Lake washington sockeye

[riverhunter]

Every year i keep looling at the counts in ballard in the hopes of having a sockeye fishery close to home and every year seems to be a disappointment. This year so far they haven't even broke 3000. The way i see it is why manage these fish and why spend tax dollars and wdfw budget on a fish most us haven't been able to target since 2006.
Let me begin by saying these fish were never naturally occurring in lake washington so saving them shouldn't be a concern. Also i understand the low survival rate for sockeye that occurs in the lake isn't very good but for some reason baker lake with only 35000 fish is considered a great run yet we need over 350000 yes 350000 to even consider a fishery while the tribes get 200 fish a week guaranteed . Now I'm not one of those that cries about tribal fishing as i understand they do a lot in terms of salmon in the ways of habitat and hatcheries. I also know most of the stuff ppl spread about them when it comes to tribal fishing can be an exaggeration. Now i know there have been a few bad apples but that goes for sportys also. Anyway getting off topic.
Also I believe instead of trying to protect on non-natural occurring why don't we use this money to protect other naturally occurring stocks that are dwindling like wild steelhead, even baker lake sockeye(although they are not actually dwindling). Think about what a run of a few hundred thousand would be for the Skagit and the lake. How about cle elum lake another naturally occurring sockeye run that they are trying to bring back. For folks in king and pierce county that would be the closest sockeye run to them.
So I will finish this perspective with a question. What do you guys think about lake washington sockeye and what do think about the numbers we are seeing this year? Is it worth all the money wdfw puts into these fish even though it seems like we will never have a fishery anytime soon?

[salmonkiller]

350K is a lot of fish!!!
I hope it opens up someday, but one thing that upsets me is when I see the nets fishing for “silvers” in September and catching sockeye as a by-catch.. and then throwing the dead sockeye back into the lake.

And should the lake be closed to all fishing from June-September to protect the sockeye in hopes of higher returns? I have targeted cutthroat in July and caught sockeye and I know some of the sockeye I released did not survive.

[Jakefish]

It remains to be seen what the maximum carrying capacity is for Baker Lake, but the current returns already exceed what the natural run was estimated to be. Can we get to returns of 100,000? That would be pretty awesome. Lake Washington (and Samish) should be able to raise 10X more fish because it is so much bigger. Looking back at hatchery escapement reports, it looks like the Cedar River hatchery hasn't come anywhere near meeting egg take goals for the past few years (only at like 10% of their goal)- presumably WDFW doesn't spend as much money in these years because there are fewer fish to spawn, eggs to hatch, fry to feed, etc. A difficult question in my mind is what should WDFW want the Lake Washington ecosystem to be - it has changed so drastically from it's natural state, with the re-routing of rivers and the raising of lake levels to make the Ballard Locks. There are naturally producing sockeye in the Samish/Washington watershed, and DNA tests are inconclusive as to their origin - they are probably Baker Lake fish that were introduced over 100 years ago, but they have actually evolved quite a bit in their time in the lake. The chinook in the Issaquah hatchery aren't native either. I support the maintenance of diverse fisheries with the goal of maximum return to this lake system - and certainly hope it can be done in a more cost-effective way. It is just difficult to do that when ocean survival rates are in the toilet.

It is interesting to note that, even though the Baker Lake, Lake Washington, and Wenatchee Lake sockeye are all the same stock (from Baker Lake), the returns to each system seem to boom at different times. This suggests there is much more going on in freshwater to effect survival for particular brood years.

[jd39]

I really don't understand the 350k threshold on a completely man made run. The run/Lake WA system seams to be telling us pretty consistently that it can not maintain that level. Why is it not managed to sustain a run of ~50k-150k fish? This seams to be what the run/system is telling us it can do. Too lazy or belligerent to change? Too arrogant to listen to what the system is telling us with returns year after year after year? Don't know but it's frustrating.
With Baker and Wenatchee requiring 10x less to be sustainable it just doesn't make sense to me unless I get cynical.

Now for the cynicism; I think the WDFW just doesn't want to manage another salmon fishery in this densely populated urban center. The enforcement resources needed to monitor it are probably pretty considerable given the size of the lake and pressure it would get every year with an open sockeye fishery. Think Seafair for sporties kinda s show. Keeping it at 350k prevents having to deal with that headache. Keep at 350k, give a few fish to tribes, collect check for "managing" the run....win win except for sporties, but what do we matter anyways.....

[riverhunter]

Glad to hear your perspective on this subject. I actually knew about the baker lake stock being a lot stronger then the natural run from a century ago just would he nice to see a bigger if possible. The revenue would be great for the region. Also one thing I must point out is that lake Wenatchee stock actually are naturally occurring and are a substock of the Columbia run. The cle elum run they are trying to esta6also comes from the Columbia

[Jakefish]

Also one thing I must point out is that lake Wenatchee stock actually are naturally occurring and are a substock of the Columbia run.

