Ramon, i was wondering how you came up with the number for the amount of wild chinook that are being eaten by hatchery smolt, 5.7 million if i remember correctly, is there some where on your website with this info ?, thanks.

Boater,

I am at home today and don't have the answer to your question at my finger tips. Let me get back to you tomorrow.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Boater,

Here is the language from our press release:

"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."

We are citing a California study that showed that yearling hatchery chinook each consumed an average of 14 wild chinook apiece. Smalma objects to the citation, correctly pointing out that yearling chinook are not yearling coho or steelhead. Our belief is that since WDFW does not have adequate data to demonstrate what the level of predation from yearling coho or steelhead actually is, while acknowledging that it "undoubtedly occurs" (their quote), then data from other studies involving yearling hatchery fish should be considered when trying to calculate the risk of releasing yearling hatchery juveniles. It certainly should not be summarily dismissed. It should also be considered that while coho and steelhead are not chinook, hatchery coho yearlings are generally more aggressive, and hatchery yearling steelhead are considerably larger than yearling chinook. It should also be noted that WDFW DOES release yearling chinook into Puget Sound rivers (and that we are suing over that in a seperate case).

But be that as it may, we are not alleging that hatchery coho and steelhead are each eating 14 wild chinook juveniles. we are not even alleging that each is eating one. We're saying the problem CAN be significant, that IF each hatchery fish ate one wild chinook, that would result in 5.7 million dead chinook (roughly the number of hatchery releases of coho and steelhead). If every other hatchery fish ate a chinook, it would be almost 3 million. If every FIFTH hatchery juvenile ate just one chinook, it would be over a million. You get the idea.

Remember that WDFW has to only kill ONE chinook without authorization to violate the law, and they have no authorization for their hatchery programs. It is WDFW's responsibility to demonstrate that whatever rate of "take" (the killing or harming of a listed species) is occuring is biologically insignificant, in order to continue operating the hatcheries. the burden of proof is on them, not the fish. We believe the available evidence strongly suggests that the take is significant, and WDFW has not met its responsibilty to justify its actions.

Some apparently object to our action based on evidence that "strongly suggests" significant harm. I would remind them that the burden of proof lies with hatchery proponents. Releasing millions of hatchery fish into watersheds occupied by listed fish is the "action" that requires justification. We believe WDFW's "justification" relies on little more than their own opinions and wishful thinking. That is not enough, no matter how reasonable they can make it sound.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Why dont you do a study in a Washington state river as opposed to relying on one study done in California?

Actually, we are relying on the study in California and several other studies, including one conducted by WDFW staff that showed hatchery coho can and will eat wild chinook, as well as WDFW documents that acknowledge that predation from hatchery juveniles on wild chinook "undoubtedly occurs" in Puget Sound rivers. I think I've said that before.

Given that WDFW and NMFS acknowledge the problem, but can't determine exactly how bad it is (even though they "figure" it's probably fine, despite evidence that suggests it's probably not fine), the better question might be why WDFW doesn't do the work necessary to determine just what level of harm is occuring from their hatchery operations, and what steps they might be able to take to minimize it so they can come into compliance with the ESA. Then you wouldn't have WT to worry about on this particular issue.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

thanks ramon, but, how can the state do an accurate study on this if you are suing them to prevent the release of the hatchery smolts that would be needed in the study ?