the osprey 2 · 2020. 3. 13. · the osprey welcomes letters to the editor. article submissions are...

THE OSPREYThe International Journal of Salmon and Steelhead Conservation

Issue No. 92 January 2019

An In-Depth Look at the ThompsonRiver Wild Steelhead Crisis

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:WILD FISH CONSERVATION HITS AND MISSES • HATCHERYSTEELHEAD REPLACING DESCHUTES REDBANDS • CLIMATE

CHANGE AND SKAGIT SPAWNING TRIBUTARIES

2 The Osprey

Contents

The Osprey © 2019ISSN 2334-4075

THE OSPREYChair

Pete Soverel

EditorJim Yuskavitch

Editorial CommitteePete Soverel • Ryan Smith Greg Knox • Ralf Kroning

Bruce McNae • Rich Simms

Scientific AdvisorsRick Williams • Jack Stanford

Jim Lichatowich • Bill McMillanBill Bakke • Michael Price

Design & LayoutJim Yuskavitch

Letters To The EditorThe Osprey welcomes letters to the

editor. Article submissions are welcomebut queries in advance are preferred.

The Osprey69278 Lariat

Sisters, OR [email protected](541) 549-8914

The Osprey is a joint publication of not-for-profit or-ganizations concerned with the conservation and sus-tainable management of wild Pacific salmon andsteelhead and their habitat throughout their nativeand introduced ranges. This unique partnership in-cludes The Conservation Angler, Fly Fishers Interna-tional, Steelhead Society of British Columbia,Skeena Wild, World Salmon Forum, Trout Unlim-ited and Wild Steelhead Coalition. Financial supportis provided by partner organizations, individuals, clubsand corporations. The Osprey is published three timesa year in January, May and September. All materialsare copyrighted and require permission prior toreprinting or other use.

Steelhead Society of British Columbia

A Changing Climate and Steelhead in Mid-SkagitRiver Tributaries

By Bill McMillan

Hatchery Steelhead Replacing Wild Redbands on Deschutes River Tributaries (and other problems)

By Jim Yuskavitch

Managing Thompson River Steelhead to Zero

By Bob Hooton

6

12

18

3

4

5

21

Columns & News

Features

From the Perch — Editor’s Message

Hits and Misses — Chair’s Corner

Letters to the Editor

Fish Watch: Wild Fish News, Issues and Initiatives

Cover Photo Courtesy NASA

Inset Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

http://www.jimyuskavitch.com

mailto:[email protected]

https://flyfishersinternational.org

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org

http://skeenawild.org

http://www.theconservationangler.com

www.wildsteelheaders.com

https://www.worldsalmonforum.org

http://www.steelheadsociety.org

FROM THE PERCH — EDITOR’S MESSAGE

January 2019 • Issue No. 92 3

Singing the Shutdown Blues by Jim Yuskavitch

How The Osprey Helps Wild FishThe Osprey has been bringing the lat-est science, policy, opinion and newsstories to its readers supporting wildPacific salmon and steelhead conserva-tion and management for 31 years. Butwe are much more than a publicationthat you subscribe to because of yourown interest in wild fish conservation.The funds we receive from our sub-scribers allows us send The Osprey towild fish conservation decision-makersand influencers including scientists,fisheries managers, politicians and wildfish advocates.

So when you subscribe/donate to TheOsprey, you not only receive a subscrip-tion yourself, but you also help us putThe Osprey into the hands of the peoplewe need bring to our side to save ourwild fish.Please go to the subscription/donationform on page 23 or on-line athttp://www.theconservationangler.comand donate whatever you are able.Thank you.

Jim YuskavitchEditor, The Osprey

Sending The Osprey todecision makers is key to our wild fish

conservation advocacy.Your support makes

that possible.

As I write this column, it’sthe 31st day of the partialgovernment shutdown, setoff, as we all know by now,by a political dispute over

whether or not to build a wall along theUS-Mexico border. And believe it or not, the shutdown

has even affected The Osprey, causinga delay in some articles being turned inbecause authors affiliated with shut-tered federal agencies were among theapproximately 800,000 furloughedworkers or the peer-review processheld up. While The Osprey is often critical ofgovernment management of our wildPacific salmon and steelhead, many ofour authors are government scientists,and many of the ideas for stories origi-nate in federally-funded research.And even though conservationists andwild fish advocates have many con-cerns and disagreements with govern-ment oversight of natural resources,neverthelesss, the shutdown has alsohighlighted how important agenciessuch as the National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration, US Fish andWildlife Service, US Forest Service, Bu-reau of Land Management, NationalPark Service and Environmental Pro-tection Agency are to the nation’s pub-licly-owned fish, wildlife, water andland.Perhaps the most disturbing stories ofthe negative impacts of the shutdown

come from our national parks. Camp-grounds are littered with garbage,overflowing restrooms and at leastsome people ignoring park rules thathelp protect their fragile environments.Visitors have been spotted (and some-times photographed) walking off board-walks onto sensitive meadows in

Yosemite National Park and lettingtheir dogs run free with wildlife at Yel-lowstone. Perhaps the most disturbingreports come from Joshua Tree Na-tional Park where people have driventheir off-road vehicles across thedesert, churning up the fragile soil, andat least one incident of someone knock-ing down an ancient Joshua Tree. Insome cases, environmental damageperpetrated during the shutdown maytake decades or longer to recover — ifever. Here in central Oregon where I live,

who knows what kinds of damage is

being done in the forest with a reducedpresence of Forest Service staff wherefirewood theft and poaching ESA-listedbull trout are ongoing problems.In addition, the shutdown has post-

poned wildfire-related work such asfirefighter training and planning forprescribed burns to reduce fire dangerin western national forests. That couldtranslate into bigger, harder-to-extin-guish fires this summer with poten-tially severe consequences for wild fishand fish habitat.At least for now, I’ve not heard of any

direct damage being done to wild Pa-cific salmon and steelhead fisheries be-cause of the shutdown, but whenagencies such as NOAA and the US Fishand Wildlife Service are closed or sev-erly cut back, it doesn’t help any. Nei-ther does it help when agencies like theUS Forest Service and Bureau of LandManagement that play important rolesin managing and restoring wild fishhabitat are in the same boat. But if theshutdown is reinstated, we will surelysee more repercussions for our wildfish resources.There wasn’t much wild fish advo-

cates could do to change the situation.But as we work to move the natural re-source agencies to better and more ef-fective wild fish conservation andrecovery policies, we also need to rec-ognize the key role they play to eventu-ally reach those goals.

Even The Ospreywasn’t spared the negative impact

of the government shutdown.

http://www.theconservationangler.org/osprey.html

In this and future issues of TheOsprey, I will briefly touch onconcurrent successes and fail-ures regarding wild steelheadand salmon management. Sadly,

setbacks typically outweigh progress,in large part because managementagencies remain wedded to policies andpractices that not only haven’t worked,but have been demonstrably counter-productive. This general observation isparticularly true regarding hatcheryand harvest practices over which man-agement agencies have direct controlyet persist with actions that, basedupon observable results, are positivelycounter-productive and harmful.

HITSAtlantic Salmon Net Pen Phase Out

Washington State decides to phase outall open water Atlantic salmon net pensby 2025 as current aquaculture com-pany leases expire and will not be re-newed. This is huge and leaves BritishColumbia as the only remaining mis-guided authority permitting these envi-ronmental disasters to continue. Evenin BC, under pressure from First Na-tions and local advocates, BroughtonArchipelago net pens will be closedover the next five years.

Columbia and Snake Rivers Wild Steel-head Conservation

Faced with the lowest projected wildsteelhead returns, especially SnakeRiver B-runs, Washington and Oregonfish and wildlife commissions estab-lished a set of coldwater refugia on thelower Columbia River, where there arein-flows of cold water, to protect mi-grating fish that congregate in those lo-cations. Idaho declined to enact anyconservation measure to protect histor-ically meager wild steelhead runs,which prompted a coalition of conser-vation organizations to sue because theIdaho Department of Fish and Gamedid not have Endangered Species Actpermits to conduct any steelhead fish-

ery. Indeed, Idaho had authorized ille-gal fisheries each year since 2010.Under this threat, ID F&G came to theirsenses and agreed to a series of conser-vation measures and submitted a fish-ing plan to the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. But theplan they submitted is more or lessidentical to the last one it submitted in2010. In our view, this plan is deeplyflawed and should not be approved byNOAA without a full-scale federal envi-ronment review. After all the proof is inthe pudding — wild Idaho steelhead areheading for extinction. In any case, theconservation coalition has changed theterms of debate in Idaho. It will nolonger be business as usual.

Selective Harvest

Washington has approved a commer-cial demonstration project of a poundnet in the lower Columbia (see page 21for more information on this exciting,innovative harvest methodology).

MISSESFailure to Protect Wild Salmon andSteelhead

The biggest miss is the on-going andcomplete failure of responsible man-agement agencies to protect wildsalmon and steelhead stocks through-out their American and Canadianranges. Especially shocking are the sta-tus of stocks in the most productive sys-tems — Sacramento, Columbia/Snake,Fraser, Dean and Skeena. For example,Columbia basin wild salmon and steel-head are in grave trouble, with manystocks facing high risk of near-term ex-tirpation and hundreds of locallyadapted stocks already extinct becausetheir migration corridors are blockedby high, impassable dams. In aggre-gate, current wild Columbia salmon andsteelhead populations are no more thanabout 1% and more likely about .25 of1% of historic abundance. All survivingstocks have been listed as threatened orendangered under the federal Endan-

gered Species Act for two decades.Over that period, stocks have continuedto decline towards extinction in spite oflegal, ESA requirements that manage-ment agencies must adopt programsand practices to promote their recov-ery. Declines in some stocks such asSnake River wild B-run summer steel-head and Willamette winter run steel-head have been dramatic. For example,wild Willamette winter steelhead re-turns have plummeted from about11,000 to 800-900 in the past ten yearsor so. Similarly, dire conditions apply to in-

terior Fraser River steelhead stockswith current runs to the Thompson andChilcoltin rivers totaling less than 200fish. Response of the Canadian Depart-ment of Fisheries and Oceans, Provin-cial authorities and tribal managers isnothing, just business as usual. Evenmore shocking, the reported First Na-tion landings of steelhead is one. Let merepeat that — one. This doesn’t evenbegin to pass the laugh test.Many FN fisheries are completely un-monitored by federal, provincial ortribal enforcement personnel. Checkout these photos of a typical fish wasteincident. Contrary to official Depart-ment of Fisheries and Oceans and FirstNations statements that the fish are col-lected, they are not. No DFO or FN en-forcement folks show up, but FN folkstry to minimize the impact by throwing

Continued on next page

4 The Osprey

HITS & MISSES — CHAIR’S CORNER

Net Pens Out, Salmon WastedBy Pete Soverel

Here’s one the First Nations monitorsmissed. Photo courtesy Symon Kirchner

the wasted fish into the river. These fish are all males. The femaleshave been stripped for their roe whilemales are simply discarded. Wantmore?

Over the next several issues, The Os-prey will feature issues related toUS/Canadian tribal/First Nations fish-eries: how they are authorized; alloca-tions fixed; monitored; enforced and;conservation issues related to doubledipping — tribal fishers who fish in

commercial open-ers, tribal openers,subsistence openersand so on. The firstof that series is byBob Hooton ad-dressing ThompsonRiver steelhead be-ginning on page 6.

Pete Soverel isChair of The OspreyManagement Com-mittee, and Presi-dent and Founder ofThe ConservationAngler.


Continued from previous page

LETTERS TO THE EDITORMy Heart Leaped

Dear Editor:

My heart leaped up when I beheld the lovely new magazine named The Osprey in beautiful black and white with the fine fish-hunting hawk in what looked to me as an osprey in dive, not on a salmonid but on fish opinion of the world. Each article, especially Jack Stanford and Rick Williams' The Efficacy and Role of Hatcheries in Securing the Future of PacificRim Wild Salmon, expressed The Osprey's long, long effort to bring facts, bring science to the many stubbornly ignorant whostill have control of managing salmonids in this part of the world. It has been a long, hard slog on the part of The Ospreyman-agers and editors. A slog that has to continue so long as salmonids swim and struggle to replicate their kinds.I say bravo to editor Jim Yuskavitch for his excellent work and bravo to Chair Pete Soverel for foresight, efforts and skills inuplifting and maintaining The Osprey. If I may I also give kudos to John Sager, who eons ago struggled with the then primitivecomputers and my rush-rush editorial efforts to get the newsletter known as The Osprey out to hands waiting for science aboutthe destinies of the fish who honor us with their presences.

Jack de YongeNew Jersey

Editor’s Note: Jack de Yonge was a long-time member of the Steelhead Committee and editor of The Osprey from 1990 to 1993.

Making a Difference

Dear Editor:

I wish to thank you on your article by Jack Stanford and Rick Williams (The Efficacy and Role of Hatcheries in Securing theFuture of Pacific Rim Wild Salmon, September 2018). It clarified my thoughts on hatcheries. I was very pleased as it answeredmy many questions I have had over the years concerning hatcheries. When one has an animal that is so predictable as salmon,why screw it up? Watching those minnows swim round and round in a tank, it is amazing to me that they find their way home atall. I have said to myself while watching them, good bye to biodiversity. I certainly hope that your international journal willhelp make a difference.

Mike HarrisComox, British Columbia

Male salmon left to rot along the Fraser River, British Colum-bia. Photo courtesy Symon Kirchner

Male salmon discarded along the FraserRiver, British Columbia. Photo courtesySymon Kirchner



6 The Osprey

Managing Thompson River Steelhead to ZeroAn in-depth look at a legendary river’s wild steelhead crisis

By Robert Hooton

Readers of The Osprey areno doubt aware there hasbeen a steadily developingconservation crisis with re-spect to British Columbia’s

revered Thompson River steelhead(TRS). The evolution of issues andprocesses surrounding those fish andtheir status is difficult to stay abreastof but it’s worth a snapshot circa late2018 nonetheless.I suspect an early question that will

surface among readers of these com-ments is why would a little-known, free-lance, long retired governmentfisheries biologist sound off in anAmerican based conservation orientedpublication on a Canadian issue? Twoanswers – first, there is no similar pub-lication north of the 49th parallel withanywhere near the reach of The Osprey.Second, Thompson River steelhead arean international treasure. They know noborders. The anglers who have experi-enced them are brothers and sisters ofa common mother. To a one they aredeeply concerned this one of a kindsteelhead population is on the brink ofextirpation. Canadian politicians seemoblivious to that fact. They need to beeducated and held accountable for theirnegligence and dereliction of duty. Themore I can do to educate the broadestpossible constituency in the hope thatenough pressure can be brought to bearto actually do something to arrest thedemise of those fish, the better I willsleep.I should clarify right at the outset thatTRS are one of a group of steelhead, in-cluding Thompson, Chilcotin, Nahat-latch, Bridge, Seton and Stein,originating from tributaries of the mid-dle reaches of the Fraser River up-stream from Boston Bar (about 150miles upstream from Vancouver). Thisgroup is identified as Interior FraserSteelhead (IFS) on the basis of commongenetics. The focus on the Thompsonhere and now is because the other IFSstocks have been so depressed for solong they have disappeared from thesteelhead landscape. The ChilcotinRiver stock, for example, is now

smaller than the southern resident orcapopulation but how many people haveever heard of those steelhead? The onlyfish left to fight for are the Thompson’s.For perspective, consider a commentby a retired professional colleagueupon receiving the most recent statusreport on TRS. “J---- C-----, there aremore people on the distribution list thanthere are steelhead!”

Some Background

TRS are not just a unique stock amongthe 450 or more separately identifiable

stocks in British Columbia. That habit-ually applied word falls well short ofrecognizing the stature of these fish.They are big, they have a long knowngenetic make-up that imparts superiorswimming performance (i.e. they com-monly fight like hell) and they arrive ina river with enough volume and gradi-ent during the season when water tem-perature optimizes aggressiveness.Together these are the attributes thatunderlie those frequent numerous ac-counts of epic angling encounters. Roadaccess, accommodation and servicesimmediately at hand and all within aday trip of Vancouver — where else hassuch a combination of features been soreadily available in modern times? Ithelps that the river is classified, guid-ing is forbidden and boats have been arelatively minor feature of the fisheryfor most of its history. The most pre-

ferred stretch of the river around theconfluence of its major tributary, theNicola River, was ruled out of boundsfor fishing from a boat decades ago.The TRS fishery does not have any-

where near the longevity of other leg-endary fisheries such as those ofseveral California streams, Oregon’sUmpqua and Deschutes rivers , Wash-ington’s Skagit or Idaho’s Clearwater. Itonly emerged on the angling sceneafter the Second World War and the im-provements in road access through theFraser Canyon and beyond. By then theThompson’s steelhead had already beensubjected to 75 years of commercialfishing by fleet sizes that dwarf thoseof the present. Seasons bracketed theentire spawner immigration timing aswell as the kelt emigration period. Theonly things that ever constrained com-mercial gill netting of the mainstemFraser all through its tidal reaches inthose years was winter ice and the de-bris that accompanied headwaterssnowmelt in spring.It wasn’t until the late 1970s that the

first attempts to establish steelheadabundance commenced. The estimatesfrom that point forward are best illus-trated by material developed by theprovincial steelhead management biol-ogists. The low point in Figure 1 represents

the final number of steelhead (150) es-timated to have made it to spawning inthe spring of 2018. Clearly that is theall time low. The prediction for 2019 isonly marginally higher. The three zones identifying spawner

populations theoretically required tomeet abundance levels that would ac-commodate different sport fishingmanagement regulations. Those zonesand the theory behind them are de-scribed in a 2016 document titled“Provincial Framework for SteelheadManagement in BC”. For those who areinterested in reviewing that frame-work, it can be found at:http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/docs/Provincial-Framework-for-Steelhead-Management-in-BC-April-2016.pdf


Thompson River steelhead are an

international treasure. Anglers who have

experienced them aredeeply concerned theywill soon be extirpated.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/docs/Provincial-Framework-for-Steelhead-Management-in-BC-April-2016.pdf




Stated simply and in the context of thestatus of Thompson River steelhead, alla person needs to know is the thresholdfor falling into that “extreme conserva-tion concern zone” is the stock is at lessthan 10% of the abundance needed toseed the steelhead producing habitat ofits river of origin. Moreover, that isonly in a perfect world where the ratioof males to females is optimal and the

spawners are distributed perfectly overthe total available steelhead-producinghabitat. What are those odds? If you’relike me, you’ll probably wonder why ariver system whose stock specific Chi-nook and sockeye salmon escapementtargets number in the thousands andtens of thousands (even hundreds ofthousands in the case of Adams Riversockeye), respectively, is expected to

recover when less than half of such apathetically low escapement goal isbeing realized. Such a number obvi-ously fails to accommodate any sportfishery. It also implies that if by somestoke of luck the stock ever did recoverto that level or anything beyond, itwould be entirely acceptable to fish thestock right back down to that level. As we will see below, the people who

prepared and signed off on the steel-head management framework have vir-tually no ability to move ThompsonRiver steelhead out of the extreme con-servation concern zone. That is not a re-flection on their commitment ordedication but merely a statement onthe political realities of the times.

Jurisdictions

Multiple jurisdictions with competingmandates and objectives are never arecipe for effective resource manage-ment. Any British Columbia steelheadthat approaches fresh water in timesand places where commercial and FirstNation (FN) fisheries are prevalentface major obstacles in that respect.

The federal government’s Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has do-main over all recreational, commercialand FN fisheries in both marine andfreshwater environments. However, ad-ministration of the freshwater recre-ational fishery has been delegated tothe Province of British Columbia. On



Figure 1. The estimated pre-fishery abundance of Thompson and Chilcotin steelheadfrom the time provincial government biologists first began concerted efforts to makethose estimates to the present. Thompson steelhead contribute roughly 75% ofthese numbers. Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operationsand Rural Development.

Figure 2. Thompson River steelhead spawner abundance. Source: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operationsand Rural Development.

8 The Osprey

surface that would appear manageable.It isn’t and it is getting worse in that re-spect.Within the provincial government hi-

erarchy there are now multiple min-istries (the provincial analogue of USfederal departments) with a stake in thefuture of TRS. The ministry most peo-ple assume is in charge is Forests,Lands, Natural Resource Operationsand Rural Development (FLNRORD).(How’s that title for emasculating fish-eries management?) In fact, it is an-other Ministry (Agriculture) thatassumes the lead role. That relates tothe Agriculture people being the licens-ing and marketing agency for the com-mercial fish processing industry and itsproducts, including farmed Atlanticsalmon. When steelhead run timingoverlaps that of commercially targetedspecies like sockeye and chum salmon,and pressure is brought to bear on DFOfor announcing commercial and FirstNations net fishery openings that obvi-ously impact Thompson fish, the onlyprovincial voice ever heard by DFOcomes from the Agriculture people.Complicating the picture is the pres-ence of two other provincial ministries— Aboriginal Affairs and Reconcilia-tion and Environment. The former’stitle speaks to its mandate. The latter issupposed to address environmental is-sues but also compliance and enforce-ment. Conservation Officers who at onetime dealt almost exclusively with fish-ing and hunting now spend very littletime on these traditional activities. Both federal and provincial govern-

ments espouse the gospel of the UnitedNations Declaration of the Rights of In-digenous People and trumpet the wordreconciliation at every opportunity. Un-derlying all of that is the Canadian Con-stitution Act (1982) that affirmed andrecognized the rights of aboriginal peo-ple and laid the foundation for the ex-isting order of priority in terms offisheries management, namely, 1) con-servation, 2) food, social and ceremo-nial use by First Nations and 3)commercial and recreational fisheries.The net effect is steelhead simply donot warrant anything other than lipservice from either federal or provin-cial governments. The emergence of a third and equal

level of government, First Nations, hasbecome an integral component of life inCanada. Between our constitutional ob-ligations and multiple court decisionspursuant to them we find ourselves in

an era where we are compelled to have“free and informed prior consent” forany resource management decisionsperceived to impact First Nations. Inthe context of managing fisheries thatinfluence the status of Thompson Riversteelhead, this manifests itself in DFObeing compelled to consult and negoti-ate any fishery that might have bearingon those fish. Between DFO’s chronicnegligence and denial with respect tothe influence of fisheries under its ju-risdiction on steelhead and the largenumber of individual FNs spread alongthe TRS migration corridor, such a sys-tem cannot possibly reduce pressure onthose fish.

Management

No one can influence the number ofThompson bound steelhead departingcentral North Pacific pastures. Our in-tervention begins when they enter thesouth coast waters of BC and must passthrough seine and gill net fleets. Thefish have two possible migration corri-dors to Mother Fraser. One is down theoutside of Vancouver Island and aroundits southern tip, through Juan de FucaStrait and into the river. The other is in-side down through Johnstone Strait (seemap). In earlier years the split betweeninside and outside routes was importantbecause mixed stock net fisheries offNitinat (near the entrance to Juan deFuca Strait) intercepted Thompsonbound fish. More recently those netshave been moved inshore and presentlydo not appear to impact TRS. The otherfisheries, the Johnstone Strait gill netand seine fisheries are much moreproblematic. When unleashed by DFOto harvest late returning sockeyesalmon and, immediately thereafter,chum salmon, TRS are exposed. Genetics work and salmon focused

test fisheries conducted by DFO and

the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)have provided all the necessary back-ground to understand when and whereTRS steelhead are encountered. ThePSC test fishing sites are located on thefollowing maps. The DFO sites arefewer but also cover Johnstone Straitand the lower Fraser River. The stan-dard method of estimating the in-sea-son abundance of TRS for at least thelast 30 years is the chum test fisherythat DFO runs at Albion, at essentiallythe same location as Whonnock on themaps on the following page. Management of the fisheries that im-pact TRS most has nothing to do withtheir abundance. Despite their status asendangered and recommended for list-ing under Canada’s Species At Risk Act,not a single fishery under the jurisdic-tion of DFO and known to impact thosesteelhead has ever been adjusted ac-cordingly. Talk yes, adjustments no.The only fisheries that are ever man-aged according to anticipated abun-dance of target species are thosefocused on chum and sockeye salmon.International treaties force that ap-proach for sockeye while the price ofchum roe is the primary driver of thelatter. These remarks speak only to thecommercial fishery interception ofsteelhead. The other fishery of greatersignificance today is the First Nationsfishery that occurs everywhere fromthe mouth of the Fraser and all alongthe migration corridor of TRS, all theway to Kamloops Lake. Keep in mindthere are also FNs fishing with eitherowned or contracted vessels that par-take of regular commercial fisheries intidal waters, both near shore andthrough the tidal areas of the lowerFraser itself. There is also a docu-mented fishery by FN anglers targetingTRS in the Thompson River itself in thewinter months. Whereas the textbook description of

fisheries management implies knowl-edge of target species abundance, har-vest safely available, a system ofadministering and quantifying harvestand adequate monitoring of complianceto ensure harvest is not exceeded, thatis clearly not the case for steelhead.Last year was a prime example. Therewere exactly two steelhead encoun-tered by DFO’s Albion test fishery be-tween October 1 and its termination onNovember 23. Alarm bells were ringingloudly for three weeks before that. Yet,DFO called multiple seine and gill netopenings in Johnstone Strait and fur-ther south before and since. Worse still,



DFO’s denial of the influence of

commercial and FirstNations fisheries

cannot reduce pressureon Thompson River

steelhead.


the legally sanctioned FN fisherieswhich were mandated as beach seinesonly (because they are deemed to be“selective”) all through the late return-ing Adams River sockeye run timingwere promptly replaced by gill net fish-eries targeting chum salmon as soon asthe sockeye were thought to be past.The fact that the chum and steelheadrun timing overlap never enters theconsciousness of the people who controlthose fisheries. The legal FN fisheries are only part

of the story of the impact of their fish-eries on TRS. Beyond DFO authorizedfisheries there is a very obvious un-sanctioned fishery that no one has ever

dealt with successfully. There are mul-tiple eye witness descriptions and anabundance of photographic and videoevidence of FN net fisheries accountingfor large numbers of salmon, often-times with nothing more taken than theroe from chums. These accounts typi-cally elicit expressions of righteous in-dignation from FN leaders andcommitments to deal with transgres-sors. No one seems able to provide evi-dence that ever happens or that thefrequency of incidents has diminished.The politics involved preclude the in-tervention of DFO enforcement offi-cers as anything more thanmessengers.In terms of quantifying the impact ofany of the net fisheries on TRS (or anyothers in British Columbia) the formal

records are embarrassing.For example, the publishedDFO tally of FN territory byterritory, week by week har-vest of steelhead between themouth of the Fraser and thelower Fraser Canyon (~115miles) over the entire periodwhen interior bound steel-head would be expected to bepresent (September 1through early November)over the past four years istwo fish (one in 2018 and onein 2016). There are norecords whatsoever for thesubstantial FN fisheries thatoccur anywhere upstream,nor is there any acknowl-edgement of that previouslymentioned harvest of TRS byFN anglers who fish theThompson in winter. Squarethat with DFO’s records ofsteelhead caught by its Al-bion chum test fishery. Inmaking two sets per day (onehour each), often only on al-ternate days the single testfishery net caught 28 steel-head in that same period. The reported commercial

catch of steelhead is no bet-ter. Commercial fisherslearned long ago that ac-knowledgement of actualsteelhead catch could neverbe to their benefit. DFO isfully aware of the deficien-cies of their published catchdata but has never footnotedor qualified its own numbers.Over time, they are inter-preted and applied as iron-clad evidence of no problem

by those whose interest is not served bydisclosure or conservation. Alaska fig-ured it out many years ago when the in-terception of Skeena origin steelheadby its net fleets in Districts 104 and 106(Southeast Alaska) was brought to light.They made that issue disappear quicklywith the simple measure of forbiddingthe landing and retention of steelhead.No data equals no problem.In terms of summarizing fisheries

management and how it is prosecutedin relation to TRS (and, in fact, steel-head in general), the description isquite simple: The recreational fisheryin times and places where TRS arelikely to be encountered has beenclosed since 2017. For many years be-fore that the Thompson itself was reg-



Source: Pacific Salmon Commission

10 The Osprey

ulated on a single barbless hook, artifi-cial lure only, catch and release basis.No credible case can be made that fish-ery has had any impact on TRS returnsover that period and more. The recre-ational fishers swallowed the bitter pillof closure because DFO contended theycould not restrict the FN fisheries ifany recreational fishery remainedopen. Given the extent of the sanc-tioned and unsanctioned fisheries theFN community has been conducting onthe Fraser River this year, one can onlyask how DFO passes the red face testfor conservation after the recreationalfishers, the least impactful by far, havevoluntarily stopped fishing.

Anecdotal Observations

Thompson River steelhead arerenowned for their size, as indicatedpreviously. They are also on the highend of the fecundity spectrum. That hasbeen a large part of the rationale forsuch low thresholds for the aforemen-tioned zones of conservation concernand extreme conservation concern.There is a very important pattern evi-dent, however. The maximum size ofTRS has been on a downward trend forthe past 40 years. From those trophywinning weights in the high 20-poundclass and frequently breaking 30pounds up until 1978, the maximum sizehas dropped steadily to range betweenthe high teens and low 20s since about1990. In fact the weight of the largeststeelhead sampled by the provincial bi-ologists since 1990 was about 25 poundsand there have been only four otheryears since then where the largest fishrecorded reached 22 pounds. None ofthe fish sampled in the last four yearsexceeded 20 pounds. Predictably, therehas been a corresponding decline in thenumber of recruits per spawner, frombetween 9 and 13 in the mid-1980s to

less than 1 in the past 2 years. The age composition of TRS has not

changed, so the decline in maximumsize can only be related to growth atsea. This is a mirror image of wild Chi-nook stocks along the Pacific coast. InSoutheast Alaska there is a long-termdata set on wild fish originating from alarge number of streams whose habitatis unaltered over the period of record.The pattern of declining size at age isalso common there. Commensuratewith that there has been a major reduc-tion in the age composition of femalespawners. Formerly dominant 4 to 6

year olds have been replaced by 3 yearolds whose fecundity and average eggsize translates to escapement require-ments far in excess of what they weregiven the original age composition of

the stock. These stocks are sub-ject to fishing mortality at sea,however, and that has much to dowith declines in the number offish that reach age 4 to 6.Whereas TRS do not display de-clining age at spawning becausethey don’t get harvested by com-mercial fisheries to the same ex-tent as Alaska Chinook they doexhibit declining size at age. The other steadily accumulat-

ing evidence of problems at seaconcerns the potential overload-ing of the entire north Pacificand Gulf of Alaska ecosystemwith hatchery origin chum and

pink salmon. Alaska’s ocean ranchingproponents are no small part of thatproblem but Japan’s chum hatcheriesare an even bigger issue. A ten-fold in-crease in hatchery chum output overthe period of record has been shown toinfluence the primary food items avail-able to both Chinook and steelhead. Theultimate link to TRS occurs when thereturns of enhanced Japanese chumfail, as they did in 2018, driving the de-mand for chum roe from this side of thePacific upward. The commensuraterise in price of that luxury product en-courages ever more targeting of ma-

ture chums for nothing more than theireggs. The most concentrated fisheryfor those chums occurs in the estuariesand rivers of southwestern BC. Whenthere are 150 TRS migrating through


Variable Commercial First Nations Recreational

Harvest Management Low Nil High

Catch Accounting Low Nil Moderate

Enforcement Nil Nil High

Level of control exercised by managers and fishery that influences abundance ofThompson River steelhead


A close up of the annual Thompson River steelhead trophy derby winners of yester-year and the weights of their winning fish. Those are the kinds of steelhead the Thomp-son once produced. Photo by Robert Hooton.

Source: Robert Hooton


the same waters as a million chumsalmon (the DFO forecast for southcoast chum salmon in 2018) the addic-tion to the lucrative chum roe fisherytrumps conservation. The point in raising declining size at

age of TRS is to emphasize the impor-tance of increasing escapement, notjust to previously calculated thresh-olds, but to levels well beyond to offsetthe negative influence smaller andfewer eggs on recruitment of smoltsand, eventually, adults. Given the pointon the stock recruitment curve TRS areat, the only logical method of improvingtheir status is reducing harvest to en-sure the fish that do begin a homewardjourney from their ocean feedinggrounds arrive on redds. The other instructive piece of data

that I see no evidence has ever beenconsidered in debates around manage-able factors influencing the number ofTRS making it home is the annualcounts of summer steelhead in the Co-quihalla River, a coastal summer steel-head tributary of the Fraser about 100miles east of Vancouver. To those whocontend seals are responsible for popu-lation declines because they eat all thesmolts and/or that ocean productivity,not nets is the limiting factor, I sayplease explain the figure on this page.Coquihalla smolts exit the Fraser at

the same time and via the same route asTRS smolts. Logically, they occupy thesame ocean at the same time and travelthe same migration routes on their re-turn. The argument that the TRS habi-tat has been seriously compromiseddoesn’t hold up either. The Coquihallahas suffered far more habitat abusethan any part of the Thompson. Fur-thermore, the steelhead producing areaof the Coquihalla is a tiny fraction ofthe Thompson’s. The only differencebetween the two stocks is the Coqui-halla fish travel through BC coastal wa-ters and the lower Fraser before the netfisheries for salmon are underway.They enter the Fraser during runoffwhen high water and debris limit FNfisheries even if there was enoughearly returning Chinook salmon left toinvite netting effort at that time.Whereas we have no hope of influenc-ing ocean rearing conditions and littleprospect of harvesting enough pin-nipeds to make any difference (even ifthey were proven to be a problem forTRS) we can exercise full control overnets if we are serious about conserva-tion.

Processes

The one big lesson we should havelearned by now it is that process isnever an answer. It would take no smallbook to list the number of governmentand non-government sponsored groups,organizations, societies, associations,councils, alliances, secretariats, etc.that have engaged in many dozens atleast of meetings, symposiums, sum-mits, conferences, or whatever, all withthe intent of conserving ThompsonRiver steelhead. I challenge anyone in-volved in any of those processes to pro-duce evidence a single TRS has beensaved as a result. Even a submission bythe University of Victoria’s Environ-mental Law Center on behalf of BC’slargest fish and wildlife advocacy or-ganization, the BC Wildlife Federation,to Canada’s Auditor General requestingan examination of Canada’s failure toprotect endangered Pacific salmon andsteelhead under its own Species at RiskAct (SARA) has gone unanswered formore than seven months.The future of TRS rests with the ulti-mate process now unfolding. That is theDFO facilitated public consultation onthe recommendation of Canada’s desig-nated science community experts(COSEWIC) to proceed with the SARAlisting of the stock group, InteriorFraser Steelhead, which ThompsonRiver steelhead dominate — all 150 of

them — as endangered.The ultimate decision will not rest onthe worth of Thompson River steelheadas an angling treasure or on their sym-bol as the canary in the coal mine. In-stead, it will almost certainly center onthe sheer economics of conservation. Ifone wades through the plethora of ma-terial DFO has put in circulation, theonly conclusion likely is the cost-bene-fit of conserving TRS is daunting. Sig-nificantly constraining, much lessending, lucrative commercial and FirstNations fisheries for the sake of 150steelhead whose only supporters are abunch of anglers who can’t get on thesame page and have taken themselvesout of the equation by agreeing to ceasefishing, is a pretty unlikely outcome.

Robert Hooton retired as supervisor ofthe Fish and Wildlife Section for theBritish Columbia Ministry of Environ-ment’s Vancouver Island Regional Of-fice in 2008.


Source: Coquihalla River snorkel survey, Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Re-source Operations and Rural Development

12 The Osprey

A Changing Climate and SteelheadThe race for survival in Washington’s mid-Skagit tributaries

By Bill McMillan

After ten years of conduct-ing independent spawningsurveys at five mid-SkagitRiver Basin tributarycreeks in Washington

State, several salmon and steelheadspawning year proved particularly re-vealing for steelhead. The findingssuggest that while a warming climatemay increase steelhead spawning mor-tality in Washington State’s SkagitRiver tributaries, natural selection mayalso increase overall survival by select-ing for earlier spawning fish, especiallyas the Washington Department of Fishand Wildlife phases out planting ofhatchery fish.From the first fall rains with salmon

entry, until the end of steelhead spawn-ing in latter May or early June, I haveconducted independent spawning sur-veys since 2009/10 at five primary MidSkagit River tributary streams (O’-Toole, Mill, Savage, Finney, and Drycreeks). 2018/19 is the 10th year ofdoing so. In three of the most recentfour survey years, the probable effectsof progressing climate change havebeen particularly evident. Particularlydry periods in April/May have resultedin those tributary creeks that are inter-mittent going dry earlier than occurredin the past 20 years of living near thesestreams. Two of these go dry every year(Savage and Dry creeks), and one someyears but not others (Mill Creek). Fur-thermore, one of the perennial tributar-ies has numerous side channels that areintermittent and are going dry earlierthan in the past (Finney Creek). Onlyone of the five streams regularly sur-veyed has been relatively unaffected inrecent years from its past history ofbeing perennial throughout and cool offlow (O’Toole Creek). The first year ofparticularly dramatic change occurredin the flow patterns in the spring of2015 that happened to also coincidewith a significant increase in returningwild steelhead spawning at two of thefive tributaries (O’Toole and Finneycreeks). The report that follows waswritten at the end of the 2015 spawningseason. It was distributed to a rela-

tively long list of people responsible forSkagit Basin fisheries management,and to those known to otherwise haveinterests in Skagit Basin steelhead andwhat recovery progress may, or maynot, be occurring. The report providesa discussion of what was found in thespring of 2015 and what the implica-tions for the steelhead future may befor similar steelhead spawning streamsin the Skagit Basin. Since 2015 the wild steelhead spawn-

ing returns to Finney and O’Toolecreeks have continued to greatly in-crease, more modestly increased at

Mill Creek, slightly increased at SavageCreek, and have significantly declinedat Dry Creek. Savage and Dry creeksare the most severely affected by inter-mittency duration, where past hatcherysteelhead spawning was most fre-quently observed, and with the least ev-idence of wild recovery progress todate. A great contrast in wild steelheadrecovery progress is evident in the fivemid-Skagit tributaries regularly sur-veyed. The evidence suggests that re-covery progress can differ by specifictributary hydrological characteristics,and by past hatchery steelhead interac-tion history.

The spawning return at FinneyCreek was greater than any in the re-cent past to comparatively draw from(past high 20 redds found in 2014 com-pared to 101 redds in 2015). This in-crease in spawning evidence providedthe opportunity to draw more conclu-

sions from the observations made. Italso coincided with weather and streamflow conditions that may provide aglimpse of what the increasing effectsof climate change will result in the com-ing 10 to 50 years and the challengesthat will confront fisheries managersfor effective wild steelhead recovery. As one example, I recorded precipita-tion with a rain gage near the mouth ofSavage Creek’s entry to the mid-SkagitRiver beginning in the fall of 2001. Theaverage rainfall in that time for theApril/May period was 10.456” but in2015 was 6.885”, only 66% of the aver-age. May’s rainfall was only 1.4” in2015 compared to an average of 4.216”,33% of average and the lowest rainfallin 15 recorded Mays. This coincidedwith a winter of little snow accumula-tion, particularly at the lower elevationhills that surround the mid-Skagit Val-ley. Yet, winter rainfall was at leastnormal. High and low temperaturesthroughout Puget Sound’s fall and win-ter were well above normal, causingthis anomaly and divergence from pastwinter trends of normal-to-better snowaccumulation during normal-to-betterrainfall years (see Cliff Mass, Univer-sity of Washington meteorologist, May18, 2015 weather bloghttp://cliffmass.blogspot.com/). Intermittency of stream flows duringthe previous five years of surveys hasbeen identified as a probable primarydriver of steelhead spawning time inmid-Skagit tributaries that begin to godry by late June (Figure 1, from McMil-lan 2015). It was also thought that moregeneral patterns of streamflow varia-tions during the spawning season andwater temperatures also likely con-tributed to steelhead spawning timethat may otherwise vary to some de-gree by these environmental factors —as much as 30 to 40 day differences inspawning time peaks. However, therewere not specific enough streamflowand temperature data taken from whichto find very significant correlations tosteelhead spawning time. Recognizingthis, during each spawning survey at

