New Study on Hatchery Steelhead

All hatchery fish do not need to die as some have formerly thought and promoted. The thought that hatchery fish are bad has ruined many of our fishing opportunities. Hopefully those folks will admit that they are wrong and work to restore the hatchery production.
On another note it looks like WFC is working to shut down Reiter and the Green along with all other puget sound summer steelhead. I wonder if the steelhead fishermen will step up to fight back or if they will just let another fishery go.


https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/2018/12/hatchery_steelhead_didnt_affec.html

If history is any indication they will just let another fishery go. There’s nothing that can be done except voice concern to deaf ears The Commission know the recreational community has no leverage.

The WFC will win the hearts of the superficial uninformed cuban smokin dumb asses again with their fancy emails about saving the environment and freeing Willy, meanwhile WFC will be concocting their tried and true recipe of 6o day notice intent to sue WDFW in order to profit scenario while their pied piper dumb !@%# idiots take the bait like a planter trout on the last saturday in April. Whos fricken tired of this nonsense? Whos gonna sue WFC for loss of fishing seasons for how many years? Who will listen to this science that weve been hearing for long enough that you cant blanket cast every hatchery program to hell because its the popular "environmental" way to witch hunt? Give me a damn break! With the issues Puget Sound faces with comorants, sealions, pullution etc these poor fish face, the ass hats really have to keep pointing the finger at hatchery production as the cause? Take a look at your damn self you greedy bastards! You hypocrites should be driving all electric cars, solar energizing and giving to the poor! Shame on you for profitting and making your living at the expense of every sportsman in the PNW when the real picture is above the rubber of your prius drivin self serving bastage selves! Rant over.... sick of it all!

WDFW and the State have only itself to blame. You can't be sued (or shouldn't settle) if you're not at fault. WFC finds low hanging fruit and takes advantage of it. The shame is on the WDFW attorney, Mike Grossmann...but we all know what his priorities are!

The article in the link refers to a specific case on Oregon's Clackamas River. The hatchery summer steelhead don't impact wild winter steelhead in the upper Clackamas for a very simple physical, not genetic, reason. The wild winter steelhead are passed upstream of the dam to migrate and spawn naturally. The hatchery summer steelhead are stopped at the dam and prevented from migrating and spawning in the upper river. The summer runs that are not caught in the recreational fishery may in fact spawn in the river downstream of the dam. And that spawning activity might have a negative impact on wild steelhead that spawn downstream of the dam. But we don't know because the effects of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead downstream of the dam were not studied.

It's important to read information and analyze it carefully. What this study tells us is that we can have successful hatchery and wild steelhead programs when the two stocks are kept separated from spawning in the same area. It doesn't tell us a thing about whether the hatchery and wild populations can co-exist in the same habitat at the same time without any ill effects to either population. That is a related, but distinctly different, subject. And that relates directly to the hatchery summer steelhead programs on the Sky and Green Rivers (and Stillaguamish).

Salmo g. for the WIN!

Agree with cobble.
Eyefish and Salmo G for the LOSS . I cannot understand how someone with education cannot understand basic science. It must be your pride that keeps you on the same path and unable to change.

Salmo G please actually take time to read the article before commenting on it. I used to respect your knowledge of Fisheries but it is obvious that you did not read this article as this study was conducted after the termination of the upriver summer run program. Yes this is above the North Fork dam in the upper Clackamas. That run was terminated in 2001 because of people like you who say that Hatchery fish are bad for wild fish. At least in this case the summer run fish did not affect the wild winter fish at all. Do you really think that the scientists that published this article would have been as stupid as you are in thinking that the fish are completely segregated and have no effect on each other? If you are so against hatchery fish a better argument would be run timing and location. Both of those are pointed out in the research article which is not as biased as the two of you are. Your comments and the eyeFish comments just go to show how biased the two of you are against Hatchery fish. You two should take some responsibility for the decline of Hatchery fish as you all have continued to promote that Hatchery fish are bad based on a poorly conducted study done in Oregon approximately 30 years ago. My guess is that the two of you will be too proud to admit that you never read the article and that you are wrong.

