Wow! Did I just listen to 45 minutes of that?

[Trent]

With that said, they will not be considered of natural origin because they are out of river/basin stock, dependant on the system and fish.

Hey, look at that! I think I got an answer to one of my questions! But let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly...

So after a Steelhead comes from a hatchery, non of it's decendants can ever be considered a "wild" Steelhead ever again, regardless of their genetics, right?

And Salmo g, I'm glad you are always right... that must be an awesome gift to have. But as far as your statements about "Many PS tributaries still have good, if not excellent, wild steelhead smolt production from the under-escaped runs. However, those smolt populations are not translating into good adult runsizes because of the well below average marine survival rates. Therefore, ending all gillnetting will not increase most steelhead populations for the simple reason that netting is not the proximate cause of steelhead runsize decline." Am I supposed to believe this just because you say so? I'm afraid I don't have the same level of confidence in you that you have in yourself, so prove it.

Use the Nisqually as an example... show me documented evidence indicating the Nisqually still has "excellent, wild steelhead smolt production" and proof that WDFW knows exactly where these smolt forage in the ocean in comparison to the upper Columbia River Steelhead smolt.

As far as the genetic questions... even if the biologists can correctly idendify which strains are originally from particular systems, where's the proof that it makes any difference where they are from? Why is it sooooo important that each river have only Steelhead that originated from that river? Is there no evidence that a river has experience a historical natural catastrophe which destroyed a Steelhead run, then a run was naturally rebuilt from strays of another system? Again, before I am willing to take the leap of faith, I need to see proof that the only Steelhead that are good for a system are the Steelhead that originated from that system.

One bit of data that seems impossible to find is numbers showing how many Steelhead have been killed in gillnets since 1974 in rivers like the Nisqually. I have asked for these numbers, and no one is able or willing to provide them...

And why is it that everytime anyone questions this "Wild Steelhead" belief system, they are immediately accused of being willingly ignorant? You have no idea how much or how little effort some have put into learning about the fishery.

Is it possible we are seeing a case of "Say something often enough, for long enough and people will believe it is the facts." Don't dare question the "facts."

[River Jim]

Trent

Salmo tries hard and comes up with some doooooozies once and awhile. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that netting has an immediate and final effect on the genetic pool of fish returning to spawn. It's so easy evern a caveman can grasp it.........Our wild fish on the OP need to be protected and stopping all netting should happen now.

You said:

"Is it possible we are seeing a case of "Say something often enough, for long enough and people will believe it is the facts." Don't dare question the "facts."

Excellent observation Trent...........Dam in the way..............RJ out.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Do not underestimate old Salmo!

He, like me, is very set in our ways. He knows a lot about fish, and most of the time does "know his stuff" (most of the time ) when it comes to fish. With that said, he doesn't like people to challenge his posts, or him which is pretty normal. I do know one thing, if you want one guy to be on your side and make a point about our fisheries, he'd be hard to beat. He just needs to get bigger balls

He doesn't give his respect out easily. He's also a shade on the arrogant side with some of his posts and thoughts, but he's not a bad guy and he is on the sport fisher's side. Now if he ever goes to work for Tacoma …I will personally kick him in butt every chance I get!

But….he won't

[RB3]

Trent,

I told you where to get the answer you seeked. You are a grown man and am sure you are capable of following leads to maintain information. If you would go to the sassi and as I have said,it accounts for hatchery fish that have spawned in the wild. If you want the nisqually gill net numbers call the nisqually tribe. I'm sure they can supply you with smolt numbers as well. You seem to be the one swimming upstream ignoring research and data that is available. As you recently have exited the court, I would assume you know that the burden of proof lies on you.

Netting has had an impact but their are no nets in the duckabush, puyallup, nisqually, and other streams that I will not name, but they are in the toilet as far as run returns are concerned. You are also comparing winter run fish with summer run fish that will encounter different conditions.

And since RJ and CFM are here I will throw this out. The cowlitz tribs have not made escapement for quite some time either. There is no netting and they go out to the same foraging areas as your highly touted upper columbia fish. Any comments on this?

