dams or nets?

[Timber Man]

O.K. here is the deal, dams or nets what will make the biggest impact on our returns?

[Mrdorkfish]

I personally think that neither of those choices have a great impact on returns......by looking at the numbers, fish will always be able to get over the dams and regulation of netting stops gillnets from ****** the fishery........So i think the the real impact comes from the ocean conditions and the amount of food available to our little salmanoid friends. Has anyone noticed that this year has had no closures? We have fished straight through !! Yippeeeeeeee!!

Ok ....let me have it....what do you think?

Mrdorkfish

[This message has been edited by Mrdorkfish (edited 09-13-2000).]

[garyk]

An impossible question to answer. The variables (negative impacts), and number of them, are different for each watershed.

Within the constellation of variables, those that permenantly effect a river (dams blocking passage, sedimentation from roads and logging, de-watering, water quality degradation and so forth) are the most serious.

[Deleted User]

I think that both have undeniable negative impacts on fish runs. Dams are the bigger culprit, but they have become a seemingly necessary evil for the fish. We need better fish passage technology. The less damaging nets are easier to get rid of though. Ocean survival, beyond our control, does seem to be the biggest single factor. At least lately. - RT

[Pete]

RT, I agree that ocean conditions are really important and largely out of our control. Given an choice between nets and dams, we are much more likely to remove nets from the rivers. Ultimately, though, we need to address the entire salmon habitat. I think it's really telling that more than half of the historic spawning habitat in the Columbia drainage is cut off by dams without passage facilities. The spawning habitat that remains is seriously altered in all sorts of ways.

The threats to wild salmon are potentially even greater than we now face. Recently salmon runs in eight rivers in Maine were proposed for protection. The story is pretty sad. Last year only 200 fish returned in these eight rivers, according to a story in the Washington Post. The culprit is one we haven't faced in Oregon...commercial net pen salmon. In a truly underhanded move to subvert a law which prohibits transplanting fish or eggs from other areas, the commercial guys are using Norwegian milt to spawn their net pen fish. We can only hope no one brings this threat to Oregon waters.

[TheRogue]

Have you noticed....not much noise coming from the major Californian conservation/environmental groups the last couple of months concerning tearing those dams out??? At least, not since BPA shipped that the "miniscule" extra power that comes from the Snake River dams, and kept their air conditioners running!!

Seriously, though... If the Columbia/Snake systems where the only rivers with depressed runs in the NorthWest, then it would be easy to point fingers at the dams, and be pretty confident doing so. However, they aren't. garyk hits it on the head when he states "An impossible question to answer. The variables (negative impacts), and number of them, are different for each watershed."

Nearly every single river with Northward migrating salmonoids has return problems, whether they have dams, completely clearcut watersheds, or pristine environments. Causes? Well, Canadian and Alaskan overfishing, 30-mile driftnets, El Nino, etc...the only common factor is what goes on in the ocean. What can we control? In one way or another, just about everything except the temperature.

Now, with the ocean conditions themselves turning around, the runs have made a jump, pretty much everywhere. Hatchery fish will always show a bigger jump in numbers in large river systems than the natives...there's so darn many of them to begin with. Eventually, given a longer period of time with good ocean conditions, the nates will come around.

I hear so many times how we are ruining the planet, how a return to Mother Nature (or God, if you prefer) would make everything perfect. Tell me then, why, south of the Frasier River, there are pink returns ONLY every other year? What cataclysmic event caused this? Pretty sure it wasn't a clear-cut or a dam.

Without a doubt, fish passage could and should be improved. The thinking behind no ladders at Hells Canyon Dam and Grand Coulee was just insane...but totally acceptable in it's day. Retrofit these dams with ladders?? Ok, who's going to foot the bill. We in the Pacific NW have lived with ultra-cheap power for years. Are we ready to double, maybe triple those power bills? There are many people outside of the NW who think we should be. I, for one, am not.

Wow, I got carried away on this one. I know it's probably really angered some of the people here, but I think there's plenty who feel the same as I do. The beauty of this BB, compared to everyplace else I've been on, whether it be fishing related, business, professional, etc., is the civility and the explanation of personal opinions that one finds here. Little name calling, and respect, if not acceptance for other positions.

I've had my mind changed before about other things, I'm open to someone changing my attitude towards dams.

By the way, I'm anti-net...let's take 50% of the "allowable harvest" out at the ladder at Bonneville dam, and do it that way.

T.R.

[Deleted User]

Have to agree with garyk as well, but I can be very certain that my fishing success has little or NO impact on the run whatsoever. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[TheRogue]

With you there, fobbman!!! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

WEll I for one would like to remove all the nets and let's just see how badly the dams damage a run. That's my 2-cents worth. I could give you the dollar version, but then I would get tired of typing.

[finclipped]

Why does the NMFS allocate 9% fish mortality to tribes, 1/2% mortality to the sport anglers, and 20 something percent mortality to the damns, if the dams don't kill salmon? This is for springers. This doesn't take into fact the smolts filled on their journey down stream or the loss of spawning water to begin with.

Has anyone noticed what is at the bottom of the Columbia river behind the dams? Its mud deposited in the slack water. How well can salmon spawn in mud?

Do you really think we can improve runs without removing dams? How long will these favorable Ocean conditions last?

For sure the nets can devistate a run, but it is highly regulated and only allowed in years of "surplus" of fish.

Matter of fact I'm not too keen on either one.

[Deleted User]

I'm anti-dam until I want to use the PC, TV, heating/airconditioning, kitchen, read at night, vacuum cleaner, etc. etc. In other words, we've obvoulsly become a society dependant upon electricity. I was originally for the removal of the 4 Snake R. dams in question and, while I haven't given up hope of that, now have been educated on just how risky that could be. It may wind up not working. If you think the Col. R. is muddy now, how much silt would be deposited in the river from such an endeavor? I don't know but it would likely be immense! So too would be the costs of removal, and more expensive rates from reduced power sourses. I don't think anybody really knows the answers. What I do know is that a much quicker and less expensive and risky movement is for really improving fish passage technology (for smolts and adults). As for the nets, how about restricting use to tooth tangle nets (which may allow release of sufficient numbers of native fish alive) in areas above a large percentage of the sportfishing areas. Better yet, let licensed gill netters sort thru and take the brightest of the excess hatchery fish right from the ponds, and do away with netting. And of course keep after proper timber cutting and industrial polution management efforts, ETC.! - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-14-2000).]

[finclipped]

RT, you have mellowed out a little. Must be that vacation.

I am not sure of the total silt/mud that would be swept downstream from dam removal,I admit it would be immense. However it is my opinion this would have minimal effect on downstream spawning of salmon, and here is why.

Any potential spawning grounds behind the damns are already saturated with silt. Therefore they are barron to salmon production. What would likely happen is the silt would eventually be redeposited at the next downstream dam making it necessary to dredge.

Since the salmon can't spawn behind the reservoirs, and silt can not go up stream into the tributaries, it won't effect other spawning area's.

As far as power goes, these dams produce less than 5% of regions power and removing them would open up vast area's of salmon habitat, comperable to the Hanford Reach, which is the only healthy stretch of the river left.

I still see the importance of cheap electric power, jobs and irrigation, but would like to see the lower Snake River dams removed.

[Deleted User]

If it could be cost effective and risk free, I'm for it too finclipped. however, the Hanford Reach, which has the biggest remaining healthy native population of fall chinook salmon, is a mainstem spawning ground; and is this area that I was thinking about when I mentioned the possible negatives of tons of flowing and covering silt.

[Mike H]

RT - Isn't the Hanford Reach upstream of the confluence of the Snake & the Columbia? I believe it is and therefore there is no danger of silting from removal of the 4 lower Snake River dams. The silt is not going to travel upstream. Other than the strain of chinook which spawns in the Hanford Reach, I don't believe there are any other mainstem spawners in the Columbia or lower Snake.

To all the anti-netters: Do any of you have any statistics regarding the netters and their "huge" impacts on the salmon runs? Please post them if you do. I could be wrong but I have a feeling that most of you are just jumping on the anti-netter bandwagon without seeing any hard evidence. Remember the sport fishermen take fish as well so we could be just as much at fault for the wild salmon crisis. (Please don't give me the over-used example of the hook & release study done on the Willamette. I've heard it already and I don't believe it to bee all that powerful.)

Don't get me wrong, I think the netters are part of the "problem" but you can't point the finger at them without first placing some of the blame on sportfishermen.

Mike H

[Ed]

If I was a betting man, I would not put my money on any dams being removed in the near future; say the next 10 years or so. Now this may or may not personally suit me but I think it is the reality of the situation. Accepting this, I feel I need to focus on what I can realistically expect to change within the current framework. Thanks.

[Pilar]

Consider this.........
Does anyone know, with any certainty, how global temperatures have varied over time? Yeah I know they can do archeaology on fossils and the growth rings in petrified wood. I'm talking detailed records of temperature variations on a daily basis.

By the same token, does any one have a detailed record of salmon runs over a long period of time? The answer is no. Yet, laws are written making policy about greenhouse gasses and eco effects of industry anyway. Also laws governing the fish .. ESA, dam removal, harvest limits ... Based on junk science.

My point here is the fallacy of applying modern science and analysis to our present day and trying to draw conclusions about how today compares with yesterday.

The pointy heads are convinced that the Earth is heating up. It probably is and it is also probable that this is completely normal and part of a cycle we don't understand. We humans are incapable of thinking in time on a geologic scale. A thousand years is a measurable period of time to the earth.

We humans think in minutes, hours, days......can you fathom a thousand years?

I believe that the salmon populations have and will vary over time ....... in a way that we may never understand.

There seem to be fewer of all anadromous fishes now and we Humans probably had something to do with it. But the salmon is a very successful species. It has had hard times before and recovered. It will recover again.

Junk science and making a very small amount of information into a big deal is part of the problem. Salmon recovery can never happen if we don't have some intellectual honesty in the science used. When every scientific study favors the sponsor of the study, I'd say we have a ways to go.

The bend is your friend!

[finclipped]

Mike H, there is one other strain of Chinook that I know of spawning downstream on the Columbia. Directly below Bonneville Dam chinooks are spawning. Biologist believe that Upper River Brights started recolonizing this area a few years ago. I think they could also be hatchery fish. If you haven't seen it, it is good spawning water that stretches for about two miles with lots of rocks and a fast moving current. I don't see how silt could make it this far downstream from the Snake River Dams, but even if it did, the current is very fast here.

