I did not realize how bad the Steelheading had gotten on Hood Canal until I looked in the game pamphlet regarding what is open for steelhead, there isn't anything, from the Quilcence all around to the Dewatto nothing is open after December 15. All the great days I used to have on the Skok, Duck, Hamma Hamma are probably gone forever, even Goldsbough Crk not open. It was a great little stream with good access and lots of fish, both salmon and steelhead. After tearing out the dam and destroying the pretty little canyon it was then closed. The Hamma Hamma you could go up into the canyon and see maybe 50 to 100 steelhead lying in the deep holes, can't help think what a place it would have been for floating jigs in the deep holes and also in the Duckabush and Dosewalips. When I came to Shelton 40 plus years ago and got to know some locals they raved about how good the fishing was for cutthroat and steelhead in the rivers and most of the larger creeks. To see it destroyed in my life time makes me SICK, its too bad the younger fisherman will never experience those kind of days, most of them only know the Skok snag fest, which is a disgrace to real fishing, and yes I do fish there because I like to fish and its close. I know a lot of you only want wild fish in the streams but if they are wiped out what are you going to do, with all the netting in Hood Canal too many seals and hundreds of fish ducks and cormerants I do not see a quick recoverery with out getting some help, even if it does meen planting fish. Working as a surveyor I have seen hundreds of small streams that should be full of spawning fish but have nothing. With nets in the esturerys those fish which are headed for the little creeks will get wiped out. Rivers like the Skok, Duck, Dosewallips and the Hanma Hamma have miles of spawning water going to waste, even if it was catch and release only, I for one just want to be able to fish and with retirement coming up this year, I don't have to wait for the weekends I can pick the prime time, no fish will be safe. Sorry about the long post but I'm bored, tied my jigs made some floats, sorted fishing gear, feel like going out and fishing for the Koi in the back yard for fun.
The way some folks abused those streams certainly didn't help. I remember a game agent back in the late 70's telling us about a guy he busted on a Hood Canal stream with 12 steelhead in his possession.
I caught my first steelhead in Mill Creek, and used to spend lots of time on it, Goldsborough, Kennedy creek, the Skok, the Hamma Hamma, the Dosey and the Duckabush.
I agree that it's a crying shame what has happened to all of them.
I was raised in that area and agree they have been "managed" into oblivion. Back in the 60s, yeah I know I'm dating myself anyone with the ambition to hike the canyons on those creeks could have a field day on wild steelhead. The coho runs were excellent too. Now it's all gone. Hell they even wiped out the chum run on the Duckabush. It’s a damn shame and much of it was done with the full knowledge they were doing it. Since the habitat on most of those rivers is little changed I have to place most of the blame on harvest. Back in the late 70s, maybe it was early 80s they opened the canal to harvest for both cowboys and Indians. They did it for four years as though they were trying to wipe out the runs. It worked... Of course seals, clear cuts, low oxygen etc. didn’t help. But the Duckabush chum run was quite strong through 2005. Now it’s very nearly extinct.
Many of you will remember John Chamberlin. He wrote a bit and fished those rivers a lot. He's gone now, so are his beloved steelhead. It's a damn shame.
There will never be any meaningful recovery on those small, delicate rivers.
my grandparents have lived on the duckabush sense the early 90's. as a result i have fished the hell out of that river for both chum and steelhead. in the almost 20 years i have fished it the chum run has went from barely being able to see the bottom of the river due to so many fish.......all the way down to barely seeing a single fish in any hole.
as far as steelhead are concerned. i would spend 2 weeks every year during new years over there. i have personally seen a total of 3 steelhead and that was in the early 90's. caught one of them and though it was a trout and turned it loose.
its a has shame what has happend to the canal rivers. the duckabush has some great steelhead water
In recent years, they have been capturing wild Hamma Hamma steelhead as a research project to try and kickstart that run again. I believe some new science was being tried and tested to see if it would be viable in helping other Canal rivers. I know they captured some adults for brood but haven't heard much since. Been pretty quiet actually. I'm not sure it was a WDFW project.
If I'm not mistaken, Long Live the Kings was doing some steelhead research in the Hamma Hamma a few years ago, not that I would trust much of the integrity of their findings. 2003 I saw a presentation on it I believe.
Just spoke with their director yesterday. Looking for an Eagle project for my son. They are waiting to see how the returns come in. About a year or two ago they actually released brood sized fish they had raised from eggs taken from different reds. Only time will tell. I also fished those rivers quite a bit growing up. Especially the Dosi. Unfortunately they can't control what happens outside those river watersheds.
LLTK has 2 hatcheries one in Lilliwaup and the other I believe is on Orcas. I will be in contact with the Lilliwaup director this next week concerning putting in some service time either at the hatchery or field work on some of these rivers of discussion. Will update as I get info.
There is a collaborative project involving NOAA, USFWS, USFS, WDFW, Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble Tribe, Point No Point Treaty Council, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group and Long Live the Kings. The principle investigator is Dr. Barry Berejikian from NOAA. Intervention with artificial production in multiple streams and allowing multiple other streams to serve as controls. The Long Live the Kings (LLTK) website has a pretty good description of the project, but probably heavy on the LLTK importance. It's been going on since 2007, so there must be a progress report or two around. If you're interested, I'd contact Barry and see what he has. He's a sharp fellow.
The HC steelhead recovery program that OncyT mentions is working on the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and SF Skokomish Rivers. The NF Skokomish well be added in a few years as additional facilities are developed as part of the Cushman Dams mitigation. Whether these actions will recover HC steelhead isn't known, but it represents the last best chance to do so that we know of.
This has an escapement chart and last plant date chart of Hood Canal rivers. Hood Canal rivers haven’t been planted ranging from 6 to 20 years on hatchery winter steelhead and the last summer plant was in 1981. Even though these rivers haven’t had hatchery plants the escapements are about the same as in the last year that they were planted. There is a hatchery supplementation program started on a handful of these rivers to see if they can give them a jump start like OncyT and Salmo G said. Habitat restoration is ongoing. It would be nice to see these rivers productive again if possible.
While I'm a yungen compared to anyone who's actually seen decent steelhead fishing in these waters...I remember my first camping trip to the Dosey in '98, back when I was a junior in high school before I even owned a fishin' pole.
It was August, we were camping there for a few days. My buddy and I hiked up from the 101 bridge and spooked about 4 summer steelhead in a gin-clear run. The thrill of that moment (to any kid who's never even seen a fish that big, let alone caught one!) was cemented in my memory. It was to that moment I can blame my passionate obession with those finned critters. I spend many days shortly after that scouting the Hamma, Duck, Dosey for fish. I
wish someone in power would have the balls to do something productive for these runs.
I have noticed a pretty good commercial effort over on the north side of Port Gamble bay. Apparently local tribes are fishing steelhead in this area from late November-mid March. I have not noticed the effort in the past, maybe just missed it maybe less boats. I wonder if this is an increased effort, result from sport closure?
A Hood Canal Discussion is on the Radar as we continue to go down the road in the NWwildcountry Studio, on our Segment, "The Rise & Fall of Puget Sound Steelhead". Dr. Barry Berejikian , is my point of contact to get an in-depth look on the status of Hood Canal and the research and work that has been done there over the past few years. He will also help us to understand what those doing research understand thus far, as to what is perhaps happening to our Steelhead Smolt in Puget Sound. We will hopefully have this component in a couple weeks. This next Saturday we hope to reach out to a few folks involved in the research and information available in regards to the Skagit and Sauk system. Again, another very fragile situation that is worth discussing. If you have followed the show at all, we are breaking it down, Puget Sound Basin, by Basin to bring out the research and information specific to each system. We are gathering data and speaking with those responsible for the research to educate our listeners and viewers as to what is going on and to this date what Fisheries Managers and Bio's, do and do not know about Puget Sound Steelhead. Tune in every Saturday morning and travel this educational journey with us. www.950KJR.com click the listen live button. You can also see us on Comcastsportsnet channel 179 or 37 down in the Portland area. You can also get caught up on past discussions on this topic and more at www.950KJR.com click the On Demand Menu, Click NWwilcountry and find the title or date you are looking for.
