Aside from harvest selectivity and the loss of genetic material from older spawners, there is also increasing evidence that environmental and habitat factors also play in to the decreasing size picture. The majority of the older fish, especially for Chinook, have longer juvenile freshwater residence times. Most of the Chinook that return as 5 year old fish reside in freshwater for a year, and outmigrate as yearling smolts to the marine environment whereas the 3-4 year olds are typically fry-parr migrant type only rearing in freshwater and estuary environments for a comparatively short amount of time. The yearling life history strategy for chinook is shrinking not only due to those genetics being harvested out, but also due to unfavorable habitat conditions and environmental factors such as water temperature and poor food availability that make freshwater rearing habitats unfavorable, especially for over summering yearling type Chinook. Chinook as compared to Coho have much lower temperature thresholds they can withstand for survival. In the lower river and estuaries I have studied, we consistently see temperature values too high to sustain Chinook life during summer low flows particularly as summer flow values decrease and ambient air temps increase.

I feel strongly there is an important habitat/environmental factor playing in to the decreasing size story.

I may have come late to the game but in my experience with Chinook the age-1 smolts were Springers; the Falls were naturally 90-day wonder fingerling migrants. It may well be that the loss of age-1 smolts in wild fish leads to fewer large adults. But, if age-1's were Springers then we need to bering those stocks back.

I believe they found on the Skagit that there are one year smolts among the summer Chinook at about the same rate as the spring Chinook. Roughly 5% as I recall, but we know my recollection of fisheries statistics has been off a time or two lately. It used to be the conventional wisdom that Skagit springers were one year smolts, and the summers were sub-yearling. If I'm not mistaken (again) Russ Orell included that statistic in his report on Skagit Chinook in the 70s. And perhaps the springers were at one time predominately yearling smolts, and the changes going on in the environment and possibly the fisheries combined to favor the sub-yearling smolt variety. I think the same thing was found with Nooksack spring Chinook as well.

With the main Chinook stock in the Skagit being summers, it's certainly possible that their life history strategy would be a blend of what we "thought" spring and fall Chinook were supposed to be like. By finding yearling smolts among the summer Chinook stock, I think what the fish are telling us is that they will adopt life history strategies that are most successful for them in their respective watershed. And the yearling strategy hasn't played out so well in recent decades.

Couple things, Salmo, as the rust leaves my memory.

Somewhere, in the early 80s, the idea was floating around WDF that PS Chinook were Springs and Summers. The Falls were actually imports from the Kalama around the turn of the last century. This made some sense to me (at least then) because Falls show up at low flow times and would have a harder time getting upstream. The idea floated around and died, but not did make sense.

I wonder if the increase in fisheries, and love of MSY, cratered escapement of all species so in stream productivity declined and that may favor the fingerling migrants.

Again, back in the 80s, WDF was running a recovery program for Dungeness Springs. Fish were raised to yearling because all of our successful Spring programs (Columbia) were yearlings. Nick, the tribal bio in the area, noted that all the Spring scales showed fingerling migrants; WDF stuck with yearlings because it works in the Columbia.

Maybe Columbia Chinook are different from PS Chinook. Nah, then we'd have to think.

There are two ways to measure the contribution of yearling smolts to a Chinook population; The portion they contribute to the smolt outmigration or the contribution to the spawning population. I prefer the latter and believe it is more related to either the discussion of providing forage for orcas or their contribution to the adult returns.

The contribution to adults sampled on spawning grounds for some of the North Sound Chinook populations.

North Fork Nooksack springs average 29%
South Fork Nooksack springs average 38 %
Suiattle (Skagit basin) springs ranging from 20 to 85%
Upper Sauk springs ranging from 35 to 45%
Upper Cascade springs ranging from 10 to 90%
Lower Sauk summers average about 20%
Skykomish summers ranging from 16 to 20%
Snoqualmie falls ranging from 16 to 20%

The Snoqualmie falls stand as significantly different than the typical Green river Falls in not only the yearling contribution but also in spawning timing. They often spawn into December with a genetic differences from the Green River fish. Have to wonder if they might represent what the PS falls may have originally looked like prior to the swamping of central/South Sound systems with Green River falls.

Curt

That's interesting information Smalma. Do you have the sample years for that data handy? Certainly more comprehensive than anything I've seen and lends a little support to what Russ Orell reported for Skagit Chinook long ago.

C'man, PS fall Chinook arrive at seasonal low flow due to the long term selection of first arrivals as hatchery brood stock at Green River. Historical catch data indicate peak tribal catches of fall Chinook coinciding with fall rain and the rise in stream flows. Kalama fall Chinook are from local and lower Columbia River Tule Chinook which are later timed than Upriver Bright Fall Chinook, but earlier than historical LCR Tules, most likely because of the same tendency of hatcheries to select first arrivals as brood stock. As Smalma pointed out with respect to Snoqualmie fall Chinook, wild Skagit falls, what few still exist, have a much later run timing than the ubiquitous Green River hatchery stock. I recall seeing a very few caught in early December when the Tribes were targeting Chambers Ck hatchery winter steelhead.

Salmo g-
Those numbers came from the draft 2022 co-managers PS Chinook management plan's stock profiles so assume they are current and from a significantly time series.

I had also been told the Skagit Falls and those summers spawning in the larger Creeks have similar yearling contributions as the Sauk summers while those summers spawning in the main stem Skagit have a much lower yearling contribution (2%?). But do not have a hard copy so did not report that.

Curt

It would be interesting to see the annual (brood-year) percentages and compare that salmon escapements that occurred during the age-0 rearing summer. I know that in steelhead they respond strongly to pinks or fertilizer, as did Skagit coho respond to pinks.

CM -
The Snohomish pink might be able to provide some insight into the questions that are asking. There was a major change in the escapements pre and post 2000.

Since the 1950s the basin escapement goal has been 120,000 spawners. In the 7 pink cycles immediately prior to 2000 the average escapement was 135,000 or a bit above the escapement goal. In the 7 cycles immediately after 2000 the average escapement was 1,185,000 or nearly times the average prior 2000 and nearly 10 times the escapement goal.

While I don't have access to the total run reconstructions of either Snohomish Chinook or Steelhead there is access to the spawning escapements. Looking at those escapements for the years impacted by those prior and post 2000 pink escapements should provide an indication in the effect of that size of pink escapements. One word of caution since 2000 the over-all exploitation rates were lower for the Chinook and steady or lower for the steelhead.

The average Basin Chinook escapements (NOR) for those years likely to influenced by the pre-2000 pink escapements was 4,858. The average of the post 2000 pink escapement influenced was 5,159.

For the Snohomish wild winter steelhead, the average escapement for those available years influenced by the pre-2000 pink escapements was 5,578. The average for the available years influenced by the post 2000 pink escapements was 3,476.

Curt

Have to look at individual brood years which requires complete age analyses. On the White and S Prairie when the pinks boomed the SH R/S improved. The pink/steelhead-coho benefit accrues on the brood that pawned the year before the pinks. Also need to be able to look at the whole production; catch and escapement. Steelhead, with essentially all the fishery terminal the run reconstruction should be easiest. Chinook would be hardest because you would need (to my mind) the adult-equivalent run for each brood year stratified by age each year.

It is interesting that the Keogh River steelhead responded immediately to the fertilization and this kept up when pinks replaced the fertilizer. When either the fertilizer (budgets) or pinks dropped off so did the steelhead. On Ford Arm in AK it was the cohonwho responded immediately and closely followed the annual pink spawn while the steelhead lagged close tp 5 or 10 years behind. That same sort of lag was seen in a lake fertilization project designed to compensate for mysid introduction. The kokanee responded immdediately while the Gerrard Rainbow were, again, 5-10 years behind.

Well , now that you guys have switched into some serious Humpy Talk, ( and I’m not smart enuff to understand the other language ), can we get a prediction for the Pink Salmon returning to PS this summer, 2023 ?

Maybe posted to a new fishing thread , as I was not intending to hijack this discussion. It’s just that it maybe another great chance to fish all summer here for Humpys, and that has always been a fun activity to look forwards towards, and begin serious planing to have a go and get at ‘em !

Ok, now back to your reel discussion.

Cheers

I'm hoping they show up but with the N Pacific crash going on I don't have high hopes.

Although the Columbia system is only involved in this to a degree from what I've read, this might help a little in recovery;

CCA Washington News Release:
Bill Aims to Eliminate Non-Tribal Gillnets on the Mainstem Columbia River
By request of the Governor, and with strong bi-partisan support, Senate Bill 5297 would end non-tribal gillnetting on the Columbia River
Olympia, WA – Today, by request of Governor Jay Inslee, Senate Bill 5297 was introduced in the Senate to eliminate non-tribal gillnets from the Columbia River. With strong bi-partisan support, the bill would eliminate non-tribal mainstem gillnetting after January 1, 2025. This bill comes on the heels of the recent voluntary gillnet buyback program where $14.2 million was spent to retire 85 percent of the active Columbia River gillnet licenses.

“We are very pleased with the bill and look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure it makes it over the finish line this session,” said Nello Picinich, Executive Director of CCA Washington. “A special thanks is owed to Governor Inslee and the bill sponsors for taking this strong stance in support of conservation.”

Thirteen stocks of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. The bill recognizes that non-tribal gillnets are ill-suited in the mixed stock fisheries of the mainstem lower Columbia River, where wild and ESA-listed stocks are intermingled with returning, fin-clipped hatchery-reared salmon specifically produced for harvest.

“Thanks to our thousands of members across Washington State who helped make this momentous occasion a reality,” said Gary Loomis, Chairman Emeritus of CCA Washington and longtime salmon advocate. “While we still have much work to accomplish, this is a time to celebrate all that we have accomplished over the past 15 years.”

This bill follows other significant victories by CCA Washington to enhance and protect populations of Columbia River salmon in recent years, including an end to mainstem commercial gillnetting during the spring and summer seasons and federal legislation to protect salmon and steelhead populations from unnatural levels of sea lion predation.

“Every step we take to save our salmon and steelhead depends on the active engagement of our members,” said Picinich. “Eliminating non-tribal gillnets will require a united effort, but I am confident that achieving this incredible goal is within reach. We will be working and communicating extensively to give concerned citizens every opportunity to join us in this effort.”

www.ccawashington.org

It's a good first step but all gill nets have the same problem. The only mixed stocks saved by eliminating the NI nets are the stocks below Bonneville. They hit gill nets again above that point.

If we are going to continue to "produce fish exclusively for harvest" and designate these with an obvious external mark then we need to ONLY schedule fisheries that can be very successfully (say 5% mortality) release non-target fish.

Seems like it won’t do much without Oregon on board.

I believe Oregon has been ahead of WA on this. It is my understanding that there was a bilateral agreement to end the gill netting and WA pulled out.