[Split Bamboo]

I was listening to the KIRO/ESPN 710 AM fishing show this morning. They had on a guest talking about the new permanent Sockeye Hatchery that is going to be built on the Cedar River. Apparently they are going to begin construction later this summer and it will be operational in time for the fish returning next year. I found this article from the Seattle Times posted a week ago.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...012091282_local_fishing_group_comes_up_w.html

The guest they had on the show brought up a couple of points that got me thinking...One was the issue of predation of the young Sockeye by the Northern Pike Minnow and a possible bounty for them on Lake Washington. I know the bounty on the Columbia system has been debated on this forum in the past. The Times article also discusses planting Tiger Muskies in the lake to control the NPM. I am not sure exactly how I feel about this, as I understand it, the NPM is a native fish, and the Sockeye are not native, rather they were introduced in the 1930's. Should we kill a native fish for the benefit of an introduced species?

The second issue that concerned me more, was the comment made by the guest regarding the predation of the young Sockeye by Cutthroat. He was advocating increased harvesting of the Cutt's for the benefit of the Sockeye. Again, my issue was the harming of a native fish for the benefit of a introduced fish. The Tribes backed this new hatchery as they harvest the fish commercially when the escapement is high enough. (Anyone know why the Tribes have rights to a fish run that was not in existence when the Treaties were signed?) Also brought up was a lowering of the escapement goals that currently exist.

Is this new hatchery a good thing? Bad thing? Anyone care? I thought the goal of the State was to move away from hatcheries towards the protection and enhancement of native fish. This seems to be a move in the other direction. More importantly, it appears to be a victory for proponents of more hatchery production and Commercial/Tribal interests. Which usually is not inline with the interests of the people on this forum.

Any thoughts on this?

Andrew

 

[wetline dave]

I am not too thrilled with the hatchery to say the least!!

Frank Urabeck has been pushing this for next to forever. He has always been big on salmon and hatcheries in his opinion is the way to go. More hatcheries equals more fish.

A few years back good ol Frank tried to persuade WDFW to allow a cutthroat derby in an effort to reduce the pesky predators and got shut down. Hopefully WDFW will continue to tow that line.

But what really grinds me the most is that when the sea lions were devastating the winter run steelhead in front of the locks and basically nothing was done to stop the predation. Another run of Puget Sound steelhead put to extinction. The city of Seattle and the Seattlle media were big factors in thwarting the efforts to do something with the sealions. Now that Seattle utilities is on line with the hatchery as well as the King County council they are pushing and finally succeeded in propagating a non resident species. This is all about perceived revenues increases for the city and county. The once in awhile Lake Washington Sockeye mad house fishery generates huge dollars in revenues.

In comparison a wild winter run of steelhead could be reestablished for not much money compared to the cost of building and operating a hatchery. Alas the steelhead doesn't have the economic value of several hundred thousand Sockeye being pursued by several thousand people.

This is a throw back of the old idea of more hatcheries and more fish. It just goes to show you what a single individual, Frank Urabeck, can accomplish over time with continued persistence and making alliances with varied groups. He has gained backing from sport fishermen, commercial and tribal fishermen and the city of Seattle and King county.

Dave

 

[Smalma]

split bamboo -
I'm afraid that the suipporters of the hatchery are likely to be disappointed. There is a growing body of evidence that the production bottle neck for the sockeye population has moved from getting fry out of the river to the sockeye carrying capacity of the lake.

I think you are porbably right in that if increasing the number of fry planted does not produce as expect that focus will shift to an predator reduction program. It seems like many sockeye managers are always concern about the predation of sockeye. In the 1980s the predator thought to be causing problems were the hatchery rainbows. When the merger between the Departments of Game and Fisheries happen the planting of the rainbows was ended without any measureable benefits to the sockeye. Immediately it was suggested that iit must be the predation by cutthroat or maybe the pilkeminnow was limiting the sockeye population. Of course Lake Washington is complex ecosystem with at least 40 different species of fish using the lake with many complex and poorly understood intereactions between those species and the sockeye. That alone would argrue that simple solutions are likely doomed to failure.