Findings suggest thata warming climate

may increase spawningmortality, but natural selection may alsoincrease overall

survival.


http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/


each creek during the full extent of theOctober 2014 through May 2015salmon/steelhead spawning season,water and air temperatures were me-thodically taken. Although it remainsthat tools to determine daily stream-flows were not available, the tempera-ture data taken compared to whethersteelhead spawned earlier (prior toMarch 15th) or later (after March 15th)helps to further explain some of thevariations in steelhead spawning timeassociated with intermittent streams

(Figure 2). Although Finney Creek appears to bean outlier in an otherwise greater per-centage of early steelhead spawning co-inciding with ascendance of warmeraverage water temperatures, the highstream temperatures in May of 2015may be particularly anomalous to thoseof the past at Finney Creek. Finney’ssource is considerably higher elevationthan the other four creeks surveyedwith more commonly lingering effectsof snowmelt to its flow than at the oth-ers. But this year there was little suchcontribution to Finney Creek’s flowafter April. Also, in January and muchof February, Finney Creek posed diffi-

culties for me to do spawning surveys,which was often high with turbid flows.This may have resulted in lack of find-ing better evidence of early spawningthat may have actually occurred. Thiswas not similarly a constraint on thesmaller creeks.Particularly revealing from the watertemperature data taken in 2014/2015are those of Savage Creek just below alarge pond as compared to those meas-ured just above it, and to those ofFinney Creek (Figure 3). During mostof the fall and winter, Savage Creekbelow the pond was about one degreeFahrenheit (F) warmer than just abovethe pond. However, after cold spellsduring which Savage Pond had icedover and the ice remained for severaldays even after the weather warmed, itresulted in lingering colder tempera-tures by a degree or two (F) below thepond than above it. By mid-March thetemperatures below the pond began toincreasingly diverge with greaterwarmth from those above the pond. Asmuch as intermittency, these rapidlywarming temperatures may result indiscontinuation of most steelhead entryfor spawning purposes into SavageCreek as evidenced by nearly all steel-head spawning there being prior toMarch 15th (94% overall in the period of2010-2014, and 100% in both 2014 and2015). At Finney Creek, water temperatureswere often colder in winter than eitherlocation at Savage Creek. However, be-ginning in early May it began to quicklydiverge from Savage Creek above thepond and by the end of May was nearlyas warm as Savage Creek below thepond where heat accumulates in thepond from mid-March onward. This islikely explained to a large extent by theextremely dry May with resulting rapiddiminishment of Finney Creek streamflow due to lack of snow accumulationin its headwaters. Finney Creek in lateMay of 2015 exhibited flows more char-acteristic of late July in previous years.Due to past logging that has resulted ina very wide stream channel that is fullyexposed to sunlight, without snowmeltcontribution, its water temperaturesrapidly reached the mid-60 F range bylate May. There has been little, if any,prior climate history to which FinneyCreek steelhead have adapted fromwhich to adjust to this rapid shift instream flow conditions of May 2015.The streamflow height remained suffi-cient for steelhead to enter from the Sk-agit River until late May, but spawning

Figure 1

Figure 2



14 The Osprey

rapidly dropped off in the final week.May 2015 had a greater proportion ofall spawning than prior years. Finney Creek and O’Toole Creek are

the only streams of the five regularlysurveyed that had a continued prospectfor steelhead entry and spawning afterthe first week in May 2015. UnlikeFinney, O’Toole Creek retains a rela-tively cold and sustained flow through-out the summer — at least in the past.It has always been perennial. FinneyCreek, however, diminishes to very lowflows by August combined with late af-ternoon water temperatures that can be70 F or more on days when high air tem-peratures are greaterthan 80 F. Given thepresent diminishment inFinney Creek flow bylate May, it is conceiv-able that parts of lowerFinney Creek’s mainchannel could go dry bylate summer if droughtconditions continue to es-calate. Its numerousside channels have com-monly done so in thepast, sometimes by earlyJune, although not themainstem. Finney Creek steelheadoften have concentratedspawning at side chan-nels, particularly at theirinlet and outlet areas, but

sometimes throughout the channel.Side channels are likely somewhat lessaffected by higher flow events in win-ter and early spring with diminished ef-fects from potential scour.Downwelling or upwelling throughredds at the upper and lower ends ofside channels may also be conducive tohigher egg-to-fry survival. However,2015 proved to be a race of egg-to-fryemergence early enough to be unaf-fected by side channels dewatering. Tosome degree this has occurred before,as had been documented in late May of2014 at a Finney side channel beginningto go dry where young-of-the-yearsteelhead fry were photographed alongwith other species. Although no steel-

head redds were observed in that sidechannel, steelhead fry apparently dis-persed into it from other hatch loca-tions for rearing. Due to the greaterspawning escapement, steelhead uti-lized a greater extent of Finney Creek’savailable spawning gravel in 2015 thanin the past. This included greater useof the side channels. Lower Finney Creek, in a half-mile

section below the entry of Dry Creek,had particularly greater spawning useby later returning steelhead than in thepast. This is despite a main channelshift that left a quarter mile of the for-mer mainstem channel vacated. All thespawning was concentrated into the re-maining final quarter mile of the half-mile total survey length. One sidechannel in that latter quarter mile hadparticularly high steelhead spawninguse. Photos 1 and 2 portray part of thisspawning use as on May 6, and again onMay 28, 2015 showing dramaticchanges in streamflow and the reddsgoing dry. Yet, as shown in Photo 3 thesteelhead fry had already emerged andwere schooled in the bottoms of theseredds. They were still capable of mov-ing downstream to the main channel ofFinney Creek if they outmigrated be-fore this side channel went completelydry. These steelhead fry emergedwithin 21-42 days after the estimatedspawning dates based on how old theredds looked from algal growth onthem. However, based on the size ofsome of the fry that were larger thanothers, their emergence must havebeen 7 days or more earlier with someredds older than estimated.Table 1 shows estimated lengths of

time for steelhead to hatch and to


Figure 3

Temperature Days to Hatch Days to Emerge Total Days to EmergeReference

2 C (35.6 F) 115 --- --- Quinn 20055 C (41 F) 68 --- --- Quinn 20058 C (46.4 F) 42 --- --- Quinn 200511 C (51.8) 28 --- --- Quinn 200514 C (57.2) 22 --- --- Quinn 20055.5 C (41.9) 80 --- --- Hardy 200210 C (50 F) 31 20 51 Hardy 200215 C (59 F) 19 10 29 Shumway et al. 196410 C (50 F) 35* --- --- Shumway et al. 19645 C (41 F) 80 2-3 weeks 94-101 Wales 194115 C (59 F) 19 2-3 weeks 33-40 Wales 194110 C (50 F) 50 --- somewhat later Wydoski & Whitney

1979

Table 1

* Dissolved oxygen considerations from Quinn 2005: decreased O2 delayed hatching at 10 C (50 F)from about 35 days to 40 days in steelhead as cited from Shumway et al. 1964.



emerge from time of egg fertilizationas previously compiled from availableliterature (McMillan 2015). Given thatFinney Creek had water temperaturesat afternoon to evening of 55-65 degreesF throughout the month of May, it ap-parently accelerated the emergencetimes enough to potentially allow fry ofeven relatively later spawning steel-head after mid-March to get out of thegravel and be free-swimming withinthe 21-42 day period since spawningwas estimated to have occurred. Thisis despite the fact that in latter Marchand through much of April the FinneyCreek water temperatures were 41-48degrees at afternoon and evening andwould have slowed development. Theother alternative is that the actual agesof the spawning redds were older thanestimated, which is entirely possible aswell. Nevertheless, it does seem possi-ble that the recently acceleratedwarmth of Finney Creek has resulted ina race between late spawning and di-minishing streamflows that at leastsome of these fry may ultimately win.However, even if the majority, or evenall, lose this race, it will eventually re-sult in a selection for earlier spawningas was found in other side channelareas (Photo 4) and a population thatwill increasingly evolve toward earlierspawning as climate and environmentwill dictate. But this can only occur ifmanagement allows substantial num-bers of steelhead that enter the SkagitRiver early (November to February) toeffectively increase in numbers to fillthe many tributary creeks of the Skagitbasin where intermittent flows will in-creasingly become the norm. Intermit-tency is also becoming earlier. DryCreek (of lower Finney Creek) went dryin its lower 200 feet by May 31, 2015 ascompared to just prior to June 28, 2014.The proportion of overall steelhead

fry in Finney Creek basin that includeone or more parents of hatchery originlikely emerge earliest. It is knownfrom observations of participants on anactive redd at Dry Creek by WDFWsurveyors (pers. comm. Andrew Fowlerof WDFW) that at least one hatcheryorigin male was spawning there with awild female on January 28, 2015. It waspresent on another redd the next daywith a group of 3 other steelhead of un-known sex and origin. At mid SavageCreek (130 m above a large pond) a pos-sible coho redd of very fresh construc-tion was located on February 10, 2015

although its large size suggested possi-ble steelhead as well. At least 9 steel-head fry associated with it werephotographically documented on May5th and again on May 19th (Photo 5). Itwas subsequently determined to be asteelhead redd with fry emergencelikely in April based on their size ofabout 2 inches in length. This confirmsthe need to make collections for steel-head genetic determinations in May atthe early fry life history level if hatch-ery parentage is to be found beforetheir numbers are culled out. Cham-bers Creek origin hatchery steelheadare known to have low survival in thewild and rapid loss would particularlyoccur at the fry stage in intermittentcreeks with no inherent guide toquickly migrate downstream.The observations of what may drive

steelhead spawning at the mid-Skagittributaries and how it may vary bystream, by temperature, and by pres-ence of a pond or lake are nothing par-ticularly new. Much of this has beenfound to be a general rule of thumb forfall spawning salmon as described byQuinn (2005):

“... there is surprisingly little researchon the variation in adult reproductivesuccess as a function of spawning date,and the relationship between fry emer-gence and survival has only recently re-ceived attention. Many researchershave pointed out that populationsspawning in cold rivers do so earlier inthe year than those using rivers withmilder temperatures ... Salmon alsotend to spawn earlier at higher lati-tudes, and this seems to be an adapta-tion of populations to their localenvironment ... For example, the outletsof lakes typically have milder wintertemperatures than their inlets, andsockeye tend to spawn later in the out-lets (Brannon 1987). This presumablyresults in synchrony of emergence be-cause all populations need to strike thesame balance between food availability,temperature, and predator avoidance inthe lake, though this hypothesis is sel-dom really tested.”

However, with winter/spring spawn-ing steelhead, the effects differ some-what as found in mid-Skagit tributaries.There is a reverse effect in thatwarmer streams seem to promote ear-lier spawning, not later, and thepond/lake effect is part of this although,perhaps more importantly, there is a re-

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5



16 The Osprey

lationship of warmer temperatures alsofurther enforced by intermittency offlows. But it gets more complex as there areapparent genetic differences withinpopulations of a species for more orless rapid rates of embryo developmentto emergence (again from Quinn):

“... In addition to variation in develop-mental rates among species and amongrivers as a function of different thermalregimes, there is also variation amongpopulations exposed to the same tem-peratures (e.g., Beacham and Murray1989). For example, Brush Creek, onVancouver Island, has distinct popula-tions of early- and late-spawning chumsalmon. Despite the separation ofspawning dates, all the fry migrate tosea synchronously because the earlypopulation develops slower, for a giventhermal regime, than the later one (Tall-man 1986; Tallman and Healey 1991).”

In the case of the Skagit basin, geneticsampling in 1980 of juvenile steelheadat over 50 areas of the basin found mostof the genetic variation occurred in thesmaller tributaries, not the larger main-stems (Phillips et al. 1981). In fact, eachof the tributary populations appearedgenetically distinct from the others. Inthe case of Finney Creek, and perhapsothers, is it even more complex? Arethere genetically different populationswithin Finney basin as well with differ-ing spawning timings that have differ-ent egg-to-fry emergence rates? It hasbeen found that Dry Creek of lowerFinney basin has a greater percentageof early steelhead spawning than main-stem Finney, but there is also now evi-dence of late spawning steelhead inmainstem Finney Creek that may havevery rapid egg-to-fry development. The recent Finney Creek findings of

rapidly rising water temperatures inMay coinciding with late steelheadspawning thesame monthraises yet anotherquestion regard-ing predicted con-tinuation ofclimate changewith warming. Atwhat upper tem-perature limitdoes steelheadembryo mortalityoccur which mayrender steelhead

spawning unproductive? Yet againfrom Quinn:

“In addition to the rate of developmentand hatching, survival (or mortality ifyou are more pessimistic) is the otherkey issue during the intragravel period.Very low and high temperatures can belethal but are probably not a majorcause of embryo mortality in most situ-ations. Murray and McPhail (1988) in-cubated embryos of the five salmonspecies at 14°, 11°, 8°, 5°, 2°C. Eachspecies had a slightly different pattern(and there is also variation among pop-ulations), but survival was generallypoor at 2°and 14° and good from 5-11°.Salmon generally do not spawn in water

near the upper lethal temperatures, andlethal low temperatures are notreached in most coastal systems ...”

What is the actual lethal high temper-ature threshold for Skagit basin steel-head? Does it differ between themainstem and the tributaries, and fur-ther vary by tributary and even withintributaries? At Savage Creek, very few steelhead

were found to spawn after March 15th in6 years of spawning surveys conductedthere between 2010 to 2015. There mayhave long been a selective factor forthis, although colder water tempera-

tures do occur at Savage Creek abovethe upper large pond it flows throughthan below it. For instance, on May 19the Savage Creek flow just above entryto the pond was 51 F, but just below theoutlet it was 67 F, a 16-degree differ-ence. In the case of Finney Creek,there has been no recent history, atleast in the past 17 years of my residingnear it, of this rapid increase in watertemperatures from late April to the endof May as occurred in 2015 (Table 2).Potentially low survival, or lethal con-ditions may have occurred for embryodevelopment from May 17 onward.This may minimize or even negatesteelhead spawning success that oc-curred throughout May of 2015 inFinney Creek. The only estimates ofembryo survival to water temperaturerelationships were found for salmon,not steelhead. It could be that steelheadembryo development may continue tosuccessfully occur at warmer watertemperatures, or otherwise vary by dif-fering hydrology characteristics of spe-cific tributaries. Nevertheless, it is aparticularly important considerationgiven the predicted future of climatechange and Pacific Northwest condi-tions that may come to resemble thoseof California in the 20th century.

Figure 4 portrays the steelheadspawning at Finney Creek in 2015. Theredds observed were adjusted to reflecttheir estimated spawning dates fromvaried degrees of algal growth on themor other criteria such as filling of reddpits with sediment, or otherwise de-creased definition of the redd. Of theearly spawning that occurred (13%prior to March 15th), it can be antici-pated that 50-67% of the spawning in-cluded hatchery steelhead participantsas found in mid-Skagit tributaries in thefive year period of 2010-2014 from ob-servations of active spawning that thenoccurred (McMillan 2015). Of the latespawning that occurred, the period ofpotential lethal water temperatures forembryo development is depicted. How-ever, the lethality of the dotted line onthe far right might well extend to earlyMay due to high temperatures thoseembryos would eventually endure un-less emergence is rapid enough to coun-teract it as a result of the sametemperatures. Over the next 11-12 years with elimi-nation of hatchery plants in the Skagitbasin, natural selection toward moreearly spawning may occur without thecumulative effects of Chambers Creekhatchery steelhead presence (from the

Shifting climate conditions may movesteelhead toward

earlier spawning butwill require restoringearly returning wild

runs.

Date Water Temp (F) Water Temp (C)

4-30-2015 48 8.95-6-2015 50.5 10.35-7-2015 54 12.25-15-2015 56 13.35-17-2015 59 155-28-2015 65 18.35-31-2015 62 16.7

Table 2. Finney Creek afternoon/evening water temperatures(April 30-May 28, 2015)




standpoint of focus of early harvestfishing effort on the early steelhead,decreased predator attraction duringsmolt outmigrations, and spawningground interactions that can limit wildproductivity). Also, given the shiftingclimate conditions, natural selectionmay now progressively move steelheadtoward earlier entry and earlier spawn-ing as warming temperatures may wellrequire. However, management ofsteelhead would have to allow this tooccur with focused efforts to recoverthe earlier return component of wildsteelhead life history options.Finney Creek in 2015 has received

what may be the largest wild steelheadspawning escapement to occur in the

past 15 years or more. During the Jan-uary through May 2015 spawning sea-son, 101 steelhead redds were counted(Figure 5) in the 4.5 miles (7.24 km) ofmainstem Finney surveyed of whichwinter steelhead most commonly use atotal of 6 to 7 miles (9.66-11.27 km) forspawning. This would result in a main-stem total of 135 to 157 steelheadspawning redds, given the fact that thelength that was not surveyed is at leastas good spawning habitat as the sur-veyed reach. (This excludes 9 steel-head redds found at Dry Creek and 1steelhead redd found at Quartz Creek,both tributaries of Finney.) This in-creased escapement will likely providea stronger base for natural selection todraw from in 2015 at Finney Creek withgreater ability to adapt to climate

change by this steelhead spawning pop-ulation. Although wild steelhead re-turns have generally been increasing inthe Skagit basin since 2010, this trendcan level or reverse at any time if oceanand/or freshwater environmental con-ditions take a downward turn fromthose of the past 7-8 years. For in-stance, the coming summer conditionsmay greatly limit juvenile steelheadsurvival and similarly limit this year’sseeming escapement benefits. The Skagit wild steelhead future re-

mains at a critical edge that holds greatbiological interest for the outcome, buta scientific opportunity may be missedif the quality of the monitoring is insuf-ficient to effectively guide the conceptof adaptive management.

Fish biologist Bill McMillan is a long-time wild fish advocate who has pub-lished many papers on the subject. Heis currently Archivist for The Wild FishConservancy.

References

McMillan, B. 2015. The reproductiveecology of Oncorhynchus mykissin tributary streams of the Mid SkagitRiver basin (Draft as of May 1, 2015).https://www.academia.edu/10197372/Re-productive_Ecology_of_O._mykiss_in_Tributary_Streams_of_Mid_Skagit_River_Basin_Draft_5-1-2015

Phillips, C., W. Freymond, D. Campton,R. Cooper, and T. Quinn. 1981. SkagitRiver salmonid study. Genetic structureof steelhead trout populations in the Sk-agit River drainage. In: Steelhead Pro-gram Progress Report, July1-September 30, 1980. Washington De-partment of Game, Fisheries Manage-ment Division Report No. 81-31. pp.62-98. (Available at library of North-west Fisheries Science Center.)

Quinn, Thomas P. 2005. The Behaviorand Ecology of Pacific Salmon & Trout.University of Washington Press, Seat-tle.

Figure 4

Figure 5


https://www.academia.edu/10197372/Reproductive_Ecology_of_O._mykiss_in_Tributary_Streams_of_Mid_Skagit_River_Basin_Draft_5-1-2015




Two recent studies have con-firmed that hatchery steel-head raised at the RoundButte Hatchery are geneti-cally replacing wild red-

band trout in Whychus and McKaycreeks, two important wild fish tribu-taries of the Deschutes River in centralOregon.The most recent study, Genetic deter-mination of stock origin for On-corhynchus mykiss collected in theUpper Deschutes River Basin, con-ducted by the US Fish and WildlifeService and Portland General Electricwas released on July 24, 2018.The study’s objective was to “evaluatethe genetic relationship between RoundButte hatchery origin steelhead and O.mykiss [wild, native redband trout] col-lected from Whychus, McKay andOchoco creeks in 2016.” WhychusCreek is a tributary of the DeschutesRiver while McKay and Ochoco creeksare tributaries of the Crooked River,which, along with the Metolius River, isone of the two main Deschutes tribu-tary streams. Juvenile hatchery steelhead, raised atthe Round Butte Hatchery located onthe Deschutes River at Round ButteDam, have been released into WhychusCreek since 2007, and in McKay andOchoco creeks beginning in 2008. Sincethat time, almost seven million hatch-ery steelhead have been released in theupper Deschutes basin above the three-dam Pelton-Round Butte HydroelectricProject.The releases of hatchery steelhead ju-veniles in the upper Deschutes basin ispart of a major effort to restore steel-head runs, along with spring Chinookand sockeye salmon, which wereblocked by the construction of thedams. The two lower dams, Pelton andPelton Reregulating dams were com-pleted in 1958, with the third, upper-most dam, Round Butte Dam, wasfinished in 1964. Pelton Dam createdLake Simtustus, while Round ButteDam created Lake Billy Chinook wherethe Crooked and Metolius rivers flowinto the Deschutes.

Historically, spring Chinook salmonmigrated into the upper basin in the De-schutes, Crooked and Metolius rivers.The upper Deschutes and Crookedrivers had a summer steelhead run,while the sockeye run was restricted tothe Metolius River and up into Suttle

Lake. In fact, this was only one of twonative sockeye runs in Oregon, with theother at Wallowa Lake in the northeast-ern part of the state, also extirpated. While fish passage was provided at

the dams, they never worked very welland it wasn’t long before the salmonand steelhead runs in the upper basinvanished. In 1994, Portland General Electric,

which owned the dam complex, beganthe application process to relicense theproject for another 50 years. It wasgranted the license by the Federal En-ergy Regulatory Commission in 2005.As part of the agreement, the Confeder-ated Tribes of Warm Springs, on whichmuch of the hydro project is located,became co-owners of the project, andPGE and the Tribes agreed to help funda massive effort to return the extir-pated salmon and steelhead runs to theupper river basin.PGE researchers during the course oftrying to determine the most effectiveways of passing fish over the damsmade a surprising discovery. The coldwater from the Metolius River and thewarmer water from the Crooked Rivermixing with Deschutes River water inLake Billy Chinook, created currentsthat confused downstream migrating

18 The Osprey

Hatchery Steelhead Replacing Native Redbands on Deschutes Tribs (Among Other Problems)

By Jim Yuskavitch

Researchers foundthat wild redbandtrout in Whychus

Creek were geneticallyindistinguishable fromRound Butte Hatchery

steelhead.

Completed in 1964, Round Butte Dam created Lake Billy Chinook. The collectionand selective water withdrawal facility is at left. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch


https://deschutesriveralliance.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/2017-native-fish-monitoring-plan-addendum.pdf





juvenile fish, and offered at least a par-tial explanation for the ineffectivenessof the original fish passage facilities.Salmon and steelhead that may havesuccessfully reared in the upper riversbecame lost in the reservoir’s currentsas they migrated downstream and werenot able to find the fish passage atRound Butte Dam, essentially becom-ing stranded above the dams.To solve the water current problem,

PGE constructed a “selective waterwithdrawal tower” in the reservoir thatmixes the different water temperaturelayers in the reservoir to create a cur-rent that leads downstream migratingsmolts to a collection facility fromwhere they are trucked below the proj-ect and released into the DeschutesRiver. Similarly, upstream migratingadults are captured at a fish trap at thePelton Reregulating Dam at river mile100 and trucked above the hydro proj-ect and released.The decision to use hatchery steel-

head (and hatchery spring Chinooksalmon) to repopulate the upper basinwas made simply because the originalwild stocks are gone. But now some se-rious unintended consequence are aris-ing as a result of that decision.The genetic samples taken in 2016 ofwild, native redband trout in Whychus,McKay and Ochoco creeks yieldedsome disturbing data. The researchersfound that “O. mykiss from WhychusCreek are genetically indistinguishablefrom Round Butte hatchery” steelheadwhere 90 percent of the sampled fishhad genes traceable to the hatcherysteelhead. That number was 26 percentfor McKay Creek redbands and 25 per-cent for Ochoco Creek redbands. And the influence of hatchery steel-

head genes has increased over theyears. Genetic data collected fromWhychus Creek redbands in 2013 foundthat 75 percent were associated withhatchery genetics. That same studyalso found that only 3 percent ofMcKay Creek fish were geneticallyidentical to the hatchery steelhead.There was no earlier genetic data forOchoco Creek redbands.The reintroduction has encountered

other unanticipated problems as well.First and foremost, poor returns ofupper basin adult fish. Although thefirst adult spring Chinook salmon cameback to the upper basin for the firsttime in 40 years in 2012, returns havebeen far below expectations.

For spring Chinook,the Oregon Depart-ment of Fish andWildlife identified1,000 fish returning tospawn in the upperbasin each year as its“vision of success,”based on the esti-mated amount of up-river habitat availablefor producing juve-niles. But since 2012,fewer than 60 upperbasin origin springChinook have shownup annually. In 2018,only five spring Chi-nook salmon re-turned, and just 20 in2017. The highest return year was 2016with 54 fish.The picture for summer steelhead is

even worse. Although 128 upper basinorigin adults returned in 2012-13 it hasbeen a downward trend since then with96 for 2013-14, 93 in 2014-15, 75 in 2015-16 and 39 for 2016-17. Only 25 upperbasin origin summer steelhead re-turned for 2017-18. In addition, most ofthe adult steelhead trucked and re-leased above Round Butte Dam havetended to go into the Crooked River, themost water quality and habitat limitedof the three rivers due to extensiveagriculture and ranching activities inthat watershed.The situation is just as bad for the

sockeye. While there was a relativelyhigh return in 2016 of 529 fish, that

dropped to 56 in 2017 and just 39 in2018.The restoration strategy is a little dif-ferent for sockeye. Since Lake BillyChinook had been stocked with kokaneefor many years that included brood-stock from the orignal sockeye popula-tion, fisheries biologists thought that ifthe kokanee had downstream fish pas-sage a portion of them would migrateout to sea and come back as sockeye.Unfortunately, that has not been thecase, probably because the old SuttleLake/Metolius River genes have beencompletely eliminated from Lake BillyChinook kokanee from decades ofhatchery plants.Another unintended consequences in-volves the approximately $150 million

In 2018, only five upper Deschutes basin origin spring Chinook salmon were cap-tured at the Pelton fish trap. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

A volunteer releases steelhead fry into Whychus Creek in2007. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch



20 The Osprey

In early January, my close friend, long-time wilderness fish-ing partner, and conservationist, Howard Johnson died.Howard and his wife Doreen, who pre-deceased him, left a stel-lar record of conservation achievements: lead-ership roles with the Washington SteelheadTrout Club, and Steelhead Committee of theFederation of Fly Fishers; The Doreen John-son Conservation Area along the Green River(58 acres); and Mother Earth Farm. It is diffi-cult to separate their accomplishments be-cause they worked as a team. For example,several years ago they inherited Doreen’s par-ent’s farm in the upper Puyallup Valley. It wasprime real estate; the developers were salivat-ing; there was real money in the offing. But theproperty was also prime farmland borderinga salmon producing river. They gave it to theEmergency Food Network to farm. MotherEarth Farm as it is called produces nearly 100,000 pounds offresh organically grown produce for our local food banks.Howard threw in his tractor.Howard was my life-long friend and mentor. It started whenI was a 16 year old kid with my hair on fire about steelhead. Iwanted to know all of Howard’s secrets. He was just what a kidneeded — steady, knowledgeable, patient, generous. He tookme under his wing schooling me on the Skagit and Greenrivers. Over time, we began making frequent trips together.You get to know someone really well when you sharedHoward’s tiny 1966 Alaskan eight foot pop-up camper (“The

Howard Johnson Motel”) for weeks at a time on some remoteriver bar on Vancouver Island with a warm crackling fire on astarry winter night, miles from pavement, steelhead finning in

the riffles. To us it was a little slice of heaven. There were many tents, campers, and cabins

shared over the years, and not just with me. Everyyear for decades Howard would journey deep intothe Skeena and Stikine River watersheds with hisgood friend and fellow steelhead slicker Ed Con-roy. Pete Soverel and John Sager spent weeks,even months together exploring the wilds ofBritish Columbia and the Russian Far East—tomention a few. Knowledgeable, reliable, and witty are all wordsthat describe Howard. He also had a great senseof humor and laughed at his own quirks such as hisspecial order, stripped down Chevy Suburban (AMonly radio) for which he paid a substantial pre-

mium over loaded vehicles available on local lots! Then camethat mischievous smile. Everyone who fished with Howard has a story. Howard be-

lieved no one is perfect, he wasn’t. He was simply the perfectbuddy. His family suggest remembrances in support of steel-head conservation to: The Conservation Angler, 16430 72nd AveW, Edmonds, WA 98026 or at www.theconservationangler.org

Sean Gallagher is author of Wild Steelhead, The Lure and Loreof a Pacific Northwest Legend, published by Wild River Press.

IN MEMOIRIuMHoward Johnson (1925-2019)

By Sean Gallagher

selective water withdrawal tower inLake Billy Chinook at Round ButteDam. By mixing the different tempera-ture layers in the reservoir, it is send-ing warmer water downriver from thedams than previously, which is causingsome significant ecological changes inthe lower Deschutes, covered in theJanuary 2017 issue of The Osprey.Some of these impacts include high pHlevels along with excessive algaegrowth, a change in the makeup ofmacroinvertebrates that includes morenon-insect species such as snails andworms that are more tolerant of de-graded stream environments, and an in-crease in black spot disease in lowerDeschutes bull trout caused by flat-worm parasites. The declines in riverand angling conditions are also affect-ing the small lower Deschutes commu-nity of Maupin whose economy ishighly dependent on fishing, raftingand other river-related businesses.In 2016, the Deschutes River Alliancefiled a lawsuit against Portland GeneralElectric to enforce temperature, pHand dissolved oxygen requirements as

required by the CleanWater Act certifica-tion that the companywas given to operatethe hydroelectriccomplex. But aftersome initial victories,the courts ruled thatPGE was not violatingits clean water certi-fication. The Allianceis currently appealingits case to the federal9th Circuit Court.However, there is

some positive news inall this. The anticipa-tion of restoring theupper Deschutesbasin anadromousfish runs has broughtmillions of dollars in federal and othergrant money to central Oregon that fed-eral, state and local government agen-cies along with land trusts, watershedcouncils and other conservation groupshave been using to purchase importantriparian areas, restore degraded habi-tat and offer aquatic related environ-mental education programs.

The only thing missing is the fish.

