FB,
Interesting remark about gillnets. In some cases perhaps more than 100% of fish CAUGHT in gillnets die. High mortality on drop outs and seal/sealion predation. Again, the biggest hurdle to getting rid of gillnets is not that they are environmentally damaging (which should be the best reason) is that there are likeble people who fish them, and they politic much better than sports do. We can't even agree among ourselves.

It almost sounds like flogging a very dead and decayed horse but "back in the day" there was an add-on for net dropout an add-on for seal predation. If memory serves, we applied it to I and NI gill nets and set nets. Those numbers came off of harvestable shares. Not sure if they still do that as the numbers hit one side harder than the other.

So they're there strictly to justify irresponsible late coho net fisheries? That would seem to be the current state of things. Not a worthwhile investment of public money, or even corporate money, IMO.

Everybody knows hatchery fish are only produced to make otherwise unsustainable fisheries possible. If no fisheries are allowed, all those fish can possibly do is a very minimal amount of damage to whatever's left of the native gene pool, which is a net loss for the very fish they are intended to protect via supplementation, right? Not a lick of sense in throwing more money at fish that will die in lakes, while their carcasses would be worth much more to the river. Completely counterproductive, and frankly insane. Put those resources into something that benefits fish, society, or (gasp) both.

Even if it currently sounds stupid, they dam operators have a legal obligation to produce those fish. I am sure that if there was a way for them to stop spending the money, they would but they have to produce X fish. There was a push by WDF (maybe W, too) to shift the money that went into hatchery fish into habitat improvement. The problem was that fixing the habitat would not replace the mandated number of fish.

I get it. I just wish they would direct those funds to another species or run timing. Keep the hatchery staff working and TP paying up, but have them produce more of what we can still fish for. I suppose I will feel differently if wild winter runs suddenly surge in the basin because we quit fishing, but I think we can agree that seeing pigs fly seems much more likely.

The native steelhead of the Skookumchuck and Wynooche for which mitigation is required are late timed fish, well after the late coho run. As I recall, WDFW shifted to Chambers hatchery steelhead to provide more separation between the hatchery and wild steelhead, which then contributes to overfishing of late coho by the net fishery.

Since raising hatchery steelhead in Grays Harbor looks like pouring money down a rat hole for the foreseeable future since we cannot fish for them, perhaps we should petition WDFW to switch to raising hatchery sea run cutthroat. There are some advantages. There is precedent, as they have been doing it on the Cowlitz for over 60 years. The resulting fishery could be mark selective so as not to over-harvest wild cutthroat. Sea run cutthroat don't migrate to the high seas where steelhead survival has been so poor the last couple decades. And sea run cutthroat are doing quite well, comparatively, in Puget Sound and Hood Canal. If at some future time, marine survival of steelhead improves, WDFW could switch back to raising them.

The Quinault Tribe may not approve. However, WDFW should not be wasting taxpayer and license buyer money raising fish that don't return to creel. So the Quinault's should feel free to rear and release all the hatchery steelhead that don't survive to return that they want, on their dime, not the state's (our money).

I'm just brain storming alternative's to the present action of raising hatchery steelhead that can't be fish for. Although raising summer steelhead might also be acceptable, but they might suffer the same poor survival rate as winter runs do.

Salmo, that sounds like a good idea. Gets fish to the folks who pay the money.

what they should do, is start raising and releasing hatchery steelhead in the Cedar, there are by their own studies ZERO left, so why not raise them in that hatchery they built that will never get us a Sockeye fishery anyways...

that will never happen because they dont want to put money into raising fish, if you have been paying attention...

also, during the Superbowl, there was 3 commercials for the Puyallup tribe on there talking about heritage, fish, etc... thats 21 million dollars spent (7 million per 30 second commercial), i wonder how many fish could have been fed with that money, and the state could have raised them...

but nope...

I like that idea, but I could go for increased coho production, too. Maybe make some fish to seed all those creeks on which we are spending untold millions to improve fish passage?

I suspect the Tribe was spending those advertising dollars for very good reasons. I don't fully understand those reasons yet, but the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and the State understand that we're perilously near an endgame scenario for our in-river, anadromous fisheries, and the Tribes seem to be positoning politically for the war they know is coming.

I agree, Flea. I would lean towards a massive lawsuit against the State for money for lost fish. One of Boldt's pillars was that the right was for dead fish in the boat for tribes and the state has pissed that away. Also, one of the things that came out the Supremes was that the Treaty right was for 50% OR a moderate living; whichever was less. Many on the NI side wanted the state to push the moderate living clause but they wouldn't. That sounds to me like an admission that Tribal catches in the 80s/90s were not a moderate living. Were I the Tribes I would push for money and all the fish.

most people have been so broke lately, they cant even afford to pay attention. Its pretty easy to see what's happening.

As an old guy, I think I like the idea of a robust population of cutthroat trout in the Satsop and "nooch and anywhere else. But if we leave it up to the state for any sort of creativity they will screw it up. As a youngster I fished with mu uncle every deer season, but for "Harvest Trout" on the Grays River. By the way, I don't think that Puget Sound sea runs are doing that well. Additionally, the regulations are stupid. They must be released in the salt when they are spread out, but in the Nisqually when they are all wadded up, the larger ones can be killed. Right now when I normally am getting my late season steelhead gear together, I'm tying flies to fish for trout in lakes. Question: What the heck am I going to do with all my steelhead gear? I guess I could do a bumper-boat fishery on the Kalama. But it aint the Olypic Peninsula experience.

