Please read save our cowlitz steelhead

[Lanyard X]

The Washington State & Wildlife commission on friday july 10th 2009 will hold a meeting at 1:30pm to decide on public policy reguarding HATCHERY REFORM. It will affect COWLITZ RIVER STEELHEAD as it will further empower those behind the The Cowlitz river managment plan to DO AWAY WITH HATCHERY STEELHEAD on The Cowlitz river.


PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING IN OLYMPIA AT

Natural resourses building
1111 Washington St. SE
Olympia washington 98501

Show up by 8:00 AM and be ready to speak at the scheduled public input time of 8:30 AM. We dont belive the meeting at 1:30 will be open for publis input. THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!

This public policy and the cowlitz river fish managment plan will significantly impact the future of the Cowlitz river summer and winter steelhead by severly restricting the number of fish raised and released. The word is summer run Steelhead will be dicontiued in less than 6 Years!

The Steelhead program has been an important part of the local communities of Centraila,Chehalis, Toledo, Salkum,Castle Rock and longveiw for generations. Its is also a signifgant contributer to Washigtons economy as people travel from all over the state and nation to fish the Cowlitz river for these fabulous sport fish.

The Hatchery Reform Policy and the cowlitz river fish managment plan must be changed so it recognizes the Cowlitz River and similar rivers which have dams that eliminate accses to critical spawning habitat and play a major role in Washintons economy are set aside for hatchery production.

WE ask that all of you get involved in this issue, write a letter or send an email to the commissioners to EXPRESS your desire to have the Cowlitz River Hatchery Steelhead preserved and improved.

Please make the following points:
the department under the prvious leadership has not listened to our concerns reguarding the Cowlitz river. We would appreciate a new look at our concern

The cowlitz river should remain a hatchery production river system because of the dams limiting access to spawning habitat. Hatchery production is part of a NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT with TACOMA POWER FOR DESTROYING THE RIVER. Economies depend on these agreements!

Cowlitz river summer and winter steelhead fishing generates millions of dollars for small local communities and the state of washington. This area depends on these hatchery programs and the state benefits significantly.

Hatchery reform should focus on the rivers that have the capacity and habitat to support wild fish runs.
Bonneville power has credible studies that wild fish passage by the the Cowlitz river dams is a losing battle. " it wont work"

The Cowlitz River can play a "KEY" role in restoring wild fish runs by creating less pressure on other rivers where we are attemting to restore wild runs. People need a place to fish and our economy needs the revenue it generates.

Idaho has demondstrated it can plant millions of hatchey reared steelhead in the clearwater and Salmon rivers and still maintain healthy wild populations. Why can Idaho have strong hatchery returns and millions of dollars in economic benefits and we cannot?

The new director should review the history of our Cowlitz River Fisheries and the philosophical managment approach the department has taken on the Cowlitz river for the last 15 years. We hope a new vision and direction can be achieved that benefits all interests and restore the economic benefits of the Cowlitz.


PLEASE CONTACT THE COMMISSION

There are several new commissioners that need to hear about the Cowlitz River.


Contact info

Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol way north
Olympia,Wa 98501-1091
Phone: 360-902-2267
Fax: 360-902-2448
Email commission@dfw.wa.gov

Find the Hatchery Reform policy and other related documents@: www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/


Please attend or write guys this is just one river with many more to come
Thank you


Mods please make this a sticky

[Lanyard X]

ttt

[Born to be Wild]

Dave, the thing you have to realize is that there are a lot of folks now days that are aware of the ill effects that hatchery fish have on wild fish.
There are some wild fish in the Cowlitz but I'm not up to par on how many (estimates) or where they spwan.
I believe they have some wild coho left that spawn in Olequa, there are chinook that spawn in the mainstem and I don't know what else takes place regarding wild fish in the Cowlitz.
It was a combination of dams and hatchery fish that ruined what once was great salmon/steelhead runs and fisheries there.

Hatchery steelhead are known predators of wild salmon fry.
The Cowlitz does have natural spawning of chinook in the mainstem as I mentioned.
Should we keep putting all these known salmon predators (hatchery steelhead) in the Cowlitz only to feed the sports fishermen interest but at the same time destroy wild runs?

I couldn't go to that meeting wasting my time promoting something I don't believe in.

[stlhd42]

If the state wants to help out the wild fish they shoud focus the efforts on the un-dammed rivers, its a waste of time and money on the cowlitz. I feel part of it is tacoma power not wanting to spend the money to raise fish. I've fished a lot on the cowlitz in the last 15yrs, I can remember one steelhead that may have been wild, big fish, big adipose, you can usually tell by lookin at em. All the other (wild) fish I've seen have been bad hatchery clips or gotten by without geting clipped. If they would remove the dams I would be all for rebuilding wild runs

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by stlhd42

If the state wants to help out the wild fish they shoud focus the efforts on the un-dammed rivers, its a waste of time and money on the cowlitz. I feel part of it is tacoma power not wanting to spend the money to raise fish. I've fished a lot on the cowlitz in the last 15yrs, I can remember one steelhead that may have been wild, big fish, big adipose, you can usually tell by lookin at em. All the other (wild) fish I've seen have been bad hatchery clips or gotten by without geting clipped. If they would remove the dams I would be all for rebuilding wild runs


If the state wants to help out the wild fish they shoud focus the efforts on the un-dammed rivers, its a waste of time and money on the cowlitz.

If they would remove the dams I would be all for rebuilding wild runs

One thing to consider is that the Cowlitz hatchery problem doesn't only effect the Cowlitz.
When those millions of smolt they stock in the Cowlitz out migrate into the Columbia River, they then compete with wild smolt from other rivers and attract predators to them as well.
The Caspian Tern problem is a hatchery fish induced problem and is the cumulative efect of hatchery smolts from all the Columbia trib's and the mainstem itself.

Also if the dams were to come out some day, if we don't take care of what wild fish are still around, there won't be anything to build on if that scenario ever plays out.

It's definately a tough one and I like catching hatchery fish myself.
But I'm also aware of the importance of wild fish and the detrimental effects hatchery fish have upon them.

[Born to be Wild]

An example would be the Elochoman River further down the Columbia.
It is not dammed and WDFW ended all salmon hatchery programs there last year or the year before.

What chance do those Elochoman wild salmon smolts have of surviving once they out migrate into the Columbia and have to deal with all those millions of oversize hatchery smolts from various trib's and mainstem?
Not too mention the man made problem of Caspian Terns are just waiting for them down river when they hit the estuary.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

Hatchery steelhead are known predators of wild salmon fry.
The Cowlitz does have natural spawning of chinook in the mainstem as I mentioned.
Should we keep putting all these known salmon predators (hatchery steelhead) in the Cowlitz only to feed the sports fishermen interest but at the same time destroy wild runs?

I couldn't go to that meeting wasting my time promoting something I don't believe in.

Well that's fair enough!



Did you know that over 25% OF ALL THE FALL CHINOOK that spawn naturally in the Cowlitz are chinook strays from the Lewis River? Spring chinook historically did not spawn in the lower river below Mayfield Dam. If you do decide to go to the meeting, it may behoove you to do your homework first.

The HSRG previous past leader was Lars Mobrand, who also worked for Tacoma Power during Tacoma's relicensing of it's Cowlitz River Projects was paid close to $1 million for his work on the Cowlitz. Moreover, it was my understanding that Tacoma had hired Lars again to rewrite Tacoma's new Fish Hatchery Management Plan (FHMP) but because Lars was sick with some sort of cancer, that he had employed his fellow HRSG member John Barr to rewrite Tacoma new FHMP. I am not sure if that is still the case, but either way, Tacoma has a huge influence and investment in its "new fish plan" for all of us!

Since all of the Cowlitz fish that are being used for "recovery" are from over 40 years of mixed stocks of Cowlitz Hatchery indigenous fish, there is no real reason why those same stocks can't be fully utilized for recovery efforts of natural wild stocks of Cowlitz fish.

There is no real biological, genetic, or other real reason why the Cowlitz can't be managed for both wild and hatchery stocks other then Tacoma Powers need to make hundreds of millions more off of there turbines generations - free of fish considerations both up and down!

Tacoma spends about $4 million a year on there Cowlitz Fish which much goes to the WDFW for there hatchery production. Every time Tacoma can cut hatchery production, they make millions more. The real problem with Tacoma Power is that that they don't want to spend that $100 million plus on collecting down stream smolts at Riffe Lake. They (Tacoma Power) will continue to screw us and spend only pennies on the dollar that they continue to make year after year all in the name of saving our wild native fish that don't even exist anymore. The HSRG is going along with Tacoma and making some pretty big bucks while doing so!

