Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Where do Ressies come from?

Tags
come where
5K views 50 replies 21 participants last post by  Bill on the bay 
#1 ·
I know the Squaxin tribe has planted hatchery, fin clipped coho on South end of Vashon and south end of Whidby island in the past per a you tube video I saw last winter. Rumor has it they are no longer planting Ressies.

Where is the current batch of ressie size fin clipped coho coming from now?

I asked this at a fly shop today and it appears the fin clipped ressies we are enjoying now may not be public knowledge on who is stocking them now that natives have given up on them.
 
#10 ·
I'll also add that years ago when WDFW actually had money, there used to be fish checkers at the popular salmon beaches every summer.
We'd catch and keep a fair number of unclipped coho that when wanded by the checker had coded wire tags in their noses.

It is my understanding those unclipped but wire coded fish were released as part of a study. I'm not sure if they still do this.

Those unclipped fish could certainly be wild fish, but overall the south sound wild coho populations are far from what would be considered robust.
SF
 
#11 ·
My assumption is that since the tribes releasing these fish don't always clip them. I have a hard time believing there are too many "wild" coho in the south sound this time of year but I reckon it's possible and I have nothing but my own assumptions to go on there.

Like SF said, I have read about other fins being clipped as well.
 
#16 ·
Historically resident coho (as well as Chinook and pinks) existed in Puget Sound. During the first half of the last century those fish supported popular "trout fisheries" through much of the sound. 50 or more years ago it was noticed that smolts that were larger than normal had a higher tendency to residualize than the normal sized fish. Thus started the "delayed" release programs to enhance resident blackmouth and coho fisheries. Today coho released from net pens tend to contribute to the resident coho population; the theory being that the extra rear in the net pens (released at a larger size) produces larger size "smolts". The stock of fish does not seem to matter; as mentioned earlier those south Sound net pens seem to be major contributors to the resident population. Those fish originate from the Wallace hatchery on the Snohomish. As we all have noticed the numbers of resident seems to variety quite a bit from year to year illustrating that other factors must also play a role in the decision of the fish to stay "home" or migrate to the ocean. Most feel that the productive (amount feed) in the sound at the time of release plays a role.

Historically those resident fish were wild and I believe that there are significant though variable numbers of wild coho in PS populations. According the WDFW HGMPs the coho released from south sound net pens are 100% clipped. There are some hatchery fish that are intentional not fin clipped but do have coded wire tags. Those fish are part of what is called double index tagging program used to evaluate selective fisheries. The program at Soos Creek on the Green is typically. The typical coho smolt release is 600,000 fish. Of those 510,000 are programed to be fin clipped, 45,000 are fin clipped and coded wire tagged, and another 45,000 just have code wire tags. It looks regardless the size of the hatchery program the double index group is consistently 90,000 split between the two tag groups. There are also hatchery programs like the south sound net pens that do not have a double index tag group.

Since retiring in 2005 I have spend a fair amount of time fishing MA 10 in July targeting the abundant resident coho found in deep water (fishing with both gear and flies). Like many that first summer I bought the theory that those fish were nearly all of hatchery origin. 2005 was a great year for resident fish and we caught lots of fish including a fair number of non-clipped fish. Because we launched out of Seattle our catch was sampled regularly with very few having code wire tags. I was forced to admit that most of those non-clipped fish were wild. Since then I have practiced more selective in the fish that I have harvest though those fishing with often will take a non-clipped fish (they are awful good eating). Bottom line since 2005 I have seen significant variation in the portion of the coho population that were not clipped; a couple year 1/2 or more fish were wild. Since that time a fair number of non-clipped have been checked at the boat launch and typically only 10 to 20% of the "beeped"; that is had coded wire tags.

Curt
 
#21 ·
50 or more years ago it was noticed that smolts that were larger than normal had a higher tendency to residualize than the normal sized fish. Thus started the "delayed" release programs to enhance resident blackmouth and coho fisheries. Today coho released from net pens tend to contribute to the resident coho population; the theory being that the extra rear in the net pens (released at a larger size) produces larger size "smolts".
Smalma - I recently read a UW student's master's thesis on partial migration of PS coho. I recall the data came from historical and new studies. The conclusion was that the predominate factor in whether a coho migrates was the date of release; fish released later in the calendar year had a higher rate of residency, particularly in the south Sound. The author's analysis did not support that the fish's weight at release was a significant factor. May be that coincides with managers years ago noting that the larger fish (ones held later before release, thus becoming bigger) had a higher rate of residency?

This study didn't find that whether the fish were wild or hatchery-raised was a factor in migration. I don't know much about the hatching of wild coho eggs and whether they vary significantly in the date that it occurs from year-to-year. I guess it could also depend on how long the smolts remain in fresh water before hitting the salt. In the end, there are probably a lot of factors that go into whether they head out to sea or stay put. Thoughts?
 
#20 ·
As a certified "old fart" now, I can remember, as a teenager, fishing for what we called "feeder silvers". The legal limit was six fish under 18 inches and the usual tackle included a string of flashers (remember "Pop Geer"?) and a worm; although I remember occasionally using a Pearl Wobbler. These were wild resident coho and, as I recall, their numbers were substantial and we rarely went home empty-handed.
 
