salmon restoration

[Rob Allen]

I could add a couple creeks to the list of salmon occupying and spawning in them then vacating after a "passage" project. One seemed obvious as they replaced good gravel with essentially mud via their restoration. Now that's eroded years later and there's an outflow drop again. Thanks Grays harbor county, you killed that one. Literally.

I'm not advocating for not performing restoration projects but in many cases doing nothing is best. And if you do something you should make certain it's done right.

as far as I know it there is no science behind any of it.. It's just the assumption that fish passage is automatically good. I am all for it but put some thought into it.

 

[Rob Allen]

As with most things in nature and the real world, it takes longer to fix it than it did to fuck it up.

maybe .

 

[wmelton]

The idea is that if you fix a lot of stream crossings, it will add up to a considerable amount of habitat, which will increase overall capacity. It is a long term play. The short term success of the single stream crossing project down the road from your house is not particularly relevant.

As fisherman we complain a lot that not enough is being done to help the fish, so it is frustrating to see fellow fisherman use worthless anecdotal evidence to disparage the few efforts that are being made. It doesn't seem like a good way to convince anyone the fish deserve more effort/funding.

as far as I know it there is no science behind any of it.. It's just the assumption that fish passage is automatically good. I am all for it but put some thought into it.

I just sent you science behind it. Did you read through said science and decide it was worthless or did you not even bother?

 

[Rob Allen]

The idea is that if you fix a lot of stream crossings, it will add up to a considerable amount of habitat, which will increase overall capacity. It is a long term play. The short term success of the single stream crossing project down the road from your house is not particularly relevant.

As fisherman we complain a lot that not enough is being done to help the fish, so it is frustrating to see fellow fisherman use worthless anecdotal evidence to disparage the few efforts that are being made. It doesn't seem like a good way to convince anyone the fish deserve more effort/funding.


I just sent you science behind it. Did you read through said science and decide it was worthless or did you not even bother?

you provided a bunch of examples on projects where habitat was opened. There was no record of increased fish populations as a result of those programs. Just more assumptions. no different than assuming hatcheries would be a panacea for low stocks.

again I am in no way opposed to these projects but there is scant evidence that they do any good.

years ago i was involved in some side channels that were created to increase chum salmon spawning habitat. we made a huge deal about it, spent a bunch of other peoples money and in general felt good about ourselves. How many more chums are there because of all that??? 0
and that was 20 years ago more than long enough ago to have shown some results.

all i am saying is that we have to be honest about ourselves and the effectiveness of our efforts.

 

[Salmo_g]

There was no record of increased fish populations as a result of those programs.

Even when it's included in the first place, monitoring and evaluation are the first tasks dropped during budget cuts.

 

[wmelton]

There was no record of increased fish populations as a result of those programs.

Here are three studies on the effectiveness of culvert removals. 1. 2. 3.

You will find that it is a mixed bag. That is kinda how science works. You will also find that there is quite a bit of thought being put into it. You are the only person making assumptions.

 

[Rob Allen]

Even when it's included in the first place, monitoring and evaluation are the first tasks dropped during budget cuts.

Kinda like the goal of hos <10% no one really has a clue how many hatchery fish are spawning in the wild.

 

[Rob Allen]

Here are three studies on the effectiveness of culvert removals. 1. 2. 3.

You will find that it is a mixed bag. That is kinda how science works. You will also find that there is quite a bit of thought being put into it. You are the only person making assumptions.

The upshot of those studies seems to be that fish will use the "new" habitat intermittently but it is not increasing the population of fish.

 

[_WW_]

If fish are barely able to, or in many cases unable to, return more than one fish per fish spawned, how will they be able to spread out? These improvements won't show results until several other things fall into place. But when they do, there will be a little more habitat for them. However, until the return per fish improves...

 

[Rob Allen]

If fish are barely able to, or in many cases unable to, return more than one fish per fish spawned, how will they be able to spread out? These improvements won't show results until several other things fall into place. But when they do, there will be a little more habitat for them. However, until the return per fish improves...

I'll sell you a hamburger today but the supply of buns is really low and I may not ever get them again but come in and buy another burger tomorrow.

If we expect the voting public to support salmon restoration efforts we have to show return on investment. Now.

 

[_WW_]

If we expect the voting public to support salmon restoration efforts we have to show return on investment. Now.

Good luck with that.

 

[wmelton]

The upshot of those studies seems to be that fish will use the "new" habitat intermittently but it is not increasing the population of fish.

A study that evaluates whether or not it "increases the population of fish" is not possible in that short of a timeframe. I am sure they are underway

Every system has a capacity. Opening up more habitat increases the capacity of the system. There is no constant ratio for how much the capacity increases for a unit of habitat increase. Juvenile salmonids use many different habitat features when rearing. Maybe the "new" habitat has the same proportion of these features as the already existing habitat. Maybe it has features that the existing habitat had a shortage of. Maybe it has no features. That is why the studies are aimed to identify the biggest impact crossings, so they can figure out how to most efficiently use effort. If fish are found in the "new" habitat, it has some sort of value.

Again, the idea is that in the aggregate, they can increase the capacity of the systems and that will increase the ratio of returners to spawners. The only way to measure ROI is long term monitoring. Science doesn't make assumptions. Scientists can't tell you the ROI until they've measured it. The question is, is it worthwhile to invest in conservation when you can never guarantee a ROI. I think so. Our government makes a lot worse investments.