Why do you guys who actually know something even bother debating this guy? Pretty clear he's not keen on learning anything... And why should he be? It's clear he already knows everything (that he wants to know).

For Christ's sake, Elijah - learn some humility. Without that, you're just a troll.

That is helpful flyflicker. Typical response of fly fishermen. If you read your own post you might realize how much of a hypocrite you are. But I also doubt that you are able to realize that. How about you bring something worthwhile to the table instead of trolling me because you were proved wrong in another post. How about you read the study and tell me what your thoughts are on it? My guess is that you are too lazy to do it or not smart enough to comprehend it.

I hesitate to insert myself into this conversation for two reasons:
1. I'm not a biologist and therefore probably don't even know the questions to ask.
2. I have no dog in this particular hunt.

The study (or Bill's synopsis) is interesting for sure. It reinforces one of my beliefs that habitat is a very critical part of the equation. As long as there is enough spawning beds and feed for the newly hatched fish, there should not be a problem with summers and winters spawning in the same stretch of river. Now, a wild run of summers or a hatchery run of winters in this stretch of water may yield different results.

Right on Danny pretty much says it all

No hatcheries anywhere in site here!

https://hashilthsa.com/news/2018-12-10/t...-winter-anglers


From a once prolific world class wild steelhead fishery to nearly extinction in what seems like no time flat! Predators and logging reaping great havoc.

Go gettem WFC!

Salmo G and eyefish -- always appreciate both of your posts and insights. You both may want to take a closer look at the study on the upper Clackamas. It looked back at the impact of hatchery summer steelhead on wild winter steelhead at a time when hatchery summer steelhead were planted above the dams. While Salmo G you are correct that hatchery summers are now planted below the dams and are effectively physically segregated from the wild winters above the dam, the study was looking back to assess the impact of summers when they were planted above the dams and whether eliminate of summers above the dams increase productivity of wild winters above the dams. Significantly, the study comes to a different conclusion than a previous, and widely sited, study by Kostow et al. that found plants of hatchery summers were having a negative impact on wild winters based on ecological rather than genetic factors. It's an important study, especially coming at a time when some other upper Willamette summer run programs HGMPs are under review. It may be relevant as well to discussions regarding the impacts of Puget Sound hatchery summer run programs. Unlike some of the Puget Sound streams (e.g., Deer Creek, N.F Skykomish, Tolt), however, the upper Clackamas to my knowledge did not have a native run of summer steelhead.

Thank you Brian. It will be a hard pill for Salmo, eyefish, and fleaflick to swallow that they are wrong. I doubt that all three will admit it. Maybe Salmo but not the other two. They have been brainwashed by the department and have another agenda to promote.
Another study that could also be easily done in similar fashion to this one is the impact of winter hatchery steelhead on wild winter steelhead for the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers since those hatcheries were shut down. The wild fish populations there have not come back. Neither have they on the Sauk.

Bottom line: I would argue that hatchery fish are not to blame for the decrease in wild fish. We just need some artificial selection taking place in the hatcheries to keep up with the wild natural selection taking place in the rivers.

The two studies can actually be complementary and not in conflict. The was a problem when the Summers were passed. When they were stopped being passed, the problem went away. The system, any system, has a capacity for smolt production. The summers displaced some winters.

ODFW did a similar, but reverse, study down in southern OR. They passed winters (I think wild) above a natural barrier. Summers were the only salmonid able to naturally pass by. The winters were "successful" in spawning and reduced the summer population. After stopping the passage of winters, the summers rebounded.

In order to be successful, a hatchery steelhead has to adapt to a significantly different environment. They are incubated and reared in warmer water, they are reared in "pools" and "runs" (rearing ponds and raceways) that are not the natural choice of riffles, the are reared at high densities, they are fed food from the surface. All of these actions select for a fish that is genetically and behaviorally different. That is why they need to be segregated from the wild.

The last study, as Salmo noted, shows that you can have both types of fish (hatchery and wild) in a system so long as you keep the spawners separate. Management agencies don't want to invest in the infrastructure necessary to do that. It would also mean that hatchery programs would operate above or below waterfalls/barriers.

