i bet this decrease in hatchery fish and increase in unretainable fake wild fish is just gonna make the river worse than it has been in the last few years

guess my kids may never know about how great the cowlitz was in the 80's and early 90's, i caught my first steelie from blue creek when i was 6.

the cowlitz should be managed as more of a meat run, when compared to a river like the nisqually which used to have a lot of wild fish until the indians did them in

CFM -
Regarding the later spwning timing of Skagit and other stocks - Here in the North Sound area I have noticed that the timing of wild steelhead spawning is such that the fry will emerge from the gravel after the high flows of the spring run subsides. Systems like the Skagit that have a large and prolong snow-melt driven run-offs that last to late July or early August have much later spawning. In the Skagit case the peak spawning is the middle part of May with that the fry emerging about August first. Based on your earlier cites it appears to me that the Tilton must have substantial snow-melt run-off normally lasting well into July.

To my knowledge the only extensive culture of Skgit wild steelhead stocks have been confined to that basin. It is unlikely that the Cowlitz has recieved plants of wild Skagit origin.

The salmonid stocks in the Pacific Northwest developed in very dynamic river systems that were constantly changing. As a result the fish developed the ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions (as a result their behaviors, life histories and even genetics were constantly undergoing subtle changes). If they could not they were toast. As a result given a change in a new environment they evolve quickly to be successful in that environment.

While we will likely never know what the genetic profiles of the historical wild stocks of the Cowlitz were (need samples from those fish prior to any hatchery/wild interactions and about the only likely hope would be some archived scale samples collected a half a century ago). It would appear to me that the current "late" Cowlitz stock with their late spawning would have a chance to successful adapt places like the Tilton. To my mind these fish would not necessarily be native but would be wild fish and if they are productive that is good enough for me. As Cohoangler mentioned this is the future of fish recovery with less worry or focus on the genetic purity of the fish and more on restoring functioning habitats and populating them with successfully adapted wild stocks that are as productive as possible (this Cowlitz discussion seems simlar to what is occurring on the East Coast with Atlantic salmon).

I did find it interesting that they are talking about getting fish back into 240 miles of habitat (that is more habitat than all the winter steehead habitat in the Snohomish basin). Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try.

I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest. However just as surely there are many who would feel giving the fish a chance to develop a viable wild populatin is a good thing and worth the sacrifice. For me issues like this is less about my needs today and more about preserving options for future generations.

On contentious issues like this there will not be agreement among all us diverse users. Rather they will be a wide range of opinions with facts and/or data of little concern on those from either pole of the issue. Let's agree to attempt to provide the best information available to us for those in the middle so that they can make an informed decision whether that be fore or against our own personal positon.

You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies.

Just one question - Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Tight lines
Smalma

I don't like the netting on the Nasty any more than anyone else. But that is not what happened to the steelhead there.

Bill Herzog can tell you all about it. And it was not the indians.

Smalma

You have asked me; "Do you feel that attempting to establish wild salmon populations in upstream areas just as mis-guided as with steelhead?

Smalma, I am not against nor am I opposed to either establishing salmon or steelhead to any "upstream" area for the purpose of natural production. When I was the President of the Friends of the Cowlitz (FOC), we the FOC, was the original group that triggered the upper River restoration program for both Salmon and Steelhead!

During the first 3 years (1991-1993) BPA, FOC, NMFS. USFWS, WDF, WDFW, and USFS all developed a restoration plan called the "Cowlitz Falls Project Fisheries Management Plan" or the (CFPFMP). Have you ever had the opportunity yet to read the "original "CFPFMP" before the new combined wildlife and fishery agencies were cloned together and change it?

The plan took over 3 years to develop and refine, and addressed the restoration of both salmon and steelhead in the upper Cowlitz River, and to lesser degree, the Tilton drainage. Tacoma put up a fit when we originally included that area, because it was "above" the area that BPA was responsible for in the Settlement Agreement with the FOC.

The CFPFMP was and still is a dynamic one that both wild fish avocates and harvest people could both live with. It addresses both "wild", "Natural", and hatchery production. When the final plan came out, the new WDFW got all excited because it was named the "Cowlitz Falls Fish Prtoject Management Plan". The magic word that got them peeing in their shorts was "Management Plan"! They couldn't handle a plan that involved these words unless it was the new WDFW's own "Management" plan, even those many of the people in both agencies fully participated in developing this plan.

The plan was so simple and workable that the WDFW just couldn't stand or handle it, and in June of 1996 had to make up their own version which they now refer to as the;" Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Reintroduction" plan. But like almost everything else that they (WDFW) gets their hands on, they really screwed it up!

The original CFPFMP was workable because it made a "BALANCE" between hatchery fish and wild or natural fish. It allowed them to co exist and still have a fishery for sport fishermen. There was, and still is not any reason in the would that both hatchery stocks and natural stocks could not both share and utilize over 240 miles of the best habitat that is left in our state! That's right, over 240 miles of virgin habitat that is not being used, and they are worried about intermixing the gene pools of "hatchery fish" vs "wild fish".... What joke!

It was all about the hatcheries being cut back and nothing else!

What would they do if the water shed starts pumping out hundreds of thousands of fat health smolts from hatchery shocks? What would they say to all the other BS programs that they have established and are promoting when all these fish can be produced for nothing by nature?

With well over 240 miles of natural habitat, there is no reason in the world why we can't have both hatchery and native fish coming out in large numbers from this area!

I challenge any member on our board or for that matter, WDFW to show us the proof that this would not work!

It's the same old story.....sorry, but its only aout WDFW people loosing their jobs!

Hell, WDF even charged the BPA over $18,000 for them to participate in the CFPFMP. I do not know what WDW charged the BPA, but I would imagine it was close to the same amount!

So when you said; "You mentioned the state "Wild Salmonid Policy" and how it was providing direction for the decision makers. That is precisely why such policies are needed. If you don't like the decisions that are being made based on the policies it may be more productive to work on changing the policies."

Well that is exactly what I am doing now! We had a great CFPFMP that everyone could have lived with and then the WDFW changed "the plan" to meet and support their own internal needs.

Smalma, I have 2 more replys and then I let you off the hook.

1) You said;" Also ladderng the lower dam and giving the fish access to and from Tilton would seem to be a huge "win" to me. Of course it remains to be seen whether it can be successfully done. That doesn't mean that they should not try."

To bad that the great Director of WDFW (Jeff Koenings) doesn't feel the same way as you do! He went out of his way to assure in the Settlement Agreement that fish ladders would not be readily available for Mayfield Dam. There were no engineering problems with making a workable ladder over Mayfield because it falls within the 140' levels that are very workable for fish. The BIG POROBLEM was that Jeff wanted 15 million dollars of insurance for his hatcheries if within 15 years the bench marks (Which is had personally set) were not met! The ladder issue was a cake walk at Mayfield, but that 15 million dollars that WDFW wants to have will never allow that to happen!


So look at what the WDFW "rats" have done; "e) Within five years of license issuance, the Licensee shall establish an interest-bearing escrow account in the amount of $15 million to contribute to the total cost of constructing volitional upstream fish passage facilities. To minimize administrative cost and allow conservative growth, said escrow account may be held by the Licensee as a separate account (with Licensee being obligated to treat said account substantially similar to an escrow account), and said account may be invested, consistent with investment limitations on public agencies within the State of Washington.

Here's the nail in the coffin!; "h) If within 14 years of license issuance the criteria for volitional upstream passage facilities, described in b), c) and g) above, have not been met and it is determined by the FTC or agencies, and affected Tribes, with the concurrence of NMFS and USFWS, that measures in addition to those provided for in the August 2000 Settlement Agreement are necessary to restore self-sustaining, natural production of ESA-listed stocks in the Cowlitz River basin, and that expenditure of the escrow fund on such additional measures in lieu of volitional upstream facilities is necessary and appropriate to achieve natural stock restoration, consistent with the express purpose of the license and the Settlement Agreement, and with applicable recovery plans for the listed Cowlitz River stocks, the Licensee shall submit to the Commission a plan to abandon volitional upstream passage and expend the funds in the escrow account for the purposes of protecting and promoting restoration and recovery of listed Cowlitz River stocks. The draft plan shall be submitted to the FTC or agencies for 30-day review and comment period"

Now Smalma, what do you think will happen?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And finally, you say:" I'm not sure that your statement sport fisherman will not like the agreement is true. Certainly there are many who do not or will not like giving up any of those hatchery fish to harvest."

2) Well there is one way to find out that answer for sure! Have you ever wondered why our WDFW has never proposed to put that same question on our voting ballots? Then, you and I would all have the same chance to vote on this issue and live with the results of the many! Sounds more then fare to me. . . how about you?


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman-
In response to your questions
1) the escrow account - not knowing what paragraphes B, C & G require the PUD's to do I have no way of answering your question. However have an applicant putting funds in an escrow account to be used if they don't meet thier obligations seems purdent to me.

2) Having the anglers vote on issues. That would be a very cumbersome. There have been various angler preferences conducted over the years and not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything. Which is exactly my point - we anglers represent a wide range of opinions and ideas and rarely speak with a single voice. Perhaps the close there is to agreement is that WDFW doesn't have a clue but I'll bet there are even some WDFW supportors.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

You said; "2) Having the anglers vote on issues. That would be a very cumbersome. There have been various angler preferences conducted over the years and not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything. Which is exactly my point - we anglers represent a wide range of opinions and ideas and rarely speak with a single voice. Perhaps the close there is to agreement is that WDFW doesn't have a clue but I'll bet there are even some WDFW supportors."

That's funny! "Not unexpectly anglers never unamiously agree on anything".

Well, that sounds just like our entire voting system doesn't it? Win some, loose some!

I agree with you about having just the "anglers" only vote! But since almost all of our funds that are used to run or support the fish and wildlife agencies come out of our states "general funds", it would be both fair and appropriate for the "general public" to have a vote on any such issues!


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman -
I don't know where the myth comes from that WDFW is supported mostly by general fund $$. In quick visit to WDFW's web sit I found that for the 1997/98 budget 31% of their funds came from the general fund and for 1998/99 it was 33%. The rest came from user fees, mitigation monies, and other federal, state and local funds. With the continued cuts in state general funds I suspect the % of general funds has fallen lower.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

That would certainly explain why WDFW chose to have that 15 million dollars put into a special account instead of spending that money now to build those worthless fish ladders! I guess you could say that the 15 million dollars is WDFW' "rainy day fun"!

I never even thought of it that way before, but it sure makes a lot of sense now.

Thanks

Cowlitzfisherman

Isn't that special the fish and game only get 33 cents on the dollar from all the money we spend on licenses. Oh how special that is. Or did I misunderstand.

Glowball -
Actually what I said was that about 1/3 of WDFW's budget came from the State's general fund. To get at the root of your question I re-visisted WDFW's web site and checked the 1999-2001 biennial report. There I found that the total budget for the agency for those 2 years was nearly $275 million dollars. Of that nearly $93 million came from the general fund.

Deeper in the report I found that the total license sales for that biennium was $62,945,960 ($33,739,828 from fishing, 26,687,242 from hunting, and 2,518,885 from commerical). Of the total license sales $44,412,606 went to the wildlife fund the rest to the State's general fund.

Hope that helps. If you have addition questions suggest you visit WDFW's web site (www.wa.gov/wdfw), click on "who we are" (first line in the green section on the left) and you should find the last biennial report.

Cowlitzfisherman -
Is there anything where you don't find conspiracies?

Tight lines
Smalma

I've been fishing the Cowlitz for 20 years this November. That may not be as long as some have been on her banks, but it's longer than others have even been fishin'. Yet what I envision to be "the good ol' days" on this river is a time I've never seen, although I dream of it every time I fish it.

I'm sure without looking up any stats to drop that the Cowlitz was once one of the greatest native steelhead runs on our planet, not to mention her salmon and cutts. Along it's hundreds of miles of premier habitat, millions of natural, wild steelhead emerged from the gravel destined to become one of the alpha races of summer and winter run Columbia trib fish, the likes of which people today pay through the nose to fish in yet unadulterated regions of British Columbia. The Toutle, and it's legendary summer runs are actually Cowlitz tributary fish. Resilient enough to bounce back from St.Helens, but one dam would eliminate them.

I can only imagine a fall day floating the upper reaches in what I consider to be the glory days of the Cowlitz - the days when she flourished as one of the mighty wild steelhead rivers of the world.

Then came the dams, and hatcheries, sleds and super-efficient means of harvesting mass-produced fish in the name of sport, and somehow this became "the good old days". These upper reaches are now under impoundment lakes behind mammoth dams and pumped with everything from sockeye to tiger muskie in the name of sport.

I guess glory is in the eye of the beholder.

.02

Juro

Smalma

You of all people!

You said; "Is there anything where you don't find conspiracies? Those are 100% your words, not mind! All I have done is state the facts and the facts only. If my facts are wrong then say so and support them with your facts. Apparently you have gotten your hair up because the facts that I have posted appear to make the WDFW look pretty bad!

Well, the old saying is "If the shoe fits . . . then ware it! This shoe is almost getting to be glove to our WDFW.

Like I said, I am sorry to have offended you, but what I have written can be backed 100% by documentation! (Well, everything except the "look at what the "rats" have done" statement) That was really just my own opine!

Why is it the WDFW supporters always have to come back with this "conspiracies" reply whenever there is "facts" that they can not counter?


Cowlitzfisherman

Juro, A good, insightful perspective.

AuntyM says Right on! That is the smartest thing said in the long list of diatribe here.
Why ruin a perfectly good hatchery river that has and will continue to have (probably) dams on it that all the special interest groups claim is what killed off the wild fish in the first place?? I mean, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the dams did the fish in for the most part, then restoring a wild run is probably not going to work? Big waste of money just so a few flyfisherman can get a stiffy releasing a fish with an adipose fin....
Improving and maintaining a natural (native) run in a river like the Wind, Klickitat, Quinault, etc. is a good thing. Trying to do so on a dammed river that is and has been a hatchery river for decades is a joke........

MC

Mastercaster, PS: I know just as many gear fisherman who get a stiffy releasing a fish with adipose fin, so be careful who you stereotype here. It's too easy just to give up, maybe it is too late for rivers like the Cowlitz, but maybe the past should be a BIG lessons learned so we don't repeat and ALLOW the same mistakes on other rivers that are hanging on(Bearly)

Yes DoubleHaul..... I get a stiffy catching ANY fish...... BUT....... I do not use all my resources to affect areas I fish to suit only my desires, and although I love to Flyfish, I GENERALLY do not hang with that crowd as I have found them GENERALLY an elitist group that thinks that anyone with a spinning rod and bait should be burned at the stake..... Again, I can only GENERALIZE and I will say that some of the best friends I have had in my life were Flyfishers..... Some elitist, others not...... I do believe, and the gist of my comments, were pointing to the fact that WT (with a majority as Flyfishers) probably had the more to do with the Cowlitz decision than any other group.

MC

MC- I used to gear fish, still do sometimes and some of my best friends are gear fisherman, who cares? No need to explain your opinion to me, everyone has an opinion and I will save everyone the pain of mine. Do the topic a favor and don't off track or divide it by laying down the flyfisher card. Thanks for your consideration.

Aunty

You are right!

I don't think a lot of fishermen realize just how many people fished the Cowlitz. For years now, the Cowlitz was the number one winter run steelhead fishery in the State. Each month from late November to January, thousands of fishermen hammered the Cowlitz on a "weekly" basis. It was not uncommon to have over 100 boats a day at Blue cr during Nov-Jan alone. Now where do you think that all those fishermen and boats will be heading for, since they have decided to eliminate that Nov-Jan run of hatchery fish? I bet you that 90% of the total winter run steelhead that were harvested on the Cowlitz were harvested during that same time periods.

Just think about it, all of those people from Boeing that used to come down to the Cowlitz during Nov-Jan will now be looking at and fishing in the rivers and streams that they had never had to before!

You can also bet that all those guides who everyone gets so mad at will also all be looking for the best rivers to take their clients, and it surly won't be the Cowlitz during Nov-Jan anymore. For sure, there will be a lot more people fishing rivers that never had much pressure on them before. And they will wonder where all that new pressure has come from?

But then again, some one will undoubtedly accuse me of drumming up another one those "conspiracies" theories again. . . . but this time I will be the one who is left chuckling!


Cowlitzfisherman

MasterCaster, and Double Hual

It was not the Fly fishers who screwed up the Cowlitz! It was the clever Utility company named Tacoma Power. Yes their was some involvement by fly fishers "IF" you consider American Rivers and Trout Unlimited to be only Fly fishers.

But you got to remember who invited them to participate and paid them to do it. It was Tacoma Power! Tacoma Power knew that these grops were heavily into wild fish and that is why they brought them aboard. It only makes sense, if you were a Power hungry utility like Tacoma, you would be doing the same thing. They knew that if they could get the Cowlitz "programmed" to favor wild fish production instead of "hatchery production", they could save millions of dollars each and every year! Do the math on their 35 years license (a million and a half for hatcheriers each year = $52 Million dollars!) and that's not even including the cost savings of another $15+ million dollars for the fish ladders that they got out of installing of in the Settlement Agreement.

There is just no good reason on earth that we could not have had both hatchery and "natural" production both going on in the upper Cowlitz basin! I defy any board member or WDFW staff to prove otherwise! The nightmare on the Cowlitz can be credited to three groups in my opinion. First and foremost is Tacoma Power. Second is the NMFS. Third, is the WDFW!

Tacoma spent way over 12 million dollars to assure that fish ladders would not be installed for at least the first 15 years, and that the future hatchery production would be cut back so that wild fish would become the highest priority and goal .

NMFS assisted Tacoma by not demanding "volitional" fish passage at both Dams (fish ladder at Mayfield and a "tram" system at Mossyrock). That way, both hatchery fish and "natural fish" could both utilize over 240 miles to spawn and produce whatever the water shed was capable of supporting. Since All STOCKS of fish that where to be used were from the same current hatchery stocks, it would have made no difference in the first place! And even "IF" one of the species was not 100% from the Cowlitz, what difference would it really make? I would like to see how NMFS could defend its position on this issue.

Finally, but certainly not last, is our own WDFW. They had the power and the trusted responsibility to demand fish passage that would have allowed both natural and hatchery fish to co-exist together and once again produce naturally produced fish that would once again make the Cowlitz the mighty river that she once was!

But instead, Tacoma held out that $15 million dollar "golden ring" for our WDFW, until WDFW reached out and grabed onto it tightly! It was pretty obvious that WDFW wanted only to depend on "hatchery production" instead of letting the same "hatchery" fish do it for nothing!

Personally, I think that both WDFW and NMFS needs to explain their actions and reasoning for what they have now done to the Cowlitz River fishery. I am looking forward to debating this issue so that the entire board can see just how screwed the fishermen really got on the Cowlitz River Settlement.

I already know what Tacoma Power would say, so let's hear what explanations WDFW and NMFS can come up with!

Let's not blame each other now for things what our state and federal agencies have done to us on the Cowlitz River. It was their agenda not ours! Why else did they sign the agreement without first going public for ALL fishermen to review it first (you already know the answer to that one)?

They had all the time in the world to do so if they had really wanted you to make any commits!

It's time to change the "old ways", and make it a state mandate that any "Settlement Agreements" that WDFW makes, must first go through a public review period for commit before we are force to spend more of our own money to fight ourselves in court. Because whenever we take the "state" to court, we are just paying to fight against ourselves. What's wrong with that picture?

Cowlitzfisherman

Well what's the mater WDFW-NMFS, does the cat have their agencies spokesmen holding their tongues again?

I am still waiting for any of them (the agency spokesmen) to rely!

Maybe the same "old" way of thinking will work again (or at least one more time anyway)! If you don't answer, maybe he will go away!

This may be one of the reasons why our fisheries are always so screwed up! These guys (agencies) have been "put on the spot" again and they need some time to figure out how, and where, to make wiggle! It's really a shame that these agencies can't make a come back without first having a major plow-wow before giving any answers to our board. They do read it . . . and read it often!

So when can we expect to hear their reply?

Wait.....I can hear it coming now! We are so bussy that we don't have time to answer. We are over worked and way under paid.

Well maybe, but I will wait to bebate that issue until "after" I get their replies.....well maybe that is just wishfull thinking too!


Cowlitzfisherman