Traditional hatchery programs pose a much lower threat to genetic infiltration of the wild winter run stocks, mainly due to a fairly extreme temporal disparity between arrival and spawning times. There should also be effective collection systems to get the unharvested ones out of the rivers.

To that end, there's your perfect opportunity to have harvest and to not have to remove wild fish eggs and sperm from the population to do it.

You don't have to choose whether we have broodstock programs or no harvest...you can have plenty of harvest without them, with less bad effects on the wild population.

This, however, may not be as good of a harvest opportunity as some would like...sorry. If you're looking to have harvest and have wild fish, then this is the most responsible way to go. If harvest is your main impetus, then at least don't pay lip service to helping wild fish and then discuss how great broodstock programs are...admit at least that your harvest opportunity is more important to you than your wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Habitat buffers the effects of poor ocean conditions, without good habitat stocks crash during poor ocean conditions.

So here's a thought.................

Let's assume that all Broodstock programs were discontinued.

We stopped harvest of wild steelhead in SW WA rivers in 1989 I beleive, #'s haven't changed much...

River closures were introduced March 15th through April 16th some where around 10 years ago on the EF of the Lewis.

Bait bans were introduced 5 or so years ago on the EF of the Lewis from March 15th through June 1st.

Hatchery plants for summer runs have been cut from just over 100,000 in the late 80's to 25,000 as of recent. As well as Winter hatchery plants have been cut from 130,000 to 90,000.

Still the numbers of Winter native steelhead haven't changed.

How would you suggest the wild fish #'s be recovered?

Here's what the HSRG suggests:
Recommendations
Due to the ecological and genetic risks from the segregated winter steelhead program on the ESA listed winter steelhead, this program should be modified in one of three ways to meet standards of a primary population: (1) reduce the size of the current segregated winter steelhead hatchery program to approximately 20,000 smolts; (2) reduce the size of the current segregated winter steelhead hatchery program to approximately 45,000 smolts and manage to remove 50% of the unharvested hatchery adults; or (3) replace with an integrated winter run program of approximately 40,000 smolts (with pNOB of 100%) and manage to remove 50% of the unharvested hatchery adults. All of these options represent a reduced genetic and ecological risk compared to current conditions. In any case, manage acclimation and release to reduce residualism, and recapture unharvested adults to the extent possible.
This stream is a good candidate to be a Wild Steelhead Management Zone. This would require eliminating all hatchery releases in the East Fork Lewis.
Keith

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FishCounts/index.cfm/FA/main.displayResults

Thats why the Karluk and other AK rivers are having precipitious declines.

Absolutely! I kill them before they ever leave the river! Fin clipped? It dies! The blue heron on the river I fish really like those broodstock smolt.....



As for using broodstock programs as a method of restoration? That is about the biggest myth there is. Name me one river where a sustained and non-supplemented run of steelhead is occurring because of broodstock?
The Wilson, Kilchis and Nestucca were no worse off with the Alsea hatchery product of years back as long as they were kept in the lower rivers to limit interaction with wild steelhead. By the time the wild steelhead arrived in numbers, February through April, this Alsea hatchery strain was pretty much finished and their impact on the wild steelhead was minimal. These Alsea are still used but in far less numbers and they provided early winter harvest opportunities.
These days ODFW has distributed the broodstock smolt throughout the system and the chance of inter action is far greater. The broodstock programs are harmful to wild fish in so many ways!
When I said bait guide welfare program take this into consideration. Before the broodstock programs there was never harvest opportunities that late in the winter.Now, however, there is the opportunity for guides to run paid trips during the late winter and early spring. Now they run all kinds of "wild steelhead rodeos" and get paid to collect wild steelhead for the broodstock program. Some Portland metro guides even moved to the north coast when this broodstock $[censored] began. So tell me who benefits most from a broodstock program.
The bottom line is if it smell like $hit then it probably is $hit!

Barney dammit! You know why too.

I know at least one bait guide who is all for releasing native fish on the North Umpqua, his clients keep coming back not to kill wild fish but catch and release 20+ lb beautiful natives!

I'd like to see the data where pristine Alaska river stocks are crashing, down from a 10 year average, but crashing like we see here in the PNW?
I don't think so, so it is indeed the habitat stupid.

Broodstock programs undermine the productivity of wildstocks over time because they are taking potential wild offspring and turning them into hatchery fish. Hatchery fish perform poorly in the wild, period. Right now its poorly understood, but being reared in a hatchery environment definitely causes domestication selection and fitness (essentially how well their offspring do) declines dramatically after only one generation in the hatchery. The other problems are 1. that because broodstock fish enter the rivers at roughly the same time they are more likely to spawn with wild fish exacerbating the erosion of productivity. 2. because broodstock fish can be harvested the state is essentially taking wild productivity out of the system to provide harvest opportunity. Bogus in my opinion on a stock like the wilson or nestucca where even if stocks are stable they definitely aren't healthy or anywhere close to historic abundance.