Things are further complicated by changes in the lake's environment. A couple of the noteable changes over the last couple decades has been a significant decline in daphina and a warming of the upper surface layers of the lake. The daphina are important as they are a prefered food item for the sockeye juveniles. The warmer water temperatures could be a double whammy - with the complex species sturcture a changing temperature profile could tip conditions favoring a given species complex to another complex. In addition there is some evidence that if the lake warms too early in the spring late migrating salmon smolts are reluctant to leave the lake - they would have to swim through warm temperatures to get over the Mountlake sill and exit the lake. In short having more sockeye fry entering the lake may well produce more years with fisheries it will not provide any guarantee that folks will see the desired run sizes.

Wet Line -
As an aside the Cedar river steelhead did bounce back to a degree after the seal lion problem was addessed (if I recall correctly to run with as many as 600 fish) only to crash once again. (By the way the same good old Frank that was pushing hard to remove the problem sea lions and help get the necessary federal approval to remove the major problem animals). Much like the situation with the sockeye changing lake conditions and poor marine survival conditions seems to have tipped things against the anadromous life history of O. mykiss in teh basin; in this case in favor of the resident life history.

Tight lines
Curt

 

[Split Bamboo]

Gentlemen, I believe it was Frank that was the guest on the radio this morning, but I could be wrong.

Curt, you indicated the supporters are likely to be disappointed, however, on the radio today they were celebrating and talking as if this was a breaking story and that they just got the final go ahead yesterday. Maybe you were referring to their dissapointment coming when the sockeye numbers fail to rebound for the reasons you mentioned.

I did a little more digging on the Seattle Public utilities site, and found it interesting. The appear to be spending an inordinate amount of money and resources studying the sockeye issue, but simply give a few obligatory feel good statements regarding steelhead.

http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Water_System/Habitat_Conservation_Plan/Species/Fish/index.htm

They acknowledge that O. mykiss is an ESA listed species, but in their Habitat Conservation Plan, in which they tout their metrics used to monitor ESA listed species, they do not have any metrics in place to monitor steelhead. They do however have extensive metrics in place for sockeye. It really seems odd that a public utility would spend the time and resources for an non ESA, non native species while simply pay lip service to a legitimately threatened species.

Notice, no metrics for steelhead, but there is one for sockeye:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_S...at_Conservation_Plan/IndexofMetrics/index.htm

Andrew

 

[FlyFishNeahBay]

I thought the goal of the State was to move away from hatcheries towards the protection and enhancement of native fish.

you thought wrong.

wdfw moving away from hatcheries and towards protecting native fish... where did you hear that fairy tale?

chris

 

[Split Bamboo]

Ok, let me rephrase my statement....I know the goals are to:

"Hatchery reform fundamentally requires evaluating hatcheries based on how they affect the watershed in which they are located. This means a hatchery program-whether for harvest or conservation purposes-cannot be successful unless it serves the needs of the wild populations it is derived from and/or encounters outside the hatchery. "

http://www.lltk.org/hrp-archive/HRP_ReformPrincipals.html

http://wdfw.wa.gov/science/hatchery_reform/index.html

http://www.lltk.org/improving-management/hatchery-reform/hrp/summary

I have read up a bit on this, and I do not think I am wrong. However I was trying to point out what the WDFW and others have said and what appears to happening in this situation seem to be at odds.

Once you have read up on the issue, should you want to engage in an intelligent discussion, I'll be waiting.

 

[wetline dave]

Curt,

By no means do I feel Frank is the devil incarnate. The man has made a mark on our fisheries that should be appreciated by all. Though I do not agree with his vision of a sockeye hatchery what he has accomplished to get one established is really quite amazing. His efforts as an individual shows that is possible for a person to make changes with a lot of hard work and tenacity. This in itself should give others hope and encouragement to make changes which will hopefully make much needed improvements in our fisheries and wild life management.

As a side note I don't believe there is any magic strategy that will change things in and of itself. There are too many variables. Some we can control and some we cann't and some we probably don't even know about. A recovery strategy that works in one system may very likely not be applicable to another. It may be that in some situations a hatchery system is going to be the only viable option. We can all dream of years past when wild fish crowded our rivers. Those days are gone! We cann't turn back the clock we have to move ahead. If we can restore some viable wild runs that is good. If we cann't then an augmentation sytem needs to be in place. Myself I would much preffer catching a hatchery fish rather than looking at closed water that I cann't explore and wet a line.

Dave

 

[Citori]

...His efforts as an individual shows that is possible for a person to make changes with a lot of hard work and tenacity. This in itself should give others hope and encouragement to make changes which will hopefully make much needed improvements in our fisheries and wild life management.

That would be the operative message in this post.

Also, just to put on balance an additional piece of information without comment on WDFW intention or motivation.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html

Whether or not you agree with the result, the achievement illustrates that Mr. Urabeck's unwavering and tenacious engagement is certainly a model for success.

 

[Wilken]

Seems like there is a bit of confusion regarding this project and some of the facts seem to be slipping through the cracks. First, the tribes have the right to fish the Lake Wa. sockeye because the Corps redirected the Cedar River into Lake Washington (1916) to provide water supply for the locks. Unforuntately, not unlike many ACOE projects, this redirection of flow had massive impacts to the native fish fauna of the Lake Washington Basin but the largest effect was that the chum and pink runs in the Cedar River went extinct. This happened because pink fry and chum fry are adapted to emerge from the gravel and migrate via river flow to the estuary. Cedar River fish used the Black River to access the Duwamish system and Elliot Bay. After ACOE "realignment" chum and pinks were not adapted to have the necessary energy reserves to swim 20 miles through stillwater to get to the Shilshole "estuary" so they starved and went extinct. However, the sockeye salmon is perfectly adapted to use the lake environment as a nursery to rear and, therefore, the state transplanted Baker River sockeye into the lake as a substitute for lost tribal chum and pink salmon harvest. That is why the tribe get a share (ie as usual, white man fucks up habitat, overfishes and ignores basic ecology, tribe gets a share of the "solution".) Seems fair to me.

Second, Wet Line states that the city of seattle had a big part in the decisions on how to deal or not deal with the sea lions at the locks. He states this without giveing a single example of how this occurred. This is pure BS. Seattle has no jurisdictional power to influence such a decision. The sealions are a federally protected species (Marine Mammals Act) and final decisions on their management are made by the feds (NOAA, USFWS and ACOE in this case) with input from the state comanagers. To state that the city had any role in the final decisions on sea lion management at the locks just shows pure ignorance of how wildlife and fisheries are managed in Washington State and I challenge wet line to provide examples, names, dates or any relevant info that would indicate the City of Seattle was a major influence on the decisions regarding sea lion management at the locks. The idea that the media was somehow culpable for these decisions is even more absurd and really illustrates how out of touch wet line is when it comes to local, regional and national natural resource management.

Third, to respond to split bamboos erroneous assertions regarding Seattle's Cedar River HCP; the City of Seattle does have a monitoring program for steelhead and trout in the Cedar River (as outlined in their HCP for the municipal watershed) so, obviously split bamboo has not read the document he implies to know so much about. Every year, WDFW and SPU staff identify, mark and monitor all observed steelhead and trout redds in the Cedar River so SPU can manage flows to keep redds submerged until fry emerge. If you take the time to read the HCP it is all there in black and white. The City was directed by the co-managers to provide a sockeye hatchery as mitigation for the Landsburg Dam barrier to fish migration. The dam has been fitted with a fish ladder (2003) but mitigation for 100 years of obstruction to salmonid migrants needed to be addressed. The co-managers wanted a sockeye hatchery, not the City of Seattle. The assertion that the City was behind the hatchery to increase city revenues is ridiculous. How would the city benefit? They are not selling fishing licenses and the idea that they would build a 20 million dollar hatchery (with operating costs) to sell gas, beer and food to sockeye fishermen every 4 to 6 year is completely absurd. I'd love to have wet line explain his lack of logic with facts and citations but I'm quite sure he is just talking out his ass. FYI, there has been an interim sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River since the early 1990s so the assertion that the City has recently come on line with the hatchery idea is baseless. The city has done what they were directed to do by the co-managers to mitigate for historic impacts from Landsburg Dam. Had the co-managers prioritized native fish species for these mitigaton efforts, the City would have concentrated their mitigation proposals in that area. So, blaming the City is not only misinformed, it is also disingenuous.

Fourth, the sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River is quite different to the typical hatcheries for coho, steehead and Chinook. The biggest difference it that the wild population is used to provide most of the broodstock for the hatchery fish which limits domestication selection by intrinsically linking the two populations through genetics. Furthermore, sockeye are not reared for long periods in the hatchery like some species. Sockeye are released as fry and therefore, are subjected to natural selection from the time they enter the river. The only real effects from hatchery practicies come from artificial mate selection and large increases in egg to fry survival. The hatchery also requires a one to one sex ratio for matings so they aren't just using a few big males to fertilize all the females as was done histrorically in other Wa. State hatcheries. I"m certainly not a proponent of hatcheries but, as stated, the sockeye are not native so, if hatchery propagation of sockeye does not do harm to native fish species, then what is the problem here? The HCP does oultine research and monitoring linked with an adaptive management plan to investigate the effects of the hatchery on native fish and the wild sockeye in the river. If someone has ways to improve that paradigm or the basic research therein, there are avenues for your voice to be heard. Just be informed before you start throwing your opinions into the mix or you will not be taken seriously by the professionals that are involved in the process.

In this circumstance it is important to look at potential benefits from sockeye production to native fish. Large numbers of sockeye can have big benefits for the system via carcass fertilization and spawning gravel maintenance. Just think about the past when tens if not hundereds of thousands of Chinook, coho, pink and chum returned to the Lake Wa. Basin to spawn, die and rot. The sockeye hatchery could be used as a source to replace the productivity lost by the mismanagement of habitat and overfishing caused by "we the people". That productivity (carcass fertilization) will benefit the system as a whole, not a single species. Mass spawning sockeye also serve to filter the gravel to remove fine sediments as they dig their redds. This role, as with the carcass fertilization, would have been served by mass spawning pink and chum salmon but they are now extinct. Sockeye fry also provide a potential beneifit because they provide food to hungry trout, steelhead and coho which my increase the productivity of these populations if trout and salmon predator abundance is not equally increased by sockeye fry availability . If the hatchery increases the numbers of returning sockeye (if there is not a food supply problem in the lake), then the beneifits provided by large numbers of sockeye may very well outweigh the risks to native fish. As previously stated, these risks are going to be researched and minimized through the adaptive mangement process. The City's HCP also spends millions of dollars to purchase and/or restore Cedar River habitat below Landsburg Dam which will provide additional benefits to native fish and the trout fishery on the Cedar River.

The final points in this thread are well taken. Ordinary citizens can make a difference when it comes to resource management issues and decisions. The important thing is to be well informed so your influence provides a basis for outcomes that are actually beneficial to the populations in question.

 

[KerryS]

Nice comments Wilken but why do you feel the need to insult people? You could have informed and educated without the insults. To bad too because you seem to have some important knowledge but who is going to take you serioiusly or even want to engage you in conversation when the end result is your never ending need to attack others with insult and ridicule.

 

[Tim Lockhart]

Dammit Kerry your fingers are faster than mine today...well you're not gonna steal my thunder, asshole. I'm throwin' mine down anyway (besides, it's better than yours) >> Wilken, because you know so much I am hereby holding you to a higher standard than the rest of this dysfunctional site. Your post was best and most informative of 2010 to date...right up until you pummeled some of the other forum members with your superior knowledge. Killed it for me. Written like a 5 yr old genius. What's the use of being the smartest kid in the class if no one likes you...

 

[Split Bamboo]

Wilken,

Nice personal attacks! That always ads to your credibility.

Regarding local politicians and local media having an impact on the decision making in dealing with the sea lions: Wetline did not assert that they were involved with the final decision. I think most people that are somewhat educated on the fisheries issues understand that the Feds have ultimate control over marine mammals. That being said private citizens, local politicians and local media do have the ability to impact what is done. The Makah whale hunts come to mind. Was it not citizen led lawsuits that got the courts involved that temporarily halted the hunts? To somehow assert that the Federal government decision making process is immune from public input and outcry seems to be disingenuous.

Regarding your replies to my comments: You said, Third, to respond to split bamboos erroneous assertions regarding Seattle's Cedar River HCP; the City of Seattle does have a monitoring program for steelhead and trout in the Cedar River (as outlined in their HCP for the municipal watershed) so, obviously split bamboo has not read the document he implies to know so much about.

Please tell me specifically where I made an erroneous assertion? I never once said the City of Seattle does not monitor steelhead. I have not read the HCP document, but I did state that the Utilities website lists the specific metrics used to monitor sockeye but not steelhead, and I provided the link. Maybe it is simply an omission on the website. I am more than willing to accept that. The point I made was that extensive metrics are listed on there website for the non native sockeye, but not for the native steelhead. And I stand by those assertions. Look for yourself:http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_S...at_Conservation_Plan/IndexofMetrics/index.htm

Also, please point out where I claimed to know "so much about" the HCP document. I believe I used the words 'the appear' which should have been 'they appear'....incorrect grammar aside, I was simply pointing out what was on their website and what was missing.

