HATCERY FISH EATING LISTED CHINOOK
Washington Trout, Native Fish Society File ESA Suit

Coho salmon and steelhead trout released from State hatcheries in Puget Sound are killing and eating federally protected wild chinook salmon. That makes the hatchery releases illegal under the Endangered Species Act. Washington Trout and the Native Fish Society have filed suit in federal court to stop the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from releasing the hatchery fish into Puget Sound streams.
“These hatchery programs helped drive Puget Sound chinook onto the Endangered Species List, and they've been violating the ESA for over two years,” said Kurt Beardslee, Washington Trout Executive Director. “We want WDFW to reform its hatchery management to stop harming Threatened chinook.”
Puget Sound chinook were listed as Threatened under the ESA in 1999. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforces the ESA, has acknowledged that hatcheries have been a factor in wild-salmon declines, and that hatchery operations and facilities can harm and even kill listed salmon. Under the ESA it is illegal to harm, harass, kill, or otherwise “take” a listed species.
Hatchery coho and steelhead juveniles are preying on wild chinook juveniles during the period when the young fish share the same freshwater and estuary habitats. That makes the release of the hatchery juveniles an illegal take. NMFS has cited what it calls “substantial” evidence that hatchery fish prey on wild salmon, and WDFW has acknowledged in written documents that predation on listed chinook from hatchery juveniles “undoubtedly occurs.”
The hatchery juveniles are released during the spring, after the young chinook have emerged from the gravel nests where they hatched from eggs laid the previous fall. The young wild salmon spend several weeks to several months in freshwater before migrating to sea. They are quite vulnerable during this period, and can be overwhelmed by large numbers of hatchery juveniles released all at once into a watershed. The hatchery coho and steelhead are generally larger and more aggressive than their wild counterparts, and much larger than the young chinook. Hatchery coho juveniles can be up to 174mm long and eat other fish up to 46% their own size; hatchery steelhead are released at lengths up to 200mm, eating fish up to 44% their own size. The wild chinook fingerlings are nearly all under 60mm, or less than 31% the size of the hatchery fish.
The problem can be significant. A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River. Each hatchery juvenile ate an average of 14 wild salmon. If each hatchery coho or steelhead released into Puget Sound streams consumed just one listed chinook, Washington Trout estimates the loss at approximately 5.7 million wild salmon. Significant predation on threatened chinook juveniles by WDFW hatchery coho and/or steelhead occurs in virtually every river system in Puget Sound.
The lawsuit targets 30 WDFW hatchery programs in Puget Sound that produce steelhead and coho to subsidize commercial and recreational fisheries. They have no positive role in chinook recovery. Washington Trout and Native Fish Society filed the suit on March 19, after an official 60-day notice period. On March 20, the groups filed a preliminary motion seeking an injunction to stop WDFW from releasing any coho or steelhead this spring, while the case is pending.
“Releasing hatchery coho and steelhead according to current plans is clearly illegal and could cause irreparable damage to Puget Sound chinook,” said Bill Bakke, Executive director of the Native Fish Society. “It's important to stop until all the issues are sorted out.”
WDFW could apply to NMFS for an ESA exemption for the hatcheries. In June 2000, NMFS adopted a so-called “4d Rule,” outlining ESA regulations for Puget Sound. The 4d Rule included application guidelines to qualify hatchery programs for exemption from some ESA regulations. The applications would explain how WDFW plans to end or minimize harm caused by the hatcheries, or explain how any benefits from the hatcheries might justify that harm. While they have been overdue since January 2001, WDFW has not submitted an application for any of its Puget Sound coho or steelhead hatcheries. If and when the applications are submitted, they will be subject to lengthy agency and public-review processes before WDFW qualifies for the exemption.
Seattle attorney Richard Smith, of Smith & Lowney PLLC, is representing the two organizations. “WDFW has had plenty of opportunity and more than two years to explain how they will fix these problems,” said Smith. “So far they have not taken advantage of those opportunities, while their hatchery programs continue to jeopardize the recovery of Puget Sound chinook. We want them to comply with the law, one way or another.”
For more information, contact Ramon Vanden Brulle at Washington Trout. Filings in the case will be posted on the Washington Trout website (www.washingtontrout.org) as soon as possible.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout
PO Box 402
Duvall, WA 98019
425/788-1167; fax 425/788-9634
ramon@washingtontrout.org
www.washingtontrout.org

Looks like Washington trouts goal is no fish for anyone. WHAT A GROUP OF LOSERS!!!