[Salmo g.]

Trent,

You appear to be mixing allegations made by other posts with statements I make. That dog may not hunt. I'll stand behind my posts, but others need to substantiate their own. I see some slight differences that the original poster may not understand that the change undermines their intent. At least that is my interpretation.

And then there is your reading comprehension. I didn't say I'm always right; you did. I said my views are not often shown to be incorrect. That's not the same thing, and small differences can matter a whole lot in this realm.

No, you don't have to believe anything just because I say so. There is material - somewhere in the mounds of it I have - to back up my assertions. BTW, you didn't send me your email address. How can I send you the studies that back up what I say if you don't? And yes, I'll only send them to you if you first agree that you will in fact read them.

BTW, I won't use the Nisqually as an example because it isn't a good one, having the lowest escapement of any of the major PS tributaries. Furthermore it's absurd to ask me to prove what WDFW "knows." Agencies are umbrellas; individual people "know" stuff. Because you mix assertions in one person's posts with assertions made by others and because you either misread posts about steelhead genetic information or don't read them at all and don't read the genetics studies, you're asking questions that don't make sense, or require some context to make sense of them. In that vein, I haven't said that, ". . . the only steelhead that are good for a system are the Steelhead that originated from that system." Mostly the steelhead genetics issue is about hatchery steelhead having poor reproductive potential in the natural environment. This is why the many thousands of hatchery steelhead returning to the mid-C tribs are not contributing as well as would otherwise be expected to recovering naturally self-sustaining wild fish. And it also is why, after 50 years or more of stocking Chambers Ck hatchery steelhead in PS rivers that very little of the Chambers Ck genetic profile shows up in the wild steelhead populations. Same thing in the lower Cowltiz tribs that CFM refers to. They stocked the bejeezus out of those cricks with hatchery steelhead, yet when the Cowlitz genetics study was done, hardly any hatchery genetic profile was found in the wild fish still living there. I'll send that to you also, but first I need your email address.

Oh, and about those steelhead gillnet numbers since 1974, they exist, at least for the most part. It may not be neatly collected in one neat place, and somebody would have to dig them up. And people are more likely to do that for requesters that don't bring a negative attitude to the discussion.

Sg

[Trent]

No nets in the Nisqually or Puyallup RB3??? Wanna take another look?

I have directly asked the Puyallup Tribe for those numbers and received no information, even though my request was made with much respect and I sincerely thanked them for the information they did provide.

And I don't have to prove anything... cuz I'm not the one spreading the "Wild Steelhead Religious Propaganda" stating there are plenty of Wild Steelhead smolt, nets have no impacts, and it's all the oceans fault. I'm just asking questions about this belief system...

[Trent]

Salmo, I copied and pasted your quote word for word, I didn't mix it with anyone else's... I did pm you my email address... it's painfully obvious that not everyone in WDFW would have the knowledge, so that was an irrational statement, any reasonable person would understand I was referring to the people that represent WDFW who do the research, and I'm well aware you aren't always right.

Oh and btw, I've already read the Chambers Creek studies... we may have found one strain of Steelhead that doesn't reproduce well in any system other than Chambers Creek. Are we then making a blanket assumption that all other strains won't reproduce well outside their original system? Just asking the question... not claiming this is what you are saying.

So Salmo, how is it that the Nisqually went from being one of the best Steelhead rivers in the State, to being one with some of the poorest escapement?

[River_Phisher]

Would shutting it down make that much of a difference though? Poachers are everywhere, and will do anything to obtain one single fish. Why do they do it? I have no clue.

[Trent]

They shut down the upper Columbia for about 12 or 13 years, and it appears to have made a difference.

[River_Phisher]

Now, no nets on the nisqually or puyallup? The main stem of the puyallup hatchery fish are through november from what I have heard and seen. They tribes slay the steel in the nets while they are netting chum at the same time. It purely sucks. I guarantee those Nisqually nets get plenty of steelhead in them that can help reproduce the fishery. Although, I don't believe there is a single hatchery on the Nisqually that even tries to rear smolt.