I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. Those dams are not going to be removed any time soon.

[Deleted User]

Mike H - You're right. Most of the HR fish spawn above the confluence. My mistake. But I think some may spawn from the confluence down toward McNary Dam before it becomes a lake? .... If you don't put any of your confidence in the extensive 2 year study of C&R Willamette springers Mike, why would "reported" numbers of gillnetter take of fish impress you? The numbers are often published in the paper BTW (I wonder how "hard" those numbers are?). And what sportfishing blame would you place on us? Please include "hard evidence" and the numbers, like you've requested of the gillnetting issue. I know what goes on, but you get my drift; you can't have different criteria values for your points! --- Pilar, what is "junk" science, and is it not better than no science? You seem in your post to be confident of salmon recovery regardless of the data that has been obtained and whether we make the corresponding measured responses. Did I read you right? - Maybe it's better to err on the side of native fish. - RT

[Salmonator]

I am gonna guess the height of Foster Dam on the Santiam at 200ft+. A few years back we were up in the lake and immediately behind the dam the fish finder only showed 60 feet. In disbelief I dropped a sinker down and it was correct. I think there's a little muck backed up there...

[This message has been edited by Salmonator (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Backlash2]

RT- The lake that backs up behind McNary comes all the way to just above Richland. The "Reach" ends there. I have talked to a biologist that says they have found a small amount of spawning does take place in all of the pools behind Columbia and Snake River dams, but it is very minimal. Breaching the four Snake dams would not silt out the Reach at all. However, would that giant brown cloud affect fish travel up and down the river? It's hard to believe that it wouldn't(especially the smolts). Remember, long before loggers, riverside condos, gravel mining etc., catastrophic floods have always taken place. Rivers so dirty you could walk across them for months. Landslides blocking upstream migration until the river could break back through. Salmon and Steelhead are very resilient!!!!! I also agree with Pilar. "Junk" science rules when it comes to every agency trying to deal with the salmon problem. I tend to only give credibility towards non-partisian research(University of Wash., etc), as all government agencies only release the findings of their work after it has been sent up a beaurucratic ladder where it is twisted and manipulated to say what the current political agenda wants it to say.
One more thought-- whatever they decide to do, quit doing it half ass. Dams are the problem, or they are not. The dams on the Snake are no different than those on the Columbia. Tear them all out if it will really work(yeah, right)!! My vote goes to getting rid of the nets, and all of them! High seas, ocean, commercial river, indian river, all of them. I personally believe we would all freak out from all the fish in our rivers. But again, don't do it half ass, get rid of all of them! Headed upriver in the morning for those brights, concrete scuffs on there noses, or not!

[Pilar]

Junk science is a questionable unverified study that is touted as the real thing. Remember 'Cold Fusion'? RT it is very good as far as science goes when different groups of scientists perform the same type of studies and get the same results. No one could repeat the results of the group that discovered 'cold fusion'. They were laughed out of the scientific community.

The fact that the result is repeatable when checked by different groups gives it credibility. We don't see that sort of thing with the studies done on habitat and wildlife populations that are used to make policy decisions.

What we see is a group, lets say the Federal Gov. or a Timber company sponsoring a study. This study when completed, then supports the position (big surprise!?!) of the group sponsoring the study.

Until this study is used to justify some position or new law it is laughable and ignored by the legitimate scientists. But if this one study is used to justify lets say keeping dams or stopping federal timber sales or whatever it becomes 'junk' science.

It's a lot like watching TV and hearing that Apricot pits cure cancer. The study that supports that finding was probably sponsored by the apricot growers. A month later you hear that apricot pits are bad for you. That study was probably sponsored by a competing interest.

Two things of importance here.

1) It is good science when a whole bunch of different groups get similar results. Until some new information achieves this status it is only speculation and should not be used to justify policy decisions.

2) The first thing to note about new information is who paid for it. No one is going to Dis thier employer. In other words use critical thinking.

The trouble with what passes for science now is that the period of time or amount of info studied is small. We use methods now that were unheard of 50 years ago. When compared with the time that has gone by, the last 50 years is a very short time.

Yes, I believe in the Salmon and that they will survive somehow. Look at what happened to the elk on Mt. St. Helens after it blew up. They are thriving now after surviving a hellish explosion and total destruction of habitat.

Imagine all of the disasters the Salmon have survived over the millenia; Natural dams (landslides) blocking spawning grounds, Volcanic eruptions filling rivers with silt, drought, El nino .... ETC. All natural events and all survived by Mr. Spotty tail and his relatives. I'll get off my soap box now!

The bend is your friend!

P.S. Is the ocean all better now or what? The fish are doing better this year and I think the ocean is to blame. Maybe Al Gore will take credit for that like he did for the internet.

[This message has been edited by Pilar (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Hammer Bob]

Pilar is right about junk science but I think a few more points are worth mentioning. RT junk science is worse than no science. These studies are often conducted very poorly and produce questionable data. The problem arises when these studies make it into the literature and pretty soon are being touted as "good" science by those who don't take the time to review the methods used to collect the data. The rush to publish scientific findings often fosters "junk" science and it is not always picked up by the required peer review process.

Advocate scientists are another issue entirely. While the studies they conduct may be very complete and thorough the way the data is presented is not always on the money but rather sides with the money. All of the data generated from studies funded by special interest groups (timber, water users, ect. ect) must be scrutinized with care. The key point is that a close examination of the methods employed to collect the data as well as the data itself be conducted before any sweeping conclusions can be made. In issues concerning ecological impacts from dam removals or other fisheries related issues "hard" data is very scarce and therefore regulations are often developed more from speculations rather than irrefutable studies. One only has to look at the decisions and policies developed by the NMFS concerning the management and sustainability of our fishery resources. This is a good example of how little or often no data can result in bad interpretation and policy implimentation with profound consequences.

[Pilar]

Yeah, what he said!! Right on brotha!!

The bend is your friend!

[Deleted User]

Pilar and Hammer, your takes are very interesting. And I believe they hold a lot of crediblilty concerning "conflict of interest" (junk) science. And there is no shortage of that crud out there. However Pilar, you applied the term "junk" to the science status of native salmon and steelhead stocks in the NW- to quote, "Also laws governing the fish...ESA, dams, harvest limits...based on junk science". Every source, other than perhaps the commercial gillnetters, indicate in their studies and credible observations that the status of native fish runs have declined dramatically. Federal studies, Ore./Wash./Id. fisheries dept.'s studies, university fisheries dept.'s studies, and a whole lot of good fishermen, that catch a lot of fish anyway, all are on the same page about these dramatic declines and the need to protect and enhance the recovery of important native salmon and steelhead stocks. - Not intending to dis your post, I'm just very opinionated about the native fish issues. With good reason! - RT

[garyk]

El problemo with your 1:52 post there Pilar.

Yes salmonid populations are resilent, especially to natural disturbances as you described and history has proven.

Problem is, human activities are inflicting system-wide downward pressures. There is no un-impacted area to both serve as a refuge and a reservoir to re-establish populations.

The 'junk science' angle is overplayed as well. Disagree with the studies all you want but the indisputable fact is the wild populations are on a downward trend. There are year to year ups and downs but the overall trend in the last decades is a downward decline.

[Hammer Bob]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing on the basic fact that wild stocks of salmonids are and have been in serious decline in every watershed man has modified. Dams certainly create a situation of loss of habitat which is undoubtably the single largest contributing factor to these declines. Fishing by whatever means along with ocean conditions also play important roles in declines of wild stocks. Another issue which has not been broached is the problems associated with hatchery produced fish. Hatchery fish have and are having great impacts on the recovery of native stocks and unless hatcheries are eliminated recovery of native wild runs of salmon are unlikley. Most fisherman I know squall like mashed cats when the issue of eliminating hatcheries comes up but the science is there indicating that unless hatcheries are eliminated native runs will continue to decline or even be eliminated in the majority of river systems. The question is how much support will the fishing public put into supporting this recommendation?

[garyk]

Brave words about the hatcheries there HB, and well put.

My personal opinion are that hatcheries are one the greatest failed natural science experiments ever undertaken. To think we could substitute hatcheries for healthy rivers is one of man's greatest displays of arrogance. Just imagine if the one-half the dollars spent on hatcheries, even only in the last 25 years, had been spent instead on protecting and restoring the NATURAL hatcheries - our healthy rivers. Actually, the money wouldn't have been an 'expenditure' as much as a 'capital investment'.

As to whether fisherman are going to support it? In some ways and places it won't matter as its not fisherman footing the bill but tax payers. We're already seeing a bit of this on the Columbia as non-fisherman begin to ask what's being produced by billion-dollar expenditures? Years ago, Bill Bakke said that at some point hatcheries would become too expensive to operate. Given the general increasingly conservative political atmosphere that opposes investing in public infrastructure and services, this scenario becomes more and more likely.

[Deleted User]

Interesting topic with good points by all. I enjoy learning things I haven't given enough thought to at times. I agree with much of what you guys are saying about the hatcheries Hammer and Garyk. It's become more and more apparent about these failures. But I am of the opinion that we aren't at a point that we should just shut down all the hatcheries for a couple big reasons. First, that would also shut down a majority of our salmon and steelhead fishing for many many years. Second, 3 of the biggest historic problems with hatcheries are being corrected. They are now finclipping hats (hatchery fish) so that we can carefully release nates (native fish) to survive. They are trying to keep hatchery production closer to genetics indingeneous to specific watersheds thru selective breeding, brood stock programs, and planting placement. They are also releasing less hat smolts and at different times to reduce competition with nate fingerlings and smolts to increase nate survival rates. - You are right that it's a shame that things were done improperly from so long ago, but we can't change what happened; only make corrections the best we can, other than to stop fishing for salmon and steelhead altogether for a few decades please! I don't think we have to go that far to achieve significant recovery. As for the original topic: out with the gillnets and in with much improved fish passage at the dams until they can be safely removed, preferably with replacement energy sources in place. - RT



[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-16-2000).]

[garyk]

RT -- I agree that we've become so dependant on hatcheries for fishable stocks that closing them, without harvestable populations of natives would be painful. Still in all, every dollar spent on hatcheries is a dollar not spent on permanent solutions. Now, what if the well of dollars runs dry and you have neither harvestable natives or hats; and what you DO have is degraded rivers and relic populations - now this IS scary. (I wonder if Steven King needs an idea for another scare 'em book??)

[Deleted User]

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif You're saying we might have to settle for trout, sturgeon, bass, golf, racing, flying, poker, basketabll, etc., etc., etc.? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Pilar]

Whoa there RT!!!!!!!!! A guy goes to sea for a few hours and the moderator goes south and misses the point.

Only a complete idiot would miss the decline in Native Salmon stocks, it goes without saying, duh!!?!

The point is that there is an abundance of people willing to push their pet issue, IE: decline of native fish stocks, and use whatever study comes down the road that seems to fit the bill. However dubious the parentage or convenient the result of the study.

Tell me that the spotted owl is not a poster child for all the interests that would end logging for whatever reason!! And you yourself would use any study you could find to push your point on Native fish or ending gillnetting.

It seems none of us can remain completely objective when we are rallying behind what we really care about. Or not objective enough to use critical thinking and examine the information we use to justify our point of view.

Wouldn't your point be well taken if you had some facts to back it up? Wouldn't it be nice if we really knew what is happening to our fish? In the issue of declining fish stocks, all of us are quick to blame the other guy and deny our own contribution. The Army Corp. of Engs denies the effect of the dams, the sport fisherman blames the netter, the logger blames the fishermen, the aluminum smelter defends thier access to cheap power and so on.

Seems that no one group is willing to accept thier part of the problem!! Every solution to the problem is a political solution with the good effect compromised away. Every group at the table gets some of what they want, except the fish that need help.

You missed my point. I'm pointing out the futility of human efforts to control something that is incompletly understood.

Oh and by the way, if the fish are endangered, why in the hell are we fishing for them!! Go figure that one out while you're sitting in the hog line.

The bend is your friend!!

[Hammer Bob]

Continuing the debate on hatchery fish I would like to bring up a few other points. first of all what is a native fish...currently that would be any fish which spawns instream (river). Ideally these fish would consist of strains which have developed and adapted to the specific conditions within a river system. The genome of these fish is the result of natural selection over eons and makes these fish unique. Unfortunalty for the most part these strains are lost by dilution of their genome through the mixing with hatchery produced fish. Hatcheries for decades have introduced and mixed strains of salmon from various river sustems. This pratice has caused serious damage and compromised many runs of salmonids. One crystal clear example is that of California Coho. These strains of fish have had their genome so diluted from the influences of stocked fish from other river sytems their recovery is unlikely in many of their traditional streams (I have many references if you wish to persue this).

Hatchery fish not only compete with native (naturally produced fish is probably a better term)stocks as smolts but also on spawing grounds. With the loss of habitats through dams, logging, water diversions, ect. there is only a limited number of sites available for redds. When hatchery fish are present on the spawining grounds they compete for space these redds. The artificially large number of fish returning to the available spawning grounds also creates a situation where redds created earlier are effectively rototilled up by other fish attempting to spawn. If there is a genuine interest in the recovery of native salmonids the the elimination of hatcheries is essential. The evidence is very conclusive that hatcheries do nothing to contribute to the recovery of native stocks and actually impede the recovery process. Hatcheries are principally supplying fish for commercial harvest be it through ocean troll fisheries, Indian nets, or the recreational fisherman. Again if there is a true interest in the recovery of native fish than we as fisherman must recognize that excess fish production by hatcheries must stop and yes we will have severe reductions in our fishing oportunities for many years. Break out those golf clubs!

The belief that hatcheries are cleaning up their act may be appealing but it is well recognized that the damage for the most part has already been done to the unique genome of the historical runs of salmon. Selection of indegenious stock is difficult at best because of the previous intorduction of foreign strains of fish. Hatchery personel cannot spawn all fish entering the hatchery so selection of broodstock is a result of convienence more than anything else. As difficult as it is to accept native fish will only begin to recover with the elimination of hatcheries.

Now that I have stirred the pot a little with a refelection on how current science views hatcheries and native fish I would like to present my opinion. I do NOT believe that elimination of hatcheries is the answer to our salmon problems. Without restoring natural hydrographs and habitat to our river systems fish don't stand a chance. With our dependence of water for agriculture and electricity it is unlikely that a significant number of dams will be removed in the near future if at all. There certainly a number of river and stream systmes which would be conducive to allowing native fish stocks to recover through habitat restoration and elimination of hatchery produced fish. Our larger heavier modified river systems however will have to continue to be supported by hatchery production if we are going to maintain commercial and recreational fishing oportunities. I for one don't want all my fishing to be curtailed through idealistic attempts at salmon restoration. There must be a balance between the potential for success and a realization of what is feasable.

