Post by: Swatson on January 29, 2014, 11:10:44 AM
Post by: WSU on January 29, 2014, 11:13:12 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on January 29, 2014, 04:35:21 PM
Post by: _TONY_ on January 29, 2014, 04:44:45 PM
That is how it is going to be until they switch back to Carson stock. They should just shut the damn program down. It makes no sense to pay for hatchery fish when there is no season. At this point, we are raising hatchery fish in order to hope that we get enough fish back to make more hatchery fish. Giant waste of time and money. Someone should get canned.
Agreed
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2014, 10:52:29 PM
WDFW just announced that you will not be able to keep any Springers on the Kalama this year! Only expected to get a return of 500 and their goal is 450 to the hatchery. It amazes me that in this day and age with so much money and resources in place that our fisheries in this state continues to dwindle! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it's just depressing. Am getting ready to buy a new drift boat but am seriously wondering if its even worth it anymore!All part of the pro native, "anti hatchery" fish agenda.
Post by: plunker01 on January 29, 2014, 10:57:04 PM
Post by: BigGoonTuna on January 30, 2014, 06:34:57 AM
i'm getting really fed up with this routine emergency closure BS. it's like false advertising, they print the season up and then shut it down by emergency closure every year now. not the only river they do it for, either.
they need to either go back to the carson stock or shut down the program, running a hatchery just to perpetuate itself is a huge waste of resources. i don't know how they can go from 7k fish in 2007 to 400-700 like they do now.
Post by: WSU on January 30, 2014, 08:23:22 AM
Post by: Swatson on January 30, 2014, 09:22:45 AM
Post by: chukar58 on January 30, 2014, 09:28:19 AM
Post by: WSU on January 30, 2014, 10:11:45 AM
Post by: Swatson on January 30, 2014, 10:51:38 AM
Post by: WSU on January 30, 2014, 12:07:42 PM
And, regarding releases, the Lewis is a good example. A release of 1.2 million smolts resulted in 1,100 predicted adults returning and a closed river. It isn't the numbers being released that are the problem.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on January 30, 2014, 01:51:03 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on January 30, 2014, 05:16:14 PM
i believe it was a hatchery reform issue, supposedly they aren't supposed to use "out of basin" stock for hatchery plants. well, the kalama and lewis did not have native springer runs, so that's where the carson fish came from. makes one wonder what stock they use now.
I have to differ with your conclusion that the Kalama and Lewis had no native springer runs. Pretty much all of the major Columbia tribs had some spring chinook, historically.
Kalama Subbasin Summary DRAFT May 17, 2002
Spring chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Spring and fall chinook are indigenous to the Kalama system. Historically, spring chinook were
predominant in the Lewis River and fall chinook in the Kalama basin. By the early 1900s,
Columbia River salmon populations were declining from overfishing and a combination of land
use practices that proved detrimental to salmon habitat (WDFW, 1998 vol. 1).
Early attempts to save the native population through hatchery production
failed, and by the 1950s spring chinook runs in the Kalama River had been reduced to only
remnant populations. Hatchery programs for spring chinook were established at Kalama Falls
Hatchery after its completion in 1959.
The Kalama River naturally spawning spring chinook population was considered healthy
based on escapement trend (see Table 4) (WDF/WDW 1993). However, this status was
determined on a mixed stock of composite production, and WDFW is not sure of the recent
status of wild Kalama spring chinook populations (see Table 5) (Rawding 1999). Escapement
from 1980-1991 averaged 602 with a low of zero in 1985 and a peak of 2,892 in 1982
(WDF/WDW 1993). Primary production is from hatchery releases.
Spawning occurs between the Lower Kalama Hatchery (RM 4.8) and the Kalama Falls
Hatchery (RM 10). In surplus years, spawning releases are made upstream of the upper hatchery,
allowing access all the way to the upper falls (RM 36) (Caldwell et al. 1999). "
from http://www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2003lc/workplan/020517Kalama.pdf (http://www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2003lc/workplan/020517Kalama.pdf)
Post by: fishcrazy on January 30, 2014, 05:36:42 PM
I'm curious as to how the springers got over the falls on the Kalama?
Kris
Post by: Bullkllr on January 30, 2014, 06:24:26 PM
Logic dictates they must have occupied the very upper reaches, as springers usually do, but that's not saying they didn't rest and spawn in the river below the falls also. It is mentioned in the report that recent spawning occurs in the section between the hatcheries, but those are considered "mixed stock" wilds.
Hatchery managers down there could tell you much more than I could.
There is another set of falls -Kalama Falls- on Weyco property further up river that would be impassable.
