Steelhead on the Pilchuck. A good read

[Button Nubbs]

A couple things to consider:

Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior.

I get a laugh whenever I hear some of these "anti hatcery" guys talk, they remind me of a lot of the trad archery elitists.

 I was talking to one of these guys a couple weeks ago about the Ceder River Hatchery and told him how I hoped it would be a success, potentially opening Lake Washington for sockeye retention in the next few years. He had absolutely nothing good to say about it or any other hatchery program, saying hatcheries and hatchery fish ruin native runs and it would destroy the native sockeye in the Ceder. He didn't have a answer when I told him that the sockeye in the Ceder were introduced from hatcheries in 1937, so much for his "native" fish arguement.

dont know what your laughing about? we werent talking about sockeye on the cedar.

[huntnphool]

A couple things to consider:

Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior.

I get a laugh whenever I hear some of these "anti hatcery" guys talk, they remind me of a lot of the trad archery elitists.

 I was talking to one of these guys a couple weeks ago about the Ceder River Hatchery and told him how I hoped it would be a success, potentially opening Lake Washington for sockeye retention in the next few years. He had absolutely nothing good to say about it or any other hatchery program, saying hatcheries and hatchery fish ruin native runs and it would destroy the native sockeye in the Ceder. He didn't have a answer when I told him that the sockeye in the Ceder were introduced from hatcheries in 1937, so much for his "native" fish arguement.

dont know what your laughing about? we werent talking about sockeye on the cedar.

So this comment

Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid.

only applies to steelhead? I'm laughing because this was much the same opinion the gentleman I was talking with had, right up to the point where he found out those "native" fish he was worried about were actually the result of hatchery fish spawning, much the same happens with steelhead.

[Hawgdawg]

 

I caught my 1st steelhead on the chuck in 1971 and used fish it a bunch. Have fished also from Lochsloy to Snohomish, Caught some bigguns too. Yup I ate em.  You weren't a low down POS back then for eating a fish I really could not tell the difference from the from the fight of the same size fish froma Nate or Hatchery fish. Tasted the same too! The attitude the Nate is better just don't wash in my book and is what got us to where we find ourselves today, NO FISH TO CATCH. I have not been out fishing for Iron since 1996. I used to catch plenty. I too fished Lewis st. before it filled in and there would be 30 guy's fishing the High Bank and the low bank would have 50 to 75 guys on it. there was fish being caught if the fish were in. Sad times when they close Hatchery's because certain groups don't like em. But I'm old now and you can have my spot on the river banks, Gave my gear to a young man and my DB is for sale. Screw it I'm going Prospecting, Gold is all native and don't need to look for a clipped fin. Same sounds a fishing and DON'T have to throw em back
 PS, I'll be the greyhaired guy hunched over a sluice with a bucket and a smile on my face once again

[Bullkllr]

The situation with the artificially created Cedar River sockeye run is likely a statistical anamoly. The sockeye likely filled an open niche in the ecosystem; they certainly didn't replace an existing run. Sockeye have a very unique life-history among salmonids, and luckily the habitat fit their needs and the run took off. That said, I'd like to see the hatchery succeed there too.

Steelhead have been artificially raised/planted in Western Washington since the late 1800s. Not one successfully reproducing run has ever been created that I'm aware of. Biologists have only relatively recently found that hatchery plants have had a tremendously negative impact on wild fish. From the moment they are planted, they displace and outcompete wild fry and smolts. If and when they return as adults, they have dismal spawning success and exacerbate the problem by trying to spawn with remaining wild fish (thus removing them from successful spawning).

Puget Sound wild steelhead (like it or not) are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Management practices must (it's federal law) include reducing impacts from any introduced hatchery fish.

So here we are... and like I posted earlier, for a person who likes to fish for, catch, and eat steelhead as much as I do (it was literally all I did for many many winters), the reality of the state of our steelhead fishing has been an extremely bitter pill for me to personally swallow.

Obviously, if we're actually going to have fish to catch, we need some hatchery production. It is expensive, and has no long-term benefits. To have wild fish succeed, we need to minimize hatchery impacts. Sort of a catch-22. And its one of the main reasons I don't fish for steelhead much anymore.

[Button Nubbs]

 :yeah:still laughin phool?

