True Sportsmen

[David Johnson]

I just want to compliment many of those who repied to my "uselesly releasing hatchery
fish" post.

You are true sportsmen and it is a honor to associate with you. To be out there for the
purpose of enjoying the outdoors God has given us and not just being there to take,
take, take.

It seams that a lot of times this attitude is lost in greed.

Catch and release is great and highly suggested on all native fish, I say native because wild only means that the fish was hathced in a natural environment regaardless of it's genetics.

Hatchery fish should be harvested, they are put into the rivers by agencies to mitagate
for lost habbitat.

Take what you need is a good idea.

Again,
Thank you for being true sportsmen.

David Johnson

------------------

[wiser]

The only way to tell that a fish is from a hatchery, without killing it, is by a clipped fin marking. We all need to release fish that aren't clipped even if that means a few hatchery fish that weren't clipped are put back. Hopefully the health of salmon/steelhead runs will improve to the point where a limited number of wild fish could be taken without additional damage to the resource.

[David Johnson]

Well Young Salt,

Apparently there are enough fish in the Clackamas to have a limited fishery for wild fish.

If you look to the ODFW data numbers of fish past the dam have steadily been on the increase for the last 20 years even with a seven day a week, keep any kind of fish you want season. ODFW's data shows that.

The whole reason for this restriction is because a select few environmentalists have influenced the FED's with their agenda.

I they were to do a genetic sampling they will find that the fish above the dam are the same fish as those in the hatchery, both on the clack and at Dexter on the upper Willamette were this stock of fish arriginated.

In this case of genetics a fish is a fish, period. Sure some may have been hatched from gravel for a few generations but with every year any good done by growing in the wild is infused with another wave of interbreading with the hatchery fish that stray past the hatchery.



------------------

[Clamman]

You can play two sides to this argument. Where did the original hatchery stock derive from? And prior to the hatchery weren't there fish present?

What fisheries biologist have a hard time deciding is when a hatchery origined fish becomes wild. How many times must it genes be passed on in the wild before or if you classify it as wild? Straying is a natural occurrence, so isn't it safe to believe that some of this gene crossing from one stream to the next could be considered natural? If you were to do genetic testing (which I have done on other stocks) I think you would be amazed at the diversity in the different stocks.

With all the hatchery fish that have been pumped out of the Columbia basin, nearly all systems have had strayed fish into "wild" populations. There isn't some neat little mathmatical equation that can solve this dilema. It is something that all of us must decide how to rectify. The decision of what constitutes a truly wild fish may never be solved.

ISG

[Hoosier Daddy]

I much prefer to call fish hatched in the wild "naturally-produced". It's a whole lot more accurate and less contentious than calling them wild. Except in a very few cases, I think there are almost no stocks of what I would call "wild" fish (as in pre-hatchery) around.

[wiser]

Maybe I've missed something, not having a fisheries degree and all.
My understanding is that NMFS is responsible for seeing that endangered fish are protected from extinction. Doesn't this mean that a scientific study was first made to determine that a genetically distinct fish population exists and that the numbers present are insufficient to ensure survival without protection? Once that has been determined NMFS sets or allows rules to be set that should protect the population. Those rules effecting angling could be as severe as closing all angling for all species to allowing some small percentage of take.
It seems reasonable and prudent to release all wild(unmarked)fish when ESA listed fish are present among the unmarked fish. I understood all, or at least a very large percentage, of all hatchery fish will be marked by 2002. I can certainly wait that long for the sake of the wild fish. Except for the potential for a few more customers, what is the big rush to take limited and valuable genetic resources from the river?

[Clamman]

Young Salt,

Yes it is required that a study or many studies be done. Yes in this case there is enough evidence to point towards some form of ESA listing. I urge all who are interested please view the whole draft of the Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan for the Upper Willamette spring chinook on the ODFW web page. You will find it under the Fish section at the top of the page.

As far as calling them wild or naturally produced....tomato; tomato, potato; potato.


ISG

[Amerman]

Please everyone read my post "Do Hatchery Fish Spawn in the Wild?" and let me know what your opinion is. I didn't want it to get lost in this thread.

Dave
I agree that having to release hatchery fish sucks, and it looks like we will be facing the same thing on the coast this Spring or next. I would also guess that if your clients know that you think it sucks and that the fish you are releasing are probably hatchery fish, they are going to think it sucks and not have a good time. I would treat every fish with an intact adipose as a wild fish regardless of what we think or know it is. I believe that your client will feel much better about releasing it then.

That being said I will say that while fishing the S. Santiam last spring on what is believed to be an all hatchery fish river, I only caught 2 fish (out of maybe 50) with an adipose clip. All the other fish I was allowed to keep would have had to have been released in the Willamette.

Scott Amerman

[This message has been edited by Amerman (edited 12-15-2000).]