I don't know Salmo G or eyefish personally, but judging from their posts through the years, I don't think either one have been brainwashed by anyone, and the only agenda I've seen on these pages is to critically discuss issues pertinent to fisheries management and conservation. One last thing, while the study is important, please keep in mind it's just one study in a growing body of scientific literature on the subject of hatchery impacts on wild populations.

"The two studies can actually be complementary and not in conflict. The was a problem when the Summers were passed. When they were stopped being passed, the problem went away. The system, any system, has a capacity for smolt production. The summers displaced some winters."

Carcassman -- actually, this is not what the Courter study concluded at all. Here's a link to it. https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tafs.10140. The Courter study found that hatchery summer steelhead planted in the upper Clackamas above the dams did not have a negative effect on wild winter steelhead productivity above the dams. I'm not qualified to evaluate the methods used to reach this conclusion, but that's what the study says. The Courter study also says its results and conclusions contradict those reported in the Kostow study, so I don't see the two studies as reaching complementary conclusions as you suggest.

I have tried to key my thoughts to the 3 points selected from Salmo g.'s post that I have partially quoted above:

1. I agree with Salmo g. here. This is a specific case where most of the fish from the hatchery program were separated from the natural winter population either by removal at the dam or because most of the summer steelhead hatchery smolts were released in lower portions of the mainstem. Quoting from the report: Separation in spawn timing and location may explain why the presence of large numbers of summer steelhead did not reduce the productivity of adult winter steelhead...Additionally, releases of summer steelhead hatchery smolts tended to occur at lower elevations in the main-stem Clackamas River, while winter steelhead likely spawned further upstream in the basin and largely in tributaries to the main stem. If hatchery summer steelhead spawned at lower elevations proximate to their release sites, this may have limited their ecological interactions with winter steelhead because naturally produced juvenile summer steelhead were inhabiting areas downstream of the most productive winter steelhead rearing habitat.

2. I agree with Salm g. here as well: His point here is correct in that the only population abundance information that is considered in the analysis for both hatchery summer runs and naturally produced winter runs is derived from counts at the dam. No abundance information about interaction of the hatchery program on any natural production below the dam is possible without abundance information from below the dam. Very simple.

3. Again, I agree with Salmo g.: These populations were fairly well segregated both by removal of adults at the dam and through selection of release location, thereby reducing the number of effective hatchery spawners. Again from the report: Additionally, releases of summer steelhead hatchery smolts tended to occur at lower elevations in the main-stem Clackamas River, while winter steelhead likely spawned further upstream in the basin and largely in tributaries to the main stem. David et al. (2018) found that 68% of winter steelhead spawners entered upper Clackamas River tribu-taries, but only 23% of hatchery summer steelhead were released in upper Clackamas River tributaries during the augmentation program (ODFW, unpublished data).

The major point here as Salmo g. tries to point out is that the results of this study are for the specific case of the Clackamas River and the hatchery program that was occurring in the Clackamas River not for all rivers and programs. He seems to make that pretty clear - "What this study tells us is that we can have successful hatchery and wild steelhead programs when the two stocks are kept separated from spawning in the same area. It doesn't tell us a thing about whether the hatchery and wild populations can co-exist in the same habitat at the same time without any ill effects to either population. That is a related, but distinctly different, subject. And that relates directly to the hatchery summer steelhead programs on the Sky and Green Rivers (and Stillaguamish)."

What it does not tell us is what some posters, such as Elijah, say it does - "...that hatchery fish are not to blame for the decrease in wild fish."

As I final thought, I'm pretty sure that the authors, although they concluded that this particular program did not have an effect on this particular population, would also not conclude that no hatchery programs has a negative effect on natural production. They certainly had that opportunity to say that in their discussion, but didn't do so. Instead they concluded the paper by pointing out the need to look at specific situations (like Salmo g. does, by the way), calling for studies that "directly quantify the effects of hatchery fish on the production of natural-origin salmon and steelhead," "empirically test published theories about mechanisms of hatchery fish impacts on natural-origin populations" and "document population responses to major changes in hatchery programs."

They clearly did not jump to the conclusion that no hatchery program has a negative effect on natural populations.

