Did you know that your $ are paying for the WDF&W to release millions of NON CLIPPED hatchery Coho into the Columbia ?
Don't believe it ?
Call the public affairs dept and see what they say. Ask around the Lewis and Washougal hatcheries. Ask the tribal fisheries people.
Did you really think the Wild Coho were making such a great comeback because 40% of the fish you caught at Buoy 10 or in the Ocean were wild ? Keep thinking...........

When has the government ever told the people the truth, eh?

With pockets as deep as the commercials interests nothing surprises me anymore

Lobbyist make the laws not the voters <img border="0" alt="[eat]" title="" src="graemlins/eat.gif" />

But the fishings been pretty good though? hasn't it?

no big deal.... those are treaty fish for the yakimas and upstream tribes ....washougal raises coho to be planted in the lower kilckitat for the tribes....the coho they release at the hatchery are 100% clipped....

A good chunk of the steelhead planted in upper Columbia tribs like the Methow and Okanogan are unclipped also.

the clearwater hatchery in ahsahka, id releases 1.5 million unclipped smolts for the nez perce indians for subsistance, but yet they have there own hatchery about 15 miles downstream for coho and whatever else they want to at our expense...

Has anyone figures this one out yet on the Cowlitz?

99% off all the coho that are being trapped at the new Cowlitz Falls fish collection facilities are products of hatchery planted fish. And they will be (and currently are) receiving the "same protective status" as the wild fish do. You got to ask yourself, what in the hell is WDFW doing! 99% of these fish (coho) have been hatchery fish for well over 30 years now. It's just another typical blunder that the WDFW has created, and now we, the fishermen, will be loosing our "opportunity" to harvest these hatchery breed fish, just because some group of jerks didn't think ahead. There is no logical reason to create a "new natural run" of coho on the Cowlitz. This is a perfect example, of a river that you should be allowed to harvest coho with adipose fins attached. If your logic says otherwise, please share it with me!

So far this year alone, about 70,000 "hatchery" adult coho have been passed into the upper Cowlitz for "natural production". When the smolts from these 70,000 adults are collected, and passed through the trapping facilities at Cowlitz Falls, Almost every single one of these smolts will now become a "wild" coho which means that you won't be able to harvest them when they return as adults! Next year you will be seeing so many "wild" coho that you will be schocked! They will all be born from the 80,000 adults hatchery coho that were pasted up last year and the year befor.

Think about it people, Tacoma is in the process of cutting back our fisheries on the Cowlitz because it is taking away from their 17 million dollar profit margin each year. Now we have our great smart WDFW passing 70,000 adult coho into the upper Cowlitz for natural production. The simple results of that action will eventually lead to down sizing the production of the coho on the Cowlitz. While that is going on, all of your future production of coho will be falling under the protection of being considered "wild" because they will have all of their fins attached (no clipped adipose fins). So that means you will not have and opportunity to harvest these fish.


Cowlitzfisherman

I dont see what the big dilemma is..... I mean, they're just silvers, and we all know that they're just hatchery fish that have not been clipped..... Hell, I gotta admitt, I bonk em and throw em in the freezer.

It's probably not a "big deal" if you don't mind paying big fines for keeping a coho on the Cowlitz with its adipose fin attached. The regulations say "Salmon-no more than 2 adults. Wild coho release"! So I would be careful of what I say about "bonk em and throw em in the freezer."

I'll bet you that the game wardens think a little bit different…you think?

A ticket that runs me over a $100, is a "big deal"


Cowlitzfisherman

so...what fish do you use to rebuild the upper cowlitz with if not late run cowlitz hatchery coho? should they use skykomish coho to plant in the tilton and cispus?

Cowfish, I totally understand what you're saying and I applaud your activizm when it comes to issues you feel are unjust. Look, it's like this, if you feel something is unjust, you have a few options on how to handle it: #1) You can just follow the rules and ***** about how badly you're getting screwed.... I think that this is what the majority of sportsmen do, and its what I used to do in the past. #2) You can become an activist and try to get involved in how laws and policies are made..... This is what people like Cowlitzfisherman and the board members who are very active with the Wild Steelhead Coalition, friends of the Cowlitz, Trout Unlimited, etc. are doing..... It's probably the "right" way of doing things, but I feel that ultimately it's not very effective. #3) Just do what you want, live by your own moral code, let that be your regulation book, not some written set of game regs, and if your list of personal rules happens to conflict with the state's rules, then so be it..... This is what I choose to do. I'll bonk an unclipped silver on the Cowlitz now and again, and I'll keep foul hooked fish from time to time. If a river shuts down to sport fishing, but the tribes are still netting it, and if I think I can get away with it, I'll continue to fish it. Someday I'm gonna get caught, and I'll pay the price, maybe then my opinion will change. For right now though, I'm gonna continue to do it my own way, I refuse to miss out on my right to fish and hunt just because our fish and game is run by idiots.

