I have just read the most recent reply and posting by "Salmo G" to "RT's" posting of the "Cowlitz Controversies" First, anyone who has read Salmo G reply to RT by now must have figured out that "Salmon G" must have been a "player" in the new "Cowlitz River Settlement Agreement" to have known so much about the "facts" of this agreement simply requires it. It is also my opinion that "Salmo G" may have sold out the sport fishermen for a "wild" fish dream that just won't ever come to be a reality!

I have attended every "technical" and relicensing meeting of the Cowlitz since it had started way back in early 1996 (hundreds of them) and have first hand knowledge of just how bad the "Settlement Agreement" really is. I must say that I, along with the Friends of the Cowlitz, CPR-Fish and the Cowlitz Tribe were appalled by how this "Agreement" was manipulated by members of the NMFS, USFWS, WDFW, American Rivers and Trout Unlimited.

Make no mistake about it; the NMFS representative was the number one player who formed and crafted this deal with Tacoma that almost guarantees that the Cowlitz will never again see large returning numbers of mixed stocks of steelhead, or large numbers of returning coho in the coming future. NMFS were also the ones that almost guarantee that you will never see any fish ladders over Mayfield or Mossyrock Dams for the next 35 years. NMFS only requested truck and haul (that's on the record). NMFS also were the ones who almost certainly guaranteed that our summer runs would become a thing of the past.

As for WDFW, they were just along for the ride during the entire relicensing process. Trout Unlimited (TU) and American (AR) were also just hanging onto the rear bumper. The only ones that were in the driver seat, heading in the right direction were Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC), Cowlitz Plan for Restoration (CPR-Fish) and the Cowlitz Tribe (all refused to sign the settlement agreement). FOC, CPR-Fish, TU, AR and the Cowlitz tribe were all working together until Tacoma Power called its cards in.

Think about this one; The Agreement now calls for restoring only the "late" portion of returning winter run stocks of steelhead. Someone in WDFW magically found some special unique genetic stock of "late" steelhead that is completely different then any other late stock on the Lower Columbia and then decided that they would allow all other possible stocks of Cowlitz steelhead to vanish forever just because they may have been influence by Camber Creek stocks. The records clearly show that all Cowlitz steelhead stocks have been genetically mixed long before the hatchery was ever dreamed of.

Salmo G forgets to tell you that 50% of the true Cowlitz winter run steelhead originally returned from November through January and that the remaining 50% returned in late February through April. So why not restore the whole runs? There is a simple answer to that one. If WDFW was to allow the restoration of the Cowlitz historic "early" winter run Cowlitz steelhead (November-February) stocks, WDFW would then have to discontinue, or at the very lease cut back its massive commercial gillnetting season on the Lower Columbia River to protect these November retuning steelhead stocks.

There is no question in my mind that a few people who love and live for wild fish have now developed a failed plan that will change the need of the many to only benefit the needs of a few. I am all for restoring wild fish runs, but way too much has been done on the Cowlitz to allow that to ever happen now. Can the watershed above the dams be used for "Natural" production of Cowlitz fish… you bet it can! NMFS, USFWS, WDFW and Tacoma have all known about the disease problems at the hatcheries for many, many years but have done almost nothing to correct them. Instead, they have all waited until relicensing time to attempt to correct them. That's what has happen to our Cowlitz fish runs! Both NMFS and USFWS could have used their powers under the Federal Power Act over 30 years ago to demand down stream fish collection facilities at Mossyrock Dam, but instead chose to develop and maintain a 100% hatchery stock run. In 1985 WDFW was and still is mandated by Washington law to develop a plans to restore the "natural" fish runs on the Cowlitz and Tilton Rivers but has failed to do either.

People like Salmo G and a few others won't like what I have stated, but I will be willing to go one on one on this BB to address any issue about the Cowlitz, which they may choose.

signed,

Cowlitz fisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?

Cow'fisher', I noticed in your profile you registered at P.P. last year, in June 2000, yet it says this is your first post. With your apparent knowledge base it would have been nice for you to have been actively posting earlier. At any rate, I have already posted some things consistent with what you have posted here. As for Salmo G. having inside info about the dealings, it has been posted here before by members that he works for the NMFS - out of the Olympia office. I don't have first hand knowledge of that, but it may help explain some things? I know he asked me for access to the study I posted concerning C&R survival rates of spring chinook salmon. I haven't seen a Salmo post countering it since I put up the e-mail addys to access the publicly available extensive study info. Maybe because of disappointment that I was correct, and it wouldn't serve certain NMFS agendas; driven by Dept. of the Interior Secretarial Order #3206? Hmmm, don't know. Not sure why else it was requested. The more the public learns about what is unfairly going on behind closed doors with our money toward sportfishing opportunity the better; i.e.- Cowlitz R. situation and grossly unfair Columbia springer under-allocations for sportfishers! So keep correct and verifiable info coming guys. Thanks.

Seems like WDFW is willing to sacrifice all early winter steelhead runs to maintain a comercial fishery.

They seem to only acknoledge that washington state river systems had large runs of late winter/spring steelhead and very few early fish. I think they are trying to wipe out the early fish and erase their existance to ensure certian groups can maintain current hatchery steelhead comercial harvest.

fish them to extinction then claim they were never there or the genetics are to far mixed with hatchery fish to save.

I can see the writeing on the wall!

Seems to me the early run should have as much or more protection than the late run. There are much less of them left. But thats when the netts are in the most. When is the state/tribes going to grow some nuggets and save the last remaining healthy stocks we have. I can only hope its sooner than later.