Can't speak for eyeFISH or Salmo g., but for my part, you're correct in that I won't admit I'm wrong; not because I'm too proud, lazy, or stupid, but because I don't believe I am. The example of the Clackamas maybe compelling, but it's far from confirmation that the solution to our woes is to plant more hatchery steelhead everywhere.

I can cherry pick studies, too, but I don't think that's a very honest or productive way to review science holistically.

For the record, while I do believe hatchery introgression is generally detrimental to wild stocks, mostly due to our understanding that hatchery steelhead are horribly inept wild spawners, I don't believe it's anywhere near the threat groups like WFC make it out to be. I'm no fan of WFC and their bent on closing fisheries, so on that, I think we can agree. I also enjoy a chunk of hatchery steelhead on my plate from time to time, so I'm no wholesale hater of hatchery fish. Seems we could agree on that, too.

Thing for me is, even if there are examples like the Clackamas where mixing hatchery and wild fish hasn't led to meaningful introgression, we know introgression is a negative stress on wild gene pools in general, so we ought to try and prevent it.

So where do we go from here? There seem to be only two schools of thought: Quit producing hatchery steelhead and close fisheries, or plant the hell out of every flowing stream with hatchery smolts and let's all go fishin.' I personally don't think either of those is a reasonable approach. I feel like we need to identify 1-2 streams in each WDFW region in which no viable runs of wild steelhead exist, plant the holy heck out of them, and manage them for hatchery production and harvest fisheries. That keeps more people fishing and (occasionally) catching our state fish, and that's the outcome I would most like to see.

Is my idea realistic, possible, and sustainable? Probably not, no matter how much I wish it were. See my point?

The Courter study authors indeed suggest that temporal and spatial separation may explain why they found a lack of impact on the natural-origin winter population. However, this separation was not dam-related. The Courter study focused only on the upper Clackamas Basin above N.F. Dam, and the study looked back to a time when hatchery summer steelhead were planted in the mainstem above the dam, and both hatchery summer steelhead and natural-origin winter steelhead were passed above the dam. Thus, my main reason for responding to Salmo g's post was to point out that the study's findings cannot be attributed to removal of hatchery summer runs at the dam. The temporal and spatial separation discussed by the authors is due to factors other than a physical barrier. One last thing, when the Courter authors indicate hatchery summer runs were planted in the lower mainstem Clackamas, I believe they are referring to the lower mainstem of the upper Basin, which is above the dams, as opposed to the mainstem below the dams.

Here is a thought,
We should stop trying to implement study's from one river system on another. Each river has a genetically unique strain of steelhead and steelhead may have the most complex life history of any fish in our region.

If we are going to produce hatchery steelhead we should do it with the best science. For example the Snohomish system has been genetically studied over the past 20+ years. We should apply that data in its entirety and determine if in fact hatchery operations have been detrimental there.

We should not by making "Opinions" based on out of system studies. Each ecosystem has it unique set of circumstances that allow the fish in it to survive. If the science in a particular system shows a negligible impact from hatchery fish then by all means plant the fish.

I often get frustrated by the anti-hatchery crowd saying "when hatchery fish were removed from river X we saw an increase in wild fish - the same this will happen here when we remove the hatchery fish from this system" - from my point of view this line is not scientific. Only in system data should be applied when H vs W decisions are being made.

Elijah,

I did read the linked study a few months ago when it first appeared. Because of your insinuation that I didn't read it, I looked it up on my computer where I had stored it in a file folder late last year. Looks like a senior moment on my part - may you never experience the same should you live to a ripe old age. Indeed, the study examined interactions of hatchery summer steelhead with wild winter run steelhead both when both were co-mingled upstream of North Fork Dam and after the summer runs were separated after 2001.

What I forgot over the last several months is that the presence of summer steelhead in the upper Clackamas upstream of NF Dam did not affect the wild winter runs because; 1. May PDO was the co-variate most highly correlated with both hatchery summer steelhead and wild winter steelhead SAR, and probably 2. the summer steelhead used the upper Clackamas differentially from the winter run fish, more likely due to serendipity of stocking locations than any strategic design.

The termination of passing hatchery steelhead upstream of NF Dam wasn't due to people like me. If you think I am opposed to hatcheries, you have read a very small sample of my forum posts. For the record, I am 100% for wild fish. And I support using hatcheries in ways that cause minimal effects (which is not zero effects) on wild fish.

