How is the Sauk/Skagit this year?

Nailknot

Active Member
#31
It is possible (probable) that the Puget Sound/Salish Sea is very sick and dying. Certainly the EPA Super Fund sites etc are worrisome. Agree with you Curt fish managers must make a decision if hatcheries are worth the cost for the small recreational fishery they provide. That fishery is small and shrinking further. The only long term sustainable recreational fishery is a wild fishery, how we get there (IF we can get there) is up to us.
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
#32
Not all hatcheries are for Steelhead. If they didn't plant the lakes there wouldn't be any fish to catch in the Spring and Summer months.

Can you all imagine no fish at all to catch.
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#34
Smolt survival is the major issue regarding wild steelhead in PS, but we cannot omit other negative impacts to wild steelhead including hatchery introgression. There is no one simple answer to fix the problem facing PS steelhead. NOAA has been very slow on ESA recovery efforts. The critical habitat is still yet to be determined...

The Skagit hatchery introgression is 10% according to the preliminary data from the Skagit Co-op project. The Sky is considerably higher at closer to 50% introgression. The WDFW Commission has told WDFW to comply with HSRG standards by 2015. This means major changes to hatcheries need to happen or they will be gone regardless in the next few years.
 
#35
Chris - Where is that report on the Sky and the 50% introgression with wild fish. I have not seen that anywhere.

What % of hatchery introgression does the WDFW have to comply with a hatchery program and the HSRG standards for wild fish that are listed under the ESA?

Thanks
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#36
Chris,

Here is one link. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hatcheries/pshaa...head_benefit-risk_and_priority_11-29-2011.pdf

(1994): Maximum likelihood est for hatchery contribution to sample were 76% for Sky ms, 58% for the Tolt, 33% for Raging and 27% for Pilchuck R. Except for the NF Sky, all groups appear to have lrg to mod amounts of introgression. Phelps (1997) concurred.

HSRG and SSMP Standards are 2% gene flow. The Skagit and Sky are exceeding this standard and must meet this by 2015.
 

Smalma

Active Member
#38
Ringlee/Chris -
If one really wants to delve into the genetics of Puget Sound steelhead and Department of Game report from 1979 "The origin and history of trout brood stocks of Washington State Game Department"; author Bruce Crawford is a must read.

In regards to Chambers Creek and PS wild steelhead one will find that the Chambers creek hatchery stock is really a composite stock with contributions from 7 or 8 wild brood sources (include fish from The Snohomish, Green and Puyallup systems). As I recall that mixing goes back to approx. 1920. Maybe the reason that the SKykomish and Chambers Creek fish share some common genetics is that have ancerstors in common - just a thought.

Tight lines
Curt
 

Nailknot

Active Member
#39
Those introgression numbers do seem high, particularly considering the recent gene flow study from the Hood River.

Chris- yes you are likely doomed for winter steelheading in Puget Sound region. I moved away three years ago.
 
#40
MJGROTA -
Sorry for being a part of taking your thread in another direction - my suggestion on the Skagit/Sauk is fish hard in late January, or save the gas and fish in OR - those guys don't have all the issues we have. They still have wild fish, hatchery fish and are open in Feb, March and April - a nice time to swing a fly.
 
#41
Its funny Nail and we have talked about this once before - the Sandy is ESA listed, has under 900 retruning wild fish, a hatchery and living in OR you can still float that beauitiful river and swing a fly in Feb, March and April. While the Skagit has a more limited hatchery run, a much larger basin, four times the number of wild fish and we take the two handed top grip in the old balloon knot. Good Move Nail, good move.
 

ChrisC

Active Member
#42
Jesse -

The hard reality is that with current State steelhead policy and the ESA listing of PS steelhead fishing for wild steelhead is a thing of the past. In fact without changes in NMFS impact guidelines even if there 20,000 wild adults returning to the basin there be no fishing.

Two or three years after anti-hatchery crowd is successful in eliminating the steelhead hatchery plants in the basin Skagit steeliheading will offically be dead.

Curt
So say after all the hatcheries are gone (which I have issues with the economics as well), what's next? What do the FFF, WSC, etc. have as a long term strategy to ensure that anglers (or the public for that matter) don't write off the PS fisheries and not care at all?
 

Smalma

Active Member
#43
Ringlee -
Had a chance to look a little deeper into the table you provided via the link - thanks. Have not seen the Warheit work and am looking for a copy.

However I did it interesting the notes following the various cites of the Warheit (which I'm assuming is the most recent available).

For those that have not looked at the table here are the Warheit note for each of the 4 basins listed in the table.

Snohomish -
"No potential introgression noted"


Skagit -
"Suggesting possible introgression"


Green -
"No potential introgression noted"


Nooksack
"No potential introgression noted"


Maybe genetic interactions between the hatchery and wild fish is not quite as great as some think. Should note that on the Skagit it seems that the samples were from the Cascade. I am interested in what samples from elsewhere in the basin (Sauk, etc) show.

Tight lines
Curt
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#44
Ringlee/Chris -
If one really wants to delve into the genetics of Puget Sound steelhead and Department of Game report from 1979 "The origin and history of trout brood stocks of Washington State Game Department"; author Bruce Crawford is a must read.

In regards to Chambers Creek and PS wild steelhead one will find that the Chambers creek hatchery stock is really a composite stock with contributions from 7 or 8 wild brood sources (include fish from The Snohomish, Green and Puyallup systems). As I recall that mixing goes back to approx. 1920. Maybe the reason that the SKykomish and Chambers Creek fish share some common genetics is that have ancerstors in common - just a thought.

Tight lines
Curt
Curt,

Steelhead in the Skagit particularly are very similar throughout the entire system. The Sauk showed slightly different genetic variation but this was a small sample size. Still showing 9-11% introgression from the prelim data.

My point is we DO NOT know what is going on right now in PS regarding hatchery introgression. We can fight until we are blue in the face over this data shows this, that data shows that. Perhaps mixing stocks since the 1920's has created a much larger, longer problem and here we are in another chapter. Just a thought.

We can chase the 918 chambers fish in the Skagit this year and the next few years until SSMP (WDFW) guidelines shut it down. If you are giving up on wild steelhead, enjoy those chambers fish on the swing while you can...
 

Ringlee

Doesn't care how you fish Moderator
#45
Ringlee -
Had a chance to look a little deeper into the table you provided via the link - thanks. Have not seen the Warheit work and am looking for a copy.

However I did it interesting the notes following the various cites of the Warheit (which I'm assuming is the most recent available).

For those that have not looked at the table here are the Warheit note for each of the 4 basins listed in the table.

Snohomish -
"No potential introgression noted"


Skagit -
"Suggesting possible introgression"


Green -
"No potential introgression noted"


Nooksack
"No potential introgression noted"


Maybe genetic interactions between the hatchery and wild fish is not quite as great as some think. Should note that on the Skagit it seems that the samples were from the Cascade. I am interested in what samples from elsewhere in the basin (Sauk, etc) show.

Tight lines
Curt
You forgot the Stillaguamish. Low Level Introgression