well. We will never have healthy rivers when you have a group of people that are allowed, unchecked, to net crucial passing areas of the rivers. Especially when a great deal of those netted fish are thrown away if they are males and the hens are slit open, eggs taken and then tossed as well. It's sad at best.

Top
#978934 - 08/08/17 04:06 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
It appears the Cowlitz is now running just under 5000 behind. This is comparing the report from 8/3/2017 to 8/10/2017 so numbers could go up a bit, but its looking real bad so far.

Top
#978948 - 08/09/17 09:09 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: gooybob]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Originally Posted By: gooybob
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
In addition to its spring Chinook program, the Muckleshoot Tribe has been doing a wild steelhead broodstock program at the White River hatchery for a number of years now. Returns haven't been especially good, consistent with the survivals we observed with the acoustically tagged steelhead smolts from the Nisqually and Skokomish systems this spring.


It's difficult to get any accurate data when you're counting on honesty from the tribes. They have been consistently unreliable in their reporting and then of course there's the fact that they NET THE RIVERS. I've said this for a long time. There isn't a more devastating impact on all migratory fish in this state (hatchery or native) then gill nets strung across a river. When they "claim" they are fishing/netting for salmon (and getting far more than their share) they are killing other species as well. We will never have healthy rivers when you have a group of people that are allowed, unchecked, to net crucial passing areas of the rivers. Especially when a great deal of those netted fish are thrown away if they are males and the hens are slit open, eggs taken and then tossed as well. It's sad at best.


I don't know about catch data, but I've never had any problem getting reliable data on White River hatchery production from Tribal staff at the hatchery or the Tribal office. There are problems with some gillnet fisheries, but year in and year out more Chinook and coho are taken in Canada than in the river gillnets. Lots more.

Out of sight, out of mind?

Top
#984245 - 01/26/18 08:10 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Looks like the final total back to the hatchery for the Cowlitz summer run was 15% of last year, or just around 1540 compared to around 10600 last year. Anybody have an idea of what happened?

Top
#984370 - 01/27/18 04:39 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
Here are the planting reports....just click on the year, will give you an idea of what WDFW supposedly plants...


https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/plants/steelhead/
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#984373 - 01/27/18 05:17 PM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Jake Dogfish Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/24/00
Posts: 554
Loc: Des Moines
Originally Posted By: Krijack
Looks like the final total back to the hatchery for the Cowlitz summer run was 15% of last year, or just around 1540 compared to around 10600 last year. Anybody have an idea of what happened?


Obviously habitat declined by 9862%

Top
#984407 - 01/28/18 08:32 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
What year were all the "lost" Cowlitz steelhead expected to return?

Top
#984408 - 01/28/18 08:51 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
darth baiter Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 04/04/10
Posts: 199
Loc: United States
The 2016 planting sheet in the link shows the reduced number of summer steelhead releases. The sheet says the bulk of the summer steelhead will return in 2018

Top
#984411 - 01/28/18 10:38 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
Numbqua Offline
Alevin

Registered: 10/29/15
Posts: 15

Based on your last comment, you're Clearly the moron!

Top
#984412 - 01/28/18 10:43 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: jgreen]
Numbqua Offline
Alevin

Registered: 10/29/15
Posts: 15

Correction, they already have been for Years!!


Planting more fish will attract even more out of town newbie guides and anglers that have little to no ethics or respect to others.

Top
#984417 - 01/28/18 11:07 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Carcassman]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The Puyallups are, or were, heavily involved in the White River Steelhead.

The acoustic tagging data I have seen across species seems to show little difference in downstream survival between hatchery and wild fish of the same species. In fact, hatchery fish will occasionally show higher survivals when they are mass released rather than the volitional migration of wild fish. This would suggest that the losses are predator-based and probably based on (rather) small predator population taking a constant number of fish per day.

Some losses we saw on downstream migration between two traps could be explained energetically by one Great Blue Heron.


Or the gauntlet of a 100 plus Cormorants staged below Clarks Crk, working the river every spring, just when the smolts start their way out! Those missing pit tags are probably in the Shiiaat in the Cormorant rookeries.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#984425 - 01/28/18 11:41 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
You guys base all your junk science on the numbers provided by who?

WDFW?

WDFW.........
The same clowns that couldn't even count the number of fish in a net pen?
The same lame ducks that couldn't figure out where or how the fish disappeared?

Give me a break.

Your numbers are a joke.

Plant fish morons!!!



Numbqua.
He has a point. I know a retired hatchery guy that doctored numbers for years, but on the positive side. Per the rules of Bio's and ESA stuff. If the river was only suppose to plant a fixed number and they had three times that on hand, they all got released, but that fixed number was published. The result, huge returns, awesome fishing! No destroying them or planting them in some lake somewhere. I have always been skeptical of published plant numbers. These days I believe we are getting the short end of the stick. The hatchery employees are either rule followers or lazy, and aren't willing to work hard to produce big numbers and release them all.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#984497 - 01/29/18 07:47 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: RUNnGUN]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
Originally Posted By: RUNnGUN
Originally Posted By: WDFW X 1 = 0
You guys base all your junk science on the numbers provided by who?

WDFW?

WDFW.........
The same clowns that couldn't even count the number of fish in a net pen?
The same lame ducks that couldn't figure out where or how the fish disappeared?

Give me a break.

Your numbers are a joke.

Plant fish morons!!!



Numbqua.
He has a point. I know a retired hatchery guy that doctored numbers for years, but on the positive side. Per the rules of Bio's and ESA stuff. If the river was only suppose to plant a fixed number and they had three times that on hand, they all got released, but that fixed number was published. The result, huge returns, awesome fishing! No destroying them or planting them in some lake somewhere. I have always been skeptical of published plant numbers. These days I believe we are getting the short end of the stick. The hatchery employees are either rule followers or lazy, and aren't willing to work hard to produce big numbers and release them all.



Numbqua is drinking the KoolAid.
Hatchery managers once took pride stocking rivers.
It was their legacy.

Per Cindy and other WDFW rocket scientists they couldn't even count fish if they were in a net!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Top
#984589 - 01/30/18 10:54 AM Re: Steelhead plantings. [Re: Krijack]
bodysurf Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 11/28/01
Posts: 324
Loc: olympia
I've seen steelhead 'planted' when there was no water in the ladder...they all died..but they were planted! people will fake numbers ,release sizes ,condition factors,feed conversions....if you complain they just deny it...like everything...and you have to work for these people that can make your life hell so ....yeah ...

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |