The Sockeye runs returning to Lake Washington and the Cedar River stand a good chance of becoming much more predictable and much more robust if the Sockeye hatchery program under way is not stopped by the anti-hatchery crowd led by Washington Trout. Since Sockeye hatch and go immediately to the lake the argument that they interfere with and compete with the runs of Coho , Chinook and Steelhead in the river is erroneous and misleading. These runs are from stocks introduced to the river and lake many years ago and are therefore not native. The runs have adapted well and our area has benefitted tremendously from the fishery they provide in Lake Washington.

The opponents , including Washington Trout, need to answer some touch questions about their motives given the science on the table surrounding this issue. There are many reforms going on upriver with the Landsburg Dam allowing runs of Coho, Chinook and Steelhead to venture into prime habitat above the dam giving them spawning grounds not seen for decades. Sockeye will not be allowed up there. Sockeye will hatch low in the river and proceed directly to the lake leaving the best habitat for the wild runs of other species to rebound on their own. The biologists and the City of Seattle are studying the Chinook redds right now to pass along more sound scientific data concerning these fragile stocks.

Washington Trout has chosen to stay in the shadows on this one but people directly involved in the reforms going on are all unanimous in saying that WT has their hands all over supporting the opposition to this hatchery. This is a good program that even staunch environmentalists and anti-hatchery experts support. I would like to see a public statement for or against this program come into the light of day from WT.

What about the effects of the hatcheries?

Hatcheries are used to significantly improve the survival of eggs and juveniles by controlling conditions (and losses) associated with incubation and rearing. These increases can lead to much larger returns of adults.

Hatcheries can operate in many different ways that influence the kinds of effects and the level of associated risk. The Cedar River Hatchery Program is being developed to reduce the potential for adverse effects generally attributed to hatchery programs. While some differences are expected between hatchery and wild production, the measures described below and those incorporated in the operating protocols are intended to reduce the risk of significant adverse effects.

Learn more about the goals of the hatchery and who is involved.

Who is working on this project?

What are the Goals and Concepts?

What about the effects of the hatcheries?

What are the results of the present sockeye hatchery?

What is the adaptive management plan?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This hatchery is an incubation facility so fry will be released soon after emergence. The fry will rear naturally in Lake Washington. Some studies have suggested that extended rearing in a hatchery may alter behavior of hatchery fish, making them less fit to survive. Longer holding periods increase the risk of disease problems as well.
A locally-adapted sockeye stock is being used. By using a locally-adapted stock, there is a better chance that the fish produced by the hatchery will have the timing and other genetically determined traits that are needed to be successful in Cedar River/ L. Washington system.

The hatchery will rely on a random mix of hatchery and naturally- produced sockeye for eggs each year. This allows certain natural selection pressures to help maintain a healthy and productive stock.

Long term monitoring to evaluate the hatchery's performance and effects. Approximately $4 million is committed to gather data on the key uncertainties about the program's performance and effects as identified in the adaptive management plan.

Commitment to analyze results using independent scientific review and to make changes when needed.

What do we know about the results of the present sockeye hatchery?
The operation of the interim sockeye hatchery at Landsburg since 1991 has provided opportunity to evaluate culture methods that are unique to sockeye culture and test their effectiveness. Methods that were developed in Alaska to control a viral disease (IHN virus) common to all sockeye populations have proven effective at the Landsburg site. In addition, useful information on incubator performance, water supply, incidence of virus, development rates, emergence timing and other parameters has been generated through the operation of the interim hatchery. This experience is valuable in guiding design and program decisions for the replacement hatchery.

All sockeye fry released from the Landsburg hatchery have been marked since the program began in 1991. These marked fish have provided the opportunity to identify hatchery-produced fish as they grow and ultimately return as adults. Recovery of the adult carcasses and removal of the marked bone (otolith) in the fish's head provides the basis for determining the origin of the fish through banding patterns that are established during incubation. Otolith marking and sampling have allowed the following analyses to be initiated:
Estimates of annual wild and hatchery sockeye fry production from the Cedar River. WDFW has completed estimates of outmigrants through 1999 and have preliminary estimates for 2000.

Surveys of Bear Creek, a northern tributary to Lake Washington, were done in three years (1998-2000) to determine to what extent hatchery-produced sockeye were straying into that system. The concern is that if the level of straying is too great, that the genetic composition of the Bear Creek sockeye population could be altered. WDFW issued a paper in January, 2001, entitled "Straying by Cedar River Hatchery-Produced Sockeye Salmon to Big Bear Creek, WA" by Kurt Fresh, Steve Schroder, Eric Volk and Jeff Grimm. No Cedar River hatchery marked fish were found among the 1,251 fish that were sampled during the three-year study period.

University of Washington investigators, using microsatellite loci, have examined the genetic relationships of sockeye and kokanee from the Lake Washington basin and from potential founder populations ("Investigations of Genetic Variability within and between Lake Washington Sockeye Salmon Populations using Microsatellite Markers", January 2000 by Paul Bentzen and Ingrid Spies). The paper describing results from the second year of work is in review.

Otoliths have been collected from carcasses in the Cedar River each year since 1995. Recent funding to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife permitted the otoliths to be read and analyzed. Results from the following analyses have not yet been finalized, but are expected soon.
· Effects on timing and release location of fry on spawning location of adult returns.
· Survival estimates of wild and hatchery fry
· Size of adults by sex and by origin
· Proportion of adult return to the Cedar River originating from hatchery releases
· Proportion of broodstock that was of hatchery origin.

This river which I fished since I was a little kid, always in my opinion needed a large hatchery. I'm no scientist, but it is real easy to see. Developments, lawn fetilizers, trash of all kinds!!!! The cedar is a nice little river that needs a hand from man, as we screwed it up, and a hatchery is not going to harm it much.

One thing that concerns me is access. 10++ years without fishermen on its banks, and they are talking about opening it again for trout, because of the salmon mortality rate from trout feeding on fry. I think home owners are going to pitch a real ***** as soon as they see fishermen.


chumster

I'm new around here, but as I see it some rivers need hatcheries, and some rivers can't support them. The rivers that have good, solid native runs, probably don't need a hatchery. In this case a hatchery seems like the best way to get a fishable run going and would impact "wild stock" little if at all. I don't understand the opposition.

Some of the opponents of hatcheries haven't met a hatchery they didn't want to close.

Great more hatchery fish that need to be harvested spells many more indian gill netts so they can get there 50% of the harvestable take. This spells thousands of dead incidental chinook coho and big sea run cutts.

Not to mention they want to open the Cedar to a kill fishery to thin out the resident large trout which are native to protect the intoduced Sockey fry. Many of the very much in trouble wild steelhead juveniles, (which are very aggressive) will also be killed.

It just dosent make sense to me. Kill native fish so an introduced stock can thrive. Build the introduced stock large enough consistantly to support a tribal and sport harvest at the expense of the wild stocks which have not been fixed yet.

It is my beliefe that Washington trout would not support such a thing because it would surely seal the coffin for the struggling native stocks.

i think they also believe the large cutthroat are eating steelhead smolts as well...

grandpa,why do you constantly use this forum to jab at wt. Every post you make involves taking a shot at them. Most of us here don't agree with all of their views either,but get a life

Larger resident cutts and rainbows have alway eaten juvenile salmon and steelhead. This is nothing new.

There was a bounty on Bull trout and Dollies at one time for eating juvenile salmon and steelhead.

Here is what it comes down to......

Does a hatchery for Sockey on the Ceder River benifit the native stocks of the Ceder River and Lake Washington or does it benifit the intrests of the human user groups.

I see dollar signs. This is not being done for good it is being done for money.

I can definately tell you the hatchery is not going in for the sporties. I can tell you that if it was only for sport fishing interest it would not even be considdered. This is only speculation.

After all we have been through and all we have learned from our mistakes and yet we have learned nothing.

RICHG and Skydriftin>?:

You are both WRONG!

Why is there even a debate about this?

Why should money and resources be put into a non native introduced stock where it does no good for the native species, (it dosent even matter if its not hurting the environment), when the money and resources could be spent on habitat and the rebuilding of native stocks in the Cedar or other rivers that need help around the state.

In a time when our State dosent have money to burn and many wild stocks of salmon and steelhead around our state could be extinct in 10 years we want to waste money for personal oportunity instead of putting it where it can do good.

But then agian personal oportunity is all that counts to most anyways.

true.... big resident trout have always eaten smolts..the cedar seems to have an imbalance of big trout though because there hasn't been a fishery on them in years...and that wouldn't be that big a deal if the system was pristine and there was ample steelhead escapement...but it seems that there not getting enough spawners back to keep up with the predation...that's why the fishery may open..not to protect sockeye smolts but to cut down on steelhead smolt predation....not perfect but maybe a thumb in the dike..i think it would be single barbless lures only no bait...the tribe may have started already i think but not much effort so far...

Why did the trout get so plentiful and big? You say because of lack of harvest. What a F*ckin joke!!!!!!!

They are big, fat, plentiful eating machines because of all the introduced Sockey. Lotts of Sockey spells lots of fry eggs and nutrients for bugs which makes big trout, and the more food the more trout.

Before we screwed things up most all rivers in our state had populations of large resident rainbows that liked to eat Juvenile fish. When happened to those rainbows. People caught them and ate them. Then we lost them and lost part of our steelhead runs.

Rich ...this ain't Montana..we are not known for our huge runs of large native Rainbows. There is plenty of river above the hatchery for the natives to swim around in free of any Sockeye predation (even though that is one of your mistakes). The Sockeye fry go straight to the lake and don't hang out in the river eating native steelhead and salmon fry. You are misguided blaming the sockeye hatchery for the predation you are crying about. The trout may be the culprit.

...i disagree..they've also grown fat and big on chinook and coho fry and eggs...be that as it may....now you have lots and lots of big big trout eating steelhead smolts...what do you do? closing steelhead fishing down hasn't increased escapement.. there continues to be a decline in steelhead smolts coming out...and i wonder if some of the donaldson rainbow's introduced to lake washington have had an effect on the trout's size ...are they that pure a strain after all?

Grandpa, what are you talking about. I never said the Sockey were eating the salmon and steelhead fry.

I said the Sockey are the food source for the large trout. and are what have caused the population of these trout to grow. The Sockey made the trout problem which has impacted the steelhead population in a bad way through predation.

All our rivers had populations of large resident trout. The populations were just not very big. Who knows maybe they were when there were lots of dead salmon in our rivers.

This is why we shouldnt screw with things. If mother nature wanted Sockey in the Cedar they would have been there. There was a reason they did not use that river. Who knows why but there must have been a good reason. We dont have a place to just start changing things that took tens of thousands of years to evolve the way they did.

Rich..that's exactly the problem though...humans have changed things over the centuries. We have rearranged what was here and we have screwed it up. What we are doing now is running around mitigat ing the damage we have done. The question about Sockeye not belonging in the Cedar is another debate. Now that they are here and are succeeding and their presence provides a viable fishery for 10's of thousands of people why not keep them? I think you are saying they harm wild fish...if not then what's wrong? The trout issue is a side argument to my original posting.

Does anybody remember when the Cedar river was last open for any type of fishery??I know its been a long time.

The reason that Sockeye aren't native to the Cedar is because the cedar river did not used to flow into Lake Washington. Befor the locks where built, the cedar flowed into the Black River which was the outlet of the lake. It flowed in right below the outlet. The Black then flowed into the Green creating the Duwamish (sp) River. But the locks made the lake level go dow by twenty to thirty feet. If you look at the area around Renton, it is very flat and the Black River used to be very sluggish. So with the black River gone, the Cedar either flowed into the lake or was routed to the lake by man.

As most of us know Sockeye smolts, exept with a few exeptions, need to stay in a large lake for a year before they go to the salt. This is why they are not native to the Cedar River

Correct me if some parts of this are wrong as I got this from sketchy sources.

I don't think its easy to argue that the sockeye program hurts the resident rainbows or steelhead or chinook parr in the cedar. Think of all the easy food in the form of eggs and sockeye fry that those fish get to eat. They also get to eat all of the hatchery fry too.

I think WT could easily make the argument that the sockeye program is very detrimental to the native lake WA cutthroat. Not only do all the sports anglers catch (and frequently kill) these big cutthroat, but the indians catch and kill lots in their gillnets. Even if only 1 cut is killed for every 100 sockeye that could add up to thousands if not tens of thousands of dead cutts. I don't think there all that many in the lake and the kind of harvest the cutthroat take year in and year out may very well wipe them out. Until recently the cutts had 3 or so years between sockeye seasons to recover, but once the hatchery program is running smoothly, they will be harested yearly

Not to mention that the sockeye fry compete with the native cuttroat for food, etc.

I predict with the increasing sockeye pressure the lake washington cutthroat will diminish.

Geoduck

Rich g.


It must be nice living tward the coast where the rivers are a LOT more pristine than the cedar river that runs though the heart of a very busy city.....polution, development that is still going on down near the cedar do take thier toll, and I doubt things will be better without a hatchery. Wish they would put a steelhead, and coho hatchery there as well.

I'm not a purist, and by all means support hatcheries regardless of wether the fish are "NATIVE" or not. I just don't get this "native fish only thinking". Yes, they may not be as strong, or big, but they are still fish. Wish someone could explain the no-hatchery attitude.......I just don't get it!!!


Fishjunky,


Been watching this thread for a while was wonder when someone would bring up the black river


Geoduck,

WORRIED ABOUT CUTTS???L et me tell ya the last time I fished the cedar there was no shortage of cutts. I could catch 15-20 a day with artificial lures, as thats the way it was till it closed. By the way there are native cutts, and sea run around aug-beginnig of sept. Both especially the native cutts were increasing yearly, don't think they will be hurt too much. Forgot there is one species that comes in low in the cedar during the summer, I remember someone calling them "donaldsons" they look like short fat footballs.


chumster

Chumster.

Don't get me wrong, I love the lake WA sockeye fishery

I'm not worried about the cuts in the cedar. I'm worried about the cuts in the lake itself.

The tribal gillnets catch lots of them and I for one catch at least 1 per season. The checkers check lots of big cuts every day the season is open. Like I said if even 1 cut is killed from lake washington for every 100 sockeye ( My boat certainly catches more cuts than that when sockeye fishing). Thats thousands that would be taken on a good year during sockeye season. That doesn't include the regular trout season.

I doubt that such a level of harvest is sustainable year in and year out. When there is only a sockeye season every 4 years I think the cuts can take it, but every year? I think that is unsustainable. Combine that with the tribal "test fisheries" (ie cutthroat killing) and a lack of political will to stop any of this to protect cutthroat.

If WT had any real interest in protecting native fish, they would try to step in and do something here.

Of course there are lots of ways that the sockeye impacts on lake washington cutthroat could be mitigated short of closing the hatchery. By I seriously doubt WT would be interested because that would disprove there agenda that native fish and hatchery runs can
co-exist if one is careful.


I don't think people appreciate what a spectacular trout fishery is present in lake WA.

Some of you may remember a #15 cut was taken from the lake last year (yes bigger than the state record). Look up the pic in the archives-- Cigar posted it.

If we aren't careful it will be unnecessarily sacrificed on the alter of maximized sockeye harvest. A waste considering we have the best urban native wild trout fishery in the world just out our front doors.

Sounds to me like WT is a one trick pony.

Rich G, you want to stirr up animosity towards WT, just keep advocating the closure of sockey hatcheries on the cedar. That is a treasured fishery by those of us Western Washington salmon fishermen who don't live out on the Peninsula. The fact that is has a tradition of 50 years or so, makes it a savored tradition. I don't think most care whether they're natives....

Grandpa and others,

I suspect rational debate is not possible in regards to the Cedar River sockeye hatchery. There is a mix of idealism favoring nature's way, money and social interests, and the undeniable fact that the Cedar is part of a highly modified watershed ecosystem that will never be restored to its former state.

As others mentioned, Lake Washington used to be higher in elevation. I've heard 9 to 17 feet. The Cedar River joined the Black, which joined the Duwamish, which was formed by the Green and the White. Lake Washington apparently drained into or through the Black to reach the Duwamish. It's all changed, and the decisions are about what to do from this day forward. Restoring former fish stocks to their native condition is likely impossible without filling the Montlake Cut. This would flood Bill Gates and Paul Allen's houses and a lot of other significant real estate and isn't likely to happen.

Reasonable decisions are difficult when the debate is more visceral than rational. I think a reasoned approach is to try to optimize (means different things to different people) the biological and social benefits of the system that is likely to exist for the foreseeable future.

Of all the developmental actions in the Lake Washington drainage, a sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River seems relatively less significant. Sockeye fry feed other fish, particularly native cutthroat trout and pikeminnow. I don't see that as a bad thing. (Remember, almost every species of fish that has ever been in the northwest has been planted in Lake Washington at one time or another.) More trout may be caught in recreational and treaty net fisheries as a result of sockeye enhancement, but there may very likely be a lot more trout in Lake Washington to be caught as a result of sockeye enhancement. It could go both ways, and I admit to having seen no information supporting either outcome.

Sockeye don't compete much with other salmon or trout for habitat. However, they do carry IHN, a disease that readily infects chinook and steelhead. But I would add that chinook and steelhead and sockeye coexist in many, many watersheds.

It's not that hard to come up with a few good reasons to oppose almost any developmental action, including hatcheries. But if I wanted to oppose a hatchery, I think I'd pick something ohter than one for Cedar River sockeye. It would make more sense to oppose dock-building on Lake Washington, lawn fertilizers and herbicides and pesticides along the lake front, and the storm sewer outfalls on the lake.

But I think I mentioned that it's hard to find a reasoned approach on a highly modified place like Lake Washington/Cedar River, etc. There is no "way that it should be," that has any future meaningful context. The way that it should be is based on how well reasoned are the decisions we, as a society, make in its present and future management.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

salmo,


Can you please explain this "Native only" Attitude??? I do enjoy the idea of native stock in all rivers, but I think it is less than reasonable to assume this is remotely possible.

I support hatcheries fully, and think it would be the downfall of ALL fish if we didn't have them......Or at least all user groups would have to be willing to give fishing a new look that would include less time on the rivers.


I had this discussion with a guy who worked for the game department, he claimed that hatchery fish are the end of our native stocks. WHAT???? Wait a minute, these are not test tube fish, they are fish that came from native stocks, aren't they???


My concern is the purists way of thinking may, or may not help salmon long term. One thing I know is with less fishing oppurtunity, comes less fishermen/women, this may sound great to a lot of you, but i think it will end "sport" fishing. As numbers fall in any outdoor sport, people forget, don't pas the torch to thier kids, and then there is the animal extremists waiting in the wings.


Like hatcheries, or not, it does give oppurtunity to a lot of folks to obtain that "meat" fish for the freezer, hopefully not a native


chumster

Chumster,

I can only partially explain. I find that it depends who I’m talking with, but “native only” folks usually want to return fish population assemblages to what they were prior to any species introductions by humans. That is neither an intrinsically right nor wrong desire; it is just what some folks want. I used the term idealism in my post above because I believe it’s unrealistic to restore strictly native fisheries in some waters that are so totally modified like the Lake Washington drainage is. I’m not against having native species present in natal waters, of course. I do want them there to the extent that the watersheds can support them. And I’m not opposed to introductions that appear to be a good ecological “fit.” Kemmerich and his co-workers stocked Baker Lake sockeye in Issaquah Creek and the Cedar River in the late 1930s through 1940 or so. The species has persisted in Lake Washington all this time, and although other native fish species have declined in abundance, I’m not aware that the sockeye are directly or indirectly responsible for the result.

My thought is that a sockeye fishery is probably one of the more effective fishery uses that can be made of Lake Washington in its present condition, along with the considerable cutthroat trout population. These are species that appear to be a good fit with the habitat in its present condition. The primary effect of the proposed sockeye hatchery will be more consistent seeding of the lake with sockeye fry. Presently, sockeye egg to fry survival is inversely correlated with peak winter flood flows in the Cedar River. This should create more stability in the sockeye population, and it might similarly benefit the principle sockeye predator species.

Without hatcheries, there would be many fewer trout and salmon in Washington state. There would be no chinook or coho fishing and almost no steelhead fishing on the Columbia River and its tributaries. There would be no chinook fishing in Puget Sound and its tributaries, but we’d have a coho fishery about every other year, and very limited steelhead fishing. There would be consistent chum and pink fishing, however. The coast would be the last, best, fishing, of course, but the concentration of fishing pressure that would occur would likely require far more restrictive regulations. That could possibly be a way to finally get statewide wild steelhead release, even on the peninsula rivers. Oh, and trout fishing in lowland and most alpine lakes would disappear.

Wild runs, and wild runs of native stocks, can be restored, but only up to the productivity and capacity of the habitat. In most rivers of our state, that would mean very few harvestable chinook and steelhead. Harvestable coho are likely, but probably not every year. There could be recreational fishing, but my wild guess is that it would be no more than about 20% of the average existing levels, at best. If our society wants harvestable salmon and steelhead and trout in the future, then hatchery fish are necessary to fill that want.

I agree with you that fish need lobbyists, and anglers are important fish advocates. Absent an angling population, there would still be fish advocates, but many fewer, and in the long run, probably less effective. And, although a bitter pill for many, treaty fishing, with its very strong federal legal status, is one of the more effective advocates for fish, tho not always sharing the same priorities as many of this BB’s members.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Chumster, I guess I'm one of those native purists. I'm also very pro hatchery. The beef I have is that in almost every watershed introduced fish are usually given more priority than native fish. This is usually to the detriment of wild fish. This is unacceptable

Heres a twist. What about a large hatchery on Bear creek? Those sockeye are native but in decline.

This is for debate. Probably would never happen.

Bruce,

If people cared, and Bear Creek is still suitable sockeye habitat, then perhaps a hatchery of some sort, proportionate to the size of the creek, might be a good fishery management idea. This would be contingent on a couple important things. First would be a suitable water supply. Second is that my limited understanding is that the urbanites there don't like the smell of stinky dead salmon carcasses. So a run in decline may be best suited to contemporary social preferences. Interesting way to manage an ecosystem, eh?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Very nicely written Salmo G. Since you brought up the cutts on Lake Washington, what is your take on their expected population on the lake given the way the reg's are currently writte. Their have been several posts on this site suggesting that the Lake Washington Cutthroats be catch and release only...

Salmo

Thanks for the succint appraisal of our fisheries and hatcheries. I would like to see Mr, Ramon VB debate you on this subject instead of sparring with me. You seem to have a good grasp on why eliminating hatcheries would be a bad idea. I know you will say you are not taking sides but you actually are.

Sounds like what they need to do, instead of a hatchery at Bear Creek, is to publicize a group of elementary school kids into planting sockeye caught from the creek. Then maybe residents and near by people would realize what they have and not think of it as offensive. Even to publicize restorizing/enhacing the habitat of the creek might help. BTW Salmo g, this has been a very deep thread that has my brain working and not a he said/she said thing!!!

Robert

Glad you brought up the kids. Right now there are programs involving young people all over that enhance habitat and protect fish. Kids are learning how important it is to keep the streams clean so fish can spawn and thrive. Kids are learning to catch and release. Kids are learning about fishing as a fun sport. They are also being brainwashed by groups like PETA that fish feel pain and fishing is cruel. I want them to grow up being environmentally responsible but not extreme.

Jeff,

I don't really have a take on LW cutthroat. I simply don't know enough about the population or the fishery to have an informed opinion, so my comments were limited to the likely prospective benefits associated with a stable increase in that part of their forage base consisting of sockeye fry.

Grandpa,

I'd love to discuss fishery issues with Ramon, but to debate, we'd have to take a specific side of an issue. It's not clear to me that such a divergence exists.

Yes, I take sides. First, I'm probably on the side of fish. I'm fascinated with them, especially anadromous ones, and by grace I've managed to make a career of fish advocacy. Second, I'm also for people, but not necessarily in the way that makes them feel good in the near term. I care about long term sustainability. That's why I think it's important to recover the wild fish populations that we can. And I think it's important to use our hatchery system to meet first the needs of conservation and secondly our lust to catch some fish.

I think it's silly to operate the publicly funded hatchery system to support the present commercial fishing fleet, but I'm not opposed to commerical fishing in general. Commercial fishing should be limited to those natural stocks that occur in abundance, for which there are reasonable markets, like there sometimes are for pinks and chum. Commercial fishing should also be allowed for hatchery fish produced for recreational fishing but are in excess of recreational harvest capacity. And Treaty fishing can generally fill fresh fish market demands for folks who don't catch their own fish. It's a foolish resource manager who produces hatchery fish at a cost greater than the commercial ex-vessel price paid, but we are so very slow to make sensible changes. Anyway, I'm digressing here, Grandpa. Sorry.

Bigb8,

Glad you're finding this subject interesting. I haven't heard what the cause of the decline in Bear Creek sockeye is. Simply stocking fish there won't necessarily restore that run if the cause is habitat degradation. Best to understand the root cause of the problem and address that if possible. If that's not possible, then some kind of enhancement program might be the best alternative - small hatchery, RSIs, etc. Restoration would result in lots of smelly dead carcasses, tho, so public acceptance is an important issue on an urban stream.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

We are right now spending many times more than the pure cost per pound at the commercial end to produce salmon and even more to save them. On the Columbia River with the money required of the power companies and other mitigation costs to keep the tribes happy we would be better off from a strictly economic standpoint to stop all efforts and write checks to the tribes. So it isn't just a simple economics issue. How much those Pinks cost to sustain or those Chums is not the point. What the commercials and tribes are selling these fish for is irrelevant. We are spending billions to try to pay back for what we have destroyed. Not the most desirable program but we can't go back to the 1800s without trimming our population and technology back by about 2/3.

i do alot of fishing in lake washington and have fished off the mouth of the cedar when the smolts are comming into the lake, the last time i did it was an unreal site to see every scrap fish in the lake feeding on them, the water was bubbling and these fish were having a feist so i e-mailed the wdfg and asked them about it, they said they knew about it and that was more less the end of it . i realy think it should be looked into or if it has been looked into i would like to know if anyone has any info on it?

Boater,

Predators eat prey. That's the way of the world. The difference is that Lake Washington is a highly modified environment. The primary predators (unless I'm mistaken) are native species - northern pikeminnow and cutthroat trout. Large and smallmouth bass may also be having at them, but they probably don't account for a major share of the predation, as the sockeye migration into the lake occurs while water temperatures are still a tad cool for bass to be at their most active.

The survival strategy for species that have to run a predator guantlet like this is to have nearly all the fry migrate at the same time, overwhelming the predators. It's a density-dependent mortality that saturates the predators appetites for a few days. The fry then disperse into and hopefully throughout the lake so that the predators have to work a little harder to get a meal.

What would you suggest be done about the situation?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

i would atleast do a study and get some sort of estamate as to how many they are eating each year

First, what makes you think that Bear Creek sockeye are in decline?

Second, yellow perch eat a lot more salmon fry/smolts than the bass. And yes, they are non-native.

Third, why do we need a hatchery on the Cedar anyway? I spoke with a WDFW research biologist a few years ago that said the natural spawners are producing more adults, and fewer smolts than the hatchery fish. If mother nature is doing her part, why don't we stay out of it? Especially if the stock is not native in origin. Sure the Cedar probably had a stream type sockeye (like the White and Green), but if the latest batch is Baker Lake origin, why bother to get involved?
It is my understanding that the reason for the hatchery is harvest, not conservation. If that is the case, then we haven't learned a thing about the 4-h's as a cause for salmon declines (HATCHERIES, HARVEST, habitat, and hydropower).

Let's face it, we've shot ourselves in the foot with hatcheries. We should know better.

FP

FishPirate

We may have , as you so eloquently put it, "shot ourselves in the foot" with some poor hatchery practices but I don't think the facts will bear out your conclusions on the Cedar. The Sockeye run is artificial and is for harvest. The Lake Washington sports fishing opportunity is a fantastic one that thousands of people participate in and appreciate. The hatchery will do a great amount of good and has little or no downside.

People who feel they must oppose all hatcheries will always come up with some sort of study or other to back up their biased and narrow agenda but big deal....enjoy the fishery.

"JUST ONE GUYS THOUGHTS" I lived on the Cedar rive from 1988 through 1998. The first year living there i saw Kings and a nice Winter steelhead run. within three years I never again saw any chinnok, The steelhead I watch depleat from up to dozens a week to empty spawning beds. Im not sure were things stand down there now but hopfully someone or some group can put a little more focus on this issue. I would like nothing better than to take my boys to the old fishing hole someday.
COHO

In case everyone is not aware.. the progress of the Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery has been held up with an appeal to its EIS last spring. No resolution to the appeal yet, but I understand there may be a hearing later this month. The EIS was not appealed by Washington Trout, but by an ex-King County DNR employee who would like to see the City of Seattle's funding for the hatchery diverted to King County's land aquisitions downstream. I've attached the appeal text below, but understand many of the assertions are bogus, i.e., with the interim test sockeye hatchery at Landsburg in operation for almost 10 years now, the Cedar River Hatchery program is probably the most researched program ever to come forward.

Appeal text:
Roz Glasser
5609Greenwood Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98103

April 3, 2003

Meredith Getches
Seattle Hearing Examiner
1320 Alaska Bldg.
618 Second Ave.
Seattle, WA 98105

Subject: Appeal of the Seattle Public Utilities Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Dear Ms. Getches,

Enclosed please find my appeal of the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) Cedar River Sockeye Hatchery Final Environmental Impact Statement and the $50.00 appeal fee.

The appeal includes three attachments. The body in Attachment A, substantiates numerous failures of the FEIS to comply with procedural and substantive provisions of the SEPA regulations at both the state and City of Seattle level. The appeal also asserts that the FEIS has been deliberately written to avoid mitigating for known and probable significant environmental impacts to the Lower Cedar River and Lake Washington ecosystems. Among these impacts are losses of reproductive fitness of wild sockeye stocks, further declines in chinook populations (a threatened species), disease risks to wild stocks, and increased predator populations. Some, or perhaps all of these impacts may be irreversible. Finally, it asserts that the FEIS makes many claims about the efficacy of the hatchery and a long term research program to address the impacts. However, little or no scientific data are provided to validate the claims. This is most disturbing for a project of the magnitude of the proposal involving major and highly valuable natural resources.

To support the assertions of this appeal, two extensive annotated bibliographies are included in Attachment B and C. They summarize the scientific research on hatcheries and their failure to adequately supplement wild stock without imparting significant impacts on the ecosystems in which they operated. Attachment B covers research on problems hatchery programs have caused for native and wild fish. Attachment C includes research on the interactions between hatchery propagated salmon and wild salmonids. While t do not claim to be an expert on the specific of each of these studies, I believe that even a nontechnical person can readily see the compelling record of failures. Nonetheless, I am prepared to provide technical experts who can discuss the details of these findings for your consideration. These bibliographies underscore the need for rigorous scientific analysis that strongly supports the efficacy of the proposal before it is implemented and not wait to conduct fundamental research after the EIS process is completed, as is proposed.

I recognize that SPU has spend years and may hundreds of thousand of dollars conducting the EIS process for the hatchery project. However, as a taxpayer concerned about the abuse of public money, and a professional watershed planner who has worked on the Cedar River Basin, I am deeply concerned about the effects of this project given the current scientific literature cited. After reviewing this science in Attachment B and C I am convinced that the FEIS has not presented the objective assessment of issues and impacts required.

In view of the extensive omissions and lack of analysis in the FEIS, I have concluded that the authors should prepare a Supplemental EIS which includes the best available science on the subject to discuss the affected environment and identify and, evaluate cumulative Impacts. The SEIS should also Include a hatchery management plan and detail mitigation measures for known impacts and provide and specific criteria in the adaptive management plan framework. I also suggest that if the acknowledged research Is permitted to continue under an adaptive management program, further environmental review should be required to evaluate the risks, impacts, and mitigation of each phase.

Finally, because there appears to be an inherent bias In the development of the FEIS, I am submitting a public disclosure request to SPU (Attachment D) to obtain communications and reports associated with this study which I hope will assist you in your deliberations.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have questions please call me at (206) 789-1097.


Sincerely,

Roz Glasser

Enclosures

Attachment A - Appeal Text
Attachment B -Annotated Bibliography
Attachment C -Annotated Bibliography
Attachment D - public Disclosure

so why is it being held up in court, didnt they do enough research ?

RichG- I think you are right on the money. hatcherys are a little bandaid over a huge sore. we need to fis the problems not cover them up.

if you think real hard about supply and demand, and who manages our fish ,it is very clear why our fish stocks are in decline. The less the fish, the higher the price per pound... which means you have to do less fishing to get your money.
neither the tribal or white commercial fishermen really want greater runs .

we need to get control of WDFW and put in policys that will make sportsfishing and conservation of the resource the top prioritys

Unfortunately, with EIS public process, any one with a $50 check and lots of time on their hands can hold up a project for months.

fish advocate, what part of the appeal is bogus ? and, are you a state fish biologist ?