Oh great one of knowledge. Did you read the tacoma paper today? What's going on with the cowlitz. Cutting back on hatchery fish. That will really put a cramp in the guides that fish for keepers. I'm sure a select few will still like to fish in catch and release waters, but I don't think they are the majority. At least the people I've ran across.

Just curious what your thoughts are. Being how you are the COWLITZFISHERMAN!!!!

Glowball

I didn't get to read the article that you are talking about so maybe you can feel us all in on the details!

For over 2 years now, I have been telling this board that we are going to get screwed on our hatchery fish production in the Cowlitz. Almost 100% of the early returning winter run (nov-Jan) steelhead will be cut because of the Settlement Agreement that WDFW, NMFS, Tacoma, American Rivers and TU signed on August 2000.

Yep! American Rivers and TU took real good care of the sport fishermen on the Cowlitz. You can thank both of those groups for the huge cutbacks that are coming soon!

Like they say; you ain't seen nothing yet!

I had begged people to get involved and try to overturn this dooms day agreement, but it all fell onto deaf ears!

Ps; my thoughts are............. it really sucks!

Cowlitzfisherman

Glowball

I found the story that you were talking about, so I will post it for every one to read:

"Changing face of the Cowlitz

BOB MOTTRAM; The News Tribune

Some big changes are in store for anglers on the popular Cowlitz River in southwestern Washington, where fish managers are shifting from production of hatchery fish to production of wild fish.

It probably will mean less time on the river for anglers. But it won't happen soon.

"A lot of people don't realize how complicated fishery projects are on the Cowlitz," said Mark LaRiviere, senior fisheries biologist for Tacoma Power.

"You're dealing with four dams in the midbasin area, and populations of anadromous fish above and below the dams," he said. "The upper dam (Cowlitz Falls) belongs to the Lewis County Public Utility District. The three lower dams - Mayfield, Mossyrock and the barrier dam - belong to Tacoma Power."

All of the structures except the barrier dam, which prevents migrating fish from swimming upstream past the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery, produce hydroelectric power.

In exchange for the privilege of producing that power, the utilities must mitigate for damage their dams have caused to fish and wildlife.

As a part of the mitigation program, the utilities truck more adult fish around dams than does any other transportation program in the state.

The efforts of Tacoma Power and the Lewis County PUD are "additive," LaRiviere said. Their goal is to restore naturally spawning stocks of anadromous fish to the 240 miles of spawning habitat available in the upper Cowlitz River Basin, which includes all waters upstream of Mayfield Dam.

Aiding that effort is the fact that most of the fish already in the basin derived originally from local stocks, and only such fish are trucked above the dams.

When outmigrating smolts produced by those adults move toward the sea, workers capture them at two collection sites, one at Cowlitz Falls, a few miles above Riffe Lake, and the other at Mayfield Dam, at the lower end of Mayfield Lake.

Mayfield primarily collects smolts coming out of the Tilton drainage, which joins the Cowlitz near the upper end of Mayfield Lake, and Cowlitz Falls collects those from the Cowlitz drainage above Riffe Lake. Tacoma Power transports them downstream past the barrier dam to "stress-relief" ponds at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery.

The PUD is trying to improve the efficiency of its collection facility at Cowlitz Falls, said Mike Kohn, a biologist who works for the utility and for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The BPA built the facility under an agreement with Lewis County at a cost of $18 million, completing it in 1997.

"A lot of the smolts we don't collect go through the turbines and end up in Riffe Lake and (become) landlocked," he said. "Our highest collection was 434,000 (of all species), in 2001. Had we collected 100 percent, it would have been over a million fish."

The utilities mark some of the outmigrating juveniles so when they return as adults, managers can determine whether they are hatchery fish and what to do with them.

"At the barrier dam, all returning adults are routed up the ladder into the (hatchery) separator," LaRiviere said. "Every single returning adult has to be examined and a decision has to be made what to do with that individual fish."

Each fish is returned to its area of origin.

"It's a huge amount of work," LaRiviere said, "in a year like last year, when we had a 125,000-fish return."

Tacoma Power began federal relicensing efforts in the mid-1990s, and reached a settlement agreement in 2000 with Lewis County, state and federal fisheries agencies, private fish-conservation groups and the Yakama Indian Tribe. The agreement wrought some fundamental goal shifts.

"The settlement agreement recognizes harvest as an important component on the Cowlitz," LaRiviere said. "It's just not the major goal. And therein lies the challenge for the future, because it's such a change from the past."

Formerly, production was primarily for harvest.

The agreement also establishes other goals, such as habitat and wildlife protection and a flow regime that accommodates recreational boaters, although those are not stated as explicitly as the goals of fish restoration and harvest, LaRiviere said.

As a part of an evolving fish-management philosophy, Tacoma Power plans to honor "the spirit of reform" in Washington hatchery management, he said, by incorporating new rearing methods for a part of its production. Those will include lower densities of fish in the hatcheries and efforts to mimic the size and timing of naturally produced smolts.

The utilities also intend to foster what LaRiviere calls "volitional passage" of fish upstream and down.

The licensing agreement requires Tacoma Power to determine whether fish can "self-sort" correctly to the Cowlitz, to the Tilton and to the hatchery for spawning.

If they can, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will decide at year 14 of the license whether to require the utility to spend the $15 million it was required to set aside for enhancing fish passage at the barrier dam and Mayfield Dam.

Enhancements would consist of constructing a fish ladder at Mayfield and building a fish ladder at the barrier dam or removing the barrier dam. Fish would be able to swim upstream unassisted as far as Mossyrock Dam, which would continue to be impassable.

"This would allow fish to pass the hatcheries, pass over Mayfield and go up the Tilton if they chose," LaRiviere said. "If they chose not to, they would go up the Cowlitz arm and end up at the base of Mossyrock Dam. There's no way to construct a way over that. So it would be a repeat of the upstream transportation program for fish headed for the upper basin" of the Cowlitz.

The result?

"All this work is hopefully going to increase the naturally produced fish in the Cowlitz River," LaRiviere said. "Concurrent with that, there will be a reduction in fish produced out of the hatcheries.

"The goal would be no net reduction in total numbers of fish," he said, "but we recognize they would be a different kind of fish. If we're producing natural or wild fish out of the Cowlitz River Basin, those fish won't be available for harvest. So that's where lies a very large change."

Selective fishing for hatchery fish would allow some angling, LaRiviere said, and if managers can develop a strong enough run of natural fish, some of those also could be harvested.

"But in order to get to that point it might take some pretty severe harvest restrictions," he said".

______________________________________


Like I had said earlier; you ain't seen nothing yet! Now maybe our board will listen when I tell them the facts about the Cowlitz!

Two groups signed away your future fishery and you have American Rivers and TU to thank for that!

Salmo G. may like the Settlement Agreement, but sport fishermen will not!

Salmo also told you that it "would be different" but this artical tells you just "how different" the future will really be.

Not a pretty story, but its a true one.


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM, Does the Cowlitz stil have a genetically pure native run like say the Skagit does?? If the Cow stil had native fish i could see them making changes like this, but if its all hatchery stock then i call b.s also...

Boy im glad I didnt buy that new jet outboard for my boat. Sounds like fishing the cow is going to get nothing but worse.

Bank Walker

Here's the story on that!

The WDFW makes claim that their "late winter run steelhead" run is still the same genetic steelhead that the Cowlitz has always had historically. Logic and the logistics, plus common sense tell us otherwise.

One really needs to be an expert on the history of the Cowlitz to fully understand what has actually occurred. After 18 years of intense research and participation in countless meetings and pubic record searches, I consider myself to be an "expert" on the Cowlitz River Fishery. I do not hold a degree, but I do hold a tremendous amount of information, plus countless hours of researching her history.

To believe for one second that the Cowlitz still maintains a "pure genetic" run is just plain asinine! First, since day one, the WDFW had brought in steelhead from almost every other basin in the state and released them into the Cowlitz. That is documented and I have personally seen those records. After all the previous stockings from other river basins, the Dams and the Cowlitz hatcheries were also built. The steelhead hatchery went into production around 1969. They had no Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGPM) at that time. They just took the brood from whatever came into ladder at the Barrier Dam/ hatchery at the time. They used whatever "genetics" mixes that the "hatchery manager" thought would produce a large size steelhead that sport fishers would like. It was all done by timing, and size only!

From the early 1980's the average total run size of all steelhead for major stocks in the low Columbia River was approximately 150,000 winter steelhead and 80,000 summer steelhead. Approximately 75% of the total run (summer and winter combined) were thought to be of hatchery origin! A large portion of these fish (around 20,000) were from the Cowlitz.

Over 1,115,000 summer and "early winter run steelhead" smolts were released yearly into the Cowlitz since the early 1980's. None of those fish were marked to show if they were of hatchery or of wild origin.

It would defy both common sense and science to think that these late Cowlitz winter runs would have not been heavily inter mixed or interbreed in over 30 years of almost 100% hatchery production. You got to remember, you are talking about hunders of thousands of unmarked fish that were being selected at random to be used for brood stock. In my opinion, it would be next to impossible for the Cowlitz to have maintained a "pure" genetic stock of steelhead in the Cowlitz.

WDFW has claimed that these late winters are "similar" to what the Cowlitz once had, but are unable to bring ANY "genetic proof" that these fish were actually from the Cowlitz. Instead, they have singled out "one genetic group" because it is slightly different then all the other steelhead that are combined in the same ESU. There is absolutely no proof that these fish are truly the original Cowlitz stock of steelhead. They (WDFW) have chosen to use these stocks of fish only because they were "similar in run and spawning time" and abundance.

These are the real "facts" about the Cowlitz Native Winter Run Steelhead: Winter steelhead were history abundant in the Cowlitz River. The earliest production estimates was 22,000 fish (Meigs, no date).Thomson and Ruthfus (1969) counted steelhead passing Mayfield Dam from 1961 to 1966 which averaged 11, 087 fish.

Winter steelhead passage BEGAN in mid-November, peaked in early April and indeed in June. In 1950, Chamber Creek smolts were planted into the Cowlitz. Around 50% of the original winter genetic stock of Cowlitz steelhead returned by early February.

Do you still think that these are truly "native" genetic Cowlitz stocks? Well if you do, then try this one on for size! This is partial reply from WDFW to questions that I and my associate had asked the WDFW to answer back in November of 1995. It took the WDFW over 8 months to return their answers to our 26 question.

Once you have read their reply, you should be outraged that these new "wild" fish protections are now being imposed on the Cowlitz and its fishery!

WDFW answer June 12, 1996; "Wild winter steelhead in the Lower Columbia River tributaries are spring spawners (Lucas 1986 and WDFW unpublished data), with peak spawning from Mid March to June. Kray (1957) found that peak spawning in the Tilton River, a Cowlitz River tributary, occurred in May. These dates are supported by Mayfield run timing data which shows peak passage in April and it is 'likely' that peak spawning would occur within a month.

Therefore, the most suitable stock for steelhead reintroduction would be a winter steelhead that enters primarily between March and June, and spawns between April and June. This leads us to either 'Cowlitz Hatchery' or wild steelhead.

STOCK SELECTION--WDFW would have preferred to use local stocks because of survival and adaptation advantages over hatchery fish in the natural environment. However, there are few wild steelhead left in the Cowlitz River and most are offspring from hatchery fish (Tipping 1984). Adjacent river basins are not making their escapements goals, leaving few fish available for Cowlitz reintroduction. Therefore, local Cowlitz stocks were examined as the most viable option."


So what it all boiled down to is that WDFW had drummed up a way to create a "similar" genetic stock to now create a "wild" species of Cowlitz River steelhead that will now be protected!

Fishermen should be outraged!!

But yet they have set here and let it happen!

And some members wonder why I am always getting down on our WDFW.


Cowlitzfisherman

At the risk of getting my head handed to me, I'll wade into this discussion with a different take on the settlement and the Cowlitz Rv.

I agree that the steelhead on the Cowlitz are probably nowhere near the native stock that existed prior to Mossyrock/Mayfield. The true native stock of steelhead are probably long gone. The best thing WDFW can do is estimate what was there 100 years ago and do the best they can with the stock they have now.

But my main point is that the number of steelhead produced on the Cowlitz in the future is not expected to change. What's going to change is the ratio of hatchery fish vs. wild (non-hatchery) fish. If the plan goes as expected, the number of wild fish will increase. If an angler is fortunate enough to catch an unclipped (wild) steelhead on the Cowlitz, returning it to the river is likely to be required. The end result should be more wild steelhead. What's wrong with that? The effort to get away from hatchery fish and produce more wild fish is not confined to the Cowlitz Rv. or Washington or the Pacific Northwest. It is going on all across the country. Don't be surprised if this change in stocking policy will eventually hit most rivers in Washington, including my favorites, the Kalama and the Lewis.

But CFM raises a very interesting point. Most anglers believe that more wild steelhead is a good thing. But what if the price of more wild steelhead is fewer hatchery steelhead; and therefore, fewer opportunities to put a steelhead in the freezer? Would the angling public (us) still support wild steelhead, to the degree they do now, if it means fewer hatchery steelhead and fewer opportunities for harvest (but the same fishing opportunity)?