That said, poor returns on the wilson and nestucca last year definitely weren't driven by the broodstock program. From year to year, variation in ocean conditions and early marine survival play a much more important role in determining adult returns. That and as you said, water was extremely low and cold most of the season last year. Long term though, the broodstock program can be expected to erode the populations fitness and the overall numbers of nonbroodstock wild fish returning. The snyder program is the same BS and the early fish on the Duc aren't doing any better for it IMO

Marcia,
I couldn't agree more.

How many rivers in Alaska and BC have had terrible returns (recently)and yet they have the best habitat in the world.
The Skeena was a bust for kings this year. I know some good fisherman that spent 7 days in good conditions for 4 fish a day. That's almost as good as Trask tidewater right now. Pretty pathetic.

In 2008 we say the lowest return of adult kings to the Togiak in years. many of the locals say they have never has such dismal returns. Did the habitat change so much that it fell on its face? NO

People who blame the habitat must have some good explanation for our impressive coho returns as of late. Is that due to out huge habitat improvements? NOT!

If anyone wants answers to why our fish returns are good or bad, they are in the Ocean. If it"s healthy, so are the fish that rely on it for food.

indeed, but only considering one factor (ie the ocean) means you are getting an incomplete understanding. Particularly in freshwater rearing species like coho and steelhead if habtiat is degraded then long term the population is in trouble. Yes ocean survival can fluctuate dramatically (eg. 1-25% for steelhead) that means from 1,000 smolts you might get anywhere from 10 adults to 250 depending on ocean conditions, but long term one year of good or bad adult returns don't make or break a population of salmon.

You are so wrong!

Let's ask a few people who fish Alaska every year............

How the king returns have gone in the last 10 years. I'll start this off.

Kanektok
1997-2006 good returns.
2007-2009 very poor

Togiak
1997- 2006 good returns
2007-2009 poor

]Kenai
1997-2006 average-fair
2007-2009 poor

Lake Creek
Same as above

Skeena region
same as above

Oregon Coast
Same as above

I can keep going as it will be the same everywhere in this region.

IF IT WERE A HABITAT THING, NOT EVERY RIVER WOULD SEE THESE DISAAPOINTING RETURNS. THOSE RIVERS WITH EXCELLENT HABITAT WOULD WEATHER THE STORM WITHOUT INTERUPTION. THEY ALL GOT HAMMERED, WHY?

IF YOU PLANT SEEDS IN A GARDEN AND DON'T WATER THEM, DON'T EXPECT A VERY BIG GARDEN.

I agree, but if you have poor habitat and an awesome ocean, you are still going to see good returns. (Im talking fall kings here) Which spend about 3 months as a fry before entereing the ocean. The time that fall kings spend in any river habitat is minimal. Therefore they are effected less by the river habitat than a steelhead or coho, which may use the river for as much as 18 months.

If you have great habitat (togiak) and poor ocean conditions you get what we have been getting the last two years. ( NOTHING, compare to the last 10 years)

Lets take the Karluk for example, stupid.

2009 1300 fish

2008 752

2005 4800

2002 7200

The Karluk is on Kodiak island, no where near a road, hatchery, etc. Minimum escapement is 3700 fish for ADFG. The run is less than 15% of the 2002 population.

The Anchor dropped 66% of 03-09.

Crooked creek is down 50% in the last 4 years. The story is told over an over. Huge drops no matter what the habitat conditions are. Its the Ocean, Stupid.

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FishCounts/

How many hours, days, months, weeks, years, does a salmonid EGG spend in the ocean???

If the habitat is degraded enough as to where the survivability fails at the egg stage, what does that leave you with?

Doesn't really matter now if you have THE BEST ocean conditions EVER - if all those fish are failing to make new fish because the habitat is messed up, or getting messed up.

Eventually, the habitat loss will catch up to the numbers.

Or, keep the wool over you eyes and enjoy the fish now and in your lifetime, as your kid(s) can kiss them goodbye.



Fixed that statement for you.

Ryan has it right! Way to see the light!

BTW, What the hell happened to the habitat in the Karluk? I'll bet it fixes itself in 2010. Lets all watch and se how the numbers of adult 4 year old kings goes throught the roof this next year. Then start your praise about habitat and i'll take you to the real habitat problem ..........................

The Willamette River Spring chinook.
80 degree water every summer for ten years. That is a habitat problem!

Hog quest host glen is a total tool that condones his and his southern oregon buddies whackin of wild steelies. Lame show anyway, now I boycott it after that episode. Oh and glen if your reading this, learn how to play a fish, you look spastic with a steely on your rod

Did you get a little too far under that knife and it slipped and hit your melon.

Parker, I thought you had an education. You didn't get into that koolaid did you!

I agree that the 80 degree water is sh!t for the springers, no one will argue that, but I'm still confused there was roughly the same amount of population swing (percentage wise) with regards to returns as the Karluk. The Karluk must be as degraded as the Willamette for that to be happening.

Damn college kids. What do they know.

Jake is correct in that one must look at the entire pie, not just a piece of it.

Ignoring habitat is just as stupid as saying ocean conditions are the only factors to the health of any fish run.

Ah, ignorance is bliss.

Climate Change isn't real and I should have voted for Sarah Palin and that other old dude she was running with.

What was his name again? You'd know him, he was white.