More controversy over Elwha restoration after dam removal

[Kerry Stratton]

On the largest dam removal and recovery project in history the threat of law suits is now a reality.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...yndication=rss

[LadyFisher]

Thanks so much - Trav also found a slide-show of the removal so far, just amazing.

[Gigmaster]

They are complaining about steelhead being stocked???

If it's any help, they are more than welcome to bring them here to Tn. and stock them. We'll take real good care of them.

[Kerry Stratton]

They are complaining about steelhead being stocked???

If it's any help, they are more than welcome to bring them here to Tn. and stock them. We'll take real good care of them.

I think you missed the point. Yes, we are complaining about non-native stocked fish. In essense an invasive species being introduced by the people responsible for recovery of NATIVE fish. The very methods they are planning on using to restored the Elwha are the very same methods proven to damaged wild runs on most of the northwest's steelhead rivers. We have an opportunity to watch a river that has been for all intent and purpose destroyed by dams recover from that damage. Why proceed with methods known to cause even more damage?

[Gigmaster]

I guess I missed something in the article, but I didn't see anything that said the hatchery fish were GMOs. They are the exact same species, identical on a genetic level, to the wild trout. So they are not non-native trout. They are just domesticated. While the hatchery trout may not survive as long as the wild trout, they don't have to. They just have to survive long enough to spawn, and the offspring will be wild trout, indistinguishable from the adult wild trout. They will adopt the same habits and behavior. Every fish that spawns means several thousand new eggs, which means a lot more fish in the river. This means a faster recovery time for the species. Yes, hatchery fish may take different flies, but that's only a problem for a single generation.

There have been countless studies on crossing hatchery fish with wild ones. All of the legitimate studies (ones that did not have an ax to grind) showed that as long as they are the exact same species, the offspring were indistinguishable from their wild relatives, both genetically, and behaviorally. It's been successfully done with Bass, Striped Bass, crappie, Bluegills, rainbow and brown trout, and other species. Steelheads should be no different.

I don't understand a lot of the gripes about environmental issues. it seems that sometimes, people won't take 'yes' for an answer. They are fixing the river. As a scientist myself, I know that these highly educated biologists have done extensive research on the issue, and while they may occasionally make a mistake, most of the time, they know what they are doing. But they are looking at the Big Picture, 25-50 years down the road, not just next year's fishing season. Give 'em a chance.

I was being flippant about bringing them here, but we would probably give it a try. E. TN. is one of the best-kept secrets in the fly fishing world. We have both wild, and stocked populations of brown, and rainbow trout that freely interbreed. Our fishery rivals anyone's in any part of the world. Our rivers that can support trout are full of big, belligerent bruisers that are usually more than happy to smash your fly. Hatchery and wild mixes haven't hurt anything here. If it wasn't for that, all we would have is a few rivers high in the mountains that have little wimpy brook trout.

Anyway, I don't live in the area, so I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just trying to understand both sides of the issue.

[Kerry Stratton]

Studies over the past 10 to 15 years have shown that steelhead from differing water sheds vary significantly. These show that the fish of a particular drainage adapt to that drainage. Rivers with a higher gradient than another will produce fish that are larger and stronger and have a better chance of surviving to their spawning grounds. Also these fish will adjust their spawning times to the river they are native to improving the odds of the parr surviving. These changes have taken thousands of year to develop. When steelhead from another drainage are introduced several scenarios can take place. One would be the fish are preprogrammed to spawn earlier then the native fish, which is the case with the Chambers Creek steelhead. An earlier spawn means an earlier maturing parr which is larger and can out compete the native parr which hatch later and are developmentally behind the introduce stock. This can limit the ability for the native parr to survive. Now you have a dominant species that is not native to the system and over time they begin to fail because they are not adapted to the drainage they were introduced to. This scenario has been played out across the northwest steelhead rivers and has been shown to be a contributing factor in the collapse of native steelhead across the region. Why would they purposely repeat the same mistakes in the Elwha? The only answer is some of those in charge do not want to wait for the river to heal itself. They are too concerned with producing fish now to be worried about what will happen in the future.

[Chuck S]

I did read your articles and would like to discuss them: Let's start with this:

I think you missed the point. Yes, we are complaining about non-native stocked fish. In essense an invasive species being introduced by the people responsible for recovery of NATIVE fish. The very methods they are planning on using to restored the Elwha are the very same methods proven to damaged wild runs on most of the northwest's steelhead rivers. We have an opportunity to watch a river that has been for all intent and purpose destroyed by dams recover from that damage. Why proceed with methods known to cause even more damage?

Here's just a problem and I don't blame you for starting this but rather the folks filing the suit who used the same language. While this isn't an outright fabrication, as it's written, it leads one to believe that the new hatchery will be introducing new fish stocks, where, in fact, it's the same stocks they've been using all along. (1) Isn't this the case?

This is from the first article you posted: "The groups say hatchery fish reduce the vigor and survival of fragile runs of native fish, and that the decision to plant nonnative Chambers Creek winter steelhead in the river poses particular risk. " Or your comment, "In essense an invasive species being introduced by the people responsible for recovery of NATIVE fish." As the introductions were made years ago again it seems to be written so to give folks the idea that planting Chambers Creek steelhead is something that is starting with the new hatchery. It does seem a tad bit misleading I think!

On another note, isn't it the case that most hatchery fish return to the hatchery rather than continuing on upsteam? Seems as if this might be a natural way of keeping the Chambers Creek stocks from hampering wild fish recovery. Additionally from a couple other places in similar articles on this I've seen the old adage that hatchery fish have real trouble surviving, much less reproducing in the wild. (2) Do you think this is the case? If it is then there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. (3) If it isn't, then why say something like that?

I did notice the many comments posted on the news site immediately below and following that first article you gave-- were mixed in the pros and cons. Seems as if both groups have good points.

[Kerry Stratton]

So after they allow passage to some 70 miles of habitat from the removal of the dams no hatchery fish will venture any further than the hatchery? Once they increase the number of releases they will have no interaction with the wild salmon and steelhead? After years and years of a failed hatchery system in the State of Washington that has been well documented to have an adverse affect on wild native stocks in almost every river system they are located we are asked to believe this one will be different? I wil admit that I am biased. I want to see the return of the native fish to the Elwha. I want to see nature undo what we have done without us screwing it up any further. This is an opportunity to see how nature will do if we stay out of the way. This river could provide much needed knowledge to recover salmon and steelhead in other rivers. Washington used to have millions fo salmon and steelhead return to her rivers. Now most of the returns are so poor we can't even fish them anymore. Here is a chance to allow a river to recover naturally and learn how it does it. But, no, lets screw this one up also with out of system hatchery drones just as we have done with all to the other rivers.