Todd,

You only have to smell my post at all if it stinks.

Yeah, planning to make the show in Bremerton. Every bit of support helps.

RK43,

I don’t have a problem with you being selfish, as you describe it. You like to catch lots of fish and bonk many. I’m not going to judge that, but I’ll just remind you that it might be your problem and not necessarily Tacoma’s. Tacoma has a legal obligation to mitigate project impacts. They don’t have an obligation to satisfy your self-described selfishness. As I mentioned, I like to fish for summer runs also, and I like to BBQ them too.

You may want things to stay the way they are, and I might like the summer run program to continue, but we both know that doesn’t mean it will. Seems I’ve heard that the only constant is change; maybe that’s relevant here. Clearly, as our human population continues to grow, things are going to change, and many of those changes are going to affect fish and fishing.

I agree that the Cowlitz isn’t going to be the way it was before the dams, and I don’t think many people are expecting it to become that way, or are trying to make it that way. The reasons for the reintroduction of anadromous fish into the upper Cowlitz are twofold that I know of. First, local fishermen and the FOC initiated the interest and got fishery agencies involved. Then along came the ESA listings of lower Columbia River chinook and steelhead. Because of that, NMFS is required by law to try to recover wild (or natural production if you prefer) populations of those species in the Cowlitz if it’s feasible. It’s more feasible in the upper Cowlitz than in the lower Cowlitz, and particularly so if good downstream smolt passage efficiency is achieved. This results in a mix of wild and hatchery fish, not unlike what we have in numerous rivers in this state.

The Cowlitz hatchery system isn’t going away. I expect that it will continue to be the largest, or second largest, hatchery program in Washington state. I expect that fishing will remain good on the Cowlitz, and may improve in some respects. That is, it should become more diverse with the presence of wild fish, not all cookie cutters. Spring chinook and late winter steelhead fishing should be better, on average. The sea-run cutthroat program may go away, last I heard, tho. Too bad; I like to fly fish for ‘em.

An important point I never see mentioned in this topic is that there can be hatchery alternatives that do not involve Tacoma. For instance, if the Cowlitz historically did not host a summer steelhead run, and WDFW choose not to culture summer runs at the Tacoma hatchery complex, there is nothing preventing (with ESA as a possible exception) WDFW from initiating a summer steelhead enhancement program on the Cowlitz independently of Tacoma, just as WDFW does on many other rivers in this state. Tacoma may not have a legal obligation to mitigate for summer steelhead that were not impacted by the project, but that doesn't mean that such a program isn't socially or economically desirable. It simply means that Tacoma wouldn't be obligated to pay for it. I recall that WDFW didn't have a summer run program on the Sky or Snoqualmie all that long ago. And no power company came along to create those programs. WDFW developed them, like most of their fish culture programs, using state funds. If that's what the agency and the public want, they could do the same on the Cowlitz.

You said the summer fishery puts money into the local economy, and you’re sure “they” have a stake in it too. Do you mean Tacoma? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Tacoma is a public utility that describes its sole reason for existence as providing the least cost energy to its residents. Tacoma does pay some money into Lewis County, and they may pay some lip service to the local economy, apologies for political incorrectness, but I think the Lewis County economy is officially irrelevant to the City of Tacoma. How does Tacoma benefit from the Lewis County economy?

Just a last thought on selfish motives. When selfishness last rule the day under the federal power act, utilities stole public rivers, destroyed public fisheries and other public resources, and provided something between little or nothing in the way of mitigation. Personally, I think the present balance is a helluva’ improvement.

Luke,

Fish ladders are not the key to restoring wild fish runs on the Cowlitz. I don’t think there’s going to be a “mile long fish ladder” anyway. Downstream passage of juvenile fish is the key to whether restoration can be successful or not. You don’t have to believe that trucking fish upriver will work, but it has been successful on the White and Baker Rivers for about 50 years. Both of those river systems have had problems with fish production related to hydropower, but it wasn’t because trucking the fish around the dams doesn’t work, because it does.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

You all make go points so can we close this and all go fishing.

Salmo G,

I'll rephrase my question, why is WDFW changing what is being planted in the Cowlitz? I think it's because of 2 special interest groups that don't represent the majorty of the people that fish the Cowlitz. Do you think that it would have been changed if Friends of the Cowlitz were representing us, instead of Trouts unlimited or American Rivers?
We need rivers like the Cowlitz and Skagit for the masses of people to fish. It takes the strain of the crowds off the smaller rivers.
I love the summer runs, give me one fish to fish for, that would be it.
We need to let WDFW know what we want, not what TU and AR want.

Fishhead5

FH5,

I really don't know why WDFW is changing the Cowlitz stocking program. We should ask them. I think they are changing it to conform with some of the hatchery management principles set forth in license and settlement agreement, like fish rearing densities. I heard that WDFW rears some fish at higher than recommended densities in order to achieve higher production. I don't have the facts at hand and cannot verify that, but it's pretty standard hearsay. Another reason for changes is to better conform to ESA requirements that the hatchery be operated in ways that promote recovery of listed fish, rather than obstructing recovery.

I don't know how much TU and AM are influencing the revisions to the hatchery plan, but they are in a better position to exert direct influence than FOC. One of the things everyone should understand regarding FERC license settlement agreements is that only those who are parties to the agreement have a seat at the table during license implementation. The reason is that the sole reason post-licensing committee exist is to implement, or oversee the utility's implementation of, the license. The logical extension is that those who didn't sign the settlement agreement don't support the license. Therefore, those parties, such as FOC, cannot be expected to oversee implementation of the license as it was agreed to. Post-license committees do not exist to try to re-write the license.

As I recall, FOC and other parties that did not sign the settlement were unwilling to make any compromises. It seemed like it had to be "their way or no way at all." That's not the way the world works. No way is not one of the choices on the table. And their way is not one of the choices on the table. That is life as I know it under the federal power act. There will be energy generated, and there will be fish and wildlife and recreation mitigation and enhancement programs.

Those who participate have the most influence. Extended participation is attained by being part of the settlement, not outside it. Individuals and organization who are outside the settlement agreement and are not on license implementation committees still have a voice, although they are often not aware of it. And, arguably, it is a lesser voice. You can express your interests to WDFW - as you urged people to do in your opening post - and you can also communicate your concerns to U S Fish & Wildlife Service, NMFS, Tacoma, and other parties to the license settlement agreement.

It might seem like we "need" rivers like the Cowlitz and Skagit (I don't see the comparison) for the masses, but like the rest of real life, what we perceive as our need and what we get are not always the same, nor is always any direct relationship between the two. I could just as well say we need a Washington State with less than two million people, so that rivers wouldn't be crowded, and so that rivers would have good enough habitat to produce harvestable numbers of wild fish. I could say "we need" it, but you already know what we've got.

BTW, I agree; you need to let WDFW know what you want. The are a lot of choices that can be made. For example, why not raise fewer hatchery coho to feed a lower Columbia gillnet fishery that wipes out any chance of saving or recovering wild coho in lower Columbia tributaries. The saved space could be re-allocated to raising the summer steelhead you love. There could still be plenty of hatchery coho returning to satiate the river recreational fishery with almost no impact to recovering wild coho runs on the Cowlitz and elsewhere in the Columbia.

Consider the ecological and economic arguments that support that alternative. Why raise hatchery coho to end up in gillnets with any remaining wild coho when the ex-vessel price is $0.65 or less and the economic return to the state from recreationally caught coho and summer steelhead is so much greater? I know it seems like pushing a very big rock up a very high hill, but face it, society has to go there eventually. The status quo is not sustainable, and WDFW and intelligent gillnetters know it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Good post Salmo.

I meant Lewis county has a stake in the fishability of the Cow. From guides, to tackle, to food and gas. You name it.

Forgive me if this has been mentioned above (didn't read it all), but just because Tacoma doesn't have to, or isn't going to, fund the summer steelhead program, that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

WDFW could still fund it like they do most the other hatcheries in the state.

If that's what people want, then that's what people need to ask for...I for one, would love to keep a fishery on the Cowlitz that attracts a lot of fishermen for the relatively easy pickin's.

From what I know about the issue, it doesn't seem too fair to blame Tacoma for not wanting to spend money beyond that which they are legally bound to spend. I'd say the taxpayers of Tacoma could put a stop to that nearly instantaneously if they wanted to.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

I did mention that in my last windy post. WDFW could rear and release summer steelhead if they choose too. The practice, however, on Columbia tribs, is to spend other people's money because there is so much hydropower mitigation, mostly federal, some private.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.