Ok, I am ready for your attacks on what I have stated. Please have your "facts" in oder before you do it. I have spen my last 25 years learning the real facts about this issue, and am looking forward to any "facts" that can prove that mind are incorrect.

Maybe "1999" will show up at this meeting and give his SPIN!!!

[abufreak]

i'd be willing to sacrifice "wild fish" in rivers like the cowlitz in the name of a good sport fishery. i don't get the mentality that hatchery plants must be discontinued from every single river in the name of wild fish. a "1 size fits all" approach will be the death of fishing in this state.

[sothereiwas]

The hatchery fish are going away because they do absolutely nothing to recover wild fish numbers. Also its getting to the point where they cost more money to produce than they generate. Why continue throwing a huge amount of money at something that is a means to an end.

There is no long term benefit. Hatchery fish are just a sport fisherman bailout.

[rowmanholiday]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

The hatchery fish are going away because they do absolutely nothing to recover wild fish numbers. Also its getting to the point where they cost more money to produce than they generate. Why continue throwing a huge amount of money at something that is a means to an end.

There is no long term benefit. Hatchery fish are just a sport fisherman bailout.

Hatchery fish were'nt meant to recover wild fish numbers. At least on the Cowlitz. The hatchery fish were meant for catching, removing and consuming. That's the way THAT river should stay. Other river systems that actually have the neccessary ingredients to support a decent population of wildfish, can be managed as such. My (humble) opinion is, keep the Cowlitz a hatchery river for the sportsmen & women to enjoy.

It seems like we lose more opportunity everytime something new comes up.

Sounds a lot like.....Money Talks, BS walks! Sad!

[sothereiwas]

It all comes down to money and it is/was just a matter of time before the hatchery programs become to expensive to operate. Every time a thread about increases license cost comes up it just makes me laugh. People in general want every opportunity available with as little cost and effort on there part. There are of course exceptions, but its sad that in general thats the truth.

I do agree that the changes that need to made for wild fish recovery would be better done on a different watershed. I'm willing to bet that there is a lot more politics involved in this than just saving a buck or hen.

[Lanyard X]

Well guys i didnt mean for this to be a debate thread. Wether you do or dont like hatchery fish you still need to go to this meeting i guess. I will say that the reason that sportsman LOOSE on all levels is because of the fighting thats done amoungst our user group PERIOD. ALL commercial and tribal neters are on the same page no matter what they agree on! We wont be happy untill there is no fish left to fish for. AS LONG AS THERE ARE DAMS ON THE COWLITZ THERE WILL BE NO NATIVE FISH. Are you willing to fish no longer so that there is one indiginous fish in the cowlitz? Unfortuanetly those fish are gone i am not happy about it at all but i still love to fish! So without those plants we wont have anything to fish for. So instead of sitting and disagreeing on whats right or wrong LETS AT LEAST GET ON THE SAME PAGE AND HAVE A PLACE TO FISH! Remember if we had one voice we would win! WE would call the shots on netting seasons. Quit fighting over somthing that other generations have ruined and save what we have WITH ONE VOICE!

[Big TULE]

There is alot of oposition from people that love to catch fish to eat.

If the hatchery production on the cowlitz ceases to exsist where are those fish that you like to fish for come from. When the hatcheries die so do your fishing for years to come. I like to fish for hatchery fish, and i want my son to be able to catch fish for years to come, so what is the answer.

[Lead Bouncer]

Originally Posted by abufreak

i'd be willing to sacrifice "wild fish" in rivers like the cowlitz in the name of a good sport fishery. i don't get the mentality that hatchery plants must be discontinued from every single river in the name of wild fish. a "1 size fits all" approach will be the death of fishing in this state.

You throw in the towel too fast.

[Lead Bouncer]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

It all comes down to money and it is/was just a matter of time before the hatchery programs become to expensive to operate. Every time a thread about increases license cost comes up it just makes me laugh. People in general want every opportunity available with as little cost and effort on there part. There are of course exceptions, but its sad that in general thats the truth.

Tacoma power pays for the mitigation of the dams. It has little to do with the cost of fishing licenses. Tacoma Power got a quick easy licensing agreement last time around. You would do well to pay attention, to CF and Fossil when they chime in about the Cowlitz.

[Lanyard X]

Come on guys lets take it to them and let them know that we want fish to eat for the 10's of thousands we spend to fish for them! Lets just get together on something and show our power PLEASE! We all love to fish thats why we are on here! Quit letting the people that ruined it off the hook because we dont all agree! WHO IS COMMING TO THE MEETING? NO EXCUSES WE ALL NEED TO BE THERE.

[rob allen]

"Idaho has demondstrated it can plant millions of hatchey reared steelhead in the clearwater and Salmon rivers and still maintain healthy wild populations. Why can Idaho have strong hatchery returns and millions of dollars in economic benefits and we cannot?"



I don't agree with getting rid of hatcheries on the cowlitz However you cannot say that Idaho has healthy runs of wild steelhead it is blatantly not true.. Hatcheries ALWAYS hurt wild fish...

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Lack of both information and knowledge will be most sport fishers biggest problem on this issue.

Cowlitz facts:

The parties of Tacoma's relicensing August 2000 Settlement Agreement (SA) are the only parties with standing to change what's currently happing to the Cowlitz River and its fisheries. As ridiculous as it may sound, the director of WDFW (acting for the Commission) signed a binding Settlement Agreement (SA) with Tacoma Power in August of 2000.

The SA in its entirety can be viewed at http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/docs/docs_setag.htm

The SA called for the forming of an elite group called the Fisheries Technical Committee (FTC) to assist in the implementation of the terms of the Agreement. The SA stated that The FTC shall include one representative from each of the following Parties to this Agreement: Tacoma, NMFS, USFWS, WDFW, WDOE and the Yakama Nation; and one representative from the Parties included in the Conservation Groups (American Rivers (AR) and Trout Unlimited TU). The FTC was intended to be an "advisory" committee group that only made recommendations to the appropriate agencies who has prescriptive and mandatory conditioning authority over our fisheries (see 12.1 through 12.7).

Somehow, AR and TU managed to joined forces with Tacoma Power to represent the public concerns and interpretation of the terms and conditions of what the SA stated. Tacoma had paid AR well over $18,000 to participate in there relicensing process in which the agreement was reached. After the partied signed the SA, the public was pretty much shut out of the entire decision making process. The FTC did not want the public to interfere with there back door decision making process. If you really want to verify this, you can read exactly how we got to where we are now at
http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/technical_groups/group_FTC.htm

Pay particular attention to the first three summaries of what went down with this elite FTC group when it was first being developed: "Steve offered that he is not in favor of public attendance at FTC meetings because "observers may not just observe". Mark (from Tacoma Power) proposed that the public be excluded from the meetings, however, public involvement should be solicited by the agencies through the individual FTC members, by the opening of web mailboxes on Tacoma’s and WDFW’s web sites to take comments from the public, by comments from the public during the 30 day review period of FTC draft plans, and by the FTC hosting one or two public meetings (public forums) each year separate from regular FTC meetings. George offered Toppenish as a meeting location for the public forums. Bill stated there was an assumption and expectation of public involvement during the SA process and that he will check with the Conservation Caucus attorney. Craig wanted time to think about the models further, saw value in having as much public observation and comment as possible, and said he could not move forward with a decision that excludes the public from FTC meetings at this time." ("Craig" was the WDFW regional director at that time).

It's the key FTC members (Tacoma Power, TU, and AR)) and there attorneys who are the people who's calling the shots, and they pretty much controled what the Cowlitz's future is going to be. Another perfect example of this was stated in there FTC minutes when they pretty much told the us that the "public" has no say in what this elite groups decides to do to our fisheries.

"Kaitlin reported that Trout Unlimited and American Rivers are concerned that natural production in the upper watershed is being compromised by the 35,000 limit. There is confusion over the interpretation of the FHMP and associated biological and legal implications. It is not appropriate to change the plan in response to public pressure. She reminded us that public input has already been incorporated into the FHMP. Our role is to implement the plan, not open it to the public for revision. Kaitlin also cited two major issues that she sees as unaddressed: 1) An “oversized” hatchery, and 2) fish being passed up river without a reduction in harvest." http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/technical_groups/FTC_meetings/FinalFTC_summary_Dec_06_2006.pdf

All "natural" production of these coho are directly from the indigenous stocks of Cowlitz coho!

Basically, Tacoma Power, AR and TU are telling the WDFW what they can do and how they can manage the Cowlitz River future and its fisheries. Please take the time to READ all of these FTC minutes at http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/technical_groups/group_FTC.htm and http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/technical_groups/fisheries_technical_committee.htm

Remember that it takes as long at 3 to 6 months before you can even read what their edited minutes may say! If you go to this meeting, please read these elite FTC minutes first and then you will be able to fully address the Commission with "facts" and not just emotions. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you would like to about the FTC, the SA, or the Cowlitz fisheries.

