That is some good stuff NM. Have not got a chance to see that yet. I am familiar with Pat and his group studies of wild fish on the Kalama. I have had a few conversations with him in the recent years and have been kept updated on results etc. by my cousin who worked on the Kalama for about 6-8 years.

Let me just say these few things... Hatchery fish release above the 2nd fish trap was just stopped a few years ago. Before then many fish traveled past the trap and were allowed to spawn. This is where I am concerned about the report saying that "studies of Summer run fish and their results are very similar to those of the Winter run". If this is true it will support this...

If you are familiar with Gobar creek on the upper reaches of the Kalama you will know that hundreds if not thousands of summer run steelies returned to this little creek each year (up until recently). This creek was a perfect spawning habitat for them as well. Both hatchery and wild fish bred together for years "integrating genetics". The wild fish swam freely with the hatchery fish and were allowed to spawn with whoever. Same goes for up at the Kalama Falls. Wherehauser had rearing ponds about seven mile up the creek in which they released thousands of steelhead smolt. This was done because Wherehauser logged too close to the river, destroying vital habitat for spawning success. They in return started this program to keep runs sustained and to release unclipped hatchery raised fish as well as clipped, to keep the so called "wild fish population" stable. If not done Wherehauser would be looked at for destroying natural spawning habitat for the steelhead. 'Let me say that they logged right up to the waters edge in most places.' Habitat has slowly been getting better over the years. Also logging around the creek has stopped as well.

The spawning that took place in these areas "suggests" that genetic integration has occured... no one can argue that it has not. Just as said in Pats report "These results 'are believed' to refelct genetic differences . . . Though some influence from environmental effect can not be ruled out." Or perhaps "Importantly, these results DO NOT demonstrate that genetic introgression has occured." Pat and the people who did this presentation sure left it open ended. Sounds to me like they are telling pople what they want to hear. If I am correct the state pays Pat and his group alot of money to do these studies. So to leave such an issue "open ended" shouldnt convince anyone of a truly native strain. The equation just doesnt add up.

However I will say this... It is quite obvious that both hatchery and wild fish have spawned together for years without interference of man. So it is obvious that many redds have been successful in these spawning areas and produced "wild" offspring. These fish were born in the wild, grew up in the wild, and came back as wild fish. Probably with the same size, tempermeant, and genetic makeup as a wild fish as well. This has happend for many years. So, although wild fish, they still have hatchery strain in their genetics.