I have "visited" your living room a time or two.

Sonar technology is constantly improving and as a result the potential for using it in places like the Skagit is becoming more practical though I suspect that it is still a long ways off.

While I have to admit to not tracking the use of sonar closely the last time I checked the latest promising technology has been what is called daul frequency identification sonar or DIDSON. This is the system currently be used successful in a number of locations in Alaska and I'm suspect that is where you have seen it in action (Anchor River?). While the DIDSON is a vast improvement over some of the split screen trechnology some of the same limitions would be a concern on the Skagit..

1) There remains some difficultites in detecting targets are longer ranges.

2) Finding a suitable site with a relatively flat bottom and even flows on a large river like the Skagit is difficult - the sonar needs to be able to "hit" the target and "bounce" back to the recievers.

Both of these could potentially overcome with placement of multiple units and innovating aiming strategies. However given the long migration period of steelhead in the Skagit (November to May) and the dramatic variability in flows (likley to see annual variations in flows from less than 10,000 cfs and more than 50,000 cfs). Those difference will change fish behavior and the ability to consistently detect them. As well as putting that expensive gear at risk during high flow events.

3. It appears that accuracy is better when there are active migrating fish (sometimes difficult to separate downstream migrating fish from non-fsih targets) and when there are significant numbers of fish moving there the monitoring area - numbers like several 100/hour.

4) species Identication continues to be a problem. In some of the Alaska rivers fish like sockeye and Chinook can be separated by target size. In other cases differences in behavior between species of interest or a single species make the id question easier.

Both of these factors when appleid to the Skagit steelhead question are likely to be sources of significant errors that might limit the practical application of the technology. The "patchy" nature of the steelhead migration and the relatively low numbers of fish moving through the area are likely to place a wide confidence intervals on any estimates.

In addition early in the migration steelhead numbers would be completely "masked" by chum and coho salmon - similar sized fish that would be much more numerous. During the spring period id would be complicated by spring Chinook migrating at the same time.

Assuming for a minute that an esitmate of the run could be made using this DIDSON technology (and I think that is far from a sure thing) I'm not sure that it would be very applicable for in-seasoan management. It might provide an alternate estimate of the steelhead escapement/run to the current redd counting method. However given the wide error confidence intervals on in-season estimate I would think that there would not be much confidnence for in-season use uintil well into the run.

The type of precise folks seem to what for in-management decisions would likely not be available until well nto the spring - late April/May. Not sure what the utility of information at the time would be for decisions such as we are discussing here.

Believe it or notthre are always some fisheries management folks are actually interested in gettng the best information upon which to make management decisions as well as monitoring various populations. However the application of new technology will also be dependent on it being reliable, economically feasible, and reasonably practical. As sonar methods improve I can see applications here in Washington. Some of themost likley places to first see such methods might be in places like the Cedar river sockeye. They also might work well on spawning runs of summer steelhead in places like the upper Columbia but with those generously supplied concret counting fences provided by BPA and others not sure why other methods are needed.

One of the last places in Washington were I would expect to see the application of sonar methods would be basins like the Skagit. The overlapping species complexes, the diverse behaviors within the various species and dynamic nature of the flows and other habitat features in the Skagit all operate together to make it a difficult "nut" to crack.

I'm sure that others may have a different spin on the potential use of sonar on the Skagit. However the above is one inquiring mind's take on the issue.

Tight lines
Curt

Thank you, gentlemen. Excellent responses.

Are there any characteristics possessed soley by steelhead that may help to separate them from other salmonids? Different air bladders, muscular densities, third nipple? Sonar, albeit MRI, ultrasound, or military grade infrared spy satellite is the answer, we just haven't perfected it yet or we can't afford it. Let's keep a fly-eyed perspective, folks.......

Good idea, Kid!

The WDFW can team up with the UW and GE to make the worlds LARGEST in-river MRI, Ultrasound, or even CAT scanner.

The river(s) can flow right through the scanning area! Never mind that the scanners are just looking at densities of hard and soft tissues/bone/cartlidge to resolve an image, but hey, that's neither here or there. Never mind that targets need to be stationary, but again, not my problem to work out.

Much like that TV show Stargate - the WDFW just needs to get those 1000' MRI scanners out of Area 51 and on to the riverbed of the Sauk and/or Skagit!

Hmmm, not too sure a 1000' MRI is gonna cut it. Those are some big rivers, and as mentioned above, if you take into the accounts on when they are at 50,000, we'll need a bigger scanner.

10,000 ft diamater scanner might work.

(I wonder how far a piece of metal will need to be away from this scanner? A mile? 5 miles? 10 miles?

Wow. That's a lot of magnets. Me thinks the cost of our licenses might go up a tad next year.

I won't even start on the infared satellite idea. Damn shuttles keep blowing up in space. Too risky.



PS. Read the latest Aviation Weekly on the F-22 Raptors that are now in service. Bet one of those would work! Does everything else - at a safe distance of 65,000 feet. Sucks to be an aviation enemy/threat to the US now.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw010807p1.xml

Freakin' amazing aircraft. I need an F-22 now. Damn.

The MRI’s would be too strong and cause cancer in the fish

Kidsauk -
since steelhead are such superior fish to the other salmonids many the folks just could count those that swim on the surface of the river.

Of course you might need a bio that can also walk on the waters to do so.

Tight lines
Curt

Kid, viable or not I love the passion...cheers

Ok, fine Parker, maybe not MRI

BTW, I'm going to beat your (smart) ass.......smart ass

interestingly enough we vote in the policy makers (ie) the government also most of the judges are put there by us the people or the representitives we vote in. do you supose if we act like any other special interest group that is a one issue group band togeather and vote in people who will follow the wishes of there constituants get rid of the indian nets the bad hunting rights that the indians take advantage of . I know the judges will not go our way but what if we vote in the judges that will just a thought we need to act as a group localy as a state and as a nation there are enough of us sportsmen to enact change we just need to work as a group not just talk about it on the computer but actually get involved we even put the guy in charge to load the supream court we just need to realise we dont all agree on everything but as a whole we would like to see alot of the same things

I guess I was looking to put myself in a not so good mood this morning, so I dredged up this thread from 18 months ago...and since then, things have gotten worse...and worser, yet.

First, the spring '08 season is not closed, but it is only opened until the middle of March.

As with some other management schemes, this one left me scratching head, for a few reasons...the main one being this:

If we have to close the river due to low escapement, why are we opening it all, in March?

Since it wasn't closed for low escapement, then why was it closed at the end of March at all?

It seems WDFW picked the only indefensible position to take...

Closing it for the season for conservation purposes makes sense.

Leaving it open because the conservation needs are being met makes sense.

Opening it for half the season makes no sense whatsoever, and can't be justified on any grounds.

Anyway...that one's old news, but it still grates at me.

Now...this past year.

Based on the escapements since '04, the forecast for the Skagit/Sauk system was high...something like 9000 fish. When I say "high", I only mean that in a relative sense, as 9000 fish of a run that historically may have had 60,000 fish is a pissant remnant...a run that supported directed harvests of nearly 30,000 wild steelhead per year not really all that long ago.

Anyway, that being said, 9000 is a lot of fish compared to what we've been getting...about 150% of the escapement goal, as a matter of fact.

For those of us who spend a lot of time on the Sauk and Skagit in March and April, it became abundantly clear very early on in the season that something was wrong...terribly wrong...there were very little fish numbers showing up.

OK...maybe they're just late...but by the end of April, they still hadn't really shown in anything at all like would have been expected at a forecasted run size of 5000, much less 9000...and by mid-May, it was clear by the spawner surveys that they weren't late...they just weren't coming.

I heard rumblings then of a revised post-season escapement of something more like 2000 fish, which was poo-poo'd by many...and now it's starting to look like those who said only 2000 were returning were spot on.

My memory might be fuzzy on this, but I'm pretty sure that historically we've been seeing something like 2/3 of the basin's fish making a right turn at Marblemount...but I'll be dollars to donuts that it's more like 80% or 90% are doing it now.

If that was because the Sauk population was exploding, at a faster rate than was the Skagit population, then I'd be OK with it...but it's not, as a matter of fact, the Sauk population is in the $hitter, and only looks good in comparison to the Skagit run, which would need a considerable increase to even be considered "in the $hitter".

The main spawning areas on the Skagit between Rockport and Marblemount are usually full of fish, and starting to get pretty peppered with redds, by the third week of April...not this year.

Empty.

I hate to keep coming back to SCL and dam operations, by the hydrology and biology of the Skagit has changed, and it's changed a lot...and at the same time the spawning population has crashed.

There is a tremendous growth of "river snot"...the algae Didymo...coating the bottom in most of the formerly productive spawning stretches. Not surprisingly, this crap is only found around here on rivers with dams on them...the Cowlitz, the Lewis, and the Skagit...and it's only been in profusion on the Skagit for a very short time.

This can't be good for anything, not redd production, not bug production...and it's kind of hard to have fish without both of those.

There are far, far less invertebrates growing in the Skagit, compared to the Sauk...an evening hatch on the Skagit might find you a bug or two, while even the Sauk is buried in bugs.

The dam is operated on river cycles to promote optimum energy production at optimum times...period.

Yeah, I know they are trying to protect all the fish in there (three stocks of which are recently added to the ESA rolls; Bull Trout, Chinook, and Steelhead), but we all know that at the very best it is an attempt to accomodate fish while producing as much power in the most financially efficient way, not the other way around.

Chums have nosedived in the Skagit, it hasn't even opened for pinks a few times in the past several years, and the steelhead fishery is all but a memory.

Breaks my heart.

Blaming it all on "marine conditions" is starting to sound more and more to me like "let's blame it on something we have no control over"...and I'd accept that, if we were at least also fixing the things we DO have control over...but we're not, even when we know exactly what it would take to recover those fish populations.

Our history proves that every time we choose to "manage" a basin, meaning use it to make money first, then fish as an afterthought, we end up spending far more money than we can ever make off the river just to try and hold on to remnants of wild runs that no one can fish for, anyway.

As I said in the other thread, the number one threat to fish recovery in the PNW, for any salmon or steelhead run, is the lack of political or institutional will to do exactly what we already know will help...

I also think that there are plenty out there who would love to see whatever will we have left be consumed by "just fcuk it"...

Fish on...

Todd

That's another one of the things that the collective "we", including the co-managers, know how to fix...but just don't.

Fish on...

Todd

I read yesterday the 2000 well founded rumor on an other site and it broke my heart. I don't know if the steelhead rods will get taken out of the closet this winter at all. What a sad day. The political will to the right thing is lacking that is for sure. It isn't one thing but the cumulative affect of everything and we need to do what we can on the issues we can control.

JJ

Sure know how to make a nice sunny Sept day turn to crap eh Todd;) I and many others lived on those rivers for nearly two months this year in anticipation of a great run. As I hung my head walking off the river in late April, a very clear realization appeared that this was probably the last time we get to step foot in those waters for spring steelhead, Skykomish of the North it will become.

Based on the last 4 years there is no way to justify the opening of that system in March/April. I am sick of phantom run projections designed to create numbers that are above escapement and have fishable numbers built in for sporties and tribes and then listen to the classic excuse of "ocean conditions" when the reality of the run size turns to crap.

Off to the coast with thousands of my other N Sound brothers I suppose, or maybe go live on the banks of the Situk so I can actually see what a run of 10,000 wild steelhead looks like...

At least the slow fishing kept the crowds down, not that it's ever too crowded up there, anyway...and I'm glad we managed to get into fish most every day...and I still think about that one that exploded my rod with you on a nice spring morning...all good thoughts, including the busted rod and the burn on my hand from a quick attempt to handline a large and very hot fish in

Yeah...that didn't work out so well, did it?

Fish on...

Todd

Not real sure why they just decide to close the fishery in march either instead of completely shutting it down if the numbers warrant it. Especially if the weaker earlier component of the run should be protected. Maybe as a compromise to make some happy or maybe to maximize liscense dollars. Seems to me the Sauk run generally doesn't show up in numbers until April. A couple of seasons ago I spoke with an "older" timer at the burger joint in Darrington about the run timing of the Sauk and he agreed April was the main start. In fact he didn't even begin his season until April and said May was a good month.
I would just assume shutting the whole fishery (Skagit and tribs) down to be on the safe side if numbers are down.

Funny you mention that. I found myself driving down the road the other day laughing to myself as the vision of that huge, hot hen blasting out of the water with the fresh echo of your exploded rod still ringing my ears...half a rod sliding into the drink with looks of bewilderment on our faces, that run has kicked my ass before with amazing fish just ask Robbo;)...hell Ill still be up there in Feb even if I am fishing through an empty river. Cheers

I knew escapement wasn't good, but 2000 fish holy crap! that's not good . also wonder what impact tribal nets have they are in until mid march, then they go in in late may, I know they definately got some steelhead in May, maybe downstreamers... That upper skagit hasn't had many fish at all the last two years, 2007 was a decent year though. on a positive note the humpy run seems to be somewhat close to forecast, then again humpy's pretty much hatch and go...

May is a good month for the local poachers...I bet there are more fish in the Sauk in May than in any other month...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Re: your comments,

"I hate to keep coming back to SCL and dam operations, by the hydrology and biology of the Skagit has changed, and it's changed a lot...and at the same time the spawning population has crashed.

There is a tremendous growth of "river snot"...the algae Didymo...coating the bottom in most of the formerly productive spawning stretches. Not surprisingly, this crap is only found around here on rivers with dams on them...the Cowlitz, the Lewis, and the Skagit...and it's only been in profusion on the Skagit for a very short time.

This can't be good for anything, not redd production, not bug production...and it's kind of hard to have fish without both of those.

There are far, far less invertebrates growing in the Skagit, compared to the Sauk...an evening hatch on the Skagit might find you a bug or two, while even the Sauk is buried in bugs.

The dam is operated on river cycles to promote optimum energy production at optimum times...period.

Yeah, I know they are trying to protect all the fish in there (three stocks of which are recently added to the ESA rolls; Bull Trout, Chinook, and Steelhead), but we all know that at the very best it is an attempt to accomodate fish while producing as much power in the most financially efficient way, not the other way around.

Chums have nosedived in the Skagit, it hasn't even opened for pinks a few times in the past several years, and the steelhead fishery is all but a memory.

Breaks my heart.

Blaming it all on "marine conditions" is starting to sound more and more to me like "let's blame it on something we have no control over"...and I'd accept that, if we were at least also fixing the things we DO have control over...but we're not, even when we know exactly what it would take to recover those fish populations.

Our history proves that every time we choose to "manage" a basin, meaning use it to make money first, then fish as an afterthought, we end up spending far more money than we can ever make off the river just to try and hold on to remnants of wild runs that no one can fish for, anyway.

As I said in the other thread, the number one threat to fish recovery in the PNW, for any salmon or steelhead run, is the lack of political or institutional will to do exactly what we already know will help..."
.................................................................................................

I guess I'm gonna' be the "dam whore" here, but it's one thing to point a finger at the hydropower operations, accusing it of the deleterious effects on steelhead and salmon, and quite another to draw logical analytical conclusions that dam operations are indeed the cause.

There have been major hydropower dam operations significantly affecting Skagit River flow fluctuations since the early 1950s, following completion of Ross, the third and uppermost Skagit dam which contains more than 90% of the water storage capacity. Steelhead populations have been contemporarily high, low, high, and now low again in this 50+ year era of hydropower flow fluctuations. The steelhead population crashed in the 1970s, and there were significant flow fluctuations from the dams. Were the Skagit dams responsible for that population crash? The steelhead population rebounded to contemporary high levels in the 1980s, and there were significant flow fluctuations from the dams. Were the Skagit dams responsible for that population resurgence? The steelhead population declined in the 1990s and most recently have crashed to a level even lower than observes in the 1970s, and flows from the Skagit dams have been more carefully restricted specifically to extend protection to salmon and steelhead. Does that mean that even better flow management is responsible for the 1990s decline and the current crash? Clearly a more carefully detailed analysis is necessary to support any conclusion regarding dam operations as the proximate cause for either high or low steelhead populations.

As for the algae didymo, dams don't cause it. According to DOE it's an alien invasive species. I don't know if the source has been identified. If it gains a better foothold in dammed rivers, it likely due to reduced flood flows that keep it scoured away in the undammed rivers. If devestating floods are necessary to control didymo, we have a new and different problem since our salmonids co-evolved with a specific frequency of flooding. I'll probably be reading up on didymo, as I don't know whether it compromises spawning success or benthic invertabrate production. Speaking of which, benthic invertebrate production in the shallow, flow fluctuation zone of the Skagit is lower than in the Sauk, documented also in the 1970s, and it is due to hydropower fluctuations.

Your conclusion that the Skagit dams are operated for energy benefits solely is incorrect. If it were true, you would observe significantly greater flow fluctuations on a daily basis, with more rapid downramping, chronic fry stranding, chronic redd dewatering, with greater daily and seasonal amplitudes. You don't observe that, and the reason you don't is because SCL's operatiing license, issued in 1995, is more restrictive for streamflow operations than was the previous license, which generally saw larger steelhead populations.

Pink and chum populations have generally been larger since the mid 1970s than the decades immediately prior. Years of low pink or chum abundance have almost a 1:1 correlation with significant floods occuring in the brood year. Logical analysis concludes that floods are the proximate cause of pink and chum population depressions, not the Skagit dams (where BTW, egg to fry survival is highest in the river reach from Newhalem to Marblemount because of less flooding), not didymo, not even the hated gillnets, nor sea lice. Floods.

If you believe marine conditions are not the proximate cause for the current steelhead population collapse, and you also believe we aren't doing anything or much or enough about the things we DO have control over, I have some encouraging news for you. If you think the Skagit dams are the problem for our beloved steelhead population, and you can help me PROVE it, then I will do something about it. It just so happens that the Skagit dams license has never consulted under the ESA for listed bull trout, chinook salmon, or steelhead. And it is about to, opening a window of opportunity. So if there are "reasonable and prudent measures" necessary to promote recovery of the listed species that are not already in the current license, we have a shot at license modifications. Of course these reasonable and prudent measures must be supported by the "best available science;" actually the ESA reads, "best scientific and commercial data," but it means roughly the same thing. The upshot is that your charge that dam operations are harming steelhead must be supported by better evidence than your casual observations.

This could be fun!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think reduced invertebrate production due to flow fluctuations is a pretty important part of the equation...worth more than one sentence acknowledging it. Care to elaborate?

I haven't seen Didymo in any rivers other than the ones I listed, and those rivers still get some pretty high water events in the late fall and early winter...but low gradient streams with little to no flooding, and no dams, well, never seen Didymo in any of those, either.

The Sauk is subject to very similar conditions as the Skagit, and the exact same marine conditions...yet the Skagit has precipitously lost fish at a rate far faster than the Sauk...but there is one glaring difference between the two, and it's upstream from Rockport, where both runs share the same river until that point...

Besides the flow regimes from the dams, what is the likely cause of the difference between the two streams, then?

I'm open to suggestions, and I'd love to participate as fully as possible in ESA consultation for the SCL operations, so let's talk about it some time soon.

I also didn't say that SCL operations are "solely" for energy production...and I firmly stand behind my contention that energy production comes first, and fish second.

I think it's a little funny to say that pink and chum runs are linked tightly to floods during brood years...floods that scour the eggs and kill fry, I'll assume...and to also say that Didymo is there because there aren't any flood events to wash it out...

If it floods enough to scour eggs and kill fry, I'll wager it floods enough to wash Didymo off the very same rocks that are tumbled all over to scour the eggs...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'd REALLY like to find out where Didymo is, how it got there, and what its effects are...

I don't know the answers.

But I will say that, strictly anecdotally, the Skagit seems to be near barren for most of the steelhead season. I can also say that other nearby rivers, while not having "robust" runs, have what I'd consider to be populations of wild steelhead well worth fish for. Those fish are subject to much of the same "ocean conditions" as the Sauk/Skagit fish.

I can also say that I spend a lot of time in the San Juans and that baitfish, in general, are not exactly in short supply. Perhaps the biomass isn't even close to what it should be but taking someone out to show them baitfish wouldn't be much of a problem.

Overall, this whole topic is extremely depressing. I'm with Keith in that I'd probably still go up there to fish even if the river is barren. The time spent up there is of far more value than the fish I catch.