Surplus Hatchery Fish

I’m sure there’s several members of this board with knowledge of this, but what happens to the surplus hatchery fish after escapement goals are met? I’m aware of carcass distribution on many watersheds, and even the recycling of some steelhead for additional sport opportunity. I can’t imagine they utilize 100% of the surplus for these methods,so what else do they do with them? Sell to dog/cat food producers, fertilizer producers? Food banks?

(This isn’t me complaining about 15k+ at Bingham. Just a random curiosity.)

dog food cat food fertilizer the whole works..

WDFW has a contract that is open to bids and the contractor is required to take all carcasses regardless of condition from all WDFW facilities. A fish that has been opened ( spawned by cutting them open ) at the facility or is a mortality ( died for some reason ) is not allowed for human consumption.

The fish have many uses from eggs for cheap caviar, bait manufacturers, to fish by products. Very few salmon get recycled or carcasses put out in watersheds. WDFW does not (or did not) get the funds generated but rather the $$$$ go too the volunteer programs.

One of the slams on hatcheries is the "surplus" that commercials and Recs scream are wasted. Facts are that you damn well better have a surplus in mixed H&W stock watersheds such as the Chehalis because you manage to the WILD escapement not the minimum hatchery needs which is only a fraction of the need of wild salmon escapement.

That 15k are at Bingham this early is unusual with the current flows. That 15k is about the fish coming in very early in huge numbers and getting up above the NT and QIN commercials. What surprises me is that the jack count is about half of last year but on the river there were a lot of jacks.

Take a look at the Skokomish hatchery. Over 26000 to the hatchery. I believe the number was higher than the entire ocean Recreational chinook quota. This after there is a tribal and non-tribal fishery targeting them. At times it truely is a waste.

Interesting. Figured it was something like that.

Really bummed to have missed out on those Jacks this year. Suppose I could’ve tried going after them in the Chehalis, but I loaded up on quite a few last year on the tribs.

jacks are still present and will be until flows jump which may be Monday.

The carcasses should have to go back into the river to feed the system, does anyone stop to think that the massive amount of nutrients that used to feed the river ecosystem is now shipped off to who the hell knows and maybe thats why fish populations are dropping?

And if not that, then anyone with a valid license should be able to go to a hatchery that has received they're qouta and get 2 fish, especially the skokomish.

riverbanks, gravel bars, and low hanging branches used to be loaded with rotting salmon after a high water. Not any more.

We did that on the Satsop, carcasses that is. It is a whole lot harder than you make it out. You first cannot jump watersheds, disease protocols, need to mark the carcasses by cutting the tail off, and transport them to preapproved locations and place them in the streams.

It can be done but it is labor intensive and a little spendy. For WDFW to do it I would be afraid to see the cost with the union contract and purchasing requirements.

As Rivrguy noted, putting those carcasses out is very labor intensive. Plus, of course, you need access to the stream(s). The disease protocols are a major constraint.

The other piece is that all the carcasses that come back to all the hatcheries are (maybe) enough for one river system. We are in that big of a hole.

Further, our Legislature has mandated where some of the fish go; there are all sorts of rules about what can be done with them.

Those who know me know I'm in the not enough rotting salmon crowd. I think those marine-derived nutrients are (or were) a critical piece of the puzzle, for both anadromous and resident populations.

As a person who does a lot of fly fishing, I have come to understand that our (mostly) glacial streams have much lower aquatic insect populations than, say, Rocky Mountain streams, and as a result, resident (and burgeoning anadromous) fish have relatively little insect forage. That means growing fish depend on "other" food sources, most notably the fry and fingerlings of other (or the same!) species, supplemented by the rotting carcasses of their parent generations. Deprive a system of those critical nutrients, and it translates to less food for burgeoning populations. The result can only be increased predation on smaller fish, which in turn reduces the fry and smolt populations of all species. Not hard to imagine how that would be a recipe for decline over time.

The solution (increase escapement goals) is maddeningly simple, yet at the same time, it is prohibitively complex. Bad situation, both for fish and the anglers who seek them.

- putting those carcasses out is very labor intensive.

- Plus, of course, you need access to the stream(s).

- The disease protocols are a major constraint.

- The other piece is that all the carcasses that come back to all the hatcheries are (maybe) enough for one river system. We are in that big of a hole.