It may behoove some of you to read what Tacoma, AR and TU had already planned for you in Tacoma Fish Hatchery Management Plan (FHMP) at http://www.ci.tacoma.wa.us/power/parksandpower/hydro_licensing/cowlitz/docs/documents/FHMP_Final_8_12_04.pdf

If you really want to make change, get involved and be part of Tacoma's "NEW" FHMP. Don't let AR and TU represent you again for the needs of many ... for the wants of just a few!

Cowlitzfisherman

[djsmith46]

I cannot make the meeting. I am going to continue to educate myself more on this subject until I reach an "educated, responsible" conclusion.

But through simple, preliminary observations I can't imagine wild fish being saved on the Cowlitz. It just doesn't seem like there's enough of a sustainable population.

On the other hand if you were talking about the Chehalis system; it seems to me its very saveable. I'd say two out of three fish I have caught in the Chehalis are native. But here's the problems I see.

Many of the same people wanting to save wild runs are the same people wanting no retention of wild salmon/steelhead. I'm ok with this but when/if our hatchery programs are discontinued and let us presume our wild stock is saved, what do I get to eat/retain? One other major issue is the nets I see strung throughout the Chehalis in the fall. It seems to me that those nets are the biggest problem.

I guess my bottom line is....I'm a fisherman and I like to catch and eat fish. It would be a real bummer to see the dams and the nets win on this issue; because in my opinion they are our biggest problem.

Dustin

[SPL]

Originally Posted by rob allen

"Hatcheries ALWAYS hurt wild fish...

This is not the first debate here on this issue, not even recently. When considering rivers where spawning habitat hasn't been altered or destroyed, where wild fish are healthy, then I can understand the disdain for hatchery introductions. But for the many, many rivers in which habitat has been removed, or even rehabilitated, hatchery-raised fish are our only means of re-establishing runs.

In the case of the Cowlitz, a river that struggles to support a healthy wild run, hatchery support should be allowed. Now, get Tacoma Power to pull out, rehab. the ecosystem and re-create a healthy Cowlitz, THEN you have an arguement for reducing or eliminating hatchery production on the river.

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by rob allen

I don't agree with getting rid of hatcheries on the cowlitz However you cannot say that Idaho has healthy runs of wild steelhead it is blatantly not true.. Hatcheries ALWAYS hurt wild fish...

Rob, I was almost in shock and had to go back and re-read your reply.
I never thought I'd hear you say you wouldn't agree with getting rid of any hatchery.

So explain why you are so anti-hatchery like myself yet feel the Cowlitz hatcheries should be saved.
I feel that way regarding the NF Lewis as there is virtually very little habitat in the mainstem for chinook and very little in Cedar Creek for coho production, despite Loomis' dreams.
But the Cowlitz that I am a whole lot less familliar with I believe does have a lot of habitat despite the majority of it lost from the dams.

Originally Posted by djsmith46

I cannot make the meeting. I am going to continue to educate myself more on this subject until I reach an "educated, responsible" conclusion.

But through simple, preliminary observations I can't imagine wild fish being saved on the Cowlitz. It just doesn't seem like there's enough of a sustainable population.

On the other hand if you were talking about the Chehalis system; it seems to me its very saveable. I'd say two out of three fish I have caught in the Chehalis are native. But here's the problems I see.

Many of the same people wanting to save wild runs are the same people wanting no retention of wild salmon/steelhead. I'm ok with this but when/if our hatchery programs are discontinued and let us presume our wild stock is saved, what do I get to eat/retain? One other major issue is the nets I see strung throughout the Chehalis in the fall. It seems to me that those nets are the biggest problem.

I guess my bottom line is....I'm a fisherman and I like to catch and eat fish. It would be a real bummer to see the dams and the nets win on this issue; because in my opinion they are our biggest problem.

Dustin

Very excellent post Dustin.

I guess I feel pretty much the same way as you and especially with what you said that I high lighted.
I cannot ignorantly vote for hatchery fish in the Cowlitz knowingly how they have contributed to declines in wild fish all over the pacific northwest and BC.
I would have to see evidence first that the wild fish in the Cowlitz are a lost cause and not base that on some ifisher's statements.

[rob allen]

Born to be wild.

The Cowlitz mainstem is in the same condition as the north Lewis so i really don't have a problem with the hatcheries on the mainstem.. I would however and am opposed to the stocking of ALL tributaries, especially the Toutle which has some of the best habitat in southerst washington. I basically believe that the fight to save wild fish is better fought in other locations and fighting that fight on the Cowliz would simply make too many people mad and turn them against wild fish managment altogether. So until such time as the dams come out i think the Cowlitz should remain a put and take fishery..

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Born to be wild.

The Cowlitz mainstem is in the same condition as the north Lewis so i really don't have a problem with the hatcheries on the mainstem.. I would however and am opposed to the stocking of ALL tributaries, especially the Toutle which has some of the best habitat in southerst washington. I basically believe that the fight to save wild fish is better fought in other locations and fighting that fight on the Cowliz would simply make too many people mad and turn them against wild fish managment altogether. So until such time as the dams come out i think the Cowlitz should remain a put and take fishery..

Ok...sounds good Rob. Kinda anyway.
Leaving the Cowlitz and it's habitat or lack of aside for a moment, what about the Toutle?
What about those wild Toutle smolts when they enter the Cowlitz and all those problematic smolts?
And then when the Toutle wild smold enter the Columbia then there is not only the Cowitz smolts but millions of other Columbia tributary smolts and all those predators that they attract and support.

[sothereiwas]

They need to choose rivers that have a good shot a recovering based on habitat to be wild only no retention as sort of a pilot program. Rivers that have no system in place to recover returning hatchery adults make the most sense. The EFL, SF Toutle being the most obvious options. You are not going to eliminate hatchery plants in one shot. The competition between hatchery and wild smolts once they leave there respective tribs should be the last issue tackled. I personally would be fine with eliminating them all at once but I'm realistic. Reducing hatchery plants on some rivers and eliminating them on others would free up money to actually make an attempt at wild fish recover. The only system that they have really tried in my opinion is the Wind system.

Brad

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Originally Posted by rob allen

The Cowlitz mainstem is in the same condition as the north Lewis so i really don't have a problem with the hatcheries on the mainstem.. I would however and am opposed to the stocking of ALL tributaries, especially the Toutle which has some of the best habitat in southerst washington. I basically believe that the fight to save wild fish is better fought in other locations and fighting that fight on the Cowliz would simply make too many people mad and turn them against wild fish managment altogether. So until such time as the dams come out i think the Cowlitz should remain a put and take fishery..

So maybe you can tell us rob how much "prime habitat" there is left in the Toutle for "wild fish" compared to that of the "prime habitat" that still exists above the dams on the Cowlitz?

How many "wild fish" do you believe can be recovered or produced in both areas of that basin? Almost all the genetic "wild native" steelhead that exist in the Cowlitz Basin, currently exists in the tributaries of the Cowlitz BELOW Mayfield Dam.


Those small feeder tribes that support these populations could simply have weirs put on them (like on the Green) to prevent the hatchery fish from cross mixing, thus allowing the best for all users and the FISH. There are over 250 miles of pretty damn good spawning habitat left on the Upper Cowlitz....and how many miles of spawning habitat is left on the Toutle?

I don't want to side track the original motive of this thread, but I would like factual information to override emotion and passion.

Lets not mix up our "Wild" fish with our "Native" fish!

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by Cowlitzfisherman

Those small feeder tribes that support these populations could simply have weirs put on them (like on the Green) to prevent the hatchery fish from cross mixing, thus allowing the best for all users and the FISH.

Not allowing the best for the fish!
A weir only helps out with the genetic risk to wild salmon which is an important.
But perhaps the overwhelming rish to salmonids is the ecological risk to them when they are inudated with millions of large, oversize hatchery smolts to compete with and the extra predation attracted by these big, dumb hatchery smolt.
Power Bait anyone...

Weirs do not lessen that risk one iota.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

Weirs do not lessen that risk one iota.

Where do you wild guys come up with that kind of thinking?

Weirs prevent interacting of hatchery and wild fish on there spawning beds, especially in smaller feeder streams. It also allows what wild fish that are there to be are passed onto there spawning beds without allowing the mixing of native genes with hachery genes. It also allows the wild fish smolts to fully utilize the habitat to there fullest extent behind the weirs, thus eliminating almost all competition between the wild smolts and hatchery smolts during several critical stages of there early life cycles.

And you say that weirs do not lessen that risk one iota?

What will it ever take to make the wild fish people happy? No more hatcheries?

