COWLITZ, KALAMA, LEWIS ADULT SPRING CHINOOK 2019 FORECASTS AND RETURNS, AND 2020 RUN FORECASTS


The first number was the 2019 forecast
The second number was the 2019 return to the tributary
The third number was the 2019 return to the Columbia
The fourth number is the 2020 forecast to the Columbia
The fifth number is the 2020 forecast to the tributary

The last two numbers are the most important. But none of them are good.

Cowlitz 1,300 1,600 1,600 1,440 1,400

Kalama 1,400 1,000 1,005 1,030 1,000

Lewis 1,500 1,000 1,046 1,340 1,300

Total 4,200 3,600 3,651 3,810 3,700

*Tributary forecasts and returns are to the tributary mouths; Columbia River return and forecast is to the Columbia River mouth.

➢ The 2020 spring Chinook forecast for the Cowlitz River is the second lowest since 1980.
➢ The 2020 spring Chinook forecast for the Kalama River is about half of the recent 10-year average runsize of 1,900.
➢ The 2020 spring Chinook forecast for Lewis River is about 75% of the recent 10-year average runsize of 1,700.
➢ Ocean conditions between 2015 and 2018 were among the worst observed during the last 20 years and have likely had a strong influence on the Spring Chinook cohorts that will return to these tributaries in 2020.

For more information on historical ocean conditions, refer to https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions

When I look at the tables accompanying this information I am struck by how many times the forecast run didn't materialize. I would think there may need to be some tweaks in the forecast model. Just a thought.....

Uh... Yeah... That sucks.

I understand the frustration of low run-size estimates, but I wouldn't blame WDFW for this.

The run-size estimates are developed by WDFW, ODFW, and the Tribal technical staff (CRITFC). The models aren't not perfect, but the estimates usually fall within a reasonable range.

The reasons for the low run-size estimate is clearly stated in the article: The past few years have seen the poorest ocean conditions ever recorded in the North Pacific.

Pacific salmon do not survive well in in the ocean under poor ocean conditions. Lots of warm water predators (tuna, mackerel) and very few coolwater prey for the juveniles to eat (copepods).

Nobody should blame WDFW for any of that.

Forget about it!!!!!

It's going to be epic!

Buy your 2 rod endorsement!!!!!!

Columbia river enhancement!!!!

The forecast is stellar........................Until it's all just Bullchit!

The challenges WDFW is currently facing in SW Washington is low run-size estimates for the Kalama, Lewis, and Cowlitz Rivers.

I have no doubt they will address this challenge by reducing the bag limits accordingly, on these three rivers (either one fish per day or complete closure). That’s the responsible thing to do when faced with this particular challenge.

Your statement suggests you don’t think WDFW will address this specific challenge.

I disagree. They have shut down this fishery in the past; and, in my view, they will do so again, if warranted. That's the right decision to deal with or mitigate the challenge they're faced with in SW Washington.

Yup........Pensions for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WDFW..............Plant fish and quit making excuses.

Does not bode well for the big river forecast yet to be released.

My guess is limited opportunity in the listed tribs, and mainstem CR closed again below Lewis like last year.

Bad year to be a salmon

Worse year to be a spring salmon angler.

A restructure absolutely needs to be done.

For each river, WDFW will likely need a little more than half the escapement to meet broodstock goals (+/-) for the hatchery program.

That doesn't leave many fish for recreational anglers. At this point, I won't be surprised if they completely close all three.

I would note that they use a combined total for all three hatcheries since if they get more than they need at any one facility, they can transfer the excess to any of the other two.

But they probably won't be doing that anytime soon.......

Haha that's a good one. You've clearly never worked there

Funny thing, Minter Creek got back almost 1200 white river fish. They also got back more fall chinook, despite the run being down. Is the down river migration the problem, is stock selection or is it hatchery practices or some thing altogether different. I have to believe that the cowlitz is stocking more, and if not, then why? The skok and other hatcheries also seem to be getting back much better numbers. Yet, the conditions in the Sound are always stated to be a problem. Someone needs to do some deep analysis to see why some stocks seem to do better. I probably am missing something crucial, so would love to here opinions.

Hanker - Are you sure they were referring to spring Chinook? Fall Chinook might be more reasonable.

An additional 1M springers is a huge increase, particularly since they have to keep spring Chinook on station for 18 months. They are released as yearlings (6-8 inches). I’m not sure they have space and water for an extra 1M springers. And spring Chinook are not a major prey item for SRKW.

Conversely, raising an extra 1M fall Chinook is easy and cheap. Fall Chinook don’t spend much time in the hatchery before they are released as sub-yearlings (3-4 inches). The juveniles hatch in February and March. They are released a few weeks later in April and May. So the feed costs are minimal compared to spring Chinook, which they have to feed for a whole year. Plus, since fall Chinook are much smaller at release, the densities in the hatchery can be quite high without running into fish disease problems. So they can raise and release millions of fall Chinook for pennies, as compared to springers.

Plus, SRKW feed extensively on fall Chinook all along the WA and BC coast. And fall Chinook contribute to the major recreational fishery off the Washington Coast, and return to the Kalama Rv in huge numbers every year. Last year, they got 10,000+ adults back to the Kalama. WDFW only uses about 2000 for broodstock. So it would be easy for WDFW to take extra eggs for additional fall Chinook releases for SRKW.