 

[Pink Nighty]

I'll sell you a hamburger today but the supply of buns is really low and I may not ever get them again but come in and buy another burger tomorrow.

If we expect the voting public to support salmon restoration efforts we have to show return on investment. Now.

Or what? Risk the public at large being uncaring about salmon populations? Pretty late on that.

Your desire for immediate gratification on these projects, lest they not be worth the effort, makes me glad that you dont get to say which projects get done and not done. Perfect isnt the enemy of good. The restoration of the OPs stream to my eye looks easier for fish to pass through, more natural for bug production... its improved.

The standard of "I used to see fish here and now I dont" as a means of measuring habitat projects is just silly. Isnt that the last 150 years of history in regards to salmon?

 

[Rob Allen]

Or what? Risk the public at large being uncaring about salmon populations? Pretty late on that.

Your desire for immediate gratification on these projects, lest they not be worth the effort, makes me glad that you dont get to say which projects get done and not done. Perfect isnt the enemy of good. The restoration of the OPs stream to my eye looks easier for fish to pass through, more natural for bug production... its improved.

The standard of "I used to see fish here and now I dont" as a means of measuring habitat projects is just silly. Isnt that the last 150 years of history in regards to salmon?

Or funding will and SHOULD be pulled.

 

[Rob Allen]

A study that evaluates whether or not it "increases the population of fish" is not possible in that short of a timeframe. I am sure they are underway

Every system has a capacity. Opening up more habitat increases the capacity of the system. There is no constant ratio for how much the capacity increases for a unit of habitat increase. Juvenile salmonids use many different habitat features when rearing. Maybe the "new" habitat has the same proportion of these features as the already existing habitat. Maybe it has features that the existing habitat had a shortage of. Maybe it has no features. That is why the studies are aimed to identify the biggest impact crossings, so they can figure out how to most efficiently use effort. If fish are found in the "new" habitat, it has some sort of value.

Again, the idea is that in the aggregate, they can increase the capacity of the systems and that will increase the ratio of returners to spawners. The only way to measure ROI is long term monitoring. Science doesn't make assumptions. Scientists can't tell you the ROI until they've measured it. The question is, is it worthwhile to invest in conservation when you can never guarantee a ROI. I think so. Our government makes a lot worse investments.

It hasn't been a short period of time.. many of the projects I'm talking about are 20 years old, some pushing 30..

 

[Rob Allen]

Or what? Risk the public at large being uncaring about salmon populations? Pretty late on that.

Your desire for immediate gratification on these projects, lest they not be worth the effort, makes me glad that you dont get to say which projects get done and not done. Perfect isnt the enemy of good. The restoration of the OPs stream to my eye looks easier for fish to pass through, more natural for bug production... its improved.

The standard of "I used to see fish here and now I dont" as a means of measuring habitat projects is just silly. Isnt that the last 150 years of history in regards to salmon?

The only standard is measuring fish populations.. I repeat the only.. everything else is worthless..

 

[Smalma]

Generally speaking, the salmon winner in culvert replacement are coho salmon along with the coastal cutthroat. If there is much habitat upstream of the anadromous passage blockage the cutthroat as resident fish continue to use that habitat.

Regarding coho it should be acknowledged that in the Nooksack, Lake Washington, Green River, Puyallup, Nisqually, Deschutes and south/central independent tributaries wild coho are managed by the co-managers as "secondary stocks". That is the coho returning to those basins are managed to take full advantage (harvest) of the hatchery fish typically resulting in over harvest (under escapement) of the wild coho. One has to wonder whether it makes sense to apply the same restoration priority in those basin.

Curt

 

[Rob Allen]

Generally speaking, the salmon winner in culvert replacement are coho salmon along with the coastal cutthroat. If there is much habitat upstream of the anadromous passage blockage the cutthroat as resident fish continue to use that habitat.

Regarding coho it should be acknowledged that in the Nooksack, Lake Washington, Green River, Puyallup, Nisqually, Deschutes and south/central independent tributaries wild coho are managed by the co-managers as "secondary stocks". That is the coho returning to those basins are managed to take full advantage (harvest) of the hatchery fish typically resulting in over harvest (under escapement) of the wild coho. One has to wonder whether it makes sense to apply the same restoration priority in those basin.

Curt

I was just about to say that we need to focus our salmon restoration resources to saltwater habitats and issues concerning what happens in salt water, we do that, then we will know the quality of our habitat restoration efforts, either that or we stop studying salmon and start studying sea-run cutthroat.

 

[wmelton]

It hasn't been a short period of time.. many of the projects I'm talking about are 20 years old, some pushing 30..

The point is you are holding conservation to an impossible standard. Your requirement for instant gratification will never be satisfied by anything sustainable, even when they start studying saltwater salmon habitat and sea-run cutthroat (they already do). It seems that your opinion is conservation as a whole, is not worthwhile.

 

[Mossback]

The point is you are holding conservation to an impossible standard. Your requirement for instant gratification will never be satisfied by anything sustainable, even when they start studying saltwater salmon habitat and sea-run cutthroat (they already do). It seems that your opinion is conservation as a whole, is not worthwhile.

There's no point with Rob.
Always certain often wrong

The sea run cutt studies are well publicized, seem to progressing well, and I see them out doing the work.
But if I don't see a bunch of (insert species here) in my local crik they're just wasting money.