Lifter you mentioned a large portion.
How is 2000 out of 17,000 coho and 5,500 kings a large portion of the fish?
Also these are volunteers doing this. Without the volunteers it would not take place because the department claims that it is too expensive. The real reason is that they profit off of them by selling them to fish buyers. Please let me know of any other rivers that participate in this that you are aware of. My research turns up very little with many rivers not doing any at all. And yet the department wonders why our hatchery fish are not surviving.
This is the recurring theme. Fish not returning results in fish being too expensive to raise which results in fishing being shut down. Then people say why are your raising the fish just to have them return and not be able to fish on them? Then the hatchery gets shut down but ironically no government employees loose their job. All of them should loose their job if the hatchery is shut down. Exactly 0 lost their job when the steelhead program was discontinued. This scenario plays into what the department wants (less work for the same or more pay). It also plays into what you anti-hatchery wild cnr folks want too (a river all to yourself to cast your flys). The gene bank theory is a gold mine for the department. They don't have to take responsibility for the closure directly and try to make themselves look good at the same time (giving themselves a pat on the back). But no one lost their job when those hatcheries closed down either. Yes I guess that I am another disgruntled angler but I think that I represent the majority and I see the writing on the wall with the same old story being played out on each river system.

It's not ground water per se, it is the temperature. What the stock is adapted to. In a decade or two, you could develop an adapted broodstock at Voight's.

Elijah,
Over 4000 fish is a lot of fish. I told you the tribe also recycles their fish in the river. That is a lot of hauling totes, and tossing fish in the river. The permit calls for 4000 carcasses to be recycled. The rest of the fish go out for bid and a buyer buys the fish from the hatcheries and they go to food banks,pet food and fertilizer.
Larry Phillips (Region 6 director) told me that WDFW has agreements with public and private organizations to distribute carcasses into streams across the state. He put me in touch with WDFW bios and hatchery personnel Robert Allan, Randy Aho, James Jenkins and Eric Kinne. On the coast and the straits carcasses are recycled on the Sol Duc, Bogachiel, Elwha, Dungeness. Mckernan and the Skokomish which is pretty saturated with chum. In Grays Harbor, carcasses are recycled at Bingham Creek (Satsop), Forks Creek (WB), Humptulips, Lake Aberdeen, Mayr Bros.(Wishkah),Naselle, Nemah and the Skookumchuck. WDFW staff do the recycling along with volunteers at several of these facilities.
Why do you keep calling me anti-hatchery and a fly fisherman? I already told you I don't fly fish and I buy my licenses and kill and eat hatchery fish. Start doing your own research. I am tired of doing it for you.

A complicating factor is that the contract the state (had) with the buyer was that buyer had to take all the fish, regardless of quality. The placement of fish back in streams is not only a good idea ecologically but actually helps out the buyer by reducing the amount of less desirable fish and fish from more remote facilities. I think that the money from the carcass and egg sales goes back to the volunteer groups for salmon enhancement. WDF started doing this around 1990.

I think the money goes to some conservatory group (staff and benefits) established by the ever growing department.

Elijah, have you ever thought about getting some help. Like anger management training.

And you never even thanked me for getting all the info for you.What kind of a friend is that?

Bingo! This is just my two cents worth but we have been starving our creeks and rivers for years for many of the reasons you listed. As I drove by a couple local streams the other day aroma of spawning success was in the air. So, what does that have to do with this topic? In this case it means that fish (probably chum and coho) have completed the natural cycle. They have spawned and their decomposing bodies have been returned to the stream with some of the nutrients to be consumed my the emerging fry.

Now drive down any of our larger streams, that aroma is pretty much missing. Back in the '70's down in southwest WA I remember seeing the East Fork and main Lewis River chocked full of decaying carcasses of kings and coho (there was no wild or hatchery controversy back then either).

Therein lies a big problem that has flown under the radar. We have been starving our salmon and steelhead smolts once they are released as smolts or hatched as fry. That natural cycle is important and we have been shortchanging our streams for years by WDFW selling of the "surplus" to fill their pockets. Whether they're smolts or fry, all of them require food which is based on nutrients left from those decaying carcasses. It doesn't matter if the food is in the river or estuary, they need to eat.

Basically our rivers have become sterile and it doesn't matter how much money you are spending on habitat, hatchery improvements or whatever, it's just a waste of money. Look at the Hood Canal rivers, they have pristine environments but returns for salmon and steelhead especially, are very poor across the board (except for the Skok but that's another topic). Well, what about the chum, they seem to be doing well? Different scenario. Chum (and Pinks), hatch and go straight to the ocean. Coho and Chinook spend a great deal of time in the stream and estuary. I'm no scientist, but we can argue all we want but it's common sense when the smolts never make it to the ocean because of lack of food we're wasting everyone's time and money.