FireFish...
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: No Hood Canal Steelhead - 01/16/1105:03 PM
Since the early 90's before I moved out to Forks in 99 I spent a good amount of time in the Union Dewato and Tahuya rivers. Caught a few winter and summer fish here and there never too many but a few. Were very strong runs of silvers and the chums were thick every year.
I live out here now and see these rivers every day. A couple of years ago I noticed that the salmon runs just up and stopped comming, no silvers and almost no chums. One year they are thick like every year and the next they are almost completely gone. I see the Hood Canal salmon people from time to time and I talk to them. Last year there was an outright colapse in the coho and fall chum runs they have no idea why.
Coho were non-existant last year. I believe are no "native" fish in the previously mentioned rivers. Why? Brood stock was taken from other systems years ago, and transported to the Hood Canal rivers. In addition, hatchery rivers like the Quilcene had large numbers of fish go past the hatchery and interbreed with native fish, so most fish you'll see with fins should really be clipped had they gone the where they were supposed to. Add logging in the lower canal rivers 100 years ago, nets, etc, then wonder "How much $$ will it take to restore a bastardized fish run, vs. how much to just give up the ghost and pump out as many harvestable/hatchery fish the hatcheries can produce.
Recovery of steelhead won't occur, I believe, until the number of salmon spawning in those streams drastically increases. They (SH) are showing a positive response to the big pink ecapements in S Prairie Creek.
In the absence of a lot of salmon, and the increase in productivity, steelhead smolts will get older (see Keogh R, BC) and fewer in number.
I believe, too, that this will lead to more "resident" trout. Also, in the major river systems where we are setting new flow regimes to improve spawning and rearing area in summer and fall we are actually making the streams more desireable for the resident life form. Studies on the east side suggest that "higher" flows and "cooler" water temperatures select for the resident form. Enhancing flows in the late summer/fall will come from the bottom of the reservoir.
As long as we view and manage steelhead as independent of the other fish in the stream and view resident and anadromous O. mykiss as different fish I don't think the anadromous form has a chance to recover.
As long as we view and manage steelhead as independent of the other fish in the stream and view resident and anadromous O. mykiss as different fish I don't think the anadromous form has a chance to recover.
I've never really thought about the discussion framed like that before, but I bet you are onto something,
1. Fish from old hatchery stock consistently have very low fitness (usually less than 50% that of wild fish) when breeding in the wild. The fact that Hold x W crosses consistently produce fewer offspring than W x W crosses (Table 4) suggests that having Hold breeders in a system might lower the fitness of the wild population. Whether the surviving wildborn offspring of such crosses re-establish “wild” levels of fitness after one full generation of selection in nature remains to be tested.
2. Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish (less than wild in two years, greater than in the third year). The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses Hnew x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models; e.g. Lynch and O’Hely, 2001). Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences - at least in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population (e.g. Ryman et al., 1995), but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggest that reduced effective size is not a problem.
3. The surprisingly large number of missing parents, and the fact that most missing parents are fathers (Fig. 3), suggests that precocious parr or resident trout are obtaining matings that produce anadromous offspring. Alternate explanations for offspring that lack both parents include a large number of unclipped hatchery fish or wild strays entering the system.
Future Work
We hope to continue genotyping fish through the rest of this decade. Additional questions we plan to address include:
(1) Do F1 progeny (born in the wild) of Hnew x W, Hnew x Hnew and W x W winter run parents differ in their production of F2 progeny? We know from our current analyses that all three types of matings occur on the spawning ground, and that all three types of mating produce offspring that return to spawn as adults. F2 offspring of those winter F1s that spawned in the late 1990s are now returning (see Fig. 2). If we continue sampling through the end of the decade we will have a large number of returned F2s from multiple brood years with which to test the relative fitness of different types of F1s (Fig. 2). Given the apparently high fitness of Hnew hatchery fish, our expectation is that the three types of wild-born F2’s will have similar fitnesses . (2) Selection to maintain the difference between summer and winter runs: What is the rate of hybridization between the runs? What are the phenotypes (run time, size, freshwater residency) and actual fitnesses of any hybrids?
(3) Selection on measurable phenotypic traits: We can use standard selection gradient analysis (Lande and Arnold, 1983) to analyze fitness as a function of body size, run time, age and freshwater residency (known from scales), after controlling for hatchery/wild genetic background.
(4) Quantitative genetic parameter estimation: From our pedigrees we can estimate the heritabilities of, and genetic correlations among any measurable phenotypic traits. We can also estimate the average breeding value for each trait in individuals of HxH and WxW genetic background, in order to test whether genetic changes in the hatchery, and subsequent mating with wild fish, could be changing phenotypic distributions in the wild population (Ford, 2001).
(5) Parental contributions of resident, non-anadromous fish We sample all potential breeding adults passed over the dam, and we know from our ground truthing experiments the expected rate of mismatching owing to experimental error. Therefore, unassigned offspring are either wild strays from out of the basin, or were parented by resident fish (non-anadromous O. mykiss, or precocious parr). We will use likelihood methods (Rannala and Mountain, 1997) to attempt to determine the most likely source of missing parents (of offspring that only match to a single known parent), and whether fish lacking both parents are most likely to be Hood River wild, Hood River hatchery (unclipped) or immigrants from adjacent steelhead populations. Because we sample all anadromous parents, the Hood River is an ideal system in which to ask questions about the rate of parentage from resident fish and about the sources of those fish.
(6) Effective size estimation From the pedigrees we can obtain direct estimates of the effective size (Ne) of each population over time. These data will be used to estimate the impact of hatchery programs on the effective size of the wild population and to provide basic parameter estimates such as the variance in family sizes (number of returning adults) for hatchery broodstock, for H fish in the wild, and for W fish in the wild. These are important parameters that are unknown for most populations and can be very useful for estimating Ne and the effects of supplementation in other steelhead populations (e.g. sensu Ryman et al., 1995). We can also use our system to evaluate the accuracy of indirect methods for estimating effective size (e.g. Waples, 2002; Anderson et al., 2000). If the indirect methods give very different values from the pedigree-based estimates, then we can ask what assumptions of the indirect methods cause the difference. Note that because of our ability to sample all potential anadromous parents, we can take into account the contributions of non-anadromous, resident fish in our calculations.
Hair, you need to look up the later publications of Araki and Blouin (the author of this report). Their conclusions with much more information than the initial report are not as positive. They also are not as negative as some folks on this board will suggest, but the general conclusion is that there is a significant loss of reproductive success (when at least one of the spawning pair is a hatchery fish) with hatchery steelhead programs, even when broodstock is collected from natural-origin steelhead (called Hatcherynew in this publication).
Thank you for the links Oncy T, very helpful. Looks like the jury's still out on what the variety of possible outcomes will be for long term supplementation. There's a lot of wiggle room between 40% and over 90% of WxW productivity.
What happens to young steelhead after they leave their streams is a question that has intrigued biologists for years. To get at the answers, researchers have implanted tiny transmitters into a few fish and set up receivers to track their movements.
"We're finding that about 25 percent of the fish that reach Hood Canal are not making it past the Hood Canal bridge," Berejikian said. "Half the fish that make it to the bridge don't make it past Pillar Point (west of Port Angeles in the Strait of Juan de Fuca)."
The fish seem to take about two weeks to swim to the Hood Canal bridge, where it appears a good number are probably eaten by other species, he said. After the Hood Canal bridge, they speed up and travel to Pillar Point in about five days, though it isn't clear how many fish that don't arrive are killed and how many just stop along the way.
Berejikian said he is looking for funding to study whether the structure of the Hood Canal bridge causes behavioral changes that make steelhead vulnerable to predation. In any case, if the steelhead program continues on a successful path, the populations should rise, he said.
Interesting. Quite the percentage of loss to predators, or whatever. I'm struggling to see how a study focused on every single returning parent could get past an obstacle so influential on the numbers, like + 75% loss during out-migration.