Personally, I would still strongly support wild steelhead even if it means fewer hatchery steelhead. Would CFM? I don't know but I will let him answer that. What do other folks think?

I believe that not all anglers on the Cowlitz Rv. are focusing on providing meat for the freezer; but rather, the opportunity to catch (and release) a wild steelhead. But then again, I don't spend alot of time at Blue Creek.......

Cohoangler

I will attempt to answer your question that you given to me.

First, you asked me; "Personally, I would still strongly support wild steelhead even if it means fewer hatchery steelhead. Would CFM? I don't know but I will let him answer that."

My answer is; why would you want to replace a "mitigation responsibility" that produces harvestable stocks of steelhead with a program that only produces "wild" fish that can not be harvested? Am I for that? Absolutely not!

The original "restoration program" was started back in 1991 (I was part of the settlement that triggered it) and it was never intended to be a "replacement" for our hatchery programs (which at the time, I was the FOC's "legal representative" for the group). It was developed through a "Settlement Agreement" with the Friends of the Cowlitz and BPA.

The original "intent" was to "Reestablish-self-sustaining natural populations of anadromous in BALANCE WITH THE EXISTING NATURAL AND HATCHERY POPULATIONS and habitat available in the Cowlitz above Cowlitz Falls Dam and to provide harvest opportunity for anadromous adult's salmonids in the upper watershed."

The key word here is "Balance"! But what does WDFW know about "balance" anyway?

Several public meetings were held, and that is what was promised to us by the WDFW (I still have the document). Now they (WDFW) have signed a "private Settlement Agreement" that will change all of what was originally promised to us earlier!

Finally, you said: " I believe that not all anglers on the Cowlitz Rv. are focusing on providing meat for the freezer; but rather, the opportunity to catch (and release) a wild steelhead." I do know where you came up with that crook of $hit, "Not all", but 99999.9 % of the anglers who fish the Cowlitz keep what they catch! And I am NOT TALKING ABOUT just the BLUE CR. area!

I guess that most anglers don't mind catching and releasing those "wild unmarked hatchery fish" as long as they are being allowed to continue to catch good numbers of "legal" hatchery fish. But once they find that almost 90% of the fish that they are now going to be catching must be "release" so that Tacoma will not have to pay for those "hatchery costs"..........well that's another whole different story!

Since ALL "hatchery fish" WILL BE DENIED any access to the spawning grounds of these "wild" fish, why not have the bests of both worlds? Lots of hatchery fish for harvest, and 240 miles of some of the best spawning habitat that is left in Washington State for them to spawn and rear in!


Was that enough? If not, I have lots more to say!

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz my friend, this isn't an attack on you so don't worry. If you take a second and re-read the quote from yourself above, I think you'll begin to understand just a little bit how these board squabbles (which I've definitely been involved in) tend to get started in the first place.

I know this is a passionate issue for you, and you see it in black and white. All I'm saying is to take a minute and realize that NOT EVERYONE see's it exactly like you do.

4Salt

If Cohoangler is offended by my commits, or remarks, we will work that one out! We do not need you in the middle to be the "stirrer" of a pot! Good try though!

I did not say, nor did I insinuate that "Cohoangler" was a crook of $hit! I think he knows a lot about fishing polices because he is a Fishery Biologist and may even work for or with the state. With that being said, I have followed my commitment to my signing onto our board. If you believed that what I have written violates that, then please state the violation. Fair enough?

If Bob, or Jerry or any other of Bob's moderators wants to agree with you, knowing full well that you have always wanted to pick a fight with whatever I have to say, well that is life. 4Salt, your own words are your own worse enemy!

posted by 4Saly on 5-29-2003 AM:

"You ain't gettin' off that easy Cowlitz. You gotta know that I'm a gonna post some know-it-all sh!t! ESPECIALLY if it's a topic YOU started!!!

And again:

Posted by 4 Salt:
Ahhh Cowlitz,So many insults, so little time...

Attack mode? What the hell do you think you just did to Rob Allen? Nevermind I'll forgo the typical Cowlitz justification. I'd be glad to be the Phil Donahue of the board: "Is the caller there? Seein's how I don't know $hit, I guess it's a damn good thing we got you."

4Salt, I do believe that Bob, Jerry, and the rest of the board will all be able to see through your endless attempts to discredit me.