- Further, our Legislature has mandated where some of the fish go;

Always the insurmountable excuses, with the last one so strongly based in science, no wonder the return numbers tank...

One clarification: my proposal is to increase WILD escapement. Wild fish aren't as prone to disease, etc., so they are much safer (and more economical; indeed, FREE!).

Wild fish are the key. I think our years of hatchery production have been enough to teach us that hatcheries don't assure survival for the cloned species. They're just there to be caught, ideally for profit.

indeed. The state can get access just about wherever they need if conservation is concerned. Ive watched the nutrient enhancement in person and its not much more labor intensive than planting trout out of a bag chute. Is disease protocol an issue with the fish that spawn outside the hatcheries, die on the banks, cook a few days on said bank, then get washed back in with a high water.

Access is not being able to just get to the stream, it is getting to all of it. Just because bridges cross every mile or so doesn't mean you can get to the creek. Mounds of carcasses are not exactly a good way to get nutrients in.

Wild fish are just as prone to move bugs around. One of the reasons why there is a an effort to keep any and all anadromous fish out of hatchery water supplies is to keep bugs out.

We should be increasing wild escapement by leaps and bounds. That would be the simplest solution to getting nutrients into the system.

And wild fish are in now way free. One must protect the habitat which means reduce/eliminate water withdrawals, stream side logging, stream side ag, and so on. Plus, a hatchery is simply more efficient at converting water to fish. The complex of hatcheries in Hood Canal produces way more chum salmon for about 100 or 200 cfs. It produced more chum than any of the major river systems. While part of that was poor escapement goals there is the efficiency piece.

Right. Wild fish are only free for those who don't have to give up property/mineral/water rights to provide more spawning habitat. Harvest is where we have the most immediate leverage, but yeah....

It is not just the individual property (private) owner but the public at large. Aren't allowed too dredge rivers, all the development restrictions, and so on apply tp public lands so all of us pay for those "free" fish.

Although I believe that the Fraser sockeye management up to the 80s was probably the best salmon management on the coast they did (purposefully) over harvest some minor stocks to obtain full use of the major ones. This could change as Canada seems to want to shift sockeye (and maybe all salmonids) harvest to the FN fisheries which tend to be in-river and can be more surgical in removing just the target stock.

Even if we had no hatchery stocks (or no wild stocks) there would still be the need for differential harvest rates which could result in surpluses at some locations.

Interesting. Is that in our future?

FN Fisheries as in First Nations I’m guessing? Seems like a more precise method of targeting versus ocean mixed-stock.

Yep. It might be more surgical and better that way but it seems that steelhead and the rec fishers for steelhead are included at all. But, yes, terminal fisheries are much much smarter if you are interested in the fish.

Terminal fisheries solve the open ocean mixed stock fishery problem, but cause issues when strong stocks on a given system have overlapping run timing with weak stocks. In particular, salmon commercial fisheries tend to hammer summer run steelhead. In BC, interior Fraser steelhead are on the brink of extinction and have been recommended for listing in the Canadian version of ESA. However, the BC and Canadian governments ignore the recommendations because they're going down the path of letting First Nations have total control of all fishing as a "reconciliation" measure. Listing steelhead would limit or stop the tribes' in-river sockeye gillnetting, so they refuse to do it. Similar story on the Dean where chum fisheries have been partly responsible for collapsing that amazing run of steelhead. Steelhead numbers on the Skeena are way down too. And salmon netting on WA coastal rivers has impacted our summer and early returning winter steelhead as well. A retired fisheries biologist up in BC runs a great blog documenting their issues, steelheadvoices.com . Until something changes with BC's management, I'd limit steelhead trips to the states unless you're OK with spending a huge amount of money to fish dying rivers.

Certainly even within a river you get mixed stock issues. The fisheries have to be selective. Canada does seem to be trying to wipe out steelhead as they are inconvenient to their social goals.

Wow... went onto Hooton's blog. I knew I wouldn't like what I saw.

Thompson systematically wiped out... Skeena and Dean not far behind on the same path. Fish managers up and down the Pacific Rim $ukk@$$.

Yeah, Canada sucks at steelhead. They think WA is doing a good job.

Dear God, what have we become? Deferring to Washington for steelhead management guidance would be a desperate position, indeed!

I concur.

Bob's blog should be required reading for those interested in out PNW salmonid's future, especially steelhead.