WDFW NOT releasing early winter steelhead this spring on any Puget Sound river.

[TheHunt]

You can thank the Wild Fish Recovery law suit.   



WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead
this spring unless legal issues are resolved
OLYMPIA –The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will not release early winter hatchery steelhead into rivers around Puget Sound as planned this spring unless it can resolve issues raised in January by the Wild Fish Conservancy and restated in a lawsuit the group filed this week.
Phil Anderson said WDFW leaders made the “very difficult” decision last week under the threat of litigation by the Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, Wash. In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the department over its management of early winter (Chambers Creek) steelhead hatchery programs.
On Monday, March 31, as the 60-day period ended, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the department and the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging WDFW has violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The group contends WDFW’s planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.
Anderson said the department planned to releases about 900,000 juvenile steelhead this spring into rivers that flow into Puget Sound. Those fish are produced at nine hatcheries and represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by WDFW hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. Steelhead planted this spring would return to the rivers in 2016 and 2017.
He said WDFW is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. WDFW submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to NMFS in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild chinook salmon. However, NMFS’ review of those plans was not completed. WDFW is nearing completion of updates to its steelhead plans to reflect recent hatchery improvements based on the most current science.
“We believe strongly that we are operating safe and responsible hatchery programs that meet exacting, science-based standards,” he said. “But without NMFS certification that our hatchery programs comply with the Endangered Species Act, we remain at risk of litigation. We are working hard to complete that process.”
Jim Scott, who heads the WDFW Fish Program, said the department and the Conservancy were not able to reach an agreement on WDFW’s steelhead hatchery management practices during the 60-day period, but he said discussions will continue in the hope of reaching a settlement by early May so that the 2014 plantings can take place.
“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Scott said. “Going to court would force us to redirect our staff to defend our programs in litigation, rather than focusing on conservation and restoration of Puget Sound steelhead.”
Scott said the department acknowledges that scientific findings indicate certain hatchery practices may pose an impediment to wild fish productivity and recovery.  But he noted state managers have worked hard to reform hatchery programs and have taken significant steps to protect ESA-listed wild steelhead.  Actions since 2004 include:
•   Reducing the number of early winter steelhead released in the Puget Sound watershed by more than 50 percent to minimize interactions between hatchery fish and wild steelhead.
•   Reducing the number of release locations from 27 to nine.
•   Collecting eggs from early-returning hatchery fish to maintain separation in the spawning times of hatchery and wild fish.
•   Using genetic monitoring to guard against hatchery steelhead interacting with wild stocks.
“We want to continue discussions with the Wild Fish Conservancy in an attempt to address its issues,” Anderson said. “I’m hopeful that our decision last week to hold off on releasing hatchery fish will keep us from having to spend our time in a courtroom, arguing about injunctions, and instead let us find real solutions that promote wild steelhead recovery.” 

[Bullkllr]

The blows our steelhead fisheries take seem endless. If this happens there will literally be no steelhead to fish for anywhere around Puget Sound. I could support some change to what's happening hatchery-wise- but not more cuts and closures.

[jstokes12]

Why not shut down fishing for salmon and steelhead for 5 years and let the system recover?  Can't we all practice some catch and release.  The Tribes need to play a bigger role in this recovery by not placing nets in front of the mouths of rivers when the salmon return.  Or by not using jet boats to scare fish in the nets downstream etc., etc.  Both of these practices I have witness first hand and we wonder why the fish can't recover.  We lose entire strains of genetic diversity when nets are involved and when over fishing is being practiced, both sides need to be good stewards in the conservation of fish.

[snowpack]

They got the Elwha river postponed too (first river on the straits outside of the PS region).
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140331/NEWS/303319995/federal-judge-sides-with-wild-fish-advocates-on-hatchery-issue-in

I don't know of any rivers that have had a wild fish rebound once the hatchery brats were stopped.  By rebound, I mean a significant change in numbers like 500-->5,000 not 500-->600.

[WSU]

You can thank the Wild Fish Recovery law suit.   



WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead
this spring unless legal issues are resolved
OLYMPIA –The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will not release early winter hatchery steelhead into rivers around Puget Sound as planned this spring unless it can resolve issues raised in January by the Wild Fish Conservancy and restated in a lawsuit the group filed this week.
Phil Anderson said WDFW leaders made the “very difficult” decision last week under the threat of litigation by the Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, Wash. In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the department over its management of early winter (Chambers Creek) steelhead hatchery programs.
On Monday, March 31, as the 60-day period ended, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the department and the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging WDFW has violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The group contends WDFW’s planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.
Anderson said the department planned to releases about 900,000 juvenile steelhead this spring into rivers that flow into Puget Sound. Those fish are produced at nine hatcheries and represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by WDFW hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. Steelhead planted this spring would return to the rivers in 2016 and 2017.
He said WDFW is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. WDFW submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to NMFS in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild chinook salmon. However, NMFS’ review of those plans was not completed. WDFW is nearing completion of updates to its steelhead plans to reflect recent hatchery improvements based on the most current science.
“We believe strongly that we are operating safe and responsible hatchery programs that meet exacting, science-based standards,” he said. “But without NMFS certification that our hatchery programs comply with the Endangered Species Act, we remain at risk of litigation. We are working hard to complete that process.”
Jim Scott, who heads the WDFW Fish Program, said the department and the Conservancy were not able to reach an agreement on WDFW’s steelhead hatchery management practices during the 60-day period, but he said discussions will continue in the hope of reaching a settlement by early May so that the 2014 plantings can take place.
“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Scott said. “Going to court would force us to redirect our staff to defend our programs in litigation, rather than focusing on conservation and restoration of Puget Sound steelhead.”
Scott said the department acknowledges that scientific findings indicate certain hatchery practices may pose an impediment to wild fish productivity and recovery.  But he noted state managers have worked hard to reform hatchery programs and have taken significant steps to protect ESA-listed wild steelhead.  Actions since 2004 include:
•   Reducing the number of early winter steelhead released in the Puget Sound watershed by more than 50 percent to minimize interactions between hatchery fish and wild steelhead.
•   Reducing the number of release locations from 27 to nine.
•   Collecting eggs from early-returning hatchery fish to maintain separation in the spawning times of hatchery and wild fish.
•   Using genetic monitoring to guard against hatchery steelhead interacting with wild stocks.
“We want to continue discussions with the Wild Fish Conservancy in an attempt to address its issues,” Anderson said. “I’m hopeful that our decision last week to hold off on releasing hatchery fish will keep us from having to spend our time in a courtroom, arguing about injunctions, and instead let us find real solutions that promote wild steelhead recovery.”

Actually, you can thank WDFW for not doing their job and obtaining a permit sometime in the last decade.  They've had years to get their act together and simply didn't do it.  Be pissed at WDFW for failing to do its job.

[WSU]

The blows our steelhead fisheries take seem endless. If this happens there will literally be no steelhead to fish for anywhere around Puget Sound. I could support some change to what's happening hatchery-wise- but not more cuts and closures.

Agreed.  We need recovery and hatchery fish both.

[jackmaster]

Both groups need to pull their heads out, of course we wont really see the affect this for what 3 to 5 years? Anyone know how long it takes a hatchery steelhead to come back to spawn in the river it was released in? Can anyone tell me the big difference from a nate to a hatchery is? Isnt the idea here is to have all rivers teaming with steelhead again...

[Bullkllr]

Both groups need to pull their heads out, of course we wont really see the affect this for what 3 to 5 years? Anyone know how long it takes a hatchery steelhead to come back to spawn in the river it was released in? Can anyone tell me the big difference from a nate to a hatchery is? Isnt the idea here is to have all rivers teaming with steelhead again...

Well, it really is a complicated issue:

Hatchery fish return normally about 2 years from release date, a % will return after 3 years at sea.

