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

[WSU]

Here's a blurb from an article I just found:

"On one system, basically one out of every 350 hatchery smolts has made it back from the Pacific in recent years, according to a biologist.

And that’s actually twice as good as it’s been elsewhere.

“Over the past 10 years (to the Puyallup), it’s been a .15 percent return; in the heyday, it was 8 percent,” says fisheries biologist Mike Scharpf.

It shouldn’t take a state auditor’s report to figure out that those adults are pretty expensive specimens."

[Alchase]

Very true!

Frustrating that the state destroys such a good fishery, then says "but you can have pinks" 

Nothing wrong with pinks really, but they are not steelhead.

WSU, interesting statement in that article. If no steelhead hatchery, where are they counting them?

[Bullkllr]

The Puyallup is a classic example of how steelhead fishing in the Puget Sound basin both evolved and "devolved" into what it is now.

I will always consider the Puyallup my "home river". It was where I caught my first steelhead in (I think) 1970. I fished it many years after that; it was near my home in Tacoma, and it was productive. I'm sure my observation/experience is quite typical...

From stories I've heard  backed up by known statistics, the heyday of steelheading on the Puyallup was in the late 50s into the early 60s. It was top 3 or so in catch numbers every winter- and was putting out fish in the tens of thousands. The state was pumping thousands of smolts into the Puyallup and nearly every other river around, and they were coming back in droves.

In my experience it was consistently productive from the 70s through early 80s. It was producing below the "heyday", but was making the top ten every year, typically putting out 5-8,000 fish/year. So even then, production was beginning to decline.
The winter of 1984-85 was a banner year amidst what was recognized as an overall decline. The Puyallup put out over 10,000 fish (for the last time) and was either #1 or #2 that winter.
After that, there was decent fishing for several years, but it was obvious there was a steady decline. By the early 90s the oldtimers were talking about the "good ol'days" as if they were gone... and they were. By the late 90s popular drifts were practically deserted. Regulars had hung it up or made a few half-hearted trips- as there simply were few fish. BY the early 2000s the river was routinely closing for lack of wild and/or hatchery fish return.

I recall thinking about the downturn back in the 90s. There were really no outward changes in the river itself. The headwaters were in the park, then through timberland that had been intensively logged for generations. The river itself had been channelized in the middle sections and diked in the lower decades before. Commencement Bay at the mouth had been as industrialized as a port can be since the early 1900s. The dams at  Electron and Mud Mt. had been there forever.  The one change you could see was all the houses in the valley from Sumner to Orting, but that seemed like small potatoes compared to the other factors. The state was still planting fish, albeit less; they just weren't coming back. The tribe was gillnetting, but their catches suffered and seasons were curtailed also. I do not believe there has been a targeted tribal season on steelhead for many years- they catch some during their chum fishery and that's it.

The method used for counting returns takes multiple factors into account; fish caught in tribal and sport fisheries, fish counted at the dams, fish returning to the hatchery at Voight's Creek (which did start releasing steelhead at some point), spawning surveys, etc. Since 2000 some of the numbers they've come up with are shockingly low for both hatchery and wild fish; like in the low dozens of each some years. 2009-10 the total catch reported by WDFW was 83 fish, up from 18 fish the year prior (from a plant of over 200,000); I'm sure it's gone down substantially since then.

So, it's like everywhere, just a microcosm of the boom and bust of steelhead fisheries in Puget Sound and throughout the state. Cause? It's aptly referred to as "Death by 1000 cuts". In-river conditions have gradually worsened. Development has increased. Harvest took it's toll. Estuary damage may have reached critical mass. Hatchery fish impacts on wild fish. Hatchery cutbacks. ESA listing. Ocean survival...etc.

All I know is it's a remarkably sad situation, and a huge loss (one of many).

[BigGoonTuna]

That does not explain why the Puyallup was such a good fishery up until they shut the hatcheries down?

smolt releases stopped about 4 or 5 years ago.  as a hatchery stream, that one was pretty much done by the early '90s.

i think it's about time to stick a fork in winter steelhead fishing in this state.  we're about to lose even more opportunity, and what's left is still going to be in decline while getting pounded by everyone.

[Forks]

I encourage everyone on this site to sell your drift boat asap.

[Wingin it]

In my experience once opportunity is lost in this state it is not likely to return. Unfortunately,  I think we are seeing the death blow to our winter run fishing in Puget Sound. If this is the case (I hope not) then I hope they allocate those funds and resources to the summer run program. Pump up the plants and spread the pressure out. The least they could do is give us a really great summer fishery. Wishful thinking all the way around I am sure.