The only pride I have with regards to my posts on fish related topics is that I try to provide the most accurate biological and fish management information that I can. I write the vast majority of my posts from memory and rarely look anything up before posting. As a result I occasionally get something wrong, or forget a key point, as I did in this case. I see however, that other posters took up the slack and filled in those critical blanks. I appreciate that. And I went back and re-read the article. There's no pride of authorship with me. Getting information accurate and correct is what I'm all about. Seek the truth and go where it leads us is my motto.

BrianM,

I thought the Courter reference to stocking the lower mainstem Clackamas refers to stocking downstream of NF Dam. It's possible that they mean the lower-upper, but I didn't draw that inference. It seems confusing to use such a label without a clarifying descriptive explanation (kind of like how NMFS refers to the mid-Columbia as the "upper" Columbia because in federal agency land the Columbia River stops at the US-Canada border, defying physical reality.

I also agree that temporal and spatial separation were important factors with respect to a lack of observable effect of the hatchery fish on the wild winter runs. I think an even more important factor might be the very poor reproductive efficiency of hatchery steelhead in the natural environment.

Sg

And I truly appreciate your continued efforts in that regard!

As to the memory thingy......well, it is amazing what us older folks can forget walking to the garage or up the stairs - let alone relative to a myriad of scientific stuff.

Larry B

I like the anger in this discussion. Us Steelheaders should be pissed off about what as gone on the last 10 yrs. Nothing but lawsuits and lost opportunity. I agree with having a few rivers dedicated as hatchery factories. We had one in the past called the Cowlitz. We need to rally, like the rally on the Skagit to open that fishery. It won't be long that the sport will go away with nothing but memories. I am willing to participate but know little how to be affective.

Here are some facts on the Puyallup.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01857/wdfw01857.pdf

It has made a substantial recovery since 2005. Check out pg 9.
Could not find any Nisqually data but have a friend that works for Centralia City Light and he has info that the Steelhead numbers have been increasing there also. That's based from their hydro power diversion trap above McKenna. The Tribe also is monitoring and surveying yearly with numbers increasing.
The Sauk and Skagit numbers have increased enough to provide a catch and release fishery for the 2nd time in 2 years, since 2010. Although numbers are still at historically low levels, their seems to have been some rebound over the last 10 years.

Salmo g. -- I agree with you the Courter study could have better described what was meant by the "lower mainstem." The reason I believe the hatchery summer runs were planted above the dams is that PGE's website indicates "in decades past, summer steelhead smolts were released upstream of North Fork Dam. The adults entered the North Fork fish ladder adult fish trap and were passed upstream.
In recent years, summer steelhead have been acclimated or stocked in the lower river which has significantly reduced the number of adults returning to the North Fork fish trap. In addition, summer steelhead have not been passed upstream of North Fork dam since 1999."

For anyone who wants to take a further look at the prior studies, you can find them at the links below. If I'm reading the studies correctly, many of the returning hatchery summer runs spawned naturally, and, while producing fewer smolts per spawner, the sheer number of naturally spawning hatchery-origin summers resulted in a significant percent of the out migrating smolts, although few returning adults and minimal introgression with the natural origin winter steelhead.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ductive_Success

https://www.fws.gov/Pacific/fisheries/ha...hou2006TAFS.pdf

Run and Gun, there was a discussion on here a while back that addressed the Puyallup, Nisqually and Skagit/Sauk. The article that you provided is good and yes the Nisqually also had a better year in 2016. This is likely do to better early survival in the marine environment as the study suggests. If it had to do with hatchery fish impacting the wild fish then the Nisqually would have rebounded earlier as that hatchery was shut down a long time ago and there has not been any recreational steelhead fishing there for many years. Voights creek stopped production in 2009 so it might appear that the increase in 2016 has to do with that however that was the same conclusion that Kostow jumed to in 2006 which now turns out to be incorrect.
The Sauk is open not because of a recovered run. It is open because of lobbying. The run is as low as it has ever been and those who promote saving wild fish should not be lobbying to fish on them at the same time (talking out of both sides of their mouth = hypocrites). There is mortality associated with CnR - like it or not but that is another argument.

