When do more fish = fewer fish? Author Dylan Tomine tells the steelhead saga at West Seattle’s Emerald Water Anglers

(Photo by Dave McCoy)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

This week, the state closed the Nooksack River to fishing.

The explanation for the closure mirrored words of warning spoken here in West Seattle days earlier – many miles from the river, but close to many hearts.

The warning, and a call to action, came from a guest speaker hosted by Emerald Water Anglers (WSB sponsor) in The Junction, author/angler Dylan Tomine, who is based on Bainbridge Island.

(This photo & next by WSB’s Patrick Sand)

He spoke of a threat to Washington’s official state fish, wild steelhead – posed, Tomine said, by the state’s hatchery system – a system you pay for, a system involved in the new Nooksack closure, ordered because of a shortage of “eggs from returning hatchery winter steelhead (needed) to meet basin production goals.”

Sound simple? Anything but, explained Tomine, who began: “Are you guys ready to get pissed off? Because I’m pissed about this. The more I’ve found digging deeper and deeper, the more upset I get.”

What he has found, and spoke of at EWA that night, includes the tale of the fish that cost taxpayers $70,000, and much more.

Telling the story to those who filled the Emerald Water Anglers store space to hear him on December 10th, Tomine went back almost 35 years, to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, after which, he said, “the state gave up the Toutle River for dead.”

But it wasn’t. It revived on its own, and years later yielded a big run of wild winter steelhead, 2,500 spawning there in 1987.

The nearby Kalama River, untouched by the eruption, was a different story, with its fish numbering in the hundreds, linked to a hatchery system. “It is an amazing story to me … about the power and resiliency of wild steelhead … they evolved to make up for natural disasters.”

The story, Tomine said with regret, did not end there. “Unfortunately, when the state realized the Toutle River had a viable run of fish and viable habitat, they resumed the planting program on the Toutle … the wild run responded by dwindling down and matching the Kalama.”

Next, his story leaped ahead to 1997, fishing for steelhead on the Skykomish River. One day he landed three, “one 40 1/2 by 23 inches, 28 pounds, chrome plated, black back, probably the most magnificent fish I have ever seen or will ever see.” A fly-fishing trip like that might result in two fish, catch-and-release, and it seemed, he said, like “pretty fantastic fishing …(until) I found out more … we were just fishing for crumbs, 2 to 4 percent of the historic runs. Imagine fishing more than 150,000 steelhead on the Skykomish. Those were the historic runs. I for one could take a few years, or days, of that.”

He and others were oblivious to the fact that, despite a “relatively stable habitat … the fish kept coming back in smaller and smaller numbers. In 2000, it dwindled to the point where the state felt it couldn’t even withstand catch-and-release, so they closed the river,” an order Tomine felt in his gut, “heartbreaking .. to this day, March and April go by, I feel like I should be fishing the Skykomish.”

The hatchery production “kept pumping out millions and millions of smolt,” but that didn’t help.

(Skagit River – photo by Dave McCoy)
Nor did it help on the Skagit River, Tomine said, where 15,000 fish were harvested each year before hatcheries, “a pretty sustainable number when it was a mostly wild run. (But) a funny thing happened – as hatchery production increased, the harvest declined. … By the year 2000, we were releasing up to half a million hatchery smolts into the Skagit and the harvest had decreased to 1500.” Those smolts, he said, cost more than $5 million – but resulted in a dramatic harvest decline.

Some wanted to blame a habitat issue, according to Tomine, “but scientists have told us most of the habitat destruction on the Skagit took place (more than a century ago).” And, he said, pink salmon are doing fine on the same river – “only difference, no hatchery supplementation.”

He told of yet another river “historically bountiful” for steelhead, the Eel River in Northern California. After “catastrophic floods” in the ’50s, “the state bought a hatchery … and the number of wild fish returning and overall harvest plummeted.” The hatchery was closed. Now, wild steelhead are returning to abundance there, and the money spent on hatcheries has been “reallocated to monitoring and habitat restoration – the results speak for themselves.”

