Nisqually Chum and Closed water

Has anyone gotten any answer from WDFW as to why the Nisqually is closed to sportsmen? I got a report from a guy who lives on the river that the nets are doing really good. I remember last year that the Nisquallies opened a netting, and all the sportsmen raised hell with WDFW and we had an emergency opening. What's going on this year?

Is the Nisqually River going the way of the Skokomish? We (sportsmen) have to have the tribes permission to fish (their) river?

WTF...over?

Did they net for coho? If so i wonder how that went...

Just spoke to WDFW. This was "agreed to" at the North of Falcon. WDFW Bio's modeled out a depressed run this year, and recommended that there be no fishing. The Tribes bio's disagreed and said they were fishing.

The state says they could not challenge the tribes and agreed to keep the sportsmen out.

The thing that really pissed me off was when I asked if they were considering an opening if the run size is bigger than modeled? The girl responded by saying. "If we open it to sports fishing, the run will be decimated." REALLY!

So boys, I know for most of you, the lowly chum is not worth getting excited about. It's not your type of fisher so who cares.

But, once this is the new normal, they WILL be coming for your fishery.

This idea of separate, different, and not equal forcasts is, unfortunately, not new.

I really do not understand why the the State can't challenge. I can understand won't, but not can't.

If they can't, they have just admitted (as if they really needed to) that there is no Co-Management.

And, a rec fishery in the Nisqually on chums decimating (which, actually, is reducing it 10%) the run is also mind-boggling. Again, I can understand concerns about steelhead by catch as that has been an issue for the 30+ years I know of but never chum.

If the bycatch of steelhead and its incidental mortality rate resulting from a recreational chum fishery is a concern one reasonably should be asking about the loss of steelhead to non-selective gill nets.

Unfortunately this smacks of the same co-management failure as experienced with the MA 13 Dungeness crab fishery and with the same tribe.

No, WDFW needs to simply say that if the tribe has a season the State will have a fishery. End of story.

I'm sure some steelhead are taken in the tribal gillnets during the chum fishery, but I doubt there are many.
Based on my experience fishing the Nisqually up until they closed steelhead fishing in 93, it was a much better late winter stream.
We caught a few early steelhead, but March and April provided the best fishing in my opinion.

I'm with Larry though. The state should open it up if the tribes insist on fishing.
The Nisqually will evenually end up being a private playground for the tribe just like the Skok if the state lets it happen, which appears to be the case.

SF

That was a great March/April steelhead fishery until it wasn't.

Just to reiterate, if the tribe is concerned about any bycatch mortality on steelhead from a recreational fishery on chum then they should discontinue any use of gillnets when targeting those same chum.

As for recreational harvest of chum concurrent with a tribal fishery.....well, if the fish don't show that recreational harvest will be pretty low and the State could always issue an emergency closure.

Edit: There is a Commission meeting 14/15 December in Oly with time set aside both days for public input. Here is a link to the draft agenda for that meeting:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/12/dec0718_D_draft_agenda_dec1418.pdf.

The issue is not that the tribe is concerned about recreational bi-catch, the problem is they are netting REGARDLESS. Who cares about taking a “conservative” approach and wait to see what the run looks like. Net because we have the right to and conservation be damned. So, they net, the numbers show the state bio’s were right and they agree to stop netting AFTER THIER DONE!
Or, they do like last year, we finally force it open, only to have an emergency closure early because the nets prevented enough fish to make escapement. It sucks no matter.

We, the recs, are not and cannot be the problem. In any given week, the numbers suggest we will take around 100 fish or less, probably less than 50. Totals for 2015 were just over under 400 and for 2016 around 250 for the total reported take. Any guess what the nets will be taking? I personally watched 1 net on another river fill 4 bins of chum with the expectation of taking 2 more by the end of the day. A good location funneling the fish in, a good coral set up, and quick picking and the numbers can be very, very high.

You are trying to apply logic to the situation.

The Nisqually is ripe for the taking. Just as the Skokomish River was "annexed" and claimed as sovereign property, so will the Nisqually go.

We have seen a slow but steady progression to remove recreational sportsmen, and incrementally turn the management and jurisdiction of the river over to the tribe in toto. There IS a strategy and it is playing out in plan sight. However, it is happening in small increments, so with each loss, we don't raise objection. We've lost the ability to fish on netting days, we've lost days to closures, we've lost access, and now we've lost an entire run of fish. We are loosing a once "public waterway" and, believe me, it's not EVER going to be given back.

The Nisqually is phase two of the annexation of public waters by Treaty Tribes. Once it is accomplished, it WILL be used, along with the Skokomish, as precedence for future take overs.

Don't worry you say...WDFW won't let that happen. REALLY?
Ask the guys waiting for Point no Point Ramp, ask the Guys who loved fishing the Skokomish. The list goes on.

WE ARE LOSING THE MOUNTAIN, A PEBBLE AT A TIME! WAKE UP!

My understanding is that the Tribe had no problem with opening it up with the sport anglers, but WDFW didn't want to and is doing this one-sided closure with no real conservation concerns. Way to stoke the flames, WDFW.

And how was it that you came to that understanding?

WDFW had one forecast that said "no fishing". The Tribe's forecast said there were fish. Of course the Tribe would support and opening for recs because it would have supported their numbers. Then, IF WDFW's forecast was right and the run is overfished, both sides share the blame as they both fished.

IF WDFW's number was right, and the escapement goal is not reached, it pit's the Tribe in a poorer light; IF the Tribe is right it puts WDFW's methods in a poor light.

Management, at least good management, requires one to go with their best numbers and accept the result. Both sides did that; one will be right and the other wrong.

