Post by: RG on March 10, 2013, 08:18:15 AM
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130310/OPINION03/703109938 (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130310/OPINION03/703109938)
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 08:56:50 AM
This is one of the last rivers on the entire snoho system that gets good numbers of big wild fish andhe wants to flood it with brats? If you want hatchery fish go to rReiter Tokul or the Wallace, but for heaven sakes leave this river alone.
Quote
I haven't seen a steelheader be disappointed after catching a fish that fights the same, tastes the same and is a direct descendent of a "native" fish.
I don't know of one seious steelheader that would agree with this statement.
:bash:
Post by: RG on March 10, 2013, 10:27:49 AM
This guy has a hidden agenda.
This is one of the last rivers on the entire snoho system that gets good numbers of big wild fish andhe wants to flood it with brats? If you want hatchery fish go to rReiter Tokul or the Wallace, but for heaven sakes leave this river alone.QuoteI haven't seen a steelheader be disappointed after catching a fish that fights the same, tastes the same and is a direct descendent of a "native" fish.
I don't know of one seious steelheader that would agree with this statement.
:bash:
You are totally wrong, he doesn't have a hidden agenda, obviously you don't know Bob Heirman, he just fished it in its peak and now it's a wasteland. I fished the Pilchuck for years and years and learned from the old timers that fished it for years. The "big wild fish" are remnants of hatchery fish from years gone by, they were stocking the river back in the 1930's. Read Heirman's book if you want to know the whole story, every Snohomish County fisherman should read it. Western Washington used to be a steelhead fishing mecca, now there are only a few skeletons of days gone by and they are on the Olympic Peninsula. I've fished at Lewis St. in Monroe when there were 30 guys on the bank with 10 or more fish on the beach day after day. The Cracker Bar in Sultan, same way. I drifted the Sky from Sultan to Ben Howard dozens of times per year, caught actual real fish. I fished the reformatory drift, and Hansen's Bar, the morning hole, the two bit hole, hiked the Pilchuck from Snohomish to Lochsloy, caught beautiful fish, big fish. When the fish were in you had to park your rig and walk a long way because there were so many people out there having a great time, and gee whiz, catching fish.
What has been accomplished? Try to answer that one. What about the hours of recreation, the "mental health days" spent on the river, the thousands upon thousands of dollars left in the Snohomish County economy for bait, gas, breakfast, clothing, tackle? People used to buy licenses and steelhead cards by the hundreds and hundreds. We gave it all up for a few special interest people who don't really care about the sport. They have the hidden agenda but guess what, they certainly aren't fishermen because there are no fish available. The Pilchuck closed the last day of January this year, before the wild fish run shows up in numbers to make sure nobody gets a chance to catch anything. I live on the river bank, I watch the river daily. I fish it and have since the 1960's. Tell me about the hidden agenda please, I think Heirman's agenda is right out there on the table. Provide sport and recreation for residents of our state.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior. Could the planting of hatchery fish in that river system over the years contributed to the decline of the current returns. This needs to be explored before we just start dumping fish into a river again.
That river is not big enough to support all of the anglers in the Puget sound area. We would be lucky to have any biters make it to spawn with all the pressure it would recieve. I had a blast fishing that little gem but I had to quit while I was ahead. Now you go and there are 3 or 4 rigs at every turnout. That river will never go back to its former glory where you could bonk 3 20lb steelhead a day. But I'm sure that had no impact on those fish either...
From the reading I take it that bob wants to kill kill kill...
Post by: fishseeker on March 10, 2013, 12:04:26 PM
PS, I'll be the greyhaired guy hunched over a sluice with a bucket and a smile on my face once again :IBCOOL:
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 01:05:52 PM
Post by: fishseeker on March 10, 2013, 03:19:30 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 03:41:46 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 10, 2013, 05:19:21 PM
Virtually every study arrives at the same conclusion: (in a nutshell) hatchery production has only a negative effect on natural production, and native stock released from a hatchery have very poor reproductive success.
For a person who loves fishing for, catching, and eating steelhead as much as I do, this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the simple truth.
With the ESA thing for most stocks in Washington, were lucky to have any hatchery fish at all. Don't get me started on what things were like 30-40 years ago...Puyallup and Green were crazy with fish. When the Cowlitz hatcheries first took off, I remember waking on the gravel bar at the Barrier dam and needing to be careful not to step on the dozens of fish people had lying on the beach behind them. Ironically, those massive hatchery infusions are probably a signifcant part of why we are where we are today with our wilds. Those days are a thing of the past for the foreseeable future :'(
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 10, 2013, 05:26:51 PM
Post by: RG on March 10, 2013, 06:11:30 PM
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. Could the planting of hatchery fish in that river system over the years contributed to the decline of the current returns. This needs to be explored before we just start dumping fish into a river again.
