The Native Fish Society under attack

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by GAT, Jun 23, 2013.

  1. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,800
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +655 / 0
    KJ -
    Hope I answered most of your questions in my follow-up posts to Chris and hookedonthefly.

    As always is the case the ideas, observations, etc that I express in these discussions unless attributed directly to some one are my own. My goal in nearly all these discussions is present information so that the readers can be in a position to make informed decisions. Typically the information and observations that I try to pass along are a combination of from my reading, professional experience and an avid angler that considers the Skagit/Sauk my home water. As an angler with biologically training, a natural curiosity about all things fishy, a decent ability to observe and 50 years of experience on the river I think I provide a perspective that might be of interest to at least some of the readers here. As an angler I spend dozens of days a year chasing and enjoying the wonderful and diverse fish resource found in the basin. I have casted a fly over (and caught an anadromous fish) on very mile of the Skagit from the power house at Newhalem to the salt at La Conner and nearly every mile of the Sauk and its forks and have left boot tracks on significant portions of the rest of the anadromous portion of the Skagit basin.

    I rarely express an opinion in these discussion and when I do so I try to make sure that it is labeled as my opinion.

    Since you asked I'm not a particularly big fan of steelhead hatcheries and at this point in my angling career could easily live without them. That said I do recognize the value and opportunities they provide for many anglers. In regard to the issue of genetic introgression between hatchery and wild steelhead to day in 2013 on the Skagit basin it is my OPINION that it is a minor issue that represents little threat to the wild steelhead of the Skagit. That is not to say that the Skagit steelhead would not be better off without hatchery steelhead; they would. It is my OPINION that the threat of hatchery/wild introgression to the wild Skagit steelhead is similar to the threat to that resource we might see from a steelhead spring CnR season.

    BTW -
    I'm often wrong and certainly don't expect everyone to agree with what I have to say (what a boring place it would be if we all thought the same!) but I do hope that many find my ramblings of some interest that at least occasionally cause them to pause and think a minute.

    Curt
  2. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,800
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +655 / 0
    Chris -
    I don't know of any studies on what the number of residual hatchery steelhead might be on the Skagit. Generally speaking have some residuals is the "norm" for a hatchery program though the hatchery folks can reduce the numbers of those residuals by careful attention to the size and condition of the smolts that are produced and released. Those fish most likely become residuals are those potential smolts that do not reach sufficient size to be true smolts or have grown so large that they seem to lose the urge to migrate.

    For those residuals to interact with the wild population (either the adult steelhead or resident rainbows) they would have to rear to the adult stage (which for most would be an additional two years of year in the river). Remembering that those "smolts" are essentially catchable size rainbows. There are lots of studies showing that the survival of catchable rainbows is quite low with many disappearing within weeks or a month or two. That said clearly some do survive and one can find fin clipped adult "rainbows" most of our rivers if you look hard enough. Such fish (especially the males) would have the potential to spawn with either other resident rainbows or adult female steelhead as "sneak spawners".

    While one would expect to see similar initial rates of residuals between the Skagit hatcheries and say the ones on the Quillayute river on the coast the fate of those fish would be very different. Like almost everything in the steelhead world answers can be shaped by the particulars of a given system. In this case the flow regimes between the Skagit and the Quillayute are very different. The Quillayute is basically has a rainfall driven hydrograph while the Skagit hydrograph is dominated by the snow melt pattern; especially this time of the year. The average daily flows on the Quillayute has been falling since March and at the time of smolt release (early May) and the period after release the flows on the various Quillayute tributaries are pretty benign. The situation on the Skagit is very different. With the snow melt (typically starting in May) the Skagit goes through a significant period of very high flows (lasting through July) with the highest daily average flows of the year. The highest daily flows on most western Washington rivers happen in the late fall/early winter during the flood season while on the Skagit it is in the spring/early summer. It is this difference that shapes so many life history patterns (run timing, spawn timing, etc) that makes the Skagit such a different situation than many other rivers.

    On the Skagit in addition to the impacts of the flow condition on the longer survival of those hatchery residuals there is also a habitat issue. The main stem Skagit has a surprising lack of suitable juvenile steelhead/trout over winter habitats. It is this fact that accounts for how unproductive the main stem Skagit is in raising juvenile steelhead and why its steelhead escapement goal is so low given the size of the river. As a result between the combination of the natural poor survivability of those hatchery fish, the high flows, and lack of juvenile over-winter (high flow refuges) in the Skagit the fate of the vast majority of those fish is death by the early summer. Though clearly some do survive and eventually reach adulthood (at about 14 inches and two years in the river).

    The number of the residuals that do reach adulthood has be quite low. In the nearly 30 years since all the steelhead hatchery production has been fin clipped (with adipose fin removal) I would guess between 1 and 2% of the adult sized resident rainbows that I have encountered in the basin were adipose clipped. In fact it would be fair to say I have encounter more wild resident rainbows over 24 inches in length than the total number of adults that were adipose clipped.

    The short answer rather than the lengthy on above is that because of the uniqueness of the Skagit basin in my opinion the potential interaction between hatchery residuals and the wild steelhead population on the Skagit is much lower than on most coastal rivers.

    Curt
  3. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,654
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +540 / 0
    In the new fishing regs, I noticed that for most coastal rivers, any adipose fin-clipped trout can be retained, regardless of size. Perhaps we should bonk any fin-clipped "resident" rainbows or hatchery steelhead smolts that we catch in these rivers. We are allowed to retain 2 trout per day, but since we are releasing the wild ones, that leaves room to remove two fin-clipped hatchery dinkers from the river.
  4. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,486
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    But then you would have to stop fishing after keeping the second one, right, since you can't keep fishing, even C&R, if you have caught your limit.

    I know you are probably being a bit tongue in cheek in suggesting we keep smolts as a means of reducing hatchery impact, but since mortality at sea is a huge factor in steelhead returns, bonking a few smolt is likely to have a small impact.
    D