Lifter, I have no anger management issues. I am not sure what I'm supposed to thank you for since you did not provide any information but I already did know. How about you provide the number of fish actually returned to the river compared to the number of fish that have returned to the Hatchery. That is something that would be useful but I doubt that you would be able to provide anything that would be of any significance. Do you still think that 2000 of 17,000 is a large portion on 17,000? You must have been educated in Washington state.

What do you mean? You asked me what river systems recycle carcesses in the state because you couldn't find them. I asked and found out for you and gave them to you. You said in your research you couldn't find any rivers on which they did it (other than Voight's Creek). I found out in one day. Either you are too lazy or uneducated to find it yourself. Earlier in this thread a few days ago I presented the data on native steelhead escapement in the Nisqually. You said the numbers were inflated and bogus. Later Stonefish gave the links to look at the numbers and you saw them. Those were the same numbers that I had given you. You wanted the numbers for all the previous years. I can tell you how to get them but I will let you figure it out. I told you the bios to contact. I had to tell you how many days fish were recycled on the Puyallup. You said they (volunteers) only recycled fish for 2 days. You were wrong again. They did it for 8 days. A lot of back breaking work for those guys. The numbers that are recycled is by permit. I told you all these things.
You never give any data or facts. Only your opinions. You wait for others to do the fact finding or explanations for you. Where are your facts? What is your education? Bring something with substance to the discussion.

Lifter are you serious?

The numbers presented by stonefish are on the wdfw website and clearly show the decline in wild steelhead numbers after the Hatchery fish have been discontinued. The two years that you specifically picked out 2 promote your agenda is what I had a problem with. You can't just pick out two years and ignore all the others. You really have no explanation for all the other years when you tried to mislead everyone in stating what you did.
Does it really matter the number of days or does it matter the number of fish that were recycled into the river? are you really going to argue over the number of days when you didn't lift a finger to help? The reality is that you said a large portion of the fish are recycled and in reality it is not a large portion. Is 2000 Coho recycled out of 17,000 fish returned a large portion? Or is 2000 out of 5500 a large portion ? I do not consider either of those a large portion based on the math that I was educated with . Is that a fact/data that I'm stating? I'm sorry that you get offended so easily when you are wrong. No need to continue with a personal attacks though unless it makes you feel better.
I also said that a lot of the hatchery rivers do not put fish back after spawning them in favor of selling them for money and that is bad for the survival of our fish. Is that an inaccurate statement?
What are you really arguing for? Would you like to see an increase in Hatchery production or a decrease?

The best available actual data on nutrient need by streams for nutrients (converted to salmon carcasses) is 2 kilograms of carcass per square metre of stream surface area as measured at summer low flow. That is 2 kilos per stock. One km of stream 10 m wide would need 20,000 kg. This would be 20K 1 kg pinks, 4,000 5 kg chum or coho, or 2,000 10 kg Chinook.

Any and every thing helps but we are in a nutrient chasm.

Elijah, I have the wild steelehead numbers for every year up to 2018. You can get all the redd counts and escapement numbers if you know who to contact. I am not talking just about the Nisqually. You can get the numbers for all the rivers and creeks that are managed and counted. Do you need me to tell you who to contact?
I was not able to help this year with the recycling because of prior commitments. You only worked 25% of the days. If you don't like the numbers then try to get the permit changed so that more can be recycled. How many are you proposing should be recycled? Those volunteers (on the Puyallup)supplied their own trucks (and backs) to haul the totes to the upper watershed and had to pitch them, one by one, into the river. Some were very large chinook. Did you consider that there are fish that spawn naturally in the systems that add to the nutrient enhancement? Or fish that die in the stream before they reach the hatchery.
I told you about all the hatcheries that recycle fish and you continue to say very few do it. So yes, you made an inaccurate statement.
I am not offended in the least bit. Why should I be? If you are disgruntled, write to the Commission, Governor, WDFW and attend the meetings and let your dissatisfaction be known. Be sure you are prepared and do your research before you do so.

Lifter. Sent you a PM.