[Lanyard X]

Originally Posted by djsmith46

I cannot make the meeting. I am going to continue to educate myself more on this subject until I reach an "educated, responsible" conclusion.

But through simple, preliminary observations I can't imagine wild fish being saved on the Cowlitz. It just doesn't seem like there's enough of a sustainable population.

On the other hand if you were talking about the Chehalis system; it seems to me its very saveable. I'd say two out of three fish I have caught in the Chehalis are native. But here's the problems I see.

Many of the same people wanting to save wild runs are the same people wanting no retention of wild salmon/steelhead. I'm ok with this but when/if our hatchery programs are discontinued and let us presume our wild stock is saved, what do I get to eat/retain? One other major issue is the nets I see strung throughout the Chehalis in the fall. It seems to me that those nets are the biggest problem.

I guess my bottom line is....I'm a fisherman and I like to catch and eat fish. It would be a real bummer to see the dams and the nets win on this issue; because in my opinion they are our biggest problem.

Dustin

Sorry we have had that time for a long time now. We need to get rolling guys this bickering is going to be the demise of our fishing. Fact is THE DAMS ARE HERE TO STAY wether we like it or not. So we need to fight for what we have left! There wont be an i fish it will be usetofish and talk about days gone by. Tacoma Power is getting away with what ever they want because WE SIT AND ARGUE and they sit back laugh and count there money. Do you guys really think when tacoma is no longer liable that they are going to try to make a "healthy wild run" ? Not a chance they are in the power buiss not fish ANY OF THEM. Sure is sad i hope the day doesnt comes where i say i told so many so. This wasnt directed at you Dustin just wanted to quote your first sentence.

Dave

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by Cowlitzfisherman

Where do you wild guys come up with that kind of thinking?

Weirs prevent interacting of hatchery and wild fish on there spawning beds, especially in smaller feeder streams. It also allows what wild fish that are there to be are passed onto there spawning beds without allowing the mixing of native genes with hachery genes. It also allows the wild fish smolts to fully utilize the habitat to there fullest extent behind the weirs, thus eliminating almost all competition between the wild smolts and hatchery smolts during several critical stages of there early life cycles.

And you say that weirs do not lessen that risk one iota?

What will it ever take to make the wild fish people happy? No more hatcheries?

It's like you said, I said CowlitzFisherman, the weirs help prevent the hatchery fish from accessing habitat where the wild fish spawn therefore helping eleviate the genetic problem.

But weirs do absolutely nothing when all the hatchery smolt are dumped in the rivers and then compete and cause all kinds of problems with the wild smolt and fry.
Ecological risk.
Probably causes more damage as far as depressed wild runs than does the genetic damage.

I'll talk with some Washington biologist Lanyard X before the meeting to see how it might sway my opinion and whether or not I might be interested in attending the meeting and voicing my opinion.

Currently I have mixed emotions on this issue.

[Lead Bouncer]

LX,

Its rare that I get to read something from CF that is specific about the cowlitz and the major players. Let him educate people. The differences you speak of, concern every river. Although some dams will live a long time, it would be a mistake to throw in the towel on any dam thats doing damage. We also have to remain on the defense against new hydro projects on the west coast.

Im glad you brought up the meeting and those who attend, should know exactly whats at stake and what to expect from the meeting.

[stlhdrgrn]

If the hatchery fish are a mitigation for the wild fish lost due to the dams they shouldn't be allowed to pull out now. The less hatchery production the more money for the dam operators.

[HLA]

But weirs do absolutely nothing when all the hatchery smolt are dumped in the rivers and then compete and cause all kinds of problems with the wild smolt and fry.
Ecological risk.
Probably causes more damage as far as depressed wild runs than does the genetic damage.

I respectfully disagree. For years, I've been reading alarming claims of exceeding carrying capacity. Not once have I seen evidence to support accusations that hatchery introduction HAS the dramatic influence some people claim. IMO, if it's nutrient based, then you have bigger problems than hatchery introduction, and reducing hatchery introduction won't solve your problem. If it's predator related, that line of thinking ends when the inferior reacting hatchery smolts take the bulk of the loss. Disease, it's possible, but, is it actually happening? Just don't see it.


Again, IMO, there is evidence that ocean conditions play a greater role in limiting smolt survival than in-basin attributes, I'd like to see more evidence we are exceeding carrying capacity, or what the actual affects are, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To say that crowding has a greater affect on native runs than genetic mutation is unfounded. Do you have anything to support that claim? Short term...at best, perhaps. Long term...?

[nunyet]

This is about the Cowlitz , but lets look at some other examples.

Before the hatchery program in the upper Snake drainage the runs were down to such a low numbers the season was closed for many years . With the introduction of the hatchery program we now are seeing returns 20 times the numbers before hatchery plants. We now have a fishery on steelhead, spring salmon, and it looks like this year fall chinook.

Along with the return of hatchery fish is the big return of in river spawners or wild fish if you must.

As far as studies being quoted on the Hood River stating that hatchery fish are poor at reproducing the Hood river system is about as sterile as any river could be for lack of nutriments and with a total shifting of spawning gravel. The White River runs off the same mountain, an has no migratory runs of fish because of the falls an only can rear small amounts of of native trout as the habitat dictates.

With all the fish that are planted in the Hood River it is no wonder that natural reproduction of planted fish is low. This river gets the same number of summer steelhead plants as the Deschutes plus winter steelhead and spring salmon and fall Chinook . This makes a great fishery for our district biologists who seem to to keep this fishery secret while saying how poorly the planted fish react with wild.

I think we are looking at similar things in the Cowlitz below the dam, without the availability of upper river spawning areas and rearing habitat we are looking at very few returning in system spawners.

The Cowlitz before the dams had very few native fish spawning in the lower river because of the very heavy glacial run off , most of the spawning in the lower river being in the tributaries .

Lets hold Tacoma Power to their mitigation requirements and bring the hatchery program back to successful levels.

If changes in thousands of years in genetics can be made in one spawning cycle ,with the fish being raised in cement ponds ,Darwin would be amazed as should any thinking person.

nunyet

[Boster]

Originally Posted by nunyet

This is about the Cowlitz , but lets look at some other examples.

Before the hatchery program in the upper Snake drainage the runs were down to such a low numbers the season was closed for many years . With the introduction of the hatchery program we now are seeing returns 20 times the numbers before hatchery plants. We now have a fishery on steelhead, spring salmon, and it looks like this year fall chinook.

Along with the return of hatchery fish is the big return of in river spawners or wild fish if you must.

As far as studies being quoted on the Hood River stating that hatchery fish are poor at reproducing the Hood river system is about as sterile as any river could be for lack of nutriments and with a total shifting of spawning gravel. The White River runs off the same mountain, an has no migratory runs of fish because of the falls an only can rear small amounts of of native trout as the habitat dictates.

With all the fish that are planted in the Hood River it is no wonder that natural reproduction of planted fish is low. This river gets the same number of summer steelhead plants as the Deschutes plus winter steelhead and spring salmon and fall Chinook . This makes a great fishery for our district biologists who seem to to keep this fishery secret while saying how poorly the planted fish react with wild.

I think we are looking at similar things in the Cowlitz below the dam, without the availability of upper river spawning areas and rearing habitat we are looking at very few returning in system spawners.

The Cowlitz before the dams had very few native fish spawning in the lower river because of the very heavy glacial run off , most of the spawning in the lower river being in the tributaries .

Lets hold Tacoma Power to their mitigation requirements and bring the hatchery program back to successful levels.

If changes in thousands of years in genetics can be made in one spawning cycle ,with the fish being raised in cement ponds ,Darwin would be amazed as should any thinking person.

nunyet

This makes the best cents so far. Who pays for the hatchey program?? If there is no hatchery program who saves the most money??? Why dont we see why Idaho has been so sucessful with their hatchey program?
Boster

[Lanyard X]

Originally Posted by nunyet

This is about the Cowlitz , but lets look at some other examples.

Before the hatchery program in the upper Snake drainage the runs were down to such a low numbers the season was closed for many years . With the introduction of the hatchery program we now are seeing returns 20 times the numbers before hatchery plants. We now have a fishery on steelhead, spring salmon, and it looks like this year fall chinook.

Along with the return of hatchery fish is the big return of in river spawners or wild fish if you must.

As far as studies being quoted on the Hood River stating that hatchery fish are poor at reproducing the Hood river system is about as sterile as any river could be for lack of nutriments and with a total shifting of spawning gravel. The White River runs off the same mountain, an has no migratory runs of fish because of the falls an only can rear small amounts of of native trout as the habitat dictates.

With all the fish that are planted in the Hood River it is no wonder that natural reproduction of planted fish is low. This river gets the same number of summer steelhead plants as the Deschutes plus winter steelhead and spring salmon and fall Chinook . This makes a great fishery for our district biologists who seem to to keep this fishery secret while saying how poorly the planted fish react with wild.