Could'nt have said it better myself duroboat. What a bunch of loser's.

Sounds like they are working overtime to reduce all chances of having any Salmon or Steelhead for fishing!

Guys, guys, guys....Please take a look at the issue before you start spouting like this.

If this is true, then wild fish don't stand a chance. WA Trout is once again pushing for hatchery reform, which is much needed. They don't want to take opportunity away, and they are no relation to PETA. Okay?

That doesn't sound like a push for hatchery reform, it sounds like a demand of closure. By the rules they quoted, nobody should be fishing for anything. Even a minor mortality rate due to catch and release, is illegal. Not sure I want to join that group. There are less radical ways to help the fish stocks....

If you read Washington Trouts web site it says Allegedly eat wild chinook. They have no sciencentific data to back them up. These fish have coexisted for thosands of years. Do you know how short of time these smolt actually spend in the river (hatchery smolt). They cannot stay in the river for a very long time because if they do they will die, the must get to salt water. This also includes hatchery steelhead because they are not released until they smolt. When we release our hatchery steelhead they were caught in smolt traps at the mouth of the river 3 days later. The distance they traveled was approx. 40 river miles. So wake up. If these clowns win their lawsuit then you can kiss your fishing good bye.

The issue of the ecological partitioning of these species needs to be addressed. Very true that hatchery steelhead and coho juveniles are quite a bit larger than juvenile chinook, but I've always been lead to believe that these hatchery smolts do not rear and forage substantially in the streams after release, but move quickly to marine areas. And once in the marine environment, quickly move offshore.

I sample juvenile salmonids by beach seine just about every year in estuaries (river mouths and surrounding marine nearshore). Here are a seasons worth of results at the mouth of one river (sampling every other week at five stations April - July):

chinook - 1,026
chum - 262
pink - 102
coho - 15
steelhead - 2

My work concentrates in estuaries and nearshore marine areas, not rivers; but the above data reflect the different habitats that juvenile salmonids occupy. Chinook, chum, and pinks are beach huggers while larger coho and steelhead quickly move offshore. The data also reflect that chinook are the most nearshore dependent of all the anadromous salmonids. Although chum and pinks are also shoreline oriented, they occupy these shallow nearshore areas for a smaller time period than chinook.

I don't have the professional opportunities to sample streams as much (though I'd love too!) but I've always been lead to believe that you have a similar partitioning of species into respective habitats. For smolting hatchery fish, at least in theory, hatcheries release age 1+ (larger) coho and steelhead juveniles during spring runnoff periods when rivers are high. The high flows, coupled with the drive to smolt, carry the fish downstream fairly rapidly such that substantial foraging does not occur. In practice, I don't know how complete such partitioning is. After all, we've all caught smolts during the spring while fishing for summer runs.

The news piece posted by Ramon cites the Sacramento basin. With the dam at Shasta and all of the irrigation diversions, has this effectively reduced the ability for juveniles to partition into the habitats that they historically would occupy? (keeping them separate from one another?) If the migration behaviors of hatchery smolts on the Sacramento and Washington streams are different (perhaps due to seasonal flows?), then this would have a substantial affect on the level of predation experienced.

From a scientific perspective; from a life history perspective, this issue needs to be examined before hatcheries are simply eliminated. I don't think it would be hard or that expensive to collect hatchery smolts as they're migrating downstream and do stomach contents analyses on them.

Opinions from any fish managers out there?

the big rainbows in the rivers up in alaska feed on the sockeye fry that come from the lakes to make it out to sea and what not, should they sue because of that, and what about the tiger muskie in lake washington that are supposed to eat the carp and sunfish, im sure they get there fair share of trout and bass and sockeye too, should there be a lawsuit about that? washington trout sounds like there trying to do the right thing, but im sure plenty of wild chinook eat smaller steelies/coho, there view is warped...

