Salmo g-
I agree that in basin problems are not the proximate cause of the current fix we find our beloved steelhead. Many now agree that the dominate factor shaping our steelhead returns is this extended period of extremely poor marine survival.

However I believe and more and more information is coming out to support my belief that a key to our "steelhead" surviving long term during this period of poor marine survival will be the species ability to rely on alternate life histories; in this case the resident rainbows. Those various life histories are just another illustration of the diversity found in our local populations and how important that diversity is to the long term survival of the species. My concern is that depressed insect production in that portion of the Skagit is limiting that needed diversity.

BTW -
I would love to share a brew or two discussing the "State of the River".

DaveD-
As mentioned by Salmo g the bull trout are headwater fish that spend the early period of their lives in tributary streams. As they become larger they begin moving throughout and even out of the basin (will not go into the specifics now). An abundant food resource found in the Skagit above the Sauk is related to the returning salmon - loose eggs, carcassess and fry. However that abundance is seasonal; typically available to the fish during the late fall to early spring period. By the time that the young bull trout reach the main river they are large enough that their bodies can carry stored fat through the lean periods so that the fish can take advantage of that food resource.

Fish like young of the year steelhead need that summer food resource to develop the fat resources to get them through the winter - that salmon food resource really is not very available to those fish as most juvenile trout go essentially dormant with the following water temperatures in the fall until the next spring. They actively seek out "over-winter habitat" as the temperatures drop into the mid/lower 40s not to emerge until the temperatures warm again. If they don't have the needed fat reserves by that time they will not survive to the next summer. Their survival requires those key food resources as well as that key over winter habitat (usually complex habitat features such as log jams, root wads, boulder complexes, etc).

Tight lines
Curt

It is still too early to tell, because the huge pink escapements hit the South Prairie Creek system in 2003, and it takes about six years to get a full steelhead brood back.

But, both the steelhead and Chinook that spawn there are showing a very positive response to the pinks. It would appear that the Chinook are responding the the cleaner gravel, as the response is in the fish that spawn the next year. In steelhead, the fish that spawn the spring before the pinks are the one's responding.

We have been seeing 200-400K pinks in the whole of SPC. care to expand that to the Skagit?.

Carcassman,

200-400K pinks in SPC is like 20-40KK in the Skagit. That level of abundance likely never existed in the Skagit even when it was directly connected to Skagit, Padilla, and Samish Bays, all in pristine condition. Would take a lot of estuary forage for that many pink fry. However, winter flooding has probably been common enough to keep the populations in balance with the available estuary forage. What puzzles me are the huge pink populations in the Puyallup and Green systems with all of what, 10 acres of estuary between them? Maybe pinks aren't as estuary dependent as we thought? What next, a major pink run expansion in the Hoh River? I've spent most of my life trying to understand Pacific salmonids, and now there are almost as many questions as I had decades ago.

Sg

Rvrfshr,

I'm so happy to oblige! You're quite welcome!

Smalma,

I'm not sure how we can treat the resident component in the consultaion. I think we ought to examine it, but NMFS has superimposed a policy boundary over biology by not considering resident rainbows as the same species as steelhead in terms of ESA listings. Fish that are not anadromous are non-jurisdictional since they are not a "marine" species. I'll have to check with the Science Center to see how we're supposed to deal with this. This has to have come up on the mid C, so there ought to be some policy direction. Kinda' like our legal jurisdiction ends at the US border, but fish migrations don't.

We should have an interesting time with this.

Sg

I think we could have some thing to talk about if the three of us meet up some time and talk about the consultation...we've got some very different lines of participation that might be able to be taken advantage of.

Sorry, Joe...I wish I didn't feel the need to bring this topic back up, but I'm glad I did after the discussion over the last day on it...

Fish on...

Todd

Salmo

What is your basis to say Skagit runs were never that large? There is no data that I know of. I do know that when Jeff Koenings applied Best Available Science to Karluk Lake sockeye he estimated that the lake's capacity for spawning sockeye was 2 million. Bottom sediment evaluation going back more than 2,000 years shows escapements varying from 200K to 4 million. For most of the last 1,000 years, pre industrial fishing, the minimum escapement was 2 million and regulalry went to 3 and 4.

I don't know how many pinks should spawn in the Skagit but it is damsite more than the 330K goal used for years. If we put a million in the Green the Skagit should be closer to 10 mil than 330K.

As for the estuary, we have seen in Kennedy Creek that the 50K or so chums send nutrients out into the estuary; setting the table for the outmigrating fry.

"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."

Todd - I don't think I've ever agreed more with one of your statements. I can scarcely imagine how a research biologist manages in these times.

