Because when the coho hit Canada (they do share PS) an non-selective fishery will reduce the benefits.

Since we are talking about unclipped net pen coho, does anyone know what percentage of them actually end up leaving the sound and spending time in the straits or ocean?
There are large amounts of unclipped net pen fish released as far south as MA 13.
SF

There should be large amounts of CWT data from the various net pen releases. CWT data is what the catch distributions are generally based on.

But, there are two types of net pen releases. One is delayed release which is/was designed to produce an in-sound year around fishery. The other is a more normally-timed release that is designed to just produce more ocean-migrant smolts than could be done simply rearing in freshwater facilities.

I think the federal law that you are referring to here (and other places in this thread) only applies to tribal releases when the hatchery program is paid for by federal funds. In the case of the Elliott Bay net pens, I'm pretty sure that this program is paid for by a settlement agreement and not federal funds, therefore they would not be subject to that requirement.

How's that law going to work in the future if the Tribes get that pot of money for faculty maintenance and upgrades? While the specific program (feed, staffing) may be paid from outside sources if the infrastructure of the facility is upgraded might that count?

Can't say since I can only remember the generalities of the old law and know absolutely nothing about which tribal facilities may have access to the maintenance money.

The only one I remember reading about was Lummi's Skookum Creek. It is apparently falling apart. I remember visiting it with Doc Donaldson's class in fall of '72. He was really psyched about their aquaculture program, both there and in the net pens in Lummi Bay.

It is amazing to me, but probably shouldn't be, that the operators of hatcheries put such little effort into maintaining them.

There are a lot more that need a serious investment. Many of the old ones were built on a shoe string to begin with. Some of the newer ones, which are now 30 - 40 years old, have been badly neglected.

Sad. "Deferred maintenance" seems a constant theme everywhere.

Why raise Coho in pens and not Chinook? The PS Blackmouth program back in the late 70's early 80's was very successful. I would rather catch a 8-12# Chinook than a 4-6# Coho any day.

ESA most likely was a big driver. Can't get the pen fish to home very well. The second issue is that salmon which rear in PS were accumulating a lot of toxins and should not be eaten very often. Based on what I read about the SRKWs the toxin issue is still there.

The main reason reported by WDFW for discontinuing the PS blackmouth program was that it created a big problem for 50:50 treaty: non-treaty harvest sharing. ESA would also be a driver, given that the hatchery Chinook would stray and spawn naturally where they weren't supposed to.

That's true, Salmo, but the kept the toxicity under wraps, too.

From pg. 9 of the below report:

"As discussed previously, much of the delayed-release program production was accomplished in saltwater net pens due to lack of available cool-water summer rearing space at hatcheries. During on-going evaluations of hatchery programs, the WDFW determined that survival of delayed-release yearling Chinook salmon had significantly declined (order of magnitude) along with the contribution to the recreational fisheries (Figure 4). Additionally, there were concerns about straying of adult Chinook salmon from the net pen programs and the domestication effect of a non-native life history (yearling vs. zero age at smolt migration) to ESA-listed natural populations. Ultimately, in the early 2000’s, WDFW made a shift to support the release of Chinook salmon subyearlings directly from hatcheries using PSRFE funding, and the use of saltwater net pens for yearling releases was discontinued."

Because of relatively low rates of contribution to catch (a combination of lower survival rates and reduced fisheries because of ESA limitations) the cost of producing one Chinook in the catch was/is significantly higher than producing one coho in the catch (roughly 7 - 20 times more expensive to contribute one Chinook to catch). Pg. 10 of the linked report shows the smolt to adult survival of net pen Chinook over time. Pg. 17 of that report shows some cost analysis for various Chinook and coho programs. But, there were others that were not evaluated in this report that ended because just a couple of handfuls of fish were caught from programs releasing 20 tons of fish. Chinook are also more difficult to rear in salt water than coho and disease problems at some facilities caused those programs to be terminated.

...In addition to the other issues pointed out above.


HSRG Final Report to PS Sport Fish Enhancement Oversight Comm, 2018

I guess there must not be any ESA listed Coho stocks in Puget Sound for all the net pen Coho to be a problem straying and spawning? And another thought? Having millions of small coho around during other PS rec fisheries, raises encounter rates, to potentially shut fisheries down, even if adult returns are over projections, possibly providing extended seasons. One thing all this does is increase terminal returns. Maybe in river seasons and limits can be increased providing opportunity?

I don't believe any PS Coho stocks are listed, so no concern. Yet. Give WDFW time; we'll get there with coho too.

Logical salmon management should be based on extreme terminal fisheries where the abundant stocks have separated from the rarer. Mixed took fisheries are what leads to ESA.

I believe it was several factors to include ESA but as I recall there was a big Departmental hue and cry about the cost to produce each of those resident blackmouth that was harvested. A cynic might suggest that the decision was made and then the bean counters went to work to justify it.

What they didn't look at (and that same cynic would say purposely) was the value of that fishery per fish harvested.

Another factor was the increasing number of pinniped predators eating those sub-legal blackmouth calling Puget Sound home.

One aspect to add in was that by the mid 00s, if not earlier, yearlings released south of the Narrows had beyond poor survival. Something was going on for the fish that left Deep South Sound, and that was where some really big operations were (Squaxin, Percival, Coulter). To my knowledge, WDFW never did more than actually identify that there was a problem.

They do now have chinook net pens at Point Defiance.

The acclimation pen project at Point Defiance finished its third year at that location after a couple of years at Narrows Marina. It is a collaborative effort under the umbrella of Northwest Salmon Research and includes SAMI School, Metro Parks Tacoma, Puyallup Tribe, WDFW and Puget Sound Anglers Gig Harbor(PSAGH).

This year there were about 100K Chinook; half from the Tribe and the other half from WDFW. All those fish were clipped and both groups had some which were coded wire tagged.

PSAGH provided the labor to put together the net floats and place them at the Marina then install nets and avian predator barriers and after fish release reverse the process. Members also participated in the three a day feedings so fish were in great shape when released.

Hopefully someone will be able to gather return data to determine what improvement in adult returns are achieved by these fish versus those released into the river.