Great Elwha Bull Trout Article

Salmo_g said:
I don't know as a fact, but I think the answer lies in the realm that bull trout are not an "economically important" species of fish in WA state. No interest group or agency observed any need or benefit to develop a hatchery program for bull trout, unlike every other fish hatchery program in the state.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they raise a few for reintroduction to certain watersheds, the tucannon being the one that comes to mind. However I cannot think of an example of the classic hatchery operation for bulls, the classic being produce tons and tons of fish for human consumption.
 
Josh said:
I admit that I'm not the most clued in on the history/process of the Elwah removal. But this was the general feeling I got as well as far as how the whole thing was handled. There was a whole lot of "look at the wild fish that STILL return to the bottom of the dam, how amazing they are!" as justification for removing the dam. But then there wasn't a lot of consideration given to NOT having a hatchery and instead supporting those amazing wild fish.

But maybe without the hatchery/commercial side, the whole thing would never have happened in the first place and we'd still have an outdated dam sitting there. I don't know. But from a strictly conservation angle, it seems like a real missed opportunity to learn what happens when we let nature try and repair our human mistakes.
Click to expand...
I think something being missed is that the dam removal had as much to do with economics as it did ecology. Those dams broke a contract with the Elwha people whose economy revolves around those salmon runs.

Attaining commercially harvestable numbers of fish was the primary reason the tribe has fought for this removal for so long. If they want a hatchery to help speed up harvestable numbers, I understand that and eventually support that idea. Its what's needed to help make them contractually whole.
 
HauntedByWaters said:
I agree with you but a dam removal on this scale was/is a big deal. I grew up for several decades hearing about this dam and how it could be just the beginning of a major movement to open up fish habitat. But rather then have a sound plan with experimental control and research, it became about how fast can we start commercial fishing this system.

I honestly feel like a truly wild and strong recovery of anadromous fish was feared by the establishment. Hatcheries needed to be involved, commercial fishing needed to be involved, it was not okay for this to simply be a study of habitat restoration and wild fish. If it was a resounding success without any influence by man other than removing the dam, where would we be? Doesn’t Mother Earth need us to keep doing what we do? Doesn’t she need our hatcheries and our management? Let’s not find out!

It isn’t either/or but it is a missed opportunity to see and research something special, an opportunity that may never happen again, because money and profit trumps all.
Click to expand...
Removal of the Elwha dams required the cooperative effort of a large mix of parties, many of whom have differing objectives. One could say that this occurred as the result of a committee action. And that committee necessarily made a lot of compromises. This deal was not Burger King, so you can't have it your way. The way complex processes like this happen and keep moving along toward the finish line is that each party gets enough of what it wants or needs to continue their participation. Nobody got exactly what they wanted, but all who wanted the dams removed did get that one important and over-riding thing.

I think your feeling about what the "establishlment" feared are off base. First, who is the "establishment?" And why do "they" fear wild fish recovery? I think the Elwha Tribe would be happy as can be if whatever they consider their fishing needs could be met exclusively through natural wild fish production. But they aren't naive and know that in order to have a significant Tribal fishery, hatchery fish need to be part of the equation. The federal agencies don't care much one way or the other about hatchery fish; they get paid just the same to be fish advocates. It could be said that WDFW has the biggest dog in the hatchery fish fight. Hatcheries are the single largest line item in the Department's budget, so they have a financial reason to care about hatchery fish more than any other interest group.

Let me return to the Tribal interest once more. The Tribe is inseparably tied culturally and economically to the Elwha River. You have the option of traveling or even moving anywhere in the state or nation to fish. The Tribe is place oriented by culture and treaty to the Elwha River and surrounding "Usual and Accustomed" area. They cannot fish anywhere else on Earth as a Treaty Tribe. So they are willing to do whatever it takes to have a fishery that meets Tribal needs from the Elwha River, even if that means flooding the river with hatchery fish that result in compromising the recovery of wild fish. But since bull trout remain "economically unimportant," we can watch and see what happens with this native species amid a varying mix of wild and hatchery salmonids.
 