This happened a couple years ago, we didn't get to fish silvers at all. I am sorry to say I went to the tribes processing plant in Tumwater and got some eggs ( I was out). I was told it was a near record run, you could almost walk across the river on their backs.

We didn't get our share that time either.

Remember that "our share" includes Nisqually fish in all the marine fisheries. It is not 50:50 in each fishery or location.

I am aware, we didn't get to fish area 13 that year also.

From emails from the department, it appears the run is coming in low, with the tribe having taken 4000 chum so far.

Well, its now closed for the tribe too. I wonder who they will blame when the run continues to fall. I love how they blame a lack of water.

NISQUALLY INDIAN COMMUNITY
EMERGENCY REGULATION 6-2018
DECEMBER 19, 2018.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 14.23.02 NISQUALLY TRIBAL CODE, TITLE 14-Chapter 2, AS AMENDED BY THE BUSINESS COMMITTEE EFFECTIVE 7/31/91, THE NISQUALLY FISH COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING FISHERY CLOSED EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 19, 2018.
REGULATION SUPERCEDED/MODIFIED: 5
SPECIES: CHUM
FISHERY TYPE: COMMERCIAL
GEAR: GILL NET
MESH RESTRICTION: NONE
OPEN DAYS/HOURS: CLOSED UNTIL AGREED TO YELM ISU SHOWS ESCAPEMENT HAS BEEN MET
JUSTIFICATION: NEED WATER IN SPAWNING GROUNDS
NISQUALLY FISH COMMISSION

With all this rain they need water in the spawning grounds????? Gillnets do a lot, but they stop water?


I also note that the justification mentions an ISU. Begs the question of why there was the separate forecasts and management plans if there was and agreed-to ISU.

Last note is that only the Commercial fishery is closed.Personal use-subsistence could very well still be open.

Um...... ?

CM, I was thinking the same thing concerning the rain we have had. There used to be great steelhead fishing in the Nisqually until that ended because the tribe overfished it many years ago. The river had one of the best runs of wild steelhead at one time until the State closed it to fishing for steelhead many years ago. I remember tribal gillnetters fished even after the tribe and the State had closed it. WDFW Enforcement were involved in the investigation at the time. Probably you and/or Tug 3 remember that.

Yes there was.............

Hopefully they didn't/don't decimate the chum run.

Lifter99, I don't know if it's fair to say the tribe over fished the Steelhead runs and that they caused the collapse. I think you could easily blame both sides. I fished it prior to the word getting out and yes, the fishing was very good. However, WDFW didn't want to keep it a secret so they put the word out about how healthy the wild run was and had it open for fishing and KILLING two wild fish right till the end of April, one of the few rivers open that late. It went from a very quite river with very little sportfishing pressure, to a very busy river with lots of pressure and lots of killing. I think both user groups just took way too many fish. As one posters tag line reads........................dead fish don't spawn.

fishbreath, the last few years it was open to sport fishing, only one wild steelhead could be kept. The tribe couldn't control their own fishermen and so WDFW enforcement was in on the investigation.

Looks like Bill Herzog doesn't agree with you Lifter99 on who was to blame for the Nisqually steel-head crashing.




http://www.wildsteelheaders.org/oooh-ooh-that-smell/

BW, Bill is a very knowledgeble individual. Yes, fishing was excellent. But he didn't mention that it did go to one wild steelhead/day in the last few years before the c/r season. The tribe did continue to net after it had been closed by the tribe and the State. Back in those days the State could close a fishery to all fishing (both tribal and sport) if there was a conservation consideration. Nowadays, WDFW doesn't seem to have that power.

Did you read it very closely? Sportsman killing lots of hens, when the ratio of bucks to hens favored hens by a large margin. And little tribal interest in netting. The point is according to his article, you are over emphasizing the tribal netting.

And just to add a bit more info. I fished it on the Military side below Muck Creek almost all the way down to the handicap launch, there was a road that few knew about that followed the river and ended up around I believe it was called Hillside Creek. Anyway, once the river was closed for the tribe, usually in January or February, you would see some illegal netting but really not that much. I highly doubt the few that were fishing took anywhere near the numbers that they did take during their open season. Yes there was illegal fishing but tally up the total number of fish taken by both parties and that's where the blame lies. And the Nisqually was a very strange river for Steelhead as the hens to buck ratio was way out of wack. It was an oddity when we managed to get a buck.

BW, If Bill's estimation that five thousand fish were caught by sportsmen then how many were caught by the tribe? It would be interesting to know the total numbers(both tribal and sport) that were caught. Yes, there were a preponderance of hens. Yes, everybody( tribal and recs) caught a lot of fish(and hens). Maybe too many fish. But the tribe continued to fish after it was closed to all. Why, if there was so little interest by the tribe in netting? My understanding is that there is a permanent closure for sport steelhead fishing on the Nisqually. BTW the numbers of wild steelhead have rebounded significantly (similar to the Skagit) I don't know if the tribe has a subsistence/ceremonial fishery for steelhead now. I am not over emphasizing tribal netting. I have a problem with fishing after a fishery is closed whether it be by tribal members or sportfisherman.

The claim was that when it was open to fishing back in the day, there was little interest from the tribe. So the claim is there never was much tribal netting of steelhead on the Nisqually.

The steelhead are an example of how stopping hatchery production does not result in an increase in wild production to recovery and fishable levels. All of you who think that stopping hatchery production will bring back the native fish to fishable levels are ignorant. The Nisqually steelhead are a prime example of what you get when you stop hatchery production. Keep it going and we will not have any fishing in this state for all of you hatchery haters (i.e. Fly Fishermen).