[River_Phisher]

They shut down the upper Columbia for about 12 or 13 years, and it appears to have made a difference.

You're right Trent, there is no arguing that statement. But, if you look at the size of the columbia, and the size of say the Sol Duc, or Hoh. It is much much bigger. Not only is there numerous different tributaries that feed into the Columbia that have a good run of wild steelhead, the OP rivers just don't have that. It's a run for one of each of the rivers. They don't have the Snake, Clearwater, John Day, and a few others supplying it's return of native fish. The Sol Duc has the Sol Duc, the Hoh has the Hoh. Comparing the Columbia to any OP rivers is like comparing Lake Washington to Spanaway Lake, it just can't be done. You're right, closing the rivers might give them some time to get more fish back for the future, but it wouldn't do they same as it did for the Columbia years ago, just because of their size and lack of rivers supplying more fish.

[Trent]

I'm just talking about the upper Columbia. The Steelhead up there mainly come from the Wenatchee and the Methow. These two rivers are not large at all and the Steelhead have many times more challenges to face to reach them then any of our costal or lower Columbia Steelhead.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Trent,

And since RJ and CFM are here I will throw this out. The cowlitz tribs have not made escapement for quite some time either. There is no netting and they go out to the same foraging areas as your highly touted upper columbia fish. Any comments on this?

Are you sure you really want to go there?

Maybe before you go any further, you can inform the readers here just what those "escapement" numbers are and what were their shortfalls if any? And when you do that, can you please post the link to the data base source and how they (whoever they may be) had ever established such "escapements" numbers for those tributaries in the first place. I know that they had done a couple of "stream surveys" in the past, but how on earth would they possibly ever know what the "escapement" numbers were? Since the dams went in, I assume you are talking about the lower Cowlitz tribes right?

I am anxiously looking foreword to hearing what you know about these tributaries and their escapements on the Cowlitz.

[River_Phisher]

I'm just talking about the upper Columbia. The Steelhead up there mainly come from the Wenatchee and the Methow. These two rivers are not large at all and the Steelhead have many times more challenges to face to reach them then any of our costal or lower Columbia Steelhead.

Right again Trent. Numerous different dams in the way, makes for one hell of a journey.

I believe the point trying to be made by all is that the OP is in need for some sort of help to get these numbers replenished. I would hate for it to turn out like the Puyallup system when I'm in my golden years.

[fishingbandit]

I'm just talking about the upper Columbia. The Steelhead up there mainly come from the Wenatchee and the Methow. These two rivers are not large at all and the Steelhead have many times more challenges to face to reach them then any of our costal or lower Columbia Steelhead.

Right again Trent. Numerous different dams in the way, makes for one hell of a journey.

I believe the point trying to be made by all is that the OP is in need for some sort of help to get these numbers replenished. I would hate for it to turn out like the Puyallup system when I'm in my golden years.

i love da puyallup nearly 70 silvers landed...lost more than landed my favorite river

[Salmo g.]

Trent,

Studies sent.

Sg

[RB3]

Weird, my reply didn't post from my phone.

River phispher the puyallup doesn't get hatchery fish anymore that overlap the chum run unless there are strays. The hatchery, more specifically broodstock. Are stocked by the natives and return in april thru may. So there goes that one. Also a poacher is a poacher whether netter or rec. The point of an all out closure is to reduce hooking mortality. Poachers are a small percentage and without seasons they will stand out as the only people on the water


Cfm yes lower cow. I will find the links for you when I get home. I don't know how escapement was set, but all tribs that I've looked at are below them.

[Trent]

Salmo g, in reference to fish passage you said, "There's still some serious fixes needed at Wanapum and Rock Island though."