LittleZoZo

I hear you, and I known what you are saying. You shouldn't feel all that bad about bonking a coho on the Cowlitz because they are all hatchery fish (fin or no fin). Like you said, you do what you got to do! I just didn't want people to think that they were allowed to bonk coho with attached adipose fins and then tell the game warden to kiss off! It's a stupid rule that we sport fishers need to change next year. We think alike on a lot of issues! I guess we both have that same "common sense" problem. . . you think?

Bodysurf:

You use Cowlitz Hatchery coho for the natural production. You can use the same hatchery stocks for both natural and hatchery production. There is absolutely no reason to separate the "natural production" of hatchery coho from the "hatchery production" of coho. They are one in the same, so why would you want to separate them?

WDFW should allow a harvest on both natural and hatchery coho in the Cowlitz River. If not, why do you feel that way?

Cowlitzfisherman

i'm guessing that there will be a catch and keep season on those naturally spawning coho in the future...wouldn't you think so? if you put 70k coho in the upper cowlitz you're gonna get a couple million smolts(weren't they trying to get about 2 million a year?)....even with survival of 2% that's gonna be a lot of fish heading back up river. If upper river escapement is 40-50k fish a year I would bet there'd be a lot of pressure to open it up to keeping unclipped fish...maybe at certain times of the year or from a certain river mile on...
It seems that this is the quickest..if not the 'best'..
way to re-establish the upper river run...
What is the current agreement with TPU about coho escapement? is it 40k a year?....i could see tpu making an argument that coho production at the hatchery should decrease if naturally spawning coho are adding substantial numbers of adults to returns....but that may not be a bad thing....Cowlitz used to release 13 million coho 5 years or so ago(with questionable health) and now they do around 8?million(that go out a lot heathier).....so lower densities in the ponds may help even more to fight the ceratomyxa and coldwater they get ...
what i really wish is that those dang coho would bite better so 70k wouldn't make it back to the rack in the first place.....what do ya think

Bodysurf

I am in the process of writing a thread that will explain how you can catch those "none bitters"!

Stay tuned…this board should really benefit from my up coming thread!

Cowlitzfisherman

Hurry Bob,the suspense is killing me.
Maybe I have an idea already but your known to throw out a surprise once in awhile.

Perhaps I was not clear. It seems most of you have missed the point of the post. The point being this. Every non clipped fish that returns is counted as a native.If we only have native fish in a stream that has ESA fish in it then there is no justification for any angling.PERIOD.
All these "wild " fish return and then we can drop the ESA/State listings because we managed the resource so well that the natives have returned and we can do do away with protections for those pesky fish. That allows devlopers and those against fish to go about their business willy nilly with the blessing of the state. If you wnat to see you fishing go by by then just let the State Hatcheries continue to produce fish that you can't keep or in the near future fish for. There is probably not much that can be done to keep the fed/ Indian hatcheris from producing non clipped fish but you don't have to stand for it at the state level. I say let the feds deal with US vs. Oregon at their hatcheries. These NON CLIPPED fish are the biggest threat to your sport. Much more significant than nets or Dams. These non clipped fish will take sports anglers out of the equation. Wake up Washington !

not every non-clipped coho is counted as a native...it depends on the river system.. most aren't....for instance in the klickitat you can keep all those unclipped coho AND unclipped chinook(yes..there are unclipped 'nooks released into the klickitat for treaty reasons too though they're all cwt'd) the green r.,nisqually,satsop.etc.. also allow you to keep unclipped coho...
as far as angling on ESA fish...if the poulation gets large and healthy enough, for whatever reasons, to sustain the escapement and sport harvest..enough to de-list it... why not fish on 'em?

BILGERAT I think you are mistaken. I believe all Coho, clipped & unclipped, that are handled. Be it a carcass found by stream surveyors. Or fish that return to the hatchery are "wanded" checked for CWT's. If they wand positive they are more than likely counted as hatchery fish. I agree it is wrong for WDFW hatcheries to be raising fish for the tribes. Even if the tribes are suppling funding for those fish, its a waste of a state resource.

