Ive heard from some that our healthy rivers, (meaning the ones on the OP), are at carrying capacity. Meaning they produce as much as they can. Meaning that harvest hasent really affected the number of fish we have today. Meaning even if we didnt harvest any fish the rivers wouldnt produce any more.

I dont buy it. I think it is total bull.

As some of you know I made a trip last fall to a remote small river on the south west side of Kodiak island. This river is 20 miles long and has about the same flow as the Dungeness river. It has a large lake which it flows out of. It was amayzing to see a river that was producing up to its full potential. At least as close as we will ever see.

Well anyways this river has a weir at the mouth where all the fish are counted between may and the end of September. I did some research recently to find out what the counts were. I was amayzed to find out what a total wild river is capible of producing.

This year was a humpy year. Your not gonna believe this but 1,687,000 returned to the river this year. 960,000 sockey returned this year. 7,600 Kings this year ( lower than past years). And so far 13,500 silvers. This river has tens of thousands of Dollys (more dollys than I have ever seen numbers of salmon in any of the river down here). And gets an escapement of 4,000 to 13,000 steelhead a year (which are not counted anymore).

Not includeing dollys and steelhead thats 2,668,100 salmon to one small 20 mile long river with the flow of the Dungeness with no hatchery. Almost three million salmon.

Thats more fish in one small trickle than the entire Columbia system gets in a year. Thats more salmon than the entire puget sound and washington coastal coho and chinook runs combined. We are talking about one little river.
Can you even comprehend this, I cant and ive seen it.

What I am saying here is that our fish here are just plain screwed.

We have decinated our fish runs so bad that we will never know or have any idea how many fish there sould or could be.

Our rivers cant be produceing even 5% of their carrying capacity. There is just no way. I dont care what logic or science anyone one can show me I just wont believe it.

Heres some more interesting info. This river that I am talking about was almost wiped out 50 to 60 years ago. It had a cannery at the mout and they just trapped all the fish that came up river untill there were no fish left. After the river was left alone it came back all by itself. No hatchery no nothing Total wild stocks. It receeded itself in less than a half century without any help from man.

What also matters is what the surrounding ocean system can support.

damn rich g i never tought about that... thats some good info. i wish our rivers were like that.

TTT

Rich G

Great Post.

We really do not realize what we have lost. Your misgivings regarding our rivers being at their carrying capacities are well founded.

Barnettm

Yes, ocean conditions like the PDO do have a great impact on the number adult salmon but the bottom falling out of the salmon numbers can not be contributed to the cyclic nature of the ocean. Maybe it is the 50 million pounds of shrimp we harvest each year off our shores that have something to do with poor local conditions?

To my knoledge our salmon and their salmon feed in the same places. When the fish get down here they are at the tail end of their feeding. When we had the very large Coho last year they didnt have them in Alaska, meaning they stacked on those extra pounds at the end before they hit the rivers, meaning we had good ocean conditions with lots of bait in the sound strait and coast. Obviosly I dont believe in the whole ocean condition theory as a whole it is one factor of many. Just by itself it cant make that large of an impact.

Here is my theory to why some places have consistant good fish runs like west side Kodiak rivers and others are so inconsistant like washington rivers.

Even with bad Ocean Conditions and varing environmental conditions the Kodiak runs can sustain high return numbers and surpluss fish. Surpluss fish are the Key. Without those surplus fish any one factor can make the run crash below a level to sustain itself and then the spiral starts down.

Down here the surplus fish are gone we leave just enough fish to keep the numbers up to the escapement numbers we got from the 70's and 80''s after the damage was already done. I believe are rivers are running far below the very minimum escapement thats why the runs are so affected by different factors. Any one factor can have drastic affect. Thats why are fish runs are so unpredictable down here . We manage our fish on a fine line.

Its pretty easy to see. The river I described has almost a 3 million fish run. Maybe thats 2 million over what it needs for maximum capacity. What happens if you harvest those two million fish like MSY says to do and you get bad ocean conditions floods droughts siltation or any one factor. You get what we currently have in Washington.