Ask Tug3 about how interested the Tribe was in steelhead back before the crash. And, just to pick nits, when steelhead collapsed the agencies were separate; it was WDW managing steelies.

If I recall correctly, they stopped planting hatchery steelhead in the Nisqually in the early 80's, so almost a decade before it closed to steelhead fishing in 1993.
Closing fishing hasn't brought back wild fish either, regardless of whether hatchery fish were planted or not.

Since when did all fly fisherman hate hatchery fish?
SF

I don't think that the Nisqually was planted very long or with a lot of hatchery fish.

That was my recollection as well.
It received some but not a lot.
SF

For the longest time it was the prime example that wild steelhead and wild chum could exist, support fisheries, and not need hatcheries.

I started fishing it in 79 or 80 and at that time there were no winter run plants, all wild fish and quite a few of them. I later found out about a yearly plant of summer run up by the Mashel that only a hand full of us knew about. It wasn't a great run but it was a fun run that on some years ended up being pretty productive.

Also as I recall, the official sport catch, according to punch card data and the factor number they used to come up with the totals, seems to me it was around 1,200 fish. Bill's estimate of 5,000 seems way high! The fishing was good but not that good. A normal day in February or March for me was hooking 3-6 fish and landing one or two. I did have one day that I made three cast for three fish. One chrome bright, one with a line down the side and one down river fish. I doubt I'll ever have that kind of fishing here in Washington State again.

I fished the Nisqually from the middle 70's in to the 80's before it closed. I agree with fishbreath about the quality of the fishing for steelhead. I also think Bill's numbers are very high. Maybe Bill assumed that all steelheaders were as accomplished as him. I would like to know whose "claim" it was that the tribe was not that interested in netting steelhead. I had friends who would go down and buy steelhead from the tribal netters on the river bank at Frank's Landing. Those fish were not counted in their catch. Steelhead in the round $3/ lb. Like fishbreath, I can remember there was a small plant of summerrruns and maybe a small plant of winters for a while. If anyone is interested, look into the work of steelhead bio John McMillan of TU and and the people of the Wild Steelhead Coalition. They have done some interesting studies on how wild steelhead runs in the Skagit and some of the South Puget Sound streams (Nisqually, Puyallup) have recovered.
It would be interesting to know Tug3's thoughts on the tribal netting in the Nisqually.

I'll add some additional info. My observations were that the tribe was very interested in catching their share of Steelhead. I worked on the Nisqually Wildlife Refuge for a number of years and witnessed first hand their efforts each season near the mouth. In addition, when we floated the river during the netting season, there was never a shortages of set nets and quite often drift nets working the river. I remember it well as the tribal members fishing almost always gave us a really nasty look.

Here is some data for anyone who is interested. The Nisqually has been closed to steelhead fishing since 1991. In 2005, only 180 steelhead spawned. In 2015, over 1500 steelhead returned. One year later in 2016, over 2000 steelhead returned. That was the largest return in 20 years. in 2016, WDFW designated the Nisqually a wild steelhead gene bank. Interesting stuff.

Please send us a link to the study of your numbers Lifter 99. Also please include all years - not just the years you selected out to promote your agenda if they are even real numbers. Those numbers seem inflated and inaccurate.
The wild steelhead coalition has a specific agenda.
This site is full of folks who are delusional in thinking that wild fish will return to fishable numbers while decimating the habitat. Less people = More wild fish
More people = Less wild fish. Guess what? There are not going to be less people here in the future.

Those numbers came from a expert steelhead biologist from trout unlimited and from the Wild Steelhead Coalition. I don't have an agenda. I am just reporting facts. If you are such an expert where are your numbers? You can't even find the numbers yourself. The reason there are more wild fish in those rivers i mentioned is because they have been closed. is that too difficult for you to figure out? If you knew anything you would know that the Nisqually has good habitat. What is your agenda? Go back under your rock if you can't figure things out.

Those numbers came from a expert steelhead biologist from trout unlimited and from the Wild Steelhead Coalition. I don't have an agenda. I am just reporting facts. If you are such an expert where are your numbers? You can't even find the numbers yourself. The reason there are more wild fish in those rivers i mentioned is because they have been closed. is that too difficult for you to figure out? If you knew anything you would know that the Nisqually has good habitat. What is your agenda? Contact well known and respected steelhead bio John McMillan of Trout Unlimited If you want numbers. Can you figure that out? The agenda of the Wild Steelhead Coalition is to bring back wild steelhead to the numbers so that we can have a c/r fishery for them using selective gear rules. Since you proclaim to be a fly fisherman you should know what that means. They have proposed a c/r steelhead fishery on the Skagit and were hoping it would happen in 2018. Do your research.

Sorry for the double post.

Hey Lifer99, way to stick it to Elijah! I would agree with your numbers. I haven't followed the Nisqually very closely since it closed but I have heard similar numbers. Another interesting fact which I have nothing to back it up except for hearsay is that the Nisqually prior to the 70's, the Steelhead run had crashed before. It came from a neighbor who had fished it maybe in the 50's or 60's, (I'm taking a guess on the years) that it went from good fishing to very poor fishing. He said the fishing got so bad he gave up bothering with it. I wonder if this is just some sort of weird cycle that the Nisqually naturally goes through? It's still one of the very few rivers I have even fished that has such a lopsided return of hen's to bucks.

Nisqually steelhead, along with most of PS, really augered in during the early 90s. If memory serves, they fell off some in the 70s, rebounded and then tanked.

I just tried to find escapement tables on the WDFW website with no success.

A well functioning population of self-sustaining steelhead should be reasonable lopsided towards females. If it is not, the population is in trouble.