"Interesting. Quite the percentage of loss to predators, or whatever. I'm struggling to see how a study focused on every single returning parent could get past an obstacle so influential on the numbers, like + 75% loss during out-migration."
Wow someone who gets it, everyone is so focused on selective fishing the real problem is just oblivious. Take a 100000 smolts 80/20 H/W and remove 95-98% of them non-selectively from predation, what the heck do you get back? Cutting hatchery releases won't fix it, total numbers will just keep dropping, plus the predators still need to eat so they turn to other species.
Hood Canal is not alone on the High Mortality Rates on Steelhead Smolt. It is becoming apparent through our discussions on NWwildcountry with those who have a hand in Fisheries Management throughout Puget Sound, there is a huge, mostly misunderstood problem. The Acoustic Tagging Program, that we discussed in depth, paints a picture and is a component producing data that some have faith in and others are not so certain. The High Mortality in Hood Canal is right in line with Steelhead Smolt leaving the Puyallup, Nisqually and Green River basins as well. Some of the numbers I gathered from the Fisheries Managers in each of those systems, indicated as little as 6% to 10% survivability actually making it to the Straits, to migrate out. Some rivers have been shown to have numbers in the 60% to 75% outbound migrating Steelhead Smolt at the mouth, and as they migrate through the 150 miles of Puget Sound to make it to the Straits, it falls to that confusing 6% to 10%. The hardest thing to understand is that these smolt are on the move. So much so, they can make it from the Nisqually or Puyallup, to the Straits in 7 to 12 days, and yet the overall mortality is 75%.
Again, Hood Canal is on the Agenda to be discussed in Depth, in the NWwildcountry Studio, in the next few weeks. Saturdays show will focus on the Sauk and Skagit however some of that information carries throughout Puget Sound. Be sure to tune in.
I'm not sure that anyone's demonstrated that 90% mortality on outgoing smolts out of Puget Sound actually is a problem...it might be a perfectly normal number, it may have always been that way...but historically there hundreds of millions of wild smolts leaving Puget Sound, so if only ten percent of them survived, it would still have been millions and millions of smolts.
Have to agree with Todd. We now have some numbers for steelhead smolt. No idea what the mean in an historical context.
And, most of the discussion still seems to be guided by the idea that steelhead are salmon.
The really strong steelhead populations currently in existence (Situk, Kamchatka, Argentina) share one thing in commen; half or more of the returning adults are repeat spawners. Based on that, maybe a smolt-adult survival of 5% can work; if enough fish survive to repeat spawn. Remove them from the equation, and you get extinction.
It's a problem when 90% of the habitat is gone, sure there's some basins that have very good habitat and some that are almost completely destroyed like the upper Columbia. But once smolts hit the open water they all become just food.
You could end all harvest, remove virtually all the predators, stop planting clouds of hatchery fish, and steelhead leaving the Columbia River will still be in the $hitter...the dams remove 90% of them before they even get to the estuary, where they are then subject to the "normal" levels of mortality...
There are obviously many issues, Habitat, Over Harvest, Smolt Mortality, Water Quality, they all weigh in. There is the huge unkown of what truly is natural or natures history of outbound smolt mortality. However, in comparison, the Coastal Streams, all be it if we don't change some of the Management Practices etc. could be heading in the directionof Puget Sound, tend to have a much higher return. It would be interesting to all ready have the outbound smolt mortality of our Coastal Rivers to use as a comparision, if for nothing else other then to help understand what percentage is perhaps normal.
Coastal vrs Puget Sound. I think form what they know thus far and are still figuring out, Over Harvest, in Puget Sound Rivers, is not todays problem. It helped set the table, form the 80's & 90's for where we are, however, there are other things going on that continue to produce such small returns in all rivers. You think anyone will wake up and not let the Harvest Management Plans take the Coastal Rivers to the Brink, Much like what we are talking about here..
Your exactly right. Managing our Fisheries to ensure "Waisted Fish" don't make it to gravel. Every fish has a price tag on it's head. They know they only need X number to spawn to ensure the run will sustain and they manage it down to the very last fish. It comes down to money, not conservation.....
When is the last time you heard an Fisheries Manager or Biologist make the Statement, "We have to change our way of managing our Fisheries, we have way to many fish hitting the gravel"...
I think the fish eating birds take far more fry think pepole realize. I used to shoot as many as I could as a kid growing up on the Cowlitz, when I squeeze the belly the fry would shoot out like a fountain. The cormerants have to just as bad or worse. Last fall I watched small flock feeding on a Mason county lake and about every 4 or 5 dives at least one of them would come up with a fish, between them and the mergansers that is going to take a big chunk of fry and smolts.
Your right, in that they look at to many fish on the gravel as lost opportunity or lost dollars and cents. The other side of that, as in harvesting to many salmon, depleats the needed nutriant base right out of the system. Hard for fry to grow after they hatch out when there is no food in the river for them to feed on...
I'm not sure that anyone's demonstrated that 90% mortality on outgoing smolts out of Puget Sound actually is a problem...it might be a perfectly normal number, it may have always been that way...but historically there hundreds of millions of wild smolts leaving Puget Sound, so if only ten percent of them survived, it would still have been millions and millions of smolts.
Fish on...
Todd
Perfectly normal or not, wouldn't it be an advantage to know what the loss was from before you address long term viability for hatchery supplementation? Oncy T's last link spoke directly to what types of selective traits can skew genetic success/productivity results. We don't even know what the cause is, much less how it affects attributes we select for supplementation. What kind of accuracy will we get from studies done with an 800lb gorilla in the room? As excited as I was to learn the possible opportunities associated with such a controlled study, it all falls apart with the amount of unknown impact.
It would be great to know, of course...but knowing the fact that 90% of them smolts don't make it out of Puget Sound and making a leap to the idea that the problem is right there, might not be such a good idea.
If we found out that it was due to human activity (which I wouldn't be surprised by at all), I have little faith that we'd do anything to fix it...we already know a ton of things that are caused by human activity, and we haven't tried to fix them one bit.
Todd, " making a leap to the idea that the problem is right there " is independent of the possible conclusions made from long term hatchery supplementation studies done using genetic factors and behavioral traits to determine percentage of spawning success. Ensuring we know the actual selective traits of the supplemented stocks and why they work or don't in a given scenario means everything to the feasibility of the results IMO.
The biggest hurdle to recovery might be out-migrating factors, might not. How it affects the genetic studies is another beast entirely.
The consensus seems to be that as the human population grows, the fish population plumets. The fish can't evolve fast enough to compensate for human impacts (nothing new). The small ecological environments are gonna go first because they have a smaller timeline for destruction. I'm not a science nerd like Tod , but those are just my simple observations. I'm sure the dead zone has alot to do with it. Earlier this year there was a potential for massive fish kill if wind had blown in a certain direction and uprooted stagnant water. Hatcheries just compound the problem by impairing the genetics. The Hood Canal historicaly has lower oxygen levels, so if those fish want to make it to the open ocean and back or survive as residence, they gotta be tough. If the hatcheries supplimented those rivers with fish from outside populations, that hadn't developed the unique characteristics that the Hood Canal fish need to survive, then they potentialy destroyed or diffused those characteristics that the fish had developed in order to thrive in those conditions. They basicaly wiped out years of evolution. It's not just their fitness (or their ability to procreate) that has been impacted by genetic disruption. If there's one place to develope new idea's for salmon/steelhead restoration it's going to be in the Hood Canal. The Puget Sound is on it's way to being a larger horror story.
AuntyM - The repeat spawner rate is not a very good indication of whether over fishing is occurring or not. On the Puget Sound rivers the repeat spawner rate was measured as the portion of the previous years escapement that returned the following year. If that measured rate was say 15% it still would be 15% if no fishing had occurred. From all indications that repeat rate in this part of the world has always been low.