[RG]

Here's the disconnect.  Since the Puget Sound coho and chinook hatchery fish marking program became established the fishery has been restored.  In my opinion it's a huge success because, next to steelhead fishing on the Pilchuck, salmon fishing on Possession Bar is my favorite water sport.  Now tell me what's the difference between a salmon and a steelhead......      I'm all for conservation and have been a sportsman who goes along with what's best for the resource for half a century.  I don't believe we are operating from a fully informed, unbiased position on this steelhead hatchery issue.  The other thing I believe, and this is from, again, a half century of observation, is that nobody is qualified to be a game agency, policy making, biologist unless they are also a true sportsman or woman who participates in the sport they manage.  I've met them and there are way too many "book smart" biologists involved in the production of information that is used to make policy.  You can't learn it all from a book, it takes first hand, personal observation.  If you want to truly understand the status of things you have to get cold and wet and tired, day after day, season after season.  You have to learn the sport and live it.  This was the situation in the past.  Now, I'm not so sure.  They listen to a few creel census takers, drive out and look at the river, read the fish ladder counts, and come up with an opinion about the state of affairs.  They don't know what they don't know and we are the beneficiaries.  Again, it's not all bad, bravo, bravo for the Puget Sound salmon program.  Now apply the same science to steelhead, searun cutts, dollies, etc.  It will work and our kids will benefit.  Waiting for some wild run to rebuild to the point that it's fishable is pointless.  The old timers figured that out 70 years ago.

[huntnphool]

Here's the disconnect.  Since the Puget Sound coho and chinook hatchery fish marking program became established the fishery has been restored.  In my opinion it's a huge success because, next to steelhead fishing on the Pilchuck, salmon fishing on Possession Bar is my favorite water sport.  Now tell me what's the difference between a salmon and a steelhead......      I'm all for conservation and have been a sportsman who goes along with what's best for the resource for half a century.  I don't believe we are operating from a fully informed, unbiased position on this steelhead hatchery issue.  The other thing I believe, and this is from, again, a half century of observation, is that nobody is qualified to be a game agency, policy making, biologist unless they are also a true sportsman or woman who participates in the sport they manage.  I've met them and there are way too many "book smart" biologists involved in the production of information that is used to make policy.  You can't learn it all from a book, it takes first hand, personal observation.  If you want to truly understand the status of things you have to get cold and wet and tired, day after day, season after season.  You have to learn the sport and live it.  This was the situation in the past.  Now, I'm not so sure.  They listen to a few creel census takers, drive out and look at the river, read the fish ladder counts, and come up with an opinion about the state of affairs.  They don't know what they don't know and we are the beneficiaries.  Again, it's not all bad, bravo, bravo for the Puget Sound salmon program.  Now apply the same science to steelhead, searun cutts, dollies, etc.  It will work and our kids will benefit.  Waiting for some wild run to rebuild to the point that it's fishable is pointless.  The old timers figured that out 70 years ago.

+1, and for the record BN I am all for the protection of native fish. That being said, yes I'm still laughing, I do not believe for a second that all those native steelhead in the rivers are decendents of purely native fish.

[Button Nubbs]

I will agree with you. There's probably not a pure native fish left in this state. Which is probably a factor as to why wild runs are struggling. Native genes mixing with hatchery genes lower wild fish survival rates period. Is it too late to do something about it? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather try than kill off a species.

I'm not a hatchery hater by any means, I like to eat steelhead but have never and will never intentionally kill a wild fish so I have to get my fix somehow. i say keep pumping hatchery fish into rivers like the cowliz as they will never even have a chance of rebounding wild stocks but leave the ones on the verge alone.

[HuntandFish]

I am a die hard steelhead fisherman myself. I absolutely love native fish and love catching them. But on the other hand I am fed up with the fly flinging elitist steelhead fisherman (and the direct converted gear guys) that get off on self denial and beg the state to limit their ability to catch and fish for these fish. And also at the same time lobby to close hatchery programs because they think it may eventually some day bring back a native species?

I am all for closing rivers early to minimize the catch and release mortality of these fish, and I am all for shutting down hatcheries for a moratorium period if this will help (but we will never see any of these hatcheries start up again, after all it is Washington). But I am not willing do do either of these things until we pass laws banning tribal netting. It makes no earthly sense that we as sportsman have to bend over backward and watch a entire fishery go obsolete, while no one addresses the elephant in the room. If we have to collectively suffer as a people than we ALL have to suffer? Why in the hell is it illegal for me to even lift a wild fish from the water when 1 mile down river an Indian can net 30 natives, if these fish are so endangered that we had to pass laws like this to protect them (which I agree with) than it is counter intuitive to allow the netting of these fish!