Salmo - appreciate that you are able to admit when you are wrong. In my mind it takes a man to be able to do that. I might be just as old as you are and one thing that I have realized with old age is that it is hard to change. The problem here is that you have a large following here as demonstrated by the lemmings who followed you in blindly agreeing and even defending you when you were wrong. I am afraid that the inability to change with old age from a well respected member can eventually lead everyone astray. I believe that your biases affected the way that you read and remembered the article. Because when I read it, I cannot understand how someone would not realize that this was done on the upper Clackmas above the North Fork Dam - See Fig 1.
You are correct in that I have not read the majority of your posts but the ones that I have read seem to be biased towards the thought that hatchery fish are bad. Matter of fact this website seems disproportionately biased toward that thought that hatchery fish are bad - many influenced by your posts. If I am incorrect may I then I would ask why you did not bring the Courter study to light when you saved it to your computer months ago?

Oncy T that was one of the most biased posts that I have ever seen you write. I understand defending Salmo if he is your friend but that was borderline ridiculous. I was going to respond but since Salmo did I will not take the time. I will just say that my comment is taken from the article which was stated several times "Hatchery-origin summer steelhead spawner abundance did not have a negative effect on our estimates of upper Clackamas River basin adult winter steelhead productivity" Another quote "Our observation contradicts the previous assertion that negative ecological interactions between naturally produced summer steelhead juveniles and winter steelhead juveniles reduced upper Clackamas River basin winter steelhead productivity between 1972 and 1998 (Kostow and Zhou 2006)."
One more "In this case, the segregated summer steelhead hatchery program coexisted with the natural-origin winter steelhead population without negatively impacting adult winter steelhead recruitment"
BTW if you want to limit this study to the Clackmas and not apply it to other rivers then you also need to limit the Kostow study to just the Clackamas - which you have not. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument and need to be consistent. In my opinion all research is meant to be extrapolated from to other rivers to some degree (with limitations) because of the cost and time involved to produce these studies.

Carcassman to say that the studies complement each other is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my life. The article by Courter spends an entire section discussing how and why their results contradict the study by Kostow done 14 years earlier with less data. Your post decreases your credibility from 3% to 0.1% in my book. Nearly every sentence in your first paragraph is incorrect. In this case I think that it would have been better for you to not contribute because your contribution exposed the fact that you never even read the article. Typically it is better to not comment on something that you know nothing about. Better just to stay silent and see if you can learn something before talking, or in this case... typing.

From the article "The findings of Kostow and Zhou (2006) received cosiderable attention due to the magnitude of the estimated decline in population productivity attributed to ecological effects of the hatchery program on natural-origin steelhead(~50% reduction in natural-origin adult recruitment during high hatchery return years). Concerns about ecological effects of hatchery fish on protected salmon and steelhead stocks, largely due to the results of that study, have led to numerous hatchery management changes throughout the Pacific Northwest (e.g., East Fork Lewis River steelhead, Puget Sound steelhead, Skagit River steelhead, MolallaRiver steelhead, Sandy River spring Chinook Salmon O.tshawytscha, Willamette River spring Chinook Salmon and steelhead, and Oregon coastal Coho Salmon O.kisutch). However, it remains uncertain whether these changes increased natural-origin salmon and steelheadproduction."

Thanks to the Kostow study and those who promoted it hatchery production was reduced in all of the aforementioned rivers including one of my home rivers.. the Lewis. Note Puget sound steelhead also for all of you King County residents.

Hopefully WDFW can use this study to fight against WFC. That would be my goal.

If native stock were used would those hatchery fish actually spawn and build the run?

As one of the folks involved in this "lobbying" I'd like to point out a few falsehoods in your paragraph. Looking back at the historical escapements the run on the Skagit/Sauk is close to the average of the records going back to 1978. So in addition to "The run is as low as it has ever been" it could also be said that it is as high as it's ever been. In fact the current numbers are higher than some of the years when killing wild fish was still legal. We lobbied WDFW not with just words, but with the science, their science to be exact. The system was not closed because of it's declining run. It was closed as part of an aggregate closure including all of Puget Sound and not on the merits of its own situation, Evidenced by NMFS approval of the RMP that re-opened it.