Survival to first return should be pretty close to 50:50. Unfortunately, I can't find a wild stock that has a R/S that averages even 1.0. Many are quite a bit lower.

Repeat spawners are primarily female. They spawn and leave while the males essentially spawn till they die. So, the repeats are mostly female. In Argentina, where a steelhead run got established, has shown seven or eight spawnings so they can come back a lot.

Sooooo, if your run has way more females than males that should be a sign of lots of repeat spawners and (very most likely) a self sustaining population.

Interesting to know the sex ratio of the Situk (I know they have a lot of repeats) and the Kamchatka streams.

CM, I fished the Situk for about four years in a row but that was quite a few years ago. Fishing was excellent with lots of fish.. I remember catching both males and females but I can't remember the ratio. Before I fished it, you could use bait and you could keep fish. When I fished it, you could keep only one steelhead for the season but it had to be a minimum of 36" and no bait was allowed. We never kept any fish however. There is a Spring and Fall run in the river. If I remember correctly, the numbers of fish in the Spring run (April and May) are larger then the Fall run but the Fall run fish tend to be larger. ADFG cut steelhead retention and eliminated bait fishing (before I fished it) because the numbers of fish were dropping drastically. When I fished it the numbers had rebounded nicely. But I haven't been there in more than 10 years. A tiny brushy stream but terrific numbers of fish.

I remember the Situk had good runs of salmon also. Sockeye, pinks and Chinook in the summer months a great run of coho from mid August into September. I fished it once for coho( more than 20 years ago) around the first of September and fishing was great for large coho. I can't remember if the daily limit was two or three coho. If memory serves me correctly I think the average yearly coho run was around 30,000 back then. The river runs about 20 miles from Situk Lake to the ocean. But all the fishing is done in the lower 12 miles or so of the river. Lots of large Bull Trout also. An amazing little river.

Odd that you find strong runs of steelhead in association with strong runs of salmon. Almost as if they were connected......

Nice personal attacks Lifter99. Could we get your first name at least so that you don't have to hide behind the computer screen? Your response is very typical of other fly fishermen that I have encountered on the river who think that they are better than everyone else. I can see that you are also well to do (travelling to fish in AK) and probably think that you are better than everyone else also. Please continue to go to AK to fish and don't ruin our fisheries here. Just because I fly fish that does not mean that I have to adhere to your agenda of catch and release. I like to harvest.
Your numbers are typical of what folks do with a hidden selfish agenda. Only present 2 years that are hand selected (probably made up) and no concrete facts. Here is a concrete fact: No river has been reopened to harvestable numbers of fish once hatchery production has been cut. Can you point out one river in which the wild population has rebounded after hatchery cuts to harvestable numbers?
Waiting patiently for your response... and please don't say that it needs more time because that is what the bios have been saying for the past 20+ years.

Elijah, I am not personally attacking you. Just do your research before you make statements. I am not a fly fisherman and I like to eat and harvest fish also. But you don't harvest wild fish when they are recovering.I am not well to do but when I went to Yakutat it was quite a few years ago and it was not very expensive. I had frequent flyer miles for the plane ticket. The place where we stayed (Glacier Bear Lodge) was a few hundred dollars each for a a room, food , drift boat and a fishing license. Four days and 3 nights was less than $1000 for each of the 3 or 4 guys in our group. I don't know what the costs are now. Again do you research.
The Skagit steelhead numbers have rebounded enough for a fishery (c/r) but no c/r season yet. All rivers in Washington are now closed to the KILLING of wild steelhead. Maybe the closure will be permanent even if wild numbers rebound. There are plenty of other fish to eat (hatchery salmon for example). If you dispute the wild steelhead numbers I mentioned, then contact the steelhead bio I already gave you the name of. Again, please do you research and reading. Do you have scientific data and numbers to dispute the numbers I gave instead of just saying those numbers are wrong. You sound a little like just another disgruntled angler.

CM, yes it is an amazing productive little river. It will be interesting to look at the present day numbers for the Situk.

And , like I said, the Situk is a short run river. 20 miles long through heavily forested (At least when I was there) land and very little if any flooding. Very little bank access. Only bank access was at the 9 mile bridge (?) where the boats were launched and at the takeout in the lower river ( A short distance up from the mouth). Like I said, I fished it four years in a row along time ago. Last week of April to the first week of May. The weather was never the same each year we went. One year was sunny and clear and the next year there was 5 ft. of snow on the ground. Lots of brown bear and moose.

I love steelhead fishing as much as anybody but I don't feel that I have to kill a wild steelhead to have something to eat. Even when you could kill wild steelhead I kept very few many years ago. I will take a hatchery steelhead home to smoke. Most rivers that are planted with hatchery steelhead have a mandatory kill rule on them. I eat plenty of salmon. I prefer the taste of salmon to steelhead anyway.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01856/wdfw01856.pdf

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Nisqually/nisqually-river-steelhead-recovery-plan

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/puget_snd_esu.pdf

Since this thread about Nisqually chum salmon and the river closure has morphed into Nisqually steelhead, there are some salient points to be made. It's counter-productive to blame either, and most likely untrue, non-Indian sportfishing or treaty tribal fishing for the decline in Nisqually wild steelhead abundance. The Nisqually steelhead run tanked beginning around 1990 just like all the other Puget Sound steelhead runs did. It was and still is a marine survival thing, not a sport-fishing or treaty net fishing thing. Even though it is likely true that the sport and tribal harvests reduced the spawning escapements in the seasons around 1990, steelhead are very resilient, and their populations typically rebound very well when the limiting factor is removed.

Targeted harvest of steelhead last occurred in 1993 for both the treaty and non-treaty fishermen. The population has had roughly 25 years, six generations, of insignificant harvest. (Some poaching does occur, by both treaty and non-treaty fishermen, just like on many other rivers, but the take is not enough to limit the productivity of the populations.) The population has not rebounded to the numbers witnessed in the 1980s because the factor limiting their abundance - marine survival - has not been removed.

There were significant improvements in spawning escapements in 2015 and 2016, which parallels the good escapements of most Puget Sound rivers during those same years. The most likely reason is that marine survival was better for all the runs at that time, but has not been sustained.

For those who like to harvest and eat steelhead, you need to support hatchery steelhead programs where possible. It is highly unlikely that wild steelhead harvest will ever be allowed in WA state again. With 7 million people in the state, and more coming here every year, there is just no way wild steelhead populations will recover to a level that supports a general harvest season. I think we will be fortunate if we can just maintain self-sustaining wild populations into the future. Some of them may support CNR seasons.

The Skagit River was mentioned above in this thread. Let me be clear: Skagit steelhead have not recovered from anything except the record low escapement of 2,500 spawners in 2009. The run has average around 8,000 steelhead for the last 40 years, ranging from the low of 2,500 in 2009 to 16,000 in 1988/ The river was closed to fishing after 2009 and remained closed because WDFW did not have a management plan approved by NMFS. In 2012 a grass-roots group calling itself Occupy Skagit (OS) analyzed Skagit steelhead data, determined that the run was not threatened or endangered, but was included in the Puget Sound-wide ESA listing. So OS asked the WDFW Commission to have the Department prepare a management plan for submission to NMFS. WDFW and the Skagit treaty tribes did finally develop the plan, and NMFS approved it last April. The Skagit CNR steelhead season that was intended to run from Feb. 1 to Apr. 30 opened on Apr. 12, Tues - Sun, allowing 12 days of fishing to the end of the month.

The Skagit will have a steelhead season again next year from Feb. 1 - Apr. 30, provided NMFS approves the co-managers' annual steelhead plan, which is compliant with the 5-year Resource Management Plan (RMP) NMFS approved last April. So there is no reason for NMFS not to approve it, other than much of the federal governement shut down at midnight last night. I'm adding this because the Nisqually might be a good candidate for a steelhead RMP in seasons when marine survival supports runs near or above the escapement goal.

While I'm on this steelhead topic, I'll add that IMO most all PS steelhead rivers are and have been at their natural carrying capacity in recent years. With no, or next to no targeting fishing on wild steelhead, wild populations certainly aren't limited by over-fishing by anyone. It appears that marine conditions have been controlling steelhead abundance in PS for nearly 30 years, certainly for the last 20. And with the steelhead smolt tagging studies over the last 10 years or so, it looks like much of that marine survival problem is with predation here in PS. My tagged smolt ended its seaward migration when it began showing up in the migration of a harbor seal following the tide in and out at the Nisqually River mouth and delta. The upshot is that fishing for steelhead in Puget Sound will be limited for the foreseeable future. If pinniped removal is supported for orca survival, I think both Chinook and steelhead smolt survival will benefit nearly proportionately.

Salmo - thanks for the historical refresher. My 2017 nisqually adoptee ended up back and forth between McNeil and The Narrows in the belly of the beastly seal.

Salmo, I echo Larry's thank you for your information. My condolences to the loss of your steelhead smolts. But it is not surprising considering the large (and growing) Harbor seal population in the South Sound.

Lifter99 are you accepting it now because Salmo said it? If I were you, i would too. He knows his stuff.
Stonefish posted the numbers. Did you look at them? I reviewed them again and have looked at them many times. What do you see from 1990 to 2004 on the Nisqually. Or what do you see on the Cedar river? How about all of the other creeks on the list that have not been fished? You see a decrease in wild fish numbers on every stream, even for the smaller watersheds outside of the puget sound. So my point is that if you like fishing and harvesting then you need to support hatchery steelhead and salmon. In my opinion, you are a hypocrite if you are for preserving wild steelhead and yet at the same time you are advocating for catch and release seasons on rivers like the Skagit. You are only advocating for what suits you the best and you think that that should apply to everyone else. If you truly care about wild steelhead then don't fish on them and don't support a CnR season on wild steelhead on the Skagit. So have you done your research? If so then please explain yourself again in light of the numbers presented.
Those who are against hatcheries have drunk the kool-aid that the government has given you to think that the mixing of the wild and hatchery fish is what is causing the decline in wild fish populations. The department gave you this based on a poorly done outdated study from Oregon that does not apply. The result is that they have to produce less fish which costs them less money. It is a win win for the government to spend less on hatchery fish and it is also a win for farm raised fish. If the department is producing/raising less fish then there needs to be less employees working for the department. Interestingly though, there has not been a decrease in employees for WDFW but rather an increase at the cost of our hatchery fish.

Elijah,

It is pretty widely accepted that pinniped predation and marine survival are the most likely culprits limiting to PS steelhead. Some years yield excellent survival with a lot of fish returning, others do not. It is incredibly unlikely we will ever be able to harvest wild steelhead ever again, but it is most likely we will have opportunities to fish for them in catch and release seasons. Catching and killing fish is 100% mortality. Catch and release fisheries are a small fraction of 100% mortality and may be the only strategy to allow us any opportunity to fish.

Just because many of us are okay with that and you aren't doesn't mean you get to dictate what should be done. I will take a wild guess that if projections estimated 1 fish over minimum that permitted a fishery, you wouldn't hesitate to get your harvest on.

I'd rather spend my weekends (or weekdays) out on the water having fun instead of watching Football. I support hatcheries and preserving wild fish. You are a hypocrite and are only supportting what suits yourself. Look at yourself. You aren't any different. Since you acknowledge that Salmo knows his stuff, you might want to read where he suggests that the Nisqually be considered for a RMP.