[Deleted User]

Chill Pilar. I didn't go south or anywhere else but to the point I made. Re-read them. As I stated I wasn't trying to dis your post, which had some interesting points as with most of your good posts on the BB (which I really like BTW); I only quoted and took exception to your quote that "Also laws governing the fish...ESA, dams, harvest limints ... is junk science". No biggie. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I don't let what I percieve as possible mis-info that I really care about go by without some debate. As you now say, contradictive of your previous quote, "only an idiot would miss the decline in Native Salmon stocks". You can't have it both ways; either your stance is the decline issue is based on junk science or it's even obvious to an idiot. Which is it? That's all. I also did say that I agree with you that many special interest (junk science) studies are flawed and lack credibility, so I didn't miss your point (re-read it). Just not the studies concerning declining native fish stocks. Also, as a sportfisher on the water and thru commentary on this BB and others I've done much to promote protection of declining nates thru advocating careful proper release of them; which extensive 2 year studies (this one wasn't "junk" science!) show less than a 7% mortality rate, even with less than proper C&R! You asked, if the nates are in such decline why allow us to fish for them at all? Because they are often intermixed with hatchery fish and are carefully released using barbless hooks. As Jim Martin, former head of ODFW and renouned as the foremost knowledgable salmon/steelhead biologist in the region, said on our old Discussion Board, "with the amount of angler proper fish release education in recent years and reg.s for C&R on native fish stocks, the less than 10% (and likely less than 7%) mortality rate on the most fragile native stocks, which recieve low fishing pressure when they are present during the late winter steelhead seasons (for example) is very acceptable and won't put undue overall negative affects on native run propegation". Same for the Columbia fish stocks that are going to have all hatchery fish finclipped by next year, or certainly by the following year. - H. Bob, I agree with much of your latest above post, including your later paragraph about the unfeasability of what we would have to go thru to genuinely restore native runs; which may no longer be of pure genetic strain on many rivers due to interbreeding with mixed stocks. Maybe we should halt all fishing and planting on a select number of salmon and steelhead streams with the purest of genetic bases left to rebuild those runs back to health. Then years later sell special river designation license to C&R fish in what would become very special rivers (as they currently do for "classified" steelhead streams up in B.C.). The larger heavy use rivers that have lost wild genetic purity seem to be best used as a put and take hatchery fishery; particularly with the 3 big hatchery improvements, I mentioned in an above post, kept in place. And with C&R on unclipped fish to allow natural propegation to augment the runs and fishing opportunity. There is heated controversy concerning the WDFW and Tacoma City Light attempting to turn the big Cowlitz R. into a restricted C&R nate only fishery, despite having many better candidates for such ventures (less costs equal more profits for TCL of course). It'll be very interesting to watch that battle unfold in the next couple of years! It is a strong fishery that takes up much area fishing pressure that would otherwise fall onto other nearby rivers if the above is carried out. -- Hey Pilar, I really appreciate your knowledgable great ocean fishing info reports. The tuna trip sounded awesome! Maybe you'll allow this "haven't really gone south" fisher to pile into your Pilar boat for one of those trips someday? Would be fun! Take care, Steve



[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Deleted User]

If the need for a commercial fishery is so important then why don't we relocate hatcheries to the mouths of rivers or bays, instead of many miles up the river? This would feasably take care of a large part of the roaming hatchery spawners while at the same time allow the natives (however dilluted their gene pool is) to head further upstream where the spawning beds are.

I heard somewhere that many of the tribal hatcheries are closer to the mouths of rivers than the others. Is this true? Seems smart to me, but I'm not very schmart about this stuph.

[Trick]

Salmonoid species, I believe, are not totally understood as far as there habits are concerned. I'm sure most of you still remember when Mt. St. Helens blew in 80'. The Cowlitz river was an absolute mess. I remember watching the thick choclate soup pouring from the mouth of the Cowlitz into the Columbia. The damage to the Toutle was massive and it was a widley held belief that no fish would be able to spawn there for several seasons. The fish that were heading up the Columbia bound for the Cowlitz and Toutle spawned in other river systems until the health of the river returned. Net pens have been introduced to a few lower Columbia areas like Youngs Bay and Blind slough. They have been raising stocks of Willamete Spring Chinook and did you know that 450 springers were recycled by the Big Creek Hatchery earlier this year? My point being that even putting hatcheries or pens in the main river is not stopping these fish from roaming. I believe it is a natural survival response built in to survive disasters like Mt. St. Helens. The fishs instinct tells it that it can't spawn in mud and they are confused, in a sense, and they head up any old stream that bears a similiar marker(smell). How many thousands of years did it take for each river system to develop it's distinct runs, like Tules to the lower Columbia? How many decades has it taken us to cripple the system? I believe, like RT stated, were taking steps to correct some of the problems with the hatchery programs, but we are never going to be able to overcome the damage thats been done. Give it a few thousand years after the mother ship comes and flys us home. One more point on the net pens, I remember a scare up north a few years back when a net full of Atlantic Salmon tore apart and released at least hundreds of fish into the Pacific. Would these fish wander into fresh water like the springers in the lower Columbia are doing now? I think that problem may be even larger than the hatchery programs. Wait to the 500lb Chinooks start running up the river and sink a few gillnet boats and eat a few seals on their way upstream, oh wait, that was a different discussion, my mind began to wander.

[Gone Fishin]

Great discussion here!

I want to know your opinions on "native broodstock fish" or, "naturally produced broodstock fish" whichever you want to call them.