I don't know where I saw that they were Baker stock, but you are at least partly right. See page 475 of this https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00194/ ... pndx_3.pdf It seems there was a native stock there that has been supplemented with other stocks including Lake Quinault fish, so the genetic profile is different from other Columbia fish and the origin is somewhat unknown. In any case, they are now naturally spawning.

[riverhunter]

I really don't understand the 350k threshold on a completely man made run. The run/Lake WA system seams to be telling us pretty consistently that it can not maintain that level. Why is it not managed to sustain a run of ~50k-150k fish? This seams to be what the run/system is telling us it can do. Too lazy or belligerent to change? Too arrogant to listen to what the system is telling us with returns year after year after year? Don't know but it's frustrating.
With Baker and Wenatchee requiring 10x less to be sustainable it just doesn't make sense to me unless I get cynical.

Now for the cynicism; I think the WDFW just doesn't want to manage another salmon fishery in this densely populated urban center. The enforcement resources needed to monitor it are probably pretty considerable given the size of the lake and pressure it would get every year with an open sockeye fishery. Think Seafair for sporties kinda s show. Keeping it at 350k prevents having to deal with that headache. Keep at 350k, give a few fish to tribes, collect check for "managing" the run....win win except for sporties, but what do we matter anyways.....

That right there is my frustration is why manage a run this way that is man made but then your perspective might be onto something. Thanks for your input

[G-Man]

At the Cedar River Watershed meeting last month, the state biologists had some pretty hard evidence that the low returns were mainly driven by the low fry survival rate. Now many people point fingers at the cutthroat in the lake as the main cause, but I can tell you for certain they they aren't the main reason for the low rate of fry survival. It's becoming more clear that the out migration of fry, in gin clear waters of the Cedar river, coupled with the ever present glow of artificial light during the nighttime hours, makes them easy prey for any other fish in the lake.

So, with a very low rate of fry survival, a larger number of adult spawners are required to not only return enough for harvest, but just to keep the run alive. Knowing that the surrounding municipalities are not going to impose light pollution reduction laws and are even less likely to mess with their drinking water supply in order to give the fish a fighting chance when migrating out into the lake, I feel the run is pretty much doomed and will not reach the kind of numbers to ever again provide a viable sport fishery unless some odd weather patterns occur at the most opportune of times. At this point I think the State would be better off focusing on the coho and chinook runs in the system and figuring out a way to re-introduce a steelhead population.

[Jakefish]

At the Cedar River Watershed meeting last month, the state biologists had some pretty hard evidence that the low returns were mainly driven by the low fry survival rate. Now many people point fingers at the cutthroat in the lake as the main cause, but I can tell you for certain they they aren't the main reason for the low rate of fry survival. It's becoming more clear that the out migration of fry, in gin clear waters of the Cedar river, coupled with the ever present glow of artificial light during the nighttime hours, makes them easy prey for any other fish in the lake.

So, with a very low rate of fry survival, a larger number of adult spawners are required to not only return enough for harvest, but just to keep the run alive. Knowing that the surrounding municipalities are not going to impose light pollution reduction laws and are even less likely to mess with their drinking water supply in order to give the fish a fighting chance when migrating out into the lake, I feel the run is pretty much doomed and will not reach the kind of numbers to ever again provide a viable sport fishery unless some odd weather patterns occur at the most opportune of times. At this point I think the State would be better off focusing on the coho and chinook runs in the system and figuring out a way to re-introduce a steelhead population.

Very interesting insight, thank you. What has changed from the boom years of lake Washington sockeye in the mid-2000's? Certainly it isn't a drastic increase of light pollution - unless it is a change in the type of light? Is it the switch to LED or other bulbs that has changed the light pollution situation?

[G-Man]

Biologists were onto this issue a while ago: https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/fisheries/Pub ... /FP140.pdf If you go back 15 years, the last large run's out migration of fry, and think about all the new developments in the area since then, you'd be surprised at how much more light pollution we have now. Add to that the type of lighting we saw come into favor allows for more output with less use of electricity and at a wavelength which more readily penetrates water. But most importantly, I look at the changes Boeing has made at their Renton plant. New lights, lots of them and working all hours of the day in an area of the river\lake where there is little to no cover. With the increase in population we also see a reduction in stream flows coming into the system, especially with the Cedar river. Low flows generally mean clear water and no cover for the fish when they make their way into the lake. Even when we get our heavy rains in spring, rarely does it color the water enough to help out the fry due to our outstanding efforts to control soil erosion and keeping the river running in its current channel. If we can get a handle on the lighting issue and find a way to introduce color into the the river's waters during times of out migration, I believe we'd have a fighting chance at a recreational fishery.

[riverhunter]

These are all great responses and taking bits of everyones perspective to create my own. I get managing a diverse fishery in the lake but there has to be a bettet way