Matt

Actually, there is evidence from a number of PS streams that steelhead respond very positively to significant increases in salmon spawning escapement. Noted in BC, too. Much of that was on brood years through about 2005; looking to expand that view with more recent data and see if the pinnipeds overwhelmed them recently.

In my experience there is no one silver bullet to solve the salmonid problem. Actually, there is, but removal of 90% of the humans is not an option. They need good habitat, and that includes not only passage/etc. but spawning salmon. As Jeff Cederholm said "Salmon are habitat". They need decent spawning numbers made up of fish that evolved in that system. They need that the predators be in balance with their (the fishes) population. They need food in the estuary and ocean. They need a cooler world.... They absolutely need that the management agencies responsible for their survival and flourishing to be fully funded.

Taken as one action, killing all the pinnipeds won't save steelhead, closing all the hatcheries won't save steelhead, even removing all migration barriers won't save them. We need a holistic program, which means that every impact be dealt with.

I'd put a dollar that shutting down commercial fishing would save them and they'd rebound better than Charles Barkley. Just saying.

Elijah, Sure I am going to support what Salmo said. He is a retired fisheries bio. His thoughts and the numbers from Stonebreath are basically the same ones numbers I saw. There was a short c/r fishery on the Skagit for steelhead in 2018 with another planned for 2019 I buy my license(s) every year so I do support hatchery production. I harvest hatchery fish. I support c/r fishing (with selective gear rules) when the numbers of wild steelhead support it. That is not being a hypocrite. I think most would agree that we will never be able to harvest wild steelhead again in Washington. I think that is wonderful.
Raising hatchery fish is so much more expensive now. Just operation of the hatcheries (feed,power,etc.) costs more You are going to get less fish for the money now. "Less bang for the buck" so to speak. Gov. Inslee has proposed more money for hatchery production in his proposal to save the SRKW.

I like the Steelhead discussion. Thanks for elaborating the details. Fond memories for sure. I really miss the opportunities that used to exist, which brings up a question. Why have their not been RMP's on the South Sound rivers like the Nisqually, Puyallup and Green? It seems it took lots of pressure just to get the Skagit CnR open a few days a month. Why is it so difficult to get moving on this? Is their a schedule on the books to complete them? I am a CnR supporter but also am a hatchery supporter and enjoy harvest. So disappointing not to have any opportunity for South Puget Sound Winter Steelhead.

RUNnGUN asked: "which brings up a question. Why have their not been RMP's on the South Sound rivers like the Nisqually, Puyallup and Green?"

And a good question it is. First, I'd say that steelhead RMPs at best, are a distant blip on the WDFW radar. Compared to all the fish management stuff the agency is required by law to do every year, steelhead are like an annoying fly in the oinment. The fisheries are small in total, not much money is involved, so no large lobbying efforts are made. We're talking about pocket change that's lost in the lint in a deep corner of the pocket. That's a lot of words to say that it is a very low priority.

Second, unlike the Skagit, where even the low returns have been near or not much lower than the spawning escapement guideline, steelhead returns to south sound rivers have been far below escapement goals, except for 2015 and 2016. It's harder to justify the time and resources necessary to develop RMPs for river systems when run forecasts suggest that there are not enough fish to support a fishing season most year. I was probably overly optimistic about the Nisqually. It did look promising those two years, and I haven't sought the escapement estimates for '17 and '18. I think we need a basin by basin deep dive spawner-recruit analysis to see what the future for PS steelhead fishing might look like.

Thanks again, Salmo. Do you think it is NOAA just being slow on the permitting process to allow a c/r fishery or is it the numbers returning just aren't large enough to allow a fishery. On the numbers I saw for 2015, the Puyallup had more returning wild spawners than the Nisqually. I think it was a little more than 2000 for the Nisqually and more than 2300 for the Puyallup. I did see where in 2005, only 98 wild steelhead returned to the Puyallup. In 2015, the wild steelhead return on the Puyallup was the highest in 25 years. I agree that steelhead RMP's are not a high priority.

RUNnGUN, you have to doubt that there will ever be hatchery steelhead planted in the Puyallup again. One of the last years that it was planted only a couple of steelhead returned the Voight's Creek hatchery out of a plant of 200,000 smolts. Kind of a waste of money for WDFW. Sad.

Agreed, the returns to Voight were pathetic.
I think one year they got like 9 fish back on a plant of 150K or so.
I believe the tribes run a hatchery broodstock program on the White River.

Having a early run of hatchery fish again on the Cowlitz would be nice to see again it the future.
That would take pressure off a lot of other systems and increase winter steelhead hatchery harvest opportunities.
I doubt it will happen but I thought there was talk about something like that in the past.
With the barrier dam in place, I can’t think of a better place to insure that hatchery fish can be separated from whatever they are trying to accomplish with the later returning fish.
SF

My short term memory is still fairly good and I recall that the grand pronouncements for the revitalized Puyallup hatchery included 300k steelhead.

Edit: When asked how those steelhead will contribute to our fisheries the response from WDFW was that they will be part of a recovery effort. That means no fishery. Kind of like the 800k White River springers they plan on propagating there. We may benefit from any Coho if they ultimately decide to raise some Coho. Orca recovery may change those plans.

Hatchery salmon are no longer being recycled into the river for nutrients on many of the rivers in Washington state in favor of them being sold to fish buyers. Just another compounding problem to the decrease in both salmon and steelhead.
My point is that hatchery fish must go on and be supported if you all would like to harvest a fish as opposed to the catch and release folks.
Raising hatchery fish does not have to be as expensive if they were not mated randomly. The survival rates would go way up if the department would do away with this gene diluting policy and do thier own natural selection.