In Washington state the only native char hatchery effort that I'm aware of was Lake Chelan where eggs were imported from Alaska after the native bull went extinct in the basin.

Certainly, in the northern Puget Sound area Salmo g's comments are pretty much on the money. Until the last 40 years or so there were lots of other species (steelhead, sea-run cutthroat and various salmon) to satisfy angler interests and desires. Further in that region the critical species habitats (spawning and early rearing areas) where found in upper headwaters areas that were both far flung and by their location spared much man's damaging activities. It was not until the 1980s that concerns developed about the status of that area's bull trout. Angling closures, reduced bag limits, and increased size limits in 1990 and shortly thereafter appeared to have been affective where decent critical habitat remained.

On the Skagit where in 1990 the bull trout were removed from the general trout limits to one of a bag limit of only 2 with a 20 inch minute size limit. For the one spawning index in the basin that includes both pre and post regulation change it is pretty clear those changes were successful. Immediately that regulation change there was a 5-fold increase in the redd counts. Those escapements increased until the counts in the early 2000s were 25 times greater than the regulation change.

Curt
 
Pink Nighty said:
I think something being missed is that the dam removal had as much to do with economics as it did ecology. Those dams broke a contract with the Elwha people whose economy revolves around those salmon runs.
Click to expand...
This is very close to the crux of the matter. But let's be clear, the "dams" didn't break any contract. They are just concrete and steel that blocked the river. The original owners of the dams broke a very clear law of the day that required any dam on a salmon bearing stream to provide fish passage. They didn't and got away with it. That could only happen if it is true that politicians can be bought, not that this surprises many of us. The dams, as large as they were, only had 25 MW of installed capacity and ran an average of 12 MW generation. This is crazy. Dams that big on a river that big would typically have over 100 MW of installed capacity, but these dams were built to generate energy for mills in Port Angeles. I guess 12 average MW was enough for the mills. Crown-Zellerbach owned and operated the mills for decades, but when "Free the Elwha" became a local, then regional, rallying cry, Crown-Z sold the dams to a shell company, James River, based in Nevada because of its favorable bankruptcy laws.

The Elwha dams date to prior to the Federal Power Act, so they were never federally licensed. They also pre-date the designation of Olympic National Park. A number of parties sued to require that the dams be federally licensed. With federal licensing comes things like requiring environmental mitigation, including fish passage. Not to mention that national parks are "federal reservations" that normally prohibit privately owned hydroelectric dams. Hence the strategic move to sell the dams to "James River" so that a company with actual assets didn't get stuck with dam removal costs, which FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) could have forced. Twelve average MW can't pay for the kind of mitigation measures a project like the Elwha dams would necessitate; it really would require something on the order of 100 or more MW to generate enough energy to afford the many and expensive mitigation measures. So Crown-Z needed to make a plan to cut and run, and they did. So the federal government (we taxpayers) got to pay over $200 million for dam removal, although the feds operated the dams an additional 8 years or so to build up some partial funding to help bankroll the removal. The upshot being that it has been a complex process, but the bottom line is the dams are finally gone and wild fish do appear to be benefiting from the removal.
 
The upper Elwha was such an amazing fishery. Big fat bows and the surprise BIG bull were the reward of making the trek back in there. Was fortunate enough to fish it 2 times and each time I wish I had a few more days to spend back in there.
 
HauntedByWaters said:
I agree with you but a dam removal on this scale was/is a big deal. I grew up for several decades hearing about this dam and how it could be just the beginning of a major movement to open up fish habitat. But rather then have a sound plan with experimental control and research, it became about how fast can we start commercial fishing this system.

I honestly feel like a truly wild and strong recovery of anadromous fish was feared by the establishment. Hatcheries needed to be involved, commercial fishing needed to be involved, it was not okay for this to simply be a study of habitat restoration and wild fish. If it was a resounding success without any influence by man other than removing the dam, where would we be? Doesn’t Mother Earth need us to keep doing what we do? Doesn’t she need our hatcheries and our management? Let’s not find out!

It isn’t either/or but it is a missed opportunity to see and research something special, an opportunity that may never happen again, because money and profit trumps all.
Click to expand...
I used to believe in government conspiracy theories. Then I got a job in government. People can't keep secrets. Things are far to simple to allow for conspiracies, unless you think of the public process itself as a conspiracy.

I mean groups are coming together and agreeing on an action. The process requires an amount of conspiring in broad daylight. To that extent none of the parties that mattered cared to keep it free of hatcheries. I don't think that fear played a role as much as indifference to the effects of hatcheries and the desire from the tribes to harvest sooner than later. It was all in open daylight for all to see. None of the parties involved had a vested interest in having he best experiment.

I agree that it was a huge missed opportunity. It sucks. It could have been the ultimate experiment. It was not an experiment though. It was a case of our form of governance doing what it does. It did what it was supposed to do. The process found the elements of dam removal that were required to make the stakeholders happy enough to agree. The process was not intended to create the best outcome for fish. It was intended to placate the largest amount of stakeholders. If you want it done differently, the process itself would have to change.
 
Thank you for this history
Salmo_g said:
This is very close to the crux of the matter. But let's be clear, the "dams" didn't break any contract. They are just concrete and steel that blocked the river. The original owners of the dams broke a very clear law of the day that required any dam on a salmon bearing stream to provide fish passage. They didn't and got away with it. That could only happen if it is true that politicians can be bought, not that this surprises many of us. The dams, as large as they were, only had 25 MW of installed capacity and ran an average of 12 MW generation. This is crazy. Dams that big on a river that big would typically have over 100 MW of installed capacity, but these dams were built to generate energy for mills in Port Angeles. I guess 12 average MW was enough for the mills. Crown-Zellerbach owned and operated the mills for decades, but when "Free the Elwha" became a local, then regional, rallying cry, Crown-Z sold the dams to a shell company, James River, based in Nevada because of its favorable bankruptcy laws.

The Elwha dams date to prior to the Federal Power Act, so they were never federally licensed. They also pre-date the designation of Olympic National Park. A number of parties sued to require that the dams be federally licensed. With federal licensing comes things like requiring environmental mitigation, including fish passage. Not to mention that national parks are "federal reservations" that normally prohibit privately owned hydroelectric dams. Hence the strategic move to sell the dams to "James River" so that a company with actual assets didn't get stuck with dam removal costs, which FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) could have forced. Twelve average MW can't pay for the kind of mitigation measures a project like the Elwha dams would necessitate; it really would require something on the order of 100 or more MW to generate enough energy to afford the many and expensive mitigation measures. So Crown-Z needed to make a plan to cut and run, and they did. So the federal government (we taxpayers) got to pay over $200 million for dam removal, although the feds operated the dams an additional 8 years or so to build up some partial funding to help bankroll the removal. The upshot being that it has been a complex process, but the bottom line is the dams are finally gone and wild fish do appear to be benefiting from the removal.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this history, I knew many of the general points there but not the specifics or just how seedy this was.

My point is that I feel gross lamenting the existence of a hatchery there. If it were up to me, there wouldnt be a hatchery or the tribe would at least operate the weir as they said they would and keep the hatchery fish separate.

For me the hypocrisy in maintaining hatcheries on nearly every other stream in the state while insisting that the elwha remain "pure" is a little too much cognitive dissonance for me to swallow. I understand the relative uniqueness of the elwha situation, but still the choice should remain with the tribe.
 
The experiment for wild fish is still working without hatcheries for summer steelhead, bull trout, and sea-run cutthroat. There have been articles about the return of wild summer steelhead that are quite impressive. The fish that historically utilized the upper watershed should see pretty impressive recoveries imo, especially those that are not being subjected to hatchery impacts (harvest and genetic). Yes, the commercially valuable fish will not be part of a pure recovery, but they will be the strongest wild stocks along the Strait of Juan de Fuca by a mile imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top