Regarding the carcass fertilization, I did read that they are not allowing sockeye to pass above the dam due to concerns of water quality, but they are allowing the other species, which return in much lower numbers.

Regarding the idea that the City does not have a possible economic interest in the sockeye run because they do not sell fishing licenses is specious as best. And then you follow that up with a comments alluding to a fishery only existing every 4-6 years. Well if the new hatchery will only provide a viable fishery every 4-6 years why bother with the new hatchery? I thought the new hatchery was going to improve this situation. Also, the revenue the city would gain would come from sales tax revenue. Now I will admit, I have not studied this situation, but intuitively, I would guess that a healthy viable fishery every year where 200,000 sockeye are available for harvest would lead to a positive cashflow into the city's coffers. And I don't have a problem with that! Kinda sounds like Supply Side economics to me.

OK, attack away, this time try to avoid personal attacks this time.

 

[FlyFishNeahBay]

Ok, let me rephrase my statement....I know the goals are to:

"Hatchery reform fundamentally requires evaluating hatcheries based on how they affect the watershed in which they are located. This means a hatchery program-whether for harvest or conservation purposes-cannot be successful unless it serves the needs of the wild populations it is derived from and/or encounters outside the hatchery. "

I have read up a bit on this, and I do not think I am wrong. However I was trying to point out what the WDFW and others have said and what appears to happening in this situation seem to be at odds.

welcome to hatchery reform, which is typical government doublespeak. just read your quote about hatchery reform and attempt to make those two sentences a reality. a " hatchery serving the needs of a wild population"... it'd be funny if it weren't so f'ing sad.

wdfw has too much invested in hatchery production to do any kind of real hatchery reform. it's feel good wordsmithing and slight of hand BS. when i start seeing hatcheries shut down due to wild fish concerns (not budget constraints) i'll start believing in hatchery reform in washington state. the first test of hatchery reform was the ihn infections on the quillayute system, and wdfw failed miserably when they decided to use hoko steelhead smolts on the bogachiel / calawah.

of course if you've read all the hatchery reform documents you would get the idea that wdfw is reforming hatcheries... but the reality is that hatchery practices harm wild fish. the science is clear on hatchery impacts on wild fish. whether it's the mixed stock fisheries targeting hatchery fish, the decline in fitness of hatchery spawners on wild fish, or the negative impact of smolts / fry on wild smolts / fry.

we really have a tough choice, because the idea in wdfw's " hatchery reform" that we can have loads of hatchery fish and healthy wild populations coexisting is nothing but a pipe dream that has no basis in reality.

 

[Split Bamboo]

Topwater,

I am not under the belief or expectation that the States stated goals on hatchery reform are much more than nice platitudes. Two quotes from Ronald Reagan come to mind..."Trust but verify" and his comment "The most frightening phrase in the English language is "We are from the Government and we are here to help!"" Lets see what the results are.

I was trying to politely point out what I perceive as the States hypocrisy regarding hatcheries. Perhaps I should have stated it clearer, but I was hoping to generate some discussion and debate and allow people to come to that conclusion on there own.

To be fair, it does appear that some of the measures instituted have paid some dividends. I am thinking of the court order that required greater flow over the dams on the Columbia resulting in better steelhead returns. We can all agree on the fact that things can be improved. And we also need to hold the State accountable for their actions.

 

[Wilken]

Apparently Split Bamboo needs to reread his post and wet line's response.

I think it is not only a right (see Constitution) but a duty to point out bullshit especially when disinformation can have grave impact on natural resources such as salmon and trout populations. If someone takes the time to be informed and back up their assertions with examples and facts then they won't be criticized for bieng ignorant or talking out their ass. If more of us called bs on these clowns, maybe they would think before they communicate. Far too many fishers think they know more than the resource managers that are tasked with the unenviable job of protecting the resource. Most of the time these self appointed armchair biologists don't have a clue what they are talking about and their misinformation does damage. None of them are ever happy or thankful when their version of the issue is proven to be drivel. Misinformation tends to be exaggerated as it is passed from one person to another and it spreads like disease. I see it all the time on this site but I wasn't going to let it slide in my back yard. If people want to take it personally instead of becoming informed and arguing from that standpoint then that is their right. I'm not here to baby their egos but I will point out when I think they are full of it! Most people don't want to be told they are ignorant or incorrect, but constructive adults will come around and admit to being wrong and try and learn from the experience. If you don't want to be labelled as ignorant, don't get on the soapbox when you are poorly informed about the topic at hand! Ignorance is rarely recognized and outed unless it is voiced. If your soapbox collapses, don't blame the guy who points at it before it does.