Yes places like Alaska and Russia have very high levels of repeat spawners but I would ask the question why. If there is a repeat spawning rate of say 75% is that really saying that for every 1000 spawners only 250 recruits are returning? I suspect that we see high repeat spawning rates in those kinds of places because they are the fringes of the species/live history distribution and in that harsh envirnoment the fish need multiple chances at spawning to be assured of having a decent chance to contribute to future generations. Following the same logic I would argue that populations from the center of the species range are typically more productive and are not as dependent on repeat spawners for population stability.
Firefish - The harvest rates in the 1980s and 1990s for the Puget Sound rivers were lower than those seen in previous decades. Further at least until the mid-1990s on at least some of the rivers increasing wild runs and escapements were being seen.
I agree with many that MSY management - specifically the maximum sustained use of a population's productivity - is the underlying cause for much of the currrent problems. The unfortunately reality is that the majority of that use of a stock's productivity has been for society in general benefits (such things as ag, forestry, development, water, power, etc) and very little to support fishing. Which of course explains why even the elimination of all harvest or fishing is not capable of returning the popualtions to former abundances.
AuntyM- Did not mean to dis-respect you! I often hear that the low rate of repeat spawners in Washington is evidence that over fishing had occured. My point is that is not necessarily so.
You are correct of course that having more fish on the spawning grounds will mean more eggs in the gravel. And yes it has been my experience that repeat spawners consistently have more eggs than first time spawners. It is easy to imagine that have those additional eggs is important; especially for population stability and every effort should be made to avoid selection against those fish (most commonly occurring by harvesting kelts).
Believe it or not I have thought a fair amount the question about selection for or against a repeat spawner trait. I think I understand how selection against size works for those Chinook or how removing the biters lead to the non-biters. However I can not think of how fishing on incoming runs selects against the likelyhood of repeat spawning -would not those fish likely to repeat and those not to repeat be equally likely to be caught in the fishery? In fact the potential selection that I can think would be selecting for more repeat spanwers not less.
If there is a genetic trait for repeat spawning then those fish surviving to repeat spawn would likely have that trait and with their increased numbers of eggs contribute more of the trait to the next generation leading to more repeat spawners.
Maybe some in this discussion with a better understanding of steelhead, steelhead behavior and steelhead fisheries can explain what selection occured against repeat spawning.
Conservation hatcheries for anadromous salmonids that aim to increase production and minimizing genetic, ecological, and demographic risks have not been experimentally tested for their ability to increase number of adults spawning in the natural environment. The conservation hatchery program for steelhead (i.e., sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss) evaluated in this study caused an increase in the number of redds in the supplemented Hamma Hamma River compared with the presupplementation period. Three control populations (nonsupplemented) either remained stable or declined over the same period. The increase in redds from hatchery-produced spawners did not reduce the redd production from natural-origin spawners. The strategy of rearing and releasing adult steelhead accounted for the greatest proportion of redd abundance increases. Environmentally induced differences in spawn timing between the adult release group and anadromous adults of hatchery and natural origin may explain why the adult release group and anadromous adults assortatively formed pairing combinations on the spawning grounds. Although captively reared adults produced the majority of redds in years they were released in substantial numbers, uncertainty regarding the relative reproductive success of this strategy suggests caution in recommending one strategy over the other. A demographic boost to the naturally spawning population was effected while managing to minimize negative ecological consequences.
However I can not think of how fishing on incoming runs selects against the likelyhood of repeat spawning -would not those fish likely to repeat and those not to repeat be equally likely to be caught in the fishery? In fact the potential selection that I can think would be selecting for more repeat spanwers not less.
Fishing on incoming runs of steelhead might not select against repeat spawners if the period prior to downstream migration was long enough that those fish would not encounter any harvest on that pathway. However, it seems to me that fishing on incoming runs of different species, such as spring chinook could certainly increase the likelihood of of increased harvest of downstream fish and therefore repeat spawners. I guess it would depend on the proportion of spawners that actually survive to migrate downstream and the proportion of those that would be repeat spawners.
Shocking video. Sooo sad. What are we doing? Pointing fingers at each other.
I agree with you Dave. It's time for all of us to get involved to do what we can to make positive change. I am as guilty as anyone. Been fishing for many years assuming that paying my license fees is enough to supplement our management programs. What's done is done. We can no longer point fingers at each other. It is time for everyone to work together for the good of our environment and fish and wildlife populations.
Maybe I just dont get it. If the fish cant make it to the gravel to spawn then = no more fish. Why do we keep dancing around this???? Get the F--king nets/commercials out and you can have fish spawning. Control the sports take or close it down and then the fish really have a chance. But who gets control the WDFW?? Oh well gone forever I guess. Curious though why did they go to college and get degrees in Fishery Science for ,if only to drive whole river systems into Extinction???
Uh...there's a reason it's called a "Fisheries Degree" and not an "Ecological Sciences Degree", or a "Conservation Biologist Degree"..."fisheries" is about fishing, plain and simple.
WDFW has plenty of ecologists and biologists on staff, too, though not surprisingly their policy ideas don't fit very well with the Department policies, nor would they fit well with most hunters' and fishers' ideas of sound wildlife management.
When I worked at the State, it was a not-so-funny joke that we referred to the WDFW as the "Department of Hunting and Fishing"...
Nets haven't been legally targeting HC wild steelhead for years. That's not to say they didn't, or that they did too much for too long, but that can't be undone now. The only fishing targeting those fish these days is illegal fishing, whether it's with nets or hook and line. Why didn't WDFW close it to steelhead net fishing earlier? Because they couldn't, should they have wanted to. If the treaty co-managers thought there were sufficient fish to target for harvest, then they could do so, even if they were wrong. Tribes cannot be stopped from fishing by the state until there is hard evidence (different from emotional ranting evidence provided by sport fishermen) that a fish run is literally up against the ropes of extirpation. That evidence became available, and the tribes stopped netting the wild HC runs.
We won't know for a couple life cycles at least whether the current steelhead rescue efforts are going to succeed. But the agencies and tribes are cooperating to give it the best chance possible.
Well emotional ranting aside (which only comes from watching total rape of fish runs by the way) why is "nothing is done untill the barn is burning down? just saying !! oh and we get to watch the same going on over here with puget sound streams !!!!! lets see, kill off hood canal streams. then mover over and kill off puget sound streams. and........coast is next? maybe soutwest streams. ROLL THE DICE and who's our winner this time ?
Tribes cannot be stopped from fishing by the state until there is hard evidence (different from emotional ranting evidence provided by sport fishermen) that a fish run is literally up against the ropes of extirpation. That evidence became available, and the tribes stopped netting the wild HC runs.
See there... we can easily predict what will happen to the OP wild steelhead.
When it happens, will freespool tell us it was due to non-existant dams or all that lousy habitat?
If you spent a little more time researching this subject, instead of flapping your gums, you might just be half as smart as you think you are. Notice that they don't mention over harvest as a factor. And don't forget about where all those crab went, or do out migrating fish like dead zones?
Loss of functional habitat – particularly freshwater habitat – is generally believed to present the greatest risk to the state’s wild steelhead populations. In its ESA listing for Puget Sound steelhead, NOAA-Fisheries concluded “habitat is the principal factor limiting the viability of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS (distinct population segment) into the foreseeable future.”
In Puget Sound and other waters around the state, scientists note that water diversions for agriculture, flood control, residential use and hydropower have all reduced the amount of freshwater habitat used by naturally spawning steelhead. Forestry, mining and industrial development have also reduced or degraded habitat.
Steelhead are more vulnerable to these changes, because they spend more time in freshwater than other anadromous species. Unlike salmon, they often spend more than one year in freshwater and spawn in multiple years, depositing their eggs farther up rivers and streams. In the ocean, they also tend to school higher in the water column, making them more vulnerable to climate change or surface temperature changes.
WDFW has limited authority over land-use decisions, but does administer the Hydraulic Project Approval program, which regulates activities on and near state waters that could affect fish life. The department also coordinates habitat-restoration projects conducted by local governments, Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups and other organizations. The statewide steelhead management plan directs WDFW to emphasize steelhead conservation in all of these programs.