#22 ·
One thing I've been curious about, if delaying the release is what seems to cause these fish to stay home rather then migrate to the coast, which is what I've always read, then where do the wild fish come from? Since they arent being "released" what factors control whether a wild fish heads to sea or not?
 
#24 ·
That was my question, as well. I know that salmon spawn over a period of weeks, but do the eggs hatch over weeks or roughly at the same time? As Preston pointed out, if the smolts move at their own speed, maybe that could account for the "later release" of the wild coho? There was a reference in the thesis regarding an Atlantic salmon study that found the later "date of river exit" increased residency so maybe it has something to do with the time they hit salt water? I need to do some more reading...

Presumably the same can be said in the case of blackmouth.
The same paper stated that research on Chinook put the location of their origin as the most important factor in whether they resided or migrated.

Here's the link to the paper: https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/24336
 
#23 ·
Not all smolts move downstream at the same speed or migrate through the Sound at the same rate. Doesn't it seem reasonable that a certain number of these smolts would achieve sufficient growth or find an adequate amount of forage to forego migrating to the ocean? As pointed out above, coho naturally residualizing in the Sound did so in sufficient numbers to provide a viable fishery long before any artificial supplementation occurred. Presumably the same can be said in the case of blackmouth.
 
#26 · (Edited)
To add a sidenote, apologies and ignore as it does not relate to the topic of Puget Sound/Hood Canal fish stocks, but timing of exiting smolts, a look at the Columbia River and all it's dams and their negative effect on the fisheries, one of the huge impacts is the loss of natural timing for the smolts heading out.
Instead of large freshets of high water episode that could flush the smolts swiftly out to Pacific tuned by 1000's of generations of previous runs, the smolts were slowed down because of the dams chopped up flows and messing with the smoltification process within each fish-not an easy transfer of fresh to salt.

The idea of outthinking nature with poor scientific shortcuts is one of man's greatest failures.
 
#27 · (Edited)
I'm just curious if you folks (Washingtonians) are at all concerned about the coho hatchery program disappearing? California has ESA coho and the three hatcheries that are still spawning them are under a strict genetic management protocol with very limited/conservation production. In my opinion, if you have weak native coho stocks within Hood Canal and Puget Sound, then be prepared for the (at minimum) gradual curtailment of supplementing the wild population with hatchery fish.

Coho life history (especially the freshwater part) makes them particularly vulnerable to habitat and climate change issues. We (CA) are at the southern end of the coho range so obviously habitat issues are amplified. Coho are the salmonid version of the canary in the mine shaft...
 
#29 ·
Bob,
Great question.
This is just my opinion based on my time fishing coho in PS. I’m sure some won’t agree with it.

I’m not real concerned with hatchery coho going away. Production may go down if coho are ESA listed, but I don’t think it will ever stop.
Why? Because of the tribes.

The tribes view all fish alike, whether wild or hatchery.
So, if wild coho disappeared and hatchery production decreased what would the tribes do?
They’d likely sue the shit out of the state to either increase hatchery production or to fund their own hatchery programs.

If the tribes did so, they’ll still be fishing for coho since they have fishing “rights”.
Myself, who knows since I’d supposedly only have the “privilege” to fish for them.
SF
 
#31 ·
Thanks for the clarification Brian - I kind of figured and hoped that maybe WA treaty tribes might be influential when it comes to this issue. The feds have directed the genetic management programs down this way and you'll have to probably be a lot worse off than you currently are before it's even considered (if it ever is). The two California treaty tribes are essentially out of the coho harvesting business (except for incidental catch) and primarily target Chinook. It's a terminal fishery so they can be somewhat selective.
 
#32 · (Edited)
Bob,
As it stands now from my point of view....the tribes have nearly all in influence.
A lot of work has been done on ESA stocks. Except in a few instances, the fish really haven't gained that much in my opinion.

I hope wild fish don't disappear, but if they do what is the ESA listing really protecting then?
Can hatchery fish be a detriment to fish that no longer exist?

We keep getting cut backs on havest and seasons, yet still less fish return.
Harvest may be a problem, but if you keep cutting it and things don't improve then what?
That tells me there are other issues that need to be addressed, namely habitat, harvest of our fish outside of Washington and the growing seal and sea lion predation. We are at the bottom of the harvest barrel as far as Puget Sound fish go.
We've sank a lot of money into habitat and just got more funds to spend, but that doesn't seem to be helping all that much either in most cases.
Washington isn't getting any smaller population wise anytime soon and habitat will contunue to be lost.

Anyway, enough of my drivel.
Back to the regularly scheduled programming....where do rezzies come from?
SF
 
#35 ·
I think the net pens at Everett were used for blackmouth ? It makes sense to me that a certain % of wild coho would stay “home” considering all the types of running water they utilize for spawning. Have seen them in creeks barely big enough to fit them in. But they were there year after year. And i can only imagine how far up into the hills they must go to spawn. Almost to Jacks pass !
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top