Split bamboo accuses the City of Seattle of paying lip service to ligitimately threatened species and then admits he hasn't read the document he is criticizing. And he thinks he can question my credibility? Amazing! When you take the line that you can judge a document you haven't read (ie "paying lip service" statements are very judgemental and suggest being well informed) you leave yourself open to all kinds of criticism especially from those who may have helped write the document! Kind of like reading an abstract of a scientific paper and then lambasting the synopsis of results without reading the methods and materials or discussion sections. You would be criticized and likely mocked by informed readers or professionals. Perhaps split bamboo would be more informed if he read the whole HCP instead of a synopsis on a web site? He may then realize that the HCP was written and implemented 10 years before steelhead were listed in P. Sound! Just to be clear split bamboo here are your words: "They acknowledge that O. mykiss is an ESA listed species, but in their Habitat Conservation Plan, in which they tout their metrics used to monitor ESA listed species, they do not have any metrics in place to monitor steelhead." So, in actuality you did not refer to a website in this sentence but the document itself. Had you actually read it, which your statements imply you did, you would have realized that the sockeye hatchery is part of the Landsburg Mititation Agreement which provides payback for blocking fish at Landsburg Dam and for sockeye production that would have occurred above the dam, if sockeye were allowed into upstream habitats. The Instream Flow Agreement lays out the steelhead monitoring program and the associated metrics. So, yes, your statement was erroneous. If you find that too personal, I guess you must be the thenthitive type. Can't help you with that, I'm a biologist not a mental health practitioner.

Split bamboo then goes on to support wet line by implying that wet line never implicated local politicians and media on what he thinks are poor decisions regarding the historic sea lion problem at the locks. I think people set themselves up for embarassment by making assertions without any backup examples or citations or, in this case, no information at all. Wet line stated "The city of Seattle and the Seattlle media were big factors in thwarting the efforts to do something with the sealions." How on earth could they be big factors in thwarting efforts to deal with the problem if they didn't affect the decisions? Why would thwarting those efforts be in the interest of City of Seattle residents or their reps? I never stated that wet line implied that media and politicians had final say, geez. Feel free to quote my response to show this! Did wet line provide examples as I requested? Instead, splt bamboo brings up a totally different issue in a completely different part of the state. He then goes on to state that I asserted federal decisions are immune to public input but nowhere in my response do I even come close to such an assertion. Did Seattle media and politicians have there say about Hershel and his buddies...yes...did that input amount to a big factor thwarting the effort to find solutions...give me a break. Tell me how!!!!!! Examples in situ not in Forks! The City had no more influence than you would have at a federal public hearing on the issue. However, as I asserted, the co-managers do have pull because the fisheries are managed by them and because the fish and animal populations in question are not ecompassed by federal lands and facilities.

SB is correct that sockeye will not be allowed above the dam due to the fact that the diversion dam diverts drinking water. Salmon carcasses tend to cause problems with nutrients and algae blooms in water storage reservoirs. Algae blooms and fish carcasses cause taste and odor problems for drinking water never mind issues with public health. Algae blooms aside, does anyone want to drink from an unfiltered water source with rotting fish in it? Perhaps SB likes to drink water mixed with rotting fish, I do not and most others do not, hence, no sockeye above the dam. The hatchery is actually designed to provide a substitute for that lost sockeye productivity above the dama and the lost productivity from the historic blockage. Anyone that actually read the HCP or the City's HCP website would know that.