Lifter,
I have wrote letters to the Commission, bios, Govenor, WDFW. Some responded but the majority fall on deaf ears... kind of like yours. Do you work for the government? I should say that at least you have been responding here by doing your best to defend the work of the WDFW. Kudos to you for that.
The 10 or so hatcheries that you mention represent only a few of the total number of hatcheries in Washington state. So is what I said an inaccurate statement? Are you going to argue based on that?
Out of the 10 that you mention that have some recycling going on I am more familiar with 4 of them and all of those 4 do far less recycling (like less than 50%) than they used to 15-20 years ago. Many rivers do none at all and some of those include the most expensive and modern facilities in the state. I think that it would surprise you some of the ones that do absolutely zero. I think that eyefish's montra that he is unable to let go of (due to pride) should be changed to All Spawned Hatchery Fish Must Be Returned To The River. His current one is misleading (conveys the wrong message) and makes hatchery fish look bad.

Did you really think that I did not even consider that naturally spawning fish add to nutrient enhancement. I thought that they were all taken away to fish heaven so thanks for pointing out the obvious. In doing this are you trying to strengthen your argument (which I assume is that there is enough being done by the state)?
The information that Carcassman presents is excellent and should be a good start to establishing/proposing how many fish should be returned. I agree with RtndSpawner in that the smell of decomposing fish is a wonderful smell that is no longer present because of the lack of dead fish.
To summarize: I am arguing that there needs to be more dead fish put back in rivers to increase the survival of our salmon/steelhead (both wild and hatchery). Lifter, you seem to defend the departments actions and argue that what the state is doing enough on the correct path. Please let me know if I am wrong.

The placing of carcasses from hatcheries requires a number hurdles to be cleared. First, it is illegal to put them back in the water without approval from DOE. Next, the rules surrounding fish transfer for pathogen control need to be met. Fish can't be moved around willynilly. The contract with the fish buyer needs to be considered. The actual condition of the water such as if there are domestic water diversions, permission from landowners, risk of salmon poisoning to dogs, and other concerns. Need to have volunteers who can transport and distribute fish. The distributed fish may need to be marked to distinguish from fish counted in spawner surveys.

It is not a simple "here's some fish, put them out". At one time, many facilities distributed carcasses. Ideally, managers try to get as few fish back as necessary; the nutrient enhancement program really took off in the early years of ESA listing (before selective fisheries) when lots and lots of surplus was available.

While there are many ecologists who see that salmon streams are devoid of nutrients the managers tend to the other end of the scale and are pushing often for lower goals.

Elijah, thank you for the response. I get as angry and frustrated as anybody with WDFW. I have written some very critical emails and suggestions to them. But I also realize the tough job they have trying to deal with NOAA's edicts (ESA and a very slow permitting process), the tribes (co-management Really?), the tax payers and license buyers and a restrictive budget.
The number of hatcheries I gave you were only from Region 6. I told you earlier that Gary Loomis and his group do volunteer recycling work in the hatcheries in Southwest Washington (Region 5). If interested you can contact him or the Region 5 director for hatcheries and numbers. You can also contact the Region directors for 1, 2, 3 and 4 and I am sure they will respond. I contacted the Regional director for 6 (Larry Phillips) in the evening and he supplied the info by the next morning.
I have had most of my emails (and phone calls) to WDFW answered. The same with the Commission. Be courteous and to the point.
You know, I never thought of it but maybe there is a fish heaven for the salmon's souls. Good point.

Found out some more info about the carcass recycling process. I talked to the guy who spearheads the volunteer effort at Voight's Creek. He said he had heard that the buyer who won the bid paid $450,000 for all the fish that are left from all the hatcheries. It is quite the process. The buyer has individual trucks that pick up the fish from the hatcheries. The fish are all iced down and the buyer supplies the ice. After picking up the fish the trucks all meet in Bellingham and then all the fish are loaded onto a trailer and taken to Aberdeen for processing.
He said all the money goes into the general fund. Too bad it doesn't go back to the hatcheries and/or volunteer groups.
He has to start working on the permit for the volunteer group to recycle the fish at Voight's Creek three months before the work starts. He wanted to have 5000 fish to recycle but the hatchery would only give them 4000 fish by permit. The hatchery puts the fish in totes but the volunteers must supply the vehicles, gas and manpower to distribute the fish. They hauled fish way up into the upper Puyallup watershed and feeder creeks. Some of the carcasses were distributed lower in the river. Tails were cut to distinguish them from naturally spawning fish. He had to get a key to get on private land.
The Puyallup tribe recycles some live fish in the river. He said he had heard they did 500 fish. He didn't know if they did dead fish also. And if so, he didn't know how many. He knew that Gary Loomis and his group of volunteers had recycled 17,000 carcasses into the rivers in SW Washington.

Maybe we can fish for the recycled carcass....

You gentlemen can have all the surplus carcasses if you get the bid next year.