I think we are looking at similar things in the Cowlitz below the dam, without the availability of upper river spawning areas and rearing habitat we are looking at very few returning in system spawners.

The Cowlitz before the dams had very few native fish spawning in the lower river because of the very heavy glacial run off , most of the spawning in the lower river being in the tributaries .

Lets hold Tacoma Power to their mitigation requirements and bring the hatchery program back to successful levels.

If changes in thousands of years in genetics can be made in one spawning cycle ,with the fish being raised in cement ponds ,Darwin would be amazed as should any thinking person.

nunyet

VERY WELL PUT! I hope to see some guys there obviously the guy who makes the most since isnt going to drive from Oregon but with nunyet's permission i would like to use parts of his post in what im bring up to the panel.

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by HLA

I respectfully disagree.

Then why don't you start out by reading here:

Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon
and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating
strategies

Kathryn Kostow

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/con...calimpacts.pdf

Here's what Bill Bakke had to say about her report and of course much, much more:

HATCHERIES ARE AN ECOLOGICAL RISK TO WILD SALMONIDS. In her 2008 study Kathryn Kostow, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, added evidence for ecological risk to wild salmonids from hatchery fish. The following are excerpts from this paper with a few comments from me and others. Let me just say that ecological interactions between hatchery released fish, progeny of hatchery spawners, and wild salmonids has been, until recently in a few scientific papers, largely overlooked. The emphasis has been directed toward genetic impacts of hatchery fish breeding with wild fish and the loss of fitness and reproductive success of wild salmonids. This is a justified concern, but the first impact and one that is repeated annually is that of competition for food, rearing areas, disease transmission and predator attraction from hatchery fish on wild fish. Both factors, genetic introgression and ecological effects, must be taken into full account when protecting wild fish, a legal mandate under state and federal law. I encourage you to read the full paper by Ms. Kostow, and you can find it on the Native Fish Society web page at: http://www.nativefishsociety.org/con...calimpacts.pdf

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/inc...TIONREPORT.pdf

Originally Posted by nunyet

If changes in thousands of years in genetics can be made in one spawning cycle ,with the fish being raised in cement ponds ,Darwin would be amazed as should any thinking person.

nunyet

Oh I'm sure Darwin has got his fullfillment of amazement a long time ago.

I'm sorry to hear you believe in perhaps the biggest hoax ever.
Even bigger than the Global Warming hoax.
Sorry man but my ancestors weren't monkeys and I myself prefer to stick with real science.

[sothereiwas]

Holy cow, where's the turnip truck, its gotta be around here some where.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...7-41/story.csp

Hatchery fish were, are and will always be a horrible idea. You guys should really educate yourselves about something you seam so passionate about. I suppose ignorance is bliss

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

Holy cow, where's the turnip truck, its gotta be around here some where.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...7-41/story.csp

Hatchery fish were, are and will always be a horrible idea. You guys should really educate yourselves about something you seam so passionate about. I suppose ignorance is bliss

And the last and final sentence:

As we continue to be reminded, however, Mother Nature usually does not abide by the plans of man, no matter how well-intentioned.

And this article was regarding the genetic risk to wild fish.
Problem is weirs or no weirs you are going to have Cowlitz hatchery strays not only in the Cowlitz but other basin trib's like the Toutle forks and other out of basin rivers.
We got a big mess and folks wonder why the wild stocks are plummeting...

[Flatfish]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

We got a big mess and folks wonder why the wild stocks are plummeting...

Please educate me. All I ask is a link to show me how nate numbers have fallen in the last 15 years.

[AuntyM]

I think I will trust the WDFW commission to do what they think the best available science is telling them to do. I'd rather not try to pressure them into doing what's best for fishermen and rather let them do what's in the best interests of the fish.

Other than that, I'm leaning towards Rob A and/or Dan's views. Don't anybody faint.

[nunyet]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

And the last and final sentence:



And this article was regarding the genetic risk to wild fish.
Problem is weirs or no weirs you are going to hav hatchery strays not only in the Cowlitz but other basin trib's like the Toutle forks and other out of basin rivers.
We got a big mess and folks wonder why the wild stocks are plummeting...

Before the Saint Helens eruption many fish were planted in the Toutle ,both the north and south forks and the Green. After the eruption both hatchery fish an the native or wild runs of fish instead of entering the Toutle passed into the cleaner water of the Cowlitz.

This is a very natural response that has probably occurred thousands of times in thousands of rivers through history because of natural events of different types. Our biologists told us the Toutle was done for hundreds of years. Then as the Toutle was thought gone forever fish strayed into the South Fork and regenerated.

In order for a strain of fish to survive ,natural straying must take place or one catastrophic event will wipe out the total population.

Lets give these fish a little more respect in their survival abilities and the ability to adapt.

I think Frank Amato is correct in stating the lack of food is a big problem in the returns of fish in some of the cold sterile environments like the Cowlitz below the dam. Why not barge or truck these fish as is done from Idaho.

If you think these extra fish going out are bringing more predators , lets think of the glass half full , with all these genetically inferior fish going out the same time it allows the superior in river produced fish to survive .

We have and will make many mistakes in hatchery programs , but if you want too fish and have a chance to actually catch something , maybe we should listen to the Indians biologists , their take on science is more realistic given the many changes in habitat and introduction of none native species.


We are living in a unrealistic dream that cannot take place without the complete destruction of all dams, irrigation and the halt to the ocean fishery and the removal of all introduced predators. Under the pressure our fish endure ,with out the hatchery program , we cannot expect fishable numbers for us or our children.

nunyet

[Lanyard X]

once again this is why sportsman will never prosper. He said she said. What about all the damn nets they sure arent picky about what fish goes in them. We will always loose because people wont adjust to the changing of the times. IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE THE WAY IT WAS sorry to be the barer of bad news. And no i dont think myself or anyone else is ignorant. Just because you dont have the same veiws as me doesnt make either one of us ignorant. I hope you like watching fishing shows because as we are arguing they are still laughing.

[sothereiwas]

Its is far more simple than people make it out to be. Hatchery production is the single largest expense the WDFW has and it is doing nothing to fix the problem. At some point we will run out of wild fish if we continue down this road. With them go the hatchery fish. The focus needs to shift the restoring wild runs or we will all need to buy bass gear.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

A lot of you guys make some very good arguments here, but they all fall way short on the Cowlitz!

The number one reason why "recovery" has not yet occurred here on the Cowlitz is because they simply can not capture the down stream smolts, especially above the Cowlitz Falls Dam.

It really has nothing to do with wild fish vs hatchery fish because in the case of the Cowlitz, they (the hatchery and wild) are one and the same! Again, please educate yourselves to that facts.

Don't attempt to argue about wild vs hatchery...fish here... because it's the down stream trapping facilities (or lack of them) failures to capture the out migrant smolts/fry that's the problem.

The hatchery fish, be it from feed fry or just plan old hatchery adults, produce more then enough fish to make that magic number to make recovery possible at this time! That is fact.

They (the damn dam operators) simple can't capture the hundreds of thousands of fish that are being passed down stream from the upper Cowlitz above Cowlitz Fall Dam. That isn't the case at Mayfield Dam where they can and do capture almost 90% of the down stream migrants and divert them below the Mayfield Dam.

Tacoma Power simply does not want to spend the 100's of millions of dollars that it will likely take for them to capture these fish once they pass though the Cowlitz Falls Fish Collection Facilities or their turbines. Many, if not the majority of these fish are being passed into a "dead fish passage" lake called Riffe Lake. Tacoma's Riffe Lake Project was allowed by FERC to be built without and up or down stream fish passage. There lies the real problem!

Besides that, the Cowlitz Falls operating license requires them to have major "draw downs" when there flows reach 15,000 cfs at Randle which is a small town just above the project to prevent flooding.

Every year, 100's of thousands of fry and smolts are likely being flushed down in these draw downs into Riffle Lake where they can't escape because there are simply no down stream fish collections facilities or passage in Riffe lake other then its turbines which are so deep (288 feet) that the smolts can't or won't go through them.

It's really not a "wild" fish vs a hatchery fish problem here; it's a power company problem that makes hundreds of millions of dollars who won't spend the funds that are needed to save our fish! It's also a NOAA-Fisheries problem that continues to fail to force these damn dam operators to do what is right to recover our fish and our fishery.

Now those are the real "facts"!

Please feel free to ask me what ever questions you may have.

Oh, I also would like to share with some of the wild fish guys an email that our state steelhead and cutthroat advisory groups had recently just received.

It's always good to see both sides of any issue before one jump's.... IN!