I agree with SB that a hatchery is not worth it if the fishery only happens every 4 to 6 years. However, sales taxes providing marginal if not negligible increases in tax revenue to Seattle coffers is not a reasonable theory for Seattle support of this mitigation hatchery and that was my point about the beer gas and food for sockeye fishers. Wet lines assertions seem to imply that Seattle's and King County's support for the hatchery was all about money which as I stated, is just a bunch of hot smelly air. Here's what he wrote:
"Now that Seattle utilities is on line with the hatchery as well as the King County council they are pushing and finally succeeded in propagating a non resident species. This is all about perceived revenues increases for the city and county. The once in awhile Lake Washington Sockeye mad house fishery generates huge dollars in revenues." The fact is Seattle had been paying for an interim hatchery for many years and the permanent hatchery will only double the production goal for the interim hatchery. The City has not recently gotten on board for the money. In fact, the City will pay to contrcut the permanent hatchery and will provide the funding for WDFW personnel to run it. That's right, the City will pay all costs associated with building, staffing, maintaining and monitoring all hatchery operations and results. You think a little sales tax is going to pay for that with enough left over to sway the mayor to get on board? I do not believe that would provide positive cash flow but even if I was wrong, would it be enough to make it the primary reason for "being on board" like wet line suggests? Not even in the realm of reality. I stated why the City was on board and I stand by those assertions. The idea that this is all about revenue for the city of Seattle is a cop out by someone who doesnt' want to take the time to read and be informed. The fact is, the sockeye in the Cedar River are in trouble, partly due to flood impacts on incubating eggs and alevins and partly because of conditions in the lake and in the ocean. The returns over the last 4 years have been below 30,000 so the idea that there will be 200,000 harvestable sockeye anytime soon is not realistic. Not sure where you got that number but the last fishery provided approximately 70,000 fish harvested commercially and recreationally and that year, the co-managers didn't even come close to meeting their escapement goals on the spawning groundsn of 450,000 fish (Cedar River and N. Lake Wa. and Samammish Tribs. Will the hatchery provide fisheries if and when lake and ocean conditions improve? I don't know. What I do know is floods can't scour eggs in a hatchery and without the hatchery, the current trajectory for Lake Wa. sockeye is very dismal.

Sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't take the time to know what they are talking about. Certainly the poorly informed people like that are far more credible than someone who rude enough to take the time to provide reasonable arguments and assertions that are based in fact and backed with real examples. Could I have been more politically correct? Probably, but hey, this is a thread, not a public hearing. It's no wonder our fishery resources are in such dire shape. People are more worried about their personal feelings than they are about providing factual discourse that support justifiable solutions. I don't take it personally when someone calls me an asshole because I know that such a reaction likely implies someone has been forced to think about something with more depth and breadth and that's a good thing. Perhaps the uncomfortable feeling will make them think before they spew. Besides, i really like pissing off ignorant people inbetween fishing trips. It keeps me from taking it out on them on the river.

 

[Salmo_g]

Wilken,

I appreciate that you provided some good information in your post. Insulting other posters for making errors in their posts is counterproductive to your own credibility and integrity because you, too, made some errors in your post. I could begin by saying, "hey dumbfuk Wilken, get your facts straight dipwad," but I won't because it would serve no useful purpose, and that's not how I roll.

You said, ". . . the state transplanted Baker River sockeye into the lake as a substitute for lost tribal chum and pink salmon harvest. That is why the tribe get a share (ie as usual, white man fucks up habitat, overfishes and ignores basic ecology, tribe gets a share of the "solution".) Seems fair to me." However, you've got a couple errors of fact in your statement. The state did not plant Baker sockeye into Lake Washington. Joe Kemmerich, District Supervisor and others, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its predecessor agencies, the Bureau of Fisheries and the U.S. Fish Commission, all federal agencies, not the state, were responsible for stocking Baker sockeye eggs in Issaquah Creek and the Cedar River between 1936 and 1940, which developed the Lake Washington sockeye population. They stocked Baker sockeye in numerous other lakes in an attempt to develop additional sockeye salmon populations because sockeye were a commercially desirable species, and sockeye had suffered a significant loss in the Fraser River system due to the Fraser canyon landslide in 1913 or thereabouts during construction of the transnational railroad there. The action had absolutely nothing to do with substituting lost tribal pink and chum salmon harvest.

Further, the Tribe gets a share because it holds historic treaty fishing rights under the 1854 Treaty of Point Elliot to fish in all usual and accustomed areas. Fish species are immaterial to the legal right to fish. Treaty tribes may fish for whatever species are present in usual and accustomed fishing areas, whether they are native to the area or transplanted.

Now, wouldn't a smart guy like yourself, who villifies other posters who make errors, get these facts straight before making a lengthy informational post?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

 

[wetline dave]

Wilken,

This is the second time you have made some personal attacks! The first time was really quite insulting

I was here when Hershel and friends were decimating the steelhead. Almost nightly for a couple of years during the fish run the media was there and making it into a "cool" event. More than once either the mayor at that time or a person on the city council came on air rebuking the game depts efforts too control the situation. That is political influence plain and simple!

