And Merry Christmas to all!

The escapement goals were set based on summer rearing numbers. As such, the represent the productivity of the systems based on in-stream productivity.

The Keogh studies rather conclusively showed that as you increase productivity you do two things to smolt production. One is to make it younger and the other is more abundant. Based on what we saw in Snow/Salmon creeks a fish that was going to smolt as an age-1 was smaller the previous fall than one that would smolt as age-2. This is because they were growing faster. Smaller fish have a higher overwinter carrying capacity than larger fish.

Monitoring in WA has shown that the significant increases in productivity (more dead salmon) the smolt age for steelhead declines. The data also showed that when the average age of the smolt run was about 1.5 the R/S was 1.0 . This also corresponded to what was seen on the Keogh.

Although the Keogh started as a fertilizer addition experiment it was converted to wild pinks earring the nutrients. It also showed that the productivity was an on-off switch. If the nutrients weren't there one year the smolt ages and numbers immediately went to older/lower numbers.

Salmo G. and Carcassman,

Merry Christmas to both of you and many more on P.P. I've enjoyed our "conversation", but there's more to talk about. Civil discourse is productive, and I'm always up for a good debate, and willing to learn. I think we should get together for a beer and discuss further. Might as well, I can't go fishing. Be well and enjoy the holiday season.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all. I really enjoy the conversations about conservation and use. We should get together.

I survived X-mas Eve with one of my grandsons over and am looking forward to a big dinner today. I hope the holiday is treating everyone well. Getting together for a beer and shooting the breeze about fish works for me. A little lower back issue has kept me from fishing much the last two months, so might as well talk about fishing.

The problem appears to be a result of many factors. The Nisqually, for instance, runs through the base and much of the water shed is protected. The areas gets some fairly large pink returns some years, along with fairly good returns of other salmon. They are spending millions recovering the tributaries of the upper water shed. Yet after no fishing for years, the steelhead do not appear to have recovered. One issue appears to be the draw down of water from wells, lowering tributary levels and increasing the water temperature and taking away rearing areas. Then, they have the issues of the South Sound. I would be interesting to take some hatchery reared steelhead from this area, then barge them out to see, and see what type of return comes back. By reducing more and more variables, then adding some back, we could eventually pinpoint what the greatest issues are. Obviously, though, fishing is not the most limiting at this time.

It's been a while, but when I still working all species with yearling smolts that were from areas south of the Tacoma Narrows did poorly with marine survival. At the same time, the smolts that stayed resident, the cutthroat, did just fine so the problem was in South Sound but in the Narrows.

At that time, Minter Creek was releasing yearling White River Springers. Their return rate was essentially the same as fingerings released from the Muckleshoot Hatchery on the White. I haven't heard if that has been fixed.

When I speak of "large" salmon escapements I am talking about 1-2 kg of carcases per square metre of stream at summer low flow. Those are the numbers supported by studies and are likely an order of magnitude or more greater than what a modern-day manager thinks is a large escapement.

I believe one thing that has hurt the Nisqually, in particular, has been the loss of Muck Creek as a steelhead rearing area due to flow decreases and warming. I was told that it used to be one of the key steelhead producing areas in the watershed.

Also, the Green River has, according to spawner surveys, lost most of the tributary spawners. Now, it's mostly mainstem.

“ Also, the Green River has, according to spawner surveys, lost most of the tributary spawners. Now, it's mostly mainstem.“

True !

The Green is and has lost the entire Burns Creek tributary. Producing wild Coho, Wild Chum, Cutthroat, Rainbow, and the occasional spring Steelhead.

It has gone from producing hundreds of paired up spawners, while providing summer habitat while rearing Wild Coho young, and the other trout and salmon fingerlings just 15 years ago, to nothing on any salmonid front this entire fall season. For all intents and purpose, the creek is now dead.

Heartbreaking actually, after all the time and $$$ spent on habitat and restoration. Even with King county and Wa. state owning about 1/3 of the habitat along Burns Creek property, they have managed to do nothing in the last two years to save this Green River tributary, while allowing it to die.

It was noticed in the early 1990s that as the steelhead marine survival was dropping the portion of older fish in the returning adult population (3-salts and repeats) dropped (related?). The loss of those older fish in the population as they contribute more eggs to the potential egg deposition. For example, on the Skagit basin in the early 1980s the 2-salt females averaged 5,000 eggs, while the 3-slat females had a fecundity of 6,400 and the repeat spawners avg. 8,500 eggs (some had more than 12,000). The result is the smaller numbers of spawners are producing even smaller numbers of eggs in the gravel.

Regarding the marine survival of PS coho and steelhead. During the late 1970s/early 1980s coho survival in deep south Sound dropped by nearly 75%. A few years later the steelhead survivals dropped over the next decade or so that lower survival for both species crept northward until all the PS stocks were doing poorly.

Finally, as the anadromous portion of a stream's O. mykiss population drops the more important the resident life history form becomes in maintaining a stable O. mykiss population. One of the easiest actions that managers could make to support the future of many of our steelhead populations is to eliminate the use of bait, require barbless hooks and the no retention of any wild steelhead or resident rainbows year-round. Yet there remains a reluctance to take such actions.

Happy holidays to all!

curt

I am all for selective gear fishing as Smalma says. I don't use bait or barbs for steelhead any more and haven't for many years. I think most steelhead anglers are for that anyway. They just want the opportunity to fish. There has been no wild steelhead retention on the rivers I fish (fished) for many years. Selective gear restrictions and non retention of wild fish have been proposed by recs and sportfishng groups to WDFW for quite a while now but WDFW seems to disregard this and keep most of the rivers closed. That is just one of the frustrations for steelhead anglers.

BC went to C&R for wild steelhead decades ago and it seems to have not worked as a conservation measure there.

CM, it looks like what you are saying about BC does not jive with what Smalma is suggesting using selective gear. Interesting.
Why do the Forks area rivers have enough returning steelhead to justify a rec steelhead season while the Chehalis system does not? Is predation/ pollution the problem in Grays Harbor? Steelhead from both areas live and feed in the same ocean. Oregon steelhead seasons have normal seasons without the closures. Don' those fish live and feed in the same ocean? Is it political reasons/tribal agreements/disagreements that determine if one area's rivers are open while another area's rivers are closed? I think these are some interesting questions.

They did the barge thing with resident net pen coho back in 2016 and released them in several areas north of the pens. I never did hear the results of whether those fish returned at a higher rate then the fish released directly from the pens into the south sound. If anyone knows the results, I’d appreciate the info.

https://youtu.be/qLxY0nONkTw?si=DAHj5sQtPg2kVWgE
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01969/wdfw01969.pdf

They are also doing some interesting stuff on the Hood Canal streams I used to fish a lot in regards to steelhead. I’ve sponsored released fish in the past and I know they did some work on the bridge to try and eliminate predation. I’m not sure if the returning numbers have increased.

https://www.pnwsalmoncenter.org/research/steelhead/

https://lltk.org/project/hood-canal-steelhead-project/

https://archive.kitsapsun.com/news/adult...-358657041.html

https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/2022...d-canal-bridge/

SF

lifter99-

Maybe I was not clear the thought behind my regulation proposals (Selective gear rules and CnR) was aimed at the resident life history of O. mykiss. It is becoming more and more clear that having a relatively robust resident rainbow population co-exisiting with the steelhead provide a "safety net" for the total population during periods of low survival of the anadromous steelhead. Resident fish produce some steelhead smolts and steelhead produce some resident fish.

With resident populations those more restrictive regulations have a long track record of positive benefits for the resident populations - high standing crops and older fish in the population.

Curt

Salma's spot on that the long-term t=future of mykiss will involve the resident and anadromous components as they are more or less the source of each. It is much more advanced perspective than I heard voiced in WDFW when lots of residents were found in the Cedar; the recommendation was made to fish out the residents to leave room for anadromous.

There are lots of reasons why the Chahalis system, for example, has more trouble with mykiss than some the coastal systems. The Chehalis has a lot more development, is a much lower elevation stream, and for much of the mainstem is better bass and sunfish habitat; all of which mitigate against salmonids.

As to why some areas (states/provinces) appear to do better or worse one need only look at a few variables as a starting point. Human development and access, hydrology, land cover as habitat, and so on. The biggest one, though, will be the management umbrella. What are the actual goals and objectives of the managers? As bad as many here think WA has done with mykiss, BC is on track to wipe out (see Thompson as the poster child with Skeena to follow) major watersheds' worth of mykiss. Oregon doesn't have a Washington-level of tribal input on the Coast and likely does not have a WA-sized population in those rivers. Probably, too, the river size and access may factor in.

It is a very complex problems we are all probably guilty of seeing the problems as centering on our personal favorite boogy-man whether it be the ocean, nutrients, gill nets, and so on. We are all correct in that they are problems, but solving only one won't bring the fish back.

Thanks CM and Smalma for your thoughts and observations.

as long as we have CO' managers that can't get it together we will have NO winter steelhead fisheries in most of our life time in grays harbor.!!

I just took a look at the last few years of sports catch records from the state. It actually is unbelievable how bad it is.

For 2019 the entire Puget Sound region, along with the strait, show a reported catch of 80 winter steelhead

Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca River Systems and
Marine Catch Area Totals (All are Boldt Case Areas)

S 62 126 97 47 128 151 Total 611
W 4 15 28 9 15 9 Total 80

In comparision, the totals for the same area in 2012-2013 were 5007 summer fish and 5012 winter fish.


Perhaps it is best shown how bad it was in 2019 by pointing out that 98% of returned catch cards show no steelhead caught, and 99.8% caught less than 4.

It improved in 2020 -2021 with 98 % still showing no catch, but only 99.7% catching 4 or less.

With most of the rivers closed, so few rivers planted with hatchery steelhead and the low numbers of fish planted anymore it isn't a surprise that so few fish are caught. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Not to defend the lack of plantings, but some of the returns were just awful. If I recall correctly, one of the last big stocking the Puyallup received something like nine fish returned. It hard to rake up big creel numbers when the returns are so abysmal.
SF