So what’s the problem with hatcheries? Tomine answered that question: “(They) don’t work on a biological level – they remove the evolutionary pressure, survival of the fittest, at every one of the most critical life stages.” He compared the journey of a wild fish, hatched in gravel, moving through stages, each one with only the fittest surviving, to that of a hatchery fish, an egg fertilized in a bucket, incubated in a tray, no gravel, temperature-controlled, hand-fed after it hatches … “and so the hatchery fish have evolved into a domestic animal.” Even the timetable is unnatural, Tomine said, with all the hatchery fish reaching the smolt stage at exactly the same time, all released at once, which “creates two problems – they out-compete wild fish for habitat and food … and (go out as) a giant mass of protein,” susceptible to predators whose shadows they might mistake for that of the hatchery worker getting ready to feed them, drawing in the wild fish as part of a “smorgasbord” for predators.

Whichever ones survive are out there for a year and a half, two years, untracked, and then return: “We don’t catch them all, so many of them end up spawning with wild fish,” muddling the genetics in each generation that follows. “Every major peer-reviewed scientific study confirms the presence of hatchery fish causes an often-rapid decline in wild population.”

The federal government makes the connection too, Tomine said, “citing genetic pollution from hatchery programs as the main factor in Oregon wild-steelhead decline.”

“Hatcheries don’t work on an economic level,” either, he contended, saying declining returns lead hatchery managers “to pump out more.” Here, he cited the Nooksack River – whose closure-to-fishing order followed a few days later – with “the return down to 1/4 of 1 percent … (which) has raised the cost of a single hatchery-raised, harvested steelhead to as high as $2,700. You gotta wonder how your neighbor feels about you coming back with that one fish when you hear how much it cost.”

The decline of fisheries is economically ravaging in other ways; he recalled the “bustling communities” of Marblemount and Concrete in the ’80s, contending “you go up there now in the spring and it’s pretty much a ghost town.”

A Columbia River chinook run was notoriously estimated at $68,031 in costs for each fish harvested; Tomine estimated a gillnetter might net $80 for a 10-pound fish, so “it cost the rest of us almost $70,000 so he could make that $80. Extreme example, but it makes the point … lowest imaginable ROI of any government program out there.”

He acknowledged concern, since “a lot of our rivers only open because of hatcheries … so (if you ask) ‘if we get rid of the hatcheries, what will we fish for?’ the answer is, wild fish. Without hatchery ‘genetic pollution’ … wild fish have the chance to recover.”

He spoke of the Skeena River in British Columbia, “a world-class fishery for a lot of us … it’s become our home river because of what has happened here. The fishery there supports a $100,000,000 a year salmon economy.” And – no hatcheries. Same for the state of Montana, he said, where a biologist discovered the effect of “hatchery fish planted in rivers with wild populations” and “waged a lonely battle to convince people” … eventually, hatchery production was stopped in 1974, “and we now have the crown jewel of North America trout fishing.”

Tomine also noted a hatchery built with City of Seattle money “to supplement the Lake Washington sockeye run – they knew all this science, and yet they built it anyway, despite the fact that sockeyes are not historically a major run (there) – it’s popular.”

He acknowledged that some taxpayers don’t seem to mind, suggesting “the spending is OK because sport fishermen are supporting the hatcheries.” But it’s money, he suggested, that could be better spent elsewhere: “The state is saying it’s broke, doesn’t have the money for basics, and yet we spend $56 million for hatcheries that (aren’t working biologically or economically). This is one place where I feel environmentalists and the Tea Party are going to wind up on the same side.”

So if this does spark concern – what can the average person do?

“It’s going to take all of us getting activated if we really want to have steelhead and salmon in our future. First, we need to tell our non-fishing friends what they’re paying for our recreation.” He said he believes that once average taxpayers hear what’s being spent for something that seems to be creating problems rather than solving them, resulting concern/outrage could lead to action.

There is already action on some organized fronts, such as the Wild Fish Conservancy lawsuit settled with the state earlier this year (here’s the state’s version of the announcement), keeping hatchery-bred early winter steelhead out of some waterways for a dozen years: “This is the best news that wild steelhead fishermen have had in my lifetime; this is really our only hope.” (A bit later, Wild Fish Conservancy’s executive director Kurt Beardslee joined him at the front of the room. He warned that one bit of fallout from the lawsuit is a movement toward using the hatcheries to turn “wild” fish into broodstock and said that’s not what they intended at all – “we have to keep habitat intact and let wild fish do what wild fish do.”)

Overall, Tomine said, “We need to write, e-mail, contact our elected officials and demand that they pay attention to the science and stop wasting our money.” (In response to a question later, he warned that elected officials might not even be aware of the situation, so your question/concern might be educational.)