Feedback:
Posted on Friday, June 26, 2009 (PST)
Feedback: The Science Of Supplementation
--- From Bill Bosch, Yakama Nation Fisheries, Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project Research Office

Re: June 12 CBB Story "Hood River Study Looks At Reproduction Fitness Of Wild-Born Offspring Of Hatchery Fish" http://www.cbbulletin.com/342236.aspx:
In response to the OSU research regarding the 'handicap' carried by offspring of hatchery-origin fish, it is important to recognize the growing body of scientific evidence (including some earlier work done by the authors of that same study) showing that carefully implemented hatchery supplementation programs can be effective and may not be nearly as harmful as the OSU research recently published in Biology Letters suggests.

The effectiveness of hatchery supplementation programs can be assessed by evaluating the effects of these programs on viable salmon population parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany et al. 2000). Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented increases in abundance or real or potential increases in production from natural-origin spawners include: Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility (CESRF) spring Chinook (May et al. 2007); Tucannon spring Chinook (Gallinat and Ross 2007); Yakima Basin coho (Bosch et al. 2007); mid-Columbia Basin coho (Yakama Nation 2005); N. Umpqua R. coho (Cramer et al. 2005); Snake River fall Chinook (Nez Perce Tribe, unpublished data); Araki et al. 2007; Baumsteiger et al. 2008; Berejikian et al. 2008; Bosch et al. 2008; Kassler et al. 2008; Phillips et al. 2000; and Sharma et al. 2006. Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented increases in spatial structure of natural-origin spawners include: CESRF spring Chinook (May et al. 2007); Yakima Basin coho (Bosch et al. 2007); mid-Columbia Basin coho (Yakama Nation 2005); and Snake River fall Chinook (D. Johnson, Nez Perce Tribe, personal communication).

Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented minimal adverse (or in some cases positive) impacts to reproductive fitness parameters, genetic or ecological diversity include: Araki et al. 2007; Berejikian et al. 2008; Fraser 2008 (review of empirical studies); Hedrick et al. 2005; Heggenes et al. 2006; Kassler et al. 2008; Knudsen et al. 2008; Pearsons and Temple 2007; Schroder et al. 2006; Schroder et al. 2008; and Sharma et al. 2006.

Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented that any potential adverse phenotypic effects of domestication due to long-term hatchery influence can be reversed in relatively short order with re-introduced wild influence include: Bosch et al. 2007; Tymchuk et al. 2006; and Yakama Nation 2005. Conover et al. (2009) also recently documented that fish populations "have an intrinsic capacity to recover genetically" and can reverse potentially harmful evolutionary changes caused by external forces.

Aside from the science, it is important to remember that wild fish need wild rivers. The Columbia River system has not been wild since the days of Lewis and Clark. That is why we have extensive hatchery programs throughout the region. World renowned ecologist Wendell Berry once said, "The question we must ask is not whether the domestic and the wild are separate or can be separated. It is how, in the human economy, their indissoluble and necessary connections can be properly maintained."

In a world where the need for the economic benefits and relatively clean, green power provided by the Columbia River hydrosystem has never been more apparent, clearly it is the latter question posed by Mr. Berry that must now be the focus of regional research. That is why so many of the projects in the recent "Accords" agreements between BPA and the tribes are designed to address exactly this question.

Bill Bosch
Yakama Nation Fisheries, Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project Research Office
References:
Araki, H., W. R. Ardren, E. Olsen, B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin. 2007. Reproductive success of captive-bred steelhead trout in the wild: evaluation of three hatchery programs in the Hood River. Conservation Biology 21 (1), 181-190.
Baumsteiger, J., D. M. Hand, D. E. Olson, R. Spateholts, G. FitzGerald, and W. R. Ardren. 2008. Use of Parentage analysis to Determine Reproductive Success of Hatchery-Origin Spring Chinook Salmon Outplanted into Shitike Creek, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28:1472-1485.
Berejikian, B. A., T. Johnson, R. Endicott, and J. Lee. 2008. Increases in Steelhead Redd Abundance Resulting from Two Conservation Hatchery Strategies in the Hamma Hamma River, WA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65:754-764.
Bosch, W. J., T. H. Newsome, J. L. Dunnigan, J. D. Hubble, D. Neeley, D. T. Lind, D. E. Fast, L. L. Lamebull, and J. W. Blodgett. 2007. Evaluating the Feasibility of Reestablishing a Coho Salmon Population in the Yakima River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:198-214.
Bosch, W. J., D. E. Fast, D. R. Hatch, J. W. Blodgett, R. Branstetter, T. H. Newsome, and M. V. Johnston. Reconditioning kelt steelhead: A novel management strategy for populations in low abundance. Presented as poster at Western Division American Fisheries Society meeting, May 4-8, 2008.
Conover, D. O., S. B. Munch, and S. A. Arnott. 2009. Reversal of evolutionary downsizing caused by selective harvest of large fish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0003.
Cramer, S. P., N. K. Ackerman, and J. B. Lando. 2005. Viability of Oregon Coastal Coho: Comments on Oregon’s 2005 Assessment. Report to Oregon Forest Industries Council and Douglas County. S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. Gresham, OR.
Fraser, D. J. 2008. How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids. Evolutionary Applications, 1:535-586.
Gallinat, M. P., and L. A. Ross. 2007. Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program, 2006 Annual Report. WDFW, Olympia, WA.
Hedrick, P.W., V.K. Rashbrook, and D. Hedgecock. 2000. Effective population size of winter-run chinook salmon based on microsatellite analysis of returning spawners. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(12): 2368–2373.
Heggenes, J., M. Beere, P. Tamkee, and E. B. Taylor. 2006. Genetic diversity in steelhead before and after conservation hatchery operation in a coastal, boreal river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:251-267.
Kassler, T. W., D. K. Hawkins, and J. M. Tipping. 2008. Summer-Run Hatchery Steelhead Have Naturalized in the South Fork Skykomish River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:763-771.
Knudsen, C.M., S.L. Schroder, C. Busack, M.V. Johnston, T.N. Pearsons, and C.R. Strom. 2008. Comparison of Female Reproductive Traits and Progeny of First-Generation Hatchery and Wild Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1433-1445.
May, D., D. Larsen, M. Moser, D. Fast, M. Johnston, and A. Dittman. 2007. Spatial patterns of Yakima River spring Chinook spawning before and after supplementation. AFS poster presentation, national meeting, San Francisco, CA, Sept. 2007. NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
McElhany, P., M. H. Rucklelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt. 2000. Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42. NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
Pearsons, T. N. and G. M. Temple. 2007. Impacts of Early Stages of Salmon Supplementation and Reintroduction Programs on Three Trout Species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1-20.
Phillips, J.L., J. Ory and A. Talbot. 2000. Anadromous salmonid recovery in the Umatilla River Basin, Oregon: A case study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1287-1308. Dec 2000.
Schroder, S. L., C. M. Knudsen, T. N. Pearsons, T. W. Kassler, S. F. Young, C. A. Busack, and D. E. Fast. 2008. Breeding Success of Wild and First-Generation Hatchery Female Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Artificial Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137:1475-1489.
Schroder, S. L., C. M. Knudsen, T. N. Pearsons, S. F. Young, T. W. Kassler, D. E. Fast, and B. D. Watson. 2006. Comparing the Reproductive Success of Yakima River Hatchery- and Wild-Origin Spring Chinook. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, Annual Report 2005. BPA Report DOE/BP-00022370-3.
Sharma, R, G. Morishima, S. Wang, A. Talbot, and L. Gilbertson. 2006. An evaluation of the Clearwater River supplementation program in western Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 63, Number 2, 1 February 2006, pp. 423-437(15).
Tymchuk, W. E., C. Biagi, R. Withler, and R. H. Devlin. 2006. Growth and behavioral consequences of introgression of a domesticated aquaculture genotype into a native strain of coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:442-455.
Yakama Nation. 2005. Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Master Plan. Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management. Toppenish, WA. Peer-reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2006-5.pdf.

[nunyet]

Cowlitzfisherman:

Thank you

nunyet

[Lanyard X]

Nice read cowlitzfisherman I think that guys are reading this whole idea wrong. This is about the Cowlitz river i am not against a wild run. When i fish the coast i dont take anything with a fin nor do my friends. This is about one river that tacoma power IS NOT taking care of there part. They put the damns in and now they are trying everything they can to not hold up there part of deal. I feel that this has went way off topic. I would love to see some fellow fishermen show up and help us have a place where we can fish. Cant we justall get along

[sothereiwas]

The hatchery fish, be it from feed fry or just plan old hatchery adults, produce more then enough fish to make that magic number to make recovery possible at this time! That is fact.

That statement is 100% completely false. Hatchery fish and wild fish are not one in the same on the Cowlitz. The numbers of wild fish in the Cow are very small and recovery will be near impossible because of dams and the outmigration issues you mentioned. But dont kid yourself hatchery fish will never do a single thing to help wild fish recover, in fact the opposite is true.