Hatchery fish are inferior, know this to be fact. They damage the "native" genetics as well as compete in the spawning grounds and as fry going out to sea, we know this as fact.

WE NEED hatchery fish ???

(I say we do) Then, to me it only makes sense to use that particular strain that is "native" to the particular area where you supplement the fish production of "naturally produced fish" with hatchery raised fish.

That's why I'm in total favor of these broodstock programs the OWHF and ODFW are trying to come up with. I think if you're going to put anything in a system, it should have been in that system in the first place.

What's your opinion? -Marty P.

[Mike H]

I think it's fairly evident that we live in a society which seems caught up in trying to "save the salmon." Don't you find it ironic that when it comes down to sacrificing some of our luxuries or lifestyles we've grown acustomed to, on behalf of the salmon, we just can't do it! Some examples:

Dams: Sure, the dams are terrible for the salmon BUT do we really have to remove them? I don't want to have to pay anymore for electricity. I'd have to pay as much as the rest of the country already does. How awful!

Timber Harvest: Yes, I know clearcutting can't be good for the enviroment BUT we can't get rid of that. These are jobs we're talking about! Besides, salmon live in the rivers, they don't really need trees.

Hatcheries: I hear that hatchery fish are extremely harmful towards wild fish, BUT a salmon is a salmon. Besides, I wouldn't want to give up my fishing to save the last few wild fish. Why don't we just plant 35468764658473574687 more hatchery smolts and call it good!

Pollution: This pollution we're dumping into the rivers and the air probably isn't good for the ecosystem, BUT my SUV is sooooo comfortable. I don't see any smoke coming out of the tailpipe! And the river polluters probably are hurting the salmon BUT that's Oregon Industry you're talking about. It's ok if they pollute because I do my part and recycle my beer cans!

Habitat: Yes, I know wood is good to have in the streams BUT whenever I go to the river, I always see some sticks lying around. What's everybody complaining about? Plus those big logs are too ugly and they are nothing but trouble when it floods! In fact, I last winter I found one of those huge logs on the lawn of my $8,000,000 riverfront mansion!

Predators: Sure, the fact that there's 8345234568435765 comorants and seals around isn't good for the salmon, BUT we can't just go out and kill those guys! They're soooo cute. We should protect them!

Pen-raised salmon: I realize that these fish aren't good for the ecosystem either BUT how could I live without my fresh atlantic salmon for dinner. Sure some of them escape but accidents happen. What's an exotic species anyways? It's sounds kinda neat!

Sportfishing: It's not our fault because we always release the wild fish and there's just a 7% mortality (BS!) We are nothing but good for the wild salmon. It's the damn commercial fishermen and the indians who are at fault!

Hope I didn't **** too many people off and I hope some of you can see the irony in this.

Mike H

PS: Excellent post Hammer Bob! That is until you said that getting rid of hatcheries isn't the answer. I don't think it's THE answer but every little bit helps!

[Deleted User]

I agree with your post Marty. I think I may have heard you are involved in the Nestucca brood stock program like Scott Amerman is on the Wilson? In talking with fish bio.s Rick Klump and Kieth Braun of the Tillamook office of the ODWF the programs are starting to see success. I forgot the exact details; do the broods (native fish caught by program members and kept in a live well for transport to specific hatchery ponds for greater propegation than possible in the wild- but released with pure wild genetics as essentially wild native smolts) progeny get a marking other than the adipose finclip Marty? Just wondering how they keep track of the success rates? I think this program is a great one! Helps mother nature to more quickly recover the nate populations. - I also agree with the consensus of hats being inferior in many ways to nates. One exception to this is the Skamania strain of summer steelhead, whose genetics are so strong they have been used to propegate entire summer steelhead runs in rivers where there weren't any. They also fight as well as most strong native fish. If you can Marty, let us know how more of us can get invovled in the brood stock programs, if there is need for help. Thanks. - Mike H., you have somewhat tongue in cheek sarcastically dissed many things that are harmful to the nates. Since you are so critical I have two Q's for you: Of all the ills you speak, how many do you or have you contributed to? And since you offer such harsh critisism via sarcasim, what viable proposals do you have to correct these ills? - RT


[This message has been edited by RT (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Hammer Bob]

Mike H. I certainly appreciated the irony of your post. We all talk some pretty big talk but are we willing to back it up and make the sacrifices needed to get the job done.

I will still stand by my position that getting rid of all hatchery fish will not solve the problem. Some of our riverine ecosystems are just to managed and altered to support any large numbers of salmon without hatchery supplement. These same systems are (for the most part) responsible for providing the numbers of fish needed to support a commercial and recreational harvest. Elimination of hatcheries on these systems will , in my opinion, do nothing to improve native stocks. In using the Sacramento River system as an example there is no distinguisable difference between hatchery produced fish and wild spawned fish. Elimination of hatchery fish in this system will only serve to reduce the number of fish available for harvest. This will shut down the Ca. ocean troll fishery as well as river and ocean recreational fisheries.

I believe that there are many many rivers and streams in the Northwest which would and could benefit from watershed stabilization, habitat restoration, and the elimination of hatchery stocked fish. The only systems I can justify stocking hatchery fish into are those in which the hydrology has been so altered that the possibility of self-sustaining stocks of native fish is naive.

