Lake Washington Sockeye

Posted by: Elijah

Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 02:52 PM

For those who took the bait that they fed us in building a new hatchery on the Cedar in 2010 thinking that they could produce a fishery on lake Washington. It has now been 10 yrs and nothing.
Too bad that they have not been able to deliver. They definitely spent a lot of tax payer dollars though. Wish there was some accountability.
Good to look back on history as a learning experience. Fish over the years adapt to certain hatcheries. The practice of changing that abruptly on the fish needs to be reconsidered as other hatcheries under "updating" in the future.
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/othe...ye-salmon-eggs/
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 03:00 PM

Ratepayer dollars. Seattle PUD pays for the hatchery.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 03:09 PM

I'm not surprised that "Elijah" missed that point. There are enough Fuc*ups with wdfw to go around without blaming [Bleeeeep!] they didn't do on them.
Posted by: stonefish

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 03:17 PM

Until they lower the number of returning fish needed to have a lake fishery, only one user group will be doing so.
I don’t think it matters one bit how many fry they plant, hitting that 350k number isn’t likely to happen.
SF
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 04:36 PM

LW sockeye are toast, regardless of the goal.
Posted by: stonefish

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 05:13 PM

So I’ve heard it explain that as the lake has gotten cleaner, it has actually hurt the sockeye population.
True or not?
Then you have the knuckleheads that think killing native cutthroat will solve the sockeye problem.
Sure, let’s kill native trout to protect hatchery fish.....
Stuff millions of fry into the lake and you expect cutthroat not to eat them?
To bad, because in place of a sockeye fishery we could have a world class trout fishery. Same goes for Sammamish but not related to sockeye.
SF
Posted by: Salman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/16/20 07:13 PM

Can’t stand the rules now include kokanee. I’m sure those are a byproduct of sockeye. People killing juvenile Sockeye could be a reason for low returns? For real Kokanee were never in the rule books only a short while ago. How many do the Indians take? Wasn’t too long ago the average yearly return was over 100,000. Is it possible the drought of 14-15-16 has had a impact on these numbers?
Posted by: Salmo g.

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/17/20 10:25 AM

Seattle Water Department, part of Seattle Public Utilities, paid for the Cedar River hatchery. It is funded by Water Department customers, not taxpayers.

A lot has changed in Lake Washington since the decision was made to construct a sockeye hatchery. The assemblage of predators on sockeye fry limits smolt production to less than it used to be. And the ocean conditions that are limiting productivity and survival of other salmon species has reached sockeye as well, based on the lower return of Baker sockeye this year. Lake Washington sockeye are derived from the Baker population, so they are the same stock. The Baker has enjoyed exceptionally good adult returns since 2010, after the new juvenile fish passage system was installed. But this year's return was forecast at around 14,000.

The upshot is that Lake Washington sockeye need to be re-evaluated in terms of contemporary productivity, capacity, and diversity parameters. The 360,000 spawning escapement goal dates to the late 1960s. It was flawed then, and remains so to this day.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/17/20 10:37 AM

LW should simply be converted to walleye. They'll do better in the current and future conditions.
Posted by: Priority2

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/20/20 06:01 PM

Please correct me if I am wrong..
Someone does have a LW sockey fishery every year..

THE TRIBES....
The Tribes fish before the locks and report thier catch to WDFW.
Posted by: NickD90

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/20/20 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
LW should simply be converted to walleye. They'll do better in the current and future conditions.


Over Cutties? Say goodbye to a potential worldclass cutty fishery and everything else that swims in that lake. There are a handful in there now, but I'm not sold that's enough to establish a blooming population.

Besides would anyone actually eat resident Walleye out of there? Nasty.

IMO - it should be managed for big cutties. Very few big cutty lakes around any metro area in the world (or even in the wild). If it was managed, developed and marketed correctly, guys would come from all over to catch 5 - 15 pound fish. Manage it right and 20 pounders wouldn't be out of the question. There's guys in CO, WY, MT that would die to be able to fish over consistent big cutties.