[BigGoonTuna]

i too would like to see more summer plants at least...unfortunately that one is dying the death of a thousand cuts as well, at least in the SW part of the state.  green is done, toutle has been cut in half, and the kalama and elochoman aren't worth a damn any more.

[jpharcher]

Sounds like a plan Forks....interested in a very lightly used 2008 clackacraft old school high side?

[snowpack]

I understand the thought of the death by a thousand cuts, but when I hear about the individual cuts it seems like there are examples and counter-examples for each.
Like when I hear about pollution, you can look at the Duwamish (EPA superfund site) and it still receives runs of wild fish.  And then you have rivers else with no pollution and they have fish but at the reduced levels.
For habitat/development, you could say Skagit and Cowlitz have a decent amount of development and can still bring in fish, Puyallup has a lot of development on the lower river and has a run, not huge, but fish are returning.  Then you have a river like Queets almost the entirety is in a national park and it is way below what bios say it could handle.
For the ones that point to silting and fine gravel and say that logging roads are the cause, you can look at Toutle and the river was a mudflow wasteland and fish found their way back and repopulated a bit.
Also for logging, the Clearwater was logged big time.  They used to log it down to the banks and cut all the creeks and drug logs through them back in the 70's and early 80's--basically one giant clear cut 30ish years ago; and that river still brings in some pretty big fish in decent numbers (below what it could--but more than the log-apocalypse people try to claim).
Also for habitat, you have culverts.  The Hoh has had quite a few culverts replaced and opened up all kinds of previously blocked habitat.  Still misses escapement more and more each year.
Estuaries--rivers like Naselle or some of the Hood Canal rivers look to have good,intact estuaries and haven't been what they used to be, but Nisqually had a lot done to its estuary many years ago to convert to farm land (being restored now) and it gets fish back (not exactly fishable from what I hear).
One of the things I do see in common with all of them is they all send their smolts to the ocean. 

[Bullkllr]

I understand the thought of the death by a thousand cuts, but when I hear about the individual cuts it seems like there are examples and counter-examples for each.
Like when I hear about pollution, you can look at the Duwamish (EPA superfund site) and it still receives runs of wild fish.  And then you have rivers else with no pollution and they have fish but at the reduced levels.
For habitat/development, you could say Skagit and Cowlitz have a decent amount of development and can still bring in fish, Puyallup has a lot of development on the lower river and has a run, not huge, but fish are returning.  Then you have a river like Queets almost the entirety is in a national park and it is way below what bios say it could handle.
For the ones that point to silting and fine gravel and say that logging roads are the cause, you can look at Toutle and the river was a mudflow wasteland and fish found their way back and repopulated a bit.
Also for logging, the Clearwater was logged big time.  They used to log it down to the banks and cut all the creeks and drug logs through them back in the 70's and early 80's--basically one giant clear cut 30ish years ago; and that river still brings in some pretty big fish in decent numbers (below what it could--but more than the log-apocalypse people try to claim).
Also for habitat, you have culverts.  The Hoh has had quite a few culverts replaced and opened up all kinds of previously blocked habitat.  Still misses escapement more and more each year.
Estuaries--rivers like Naselle or some of the Hood Canal rivers look to have good,intact estuaries and haven't been what they used to be, but Nisqually had a lot done to its estuary many years ago to convert to farm land (being restored now) and it gets fish back (not exactly fishable from what I hear).
One of the things I do see in common with all of them is they all send their smolts to the ocean.

Those are all valid observations for sure; it points to the complexity of the problem.  I think each river has a varying mix of factors, some of which outweigh others depending on the situation. And different rivers certainly have healthier/less healthy runs. Several you mention may be getting fish back, but not enough to provide any kind of fishery or maybe even sustain a run into the future. In Puget Sound, it is apparent that the farther south you go, the poorer the steelhead are doing, regardless of other factors. On the Hoh and Queets (especially) I think you could argue that current harvest may be the limiting factor. On the CW you can't say the logging didn't have an impact, but the fact that it nearly all got cut in a short time has allowed the upper ends of the system to heal substantially- maybe better than if the drainage was cut more gradually...? Opening culverts will help- but it takes a while- and coho benefit the most as they tend to be more creek spawners.  The ocean is a common factor- in general the rivers that dump straight in have higher smolt survival- the farther from the ocean generally means the lower the survival. The ocean is also the factor that fish managers have the least knowledge of or control over. We're back to the no easy solution story, but I'd just be impressed if I saw the WDFW doing more than cutting back hatchery plants and closing more rivers.

[Forks]

Sounds like a plan Forks....interested in a very lightly used 2008 clackacraft old school high side?

Thank you for the offer. I already have one to get rid of. You should have no problem finding a buyer in Oregon.