"Not many native fish left . . . " Yeah, where does this come from? The genetic evidence allows one to reasonably (few things in science are absolute. Only on internet BBs like this are many things absolute. Sorry, couldn't resist.) conclude that there are a lot of native salmon and steelhead populations remaining in WA. You don't need pre-hatchery specimens in order to make this analysis.

I mostly fly fish; guess that makes my a left wing conspiritor. My pappy taught me it takes two wings to fly straight, however.

Stlhdh2o,

Technically, you could close the parts of a hatchery that are not dedicated to chinook recovery, but there are practical economic issues as well. It costs a lot of money to operate a hatchery. The cost per unit of production skyrockets if you close all but a small part of it. Consider a factory that produces model A, B, C, and D widgets cost effectively. If you shut it down to supply only the limited A model widget, it becomes uneconomic. Now, as a public facility, it's politically untenable to openly and knowingly operate a high-cost, low-output hatchery, leaving staff with little else to do but mow the lawn and tend the garden. The political backlash is very mean-spirited. BB members like CFM would tear them apart. So while technically possible, it's not economically or politically viable.

Uhm, sorry about political reality. I didn't think it's a secret. State legislators, on average, don't give a rat's @ss about fish, among other things. Fishery interests, either commercial or recreational, give their representative the idea, lobby for it, and the representative sees it as building their constituent base, so they promote it in the house and senate, and many of them became reality, provided they are not opposed by WDFW, which generally doesn't oppose ideas that are consistent with the concept of empire building because that is one of the main things government does. Ergo, we have lots of hatcheries.

WDFW proposes the closure of its least productive facilities when faced with budget cutbacks, such as in the last session. However, virtually every hatchery is somebody's sacred cow, so they howl to their representative who then works to ensure it stays open, even if there's no money to operate it. Ain't politics exciting? Or perhaps stupid? Well, bear with, because I've met groups of legislators who don't seem to have the collective IQ of a box of rocks. But they do have lots of political savy, and unfortunately they mistake that for intelligence, and I'm getting off topic here.

Intelligent solutions lie in the grassroots, not the legislature. If you trust me on nothing else, believe this. The more you study it, the more you will believe it.

So yes, the legislature has repeatedly kept unproductive hatcheries open. WDFW (old WDG, actually) was able to close Barnaby Slough on the Skagit in 1980 due to miserable performance. Yet the Wildcat Steelhead Club lobbied and persevered to have it reopened, and did so by about 1990, although, as modified, it's still a miserable performer. And the WSC got the legislature to appropriate 4 or 5 million dollars for a steelhead hatchery at Grandy Creek, in spite of expected lousy performance from it as well. An adult return rack and smolt imprinting and release ponds are moving forward there, last I heard, because the money is available, and the WSC and the two legislators they have lobbied so persistently over the years just won't let it go. The fact that it doesn't make sense in terms of performance gets almost no air play at all. The same can be said for many facilities that don't produce enough adult fish to justify their existance. Politics, not common sense, are THE decision criteria in fisheries.

Oh, and HSRG, the objective auditor. HSRG was created by former fish savior Senator Slade Gorton to "preserve the status quo." That is, to conclude that whatever hatcheries are doing is OK. Well, Slade's gone, and a little science has intervened, but common sense has unfortunately not risen to the top like cream in a can. No. They recommend closing Hupp Springs. Now Hupp Springs isn't the most important facility in Puget Sound, but that IS where White River spring chinook are separately cultured because their existence in the White River was so much in peril. Now, it may come to pass that things in the White will be sorted out positively, and the survival and recovery of the chinook may be assured. But how sensible is it to close the off-site, out-of-basin culture of these very special chinook (talk about unique genetics!) BEFORE we have reasonable assurance of recovery? HSRG isn't all bad, but I'm not counting on them to recover threatened populations. I'd rather not take chances with something like extinction.

We are on the cusp of opportunity to save the "best last . . ." We could save more, but we haven't the collective social will. Politically, we want to say we're going to preserve and restore habitat to recover fish. And in the next breath, the legislature introduced something like 70-some bills this past session that would have weakened WDFW's and DOE's ability to protect the very environment that would recover those fish. Remember the TV Indian phrase: "white man speak with forked tongue." so true, so true. The very direction our state is going is to restore and recover threatened fish by engaging in more of the very actions that caused their listing as threatened in the first place. Government funds 50 habitat improvement projects, and during the same time period approves 500 habitat degradation projects. You really shouldn't get me started. . .

Saving wild salmon and steelhead is fairly simple, but the primary action is so very hard. Step one: stop degrading habitat. Step two: repeat step one. Failing to do that, all the habitat restoration projects to date maybe reduce the rate of loss by about 10% (my rough estimate, not scientifcally measured).

I haven't seen the Feather River study. Hatchery smolts, primarily coho due to their size and street fighting personalities, do eat other fish. Coho like pink fry, but miss most of them due to migration timing differences. Next, they like chum fry. Chum are a little large for wild coho, but the larger hatchery smolts can handle them. In north Puget Sound, hatchery coho releases have been delayed until June 1 to minimize interaction (code word for predation) with chum. In some cases, hatchery coho smolts have both the size, timing, and opportunity to prey on wild chinook smolts. I don't assume the problem is the same everywhere. Most Puget Sound chinook are in the estuary by June 1, where they grow like crazy. And those that are coming down river at the same time as the coho are larger than their earlier timed counterparts, and should be less susceptable to coho predation. There may be some recent Puget Sound research on this, but I haven't had a chance to check. So yes, the concept that big fish eat little fish holds true, but there is usually more to the story, and I'm except for the former issues between hatchery coho and chum, I'm not aware that hatchery smolt predation on wild smolts is presently a serious issue in most (I didn't say all) of western WA.

Sorry to be so long responding. I kinda' overlooked this thread.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.