I know on my nearby river(Puyallup) a large portion of the chinook and coho carcasses from Voight's Creek hatchery are put into the upper Puyallup for nutrient enhancement.

Lifter, a large portion would suggest more than 75 percent. Those fish were recycled by us volunteers on 2 days and did not represent a large portion. How many would you estimate we recycled out of those that returned? Again please do your research before making statements.
Voights is unique and in the minority. If you do your research you will be surprised at how many rivers are no longer putting the dead fish back into the river. Please let us know if you know of any others.

I had friends who volunteered there the last couple of years and they recycled fish on more than two days. Both kings and silvers. Do you research? Maybe you volunteered for two days but others worked more days. Kings early and coho later.

Well, I talked to my friend who headed the recyling at Voight's and they recyled 4 days for kings and 4 days for coho. More than 2000 fish of each species. They have a permit to recyle that many. Gary Loomis and his group handles the southwest Washington Streams. Haven't heard yet about up North. You need to do more research.

I forgot to mention that the Puyallup tribe recycles there fish also.

There is a last little bit about steelhead and hatcheries that isn't often talked about, even by the researchers. I have tried to get them to consider it, but....

For years, the WDG steelhead model was to incubate and rear the eggs on the warmest water possible. This promotes faster growth so age-1 smolts are easier to achieve. Basically, they were cultured on groundwater. Salmon were basically cultured on surface water which more mimicked natural conditions.

As cold-blooded animals, their enzyme systems are not only genetically inherited but often selected for temperature ranges. A fish that lives in 50 degree water year around will not function well in 35 degree and it is genetic.

So, in order to develop "local" stocks we, for example, started to culture the Puyallup steelhead at Voight's rather than Chambers/South Tacoma. They performed poorly because they simply could not function well in the water temperature regime. I think that this is one reason why hatchery steelhead perform poorly when asked to function as eggs and juveniles in the wild. Not all the reason, but big part.

That is interesting. I know that prior to the relocation of the Puyallup Steelhead hatchery operations to Voights Crk.....I forget the year? the Puyallup's steelhead used to be raised at the Clarks Crk hatchery, a spring water source. I fished the Puyallup through the 70's until it closed. It seemed returns were better there. Out of Voights the run tanked. Marine survival played a role but maybe ground water sources do work better? At least on the Puyallup. Hopefully the Clarks Crk. hatchery renovations and 300,000 steelhead to be raised there will turn things around, get a Puyallup RNP, and open it up again right in time for my retirement!

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.

The kicker is that you have to pay WDFW for them

Correct, CM.

So, let me see if I'm getting this straight. The state gets $450,000 for the "surplus" fish for all the hatcheries or just the Voight's Creek Hatchery? Then to top it off, they money received for this goes to the state general fund and not the WDFW. In the mean time the very streams that need these nutrients as part of a natural process have been short changed for decades because they are deemed what comes down to a biohazard. Then, to top it off, all the brain trust at WDFW can't figure why our fish runs have continued to decline. With that mindset our runs will continue to decline to a trivial amount unless changes to business as usual are made now.

Here's a penny for thought. Here's a golden opportunity for some of the fishermen's groups (CCA, PSA, etc.) get together and bid the contract for the "surplus" fish. Then gather volunteers from these organizations to recycle to all the streams, not just a few. Yes, there are some legal loopholes and challenges to overcome but it is doable. This would be a win-win for the fish and great PR for the sportsmen. Heck, you could most likely get the tribes involved.

My understanding is that the $450,000 is for all the hatcheries and it does go into the general fund. My understanding also is that there has been some thought from the volunteer group(s) about writing a grant to the Puyallup tribe to buy all the fish at Voight's Creek. It would be a benefit for everyone and the fish.

You forgot that the hatchery fish WDFW is selling have already been bought and paid for with our license fees. They sold OUR fish...

That is true_WW_. We have paid our share. Now the tribe should pay. They will benefit also.

I think the money goes to a special fund (Carcass and Egg Sales) and that, or at least specific amount, is funneled back to the Salmon Enhancement groups. At least it used to be that way.

CM, I hope you are right but I heard from a couple of the lead guys (who I know well) for the volunteers at Voight's that is goes into the general fund.

My understanding is that the money goes to the 14 RFEGs. Regardless of where it goes they are an priceless resource that belongs in the river as an essential nutrient.

HAHA...HAHAHAHAHA....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"Fishermen's groups (CCA, PSA, etc) get together...funny, very funny!

Sport fishermen abhor each other's different methods of fishing and can never unite because of it. And while we fvck around insulting each other our opportunities are eroding to nothing.

For the longest time I thought it was just apathy...in hindsight it's plain to see that it is nothing but stupidity.

You'll only get the fishing you fight for. No fight, no fishing.

Three thumbs up.

Stupidity caused by ego centric leadership and an addiction to prestige.

It becomes a head swell to be allowed into the inner circle of the "the fish mafia", and fish be damned.

No fight, no fishing...yes. But the MAJORITY of guys reading this post are still waiting for the other guy to do the fighting.

I got a message from Mr. Garner who is the State president of PSA (Puget Sound Anglers). He said that their group(s) does recycling of carcasses. They don't get any money from the selling of the carcasses and he doesn't know of any other groups that get any of the money. It goes to the general fund (or WDFW). He mentioned that all commercial license fees go into the general fund. They want more carcasses recycled into the rivers and creeks.