Our escapement are Kept so low that the fish never get the chance to rebound. If we are expected to get just a few extra fish than our set escapement goals we harvest them. Why do you think we have such highs and lows. We get a run 5,000 over escapement so we up the effort for harvest and get those 5,000 extra fish then that winter we have floods then the following summer we get a drought. Then we have low egg and fry survival and the outgoing smolt numbers are down. Then we get an elnino and the spanish makeral and pelicans eat up a half of the surviving smolt. Then the next generation is on the ESA list.

If we had those 5,000 extra spawners as the safety nett that nature intended we wouldnt have the drepessed run the next generation due to all the environmental factors. those 5,000 extra spawner and 8,000,000 extra eggs they would have layed is natures design to keep the river at carrying capacity even with environmental factors that dont favor the fish.

Here something else to think about.

I know for a fact that the powers that be have known what was happening for the last 40 years or so.

Why do you think they started building hatcherys. They figured they could be natures safety nett because they knew that the wild runs couldnt keep up with our harvest and lifestyles all along.

If the runs on the say Quileute System are at carrying capacity why do we need a salmon and steelhead hatchery in the system to suppliment harvest?

From my own observations I'd say twenty years ago there were two to three times as many fish as there are now. So the rivers are in no way maxed. In my opinion we are witnessing right now a big part of the problem. Silvers are looking like a bust. We kept hearing they are just late. Now it's starting to look like the runs are way below forecasts. So, why isn't it closed? Why aren't the rivers closed?

If they close the rivers then they won't get as much of our money to pad their pockets with. They don't care about the fish just about the all mighty dollar.

Also Alaska doesn't have near the population of people prodding away at it ecosystem like we do. What do you expect to happen when California moves up here. We are way past carrying capacity for the state. Wdfg regulates the carrying capacity of wildlife, but who regulates the capacity of humans in a given area.

Check this site out. You can look at fish counts from way back.
http://www.cqs.washington.edu/dart/adult.html

because everyone is egg whores. Salmon meat prices fall, but egg prices stay the same....

This is some really good information and has supported what I have thought for years about the Salmon population. I think what we need to do is to raise the escapement goals, lower the retention rate - 1 fish instead of 2 and have lotteries on certain rivers.

I don't think that you will be able to get Commercial fisheries and Indian fisheries to stop what they are doing. Too bad. If we all stopped for two life cycles just think what kind of returns we could have!

I don'g like the idea of giving up fishing but to truly make a difference to the fisher....I would gladly give up fishing...and pay for a license each year to help fund it! Come on, How many of you really would not give up 40.00 a year for 6-8 years to really have a chance to have some great fishing? I think we only hav ourselves to blame for a lot of what has happened. Ths rivers can support more, we can decide to cut back but the question is are we willing to sacrifice to do it? I don't think the overall opinion will be yes. Especially when we continue to pick on Commercial or Indians and they pick on us and each other. We all have to work together.

BTW - hatcheries are a good idea. They can make a difference. Show your support for the Sockeye hatchery on the Cedar by showing up Oct 17 and letting your voice be heard.

I would think that a big factor is the total available "bio-mass" within a given eco-system. As was mentioned in an earlier post, harvesting 50 million pounds of shrimp is going to effect all the fish, not just those that eat shrimp.

no....

Limited habitat, not harvest, is the issue.

Harvest management in Washington is already biased towards protecting weak stocks, the only fish that are legally caught, by anglers or commercial fishermen, are from strong (typically hatchery) runs. The real problem behind salmon recovery now isn't harvest, but habitat.

Even the Dungeness River, which above was offered as a near pristine OP stream, is absolutely screwed compared to what it had been. That river is almost totally diked in its lower end, and is not allowed to meander in any way. There are no trees to speak of in the river, compared to historic numbers and until a few years ago, it was also irrigated to the point of almost being dry to chinook spawning.

On the Dungeness, salmon are screwed not because of over harvest, but habitat concerns. Except for the strong hatchery coho run on the River, there hasn't sport or commercial harvest on chinook or pink for over 20 years. But, in the same 20 years the human population in the Dungeness Valley has exploded, putting more and more pollution and habitat pressures on fish.