Do you need more salt ? 4Salt? Or are you into the "pepper mode now?

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

This sucks. I know we have butted heads a little over the last coupel of months. This isn't right. This is letting the utilities off easy. This is screwing the recreational fisherman to the max. The Cowlitz is a prime example of how some rivers should be managed for harvest.

Is there anything that can be done at this point? Or is it all a done deal.

What a joke them saying that there is a wild run left with all that evidence.

JJ

My vote would be for more hatchery fish and no wild fish, the wild ones aren't native anyways so why would I want to protect them? I'm going out there to bring something home so I never want to see an unclipped fish on the end of my line. Besides, if you really want to protect wild fish you wouldn't be trying to catch them. HOORAY FOR HATCHERIES!!!!!

JJ

So true, so true!

Both the friends of the Cowlitz and my group, CPR-Fish are appealing the license with FERC. It's hard to fight a utility that just spent well over 12 million dollars on getting these jokers to sign the Settlement Agreement and we are working for free! As sick as that may sound, we still have some members that believe that sport fishermen got a "good deal" on the Cowlitz Settlement. I truly believe that they are confused about wild fish, fish, and sport fishermen.

I truly do not know if we can overturn the "Settlement Agreement" or not, but I can tell this; I will give it my last breath trying to do so!

Cowlitzfisherman

Maybe if we didnt have so many special interest groups, we might get something done in the steelhead world. The cowlitz thing does sound like a crock of crap though... It would be tough to turn a whack em' stack em' river to a 90% CNR river. WDFW needs to figure out a way to 100% seperate hatchery and native steelhead so both can prosper and sportsman can have harvest and #'s (natives).

test reply

Cowlitz- Now how did I just KNOW that you'd be unable to comprehend the meaning and intent of my post...

4Salt

I think more people then you may have realize comprehended exactly what you were up to!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM -
While I would in no way attempt to debate you on your extensive knowledge of the Cowlitz and its fisheries or its fish I do have a couple observations.

The run timing and spawning timing of the native Cowlitz steelhead you report were surprising similar to that of the Skagit fish. Could it be because of similar spring/summer hydrographs?

Because of this unusual late spawn timing it is certainly possible that there may be little interaction between the late spawning native stocks and the earlier hatchery stocks. A review of WDFW's 2003 hatchery escapement reports shows that the Cowlitz winter hatchery steelhead egg take (521,154 eggs) was completed by the end of Janaury. The egg take of the "late" Cowlitz winter steelhead began in early April and was complete about mid-may with 876,694 eggs taken.

With 60 days between the end of the hatchery spawning and the beginning of spawning of the "late" fish it would seem to my simple mind that some uniquness of the "late" stock could have been maintained.

With nearly 1.4 million eggs taken it doesn't look like much of a reduction in the total hatchery production of winter steelhead.

It is also interesting to note that on a board that has many members who champion "wild steelhead" that there would be such support to maintain hatchery production at all costs and little support to enhancing the wild production of steelhead.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

I really enjoy it (like a snake bite) when you ask me questions because you really make me think before I answer! Obviously you have a lot more access to information then most people do and also know how to get more when you need it! That gives you an unfair advantage, but we all must put up or shut up!

Ok, with that being said, I will give you my "best laymen's" answer to some of the "tuff technical questions" that you are always so good at imposing onto us.

You asked;" The run timing and spawning timing of the native Cowlitz steelhead you report were surprising similar to that of the Skagit fish. Could it be because of similar spring/summer hydrographs?"

The answer to that question is, yes that could be one of the answers, or it could just be part of the answer. But there is another possibility that we must first considered before one could draw that conclusion. Since 1938, the Cowlitz received numerous plants of steelhead from just about every major river system in the state! They could have just as easily been the "genetic prodigy" from plants from the Skagit River or a combination of several plants from multiple rivers. I do not know if that is what's has happen, but it would have had made sense, at the time, for WDW to do something like this, especially because of the similarities of the Cowlitz and the Skagit run timing.

Since it's been about ten years ago since I had last seen that data, I do not recall if Skagit stocks had been used in the earlier plants of the Cowlitz or not. I do recall that the Cowlitz did get lots of plants from outside of its own basin. I do know that they "consistently used" chamber creek stocks from about 1951 to 1967. Each year from 51-67 they planted an average of about 41,661 steelhead smolts @ 2.5-13/lb into the Cowlitz.