You seem more agenda driven, instead of finding the real problems. It took about 30 seconds to find the answer, yet you cling to none scientific theories for the decline. Why is that?
freespool, the CORRECT answer was already here. You didn't need to go out and search the internet for somethng that fits your bias.
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Skyrise,
Nets haven't been legally targeting HC wild steelhead for years. That's not to say they didn't, or that they did too much for too long, but that can't be undone now. The only fishing targeting those fish these days is illegal fishing, whether it's with nets or hook and line. Why didn't WDFW close it to steelhead net fishing earlier? Because they couldn't, should they have wanted to. If the treaty co-managers thought there were sufficient fish to target for harvest, then they could do so, even if they were wrong. Tribes cannot be stopped from fishing by the state until there is hard evidence (different from emotional ranting evidence provided by sport fishermen) that a fish run is literally up against the ropes of extirpation. That evidence became available, and the tribes stopped netting the wild HC runs.
We won't know for a couple life cycles at least whether the current steelhead rescue efforts are going to succeed. But the agencies and tribes are cooperating to give it the best chance possible.
Sg
Actually I found numerous citations all saying the same thing, I chose WDFW as a impeachable source. I challenge you to find any credible data that says the decline of Puget Sound wild steelhead is due to over harvest.
As soon as the illegal and/or unrecorded harvest is counted, as soon as the fisheries, included incidental are actually closed, as soon as the fisheries on salmon are reduced so that the spawners necessary to provide nutrient/productivity to the ecosystem are implented, as soon as all the foodfish species (herring, etc.) are reduced so that steelhead food remains in the ocean, as soon as the harvest of steelhead food on the high seas is reduced, then we can talk about harvest not being a problem.
As was mentioned earlier, if we continually narrow our focus to a single species and act as if they exist in an ecological vacuum, they don't stand a chance.
Funny how the main recovery points favored by sport anglers never show up in any scientific data.
1. Over harvest
2. Predators
3. Commercial bycatch
4. High seas long liners
5. Over exploitation of bait fish
These bullet points come up time and again as reasons for our declining fish runs, yet these same issues never appear in any scientific studies as limiting factors for recovery. Yet armchair biologists cling fiercely to these non scientific hypothesis as the gospel for fish recovery. Why is that?
The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease
An international group of ecologists and economists warned yesterday that the world will run out of seafood by 2048 if steep declines in marine species continue at current rates, based on a four-year study of catch data and the effects of fisheries collapses. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html
This thread is about the Hood Canal. If I wanted generalized information about the overall depletion of fisheries throughout wa, let alone everywhere, I would go to one of the various other fisheries rant threads that continually take place on this forum. One the biggest down falls to steelhead management has been the generalizations in fisheries management- unjustified optimistic ussumptions, and a lack of attention to detail. A simplistic approach to the depletion of the Hood Canal salmon and steelhead restoration, assuming that the same thing is happening to them as everywhere else, will ultimately aid their downfall. There is a large number of things impacting these fish, and each issue should be handled individualy with the utmost attention to detail.
This has been a good thread thus far. Hope it can continue in a civil manner so we can continue to have some productive discussion. Unfortunately that seems to be the downfall with most of our defunct fisheries. The parties involved become so entrenched that they don't keep an open mind.
I gotta admit though "impeachable source" is sorta Freudian by nature.
Please take note. Please realize that sometimes I have supported your conclusions, and sometimes I have contradicted you. Even so, I have been consistent. You are not. You lay out a blanket response as though it were applicable to every and all situations, but it is not.
As noted in NMFS' ESA listing document for Puget Sound steelhead, habitat degradation and marine survival are the proximate causes of decline. However, within Puget Sound there are exceptions, and those exceptions are stream basins in Hood Canal, a narrow fiord-like water body that is geographically distinct from, but considered for fisheries management purposes as part of Puget Sound.
The tributaries entering the east side of HC are small streams that formerlly had densely forested watersheds. It's all been clear cut, much of it is developed for other uses, and some is timberland in regrowth. Over harvest may have played a part in the near extirpation of these steelhead populations; I can't say for sure. But habitat degradation is without a doubt a primary if not the proximate cause of decline.
The tributaries entering the west side of HC have their watersheds in the Olympic National Park and are pristine (not all of them, but the preponderance). Attributing the near extirpation of these steelhead (and some salmon) populations to habitat degradation is a stretch and passes neither the chuckle or red face tests. Don't ask WDFW for the answer to why these populations crashed. Neither the Director, any Deputy Director, or any Assistant Directors know. But several biologists who have been around a while and are infinitely more familiar with what has happened in HC would inform you, off the record I suppose, why these populations crashed, and it wasn't habitat degradation.
This thread is about HC steelhead, which most of us who are local, or nearly local, consider distinct from the major part of Puget Sound. You get yourself at odds with those who know when you cite a source that while generally applicable, is distinctly not applicable to the rivers and populations that are the subject of this discussion. Exceptions abound, and it is good to be aware of them so that you don't make an azz of yourself by using blanket statements that don't recognize that there are exceptions.
Due to net size with the largest fish caught over the years producing smaller slot size leftovers that might not be associated with the strongest and fittest then coupled with low escapement, I’d haven’t heard anything on here about depensation. Any thoughts?
If the largest fish were such a good idea, then God wouldn't have made any small ones. This notion that large fish are more "fit" than small ones is substantiated main in the shallow minds of fishermen who can't differentiate between a fish and their pecker. There is no scientific evidence that small fish are less reproductively fit, and there is recent evidence that residualized male steelhead, about the size of small trout, effectively fertilize female steelhead eggs in many steelhead mating scenarios. This is the reason you aren't reading any posts by the biologists about this issue, because it isn't an issue.
Jgrizzle,
Just trying to help, not necessarily to referee - that's to much like hard work.
If the largest fish were such a good idea, then God wouldn't have made any small ones. This notion that large fish are more "fit" than small ones is substantiated main in the shallow minds of fishermen who can't differentiate between a fish and their pecker. There is no scientific evidence that small fish are less reproductively fit, and there is recent evidence that residualized male steelhead, about the size of small trout, effectively fertilize female steelhead eggs in many steelhead mating scenarios. This is the reason you aren't reading any posts by the biologists about this issue, because it isn't an issue. Sg
I’ll try again Reproduction is less successful at low population densities which is despensation. This was the main question. Any thoughts regarding Hood Canal rivers and low population densities and could that be why supplementation is helping out according to the Hamma Hamma study.
Freespool, we are supposed to buy your reasons as to why the numbers of Chum have been so low the last few years in the Skykomish? Really? The fish just couldnt spawn because ? Because they were in the bottom of a commercail boat ! Ya know the hell with it. Some of ya can run with the "Bad habitat" reason for every fish run going under. but when they close the Hoh, Queets, etc. just remember its not the overfishing. And the WDFW is a impeachable source !!! what are you smokin? outta here.
I’ll try again Any thoughts regarding Hood Canal rivers and low population densities and could that be why supplementation is helping out according to the Hamma Hamma study.
Is this what your talking about, the one you posted earlier?
Your Hamma Hamma source-
They were using chambers creek brood and unable to tell if they were spawning with the wild ones, yet assumed they were not. In the experiment, the hatchery and wild fish were not distinguished as variables becuase they had "evidence" that the chambers fish would not spawn with the wild ones. It has been 2 years since the program ended and we should soon, if not already, see results (couldn't find any on the www). The conclusion of that experiment appeared to be that they planted more fish and consequently more fish spawned (but they weren't able to tell which redds were from wild/hatchery fish). It's success could not have been observed until all suplimentation was ceased and they could study it's impact on the future wild fish populations. The program ended the same year that article was published ('08) so any statements about it's success within the article would be inconclusive. Anybody got updates on this program?
Wild brood stock eyed eggs was used from the Hamma Hamma R.for this study. Page 4/11 The Chamber creek stock was used in the Duckabush R. and the redds weren’t counted as part of this study.
The conservation hatchery program for steelhead (i.e., sea-run rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss) evaluated in this study caused an increase in the number of redds in the supplemented Hamma Hamma River compared with the presupplementation period. Three control populations (nonsupplemented) either remained stable or declined over the same period.