[AuntyM]

People want facts? Here's one.

The folks listed here http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html are more than capable of determining future policy based on the HSRG recommendations and science. While they desire input, they don't need to be swamped with a bunch of baloney.

[6horsekicker]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

Dave, the thing you have to realize is that there are a lot of folks now days that are aware of the ill effects that hatchery fish have on wild fish.
There are some wild fish in the Cowlitz but I'm not up to par on how many (estimates) or where they spwan.
I believe they have some wild coho left that spawn in Olequa, there are chinook that spawn in the mainstem and I don't know what else takes place regarding wild fish in the Cowlitz.
It was a combination of dams and hatchery fish that ruined what once was great salmon/steelhead runs and fisheries there.

Hatchery steelhead are known predators of wild salmon fry.
The Cowlitz does have natural spawning of chinook in the mainstem as I mentioned.
Should we keep putting all these known salmon predators (hatchery steelhead) in the Cowlitz only to feed the sports fishermen interest but at the same time destroy wild runs?

I couldn't go to that meeting wasting my time promoting something I don't believe in.

I think with all the hatcheries along the columbia it would be pretty hard to figure out if there are truley many wild fish left that have not been affected at some point over the last hundred years from hatchery fish straying. In fact, the first hatchery built in the northwest was built in 1877 on the clackmas river to help restore salmon runs that were destimated by comerical harvesting. This was before the dams wiped out the rest the fish.

There may be a few streams that have strickly native fish left in them, but how do you know that a hatery fish has not stayed into those streams over the last 100 years?

Also the argument about hatchery fish competing for food with the native fish does happen I cannot argue that. But before 1800's the salmon population of the columbia and tribs was estimated in the 10's of millions of fish. I think that the rivers can sustain more hatchery fish smolts since we are no where near those levels.

The Dams are not going away any time soon but if we were too

1. Stop commerical harvest on columbia
2. Kill all sealions within 1 mile of bonnie
3. Increase hatchery production to populate columbia basin pre-1800 levels.


We would have one hell of fishery. IMHO....

[sothereiwas]

I'm pretty sure we're screwed, cause no one seams to bother finding out the facts about wild fish. When a hatchery and wild fish spawn together they produce almost no viable offspring. There for the genes of the wild fish are wasted. Most steelhead do not spawn more than once. This varies regionally. The wild fish that manage to make it back past the nets and all the dams and finally have a chance to spawn are being choked out by the very fish that everyone that is uneducated seams to think will fix the problem.

[sothereiwas]

Originally Posted by AuntyM

People want facts? Here's one.

The folks listed here http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html are more than capable of determining future policy based on the HSRG recommendations and science. While they desire input, they don't need to be swamped with a bunch of baloney.

Were talking about a goverment agency that is not above reproach. They will do what makes everyone happy enough. There first interest is not the long term health of the wild steelhead.

[skaha]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

Not allowing the best for the fish!
A weir only helps out with the genetic risk to wild salmon which is an important.
But perhaps the overwhelming rish to salmonids is the ecological risk to them when they are inudated with millions of large, oversize hatchery smolts to compete with and the extra predation attracted by these big, dumb hatchery smolt.
Power Bait anyone...

Weirs do not lessen that risk one iota.

--why do hatchery smolts have to be raised to larger size than naturals before release? I don't know how your hatcheries work.

[sothereiwas]

It has more to do with environmental factors. They arent raised to be larger that just happen to be larger than a wild smolt of the same age group.

[skaha]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

It has more to do with environmental factors. They arent raised to be larger that just happen to be larger than a wild smolt of the same age group.

--thanks: I would think government biologist would be able to overcome commonly known issues like this.

--in general I wish for no hatcheries however as we have damed rivers, ruined habitat, allowed over fishing both commerical and recreational protect cute seals etc. on some systems I don't see an alternative. I'm not familair with this river and trib so can only read and weep.

--I think origin of this thread was a good idea... pack the meeting with as many bodies as you can muster and get all opinions heard. I don't think arguing yes or no for all systems is productive or likely to change opinion.

--We have to conscider these drastic measures on the Frazer system in B.C. and I'm sure will fight yes and no with the same passion.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

The hatchery fish, be it from feed fry or just plan old hatchery adults, produce more then enough fish to make that magic number to make recovery possible at this time! That is fact.

That statement is 100% completely false. Hatchery fish and wild fish are not one in the same on the Cowlitz.

Oh really?

Every "wild" fish that has been passed above the dams on the Cowlitz have come directly from the Cowlitz "hatchery" stocks and that is a fact! WDFW early genetic study confirms that the only native wild stocks pretty much exist only in the tributaries below the Barrier dam of the lower Cowlitz. Were you not aware of this fact or resent genetic study results?

I believe that you, like so many others, are very confused about the differences between what a "wild" fish is compared to that of what a "native" wild fish is. NMFS has defined what a wild fish is in the Cowlitz SA as..." (2.7) "Wild salmonids” or “wild, naturally spawning”, for purposes of this Agreement, means a stock of fish that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage. They have also defined what "natural production" is in the Cowlitz; 2.11; "Natural production” means fish that are progeny of spawners in the natural environment and that subsequently rear in the natural environment throughout their lives."

Maybe this may give you an answer why you may be so confused on this particular issue?

If you don't fully understand the issue on the Cowlitz, you may not want to compare apples to oranges. Recovering "wild" fish on the Cowlitz will not be that big of a problem once they figure out how to capture the down stream smolts and fry. They will never be able to recover the true "native fish" that the Cowlitz once had.

Hatchery fish that are similar in genetic and run timing to the original native stocks are being used and approved by NOAA-Fisheries in many recoveries efforts. Do you know more then they do? Are our best scientists in our agencies all misinformed?

[You caught how many?]

Give all hatchery's to indians

[AuntyM]

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

Were talking about a goverment agency that is not above reproach. They will do what makes everyone happy enough. There first interest is not the long term health of the wild steelhead.

I strongly disagree. THIS commission has shown they have recovery and conservation as their priority. That's the reason for the attack on them during the last legislative session. They have a good working relationship with sport fishers and I hate to see that jeopardized by folks that appear to have an agenda different than recovery and conservation and more like...

Greed.

[sothereiwas]

Your right my mistake. But on the same token a recovery with wild fish not native is no better than a continued hatchery program. I chose the wrong term

Originally Posted by Cowlitzfisherman

Oh really?

Every "wild" fish that has been passed above the dams on the Cowlitz have come directly from the Cowlitz "hatchery" stocks and that is a fact! WDFW early genetic study confirms that the only native wild stocks pretty much exist only in the tributaries below the Barrier dam of the lower Cowlitz. Were you not aware of this fact or resent genetic study results?

I believe that you, like so many others, are very confused about the differences between what a "wild" fish is compared to that of what a "native" wild fish is. NMFS has defined what a wild fish is in the Cowlitz SA as..." (2.7) "Wild salmonids” or “wild, naturally spawning”, for purposes of this Agreement, means a stock of fish that is sustained by natural spawning and rearing in the natural habitat, regardless of parentage. They have also defined what "natural production" is in the Cowlitz; 2.11; "Natural production” means fish that are progeny of spawners in the natural environment and that subsequently rear in the natural environment throughout their lives."

Maybe this may give you an answer why you may be so confused on this particular issue?

If you don't fully understand the issue on the Cowlitz, you may not want to compare apples to oranges. Recovering "wild" fish on the Cowlitz will not be that big of a problem once they figure out how to capture the down stream smolts and fry. They will never be able to recover the true "native fish" that the Cowlitz once had.

Hatchery fish that are similar in genetic and run timing to the original native stocks are being used and approved by NOAA-Fisheries in many recoveries efforts. Do you know more then they do? Are our best scientists in our agencies all misinformed?

[Born to be Wild]

Originally Posted by nunyet

Before the Saint Helens eruption many fish were planted in the Toutle ,both the north and south forks and the Green. After the eruption both hatchery fish an the native or wild runs of fish instead of entering the Toutle passed into the cleaner water of the Cowlitz.

This is a very natural response that has probably occurred thousands of times in thousands of rivers through history because of natural events of different types. Our biologists told us the Toutle was done for hundreds of years. Then as the Toutle was thought gone forever fish strayed into the South Fork and regenerated.

In order for a strain of fish to survive ,natural straying must take place or one catastrophic event will wipe out the total population.

Lets give these fish a little more respect in their survival abilities and the ability to adapt.


Nunyet

I realize that fish straying is a natural thing and that does repopulate basins that suffered catastrophic events like flooding, St Helens eruption, etc.
But that is all good as long as it is superior wild fish straying and not domesticated hatchery fish that can stray, breed and bring down the genetic diversity of the wild fish in that basin.
So straying is fine if it’s a wild fish but a problem if it is hatchery fish.