I don't believe there is a fisherman out there who could tell the difference in fight between a hatchery produced fish and a fish spawned in-stream. They have both survived several years of ocean conditions and the rigors of migration.....hatchery fish are not wimps they are competitors with naturally spawned fish and do not contribute in a productive way to the unique genome of the indigenous strains within a river system. fighting ability is not a criteria we should be concerned with.

[Gone Fishin]

RT,

To answer your questions, yes I am involved in the Nestucca Broodstock Program. The program just got approved this past week, although work has already been started prior to approval at Cedar Creek Hatchery where these fish will be raised. This winter we will collect our first adults for this program, these fish will be LIVE SPAWNED then put back into the river.

On the Wilson River, (that had it's first return of broodstock steelhead last winter), the fish are marked by the adipose clip and also will be missing the left ventral fin.
Last winter's return to the Wilson produced very few ventral clipped steelhead due to the fact that these fish were originally being raised by inmates at the South Fork Prison Camp. (and they didn't give a rip about the program) The fish have since been relocated to the Trask River Hatchery and are doing much better and will be identifiable as broodstock fish.

The best way to help on these programs is to help out, you can sign up to help collect the Broodstock fish on the Wilson by contacting the ODFW office in tillamook: (503) 842-2741. I don't believe we'll be using volunteers on the Nestucca Program (unless you volunteer to be in my boat!)

Another good way to help out is to support the OWHF (Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation), the OWHF will be holding the 16th annual "North Coast Salmon Rendezvous" on November 9th & 10th here in Tillamook. To enter as an angler (the cost is $500 for two days of guided fishing), contact Rod Brobeck at the OWHF (503) 255-6059. In the past 16 years the "Rendezvous" has generated over $317,000 for fish projects in the North Coast area. This years funds (as well as last years) will be used to fund both the Wilson and Nestucca Broodstock programs.

If you can, come down and join us...It' a hoot!

[Deleted User]

Hey Marty, I volunteer to be in your boat with barbless hooks next March to collect some nates. Let me know when you have an open seat. RT

[Gone Fishin]

RT,

I've already got you penciled in! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[fishhead5]

Just finished reading an article that stated that hatchery fish had little effect on natve stock. Ill have to see which one it was in, so to let everyone know. I fish a river that has a dam on it, there was lots of fish in it 15 years ago. The dam has been on it for 80 years, the math doesnt add up. I think that too much blame is put on everything but the real problem, the game dept, they have managed our resource to death. Long Live the Kings, and Hood Canal Salmon Enhacment groups attuide is we will fix the habitat then what will their excuse be? I fish a brood stock program for steelhead, every year it is a fight with the game dept to keep the program going. You would think they would like the free labor.

[Pilar]

RT, one of the hallmarks of sanity is the ability to admit you are wrong! So ... I plead guilty to a poorly worded post that confused the issue I was trying to highlight. My apologies to the King.

I solve technical problems for a living. The whole concept of doing something, anything, even the wrong thing in an attempt to deal with a problem is troublesome to me. When I see someone swapping out parts until the system is fixed it is hard to take.

The key to problem solving is a thorough understanding of the root problem. I believe we humans really suck when it comes to natural resource management. We don't even think about the management part until we notice the resource is almost depleted.

Much of the past hatchery practices were just that, a quick fix. They thought 'Let's fill the rivers with artificially selected salmon and maybe that will solve the problem'.

Natural selection and genetic diversity is what made the salmon what it is. The ability to overcome hardship, jumping obstacles, ploughing through shallow water and straying to recolonize barren streams are the strengths of our salmon. We have polluted that genetic treasure with our misguided attempts to generate more fish.

Many good words have been spoken in this thread about the irony of using a resource while saving it. The good news is we can talk about this stuff and not come to blows. That gives me a great deal of hope.

The big question is what is the root problem with the decline of salmon and how do we solve it?

Oh RT, I need a bigger boat. There are quite a few who want to do the Tuna boogie with yours truly and my present craft only comfortably seats 3. You are welcome to join us when we go again next summer. We are also somewhat challenged by fish box size. Seven fish weighing 168lbs and 150lbs of ice made it hard to put the lid back on the box. The limit on Tuna is 25 for each fisher!!!!

The bend is your friend!

[This message has been edited by Pilar (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Kerry]

Dams or nets Hmmmm Well I just was out to the Hoh and there is no dam and there has only been a little logging on the lower end and yes they net the heck out of it and there is a lot of good gravel and lots of old trees in the park. The fish numbers have been going down so on this river I would say nets #1 and logging a little bit?

[Deleted User]

Thanks Pilar, you have given me another incentive to lose weight by next summer (I'll try to lose enough to allow for about 2 or 3 more tuna to keep). http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif No doubt about what you are saying of the unfortunate mismanagement issues. We can't change some of the mistakes they've made because it's too late in some cases, but they are improving many of the ways they operate. We can only do what's best with what situations we have from now on. - The biggest mistakes ever made were building some dams w/o fish ladders, such as the Grand Coulee on the Col. in NE Wash., and the Elwha on the northern Oly Pen. That made some huge runs of big fish become extinct! A real natural tragedy! Take care dude. - RT