Tomine acknowledged that your reaction might be, “‘OK, I believe what (he’s) saying, but can’t we keep things the way they are now?,'” but, he reiterated, “returns of hatchery fish trend toward zero over time as well, (so) eventually there will be no wild fish and no hatchery fish at all and there will be no fish at all forever, and forever is a long, long time.”

He later also noted the conundrum of a “fly-fishing business sponsoring a talk about something that would keep a lot of us from fishing for a while” – if hatcheries were taken out of the mix altogether – but as EWA proprietor McCoy said a short time after that, he wants “to enlighten the public as to what the truth is – right now, there’s a lot of truth NOT (coming to light).”

==================
If you see this story shortly after its publication at midday Saturday, December 20th, note that Emerald Water Anglers (42nd/Oregon) is hosting Santa photos until 2 pm today for donations to the Wild Steelhead Coalition. Also note that it hosts frequent talks and seminars in its recently opened retail space – check the calendar here, and keep an eye on ours, where we will list many of them too.

24 Replies to "When do more fish = fewer fish? Author Dylan Tomine tells the steelhead saga at West Seattle's Emerald Water Anglers"

  • Dennis Hinton December 20, 2014 (1:43 pm)

    Excellent story, Tracy. Excellent presentation, Dylan. Thanks
    Dave and EWA for hosting a dialogue on this critical subject.

  • Fly Guy December 20, 2014 (2:14 pm)

    Great article and I’m just sorry I missed the event. I think Dylan showcased the threat to our wild fish extremely well and I’m glad to see there was such a good turnout. I’ve not yet popped into EWA,(soon!) but thrilled that they seem to be quickly becoming more than the average shop in terms of their educational/community involvement. Good stuff!

  • dsa December 20, 2014 (2:45 pm)

    Isn’t this true of all salmon? I mean they have declined drastically since the 60’s from Puget Sound waters. Why have they not flourished? Mismanagement of natural runs makes sense to me.

  • JayDee December 20, 2014 (3:30 pm)

    Another case of hubris, thinking we know better than the evolutionary process that birthed the fish in the first place. There is no reason for hatcheries…this article convinced me. Given our state budget needs, why continue to throw money down a black hole? The State should discontinue hatchery operations on selected rivers that are equivalent in terms of urban development and impact and see which improves, and shutter all hatcheries if true.

  • Admiral935 December 20, 2014 (3:38 pm)

    Great to have this coverage and EWA in the neighborhood. Wish I’d gone to the presentation. On topic; this Salmon documentary that SIFF showed last year. Hope this link is in line with the posting rules. I’m not affiliated with movie. Check it out – the trailer. http://www.thebreachfilm.com

    ps. Trailer shows the Elwha Dam being taken out

  • cj December 20, 2014 (4:49 pm)

    Great info, this is stuff we need to hear.

  • Rich Simms December 20, 2014 (8:24 pm)

    Nice work Dylan!

  • Bob Triggs December 21, 2014 (11:03 am)

    Solid work here. Thank you for helping to bring this to light.

  • Corliss Harvey December 21, 2014 (11:21 am)

    Right on!!!

  • Howard Garrett December 22, 2014 (2:36 pm)

    The endangered Southern Resident orcas depend almost entirely on diverse and abundant runs of chinook salmon. But having read and heard Jim Lichatowich and now this, and having absorbed the historical context in which hatcheries were built as a substitute for habitat (justifying all kinds of habitat destruction), and having learned that hatcheries tend to decimate wild salmon runs wherever they are placed, I’ve come away thinking hatcheries are generally destructive. If hatchery managers take all this into consideration and make sure hatcheries are small in scale, used very carefully and timed just right to avoid wiping out native runs (like Long Live the Kings’ hatcheries, built where there were no native runs), then maybe they could marginally enhance the total salmon numbers while habitats are restored, but that would be the rare exception.

  • Salmo g. December 22, 2014 (6:15 pm)

    Mr. Tomine’s talk could be considered the McCarthyism of steelhead politics. He makes and infers connections that actually are not supported by the best available science, while suggesting that they are. It’s true that Puget Sound hatchery winter run steelhead programs are a financial black hole and make no economic sense. And they are generally not a positive contribution to the aquatic ecosystem. However, to mistake the presence of the hatchery program as responsible for the low abundance of wild steelhead is to make the mistake of assuming that correlation equals causation. It doesn’t. And there is evidence supporting that, and it’s better evidence than the simple correlation between the presence of hatchery steelhead programs and wild steelhead abundance. But you’d have to dig for it.