A Hood Canal Discussion is on the Radar as we continue to go down the road in the NWwildcountry Studio, on our Segment, "The Rise & Fall of Puget Sound Steelhead".Dr. Barry Berejikian , is my point of contact to get an in-depth look on the status of Hood Canal and the research and work that has been done there over the past few years. He will also help us to understand what those doing research understand thus far, as to what is perhaps happening to our Steelhead Smolt in Puget Sound. We will hopefully have this component in a couple weeks. This next Saturday we hope to reach out to a few folks involved in the research and information available in regards to the Skagit and Sauk system. Again, another very fragile situation that is worth discussing. If you have followed the show at all, we are breaking it down, Puget Sound Basin, by Basin to bring out the research and information specific to each system. We are gathering data and speaking with those responsible for the research to educate our listeners and viewers as to what is going on and to this date what Fisheries Managers and Bio's, do and do not know about Puget Sound Steelhead. Tune in every Saturday morning and travel this educational journey with us. www.950KJR.com click the listen live button. You can also see us on Comcastsportsnet channel 179 or 37 down in the Portland area. You can also get caught up on past discussions on this topic and more at www.950KJR.com click the On Demand Menu, Click NWwilcountry and find the title or date you are looking for.
FireFish...
I'll be looking forward to watching the program when on in a couple of weeks and see what Dr. Barry Berejikian has to say.
More peer reviewed fisheries science conclusions on the decline of Puget Sound steelhead. Note they don't mention anything about over harvest as a contributing factor for the decline.
Habitat Conditions Habitat utilization by steelhead has been most dramatically affected by a number of large dams in basins feeding Puget Sound. In addition to eliminating accessibility to habitat, dams affect habitat quality through changes in river hydrology, temperature profile, downstream gravel recruitment, and the movement of large woody debris. Many of the lower reaches of rivers and their tributaries in Puget Sound have been dramatically altered by urban development. Urbanization and suburbanization have resulted in the loss of historical land cover in exchange for large areas of imperious surface (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.). The loss of wetland and riparian habitat has dramatically changed the hydrology of many urban streams, with increases in flood frequency and peak flow during storm events and decreases in groundwater driven summer flows (Moscrip and Montgomery 1997, Booth et al. 2002, May et al. 2003). Flood events result in gravel scour, bank erosion, and sediment deposition. Land development for agricultural purposes has also altered the historical land cover; however, because much of this development took place in river floodplains, there has been a direct impact on river morphology. River braiding and sinuosity have been reduced by dikes, hardening of banks with riprap, and channelizing the main stem. Constriction of the river, especially during high flow events, increases likelihood of gravel scour and the dislocation of rearing juveniles. Side channels are spawning habitat for steelhead and other salmonids. Additionally, side channel areas provide juvenile rearing habitat, especially overwintering habitat (Beechie et al. 2001, Collins and Montgomery 2002, Pess et al. 2002). 32 There are two major dams in the Nooksack Basin, the Nooksack Falls power plant diversion dam (completed 1906) above the impassable Nooksack Falls at river kilometer (RKM) 104.6 and the water diversion dam (1960) on the Middle Fork Nooksack River (RKM 11.6). The Nooksack Falls project is upstream of an inaccessible falls and has been out of operation since a fire in 1997; however, there is concern that renewed operation may alter natural flows. The water diversion dam on the Middle Fork Nooksack River currently prevents upstream access to historical steelhead habitat; furthermore, the dam diverts a considerable proportion of the summer flow to Lake Whatcom for eventual use by the City of Bellingham (Smith 2002). Comanagers currently are evaluating the passage of salmon and steelhead over the Middle Fork Diversion Dam. The Skagit River Basin contains two dam complexes, the Lower and Upper Baker dams on the Baker River, and the Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams on the Skagit River. Lower Baker Dam was completed in 1927 at RKM 1.8 of the Baker River. Passage above the dams is accomplished through a trap and haul program and downstream passage is accomplished via a smolt collection facility at Upper Baker Dam (known as the “gulper”). Passage efficiency is higher for larger (yearling) smolts that migrate near the surface, for example, coho salmon, sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and steelhead, than for subyearling smolts of Chinook salmon, chum salmon (O. keta), and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). The other dam complex, incorporating the Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams, limits access at RKM 155.3 on the Upper Skagit River. Surveys undertaken during the 1920s, prior to the construction of the first of the dams, report steelhead were not present at or above the proposed location of the dams (Smith and Royal 1924). Similarly, the Seattle City Light diversion dam on the South Fork Tolt River in the Snohomish River basin is located above the limit of steelhead migration (an impassable waterfall is located at RKM 12.9). While these dams do not limit the habitat accessibility, they can affect downstream steelhead population through changes in flow, or by blocking downstream recruitment of gravel and large woody debris. Landsburg Dam (RKM 35.1) on the Cedar River has blocked steelhead access to approximately 27.4 km of mainstem habitat since 1900. Preliminary studies are currently underway to provide passage for steelhead and other salmonids above the dam. Plans are also being studied for restoring passage to the upper Green River. In 1913 the Tacoma Water Headworks Diversion Dam eliminated access to 47.9 km of mainstem habitat. The construction of Howard Hanson Dam (RKM 98.1) above the diversion dam in 1962 blocked access to several kilometers of mainstem and tributary habitat (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). It is thought a summer run of steelhead historically existed in the Green River, but that the run was extirpated following loss of access to headwater spawning areas following the construction of the diversion dam. The Buckley Diversion Dam (RKM 39.1, completed 1911) and the Mud Mountain Dam (RKM 47.6, completed 1942) impede upstream passage on the White River. Returning adults are collected at a trap associated with the Buckley Diversion Dam and trucked around both dams. Downstream smolt passage occurs through the dams rather than through a trap and haul system. In addition to upstream and downstream migration effects on salmonids, flow diversion and ramping rates can result in dewatered redds, fish strandings, delayed migration, and degraded water conditions. In the Puyallup River Basin, the Electron Dam (RKM 67.3) has blocked upstream passage for more than 90 years. Construction of a fish ladder in 2000 has provided 33 access over 16 km of mainstem habitat. Adult and juvenile fish passage studies are currently underway. In the Nisqually River Basin, the LaGrande Dam (RKM 63.5, completed 1945) and Alder Dam (RKM 66, completed 1944) block upstream migration. At present there are no plans to provide passage around these dams. The two Cushman dams, Dam No. 1 (RKM 31.5, completed 1926) and Dam No. 2 (RKM 27.8, completed 1930) eliminated steelhead access to much of the North Fork Skokomish River. Anecdotal evidence suggests steelhead utilized much of the North Fork, although it is not clear whether these were winter or summer run fish. Additionally, the diversion of flow from the North Fork to the powerhouse has reduced the overall flow of the Skokomish River by 40% (USFS 1995). In the Elwha River Basin, two dams, the Elwha (RKM 7.9, completed 1911) and the Glines Canyon (RKM 21.6, completed 1927) block access to more than 100 km of historical mainstem and tributary habitat. Both dams are scheduled for removal beginning in 2012.
That's not a peer-reviewed publication; it's an internal agency funding proposal. And you still fail to draw the distinction between HC and the rest of PS. Is the issue that you don't "get it?"
+1 that this is not peer-reviewed literature. In fact, the habitat comments are very general in nature and in some cases, misleading. For instance blockage of upstream migration by the dams on the Nisqually that were built in 1926 and 1930 had nothing to do with the precipitous decline in Nisqually steelhead that started around 1989.
That's not a peer-reviewed publication; it's an internal agency funding proposal. And you still fail to draw the distinction between HC and the rest of PS. Is the issue that you don't "get it?"
Sg
OK Salmo I'll play, list the rivers where steelhead runs are failing, I will supply the scientific data that shows what the factors for decline are.
Have you ever been to the Dosie or Duck Freespool. I doubt it. You best try comparing apples to apples. These rivers are as good as you get in the lower 48.