There is a lot of incorrect information being shared here about the use of excess fish carcasses and eggs from WDFW facilities. Here is the real situation. Fish carcasses and eggs from WDFW facilities are used for three purposes: nutrient enhancement, donations to food banks to meet high quality protein needs of economically depressed people (some fish may also be provided to the Dept. of Corrections to feed prisoners), and sale to a salmon processor to generate revenue for the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group (RFEG) Program.

The disposition of funds from the sale of the salmon carcasses and eggs is prescribed by RCW 77.12.177 (5): "(5) Proceeds from the sale of salmon carcasses and salmon eggs from state general funded hatcheries by the department shall be deposited in the regional fisheries enhancement group account established in RCW 77.95.090."

A pretty substantial process was undertaken back in 2010 to determine the best use of these fish and carcasses based on a directive included in the the Washington State Legislature's 2010 Supplemental Operating Budget. The department was directed to "work with appropriate stakeholders to facilitate the disposition of salmon to best utilize the resource, increase revenues to regional fisheries enhancement groups, and enhance the provision of nutrients to food banks.” A report titled "Recommendations Regarding the Utilization of Hatchery Returns of Salmon in Excess of Hatchery Production Goals" explains, among other things, the history of use of the carcasses and eggs, how other entities like states and tribes use their excesses, the process chosen to meet the requirements of the legislature, and a WDFW proposal for how to meet the legislative directive. It can be found at the following link:

Use of surplus from WDFW facilities

Thanks OncyT. I left before the new review.

Thanks for the info, Oncy.

What Oncy posted is exactly what I found in my research with some additional information that I was unaware of. He knows his stuff and I respect his posts because I have found that the information that he provides is accurate. I think oncy has some tribal affiliation also based on my reading of his posts many years ago.
I also agree with oncy that there is bad information being spread here on this website and post. Particularly by one or few individuals who continue to state things as if they are fact when in reality they are not.
Oncy, I would ask who is in charge of how the dead carcasses get distributed among the groups. The reason that I ask is that according to my research there are many rivers that currently do zero nutrient enhancement. There is no transparency involved in this process and I feel like the persons in charge rivers that have no nutrient enhancement should be fired.

If you want to do a carcass distribution project you (a group) needs to make a proposal. What hatchery, how many fish, and where to put them. Formerly, this was all handled from Olympia with a single point of statewide contact. Now, it has been regionalized. So, find a river with a hatchery on it and develop a project.

But, remember that the fish health concerns and rules over transfers could very well preclude moving fish. Lots of fish, for example, come back to Issaquah Hatchery. They would probably have to stay within the Lake WA system at the very broadest.

The final decision on a project, last I heard, was made by the Regional Fish Program Manager.

Elijah, I have generally quit posting here, but will answer a couple of comments as well as I can before going back into retirement. First of all I am no longer affiliated with any group or political entity although I spent a career working mostly in Indian Country. Secondly, if you are looking for someone to fire in a particular river, I think you are out of luck. To my knowledge, there is no one in charge of this in every river, so the work has been taken on by various groups - sometimes tribes, sometimes RFEG's, sometimes sportmen's groups (Does WDFW do this on their own anywhere?...I don't know. Maybe someone currently or formerly with the department will respond.).

Ah, regionalization! When I asked about the actual number of advisory groups, their pertinent information, and why they weren't all listed on the WDFW webpage (https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/) I was told they didn't know because of decentralization (the Sgt. Schultz response). Funny about that webpage which reads in part:

"Advisory group meetings are open to the public. For each advisory group, WDFW has created a webpage, where anyone who is interested in the committee can find more information such as committee rosters, mission statements, meeting schedules and agendas. Individuals interested in joining an advisory group should check that committee's webpage for more information."

For those with long enough memories, WDG was very Regionalized and WDF was very Centralized. Their management styles, results, and even response to constituents was very different. Having been in both, there are advantages and disadvantages.

But, the new guys seem to have strongly adopted Mushroomization. Keep them in the dark and feed them **llsh*t.

Let's be honest. As long as the salmon are managed for the benefit of commercial fisheries (Tribal and non-tribal) the recreational community will be nothing more than pains in the ass. For those of you who are deeply involved in the fisheries, you know that there is an arrogance that permeates not only the administration, but the fish mafia and leadership of the various groups. When (we) gather at these so called public meetings with the WDFW and Commission, it is cosmetic only. They do it so they can say they are "listening to their constituents and that the "public" is involved. It's all [Bleeeeep!]!

The fisheries are run by the Tribes and Commercials. Their demands are satisfied FIRST, and conservation and recreational fishing be damned. WHY? Just ask yourself, which group can bring the most grief to the leadership of WDFW and the Commission?

1. The Tribes
2. Commercials

We see it play out over and over, year after year, yet we keep our head buried in the sand and pretend like we are actually a real part in the process. Ask yourself this: Why are we subsidizing a commercial fishery? Does the state raise deer so they can be commercially harvested? Why has any attempt to make recreational fishing a priority over commercial harvest failed, even though the number of recreational fishermen largely out number commercials?

It's very simple. Our entire fisheries are managed so a select few can make money off the backs of the many, you!

Close Bay Wolf, but no cigar. The state of WA, pretty much in total, is afraid of the Tribal rights through the treaties. Boldt II, the habitat hammer, has the possibility of shutting down significant developmental activities in the state. The Tribes have a right to dead fish in the boat. The non Indians have chosen to take theirs as development, agriculture, logging, mining, and all else needed to support more people.

The Tribes run the risk of pushing too hard, but at this time they have sufficient power to get pretty much what they want. To the rest of the state, fishing is small potatoes compared to having a job, having water to drink, a house to live in, roads to drive on.

Carcassman, that is truth right there!