I know the tribal netting is a federal issue and supposedly impossible to change, but we damn sure all better get on the same page about it.

And by the way, lets get more hatchery programs rolling and work out a privately funded, self sustaining program for these fish. I would buy a separate license to support these programs? The native fish will find a way to survive is we ALL treat them with respect!

 

H&F

[huntnphool]

I will agree with you. There's probably not a pure native fish left in this state. Which is probably a factor as to why wild runs are struggling. Native genes mixing with hatchery genes lower wild fish survival rates period. Is it too late to do something about it? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather try than kill off a species.

I'm not a hatchery hater by any means, I like to eat steelhead but have never and will never intentionally kill a wild fish so I have to get my fix somehow. i say keep pumping hatchery fish into rivers like the cowliz as they will never even have a chance of rebounding wild stocks but leave the ones on the verge alone.

I hope I didn't give you the impression that I am for retention of wild fish, I'm not! Take a picture and measurements then let them go, no reason to keep them when you can stop by a dozen grocery stores on your way home and pick up fish to eat, less money than the cost of fuel you burn to get to the river and back in most cases.

[Bullkllr]

RG,
You make many good points.

Here's the disconnect.  Since the Puget Sound coho and chinook hatchery fish marking program became established the fishery has been restored.  In my opinion it's a huge success because, next to steelhead fishing on the Pilchuck, salmon fishing on Possession Bar is my favorite water sport.  Now tell me what's the difference between a salmon and a steelhead......       

 Steelhead were not classed in the same genus as salmon until around 1990 when collective scientists decided to give them the genus Oncorhynchus; prior to that they were Salmo- same as Atlantic salmon and true trouts.
The old Washington Game Department set steelhead aside as a "game fish" in the 1940s, I believe, completely de-commercializing them in the state.
While the biological/life history differences are considerable, I believe your question may refer more to "political" differences. These are considerable also; from the early days of sport fishing in the Northwest, steelhead, because of relatively long time they spend in the river and their willingness to take lures/baits and their fighting qualities, were set aside by many fishermen as "special". Salmon were for harvest/steelhead were for sport.

Steelhead are generally more difficult and much more expensive to raise in hatcheries than salmon, because of the extended raising/ larger size at release.

This (granted, from the Wild Steelhead Coalition website, but a read you may find informative). http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/2011/03/the-snider-creek-hatchery-the-impacts-of-the-hatchery-and-increased-wild-stock-harvest-on-early-sol-duc-river-winter-steelhead-with-recommendations-for-recovery/
"We need to think of wild steelhead as a wild trout that is very different from salmon as they are genetically, morphologically and physiologically connected to their natal rivers throughout their life cycle. Individuals from a typical brood will spend one to three years or more growing in the river. A few individuals from each brood will residualize and become resident rainbow trout that carry the same wild genes (but a different phenotype) as the anadromous steelhead. Rainbow trout spawn with each other and with steelhead, and add their special adaptive traits to about 40% (Christie, et. al., 2011) of the genetic pool of the migrating steelhead. This cycle maintains the steelhead river adaption traits and a reservoir of spawners when the anadromous numbers are depleted."

This (again, from Native Fish Society, but relevant)http://nativefishsociety.org/index.php/conservation/river-steward-progra/north-puget-sound/

Beginning with the first large scale European settlements roughly 150 years ago, the Puget Sound has seen devastating habitat loss, overharvest, and an overreliance on hatcheries to support fisheries. Many of the floodplain reaches in the Puget Sound were long ago dyked, straightened and drained to create farmland and control flooding. These low gradient flood plain reaches contained acres of beaver ponds, sloughts and off channel habitats which are many of the most productive areas for Coho, Chum and Pink salmon spawning and rearing. The commercial timber industry which reached its feverish peak between the 1960s and 80s brought devastation to the hillslopes and riparian forests of the region which for so long slowed the transport of sediment and water through the watersheds, moderated, and provided shade as well as large woody debris for streams in our region. With the land cover in watersheds dramatically altered the hydrology of our streams became much more flashy increasing both the magnitude and violence of high flow events, scouring many stream reaches of quality spawning gravels. Massive landslides added fine sediments to stream channels that were once cobble and gravel smothering incubating eggs, increasing stream temperature and reducing habitat complexity upon which juvenile salmon depend for rearing.