And lastly, I was around when the crash happened. I lived in Brinnon at the time. Grew up there and fished those rivers since I was a boy. You can find what ever study you like about the P.S systems. If you were there you would know that the rivers crashed when the nets were stretched. Plain and simple. No BS just truth. Watched it with my own eyes.
Dan S. listed the key rivers for you. These were major steelhead and salmon rivers in the not too distant past. The habitat is as good today as it was then. Please do show us the scientific peer-reviewed literature indicating that habitat degradation is the proximate cause for the crash of these populations.
I don't think you're stupid, but when you show up time and again with the same explanation (habitat degradation) when the discussion regards examples to which your explanation is not applicable, it undermines your credibility and frankly, makes you appear stupid.
For just about every other PS steelhead population, yes, the proximate cause is habitat degradation. And while dams certainly account for a part of that, a keen analysis would show them to be over-represented on the list. Dams account for the loss or degradation of a relatively small percent of the total PS steelhead habitat degradation. The major culprits are land use conversions from forests to urban, agriculture, roads, rural development and forestry, which have adversely affected 90% or more of PS steelhead habitat.
Here's a NOAA link that addresses four basins off Hood Canal. My point is these populations are all suffering from many different environmental issues, over harvest isn't one of them, or none of these agencies are saying it is. They also are not saying predators are a factor, so that's two primary tools in sport anglers tool box that are scientifically false.
Hood Canal Land use in the four watersheds in this complex range from urban and residential in Little Anderson Creek to almost entirely forestry in Stavis Creek. We plan to implement restoration treatments in all the watersheds except Stavis Creek. The types of treatments 12 applied will vary by watershed depending on the factors perceived to be limiting fish production. In Little Anderson Creek, lack of wood and off-channel habitat has been identified as likely factors constraining fish production. We are currently planning several restoration projects that will address these concerns. Seabeck Creek displays evidence of channel incision in some locations and significant amounts of sediment deposition in other channel segments. The incision in this watershed may actually be contributing to low summer flows by reducing groundwater storage. We are currently conducting a hydrologic assessment of this watershed to determine the potential for increasing summer flow by reducing incision in key reaches. Big Beef Creek has a small impoundment that impacts water temperature downstream and provides habitat for various warm water fishes that may prey on coho and steelhead smolts. As the factors most likely to be limiting fish production become evident, appropriate restoration actions will be applied and the fish response compared with Stavis Creek, where no restoration applications will be applied. The watersheds in this complex offer us the best opportunity to evaluate the impact of urban and residential development on our ability to increase salmon production with restoration efforts. These watersheds also offer the advantage of being quite small making it possible to treat a significant proportion of the channel network relatively easily.
Here's a paper done by AFS pointing to out migration problems in the Sound.
The depressed status of Puget Sound populations of steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss contrasts with the healthier condition of those along the coast of Washington and suggests that there is substantial smolt mortality during the migration through Puget Sound to the Pacific Ocean. Acoustic telemetry transmitters and stationary receivers were used to investigate the survival, migration timing, and migratory behavior of 159 steelhead smolts in 2006 and 187 smolts in 2007 from four Hood Canal (part of Puget Sound) streams and one stream flowing into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The estimated population-specific survival rates for wild and hatchery smolts from the river mouths to the northern end of Hood Canal (28.1–75.4 km) ranged from 55% to 86% in 2006 and from 62% to 84% in 2007. Survival was much lower from the northern end of Hood Canal to the Strait of Juan de Fuca (135 km) in 2006 (23–49%) and could not be reliably measured in 2007. Travel rates through Hood Canal (8–10 km/d) were significantly lower than those estimated as the fish migrated through northern Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (26–28 km/d), while the mortality rates per unit of distance traveled were very similar in the two segments. The high daily mortality rates estimated during the early marine phase of the steelhead life cycle (2.7%/d) suggest that mortality rates decrease substantially after steelhead enter the Pacific Ocean.
Received: January 23, 2009; Accepted: July 12, 2009; Published Online: October 22, 2009
Freespool, you have named a bunch of creeks that are on the Kitsap County Side of the canal, and they are just creeks. The rivers you were given in an earlier post, are rivers coming out of the Olympic Mtns and they are small rivers with very little population about them as compared to the Kitsap Side.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: No Hood Canal Steelhead - 01/21/1111:00 AM
This is why I dont fish anymore, I just cant do it as it makes me feel too bad, its downright depressing. Everything accept the actural main cause of overharvest is blamed for the declines.
Habitat is a factor but not much of one. If it were the fish would have never even been here by the time the white man came along. The natives were using the rivers as their toilets for thousands of years and the fish kept comming.
Once the white men got here they logged,developed farmlands and built cities and the fish still came. It was not until large scale inriver comercial harvest started before there were big declines.
decades ago we hit the point of critical mass with these runs, plain and simple they are just not recoverable.
My grandpa and his brothers fished the Dose and Duck, big Quil as early as the 20's. literally with the gear they had they could catch fresh steelhead year round as the conditions permitted. At peak times they could fill up the bed of a pickup with gear caught steelhead just standing in one spot. There were thousands of fish even in those short rivers.
You just proved my point and sound like a broken record. You equate Big beef creek, which I now live on, stavis creek and the others to the Dosie and the Duck. You need to look at a map. These are not the same and making the no distinction makes you sound at best stupid and at worst agenda driven.
These populations died because of netting and to a smaller extent, hook and line by us who were idiots to bonk and eat these fish(me included). They were netted relentlessly over a whole generation of fish so that none were allowed to spawn. At the end of that there was none left.
What part of allowing no fish to reach the gravel for a whole life cycle do you not understand? Why do you deny it happened? Again I watched it and no one would do anything about it. These rivers were exterminated. One of the saddest sights of my lifetime. And with the netting schedule and harvest first mentality on the other OP rivers they will follow in the dosie and duck footsteps.
OK, we've tried spoon feeding you, but still you persist in appearing dumb as a box of rocks. I'm puzzled as to why you do this. You posted, "My point is these populations are all suffering from many different environmental issues, over harvest isn't one of them, or none of these agencies are saying it is." My point, and the point expressed by several others in this thread, is that your point if flat out wrong as regards these key western HC populations. Generally for most PS steelhead runs, your contention and citations about habitat degradation being limiting is correct. Now why the fvck can't you get it through your head that those limiting factors cannot possibly apply to certain HC rivers that have no urban, agricultural, or forest development due to having the preponderance of their watersheds inside the pristine Olympic National Park?
You won't find the answer to every fisheries question in the peer-reviewed literature or even non-peer-reviewed agency reports. Not all the salient information applicable to every fish population's condition ends up in a report or scientific article. That's all we've been saying in regards to these specific exceptions to the general cause for population decline, yet you continue to cite literature and reports that just flat out do not apply. You have persisted to the point of making yourself incredible and appearing stupid. A smarter person would acknowledge that they made a mistake and that general causes are general for the very reason that they generally apply, but don't necessarily apply to any and all examples. But you haven't been that person. You just keep clinging to evidence that does not apply? Why?
BTW, I know most of the authors on that IMW list. They wouldn't support your ill-conceived contention that habitat degradation caused these populations to collapse. That might be a clear and cogent reason why rivers in this thread are not a part of their report.
With most PS steelhead populations barely averaging one recruit per spawner, I wouldn't expect a miraculous upswing in the Hamma Hamma or other populations on this life support measure. However, we hope that by having a larger base population that these stocks will be in a better position to maintain themselves, and halt the precipitous decline. Time will tell if they have a chance, or if it's too late to save them.
As to the peer-reviewed literature on overharvest take a look at Stockner's "Restoring Nutrients in Salmonmid Ecosystems". While the papers contained in it are not specific to steelhead or Puget Sound, they lay out a convincing case that the "cultural oligotrophication" (excessive fishing) of watersheds substantially reduces productivity which leads to smaller runsizes.
The literature is out there. It is just being ignored.
That's the kind of literature that gives harvest management types the heebie-jeebies, cuz the only cure is managing for larger than MSY escapements. Surveying an AK stream, it's quickly obvious where the nutrient base is coming from; there's not much CaCO that isn't marine derived.