    This does not automatically make me a fan of the hatchery steelhead program. I’m not. But my reasons are economic and because the hatchery programs no longer yield the expected enhanced fishing that they formerly did. My concern is that listeners to Mr. Tomine’s talk will make the mistake that ending the reviled hatchery steelhead programs will automatically result in the restoration of abundant wild steelhead populations. It won’t.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.

  • Ken McLeod December 22, 2014 (9:23 pm)

    An unfortunately misguided, and misleading article. This page just lost a reader in me for pumping out this propaganda. You want to know what happens without hatchery fish with all of today’s pressures in the Puget sound, and olympic peninsula systems? Look at the Puyallup, and Cedar river.

    The anti fish zealots preached this same rhetoric claiming that the wild fish would recover without hatchery supplementation. Then the hatchery fish were removed from the systems. Now the runs in both systems are ironically functionally extinct.

    They make claims that the early timed chambers creek stock hatchery fish impact the wild fish with nothing but anecdotal, and emotionally driven jargon to back it up. No proof, or even solid evidence for that matter to support cause and effect.

    The plain and simple ugly truth of the matter is that the wild steelhead by in large within Washington state river systems will not recover as a result of removing hatchery fish from the equation. In contrast they will continue to decline, and at a faster rate due to the fact that the ecosystems have adapted to the presence of hatchery fish for the past many decades. This means with the reduction of hatchery fish numbers comes an increase on wild fish predation due to the number of predators being a constant in the equation rather than a variable dependent on the immediate abundance of hatchery steelhead.

    Further still, if Emerald water anglers supports this kind of counterproductive propaganda, than they won’t see a cent of business from me, and I hope anyone who enjoys steelhead think carefully about whom they do business with as well.

    Want to see how to recover dying wild runs of fish? Here yuh all go, factual history, not just anecdotal jargon:

    http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/efs/hatchery/salmon_captive/redfish.cfm

  • Rory December 23, 2014 (6:13 pm)

    I would add (to the comment above) the nisqually river, which hasn’t had hatchery steelhead in a decade and now steelhead are extinct. There are just as many failures as successes in wild steelhead recovery as a result of closed hatcheries. I daresay more failures.

    If you’re going to talk about closing hatchery programs, you had to talk about why they were created in the first place – dams. Fish couldn’t reach their spawning grounds so hatchery programs were created to bolster their numbers. Wild fish aren’t going to recover while there are dams in place. So, shutting down hatcheries will simply reduce the number of fish in the water. I’m all for removing dams, especially abandoned ones, but for the most part this is not realistic.

    Finally, the problem isn’t hatchery fish. I would point out the huge successes of salmon hatchery programs. Columbia system has near-record-breaking king runs and record-breaking coho runs. Past several years have seen enormous coho runs in the puget sound. Pink salmon (which are both hatched AND wild-spawning) numbers are off the charts, and chum salmon have rebounded extremely well (again, both hatched and wild-spawning).

    So again, the problem isn’t hatcheries themselves, it’s the WAY the steelhead are hatched. The one-size-fits-all chambers creek stock is just not working. The solution is to refine the program, using more broodstock, not to cancel it! We’ve been pumping money into a system that doesn’t work. Doing the same thing year after year, getting worse results. The solution lies hatchery refinement, not cancellation.

  • Ken Mcleod December 24, 2014 (4:45 pm)

    There is nothing wrong with the early timed chambers creek stock fish. They’re used in attempt to keep interactions with wild fish to a minimum, and largely that is a success. The chambers creek stock fish isn’t being used to restore wild runs, so to say that it’s failing in that area is not technically accurate.

    That being said, I would agree that due to the dwindling junker of wild fish however, the time has come to perhaps look into utilizing hatcheries more for the purpose of restoring wild runs in conjunction with providing a fish to eat fisherh rather than utilizing them largely only for the latter. Problems remain however in that these wild fish zealots typically are against that idea too, and in most instances if not all, will pose opposition because of their emotionally guided ideology revolving around the premise that hatcheries are just evil all around. Until that propoganda machine which spreads this misinformation and rhetoric is curbed, most attempts to make this transition will become opportunities for organizations like the wild fish conservancy and others to potentially create havoc, and get current programs shut down all together. You knkw, the same folks who claim to be a non profit orgonization, take boatloads of grant money from the state, then turn around and sue the WDFW and the sportsman and behind closed doors get the director to sign off the removal of 990,000 steelhead smiles from PNW ecosystems.