RT,
You are right about my failure to post earlier on the BB. But that was then and this is now! I will no longer lie in the shadows and not tell the real facts about how bad the Cowlitz will be if we allow NMFS and others to control our fishery on the Cowlitz. Believe me, you have not heard the last from me. I can tell your reader's things about the Cowlitz (and I will) that will make the hair on their backs stand up. By the way, I was a former President of the Friends of the Cowlitz for 4 years. Some things didn't work out the way that I thought they would, but I still support the FOC and work with them when ever possible.

Stay tuned!

Cowlitz Fisherman

"Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook"?

Right on Rich G. and Cow. F.

Seems to me the most important aspect is the late run, You know, when the nates are coming on strong?


AND THE NETS ARE THICK!

Cowlitzfisherman, I am interested in your statement on Tacoma Power calling it's cards in on TU and AR. Can you get into the details on this? What card were called? Please expand on this.

Cowlitzfisherman,

You know the Cowlitz fishery better than I probably ever will, so I'm not bothered by what you post here. Yet, honest people can respectfully disagree. I'm sorry that you think the Cowlitz fishery is doomed. Personally, I think the fishery became doomed when the wild runs were wiped out by the dams in the late 60s and early 70s. The hatchery only fishery of the last 30 years was always at risk of not being sustainable in the long term. That risk was realized in the poor returns of recent years. Hatchery runs don't always deliver the goods.

It is largely WDFW who will determine if large runs of hatchery steelhead and coho return in future years. The coho return to the Cowlitz depends more on the number of days of Lower Columbia River gillnet fishing than hatchery production or ocean survival.

I get my information on steelhead stocks from two sources: WDFW and FOC. Frankly, I find WDFW's info more credible. WDFW says the hatchery late winter steelhead are genetic descendants of native Cowlitz stock, and that hatchery early winter steelhead are a mix of native Cowlitz and Chambers Creek stock. WDFW gave the later winters the priority for ESA recovery, and NMFS seems to have agreed. WDFW can continue to release hatchery early winter and Skamania summer steelhead smolts, but NMFS doesn't want those adults to be passed upstream of the dams where most of the ESA recovery will occur.

So I don't know why either the early winter or summer run hatchery fish would become a thing of the past. Has NMFS or WDFDW made ruling that I haven't heard about? I read that Tacoma recommends elimination of the early winter hatchery steelhead program, but I have no indication that WDFW will go for it. It's not the feds' turf, so it's doubtful they'll weigh in on it.

BTW, I didn't forget to mention that 50% of "true Cowlitz winter steelhead" returned from Nov-Jan. I never knew that and still don't. Records for almost all western WA rivers indicate native steelhead didn't show many fish until January, with just a smattering in December and fewer still in November. Was the Cowlitz really any different? If so, are there any data to support it? I thought WDFW was choosing to reduce emphasis on early winter hatchery production because high river flows in Dec and Jan. contribute to poor catch rates. If they have other reasons, I haven't heard about them.

Tacoma's settlement agreement focuses on restoring ESA species because that's the law. Your preference and my preference don't really count for much in that context. (As you know, if the summer run fishery is discontinued, there goes 90% of my Cowlitz fishing.) Only native species/stocks are slated for recovery, but there is continued mitigation and enhancement for unlisted fish like coho and "exotics" like summer steelhead.

I repect you as a friend and your point of view on too many things to really be interested in a one-on-one. However, we may debate the few things we actually seem to disagree on, as we always have.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,

I didn't want to put you down; I just want every body to get the facts right about the Cowlitz. As you known, I always back up what I say with "facts". So I will try to give you some answers to your reply. First, your right about honest people can respectfully disagree. That's something that we both do offend!

You stated that you got your information from WDFW. That may have been your problem about not understanding or ever seeing the real timing that Cowlitz Winter runs originally returned. I will refer you to what was stated before The Federal Power Commission during the original licensing hearing (you should have gotten an e-mail of it last year) it was Exhibit #25 from Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department Of Game. On page 4 this was stated "Steelhead enter the Cowlitz almost every month of the year with the greatest numbers arriving between November and April" This was produced in 1951.

But the best facts about timing of the Cowlitz winter run comes directly from WDFW "A Profile of Cowlitz River Winter steelhead Before And After Hatchery Propagation" by Jack Tipping dated 1984.

I will just list a few Quotes " The first plant of hatchery fish was made in 1938 (3700 fish @3.5/lb). However plants became consistent starting in 1951 using Chambers Creek stock and continued annually through 1967 when only Cowlitz stock was used" "Run Timing; Historical run timing of the Cowlitz winter steelhead was probably best documented by Thompson and Rothfus (1969) although December and January peaked may have influenced by hatchery plants (figure 1) Fish first entered collection facilities at Mayfield by mid-November, peaked in April and tapered off though June" The report also states; "In two years of creel census by Smith (1947, 1948), he checked 27.2 percent of fish in December, 16. 2 percent in January 11.2 percent in February, 30.4 percent in March and 15.2 percent in April."

And finally, "Wild fish now make up about 1.6 percent of the run (table 4). Because of dominance of hatchery fish, most wild fish are probably progeny of the hatchery fish spawning in the river". Remember this was 1984! So there you go Salmo G… now you know the "facts". Now that sounds to me that these are drummed up "late winter stocks" that are being used for "restoring our wild fish". Will they be the savior of our Wild Cowlitz Fish? I think not!


Signed,

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?

Keta,

American Rivers were PAID over $23,000 to participate in the relicensing of the Cowlitz and oversee a technical advisor who was supposed to represent American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, Friends of the Cowlitz, CPR-Fish, and the Cowlitz Tribes. That did not happen and CPR-Fish filled a complaint with FERC. That is when AR and TU got rid of the other payers i.e. CPR-Fish. It's all documented, but TU and AR have kept it way down deep. It's all on the FERC record and they can't hide from that one!

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook?