Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Stonefish, Jan 26, 2018.
Good start. Now cut the AK/BC commercial fishery quotas, so some actual fish can return and make use of the new habitat. What? You can't do that?...
Glad these projects are happening, but the taxpayer in me hates knowing it's not going to achieve the desired outcome.
Seems like pennies, doesn't it? A tiny culvert cost a half a million on a sideroad. The old days a million meant something. $53 million is a drop in the bucket.
Better than nothing, but in perspective, it is costing $14 million for what, 2 revamped, large culverts over Wildcat Creek in east Grays Harbor that has been going on forever? This is so the fish can go an extra 1/2 mile and sit in plastic bag and bottle infested waters? If it were opening miles and miles of stream, for sure, but this is a joke.
Those outside of the snail pace construction profiteers of the project all scratch their heads at the length of time it takes... is it 2-3 years total to be done?
Bertha tunnel is $3.4 BILLION, for comparison.
I've been affected by that Wildcat Creek project on my commute. I've actually been pretty impressed with how well they seem to be managing that one, and I understand it's ahead of schedule. If I could only be convinced it represents a meaningful habitat restoration, I'd be outright gung-ho.
I know I bitch a lot about the fact we never increase escapement goals to seed reclaimed habitat, but I still support investment in these projects. Pretty hard to argue it's not the right thing to do, and if NMFS ever does back off our fish in AK and BC, even a little, the restored habitat should pay dividends in short order.
Considering the billions spent in the past to no affect spending thr bulk of this money on Puget Sound is two things
1. A waste
2. A political feel good stunt for the majority base.
The best use of salmon restoration money is buying land and buying water rights in eastern WA.
Puget Sound has fundemental problems beyond the scope of s few million dollars here and there. The people of Puget Sound need to make changes to the way they live and work before anything meaningful can be done there.
If spent in Puget Sound the money i think would be best spent combating pollution so that the habitat that already exists is usable
Just to be clear that is not my preferred opinion. I'd much rather the truth be the more money we spend the more fish we get back that just doesn't seem to be the case.
I need to get the map out and make sure I am not "shorting" Wildcat Creek. It seems to go to right into McCleary and then peter out quickly. Not far northeast a short distance from McCleary it all drains into Puget Sound. Cloquallum is free and clear on it's own north for a great distance.
Update: it looks like about 2-3 miles (max) of stream will open, not sure the quality of habitat but, something. I wonder if the culverts were just collapsing anyway? That would make much more sense. Those culverts run a lot of water through them in late fall already, fish were not truly stuck anyway.
Back in the day, we used to see chums in both. Not sure if that still happens.
Of course that was before the GH chum populations crashed and harbor wasn't getting pounded by nets for 5-6 days a week.
Both held some other nice types of nice fish as well.
Yes, the days of old, any of the local coastal streams had Chum everywhere it seemed, and when Steelhead fishing/rock hounding some of the smaller rivers in February, I was amazed to see some of the smallest adult Coho jump up into the smallest pipe culverts to get through a road and swim higher. The Coho were under 4 pounds mostly. Waters a few feet wide.
Definitely shows your that each specific fish type and size-even within one stretch of river, has it's own special needs/talents. There was no way one of the late 20 pound+ hooknose silvers was going to even squeeze through the pipes or get up into tiniest of creeks like those min-coho could.
There is a small creek up this way that looks more like a drainage ditch. Maybe two feet wide when it has lots of water in it after a day like today.
Sometimes it looks like the coho are spawning in the grass. Very cool to see how resilient they are.
PS ....you have some of the best agate collecting streams down your way.
Yes, those Coho can spawn in next to nothing. Do not need pristine gravel it appears.
We HAD some great agate streams, many were closed by Weyerhauser for the salmon because garbage spreading crowd. Can run across a good agate or piece of petrified wood almost anywhere. My eyes are always peeled. Sometimes a big chunk of petrified wood or jasper is just better left now as my back rationalizes to me often now. More food, less rocks !
I have seen some amazingly large Steelhead spawning in very tiny creeks also in SW WA. Agate hunting in April, the one day I forgot my camera, I watched a good 15lb+ pound steelhead buck and two hens fin away in a creek that did not cover the back of the big boy. I had a seat from about 10 feet away and near eye level, never forget that! No doubt they were steelhead, and when he did a side-turn, his red stripe made my eyes pop out. Good lighting, perfect day for a photo.
Part of the fun of getting out ! Drowned a few film cameras in my day as well
I did spawning surveys Winkler creek, a tributary to the Washougal from 1983ish to the late 1990s.
In the fall of 1985 I counted 300 pairs of spawning coho on a section of the creek less than a mile long. These were hatchery fish planted in the creek and fish that strayed in as adults and maybe a couple wild fish. There was no increase in the number of coho juveniles in the subsequent outmigrations and i never saw coho in the creek again.
Fish using a creek to spawn in is irrelevant unless that creek is actually suitable habitat and the fish are capable of reproducing in the wild.
Every creek on the Washougal was filled with coho that year, they were everywhere!.
Still no wild coho in the Washougal as a result.