The hatchery/nate issue is the bigger issue in your question. I'm probably biting off more than I can chew here, but in a nutshell most hatchery fish released by WDFW for generations have been "out of the system fish" ie not naturally found in that river. This was done for a variety of reasons. The main winter run fish used by WDFW has been Chamber's Creek stock (yes, the Chamber's Creek in Lakewood). Concerns have been that the out of basin stock depletes the gene pool of the native fish that evolved over millenia to survive and thrive in that particular stream (example - fish that historically traveled  hundreds of miles up the Columbia River to spawn in Canada are a much different fish than those that spawn in say, Chamber's Creek...)

The Chamber's Creek stock can have an impact by spawning with "wild" fish. Studies have claimed the spawning success of Chamber's stock is almost nil. But if they cross-spawn with a wild fish, the reproductive capacity of the wild fish is lost with almost zero chance of success in returning fish also. They can also have an impact at the smolt stage by out-competing smaller wild smolts for food and habitat.

The big problem with Puget Sound steelhead is that a VERY low % of released hatchery smolts return as adults anyway. Releases have already been cut way back, but even if they released 10 times as many it may not produce many more adult fish. Smolt survival in Puget Sound is thought to be the limiting factor.

Wild fish throughout PS are protected by ESA, so the WDFW is forced to do something to protect/rebuild those numbers. So far that is not happening, even on rivers where no hatchery plants are made.

So yeah... it's rather a mess...

[WSU]

The other downfall here is all the displaced anglers that add pressure everywhere else.  The satsop and nooch are joke now.  The peninsula is over-crowded.  There is nowhere else to fish and now, apparently, there will be even fewer.

[snowpack]

So, I wonder if WDFW is thinking ahead to 2016/2017 and what the statewide plan will be?  I don't think they can have any kind of steelhead season in a river with ESA steel if no hatchery steelhead are in that river.  I think that is why the rivers around PS close early--the hatchery run is considered over by then and they can't allow targeting of wild even for cnr.  A no plant year would imply a future no season year (PS region).  Then where are all those people going to go to fish?  Are we to expect emergency closures on the remaining rivers in 2016/2017?  Then where are the folks that fish those other rivers going to go?  Oregon, Canada, Alaska, Idaho?

[WSU]

So, I wonder if WDFW is thinking ahead to 2016/2017 and what the statewide plan will be?  I don't think they can have any kind of steelhead season in a river with ESA steel if no hatchery steelhead are in that river.  I think that is why the rivers around PS close early--the hatchery run is considered over by then and they can't allow targeting of wild even for cnr.  A no plant year would imply a future no season year (PS region).  Then where are all those people going to go to fish?  Are we to expect emergency closures on the remaining rivers in 2016/2017?  Then where are the folks that fish those other rivers going to go?  Oregon, Canada, Alaska, Idaho?

I'd bet $100 they don't have that sort of plan.

[Bullkllr]

The other downfall here is all the displaced anglers that add pressure everywhere else.  The satsop and nooch are joke now.  The peninsula is over-crowded.  There is nowhere else to fish and now, apparently, there will be even fewer.

Yes! The Puget Sound streams were suffering from few fish for awhile- but the complete shutdowns have created a huge problem on other rivers for sure.

[jackmaster]

thanks bullkllr that helps me understand alot, well if it comes down to it, i stand with what the fisherman want, if its an unmolested run then so be it, or wdfw needs to find a better run of fish to raise and release, leave it to them to always cut corners and take the easy way out instead of doing whats right....

[steeleywhopper]

Glad I have a good Native buddy from Quinault, that's the only place left a guy can have some good hatchery steelhead fishing. Our WDFW hates us and steelhead.

[TheHunt]

It is getting to the point where Canada and Oregon is a better place to go fishing.  Spend a week and fish as much as you can.  I just hope the voting majority (Sport fisher people) will crush the stupidity when voting comes up.