I've got mixed feelings about the new laws re. wild steelhead release.

You see - here in the Upper Columbia, we've been under Endangered Species Act restrictions since 1997. However, hatchery fish have been dumped into the Wenatchee and Methow Rivers non-stop during this time.

During the last three years, we have had record or near record runs. The Methow has opened for limited fishing, the Wenatchee and the Entiat Rivers have remained closed.

Here's the rub - the majority of the fish caught (or available) in the Wenatchee and Methow are not fin-clipped - but they are hatchery fish. The WDFW has made a conscious decision to not clip the vast majority of these hatchery fish to help the run as a whole.

The science is a little fuzzy to me - we must release steelhead that are not fin-clipped, but the number that are clipped are determined by the WDFW - and are not reflective of the native fish in the river. The question of "when is enough fish enough to fish for" has never been answered except for a count of the fin clipped fish available - which is an arbitrary number.

Science - sometimes...it's not a good thing.

I agree with you 100 percent, nw mallard. WDFW science baffles me a bunch, my own pet peeve being their very arbitrary and unsubstantiated 350,000 fish escapement rule for Lake Wa. sockeye. Another is their red tide obsession, which has killed recreational clamming. Here's the rub: Not one death or even near death has ever been recorded.

NWmallard,

It seems like the new rule wouldn't have any effect on the mid-C and tribs. Like you say, everything has been WSR or closed for several years now.

Please don't give science a bad rap. Science is just a systematic way of observing things and explaining conclusions. Science can't help it if human decisions take other factors into account. (Actually, I wouldn't suggest that decisions be based exclusively on science, or exclusively on one factor.)

The mid-C is complicated. Wild spring chinook and both hatchery and wild steelhead are listed as endangered under the ESA. The ESA directs federal agencies to "recover" those populations. Yet the ESA lacks the authority in some cases to recover species, and where it has the authority, agencies (acting as agents of society) lacks the political will to invoke the actions necessary to recover species populations. Hence the kind of ugly standoff we see now.

Most of those populations will never be self-sustaining natural production because of the "harvest" rates of the hydropower system. If our collective political will cannot effectively address that, the best those species future can be is sustaining through hatchery supplementation. Unfortunately, the laws we are made to work with don't seem to acknowledge that kind of outcome. Meanwhile we observe goofy-looking situations of stocking huge numbers of hatchery smolts in rivers where no fishing is allowed, and natural, self-sustaining recovery is highly unlikely to occur.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

NWMallard, I've given up on fighting the local ideas of the Upper C. management team. When Heather Barlett (WDFW Biologist) stated in a steelehad symposium a few years ago that the state would be planting the Methow with 250K NON-clipped hatchery steelhead, I decided then and there that we're dealing with idiots! She then stated that to open the Wenatchee, we would need an escapement of 7k WILD steelhead before a hatchery season of c&r could be proposed. Now the last 2 years, the biologists have been "breaking their arms" patting themselves on the back because of the great return of WILD steelhead to the Methow. They're crediting they're steelhead recovery actions (limiting irrigation, no seasons the last couple of years, etc) with saving the "wild" fish, yet they're just unclipped hatchery fish! Absolute hogwash!!!

Snit -

I agree - it's tempting to give up. However, I know our legislators in North Central Washington are sympathetic to the problem - especially because of the economic impact the ESA regulations have caused.

As for the fin clipping - yes - it's nuts. I had a discussion with local biologists about the Wenatchee. That went like this:

"We've had three great runs of steelhead - records or near records - when can we at least do C&R fishing on the Wenatchee?"

Biologist - We can't open it up until we clip the fins on some of the fish - we haven't been doing that to recover the population

"So you'll clip all the fins this year so we can maybe fish in two years?"

Biologist - No, we'll clip (I think he said 40,000) but that probably won't be enough to open the fishery.

I've got to admit - I got a little disgusted at this point. Determining recreational fishery opportunities not on the numbers of returning fish - but on the numbers of fin clipped fish - when there are no fin clipped fish - or not enough to open up a fishery.

If Joseph Heller hadn't written "Catch 22" about WWII, he might have penned it about this subject.

JK

The adipose fin on a steelhead is not the only thing that determines whether it came from a hatchery or not. Every steelhead has scales, and scales from a hatchery fish are markedly different from scales on a wild fish because of their radically early life history and growth rates. Pretty sure WDFW is reading scales to determine wild steelhead return rates, if for no other reason than any effort to do 100% of anything 100% of the time is physically impossible and doomed to failure, marking steelhead smolts included. So I would say they probably know what the wild steelhead return is in those rivers.

Salmo said it once for you guys, they can't allow unrestricted harvest of hatchery steelhead in the upper Columbia because even the hatchery fish are endangered up there, due to the extremely sorry state of the habitat from damming, diverting, denuding, and destroying the landscape (maybe that's why it's called the 4d rule ). So they leave a significant amount unmarked to ensure that enough hatchery and wild fish show up to keep things going, they close the rivers that have perennially poor returns because they need all the fish for hatchery and wild broodstock, and they hope for the day when things change, like perhaps when the dams exceed their engineered life and will cost so many billions to replace that it will never get done, and they will either be taken out or fall down, or perhaps when enough political will is generated to change the way we treat the landscape for the betterment of the fish. Like that's ever going to happen - I'll bet on the dams falling down first

I can see you have a definite view re. the dams and their effect on fisheries. I personally think the dams are one of many problems affecting the fisheries.

However, if you check the history of the runs over the last three years - I think you will see the returns are about as strong as they have been in some 20 years. Hence our frustration regarding the lack of a fishery.

I don't know enough facts to really form an opinion on the situation on those rivers...but...

The reason they're not clipped is because the hatchery run is a run intended to spawn naturally and increase the amount of naturally spawned fish. They are not planted to be available for harvest. If they were clipped they could be harvested all along the lower Columbia, or in other streams that they dipped into on their way up.

We have to remember that the wild fish there are endangered, not just threatened, like the rest of them. This reduces the management flexibility considerably...

Will this work to bolster wild runs? Who knows...

I do know, however, that I have a cabin on the Wenatchee, and it's pretty painful to sit on the back deck with the river running right by and not be able to wet a line, even if it was just catch and release.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd -

You bring up excellent points (as a cop I have a continual love/hate relationship with attorneys)!

However, before the ESA hit our section of the state like a dead spotted owl falling out of the sky - I was under the impression that hatchery fish were released to sustain recreational fisheries.

It was only after the ESA came here that I heard of the hatchery fish being to be used to recover the wild stock here.

I have to agree with NWMallard on this one. Since Grand Coulee was built, the hatcheries were for the replacement of lost fish stocks for the people. And these brood stocks were developed by stopping all migrating salmon and steelhead at Rock Island from 1939 to 1945 and mass spawning them to develop a hatchery strain for all hatcheries on the upper columbia tributaries to plant. Only the last 3-4 years have the plants not been clipped. Unfortunately, the Upper C was picked by NMFS as a "project". But it could of been Skykomish native summer steelhead (how many of those have you caught?), or other favorite fisheries. It gets back to bad science.

If they want wild fish, close the friggin' hatcheries, quit planting "brats" and wait a few hundred years! Why can't we at least C&R???? The whole friggin' state just went to it, and we have over 4000 gosh dang fish in the Wenatchee and we can't fish!!! How many fish does the Naselle, Sultan, Grays, Sauk, etc get? 4000 is alot of darn fish! A limited C&R is possible but the state doesn't want to manage it. They like to close sporting opportunites rather than work at keeping them open. So when you see me on your favorite river (Naselle, Nemah, Goodman Creek, NF Sky, Grays, Hoko, Upper Queets, etc), don't ***** about too many people.

Also, all you Methow fisherman...next year don't brag to the fish checkers about how many fish a day you're hooking! That's what the local gamies told me was the reason of the early closure. After I *****ed, they said to show the checkers my punch card. Everything else is just hearsay (hooked, c&r'd).Too much pressure, and too many hatchery fish being harassed. Also, why close the Columbia? That's where I really like to fish is above the Okanogan. We put over 40 HATCHERY fish to the boat last year ABOVE the Okanogan in January. Most people don't know about that fishery. But it's included in the closure, but not the Okanogan? Again, bad science!!!

Damn, I told myself not to get pissed, but I am. Sorry for the rant...I'm done now. My name is snit and I'm a fishaholic!

Hey Kyle, remember @ Drano last summer, all those non clipped 5#-7# steelhead we'd all catch and release?
You'd look @ them and tell they weren't natives , all cookie cutters....now I know where all those fish are from.

Jeezz...Bob, can't ya sleep ? I thought I was the only one up at 1:00am most mornings (with the baby).

Oh yeah, I'm sure we were exercising these little buggers last August. They're alot prettier then aren't they lol?

Is your email working better now? Hopefully ya did get my "thank you " email, if not thanks for the goodies!!!!!

NWM,

You're right about the hatchery stock there...

Before the ESA, the fish were planted to provide harvest replacement fish for the ones killed by the dams.

After the ESA kicked in, they are now used to supplement the wild runs, and the hatchery fish themselves are listed as endangered, too, because they've been deemed essential to the recovery of the wild stocks.

Since the hatchery fish have such a low natural spawn reproduction rate, 4000 fish might not be too many when we're talking about why they're there, which is to create naturally spawned returning adults. I don't know the scientific particulars of that run, so I'm kinda guessing, but I'd be surprised if I weren't right about this one.

Hence, no fishing.

I guess the difference with the Methow is that they get even more fish back, a lot more.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -

Esp. as an attorney - you don't see anything (pardon the poor pun) - fishy about this about face in fish management style?

Also - it still doesn't answer the question of only clipping x amount of fish. The biologist I talked to hinted at it being a cost issue to clip more - though that is purely speculative on my part.

The bottom line is...if they are going to allow any fishery based on the projected return of clipped hatchery (and/or wild fish), shouldn't they clip all of them?

Again - I'd invite you to review the returns of both salmon and steelhead on the Upper Columbia (above Priest Rapids Dam) the last three years - you'll get a better idea of what us frustrated east-siders are talking about.

You'll also see the runs are alot better than fish returns on several west side streams that they are allowing fishing on until March 1st.

I don't know what the particular justifications are for what WDFW/NOAA Fisheries is trying to do there, but fish being listed as endangered rather than threatened is a huge difference, legally speaking.

4(d) rules and incidental take permits are designed to allow impacts on threatened stocks much eaier to get, while it is very difficult to get much out of them for endangered fish.

Don't forget, the hatchery fish up there are also listed as endangered under the ESA...they are not just hatchery fish mixed in with listed fish, as we have pretty much everywhere else.

Fish on...

Todd