Hatchery Salmon

[lhouch1]

About 20 years ago I read an article in the TNT newspaper about a hatchery on the peninsula that had to kill 3.5 million salmon fry because the had reached their limit on how many fry they were allowed to release. The limit was set because the people who wanted to make sure there would be natural salmon remaining not all hatchery or mixed breed salmon. This process has been going on for years. And every year the amount of salmon diminishes.

I started fishing on the Cowlitz River then. When you would go to Barrier Dam there were 100s of fish trying to jump the barrier at the same time. Wherever you looked fish were jumping. Everyone caught fish, even me who was just starting river fishing. Two weekends ago my wife and I went to barrier dam. We sat watching for over a half hour and saw 2 fish rise and none jump. Went down to the boat launch and it was the same. I've been fishing the lower Puyallup since the end of August. I caught 15 pinks before I quit because of the hostility there. Everyone was catching pinks. But there were hardly any silvers or kings caught. And the pink run is already over. The most consistent thing in the fishing reports is how there aren't that many fish caught and only a few are silvers or kings.

Everyone has their theory on why the decline. The Indians, the sport fishermen, the whales, the seals and more. The answer is that anyone that takes a fish from the water is a part of the problem, period. But the issue shouldn't have to be who takes the fish. The issue is we have the means to replace everything that is caught, killed, or otherwise killed. We have hatcheries that can produce billions of fry/fertilized eggs to release. Of about 5000 fish hatched less than 10 return. How many salmon can a single hatchery handle? Why do we need to only produce fry at hatchery? Can they not fertalize eggs and return them to the rivers and streams. I know it works because they transplanted king and silvers and they are thriving. Why let a whole species go extinct when we have the means to save them. Why limit salmon release in just a few rivers and streams. Seems the more rivers and streams the better chance of recovery.

I don't want to be an alarmist but I think we won't have any salmon to fish for in 20 years or less. Me, I'm 68 and it won't affect me. But it makes me sad to know that my kids and grand kids won't have the same pleasures I've had. Add to that all the people that don't want outdoors people to enjoy their activities, be it fishing or hunting.

What can we do? I don't know. We need to get active like the anti's have. Seems only bleeding hearts and $$$$ can get things done. If some one can get things going I would more than happily support them. The one thing we don't have is organization.

[Larry3215]

I admit to being one of those who gripes about the decline in salmon runs without really looking into the issue or knowing anything about it.

Who are the people trying to stop hatchery fish production and why are they doing it?

[Onmygame]

Salmon like Chinook and Coho need to remain in freshwater for a year or so before even entering the salt.

This is why the biologists need to control the number of fry released into any given ecosystem.

As an example - if you had a river ecosystem that could support UP TO 1M fry / smolt salmon for a year - the last thing you'd want to do is release 2M fry / smolt into it.

Instead of having 1M healthy fish leaving for the salt, there would be 2M emaciated / dead fish before it was even time to head out to sea.

The number of reasons that the fish runs are dwindling are many, but the LEGAL harvesting of fish isn't one of them as salmon IS a renewable resource.

The bulk of the problems lie elsewhere, and solutions seem few and far between.

[Bodofish]

I admit to being one of those who gripes about the decline in salmon runs without really looking into the issue or knowing anything about it.

Who are the people trying to stop hatchery fish production and why are they doing it?

Very simple. The former director of the WDFW wanted to get the State out of the hatchery business. He paid his buddies a grant at the WFC almost ten million dollars for a study proving they should do just that. It gave the WFC enough steam to start suing everybody over the hatchery programs. And Ammo for the State to start shutting down hatcheries. Never mind the study in question is 180degrees off from what most of the other States hatchery studies have turned up with. Both Alaska and Oregon have hugely successful hatchery programs that put enough fish into the systems so everyone has a chance to catch fish. Why re-invent the wheel? do what they're doing if it works! Their whole premise is flawed. I just don't see how you can get more fish returning by putting less fish in the system, the numbers just don't add up.
Go to your local WDFW meeting and let them know how you feel and that you want more fish in the rivers. Mill Creek Oct 6th.

[natetreat]

Salmon like Chinook and Coho need to remain in freshwater for a year or so before even entering the salt.

This is why the biologists need to control the number of fry released into any given ecosystem.

As an example - if you had a river ecosystem that could support UP TO 1M fry / smolt salmon for a year - the last thing you'd want to do is release 2M fry / smolt into it.

Instead of having 1M healthy fish leaving for the salt, there would be 2M emaciated / dead fish before it was even time to head out to sea.

The number of reasons that the fish runs are dwindling are many, but the LEGAL harvesting of fish isn't one of them as salmon IS a renewable resource.

The bulk of the problems lie elsewhere, and solutions seem few and far between.

Not even close to being true. I know it's what you've been told, but the numbers don't lie. Study the destruction of habitat, the timeline that we diked and dammed our rivers, then look at the numbers of returning fish.

Then look at the amount of fish caught, how many we planted. I'm not gonna do it for you, but I will tell you that our rivers can support 4 times as many hatchery fish as we put in there. The river can support 2 million pinks up here in the snoho. Those fish die and feed the other fish. It's hubris to think that the 100 thousand or so smolt we dump from the wallace in there, or the 200k steelhead smolt from reiter will eat everything in the river. That's just dumb.

What you have are biologists with an agenda making unsubstantiated claims about the low end of "production capacity" a river has. Then you've got studies that show that THE MORE FISH THAT COME BACK THE HIGHER THAT CAPACITY BECOMES!!!!

Our wild fish are depleted, the habitat is gone. It's not coming back any time soon. If ever. We've got global warming coming, the water is going to dry up. Right now our only hope of having salmon runs is hatcheries, and a lot more of them.

[Onmygame]

Nate - I'm not sure which part of my post you find to be 'not even close to being true'

I provided an example; a hypothetical situation, about a river ecosystem that could support up to - UP TO (maximum) - 1M smolts for a period of a year, the approximate time needed for them to remain there before heading out to sea.

Yes, spawned out carcasses provide the bulk of the nutrients to sustain these fish - however in this example - food source, system size are not mentioned. Only that it can support a MAXIMUM of 1M smolts for a year.

It is just one hypothetical cycle and does not speak to previous or up coming cycles, how to expand them or improve habitat.

Nothing in your post (while MOST of it makes sense albeit scattered) contradicts the logic that releasing TWICE the number of fish into a system that it can handle would be detrimental.

[natetreat]

I disagree with their assessments on many of the river systems. Carrying capacity is really controversial, and they can't agree on the methods with which we determine it.

Historical carrying capacity in these systems and hundreds of thousands if not millions of fish 100 years ago or less. we have habitat destruction accounting for 90% of wild fish mortality. Habitat loss accounts for the majority of the decline. When it comes to steelhead, they have found that the smolt spend less than 2 weeks in the river.

But sure, if you put 50 million smolt in there, you're going to have a diminished return on account of carrying capacity.

[Mike Carey]

While I'm not 68 so I don't have that long a perspective, I started fishing salmon in the late 90s. I remember some very lean and poor years of fishing in the 90s, including one year that anglers could only fish the small bay at Port Madison for salmon. Area 10 was otherwise totally closed.

Fast forward to today, and we are witnessing the largest runs of chinook salmon to the Columbia since counting began. Ditto with massive runs of sockeye. Baker Lake rebounded, Lake Wenatchee had another nice return, despite the heat wave. Pinks again returned in massive numbers.

I mention the above to get a bit of perspective. In some areas, salmon runs are incredibly healthy and at record numbers. In other locations, not so good. IMO, the sky is not falling, and salmon are no where near going extinct. As an angling community and fisheries science, we are way ahead of where we were in the 80-90s.

I met with Kathryn Brigham, who is on the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Board of Trustees. She visited with our media group at Ed Iman's Fish Camp this year. The tribes have a very good pulse on WFC what they did to the steelhead hatcheries, and have no intention of allowing that to happen to salmon. In fact, in Idaho the tribes out there release hatchery salmon on their own schedule and science and again, runs are thriving and have made a great rebound.

The sky is not falling. Yes, we need to be vigilant and informed, but no need to be panicking and talking doomsday "end of fishing in 20 years" talk.

[jonb]

I agree with mr. Carey, +1.

[strider43]

I disagree with their assessments on many of the river systems. Carrying capacity is really controversial, and they can't agree on the methods with which we determine it.

Historical carrying capacity in these systems and hundreds of thousands if not millions of fish 100 years ago or less. we have habitat destruction accounting for 90% of wild fish mortality. Habitat loss accounts for the majority of the decline. When it comes to steelhead, they have found that the smolt spend less than 2 weeks in the river.

But sure, if you put 50 million smolt in there, you're going to have a diminished return on account of carrying capacity.

I think you are absolutely correct. The first thing I ask when I hear the results of a study is: who is sponsoring the study and what is their agenda. Any study can be manipulated to find what you are wanting to find which renders the information useless.