Tough call and interesting convo - you probably know the science a billions times better than I do.
Posted by: Salman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/21/20 07:18 AM

Originally Posted By: NickD90
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
LW should simply be converted to walleye. They'll do better in the current and future conditions.


Over Cutties? Say goodbye to a potential worldclass cutty fishery and everything else that swims in that lake. There are a handful in there now, but I'm not sold that's enough to establish a blooming population.

Besides would anyone actually eat resident Walleye out of there? Nasty.

IMO - it should be managed for big cutties. Very few big cutty lakes around any metro area in the world (or even in the wild). If it was managed, developed and marketed correctly, guys would come from all over to catch 5 - 15 pound fish. Manage it right and 20 pounders wouldn't be out of the question. There's guys in CO, WY, MT that would die to be able to fish over consistent big cutties.

Tough call and interesting convo - you probably know the science a billions times better than I do.

It should be managed for Sockeye. Half the state can fit in that lake when it actually has a season.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/21/20 09:00 AM

If sockeye could live there then it makes a great sockeye lake. They are showing that thy can't survive, for a variety of reasons that are well known; too many competing species (rotenone the whole lake and start over??), Ship Canal too warm for adults, spawning streams too unstable, ocean conditions shifting in a bad way, too many competing pinks and chum in the N Pacific.

Cutthroat would be interesting. A "World Class" fishery would require extreme reductions in CT harvest in order to allow them to grow. They primarily use the small (heavily urbanized) creeks for spawning. Those gonna be restored?

Walleye can stay in the lake, so the Ship Canal and streamflows are not a big issue. They would eat a lot of the pike minnow, smelt, and such. They would also be available for a year-round fishery (15-20 minutes for sockeye given the effort levels). A problem would be eating them, especially the larger ones. They would also be wild, so the cost to produce goes down. I think walleye have shown that they can live and flourish in urban and suburban areas, as opposed to wild salmonids.
Posted by: milt roe

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/21/20 08:12 PM

Every productive natural Sockeye population I am aware of runs on a fairly predictable 4 year cycle of boom and bust. That suggests that there is something that naturally dampens high returns of sockeye adults from ocurring every year. This is almost certainly a freshwater biological predator/prey/forage interaction issue.

A hatchery that dumps out high numbers of juveniles into the lake every year is contrary to how sockeye typically work. Years of low juvenile abundance may be essential to set the table for years of high returns. This was a predictable outcome that several of us commented on here when the hatchery was promoted as the great solution.
Posted by: stonefish

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/21/20 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman


Cutthroat would be interesting. A "World Class" fishery would require extreme reductions in CT harvest in order to allow them to grow. They primarily use the small (heavily urbanized) creeks for spawning. Those gonna be restored?


Those spawning streams aren’t pristine by any standard, but they still produce a decent numbers of fish.
My point is you have wild trout in a very urban setting.
I’d rather see the lake managed for a native species like the cutthroat then for hatchery fish like the sockeye that if you are lucky might get to fish for once a decade.
It’s been what, 14 years since the last season? That program has been a great success....for one user group.
The past few times there has been public input I’ve requested that the limit be reduced to two cutthroat. I’m not sure anyone would want to eat anymore then that based on the health advisories on them.
I also like to see the limit dropped to two on Sammamish as well.
You see guides taking two anglers then posting pictures of 15 fish because they kept a guide limit also, then folks bitching later in the year how cutthroat fishing sucks and nothing but small fish.
I wonder the [Bleeeeep!] why?
WDFW says there are enough fish to withstand the current bag limits.
Where have we heard that before before things go to hell.
After talking to a couple of their employees at last years NOF meeting I got the feeling they have no clue what the population of cutts are in either lake.

Just my take on things and I doubt we’ll ever get to see the true potential of either lake.
SF
Posted by: NickD90

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 01:16 PM

I've caught some real dandy Cutts in there trolling for other fish. 5 - 10 pounders are decently common. As known, the Sammy slough and tribs have lots of big breeders that push in during their spring spawning season. I know of a shore spot where I can have my lunch and watch many, many oversized females fin around and do their spawning thing.

I'm certain a reduced bag limit would help immediately. Based lots of other gold and blue medal trout waters I've fished, a daily limit of one fish over 16" would help tremendously. Within 2 - 3 years, there would be plenty of oversized trophy fish to C&R. Not everything has to die. That's Washington's biggest problem. Everyone here expects to kill something instead of just enjoying the sport. Lee Wulff has a famous quote that applies IMO...
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 04:27 PM

I think Nick hit the nail on head. Ya gotta be able to kill a fish in WA to have it be worth fishing for.

Have a good friend that when I mention certain places I want to fish he asks "Why, you can't kill anything". He fishes to eat, which is fine.
Posted by: NickD90

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
I think Nick hit the nail on head. Ya gotta be able to kill a fish in WA to have it be worth fishing for.

Have a good friend that when I mention certain places I want to fish he asks "Why, you can't kill anything". He fishes to eat, which is fine.


It's ingrained from previous times of plenty and from having a vast open ocean at your doorstep. I get the "why", but in other landlocked places, fishing like that in perpetuity results in zero fishery after a bit of time. It's kinda common sense if you ask me.

Gee - I wonder if that isn't a part of the problem we are having here now? Just so everyone knows, you are not less of a man or fisherman if you don't limit the boat. It's not the end all, be all of a "successful" day on the water. Just sayin'. wink
Posted by: Larry B

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: NickD90
I've caught some real dandy Cutts in there trolling for other fish. 5 - 10 pounders are decently common. As known, the Sammy slough and tribs have lots of big breeders that push in during their spring spawning season. I know of a shore spot where I can have my lunch and watch many, many oversized females fin around and do their spawning thing.

I'm certain a reduced bag limit would help immediately. Based lots of other gold and blue medal trout waters I've fished, a daily limit of one fish over 16" would help tremendously. Within 2 - 3 years, there would be plenty of oversized trophy fish to C&R. Not everything has to die. That's Washington's biggest problem. Everyone here expects to kill something instead of just enjoying the sport. Lee Wulff has a famous quote that applies IMO...


To what extent is that cutthroat fishery (numbers and size) dependent upon all of those sockeye being reared and released into the lake? Would eliminating those hatchery fish trigger the law of unintended consequences? Serious questions.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 06:52 PM

More likely they are eating the smelt. Plus, there are the Issaquah Chinook. The sockeye are no longer producing that much. Plus, you'd have the native cyprinids.
Posted by: stonefish

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 07:00 PM

I think the cutts would have no problem surviving.
Smelt, sticklebacks, perch, sculpin just to name a few food sources.
I would be surprised if some small sm and lm bass fall victim as well.
The biomass of incests in Lake Wa has to be huge and chironomids hatch year round in western WA.
As CM said, you’d still have salmon coming into the lake out of Issaquah creek.
SF
Posted by: NickD90

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/22/20 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: stonefish
I think the cutts would have no problem surviving.
Smelt, sticklebacks, perch, sculpin just to name a few food sources.
I would be surprised if some small sm and lm bass fall victim as well.
The biomass of incests in Lake Wa has to be huge and chironomids hatch year round in western WA.
As CM said, you’d still have salmon coming into the lake out of Issaquah creek.
SF


Plus crawdads and whatnot. I know for a fact that they follow behind fall Coho looking for snacks, so there's that too. There's plenty of biomass in Lake WA, of which, young Sockeye eat very little - but the Cutties are all over. Places like Pyramid & Lenore have considerably less biomass and they still pump out fantastic fish.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/23/20 08:25 AM

Pyramid and Lenore are considerably more productive than LW. LW is comparatively sterile. In Pyramid, it is a two species lake, for fish. The cui-ui eat the various plankters and larger inverts and the Lahontans convert that to big fish. In Lenore I don't think there are any other fish so the Lahontans get all the bugs.

You could have a decent CT population in the lake but it would be limited by the amount of good spawning habitat. The bigger cutts you have, the bigger the spawning stream. Need to preserve and likely restore the quality of Sammamish, Cedar, and Issaquah.

The bass would be predators/competitors with them, at least at certain stages. We know from decades of experience in WA lowland lakes that the various trouts (rainbow and cutts) did better when there weren't competitors.

But, given enough protection from harvest/release mortality so that they can grow to an old age and providing good spawning habitat you could have a fairly nice population of resident cutts in the main lake.
Posted by: NickD90

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/23/20 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Pyramid and Lenore are considerably more productive than LW. LW is comparatively sterile. In Pyramid, it is a two species lake, for fish. The cui-ui eat the various plankters and larger inverts and the Lahontans convert that to big fish. In Lenore I don't think there are any other fish so the Lahontans get all the bugs.

You could have a decent CT population in the lake but it would be limited by the amount of good spawning habitat. The bigger cutts you have, the bigger the spawning stream. Need to preserve and likely restore the quality of Sammamish, Cedar, and Issaquah.

The bass would be predators/competitors with them, at least at certain stages. We know from decades of experience in WA lowland lakes that the various trouts (rainbow and cutts) did better when there weren't competitors.

But, given enough protection from harvest/release mortality so that they can grow to an old age and providing good spawning habitat you could have a fairly nice population of resident cutts in the main lake.


I guess I didn't realize that about Pyramid and Lenore because they are alkaline and I assumed that meant a reduced biomass food supply (in water bugs). Like I said, you know the biology better than I do, so I defer to your expertise.

Regardless, it does seem like Lake WA Sockeye are a waste of time and resources that could be better served elsewhere. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Do we not, by now, have enough history and quantifiable data to prove that Lake WA Socks are a wild goose chase? Does the state realize this or are the tribes blocking progress? They get the scraps today, so why would they vote for anything other than the status quo?
Posted by: Todd

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/23/20 04:25 PM

Unfortunately the utility of the hatchery has performed 100% in line with the easy math that many of us were pointing out when it was proposed...at best, it would provide one extra season per decade.

At best.

Unless they reduced the escapement goal...in which case, they wouldn't need the hatchery at all, there were plenty of fish to fish for at a reduced E-goal before the hatchery, and almost no more fish now than there were then.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: milt roe

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/23/20 05:25 PM

Yep. The system as left alone was producing fishable numbers with no help or money. Still can. The hatchery made it worse not better, thanks to advocates who didn’t understand basic biology of sockeye but had the ear of the Policy folks. Any of you hatchery advocates like to weigh-in?
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/23/20 07:45 PM

I believe that the hatchery failed because the sockeye themselves are failing in the system. Smolt numbers down, predation in the Cedar on fry can be really high some years, more in-lake competition (smelt) and the water is too clean. Add to that the increased temperatures in the Ship Canal and your pre-spawn mortality jumps.

The massive pink and chum hatchery production from Alaska, Jaan, and Russia are creating massive problems in the N Pacific. Note that Fraser sockeye, without the aid of hatcheries, are crashing too.

Lake WA, with all the species present and other habitat issues, simply can't support sockeye any more.
Posted by: Salman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/24/20 07:13 AM

Time to shut the hatchery down and use it for Cutthroat.
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/24/20 07:38 AM

Why? Shut it down sure but why produce cutthroat? That hatchery is designed to simply incubate eggs with no or very minimal rearing. Relatively very little water is used/permitted for diversion. Rearing of fish to a large release size will require lots more water, lots more infrastructure, and lots more operating cost.

If the lake is so good for cutthroat, manage for it? Why not be satisfied with what the system can produce?
Posted by: Todd

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/24/20 07:58 AM

Managing for cutthroat is actually pretty easy...don't kill them all, and get out of the way. They are doing just fine on their own if we don't kill them all.

Somehow the fact that that is both true, and cost zero dollars, probably is not enough to do it right. If "managing for cutthroat" were the choice of the day, we'd spend about 600 million dollars to make them extinct in three generations.

Fish on...

Todd
Posted by: Carcassman

Re: Lake Washington Sockeye - 07/24/20 08:11 AM

Surprising how quickly many species have rebounded when we stopped killing them. Apparently, that is rarely the option of choice.