On that note, do any of you biologists have information on the now-extinct upriver stream-maturing stock? Were they more like Vancouver Island fish, Interior BC fish, or Deer Creek fish? I would imagine Diablo Canyon was rather selective.

What do you think, Joe?

-IS

Ickstream Steel -
While it is the case that the Baker River steelhead are extinct (at least for all practical purposes) it remains moot whether there was consistent steelhead (or other anadromous fish) production above Diablo.

Most that have look at the stream channel in that reach concluded that there were likely velocity barriers in the canyon that effective end upstream migration. Now I could see that at rare times flows might fall into a area that might allow migrating fish to pass but such situations would likely happen so rarely that support an anadromous population over multiple generations would not have been possible (however such a situation may account for how rainbows and bull trout eached the upper watershed). The verbal records from the period daming also seem support that salmon did not reach the Ross Lake country.

I would not have been surprised that the resident rainbow trout population would produce some smolts but those returning adults would not have been able to return to those headwater reaches.

Tight lines
Curt

Steelspanker,

Pink and chum salmon migrate as young of the year fry at 35-40 mm length or less, especially pinks. Estuary rearing is critical for growth that enhances ocean migration and survival rates. Chinook that migrate as young of year fry or fingerlings are also estuary dependent for growth and increased ocean survival. Yearling chinook smolts may or may not linger in estuaries, as they are larger and not dependent to nearly the degree as smaller smolts. Steelhead smolts are comparatively large, six inches or better, and typically swim right through the estuary and head for the open ocean.

Carcassman,

I kinda' pulled that out of my hat. My empirical basis is the early 20th century commercial fish landings. If historic Skagit pink and chum runs were near that magnitude, commercial landings should have left at least some indication. I think the best estimates put the pink run around 1KK and chums at 200K or so. It's hard to say with chum because seasonal, weather, and market conditions seemed to influence that fishery traditionally along with run abundance.

It's becomming increasingly clear that factors besides the usual freshwater spawning habitat and estuary rearing habitat and ocean conditions influence population abundance. There's still much for the next generation of biologists to figure out.

Ickstream Steel,

As Smalma indicated, oral tradition was not able to affirm anadromy much beyond Gorge Dam on the Skagit. The best information is that spawning chinook (and presumably steelhead) reached Stetattle Creek, Cedar Bar, and Reflector Bar, located in the Gorge and Diablo pools, respectively. Those were the most upstream penetration of anadromous fish in recorded history (oral tradition). The rainbow trout and bull trout of the upper Skagit most likely got there via historic migration past the Ruby Canyon cataracts, probably by temporary features that facilitated migration, or less likely via a cross pass connection between upper Lightning Creek and the upper Similkameen basin, which raises different issues about historic geomorphic fish migration possibilities.

Sg

Chuck S.
Keep in mind that the ocean is a big place and each of our anadromous salmonid species have very different ocean preferences in terms of conditions, food sources, feeding areas, etc. As a result we see very different survival conditions for each of the various species at the same time. Thus we find situations such as we currently in where we are seeing exceptional survival of Puget Sound pink salmon and at the same time extremely poor survival of its steelhead.

To confuse the picture even further fish of a given species from different regions and even sometimes different stocks from the same region migrate to different areas of the ocean and may have different survivals. A species from Alaska or California may have very different survivals than say those from Puget Sound.

It would be very rare (see I have learned never to say never) to see all the species from a given area to have similar survival regimes. Thus it is likely that when conditions improve for Puget Sound steelhead we will likely see the conditions for pinks declining. Such is the nature of the beast.

Regarding the recent increase in survival of Green and Puyullap pinks. While it is true that neither system have much of an "estuary" left that generally is not critical habitat for pinks. At this point it might be well to more carefully define a couple of terms - generally when folks talk about "estuaries" they are thinking of the marshes associated with the river's delta. It is those marshes that are so critical to young Chinook fry which need the additional rearing to reach a size threshold where their marine survival increases. However our pink salmon (chum as well) are more associated with the near shore marine habitats along the beaches of Puget Sound. While in the strict since of the word that habitat is also estuarian habitat it is very different than that found in the delta. Generally the newly hatch pink fry are capable survival immediately upon reaching marine waters (do not seem to have a minimum size threshold for decent survival). As a result they generally move quickly through the delta habitats and begin feeding along the shallow water of the near-shore beaches moving with the tides growing all the while. As they increase in size they begin leaving the shallows moving out into deeper waters.

It may be that with the general clean up of the water in the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma that small pink fry are now able to reach that key near-shore habitat. That coupled with this period of excellent marine survival may explain the astounding expansion of the pink populations. Another example of what may happen when restoration efforts meet improved marine survival conditions? It will be interesting to see how those pink populations due when the marine survival conditions decline. While the other conditions improved to a point that those populations will persist at reasonable levels or will they decline to the levels seen during the later half of the last century?

One thing is clear; as pointed out by Salmo g. we don't have all the answers. It is also clear that a length of a single career (or even a human life time) is not near long enough period of time to see some of the variability that our anadromous populations can expect to experience over time.

Tight lines
Curt

Chuck S.
While I'm hardly salmon expert it is my understanding that our Puget Sound Pinks (including the Snohomish fish) generally spend the early spring and summer in Puget Sound (moving progressively into deeper water as they get larger) and by late summer/early fall they have migrated to the open ocean. Once they reach the ocean they tend to move in both north and west ending in the Gulf of Alaska and return the following summer to the Sound.

Their moves contrast with our coho and Chinook in that the pinks tend to be a more open ocean fish while the coho and Chinook typically migrate along the coast line typically stay within the continental shelf.

The Skagit Chinook while a northward migrating stock typically does not reach Alaskan waters. Information from code wire tags indicated that only a small portion (less than 5%) of the harvest of those stocks happens in Alaskan water. In round numbers the harvest distribution (prior to the last several years) of the Skagit summer/fall fish was about 30% in BC, 50% in Washington commercial net, and 10% in the Wa. sport fishery. For the Skagit springs the distribution was somehting like 60% in BC, less than 5% in commercial nets, and 30% in the Wa sport fishery (the exact % varies whether the fish were yearling or fingerling migratants).

It probably should be noted that a significant portion of the mortality experienced by the migrating salmon likely occurs during the first few months of their ocean trip.

Tight lines
Curt

I think this might sum it up best but I can't resit a few more comments.



The three components that influence population abundance mentioned by Salmo g. are not independent. No matter how much effort is spent on addressing problems with one of the components little success can be expected without understanding the dependence amongst all of the components. The three are linked by climate, a measure and expression of the linkage. This discussion has many components that illustrate this. Geomorphology was mentioned in relation to fish migration, geomorphology is a result of the interaction of tectonic and climatological forces. In the context of this discussion it is a long term process but it is a continuing one. Historic information of the past 100 years has been used to explain some of the variation of various runs to the Skagit River and it was noted that in the 1970's there was a major change in run size and composition. Almost all climatologists agree that in the 1970's there was a major change in the North Pacific ocean/ climate regime. It is not that this was unusual, it is just that most of us who fish had not experienced the consequences. 10,000 years ago Eastern Oregon was a lush landscape of lakes, many with connection to the Columbia River. Relatively large human populations lived around these lakes relying on the fish and wildlife for food. Today the lake bottoms are sage brush valleys, the people that relied on the lakes gone, there are still fish populations though in the small streams that flow through these valleys. The point is that the world is not static, it is always changing, the concept that a wild fish population in a particular river can be recovered or even preserved is a tenuous one. It is particularly tenuous if the measure of recovery is a population size that can be fished for in any fashion. Salmon are opportunists, if conditions favor survival they will prosper and if not there will always be a population somewhere that can recolonize when conditions improve. In the long term the fish have a much better chance of survival than we humans do.



This question is a good illustration of the necessity of understanding all of the components of salmon ecosystems, marine and freshwater. If stress is applied to an ecosystem species with the most complex life histories are most likely to suffer. Of the salmon pinks have the most simple life history, unlike the other salmon they don't have an extended freshwater component of their life history. I think that there are some populations that spawn on saltwater beaches and have no freshwater component. They grow faster than any other salmon, they have the shortest life cycle, they stray the most and they are the most numerous salmon in the Pacific. All of these factors contribute to the ability of pinks to adapt to changing environments much faster than the other salmon, in that sense they are much tougher than a king or steelhead. The resident rainbow are another illustration of the value of a simple life history. They are impacted by the effects of climate but not nearly as much as anadromous rainbow. This is a different example of how a species has adapted to survive environmental changes. Have two life history forms so that in good times one dominates and in bad times the other form is a genetic bank. The Redband rainbow trout in the Pleistocene lake beds of Oregon are another example.



I think there are scientist of this generation that are trying to figure it out. I also think that the agencies and organizations that are in a position to assist in figuring it out through funding don't want to know. For example f the actions of the numerous salmon recovery programs were evaluated in their relationship to the total ecosystem, marine and freshwater, it might show that a great deal of money is wasted. They are economic stimulus programs, they benefit people and not salmon. Another good example related to salmon is NOAA Fisheries North Pacific research programs. They are proud to point out their ecosystem based management of the pollack and groundfish fisheries. What they don't point out is that any management scheme has a goal of optimizing something. In this case they want a maximum sustained catch of the target species. Their science is directed towards achieving this goal and demonstrating that bycatch is not a problem. They are not concerned with salmon return to rivers. It is like one of the most intensively managed ecosystems anywhere, the Iowa corn farms where corn production is the goal. If the goal is more steelhead in the Skagit River than a knowledge of the entire ecosystem is necessary and an understanding that it is a dynamic system. In can never be restored to what was, with some knowledge it might be possible to steer the change in a direction to achieve the desired goals. It is an interesting process and one that can be discussed over many beers more than once.

WN1A
Right now, today the Skagit is full of Indian nets and has been for weeks and will be for another month.
The Fish have no chance no matter how prestine the river system is or how much they tell us we must release fish and protect habitat!

Releasing Kings and Steelhead (or any fish) these days is a joke and will continue to be a joke as long as those nets are allowed in the river system. You may feel good releasing fish as we all do, but don't think for a minute you are helping the fish runs.
I release most everything, but not because of the brain washing going on, I release becuase I don't need the fish.

Many quality posts in this thread.

I'd like to thank Smalma and Salmo G for taking the time to type out a long-ass quality post like that to get the info out to the masses.

This story is a shame. But it's nothing new. Just a couple more rivers added to the list of many who are mere shadows of what they once were. I used to catch steelhead in Mill Creek in Shelton. And Goldsborough creek, too. And that was as a ham-fisted kid with a Wright-McGill rod and a Mitchell 300 reel, tossing a big old Dardevle red and white spoon.

I guess I played my own little role in seeing those fish disappear. I didn't know any better at the time. And even though we know better now, I don't see anything changing.

From the view point of the fish they don't care who kills them or how, Indian nets, snaggers, sports fishermen, or CNR fishermen. I personally do not fish for salmon in freshwater except for a rare try for springers and sockeye in Lake Washington and for the past several years have only fished for steelhead in December when the catch is primarily hatchery fish. I believe that directed catch and release fisheries do nothing to preserve fish runs, they only prolong the decline. I am a hunter gather kind of person, eat what I take and only take what I can eat. After that any fishing and release of fish I don't need is part of the problem. When we point fingers at individuals or groups that we feel are responsible for the decline of fish runs we should be looking in the mirror. As I indicated in the previous post there will be salmon long after humans are gone.

" I beleive that directed C&R fisheries do nothing to preserve fish runs, they only prolong the run" I have to disagree with this one, you obviously haven't fish much for spring steelhead. If every steelhead that was c&R'd by sports fisherman was wacked instead the run could be wiped out probably in two spawing cycles. I would dare to say that probably over half the fish in the Skagit/ Sauk that spawned last year were C&R by sport fisherman. C&R is the only way we can sustain wild steelhead, they are simply too aggressive of a fish to be wacked. I have drifted through a run, hooked up broke off, then on the next pass hooked the same fish. The sauk fish are especially aggressive. I also talked to several guides who were taking scale samples and a few times they caught the same fish twice. good friend of mine who live in Terrace B.C. also has experienced the same thing with the scale samples, many fish are C&R multiple times. With people figuring out how to be more effective of catching steelhead in a river ove the last 10 years what would happen if we wacked them?

Here's this tired old argument once again! Go ahead and throw in the towell and forfiet any chance of you or your kid catching a native spring steelhead because you are "a hunter gather kind of person."

Let me be clear. Without steelheaders on the river there is no future for steelhead. Only netters and poachers who can finally get their wish and make them extinct so us pesky steelheaders are no longer getting in the way of the netters and poachers and the politicians that support them!!!!

The other option to C&R is to leave them alone. We know that some fraction of those fish, no matter how well handled, die. And, as was mentioned before, dead is dead and it really doesn't matter how they died. Be it in a gill net, poached, kept in a "legitimate" kill fishery, chewed up in a turbine, dredged up. Whatever. And we need to understand that.

What C&R does is keep anglers on the water and provides an economic voice for the fish.

...and a political voice, and the majority of the activism on behalf of the fish, not to mention friendly eyes in the woods in what would be a spring long poacher season, were it not for anglers around keeping an eye on things.

Without fishermen, no one would notice as our wild steelhead stocks plummet...

Fish on...

Todd

I think it's easier for poachers when there is any fishing open. They can say they are C&R steelhead or fishing for dollys or whatever and when they get an illegal fish they hide it in the bushes until they leave or run to the car and take off. When the river is closed anyone walking around with fishing gear is recognized as a poacher.

I have been hearing all this talk about declining fish runs for many years now. All the things that we know will help recover runs never seems to get done. The general public doesn't want to make the sacrifices required. Pretty hard to be optimistic that some big turnaround is going to happen.