That river is not big enough to support all of the anglers in the Puget sound area. We would be lucky to have any biters make it to spawn with all the pressure it would recieve. I had a blast fishing that little gem but I had to quit while I was ahead. Now you go and there are 3 or 4 rigs at every turnout. That river will never go back to its former glory where you could bonk 3 20lb steelhead a day. But I'm sure that had no impact on those fish either...
From the reading I take it that bob wants to kill kill kill...
Why are you anti-fishing? I didn't see anything about recreating a run of wild fish. I read him asking for a renewed opportunity for sportsmen and women in Washington to catch some steelhead, to experience the challenge and thrill of catching a few. It shouldn't be a sport set aside for a few "elite" anglers who can go somewhere else. It seems like a few, narrow minded, folks have convinced them that somehow it's a good thing to eliminate all the fishing I described above so some fish won't have to die. Geez, give me a break. It's not just a Pilchuck thing either, it's a northwest thing. The hatchery programs have been gutted to the point that I bet they don't sell 5 percent of the number of licenses to steelhead fishermen that they sold in even the early 90's. That's really sad too because it was a really great fishery. If you don't want the fish killed then OK, open it to catch and release. A year or two ago I went to WDFW at Mill Creek and spoke to the biologist who manages anadramous fish in region 4. They told me they don't know how many wild fish there are because they don't actually have anybody going out there and counting them. They just close the fishery in case there is a problem. Really? If there was fishing opportunity to be had there would be a lot more license and tag money available. If they didn't spend it on wolf or butterfly management they could use it to count redds. Or maybe they could ask a few sportmen's groups to help out, I bet that would work too, if they listened to what the group told them after the counts of course. Maybe I seem bitter but I, like Bob Heirman, have seen what it was and it's not any more and the reason is because closed minded purists for some unknown reason have convinced the WDFW that people shouldn't be allowed to fish steelhead in Washington. I don't get it but maybe I don't graze in the right pockets or something. Who knows?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 10, 2013, 06:56:27 PM
Post by: Ironhead on March 10, 2013, 07:03:42 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 07:07:21 PM
you said there fish are the remnants of hatchery stock and i simply asked if dumping hatchery fish into these rivers had a detrimental impact to the wild stocks? you an i both know this river is small and intermingled breeding between hatchery and wild fish is inevitable.
as far as cnr goes i would love to see it happen but i dont think it would help much. im not sure where you got your figures but i read somewhere (i think on this site) that fishing licence sales are up some 11%. these fish would be running the gauntlet on this river system which would lead to high mortality rates even without a retention season. you and i both know these fish are snappy and would likley be caught numerous times on their way to the spawning grounds, greatly reducing their chance for survival even under cnr regulations.
dont take this the wrong way because i probably would have joined the "old timers" in the slaughter of these fish, and this is only part of the equation as to why wild stocks throughout the pnw are in trouble. if it truly was as crowded as you say it was lets do some simple math. 50 anglers per day keep 1 steelhead each feb through march. 59x50= 2,950. that is almost 1.500 spawning pairs of steelhead that will not procreate.
trust me there is nothing more i want than to see these fish rebound because there is nothing like hooking a 20lb steelhead in a river you could darn near spit across. i just think its time to take a different approach as wild stocks have been declining for years all over the pnw.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 10, 2013, 07:15:52 PM
Post by: bankwalker on March 10, 2013, 07:23:51 PM
That river is entirely to small, not enough access, and way to much poaching, to be worth dumping hatchery fish into. Every river in the snohomish system is alot more logical candidate for more hatchery fish.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 07:32:23 PM
just close it all down for 5 yrs including tribal fishing and we would have fish again ....Pretty simple solution to the problem ...
I would be ok with that
Post by: RG on March 10, 2013, 07:39:35 PM
Post by: Kola16 on March 10, 2013, 07:40:29 PM
....me too :yeah:just close it all down for 5 yrs including tribal fishing and we would have fish again ....Pretty simple solution to the problem ...I would be ok with that
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 10, 2013, 08:05:42 PM
I'm going to jump off my soap box. Here's what I know though, for decades the rivers around here, specifically Snohomish County, received a lot of steelhead hatchery plants. Hundreds of people fished, caught fish, had a wonderful time in the rain, snow, and ice, or in the summer, and spent thousands in the local economy. The region benefitted greatly, and there were a lot of wild fish in the rivers in March and April. Hmm, seems like it was working really well. I owned a sporting goods store back then so I talked to steelhead fishermen, and fished for steelhead about 3 mornings a week, for a living. Now I drive around the back roads of the county on a regular basis all during the seasons. I used to see dozens of cars out there when the fish were in, now I see none. I fished the Pilchuck regularly, I live on its bank. I saw fish caught and taken but not that many. It was too difficult a fishery for the masses requiring lots of hiking and wading and learning the river. Most people took their lawn chair to Lewis St. in Monroe and caught fish there, or stood in the crowd at Reiter. I miss it and it's a tragedy that generations of northwest young people will never experience it because it got shut down for all the wrong reasons, budget being a big piece of that too obviously.
i personally think (no scientific data behind this) that we have reached a breaking point with hatchery and wild stocks. it has worked well in the past but any time you mess with ma nature she is going to eventually say f&$k you. it must really kill you living on the bank of that river and not being able to fish it. i feel for ya man, even though our opinions may differ.