General Evo,

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but raising and releasing hatchery steelhead in the Cedar would be a complete waste of money. Two important factors: 1) there are few steelhead left in the Cedar because the anadromous life history strategy is failing where the resident adfluvial life history strategy is succeeding. Environmental factors, including man made, have made anadromy an unsuccessful choice for rainbow/steelhead trout. Second, the smolt to adult survival and return rate of hatchery steelhead in Puget Sound streams that don't have the additional problems of the Cedar/Lake Washington/Ballard Locks are returning in such poor numbers that they can barely meet their hatchery broodstock requirements. So it is far more likely than not that a program on the Cedar would simply die out due to lack of returning broodstock, and certainly not enough fish to sustain a treaty and NT sport fishery.

Tug 3,

A cutthroat program wouldn't require any creativity beyond securing broodstock, and that may best be achieved via hook-and-line volunteers. WDG tried hatchery SRC on the Elochoman and Hood Canal in the 1970s before discontinuing it. The knowledge of how to is there, but they might have to talk with some old timers to resurrect it.

PS SRC are doing fairly well as are PS bull trout, considering the state of their habitat. Sure, they are less abundant than historically, but that is because habitat has been degraded over time. These two species don't migrate to the open ocean and therefore appear to be surviving at much better rates than their steelhead counterparts. Harvest regulations were modified around 1990 that increased the minimum size limit and reduced the bag limit. This resulted in more spawners of both species, and their populations responded by increasing in abundance.

SRC must be released in the salt because that is a mixed stock fishery, where trout from many different streams mingle. Killing SRC in the salt contributed to the reduced population abundance in Hood Canal streams, but the modified regulations reversed that trend, and they are now quite abundant. That is, they are at the carrying capacity of the habitat as it now exists.

I don't fish the Nisqually, but my understanding is that the SRC are doing OK. Sure, 2 larger ones can be killed. But the minimum size limit ensures that trout survive to spawn at least one time before exposure to legal harvest. That large size limit of 12 or 14" for SRC and 20" for bull trout was the major factor contributing to restoring populations of both species.

Ah, steelhead gear and what to do with it. Well guess who stopped buying new steelhead rods and reels a few years ago. It's a hard habit to break, but I manage by buying some new trout gear. I even bought a trout Spey rod kit at a Black Friday online sale that I've slowly been assembling. Think I just finished the final coat of varnish on the guide wraps this morning in fact.

Wouldn't we all like more OP experience? I did make it over for 3 days two weeks ago. Now I'll fish the Skagit as much as I can for the next month and a half before switching over to trout season.

Salmo. I believe evo nailed it. I dont know about the cedar, but it seems that there is no desire to raise more fish. Anywhere. Why is the coast open except gh, and ps closed except for the skag? Starting to think the kids cant learn to play together and the taxpayer gets bent again. Also from past experience, the sea runs and resident bows are probably dong better then ok in the nisq. The upper section is perfect for a tube and trout spey.

It seems to me that WDFW should manage for what the water will provide. As Salmo noted, the Lake Washington system is becoming less hospitable to anadromous fish. The Cedar is telling us the lacustrine rainbow, rather than anadromous, seem to function well, Then manage for them. One can manage the river to produce lake migrants and a fishery can be directed at the spawning run. Just need to know the timing of upstream migration. The fish should be over 20" and well worth pursuing.

At the same time I suspect the lake may be able to raise sockeye, just not anadromous ones that must traverse the Ship canal and locks a couple of times. That leaves Kokanee.

And, finally, as the lake continues to warm it will be a walleye lake but I think the resident salmonids can hang on for a while. Take what nature gives you.

I was one of the Fishcops assigned to the Cedar and elswhere in the early 70's. Interesting period for that river. If I remember right about four hundred thousand returned/predicted. I caught a couple sockeye trolling the Renton end with an ultra slow flatfish How the lake has changed! I have not kept up with the biology of the big lake, but how can baby sockeye living in the lake that is now full of smallmouth and a healthy cutthroat population survive? Reviving the once prolific sockeye run seems nearly impossible with the "new" habitat compared to fifty years ago. Am I haywire on my un-educated assumption? Sounds like an urban fishing paradise for smallies and cutties.

Seals killed the Cedar River Steelhead. Followed closely by the anti hatchery teachings.

I lived on that creek for nearly two decades during the 70’s and 80s. Some great hatchery returns as well as good numbers of nice wild spring Steelhead through March. Lotsa Redds to count from the railroad bridge below Landsburg to the railroad bridge below the golf course.

Well managed, and gone in 10 seasons.

Tug, the bass were a problem "only" for the smolts. The juveniles are pelagic, which gets them away from the bass but the Smallies did hit the smolts. The currheoat may have had better access to juveniles. It had been thought that the spiny rays clobbered the fry when they entered the lake but the water was too cold for them to be actively feeding when the fry hit.

One intriguing idea was that the southerly winds in late winter/spring blew the surface water north, taking the zooplankton (sockeye food) with it. So, the fry actually starved on lake entry. That was, perhaps, why LW smolts were huge compared to other sockeye runs; there was super abundant food once they got big enough to eat it. May also explain the low productivity of the runs with R/S not much above 1. It took tons of fry to get past that desert at the mouth of the river.

Now, the surface water of the lake and the whole ship canal is too warm in summer when the adults try to pass through. Warm water equals dead fish.