  • Edward Van halen December 25, 2014 (12:59 am)

    Does anyone stop and think that we are all to blame for the decline of wild fish stocks?I do not have a PHD in fisheries management,or any type of formal education that would suggest that i know much about fish in general.But seems obvious to me being a Washington resident since 1968,that when the population goes up the fish runs go down.We can debate,do more studies,get even more clueless politicians involved with wondering what happened to all the fish.they will never rebound until we get over population and all that comes with it under control.no studies.no grants,just my two cents

  • Dave McCoy December 30, 2014 (2:52 pm)

    The idea behind hosting this presentation (which will not be the last) was to open up a dialogue to introduce those in the community to what is going on with regards to our state fish of Washington, the wild steelhead.

    I knew going into this there would be a tremendous amount of emotion attached to the topic and I find it sad when people quickly jump to a position without taking the time to read, see, hear and DISCUSS the best way to not lose these fish, which we are on the brink of in many areas.

    I own a business that relies upon fish being present, we prefer wild fish. If you think the other fly fishing stores in this region DON”T think the same thing I do, you are sadly mistaken.

    Correlation vs causation…what exactly do you mean? It is quite possible and there are proofs in other watersheds that there are a number of studies where the removal of hatcheries (Metolius River, State of MT, Eel River, Toutle River etc.) did in fact allow for the rebound in wild fish stocks which also, coincidentally improved quality of and opportunity for angling.

    On the financial side, this is pretty cut and dry to me. Doesn’t cost much to allow wild fish to leave and come back to their natal streams. And when angling opportunities improve both in numbers and in quality as they have in regions sited above, what comes along with that is a financial windfall in terms of dollars spent locally from sport anglers.

    In a larger sense with our governments continually finding themselves short of funds to provide basic services (schools, roads, mass transit, medical coverage etc.) should they be spending literally billions of dollars on a system that provides virtually no ROI for the vast majority of the public?

    I am not saying we need to do away with all hatchery systems but there are many, just like the dams that put this ball in motion that should be shut down and put the money spent on them to better use as they are public funds.

    Nobody knows for sure that removal of hatcheries will rebound wild fish stocks in every situation and NOBODY can say that they won’t either. But we do know that the hatchery systems have been the keystone for fish management in this state for decades. Look where we are today.

    As a store owner and fly fishing guide for the past 20+ years, it behooves my business to advertise WILD STEELHEAD to our clients across the country and around the world. Many anglers are savvy to the difference and if they are going to spend their hard earned money to pursue a fish, they WANT it to be wild. Look at the dramatic increase in fishing pressure (which also means a lot of ancillary revenue in the Forks/Port Angeles region) on the Olympic Peninsula due to the wild fish season out there.

    Wild fish can and will provide increased angling opportunity at a lower cost and boost business for yes, even local fly shops. It costs us nothing to at least give this a chance in the effort to regain our wild steelhead.

    I have a difficult time arguing this topic when wild fish are generally bigger, prettier, more feisty, are more highly sought after by my clients and they are free!

  • Dave McCoy December 30, 2014 (2:54 pm)

    Also, if so inclined, one can read up on the studies that support this idea:

    Reduced productivity of wild/hatchery spawning interaction. Removal of, rather than addition of hatchery fish may be most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience: Chilcote, 2003.

    Impact of hatchery fish—from both traditional, domesticated stocks and “wild type” brood stocks—on wild fish populations: Chilcote, et al. 2011.

    Salo et al. 1954: Survival to adult stage in wild vs hatchery coho smolts, wild fish survival 10-15 times greater than for hatchery fish.

    Kleiss 2004: Hatcheries identified as accelerating the risk of wild steelhead extinction.

    McMillan 2012, using WDFW and ODFW data: As hatchery stocking increases, overall catch and harvest decrease over time.

    Kostow and Zhou, 2006: Hatchery fish wasted basin capacity by occupying habitat and depressing wild production while producing almost no useful offspring.

    Christie et al, 2011: Hatchery domestication alters the genetics within a single generation of captive rearing and reduces reproductive success.

    Quinn 2005: Hatchery steelhead have vastly inferior rates of survival and reproductive success.

    Chilcote et al. 2011: Negative correlation between the reproductive performance of the total population and the proportion of hatchery steelhead in the spawning population.

    Cooper and Johnson 1992, Eltrich 2007, McMillan 2012: Increasing smolt plants to revive runs on Chambers Creek (WA), resulted in continual decline and minimal adult returns. Chambers Creek wild steelhead now extinct.

    Pflug et al. 2013: Numbers of hatchery steelhead smolts planted significantly correlated with subsequent declines in returning wild steelhead population.

  • Dave McCoy December 30, 2014 (3:03 pm)

    Studies supporting the detriment hatcheries have brought to our waters:

    Reduced productivity of wild/hatchery spawning interaction. Removal of, rather than addition of hatchery fish may be most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience: Chilcote, 2003.

    Impact of hatchery fish—from both traditional, domesticated stocks and “wild type” brood stocks—on wild fish populations: Chilcote, et al. 2011.

    Salo et al. 1954: Survival to adult stage in wild vs hatchery coho smolts, wild fish survival 10-15 times greater than for hatchery fish.

    Kleiss 2004: Hatcheries identified as accelerating the risk of wild steelhead extinction.

    McMillan 2012, using WDFW and ODFW data: As hatchery stocking increases, overall catch and harvest decrease over time.

    Kostow and Zhou, 2006: Hatchery fish wasted basin capacity by occupying habitat and depressing wild production while producing almost no useful offspring.

    Christie et al, 2011: Hatchery domestication alters the genetics within a single generation of captive rearing and reduces reproductive success.

    Quinn 2005: Hatchery steelhead have vastly inferior rates of survival and reproductive success.

    Chilcote et al. 2011: Negative correlation between the reproductive performance of the total population and the proportion of hatchery steelhead in the spawning population.

    Cooper and Johnson 1992, Eltrich 2007, McMillan 2012: Increasing smolt plants to revive runs on Chambers Creek (WA), resulted in continual decline and minimal adult returns. Chambers Creek wild steelhead now extinct.

    Pflug et al. 2013: Numbers of hatchery steelhead smolts planted significantly correlated with subsequent declines in returning wild steelhead population.

  • Dave McCoy December 30, 2014 (3:03 pm)

    Reduced productivity of wild/hatchery spawning interaction. Removal of, rather than addition of hatchery fish may be most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience: Chilcote, 2003.

    Impact of hatchery fish—from both traditional, domesticated stocks and “wild type” brood stocks—on wild fish populations: Chilcote, et al. 2011.

    Salo et al. 1954: Survival to adult stage in wild vs hatchery coho smolts, wild fish survival 10-15 times greater than for hatchery fish.

    Kleiss 2004: Hatcheries identified as accelerating the risk of wild steelhead extinction.

    McMillan 2012, using WDFW and ODFW data: As hatchery stocking increases, overall catch and harvest decrease over time.

    Kostow and Zhou, 2006: Hatchery fish wasted basin capacity by occupying habitat and depressing wild production while producing almost no useful offspring.

    Christie et al, 2011: Hatchery domestication alters the genetics within a single generation of captive rearing and reduces reproductive success.

    Quinn 2005: Hatchery steelhead have vastly inferior rates of survival and reproductive success.

    Chilcote et al. 2011: Negative correlation between the reproductive performance of the total population and the proportion of hatchery steelhead in the spawning population.

    Cooper and Johnson 1992, Eltrich 2007, McMillan 2012: Increasing smolt plants to revive runs on Chambers Creek (WA), resulted in continual decline and minimal adult returns. Chambers Creek wild steelhead now extinct.

    Pflug et al. 2013: Numbers of hatchery steelhead smolts planted significantly correlated with subsequent declines in returning wild steelhead population.

  • David McRae January 4, 2015 (10:38 pm)

    It was asked, “What do you mean by correlation does not imply causation.” Here is an example of a real correlation which should not be used to say one causes the other. Coffee drinkers have more traffic accidents than non-coffee drinkers. This is actually true. However, it would not be fair for insurance companies to raise rates for coffee drinkers. As it turns out, people that tend to drink a lot of alcohol, tend to drink a lot of coffee too.

    We need to find the root cause of these issues, so many factors are at play.

    We can say wild fish recovered on the Toutle after the eruption of Mount Saint Helens, but not so on the Kalama where there is a hatchery and no lahar. Could it be though that the lahar produced a lot of good breeding habitat for fish those first few years before we started to “reclaim” land in the flood plain?

    Not much is mentioned about the level of pollution in Puget Sound. How many beaches are closed to shellfish harvest because of pollution? Is the Duwamish river near Harbor Island clean? Could this pollution affect fish? We have many “This drains to stream” storm drains. How many people have oil drips from their rigs, wash cars in the driveway, put too much fertilizer on the yard so that there are brown stains from it on the sidewalk. Does that kill fish? The speaker doesn’t mention pollution much. We are Washington. We’re green and we don’t pollute. We drive electric cars and put windmills in far away places that we don’t have to see.

    Hatcheries are the scapegoat, power companies and governments would love to get rid of them. The toxic sound will finish off the rest of the fish for us.

  • TheHunt January 6, 2015 (11:10 am)

    No one has pointed out all the kill nets. Oh, I mean the gill net used that kill non-discriminately. If Washington State out lawed and replaced all gill nets in Puget Sound and the Columbia with live nets we would see more wild stocks.

    I would also suggest that if special interest groups want to mess with the hatchery prove your theory on say 2 – 4 rivers and if it works than great. But the shutting down all the hatcheries in Puget Sound. What a stupid move!!!

    Look at what the gill nets did to the wild steelhead in the Nisqually River. They are gone… And yes we can do all this effort but if the native Americas (tribes) do not get the gill nets off the rivers and bays this effort will not produce anything.

  • Ken McLeod January 6, 2015 (4:47 pm)

    I know of many fly fisherman, including myself, my father, my grandfather George McLeod, and my great grandfather Ken McLeod whom were, and are hatchery proponents. Outside of the family, I know of many others as well. Further, I agree that this has been an emotional issue, however most of the wild zealot misinformation being thrown around (such as in this article) is based largely I suspect on that emotion, and not historical fact. These Johnny come lately’s who tout all this rhetoric about hatchery fish being some kind of demonic force which serve only to diminish wild runs ignore the historical, factual data such as the history of the cedar ect, because they know it squashes their emotional stance on the issue. The rhetoric is plain and simple bunk, and nothing more.

    Again, anyone who enjoys catching steelhead, eating fish, and doesn’t want their money ending up in the hands of those who mistakenly follow an ideology which so blatantly serves to eliminate their fishery, think long and hard about whom you choose to do business with, and ask yourselves in that reflection of where you stand on this issue. Don’t fall for the rhetoric and emotionally guided agenda to end your fishery in some fleeting and misguided attempt grasping for strings type of historically lacking and contradictory hypotheses that hatchery fish are in any way bad regarding steelhead.

    Don’t take my word for it. Go ask your local WDFW biologists what they have to say on the matter. Ask them about one or two historical examples of how removing a hatchery in washington state has helped the wild run of steelhead rebound. Ask if these same wild fish zealots pitched this same bunk regarding the cedar, and one or two other systems in which the wild runs became functionally extinct years after removing hatchery fish from those systems. The history is out there folks.

    Fish on!!!

  • TheHunt January 7, 2015 (1:43 pm)

    Ken McLeod is right no target with his comments. Get out and ask the experts in the field who are hired by State.

  • Former customer at emerald January 8, 2015 (5:07 pm)

    After reading this article, I have to say I am disappointed that Emerald Water Anglers, one of our local shops (which I have spent money at, but never again) has taken such an extremist stance allowing this anti fish knucklhead to spread this garbage and underhanded lies about our fish in their store.

    Dave, I read your comments here in the comments section, and I’m not sure if you quite understand the potential impacts this is going to have on your business. Until you get with the program regarding whats going with this state’s fisheries, and unalign yourself and your business outright from these anti hatchery jerk asses whom I’d venture to guess are very likely some of the same folks who sued the WDFW and eliminated almost a million fish that MY money in part paid for, and then demanded legal fee’s to be paid for with MY fishing license money (outright theft by my definition), you won’t see another cent of business from me.

    Also, my fishing buddies whom I’ve been in your shop with as well (Folks whom have spent money in your business in the past) will definitely be seeing this article, as I’m sure they won’t want their money going to the folks who want to take away their fish either!

    As for the overall vibe I get from the comments section below this article, I’m of the opinion that Ken is spot on.

Sorry, comment time is over.