Yes, there is mortality associated with C&R fishing, and no one in their right mind is claiming otherwise. There is also mortality associated with road building, logging, diking, farming, ranching, cities, homes, septic systems, dams, etc. etc. So I guess anyone who benefits from any or all of these activities needs to quit being a hypocrite by calling the kettle black.

You used the phrase "recovered run". I've been asking for 9 years now for someone to describe exactly what that looks like. No one has. Would you like to take a shot at it?

Just the facts.

Whatever the reason the past 20 years of fishery management has been an epic failure.

What was done has not worked.

Wild fish will never live in resources that they frequented 50 years ago.

That ship has sailed.

So plant fish.

Don't cut off their fin.

Problem solved.

I now return you to your previous course of continued failure.

Amen.. Of course DFW are to smart to figure that out.

The law currently requires protection and restoration of the wild fish, steelhead and salmon. If you want to blow them away, fine. Just change the "inconvenient" law, convene the God Squad, and have at it. Or, have Congress act like they have in the past.

Or just talk the fish to extinction, that seems to be the course well traveled.

Elijah,

You posted: "The Sauk is open not because of a recovered run. It is open because of lobbying. The run is as low as it has ever been and those who promote saving wild fish should not be lobbying to fish on them at the same time (talking out of both sides of their mouth = hypocrites). There is mortality associated with CnR - like it or not but that is another argument. "

As WW pointed out, you got that point wrong. I mentioned that I am all about getting things accurate, and the Skagit/Sauk issue is near and dear to me. The Skagit steelhead haven't recovered because they were never threatened or endangered. The Skagit just happens to be located in Puget Sound (PS), and all of the PS steelhead DPS was listed as threatened in 2007. If it had been done on a river-by-river basis, the Skagit fish would never have been ESA listed.

The Skagit wild steelhead run, like all the PS steelhead runs, goes up and down according to marine survival conditions, and occasionally due to freshwater productivity conditions. The only reason for not fishing on the Skagit run is because fishing is fundamentally not good for fish. And the reason there should be a CNR season on the Skagit is because fishing since 1977 has had zero, absolutely zero, measurable effect on subsequent adult steelhead returns. These are facts that I can live with, and there is nothing hypocritical about it whatever.

About admitting being wrong, it doesn't take a "man." In my experience every intelligent man and woman I've known has no problem admitting mistakes. The not so smart people, well that's another story. I don't appreciate you calling people who follow my posts lemmings. They aren't. I credit them with understanding that I have a history here and elsewhere of reporting information that is reliably accurate, not failsafe, but accurate the preponderance of the time. For the record, I'm 70. Change isn't hard. Physical change is a fact of life. I'm neither as fast nor as strong as I once was. However, it's easy to change my mind or opinion whenever I see new information about a subject, like the effects of hatchery fish on wild fish populations, for example. It's amazing that you think you know what affected how I remembered the Courter article. It could have been some type of confirmation bias, but I honestly think it was as simple as forgetting that the investigators looked at the data time series both before and after PGE stopped passing hatchery summer runs upstream. I remembered the "after" but not the before. Read lots of scientific articles and you too might let a detail or two slip here and there.

I didn't think to mention the Courter study here last year because I thought it had already been raised here and on another web site where I did discuss it in detail. I do not keep a diary record of what subjects I've discussed on what websites, nor do I intend to.

I'm an equal opportunity critic. Hatchery fish are neither intrinsically good nor bad. Hatchery fish can be bad for wild fish when the hatchery population vastly outnumbers the wild population, and both occur at the same time and place and intermix on the spawning grounds, leaving too few viable wild spawning pairs of fish. I don't know of any cases where hatchery fish are "good" for wild fish, but it's hypothetically possible. For instance, where there is a predator bottleneck that a wild population must pass through, it's possible that an intermixed group of hatchery fish could sufficiently satiate the predators such that the overall predation rate on the wild fish is reduced through density dependent mortality by predation. If the predation bottleneck is density independent, then the presence of the hatchery fish will have no benefit for the wild fish, and may negatively affect them by competing for food and space.