Originally Posted by Lanyard X

once again this is why sportsman will never prosper. He said she said. What about all the damn nets they sure arent picky about what fish goes in them. We will always loose because people wont adjust to the changing of the times. IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE THE WAY IT WAS sorry to be the barer of bad news. And no i dont think myself or anyone else is ignorant. Just because you dont have the same veiws as me doesnt make either one of us ignorant. I hope you like watching fishing shows because as we are arguing they are still laughing.

Lanyard, how can you expect everybody to jump on your bandwagon when what you are promoting is bad for wild fish?
Be realistic man.
“Adjust to the changing of the times”?
We already did that and screwed everything up!
Even where there are no dams!
Then you start talking about nets…
Well hatchery fish have and are continuing to screw things up a lot worse than the nets ever did and in places where there are no nets.

Originally Posted by Cowlitzfisherman

A lot of you guys make some very good arguments here, but they all fall way short on the Cowlitz!

The number one reason why "recovery" has not yet occurred here on the Cowlitz is because they simply can not capture the down stream smolts, especially above the CowlitzFalls Dam.

It really has nothing to do with wild fish vs hatchery fish because in the case of the Cowlitz, they (the hatchery and wild) are one and the same! Again, please educate yourselves to that facts.

Don't attempt to argue about wild vs hatchery...fish here... because it's the down stream trapping facilities (or lack of them) failures to capture the out migrant smolts/fry that's the problem.

The hatchery fish, be it from feed fry or just plan old hatchery adults, produce more then enough fish to make that magic number to make recovery possible at this time! That is fact.

Well sorry Cowlitzfisherman but I can’t buy your biology at all.
And to tell you the truth I have already seen that tribal propaganda you posted and I am not and never have been impressed with tribal biology and management.
They are into fish farming and harvesting.
Who needs wild fish when you can turn the Columbia into one big chicken farm.

Your statement I highlighted in red along with another individual or two is not fact but not even remotely biologically sound.

I’m not talking about or concerned about saving progeny from hatchery fish that have been trucked above the dams.
What would be the point?
You admitted in a latter post that there is true wild fish below the dams.
Voila!
That’s the ones to be concerned about.

Originally Posted by sothereiwas

The hatchery fish, be it from feed fry or just plan old hatchery adults, produce more then enough fish to make that magic number to make recovery possible at this time! That is fact.
That statement is 100% completely false. Hatchery fish and wild fish are not one in the same on the Cowlitz. The numbers of wild fish in the Cow are very small and recovery will be near impossible because of dams and the outmigration issues you mentioned. But dont kid yourself hatchery fish will never do a single thing to help wild fish recover, in fact the opposite is true.

Yup, that!

Originally Posted by 6horsekicker

I think with all the hatcheries along the columbia it would be pretty hard to figure out if there are truley many wild fish left that have not been affected at some point over the last hundred years from hatchery fish straying. In fact, the first hatchery built in the northwest was built in 1877 on the clackmas river to help restore salmon runs that were destimated by comerical harvesting. This was before the dams wiped out the rest the fish.

There may be a few streams that have strickly native fish left in them, but how do you know that a hatery fish has not stayed into those streams over the last 100 years?

Also the argument about hatchery fish competing for food with the native fish does happen I cannot argue that. But before 1800's the salmon population of the columbia and tribs was estimated in the 10's of millions of fish. I think that the rivers can sustain more hatchery fish smolts since we are no where near those levels.

The Dams are not going away any time soon but if we were too

1. Stop commerical harvest on columbia
2. Kill all sealions within 1 mile of bonnie
3. Increase hatchery production to populate columbia basin pre-1800 levels.


We would have one hell of fishery. IMHO....

The thing for a lot of you guys to understand is that even though some hatcheries date back to the time of Christ, they weren’t effective back then.
They had very poor returns, often times and perhaps it was most of the time they didn’t even get enough adults back for broodstock.
It wasn’t until the 60’s with the advent of a new food (fish pellets) that salmonids could be raised to an oversize smolt and with this unfair advantage they found some success in surviving to adulthood.

We already tried your step #3 6horsekicker.
It went alright for awhile during the 70’s & early 80’s and then abruptly fell apart taking with it, the wild stocks.
That’s why we are where we are now.
We have learned from our mistakes and it wouldn’t be very wise to repeat them, now would it?

Originally Posted by skaha

--why do hatchery smolts have to be raised to larger size than naturals before release? I don't know how your hatcheries work.

They have to be raised oversize to give them a size advantage to make up for their lack of smarts.
A hatchery coho smolt in Oregon is raise to 3 times the size of it’s wild counterpart smolt.
A very unfair advantage they have over their much smaller wild cousins.
I would imagine if you look into the hatchery practices up there in BC you will find the same scenario.
BC followed our lead into the fish hatcheries and now they are coming up with the same negative science on hatchery fish as us.
It’s not just the Cowlitz, it’s not just California, Oregon and Washington, but BC has discovered that hatchery fish are depressing their wild stocks also.
I’ve got a few articles about negative hatchery influences on wild stocks in BC.

Originally Posted by skaha

--We have to conscider these drastic measures on the Frazer system in B.C. and I'm sure will fight yes and no with the same passion.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Cowlitzfisherman

Oh really?

Every "wild" fish that has been passed above the dams on the Cowlitz have come directly from the Cowlitz "hatchery" stocks and that is a fact! WDFW early genetic study confirms that the only native wild stocks pretty much exist only in the tributaries below the Barrier dam of the lower Cowlitz.

Yup.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Originally Posted by Born to be Wild

Well sorry Cowlitzfisherman but I can’t buy your biology at all.
And to tell you the truth I have already seen that tribal propaganda you posted and I am not and never have been impressed with tribal biology and management.
They are into fish farming and harvesting.
Who needs wild fish when you can turn the Columbia into one big chicken farm.

Your statement I highlighted in red along with another individual or two is not fact but not even remotely biologically sound.

I’m not talking about or concerned about saving progeny from hatchery fish that have been trucked above the dams.
What would be the point?
You admitted in a latter post that there is true wild fish below the dams.
Voila!
That’s the ones to be concerned about.

I thought that this thread and topic was about the Cowlitz . . . was I mistaken?

I don't know if those fish are truly "wild" or not. The genetic sampling just states that in general, steelhead adults from the lower Cowlitz tributaries were "distinct from the hatchery steelhead stocks". For over 45 years now, millions and millions of hatchery fish have been dumped into the lower Cowlitz, yet they have not taken over the wild fish or there genetics in these tributaries. What does that tell you about hatchery influence on wild fish in the tributaries on the lower Cowlitz?

Maybe when the genetic study is completed, (phase two) that answer will be revealed.

Like I said earlier, "hatchery fish that are similar in genetic and run timing to the original native stocks are being used and approved by NOAA-Fisheries in many recoveries efforts besides the Cowlitz. Do you believe that you know more then they do? Are our best scientists in our agencies all misinformed? "

Apparently NOAA-Fisheries and there scientists must all be wrong if your right? I do believe that even the HSRG also supports NOAA-Fisheries plan to use hatchery fish that are similar to there native fish for recovery efforts of listed stocks when they have no native stocks to use. Is that not your understanding too?

You may not want to "buy" into my biology, but your going to have a real tuff time putting down both NOAA-Fisheries and the HSRG "biology" and recommendations to use these stocks for recovery efforts of listed and threaten fish stocks!

I encourage all sport fishers to attend the July 10 commission meeting and voice there opinions and recommendations to the WDFW commissioners. All that I am trying to do here is to show these people what's really going down on the Cowlitz, and to better educate them of the facts about the Cowlitz... not just there emotions. If they can talk with an educated background, and actually know the facts about the Cowlitz at this meeting, they just might be able to get the commissions attention. All too often, we sport fishers get into "rants" at these meetings and we loose the attention of the commissioners. If we do our homework, they will listen!

If sport fishers really want to make a real difference in how the Cowlitz will be managed in the future, they will need to get involved in Tacoma newest upcoming draft FHMP. If they don't, they will end up with even a worse deal then what Tacoma gave to them in their last fish hatchery management plan of July 2004.

Tacoma's new FHMP will be the "guide" that the commissioners will be following, so it's imperative to get involved early on. In the past, the fish managers hands have been tied because of how Tacoma past FHMP was written. Also, I am no real lover of the tribes and there special rights that they have to fish, but like it or not, the tribes are co-managers of our fish and we will have to deal with there opposing views or opinions, especially when it concerns fish and the management of them. That is why I posted the information about the tribes concerns. You or I may not like it, but we must all deal with them and there concerns.