In addition to reading the "Cowlitz Restoration" subject on here, I recieved an e-mail tonight from one of our Ifish BB members that I respect, asking me my opinion of the history of northwest salmon and steelhead hatcheries. He just read the book "Salmon Without Rivers". I have heard it is a great book with powerful messages about how we've managed (mismanged? I haven't read it yet) our salmon and steelhead runs. He strongly recomended this book as a must read. It may be pertinent to the Cowlitz R. situation. I will print a copy of my reply e-mail here, and encourage your opinions and solution ideas posted under this thread. ----- Reply: I have felt a need for and advocated different hatchery policies, than the states have used, many years back when it would have made a much bigger difference. And when not many guys seemed too concerned about it all. Some of my opinion came from the knowledge base of Bill Bakke, president of Trout Unlimited and former head of N.W. Steelheaders many years ago. He is a fanatic for wild fish and habitat restoration. And for obviously good reasons. Some of my opinion came from within (simple sense and logic). Salmon & steelhead hatcheries were ill concieved from the beginning. Primarily from the standpoint of diluting the gene pool of watershed specific strains of wild fish. They should have kept the genetics pure for any indigenous rivers planted. The costs to do that correctly would likely have been prohibitive. The problems were the all-time culprits of money and lack of foresight; probably in that order. - When such things as habitat degredation, dams, and increasing fishing pressure caused run declines pressure was put on the ODFW & WDFW to produce fish in the most cost effective ways possible. And in the case of loss of fish due to dams it actually became law for the power companies to replace the fish with hatchery fish. Do you think that kind of money interests would put the interest of the fish first. NO WAY! As a result the Power Co.s and the ODFW & WDFW went headlong into hatchery programs without proper scientific study on the long term effects on wild fish genetics and the eco-systems. It has created an incredible mess with loss of important specific watershed genetic strength, lost by inter-breeding of nates and hat's from different rivers; sometimes far away rivers. Also, as wild fish continued to decline they kept increasing hatchery smolt production and releases that were in direct competition with native fingerlings and smolts, resulting in less efficient natural production of these valuable and ultimately irreplacable fish! Most of the damage has already been done. However, these nates are very resilient if given the right chance to come back. It is an immense multi-faceted task! And unfortunately, even where the problems mentioned above can be corrected, I think that only the strongest, healthiest, and PUREST native runs can make it back to former health. How many river nate runs fit into this catagory? I don't really know, but I figure not very many. I think an extensive biologic study of all watersheds needs to take place to access the rivers with the best chance at recovery of native runs with essentially intact proper genetics. Then stop planting those rivers and close them to all fishing until they have recovered enough to allow a C&R fishery only. These will be very special rivers and runs. It's not too late for that, but can we win enough money and support from society to accomplish this? Maybe. I hope so. Soon! - At the same time, where it is found that the genetics of the small percent of remaining nates in heavily fished rivers are too diluted to have any real chance at bringing back a true nate run I think that we are pretty much committed to a put and take hatchery fishery, while maintaining C&R reg.s for the remaining nates to at least give them a chance (Cowlitz). And I believe that using essentially native fish for hatchery broodstock will help a lot to regain some of the lost purity of genetics if we use only fish progeny indigenous to a river for planting that river. Quit using stocks from other rivers. I don't know the answer though. That's just how I see it. - Also, 20+ years ago I wrote to ODFW, STS mag., and the Oregonian fishing columnists advocating the finclipping of hatchery fish so we could start C&R fishing only on the dwindling nates. Of course it fell on deaf ears, as undoubtably many other's letters did. Now all these years later, and too late in many cases, they are finally doing it. Better late than never? Yes, but not by much in this unforunatte scenario created in the Northwest. - Steve

I think you have covered most of the bases. But one item that was unclear is the difference between true native and wild hatchery fish. There is a genetic difference, but most people can't tell the difference, me included. I'm not a biologist. I believe the hatcheries should start mixing in some true nates with the brats. This will help strenghten the gene pool. I do believe, like you, that there are not very many true nates left. Too many years of inbreeding and overfishing. I honestly think it is too late to save any native run of either salmon or steelhead. Our biggest problem was that everyone was screaming MORE FISH, MORE FISH! Instead of trying to save the runs. It is almost still that way. Now we have the feds saying STOP, need more runs. Too late. I think nothing will be solved until the feds finally say ENOUGH, NO MORE FISHING! PERIOD. No nets, sport, or commercial tribal. They will let the tribes take some fish for their rites and the like. Since I have pretty much said the same as you, I will quit rambling. But I have a question. How do we know what the pure strain of fish in a river is? When did the states take DNA samples to always have it. I think any state could go out, catch a "wild" fish, and still not have the true nate. It would have niether true native, hatchery, or cross breed. Just because of the crappy way everything was done.

------------------
Just because I look big, dumb, and ugly, doesn't mean I am. It means I can stomp you for calling me it!

This is a great book that details our fishing history, management practices and back door politics.
When I started reading I couldn't put it down until finished....Excellent book loaded with great information.
The Salmon without Rivers can be found at amazon books using this link. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1559633603/steelheadernet

Tight Lines

------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

Steve,

Interesting topic. I'm not sure I can offer any relevant info here, other than what I've scoured from various articles (in fishing mags, of course) relating to the subject. The stuff I've read says this "dilution" of wild fish genes through interbreeding with hatchery fish is minimal. The specific article I'm referring to looked at studies from the Kalama river, which has had native and hatchery fish in it's waters at the same time for many years. The genetic material of native fish from the river were nearly intact, with very little mixing of hatchery fish genetic material in with wild stocks.

The issue that WAS raised was the competition between native smolts and those of hatchery origin. Thsi issue is harder to address since you can time the adult runs by using different strains of fish (like the late Nov. fish they plant in the Bogie) , but it's much more difficult to prevent competition between the smolts.

The gene mixing accomplished by "broodstocking" like they do on the Sol Duc, Quinault, and Satsop is only good if the hatchery conditions are good. I think our hatcheries have a long way to go in raising smolts that have better survivability in a river environment. It's no surprise that a fish raised in a concrete pond and fed pellets would have trouble making it in comparision to a smolt that emerged from the gravel and fended for itself. It's like sending a kid from the Charles Wright Academy to school in Harlem. Chances are he's not going to last long.

In regards to the Cowlitz, I'm going to have to side with the hatchery proponents. Sure it's nice to see a possible return of nates into its upper stretches, but at what cost. Can't they just accept that this river has become the C&K capitol of Washington. It's a guide river, a sled river, a dammed river, a place you can catch fish and keep it. Can't they just realize that this river isn't the best candidate for restoring? I mean, how much restoration is being planned?

I regret not having attended the meeting, as I'm still unclear about what is being planned for the Cowlitz. I just think they could find a better candidate. No hatchery fishy fish on the Cow. will definitely increase pressure on rivers like the Kalama, Nooch, Sky and others which have harvestable fish. I say keep them on the Cowlitz, it's big enough to ahndle pressure like that, those other rivers aren't. I could see a big success story for the Cowlitz turning into the failure of other rivers which succumbed to the increased pressure.

Sorry, Salmo g. , I think it's great to see some nates returning to the Cowlitz, but if this restoration is used as a catalyst to end the Cowlitz hatchery program, I think that's going too far. I say this still being ignorant of all the facts, though. But this BB seems a pretty good place to find things out. I'll keep my eye on this post.


Fish on.........