I think the Courter study points to the hatchery summer steelhead spawning at a different time and in different locations in the upper Clackamas than the wild winter steelhead. Given what we know about hatchery steelhead not reproducing very effectively in natural environments, I don't find it surprising that no negative effects on the wild steelhead were observed. It's important IMO to understand that effects probably were not non-existant (sorry for the double negative). Since juvenile steelhead move significant distances during their freshwater rearing phase, the wild fish probably did encounter some hatchery summer run offspring. It's just that the amount of such encounters were few enough that no subsequent negative effects on the wild fish could be measured at the population level, i.e., subsequent generation adult steelhead because that is the yardstick by which the effects were measured.

For these reasons I try to steer clear of statements employing the adjectives of "always" and "never" because we seldom have such precise information available when studying fish populations. I'm not biased against hatchery fish. I am biased toward truth and facts regarding what we do know, and what we can reasonably infer, as opposed to what we wish were true or want to be true. From all the research I've examined, the truth seems to be that hatchery fish are not good for wild fish. On the other hand, certain hatchery programs, like hatchery winter steelhead, appear to have a very small negative effect on wild winter steelhead populations. I don't know for a fact, but I think the same holds true for a number of hatchery summer steelhead programs not adversely affecting wild winter steelhead populations because of temporal and spatial separation, as indicated by the Courter study.

The question comes up, what about Skamania hatchery summer run programs on the Stilly, Sky, and Green adversely affecting native wild summer steelhead? The Stilly Skamania fish appear to home on Whitehorse rearing ponds while the native Deer Creek fish ascend their natal stream, keeping the two stocks separate. In addition, it's unlikely that Skamania fish that enter lower Deer Creek will still be there when they would need to ascend the falls to go spawn with the wild fish - instead they home on Whitehorse when the fall rains come. The same thing may be happening on the Sky, although some introgression is reported. The Green never had a significant wild summer run, so the issue is whether the Skamania hatchery fish are adversely affecting the wild winter steelhead. I don't know what information is available describing what's going on there.

Sg

Good discussion, although perhaps not as productive as it could be…….

One point that gets overlooked - A study that looks at hatchery and wild steelhead interactions CANNOT say anything about other species of fish that are also raised in hatcheries. Too often,when scientists examine the interactions between wild and hatchery steelhead, some folks extrapolate the results to other species of salmon that are also raised in hatcheries, including Chinook, coho, and to some degree, chum. That’s not good biology. The originator of this thread appears to be making the same mistake.

A study that looks at hatchery and wild steelhead can only produce inferences about hatchery and wild steelhead. We can debate the implications of those results at length. Nothing wrong with that. But to apply the Clackamas River study results to other hatchery fish (e.g., Chinook and coho) or to hatchery and wild stocks in general, is inappropriate and wrong.

Salmo g - it appears the only "native" summer run population recorded on the Snohomish system is in the Tolt river tributary. I'm sure historically that there was small runs on the Sultan before they dammed the river as well as the NF Skykomish. There apepars to be some plans to implement a broodstock program using the Tolt river genetics in order to avoid ESA lawsuits. Most rivers with summer run populations in the Puget Sound were never large and there may be significant river promiscuity and dynamism in summer run steelhead. People catch hatchery strays in the Sultan and I suspect some venture to the Tolt (closed to fishing). Wild steelhead that exist on the Skykomish are probably a naturalized Skamania Tolt hybrid.Skykomish Broodstock Program

I wish the WDFW had more information about this program other than this article because I believe this is a recipe for success in other rivers where they can partition fish.

Additionally the Sky has a unique program going on where WDFW has been taking "wild" coho, steelhead (summer) dollies, chinook and transporting them above sunset falls so that these fish may gain access to previously unexploited spawning ground. This year they transported around 200 "wild" summer steelhead, 10,000+ coho, a couple hundred chinook and a handful of sockeye?? about 100 Skamania hatchery fish were returned to the hatchery so that suggests that hatchery Skamania also venture to the NF Skykomish. It will be interesting to see whether or not this approach bears fruit as it already allows for take of wild Coho as long as escapement is projected to be met.