Post by: wapitislayer on March 10, 2013, 08:10:01 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 10, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
Post by: Gobble Doc on March 10, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
Are you including commercial fishing as part of ocean survival?
Post by: RG on March 10, 2013, 08:26:17 PM
I'm going to jump off my soap box. Here's what I know though, for decades the rivers around here, specifically Snohomish County, received a lot of steelhead hatchery plants. Hundreds of people fished, caught fish, had a wonderful time in the rain, snow, and ice, or in the summer, and spent thousands in the local economy. The region benefitted greatly, and there were a lot of wild fish in the rivers in March and April. Hmm, seems like it was working really well. I owned a sporting goods store back then so I talked to steelhead fishermen, and fished for steelhead about 3 mornings a week, for a living. Now I drive around the back roads of the county on a regular basis all during the seasons. I used to see dozens of cars out there when the fish were in, now I see none. I fished the Pilchuck regularly, I live on its bank. I saw fish caught and taken but not that many. It was too difficult a fishery for the masses requiring lots of hiking and wading and learning the river. Most people took their lawn chair to Lewis St. in Monroe and caught fish there, or stood in the crowd at Reiter. I miss it and it's a tragedy that generations of northwest young people will never experience it because it got shut down for all the wrong reasons, budget being a big piece of that too obviously.
i personally think (no scientific data behind this) that we have reached a breaking point with hatchery and wild stocks. it has worked well in the past but any time you mess with ma nature she is going to eventually say f&$k you. it must really kill you living on the bank of that river and not being able to fish it. i feel for ya man, even though our opinions may differ.
It's still a great river, I love it. I have an active eagle's nest right by my house, a beaver ate half way through the alder tree in my back yard, I went swimming with a mask and snorkel in the pool by my place and saw rainbow trout with ragged tails they are so old. My grandkids play in the river in the summer and they see herons, raccoon tracks, beaver sticks. It's a nature lesson. Tne humpies come upriver in such high numbers I can hear them jumping from my bedroom window at night. When the river is running high it scares the crap out of me even though I've never been flooded, or even close. Nature is awesome and the Pilchuck is amazing. You really should find a copy of Bob Heirman's book though if you are a fisherman. It's a great read. I have a signed copy. It does make you sad.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 10, 2013, 08:34:06 PM
That, and, since steelhead stocks in the sound have fallen under ESA protection as threatened since 2007, further hatchery propogation will likely not be allowable under protection plans.
Post by: WSU on March 11, 2013, 10:56:30 AM
Off the top of my head, most recent findings have indicated that smolts are not surviving to migrate out of Puget Sound. Recent hatchery returns to south sound rivers like the Puyallup have been extremely low, like a fraction of 1%. Incidental steelhead are rare in open water commercial fisheries throughout their range (low numbers and large dispersal). Of course in-river (tribal) gillnets are a direct fishery. But since sport fisheries in most Puget Sound rivers have been reduced, so has directed tribal netting. Neither has resulted in more fish returning.
That, and, since steelhead stocks in the sound have fallen under ESA protection as threatened since 2007, further hatchery propogation will likely not be allowable under protection plans.
There it is. I don't know why people think pumping hatchery fish into the Sky and Snohomish will produce good fishing. They are already pumping hundreds of thousands of hatchery smolts into the Snohomis system every year (in 2010 it was about 318K winter fish and 182K summer fish). Those fish just aren't returning. Adding more smolt so they can die in Puget Sound isn't the answer.
We've planted millions and millions of hatchery fish and don't have robust spawning populations. Can someone in the pro-hatchery camp explain to me why planting more would result in more spawners? I'd love to hear why it would now, especially given the 100 years of it not working.
Post by: 87Ford on March 11, 2013, 02:19:31 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on March 11, 2013, 02:38:00 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 11, 2013, 02:48:53 PM
Do you think in the future we'll ever get to fish for the natives or the off spring of the natives? Not likely. Atleast with the hatchery program we had something to fish for. The Pilchuck is just another example of lost opportunity forever.
i may not get to but maybe if were lucky my future children will get to.
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 03:05:09 PM
A couple things to consider::chuckle: 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.
Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior.
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. :chuckle:
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 11, 2013, 05:38:17 PM
A couple things to consider::chuckle: 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.
Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior.
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. :chuckle:
dont know what your laughing about? we werent talking about sockeye on the cedar. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 06:30:55 PM
So this commentA couple things to consider::chuckle: 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.
Trying to create a new run of "wild fish" by letting hatchery fish spawn naturally is just plain stupid. They are genetically inferior.
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. :chuckle:
dont know what your laughing about? we werent talking about sockeye on the cedar. :dunno:
Quote
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.
Post by: Hawgdawg on March 11, 2013, 07:09:51 PM
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 :bash: 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. :bash: 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 :bash::yeah:
PS, I'll be the greyhaired guy hunched over a sluice with a bucket and a smile on my face once again :IBCOOL:
Post by: Bullkllr on March 11, 2013, 07:23:33 PM
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.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 11, 2013, 08:03:43 PM
Post by: RG on March 11, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
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...... :dunno: 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. ;)
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 11, 2013, 09:21:05 PM
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. :chuckle: 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.
Post by: HuntandFish on March 11, 2013, 09:32:45 PM
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!
:twocents:
H&F
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 09:34:23 PM
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 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.
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. :chuckle: 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.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 11, 2013, 10:01:16 PM
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...... :dunno:
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/ (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/ (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 (http://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.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 11, 2013, 10:11:42 PM
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. :chuckle: 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.
Post by: huntnphool on March 11, 2013, 10:17:51 PM
RG,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?
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...... :dunno:
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 11, 2013, 10:22:29 PM
RG,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?
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...... :dunno:
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.
Oh, for sure it does. Especially in the short term.
Post by: fish vacuum on March 11, 2013, 11:46:50 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on March 12, 2013, 12:05:22 AM
Sad times when they close Hatchery's because certain groups don't like em. :bash:
And they regularly close hatchery areas to fishing because they aren't meeting escapement. So we now have hatcheries that produce fish for anglers, but the rivers near them are closed because they can't get enough of a return to meet their spawning needs.
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.
Skamania strain summer steelhead have actually done well at creating wild producing runs. The SF Skykomish and Green rivers come to mind. I don't know why the Skamania hatchery summers do so much better than the Chambers Creek winters at reproducing.
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.
That goes both ways. I've worked with biologists who get tons of input from every Tom, Dick, and Harry who think they know all the answers because they've fished for years starting in the "good old days."
My personal opinion is for a brood stock program on many of these rivers. Hatchery raising the native stock only makes sense to me. Then, if they do spawn naturally it will not be so detrimental to the native run. Yes, they will be slightly inferior to the wild fish but not any worse off than the mixed strains we have now.
I'm not sure what the point is. You admit that the offspring would be inferior. Why not let the wilds just spawn on their own? They do it for free and do a better job. Instead of taking wild fish and rearing them in a hatchery to produce inferior hatchery fish to retain, why not just retain the wild fish? Either way the wild fish are taken out of the river.
Post by: Button Nubbs on March 12, 2013, 08:09:01 AM
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. :chuckle: 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.
If you can find it id love to read it
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.
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 12, 2013, 10:00:37 AM
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.
Or just maybe when they hit the gill nets stretched across the lower river when they return? Bottom line here folks is that we need fish. I don't care what anyone says, I love to catch em and I love to eat em. I live here in the North end and my local rivers are shut down early so I don't "accidentally" hook a "wild" fish. The Stilly had a whole bunch of hatchery fish in it when they shut it down this year. Are those the future wild fish that will show up? Good job here WDFW, cut our season so the nets can have em all! :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: If they keep taking opportunity from us, then shouldn't our licenses get cheaper?
Post by: WSU on March 12, 2013, 11:09:13 AM
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. :chuckle: 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.
If you can find it id love to read it
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.
Google is your friend. There has been quite a bit of genetic study done on various rivers. Some shows integration with past hatchery plants and some shows that wild fish are very distinct, genetically, from the hatchery fish that have been released.
Post by: fish vacuum on March 12, 2013, 02:00:57 PM
The Stilly had a whole bunch of hatchery fish in it when they shut it down this year. Are those the future wild fish that will show up? Good job here WDFW, cut our season so the nets can have em all!
The Stillaguamish Tribe did have a netting season for steelhead this year, but nobody participated in it. Zero nets.
Regarding the earlier closures, I wonder if WDFW is doing it because of federal involvement due to the ESA listing. WDFW has a little less flexibility now with the PS wild stocks listed.
I'm not anti-hatchery. I like fishing for them as much as anyone and without them, we wouldn't have any winter steelhead fisheries around here. I just don't think the answer to our fisheries problem is as simple as dumping more fish in the river.