Now as for your attacks on me. I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinions. But remember we all have our own opinions also. You may not like them and you have every right in the world to express your views. You can attack the opinion but when you attack the person that is entirely another matter. Whenever a person attacks me on my views I instantly think that individual has some mental issues and is insecure and feels a need to degrade others to lift themselves up. If the shoe fits then wear it!!!

In that you come across as HE who knows every thing just what are YOUR credentials to bolster your views and give them more credence than anyone elses?

Dave

 

[BDD]

While I appreciate some of the history, opinions, and information from Wilken, I could do with the insults and cursing. There really isn't a good reason to stoop to that level to make a point.

Salmo g makes a tactful example on how to make a point without the "better than thou" attitude.

 

[Split Bamboo]

Wilken,

Hmmmmm....where to begin.....

Lets start from the top. You do have a Constitutional right to free speech, however not all speech. Just like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel are not protected speech. Keep that in mind as you engage people on this site. But don't worry about offending me, not that you do obviously.

Today I read a fair amount of the Habitat Protection Plan and I stand by all my earlier statements and opinions, in fact, I feel stronger about them now than I did 48 hours ago. My point is that the City of Seattle is spending more time and resources on a non native fish than they are on native fish. I found nothing in the HCP to refute that assertion. Please enlighten me as to where I can find the specific metrics used regarding steelhead. I never said they are not monitoring them, I did however point out that on the website there are specific metrics used for sockeye, chinook and coho, but not any for steelhead. I am unable to find the metrics listed in the HCP document either. Please share them if you could.

You mentioned the hatchery, your direct quote: " The hatchery is actually designed to provide a substitute for that lost sockeye productivity above the dama and the lost productivity from the historic blockage. Anyone that actually read the HCP or the City's HCP website would know that.

This one is too easy...there was no lost productivity to the sockeye population as they did not exist in the Cedar River when the dam was constructed.

Oh, btw, the issue with the Makah and whales, I used that as an example of public input affecting Federal decisions regarding marine mammals, I think it was very relevant, and as a biologist you should know the Makah tribe is not in Forks. The Vampires are in Forks:rofl:

Are we having fun yet? Lets continue....

Your Quote: "Perhaps split bamboo would be more informed if he read the whole HCP instead of a synopsis on a web site? He may then realize that the HCP was written and implemented 10 years before steelhead were listed in P. Sound!"

The HCP was issued in April of 2000, Puget Sound Steelhead were listed as threatened in May of 2007, not quite 10 years, but I am ok with that. Chinook were listed in 1999. Sockeye are not, nor will they ever be listed as they are not native. I hope we can agree on that.

You seem to have an issue with me referring to steelhead as being a listed species....

Your quote: "Just to be clear split bamboo here are your words: "They acknowledge that O. mykiss is an ESA listed species, but in their Habitat Conservation Plan, in which they tout their metrics used to monitor ESA listed species, they do not have any metrics in place to monitor steelhead." So, in actuality you did not refer to a website in this sentence but the document itself."

Lets get real here...here is the full quote including the link to the site I was referring to:

"They acknowledge that O. mykiss is an ESA listed species, but in their Habitat Conservation Plan, in which they tout their metrics used to monitor ESA listed species, they do not have any metrics in place to monitor steelhead. They do however have extensive metrics in place for sockeye. It really seems odd that a public utility would spend the time and resources for an non ESA, non native species while simply pay lip service to a legitimately threatened species.

Notice, no metrics for steelhead, but there is one for sockeye:"
http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_S...at_Conservation_Plan/IndexofMetrics/index.htm

I think most people would agree that I was referring to the website as I provided a link to the site. But look at the link...it is found in the HCP section of the website! Please click on it and read the address.

Lets have a fun educational debate, but cut out the mudslinging and personal attack. I have never claimed to be an expert like you have. That being said, please point out my factual errors so that I can learn something.

If you reply to this please, please, please share with me the specific metrics used to monitor steelhead. I can't find it on the website nor can I find it in the HCP document. To be clear, not the fact that they are monitoring steelhead, I would like the specific metrics that are being used.

Andrew

 

[DavidH]

Sockeye was native to Washington Lake until the shipping locks we're put in. Bear Creek might still be native Sockeye, we don't know at this point yet, we are doing genetic research right now to see if they are native. Most of the Sockeye in the Lakes now came from Baker Lake, or Cultus Lake, after the Locks we're built, and are stocked every year by the Cedar Hatchery.