Post by: fishcrazy on January 31, 2014, 07:22:01 PM
I'm not sure how often the right conditions could have ocured. Enough to have sustained a healthy run in the upper river? Can't imagine much of a run spawning in the lower river.
I'm thinking if they had a native run in the upper river then they should be able to naturally return. Without the help of the fish ladder. Wild fish should be put back below and let nature return her own fish. It would weed out the week that way.
I really have my doubts that the Kalama had much of a native run. But it sounds like it was possible.
Kris
Post by: Bullkllr on January 31, 2014, 07:39:50 PM
Interesting.
I'm not sure how often the right conditions could have ocured. Enough to have sustained a healthy run in the upper river? Can't imagine much of a run spawning in the lower river.
I'm thinking if they had a native run in the upper river then they should be able to naturally return. Without the help of the fish ladder. Wild fish should be put back below and let nature return her own fish. It would weed out the week that way.
I really have my doubts that the Kalama had much of a native run. But it sounds like it was possible.
Kris
I'm sure there's other info out there. I'll look through my collection and on the web and see what I can turn up.
The report I quoted didn't estimate any numbers of spring chinook- just said they were there but the fall run was predominant- so the numbers of springers probably were never huge.
I could easily see those fish being completely wiped out. The upper watershed has been roaded and logged as much as timber land can be. And with hatchery intrusion from out of river stocks since 1959 (and capturing nearly all fish at the hatchery) chances of maintaining a viable true native run were basically nil.
Your idea of allowing natural passage is good. Problem is all those years after 1959 such practices were unheard of. I recall the falls actually had a wire system built (weir dam) to prevent passage up the falls because they wanted all fish possible to use the ladder. Five decades later, there's likely none left to allow pass.
Post by: Bullkllr on January 31, 2014, 08:40:08 PM
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/302_04042006_153011_PopIdTM73Final.pdf (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/302_04042006_153011_PopIdTM73Final.pdf)
Some tidbits:
"The Kalama River historically had and currently maintains a very large population of fall Chinook salmon. Although only a small spring-run population exists in the Kalama River, anecdotal information suggests that the run was once considerably larger (WDF 1951). There is, however, considerable debate on this matter." (p.66)
"Summer and winter steelhead are native to the Kalama River basin. A waterfall (Lower Kalama Falls) at RKM 17.7 historically may have been accessible only during periods of low flow. A set of high falls at RKM 56.3 (e.g.,Kalama Falls) marks the limit of upstream migration." (p.91)
"Kalama Falls (RKM 16) was not thought to be passable historically for coho salmon, thus coho salmon would not have had access to the headwater regions that were more suitable to Type S fish. A fish ladder was built in the early 1900s, although current access to the upper river is still limited with only a few coho salmon able to jump Kalama Falls. Since historical use of this area was limited, coho salmon that currently reach Kalama Falls Hatchery are returned to thelower river. WDF (1951) indicated that the early run often is prevented from ascending Kalama Falls by the placement of the hatchery weir, which normally is removed by the time the late run arrives." (p.117)
There was a map on page 254 which showed historic spring chinook accessibility all the way to the upper falls.
Post by: Come Get Some on February 01, 2014, 07:34:20 AM
Post by: Annette on February 05, 2014, 08:32:12 PM
Then along came biologists who like lords of their land killed off strains of fish in the millions because they had a better Idea. Well men, thirty years later there's no fish... Our grandchildren won't know what it was like to have three or four big salmon swim past you while you're fishing the Eloachman or the Kalama. They may not even have a chance to learn how to cast into the riffle and watch a steelhead rise to swallow it. Makes me ashamed to be a human...
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2014, 08:58:15 PM
Well men, thirty years later there's no fish... Our grandchildren won't know what it was like to have three or four big salmon swim past you while you're fishing the Eloachman or the Kalama.You are missing the point Annette, they won't know what its like to see three or four big salmon swim by, but the one salmon they might see will be the superior gene carrying wild stock. :tup:
Post by: Annette on February 05, 2014, 09:17:01 PM
Nope, that one was ate by a sea lion!Well men, thirty years later there's no fish... Our grandchildren won't know what it was like to have three or four big salmon swim past you while you're fishing the Eloachman or the Kalama.You are missing the point Annette, they won't know what its like to see three or four big salmon swim by, but the one salmon they might see will be the superior gene carrying wild stock. :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on February 05, 2014, 09:26:04 PM
Key word there being "might" ;)Nope, that one was ate by a sea lion!Well men, thirty years later there's no fish... Our grandchildren won't know what it was like to have three or four big salmon swim past you while you're fishing the Eloachman or the Kalama.You are missing the point Annette, they won't know what its like to see three or four big salmon swim by, but the one salmon they might see will be the superior gene carrying wild stock. :tup: