CM has it exactly right. Just a year to two before Todd was catching his first steelhead the three legs of Washington steelhead was a fish was a fish (hatchery and wild fish were the same), sport fishing was incapable of overfishing steelhead and escapement needs were only a redd/mile. Just 5 short years after Todd had caught that first steelhead a cadre of young fisheries biologist (nearly all coming to the agency in the 1970s) had changed that management paradigm in significant was: The first hatchery/wild steelhead studies were under way (Kalama River), basic wild steelhead studies underway on Snow Creek (the creek CM referred to); basic steelhead inventories under way in key basins, large scale creel surveys to sample the recreational steelhead catch, estimate angler effort, etc. were under way, mark selective fishing (folks remember those dread "fin cards") was being implemented, hatchery spawning protocols were being altered to reduce potential hatchery/wild interactions, spawning escapement goals being established, basin wide spawning surveys were under way to measure the escapement and management was adjusted to assure that meeting those spawning objectives were being met with wild steelhead spawners all the while generally meeting the newly federal mandated catch sharing.

Many of that cadre of young biologist were certifiable steelhead nuts, most not afraid to work long hours (60-hour weeks not uncommon) many willing to donate their weekends (and fishing) to assure so the tasks dedicated by the above changes were being full filled. All this was accomplished with little public support including the steelheaders themselves. Remember many hotly contested public meetings discussing such things like mark selective fishing, escapement goals, etc. that would be heavily attended with few "friendly faces" in the crowd. I remember well (and probably still have some of the well-earned scars obtained at these meetings) discussing the implementation of those previously mentioned fin cards on the Snohomish system that was attended by more than 300 folks where I could have easily counted the idea supporters on my two hands.

Of that cadre of young biologists that are still with us are now all retired drawing their "rocking chair" money now. With a doubt there were many mistakes made; they after all were inventing a new paradigm but there can be no denying their passion and the positive steelhead responses to those changes. Clearly my bias shows but my opinion is they collective advanced the science of steelhead management and significantly improved the status of the resource. Further it remains my opinion is we society not those biologists that failed the resource. Collective society as a whole has been unable or perhaps incapable to protect the needed fresh and marine waters ecosystems essential to support the 1980s steelhead abundance levels. It was and remains the responsibility of society not those biologists to provide that habitat protection.

End of the rant; not sorry about it.

Curt

Curt

CM has it exactly right. Just a year to two before Todd was catching his first steelhead the three legs of Washington steelhead was a fish was a fish (hatchery and wild fish were the same), sport fishing was incapable of overfishing steelhead and escapement needs were only a redd/mile. Just 5 short years after Todd had caught that first steelhead a cadre of young fisheries biologist (nearly all coming to the agency in the 1970s) had changed that management paradigm in significant was: The first hatchery/wild steelhead studies were under way (Kalama River), basic wild steelhead studies underway on Snow Creek (the creek CM referred to); basic steelhead inventories under way in key basins, large scale creel surveys to sample the recreational steelhead catch, estimate angler effort, etc. were under way, mark selective fishing (folks remember those dread "fin cards") was being implemented, hatchery spawning protocols were being altered to reduce potential hatchery/wild interactions, spawning escapement goals being established, basin wide spawning surveys were under way to measure the escapement and management was adjusted to assure that meeting those spawning objectives were being met with wild steelhead spawners all the while generally meeting the newly federal mandated catch sharing.

Many of that cadre of young biologist were certifiable steelhead nuts, most not afraid to work long hours (60-hour weeks not uncommon) many willing to donate their weekends (and fishing) to assure so the tasks dedicated by the above changes were being full filled. All this was accomplished with little public support including the steelheaders themselves. Remember many hotly contested public meetings discussing such things like mark selective fishing, escapement goals, etc. that would be heavily attended with few "friendly faces" in the crowd. I remember well (and probably still have some of the well-earned scars obtained at these meetings) discussing the implementation of those previously mentioned fin cards on the Snohomish system that was attended by more than 300 folks where I could have easily counted the idea supporters on my two hands.

Of that cadre of young biologists that are still with us are now all retired drawing their "rocking chair" money now. With a doubt there were many mistakes made; they after all were inventing a new paradigm but there can be no denying their passion and the positive steelhead responses to those changes. Clearly my bias shows but my opinion is they collective advanced the science of steelhead management and significantly improved the status of the resource. Further it remains my opinion is we society not those biologists that failed the resource. Collective society as a whole has been unable or perhaps incapable to protect the needed fresh and marine waters ecosystems essential to support the 1980s steelhead abundance levels. It was and remains the responsibility of society not those biologists to provide that habitat protection.

End of the rant; not sorry about it.

Curt

Curt

Management of most everything has done a good job of siloing tasks so that they don't communicate amongst themselves.

Thanks for all the great information and historical perspective on here. It's super interesting.

I haven't looked at the plants or returns for the Skykomish lately, but my understanding is that the lack of plants from the Wild Fish Conservancy lawsuits would no longer be impacting this. Not sure if that info is right or not...but I thought I've seen talk of the SAR being abysmal all over Washington (including the Sky buy also on the OP). Meaning it's not just a Puget Sound thing or greater metro area development within watersheds or a tribal harvest thing...but that something is happening out in the ocean as the common denominator. I know, death by a thousand cuts, but interested in more details around the deepest cuts.

I was looking at escarpment reports today and noticed it's business as usual for returns on Puget sound systems with fish on hand numbering 50-300 per hatchery facility, but what caught my attention was the Bogachiel had collected over 2,000 fish. Plant numbers were around 100k for the Bogey and the Sky, yet the coastal fish are doing better. The main obstacle being Puget sound and why folks here are basically saying it doesn't matter how many you plant, nothing will return. Perhaps we're better off planting more on the coast where the fish have a better chance at survival and eliminating hatchery fish in Puget sound?

One of the surprises from the steelhead information collected in the 1980s was that Puget Sound hatchery steelhead consistently returned at less than 1/2 of the rates seen on the coast (same stocks). At the same time Puget Sound coho were returning at least 3 times the rate seen on coast coho.

Different fish preform differently in different habitats.

Curt