Mandatory release of all wild fish is really a bad idea isnt it!
We just cant have a statewide release rule for wild Steelhead, can we.
Just ask the State Game Gods, they will tell you how stupid you are for even asking that.
Can things be better, no way cause its the habitat or the oceans or its this or that.
Love this states head up its *ss outlook.

Skyrise,

I have to agree with you on that. Some of our game managers would have you think that our management of steelhead is for the benefit of the steelhead.

It's a wonder how they managed to hang on over the millenia without us here to save them from themselves!!!

Fish on...

Todd.

Excellent discussion. Thanks for all the info, Rich.

I agree with those of you who recognize habitat as a major contributing problem, but rather than continuing that discussion, I'll pose a different perspective:

Salmon farming is the solution.

I know it has it's own set of problems, but I think that our rivers/oceans can no longer support the human population - we need more food than they can supply. We've tried to use hatcheries to supplement the salmon supply, but these fish are subject to all the same variables as a natural run (weather, feed, etc).

It wasn't too long ago that people were able to live off the land...eating deer, elk, salmon, and whatever nuts and berries they could find. When the demand for food exceeded nature's ability to produce, the people started farming - not just grains, but animals as well.

In fact, of the major food sources (meat, grains, dairy and fish) the only one that has not become totally farmed is fish....nature has been able to provide fish for our population.

Not anymore. It's time for 98% of the world to start eating farm raised salmon. You want to put an end to commercial and tribal fisheries? All you have to do is buy farm raised salmon. After that, it's a matter of simple economics. The tribes and commercial fisheries will go bust.

There's not a politician alive who will vote to close commerical or tribal fishing, but if they're forced out of business...well then, I guess that's just the way it goes.

Sport fisherman only represent a small fraction of the total popluation (I'm estimating 2%). Our rivers could support a controlled sport fishing season. I'd even support higher license fees, if it meant better regulation (ie. more officers in the field).

I realize that most of you reading this post don't buy very much salmon at the store. You're able to catch most of your supply from your favorite fishing hole. BUT, your family, friends and neighbors get their fish from the deli counter. If you think I'm making any sense, encourage them to buy farm raised salmon....

Rich,

When you're told that OP rivers are producing at carrying capacity, that would be today's degraded habitat capacity. So yeah, some seasons they are at their present carrying capacity. Of course, you've marked the other side of the equation regarding harvest, and the camps simply disagree on that. My own experience suggests that MSY/MSH inevitably result in overfishing 50% of the time or more, so rivers are underescaped and more susceptable to above average losses from floods and droughts.

So why does a small river on Kodiak Island produce more fish than all of the Columbia R. or all of Puget Sound and the coast?
1) habitat degredation;
2) general pattern of overharvest;
3) the Gulf of Alaska is generally much more productive than the marine waters utilized by our fish (yeah, even though many WA fish rear PART of their lives in the Gulf, they also spend significant time in less productive waters as well).

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

To thoes that think freshwater habitat is a limiting factor to wild fish production need to look at the history of Southwest Washington's Washougal river. We have an excellent example of fish having done better in the past with worse habitat than they are now with better habitat.

The first example is the Washougal where at the beginnng of the century the headwaters were a barren wateland as the result of the all comsuming Yacolt burn a devastating forest fire that burnt the entire upper watershed to the ground, not a tree left standing antwhere near the river. On top of that there was excessive gold, silver and copper mining the letal tailings of which were routinely dumped directly into the river. Add to that massive loogging on the lower river along with the operation of splash dams than choked the river with logs for miles, add to that 2 concrete dams and a grist mill that all hindered fish passage. Then on top of that the rivers mouth was a toxic cesspool from the Camas Papermill. In spite of all that the wild summer steelhead population was stable at 1500-2000 fish! It crashed in the early 1960's the exact same time hatchery operations began at the Skamania hatchery.
The yacolt burn is completely healed and the Washougals habitat is near pristine in condition and the wild steelhead are having NO hint of seriously rebounding from all time lows in the early 90's Habitat is NOT a limiting factor here, neither is harvest and neither is the ocean.
What is the one and only limiting factor? The hatchery! period thats it!

Those numbers of fish must spawn in the lake.

To have that volume of fish spawn & die in a small river would create an oxygen deficiency which could kill the run.