Interesting thread to say the least!!! Obviously, I have no scientific knowledge to base any critique (pro or con) on the issue(s) that WA Trout raises. I do however have a common sense observation. That is - I can think of no intervention of man into a natural system, be it forests, fish, or the damming of rivers that has not had a specific and usually negative consequence. Now, we can not turn the hands of time backwards to a time when man's influence was substantially lower. However, it bears some careful scrutiny, not a bunch of knee jerk reactions. I love to fish and when I am on the river, I live to fish. I do not want to lose that opportunity for myself or my kids, their kids, ...... If we could possibly build up the stocks of wild fish to a point where there was a viable and continuing C & R opportunity, I would be extremely happy. Let's see where this goes and work towards a solution that makes sense for the fish and the fishers.

"A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River."
__________________________________

How do you suppose they got these numbers? Do you suppose they killed the 532,000 hatchery salmon and opened them up? Did they count the hatchery salmon they killed with no fish in their stomach?

Perhaps all the fish were dumped into a tank, and when all the 7.5 million wild chinook were gone, they said, "That's it!"?

I'm trying to laugh at this.....but it's hard not to be sceptical. Sounds pretty "creative" to me.

So, according to Washington Trout, if we eliminated all hatcheries in the state of Washington, there would be enough salmon and steelhead spawned wildly for all user groups? How stupid do they think we are?
Like some group of Orvis wearin', Land Rover drivin', no blood stain, maricured fingernail group of flyfishermen (flyfisherpeople) know about the real world.

Dont other wild fish such as salmon/steelhead/dollys/resident bows also feed on these smolts as well? Why dont you all (WT) just rid all our streams of these fish as well, that would solve everything
Or better yet, why dont you just take "mother nature" to court and sue her. After all she is "polluting" the streams with other species that are "breaking the law" by eating endangerd chinook species.
This whole thing is just silly, I cant believe my tax dollars will go to help the state have to defend this bullsh*t!

RL

Anybody can make a formula, doesn't mean it is right. Remember when all of the fish runs were exhasting in the not to distant past? Now they are coming back strong? Formula's can be wrong. They are nothing more than logical guesses. Kinda like flying over and counting crab or shrimp buoys to get the quota for the recreationals? Gee I guess the catch record card for crabbing showed this formula was flawed.

Its been ten years since I worked at the cowlitz hatchery but my recolection is the smolts only spend a week or two in the system before they were found at the lower columbia...and feeding was very minimal. If my memory is correct(can be a big if ) this is somthing pretty basic and this bunch is reaching pretty deep. I wonder if their motivation may be to get an injuction while they drag out a lawsuit they know they have little or no chance of winning. I mean their claim sounds logical but I was just a schmuck at the hatchery and if I know this it should be pretty common knowledge to the bioligists... I guess I agree with obsessed...
my $.02

Careful Escapee... there are loads of flyfishers on your side of this issue, not to mention lots on this board... dont stereotype us. I'll catch and release with the best of them, but I also love to eat fish too. It would seem that support from ALL types of fisherpeople would be better than fragmenting us into separate, opposing groups, thats part of the reason we get screwed as a user group anyway. we dont organize well.

PS: Orvis gear is really overrated.... I dont know that many flyfishers who actually use it. Sage is local, and far better anyway!

Escapee, Do everyone a favor and keep the anti fly fisher rhetoric/stereotype to yourself and out of this thread.

IF this is true, it's something that I think ought to be looked at.

Yes, other species eat some of them, that's part of the natural selction process that I feel is often left out of our management objectives ... but they've always been there and they're supposed to feed on them per Ma Nature.

If something is out of balance or creating problems, then it needs to be addressed.

It may, in the long run, mean less ops for some anglers. I know that sucks, but sometimes that's the way it has to be. Not wanting to lose a fishery that is important to an individual is understandable, it's simple human nature and we've all been guilty of looking out for oursleves at one time or another in our lifetimes. But once, in a while, you just have to bite the bullet!

This all is said on the basis of IF ...

Who was swimming with the smolts while they ate the chinook smolts? The hatchery fish head to the salt water rather quickly because they are SMOLTS, they are raised in the hatchery not in the rivers. So unless they can eat all the chinook smolts in a week or so there is no problem. The only problem is Washington Trout.

I just got word from one of my sources at the WDFW that a puget sound tribe has done a study on one of the rivers. Now this is word of mouth and my source is trying to get me the data on paper, but the tribe used a smolt trap to catch 1000 hatchery coho smolt and they opend them up and found 0 that is 0 spring chinook smolt in them. As soon as I have the hard Data in hand I will let you know, and so will the WDFW and Washington Trout.