By the mid 1960s wild salmonid populations in the Puget Sound were in serious decline. In search of a way to replace the harvest opportunity once presented by wild fish, the state Fish and Wildlife department turned to hatcheries. Hovever, over the last 25 years scientific research has conclusively demonstrated that hatchery fish have severe negative impacts on wild fish. Through reproductive interactions, ecological effects such as competition, predation, and disease as well as harvest impacts large scale hatchery supplementation is fundementally incompatible with healthy populations of wild fish. This is especially true in the Puget Sound. Over the last decade, hatchery stocks, particularly steelhead have performed extremely poorly routinely seeing ocean survival below 1% in many hatchery programs. In the wild, typically 10-25% of steelhead smolts survive to adulthood. With millions of steelhead, chinook, coho and chum pumped into the sound annually the ecological effects of hatchery programs on the Sound are profound. The Puget Sound is a confined glacial fjord, with a limited capacity to support rearing, and outmigrating salmonids. Additionally huge numbers of hatchery fish are likely supporting predator populations far in excess of their natural carrying capacity.

This, from a NOAA report on Puget Sound salmon and steelhead. Pretty scientfic, but a good summary of the present condition of these stocks. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/.../pugetsound_salmonids_5yearreview.pdf


Bottom line for me: If the hatchery thing was really the answer (and we should have it perfected after 100+ years of trial and error) we should have steelhead (and salmon) coming out of our ears. Seems to me this is not the case.

[Bullkllr]

I will agree with you. There's probably not a pure native fish left in this state. Which is probably a factor as to why wild runs are struggling. Native genes mixing with hatchery genes lower wild fish survival rates period. Is it too late to do something about it? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd rather try than kill off a species.

I'm not a hatchery hater by any means, I like to eat steelhead but have never and will never intentionally kill a wild fish so I have to get my fix somehow. i say keep pumping hatchery fish into rivers like the cowliz as they will never even have a chance of rebounding wild stocks but leave the ones on the verge alone.

Fairly substantial genetic testing has been done (I'll look for it...) on, I recall, the Sandy and Clackamas (which have had mixed stock hatchery intrusion for several decades) as well as coastal rivers in Washington. Even the researchers were quite amazed at the genetic purity that most of the wild fish still retained.

[huntnphool]

RG,
You make many good points.

Here's the disconnect.  Since the Puget Sound coho and chinook hatchery fish marking program became established the fishery has been restored.  In my opinion it's a huge success because, next to steelhead fishing on the Pilchuck, salmon fishing on Possession Bar is my favorite water sport.  Now tell me what's the difference between a salmon and a steelhead......       

Bottom line for me: If the hatchery thing was really the answer (and we should have it perfected after 100+ years of trial and error) we should have steelhead (and salmon) coming out of our ears. Seems to me this is not the case.

Good reading, thanks for the links. I would argue that the commercial netting has as much if not more to do with decreasing numbers as hatcheries do. Is it a coincidence that we had great runs of fish after the Japanese fleet was taken out in the tsunami? 

[Bullkllr]

RG,
You make many good points.

Here's the disconnect.  Since the Puget Sound coho and chinook hatchery fish marking program became established the fishery has been restored.  In my opinion it's a huge success because, next to steelhead fishing on the Pilchuck, salmon fishing on Possession Bar is my favorite water sport.  Now tell me what's the difference between a salmon and a steelhead......       

Bottom line for me: If the hatchery thing was really the answer (and we should have it perfected after 100+ years of trial and error) we should have steelhead (and salmon) coming out of our ears. Seems to me this is not the case.

Good reading, thanks for the links. I would argue that the commercial netting has as much if not more to do with decreasing numbers as hatcheries do. Is it a coincidence that we had great runs of fish after the Japanese fleet was taken out in the tsunami?

Oh, for sure it does. Especially in the short term.

[fish vacuum]

Anyone remember the smoking hot return of Skagit hatchery fish a few years ago? No? Me neither. Even though it was from a hatchery plant on par with the Cowlitz. Puget Sound hatchery steelhead are dying on their way out when they hit the Strait of Jaun de Fuca.