I'm very curious about what you base this statement on? I don't know much about Wanapum, but I know Rock Island was the very first dam built on the Columbia River. I also found out they almost didn't include fish ladders when they were designing Rock Island. Fish ladders had never been used before, and they weren't even sure if the fish would be able to find them and use them... and to be blunt, they didn't care. They weren't that worried back in the early 30's about blocking off all of the Columbia from Rock Island above to all Steelhead and Salmon.

But they decided to try the fish ladders and in fact designed Rock Island with three, one on each side, and one in the middle, if I'm remembering correctly. Being the first dam on the river, they also designed the original turbons to function horizontally. The horizontal turbines have proved to be less efficient than the vertical turbines they put in all the other dams.

But I recall when my dad was designing the Rocky Reach fish passage, I swear he said even though Rock Island was built first and designed with little concern about fish passage, up or down, Rock Island proved to be one of the best constructed dams for fish passage. Was he wrong? He said the three ladders worked far better than anyone expected, and that the smolt could actually pass directly through the horizontal turbines with minimal to no mortality, compared to the vertical turbines. The smolt experience tremendous atmospheric pressure changes going through the vertical turbines, don't they? So what improvements are needed on Rock Island that you are aware of?

[Cowlitzfisherman]

Weird, my reply didn't post from my phone.

Cfm yes lower cow. I will find the links for you when I get home. I don't know how escapement was set, but all tribs that I've looked at are below them.

Ask your phone how they can set them (esacpements) ....when they have no idea what they ever were in the first place. Turn it up real load so we all can hear what your phone tells yo


Maybe soon, you will understand how the madness of this bs gets out as facts and not truth …maybe

[RB3]

That doesn't make sense at all..... Just sayin'

Escapements are set and a lot of the rivers are below them. If you don't like it dunno what to tell ya. Maybe Salmo g can explain how they came about

[Cowlitzfisherman]

That doesn't make sense at all..... Just sayin'

Escapements are set and a lot of the rivers are below them. If you don't like it dunno what to tell ya. Maybe Salmo g can explain how they came about

I don't think that Salmo will touch that one with a ten foot pole...... on the lower "Cowlitz" Tribes...but I have been wrong once before

My records are already opening…

[Trent]

Salmo g, got your email! Thanks!

I have read the "Bias and significance of relative reproductive success estimates based on steelhead trout" before, and as it states in the title, this study is based on "ESTIMATES." The word "estimate" appears in this document 117 times!

Plus this document contains the following statements:

"Although the average level of RRS (relative reproductive success) implied the reproductive decline of hatchery fish and wild-born hatchery descendants, we could not reject the null hypothesis that hatchery fish and their descendants have the same chance of having smaller RS (reproductive success) than wild fish as they do of having larger RS (reproductive success) than wild fish."

"The precision of the RRS (relative reproductive success) estimate also has not yet been assessed."

So, if you guys are basing your belief that hatchery Steelhead don't reproduce as successfully as wild Steelhead on this document, you really are men of faith! This document is a bunch of estimates applied to mathmatical formulas to develope a hypothesis... not a factual study.

Okay... time to read the next one.

[GreatNWRiversGS]

wild fish, hatchery fish.. who cares? I catch them all anyways!

[River_Phisher]

wild fish, hatchery fish.. who cares? I catch them all anyways!

Whatta great way to look at it. You see the pic i sent you on FB?

[Salmo g.]

Trent,

It's extremely uncommon to have exact counts of individuals. Estimates are what we use. That doesn't make the nature of the work or its conclusions wrong. And just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong either. If you don't have any science background, this may take a little more work for you.

Rejecting the null hypothesis would mean that hatchery fish do have the same relative reproductive success. However it is uncommon to "accept" the null hypothesis. The way it works is a conclusion where you "fail to reject the null hypothesis."

An analogy: you're trying to determine if species X lives in a certain river. You do a bunch of systematic surveys but never find species X. If the null hypothesis is that species X doesn't live in that river, you don't accept the null hypothesis. You fail to reject the null hypothesis because you never know, if you had done one more survey or surveyed in a different area, you might have found one of those elusive species X.

Sg