More controversy over Elwha restoration after dam removal

[NJTroutbum]

I think the driving force in this is the Tribe. And while over the years I have most often fallen on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to the tribes and the salmon runs....on this one I really can't. The tribe didn't ask for us to build the dam. Nor did it ask for us to slowly kill off the natural spawning. So now that we finally decide to remove the dam....they are supposed to just shut up, sit back, and lose vital income to their economy? Because WE suddenly got "environmental"? Would you?

[Kerry Stratton]

Law suit filed against hatchery on the Elwha.....................

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...in-elwha-river

[Chuck S]

A question. is this hatchery business about the hatchery that was built circa 1976 or so on the Elwha? If so why the late hue and cry? I'm confused.

[Kerry Stratton]

A question. is this hatchery business about the hatchery that was built circa 1976 or so on the Elwha? If so why the late hue and cry? I'm confused.

No, this is a new hatchery. And the reason for the resistance is the hatchery will be using non-native salmon and steelhead to stock the Elwha and it basically flies in the face of almost all scientific evidence suggesting the hatchery will be harmful to the recovery of native steelhead and salmon.

[Chuck S]

http://www.elwhainfo.org/research-an...eries/hatchery down in that link about the lower Elwa hatchery it indicates that this is a vastly upgraded hatchery being constructed to replace old facilities I presume, and I didn't see mention of changing the stocks they are going to be using. Where did that info come from? I ask since I was heavily involved with the wild fish, versus hatchery debates and more back in the 80s/90s and there's at least two political sides to each and every thing being done concerning the fish and most generally do not tell the whole story.

[Kerry Stratton]

I have posted a couple of threads on the Elwha dam removal project with a number of links explaining the entire project right down to where the stocks come from they plan on using. You could start there to find your answers.

[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.

[LadyFisher]

What the state of WA did to the salmon runs there is criminal. At one time it was the salmon capital of the world! Part of the problem is the mandate of the state Fisheries which is to first provide/protect the commercial fisheries, which the public pays for. I suspect if the feds had not gotten involved the dams would still be there, and of course they really don't have any idea of what should be done either. Your tax dollars at work.

[Chuck S]

Far too many fail to realize that the NMFS is under the Dept of Commerce last I looked so should you look to help from them it will be tainted help. Just as was the State help pointed out by LadyFisher above.

Sure seems as if there are several groups and all are determined to make it "their," fishery. You have the native fish folks, the wild fish folks, the tribes, the state, the Feds and a large group of folks who just want to catch fish and unfortuneately, the Commercial Lobby has infiltrated most of them all.

Since you didn't reply Kerry, I'll pass a along what I know to be a few facts.. The Chambers Creek strain has been used throughout the NW, and back east along the great Lakes. They are still releasing them and in quite a few places we now have a significant run of wild fish developed from the Chambers Creek releases over the years so yes Virginia, Hatchery Fish can and do colonize the wild and become wild fish in turn.. Wild fish being a fish hatched in the stream while a Native Fish is one that was originally there.

I brought that up above as all too often we hear from the wanna be fisheries expert that the Chambers Creek, or fill in the blank____ hatchery fish can't compete with the wild fish and then in the same breath but in a different part of their argument they argue that these damned ____ strain of hatchery fish will take over the river. Then this logic gets repeated by those who really haven't studied it at all but have a stake and a dream that they would like to see realized. It's high time that folks come together and do thier best to see the native fish runs returned while still providing for the tribes and sports anglers who have often been given the short end of the stick.

As far as the adverse effects in Washington state and the entire NW, the jury is out as to what causes the most adverse effect and my bet is and has been that it is Commercial Fishing! With millions of dollars of support from the Commercial Fishing Lobby they have made it popular opinion that dams are the problem but many of us don't see it that way at all! Get the Nets out and the fish will come back as has been proven all over the US where it has been tried!

For sure Dams, the Tribes, Hatcheries and more have effected the runs of native Fish for both good and bad, but in all these they seem to learn from their errors a lot more quickly than does the Commercials. So in the end to reply to my own questions (1) yes the new hatchery is using the same stocks they've been using, aka the Chamber's Creek strain. (2) Hatchery fish can survive in the wild and the evidence is all over the place from the Great Lakes to the NW and beyond. (3) They do survive but given a strong native fish presence, the Natives do out perform their hatchery brethern in some life stages. However there will be intermixing of genetics and for a fact most of the rivers have mixed wild fish now. If hatchery rainbows were ever stocked above the dam, then you very likely have mixed fish there also. I of yet, haven't seen research addressing this factor on the Elwha fish from above the dam.

The reason that anyone uses most of these partial truth arguments is to sway folks to their way of thinking without giving them the facts as the truth may be inconvienent or dangerous to their cause! . On the numbers of fish straying upriver from a hatchery release point near the mouth. Yes they do but in small numbers. There's also the danger of strays from other nearby rivers entering the system and all combined we have about 10% straying more or less but can range as high or higher than 50% given bad river conditions.

Anyway, good discussion folks and remember it's conservation of the fish that count and if we can use hatcheries to do that then great; if we can modify and use dams to allow them to remain then great, but if not get them out; if we can build wild runs while supplying fish for the tribes and sports anglers then superb but Nativ e fish do have a certain priority when we can determine that we have a true native.

Here's a bit of trivia for everyone. In the plans for Grand Coulee Dam a fish run to by pass the dam was included. To bad they, our Government just wrote of what was likely one of the greatest runs of Chinook ever!