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