The Cowlitz salmon hatchery is a disgrace and the folks running it should be ashamed of themselves. It was advertised as the most advanced and expensive multi million dollar hatchery in the state. Yet they continue to randomly spawn the fish and go against all natural selection. With this policy in place for all WDFW hatcheries, the future of hatchery salmon in WA state have no chance. It still amazes me that these folks go to school for this, get a degree in fisheries where they learn all about natural selection, and still cannot figure this out. The should spawn only the largest healthiest fish of each year class. But instead it is easy for them to blame it on ocean conditions instead of trying to get better because there is no incentive to get better. When was the last time that you heard of a WDFW employee get laid off?
We have had WDFW staff increases in personnel and salaries year over year with a corresponding decrease in adult fish production.

I would suggest the following:
1) Privatize each hatchery with a bidding process to contractors and a reward or incentive for higher production. Without a doubt, a private company will do better in all aspects than the government.
or
2) WDFW Staff numbers and salary be correlated to number of adult fish produced per hatchery

How will you calculate "adult fish produced per hatchery"? Include BC and AK?. Use adult equivalents as many of the hatchery fish are purposefully harvested as juveniles.

The first Cowlitz mitigation agreement required a certain return at least to the river, if not the hatchery. WDF just harvested them in the ocean and then told TCL that they were not meeting agreements.

All about natural selection? Coho and Chinook produce (naturally) lots of jacks which do successfully spawn. They aren't the largest, by far. Chinook, chum, and steelhead all have multiple year classes (3 or more). You want to ignore the younger fish ('cause they are smaller)? Not saying that the current spawning guidelines are perfect, but it works better than "just spawn the big ones".

Carcassman, good questions. There are already tagging programs in place which are used to help identify and estimate the number of fish caught in the ocean and freshwater belonging to which hatcheries they were produced that. It is an estimate and not the best but it does give an idea of the number of adults that have been produced from each Hatchery. I would include that along with those that returned to the Hatchery.

I mentioned spawning only the largest and healthiest fish in each year class so no that does not mean that you would ignore the younger fish but rather that you would take the largest ones of each year and the healthiest ones of each year. The fish ladders could also be easily designed such that you could take the most athletic ones of each year. In my opinion there is no need to spawn the jacks as they are the most unsuccessful in nature and the genes for jacks are in the DNA. They will show up even if you do not spawn them. The Kalama demonstrates this. If you insist however, I would agree to spawning one lucky Jack per year.

Why do you assume that the fish that, for example, jumps the best, makes a better parent? Just another human-decided character.

The purpose of life is to reproduce. In nature, the combination of age at maturity, size, and such are all subject to selection. A bigger fish can dig a deeper redd which is more freshet-proof. The ability to dig a deep redd is useless in a hatchery fish. Maybe they do better with smaller (or larger) eggs than an egg in the gravel. If you've ever played around in a hatchery adult pond you know that the calmer fish gets way less beat up (damaged) prior to spawning. Many think that this "calmness" leads to better egg-fry because of less stress on the adult. Hatchery fish don't need to select mates/impress the ladies. They just need good gametes.

These are all factors that we can't/don't measure.

In order to be successful, the hatchery must produce fish that work well in that environment, just the same as the wild fish must meet those criteria. And they are different.

The hatchery did a far better job in the 70's and 80's before tech and all the educated excuses.

Plant more!!!!!!!!!!

Carcassman, you seem to be against change and in favor of keeping the status quo. Yes I would assume that the fish that are the most athletic are going to survive the best in the wild.
Really it does not matter if you raise and release 1,000 inferior fry that cannot even make it out of the river or to year one. I would rather release 100 superior fish if 10 of them make it to adulthood. Selecting for the most athletic is biologically plausible and is similar to why they do all of the tests at the NFL combine.

The fact that Hatchery fish do not need to select mates as one of the biggest problems because it negates any natural selection. Therefore there should be some artificial natural selection based on common sense which seems to be lacking not only in the government but also in your post. The criteria for survival that Hatchery fish must achieve it's not that different from a wild fish. So I would also disagree with you on that point also. Fecundity should not be your only selection criteria.

It is quite obvious that a larger fish was more successful in the wild not only at hunting and catching it's prey but also in the ability to survive and make the correct decisions. Why would you argue against that? That is like arguing against Natural Selection. That is also what Hatchery workers would like to believe because they don't want to do the heavy lifting of reproducing the larger fish and taking the time to determine which ones they are for each year class.

"I assume."

"It is quite obvious."

"common sense."

"Plant more."

"Most athletic"

Some classic stuff in this thread.

You are a brave soul, Carcassman! Keep up the Fisheries Sciences fight for the rest of us! We got your back.





Sadly, this is a very true statement. "their own way" is a nightmare, less than successful (all sides share in equal blame) co-management strategy with stakeholders who are in this for their own interests, economic and political gain.

Science, or the lack of valid science isn't the downfall of our fish. Hatchery and hatchery reform isn't the magic rainbow that is going to save anything.

It's all about politics. One can't science that.

And that my friends, will never change or stop in our state.