So the Deep River select site hasn't gone so well.

Should DFW move production of Cowlitz stock here?

I doubt they will as the majority of funding comes from BPA. Also the returns are similar to what the Kalama and Lewis have experianced over the last several years, to Plant 350K smolts and not harvest 100 adults is a joke.

The Kalama had some great years when they were planting Carson upriver stock. But HSRG put a stop to that and returns have plumeted since not sure why they plant fish that dont return in significant numbers but they should focus on results instead of how many turds they release.

Not too many years ago I caught many springers in the Elochoman while summer steel fishing and was told these were Deep river strays, what were they doing 5 years ago that they are not doing now?

They were talking of a 200-250k release.

Yes, this would be part of the Tacoma City Light mitigation

Stocking springers in Willapa Bay would be poor fisheries management. Sorry to be so direct, but spring Chinook need cold water all summer so they can spawn in late August or September. The Willapa Bay tribs do not flow off the Cascades (like the Cow, Lewis, and Kalama) so they get really warm during the summer. That would be a death trap for springers.

I agree with Slab on the Kalama River. Back in 2007, they got 7000 springers back to the rack. That was twice as many as they've ever seen. Plus the recreational fishing was outstanding that year. Off the charts. Since then, they've closed the season early every year because they're not getting any fish back. That happened in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and again this past spring. In fact, this year the Kalama Rv hatchery did not make their egg take for springers, so they got some from the Cowlitz hatchery.

What's worse is that since 2007, Kalama Rv spring Chinook don't show up in any fishery - recreational, commercial or Tribal. So whatever they're doing isn't contributing to the fishery resources of the State of Washington. I'm hoping they change back to Carson stock, if they haven't already. I'm not sure springers were ever native on the Kalama Rv so I'm not sure why they're concerned about wild fish.

Springers?????? What's wrong with WDFW that they don't want to enhance Springers in the Chehalis River?????? Big water shed.....seems that for the growing "sports people of the State", this would be a positive step to increase funds and more important, public image for WDFW.

This is all about maintaning commercial harvest IMHO.

Seems like there were more returns to the Deep River site a few years ago. I don't know if anything is different besides the terminal return. I can't see how final rearing & release of Cowlitz stock in Willapa Bay would improve returns, even for a wipe out fishery. Well at least they wouldn't have to worry about unselective gillnets killing wild springers. That would be an upside. However the idea seems insidious to me.

DrifterWA,

While the Chehalis is a big watershed, hardly any of it is suitable spring chinook habitat anymore. Hatchery enhancement of Chehalis springers could produce more problems than solutions.

Sg

Sg:

25+ years ago, Tom Pent, a WDFW person, and someone from the Chehalis tribe,and myself went to the holding ponds below the dam on the Skookumchuck. The purpose, was to see if those holding ponds would be OK to be used for Spring Chinook.

That was before the "merger" of Salmon and Wildlife departments. At some point in time, springers went by the wayside and the ponds were used for Coho for PS.

While you might be correct on the "more problems than solutions"....just seems that politics gets involved too much of the time in Region 6.

Well Drifter, we can probably agree that there is something other than responsible fish management going on in Region 6, and 5 for that matter.

Absent some data to the contrary I'd predict that the water supply at the Skookumchuck is not suitable for spring chinook from a temperature and disease perspective at the very least. My interpretation is that even during pristine environmental conditions the Chehalis basin contained only a small amount of habitat that was somewhat suitable for spring chinook. With habitat perturbation in the form of logging that small amount that may have been suitable became marginal. And so a marginal springer population has hung on in three upper tributaries, in defiance of the odds. Coho, cutthroat, and steelhead are the species best suited to existing habitat conditions.

Sg

Sg:

Of course you're correct.......the river that has the "best chance" got written off when Dick Stone was the head WDFW bio in Region 6.

Lot's of meetings, to much "spinning of wheels", fight, fight fight.....mini hatchery below Wynoochee Dam, then holding ponds......now all these years later.....nothing.......springers got "killed off", can't get Region 6 to want to do anything with mitigation monies. Last I heard,.........well what I heard...no fish were to be raised..........grrrrrrrr $2.4 million.... to be pissed away.

It seems like it would be very counter productive to add additional Springers to the Chehalis. Yes, it already has a native run as does the Newaukum and the Skookunchuck. I say it would not be a good use of resource money just due to the extensive netting by the QIN. Any more fish in the system would increase netting pressure and put even more pressure on the native steelhead that are in the system at the same time frame.

laterun:

QIN pretty much net, 12/1 - 5 or 6/1, and have for many years. Nat's and late Silvers, pretty much gone on Wynoochee, Satsop, and Chehalis.

What is a "good use of resource money"......if you have any ideas.....let fish management, in Region 6, know.......they don't have a clue.

Anything that gets raised in Willapa Bay will be for commercial harvest, first and foremost. With the commercial guys already claiming they can't catch all the fish in the bay, further supplementation seems a huge waste of money to me, although I'm sure the cowboys wouldn't begrudge an opportunity to cash in on those high-faluten springers.... I say we should say no to any proposed hatchery increases in Region 6. We should know by now that more fish equates to less sport opportunity around here.

DrifterWA, I was concerned about the additional pressure they would put on the native Steelhead. A few years ago the WDFW put out an emergency closure on the Chehalis for Springers, the Chehalis Tribe agreed but the QIN basically said FY and kept on netting on the depleted run.
I have sent in email suggestions before, I got back emails saying ..."thanks for your concerns, we got it under control.."

Chehalis springers keep chugging along at around 2000 a year with a recent high of double that. I dont see anything to indicate other than speculation and opionion that the population is severely limited by logging or any other habitat degradation. I know harvest and poaching do take a toll, but these fish are reliably seen in several headwater streams each year, personal witness to that. A quick search suggested that production is not all that different from historic. But who knows? A couple thousand is a decent wild population in a rain dominated coastal system IMO. The proposed dams may really be the major threat.

The Chehalis tribe is building a hatchery last I heard. Too bad. Harvest pressure by QIN will likely increase.

This is one option being cussed and discussed in moving gill nets off the mainstem CR. Still providing a "viable" commercial harvest.

My understanding is these springers could be raised to size. Then trucked to overwinter/ imprint on the release site.
Gone before the water warms and the parasites get active.