What is funny, or depressing, to me is that on some study streams (pristine so you can throw away the Habitat, Hatchery, or Hydro H's) in Alaska they allow pretty huge pink escapements (and still have good fisheries on the pinks) with the result that CATCH of coho goes up something like 5X.
Just how big of a stick do they need to be hit with?
I really don't know. It's gotten to the point that the commercial salmon fishery is WA is so small in ex-vessel value that ending it wouldn't make a blip on the state's economic screen. However, I've heard in-person testimony that decreasing the availability of commercial fishing will cause more kids in Whakiakum County to take up a life of drugs. How can a guy "refudiate" that?
When I was a kid growing up in Northern Mich, my entire family were commercial fishermen, fishing for mackinaw trout, whitefish etc in the 50's with gill nets. Then came the big crash in fish populations due to the lamprey eel's and us........drugs......no........we moved on to other things, for me it was first some time logging and then the military......the folks involved with commercial fishing in WA will move on to other things.
The literature is out there. It is just being ignored.
The literature is out there on a lot of stuff. I just took a look at the NOAA evaluation of the PS Chinook harvest RMP. For all practical purposes NOAA's Salmon Management Division ignores the evidence of loss of productivity caused by hatchery fish spawning naturally, while including hatchery fish spawning naturally (and their offspring) in estimates of escapement abundance and trends. They even ignore the conclusions (actually, even worse, they mis-represent the conclusions) of NOAA's own independent Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST) that says that you have to deal with having large proportions of hatchery spawners if you're going to have recovery. You kind of wonder if anybody in that agency is ever going to step up and be in charge.
It seems to me, that despite evidence to the contrary, the salmon managers think that someday they might return to the rock star status they once had and be in charge of a bunch of stuff again. Sadly, unless they start to address all the factors for decline and the needs of viable salmon populations, that just simply is not going to happen. I just wish they would come to that conclusion as well, so that other folks could get on with it.
I really don't know. It's gotten to the point that the commercial salmon fishery is WA is so small in ex-vessel value that ending it wouldn't make a blip on the state's economic screen. However, I've heard in-person testimony that decreasing the availability of commercial fishing will cause more kids in Whakiakum County to take up a life of drugs. How can a guy "refudiate" that?
Sg
Or take on a life of college. Thats what community outreach progams and rehabs are for. That is the ultimate rational for continuing harvest. Recreational fishing will also keep one away from drugs. We should save our communities and abolish all comercial harvest to increase angler opportunity. Drug free's the way to be, lets go fishing and get sober.
NOAA also ignored the effect of fishing on adult sizes. According to Ricker, and others who looked at it, Chinook may have lost up to half their adult size and a couple years of age. All due to fishing.
In NOAA's analysis, at least the one they did about 10 years ago, they looked at the last couple years' of data, completely ignoring decades of information. Their conlusion was that fishing had no affect on adult size.
Tying a few posts together in this thread for discussion.
If a high percentage of out migration loss is proven historically or not,-- it is happening. This would prove mother nature is right in historically trying to flood the rivers with fish to spawn. In the infinite wisdom of man, MSY/MSH and carrying capacity does the polar opposite. Instead of flooding the spawning grounds with fish these manmade devices flooded the bottom of boats with fish.
MSY contributed to declines and is known today as voodoo science and IMO the jury is still out on carrying capacity since we can see how carrying capacity has been manipulated by non tribal and now tribal trying to get more fish in their boats instead of the spawning grounds. Escapement (over a different number per river is considered waste) could very well be the mechanism that needs to be looked at and improved dramatically for more redds leading to more smolts to compensate the out migration loss. (would you want 20% of 100,000 or a million There is a big difference between 20,000 and 200,000 just using for example only.)
So many rivers with low escapement contributes to depensation and supplementation in this Hamma Hamma study shows an increase of 10x more redds which could help even though we need the capability to be able to flood the rivers with fish again. It looks like we are at a point if great numbers of escapement (waste) aren’t allowed back to spawn then this is just could be a exercise in futility.
It was also brought up that the correlation between certain species depend on each other, so all species of fish should be considered to flood the rivers again.
Good luck changing current policy since the powers to be believe that mother nature is just plain wrong, which under current conditions should be under scrutiny. With every fish earmarked for harvest over escapement goals, even if these extra HC steelhead occur they are already going to tribal C&S according to PS HC harvest plans.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: No Hood Canal Steelhead - 01/23/1110:58 AM
Look what we have managed the fish into here in Washington state.
I have seen places on Kodiak mainland Alaska where the fish spawn ontop of each other. Species after species displacing the fertiized eggs from the ones before, because there are too many fish. We certainly dont get that with MSY/MSH, no we get one system after another to crash.
Why do you think that nature designed things the way they did. Why do you think that things evolved so that there was such an over abundance of fish, far too many for any given streams prime habitat that they had to spawn ontop of each other four or five times in a cycle.
But Rich many of those Alaskan species that are spawning on top of each other are indeed managed under an MSY approach. Ever check out the Alaskan catch of sockeye or pink salmon.
Maybe the Alaskan managers are more effective at that MSY management or maybe the habitat supporting those waves of salmon is more intact than here in the lower 48. I do agree that for the most part the rivers we have here in the Washington do not look much like they way they did when "nature" made them.
One again I'll say that the largest failing of the so-called MSY management here in Washington with our salmon and steelhead stocks is two fold. First the managers failed to recognize and respond appropriate either the cyclic nature of the marine survivals or the declining productivity of the freshwater habitat. Secondily we as a society have opt to use much of the habitat that supported that sustained yield of salmonids for uses other than producing those salmonids or the fishing that productivity once supported.
However as pointed out several times in this discussion that may have little to do with the topic at hand.
Another problem with MSY management, has been shown up and down the coast with salmon, is that the calculations are based on what you see. That is, say, if you cap escapment at around 50K, MSY calculations will show that uou are managing well. If, for some reason, you screw up and get 100K on the grounds, recalculation will show that MSY just went up.
AK has seen this with pink and sockeye, WA with pink and chum. Look at the Puyallup. The MSY goal for pinks was 19K. Does it strike anybody as odd that the recent years' runs of 500K to a million are still producing surpluses.
Also, MSY management is always looking backwards. Say that salmon do have ocean cycles of high and low survival. Well, if you calculate MSY on the recent years and survival was low, you will overharvest. Or, if you are like WDFW you set a goal and then never evaluate it again (chum, for example) regardleess of what is actually going on. You get the good years, and then hammer them right back down.
When the Chinook escapment gopals were set back in the 70s, they were based on recent year averages. In the document where they set them they acknowledged that this level of sp[awners did not use the avaialble spawning habitat.
The system is broken (FUBAR). so our goal as sports fishers should be to take control of the whole mess (In my opion). Dump MSY. Manage each river, each individual stock seperately. And Error very much on the conservative side. Make sure each stock has numbers for over spawning abudance, and if not: NO HARVEST. Yeah like thats gonna happen. ha ha.
Great idea man. Do you mind sharing with the rest of us how we can do this "take control" thing? I've been wanting to become benevolent dictator for years, but can't seem to pull it off.
Salmo you were correct, I did find a couple surveys that did mention harvest as a limiting factor, however given the overall picture, it would appear that these Hood Canal steelhad are having an issue with outmigration. I also found this link that shows a very bleak picture for Washington salmon and steelhead populations.
Current research suggests that all Puget Sound steelhead, not just these HC fish, are experiencing low survival while migrating from their river of origin to the Pacific Ocean. However, we don't know what the survival rates were when the respective populations were healthier.
, but those are just my simple observations. I'm sure the dead zone has alot to do with it. Earlier this year there was a potential for massive fish kill if wind had blown in a certain direction and uprooted stagnant water. Hatcheries just compound the problem by impairing the genetics. The Hood Canal historicaly has lower oxygen levels, so if those fish want to make it to the open ocean and back or survive as residence, they gotta be 