First off we were talking about the Columbia.
" Handled " fish comprise a small amount of the "real picture" as far as NMFS in concerned.
Spawning ground counts are what count. It seems that some of the responders here are not concerned with the long term future but are as nearly always more concerned about more fish in the cooler. IMO if you take brood stock a second time in to the hatchery you have hatchery fish. Not a native. If you can't see the danger of outplanting non clipped fish at YOUR expense then I waste my time no more. Sounds like most the consumptive anglers I talk with. They don't want to hear the truth because they can't deal with it. Only time will tell but I will bet these non clipped fish will lead to less fishing opportunity in the near future. Remember where you stand with NMFS. Indians,Commercials,Enviros,Sportsmen dead last and with no official " standing". Stinks HUH ?

hmmm....since washougal was mentioned maybe i can clear some stuff up...
the coho raised there for the klickitat come from fish spawned at klickitat hatchery...klickitat doesn't have enough water to keep them so they go to washougal until it's time to imprint them...which they do in ponds in the lower river to limit interaction with upstream guys....so i don't think the unclipped fish are really outplanted fish ...
i think it's really hard to talk in general terms and maybe ya gotta treat each situation differently...

Unclipped hatchery coho on the Columbia is part of a deal with tribes related to harvest allocation issues. I believe the emphasis is on increased harvest opportunity for tribes, minimizing harm to depressed populations, and directly benefiting native or wild populations has the lowest priority. I'm not familiar with the program so can offer no informed judgement.

There are practical reasons for not marking the hatchery coho that are stocked in the upper Cowlitz River and for requiring their release should you catch one. The upper Cowlitz program is a restoration program. There are no wild fish readily available as broodstock. The hatchery population is declared to be native according to WDFW, and is considered the best stock for the restoration program.

Until unmarked adults began returning, unmarked hatchery fry were stocked in upper river tributaries. It costs more to mark the fry than they are worth for one thing, and it's unnecessary and counter-productive to a good restoration program. The only hatchery fry that survive are the ones that grow to smolt in the best and most productive natural habitat, just like wild coho would do if they hadn't been extirpated.

Those that make it back to the Cowlitz are more like wild natives than the ones reared and released at the hatchery. While TPU hauled more than 70,000 adults to the upper basin, only about 4,000 were "wild", that is, adults that resulted from the fry plants two and a half years previous. Those 4,000 wild spawners are more productive than the surplus hatchery fish that are trucked up there. The hatchery surplus help seed the basin, no doubt, but not as effectively as the naturally reared fish. But at least they contribute a lot of marine derived nutrients to fertilize the watershed.

For example, during the December rains, many of the hatchery surplus coho that became sexually mature swam up tributaries not suited to spawning. These creeks dried up, or nearly so, shortly after it stopped raining, and the eggs of those fish are lost to producition. The 4,000 wild coho know from their juvenile rearing experience where the suitable habitat is, and they disperse and spawn where it will do the most good. Most of the hatchery fish follow them and disperse to spawn more effectively as well. Of course, the pied piper effect works both ways, and a few wild fish followed hatchery fish into creeks that dried up, but mostly it is the other way around, so the overall benefit is positive.

There are distinct benefits to having truly wild, or naturally produced, coho in the Cowlitz. They are vastly outnumbered by marked hatchery coho. And if we all learn to fish jigs as good as CFM, we can still catch a limit and release the unmarked wild ones to go do what they do best - spawn in the natural environment. Given the benefit of having wild coho in the system, I just don't see the downside that others describe. Who among us admits to being such a lousy angler that we need to kill every coho we catch? Heck, I'm probably one of the worst when it comes to catching coho, but I don't need to eat a wild one.

Regarding the ultimate success of the coho restoration, there most likely will be harvestable wild coho produced from the Cowlitz. The problem is that the recreational fishery will still have to release the unmarked wild fish, because any surplus production will have been harvested by the Columbia River gillnet fishery. As long as the lower Columbia River gillnet fishery continues, restoration of chinook, coho, and steelhead continue to be at much higher risk of failure because the gillnet fishery depends on harvest rates that natural fish production cannot sustain. Shutting that wastefull, unnecessary, and counter-productive fishery down is a necessary prerequisite to restoring sustainable wild salmon and steelhead fisheries on the lower Columbia.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.