You say; "With 60 days between the end of the hatchery spawning and the beginning of spawning of the "late" fish it would seem to my simple mind that some uniquness of the "late" stock could have been maintained."

That may have been true for the egg take years in 2002, but I do not believe that was the case, or the policy of WDW during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Not all eggs that have been taken from the Cowlitz have been programmed or used in the Cowlitz either! The Cowlitz Trout Hatchery had been used to "playing god" with their run timing and the fish sizes (2's&3's). They have a long standing record of selecting brood stocks for programs during the late 60 through the 70 and 80's time period. Here are just a few examples of the percentage of eggs that WDW took for hatchery production of the "late winter steelhead" on the Cowlitz.

In the year 1968, they only took eggs from these months for the winter runs:
Dec-0.0%
Jan - 0.0%
Feb-5.4%
Mar-32.9%
Apr-61.7%
May-0.0%

Year 1975 they took eggs from these months only for winter runs:
Dec-2.5%
Jan-58.4%
Feb-37.0%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-2.2%
May-0.0%

In 1983 they took eggs from these moths only:
Dec- 41.5%
Jan - 51.4%
Feb- 3.6%
Mar-0.0%
Apr-1.7%
May-1.7%

From 1974-1979, almost no eggs were taken to support the March - May timing of the steelhead run!

Do you still believe that this "special unique" supper stock of genetically selected steelhead could have stayed unmixed and separate after 35 years of genetic mixing like this has occurred?

It's my opinion the "reason" that these "special" genetic stocks were developed, or "remarkably discovered" by the WDFW were because of the "Wild Salmonid Policy"!
It was quickly starting to have a huge "conflict" with the reintroduction program, and the commercial fisheries on the Lower Columbia River.

Obviously, WDF could not be promoting both a restoration program and commencing a massive commercial gill net fishery at the same time they were claiming to be "restoring wild steelhead". It doesn't take a scientist, or a biologist to figure this one out!

Washington State law prohibited them from "intentional" or commercially taking of steelhead (both wild and sport). In 1994, a decision was made by WDFW to develop a plan that would allow WDFW to continue both the "Restoration Programs" and the Columbia Commercial Gill Net Fishery to co-exist.

Historically the "native run" of Cowlitz Winter steelhead started entering the Lower Columbia River in early to mid-November. The commercial gill net fishery for coho would be going into full swing by that same time period. Cowlitz coho (late stock) peak in late November-early December and continue to come in until February. Since coho and steelhead are almost the same in size, the coho nets would not be able to let these steelhead pass through their net fishery without taking a heavey toll. So how could WDFW allow a massive coho fishery to continue on the Lower Columbia, and at the same time claim to be participating in a recovery/restoration program for "wild steelhead" that are being nailed in big numbers during the coho net fishery?

Presto! The answer was a simple one; WDFW decided to develop/create one specially unique returned timed stock of steelhead that would "not be returning at the same time" that the Columbia River coho gill net fishery was occurring! That way, NMFS would not be force legally by law or some outside group to "shut down" the commercial coho fishery when to many "wild steelhead" from the restoration program were being caught and counted in the NMFS "incidental take allotment"!

Because of the conflict between the coho commercial fishery and the return timing of the native stocks of Cowlitz Winter run steelhead almost 4 months, or one half of the original native run timing has now been totally eliminated! Biology and science at its best!

Smalma,
The "original Cowlitz Falls Restoration Management Plan" called for a "balance between wild, native and hatchery fish populations. This newer "self declared" version that WDFW has now created does not represent the original restoration Plan or its goals. It's really hard to image or believe that after 35+ years of hatchery interbreeding/mixing, plus WDFW own admission in 1984 that only 1.6% of all the "natural production" in the Cowlitz was likely that of hatchery stocks and not that of native genetic stocks should tell the "rest of the story"!

Finally, your last statement was; "It is also interesting to note that on a board that has many members who champion "wild steelhead" that there would be such support to maintain hatchery production at all costs and little support to enhancing the wild production of steelhead."

Maybe fishermen like what they have been doing on the Cowlitz for last 35+ years and do not want to "create" a wild fish run that will prohibit their last chance or opportunities to enjoy a harvest!

Well Smalma, that's about the best that this here laymen can do to answer your questions! I hope that you can understand what I have wrote, and understand the amount time and work that it takes to give you an answer that will meet your high criteria standards.

If I have failed, well through me another one, and let's see if I can handle it too!

You are one tuff person to reply to!

Cowlitzfisherman

Thats why you da man.