Jim Yuskavitch is editor of The Osprey.Some of the information for this storywas provided by the Deschutes RiverAlliance. You can find out more aboutits work on the Deschutes River at:www.deschutesriveralliance.org

The selective water withdrawal and collection facility costan estimated $150 million to research and build. Photo byJim Yuskavitch



https://www.wildriverpress.com

www.deschutesriveralliance.org


FISH WATCH — WILD FISH NEWS, ISSuES AND INITIATIvESWashington Tests Pound Neton Lower Columbia

From August 25 to October 31 of lastyear, The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife conducted a pound nettrap test fishery in Cathalamet Channel

on the lower Columbia River. The pur-pose was to test the effectiveness ofpound nets for catching hatcherysalmon for harvest while safely releas-ing wild fish unharmed.Pound nets are a kind of fish trap

where a net fence attached to pilings inthe water blocks fish movement, divert-ing them into the trap, or pound, wherethe fish can be removed with a dip netand sorted, with adipose fin clipped fishkept and wild fish released.WDFW biologists attending the net

collected biological information thenreleased all wild salmon and all steel-head. Hatchery salmon were kept andsold by WDFW to help offset the costsof the test fishery. Any wild fish thatdied during capture were donated to alocal food bank.Over the course of the test fishery,

1,508 Chinook salmon were capturedand 907 released, 954 coho capturedand 469 released, and 322 steelhead, in-cluding A and B runs and from un-known stock, were captured andreleased. The pound net also caughtfour sturgeon, which were released.

Data collected from the test fisheryincluded stock composition, migrationpatterns and genetic samples. The datawill help WDFW determine if poundnets are effective fishing method forensuring that mortality limits on ESA-listed fish are not exceeded by theriver’s commercial fisheries.

$83,000 HatcheryAtlantic Salmon

Hatchery-reared Atlantic salmonstocked in Scotland’s Spey River lastyear clocked in at a cost of 60,000Pounds each, or a little more than$83,000 in US dollars, according to aNovember 2018 news report in the Sun-

day Times of London. These ultra-ex-pensive fish were part of a release of500,000 into the Spey to help rebuild theriver’s Atlantic salmon numbers. But a follow-up DNA study found thatof the 800 salmon caught by anglers,only two came from the hatchery. Inspite of opposition from conservation-ists, the Spey Board plans to doublehatchery production.The paper also reports that wild At-

lantic salmon populations have de-creased in the UK and surroundingocean by 45% since 1971. While perhaps not quite so expensive,the actual costs of raising Pacificsalmon and steelhead in hatcheries towhen they return to their natal riversand become available to anglers (or forESA recovery purposes) can range any-where from less than $100 to approach-ing $10,000, and in some cases,exemplified by the Spey River exam-ple, much more.

Last March, Washington State gover-nor Jay Inslee signed Executive Order18-02 that directs the Washington De-partment of Fish and Wildlife and otherstate agencies to begin working to re-store the Southern Resident orca popu-lation and provides $1.1 billion to getthe job done.The Southern Resident orca popula-

tion, which ranges from Washington toAlaska, has been declining since 1995.Since then their numbers have droppedfrom 98 to 74. Of particular concernwas that the J-pod that frequents Puget

Sound and the Salish Seahad not successfullyraised any young in sometime until last year whenone calf was born that hasapparently survived.What makes the South-

ern Resident orcas differ-ent from other orcapopulations is that theyfeed exclusively on fish,mainly salmon, with Chi-nook salmon being thedominant prey species.The decline in Columbiaand Snake river Chinooksalmon is a primary factorin the orcas’ slipping pop-

Saving Chinook Salmon to Save Orcas

Hatcheries continue to be less cost-effective ways to pro-duce fish than nature. Photo by Jim Yuskavitch

Pound net fishing techniques may offer an effective way to harvest hatchery salmonfor the lower Columbia River commercial fishery while protecting wild salmon andsteelhead. Photo by Aaron Jorgenson, Wild Fish Conservancy.


ulation numbers.While the new recovery plan also ad-

dresses the whales’ exposure to toxicchemicals and disturbance from ves-sels, increasing the Chinook salmon

population remains the key factor fortheir recovery, and the plan budget in-cudes $750,000 to review breaching thefour lower Snake River dams to boostsalmon runs.Other actions the state intends to taketo increase salmon numbers includeprotecting and restoring habitat, in-creasing hatchery production, manag-ing harvest, removing fish barriers andmanaging predation on Chinook salmonby sea lions and sea birds.

Fisheries managers from Oregon andWashington met in early January to dis-cuss commercial gill net fishing on themainstem, lower Columbia River. Since 2013, both states have been fol-lowing a plan developed by former Ore-gon Governor John Kitzhaber thatrestricts the commercial gill net fish-ery to side channel areas. A major point of contention is that

Washington does not allow any main-stem commercial fishing for Chinooksalmon while Oregon does under cer-tain conditions. No decisions weremade at the meeting.

A recent study of the effects of catchand release on the summer run recre-ational steelhead fishery on the Bulkley

River in British Colum-bia and published in thejournal Fisheries Re-search has producedsome good tips for steel-head anglers wanting tominimize potential harmto the fish they catch.The researchers took

blood samples (withoutkilling the fish), trackedthe steelhead usingradio telemetry to deter-mine stress levels ofcaught and releasedfish, their movementsafter being released andtheir response to vary-ing times exposed to airand at various watertemperatures.Some of the things theresearchers found was

that steelhead experienced higherstress levels when caught by hook andline as opposed to other methods suchas dip nets. Also, fish that were exposedto the air after being landed also expe-rienced higher levels of stress andmoved further downstream after theywere released than fish that were kept

in the water through release.Survival over the following three daysafter a fish was released was 95.5%while overwinter mortality of caughtand released fish was about 10.5%.Deep hooking, especially on the tongue,was a major cause of mortality.Overall, the study found that catch

and release regulations on the Bulkleyare an effective conservation tool formaintaining the steelhead fishery.For anglers, the researchers suggest

that hooking mortality can be reducedby ensuring that they limit the fish’s ex-posure to air to less than 10 seconds andto be aware of water temperatures aswarmer temperatures increased mor-tality.The study was conducted by re-

searchers from Carleton University inOttawa, the University of Massachu-setts Amherst and British ColumbiaMinistry of Forests, Lands, Natural Re-source Operations and Rural Develop-ment, Fisheries Branch.

Last December, President DonaldTrump signed legislation allowing a sig-nificant increase in the number of sealions that may be killed on the ColumbiaRiver system to protect ESA-listed runsof salmon and steelhead.The bill amends the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972 to allow thestates of Washington and Oregon, and

22 The Osprey

Increase in Lethal Sea Lion Removals Okayed

Columbia River Gill NetPolicy Discussed

A recent catch-and-release mortality study on British Columbia’s Bulkley River foundit to be an effective method for managing the recreational steelhead fishery. Photo byChristof46. Converted to B&W, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Inter-national License.



Bulkley River SteelheadCatch and Release Study

The survival of the southern resident orcas is directly tiedto the health of Columbia and Snake river Chinook salmonruns. Photo by Holly Fearnbach/NOAA

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Columbia River treaty tribes to lethallyremove both California and Steller’ssea lions that prey on listed salmon andsteelhead, along with white sturgeon.The sea lion population in the Colum-

bia River has doubled each year be-tween 2012 and 2016. According to theUS Army Corps of Engineers, sea lionsate 5,384 salmon or steelhead at Bon-neville Dam in 2017, representing 4.7%of the year’s runs of summer and win-ter steelhead and spring Chinook

salmon.The two states and tribes will be al-

lowed to kill up to 930 sea lions annuallyfor five years. The Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife also received a per-mit to remove as many as 99 Californiasea lions per year for up to five yearsthat are preying on runs of Chinook andsteelhead at Willamette Falls on theWillamette River.But sea lions can only be killed from

just downstream of Bonneville Dam, atriver mile 112, to McNary Dam, and onColumbia River tributaries in Oregon

and Washington.While predation on ESA-listed salmonand steelhead is a factor, most wild fishadvocates point out that the real cul-prits causing declining wild fish runsare dams that directly kill fish or blockaccess to habitat, overharvest by com-mercial fishers, habitat loss and compe-tition and genetic dilution fromhatchery fish.

Fisheries managers are predicting apoor 2019 run for Idaho spring Chinooksalmon. Run strength is based on thenumber of returning one-year-old, orjack salmon, with larger runs often in-dicating a strong run the followingyear.However, last spring’s run of Clear-

water River jacks was only about11,000 fish, the third lowest since 2009.The predicted spring Chinook run for2019 is 8,200 wild fish and 40,000 hatch-ery fish. Only about 9,800 hatchery fishare predicted to return to the Clearwa-ter River, and since more than half ofthose fish will be needed for hatcheryspawning only about 2,000 may beavailable sport anglers and tribes.


To receive The Osprey three times per year, January, May and September, please fill outthis coupon with your check made out to The Osprey - The Conservation Angler andmail to: The Osprey/The Conservation Angler

16430 72nd Ave., WestEdmonds, WA 98026

SUPPORT THE OSPREY

Send My Copies By E-Mail q

Send My Copies by Standard Mail q

PHONE

E-Mail

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ADDRESS

NAME

Yes, I will help protect wild salmon and steelhead

❏ $15 Basic Donation/Subscription

❏ $25 Dedicated Angler Level

❏ $50 For Future Generations of Anglers

❏ $100 So There Will Always Be Wild Fish

❏ $ Other

I am subscribing/donating on behalf of TheOsprey’ s par tner organization:

❏ Fly Fishers International❏ The Conservation Angler❏ Steelhead Society of British Columbia❏ Skeena Wild❏ World Salmon Forum❏ Wild Steelhead Coalition❏ Trout Unlimited

Or donate at: www.theconservationangler.org

The number of sea lions that may be killed in the Columbia River basin to protectESA fish has been increased. Photo by Sharon Melin/Alaska Fisheries Science Cen-ter/NOAA Fisheries


Poor Idaho Spring ChinookRun Predicted for 2019

http://www.theconservationangler.org/osprey.html

THE OSPREY

Fly Fishers International5237 US Hwy 89 South, Suite 11Livingston, MT 59047-9176

the osprey 2 · 2020. 3. 13. · the osprey welcomes letters to the editor. article submissions are...

Documents